[Combat Style] Axe or spear?

[Kiero]

In an upcoming game, I'm playing a martial artist warrior-sorceror character in a homebrew setting (wiki (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Acrozatarim)). It's a 13th Age game (the class is Elemental Knight (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Acrozatarim/Elemental_Knight)), but that's only relevant insofar as weapon choices aren't as detailed or filled with traps or optimal choices.

What I'm undecided on is what his combat style is, ie primary weapon and thus how that influences how I envisage the fighting. As an Iron Knight, his battlefield role is that of heavy infantryman, heavily armoured (relatively speaking, it's scale armour) elite trooper. He'll use a shield (there's a two-handed weapon fighter in the group, and I always play dual-wielders so am consciously avoiding that), which means it has to be a one-handed weapon. I don't really do swordsmen, he carries a shortsword for close formation work, but it's strictly a sidearm/backup.

What I'm currently thinking is a battleaxe, which is a classic formation-breaking weapon that is more robust than a sword, as well as easier to maintain. In the style of a Persian tabarzin most likely, so handy from horseback too should it be necessary. Besides, he's a former apprentice smith, so something almost a hammer, but not quite seems fitting.

However, I'm also musing on a spear - it's a classic martial arts weapon with a host of cool stunt potential, and the Chinese called it the "king of battle". It wouldn't be too hard to find videos of Shaolin lance fighting to inspire.

Or is there a third option I hadn't considered, but should be? I'm not interested in goofy things with spikes or impractical looking fantasy weapons, keep it strictly realistic, please.

[The_Werebear]

Hmm... Personally, I'd go with axe, especially if you envision yourself as a heavy formation breaker and are going to be using a shield as well.

[Animastryfe]

I think this is a good weapon for the Real World Weapons and Armour thread, as long as you are not asking for game statistics. From your description, I favor the axe. He can use a spear as a primary weapon while mounted, then switch to the axe after.

[Kane0]

I'd also vote axe, unless you are intending to play up the martial artist feel and dance around the battlefield flicking a spear in people's faces. That doesn't match well with the idea of a formation-breaking legionnaire though.

[Mastikator]

A spear can be used as a walking stick, which fits in with the sorcerer part. And spears are superior than axes or swords in coordinated combat formations (but inferior in melee).

A warrior shouldn't just have one weapon, I'd say keep one two handed long spear, one one handed short spear and a few javelins. Spears are also one of the cheapest weapon, so it's no problem to have many.

[Berenger]

A few thoughts:

1. For fighting with shield & spear you'll need a shorter backup weapon, as the spear becomes nearly useless at very close ranges and you'd be forced to fall back and break formation. But your short sword already covers this part well.

2. Spears have to be carried in your hand the whole time, whereas shorter weapons can be sheathed or hooked up on your belt.

3. Some axes and spears can double as ranged weapons.

4. Depending on the expected armor of your opponents, a flanged mace may be another solid choice.

5. A battleaxe is only more robust than a sword if the wooden part is replaced or heavily reinforced with metal. It will be a very cumbersome weapon.

[Kiero]

Hmm... Personally, I'd go with axe, especially if you envision yourself as a heavy formation breaker and are going to be using a shield as well.

Indeed, that was some of the reasoning for an axe. Plus they're cool.


I think this is a good weapon for the Real World Weapons and Armour thread, as long as you are not asking for game statistics. From your description, I favor the axe. He can use a spear as a primary weapon while mounted, then switch to the axe after.

True enough, nothing stopping him having multiple weapons.


I'd also vote axe, unless you are intending to play up the martial artist feel and dance around the battlefield flicking a spear in people's faces. That doesn't match well with the idea of a formation-breaking legionnaire though.

My only issue with the martial artist spear stuff is that virtually everything inspired by Shaolin lance techniques assumes you have both hands on the spear.


A spear can be used as a walking stick, which fits in with the sorcerer part. And spears are superior than axes or swords in coordinated combat formations (but inferior in melee).

A warrior shouldn't just have one weapon, I'd say keep one two handed long spear, one one handed short spear and a few javelins. Spears are also one of the cheapest weapon, so it's no problem to have many.

He's not a sorceror at all; if anything he's a gish with elemental-themed magic, so he doesn't need a walking stick. :smalltongue:

There's plenty of weapons already, shortsword for backup, and I was planning javelins for ranged combat. But you're right, there's no reason not to carry a spear and axe. Though I've no use for a longer spear (mechanically that would be a pike).


A few thoughts:

1. For fighting with shield & spear you'll need a shorter backup weapon, as the spear becomes nearly useless at very close ranges and you'd be forced to fall back and break formation. But your short sword already covers this part well.

2. Spears have to be carried in your hand the whole time, whereas shorter weapons can be sheathed or hooked up on your belt.

3. Some axes and spears can double as ranged weapons.

4. Depending on the expected armor of your opponents, a flanged mace may be another solid choice.

5. A battleaxe is only more robust than a sword if the wooden part is replaced or heavily reinforced with metal. It will be a very cumbersome weapon.

1. Yep.

2. That's a good point; on this I'm looking at having an apprentice - they can literally be a spear carrier.

3. I'm planning on carrying javelins to cover that area, rather than chucking my main weapon away. Although he's pretty deadly unarmed too (and with one of his powers, his fists are as effective as an axe or sword).

4. Yes, a mace or flail might make a third option. There's no specialisation rules or the like, so I'm not penalised in choosing something else instead, or switching about in play.

5. True, though it's much easier to repair/replace a broken haft than a broken blade.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well, axes beat spears, but spears beat swords and swords beat axes...

[Garimeth]

Kiero, a few things.

1. Stormlight Archives by Branden Sanderson the character Kaladin Stormblessed uses a spear and has magic-like powers. It is super cool. Also when you talk spear and shield the Aiel from WoT are pretty cool.

2. In the 13th Age you can grab the feat reach trick if you use a spear and do some cool stuff.

3. The spear is a standard "military" weapon. Ala roman legionary.

4. Spears are more common than axes, your guy is not part of the "establishment" (going off your post in our 13th Age thread) so spear makes more sense than axe for your guy to have learned.

5. If you want to avoid the mutiple spears thing as a carrying problem, have a quiver of spears. Either carried or attached to saddles. This also gives you a weapon you can channel spells through, thrown or melee.

So yeah, my vote is spear. lol.

[erikun]

The first question in my mind is: Why you would want a sword and an axe? They're a very similar weapon with a similar range that you would use in a similar manner. Unless you are looking at using the axe for one specific task (armor breaking?) and the sword for something else (puncturing?) I'm not sure why you'd want both. If you want something swordlike and axelike, I'd actually recommend a kopis or a hoplite sword, both of which have a curved chopping edge like an axe with a point and full blade like a sword. Here are some videos for the kopis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keq-HGNX37E) and hoplite sword (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULsbH8ZbUEc) to give you a good idea of what they look like.

A spear would have a different use, keeping opponents at reach so that you can hit them and they can't strike back as easily. As others have mentioned, it isn't as useful in an individual fight as it is in formation; people could just step around your spear. And most game systems don't really model that reach well anyways.

What do you mean by a "formation-breaking weapon" exactly? If you're talking about some sort of spear-breaker to get through formations of pikemen, then you'd want something longer than an standard axe. Something like a two-handed sword or axe, which would take away your shield. If you're just looking for something to punch through armor, though, a standard axe could work, although I'd be more inclined towards a flanged mace or morning star myself.

