Making a long spear fit for heroes

[Yora]

I am preparing a campaign for a setting based on Antiquity, and in such settings, the spear is the king of the battlefield, The weapon of kings and heroes. The spear in the Player's Handbook is not.



Name
Cost
Damage
Weight
Properties


Spear
1 gp
1d6 piercing
3 lb.
Thrown (range 20/60), versatile (1d8)


Glaive
20 gp
1d10 slashing
6 lb.
Heavy, reach, two-handed


Halberd
20 gp
1d10 slashing
6 lb.
Heavy, reach, two-handed


Lance
10 gp
1d12 piercing
6 lb.
Reach, special


Longsword
15 gp
1d8 piercing
3 lb.
Versatile (1d10)


Pike
5 gp
1d10 piercing
18 lb.
Heavy, reach, two-handed



Making a better spear is easy, but I would like it to also have reasonable stats compared to other weapons. A spear is great, but not a magical superweapon.

What I think it needs is to have both the reach and versatile properties. And I think it also deserves 1d8(1d10) damage, as spear wounds are brutal. This already makes it superior to both glaives and halberds (which I just noticed are identical weapons), so the heavy property shared by those also should be on it. And it does make sense, considering that the only thing it does is give disadvantage to small creatures.

This would result in the following weapon:


Long spear
5 gp
1d8 piercing
5 lb.
Heavy, reach, versatile (1d10)


This is a very good weapon. It's objectively better than either longsword or halberd. And I guess, yeah... One handed swords have been around for ages and still everyone used spears until well into the middle ages. In Asia even longer than that.
It doesn't automatically outrannk every other weapon in the game. Greataxe, greatsword, lance, and maul all do more damage. Rapier, scimitar, and shortsword have finesse. All of these are martial weapons, so I think this spear also has to be.

In a game where weapons have different traits, something has to be the best. And historically, the spear kind of was. And this spear is not the optimal pick for every situation, so I feel that this isn't completely broken. I still would like some second opinions on this.

[Kadesh]

Heavy, Reach, 2h, 1d10 damage? You've created a pike.

[Yora]

A pike that can be used one-handed for 1d8 damage. And does not have such a massive weight.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

I don't want to be pedantic, but the reason spears were used so widely and for so long is because they were cheaper and easier to make than swords, not because they are better weapons. A spear is not nearly as versatile as a sword.

That said, spears are rad and I too want that Radacity to be better represented.

I don't think you can make it versatile and have the reach property, if a spear could reach 10 feet, you wouldn't be able to use it with one hand

I think what you need is a Homebrew feat rather than a Hombrew weapon. Try the UA spear master feat from a while back:

• When you use a spear, its damage die changes from a d6 to a d8, and from a d8 to a d10 when wielded with two hands. (This benefit has no effect if another feature has already improved the weapon’s die.)
• You can set your spear to receive a charge as a bonus action. If a creatures moves at least 20 ft and in to your spear’s reach on its next turn, you can make a melee attack against it with your spear as a reaction. If the attack hits, the target takes an extra 1d8 piercing damage, or an extra 1d10 piercing damage if you wield the spear with two hands. You can’t use this ability if the creature used the Disengage action before moving.
• As a bonus action on your turn, you can increase your reach with a spear by 5 feet for the rest of your turn. (I imagine you doing a sweet crane pose with one hand on the butt of the spear and your arm stretched as far as it will go.)

[Azgeroth]

ok so without getting into a debate about why the spear was such a prolific weapon of choice for armies for more than 1000 years, given this is a fantasy setting.

spears! there are more than a few types, just look at the greeks! and a really long spear, is basically a pike. so as to not just create a replica pike, as it already exists, i would suggest.

War Spear (war hammers and axes, so why not?)
Versatile, Finesse, Thrown 20/60
1d8/1d10
3lb
3gp

cannot be used as a finesse weapon when wielding with two hands.

i added finesse as the most effective use of a spear outside of a phalanx is rapid successive strikes, which i feel is more dex than str. but allowing a d10 2h finesse weapon is op. (i know your only allowing thief rogues, but it fits a scout rogue or dex fighter perfectly.)

it is a martial weapon, slightly better than a simple spear, due to materials and construction, it doesn't differ too widely from a simple spear, it has the finesse property more for the implied training from martial weapon proficiencies. you will note it sits bang in the middle of a simple spear and a pike.

if you want to make spear use that little bit more special, i suggest looking at the weapon and skill feats UA, the spear Feat in there is rather nice. allows the wielder to extend the reach by 5ft for a turn at the cost of their bonus action, i can't remember the other benefits sorry.

