I was fiddling around with building a fighter today, and what I thought would be really cool is a Spartan-style phalanx fighter: spear, shield, and Protection fighting style. Then I saw the spear in the equipment table, and... Is it just me, or is the spear inexplicably the worst weapon in the game?
Why the designers chose to make the spear a slightly-more-worthless javelin, I'll never know. Since the only differentiating aspect of most weapons is the damage die, and the Spear has a sucky one, does WotC expect any fighters to ever use them?
Novacat wrote:
Novacat wrote:
The spear is the only simple melee weapon that is both throwable and versatile, so it's got that going for it.
And monsters may use spears. Just because it is in the game does not mean it needs to have some defining, yet unrealistic combat potential that makes it a solid choice on its own.
MechaPilot wrote:
Wait, why's there no difference between a spear and a trident other than tridents being more expensive and harder to use? Never noticed that before.
Sorry, I was not clear. I meant to say that the spear is a terrible weapon *for a fighter*. There is no martial equivalent, and there's no logical reason for anyone proficient with martial weapons to ever use the spear.
Which I think is a shame. Spear-and-shield is an iconic, evocative fighting style, and it's just not practical in 5E.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Fralex wrote:
Pike is two-handed, with reach.
Novacat wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Novacat wrote:
The difference between a d6 and a d8 is pretty huge when the smallest monsters we face (goblins) have 7 hit points. Even with a +3 STR bonus, a d6 weapon only has a 2/3 chance to kill a goblin, while a d8 weapon has a 3/4 chance to kill a goblin in one hit.
Failing to kill a goblin in a single attack hurts a lot. As far as action economy goes, it's as good as a miss, because now someone else has to spend their action finishing that goblin off.
i want to use a spear for thematic reasons (my character's backstory makes using a spear important), but I don't want to sacrifice my effectiveness as a fighter in order to do that.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Hold on, darts aren't light melee weapons; you can't dual-wield them without a feat.
I agree with Cyberdave, spear is fine, you trade d8 1-h dmg for d6 for the ablity to throw it. Provided thrown magic weapons return to your hand, this is great benefit. If they dont... weeeeell.... not so useful.
I can't imagine any sword and board fighter generally wanting to throw away his main weapon. Usually, i've seen melee fighters with melee weapons for main and then thrown weapons or a bow for backup when they need a ranged option. I guess you could always refluff a martial, one-handed d8 piercing weapon as a spear and call it a day.
Here's a fix for the spear to make it more versitile/cool. Let the fighter using a spear swing it like a staff if he or she wants to do that. That way the player can choose bludgeoning damage or piercing damage depending on how its used.
kanageddaamen wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Fralex wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Novacat wrote:
There should just be very simple and straight forward weapon rules.
Light Simple One-Handed Weapon - 1d4 damage
Ranged Simple One-Handed Weapon - 1d4 damage
Simple One-Handed Weapon - 1d6 damage
Heavy Simple One-Handed Weapon - 1d8 damage
Light Simple Two-Handed Weapon - 1d6 damage
Ranged Simple Two-Handed Weapon - 1d6 damage
Simple Two-Handed Weapon - 1d8 damage
Heavy Simple Two-Handed Weapon - 1d10 damage
Light Martial One-Handed Weapon - 1d6 damage
Ranged Martial One-Handed Weapon - 1d6 damage
Martial One-Handed Weapon - 1d8 damage
Heavy Martial One-Handed Weapon - 1d10 damage
Light Maritial Two-Handed Weapon - 1d8 damage
Ranged Martial Two-Handed Weapon - 1d8 damage
Martial Two-Handed Weapon - 1d10 damage
Heavy Martial Two-Handed Weapon - 1d12 damage
Any one-handed weapon can be thrown, versatile or finesse if you want and it makes sense, no cost associated. If a weapon has reach then you reduce the weapon die size by one (d12->d10->d8->d6->d4->d2).
Also, instead of the WEAPON being martial, a character with a martial weapon proficiency could just use the martial weapon damage numbers when they use any weapon.
Rogues would be considered to have martial weapon proficiency for one-handed weapons only.
This system would solve all the wacky imbalances in the current weapon system. And using this as a guide you can see where the weapons in Basic D&D are imbalanced because of the whims and preferences of whomever created that chart.
