"Spears are better than swords" youtube video by lindybeige

[napoleon_in_rag]

Cruising on youtube the other day I found this video:

"Spears are better than Swords" by lindybeige (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U)

In it, a group of HEMA enthusiasts run 65 bouts between swordsmen and spearmen in various configurations. It's not conclusive but does illustrate some of the advantages of the spear. It's a long video, but a summary of all the bouts can be found at 28:30.

It convinces me that, in 5e, spears should have Reach.

I am curious what everyone else thinks.



Edit: I found a shorter version of the video: Spears are better than swords: scientific proof (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk)

[Lunali]

It convinces me that, in 5e, spears should have Reach.

Reach means it has the ability to attack someone up to 10ft away from you, spears are far from long enough to get what D&D considers reach.

As for spears vs swords, spears were particularly good when used in formations and far less effective for the sorts of fights that PCs typically engage in.

[hymer]

Matt and Lloyd are right, of course. Matt usually is, when he's done talking about context. Lloyd is more entertaining than right. So between them, they are usually both instructive and fun to watch, which is saying a lot.

As for adding reach, well... It wouldn't actually make the spear the better weapon, would it? Not one on one, as most of the bouts are. 5e weapons don't have the granularity to keep up with reality. Nor do I think they should. Simplicity is better.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Reach means it has the ability to attack someone up to 10ft away from you, spears are far from long enough to get what D&D considers reach.

As for spears vs swords, spears were particularly good when used in formations and far less effective for the sorts of fights that PCs typically engage in.

I suggest watching the video. Most of the bouts are one on one.

The spears used in the video are 8 feet long. If you shift your weight or lunge, you can easily hit ten feet. Historical Glaives and Halberds were 7 or 8 feet long but have reach in 5e.

[napoleon_in_rag]

As for adding reach, well... It wouldn't actually make the spear the better weapon, would it? Not one on one, as most of the bouts are. 5e weapons don't have the granularity to keep up with reality. Nor do I think they should. Simplicity is better.

I think the title is click bait to be honest. All they are measuring is who gets the first hit, not who does more damage or what weapon does better against armor.

[NaughtyTiger]

The UA spear weapon feat would go a long way to improving the spear
Conditional reach
Conditional damage

[hymer]

I think the title is click bait to be honest. All they are measuring is who gets the first hit, not who does more damage or what weapon does better against armor.
Sure, it is clickbait, or at least an amusing title, given the way Lloyd acts in the videos. They knew what they were expecting, and they got it. It's a demonstration, not an experiment.

But the conclusion is the right one, barring specific contexts. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d86sT3cF1Eo)'s Matt's companion video to Lloyd's two. It's pretty good, if you can stand his deadpan sense of humour.

[Cybren]

Reach means it has the ability to attack someone up to 10ft away from you, spears are far from long enough to get what D&D considers reach.

As for spears vs swords, spears were particularly good when used in formations and far less effective for the sorts of fights that PCs typically engage in.

Not sure if you know this, but daggers aren’t five feet long

[PeteNutButter]

Reach means you can reach a target 5.1-10 feet away. The target takes up the 5 foot square, not the back of it.

Spears should totally have reach. I think 5e left spears as crap weapons because they are technically kind of "simple" so it didn't make sense to make them martial. I'm all for more love for spears. I love hoplite style characters.

[Tiadoppler]

There's nothing particularly surprising about the results.

There are good reasons that polearms were the powerful, primary weapon of choice, and swords were a backup sidearm (not 'greatswords', of course, and there were exceptions).

Reach: the guy with the longer weapon gets to attack first. In real life, getting stabbed is bad for you, and you don't get to keep fighting at full strength from 100HP down to 1HP.
Ease of training: it's far easier to train a pikeman than a swordsman.
Cost: polearms use less steel than swords (generally), so you can outfit a larger force with polearms, than you could with swords.
Power: polearms can be used for more powerful blows than swords, because of their length and weight (great inertia, difficult to parry)


So, yes, a spearman with a week of training is a threat to a fairly skilled swordsman. D&D weapons training is pretty bizarre: pikes and longbows are both "martial" weapons. A pike is a fairly simple polearm that requires weeks or months of training. A longbow is an exceptionally difficult weapon that takes years or decades to learn.



But, at the end of the day, D&D is supposed to be heroic fantasy. Fantasy heroes use swords, so the designers are reluctant to make polearms better than swords. And that's why spears in D&D are bad.

[Tanarii]

The spears used in the video are 8 feet long. If you shift your weight or lunge, you can easily hit ten feet. Historical Glaives and Halberds were 7 or 8 feet long but have reach in 5e.In 5e terms, that's a Pike.

A 5e Spear is probably about 3 feet long, maybe a bit longer with a long blade. Think the Zulu iklwa. Suitable for both 1 and 2 handed combat in a one-on-one or skirmishing fight.

Unlike a 7-8ft weapon, which would require two hands to be effective in such a situation. Even a 5ft spear requires two free hands to be effective in such a situation, I can tell you that from personal experience.

[thoroughlyS]

Honestly, the game just needs the Longspear to be added back in. 1d8 piercing, reach, two-handed.

[Wub]

I've always been a fan of pokey weapons, other games included. Spacing and timing become more relevant, lending spears a vastly different combat style than swords. Impatient enemies also get poked for their troubles. PAM is sorta like that, where you lock down an area and prevent enemies from advancing on your squishies in the backline.

[PeteNutButter]

In 5e terms, that's a Pike.

A 5e Spear is probably about 3 feet long, maybe a bit longer with a long blade. Think the Zulu iklwa. Suitable for both 1 and 2 handed combat in a one-on-one or skirmishing fight.

Unlike a 7-8ft weapon, which would require two hands to be effective in such a situation. Even a 5ft spear requires two free hands to be effective in such a situation, I can tell you that from personal experience.

Just google image "hoplite." The length of the spear was ~8-15 feet long depending on exact time etc. (at least according to the Wikipedia). They are one-handed since the left hand held the shield.

The game needs a 1d8 reach weapon that is ONE-HANDED but has disadvantage within 5 ft.

[Wub]

The game needs a 1d8 reach weapon that is ONE-HANDED but has disadvantage within 5 ft.

You could probably easily sell your DM on that or a d6 reach spear. The weapon makes sense, and weapon balancing in 5e is pretty clear.

Maybe DnD didn't add one-handed reach weapons because they wanted to avoid turtle builds? (Even though a lot of people in real life decided it was a good idea. I think shields only got dropped from the roster once arrowheads improved.)

[Tanarii]

Just google image "hoplite." The length of the spear was ~8-15 feet long depending on exact time etc. (at least according to the Wikipedia). They are one-handed since the left hand held the shield.
Which is fine for formation fighting. But thats just not going to work in the typical 5e skirmish style combat or a one on one duel.

[Gryndle]

Reach means it has the ability to attack someone up to 10ft away from you, spears are far from long enough to get what D&D considers reach.

As for spears vs swords, spears were particularly good when used in formations and far less effective for the sorts of fights that PCs typically engage in.

yeah, its another case of people failing to realize that effectiveness on a battlefield, in formation is not the same as effectiveness in personal combat or small group skirmishes.

[Tiadoppler]

How about this:

Short Spear (4'), simple one-handed weapon, 1d6 piercing damage, versatile (1d8), thrown (30/60)

basically the standard spear

Spear (8'), simple two-handed weapon, heavy, 1d8 piercing damage, reach 1

like a light-weight pike

Long Spear (12'), simple two-handed weapon, 1d8 piercing damage, heavy, reach 2, disadvantage on attacks within 5'

awkward up close, but can hit things 5'-15' away with no penalty



Fighting Spear (6'), martial one-handed weapon, 1d8 piercing damage, versatile (1d10)

a long-bladed spear balanced for dueling, it's the piercing version of a Battleaxe/Longsword/Warhammer.

[hymer]

yeah, its another case of people failing to realize that effectiveness on a battlefield, in formation is not the same as effectiveness in personal combat or small group skirmishes.
You should watch one of those videos. It seems you'd learn something.

[CIDE]

I'm AFB so I can't read the official description of the weapon (if there even is one) but I was under the impression that the D&D spears were super simple weapons and much shorter. Maybe 3-5ft long rather than that you'd see used by a military force in formation. The whole point of the other longer and more specilized weapons (like a glaive or pike or whatever) was to further illustrate the difference with intent. Meanwhile, the "spear" is what I'd expect a farmer to piece together with a few bits and bobs lying around and a half an hour to an hour's worth of time (like tying a dagger to the end of a stick). An alternative to a staff or club.

[LudicSavant]

Whatever statistics spears have, I think at least most of us agree that they should be competitively viable for Fighters.

As is, it's all about the quarterstaves.

[Tanarii]

Whatever statistics spears have, I think at least most of us agree that they should be competitively viable for Fighters.Yeah. A martial spear thats not a ludicrous 18 lbs would be nice.

But other than that and its failure to play quite as nice with an optional rule as the other two reach weapons, the 5e Pike is passable as a 6-8ft longer spear.

[napoleon_in_rag]

A 5e Spear is probably about 3 feet long, maybe a bit longer with a long blade. Think the Zulu iklwa. Suitable for both 1 and 2 handed combat in a one-on-one or skirmishing fight.


Is that in writing anywhere?

[PeteNutButter]

Which is fine for formation fighting. But thats just not going to work in the typical 5e skirmish style combat or a one on one duel.

Ergo my suggestion that it be 1d8 reach with disadvantage within 5 feet.

[Naanomi]

All of the classically primitive humanoids would be significantly more deadly if their classic spears got a big upgrade

[thoroughlyS]

Whatever statistics spears have, I think at least most of us agree that they should be competitively viable for Fighters.

As is, it's all about the quarterstaves.
That's 100% because of Polearm Master; the spear has everything a quarterstaff has, plus the thrown property. This raises the question how is the most ubiquitous polearm IN HISTORY NOT INCLUDED IN POLEARM MASTER?!

Yeah. A martial spear thats not a ludicrous 18 lbs would be nice.

But other than that and its failure to play quite as nice with an optional rule as the other two reach weapons, the 5e Pike is passable as a 6-8ft longer spear.
The pike in 5e is just a travesty. It weighs thrice as much as the glaive/halberd with otherwise identical stats. A true, out-and-out pike should have a special property allowing it to reach creatures 15 ft away, but not creatures within 5 ft (and weigh at most 13 pounds).
To fill the niche for a martial spear, you could do the partisan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_(weapon)): 1d8 piercing, versatile (1d10). Effectively a piercing longsword.
I would also recommend shifting the halberd to piercing to differentiate it from the glaive.

[Haldir]

Reach means it has the ability to attack someone up to 10ft away from you, spears are far from long enough to get what D&D considers reach.

As for spears vs swords, spears were particularly good when used in formations and far less effective for the sorts of fights that PCs typically engage in.

Citation needed here. Badly. The idea that a spear is only useful in a formation is not at all based in any facts.

[Lorka]

D&D is not a simulation based rpg system. For that you should look at gurps as an example.
D&D is a genre based rpg, you are the hero that can take a lot of abuse and keep going. Spears are for peasants, and peasants weapons are good in the hands of a monk.

If you can’t envision your bad ass spear fighter because her weapon is called glaive, then ask if you can get spear master feat.

BTW I have been doing HEMA for a couple of years and agree that how D&D handles weapons are not super realistic, but neither is hit points and armor class.

[Tanarii]

Citation needed here. Badly. The idea that a spear is only useful in a formation is not at all based in any facts.
Right. Its one handed longer spears with a shield that require a formation for effective use.

Medium spears (body length to a bit longer) and shield are probably okay in slighly looser fighting formations, historically its been used by various warrior groups that didn't go full Hoplite tight ranks. But its not going to work for individual dueling/skirmishing. And shorter spear and shield has the infamous Zulu.

And obviously, no shield and body-length spear is a proven effective individual weapon in many martial arts forms and historical re-creation societies. As the video shows.

[LudicSavant]

The Zulu are amazing. Defeated the British. In 1879. With shields and short spears.

But of course, D&D would have you believe that the most prevalent arms and armor of real life (cloth armor, spears) are worthless in the face of ridiculousness like quarterstaff/shield and studded leather. :smallfrown:

You can't even use a "but it's embodying fantasy tropes over realism" argument to defend this silliness. We've got plenty of awesome spears and cloth armor in our fantasy fiction these days, but I've been unable to find even a single quarterstaff/shield fighter in studded leather.

[hymer]

The Zulu are amazing. Defeated the British. In 1879. With shields and short spears.
Amazing indeed. But let's not get carried away. The Zulu had homefield advantage, and superiority in numbers. And they... lost that war unless I'm mistaken? They lost in the end, that I'm sure of.


But of course, D&D would have you believe that the most prevalent arms and armor of real life (cloth armor, spears) are worthless in the face of ridiculousness like quarterstaff/shield and studded leather. :smallfrown:
It's silly, very true. But then, they don't actually want you to believe that this is the case. The rules also include resurrection magic, friendly people in your way do not impede your speed as long as the terrain is rough and uneven, and you can recover completely from any trauma in in 48 hours - or less. It's just a game, not something to be believed.

[LudicSavant]

It's silly, very true. But then, they don't actually want you to believe that this is the case. The rules also include resurrection magic, friendly people in your way do not impede your speed as long as the terrain is rough and uneven, and you can recover completely from any trauma in in 48 hours - or less. It's just a game, not something to be believed.

The difference is that those things serve a purpose, thematically and/or mechanically.

Lame spears and cloth armor (or, conversely, top-of-the-line studded leather and quarterstaff/shield) aren't just unrealistic, I'd say it's also shoddy fantasy fiction flavor and game mechanics.

[Cybren]

All of the classically primitive humanoids would be significantly more deadly if their classic spears got a big upgrade
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. If they still had to be "worse" they could be ported to using clubs or quarterstaves.

[1Pirate]

yeah, its another case of people failing to realize that effectiveness on a battlefield, in formation is not the same as effectiveness in personal combat or small group skirmishes.

Ok, since comments like this have been said several times, I'm guessing people don't have time to watch the whole video so I'm going to spoil: The spear users were very competitive against the sword users even in one-on-one fights. They go through several different types of swords, plus sword and board. While by no means a blow-out, the spear users had a definite advantage until they brought in large shield users.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Here is my theory to why spears suck in 5e. I think there are 3 factors when assigning stats to a weapon in an RPG.

1) Realism Factor - On average, paring knife should do less damage than a battle axe.
2) Coolness Factor - This is why the whip and the hand crossbow made the list.
3) Game Balance Factor - How does this weapon mix in with abilities of characters.

So for the spear, the realism factor should be pretty high. The coolness factor should be pretty high, though not as high as a sword, because there are plenty of examples of fantasy characters using spears.

I think designers felt that giving spear Reach would unbalance the game. It would make a simple weapon more effective than many martial weapons. "Sword and Board" might get replaced by "Spear and Board". Monks would be much more effective at level 1. No one would use a Quarterstaff.

Of course, I am assuming the designers consciously decided not to give the spear reach. They may have given a one handed spear d6 damage just because it has always had d6 damage going all the way back to OD&D. Like how the long sword damage has always been d8 and a dagger is always d4.

[Naanomi]

Not being an expert on the history... why did swords largely replace spears as the preferred sidearm of those wealthy enough to afford them, across several cultures around them world?

[Dudewithknives]

Forever my main issue with spears is their inability to be used with PAM, despite them being the most common and one of the most effective polearms in history.

[thoroughlyS]

Not being an expert on the history... why did swords largely replace spears as the preferred sidearm of those wealthy enough to afford them, across several cultures around them world?
They're easier to carry, draw, and stow.

Forever my main issue with spears is their inability to be used with PAM, despite them being the most common and one of the most effective polearms in history.
Absolutely.

[Wub]

One-handed spears are conspicuously absent, and the fact the whip is in there just kinda proves it. Having that d6/d8 one-handed reach is likely too good to pass up, whereas a d4 reach weapon is more niche and requires the right build to utilize.

[hymer]

Not being an expert on the history... why did swords largely replace spears as the preferred sidearm of those wealthy enough to afford them, across several cultures around them world?
The clue is in the word 'sidearm'. :smallsmile: The spear isn't one, it's a main weapon. Swords are much easer to lug around, so they make for a nice backup weapons, or for self defence.

Edit: Shadowmonk'ed.

[LudicSavant]

Not being an expert on the history... why did swords largely replace spears as the preferred sidearm of those wealthy enough to afford them, across several cultures around them world?

Just to echo what others have already said faster than me, the issue isn't that swords replaced spears, it's that spears aren't really sidearms. You can't put one in a scabbard at your hip.

[Naanomi]

So... In a game where (in general) you are tunnel crawling adventurers, and not soldiers fighting in a war surrounded by similarly armed troops... climbing walls and pouring through ancient libraries as well as fighting a wide variety of foes... a sword being superior still makes sense given that?

[LudicSavant]

So... In a game where (in general) you are tunnel crawling adventurers, and not soldiers fighting in a war surrounded by similarly armed troops... climbing walls and pouring through ancient libraries as well as fighting a wide variety of foes... a sword being superior still makes sense given that?

A spear has no need of similarly-armed troops near you to be highly effective; not sure where you got that from? The video in the OP even specifically highlights its utility in 1v1.

Spears are good for duels, for monster slaying (especially if they're larger than you), for basically whatever. The primary advantage of the sword is that it's less obtrusive in social settings.

The sword never "replaced" a spear any more than, say, pistols replaced rifles. It's just that rifles were never sidearms.

[hymer]

So... In a game where (in general) you are tunnel crawling adventurers, and not soldiers fighting in a war surrounded by similarly armed troops... climbing walls and pouring through ancient libraries as well as fighting a wide variety of foes... a sword being superior still makes sense given that?
As "Captain Context" Matt Easton put it (quoting from memory): If you're fighting in a toilet cubicle, the dagger is superior to the sword. :smallsmile: So all that you say makes sense, except the 'wide variety' bit. That seems to point to the more versatile spear having the advantage.

On the other hand, a spear would be pretty good in a straight section of a narrow tunnel, e.g., where an approaching enemy would have almost no room to manoeuvre. And the extra reach could make a lot of difference in fighting in ruins, with its uneven terrain - it makes it even harder to close down the spearman. So, more context. :smallbiggrin:


A spear has no need of similarly-armed troops near you to be highly effective. It is good for duels, for monster slaying (especially if they're larger than you), for basically whatever.
Good point - I thought she meant 'surrounded' by enemies there.

[Tiadoppler]

So... In a game where (in general) you are tunnel crawling adventurers, and not soldiers fighting in a war surrounded by similarly armed troops... climbing walls and pouring through ancient libraries as well as fighting a wide variety of foes... a sword being superior still makes sense given that?

Tunnel crawling + fighting in tight quarters is definitely an area where the sword should be superior. I'm not sure which is better for poring over ancient libraries though :D

However, the point of the video, and others' experiences, and historical evidence, was that a properly sized (5-6') spear is an excellent choice if you're fighting against a longsword outside, even in a one on one duel. In that case, the longsword (a sidearm) has the disadvantage of reach, and the spear (a primary weapon) has the advantage of power, and speed.

Formation fighting with long spears is a whole different situation.


Edit:
TL;DR: What they said.

