Spear for Sneak Attack?

[SMac8988]

I know by RAW it can't be, since it isn't finese, but would any DM see an issue with it? The spear does the same amount of damage as saber/short sword, cept if used in two hands.

I was thinking it more for flavor for an up coming character to use a spear and shield.

Just curious of others inputs.

[WickerNipple]

Fine by me.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Seems fine as long as you don't also plan any polearm shenanigans.

[Corran]

After having watched the GoT fight between Oberyn and the Mountain, I would be very hardly convinced that spear is not a finese weapon.

ps: Now after the tower of joy scene, we have to fix dual wielding!!!:smallbiggrin:

[Misterwhisper]

Seems fine as long as you don't also plan any polearm shenanigans.

Due to the stupidity of how gear and feats work Spears are not considered polearms, despite being the most common one ever made in history.

[SMac8988]

I love the idea of having a spear and shield with a short bow. My halfling ranger/rogue will be a beast!!!!

[Coffee_Dragon]

Due to the stupidity of how gear and feats work Spears are not considered polearms, despite being the most common one ever made in history.

But... but... *brain ejects*


(Also yeah so much for loose coupling)

[SMac8988]

I also feel it should be a finese weapon, like yes it can be a brute force weapon, but monks use them artfully and with finese rather than power, but that's another arguement.

I think if a player asked me I would let it keep the two hand option, but not sure most would.

[R.Shackleford]

I say you can sneak attack with any weapon, but you can only use one source of extra damage per attack.

So if you have sneak attack and smite and GWM you can use one source when you hit with an attack.

Punishes Multiclassing but I think multiclassing in 5e is an absolute joke (should have been hybrid classes or feats, WotC got lazy).

[krugaan]

But... but... *brain ejects*


(Also yeah so much for loose coupling)

Dagger? Totally a finesse weapon.

Dagger on a stick? OMG need more strength.

[RickAllison]

Here are my two coppers. Spears in the PHB are not the spears we traditionally think of, which really are the Pikes in the PHB. The pikes of reality are not given stats because they are too ridiculously large for the combat of D&D (they tend to be more of a deterrent and used in mass formations).

So there you go that's why Spears are not polearms, because really Pikes are spears and pikes don't exist. Clear as mud?

[krugaan]

You should give up and just go the Indiana Jones route:

whip for sneak attack.

At range, no less!

[EvanescentHero]

In my rules, rogues can sneak attack with any weapon on the rogue proficiency list except the greatclub. They also get proficiency with whips and scimitars. To top it off, spears are finesse weapons anyway, as are javelins, quarterstaves, sickles, and tridents.

So basically, I have no problem with it.

[Misterwhisper]

But... but... *brain ejects*


(Also yeah so much for loose coupling)

Another great point of stupidity in game design.

Javelins are not ranged weapons.
A hand axe which is like a freaking tommahawk is considered light but DARTS are not.
So you can dual wield a pair of axes but not shuriken or darts.

[Rysto]

Javelins are not ranged weapons.

Say what? They have the Thrown property.

[R.Shackleford]

Say what? They have the Thrown property.

That doesn't make them a ranged weapon.

[JumboWheat01]

You should give up and just go the Indiana Jones route:

whip for sneak attack.

At range, no less!

...I need to draw this kind of character up. Rogues do get an extra ASI, so throwing Weapon Master on it wouldn't be a problem at all.

And on topic, I wouldn't have anything against spears for sneak attacking. You ever get randomly stabbed by something you backed into on accident? It flippin' hurts!

[krugaan]

Another great point of stupidity in game design.

Javelins are not ranged weapons.
A hand axe which is like a freaking tommahawk is considered light but DARTS are not.
So you can dual wield a pair of axes but not shuriken or darts.

Light has to do with dual wielding, and darts can't do melee damage.

[R.Shackleford]

Light has to do with dual wielding, and darts can't do melee damage.

Yes they can, it may be improvised but they can be melee weapons.

[krugaan]

Yes they can, it may be improvised but they can be melee weapons.

Fine, they're not INTENDED to be melee weapons.

In fact, apparently, they're so unsuited to it that you can't dual wield them. :smallbiggrin:

I mean ... without talents.

