Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Keolander 11-22-05, 07:38 PM	Ok, ladies and germs, we did this dance 2 months ago. Last time around the thread got closed because of my temper. I'm gonna try again, this time with even MORE documentation. Without further ado, I'm reopening my campaign to get WotC to issue an official errata for the Spear. The reasons for me doing this is simply because I play in various RPGA 'Living' campaigns including Living Greyhawk and The Blackmoor MMRPG and would like to be able to use my spear with shield on more than one character. Quite simply, there is a mountain of historical evidence giving us the picture of the Spear as a 1-handed simple weapon without reach or range increment. Errata-ing this would be simplicity itself: remove the range increment and remove the reach ability. Voila! You have now given proper stats for a spear like the Longinus of Rome as well as that of the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Carolingians and a host of other peoples stretching from the 2nd Millenium BCE to the about the Seventeenth Century of the Common Era. Said spear is roughly 7 feet in length and was the primary infantry weapon on almost every continent on this planet. We have historical evidence primarily in the form of the Bayeux Tapestry. A number of panels (4, 6 - 12, 19, 21, 25 - 34) show, thats right, both Infantry and Cavalry formations in both the Norman and Anglo-Saxon armies with spears used as melee weapons in conjunction with shields. And these are not necessarily small shields either, as the Norman Kite shield was quite large. If you don't, for whatever reason, believe me, I shall direct you to The Battle of Hastings, 1066.com (http://hastings1066.com/) where they have the complete tapestry online. If thats not enough, here is a page dedicated to Viking/Anglo-Saxon/Norman era reenacting. Regia Anglorum Reenactor's site (http://www.regia.org/spear.htm) Information is provided and the bottom of the page shows people using shields and spears. Whats more, it clearly differentiates between the throwing spear and the thrusting spear. Read and learn oh ye of little learning! What's more, every single edition of D&D, starting with the OD&D published by TSR in 1974 has had artwork in one or more supplements/adventures depicting a spear wielding character with a shield. Spears, I might add, that are NOT shortspears. D&D Supplement II: Blackmoor (published 1975) - Page 33: Mounted female warrior on unicorn bearing a spear in her right hand a round shield in her left (I believe its a Dave Sutherland illo) Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (3rd version, published 1980) - Cover by Erol Otus shows a spear wielding fighter with a round wooden shield about to skewer a dragon B2: Keep on the Borderlands (published 1980) - Cover by Jim Roslof shows spear wielding Orcs with orc shields as well as a spear wielding PC with a kite shield. X2: Castle Amber (published 1981) - Cover by Erol Otus shows a spear wielding guard with round shield running along parapet as it crumbles. U2: Danger at Dunwater (published 1982) - Page 26: Male warrior with spear in right hand and round shield in left hand. (Timothy Truman illo) - Page 27: Male warrior with spear in left hand and round shield in right hand. (Timothy Truman illo) N1: Cult of the Reptile God (published 1982) - Page 4: Male warrior with spear in right hand and kite shield in left hand resting lower edge on ground. (appears to be Keith Parkinson illo) A2: Secret of the Slaver's Stockade (published 1981) - Page 24: Male warrior with spear in right hand and round shield in left hand. (Erol Otus illo) UK 1: Beyond the Crystal Cave (published in 1983) - Page 24: Male warrior with spear in right hand and round shield in left hand. (Timothy Truman illo) D1-2: Descent into the Depths of the Earth (published 1981) - Page 3: Male warrior with spear in right hand and kite shield in left hand. (David C. Sutherland III illo) - Page 27: Kuo-Toa warrior with ovoid shield in left hand and spear in the right. (David C. Sutherland III illo) WG3/S4: The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth (published 1982) - Cover by Erol Otus shows male warrior with round shield in his left hand and right overhand position spear. - Page 10 of the Monsters and Magical Items supplement for WG3/S4 shows Male(?) Derro with spear-like weapon and round spiked shield. (Jeff Easley illo?) - Page 19 of the Monsters and Magical Items supplement shows a hobgoblin with a square Legionnaire-style shield and a spear. (Jeff Easley illo?) EX1: Dungeonland (published in 1983) - Page 3: Male warrior with spear in right hand and round shield in left hand. (Timothy Truman illo) - Page 4/5: Male warrior with spear in left hand and round shield in right hand. (Timothy Truman illo) - Page 13: Bullywug warrior with spear in right hand and round shield in left hand. (Timothy Truman illo) WG7: Castle Greyhawk <Joke Version> (published 1988) - Page 58: PCs in a Shield-Wall formation with kite shields and spears in the 2nd rank. (Jeff Easley illo) Dungeon Masters Adventure Log (published 1980) - Cover by Erol Otus shows Gnoll Warrior with round shield and spear facing off against a male warrior with a spear and shield. The Rogues Gallery (published 1980) - Page 43 entry on Lawrence Schick's Elven Fighter/Mage character Lanolin (who is being pickpocketed by Greg Fleming's halfling thief Gormadoc) depicts him with a round shield and a boar spear. (Greg K. Fleming illo) Deities and Demigods (1st Printing <includin the Cthulu and Melnibone mythos>, published 1980) - Page 65: Entry on Greek God of War Ares depicts him wielding a spear and carrying a shield. (illo by Jim Roslof) - Page 65: Entry on Greek Goddess of Wisdom and Combat Athena depicts her with a spear and shield. (illo by Jim Roslof) Monster Manual (1st printing, published 1977) - Page 1: Mounted warrior skewering a Bullete with spear while bearing a kite shield. (David C. Sutherland III illo?) - Page 46: Gnoll warrior with ovoid shield and spear (David C. Sutherland III illo) - Page 58: Kobold warrior with square shield and spear (David C. Sutherland III illo) - Page 76: Orc warriors with orc shields and spears (David C. Sutherland III illo) Fiend Folio (1st printing, published 1981) - Page 111: Winter outfitted warrior bearing a spear and round shield. (Jim Roslof illo) Monster Manual II (1st printing, published 1983) - Page 69: Entry on Verbeeg Giants shows one with a kite shield and wielding a spear. (illo by Harry Quinn?) Wilderness Survival Guide (1st printing, published 1986) - Page 49: Illustration by Larry Elmore of mounted flying warrior with round shield and spear. - Page 75: Illustration by Jeff Easley shows orc wielding spear and bearing a teardrop shaped shield. Greyhawk Adventures (1st printing, published 1988) - Page 37: Illustration showing guard with kite shield bearing the device of the Wild Coast Town of Fax and a spear. (Jeffy Easley illo) Players Handbook 2nd Edition (published 1989) - Page 92: Colour illustration showing goblin warrior with round shield and spear. (Unknown artist) Players Option: Skills and Powers (published 1995) - Page 108: Illustration by Eric Hotz showing goblin(?) warrior with spear and round shield. AD&D Historical Reference<HR3>: Charlemagne's Paladins (published 1992) - Page 3: Illustration by Richard Garner showing Carolingian warriors with spears and round shields - Page 13: Illustratin by Richard Garner showing mounted Carolingian warriors with spear and shield facing off against Saxon warriors with spears and round shields - Page 17: Illustration by unkown artist showing Carolingian warriors laying siege to a town. Warriors are mounted and bearing shields and spears. - Page 21: Illustration by Richard Garner showing mounted Carolingian warrior with spear and shield. - Page 61: Illustration by Richard Garner of the Battle of Roncesvalles Pass depicting Roland and Bishop Turpin at the end holding out against