D&D General Spear: d8; versatile d10, and when used two-handed, can be lunged one-handed (d8) with reach.

[greg kaye]

That's because they were cheap. Equipping your infantry with the cheapest possible weapons has been government policy ever since government was invented.

And Sparta was bronze age - they didn't have iron or steel weapons.

This is the elephant in the room so far as D&D rules are concerned. Make a simple weapon better than martial weapons? That has big consequences for the game. Martial Weapon proficiency becomes worthless, and spears become compulsory for clerics, bards and the like.

My suggestion if you want to have better spears: gate it behind a Spear Fighting Combat Style.

Spears were, quite simply better than swords in every respect - except portability, accessibility, and glinty swingyness - but they were (be it marginally and with requirements for equivalent levels of training) better weapons, as weapons


My edited suggestion is:

Spear (when used with Martial training): d8 piercing; versatile d10 piercing or d6 bludgeoning and, while being used two-handed, can be lunged one-handed (d6) with reach?

I'd similarly suggest that all polearms might be useable for d6 bludgeoning.

In comparison, Glaives and Halberds have 1d10 slashing but that's with reach (and the non-mechanical property of more glinty swingyness). Even in game mechanics, they still have advantages, especially in contexts involving of a second line of fighters.

Swords, admittedly, were better weapons for aristocrats while mounted on stationary horses and while hacking into the peasantry.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Spears were, quite simply better than swords in every respect

The Roman legions did pretty well with the Gladius.

But sure, swords where largely expensive status symbols, with mythic status. And D&D, being a game based on myth rather than fact, makes them appropriately overpowered.

But, once the iron age set in, various forms of long handled axe where more effective for general use, with spears relegated to the status of anti-cavalry and when nothing better could be afforded. But that's for army verses army. What's effective used in a phalanx against another phalanx can't be expected to be equally good one on one against a dragon.

 

[greg kaye]

The Roman legions did pretty well with the Gladius.

The Roman legions did pretty well against all types of weapon with either gladius or spear in tight, close combat, phalanx formations. The gladius also had that much sort after, mobile advantage of being hands free, at least while not in use. Nonetheless, you make a great point and my every respect comment went too far.

It might be interesting though to take the shields away from two equally trained legionaries, one with a nice short gladius and the other with a relatively longer spear and see how they got on.

In the real world, daggers could also deal as fatal blows as any weapon to anyone. They were often the weapon of choice once into close combat. Shortswords also have the 5e advantage of finesse. I'm sure that the well-placed hits that we call criticals may have advantaged smaller and finesse-enabled weapons.

... once the iron age set in, various forms of long handled axe where more effective for general use ...

Long or short-handed picks and warhammers were notable in the takeover from both spears and (whether great or not) swords when armour became more involved. Armour is a tricky issue but, again, daggers could be great.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It might be interesting though to take the shields away from two equally trained legionaries, one with a nice short gladius and the other with a relatively longer spear and see how they got on.

Without the shield the spear wins, with the shield the gladius wins. That's simple. But that doesn't make the spear better. The Roman shield is the real secret weapon, it neutralises spears, especially deployed in formation.

In the real world, daggers could also deal as fatal blows as any weapon to anyone.

Probably not against a tank though, which is effectively what a dragon is. D&D is not the real world, trying to make it work like it is silly.

 

[greg kaye]

Without the shield the spear wins, with the shield the gladius wins. That's simple. But that doesn't make the spear better. The Roman shield is the real secret weapon, it neutralises spears, especially deployed in formation.

c,mon the brits.

Phalanx | military formation

phalanx, in military science, tactical formation consisting of a block of heavily armed infantry standing shoulder to shoulder in files several ranks deep. Fully developed by the ancient Greeks, it survived in modified form into the gunpowder era and is viewed today as the beginning of...

www.britannica.com

"From the founding of their city-state until the close of the 2nd century BC, the Romans found the Greek-style phalanx suitable for fighting in the plains of Latium. The basic weapon for this formation was a thrusting spear called the hasta; from this the heavy infantry derived its name, hastati, retaining it even after Rome abandoned the phalanx for the more flexible legion."

