Blaeringr's page

Blaeringr wrote:

Regarding paladins: the rulebooks do not specifically state that paladins need to follow a deity, and the warrior of the holy light archetype has a line "focus on the holy light that shines within their souls" that seems to hint that paladins draw on a non deistic source of divine power.

Considering that, what is the source of a paladin's paladiness? Is it possible to have a dystheist (I hesitate to use the term atheist at all in a setting where the existence of deities is readily demonstrable) paladin? If they do adhere to a certain deity's religion, does that deity become the divine source of their paladiness, or merely a supplement?

It's up to your GM.

Follow up: if a paladin repeatedly breaks their deity's paladin code in a way that they still conform to the generic paladin code, or for some other reason a paladin is expelled from their church while still remaining faithful to the generic paladin code, do they still remain a paladin?

Quick example: Torag's paladins follow this tenet "I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be." A paladin who refuses to lie, and who through his honesty embarrasses his people, and perhaps creates a diplomatic incident, could be considered to be in conflict with Torag's teachings. If a paladin of Torag repeatedly embarrasses his people in this way so that his status in Torag's eyes is diminished, and the politicians and priests cast him out, is he still a paladin?

Since political leaders are always so well behaved, I know this will rarely come up, but on the off chance that it does...

Regarding paladins: the rulebooks do not specifically state that paladins need to follow a deity, and the warrior of the holy light archetype has a line "focus on the holy light that shines within their souls" that seems to hint that paladins draw on a non deistic source of divine power.

Considering that, what is the source of a paladin's paladiness? Is it possible to have a dystheist (I hesitate to use the term atheist at all in a setting where the existence of deities is readily demonstrable) paladin? If they do adhere to a certain deity's religion, does that deity become the divine source of their paladiness, or merely a supplement?

It seems to me that a Pathfinder specific platform would be the most logical. There are already plenty of VTTs out there that are perfectly functional as system-agnostic, but I think having something that does one thing really well would be most helpful to the PF community.

I would love a VTT that would highlight the spaces a given character can move to on his turn, click on an enemy to automatically attack/apply damage, a leveling and creation wizard, tool-tipped rules, etc.. If I wanna play 5E or anything else, I have Roll20, which already has a massive community and I'm accustom to its layout... from Paizo, I want something that expressly caters to my preferred system.

At any rate... is this thing even still happening?

API scripts already allow all of those features you're asking for except for a character leveling/creation wizard. Though I don't doubt that's too far off for the way Roll20 does things. One thing they've figured out that no other VTT is doing, or doing well (oddly enough considering the success of video game modding) is to give the community tools to write and share their own scripts.

Fantasy Grounds works for desktop systems (PC/Mac/'nix) now and they are currently re-writing it into Unity and one of the things they are currently looking into is Tablet support, phones might be a bit of a stretch though.

If you're talking actual tabletop software, as opposed to what the OP here is talking about (just a rules database + character builder) then Roll20 does everything Fantasy Grounds does, and more, for free. It can currently be run on Android using the Firefox Android browser, and the next month will have an app to make it fit/run better in Android tablets. 700,000 registered players compared to FG's 21,500. Nothing to download/install. The list of advantages go on and on. Currently the only reason to recommend any of the other VTTs out there is because you don't know enough about Roll20.

We currently have all the rules on the web, so that portion of Dungeonscape is out there, but slim picking for good all encompassing character creation.

My software of choice for building Pathfinder characters is PCgen. It's not a 100% complete builder/compendium for Pathfinder, but it's pretty damn close. It's free, and far more complete than any of the paid software like Hero Lab.

Looking up what Dungeonscape looks like. Hadn't heard of it before.

Sounds like it was cancelled for 5e in October, but they (Trapdoor Games) put up a kickstarter for it a week ago under the name "Codename Morningstar": https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/trapdoortech/codename-morningstar?ref= nav_search

Just a casual, non-tech savy observer here.

I notice a lot has been discussed about tricks ISPs may or may not use, and methods that may or may not work to get around such tricks, but I also notice that the original question has been ignored, evaded and deflected.

Maybe I'm just a little too pessimistic or suspicious, but i'd personally be rather tempted to take that as an answer in and of itself.

Thod, I look forward to reading about any progress you make with this issue and what, if anything, worked.

