Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080412The 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.

Yes the older preference for spears and polearms come from the earliest versions of D&D including Chainmail, which was mostly about historical type troops fighting, with a fantasy elements that were added in as an afterthought. And yes, the preference for spears and polearms was about having the best equipped medieval or dark ages army. Later when the game tilted more towards fantasy, we saw less and less rules included to accurately model actual melee combat.

Magic didn't always automatically work in D&D. In the early games it was rare, and their were several early variants for the rules that reflected mishaps and critical fumbles, not to mention many of the spells are ineffective if the characters make their saving throws. So it doesn't always work. Dwarves and Hobbits had improved magic resistance (I.E. naturally better saving throws), and magic worked better against some character classes, and were much less effective against other character classes, and some monsters were highly magic resistant. Magic rarely works against older Dragons, Demons, and a host of other special monsters. To say magic always works in D&D is utterly false, and was not the case with original D&D.

I have rules variants from early Dragon magazine that include the effects of spell critical success, as well as backfire tables.  The Dungeoneer featured articles that included variants for wizards wearing armor and using long-bladed weapons. I feel like a historian, because we played D&D with variant rules that included options for spell failure, especially when learning spells. one thing that was added in Greyhawk was a table for the Magic-Users for the chance to know each listed spell, and that depended on the intelligence of the magic user. When the magic user leveled and gained access to a new level of spells (for example, when Eharad the Theurgist gains enough experience points to become Eharad the Thaumaturgist, a 5th level Wizard, he gains access to third level spells. Note that he doesn't automatically have access to the entire 3rd level spell list in the white books or in AD&D1e PHB, but has to roll, and there is a percentage chance to see if he had already learned the spell at some earlier time). basically if the Wizard had an Intelligence of 13 or 14 he/she had a 55% chance to already know the desired spell off of the spell list. If the magic user didn't know the spell, he/she could copy the spell from another Wizard's spellbook, or he or she could attempt to do magical research to create or learn the spell. Magic research was very expensive, and there was a chance of failing to learn the spell (depending on how much money/gold was invested into researching the spell), and of course there we added hazardous, fun, and entertaining backfire tables for critical fumbles that occurred during magical research.

In our early D&D games that were played until about 1982 or so, a wizard could research one spell, and end up with a completely different spell, provided the research didn't kill or grievously injure the wizard first. To those who would say that magic always works in D&D, I would say, you didn't actually learn how to play D&D, or even AD&D1e for that matter. I don't even know of any D&D game where magic always works the way it was intended to. Wait, I do. If a wizard has learned magic missile and casts it, the wizard automatically hits his target, and automatically does a number of dice of damage to his target. Wait no, that is wrong as well... If the target has any protection spells from magic missiles, then the magic missile will fail as well, ...so there is really absolutely no guarantee that magic will work in D&D, or AD&D1e, or 3e for that matter. I don't know if this holds true for 2e, or the newer editions of the rules though, and don't particularly care, as I have not normally run or play those editions of D&D.

There were two main lines of thought for creating completely new magic spells, another words, spells that weren't in the original books.

One was the original D&D rules for spell research, which I disagreed with and didn't really end up using much. To sum up the original rules for you all real quick, Your wizard basically invested time and money into the research of a new spell. The time was a fixed cost, and the time it took to create the spell, depended on the level of the spell. The amount of money invested per spell level determined your base chance of success. Naturally the more money you invested, the better your chance of creating the desired spell, and with the original rules as published in the white bookset, and later in DMG. With these rules you could actually invest enough money to have a 100% chance of successfully creating your new spell, provided you invested enough money into the research. I disagreed with this, becuase nothing should every be 100% certain when it came to magic, because MAGIC!!!...

We were not favorable toward the idea that Monty Haul style Wizard players could automatically get new spells, by throwing easily and cheaply earned gold at the spell creation process. For us, in our gaming group, creating completely new spells had to be, ...you know a mystical, hazardous, and magical experience!

