What's the matter with the trident as martial weapon vs the spear?

[Blas_de_Lezo]

What's up with the trident as martial weapon?

Has anybody notice that the trident, a martial weapon, and the spear, a simple weapon, are exactly the same?

Well, not even the same, because the spear is actually better: cheaper AND lighter:

Spear 1gp 1d6 piercing 3 lb. thrown (range 20/60), versatile (1d8)
Trident 5gp 1d6 piercing 4 lb. thrown (range 20/60), versatile (1d8)

Have they fixed this in the PHB?

[HugeC]

Nope, same same.

[Angelalex242]

Typical WOTC not checking for common sense.

I think I'd give the trident a bonus on disarm attempts, or maybe it gives you advantage used underwater, or something. That'd justify it.

[Naanomi]

Glaive and halberd are identical as well I think

[T.G. Oskar]

What's up with the trident as martial weapon?

Has anybody notice that the trident, a martial weapon, and the spear, a simple weapon, are exactly the same?

Well, not even the same, because the spear is actually better: cheaper AND lighter:

Spear 1gp 1d6 piercing 3 lb. thrown (range 20/60), versatile (1d8)
Trident 5gp 1d6 piercing 4 lb. thrown (range 20/60), versatile (1d8)

Have they fixed this in the PHB?

Take one side of "tradition" (the Trident has been on the PHB at least since 3rd Edition, and maybe earlier) and one side of "distinction" (so you don't have to refluff a Spear as a Trident), and you get mostly that. They are distinct, but not mechanically distinct, which is the reason why they're so disconcerting.

Same thing happens with Glaive and Halberd; at least in 3.x they were somewhat distinct. The weapons are actually distinct (their fighting styles are different) but mechanically they're the same. Considering that the weapons section is almost purely mechanical, this is disappointing.

[Suichimo]

It's in the underwater combat section, IIRC, but the trident is one of only a few weapons that aren't disadvantaged in underwater combat. For what very, very little that is worth.

[WibbleNZ]

It's in the underwater combat section, IIRC, but the trident is one of only a few weapons that aren't disadvantaged in underwater combat. For what very, very little that is worth.

It is, but so is the spear...

[Suichimo]

It is, but so is the spear...

Well then, the only logical outcome we can take from this is that it costs 4GP, or potentially increasing the price by 5x, and 1 lb of weight to add two prongs on to the weapon of your choice.

[Muenster Man]

Well then, the only logical outcome we can take from this is that it costs 4GP, or potentially increasing the price by 5x, and 1 lb of weight to add two prongs on to the weapon of your choice.
... and no damage increase. I would hope adding more pointy bits would increase the damage somewhat, especially in a system that doesn't really try that hard to emulate actual weapons :smallsigh:

[Slipperychicken]

At least they don't have it dealing 3d4 damage.

Also, I'm just glad they seem to be staying away from the 3.5-style exotic weapon stupidity for now, even if that means homogenizing the weapon list somewhat.

Additionally, I think homogenizing similar weapons a little bit more means we don't feel as compelled to use certain weapons over others (say you want to build a gladiator dude, a merfolk (if that race is made PC-friendly), or a Poseidon-worshiper, now you can use a trident, a net, and build him more or less like any other spear guy without worrying so much about being outclassed).

[Grynning]

I personally think that it was probably supposed to be 1d8/1d10 damage, putting it in line with the Battleaxe, Longsword, and Warhammer, but being the piercing damage equivalent. That would make it strictly better than the spear though, so then the question would then become why don't soldiers everywhere use tridents instead of spears?
The real silly part is that one is martial and the other is simple, because c'mon, either way you're just poking something with a pointy stick.

[Muenster Man]

But one of those sticks has 3 points! :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

It might just be an attempt at simulation. The trident is a bit heavier, a bit clumsier (hence it being martial), and a bit more expensive. It's also a weapon that never seemed to actually show up on any battlefields - the closest polearm I can think of would be a spetum. It did show up as a gladiatorial weapon, but all sorts of impractical but cool looking junk showed up there.

Basically, I have much less of an issue with this than the way the lance is a better pike than the pike is.

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were feats that only worked with it, such as some sort of trident and net combat style feat.

[Morty]

Once again, it seems that nobody has really thought about the weapons table for too long. They just threw the weapons that were there in 3e and called it a day.

[da_chicken]

Once again, it seems that nobody has really thought about the weapons table for too long. They just threw the weapons that were there in 3e and called it a day.

Careful, you'll rupture that drumhead.

[MustacheFart]

Yep considering the lack of magic weapons, I especially wish they had devoted just a bit more time to the weapons section.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

It might just be an attempt at simulation. The trident is a bit heavier, a bit clumsier (hence it being martial), and a bit more expensive. It's also a weapon that never seemed to actually show up on any battlefields - the closest polearm I can think of would be a spetum. It did show up as a gladiatorial weapon, but all sorts of impractical but cool looking junk showed up there.

Basically, I have much less of an issue with this than the way the lance is a better pike than the pike is.

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were feats that only worked with it, such as some sort of trident and net combat style feat.

Yes but it's supposed that martial weapons are intentionally designed to be better than simple weapons, and spears are actually better than tridents according to rules.

[rlc]

maybe make the trident 3d2? that way, it's definitely not overpowered, but it allows for different damage than anything else and the three prongs get representation in true rpg fashion.

[Slipperychicken]

maybe make the trident 3d2? that way, it's definitely not overpowered, but it allows for different damage than anything else and the three prongs get representation in true rpg fashion.

3d2 = 4.5 average roll, minimum 3, maximum 6. That makes it outright better than a spear. Also, dice sizes under d4 are a pain to figure out because they aren't standard. People would be strongly encouraged to use this OOC-time-consuming weapon instead of a regular old spear.

[rlc]

3d2 = 4.5 average roll, minimum 3, maximum 6. That makes it outright better than a spear. Also, dice sizes under d4 are a pain to figure out because they aren't standard. People would be strongly encouraged to use this OOC-time-consuming weapon instead of a regular old spear.
flip 3 coins, heads=1, tails=2. it's stronger than a spear on average, but it gets the same max damage. with two hands, the spear would get the same average damage and higher max damage. i don't know what i would do for a versatile trident, though. it's probably not needed.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Why just debate the trident being a more expensive less accessible spear?
What at the level of abstraction D&D uses makes weapons of the same type all that much different from any other, period?

You ask me there's a fair argument to be made there "shouldn't" even be a weapon's table, just a list of like maybe 5 types of weapons. Obviously that would be changing the nature of the game pretty drastically which is why they aren't going to do it.

As long as they aren't doing 1d20 damage crit 15-20 katanas or similar silliness I can live with shockingly nonsensical weapons tables.

[Theodoxus]

As I pointed out in the other thread about weapons, the damage and properties are all internally consistent. And you can in fact have a simplified table to create the exact weapon you want; damage type, properties and simple or martial.

The trident being more expensive than the spear, I believe, comes down to construction materials. I haven't sussed the coding yet, but there are three (and possibly four) basic construction materials for weapons: Leather (sling, whip), metal (swords) and wood (club, bows, maul) And possibly combination of wood and metal (spears, hammers, maces)

Spear is wood, and thus very cheap. The metal head on the spear is generally no more metal than a few arrowheads. The trident, on the other hand, is easily as much metal as a mace head. Personally, I'd make the trident versatile and the spear not. Add another category of simple weapon, the longspear that has reach (ala 3rd ed) and you'd have three distinct weapons that have different functions and different values.

Spear - 1d6, thrown, simple
Longspear - 1d8, two-handed, simple
Trident - 1d6 (1d8), thrown, versatile, martial.
Of course, javelin then steps on the toes of spears, so I'd roll spear into javelin, creating the longspear in it's place and be done with it.

[Knaight]

The trident being more expensive than the spear, I believe, comes down to construction materials. I haven't sussed the coding yet, but there are three (and possibly four) basic construction materials for weapons: Leather (sling, whip), metal (swords) and wood (club, bows, maul) And possibly combination of wood and metal (spears, hammers, maces)

Spear is wood, and thus very cheap. The metal head on the spear is generally no more metal than a few arrowheads. The trident, on the other hand, is easily as much metal as a mace head. Personally, I'd make the trident versatile and the spear not. Add another category of simple weapon, the longspear that has reach (ala 3rd ed) and you'd have three distinct weapons that have different functions and different values.

Slings were actually often fabric of some sort - woven or braided fibers were fairly common, with some fairly sophisticated weaving showing up for sling pouches.

As for the amount of metal on a spear, it varied highly. Below is a picture of some viking spear heads, the top one of which is 15 inches long. All of them are somewhat smaller than they used to be, having rusted away, and still involve more metal than just a few arrow heads, even if larger arrowheads are used.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/spear_assortment.jpg

As for making only the trident versatile, it seems off - from a simulation perspective, spears can very much be used in two hands, and it is way more effective than just using it in one, to the point where it has a better claim to being versatile than everything else that has the tag. Plus, tridents are kind of terrible weapons, and only saw gladiatorial use for a reason.

[Xeronex]

I personally think that it was probably supposed to be 1d8/1d10 damage, putting it in line with the Battleaxe, Longsword, and Warhammer, but being the piercing damage equivalent. That would make it strictly better than the spear though, so then the question would then become why don't soldiers everywhere use tridents instead of spears?
The real silly part is that one is martial and the other is simple, because c'mon, either way you're just poking something with a pointy stick.


I happened to agree with your assessment of how the trident and the spear should be compared to each other. Several things could be done to make the trident more appealing compared to the spear. For example, take away the "thrown" property of the trident. Although the weapon was capable of being thrown during combat, the added weight and the large striking head of the trident made that less possible than a spear at hitting its target. Next, give the weapon the chance to disarm an opponent; something the weapon was historically know for. This addition, the increase in the cost (5gp or 1 gp), and the increase in damage (1D8/1D10) would justify the weapon to a player but also make the spear distinct due to its "simple" nature, lower cost, and "thrown" property. Now you have two similar weapons but each with their own separate reasons for existing.

I really think Wizards of the Coast dropped the ball on this when they put these two weapons into the weapon's list along with several other weapons. It leaves players with the question "What were they thinking" or "Why should I purchase one over the other" which detracts from serious players trying to create unique characters.

[silverkyo]

I think it's just to have the weapons there and available to the player without making some strictly better then others, which was an issue with 3.X If I wanted to use a basic spear or axe or just a longsword in those editions, I'd be weaker then if I picked some specific martial or exotic weapon that had better die, crit range, or damage type. So instead, they make many weapons similar so you as a player don't feel like you're making your character worse by picking a weapon for flavor. For instance, I made a fighter built around mounted combat and polearm mastery. I could have used a glaive or lance, but I decided to go with the Halberd because the weapon is designed to act as pointy spear to run people down, slashing like an axe and close range, and a hook on the back end for grappling on horseback, so it fit the flavor. Also, I might not always be on the horse, so I didn't want a lance. But I don't feel incredibly worse off like I would in 3.X where I would have to use a lance for that sweet multiplied damage on a charge and nothing else. Lances are boring. So while the overall feel of the weapons might be mechanically the same, they aren't thematically. For instance, tridents were mostly use with nets and became really big in gladiator arenas, where as spears are more basic infantry weaponry, so if you want a gladiator who maybe uses a net, get a trident to with it for the flavor. You could use a spear and get the same result, but it wouldn't fit the theme.

[Gwendol]

The trident is there for underwater campaigns. If some differentiation from the spear is needed just give the wielder advantage on disarm attempts when wielded in two hands.

[silverkyo]

The trident is there for underwater campaigns. If some differentiation from the spear is needed just give the wielder advantage on disarm attempts when wielded in two hands.

I would be weary of something like this, not only because advantage is an insanely strong mechanic in 5e that really should not be so reliable for any check, and because then we go down the 3.X rabbit hole where if you wanted to do X thing you better have Y weapon otherwise you couldn't or were statistically worse at it, which constrains character customization

[djreynolds]

Add advantage to the trident for being grappled or restrained or something that accounts for having three holes in you. As for damage a spear, theoretically, is going to do more damage because all the force is focused on the one tip and not spread out to three points. But if hit by the trident you could have the enemy have disadvantage on attack or movement. Otherwise no one is gonna use the trident. Or give the trident at least a meager bonus to land a hit over a spear, and less damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

Add advantage to the trident for being grappled or restrained or something that accounts for having three holes in you. As for damage a spear, theoretically, is going to do more damage because all the force is focused on the one tip and not spread out to three points. But if hit by the trident you could have the enemy have disadvantage on attack or movement. Otherwise no one is gonna use the trident. Or give the trident at least a meager bonus to land a hit over a spear, and less damage. Adding a +1 to hit, in this bounded accuracy game, is probably not advisable.

[Hawkstar]

I'd boost the Trident's damage die by one size each, and let it also count as the stats for the Tratnyr (Awesome spear from 4th edition I wish had made the jump).

[djreynolds]

Adding a +1 to hit, in this bounded accuracy game, is probably not advisable.

I understand, but something has to give. Otherwise whose gonna use trident. Just something that sets it apart from spear, other than more cost. Any ideas?

[KorvinStarmast]

I understand, but something has to give. Otherwise whose gonna use trident. Just something that sets it apart from spear, other than more cost. Any ideas? Some things are a matter of style, not crunch. :smallsmile:

[Naanomi]

Why did people use tridents instead of normal spears in real life?
1) obscure religious symbolism
2) effectiveness in certain types of fishing
3) it looked cooler in an arena

None have anything to do with combat effectiveness (except perhaps against fish)

[Shining Wrath]

I think there are times I'd rather have the spear over the trident. Specifically, creatures large size and up.

If your trident's prongs are each 4" long, I'd much rather make a single 12" deep spear hole in a mammoth than 3 4" trident holes. The trident is just going to make him mad (not a good thing).

Perhaps the trident should get Advantage on damage dice against small and tiny creatures, and Disadvantage against large on up.

EDIT: the cost difference is irrelevant to any PC above level 1.

[-Jynx-]

There really isn't much of an advantage or disadvantage to using a spear in place of a trident.

Historically the three pronged trident were more often seen initially as pitchforks as an improvised weapon of farmers in case of bandits or wildlife attacks. These were later adapted into more martial weaponry for simple town folk resulting in war forks, tiger forks, and tridents. You never really see their later adaptations used in any formal combat though.

