PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Buff Spears pls?



Simanos
2009-01-12, 01:47 PM
I'm not sure if this should be here or in the Homebrew Subforum, but here it is anyway.
I don't like how Spears are given such low stats. They had a devastating effect in the history of mankind no matter how simple their concept.

Shortspears are 1d6(x2), wielded one-handed, thrown 20'
Spears are 1d8(x3), but are wielded two-handed, thrown 20'
Longspears do 1d8(x3), wielded two-handed, can't be thrown, but have reach.
Javelins do 1d6(x2), thrown 30', -4 in melee
All simple weapons.

That sucks in my opinion. At the very least spears need to reflect their first-strike nature. I would give them +2 to +4 improved initiative. Also I would give x3 crits to all of them. I would make the Spear able to be used one-handed as a martial weapon (instead of simple). (Maybe exotic though)
Also giving Javelins a -4 in melee when you can use rapiers and small daggers, even a knife just fine is ridiculous. At best make Javelin in melee proficiency be a martial one (thrown Javelin still a simple weapon though). Naturally some types of Javelin (like Roman Pilum) would be easily damaged with repeated use.
I would also allow a Javelin thrower to hold 2 extra javelins in his off-hand (even with a shield if it allows it) and make a full attack without needing the Quick Draw feat. But I allow that for all thrown weapons. It only helps in the first round much.

Who's with me? :smallcool:

Kurald Galain
2009-01-12, 02:04 PM
Using a spear in melee does not strike me as simple. Stabbing may be obvious but defending yourself is not.

Come to think of it, how exactly does one throw a spear using both hands?

Another_Poet
2009-01-12, 02:04 PM
I think your changes are better represented by feats, rather than changes to the weapons themselves. You should make a line of spear or javelin feats that grant the bonuses (e.g. improving initiative) and abilities (e.g. disabling a shield) that you're talking about. If you want to improve spears themselves, I would make the following changes.



Shortspears are 1d8(x2), wielded one-handed, thrown 20'
Spears are 1d8(x3), but are wielded two-handed, thrown 20'
Longspears do 2d4(x3), wielded two-handed, can't be thrown, but have reach.
Javelins do 1d6(x2), thrown 30', no penalty in melee
All simple weapons.


I would also add a new Exotic weapon:

Exotic weapon: Sarissa
2d6 (x3), wielded 2-handed, cannot be thrown
15' reach for medium creatures!
Deals double damage when set against a charge
Reduces speed by 10' (medium creatures).

Person_Man
2009-01-12, 02:04 PM
Spears are simple weapons, and deal damage comparable to other simple weapons. And historically, that's exactly what they've been. More advanced spears are called polearms, and have various special abilities. So I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you.

Of course, if you want to make spears better for your game, go ahead. I'd just say that if you want to buff them, you should make them a martial or exotic weapon.

Also, having a weapon grant an Initiative bonus doesn't make sense. Does my Wizard who's holding a spear get an Initiative bonus, even if he's going to cast a spell?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-01-12, 02:08 PM
Longspears are already the single most powerful simple weapon in the game, by virtue of having the highest damage/crit multiplier of any simple weapon, and are the common choice of 1st level Sorcerers.

Longspears have a mechanical advantage with Reach: It's called an Attack of Opportunity. He closes with you. Before he gets you attack, you have an attack of opportunity on him. You get to attack first, even when he attacks you first. If you set to receive, you automatically do double damage (or 4x! on a crit).

That's pretty damn powerful.

Add in the feat that forces opponents to stop when they get hit by an AoO, and you get a very deadly weapon.

Draz74
2009-01-12, 02:11 PM
You should be able to handle a Spear freely either one-handed or two-handed. You should be able to wield a Longspear one-handed, too, but it might either require a special feat, or at least Martial Weapon Proficiency. (Kinda like the bastard sword, only simple/martial instead of martial/exotic.)

That's the main change I'd make.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-12, 02:12 PM
Also, having a weapon grant an Initiative bonus doesn't make sense. Does my Wizard who's holding a spear get an Initiative bonus, even if he's going to cast a spell?

Well, it kind of does, but only if all other weapons also get an initiative mod (although some could be +0). That would essentially be switching to the 2E initiative system.

BRC
2009-01-12, 02:14 PM
Nope, sorry, I can't agree with you.

You see, spears were used so often in history because they were cheap to make and easy to train people with. Also, a spear doesn't make you react faster (which is what Initative represents), it gives you a reach advantage. Really, you would need somthing like Shadowrun's system (Which gave melee bonuses for whomever had a longer reach). They can also be set against a charge.

You see, the problem is that in Real life soliders would need to be trained for each weapon they use individually, spears were easy to make and use, so they were the primary weapon for must of history. However, in Dnd where soldiers (warriors) come with basic training in everything from spears and slings to longbows and greatswords. And since most DM's and players don't worry about 13 gp when it comes to equipping, spears are hardly ever used.
Edit: Grr, hyperninjad

Tacoma
2009-01-12, 02:23 PM
Also imagine there are three Longspear wielders standing side by side in a hallway. Three swordsmen advance on them. The spear wielders each have Combat Reflexes and can get three AoO per round (or at least the middle one, the others only need 2 AoO each).

When the middle guy advances, he enters the threatened square of all three. He takes three AoO. The two side swordsmen are threatened by two spearmen each.

It gets super nasty if the spearmen have more spearmen behind them, because if a swordsman does step forward he's still under attack normally by the back-row spearmen and the forward-row spearmen take their movement next round to back up straight 10'.

That said, I imagine a bunch of feats that could do what you want:

Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Pilum (You can Disarm a shield with a Pilum by striking then leaving it in the shield. It takes a STR (16) check and a Full Round Action to pull out the Pilum. So long as the Pilum is in, the shield is useless)

Monkey Grip for one-handing the Spear (though it would look silly to one-hand a Long Spear, this makes it possible).

I'd ignore the Initiative bonus. Those are only good in the first combat round. The Long Spear already takes the first-strike reach thing into account.

Tacoma
2009-01-12, 02:28 PM
Also: armies like spears because wielders could fight very close together, perhaps 3' from spearpoint to spearpoint. In a closed space like a street where they can't be outflanked, you might see two spearmen able to fight in the same space one enemy swordsman can fight. This means not only do the spearmen support each other as I described above against individual opponents, but even paired off one to one there are twice as many spearmen as swordsmen on the front lines.

Spears can also be used to keep someone at bay, or unhorse someone charging at you, or injure the horse so it throws its rider or flees. At least keeps the horse from charging straight through the pike formation.

Finally, the spear is the earliest refined weapon, as it's really just a pointy stick. Every culture with a spear has had so long to perfect its construction and use that any other weapon is going to be a latecomer and must be substantially better or serve some other role to be adopted.

Irreverent Fool
2009-01-12, 03:33 PM
I've experienced Tacoma's description of massed spearmen first-hand (though with blunted weapons). While it takes a some training with a sword to fight effectively without overswinging or leaving yourself open to an attack, a few spearmen fighting together need very little skill and training to become a force to be reckoned with. You just can't get near them without getting poked full of holes. God help you if they know how to advance and withdraw.

Even in D&D this can be true because of the AoO system and 5-ft steps.

Add in some shields and you can make an effective unit out of a band of peasants in a very short time and for the low low price of hacking down some trees.

As a simple weapon I think the mechanics of spears in D&D are just fine. A shortspear is identical to a shortsword (a martial weapon) except that it only crits on a 20 and can be thrown in a pinch.

The longspear is only one die size smaller than a greatsword and has reach.

The javelin does as much damage as the shortbow, is much cheaper than a crossbow, and can be used as a melee weapon in a pinch without having to take an AoO.

Hot dang. I want to amass me some shield-bearers and get me a formation going! You don't need tower shield proficiency to use one to grant cover. March, commoners, march!

obnoxious
sig

Tacoma
2009-01-12, 04:35 PM
You can get the same effect if your tower shield rides around on wheels and you have a little window and a hole through which you can poke with your spear. The spear is always sticking out of the hole, you just jab and jab with it. When you want to move around, push the shield.

Or attach the shield to a Goblin Tricycle ...

Things are getting out of hand.

Shpadoinkle
2009-01-12, 05:19 PM
Spears are simple weapons, and deal damage comparable to other simple weapons. And historically, that's exactly what they've been. More advanced spears are called polearms, and have various special abilities. So I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you.
Pretty much. If you want a better spear, use some kind of polearm and just call it a spear.

Simanos
2009-01-12, 07:19 PM
I will refute most of you now :smalltongue:

Person_Man, Spears deal less damage than maces, another simple weapon. Also I already said that some buffs required martial prof. The initiative bonus is like the trip and disarm bonuses. Obviously you would get them when using the spear in melee (only) not casting a spell. Not all my ideas have to be applied.
I think the average medieval polearm soldier would not want to be facing the average ancient spearman (or hoplite)

ShneekeyTheLost, firstly I did NOT even change the Longspear FFS! Your criticism would be irrelevant even if accurate (it isn't completely).
I know how AoO work, do you know that double damage is only when the enemy Charged you? What you say is relevant to all reach weapons. You can also ready an attack and hit him once when arriving at your threatened square and again when he leaves it to get you. But then that's why there's tumble and failing that spring attack, no AoO for you...
Feat that forces opponents to stop when they get hit by an AoO? What feat is that (other than a trip attack that other polearms have)?

Draz74, I even allowed for martial prof instead of simple for the spear to be used one-handed. Using a Longspear one handed is the equivalent of a Lance and it could barely be allowed when mounted. Even then a Lance has been built with support for one hand so it's up to DM to decide. A reach weapon wielded one-handedly would be broken without these caveats.

BRC, there are varied levels of spear expertise. That said you are right about initiative, but I couldn't give Spear reach, it would be a major buff, there's no smaller square than 5' sadly in the scale. I could say that it can reach only straight and not diagonally though. Hmm, now the threatened area can become from 8 squares to 12, but that's too gamey for my likes, I can imagine people abusing it (offensively and defensively). Maybe if I went with the optional combat facing rules...
I think you're underestimating the power of the spear as a weapon though. In formation and out of it. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best. D&D just caters to fanboism more than realism. That's the only reason a spear got bad stats. The shield is also hugely underestimated in D&D.

Tacoma, the Longspear and the Spear are quite different. It does not look silly. In fact the Ancients used a shield with the Longspears. For example the Macedonian Sarissa (longspear) was combined with a light shield probably heavy by D&D standards, but whatever, certainly not a small buckler. They had mad-skillz :smallredface: . They also used composite materials for shields (and armor) not simply wood or metal.
There's no reason for the Shortspear to do 1d6 while the Spear does 1d8. It's the same "warhead" :smallredface: pretty much. The bastard sword does the same (1d10) one-handed and two-handed.
I think I will have to go with Another_Poet's suggestion. There's no reason to have 3 spears. Short/Long are enough, 1d8 one handed / 2d4 two handed, thrown with no reach / not thrown with reach.
What you describe is the advantage of all reach weapons, not just Longspears (which FFS I didn't even change). Also the AoO is not for entering the threatened square, it's for LEAVING it. And if the Longspear soldiers have combat reflexes and high dex then the swordsmen have high tumble or spring attack negating the AoOs. It gets supernasty because it's supposed to DOH! Don't charge a wall of Longspears (or similar reach weapons)! About the initiative, you don't like it for the Longspear fine, but what about the OTHER spear-types?!
BTW, the two side swordsmen are threatened by THREE spearmen each. Check the rules on reach. I'm just trying to be fair and open here.

Perhaps a good bonus for the "spear-type" would be to allow more(1? 2? 3?) spearmen than swordsmen to fit in the same 5 foot square, fighting side by side. Or allow Swordsmen to squeeze together like that too, but with penalties (-1 to attack and to damage sounds OK... per extra man :smallamused: )

Irreverent Fool, the Shortspear is not a Light weapon like the Shortsword. The Heavy Mace is a simple one-handed weapon like the Shortspear and it does 1d8 not 1d6.
In D&D 5' steps do not cause AoO. Also there's tumble and spring attack. Or you can just take it. 1 free AoO attack is like you just lost initiative at best, or at worst 1 free attack.
The Javelin sucks because of its weight and storage problems too. Don't compare it with a Bow which has easy ammunition and does not need for Quick Draw feat. At least Rapid Shot works for Javelins too (supposedly). Also the Longbow does 1d8.
The Longspear is 1d8 (and has reach), a Greatsword 2d6, Greataxe 1d12, many polearms are 1d10 (or at least 2d4). Also I did NOT change the god damn Longspear DID I?!


Look, I just think the D&D spear is getting a bad rap. And maybe that's the reason I've almost never had a player use it as a main weapon. Not even when I throw in javelins of lightning and piercing and bane spears of venom. I wanna see more iconic spearmen.


PS: Another_Poet, nice ideas. I'm thinking...

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-01-12, 07:31 PM
I will refute most of you now :smalltongue:

ShneekeyTheLost, firstly I did NOT even change the Longspear FFS! Your criticism would be irrelevant even if accurate (it isn't completely).
I know how AoO work, do you know that double damage is only when the enemy Charged you? What you say is relevant to all reach weapons. You can also ready an attack and hit him once when arriving at your threatened square and again when he leaves it to get you. But then that's why there's tumble and failing that spring attack, no AoO for you...
Feat that forces opponents to stop when they get hit by an AoO? What feat is that (other than a trip attack that other polearms have)?

