| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think though, the fantasy behind long weapons that Pathfinder ought to indulge is less "history" and more the sorts of spinning, fast paced pole weapon combat you see in Martial Arts films (Invincible Pole Fighter, or the Chess Courtyard fight in Hero, say).
It's not like the game accurately reproduces the way rapiers worked, historically, so it's not like we need to hold them to historical accuracy with any other weapon.
For my money, there's not a lot cooler in terms of "purely martial" concepts than the lightly armored extremely mobile warrior with the long weapon who is all over the place.
It's why Pathfinder doesn't have the option of equipping your PC with a 20 foot long pike: the weapon's not something a lone adventurer would get any good use out of.They let you use a 15-foot one though.
Huh.
In any case, the rules for it do a pretty good of showing why it's a very niche weapon for a lone adventurer between the cumbersomeness and the large deadzone.
But how would Shaka Zulu have done against a Roman legion? Given that the Romans also fought in disciplined units, but had a better weapon in the gladius, I suspect that Caesar would have crushed them. Although Shaka himself never faced modern firearms, he seems not to have understood them ("As for firearms, Shaka acknowledged their utility as missile weapons after seeing muzzle-loaders demonstrated, but argued that in the time a gunman took to reload, he would be swamped by charging spear-wielding warriors.") The results of the Anglo-Zulu war do not bear him out.
Then again that same legion might very have well wilted in fighting in a jungle environment which does not lend itself well to neat organised fighting units, nor to troops wearing substantial armor especially bearing heavy loads of personal equipment and supplies.
Bringing a 15 foot pike to a dungeon is just as dumb as bringing a 5 ft long sword to dungeons with many a 5 foot wide hallway.
Bringing a 15 foot pike to a dungeon is just as dumb as bringing a 5 ft long sword to dungeons with many a 5 foot wide hallway.
Nah, that's what half-swording is for.
dot
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've already bumped the sling to 1d6. I made one as a kid and while playing with I accidentally hit a grown cow (I grew up on a farm) and knocked her to her knees. She recovered, thankfully, or my dad would probably have killed me.
I'm actually fairly happy with spear type weapons. Longspears and normal Spears rule simple weapons in terms of damage potential, Reach is a very useful property to have. Lances are amazing weapons in a Mounted Combat build. Glaives apparently got some love in the last book can now be used with Dex to Damage (I guess? I don't have the book yet, so I don't know the details), making them the strongest DEX to Damage weapon yet.
So while Spears rarely excel in straight damage number comparisons, they make excellent utility weapons - Combat Reflexes Builds (to make use of reach particularly well), Trip Builds, and Mounted Builds all love the Spear (possibly add Sheylynite DEX builds to that?).
The weapon type I find myself frustrated with is Axes. Hammers at least deal Bludgeoning damage, making them a nice backup weapon. Axes pretty much break even with swords, have no real abilities, and generally have worse crit values. Other than the Throwing Axe, which I can see being used in niche situations, I have no idea when I'd ever want to use an Axe over a Hammer, Sword, or Lance. (If I'm missing a use for them, feel free to let me know, lol)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've already bumped the sling to 1d6. I made one as a kid and while playing with I accidentally hit a grown cow (I grew up on a farm) and knocked her to her knees. She recovered, thankfully, or my dad would probably have killed me.
A classic David and Cowliath story...
I'll show myself out.
Ok, spears/pikes don't work for your Adventurer, because formations don't work. This is an artifact of the ridiculous battle footprint rules. If you have no clue at all about how weapons work, Pathfinder combat is fine, and it does support the Conan style swordsman.Is it because "formations don't work" due to bad rules or because "formations don't work" when you're trying to make a formation out of 1or 2 front liners and a couple ranged/support casters?
Formations are cumbersome to use in a game designed for small numbers of individual combatants, but they can work up to a certain point:
- Let the entire unit act on the same initiative. If you really insist on keeping things strictly RAW let them all delay until the slowest man in the formation gets to act.
- Have them all move at the same time and either attack at the end of their movement, or ready an action to attack anyone that comes within reach.
- If you want to have particularly well-trained soldiers, give them the Phalanx Formation feat so the guys in the second rank can make attacks of opportunity, Combat Reflexes and Bodyguard so they can help protect the people next to them from attacks, etc.