[MadBear]

Can't remember the name of the book, but it had a great piece about why swords made great sidearms over other weapons. It was akin to:

- In close quarter fights (think barroom brawl), a dagger is more effective
- In formations polearms are superior
- In 1v1's in the open a spear or quarterstaff are superior at both reach and getting a critical first strike (because outside D&D, the first to receive a stab wound is significantly more likely to die)

And yet, the sword is the sidearm of choice because while it's not the best in any 1 category, it is functional in all of them. You can't use a 10 ft staff up close to take advantage of its leverage, nor is it practical. Daggers would make awful formation weapons, and a 15' polearm would be unwielding in a 1v1 fight. But the sword is just fine in each category. It's the jack of all trades, master of none weapon.

[Naanomi]

I didn’t mean formation fighting, but I was referencing muddled close quarters combat with several allies and enemies intermixed with unclear battle lines; reach quickly loses advantage to reaction speed (and ability to not thwack an ally when repositioning) in such situations

Also, I would be careful drawing parallels between hunting and fighting giant sized fantasy combatants... we can really only guess; but who knows... maybe swords became dominant in DnD world because they happen to be excellent dragon slaying weapons or something

[LudicSavant]

Also, I would be careful drawing parallels between hunting and fighting giant sized fantasy combatants... we can really only guess

Actually, we have an extensive historical record of humans fighting megafauna in real life. Spears kick megafauna ass.

Also, while someone mentioned the "toilet cubicle fight" in which case of course a short weapon's going to be better, a more relevant context for many adventurers is going to be the "tunnel fight," in which case a good thrusting weapon is an asset again.

[Tanarii]

Not being an expert on the history... why did swords largely replace spears as the preferred sidearm of those wealthy enough to afford them, across several cultures around them world?
Guessing, but context probably matters.

For example, are we talking warfare? Formation or non-formation fighting? Urban/City approved to carry in city limits? Status symbols?

Are we talking ability to effectively use in close quarters? With or without a shield?

Defense or offense? Both?

Are we talking officers, who expect to command but not use their weapon much?

I mean, a sword and shield should be a great balance of good def and offense, in one-on-one or skirmishing fighting situations, where the opponent can move freely. A spear & shield just isn't as good offensively in that situation, with the same defensive capabilities. A 2H spear is probably on par or better offensively, but it's defensive capabilities are in standoff, but of course very good at that. As shown in the video. And that's not going to help against ranged attackers. You'd need cover.

As far as 5e modeling this, it probably doesn't handle the ability to standoff your opponent very well. Especially as Spear is not included in the list of weapons you get an attack with when they enter your Reach.

[Naanomi]

Another factor to consider; spears are cumbersome; and while a DnD adventurer can somehow manage to carry twenty weapons, the unobtrusiveness of a sword at your side is a big deal... of your ‘main’ weapon is a bow (samurai), Lance (knight), enormous pike (phalanx), or musket; I wouldn’t want to also try and lug a spear along

As for the ‘megafauna’ comment... that is exactly the trap to be careful with. We know spears are great fighting large non-magical mammals... but dragons? Trolls? Who knows? Let alone of course... incorporeal ghosts, beings made of flame, demons whose internal anatomy is just for show, living iron statues, a cloud of pixies... the versatility of a sword may shine there comparably

[Gryndle]

You should watch one of those videos. It seems you'd learn something.

I did watch them. I did not find it particularly convincing or informative, didn't see anything new or ground breaking in it. certainly not enough to draw any kind of informed opinion that "OMG! SPears tots PWN sowrds!"

trying to say that any particular weapon is objectively better than another is like trying to say a hammer is objectively better than a screwdriver. Meaning, each has their uses for which they are optimal: each can be utilized outside their intended purpose, but that doesn't mean you can reliably unscrew something with a hammer.

Now I absolutely do agree that the spear gets the shaft in DnD. but to fix it I think you would almost need to go back to the AD&D ridiculous variety of weapons (which I do NOT want to see) with a bunch of different types of spears and polearms.

[Wub]

Another factor to consider; spears are cumbersome; and while a DnD adventurer can somehow manage to carry twenty weapons, the unobtrusiveness of a sword at your side is a big deal... of your ‘main’ weapon is a bow (samurai), Lance (knight), enormous pike (phalanx), or musket; I wouldn’t want to also try and lug a spear along

As for the ‘megafauna’ comment... that is exactly the trap to be careful with. We know spears are great fighting large non-magical mammals... but dragons? Trolls? Who knows? Let alone of course... incorporeal ghosts, beings made of flame, demons whose internal anatomy is just for show, living iron statues, a cloud of pixies... the versatility of a sword may shine there comparably

Warhammers and greataxes are cumbersome yet commonly-used weapons. Spears are actually much lighter and easier to lug around than those weapons.

The second half is speculation.

[LudicSavant]

Now I absolutely do agree that the spear gets the shaft in DnD. but to fix it I think you would almost need to go back to the AD&D ridiculous variety of weapons (which I do NOT want to see) with a bunch of different types of spears and polearms.

I can think of a way to make spears a top-shelf weapon with exactly one change:


Polearm Master errata:

POLEARM MASTER:
You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons.

You gain the following benefits:
When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, spear, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.

While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, spear or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.

[Gryndle]

Actually, we have an extensive historical record of humans fighting megafauna in real life. Spears kick megafauna ass.

Also, while someone mentioned the "toilet cubicle fight" in which case of course a short weapon's going to be better, a more relevant context for many adventurers is going to be the "tunnel fight," in which case a good thrusting weapon is an asset again.

a good thrusting weapon yes, but if you are carrying a spear in that tunnel, pray for long straight stretches with plenty of turning room at intersections. the length of the spear is an asset, but is also a vulnerability.

[LudicSavant]

a good thrusting weapon yes, but if you are carrying a spear in that tunnel, pray for long straight stretches with plenty of turning room at intersections. the length of the spear is an asset, but is also a vulnerability.

Yeah. Though, unless you're finding yourself in lots of dungeons with corridors narrower than 5-foot squares (which is a much bigger space than some people seem to assume, judging by the number of maps I've seen where people make a CHAIR take up a 5 foot square), I wouldn't be too worried.

[Tanarii]

I can think of a way to make spears a top-shelf weapon with exactly one change:
Probably it should require a spear (and quarterstaff) to be used two handed to get the PAM benefit.

[LudicSavant]

Probably it should require a spear (and quarterstaff) to be used two handed to get the PAM benefit.

Ah, but that would be two changes :smallwink:

[Naanomi]

Warhammers and greataxes are cumbersome yet commonly-used weapons. Spears are actually much lighter and easier to lug around than those weapons.

The second half is speculation.
But neither were carried around with other bulky equipment in the way... adventurers are living with backpacks, 29 days rations, 10 javalins, 100 ft of rope, a priest’s Kit, and a magic kettle drum... all while riding your giant vulture... I’m not taking weight problems here, just the bulkiness from length becomes hard to manage compared to the ‘hanging from your belt’ of a good sword

And of course the second part is speculation, but to the point that things *could* be different and we should be careful about too many comparisons between real-life animals and adventuring foes... heck, if I were ‘fighting’ a car in real life, I might prefer a sword to a spear... or a sledge hammer over both of them

[Morty]

I find it endlessly amusing that the polearms' special trick, that makes them high-tier weapons for optimization, is "hit them with the blunt end". At least the feat also let you use your reach for opportunity attacks.

[sophontteks]

Not being an expert on the history... why did swords largely replace spears as the preferred sidearm of those wealthy enough to afford them, across several cultures around them world?
Because they didn't. Pikes and other polearms replaced the spear as armor improved and the pike held widespread use through the 16th century, long after swords were replaced in the battlefield. Polearms are really just more advanced spears IMO.

Swords are more like sidearms. They are really useful up close, but they weren't often a main weapon, with a few exceptions of course.

EDIT: actually I think I know what your talking about. Nobles tended to carry a sword, because its a very convenient weapon. You don't carry a spear around the city for protection. You carry a sword. Same reason pistols are popular today.

[RSP]

I have to imagine durability is a factor in choosing a sword over a spear: spears break. Swords are much more durable.

If you’re a wealthy noble are you going to put gold inlay and gems on a spear which can break relatively easily, or do that with a steal sword that is much more difficult to break?

[Willie the Duck]

So... In a game where (in general) you are tunnel crawling adventurers, and not soldiers fighting in a war surrounded by similarly armed troops... climbing walls and pouring through ancient libraries as well as fighting a wide variety of foes... a sword being superior still makes sense given that?


I didn’t mean formation fighting, but I was referencing muddled close quarters combat with several allies and enemies intermixed with unclear battle lines; reach quickly loses advantage to reaction speed (and ability to not thwack an ally when repositioning) in such situations

Also, I would be careful drawing parallels between hunting and fighting giant sized fantasy combatants... we can really only guess; but who knows... maybe swords became dominant in DnD world because they happen to be excellent dragon slaying weapons or something

Therein lies a problem-- just about every part of D&D adventuring is unrealistic on multiple levels.
Running around in full plate armor (without attendants)
Carrying multiple large weapons (from oD&D - 3e it was often reach weapon, greatsword or longsword and shield, and longbow. This edition at least makes it usually either bow and rapier/shortswords or big melee weapon and javelins, and few bigsword+polearms)
carrying your food and bedroll and waterskin on top of it while traipsing across the land (often without mounts),
Battling megafauna (often fire-breathing megafauna)
castles as they really were are unrealistic in a world full of stuff that break real life's rules), and of course
D&D 'dungeons' in general

I'm not saying you can't decide that spears need some realism tweeks, but just that it will be cherry picking realism issues amongst many more.

[LudicSavant]

I have to imagine durability is a factor in choosing a sword over a spear: spears break. Swords are much more durable.

If you’re a wealthy noble are you going to put gold inlay and gems on a spear which can break relatively easily, or do that with a steal sword that is much more difficult to break?

My understanding is that spears are not actually much easier to break than swords, if they're at all well-made.

[Willie the Duck]

Swords also, particularly past the bronze age (where you can always just recast the thing), and modern times (with modern spring steel), relatively hard to repair.

Attacking the spear itself, rather than the person wielding it, seems like a risky proposition in the real world. I suspect that durability would not be a primary factor.

