Spears are often said to be the most popular weapon in the medieval period so why are they so weaksuace in fantasy? 1d6 rly 5e?
>>45366718
Your system is bad
>>45366718
So what am I saying? Spears require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for spears:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
>>45366718
Spears are basically the most popular and widely used weapon in human history, not just the medieval period.
>>45366747
This.
Spears are the shit in GURPS.
>>45366718
Because pikes and a slew of other polearms exist that are practically spear 2.0.
When you're using a spear, you're using a musket compared to a well calibrated bolt-action rifle that is the halberd.
>>45366787
>this spear has been folded over 10000 times etc etc
Having weapons do their wielder best Hit Die for damage works
>>45366861
I myself comissioned a genuine spear for five millions rubles (that's about twenty dollars)
>>45366860
Eh, not really, I mean yeah the Halberd is a better cutter than most spears, but they are also shorter.
>>45366718
They were the most popular for a simple reason, they are fuck easy to make and required little in the way of reasources.
A viable spear fan be created with a long straight limb sharpened and fire hardened. With the smallest amount of metal and effort a blade can be attached.
Doesn't mean that a spear can hack through an arm, deal with it.
>>45366860
I was going to say
>inb4 halberd wank
Then you showed up.
I don't understand why people think halberds are the holy grail of polearms.
They're pretty shitty really, useful in a myriad number of situations, but not to the point of being better than any others. Hell, using a boar spear with a counterbalance pretty much gets you a halberd, just with the hammer on the other end.
>inb4 "Halberds have a "tang" you grognard faggot REEEEEE"
>>45366718
>5e
>polearms
>underpowered
Do you even Polearm Master? Polearm fighting is actually really strong in 5e.
I use these house rules, OP
>Spear used in one hand (such as with shield) d6
>Spear used in two hand grip d8
I'm not seeing the problem. Aren't swords also d6 in DnD?
>>45366964
>Doesn't mean that a spear can hack through an arm
Actually, it's easier to hack through an arm with a polearm like a spear than with a sword because you have more leverage. Even though a sword has a longer blade and thus a bigger strike zone, you lose a ton of power if you don't strike with the tip anyway so it's basically a moot point.
>>45367200
Longswords are d8 and greatswords are 2d6
>>45366747
this tbphwy lads
>>45366718
One of the best aspects of a spear is the ability to keep the person you're trying to kill a good distance away from you, so he can't attack you. D&D doesn't handle this well.
>>45367166
I said spears not pole arms also feats are technically an optional rule
>>45366795
my nigga
>not using the superior in every way club
heh
>>45366718
Because it's supposed to represent a hunting/shortspear, which could literally refer to a pointed stick in 5e's context. What you want is the pike, which is 5e's proper war spear.
>>45367201
While spears have greater leverage; most spears also have a much smaller cutting area, and the practicality of landing your blow is lessened by the larger swing radius required from you.
Also a thing you are forgetting is mass; most spears have a much lower mass due to the fact that wood isn't as dense as iron or steel. F=ma
>>45367225
But the Longsword is arguably the best at being killy, and given the vitality bloat later on, is the best non-bludgeoning weapon for this reason
Did you know?
Spears are effective in close quarters because you can simply change the placement of your grip.
Spears have more angles of attacks than a sword due to them being a polearm. They can circumvent shields and many forms of armor by striking weak points not accessible by swords, axes, daggers and bludgeoning weapons.
Spears are more effective at slicing and piercing than swords due to their leverage.
Hacking off the head of a spear is nearly impossible in a real fight unless the spear is being pinned down and you whack at it multiple times at full strength. This was the general strategy of a zweihander, but their job was impossible without the assistance of pikemen.
The point of a spear travels in a more direct manner than a sword due to its leverage, making its strikes faster.
Spears do not require less training than a sword, however they are far cheaper to produce.
Polearms were the bane of cavalry, eclipsed only by firearms and ditches. Firearms with bayonets are especially effective, because it essentially combines a gun with a spear aka the ultimate weapon.
Alexander the Great's army used pikes that were about 20ft (~6m) in length. This allowed them to decimate infantry, cavalry and chariots alike and was a cornerstone of his strategy.
Swords are the handguns of the melee weapon world: vastly out performed in a variety of situations by other weapons, but given a special status due to its image of being cool.
Incendiary spears had been in use since ancient times. These were extremely effective against non-metal shields.
Swords were generally a sidearm.
>>45367518
>most spears have a much lower mass
Longswords weigh from 1 to 2 kilograms.
A dory (the iconic greek hoplite's spear) would also weigh from 1 to 2 kilograms.
Believe it or not, ten feet of solid wood is actually kinda heavy, anon.
>>45367518
>While spears have greater leverage; most spears also have a much smaller cutting area
You should really read my post.
>Also a thing you are forgetting is mass
Swords and spears were generally the same weight. Most swords were less than 5 lbs. Combine that with their lack of leverage in comparison to polearms and you have a large striking power disparity.
>>45367378
>feats are technically an optional rule
Ok
>>45366718
>holding your spear with one hand
Use both hands faggot, then it does 1d8.
>>45367626
>Spears are effective in close quarters because you can simply change the placement of your grip.
Addendum to this. It takes a lot of practice and training to git that level of gud with a spear.
>Spears are more effective at slicing and piercing than swords due to their leverage.
Depends on the head. Something like a Japanese su yari with it's roughly foot long head? Yes. On a spear with a shorter head, it becomes difficult to actually CONNECT with the slash.
>>45367201
See
>>45367518
Swords and axes are better at the whole cutting off limbs thing, which is really more of a function of the wielder being absurdly strong than the qualities of the weapon.
>>45367626
This is so wrong I can't believe it. Swords are not the handgun of the melee weapon world. That's called a fucking knife.
>>45367200
...that's not a house rule, that's literally the rules, it's on the spear entry for the equipment table.
>>45367724
>This is so wrong I can't believe it. Swords are not the handgun of the melee weapon world. That's called a fucking knife.
No, he's right. You're just interpreting him wrong.
The sword serves in the role of a sidearm, an extra weapon that you have for if shit goes pear-shaped and your primary weapon is either not available, or a poor choice for the situation you find yourself in.
As for the knife? Look at it like this. A sword is a full size "duty" handgun. A big, beefy thing meant to be carried openly on ones hip. A knife is the subcompact you carry concealed in case some big mean nigga tries to roll you on your way back from the money machine.
>>45367724
See >>45367201
Swords weigh the same as spears. They have far less leverage (where over half of a strike's power comes from) and they lose a ton of power the further away from the tip your strike is placed.
Axes have small blades about the same size as the average spear head and have far less leverage. They are also much slower and exhausting to use. However, they can pull down shields with the right head.
>>45367626
Arming or side swords are the weapons you're thinking of when you call a sword a sidearm, but they also did see frequent and widespread use as a primary weapon in conjunction with a shield. Long, hand-and-a-half and two-handed swords were meant to be primary weapons and there was great demand for them.
>Spears are often said to be the most popular weapon in the medieval period so why are they so weaksuace in fantasy? 1d6 rly 5e?
They just haven't found the right haft, is all.
>>45367518
>>45367724
Spot the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about yet insists he does.
Hint:I linked to his posts
>>45367815
No, swords were sidearms overwhelmingly most of the of time. Stop regurgitating fantasy setting tier weapon knowledge.
