Lets say i'm fighting someone with a greatsword, I bash it successfully, does his weapon lenght become 0?

Scott

Normally, you'd use the 'bash' maneuver on a *person* because it's just like a cut or a thrust. Bashing a weapon would be a 'beat' maneuver. See the rules for that.

svenlein wrote: Lets say i'm fighting someone with a greatsword, I bash it successfully, does his weapon lenght become 0?

Scott

So a successful beat is enough to close range?

no
a beat doesn't close range, it Takes Penalty dice from the defender and on the next attack his weapon can't parry or block or counter.

ok, i am try to represent a guy with a dagger fighting an unarmored guy with a pike, where the guy with the dagger hits the pike with his shield and closes, I thought "beat" would represent this, but it doesnt, since you need to hit after you beat inorder to close, which is almost impossible in this situation.

Scott

Hmm,surely it does though?

If it's to slap an opponent's pike away with ur dagger to close in, then a successful beat grants that much more of an advantage in scoring a hit on the next round and thus negating the opponent's reach bonus. I am right no?

And if it's to bash an opponent's pike away with ur shield, and close in, then this is established through bind & strike. Having successfully bound the pike, it is out of use for the next round and as such has, again, lost any reach bonus for the pike.

Right?

Lets face it. the only easy solutions for a dagger against a pike, are to throw it from outside melee range. or to close the distance by stealth and attack by surprise.

Assuming equal CP the Pike wielder will defeat the dagger guy in pure melee starting at range the vast majority of the time, if played well.

what do you mean, if played well? All he's got to do is stab the guy with a full CP (minus a few for emergency), since no GM in their right (or left) mind would allow a double kill in that situation (unless the dagger was thrown... different story).

Anyway, I think he can win even if he doesn't play well. If the pikeman plays horribly and rolls worse, then the dagger dude has a chance at doing something.

Thats what i meant.. played well pike vs dagger is attack with ~80% of dice the fist exchange from an offensive posture.

IMO dagger played well vs pike = RUN AWAY! (ambush and missle excluded)

Typical result, dagger guy throwing everything he has into parry, or dropping dead on a simultaneous attack unless he kills you with initiative.

Thowing defensive dice against a dagger, drops odds close to even if dagger dude attacks with abandon. Pikes defend poorly.

Thirsty Viking wrote: Lets face it. the only easy solutions for a dagger against a pike, are to throw it from outside melee range. or to close the distance by stealth and attack by surprise.

Assuming equal CP the Pike wielder will defeat the dagger guy in pure melee starting at range the vast majority of the time, if played well.

If you were the Pikeman and your opponent was the Daggerman... would you want it any other way?

I'd sure be upset that I couldn't hold one off and gut him...
but if he got really lucky, used terrain or whatever and got inside...I should be in a world of hurt.

I know if it was the real world, and all I had was a knife against a trained Pikeman, one on one, I'd run. Or maybe try for a lucky thrown attack.

Seems to me like TROS is all about killing folks who insist on "Lets attack against all sense..."

A successfull hit, whether it does damage or not, would indicate that you have gotten inside the guard/weapon length of the pikeman. Including, a double hit situation, if the Daggerman was not killed, he would be at Dagger range. He was just struck as he closed and struck the Pikeman... but maybe I've got it wrong.

Bob McNamee

I would suggest that an 18' pole is going to be a very difficult weopon to use with out support from other swordmen.

Jake or someone who does real fighting, could you see how fighting with an 18'+ pike vs a guy with a shield and dagger works out?

Thanks,

Scott

The guy with the dagger gets past the head of the pike without a whole lot of difficulty. A pike is not a spear. There is so much leverage at the end of a pike that you are not jabbing it at anyone keeping him at bay. Having drilled in formation with Pikes you have about half a dozen basic positions. None of which involve anything like being used against an individual. Reach is a double edged sword. More reach = less tip speed.

Lone Pike against dagger looks like this.

Pike guy drops pike and draws a real weapon, or pike guy dies.

It seems like some special rules for Extr. long weapons are needed.

I don't know about a special rule being needed. Seems like an obvious application of the Terrain Rules to me.

Set a difficulty for a Terrain roll, success equals Pike completely useless for attack or defense.

Difficulty would depend on number of pikes faced.

1 Pike...insanely easy.
2-4 Pikes...still pretty easy, but you need to exersize some caution.
5-10 Pikes...more challenging
etc.

I wouldn't waste effort on a table of modifers or anything. The situation will demand a lot. 4 Pike man in 2x2 in a narrow hall way is a much different beast from an open field.

Just assign a difficulty and roll.

I don't honestly know. I have to admit that I've never used a pike (closest I've come is a "short" staff), But I would think that even if someone got past the point of a pike, the pikeman would still have the option of choking up and shortening the pike's range. On the thrust, it would still be just as effective.

Lyrax wrote: I don't honestly know. I have to admit that I've never used a pike (closest I've come is a "short" staff), But I would think that even if someone got past the point of a pike, the pikeman would still have the option of choking up and shortening the pike's range. On the thrust, it would still be just as effective.

Valamir wrote: The guy with the dagger gets past the head of the pike without a whole lot of difficulty. A pike is not a spear. There is so much leverage at the end of a pike that you are not jabbing it at anyone keeping him at bay. Having drilled in formation with Pikes you have about half a dozen basic positions. None of which involve anything like being used against an individual. Reach is a double edged sword. More reach = less tip speed.

Lone Pike against dagger looks like this.

Pike guy drops pike and draws a real weapon, or pike guy dies.

I would agree that a shorter weapon (long spear maybe) would be more effective in personal combat than a pike, but I'm talking about the pike, and in the rules a pike should be less effective in one on one combat.

Also Silver doesn't think a "short" staff is the best weapon becuase its longer, its becuase its just the right lenght. If it was because the short staff is longer then why wouldnt he suggest a 20' pole as superior to the 9' "short" staff?

There is no such thing really as a short pike, although sometimes the word gets thrown around for convenience. They come in a variety of lengths, but they are all very long. Choking up on it merely means you have that much more of the weapon projecting behind you. Less of a moment arm sure, but more likely to be caught on some object in the way.

