The Forge Archives

Why is there no proficiency for fighting with spear and shield? Should one just use the Sword & Shileld without the Cut offensive maneuver?

Tuomo

There's no proficency for it becasue no-one really does it as a hand-to-hand thing.  Lots of ppl over the years have used throwing spears with sheilds.... but in HtH you need both hands on the spear for it to be effective really.

Quote from: Mayhem1979There's no proficency for it becasue no-one really does it as a hand-to-hand thing.  Lots of ppl over the years have used throwing spears with sheilds.... but in HtH you need both hands on the spear for it to be effective really.

There should be some prof in it.  Spear and shield would have been the primary infantry weapon combination for most of history.  In most cases, it probably would have been a mass combat weapon but not in all.  There are certainly descriptions in Homer of individual combat with spear and shield.  (lot of throwing too of course).  I believe the Zulu used a short spear and shield.  

Perhaps just use sword and shield without the cut and up the ATN of the shield for one handed use.

So write one up. The europeans in medieval times didn't spend much time with it, hence it's exclusion.

Jake

Quote from: Mayhem1979There's no proficency for it becasue no-one really does it as a hand-to-hand thing.  Lots of ppl over the years have used throwing spears with sheilds.... but in HtH you need both hands on the spear for it to be effective really.

Tell that to the Spartans!

Now, I'm no historian... but I am a heavy weapons fighter in the SCA.  I've seen one person try to fight with a spear and shield.  It was abysmal.

Unless you're talking about a short-spear, spears are just far too long to use one-handed.  They become unbalanced due to their size.  You thrust out once and they just fall to the ground and get stepped on.

Besides, again I may be wrong - as the whole "not a historian" thing, but I thought the romans mostly used short swords with their shields - and the phalanx used men with huge shields and men with spears behind them (using them two-handed).

The romans did use a short spear, called a pilum I believe, with their shields. When they formed a phalanx, they would often jut their spears out to keep off cavalry. I believe Mike once mentioned the pilum as well, as it was sometimes cast at an enemy's shield to weight the shield down and make it worthless while the legionnaires would then close in with short swords, and their shields still intact.

Quote from: WolfenThe romans did use a short spear.

Yeah - I would assume the use of a short spear with a sheild is not uncommon in all of history.  The Zulus for instance.

Now the short spear was used overhanded... and most could be thrown, correct?
The long spear of medieval europe was sometimes eight feet long and was used underhanded for thrusting only?

I'm not looking any of this up, but if memory serves, this is true.

In terms of combat maneuvers in TROS, I can't imagine that the short spear would allow for much different mechanics than the short sword aside from being thrown?

-Z

QuoteYeah - I would assume the use of a short spear with a sheild is not uncommon in all of history.  The Zulus for instance.

No it really isn't at all uncommon. The 5 to 6 foot spear and shield were the most common weapons of the medieval soldiery for centuries. ( about until the 14th century) They were the most available and versatile weapons for the masses to use. Such a spear is a long reach weaopn and can also be thrown if necessary. The shield is a necessity for the spear armed, unarmored infantry or else they would die all too quick. The Anglo -Saxon shieldwall at Hastings was composed of just this type of troops of the Kings fyrd. And ofcourse the formidable housecarls with their mails and daneaxes.

What ho.

Lance, the pilum was meant only to be thrown, and couldn't be used effectively in any way in close combat. In fact, the heads were soft so that when thrown (and hopefully sticking in a shield), the long head of the pilum would get bent, and be useless for throwing back without repair.

In Europe, during all ages, spears were not intended for use on a battlefield outside of a formation. Hoplites forming Phalanxes carried swords as well so that they'd have an efffective weapon when their formation broke up. Given the difficulty of maneuvering such a formation, the Romans never used the spear, and defeated phalanxes handily on most meetings.

Like Tuomo said, it's a cheap weapon, and what you give a peasant to fight in a group (assuming he doesn't come with some other suitable farming implement to use). When his formation breaks up, he generally runs.

The Zulu short spear has a long blade, and is balanced. Basically it's a weird looking thrusting sword.