>>45367790
No, that's also wrong because warriors *also* carried daggers into battle alongside their swords and shields. There are even pages in what fighting manuals exist that demonstrate knife techniques in a melee.
>>45367868
>because warriors *also* carried daggers into battle alongside their swords and shields
And I carried a knife on deployment. What's your point?
>>45367868
No, you *faggot*. Most knives were limited to civilian dress weapons. Knights did not run around primarily using swords and shields like they do in your Tolkien fantasy.
It basically went like this for much of history
Spear - primary weapon (infantry or cavalry)
Sword - sidearm for close quarters
Dagger - Emergency for when you're on the ground being grappled
>>45367480
Alternatively, ask your DM if you can change a longsword's damage type to piercing and call it a spear. Resistances/vulnerabilities that only affect one of the three physical damage types comes up basically never, so it's not a big deal mechanically.
>>45367895
The point is that the role of a last resort weapon is the knife and always has been. The sword was for after the initial clash.
>>45367930
Yeah, and the sword served as a step between your primary weapon and your knife.
EXACTLY LIKE A FUCKING PISTOL!
>>45367907
Dagger was also used for finishing dudes in plate in close quarters as well, but yeah the sword is the sidearm for when you cant use your spear/lance/polearm.
Also POLLAXE MASTER RACE
>>45367963
He's a delusional swordfag. He'll never get it, he doesn't even have any real weapon knowledge supported by history.
>>45367907
>>45367867
You're all fags. Here's how it works, because there's an order to this.
>The opposing forces meet with spears and polearms and try to force their way into the other.
>Eventually one side is able to break through
>The longer, more cumbersome weapons are discarded while shorter weapons are drawn.
>Very close quarters fighting ensues until one force withdraws.
>>45367606
Maybe if your enemies have zero armor.
If your enemies are wearing any armor, I'd take AP 4 Halberd over the +2 average damage from longsword.
>>45367907
>like they do in your Tolkien fantasy
Actually, Middle Earth is one of the fantasy settings where it's acceptable, as it's based heavily in the Early Middle Ages (the so-called "dark ages").
Most advanced armor to ever show up in the Tolkien's writings? Maille.
It's one of the few periods when you WOULD see dudes running around with swords.
>>45367963
>>45367981
You have to understand, most of the time you could not reasonably use a longer weapon because there were literally dudes everywhere.
Source: Trying to use a polearm in historical enactments. I cannot tell you how many times a swing got cut short because some faggot stepped into my reach. Half of the time it was one of my own.
>>45367629
Yes overall but your not swinging that mother around.
Also you don't use all of a spears mass when you hit anything behind where you hand is isn't used; just like the pommel of a sworddoesn't increase the mass of the swords blow.
Also at 10' that ain't no spear that's a fucken pike son.
>>45367829
Hmm ok well then I'm glad there is all this real life data of spears being used to cut ; instead of pierce; the whole spears are so awesome why aren't they treated so is easy to see; because they aren't for an adventurer hey you want to get 50 dudes put them in a block give them essentially pikes and a couple of feats for coordination and cooperation and yes you have the hoplite hedgehog of death. Which is due to reach of a piercing weapon and has nothing to do with you muh leverage which while I have said yes leverage does matter it really doesn't help all that much especially as you increase the size of your spear; shit if it did people would of just kept making bigger and bigger spears till they were 100'long but they didn't as you still have to be able to effectively wield this weapon.
So no anon your argument that I know nothing is founded on you jealousy of me having banged your mom and gone to get cigarettes
>>45368021
It's also supported by the sword feat chain which is just about reliably dealing large damage.
>>45367963
A better analogy would be something like Spear = Rifle, Sword = Carbine, Dagger = Pistol.
>>45368011
No, that isn't how it works. Field battles like rarely happened because tactically speaking it's fucking stupid. In most cases for field battles, lines would fall back be replaced by fresh lines when being forced backed by the enemy (who would advance with polearms either by infantry or cavalry)
>>45368050
No, they would still be running around with spears. Maille was extremely resistant to slashing (and piercing, but to a lesser extent).
>>45368066
Real warfare wasn't like an episode xena the warrior princess. You don't fight a bunch of guys around you. You move in formation, keeping the enemy at your front or at the side, maintaining your spacing against the enemy's front lines with your polearm. It wasn't like some duel.
>>45367518
Leverage is more important than mass, as it allows you to achieve greater velocities with ease.
You can calculate kinetic energy (what's going to damage your body when it hits you) this way: 1/2(m.v2)
>>45367626
yo most of this is generally correct but Imma have to correct you cause
>Alexander the Great's army used pikes that were about 20ft (~6m) in length. This allowed them to decimate infantry, cavalry and chariots alike and was a cornerstone of his strategy.
This is some straight up bullshit. the only people who used Pikes even approaching/exceeding that length were the Diadochi, cause they were dumb
>>45368095
>Also at 10' that ain't no spear that's a fucken pike son.
Confirmed for fucking retard. Put on a trip so we can ignore you.
>Exact spear lengths are hard to deduce as few spear shafts survive archaeologically but 6 ft. – 8 ft. (1.8m – 2.5m) would seem to have been the norm
>pikes with length of 4.5 to 6.5 m (15 to 21 ft) or sometimes 10 m became main forces in armies
>>45368152
>Field battles like rarely happened because tactically speaking it's fucking stupid
You are taking the 10th to 12th century and conflating it to the entirety of history and medieval history. Field battles/pitched battles started becoming a lot more common moving into the 13th century and up into the Modern Period. This is ignoring the fact that in Asia pitched battles were much more common, likewise in Antiquity.
You don't know as much as you think you do.
>>45368152
>You move in formation
This nigga. Unless you were fucking Rome (which only worked for very specific reasons), formations were not nearly as regimented as you think they were. That shit really didn't become a thing again until Napoleonic times, which were already firearm oriented anyway.
Go ahead, tell me how you're going to routinely keep cycling people in and out when there are men running through your ranks waving big sharp sticks about and you have no way to reliably convey information outside of shit like horns and drums?
>>45367626
>Incendiary spears had been in use since ancient times
Jesus fucking christ that's horrifying. How have I never heard of that.
>>45366718
RPG games don't care about popular, they care about what does X the best.
>>45368183
Fuck off, retard
>The Macedonian phalanx, armed with the sarissa, a spear 6 metres (20 ft) long, had been developed and perfected by Philip II through rigorous training
>Morkot 1996, p. 110
>>45368251
Usually people don't like to talk about what other people being on fire is like.
It stinks like high hell and the sound is horrifying. And bones can "explode" or "pop", and no one likes how that sounds.
>>45368152
>No, they would still be running around with spears. Maille was extremely resistant to slashing (and piercing, but to a lesser extent).
But the Vikings fucking loved swords. Hell, having a sword (while it was a prized possession) was not a strange thing for them to carry into battle as the thing they used. And they were really good at it!
>>45368232
No.
>>45368250
Read a military history book.
>>45368293
Swords were seen as a symbol of wealth for vikings. They mainly used long axes and polearms. Swords did see use in personal duels, though. Go read up on the battle of hastings or something.
>>45368276
But the phalanx as a military tactic was largely abandoned during Rome's time.
>>45368276
How the fuck do you even balance something like that? Wouldn't it be wobbling like crazy?