Because darts are thrown, you can use Strength when you make ranged attacks with them. That's a plus for fighters. It makes them a cheap, spammable alternative to daggers for a fighter who wants to use his multiple attacks to pepper the enemy with little pointy objects.
I love the whip. It's the only finesse weapon with reach, and it's the only one-handed weapon with reach (meaning you can use it with a shield). I expect once we see more battlefield control options in the PHB, the whip will come into its own as a fighter weapon. You can make Simon Belmont. With a Dex of 16, studded leather and a shield, you can have an AC of 17 or 18 and still have reach. It's also one of only two reach weapons that Small characters can use effectively (the other being the lance).
I do agree the all-purpose usefulness of the spear should not be discounted. I'm sad it's not likely to be a fighter's main weapon of choice, but who knows? Maybe it'll get support in feats. I don't understand the spear/trident thing at all though! (Especially since in the real world, tridents were used in gladiatorial arenas because they are a peasant's weapon.) In general, I do wish fighters had more use for simple melee weapons.
Fralex wrote:
Novacat wrote:
I decided to adjust the trident so that it is more effective under water and both weapons a decent missile weapons for shield users. I'm guessing we'll see a feat for use of trident and net at some point.
Novacat wrote:
The hoplite spear, or Doru, while awesome for massed close ranks combat was not a throwing weapon would not have the versatile trait. throwing a Doru would be at disadvantage in game terms but the doru would probably be d8 while the lighter shorter spears used by the Persians would be as listed in the book.
CVB wrote:
When I read your "it's just not practical for a fighter," I think what you're saying is "it's not practical for a numerically superior fighter." I see that as a power gamer view, and there is nothing wrong with that view. I do see a slight oversight in saying that it is not practical. I convinced our party's fighter to use his spear and shield combination more often than not. How?
The spear talks to him and encourages him to kill the Orc nearest him because it is a "traitor."
Krut'hak. The Spear is known as Krut'hak, and is the weapon of a fallen orc chieftain. The chieftain was betrayed by his own orcs and left for an Octosite to eat (an octosite is an octopus like monster that dwells in caves - woo!) Mechanically, it's a +1 spear that gives an extra 1d6 psychic damage against orcs. It allows him to speak and understand orcish. Occasionally, if the scene makes it right, the spear also grants inspiration because of the goal/flaw/bond of the spear to destroy all cowardly orcs and traitors.
What else does he carry? A Greatsword. Why? It was his original elven greatblade. Which is he using more? The spear. Is it numerically superior? Not at all.
But it is fitting the story. The spear hates other orcs as much as he does.
In this case, the story is taking the front seat for this character, even though the numbers say "wtfmate?"
We should always keep in mind that "practical" does not mean "numerically superior." A beer bottle is a practical wind instrument; but it is not pitch-superior compared to a flute.
The spear is a primative weapon, among the first to be developed and used by humans. As mentioned above it is effective in mass combat but much less so for small unit actions or single combat.
The reason all these other weapons were developed over time was an attempt to improve over the earlier weapons. The longsword, in particular, is a well balanced, advanced weapon that is near the pinnacle of medieval technology. Makes sense that it is more effective than a weapon which peaked around 250 BCE.
You don't want the spear. Spartan spears couldn't be thrown. Given that, you want a spear that's mechanically identical to the long sword. So ask your DM if you can have one and show him the wiki page to justify it: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dory_(spear)
Cyber-Dave wrote:
NovaCat: talk to your GM about reflavoring the longsword. That's the best option for you at this point - given how little shashing damage matters as a type. From a game design standpoint, there's no reason to really reprint anything (which is why trident* is so confusing), and what you're asking for is so close to the longsword, it may as well BE a longsword.
* There are a bunch of implied rules in the game, apparently, that we can't see yet. Hand crossbows can't be used with TWF w/o a feat (as per Mike tweet), yet they have the light property, on the assumption that non TWF stuff will happen with light weapons. Tridents main use of prongs were to disarm people, so the GM may make calls about the trident as opposed to the spear when it comes to disarming.
And I want to chime in on the whip being potentially awesome as well. I can see lots of potential with the Battle Master subclass, and I kind of really want to see a Rogue Swashbuckler subclass that kind of does similiar things.
