Which was is better?

Exactly. And enemies are more likely to have exactly 2 hp remaining than exactly 10, so there polearm is better.

they have the same damage overall, so the polearm would have the better range.

>autism

Unless the enemy is some living armor with 9 defense and 1HP.

>Spend hundreds on a tattoo just so people can think you're a skinhead
So when does he get punched in the face all the while screaming 'It's a prank!'?

Let's assume he's a smart guy and he got a fake tattoo just for shits and giggles

Absurd examples are a fallacy and are not an argument.

Assuming that +1 is a magical enhancement, the polearm is not only statistically more consistent on damage but boosts attack rolling as well.

You're not very bright, are you

Only this guy got this.
Veeky Forums sucks at fighters as always.

the polearm is more consistent and skews above average more often. The lower ceiling is less and less of a downside the more often you roll.
Explain

pole arm has reach.

The sword, because I'm not some peasant who tries to kill goblins with a pitchfork because he's too afraid to get close.

That's false. Reductio ad Absurdem is a completely valid logical argument.

>I like the color blue!
>WELL THEN YOU WILL OBVIOUSLY LOVE IT WHEN I SPRAY BLUE PAINT IN YOUR EYES!

Yeah no.

It's "Pike to the dick", not "Zweihander to the dick".

Polearm wins.

For PCs, consistency is better: The odds are generally in their favor, so anything that makes things more swingy is something that makes it more likely that things swing in the wrong direction. For antagonists, it's the reverse, since they'll be fighting PCs.

"Great tacticians learn that consistency often trumps potential."

However, we don't play to win. We play to see how spectacularly we can fuck (shit) up.

Pointus Latinus Bullshittus is also stupid, speak English.

just because you're retarded doesn't mean it doesn't work.
>minimum is always better than maximum!
>counterpoint: In this example, that rule clearly doesn't apply
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Polearms have reach, bitchblades do not.

That it is, but what you did was not that.

Wasn't me, mate. But user was literally demonstrating a ridiculous consequence of a proposed rule.

It's a well-known phrase and it's not my fault that your educational system failed you.

Straight up this. Most GMs design encounters so that any remotely average performance from the PCs will be enough to achieve victory. Consistency is better in most cases.

Also, even in a difficult game, I personally prefer to have the narrower base damage - for tactical and demanding encounters, reliability helps a lot with counting how many hits you can expect to be exposed to and the like.

That doesn't make sense.

Isn't the untrained, unarmored dude making due with the best thing he has available by definition braver than the well armored, well trained dude with an expensive weapon doing the same thing?

>Isn't the untrained, unarmored dude making due with the best thing he has available by definition braver than the well armored, well trained dude with an expensive weapon doing the same thing?
No? Professional soldier is essentially CHOOSING a lifestyle where he knows he'll have to fight other soldiers and has a good chance of dying with a sword through his stomach before reaching 30. So that's a pretty brave choice. If an untrained dude ends up fighting soldiers, it's generally because his other choices are at least as bad as possibly getting killed horribly. I mean, sure, he MIGHT be doing it to defend his family or something, in which case yes, that's pretty brave. But there's nothing brave about charging an enemy when the only other choice is being executed for desertion or possibly starving to death.

both weapons deal the same damage on average

but a polearm has reach which gives it the advantage

>So when does he get punched in the face
ez money

> ITT: people whose entire knowledge of medieval warfare comes from D&D stat tables who think a two-handed sword has less reach than a halberd

A sword is a sidearm for a reason

This. A two handed sword can be manipulated as a polearm.

thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.VQkqSeEggz0

A ONE-HANDED sword is a sidearm.

Pole Arm because it has longer reach.

A two handed swords does have lesser reach than a halberd though.
The sword’s length remains the same, and if anything the range is decreased by halfswording.

> (You)
>A two handed swords does have lesser reach than a halberd though.
The sword is about as long, and is gripped nearer the edge. The difference is that the sword is also lethal when you close in to a range where the halberdier can do approximately dick except push people back.
Look, I'm not saying polearms are crap, but swords were basically invented to duel things. Polearms with actual significant reach tend to be formation weapons.

Polearm you will be getting higher averages.

This is not accounting for any strength bonuses though. The two-handed sword might be better if you are playing with the strength plus one half rule for two-handing a weapon but once again you can just two-hand the spear.

The 1d10 is better because it is a bigger die and more fun.

>Polearm you will be getting higher averages.
Lrn2math, faggot.

...

Sword because polearms are for rank and file soldiers who get killed to show off the power of the bad guy.