The main thing that stops formations from working is simply that regular soldiers are quickly rendered irrelevant in 3.PF. 5e tried to fix this with Bounded Accuracy, which introduced a whole slew of new problems, but that's a different topic.
The Reign of Winter AP apparently has rules for treating a squad of soldiers as a single "creature", I have no idea how well they work in practice, but I can see how a squad of Great War infantry would provide a major challenge even to mid-level adventurers.
In my home game, I actually give Ax type weapons an edge vs. Wooden things with hardness (Hardness 5). Need to get thru a door? Ax bypasses hardness there. Attacked by an animated chair? That longsword is not going to do as good as the battleax.
Sure - it's a niche situation, but ... they are ALMOST as good as swords to start with...
Yeah, Axes aren't so much bad, as Swords are just better. Having any niche use at all would be nice.
I can also see giving them a damage bonus against Plant monsters, lol. Just something, anything!
There's actually a very good historical inventory of soldier's kit (and the disappearance of the spear as a battlefield weapon) available here.
The 1066 huscarl has, for example, two axes, a spear, and a sword.
The 1244 mounted knight has a sword, axe, mace, and a newfangled glaive, which the Telegraph describes as "a new invention for the time, the weapon was originally made from a broken sword with a new piece of wood welded on." If you want to call it a spear because it's a stick with a pointy bit, I suppose I can't stop you.
The 1415 archer at Agincourt carried a sword and a bow, but no spear -- not that he'd be expected to, as a ranged specialist.
The 1485 man at arms carried a sword and a pole axe, but nothing that I'd describe as a spear.
The 1588 caliverman had both a rapier and a side sword as well as a primitive firearm. Again, no spear.
The 1645 New Model Army musketeer had a musket (of course) and a sword. No spear.
The 1709 private sentinel had a sword and a musket with bayonet.
1815: Musket, bayonet.
1854: Musket, bayonet.
Oh, since we sidetracked way off.
How to give the spear some love. Increasing the damage works, sort of.
I think I have a better take. Unless it is at one end or another of a charge, a spear or pike is a precision weapon, not a power weapon. Increase the crit range and multiplier, not the base damage.
Adding the spear, short spear and long spear to the finesse crowd isn't a bad idea.
These changes also fit how the weapon works.
Ok, spears/pikes don't work for your Adventurer, because formations don't work. This is an artifact of the ridiculous battle footprint rules. If you have no clue at all about how weapons work, Pathfinder combat is fine, and it does support the Conan style swordsman.
Spears (or at least polearms) can do fine outside of formations when in trained hands. Of course, we are talking about shorter stuff. Once you remove the formation, long spears are a liability since you can't have your bro standing next to you, making it a bad idea to circle around your immediate left/right. Long polearms are pretty much doomed after the first pass the point, and really long ones were too unwieldy to prevent that 1 on 1. But a shorter spear, going towards 5', would do fine, allowing you to both retain greater reach and still have some room for maneuvering.
You can look at various hunting weapons, such as boar spears, to see how they are still quite useful for adventurers. Spears are often seen as valid hunting weapons, but swords could be seen as oversized bowie knives at best on a hunting trip. While there is some debate how much hunting applies to adventuring... I think I would rather not be close to a boar or a giant half demon boar.
The 1588 caliverman had both a rapier and a side sword as well as a primitive firearm. Again, no spear.
The 1645 New Model Army musketeer had a musket (of course) and a sword. No spear.
The 1709 private sentinel had a sword and a musket with bayonet.
1815: Musket, bayonet.
1854: Musket, bayonet.
I will note that spear formations stayed until around the 1700's. It is just the nature of the classical 'hedgehog' formation, which served as a strong deterrent against cavalry.
Besides that... when you get into the fire arm era, then yes- spears disappeared. Because guns took over a lot of their niche- the weapon that can allow just some random farmer to kill someone from a few meters away. The 'ready to fire' nature of guns made it more than able to gobble up the mid-range section of battle, leaving only the ranged weapon and the close melee options as viable.
But I am not sure what point this makes. Once guns could fire more than once, a lot of the niche for swords started getting gobbled up as well. I think a point that 'guns makes your weapon obsolete' isn't that great when we are talking in reference to a game that romanticizes melee combat with magic thrown in.
no worries, you are making my point- until guns fired fast enough to be a deterrence, you still wanted a big, sharp stick that would make cavalry impale itself if it tried to tear up your formations.
