Am I the only one who sees the Pike as ridiculous?

[CrackedChair]

I am a person who loves polearms. But yet, the Pike is a bit offputting.

It's essentially a big spear, but weighs 18 pounds. That's a lot to carry! I don't know exactly how I am going to make it believable that I lug around something as big as this with me.

And I don't necessarily like the Glaive or Halberd that much, and would rather perfer to stab stuff rather than cut them.

Anybody else feel the same?

[xen]

I've never used one in a game but historically they were used to great effect, from the Macedonian phalanx developed by Phillip of Macedon to the middle ages, mostly in formations. In the late middle ages it was also used as a single combat weapon and was considered by some to be one of the most devastating weapons, presumably by someone who knows what they're doing.

In gameplay, I have found that, most weapons are indistinguishable. In other words, outside of the die used and the damage type, nobody really cares about the difference between a glaive versus a halberd versus a pike.

I guess other tables could be different.

[Knaight]

The weight is off - there were 18 pound pikes, yes, but I'd have a hard time justifying 10' reach with any of them - it's the ones with 20' or so reach that might hit 18 pounds. Other than that it's a pretty typical longspear.

[CrackedChair]

Ah, the weight is off. I guess that means it is possible to carry a 10' pike.

Looks like I got myself a weapons I like again!

[suplee215]

See the Game of Thrones episode Battle of The Bastards to see why pikes are awesome. Most DnD weapons lack historical accuracy and the fighting style used can't be implemented.

[JumboWheat01]

Yes, it's only you. No one else sees the pike as such.

...Sorry, that's just become a bit of a pet peeve.

Admittedly, it does weigh a lot for what is essentially an extended pointy stick. Maybe there's a massive counter-balance on the other end.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

A pike *is* ridiculous... as a personal sidearm.

Pikes and other long spears excel as battlefield weapons.

Anyway,

Ken

[suplee215]

Admittedly, it does weigh a lot for what is essentially an extended pointy stick. Maybe there's a massive counter-balance on the other end.
Pikes tended to be a term for a heavy spear. It was usually extremely sturdy so it doesn't break in battle. PHB weights are off but if we compare a pike to what will be considered a normal spear to be thrown than yea. Not sure if a boar spear will qualify as a pike but that shows why pointy sticks needed to be expertly made and heavy. Boars can be over 200 pounds, the size of a bear and runs at you. Hunters would dig their pike into the ground as the boar charged and pray it didn't break and the crossbar held so the boar would stop and not impale itself further so it kills you. if a boar spear broke, you were dead.

[Laserlight]

Regarding as the accuracy and logic of the weapons list, you're probably better off to assume that it was compiled at 4pm on the day that final submissions were due. The one that aggravates me the most is that a greataxe does 1d12, but a halbard--which is an axe with a longer haft and therefore better potential leverage--does less at 1d10.

I'd say a 10ft reach is a longspear, a 15ft reach is a pike. A pike ought to weigh around 13 pounds, possibly a bit less.

I've fought SCA combat using a 7ft spear; I don't see using a pike in single combat. Once a foe gets past your point, you'd have to run backward faster than he can run forward.

[djreynolds]

I am a person who loves polearms. But yet, the Pike is a bit offputting.

It's essentially a big spear, but weighs 18 pounds. That's a lot to carry! I don't know exactly how I am going to make it believable that I lug around something as big as this with me.

And I don't necessarily like the Glaive or Halberd that much, and would rather perfer to stab stuff rather than cut them.

Anybody else feel the same?

I prefer the trident, it costs more and it just as useless

We actually gave the pike 15ft reach in our game, and the trident we gave advantage to hit when thrown.

[CaptainSarathai]

A pike would be a terrible personal weapon. I'd just call it a heavy spear and be done with it, like the boar-spear mentioned earlier. Those things are awesome.

A trident would be a god-awful weapon to throw, unless you're Brick. I'd just give it an ability to disarm people or something. Really it's a crappy weapon. It's like all the fanart you see of guys going to battle with a scythe like the grim reaper. It's a stupid weapon.

[djreynolds]

That's the thing I miss about previous editions, that every weapon was different and had a purpose

[Sigreid]

See the Game of Thrones episode Battle of The Bastards to see why pikes are awesome. Most DnD weapons lack historical accuracy and the fighting style used can't be implemented.

I believe they lack accuracy because they took broad ranges of similar weapons and grouped them under one name. That and I doubt there was budget in the game development fund for a historical weapons expert.

[Ninja_Prawn]

You're not the only one feels uncomfortable about the PHB's weapon definitions; there are some that irk me, too.

As far as I'm concerned, a 10-foot spear is not a pike. Wikipedia says 10 to 25 feet; my mental image is towards the middle of that range. I mean, this has got to be at least 15 feet, right?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Pike_square_img_3653.jpg/800px-Pike_square_img_3653.jpg
And you'd definitely need a sidearm to engage targets within 5 feet.

[Vaz]

That's the thing I miss about previous editions, that every weapon was different and had a purpose

Whenever was this the case? Because it hasn't been for the last 17 years at least.

[Lombra]

Call it lucerne. Pike is probably a big typo and they meant lucerne. (/sarcasm)

[djreynolds]

Whenever was this the case? Because it hasn't been for the last 17 years at least.

Sure, in 3.5 some weapons had higher crit threats and others did more damage on crits.

A war pick was a cool weapon and it might do more damage on a critical hit, while a scimitar had a greater chance of achieving a crit.

A trident and spear are identical, why? Its just lazy on the developers part.

Why does a pike weigh 18lbs, but have the same reach and damage as halberd which is classified as a slashing weapon? It must be easier to stab with a reach weapon than it is slash at an opponent 10ft away.

There is no mention that a halberd is actually slashing and piercing.

PCs used a Morningstar in 3.5 because it was bludgeoning and piercing.

A lance in melee does the same damage as it does on horseback, 1d12 and is 6lbs. Sure it has disadvantage in 5ft of melee, while the pike which weighs 18lbs doesn't.

I'm sorry, but its just lazy

[Vaz]

Ah. Because all of its "much vaunted" number of available weapons, a good 90% of them never saw the light of day. For all their numerous differences, a lot were functionally the same weapon apart from extreme niche cases. Why should there so much effort on the parts of the rules writers to create all those variant weapons, when some are clearly better than any other; Greatsword vs Greataxe, for example? All that does is create additional work to have the rules balance out, but then have the complaints that certain types are unsupported.

To this day, I'd like to see a Hoplite style Fighter done effectively; 5e comes the closest towards it thanks to its largely homogenous ruleset; look at 3.5. All these amazing weapons, and yet they still don't have a reach 1 handed spear that can be used with a heavy shield, you have to use a non-reach throwing spear or a 2 handed sarissa type spear.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

If you ignore the critical column from the 3.5/pathfinder weapons chart i see no problem using them in 5e. This would give you more weapon options without stealing from the classes that improve critical.

[JackPhoenix]

That's the thing I miss about previous editions, that every weapon was different and had a purpose

I'm not sure what edition you're talking about, because before the simpler and more balanced weapons of 5e came, purpose of most weapons in D&D was to take space in the weapon table, unused, because there were 2-3 weapons that were just superior in almost every way, and the way every bit of bonus mattered much more than in 5e, using anything else was just plain bad.

[Spore]

Pikes are for war and not for everyday adventuring. For the same reason I still have a hard time imagining rogues or even rangers using a Longbow in small dungeon corridors just because it deals more damage. That being said my Halfling Fighter/Paladin uses a Lance that stays with his mount when there is no space for mounted combat.

I feel a Pike shouldn't be used as a weapon for adventures. You might as well use them en masse to defend a corridor using untrained peasants to hold them up. No combat skill required and they'll stop a major force from advancing.

[suplee215]

I believe they lack accuracy because they took broad ranges of similar weapons and grouped them under one name. That and I doubt there was budget in the game development fund for a historical weapons expert.

Well that and the fact that they didn't want to make it too complicated. Honesty, it will be real hard to make weapons do their intended purpose as 5th edition really just use them to hit.

[rbstr]

I fully agree some of the current options are weird in several cases

But really?

The one that aggravates me the most is that a greataxe does 1d12, but a halbard--which is an axe with a longer haft and therefore better potential leverage--does less at 1d10.
Lets just ignore the concept of balance and make the halberd flat superior as a weapon.

Then like, with the Great Axe doing 1d12, where the Great Sword does 2d6. That's partly because they deliberately made brutal critical add a single damage die.
I think that's actually a good example of how to give weapons variety.

[Tanarii]

5e pikes = real world 6-7 ft spear
(Aside from the ludicrous weight obviously, which seems like a typo more than anything else.)

