Quote from: amacris;1079914Spears are the preferred weapon in ACKS, so much so that the two of the most common questions I get are (1) are you nerfing spears in 2nd Edition and (2) why would anyone make magic swords when spears are so much better.

Spears have the following advantages in ACKS:
1. A spear can be used with one or two hands
2. A combatant can use a spear with four of the different Fighting Style proficiencies; most other weapons are limited to three
-- Use it with Pole Weapon fighting style for +1 initiative
-- Use it with Two-Handed fighting style for +1 damage
-- Use it with Weapon & Shield fighting style for +1 AC
-- Use it with One-Handed fighting style for +1 to hit
3. A combatant wielding a spear may choose to attack a closing opponent on the closing opponent's initiative number and thus attack simultaneously with the opponent even if the spear wielder rolled lower for initiative.
4. A spear deals double damage on a successful charge.
5. A spear deals double damage when "set" (braced against the ground or floor) and used against a charging combatant.
6. Up to three characters can wield a spear side-by-side in a 10' wide corridor (3' per character) instead of the usual two.
7. A character equipped with a spear can attack from the second rank.

These advantages carry over into ACKS Domains at War, where spear (and pole arm) equipped troops tend to be the dominant form of heavy infantry because of these advantages.

Spears have the following disadvantages in ACKS:
1. A spear has an encumbrance of 1 stone, compared to a sword's 1/6 stone. Because of the breakpoints for encumbrance, sword-wielding troops will typically be 30' faster than spear-armored troops.
2. A spear has a -4 penalty to saving throws to avoid being sundered. This is the in-world explanation why magic spears are much rarer than magic swords: It's too easy for a magic spear to be destroyed. There are therefore some magic spears.

Given the advantages, the disadvantages are quite tolerable, and for low level fighters the spear is the best weapon in the game. However, as a fighter advances in ACKS the relative benefits of spear somewhat diminish. The importance of double damage is less when every blow kills an orc regardless due to your fighter damage bonus; the importance of fighting from the second rank diminishes when you're the toughest hombre around; the importance of having three rather than two in formation diminishes when you're cleaving into fallen foes with 5' steps a number of times equal to your level. On the other hand, the risk of having your fancy magic weapon sundered increases.

The result is that standard troops almost always fight with spears, while heroes and other bad-asses often fight with swords, though still using spears when tactically appropriate. It's an outcome I'm happy with; it scratches both my history-minded simulationist side and my mythic fantasy swordmaster side.

Greetings!

Excellent, brother! That's some damned fine craftsmanship, there! Captures all of the nuances of spears as weapons and spear warfare, while threading the needle mechanics-wise to not gimp sword fighting. Beautiful!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I missed a couple of pages, forgive me.  But why are people CONSTANTLY bringing up Romans?  They didn't used spears.  They threw the equivalent to D&D javelins and then rushed in to stab people with their short swords.  And again, in a FORMATION.

D&D style adventurers DO NOT FIGHT LIKE THAT.  There are not enough people in a group to make a good formation in the first place!

Quote from: Kiero;1079943The pilum isn't a spear, it's a (heavy) javelin. While there were accounts of them doubling up as spears (such as Caesar's flank units at Pharsalus), they weren't very good at that job. A spear with a bendy shaft is not a useful melee weapon. Legionaries usually carried two, not three, often a heavy one and a lighter one.

Also the scutum wasn't steel, it was made of wood and leather with a metal rim. The novel thing about it was the concave shape, which covered the legionary's body very effectively, without width. That allowed them to move inside a spearman's reach and get close enough to use the gladius.

The Romans weren't always outnumbered; the difficulty with reading some of the sources, even aside from their estimates, is that you can't be sure whether or not they counted the allies in their totals.



D&D has definitely neutered the shield, culling all the variety by at most having only two classes, light and heavy. That's partly because in the medieval milieu, the shield was of fading importance and armour increasing in significance.

It also ignores the role of the shield's edge as a weapon.



It's only a rabbit hole if you accept that mess without making any attempt to order it for your given setting. Being "fantasy" is no excuse for glaring inconsistencies that stand up to little scrutiny.

Greetings!

Very true, Kiero! I think that the shield needs some love for 5E. A little more defensive applications, and a stronger offensive combat focus. Certainy either through class specialization, or a feat or two. Your average militia man might be a clumsy baffoon with a shield, but your hardened, professional veterans? They will certainly know how to mess your whole day up with just a shield and a dagger, you know? I can't recall all of the times I have read about hard warriors using the shield edge to bash and crush enemies to a pulp, just as you mentioned. That shield edge can be quite effective.

