The Spear

Question -

In real history, the spear was the weapon of choice for ages--at least until the time of the Romans, when the sword began to be used more prominently. The hunting spear is not a reach weapon, and it is a one-handed weapon.

I was thinking: Should there be a slight bonus given to useing a spear? Do to its versatile reach (depending on where you grip the spear)?

I've been considering a slight tip of the hat in this direction by allowing any hunting spear user to only take a -3 penalty when Fighting Defensively rather than the standard -4.

Not a huge penalty, but it's someting.

Thoughts?

It's such a subtle difference that I'd easily say "Yeah, no problem" without needing to give it much thought.

However, this opens pandoras box of a series of subtle differences that could be justified if considering real world details. be careful stepping down this road, it may lead to more work and detail keeping then you'd care for.

If that's Exactly how much work you care for, then groovy.

D&D's weapon statistics have been kept simple for a reason: simplicity. Sure, you can add lots of little modifiers of this kind, but you're quickly going to realize that this kind of small modifiers is a) not going to have much of a felt impact in-game, and b) going to necessitate a lot of extra bookkeeping. For example, you'll have to keep weapon modifiers close to hand whenever your PCs are fighting humanoid opponents.


Some games do this kind of thing, and do it successfully - BUT it always results in lots of table-referencing, on-the-fly-calculating, jotting-down-of-quick-notes etc. For example, Hârnmaster (for a long time my system of choice in the past), a d% based system, has the following weapon statistics for each and every weapon in the game:

1. Impact ratings (basically, this is weapon base damage), separated into blunt, piercing, and slashing impact ratings (the widely used broadsword has 3 blunt, 5 slashing, 4 piercing; the poleaxe just has 6 blunt, 9 slashing). You can use whatever damage type you like, so long as your weapon provides it, without penalty - according to what armor the opponent wears, and what you want to do, different damage types will be more or less useful.
2. Attack/Defense modifiers. Some weapons are better for an attack, some are better for parrying, some strike a nice balance. Compare modifiers to opponent's weapon's modifiers (attack compares vs. defense and vice versa): for every point your value is better, you get a +5% bonus on your roll. Broadswords have A/D 3/2, poleaxes have A/D 5/1. Note that some weapons have overall better statistics compared to others (e.g. a dagger is a good weapon damage-wise, it's light and affordable, but its A/D sucks: 2/1; a quarterstaff has great A/D: 4/3, but unimpressive damage).
3. Cost in pence, with most metal weapons and stuff like longbows shockingly expensive.
4. Weight in pounds. Since overall weight carried affects every single physical activity you undertake, this matters. I'll spare you the horrid calculation of overall encumbrance and its mechanical impact.
5. Weapon quality (WQ), usually a number somewhere between 8 (bad) and 13 (good), although better-made weapons can be had for a price. If you use your weapon to parry, if you fumble it, if your opponent targets your weapon etc., a quality roll can be called for. Roll 3d6; if the total exceeds your weapon's quality, reduce quality by the difference permanently (can be fixed, though). If the total exceeds your weapon's quality by more than half, your weapon breaks. Tough luck. This actually happens quite a bit.
6. Handedness. Using a big weapon in just one hand can impose penalties (like the aforementioned poleaxe: -20%). Using a weapon in your off hand can impose more or less severe penalties, depending on the weapon (broadsword: -10%). Using a big weapon in your off-hand alone is really tough (poleaxe: -30%). Using a broadsword in one or two hands makes no difference. Since shields are really, really good in Hârnmaster, using two-handed weapons (which often have great impact and attack ratings, but poor defense ratings) is a risk not undertaken lightly.
7. Ranged weapons have range, of course, separated into range categories. It's often very easy to hit stuff close up (you get a small bonus on your attack), but very hard to hit anything at extreme range (large penalties).
8. You can get heavier-than-normal melee weapons made on demand, which increase impact if you're really strong, but actually decrease impact and chance of hitting if you're a weakling (refer to table xyz...).
9. Some weapons are noted as to be chivalric weapons, meaning only members of the nobility are expected to wield such a weapon. Swords and lances usually fall in this category. A peasant with a sword will often have to answer unpleasant questions about where he got it. Some other weapons are peasant weapons and unfit for knights to use (flails, polearms, crossbows etc.).
10. Some weapons have special rules associated with them, of course. For example, a poleaxe can be equipped with a spike, which adds the option of attacking with a piercing impact of 6, but reduces weapon quality, increases weight and price... you see where this is going.

Oh, for comparison, the Hârn statistics of a spear: impact B4, P7; A/D 4/2; handedness -10/-20; WQ 10?... forgot the rest. But yeah, spears are really, really good weapons in Hârnmaster. The only reason swords still fare well in comparison is their ease of use in one hand, their versatility where impact types are concerned, and their good quality. But they also cost a fortune, which a spear doesn't. I've always loved the spear in Hârnmaster and was pretty sad that D&D doesn't acknowledge what a good weapon it is.