[Snails]

D&D has always been so abstract that almost every important tactical factor has been forgotten for simplicity. The most extreme example is really shields. If you face two burly fighters with shields and know how to use them in a 10' corridor, yes, you are effectively doing formation fighting. All those nifty high Dex characters in light armor will need to either (1) continuously give ground so they have the space to dodge, (2) grapple to nullify the shields, or (3) get carved into mincemeat.

[Mr.Spastic]

I have an easy fix to this in my games.

Warspear: 1d8(versatile 1d10), Piercing damage, Martial Weapon

[Erloas]

Having skimmed that video, I can say that the shieldmen were really pretty bad. That wasn't "spears are so great" it was "people using shields they haven't practiced with don't get much out of the shield."

I've been fighting (SCA) for 18 years now, and one-on-one it is incredibly rare that a spearmen will kill me. Now once you've got a lot of people on both sides the spears do a lot more, but even then, it is the shields on both sides that force the distance where spears do great.
Granted I totally agree that spears have reach, well any over about 6ft.

[JackPhoenix]

Warhammers and greataxes are cumbersome yet commonly-used weapons. Spears are actually much lighter and easier to lug around than those weapons.

There's nothing cumbersome about warhammer. Warhammer is perfectly fine as a sidearm, and definitely easier to store than spear. It's not any heavier than a sword, and it's shorter.


I can think of a way to make spears a top-shelf weapon with exactly one change:

Agree on the second point, but disagree on the first. Notice that it doesn't apply to pike either, because you can't really stab someone and hit them with the haft on backswing. On the same note, quarterstaff should be removed from the 2nd point, because it's not gonna do much if you poke charging guy with it.

[Tanarii]

I find it endlessly amusing that the polearms' special trick, that makes them high-tier weapons for optimization, is "hit them with the blunt end". At least the feat also let you use your reach for opportunity attacks.Makes perfect sense for body length (2 hand) spears, short Glaives, and Halberds, especially in one-on-one or skirmish fighting. Especially if you've had any eastern martial arts training in the first two, although Glaives go by various other names, and are shorter than a formation war Glaive.

And iirc blade and haft fighting was de riguer for western Halberd training manuals that have survived.




Agree on the second point, but disagree on the first. Notice that it doesn't apply to pike either, because you can't really stab someone and hit them with the haft on backswing.You can and do with a 6ft long spear in two hands. It's pretty routine part of a series of attacks and blocks in many eastern forms, if you have room.

So on Pikes, it really depends what you think a 5e 'Pike' is supposed to be. If you think it's a 10-12ft Pike, then yeah it'd probably be weird.

Also (obviously) for a one-handed spear.

Edit: tl;dr: I strongly suspect PAM is based more on eastern fighting styles. Otoh other than vaguely recalling the tidbit about the halberd I don't really know much about western ones

[Kane0]

I do enjoy Lloyd’s content.

[Clistenes]

Reach means it has the ability to attack someone up to 10ft away from you, spears are far from long enough to get what D&D considers reach.

As for spears vs swords, spears were particularly good when used in formations and far less effective for the sorts of fights that PCs typically engage in.

I am not a fighter myself, but all people who I have read or listened speak about it claim that yes, spears are better than swords, both in battle and in duels. In fact, most claim that even staffs are better than swords.

That said, if you have to travel and fight in narrow tunnels, thick forests or rocky slopes, a weapon that won't hit the walls or be impeded by branches is probably better. Plus you can use a shield and a sword, and the shield makes up for the reach of the spear. Or you an be an archer and carry a sword in your belt as a secondary weapon...

[Benny89]

Been training fencing/kendo myself and one thing is clear in melee fight: reach is huge advantage. Huge. Even in sword vs sword a guy who is 185 cm has huge advantage over guy who is 170 cm. Just because of longer arms and longer steps. Of course technique and experiance is important but you could take a guy with basic spear training vs greatest longsword fancer and I would still say 50/50. Just because how effective the spear is and how hard is to counter it.

I don't think Spear needs reach, because it's mechanical balance. Reach is for being able to hit target 10 feet from you.

All I want is them to correct and make spear work officially with PAM as quarterstaff. Because it's super stupid that a long stick is mentioned on PAM, but long stick with blade at the end not. Even thought both have same damage profiles.... Everybody I know already do it because if it's same profile- why not, it's just cosmetic change at this point.

Spear was always my fav weapon with axes. I just love how nimble, simple but deadly spear is.

[Tvtyrant]

I suggest watching the video. Most of the bouts are one on one.

The spears used in the video are 8 feet long. If you shift your weight or lunge, you can easily hit ten feet. Historical Glaives and Halberds were 7 or 8 feet long but have reach in 5e.

As an SCA spear fighter, I can safely say when you one hand an 8ft spear hoplite style you do it with your hand at least a third of the way up the shaft for leverage, overhand if in a formation and underhand if fighting in open ranks. Spears do have a little reach over swords, but not that much.

Two handed spears are totally different, but also leave you open to arrows, javelins and slingstones. That is why Alexander's army used a kind of hanging shield.

[Erloas]

As an SCA spear fighter, I can safely say when you one hand an 8ft spear hoplite style you do it with your hand at least a third of the way up the shaft for leverage, overhand if in a formation and underhand if fighting in open ranks. Spears do have a little reach over swords, but not that much.

Two handed spears are totally different, but also leave you open to arrows, javelins and slingstones. That is why Alexander's army used a kind of hanging shield.
I don't think you can use anything over 6ft one handed? But I've never seen anyone really try it outside of a novelty because it is simply painfully ineffective.
9ft spears and 7.5ft glaives and the like are a completely different story, they can be very effective, at least in melees. In one-on-one combat with any shield bigger than a buckler? I'm going to say equal skill level the win rate is probably 3:1 in favor of the shieldman.

[Knaight]

But, at the end of the day, D&D is supposed to be heroic fantasy. Fantasy heroes use swords, so the designers are reluctant to make polearms better than swords. And that's why spears in D&D are bad.


D&D is a genre based rpg, you are the hero that can take a lot of abuse and keep going. Spears are for peasants, and peasants weapons are good in the hands of a monk.

It depends on the heroic fantasy though - even if you separate out lances entirely (including cases where they get used on foot), you still run into spears as a weapon of badass heroes in fantasy all the time - you just need to be less regional, and less temporally limited. Greek heroes use them all the time (Achilles comes to mind), they show up in samurai movies routinely, and in wuxia and related genres spears are one of the really major weapons, right up there with swords. We see some of this with the monk, but it's hardly the only example, and it's not like D&D doesn't routinely steal from these sources in other contexts.


yeah, its another case of people failing to realize that effectiveness on a battlefield, in formation is not the same as effectiveness in personal combat or small group skirmishes.

It's really not though, because spears are also highly effective in both personal combat and small group skirmishes, as both modern reproductions and historical fighting masters routinely show. This is especially true with spears in the 5'-9' range, but to some extent even shows up with large pikes, provided the shaft isn't too thick.

We're familiar with the trope that spears are a formation weapon only, and people who've actually studied the material are well aware that it's nonsense. Spears being highly effective in formation in no way precludes them from being highly effective out of formation, though it does tend to lead to differences in use.


I didn’t mean formation fighting, but I was referencing muddled close quarters combat with several allies and enemies intermixed with unclear battle lines; reach quickly loses advantage to reaction speed (and ability to not thwack an ally when repositioning) in such situations.
Reach is only one of several things the spear has going for it, with very fast movement of the spear head, leverage, etc. all applying just as much. Muddled close quarters combat is also an excellent situation for it, as being able to come out of what seems like nowhere very abruptly is helpful and something long reach weapons that are also fast is effectively guaranteed.


I've been fighting (SCA) for 18 years now, and one-on-one it is incredibly rare that a spearmen will kill me. Now once you've got a lot of people on both sides the spears do a lot more, but even then, it is the shields on both sides that force the distance where spears do great.

SCA rules are heavily slanted against them in several ways though, mostly for safety reasons. Not being allowed to aim for the lower leg helps people with shields a lot, as does the tendency for SCA shields to come in exceptionally light, particularly the thin aluminum ones.

I've been fighting spear for 12 years in various different groups with various safety rules, and it makes a pretty huge difference - disallow either lower leg or head shots and spears tend to start doing poorly, disallow both and everything but a shield is nearly useless. Allow both though, and they're suddenly highly effective. I wouldn't say they're more effective than a sword and shield one on one, but they're definitely comparable. Against just a sword there's a huge advantage, and not just in formation fighting.

[Lombra]

My 2cp is that neither is better than the other in absolute terms, each finds its use where it belongs, it's like arguing if a screwdriver is better than a wrench. Two different tools for different applications.

[darknite]

"Spears are better than swords..."

Not in fantasy, they're not. Excalibur was NOT a spear. [/end of discussion]:smalltongue:

[Slayn82]

If a spear is comparable to a rifle, and a dagger to a pistol, a sword is like a sub machine gun: a decent compromise between weight, firepower and fire rate.

With a good sword, you can combine stabs and pierces into feints, take advantage of openings and attempt to suppress your enemy with combinations of fast and powerful attacks, and also have a easier time attempting to punish weak attacks that you are good enough to parry.

It's the weapon class that offers you a larger variety of options on it's engagement range, because it imposes less limitations on your attack patterns.

A spear like weapon depends mostly of the direct stab move. While the spearman can feint where he is attempting to hit, it's inevitable that the strength of the stab depends of how well flexed his arms are at the instant of the strike, or how well the spearman can push forward.

On antiquity, a large shield would hopefully deflect the stab away or hold the spear for a moment to allow a counterattack. That's when you try to get up close to the spearman, who would have to retreat or drop the spear and pull another weapon.

Polearms came to be to allow more options to the user on the engagement, like turning a failed strike into a cutting against an advancing enemy when pulling back the halberd to ready another stab. It's still not as flexible as a sword, but it's an improvement.