>>45368332
But we know from their own histories and from others that they used swords. We know that basically every culture on earth adopted swords and used them until the end of melee combat as a thing. Swords can't be purely cultural
>>45367799
There are virtually no accounts that I have ever read about someone cutting off a limb or a head with a spear. They weren't good for that for the reason reason that rapiers weren't, they weren't designed for it.
To insinuate that an axe and a spear cut similarly is laughable.
>>45368335
>moving the goal post to something unrelated
Wonderful. Also, the Romans still heavily used polearms for most of their history. The gladius saw a relatively brief 300 - 400 year tenure as a primary weapon.
>>45368341
The guy behind you helps you balance it.
>>45368250
>Romans
>orderly formations and discipline
pick one
>>45368307
>Read a military history book.
No, you tell me. Demonstrate your fucking point. How are you going to cycle men in and out when people are wrestling them to the ground?
>>45368378
Spatha > Gladius
>>45368341
They had spikes on the back of the shaft for stability.
>>45368374
I don't believe you're very well read.
>>45368364
Everything you just said also applies to spears, which have a more prominent and longer history than swords.
>>45366718
Go play Song of Swords. Spears are great, but they have limitations.
>>45368335
untrue, the core of the Western Roman army for most of its history was an etruscan style Phalanx supplemented with cavalry, auxiliaries etc
>>45368397
>when people are wrestling them to the ground?
>wrestling in mass warfare
You're not the brightest.
>>45368402
Well, yeah.
You know why lions targeted tribesmen wielding spears in the time before recorded history?
That's right, because they were afraid of Africans and their Spears of Destruction.
>>45368409
>Everything you just said also applies to spears, which have a more prominent and longer history than swords.
You mean as possibly one of the simplest melee weapons ever devised. I'm asking an honest question here: If swords served basically no role on the battlefield, then why has every culture in the world continued to preserve and use them (extensively!) until the age of firearms?
>>45368452
>If swords served basically no role on the battlefield
Never once claimed that. Post discarded.
>>45368440
Dude, it's a thing that happened frequently enough to be worth training someone for.
>>45368409
I'm pretty well read. Give me an example. I've heard of the hewing spears of the vikings, but you never hear about anyone cutting an arm off with them. The norse sagas go into very deep detail, as well.
It's almost as though they were designed to give point...
>>45368468
Oh right, you likened them to pistols. If they were an extremely limited sidearm then, or whatever interpretation would make you bold enough to answer.
>>45368495
>I'm pretty well read.
Sure you are. That's why you believe swords were the primary weapon of the battlefield for most of history.
>>45368525
Either demonstrate your point or don't.
>>45368525
I have never claimed any such thing. My sole point of disagreement is cutting with spears. Didn't you just accuse someone above of making an unfounded generalization about you?
This thread cements it for me. Spearfags are the hipster katanafags.
>>45368505
Answer what? The only thing you've done is assert that I've said swords had no or extremely limited combat roles. No, I said swords were primarily side arms. Stop being butthurt about your fantasy combat.
>>45366795
>>45368141
>Spear = Rifle, Sword = Carbine
No, because you don't carry BOTH a rifle and a carbine.
Carbines are literally just shorter rifles. They were originally carried by mounted troops, but in the present day are mostly used due to the shorter ranges and tighter quarters that define the modern battlesphere.
Sometimes /tg/ sits down and does something beautiful.
Other times it just looks like two people playing Pheonix Wright and mashing their objection but giving no evidence themselves.
Why are you so bipolar?
>>45368171
Yes but what you seem to not realised is that you increase your arc; making your strike less effective as the anon who does reenactments pointed out to you clearly but couldn't fucken understand.
It's the reason that swords don't get an I'm big in real life as you lose the ability to kill as you make your weapon dumb.
Try using your brain instead of just taking one part of a very dynamic relationshipand then claim superiority.
>>45368538
>My sole point of disagreement is cutting with spears.
Then go do some research. Spears were highly effective at cutting. What do you want me to do? Make you smart?
>>45368565
If its role can be accomplished by practically any other weapon, them why have them at all? Why not fade into the annals of time? Why did every culture continue to use them? A short spear or axe should serve just as well as any sword.
>>45368561
No, that's just swordfags. They grossly overstate the sword's role as a military weapon due to their general ignorance and hard-on for style of substance.
>>45368627
You aren't helping your case any.
>>45368626
>If its role can be accomplished by practically any other weapon
Never said that. When are you going to stop making up dumb shit?
>>45368601
I have done research. What I'm saying is that your claim is unsubstantiated, I have never read any historical account that supports your claim of the superior cutting ability of spears. Halberds, perhaps, glaives, certainly, but spears? Your defense seems to amount to calling other people dumb, I just want you to explain yourself.
Surprised no-one has posted this yet.
>>45368643
>hurr durr stating usage facts about spears is being a hipster
You didn't either. Why are you so angry about the sword's historical role?
>>45368667
You're literally claiming that spears cut better than swords. That is a bold claim that you have refused to support with any evidence. Nobody is claiming that spears were not more common on medieval battlefields than swords, you are the one making an outlandish assertion without evidence.
>>45368648
>I have done research
No, you haven't.
>What I'm saying is that your claim is unsubstantiated
Same for you.
>I just want you to explain yourself.
Polearms have greater leverage. They slice harder than swords. However, their strike zone is smaller, making it difficult but swords also lose a lot of power if you do not strike with the tip. This was all posted before. Stop being a fag.
>>45368667
1. I'm more of an axe guy myself.
2. Whatever intellectual grounds you may or may not have does not make you less obnoxious. Much like katanafags.
>>45366718
In all fairness, they were the most popular weapon because of their battlefield use; they were nowhere near dominating in duels and loosely-formed combat in general, although I agree that D&D isn't particularly faithful to historical combat.
>>45368692
>You're literally claiming that spears cut better than swords.
Because, like all other polearms, they have vastly greater leverage than a sword. Feel free to kill yourself.
>>45368694
>>45368692
Don't mind me, just passing through with my compound bow on horseback. Say, that's a nice city you've got there...
>>45368767
True. Spears may have been amazing, but compound bows were miraculous.
>>45368694
Now, I'm not a historian but I have actually gotten some lessons on how to use a saber. You don't strike with a slashing sword, especially not the tip. You make contact around the middle of the blade then pull it across the flesh. If you just strike, you'll make a shallower wound and you might even get the blade stuck.
>>45368694
I have done research. I am asking you for a single reference in ANY historical text to someone cutting someone's arm or head off with a spear. I cannot prove a negative, that isn't possible, you need to prove that what you claim IS true.
And the leverage point is potentially true, but there are other factors. What about the cross-section of the blade? What about the slicing motion necessary to cut? If spears were great cutting devices, why are there no reports of them ever being used to cut?
You have not supplied any evidence except napkin math, and you are the one making the claim. We can all go out and find a hundred reports of people cutting limbs off with swords, but none of spears. Spears were more common than swords--why is this then?
>>45368694
You are dumb; I'm sorry you start with spear (the thing we are discussing) and now your trying to back pedal with pole arm.
Just sit back; take your hand off your dick and think yes all these anon are right a spear isn't really a cutting weapon. I was wrong now we can move on.
Now if you change spear with any real cutting pole arm I would be happy to say that they cut better just like a fucken long sword cuts better than a dagger.