Yeah, the primary prevalence of swords at the point of history is due to the fact that a basic sword was cheap after steel working advancements. At which point, a soldier might think "well yeah, I might as well. I might run out of gunpowder". Even then, they started making their way to a fancy pointing rod for commanders or at least cavalry weapons at that point.
Of course, I might be thinking of American practices. I know that swords stayed relevant in British rule of India due to the prevalence of swordsmanship in india.
There's a big difference between the weapons Pathfinder classes as a spear and most of what's being discussed. Like I said earlier, there's a ton of arguing over what counts as a spear that's muddling the issue. If you want to call any polearm with a sharp tip a spear, the term's so general that it's hard to have a discussion.
The pikes of the pike-and-shot era were obviously not suited to the scale of Pathfinder. They're just too large and unwieldy.
If you want to talk about other polearms, Pathfinder has no shortage of options, many of which are doing just fine mechanically. The classic simple spear might not be quite as good as the halberd, glaive, or fauchard, but one could argue that there's a reason those weapons largely supplanted the shortspear and longspear as portrayed in Pathfinder.
|
Spears were used for several reasons:
- Simplicity - It's a stick with a sharpened point, making it one of the cheapest, oldest and most basic weapons
- Reach - While varying from version to version, the extra reach a spear provides is useful in both combat and hunting.
- Throwing - Sometimes, you can't physically reach your target, so being able to throw your spear with reasonable effectiveness is very helpful, both in combat or hunting.
- Proficiency - Due to the above characteristics, lots of people were proficient with spears, which makes training an army much easier.
- THRUST - Perhaps most important to armies, spears are thrusting weapons. You don't need to swing your arms around when attacking, so spearmen can be packed into tight and deadly battle formations. One longswordman can probably beat a single spearman, but a unit of longswordmen will probably have issues fighting a spear and shield formation. (note that the roman gladius is functionally closer to 'really-short spear' than a 'short longsword': They basically sacrificed reach for improved close combat performance)
Now, if you look over that list, you'll see most of these characteristics are not that great in Pathfinder (or similar games):
- Cheap and simple shouldn't be important past your first session or two, and magical enchants make the base weapons cost mostly irrelevant very quickly.
- Reach is greatly simplified in these games, so spears have no mechanical advantage over fists or knives.
- Throwing weapons are often seen as 'not good' in PF, partially because of the Hit Point system (hit a person or animal with a thrown spear in real life, they are probably on their way toward joining their ancestors instead of ticking a few hps off their total and laughing at their now unarmed opponent)
- If you are not a commoner, you are proficient in quite a few other weapons.
- Fighting in formation is pretty unheroic, typically requires fairly large units, and is often not viable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just want to throw in my 2cp. 3.0 had the greatspear: 2d6x3 two handed reach piercing exotic weapon. Might be a little much, but if you're spending a feat you might as well get a great weapon out of it (see what I did there?).
I still say that the regular long spear is enough. The difference in stats is often far, far less than the advantages you get with reach. Hardly any need for a greatspear other than ti get something to attract the eyes of those obsessed with things like falcatas.
I will say that exotic weapons do not necessarily cost a feat so it's tricky to balance them that way. For characters who already have martial proficiency, it costs 1500 gp for a cracked opalescent white pyramid ioun stone to become proficient with any exotic weapon you can name.
This is probably for the best since some weapons are exotic because they're supposed to be rare (i.e. literally exotic) not because they're any good (e.g. the exotic tri-bladed katar having the same statline as the simple light pick).
It would be neat if a spear had a feat or property that let you make it harder for foes to approach you by making squares count as difficult terrain/cost double to simulate the reach advantage a spear grants
Well, impalement IS how the spearman keeps the foe (or the boar) from approaching. With the damage rules, that is a fail in Pathfinder. Any decent character can walk up a spear to cut the spearman down. Heck, a mid level bard could do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that exotic weapons do not necessarily cost a feat so it's tricky to balance them that way. For characters who already have martial proficiency, it costs 1500 gp for a cracked opalescent white pyramid ioun stone to become proficient with any exotic weapon you can name.
