greg kaye
Explorer
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.
Last edited: