D&D 5E Improving the Spear

[77IM]

Am I the only one who thinks spear, staff, and club should be finesse weapons?

 

[bedir than]

Am I the only one who thinks spear, staff, and club should be finesse weapons?

I've added a finesse club, called a baton. It's slightly more expensive. I thought the lack of a bludgeoning finesse weapon was lame.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Shorten the haft to maybe ten inches long and make the blade longer. Use it in one hand, and maybe hold a shield in the other. Historically, that's how they improved it.

Not so much. General consensus (ish) amongst military historians seems to be that the spear is generally a superior weapon to an arming sword in a straight-up fight. Its function was replaced in the latter middle ages by other pole weapons. Arming swords served more as sidearms.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Not so much. General consensus (ish) amongst military historians seems to be that the spear is generally a superior weapon to an arming sword in a straight-up fight. Its function was replaced in the latter middle ages by other pole weapons. Arming swords served more as sidearms.

Was that in the context of one-on-one sparring, or in a mass combat situation? I suspect very much that the sword is better when fighting an opponent solo, which is how D&D combat generally goes; the spear (and its superior cousin, the pike) are great for formations of infantry, since they allow them to push back the enemy easier, which was the general favoured tactic. Though in sword vs spear stakes, we could note that the Roman Legions had to use flanking tactics to break up the Greek Phalanxes, in conjunction with their greater tactical flexibility and the use of barrages of javelins.

I also believe that a spear is a much cheaper weapon to manufacture, which is why swords tended to be regarded as a 'noble weapon' or whatever. And since warfare routinely bankrupted medieval and renaissance kingdoms, cost was probably not a trivial concern.

In D&D terms, though, it is a shame that you do not see the spear more often. There is something very cool about a warrior leaning on his spear as an image. I also remember a line in a novel about how a spear is way better than a sword - the latter is only good for stabbing people, while the spear is useful for hunting, can be used to help carry loads, can prop up tents, basically all kinds of activities. I'm hoping that those other weapon feats do come out, at which stage I'll probably re-allow Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master, since there will be more options for martial classes.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Am I the only one who thinks spear, staff, and club should be finesse weapons?

A lot of people hare suggested that from an optimisation standpoint, because its one of the best Simple weapons and being able to use it without investing in Dex would be very advantageous. - Particularly with the UA Spear feat out.

From a realistic standpoint, I'd personally say no. The spear, staff and club rely on leverage, force and a certain degree of athleticism to strike. Balance and reflexes are useful for defensive purposes, but in terms of getting a blow through an opponent's guard and dealing damage past armour, a certain amount of force is required.
(I know Monks can use Dex with them, but they are explicitly magical and can break all sorts of physical laws.)

Not so much. General consensus (ish) amongst military historians seems to be that the spear is generally a superior weapon to an arming sword in a straight-up fight. Its function was replaced in the latter middle ages by other pole weapons. Arming swords served more as sidearms.

Its . . . fuzzy. Spears are a better military weapon because they're cheap, easy to use with a basic level of skill, and good in a battle involving blocks of infantry. Bear in mind that a lot of the historical military 'spears' might actually be 5e D&D javelins or pikes.
The 'Pike' is the military version of the spear, swapping out the throwing ability for increased length and damage. Its probably not a historical pike though: those would have been even longer, and almost completely unsuited to D&D use.

For non-military use fighting people, sword and shield is generally regarded as superior to spear. Of course carrying a spear that you can use for hunting as well, and throw at your opponent before closing as well as your sword and shield is even better.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Was that in the context of one-on-one sparring, or in a mass combat situation? I suspect very much that the sword is better when fighting an opponent solo, which is how D&D combat generally goes; the spear (and its superior cousin, the pike) are great for formations of infantry, since they allow them to push back the enemy easier, which was the general favoured tactic. Though in sword vs spear stakes, we could note that the Roman Legions had to use flanking tactics to break up the Greek Phalanxes, in conjunction with their greater tactical flexibility and the use of barrages of javelins.

