Chewing on proficiencies, maneuvers and combat.

[Korbel]

Which means that the halberdier could be carrying a heater or a norman shield, get the passive bonus, and fight with the halberd using Polarms 10.

Well the passive bonus is not very powerful. Except when under ranged attacks.

Or he could carry the same gear (guiged shield and halberd), have Spear 10, and could alternate between Passive and Active shield use (1AC mid-Phrase, 0AC at start of Phrase). He would get +4CP when applicable, he could use Shield maneuvers when he wanted. The shield-using halberdier is quite feasible under RAW.

Nah. How do you actively use your shield and swing your halberd at the same time? Impossibru.

Why on Earth should one pick Polearms over Spears?

I've explained earlier. Well yes, you could add shields to the equation, but it doesn't change that much. And carrying a polearm and a shield for the whole time... I guess that would be sensible only when on battlefield.
I think we can agree that the most powerful halberdier will be trained in both styles (Spears and Halberds). If you can only pick one, probably the Spear is better - but what I'm trying to say, Polearms Proficiency has its uses.

What clarification? Spears can be used one-handed (Agile), Spear proficiency has Reverse Grip, what's left to clarify? After all spears could be used both one- and two-handed, they were not strictly two-handed weapons. In fact most infantry were trained to fight with a spear and a shield.

Reverse Grip is intended for one-handed weapons, and spear is listed as two-handed (check the description of Agile Property, it says specifically about two-handed weapons). So there's a clear contradiction as far as my view is, so I'd like to ask for clarification.

Apart from this, using Reverse Grip lowers your Range by one.

So, it the mere fact of holding the spear with one hand (you're forced to grip closer to the half of the length then) might potentially lessen your reach, adding a Reverse Grip would result in Medium Reach.
When using both hands, you have much better control and you can afford to grip closer to the end.

BTW, why is Half-Swording not available with Polearms?..
(was this question asked before? I hope not)

[Benedict]

Which means that the halberdier could be carrying a heater or a norman shield, get the passive bonus, and fight with the halberd using Polarms 10.

Well the passive bonus is not very powerful. Except when under ranged attacks.

The passive bonus is Cover (for Ranged attacks), free Favoring shield arm Wheel. Not small either.

Or he could carry the same gear (guiged shield and halberd), have Spear 10, and could alternate between Passive and Active shield use (1AC mid-Phrase, 0AC at start of Phrase). He would get +4CP when applicable, he could use Shield maneuvers when he wanted. The shield-using halberdier is quite feasible under RAW.

Nah. How do you actively use your shield and swing your halberd at the same time? Impossibru.

Easy. Let's assume equal opponents for the sake of simplicity (Ag4, Cu4, Prof10).

Opponent is armed with great sword and has Longsword10. Throws Red2.
Halberdier is armed with norman shield and halberd, uses Spears10. Throws White3.
Reach: Goes to Halberdier. Swordsman is 18CP, Halberdier has 22CP.
Favoring Phase: Swordsman favors Head (17CP). Halberdier is using Shield actively. Favors Weapon Arm (21CP), plus Shield Arm, Head, Chest, Belly (Shield).
Tempo 1: Swordsman Swings to Thigh 9 dice (8 left). Halberdier Blocks with shield 10 dice (11 left). Let's assume Block wins.
Tempo 2: Halberdier switches to passive shield (1AC) to attack with Halberd. That's 10 dice left for Halberdier vs 8 dice for Swordsman.

You don't use the shield AND the halberd at the same time. You use one of them. If the weapon is Agile (Spear, Billhook, Longsword) or One-Handed you could use Bind & Strike instead of Block.

Unless I read RAW wrong, so I apologize in advance.

Why on Earth should one pick Polearms over Spears?

I've explained earlier. Well yes, you could add shields to the equation, but it doesn't change that much. And carrying a polearm and a shield for the whole time... I guess that would be sensible only when on battlefield.
I think we can agree that the most powerful halberdier will be trained in both styles (Spears and Halberds). If you can only pick one, probably the Spear is better - but what I'm trying to say, Polearms Proficiency has its uses.

First of all, you'd probably encounter someone brandishing a halberd in the battlefield, so the first point ("I guess that would be sensible only when on battlefield") is moot.
The reason we are having a debate for so long illustrates just that: Some Proficiencies are way better than others, and that is a design flaw which should be remedied. Guess that's exactly the reason why Agamemnon created this thread in the first place.

