Spears and Shields: a request

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
Please, when you develop the 4E rules make it possible for some characters to use one of the most common armaments in history, namely a spear (with some reach, not a short spear) and a shield. From the Macedonian phalanx to the Zulu and all sorts of points in between, people have used a spear with length in conjunction with a shield. Please make that option available in 4th edition. Ideally without it representing specialised training (like a feat).

I'm not asking this at the expense of two handed spear and pole-arm fighting techniques, and I'm perfectly happy for game balance to be taken into account. I'd just like my average spear carriers to have shields, as they so often did in the real world.

Thank you
Spears are one-handed as they are aren't they? So thus you can use them with a shield?

I want to be able to use a spear to begin with, maybe something like FFTA where you can attack 1 or 2 squares away instead of having to attack 2 squares away. Reach including adjacent attacking and all that noise.
The spear and long spear (reach) are two handed weapons in 3.5. The short spear is one handed.
The spear+shield combo sucks in small-group fighting. The spear, historically, was used because it was cheap to make, easy to make, required little training to use effectively, and worked if you stacked everybody up.

The best way to use a spear by an experienced martial combatant is two-handed. The very act of stabbing at distance is difficult to do with one arm. 90% of Chinese martial art maneuvers with the spear, for example, require two hands.

Short spears with shields, I can see as ineffective but doable. Longspears with shields (outside of a phalanx) is absurd. Even hoplites were equipped with a short sword once enemies got too close or the phalanx blew up.

Historical accuracy is not always that important in balancing D&D mechanics, but I just thought you should know that it is also not a reason in support of longspear+shield.
The best way to use a spear by an experienced martial combatant is two-handed. The very act of stabbing at distance is difficult to do with one arm.

Righto! The same way, it's very hard to throw a baseball one-handed. Spear thrusting actually works better one-handed than two. Check it yourself.

90% of Chinese martial art maneuvers with the spear, for example, require two hands

You sure these maneuvers aren't more like using a quarterstaff than a spear? A shortspear can slash, stab, and bludgeon, in the hands of someone who is even marginally capable of combat.
It's not the realism that counts, it's the style.

The most important thing about spear + shield is that it comes with a free battlecry...

This is madness!

THIS IS SPARTA!!!
I've seen some decent long spear and shield one on one stuff, so while I have lots of love for the naginata/ chinese halberd style of pole arm wielding I'd also like some love the other style.

Also, mkill has a point.
Righto! The same way, it's very hard to throw a baseball one-handed. Spear thrusting actually works better one-handed than two. Check it yourself.

There are many different ways of thrusting with a spear. Generating power is easier with two hands than with one. This is indisputable.

Why are you telling me to check it myself? I doubt you have more experience practicing with spears than I do.

You sure these maneuvers aren't more like using a quarterstaff than a spear? A shortspear can slash, stab, and bludgeon, in the hands of someone who is even marginally capable of combat.

A shortspear cannot slash effectively. Do you know what a spear is? Perhaps you are confusing it with a "sword."

The only thing you can do with a spear held by one hand is stab. You cannot swing it effectively, because it is not weighted to be swung by a grip at the very end, which is the only way you can swing anything one-handed due to the position of your body. Because of this, when you swing a spear horizontally, (say you are right handed, and you are swinging to the left), you must grip it with your right hand near the middle, and with the left hand near the back. You swing it across your body, your right hand moving out and to the left, and your left hand moving into your waist. The fulcrum pivots between your two hands, and power is generate by not only your arms, but your hips and legs. This is how you bludgeon with any stick-weapon, including the staff.
It's not the realism that counts, it's the style.

Historical accuracy is not always that important in balancing D&D mechanics, but I just thought you should know that it is also not a reason in support of longspear+shield.

I've seen some decent long spear and shield one on one stuff, so while I have lots of love for the naginata/ chinese halberd style of pole arm wielding I'd also like some love the other style.

You're saying you've seen Western longspear + shield stuff? Link? The only successful longspear + shield stuff is in formation fighting. That's why it doesn't fit in D&D, because you don't have fifteen other sweaty dudes crowded around you with their spears and shields to mutually protect each other.
Hey, I've pitted my players against phalanges before. It would be kind of nice not to have to fudge the rules (by considering the longspear a "bastard" weapon) to do it.
ancalimohtar: It's too bad we cannot meet face to face somewhere, with long poles. Learn some things, you would.