A trident would be a bit heavier at its end (due to the extra metal) but that would also make it a bit harder to use. So you aren't necessarily doing more damage than a spear, and while a trident has 3 points the points on what an actual trident would be is much smaller than the single head you'd find on a spear. Quantity of points does not make it a more quality weapon.

Edit: also so it isn't confused Ranseurs and Spetum type polearms, while they had side protrusions making them look like a spear/trident hybrid, usually had those to help prevent over penetrating a target and having your weapon stuck which is why they were rarely sharp on the sides.

[HoarsHalberd]

Are we all just going to ignore the almost year long necro?

[Once a Fool]

I would have tridents act as tools that could substitute for Charisma (Athletics) checks to impress spectators.

[Mr.Moron]

Perhaps it's just the trident uses more material, is harder to make and harder to use properly without a large enough increase in effectiveness to justify any mechanical boosts as large as new keyword or die size increase?

[LuisDantas]

... and no damage increase. I would hope adding more pointy bits would increase the damage somewhat, especially in a system that doesn't really try that hard to emulate actual weapons :smallsigh:

It would probably reduce the damage instead (less pressure exerced over the contact area), but it would also increase disarming chance and chance of hitting the foe.

Personally, I am fine with there being little crunch justification for ever using the trident. It is realistic enough, reasonable, and does not hurt the system or the roleplaying in any way.

[HoarsHalberd]

It would probably reduce the damage instead (less pressure exerced over the contact area), but it would also increase disarming chance and chance of hitting the foe.

Personally, I am fine with there being little crunch justification for ever using the trident. It is realistic enough, reasonable, and does not hurt the system or the roleplaying in any way.

If you've hit hard enough to do damage with a piercing weapon, then force isn't the damaging factor. Hitpoint damage=/=Force exerted upon the target. It would do more damage but have a lower chance to hit for the exact reason you've stated. Natural armour/armour AC would be harder to overcome with the trident to the point of doing damage, but it would do more damage after hitting because of more puncture wounds.

[Ralanr]

For why the trident is more expensive, a trident was only built for weapon use as an entertainment weapon. That and adding two prongs made it cost more money than the spear.

So why would people use the spear? Cheaper to mass produce. You're more likely to find a spear than you are a trident.

Doesn't excuse the weapon list, but I don't mind the weapon list since it doesn't punish as badly for weapon decision.

[FatherLiir]

Glaive and halberd are identical as well I think

A Glaive is more a sword on the end of a very long stick
A Halbard is more of an Axe on the end of a very long stick

[Ralanr]

A Glaive is more a sword on the end of a very long stick
A Halbard is more of an Axe on the end of a very long stick

An axe with a spear tip.

[-Jynx-]

If you've hit hard enough to do damage with a piercing weapon, then force isn't the damaging factor. Hitpoint damage=/=Force exerted upon the target. It would do more damage but have a lower chance to hit for the exact reason you've stated. Natural armour/armour AC would be harder to overcome with the trident to the point of doing damage, but it would do more damage after hitting because of more puncture wounds.

This is only half true. While more puncture wounds do cause more damage, the points on the trident are smaller than the size of a spear head. One large gaping wound from a spear is just as lethal/damaging as 3 smaller puncture wounds would be.

http://images.knifecenter.com/thumb/1500x1500/knifecenter/coldsteel/images/CS95BOASKb.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Fourche_de_guerre_11.jpg
https://www.kungfudirect.com/prodimages/WSL/Nan-cha-b.jpg

[Ralanr]

This is only half true. While more puncture wounds do cause more damage, the points on the trident are smaller than the size of a spear head. One large gaping wound from a spear is just as lethal/damaging as 3 smaller puncture wounds would be.

http://images.knifecenter.com/thumb/1500x1500/knifecenter/coldsteel/images/CS95BOASKb.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Fourche_de_guerre_11.jpg
https://www.kungfudirect.com/prodimages/WSL/Nan-cha-b.jpg


Which lead to more wounds to patch up and less likely success to keep the victim alive.

I think there is a knife based on such principle. I also think that the use of it is considered a war crime punishable by the Geneva convention.

Edit: take this with a grain of salt. I got this understanding from tvtropes and haven't researched further.

[burninatortrog]

If the internet weren't filled with cries of "Why is a trident the same as a spear?" it would be filled with cries of "What stats should I give to a trident?" followed by answers of "Make it the same as a spear."

[LuisDantas]

Which lead to more wounds to patch up and less likely success to keep the victim alive.

I think there is a knife based on such principle. I also think that the use of it is considered a war crime punishable by the Geneva convention.

Edit: take this with a grain of salt. I got this understanding from tvtropes and haven't researched further.

I realize D&D combat, even in 5e, is far too abstract for such considerations to make much sense, but I feel duty-bound to point out that the difference between a solid, big spearhead and three smaller, often thin trident prongs can be very significant indeed.

Particularly if metal armor is involved. Chainmail might negate a trident completely, or nearly so, while a spear under similar circunstances might well be lethal.

Against plate armor, a trident would distribute the pressure over each prong to a third of what it could otherwise be, rendering it almost useless unless one manages to hit one of the vulnerable points. Having three prongs increases the chance of hitting those, of course, but it also makes it that much more likely to get entangled in the armor itself or otherwise diverted from optimal locations and angles. And it will drammatically weaken the contact force in each prong.

[Ralanr]

I realize D&D combat, even in 5e, is far too abstract for such considerations to make much sense, but I feel duty-bound to point out that the difference between a solid, big spearhead and three smaller, often thin trident prongs can be very significant indeed.

Particularly if metal armor is involved. Chainmail might negate a trident completely, or nearly so, while a spear under similar circunstances might well be lethal.

Against plate armor, a trident would distribute the pressure over each prong to a third of what it could otherwise be, rendering it almost useless unless one manages to hit one of the vulnerable points. Having three prongs increases the chance of hitting those, of course, but it also makes it that much more likely to get entangled in the armor itself or otherwise diverted from optimal locations and angles. And it will drammatically weaken the contact force in each prong.

How many times has the trident been utilized as a weapon of war? I can't think of any. The only way I've seen the trident being used as a weapon (ok not seen) is through gladiatorial combat.

When seeing a unusual weapon in anime I find myself thinking, "That's probably a very dangerous weapon." and it is proven so throughout the show. The show is also fiction and thus shows improper use of the weapon (Swords mostly, but the sickle and chain are another prime example) or using things that are not weapons and would never that effective (Hello scythe. Even when they were used in wars the blade was pointed upwards, not at the normal arc).

Rule of Cool is old. Very old. The gladiators had a lot of impractical weapons that could be effective. But more importantly they were exotic and they could draw blood in a flashy manner. But they weren't really good enough for war tactics at the time and they would have been more expensive to mass produce.

Let's also take into account how easy it is to train spear users for military combat. Which back then was mainly, "Stay together" (I'm generalizing, I need to study more into that). Spears, faster to produce, cheaper to produce, and apparently takes a month to make a decent spearman (Generalizing, faster than the sword).

Techniques with the trident on the otherhand seem terrible for military combat. Those prongs would be harder to pull out than the spear, thus easier loss of an expensive weapon. In single combat? It's a very terrifying weapon to deal with. Three points? That's going to hurt, I'm intimidated. But there was more training involved to use it beyond, "Stab" or at least better understanding of "You need to pull it out quickly."