Consider how hard it is to wield a spear one handed. Two-handed, without a shield, however, is a totally different prospect. Lot's of similarities with staff-fighting, or other polearm use.

Mike

Specific usage aside, spear and shield was probably the most common war time combination for foot soldiers for most of classical to medieval time periods (well aside from the celts and romans who like swords).  I believe in medieval armies, that it was largely used as a definsive, mass formation weapon to ward off enemy cavalry while your own cavalry rested or regrouped.  

Those points aside, there should presumably still be some prof in spear and shield.  Obviously, one would expect the ATN for the spear to be fairly high due to the unweildy nature of the spear.  I imagine it would also be fairly simple and without too many maneuvers.  Thrust, Block, Block and Thrust...

NT

QuoteThose points aside, there should presumably still be some prof in spear and shield.  Obviously, one would expect the ATN for the spear to be fairly high due to the unweildy nature of the spear.  I imagine it would also be fairly simple and without too many maneuvers.  Thrust, Block, Block and Thrust...

This is basically what I had in mind. I just thought that maybe someone had already done the work for me. Its not the manuvers but the defaults that I find hard to assign.

Quote from: toliSpecific usage aside, spear and shield was probably the most common war time combination for foot soldiers for most of classical to medieval time periods (well aside from the celts and romans who like swords).  I believe in medieval armies, that it was largely used as a definsive, mass formation weapon to ward off enemy cavalry while your own cavalry rested or regrouped.  

Those points aside, there should presumably still be some prof in spear and shield.  Obviously, one would expect the ATN for the spear to be fairly high due to the unweildy nature of the spear.  I imagine it would also be fairly simple and without too many maneuvers.  Thrust, Block, Block and Thrust...

NT

so.. nevermind that this combination wasnt exactly used as you are wanting it... right?... as mike mention, the roman spear wasnt used as a thrust weapon, it was a throwing spear.... give me one example, backed up with facts, of where the spear was used as a thrust weapon, along with a shield, on the field of combat..  in close combat...

and... well dont mention SCA or ARMA stuff... i respect both groups, but to put it bluntly, they arent the originals... give me some historical proof...

jake has mentioned for you to write one up... i agree with him, and also agree with the exclusion of the "style"... because this game is from a european aspect... were it from an oriental standpoint, we wouldnt be woirying about this, or half of the other styles in the book...

so... thrusting with a spear, is best done with 2 hand, for control, and for maximum damage.... i could understand the use of a buckler... but not a normal or bigger shield

honestly, just use pole weapon... raise the ATN..this style is more of a matter of "ahh shit, the footmen are coming closer, i cant throw my spear, i might as well try and stab someone... aww damn they have swords... sheild time"

its a style of neccessity

now im not trying to get anyone mad, im just asking for examples... i know the phalanx approach is for shields and spears... but everything i have seen, shows the shields attached to their forearms, with them thrusting with both hands... so they are wielding a shield in one hand, and a spear in the other...

however were you to do just that, it'd be tough, to do the pahalanx method, use pole weapon (or whatever is used for spears)... then raise the ATN, and probably the DTN as well, decrease manueverability as well

Quote from: prophet118.... give me one example, backed up with facts, of where the spear was used as a thrust weapon, along with a shield, on the field of combat..  in close combat...

The greek hoplite was armed with a large shield (the hoplon), a long spear (2-3 meters) and a short sword.  The shield was held in the left hand the spear was typically held over hand in the right.  Once the fighting got too close for the spears to be used effectively, the short sword was used.  But the spear was the main battle weapon.

 The hoplon was a extremely heavy (about 18 lbs.) and large enough to cover the body from shoulder to groin, so it would qualify as a large shield.  

The most important aspect of a long spear being used one handed is that it is being used in a formation with a lot of other guys there to protect you.

Quote from: Anthony I

Quote from: prophet118.... give me one example, backed up with facts, of where the spear was used as a thrust weapon, along with a shield, on the field of combat..  in close combat...

The greek hoplite was armed with a large shield (the hoplon), a long spear (2-3 meters) and a short sword.  The shield was held in the left hand the spear was typically held over hand in the right.  Once the fighting got too close for the spears to be used effectively, the short sword was used.  But the spear was the main battle weapon.

