Post/Author/DateTime	Post
NeueRegel 08-04-07, 12:46 AM	Heyas. 3.5 Okay, I know this is way after the movie, but it just came out on dvd I guess, and a player wants to use a spear now. Gotta love inspiration. Despite the fact that he has always been a sword & board, and there's no way I'm giving him a magical spear to equal his very decent sword. But anyway, he's up for a feat next level if he needs it, though we are almost pure core rules. All that jazz. So simple, painless, and quick, I saw you all clamouring a couple months back about the darn one-handed-spear hoplite shield la-de-da frick-a-frack debates, and paid no attention. Now, I have to ask: What was the popular decision? Exotic weapon 13 str bastard spear stuff? Simple trident stats? Some feat for the spear otherwise? What got voted "winner"? Neue
Silverthumb128 08-04-07, 01:15 AM	Well, they did fix the Search function. Didja search first?
NeueRegel 08-04-07, 01:41 AM	Yes, they did finally fix the search function, but I don't have time to try to think of all the random words everyone used, the regular members are much more reliable. Think about it. What good am I going to get out of a D&D seach for "Spear" or "One" or "Hand"? You use multiple words, and it crashes. MVincent or Tarkin will have a good answer for me tomorrow. ;)
Manyfist 08-04-07, 01:55 AM	Spears have been far more useful in combat than swords. Short Spear + Shield can only really work well if you're in a phalanx. Why not let him trade his sword in for a spear? Or apply Changing to it, and allow him to go from a Sword to Spear?
NeueRegel 08-04-07, 02:07 AM	Thanks Manyfist, but that's of no help. As far as "trading", our game is ongoing and static, and magic items are not *ever* bought or sold like most of you do, now. Magic items are the sole province of long quests and such. There is no "making" of them. (We are old-school, mostly, not to say that as we take turns DM'ing, we don't "target" a magic item at a character here and there). As to the other stuff, I should have specified, 3.5 "Core". We don't have any phalanx rules that I know of. I'm specifically looking for a very simple basic thingy I can let him play. A d8 weapon that is 19-20/x2 is the same as a d8 weapon that is 20/x3 But, a spear is two handed, but a spear has a range. Yet any idiot knows that it can only be thrown with one hand. Yet again, simple weapon vs martial. The designers broke the rules on some of the simple weapons. Then you get the trident, which fits but yet sucks in all stats by comparison. Thus, my original question. The point being, though I know better, the fun is all about the players, not perfect logic. So I want the opinions/experience of the regs here. Neue
Shedeo 08-04-07, 02:51 AM	Letsee. There's the Short Spear (which is the crapola stick), the Spear (two-handed w/out reach) and the Longspear (same as the spear, cept with reach.) What to do? Allow the spear to be wielded one-handed, maybe balancing that out by dropping its range increment down to 10 feet, or requiring an exotic weapon proficiency feat for a larger range increment (or the range increment at all.) As for your game, I can't tell you how to run it, but what you could do is somehow transfer the magical essence or ditch the sword and find a spear. Even in that kind of situation, I would cater to my player's interests. Its very important to me as a DM that my players enjoy themselves and their characters.
swallowyersoul 08-04-07, 03:47 AM	if you want to be very, very kind you could look at some of the advanced feats in the iron heroes rules for inspiration. you can build a good shield/spear fighter with those.
Fireclave 08-04-07, 03:50 AM	Okay, I know this is way after the movie, but it just came out on dvd I guess, and a player wants to use a spear now. Gotta love inspiration. Despite the fact that he has always been a sword & board, and there's no way I'm giving him a magical spear to equal his very decent sword. But anyway, he's up for a feat next level if he needs it, though we are almost pure core rules. All that jazz. So simple, painless, and quick, I saw you all clamouring a couple months back about the darn one-handed-spear hoplite shield la-de-da frick-a-frack debates, and paid no attention. Simple, painless, and quick? And with only core rules, with no magic item customization? Give your player a trident. It's one-handed, it's throw-able, it's core, and best of all, it works with shields. But since you are the DM, you could just give him a custom spear with the same stats as his sword, and call it a day. As far as "trading", our game is ongoing and static, and magic items are not *ever* bought or sold like most of you do, now. Magic items are the sole province of long quests and such. There is no "making" of them. (We are old-school, mostly, not to say that as we take turns DM'ing, we don't "target" a magic item at a character here and there). Don't want to give him another magic weapon you say? Magic items are the purview of quests and such, you say? You've answered your own problem. Let him go on a quest that turns his magic sword into a magic trident. But, a spear is two handed, but a spear has a range. Yet any idiot knows that it can only be thrown with one hand. Spears are too large to be thrown one handed. Short spears, being one handed weapons, can be thrown one handed.
The_sleeper1 08-04-07, 08:33 AM	I would just make a weapon that mimmics a bastard sword sword in damage 1D10, change it to the crit 20 X3 and thrown in reach. Make it require an EWP to use 1 hand and I think your golden. I would even consider makeing it threaten at 5 & 10' if you have the EWP. Theres a larger than average sword and axe that you can weild in one hand why not a spear.
Rulebook 08-04-07, 10:11 AM	trident.
1 ton ghost 08-04-07, 01:06 PM	truth be told, i don't think Leonidas' men were Hoplites. that was developed by Alexander the Great...i think. don't quote me on that. 300 was cool and visually stunning and all, but not terribly realistic. they were still in the Bronze Age, ie)bronze breastplates and spears. Hittites used iron first, kicked ass, then got overrun... now, game mechanics: they were regular spears, large shields, should have breast plates, but alas, nothing fancy. Phalnax Fighting, Probably Weapon Focus Spear, maybe Endurance; the Spartans were tough as Hell. perhaps Militia (Player's Guide to Faerun) or a version thereof as they were citizen soldiers, but that was their full time gig, ie)"i brought more soliders than you" yada yada yada... you're average soldier is a Warrior Lvl 1, Elite are technically Fighters Lvl 1 he is trying to manipulate the rules cuz' of Hollywood combat, you know like Westerns were revolvers miraculously have more than 6 shot, etc. don't allow it. you're the DM stick to your, um, guns.
nameneeded 08-04-07, 02:05 PM	Couldn't you just let him take monkey grip from Complete Warrior and give him a large sized short spear? I mean the he can throw it, use it one handed w shield etc etc. There would still be no reach as per a normal spear but that makes sense. And no exotic/ home spun feat requiered. Straight rules. Right?
Thane26425 08-04-07, 02:07 PM	Let's look at some examples. A short spear would probably be the like of the Zulu Assegai. It was roughly 3 feet long, maybe 4, and was used much like the Roman Galdius. That is to say, the warrior would get close, bump the target with his shield and then stab around it. The regular spear, that is common around the world, of which the 6 to 9 foot Spartan Dory would be at the upper end, probably could be used one handed, but you certainly couldn't do anything fancy that way. It would work great in a phalanx where all you were doing was stabbing straight forward, but it would have a fair amount of momentum to vercome one handed if you tried anything over than a straight thrust. Then there is the long spear, which reads more like a pike. Some pikes were extrememly long 15 feet plus, and certainly needed both hands. They also were not maneuverable because of momentum and not good for anything that use in massed ranks. Now, I have used modren Assegai and a boar spear that was about 7 feet long. The assegai was very easy to use and could slash to a degree, pretty much like a stabbing sword. The boar spear could be used one-handed, but the tip ressted fast side to side and up and down movements and wanted to keep going once started. Two-handed use did not have that problem. You could also throw both. Wasn't very good at that myself, but a friend of mine who had more practice, was quite good. Never used a pike, but I have seen reenactors use them and they look very unwieldy. So, if your player wants to use a spear one handed, let him. Given the time scale of the round it shouldn't make a difference, the momentum question that is.