What clarification? Spears can be used one-handed (Agile), Spear proficiency has Reverse Grip, what's left to clarify? After all spears could be used both one- and two-handed, they were not strictly two-handed weapons. In fact most infantry were trained to fight with a spear and a shield.

Reverse Grip is intended for one-handed weapons, and spear is listed as two-handed (check the description of Agile Property, it says specifically about two-handed weapons). So there's a clear contradiction as far as my view is, so I'd like to ask for clarification.

As I said above, what clarification?

Can be used one-handed at -1DR. For obvious reasons, this is for categories of weapons that are normally two-handed.

You can use a spear (or longsword or whatever has the Agile property) along with a shield at -1DR for the weapon at hand. The rules are crystal clear.

Apart from this, using Reverse Grip lowers your Range by one.

So, it the mere fact of holding the spear with one hand (you're forced to grip closer to the half of the length then) might potentially lessen your reach, adding a Reverse Grip would result in Medium Reach.
When using both hands, you have much better control and you can afford to grip closer to the end.

Utterly wrong. I guess you don't have actual spear handling experience. In fact it's the other way around. You can increase the range of pole weapons when using them with one arm by gripping the staff section closer to the butt. Also don't forget that staves (and spears) are used one- and two-handed interchangeably. English quarterstaff fighting is a prime example of that. Or Shaolin staff/spear/whatever pole weapon you prefer.

Unless we are talking about swiss pikes or macedodian sarissas which require two hands to use effectively. But these two are out of Melee rules in the first place:

Canny observers may have noticed that Extended reach stops at around 7ft, well short of weapons like pikes and sarissa. These weapons simply aren’t meant for the kind of individual combat we model here.
If it should come up that a player insist on using a pike, or by some contrivance they must defend themselves with a galley’s oar, then assume it is Extended reach and apply a disadvantage to all manuevers using the weapon. They just aren’t optimized for that sort of thing.

BTW, why is Half-Swording not available with Polearms?..
(was this question asked before? I hope not)

As I said above, many pole weapons are used interchangeably with one and two hands. Might appear similar to half-swording, but its a different beast of its own. And as I asked earlier, in the context where Proficiencies represent fighting styles, maybe half-swording should be upgraded to Proficiency status.

[Korbel]

free Favoring shield arm Wheel. Not small either.

Unfortunately, it only covers your shield arm, not the whole Arm Wheel (at least that's what my DK says). So that's not very big.

Favoring Phase: Swordsman favors Head (17CP). Halberdier is using Shield actively. Favors Weapon Arm (21CP), plus Shield Arm, Head, Chest, Belly (Shield).
Tempo 1: Swordsman Swings to Thigh 9 dice (8 left). Halberdier Blocks with shield 10 dice (11 left). Let's assume Block wins.

That's cool, but you could also use a halberd with Polearm style and no shield... Instead of blocking, you can Expulse. Now when successful, his sword will be useless the next tempo, forcing him to dodge (and on MoS 3 he's disarmed, even better). And you don't have to pay AC for switching. The downside is you won't benefit from expanded Favouring - which might be useful if your lacking in armor coverage and don't want to risk.
To sum this up, both styles could have their uses.

First of all, you'd probably encounter someone brandishing a halberd in the battlefield

Or maybe guards can be armed with halberds.

You can increase the range of pole weapons when using them with one arm by gripping the staff section closer to the butt.

Of course. Obviously, maximum reach is when you grab it by the very end. You can perform an attack like this when using it two handed and then releasing it from the hand that was closer to the middle part. But then you have to pull it back towards yourself and grab again with your second hand to regain control. And what about fighting with a single arm for the whole time? you're basically forced to keep your hand in one position, somewhere between the middle and the butt. So that limits your maximum reach (unless you're willing to drop the spear, or loosen the grip and let the hand slide on the haft... but I'm not sure it is the best idea in a fight).
(naaah... the difference is probably not worth considering... nevermind)

[Benedict]

free Favoring shield arm Wheel. Not small either.

Unfortunately, it only covers your shield arm, not the whole Arm Wheel (at least that's what my DK says). So that's not very big.

Tbh I house rule Favoring to Arms and Legs as two separate Wheels, hope it will be clarified I guess.