So we devised some alternate rules, where the chance of success for creating new spells depended on a fixed cost determined by spell level, and the Intelligence of the Wizard creating the new spell. Basically it was a simple system where the research cost started at 1,000 GP per level, and doubled every level up to ninth, and there was a base 5% chance per Int point the wizard had, so if your wizard invested 16,000 Gp and five weeks of time into researching a new 5th level spell, if his Intelligence was 12, he had a base 60% chance of creating the new spell, and then he/she would have a completely new spell, or spell variant that no one else in the game had. naturally if he or she failed, their was a chance of a mishap, or some unintended creation of a completely new spell, with unintended consequences, unintended side-effects, and sometimes even the spell that was created was twisted or came out completely different from what was originally intended. If the Wizard had an Intelligence of 18 he/she had a 90% chance of successfully creating the new spell. If the Wizard's INT was advanced or enhanced to 20, we always capped the base chance of success at 99%, so that there was always some small chance of new wild magic getting into the game.


Here is an example of a spell list of one of my early Wizard variants, the Mist Wizard. Mist Wizards progressed as normal magic-users in all respects, except that the can learn some unique spells that are not normally available except at the School of magic or Wizardry, where a Mist Wizard teaches.

Fog of Blood Wiz1
Fog of Cold Wiz1
Mists of Confusion Wiz2
Fog of Dissolution Wiz2
Mists of Lightning Wiz3
Mists of Sleep Wiz3
Ground Fog - Trigger Spell Wiz4
Blademist Wiz4
Fog of Darkness Wiz5
Songmist - Mist of Voices Wiz5
Mist of Entanglement - Slows Targets Wiz 5
Fog of Disorientation Wiz6
Dimension Mist - Wiz 6 Teleports
Mist of Anti-Magic Wiz7
Mist of Wizardry - Mist of Magic Draining - Wiz 8
Mist of Forgetfulness - Affects Skills and Feats - Wiz 9

There is also some really good alternate rules for new spell creation and magic design in an article in Dragon Magazine #242 called The Laws of Spell Design.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080422Swords don't stab? Damn, all the Oakshott books were wrong then.  Man, talk about embarrassing.

Well done, you've just removed one of the advantages a sword has over a spear. If you're only using it to thrust, the spear has much better reach.

Quote from: Kiero;1080445Well done, you've just removed one of the advantages a sword has over a spear. If you're only using it to thrust, the spear has much better reach.

But the spear can ONLY thrust.  Swords are much more versatile, with thrusts, slashes, cuts, parries, ripostes...

You guys really really need to watch this video:

[video=youtube;uLLv8E2pWdk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk[/youtube]

Some possibly counter-intuitive findings, such as 2-h spear is way better than spear & shield in a one-on-one.

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.

Because spears are cheaper than swords, and quicker and easier to make. If you have the men available, then it's better to have 100 spearmen than 10 swordsmen. A lot of fighting is courage, particularly for poorly-trained men as the enemy approach for the first time, and you have more courage with a man on either side of you than on your own.

As well, if you can train them to use a shield wall and wedge their spears into the ground, then those 100 guys can stand against well-equipped and well-trained cavalry; they don't have to be individually masters of spear-fighting, they just stand there. So if you have 100 guys who you just pulled out of the fields then spears are a pretty good option.

That sort of larger battle and morale effects are generally not played out in D&D much.

Spears typically have greater reach, too, but reach is also not dealt with much in D&D. RuneQuest did it by giving you a bonus to initiative if you had a longer weapon, along with Dex coming into it, but sequential attacks with many combatants, as opposed to side A goes, side B goes, can get muddled, it's tricky to do well.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1080455That sort of larger battle and morale effects are generally not played out in D&D much.

I can't comprehend RPGs without morale rules (even if the publisher forgets them). Living things don't like dying.

Well there's that, but there are other aspect of morale, too. How well-paid are you? How well-trained, and confident in what you're doing? How much do you trust the other guys in the unit to at least bring your body home to your mother? Did you volunteer to be here or did someone force you by standing behind you with a whip? Has anyone else broken and run yet? Are you "fighting another man's war" or are you defending your home? Were you brought up with tales of manly struggle and heroic deaths, or with tales of sitting in an airconditioned office and eating buttered lobster for dinner?

And so on and so forth. It's not just the threat of imminent death, or else nobody would ever go into combat.