[Randarkal]

I don't want to be pedantic, but the reason spears were used so widely and for so long is because they were cheaper and easier to make than swords, not because they are better weapons. A spear is not nearly as versatile as a sword.

This is not entirely correct: the reason swords were used so heavily and so prolific in our minds is because they were sidearms for the wealthy and well trained. In formation combat or without a shield spears will ruin swords due to striking distance and speed. Also easier to train to use.

Doesn't change much for in game mechanics though. I'd like to see spears get reach, but don't see much need beyond that within the context of the game. (Which is a great system but a poor substitution for realistic combat).

[Tanarii]

I don't want to be pedantic, but the reason spears were used so widely and for so long is because they were cheaper and easier to make than swords, not because they are better weapons. A spear is not nearly as versatile as a sword.Entirely correct.

But besides the point if the OP is specifically trying to make an ancient times setting/feeling and specifically wants to strongly encourage body-length spear use. Including in a 1H & Shield style even in D&D party-sized skirmishing, not just in combat formations.

If the point was to encourage them to be more historically accurate, you could instead just make Long Spears that get some kind of bonus when used 1H & Shield with an ally on either side of you. And/or maybe something like allow special Reach attacks (with no cover bonus) through a rank of allies in front of you already engaged with an enemy, without actually having the Reach property.

[BarneyBent]

1d6 is fine. That represents the difference between a spear and an advanced polearm like a glaive.

Only thing it needs is potentially reach. Give it that and it’s already hugely better. A bigger die, heavy, etc just isn’t necessary, nor true to the nature of a spear (vs pike, halberd, glaive, etc).

[Keltest]

This is not entirely correct: the reason swords were used so heavily and so prolific in our minds is because they were sidearms for the wealthy and well trained. In formation combat or without a shield spears will ruin swords due to striking distance and speed. Also easier to train to use.

Doesn't change much for in game mechanics though. I'd like to see spears get reach, but don't see much need beyond that within the context of the game. (Which is a great system but a poor substitution for realistic combat).

This is only true up to a point. The bigger two handed swords could combat spear and pike lines quite effectively.

I would also suggest that the spear used by an adventurer is not going to be the same spear used by a soldier fighting in a formation. Reach is nice, but in an adventurer type skirmish putting the dangerous part that far away without a buddy next to you in formation is just begging for somebody to get in close and skewer you, especially if youre using it one handed and shielded.

[Yora]

My thinking here is that the effects of reach make a big impact on a fight even at pretty short length. With a sword against a dagger, you have a huge advantage. Even a spear of your own height in length puts you at a big advantage against all but the biggest swords.
Even the punny one handed 1d6 simple weapon spear should have reach, but I don't want to shake up things too much.

[Keltest]

My thinking here is that the effects of reach make a big impact on a fight even at pretty short length. With a sword against a dagger, you have a huge advantage. Even a spear of your own height in length puts you at a big advantage against all but the biggest swords.
Even the punny one handed 1d6 simple weapon spear should have reach, but I don't want to shake up things too much.

Youre not going to hit anything holding a regular one handed spear like that at reach, even if you could conceivably get the weapon head that far out. I could maybe see an argument for reach if you were using it two handed, but definitely not one handed, you have no way to actually control the weapon.

[OverLordOcelot]

It doesn't automatically outrannk every other weapon in the game. Greataxe, greatsword, lance, and maul all do more damage. Rapier, scimitar, and shortsword have finesse. All of these are martial weapons, so I think this spear also has to be.

It outranks every other polearm in the game, because you can give up an average of 1 pt of damage to gain +2 AC by using it in 1H and shield mode. If the result you're looking for is 'if you're going to use polearms, use spear and shield' then you'll achieve it, if that's not what you want then I'd make it 'reach when used with two hands' or 'when making a reach attack while wearing a shield take a -2 to-hit' so that it's not a no-brainer choice. Also I would consider changing the pike to something like "reach 15', disadvantage on attacks within 5'" so that it's not totally useless the way it is now or beyond useless the way it is with your spear.

