Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5863600" data-attributes="member: 54877">Pedantic or not, your last quote as a statement of fact is incorrect. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification