PDA

View Full Version : Why no 1h reach weapons?



Darth Stabber
2011-02-18, 11:37 AM
The title states it pretty well. Is there any mechanical reason that makes a 1h reach weapon undoable. I was watching 300 again a couple nights ago, and I thought to myself, there is no way those are short spears, and yet they still have shields.

Aharon
2011-02-18, 11:51 AM
Well, there is the whip, which is 1-handed:smallsmile:

Angry Bob
2011-02-18, 11:53 AM
The Kusari-Gama from the DMG and the Spinning Sword from Secrets of Sarlona are both one-handed reach weapons. As a bonus, they're also both like the spiked chain, in that they can strike guys adjacent to you as well.

The whip is actually technically ranged, not reach. Meaning it doesn't threaten an area.

cheezewizz2000
2011-02-18, 11:54 AM
I believe there is a feat that allows for a spear to be used one handed in conjuction with a shield, but I agree, and in games I run I allow characters to use spears one handed.

Tankadin
2011-02-18, 12:05 PM
Not to impugn the historical accuracy of 300, but…

It is probably a awkward/handling thing. An overhand spear thrust isn’t going to be good against anyone that isn’t moving through those three squares directly in front of you—with just one arm it isn’t likely you could interdict anyone in any of those other threatened squares.

Plus, in the context of actual hoplite combat, well, you have a bunch of buddies on either side so you only need to threaten the spaces right in front of you.

Other exotic weapons would work (as mentioned upthread), but wielding a 9 foot long spear gracefully sounds rough.

Aharon
2011-02-18, 12:08 PM
@AngryBob
It's a weird hybrid, but in it's definition, th whip clearly has the sentence


The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes).

Occasional Sage
2011-02-18, 12:10 PM
Not to impugn the historical accuracy of 300, but…


Can't impugn what doesn't exist. That's mockery, not slander.

Cogidubnus
2011-02-18, 12:11 PM
Just to clarify your inspiration: the spears in 300 are reasonably realistic. A hoplite would carry a 9ft wood spear with two iron tips, and a 3ft diameter bronze-plated wooden shield. They could run, while also in armour, with these. So there is no physical reason.

There is a reason, though. Reach weapons mostly deal as good damage as a non-reach weapon, with the added advantage of hitting opponents who can't hit back (often) and threatening an area. So balance ditates your longsword needs an advantage over longspear. Even though sword and board is a fairly unoptimised style, and that balance goes out the window because of that.

Grelna the Blue
2011-02-18, 12:12 PM
In Pathfinder, you can take the Phalanx Soldier (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter#TOC-Phalanx-Soldier) variant on the Fighter class and get the ability to use a polearm or spear as a one-handed weapon at 3rd level.

RndmNumGen
2011-02-18, 12:12 PM
Plus, in the context of actual hoplite combat, well, you have a bunch of buddies on either side so you only need to threaten the spaces right in front of you.

This right here. Longspear + Heavy Shield is an excellent combination in formation. In the small melees common to D&D, or worse 1-on-1 combat, it really flounders next to weapons like the shortsword, mace or handaxe.

Amphetryon
2011-02-18, 12:12 PM
The whip was ranged in 3.0, hence the confusion. This came up during the pyrokineticist Iron Chef contest.

Darth Stabber
2011-02-18, 12:16 PM
Historical accuracy has never been a feature of D&D, emulating fiction is a more reasonable goal, and there are many stories with longspear shield combos

Typewriter
2011-02-18, 12:24 PM
Five foot squares....

Trying to think of a better way to say it, but I think this disconnect can be linked to five foot squares.

RndmNumGen
2011-02-18, 12:28 PM
Historical accuracy has never been a feature of D&D, emulating fiction is a more reasonable goal, and there are many stories with longspear shield combos

Yes. How many of those stories are of a single guy, rather than a formation?

Relatively few, and most of those are demigods.

Cogidubnus
2011-02-18, 12:29 PM
Not to impugn the historical accuracy of 300, but…

It is probably a awkward/handling thing. An overhand spear thrust isn’t going to be good against anyone that isn’t moving through those three squares directly in front of you—with just one arm it isn’t likely you could interdict anyone in any of those other threatened squares.