Just as:
5e spear = 3-4ft half-spear (think Zulu spears)
5e Lance = 8+ ft Pike. 2H (on foot), reach only (disadvantage to attack adjacent)

Edit: also there's pictures of 5e Greataxes on PHB p46 & p48, in the Barbarian class, and on p 147 in the weapon section. They're quite clearly a lot more than a mere Halberd, which IRL have quite a lightweight and small axe blade. Of course, fantasy halberd are probably like all fantasy large weapons and far too heavy and unwieldy compared to real life. :smallyuk: (For example the Greataxe on p48 is also pretty clearly a fantasy weapon, probably useless IRL.)

[FreddyNoNose]

See the Game of Thrones episode Battle of The Bastards to see why pikes are awesome. Most DnD weapons lack historical accuracy and the fighting style used can't be implemented.
That is harsh to say about dnd. Especially considering it came from chainmail. :P

[Steampunkette]

Not that harsh, really. The game is abstractionist rather than simulationist. *shrug*

[Tanarii]

See the Game of Thrones episode Battle of The Bastards to see why pikes are awesome. Most DnD weapons lack historical accuracy and the fighting style used can't be implemented.

That is harsh to say about dnd. Especially considering it came from chainmail. :PPikes and polearms are not only easily used in 'Classic' D&D, it's actually an important tactic. Especially since party size is assumes to be around 8-10 characters and henchmen for most modules. The original campaigns & tourneys often had even more than that. In dungeons, having a 2nd rank with polearms attack into over the head of a first rank with braced spears is about the only way to survive 1st level combat. Of course, space to wield them becomes a huge issue, which is the very reason that AD&D included such details.

In a more modern 4-6 character group, formation fighting can become pointless, since often you don't have enough people to control the battlefield. But in a small space it's still nice to have a secon rank attacking over the front ranks heads. Albeit with cover penalties.

Edit: added suplee215 comment, since that's really who I was responding too, but in context of early D&D.

[Anonymouswizard]

Short answer: I find most of the things to do with 5e weapons ridiculous.

I mean I do like a nice table of weapons, I love Anima: Beyond Fantasy. But there I'm balancing my weapon's damage with it's initiative bonus and handedness (as well as potentially reach), while in D&D5e there's nothing to make me use a weaker weapon over one with the same stats but a larger damage die. Why would I ever use a dagger? (other than because I always carry at least five)

Now 5e is better than previous editions, there's a reason to use a Greataxe over a Halberd (although I always pick the halberd because I find them cool), but I would rather they either gave a bonus to lighter weapons or simplified it into 'use the weapons and armour you want fluff wise'.

[Christian]

Two points:

1. A spear with 10' reach has to be longer than 10', unless you can somehow wield it while gripping only the last couple feet of the shaft.

2. The listed weights for items are necessarily not their actual weight on a scale, but an abstract 'encumbrance' weight. There is otherwise no way to make any sense of the encumbrance system. (Not that it's easy to make sense of the encumbrance system in any case, but ...) A pike 'weighs' 18 pounds in that it's about as encumbering as 18 pounds of compact gear in a backpack. If you sawed it into 15 or so one-foot pieces and bundled them together, the bundle would have a considerably lower 'weight' for encumbrance purposes.

[Knaight]

Two points:

1. A spear with 10' reach has to be longer than 10', unless you can somehow wield it while gripping only the last couple feet of the shaft.

2. The listed weights for items are necessarily not their actual weight on a scale, but an abstract 'encumbrance' weight. There is otherwise no way to make any sense of the encumbrance system. (Not that it's easy to make sense of the encumbrance system in any case, but ...) A pike 'weighs' 18 pounds in that it's about as encumbering as 18 pounds of compact gear in a backpack. If you sawed it into 15 or so one-foot pieces and bundled them together, the bundle would have a considerably lower 'weight' for encumbrance purposes.

1a. Reach explicitly includes things like some amount of moving your feet, arm length, leaning in, etc.
1b. If you're using a pike in the 10' range in two hands you're only gripping the last couple feet of the shaft most of the time anyways, and certainly can extend it out that far when striking.

2. An alternate explanation is that the weights are just off.

[Steampunkette]

That said... Pikes are ridiculous.

They're effective weapons, no doubt, but they look goofy as heck. A squadron of soldiers walking with pikes raised looks ridiculous, particularly when they walk through any area with low-hanging branches.

USING the actual weapon, effectively, also looks silly, most of the time, since you're trying to poke someone with it from quite a distance away, and the instant they get around the end of it the weapon becomes almost entirely useless and should be dropped, immediately...

Pikes for personal combat are just a non option in general.

[Sigreid]

Whenever was this the case? Because it hasn't been for the last 17 years at least.

In AD&D there was a table that I doubt many people used where each weapon had a weapon speed and positive and negative modifiers against different kinds of armors. If you used it, attacks were faster with some weapons, plate armors were breached easier with others, etc.

[Steampunkette]

In AD&D there was a table that I doubt many people used where each weapon had a weapon speed and positive and negative modifiers against different kinds of armors. If you used it, attacks were faster with some weapons, plate armors were breached easier with others, etc.

It also impacted the weapon specialization/mastery rules and gave you such wonderful attack speeds as 5/2 (3 attacks one round, 2 attacks the next).

I REALLY disliked those rules and I love how 3e and 5e have dealt with it.

That said, Weapon and Spellcasting Speeds could be an interesting option for people who really want it in their games (The latter is actually in the DMG)

[TrinculoLives]

Pikes tended to be a term for a heavy spear. It was usually extremely sturdy so it doesn't break in battle. PHB weights are off but if we compare a pike to what will be considered a normal spear to be thrown than yea. Not sure if a boar spear will qualify as a pike but that shows why pointy sticks needed to be expertly made and heavy. Boars can be over 200 pounds, the size of a bear and runs at you. Hunters would dig their pike into the ground as the boar charged and pray it didn't break and the crossbar held so the boar would stop and not impale itself further so it kills you. if a boar spear broke, you were dead.

How on earth can a person dig a spear into the ground while also leveraging the pointed-end at a point somewhere around 3 feet off the ground?

[Tanarii]

How on earth can a person dig a spear into the ground while also leveraging the pointed-end at a point somewhere around 3 feet off the ground?
Im guessing by crouching and bracing the end on the ground behind you, not against the ground at your feet.

Most pikemen pics I've seen show them bracing with against their foot, with the pike point higher than that. Probably intended for use against chargin horses.

[Steampunkette]

How on earth can a person dig a spear into the ground while also leveraging the pointed-end at a point somewhere around 3 feet off the ground?

You stand on it.

Also, the point you were aiming for was closer to 5 feet off the ground.

Pikes were famously used for killing horses during cavalry charges. You dig the end of the spear into the ground at an angle, put your foot on that end so that the arch of your foot and your body weight act as a brace. Then you let the horse's momentum impale it's chest/neck area on the pointy bit.

Check out "The 13th Warrior" for a neat example of how it works. Complete with the fairly accurate depiction of the pike splintering and breaking off in the wound once the spear's resilience and flexibility reaches it's maximum under the horse's momentum.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/images/31684493594/swisspikemen31.jpg

[Ninja-Radish]

I find rapiers much more ridiculous. It's basically a large knitting needle. They weren't even real military weapons, at least pikes actually saw wartime use. Rapiers were really just personal defense weapons for rich people.

[Beelzebubba]

How on earth can a person dig a spear into the ground while also leveraging the pointed-end at a point somewhere around 3 feet off the ground?

You should find a Society of Creative Anachronism festival - they re-enact armored combat with 'safe' weapons made of PVC pipe and padding. I went to one that had hundreds of people in attendance; for the mass combats, they built walls out of hay bales and re-enacted fights with realistic-sized pole-arms and coordinated squad combat that looked incredibly cool.

In those settings, if you have a 2x2 or 4x4 combat, the pairs of pikeman/shield fighters will shred the normal sword and board fighters easily. Reach is astoundingly powerful in real life, and the idea that you 'just go past it' is silly once you see it in action.

[Knaight]

You should find a Society of Creative Anachronism festival - they re-enact armored combat with 'safe' weapons made of PVC pipe and padding. I went to one that had hundreds of people in attendance; for the mass combats, they built walls out of hay bales and re-enacted fights with realistic-sized pole-arms and coordinated squad combat that looked incredibly cool.

SCA mostly does rattan, not foam.

[Steampunkette]

I find rapiers much more ridiculous. It's basically a large knitting needle. They weren't even real military weapons, at least pikes actually saw wartime use. Rapiers were really just personal defense weapons for rich people.