[Knaight]

Generally speaking, I'd go with the spear - but you've already decided on a shield. In two hands, spears are highly effective, highly deadly weapons. They're fast, they're maneuverable, they give you a reach advantage against just about everything, so on and so forth. In one hand, almost all of that is gone - they are still very much usable, and you will still have some degree of reach advantage, but they aren't great weapons under skirmish circumstances, unless it's the sort of skirmish where you've got a whole bunch of other people with shields and spears beside you.

[Brother Oni]

Generally speaking, I'd go with the spear - but you've already decided on a shield. In two hands, spears are highly effective, highly deadly weapons. They're fast, they're maneuverable, they give you a reach advantage against just about everything, so on and so forth. In one hand, almost all of that is gone - they are still very much usable, and you will still have some degree of reach advantage, but they aren't great weapons under skirmish circumstances, unless it's the sort of skirmish where you've got a whole bunch of other people with shields and spears beside you.

While I'll agree that you lose a fair bit of mobility, you can still use a spear two handed with a shield, although you won't be doing any flashy Shaolin spear techniques.
You definitely need a short weapon though as someone mentioned.

[Kiero]

Kiero, a few things.

1. Stormlight Archives by Branden Sanderson the character Kaladin Stormblessed uses a spear and has magic-like powers. It is super cool. Also when you talk spear and shield the Aiel from WoT are pretty cool.

2. In the 13th Age you can grab the feat reach trick if you use a spear and do some cool stuff.

3. The spear is a standard "military" weapon. Ala roman legionary.

4. Spears are more common than axes, your guy is not part of the "establishment" (going off your post in our 13th Age thread) so spear makes more sense than axe for your guy to have learned.

5. If you want to avoid the mutiple spears thing as a carrying problem, have a quiver of spears. Either carried or attached to saddles. This also gives you a weapon you can channel spells through, thrown or melee.

So yeah, my vote is spear. lol.

1. I'm thinking more like hoplites (heavy armour, big shield, long one-handed spear) than Aiel (who are lightly/unarmoured skirmishers with short spears and bucklers).

2. I'm aware of it, I wasn't terribly impressed. This is more a cosmetic thing than anything else, informing what sorts of stunts I should be using.

3. Later legionaries, certainly, but the ones we generally think of (late Republican/early Principate) are swordsmen.

4. Absolutely, spears are the most common weapon around, nothing in the setting changes that. There isn't a shortage of trainers for particular weapons where he learned to fight (which is basically a monastery-fortress), so this is more really about which he chooses to fight with, rather than which he is able to.

5. I like the caddy option for that. :smallsmile:


The first question in my mind is: Why you would want a sword and an axe? They're a very similar weapon with a similar range that you would use in a similar manner. Unless you are looking at using the axe for one specific task (armor breaking?) and the sword for something else (puncturing?) I'm not sure why you'd want both. If you want something swordlike and axelike, I'd actually recommend a kopis or a hoplite sword, both of which have a curved chopping edge like an axe with a point and full blade like a sword. Here are some videos for the kopis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keq-HGNX37E) and hoplite sword (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULsbH8ZbUEc) to give you a good idea of what they look like.

A shortsword (of a xiphos- or gladius-type pattern) and battleaxe are completely different in application. One is for close order fighting, good in a press and when locked shield-to-shield with your companions. The other is for open order fighting, when a melee has dissolved into chaos and there's room to swing. The shortsword is a thrusting weapon with a much shorter range than the axe.

I'm also intentionally not taking a sword as the main weapon, which is why the options in this discussion for main are axe or spear.


A spear would have a different use, keeping opponents at reach so that you can hit them and they can't strike back as easily. As others have mentioned, it isn't as useful in an individual fight as it is in formation; people could just step around your spear. And most game systems don't really model that reach well anyways.

Reach isn't really a consideration in a system as abstracted as 13A; as before this is more about the visuals and stunts. Neither weapon is intrinsically better than the other, mechanically.