There may be tumble, but there's also Hold The Line, which lets you hit him anyways, even if he tumbled, because it's a seperate AoO. This also works in conjunction with Hold The Line (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill) which easily lets you stop opponents from even reaching you, simply because you have reach.

Furthermore, anyone who wants to seriously use a reach weapon is going to get Combat Reflexes, because they have so much more potential for making AoO's. Most swordsmen, on the other hand, do NOT have Tumble, which is a cross-class skill for most classes that can even use a sword.

Bonecrusher Doc
2009-01-12, 07:42 PM
I agree that a Spear should be able to be wielded with one hand if you have martial weapon proficiency. Otherwise I wouldn't make any changes.

IMHO, Shortspear = Assegai, Longspear = Pike/Sarissa, Spear = Hoplite-style Spear

Tacoma
2009-01-12, 07:44 PM
I will refute most of you now :smalltongue:

Tacoma, the Longspear and the Spear are quite different. It does not look silly. In fact the Ancients used a shield with the Longspears. For example the Macedonian Sarissa (longspear) was combined with a light shield probably heavy by D&D standards, but whatever, certainly not a small buckler. They had mad-skillz :smallredface: . They also used composite materials for shields (and armor) not simply wood or metal.


According to Wikipedia:
The Sarissa was 13-21' long and used as a standard pike in phalanx formation. This is probably longer than what we think of as the long spear because it has a reach of 10' which means when the wielder stabs, the butt of the spear is perhaps 2-3 feet behind the wielder's center and so is at the very short variety of the Sarissa. Assuming it's two-handed. If it were one-handed it would need to be longer so the butt end could counter the weight.

The wiki also suggests that the Sarissa was useless outside that formation - probably because an individual spear could be dodged around because it was so heavy, and once you were inside the spearhead it couldn't do diddly squat to you.

And I still don't see how you could use something that long with one hand. I was envisioning the Greek dude spearing down overhand as if to throw, with a 6' spear, as being rather the longest you could do and still move freely. As in, not have the butt planted in the ground.

Oh well.

RS14
2009-01-12, 07:52 PM
You see, spears were used so often in history because they were cheap to make and easy to train people with. Also, a spear doesn't make you react faster (which is what Initative represents), it gives you a reach advantage. Really, you would need somthing like Shadowrun's system (Which gave melee bonuses for whomever had a longer reach). They can also be set against a charge.

Depends on setting. A level one commoner is proficient with one simple weapon, and unenchanted spears are just about the cheapest, most effective simple melee weapon available (with the sling being the best budget ranged weapon, and the heavy crossbow probably the best overall ranged weapon for an army). If you're thinking of outfitting 100,000 commoners to fight, these expenses can be quite serious.

On the other hand, if all armies are professional affairs with all soldiers having real class levels, you can probably afford to outfit a small force properly.

Edit: Er, actually meant to quote this bit:

YHowever, in Dnd where soldiers (warriors) come with basic training in everything from spears and slings to longbows and greatswords. And since most DM's and players don't worry about 13 gp when it comes to equipping, spears are hardly ever used.

Keld Denar
2009-01-12, 07:55 PM
Are you wearing a fall-arrest harness for that soap box? If not, I know a couple of OSHA inspecters who want to talk to you.

In all seriousness, there is already a difference between wielding a spear in 1 hand, and wielding it in both hands. Its called 1.5x str bonus. This consitutes for an adventurer, typically a +1-2 bonus to damage for wielding it with both hands. Thats also why a Bastard Sword does the same damage when 1handed or 2handed, the str bonus counts for the extra damage inflicted.

Also, in the grand scheme of things, like I just posted in your shield thread, base weapon damage means almost ZERO most of the time. Seriously, you want to change a spear from 1d6 to 1d8? Do it. Thats an average of 1 extra damage per hit. A 2handed meleer, if built right, should be doing ~25-30 damage per hit by about level 6 or so, so increasing it to 26-31 damage per hit is tiny. If you want to go out of your way to change the rules, more power to you. Personally, I think they are fine. Just like the time a poster on here introduced rules for having a wet bow string. Most small facets of game design REALLY don't make much difference, or make things needlessly complicated, or just don't add enough to the game to be worth making changes. Really. If you are that ambitious that you want to change things around, by all means. But don't come here and say ZOMG SPEARS ARE UNDERPOWERED BUFFS PLZ!

Oh, and btw, did you know that the game designers of 3.0 and 3.5 even came out and said that not all game choices are created equal? So, the Heavy Mace does 1 more damage per hit than the Short Spear...Hmmm, guess which one you should pick if you want to squeeze every last drip of damage out of your weapon? Not a hard choice. But, if you don't want to use a Heavy Mace, you really arn't losing much by going to the Short Spear, since by the time you factor in everything else, you are talking about a such a tiny difference, its not worth getting worked up about.

I guess some people just liked to get worked up...

BRC
2009-01-12, 07:55 PM
I suppose to properly simulate Medival armies, you would just give a bunch of commoners spears. But nobody uses commoners for combat, people use Warriors, which are proficient with the martial-weapon equivalent, the trident.

RS14
2009-01-12, 08:03 PM
I suppose to properly simulate Medival armies, you would just give a bunch of commoners spears. But nobody uses commoners for combat, people use Warriors, which are proficient with the martial-weapon equivalent, the trident.

That only works if you can afford to maintain a standing army. And I'll agree, in most settings, you do, because a) monsters can show up out of nowhere and start eating people, and b) a mid-level full-caster demolishes any massive conscript army. In those settings, it's ok that spears don't matter, because they're not much like real life, and we decide that our experience in real life no longer applies. In the low power settings, though, spears are plenty powerful as a cheap weapon.

BRC
2009-01-12, 08:09 PM
That only works if you can afford to maintain a standing army. And I'll agree, in most settings, you do, because a) monsters can show up out of nowhere and start eating people, and b) a mid-level full-caster demolishes any massive conscript army. In those settings, it's ok that spears don't matter, because they're not much like real life, and we decide that our experience in real life no longer applies. In the low power settings, though, spears are plenty powerful as a cheap weapon.
I suppose the medival army class equivilant would be
Commoner= Peasant conscript
Warrior= Professional solider
Fighter= Knight or other elite with formal training.

Simanos
2009-01-13, 11:14 AM
There may be tumble, but there's also Hold The Line, which lets you hit him anyways, even if he tumbled, because it's a seperate AoO. This also works in conjunction with Hold The Line (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill) which easily lets you stop opponents from even reaching you, simply because you have reach.