Basque warriors, some of whom have spear and shield. AD&D Historical Reference<HR 2>: The Celts (published 1992) - Page 4: Illustration by Richard Raup showing a Celt warrior on horseback bearing a spear and a round shield. - Page 14: Illustration by Richard Raup showing Celt warriors facing off against one another. Some have spears and shields. - Page 40: Illustration by Richard Raup showing Celt warriors facing off against Formorians. One warrior has a spear and a round shield. - Page 74: Illustration by Richard Raup showing Celt warriors, one being a warrior woman bearing a Roman Standard minus the flag, some of whom have spears and shields. One of these is also a warrior woman. - Page 82: Illustration by Richard Raup showing Celt warriors facing off against Roman Legionnaires. Almost all have spears and shields. Hacklopedia of Beasts Vol. I: Aarikians to Cats, Great (published 2001 by Kenzer Co. under license from WotC) - Page 78: Illustration by Brad McDevitt showing a Bison'vyder warrior with a spear in his right hand and a large teardrop shaped shield in his left. Hacklopedia of Beasts Vol II: Cats, Small to Efreeti (published 2001 by Kenzer Co. under license from WotC) - Page 78: Illustration by unkown artist depicting a warrior with a spear in his left hand and a shield in his right facing off against a Black Dragon that decided to grab the warrior's horse. D&D 3.5: The Miniatures Handbook (published 2003) - Page 12: Colour illustration by showing warriors with spears and large wooden shields standing behind a Marshall. Castles & Crusades RPG (published 2004 by Troll Lord Games under the Open Gaming License by WotC) - Page 3: Illustration by Peter Bradley showing more than one Dwarf Warrior wielding a spear and shield to skewer an approaching horde of Orcs (I think) lead by an Orge (I think). Funny enough, WotC proved the point for us with this illo from The Miniatures Handbook http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mh_marshal.jpg There is no reason why this shouldn't be errata'd. Don't give me homebrewed rules or the like as that is NOT what I am looking for in this instance. Enough people need to realise this problem needs fixing for WotC to get off its duff and do somethng about it. I've already gotten this same ball rolling at Troll Lord Games because I happen to like Castles & Crusades. I intend on making a similar thread for Zeitgeist Games because I love playing in Blackmoor.
DarknessEternal 11-22-05, 07:45 PM	So, did you fail to glean from the last conversation that D&D refers to a one-handed Spear as a Shortspear? They could call it a alekntepaoithoaeoty for all it matters.
Keolander 11-22-05, 07:47 PM	So, did you fail to glean from the last conversation that D&D refers to a one-handed Spear as a Shortspear? No more than you failed to grasp from the previous conversation that the Spear cannot be thrown and doesn't have reach...... And since it doesn't matter to YOU, why should I care?
BeyondFated 11-22-05, 07:47 PM	So, did you fail to glean from the last conversation that D&D refers to a one-handed Spear as a Shortspear? They could call it a alekntepaoithoaeoty for all it matters. Yeah, that pretty much somes up what I think, too...
mvincent 11-22-05, 07:51 PM	I see you are still envious of the length of their single-pronged tridents. ;)
Plothos 11-22-05, 07:57 PM	Okay, I'll refrain from pointing out the potential for houserules and the fact that the core rules are really more guidelines than anything. I agree that it's pretty silly to require any one-handed spear to be what D&D calls a shortspear. That's not historically accurate, and just doesn't make much sense. Point very much taken. However, as a sheer terminological point, I don't see the D&D choice to make spears two-handed as an error. It may be a bad decision, but the errata files are really restricted to places where the designers either contradicted themselves or phrased something in a way that made people read it in a way that was not intended; it's hard to be perfectly clear throughout the entire span of several hundred pages of highly technical documents. I think this may be why, even if all of the designers agreed this didn't make much sense, you might not see an errata file on it. They'll fall back on the potential for houseruling, and they'll see this as a minor issue. People whom it galls, such as yourself (and me, I confess) can alter the rules as they see fit. So, I don't see, despite the cogency of your position, and real pressure for the designers to "fix" anything here. That said, if it turns out that everybody and their grandmother starts ruling spears can be used one-handed (perhaps with a strength requirement, or making it a martial weapon, or requiring a feat), they might be well-advised to put out something in the FAQ and perhaps even in the errata, but I wouldn't cross my fingers. In short: point taken about the spear; point not quite taken about the errata. :twocents:
Cathon 11-22-05, 08:06 PM	I've come to terms with the fact that a longspear and shield is a completely appropriate combination... if you are fighting in a formation and using facing. In standard D&D with no facing and small unit focus the longer spear is too awkward for the rapid changes in direction involved in typical D&D combat. However, any spear should be usable one handed from the back of a mount like a lance is.
Kendrick 11-22-05, 08:27 PM	I can't see WotC publishing errata to change the way the spear works when there isn't a mechanical problem with it. Possibly they'll eventually print something that works more like the historical spears you're talking about. I don't know if that'll help you with RPGA or whatever it is that prevents you from just houseruling it, but it's about the only way I see it changing, at least in this edition.
bluejay 11-22-05, 08:45 PM	Kudos to Plothos and Kendrick for sensible, intelligent contributions to the boards.
Waterhammer 11-22-05, 08:49 PM	Those things in the illistration you showed;they look like partizans to me,or maybe runka. Sorry,couldn't help myself. Actually I was thinking list spear twice:as a simple weapon,used two handed,and as a martial weapon, useable spear & shield style, and chuckable,whoever is using it. A spear is a spear the difference is the user.
CryoSilver 11-22-05, 09:13 PM	Now, correct me if I am wrong, but is a one-handed spear not simply the halfspear? Simpler fix: take away the halfspear's range (though you could probably throw it even if it wasn't meant to be; give it a 10 foot range increment). After all, a dagger has a 10 foot range increment, and they really aren't balanced to throw. And so does the club: a large heavy stick. Now, I see a reasonable extension this to be making the longspear a martial weapon and dropping it to one handed. I suppose you could use it one handed if you had to... And rename it "pike." Otherwise, I like the spear the way it is: a really long stick that takes two hands to use well without specialized training (which is why it's a simple weapon) and can be set against a charge. Yes, maybe being able to throw it is stupid, but you'd have to give it something else if you took that away. I'd take that away, bump it to martial and let you use it as a double weapon, dealing 1d4 bludgeoning with the butt.
JadeSpider9643 11-22-05, 10:09 PM	And since it doesn't matter to YOU, why should I care? As far as game mechanics, there is nothing wrong with either the shortspear or the longspear. RPGA and real-world physics have no place in a discusion about D&D game mechanics. There's a reason no general ever equiped their army exclusively with Dwarven Urgroshs. If your gonna start a petition to base D&D game mechanics on real life, perhaps you should start by asking them to remove all elements of fantasy, including all non-human races, all non-animal creatures, and add mechanics for gunpowder, combustion engines and powered vehicle flight. So I return your question...spear design "flaws" don't matter to US, why should we care??
