Does a spear do more damage than a sword or less?

so spears get +Bleed where arrows and swords and axes and knives dont?

because of infection and heal time

The bleeding and risk of infection with a massive surface wound from a cut could balance out the fact that our quickly-fatal stuff is more vulnerable to stabbing.

It's a lot easier to clean and treat surface stuff, so long as the situation isn't complete shit. If you get slashed across the the arm, you can get it stitched up. If you get stabbed through the arm, there's a lot more internal damage you just have to hope your body will fix on it's own.

Stop being a retard.

Look man, the nature of wounds inflicted by weapons is fucking complicated. You're dealing with hundreds of different factors and ways injuries can play out. Stabbing weapons are more dangerous for immediate kills because they have better odds of hitting something vital, but cuts can have far more complications, even when treated, and can be more disabling in terms of the victim even if they aren't lethal.

A sword cut can destroy a muscle, rendering a limb useless, for example, which a piercing weapon has a much harder time achieving.

There's just too much shit going on to actually reflect in an RPG without some form of abstraction.

punctures have far more complications than cuts

Arrows cause stabby wounds, not cuts. Swords can do stabs and cuts, knives are obviously stabby too.

More on cuts and thrusts:
youtube.com/watch?v=Vh0y31j_VxM

Depends on what kind of complications you're talking about, which feeds into my point.

I was thinking about infection, which I should have said.

knife fights are mostly long cuts, some stabs, knife-murders are very stabby

either way its a bloody mess, shock and pain and blood-loss are likely cause of death in a knife fight

Spears are the most cucked weapon in rpg:s.

In reality they can do pretty grievous damage since you can leverage a lot of strength behind a spear, but most RPG:s stat them out as lower than average damage weapons with "economy" prices.

In reality, all weapons can do grievous damage.

That's why they're weapons.

That's a result of what this thread is about. All weapons are fucking lethal. The problem becomes making them unique in the setting of a game.

some weapons are more better than others

this guy gets it

Weapons that were bad at what they were supposed to do usually didn't last very long.

Spears have reach, that's what makes them superior to sidearms like swords.

It isn't about how lethal a weapon is. It's about how it inflicts lethal damage.

Which is why the pointy stick reigns supreme

arrows are one of the least lethal weapons to see widespread use.

Like I often say the most important factor in damage is the attacker's strength and how successful his attack is (which also means where the attack landed). The weapon type doesn't play a huge role as all weapons were designed to kill.

The difference between weapons would be secondary stats like initiative/speed, reach, penetration, parry penalty, encumbrance, etc.

Spear
>Good reach, stabbing is main form of attack, cheap, usable in formation easily

Sword
>Balanced weapon, reach isn't great, expensive, good parrying though

Axe
>Cheap, shit reach, no stabbing, but it's a lifesaver when you're out on the march and need some firewood or rope cut or something

>the most important factor in damage is the attacker's strength
Not really. Technique will hurt more than raw strength, and will land far more hits. No worthwhile warrior will lose to an amateur with far more strength.

Once again, more complicated than that.

There's a saying that covers this situation quite well.

"The best swordsmen in the world doesn't fear the second best, he fears the worst."

A spear will puncture the skin and organs and then be retracted, causing severe trauma and heavy bleeding. Assuming you stab with the sword, the result would be similar, if more difficult to achieve.
Slashing with the sword will open large pieces of flesh and, depending on wielder's strength and sword weight, possibly break bones. This is much more survivable, as infection and bleeding out are your biggest worries.
An arrow is remarkably non-lethal (if you don't hit anything too important). Even with broadhead tips, the shaft stays in the body and helps put pressure on the wound, cutting down bleeding.
Muskets are inaccurate. They were typically only good in numbers and slow to reload. The shot is sterilized from the heat off the propellant, and the wound is comparatively small resulting in less bleeding. A musket is, of course, still deadly and likely to cause casualties, this is just compared to a spear.

In all cases, survival would vary depending on where the weapon struck and medical availability/aptitude. As others have said, all weapons are lethal. It really boils down to what you're facing and what you have available. Now, if we were talking about DEFENSIVE capabilities...

>Sword
>good parrying

not really

>expensive
Only in the early middle ages.

Also, Sword and Axe become competetive versus Spear as soon as you have a shield. Or full plate armor, lol.

reread what you quoted

Better at it than an ax or spear.

you guys are on a roll
much encouragement
no argue just converse.
back and forth with topic but friends

>Better at it than an ax or spear.
>Better at it than a spear

This is how we know you don't practice any form of melee combat.