And yes, you're quite correct about the medieval developments of the growing prominence of armour, and the lessening of the shield's prominence.

Unfortunately for myself, I have a whole lot of glorious education in the ancient world of Antiquity, of Alexander the Great, and the Roman legions, where the shield was a primary and essential weapon in the hands of a skilled warrior.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

That's because, SHARK, by the time the plate harness comes into war, the shield has lost most of it's viability as an infantryman's weapon.  First off, just about everyone was using two handed weapons, such swords, axes and maces on the ground, secondly, Plate with it's odd shape made placing a shield that wasn't bolted onto the armour (like most jousting sets) a little difficult to manage.

And as D&D having a mishmash of various time periods, it needs to balance the utility of the shield.

Now, in my home games, I've turned it into a weapon, that the Dual Wielding Feat applies to.  It does a D4 normally, unless you also take Shield Master and then it bumps up to a D6.  The Two Weapon fighting style also applies.  At the beginning of each round, the player decides if he's using it defensively, or offensively.  If offensive, the lose the AC bonus (The Dual Wielder +1 applies in that case, otherwise the +2 overrides it.)  Complicated, but my players seem OK with it.

Attacking with shield rim in 5e:

This seems already doable in RAW - it's an improvised weapon, but resembles a club in terms of effectiveness although it's not 'light', so I'd suggest letting Proficiency bonus apply if used to attack, for d4+STR damage. This is an attack action not a bonus action.

Wielder always retains shield AC bonus in 5e RAW, I think this makes more sense than losing it, unless it's a teeny-tiny buckler.

Logically the feat that lets you use non-light weapons for TWF, would allow for an off-hand shield bash bonus attack. Steps on Shield Master feat's toes if you allow prof bonus to attack, but does not seem OP to me.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080226There are not enough people in a group to make a good formation in the first place!

You're on a site where many of the posters remember 1e parties that had 6-8 PCs (sometimes more than one per player) along with henchmen, followers, and sometimes hirelings. It wasn't entirely unheard of for an expedition into the dungeon to consist of two dozen people. In narrow places, they could effectively make use of spear & shield formations. Too bad for them that so many enemies had AoE attacks...

About everything from ACKS, except for 2a (polearm style) and 4 (initiative interrupt), is present in 2e with CH:F -- as well as a few other tricks. They help quite a bit. Taking SEVERAL styles which can take advantage of spears is NOT redundant. You can do the same thing with knives & daggers, (small arms & shields are actually nasty in close quarters!).

Quote from: S'mon;1080231Attacking with shield rim in 5e:

This seems already doable in RAW - it's an improvised weapon, but resembles a club in terms of effectiveness although it's not 'light', so I'd suggest letting Proficiency bonus apply if used to attack, for d4+STR damage. This is an attack action not a bonus action.

Wielder always retains shield AC bonus in 5e RAW, I think this makes more sense than losing it, unless it's a teeny-tiny buckler.

Logically the feat that lets you use non-light weapons for TWF, would allow for an off-hand shield bash bonus attack. Steps on Shield Master feat's toes if you allow prof bonus to attack, but does not seem OP to me.

I'd read it just about the same for 5e. In fact, since I'm not all that sold on Feats or the Battlemaster exclusivity on Maneuvers (ignoring the Weapon Mastery feat), I'd easily incorporate that into regular play... and might go further! :eek: I'd introduce different Shield sizes.

New 5e Shields Gear Idea:

• Buckler - AC +1. Special: may treat as Simple Melee Weapon. If used in a melee weapon attack, lose AC benefit until start of next turn. 1 bludgeon. Light.
• Small - AC +1. Special: may treat as Simple Melee Weapon. If used in a melee weapon attack, lose AC benefit until start of next turn. 1d4 bludgeon. Light.
• Tower - AC +2. Special: If used with Dodge action changes to AC +5. (emulates difference between 1/2 cover +2 AC, and 3/4 cover AC +5.)

Adjust to campaign taste.

This was for ACKS, rather than 5e, but this was what I did with shields. The big thing is higher bonuses against missiles for bigger shields.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080226I missed a couple of pages, forgive me.  But why are people CONSTANTLY bringing up Romans?  They didn't used spears.  They threw the equivalent to D&D javelins and then rushed in to stab people with their short swords.  And again, in a FORMATION.

D&D style adventurers DO NOT FIGHT LIKE THAT.  There are not enough people in a group to make a good formation in the first place!