Plus, in the context of actual hoplite combat, well, you have a bunch of buddies on either side so you only need to threaten the spaces right in front of you.

Other exotic weapons would work (as mentioned upthread), but wielding a 9 foot long spear gracefully sounds rough.

They can be and wear wielded underarm though, so in DnD, where you're assumed to be facing everywhere at once, it's not so non-sensical.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-18, 01:35 PM
The whip was ranged in 3.0, hence the confusion. This came up during the pyrokineticist Iron Chef contest.

Now there's a class I haven't played for a few years...Damn, dual wielding whips was not the most awesome of builds ever, but it was interesting.

Jay R
2011-02-18, 01:46 PM
I've done it in the SCA, and I know something about Spartans. I'd require STR 16+ for one-handed spear work (which is why I'm no good at it). I'd also require CON 16+ to be a Spartan, by the way.

But the real problem is that it takes two hands to adjust reach quickly. In a one-on-one fight, the spear-and-shield gets the first attack, and the sword-and-shield gets the next twenty shots, because he's inside the reach of the spear, and the spearman cannot easily adjust his grip with one hand. (I once defeated a glaive with dagger and buckler. The crucial aspect of that bit of anecdotal evidence is that he is a better fighter than I am. But my combo was better. I parried his first shot, and then threw about six before I hit him.)

The ideal use of spear-and-shield is in a shield wall, where somebody who gets past the spearpoint can be killed by a spearman in the second or third rank. (It also helps to have armor that is nearly impervious to the enemy's weapons, as the Spartan hoplites did).

And once you have 12 foot spears, the first rank don't need them, and are better off with swords. There's a 1608 manual showing how to ready your pike, use it, and eventually how to drop it and ready sword and shield, without interfering with the weapons of those around you in a tight formation. By the time you get to the front, you should have a shield up.

Shield and six-foot spear works moderately well, but it is distinctly inferior to sword and shield.

Critical
2011-02-18, 01:50 PM
The title states it pretty well. Is there any mechanical reason that makes a 1h reach weapon undoable. I was watching 300 again a couple nights ago, and I thought to myself, there is no way those are short spears, and yet they still have shields.

Monkey Grip?

Doug Lampert
2011-02-18, 02:00 PM
Just to clarify your inspiration: the spears in 300 are reasonably realistic. A hoplite would carry a 9ft wood spear with two iron tips, and a 3ft diameter bronze-plated wooden shield. They could run, while also in armour, with these. So there is no physical reason.

And a nine-foot spear with a counterwieght and held at the ballance probably isn't long enough to count as a reach weapon, in that you can't hit someone 10' away without moving forward substantially.


...
The ideal use of spear-and-shield is in a shield wall, where somebody who gets past the spearpoint can be killed by a spearman in the second or third rank. (It also helps to have armor that is nearly impervious to the enemy's weapons, as the Spartan hoplites did).

And once you have 12 foot spears, the first rank don't need them, and are better off with swords. There's a 1608 manual showing how to ready your pike, use it, and eventually how to drop it and ready sword and shield, without interfering with the weapons of those around you in a tight formation. By the time you get to the front, you should have a shield up.

Shield and six-foot spear works moderately well, but it is distinctly inferior to sword and shield.

And shield and six-foot spear clearly should not have reach. It simply isn't long enough when you take into account that a spear is held on the shaft rather than by an added hilt at the back end.

Jay R
2011-02-18, 03:48 PM
And a nine-foot spear with a counterwieght and held at the ballance probably isn't long enough to count as a reach weapon, in that you can't hit someone 10' away without moving forward substantially.

One handed, you're right. With a two handed spear, your front hand is near the balance; your back hand is near the back of the shaft, and will be the only one on the spear when it reaches its furthest distance. I can hit a target almost nine feet in front of my hand -- call it ten feet in front of me -- with a nine foot spear. Look at the shot shown at about 2:15-2:20 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VwLWp0zok&feature=related).


And shield and six-foot spear clearly should not have reach. It simply isn't long enough when you take into account that a spear is held on the shaft rather than by an added hilt at the back end.

It reaches farther than my one-handed swords, but not by much. (A little over four feet beyond my hand, as opposed to three. )