Thoughts on spears...

[Tetsubo]

The spear is arguably the oldest and most common weapon used in war. I've never been happy with the way D&D handled them though. It always came off as a subpar choice when in reality it was the warriors "go to" weapon. So hear are a few thoughts on how I might handle them in the future...

Toss the shortspear. The javelin does the job better, I don't see a need for it.

Keep the spear as is but add a feature. When used by a class with Martial skill in can be held in one hand (effectively becoming a one-handed weapon). This reflects the use of a shield and spear as seen in most ancient armies.

The longspear would also remain a Simple weapon. But when used by a class with Martial skill the user can also wear a Light or Heavy shield. The weapon remains two-handed but the user gains the benefit of the shield as well. trying to reflect the phalanx of history...

Any thoughts?

 

[XCorvis]

I like the changes to the spear, and shortspear was always kind of lame.

Longspear is really closer to the Pike, IMO, which is definitely a 2-handed weapon, and historically not used with a shield. Your rule would effectively make it a one handed reach weapon, at least for shield users. I'm having trouble coming up with interesting alternatives. Perhaps raise the die of damage for Martial proficiency? Or give it 15" reach to reflect superior control? (Allowing attacks at both 10" and 15", but not 5".)

 

[Felnar]

Keep the spear as is but add a feature. When used by a class with Martial skill in can be held in one hand (effectively becoming a one-handed weapon). This reflects the use of a shield and spear as seen in most ancient armies.

i like this, and i'd also give it crit multiplier x3 for those with martial prof

 

[Victim]

Really, I think this concept could be applied more generally - lots of weapons could have 'upgrades' if the character is proficient in a higher level of weaponry.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Keep the spear as is but add a feature. When used by a class with Martial skill in can be held in one hand (effectively becoming a one-handed weapon). This reflects the use of a shield and spear as seen in most ancient armies.

Actually, taken to a possible logical extreme, it could be the basis for a completely different weapon proficiency system.

I'm not a trained combatant, but I'm sure I could use a sword with reasonable facility...for a short period of time. I don't have the endurance or accuracy to work with one in combat for more than a couple of swings.

So, each weapon could conceivably have a spectrum of proficiencies, possibly broken down by weapon type groups as well.

For example: Krusk would be able to use all Axes as if they were martial weapons, but might be only familiar with simple use of things like staves or polearms.

 

[Nifft]

I've done this for a while, it works pretty well.

Simple: Quarterstaff is a two-handed weapon.
Martial: Quarterstaff is also a double weapon.
Exotic (Monk or a feat): Quarterstaff is Finessable.


I'd do pretty much the same thing for spears.

Simple: Spear is 2-handed weapon.
Martial: Spear is 1-handed weapon.

Simple: Longspear is 2-handed weapon.
Martial: You may use a "Set" Longspear as a 1-handed weapon.


Cheers, -- N

 

[Slapzilla]

Maybe add;

Exotic: Longspear is 1-handed weapon

Just a thought bubble that popped up. As far as being the 'go-to' weapon, I wonder if it was as simple as you needed less metal for a spearhead than a sword. Hmm.

I've tried the spear/shield/shortsword combo but wasn't able to make it fly. With the Exotic: 1-handed Longspear, I think it would.

 

[Destil]

I've been doing this exactly for a while. Works fine, but I still see few players with spears.

Really, I think this concept could be applied more generally - lots of weapons could have 'upgrades' if the character is proficient in a higher level of weaponry.

Yeah.You can cur easily 2/3rds of the weapon list like this.

Simple - d8, x2 crit
Martial - d8, x3 or 19-20 crit

Thoes two options cover a huge chunk of the 1 handed weapons.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

The spear is arguably the oldest and most common weapon used in war. I've never been happy with the way D&D handled them though. It always came off as a subpar choice when in reality it was the warriors "go to" weapon. So hear are a few thoughts on how I might handle them in the future...

I am a trained combatant and this is what I have done for spears:

One-handed spear 1-8 20 x4
Two-handed spear 1-8 19-20 x4 1.5xStr bonus
Long spear 1-10 19-20 x4 threatens 10' but not 5' 2xStr bonus
Pike 1-12 19-20 x4 threatens 15' but not 10' or 5' 2.5xStr bonus
Sarissa 2-16 19-20 x4 threatens 20' but not 15', 10', or 5' 3xStr bonus
Light lance 1-8 20 x4
Medium lance 1-10 20 x4
Heavy lance 1-12 20 x4

Set vs. Charge does 2x damage and mounted charge does 2x damage per the RAW, however when mounted change hits mounted charge the result is 4x damage.

All spears are martial weapons. The basic spear may be a primitive weapon, but personal experience has taught me that it sure as heck is not a simple weapon to learn!

I am not a physicist but my understanding is that thrusting weapons deliver more energy than a swinging weapon and that piercing is more efficient than slashing or bludgeoning, hence the x4 crit multiplier. Also since energy delivered is basically mass X velocity then increasing the str bonus for more massive weapons is a close approximation. [Ideally weapon damage would always be mass x Str but that would require a big change to D&D.]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am not a physicist but my understanding is that thrusting weapons deliver more energy than a swinging weapon and that piercing is more efficient than slashing or bludgeoning

I'm not one either, but I recently saw a show comparing the damage done by thrusts versus slashes and bludgeoning. (They were using force plates, bones, ballistic gels and more for their analysis.)

Thrusts don't actually deliver more energy, they are just doing so much more efficiently- delivering most of their force to a small area means increased penetration. Attacks from a thrusting weapon are quite deadly, but may not actually drop your opponent quickly. Bodies of 15th Century & later duelists have been examined and show that several of them had multiple fatal wounds...and in some cases, managed to deliver the same to their opponents.

Slashes and Bludgeoning attacks actually deliver more force (F=MA: the mass of the weapon swung in an arc is much faster, and thus, more forceful than the same mass traveling in a linear thrust), but over a greater striking area...IOW, less efficiently. While less efficient in the physics sense, have their own little trick when interacting with living creatures- hydrostatic shock. A blow from one may or may not be fatal, but the shock wave transmitted through the non-compressible water of the body disrupts nerve impulses- its the reason a single punch may knock out a bruiser of a boxer or cause cardiac arrythmia.

Their final analysis showed that while thrusts were in a real sense deadlier individually, they didn't kill quickly- a mortally wounded opponent could still be a dangerous opponent for some minutes. A solid blow from a slashing or bludgeoning weapon, on the other hand, could reduce an opponent to helplessness without being immediately fatal, ending the fight quickly.