Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079831Adventurers 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.

Adventurers are very much like mercenaries. Even their place in society is similar.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1079837On 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.

For the archetypical Skythian-style steppe warrior, the essential weapons were a bow, pair of javelins and an akinakes (short sword) or two. Richer ones would add a spear/lance and perhaps a saddle axe, mace or longer sword.

The other part about the Roman panoply is that their shield is huge compared to those used by other peoples. It is as much a part of their system as the sword, one doesn't work without the other.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079775Spears are only superior to swords if the sworddude is not heavily armored and shieldless or if the speardude is fighting against cavalry.

I sort of disagree.

Due to the extra reach a spear gives, with all other factors being equal.

In a straight up fight, a spear has the advantage vs. a sword.

But all things aren't equal all the time.

A spear has far more day to day carry limitations than a sword does.

But most RPGs still model them wrong.

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.

Flatly untrue.

What is the primary weapon of the knight? Not the sword (as others have mentioned it's a sidearm), but the Lance (from the Latin word for spear; lancea).

What did the nobles use when they went out to hunt? Spears (sometimes specialized such as with the boar spear.

Spears are amazing weapons, even in fairly tight dungeon environments (a six foot spear can be maneuvered anywhere a man reach without having to crawl) and is actually better than a slashing sword in tight hallways since it doesn't take nearly as much room to thrust as to swing and has the advantage of greater reach. Realistically a 5' wide hallway would let the party fight three abreast with spears and another 2 spearmen behind them able to attack through the gaps as well.

You can also use it the same way you would a pole when exploring and if the haft gets broken it's pretty cheap to replace (and if just the butt end gets melted off by acid or something you can still use it as a slightly shorter spear).

QuoteNo, 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?

It's not a shit weapon any more than a Colt 1911 is a shit weapon. But you don't use a Colt 1911 when you've got an AR-15 (even in tight quarters a proper pistol stance puts the end of the barrel about where the end of a shouldered AR-15s barrel would be).

But an AR-15 is a pain in the ass to carry around everywhere (among other things it makes you look openly aggressive) and a spear is even worse since it's too long to just sling over your shoulder and forget about. But that Colt 1911 can go right on your belt and be out of your way as you go about your day (and if it's obvious you're carrying its still a deterrent, just not as overt of one) so it's there IF you need it and is "good enough" most of the times you would need it.

The same goes with a sword. It hangs from your waist so your hands are free and is light enough it can hang by your side all day long and it's "good enough" for any situation you're likely to find yourself in when you don't have a spear handy. It also sends the message "don't mess with me... mug the next guy who doesn't have a sword.").

But there's a reason a lot of sword fighting manuals included unusual techniques like half-swording (holding the blade with your offhand halfway along the blade to improve control of the tip), because using the sword like a short spear and aiming for the weak points was about the only way a sword posed a danger to someone in plate armor (a sword was generally MUCH more effective against unarmored opponents like brigands you might encounter on the road or in a dark alley).

Swords and spears are both tools with advantages and disadvantages. The primary edge for swords is ease of carry and being "good enough." It's primary disadvantage is sometimes you need better than "good enough." The primary edge for spears is reach and more mass behind the tip (which aids penetration). It's primary disadvantage is it's heavier and more cumbersome to lug around.

Swords are a status symbol because it takes a lot of skill (and therefore cost) to forge a good one and because it allows the warrior noble to always be armed (a privilege generally reserved for nobility off the field of battle) and be armed with something good enough to mow down members of the third estate and your typical outlaws if they happened to get ideas about assaulting those of noble station.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079775Spears are only superior to swords if the sworddude is not heavily armored and shieldless or if the speardude is fighting against cavalry.