I'd still use a Terrain Roll, maneuver the pike wielder so he can't turn to the right any more because the shaft of the pike is hitting an object/person behind him and you have the same ease of getting past it.

There are clearly shorter polearms (bills, forks, glaives...the wealth of weapons found in the AD&D PHB) that are well suited for one on one combat. The Pike is not one of them. The Pike is not a one on one weapon...it is a formation weapon, and when not used in formation it is pretty near useless.

svenlein wrote: I would agree that a shorter weapon (long spear maybe) would be more effective in personal combat than a pike, but I'm talking about the pike, and in the rules a pike should be less effective in one on one combat.

Also Silver doesn't think a "short" staff is the best weapon becuase its longer, its becuase its just the right lenght. If it was because the short staff is longer then why wouldnt he suggest a 20' pole as superior to the 9' "short" staff?

Okay...

I'm not an expert on the pike. I've done lots of reading and I've spend a good amount of time with an 8' "spear," but not a pike. My own feeling is that most of what's being said here is right on. The stats for the pike represent what's being said--just try them out. The pike has almost no defensive qualities...2 successes on 10 dice, so to speak.

I'm happy with them the way they are. As one final note, though, I think it would be appropriate for someone doing a full evasion to pay the range penalty if they're inside of a shorter weapon's range--at least in situations like the dagger.

Oh, and I'd put my money on the pike, though if the dagger guy was a vastly superior fighter, I might go with him. "IRL."

Jake

ok, lets set these combat issues aside. There are good reasons why a pike isn't carried down the street by the average nobleman or man on the street.


The Pike is too long to carry indoors with any reasonable amount of grace unless you have 20' tall doorways. Thus anytime you went in an average non castle building, you'd have to leave it behind.

Walking down the street your average encounter will occur inside the range. the guy 5 feet away from you drawing his sword doesn't have to close, you have the range disadvantage.

Many old streets were narrower than the length of a pike... if you marched with it ready in one direction, your rear was very exposed. Typically advancing with leveled pikes down a street is only done in a war situation... it's bad for traffic flow in a city.

There are a world of reasons why a Pike is not a good weapon for being carried around town, none of them have anything to do with the idea that it is hard for a pike to strike a target at it's intended range.

Jake Norwood wrote: Okay...

I'm not an expert on the pike. I've done lots of reading and I've spend a good amount of time with an 8' "spear," but not a pike. My own feeling is that most of what's being said here is right on. The stats for the pike represent what's being said--just try them out. The pike has almost no defensive qualities...2 successes on 10 dice, so to speak.

I'm happy with them the way they are. As one final note, though, I think it would be appropriate for someone doing a full evasion to pay the range penalty if they're inside of a shorter weapon's range--at least in situations like the dagger.

Oh, and I'd put my money on the pike, though if the dagger guy was a vastly superior fighter, I might go with him. "IRL."

Jake

Bob Richter wrote:
Problem: Noone *EVER* uses the DTN on a pike. How do you defend in TROS when you have a DTN of 8 or higher? You DODGE. You *ALWAYS* dodge, because there's no benefit in NOT doing so.

The TN of a partial evade is 7, regardless of the weapon you're carrying, with the general effect that DTNs above 7 are meaningless.

Hm. I may have to go out and find or fashion a pike and try it out. See how well it thrusts. I imagine not too well, actually.

Bob Richter wrote:

Problem: Noone *EVER* uses the DTN on a pike. How do you defend in TROS when you have a DTN of 8 or higher? You DODGE. You *ALWAYS* dodge, because there's no benefit in NOT doing so.

The TN of a partial evade is 7, regardless of the weapon you're carrying, with the general effect that DTNs above 7 are meaningless.

Hm. I may have to go out and find or fashion a pike and try it out. See how well it thrusts. I imagine not too well, actually.

Thirsty Viking wrote:
IMO It should be much easier to parry a sword with a Short Sword than to dodge, assuming you are trained. Yet the DTN are the same

Thirsty Viking wrote:
Well i haven't heard this addressed... Hadn't hought of it before... but I wouldn't give weapon proficiency dice on a CP evasion. This means for purpose of evasion CP = REFLEX. Ok unarmed training might get some of thier proficency. but not all of it. so having 12 CP dice instead of 6 would have some one parry with 10 dice instead of evade with 5 (assuming they want some for next exchange.

I'd handle it differently. I'd say that you're welcome to dodge, but you forfeit any advantage you would have had due to range. Hmm...

Jake

Jake are you having the idea that if the pike guy successfully dodges the dagger, future exchanges are at the dagger's lenght untill the pike can full evade, or successfully parry?

Scott

Mokkurkalfe wrote:

Bob Richter wrote:

Problem: Noone *EVER* uses the DTN on a pike. How do you defend in TROS when you have a DTN of 8 or higher? You DODGE. You *ALWAYS* dodge, because there's no benefit in NOT doing so.

The TN of a partial evade is 7, regardless of the weapon you're carrying, with the general effect that DTNs above 7 are meaningless.

Hm. I may have to go out and find or fashion a pike and try it out. See how well it thrusts. I imagine not too well, actually.

That's not entirely true...If you succeed with a partial evasion, you have to pay another 2 CP to gain initiative. So in some situation there might be a good idea to parry even with a DTN of 8.

Mokkurkalfe wrote:

Thirsty Viking wrote:
IMO It should be much easier to parry a sword with a Short Sword than to dodge, assuming you are trained. Yet the DTN are the same

For the reason mentioned above, it is easier to parry with a DTN 7 weapon than it is to "evade aggresively"(i.e. taking initiative as well), since the evadíng guy effectively has a 2 dice activation cost.

Mokkurkalfe wrote:

Thirsty Viking wrote:
Well i haven't heard this addressed... Hadn't hought of it before... but I wouldn't give weapon proficiency dice on a CP evasion. This means for purpose of evasion CP = REFLEX. Ok unarmed training might get some of thier proficency. but not all of it. so having 12 CP dice instead of 6 would have some one parry with 10 dice instead of evade with 5 (assuming they want some for next exchange.

Something I thought of as well. You might say the same about terrain rolls and dodging arrows.