What do you mean by a "formation-breaking weapon" exactly? If you're talking about some sort of spear-breaker to get through formations of pikemen, then you'd want something longer than an standard axe. Something like a two-handed sword or axe, which would take away your shield. If you're just looking for something to punch through armor, though, a standard axe could work, although I'd be more inclined towards a flanged mace or morning star myself.

I mean an armour-penetrating weapon for hacking down heavy infantry. None of the nations who've been described to us so far use pikemen; levy spearmen with a small cadre of elites of some sort are more their style.


Generally speaking, I'd go with the spear - but you've already decided on a shield. In two hands, spears are highly effective, highly deadly weapons. They're fast, they're maneuverable, they give you a reach advantage against just about everything, so on and so forth. In one hand, almost all of that is gone - they are still very much usable, and you will still have some degree of reach advantage, but they aren't great weapons under skirmish circumstances, unless it's the sort of skirmish where you've got a whole bunch of other people with shields and spears beside you.

We've been told there will be opportunities for bigger-scale combats in this, where my character might be the front rank of a shield wall/phalanx so it is a possibility.


While I'll agree that you lose a fair bit of mobility, you can still use a spear two handed with a shield, although you won't be doing any flashy Shaolin spear techniques.
You definitely need a short weapon though as someone mentioned.

I've got the shortsword backup for a short weapon. He's also got his bare hands and feet, which are pretty effective.

[Brother Oni]

I've got the shortsword backup for a short weapon. He's also got his bare hands and feet, which are pretty effective.

Oops, sorry I forgot I'm not in the Real World Weapons and Tactics thread. :smallredface:

Typically a 11th Century spearman would hold a knife in his rear hand while fighting, so that anybody that got under the reach of the spear would get a knife in the face instead.

In most games, combat is usually abstract enough that this level of detail is unnecessary.

[Garimeth]

What kind of armor are you wearing?

Why not do an axe in the main hand and just the other hand open? Tell the DM you want the axe to be big enough to be usable as a 2h weapon or 1h weapon (like the 3.5 bastard sword) and use the open hand for spells and unarmed attacks/grappling, and spells?

Mechanically, you are maxing your damage.

Visually, if you are in light armor, or unarmored using a variant of the sorceror talent spell fist, that would look awesome.

[Knaight]

3. Later legionaries, certainly, but the ones we generally think of (late Republican/early Principate) are swordsmen.

That's debatable. There's a pretty solid case to be made that they are javilineers first and foremost, and that the pilum, as a big heavy javelin, was actually more major than the sword use.

[Kiero]

Oops, sorry I forgot I'm not in the Real World Weapons and Tactics thread. :smallredface:

Typically a 11th Century spearman would hold a knife in his rear hand while fighting, so that anybody that got under the reach of the spear would get a knife in the face instead.

In most games, combat is usually abstract enough that this level of detail is unnecessary.

I figure he has a knife sheath strapped inside his shield somewhere, but he won't be using it in his shield hand. In any case, I'm assiduously avoiding any hint of dual-wielding, since I always do that.


What kind of armor are you wearing?

Why not do an axe in the main hand and just the other hand open? Tell the DM you want the axe to be big enough to be usable as a 2h weapon or 1h weapon (like the 3.5 bastard sword) and use the open hand for spells and unarmed attacks/grappling, and spells?

Mechanically, you are maxing your damage.

Visually, if you are in light armor, or unarmored using a variant of the sorceror talent spell fist, that would look awesome.

He wears scale, ie "heavy". I could go open handed, but I'm playing the Defender of the group and I never play weapon-and-shield characters.

He doesn't really have spells; most of his powers don't even require open hands (though there are some which give a bonus if he does).

Note I'm not playing a Sorceror, but a custom class, the Elemental Knight (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Acrozatarim/Elemental_Knight), which is a gish, basically.


That's debatable. There's a pretty solid case to be made that they are javilineers first and foremost, and that the pilum, as a big heavy javelin, was actually more major than the sword use.

