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.

Mayhem1979 wrote: 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.

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

Jake

Mayhem1979 wrote: 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.

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.

Wolfen wrote: The 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.

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

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...

toli wrote: 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

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

prophet118 wrote: .... 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...

Anthony I wrote:

prophet118 wrote: .... 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.

prophet118 wrote: 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?

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

prophet118 wrote: ...this is rank and file tactics

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.

Mokkurkalfe wrote:
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 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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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

Salamander wrote: 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?

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

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.

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

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.