"1-handed" spears

[Seaturkey]

Now, hear me out. Spears, in actual military engagements, are used in conjunction with shields, the intention is to have a light, long range weapon to keep enemies at bay and the shield to protect said spear wielder if the opponent(s) get inside of the spear's range. Yet in the game, spears are treated as 2-handed weapons. This just doesn't make sense, in an immersive sense, nor in a mechanical sense. Mechanically, a weapon with additional range would be balanced by a slower movement, such as the shield movement debuff currently in the game, yet that's not the direction the dev's chose to go (for some strange reason).

If the dev's felt the damage from a spear (from what I've seen the weakest of the 2-hand weapon types) was too much for a 1-hand, then just lower the damage, but to turn a weapon designed to be used with a shield (in real life) and yet have no way to equip it's complimentary shield in game is just silly, imo.

*yes, yes, I know it's very late in the dev cycle, and they more than likely cannot make this kind of a change at this point, but I still felt it needed to be said.

Just my 2 cents.

[Dr.Fumetastic]

They went with spears being 2 handed in order to have a 2 handed finesse based weapon. No other reason probably.
It was from the very start designed to be a niche weapon.

[hairyscotsman]

Originally posted by Dr.Fumetastic:

They went with spears being 2 handed in order to have a 2 handed finesse based weapon. No other reason probably.
It was from the very start designed to be a niche weapon.

Yip, exact same in Expeditions Viking. I really liked my seax (dagger) and shield build in that.

[Aethilion]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear

[Ancient history]
"Some, however, used longer spears. The Macedonian xyston was 12–14 ft. (3.6–4.2 m) in length and could be used with one or two hands."

[Military]
"Spears used primarily for thrusting may be used with either one or two hands and tend to have heavier and sturdier designs than those intended exclusively for throwing."

[Cavalry]
"Cavalry spears were originally the same as infantry spears and were often used with two hands or held with one hand overhead."

Basically, it just depends. There always have been one handed, two handed and throwing versions of spears. They just implemented the two handed variant.

[AintJack]

I'd like more weapons options as well one hand spear, mainly cause I'd like it if there was an option for all damage types in one and two handed forms for fighter class and make blackjack rouge weapon to give them some more options. Duel welding spears could also be fun.

[Witchthief]

I would be nice if spears, being a finesse weapon, were included as a 'requires' for Scoundrel skills, eg 'requires a Dagger or Spear'.

I understand that some make sense only if having a dagger - the animation for Vault would look silly with a spear, for instance. However, Fatality and Sawtooth Knife (apart from the face that one of them has 'knife' in the name) seem to me like a spear would be just us reasonable.

And if Sawtooth 'Knife' requires a dagger, why doesn't Throwing 'Knife' ? Just a thought.

[Seaturkey]

Originally posted by Aethilion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear

[Ancient history]
"Some, however, used longer spears. The Macedonian xyston was 12–14 ft. (3.6–4.2 m) in length and could be used with one or two hands."

[Military]
"Spears used primarily for thrusting may be used with either one or two hands and tend to have heavier and sturdier designs than those intended exclusively for throwing."

[Cavalry]
"Cavalry spears were originally the same as infantry spears and were often used with two hands or held with one hand overhead."

Basically, it just depends. There always have been one handed, two handed and throwing versions of spears. They just implemented the two handed variant.

.....Dude, I never said a person couldn't go into battle with a spear and no shield, its just stupid to do so, per the reasons I already stated in my initial post, so I fail to see your point. Or are you going to try to argue that Leonidas and his 300 would've been perfectly fine without their shields? Here's a hint, they'd have been slaughtered easily.

[w.f.schepel]

Originally posted by Seaturkey:

Originally posted by Aethilion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear

[Ancient history]
"Some, however, used longer spears. The Macedonian xyston was 12–14 ft. (3.6–4.2 m) in length and could be used with one or two hands."

[Military]
"Spears used primarily for thrusting may be used with either one or two hands and tend to have heavier and sturdier designs than those intended exclusively for throwing."

[Cavalry]
"Cavalry spears were originally the same as infantry spears and were often used with two hands or held with one hand overhead."

Basically, it just depends. There always have been one handed, two handed and throwing versions of spears. They just implemented the two handed variant.

.....Dude, I never said a person couldn't go into battle with a spear and no shield, its just stupid to do so, per the reasons I already stated in my initial post, so I fail to see your point. Or are you going to try to argue that Leonidas and his 300 would've been perfectly fine without their shields? Here's a hint, they'd have been slaughtered easily.