Mokkurkalfe wrote:
b) The Brawling/Pugilism profiency

OTOH, weapon profencies perhaps also represents general reflex and fitness and whatnot

Sounds like a fricking hassle to me. Lets say I have 12 dice in my CP (cut & thrust, say) and I attack on the first exchange, spending 7. I am parried and the other guy gets initiative.

Second exchange he attacks me. I want to evade please. Now you're in the situation where you're trying to recalculate my CP using your reflex + 1/2pugilism system (or whatever it was, I can't be bothered going and checking) for the second exchange, but I already spent some dice on the first...

It just doesn't work smoothly, and the whole point of the TROS combat is it's smoothness. It's exactly the same problem as changing weapons mid round for the second exchange, which is why I would always force a character who did so to spend the second exchange evading only (with whats left of his old CP) so we can recalculate the new CP at the start of the next round. It's just messy otherwise.

Same problem the other way around too, in fact. Lets say I start off a round under your system by evading, so you work out my CP with your system, and I spend some dice. I'm successful, and second exchange I want to attack. What happens then?

No sir, I don't like it at all.

svenlein wrote: Jake are you having the idea that if the pike guy successfully dodges the dagger, future exchanges are at the dagger's lenght untill the pike can full evade, or successfully parry?

Scott

Thirsty Viking wrote:

svenlein wrote: Jake are you having the idea that if the pike guy successfully dodges the dagger, future exchanges are at the dagger's lenght untill the pike can full evade, or successfully parry?

Scott

I didn't think that was an issue. the answer on the pike guy si the same as the dagger guy. he pays the CP penalty for range till he established his range. I guess he can duck and weave away, or full evade. Like jake i'd consider range penalties on full evade because the dagger guy isn't going to make it easy for him to get out to pike range. To negate these penalties he can drop the pike.

Uhm, Svenlein? That's not a problem, at least not IMHO. It's a feature. The pike is, at pike range, infinitely superior to the dagger.

Also, the pike is a polearm, so those who say his back is completely exposed while in a narrow alleyway are simply not correct. I'd rather have a thrusting weapon in an alleyway than a cutting weapon (all polearms are thrust-heavy), and, at proper range, would rather have a long thrusting weapon than a short one.

Also, not to be *TOO* picky, but you're assuming that the dagger guy has a shield. That might be assuming too much.

Svein...I repeat my earlier suggestion. Make a terrain roll. That roll can and should be used to cover every "jockeying for position" type stuff you can think of. Terrain roll successfuly = you've closed. Not successful = you haven't. Is there some reason you don't like this solution?

Lyrax...if we were talking a spear or other polearm you'd be 100% correct. But with a Pike...no...there are very few special situations (like being in a very narrow alley) where a 14-18' polearm isn't going to be a liability.

REACH IS NOT AN ASSET in this case. Having that much leverage way out in front of you is not an easy thing to manage. This is why Pikes are straight forward formation weapons. NOT man on man weapons.

In any non manipulated situation with a dagger guy vs a pike guy, the dagger guy WILL WIN, unless the pike guy drops the pike and draws a different weapon.

The dagger guy IS NOT the one at a disadvantage here. A Pike is NOT a spear...its NOT a staff...it is almost certainly of much greater diameter than you probably realize (it has to be to keep from breaking at that length). It simply is not a wieldy weapon.

Pike loses every time unless the situation is manipulated or the dagger guy just careless.

svenlein wrote:

The problem is the dagger guy will never get within range of the pike.
Example combat:

Dagger guy beats pike with shield, and succeeds since only has half the range penalty.

svenlein wrote:
Then dagger guy trys to close with pike guy, if pike guy successfully dodges, dagger guy says at long range.

svenlein wrote:
I would like there to be a way for the dagger guy to close the distance without having to actually hit the pike guy that exchange.
OR
another idea would be, since the pike is beaten, the dagger guy shouldn't have to have the length penalties imposed apon him since the pike is unavialable for defense.

svenlein wrote:
Even with both these rules, the pike guy is likely to win, since he can still full evade to get the advantage again.

Scott

Lyrax wrote:
Also, the pike is a polearm, so those who say his back is completely exposed while in a narrow alleyway are simply not correct

Valamir wrote: Svein...I repeat my earlier suggestion. Make a terrain roll. That roll can and should be used to cover every "jockeying for position" type stuff you can think of. Terrain roll successfuly = you've closed. Not successful = you haven't. Is there some reason you don't like this solution?

Lyrax...if we were talking a spear or other polearm you'd be 100% correct. But with a Pike...no...there are very few special situations (like being in a very narrow alley) where a 14-18' polearm isn't going to be a liability.

REACH IS NOT AN ASSET in this case. Having that much leverage way out in front of you is not an easy thing to manage. This is why Pikes are straight forward formation weapons. NOT man on man weapons.

In any non manipulated situation with a dagger guy vs a pike guy, the dagger guy WILL WIN, unless the pike guy drops the pike and draws a different weapon.

The dagger guy IS NOT the one at a disadvantage here. A Pike is NOT a spear...its NOT a staff...it is almost certainly of much greater diameter than you probably realize (it has to be to keep from breaking at that length). It simply is not a wieldy weapon.

Pike loses every time unless the situation is manipulated or the dagger guy just careless.

Given: a 14' pole (although the initial poster said 18') made with period techniques strong enough to withstand being employed as a weapon against armored mounted targets...against someone with a modicum of skill as a knife fighter...you'd be dead.

Or you'd wisely realize the smart thing to do is drop the pike and draw a knife of your own.

Remember...its not enough to simply contact the other guy with the tip. You actually have to thrust with enough force to drive it home...especially against armor. In battle this is accomplished firstly by the initial rush.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is in understanding this. The pike is a formation weapon. It is a VERY VERY VERY specialized (for all its simplicity) formation weapon. It is not a man to man weapon. In a man to man situation, its length is a liability. If you've never held one of these things you may not realize just how awkward they are to do anything other than what they're designed to do.

While I agree with all that you've said, John, I have *heard* (I haven't confirmed it) of duels at the pike. Scary stuff indeed.

Jake

One point that has not been raised here that should be is the vaguaries of terms.