It would be great to see videos from the testing phase.

I supported PFO's kickstarter, whether or not I'll actually end up playing it, I supported Roll20, and if your ideas for the VTT look good, I'd be willing to support that too. But you won't catch any fish without any bait.

-Upload our own assets (tokens, maps, music, etc)
-Ability to make complicated macros
-Ability to import stat blocks and have them quickly generate a functioning character in game complete with macros.

These are some of the more important features i am already used to in a VTT. I'd really like to hear more about plans for such features.

However the big appeal I see so far over what I currently use is Paizo's large community.

Please don't pull a WoTC on this :D

Maybe it could be both Browser based and client based (for those who want to run their own server(s)).

I'm a fan of Roll20. Of all the suggestions I've seen about what Roll20 did wrong or doesn't have in this thread, this is the only comment that is actually correct. Everything is run through their servers, which limits the memory available to GMs for art assets, and limits the processing power for scripts (rarely an issue, but it has happened).

Also, at the beginning of this thread, Gary Teter said in 2012 that Game Space would be available in the Summer of 2012. That's a long enough lapse that WoTC's floundered VTT cmoes to mind. Any recent updates?

I'd like to see it client based not browser based, something like the tabletop from Fantasy Grounds. Your going the wrong way if it's going browser based like roll20 IMO. I'm pretty bummed about that.

You should be able to buy books and modules or AP'S that are already laid out for DM's. Like a store pulling them up in a game session if needed.

Is it going to have a character sheet built in with a generator? If your going the roll 20 route where you have to make a char using some half bit editor that you have to create from scratch you are doing something wrong.

I would like to be able to log into something like the wizards D&d character and make a character Save it and use it in the game.

Roll20 has character sheets, and before that (which is a recent addiction) they had API scripts, some of which allow you to copy and paste a statblock onto a token, click a macro button, and poof you have a fully generated character/NPC/Monster with a long list of matching macros. Even with the character sheets, I still prefer to use the importer. And it doesn't just work for monsters (whose stat blocks you can copy and paste from online), I use PC Gen to make my characters, and it has an option to export as a Pathfinder stat block. Copy and paste that, click the mob-importer button, done.

Link demonstrating mob importer: http://youtu.be/48O8FyPTp64

If you add padding and contact to soccer/futbol then all you end up with is slow hockey.

Inspiring.

Blaeringr wrote:

So you're going to play the victim?

Wink emoticon notwithstanding, Caldeathe, as I'm sure you've noticed, is one of the good guys around here; he neither whines, agitates, nor trolls. He attempts to keep, and succeeds at keeping, the community informed and entertained, and I don't believe anything he's said--when interpreted through the lens of his intent--deserves the ire he's receiving.

Please consider giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, and thus also giving him a break.

Sure, no problem. There are a lot of people here calling themselves and their buddies the "good guys". I take that with a grain of salt as well.

After which, things rapidly descended into pretty clear implications about the appalling state of my DM style.

So you're going to play the victim? Your comment came first about how a player who asked what I asked deserves what comes next. Don't go there if you don't want things to go there ;)

As far as Wurner's comment, sounds like you're saying the lightning bolt spell summons magical lightning, not just magically summons mundane lightning. I agree.

If you want lightning to function like normal lightning THEN take into consideration the laws of physics, but that comes AFTER the question i asked way the hell back in post #91 about whether you think the spell should magically summon mundane lightning or magical lightning. Clearly I've been discussing the former and what that entails, so to respond to that as if I were discussing the latter is a reply that has not been following from the start. I get it, it's a lot to expect to follow, but just a reminder at this point of where you're really leaping into the conversation.

Armour functioning as a Faraday cage is not anticipated in the rules.

I'll repeat it to you once more: if that's the level of realism you want in your campaign as DM, great. There are ways to handle that.

What I've been saying all along is if you want to use arguments based in realism, here's realism for you.

Since you are not the one who was making that original argument, you jumped into the discussion taking it out of context, and have refused to shift your view to said context.

Ok, fine. That explains the dissonance to me on that topic.

On another point you bring up though

I guess I'm closer to an A&&$$!* DM than an appropriate one, then.