[LibraryOgre]

So, why not d6/d8, with reach, heavy, and versatile?

It makes the difference between a smaller spear and a larger spear the difference of Reach v. Throwing Range. Make them the same proficiency (so if you're proficient in spear-that-can-be-thrown, you are likewise proficient in spear-that-can-have-reach), even if they're slightly different weapons.

It still makes sense to have the two different kinds of spears. A single individual might carry and use both... but the Reach Spear wouldn't compete with the Pike.

[Keltest]

So, why not d6/d8, with reach, heavy, and versatile?

It makes the difference between a smaller spear and a larger spear the difference of Reach v. Throwing Range. Make them the same proficiency (so if you're proficient in spear-that-can-be-thrown, you are likewise proficient in spear-that-can-have-reach), even if they're slightly different weapons.

It still makes sense to have the two different kinds of spears. A single individual might carry and use both... but the Reach Spear wouldn't compete with the Pike.

Personally, if im going to carry the long spear, i'd rather my ranged weapon be something a little bit more dedicated to the job. The advantage of the short spear is that it can be both melee and ranged in a pinch, but if youre going to carry a dedicated melee weapon anyway, pair it with a dedicated ranged weapon.

I prefer the idea of requiring two hands for having reach, because then the short spear allows you the range without giving up the extra defense.

[Tanarii]

So, why not d6/d8, with reach, heavy, and versatile?Drop Heavy. That's just begging for GWM / PAM shenanigans ... but with a shield. Too much.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Drop Heavy. That's just begging for GWM / PAM shenanigans ... but with a shield. Too much.
Agreed. d8/d10 versatile with reach is, as mentioned, flat superior to the pike/glaive/halberd; d6/d8 is more appropriate, representing one step up from a simple versatile weapon.

[Beleriphon]

Keep in mind that not every spear is meant to be thrown. If you want inspiration go play Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Some of the best weapons I the game are spears. And as with Ubisoft's pedanticiness towards historical accuracy in their application of details to a silly fantasy game, the weapon is held roughly half way down the half for balance reasons.

[Randarkal]

This is only true up to a point. The bigger two handed swords could combat spear and pike lines quite effectively.

I would also suggest that the spear used by an adventurer is not going to be the same spear used by a soldier fighting in a formation. Reach is nice, but in an adventurer type skirmish putting the dangerous part that far away without a buddy next to you in formation is just begging for somebody to get in close and skewer you, especially if youre using it one handed and shielded.

The idea that greatswords were effective against pike lines is, as far as I am aware not backed by any documented evidence and my understanding (and theory) on the use of "double pay men" is as a rearguard for when a line collapses: skilled men with a large weapon that can offend from multiple directions likely to die but certain to slow the enemy. While a greatsword wielded like a spear is usually recommended for single combat.

That said I agree with the rest of your post. I personally might allow reach when using two hands. I would also allow longswords finesse when wielded in one hand (not two for balance). But as has been pointed out this isn't the purpose of the thread, so I will leave it there.

[qube]

I am preparing a campaign for a setting based on Antiquity, and in such settings, the spear is the king of the battlefield, The weapon of kings and heroes. The spear in the Player's Handbook is not.Excalibur, Hrunting, ... the weapon of kings & hero's are swords, not spears. Spears are the weapon of the infantryman.

As such, if you want to make it on par with the other weapons, give it
+1 damage if you have cover (like, from an ally with a shield #shieldformation) and on attacks as part of a the readied action "I attack if target moves from non-ajdacent to adjacent to me"

[Keltest]

The idea that greatswords were effective against pike lines is, as far as I am aware not backed by any documented evidence and my understanding (and theory) on the use of "double pay men" is as a rearguard for when a line collapses: skilled men with a large weapon that can offend from multiple directions likely to die but certain to slow the enemy. While a greatsword wielded like a spear is usually recommended for single combat.

That said I agree with the rest of your post. I personally might allow reach when using two hands. I would also allow longswords finesse when wielded in one hand (not two for balance). But as has been pointed out this isn't the purpose of the thread, so I will leave it there.

