Spear damage inconsistency and weapons difference
Archnecromancer
Member Posts: 17
I always thought that spears do 1d8 damage, and was surprised when I saw this thread that stated that they do 1d6 damage and requested spears to do more damage (be more useful): http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/4732/the-spear-problem
And I found out why I had thought that spears do 1d8 damage! Here's why:
Staff Spear +2
When this seemingly ordinary quarterstaff is examined magically, it has an aura of alteration. Upon command, a long sharp spear blade will shoot forth from its upper end, making the staff into a spear. This weapon was designed mainly for priests and wizards, although it is usable by anybody.
STATISTICS:
THAC0: +2
Damage: 1d8+3 (piercing)
Speed Factor: 4
Proficiency Type: Quarterstaff
Type: Two-handed
Requires:
5 Strength
Weight: 4
So Staff Spear (that I always use with my mage) for some reason does 1d8 damage. And I wonder why is that? Does this mean that all spears should do 1d8 damage, or that this Staff Spear should do 1d6 damage?
Since spears aren't very useful with such low damage (1d6), and it makes no sense that they do the same damage as staves, I think that they should be powered up a bit to do 1d8 damage.
I don't use spears, because there are always better weapons to use with people that can use them, and I didn't use them even when I thougt that they do 1d8 damage. Now that I know that they do only 1d6 I see no reason why anyone would use tham...
That's it for the spear part...
I also noticed another weird thing. One handed clubs do the same damage (1d6) with the same speed factor (4) as two handed quarterstaves! Shouldn't they have lower damage (1d4 or something), but be a bit faster than staves (since staves are practically two-handed clubs)?
Maces and flails also have the same damage and speed factor. Perhaps maces could be reduced to only 1d6 damage (if clubs would be reduced to 1d4), and their speed factor reduced to 4 like clubs (or 5 to differ them a little), and then have morning stars do 1d6+1 damage with higher speed factor than maces (6), and than flails would do 1d8 (or 2d4) damage with highest speed factor (7).
So anyway, these weapons could be made more different simply by tweaking their damage and speed factor (and also strength requirements and weight if needed). Since piercing weapons are already different by damage (daggers have 1d4, short swords 1d6, long swords 1d8, bastards 2d4, two handed swords 1d10 or 1d12) it would be nice to have blunt weapons in the same way.
Oriental weapons could be tweaked in a similar way. Katana could be made a two handed weapon (there was a separate request for that) with 1d12 damage (it would't be too much since some two handed swords have this damage), wakizashi would have 1d10 damage (like katana now with speed factor 4), and ninjato 1d8 (like wakizashi now with speed factor 3), and scimitar 2d4 but slower than ninjato (with speed factor 5 like it has now).
And I found out why I had thought that spears do 1d8 damage! Here's why:
Staff Spear +2
When this seemingly ordinary quarterstaff is examined magically, it has an aura of alteration. Upon command, a long sharp spear blade will shoot forth from its upper end, making the staff into a spear. This weapon was designed mainly for priests and wizards, although it is usable by anybody.
STATISTICS:
THAC0: +2
Damage: 1d8+3 (piercing)
Speed Factor: 4
Proficiency Type: Quarterstaff
Type: Two-handed
Requires:
5 Strength
Weight: 4
So Staff Spear (that I always use with my mage) for some reason does 1d8 damage. And I wonder why is that? Does this mean that all spears should do 1d8 damage, or that this Staff Spear should do 1d6 damage?
Since spears aren't very useful with such low damage (1d6), and it makes no sense that they do the same damage as staves, I think that they should be powered up a bit to do 1d8 damage.
I don't use spears, because there are always better weapons to use with people that can use them, and I didn't use them even when I thougt that they do 1d8 damage. Now that I know that they do only 1d6 I see no reason why anyone would use tham...
That's it for the spear part...
I also noticed another weird thing. One handed clubs do the same damage (1d6) with the same speed factor (4) as two handed quarterstaves! Shouldn't they have lower damage (1d4 or something), but be a bit faster than staves (since staves are practically two-handed clubs)?