It's not being an a~~~&@+ to say your campaign isn't too realistic in that particular way. But to say that in a really a~~@$@+ way, and immediately react negatively to players asking questions along those lines is being an a!!~&+&. I was pretty clear about how I said it the first time around. Trying to twist my words to mean something you know they didn't mean isn't going to get you anywhere but frustrated and confused.

Blaeringr wrote:

"modern knowledge of physics" - that's cute. The fun thing about physics is that it doesn't really care what you do or do not know.

Hear, hear. When I was a kid, people said that bumblebee flight violated the laws of physics. That didn't make bumblebees magic, it meant that we didn't understand all of the physics involved. Now we understand a lot more about the lifting effects of wingtip vortices and other fiddly bits of aerodynamics, and bumblebee flight isn't so mysterious any more.

All this from fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue balancing! Aren't tangents fun?

It's not just the physics there; people were completely missing the fact that the bumblebee wing twists to position itself to create lift on the backstroke as well, unlike birds who only create lift from the primary stroke.

There's nothing wrong with a player saying that. It's not what his character does or does not know that determines the rules of physics, and if a player knows more than his character knows, there is nothing wrong with him questioning you, out of character.

As I said, it's still up to the DM to determine how close the in game physics really are to reality, but to say you can't question about something a character wouldn't know about is silly and confused.

Appropriate response: "No, physics don't work that way in my game"

A&&@&$+ DM response: "You deserve what comes next because you think your normal old armor fits the description of a Faraday suit, even though your character was just wearing it as armor, I don't like that you as a player question my implementation and so I'm going to channel my insecurity into vengeful punishment."

"modern knowledge of physics" - that's cute. The fun thing about physics is that it doesn't really care what you do or do not know.

if a player in my game tries to make their armour into a Faraday cage, they're going to deserve what comes next.

So you're going to just rip on anyone who decides to wear any heavy armor? Just cause you've got a point to prove?

Magic electricity, yes, but magically created mundane electricity is not the same thing. If it's not magic, it shouldn't be expected to bend the rules.

Magic in Pathfinder is a deviation from the norm. There is the way the world normally works, and then there is the mechanic to make amazing and supernatural things happen, which is magic. If the mundane were already a deviation from normal physics, then magic is no longer very magical.

Blaeringr wrote:

And of course there's also the question of whether your spell is conjuring magical electricity, or just magically conjuring electricity.

I don't think it matters. Despite everything being about physics, Pathfinder is not about physics.

That's up to the DM how much physics is to be included. But to just throw that out there that Pathfinder, as a general rule, ignores physics is utterly false. Bends, yes, but ignores? nonsense.

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

I'm just gonna say that anyone who assumes magical electricity has heard of Michael Faraday and gives two-hoots about his ideas of fashion is probably going to get what they deserve.

;-P

Good point. Besides, when angry gods or wizards send the lightning, they probably aim for weak points. {First strike} "Let's melt this buckle, here." {0.25 seconds later} "Strike two, there goes the chin strap, and the helmet." {0.25 seconds later} "Strike three, brain carbonara!"

I'm still planning to check a list of saints for any lightning-related canonizations, just for fun.

What you're discussing is called shots: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/called-shots

The wizard who casts shocking grasp has already smacked physics in the face and told it to lie down and shut up. I don't think that having your armor plead with physics is going to work in Pathfinder.

That's fine, but I'll just remind you that this whole string of conversation got started by someone trying to discuss how armor really behaves.

And of course there's also the question of whether your spell is conjuring magical electricity, or just magically conjuring electricity.

I'm just gonna say that anyone who assumes magical electricity has heard of Michael Faraday and gives two-hoots about his ideas of fashion is probably going to get what they deserve.

;-P

The US army has been conducting fascinating experiments using lasers to guide electric bolts by forming a conductive laser induced plasma channel, much like electricity can be guided by spell casters.

http://www.army.mil/article/82262/Picatinny_engineers_set_phasers_to__fry_/

PS mundane electricity hasn't heard of Michael Faraday either, but still follows the principles he observed.

PPS I get that a lot of people don't want the game to be too realistic. I'm just here to remind those who try to bring reality into the conversation, what reality really is.

Have you tried Googling "how to build a Faraday suit"?
First link in said search turns up a page that says a Faraday suit "essentially consists of complete metal cage surrounding your body. Now whether that cage is made of chainmail of aluminum foil". As long as there is a continuous path of metal from head to foot, as is the case with most of those medium and heavy armors (most of them have chainmail underneath connecting the gaps) then you have it.