In short (and I went a little all over so I probably have lots of errors...that and I only have general knowledge and my own logic to fall on) the reason why a spear is simple and a trident is martial is simply the time it takes to learn it as an effective weapon. People with martial weapon proficiency aren't masters of that type of weapon, they have a general ability with them. Mastery is represented through the fighting styles and feats related to the weapons.

TL;DR The trident is nothing more than a flashy spear in 5e. That point is made in the Entertainer variant background:Gladiator.

[silverkyo]

I think you just really need to consider the primary use of the trident during the most popular time in it's life. It was never a real instrument of war because it's effectiveness was limited, but it was used extensively in Roman Gladiator fights, particularly among the Retiarius type gladiators. Their main weapons where a net and a trident, and they used the trident not only for religious reasons but because it was extremely effective at stabbing opponents without breaking the net, where as a regular spear would probably cut it somewhere. Outside of that one instance, a spear is more effective... in real life anyways. In D&D again, as I posted earlier, it's just flavor. I wouldn't give it advantage or disarm properties or anything like that because it's just fluff, and honestly 4 gold isn't a lot.

[Ralanr]

I think you just really need to consider the primary use of the trident during the most popular time in it's life. It was never a real instrument of war because it's effectiveness was limited, but it was used extensively in Roman Gladiator fights, particularly among the Retiarius type gladiators. Their main weapons where a net and a trident, and they used the trident not only for religious reasons but because it was extremely effective at stabbing opponents without breaking the net, where as a regular spear would probably cut it somewhere. Outside of that one instance, a spear is more effective... in real life anyways. In D&D again, as I posted earlier, it's just flavor. I wouldn't give it advantage or disarm properties or anything like that because it's just fluff, and honestly 4 gold isn't a lot.

I keep forgetting that 1 gold is supposed to be a lot.

[DracoKnight]

I personally think that it was probably supposed to be 1d8/1d10 damage, putting it in line with the Battleaxe, Longsword, and Warhammer, but being the piercing damage equivalent. That would make it strictly better than the spear though, so then the question would then become why don't soldiers everywhere use tridents instead of spears?
The real silly part is that one is martial and the other is simple, because c'mon, either way you're just poking something with a pointy stick.

This is how they are at my table.

[Slipperychicken]

I keep forgetting that 1 gold is supposed to be a lot.

I find that using silver coins instead of gold in game (and putting prices and such in silver) puts it in perspective better. Obviously it doesn't make a difference mechanically (unless you're tracking coin weight), but psychologically, you get a better idea for how expensive things are in the game economy. 100 gold looks like a pittance, but 1,000 silver feels like a big sum which normal people couldn't spend lightly (it could keep a person fed and housed for almost three years).

[Ralanr]

I find that using silver coins instead of gold in game (and putting prices and such in silver) puts it in perspective better. Obviously it doesn't make a difference mechanically (unless you're tracking coin weight), but psychologically, you get a better idea for how expensive things are in the game economy. 100 gold looks like a pittance, but 1,000 silver feels like a real investment that most people couldn't afford.

Try taking into account when 100 dollars in the USA meant something.

I'm too used to the wow economy

[Shining Wrath]

Some prices in the game are out of whack; I really don't think longbows represented 1.5 years effort for a common laborer. OTOH, full plate probably ought to be more like 5,000 GP.

[Xeronex]

I happened to agree with your assessment of how the trident and the spear should be compared to each other. Several things could be done to make the trident more appealing compared to the spear. For example, take away the "thrown" property of the trident. Although the weapon was capable of being thrown during combat, the added weight and the large striking head of the trident made that less possible than a spear at hitting its target. Next, give the weapon the chance to disarm an opponent; something the weapon was historically know for. This addition, the increase in the cost (5gp or 1 gp), and the increase in damage (1D8/1D10) would justify the weapon to a player but also make the spear distinct due to its "simple" nature, lower cost, and "thrown" property. Now you have two similar weapons but each with their own separate reasons for existing.

I really think Wizards of the Coast dropped the ball on this when they put these two weapons into the weapon's list along with several other weapons. It leaves players with the question "What were they thinking" or "Why should I purchase one over the other" which detracts from serious players trying to create unique characters.

Great thoughts from everyone. I didn't know that I would cause such a response. I read all the comments but I would like to add something regarding them. The trident was not a weapon commonly used by soldiers whereas the spear was. This was due mainly to the ease of construction and cost more than anything else. The trident was an exotic weapon. It was designed to be a "greater" spear otherwise the Romans would have equipped the gladiators that used them with a just a spear. The three prongs gave the wielder advantage to hit a moving opponent over the spear due to it larger striking head. The prongs individually were just as deadly as a spear head regarding damage and penetration of a target including those wearing certain types of armor. Plate mail pretty much stops all thrusting weapons no matter what kind they were unless you got in a lucky hit to the exposed areas.

For purpose of gaming mechanics though.....The fact that 5th edition D&D makes a distinction between these two weapons in cost but not in abilities tells me that someone screwed up somewhere. For example, you have a hand axe, a battle axe, and a great axe. This is a progression of a certain type of weapon in cost, abilities, and damage. Another example is the short sword, the longsword, and the great sword. The light hammer, the war hammer, and the maul. If this is what the game writers were attempting to do, then they missed the mark regarding the spear and the trident. That's why I build my character using the trident with the adjusted numbers of (1D8 single-handed / 1D10 two-handed). It really doesn't change the game mechanics one way or the other except that it justifies the added expense of the weapon. The fact that the trident is a martial weapon over a simple weapon gives it the properties of being used only with certain characters that have that ability.

As you can tell I have an affinity for the trident. Its a weapon that is seldom given a second look at but that is what makes it a great weapon. The fact that I can create a character that doesn't use the same "standard" weapons over and over again (Sword, Axe, Spear, Bow). I like to build a unique character that has different features including the weapons they carry that are not common. To me that is what role playing games is all about. Being able to create a character that no one has ever seen or encountered and enjoying their abilities. What I think happened here is that the writers specifically wanted only certain types of historical warriors to be used in the game and didn't give much thought to variety. Someone said that the trident was added to the list to be used with the net only. Maybe that was the case but it makes it very rigid in building specialized characters.

Some weapons in the weapon's list that I think are impractical are the whip, the scythe, the rapier, and the pike. The whip no one would ever bring into combat, the scythe is an unwieldy farmer's implement, the rapier is a thin sword designed for civilian dueling and would easily break during any type of vigorous combat, and the pike is just simply "stupid". I can't imagine any character taking into combat much less carrying around a long 18 foot spear that weighs almost 20 pounds.

[Hawkstar]

Some prices in the game are out of whack; I really don't think longbows represented 1.5 years effort for a common laborer.Actually, 1.5 years is right, if possibly a little low, once you take cost-of-living expenses out of a commoner's salary.

[-Jynx-]

There are some inaccuracies in what you are saying.


The trident was not a weapon commonly used by soldiers whereas the spear was. This was due mainly to the ease of construction and cost more than anything else. The trident was an exotic weapon. It was designed to be a "greater" spear otherwise the Romans would have equipped the gladiators that used them with a just a spear.

The trident originally was just an improvised pitchfork in its earliest manifestation (both in European, and asian cultures) as means of fighting off wildlife and bandits for farmers. The tridents strength comes from its extra points (widening its threat range), ability to couple nicely with the net, and lastly the extra prongs helped as a catch guard if you were really good/lucky enough.