Kendrick 11-22-05, 10:58 PM	If your gonna start a petition to base D&D game mechanics on real life, perhaps you should start by asking them to remove all elements of fantasy, including all non-human races, all non-animal creatures, and add mechanics for gunpowder, combustion engines and powered vehicle flight. So I return your question...spear design "flaws" don't matter to US, why should we care?? That's not quite fair. Many players, myself included, like to keep a fairly realistic game, with a high degree of versimilitude. The point of fantasy isn't "lets come up with wacky new rules of physics". The point of fantasy is "What would our world be like if there were X?" What would our world be like, if there were Dwarves? Dragons? Wizards? Nobody imagines the D&D world as being fundamentally different from our world, except for these specific "what-ifs" that we put in. Now it's a little unclear to me why the OP finds the shortspear unacceptable. The damage is a bit low for a one handed simple weapon (it's missing either a point of critical multiplier or a point of average damage). Is that enough to warrant a request for errata to the existing weapon or introducing a new weapon? It would certainly be nice to see them do this, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Keolander 11-22-05, 11:06 PM	As far as game mechanics, there is nothing wrong with either the shortspear or the longspear. Said nothing about the Shortspear or Longspear. I said Spear. Try again. RPGA and real-world physics have no place in a discusion about D&D game mechanics. So gravity doesn't work in D&D like it does in reality? As for RPGA, try again, as it is very much pertinent to this discussion. Do you even know what RPGA is? There's a reason no general ever equiped their army exclusively with Dwarven Urgroshs. Are you serious? The spear was the most common armament on the PLANET before the invention of the gun. If your gonna start a petition to base D&D game mechanics on real life perhaps you should start by asking them to remove all elements of fantasy, including all non-human races, all non-animal creatures, and add mechanics for gunpowder, combustion engines and powered vehicle flight. Weak argument to say the least. Dragons are fantasy. Psionics are fantasy. Swords and shields are not fantasy. They are not covered by the "hey, it's fantasy" stupidity-coverage clause. So I return your question...spear design "flaws" don't matter to US, why should we care?? :rolleyes: Edit: Oh, by the way, could someone please explain to me how there can be a 2-handed weapon that can be thrown? Thats right, the Spear, which according to the D&D 3.5 rules, is a 2-handed weapon, has a range increment of 20ft.
Someone 11-22-05, 11:14 PM	Wait, so you're complaining that there are three different spears? A "short" one-handed one, a two-handed one that does more damage, and a "long" two-handed one that has reach? They are all "spears". Its just descriptive differences so that when a player says "spear", everyone else should know what they are talking about.
Keolander 11-22-05, 11:24 PM	Wait, so you're complaining that there are three different spears? A "short" one-handed one, a two-handed one that does more damage, and a "long" two-handed one that has reach? Did you even read my post before typing up your own? They are all "spears". Its just descriptive differences so that when a player says "spear", everyone else should know what they are talking about. :rolleyes:
Kendrick 11-22-05, 11:34 PM	Did you even read my post before typing up your own? :rolleyes: Could you post up the exact stats of what you think the spear should be? Why can't you just use a shortspear, and describe it however you feel like? There's nothing that says that just 'cause it has a range increment, you have to throw it.
Xanthia 11-23-05, 12:03 AM	Keolander, you're really freaking out here. You posted an extremely accurate thread about the historical statistics of the spear, and provided a bibliography of illiutrations to back it up. However, not every D&D player really even *cares* about wielding a spear. With every new topic, the thread starter is going to get a few cynical comments, but nothing really hostile. You have recieved these tounge-in-cheek posts, and you're getting overly defensive. Your additude about this entire situation has gone from "I really think spears should be changed" to "We must erase all evidence in 3rd edition that the spear has XX stats; it should have YY stats and nothing else will do". I read your last thread and found it interesting; this one is starting to offend me.
Keolander 11-23-05, 12:21 AM	Could you post up the exact stats of what you think the spear should be? Certainly. Spear Cost: 2gp Weight:6lbs 1-handed melee weapon, piercing damage 1d6/1d8, x3 Crit No range increment (cannot be effectively thrown), no reach ability (its only circa 7ft in length) Can be set against charge for x2 damage Thats pretty much the historical spear. Why can't you just use a shortspear, and describe it however you feel like? Because its NOT a spear that is a melee weapon. Its a throwing weapon and not made to withstand the shock of being used in that fashion. There's nothing that says that just 'cause it has a range increment, you have to throw it. You missed the point entirely.....
Rakzaar the Hallowed 11-23-05, 01:09 AM	Dude, Keolander, there are three different types of spears for a reason i suspect. the Shortspear seems to be a skirmisher's or footman's spear, as it is capable of being used as a melee weapon, and still (such as the early roman thrown spears - not the pilium) used as a ranged weapon perhaps to use BEFORE contact with the enemy like a skirmisher would. After throwing the spears, drawing swords would finish the battle. I believe that the Shortspear is reasonable, and historically correct as a mulit-purpose footman's spear. However - which i see is your main point is that the weapon that WoTC refer to as the 'Spear' is unreasonable as a two-handed, when in real life many soldiers (such as the roman auxuilia, and pretty much eveyone else) used this weapon single handed. Lets get this straight - the Longspear is pretty much a pike - having 10ft reach/maybe even 15ft (with the person holding it,plues his 5ft square) can be around 17-25 feet long. I find this acceptable as the Greek and Macedonian Phalanx used spears this long, and to get around the 'cannot attack adjacent oppenent' reality, they had layers, and up to five ranks back were protecting the first rank of infantry... However, the Longspear used by the Macedonians (20-25 foot long sarrisa) was too big to use one handed, so they used them two handed, and brought them to battle in two peices, which were clicked together before fighting. In reality, if an opponent approached within your attack distance (behind your spear point) you would shuffle step backwards while attacking, or if you had no back-up (such as the rest of a phalanx) you would just drop the spear and draw your sword. In the case of Spears being thrown, thats fine by me. As i mentioned earlier, the shortspear was a multipurpose spear for either throwing or stabbing and was a general foot-soldiers weapon. The spear it seems is not a short-spear, so therefore it must be longer, but for some reason does not have reach (see longspear above). The spear is a longer variety that WAS used single-handed by the greek and macedonian soldiers (before Philip II introduced the extra long sarissa) especially in the phalanx... however, proof shows that both short AND longer spears were thrown, especially the greeks using their phalanx spear (quite long) to throw from ship to ship in aquatic engagements, then use their shortsword when boarding after throwing the spears. Spears where thrown ALSO when the enemy retreated, as the soldiers no longer needed the spears to do the phalanx manouver, they threw their spears to deal as much damage as possible to the routing foes, then chased them with their swords. Spears WERE made as a versatile melee or thrown weapon. As with the problem you see with twohanded spears, the spears used by the Greeks were actually twohanded, HOWEVER the greek soldiers underwent immense training and fighting practice in using such a large spear single handed, as well as using a large and heavy shield in the off-hand. In D&D you might simulate the greek/spartan/macedonian training to use the 'spear' from D&D as they did historically with the exotic weapon proficiency, as it really is exotic to use such a big weapon one-handed. The macedonians however still wore shields even though they had huge spears, that required two hands - albiet their shields were no more than steel bucklers the size of small dinner plates. so with single-handed spears, you can use weapon proficency feats to overcome this problem, just as the bastard sword can be used singlehanded with a (separate) exotic weapon proficiency feat to make it a martial one-handed weapon. You could do the same to make the Spear (to represent lots of training) able to get exotic weapon prof. in spear to use it singlehanded and STILL be able to use it to set against the charge (because i see this pretty much impossible with only one hand) and be able to throw it, as it has been proven that historically, all sorts of spears have been used for throwing - as they are aero dynamic (unlike swords or maces) to throw and also even larger ones can still be thrown as long as you have enough skill. Without house rules, it seems that it is impossible using the current D&D system to get what you want Keolander, however most people REALLY dont care. I am one that does care, but is sensible enough to make a few common-sense house rules that allow certain things like the weapon prof. feat with spear, or maybe take a -4 to hit because it is unwieldly... i hope this helps you - if not, well... i cant save every soul from single-minded obsession... P.S --- I believe that the Shortspear is in fact approx 7 feet long... the spear is about 12 feet long. and the longspear (pike) is about 15-20 feet long. Also, when riding a horse, the Spear becomes single handed, such as the long Sarissa used by the Macedonian Companion Cavalry, so it acts pretty much like a lance. The viklings and Saxons and most other medieval people used the standard shortspear and shield, however its not that their spears weren't made for throwing, it is that the people themselves just didnt use that tactic - mainly because they'd rather keep their only big weapon, other than a handaxe/dagger. If you do not like what WoTC have done with spears, then make ur own rules for them - remember, the D&D game system is only a guidline for people to have role-playing happyness... otherwise it is changeable for your usage.
