So when compared on a stone-for-stone basis, polearms are pretty much universally weaker than other two-handed templates. Is there a reason for this? If being pole-ranged actually had some sort of benefit I could see it, but as things stand right now, all it really does is maybe give you an extra attack before melee? Even if you could continually hang back, you'd just keep eating RT every time something advanced on you, and be even worse off than if you'd just stood in melee.
I do remember hearing that polearms don't suffer as much of an offensive penalty for using an arm-worn shield as other 2H weapons do, is that true? And is that for all polearms, or just pikes?
And just for reference, here's a 60 stone HC steel bardiche, a fairly simple polearm template, and a 60 stone HC steel two-handed sword.
Bardiche:
P: S. Heavy (08)
S: V. Great (12)
I: S. Mod (06)
FOI: Inadequate (04)
Bal: Fairly (05)
Su: Reasonably (07)
2H Sword:
P: Poor (02)
S: V. Mighty (18)
I: Mod (07)
FOI: Decent (06)
Bal: Inadequately (04)
Su: Well (09)
Now I suppose you could try to argue the polearm is more versatile, but impact factors into slicing attacks more than piercing does, and since swapping weapons doesn't really incur roundtime, it's kind of a moot point since I could just keep another weapon handy with high piercing damage. Not to mention, even a less versatile polearm, the pike, doesn't stack up with the two-handed sword. It's all piercing damage, and it only gets up to Extreme (15) at 60 stones. Sure it's more balanced, but it's already paying for that with less suitability.
And speaking of that, impact also factors more heavily into piercing attacks... wouldn't it make more sense for slashing damage to compliment piercing attacks? As it stands right now, a SLICE attack would look at Slashing/Impact/Pierce, and a THRUST attack would look at Piercing/Impact/Slashing. I think Piercing/Slashing/Impact would be better.