Well, the spear was a superior weapon for a time, before being superceded. The problem in D&D is that you have all of these weapons from different timeframes active at the same time, so of course the older "best" weapon will be outclassed by a weapon that is historically from a much later period.

If you want to restore spear viability without otherwise unbalancing the game you'll need to restrict access to later generation superior weapons.

Which weapon was "historically" superior depended a lot on cultural context, and the weapons it faced at the time. For example, a lance-and-board guy with lots of heavy armor sitting on a horse is an unstoppable force - until the opposition whips out the long, sharpened sticks. Similarly, a heavy broadsword is useful if your opponent is heavily armored and wears a shield - but if he's lightly armored and sports a smallsword, you're probably in trouble, since the other guy can tire you out, then gut you. Some weapons (polearms, especially) only make sense if you bring a lot of friends. Other weapons (daggers and derivatives) are necessities in close quarters (or for finishing off downed enemies), but won't help you out in the open.
And so on.

Empirate said:

D&D's weapon statistics have been kept simple for a reason: simplicity.

Click to expand...

The Conan game, which I play, has tweaks for certain weapons: The whip, the bola, the war sword (D&D's bastard sword), the broadsword, the staff, the pike. And, the game allows weapon modification, so making this type of change would not be out of place in this d20 game.

My question is: Do you think the tweak is justified? If it is, should it be a stronger tweak?

I went with the -3 (instead of -4 usual to Fighting Defensively) because there is a Feat that allows -2 Attack for the +2 Defense, and I didn't want to run over that Feat's toes.

Empirate said:

Some weapons (polearms, especially) only make sense if you bring a lot of friends.

Click to expand...

I think polearms make a lot of sense, even without friends.

First off, the Conan RPG has the weapon length rule (does D&D have this one?). A two-handed polearm vs. a one-handed broadsword would mean +1 AC to polearm user and -1 AC to the broadsword user.

But, even if D&D doesn't have that rule, the Reach fighting style is quite powerful. Take the Pike, for example. It's reach is 20 foot. We roll initiative, and the broadsword dude wins.

1a. BS dude attacks Piker, base-to-base contact, catching Piker flatfooted.
1b. Piker uses Withdraw to move back 15 feet so that BS is in his threat range at 20 foot.

2a. BS dude moves to attack Piker again but suffers an Attack of Opportunity first, moving out of the Piker threat range. Plus, the Piker has just robbed BS dude of any extra attacks that would require a Full Round Action.
2b. Just like 1b. Piker Withdraws so that BS is in threat range.

And so on.

If Piker has high Tumble and Speed 30, he can sometimes double his attacks. He doesn't have to use the Withdraw, instead Tumbling through his foe's AoO as he moves back to put his foe into threat range, like this--

1a. Piker wins nish and moves to attack foe. BS dude is flatfooted. The two are 20 feet apart due to the Pike's reach.
1b. BS dude moves to attack Piker but suffers an AoO by the Piker as the BS dude moves out of Pike's threatened area. So, this gives the Piker two attacks before the BS dude can swing, and the first attack catches the BS dude flatfooted.


2a. Piker tumbles out of BS dude's AoO, moves back 15 feet, and attacks BS dude.
2b. BS dude moves to close the gap and attack Piker, but first suffers an AoO by the Piker.

And so on.

This is better because the Piker can sometimes get 2 attacks per round and keep his foe at only 1 attack per round--advantage to the piker.


I think reach weapons are pretty powerful weapons, if you use them correctly in the game. IF you had a row of Pikemen (or other reach weapons), you can set up some interesting tactics using AoO's, indeed.

Now you're talking game mechanics, not history (which I was going on about). Historically, no fighting style ever developed - as far as I'm aware - which made use of very long weapons in duel situations. Sure, duels were often at least as much a social and ritual situation as they were fights, so "prestigious" weapons would replace "useful" ones - but I can't imagine even a highly trained piker going to town on a similarly trained swordsman!

You also asked whether your change to the defensive fighting mechanic was justified - sure, go ahead, won't make a bit of difference in your game. I doubt people will even remember that little rule. That's what I mean when I say D&D aims for simplicity: only relatively large modifiers (say, at least +2 to a roll that's relatively common, or +4 to something that's very situational) are actually felt that much in game.

To add on to what [MENTION=5868]Olgar Shiverstone[/MENTION] said, the Arms and Equipment Guide does provide some guidance for restricting weapons by Age (Stone, Bronze, etc).

I am no expert by any means but I would think that the fact that spears remained a weapon for peasant levies etc suggests it was not a particularly advantageous weapon.
Like the mace the fact that it was rarely used in combat suggests it was not a particularly effective weapon.