I pretty much agree with a lot of people. The damage of a spear is piercing. If you were using it as a "double weapon" I'd say slashing and bludgeoning. Half regular damage for each; regular on the "front end" and non lethal on the backside (for the butt stroke). And no reach for the long spear. The spear head isn't really designed for slashing so much as it is piercing, imo, hence the reduced damage. Somebody out there is getting ready to say "but you could thrust and slash with it". To which I say "yes you can Martha, on different rounds". It's a game and you will never achieve the fluidity of real combat. Especially in a pretty poor simulation of combat like 3.x.
As for other "double weapons"... double sword and axe are, well... non functional. Both weapons require a full arc swing to be effective for the regular version of the weapon. Not happening with a "double version", imo. You'd get better results from a spear or polearm because you have a greater arc to swing through.
And again, as no doubt will be said "it's a fantasy game" so to each their own.
I just picture a spear fighter swinging a spear around stabbing and clubbing people is a fast flurry of spinning blows.The spear-tip is designed to pierce with you putting all of your weight behind it in the thrust. It wouldn't really work as a slashing weapon which you would need for a flurry.
Spear-handles are also quite narrow as they form the hand-grip. So it would be a bit like whacking someone with a broom-handle (how much damage does a broom-handle do?). Quarterstaffs on the other hand are quite thick and solid with a narrow grip and with metal-shod ends (going by the pictures).A custom weapon might work better. Make it spear-like, but with a slashing blade at one end and an iron-shod haft which is specifically weighted for a slash/thump routine.
I've seen spears with nice cutting blades and sturdy thick hafts.
The fact of the matter is that the whole weapon list and combat maneuver list needs to be redone in light of current scholarship.Every non-reach polearm or spear is a double weapon. Most of the swung polearms tend to have awl points on both ends.
I wouldn't disagree on the polearms. My players have been butt stroking with hafts and stabbing with points for decades.
Longswords and Bastard Swords and Greatswords are almost the same weapon.Longswords when used in recorded German and Italian styles are trip weapons.
I agree with the Longsword / Bastardsword in general but there were weapons with longer hilts that were more usable 2 handed and those with short hilts that were largely one handed. The "bastard swords" tended to have slightly longer / heavier blades. Still you could push them together. Greatswords are a far different beast imo though.
Falchions and Scimitars are also closely related and not much different from Falcatas at the detail level d20 offers.
A Falchion is a European knock off of a scimitar. Taking up your point about similarities... functionally the mass of weapons in 3.x / PF could be greatly reduced. The real life differences between many weapons are insignificant, more so when compared to the differences that arise through style. In the attempt to differentiate between a too numerous list of weapons they have created "superior" weapons that really shouldn't exist.
Self bows use the strength of the wielder and can come in different draw weights just like composite bows.
Pretty much agree with you here, but short self bows just aren't that significantly different in pull. Longbows have very significant differences within the category.
Two weapon fighting is as common as shields.
*shrug* That's a matter of style and time period. I suspect on the battle field the shield remained supreme though in most periods.
As to D&D legacy double weapons, well, there are weapons as odd as double axes depicted in Talhoffer's 15th century fechtbuch. Like a halberd with something that might be a ranseur-guisarme on the other end and something I'd describe as a double guisarme. Never seen anything like a double sword, but if it can be choreographed with live actors and not look stupid it can't be completely absurd. The limits on how actors can move are exactly the same as the limits on how soldiers can move after all.
There are a ton of odd weapons in every part of the world. The spread in use and popularity of a given weapon relates to differences in effectiveness and usability. In short, there are practical reasons that some weapons were more popular (as well as culture, tradition, etc.). A lot of weapons derive their effectiveness with the arc of the swing. Try a sword or axe (one or two handed). Then try to get the same out of a double sword or axe. You're not going to get the same impact. It might work, but not as well (although you could argue it's advantage in more blows). Polearms due to their length are going to have a better time of it. All imo, of course.
I handle it like a bastard sword. A spear is a spear unless you pick up exotic weapon Spear in chich case its a double weapon.
I'd suggest, since spears are simple weapons, make handling them as double weapons count as a martial weapon.