You are quite wrong on this account, and I'm going to tell you why with a very simple example. The Roman Pilum. This is a light spear, and each roman heavy infantry soldier carried three in addition to his Gladius (Short Sword) and Pugio (Dagger). The tip and shaft was made of lead which was encased in wood. Somewhere between 18-24 inches of the Pilum lead shaft was exposed with the tip, and the Romans would throw these at the approaching rank of celts/britons/germans. Now the Barbarians were themselves armed with spear and usually (wooden shields) also. The pilums if they hit the enemy would injure them. If the enemy put up their shield, the pilum would penetrate the shield, and then the shaft would bend, and the barbarian would be left dragging a shield that was unwieldy, because it had a spear hanging out of it. To fight effectively the Barbarian would have to throw away the shield with the dragging spear, and face the front rank of roman heavy infantry with just their spear or heavy weapon, and the roman all carried a heavy steel shield that provided excellent protection against spears as well as swords. The romans would then close, continuing to use their pilums until they were all damaged or thrown away, and then fought with the heavy shield and sword. The spears proved themselves time and again as usually the romans were outnumbered by their foes.

This is the first example of late iron age spear superiority, I'll provide additional examples from both the bronze age and early steel age if necessary, but for a long time, the spear was the single best weapon to have in combat.

Only after Damascus steel swords (made with carbon) , firearms (deadly ranged weapons) and pikes (a spear variant) were made, did spears lose their superiority.

If you want spears in your fantasy, post-0e is not your friend.

Spears are very popular in my 0e games (and S&W:WB) because all weapons have a base D6 damage (with +1/-1 mods depending on the weapon), therefore players choose weapons not on damage, but based on their other characteristics. Spears can attack from the 2nd rank and you can set a spear vs. charge, and you can throw it or poke stuff too.

If you want more spears in your fantasy, I absolutely recommend MAZES & MINOTAURS!
http://mazesandminotaurs.free.fr/

It's free, its awesome, its just a click away.

BTW, I know the "D&D spear" isn't historical, it's a Hollywood weapon from Jason & the Argonauts and other "sandal fantasy" flicks.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1079856You are quite wrong on this account, and I'm going to tell you why with a very simple example. The Roman Pilum. This is a light spear, and each roman heavy infantry soldier carried three in addition to his Gladius (Short Sword) and Pugio (Dagger). The tip and shaft was made of lead which was encased in wood. Somewhere between 18-24 inches of the Pilum lead shaft was exposed with the tip, and the Romans would throw these at the approaching rank of celts/britons/germans. Now the Barbarians were themselves armed with spear and usually (wooden shields) also. The pilums if they hit the enemy would injure them. If the enemy put up their shield, the pilum would penetrate the shield, and then the shaft would bend, and the barbarian would be left dragging a shield that was unwieldy, because it had a spear hanging out of it. To fight effectively the Barbarian would have to throw away the shield with the dragging spear, and face the front rank of roman heavy infantry with just their spear or heavy weapon, and the roman all carried a heavy steel shield that provided excellent protection against spears as well as swords. The romans would then close, continuing to use their pilums until they were all damaged or thrown away, and then fought with the heavy shield and sword. The spears proved themselves time and again as usually the romans were outnumbered by their foes.

This is the first example of late iron age spear superiority, I'll provide additional examples from both the bronze age and early steel age if necessary, but for a long time, the spear was the single best weapon to have in combat.

Only after Damascus steel swords (made with carbon) , firearms (deadly ranged weapons) and pikes (a spear variant) were made, did spears lose their superiority.

Greetings!

GameDaddy! Excellent example! For the purposes of further demonstrating the glories of spears as a martial weapon, please, provide your examples, my friend! Don't hold back! The spear needs more love, you know? I think it's great when DM's and players alike can be exposed to different perspectives and chewy bites of history that can help them to think differently about various topics in a new, fresh way.

As an aside, I also think that D&D has somewhat neutered the Shield. I'm not sure that I'm entirely satisfied with the Shieldmaster Feat. Shields, especially in a Roman or a Knight's context, are very useful in combat, not merely as a defensive tool. Countless examples of warfare through the ages, though especially with Ancient Rome, discusses how very often and entirely common for the Roman Legionnaires to be closed in, fighting with their shields. Bashing, throwing an enemy warrior off his feet, crushing an enemy's face with the steel edge of the shield being brought down, the edge of the shield being shoved horizontally in a strike against an enemy warrior, and so on.