So, classic spear isn't a polearm per se, and for someone that mentioned the Zulus against the English, the Current version of Spears being throw able ranged weapons is a perfect call for them. (The English won the war because Machine Guns in the end, but that's another issue).

Maybe people in D&D got Wise and gave up crafting those one handed Spears, and moved to Pikes and polearms.

A one hand Spear with reach should really have disadvantage against a close enemy, and less damage than a Pike. 1d8 sounds right. Too broken to be a simple weapon otherwise.

[Bloodcloud]

I have enough larping experience with my 8ft polearm to tell you that it will obliterate anyone without a shield. Competent shield user will even the odds, especially given that in larping they can trade the initial hp loss to get close. Even in tight corridor situation, you gotta get past the point first, and pointing requires less room than slashing.

Spears and polearm will do quite fine in a duel.

[Tanarii]

I have enough larping experience with my 8ft polearm Thing is, that's not a Spear in 5e terms. It's a Pike.

Although for some reason they made Pikes very subpar. I'd guess they're the cheap option for players building armies. Like Padded Armor. Or Greatclubs for humanoid tribes. Or Spears ...

[hymer]

Thing is, that's not a Spear in 5e terms. It's a Pike.
They finally coughed up some descriptions? Where?

[Willie the Duck]

I think, on some level, even if this thread could come to some consensus (clearly not going to happen), and were true experts in the matter*, the best we're going to do is come up with a nominal 'X>Y' statement that will go out the window the instant we add one more figure into the battle scenario.
*Matt Easton is not the be all and end all of fighting analysis, but at least he is both a historian who has read the medieval treatises, and does the same training (and teaching thereof) of the SCA and HEMA that people here have done. So I don't consider him the last word on these things, but his opinion is at least one with a known level of cache (and conveniently his final word is 'it depends.')

In the end, I'm not sure what it means for the game. There already was several editions of D&D that took reach and weapon type vs. various armors (with and without shields) into account, and people promptly ignored those sections of the rules in large numbers (no consensus on how large).

Likewise, regarding the fact that PCs are rarely fighting in military formations-- well they also are fighting dragons-- so in reality there should be a huge number of weapons in their worlds which have no correlation in real life (dragon-specific weapons, etc.).

I do think that it's clear that spears were not some weapon of last resort, only used by peasants and those who have lesser training. If I had designed 5e, I would have given some kind of advantage to spears wielded by martial classes or the like, although maybe that is subsumed in fighting style and extra attacks (an experienced fighter fights better than a wizard with the same level/Str/Dex score, regardless of weapon used). It does seem unfortunate that the rules do not support the idea of spear-wielding fighters or the like, especially when they do support real-world ridiculous situations like out-of-formation pike-wielders (although I have reimagined 5e pikes as any 'too-long-for-1H spears').

[Slayn82]

Thing is, that's not a Spear in 5e terms. It's a Pike.

Although for some reason they made Pikes very subpar. I'd guess they're the cheap option for players building armies. Like Padded Armor. Or Greatclubs for humanoid tribes. Or Spears ...

Good points. Thing is, most forces in history that managed to pull Shield and Spear formations were formal military, usually elites, while most forces of cheap spearmen peasants used the equivalent to the Pike, a two handed, enormous spear in a compact formation.

[lperkins2]

My understanding is that spears are not actually much easier to break than swords, if they're at all well-made.

So it isn't about attacking and trying to break the weapon (like 3.5 sunder attacks), as it is about the life expectancy of the weapon. It isn't that a spear is likely to break on you midway through your first fight, or even 5 or 6 fights in. It's that a sword can go hundreds of fights, as it doesn't get chips taken out. Now, the spear is also easier to replace, so it's not a problem for utility weapons, but you're more likely to see a fancy handle or tip than a fancy haft on a spear.


Swords also, particularly past the bronze age (where you can always just recast the thing), and modern times (with modern spring steel), relatively hard to repair.

Attacking the spear itself, rather than the person wielding it, seems like a risky proposition in the real world. I suspect that durability would not be a primary factor.

Repairing swords was largely never done, cheaper and easier to just replace it and smelt the old blade into something else. But maintaining drawn and packed blades was actually easier than dealing with modern metals. Modern implements use hard steel, which chips when it strikes something harder than itself. These chips cannot easily be repaired as there is material missing, and the metal won't easily accept a forge-weld. Packed edges on the other hand nick instead. The nicks in a blade can be repaired at relatively low temperature in a forge, as the material is still there. It's perhaps the work of an hour after redrawing the edge to repack it.

[ChildofLuthic]

I have to imagine durability is a factor in choosing a sword over a spear: spears break. Swords are much more durable.

If you’re a wealthy noble are you going to put gold inlay and gems on a spear which can break relatively easily, or do that with a steal sword that is much more difficult to break?

I like this as a headcanon for why they're so popular in a D&D setting. If swords are more durable, then most people would make magical swords over other weapons. Since magical weapons are so much more effective against high level monsters, people would train their swordsmanship more often.

[RSP]

My understanding is that spears are not actually much easier to break than swords, if they're at all well-made.

I’m not suggesting this in a one-on-one type situation but more the long term.

Again, I’m not claiming to be an expert, but what little I’ve read regarding this, whether historic or fantasy, is armies typically carry extra spears in to battle (and have the back line ready to hand over a spear when the frontliners’ break or just step in to replace them and allow the fighter to get a new spear), because of this very thing.

Basically, a single spear won’t last a military campaign, whereas a single sword would.

I could be wrong, though.

[dejarnjc]

I’m not suggesting this in a one-on-one type situation but more the long term.

Again, I’m not claiming to be an expert, but what little I’ve read regarding this, whether historic or fantasy, is armies typically carry extra spears in to battle (and have the back line ready to hand over a spear when the frontliners’ break or just step in to replace them and allow the fighter to get a new spear), because of this very thing.

Basically, a single spear won’t last a military campaign, whereas a single sword would.

I could be wrong, though.

I'd wager you could make a dozen spears for the time/cost it takes to make one sword though.
I'd also wager that you need to repair/replace swords more frequently than most people would think.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd wager you could make a dozen spears for the time/cost it takes to make one sword though.
I'd also wager that you need to repair/replace swords more frequently than most people would think.

Sure, but what if you are enchanting said weapons?

Would you put a Flametongue on a spear knowing it won't last the campaign? Or on a Longsword that would be passed down after you are long gone.

Which is to say, I think Daggers, Spears, and such will have lots of +1 or +2 Enchantments, Halberds, Warhammers, and Axes very likely to have +2 or +3 Enchantments, but the really legendary stuff is going to be on a weapon you can have at your side in more circumstances. the weapon that somehow earned a mythic status across a wide variety of cultures.

(Of course that's not taking into account fantasy anatomies and politics which would put a wrench in all of my logic.)

Still I think the spear could be expanded a bit. Modifying PAM or Spear Master are fine places to start.

[Willie the Duck]

I'd wager you could make a dozen spears for the time/cost it takes to make one sword though.
I'd also wager that you need to repair/replace swords more frequently than most people would think.

Just based on metal weight, dozens would not be out of the question. Based on the additional challenge (and thus I am assuming time and skill requirement) for making a single, long, perfect blade... I'd guess a couple dozen.

As to sword replacement- I think the era (what are you hacking at? Are you even attempting to hack at?), actual targets (are your swordsmen going after heavily armored men at arms, or at the lighter troops?), and how much actual engagement you see (swords, like guns and everything else, spend most of their time not being actively used, so much as potentially used) might have a huge effect on this.

[strangebloke]

I'd wager you could make a dozen spears for the time/cost it takes to make one sword though.
I'd also wager that you need to repair/replace swords more frequently than most people would think.

Yup.

Even today with high-carbon steel swords still get chipped and bent when hitting armor, flesh, and bone. Look up Skallagrim on youtube for examples of a sword getting chipped on PVC pipe.

With actual period metallurgy? Swords were often crap, particularly in places like Japan that didn't have natural resources of iron and couldn't/didn't experiment with alloys. There are tons of historical accounts of swords breaking mid-combat.

Swords weren't replaced as often, because they weren't used all that often, barring specific examples like the roman gladius, which was a primary weapon for them only for a very specific period in history.

Swords were essentially sidearms. Easier to carry around for self defense than a great lopping 8-foot pole. More balanced and articulate than an axe or mace, and exceedingly effective again an unarmored opponent. With a sword, you're either using it to stab (in which case, a spear is generally more effective) or you're using it to cut the opponent. Swords can't cut through good mail though, so they weren't really effective against armored opponnents. They were used as chief military weapons sometimes, but only when the enemies were mostly unarmored. (Early Roman period, for example.) They were also expensive, so nobility used them as a sign of wealth as much as a sign of military force. Viking merchants (including female ones) would be buried with swords, even if they had never wielded one in life.

Additionally, the usage of swords gets even less defensible when you're up against bears, boars, dragons, and other megafauna. Killing a dragon with any hand-weapon is of course ridiculous, but particularly so when you're using a weapon the size of a sword or smaller. A dragon is the size of a massive tree. How long would it take you to cut down one of those with a handaxe?

...So in other words, creatures should get DR that scales with size category, (5 for large, 10 for huge, 15 for gargantuan, etc.) or alternately should just require reach to attack at all. Characters with swords should get bonuses to attack (since they can hit from more angles) and maces and axes should get fewer/delayed attacks since imbalanced weapons require a longer time between consecutive strikes. We should have a complex subsystem for managing parries and covered thrusts. Smaller weapons can be drawn more quickly, so users of them should gain a bonus to initiative in events where weapons are stowed. Spears, greatswords, maces, and lances etc. should be able to ignore certain amounts of DR to illustrate that conventional armor works less well against them. We also need a complex system for determing who strikes first when two people engage, and we also need a simultaneous movement system.

BUT THAT'S COMPLETELY SILLY.