Maces and flails also have the same damage and speed factor. Perhaps maces could be reduced to only 1d6 damage (if clubs would be reduced to 1d4), and their speed factor reduced to 4 like clubs (or 5 to differ them a little), and then have morning stars do 1d6+1 damage with higher speed factor than maces (6), and than flails would do 1d8 (or 2d4) damage with highest speed factor (7).
So anyway, these weapons could be made more different simply by tweaking their damage and speed factor (and also strength requirements and weight if needed). Since piercing weapons are already different by damage (daggers have 1d4, short swords 1d6, long swords 1d8, bastards 2d4, two handed swords 1d10 or 1d12) it would be nice to have blunt weapons in the same way.
Oriental weapons could be tweaked in a similar way. Katana could be made a two handed weapon (there was a separate request for that) with 1d12 damage (it would't be too much since some two handed swords have this damage), wakizashi would have 1d10 damage (like katana now with speed factor 4), and ninjato 1d8 (like wakizashi now with speed factor 3), and scimitar 2d4 but slower than ninjato (with speed factor 5 like it has now).
2
Comments
Spear is THROWING weapon. "Spears" from BG are lances not spears !!!
Damage is OK, because 1d6 is normal for THROWING weapon but not for lances.
Standart lance realy do 1d8 ( even more if is it long lance, you can check in D&D rules ).
This is not post for "Feature Requests", you should post it to "BG:EE Bugs"
BTW: Lance is Two-Handed weapon with only 1d8 because have 3x critical strike damage.
Main difference is really in weapon length. Lances are too long for effective throwing ( technically all spears what are too long and heavy for throwing are lances ). Spear are shorter and although can be use as mele weapon ( same as throwing Axe ) but it was design for throwing.
I quote from my D&D rules but they are only in my czech language...
( dont even try find this state on map
But i guess this is close enough:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lance
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Spear
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Javelin
Small 2 gp 1d6 3 lb.
Medium 2 gp 1d8 6 lb.
Large 4 gp 2d6 12 lb.
So it wouldn't be against the rules to increase spear damage to 1d8. In fact it would be more logical for spear to use "Medium" spear damage than lowest "Small" one.
However, there are additional rules from 2nd Edition that address the use of spears in two hands. According to The Complete Fighter's Handbook for 2nd Edition AD&D, a spear wielded with both hands should inflict 1d8+1 (2-9) piercing damage. The speed factor (and weight, obviously) are the same as for one-handed use.
While it might be nice to see spears in BG changed to one-handed weapons, I imagine that the combat animations associated with the spear might make that a bit of a headache to implement. On the other hand, changing the damage to 1d8+1 to be consistent with two-handed use would probably be less difficult. It would also be more interesting from a balance perspective than changing it to a one-handed weapon or leaving it as is.
Changing spears to be one-handed basically turns them into short swords that Druids can use. However, changing them to inflict 1d8+1 damage adds a unique two-handed weapon to the game; halberds and two-handed swords both roll 1d10 for damage, which means they inflict the same average damage as 1d8+1 but with lower minimum and higher maximum damage. A 1d8+1 spear would provide players who prefer more consistent damage rolls with a competitive two-handed option. In addition, it gives Druids a two-handed weapon that actually gives them a reason to consider forgoing the use of a shield.
For the same reason, staves do not need a buff. Magic staves are plentiful and frequently awesome.
In your example comparing warhammers to flails, the best magical warhammer in Baldur's Gate hits for a total of 1d4+4 (6.5 average) damage with a +2 to the attack roll. A non-magical flail hits for a total of 1d6+1 (4.5 average) damage, albeit without the attack roll. The total difference in average damage (not counting the difference in to hit) between these is 2 points. If comparing that warhammer to a Flail +1 (5.5 average), the difference shrinks to 1 point.