That's cool, but you could also use a halberd with Polearm style and no shield... Instead of blocking, you can Expulse. Now when successful, his sword will be useless the next tempo, forcing him to dodge (and on MoS 3 he's disarmed, even better). And you don't have to pay AC for switching. The downside is you won't benefit from expanded Favouring - which might be useful if your lacking in armor coverage and don't want to risk. To sum this up, both styles could have their uses.

True. However you fail to take into account that a flat +2CP bonus is essentially a "free" Maneuver of your liking, as opposed to specific Maneuvers used at AC0. Not to mention that the above example illustrates that at Tempo Two the halberdier has the edge with those 2 extra dice.

And what about fighting with a single arm for the whole time? you're basically forced to keep your hand in one position, somewhere between the middle and the butt. So that limits your maximum reach (unless you're willing to drop the spear, or loosen the grip and let the hand slide on the haft... but I'm not sure it is the best idea in a fight).

Well, that's why Agile says "-1DR when using the weapon with one hand".

[Agamemnon]

I don't have time at the moment to go through and do my usual five-thousand-word line-by-line commentary, but the thread went on enough that I thought I should stop in and say a few things. I'll come back later and hit certain points specifically:

1. It is important to remember that while all proficiencies should be useful in their own niches, they shouldn't necessary be all equally as powerful under all circumstances. In practice, you have three categories of weapons:

• Battlefield weapons (spears, polearms, long-axes, true greatswords) that have to be carried, rather than worn. You'd only ever carry these on parade or when you are actively going into a battle and in any other context they will attract attention to you. Proper shields fall into this category as well. Carrying a greatsword or spear around is like walking into a store with an AK-47.
• Sidearms (longswords, one-handed swords of all types, axes, maces, etc) that can be worn on the belt, either as you are going about your business on a day-to-day basis or as a backup for your battlefield weapon. You will obviously appear to be armed, but the level of threat and alarm that will create depends on where you are and the local attitudes towards armed yahoos galavanting about. Bucklers fall into this category as well.
• Last-resort weapons (daggers, brass knuckles or gauntlets, bare hands, grappling, etc) that you'd prefer to never be fighting with if you can help it, but you have access to them in situations where you wouldn't otherwise be armed.

The reason battlefield weapons exist is that they are, as a rule, a better option when going into a battle - i.e. when you can be both openly armed and know a fight is about to happen. To put in a more familiar context, no matter how good you are with your sidearm, if you're going to war you wear the pistol and grab a rifle. The niche that pistols occupy is that they can be worn comfortably even when you aren't about to fight.

Historically, we know this was the case as well. Someone who was a professional fighting man would need some skill in all three areas and would often master multiple proficiencies in each category. The classical 13th century crusading knight would have trained in the lance and spear as their battlefield weapons, sword & shield or axe and shield as their sidearms, and everyone would know how to handle a dagger and wrestle because that's how armored fighting ends up sometimes.

As a design goal, there should be a reason to take any given proficiency. There should be some circumstance in which that proficiency is the best option, and that circumstance should occur often enough for someone to be justified in spending points for it. Equally, options within a category of proficiency should be relatively on par with one another. Within the category of side-arms, I should have a reason to take any given proficiency that falls under that category.

2. Daggers and Spears both really are that good, and really are that situational. Spears were the de facto battlefield weapon of choice for almost all of history. Even in later periods, the only thing that replaced a spear was a much longer spear, and then the only thing that replaced that was when they realized that you could make a gun a spear. On the one hand, spears are a one-trick pony. The entire gambit is "I can stab you before you can get close enough to hurt me." The entire benefit of a spear is keeping the pointy end between you and the person who wishes to do you harm. If you can do this, you win. If you can't, it's a bad day for you. The bonus to reach control fits this dynamic pretty well. It's the thing spears are best at -- keeping the other dude at reach. Daggers work on the same principle. Like spears, Daggers are the best at what they do but are only particularly good at doing that thing. If you can get reach control with a Dagger, you are messing up their day. If you don't have control, you have an uphill battle in front of you.