Watchman 08-04-07, 03:19 PM	A 6' spear would actually have been the standard used by the Persian infantry, whom them period sources specifically mention to have been at a disadvantage against the hoplites in a head-on clash owing to the laters' 8-9' dory spears (this was really something of an international standard for long infantry spears everywhere). (The Greek authors apparently also openly enough admit they'd likely have been in a real trouble if the Persian armies had been able to exploit their superior maneuverability and flexibility. Given that the Persians had taken apart hoplite armies already back when they overran Asia Minor and Egypt, and had no real problems containing Greek forays across the Aegean, this sounds solid enough.) 'Course, the former would have been way more manageable up close and depending on weight distribution and similar odds and ends probably throwable too if necessary - the cavalry versions of the same certainly were, as was the all-purpose Germanic frame of virtually identical dimensions if a bit later period. Anyway, for D&D purposes I would suggest a simple enough houserule - with Martial prof, both Spears and Longspears become One-Handed Weapons. A humbler version of the operative logic behind Bastard Sword and such, basically, and leaves both with a credible tactical niche. And the Trident can go cry in a corner, it's a fishing tool ferchissakes. Its place in the gladiator system primarily related to the "man vs. nature" symbolism of the net-and-trident retarius (representing a fisherman, ie. civilisation) being pitted against the mirmillo in his fish-like helmet (representing nature, animals etc.). As an aside, the D&D rules do not at the moment AFAIK have anything long enough to stand in for a true 5-6m pike. Those unwieldy monsters would have Reach in the 15-20' range... truth be told, i don't think Leonidas' men were Hoplites. that was developed by Alexander the Great...i think. don't quote me on that."Hoplite" really just means something like "armed man", and was the standard ancient Greek term for their style of close-order heavy infantryman. The term goes back to something like 7th-6th century BC or earlier, and seeing as how the famous Persian Wars Battle of Thermopylae (there were quite a few engagements there over the centuries, as the pass is very much a strategic chokepoint) was fought in 480 BC... The "Alexandrian" pikeman, developed in mid-late 4th century BC, was a very different kind of trooper, and is usually called "phalangite" (although the original name was actually pezhetairos, "foot companion"). As "phalanx" is simply a generic terms for a close infantry formation, it must also be noted that the older hoplite shieldwall phalanx wasn't the same thing as the Macedonian-style pike formation. 300 was cool and visually stunning and all, but not terribly realistic. they were still in the Bronze Age, ie)bronze breastplates and spears. Hittites used iron first, kicked ass, then got overrun...By 480 BC the Bronze Age was already long past. The Hittites are the first known people to have produced iron weaponry in any meaningful scale, but clearly not to a degree or technological sophistication that would have given them any concrete military advantage. Their empire appears to have been largely demolished during the so-called "Catastrophe" of ca. 1200-1000 BC, which saw the collapse of the ancient Bronze Age "chariot empires", presumably by the migrating "Sea Peoples" and internal troubles ("Neo-Hittite" fragments survived for a while longer, but the arrival of the Scythian horse nomads into Anatolia around 10th-9th century BC or so wiped out the major holdouts). The migrants appear to have picked up the skill, as the Old Testament mentions the Philistine champion Goliath (ca. 1000s BC) having an iron-tipped spear (the Philistines, or Peleset, were one of the "Sea Peoples" and had unsuccesfully tried to invade Egypt; the Pharaoh later settled them as a sort of buffer around what is now the Gaza Strip). By Classical Greek times iron weapons were the norm everywhere from Iberia to the Hindu Kush, although bronze long remained the primary armour metal (early iron metallurgy having a fair few unresolved issues in this field).
NeueRegel 08-04-07, 03:50 PM	Watchman I suppose has it best, "in a sentence". Anyway, for D&D purposes I would suggest a simple enough houserule - with Martial prof, both Spears and Longspears become One-Handed Weapons. A humbler version of the operative logic behind Bastard Sword and such, basically, and leaves both with a credible tactical niche. Although I don't know about the longspear/pike, in that way. I simply don't know anything about it. I've never seen a picture or a movie about pike-men, I don't even know if they used shields. I know the Swiss were supposed to be famous for it. But I've only read about it. I guess I saw Braveheart, with Mel Gibson, and they raised all the wooden pikes/stakes whatever. Anyway. I will let my player use a spear and shield. I'm not calling it a feat, I'm not naming it anything. I'm just going to let him. He'll get over it soon enough, because his sword is magical and he will get tired of the -4/-4 for the shield bash soon enough. (Which he already has and never uses, lol). Btw though, lots of great information from all of you, that know something about history. That's really what this game should be about. Neue
aelryinth 08-04-07, 04:35 PM	Watchman I suppose has it best, "in a sentence". Although I don't know about the longspear/pike, in that way. I simply don't know anything about it. I've never seen a picture or a movie about pike-men, I don't even know if they used shields. I know the Swiss were supposed to be famous for it. But I've only read about it. I guess I saw Braveheart, with Mel Gibson, and they raised all the wooden pikes/stakes whatever. Anyway. I will let my player use a spear and shield. I'm not calling it a feat, I'm not naming it anything. I'm just going to let him. He'll get over it soon enough, because his sword is magical and he will get tired of the -4/-4 for the shield bash soon enough. (Which he already has and never uses, lol). Btw though, lots of great information from all of you, that know something about history. That's really what this game should be about. Neue No, pikement didn't use shields...pikes all had to be wielded two handed. They wore breastplates, possibly, but even that became less common as gunpowder increased. The Swiss were indeed famous for their disciplined pike formations, which basically owned the noble cavalry and made sword and shield lines buckle. Even Oriental spear fighting uses two hands, but a phalanx formation could use a longspear one handed, because you don't need side to side movement of the spear...the man next to you covers that. You need only to be able to thrust straight ahead. Make a rule that you can wield a longspear and shield, but the lack of flexibility in lateral motion means a -4 to hit if not in a shield formation, and you solve your problem. Note that the spartans didn't use spears when not in formation...they drew and used their swords. ===Aelryinth
Watchman 08-04-07, 06:06 PM	There was apparently a kind of "transitional" type of hoplite for a while, the so-called "Iphicratean", who apparently wielded a very long four-meter spear and a smaller, lighter shield than the old bronze-faced aspis. This actually sounds credible enough - horsemen can manage four-meter lances one-handed, so if the groundpounders aren't going to be using those poles for anything else than frontal thrusting in a dense formation I don't see why it wouldn't work. Kinda lost out to to 5-6 meter Macedonian sarissa of course, but I woudn't be surprised if the phalangites were a further developement of the basic idea - the pike after all only reached its full lenght around Gaugamela or thereabouts, and had to start from somewhere. Incidentally, the phalangites apparently carried a small shield strapped to some part of their left arm, so that it left the hand free to manipulate the clumsy pike - this could be presented towards the enemy to help stop a projectile or spear-thrust, and was apparently slipped down to act as a normal small shield if the soldier had to drop his pike and draw his sidearm. As for the issues long spears can have mano y mano in a free-for-all melee, I'd say the Reach rules took care of it well enough - you have the reach advantage, but if the foeman gets "past the point" (as they say in rapier fencing AFAIK) and up close your long pig-sticker suddenly became rather useless... but conversely of course the other guy first needs to get past the tip without getting skewered. Obviously the whole point of the dense massed formations was that the leveled spears of the rear ranks were a further obstacle any foeman who got past the first rank of spear-points had to negotiate if he was to get to the spearmen - and as full-lenght pikes enabled the first five or six ranks to present their points this way, it should not be difficult to see why the Romans for example readily anknowledged the Hellenic pike phalanx to be a most formidable adversary in a head-on clash. (If possible they tried to lure it into rough terrain and/or flank it to break it up. Judging by some of the Persian tactical maneuvers during Alexander's campaigns, they too wasted no time figuring out the "softness" of the formation at the sides and rear, but Alex's skillful use of his cavalry at the flanks meant they couldn't effectively exploit this detail.)
Stormbrand 08-05-07, 12:21 AM	As for the issues long spears can have mano y mano in a free-for-all melee, I'd say the Reach rules took care of it well enough - you have the reach advantage, but if the foeman gets "past the point" (as they say in rapier fencing AFAIK) and up close your long pig-sticker suddenly became rather useless... but conversely of course the other guy first needs to get past the tip without getting skewered. However, I will say getting past the spear safely is far easier in D&D, since most fighters can afford to take a hit from a longspear without consequence. Upon sticking the spear in an approaching foe, their forward motion is usually broken by the spear, advancing from this point would just lead to outright impalement. Reach rules don't really take care of that.
Watchman 08-05-07, 01:43 AM	Sure. But them's the breaks with rules like D&D's.
SephDragoon 08-05-07, 04:04 AM	Well... I read about half of those replies... But The idea of spear and shield is one that I have always looked at, then looked at D&D's rules and shook my head. Here is what I am using in an upcoming campaign of mine: Strongarm Training You can hold a rather hefty weapon in one hand. Requirements: Proficiency with weapon, Weapon Focus with Weapon, Weapon Specialization with Weapon, Fighter level 6th With the weapon type chosen, you can wield a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. However, you may not use another weapon in your offhand unless it is a shield with a bash. You also may not use this weapon in your offhand. If a double weapon is used with Strongarm Training, you may only use one side of the weapon at a time to attack with. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. A fighter may select Strongarm Training as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Werral 08-05-07, 04:18 AM	truth be told, i don't think Leonidas' men were Hoplites. that was developed by Alexander the Great...i think. don't quote me on that. It was developed before that. Athenians used hoplites in the 4th Century. I'd say EWP lets you use a spear one handed. I'm no 300 fan but come on, every culture that ever went to war at some point used spears one handed (and you can't throw something two-handed). Simple weapon 2-handed, exotic weapon 1-handed is balanced fine.
