Greetings!

I have developed a few different feats augmenting spear fighting in my campaign, and warriors specialized with styles of fighting with spears. I think that D&D gives spears a kind of raw deal so to speak--there being little glory and entirely underwhelming combat performance of spears in combat. I tend to think that from history, spears were considerably more effective weaponry than suggested by D&D, and many elite warriors preferred using the spear in personal battle--whether mass combat, or one-on-one duels, spears were very prominent throughout the ancient world, with many different kinds of warriors.

What do you all think about spears, spear fighting, spear feats, and such? Have you embraced different things such as this in your own campaigns?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Spears are devastating, even at arm's length.  I bet a lot of swordsmen bit off more than they could chew.

Quote from: Razor 007;1079724Spears are devastating, even at arm's length.  I bet a lot of swordsmen bit off more than they could chew.

And yet, spearmen were often (not always) relegated to the role of infantryman, but the sword was reserved for the badass warrior.  I wonder why.

No, seriously, if the sword is such a shit weapon, why did we make it into something it's not?  Soldiers know this, you take the best tool to kill your enemy and if the sword ain't it, why bother?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079730And yet, spearmen were often (not always) relegated to the role of infantryman, but the sword was reserved for the badass warrior.  I wonder why.

No, seriously, if the sword is such a shit weapon, why did we make it into something it's not?  Soldiers know this, you take the best tool to kill your enemy and if the sword ain't it, why bother?

Greetings!

Good questions, Christopher Brady. I'm reminded though, of how Achilles of Greece and Paris of Troy--both were champion warriors of their age, and both also carried and used their swords constantly in battle--however, in the ancient source material, as well as derived movies and literature--their shield and their spear were very prominent, and Achilles in particular was famous for his skills with the sword, but also with the spear.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079730No, seriously, if the sword is such a shit weapon, why did we make it into something it's not?  Soldiers know this, you take the best tool to kill your enemy and if the sword ain't it, why bother?

- Sword is a side arm - unlike a spear, you can keep it on you at all times.
- If you lose your main weapon, it's good to have a backup.
- In a Greek pike phalanx or similar, if the enemy are too close for your long spear, you draw a short sword & stab them in the neck.
- Swords cost more than spears, hence they are a symbol of the noble or professional warrior.

None of this means the sword is an all-round superior weapon.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079730Soldiers know this, you take the best tool to kill your enemy and if the sword ain't it, why bother?

Context. In some contexts, a sword might be the best tool. In other contexts, a different weapon might be the best tool.

I can only assume the writers of D&D were as ignorant of antiquity as they appear to be of the Colonial period in their own country. The spear was the king of battle (the ancient Chinese called it the queen of battle), the sword the backup when you'd lost or broken your spear. As people have said, it's the difference between a longarm and sidearm. The spear is your main battlefield weapon, the sword your secondary.

D&D stats also fail to make much real distinction between a counter-weighted war spear like a doru and a simple spear. You don't need two hands to use the war spear. It would also make a terrible throwing weapon, not being weighted appropriately. They also don't recognise the different types of javelins, from the lightest sort to heavy ones like the soliferra and pilum. Given the proliferation of swords, it shows their biases that the variety of spear- and javelin-like weapons aren't represented.

In ACKS, the spear isn't quite so unfavoured (though a lot of that is because in B/X it wasn't). When you have two ranks of spearmen, they can all attack. Fixing spears against charging opponents gives a bonus.

Before we get ourselves confused about terminology, the Greek hoplite phalanx is not the same thing as the Macedonian pike phalanx. The former are spearmen, the latter are pikemen. In the later Hellenistic era, the latter often didn't even have sidearms, because it was so rare for them to need them. If the phalanx was broken, it surrendered, and the victor accepted that surrender so he could take a new body of trained pikemen into his army. That all fell apart when the Diadochi fought the Romans, who didn't recognise that custom.

Quote from: Kiero;1079756Before we get ourselves confused about terminology, the Greek hoplite phalanx is not the same thing as the Macedonian pike phalanx. The former are spearmen, the latter are pikemen.

OK I was talking about a hoplite phalanx - big shield, 1-handed 'spear' up to about 12' length, not 18' 2-handed sarissa. I said 'pike' phalanx because that's what D&D calls a long spear, ie a spear-with-reach. The D&D 'pike' only gets a 10' reach, making it more akin to 5th century BC hoplite spear than a 4th century BC sarissa/pike.

Quote from: S'mon;1079761OK I was talking about a hoplite phalanx - big shield, 1-handed 'spear' up to about 12' length, not 18' 2-handed sarissa. I said 'pike' phalanx because that's what D&D calls a long spear, ie a spear-with-reach. The D&D 'pike' only gets a 10' reach, making it more akin to 5th century BC hoplite spear than a 4th century BC sarissa/pike.

Which is another example of the way D&D doesn't seem to really know the difference between things. A counter-weighted 10' spear doesn't need two hands, yet you can't make a hoplite phalanx using most D&D editions as written.

Quote from: Kiero;1079756I can only assume the writers of D&D were as ignorant of antiquity as they appear to be of the Colonial period in their own country. The spear was the king of battle (the ancient Chinese called it the queen of battle), the sword the backup when you'd lost or broken your spear. As people have said, it's the difference between a longarm and sidearm. The spear is your main battlefield weapon, the sword your secondary.