Here's Lindybeige's own opinion on the subject with respect to DND (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CfyU1mOZ1E&app=desktop)

TL;DW: Lindybeige once ran a thoroughly 'realistic' (as he saw it) fantasy roleplaying game. It was utterly obnoxious to the players and they didn't like it.

[hymer]

Lindybeige once ran a thoroughly 'realistic' (as he saw it) fantasy roleplaying game. It was utterly obnoxious to the players and they didn't like it.
He's recently come out with a video where he describes (with considerable glee) how he wasted two hours of some LARPers' time with an arbitrarily difficult task. I agree he seems to make a terrible GM, defaulting to 'challenges' of "guess what the GM is thinking now" with only one solution acceptable.

That said, I watch everything he puts out, except the dancing stuff.

[Willie the Duck]

We also need a complex system for determing who strikes first when two people engage, and we also need a simultaneous movement system.

BUT THAT'S COMPLETELY SILLY.

Here's Lindybeige's own opinion on the subject with respect to DND (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CfyU1mOZ1E&app=desktop)

TL;DW: Lindybeige once ran a thoroughly 'realistic' (as he saw it) fantasy roleplaying game. It was utterly obnoxious to the players and they didn't like it.

Lindybeige has very strong opinions on D&D. His basic critique is valid: D&D has this unrealistic initiative system where each person moves and then (mostly) freezes while the next person in order acts. He's not wrong. Mind you:
Almost all TTRPGs (and many to most wargames) do something similar
The solution to this issue is maddeningly complex
Runequest (his preferred system) uses an equally gamist and convoluted action point system to circumvent this issue.
It is cherry-picking a single specific break from realism
He has let it color the rest of his experience with D&D to an amazing degree -- his reviews of various editions have ranged from valid, but pointless (yes, you can strike 4x as fast with daggers than pikes in Holmes D&D, but even the authors call that an error) to blaming the game for a bad experience (4e is apparently responsible for his DM not being able to roll with an outside-the-game-rules event).


Lindybeige is hilarious, and often quite informative (within his wheelhouse, which is not politics, gender relations, grand scale philosophy, climate change, areas under curves, or the French :smalltongue:), but he has to be recognized as an entertainer first, and source of truth second.

[strangebloke]

Lindybeige is hilarious, and often quite informative (within his wheelhouse, which is not politics, gender relations, grand scale philosophy, climate change, areas under curves, or the French :smalltongue:), but he has to be recognized as an entertainer first, and source of truth second.

All true, but if you watch the video I linked, he's actually arguing against trying to make the game super simulationist. He opens by saying that LARPers, TTRPG players, etc. always argue about 'which sword gets a +1 versus dragons' and notes that this is a silly way to look at it, since all the conventional weapons are useless. He then shows an example of a game run with 'realistically effective' anti-monster weapons (siege weapons) and describes the result as 'a turtle disaster.'

So yeah, he criticizes DND, and he does have some rather daft opinions, but I cite him here because his video is what the thread started with.

In other words, if you're taking him for his word on medieval warfare, also take him for his word on DND, and don't try to overthink the weapons table.


He's recently come out with a video where he describes (with considerable glee) how he wasted two hours of some LARPers' time with an arbitrarily difficult task. I agree he seems to make a terrible GM, defaulting to 'challenges' of "guess what the GM is thinking now" with only one solution acceptable.

That said, I watch everything he puts out, except the dancing stuff.
Yes, that's rather the point of the video I linked. And there he is self-aware about the error.

[hymer]

[H]e has to be recognized as an entertainer first, and source of truth second.
Agreed. And he seems to agree. He once said something like "What do I know, I'm just some bloke off the interweb", and "Why would you take me seriously? Have you seen me?"


Yes, that's rather the point of the video I linked. And there he is self-aware about the error.
I was supporting your point. But I don't recall him being aware of the error in that video. Rewatching it now.

Have rewatched, and I'm pretty sure he thinks it was a great piece of GMing he did there. The 'turtle disaster', I believe, applies to the whole situation, not his hand in it. Nothing else in the video indicates to me that he thinks he did anything wrong.

And while I'm at all the edits, here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWCU2aF1TL0) is there video I was referring to. Lloyd even ends up calculating the number of different ways it could go wrong (several thousand IIRC), and still doesn't see how that sort of challenge is a waste of people's time when they're trying to have fun. He even had the bad taste to penalize the player who bypasses the whole thing in the end.

[Tanarii]

They finally coughed up some descriptions?dont need them to know this. An 8ft spear cannot be used one handed in a non-formation situation, including throwing it with any accuracy at 60ft.

[Potato_Priest]

For those interested in the ongoing sword v. spear debate-

While it is true that spears ad other polearms were preferred as primary weapons by a large number of peoples across a wide range of times, there are exceptions. One of the more interesting exceptions is the post-Marian reforms roman legion. (The Marian reforms restructured the military to be more standardized and mostly all use the same gear and training). After the Marian reforms, the legion was equipped with a gladius, a few pilus (throwing spears with bendy tips so that they would be really annoying if they got stuck in your shield or armor) and a dagger. The sword was of course intended to go with those awesome big roman shields you always see, the scutum. This system, as I have been informed in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559701-Swords-as-Primary-Weapons-and-the-Roman-Legion&highlight=roman+legion+swords), was designed for flexibility between loose and close formation fighting and was rather effective against the weak armor of the time, and the romans used Auxiliary troops including spearmen to make up for its deficiencies in extenuating circumstances.

[JackPhoenix]

Sure, but what if you are enchanting said weapons?

Would you put a Flametongue on a spear knowing it won't last the campaign? Or on a Longsword that would be passed down after you are long gone.

Which is to say, I think Daggers, Spears, and such will have lots of +1 or +2 Enchantments, Halberds, Warhammers, and Axes very likely to have +2 or +3 Enchantments, but the really legendary stuff is going to be on a weapon you can have at your side in more circumstances. the weapon that somehow earned a mythic status across a wide variety of cultures

Why do you assume sword's durability is improved if its magical weapon, but not the spear's? Or that the condition of the shaft matters to the enchantment applied to the spearhead?

And it's not like we don't have a bunch of legendary spears in our mythology... Spear of Longinus, Gungnir, Gae Bolg just for few examples. Hm. From the top of my head, I can name more mythic spears than swords...

[GlenSmash!]

Why do you assume sword's durability is improved if its magical weapon, but not the spear's? Or that the condition of the shaft matters to the enchantment applied to the spearhead? I don't. I was mostly assuming durability to be the same as mundane versions of the weapons.


And it's not like we don't have a bunch of legendary spears in our mythology... Spear of Longinus, Gungnir, Gae Bolg just for few examples. Hm. From the top of my head, I can name more mythic spears than swords...

Indeed many but mostly from older, indeed ancient, cultures. In the later dark ages and middle ages Durendal, Joyuesse, Excalibur/Caladbolg/Caledfwlch, Tyrfing, Gram, Ridill, Næġling, Hrunting, Sword of Freyr (admittedly this one is contemporary to Gungnir), all seem to take more precedence in myths and legends than Spears.

Just in Norse myth alone you have one spear, one hammer and a plethora of named swords.

[Knaight]

Indeed many but mostly from older, indeed ancient, cultures. In the later dark ages and middle ages Durendal, Joyuesse, Excalibur/Caladbolg/Caledfwlch, Tyrfing, Gram, Ridill, Næġling, Hrunting, Sword of Freyr (admittedly this one is contemporary to Gungnir), all seem to take more precedence in myths and legends than Spears.

Which is a regionalism - move a few thousand miles east, and suddenly you start seeing spears again, including in regions with extremely sophisticated metallurgy (India, China). The cultural fetishization of swords is more due to symbolic weight than efficacy, and the symbolism is largely arbitrary.

[GlenSmash!]

Which is a regionalism - move a few thousand miles east, and suddenly you start seeing spears again, including in regions with extremely sophisticated metallurgy (India, China). The cultural fetishization of swords is more due to symbolic weight than efficacy, and the symbolism is largely arbitrary.

Even in India Mythic spears like Trident of Madhu, Trishula, and Vel seem about even in numbers to swords like Asi, Chandrahas, Pattayudha. India does have a larger amount of mythical bows and clubs (especially bows) than most cultures I've seen.

China does seem to have more more mythic spears than swords, but I can't help but notice when mentioning the east you left out Japan. Should we talk about Japan? Edit: I should be less confrontational. Even Japan which has a fair number of mythical Spears, still has more mythical swords.

[Slayn82]

Well, on the Americas and Polynesian Islands, even Australia, you won't find any decent legendary swords, as well as in most of Africa, but you can bet your money on Spears.

[Knaight]

Even in India Mythic spears like Trident of Madhu, Trishula, and Vel seem about even in numbers to swords like Asi, Chandrahas, Pattayudha. India does have a larger amount of mythical bows and clubs (especially bows) than most cultures I've seen.

China does seem to have more more mythic spears than swords, but I can't help but notice when mentioning the east you left out Japan. Should we talk about Japan? Edit: I should be less confrontational. Even Japan which has a fair number of mythical Spears, still has more mythical swords.

I'm not saying that any of these places only have spears, merely that magic spears are also ubiquitous - and I left Japan out because I didn't know it was a good example of that, not knowing about the mythical spears. As is a fair number of mythical spears but more mythical swords works just fine for that point.

[Eric Diaz]

My favorite solution: martial spears.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/05/5e-d-melee-weapons-one-by-one-analysis.html

(Half-)pike 5 gp 1d10 piercing — 6 lb. heavy, reach, two-handed

Spear (light) 5 gp 1d8 piercing thrown, finesse

Trident/Spear (heavy) 5 gp 1d8 piercing 20/60 4 lb. thrown, versatile (1d10)

[Erloas]

I don't know for sure, but I would assume one of reasons China would prefer spears is due to their lack of iron. Sure, they had some great metallurgy, but that was mostly due making the most of their limited supply. When you've got plenty of iron laying around you're less worried about making them last. You could also make probably 4-6 spears with the metal required to make one sword.