That being said it was not implemented in war tactics because the trident is a heavier spear, and wouldn't couple well with an equally hefty shield. Due to its extra prongs, especially in typical roman formation you run the risk of getting tied up with another soldiers weapon, or getting your trident snagged during a strike. This made the trident a more ideal dueling weapon but not a practical weapon of war.



Plate mail pretty much stops all thrusting weapons no matter what kind they were unless you got in a lucky hit to the exposed areas.

While plate did help against most weaponry (mainly swords) polearms in general were typically not at a great disadvantage against plate. Some weapons (like the halberd) were made with plate mail combat in mind, even your basic spear when wielded in two hands can give a plate mailed combatant a hard time as you've great mobility, and reach wielding a standard spear.



Some weapons in the weapon's list that I think are impractical are the whip, the scythe, the rapier, and the pike. The whip no one would ever bring into combat, the scythe is an unwieldy farmer's implement, the rapier is a thin sword designed for civilian dueling and would easily break during any type of vigorous combat, and the pike is just simply "stupid". I can't imagine any character taking into combat much less carrying around a long 18 foot spear that weighs almost 20 pounds.

My biggest disagreement here is with the rapier which (like your trident) is made as a dueling weapon against lightly or unarmored targets. For starters since dnd generalizes weapon types (long swords can have many different sizes/shapes depending on when/where you found them for example) it's safe to assume "Rapier" encompasses Backswords, side swords, rapiers, small swords, epees and the like. Even if you disagree, and we refer to just rapiers you can still parry with a rapier against even something like a longsword. You can't block, but that is not the nature of rapier combat anyway. Sure it could break in combat but so could ANY weapon.

[Ralanr]

Actually, 1.5 years is right, if possibly a little low, once you take cost-of-living expenses out of a commoner's salary.

Bow makers a rolling in it.

[Xeronex]

There are some inaccuracies in what you are saying.



The trident originally was just an improvised pitchfork in its earliest manifestation (both in European, and asian cultures) as means of fighting off wildlife and bandits for farmers. The tridents strength comes from its extra points (widening its threat range), ability to couple nicely with the net, and lastly the extra prongs helped as a catch guard if you were really good/lucky enough.

That being said it was not implemented in war tactics because the trident is a heavier spear, and wouldn't couple well with an equally hefty shield. Due to its extra prongs, especially in typical roman formation you run the risk of getting tied up with another soldiers weapon, or getting your trident snagged during a strike. This made the trident a more ideal dueling weapon but not a practical weapon of war.


While plate did help against most weaponry (mainly swords) polearms in general were typically not at a great disadvantage against plate. Some weapons (like the halberd) were made with plate mail combat in mind, even your basic spear when wielded in two hands can give a plate mailed combatant a hard time as you've great mobility, and reach wielding a standard spear.

My biggest disagreement here is with the rapier which (like your trident) is made as a dueling weapon against lightly or unarmored targets. For starters since dnd generalizes weapon types (long swords can have many different sizes/shapes depending on when/where you found them for example) it's safe to assume "Rapier" encompasses Backswords, side swords, rapiers, small swords, epees and the like. Even if you disagree, and we refer to just rapiers you can still parry with a rapier against even something like a longsword. You can't block, but that is not the nature of rapier combat anyway. Sure it could break in combat but so could ANY weapon.


Thanks for the comments. I always enjoy hearing different sides of the same facts. First, you are right regarding the origins of the trident as well as the reasons for them not being practical for military use. That being said, I did mention that the spear WAS more practical for combat due to their ease of construction and cost. The trident is an unique weapon meaning that it is not a very common one. It started off as an implement (like many weapons did) and developed into an exotic fighting weapon. The Romans used it for the gladiator games where most people have heard of their use but the weapon, in one form or another, was used by other peoples in different parts of the world throughout history. You did mention that the trident was a "heavier" spear and that was what I was attempting to say. My point was that this was not taken into consideration when the writers for 5th edition D&D added it to the weapon's list for possibly equipping a character. They completely ignored the difference between a simple spear and that of the trident.

For purposes of game mechanics according to 5th edition D&D, a heavier and deadlier weapon does more damage. A battle axe does more damage than a hand axe. A great axe does more damage than a battle axe. A longsword does more damage than a short sword. The trident is a heavier and deadlier weapon than the spear and it should be reflected this way and it's not.

Second, plate mail is the end all be all of personal armor. The knights of the battlefield of medieval Europe were equivalent to the modern day tank. Very few weapons that came before their time could penetrate through. This included swords, axes, and spears of most types. Standard spears didn't stand a chance no matter what Hollywood, TV shows, or Japanese anime say and no matter how "fast" an opponent was. Their biggest weakness was that just past the spear head was a wooden shaft that was easily cut by a solid stroke of a sword or gotten past by the knight by simply brushing it aside and then moving in for the killing stroke. That is why weapon makers started to experiment with re-designing the weapon in use at the time. The falchion combines the versatility of the sword with the weight of an axe blade but it still wasn't very effective against plate. The awl pike (ahlspiess) is a six to seven foot improved spear where the first three feet is nothing more than a solid steel pole tapering to a sharp point. It was designed specifically for attacking the weaker points of plate armor where the armor needed to flex. The estoc is a longsword where the blade tapered to a very long and sharp point for the same purpose as the awl pike.

Even polearms used by peasants saw revisions. The billhook (a farmer's implement) became the bill with a long point, a blade, a hook for catching armor, and a back spike. The halberd was created from the properties of the voulge and the bill for the common soldier against mounted combatants. The poleaxe or pollaxe was a knightly weapon for use against other plate armored knights. It's combined striking head with an axe blade, a hammer, and a spear-like point made it very effective against heavy armor. The best weapons against plate armor were impact weapons like war hammers, flanged maces, and flails as the force of the impact passes straight through to the person inside.

Last but not least, there is a big difference between a backsword and a rapier or any of its incantations. A rapier is called a "Civilian" rapier because it is just that, a civilian sword. It had no military purpose whatsoever because of its construction (a long, thin, flimsy blade by comparison). It is a dueling weapon used for personal combat. While capable of cutting with its blade edge, its main use was in thrusting. It's interesting to note that the rapier was never used by the armies of the renaissance period. They developed a sword of similar length but with a wider blade to withstand the demands of military combat. It was labeled as a "broadsword" to differentiate it from the civilian rapier that was in use at the same time. The Victorian historians then wrongfully applied the term "broadsword" to all medieval swords. Small swords were the further development of the rapier. It was shorter and lighter than the rapier and has no blade edge whatsoever; just a sharp point at the end of the blade. Used strictly for thrusting, it was the weapon that was designed for the evolution of civilian dueling combat as the years continued on. This is why I have my reservation about having the rapier in the weapon's list of 5th edition D&D. It has no purpose on the battlefield.

A backsword on the other hand is a military weapon. It's design differs from that of common double-edged swords due to having a single, sharpened edge on one side of the blade and an undeveloped edge or back (where the weapon gets its name) on the other. These types of swords were in use in many different types and sizes during the same medieval period as any of the double-edged swords. I would gladly welcome this type of sword into the weapon's list of 5th edition as they were just as common if not more so due to them being less expensive and available to the common man.

Just an exchange of ideas......