The difference between a basic spear inflicting 1d6 (3.5 average) and 1d8+1 (5.5 average) damage is also 2 points - comparable to the difference between the weapons in your example. For that matter, the difference between a non-magical warhammer and a non-magical flail is 1 point of damage, in favor of the flail.
I think it's also worth noting that the ready availability of that warhammer is largely dependent upon chance if the player isn't already familiar with Baldur's Gate or using a strategy guide. A new player might very well skip the encounter involving that warhammer, whether because they find it too difficult or because they simply missed everything leading up to that encounter. They might instead go spelunking and run into a +1 flail instead - would that particular player prefer the warhammer or the flail? Though they might change their minds later, for now they're probably going to use the flail.
Similarly, for a player like myself, who largely avoids the metagame when choosing weapon proficiencies for player characters, having good base damage on a spear means that when creating a character with proficiency or even specialization in spears, the player isn't as badly punished for that choice as they are in the current version of the game.
That aside, I don't really disagree with you. I think spears could use a damage buff. I also think they'd still be bad unless better magic spears were added. Seriously, right now the options are spear +1 or Backbiter. Two-handed swords, by contrast, get Spider's Bane and the World's Edge +3. If they don't add at least a spear +2, spears are still going to be obviously subpar weapons even with d8+1 damage.
Javalin (3-4ft, heavily weighted) Short spears (4-6ft long, Used 1handed with a light shield) and Spears (8-10ft) 1hded with a heavy shield, or can be used 2hded), Pikes (or Long-shaft Halberds) (12-14ft) (2hded), Lances (12-16ft) (1 handed, mounted only).
Lances are ONLY used on horseback or to set against a cavalry charge, depending on the model. They were too long to use effectually as melee weapons since they always come to a point, instead of having an axe head or the like as a Pike or long shaft halberd would) or too heavy, and were meant to either be couched to concentrate the force of a mounted charge, or ward off cavalry charges. Pikes were a little shorter and were design similarly to halberds to be useful for reaching over front-line troops to strike at other enemies while also protecting the front lines against cavalry.
Short spears are quick, and mostly used by skirmisher troops, while Long spears (or just spears) were used more in formations, but could be used effectively in close combat if they dropped their shield so they could thrust with more force.
Javalins were just to break/weigh down shields and/or cause casualties before the front-lines hit. Same for war-darts really. Except the darts are really easy to throw because their design ensures they'll always fly point first even if you suck at hefty javs, so you just chunk bags full of them above the enemy and let gravity do the rest.
Technically though, spears ARE supposed to be 1d8 in base damage in 2nd edition. Short spears deal 1d6. But Spears are 2hded (they can be used 1-handed with a shield, but only deal 1d4), while short-spears are 1hded and suffer no penalty when paired with a shield, but lack the range of a spear.
But for the sake of argument, would you be willing to consider each +1 to hit to be equivalent to each point of damage (for the purposes of BG by the way, weapon elemental damage isn't really any more useful than physical damage, as Stoneskin is not a concern, but flesh golem magic immunity stops elemental damage; and in BGII, I can't think of a weapon class that doesn't have at least one representative with a non-physical damage bonus)? If so, then the warhammer in your example will average 4 points more than a non-magical flail, and 2 points more than a Flail +1. These numbers are still comparable to the 2 point difference between 1d6 and 1d8+1.
In addition, if we are going to discuss this in the larger context of the game, I would point out that weapons are not simply a matter of choosing the best one available - one must also consider that outside of solo runs, one must equip multiple characters, each of whom may have varying access to different weapon classes, as well as pre-set proficiencies in the case of NPCs (and remember, non-proficiency penalties range from -2 to -4 to hit; specialization and mastery provide substantial bonuses). Due to availability, one might be forced to use a slightly inferior weapon on certain characters.