Furthermore, anyone who wants to seriously use a reach weapon is going to get Combat Reflexes, because they have so much more potential for making AoO's. Most swordsmen, on the other hand, do NOT have Tumble, which is a cross-class skill for most classes that can even use a sword.
Ah a psionic feat. No wonder I don't like them. Still:
"When a foe’s movement out of a square you threaten grants you an attack of opportunity, you can give up that attack and instead attempt to stop your foe in his tracks."
If your foe uses tumble or spring attack he doesn't grant you and AoO so you can't use this feat anyway. So you are wrong again.
The swordsmen can try tumble anyway, or they can use spring attack, or use a Tower Shield as cover to advance.
Also you didn't bother answering my MAIN point. That I did NOT change the Longspear AT ALL. Stop trolling please...

Simanos
2009-01-13, 11:22 AM
...
Do you have a point? I was just pointing how they could use at least a Light Shield (more than a buckler) and still effectively wield a big Longspear two-handed (I didn't imply they used it one-handed, that would be silly). D&D doesn't allow you to use a shield with a Longspear, but not even with a spear (perhaps it should)
All I said about two-handed going to one-handed was about the Spear (not the Longspear) and I made that a martial prof req. Bonecrusher Doc got it, why can't you? Maybe it's better to keep the Spear as two-handed and simply make a special rule to allow shield-use too, but not other weapons. The shield would have a telemon/shoulder-strap for this anyway. This would also make the spear different enough to other weapons. I'm still thinking, so far 3 ideas are nice in this thread.

Simanos
2009-01-13, 11:45 AM
Keld Denar, I see you've had many dealing with OSHA yourself :smalltongue:
I don't understand why you mention the STR mechanics, I didn't show anywhere I wasn't aware of them and they aren't really relevant (you don't show it). You can wield a Bastard Sword in one hand by going up a weapon prof level, but you can't do that with a Spear. So you agree with me that you should or not?
I understand that it doesn't make a big difference in the end. But many players will look at it when they are beginning their careers and every bit helps and they will not choose the noble spear. Plus it's dumb how "they" made the stats in D&D.
BTW, I wasn't worked up when I posted it. I was in a funny mood. That's why I used MMO lingo like "buff" and "pls". As a joke. Now it may have gone over your head so you accuse me of being an MMO-geek, but that's your failing not mine. Your point about the designers is irrelevant since we are discussing their very failings.


BRC, the Trident is one-handed unlike the Spear. Though you could argue the Trident is a buffed up Shortspear with bigger damage dice. In real combat it would depend on the skill level and on the armor and shield levels whether a trident would be better than a spear.

Draz74
2009-01-13, 12:53 PM
Draz74, I even allowed for martial prof instead of simple for the spear to be used one-handed. Using a Longspear one handed is the equivalent of a Lance and it could barely be allowed when mounted. Even then a Lance has been built with support for one hand so it's up to DM to decide. A reach weapon wielded one-handedly would be broken without these caveats.

I was just trying to simulate a historical phalanx. Some of them definitely used spears that were long enough to have reach; yet they still used shields, too. I guess instead of letting them use a longspear one-handed, you could make a feat that let them use one hand for a longspear (or normal spear) and a shield at the same time.

ericgrau
2009-01-13, 03:42 PM
I am really tired of the forums eating my posts. Honestly this only increases traffic even more during periods of high traffic b/c people have to redo their posts. Some form of error prevention would reduce lag. A long wait instead would be enough to discourage excessive posting. Time for a shorter version:

Other weapons have also been devastating historically, this is not a reason to buff it.

Spears get first strike from being thrown or reach. Rogues, especially halfling rogues (+3 AB) can take advantage of using it as both their first round ranged SA weapon and a second round flanking SA weapon. Plus it combines well with weapon focus (only need 1 feat), rapid shot and TWF. Full BAB classes can use the reach to stop charges and disarm/trip before the enemy gets near, w/o provoking an AoO even if they don't have the feat yet. That's auto denial of attacks against yourself and nearby allies. The AoO happens when they leave the threatened square, so you could do both the readied anti-charge attack and AoO. A fighter would use the better trident or a pole-arm, which also give disarm/trip bonuses btw. You can avoid the high magic item cost problem of having two weapons by getting other magic items (e.g., stat boosts) at early levels instead of a magic weapon, then getting the returning enchantment at higher levels when paying for an extra +1 isn't as bad.

Simanos
2009-01-14, 11:43 AM
I am really tired of the forums eating my posts. Honestly this only increases traffic even more during periods of high traffic b/c people have to redo their posts. Some form of error prevention would reduce lag. A long wait instead would be enough to discourage excessive posting. Time for a shorter version:

Other weapons have also been devastating historically, this is not a reason to buff it.

Spears get first strike from being thrown or reach. Rogues, especially halfling rogues (+3 AB) can take advantage of using it as both their first round ranged SA weapon and a second round flanking SA weapon. Plus it combines well with weapon focus (only need 1 feat), rapid shot and TWF. Full BAB classes can use the reach to stop charges and disarm/trip before the enemy gets near, w/o provoking an AoO even if they don't have the feat yet. That's auto denial of attacks against yourself and nearby allies. The AoO happens when they leave the threatened square, so you could do both the readied anti-charge attack and AoO. A fighter would use the better trident or a pole-arm, which also give disarm/trip bonuses btw. You can avoid the high magic item cost problem of having two weapons by getting other magic items (e.g., stat boosts) at early levels instead of a magic weapon, then getting the returning enchantment at higher levels when paying for an extra +1 isn't as bad.
How do halfings get +3 just from spear?
Lot's of ways to avoid AoOs, especially from movement. Many non core feats are imba, I don't allow that cheese.
You can't trip with a Longspear though...
Only a few weapons can trip, otherwise... unarmed attack only.
Returning property only works once per round. You need Quick Draw (unless you use my house rule) and multiple enchanted javelins...

Keld Denar
2009-01-14, 05:59 PM
How do halfings get +3 just from spear?
Halflings get a +2 dex, which gives +1 to hit with thrown weapons. They also get a +1 size bonus on all attack rolls. They also get a +1 racial bonus on all things thrown or slung, just because throwing things is such a common halfling hobby (I guess?).


Lot's of ways to avoid AoOs, especially from movement. Many non core feats are imba, I don't allow that cheese.

Many non-core feats also are terribad, and some core feats are pretty imba themselves. Natural Spell is considered to be possibly one of the most broken spells IN THE GAME, and its right there in the PHB. Irrational fear of non-core material isn't healthy. Don't be afraid to venture out of core, there are lots of things that are amazingly fun to play there, like Warblades and Dragonfire Adepts and abilities that make Bards and Paladins rediculously fun to play. Lots of awesome stuff, as long as you know the stupidly broken stuff like Incantrix and Planar Shephard. I've never heard anyone call a DFA overpowered, yet everyone I know that has ever played one (myself included) have raved about how much fun the class was to play.