You should spear-head a movement to improve the weapon.
MechaPilot wrote:
Novacat wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Novacat wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
Yeah, Fighter Fighting Styles need a Spear style.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
Rather, instead, I would create the Martial Weapon Longspear, and make it 1d6 Piercing or Bludgeoning, Versatile (1d8 Piercing or Bludgeoning) with Reach instead of Thrown.
That doesn't solve your damage potential, but it gives you reach instead of throwing your weapon away, and thus makes your damage range an extra 5'. I threw the Bludgeoning alternative on there for people who want to swirly it around and hit with the other side like a Quarterstaff, kinda like a Sohei might.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
I blame HBO. If Oberyn vs the Mountain had come out a year earlier (not splitting up Book 3 of Game of Thrones) we would have gotten the cool spear user that we deserved.
demon_idol wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Am i not seeing something or does the trident have the exact same mechanics as the spear....but it martial instead?
demon_idol wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
The trident is there just like padded armor is there, so people can pick them and say "look at me I am a ROLE-player, I don't optimize".
spelley wrote:
demon_idol wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Glaive has 3 vowels vs the Halberds 2. If there is a feat that allows you to add the number of vowels to your chance of scoring a critical hit (and really, why wouldn't there be?), that could be huge.
Gunthar wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Hoplite spear (Doru) should be 1H Martial / Versatile / 1d6dmg/ 1d8dmg / 5' reach and thrown as a improvised weapon.(disadvantage when thrown)
This would make it a balanced option for a person wishing to play a shield and spear fighter.
Anyone else remember when all weapons did 1d6?
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
BECMI/Compendium had rules for weapon mastery that blow anything in AD&D/D&D#.v into the dust.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
I think I'm more worried about the identical-ness of the spear/trident and glaive/halberd. Can anyone think of ways to make them work differently?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Fralex wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
My DM said I could not re-skin a war pick as a spear, probably because I'm already using a custom fighter archetype as it is, and is getting wary about too much weirdness in one character.
I guess I'll just use a regular spear, and hope the PHB brings is a Spear Mastery feat by the time we hit 4th level.
Let me explain the above post, since the formatting oddities on this forum deleted all my text...
These are a few images I found on the internet just now, which demonstrate what I think of when I think of spears. These are the weapons of supreme badasses, are in no way "thrown" weapons, and certainly don't seem like d6 weapons. It just seems a shame to me that there's no representation for this kind of weapon in 5E. At least, not yet. There's always hoping something might turn up in the PHB, though I suspect they pretty much copied and pasted everything for Basic.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I appreciate the arguments for historical accuracy - that stuff does matter to me to an extent and I always find it interesting. The game maths too, but less so.
On the other hand, I really hope that come the PHB, I can make a deadly spear-wielding barbarian. Who cares about Rorkes Drift, I still want to play a Zulu!
5Shilling wrote:
I'm sad that D&D doesn't use the historically accurate names for cruciform swords.
Compared to the 3.0 chart of weapons that actually had a picture with feet measuring the size of each weapon, if the names in the 5E are the same via damage comparison, the historical names* are very different.
Historical Name (by Size Comparison) ... D&D Name (3.0) ... Damage
Arming Sword (3.5-5 ft. total) ... Longsword ... d8
Longsword/Greatsword/Bastardsword (5-6ft. total)... Bastard Sword ... d10
True Two Hander (6ft. blade minimum + hilt) ... Greatsword ... 2d6
Here, we see the absence of the d6 sword, but by size we should have one (since the Gladius is smaller, as are many celtic/saxon/viking/pict swords. There was no weapon with the name "short sword" historically, and the "longsword" and "greatsword" were almost the same thing - regionally different and used by mounted cavalry. The "True Two hander" didn't come out until the Renaissance and was primarily for duelling, and rarely touched the battlefield (only a few written cases expressed its use). The closest to a "short sword" we get is the word "scramsax," which "saex" meant "knife" to the Saxons, and the "scramsax" meant something similar to "big knife/ little sword" (terribly loose translations).
And even the word "Gladius" means "sword," which would represent the d6.
