The Tyranny of the Sword

[Leatherhead]

Well my question was more along the lines of how the metagame is formed because people love swords (and thus make people who use swords prominent), given that every penalty or bonus we assign to anything is largely arbitrary.

The wizard/fighter debates simply spurred my thoughts. The thread isn't exactly about fighters, or about common weapons. It's about melee combat and the metagame.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I hope it isn't being too pedantic to note that what you are saying is somewhat true of specialized weapons, such as pikes, certain polearms, picks, etc. but not all variants. The basic "short" or "medium" spear, in reasonably skilled hands, is a very dangerous weapon in one-on-one combat versus something like a sword, axe, or mace. This is also true of most polearms of moderate length.

Big, specialized weapons are often limited (being specialized for warfare or something else). More reasonably sized weapons of all types, not so much. I'm sure the historians and re-enactors will be after me on some detail of that, now.

Well, I did say:

That's not to say that spears and polearms can't be effective in D&D-style single or squad combat, but it requires a lot more skill and training.

But you see my larger point right? The thrust of my argument? HAWHAWHAWhahahaha... ehh...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Pedantic or not, your last quote as a statement of fact is incorrect.

Generally, relatively short to medium spears do not require more training to use well than swords in skirmish or individual combat. They require some training, same as any other weapon.

Where you are mistaken is thinking that there is something special about axes or swords as axes or swords that gives them advantages in this regard. A spear is not particularly specialized until it becomes long, and the same is true of some of the shorter polearms.

Given equal training, a guy with a great sword could be in considerable trouble in an individual combat versus short spear or the like. That's because the great sword is a more specialized weapon than the spear. (Naturally, armor levels could blow all of this clean out of the water.)

I think what confuses the issue is that the kind of people who walked around with swords tended to have more training than the person who might pick up a spear. This also is what ties our little side discussion back to the main topic. There is a correlation between high skill and the romantic view of the weapons, because of that tendency in training.

As I said earlier, if you want to replicate this in D&D, then replicate the conditions that encouraged those with a lot of training to favor the romantic weapons.

 

[JohnSnow]

Given equal training, a guy with a great sword could be in considerable trouble in an individual combat versus short spear or the like. That's because the great sword is a more specialized weapon than the spear. (Naturally, armor levels could blow all of this clean out of the water.)

That's just...well, not exactly untrue, but totally incomplete.

The only real advantage a spear has over a greatsword (or ACTUAL longsword) is the same one that a quarterstaff has - REACH.

Some people seem to think that swords are incapable of being used at close range and that's just not true. They were just used DIFFERENTLY. German fight manuals illustrate various techniques for close in combat with large swords, including half-swording, pommel strikes, using the guard to trip, et cetera, etc.

Medieval combat was a highly sophisticated system that involved wrestling, grappling, and various unarmed techniques to which weapon use was supplemental. Even a cursory perusal of instructional manuals will teach you that they were training people to FIGHT, not just "use weapons."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That's just...well, not exactly untrue, but totally incomplete.

The only real advantage a spear has over a greatsword (or ACTUAL longsword) is the same one that a quarterstaff has - REACH.

Some people seem to think that swords are incapable of being used at close range and that's just not true. They were just used DIFFERENTLY. German fight manuals illustrate various techniques for close in combat with large swords, including half-swording, pommel strikes, using the guard to trip, et cetera, etc.

Medieval combat was a highly sophisticated system that involved wrestling, grappling, and various unarmed techniques to which weapon use was supplemental. Even a cursory perusal of instructional manuals will teach you that they were training people to FIGHT, not just "use weapons."

Yeah, that is incomplete at the margins. Early on in that equal training, I give the advantage to the spear guy--or the short sword and shield guy--or any number of straight-forward techniques. As the training progresses, I suspect the guy with the greatsword has got more tricks up close than the guy with a big haft in his hands. But it is a gradual process. However, whatever else it is, it isn't "spear guys need a lot more training to function anywhere but on the battlefield as some inherent property of the spear itself."

But, well, that's why I specified equal training. I've read some of those manuals. Being trained to fight is going to count for a lot no matter which weapon is involved.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Pedantic or not, your last quote as a statement of fact is incorrect.

Generally, relatively short to medium spears do not require more training to use well than swords in skirmish or individual combat. They require some training, same as any other weapon.

Errr... that's not what I said at all: I wasn't comparing a spear and a sword in single combat. My point was that I thought using a spear in individual combat would require more training than using a spear in mass combat.

At edge of maelstrom of pedantic debate... must resist the inexorable pull...

Pedant, pedant... I'm just noticing that's a fun word to say... rolls off the tongue nicely.

 

[Hussar]

Now the next question really needs to be asked:

When we talk about weapons, we're generally talking about how various weapons are used against humans. Swords, spears, clubs, whatever, make pretty effective weapons (for a given degree of effectiveness) against homo sap, but, when we get into fantasy combat, this is less likely of an issue.

How effective would a sword be against, say, something really heavily armored like a Bullette? Vs how effective would a spear be against the same opponent.

Of couse in this direction lies the madness of the weapon vs armor table.

 

[billd91]

Now the next question really needs to be asked:

When we talk about weapons, we're generally talking about how various weapons are used against humans. Swords, spears, clubs, whatever, make pretty effective weapons (for a given degree of effectiveness) against homo sap, but, when we get into fantasy combat, this is less likely of an issue.

How effective would a sword be against, say, something really heavily armored like a Bullette? Vs how effective would a spear be against the same opponent.

Of couse in this direction lies the madness of the weapon vs armor table.

I'm not sure that having some element of the weapon vs armor table is madness - or at least some weapon properties more easily applied than that. For example, I've been missing some indication of an armor-piercing weapon for years - since, well, the loss of the weapons vs armor tables. 2e had a couple of interesting properties for some weapons, like the stiletto gaining a bonus to hit vs chain armors. But I think a few ideas along these lines could be interesting. In 3e/PF, I think giving an AP weapon like a heavy mace, pick, or heavy crossbow a +2 to hit anything with an armor or natural armor bonus would do the job.

 

[Hussar]

Bill91 - the reason I called it madness is that it's extremely hard to actually apply that.

After all, sure, in 3e, natural armor bonuses might make sense for a bonus, but, then again, 3e's the only edition to actually call that out. But, then again, virtually everything in 3e has a natural armor bonus. Why is a heavy mace more effective against a Gibbering Mouther than, say, a slashing weapon? Why is a pick more effective than a spear?

And therein lies the madness. With thousands of monsters in D&D, you're going to be really hard pressed to find a commonality that is going to satisfy people when it comes to weapon effects. My heavy pick is more effective against a treant than my battle axe? Really?

And, of course, this also leads to the other problem, actually applying the rules. Sure, 1e and 2e both had rules for weapons vs armor, but, the actual application of those rules were spotty to say the least. It becomes yet another finicky bit to deal with.

 

[Zustiur]

Indeed, finicky and unnecessary.

I'm in favour of reducing other things 'down' to the level of the sword.
I am not in favour of giving 'wuxia' abilities to sword users to bring them up to the level of spells etc.

If spellcasters are drastically outshining martial types at high levels, then we probably need to look at reducing what the spellcasters can do. That said, let's not knee-jerk them all the way down to being completely inferior.