Classical javelineers were usually unarmoured, often didn't even carry a shield and might not have any weapon besides their missiles. Their main defense was "be fast". Which you can't do wearing mail and carrying a big shield.

Not only that, precursor missiles were a pretty common thing in the Hellenistic/Roman era, most non-phalanx line infantry did it, so I don't think you could really describe legionaries or anyone else as javelineers. Their primary job was still to close with the enemy and mop up whatever was left after their volley had pinned/killed/de-shielded their opponents.

[erikun]

Reach isn't really a consideration in a system as abstracted as 13A; as before this is more about the visuals and stunts. Neither weapon is intrinsically better than the other, mechanically.

I mean an armour-penetrating weapon for hacking down heavy infantry. None of the nations who've been described to us so far use pikemen; levy spearmen with a small cadre of elites of some sort are more their style.
Aha, then I'd recommend the axe or hammer weapon for your theme over the spear. A halbert might be a nice compromise, quite literally being an axe on a polearm, but if you're thinking a "Smash them in the face!" weapon then an axe probably fits the concept a bit better.

[veti]

My perception is that spears are pretty much unbeatable in a highly trained, disciplined, tightly formed unit, but much less useful in a skirmish scenario (which would be a lot more typical for an RPG). You refer to hoplites - now there's a fighting style that relies heavily, no pun intended, on having a whole bunch of like-armed and armoured people at your side.

Also, as you say, the cool spear stuff is generally incompatible with carrying a shield.

For an alternative: have you considered the Dacian falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx)? Much feared by the Romans because of its ability to pull away shields, pierce armour (although that's mostly true of the two-handed version) and inflict truly horrible incapacitating wounds. For bonus fun, the only real difference between one- and two-handed variants is the size of the handle - so you could potentially switch modes just by changing the handle.

[shadow_archmagi]

In most circumstances I'd always vote spear. Spear is a very practical weapon. Very flexible.

However, if you're angling for Rule of Cool, you can't go wrong with an axe.

Well, I guess the trouble with axes is that one-handed axes are lame. The immediate question is "Really? You could be using twice as much axe there, buddy. Why wuss out at just one hand?"

How about a mace? Nice big spikey ball for crunching heads.

[Knaight]

Not only that, precursor missiles were a pretty common thing in the Hellenistic/Roman era, most non-phalanx line infantry did it, so I don't think you could really describe legionaries or anyone else as javelineers. Their primary job was still to close with the enemy and mop up whatever was left after their volley had pinned/killed/de-shielded their opponents.

Sure, but the Romans developed it further than most other cultures. If you look at the javelins employed by the typical 'light' javelineer you find larger numbers of smaller javelins, usually used within a harassment role. The Roman legionnaire, meanwhile, quickly began to use heavier javelins as shock weapons, that were typically fairly sophisticated and engineered devices - which, with the formation breaking, makes the javelins arguably the core of the Roman doctrine, with the use of a sword almost a logistical concession to facilitate the second javelin.

I'll concede that this isn't the mainstream view at all, and that I'd personally consider it a bit of an overstatement, but it isn't that out there, and does have a reasonable number of proponents who are actually experts in the field.

Back on topic, and tangentially related to the Romans: As you've already established that the character will have javelins, the Roman legionnaire might actually be a decent basis for visualizing the character, perhaps with a touch of Huskarl or Janissery. Which basically means a shield and javelins, with an axe substituting in for the sword.

[Kiero]

Aha, then I'd recommend the axe or hammer weapon for your theme over the spear. A halbert might be a nice compromise, quite literally being an axe on a polearm, but if you're thinking a "Smash them in the face!" weapon then an axe probably fits the concept a bit better.

Yeah, for smash them in the face either works. Polearms don't, we've already got a two-hander in the group.


My perception is that spears are pretty much unbeatable in a highly trained, disciplined, tightly formed unit, but much less useful in a skirmish scenario (which would be a lot more typical for an RPG). You refer to hoplites - now there's a fighting style that relies heavily, no pun intended, on having a whole bunch of like-armed and armoured people at your side.