 The hoplon was a extremely heavy (about 18 lbs.) and large enough to cover the body from shoulder to groin, so it would qualify as a large shield.  

The most important aspect of a long spear being used one handed is that it is being used in a formation with a lot of other guys there to protect you.

so basically, 18 pounds of shield, and upwards of at least 9 feet of spear... pikemen do similiar things, in essence... once the line is breached, theres no sense to keep fighting with spears.. spears just arent a close combat weapon... ya know?

Quote from: prophet118so basically, 18 pounds of shield, and upwards of at least 9 feet of spear... pikemen do similiar things, in essence... once the line is breached, theres no sense to keep fighting with spears.. spears just arent a close combat weapon... ya know?

pikemen didn't use shields, you have to use two hands with a pike-they where genrally twice as long as a greek spear (14'-18').  As for spears not being close combat weapons- how close is close?

course they didnt... lol

as for how close is too close. well id hazzard a guess at anything past the point of the weapon...

Yip, but it would be a real mess to get past those, because the ranks behind the first one also extended their weapons forward. This become even more efficient with the appearance of the Macedonian phalanx which had the hopla changed for sarissae, which could reach a length of 24' and were of course handled with both hands (though the phalangite also carried a shield).

For a nice link about phalangite tactics see:http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/enemies-of-rome.html

Considering the fact that the Roman soldier needed some free space on his side to make use of his cut-and-thrust sword, it is estimated that every legionaire attacking a line of Macedonian phalanx had up to 20 sarissae pointing in his direction. Attacking a phalanx from the front was a truly messy affair.
Of course, when the legionaire finally managed to get past this deadly obstacle, the advantage would shift to his side, cutting and thrusting through the densely packed ranks of phalangites who had not enough space to defend themselves efficiently. After that, he would be attacking enemies to his left and right, widening the gap in the enemy line, so that his commander could pour more troops into it who would begin to roll up the stiff and rigid phalanx from its vulnerable side.

course, the real problem i have here, is that this isnt a single combatant technique... if im not mistaken, isnt there a mass weapon proficiency in the game?.... should something of this nature likely be covered under something similiar (or exactly) like that...

this isnt a tactic you would use all by your lonesome, this is rank and file tactics

Quote from: prophet118...this is rank and file tactics

This is mook tactics!

I've always wanted to have proper rules for this kinda stuff so that I could have my mook commander yell "Form battle ranks!" when facing four PC's. Then the PC's would just stare at the mooks, who where now staring back from behind a shield wall bristling with spears.

On a more serious note, I'd say we shouldn't ignore some way of fighting just because it's only used in numbers. PC's could use it in a corridor or somesuch, and mooks could as noted above use it all the time. Not that it is ignored, as this thread has proved, but still. The notion seems to be in the air.

And a question.
Is it feasible to swing a long spear like a staff and cause blunt damage? And if so, would the damage be the same, i.e. ST+2?

well, i dont mean to sound like we should just ignore it... the original poster, i think , wanted to know about a single combatant dealing with this kind of thing.

Quote from: Mokkurkalfe
This is mook tactics!

I've always wanted to have proper rules for this kinda stuff so that I could have my mook commander yell "Form battle ranks!" when facing four PC's. Then the PC's would just stare at the mooks, who where now staring back from behind a shield wall bristling with spears.

On a more serious note, I'd say we shouldn't ignore some way of fighting just because it's only used in numbers. PC's could use it in a corridor or somesuch, and mooks could as noted above use it all the time. Not that it is ignored, as this thread has proved, but still. The notion seems to be in the air.

And a question.
Is it feasible to swing a long spear like a staff and cause blunt damage? And if so, would the damage be the same, i.e. ST+2?

I would have to say that formation tactics are a valid option. But the trouble with formations is that they can't move very quickly to counter circling or shifting down the rank. Definitely something only used in battles in open areas, not in closed in spaces. In corridors a loose grouping can be used, but not any real formations per se. For example one guy up front with a kite shield (or full harness) and a cut & thrust sword, maybe a mace (or short spear if the corridor is narrow), then a guy with a spear or long spear, trailed by a guy with an arbelest or bow. (Pikes indoors are a big mistake, long spears can be almost as bad, depending upon the dimensions of the corridors and spears). Also, if you plan on going into a building or castle to fight, try to bring along a left handed guy to lead the fights against the stairs.