Vahenir 11-23-05, 01:34 AM	First, I want to say that I agree with everything Keolander is saying and that I understand his concerns. Secondly, I want to say that constantly battering him with "houserule it!" isn't going to help him. Thirdly, I have to say "houserule it!" Meaning, I understand what you're saying, Keolander, and I understand what you're trying to do. But the bottom line is that WotC is not going to errata spears to solve your concerns and irritation. Sorry.. it's just not going to happen. The most you can hope for is a non-Core addition to the weapons list (I'm not sure how the RPGA works, so I don't know if you can use official, but non-core equipment). Fourth.. DarknessEternal, as with the last thread, still isn't understanding something: Keolander wants a balanced spear that doesn't have the 'extras' which are not SUITED to the weapon. He wants a historically-correct spear: One that is used in one hand but is unsuitable for throwing. That is no more an 'out there' request as asking for a longsword without a range increment. Some spears are no better for throwing than a battle-axe. Period. He's asking for a pretty simple thing: a weapon which was more common than the one in the PH.. a non-throwable single-hand spear. I think that's perfectly valid, even if I doubt he'll ever get it to be Core. But if you don't want to believe me.. you don't have to. You can believe two foremost historians -- Mark Harrison and Gerry Embleton and their writings in Anglo-Saxon Thegn 448-1066 AD: "The commonest spear type is a broad-headed variety unsuitable for throwing, and so quite different from Tacitus's framea." (the framea being a short throwing spear very close to a javelin in use, which Tacitus identified as being used by the early Anglo-Saxons) "However desirable a fine sword, the bulk of serious fighting was done with spears. These could be of either throwing or thrusting type or sometimes of an intermediate form useful as either a missile or a close-combat weapon." Bolding mine.
Rakzaar the Hallowed 11-23-05, 01:39 AM	Another thing Keolander, is that most of the material (well...all of it except 1) is not historically acurate at all - it is all D&D based concept art drawn by artists. NON (except 1) of it is actual historic primary facts. The majority of it is just PICTURES!! just because the hobgoblin is wielding a spear with a shield, does not mean for a second, that spears can be used one-handed, as it is only concept art. This may imply, however that in fact what you saw was NOT a spear, but was in fact a SHORTspear. Rules, and pretty images are not exactly related, so you probably should not count the pictures from artists in the different D&D books as proof that the game should incorporate your idea of the non-thrown and non reach and single handed generic spear. Throughout history as i stated earlier in a different post, there have been a huge variety of spears made by humans, throwing spears, javelins, head-high spears, huge 20+ foot long pikes, and the cavalry spears and lances. What you are trying to do is make a generic medieval based spear, using the people tactics at the time (no throwing) and their lack of training (thus not being able to handle the huge macedonian pikes). This is all i have to say just now (unless i find something else to say ;) )
Rakzaar the Hallowed 11-23-05, 01:49 AM	That is no more an 'out there' request as asking for a longsword without a range increment. Some spears are no better for throwing than a battle-axe. Period. He's asking for a pretty simple thing: a weapon which was more common than the one in the PH.. a non-throwable single-hand spear. I think that's perfectly valid, even if I doubt he'll ever get it to be Core. Dude, all a range increment is, is saying that 'this weapon is at least slightly designed for some from of throwing/projectile usage'. if a weapon does not have a range increment, then it CAN STLL BE THROWN as it is counted as an improvised thrown weapon with a range increment of 10 ft and max of 5 increments (i think) and you get a -4 to hit, because it is not normally a thrown weapon. You always add str bonus to thrown weapon damage. The PHB shortspear is the most common spear i have ever seen in my life - every peasant in a D&D army is pretty much armed with either a club or shortspear - because a shortspear is cheap and effective as a melee weapon or a ranged weapon. A person who uses skirmishing tactics in D&D might take 5-6 shortspears, throw all but one, and then attack. Saying that a spear in non-throwable is stupid, and is stupid to think that, as ANYTHING is throwable. If WotC took out the range increment for the spear, i'd STILL throw it anyways, as well as a battleaxe, a whip (lol) and a mace, and anything i could get my hands on - even a table. So you see, i think yourself and keolander should just stay with the shortspear like everyone else for realistic footman weapons, or just make ONE change - the onehanded/twohanded problem... i mean damn dude, how F'ing hard is it???
Vahenir 11-23-05, 02:13 AM	Dude, all a range increment is, is saying that 'this weapon is at least slightly designed for some from of throwing/projectile usage'. Did you miss the quotes about certain, actually the most common, spears being unsuited to throwing? Should the Longsword have a range increment? You can throw a sword. Sometimes you can throw it better than you can throw a spear, depending on the sword and spear in question. if a weapon does not have a range increment, then it CAN STLL BE THROWN as it is counted as an improvised thrown weapon with a range increment of 10 ft and max of 5 increments Correct. Many forms of spear would fall under this category.. NOT MEANT TO BE THROWN -- but can be because.. well.. anything CAN be thrown, if you try hard enough. The PHB shortspear is the most common spear i have ever seen in my life - every peasant in a D&D army is pretty much armed with either a club or shortspear - because a shortspear is cheap and effective as a melee weapon or a ranged weapon. And in -real life- the most common spear was not suitable for throwing (well, most common as it refers to the medieval and late-migration periods). That is what Keolander wants. It's quite simple, really. Saying that a spear in non-throwable is stupid, and is stupid to think that, as ANYTHING is throwable. Maybe you're too ignorant to understand basic English.. but I'll try to make it a bit clearer for you: A spear can be CAPABLE OF BEING THROWN while not being SUITABLE for it. I could throw a bar stool. That does not make a bar stool SUITABLE as a thrown weapon. By your logic.. every item in the Player's Handbook should have a LISTED range increment because, in real life.. you can throw just about anything. That's absurd. So you see, i think yourself and keolander should just stay with the shortspear like everyone else for realistic footman weapons, or just make ONE change - the onehanded/twohanded problem... i mean damn dude, how F'ing hard is it??? All I see is that you are only marginally literate, and clearly are not capable of following a discussion. But a few points; This is not about me.. it's about Keolander. -I- have my own houseruled weapon tables that I use. But -I-, unlike Keolander, am not in the RPGA. That's the source of this entire discussion. Try to keep up, will you? And how hard is it to understand that one of the most common types of spear in the real world was NO MORE suited to being thrown than a greatsword?