My understanding is that the advantage of the greatsword wasn't that it could outright murder pikemen so much as that it would heavily disrupt pike lines, allowing your own soldiers to get in there and start carving away at their formation without it turning into a bloody meat grinder like would happen with the greek hoplites. You aren't going to win the fight with just swordsmen, but well trained pikes with a front line of swords will beat a line of well trained pikes.

[Yora]

Drop Heavy. That's just begging for GWM / PAM shenanigans ... but with a shield. Too much.

I didn't know it can be something beneficial. I thought it's only a size restriction for halflings.

Keeping the damage at 1d6/1d8: Yeah, why not? With the higher damage it's flat out superior to the other polearms, and 1 point of damage less really isn't that much of a drawback.
Then we have a spear that gets reach but can not be thrown.

Perhaps I also give it the special trait of damage going up one dice size when used from a mount. The extra velocity from a mount has shown to significantly increase the impact force.

[Boci]

My understanding is that the advantage of the greatsword wasn't that it could outright murder pikemen so much as that it would heavily disrupt pike lines, allowing your own soldiers to get in there and start carving away at their formation without it turning into a bloody meat grinder like would happen with the greek hoplites. You aren't going to win the fight with just swordsmen, but well trained pikes with a front line of swords will beat a line of well trained pikes.

So, pikemen + swordmen are better than just pikemen? That's not saying much. 1 million and 10 is bigger than a million.

[Keltest]

I didn't know it can be something beneficial. I thought it's only a size restriction for halflings.

Keeping the damage at 1d6/1d8: Yeah, why not? With the higher damage it's flat out superior to the other polearms, and 1 point of damage less really isn't that much of a drawback.
Then we have a spear that gets reach but can not be thrown.

Perhaps I also give it the special trait of damage going up one dice size when used from a mount. The extra velocity from a mount has shown to significantly increase the impact force.

Is there some reason a short spear wouldn't also benefit from that? Or any other polearm you could conceivably use from a mount? (An admittedly small list.)


So, pikemen + swordmen are better than just pikemen? That's not saying much. 1 million and 10 is bigger than a million.

Yes? Its not just a question of taking one army and making it bigger, the overall effectiveness of the army increased. The same way roman formation fighting allowed them to significantly out fight the barbarian armies they usually warred against even if they didn't outnumber them.

[Boci]

Yes? Its not just a question of taking one army and making it bigger, the overall effectiveness of the army increased.

But the discussion you joined was about spears vs. swords. Entering that discussion with spears and swords vs. spears is like saying 2 + 2 is 4. It doesn't need to be stated and no one contended that.

[Keltest]

In formation combat or without a shield spears will ruin swords due to striking distance and speed. Also easier to train to use.

Emphasis mine.

[Yora]

Is there some reason a short spear wouldn't also benefit from that? Or any other polearm you could conceivably use from a mount? (An admittedly small list.)

Not really. Sure, why not?

[Randarkal]

My understanding is that the advantage of the greatsword wasn't that it could outright murder pikemen so much as that it would heavily disrupt pike lines, allowing your own soldiers to get in there and start carving away at their formation without it turning into a bloody meat grinder like would happen with the greek hoplites. You aren't going to win the fight with just swordsmen, but well trained pikes with a front line of swords will beat a line of well trained pikes.

The problem with this is that said pike formations would turn into meat grinders far worse then the average Greek hoplite.

Now, I am not saying that they were not used that way, but there is no documented evidence from the period (art or written) i know of that suggests they are used this way. Further I would argue that for such a group of swordsmen to have the desired result they would need to be disruptively close to their own line to have an impact (one handed sword and rotella to exploit gaps after is another matter).

As far as I am aware this is similar to the notion that armor was super heavy because some people looked at the weight of tournament armor and made the conclusion that all armor was so heavy. There just isn't any alternative in this case to prove this wrong diffinitively, it is entirely open for debate.


Emphasis mine.

I will note most people with practical experience with such weapons would favor a 6-7 ft spear for single combat (over all weapons, including other polearms) unless shields are involved. Then the defensive benefit allows a sword to close the distance (In this way a dagger is also preferred over a sword at extremely close range).