...and again wrong. Especially with early D&D. The early Dungeons featured lots of ten foot corridors where the front rank of three was composed of close range melee fighters, and the back rank featured other characters armed with what? ...Yes, you guessed it... spears and other polearms. Why? Becuase the polearms were reach weapons, and the second rank could attack oncoming monsters just in front of the first rank. It is no accident that Gary had a polearms fetish, and that was because polearms beginning with spears were used extensively in early D&D to improve the survival rating of parties in tight dungeon spaces.

...Now back to the Romans. They did indeed use spears, as well as javelins, and the Pilum. The Roman heavy infantry did not typically carry spears, but the auxilliaries as well as the Roman light and heavy cavalry extensively used spears. FORMATIONS for all of these fighting groups were preferred because the Romans fought organized and well disciplined, unlike their foes. This order and discipline contributed to their victories, especially when they were outnumbered, which was almost always.

Here is the D&D Nostalagia Pinterest
https://www.pinterest.com/giacomoart/nostalgia-dd-rulebooks/?lp=true

Look at all the spears, staves, and polearms being used by characters and monsters alike. This is because spears and polearms were very common in early D&D, something that later editions dropped.

Quote from: SHARK;1079711What do you all think about spears, spear fighting, spear feats, and such? Have you embraced different things such as this in your own campaigns?

The most important fact about spears is that they are cheap and easily repaired. Being four inches of metal stuck on a pole.

I personally thing spears are the bomb especially after watching 300. But in one on one combat, sword and shield have the advantage. The wooden pole of the spear makes it vulnerable and less useful for parrying.

However in the end the sword is more versatile as a melee weapon. It has more mass behind it and more options for different kinds of attack than the spear. The Roman Legion is a good example of creating a kit involving both swords and spears (javelins) with each weapon used for specific purposes.

Back to the historical use of spears in combat. Here is one of the best fight scenes from Troy, the fight between Achilles and Hector. What weapon are they starting with? The spear, of course. Why? Becuase in ancient Greece, it was the most effective weapon. And the Greeks used it extensively over many centuries to achieve battlefield superiority.

Hector & Achilles Duel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAtbzV8CTV0

Why the Greek Phalanx was so popular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9dhvsW8oFI

Using the Spear in a tight Phalanx formation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZVs97QKH-8

Zande style spear test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNv9QquB_IQ

Now let's move from the Bronze age to the late Iron early Steel Age. Observe the spear is still one of the primary weapons being used on the battlefield. Why? Because the spear was an effective reach weapon.

Quick History of the Crusades (note all the artwork featuring crusaders with spears).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcGzQ3ga5R8

Kingdom of Heaven, Battle of Karak (Please note all of the Heavy lances (spears) being used as the primary combat weapon.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAh78K_hqVU&t=44s


Age of Steel

14th-15th century Halberd Tests (Polearms ended the age of chivalry allowing common infantry to bring down elite heavily armed and mounted knights). Firearms were notoriously unreliable and slow to reload during the 14-16th century

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvkRqsiosQk

Which historical weapon requires the least skill to use?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJAykL20Sc4

Spears Versus Chainmail (Chainmail provides excellent protection from swords and slashing weapons)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGSL7XApz2s

Using spears effectively after training with a quarterstaff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLX5Z7vBafc

Historical Weapons: Swords vs. Spears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8


One final note. Charges horses will ordinarily refuse to charge into a spear or stave wall. This was common knowledge used effectively by the British even as late as 1815 at Waterloo against General Ney's heavy cavalry. When the cavalry charged the British formed squares and fixed bayonets, turning their rifles into spears, and they held off the Heavy French Cavalry, inflicting heavy losses with the muskets, but keeping the cavalry at a distance with the Bayonets.

Spears and other polearms were the post popular weapons because they were easy to use and very effective for most of our recorded history.

AD&D 1e was adjusted to reflect this with modifiers which gave the spear and other polearms their true advantages. Gary worked very hard to ensure this was included in the 1st edition of AD&D.

Quote from: estar;1080251However in the end the sword is more versatile as a melee weapon. It has more mass behind it and more options for different kinds of attack than the spear.

This is not really true (about mass), as you have more levage with a spear and could easier do a bind. They are likley equal in versatility. You do much the same with both weapons, even if they do differ (as we all know).

Quote from: estar;1080251The wooden pole of the spear makes it vulnerable and less useful for parrying.

This is only true if you do not know how to handle a spear or quarter staff. But ... true is that

Quote from: estar;1080251... in one on one combat, sword and shield have the advantage.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1080257Back to the historical use of spears in combat. Here is one of the best fight scenes from Troy, the fight between Achilles and Hector. What weapon are they starting with? The spear, of course. Why? Becuase in ancient Greece, it was the most effective weapon. And the Greeks used it extensively over many centuries to achieve battlefield superiority.