On about the 19th century when archeaology and museums became popular pastimes for gentlemen, there was spawned a huge effort in categorization and clasification. Most of the standard terms we now refer to weapons with, date from that time. Prior to that time naming conventions were sloppy and unenforced at best. Today "Claymore" has a specific meaning and "Basket Hilt Claymore" has a specific meaning. At the time "Claymore" simply meant big sword and would be applied with equal aplomb to any sword that was noticeably bigger than the other swords around it that it was being compared to...as in "Which sword do you want?" "The big one".

This is also true of the term Pike. There are many many different weapons (and spellings for that matter) that have been referred to as a pike throughout history. The Pike of the British Navy for instance is a far cry from the pike we normally think of for the term. I'm still trying to figure out what a Morris Pike is that Silver refers to.

It is important to note further that while we category happy types make a clear distinction between a "spear" and a "Pike" that in reality, this distinction is pretty arbitrary. I am unaware of any time in history where spears and pikes were used side by side on the same battle field. They are essentially different terms applied to the same weapon that we have ourselves assigned distinctive meaning to.

In the period we are discussing there are numerous pole arms. A bill being a machete on the end of a pole. A Halbard being a bill with a spike on it, and a partisan being a halberd with hooks...along with all manner of regional and national variations.

Period weapons masters such as Silver and DiGrassi talk of fighting with a Pike in man to man combat. But what becomes clear upon reading their text in context is that the weapon they refer to as a pike is not the weapon WE think of as a pike.

To them a pike is the simplest pole arm of all, a straight shaft with a long point...no axe head...no hook...just a clean simple weapon. In other words, a spear. Meaning that during this period the term pike was applied with equal meaning to 8-12 foot weapons (what we would call a spear) and 14-18 foot weapons (what we would call a pike). The period masters did not make this distinction. To them they were all pikes.

Therefor when we see Silver and DiGrassi writing of training with a Pike we don't immediately know what weapon (by our standards of classification) they are referring to. Although Silver makes it plain he is not talking about military uses for the weapon.

But upon reading the text one gets a clear sense that the weapon in question is more spear than pike. Silver speaks of a position where the butt of the weapon is held in front of the face. It is hard to imagine being able to hold a 15 foot pike like this at all, let alone it being an effective stance.

The diagrams found in DiGrassi's texts comparing the effect of weapon length on impact (what we would call momentum) could just be out scale, but plainly do not show a weapon of montrous length. Further DiGrassi speaks of the best balanced position for the pike being held the rear hand an arms length from the butt and the forward hand an arms length from that. No clear diagram is provided of this in the version I have access to, but a quick sketch would indicate to me that such a hold would be balanced for a 10-12 foot weapon...not a 14-18 foot one.

Further there is a web site with a video (tiny and hard to see) of people pike fighting in the DiGrassi style. Its choppy and unclear, but what is clear is that the weapons are only about twice their height...again 10-12 feet (one must assume here for the video to have value, that these unidentified practitioners are using a weapon DiGrassi would recognize)

So to conclude. It is certain that the "Pike" was used as a man on man weapon. It is certain that it was an extremely effective man on man weapon.

However, what seems equally certain to me is that the "Pike" being referred to is NOT the 18' formation weapon that was asked about early in this thread.

So I reiterate my opinion that a 14-18' pike is not an effective weapon 1 on 1. It is a liability outside of its intended battle field use. 10-12 foot pikes are a different matter altogether, and not what was being asked about in the thread.

Valamir wrote: Given: a 14' pole (although the initial poster said 18') made with period techniques strong enough to withstand being employed as a weapon against armored mounted targets...against someone with a modicum of skill as a knife fighter...you'd be dead.

The Swiss first brought the pike to prominence in the late C15th and early C16th, destroying feudal armies of mounted knights, and tactics were based upon the ancient Greek use of the spear-armed ‘phalanx’. Because of it’s association with antiquity, the pike was regarded as the more noble weapon, and senior officers would often fight in the front rank, as would any spare or ‘reformado’ officers. The pike was also the cheapest weapon, costing about 3s 10d - 4s 2d, and was between 15ft (‘Spanish’ in New Model contracts) and 16ft (‘Inglish’ in New Model contracts) long, made of tapered ash. Sir James Turner says few actually exceeded 15ft. At Benburb in 1646, the Irish beat the Scots, partly because their pikes were longer ‘by a foot or two’. The pike was about 1” in diameter at the butt, 1½” at the middle and ½” at the end, with a steel head, which was either dagger-shaped (‘English pikes with square heads’) or lozenge-shaped (‘Dutch’ or ‘broadheaded’). Orrery and others couldn’t agree which was best. Two metal cheeks, (‘bars to be strong and serviceable’ - 1654) between two to four feet long, ran down from the head to hold it on and stop it being chopped off.

Valamir wrote:
I'm not sure what the difficulty is in understanding this. The pike is a formation weapon. It is a VERY VERY VERY specialized (for all its simplicity) formation weapon. It is not a man to man weapon. In a man to man situation, its length is a liability.

Valamir wrote:
If you've never held one of these things you may not realize just how awkward they are to do anything other than what they're designed to do.

Let me clarify this... the front of a polearm user is where he is facing. by back i meant 180 degrees from that. If he is positioned in a narrow alley he can not simply spin in place to fight a guy attacking his rear. he has to lift the head of the pole arm spin and lower. Odds are anyone jumping out and charging his REAR will get inside his range before he can ready his weapon, if his weapon was lowered in the other direction. Polearms aren't invincible. Even in Formation.

Valamir wrote:
In the period we are discussing there are numerous pole arms. A bill being a machete on the end of a pole. A Halbard being a bill with a spike on it, and a partisan being a halberd with hooks...along with all manner of regional and national variations.

To them a pike is the simplest pole arm of all, a straight shaft with a long point...no axe head...no hook...just a clean simple weapon. In other words, a spear.

The diagrams found in DiGrassi's texts comparing the effect of weapon length on impact (what we would call momentum) could just be out scale, but plainly do not show a weapon of montrous length. Further DiGrassi speaks of the best balanced position for the pike being held the rear hand an arms length from the butt and the forward hand an arms length from that. No clear diagram is provided of this in the version I have access to, but a quick sketch would indicate to me that such a hold would be balanced for a 10-12 foot weapon...not a 14-18 foot one.

