Spears were some of the greatest weapons in history and yet in One D&D (and previously in 5th edition) spears continue to languish in obscurity. Currently Spears do the same damage as a quarterstaff, have the same properties, and cost more (the only two differences being slightly less weight and the thrown property on the spear). The quarterstaff was an amazing self defense tool anciently, but it cannot compare to the lethality of the spear.

I mean imagine if a player mounted a spearhead on their quarterstaff, the closest stat for that weapon would be the spear, yet all that would be gained is a short throwing distance, what would be the point of the expensive tip? Am I the only one who would like for the spear to get some attention to improve it? Moving it a die class up would be nice, but I understand the hesitation in making it deal 1d8 damage in one hand, adding some kind of property like reach or finesse could give it a niche. Alternatively with the introduction to the mastery mechanic maybe the spears versatile damage could be changed to 2d4 rather than 1d8? (it'd at least slightly raise the average damage).

Your thoughts? I like the 1/4 staff, but I wish there was something to help distinguish the spear because right now its either a reskinned 1/4 staff or a slightly worse throwing weapon than the javelin.

p.s. And yes there are halberds, javelines, pikes, and glaives which are all polearms themselves but they aren't the same as the traditional spear we see used in some fantasy (like the stormlight archive) and its sad that for most uses one of these other options is a logical mechanical replacement for any spear wielding player.

5E spears aren’t long spears like the ones that give spears such a good reputation. Instead, they are shorter spears, easily usable by anyone. These spears are the best melee simple weapon in the game, as they are simultaneously the strongest one-handed (d6) and best two-handed simple weapon (d8), and they can be thrown on top of that. Quarterstaffs vastly outclass every other simple melee weapon (except for maybe Daggers), and spears are even better than them because they can be thrown.

Adding a version of a spear that better represents an effective, one-handed, reach weapon could reasonably exist. It could be a 1d6 one-handed martial weapon with reach.

However, that isn’t even necessary as even the standard simple Spear is one of the pathways to high damage melee builds available to Strength characters, using PAM, Dueling, and still using a shield, they can make several more attacks than normal and deal surprisingly high damage. Spears still function as weapons with an effective floor and high ceiling, so they can definitely stand up to good weapons such as Halberds and Longbows.

If the problem is that it's equal with the quarterstaff, why aren't you considering nerfing the quarterstaff instead?

I mean, the basic spear really is just a quarterstaff with a pointy bit on the end. And then you've got the javelin and pike to cover the more specialized forms.

The trident has THREE pointy bits on the end. That means it's 3x as dangerous. 3d6, Versatile 3d8. Make it happen, Wizards.

I don't think the addition of a pointy bit should necessitate a mechanical change, is my, uh, point.

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

The trident has THREE pointy bits on the end. That means it's 3x as dangerous. 3d6, Versatile 3d8. Make it happen, Wizards.

I don't think the addition of a pointy bit should necessitate a mechanical change, is my, uh, point.

 Three points actually make it worse.

the Spear is fine, it's the best simple melee weapon, which can be thrown  and versatile use.

If you want the spear to "feel" like a more viable weapon (or if you want to feel like a Thor knockoff), then maybe try slapping the Artificer's Returning Weapon Infusion on it. The spear becomes a magic weapon with +1 to both attack and damage rolls, and if you throw the spear, it'll return immediately to your hand once it hits its target. I know that the spear is pretty powerful and that having the Thrown property on something that might just end up being your main weapon seems like not a good idea to ever use (you don't wanna throw away your only pointy stick), at least the Infusion will give you some boosts as well as that discount Thor feeling. But that's just me!

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I mean, the basic spear really is just a quarterstaff with a pointy bit on the end. 

I disagree.  Given that a D&D quarterstaff is a 1/3 heavier than a spear, a quarterstaff is obviously longer, thicker, stronger. Possibly it is steel-shod. It should, in my opinion, be two-handed not versatile.

In any case, I think the reason for this issue is that D&D ony has two reaches. In real life (yes, I know :-) you can hurt someone with a spear at a further distance than you can hurt them with a staff, and at distance you can hurt them more because a pointed tip penetrates better than a blunt tip.

But that's OK. Weapons in D&D are not actually weapons - they are just sticks with numbers on the end. A spear and a staff are both just sticks with 1d6/1d8  on the end.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I mean, the basic spear really is just a quarterstaff with a pointy bit on the end. And then you've got the javelin and pike to cover the more specialized forms.

 I'm hardly any kind of expert, but I've been informed that a quarterstaff is way heavier than a spear - both from being denser wood and thicker. I'm fairly sure the rules don't reflect that, and I could be way off since I'm just repeating what I heard. But I did hear from a museum guy who knew all sorts of weird stuff about weapons and how they were handled.

(I looked it up - the staff weighs 33% more than a spear, and twice what a javelin does)

I mean if we really are going to take the all things being equal logic here, shouldn't we be granting quarterstaffs the thrown property as well?  What's the point, anyway? ;)

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I mean, the basic spear really is just a quarterstaff with a pointy bit on the end. And then you've got the javelin and pike to cover the more specialized forms.