Wrong.

If you were talking about a Fencing Foil you might be at least tangentially correct.

The Rapier was used in personal combat, of course, but it was initially designed for Civil Defense. Specifically defending your home town from invading enemies.

It never saw wide use in military combat outside of Spain (where it was known as the espada) and France, but between 1500 and 1700 or so it was a military sword.

Particularly the variant "War Rapier" which featured a thicker, sharper, blade making it suitable for thrusting and cutting, though still inefficient at hacking.

[Knaight]

USING the actual weapon, effectively, also looks silly, most of the time, since you're trying to poke someone with it from quite a distance away, and the instant they get around the end of it the weapon becomes almost entirely useless and should be dropped, immediately...

Pikes for personal combat are just a non option in general.

It depends on the pike. An 18' pike is going to look pretty ridiculous, but at the short end (9-11') they're effective weapons in single combat, and even more effective if you have literally one person with a shield to hide behind.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I kinda feel like the entire combat system in d&d is absurd. The idea you could even use a net or whip or lance in combat is stupid. The idea that every fighter is proficient in every weapon that exists is stupid. The idea that you could ignore the loading properties of crossbows and shoot them as quickly as a bow is stupid. The idea that you could walk around carrying 30 spears and not be over encumbered is stupid. The idea that you could shoot an air elemental to death is stupid. So I'm not sure why were questioning the obvious lack of realism regarding a single weapon in this absurd system.

I don't think there's any virtue in seeking realism in a martial combat game system - martial combat isn't fun because it's people killing each other is horrible ways

(Isn't directed to OP but to the spirit of the whole thread)

[Ninja-Radish]

Wrong.

If you were talking about a Fencing Foil you might be at least tangentially correct.

The Rapier was used in personal combat, of course, but it was initially designed for Civil Defense. Specifically defending your home town from invading enemies.

It never saw wide use in military combat outside of Spain (where it was known as the espada) and France, but between 1500 and 1700 or so it was a military sword.

Particularly the variant "War Rapier" which featured a thicker, sharper, blade making it suitable for thrusting and cutting, though still inefficient at hacking.

That's quite interesting, good to know. I've never read or seen any mention of rapiers in wartime service before.

Still, compared with the pike, you have to admit rapiers saw far less use in war.

[Steampunkette]

That's quite interesting, good to know. I've never read or seen any mention of rapiers in wartime service before.

Still, compared with the pike, you have to admit rapiers saw far less use in war.

Oh, absolutely! Pikes have been around for -forever- in one form or another, and have been used in basically every major war before WW2.

[Knaight]

I kinda feel like the entire combat system in d&d is absurd. The idea you could even use a net or whip or lance in combat is stupid.

Net and whip, fine, but lances were routine combat weapons.

[djreynolds]

I like 5E as much if not more than other versions of the game.

But the weapon's list is lazy. Its not out fault.

I like the simplicity of advantage and disadvantage and the chaos of it, have I seen snake eye's and dual 20's.

But, very humbly, IMO, each weapon should be unique and powerful and have a reason as to why I would use this weapon over this one.

The weapon feats were good and more of those are needed, obviously a flail is a unique weapon that was useful versus shields and disarming

Why I am using a war pick?

The knight who was unhorsed was called a lance-corporal

[coredump]

I find rapiers much more ridiculous. It's basically a large knitting needle. They weren't even real military weapons, at least pikes actually saw wartime use. Rapiers were really just personal defense weapons for rich people.
You are thinking of the modern day 'weapons' used in the *sport* of fencing. In actual medieval times, they were much more sturdy. They were not used overly much in wartime, but that was for a different reason. They would have been, however, more useful in the small scale skirmish that is DnD, than many other 'war weapons'...such as the pike.


You should find a Society of Creative Anachronism festival - they re-enact armored combat with 'safe' weapons made of rattan.

In those settings, if you have a 2x2 or 4x4 combat, the pairs of pikeman/shield fighters will shred the normal sword and board fighters easily. Reach is astoundingly powerful in real life, and the idea that you 'just go past it' is silly once you see it in action.
Not that SCA is 'real life', but 'just go past it' is actually pretty darn easy, at least in a small scale (4x4) skirmish. Pikes were useful in large scale battles, when the enemy didn't have room to maneuver. Even shorter spears were not very effective outside of war and hunting parties, and if you try to use it one handed, its a complete joke.


It depends on the pike. An 18' pike is going to look pretty ridiculous, but at the short end (9-11') they're effective weapons in single combat, and even more effective if you have literally one person with a shield to hide behind.Nope, even a 9-11' spear is just way too much to be effective in single combat. Its too cumbersome, and once you get past the point, there isn't much the spearman can do. Yes, having a shieldman in front helps, but that is always the case with 2v1, make it Spearman+Shieldman vs 2 Shieldman.... and the spear side dies.


That's quite interesting, good to know. I've never read or seen any mention of rapiers in wartime service before.

Still, compared with the pike, you have to admit rapiers saw far less use in war.
But for different reasons.
Pikes/spears are easy to make, and pretty easy to use in mass combat. (though well trained spear units were devastating.) But the main reason is historical timing. Early on, metalworking was a bit primitive, but they could make pretty good broadswords, which worked well cutting through armor. As armor got better (plate) the broadsword wasn't as useful. But then gunpowder showed up, and made that plate armor all but useless.....which meant you didn't need big swords anymore, and the metalworking had also improved. Thus the rapier was more helpful. (and the sabre on horseback). But they were still personal weapons, not really 'war' weapons, good for broken field if you ran out of gunpowder, or in town, etc. But in a mass battle, pikes, polearms, shields, and anything with gunpowder was preferred.
Rapiers were more for personal protection, not going up against armored nor massed enemies.

[Knaight]

Nope, even a 9-11' spear is just way too much to be effective in single combat. Its too cumbersome, and once you get past the point, there isn't much the spearman can do. Yes, having a shieldman in front helps, but that is always the case with 2v1, make it Spearman+Shieldman vs 2 Shieldman.... and the spear side dies.

Several medieval writers would disagree with this, as would personal experience. Getting past the point is harder than it sounds against a competent pike user, and the SCA is nonrepresentative here (that restriction on lower leg strikes hurts spears and pikes more than most weapons). I'd still favor the 7' range for personal combat, but 9' is absolutely usable.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

Net and whip, fine, but lances were routine combat weapons.

Sure there are some combat situations where lances were used historically. But the ways d&d uses them are not in line with that

[djreynolds]

I would give the pike an extra 5ft of reach, so 15ft

polearm would be 10ft

and most other weapons would be 5ft

Seem fair.

The trident, just dream up some sort of advantage for something it does... I can't think of anything now.

The flail, flail mastery there it is

The war pick, its critical hits work like brutal critical

[Beelzebubba]

SCA mostly does rattan, not foam.

*strokes gray beard*

Not in Texas in the 80's it didn't

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh, absolutely! Pikes have been around for -forever- in one form or another, and have been used in basically every major war before WW2.

Heck, they even managed to appear in WW2, despite not being used as actual combat stains.

Blame the people who misunderstood Churchill.

[Tanarii]

Even shorter spears were not very effective outside of war and hunting parties, and if you try to use it one handed, its a complete joke.which is why the real world never saw short spear and shield combinations for individual warriors. Nope. Never happened.

And of course, martial arts don't regularly teach longer spear forms for single combat. Nope. Doesn't happen.

[ZorroGames]

In AD&D there was a table that I doubt many people used where each weapon had a weapon speed and positive and negative modifiers against different kinds of armors. If you used it, attacks were faster with some weapons, plate armors were breached easier with others, etc.
IIRC ditto of the original Chainmail by TSR had speeds. Used it once in AD&D, fun but added way too much complication to combat. Though it was fun to find yourself alive the second round of combat in Chainmail and multiple attacks with dagger before a battle axe.

Reality does not always make a great game mechanic.

[Tanarii]

IIRC ditto of the original Chainmail by TSR had speeds. Used it once in AD&D, fun but added way too much complication to combat. Though it was fun to find yourself alive the second round of combat in Chainmail and multiple attacks with dagger before a battle axe.

Reality does not always make a great game mechanic.i remember reading somewhere that the weapon speeds mechanic was primarily intended for duels. Besides it only came into play when initiative was tied. Which is something many detractors regularly overlooked. Same with weapon length, it only mattered when someone charged. Not saying that AD&D 1e inititave system wasn't a mess, but even the ADDICT people didn't understand it, as shown by the examples they build in to their document ... the majority of he rules aren't intended to be used every round in a multiperson battle. For example, you don't even need to roll initiative unless there is a question of whose action resolves first, although admittedly that's fairly common situation in AD&D combat rounds.