Perun 11-23-05, 02:39 AM	In you rintroductory post, you said: Quite simply, there is a mountain of historical evidence giving us the picture of the Spear as a 1-handed simple weapon without reach or range increment. Errata-ing this would be simplicity itself: remove the range increment and remove the reach ability. Voila! You have now given proper stats for a spear like the Longinus of Rome as well as that of the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Carolingians and a host of other peoples stretching from the 2nd Millenium BCE to the about the Seventeenth Century of the Common Era. Then you said:Spear Cost: 2gp Weight:6lbs 1-handed melee weapon, piercing damage 1d6/1d8, x3 Crit No range increment (cannot be effectively thrown), no reach ability (its only circa 7ft in length) Can be set against charge for x2 damage The spear you suggest is not balanced with other Simple weapons. It would, in fact, fall into Martial category (single handed, d8 damage, x3 critical, can be set against a charge -- it's really better than the battleaxe, warhammer or longsword). If you want a Simple weapon, I'd suggest: Spear Cost: 2gp Weight:6lbs 1-handed Simple melee weapon, piercing damage 1d4/1d6, x2 Crit 10 ft. increment Can be set against charge for x2 damage Or, if you really wanted to make it unthrowable, Spear Cost: 2gp Weight:6lbs 1-handed Simple melee weapon, piercing damage 1d6/1d8, x2 Crit Can be set against charge for x2 damage (This is balanced if you consider morningstar's dual damage type and mace's increased hardness and hp an additional benefit, but I think it's pushing it.) This goes well with what Vahenir said: "However desirable a fine sword, the bulk of serious fighting was done with spears. These could be of either throwing or thrusting type or sometimes of an intermediate form useful as either a missile or a close-combat weapon." Remember, it's a Simple weapon, so just about anyone would know how to use it. The stats should be in line with other Simple weapons, and these are 1d8/x2 for Simple 1-haded weapons with no additional abilities, or 1d6/x2 for 1-handed Simple weapons with some sort of additional ability (like range increment; set against a charge would fall into this category). Or, you may go the bastard sword/dwarven battleaxe route: Spear Cost: 2gp Weight:6lbs 2-handed Simple melee weapon, piercing damage 1d4/1d6, x3 Crit (or 1d6/1d8, x2 Crit -- it's about equal for balance purposes) 10 ft. increment Can be set against charge for x2 damage Special: If the character has Martial Weapon Proficiency (spear), he can use it as a one-handed weapon. So, warriors, barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers immediatelly gain proficiency in the "martial spear", which is, stat-wise, comparable to the flail and trident, and strictly speaking, better than scimitar. If you want to avoid changing the rules, here's a simple way to do it Spear Mastery [General, Fighter] Due to your intensive training in the use of spears, you can use it in the way few others can. Prerequisite: Proficiency in shortspear and spear, Str 13+, base attack bonus +1 or higher Benefit: The spear (but not the longspear) is a one-handed weapon for you, and the shortspear is a light weapon for you. If you take Weapon Focus or Great Weapon Focus for longspear, shortspear, or spear, it applies to all three. You gain a +1 competence bonus on any rolls made to confirm critical hits with longspears, shortspears, and spears. Regards.
Nazzareth 11-23-05, 03:18 AM	Just because they had a shield one hand and a spear in the other did not necessarily mean that the spear was used one handed. Many shields (depending on design) allowed for a two handed grip on a spear for bracing or thrusting, however is would be awkward and would possibly negate the shield bonus to AC. A two handed thrust to a downed foe was often used. A spear can be CAPABLE OF BEING THROWN while not being SUITABLE for it. I could throw a bar stool. That does not make a bar stool SUITABLE as a thrown weapon. I have seen a bar stool used as both a suitable ranged and melee weapon. The poor bugger on the receiving end wouldn't care any less how it was used, I don't think they would be thinking that it was the incorrect method of using a bar stool as weapon.
Vahenir 11-23-05, 05:50 AM	Just because they had a shield one hand and a spear in the other did not necessarily mean that the spear was used one handed. Truly. Many shields (depending on design) allowed for a two handed grip on a spear for bracing or thrusting However, Anglo-Saxon shields did not allow for this, nor did the Scutum or even some Greek shields (being that the primary shield type which allowed for this was, in fact, Greek and later Byzantine). A two handed thrust to a downed foe was often used. ....? As opposed to what? I'm not sure what the relevance or meaning of this statement is supposed to be. I have seen a bar stool used as both a suitable ranged and melee weapon. No, you haven't. Maybe you've seen a bar stool -used- as a ranged and melee weapon, sure. That does not make it suitable, however. It makes it improvised. Or are you now going to claim that bar stools should be in the equipment list because a bar stool is an effective and suitable weapon? A bar stool can be used to harm someone, but it is still unsuitable to act as an actual weapon. Period. Some shields are unsuitable as throwing weapons and would, thus, be improvised if thrown. Period. Simple facts, people. It baffles the mind how one can even argue against them.
Rakzaar the Hallowed 11-23-05, 07:46 AM	wtf Vahenir, in between insulting other people's comments and logic, you have totally lost the plot - you replied to me "A spear can be CAPABLE OF BEING THROWN while not being SUITABLE for it. I could throw a bar stool. That does not make a bar stool SUITABLE as a thrown weapon. By your logic.. every item in the Player's Handbook should have a LISTED range increment because, in real life.. you can throw just about anything. That's absurd." - to me that statement annoys me as much as christians trying to make sense of the evolution theory ( which is reality) by saying that we instantanously went from micro organisms to apes to humans in like - 5 mins as they see it... First of all, you are a little stange, having totally ignored what I have said earlier saying that increments in the weapons table is ONLY for weapons designed to be thrown or used as a missile - i did NOT at any time state that all weapons in the PHB weapons table should be given range increments. What i was trying to say, which someone with your intelligance should have picked up, was that by the laws of physics ANY OBJECT AS LONG AS IT CAN BE PICKED UP CAN BE THROWN, soooooo WotC implemented the rule saying that anything WITHOUT a range increment on the weapons table, is considered not suitable/designed for throwing, and is therefore an improvised thrown weapon with the rules as i stated in the earlier post. I think that you should stop being a prick, and give positive feedback - i will try the same. As all i have done in my previous posts is attempt to help out - with possible answers to Keolander's problems. However, you are making this hard. Now, what do you say to that?