So stop trying to push the spear master race; it has a purpose on the battle field just like every other weapon; but it is just a quarter staff with a pointy end when it comes down to it (unless we are taking Asian arms into consideration as they had much different designs in terms of spears).
>>45368718
Leverage evidently isn't everything, as you can provide no sources reporting the actual use of spears in that manner.
>>45368822
Slicing blades are highly ineffective against basically any type of armor. This is why they primarily saw use during the age of firearms when armor fell out of use.
>but I have actually gotten some lessons on how to use a saber.
Wow you're such an expert!!1
>>45368823
>I have done research
If you did, your stances wouldn't be so wrong. Also, feel free to post proof for any of your claims.
>If spears were great cutting devices, why are there no reports of them ever being used to cut?
I'll amuse you for a second
http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/05/29/some-thoughts-on-spears-and-cutting-the-universal-weapon/
Also since you claimed to know anything about Viking sagas
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_spear.htm
>>45368827
>and now your trying to back pedal with pole arm.
Spears are polearms, you retard.
>>45368374
>There are virtually no accounts that I have ever read about someone cutting off a limb or a head with a spear.
And I suppose axes and swords just lop off limbs in one swing like a weedwacker?
>To insinuate that an axe and a spear cut similarly is laughable.
Do you not know how physics work? A spear cutting and an axe cutting both work the exact same way, leverage, and the spear has immense amounts of that. The only reason why it wasn't used this way often was simply because the cutting edge would be so short that it would be hard to judge where your effective range would be and if you can strike there before your opponents gets too close.
Hence why they started adding nice wide axeheads to spears so it would do boths jobs much more reliably and easily.
>>45368867
>Leverage evidently isn't everything
You can go home now.
How come nobody ever uses a spear in media besides kung fu movies? If spears do show up, they're almost invariably wielded by doomed mooks.
>>45368929
>A spear cutting and an axe cutting both work the exact same way
Almost. Leverage played the biggest role by far, but axes were wedges so they were very effective against maille.
>>45368911
I mean, you sound very confident, but you really don't just hit something with the tip of the sword. It's not a good idea unless you're making a thrust. The tip is the sharpest part of the blade, true, but you lead with the center. That's where the tipping point is, so that when you drag the sword through, the sharpest part ( the tip) will be able to penetrate deeper.
That's pretty basic stuff man.
>>45368960
Because most people think they don't look as cool.
>>45367031
The Halberds strength in that it is so versatile. It is a weighty spear, a polearm axe, and most importantly has a billhook that doesn't offset the balance of the weapon (thanks to the axehead). Have the ability to hook knights off horses and pull them prone is far more useful that a hammer. prone knight is a dead knight.
>>45368998
You're only describing sabre type swords. Which, again, were useless against armor (try running a blade across metal and see how much damage it does).
Also feel free to post any sort of backup for your claims since you seem so adamant about that (hypocrite).
>b-but I took a sword lesson at the ren faire
>>45368440
>>when people are wrestling them to the ground?>wrestling in mass warfareYou're not the brightest.
Getting a heavily armoured opponent to fall over was one of the easiest ways to defeat them. There're knights that drowned in puddles because they fell off their horse face first and didn't have the strength to pull themselves out because of their armour.
>>45367626
PIKES HAVE A DIFFERENT WEAPON ENTRY THAN SPEARS!
They do 1d10 and have the reach property meaning they can be used to attack creatures more than 5 feet away.
RTFM.
>>45369043
The cutting motion is pretty universal. Curved swords are just optimized for it while straight swords are balanced for both cutting and thrusting.
>>45369046
>There're knights that drowned in puddles because they fell off their horse face first and didn't have the strength to pull themselves out because of their armour.
Ahaha confirmed for idiot
>An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while most modern equipment is chiefly suspended from the shoulders or waist, the weight of a well-fitted armor is distributed all over the body. It was not until the seventeenth century that the weight of field armor was greatly increased in order to render it bulletproof against ever more accurate firearms. At the same time, however, full armor became increasingly rare and only vital parts of the body, such as the head, torso, and hands, remained protected by metal plate.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm
>>45369071
No. Pulling a blade yields far less power than properly using the length of the blade for leverage. Feel free to post proofs, hypocrite.
>>45366795
I didn't even enjoy GURPS that much and I had to respect how great spears were.
>>45368911
You've found one reference to a spear cutting in a way that a sword could in the sagas. I do not see your claimed proof that spears cut better.
>>45368929
>Do you not know how physics work? A spear cutting and an axe cutting both work the exact same way
Except they don't. Spears usually have thinner blades that weigh less, and if they cut at all, would cut with a drawing motion--a slice. Axes cleave through weight and a wedge-shaped cross section.
Swords however, do cut the same way that spears do--with an exception. Swords have longer blades, which means more surface area along which to cut when drawn.
It follows logically then that swords cut better than spears. Greater leverage does not necessarily compensate for a decreased cutting area.
>>45369108
It's actually the same principle as using a kitchen knife, if you've ever cut meat before. You're going to have a tough time cutting meat if you're just whacking at it unless you're using a large cleaver. You take the knife and pull it across the meat and it slices through with very little effort on your part.
>>45369108
It isn't about power, it's about severing flesh. That's why swords, the superior cutting weapon, had longer edges.
>>45366795
Exactly.
In fairness, D&D has inherited the stats from a pre-ARMA, pre-HEMA era when the scholarship on medieval weapons pretty much all stemmed from Victorian era speculation by armchair historians.
GURPS did, too, but the fans aren't as likely to freak out over melee combat tweaks.
>Spearfag talking about spears cutting better than swords
>literally zero evidence for this across the entirety of HEMA scholorship
Not even ARMA fags are this delusional.
>>45369118
>You've found one reference to a spear cutting in a way that a sword could in the sagas. I do not see your claimed proof that spears cut better.
Oh that shameful goalpost moving.
>Swords have longer blades, which means more surface area along which to cut when drawn.
That does yield greater power.
>Greater leverage does not necessarily compensate for a decreased cutting area.
You are talking about accuracy, not cutting ability.
You are just embarrassing at this point, lad
>>45366793
I would go so far as argue that it was one of the most common weapons of prehistory as well.
>>45369191
>You are talking about accuracy, not cutting ability.
No, he's still talking about the draw cut, which you already yielded to be a valid point.
A draw cut is more effective if you have more blade to cut with.
>>45369191
>That does not
fix'd for typo
>>45369153
Is this post parody?
>>45369158
Most people did not go into combat naked. I had already stated how slashing blades came into broad use with the recession of armor.
>>45369186
>HEMA
You can't be serious. Also feel free to post proofs.
>>45369191
Didn't move the goalposts. The claim was that spears cut better. That is unsubstantiated. The very same sagas regularly talk about people splitting helmets and cutting people in half with swords. Where are the references to the same being done with spears?
And I am NOT talking about accuracy. If a spear with a four inch blade contacts flesh, it can draw across four inches of that flesh. That's shorter than many daggers. A sword, by comparison, can draw across multiple feet.
That said, if I WERE talking about accuracy, I would still be correct, because a weapon that cannot be used for a purpose at which it supposedly excels, does not excel at that purpose.
>>45366718That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Masterwork Bastard Sword” bullshit that’s going on in the d20 system right now. Spears deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine spear in Europe for 20 € (that’s about $26) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even pierce moderately thin wooden boards with my spear.