Rulebook 08-05-07, 11:38 AM	the spear isnt worth an exotic weapon. 2h simple, 1h martial works just fine.
natzero 08-05-07, 12:02 PM	watchman nice post ;p some1 else here loves ancient history yes leonidas and his men were hoplites. the name hoplites is thought to have been derived from the name of the shield they carried (hoplon) it would easily be at least a large shield (as they were between 3 and 3.5 feet in diameter) now whether you want it to be a wood or "bronze" shield is up to see seeing as they were made from both. as for the spear. the hoplites (well spartans specifically) used an 8 foot flame hardened (i believe) wooden spear with a bronze tip. (though perhaps iron by the time of the peloponnesian war) id say for dnd let him use a short spear with his shield, just remind him he wont threaten the squares adjacent to him unless he takes a penalty or has short haft feat. i think anyway im pretty sure short spear is still reach in 3.5 (damn u 3.0 phb i need a new one :weep: ) ok im done ;p
Watchman 08-05-07, 06:02 PM	I'm pretty sure people stopped fire-hardening spearheads around the time they figured out how to fix sharp rocks to them. 'Course, seriously dirt poor folks sometimes had to make do with that kind of antediluvian stuff - it was that or throw rocks, which indeed bottom-of-the-barrel levies also did. The "hoplite" shield was incidentally called aspis. Hoplon referred to the complete "arms" or panoply of a warrior (ie. a hoplite, "armed man" or something to that effect). It was mostly of wood, the outer thin bronze sheet having primarily a reinforcing and decorative function. And I can't stop wondering why people think the Classical Greeks were still stuck with bronze weapons. In the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East the Iron Age had already began in earnest by the 10th-9th century BC, several centuries before the barbarian invaders who demolished the palace-fortresses of the Myceneans (and later thought only giants could have built walls out of such large rocks) had qualified for things like "literacy" and "urban culture". The nearby Hallstatt proto-Celts were making iron longswords around what are now roughly Austria and Hungary already by something like the 800s BC - around which time Assyria (which armed its soldiers with iron weapons as well) was still the big noise in the East and the Persians but a small mountain tribe.
natzero 08-06-07, 11:34 AM	dont forget the greeks were very xenophobic. the spartans went a step further. the most superstitious and religious of all the greeks. not to mention the fact that the spartans did not do their own metal working. god forbid the helots made themselves iron arms and stood up against their masters with superior weapons and armor. i can see why the spartans did not have iron gear my question is what about the richest city athens? they had trade and a navy that with the proper commander (themistocles) destroyed the persian navy. fun fact: the only way the Spartans beat Athens in peloponnesian war was to get a navy. They did not have one, hell they didnt even use bows. So how did Sparta get a navy? their commander Lysander was a friend to the current Persian king's son. So nudge nudge Sparta got funding and training for naval combat from the persian empire, to defeat athens. And they still taking crap for it now ;p
Watchman 08-06-07, 12:15 PM	No offense, but most of that is pure bollocks. The Spartans may have categorically swallowed a stick, but it would have been functionally impossible for them to keep relying on bronze weaponry. Doubly so as their forebears would already have been moving to iron base already before the city was founded. And they had other means of keeping the helots in line, such as the krypteia "youth death squad", even if they occasionally had to put down serious uprisings (whcih their varying enemies of course merrily encouraged). At times they even took a better part of the helots along for campaigns (such as for Plataea), simply because they didn't dare leave them back home when most of the homoioi were away... Save for the part about the Peloponnesian Wars. The Spartans ended up with the services of one ex-Athenian admiral who'd been exiled due to some pretty complicated circumstances and then spent a while in Persian employs. The Persians, for their part, after having recognized a while earlier that the Greeks weren't worth the trouble trying to subdue, had settled to the classic superpower border-securing technique of "letting you and them fight" - they happily played the Greeks against one another, supporting this state and that to keep them preoccupied. Indeed the Persian High King was sometimes the quarantor of Greek treaties.
Holy_Beholder 08-06-07, 12:32 PM	Let's look at some examples. A short spear would probably be the like of the Zulu Assegai. It was roughly 3 feet long, maybe 4, and was used much like the Roman Galdius. That is to say, the warrior would get close, bump the target with his shield and then stab around it. Spears that short were never made in large scale warfare, the standard was around 8 feet. You also don't hold them in the middle, whether using them one or two handed. And you never even think about using it in the middle and trying to hit with both ends of it while wielding it two handed. Thats just a way to get killed. The Spartans were warlike but most of the Greeks were, I am stating right now that the Spartans weren't the sort of elite fighter portrayed in the movie. There were some Greeks that were very skilled with the sling(which is a really nice weapon in real life, although harder to use than the bow) Also, the Spartans did have ships at certain times, see the Trojan war. I would say let him use a trident. There is also the exotic great spear, in CW. You might want to take a look at that. Just browse through it at the store or something.
Watchman 08-06-07, 01:21 PM	Uh... the Trojan War was fought at the very end of the Mycenean period, sometime around 1000BC or slightly earlier. The Greeks of Classical Antiquity were the descendants of the invading northern barbarians who demolished the Mycenean palace culture. Which said a proper war-galley fleet did cost like the dickies. The Athenians were quite hesitant about the proposed massive expansion of their fleet immediately prior to the Persian Wars specifically because of this, and had to develop some fairly elaborate measures to maintain it (a matter not particularly helped by the fact much of the lumber had to be shipped in from Thrace, which also meant dealing with the fierce tribes there). On the other hand it took a long time before anyone could then readily challenge their mastery of the shipping lanes (the Persians could have, by hauling in the Egyptian and Phoenician squadrons, but preferred diplomacy) and the eventual Spartan naval victory in the Peloponnesian Wars was really only possible due to the decimation of the Athenian trireme fleet in the clusterfrag campaign against Syracuse (which, in turn, had originally built up its war-fleet to be able to compete with Carthage). For a long time the Greeks regarded missile weapons as the tools of poor wimps with neither the wealth to afford a proper panoply (ie. that of a heavy infantryman) nor the stomach for manly face-to-face battle; duly their military use was relegated to the psiloi, the lower classes that formed supporting light infantry for campaigns and due to not being able to fight in the phalanx had no voting rights. For the most part these guys were militarily useless. This militaily foolish attitude first began to change in the colonies the Greeks established all around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, where they soon found out that for example the hoplites were essentially impotent against the nimble tribal warriors of the Thracians or the mounted archers of the steppe peoples and some diversification was duly in order. In mainland Greece this developement started during the Peloponnesian Wars, which saw a shift from the essentially ritualized and somewhat inconclusive "symmetric" all-hoplite battles to more serious "total war" campaigning, where cavalry and light infantry became increasingly more important. Initially foreign mercenaries were employed - Thracian peltastai for light infantry, Scythians and Cretans for archers - but naturally it did not take long before the native psiloi began to copy their gear and techniques and became that much more effective. Mainland Greek archers were never much to write home about, but they did develop a tradition of effective javelin skirmishers/light infantry derived from the Thracian model (called, also, peltastai although the Greek version soon dropped the crescent-shaped pelte shield), and their slingers (who had always been regarded as the most effective of the psiloi) eventually actually got good enough that the Persians copied some of their features for their own equivalents. The Zulu assegai, although in structure a (very) short spear, was functionally and tactically a stabbing sword. It has little bearing to the "universal" kinds of spears discussed here.