2e combat and tactics failed to learn that lesson ... complicated weapons rules for speed and size are fine, as long as they're only used for certain edge cases. And D&D cyclical individual initiative turns is just as bad in a lot of ways, although I use it because it's so embedded in everyone's ways of thinking about initiative nowadays.

/tangent

[Talyn]

Sure there are some combat situations where lances were used historically. But the ways d&d uses them are not in line with that

I have to take issue with that statement. The lance was THE weapon for armored cavalry for about a thousand years (480s with the introduction of spurs in Europe until the beginning of the Renaissance, and was still used to a lesser extent at late as the 19th century). After the spear, and maybe the axe, it was THE most commonly used battlefield melee weapon in Medieval Europe.

I agree that the way that D&D uses them (which is, basically, as standing melee weapons, but while mounted) is ahistorical and a little silly. They were used as shock weapons - you charge in to hit with the lance, and then you wheel away to do it again. If you get bogged down, you drop the lance and use your sidearm (your sword, mace or axe) because the lance is too heavy to swing and poke with effectively for any long period of time.

The problem is that D&D doesn't model the charge-and-withdraw-and-charge-again style of combat very well - as Steampunkette mentioned above, fun gameplay trumps simulationism. But to say that there were "some combat situations where lances were used historically" drastically undersells how ubiquitous they were and how important to battlefield tactics of the time.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I have to take issue with that statement. The lance was THE weapon for armored cavalry for about a thousand years (480s with the introduction of spurs in Europe until the beginning of the Renaissance, and was still used to a lesser extent at late as the 19th century). After the spear, and maybe the axe, it was THE most commonly used battlefield melee weapon in Medieval Europe.

I agree it was used extensively and to great affect in medieval Europe but medieval Europe is a drop in the bucket when we're talking about all of history.
And I agree that a lance is good in a war situation or on flat terrain mounted against a known enemy but I don't see a lot of war situations or flat terrain mounted against a known enemy combats in d&d. Maybe your group is different and the lance is a logical and flavorful choice for you but I mostly see surprise attacks, infiltration and recon, dungeon diving, flying monsters, and other such things that make carrying around a lance seem pretty stupid. (And of course just not being mounted for most characters for most games...)

I still make characters who wield a lance because it's fun and cool (I'm especially partial to a halfling ranger wielding a lance on a panther mount because that's hilarious) but I don't try to act like there's anyway to make that normal or realistic in a d&d setting

[Ninja-Radish]

Oh, absolutely! Pikes have been around for -forever- in one form or another, and have been used in basically every major war before WW2.

So I just looked up the Espada sword you mentioned and it doesn't look ridiculous at all, it actually looks like a mean hunk of metal.

I had the wrong image in mind, more like a modern fencing weapon was what I imagined a rapier to be.

[ZorroGames]

which is why the real world never saw short spear and shield combinations for individual warriors. Nope. Never happened.

And of course, martial arts don't regularly teach longer spear forms for single combat. Nope. Doesn't happen.



Maybe I misunderstood but the assegai was a short spear and Shield use I bought.

And I am unsure how long the spears the Persian used against the Greeks were but I believe they clashed.

Last part is my experience but I cannot speak for all forms so I will not claim never, just never heard of it.

[Ninja-Radish]

Maybe I misunderstood but the assegai was a short spear and Shield use I bought.

And I am unsure how long the spears the Persian used against the Greeks were but I believe they clashed.

Last part is my experience but I cannot speak for all forms so I will not claim never, just never heard of it.

The assegai was used by Zulu warriors with a shield and it was a short spear. Greek spears were 9 ft long I believe, though I might be mistaken. The Greeks used their spears with bronze shields, and had a short sword as a backup weapon, since spears tend to break.

[Sigreid]

I agree it was used extensively and to great affect in medieval Europe but medieval Europe is a drop in the bucket when we're talking about all of history.
And I agree that a lance is good in a war situation or on flat terrain mounted against a known enemy but I don't see a lot of war situations or flat terrain mounted against a known enemy combats in d&d. Maybe your group is different and the lance is a logical and flavorful choice for you but I mostly see surprise attacks, infiltration and recon, dungeon diving, flying monsters, and other such things that make carrying around a lance seem pretty stupid. (And of course just not being mounted for most characters for most games...)

I still make characters who wield a lance because it's fun and cool (I'm especially partial to a halfling ranger wielding a lance on a panther mount because that's hilarious) but I don't try to act like there's anyway to make that normal or realistic in a d&d setting

The Mongolian warriors used light lances. That and the bow were how they fought and won. It is true, however, that the lance was only used by warriors who rode their horses. Infantry, chariots, and the troops that rode to the fight and dismounted before battle would find it useless.

[Sigreid]

Maybe I misunderstood but the assegai was a short spear and Shield use I bought.

And I am unsure how long the spears the Persian used against the Greeks were but I believe they clashed.

Last part is my experience but I cannot speak for all forms so I will not claim never, just never heard of it.

The Celts were famous for having multiple spear types. Short spears for throwing at each other. Mid weight spears for general combat. And a particularly nasty serrated spear with a hook on one end that was heavy and specifically for hand to hand.

In the end, saying spear is like saying gun or pistol. It gives you a general idea of what they're on about, but there's many, many variations based on materials available, purpose, and cultural biases.

[Vaz]

"Greeks" is a bit mixed. They have "Pikes", "Spears" and "Lances"; most commonly typified by the Sarissa, Dory, Xyston, Kontos etc.

The Sarissa was typically representative of the Diadochi and Antigonid Dynasty, perfected by Philip II of Macedon, and then taken by his son, Alexander to conquer all the way to what would soon become the Mauryan Empire in India. These spears were typically 15ft in length, but there are examples up to 20ft (and indeed longer, but they were eventually phased out in favour of the typical shorter one), were wielded with 2 hands, and fought in immense phalanxes; the soldiers known as Phalangitae, although the word has been adopted by my other formations in history, and formation tactics of the phalanx has been recognised as early as 4500 years ago. Given its size it was used 2 Handed, and instead were armoured by much smaller shields, mounted on their forearm allowing them to provide themselves with a modicum of protection should the enemy get close; although typically the idea was that the enemy was kept away by having 4-5 ranks of sharpened bronze spear points in the way. In a similar manner to the Crossbow eventually being preferable to the Longbow, due to the ease of training, the Sarissa "merely" required strength and discipline, which took longer to teach than more traditional spear fighting techniques, and allowed a faster training program - this is why it was so effective, and such a recognisable form of combat that was seen all around the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean, in both the adoption through the Achaemenid (Persian) Empire the successor empires after Alexander, such as the Seleucids and the Ptolemaics.

This small shield was called a Pelta - from which the Peltastai got their name from; although these individuals more typically used the Akontistai, which were light spears balanced for throwing, and these typically fought lightly, if at all armoured, and were very quick skirmishing units, used to harry the flanks, and were able to redeploy quickly to counter the presence of outflanking cavalry. They rarely fought mounted, but have been noted as using a mount to redeploy - until the Civilian Armies of Tarentum developed the famed Tarantine Cavalry, which allowed them to fight from horseback with their javelins. Mercenary groups of such "Tarantine" Cavalry have been found far and wide, although this is most likely that men not of Tarentum would call themselves as such in reeference to their fighting style, and as means of promoting their skill in the hope of attracting a higher wage.

The Sarissa was a development from the typical Dory which was used most recognisably in the Trojan War, and was a really well considered weapon, as ubiquitous to the ancient world as the AK47 is recognisable in the modern one. The Hoplite Phalanx was a more heavily offensive detachment; unlike typical examples in things such as Total War or other popular culture references like the 300 Films, the Hoplites would engage in a charge, where they would use the weight of the individual and their much heavier Hoplon shield (Aegis is often misused here; although Aegis does literally mean "Shield", but it is the specific shield in the Greek Pantheon, claimed by Athena or Zeus dependent on source); this would have the effect of not only knocking defenders off guard, but deliver much more force with the momentum. Hoplite engagements were more often a war of maneuvering until one army had the high ground, and they could charge down faster. But once the high ground had been won, the commander in charge then had to force the enemy to come to them up the hill and tire out the enemy, so it wasn't as completely cut and dry as the Star Wars prequel memes like to make out. If the force who had lost the high ground could simply bypass the high ground, and kept the distance, the Hoplites on the top of the hill would need to come down; and given the weight of the very heavy shields, the linothorax, and the spears, fighting in the mid-day sun, and maintaining a state of prepared readiness with often limited rations, there are numerous times when getting the high ground failed.