You also run into large differences based on the relative commonality of mounted combat and types of armor.

[Louro]

Therein lies a problem-- just about every part of D&D adventuring is unrealistic on multiple levels. [list]
Running around in full plate armor (without attendants)

You can run in full plate, without attendants. Not as fast as if you were unarmoured, but you definitively can.
You can also get up and climb ladders.

And the amount not noise you make is ludicrous.

[hymer]

You can run in full plate, without attendants. Not as fast as if you were unarmoured, but you definitively can.
You can also get up and climb ladders.

And the amount not noise you make is ludicrous.

I believe Willie the Duck is alluding to the everyday travelling, living, and traipsing through ruins that adventurers do. Doing all these things in full plate would be uncomfortable and impractical even with attendants. I compare it to wearing a good backpack. You really feel it after a few hours, and want to take it off whenever possible to rest. In D&D, we generally see people put on their armour first thing in the morning, and not taking it off until they go to sleep at night. This, I put to you, would be bad for both the wearer and the armour.

[Willie the Duck]

You can run in full plate, without attendants. Not as fast as if you were unarmoured, but you definitively can.
You can also get up and climb ladders.

And the amount not noise you make is ludicrous.

I'm talking about running all over the landscape. As in travelling around in plate armor, not just to the battlefield, but everywhere, in plate armor, with no attendants to get you in and out of it. No one to help you care for it. Often while walking, not riding. While carrying your food, waterskin, bedroll, treasure hoard from the last dungeon, 2-12 weapons (many of which really don't carry well except in-hand unless you have a pack animal), and so forth.



I believe Willie the Duck is alluding to the everyday travelling, living, and traipsing through ruins that adventurers do.

Yep. For that matter, traipsing around ruins is unrealistic.

[LudicSavant]

Again, I’m not claiming to be an expert, but what little I’ve read regarding this, whether historic or fantasy, is armies typically carry extra spears in to battle (and have the back line ready to hand over a spear when the frontliners’ break or just step in to replace them and allow the fighter to get a new spear), because of this very thing.

Basically, a single spear won’t last a military campaign, whereas a single sword would.

I could be wrong, though.

I am also not claiming to be an expert, but a few things I'd consider here:

1) The quality of the spear. They can be very cheap or very not cheap.
2) The forces the weapon is expected to endure. If you were setting greatswords against cavalry charges, then they might break. However, swords were often sidearms instead.
3) Spears are often thrown, or impaled into something. This is reason for extra regardless of durability.
4) Spears are cheap enough that having a bunch of spares is easy. Swords are expensive enough that having a bunch of spares is not as easy.
5) People would sometimes have spare swords anyways. Samurai are especially well known for having two.
6) Sometimes gamers seem to think all wood is the same, and it's... not. This is even more true in D&D, which canonically has kinds of wood that are just plain better than metal. Which kind of puts the whole "expensive magic items" thing into perspective.

[Tanarii]

5) People would sometimes have spare swords anyways. Samurai are especially well known for having two.I thought that was a necessity, because katanas are notoriously flimsy for swords, breaking rather more frequently?

Ie my impression was that sword quality can vary too, and katanas were on the lower end of sword quality. Fanboi attitudes towards them notwithstanding. Or possibly I've gotten that impression from anti-fanboi ranting. :smallamused:

[Willie the Duck]

I thought that was a necessity, because katanas are notoriously flimsy for swords, breaking rather more frequently?

Ie my impression was that sword quality can vary too, and katanas were on the lower end of sword quality. Fanboi attitudes towards them notwithstanding. Or possibly I've gotten that impression from anti-fanboi ranting. :smallamused:

I was once highly annoyed at the western Japanophiles of the 80s and 90s and their love affair with the katana (and buying into the hype of them being some kind of uber weapon). As much as the younger me would love to take the piss out of those people (who mostly have disappeared/changed their outlook as actually interacting with people from Eastern nations in our now more connected world has demystified other cultures), further research has led me to discover that katanas, while not the uber weapon of lore, were also not (universally) the super-brittle garbage weapons that I wanted them to be. Mind you, there were well made katanas and not well made katanas. What katanas mostly were was ridiculously expensive (in terms of skill and labor time) compared to equivalent western blade. The entire tamahagane technique and the repeated refolding and all the stuff everyone's heard about them was designed to remove impurities from Japan's notoriously poor iron ore, and to homogenize the carbon content (and that required a higher carbon content going in, since each folding and hammering would strip out carbon, meaning about 1/3 of the metal going in would be pig iron, which some people have heard and run with 'katanas are made with pig iron' as if that was a bad thing, even though it was a necessary thing). But, in the end, the technique (if done right) did remove the impurities and homogenize the carbon. Leaving you with a product not unlike other medieval steel (just at X times the time and cost). Maybe a little more brittle, but not glaringly so, and certainly more in line with 'design decision, based upon weighed balance of needs' than straight up lower end of sword quality.

Mind you, I wasn't happy to hear that, since I kinda wanted them to be utter crap (I've mellowed with age, I swear). But in retrospect, it's actually better that they are 'merely meh.'

[Tanarii]

It wasn't the material I was talking about. Something about the cross section leaving it vulnerable to side-shear, compared to more solid swords?

Edit: I realize my use of the world "quality" would have led you to the material thing. ;)

[Joe the Rat]

Hmm...
A short spear, good for throwing, one handed only? That's the Javelin. Note it is a melee weapon. The crappy good-for-throwing-only pilum style is the dart.
Mid-length spear, viable one or two handed, still throwable? Spear.
Spear that needs two hands, has reach? Pike, which is more like a long spear than a pike. And needs to go on a diet.
A Spear with reach, but penalty up close? Lance, which is more like a pike that can be used as a lance.
Spear with fantasy styling, including pointless added pointy bits? Trident. :smallsigh:

There's some cleanup they could do. There's a niche for a d8 versatile piercing weapon. A d6 reach (no finesse!) martial weapon fits the design formula. But they do cover the basics, with a few mis-steps. Like Polearm Master being "turn halberds and quarterstaves into double weapons" first, "set against charge" second. I suspect a different focus would have put spears in play.

[Rebel4ever85]

The Zulu are amazing. Defeated the British. In 1879. With shields and short spears.

But of course, D&D would have you believe that the most prevalent arms and armor of real life (cloth armor, spears) are worthless in the face of ridiculousness like quarterstaff/shield and studded leather. :smallfrown:

You can't even use a "but it's embodying fantasy tropes over realism" argument to defend this silliness. We've got plenty of awesome spears and cloth armor in our fantasy fiction these days, but I've been unable to find even a single quarterstaff/shield fighter in studded leather.


No anyone would have defeated that British army...it was a total botch. They were in a single line two paces apart....they couldn't get the ammunition boxes open and they got split up. However shortly after the Zulu's attacked Roxdrift a british base manned with 300 men and failed to beat them with 10,000. When the British returned with a leader who wasn't a complete clown they won easily.

The video proves spears win in one touch battles...however a spear cannot punch through armour by touching someone. You cannot stab through anything above mail and you have to have power behind a stab to penetrate even leather. Most of the "Kills" are the spear man at full stretch hitting with the very end of the spear - so no power in that or moving backward and even less power there. The sword strikes would have had enough bludgeoning damage to at least do damage. If you don't believe me look at history...all the best/richest used swords...if you believe that they all just did that because they thought it was cool and not because it was the best....i doubt that. Just watch The truth about chainmail by Shadiversity if you doubt how hard it is to penetrate mail for example.

[Kane0]

The video proves spears win in one touch battles...however a spear cannot punch through armour by touching someone. You cannot stab through anything above mail and you have to have power behind a stab to penetrate even leather. Most of the "Kills" are the spear man at full stretch hitting with the very end of the spear - so no power in that or moving backward and even less power there. The sword strikes would have had enough bludgeoning damage to at least do damage. If you don't believe me look at history...all the best/richest used swords...if you believe that they all just did that because they thought it was cool and not because it was the best....i doubt that. Just watch The truth about chainmail by Shadiversity if you doubt how hard it is to penetrate mail for example.

And a sword doesn't have the same problems? Both can be used to bludgeon someone to death, and I dare say a battleaxe/warhammer would be better at that particular job anyways.

[Willie the Duck]

You're both right. The common thread through Lindybeige, Shadiversity, Matt Easton, Skallgrim, etc. is that there's no one perfect solution for all situations, you use the right weapon for the right opponent, there's a bunch of rock-paper-scissors effects going on, and that there is no one type of troop which wins out in all situations.

Of course very little of that translates easily to D&D.

[Kane0]

You're both right. The common thread through Lindybeige, Shadiversity, Matt Easton, Skallgrim, etc. is that there's no one perfect solution for all situations, you use the right weapon for the right opponent, there's a bunch of rock-paper-scissors effects going on, and that there is no one type of troop which wins out in all situations.

Of course very little of that translates easily to D&D.

Armor with a vulnerability - N/A - resistance paradigm in regards to Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing? I remember old-school D&D had a similar concept with differing ACs based on the armor and weapons used.

[Willie the Duck]

Armor with a vulnerability - N/A - resistance paradigm in regards to Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing? I remember old-school D&D had a similar concept with differing ACs based on the armor and weapons used.

Yes, I think I've referenced it once or twice already in this thread alone. It was a glorious experiment, but in the end most people ignored it. It is hugely crunchy and looks like a bunch of plus and minus 1-3 to-hits for various combinations, it of course only matters when fighting other humans or human analogues (things that wear armor and wield weapons), and they never really made a good case for why those who didn't come to D&D from wargaming were supposed to care.

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

The sword was the weapon of the knight. Among the expected chores of a knight was training martial arts all day. They probably knew what they where doing, their life depended on it.