That would set the usage for trained martialists apart from simple weapon wielders such as wizards, who just use it to try and poke some holes if they are cornered.
Also 1d8/x3//1d6/x2 makes for a pretty lousy exotic weapon.
Why is the spear not a double weapon? because it has a pointy end.
I think this is intended to be funny, but it's also real-world applicable.
In my days of learning and teaching martial arts, we often trained about how to fight an attacker who had a knife. One day my Sensei, 3rd degree black belt Tony Martinez Jr., said "I would rather fight an attacker who has a knife than the same guy without a knife". His explanation was that the guy without a knife has two hands, elbows, feet - even untrained fighters sometimes kick or use headbutts. But put a knife in his hand and now all he does is attack with that one hand, that one weapon. Predictable.
So I tested it. I didn't give that explanation to any of my friends (most of whom were also into martial arts). I just sparred with them, for fun. After a while I gave them one of our training knives. In every case, every single case, they were easier to predict, easier to stop, and easier to overcome with that knife in their hand, even the guys who had several years of martial arts training.
I was rather amazed.
Now I always carry a knife, just in case I get in a fight - so I can hand it to the other guy. (OK, j/k about that, but the rest is a true story).
Maybe the problem with a spear IS the pointy end - untrained users (those without Martial weapon proficiency) are so busy poking with the pointy end that they don't think to use it any other way.
I just wanted to add that a quarterstaff can vary widely in weight, thickness and length. The fighting style that is efficient will vary with all those parameters. Generally, you want a staff you can handle easily and quickly but still weighs just enough to hurt someone with a good thwack. You don't carry a staff to fight someone in full armour and wielding serious weapons, not if you don't want to get hurt. What a staff can give you is a pretty good defense, good maneuverability for feinting, and a decent reach. If it weighs too much, it will be too slow to be useful.
To answer the OP's question...because I said so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just picture a spear fighter swinging a spear around stabbing and clubbing people is a fast flurry of spinning blows.The spear-tip is designed to pierce with you putting all of your weight behind it in the thrust. It wouldn't really work as a slashing weapon which you would need for a flurry.
Spear-handles are also quite narrow as they form the hand-grip. So it would be a bit like whacking someone with a broom-handle (how much damage does a broom-handle do?). Quarterstaffs on the other hand are quite thick and solid with a narrow grip and with metal-shod ends (going by the pictures).
Honestly, most spears I have used have been as thick and strong as bo-staves, and just as easy to use. In fact the bo-staff basically started as a spear without a head. Most spear-heads are a couple of inches long with sharpened sides, they can most definitely be used to slash! A Japanese spear has an eight-inch double-edged blade and a thick haft, with a butt-stop.
A custom weapon might work better. Make it spear-like, but with a slashing blade at one end and an iron-shod haft which is specifically weighted for a slash/thump routine.
You have just described the Greek dori, as used by the Hoplite soldiers of ancient Greece. Long blade at the tip to slash or stab, heavy butt-spike to club and stab.
In D&D and Pathfinder, these are all "spears".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yaris can have a lot of cutting steel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I think I have my answer. I will allow the spear used as a martial weapon to be a double weapon. I'll say again, because it seems to keep getting missed: martial, not simple. That way it doesn't step on the toes of the quarterstaff.
I am the GM and, as I said previously, this came about because the PCs wanted to use the other side of a spear to bash skeletons. So I am sure they will appreciate this as a house rule.
Simple solution to this problem. Spear can be one or the other. The action of THRUSTing is too involved to swiftly spin the other end around to bludgeon someone/thing. A quarterstaff uses the recoil of the wood, combined with an attack using the side of a weapon as opposed to the end of one, to achieve a swift one-two combo. A function that simply cannot be done with a spear.
Same could be said for many haft style weapons. Valid argument and with GM approval may be allowed as a homebrew rule. But I am doubtful that it will catch on.
Flaw in the miss tactic:
1. The weapon misses to the same side as the forward hand, the spear is clear for the rebound attack.
2. The weapon misses to the opposite side of the forward hand, the point end is now in the way of freely swinging the butt end of the spear around.