Matthew_ 08-06-07, 01:42 PM	I think that Watchman has the absolute right of this. I concur with everything he is saying (which is odd, because I'm sure we were in disagreement about something back when this debate was originally going on). Anywho, yeah, Martial Weapon Proficiency (Spear) and Martial Weapon Proficiency (Long Spear) are the easiest solutions, in my opinion. The only additional thing I would say is to give a Trident a +2 for Disarm attempts to make it 'not completely outclassed'. [Edit] There was an Awl Pike published in Dragon #331 for D&D, which has 15' Reach (though the historical Awl Pike was not actually of any great length compared to a 'true' Pike). It's an Exotic Two Handed Weapon, 1D8 x3.
natzero 08-06-07, 02:01 PM	well watchman yes my pot about the spartan navy was simplified but i wouldnt go as far as to say it was complete bullocks. it is supported by the academic community (ie. in all my textbooks and peer reviews) i dont wanna argue over something like that though, but yes Alcibiades was the "traitor" to athens in a sense. He was accused of having disfigured all likeness of one of the gods Hermes (broke off genitalia) so athens called him back, instead he made his way to Sparta. And there he warned Sparta of Athen's campaign in Sicily. There was more to the Athenian loss than i originally said yes, however Sparta would have probably never gotten a navy if not for persia, regardless of how powerful Athen's navy was. i have no reason for why the greeks still used bronze as lat as the 4th century b.c. nor did i state that what i said above was the answer. i was just making a statement that was based on some simple information i knew about the spartan economy. Lets not get brutal here and argue over something we just cant explain. if any1 does know why they still used bronze so readily please post it, thats something i would really like to know
Rykler 08-06-07, 02:12 PM	GOd, 300 slaughtered the idea of the real spartans. Anyway, you might want to give him some feat for his shield. The spartans allowed the enemy to close ranks, then they thrusted out with there shields, pushing the enemy back a couple of feat, and stabbing with the spear. I MIGHT be wrong, but I am pretty sure no Spartan ever, ever, ever threw their spear. It was their main weapon and if they were disarmed they would use a curved short sword, forgot the name but i think it begins with a z or an x. So, if he wants to be suited up like a spartan give him a regular short sword as a secondary weapon. Anyway, They never dropped their shields or broke ranks either, unless thrown into a state of disarray. Spartans always took helots with them and had them commit the ranged attacks with slings, maybe javlins(not so sure about javlins). A very interesting fact, the spartans actually had a "night" squad. They were soldiers dedicated to infiltrating and attacking enemies at night. They were extremly quick and agile and moved swift and silently. They would not fight during the day. It kept the ememy paranoid and on constant alert. Ok, for dnd, the long spear idea and shield wont work. DnD is not about having someone march forward in a straight line with spear and shield. DnD is more of a movie kind of combat. Rolling, twisting, jumping, powerful strikes, and above all, magic. If he really wants to play with spear and shield, give him a short spear and a shield, but I wouldn't "create" any new spear for him to use. Imagine how hard it would be to run or roll with a 6ft spear. He would get snagged in the smallest of tunnels and in most tunnel combat, if a target jumped from the side out of a small crevice, he would be screwed, no way to defend himself.
Matthew_ 08-06-07, 02:38 PM	i have no reason for why the greeks still used bronze as lat as the 4th century b.c. nor did i state that what i said above was the answer. i was just making a statement that was based on some simple information i knew about the spartan economy. Lets not get brutal here and argue over something we just cant explain. if any1 does know why they still used bronze so readily please post it, thats something i would really like to know The Ancient Greeks did use Bronze in warfare as late as the 4th century, but not generally for weapons (though obviously the butt spike of the Spear was an exception). Bronze was used for Body Armour still (though again not exclusively) and to some degree for Shields. That's not to say that nobody used Bronze Weapons during the first Millennium BC, nor that they would be ineffective, only that, from what can be concluded from the Archaelogical Record, Historical Texts and the Visual Evidence, Greeks were using Iron Weapons from the beginning of the Iron Age. Ok, for dnd, the long spear idea and shield wont work. DnD is not about having someone march forward in a straight line with spear and shield. DnD is more of a movie kind of combat. Rolling, twisting, jumping, powerful strikes, and above all, magic. If he really wants to play with spear and shield, give him a short spear and a shield, but I wouldn't "create" any new spear for him to use. Imagine how hard it would be to run or roll with a 6ft spear. He would get snagged in the smallest of tunnels and in most tunnel combat, if a target jumped from the side out of a small crevice, he would be screwed, no way to defend himself. This is just a matter of preference. Dungeons & Dragons supports all kinds of methods of play and all of what you describe only impacts the game to the same degree as a Character using Oversized Weaponry or Large/Two Handed Weaponry.
crashlogic 08-06-07, 02:47 PM	Well the ancient macedonian pikemen most certainly did use shields with thier pikes which the wielded in two hands. The swiss did not use shields, but then by that time in europe, noone used shields due to the advent of plate armour. (They did have a breakaway shield that was affixed to tounrament armour, but on the battelfied, the shield disappeared in the mid 15th century. Seems to me, with the butt spike and being used one handed, the greek spear might be considered an exotic weapon. Rather than letting any spear be used, why not create a hoplite spear, with no reach, d8-damage and usable either one handed, two handed, or as a double weapon?
Matthew_ 08-06-07, 02:53 PM	Yes, if you wanted to limit it to Hoplite or similar culture, you could make it an Exotic Weapon that was also Familiar to that group. The only issue is that it sucks up Feats doing that, for what is by and large not a very advantageous development. No real need to create a special Hoplite Spear, but no reason you couldn't either. The same goes for Hoplite Armour and Hoplite Shields. Unnecessary, in my opinion, but reasonable, if you want to have more specific weapons in your game. As for the issue of Reach or No Reach, that really is up to the preference of the individual DM and how long he considers Spears with Reach to generally be. [Edit] Even in the fifteenth century, Shields were not entirely gone from the european battlefield, but their frequency was much smaller than in previous centuries.
Watchman 08-06-07, 02:55 PM	There was more to the Athenian loss than i originally said yes, however Sparta would have probably never gotten a navy if not for persia, regardless of how powerful Athen's navy was.Pretty much yeah. The Spartans were pretty lousy at running the economy (what with their general contempt of what could be termed "honest work", and occasional attempts to entirely abolish the monetary economy in the city...), and to boot I understand Laconia is largely bereft of both decent natural harbourage and the kind of lumber resources needed for building and maintaining a navy. The Persians on the other hand were pretty much swimming in cash, had had a powerful fleets since forever, and moreover were only too keen to see the Athenian thalassocracy demolished in accord with their standard practice of not letting any of the Greek powers grow too strong. i have no reason for why the greeks still used bronze as lat as the 4th century b.c. nor did i state that what i said above was the answer. i was just making a statement that was based on some simple information i knew about the spartan economy. Lets not get brutal here and argue over something we just cant explain. if any1 does know why they still used bronze so readily please post it, thats something i would really like to knowThe Greeks like pretty much everyone else used bronze armour and iron weapons (the exception being the Celts, who'd developed iron mail by that point). This is because the ironworking techniques did not yet allow the production of worthwhile iron armour, at least cost-efficiently. On the other hand bronze had been used for the purpose for millenia already, and with the exception of longswords (which were long a Celtic specialty) most weapons only need rather small, and thus easily workable, iron pieces. Iron armour does sporadically appear in the archeological and written record of the period, but invariably seems to be associated with the royalty of very elite "guard" units. For example Herodotos apparently mentions the war gear of the Persian Immortals to include a hauberk of iron scales (bronze was the norm), and the excavation of the tomb of Philip II ("the One-Eyed", whose son Alexander the Great you may have heard of) yielded an iron cuirass made of numerous small pieces in the appereance of the common stiffened-textile linothorax. Anyway, you might want to give him some feat for his shield. The spartans allowed the enemy to close ranks, then they thrusted out with there shields, pushing the enemy back a couple of feat, and stabbing with the spear.The basic hoplite tactic was a massed "shield rush" combined with thrusting with the long dory in the hopes of breaking the opposing phalanx line. If both held, the matter then turned into a claustrophobic shieldwall-push attrition match where the front ranks were often pressed so tightly they were unable to even use their sidearms - the rear ranks stabbed past them with their spears. The aim was to break the cohesion of the opposing formation and thus induce panic and flight, which also allowed the victors to slay those they could catch with impunity. Due to the way it was held along the forearm and protected the unshielded side of the next man the aspis was pretty much the bee's knees for this sort of thing - indeed it was pretty much the "secret weapon" which made the hoplite phalanx as effective as it was. For more fluid and open-order combat a more oval or rectangular shield grasped by a central grip, such as