Furthermore, an increase to base damage is something a spear-wielding character may benefit from right from the start of the game up until the finale. Adding a better enchanted weapon only benefits a spear-wielder after they've acquired it. And the start of the game is usually when you're struggling the most. By the time you're trying to upgrade from +1 to +2 weapons, you usually have enough XP and magical equipment that the extra +1 to hit and damage is much less important than an extra 2 points of damage would have been at Level 1.
Not that I'm arguing against the addition of more magical weapons, of course. But if that were to be done, there's a much more deserving candidate than spears. As far as I know, there aren't any magical clubs available in BG (unless you count the priest spell Shillelagh). It wasn't much of a problem when clubs were grouped with quarterstaves and warhammers, but now it's a pretty easy way for a player to get a really bad deal on proficiency points. Especially if they take Jaheira into the party. After we get an enchanted club, then maybe they can think about giving us a +2 spear (or a +2 flail/morningstar, or a +2 bastard sword for that matter). Are you sure that's 2E and not 3E? I've never played P&P, so I don't own any of the handbooks, but the sources I've read indicate that standard spears are medium weapons that inflict 1d6 piercing damage (1d8 vs. large opponents), and I can't recall seeing shortspears listed as an item until 3E was released. And the spears in BG match the weight and speed factor for the medium 1d6 spear that I've seen.
I have, however, read rules that allow that medium 1d6 spear to be wielded in two hands for 1d8+1 piercing damage (2d6 vs. large opponents). Those same rules also mention a long spear (large) that inflicts 2d6 piercing damage (3d6 vs. large opponents).
For example, against Leather Armor, you will get the following:
Spear +1: +3 to hit, 1d6+1 damage
World's Edge +3: +3 to hit, 1d10+3 damage
Suryris' Blade +2: +4 to hit, 1d10+2 damage
Against Chain Mail:
Spear +1: +1 to hit, 1d6+1 damage
World's Edge +3: +1 to hit, 1d10+3 damage
Suryris' Blade +2: +2 to hit, 1d10+2 damage
Against Full Plate:
Spear +1: -2 to hit, 1d6+1 damage
World's Edge +3: -1 to hit, 1d10+3 damage
Suryris' Blade +2: -1 to hit, 1d10+2 damage
As one can see by these numbers, spears actually don't fall too far behind in the attack roll despite having the weakest enchantment - where they consistently fail against the competition is the much lower damage roll. Now adding a +2 spear would alleviate that somewhat - but the damage would still be inferior to that of a halberd.
It also doesn't resolve the fact that most spears in BGII will also be outclassed by their competition (especially given how early one can obtain a particular two-handed sword +2). While Impaler +3 is an exception, it doesn't become available until fairly late in SoA (and may be missed out on entirely). It also lacks the special effects of many of its competitors (decapitation, elemental damage, dispelling), can't breach Improved Mantle or Absolute Immunity, and can't injure monsters that require +4 to hit. And prior to that, you're still playing around with +1 and +2 weapons - the base damage roll is still a major component of the damage at that point, especially for Kensai who remember to use their Kai ability.
Piercing may generally be better for THAC0 purposes than slashing, but it's more often resisted. I don't recall exactly what's resistant to piercing as opposed to missile, but it's generally accepted that piercing is the worst damage type, in spite of the THAC0 superiority over slashing. Does someone who uses a lot of shortswords/daggers want to confirm/refute that claim for me? Regardless, that really just illustrates that spears need a buff even more.
As for clubs, the enhanced edition already addressed that. There is a +1 club early in the game, and a +2 club more-or-less at the middle. They're both a bit out of the way, and easily missable, but if you act like a druid you should get the first one no problem and if you have Jaheira you're less likely to miss the second one.
I would argue that base damage is almost totally eclipsed by bonuses towards the end of the game (hitting for 25 vs. 27 is just not that big a difference), but I take your point about the early-game being where people struggle the most. That, to my mind, is the best argument in favor of changing the base damage.
But again, I should point out that I'm not opposed to changing spears' base damage. In fact, I think it'd be a step in the right direction. I just think it won't be enough unless we get at least a spear +2 also.