By contemporary standards, hoplite engagements were swift and bloody affairs, taking only a few hours when it would otherwise take the best part of a day, and where once an engagement was commited, more and more forces would be thrown in to support that point, where the commanders would attempt to get forces to break through at weaker points in the line to outflank, and counter those. They were much more fluid than people tend to expect, but despite the size of the combats, it would more often be a source of morale breaking that would cause the battle to be lost - often times, many forces were just too tired to catch those who were fleeing - many of them in good order, rather than the all out rout that Hollywood likes to portray.

These spears were more often 9-12ft long, and were often double tipped - repeatedly striking against bronze shields with the soft metal by some very strong men meant that it's not unheard of for a spear tip to break off; but these could also be used for grounding the weapon in the ground when bracing against cavalry as well as acting as a counter weight. They were not suitable for throwing, despite what Frank Miller believes, but were aerodynamic enough to be able to be done so if necessity required it. They were single handed, allowing greater control of the shield, and to allow the shield to be larger in size - these were called Hoplon's, and obviously where the term Hoplitae comes from.

The Xyston and the later developed Kontos were the typical spears of the Heavy Cavalry - the Xyston notable for its use by the Hetaira, or Companions, who would be the personal bodyguards of the general - these were high and mighty individuals in their own right, and served as advisors to the General, and were considered the General's personal friends for the most part; the successor Empires after Alexanders Death were given to some of his closest Companions. However, other uses of the Xyston exist. Until the development of the stirrup, the stereotypical appearance of the medieval knight, with the couched lance was simply a physical impossibility for the cavalry of the ancient world, and instead wielded them with two hands, and overhead, rather than underarm, which would allow them to dispose of the spear quicker. These also were around 12ft long, which makes it virtually impossible to use it one handed, although certain famous mosaics show Alexander using it one handed - this is thought to either be a form of propoganda to show how powerful Alexander was, or simply artistic license.

The Kontos however, was more similar to the Xyston, but was developed later, and most often recognised as used in Clibanarii (Cataphracts), and was used 2 handed also, until the development of the stirrup, brought to Europe through the Sarmatian nomads who adopted this from the chinese, which combined with the use of the long spears to make it even more dangerous and hard hitting. The name progressed through to the Basileion ton Romaion (Byzantines) in the middle ages who used regiments of their own Cataphract-esque armies equipped with a couched lance, and used one handed - these regiments were known as a kontarion.

History. **** yeah/

[ThurlRavenscrof]

The Mongolian warriors used light lances. That and the bow were how they fought and won. It is true, however, that the lance was only used by warriors who rode their horses. Infantry, chariots, and the troops that rode to the fight and dismounted before battle would find it useless.

Two drops in the bucket

[Vaz]

TIL that the Empire which used that weapon to become the worlds Largest Empire - that was not beaten for nearly 600 years (until after the development of the Dreadnought, Submarine, and airplane) - is considered 2 drops in the ocean.

Okay mate. Your opinion is noted. It's wrong, but noted.

[Strill]

I kinda feel like the entire combat system in d&d is absurd. The idea you could even use a net or whip or lance in combat is stupid. The idea that every fighter is proficient in every weapon that exists is stupid. The idea that you could ignore the loading properties of crossbows and shoot them as quickly as a bow is stupid. The idea that you could walk around carrying 30 spears and not be over encumbered is stupid. The idea that you could shoot an air elemental to death is stupid. So I'm not sure why were questioning the obvious lack of realism regarding a single weapon in this absurd system.

I don't think there's any virtue in seeking realism in a martial combat game system - martial combat isn't fun because it's people killing each other is horrible ways

(Isn't directed to OP but to the spirit of the whole thread)

Nets were used by Roman gladiators.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

It's estimated that 107,000,000,000 people have lived over 8000 years.

People have only been able to point to two civilizations - both lasting less than a 1000 years - that have used lances or a variant of lances. Both of them have only used them only in battles and only against humans. And for both them, only male soldiers with considerable training and access to horses could have used them and only in very specific scenarios.

All told, I'm having a hard time imagining more than 1,000,000 using a lance in combat. MAYBE you could convince me of 2,000,000. Either way, a drop in the bucket.

And again, to restate my original point, using a lance in d&d combat realistically is super fun but stupid. Because it's pretty rare to be on a flat field of battle on a horse against a creature with the right anatomy for whom you're prepared.

And the reason I made this argument is to point our how arguing over the minutia of realism being applied to an RPG is kind of a waste of time because none of it makes sense. And here we are with me pointing out multiple reasons why lances don't make sense in most d&d games and here we are arguing about the Mongolian empire. Even if irl lances were the best weapons ever invented and the most popular, it still wouldn't matter... Because it's a game not based on realism... It's just fun storytelling. Nothing is realistic so why should pikes be

[Vaz]

{{scrubbed}}

[BillyBobShorton]

Duct tape a baby to the non-weapon end to make it more balanced physically and add to the lulz if you take the polearm feat.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

Nets were used by Roman gladiators.

Gladiator battles aren't real combat - the winners were often chosen before the match like in modern wrestling. (Much like in d&d lol)

Also this might help explain using nets in battle
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pESyj0qkxlo

[Tanarii]

It's estimated that 107,000,000,000 people have lived over 8000 years.
This is a disingenuous argument. The majority of human population that has ever lived has done so in the last 100 years. In other words, in the gunpowder era.

Edit: also the 108 billion number is effectively wrong, since it's based purley on birth rates. In other words, if taken at face value world population would have exploded in Roman era. To assume that number is accurate, you have to include a huge number of people that would have died as infants, or certainly before they were adults. Ie fighting age.

A more accurate estimate of humans that lived to adult age is about 40 billion, of which 8 billion have lived in the last 100 years or so. So I overstated majority ... It's actually around 20%. But an accurate number to compare to for the 'drop in the bucket' would be either be 'number of adult people alive from 1 AD to 1900 AD' (about 10 billion).

Of course none of that matters. What matters is 'percentage of all warriors that have engaged in active combat IRL in approximately the eras D&D emulates'.
Or the other argument of course ... 'D&D combat doesn't emulate IRL combat so stop comparing them'. True since at least AD&D 2e.

[Laserlight]

Several medieval writers would disagree with this, as would personal experience. Getting past the point is harder than it sounds against a competent pike user, and the SCA is nonrepresentative here (that restriction on lower leg strikes hurts spears and pikes more than most weapons). I'd still favor the 7' range for personal combat, but 9' is absolutely usable.

Possibly apocryphal, but Shaka Zulu is said to have put it to the test with 10 users of the short iklwa spear fighting 10 men armed with the longer traditional spear. The short spears won 10/0 and Shaka ordered his regiments to change weapons.

[ZorroGames]

Still new here. Is it acceptable this one time to ask what "scrubbed" means? Looks vaguely ominous.

[KorvinStarmast]

Still new here. Is it acceptable this one time to ask what "scrubbed" means? Looks vaguely ominous.
A mod took out what was an non compliant post, usually.
Reference to the site rules.

Thought on pikes:

If you are in the second rank, a pike allows you to attack from behind your front ranks.

[GlenSmash!]

I dislike the pike in 5e and not for any historical reason, but for a mechanical one. It was left off the Second part of the Polearm Master feat, making the Glaive and Halberd mechanically better. (The spear was left off the feat altogether, which is an even worse crime).

In my games Spears and Pikes work for both parts of Polearm Master. Is it historic? I don't know. Is it better balanced? I think so.

[KorvinStarmast]

I dislike the pike in 5e and not for any historical reason, but for a mechanical one. It was left off the Second part of the Polearm Master feat, making the Glaive and Halberd mechanically better. (The spear was left off the feat altogether, which is an even worse crime).

In my games Spears and Pikes work for both parts of Polearm Master. Is it historic? I don't know. Is it better balanced? I think so.
I'd say that's rational. I too am puzzled at why they did that with the PAM.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd say that's rational. I too am puzzled at why they did that with the PAM.

The only thing I can think off for the second part of the feat is that all the weapons listed are typically swung, and the Pike is a thrusting Weapon, but that still seems like poor reasoning to me.

As for leaving the Spear off of even the first part of the feat, I got nothing. It's a head-scratcher.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

This is a disingenuous argument. The majority of human population that has ever lived has done so in the last 100 years. In other words, in the gunpowder era.

Edit: also the 108 billion number is effectively wrong, since it's based purley on birth rates. In other words, if taken at face value world population would have exploded in Roman era. To assume that number is accurate, you have to include a huge number of people that would have died as infants, or certainly before they were adults. Ie fighting age.