Rake 11-23-05, 07:53 AM	Write up a new feat on the back, inside cover of your PHB. There - now it's in the book. Consider it erratta'd. Oh how I pine for the days of 2e (the days, mind you, not the game!) when, if someone didn't like something, they changed it, and played on. Alas, now we must be fed erratta, our houserules must be made official, or we can (seemingly) take no comfort in them. Woe, for the Era of Whining is upon us.
Pliskit 11-23-05, 08:16 AM	Personally I think this threat is getting out of hand, something that was unavoidable from the first post on. I can't fathom what Keolanders intention with this threat is: If you want the WOTC to change their mechanics on spears, write them an email and have it over with! Instead you start up a threat in which you apparently ONLY want to hear from people that 100% agree with you. People that dismiss the subject as irrelevant you scold, people that tell you to houserule it you dismiss, people with any opinion other then "Yes Keolander, the spear should be changed into what you say it should be" are ignored or offended either by you or by Vahenir, who seems to have chosen the role of devils advocate. In doing this you two create an atmosphere wherein every new post is going to be more irritated then the previous. I haven't read the threat Keolander posted 2 months ago, but if it went along the same lines I can see why it got removed.
Rakzaar the Hallowed 11-23-05, 08:26 AM	lol Pliskit, very true indeed. I still dont understand why Keolander doesnt just house rule it.... ohhhhhhhhhhhh well... what can ya do?
WayneTheGame 11-23-05, 08:40 AM	lol Pliskit, very true indeed. I still dont understand why Keolander doesnt just house rule it.... ohhhhhhhhhhhh well... what can ya do? I think he mentioned he plays a lot of RPGA games.. which would mean no houserules. BTW, Keolander, I agree 100% with you that a spear should be 1-handed. Halberds, too, so I can have a character that does the fancy ancient Chinese duel-type maneuvers (twirl a halberd around, swing it at a foe, and only use it two-handed when you're actually chopping at things or parrying blows)
Rakzaar the Hallowed 11-23-05, 08:44 AM	hmmm... i think it is a little more complicated than saying "i want the spear to be one handed"...... Also i seriously have no idea what RPGA is :)
DarknessEternal 11-23-05, 10:00 AM	Because its NOT a spear that is a melee weapon. Its a throwing weapon and not made to withstand the shock of being used in that fashion. You are confused. What source in D&D claims a shortspear cannot be used in melee because it cannot "withstand the shock of being used in that fashion." Shortspears in D&D not only can be used in melee, they are expressly a melee weapon before they are a ranged weapon. This is why they are listed as a one-handed weapon and not a ranged weapon.
pres_man 11-23-05, 11:14 AM	Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that Wizards is going to change the spears in the PHB. A better chance is that they may introduce the spear you want into a future product. Yet since they almost never introduce new simple weapons, it will probably be a martial weapon. For those that wish to use it as a houserule, should use the following stats (using the posts from Keolander and Perun) Simple Spear Cost: 2gp Weight:6lbs 1-handed melee weapon, piercing damage 1d6/1d8, x2 Crit No range increment (cannot be effectively thrown), no reach ability (its only circa 7ft in length) Can be set against charge for x2 damage Martial Spear Cost: 2gp Weight:6lbs 1-handed melee weapon, piercing damage 1d6/1d8, x3 Crit No range increment (cannot be effectively thrown), no reach ability (its only circa 7ft in length) Can be set against charge for x2 damage Rakzaar the Hallowed: Why don't you try to keep your inappropriate statements of groups of people that have nothing to do with this, out of the discussion. You want to discuss your feelings about other groups of people that you don't like, get a blog. All you're going to do is get this discussion locked.
Joe Khol 11-23-05, 12:02 PM	Keolander, You are right that there are historical spears for which the core D&D rules have nothing directly representing them. That is true of hundreds of different types of historical weapons though. All the spear-type weapons which are in the core rules do represent historical weapons though, so your campaign for errata is destined to fail - there is no error. Most players have the option to house rule in this situation (and many do). If you play in RPGA games, you need RPGA to change their rules. I don't know the details of how RPGA works but I suspect this isn't likely, which would be why you would be taking this unconventional route. I'm sorry to say that what you want - the spear officially errataed - just isn't going to happen.
Rake 11-23-05, 12:06 PM	The OP has specifically stated that he doesn't want houseruled spears or feats, he wants this thread to become a sort of petition, which will never happen since even those who agree with him are more likely to houserule it and move on. He plays RPGA, apparently, so he can't use your houserules, and it seems like posting them only makes you the target of his 'wrath' - so really, don't bother. I wouldn't give this thread all too much attention, as it will never become the 'petition' it was intended to be, and as it's more of a springboard for the OP to cut down your ideas, opinions, and suggestions than it is... anything else.
Gray stranger 11-23-05, 12:21 PM	The OP has specifically stated that he doesn't want houseruled spears or feats, he wants this thread to become a sort of petition, which will never happen since even those who agree with him are more likely to houserule it and move on. He plays RPGA, apparently, so he can't use your houserules, and it seems like posting them only makes you the target of his 'wrath' - so really, don't bother. I wouldn't give this thread all too much attention, as it will never become the 'petition' it was intended to be, and as it's more of a springboard for the OP to cut down your ideas, opinions, and suggestions than it is... anything else. Rake seems to be spot on...
Sluagh 11-23-05, 12:42 PM	to me that statement annoys me as much as christians trying to make sense of the evolution theory ( which is reality). Whoa now... don't be so quick to say that evolutionary theory is reality. It is certainly most plausible, but it is theory. It is known that evolution occurs, there is no way to refute it, however, the process of evolution and creation are simply theories. Yes, I am an evolutionary biologist... I believe and support evolution and much of its theory... however to simply state that the theory is reality is shortsighted. But, in line with the actual point of the thread, dude, I highly doubt you'll get an official errata to the spear. I know others have suggested house ruling, and you're against it, but seriously, it is your best option... that and maybe hope that they'll provide what you're looking for in future expansion. Would it be so terrible to use what is called the shortspear to reflect an historic spear and just not use the range increment? Would that not in essence make use of the idea you're looking for (outside of the demands on the publisher and as a game mechanic)?
Keolander 11-23-05, 12:46 PM	hmmm... i think it is a little more complicated than saying "i want the spear to be one handed"...... Also i seriously have no idea what RPGA is :) Role Playing Gamer Association. That is RPGA. They sponsor various 'Living' campaigns like Living Greyhawk, Blackmoor MMRPG, Living City (Forgotten Realms), Living Arcanis, Living Force and such. You can read about them simply by clicking on the Events Link at the top and scrolling down to the RPGA link. As for why these forums, well, again, any change has to come from WotC itself in the form of errata. Ascribe to me whatever reasoning you want, but the simple fact remains that the Spear (not shortspear, not longspear) as written in the 3.5 PHB is broken. You cannot have a 2-handed weapon that you can throw unless it can be wielded 1-handed. The only way you can throw a 2-handed weapon is to toss it end over end. Not exactly aerodynamic.
pres_man 11-23-05, 01:03 PM	NM.