 I'm hardly any kind of expert, but I've been informed that a quarterstaff is way heavier than a spear - both from being denser wood and thicker. I'm fairly sure the rules don't reflect that, and I could be way off since I'm just repeating what I heard. But I did hear from a museum guy who knew all sorts of weird stuff about weapons and how they were handled.

(I looked it up - the staff weighs 33% more than a spear, and twice what a javelin does)

I was speaking broadly. I realize you cannot just make one end of a quarterstaff pointy and call it a spear, but both are just slight variants on your basic stick. One gets some extra damage potential from its heft, the other from the pointy bit. In abstract game terms, that makes them about even in weapon potential, imo.

Honestly, I do not think that the spear needs any changes made to it. Mechanically the class that benefits from it the most already buffs the spear while they progress in levels (monk). If say, a player was really really into Kaladin at the moment and needed a spear while playing a fighter, I would just eventually homebrew them a magical sentient spear once they had been using it long enough.

The real question is whether they can earn such a wonderful item by walking Kaladin’s path of horrors. 😈

5e fun fact: The spear is in many ways the best non-heavy melee weapon. This is due to Polearm Master and the Dueling Fighting Style.

The only exception to this that readily comes to mind is a wisdom based build with shillelagh.

I always thought it was odd that you can use the spear one handed with PAM and get a butt end attack while wielding a shield. Seems a clunky way to use it, though I’m no expert and it’s RAW. But 1DD is taking care of that, if the changes stay. 

Shields IRL aren't as restrictive as they are in D&D. Properly modeling them would require a level of granularity that 1) isn't in accordance with the overall aesthetic, 2) would fall in with the most clunky, easily misremembered, and going-to-be-changed-in-2024 rules of the game, such as the bonus action spell rule, or the jump distance rule, and of course 3) would require rebalancing of every character option that can use shields.

Though I'll agree that with the way 5e has characterized shields, it is odd that you can do Polearm Master with one.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I was speaking broadly. I realize you cannot just make one end of a quarterstaff pointy and call it a spear, but both are just slight variants on your basic stick. One gets some extra damage potential from its heft, the other from the pointy bit. In abstract game terms, that makes them about even in weapon potential, imo.

 Hm, I doubt they are. I mean, sure, in abstract game terms - and I guess, IRL, the staff would be better for duelling. Maybe? But, you know, for massed formations the staff would be rather crap =D

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I was speaking broadly. I realize you cannot just make one end of a quarterstaff pointy and call it a spear, but both are just slight variants on your basic stick. One gets some extra damage potential from its heft, the other from the pointy bit. In abstract game terms, that makes them about even in weapon potential, imo.

 Hm, I doubt they are. I mean, sure, in abstract game terms - and I guess, IRL, the staff would be better for duelling. Maybe? But, you know, for massed formations the staff would be rather crap =D

 
True, but then 5e lacks rules for one of the most fundamental uses of spears in warfare: fending off a cavalry charge. So it’s more a matter of perception and game balance.

 

True, but then 5e lacks rules for one of the most fundamental uses of spears in warfare: fending off a cavalry charge. So it’s more a matter of perception and game balance.

 Yes. I find this to be one of the key aspects of the game that many tend to forget: It's an abstraction. It's not meant to model (combat, in this case), it's meant to gamify it. 

I'm not sure they forget. But very often, they don't argue from that point, instead they argue that 'not being able to use a spear to fend off a cavalry charge isn't realistic!' =)

Let’s see, the spear was probably the third or fourth weapon humans invented ( rock in hand, rock thrown, stick in hand, stick with a pointy end in hand , stick with a pointy end thrown). The points on the earliest ones were simply sharpened (and maybe fire hardened) wood, bone and stone points were later additions with bronze, iron and steel much later additions. The PAM buttstroke (1 handed) with a shield actually isn’t that hard to do. Is it meant for a killing blow? No, it’s meant to ward off your foe and force them to keep their distance by reminding them they are in your range. Put a point/spike/short blade/weight at that end and that damage becomes more substantial and a better warning to keep your distance. It can also be deflection of a foe’s attack. It doesn’t take a lot of force to redirect an attack - especially if you start the redirect well away from your body ( that’s why soft martial arts teach you to block well away and hard styles generally do the blocks closer in. Spears provide reach for a reason- they are meant to keep the fight away from your body (if they can’t hit you they can’t hurt you). To get that reach they are generally longer than staves with a smaller cross section to keep the weight down. The staff can get reach but it’s not really designed for reach. Spears tend to be 6-8’ long while quarter and Bo staves are generally 5-6’ long. Thicker because they are meant to block/parry other weapons ( the shield parries with a spear normally). Staves (as opposed to clubs) are a fairly late addition to the armours being more of a cut down spear than an improved club and meant more for 2 hand use than 1 (though it can be used either way). As others have said both are good weapons but meant for somewhat different audiences and so for d&d they seem well balanced against each other.