A more accurate estimate of humans that lived to adult age is about 40 billion, of which 8 billion have lived in the last 100 years or so. So I overstated majority ... It's actually around 20%. But an accurate number to compare to for the 'drop in the bucket' would be either be 'number of adult people alive from 1 AD to 1900 AD' (about 10 billion).

Of course none of that matters. What matters is 'percentage of all warriors that have engaged in active combat IRL in approximately the eras D&D emulates'.
Or the other argument of course ... 'D&D combat doesn't emulate IRL combat so stop comparing them'. True since at least AD&D 2e.

Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph :) but I'm enjoying this discussion so I will respond.
Don't you think that the fact the lance wasn't isn't used my modern people speaks to it's usefulness? We still use other martial weapons for combat. I think if the lance was a good weapon, we would have adapted it for modern use. (Probably wasn't because it's so cumbersome and highly situational which is why I said it wouldn't be good in d&d if you're going for realism)
And I'm not sure why we would discount everything before 1AD.

1,000,000 lance users out of 40,000,000,000 people total means 1 out of every 40000 people used lances - or 0.0025%. Since there are estimated to be 100,000 drops of water in a gallon, this very literally comes out to be about 2 drops in the bucket.
Even using my most liberal estimate of 2,000,000 (which, now that you've pointed out to me how population growth is exponential, I realize is an insanely impossibly high number) and your most conservative time constraints of 1ad to 1900ad, we still get 2,000,000 lancers out of 10,000,000,000 people total. This is only 1 lancer out of 5000 people - or 0.02%. This is much more sizable 20 drops in the bucket

Additionally, just because some people used something in combat doesn't mean it's a smart idea. History is full of dumb ideas we eventually thought better of

http://askascientist.co.uk/physics/many-drops-water/

[Sigreid]

Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph :) but I'm enjoying this discussion so I will respond.
Don't you think that the fact the lance wasn't isn't used my modern people speaks to it's usefulness? We still use other martial weapons for combat. I think if the lance was a good weapon, we would have adapted it for modern use. (Probably wasn't because it's so cumbersome and highly situational which is why I said it wouldn't be good in d&d if you're going for realism)
And I'm not sure why we would discount everything before 1AD.

1,000,000 lance users out of 40,000,000,000 people total means 1 out of every 40000 people used lances - or 0.0025%. Since there are estimated to be 100,000 drops of water in a gallon, this very literally comes out to be about 2 drops in the bucket.
Even using my most liberal estimate of 2,000,000 (which, now that you've pointed out to me how population growth is exponential, I realize is an insanely impossibly high number) and your most conservative time constraints of 1ad to 1900ad, we still get 2,000,000 lancers out of 10,000,000,000 people total. This is only 1 lancer out of 5000 people - or 0.02%. This is much more sizable 20 drops in the bucket

Additionally, just because some people used something in combat doesn't mean it's a smart idea. History is full of dumb ideas we eventually thought better of

http://askascientist.co.uk/physics/many-drops-water/

The limitations of the lance in non-gun focused times/areas basically boil down to 1. do they have horses (for much of human history many cultures did not). 2. Do they know how to rid the horses (for a lot of human history people didn't know how to ride them and they just pulled stuff). 3. Can the military logistics support human-horse teams (that's a lot of extra food and water for the horses if you have one per man). 4. Is the terrain suited for a mass, mounted charge (A lot of terrain isn't such as bogs, jungles and heavy forests). There's probably more that I don't know about. It's worth noting that 3 and 4 apply to modern tanks as well which is one big reason why the foot solder with a personal weapon is still the main fighting unit.

[Knaight]

Don't you think that the fact the lance wasn't isn't used my modern people speaks to it's usefulness? We still use other martial weapons for combat. I think if the lance was a good weapon, we would have adapted it for modern use. (Probably wasn't because it's so cumbersome and highly situational which is why I said it wouldn't be good in d&d if you're going for realism)

It speaks to its usefulness on a modern battlefield, given modern training, modern equipment availability, so on and so forth. Very little of that transfers well to a different context. Just about every weapon in D&D doesn't make it to modern battlefields, with the notable exception of knives and small axes. That doesn't mean that knives and small axes are the best medieval weapons and the rest just weren't as good, it just means that their use as tools and the way they're small and easy to carry counts for a lot more when you're fighting with an assault rifle anyways.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

It speaks to its usefulness on a modern battlefield, given modern training, modern equipment availability, so on and so forth. Very little of that transfers well to a different context. Just about every weapon in D&D doesn't make it to modern battlefields, with the notable exception of knives and small axes. That doesn't mean that knives and small axes are the best medieval weapons and the rest just weren't as good, it just means that their use as tools and the way they're small and easy to carry counts for a lot more when you're fighting with an assault rifle anyways.

Yeah I agree but I didn't say battlefield I said combat. A lot of modern combat outside of developed world military troops use variants of martial weapons. I didn't specify because I figured people would know I wasn't talking about a modern military on a battlefield since they mostly just use guns

[Vaz]

You're talking in riddles.

[Ninja-Radish]

Possibly apocryphal, but Shaka Zulu is said to have put it to the test with 10 users of the short iklwa spear fighting 10 men armed with the longer traditional spear. The short spears won 10/0 and Shaka ordered his regiments to change weapons.

Well, there are other factors to consider here. Zulu warriors fought with the short spear, so any warriors he had using the long spear were at a disadvantage due to inexperience with the weapon.

That's like having a competition between 2 pistols for accuracy, where all the shooters were very familiar with one pistol and never used the other one before.

[Laurefindel]

Are we're talking about leveling every weapon that every culture developed over every era from antiquity to modernism in every type of battle fought over every type of terrain?

[DnD Coliseum]

hey leave pike alone! :#

[KorvinStarmast]

Are we're talking about leveling every weapon that every culture developed over every era from antiquity to modernism in every type of battle fought over every type of terrain? If we are, I'd like to put in a bid for Ma Deuce1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning).

I gotcher Sharpshooter feat right here, pal! :smallbiggrin:

(1aka M2 Browning .50 cal heavy machine gun)

[TrinculoLives]

Im guessing by crouching and bracing the end on the ground behind you, not against the ground at your feet.

Most pikemen pics I've seen show them bracing with against their foot, with the pike point higher than that. Probably intended for use against chargin horses.


You stand on it.

Also, the point you were aiming for was closer to 5 feet off the ground.

Pikes were famously used for killing horses during cavalry charges. You dig the end of the spear into the ground at an angle, put your foot on that end so that the arch of your foot and your body weight act as a brace. Then you let the horse's momentum impale it's chest/neck area on the pointy bit.

Check out "The 13th Warrior" for a neat example of how it works. Complete with the fairly accurate depiction of the pike splintering and breaking off in the wound once the spear's resilience and flexibility reaches it's maximum under the horse's momentum.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/images/31684493594/swisspikemen31.jpg

That's all well and good, but I was responding to a post about boar-spears and how boar-spears in particular were stuck into the ground so as to help absorb the impact of a charging boar.

This sounded silly to me, considering that boar spears are generally not much longer than a person, a boar is not going to be much taller than 3 feet, and the idea of a boar charging someone... well outside of a situation where a pig is cornered and trying to slip through a ring of hunters... it just sounds made up.

[Laserlight]

Well, there are other factors to consider here. Zulu warriors fought with the short spear, so any warriors he had using the long spear were at a disadvantage due to inexperience with the weapon.

The longer spear was their traditional weapon until Shaka held the contest. Which is why I said it was their traditional weapon. The Zulus converted to the short spear after the contest.

[Laserlight]

That's all well and good, but I was responding to a post about boar-spears and how boar-spears in particular were stuck into the ground so as to help absorb the impact of a charging boar.

This sounded silly to me, considering that boar spears are generally not much longer than a person, a boar is not going to be much taller than 3 feet, and the idea of a boar charging someone... well outside of a situation where a pig is cornered and trying to slip through a ring of hunters... it just sounds made up.

Boar are notoriously aggressive, particularly during breeding season, and typically attack by charging and ripping with their tusks.

[Vaz]

That's all well and good, but I was responding to a post about boar-spears and how boar-spears in particular were stuck into the ground so as to help absorb the impact of a charging boar.

This sounded silly to me, considering that boar spears are generally not much longer than a person, a boar is not going to be much taller than 3 feet, and the idea of a boar charging someone... well outside of a situation where a pig is cornered and trying to slip through a ring of hunters... it just sounds made up.