You can't trip with a Longspear though...
Only a few weapons can trip, otherwise... unarmed attack only.

No, but you can with a Guisarme, a martial weapon and a distant relative of the spear. I'm guessing that if you are planning to be a trip guru, you'll have at least one level in a class that grants proficiency with all martial weapons. Then its just the matter of choosing the best tool for the job. You wouldn't turn in a screw with a hammer, nor would you pound in a nail with a screwdriver. The beauty of a spear is that its a simple weapon for people limited to simple weapon proficiencies.

Severedevil
2009-01-14, 08:02 PM
Best fix: Spear and Longspear can be used in one hand as a martial weapon, but their criticals fall from x3 to x2.

Now there's no weapon which is better in every way than the spear or longspear, whether you have access to martial weapons or not. (This modification means you can throw out the trident, too.) However, if you don't ever plan to throw the spear, it's slightly weaker than other one-handed martial weapons, and if you don't plan to use the longspear one-handed, it's weaker than the two-handed martial weapons. Further, this squares with historical use of both spears and longspears.

Stabbing sticks are flexible and effective weapons. Happy?

Fawsto
2009-01-14, 09:48 PM
Now... Same problem with the post eating monster here at my job's PC, so I am now at my home with a reliable internet conection and a lot of free time to spare, so I am about to rewrite everything I wrote... *sigh*...


Now, I've been always a big fan of spears and polearms far before 300 was on the big screens. I always tought that the SpearN'Board military formations were simply amazing. And I never liked how DnD showed in terms of mechanics to spears. I believe that the spear was the most significant weapon ever made, for some reasons I am not in the mood to re-write...

For this reason I changed spear slightly (or not so, if you are able to make it to the end :smalltongue: ):

First: Spears and Longspears are one and the same. It is the same weapon, but with a diference: If you want the reach, you must use it with your 2 hands. This means that you can use it with one hand without the reach properties and without any other problems. But wait, now I am probably making the Spear the most versatile weapon around the Simple ones. This is why the Spear is now a Martial Weapon. But do not worry, simple weapon adepts: You may still use the spear with 2 hands but without any reach properties as if it was a Simple weapon. Also if you have "Weapon Focus: Spear" you may use it as if it was a Martial weapon even if you do not actualy have Martial Proficiency with it.

I believe this first modification shows how a simple militia member would use a spear, most obviously as a pointy stick in comparisson with how a skilled soldier or a focused specialist would use it, using the weapon at it's full, taking benefits from the various ways to use the balance of the weapon.

Second: I am assuming that "Short Haft" is common sense among anyone who has Martial Proficiency: Spear or Weapon Focus: Spear. This means that with a action equivalent to unsheating a weapon a Spear adept is able to choose between it's 3 stances (2 handed reach, 1 handed no reach and 2 handed no reach) and use it properly.

Third: Almost all polearms are subjet to this rule. Glaives, Guisarms and Ranseurs are, however, treated as Exotic weapons when the user is trying to apply them with 1 hand or 2 hands without reach. Lances stay the same they are.

I am assuming that the diferent poles in those weapons are quite umbalanced to use in way that does not include the idea that your foe is standing a little bit farther to you.

This arrives at a breaking point: Why would anyone waste a feat on EWP: any above to effectively cause less damage? Or even to loose reach? Well, this goes a little bit further than the Spear subject here, as it is conected to a Modification that I created to suit the Bastard Sword. However, you are obviously allowed to stop reading right here. However, again, I suggest you read at least the first paragraph so you will understand what I've done to Polearms in general.

Simple and Short: While Using Power Attack with the Glaive, Guisarme or Ranseur, you apply your bonus to damage at a 1.5 ratio when using these weapons with one hand. Meaning that a Power Attack that takes 2 points from your BAB adds 3 points of damage while you are using any of the above with one hand.

My excuse for this is the same why these weapons are treated as Exotic while used that way: The Awkward Balance. Since their Poles are built with this rather unusual balance, a dedicated warrior would be able to take profit from it, dealing more damage with the increased momentum.

Now, why this goes far from the Spear subject? Well, because I first designed this in order to improve another Weapon: The Bastard Sword, and some of her cousins, like the Dire Pick, the Maul and other friends. The simple fact is this one: While power attacking with those weapons and using them with one hand, you do at a 2 per 1 ratio, 1 BAB means 2 points of damage, as if the weapon was being used with 2 hands. However, your strenght is not x1.5 in this situation, since you are not using the weapon with both hands to start with.



Now, this is no simple solution, as you will notice I seem to never give simple solutions :smalltongue: . Feel free to think whatever you want about it, and pehaps a better head out there will be able to simplify it a bit, heheheh. :smallbiggrin:

Good Luck folks and have a nice day.

edit: Wow, a nice second page entirely for me.

ericgrau
2009-01-14, 09:50 PM
You can't trip with a Longspear though...
Only a few weapons can trip, otherwise... unarmed attack only.
Returning property only works once per round. You need Quick Draw (unless you use my house rule) and multiple enchanted javelins...

For the trip I was referring to one of the pole-arms, specifically the guisarme. The returning property works for the rogue I described, since he spends a move action closing to melee during the first round anyway so he can flank for his sneak attacks. Thus he only uses one thrown attack per combat. I suppose he could full attack and move+attack the next round, but there'd be no net gain to that. But you're correct that going the full attack route, possibly including rapid shot, requires quick draw and multiple spears/javelins.

Thanks to Keld for explaining the +3. I agree that non-core material can be used with care, but I think even the supposedly broken stuff within core isn't as bad as most people think. Maybe it's a matter of the degree of brokenage, or the rare games where the DMs let players get away with things that should be silly. Natural spell is the one thing I might still ban if/when I DM, but that might be b/c it's the one thing I haven't taken a close look at yet.

Signmaker
2009-01-15, 12:38 AM
Very situational, but Stormtalon PRC lets you buy spears at 80% the price. Not quite what you're going for, but hey, cheaper price means more enhancements.

Simanos
2009-01-15, 07:38 AM
Well the halfling +3 AB isn't from spear then, it's from all thrown weapons. So no point in arguing that. And neither is there a point about arguing the merits of Guisarmes when complaining about Longspears in a post about Shortspears and Spears (that leaves Longspears alone mostly).

I'm going to go with Another_Poet and my suggestion's mix.