Shields were never a matter of course, historically. Spears, swords, axes, clubs, staves, hammers: all kinds of weapons were effectively used without shields. Reach, mobility, cost, practicality and preference mattered.

Just a mild suggestion: if you want to use historical arguments, try and do some basic research. As an actual historian with more than just a passing interest in ancient - early modern warfare I can say you are severely mistaken. Shields are heavy, cumbersome and do not afford perfect protection. Furthermore, when it comes to melee combat, there is no hard and fast rule that everybody is in direct contact with the enemy. In fact, from the very deep dark ancient Greek times onward, melee usually either entailed wild chaos, or, far more preferable to military professionals: blocks that engaged in lines. People in the second, third or fourth lines didn't need shields, they needed weapons that could reach the enemy from the back. Furthermore, imagine you are standing on a platform behind a wall. Do you want a shield or a long pointy implement with which you can reach the other guy before he comes at you? Or, if we look at early modern times when (light) cavalry played a huge role: do you want to have an enemy horse crash into you or do you want to keep it arm's (spear's) length?

Of course, shields can be very useful and were used quite effectivelyat various points in time. But never mistake one solution for the only solution.

[Seaturkey]

Those in the 3rd or 4th ranks didnt need shields, really? So, when the romans would perform line rotations (a common tactic of their's as a historian would well know), they'd just have their 2nd, 3rd, etc etc lines fighting unshield and easily open for attack? I don't think so. Let's also not forget that having a shield doesn't make you invincible. So, when, not if, guys in the front/2nd line go down, you need your reinforcements properly equiped to fill the gap.

As far as cavarly is concerned, nothing about having a shield negates the spearholders ability to hold the spear 1handed. Now, if you were to use the arguement that the footmen/spearmen would want to potential added mobility and/or grip due to the bulk of the cavalry charging the lines, fine. Then again, this game isn't based around cavalry or mounts of any kind (sadly), and on-foot combatants would absolutely need a shield, unless their commander were a heartless dbag who didn't care about the loss of his own troops,

Now for manning a wall line against a siege, again that's an entirely different combat scenario vs on foot combat, such as in this game. In those instances, the wall itself is the spearman's shield, that's the whole point of a wall. Which I'm sure you well know.

In the game's combat context, there is no justifiable/logical reason to run around with a spear without a shield other than the dev's (IMO) poor design decision in an otherwise great game.

PS: While I'm admittedly no historian, I am a history buff, particularly ancient roman history. So, please don't make arrogant assumptions like a poster not "doing his research" cause I have, thanks.

[Chmeva]

I think more than a realism or non-realism issue, the problem is, like you mentioned, that the game is almost done and be released in a few months. I don't think something like this will be added because of that. That being said, with modding support it might be feasible for fans to add weapons (heck, I think there's already a mod that adds "instrument weapons" and there's not even mod support out yet).

[baardvaark]

Would be pretty easy to mod spears to change the scale of them to be slightly smaller and make them 1-handed, though the animations could be a little funky.

[hairyscotsman]

We're lucky we got a 2-handed dex weapon at all. Whilst I'm all for some realism in RPG's (I play pen and paper RuneQuest among others), I think this thread is pointless.
Whilst the title had initially piked my interest, I found there to be no thrust to the OP's argument. Despite numerous knowlegable inputs, we appear to haft made little headway.

[IlluminaZero]

For someone using a historical argument OP knows zilch about spears and polearms. That said if we could have more appreciation for spears and polearms in all video games that would be much appreciated. The best damage weapons from a 2-hander POV should be polearms and 2-handed spears should have a niche (likely extra reach or armor penetration) to compensate for the lowered damage.

[w.f.schepel]

Originally posted by Seaturkey:

PS: While I'm admittedly no historian, I am a history buff, particularly ancient roman history. So, please don't make arrogant assumptions like a poster not "doing his research" cause I have, thanks.

You very clearly did not, otherwise you would not assert that there is no historical argument for the use of spears without a shield. Otherwise, far too many watch some random movie and consider themselves a history buff. It means nothing. I judged your text based on what it said. Which is for the most part nonsense.

[AintJack]

Since this game is set in a world of magic, there is no reason why they can't make two handspear just as effective as all other weapon and combat style. Magic makes anything possible. Even duelwelding onehand spears.

[THAC0]

its still in EA ... if they are argueing they cant make balance changes then whats the point of being in EA? They should make balance changes ... like change spears and nerf teh ♥♥♥♥ out of elfs.