So to conclude. It is certain that the "Pike" was used as a man on man weapon. It is certain that it was an extremely effective man on man weapon.

However, what seems equally certain to me is that the "Pike" being referred to is NOT the 18' formation weapon that was asked about early in this thread.

So I reiterate my opinion that a 14-18' pike is not an effective weapon 1 on 1. It is a liability outside of its intended battle field use. 10-12 foot pikes are a different matter altogether, and not what was being asked about in the thread.

Lyrax wrote:
Okay, here is where you are wrong, IMHO. A pikeman can spin in place in a narrow alleyway (unless it's REALLY narrow!). I didn't say that the pike spins, because that would be really inefficient. All the pikeman would do is smack the guy with the butt end of his pike.

John, what's with all of this hostility? Have I offended you somehow? I thought we were having a discussion.

Svein's initial post was about a pike. He later clarified that to mean an 18' pike. He later clearly said that he understood a shorter weapon would be more effective, but that he wasn't talking about a shorter weapon he was talking about a very long pike.

You have been argueing all along about the merits of a shorter pike as a superior weapon. An arguement that I 100% agree with...but which was not what Svein was inquiring about.

I went so far as to illustrate how we were likely talking about 2 seperate things that were both labeled pikes but in reality are completely different in an effort to be more specific about what was being spoken about and you label it a smoke screen.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what has you all riled up about this.

If we're talking about a short pike (as silver and degrassi were likely doing) you are right. If we're talking about a very long pike, IMO you are wrong.

Svein was talking about a very long pike, I was answering Svein with an answer I think he'd find to be an easy, accurate solution, without the need for special rolls. Treat, getting inside a very long pike as a terrain roll.

Is there any reason for you to be angry at this?

A couple comments:
I don't think a dagger is superior to an 18' pike.
I too would like to concentrate on the 14' pike.
I do think a 9' spear is superior to a 14' pike. The in the current tros rules this is not the case.
Here are some quotes from Silver:
http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/silver/silver5_body.htm
Section 5.2.8
First he says:
"The short staff is most commonly the best weapon of all others, although other weapons may be more offensive, and especially against many weapons together, by reason of his nimbleness and swift motions"
Then a few sentence later says:
"Lastly note this, that long Staves, Morris pikes, and such like weapons of imperfect lengths, being to be used with both hands, notwithstanding their imperfect lengths, are perfect weapons to be used, the one against the other"
Also he says they are better weapons in the dark, but inferior to a short staff in the light

Looking at the pictures in DiGrassi's work
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/digrassi/pike.html
they are either not drawn to scale or he is probably refering to an 8-10' spear when he says pike.

Here are some other quotes of less reputable sorces:

http://www.lmj.i12.com/wallers/combat/
Very heavy and cumbersome, pikemen would often shorten their pike to make them easier to handle, unfortunately rendering them ineffective in battle at he same time.

http://www.apva.org/ngex/c9pike.html
The pike was not especially useful to the Jamestown colonists since mounted soldiers did not confront them and their principal engagements were skirmishes with the Indians.

http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~aergos/Armoury/polearms.html
Pike: The pike was used by infantry to fend off cavalry. It was very effective against mounted troops. Like the halberd, pikemen were vulnerable to infantry attacks, and so was deadly for the wielder if he fought alone.

Valamir wrote:
The diagrams found in DiGrassi's texts comparing the effect of weapon length on impact (what we would call momentum) could just be out scale, but plainly do not show a weapon of montrous length. Further DiGrassi speaks of the best balanced position for the pike being held the rear hand an arms length from the butt and the forward hand an arms length from that. No clear diagram is provided of this in the version I have access to, but a quick sketch would indicate to me that such a hold would be balanced for a 10-12 foot weapon...not a 14-18 foot one.

THis renowmed weapon hath beene of divers diversly handled, in single combat: (for the manner of using it in the warres, maketh not at this present for my purpose.) Therefore it shall not be amisse, if (speaking of the manner of his use in these are daies) I declare also mine opinion concerning the same. There have beene some (who greatly regarding ease & little paine) would have the Pike to be borne in the middle. Other some, more strong of arme, but weaker of hart, (to the end they might be the farther off, from hurte) accustomed to beare it at the beginning neere the heele or blunt end thereof: which two waies in my judgement are to be refused, the one being too daungerous (I meane the bearing of it in the middle) the other too difficult (I mean, the bearing it at the blunt end,) because a man is not able to stande long at his ward, neither to defend himselfe strongly, nor offend safely, considering, much of his force is taken away, by ststeining and bearing it at the said end. So that, when a forcible blow commeth he hath not sufficient power to beat it off. And forasmuch as the Pike is a long straight lyne, which hath his motion in the head or beginning thereof, which motion be it never so finall, neere the hand, is yet verie great at the point, it is requisite, if he would strike just and straight, (when he so holdeth it at the end) that he be greatly practised, and have great strength whereby he may be both skilfull & able to beare it so just & even, that the point thereof strik or hit there where the hand & eie would have it. This is verie hardly accomplished, aswel beecause it is a thing impossible to strike by the straight lyne, as also for that the armes being weakened with the paize of the Pike, do shake and deliver unstedfastly. Therefore, for the avoyding of these two inconveniences, the Pike must be born within an armes length of the said heele or blunt end, in which place, it is sufficiently distant from hurt, & it is not borne with much difficultie if the hands be placed an armes length one from another of the which the hinder hand must be stedfast, I meane, holde the Pike harde, and the forehand somewhat lookse: So that the Pike may shift through it to and fro

I thought the point of this thread was to examine if there is an effective method for a dagger and shield user to combat a pike user who has range, one on one...no alley mentioned. It seemed that the Pikeman had great advantage.

More a problem of...
Is a Pikeman that effective against a short weapon user?
... and, is there a fast way to get inside the pike?
... and if so, how about a good set of defense for the pikeman to regain range (or is this a case of "drop it and pull out something short ")?

Bob McNamee

svenlein wrote: A couple comments:
I don't think a dagger is superior to an 18' pike.