[Hawkstar]

Some weapons in the weapon's list that I think are impractical are the whip, the scythe, the rapier, and the pike. The whip no one would ever bring into combatDon't argue with Dr. Jones. And, with skilled use, it can be very effective thanks to its reach and design of its end.


the scythe is an unwieldy farmer's implementUnless re-shaped for war, or in the hands of a death cleric.

the rapier is a thin sword designed for civilian dueling and would easily break during any type of vigorous combatUnless you use it right.

and the pike is just simply "stupid". I can't imagine any character taking into combat much less carrying around a long 18 foot spear that weighs almost 20 pounds.Somebody, quick! Tell the ancient Macedonians and the Swiss that they're stupid and wrong!

Also - I don't think the D&D pike is the full 18', given that it only has 10' of reach. I'd put it closer to a 12' weapon - two bodylengths instead of three, and significantly more wieldy.

[mephnick]

I don't mind the homogenized tables. We don't need to go back to the days of every single martial character using a falcata because it's mechanically superior. Hell, lots of games just say "you do d6 damage, imagine any weapon you want" and I have no problem with those games.

[Knaight]

Somebody, quick! Tell the ancient Macedonians and the Swiss that they're stupid and wrong!
That pikes are incredibly effective weapons in large scale formations (though you might need to throw in the occasional halberd depending on armor developments) doesn't make them particularly sensible in smaller skirmishes. The pike as listed is clearly not the 18 foot version, and pikes around 9 feet are pretty mobile, but they're still formation fighting weapons first and foremost.

Another analogous things would be a spear and shield. You can fight out of formation with them, but they're not necessarily all that hugely effective. In my experience, someone with just a spear will usually do better, while using said spear in two hands. Someone with a shield and a shorter weapon of some sort (axe, mace, sword, whatever) will generally do better. Get two two deep lines of people together though, and that spear and shield combination is suddenly a beautifully effective thing.

[Ralanr]

I don't mind the homogenized tables. We don't need to go back to the days of every single martial character using a falcata because it's mechanically superior. Hell, lots of games just say "you do d6 damage, imagine any weapon you want" and I have no problem with those games.

I prefer those to be honest. A more complicated weapons table just leaves a lot of weapons to never be used because they are mechanically weaker.

Actually the reason I despise the small versions of weapons in pathfinder. Being a ratfolk swashbuckler doesn't sound as fun when all I roll is a d4.

[Knaight]

I don't mind the homogenized tables. We don't need to go back to the days of every single martial character using a falcata because it's mechanically superior. Hell, lots of games just say "you do d6 damage, imagine any weapon you want" and I have no problem with those games.

The issue with these is that the homogenized tables don't work too well with the specific weapon list. I'm fine with a homogenized table, but if you're going to have it, you should just have something like "sword" as a listing. Maybe it's a scimitar, maybe it's a straight arming sword, maybe it's a falchion. Listing all three of those separately with identical stats would be kind of a waste of space.

Or, with the example here, "spear" should be listed. That might be an awlpike, it might be a trident, it might be any number of spears with different types of points, from the viking hewing spear to a smaller greek style head to the longer blade characteristic of the japanese yari. Listing both spear and trident separately just gets messy.

[-Jynx-]

For purposes of game mechanics according to 5th edition D&D, a heavier and deadlier weapon does more damage. A battle axe does more damage than a hand axe. A great axe does more damage than a battle axe. A longsword does more damage than a short sword. The trident is a heavier and deadlier weapon than the spear and it should be reflected this way and it's not.

While it is heavier, I wouldn't say its more deadly (or should do more damage) in the same way that a messer (if it were in dnd) shouldn't do more damage than a longsword.



Second, plate mail is the end all be all of personal armor. The knights of the battlefield of medieval Europe were equivalent to the modern day tank. Very few weapons that came before their time could penetrate through. This included swords, axes, and spears of most types. Standard spears didn't stand a chance no matter what Hollywood, TV shows, or Japanese anime say and no matter how "fast" an opponent was. Their biggest weakness was that just past the spear head was a wooden shaft that was easily cut by a solid stroke of a sword or gotten past by the knight by simply brushing it aside and then moving in for the killing stroke. That is why weapon makers started to experiment with re-designing the weapon in use at the time. The falchion combines the versatility of the sword with the weight of an axe blade but it still wasn't very effective against plate. The awl pike (ahlspiess) is a six to seven foot improved spear where the first three feet is nothing more than a solid steel pole tapering to a sharp point. It was designed specifically for attacking the weaker points of plate armor where the armor needed to flex. The estoc is a longsword where the blade tapered to a very long and sharp point for the same purpose as the awl pike.

Polearm shafts were made with the strongest wood available in every region. Most treated to withstand that very issue of simply being cut in half. A poorly constructed, easily cut through shaft is the equivalent of a sword made with low-quality steel.

While yes I absolutely agree that plate armor made many weapons absolute against it doesn't mean that certain weapons couldn't still be used. Take the longsword, a standard for many knights. The murder stroke (as need in historical manuels) is an implement in which you grab the blade of the longsword, and bear the weight of the hilt/guard down on an armored opponent to improvise a bludgeon which is far more effective against a plated opponent. So while yes cut/slash weapons don't work against plate, piercing (spears of most size though still at a disadvantage) and most bludgeoning implements are still effective.



Even polearms used by peasants saw revisions. The billhook (a farmer's implement) became the bill with a long point, a blade, a hook for catching armor, and a back spike. The halberd was created from the properties of the voulge and the bill for the common soldier against mounted combatants. The poleaxe or pollaxe was a knightly weapon for use against other plate armored knights. It's combined striking head with an axe blade, a hammer, and a spear-like point made it very effective against heavy armor. The best weapons against plate armor were impact weapons like war hammers, flanged maces, and flails as the force of the impact passes straight through to the person inside.

I completely agree. That isn't to say that other weapons don't have improvised uses (as shown earlier in my post) but yes these weapons were made specifically to deal with plated opponents.


Last but not least, there is a big difference between a backsword and a rapier or any of its incantations. A rapier is called a "Civilian" rapier because it is just that, a civilian sword. It had no military purpose whatsoever because of its construction (a long, thin, flimsy blade by comparison). It is a dueling weapon used for personal combat. While capable of cutting with its blade edge, its main use was in thrusting. It's interesting to note that the rapier was never used by the armies of the renaissance period. They developed a sword of similar length but with a wider blade to withstand the demands of military combat. It was labeled as a "broadsword" to differentiate it from the civilian rapier that was in use at the same time. The Victorian historians then wrongfully applied the term "broadsword" to all medieval swords. Small swords were the further development of the rapier. It was shorter and lighter than the rapier and has no blade edge whatsoever; just a sharp point at the end of the blade. Used strictly for thrusting, it was the weapon that was designed for the evolution of civilian dueling combat as the years continued on. This is why I have my reservation about having the rapier in the weapon's list of 5th edition D&D. It has no purpose on the battlefield.

I do know the differences in small/side/back swords and rapiers. They are commonly mistaken for one another, which is why it wouldn't surprise me that DnD would "generalize" them all into one category. However, like I said if you go based off pure actual rapiers it is still an extremely effective dueling weapon (the length, mobility and piercing power a rapier has is as good if not better as a 1 v 1 dueling weapon than the trident, another weapon meant purely for 1 v 1 combat) and while you and I may have different preferences in weaponry... that doesn't discredit a rapiers dueling power simply because you like the trident more. Your trident is no better a weapon than a rapier is. They both never saw use in war, and were used against unarmored opponents. If anything I'd say there's more credence to a rapiers superiority if for no other reason than the fact that it was FAR more commonplace in history than the trident ever was.