Medieval smiths spend hours working on a single spear and set the spearhead on the haft to produce the finest weapons known to mankind.
Spears are about as sharp as European swords and their spearheads are about as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a spear can punch through better. I’m pretty sure a spear could probably pierce a knight wearing chainmail with a simple thrust.
Ever wonder why any place never bothered conquering any other place? That’s right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined spearmen their spears of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the spears first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Spears are simply the best weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Spears:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the piercing power of Spears in real life, don’t you think?
tl;dr = Spears need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
>>45369242
>I had already stated how slashing blades came into broad use with the recession of armor.
Incorrect. The turko-mongol saber, and indeed all sabers up until the 18th century, were used against people wearing various armors of mail, plate and lamellar.
>>45366787
Why the fuck would they be exotic? They are you're simplest weapon bar hitting someone with a heavy club.
>>45369242
>Is this post parody?
No? A sword cut is the same motion used to cut meat writ large. The goal is to sever muscles, arteries, and veins.
>>45369242
>Also feel free to post proofs.
You first.
>>45369219
>No, he's still talking about the draw cut
Which is dogshit against any sort of armor.
>which you already yielded to be a valid point.
Only within a specific point in history and even then it was still a sidearm because of guns (which were also spears via bayonets. Oh boy).
>A draw cut is more effective if you have more blade to cut with.
Then why didn't soldiers use super long sabres? Oh right, because of highly diminishing returns. And, by the way, those were used primarily on horseback and got most of their power from going really fast.
>>45367031
Mostly because it can do almost anything you'd want a polearm to do.
Crushing blows? Axehead. Long reach? Tip, anti-armor? Fluke.
Trip and entangle? got ya' covered. Take hits? can do. Sweeping attacks? Done. Linear attacks? see sweeping attacks.
It's got a reputation as a king killer after Charles the Bold was found dead from a halberd blow that cleaved straight through his helmet.
>>45369252
You do not use a spear like you a sabre. Feel free to post proofs btw.
>>45369275
And yet they were still less effective than other forms of weapon attack against armor. Also, I'd love to see sources for your claims.
>>45369301
Nice one.
>>45369307
>Only within a specific point in history and even then it was still a sidearm
By which you mean about a thousand years, including several hundred prior to the development of firearms, perhaps more.
>tfw I made my post before spearfag went into turbo condescension mode
Well fuck, way to shit up your own argument with faggotry.
>>45368974
Fair point. I'd never claim that spears were primarily for cutting or even excellent at it, but they had all the design and principals needed to do it well enough and those aspects are what led to long axes being made in the first place.
I'm a Ji/Billfag myself.
Why does NO ONE actually read the PHB?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFtcLJVN8yg
>>45369358
No.
>firearms: 12th century
>sabres: 9th century, maybe a little earlier
http://www.forensicfashion.com/895MagyarRaider.html
>>45369357
>You do not use a spear like you a sabre. Feel free to post proofs btw.
That's correct. You don't cut with a spear.
>And yet they were still less effective than other forms of weapon attack against armor
And yet they were used all throughout that period, by people who fought armored enemies. That is a fact.
If you want a source, look at any of the hundreds of historical images that depict just that.
>>45369417
Several hundred does in fact include 300.
>>45369382
>he wasn't nice on 4chan
Not like the other faggots were bastions of politeness. One of these fags couldn't even read and kept straight up lying about me saying something about swords having no role on the battlefield. Of course I'm condescending to morons.
>>45369451
Well if you want to be a fag, primitive firearms were in use in China in the 9th century. So again, no.
>>45368341
see >>45368386
And when you aren't pointing it forward all you have to do is brace it against the group.
>>45367225
>pike
>lightweight
kek
>>45367031
Not going to lie, I was uninterested in halberds until i played Dark Souls, always thought of them as the "showy guard weapon."
The more I kicked ass in the game, the more I researched actual halberd tactics, and was thoroughly impressed, especially since they seemed to be the ultimate jack of all trades weapon.
>>45367815
>>45367867
While swords were sidearms usually, longsword and greatswords were used as primary weapons.
The term dopplesword refers to the fact that certified 2h sword wielders were paid twice as much as regular infantry. Diplomas from greatsword masters were much in demand.
However that's not to say that swords are primary weapons. They're status symbols, convenient to carry and useful in tight quarters. But the spear's damage and reach (not to mention cost) made it the main weapon of the battlefield.
>>45368810 On the other hand, each arrow was as expensive to make as a spear.
They took almost as much metal and required finer craftsmanship.
>>45369550
>The term dopplesword refers to the fact that certified 2h sword wielders were paid twice as much as regular infantry.
Except they were very few in number in any regiment. They got paid more because they had to wade the furthest into pike formations. However, they could not complete their job without support from pike wielders.
>>45368659
Probably because it's empty wank and historically inaccurate. The primary weapon of the Romans was a fucking spear. Not just the short spear that Spartans are still depicted with in the modern day, but massive 20 foot spears, high tech spears that were made for throwing and couldn't be thrown back, and hafts that could be carried around just in case your utility arm needed to become a spear.
The glorification of the short sword was something Victorians did, and the Victorians were fucking stupid and never bothered letting history get in the way of their stories.
>>45369550
I agree with you to a certain extent, except for the part about damage. A spear has much less potential for trauma than a sword does. Note that a spear is not a poleaxe or the like, which did carry just as much and more impact than a longsword.
Swords, especially longswords and greatswords, were the weapons of experts and professional fighters. This only added to their already prominent status.
>>45367981
A weapon of judicial combat rather than war, but undeniably cool.
+1 for spelling it right
>>45369623
>all this baseless sword wank
Embarrassing.
>Swords, especially longswords and greatswords, were the weapons of experts and professional fighters. This only added to their already prominent status.
This is katana tier.
>>45368141
Spear = rifle
Sword = pistol
Knife = knife
>>45369624
>pollaxe
>axe
>spelling it right
It's pollax and the etymology has nothing to do with axes.
>>45369550
Actually, only SOME doppelsoldners used two handed swords.
>>45369623
>A spear has much less potential for trauma than a sword does.
Not really, that's still a fairly wide piece of metal being shoved forcefully into your centre mass.
God help you if the guy on the other end managed to topple you down against the ground and keep pushing, with six metres of physics behind that you're going to be pinned and have a ragged ass wound. It'd be the same effect as being run through by a sword.
>>45369689
A sword definitely has more potential to fuck you up than a spear does. Long lacerations are not a joke. Putting that aside, using swords is hard. They're more difficult to master than most weapons and I don't know of anybody who has ever handled melee weaponry to suggest different. Being a master swordsman was something you could become and was in demand. You also needed to have proof of that claim via a diploma or some kind of endorsement.
>>45369773
Post proofs.
>>45369754
I would like to see someone actually pin someone else to the ground with a full six meters of spear. It's actually more about lacerations being more immediately traumatic than puncture wounds. You're more likely to go into shock, more blood loss, etc
>>45369815
Post proofs.
>>45367201
The spear is trading power for speed. You can get some significant power by using both hands but that also means you can't use a shield. Used one handed you're fighting for torque at both ends.
A sword is typically a one handed weapon with the weight forwards of the hand. That lets you store up more inertia when you swing it.