[Tanarii]

Here are my two coppers. Spears in the PHB are not the spears we traditionally think of, which really are the Pikes in the PHB. The pikes of reality are not given stats because they are too ridiculously large for the combat of D&D (they tend to be more of a deterrent and used in mass formations).

So there you go that's why Spears are not polearms, because really Pikes are spears and pikes don't exist. Clear as mud?zulu style spear, 3ft long stick with wide leaf blade on the end, usable with shield = 5e Spear

Classical spear, 6ft long stick with dagger sized blade = 5e pike

Classical pike, 12 ft stick with pointed steel on end = 5e lance (d12, reach, 2h, disadvantage vs adjacent enemies)

[RickAllison]

zulu style spear, 3ft long stick with wide leaf blade on the end, usable with shield = 5e Spear

Classical spear, 6ft long stick with dagger sized blade = 5e pike

Classical pike, 12 ft stick with pointed steel on end = 5e lance (reach, 2h, disadvantage vs adjacent enemies)

I knew I was missing something!!! Thanks for filling in my ramblings with more accurate images :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

I knew I was missing something!!! Thanks for filling in my ramblings with more accurate images :smallsmile:
Re: the lance on foot, I pointed this out to my players because there are enough of PCs and Henchmen in parties they actually fight in ranks a fair amount of time. "Lance" is a nice 2nd rank weapon when your enemies can't get close enough to make the disadvantage a problem. Or they drop it and switch weapons, which is fitting. Of course, there target gets +2 AC for cover, but the slightly higher damage helps make up for that.

[Tanarii]

Fine, they're not INTENDED to be melee weapons.

In fact, apparently, they're so unsuited to it that you can't dual wield them. :smallbiggrin:
You can dual wield thrown weapons as ranged attacks, provided they are Light and Melee weapons and have the Thrown ability. That means you can dual wield throw an off hand dagger or handaxe, but not a dart.

It feels a little bit weird that darts are restricted that way when handaxe and daggers aren't. Especially if you're flavoring them as shuriken.

IMX it's a very common opening move for Barbarians and Str Fighter Great weapon fighters to throw two handaxes then pull out their big weapon.

[Knaight]

zulu style spear, 3ft long stick with wide leaf blade on the end, usable with shield = 5e Spear

Classical spear, 6ft long stick with dagger sized blade = 5e pike

Classical pike, 12 ft stick with pointed steel on end = 5e lance (d12, reach, 2h, disadvantage vs adjacent enemies)

Spears of 6-8 feet were routinely used with shields, and while they aren't particularly great in that context outside of formation fighting, that's probably what D&D was going for with the default spear, instead of something very short. The lance then doubles as a pike, which covers existing overlap between the two quite well.

[Wulfskadi]

You can dual wield thrown weapons as ranged attacks, provided they are Light and Melee weapons and have the Thrown ability. That means you can dual wield throw an off hand dagger or handaxe, but not a dart.

It feels a little bit weird that darts are restricted that way when handaxe and daggers aren't. Especially if you're flavoring them as shuriken.

IMX it's a very common opening move for Barbarians and Str Fighter Great weapon fighters to throw two handaxes then pull out their big weapon.

In all honesty it actually makes some sense. The motion required to throw a tomahawk or dagger is much easier to do with both hands than a dart or shuriken. This is because both hand axes and knives are balanced to spin, whereas spin or lack thereof is required to be manually altered during the throw of a dart as well as a more thorough follow through

[Tanarii]

Spears of 6-8 feet were routinely used with shields, and while they aren't particularly great in that context outside of formation fighting, that's probably what D&D was going for with the default spear, instead of something very short.A 6-8ft spear isn't a one handed spear in a non-formation, individual combat context. 3ft might be a bit short, but I can't see the default 5e D&D spear being more than about 4 to 4-1/2 ft long. The Pike as a two-handed weapon much better represents a stabby thing on a stick longer than a man.

Of course, some men are longer than others. :smallwink:

[SMac8988]

How well would swashbuckler work with the shield/spear idea? Or is it better to have that for two weapon fighting? I also was thinking of having a hand cross bow as my range, primary weapon; with cross bow master on wolf back. Figure I could keep my shield for the AC bump, and still maintain the same, round about damage, as a short bow. Plus two attacks if I have my bonus action freed up from swash buckler.