D&D stats also fail to make much real distinction between a counter-weighted war spear like a doru and a simple spear. You don't need two hands to use the war spear. It would also make a terrible throwing weapon, not being weighted appropriately. They also don't recognise the different types of javelins, from the lightest sort to heavy ones like the soliferra and pilum. Given the proliferation of swords, it shows their biases that the variety of spear- and javelin-like weapons aren't represented.

In ACKS, the spear isn't quite so unfavoured (though a lot of that is because in B/X it wasn't). When you have two ranks of spearmen, they can all attack. Fixing spears against charging opponents gives a bonus.

Before we get ourselves confused about terminology, the Greek hoplite phalanx is not the same thing as the Macedonian pike phalanx. The former are spearmen, the latter are pikemen. In the later Hellenistic era, the latter often didn't even have sidearms, because it was so rare for them to need them. If the phalanx was broken, it surrendered, and the victor accepted that surrender so he could take a new body of trained pikemen into his army. That all fell apart when the Diadochi fought the Romans, who didn't recognise that custom.

The problem is that in most depictions, the spear is a formation weapon, used with a group of identically armed individuals.  Usually numbering in the hundreds.  No D&D party has EVER been fully spear men and nothing else.  Or at least, the conceit is not.

A lot of the time, I'm wondering who is in the wrong here.  Is it the designers of D&D, or the fact, that players keep forgetting that pole weapons have almost always been an army weapon.

Oh, I know that you have spear based heroes (Cuchulain, for one) but they tend to swing their weapon in both hands and in wide arcs, like a staff.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079766The problem is that in most depictions, the spear is a formation weapon, used with a group of identically armed individuals.  Usually numbering in the hundreds.  No D&D party has EVER been fully spear men and nothing else.  Or at least, the conceit is not.

A lot of the time, I'm wondering who is in the wrong here.  Is it the designers of D&D, or the fact, that players keep forgetting that pole weapons have almost always been an army weapon.

Oh, I know that you have spear based heroes (Cuchulain, for one) but they tend to swing their weapon in both hands and in wide arcs, like a staff.

The designers of D&D are wrong, because they prove themselves ignorant of the historical context of most of the weapons they feature. Most soldiers, throughout time, have been spearmen who might carry a sword as their backup. The Romans are a notable exception to that, and even they started out as spearmen before changing panoply in response to humiliations from the faster-moving Celts and Samnites. Even in the modern era, the musket/rifle-with-bayonet combination returns us to soldiers using spears.

Spears are only superior to swords if the sworddude is not heavily armored and shieldless or if the speardude is fighting against cavalry.

Quote from: Kiero;1079769The designers of D&D are wrong, because they prove themselves ignorant of the historical context of most of the weapons they feature. Most soldiers, throughout time, have been spearmen who might carry a sword as their backup. The Romans are a notable exception to that, and even they started out as spearmen before changing panoply in response to humiliations from the faster-moving Celts and Samnites. Even in the modern era, the musket/rifle-with-bayonet combination returns us to soldiers using spears.

Adventurers are not soldiers.  Why is everyone hung up on making...

OH! I think I get it.  It's because D&D was war game, people still haven't realized the idea of adventurers have changed.  Still stuck in formation soldiers moving around a battlefield.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079730And yet, spearmen were often (not always) relegated to the role of infantryman, but the sword was reserved for the badass warrior.  I wonder why.

No, seriously, if the sword is such a shit weapon, why did we make it into something it's not?  Soldiers know this, you take the best tool to kill your enemy and if the sword ain't it, why bother?

On horseback, the badass warrior used a lance ( or a bow) and wore a sword as a backup. On foot, he used a polearm or possibly his lance (or a bow) and wore a sword as a backup. A key  word here is "wore." Swords could be worn and that freed hands for other weapons or other activities. It wasn't exactly a shit weapon but it wasn't the first weapon unless the badass is a Roman. The fact that you could wear one while doing other things made them ideal for when you weren't expecting trouble, like a handgiun.

Quote from: SHARK;1079711Greetings!

I have developed a few different feats augmenting spear fighting in my campaign, and warriors specialized with styles of fighting with spears. I think that D&D gives spears a kind of raw deal so to speak--there being little glory and entirely underwhelming combat performance of spears in combat. I tend to think that from history, spears were considerably more effective weaponry than suggested by D&D,...

SHARK

Spears do not look as sexy as swords and there are a lot of misconceptions how they were used.

Quote from: S'mon;1079739- Sword is a side arm - unlike a spear, you can keep it on you at all times.
....

This.

Spears give its wielder distance from his opponents.

Vs. a sword or similar single hand weapon, this is a very big deal. Which most games model extremely poorly if they bother at all.

Things that can make spears a more effective choice in an RPG:

Gives you better defense due to the distance it gives you from your opponent (AC bonus if opponent does not have a pole arm?)

Can be thrown a short distance and still hit as hard as a sword thrust. (more damage than typical bow due to projectile size?)

Maybe an armor piercing bonus due to spears being prioritized for thrusting more than a sword. (an additional bonus of the spear is weilded two handed or set to receive a charge.)

And due to its balance a spear can be wielded on or two handed. (one handed users opting for the greater protection of a shield vs gettign additional damage bonuses.)

If you know you are going into a fight on open ground, a spear should be choice #1.

Going to your sword only if you throw the spear or the fight gets close in.