It's not what I wrote

>but wood isn't as tough as steel!
>youtube.com/clipofkatanacuttingbamboo

Reminds of that Youtube clip making fun of conspiracy videos by saying the Titanic couldn't have sunk due to an iceberg because it was made of metal and metal is stronger than ice.

>Ahlspeiss
Fucking dropped. What is it with Anglos and always messing up ei and ie?

Okay, so how do you do it? AND still be able to strike before your opponent does. Remember, this is PARRYING, so he's in reach.
A spear is obviously great at keeping people away, but now a guy with a weapon is right next to you. What do you do?

A proper spear shaft is more than capable of deflecting a sword blow.

A friend of mine is into that medieval combat re-enacting with full weight weapons and armor. According to him, in clusterfuck-skirmishes the sword and board dudes tend to form impromptu rigid front lines, whereas the spear guys standing behind are the ones who do by far most of the killing, jabbing and thrusting at whatever opening they find.

Unless you're a dumbass your spear should be choked appropriately to how close your enemy is. You don't just use a spear for poking people ten feet away, you use it for poking people one foot away.

youtu.be/l2YgGY_OBx8

Spear does thrust+a big bonus impaling damage, and even more if you use two hands. Sword does swing+bonus cut damage, unless you stab, then it does thrust+bonus impaling damage if it's a thrusting sword or thrust+bonus crushing damage if it's a normal sword.
Bonus depending on the weapon and how well it's made, of course.

I don't mean to rustle you bro. I'm not saying the sword is better overall, only that once the spearman is put into a defensive position where parrying is necessary, he is at a disadvantage.

>youtube.com/watch?v=vJcTD5qIZJ4
The spearman (who is inexperienced) is able to keep control of the duel more than 90% of the time, but the second he loses that control he loses the duel.

Kinda, the reason stabbing swords had their heyday was that a puncture always was much more difficult to mend (And also the fact that civilians don't use armor).
You've stabbed someone. what are they gonna do now? stitch it? The wound still bleeds inside

There is a reason there are far more people alive and well with cut scars than with puncture scars. Outside of medical procedures like surgery, that's it.

It goes without saying that a deep enough cut is also a death sentence, but you need to do far "less" damage with a stab than with a cut to kill someone

Look it up in your fucking weapons list. Your autistic bait cunt.

Because they got raped so hard by the french language, they startet to like it.
They can't even sort of understand their germanic bro's anymore.

>(And also the fact that civilians don't use armor).

wait, are you implying that stabby swords were mainly developed to fight civilians? if so, you couldnt be any more wrong.

This is going into general distance/speed things. A spear in time of the arm is time of several feet for a sword. Spears are also far far far longer that perfect length, so if someone gets past the point you have a problem.

Well, we have a lot of sources that talk about armoured people just driving a sword through an unarmoured opponent.

First reply best reply

Well, not really. But swords like the espada ropera got really popular with non-soldiers because stabbing swords are kind of rubbish agains plate.
It wasn't developed to kill civvies in the first place, but it worked so well for unnarmored targets that they fell in love with it.
The only stabby swords that we know were certainly used in battlefields reliably are shorter versions of the rapiere and such.

axes could be used for stabbing, depending on the type. Something like a sparth axe had a long pointed top for when you needed to get stabby.

eh not really. You can parry and block with an axe or spear too. Just with different techniques obviously.

stabby swords where developed to deal with armour. trying to slash a guy in plate is pretty much useless. You need to get something with a good point and jam it through a weakspot. Probably halfswording for leverage.

yeah but theres also plenty of accounts of people driving round tipped swords through people.
Unarmoured people are just easy to drive things through (relatively speaking)

>stabby swords where developed to deal with armour.
You mean like a rondel?
If you are against a guy in full plate and your only weapon is a ropera, you might as well not even try.
Swords that are made for "finding that weak spot" which is pretty much a meme at this point (Not he fact that it was done, because it was done. But not to the extent that most people want to claim) would be the shorter stabby swords that are mostly posterior to the longer ones.
They trived because it was a period when armor was starting to become passe and mobility was in vogue. But longer stab swords were not commonly used in the battlefield.
Go take a look at some historical armor. Full plate. Tell me, where are you gonna stab? Under the arm? Throught maille(probably) and gambeson? IF, if you manage to slip it there. Good luck. Stick to half swording, if you must. Hit with the pommel or wrestle with your opponent. But stabbbing an enemy that is not already subdued? Now you gonna tell me that "arrow in the visor" was a common occurence
Now, was it used by a rich noble/soldier as fashion statement? Sure (Espada ropera MEANS dressing sword) but he was only going to skewer softy civvies with it. Estocs or other smallswords would be what you are refering to.