But, yes, shields used in close phylanx formations were great.

Probably not against a tank though, which is effectively what a dragon is. D&D is not the real world, trying to make it work like it is silly.

Fair point. I'd said, "daggers could also deal as fatal blows as any weapon to anyone." My apologies to dragons for misidentifying them as things.

 

[Minigiant]

Spears were, quite simply better than swords in every respect - except portability, accessibility, and glinty swingyness - but they were (be it marginally and with requirements for equivalent levels of training) better weapons, as weapons

Spears are better in formations when the spearmen can make a single directional offense on smooth surfaces where you can't be flanked easily.
AKA dungeon hallways and warzones

Swords are better when the warrior cannot control the battelfield or cannot reliably for a frontline with others
AKA almost everywhere else.

And since D&D has enemy AOE which counters buying a wall of peasant spearmen, an adventurer would prefer a sword.

 

[greg kaye]

Spears are better in formations when the spearmen can make a single directional offense on smooth surfaces where you can't be flanked easily.
AKA dungeon hallways and warzones

Swords are better when the warrior cannot control the battelfield or cannot reliably for a frontline with others
AKA almost everywhere else. ...

With fair thought:
A: "I can only think that there are some things that the sword is better at, there must be some scenarios where the sword triumphs, so I think there should be an experiment."
B: "SCIENCE!!!"
Even among participants who had mainly trained with swords and similar.
with one-on-one: swords or other chosen bladed weapon 23 - spears 30
adding group battles (which sometimes became internally chaotic), swords... 26 - spears 35
(even when some participants hadn't held a spear before).

And since D&D has enemy AOE which counters buying a wall of peasant spearmen, an adventurer would prefer a sword.

AOE has no prejudice in targeting adventurers dependent on the weapons they carry.

However, I have NO objection to the sword being good.

5e Longswords get automatic d8, versatile d10, and the potential to leave the adventurer more readily hands-free between encounters. Even though spears are scientifically proven to be better, I'm just saying that something similar might be applied.

 

[Minigiant]

With fair thought:
A: "I can only think that there are some things that the sword is better at, there must be some scenarios where the sword triumphs, so I think there should be an experiment."
B: "SCIENCE!!!"
Even among participants who had mainly trained with swords and similar.
with one-on-one: swords or other chosen bladed weapon 23 - spears 30
adding group battles (which sometimes became internally chaotic), swords... 26 - spears 35

D&D isn't one on one.
D&D isn't even X spearman or X swordsman vs anything.

The D&D fighter is backed up not by another 4 fighters but mostly mace welding priests, dagger wielding rogues and mages. It's combined weapons.
Spears are good in open duels, spearwalls, and corridors. D&D fights are rarely the first, never the second, and sometimes the third.

Orc: Dat humie only gotz wun stabby bit an no shield. So if we charge at ‘em while Og drows an axe, 'e kan only stab wun uv us.

AOE has no prejudice in targeting adventurers dependent on the weapons they carry.

No shield. Most of the benefits of spears are reduced if wield one handed in an open field unless designed to be wielded one handed in an open field.

 

[aco175]

Could the spear be a simple and a martial weapon? Simple weapon- d6 thrown 20/60 versatile d8. Martial weapon- d8 thrown 20/60 versatile d10, and maybe add reach.

I know this may open other weapons to become martial and makes an argument for just adding a feature to the fighter where they just bump each weapon up a die which may be ok.

 

[greg kaye]

Most of the benefits of spears are reduced if wield one handed in an open field unless designed to be wielded one handed in an open field.

And yet, even with trained sword fighters on an open field, even when combatants are engaging from multiple directions, spears win.

In 5e a character with a lance or pike can swing around

"Orc: Dat humie only gotz wun [little swordy bit]. So if we [surround] ‘em with our long spears while Og drows an axe, 'e .. wun [get to hit any] uv us."