Tony Vargas 11-23-05, 01:12 PM	Spear Cost: 2gp Weight:6lbs 1-handed melee weapon, piercing damage 1d6/1d8, x3 Crit No range increment (cannot be effectively thrown), no reach ability (its only circa 7ft in length) Can be set against charge for x2 damage That'd be fine as a martial weapon, but as simple weapon it's a bit overpowered. Of course, so is the shortspear, so it's easy to see how you got there. I too have a real problem with the options for one-handed spears in 3E. The shortspear is a low-damage throwing weapon, the trident merely a higher damage, shorter-range shortspear. Both a conventional spear that would normally be used two-handed, and a longspear (with a meaningful reach advangate), could reasonably be (and historically were) used one-handed. It'd be nice if D&D modeled that. I'd want to see an 'errata' along the lines of allowing a spear or longspear to be used one-handed. Maybe "A spear or longspear can be used one-handed as a martial melee weapon. When employed in this way, the critical multiplier of the weapon is reduced from x3 to x2." While were on the subject of spears and errata, the way you throw a spear should really be addressed, like in was in 3.0: the spear is the only throwable two-handed weapon in the 3.5 PH. In 3.0, a two-handed, throwable weapon was actually thrown with one hand, but took a full round action to throw. In 3.5 this is unclear. I'd prefer to see the 3.0 rule re-enshrined.
DarknessEternal 11-23-05, 01:36 PM	You cannot have a 2-handed weapon that you can throw unless it can be wielded 1-handed. The only way you can throw a 2-handed weapon is to toss it end over end. Not exactly aerodynamic. Illogical and incorrect. Two-handed means it requires your other hand to use properly. It does not mean it requires your other hand to be on the weapon at all times. I assert the authors assumed that the weight and positioning of a shield on your arm would prevent you from throwing a dart longer than you are tall properly. They are correct in that assumption. If you really think a person can throw a 7ft spear whilst using a heavy shield, the range increment would be closer to 5ft, not 20ft.
pres_man 11-23-05, 01:41 PM	If you really think a person can throw a 7ft spear whilst using a heavy shield, the range increment would be closer to 5ft, not 20ft. I think that is what he is saying. He doesn't want a spear that can be thrown. He wants a one-handed spear that could be used with a shield, that can't be thrown and doesn't give reach.
DarknessEternal 11-23-05, 02:58 PM	I think that is what he is saying. He doesn't want a spear that can be thrown. He wants a one-handed spear that could be used with a shield, that can't be thrown and doesn't give reach. Then it's perfectly within his rights to not throw his shortspear. It doesn't will itself to be thrown afterall.
Keolander 11-23-05, 03:17 PM	Then it's perfectly within his rights to not throw his shortspear. So you're saying The Bayeux Tapestry is incorrect? You are saying that historical reenactors that have shown you can wield a 7ft spear as a 1-handed melee weapon and carry a shield are wrong?
DarknessEternal 11-23-05, 04:01 PM	I said nothing of the sort. I said you can't throw a spear 100 feet while using what D&D classifies as a shield. I also said a "shortspear" does everything you're asking for in your ideal weapon. It can be used one handed and set to recieve a charge. You are not obligated to throw it. You seem to be having a lot of trouble with the language of D&D. Before you continue your petition, I suggest reviewing the terms "carry", "wield", "one-handed", "two-handed", "light shield", "heavy shield", "buckler", "spear", and "shortspear" as they pertain to D&D. Their definitions outside of D&D are completely irrelevant.
Tony Vargas 11-23-05, 04:04 PM	So you're saying The Bayeux Tapestry is incorrect? You are saying that historical reenactors that have shown you can wield a 7ft spear as a 1-handed melee weapon and carry a shield are wrong? No, he's saying that you shouldn't be so hung up on a weapon having properties /in addition/ to those you want. You want a one handed spear. There are three one-handed, spear-like weapons in the game already: the shortspear, which is simple, and can be thrown or set vs charge; the trident, which is martial and can be thrown or set vs charge; and the lance, which is one handed only when mounted and can't be thrown /or/ set vs a charge. Now, you want a one-handed, simple, piercing weapon that can be set vs charge /and not thrown/. But, 'not thrown' isn't a positive requirement. A shorspear does do everything you want - it's just /also/ throwable. You can ignore that and use one. You can invoke 'weapon equivalency' and 'character description' and make it a spear visually unlike the usual shortspear. No, that's not really doing a real or historical spear justice, not quite, but, for RPGA purposes, it's close enough. The RPGA rules are pretty strict, and that's going to hamper character concepts, among other things. Honestly, I think people have been giving you poor advice in this and the previous thread: the best advice would be to join a real group, one where the DM might be more open, and not play RPGA games so much.
KangTheCallipygian 11-23-05, 04:10 PM	it's perfectly within his rights to not throw his shortspear. It doesn't will itself to be thrown afterall.Agreed, though we're not the first to suggest this solution here. For some reason this hasn't been satisfactory - I think Keolander wants everyone else to stop throwing their own one-handed spear-like weapons too for some reason, but I could be wrong. Keolander, I don't think DarknessEternal meant to suggest the tapestries and reenactors are wrong, so much as he's suggesting that you could choose not to throw your shortspear, wielding it one-handed with a shield just as you wish. I myself make no claims about either tapestries or reenactors, just so we're clear. If a one-handed spear that can be used in melee isn't good enough because other characters are throwing identical weapons - the only reason I can think of why you couldn't be perfectly happy with a shield plus a shortspear you have chosen never to throw - then the only alternative suggestion I have would be to pick up an undersized (ie. small, assuming your PC is medium) longspear: very similar stats to a shortspear; just a bit more expensive and heavy, deals X3 rather than X2 crit, imposes a -2 on attack rolls for inappropriate size, is effectively one-handed, and most importantly, is both unsuitable for throwing (ie. lacks a range increment, before we get back into that again) and without reach, given the updated rules for inappropriately-sized reach weapons. Anyone remember where I recently read that undersized reach weapons lose their reach? Sage Advice? Rules of the Game? I really don't know where, or even if it was an RPGA-accepted source, so this may or may not be useful. Sounds like what you're looking for to me, though I might have misunderstood some of your points above - noticed a couple of ambiguous "it" usages early on where I wasn't sure which type of spear you meant... Taking a -2 on your attack rolls might be less frustrating than banging your head against this wall, expecting WotC to publish an errata to satisfy one mildly disgruntled player who's clearly not about to quit buying their products (based on the bibliography you posted above, you appear to have a more-than-20-years-old D&D buying habit - a lifer if I ever saw one, and I mean that as a compliment)... Anyhow, hope the undersized longspear idea works out, or that you come up with something that does. I don't think they'd publish an errata on this even if every reply you got was in total agreement, but if they do create one just for you, more power to you; maybe while you're at it you can talk my wife into throwing empty food wrappers in the trash instead of leaving them on the counter, and picking her dirty clothes up off the bathroom floor after she takes a shower. I've got a whole list of stuff, come to think of it... :) Kang
Keolander 11-23-05, 04:41 PM	I said you can't throw a spear 100 feet while using what D&D classifies as a shield. Which has nothing whatsoever with what I was talking about..... I also said a "shortspear" does everything you're asking for in your ideal weapon. No it isnt.... It can be used one handed and set to recieve a charge. You are not obligated to throw it. You cannot use it to set against a charge any better than you can use a sword. You seem to be having a lot of trouble with the language of D&D. Before you continue your petition, I suggest reviewing the terms "carry", "wield", "one-handed", "two-handed", "light shield", "heavy shield", "buckler", "spear", and "shortspear" as they pertain to D&D. Their definitions outside of D&D are completely irrelevant. I'm not going to deign to answer your flame bait ridden slop. :rolleyes:
pres_man 11-23-05, 06:06 PM	Agreed, though we're not the first to suggest this solution here. For some reason this hasn't been satisfactory - I think Keolander wants everyone else to stop throwing their own one-handed spear-like weapons too for some reason, but I could be wrong. I don't think he is saying that the shortspear should be removed (though personally I believe having both the shortspear and the javelin is a bit much). What he is asking for is another one-handed spear tjat is not the shortspear. Now, I know people don't believe there is a need, but there is precedence for this idea. Look at the handaxe and the throwing axe. What is the point of having the handaxe? The throwing axe does everything the handaxe does, and it can be thrown (but it doesn't force itself to be thrown :P ). Thus anyone who wants to use a handaxe should just use a throwing axe instead. But wait, some say, the throwing axe is a bit weak (x2 instead of x3) to balance out the throwing ability, this is why we need the the handaxe so we can a very similiar weapon that can't be thrown (any more than anything can be) and is a bit more damaging.