Bob McNamee wrote: I thought the point of this thread was to examine if there is an effective method for a dagger and shield user to combat a pike user who has range, one on one...no alley mentioned. It seemed that the Pikeman had great advantage.

Bob McNamee wrote:
More a problem of...
Is a Pikeman that effective against a short weapon user?
... and, is there a fast way to get inside the pike?
... and if so, how about a good set of defense for the pikeman to regain range (or is this a case of "drop it and pull out something short ")?

Bob McNamee

Bob Richter wrote:
I don't mean as a battlefield weapon. I mean in a duelling situation.

I'll bet that I can go forward faster than you can go back.

no doubt about that, the problem is the first 6-8 feet. First you have the 3-4 foot jab distance of the pike, then you have the 3-4 foot draw distance. in other words you don't have to advance faster than i withdraw. you have to advance that 7' or so faster than I can spit you in the upper chest/neck/face. Or were you planning on waiting till i stab at you to try and catch the spear when you are 10 feet away from me?

Bob Richter wrote:
The Pike can be easily and painlessly blocked and arrested by one's hand. Unless I am dumb enough to charge straight onto its tip, an 18' (or, hell, 14') Pike is easily circumvented.

A nice theory anyway. if you get past the 7 feet, and I leave it there, and you don't have a shield. possibly, awful lot of iffs though.

Bob Richter wrote:
Once I'm inside the reach of the blade and have the Pike gripped in my off-hand, the weapon is neutralized.
All that remains is for me to close the distance and finish the fight.

not too much doubt about that, I just don't think it's a very blody likely position to be achieved. the same is true of any length spear.

Bob Richter wrote:
A *Spear* (which TROS defines as being 10' or under in length) is a different matter entirely than a *Pike* (which is 14' in this case.)

The Pike's length acts against it in any attempt to reposition it or strike an opponent with it.

I'd bet on a Spear against a dagger any day of the week, but never a Pike.

Given that you think it is easy to grab a competantly wielded spear. I can see how you make this mistake. Thats all a pike is, a longer spear. At 14' versus a dager i'd stake my life on the pike without hesitation. Especially if you come without a shield thinking you can just grab my spear. at 18' I would still take the pike, though I'd not be enthusiastic about the confrontation.

svenlein wrote: A couple comments:
I don't think a dagger is superior to an 18' pike.
I too would like to concentrate on the 14' pike.
I do think a 9' spear is superior to a 14' pike. The in the current tros rules this is not the case.
Here are some quotes from Silver:
http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/silver/silver5_body.htm
Section 5.2.8
First he says:
.....

(5.2.7) Again of the Vantages of Weapons *28*
...
And if two shall fight with staves or swords, or what weapons soever, the one of them having his weapon longer than the perfect length, and the other shorter than the perfect length, he that has the longer has the vantage, because the shorter can make no true cross in true time. The short staff or half pike, Forest bill, Partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, to be used with both hands, have the advantage against two swords and daggers, or two rapiers, poniards and gauntlets, and against all other weapons whatsoever, the Forest bill excepted.

svenlein wrote:
Looking at the pictures in DiGrassi's work
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/digrassi/pike.html
they are either not drawn to scale or he is probably refering to an 8-10' spear when he says pike.

svenlein wrote:
Here are some other quotes of less reputable sorces:

http://www.lmj.i12.com/wallers/combat/
Very heavy and cumbersome, pikemen would often shorten their pike to make them easier to handle, unfortunately rendering them ineffective in battle at he same time.

The would be ineffective because they were going against other pikeman. Giving the other pikes the range advantage.

svenlein wrote:
http://www.apva.org/ngex/c9pike.html
The pike was not especially useful to the Jamestown colonists since mounted soldiers did not confront them and their principal engagements were skirmishes with the Indians.

No disputing this... the indians weren't silly enough to fight the pikes in massed formation. They also were the ones who taught the americans guerilla warfare. Snipe from cover. fight where you have the advantage. Ambush your enemy. I've been saying this all along.

svenlein wrote:
http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~aergos/Armoury/polearms.html
Pike: The pike was used by infantry to fend off cavalry. It was very effective against mounted troops. Like the halberd, pikemen were vulnerable to infantry attacks, and so was deadly for the wielder if he fought alone.

This last entry is the most suspect of the lot. Fought alone? against who? another infantry unit? 2 men? or a duel against a Dagger? It seems obviously he isn't addressing a dagger. The majority of the polearm page if not all of it seems devoted to military use, hence the battlefield environemnt seems the right interpretation, not having anything to do with a one on one against a dagger. Pikes are perhaps the worst weapon choice for facing multiple opponents..

Thirsty Viking wrote: Thats all a pike is, a longer spear.

Here is a summary of some of what people thought about fighting in open field starting from far away where no one throws their weapons. I'm not very interested in alleyways, but I don't wish to stifle your conversation if you wish to continue it. Please tell me if I have misrepresented your opinion.

Valamir - make a Terrain roll to make 14' pike ineffective, 1 14' Pike vs Dagger is "insanely easy" for dagger guy to make pike ineffective
Thirsty Viking - 14' pike crushes dagger into dirt and spits on his grave, 18' pike slightly worse but still kills the dagger guy, 10' spear kills him even better
Jake - 14' pike superior to dagger
Lyrax - "The pike is, at pike range, infinitely superior to the dagger."
Bob Richter - dagger is superior to 14' pike, 10' spear is superior to dagger.

I believe (in single combat fighting against someone with a dagger) 10’ spear is superior to 14’ pike which is superior to 18’ pike. (note I didn’t mention who will win between the two fighters I’m just saying 10 is better than 14, maybe they both beat the dagger guy, but the 10’ guy will have an easier time beating him, but right now I’m not discussing that, so that we can focus on what we agree on first, then talk about disagreements)

Does everyone agree?
Is this reflected in the rules?

I also believe this relationship is true (in single combat) against each other. Since according to Silver the 10’ is closest to the “perfect length” compared to the 14’ and the 18’.

Does everyone agree?
Is this reflected in the rules?

Jake what did you mean when you said "I'd say that you're welcome to dodge, but you forfeit any advantage you would have had due to range. Hmm... "?

When is there a situation when a 14' pike man would want to drop his pike and pull out a sword?