That's all true. Thus the modifier to the morale roll!

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1079837It wasn't exactly a shit weapon but it wasn't the first weapon unless the badass is a Roman.

Technically the sword wasn't the first weapon for Romans either. It was the primary weapon of most legionaries, but their FIRST weapon was the pilum - a badass throwing spear which wrecked enemy formations - since every legionary carried one or two. I've read the argument that it was the big secret to their success against enemy infantry.

But anyway - at the OP - you really shouldn't look at army formations for whether swords or spears would be better for D&D style adventurers. Look at historical dueling trends.

Though really - I think that monster hunting weaponry would likely not end up looking the same as human focused weaponry anyway - in the same way an elephant gun isn't the best thing to use on a battlefield. I think it'd be cool if adventurers had specialty weapons against different beasts.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080448But the spear can ONLY thrust.  Swords are much more versatile, with thrusts, slashes, cuts, parries, ripostes...

Some of which you can't do easily in a confined space, and you can parry and riposte just fine with a spear. You really do seem to have a distorted notion of what is possible with a hafted weapon.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1080459Well there's that, but there are other aspect of morale, too. How well-paid are you? How well-trained, and confident in what you're doing? How much do you trust the other guys in the unit to at least bring your body home to your mother? Did you volunteer to be here or did someone force you by standing behind you with a whip? Has anyone else broken and run yet? Are you "fighting another man's war" or are you defending your home? Were you brought up with tales of manly struggle and heroic deaths, or with tales of sitting in an airconditioned office and eating buttered lobster for dinner?

And so on and so forth. It's not just the threat of imminent death, or else nobody would ever go into combat.

Indeed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080448But the spear can ONLY thrust.  Swords are much more versatile, with thrusts, slashes, cuts, parries, ripostes...

That depends on the spear. A yari, most designs, can only thrust but naginata can thrust and cut. Of course, Japanese sources call the naginata a sword but it looks like a spear to most of us. Lots of European designs can cut as well as thrust, although most aren't great cutting weapons.

However, even one on one, even on an adventure, a spear-wielder can kill or incapacitate you before you can reach him. You never get a "turn." That's the same advantage you, the swordsman, have over someone with a dagger. Of course, if you can get past the spearhead, or the knife-wielder can get body to body, then the short weapon has the advantage. But you have the first chance to die, just as the blackjack player has the first chance to bust. That's the edge to the dealer and the point to the spear.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1080543the point to the spear.

Pun intended?

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1080475Technically the sword wasn't the first weapon for Romans either. It was the primary weapon of most legionaries, but their FIRST weapon was the pilum - a badass throwing spear which wrecked enemy formations - since every legionary carried one or two. I've read the argument that it was the big secret to their success against enemy infantry.

A Pilum is a javelin.  It also proves that that neither the spear nor the sword is the superiour weapon, ranged combat is better.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1080475But anyway - at the OP - you really shouldn't look at army formations for whether swords or spears would be better for D&D style adventurers. Look at historical dueling trends.

No.  Hell no.  Most dueling weapons originally were normal combat weapons, and then were refined for concealment and then lowered chance to seem dangerous.  A lot of the deaths in duels were due to bleed outs.  And there were rules that both sides followed.  Orcs and goblins won't care as they bludgeon you and your family.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1080475Though really - I think that monster hunting weaponry would likely not end up looking the same as human focused weaponry anyway - in the same way an elephant gun isn't the best thing to use on a battlefield. I think it'd be cool if adventurers had specialty weapons against different beasts.

Yes, because a pin pricker would be SO effective against a griffon, a manticore, a giant.  No, two handed weapons are best for monster hunting, especially the bigger ones.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080548A Pilum is a javelin.  It also proves that that neither the spear nor the sword is the superiour weapon, ranged combat is better.

The pilum is a specialized javelin designed to break up shield formations by weighing down shields even when blocked by sticking in them. It wasn't that they killed the enemy (they did - but a lot of armies had various throwing weapons) it was then they wrecked up the enemy shield wall just before contact, giving the Romans the edge in the melee which happened seconds later.

And if ranged weapons are always 'better' - then why did historical armies not go entirely ranged troops before guns? There is no 'best'.