It is said that after the Battle of Cynoscephalae, the Greek king Phillip V went down to tend the wounded. However, went he got to the healers' tent he found that the damage was so severe that there was almost nothing he could do.
That being said, a precise thrust of a spear can be just as deadly as a swing of a sword, but for different reasons.
>>45367396
looks like a joint
>>45367710
>use both hands faggot
You wish
posting in a boring history thread
>>45369850
>The spear is trading power for speed.
No.
>Used one handed you're fighting for torque at both ends.
True, but you wouldn't use it in the same manner just like you don't use a 1h sword like a 2h sword. Also you would use a shorter spear.
>>45369850
>The spear is trading power for speed
I'd consider it the other way around, considering a spears design and how it was implemented in warfare.
>>45369913
Real life is far more interesting than shallow fantasies.
>>45369791
>>45369838
What? On lacerations and incisions? Sure, okay.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/19616.htm
http://www.webmd.com/first-aid/tc/puncture-wounds-topic-overview
Puncture wounds typically bleed less than lacerations and incisions unless they hit a vital organ. Large incisions and lacerations are far more likely to strike arteries and tear open blood vessels which can lead to hemorrhaging, which in turn leads to shock.
>>45370031
Let me add an addendum to this for honesty's sake. In modern times, large puncture wounds are usually considered a more serious case because they typically occur as part of a gunshot or knife wound. However the potential for shock and trauma is still greater from a large laceration for the aforementioned reasons.
>>45370031
>thinking no one would read those links
It literally doesn't even compare the damage of lacerations and punctures.
Also
>Puncture wounds increase your risk of infection because they are hard to clean and provide a warm, moist place for bacteria to grow
And they are most definitely not talking about getting run through.
>>45369575
Totally agree. I was just saying that greatswords WERE used as primary weapons. Not that they were a big proportion of any army.
>>45370094
Actually getting run all the way through with a spear is very hard!
>>45370097
Fair enough and all true.
>>45370111
Post proofs. Also, it's a lot easier (read: possible) than slicing through armor.
>>45370124
You're asking for proofs of a common sense topic. Even a bullet from a firearm doesn't always fully penetrate the body, and it has significantly more impact than a spear driven by hand.
>>45370179
>You're asking for proofs of a common sense topic.
So you've got nothing. Okay.
Also, for you for fun
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?83600-Questions-about-spear-wounds
>>45370209
No, seriously. Are you asking me to google to find a formula for the average amount of force it would take for a man to run another man completely through with an archaic spear? Because it's a lot.
>>45368341
You also hold it with two hands. The shield shown hung off of you by a strap going around your neck, designed so you could switch to using it normally in a pinch if the formation failed but the intent was that you wouldn't ever need it in the first place since the Macedonians never fought anyone using similar tactics.
>>45369279
I think it's a joke, hence the masterwork, crit modifiers, etc.
>>45370248
Not only are you probably taking to a dumb extreme like literally getting run completely through instead just having the full length of the blade puncturing the body, but you also have nothing to back up any of your many crazy statements. Fuck off, sabrefag.
>>45369932
>No.
Pray tell, how do you come to this conclusion?
>True, but you wouldn't use it in the same manner just like you don't use a 1h sword like a 2h sword. Also you would use a shorter spear.
That just leads to more problems. Namely, in order to fight someone with a longer spear you need to counter their reach advantage. Of course, you could use a shield but by the same virtue, a swordsman could wield a shield, knock your spear out of line, and get in with the sword.
What's more, the sword is more sturdy than a spear and far better in close. A swordsman can pummel with the pommel, smash with the guard, or just use the bit of the blade that's just an inch away from his hand.
Sure, you could change your grip but then he takes a half step back and he's out of your range while you're still in his. Shift your grip again and he takes a half step in and he's too close to get a solid hit.
That, and he can make thrusts from his shield side. It's super awkwards to block.
>>45369773
>I believe modern day mythology and video games over actual historical record or physical experimentation! A hurr hurr hurr!
LEARN PHYSICS, APPLY LEVERAGE
LEARN HISTORY, APPLY CONTEXT
LEARN FIGHTING, APPLY WEAPONS
THEY'RE ALL HARD TO MASTER, IDIOT
>>45369252
>take a sword blade
>put it on a sturdy haft to increase leverage
>yes, this will definitely apply less force on a swing!
Do you have brain damage?
>>45370288
>Pray tell, how do you come to this conclusion?
Same way you came to yours.
>a swordsman could wield a shield, knock your spear out of line, and get in with the sword.
This is fantasy football tier.
>A swordsman can pummel with the pommel, smash with the guard, or just use the bit of the blade that's just an inch away from his hand.
Spears can be used like staffs.
>Sure, you could change your grip but then he takes a half step back and he's out of your range while you're still in his. Shift your grip again and he takes a half step in and he's too close to get a solid hit.
The speed at which you can change grip is nearly instantaneous.
>That, and he can make thrusts from his shield side. It's super awkwards to block.
Spears have objectively more angles of attack than a sword.
>>45370321
>>45370346
>leverage
Leverage mostly matters in chopping, not cutting or slashing. Thrusting is different as well because you lose thrusting force as you travel further away from the origin.
>>45370390
Spot the highschool dropout
>>45370390
Cutting and slashing depend a great deal on the force you can apply over the contact area, and the motion is about as pure application of leverage as it gets. What the hell are you talking about?
>>45366795
Using the stat line from GURPS Lite, an average person would deal 1d6 impaling damage using a spear one-handed, or 1d6+1 impaling damage using two hands. If you're attacking someone without armor, that's 2-12 or 4-14 HP gone. That's enough to really fuck somebody up.
>>45370321
By the same virtue, don't get pulled in by counter-culture.
The sword isn't nearly as dangerous to it's user as legends say they are. Just avoid continuous sweeping motions and you should be fine. No, the issue is that while the sword can not only chop and thrust, but it's entirely metal so it can reliably take blows. It's less a matter of how to use a sword but how you should be using it right now.
>>45370346
Except that isn't a spear. That's a sword staff.
>>45370407
I don't know what kind of crazy secret thrust technique you use that gets stronger the further away you push it from yourself.
>>45370415
A cut or a slash is differentiated from a chop. A chop is a purely mechanical motion, bringing down the weight of an object directly onto another. They make narrow but deep impacts.
A cut uses the drawing motion as explained earlier in this thread. It utilizes the sharpness of the blade and the angle of the swing to function. They make longer and shallower wounds
Sharp force trauma is very clear about which is which.
>>45370484
Anon you might be having a stroke, because this doesn't make a lick of sense either as a response to the posts you're quoting nor in-and-of itself. If you cannot get help for yourself, enter the street and signal for passerby or a neighbor.
>>45369754
You don't stick more than a few inches of your spear into a guy
>>45370535
Now that you've defined your terms, please elaborate on how
1) a spear cannot slash and
2) a sword-with-more-leverage could not apply more force in that motion
>>45370552
Maybe if you've never been trained with a fucking spear.
>>45366718
Spears are good for mass combat. They're less useful in personal combat, which is what D&D is trying to simulate.
A full-length proper spear is too unwieldy to bring into a dungeon; while a shortspear or the like is basically just a quarterstaff with a pointy bit at one end.
>>45370288
>pssh, nothin' personal, spearfag
>>45370535
Don't be a retard. Just because you lose energy over the length of a thrust doesn't mean anything with the vastly higher amount of force you gain from the length of the shaft. Additionally, it requires less force to achieve the same amount of thrusting damage due to the leverage you gain.