And here's a video of a guy wearing chainmail as a Faraday suit: http://youtu.be/QqEesFaboV4 And no, those boots are not insulated, otherwise he'd be dead. The suit must act as a low impedance path to ground.

Gaps in the Faraday suit can lead to some electricity going through the wearer, but unless the gaps are really big, this will be a small portion of the overall shock, so in tabletop terms that means greatly reduced damage, if any.

C. Make certain spells really good against armored targets, like fire attacks to cook that potato in its foil.

And for whoever is thinking electricity, please look up Faraday Suit and realize that most metal armors under the medium and heavy categories function as one.

Table top has rules to mitigate the advantage of high mobility, and we are not currently seeing the attempts to realize that in PFO working too well. For example, in tabletop you cannot generally attack and move away from your target more quickly than they can charge + attack after you. Even if your speed is double theirs, their charge will match your retreat (if it includes an attack in the same round), plus they'll get the opportunity attacks if you attempt to run away and attack in the same round. That is a very different balance than we are seeing in PFO right now.

FMS Quietus wrote:

Medieval suits of armour were so exhausting to wear that they could have affected the outcomes of famous battles, a study suggests.

I am amused that the researchers also tested the case of armor worn vs. armor carried, and found that carrying the armor was less fatiguing than wearing it. Pointy-headed scientists! Everyone on the internet knows that it's easier to wear armor than carry it. /s

(Agincourt was fought in 1415. The article specifically states that they used replica sets of 15th century armor.)

The article also gives weights, and those weights don't match typical 15th century armor but were in fact double the high end field armor from the 15th century. The weights they quote matches late 17th century armor which was thickened to be more resistant to bullets.

Blaeringr wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

Blaeringr wrote:

<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:

With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.

A big misconception about armor...

It's obvious that wearing armor doesn't completely limit range of motion, nor does it prohibit things like running, doing jumping jacks, etc.

However, until we see a sprint race won by a sprinter in armor against a sprinter not in armor, I think it's reasonable to conclude that wearing armor "slows you down".

But the real question is "how much?" Definitely, without question less than wearing a backpack with the same amount of weight. If heavy backpacks don't slow you down, there's less justification for armor to do so.

For short sprints in combat, the difference should be minuscule. It should only be a larger difference in longer distances, and even then it will be less of a problem than a backpack weighing the same because of distribution.

Then shouldn't heavier armor just have more of a stamina drain while worn and not a reduced speed? If there is a way for fighters to increase their stamina then it would show their training with that armor by allowing them to do more before tiring.

Not just heavier armor, heavier anything. Weapons, armor, pack, anything.

...(snipped for brevity's sake)...

Medieval suits of armour were so exhausting to wear that they could have affected the outcomes of famous battles, a study suggests.

According to that study they were using the heaviest armor they could find: "which is similar to the weight a modern soldier might carry in their backpack", and "they weigh [up to] 50kg"

Traditional full plate armor could weigh as little as 20 kg, but most usually between 20 and 25 kg. Rather than reference a newspaper, let's reference someone who specializes in facts about this stuff: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm#weight_b

What they were testing in that study you referenced was late 17th century armor which was greatly thickened to increase resistance against bullets. So it is very much out of context for this discussion.

Moving mass requires energy. Not a problem in a 45-second video, but a considerable challenge in a long engagement. Maybe the solution is a gradual encumbrance escalation, where fresh and rested characters can initially move at full speed in heavy armor, but over time move more slowly as exhaustion sets in (modified and dependent on environmental conditions, STR, CON and buffs, of course).

How about this:

Blaeringr wrote:

<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:

With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.

A big misconception about armor...

It's obvious that wearing armor doesn't completely limit range of motion, nor does it prohibit things like running, doing jumping jacks, etc.

However, until we see a sprint race won by a sprinter in armor against a sprinter not in armor, I think it's reasonable to conclude that wearing armor "slows you down".

But the real question is "how much?" Definitely, without question less than wearing a backpack with the same amount of weight. If heavy backpacks don't slow you down, there's less justification for armor to do so.