I’ll ask in a later post about whether the rules accurately show the pikes advantage over the dagger, or if they are over blowing the pikes advantage, of if the dagger is actually superior to a 14’ pike.

Also I’d like to add a line to say how much I enjoy this thread, this is why I picked up tros, because of the interesting discussion on the RPGnet thread and this forum. : )

svenlein wrote:
Jake what did you mean when you said "I'd say that you're welcome to dodge, but you forfeit any advantage you would have had due to range. Hmm... "?

When is there a situation when a 14' pike man would want to drop his pike and pull out a sword?

Would this be the case with other, shorter weapons as well?

Thirsty Viking wrote: Ok, the pike man doe crushing instead of piercing damage. Having 8+ feet of pole behind him hampers the range of engagement, and he loses his length advantage of his weapon(at least most of it). Assuming hands are 2-3 feet apart, and rear hand is about 2-3 feet from but he now has a clumsy thrusting blunt shortsword.

Thirsty Viking wrote: He is at serious disadvantage as opposed to engaging with other end. Higher target numbers, less range, less damage. Periode alleyways were in general narrow, they were footpaths that rarely saw a pack animal, let alone a wagon. Ok maybe chinese alleyways were major thouroughfares... I've seen the european and middle eastern cities though, 10' wide would be a BIG alley in these areas.

Jake Norwood wrote:
People were suggesting to avoid the pike's high DTN by dodging at a DTN of 7 instead. This is fine, but I would not penalize the attacker with the range difference between his dagger (or whatever) and the defending pikeman. Thus a pikeman can dodge, but he loses the bonus for having a longer weapon in the process, because he's not trying to keep his weapon between himself and his opponent--which is what "parrying" sort-of represents in TROS.

Jake Norwood wrote:
Therefore if the dagger guy got close in it would make more sense for the pikeman to pull a sword and have a more reasonable range advantage over the dagger guy.

Jake Norwood wrote:
This is doubly true if the dagger guy has wisely grasped his opponent's pike. Then, instead of trying to recover the lost pike, the pikeman would just pull his sword and go at it.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Would this be the case with other, shorter weapons as well?

Thirsty Viking wrote:

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Though some think the answer here is GREATLY SLOWER I disagree with them.

And you're wrong. No bones about it. You're simply wrong. It's physics. You can't beat physics. Don't even try.

And if you really want a demonstration, come up to Richland, WA and I'll try to show you what I mean.

Don't even bother to respond to this post until you've actually gone out and swung around poles of varying length and therefore have SOME idea what you're talking about.

Bob Richter wrote:
Despite similarities in construction, a pike is a totally different weapon from a spear. It is longer. It is thicker. And Moment of Inertia (Physics, that is,) dictates that it CAN NOT be used in the same manner.

Your jabs will not be as strong or as quick. Your draws will be similarly plagued. And you will find (if you ever try) that you CAN NOT reposition quickly enough to catch a flank action by a lone man.

Jake Norwood wrote:

svenlein wrote:
Jake what did you mean when you said "I'd say that you're welcome to dodge, but you forfeit any advantage you would have had due to range. Hmm... "?

When is there a situation when a 14' pike man would want to drop his pike and pull out a sword?

People were suggesting to avoid the pike's high DTN by dodging at a DTN of 7 instead. This is fine, but I would not penalize the attacker with the range difference between his dagger (or whatever) and the defending pikeman. Thus a pikeman can dodge, but he loses the bonus for having a longer weapon in the process, because he's not trying to keep his weapon between himself and his opponent--which is what "parrying" sort-of represents in TROS.

Therefore if the dagger guy got close in it would make more sense for the pikeman to pull a sword and have a more reasonable range advantage over the dagger guy. This is doubly true if the dagger guy has wisely grasped his opponent's pike. Then, instead of trying to recover the lost pike, the pikeman would just pull his sword and go at it.

Jake

Lyrax wrote:
It would only need to be about five or six feet wide. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Maybe even four feet. As long as the man isn't touching both sides of the alleyway just by standing there, he can turn around. The TN wouldn't be much, if any higher, and the damage would be the same as a short staff, roughly. That's more than enough to kill somebody. In short, I think it would be worse for the dagger user. If a man with a "short" staff can kill two men with swords, then a man with a long staff should have no trouble with two men with daggers.

Bob Richter wrote:

Thirsty Viking wrote:

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Though some think the answer here is GREATLY SLOWER I disagree with them.

And you're wrong. No bones about it. You're simply wrong. It's physics. You can't beat physics. Don't even try.

And if you really want a demonstration, come up to Richland, WA and I'll try to show you what I mean.

Don't even bother to respond to this post until you've actually gone out and swung around poles of varying length and therefore have SOME idea what you're talking about.

I'm not beating physics i don't have too. But i'm not ignoring inconvienent aspects of them either.
Does a longer pike spin slower than a shorter one ...yes.
does it take a guy 10' away longer to shift around me than 7' away. yes.
does a 14' weapon swing slower than 10' weapon yes.
does it have less momentum.... NO
does it hit harder... Generally yes if swung. about the same on a stab

The problem with these demonstartions is they only have value at full speed. that generally means if the dager guy is proved wrong he takes one heck of a wallop or stab. my coming across the country to washington potentially puts me in jail far longer than if you die in my yard while attacking me with a knife. For either of us to show up at the other place is foolish in the extreme. You can at least demonstrate your theory by simulating an attack. I can only prove mine by carrying it out for real.

The question has almost nothing to do with absolute speed. but with sufficient speed. as far as the stab goes, the speed drop off is relatively small. less than 15% IMO from another post. assuming the pike weighs 30# and the spear only 5#(gurps spear weighs 4# but can be used 1 handed, however accurate that is). There is no doubt at all, that when i spin in place, i can spin far faster than you can run around me at any distance. adding a pike will slow my spin down considerably. adding distance will increase the circumfrence your trying to run around. at 10' radius you have to travel ~60' to circle me as opposed to only ~30 at 5'. this affects you less... but it affects you.

In short... any Dagger man that is extremely superior in skill level can defeat a pike. the game shows this in it's rules and we all agree. Where we part company is you seem to think anyone moderately competant can defeat a pike very easily.