Maybe you are talking about REALLY easly stab swords. Well, i don't see much discussion about them, guess how well those worked?

stabbing dudes in plate is litterally what the Estoc was developed and used on the battlefield for.

It's an edgeless longword that tapers too a very sharp point.

Spears are great in real life. A sword might take a smith a few days to produce a decent one, takes skill, lots of iron.
You can make a spear out of the same amount of iron as a small dagger in a fraction of the time of a sword. nail it to a pole and bob's your uncle.
Spears are excellent in formation letting you maintain a threat barrier a few feet in front of your real barrier.
Far more battles were fought where the vast majority of combatants were armed with spears rather than swords.

It's a sword on a stick.
Abstracted it sould do about as much as a sword.
More realistically it shoul ddo as much as a sword in one-hand, and ever so slightly more if wielded in two hands.

Like, if a sword dealt 1d6 damage then a spear deals 1d6 damage, +1 if wielded in two-hands.

spears are also cheaper/easier to produce because they're less dependenton the strength lf the metal. So you can make most of the head of wrought iron and a steel cutting edge welded on. Cheaper to make with negligible loss of performance.

exactly and some axes had top spikes.

...

And then it went out of fashion in no time, because it was pretty much useless in combat situation, as practice shown.
There is a very simple test for weapon real effectivness - how much and for how long it was used. Estoc as such didn't hold out till mid-Italian Wars, where it was already replaced by better, more suitable weapon. And soon after armour went out of fashion and practice.

>You mean like a rondel?
eh. more like oakeshott XV and later swords

Reminder that swords were side arms not primary weapons for the most part.

You usually had both. It goes
>spear lines get up to each other and poke and prod for some time
>one line slowly becomes thinner as men get stabbed and cohesion goes down
>eventually one side yells "charge" instantly drops their spears, draws their swords/axes/short hurty thing, and closes with the spear users who, if caught off guard, are usually very much unable to defend themselves from the shorter weapons.

Beyond this swords simply have every advantage of convenience after the being made and purchased part. It can be worn, it's manageable in size, and generally getting it from point A to B isn't a problem.
Now this isn't a big problem if you're a soldier on campaign who's got a baggage train and little to do but march, but if you're a civilian or an adventurer it's often far too inconvenient to wield a spear. They are quite strictly battlefield arms.

>But stabbbing an enemy that is not already subdued?
You first wrestle him into the appropriate position first, obviously,

>axe
>shit reach
>no stabbing
>a non combat tool
REEEE DANE AXES REEEEEE

Anything that an axe can do, any other weapon can do better. Axe is the worst polearm possible. If you are using a short one, your shield will be more useful than the weapon itself. If you are uing a shit like Dane axe, you are with worst imaginable polearm

I seem to have forgotten there was such thing as a medieval estoc. From way before armors were so well crafted that would force most of its kind to adapt to more specialized shapes. So yes, you are right on the origin.
The part where i still stand is that it wasn't that famous or useful in that task.
The premier anti armor weapon was either the mace (or a strike with the pommel) or simply avoiding confrontation behind a spear wall or otherwise.
It wasn't until the armor started getting out of fashion that stabbing swords became common again, but as a self-defense weapon for civillians and a badge of honor for nobles.
And sorry for being so rude to you, i thought you were pushing the idea that long modern stabbing swords can do anything but scratch a well armored foe when it took reducing the length considerably to make them battlefield-effective. Guess i was being paranoid.

Unless you're fighting heavily armored opponents, axe and shield is a great combination.

True, but you can't deny that the WAR axe, not the chopping or felling axe, the one used in combat was cheap and pretty effective for its cost.
You have to arm lots of people fast? Just ask for every tool axe, take off the head, reshape it. BAM, instant sidearm that goes well with a spear, easy to use and comes with an aditional anti-armor effect due to its weight distribution

Easier to use than a sword, faster to make, ALMOST as effective as a sword, can be used as a hook depending on the shape.
Performance wise? It is kind of a jack of all trades. It wont out-mace a mace or out-sword a sword. It can out-sword the mace and out-mace the sword, tho'

>what is hooking
>what is a throwing weapon that isn't a massive pain in the ass to transport
>what is a pole axe and it's ancestors like dane axes being incredibly popular even when swords had gotten dirt cheap.
user you're a fucking moron.

