Ah spear and shield... only like the most iconic and durable fighting style for most of human history.
Making the spear into a two handed exclusive was just laziness on the part of BG1/2, so it could use the same animations as the quarterstaff and polearms I guess.
Sure it might not be as potent for dueling or rampaging as Sword and Shield, or having an Axe for hooking or whatever, but its undeniably a mainstay over the many millenia.
Even if the BG games are more hollywood than martial reality, I never liked how they made the spear such a weaksauce weapon choice by relegating it to a twohander weapon style. Pikes and Sarissas ok sure, two hands may be needed, but that's why you'd also have a sword or dagger for close quarters when using those in case you get rushed.
Watching people try to duel 1 on 1 with spears is funny, it was obviously a much better weapon with the shield combo and for fighting with a larger group, in lines. Treating them just like javelins or peltasts as thrown weapons isn't really the same. Though I do appreciate the nod to going Roman style there hehe.
D&D has ways been a little silly with weapons, and 5e isn't a whole lot better than 1st edition since its still built on a lot of the same systems and misconceptions as 1st edition. It would be cool if the wizards hired a legit arms master to really overhaul their schemes and make it a bit more realistic for melee classes. In BG1/2 there wasn't much incentive to rock a spear as a warrior, especially since you couldn't use a shield at the same time. Even if that would probably be the go to for most warrior archetypes, right after sword and shield, or maybe sword and axe.
Last edited by Black_Elk; 24/02/21 09:55 PM.