DarknessEternal 11-23-05, 07:41 PM	I have no idea how to respond to this thread anymore. The weapon he wants exists. It is called a "trident" by D&D. He can make it look like whatever he wants. There is no issue here.
Vahenir 11-23-05, 08:56 PM	in between insulting other people's comments and logic Insulting and 'pointing out the flaws in' are two entirely different things. The things I'm arguing against can hardly be called 'logic.' you have totally lost the plot Are we writing a story? to me that statement annoys me as much as christians trying to make sense of the evolution theory ( which is reality) by saying that we instantanously went from micro organisms to apes to humans in like - 5 mins as they see it... Are you trying to offend people? As was pointed out to you.. the THEORY of Evolution is exactly that. .a theory. The THEORY of Creationism is also a THEORY. Neither is better than the other. (This coming from a guy who is fervently anti-Creationism.) First of all, you are a little stange If you're normal.. I'll take that as a compliment. having totally ignored what I have said earlier saying that increments in the weapons table is ONLY for weapons designed to be thrown or used as a missile I didn't ignore it. You contradicted it by saying that because an item CAN be thrown.. that means it is SUITABLE to be thrown and thus-- it makes sense to have a range increment for that item. Pay attention to what -you- are saying. i did NOT at any time state that all weapons in the PHB weapons table should be given range increments. I never said that. I said that all weapons should have a range increment if we follow the line of 'logic' that you were using. Try to keep up, will you? What i was trying to say, which someone with your intelligance should have picked up, was that by the laws of physics ANY OBJECT AS LONG AS IT CAN BE PICKED UP CAN BE THROWN Precisely! So your entire stance here is that the Spear should have a range increment because, IN THEORY, it CAN be thrown just like any other object can be thrown. By that -exact same- logic, swords should have range increments because, if you can pick it up -- you can throw it. WotC implemented the rule saying that anything WITHOUT a range increment on the weapons table, is considered not suitable/designed for throwing Correct. And the point that Keolander (and myself in his support) is making is that a great many forms of real-world spear were NOT suitable/designed for throwing. I think that you should stop being a prick And I think that you should watch your mouth, kiddo. Try reading the Code of Conduct and, here's an idea, have a little bit of class. and give positive feedback I did. My feedback to the ORIGINAL POSTER - Keolander, was extremely positive. I agreed with everything he said, gave support for his arguments, and ended by saying that I don't think he'll ever get his wish.. which is to have the spear errata'd by WotC for use in the RPGA. i will try the same You've already failed. Now, what do you say to that? It's against the Code of Conduct for me to say it. Keolander: I renew my statement that, while I agree with you whole-heartedly, I think you're just going to have to take the advice of the less-than-understanding-but-no-less-correct members such as DarknessEternal and just.. deal with it. WotC is not going to errata the spear, so you're pretty much out of luck there. The best you can do is use houserules in YOUR games. I know that doesn't solve the issue of the RPGA... but.. them's the breaks, you know?
Oliver D'Argent 11-23-05, 10:18 PM	Keolander, my two cents: Most of the picture references you cited in your initial post do not really help your argument about the historical use of the spear. Most of them are artwork from D&D products and although the artists may have talent, there is no certainty that they are experts on the use of ancient weapons. Also, looking closely at the picture on the link you provided, I could see that at least some of the reenactors were using their spears two-handed with their shields slung - hardly a glowing testamony for your argument. The picture from the Bayeux Tapestry shows warriors with kite shields holding some sort of spear over their heads, but it is not clear if these are stabbing spears or if they are preparing to throw javelins. As valuable an historic record as the Bayeux Tapestry is, the artistic style is somewhat primitive and it doesn't exactly come with explanatory notes. Do I think that a spear can be wielded with one hand while the other hand holds a shield? Certainly - but at the expense of the mobility needed for fighting in anything but fairly close ranks. You could stab forward easily enough, but you would have difficulty responding to threats from the sides or rear. Should you think that I do not know what I am talking about, I own a pretty nice spear. The head and buttcap are steel and about 16 1/2" and 7" long respectively. The shaft is ash about 1 1/8" in diameter. Overall it is about 8' 2" long and weighs about 4 1/2 pounds - hardly a heavy weapon. I took it out in my backyard and tested my ability to thrust into various quarters and found that, using it one-handed, thrusting forward was no problem but turning it to thrust to the sides was very slow. I am not a small guy - I stand 6' 3" tall and weigh over 200 pounds and have big hands and a good grip. The problem with wielding a spear one-handed in anything other than a limited forward thrust is a matter of leverage. As to whether or not it can be thrown or not: it is irrelavant - if you don't want to throw it then don't. In the end, it seems highly unlikely that WotC will errata the spear. Probably, the closest you are going to get is to use a shortspear when on foot and a lance when mounted - not what you really wanted, I'm sure, but when you can't get what you want you have to make do with what you can get.
Sluagh 11-23-05, 10:52 PM	not what you really wanted, I'm sure, but when you can't get what you want you have to make do with what you can get. That's what I'm getting at.
ORC_Tuhteth 11-23-05, 11:45 PM	Okay, this thread is entirely too hostile, and the topic was covered in incredible detail the last time this came up. To be blunt, discussing this here is pointless: No one has the ability to make an official change, but that's the only reason the thread exists. Therefore, I'm closing it. A suggestion, though, to the original poster: You obviously have done a great deal of research on this -- why not pitch it to Dragon magazine as an article? If necessary, include a new spear (maybe a "warspear" that fits the historical "spear" description). Maybe write up a new "spear and shield" feat that allows you to use a two-handed spear in one hand and provides some other benefit (you know, something to make it worth spending a feat). Try that and maybe you'll get what you're looking for -- after all, Dragon magazine is "100% official Dungeons & Dragons," so once you get it published you could lobby to RPGA to legalize the weapon in their campaigns. :)