This is probably for the best since some weapons are exotic because they're supposed to be rare (i.e. literally exotic) not because they're any good (e.g. the exotic tri-bladed katar having the same statline as the simple light pick).
I would never trust ioun stones personally. It has its own AC and hp. It seems like a vulnerability that can force you to take a -4 for a while and shell out more money for another one.
Ioun stones are nice, but you should try not to have the basis of your build break if you don't have it. Same for any magical item, really.
I would never trust ioun stones personally. It has its own AC and hp. It seems like a vulnerability that can force you to take a -4 for a while and shell out more money for another one.
Ioun stones are nice, but you should try not to have the basis of your build break if you don't have it. Same for any magical item, really.
You could always put it in a wayfinder or have it implanted if you're concerned people are going to start shooting at your cool orbiting rock.
Well, impalement IS how the spearman keeps the foe (or the boar) from approaching. With the damage rules, that is a fail in Pathfinder. Any decent character can walk up a spear to cut the spearman down. Heck, a mid level bard could do it.
Right the idea in my head was making a designated foe have to spend additional movement to close on you is to represent the additional effort that would be required to close within the spear wielders range.
Although such an ability would be quite powerful as at higher levels as it would effectively deny any non reach foe of a full attack as they couldn't 5 foot step up to you if you stepped away maybe if creating the psudo difficult terrain cost a move action (musings).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spear user could always use difficult swings to keep people from 5 foot stepping to adjacent.
(The weapon training prereq can be bypassed with the martial focus feat, so it's not just for fighters, sohei, mymidarchs, arsenal chaplains, etc.)
...
While some of the tricky reach builds (such as trip) may lose their advantage later on against big things, you can still find a lot of power from reach weapons.
...
As an aside, the Armor Master's Handbook offers a way to deal with the size issue for bull rush, drag, overrun, and trip builds. For example, a medium character using Enlarge Person and the Poised Bearing feat can trip gargantuan creatures, and if they also take Imposing Bearing they can trip colossal ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 2¢ on this issue, both personal and anecdotal...
It's my observation that in Pathfinder and many RPG games, versatility is underrated vs. specialization. Some people say that one weapon is "better" than another... but that's very subjective because not every weapon is best in every situation. Think of it this way; in real life would you want a greatsword in an alley too narrow to get a full swing in, or would you want a weapon of more manageable length? Certainly, in situations of formation warfare some weapons were favored for mass combat, but that didn't mean they were "better" than those favored for duels.
Now, the anecdote for which I will apologize because this was a story I read over a decade ago and I can't recall the specific names. There was a classic disagreement between some Japanese martial artists of which was the superior weapon, the katana or the quarterstaff (bo stick). Two masters of each weapon decided on trying to settle this disagreement by having a personal contest between the both of them, and the wielder of the katana was agreed between them as the winner. However, after the match the master who used the bo stick made an observation, and after some time he asked for a rematch which was granted. However, he'd made an alteration to his stick and cut about a full foot off of its length, so it was only about five feet long (a jo stick). They competed again, and this time the master who used the jo stick was agreed to have won. The reason? By making his weapon slightly shorter, he'd made it so that it was able to use movements that were not only complimentary for the staff, but also for the sword. And that versatility gave him the edge.
Now, my personal account. Years ago when I began to study swordplay with a friend of mine teaching me, he asked me whether I wanted to wished to learn to use a weapon in my off hand or not. I thought on it for a while because it was already uncommon that I was using a rapier in my left hand, but the more I thought on it I realized that with a free hand if I were to clinch up with an opponent I would like to take advantage of my martial arts training in ways that might be unexpected. Take hold of cloth and pull them off balance, that sort of thing. When I explained my thinking he commended me, because he admitted too many people thought "more blades are better!" when that isn't always the truth. (Although privately he wanted to joke about me using a main gauche in my right hand being inherently wrong... language pun.) The point being, again - versatility is a good thing.
The spear is a wonderfully versatile weapon, a jo stick with a metal point. Unfortunately as I said, Pathfinder and several other game systems don't like to work in versatility as a virtue because it becomes overly complicated in the mechanics. Picture this in your head; two combatants face one another, one with a greatsword and one with a spear. By Pathfinder, the fellow with the spear is woefully outmatched. When the reality is that while the fellow with the greatsword is winding up for a big swing, he's been jabbed maybe twice by the fellow with the spear. Weapon speeds play a very important part in a real fight, but it isn't properly represented in most game systems, either.