[KorvinStarmast]

I am preparing a campaign for a setting based on Antiquity, and in such settings, the spear is the king of the battlefield, The weapon of kings and heroes. The spear in the Player's Handbook is not. I'll suggest to you that instead, you read up on the latest errata in the PHB and note that the spear is finally eligible for pole arm mastery. When an opposing creature moves into your reach, opportunity attack. :smallsmile: (The upgraded language is here)


• When you take the Attack action and att⁠ack with only a Glaive, Halberd, Quarterstaff, or Spear, you can use a Bonus Action to make a melee att⁠ack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attac⁠k uses the same ability modifier as the primary Attack. 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, Quarterstaff, or Spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity Attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon. There's an advantage over using a sword right there. :)

As for a martial weapon spear, I'd suggest making the martial spear 1d6 one handed, 1d8 two handed with reach, and Heavy so that a proficieny wielder can use GWM with it ...

That makes is slightly different from the simple weapon spear.

And I'd make a pike 1d12 anyway, since I think that the pike needs to be in the same damage range as the great ax.

As a note for the OP, your long sword damage type is slashing not piercing. Rapier and short sword (gladius) are piercing.

[Potato_Priest]

My preferred extra spear is, like yours, a 1d8 weapon, versatile (1d10), with reach but a special property giving it disadvantage against targets within 5 feet of you if you're only wielding it in one hand, to represent the awkwardness of trying to duel somebody with a 1h spear, while still allowing it to be very valuable in Phalanx.

[JackPhoenix]

Perhaps I also give it the special trait of damage going up one dice size when used from a mount. The extra velocity from a mount has shown to significantly increase the impact force.

Note that you may not have shock cavalry in antique setting.The extra force works both ways, and without stirrup (which appeared in Europe in 6th century), you would be thrown off of your mount if you've tried that. And the larger, stronger horse breeds that are needed for heavy cavalry were bred later.

Spear is still useful for a mounted warrior, but because it offers him extra reach, not for charging.

[Yora]

That's why ancient saddles have a stop behind your butt. Actually works better than stirrups against being pushed back. Stirrups mostly help with not sliding off to the sides.

[Beleriphon]

That's why ancient saddles have a stop behind your butt. Actually works better than stirrups against being pushed back. Stirrups mostly help with not sliding off to the sides.

In fairness a proper saddle for a cavalry charge by knights should have very large cantle as well. The modern saddle with we'd be familiar with in North America with a horn and stirrups is for cowboys who needed something to tie a rope to and be comfortable in all day, and English saddles are for comfort when riding.

[Zhorn]

I'll second the point KorvinStarmast brought up regarding the errata including the Spear for viable use with Polearm Master.
Combined with a Dueling fighting style from Fighter, Paladin or Ranger and you've got some good mechanical advantages to the weapon.
Attack Actions: (1 to 4 attacks) 1d6+2+mod
Bonus Action: (1 attack) 1d4+2+mod
Reaction: (1 opportunity attack) 1d6+2+mod when a creature enters OR leaves your reach
Off-hand free for a shield for that extra +2 AC.

Spear + Shield > Sword/Axe + Shield

[noob]

I don't want to be pedantic, but the reason spears were used so widely and for so long is because they were cheaper and easier to make than swords, not because they are better weapons. A spear is not nearly as versatile as a sword.


The reason why spears were very useful in real life for quite a long time is their reach: reach against unarmored targets is absolutely deadly.(does not works that well when inside rooms rather than outside)
When people cover themselves in armor the whole deal changes and we start seeing heavy weapons getting useful.
Short swords and other light bladed weapons were very used because they were extremely deadly relatively to their weight but in a fight between two unarmored(or lightly armored) people outside spears beats the varied kinds of swords if both fighters are ready before they get close to each other(if the knife or sword wielding person initiate the attack before the other suspects him the knife wielding person have a good chance of winning because knives kills very fast).

The reason why reach is not as good in dnd is that somehow most opponents have high amounts of meat points thus making the fact of striking first way less consequential.
In real life fighting boars is hard but in dnd you are supposed to just go and fight boars so of course weird stuff happens.
One historical figure fought a boar with a melee weapon but otherwise there is not many man vs boar melee fight events that have been recorded.