Polearms, on the other hand, don't get the short shaft (ha!) by any means. Most polearms are Long, but then again so are most battlefield weapons, so in the context of when and how one uses a battlefield weapon the reach advantage won't be your primary go-to. Instead, you have a lot of leverage to knock the other person's weapons around and open up a solid line of attack. If you're carrying a weapon that can use both Spears and Polearms as proficiencies, then you're best off learning both. The former helps you when you have reach advantage, the latter is more useful when you don't. If you are choosing to learn only one, then the answer will lie with the length of your weapon and how confident you are in whatever you're carrying as a backup weapon. If you have an Extended length spear, glaive, bill hook, etc and you're pretty decent with some other shorter weapon you carry, then Spears is probably the way to go. If you're carrying a Long weapon or you're not so good at your backup weapon that you're comfortable dropping your primary weapon when they get inside your grip, then Polearms will be more useful to you in more situations.

3. Agile. If a weapon can be used one-handed (longswords, spears) then it counts as a one-handed weapon when doing so. Reverse grip spears are legit.

4. Passive shield use with a two-handed weapon is a thing. Shields at present only cover the arm wheel of the arm they are on, though after some thought we're considering changing this to be arm wheels in general (after all, if you have a shield you don't go leaving your other arm exposed when you can help it, do you?)

5. Feel free to continue discussing and debating, but as we're redoing the proficiencies to account for the rearranged maneuver list, we'll be rebalancing the emphases as well.

[Korbel]

4. Passive shield use with a two-handed weapon is a thing. Shields at present only cover the arm wheel of the arm they are on, though after some thought we're considering changing this to be arm wheels in general (after all, if you have a shield you don't go leaving your other arm exposed when you can help it, do you?)

So, the passive use will only protect the shield arm, and active use - the Arms Wheel? Or maybe the passive use should protect the weapon arm too?
Anyway, I think it's a good idea.

[higgins]

3. Agile. If a weapon can be used one-handed (longswords, spears) then it counts as a one-handed weapon when doing so. Reverse grip spears are legit.

We actually had a dedicated maneuver for over-arm spear use at one point, but it was hard to come up with a good name for it. Then we realized that what we were trying to model was something which was already perfectly accomplished by Reverse grip several drafts back. I think Agamemnon deserves credit for that insight.

[Korbel]

We actually had a dedicated maneuver for over-arm spear use at one point, but it was hard to come up with a good name for it. Then we realized that what we were trying to model was something which was already perfectly accomplished by Reverse grip several drafts back. I think Agamemnon deserves credit for that insight.

Weeel I might argue that the over-arm grip was probably used rather as a preparation for a throw, or maybe in shield wall where it would be more effective (like Matt explained once upon a time), but let's leave it here.
I have another question - if you allow to perform a Power Swing (with Reversed Grip of course) with something as long as a spear, why do you restrict it to one hand only? What if I want to Reverse Grip a spear with two hands? Let's say my opponent is prone and I would like to give him a Power Thrust with my spear - why not?
Yeah I know Reverse Grip is generally safer with one hand (and a shield in the other), as it penalizes your Parries, but it shouldn't mean that you're unable to reverse your grip on a spear only because you're using two hands. Or should it?

5. Feel free to continue discussing and debating, but as we're redoing the proficiencies to account for the rearranged maneuver list, we'll be rebalancing the emphases as well.

Can't wait to see them. Not only the maneuver list is modified, but the Advantages are now more potent, meaning that some of the Emphases will probably have to be toned down.
(and I hope you will maybe include something entirely new and cool )

[Agamemnon]

We actually had a dedicated maneuver for over-arm spear use at one point, but it was hard to come up with a good name for it. Then we realized that what we were trying to model was something which was already perfectly accomplished by Reverse grip several drafts back. I think Agamemnon deserves credit for that insight.

Weeel I might argue that the over-arm grip was probably used rather as a preparation for a throw, or maybe in shield wall where it would be more effective (like Matt explained once upon a time), but let's leave it here.
I have another question - if you allow to perform a Power Swing (with Reversed Grip of course) with something as long as a spear, why do you restrict it to one hand only? What if I want to Reverse Grip a spear with two hands? Let's say my opponent is prone and I would like to give him a Power Thrust with my spear - why not?

Actually, ThegnThrand does a number of videos on the subject. I'd link them, but I'm not actually at the computer at the moment. Nonetheless, I have a few minutes while I'm waiting on someone and I can attempt to shed some light on the thing.

If you watch the aforementioned videos, Thrand actually makes a fairly strong case for the over-hand strike. His argument is that the purpose of this grip is not just to jab and harry with the point the way you would in a more conventional grip, but to better enable what he refers to as a cast blow. In essence, you're throwing the spear without entirely letting go of it. The testing he's done shows that he can deliver more force and thus better penetration with the spear as a cast blow than he can by putting his whole body behind the weight of it. The reason for this is simple acceleration. The throw-like cast moves the tip faster than he can move his body. Force=mass*acceleration. Thus he argues that this is why we see depictions of hoplites using spears in a reversed grip. They were making use of this particular technique.

At one point in our development, we were going to have an ability unique to spears and simply call it "Cast Thrust" to model this. I believe it was later we developed the reverse grip technique to model dagger use in an icepick grip. The rules we came up with were mechanically identical to the spear rules, even if what they represent in terms of what your character is doing is physically different. For the sake of simplicity, we lumped the two together.

[Korbel]

OK, I've seen one video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a66RSdVkAmI

I must say I'm not 100% convinced at the moment. For example the cuts he makes in the first part. He commits much more to the "cast blow" than to regular blow. You can compare his body work on 6:30 and 8:20. Much different.
When it comes to acceleration... No. An object cannot accelerate more after the force stops pushing it.
I believe the Cast Thrust could be helpful when striking at a target which is beyond your optimum range. So that when you overextend, you should loose your grip (because by maintaining contact you can slow down the speed of the weapon, when your position is not longer optimal for force generation). But within optimum range? My vote is for the thusts done classic way. Actually, I think I've seen Thrand thrusting against his target-head the regular way and penetrating deeper then with casts (but I'll have to check, maybe the skull was of different hardness or something).

And when it comes to under- and overhand grip... My feeling is, you can probably generate more force overhand. Especially when the thrust is downward. The lats will help you strike harder. But I'm not really sure if this is enough to grant +1 to damage.

Anyway, I think your solution for spears is cool from the gaming perspective. It's simple, uses a Maneuver which was already in the rules, gives some interesting options for spear and shield fighters. Good job, as usual.

[Siggi]

When it comes to acceleration... No. An object cannot accelerate more after the force stops pushing it.

I'm with Agamemnon on this one. That's what you learn when you try knife throwing. A thrown knife may easily go half-blade deep into the target. And if you try and stab the same target with that knife it barely goes a centimeter deep. That same principle is at work in Cast Thrust, I guess.

[Benedict]

Er, where to start.

I might argue that the over-arm grip was probably used rather as a preparation for a throw

That's how one throws a spear. Can't be done with an underarm grip.

maybe in shield wall where it would be more effective

Spears were used like this in a formation. Easy to train with and cheap to make, each troop needed a spear, a shield, and some reasonable body protection. Very cost effective, that's why spears dominated wars in history. Until people started making guns.

In a one-on-one bout it'd be more effective to use a spear like a polearm or staff. Because as Agamemnon correctly pointed out

you have a lot of leverage to knock the other person's weapons around and open up a solid line of attack

Asian martial art training in arms illustrates this. You learn to fight with the staff, then learn how to use spears and polearms. But in essence the core behind the styles is staff fighting. Heck, they even call the staff "the Grandfather of Weapons". Take it from a guy who studies chinese staff, spear, and polearms for the past 20 years.

I believe that's the reason why castle guards carried a polearm (halberd, long axe, partisan, etc) along with a sidearm, instead of full war gear. They could hold their position fairly well with that until reinforcements came.

Unless ofc one is walking around with armor, a large shield, and his similarly equipped war buddies, which is another matter.

An object cannot accelerate more after the force stops pushing it

And when it comes to under- and overhand grip... My feeling is, you can probably generate more force overhand. Especially when the thrust is downward. The lats will help you strike harder. But I'm not really sure if this is enough to grant +1 to damage.

Yes, its F=m*a. But on the other hand if you analyze it further you' are not taking into account many things, like rotation, angle, and gravity, among others. The downstroke you can make with the overarm grip is a rotating move around your shoulder. Which makes a forward step more effective, enabling you to put your weight behind the blow more effectively as opposed to the underarm thrust. Combine that with the length of your spear from hand to point and you'll realize is so much stronger than an underarm thrust. Not to mention that with underarm strikes you fight against gravity, when with overarm strikes you use gravity to your advantage.

