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

[DND_Reborn]

Oh, I'll chime in...

Spears/ pole-arms were still primary weapons even for wealthy warriors since reach was a key advantage. Swords were primarily a back-up weapon, often used with one protected hand on the blade when I shield was not in use.

I think bringing reach back into 5E would go a long way towards showing the value of pole weapons. Of course, unless you can fall back, once inside their reach they are not as effective.

And, honestly, axes, pole-axes, flails, and maces were much more often used as primary weapons than swords. The leverage of pole weapons and the heavy end of the others were more damaging than swords, better able to penetrate armor, etc. Against heavy armors, swords were thrusting weapons (as I mentioned before, with a protected hand often on the blade for leverage).

D&D got away from the combat simulationist POV so much of these concepts were simplified or ignored by design.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

The op specifies that this thread is supposed to be about all potential editions.

If bleed is completely alien to 5e then perhaps for 5e just upping the damage die type makes sense. Yeah. Could work.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Oh, I'll chime in...

Spears/ pole-arms were still primary weapons even for wealthy warriors since reach was a key advantage. Swords were primarily a back-up weapon, often used with one protected hand on the blade when I shield was not in use.

I think bringing reach back into 5E would go a long way towards showing the value of pole weapons. Of course, unless you can fall back, once inside their reach they are not as effective.

And, honestly, axes, pole-axes, flails, and maces were much more often used as primary weapons than swords. The leverage of pole weapons and the heavy end of the others were more damaging than swords, better able to penetrate armor, etc. Against heavy armors, swords were thrusting weapons (as I mentioned before, with a protected hand often on the blade for leverage).

D&D got away from the combat simulationist POV so much of these concepts were simplified or ignored by design.

I keep trying to tell everyone but no one believes me that swords were not actually used as primary weapons nearly as often as people think. But hollywoods weird sorcery is stronk.

The exception are those who already know it.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Well I'll be back on this thread again later. Thanks for the productive discussion guys. I gotta go to work.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The number of hits to someone in armor matters far less than how and where you hit them. Just an fyi.

Indeed, but neither does rapping someone on their greaves cause them to stop fighting and walk back out of their range to give you another go.

I keep trying to tell everyone but no one believes me that swords were not actually used as primary weapons nearly as often as people think. But hollywoods weird sorcery is stronk.

Pretty sure no-one in this thread believes that one-handed swords were primary battlefield weapons, so at least you haven't had to tell them that here. Must be a relief.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Indeed, but neither does rapping someone on their greaves cause them to stop fighting and walk back out of their range to give you another go.
Pretty sure no-one in this thread believes that one-handed swords were primary battlefield weapons, so at least you haven't had to tell them that here. Must be a relief.

I should add some context. I mean mostly everyone in the world. Also maybe (not sure) one or two in this post. Mostly one. They shall remain nameless. I dont wish to publically shame. awkwardly coughs

 

[Umbran]

I keep trying to tell everyone but no one believes me that swords were not actually used as primary weapons nearly as often as people think.

Because, with respect, you are just some guy on the internet. People are incorrect on the internet with great regularity. Flat personal assertion doesn't go very far.

You might want to try citing reliable sources. If you cannot find one, then maybe your position isn't as strong as you think.

Oh, and by the way, don't confuse "first weapon used" with "primary". Yes, lots of folks started a fight with a spear... that they quickly discarded once it got stuck in somebody (or in somebody's shield - that was a common tactic - stick a spear in the enemy's shield, which drags the shield down and to of the way so the target can be hit more easily). Spears are cheap and disposable.

And, again - spears are cheap, and so a common thing to give foot soldiers who are part of large formations, where spears are exceptionally effective. But "common" doesn't mean "technically better".

 

[DND_Reborn]

I keep trying to tell everyone but no one believes me that swords were not actually used as primary weapons nearly as often as people think. But hollywoods weird sorcery is stronk.

You're right, they weren't. Axes, maces, etc. were one-handed weapons and pole weapons for two-handed. As others have said, swords were more expensive and time-consuming to make, often more a symbol of status, which is why only nobles at some times were allowed to wear them.

 

[dave2008]

Did you find that the issue was that the spear is only dangerous for a bit of its length, but the sword is dangerous throughout its length?

Maybe, but I have seen a couple issues:
1) People seem to want to lunge with the spear (don't know why) and this puts them off balance, makes it easy to dodge the attack and then step inside the arc of the attack
2) It is not as easy to hit a person as you would think with a spear. A jab is easily dodged or deflected. If is deflected, it leaves you open for counter attack. A sweep takes a long time and is easily blocked.
3) Most people I have seen aren't able to recreate the quick multiple jabs and thrust seen in MA movies. They basically use it like a shield to keep people away (simply by pointing the spear at them) and look for an opening. If they miss that opening it is game over. And they miss a lot. It just takes more training to use a spear for 1 v 1 well, IME.

Now a wall of spears - game over

 

[jasper]

Polearm have been the most successful general type of weapon (whether martial or otherwise) other than projectile weapons on a consistant basis throughout history. Lets make d&d reflect that instead of having spears be nonsensically weak options. I was thinking of doing several things:

1. Give them all bonus to trip attempts

2. Superior bonus to disarm attempts

3. Depending on polearm size reach or an even better reach

4. A somewhat modified critical

5. Make all but halberds and similarly cumbersome examples capable of making use of weapon finesse

6. Improve the type of damage die most of them (not all) have

7. Expand the ability to use them as a staff (for focusing spells) to all editions instead of just 3.5 (if there are editions for which this isnt a thing). Maybe restrict this to perfectly symetrical examples for balancing purposes and other purposes.

Those are the ideas ive come up with so far.

This post SCREAMS FANBOY. You are trying to make them the sole weapon choice of the game. But to be nice, if you were homebrewing I would allow you to choose one of the seven.
As to the history not many fettbuches survived giving directions in sole spear halberd usage. Not many burials sites of great people has spears only. SWORD in the STONE. Not Spear in the Peer!