For short sprints in combat, the difference should be minuscule. It should only be a larger difference in longer distances, and even then it will be less of a problem than a backpack weighing the same because of distribution.

This guy's not quite in full plate armor, but it's still enough armor to really make the point that if your armor restricts your mobility then it was probably made by a drunken halfling shoemaker: http://youtu.be/257qFxJhGU0

With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.

A big misconception about armor. Armor that is properly worn should do extremely little to limit speed or flexibility. It's a myth that ranks up there with the idea of the superiority of the katana - ideas that persist in fantasy culture despite all evidence to the contrary.

A half-assed crafted full suit of plate armor does not restrict movement of joints at all, weighs less than half of what modern marines carry into combat today, and that weight is distributed evenly over the body and close to the body, which makes the weight even more manageable.

Here is one of many examples out there that are easy to find that demonstrates how unrestrictive armor is: http://youtu.be/Pz7naZ08Jd4
It's also possible to find videos of people in full plate armor doing cartwheels, handsprings, and even swimming (lthough the swimming is noticeably much more challenging).

Think of it this way:

If you think it's okay to pay to play a style that only works at the expense of someone else (who then gets to pay to NOT play his own style), with no danger for yourself, maybe it's your priorities that need adjusting?

If you were saying that to someone suggesting no consequences, you might have a point. But the person you're talking to is merely disagreeing with your particular suggested consequences. As he pointed out, your suggestion can not possibly accomplish what you want it to.

Here's point A.

Here's point B.

The directions you're giving don't lead from one point A to B, you only think they do because you continue to miss the point that not playing at all is not a playstyle, and you can't make money off it.

This proposed mechanic does not allow players to randomly stop others from playing. It always requires a certain "evil" action from the prisoner first.

I know, I read that part. You're essentially connecting making someone's character respawn (which is what death is) to making someone not be able to play at all. And despite what's been said to you, you're still not grasping what a huge problem that is for a company whose success depends on getting people to play more, not less?

Fair enough. I've offered my critique. You're not getting it. I'm ok with that. Good day, sir.

First of all, this is meant to be some kind of punishment to serve as a deterrent from extensive, ad-hoc crime (to make up for the fact that there is no other serious deterrent). It should primarily be a time out (similar to the time-out necessary for rebuilding that the victim requires). You should go to prison immediatly after you are "caught" and stay there for the necessary time. No coloseum, no waiting till the time is right. You're caught and you serve time. Otherwise, it turns into some perversion of the concept of punishment and becomes more of a reward.

So essentially "we want you to play this game as much as possible" and "when we don't like how you play, we'll make you play less and even give you strong negative associations with playing our game at all"?

Again, if somebody could actually make those two concepts mix without the end result looking like a sad joke, then they will have pulled off a miracle.

Design a game, one that you want people to spend as much time playing as you can get them to, and then introduce a mechanic where players can stop other players from playing the game for extended periods of time.

That's the challenge. Do it and make it not suck. If you can pull it off, (and you won't and nobody else will) then come back and talk about it.

So long as the CR is adjusted for a smaller group, and resources are spent in healing (Cure potions, or wands if UMD skill is used), almost any class can solo with mixed results.

At low levels, martials tend to fare better.

At high levels, full casters tend to fare better.

The advantages to solo campaigns is that the GM can predict the capability of a lone character rather than a group. With groups, there's always the question of how well the individual PCs work together (are they greater than the sum of their parts, or do they actually impede each other?).

The biggest disadvantage with a solo campaign - one death is a TPK.

Still, classes that I find easiest to solo - Summoner, Cleric, Oracle, Ranger, Bard, Druid, Witch - in about that order.

You just took all the fun and pride out of soloing. Even in tabletop, if the GM is adjusting the CR for a small groups/soloers, that is the GM basically admitting you're weak little kittens.

Welcome back, Blaeringr. One difficulty: when have you ever known something small and reasonable to keep lawyers quiet?

Back? I got a PM recently from someone saying I'd be sorely missed. It made me chuckle.

When have I ever known something small and reasonable to keep lawyers quiet? Every one of the billion times someone has made an elf-like character in an MMO and named him Drizzt.

This topic is as engaging as the time in grade 4 I heard one kid tell another he was going to sue him for drawing stickmen the same way he did. The first had come up with a silly little variation in the way he drew them, and when his friend copied his style he began ranting about copyright infringement.