So, for naming conventions, D&D doesn't quite hit anything on the head of the nail, but for functionality and descriptive damage consideration, it's fairly easy to see the damage comparisons. If a dagger is d4, we can see the size value of slashing/piercing weapons as the damaging portion rises in functionality and destructive property. We have to remember though, that almost no weapon on the battlefield would have ever weighed more than 7 lbs., and full plate wasn't as restrictive as we want to pretend. There are arms manuals that show knights in field plate doing handstands and cartwheels - which the change in 5E to include STR in the equation for mobility with armor is awesome.
I would like to see a list of weapons by damage and their properties that uses historically accurate names, but it would really only be useful for a select few of gamers who delve away from fantasy history and into historical accuracy - not to mention even the names listed overlap in many cases.
After that, we get into calibers and firearm damage - even bow damage. Either way, we have to make due with what we have at some point.
... Or Do we?...
*Note: Adapted from Medieval Swordsmanship by John Clements.
Fralex wrote:
ivstin wrote:
In my current LMoP game, I play the noble fighter, I plan on conscripti err... Recruiting several folks to use a shieldwall with the first rank using shield and melee weapons while the second rank use pikes, I don't know if I will be able to find the warm bodies to do it but that's the plan.
Warder
Novacat wrote:
I'm fairly certain the two completely identical polearm entries are a deliberate inside joke, a callback to AD&D and Gygax's obsession with having a dozen different types on the weapon table. It's funny and it's only one line, let it go
Speculation on tridents: they will have a line in whatever the underwater combat rules are or the optional disarming rules, giving them some over a spear.
Regarding the chance to deal at least 7 damage with 1d6+3 vs 1d8+3:
The chance for 1d6+3 is actually 0.5 (1/2). You need to roll at least a 4, so the acceptable numbers are 4, 5, & 6; 3 choices out of 6.
The chance for 1d8+3 is actually 0.63 (5/8). You still need to roll at least a 4, so the acceptable numbers are 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8; 5 choices out of 8.
Not a big difference really. Comes down to 1 attack out of every 8 on average. And as DLfan says above, if you are really wanting to kill a goblin in one hit, simply take the dueslist fighting style for an increase in damage.
Personally, I don't think there is a big issue here. As people said, the spear is trading a bit of damage for the ability to be thrown. If you don't care about throwing your weapon, ask your DM about making a "Heavy Spear", a weapon that deals 1d8 damage but can't be thrown.
1eejit wrote:
"If you don't care about throwing your weapon, ask your DM about making a "Heavy Spear", a weapon that deals 1d8 damage but can't be thrown."
The OP said they already did that. Their DM said no.
So I am in the d8 camp with the spear. It should do d8 and not be thrown. The javelin can account for spears designed to be thrown. The lance and pike, also spears, are covered under their own categories.
Historically, the spear (and its derivatives) were the most important and most numerous weapons in history. This is in large part because the spear is a battlefield weapon...it is optimized for fighting in dense formations, such as the phalanx or the schiltron. The Romans used spears for the triarii until the reforms of Marius, and the lance evolved from the Norman spear, which was used both mounted and dismounted (with two hands and shield....like the sarissa. And the Normans also used the "Long sword" so it's not a matter of the long sword replacing the spear as better technonolgy. Spearmen were the backbone of infantry in medieval armies, and the Swiss ended the dominance of mounted cavalry (at least on the continent) with the pike, which remained a key infantry weapon until the socket bayonet became widely used in 1700. The bayonet itself turns the rifle into a thrusting spear, so......
Even in the high Middle Ages, such as in the wars of the roses, battle fields were dominated by billmen and halberdiers. Knights during this era fought dismounted, in plate, and favored pole arms, picks and maces, as they were more effective against plate armour than the "long sword."
Jbickley00 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
jocanuck wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I've always disliked the fact that some weapons come out superior to others. It encourages players to choose the most effective in game vs what they might otherwise choose thematically.
GhostStepper wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
What's a spear have going for it? It's a lot harder to hew a branch and craft it into a longsword.:-)
I think the spear is pretty awesome, actually, for reasons people have already mentioned: thrown, versatile and you can use it with a shield. Easy to outfit a group of warriors with it, too. If I wanted to make the thing more prevalent, I'd just make metalworking and its outgrowth rare and expensive. Not everything is about mechanics, no matter how much the system seems to want to push the "I am Granthor and this is my HUGE WEAPON!"
nctrlnet wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Ok, going point by point:
i don't think shifting the spear from a d6 to a d8 weapon makes it outshine all other one hand weapons, but hey that's just an impression. I give a fighter with a spear the same damage as a fighter with a long sword, but I'm not sure how that makes it a one handed weapon .... The Greek hoplite thing should be a feat, or a dm exception for a Greek campaign. As I see it, the spear is a two handed weapon and would not allow it to be thrown...I guess I was not clear on that point. A throwable spear is covered under javelin, a Zulu thrusting spear is, rules wise, identical to a long sword IMHO.
The Chinese martial arts reference was to give an example of how a trained fighter can use a spear very effectively, it's simply a reference point, American Indians, Vikings, Sudanese Spearmen and Norman knights had their own styles or systems of using a spear in single combat....but spear technique goes way beyond "put the pointy end in the other guy." So no, the short sword should not be übered up because its in a Chinese movie. The original rules to this game had all weapons doing only 1d6, which was a different take on abstracting damage but had logical merit (WHFRP treats all hand weapons the same). However, we want the rules to reward choices and make fighters more diverse so odd distinctions are made. So the shortsword does d6 but Is a light weapon, and can be dual wielded in the basic rules, d6 is fine, even if the actual difference between having two feet or three feet of blade shoved through your intestine is meaningless as a practical matter.
it does not depend on which entry for spear actually, the basic spear, 5-8 feet long with a bladed head, was historically contemporary with the long sword, and survived on the battle field through the wars of religion, so even if we distinguish it from the pike, lance, and javelin (which we should) there is never a point where the long sword replaced the spear in terms of technological teleology. Many warriors in history carried swords and spears, and shields too.
Jbickley00 wrote:
cranebump wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Sorry, the double-negative was a copy/paste error. I'm on my phone, and the formatting on the mobile version of this site is atrocious.
Sure, *someone* throws their melee weapon away, but it's not something you should desire to do, nor is the once-in-campaign eventuality that it might be useful worth penalizing an entire die-type.
I have no desire to make a spear *better* than other weapon options, as I have said numerous times. What I clearly want is a spear option that is on-par with the strength of martial one-handed weapons.
And having early access to a product is neither illegal nor against the CoC here, so yeah, I'm comfortable admitting that I've seen the PHB.
Feat
Phalanx Fighting
You can several benefits while using spears and fighting in close formation. .
1. You can set a spear for double damage against charge attacks.
2. You gain reach with a spear.
3. You gain +2 AC if you have a shield and are adjacent to an ally with a shield.
Every Spartan has this feat and +1 to two ability scores at level 1;).
Novacat wrote:
Right, but as I've mentioned, not all DMs are comfortable with reskinning equipment. In my games, sure, making a compelling martial spear is easy. But if such an option were available in the core, printed material, I wouldn't have to rely on DM fiat to allow it.
How *I* would do it:
Heavy Spear (One-handed martial melee weapon)
Damage: 1d8
Properties: Versatile (reach), Heavy
Ok, I'm making two distinct points...a historical one that the spear was not technologically replaced by the "long sword" - it's not a question of better technology, spears and swords coexisted. The spear is just effective and simple to produce and allows for dense mass infantry formations.
Point two is in making weapons for this game, I would make the spear two handed, give it reach and a d8 damage - that is a spear IMHO. Not versitile, not thrown. Not one handed. This is not trumping the "long sword" or any other melee weapon, it's just giving the fighter an option that does not reproduce what the javelin does- the spear and javelin are the same. The d8 damage is the bog standard of martial weapons, so this makes the spear an average choice, or less than average as most two handed weapons do more damage. The trade you make for a spear is two handed damage for reach. It does, arguably, make the spear the best of the simple weapons, which is fine.
If you wanted you could ad a spear and shield fighting style that let's the fighter gain the benefit of a shield while using a spear, which could cover the hoplite's one handed use, or the Norman two hand on the spear with the shield slung for protection. I'm leery of letting the spear be used one handed, however, because that opens the door to some silly dual-wield builds, assuming there are feats that alter the current RAW.
Novacat wrote:
Novacat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Novacat wrote:
5Shilling wrote:
You know... I really have trouble seeing the spear as a one handed weapon. Seems hard to manuever with to me - not unless it was shorter, that is.
Novacat wrote:
Why no love for the spear? Because PIKES:
That said, I do enjoy a spear-and-shield type. In 4e, I had a Warlord who had a "War spear" (a Trident with a different name). I do agree, there is something weird about the spear-hate.
4 pages into this thread, and I am struck by a random thought: Am I seriously the only one that saw the current incarnation of the spear (one- or two-handed, can be thrown) and thought "Finally, D&D stops hating on the spear!"?
(yes, that was followed with a vulgar exclamation in regards to the trident.)
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
@cennedi, a spear does more damage than a shortsword because it's two handed, at least how I see it. More impact and more leverage in the thrust. The shortswords advantage lies in its wieldliness (to make up a word).
i too am suprised by the spear-hate. I guess I thought it was to early for rules fanboydom, but that's neither here nor there. My thought about the RAW is that making the spear thrown really makes the javelin a wasted entry on the list.
Glad to see I am not alone.
As for the trident being a thrown weapon, that absolutely should be there - both from the aspect of its use for fishing, and because it has been a thrown weapon more often than not in D&D for good reason, as there are historical accounts of its hurled usage.
My actual thoughts, however, are that it is correct for the trident and the spear to have the same statistics - just like there was a sidebar in some playtest materials that mentioned treating weapons with a slight difference in appearance (such as a sickle and a kama) as being the same - but that would mean just removing the trident line from the martial table and having a note somewhere about a spear being able to have multiple prongs on the stabby end.
Novacat wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The Spear is fine, it's the Trident, as others have mentioned, that has bugged me since I got the Basic PDF, I instantly house-ruled it to 1d8 Versatile (1d10).
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
It is a historical fact that there were no elves, dwarves, or magic, we should clearly cut them from the game to preserve realism.
Sifaka wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
LordVonDerp wrote:
LordVonDerp wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Kinda got a short, and awefully self-serving, memory there buddy. No surprise though, it is in keeping with your character.
LupusRegalis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
I now grasp the spear-hate. In 4e a spear was 1d8 one handed and versatile. Somehow I never heard complaints that it was the most broken weapon in the game. But a lot of people will argue against any continuity. If I recall it was an earlier edition that bumped the spear up to d8 in the first place. So my assumption with people arguing rule perfection with 5e is that it's based on devotion to the new rules and the idea that anything not old is good. For me they had the spear right before, and now we have talen a step backwards.
Upshot is that I am not somehow breaking the game by making the spear two handed and doing 1d8. It's not the best weapon in the game, by far, and what the hell, players might pick weapons for reasons other than the numbers anyway.
Cennedi wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Isn't it d6 one handed, versatile, and thrown?
Im saying it should be two handed and d8 with reach.
A feat or fighting style makes it usable with a shield (either one or two handed players choice). This allows building a hoplite style warrior.
some how this had been interpreted as making the spear the most powerful weapon in the game....
Jbickley00 wrote:
Versatile means it can be used two handed and does 1d8 damage.
For a reach weapon you would need to use a halberd, glaive or pike which are two handed and deal more damage at 1d10.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I seem to recall that in one of the playtest packets that the monk got profeciency with the longspear, which wasn't on the weapon list. My guess was that it would have been a martial weapon and that it may have been the same thing as the pike, which was on the weapon list.
How to distinguish the halberd from the glaive? Both were polearms with a hook that could be used to dismount cavaliers, but the glaive had a thicker blade that could be used for slashing, whereas the halberd had a thinner piercing spike. But what sort of simple mechanic could take that into account?
The thing that bothers me the most about the weapon list is the mace, 5gp for a simple weapon that is inferior to the 2sp quarterstaff.
Cerius wrote:
JC999 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ogiwan wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
CVB wrote:
Ogiwan wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Of course he does. He took the Spear Fighter feat.
What he doesn't do is swing it around from the back end one-handed to gain that reach.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
And at my table spears have reach.
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Ironic that the description of the Paladin in the PHB preview from today has a bad ass high elf paladin skewering a twisted giant of darkness with a spear. I think that the war against evil and darkness and twisted giants is hopeless enough without a spear that only does 1d6 and does not have reach.
demon_idol wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cennedi wrote: