is a polearm a melee weapon?

[cyril byronson]

I am a rpg player with a question for folks with real world experience:

Is a polearm typically a melee weapon?

The situation I want clarification on is one where a halberdeer is defensively engaged with a swordsman. The swordsman is 5' away and not inside the reach of the halberd. an archer stands at the shoulder of his compatriot, the halberdeer, firing at the swordsman. (in this instance there are no height/clearance problems - the archer is an 6' elf, the halberdeer a 4'6 dwarf, the swordsman opposite, a 7' gnoll). At issue is the danger of a archer firing into a melee situation where two combatants are locked in close combat. I say in this instance the swordsman and the halberdeer are not in melee, or close combat - the dm says otherwise. We are playing AD&D 1st ed. rules (poorly written, very general combat rules). I pose my question in all seriousness. I find no definitive literature about how to classify polearms in this instance.

Thoughts?

[Greg Coffman]

Yes, a halberd is a 'melee weapon,' opposed to a ranged weapon.

If there is not an issue of clearance, if your archer does have line of sight, and if both opponents are out of range, then I don't see it being a problem. Picture it. Both fighters are standing out of range. They are not actively swinging at each other, binding with their weapons, etc. They are not moving around very much. Certainly they are far enough away for the swordsman to not void the line of sight of the archer.

On the other hand, you should consider the range of the halberd. Most halberds would be perhaps one or two feet taller than the user. Most halberds fall into a 7' to 9' range. I know the dwarf makes the length less, but I would think it would be a minimum halberd length of 5' up to maybe 6' or even 7'. When you make an attack, you don't stand still, you take a step forward. That might not carry the dwarf into the 'square' next to the swordsman, but accounting for that step and the length of the halberd, that dwarf is certainly capable of making attacks on the swordsman I would think.

The range of the swordsman bears consideration too. I'm 6'1" and probably have a range with a one-handed sword of about 5' without even stepping. So a fighter who is even taller could most likely strike a target 5' away pretty easily.

I wouldn't really say this is "close" combat. 'Close combat' is often a term used to differentiate between any type of hand to hand combat and ranged combat. But your fighters aren't that close. With the weapons they have, I would say they are in 'zufechten' range, which means 'pre-fight.' They are certainly in range of hitting each other. But, again, if the archer has line of sight, then firing into melee is really a non-issue.

The rules are there for guidelines. What makes sense should ideally trump the rules.

[Stacy Clifford]

I could be wrong, but when you say "not inside the reach of the halberd" I'm assuming you mean not too close to use the blade, rather than completely out of reach of the halberd's attack (which as Greg mentioned can attack at considerably more than 5 ft. of distance). It's worth noting that most polearms came with a butt spike that could be turned and used at close range when the axe end of the pole was out of play. The shaft itself could be used defensively in the manner of staff or half-sword at close range and could even be used as a wrestling tool to throw or disarm an opponent. They are highly versatile weapons that aren't stuck fighting at pole's length simply because that's where the sharp thingies are, so your dwarf could be fighting at any range between 2 ft. and 10 ft. from the swordsman and still using his halberd effectively.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

It's worth noting that most polearms came with a butt spike that could be turned and used at close range when the axe end of the pole was out of play.

If we're not restricting ourselves to the moves available in the manuals, even the halberd head isn't going to be "out of play" if the enemy closes the distance. By having one hand gripping the shaft only a short distance below the head I can easily whack or stab an opponent in what would have otherwise been Ringen range. Of course, this option might be closed to me if I was fighting as a front-ranker in a closely-packed formation, but then in that situation I'd have friends in the rear rank who could whack anybody who gets too close to me!

Going back to the original question, I've DMed D&D sessions in several versions (OD&D, AD&D 2e, then D&D 3e and 3.5) and I'd say on technical grounds that not only the halberdier and the swordsman are in melee, the archer also is! Unfortunately, I have a gap in my knowledge between the original three-booklet (O)D&D and the AD&D 2nd edition, so I can't tell you whether AD&D 1st edition would give the archer the double-whammy penalty for both being in melee and shooting at targets in a melee, but I can say that I'm backing the DM's opinion in this instance.

[Stacy Clifford]

If we're not restricting ourselves to the moves available in the manuals, even the halberd head isn't going to be "out of play" if the enemy closes the distance. By having one hand gripping the shaft only a short distance below the head I can easily whack or stab an opponent in what would have otherwise been Ringen range.

That's true, with any pole weapon you can always choke up to use the weapon at a shorter range, but if you're holding it out long and the opponent gets past the point and charges in quickly, you may not have that opportunity and have to use the part of the weapon that's literally closest at hand. I've played enough staff vs. sword to have had that fun experience, and it happens fast. Both options work if you can pull them off, so thanks for adding that in there, I forgot about that one.