D&D 5E Fixing the polearm and taking back its seat as generally best nonprojectile weapon from the sword.

[Remathilis]

Meh. Swords. Spears. One well-placed fireball takes them both out.

- The Mage.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I was joking (yes i joked about being accused of psychosis)

Hes still laughably wrong

Also, once plate gets involved its somewhat unwise to use a sword as a primary weapon AT ALL when u really think about it.

@dave2008

 

[dave2008]

There are few issues I have with this idea:
1) Spears are definitely better in groups (think the phalanx), so buff them for that purpose
2) Proficiency with a spear is more difficult. It doesn't have the natural feel of a sword. They aren't balanced like a sword and all the interesting maneuvers are harder to master.
3) Pears are not as good for close combat (generally). Model that weakness and perhaps provide a feat to negate it (indicating more spear training, see #2)
4) This is a fantasy game, I'm just not big on my PCs running around with spears / polearms

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

One on one the polearm weilder will wreck the sword weilder (and most non projectile weilders) a signifficant majority of the time. Even if not in a line. It just gets worse in a line on line match up is all

Polearms, including halberds, poleaxes etc are a very different matter to spears in combat.

If you want to discuss polearms rather than spears, we can do so, if you will tone down the unpleasantness when you're contradicted.

However D&D already gives polearms significant support in terms of the Polearm master and GWM feats. They are already likely superior than most other weapons (at least for a character able to take advantage) already.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Meh. Swords. Spears. One well-placed fireball takes them both out.

- The Mage.

Agreed

Wiz is GOD (shoulda picked a different example though. A non ranged spell)

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Polearms, including halberds, poleaxes etc are a very different matter to spears in combat.

If you want to discuss polearms rather than spears, we can do so, if you will tone down the unpleasantness when you're contradicted.

However D&D already gives polearms significant support in terms of the Polearm master and GWM feats. They are already likely superior than most other weapons (at least for a character able to take advantage) already.

Mmmmmmm...the thread is about polearms collectively. Spears are polearms btw. They are part of the thread.

 

[dave2008]

I was joking (yes i jokes about being accused of psychosis)

Hes still laughably wrong

Also, once plate gets involved its somewhat unwise to use a sword as a primary weapon AT ALL when u really think about it.

@dave2008

I disagree. Not only does history suggest otherwise, but so does my on experience and observation. With the same amount of skill I can easy get past and take down a spear / polearm wielder 8 out of 10 times. I have actually participated and seen these combats many times. The sword is more natural and easy to use in 1 v 1 battles. The sword wielder almost always wins because they can usually get bast the spear and the spear wielder has no idea what to do once that happens (FYI, the usually run if they are not immediately struck down).

To clarify, when I say same level of skill I am talking about a bunch of LARPers with no real training. But that is my point. Without training it is difficult to use a spear effectively.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

There are few issues I have with this idea:
1) Spears are definitely better in groups (think the phalanx), so buff them for that purpose
2) Proficiency with a spear is more difficult. It doesn't have the natural feel of a sword. They aren't balanced like a sword and all the interesting maneuvers are harder to master.
3) Pears are not as good for close combat (generally). Model that weakness and perhaps provide a feat to negate it (indicating more spear training, see #2)
4) This is a fantasy game, I'm just not big on my PCs running around with spears / polearms

1. Yes. But also better than swords in close combat (but also the gap is more heinous at range)

2. Debatable and besides, skill for skill spear/polearm wins

3. 1BILLION PERCENT WRONG they are also better than swords in close combat whether in formation or one on one. Anything saying otherwise is hollywood.

4. Pffffff what even is this one? Spears arent fantastical? WAT? The weapon of choice for warrior gods such as vishnu, odin, zeus, and many others? Hah.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I disagree. Not only does history suggest otherwise, but so does my on experience and observation. With the same amount of skill I can easy get past and take down a spear / polearm wielder 8 out of 10 times. I have actually participated and seen these combats many times. The sword is more natural and easy to use in 1 v 1 battles. The sword wielder almost always wins because they can usually get bast the spear and the spear wielder has no idea what to do once that happens (FYI, the usually run if they are not immediately struck down).

To clarify, when I say same level of skill I am talking about a bunch of LARPers with no real training. But that is my point. Without training it is difficult to use a spear effectively.

lol. thats simply because few larpers have any idea what to do with a long stick. Has nothing to do with how hard it is. And both have nothing to do with the efficacy of the sword.

Polearm wins. Especually the thicker the armor gets.

 

[Coroc]

Spears aren't magical. I mean, in D&D you can have a magic spear, but no, they aren't some uberweapon that by design suddenly beats all others.

You know why we know this? Because swords actually got used in the real world, a lot. The real world doesn't use game stats, and has no raise dead. If spears actually won 9 times out of 10 because of the weapon, and not the user's skill, then noboy'd use a sword.

In reality, if you put a single person with a sword and a single person with a spear against each other, then it is all up to skill. Realistically, the guy with the spear has one single chance to hurt his enemy, after which that guy with a sword is inside the spear's reach, and his weapon is useless.

Oh, and the guy with a sword probably has a shield to take that first hit, after which, he's inside the spearman's reach, and the spearman is toast.

This is why spears and pikes are usually used in groups - so that getting inside the spear's reach is hard.

Well in military context of medieval times no one used a sword, except in cramped melee situations or as backup. Everyone has one, yes, exactly for that. Watch a bit of Matt Eastons scholagladiatora youtube channel (HEMA) and he discusses loads of this.

Great swords were often used versus horses (legs) and if two knights in plate were fighting with great swords they were used like a short spear (half sword technics) or warhammer (mordhau) by griipping them with 1 or two hands by the blade.

Only versus unarmored and lightly armored opponents swords can be used in the traditional way most people think about when thinking about swords, and be effective.

A 1 on 1 situation with equally experienced fighters IRL: spear wins 9 out of 10 times,mainly because of its reach, it attacks first, it is very hard to counter or parry, because with very little movement on the attackers side you can create big movement at the defenders side.

A sword is a civilians weapon, ineffective against most armored oponents, lacks reach and penetration power versus chain and plate, can be easily countered by a shield, requires loads of training etc. etc.

In D&D more often than not, the situation is rather a 1 vs 1 or group vs. group than a military battle formation vs another. And not all oponents wear armor or even are humanoid. So there a sword might compete a bit better.

The mystifying of the sword IRL comes because of its symbolic meaning: It was the first weapon which could not double as a tool or a hunting weapon, it was a "pure" weapon and so the choice as a status symbol for noblemen. It also could be worn quite easily in a sheat or belt at your side keeping your hands free making it a good self defense weapon with better reach than the dagger (everybody was wearing)
Again here: I bet in a duel sword vs dagger, unarmored the sword beats the dagger 9 out of ten.
Because of reach and weapon speed. Yes. A halberd even has more velocity if swung. Think about it, it is only mechanics, and circular movement and lever aka radius of the movement (which is a accelerated movement by itself).