Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
We are talking about using shield and spear, not solely the phalanx.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Mar 2021
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Mar 2021
Created an account solely to request spears be converted to versatile per 5E rules. Don't get me started on 5E's approach to spears (and most RPG's in general), which is decidedly lacking, but that shouldn't be further hamstrung by Larian. Anyway, add me to the make spears versatile pile. Carry on.

Joined: Jan 2021
F
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
F
Joined: Jan 2021
+1
Spears should be versatile weapons, able to be used with either 1 or 2 hands. Same with quarterstaffs. This change really hurts certain classes, such as druids, who may use such items with their shields. There are already magic quarterstaffs in the game that I would have been using had the rules been implemented correctly, but Larian forces us to choose between our AC and these weapons, needlessly, restricting player choice and fun.

Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
A nice (not necessarily scientific) test spears vs swords.


Conclusion, spears were pretty darn good, but one and two handed. Especially when you did not have a shield.

And about 1 handed spears specifically



Last edited by Ixal; 19/03/21 02:37 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
1
addict
Offline
addict
1
Joined: Aug 2014
I think a light two handed spear should also be a finesse weapon. It can be about precision just as much as one handed piercing weapons.

Otherwise, we have pikes already for a heavier strength based two handed weapon.

Joined: Mar 2021
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I think a light two handed spear should also be a finesse weapon. It can be about precision just as much as one handed piercing weapons.

Doesn't even need to be light. I believe both of the gentlemen in the linked videos have videos specifically on the use of spears two-handed and they really only focus on Western styles, I think. Whole lot also going on in Eastern martial pursuits wrt spears.

Spears were the most ubiquitous weapon for centuries for many reasons. They just aren't as 'sexy' as sword play to the modern person who has never had to fight with either, in no small part thanks to Hollywood portrayals of medieval warfare.

Now, can we get slings in too, while we're at it? wink

Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by poppa
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I think a light two handed spear should also be a finesse weapon. It can be about precision just as much as one handed piercing weapons.

Doesn't even need to be light. I believe both of the gentlemen in the linked videos have videos specifically on the use of spears two-handed and they really only focus on Western styles, I think. Whole lot also going on in Eastern martial pursuits wrt spears.

Spears were the most ubiquitous weapon for centuries for many reasons. They just aren't as 'sexy' as sword play to the modern person who has never had to fight with either, in no small part thanks to Hollywood portrayals of medieval warfare.

Now, can we get slings in too, while we're at it? wink

It wasn't really hollywood that started it. Swords were expensive and thus often only carried by the upper class and nobility. In some places that even got backed up by law. See the Japanese sword hunts where only samurai were allowed to wield a sword. And when the value of knights declined many stuck to their swords and had them embellished further to pretend that they are better than the crossbow and musket wielding rabble. Swords were as much a symbol than a weapon.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I think a light two handed spear should also be a finesse weapon. It can be about precision just as much as one handed piercing weapons.
Eh, this makes dex even more powerful than it already is so I'm hesitant. Plus it would unbalance the weapons. Currently:
-The best simple finesse weapon is a dagger, for 1d4 damage.
-The best martial finesse weapon is a rapier, for 1d8 damage, but it isn't light.
-The best martial light finesse weapons are the scimitar/shortsword, tied for 1d6 damage.

So a "simple finesse 2H spear" would be an incredibly overpowered simple finesse weapon.
And a "martial versatile and/or light finesse spear" would invalidate the scimitar and the shortsword.

A relatively balanced option is a martial spear, dealing 1d10 piercing damage with the "finesse" and "two-handed" properties. If it's big enough to be wielded in two hands, it probably shouldn't be "light."
If you want a finesse version of the pike, then 1d6 piercing with the "finesse", "two-handed", and "reach" properties (for comparison, the other "reach"+"finesse" weapon is the whip, dealing only 1d4 damage).

Last edited by mrfuji3; 19/03/21 07:04 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
P
member
Offline
member
P
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Ixal
It wasn't really hollywood that started it. Swords were expensive and thus often only carried by the upper class and nobility. In some places that even got backed up by law. See the Japanese sword hunts where only samurai were allowed to wield a sword. And when the value of knights declined many stuck to their swords and had them embellished further to pretend that they are better than the crossbow and musket wielding rabble. Swords were as much a symbol than a weapon.

