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

[Charlaquin]

I think a lot of people would disagree with you. At least in part. While a simple spear can be just a length of wood with a point, a forged tip can be just as complex as a dagger or short sword. Something like a boarspear might have significant quillons, for example.

Oh, absolutely. I’d definitely be in favor of there being a martial version of a spear. Honestly, the simple/martial divide is pretty arbitrary anyway.

 

[Beleriphon]

They also had spears.

And yet the primary weapon of the maniple was a short thrusting sword. They carried javelins sure, but only the triarii were primarily armed with spears, and they backstopped the hastati and the principes as a phalanx rather than the much more maneuverable maniple formations. At least prior to the Marian reforms anyways. Heck, we know that the hastati and the princepes stopped using spears in 387 BCE.

That isn't to say that spears, or polearms are bad, but they aren't the ultimate weapons of ultimate destruction in melee combat. They have a time and a place. I wouldn't be wandering around 1980s New York at 2:13am armed with dory, but a switch blade or other knife would be effective. And it isn't just because a dory would get the cops on me like white on rice: its because in a close up urban brawl the thing too big to be useful, or defend against a small gang.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Even later Lancelot (yes embarrassingly lances a lot)

I always assumed that was a false cognate.

 

[jgsugden]

The fix for this is to have martial maneuveres and allow each weapon to have different ones available. It was one thing that 4E 'sort of' did much better than other editions.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The sword is generally considered the second best weapon in almost any circumstance. Its popularity also stems from its ease of carrying: you would carry your spear to a battle, but probably not into town.

Anyway, I suggest y'all watch this:

That pretty much came out how I would expect it to:
In duelling/skirmish: Spear vs sword tends to win, but sword and shield tends to beat spear. Sword and shield also tends to beat spear and shield.

In a line fight, spears seem a lot better. I would have liked to see a spear and shield line vs sword and shield line, but I think that they only had so many shields.

I think a lot of people would disagree with you. At least in part. While a simple spear can be just a length of wood with a point, a forged tip can be just as complex as a dagger or short sword. Something like a boarspear might have significant quillons, for example.

That sort of thing can be cast or beaten into shape with much less technical knowledge than that required to make something the length and thinness of a sword blade as a practical weapon.

Swords can also be pretty unforgiving when it comes to making aligned cuts. Poking people with the pointy end is much simpler and instinctive. Both weapons have more advanced techniques for skilled users but if you're equipping nonprofessional soldiers, spears are likely much more practical (even before you bring price into it.)

 

[Garthanos]

I always assumed that was a false cognate.

It probably was but blame the french ... Llewc Llewanleac what may have been the Welsh version prior was kind of a mouthful - it does rather point to the potential naming of a Luke (ie Lugh) being the Irishman who accompanied Arthur on an other world quest for a cauldron of the goddess.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Here's a couple of answers to spears vs swords on r/askhistorians.

If spears were generally better than swords, why were swords more popular?
Despite the spear being much more prominent, the sword seems to have won the fight in cultural significance, why did the sword win in this regard?

They confirm what has mostly been said here, that overall spears are better, though swords are easier to carry and of higher status.

a spear was lighter, faster, and more useful. Spears weighed about a pound, were carefully balanced, and wickedly nimble. A sword could split open a man's skull if the blow landed, but a spear could stab a swordsman three times before he could get a second swing. A young man with a spear was like a minnow, except with teeth. Some people think spears were just for massed figting rather than duels, or didn't do much killing on their own--these people haven't handled the spears from c.500 England. They were rapiers, only made from wood and iron instead of steel.

It should be noted that swords at this time were technologically at a low point - more poorly balanced than the later Carolingian blades.

The Roman question is answered in the first thread -

Since the principes and triarii together outnumbered the hastati by about 50%, the legion had more spearmen (who also carried swords) than specialist swordsmen (who also carried javelins).

 

[Beleriphon]

The Roman question is answered in the first thread -

Tthat's only Early Republic, by the Marian Reforms only the triarii were equipped with spears, and the also fought as a phalanx. Which is ideal as a backstop using spears.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Polearms are awesome battlefield weapons.

But D&D combat rarely takes place in a large battlefield, in my experience. The longsword has great defensive capability from it's crossguard and great versatility with half swording and mordhaus. When picking one melee weapon for carrying in a small group across leagues of overland travel I can see lots of good reasons for making it one that can be used well in a variety of ways.

Besides that you may be called upon to fight in a grand ball. Could you walk into a ball with polearms? Of course not. Everyone would know you are looking for a fight. Now a personal defense weapon like a Rapier or Longsword? Now you are just a fashionable dancer.

There is a good reason why the Polearm ruled the battlefield, and an equally good reason why the sword ruled the court and the dueling ring.

But this is all beside the point as polearms are already the best melee weapons in the game due to PAM and action economy.

 

[David Howery]

But D&D combat rarely takes place in a large battlefield, in my experience.

Well, you can devise scenarios where it happens, but generally, no. Regardless of whatever advantages polearms had over swords on the real medieval battlefield... the PCs aren't soldiers in an army of thousands, expected to do not much more than march and fight and backed up with an army's logistics chain. They are more like Delta Force spelunkers who are generally on their own. They have to do a lot of other things besides march and fight, and hauling a big polearm around everywhere you go isn't so great. As for the OP... by all means, develop special polearm rules if you like, but realize that your average dungeon environment may not be so conducive to them...