>The part where i still stand is that it wasn't that famous or useful in that task
Its not famous probably more because they don't feature in movies or dnd. I wouldn't consider something that saw use on the battlefield for 300 years useless.

> there's only one kind of sword
> there's only one kind of axe

Over half of this is wrong

why not hammer/warpick

why not? at that point however it comes more down to the skill of the individual user than the weapon head.

Understood
Nice dubs

There is a reason the axe was favored in the time of low armor and shield walls. It's INCREDIBLY deadly against unarmored shield wielders. Which is what a lot of people were.

It's impossible to have an argument about 'which weapon is best" without clarifying the armor and fighting styles of the people it's being used against.

I don't remember the name of it, but what was the polearm that was basically a can opener on a stick with a spear point coming out the top?

That's probably the best weapon.

also most polearms are variations of an axe
one of these?

...

Warpick, no, they're shit at parrying. Warhammer, yes.
youtube.com/watch?v=bf16NgeEI_U

I think it might've been the bill. Long enough to use as a spear in formations, good for poking unarmoreds, can open a hole in armor to poke through.

I don't like the idea of trying to open a weak spot in someone's armor while they're trying to kill you, but if the idea is to make killing them easier then I guess it's sound.

I'd think it would be less a matter of damage, and more of armor and where you can hit easily.

The average human being... I would go further and say that the average human child could kill an adult human being with pretty much any weapon if they were giving a clean shot. Maybe not a bludgeon, because a child with a mace might not even be able to swing it, but putting an edge to something and drawing it is easy, as is thrusting.

So damage is more or less irrelevant if the opponent is armored. If they are, then the new game becomes where, and how easily you can access their potentially unarmored parts with your weapon. If your plan is to actually attack THROUGH his armor with your weapon, then you've already ceded the tactical initiative to your opponent.

Off topic but I now have spear envy. It's beautiful.

Using grid-based mechanics just seems like more hassle than not, so I go with the logic that there are two ranks on the battlefield: Forward and rear.

Players decide in advance which rank they're going to be positioned in, and enemies will be accordingly ranked by me. Someone in the forward character rank using a melee weapon such as a sword can attack only the forward enemy rank. Someone with a bow can attack any rank from any rank. Someone with a spear can extend their attack an additional rank, which means they can attack the rear enemy rank from the forward character rank, or the forward enemy rank from the rear character rank. Anyone in the rear character rank without a ranged or extended weapon can't do shit, except maybe cast spells.

I also have my own stats for weapons. Spears deal 1d6+1 base damage, while long swords deal 1d8. Both are "heavy" weapons, and they can be grasped with both hands for +1 to damage and to-hit rolls.

Spears are arguably more useful since they have higher minimum damage, but they're more difficult to critical with.

>opinions, ideas
You are a catamite

>sparring = how effective a weapon is in combat
no.

idiotic poorly worded non-specific questions thread?
idiotic poorly worded non-specific questions thread.

1. Stabbing weapons were primarily used by sophisticated militaries because a stab requires less energy and less space than a slash. Formations could be tighter and fight longer. Pikes had the benefit of being so long that they act as a defense, and the enemy cannot get close. However, if the formation is broken, they are almost useless, as the enemy can get inside the weapon's reach.

2. The most likely cause of death from any weapon is usually catastrophic blood loss. Slashing weapons create a greater surface area for the wound.

3. In either case, both puncturing, crushing and chopping weapons (like axes) have shown to be rather effective against armor. The important thing is to impart a large amount of kinetic force to a small area. Armor in general was very hard to defeat, which was why defeated nobles were often able to survive and be ransomed.

Also, master swordsmen didn't need shields because the weapon itself is extremely effective at parrying enemy attacks.

So in general: in military formations, spears/pikes/stabby swords; in duels or loose combat: large swords

I'm still trying to understand the dynamics of shields in combat--
how is the axe useful against shielded but relatively unarmored assailants?
Does it use force to smack the shield out of useful position?

Shields are made of wood.

Axes are good at chopping wood.

Put your arm under a plank of wood and have someone else chop the plank with an axe.

Hallberds and similar are better than axes, due to having all the nice elements of axes, without any of the drawbacks

>WAR axe
It's pretty much as memetic as katana folded over 1000 times.

>What are decent, two-haneded polearms
Definitely not axes

Axes were favoured, because they require almost no metal to make, no skill to wield and can be improvised from one of most common tools.
That doesn't make them good weapons

Variation =/= axe. They are better precisely because they are something more than just chopping piece of semi-sharp metal on the end of a stick. Polearms are one of the best melee weapons possible... as long as they are something else than axes.