In quite a few places in europe it was often completely illegal for someone who was not of a recognised noble house, or a knight, to own or even have possession of a sword. For reasons that should be obvious, lords did not want their peasants to be well armed.

BUT, us peasants were allowed to own knives. And there were many regulations regarding the difference between knives and swords, which was important because people would make very large knives that were still totally counting as knives and not as swords, to get around such arming laws. We were also allowed to own a variety of farming tools, some of which are basically blades on the ends of sticks anyway, so turning them into weapons was easy.

Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by Piff
BUT, us peasants were allowed to own knives. And there were many regulations regarding the difference between knives and swords, which was important because people would make very large knives that were still totally counting as knives and not as swords, to get around such arming laws. We were also allowed to own a variety of farming tools, some of which are basically blades on the ends of sticks anyway, so turning them into weapons was easy.

Fun fact, knives and farming implements were often better against nobles than swords, at least once plate mail became the norm for them.
But yes, swords were the weapon of the ruling class, thus received a much better PR than spears or axes, thus they became the "cool" weapon.

Last edited by Ixal; 19/03/21 09:16 PM.
Joined: Mar 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by Piff
BUT, us peasants were allowed to own knives. And there were many regulations regarding the difference between knives and swords, which was important because people would make very large knives that were still totally counting as knives and not as swords, to get around such arming laws. We were also allowed to own a variety of farming tools, some of which are basically blades on the ends of sticks anyway, so turning them into weapons was easy.

Fun fact, knives and farming implements were often better against nobles than swords, at least once plate mail became the norm for them.
But yes, swords were the weapon of the ruling class, thus received a much better PR than spears or axes, thus they became the "cool" weapon.

Lol...just no...

Arms and Armor—Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions


A fondness for power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired.
-Alexander Hamilton
Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by GreatOdinsBeard
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by Piff
BUT, us peasants were allowed to own knives. And there were many regulations regarding the difference between knives and swords, which was important because people would make very large knives that were still totally counting as knives and not as swords, to get around such arming laws. We were also allowed to own a variety of farming tools, some of which are basically blades on the ends of sticks anyway, so turning them into weapons was easy.

Fun fact, knives and farming implements were often better against nobles than swords, at least once plate mail became the norm for them.
But yes, swords were the weapon of the ruling class, thus received a much better PR than spears or axes, thus they became the "cool" weapon.

Lol...just no...

Arms and Armor—Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions

Nothing in that FAQ contradics anything I said. So... just yes...

Joined: Mar 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by GreatOdinsBeard
Originally Posted by Ixal
Originally Posted by Piff
BUT, us peasants were allowed to own knives. And there were many regulations regarding the difference between knives and swords, which was important because people would make very large knives that were still totally counting as knives and not as swords, to get around such arming laws. We were also allowed to own a variety of farming tools, some of which are basically blades on the ends of sticks anyway, so turning them into weapons was easy.

Fun fact, knives and farming implements were often better against nobles than swords, at least once plate mail became the norm for them.
But yes, swords were the weapon of the ruling class, thus received a much better PR than spears or axes, thus they became the "cool" weapon.

Lol...just no...

Arms and Armor—Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions

Nothing in that FAQ contradics anything I said. So... just yes...

Farming tools were not more deadly than actual weapons of war. A guy with a pitchfork was going to get demolished by an armored man-at-arms, even if that man-at-arms is in a full kit of chainmail rather than plate.

Swords were not only for the "ruling class", in some cities you couldn't openly carry a sword unless you were nobility, but in many cities not even nobility could opely carry one, as they were considered to be a 'weapon of war'. As I recall only Germany at one period outlawed the peasantry from owning swords, which is where the 'messer' originates. Swords were relatively common standard weapons in most armies up until the middle of the first world war. In medieval England (15th cebntury), a civilian could purchase a cheap sword for as little as 2 pence.


A fondness for power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired.
-Alexander Hamilton
Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by GreatOdinsBeard
Farming tools were not more deadly than actual weapons of war. A guy with a pitchfork was going to get demolished by an armored man-at-arms, even if that man-at-arms is in a full kit of chainmail rather than plate.