From what I have heard, most spearmen are pretty quick to learn the whole swinging the spear like a quarter-staff trick. It can be a very effective form of attack. I would have to say the damages should be Str +2b for long spear, Str +1b for spear and Strb for short spear. I just used the corressponding staff lengths.

I think that there definitely should be a Shield and Spear proficiency. Just that it should have only one maneuver, Thust, which acually just represents trying to catch an enemy in a group advancing on your spear, not actually thrusting it. Actually, this should be part of a larger skill that deals with simply staying and maneuvering in formation.

Which means that, as soon as you are no longer in formation, when it breaks down into melee, you either draw a sword if you have one (sword and shiled), or you drop the shield, and wield the spear two-handed (polearm).

That's what I was getting at earlier but didn't explicitly say. Basically there's no proficiency taught anywhere for shield and spear as a melee form. What is taught is formation tactics. .

The real question is whether or not to actually try to emulate formation tactics in play. That is, are you going to actually roll for each character in a formation to see how well he skewers the opponent? Just devolve to mass combat rules at this point. If things devolve into melee, the GM can arrange one-on-one fights, and the player better be using a reasonable form at that point.

If someone did try to fight with spear and shield, I'd default it to their Sword and Shield at -6 or something outrageous. No penatly if you're a Zulu trained in shortspear use and wielding a short spear (which has no advantage in formation tactics).

On Phalanxes, again, they were devastating if you were dumb enough to stand in front of one. Roman commanders learned this early on, and simply maneuvered their maniples through rough terrain or using whatever tactics needed to be used to the flank or rear of the phalanx where they could just plunge in unabated. The phalanx would break, and then it was a mad scramble as the hoplites had to draw swords or be cut down. Gee, no surprise that the Roman's won in most cases.

Hence why later in Europe, spears were what peasants carried. Because if you could afford swords, then that was an obviously superior choice. Or, IOW, why they're called bladeslingers, and not spearslingers. The spear and shield is what you teach people who don't have time to really train, and isn't what you learn if you're intending to get involved in any small scale combat. I think it would be rare to see anyone with a Spear and Shield proficiency beyond 2.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesI think that there definitely should be a Shield and Spear proficiency. Just that it should have only one maneuver, Thust, which acually just represents trying to catch an enemy in a group advancing on your spear, not actually thrusting it. Actually, this should be part of a larger skill that deals with simply staying and maneuvering in formation.

Okay, so why have a proficiency if you have one maneouvre? If it's just thrust, why not have it fall under Sword and Shield proficiency with the limitation on maneouvres?

Quote
Which means that, as soon as you are no longer in formation, when it breaks down into melee, you either draw a sword if you have one (sword and shiled), or you drop the shield, and wield the spear two-handed (polearm).

I am not the expert here, but from what I have gathered, once a peasant levy formation was shatered they simply routed...

Quote
That's what I was getting at earlier but didn't explicitly say. Basically there's no proficiency taught anywhere for shield and spear as a melee form. What is taught is formation tactics. .

The real question is whether or not to actually try to emulate formation tactics in play. That is, are you going to actually roll for each character in a formation to see how well he skewers the opponent? Just devolve to mass combat rules at this point. If things devolve into melee, the GM can arrange one-on-one fights, and the player better be using a reasonable form at that point.

Can of worms, anyone? I mean the fight, not your comment... Basically the single person or small group engaged against a formation would just have to pull off some terrain rolls to keep from getting shishkabobed.

Quote
If someone did try to fight with spear and shield, I'd default it to their Sword and Shield at -6 or something outrageous. No penatly if you're a Zulu trained in shortspear use and wielding a short spear (which has no advantage in formation tactics).

-6? Wow, isn't that a bit extreme?