the Roman scutum or the tall Celtic shields and their derivatives, was better. I MIGHT be wrong, but I am pretty sure no Spartan ever, ever, ever threw their spear. It was their main weapon and if they were disarmed they would use a curved short sword, forgot the name but i think it begins with a z or an x. So, if he wants to be suited up like a spartan give him a regular short sword as a secondary weapon. Anyway, They never dropped their shields or broke ranks either, unless thrown into a state of disarray.The big dory was pretty much too large and heavy to be effectively thrown anyway, plus the very closely ranked nature of the hoplite phalanx would have made the employement of throwing-spears rather difficult anyway. That aside, if the Greeks in general regarded ranged combat as unmanly then the rather stuck-up Spartans were certainly the worst of the lot and would probably have regarded the suggestion they pick up a javelin as a dire insult. As for sidearms, it is true most hoplites carried either the straight middle-lenght cut-and-thrust xyston or the forward-curved heavy kopis/machaira chopping blade. These were also used by the cavalry and indeed pretty much all other soldiers. The Spartans however had a different preference - their standard sidearm was a very short sword, little more than a dagger. This may actually have been rather well suited to the cramped conditions of a phalanx push, but probably a handicap in a more freeform melee without spears. There survive several anecdotal stories of Spartan soldiers being mocked for the size of this weapon (to which they gave the laconic reply "that is because we prefer to fight close to the foe"), as well as one of a young Spartiate complaining to his mother about its lack of reach ("add a step to it" went the answer). Spartans always took helots with them and had them commit the ranged attacks with slings, maybe javlins(not so sure about javlins).I'm somewhat dubious of this. It is true that later on, when the ranks of the full Spartiates began to be severely depleted due to battle casualties and some other factors after the Peloponnesian Wars, that the Spartans began to allow helots to enlist into the phalanx to earn their freedom (these "new men" tended to identify more with their masters than their original peers, and were thus not a major security risk), but I suspect they were extremely reluctant to allow their serfs to fight as psiloi skirmishers - for these weapons were extremely simple to make, and well suited for just the kind of guerilla fighting revolting helots were likely to engage in. IIRC the Spartans in fact rather armed the helots as quasi-hoplites in an emergency, for the weapons for this were much easier to control and in any case the homoioi could be assured to be able to defeat a rebellious helot phalanx if needed. Other Greek communities had less internal security considerations and thus had no problem using their lower classes as skirmishers, but I think the Spartans preferred to either do without (a tendency reinforced by their obsessive dedication to hoplite warfare) or use mercenaries such as Rhodians and Cretans, or allies like the Skiritai mountain people who usually supported the lackluster Spartan cavalry. A very interesting fact, the spartans actually had a "night" squad. They were soldiers dedicated to infiltrating and attacking enemies at night. They were extremly quick and agile and moved swift and silently. They would not fight during the day. It kept the ememy paranoid and on constant alert. You're thinking of the krypteia here. This was the "youth school" of the Spartans, where the trainees were sent off to the countryside to survive by their wits and terrorize the helots (unsympathetic historians tend to call the insitution with terms like "teenage death squad"), as well as keeping an eye out for potential trouble (such as potential helot uprisings). I'm pretty sure their activities were restricted to Laconia proper however. Seems to me, with the butt spike and being used one handed, the greek spear might be considered an exotic weapon. Rather than letting any spear be used, why not create a hoplite spear, with no reach, d8-damage and usable either one handed, two handed, or as a double weapon?No. For one thing these kinds of spears were used extremely widely. For another the standard Greek hoplite (and indeed most other users of such spears, although elites used them just as widely due to their general usefulness) was a part-time militiaman who would never have been able to spare the time and effort for something akin to the Exeotic Weapon Proficiency training.
Rykler 08-06-07, 03:04 PM	You're thinking of the krypteia here. This was the "youth school" of the Spartans, where the trainees were sent off to the countryside to survive by their wits and terrorize the helots (unsympathetic historians tend to call the insitution with terms like "teenage death squad"), as well as keeping an eye out for potential trouble (such as potential helot uprisings). I'm pretty sure their activities were restricted to Laconia proper however. No, I could have sworn the spartans had a night squad. At the gates they attacked at night at the persian camp, causing chaos and fear to consume the persian camp. I could be wrong though. If I find a source confirming this I will post it. I do remember that a spartan could not reach man hood until they killed a helot at night. But your right about the other stuff. In a few minutes I will dive into my history of warefare book. Im so glad I can communicate with someone who actually knows about spartans and ancient greek history. Everytime I mention spartans to anyone in high school or in class, the kids just go "300 WAS TEH SICKEST MOVIE EVER! I CAN"T BELIEVE THAT REALLY HAPPENED!" Everytime i hear that, i die a little inside:(
Matthew_ 08-06-07, 03:06 PM	The basic hoplite tactic was a massed "shield rush" combined with thrusting with the long dory in the hopes of breaking the opposing phalanx line. If both held, the matter then turned into a claustrophobic shieldwall-push attrition match where the front ranks were often pressed so tightly they were unable to even use their sidearms - the rear ranks stabbed past them with their spears. The aim was to break the cohesion of the opposing formation and thus induce panic and flight, which also allowed the victors to slay those they could catch with impunity. I largely agree with this, though it should be mentioned that there is considerable academic debate about the degree to which such combats really became 'pushing matches'. I'm somewhat dubious of this. It is true that later on, when the ranks of the full Spartiates began to be severely depleted due to battle casualties and some other factors after the Peloponnesian Wars, that the Spartans began to allow helots to enlist into the phalanx to earn their freedom (these "new men" tended to identify more with their masters than their original peers, and were thus not a major security risk), but I suspect they were extremely reluctant to allow their serfs to fight as psiloi skirmishers - for these weapons were extremely simple to make, and well suited for just the kind of guerilla fighting revolting helots were likely to engage in. IIRC the Spartans in fact rather armed the helots as quasi-hoplites in an emergency, for the weapons for this were much easier to control and in any case the homoioi could be assured to be able to defeat a rebellious helot phalanx if needed. Hard to say, really. Certainly Herodotus mentions that there were Helots at Thermopylea and that they died, but nothing as to their participation.
crashlogic 08-06-07, 03:14 PM	No. For one thing these kinds of spears were used extremely widely. For another the standard Greek hoplite (and indeed most other users of such spears, although elites used them just as widely due to their general usefulness) was a part-time militiaman who would never have been able to spare the time and effort for something akin to the Exeotic Weapon Proficiency training. Um, not exactly. The hoplite's eight footers were markedly different from etruscan spears, persian spears, eqyptian spears, so I would not call them common. They were certainly common among greeks. Your description of the greeks as part time militiamen, belies the extent and experience the greeks. Every year between the ages of 16 and 60, the greek men of a city state trained for war, and most years fought battles with other city states. The greeks were a culture that prized physical fitness and skil, with arms, no matter what else you did. Yes, the greek citixens of most cities were not professionals, but they were well trained and largely experienced soldiers. It was the Athenians, not the Spartans, who inflcited the humiliation of Marathon upon the Persians. Thus every greek would have been required to train with his spear and xyston. My thought is the greeks were morelikely to have exotic weapon proficiency with their spear than they would be weapon focus with the short sword. The Spartans were special, they trained full time for war. They were stand- outs in a country of skilled fighters. But they were not invincible, the Corinthians and Thebans certainly gave them drubbings. And the Argives even more frequently. So yes, the Spartans were better than the average greek. But the average greek was, in fact, as skilled and expereinced soldier.
pres_man 08-06-07, 03:20 PM	Anyway, great history lessons going on here. :zzz: *whips drool off* Back to the original issue. Here are my suggestions: 1. Short spear and shield, done. 2. Trident and spear, describe trident as a "military spear", done. 3. Allow smaller weapons to maintain ALL of their abilities, thus a human could wield a small sized longspear in one hand and still get reach for a -2 attack penalty (I did some number crunching awhile back and a correctly sized shortspear was better damage on average then a smaller longspear, and supposable reach and throwing are balanced, see spear vs. longspear) 4. Allow the player to take the 3rd edition monkey grip feat instead of the 3.5 edition version (still get a -2 on attack, but you use the better damage since it is normally sized for the human). As for giving it to the player in your game, well like was suggested make it a quest thing, but I would make it so that it isn't so much changing the sword into a spear/trident, but instead exchanging it with someone else who has a spear/trident but wants a sword. Just for info, do you not allow crafting feats or allow players to improve the enhancements of their items?