The idea of a boar spear is that the boar gets caught on the lugs, THEN the spike gets placed into the ground. Otherwise the force risks the snapping of the spear, and now you've got an angry boar loose with another flailing piece of splintered, barbed wood hanging out of it.

[Sigreid]

Anyway, back to the original question. The pike is not a ridiculous weapon. It was pretty effective at what it was designed for. It's not a weapon I would expect a roving adventurer to choose as it's length would be impractical for many (or most) situations and it would be fairly inconvenient to carry for the hobo part of the murder-hoboing.

[Tanarii]

Works okay in the second rank if you've got a party of nine in three ranks going down a 15 ft wide tunnel. :smallwink:

Of course, it's when you start hitting the narrow passageways or low ceiling chambers it rapidly becomes a problem. Or if you're playing with a small party than maneuvers individually in a wide open space. ie most recent editions concepts of 'adventuring party'.

Edit: Although as I already said, I view the 5e pike as a 6-7ft spear. Not a Pike.

[Ninja-Radish]

The longer spear was their traditional weapon until Shaka held the contest. Which is why I said it was their traditional weapon. The Zulus converted to the short spear after the contest.

Ooh now that's interesting, not a very well known story.

[JBPuffin]

Not that harsh, really. The game is abstractionist rather than simulationist. *shrug*

This is both true and one of the strangest aspects of its development - where in Chainmail days, as a wargame, granularity and at least the guise of simulation (and taunting those who thought that was bad) were valued and attempted with the variety of weapons, later editions simply kept the large tables out of tradition. Doing like they did with 7e Gamma World and abstracting things more would help straighten some of the sharper, more dangerous twists and curves, I think.

Rather than have a halberd, pike, lance, and glaive, there could be a single "polearm" weapon. When you buy one, you'd decide the damage type, but the damage die, range, and other properties would be pre-packaged. Same with other categories of similar weapons (however you end of splitting things). Armor could be simplified too, with Light/Heavy/Shields (medium if you want) rather than five different armors for each tier, each slightly better than the last.

[Sigreid]

Works okay in the second rank if you've got a party of nine in three ranks going down a 15 ft wide tunnel. :smallwink:

Of course, it's when you start hitting the narrow passageways or low ceiling chambers it rapidly becomes a problem. Or if you're playing with a small party than maneuvers individually in a wide open space. ie most recent editions concepts of 'adventuring party'.

Edit: Although as I already said, I view the 5e pike as a 6-7ft spear. Not a Pike.

1st rank, halfling heavy defense fighters. 2nd rank humans with pikes....Profit!

[KorvinStarmast]

1st rank, halfling heavy defense fighters. 2nd rank humans with pikes....Profit! Mike Mornard has some interesting observations on how often they did stuff like that in OD&D in both Gygax and Arneson's dungeons. (And in Barker's original EPT campaign). He's made a few posts at an odd74 forum in that regard.

[Tanarii]

Mike Mornard has some interesting observations on how often they did stuff like that in OD&D in both Gygax and Arneson's dungeons. (And in Barker's original EPT campaign). He's made a few posts at an odd74 forum in that regard.
I played B2 that way in BECMI once. It was a disaster, we thought we'd discovered an unbeatable tactic after fighting the Kobolds. So we heedlessly charged in to the Goblin caves ... only to have (many) alerted Hobgoblins flank us from behind. Sad part is several of us had played the module before, and after the resulting TPK we lamented we'd forgotten that that cave was one big loop.

It's a good tactic in Classic if you're forced to fight, especially given the typical very large party of PCs and Retainers, but it doesn't beat making allies when possible and using your brains about if you need to fight at all. Edit: for that matter, same holds true in 5e. :smallbiggrin:

[Laserlight]

Several lines of shield&spear, backed up by a couple of lines of archers, worked well in Real Life. The Byzantines did that, for example. But it assumes that you've got enough men to have a formation at least five or six lines deep, and have secure flanks. A 5e party will essentially never have those circumstances.

[Sigreid]

Several lines of shield&spear, backed up by a couple of lines of archers, worked well in Real Life. The Byzantines did that, for example. But it assumes that you've got enough men to have a formation at least five or six lines deep, and have secure flanks. A 5e party will essentially never have those circumstances.

I was just thinking about narrow dungeon passages and such.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I miss my spike chain

[JumboWheat01]

I miss my spike chain

But you have the one-handed quarter staff, shield and polearm master combo now!

[warty goblin]

This is both true and one of the strangest aspects of its development - where in Chainmail days, as a wargame, granularity and at least the guise of simulation (and taunting those who thought that was bad) were valued and attempted with the variety of weapons, later editions simply kept the large tables out of tradition. Doing like they did with 7e Gamma World and abstracting things more would help straighten some of the sharper, more dangerous twists and curves, I think.

Rather than have a halberd, pike, lance, and glaive, there could be a single "polearm" weapon. When you buy one, you'd decide the damage type, but the damage die, range, and other properties would be pre-packaged. Same with other categories of similar weapons (however you end of splitting things). Armor could be simplified too, with Light/Heavy/Shields (medium if you want) rather than five different armors for each tier, each slightly better than the last.

There's a lot appealing about that, but for a new player having less abstract elements is really nice. Looking at a table and seeing "sword" is handy, because most anybody interested in D&D knows what a sword is, and why they want one. One handed melee weapon is a lot less immediate.

The incremental armor upgrades gives somebody something to look forwards to and spend money on. Kinda nice.

[Knaight]

There's a lot appealing about that, but for a new player having less abstract elements is really nice. Looking at a table and seeing "sword" is handy, because most anybody interested in D&D knows what a sword is, and why they want one. One handed melee weapon is a lot less immediate.

On the other hand "sword" is still a lot more abstract than the current setup, where you have "short sword, long sword, scimitar, falchion, etc.", and there's a very reasonable case to be made that in terms of the hypothetical new player it's also more approachable.

[Cybren]

Anyway, back to the original question. The pike is not a ridiculous weapon. It was pretty effective at what it was designed for. It's not a weapon I would expect a roving adventurer to choose as it's length would be impractical for many (or most) situations and it would be fairly inconvenient to carry for the hobo part of the murder-hoboing.

There's actually sources that indicate the pike was a popular dueling weapon in single combat.

[Sigreid]

There's actually sources that indicate the pike was a popular dueling weapon in single combat.

You're still talking about a open field and not a cave, ancient temple, overgrown forrest, etc.

[Cybren]

You're still talking about a open field and not a cave, ancient temple, overgrown forrest, etc.

sure but im in favor of anything that encourages weapon swapping.

[Sigreid]

sure but im in favor of anything that encourages weapon swapping.
With you there. A fighting man should have a full toolbox.

[coredump]

The only thing I can think off for the second part of the feat is that all the weapons listed are typically swung, and the Pike is a thrusting Weapon, but that still seems like poor reasoning to me.

As for leaving the Spear off of even the first part of the feat, I got nothing. It's a head-scratcher.
Makes perfect sense. Using the back of the polearm for an attack is based on swinging it. Which works with the glaive, but not with a spear, and definitely not with a pike.

Granted, from a completely numbers based balance/mechanics basis.... it would work. But from a more 'how do these things operate' basis, it makes sense the way they did it.

[coredump]

There's actually sources that indicate the pike was a popular dueling weapon in single combat.

But there is a difference between a planned duel, where each person is going to have the same weapon, and a combat where you pick the best weapon to help you survive.

They may plan on having a duel, and agree they will both use a pike.... but if one of them showed up with a sword and shield.... it would likely be a short fight.

[Cybren]

But there is a difference between a planned duel, where each person is going to have the same weapon, and a combat where you pick the best weapon to help you survive.

They may plan on having a duel, and agree they will both use a pike.... but if one of them showed up with a sword and shield.... it would likely be a short fight.

Silver specifically wrote about the pikes superiority to other weapons. the person with the pike probably murders the person with the sword and shield.

[N810]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ec/df/ca/ecdfcaf41440657ef1e8d79172879acd.jpg
https://videouroki.net/videouroki/conspekty/istdrmira5/46-goroda-ellady-podchiniaiutsia-makiedonii.files/image006.png
http://www.artehistoria.com/v2/jpg/CDP27958.jpg
http://medieval.stormthecastle.com/images/new-polearm-thumbs.jpg

Some Pictures for thought.

[Laurefindel]

Makes perfect sense. Using the back of the polearm for an attack is based on swinging it. Which works with the glaive, but not with a spear, and definitely not with a pike.

Why not with a spear? It works with a staff, which is basically a spear without a spearhead.

[edit] we're talking about the bonus-action attack with the PAM feat, right? I understand that it doesn't work by RAW, but I'm not seeing the sense in it.