[JackPhoenix]

How well would swashbuckler work with the shield/spear idea? Or is it better to have that for two weapon fighting? I also was thinking of having a hand cross bow as my range, primary weapon; with cross bow master on wolf back. Figure I could keep my shield for the AC bump, and still maintain the same, round about damage, as a short bow. Plus two attacks if I have my bonus action freed up from swash buckler.

Generally, rogues want to dual wield for the second chance at sneak attack if they miss once, but if the spear was finesse, it would work, especially if you got Shield Master for BA shove.

The second idea doesn't work, even with Crossbow Master, you still need free hand to reload, thanks to the errata on ammunition property (unlike loading, that one is not removed by Crossbow Master)

[SMac8988]

My thought, correct me if I'm wrong, would be with swashbuckler and being mounted on my wolf I get free disengage and could use my bonus action to have my wolf make a dash action. May require mounted combat as well but I'm not sure on that part. But that way I could, if needed ride in attack and ride out. Or ride in hop off and both of us attack and still have my bonus action.

The cross bow mastery still causes me so much confusion. I mean I could just have a spot to slide my shield and spear on my wolf's back and switch to a light cross bow or hand cross bow if needed. 3 attacks plus sharp shooter, hunters mark and one sneak attack is a ton of damage. But idk if it's 3 or 2 attacks at this point.

[JackPhoenix]

My thought, correct me if I'm wrong, would be with swashbuckler and being mounted on my wolf I get free disengage and could use my bonus action to have my wolf make a dash action. May require mounted combat as well but I'm not sure on that part. But that way I could, if needed ride in attack and ride out. Or ride in hop off and both of us attack and still have my bonus action.
Swashbuckler got free sort-of-Disengage or pseudo-Mobility built in Fancy Footwork, when you melee atack (you don't even have to hit!), you won't provoke OA from the target for the rest of your turn. That won't affect your mount, though, and the attacker can target you or the mount when the mount provokes OA, thus negating your Fancy Footworks, so you're better of having it Disengage instead of Dash. Controling the mount doesn't cost you any action, bonus or otherwise. Also, Rakish Audacity doesn't work when mounted (mount is a creature other than than target in 5' of you). Though the mount propably counts as your ally, so it allows for sneak attack as normal.



The cross bow mastery still causes me so much confusion. I mean I could just have a spot to slide my shield and spear on my wolf's back and switch to a light cross bow or hand cross bow if needed. 3 attacks plus sharp shooter, hunters mark and one sneak attack is a ton of damage. But idk if it's 3 or 2 attacks at this point.

It's no attack in the turn you switch your equipment, doning or doffing a shield costs action, and you can only draw or sheathe a weapon for free once a turn. So in one turn you take off your shield and sheathe (or whatever) the spear, on the second you draw the crossbow and shoot. 2 attacks (if you have Extra Attack) + 1 BA attack with hand crossbow from Crossbow Master.

[PoeticDwarf]

I know by RAW it can't be, since it isn't finese, but would any DM see an issue with it? The spear does the same amount of damage as saber/short sword, cept if used in two hands.

I was thinking it more for flavor for an up coming character to use a spear and shield.

Just curious of others inputs.

I'd allow it, but heavily depends on DM, wouldn't break anything at least. You could always refluff a rapier as a shield or something like that

[RedMage125]

I have some input on the subject that people have brought up about how the spear "should" be a finesse weapon.

The truth is, that ANY weapon, when wielded by someone of sufficient skill and training, can appear graceful. When I was in college, we had a presentation by a group called The Duelists. They train in all kinds of medieval weapons, and they do shows at Renaissance Fairs, they come to theatres to train people in stage combat, all kinds of things. They gave a few demonstrations, including one person with a two-handed axe. Unlike what D&D has made me expect, the axe was not wielded with two hands on the lower parts of the handle. The expert kept one hand on the base of the handle, and the other mid-haft on the axe. He used the weight of the axe and his hand on the midpoint to keep the axe spinning in tight circles, flowing in constant and graceful motion around him.