Of course, that will not happen. Just as well, I should think.

As far as a short spear, not slashing? What has it got at the business end? A blade equivalent to a dagger. A dagger mounted to a 6' shaft? Definitely capable of slashing.
ancalimohtar: It's too bad we cannot meet face to face somewhere, with long poles. Learn some things, you would.


Of course, that will not happen. Just as well, I should think.

As far as a short spear, not slashing? What has it got at the business end? A blade equivalent to a dagger. A dagger mounted to a 6' shaft? Definitely capable of slashing.

I am getting tired of your personal guarantees. Your "trust me lulz i kno how to use a speer" argument is irrelevant, because anybody can say the same things on the internet.

I said two things, both of which you disagreed with:

1. Any spear is more easily used in two hands than one.
2. Any spear, if held in only one hand, is restricted to thrust attacks. This reduces the spear's flexibility in combat, and thus forces you to draw tight formations of spearmen if you want to use it effectively.

I then provided you with a body mechanics explanation of the above. You responded by guaranteeing, in Yoda-speak, that if we were to ever meet in person, I would learn some things. That is not a valid argument.
Granted that LARPing is not the same as "real world" fighting, but I have made use of both spear and shield and two-handed spear tactics. In my experience both are valid styles, although the two-handed tactics tend to be more pole-arm oriented.

There are many different ways of thrusting with a spear. Generating power is easier with two hands than with one. This is indisputable.

For a simple forward thrust you get a little to no power advantage using two hands. Since you want the power from a thrust to be all in the same direction you would have to thrust to the side in order to make use of both hands.

A short spear cannot slash effectively. Do you know what a spear is? Perhaps you are confusing it with a "sword."

Most spears are more than just a sharp stick. Many had a blade sized somewhere between a dagger and a short sword. While thrusting is the most effective use a slash is certainly doable.

The only thing you can do with a spear held by one hand is stab. You cannot swing it effectively, because it is not weighted to be swung by a grip at the very end, which is the only way you can swing anything one-handed due to the position of your body.

Grip slightly up from the end and tuck the end under your upper arm. This gives you the leverage needed to swing, but you are correct that the thrust is more effective.

1. Any spear is more easily used in two hands than one.

Correct. It is easier to use a spear two handed, but when properly trained one can use a spear one handed with a shield to (IMO) great effect.

2. Any spear, if held in only one hand, is restricted to thrust attacks. This reduces the spear's flexibility in combat, and thus forces you to draw tight formations of spearmen if you want to use it effectively.

Incorrect. While thrusting is easier one can still slash or bludgeon. Tight formations reduced your freedom to swing since you could end up fowling your shield mate's weapon.
I am getting tired of your personal guarantees. Your "trust me lulz i kno how to use a speer" argument is irrelevant, because anybody can say the same things on the internet.

I said two things, both of which you disagreed with:

1. Any spear is more easily used in two hands than one.
2. Any spear, if held in only one hand, is restricted to thrust attacks. This reduces the spear's flexibility in combat, and thus forces you to draw tight formations of spearmen if you want to use it effectively.

I then provided you with a body mechanics explanation of the above. You responded by guaranteeing, in Yoda-speak, that if we were to ever meet in person, I would learn some things. That is not a valid argument.

While I cannot speak from personal experience, I can point out that historically, the Zulus used spears which they used to slash open the stomachs of their enemies. This implies that a spear, properly weighted, can be used as a slashing weapon- one handed no less.

And yes, I would love to see more spear- usage in D&D as a legitimate tactical option.
While I cannot speak from personal experience, I can point out that historically, the Zulus used spears which they used to slash open the stomachs of their enemies. This implies that a spear, properly weighted, can be used as a slashing weapon- one handed no less.

The Zulu Iklwa was still primarily a stabbing weapon. It was an adaption of the traditional assegai throwing/stabbing reach spear for melee combat. This meant a short shaft and a longer and broader head. It did have a big enough head you could cut somebody with it, but combat was still mostly stabbing.

As for making it more effective in combat, I'm hopeful we shall get a broader range then right now. Exotic weapons as invariably better then common weapons will probably go away. Instead fighters will have weapon maneuvers depending on the weapon.