Watchman 08-06-07, 04:43 PM	Um, not exactly. The hoplite's eight footers were markedly different from etruscan spears, persian spears, eqyptian spears, so I would not call them common. They were certainly common among greeks.I observe you seem to have rather little idea of what you're talking about, no offense. The Egyptians had had a major hoplite component in their army since a force of Greek mercenaries "went Praetorian" in the 8th century or so and took over the country for a while; after a succesful native revolt the new Pharaoh allowed them to stay around as a hereditary military class, commanded by Egyptian officers - besides Sparta arguably the first professional hoplite force in the world. The later extremely widespread linothorax stiffened-textile cuirass was originally developed for these fellows from the old New Kingdom-era infantry body armours, as the bronze breastplates were obviously rather problematic in the climate. Naturally these guys would have stuck to their long dory spears - indeed it has been argued that centuries later Iphicrates would get the inspiration for the extra-long spears of his "reformed" hoplites from the very long spears used by Egyptian marines, which he had seen as a maercenary down there. The Persians didn't seem to have particular problems dealing with them when they conquered the country in the 7th century, by the way. Greek-style hoplites (more often than not direct descendants of Greek settlers and colonists) also formed the infantry backbone of the coastal states of Asia Minor, such as the powerful Lydia; the Persians walked all over them too, by the way. The famous story about the King of Lydia (Croesus?) asking an oracle if he should make war on the Persians, and being told he "would destroy a great realm" if he did so - the realm turning out to be his, though. He got a new job as an advisor to his conqueror Cyrus the Great mind you. The more settled Italian peoples like the Romans and Etruscans copied the hoplite system wholesale from the Greek colonies of the peninsula - it was quite well suited for the needs of small agrarian communities like them. Roman authors make no bones of the fact; as the old skool hoplite was later found to be rather wanting against Celtic shock infantry, and the phalanx ill suited to the combat in rugged terrain that characterised the Samnite Wars, they unceremoniously dumped the paradigm and nicked the Samnites' manipular system instead - although the socioeconomic base of their military would not change before mid-2nd century BC when the triplex acies militia was for assorted reasons replaced by full-time paid soldiers. The long hasta of the third-line triarii, originally also used by the second-line principes before the adoption of the Iberian shortsword, was basically directly comparable to the Greek dory - or for that matter the long spears (gae) of the Celts. Carthaginians also seem to have merrily used a virtually identical infantry system for quite a while - whether they copied it from the Greek colonies they often clashed with or developed it on their own being a moot point. Comparable spears invariably turn up sooner or later wherever people hit on the idea of close-order spearmen, from Iberia and the British Isles to far China and Japan. The Persians had copied the hoplite panoply wholesale for their kardakes by Alexander's time as well, probably having grown a little tired of the sometimes intractable Greek mercenaries. There quite simply are few weapons that make massed infantry as effective for as little investement in finances and training hours, and it tended to require the adoption of a two-handed pike for the 2.5 meter one-handed spear to be phased out. Your description of the greeks as part time militiamen, belies the extent and experience the greeks. Every year between the ages of 16 and 60, the greek men of a city state trained for war, and most years fought battles with other city states. The greeks were a culture that prized physical fitness and skil, with arms, no matter what else you did. Yes, the greek citixens of most cities were not professionals, but they were well trained and largely experienced soldiers. It was the Athenians, not the Spartans, who inflcited the humiliation of Marathon upon the Persians. Thus every greek would have been required to train with his spear and xyston. My thought is the greeks were morelikely to have exotic weapon proficiency with their spear than they would be weapon focus with the short sword. The Spartans were special, they trained full time for war. They were stand- outs in a country of skilled fighters. But they were not invincible, the Corinthians and Thebans certainly gave them drubbings. And the Argives even more frequently. So yes, the Spartans were better than the average greek. But the average greek was, in fact, as skilled and expereinced soldier.Right, and the poleis Greeks were the only bunch who trained for war and spent a lot of time squabbling with their neighbours. Take the professional infantry core and warrior-aristocrat cavalry of the Persian armies who were constantly being called up to fight revolts (on either side) all over the empire, or deal with incursions ranging from marauding Greek hoplite armies in Asia Minor to Scythian and Saka nomad cavalry in Central Asia, Bedouin and Libyan raiders around the southern deserts, or intractable mountain tribesmen descending on a raiding spree on the rich lands below almost anywhere there now was a mountain range. Or their levies, which depending on the locale often practiced weapon skills daily just bagging enough prey to feed themselves and their families, and holding off assorted raiders when the regular troops weren't around. Or the troublemaking tribes - steppe, highland or desert, it made no real difference - themselves, for whom small-scale raiding and conflict was quite simply the norm, and who would often readily sell their skills for money (Saka and Scythian mercenaries seem to often get credited as forming the most ferocious component of the Persian infantry line - somewhat surprising given their horse-nomad background). Or the "barbarians" proper, Thracians and Iberians and Germans and so on, among whom inter-tribal raiding was the rule and freemen might not be considered full adults until they slew a foeman in battle. Or the Celts, who combined a similar pugnacious attitude with a rather large full-blown warrior class whose raison d'être was fighting - the Romans rather feared these guys for good reasons. Compared to that the near ritualized and usually rather bloodless and brief "Sunday wars" of the poleis were a bunch of amateurs on a picnic. The hoplites trained for a very specific kind of heavy-infantry conflict, and tended to rely mainly on their equipement and formation cohesion rather than individual weapons skill for victory - a not unreasonable approach for people who had fields to tend and crafts to pursue and thus could only spare so much time for combat practice. They got more diverse, professional and ruthless as the wars became longer and more serious later mind you; the end of the Peloponnesian Wars indeed created a typical problem - there were now large numbers of highly skilled mercenaries out of job all over Hellas. Bet you most of the city-states were only too happy about Cyrus the Younger recruiting some 10,000 of the troublesome buggers for his attempted coup d'état, as it got them off their hair and lands. (Cyrus also got off with paying them rather low commission fees and later mostly promises thanks to the mercenary market being so glutted.) The adminstrators of the Spartan holdings around Byzantium weren't too thrilled when Xenophon led the survivors right onto their front yard mind you.
NeueRegel 08-06-07, 09:54 PM	Just for info, do you not allow crafting feats or allow players to improve the enhancements of their items? In our home game, the only craft feats allowed are only by wizards, and limited to charge items. Scrolls, potions, wands, and staves. One player has a wizard that he plays in another group too, where the rules are more like is popular now with most players. That character has create arms and armour, but that player simply "omits" it in our game. But truth be told, he's also sort of my "ace in the hole". If I have a player that really wants or need a modification to a perm magic item such as a sword, I can agree to let the wizard do it, but not with, "oh, he can do it", but with, "he can do it, but you need this or that rare item/component for him to do it". Hasn't come up yet. Between the two of us that DM, all of the players have enough to get by in our game. Most of you min-max people would cream us in a head-to-head though. Neue
pres_man 08-06-07, 10:37 PM	Yeah, me in my games I like to have the players be able to upgrade the items instead of always switching them out for the next best thing. I like to have the guy who still has the same set of studded leather he had at the beginning (I houserule that you can make a normal item into masterwork by paying to "repair" it and then add on the masterwork part) of the entire campaign, instead of the guy who keeps switching ("Oh, a mithral breastplate armor, I'm all over that!"). In my current game, I basically told them that either they will find items or they will have to make them themselves, generally the world is low magic, though the PCs are not. I have also been reducing their wealth in coins from encounters and substituting some of it with "magic ingrediants" for when they start crafting.
Waterhammer 08-08-07, 12:39 AM	Strongarm Training You can hold a rather hefty weapon in one hand. Requirements: Proficiency with weapon, Weapon Focus with Weapon, Weapon Specialization with Weapon, Fighter level 6th With the weapon type chosen, you can wield a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. However, you may not use another weapon in your offhand unless it is a shield with a bash. You also may not use this weapon in your offhand. If a double weapon is used with Strongarm Training, you may only use one side of the weapon at a time to attack with. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. A fighter may select Strongarm Training as one of his fighter bonus feats. This is a good feat. Should have been in the PHB.
Optimator 08-08-07, 01:12 AM	I have a hard time wrapping my head around a one-handed spear that has what D&D considers Reach. I'm sure Watchman can bring up some historical examples of really long one-handers, but how common were they, really? Would it take what D&D considers Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use properly? Was it practical? I think the disconnect is that spears ( "Short Spear" and "Spear") have good reach in real life, but not so much reach they could threaten 10 feet away but not adjacent squares. But that's me. I use the stats for tridents and halberds for martial spears, myself. I just pretend/say they look like spears. (Almost sounds like an Oberoni violation...)
turalisj 08-08-07, 02:55 AM	GOd, 300 slaughtered the idea of the real spartans. Try listening to 'college graduates with masters in history' saying spartans had no chest armor at all and that they actualy did jump on eachother's backs. I was ready to slap them across the head with a history book.... :weep:
Watchman 08-08-07, 06:18 AM	I have a hard time wrapping my head around a one-handed spear that has what D&D considers Reach. I'm sure Watchman can bring up some historical examples of really long one-handers, but how common were they, really? Would it take what D&D considers Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use properly? Was it practical?Very. Try something to the effect of "good part of close-order spearmen since the Iron Age began", and keeping in mind most of the guys were militias. To list every culture that used the "shield plus long infantry spear" combo at some point (invariably primarily among "low end" troops) would be to recite the roll call of pretty near all major Eurasian military traditions. Steppe nomads included. Whether such a weapon combination is practical for the average D&D adventurer is of course a different story, but frankly, I suspect most DMs don't actually drive home why heavy armour was normally only ever worn into heavy combat, either...