Does this mean that the greataxe should be a finesse weapon? Just because it CAN be wielded gracefully?

D&D is a game, and at some point, simulationism needs to give way to simple game mechanics. While it could be fun (for some people) to introduce extra rules to represent things the way they work IRL, as people playing a game, we should ask "is this necessary?" and "does this add to the FUN at the table?". For example, in 2e, there were extra rules for how certain armor types responded to different damage types. Case in point: chainmail was 2 points of AC worse against bludgeoning weapons. This makes sense. Chainmail is very flexible, and is meant to stop slashing blows. It would provide worse protection against a blow from a mace than a swing from a sword. But is that kind of extra ruling NECESSARY? Is not the game bogged down by having to alter your AC against n attack, just because it does bludgeoning damage? Or is it simpler and more elegant to just say "Chainmail gives you AC 16", and leave it at that?

TL;DR- D&D rules are meant to be an abstraction of fantasy genre roleplaying. They may not be perfect simulationist representations, but that's okay.

[EvanescentHero]

TL;DR- D&D rules are meant to be an abstraction of fantasy genre roleplaying. They may not be perfect simulationist representations, but that's okay.

To be fair, there's a big difference between having to recalculate AC when being targeted by different types of weapons and simply ruling that certain extra weapons can be used with Dex.

[RedMage125]

To be fair, there's a big difference between having to recalculate AC when being targeted by different types of weapons and simply ruling that certain extra weapons can be used with Dex.

The main relevant point pursuant to the spear was the great axe. Should great axes be finesse weapons just because they can be wielded gracefully by a trained individual?

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think it's a bit of a leap from "I saw a guy twirling an axe deftly" to "rogues should be able to use axes in conjunction with their special damage dealie". The problem with applying logical chains to game mechanisms (assuming that mechanism X works because of property Y, then invoking property Y for something else and claiming X should also work with it) is that there's too often some kind of fuzzy path to wherever one wants to go, and lots of other paths leading elsewhere that are silently discarded.

Which I guess means "I agree with the above poster".

[EvanescentHero]

The main relevant point pursuant to the spear was the great axe. Should great axes be finesse weapons just because they can be wielded gracefully by a trained individual?

No, and for reasons besides the obvious "axes are typically strength weapons." Not least of which is that finesse weapons currently cap at a damage die of d8, and a greataxe is two steps beyond that.

Greataxes, at least in typical fantasy, are heavy, brutal weapons that are made for devastating blows. You can be graceful with anything given enough practice, but that doesn't equate to the finesse tag, especially when that is unlikely to come up or be effective in a real fight.

I don't have a real reason for spears and tridents being finesse other than it sort of...feeling right to me. And Dark Souls does it that way too! Plus I just think there should be more finesse weapons in the game.

[SMac8988]

I mainly figured it would work due to the damage being the same as a short sword or rapier. I would place it that used 2 handed it would lose that effect. Like only one or the other.

But that is just my thought.

[Knaight]

I mainly figured it would work due to the damage being the same as a short sword or rapier. I would place it that used 2 handed it would lose that effect. Like only one or the other.

But that is just my thought.

Any finesse you get with a spear comes from using it two handed. One handed they're a bit unwieldy, a bit on the slow side, and just generally not the greatest weapon outside of a formation. It's when you use both hands that spears suddenly get really fast and really precise.

[MBControl]

There seems to be big discussions about minor wordings in the rules. In my opinion, Everybody is right. For the most part, I think that the designer's image of a particular weapon is different than a lot of players view of them. Our group tends to amend weapon rulings also. For example, one of our monk's wanted to rock a long staff a la Morgan on TWD. With no particular weapon on the list, we basically reskinned the short sword with bludge. dmg, and called it a monk weapon.

There is usually a player, DM discussion before hand agreeing on the intent of the weapon, and style of use.

[Lombra]

I think that the encumberance of the weapon itself make it difficult to land strategically placed hits.
Daggers or shortswors are much more easy to maneouver where you want to land the hit.
Also I think that spears should be counted for PAM purposes: quarterstaves and halberds (which are harder to handle) and no spears? Really?