The real issue is how literal do we interpret combat. Double weapons are simply weapons that qualify as two weapons if you have the feats. I see zero reason to allow a spear to be used as a double weapon. As for how you picture your character using it be it one handed with a shield or two handed with only the pointy end in play or full on wushu flexible spear with both pointy end and blunt end in play.
The way it is most often interpreted is a spear is used to stick people with the pointy end. I think that interpretation is pretty justified. By know means should that be the only interpretation.
|
Well I think I have my answer. I will allow the spear used as a martial weapon to be a double weapon. I'll say again, because it seems to keep getting missed: martial, not simple. That way it doesn't step on the toes of the quarterstaff.
I am the GM and, as I said previously, this came about because the PCs wanted to use the other side of a spear to bash skeletons. So I am sure they will appreciate this as a house rule.
Yeah, until you tell them they have to pay for both ends individually.
And don't roll a 1 while using the staff feature.
Simple solution to this problem. Spear can be one or the other. The action of THRUSTing is too involved to swiftly spin the other end around to bludgeon someone/thing. A quarterstaff uses the recoil of the wood, combined with an attack using the side of a weapon as opposed to the end of one, to achieve a swift one-two combo. A function that simply cannot be done with a spear.
Except it is boll'ocks. Of course you can thrust and then bash or cut with a spear. Take a broom or staff or what have you and try this: thrust, diagonal cut, thrust, horizontal waist cut, thrust, step back ready to intercept with a thrust or cut to a limb. Try it with a staff and you will see it is not an incredibly complicated series of motions. The spear and all polearms are an extension of the basic staff and its techniques. A spear head does not change everything, the staff and spear are simple but very versatile weapons.
Spears and other polearms are also beautiful for cutting the legs of someone who advances with a shorter weapon.
But a spear is specifically a piercing weapon. Piercing/bludgeoning weapon per this argument. My argument that thrusting is takes too much effort from the muscle groups involved to effectively swing it around in the same time as a quarterstaff. just being capable of the movements doesn't make it feasible. Try thrusting into a pig and then see how long it takes you to pull out and swing around the other end. Spear is a broad term encompassing all kinds of heads on the shaft, from a sharpen piece of wood, to an elaborated blade on the end.
Not at all. Thrust, reset, thrust, reset is how a piercing weapon works. It can be done with quite amount of speed. But thrust, reset, spin the weapon around to hit with the blunt end, bring back to thrust position to repeat, requires too much time and energy to be effective. I'm all for a spear being a piercing (thrusting) weapon OR a bludgeoning (swinging) weapon.
Thrust, reset with nothing else done or involved? We are not talking about robots here. You can bring a blade on a stick down to cut, pull away and drag or along an angle to cut, or begin a cut and then go into thrust after the cut (and vice versa). You use the example of stabbing a pig? Well if you stab a pig with a knife, there is nothing preventing you from pulling it out, taking a few cuts and then stabbing again.
If it is a blade on a stick, you can use it to cut. Piercing weapons are not always about the stab and nothing else, there is beating and slicing too. If a spear is nearing a sword staff type arrangement (Malay and Japanese spears) then cutting would be all too easy.
Why is the spear not a double weapon? because it has a pointy end.I think this is intended to be funny, but it's also real-world applicable.
I was kinda drunk when I posted that.
If a player in my games wanted to use their spear as a double weapon, I would say "sure, but the other end in an improvised weapon," and treat it that way. Still want to use it more viably? Take the Jackie Chan feat. That is what it is there for :D
Then it would be a naginata and not a spear. And again, per the rules, you cannot slash with a piercing weapon. If you could, then it would be labeled slashing or piercing. Also, sharpen one end of a stick (in essence a simple spear) then try to cut with it. It either can't be done or the wounds, if any, would be superficial. I'm not going to argue the bludgeoning aspect in this case because the but end is in essence one end of a quarterstaff as opposed to a sword, where it would be bulky and awkward to deal bludgeoning damage.
That's ridiculous. A spear butt is no more improvised than a quarterstaff. They're both wooden poles of similar length and thickness.
In further defense, I was kinda drunk when I posted that too.
If you just make the spear a double weapon then you make every weapon on a stick a double weapon, and then where does it end? Hell, in RL longswords were used as double weapons, but only generally through training/what we might call feats. The point of improvised weapons is that they are unorthodox, and thus take a penalty.
