Stupid Suggestions: Duality

[Laurk]

Yes you can take monkeygrip, its just that spears are supposed to the simplest and most widley used weapon among infantry and peasant soldiers. They were almost "always" used with a shield as well. It would seem odd that all these soldiers all have the monkey-grip feat, esspecially when they never seem to use duel great axes.

But honestly, putting free monkey grip on a spear would do nothing to make it more popular as a weapon. Who wants to deal with a -2 to hit in exchange for a crappy d8x3 damage when you can just use a longsword or battle axe?

I suppose the best way to make a spear relivant is to make it a 1d10x3 weapon with free monkey grip so that it gives you a d10 weapon in one hand if you're willing to trade a -2 to strike for that. It also gives you a pretty effective 2-handed weapon for versitility's sake.

[Torgar]

Difference between spear and longsword or battle axe is that everyone but wizards can use spears, but it takes a martial class or being an elf to use a longsword. A spear was the farmer's weapon, because that was as complicated of a weapon as he could learn to use. Proper use of a sword or axe takes years of training. Spear is "Point away from body".

I am quite sure Lotus is fixing spears, halberds, and a few other weapons so they make more sense. I have that kind of faith in him.

[Laurk]

Ha.. not exactly Torgar. The reason people used spears in the middle ages is that iron was rare and cost a fortune. You could make 2 dozen spears with the same amount of iron it took to make a sword. Spears and axes were the weapons of choice, swords were side arms for the nobility. bling. But in all cases, they were side arms because spears were more effective in combat. They are the more dangerous weapon and can be handled as incompetently or masterfully as a sword.

Even in Japan where there is so much BS reverance for katanas, the samurai nearly "always" used spears in combat, and when they did have to use a sword because their spear broke, they would actually dull their swords before going into war, because katana were so sharp, they had a tendancy to shatter on armor.

[Shadechild]

they would actually dull their swords before going into war, because katana were so sharp, they had a tendancy to shatter on armor.

I got a funny image of a samurai wadding out into combat with like three dozen Katanas, then just breaking them over and over and over on his enemies.

" We shall call you, Yojimo the Breaker. "

[Fuzziebunny]

I would say that the hoplite, pike phalanx and schiltron say that spears were more then the common man's weapon of choice. All such formations take practice and drill.

[Laurk]

I got a funny image of a samurai wadding out into combat with like three dozen Katanas, then just breaking them over and over and over on his enemies.

heh. What they'd do before a big battle is chop their sword into sand over and over until it was dull. Then they'd wack their adversary on the head to stun, and use a thrust to kill. There's a huge misconception about swords needing to be razor sharp. Even a dull sword will cut unarmored flesh quite sufficiently to kill people and lop off heads. European swords were so dull you could wield them by the blade in half-guard, they'd still take your head off just fine though. Dispite, they were far more effective against armored opponents than any katana could ever dream of being. Katana were basically designed to chop up defensless unarmored peasants to put the fear of the "noble cast" into filthy commoners. No matter how sharp a sword is, its not cutting armor. Period.

So yes, for noble and peasant alike, spears were the "rifle" of the day. Swords, axes and clubs were the "sidearm" of choice. its just commoners couldn't afford swords. Rome was probably the exception as they favored the gladius and were so rich off the spoils of conquest that they could actually afford to arm their infantry with these little swords, as well as metal armor (Lorica Segmente SP). They still made primary use of spears though.

Anyway, it sounds like reach will be added to spears, and that will be a big help. I always like the idea of reach weapons and having some sort of bonus for linking shields so you could actually get some "realistic" combat metric in D&D. Spearmen behind, shield wall in front. Legacy did it very well by making spears the go-to weapon but with lousy durability. They never managed to get "reach" into the equasion though. If Sundren did that, it would be a huge step forward for the NWN combat engine.

[thaelis]

Despite the fact this has turned into an argument about which weapon is better in real life, I'd like to point out my intention is to make it more of a viable weapon in game for diversity's sake...would be nice to see some Rangers or Druids, heck even Fighters, with spears instead of Rapiers/Scimitars.