About the Natural Spell Feat, I realize it's pretty awesome, but isn't it also pretty necessary for the Druid to function? Other than giving him a way to get infinite wildshapes per day. On second thought though, the AD&D Druid didn't have this and he was fine wasn't he? And you could still abuse Call Lightning and a stealth flight form for night raids cause of the duration and concentration (only) requirement after the initial casting. Still, it depends on the DM and the game type. How much he allows the Wild magic property on items and various other stuff on the shape-changing rules. I always felt Druids got a bad deal in the AC of forms, but I didn't like the Druid who stayed 24/7 in Bear-form as a concept either. And they certainly gain much in maneuverability. When they get Earth Elemental it gets kinda silly though. Earth Glide is kinda broken isn't it? Didn't it use to have at least a few restrictions back in the day? Like tool-shaped stone and stuff stopped it (as opposed to natural stone)? Now all it says is metal stops it. Heh, does that include an iron rich vein in a mine? :smalltongue:
Seriously, how can a DM stop silly things like the Druid sinking into the Dungeon floor and changing rooms? Or melding into a wall and climbing to the ceiling and going into the room above? Escape, ambushing, etc become trivial.

Cybren
2009-01-15, 07:58 PM
Spears are simple weapons, and deal damage comparable to other simple weapons. And historically, that's exactly what they've been. More advanced spears are called polearms, and have various special abilities. So I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you.
A spear is also historically a more effective and more popular weapon than a sword. If your argument is modelling historical accuracy, why would the spear point on a halberd be deadlier than a spear point on a spear?

Simanos
2009-01-16, 07:19 PM
A spear is also historically a more effective and more popular weapon than a sword. If your argument is modelling historical accuracy, why would the spear point on a halberd be deadlier than a spear point on a spear?
Because all the rest of the stabby bits that make the polearms unwieldy assure you hit with more accuracy and force and penetrating power... erm no wait :smallredface:
Seriously though, the point of the polearms wasn't efficiency, but versatility. Some polearms provided slashing or bludgeoning attacks. Others had hooks so you could make people fall even when they passed you. Very heavy armor and cavalry suffered a lot from a fall.
But in the end, I believe some ancient armies would easily kick the butt of all medieval armies which sucked as much as their age. Spears (and bows) are efficient in their simplicity. And numbers also favor the ancients who had armies 10 to 100 times bigger than the medieval ones.

ericgrau
2009-01-16, 08:43 PM
And neither is there a point about arguing the merits of Guisarmes when complaining about Longspears in a post about Shortspears and Spears (that leaves Longspears alone mostly).

I included a great deal of pole-arms, not just guisarmes. See previous post for comments on spears and longspears. They do each have a large advantage in certain ways that can't be outdone by other weapons. That holds true in the hands of a halfling too. Being a generalized thrower doesn't mean a halfling won't pick a spear or javelin when those are already among the best throwing weapon options. The halfling rogue strat I posted does best with the regular spear above all other weapons, for one.

Signmaker
2009-01-16, 08:51 PM
About the Natural Spell Feat, I realize it's pretty awesome, but isn't it also pretty necessary for the Druid to function?

Not really. There's a common saying, it goes a bit like this:

"Spellcasting, Wildshape, Animal Companion. Take one away and the druid doesn't care."

Simply put, the druid is probably the best class that scales with level, on terms of 'power level'. It doesn't have the linear progression of a fighter, but it isn't as obscene as the quadratic progression of a wizard. It's decently powerful at almost all levels, to the point where you literally can take away one of the three pillars of the druid, and the druid won't fall down. Tis why Natural Spell is usually considered overpowered by quite a few, because it allows versatility between casting and wildshape forms. As for the animal companion, its potency goes without needing much explanation.

arguskos
2009-01-16, 08:54 PM
Not really. There's a common saying, it goes a bit like this:

"Spellcasting, Wildshape, Animal Companion. Take one away and the druid doesn't care."

Simply put, the druid is probably the best class that scales with level, on terms of 'power level'. It doesn't have the linear progression of a fighter, but it isn't as obscene as the quadratic progression of a wizard. It's decently powerful at almost all levels, to the point where you literally can take away one of the three pillars of the druid, and the druid won't fall down. Tis why Natural Spell is usually considered overpowered by quite a few, because it allows versatility between casting and wildshape forms. As for the animal companion, its potency goes without needing much explanation.
Personally, I typically remove Wild Shape. So far, Druids have STILL kicked ass, but not as spellcasting bears, just as spellcasters w/ bears. :smallwink:

monty
2009-01-16, 08:56 PM
It doesn't have the linear progression of a fighter, but it isn't as obscene as the quadratic progression of a wizard.

Nah. Druids are quadratic, but wizard power levels increase with approximately the 3.2137 power of their level. You can imagine what power level this puts them at when they hit level 17.

Signmaker
2009-01-16, 09:00 PM
Nah. Druids are quadratic, but wizard power levels increase with approximately the 3.2137 power of their level. You can imagine what power level this puts them at when they hit level 17.

Cute, monty.

Keld Denar
2009-01-16, 09:08 PM
Nah. Druids are quadratic, but wizard power levels increase with approximately the 3.2137 power of their level. You can imagine what power level this puts them at when they hit level 17.

OMG, THE POWER LEVEL, IT'S OVER 9000! (9001 to be exact)

arguskos
2009-01-16, 09:15 PM
Nah. Druids are quadratic, but wizard power levels increase with approximately the 3.2137 power of their level. You can imagine what power level this puts them at when they hit level 17.
I see what you did there. :smalltongue:

shadowfox
2009-01-16, 09:27 PM
You can also ready an attack and hit him once when arriving at your threatened square and again when he leaves it to get you.

I know I'm late to the party, but...


(page 112-113, a small excerpt from "Reach Weapons": ...A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike targets that aren't adjacent to him or her. Most reach weapons described in this chapter double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium character wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

Hence why the spiked chain has an advantage.

What are the odds of a Spiked Chain enthusiast actually taking an interest in this thread, only to point out a mistake? Here, considering you're asking people to beef up the stats of spears, I'd say the odds are slim.

monty
2009-01-16, 09:41 PM
Three replies in a row. That's like a hat trick of tired memes or something.

Samakain
2009-01-17, 05:23 AM
I can see the advantage of ruling spears be slightly more powerful, definitely. However the inability to attack in the adjacent square as stated above is there biggest failing. Short Haft from the PHBII rectifies this to a point but i've noticed a distinct lack of decent spear-related character options, certainly no PRC's for the polearm user of any description? or am i just blind? this seems to be a problem to if i'm right.

ericgrau
2009-01-17, 08:59 AM
You can't just take a 5 foot step backwards or diagonally back and to the side on your turn? You still get your full attacks without provoking an AoO.

Simanos
2009-01-17, 11:24 AM
I know I'm late to the party, but...



Hence why the spiked chain has an advantage.

What are the odds of a Spiked Chain enthusiast actually taking an interest in this thread, only to point out a mistake? Here, considering you're asking people to beef up the stats of spears, I'd say the odds are slim.
And the relevance of that to what I said is?
What are you saying exactly? You're probably wrong. Did you understand what I said?
Spiked Chain, yeah, silly weapon like Dire Flail or Orc Double Axe, or the feat Manyshot. Stay away from those...
If you are trying to be funny with that bit about asking people to beef up spears then OK, but if you think it's wrong logically then you're wrong. Already some people in this thread have agreed and even if they hadn't I made my case pretty well and my arguments weren't countered sufficiently so far.