In my own gaming group, we made the following concession. The standard, simple weapon grade spear was what any peasant could cobble together and use. True combatant types preferred a higher grade of spear, with a heavier spearhead of metal that could be used for both piercing and incidental slashing. It did 1d10 damage but required a martial weapon proficiency. It felt more appropriate for the sort of weapon Odin or Cú Chulainn would favor.
Here's your spear that gives more benefits with greater proficiency, the Doru spear. It is derived from this historical weapon of the same name (or a moderate spelling variant thereof).
Here is a spear that I am surprised nobody has mentioned yet in this thread, the Elven Branched Spear, which has gotten some love in these messageboards, which in turn results from it having a specific mechanical benefit (+2 on Attacks of Opportunity). Anyone have a link to some legitimately online artwork of what an Elven Branched Spear looks like? My best guess, hunting for an Earth historical weapon that could plausibly fit the description, is the Spetum (only folding version shown). Video of unfolding sequence here. The Spetum seems like a good candidate for an Exotic weapon, since it seems to be hard to find more than a couple of images of one (Google keeps instead bringing up Ranseurs or crude drawings or renderings of fantasy game weapons).
The roman legions used a thrusting spear as their primary weapon for as long, if not longer than they did the gladius, and they did it later in their existence, after many advances in warfare.
Spears don't need more damage, they need more fighting style options. There are interesting, weapon specific options for swords, bows, whips, etc. but only one I know of for the spear even comes close (Spear Dancing Style) which is just a 3 Feat line for Quarterstaff Master, essentially.
I made a spearman recently (transplant from feudal Japan) and tried to make him a ranged/melee hybrid...without it almost being 100% 3rd party content it would be almost impossible to make it work.
Then again that same legion might very have well wilted in fighting in a jungle environment which does not lend itself well to neat organised fighting units, nor to troops wearing substantial armor especially bearing heavy loads of personal equipment and supplies.But how would Shaka Zulu have done against a Roman legion? Given that the Romans also fought in disciplined units, but had a better weapon in the gladius, I suspect that Caesar would have crushed them. Although Shaka himself never faced modern firearms, he seems not to have understood them ("As for firearms, Shaka acknowledged their utility as missile weapons after seeing muzzle-loaders demonstrated, but argued that in the time a gunman took to reload, he would be swamped by charging spear-wielding warriors.") The results of the Anglo-Zulu war do not bear him out.
the Zulus did not fight in the Jungle, but in the savannas of Eastern and Southern Africa.
I think part of the problem with spears in Pathfinder is that other than the short spear they are two handed weapons. Everyone is talking about the Greek and Roman spearmen, but are ignoring they used shields and spears together. The only spear that you can use this way in the game is the sort spear. Look at any artwork from the classic times and most of the spears are considerably longer than 3 feet.
UnArcaneElection brought up the Doru spear. I think this would solve the problem of spear s being considered a poor weapon. Before he posted this I was about to suggest if you had proficiency on martial weapons you should be able to treat a spear as a one handed weapon. If the Doru spear is allowed it would solve a lot of problem with spears being considered poor weapons. It does the same damage as a long sword, but also can be thrown and has the brace quality. It is actually a better weapon than a long sword.
I think part of the problem with spears in Pathfinder is that other than the short spear they are two handed weapons. Everyone is talking about the Greek and Roman spearmen, but are ignoring they used shields and spears together. The only spear that you can use this way in the game is the sort spear. Look at any artwork from the classic times and most of the spears are considerably longer than 3 feet.
UnArcaneElection brought up the Doru spear. I think this would solve the problem of spear s being considered a poor weapon. Before he posted this I was about to suggest if you had proficiency on martial weapons you should be able to treat a spear as a one handed weapon. If the Doru spear is allowed it would solve a lot of problem with spears being considered poor weapons. It does the same damage as a long sword, but also can be thrown and has the brace quality. It is actually a better weapon than a long sword.
Pretty sure the Shield Brace feat also addresses that issue.
I wish that was tied to weapon proficiency like a bastard sword (but only needing martial) instead of being a whole separate feat. Spear and Shield fighting just seems like such a basic martial art that any semi competent warrior should know.