Real swords behave differently then some wobbly plastic weapon. It's like asking an Aikido guy about full contact fighting. A real sword has mass to it, allowing you to shove the spear away. The sword is way faster, because it is balanced. If you train a lot, you become very good at seeing standard attacks. The spears attack vector is kind of limited.
In a duel, I'd pick the sword over the spear. But that's ultimately personal preference. Anyone who fought for real knows this: the best technique is ultimately what works for you. There have probably been people amazingly good with a spear and people amazingly good with a sword.

I'm glad there are no reach rules in d&d 5e. It only adds pseudo realism to the abstract 6 sec combat round.

[TerakasTaranath]

Cruising on youtube the other day I found this video:

"Spears are better than Swords" by lindybeige (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U)

In it, a group of HEMA enthusiasts run 65 bouts between swordsmen and spearmen in various configurations. It's not conclusive but does illustrate some of the advantages of the spear. It's a long video, but a summary of all the bouts can be found at 28:30.

It convinces me that, in 5e, spears should have Reach.

I am curious what everyone else thinks.



Edit: I found a shorter version of the video: Spears are better than swords: scientific proof (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk)

I love this video and both of these youtubers, and I concur that spears should have reach when used in 2 hands. I think the only reason they don't fall under the reach/polearm category is because they're simple weapons that could be used by most classes.

I do a few changes to weapons in 5e anyway like longswords can be finese, if you watch scholagladiatoria, skallagrim, metatron, shadiversity or any similar people OR research the manuals and history yourselves you can see where I'm coming from.(they weigh 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 pounds and are very sharp, could do some nasty damage in a fast persons hands)

As for PC encounters I definitely think a spear to fight a manticore or giant would be preferable to a longsword. Just ask all the polearm fighters/barbarians/paladins xD

[Tanarii]

Here's how it really should be written:

Short Spear: Simple, 1d6, R 20/60
Spear (6ft): Simple, 1d8, 2H
Long Spear: Martial, 1d10, Heavy, 2H, Reach
Pike: Martial, 1d12, Heavy, 2H, Reach, Special (disadv at close)

[Chijinda]

The sword was the weapon of the knight. Among the expected chores of a knight was training martial arts all day. They probably knew what they where doing, their life depended on it.

A real sword has mass to it, allowing you to shove the spear away. The sword is way faster, because it is balanced. If you train a lot, you become very good at seeing standard attacks. The spears attack vector is kind of limited.
In a duel, I'd pick the sword over the spear. But that's ultimately personal preference. Anyone who fought for real knows this: the best technique is ultimately what works for you. There have probably been people amazingly good with a spear and people amazingly good with a sword.

I'm glad there are no reach rules in d&d 5e. It only adds pseudo realism to the abstract 6 sec combat round.

Having sparred against a two-handed spear with a blunted steel long sword I can assure you that the long sword fighter is going to lose almost every time. The spear has far too much mass to actually parry-- tried it at several points and just about got knocked out through my protective gear when the spear smashed through my check like it wasn't even there. The very thing that makes the long sword faster (the fact that it's lighter), is the very thing that makes it difficult to actually stop a solid spear strike. The long sword is definitely faster and has more angles to attack from, but none of that matters if you can't get into range to swing at the spear, and a competent spear fighter will not let you close easily. Granted a shield would go a long way towards evening out those odds, but if we're solely discussing sword vs spear, the sword alone is at a colossal disadvantage. This is generalizing, but if you're only using a sword, you'd have to have a pretty decent skill advantage over the spearman to come out on top.

Swords are great, because of their portability. You can carry a sword with you for any occasion. Walking into town, walking to battle, going on a hike, etc. just stick it in your belt and off you go. A spear is big and obstructive and really has no place anywhere except when you are knowingly walking into a fight. A knight was expected to train with swords for self defense because a Knight could always count on having a sword with him at any given time, whereas he could not count on the same for a spear or pole arm. And also note that Knights were expected to train a ton with pole arms as well. The sword may be the weapon we associate with the knight the most, but the lance was just as much a Knight's signature weapon.

[Tanarii]

The spear has far too much mass to actually parry--
What kind of spear were you fighting against? 6ft (body-length) spears are definitely able to be parried by a Chinese-style broadsword when they're being used to stab. Blocking a haft blow is a bit hard though, you need to brace with your other hand near the tip. They're actually lighter than a staff of the same length. Intentionally so.

[Tvtyrant]

You could easily make formations more viable by gaining benefits from adjacent allies. You get Resistance if adjacent to a shield bearing ally for instance, so a formation of shields makes them all dead hard while having a great weapon wielder next to a shield bearer makes him tougher than normal.

Or +1AC for each adjacent ally, maximum of +3.

[Willie the Duck]

I do a few changes to weapons in 5e anyway like longswords can be finese, if you watch scholagladiatoria, skallagrim, metatron, shadiversity or any similar people OR research the manuals and history yourselves you can see where I'm coming from.(they weigh 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 pounds and are very sharp, could do some nasty damage in a fast persons hands)

The Strength-Dexterity distinction in D&D is a bizarre artifice made mostly for simplicity and role-protection. In reality, each weapon should probably be informed by a different mix of Strength (or just strength minimums), Dexterity, and experience/skill.

[Knaight]

What kind of spear were you fighting against? 6ft (body-length) spears are definitely able to be parried by a Chinese-style broadsword when they're being used to stab. Blocking a haft blow is a bit hard though, you need to brace with your other hand near the tip. They're actually lighter than a staff of the same length. Intentionally so.

You can block basically any spear stab with a sword, if you're quick enough - you only barely need to change the momentum of the point, you're mostly just pushing it off angle, and the longer the spear gets the better your leverage is (and it's pretty good in general).

[Beleriphon]

As an SCA spear fighter, I can safely say when you one hand an 8ft spear hoplite style you do it with your hand at least a third of the way up the shaft for leverage, overhand if in a formation and underhand if fighting in open ranks. Spears do have a little reach over swords, but not that much.

Two handed spears are totally different, but also leave you open to arrows, javelins and slingstones. That is why Alexander's army used a kind of hanging shield.

Assissins Creed Odyssey has taught be the value of a spear. Seriously, they are some of the best damn weapons in the game if only because they actually do have reach.

[TerakasTaranath]

The Strength-Dexterity distinction in D&D is a bizarre artifice made mostly for simplicity and role-protection. In reality, each weapon should probably be informed by a different mix of Strength (or just strength minimums), Dexterity, and experience/skill.

I absolutely agree. Even a halberd or greatsword is a mix of strength and dex with skill IRL. I just do it so fast characters can still get that hema/kenjitsu feeling in 2 hands and in 1 its the same dmg as a rapier so I don't see why not unless you're really particular about slashing vs piercing damage.

[Chijinda]

What kind of spear were you fighting against? 6ft (body-length) spears are definitely able to be parried by a Chinese-style broadsword when they're being used to stab. Blocking a haft blow is a bit hard though, you need to brace with your other hand near the tip. They're actually lighter than a staff of the same length. Intentionally so.


A partisan. Not sure the exact length, but based on comparing it to my height it was at least 7 feet (I stand about 6'0, and the spear was at least a head taller than me).

And yeah it was a haft blow that broke through my guard. I was seeing stars even through the head gear, and just about fell over. I would imagine if it had been a real spear, and I hadn't been wearing my mask, I'd probably have been down for the count and presumably a dead man on the spear's follow-up attack.

Deflecting the thrusts was doable, unless the spear fighter went for my legs, at which point, parrying the thrusts is pretty unfeasible, and all I could do was back off. And even deflecting the standard thrusts wasn't necessarily easy, just doable.

Overall point-- I'd still argue the swordsman is disadvantaged. It's not insurmountable, but the swordsman has to jump through several hoops just to be able to compete with the spearman. I'd definitely argue that at equal levels of skill the spearman will win at least 8/10 times.

[Potato_Priest]

Drawing on Tanarii's claims that a one-handed longer hoplite spear would be difficult to use outside of formation, and that the one in the current statblock must be a shorter spear (which I agree with), it seems like we could add a third spear to our weapons statblock.

Hoplite spear: 1d8 martial weapon. Properties: Reach, Versatile (1d10), Special (when wielding with one hand you have disadvantage on attacks made against enemies within 5 feet of you). Counts for all properties of polearm master.

With this, you could make a shield wall of one-handed spear wielders who can kill and/or stop anything before it gets close with PAM opportunity attacks and sentinel or you could have a single more versatile fighter effectively wielding the thing two-handed.

[Tanarii]

Counts for all properties of polearm master.
Personally I'd be inclined to state the haft attack part of PAM can only be used 2 handed.

[Potato_Priest]

Personally I'd be inclined to state the haft attack part of PAM can only be used 2 handed.

Yeah, that would make sense, but unfortunately we've already got bad precedent with the quarterstaff on that count, so I figured I'd let it slide. Homebrewers who don't let you do it with a quarterstaff would presumably have the sense to not let you do it with one of these either.

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

The very thing that makes the long sword faster (the fact that it's lighter), is the very thing that makes it difficult to actually stop a solid spear strike.

Yes, the sword is lighter. But it's speed is not due to it's mass, it's mostly due to being balanced. A sword is moved by the wrist, not by the arm. This is what makes the sword so fast and strong. I've not seen many youtube videos of people doing it well.

You can't block a spear with a sword by just holding your sword in between. You need to deflect the blow, usually with a backward rotational movement. If he really puts his hips into the attack, it will be hard to block. But you should have time to close the distance when he does that.

Using a sword that way is very difficult though. If both combatants are amateurs, the spear is at a big advantage. If it's a heavier, two handed stick vs a lighter, one handed stick, of course the spear wins.

[PeteNutButter]

Here we are complaining about spears not being good enough and they release an errata making the basic spear work with PAM.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/errata-november-2018

It's no stronger than a staff, but infinitely less "gamey" feeling. As long as feats are allowed, PAM certainly makes the basic spear a viable weapon. Spear and shield will be my next character...