Holy_Beholder 08-08-07, 12:17 PM	Spears with reach were used pretty extensively. Considering everyone is moving around the squares, if you are at one edge, and they are in the middle, you only have to reach 7.5 feet. Assuming your arm takes care of 1.5 feet, you only need 6 feet. An 8 ft. spear, pretty standard, was held near the end. Lets go with 2 feet behind, 6 in front, since the counterbalance made this possible. You can then reach them in the middle of the square. Now if you were to lean in while stabbing for an attack, another 8 inches is feasible. An 8 inch deep wound is very serious unless you get incredibly lucky and it doesn't hit anything vital. Even then you can die of bleeding or infection. In D&D then, 8 inches could be a crit. So a one handed spear could have reach, and be wielded with a shield.
Thane26425 08-08-07, 12:57 PM	Looking over the PHB descriptions, there is no reason why the Spartan spear can't be a short spear. The description doesn't give an actual length for the spear, it just says that it can be used easily with one hand. The longspear is said to be too long for that and has a 10 foot reach and needs two hands. Even in the movie, the spear wasn't long enough to have reach, it didn't go much beyond their shields, the further strikes being delivered by stances and movement. The Spartans did launch a night raid at the gates in an effort to cause chaos and the target may have been Xerxes himself. I think they reached as far as a commmand tent and caused quite a stir amongst the generals. There is a detailed account of it in the novel The Gates of Fire by an historian who has been on a few programs about the battle. Very good book by the way, very detailed about Spartan life in general. They did take light troops, the peltasts, along. Armed with bows, slings and javelins, they would fight in front of the phalanx to harass the enemy until they got too close. Then the peltasts would run through the phalanx which would then close the gaps or around the flanks. At the Gates, they were deployed on the mountain to keep Persian light troops from getting above the main line and to fire down on the Persain body.
crashlogic 08-08-07, 01:26 PM	I observe you seem to have rather little idea of what you're talking about, no offense. The Egyptians had had a major hoplite component in their army since a force of Greek mercenaries "went Praetorian" in the 8th century or so and took over the country for a while; after a succesful native revolt the new Pharaoh allowed them to stay around as a hereditary military class, commanded by Egyptian officers - besides Sparta arguably the first professional hoplite force in the world. The later extremely widespread linothorax stiffened-textile cuirass was originally developed for these fellows from the old New Kingdom-era infantry body armours, as the bronze breastplates were obviously rather problematic in the climate. Naturally these guys would have stuck to their long dory spears - indeed it has been argued that centuries later Iphicrates would get the inspiration for the extra-long spears of his "reformed" hoplites from the very long spears used by Egyptian marines, which he had seen as a maercenary down there. The Persians didn't seem to have particular problems dealing with them when they conquered the country in the 7th century, by the way. Greek-style hoplites (more often than not direct descendants of Greek settlers and colonists) also formed the infantry backbone of the coastal states of Asia Minor, such as the powerful Lydia; the Persians walked all over them too, by the way. The famous story about the King of Lydia (Croesus?) asking an oracle if he should make war on the Persians, and being told he "would destroy a great realm" if he did so - the realm turning out to be his, though. He got a new job as an advisor to his conqueror Cyrus the Great mind you. The more settled Italian peoples like the Romans and Etruscans copied the hoplite system wholesale from the Greek colonies of the peninsula - it was quite well suited for the needs of small agrarian communities like them. Roman authors make no bones of the fact; as the old skool hoplite was later found to be rather wanting against Celtic shock infantry, and the phalanx ill suited to the combat in rugged terrain that characterised the Samnite Wars, they unceremoniously dumped the paradigm and nicked the Samnites' manipular system instead - although the socioeconomic base of their military would not change before mid-2nd century BC when the triplex acies militia was for assorted reasons replaced by full-time paid soldiers. The long hasta of the third-line triarii, originally also used by the second-line principes before the adoption of the Iberian shortsword, was basically directly comparable to the Greek dory - or for that matter the long spears (gae) of the Celts. Carthaginians also seem to have merrily used a virtually identical infantry system for quite a while - whether they copied it from the Greek colonies they often clashed with or developed it on their own being a moot point. Comparable spears invariably turn up sooner or later wherever people hit on the idea of close-order spearmen, from Iberia and the British Isles to far China and Japan. The Persians had copied the hoplite panoply wholesale for their kardakes by Alexander's time as well, probably having grown a little tired of the sometimes intractable Greek mercenaries. There quite simply are few weapons that make massed infantry as effective for as little investement in finances and training hours, and it tended to require the adoption of a two-handed pike for the 2.5 meter one-handed spear to be phased out. Right, and the poleis Greeks were the only bunch who trained for war and spent a lot of time squabbling with their neighbours. Take the professional infantry core and warrior-aristocrat cavalry of the Persian armies who were constantly being called up to fight revolts (on either side) all over the empire, or deal with incursions ranging from marauding Greek hoplite armies in Asia Minor to Scythian and Saka nomad cavalry in Central Asia, Bedouin and Libyan raiders around the southern deserts, or intractable mountain tribesmen descending on a raiding spree on the rich lands below almost anywhere there now was a mountain range. Or their levies, which depending on the locale often practiced weapon skills daily just bagging enough prey to feed themselves and their families, and holding off assorted raiders when the regular troops weren't around. Or the troublemaking tribes - steppe, highland or desert, it made no real difference - themselves, for whom small-scale raiding and conflict was quite simply the norm, and who would often readily sell their skills for money (Saka and Scythian mercenaries seem to often get credited as forming the most ferocious component of the Persian infantry line - somewhat surprising given their horse-nomad background). Or the "barbarians" proper, Thracians and Iberians and Germans and so on, among whom inter-tribal raiding was the rule and freemen might not be considered full adults until they slew a foeman in battle. Or the Celts, who combined a similar pugnacious attitude with a rather large full-blown warrior class whose raison d'être was fighting - the Romans rather feared these guys for good reasons. Compared to that the near ritualized and usually rather bloodless and brief "Sunday wars" of the poleis were a bunch of amateurs on a picnic. The hoplites trained for a very specific kind of heavy-infantry conflict, and tended to rely mainly on their equipement and formation cohesion rather than individual weapons skill for victory - a not unreasonable approach for people who had fields to tend and crafts to pursue and thus could only spare so much time for combat practice. They got more diverse, professional and ruthless as the wars became longer and more serious later mind you; the end of the Peloponnesian Wars indeed created a typical problem - there were now large numbers of highly skilled mercenaries out of job all over Hellas. Bet you most of the city-states were only too happy about Cyrus the Younger recruiting some 10,000 of the troublesome buggers for his attempted coup d'état, as it got them off their hair and lands. (Cyrus also got off with paying them rather low commission fees and later mostly promises thanks to the mercenary market being so glutted.) The adminstrators of the Spartan holdings around Byzantium weren't too thrilled when Xenophon led the survivors right onto their front yard mind you. Plenty of the intended offense is taken. In point of fact, your so called lesson simply provides an iteration of cultures that used hoplites. I would consider each of these examples greek, either in origin or methodologies. Thus they are included in my example. We are not discussing politics, or the origin of hoplite-forces. We are discussing the distribution of the "dory" spear. In non-hoplite forces, of which there were many more examples than you provide of hoplite forces, the "dory" spear is notably absent. Neither the smanites, nor so far as I can tell, the Etruscans had Dory Spears as thier primary weapon. In the Era of the greeks, more often than not, the City, states in the areas referenced, were, in fact, greek colonies, and thus were greek in origin. You conveniently provide a laundry list of peoples who did not use the dory spear, which largely reinforces my point about its commonality. The crack about the armour somewhat mystifies me. As far as your almost endless rantings about the warrior culture of other tribes, it argues an entirely seperate point. You show that there were lots of societies with full time fighters who were better than the greeks. Thats fine. But that does not make the average greek an inept and untrained militiaman with an inability to use something that might be an exotic weapon to any of these communities. The Athenians, as inept and untrained militia, did manage to defeat your vaunted Persian at Marathon, or do you dispute this victory? Also Platea, was not exactly a Spartan show, the inept and untrained other greeks also fought well and contributed to the victory. My point was, if you had bothered to read instead of ponitificating, that the greeks trained with thier spears, and therefore the notion that they would not have learned how to use what can otherwise be classified as an exotic weapon is silly. If your whole culture trains with a weapon, chances are you know how to use it, even if it is an exotic one. Think Samurai, who get the Katana proficiency as part of the class. To make it even simpler, since you cannot seem to read (No offense). If hoplite were a class, then exoctic weapon (dory spear) would be a first level class feature. The relative skill of the greeks with other weapons is certainly limited. The greeks were not generalists, not even the Spartans. They fought a particular style of warfare, well suited for the particular terrain in Greece. For the celtic barbarians, who may well have been all around better fighters, the use of the dory spear would be an exotic weapon, as would the Falx. Its not that I think you have missed anything on the nuances of history. I don't. Its just that you miss something on how to translate those nunaces into DnD. And you choose to insult rather than to simply enquire as to why I was saying what I did. So you keep your Egyptian Hoplites, and even the Hoplite mercenaries who served with Xenophon (who were so inept and untrained that the persian king hired them), and tell me one thing: In the persian army, was the Dory spear more prevalent than any other spear?