Note that these two techniques were mainly created for use in a rank-and-file formation using shields.

Underarm thrusts were used either when the unit defended, received charges, or support from back ranks to the first two ranks. Especially in the third scenario it acted more as a distraction, leaving the killing to the two front rows that used the:

Overarm thrusts. As I explained above these strikes can be much powerful than underarm ones. In essence the phalanx served as a living and breathing meat-grinder. That's how the Greeks repelled the (far superior in numbers) Persian armies.

It is important to remember that while all proficiencies should be useful in their own niches, they shouldn't necessary be all equally as powerful under all circumstances.

Daggers and Spears both really are that good, and really are that situational. Spears were the de facto battlefield weapon of choice for almost all of history. Even in later periods, the only thing that replaced a spear was a much longer spear, and then the only thing that replaced that was when they realized that you could make a gun a spear. On the one hand, spears are a one-trick pony. The entire gambit is "I can stab you before you can get close enough to hurt me." The entire benefit of a spear is keeping the pointy end between you and the person who wishes to do you harm. If you can do this, you win. If you can't, it's a bad day for you. The bonus to reach control fits this dynamic pretty well. It's the thing spears are best at -- keeping the other dude at reach. Daggers work on the same principle. Like spears, Daggers are the best at what they do but are only particularly good at doing that thing. If you can get reach control with a Dagger, you are messing up their day. If you don't have control, you have an uphill battle in front of you.

Totally agree on the above. I just feel that the "+4CP instead of +2CP" effect of spears and daggers compared to other Emphases, design-wise, is a compromise. And tbh a bad one.
Every other Emphasis focuses on how you fight by giving you a bonus when trying to do something.
Spears and Daggers on the other hand give you a bonus after doing something (getting Reach Control). Not only that, the bonus can be applied to anything Melee-related.
As I said earlier I get it with daggers with their low damage and reach and all. But with spears and spear like weapons that already have good statistics seems a bit too much. Unless you care to model hewing spear shafts with zweihanders, which sounds like pita if you ask me.

You might think its redundant. Imho, design-wise, its inconsistent. That's why I'm bitching about it so much.

[thirtythr33]

I'm going to leave all the discussion about "real world" tactics aside and focus on the stated design goals of emphases as that is where I feel discussion is more productive.

The relevant parts as I see it:

It is important to remember that while all proficiencies should be useful in their own niches, they shouldn't necessary be all equally as powerful under all circumstances.
In practice, you have three categories of weapons: Battlefield weapons, Sidearms, Last-resort weapons.
As a design goal, there should be a reason to take any given proficiency. There should be some circumstance in which that proficiency is the best option, and that circumstance should occur often enough for someone to be justified in spending points for it. Equally, options within a category of proficiency should be relatively on par with one another. Within the category of side-arms, I should have a reason to take any given proficiency that falls under that category.

The first observation I have looking at the battlefield weapons, sidearms and last-resort weapon "categories" is that they almost exactly align with weapon length. Battle field weapons are Extended or Long, Sidearms are Medium or Short, and Last-resort weapons are Close or Hand. The only violations of this trend I could see is that 1) Rapier and Longsword may be considered sidearms, depending on setting and context, even though they are Long and 2) The battleaxe and horseman's axe are probably too unwieldy to be considered sidearms or secondary weapons despite being only Medium reach. It is probably safer to consider these 4 weapons to be in both the battle field and sidearm categories. As an extension of the above categories we should also be able to safely assume that battlefield weapons will probably be attacking opponents that are wearing battlefield armor (plate helm, large shields and often mail or better armor). Sidearms will likely be attacking opponents wearing armor appropriate for daily wear (perhaps buff coats, bucklers and basket hilted weapons) and last resort weapons will be attacking opponents with basically no defensive items apart from a perhaps a dagger to parry with. If you bring a battlefield weapon to a streetfight (like a pollax vs a mace) then the person who came better equipped is by design supposed to have a huge advantage.