Mind you, this is to use the spear as a double weapon, gaining an extra attack per round... with a spear. If a player was stuck with a spear, fighting skeletons and just wanted to whack them with the but end, no penalty. Changing the economy of actions deserves a penalty.
So speaks the ignorant. A lot of research actually went into the development even back in the beginning. I guess your up for Slashing with a club and insta-killing with a single weapon hit. It's not that it is an improvised weapon as much as it is an improvised used of the weapon. You wield a quarterstaff and spear differently. You want to smack someone butt of a spear, go ahead, but there's a pointy-end that is no a whole lot closer to you than most people would feel comfortable with.
EDIT: @ Atarlost
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you just make the spear a double weapon then you make every weapon on a stick a double weapon, and then where does it end? Hell, in RL longswords were used as double weapons, but only generally through training/what we might call feats.Feats. Like, oh say, this one?
To reiterate. Attempting to use a spear with a weapon feature it does not normally have (the double feature), would in my book, incur a penalty. Doesn't make it impossible, just not ideal. Is that so unreasonable?
If you made a spear fighter, I would think that you would be eager to spend feats to represent that extra training, surpassing those limitations. But joe-miltia-guy from hamlet-village? He is just going to stick to giving people a poke.
Also, you should check out the Burning Wheel RPG if you haven't already. It definitely has a more "realistic" depiction of medeaval combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well as has been suggested before, that additional training would be martial weapon proficiency. We had already established that trained combatants were generally able to use both ends of a spear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But a spear is specifically a piercing weapon. Piercing/bludgeoning weapon per this argument. My argument that thrusting is takes too much effort from the muscle groups involved to effectively swing it around in the same time as a quarterstaff.
Except that in practice that's actually exactly what you do, and that is exactly how soldiers are trained with the bayonet today.
The problem, as I see it, is that the 'spear' is used in two ways historically: one-handed, it's a thrusting weapon with very little swinging involved, and is a very basic weapon - spear-and-shield is how many ancient armies were equipped. The other is two-handed, where it is used to thrust, slash and bash, and takes training. The Pathfinder/D&D version has all the drawbacks of the first, but is a two-handed simple weapon.
If you just make the spear a double weapon then you make every weapon on a stick a double weapon, and then where does it end? Hell, in RL longswords were used as double weapons, but only generally through training/what we might call feats. The point of improvised weapons is that they are unorthodox, and thus take a penalty.
Most polearms could be used to bash with the haft, and many were modified specifically to allow this (like the dori, or the naginata). Just like double-weapons, you could and did usually fight with just one end of them, but you had the other in emergencies.
I agree with you, there should be a penalty, and the point of one of my posts above is that Catch Off-Guard feat is what covers the use of orthodox weapons in unorthodox ways. You want to bash with the pommel of your longsword? Improvised weapon, -4 penalty to hit without the feat. That is the DM's answer to the question of a penalty using the spear to bash the skeleton.
Without re-writing the rules, I would like to see a few new feats focussing on the use of pole-weapons myself beyond the pole-fighter archetype. This would be a valid fix to the issue, allowing the expert to surpass the basic user in versatility and utility.
Haft Smash
When using a hafted weapon you can prove a nasty surprise for assailants.
Prerequisites: Catch Off-Guard, Two Weapon Fighting, proficiency with weapon in question.
Benefit: When using a hafted two-handed polearm (spear, longspear, halberd, glaive etc.), or using a double-weapon and only employing just one end of it, and you miss with an attack with the business end of the weapon you may as an immediate action make an attack with the haft of the weapon (treat as a club or staff if it does not have a weapon attachment) at the same attack bonus.
Pole Expert
You are skilled with hafted weapons.
Prerequisites: Catch Off-Guard, Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus with weapon in question.
Benefit: You may treat any polearm with which you have the Weapon Focus feat as a double weapon, with the haft acting as a staff if it has no specific weapon attachment.
