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

[Umbran]

Put a guy with a spear (no throwing allowed) up against a guy with a sword. They are going to win against the sword about 9 out of 10 times.

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.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

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.

It doesnt involve magic. It involves a spear being a deceptively good weapon. Did i mention anything about magic irl or are you saying u just assume im psychotic (i mean this in the way of the actual psychological term. I wasnt being sloppy just snarky)? You may want to look into just how much of an advantage a spear has against a sword typically in combat. Its immense. Ive exaggerated nothing.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

correction. polearm. I keep meaning to say polearm.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

If roughly equal skill can be assumed @Umbran IN REALITY (rofl) the polearm weilder will roll over the sword weilder with a fair bit of ease.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

At least as a general case

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Lindybeige had a great spear vs sword HEMA video. Basically, 1 on 1 duel a 2-handed spear mostly beats sword, even sword & shield, but spear & shield is poor 1-on-1 since once the foe has closed in the spear is too clumsy to use effectively in one hand.

Basically you are right, spear is a superior battlefield weapon, but it did show that spear + shield is only for group combat. Swords are sidearms, like pistols, and have rarely been a primary weapon.

That fits. In a battlefield or group situation, pressing the attack through the spear's optimal range into the sword's optimal range gets you stabbed by the people to the side of your opponent. Unless you can get the entire line to push at the same time, but real people with no hitpoint mechanics are generally reluctant to risk getting stabbed on the way in to a line of pointy.
If the lines do close, then its generally the front lines shoving and using their swords, and the next ranks poking with spears. (Generally however, both sides will have spears.)

 

[Dausuul]

Spears were cheap, easy to make, and easy to use. Swords were expensive, difficult to forge, and took a lot of training. Yet people - including the wealthy elite warrior class, who had their pick of armaments - used swords. Why?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

That fits. In a battlefield or group situation, pressing the attack through the spear's optimal range into the sword's optimal range gets you stabbed by the people to the side of your opponent. Unless you can get the entire line to push at the same time, but real people with no hitpoint mechanics are generally reluctant to risk getting stabbed on the way in to a line of pointy.
If the lines do close, then its generally the front lines shoving and using their swords, and the next ranks poking with spears. (Generally however, both sides will have spears.)

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

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Spears were cheap, easy to make, and easy to use. Swords were expensive, difficult to forge, and took a lot of training. If spears were universally superior, swords would never have existed.

Wrong. Niches exist. Redundancies exist. Trying to be rounded exists. Also some spear heads were really expensive. Some swords were cheap. Flalcies falacies falacies.

 

[dave2008]

It doesnt involve magic. It involves a spear being a deceptively good weapon. Did i mention anything about magic irl or are you saying u just assume im psychotic (i mean this in the way of the actual psychological term. I wasnt being sloppy just snarky)? You may want to look into just how much of an advantage a spear has against a sword typically in combat. Its immense. Ive exaggerated nothing.

He was using "magic" metaphorically, not literally. A dangerous thing to do on this forums, but by context I thought it was fairly clear. Just thought I would point it out as you seemed to have missed it.