Please, do tell me more.

House Karnath - I just wanted to point out you might want to change your names. House Karnath is property of WotC through the Eberron series, rather Karnath is.

Which would be an issue if they were trying to make profit off the name. Otherwise, they might want to not give a s$@~.

Fair enough. I have no problem making up a nonsense name for the new forums. As far as most people will know, Blaeringr will not be playing PFO anymore.

Blaeringr wrote:

Here's another question: do we have to belong to a registered guild to vote?

Plenty of us wont be trying to own land, but will still clearly have a vested stake in those who do.

If you have an EE account you can apply to join any guild you want and help them get a settlement. Maybe trade your vote for promise of future favors in game? You won't get to choose settlements directly, the guild administrator does that, but you can affect what guilds get to choose. You don't have to join that settlement once the game starts; this isn't a binding contract.

If I "join a guild" will that be visible to others on the forums? Some people, and my group's not the only one, have arrangements to support other guilds and said arrangements are only known to the officers/leadership. Can I do this in the landrush without making it public knowledge?

Here's another question: do we have to belong to a registered guild to vote?

Plenty of us wont be trying to own land, but will still clearly have a vested stake in those who do.

I would really like to see active mount breeding...

Would linking a video of this get me banned?

The way I read this, it seems clear you must be in an official guild in order to back someone in the land rush. If that's so, that's fine. I'm just pointing out that it is a clear change from what was originally proposed and will definitely exclude some of us.

Blaeringr wrote:

Historically spears were a far more popular weapon than swords.

Despite the numerous benefits, I think one thing that is forgotten is how much cheaper it was to build and outfit an army with spears. For most of history, metals were still relatively rare and expensive. Building a good sword took a good deal of time from very skilled people. A spear was a bit easier. You still needed skilled people, but a pole-turner was easier to find than a blacksmith, and casting spearheads (if metal was used for them at all) is much easier than pounding out an actual blade.

That's interesting, but overshadowed by that fact that there are so many examples of soldiers who were equipped with both polearms AND swords, and primarily used the polearm with the sword as a backup.

One example that really drives home the point is the very large two hander (aka zweihander or bidenhander) that was used to combat pike formations: as soon as the knight was able to form a gap in the pike formation (by swinging the swords great mass around in figure eights) he would generally then switch his grip moving one hand above the guard onto the blunted section of the blade and then proceed to hold and thrust with it like a polearm to attack into the formation. This one example is a very rare case of favoring a sword vs polearm, and only worked for two reasons: 1) the polearms it was targeting were much longer than the average polearm and thus the wielders had poor leverage (although I suppose the momentum really helped too, but didn't work as well against multiple shorter polearms because the momentum was still not enough for that many targets with good leverage), and 2) its attacks were mostly made using it as if it were a polearm.

And yes, good swords were expensive. At the height of the middle ages, a knight was generally expected to pay the price of 10 slaves for one good longsword (not quite the same as "longsword" in Pathfinder)

A very well articulated video on the topic: http://youtu.be/l2YgGY_OBx8

Historically spears were a far more popular weapon than swords. In most cases the sword was a "side arm" - meaning the back up weapon, not the primary. There are very few historical examples of soldiers using swords as their primary weapon.

Contrary to how PF rules portray spears and reach, there was no "inside" a spearman's reach. A spear's reach can be shortened very quickly and very easily, to shorter than even a sword's reach, so it's far more likely to see a spearman slipping inside the reach of a swordsman. Combine that with how the wider grip used to hold a spear gives it far greater leverage, and it's easy to understand why the spear was almost always preferred to the sword.

If anyone is curious about this, try looking a spear vs sword "HEMA" duel (HEMA = Historical European Martial Arts).

Shield and spear was a lot more effective in formation combat. One on one, holding a spear one handed gives up a lot of leverage making it easy to swat aside, and slow to recover. Holding it two handed does the opposite though, gives you more leverage and able to bring it back more quickly than a sword - so definitely the way to go in a 1v1 fight.

Holding the spear under the armpit helps regain that lost leverage caused by holding it one handed, but it's still more sluggish to aim even if you could still thrust fairly quickly. But you don't really have to aim well when poking at a formation.