I can see the advantage of ruling spears be slightly more powerful, definitely. However the inability to attack in the adjacent square as stated above is there biggest failing. Short Haft from the PHBII rectifies this to a point but i've noticed a distinct lack of decent spear-related character options, certainly no PRC's for the polearm user of any description? or am i just blind? this seems to be a problem to if i'm right.
You mean Longspears. Shortspears and Spears do not have reach. I condemn you to read this thread again :smalltongue:
Ericgrau also answered you guys too.

shadowfox
2009-01-17, 12:29 PM
You know, you're right... Partially. Yes, the spiked chain is a "silly weapon," but, as a personal preference, I enjoy using it as a weapon. But, at any rate, that's not the point that I was saying (so you can stop straw manning me now). I was simply saying that, in the case of the longspear, once an opponent closes in on you, you're unable to fight back, since normal reach weapons don't allow you to attack creatures in adjacent squares. That's why I even brought up the spiked chain: it's one of two weapons in the Core books that not only has reach, but can also attack opponents in adjacent squares.


However the inability to attack in the adjacent square as stated above is there biggest failing.

See this quote here? THAT is the point I was getting across. Nothing more, nothing less. Simply: the longspear is useless when the opponent is standing right next to you.

You yell at others for not reading, yet you fail to read the posts of others yourself.


You're probably wrong.

Again, you're talking to probably the one user on this forum who actually spends a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain). The one weapon in the Player's Handbook (and one of two weapons in the Core books) that says:

A spiked chain has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, it can be used against an adjacent foe.
Plus, I quoted the Player's Handbook, and I see no evidence form you stating the contrary to what I said. Assuming that I am wrong, and, therefore, throwing out my mere statement of fact is, by all matters, unjust, unfair, and illogical. You had no proof whatsoever that I was wrong, nor any basis to assume I was wrong. Plus, assuming I'm wrong just because you don't want to believe that I'm right is, quite simply, immature.

You assume people are wrong, and, therefore, you treat them like idiots. Look it up yourself. I gave you the page number and book. You might even be able to find it in the SRD.

Other than this, I have nothing more to say on this thread; I just wanted you to be aware of the longspear's reach properties.

Edit 1:

You can't just take a 5 foot step backwards or diagonally back and to the side on your turn? You still get your full attacks without provoking an AoO.
Then so can your opponent. And pray you don't end up closer to other enemies, against a wall, or end up in a corner.

Edit 2:

If you are trying to be funny with that bit about asking people to beef up spears then OK, but if you think it's wrong logically then you're wrong. Already some people in this thread have agreed and even if they hadn't I made my case pretty well and my arguments weren't countered sufficiently so far.
Be funny? I didn't even say anything about beefing up spear damage; I admit that, since you only need Simple Weapon Proficiency for them, that it's be a bad idea from a game mechanics perspective, but that's an opinion; that's what I think. I wasn't trying to be funny, or even voice my opinion on your proposal. That's your opinion and decision. (Plus, you'd do nothing but attack me if I went against you, and I had to reason to oppose your view, so I didn't enter into a needless fight.)

People agreeing with you isn't proof, but tells you you're not alone.

This matter, I think, is opinion-based. There's no concrete evidence on either side in my opinion, only personal preference and viewpoint. Therefore, I believe that it's impossible for either side to win in a fact-based argument, since evidence is largely opinion. Persuasively, though, this argument could have a winner, assuming that both sides were willing to yield to reason.

No personal attacks, no "you're wrong," nothing. I gave you no flak here; I only pointed out that Longspears have reach. That's it.

Have a good day.

Glyde
2009-01-17, 12:58 PM
I'm using a spear for my Beloved of Valarian because of the flavor... And that's what most of one's decisions in D&D should be about, right?

Simanos
2009-01-18, 11:39 AM
Then so can your opponent. And pray you don't end up closer to other enemies, against a wall, or end up in a corner.
Well, then you have to change weapon, withdraw, move, pay for that free attack and AoO you got at the start you know...
Anyway, I'm not going to defend the Longspear if you say it sucks (in some ways). Battle it out with the dudes who said it was imba. I'm not even changing it FFFS!
Do you have anything to say on subject, about the Spear and Shortspear? Anything relevant and insightful?

Why do you think you're the only one who uses Lame-Chain?

So what did you mean exactly when you said:
"What are the odds of a Spiked Chain enthusiast actually taking an interest in this thread, only to point out a mistake? Here, considering you're asking people to beef up the stats of spears, I'd say the odds are slim."

It's really illogical that a light simple weapon like the sickle is treated the same as the mighty Shortspear. The entire (UP) existance of the Shortspear is I think so they could make Spear two-handed. At the very least the Shortspear should have x3 crits. I'm also feeling partial to include rules about tight formations (and spaces) that benefit weapons that can be wielded with little space.

Fhaolan
2009-01-18, 01:24 PM
Slippery slope.

No, I'm actually quite serious with that statement. The stats for D&D weapons in general are all a bit off in weird ways. Once you start fiddling to try to get one of them to map better to your beliefs, you'll start feeling the need to 'rectify' all the weapons. Which leads to a morass of trying to balance realism, gameplay, etc.

All a spear is is a dagger on a stick. The stick provides leverage, reach and possibly enhanced flight characteristics when used as a missle (depending on the length of the stick). In order to rectify the spear, you need to look at every weapon based on the spear, like javelins, darts, arrows, longspears, glaives, spetums, etc. Oh, and every weapon the spear is based on. Which means you start looking at staves and the like as well. From here you create a new category of size; the 'bastard' which the bastard sword, the spear, the dwarven battleaxe, and others will fall into that all follow consistant rules of 'two-handed, unless you have special training (feat) that allows you to use it one handed'. This spreads to the desire to rectify *all* weapons, creating rules for combo weapons like the halberd that can act like a spear, an axe, and a pick, depending on the user's choice.

Then you will hit the unfortunate realization that it doesn't really matter overall. The way D&D is built, the weapon statistics don't mean a heck of a lot in the long run. Enhancements and the like vastly overwhelm the original statistics of the weapons once you're past level 5 or so.

Then they come out with a new edition of D&D where everything is re-arranged and you have to start all over again.

And then you spiral into depression and destroy all the work you've done creating a rectified weapon statistics system.

Ask me how I know... :smallbiggrin:

shadowfox
2009-01-18, 02:22 PM
Well, then you have to change weapon, withdraw, move, pay for that free attack and AoO you got at the start you know...
Anyway, I'm not going to defend the Longspear if you say it sucks (in some ways). Battle it out with the dudes who said it was imba. I'm not even changing it FFFS!

Never, sir, did I say it sucks. At any point. Whatsoever. I was merely pointing out something as a matter-of-fact. You are right that withdrawing would be a good idea, as it prevents at least one AoO, but you also must weight in that it is a full-round action (from the square you started in); I'd also assume that, for argument's sake, it is a 1-on-1 battle. If you are referring to the more general term of "withdraw," then that's also another viable option too.


Why do you think you're the only one who uses Lame-Chain?

So what did you mean exactly when you said:
"What are the odds of a Spiked Chain enthusiast actually taking an interest in this thread, only to point out a mistake? Here, considering you're asking people to beef up the stats of spears, I'd say the odds are slim."

As a small tangent from the actual question, I'll assume that you may be trying to insult me by calling the Spiked Chain the "Lame-Chain." It's a personal preference, and adds flavor to a character... Especially when he can dish out more damage than the Stonechild Fighter of equal level (because the DM ignored racial HD and LA) while flanking an opponent, without being the the enemy's threatened area.

Back on point: Actually, given that many of the people I run into do know how to optimize a character, I have gotten the general feeling that, with only a few exceptions, taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain) to dish out 2d4 damage, I considered that it's not exactly optimized material (again, with the possibility of one or two exceptions, but that's me being hopeful). As for the comment, I'll admit that was done a little bit to spite our rivalry in the other thread, but also because you were asking people to make the spears better, I was taking a guess that... Well, I don't even know what serious thing I was trying to say.


It's really illogical that a light simple weapon like the sickle is treated the same as the mighty Shortspear. The entire (UP) existance of the Shortspear is I think so they could make Spear two-handed. At the very least the Shortspear should have x3 crits.
I both agree and disagree, but I'll admit that some of it (mostly disagreeing) is knit-picking:
1) Weight (sickle is 2 pounds, shortspear is 3 pounds) (knit-picking, don't mind this)
2) Damage type (sickle is slashing, shortspear is piercing) (knit-picking, don't mind this)
3) Cost (sickle is 6 GP, shortspear is 1 GP) (really only affects first level characters who focus on buying things other than weapons; don't mind this)
4) Throwing (although any weapon can be thrown, without the Throw Anything feat (Complete Warrior; I'm just bringing it up, not trying to say anything), you suffer a -4 penalty to attack and a range increment of 10 feet; the shortspear, however, has a range increment of 20 feet)

Now, here comes the real serious agree/disagree part: using the shortspear in both its intended roles. As a melee weapon, you're right; the shortspear is a bit lacking. It's damage isn't amazing, it's crit range is, well, in the most common category of crit ranges, and it's crit multiplier is underwhelming for a weapon that was designed to stab through someone. Now, apply it to being used as a throwing weapon...

Now, when it comes to the Core throwing weapons, the shortspear is only beat by it's two-handed sibling, the spear. But, still, at lower levels you can S&B with it if you want, but if you want to throw it, that 20' range increment will help. Compared to Simple Ranged Weapons, the shortspear has the ability to outperform damage-wise, as you add your Str modifier to damage (and 1.5*Str mod with the spear). With a shortspear, even if you only have a +2 Str mod, you can deal as much or more damage as a Light Crossbow of the same size. (I'd assume that only the Javelin can compare in this situation, but that's assuming that when it says "meant for throwing," it counts as a throwing weapon.)

But then comes the other argument: how many shortspears will you carry? Would you be willing to carry many shortspears? If you're going to throw it, can't you use something better? If you're only going to use it for melee, can't you find a better melee weapon?

I do, in fact, see your point. (I've had a lot of time to think about this and, surprisingly, you've got the gears in my head turning. To be serious, congrats on doing something that not many people can accomplish.)

I'll admit that I don't agree with all of your proposed changes, as listed in your first post. Javelins aren't made for melee combat; they're literally designed to be thrown. Their physical properties make them very poor for melee, which is why they have a -4 penalty. I also disagree with the spears and javelin giving a bonus to Initiative; despite being of first-strike nature or not, such a bonus is more along the lines of enchantment-worthy, and putting them on Simply Weapons would be, simply put, insane. It would imply more training than just how to wield it, boosting it up to at least Martial (if not Exotic), and drive the cost up significantly. I'm also against giving the javelin a x3 Crit multiplier, since I don't believe the nature of the weapon warrants a crit mod such as that (you can stab someone with full force in melee range with a shortsword, and you only have a better chance to get critical damage). Again, that last one is more of a personal opinion than an actual argument.

x3 Crit multiplier to shortspear sounds good, as, like I said earlier, it is kind of designed for you to stab through someone. Although I understand the realistic differences between the Spear and Longspear, there's little mechanical difference. I'd personally rule the longspear out, and say that the spear be a 1-handed weapon, allowing it to be wielded two-handed (and still able to apply 1.5*Str mod). I'd also rule that, possibly as a move-equivalent action (or giving up an attack) and by provoking an AoO, you can change it to have 10' reach.

Honestly, if you ran a game where thrown weapons did, in fact, have to be drawn as any other weapon, ruling that javelins can be drawn as though they were ammunition would make them more appealing.


I'm also feeling partial to include rules about tight formations (and spaces) that benefit weapons that can be wielded with little space.

Hoping I'm reading it right (applies to shortspear only), I can also see a point in that. If you go outside of Core, and even some third-party books, you can find some feats that support the "buddy-system," so to speak. There are rules for multiple creatures in one square (mostly dealing with grappling, though I don't remember where to find them for the life of me), and I've even gotten into talks with my friend who tried implementing his own combat space system a couple years back (although he wasn't trying to support close-space fighting, just altering how many creatures can fit into a single 5-foot square; needless to say, you have a better case so far). Although I'm sure you know this, there are the rules for moving and fighting in smaller spaces than normal, but I'm not sure how well they will help you.

Overall, you can say that 2 medium-sized creatures with shortspears can occupy the same square at no penalties, and cannot be flanked. I can also imagine 3 or 4 Small-sized creatures fitting in one 5-foot square as well.

As long as it doesn't end up too complicated, you can pull it off.

Best of luck.

Simanos
2009-01-25, 04:10 PM
That sounds pretty reasonable guys (last 2 posts).

This is what seems the most reasonable

Shortspear 1d6(x3)
Javelin 1d6(x2) (no melee penalty)
Spear 1d8(x3)
Longspear 1d8(x3) (reach)

A few (within reason) Javelins (or other thrown weapons) can be held in offhand and thrown (from main hand) without need for Quick Draw feat, even with a shield (sometimes, shield has to be small or specially made to hold specific thrown weapons). If offhand is completely free (no shield) then drawing thrown weapons is free like ammunition.