Hector & Achilles Duel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAtbzV8CTV0

Why the Greek Phalanx was so popular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9dhvsW8oFI

Using the Spear in a tight Phalanx formation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZVs97QKH-8

Zande style spear test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNv9QquB_IQ

Now let's move from the Bronze age to the late Iron early Steel Age. Observe the spear is still one of the primary weapons being used on the battlefield. Why? Because the spear was an effective reach weapon.

Quick History of the Crusades (note all the artwork featuring crusaders with spears).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcGzQ3ga5R8

Kingdom of Heaven, Battle of Karak (Please note all of the Heavy lances (spears) being used as the primary combat weapon.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAh78K_hqVU&t=44s


Age of Steel

14th-15th century Halberd Tests (Polearms ended the age of chivalry allowing common infantry to bring down elite heavily armed and mounted knights). Firearms were notoriously unreliable and slow to reload during the 14-16th century

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvkRqsiosQk

Which historical weapon requires the least skill to use?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJAykL20Sc4

Spears Versus Chainmail (Chainmail provides excellent protection from swords and slashing weapons)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGSL7XApz2s

Using spears effectively after training with a quarterstaff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLX5Z7vBafc

Historical Weapons: Swords vs. Spears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8


One final note. Charges horses will ordinarily refuse to charge into a spear or stave wall. This was common knowledge used effectively by the British even as late as 1815 at Waterloo against General Ney's heavy cavalry. When the cavalry charged the British formed squares and fixed bayonets, turning their rifles into spears, and they held off the Heavy French Cavalry, inflicting heavy losses with the muskets, but keeping the cavalry at a distance with the Bayonets.

Spears and other polearms were the post popular weapons because they were easy to use and very effective for most of our recorded history.

AD&D 1e was adjusted to reflect this with modifiers which gave the spear and other polearms their true advantages. Gary worked very hard to ensure this was included in the 1st edition of AD&D.

You do know that you can sum up your entire argument with two words right?

BECAUSE ARMY.

Every pole arm in existence was designed for formation fighting in groups of 10 or more soldiers with identical training.  Even early editions of D&D with it's 10 to 20 pikemen were not the norm, because DUNGEON TUNNELS ARE TOO NARROW FOR THE MOST PART.  And a good fireball would wipe out a phalanx from existence.

Dear Gottenheimer people, you're missing some key components here, namely MAGIC.  One could also argue Dragons and their breath weapons, but they're supposed to be very rare and high level encounters anyway, so they're a moot point.  The spear is a TERRIBLE weapon for a single fighter because the range of combat, if you combine with a shield, is forward, whereas if you use it 'Kung-Fu' style in both hands requires a lot of open space around you, because once a foe gets under the tip (which in D&D with it's HP system makes it easier for most monsters to just ignore a 'hit' and keep going) theoretically it's killing surface is dramatically reduced.

The sword as a weapon for a team of adventurers under ground in maybe 6-10" (and that's being GENEROUS) wide corridors is better, although what you really want is Magic because that always works in D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080412You do know that you can sum up your entire argument with two words right?

BECAUSE ARMY.

Every pole arm in existence was designed for formation fighting in groups of 10 or more soldiers with identical training.  Even early editions of D&D with it's 10 to 20 pikemen were not the norm, because DUNGEON TUNNELS ARE TOO NARROW FOR THE MOST PART.  And a good fireball would wipe out a phalanx from existence.

Dear Gottenheimer people, you're missing some key components here, namely MAGIC.  One could also argue Dragons and their breath weapons, but they're supposed to be very rare and high level encounters anyway, so they're a moot point.  The spear is a TERRIBLE weapon for a single fighter because the range of combat, if you combine with a shield, is forward, whereas if you use it 'Kung-Fu' style in both hands requires a lot of open space around you, because once a foe gets under the tip (which in D&D with it's HP system makes it easier for most monsters to just ignore a 'hit' and keep going) theoretically it's killing surface is dramatically reduced.

The sword as a weapon for a team of adventurers under ground in maybe 6-10" (and that's being GENEROUS) wide corridors is better, although what you really want is Magic because that always works in D&D.

Someone with a slashing sword and shield needs more space to fight than someone with a spear and shield. You overstate your case to a ridiculous degree.

Quote from: Kiero;1080416Someone with a slashing sword and shield needs more space to fight than someone with a spear and shield. You overstate your case to a ridiculous degree.

Swords don't stab? Damn, all the Oakshott books were wrong then.  Man, talk about embarrassing.