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

[Minigiant]

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] an no shield. So if we [surround] ‘em with our long spears while Og drows an axe, 'e .. wun [get to hit any] uv us."

There are no spear wall mechanics in D&D

Look at the ~16.35 mark on the video. Spear (and shield) is effective in large formations when your brother stand side by sidewith you.

In D&D, your wizard brother is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back there behind you.
And your rogue behind is behind a box or pillar sneaking up on the solo giant monster or mass of humaniods barreling down on the spearman.

If outpowered or outnumbered like that in small/no formations, you want the versatility of a sword which can swing, stab, parry, block, and bash effectively.

And at 21:40 Swords kills Spears one on one open field if both sides are trained because the swordsmen knows how to close.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Just make more weapons

There's a longsword, greatsword, and shortsword
Make a longspear, greatspear, and shortspear

That exists
Longspear = spear
Greeatspear=pike
shortspear=javelin (which people forget is a melee weapon you can throw, not a ranged weapon)

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.

The Zulu would like a word. The zulu fought with large shields and short spears (dnd javelins) they used in short, underhanded stabbing motions from between shields.

The romans used...well the Roman's used everything depending on their foes and the terrain. Over close to a thousand years and three continents of combat, it would be amazing if they did that with a single type of army even if it was referred to as "the legion" for so long. At various points "the legions" were heavily armored cataphracts using spatha vs Persian deghans in the byzantine era, long spear/pike/sarissa in phalanx in the early periods, possibly battle chariots in britain, some kind of irregular small unit hodgepodge in the forests of germany (arguably their vietnam), and of course gladius & shield in the expansionist periods.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Zulu would like a word. The zulu fought with large shields and short spears (dnd javelins) they used in short, underhanded stabbing motions from between shields.

Zulu shields where oval and made of hide. Their formations left gaps to be exploited and the hide could be pieced. Rectangular metal shields win.

 

[greg kaye]

There are no spear wall mechanics in D&D

Look at the ~16.35 mark on the video. Spear (and shield) is effective in large formations when your brother stand side by sidewith you.

In D&D, your wizard brother is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back there behind you.
And your rogue behind is behind a box or pillar sneaking up on the solo giant monster or mass of humaniods barreling down on the spearman.

If outpowered or outnumbered like that in small/no formations, you want the versatility of a sword which can swing, stab, parry, block, and bash effectively.

And at 21:40 Swords kills Spears one on one open field if both sides are trained because the swordsmen knows how to close.

Have you looked at 5e polearm master or watched people fight with quarterstaff-type weapons? You can still parry and can hit people to the front, back and sides of you.
(5e indicates that you can swing around with a lance or a pike).

 

[Minigiant]

Have you looked at 5e polearm master or watched people fight with quarterstaff-type weapons? You can still parry and can hit people to the front, back and sides of you.
(5e indicates that you can swing around with a lance or a pike).

I didn't say spear were bad.

I said in the way D&D is played, less than half your party will be frontline. And less than half of them will be spearmen.
If only a quarter of your frontline can be effective frontliners, you are better off with swords.

It is well known that 5e overbuffs polearms and underpowers one handed weapons when you bring in feats.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Have you looked at 5e polearm master or watched people fight with quarterstaff-type weapons? You can still parry and can hit people to the front, back and sides of you.
(5e indicates that you can swing around with a lance or a pike).

If you use it as a quarterstaff it's as effective as a quarterstaff. Slightly less really, since it has an unbalancing lump of metal on the end. I mean, you can fight like that with a broom or a mop, and it will be effective if the wielder is good enough.

 

[greg kaye]

If you use it as a quarterstaff it's as effective as a quarterstaff. Slightly less really, since it has an unbalancing lump of metal on the end. I mean, you can fight like that with a broom or a mop, and it will be effective if the wielder is good enough.

True. I was replying to:

... a sword which can swing, stab, parry, block, and bash effectively. ...

My comment that with a spear:

You can still parry and can hit people to the front, back and sides of you

stands. That sharp and slender "lump" of metal isn't relatively so big. Have you seen the 7lb great axe in 5e?

 

[kigmatzomat]

Zulu shields where oval and made of hide. Their formations left gaps to be exploited and the hide could be pieced. Rectangular metal shields win.

Zulu shields were designed to stop spears. Their hide was hardened with the hair left on so it was difficult to pierce.

Romans used the round parma for 300-odd years until Marius widely deployed the square sputum. Which was often replaced by a parma in areas like Germany where unit formation wasn't possible, or when cavalry became the dominant branch of the Legion.

There is no one "Roman legion".

 

[Minigiant]

True. I was replying to:

My comment that with a spear:

stands. That sharp and slender "lump" of metal isn't relatively so big. Have you seen the 7lb great axe in 5e?

My point is a sword is better on average att all of those that a spear.

A sword swings, bashes, and blocks better than a spear while still being an effective stabber.

Uping spears bashing and block power often makes its head heavy and slower or rounded and less pointy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Zulu shields were designed to stop spears. Their hide was hardened with the hair left on so it was difficult to pierce.

Difficult to pierce with a spear, but not a pilum, gladius, or other weapon made of metal - which the Zulu had limited access to. Zulu techniques are great against other Zulu, or British with dodgy rifles and little hand-to-hand experience, but they would have fared badly against Romans.

Romans used the round parma for 300-odd years until Marius widely deployed the square sputum. Which was often replaced by a parma in areas like Germany where unit formation wasn't possible, or when cavalry became the dominant branch of the Legion.

True, you need to match the shape of the shield to the fighting style. E.g. a big heavy shield would be a liability fighting solo.

There is no one "Roman legion".

Picking the right tool for the job was key to Roman success, and the cause of their key failures.