You also see plenty of shield and spear action, working in concert together, with the Greek Hoplites, amongst also the great champions, such as Achilles. The Greeks and Macedonians also were very fond of using shields and spears throughout combat engagements. Stories of Alexander's conquests are replete with desperate struggles down in the front lines, as Phalanx warriors dropped their pikes, or used a broken pike, fighting with a shield or dagger. Likewise, other warriors, using their shields, and a lighter spear, fighting in close, hand to hand combat. It is always an impressive and inspiring vision reading about these warriors really throwing themselves into the meatgrinder of frontline combat.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079859If you want spears in your fantasy, post-0e is not your friend.

I need to preface this post with stating that due to working on Knights of the Black Lily for an official RPG publication in recent years, I've had to face questions like "How realistic do you want to go?" with some serious thought. The problem with realism in fantasy I encountered is that fantasy is generally a wild mix of differing pre-modern periods (and different regions!), especially visible with the range of armors commonly worn. This range of armors in fantasy is much more variied than what you would have found in, say, the year 1380 in western France. So, realism in fantasy is a bit of a rabbit hole to climb down. Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe it's a good thing that fantasy isn't super-realistic. It's called fantasy for a reason, after all.

Quote from: Jaeger;1079849I sort of disagree.

Due to the extra reach a spear gives, with all other factors being equal.

In a straight up fight, a spear has the advantage vs. a sword.

While the spear is generally seriously under-represented from a historical perspective, let's not make the mistake of over-compensating. With a shield or armor, your opponent probably gets only 1 or 2 stabs at you before you get into a range where you're more comfortable with your sword, which can cut down its entire length.

The best argument for the effectiveness of the combination of sword and shield (or sword and full plate) is medieval battle illustrations. You see a lot of spears, true. But also a lot of swords.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1079856You are quite wrong on this account, and I'm going to tell you why with a very simple example. The Roman Pilum.

Please, let's not compare a melee weapon with a ranged weapon, a throwing spear. I will concede though that the (sort of) medieval successor of the pilum, the war dart, seriously needs more love in games as well.

Quote from: SHARK;1079860GameDaddy! Excellent example! For the purposes of further demonstrating the glories of spears as a martial weapon, please, provide your examples, my friend! Don't hold back! The spear needs more love, you know? I think it's great when DM's and players alike can be exposed to different perspectives and chewy bites of history that can help them to think differently about various topics in a new, fresh way.

If you need more on spears, my advise is to search the schola gladiatoria youtube channel for spears. And watch this video:
[video=youtube;afqhBODc_8U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U[/youtube]

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079887So, realism in fantasy is a bit of a rabbit hole to climb down. Be careful what you wish for.

Exactly.

Your system should achieve your goals for your setting. AKA, the "best choices" for gear/styles in the setting should be reflected in how the rules work. AKA, Mazes & Minotaurs makes spears & shields awesome while 40k makes melee and ranged combat effectively equal choices or how L5R makes katanas magically badass. Not because these choices make "realistic" sense, but because they reflect the setting.

And if you want a "realistic setting", then pick a place and time period (1300 AD France) and build rules that encourage the emulation of that time and place with the "reality" of that time being the optimal choices during gameplay.

I play 1E BtB, so, while situational factors can matter quite a bit, spears are often one of the most effective weapons.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079859If you want spears in your fantasy, post-0e is not your friend.

Spears are very popular in my 0e games (and S&W:WB) because all weapons have a base D6 damage (with +1/-1 mods depending on the weapon), therefore players choose weapons not on damage, but based on their other characteristics. Spears can attack from the 2nd rank and you can set a spear vs. charge, and you can throw it or poke stuff too.

And even without counting the second row, you can pack more spear wielders in the front row for a given width than you can sword swingers. If the spear wielders are getting 5-6 attacks vs. 2 attacks for their foes, spears make a lot more sense as a weapon of choice. Also the spear being longer, the spear wielder might hit before the sword guy gets in range. Give the spear wielder first attack so any sword swinger who drops or can no longer swing his blade 'cause he was hit first, and now the odds may look more like 6 attacks vs. 1 attack. Are you sure you want to start out swinging that sword?