Also, as you say, the cool spear stuff is generally incompatible with carrying a shield.

For an alternative: have you considered the Dacian falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx)? Much feared by the Romans because of its ability to pull away shields, pierce armour (although that's mostly true of the two-handed version) and inflict truly horrible incapacitating wounds. For bonus fun, the only real difference between one- and two-handed variants is the size of the handle - so you could potentially switch modes just by changing the handle.

Even without a bunch of buddies lapping shields with you, you could still be pretty effective as the immovable object against the stream of enemies. But yes, some of the cooler spear options need a second hand.

The "one-handed version" of the falx is the sika; it's a different weapon with a shorter blade as well as handle.


In most circumstances I'd always vote spear. Spear is a very practical weapon. Very flexible.

However, if you're angling for Rule of Cool, you can't go wrong with an axe.

Well, I guess the trouble with axes is that one-handed axes are lame. The immediate question is "Really? You could be using twice as much axe there, buddy. Why wuss out at just one hand?"

How about a mace? Nice big spikey ball for crunching heads.

One-handed axes are plenty cool! :smallyuk:


Sure, but the Romans developed it further than most other cultures. If you look at the javelins employed by the typical 'light' javelineer you find larger numbers of smaller javelins, usually used within a harassment role. The Roman legionnaire, meanwhile, quickly began to use heavier javelins as shock weapons, that were typically fairly sophisticated and engineered devices - which, with the formation breaking, makes the javelins arguably the core of the Roman doctrine, with the use of a sword almost a logistical concession to facilitate the second javelin.

I'll concede that this isn't the mainstream view at all, and that I'd personally consider it a bit of an overstatement, but it isn't that out there, and does have a reasonable number of proponents who are actually experts in the field.

The Celts were probably the people the Romans adopted the precursor javelin from as a tactic, or failing that the Samnites. Both had a huge impact in shaking out the rigid phalanx formation of the early legionaries into the looser manipular formations. But the Hellenistic powers who predated Roman expansion and whom they clashed with during were using javelin-armed line infantry as well. The Romans weren't particularly novel or unique in this.

I'll grant you that they made much wider use of it (though again, not compared to the Celts) where Hellenistic armies tended to give flankers and elites javelins, but not the main line troops.


Back on topic, and tangentially related to the Romans: As you've already established that the character will have javelins, the Roman legionnaire might actually be a decent basis for visualizing the character, perhaps with a touch of Huskarl or Janissery. Which basically means a shield and javelins, with an axe substituting in for the sword.

I'm vaguelly modelling him on the Nabatean elite, the Qestûnarîn (http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140287-Preview-Malk%C3%BBt%C3%A2-Nab%C3%A2tu) (scroll down some). They wore a hoplite panoply, but substituted spear for axe and often carried javelins.

[GungHo]

Well, I guess the trouble with axes is that one-handed axes are lame. The immediate question is "Really? You could be using twice as much axe there, buddy. Why wuss out at just one hand?"

Maybe he should invent the bastard axe.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

In most circumstances I'd always vote spear. Spear is a very practical weapon. Very flexible.

However, if you're angling for Rule of Cool, you can't go wrong with an axe.

Well, I guess the trouble with axes is that one-handed axes are lame. The immediate question is "Really? You could be using twice as much axe there, buddy. Why wuss out at just one hand?"

How about a mace? Nice big spikey ball for crunching heads.
Whoa-hey there! What did you say about the standard Viking kit?

:smallwink:

[Scow2]

I say Spear. Preferably a flaming one.

Unfortunately, I cannot find the awesome drawing of a Menite Temple Guard to prove my point. Tower Shield+Flaming spear looks badass in combo, though, and if enemies get close... well, they don't get close. And if they do, you just halfspear it and stab them anyway.