As a naturey type I'd love to use one myself, but I die enough using decent weapons if I gave myself a -4 damage penalty I'd die even more.

The fact it makes sense IRL is just a happy coincidence.

[Lotus]

Spears are getting expanded range. However, as a Simple weapon, they will not be getting buffed to be comparable in terms of damage/threat with Martial weapons. The increased range should allow them to be without actually entering the threat range of a monster using a weapon with a smaller range, meaning they can support their teammates and will have time to identify if/when aggro switches.

Halberds have had their range increased and are otherwise unchanged. I can't do much with them without making them the indisputably superior weapon on the server, so we're leaving their damage as is to make them a tactical option for players so inclined. They're still an appealing option with their slashing/piercing damage, as they innately will overcome a variety of DR.

[Phantom Lamb]

I think the range will also provoke some free attacks of opportunity!

[Laurk]

That would be perfect. Ill have to roll up a hoplite.

[Mishtakob]

The issue of one-handed, two-handed, and long spears from what I understand is that in D&D rules you had short spears (to represent the one-handed version), regular spears (for two-handed pokey-things), and long spears (for two-handed poke-them-at-a-good-distance-things). As with many weapons in NWN2, certain PnP variations have been scrapped, which is why we don't see heavy maces and light maces (and warmaces instead of mauls).

The spears in-game follow the mentality of the two-handed spears from D&D. Like Doubt said, it's a game mechanic issue. Same reason why your Greatsword Weapon Master can't deal AC-reducing piercing damage with his weapon because he's wielding it halbschwert.

[Laurk]

A Spartan spear was 8' in length. Longer than a short spear, shorter than a long spear. Perfect for a shield wall.

In my opinion, a significant reach advantage should "always" mean an AoO. Even a knife vs. a sword, or spear vs. sword.. but we can't get everything we want. All the spears & polearms having reach is beautiful and will open up a whole new way to strategise in combat.

Oooh.. how about a new PrC. The Hoplite. Could be a Tempestian oriented PrC which focuses on the spear and shield, gaining bonuses to AC and AB while in tight formations and using thier prefered arms. Maybe a shield bash with knock-down attached to it.

Imagine combat reflexes on a spearman who threatens 10'. You'd be zinging AoO all over the place.

[Shadechild]

How does the 'Reach' work?

[Mishtakob]

A Spartan spear was 8' in length. Longer than a short spear, shorter than a long spear. Perfect for a shield wall.

In my opinion, a significant reach advantage should "always" mean an AoO. Even a knife vs. a sword, or spear vs. sword.

However, implementing the advantage of reach without implementing the disadvantage wouldn't make much sense. If the guy with the dagger gets beyond the spearpoint and up close to the guy who he's attacking, and without the support of fellow soldiers in the formation pushing up their own polearms from behind, he may as well be screwed. System's what it is, I'm afraid, and while it may be a neat idea, there's still the bastard sword fighter waiting to use his sword's guard as an armor-breaking hammerpoint.

[Doubtful]

Spears are pretty awesome against lightly armoured or unarmoured targets, so that's most ancient armies covered. They're also pretty damn handy against charging cavalry, mostly because horses don't tend to be awesome on the whole armour wearing thing and because they're carrying a lot of mass onto a sturdy set point.

Yes, they're a great weapon for peasants because all you need is a little bit of metal and a decent stick, they're the bomb for hunting animals (unarmoured) and great for peasants who might need a handy simple weapon that doesn't cost a fortune to defend their home.

Trouble is when you get some dude turn up on your doorstep wearing head to toe platemail you'll tend to discover that your spear ain't worth shit.

D&D isn't historical re-enactment, it never has been!

If you go trying to balance weapons to some historical ideal then you'll need to do the same for armour, and endurance, and aging, and wounds (Sorry, how many times do I need to stab Steven the Barbarian before he dies?), and skills, and magic, and.. Well. Everything.

Want to play a spear specialist? Go fighter (plus weaponmaster if you want some extra feelgood factor).