Quote
On Phalanxes, again, they were devastating if you were dumb enough to stand in front of one. Roman commanders learned this early on, and simply maneuvered their maniples through rough terrain or using whatever tactics needed to be used to the flank or rear of the phalanx where they could just plunge in unabated. The phalanx would break, and then it was a mad scramble as the hoplites had to draw swords or be cut down. Gee, no surprise that the Roman's won in most cases.

Gotta love them Romans, they epitomize our culture, even today...

Quote
Hence why later in Europe, spears were what peasants carried. Because if you could afford swords, then that was an obviously superior choice. Or, IOW, why they're called bladeslingers, and not spearslingers. The spear and shield is what you teach people who don't have time to really train, and isn't what you learn if you're intending to get involved in any small scale combat. I think it would be rare to see anyone with a Spear and Shield proficiency beyond 2.

Mike

Spears were often used by professional soldiers as well. They just had appropriate applications is all. A bunch of soldiers going to arrest a guy sitting inside a building would have the spearmen hang around outside and the swordsmen (basically the guys who didn't bring their spears) would go in. Also, spears, as you mentioned were often used by the peasant levies, as they were easy to train with (pointy end towards enemy)! And cheap. Not to mention when it came time to collect the spears, they would be hard to hide... And as I said before, a peasant levy using spears would probably simply run for it if their formation was broken. So the lords, having an epiphany did not issue expensive, hard to train with swords.

Quote from: SalamanderOkay, so why have a proficiency if you have one maneouvre? If it's just thrust, why not have it fall under Sword and Shield proficiency with the limitation on maneouvres?

That's kida what I'm getting at. Make it a skill, and not a proficiency. But even moreso, I'd say that it's not something that should ever need to be rolled for.

QuoteI am not the expert here, but from what I have gathered, once a peasant levy formation was shatered they simply routed...

Again, my point. Since they don't have any proficiency in polearm, or a sword, what else are you gonna do? Go on base dice only with the penalty that I indicate below? I'd run too.

QuoteCan of worms, anyone? I mean the fight, not your comment... Basically the single person or small group engaged against a formation would just have to pull off some terrain rolls to keep from getting shishkabobed.

That's exactly how I'd do it. Actually, any small grou can go faster than any formation. So if the players want to run they can. Again, the attractiveness of the routing option. :-)

For PCs who find themselves on the battlefield wanting to take on formations...I guess I'd let the fools try to get to the flank and then run individual combats...But they're going to get outnumbered fast, and that's a nogo even if they are badly armed.

Quote-6? Wow, isn't that a bit extreme?

Yeah, trying to make a point. Perhaps at the same default to polearms from Sword and Shield (is there one?).

QuoteSpears were often used by professional soldiers as well. They just had appropriate applications is all. A bunch of soldiers going to arrest a guy sitting inside a building would have the spearmen hang around outside and the swordsmen (basically the guys who didn't bring their spears) would go in.

True enough, but these guys didn't usually have shields, and/or wielded partisans. More like the eastern naginata in ease of one handed use. And when it's a question of armed against unarmed are you going to take advantage of the guy's "non-proficiency"? I think not.

QuoteAlso, spears, as you mentioned were often used by the peasant levies, as they were easy to train with (pointy end towards enemy)! And cheap. Not to mention when it came time to collect the spears, they would be hard to hide... And as I said before, a peasant levy using spears would probably simply run for it if their formation was broken. So the lords, having an epiphany did not issue expensive, hard to train with swords.

Again, I totally agree. But there was no "weapon training" done with the spears. Instead the levy was just trained how to march behind the next guy and when to lower his spear. It's just so damned simple in terms of use that it doesn't merit a proficiency.

What is difficult, interestingly, is training a soldier to march behind another. Close rank maneuvers are very difficult to accomplish for the untrained (take if from someone who's been to basic training). So all your time training your levy is just making sure that when you blow the horn that he starts to move forward and stays with everyone else. Sounds simple, but you'd be amazed at how easily it gets screwed up.

Again, if they don't march together, then they break up, and rout as soon as they are hit (or even before). So weapon training for a peasant is about at the bottom of the list for Mr. Peasant. Besides you don't want him skewering your knights with his pitchfork, do ya? :-)

Mike