Swords were not only for the "ruling class", in some cities you couldn't openly carry a sword unless you were nobility, but in many cities not even nobility could opely carry one, as they were considered to be a 'weapon of war'. As I recall only Germany at one period outlawed the peasantry from owning swords, which is where the 'messer' originates. Swords were relatively common standard weapons in most armies up until the middle of the first world war. In medieval England (15th cebntury), a civilian could purchase a cheap sword for as little as 2 pence.
Farming tools converted to weapons were often either two handed or based on crushing instead of cutting like flails which makes them much more suited in fighting against plate armor than swords which were very öoor weapons against plate mail.

And as I mentioned already, in Japan only the samurai were allowed to have swords which was enforced by sword hunts.
And if you believe the FAQ in europe too swords were reserved for the nobility for a long time, although that was not as strictly enforced. Either way, swords were linked to nobility and partially also a symbol because of cost alone. You should watch your own video where he says that sword only became cheap in the late medieval era. By that point the association between swords and nobility was already establised.

Swords were also not really standard weapons but backup weapons.

Last edited by Ixal; 20/03/21 01:55 AM.
Joined: Mar 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Ixal
Farming tools converted to weapons were often either two handed or based on crushing instead of cutting like flails which makes them much more suited in fighting against plate armor than swords which were very öoor weapons against plate mail.

And as I mentioned already, in Japan only the samurai were allowed to have swords which was enforced by sword hunts.
And if you believe the FAQ in europe too swords were reserved for the nobility for a long time, although that was not as strictly enforced. Either way, swords were linked to nobility and partially also a symbol because of cost alone. You should watch your own video where he says that sword only became cheap in the late medieval era. By that point the association between swords and nobility was already establised.

Swords were also not really standard weapons but backup weapons.

Farming tools converted to weapons? Where are you getting this information? Medieval armies were not made up of peasants who hammered their wrought iron rakes and hoes into spears, and went to war with cooking pots for helmets.

Could a Peasant defeat a Knight in Battle?


The Ten Most Important Weapons of the Middle Ages
1. Swords
No weapon is more associated with the Middle Ages than the sword. It was used throughout the medieval world, and as Sue Brunning explains, was more than just a weapon...For most of the Middle Ages, the sword was widely used among elite and common soldiers, with some variation between the size of its blade, and how its hilt and pommel were fashioned.

Kelly DeVries and Kay Smith note that “since the earliest times the spear, together with the sword, was the most important and widely used offensive weapon for both the infantry and cavalry.”

Last edited by GreatOdinsBeard; 20/03/21 02:23 AM.

A fondness for power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired.
-Alexander Hamilton
Joined: Dec 2020
X
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
X
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Dexai
We are talking about using shield and spear, not solely the phalanx.
AFAIK, there are currently 4 one-handed spears in the game, that can be used with a shield: javelin, trident, trident+1 and BOOAl's Arms

Joined: Nov 2020
P
member
Offline
member
P
Joined: Nov 2020
Conscripts and Soldiers were armed, that's not in debate, during war time people were often conscripted, armed, and trained, perhaps not with the best gear, but they were outfitted.

But during normal times, or for those not conscripted and left in the fields, this was not the case, though it did vary wildly by time and place.

In England in the 1100s, every freeman that owned land was expected to own armour and arms of their own, so that they could be called to become soldiers for the king, and the offside of this is that if you were not a member of the groups that were required to be armed in such a way then you were not allowed to be unless you were conscripted for war. This was Henry II's main method of trying to strengthen his own forces, while also trying to keep weapons out of the hands of the non-english populations of the isles.

In the late medieval Spain, only nobility and knights were allowed to carry or display swords openly, and although there were further ownership laws against the owning of swords, it was one of those laws that was only really enforced when people made a big deal of it, as long as you didn't walk around with your sword out or make a point of telling everyone you knew that you have one, it was usually fine. However, by that point laws were being passed to restrict the open carrying or even owning of weapons in general, not because of war, but because governments were attempting to reduce incidents of street violence or domestic violence involving weapons. This was also the case in france, until open carrying of swords and rapiers was finally flat out banned in the 1800s. And people began punching each other instead.

Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by GreatOdinsBeard
Farming tools converted to weapons? Where are you getting this information? Medieval armies were not made up of peasants who hammered their wrought iron rakes and hoes into spears, and went to war with cooking pots for helmets.