RobbyPants 08-08-07, 02:34 PM	Now, I have to ask: What was the popular decision? Exotic weapon 13 str bastard spear stuff? Simple trident stats? Some feat for the spear otherwise? What got voted "winner"? The way I would do it? Well, the short spear is a simple one-handed weapon that does 1d6 damage and can be thrown. The trident is a martial one-handed weapon that does 1d8 damage and can be thrown. One solution is to stat up a "broad spear" as a trident. If you want to go further, make it an exotic weapon that does 1d10 damage and is one-handed (or two-handed as a martial weapon, similar to a bastard sword). Allow it to be thrown.
Optimator 08-17-07, 07:38 AM	Very. Try something to the effect of "good part of close-order spearmen since the Iron Age began", and keeping in mind most of the guys were militias. To list every culture that used the "shield plus long infantry spear" combo at some point (invariably primarily among "low end" troops) would be to recite the roll call of pretty near all major Eurasian military traditions. Steppe nomads included. Whether such a weapon combination is practical for the average D&D adventurer is of course a different story, but frankly, I suspect most DMs don't actually drive home why heavy armour was normally only ever worn into heavy combat, either... Alright. I'm just trying to see if a long infantry spear (one-handed) would have what D&D considers "reach", as in not being able to attack adjacent squares and being able to attack ten feet away. Honestly, if you say so, I believe it. I mean, how long is "long"? That's what I am trying to see.
Watchman 08-17-07, 07:53 AM	Well, in IRL terms most sources tend to refer to the 2.5m type of fighting-spear as "long". (Authors have an unfortunate tendency to often play rather fast and loose with this kind of terminology mind you.) Longer than that tends to be a "pike". The more convenient ca. 2m type (which for example Persian heavy infantry used during the Persian Wars) is usually just a "spear" (often with added descriptors to differentiate it from the longer type), and spears made primarily for throwing - usually about a meter long or so - are "javelins". (The D&D ruling about Javelins getting a -4 penalty when used for melee actually has some historical basis; there are records of these types of light throwing-spears simply snapping upon striking the shield or armour of a foeman.) Close-combat spears are AFAIK balanced for being grasped about 1/3 of their total lenght up from the butt end, which leaves some 1.7m on the average as "business end" for the "long" kind - easily longer than most melee weapons in their entirety, in most cases by about a double. Add the usual abstraction of the wielder's arm lenght and movement to that, and I don't really see how anyone can construct a tenable argument against the thing being a Reach weapon.
CaptainSpartan 08-28-07, 10:32 AM	Make him find a magical spear. Call it the Spear of Achilies. give it some magical properties that it can be used one handed. Perhaps the magic can only be activated if it is combined with a hoplon shield. then make him go on a quest to find the hoplon shield of Leonidas. Say the shield has magical properties as well, but only some one with gods blood can weild it. Perhaps blood of God Zues, like the son of Hercules or a decendant of Heracles.. hehehe. This should fill his thirst for Spartan material. And give him a reality check that Spartans are only born from Spartan women, you cant sign up for the job :)
Watchman 08-28-07, 02:54 PM	As a curio note, the two royal lines of Sparta were regarded as being descended from Hercules himself or something along those lines.
Devlonir 08-28-07, 03:03 PM	Alright, i think this discussion has gone pretty far from Core, something the OP did ask about. I heard someone talking about leaning in to get the extra 8 inches to be deadly. You know, DnD has a feat for that. It's called Lunging Strike (either in CW, or PHB2, not sure but both are pretty close to core rules) Which makes it able to do an attack at reach with a non reach weapon as a standard action. When staying closest to core, id give him a trident like weapon, call it a Hoplite Spear or whatever for flavor, so he has de d8 damage, just a x2 crit (which is normal for a piercing weapon) and has the ability to be thrown (something that is also done in the movie) Maybe give him a 20ft range increment instead of 10, because 10 kinda sucks and doesnt really fit into the idea of a throwing spear, which is much more stable in the air than throwing a trident. And for that feat, let him use a Lunging Strike feat like i described above. Maybe even let him use it for AoO's (something the orginal feat doesnt allow) so he threatens at 10 feet. And to not make it too imbalanced, maybe only let him use the AoO when an opponent is either moving towards him or away from him in the flavor of him setting up for someone coming in, or pushing someone away when he is retreating. again, just my 5 copper.. and that without getting historic or anything, just thinking of game balance and the movie.
Watchman 08-28-07, 03:10 PM	I sort of fail to see where an 1-H Martial Longspear would be "unbalancing" by any reasonable measure. You can't even Trip with it.
Venshad 08-28-07, 03:22 PM	Alright, since last year I am trying to make a character suited for both ground combat and army leading. As you are all discussing the old ways, which rocks, you could lend me some help! About the 15th level, my Paladin will take the Leadership Feat. By this time, my CHR will be something around 21, without magical items. At 18th he will take the Extra Followers feat, from Heroes of Battle, which doubles the number of followers. So, by 20th, according to the DMG p. 106, he'll have: 1- 135 (x2 = 270) 2- 13 (x2 = 26) 3- 7 (x2 = 14) 4- 4 (x2 = 8) 5- 2 (x2 = 4) 6- 2 (x2 = 4) And a Cohort of 17th level. Without adding Leadership to my Cohort and my 6th level followers, I have a total of 327 followers. As I like both greeks and romans, I decided to make my 1st level followers my infantry, composed by Fighters. Using only core rules and one feat from Complete Warrior, you can make a Fighter that makes a great component of a Phalanx. Using low level stats (13, 12, 11, 10, 9 and 8), my 1st level Fighter becomes something like this: STR 13, DEX 11, CON 12, INT 9, WIS 10 and CHR 8 Feats: Phalanx Fighting, Endurance and Diehard Equipped with Studed Leather Armor, Large Wooden Shield, 2 Javelins and a Shortsword, these fighters have AC 18 (10+3+2+1+2), 20 if Fighting Defensively or 22 if in Total Defence, and are allowed 2 volleys of javelins each, before drawing their swords. Do you have any suggestion over this build? Thanks
Devlonir 08-28-07, 03:35 PM	Just one thing.. the maximum level of your cohort can be lvl 13 (two lower than your own) as stated in the Leadership feat. It is a great leadership build though, but as a DM, id say you or your cohort needs to actively be training your 'army' whenever possible. I am thinking of the same in a campaign i am going to enter soon, which is going to be gestalt, so im going paladin/knight (Cha ftw!) But, an army of 300+ men is very unwieldy in most situations and can drain a small town of all its resources when travelling through. And there are other considerations you need to think of. But think of the fun you can have, when during the final, climactic, outdoor battle you come as the commander and chief of a small army. Just look at the face of the BBEG when that comes over a hill.
Devlonir 08-28-07, 03:38 PM	Oh yeah, and dont forget your followers are all low level common NPC's. I think any DM would be stupid to allow them to have anything better than average stats (so 10,10,10,10,10,10) and anything other than NPC classes.
Venshad 08-28-07, 03:43 PM	I guess that average stats are those I provided, since you can see them in any creature in the books, specially CR 1/2 humanoids.
Saxondog 08-28-07, 07:33 PM	Jumping in real late here but.... Don't forget that through the dark ages and early middle ages, almost every man in Europe fought with a spear and shield. A 6 to 8 foot spear in one hand, a 2 to 3 foot shield in the other, and I doubt they all considered it an exotic style. Many carried no other weapon or just a knife. Rich men owned swords, better off peons might have an axe or a sword but many carried only their spear. I've done historic recreation and I've seen a spear and shield man fight in a psudo-Greek style, fend off swords men easily enough. He was better then average but it can be done. Generally, the spearman gets a free shot as the swordsman closes in (AOO?) and then the advantage shifts to the sword but the spear isn't totally out of it. Of course, the more restricted the space, the better off the spearman without support is going to be.