[EvanescentHero]

For example, one of our monk's wanted to rock a long staff a la Morgan on TWD. With no particular weapon on the list, we basically reskinned the short sword with bludge. dmg, and called it a monk weapon.

I don't watch TWD anymore, so I don't know the character, but would a quarterstaff not have worked in this scenario?

[SMac8988]

I think the issue is how the player looks at the "spear" in question.

Cause I view the pike as more the traditional long length spear. Due to them requiring training to properly use: Mashal weapon and all.

While the "spear" is a simple weapon. I view more the only African war spears, something 3 to 4 feet long, with about a 6 inch spade at the end. Very often wielded with a spear.

[dejarnjc]

I think that the encumberance of the weapon itself make it difficult to land strategically placed hits.
Daggers or shortswors are much more easy to maneouver where you want to land the hit.
Also I think that spears should be counted for PAM purposes: quarterstaves and halberds (which are harder to handle) and no spears? Really?

Yeah but spears aren't pole arms. Not sure what's so hard to get about that. Almost all pole arms have a weighted end and some sort of slashing element to them and they're heavy. Spears are just for stabbing and a much lighter. Very different weapons.

[RickAllison]

Yeah but spears aren't pole arms. Not sure what's so hard to get about that. Almost all pole arms have a weighted end and some sort of slashing element to them and they're heavy. Spears are just for stabbing and a much lighter. Very different weapons.

Indeed. To me, the bonus action attack from PAM is converting the motion of the swing from the other attacks into hitting with less force than normal. Then there is the pike...

[BladeWing81]

In my rules, rogues can sneak attack with any weapon on the rogue proficiency list except the greatclub. They also get proficiency with whips and scimitars. To top it off, spears are finesse weapons anyway, as are javelins, quarterstaves, sickles, and tridents.

So basically, I have no problem with it.

actually spears aren't finesse, they're versatile. There IS an exception. Windvane: the legendary magic spear of the howling hatred cult. this spears is the only one that has the finesse property along with thrown and versatile.

[EvanescentHero]

actually spears aren't finesse, they're versatile. There IS an exception. Windvane: the legendary magic spear of the howling hatred cult. this spears is the only one that has the finesse property along with thrown and versatile.

That entire statement was about my rules. I know spears aren't finesse in the base game, but they are at my table.

[Knaight]

Yeah but spears aren't pole arms. Not sure what's so hard to get about that. Almost all pole arms have a weighted end and some sort of slashing element to them and they're heavy. Spears are just for stabbing and a much lighter. Very different weapons.

Spears is a pretty wide category, and includes any number of weapons that are perfectly capable of slashing. Hewing spears and the yari are both generally downright good at it, and even spears meant almost entirely for stabbing tend to have a bit of a blade on them.

Plus, polearm master explicitly works with the quarterstaff, so the weighted end is apparently entirely optional.

[dejarnjc]

Spears is a pretty wide category, and includes any number of weapons that are perfectly capable of slashing. Hewing spears and the yari are both generally downright good at it, and even spears meant almost entirely for stabbing tend to have a bit of a blade on them.

Plus, polearm master explicitly works with the quarterstaff, so the weighted end is apparently entirely optional.

So I did a little light reading about halberd fighting. One of the most common techniques was to hold the halberd with wide grip up high above the head with the butt facing towards the opponent. From this position, the wielder could use the butt both defensively and offensively (short swift jabs) as well as be primed for a powerful downward slash. I presume the same could be done with a glaive or a quarterstaff with little trouble. I do have a hard time imagining any type of spear that this maneuver could be performed with.

[Laserlight]

I mainly figured it would work due to the damage being the same as a short sword or rapier. I would place it that used 2 handed it would lose that effect.

I fought with 2h spear for a bit, and when fighting other spears, we parried and such just as we did with rapiers. Against sword & shield, the preferred tactic was "go somewhere else", but if I had to fight them, I usually tried to feint and then stick them in the knee (face wasn't a legal target). 2h spear relied heavily on speed and mobility to survive. My instructor said "be sure you can run backward faster than your opponent can chase you."
I never fought as a spear in formation or with spear & shield. The Zulus fought with fairly long spears & shield, until they determined that short spears (iklwa, as I recall) worked better.