The second big point I have to make here is that the proficiency is not wholly defined by it's emphasis and thus balancing each proficiency does not necessarily mean that every emphasis should be balanced (even if in the same weapon length categories). As that relates to the Polearm Vs Spears proficiency debate, notice that the Polearm proficiency gives you access to a much wider range of better and more specialized weapons (and consequently more viable maneuvers and avenues of attack) than the Spear proficiency does... Especially against armored opponents. The Spear proficiency can... +3p precision thrust with a spear. That's it. One viable mode of attack. If you are against an enemy that is covered in maille (spear doesn't have maille piercing), you are fighting a losing battle. Heaven forbid your opponent is in plate with a closed helm and favors their chest wheel (to make precision thrust to armpit worthless, and wrap to hamstring is garbage because spear does terrible swing damage) then you are basically fucked. And since fully 50% of battlefield weapons are Extended, you won't even be getting your emphasis bonus half the time. With the Polearm proficiency you have access to everything from a Lucerne Hammer for +2b Power Swing with Crushing against opponents in plate, a Glaive for +2c Wrap with Drawcut against anyone not wearing Chausses or even use the agile Bill Hook for +2p Precision Thrust to the exposed face (only 1p worse than using the Spear for it's specialized job). So, is the Spear proficiency's emphasis better than the Polearm proficiency's emphasis? Yes, unarguably so. But Polearms themselves are better than spears, especially against battlefield armored opponents with similarly long weapons. Frankly, I think having access to either Crushing or Plate Piercing to be absolutely essential for a battlefield weapon making Mass Weapons or Polearms the standout proficiencies, depending on whether or not you have enough armor coverage to feel safe forgoing a shield for arrow defense. In a maille dominated setting the sword & shield proficiency is the winner, allowing for an estoc or koncerz gets the best of all worlds giving you a long reach that is usability with a shield and has maille piercing.

If you are playing a campaign that isn't likely to have many battlefield encounters, then emphasis is going to make much more of a difference since the crushing and priecing properties are made mostly irrelevant against semi armored targets and the value of drawcut sky rockets. Of the proficiencies appropriate for the sidearms category (mass weapon, messers, sabers, sword & buckler) I think sabers are by far the most powerful, mostly because of the Wrap maneuver that let's you automatically hit the hamstring location (that will never be armored, can't be favored and is particularly weak to cutting attacks). Sword & Buckler however seems to lend itself to a very aggressive all-in trapping strategy that is very strong (giving up initiative and then using your whole CP for deflect & strike or preempting and bind & strike) but one poor roll and you end up dead. The draw cut strategy can afford to play much more conservatively, throwing out small attacks that forces your opponent to still defend heavily since a feint with even single MOS will result in a severed foot, whereas the sword & buckler style has to win by a landslide margine to deal a fight winning blow with a follow up attack to a random location before they get to make an unopposed attack back. Messers I am the least sure how to evaluate out of every proficiency. I just can't come up with any strong strategies for it and that makes me think I am missing something.

As for last resort, well I don't think there is much disagreement about this category. Daggers are unique that they are the only weapons that can be used in a grapple, can be hidden easily and make great use of the ambush being able to start a fight inside your target's sidearm reach. Batons or brass knuckles are for when you don't want to kill your victim and Brawling is an essential secondary skill, whether on the battlefield or for bar fights. Striking is greatly out shined by grabbing and wrestling (as it is in the real world), and unfortunately I am hard pressed to come up with situations where using a dagger in a grapple is mechanically preferable to using the utterly devastating Gouge or Hold maneuvers (unlike real life, where stabbing is almost surely the better option).

As a final note, I will again point out that we don't yet know how the weapons codex is structured for selecting weapon damage or properties; That being the main reason why I haven't yet given my traditional dissection of the topic like I have with others. Whether or not you can, for example, make a Spear with Plate Piercing is in my mind absolutely crucial to knowing how to accurately evaluate proficiency power (especially given the "use any" way maneuvers were distributed, but that may change with the new revision).

[Korbel]

As a final note, I will again point out that we don't yet know how the weapons codex is structured for selecting weapon damage or properties; That being the main reason why I haven't yet given my traditional dissection of the topic like I have with others. Whether or not you can, for example, make a Spear with Plate Piercing is in my mind absolutely crucial to knowing how to accurately evaluate proficiency power (especially given the "use any" way maneuvers were distributed, but that may change with the new revision).

Given the fact that only swing based attacks in Dueling Kit can have Plate Piercing (currently horseman's axe and warhammer) I strongly suspect that you won't be able to design a spear with PP. May be wrong though.

[thirtythr33]

Yes, I agree. But would you also say it is out of the realms of possibility for Spears to be able to access Maille Piercing?