[warty goblin]

Why not with a spear? It works with a staff, which is basically a spear without a spearhead.

[edit] we're talking about the bonus-action attack with the PAM feat, right? I understand that it doesn't work by RAW, but I'm not seeing the sense in it.

Generally you stab people with spears, rather than swing at them because the point does more damage than the shaft. You can thrust with a staff, but, lacking sharp stabby bit, there's less reason to favor it over swinging it. A lot of attacks with one end of a staff set one up very naturally for a followthrough attack with the other end in a way that a thrust with a spear does not. The same is true of, for instance, a poleaxe, although at least some period manuals suggest leading with strikes using the (usually pointed) butt, so as to keep the head of the weapon raised and ready to strike.

So yeah, you can whack people with the butt of a spear, but that's sort of missing the point of having a spear.

[Lombra]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ec/df/ca/ecdfcaf41440657ef1e8d79172879acd.jpg
https://videouroki.net/videouroki/conspekty/istdrmira5/46-goroda-ellady-podchiniaiutsia-makiedonii.files/image006.png
http://www.artehistoria.com/v2/jpg/CDP27958.jpg
http://medieval.stormthecastle.com/images/new-polearm-thumbs.jpg

Some Pictures for thought.

I lol'd at that Achille's heel reference in the right :biggrin:

[Tanarii]

Generally you stab people with spears, rather than swing at them because the point does more damage than the shaft.
Since when? Martial Arts forms definitely teach you to use both ends of a body-length (6ft-7ft) 2 handed weapon, which is what the 5e PHB Pike is best envisioned as. (edit: Martial Arts forms also assume solo or small group combat, unlike most Medieval fighting styles manuals, which assume military battlefields and formations.)

Maybe true with a 4ft (zulu-style) spear with a shield. Which is what the 5e 'Spear' has to be, since it can be used effectively one handed.

[Knaight]

Maybe true with a 4ft (zulu-style) spear with a shield. Which is what the 5e 'Spear' has to be, since it can be used effectively one handed.

Significantly longer spears than that were routinely used one handed. I'd personally shy away from them outside of formations (although 5' spears still work fine here), but they were demonstrably effective.

[Tanarii]

Significantly longer spears than that were routinely used one handed. I'd personally shy away from them outside of formations (although 5' spears still work fine here), but they were demonstrably effective.I can't see it. But my experience with spears is almost exclusively with full-sized ones (6ft). Not sure how cutting a foot off would allow you to effectively wield that in solo or small skirmish combat. Edit: wield it one handed. Also, not like I'm a pro or anything, definitely a bit of 'minor personal experience != knowing what you're talking about' lol

[N810]

See above pictures where they are holding the spear at the center of it's balance.
(not all the pictures mind you)

[Knaight]

I can't see it. But my experience with spears is almost exclusively with full-sized ones (6ft). Not sure how cutting a foot off would allow you to effectively wield that in solo or small skirmish combat. Edit: wield it one handed. Also, not like I'm a pro or anything, definitely a bit of 'minor personal experience != knowing what you're talking about' lol

6 ft is on the short side for a spear (particularly for two handed use), and I say this as someone who favors shorter spears there personally (7 ft, I'm not using a spear shorter than I am in two hands if I have an alternative). It's usable one handed, if a bit slow for spears with a thicker shaft. By 5' there's enough reduction in angular momentum to make it faster to use, it's short enough that closing past the spear and staying past it is much harder with short weapons (unless they're really short), and you still have better reach than most one handed swords, even taking into account having up to a foot or so behind the hand.

[Cybren]

Since when? Martial Arts forms definitely teach you to use both ends of a body-length (6ft-7ft) 2 handed weapon, which is what the 5e PHB Pike is best envisioned as. (edit: Martial Arts forms also assume solo or small group combat, unlike most Medieval fighting styles manuals, which assume military battlefields and formations.)

Maybe true with a 4ft (zulu-style) spear with a shield. Which is what the 5e 'Spear' has to be, since it can be used effectively one handed.

??? Isn't it the reverse? while some like fiore did write some on battlefield tactics, for the most part these manuals were on one on one duels. Also, I'd argue the throwing property is greater evidence of the 5e spear being a shorter spear

[War_lord]

It's as ridiculous as people spending all day running around in full plate with a Claymore. But this is a game.

[Cybren]

It's as ridiculous as people spending all day running around in full plate with a Claymore. But this is a game.
That doesn't sound particularly unrealistic. There's an entire mechanic around getting tired from strenuous activity. The DM is free to give a level of exhaustion if they feel the characters actions have warranted it

[Tanarii]

6 ft is on the short side for a spear (particularly for two handed use), and I say this as someone who favors shorter spears there personally (7 ft, I'm not using a spear shorter than I am in two hands if I have an alternative). It's usable one handed, if a bit slow for spears with a thicker shaft. By 5' there's enough reduction in angular momentum to make it faster to use, it's short enough that closing past the spear and staying past it is much harder with short weapons (unless they're really short), and you still have better reach than most one handed swords, even taking into account having up to a foot or so behind the hand.
I think the problem is when I envision using a 2H spear, I absolutely don't see it as jabbing with the point. It's not a rapier. You use it like a staff with a sharp point on one end. At least, every real world demonstration of its use I've ever seen, and it's definitely how I've been taught to use it. The only time I've ever 'seen' a long spear (6ft) used for jab-stabbing only is in movie about ancient time formation fighting with shields. Where they're restricted because they're using a 2H weapon in one hand. (Edit: also the Prussian at the start of Jet Lee's Fearless, with seems like Hollywood trying to 'demonstrate' the ineffectiveness of a pike in solo combat. :smallwink: )

Is 1H spear short spear fighting so significantly different? If it's no longer used like a pointed club that can stab and and parry and bash, maybe it is.


See above pictures where they are holding the spear at the center of it's balance.
(not all the pictures mind you)None of the one depicting shield & spear would be effective outside of a formation with spears that long. Not enough control of the weapon to use it for anything other than basic stabbing.

[War_lord]

That doesn't sound particularly unrealistic. There's an entire mechanic around getting tired from strenuous activity. The DM is free to give a level of exhaustion if they feel the characters actions have warranted it

It's very unrealistic. For starters you can't holster a Greatsword, you have to carry it around, usually on the shoulder. And then there's the matter of Plate Armour, which isn't exactly pajamas. They're both "battlefield" equipment. But I wouldn't start giving exhaustion levels over it, because it'd disadvantage strength based classes, and DEX doesn't need yet another boost.

[Cybren]

It's very unrealistic. For starters you can't holster a Greatsword, you have to carry it around, usually on the shoulder. And then there's the matter of Plate Armour, which isn't exactly pajamas. They're both "battlefield" equipment. But I wouldn't start giving exhaustion levels over it, because it'd disadvantage strength based classes, and DEX doesn't need yet another boost.

??? People DID wear their armor for long periods of time and DID carry their weapons. This isn't some absurd game invention. Even still, there's nothing in the book requiring anyone to wear their armor all day or carry a sword instead of giving it to a hireling or putting it in a bag of holding. It's not "disadvantaging" anyone, and it's incredibly juvenile to say that it would.

EDIT:

I mean, think about it. Even if the average medieval battle proper only lasted 45 minutes, it's not like once that time is up everyone breaks out gatorades and sits beneath the mist sprayer beneath a parasol. You probably put that armor on at least an hour before the battle even starts, and if you get routed, you're bolting as fast as you can and not gonna take time to strip. That total length of time they're in armor is probably more than the average amount of actual time it takes to loot a dungeon. You could argue resting in armor is the unrealistic thing, but you didn't, and the don/doff times are short enough you could just hand-waive that anyway.

[Laserlight]

Silver specifically wrote about the pikes superiority to other weapons. the person with the pike probably murders the person with the sword and shield.

Spanish "sword & buckler men" would, I expect, probably disagree.

The great things about pike (real pike, not D&D pike) are a) they're relatively cheap, being basically a knife on a stick; b) they're long enough to be effective, when massed, against heavy cavalry; c) anyone who goes up against a pike formation is going to find himself getting attacked by four guys (or eight or twelve, depending on frontage), not one. If you slip past the first point, you still have 2 3 and 4 to deal with. None of those factors particularly matter in a 1 v 1 duel, and anyone who thinks a pike is quick and easy to handle is encouraged to find an 18ft pole and a parking lot and try it. I can tell you that a 7ft spear is usuable indoors but is a bit hampered in hallways (turning around takes some maneuvering), doorways, and corners; I would certainly never want to use a spear in a 1v1 fight indoors unless my opponent was immobile.