Well, there was some cool stuff going on in this thread, but tempers have flaired a few times, and now we have personal challenges. Again. Dangit, guys...I HATE MODERATING!!!

So don't make me, or I'll get angry and never write another book...

I'm not closing the thread (though it occured to me), I'm just calling for a chill and a re-focusing here.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Well, there was some cool stuff going on in this thread, but tempers have flaired a few times, and now we have personal challenges. Again. Dangit, guys...I HATE MODERATING!!!

So don't make me, or I'll get angry and never write another book...

I'm not closing the thread (though it occured to me), I'm just calling for a chill and a re-focusing here.

Jake

svenlein wrote:
Presumably the 14' pikeman would be dodgeing backwards mostly. Would you still suggest this "no range penalty" idea? Posibly the dodge backwards alows you to keep your range benifit, but you need to make a terrain roll since your running backwards while concentrating on keeping your spear between you and the dagger guy.

That's if he's doing a full evasion. A partial evasion is a little different, because it's barely staying out of reach of the opponent's weapon. I would check movement scores, however, to see if the daggerman can close that far in half of a round.

Thirsty Viking wrote: Where we part company is you seem to think anyone moderately competant can defeat a pike very easily.

That's essentially the same arguement I've been making Bob...they didn't buy it from me either.

ok, people dont agree about the relative strengths of a dagger vs a 14' weapon.

Does everyone agree that against each other, a 7-10' Long spear should defeat a 14' pike? (equal fighers, in an open field, unarmored)

Unless the dodge rule is changed as suggested by Jake, i think in tros the 14' pike guy would win, b/c of range.

Silver:
"Make this for a general rule, all long staves, Morris pikes, Forest bills, Javelins, or such like long weapons, of what sort so ever, being above the true lengths, the shortest has the advantage, because they can cross and uncross in shorter time than can the longer."
(the true length being that of the short staff in Silvers mind)
Scott

svenlein - I agree with you.

Bob - I think that last post is pretty idealistic of you, in terms of conditions.

yeah bob, you would as I have Clearly said more than once now. We disagree on too many things to continue this thread between us IMO. As Jake has said if it really irks you change it in your game and be done. So I think it is best for us to be done.

For the rest of the thread....
I am well aware of angular momentum. and the fact that the pole will make me spin slower with it's 7' wings. than i'd spin at if they were five. The ten feet is how far away the dagger man needs to be in order to be out of striking range. need to be not to be in striking range.

A guy with a short staff would kick both pike and dagger butts, as most if not all people here agree. at 7' it would be a better chance for either of us, though definately still not good for dagger... and no better than perhaps even for Pike, probably a little worse than that. not till the short spear do I thinK my advantages would out weigh my disadvantages... silver agrees with me on that... but not something i'd be anxious to try. Like a dagger he should just throw it from range.

In case the point was missed... dodging with a range advantage is not running backwards... I'd say that clearly wouldn't work. It is shifting position a step or two IMO, while readying the weapon in a threat that deters the advance. the charachters in Wyerth, live and die by thier dueling, and would have war more intimate understanding of the weapons than we do... They will respect an appropriate threat and break off. If a player declares that he will not honor that.(after defensive dice are selected, before the dodge roll).. I'd allow an oportunity attack.... If sucessful the player is hit and probably stopped. Possibly with serious injury. Reroll the # of success from the TN 7 Dodge roll as an ATTACK roll and apply dammage normally. then the charachter can roll his attack after lost dice for shock. ( he loses his attack dice first, and may not add more dice). This is less successful than a counter with a pike and less effective but keeps every successful beat from automatically negating range penaltes. First time i've tried to quantify this.

It is a little rough, but my idea is open for discussion.

Thirsty Viking wrote: yeah bob, you would as I have Clearly said more than once now.

Bob Richter wrote:

Thirsty Viking wrote: yeah bob, you would as I have Clearly said more than once now.

Okay. You're too hard-headed to have a logical discussion on the matter.

You'll continue to think of a Pike as a spear, no matter who tries to educate you about the matter and how.

Fine. I can deal with that.

I can't respect it, but I can deal with it.

Hint taken. Discussion over.

I say a PIKe is a Spear. also a javelin is a spear, A spear is a pole with a meatal "blade" attached to the end of it for thrusting.

A scimitar is a sword, A rapier is a sword, a dopple-hander is a sword, One can even argue that a dagger is a sword, albeit a very short one. A sword being a metal blade extending from a handle.

There will be diffrences in the usage of all these weapons. I don't deny that, but within the catergories the similarities are also present. If I thrust with a pike, I expect the Daggerman to try to dodge. His life depends on it. Assuming equal dice, his dodge will usually be successful. but he'll be working so hard at not getting stabbed, he has no time to close. Eventual I'll hit better than he'll dodge assuming equal dice. And then the dice will no longer be equal. If I was the daggerman i'd fully evade... The pikes not even gonna catch my fat but out there.

Pikes are more awkward, and a little more limited at 14' than at 10'. However the basics are all still there. (ok for this i used metal pipe 10' long at 1/2' and some joined sections of 3/4' for a heavier 14' length... I didn't have Periode weapons to play with, and i never found amy postings for actuall weight of a 14'-15' pike, or any pike for that matter, being movements i'm not used to, I'm sure to be quite sore tomarrow.)

There have been arguments made that if i use a pike as a spear i DIE, but then they said if i use Pike at all I die. I have said that it would be a rough road at a disadvantage against a longsword and shield. I had several reasons for this. A big one is the range issue. It seems to me that a guy with a longsword can kill me while standing ~ 6' away. this forces me to make choices with a pike... do i extend the pike further? making it un-balanced to increase the range? This will be more fatiguing, and the tracking will be slower. This also greatly limits the ability to use the but end to counter a charge. I think longsword wins fairly easily if i do. If I don't then his rush having to cover much shorter ground is more easily accomplished. This is all there in the combat system. Not only that but his Beat is dreadully effective. because he has more dice to use for it and still be able to close than the dagger wielder.

This all makes sence... a beat with a longsword should be better than from a dagger, or shield. IMO.

Um...I think I'm closing the thread. Parties interested in carrying on a discussion about this can open a new thread.

That's it.

Jake