Level-based systems tend to minimize the advantage of the spear since characters above Level 1 can still swing their sword even after they are hit with a spear. The better strike rank (first strike) and the static hit points in games like Runequest make the spear a much more respectable weapon and consequently you see a lot of PCs who use a spear.

Spears 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.

Spears sing in AD&D 2e WITH Complete Handbook Fighter. Short spears and long spears are introduced, as are 2nd rank (row) tactics, new gear throwing ranges, and some weapon style tricks. And yet it is as much crunch as you want to turn on, which is important. Sometimes I just care about the tactics, like ranged 2nd rank attacks, othertimes I want more widgets like styles, other games just more variety in new gear with stats.

Other games focus on one of the three dimensions: setting gear, suggested tactics (and a widget or two,) or PC widgets. And I have seen it do one dimension better often. But it's a buffet this way so I can adjust as important as it matters to my table.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1079856You are quite wrong on this account, and I'm going to tell you why with a very simple example. The Roman Pilum. This is a light spear, and each roman heavy infantry soldier carried three in addition to his Gladius (Short Sword) and Pugio (Dagger). The tip and shaft was made of lead which was encased in wood. Somewhere between 18-24 inches of the Pilum lead shaft was exposed with the tip, and the Romans would throw these at the approaching rank of celts/britons/germans. Now the Barbarians were themselves armed with spear and usually (wooden shields) also. The pilums if they hit the enemy would injure them. If the enemy put up their shield, the pilum would penetrate the shield, and then the shaft would bend, and the barbarian would be left dragging a shield that was unwieldy, because it had a spear hanging out of it. To fight effectively the Barbarian would have to throw away the shield with the dragging spear, and face the front rank of roman heavy infantry with just their spear or heavy weapon, and the roman all carried a heavy steel shield that provided excellent protection against spears as well as swords. The romans would then close, continuing to use their pilums until they were all damaged or thrown away, and then fought with the heavy shield and sword. The spears proved themselves time and again as usually the romans were outnumbered by their foes.

This is the first example of late iron age spear superiority, I'll provide additional examples from both the bronze age and early steel age if necessary, but for a long time, the spear was the single best weapon to have in combat.

Only after Damascus steel swords (made with carbon) , firearms (deadly ranged weapons) and pikes (a spear variant) were made, did spears lose their superiority.

The 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.

Quote from: SHARK;1079860As an aside, I also think that D&D has somewhat neutered the Shield. I'm not sure that I'm entirely satisfied with the Shieldmaster Feat. Shields, especially in a Roman or a Knight's context, are very useful in combat, not merely as a defensive tool. Countless examples of warfare through the ages, though especially with Ancient Rome, discusses how very often and entirely common for the Roman Legionnaires to be closed in, fighting with their shields. Bashing, throwing an enemy warrior off his feet, crushing an enemy's face with the steel edge of the shield being brought down, the edge of the shield being shoved horizontally in a strike against an enemy warrior, and so on.

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.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079887I need to preface this post with stating that due to working on Knights of the Black Lily for an official RPG publication in recent years, I've had to face questions like "How realistic do you want to go?" with some serious thought. The problem with realism in fantasy I encountered is that fantasy is generally a wild mix of differing pre-modern periods (and different regions!), especially visible with the range of armors commonly worn. This range of armors in fantasy is much more variied than what you would have found in, say, the year 1380 in western France. So, realism in fantasy is a bit of a rabbit hole to climb down. Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe it's a good thing that fantasy isn't super-realistic. It's called fantasy for a reason, after all.

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.

Quote from: Kiero;1079943Being "fantasy" is no excuse for glaring inconsistencies that stand up to little scrutiny.

I will need evidence for that because the most popular pieces of fiction are all kinda inconsistent.

I have recently been working on an OSR style rules set recently and have been re-reading 1e again. Gygax's wargaming background shows in the design with the weapon data table. If read right (vs the wearers Armour AC not the total AC with dex, magic and other modifiers) the usefulness of various weapons becomes more evident, especially the polearms. I am adapting this principle in my rules design for the game, I hope to make it more streamlined and easier to understand.