bel wrote:That's a fair request. I thought that most people were of the same opinion as me, so I didn't spell out my reasons.
The burden of proof should be on someone who thinks reaching should exist. Why is it an interesting ability? As far as I can see, it's just simulationism. However, in the rest of the post, I'll try to list reasons I consider them undesirable:
I don't see why the burden of proof should be on the player who likes reaching. It changes your play style and adds new tactical options. What needs to be proven is that it does so in ways that make the game less interesting, which is not immediately evident.
bel wrote:Ally play is already overpowered in Crawl; allowing polearm use together with allies simply exacerbates the situation.
-This is subjective. What's more, Crawl is not a balanced game and features many play styles that are measurably better than others (Trog, heavy armor vs. everything else, ranged weapons, etc.). I don't think this can count as a reason by itself.
bel wrote:It is kludgy - why do some monsters attack from one step away while others do it from adjacent to you? It also leads to weird interactions with stairs, since gnolls with polearms will not follow you upstairs even though they were attacking you from one step away.
-I think the first point is very obvious -- because they're using polearms! Simulationism or an attempt to adhere to how things seem to make sense in the real world is not something that always must be eradicated. The gnoll can hit me from a tile away because he has a long, sharp stick. Problem solved. As for the second point, I can see the argument, but I think this is interesting and gives you ways to escape. I do think AI is problematic with polearms, though, and enemies shouldn't always prioritize hitting you with their reach attack.
bel wrote:Polearms are not a limited resource like spells/wands, so allowing a player to attack a monster in melee from afar is simply bad. Ranged combat suffers from this defect as well, but there's no easy solution to fix ranged combat.
-This is not a reason in itself. You give some reasons below that are tied to this, but there is nothing inherently wrong with being able to attack a short distance away an unlimited number of times. Polearms do not step on the toes of conjurations.
bel wrote:It leads to degenerate tactics. For instance, a centaur kiting an enemy using a polearm, or anyone with flight kiting an enemy over water.
-This is the only point here that I agree with completely. I don't think it's enough to remove an otherwise interesting ability.
bel wrote:I consider spectral weapon together with polearms simply broken. It mitigates one of the main disadvantages of the spell, which is that your weapon needs to be adjacent to the monster while attacking, so that it can also take damage. (It can still take damage from AOE spells). I am not a big fan of spectral weapon anyway.
-I like spectral weapon and think of this as a nice bonus, but I can understand the point. I still think removing reaching, or removing this interaction, would take away something interesting and fun for little gain.
bel wrote:Positioning is much easier with polearms - a 3x3 square is much smaller than a 5x5 square. This mitigates a lot of the movement disadvantages of Nagas and Chei characters, with very little cost (polearms have less base damage than maces and long blades).
-I fail to see how this is a reason to remove reaching and only see it as a reason to keep them.
I do think reaching is the strongest of the special abilities and can sometimes be problematic. But I've seen other people say riposte is better. And maces and flails might well still be the best weapon type overall. And plenty of people find cleaving a lot of fun. I think special weapon properties are in a good place right now in Crawl and don't need to be messed with, even if some aspects of reaching are not ideal.