I do appreciate your input, it's always refreshing to go back and forth with someone who does have an understanding of historical weaponry.

[Once a Fool]

Hell, lots of games just say "you do d6 damage, imagine any weapon you want" and I have no problem with those games.

OD&D (effectively) being one such game, incidentally.

[Xeronex]

Don't argue with Dr. Jones. And, with skilled use, it can be very effective thanks to its reach and design of its end.

It didn't matter how long you make a whip, it still is just a tool and not a weapon for personal combat. The whip itself does very little damage unless the target is tied down and immobile and you keep beating it over and over again. Reach or not, design or not, the whip shouldn't even be included as a weapon for a character to use unless they wish to draw out combat with a single hit point for every successful hit because that is really all the damage a whip will do even with a solid hit. It was never designed to inflict damage of that magnitude. I hope you know how to dodge a dragon 300-500 times because that is what it will take for you to kill it using a whip.


Unless re-shaped for war, or in the hands of a death cleric.

The scythe is an unwieldy farmer's tool for cutting grass, corn, wheat, and the like. Peasants did use it as weapons because they had no other choice when they were pressed into service. They were simply expected to bring whatever tool they could carry. That being said, I do know that the scythe was later re-fashioned into polearm called a war scythe but that is not the weapon that is listed in the weapon's list of 5th edition. That is the reason why a skilled and expert fighter would never, in a million years, choose a farmer's implement over a qualified and effective weapon.


Unless you use it right.

Per my previous post, it doesn't matter how the rapier would be used. The blade just is not strong enough to withstand the kind of punishment that occurs during hand-to-hand close quarters combat with a well armored opponent. Against an unarmored opponent.....that's a different story. Even using its designed purpose of being a thrusting weapon; the blade simply can not penetrate thicker and sturdier types of armor that were common on the battlefield during it heyday. Hence the reason for it being strictly a "Civilian" weapon.


Somebody, quick! Tell the ancient Macedonians and the Swiss that they're stupid and wrong!

Also - I don't think the D&D pike is the full 18', given that it only has 10' of reach. I'd put it closer to a 12' weapon - two bodylengths instead of three, and significantly more wieldy.

The comment I made was not to discredit the pike in any way. The pike was very effective when used in organized groups such as the phalanx formations of the Greeks and Macedonians and I appreciate the ingenuity they used to come up with that strategy. That being said, the pike is not a melee weapon, it was never designed to be that way. Pikes at their shortest are 10 feet in length and can go all the way up to 25 feet in length. The average is 15 to 18 feet and requires great amounts of strength just to pick them up, carry them around, and lift them up and down for use in formation warfare. They are impossible as a personal sidearm or melee weapon. 5th edition D&D has them listed at 18lbs giving them a length comparable to the average length of historical pikes. To have them listed as such in a table of weapons for use in personal combat goes against their very nature. There is no way that a fighter would drag around a 15 foot spear inside a dungeon or underground complex. There is no way that he/she could wield the weapon effectively against an opponent coming at them with a shield and an axe, or sword, or dagger......it's just plain suicide. That is why I made the statement that they are "stupid" to be used for melee combat. That's why you would use a spear. In reality, that is all that a pike really is; a very, very, long spear.

[Once a Fool]

It didn't matter how long you make a whip, it still is just a tool and not a weapon for personal combat. The whip itself does very little damage unless the target is tied down and immobile and you keep beating it over and over again. Reach or not, design or not, the whip shouldn't even be included as a weapon for a character to use unless they wish to draw out combat with a single hit point for every successful hit

Unless, of course, you want to sneak attack with a reach weapon for some reason, in which case, whip is your only option.

[Ralanr]

Unless, of course, you want to sneak attack with a reach weapon for some reason, in which case, whip is your only option.

That makes some sense. Hilarious comedic scenario sense.

[Hawkstar]

It didn't matter how long you make a whip, it still is just a tool and not a weapon for personal combat. The whip itself does very little damage unless the target is tied down and immobile and you keep beating it over and over again. Reach or not, design or not, the whip shouldn't even be included as a weapon for a character to use unless they wish to draw out combat with a single hit point for every successful hit because that is really all the damage a whip will do even with a solid hit. It was never designed to inflict damage of that magnitude. I hope you know how to dodge a dragon 300-500 times because that is what it will take for you to kill it using a whip.

The scythe is an unwieldy farmer's tool for cutting grass, corn, wheat, and the like. Peasants did use it as weapons because they had no other choice when they were pressed into service. They were simply expected to bring whatever tool they could carry. That being said, I do know that the scythe was later re-fashioned into polearm called a war scythe but that is not the weapon that is listed in the weapon's list of 5th edition. That is the reason why a skilled and expert fighter would never, in a million years, choose a farmer's implement over a qualified and effective weapon.

[quote]Per my previous post, it doesn't matter how the rapier would be used. The blade just is not strong enough to withstand the kind of punishment that occurs during hand-to-hand close quarters combat with a well armored opponent. Against an unarmored opponent.....that's a different story. Even using its designed purpose of being a thrusting weapon; the blade simply can not penetrate thicker and sturdier types of armor that were common on the battlefield during it heyday. Hence the reason for it being strictly a "Civilian" weapon.Adventurers are not usually fighting in formations against large numbers of heavily-armored enemies. They tend to be adaptable with the weapons they have.


The comment I made was not to discredit the pike in any way. The pike was very effective when used in organized groups such as the phalanx formations of the Greeks and Macedonians and I appreciate the ingenuity they used to come up with that strategy. That being said, the pike is not a melee weapon, it was never designed to be that way. Pikes at their shortest are 10 feet in length and can go all the way up to 25 feet in length. The average is 15 to 18 feet and requires great amounts of strength just to pick them up, carry them around, and lift them up and down for use in formation warfare. They are impossible as a personal sidearm or melee weapon. 5th edition D&D has them listed at 18lbs giving them a length comparable to the average length of historical pikes. To have them listed as such in a table of weapons for use in personal combat goes against their very nature. There is no way that a fighter would drag around a 15 foot spear inside a dungeon or underground complex. There is no way that he/she could wield the weapon effectively against an opponent coming at them with a shield and an axe, or sword, or dagger......it's just plain suicide. That is why I made the statement that they are "stupid" to be used for melee combat. That's why you would use a spear. In reality, that is all that a pike really is; a very, very, long spear.

...So why doesn't the pike have a reach of 15-20'?

[Ralanr]

I always saw the 5e pike as a partisan to be honest.

[FabulousFizban]

Yes but it's supposed that martial weapons are intentionally designed to be better than simple weapons, and spears are actually better than tridents according to rules.

spears are better than tridents in real life. I think this has more to do with Next's attempt to put the focus back on roleplaying and adventure and less on mechanical min/maxing.

Same reason there is no magic weapons section - they don't want it to turn into pathfinder where acquiring equipment is essential to leveling properly. They want to give you the option of leaving magical items out of your game altogether.

Its power to the DM.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Typical WOTC not checking for common sense.