>A cut uses the drawing motion as explained earlier in this thread.
Oh god, it's the retarded sabre fag. That's still driven by leverage btw, you moron.POSTPROOFS
>>45370561
There's no reason to jam more of your weapon into a person than you need too, all the important stuff is pretty damn close to the surface.
>>45370569
>They're less useful in personal combat
Prove it.
>A full-length proper spear is too unwieldy to bring into a dungeon
No. In fact, since it's superior at thrusting, it makes it even better in hallways.
>while a shortspear or the like is basically just a quarterstaff with a pointy bit at one end.
What an intelligent statement.
>>45370561
It is possible to make a cut with a spear, but it would be very awkward unless you were holding it very close to the head of the weapon. This is probably why hafted weapons designed to make cutting attacks had curved blades for heads to facilitate that.
As for the second part, that is correct. This is why swords kept getting longer.
>>45370552
Why? That'd be terribly inefficient during battle.
>>45370621
>lets try shitposting, that's a neat trick
>>45370590
>leverage
Leverage is more complex than the length of the lever. Consider the fulcrum or center of balance of a several meter long weapon and then think about thrusting with it at full extension.
>>45370631
So you can extract your weapon without it being stuck in the other guy
>>45370674
>lets talk out of my ass and greentext when asked to prove my assertions, that's a neat trick
>>45370368
>Same way you came to yours.
The entire point of a spear is reach. Otherwise, the spear is no better than the axe, except weaker. To maximize reach, you need to keep the hands close together when striking, preferably at the butt of the spear. There's actually a technique for this called slip thrusting but that's another matter. Putting the hands close together reduces the mechanical advantage, trading torque for speed.
>This is fantasy football tier.
Then by the same virtue, a spearman without a shield would win against a spearman with a shield since the spearman with a shield can't knock his opponent's spear out of line.
Either a shield can defend against a spear or it can't You don't get special pleading for the shield and spear.
>Spears can be used like staffs.
Staves, a blunt, wooden weapon without hand protection. You'll require wind up to land a decisive blow while only a pound of pressure from a blade is usually enough to cut.
>The speed at which you can change grip is nearly instantaneous.
And yet it still takes time. It's another step you need to take that you could have spent attacking.
>Spears have objectively more angles of attack than a sword.
Except anything from the shield side. The haft gets in the way.
There's seems to be this weird, anti-sword counter culture going around. Really, they're arguing all the wrong angles.
>>45370544
Ah, I see what I did. Let me try that again.
>>45370346
By the same virtue, don't get pulled in by counter-culture.
The sword isn't nearly as dangerous to it's user as legends say they are. Just avoid continuous sweeping motions and you should be fine. No, the issue is that while the sword can not only chop and thrust, but it's entirely metal so it can reliably take blows. It's less a matter of how to use a sword but how you should be using it right now.
>>45370704
>>45370674
Okay, now you both sound like assholes
So, um, what were your arguments again?
>>45370259
Welp that wooshed right over my head. Shoulda picked up on it by the 17, x4 nonsense
>>45370828
Spears are the greatest weapon on earth, literally the Messiah of melee combat.
>>45370748
>The entire point of a spear is reach. Otherwise, the spear is no better than the axe, except weaker.
Wew lad
We're not talking about RPGs.
>you need to keep the hands close together when striking, preferably at the butt of the spear
Yeah, no.
>Then by the same virtue, a spearman without a shield would win against a spearman with a shield since the spearman with a shield can't knock his opponent's spear out of line.
You're still in fantasy football land.
>Either a shield can defend against a spear or it can't
Literally replace the word spear with any other weapon. Your statements are getting more and more ridiculous.
>You'll require wind up
No.
>And yet it still takes time.
Less time than approaching or falling back.
>It's another step you need to take that you could have spent attacking.
Again, this isn't an RPG.
>Except anything from the shield side
This is an extremely poorly worded sentence.
>There's seems to be this weird, anti-sword counter culture going around
It's exactly the opposite. You can't discuss the real world usage of the spear without some swordfaggot coming and making a bunch of ridiculous claims like you. They just foaming at the mouth as soon as you say swords were primarily side arms.
Post some fucking proofs.
>>45369279
And yet, no joke, greatclubs are martial weapons.
>>45370782
>>45370544
No, it's not brain damage, it's sleep deprivation, I swear
>>45370321
By the same virtue, don't get pulled in by counter-culture.
The sword isn't nearly as dangerous to it's user as legends say they are. Just avoid continuous sweeping motions and you should be fine. No, the issue is that while the sword can not only chop and thrust, but it's entirely metal so it can reliably take blows. It's less a matter of how to use a sword but how you should be using it right now.
Did I get it this time?
>>45367655
I personally haven't had a 5E GM that has let us use feats yet.
>>45370841
>being this asshurt by real life
Come on, make another nonsensical and baseless post like >>45370569
Do you get made when people tell you guns phased out swords?
![proof-of-product-rule[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TWaxmUO.jpg "proof-of-product-rule[1].jpg")
>>45370872
>Post some fucking proofs.
>>45370872
Friend, you haven't even made an argument.
Denial isn't just a river in egypt
>>45370841
Arguably yes as it's the precursor to every purpose made weapon ever.
Although you wouldn't know by the quality of posters here.
>>45368767
> compound bow
> Mongols
Hmmm.
>>45370965
You haven't substantiated any of the claims you have made. Where's the proofs, you shitter.
>>45370621
>They're less useful in personal combat
Simple: historical precedent. They were never used in matters of personal combat; people used axes or swords or their bare hands instead.
Or in other words, there's a reason why the preferred sidearm was a sword, and not just another or a shorter spear.
>No. In fact, since it's superior at thrusting, it makes it even better in hallways.
Long hallways, sure. But what are you gonna do in the cramped confines of a goblin tunnel or dire rat cave that's full of odd twists and turns? Unless your DM has every single dungeon nothing but 5-foot-wide hallways that stretch for 20 or 30 feet at a time, that is, in which case, yeah, a spear is pretty good to have. But in an actual cave system - and thereby a well-designed dungeon from a proper DM - you could be fighting in a place that's 2 feet wide and makes a sudden right turn and drop 3 feet in front of you. A spear becomes a liability at that point simply trying to move it through the dungeon, never mind actually attacking with it.
This also holds true for any place where you can expect cramped close-quarters fighting such as, say, fighting in a sailing ship (a la Master and Commander).
(this is why I assume that all 10-foot-poles are actually collapsible and come in three or four sections; otherwise how the Hell are you carrying it around?)
Mind, a longsword isn't much use in such a situation either. The ideal bladed weapon for such close quarters combat is actually some variant on a knife or punching dagger; maybe a shortsword or cutlass: things that were actually designed with short, tight combat in mind.
(if blades aren't your style, the typical practice with an expended pistol from the 1700s was to flip the pistol around and use its butt as a bludgeoning weapon whilst holding the barrel, so a sap or other small club can word).
>>45371072
>can word
*can work. Mea culpa.
>>45371072
But where's the proof.
>>45371104
Dude, I just described to you exactly what the disadvantages of a spear are and why they were not favored as tools of personal combat (i.e., 1 dude against 1 other dude). I even sited a historical example of a close-quarters situation where shorter weapons like cutlasses and short clubs (butt end of pistol) were preferred over spears: interpersonal combat during boarding actions on ships at sea..