Then it would be a naginata and not a spear. And again, per the rules, you cannot slash with a piercing weapon. If you could, then it would be labeled slashing or piercing. Also, sharpen one end of a stick (in essence a simple spear) then try to cut with it. It either can't be done or the wounds, if any, would be superficial. I'm not going to argue the bludgeoning aspect in this case because the but end is in essence one end of a quarterstaff as opposed to a sword, where it would be bulky and awkward to deal bludgeoning damage.
Some spears are very much like naginatas! Some even have double-sided blades for more cutting potential. I do love the nagi though.
Yep, the rules need to change. I've helped a friend with such a project, allowing plenty of weapons to do other types of damage on a lower scale, e.g. d6 slash with a spear while the pierce is still d8.
And the idea you can't bash with a spear to effectively attack? Told this to a friend and he said "hit someone in the head with a piece of wood, they tend to aneurysm and die with fairly consistent regularity. Like someone falling over and hitting their head on the ground is often sufficient impact to kill them in real life."
A stout staff or length of good heavy wood can do a lot of damage. If the spear's haft is made of the same damage-potential material as a staff...
The weapon rules are stupid. They were written by the ignorant in an era when research was essentially impossible. It's time to send them to the same dustbin as the notion that you can't mount a horse or get up from prone while wearing plate armor.
Research was impossible in 2000? Well, no. The weapon rules in 3.x were there to simplify combat. Not complicate it or make it "realistic". If you wanted more complex / "realistic" weapon rules try 2E "Players Options: Combat and Tactics". Or better yet, try a different game. One that's designed to be more realistic. Because D&D has never been a good combat simulator. It was never, according to Gygax anyway, intended to be a "realistic" simulation of anything. Sorry if that's news to you.
In the meantime I think you could drop "stupid" and "ignorant" from your posts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little surprised that people are arguing that it is too difficult to swing a spear around for a second attack with the butt when a gunslinger can rapid fire/reload a flintlock pistol 4 times in 6 seconds, drop it, pull up a second flintlock pistol on a string (weapon cord), and proceed to rapid fire/reload it 3 times in the same 6 seconds.
By my proposed house rule a person with simple proficiency could stab with a spear or stab at -8 (-4 two weapons, -4 non-proficiency) and bash at -12 (-8 two weapons, -4 non-proficiency). A martial proficiency brings that up from -8/-12 to -4/-8. The two-weapon fighting feat brings it up to the -2/-2. So there is definitely a penalty for using it as a double weapon without having to add an additional -4 penalty to make it an improvised weapon.
But a spear is specifically a piercing weapon. Piercing/bludgeoning weapon per this argument. My argument that thrusting is takes too much effort from the muscle groups involved to effectively swing it around in the same time as a quarterstaff.
Except that in practice that's actually exactly what you do, and that is exactly how soldiers are trained with the bayonet today.
Personally, I think the bayonet on the end of a rifle *is* an improvised weapon. So is using the butt of the rifle as a club. Which could actually damage any number of modern assault rifles. A spear is a lot better melee weapon than a rifle with a bayonet. The current training in bayonet use would probably make medieval professionals snicker.
The problem, as I see it, is that the 'spear' is used in two ways historically: one-handed, it's a thrusting weapon with very little swinging involved, and is a very basic weapon - spear-and-shield is how many ancient armies were equipped. The other is two-handed, where it is used to thrust, slash and bash, and takes training. The Pathfinder/D&D version has all the drawbacks of the first, but is a two-handed simple weapon.
The problem with the long spear is that it's long. A quarterstaff is really fairly "short". There are maybe a couple of feet of staff on either side of your two handed grip. Try flailing around with a 9-12' spear which isn't gripped centrally and it's a lot slower / clumsier in the smacking people around with two ends bit. I'd say a good simulation of that is classing it as improvised. I'd say a bayonet / buttstroke should probably classified the same way. The rifle wasn't meant to be a spear. And it's a damn poor one. Poor balance for it. Wrong weight distribution. It's just better than not having one. Best bet is to shoot the guy, that being what it was designed for. Whipping a long spear around would have some issue with balance and weighting too. A short spear would make a much better "double weapon" than a long spear imo although you'd have to give up the shield to do so and you'd be better off using the shield as a weapon instead.
If you just make the spear a double weapon then you make every weapon on a stick a double weapon, and then where does it end? Hell, in RL longswords were used as double weapons, but only generally through training/what we might call feats. The point of improvised weapons is that they are unorthodox, and thus take a penalty.Most polearms could be used to bash with the haft, and many were modified specifically to allow this (like the dori, or the naginata). Just like double-weapons, you could and did usually fight with just one end of them, but you had the other in emergencies.
Bingo. Making the butt "improvised" / not the main use. Those that were designed to use both ends are more complex and built differently than the norm. And more complex to use as well. The primary use of the butt / haft of a weapon is when they get inside the business end of the weapon and are too close to use it effectively. Then you smack them with the other end / haft. That's pretty much why the butt of a rifle is used too.
I agree with you, there should be a penalty, and the point of one of my posts above is that Catch Off-Guard feat is what covers the use of orthodox weapons in unorthodox ways. You want to bash with the pommel of your longsword? Improvised weapon, -4 penalty to hit without the feat. That is the DM's answer to the question of a penalty using the spear to bash the skeleton.
Exactly. That's how I do it. The reasons usually have to do with proximity or a desire to not kill someone.
Without re-writing the rules, I would like to see a few new feats focussing on the use of pole-weapons myself beyond the pole-fighter archetype. This would be a valid fix to the issue, allowing the use of pole-weapons myself beyond the pole-fighter archetype. This would be a valid fix to the issue, allowing the expert to surpass the basic user in versatility and utility.
I think most of us could do without a complete re-write. I have my own fiddly little house rules and that's enough for me. Personally I think most of what you can do with a weapon should come with the martial proficiency itself. There are a heck of a lot of feats out there now without adding a pile more for pretty limited improvements. Taking a penalty to do something unusual / unorthodox with a weapon doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Ymmv, of course.
If WotC's rules weren't stupid Paizo wouldn't have needed to update them to keep selling 3.5 APs. And I don't see how you can dispute ignorance. The materials were hardly available to anyone but museum curators and private collectors before the Internet matured.
Paizo needed to continue the 3.5 rules edition to keep their AP line going. They chose to make some minor fixes / changes while they were at it. That's pretty much what the discussion on these boards indicated then. And damn, we were happy about that.
I'm not disputing ignorance here. Just whose. Funny, when I was working on my MA in history in the mid to late 1980s the library at CSU Sacramento had three late medieval / Renaissance combat manuals in English in one volume. Middle English, but it was an easy read for me. Two were written in (Middle) English and one had been translated, by a contemporary iirc, from Italian into English. The Internet made more material available, more easily, yes. But it's been in heavy use throughout the 90s (by me and many others) and inter library loan was always useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just show them images of Balsa from Moribito.
That was a great anime. The scene with her mentor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcbMca_qiU8
...but double weapons are so gorram expensive to enchant!
...but double weapons are so gorram expensive to enchant!
And that's a bad thing? Cost of doing business.
That was a great anime. The scene with her mentor:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcbMca_qiU8
A number of the pro double weapons arguments were based on "realism" / how they were used irl / what you could do with a weapon irl. So anime... not so useful to that argument. Now, if you're talking cool, yes very useful. And fun to watch :)
...but double weapons are so gorram expensive to enchant!
They are, sure as the black is cold and wide. But them's the breaks if you be lookin to give your 'ponent the proverbial "shaft" in a close quarters dust up. T'aint ideal, but i reckon that everything's got its price.
*cue slide guitar interlude*
...but double weapons are so gorram expensive to enchant!
Not to mention the fact it would cost the EXACT SAME price to enchant 2 weapons while using TWF
Personally, I think the bayonet on the end of a rifle *is* an improvised weapon. So is using the butt of the rifle as a club. Which could actually damage any number of modern assault rifles. A spear is a lot better melee weapon than a rifle with a bayonet. The current training in bayonet use would probably make medieval professionals snicker.
I agree, but if you have the right training it can work very well. That's the point, the training - it's like an exotic weapon proficiency.
The problem with the long spear is that it's long.
I was talking about spears, not long spears.
If Paizo did a complete re-write, then the rules would be a lot more complex and they would lose backward compatibility. That's why feats become the fixes.