Rebellions didn't usually consist out of professional armies.
See for example the warscythe or flails

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
The majority of all weapons throughout history are either converted tools or (more commonly) designs derived from tools. The exception is mainly spears, maces, and (if we don't count them as derived from knives) swords. Particularly polearms tend to just literally be a farm tool on a stick. Flails, bill hooks, war scythes, guisarmes and voulges, every nasty way to hook or chop somebody from afar, war hammers and war picks. In fact every weapon called a "war [tool name]" could with almost certainty be assumed to be such.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Mar 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Piff
Conscripts and Soldiers were armed, that's not in debate, during war time people were often conscripted, armed, and trained, perhaps not with the best gear, but they were outfitted.

But during normal times, or for those not conscripted and left in the fields, this was not the case, though it did vary wildly by time and place.

In England in the 1100s, every freeman that owned land was expected to own armour and arms of their own, so that they could be called to become soldiers for the king, and the offside of this is that if you were not a member of the groups that were required to be armed in such a way then you were not allowed to be unless you were conscripted for war. This was Henry II's main method of trying to strengthen his own forces, while also trying to keep weapons out of the hands of the non-english populations of the isles.

In the late medieval Spain, only nobility and knights were allowed to carry or display swords openly, and although there were further ownership laws against the owning of swords, it was one of those laws that was only really enforced when people made a big deal of it, as long as you didn't walk around with your sword out or make a point of telling everyone you knew that you have one, it was usually fine. However, by that point laws were being passed to restrict the open carrying or even owning of weapons in general, not because of war, but because governments were attempting to reduce incidents of street violence or domestic violence involving weapons. This was also the case in france, until open carrying of swords and rapiers was finally flat out banned in the 1800s. And people began punching each other instead.

Yeomen typically owned and maintained their own arms and armor, conscript levies were outfitted by the nobleman raising the army, which is one of the many reasons that spear and shield was still popular, in that they were cheap to have made in comparison to other weapons and forms of protection.

There were laws concerning openly carrying swords in largers cities, almost no European country, banned non-nobility from owning swords. By the end of the 15th century, there were schools specializing in swordsmanship all over Europe, and by the end of the 16th century pretty much any man who could afford one, carried a sword at the time.

Sword carrying laws in medieval England

While medieval and early modern weapons possession is often associated with the nobility, townspeople and even villagers possessed swords, pikes, guns and pistols and kept them in their private homes.

A good guy with a sword. Weapons and communal culture in sixteenth-century Germany

Originally Posted by Ixal
Rebellions didn't usually consist out of professional armies.
See for example the warscythe or flails

Why would you choose to use a repurposed farm tool, when you could purchase a sword for 2 pence by the end of the 15th century?

Originally Posted by Dexai
The majority of all weapons throughout history are either converted tools or (more commonly) designs derived from tools. The exception is mainly spears, maces, and (if we don't count them as derived from knives) swords. Particularly polearms tend to just literally be a farm tool on a stick. Flails, bill hooks, war scythes, guisarmes and voulges, every nasty way to hook or chop somebody from afar, war hammers and war picks. In fact every weapon called a "war [tool name]" could with almost certainty be assumed to be such.

That's just simply not true. Quality arms manufacturing has been important, for literally all of recorded human history. You are repeating misconceptions popularized by movies, that you could just take your farm tools, turn them into weapons, and march off to war in the medieval period, and there is no historical veracity to those claims. Poorly equipped conscript armies, were still supplied with some form of military weaponry, typically spear and shield since they were cheap and quick to produce, but better equipped armies a sword was a standard infantry weapon as well.

Famous Makers of Arms and Armors and European Centers of Production

The military flail, of which hollywood is very fond of, most likely did not exist as an actual battlefield weapon:
The Curious Case of the Weapon that Didn’t Exist

An agricultural flail, even the two-handed version, would be a terrible weapon all around, given that the conscript infantry you'd be facing, would be most assuredly using spear and shield, and any man-at-arms you faced would be armored to the point of laughably walking up and choking you to death. From a physics standpoint, it's terrible as a weapons, and you'd be better off just using a staff.

Last edited by GreatOdinsBeard; 20/03/21 03:38 PM.

A fondness for power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired.
-Alexander Hamilton
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5