I think I'd give the trident a bonus on disarm attempts, or maybe it gives you advantage used underwater, or something. That'd justify it.

This assumes that they have ever used common sense when it comes to weapons...

The fact that they still haven't dealt with the long sword issues alone show they don't really care for common sense.

[Ralanr]

Well it is a bigger focus on story telling and role playing. They did advertise theater of the mind.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Well it is a bigger focus on story telling and role playing. They did advertise theater of the mind.

To bad that isn't what is behind the weapon tables.

Wantbtheater of the mind? I've seen plenty of "make your own" weapon homebrew over the years that promotes "theater of the mind" and what 5e gave us is garbage.

Out of everything it may be the most telling item about how they view people who want to play martial characters.

The weapon table looks like they forgot to update it before it was sent to the printers.

But hey, it's D&D, so people will swallow any jagged little pill ad long as it looks like 2e/3e (I have no basis before 2e).

It isn't based on "theater of the mind", it isn't based on real life, it isn't based on balance, and it isn't based on common sense. The only thing the weapon table seems to be based on a pure laziness.

(My anger is pointed toward wotc, not any poster(s) of this thread)

[Ralanr]

To bad that isn't what is behind the weapon tables.

Wantbtheater of the mind? I've seen plenty of "make your own" weapon homebrew over the years that promotes "theater of the mind" and what 5e gave us is garbage.

Out of everything it may be the most telling item about how they view people who want to play martial characters.

The weapon table looks like they forgot to update it before it was sent to the printers.

But hey, it's D&D, so people will swallow any jagged little pill ad long as it looks like 2e/3e (I have no basis before 2e).

It isn't based on "theater of the mind", it isn't based on real life, it isn't based on balance, and it isn't based on common sense. The only thing the weapon table seems to be based on a pure laziness.

(My anger is pointed toward wotc, not any poster(s) of this thread)

No offense taken. It looks like a lot of stuff wasn't looked at before going to the printers, or built with the connection to something that is no longer there. Looking at the Grappler feat is a good example.

I'd also say ranger, but I only complain about their cap ability and I've never been a fan of favored terrain or favored enemy (particularly humanoid typing. I feel we can get favored humanoid and make it so you need to study the humanoid opponent to gain the benefit). Some abilities look fun, like horde breaker.

[Dimolyth]

Yes but it's supposed that martial weapons are intentionally designed to be better than simple weapons, and spears are actually better than tridents according to rules.

I don`t really think so. Simple weapons are simple in learning to use them efficiently. Yeah, WOTC couldn`t really control that because stupid tradition issues (dagger? A simple weapon for wizard is dagger?).

I`d say, spear ought to be a king of simple weapons, as it was since stone age till 17th century.
And trident... added just for fluff of trained gladiator. Or for fluff of trained sea dwelling races. It ought to exist beause of tradition, it ought rest flavorfull but not widespread, and it totally doesn`t need to be optimized.

[Knaight]

I`d say, spear ought to be a king of simple weapons, as it was since stone age till 17th century.

There's some messiness there though. Yes, the basics of spear use are pretty straightforward, particularly in the context of formation fighting. It's a weapon that has a lot of complexity to it though - to use one example, in China there was a saying for some time regarding the amount of time it took to get proficient with a handful of weapons, with spears taking substantially longer than some swords.

[Xeronex]

spears are better than tridents in real life. I think this has more to do with Next's attempt to put the focus back on roleplaying and adventure and less on mechanical min/maxing.

Same reason there is no magic weapons section - they don't want it to turn into pathfinder where acquiring equipment is essential to leveling properly. They want to give you the option of leaving magical items out of your game altogether.

Its power to the DM.

There is a balance here that I believe is not being considered. Wizards of the Coast wanted to get away from Warhammer, they wanted to get away from the ridiculous rules of 4th edition, and they wanted to separate themselves from Pathfinder which in reality is 3.5 edition of D&D. At least, that is what I am being told by everyone that I have talked to. I have played many of the modules that have come out for 5th edition Adventure's League and it is pretty depressing when you have a 6th level character and no magic item to speak of. To me, playing D&D 1st edition was more fun than what I am playing now in this aspect. Your character is supposed to be sort of superheros. Being able to do what no one else can do or has done before. Magic item, even basic magic items were what allowed them to be even better than their physical limitations would allow them. Even a +1 weapon or something of the like is what allowed the player character to feel their character was special or unique. In the Adventure's League rules, they don't allow you to buy magic weapons, they don't allow you to create magic weapons even though the whole process is laid out in the Dungeon Master Guide, and they don't allow you to be able to find any magic weapons in the adventures. The ones that are found are too few and too far in between. The problem we have when we play is that when there is a permanent magic item in an adventure, someone gets its due to the process of distributing magic items and then doesn't show up again or come back....ever.

I am all for the return to the role playing aspect of D&D because that is really what Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson originally intended it to be but there was a better way for characters to get magic items that would assist them in harder and harder adventures. I really think Wizards of the Coast moved way to far over to the other spectrum regarding this part of D&D.

Just a few of my own observations.........

[Major_Invitee]

Okay, so- Making it have +1 to hit would be too much. Buffing the damage is fine. Lots of arguments not to change it. Anything else? It's an intimidating weapon, narly looking, prongs, etc. advantage/some bonus to intimidate perhaps? It's a showy weapon so gladiatorial wise it could also give a bonus to performance. Some sort of bonus to disarming an opponent?

Just little ideas and things that have been said in the thread. Everyone is talking about just the numbers(mostly anyway) it could also have utility. (+1 to survival rolls when fishing anyone?).

(I didn't check to see how old this thread is, so I may or may not be necro-ing an ancient or something.)

[LordFluffy]

Somewhere, either Mearls or one of the other developers said, in playtesting, that different weapons had special features. It ended up not being one of the features that made it into the final cut, for whatever reason.

My assumption on why some of the weapons on the chart are strictly inferior others is that they weren't removed from the chart after their properties were removed and never looked at again.

[N810]

That pikes are incredibly effective weapons in large scale formations (though you might need to throw in the occasional halberd depending on armor developments) doesn't make them particularly sensible in smaller skirmishes. The pike as listed is clearly not the 18 foot version, and pikes around 9 feet are pretty mobile, but they're still formation fighting weapons first and foremost.

Another analogous things would be a spear and shield. You can fight out of formation with them, but they're not necessarily all that hugely effective. In my experience, someone with just a spear will usually do better, while using said spear in two hands. Someone with a shield and a shorter weapon of some sort (axe, mace, sword, whatever) will generally do better. Get two two deep lines of people together though, and that spear and shield combination is suddenly a beautifully effective thing.

https://youtu.be/_ygRholyh5g <--- spear fighting :smallcool:

[Rusvul]

To be honest, I kind of wish they had laid out the weapons table with weapons that are the same being in the same row. Make Glaives and Halberds the same, make Spears and Tridents the same, buff Maces to be equal to Quarterstaves (it's silly that they're not already) and make them the same... No reason they need to take up two rows for the same weapon.


That, or, y'know, make all of the weapons unique and interesting? But I guess that costs money...

[N810]

This guy has some decent ideas....
http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-equipment#Siege
for expanded and unique weapon properties.

[eastmabl]

Thread necromancy.

[LordFluffy]

Thread necromancy.

Threadsurrection