And you would be mistaken. The spear is superior in both contexts - with some caveats pertaining to particular circumstances. Aside from historical documents attesting to this fact, you can find any number of historical martial arts sparring videos online. One guy I personally like is Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJcTD5qIZJ4

Ironically enough in contrast to your belief that the popularity of the spear was economic, many spear-based infantry, notably including the Greek hoplites, ALSO carried swords as side or secondary arms. (Stereotypically the Xiphos in the case of hoplites). Essentially, the superior reach of a spear allows earlier attacks, allows the user to threaten the opponent from a greater number of angles, and allows the user to more safely attack without exposing themselves. Of course the concept of military units that rely exclusively on one weapon is mostly fiction. There are circumstances in which a sword (as a secondary weapon or otherwise) might be a better choice. Including crowded tangles of melee combatants and confined interior spaces where there isn't sufficient space for a spear-user to attack or maintain distance. As far as duelling and/or self defense swords also had the advantages of being wearable without encumbering the hands during everyday life and of being more generally legal for civilians to carry. The pike, by the way, is unsuitable for personal combat - it's slow and unwieldy; although it allows (greater numbers of) successive ranks of combatants to focus arms on a given area on the battlefield. Something to keep in mind - the economics of warfare changed significantly throughout history. It was easily possible to outfit mass numbers of troops with swords and metal armor by the latter middle ages. There was even a comparatively brief period of time where mass-produced plate armor was cheap enough for large-scale infantry units. Spears and successor pole weapons maintained their popularity throughout this period.

 

[discosoc]

I like spears, but they fall victim to D&D's totally inaccurate representation of weapons and armor, so I've just sort of ignored it as much as possible. I mean, "studded leather* is one of the more common armor types in the game, and rapiers are the go-to finesse weapon because reasons.

I do like an earlier suggestion by someone saying that the way simple and martial weapons are differentiated should be changed.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've added a finesse club, called a baton. It's slightly more expensive. I thought the lack of a bludgeoning finesse weapon was lame.

That's a cool idea, consider it stolen. To keep the club "competitive" with the baton, I gave it versatile (1d6).

 

[TallIan]

And you would be mistaken. The spear is superior in both contexts...

Essentially, the superior reach of a spear allows earlier attacks, allows the user to threaten the opponent from a greater number of angles, and allows the user to more safely attack without exposing themselves. Of course the concept of military units that rely exclusively on one weapon is mostly fiction. There are circumstances in which a sword (as a secondary weapon or otherwise) might be a better choice. ...

Bayonet training in the British army the encouraged us to get in close to an enemy with a bayoneted weapon because the British SA80 rifle is shorter than most service rifles.

In any fight (one on one or unit formations) longer reach is a huge advantage, but once the combatants close the longer weapon can be a disadvantage, as your opponent is closer to you than the pointy bit or the longer weapon can get tangled.

This isn't really represented in D&D other than weapons that are really long, eg a pike.



Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Bayonet training in the British army the encouraged us to get in close to an enemy with a bayoneted weapon because the British SA80 rifle is shorter than most service rifles.

In any fight (one on one or unit formations) longer reach is a huge advantage, but once the combatants close the longer weapon can be a disadvantage, as your opponent is closer to you than the pointy bit or the longer weapon can get tangled.

This isn't really represented in D&D other than weapons that are really long, eg a pike.



Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

While true, closing isn't nearly as simple or realistic as people make it out to be. Aside from really cumbersome variants, like the pike, spears function just fine at a shorter grip. And because the spear inherently possesses much less inertia than the human body, it is possible to shorten the grip on a spear faster than a human body can close the distance in realistic combat circumstances. (Though it may be possible to get the spear-wielder to commit to a strike or to block the spear in such a way as to facilitate closing distance). If a spear-user can be cornered (not merely against a flat wall) or has a tangle of combatants fighting behind them to interfere with the butt however...