If you want to whip out a timestamped picture of your degree in melee weapons or something, then do that and then I'll take you more seriously. Otherwise stop simply saying "where's the proof". That's not advancing reasoned argument, that's just annoying.
>>45371072
Spears weren't used in personal combat because they were inconvenient to carry around.
>>45369913
But it was a thread begun under false pretenses, a thread which has been woven into a tapestry OF LIES!
>>45371019
Well, you could ctrl-f the battle of cynoscephalae that I mentioned earlier.
I'm pretty sure someone mentioned schola gladiatoria but nobody seems to have noticed.
There's a number of thought experiments that you could try disproving with actual experiments.
You could do a number of things, but really, you're just going to sit and complain so I;m just going to give you your argument and call you a loser.
So as for why the spear is a superior weapon? Because it's a battlefield weapon, meant to win wars.Numbers win battles and you can give anyone a spear and they'll figure the basics out in a week.
The key to the spear's power is it's ability to quickly dispatch foes from beyond their reach. Precise thrusts to the vitals to take them out with a single, lightning fast blow. The slip thrust technique is particularly useful for this because the forwards hand acts as a guide. Attack directly towards the eyes whenever possible both because they're usually less protected than the forehead and torso but it also makes it hard to gauge the speed of the thrust.
Using a shorter spear for one handed use makes no sense. Rather, it's better to carry the shield strictly for formations and against arrows. Otherwise, keep it on your back. It's better to focus on killing your enemies before they get into attack range.
In a one on one duel, a spear is typically at an advantage. There are HEMA videos supporting this.
It is possible to cut through the haft of a spear but unlikely with a single hit. A spear, on the other hand, only needs one hit on a man to kill.
Cavalry have long since favored spears because of their long reach. Being on a horse means you're faster, but less maneuverable. The horse has a mind of it's own, you see. With a spear, this is less of an issue and of course, there is the couched lance.
So just remember, you were so pathetic I had to hand you your argument.
>>45371352
A full-sized spear of about 6 to 8 feet, sure, but what about a short spear, like the Roman hasta (replaced by the pilum and gladius) or the Zulu iklwa (a spear so short with a blade so heavy and broad it could almost be considered a spear-sword hybrid)? Certainly short spears were used as weapons at various points in history, spears well short enough to be carried around the way swords historically were.
Nevertheless, every single culture that figured out how to make swords, abandoned spears for personal combat in favor of swords.
>>45371532
The shorter spears do lose out against swords, as the main advantage of a spear is reach
>>45371531
>Cavalry have long since favored spears because of their long reach
That's not why cavalry favored spears. The point of melee cavalry in warfare was to deliver a concentrated attack on a specific point in a mass of infantry in order to break that mass. You want to concentrate all your power forward in that case, which means a weapon designed to concentrate its power forward - like a lance or spear - is ideal for that.
>In a one on one duel, a spear is typically at an advantage. There are HEMA videos supporting this.
Post links, then. Burden of proof, etc.
>>45367626
>bane of chivalry
Tell that to l'bon chevalier
>>45371583
Here's some spear vs shield and sword
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McdaL4vbK9I
>>45371583
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM
Now fuck off, I'm going to sleep.
>>45371616
Note what happens when the sword & board fighters charge in close - they win each and every time. They only lose when being cautious, hanging back, and allowing the spearmen their superior reach - or in other words they only lost when they essentially allowed themselves to lose. Each time they charged in they managed to beat the spearmen.
This also isn't a 1-on-1 fight, but a 4-on-4 fight, and yes, that does make a difference. Show me one guy with a spear and one guy with a sword.
>>45371622
Oh, wait, you did. Okay, hang on, let's watch...
Ugh, again, this swordsman loses because he's letting the spearman play to his strengths while not using any of his own. Not to mention he keeps using that dinky little shield AND is trying to block a 5-foot haft of wood heavy wielded in two hands with a thin sword wielded in one.
The guy is not trying. I've seen about a dozen times where a charge would have allowed him instant victory.
>>45371702
Charging into a spear is harder than you make it out to be
>>45371702
Have you ever been in an actual spar like that?
I won't say real fight, because the odds you've gotten into an actual fight with actual weapons under those specific circumstances are virtually zero in this day and age
But nigger it isn't easy.
>>45368364
Yeah, big surprise, you can still stab through maile with a sword. Or cut someone's limbs to shit. Vikings preferred to wound people in battle anyways. That way you take out more people as the woundee's friends got him away from the fight.
I dunno why it's so popular to shit on swords as of late
>>45371702
>just charge him
What, so he can step back and circle 'round and strike at your legs as you blindly rush in?
>>45368929
You are a fucking retard I might take you seriously if ylu ever got out of a basement or even if you took a basic real world class in how reality works muh leverage only works if you are striking at optimal and life isn't about that it's about 95th percentiles and the grass arse shit you are trying to run is 99 at the very most so Im going to just laugh at you and all the spear welding peasants that saved their countries... oh wait that was none.... so like I said tell your mum I will be back soon
>>45371736
With a dinky little shield like that, yes. However there are several specific points where it would have resulted in a swordman victory regardless.
2:20 is the most obvious example. Spearman thrusts high at the neck while extending far forward, putting all his weight on his leading leg. Swordman ducked to the right and tried to stab from where he was standing at the face, while also blocking with his buckler..
This was a major mistake. Swordman should have instead ducked and stepped forward. Spear haft (i.e., the nonlethal bit) is now resting on his shoulder. From there, there's a number of things he could have done, but the surest would be a stab straight forward and into the belly or chest of the spearman: Viola, swordman wins. The spearman's balance was completely off for any kind of retreat or turn at that point.
>>45369212
Doesn't mean they weren't replaced by better more efficient weapons of human destruction.
It's like saying forks are more predominantly used and better therefore at eating soup
>>45366860
Polearms and Spears are completely different in terms of use and tactics. You are basically saying something like 'the axe is the superior longsword'
>>45371873
Of course spear isn't an automatic win, but it has an advantage over that set up. A larger shield gives the swordsman a closer fight, but people didn't carry those for personal combat either.
>>45370674
What's shitposting, anon? Sounds like you're just mad your assertions were called out.
>>45371809
The trick when wielding a sword in a sword-verses-spear fight is accepting that, as you have a sword, you have inferior reach. So the only priority (besides surviving, obviously) is negating the spear's reach: a spear is essentially useless when you're chest-to-chest or close to it.
In particular, unless you're facing a stoic motherfucker who attacks only with arms and uses legs only to move rather than for additional force - a very unnatural and bad way to fight - the spearman will inevitably reach a point, as in 2:20 in the video above, where he puts all his weight on one foot during a thrust, making a retreat difficult if not impossible.
That's the kill point. You have to avoid that thrust and step forward. This puts you up in the spearman's grill when he's not balanced in any way that will allow him to retreat. A swordman in the same situation isn't as vulnerable because a sword is designed that with a simple turn of one arm and wrist you can adopt a defensive posture or make a parrying strike; the same move with a spear is essentially impossible.
>>45371921
Adventurers in D&D do. Which returns us to why spears are relatively weak in D&D.
>>45371984
D&D doesn't follow realism in combat anyway, so there's no reason for weak spears.