Thus a fighter with a short spear might have a move that lets him stab a target 5ft - 10ft away, or one that lets him throw the spear and ready another one in one action. Something along those lines, specific to spears and something that requires special training to do.

My only worries that way are that they will have to be careful with balance (though they would be hard pressed to screw it up worse then it is now) and a fear that all fighters will end up hyper-specialized in one weapon.

Jay
For a simple forward thrust you get a little to no power advantage using two hands. Since you want the power from a thrust to be all in the same direction you would have to thrust to the side in order to make use of both hands.

Not true. There are multiple ways of thrusting with two hands. You can use the back arm to provide the power while you guide the spear with your front hand, letting it side through the front hand. This is more effective than with just one arm, because you do not need to control it with the thrusting arm.

Even wikipedia lists various ways of spear-thrusting in the Spear article.


Most spears are more than just a sharp stick. Many had a blade sized somewhere between a dagger and a short sword. While thrusting is the most effective use a slash is certainly doable.

Key word: Effective. A short sword is effective at slashing because most of its length can be used to slash, and the entire thing is rigid. A spear, at six feet long, may only have four inches of slashing length, and the entire thing is most likely flexible wood. Not a good slashing instrument.

Grip slightly up from the end and tuck the end under your upper arm. This gives you the leverage needed to swing, but you are correct that the thrust is more effective.

Compared with what I explained above in the other post, this is highly ineffective. The angular velocity of the strike zone is roughly equal to the angular velocity of your own waist, twisting. You want to be able to POWER the wooden shaft of the weapon through someone's bones.

Incorrect. While thrusting is easier one can still slash or bludgeon. Tight formations reduced your freedom to swing since you could end up fowling your shield mate's weapon.

You don't want to swing if you're only grabbing it one-handed. You want to thrust. This is how hoplites formed phalanxes.
As for making it more effective in combat, I'm hopeful we shall get a broader range then right now. Exotic weapons as invariably better then common weapons will probably go away. Instead fighters will have weapon maneuvers depending on the weapon.

I like this idea a lot, but is someone really going to write a set of four or five unique and interesting maneuvers with EVERY new weapon? Some supplement is going to come out with a weird curvy blade with a thing on it or something, and they'll have to write balanced and realistic maneuvers for it? It's modular, which I like, but it may demand too much of splatbook writers.

Thus a fighter with a short spear might have a move that lets him stab a target 5ft - 10ft away, or one that lets him throw the spear and ready another one in one action. Something along those lines, specific to spears and something that requires special training to do.

Or bash with his shield and stab as one standard action, or something. Yeah, it's a good idea. If characters are essentially superheroes, why can't they turn any dumb ten thousand year old cheap weapon into an instrument of destruction?

My only worries that way are that they will have to be careful with balance (though they would be hard pressed to screw it up worse then it is now) and a fear that all fighters will end up hyper-specialized in one weapon.

I don't think that's a problem if re-training tools are provided. Or, if you can learn multiple weapons with a smallish expenditure of character design resources. Say, one feat that gives you bonuses and new available maneuvers depending on how many levels between when you first took it and your level right now.
I am getting tired of your personal guarantees. Your "trust me lulz i kno how to use a speer" argument is irrelevant, because anybody can say the same things on the internet.

Too true. Though Yoda rocks.
In an earlier post I suggested that you verify it yourself. It's not that hard to do. Apparently you would rather armchair warrior it. So...

Imagine a quarterstaff. Now, take an eighteen inch long leaf-shaped blade, and fix it securely to the end. The blade doesn't effect the quarterstaves handling that much. Especially if a counterweight is added. Now, your quarterstaff has become a spear, but there is nothing in all the world that prevents you from using it in the style of a staff. Except for some poorly written 3.5 edition rules of course.


Key word: Effective. A short sword is effective at slashing because most of its length can be used to slash, and the entire thing is rigid. A spear, at six feet long, may only have four inches of slashing length, and the entire thing is most likely flexible wood. Not a good slashing instrument.

You might be aware, that the Japanese sword, known as the katana, has a slight curve to it. That curve is there for a reason. It facilitates the drawing of the cut. Basically what this means is, when you cut something, if you sort of "saw" at it, the blade cuts more easily. So, the katana's curve causes this to happen, to a degree, automatically.
The point is, if the spear-shaft flexes, it simply means that your cut is being drawn for you. Plus, I don't know what kind of wood you have in your neighborhood, but where I live, wood don't flex, like cooked spaghetti.


Not true. There are multiple ways of thrusting with two hands. You can use the back arm to provide the power while you guide the spear with your front hand, letting it side through the front hand. This is more effective than with just one arm, because you do not need to control it with the thrusting arm

So, to gain a little control you give up the substantial benefit of a shield? What's the use in that?


The Zulu Iklwa was still primarily a stabbing weapon. It was an adaption of the traditional assegai throwing/stabbing reach spear for melee combat. This meant a short shaft and a longer and broader head. It did have a big enough head you could cut somebody with it, but combat was still mostly stabbing.

It should be noted that the stabbing attack is also the most effective method for most swords as well.


It just irritates me that, if I want to make a spear, and shield fighter. I have to arm him with the freaking trident.

BTW: I don't LARP. I am interested in how things really work, so I test it myself. Best I can anyway...
Imagine a quarterstaff. Now, take an eighteen inch long leaf-shaped blade, and fix it securely to the end. The blade doesn't effect the quarterstaves handling that much. Especially if a counterweight is added. Now, your quarterstaff has become a spear, but there is nothing in all the world that prevents you from using it in the style of a staff. Except for some poorly written 3.5 edition rules of course.

Putting aside the lollerific "eighteen inch" blade, you are proving MY point. Namely, that a spear has more in common with a quarterstaff or other hafted two-handed weapon than with a sword or other one-handed weapon. You need two hands to do anything with a spear except stab.

You might be aware, that the Japanese sword, known as the katana, has a slight curve to it. That curve is there for a reason. It facilitates the drawing of the cut. Basically what this means is, when you cut something, if you sort of "saw" at it, the blade cuts more easily. So, the katana's curve causes this to happen, to a degree, automatically.
The point is, if the spear-shaft flexes, it simply means that your cut is being drawn for you.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not being a jerk, I'm simply getting annoyed at internet know-it-alls who have never done martial arts or weapons training, or even studied war history, making absurd claims.

You gave a very unclear and unprecise reason for katanas' curvature. What do you mean it sort of "saws"? Look, the real reason is that the curvature reduces the contact surface area that can receive the kinetic energy. A straight blade hits everything at once. A curved blade focuses the power of the swing at the outermost point of the curve, and all of that power goes into that one point in the flesh or armor. Once it cuts through the tendon or ligament, which takes a fraction of a second, the rest of the blade follows the cut and tears through the rest of the body easily.

This has NOTHING to do with a quarterstaff or a spear being used as a quarterstaff. A spear's wooden shaft, when swung like the stick it is, does NOT behave like the steel of a katana. Your beliefs about wood
Plus, I don't know what kind of wood you have in your neighborhood, but where I live, wood don't flex, like cooked spaghetti.

...notwithstanding, it is still a flexible, pliable, material when swung at high speeds. When you are bludgeoning someone, you are not cutting open their skin to sever tissue and tendons and ligaments. Thus, you are not trying to redirect all of your kinetic energy into one spot, as small as possible, to easily sever something being held together--body parts, armor, whatever. You are instead trying to gather up the kinetic energy and actually impart it all to the target directly, hoping to overwhelm the target body and, by sheer force of trauma, create internal bleeding or destroy organs completely. This requires a reasonable amount of surface area into which you can transmit this energy.

Your analogy--whatever silly thing you said about "sawing" with a wooden pole--is completely irrelevant.

It just irritates me that, if I want to make a spear, and shield fighter. I have to arm him with the freaking trident.

Like I said, the heroic and superhuman characters in D&D should not be limited by the same things humans are. It's a game, and we ought to be able to have fun with various strategies regular humans can't implement. So I agree with you, they should make spears viable. Even spears with shields, maybe. But it is dumb to support this argument with incorrect claims about how spears and shields work in real life.
Real-life, schmeal-life - this is a game. If I was interested in what weapons were actually effective I would be in a historical reenactment, not playing D&D. Nobody wants haughty accounts of others' own personal training with archaic weaponry - they want make-believe. Obviously the real reason behind the request to make spears and shields a valid option in D&D stems from the recent movie, 300. It's a reasonable request, and there's no reason to challenge the validity of the shield/spear combo based on real-life accounts, whether they're true or not. D&D is fantasy, not real life. If people want rules that allow them to emulate characters from movies, I say give it to them.
I got all hot after watching that movie, the 300, as well, so I made the following changes to how My game was running:

A Player was allowed to sacrifice their Attack bonus for AC, without a feat, so long as they has a shield equipped

And I made all polearms do 2X damage against charging opponents.

But I frankensteined all kinds of nutty rules into my campaign, cuz I'm OCD like that... I think 4th Edition should boost the power of shields a little, since shields rock when used right.
Real-life, schmeal-life - this is a game. If I was interested in what weapons were actually effective I would be in a historical reenactment, not playing D&D. Nobody wants haughty accounts of others' own personal training with archaic weaponry - they want make-believe. Obviously the real reason behind the request to make spears and shields a valid option in D&D stems from the recent movie, 300. It's a reasonable request, and there's no reason to challenge the validity of the shield/spear combo based on real-life accounts, whether they're true or not. D&D is fantasy, not real life. If people want rules that allow them to emulate characters from movies, I say give it to them.

That's exactly what I wanted to say with my Sparta comment, except that I wasn't aware people need a detailed information before enlightenment sets in.

In D&D, PCs don't fight real life battles. No military history buff will be able to give realistic tactics for combat against displacer beasts. You'll also find no realistic rendition of Katana combat (which would be A and B attack each other, A is faster, splits helmet of B, splits skull of B, B is dead). D&D combat is not the Battle of Sekigahara, it's the Last Samurai and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. And Ben Hur and 300.

So, if a player wants his character to be an unstoppable one-man-phalanx, D&D should deliver!
In my view all this arguing about spears is really because the shield is what mostly needs fixing. In prior versions of D&D the shield is about half as effective as what it ought to be. If I had to choose between wearing a knee length shirt of chain loops and carrying a spear in two hands, versus wearing that same shirt, carrying a shorter spear and short sword and a large panel of steel reinforced oak between me and the guy trying to kill me, I'm pretty sure I'd take the shield.

I'd like to see 'basic' weapons be more accessible for the various maneuvers, like a short spear or shortsword, with similar manuevers on a larger weapon being the province of special training. But, it seems to me that the key issue is the shield being undervalued. It seems it would take a lot of martial training with a longspear to be able to protect yourself in heavy combat as well with it as you could with a short spear and shield, particularly if your opponents are willing to stand back and just throw darts or sling at you. It would clearly take even more training to use a weapon like that in a battlefield environment without fouling up your compatriots actions as well.

So my hope is that they fix the shield, and then re-examine the weapons. E.g. the trident shouldn't inherently do more damage than a spear, but should offer some differing/disarming maneuvers a trained warrior could use with it instead.
I would have to agree that the shield is not nearly the defense that basic armour is in the game. I think this is poor as the light shield should be at least as good as most of the choices for light armour and the heavy shield should take people up to almost the equievelent of heavy armour.

Shields only giving +1 or +2 benefit when they 'come off the rack' is the problem.

This problem though was a hold over from the days of THAC0 when a perfect armoured person was platemail and shield which was AC 0. When they converted to 3.x, they used the THAC 0 baseline to set platemail at +8 with heavy shield at +2 to get the idea that +10 AC was the new baseline.

One of the designer blogs noted that he was amazed at how much stuff got carried from 2e to 3e inadvertenly without someone questioning how this might look. The playtesting must never have considered what the future levels of play were really going to look like which resulted in the 'sweet spot' being really good till around levels 12 to 15 at which point the previous AC model which was static became next to useless compared to the dynamic to hit bonuses and monsters dynamic to HD scaled to hit bonuses.
A Player was allowed to sacrifice their Attack bonus for AC, without a feat, so long as they has a shield equipped

Anyone can do this already; it's called Fight Defensively. -4 to hit, +2 AC, more AC if you have tumble ranks.

And I made all polearms do 2X damage against charging opponents.

They do, but only when you ready to attack a charging foe. This is in the rules already.

But I frankensteined all kinds of nutty rules into my campaign, cuz I'm OCD like that... I think 4th Edition should boost the power of shields a little, since shields rock when used right.

I do agree that shields may need a bit of a boost, but I'm not sure what else you could give them. Cover grants +4 AC, and a heavy shield covers about the same amount of the body as Cover would (heavy shield being a shield that covers the body from shoulder to groin), but the heavy shield can be moved so I think cover should be better than a shield. At the very least, I hope there will be a substantial amount of shield feats and maneuvers, to go along with the weapon maneuvers.

Poe's Law is alive and well.

I'm not terribly concerned about historical accuracy here, I'd just like to see a wider variety of fighting styles and to have those styles mean something, especially for Fighters.

Spear and Shield, TWF, and more should join Sword and Shield, Greatsword and Spiked Chain as viable and fully developed styles for Fighters.

And I do agree that shields should be a bit stronger in 4E. Maybe in terms of higher base AC bonus, probably for Reflex saves, and certainly for maneuvers.
Ancalihmotar is right; it's important that we keep D&D using the realistic fighting techniques it uses now. It is a historical fact that the dire flail and double bladed axe are unquestionably good weapons in the hands of a ranger, and anyone who knows anything about medieval history knows that the most common weapon in usage was the spiked chain. I think we've all seen the documentary on the history channel about Whirlwind Attack, and how scholars the world over agree that a monkey-gripped huge adamantine greatsword is the best weapon for that technique.
You do have a good point. D&D combat isn't even slightly realistic. For instance, take greater two weapon fighting, you attack 4 times with 1 weapon, and 3 with the other, and are able to do precision damage(sneak attack) with all 7. With improved trip, or cleave you can get up to 14. 14 attacks in 6 seconds period is practically impossible, especially if people are moving around, and 7 of them are trips. Try to attack 7 times in 6 seconds on a straw target, all of which hit vitals. Not happening. Now picture a moving target. Although I have used spear fighting extensively, and slashing is much easier with two hands(although there really isn't much point bludgeoning) but shields are really nice in case someone gets close. Its easier to do if they are using one hand though. The point is both of them are really good. So both spears and shields need to stop sucking as much.(in 3rd edition, a two handed spear dealt the same amount of damage as a light sword. Thats just messed up)
Ancalihmotar is right; it's important that we keep D&D using the realistic fighting techniques it uses now. It is a historical fact that the dire flail and double bladed axe are unquestionably good weapons in the hands of a ranger, and anyone who knows anything about medieval history knows that the most common weapon in usage was the spiked chain. I think we've all seen the documentary on the history channel about Whirlwind Attack, and how scholars the world over agree that a monkey-gripped huge adamantine greatsword is the best weapon for that technique.

I'm reporting your post for trolling. If you had read my posts, you would not be misrepresenting my arguments so disingenuously.

Here is what I've said so far in this thread, quoted for your pleasure, emphasis added:
Historical accuracy is not always that important in balancing D&D mechanics, but I just thought you should know that it is also not a reason in support of longspear+shield.

Like I said, the heroic and superhuman characters in D&D should not be limited by the same things humans are. It's a game, and we ought to be able to have fun with various strategies regular humans can't implement. So I agree with you, they should make spears viable. Even spears with shields, maybe. But it is dumb to support this argument with incorrect claims about how spears and shields work in real life.

Everyone calm down and remember to keep things from being personal. If you're attempting to be sarcastic, make it obvious to avoid upsetting others. Or just avoid being sarcastic altogether.
Here's something I am hoping for with Shields, a talent called Block or similar and allow a initiative check that beat the attack roll to nullify the hit, each additional use in the same round takes a -5 with only one attempt per attack that hits.

I too am interested in various styles, such as single blade, fencing, two-handed blade, sword and board, spear w/ and w/o a shield, pole arm, flail, bludgeons, and others.
Real-life, schmeal-life - this is a game. If I was interested in what weapons were actually effective I would be in a historical reenactment, not playing D&D. Nobody wants haughty accounts of others' own personal training with archaic weaponry - they want make-believe. Obviously the real reason behind the request to make spears and shields a valid option in D&D stems from the recent movie, 300. It's a reasonable request, and there's no reason to challenge the validity of the shield/spear combo based on real-life accounts, whether they're true or not. D&D is fantasy, not real life. If people want rules that allow them to emulate characters from movies, I say give it to them.

Well, other than the fact that I've been wanting the spear and shield thing for much longer than the movie 300 has been out I pretty much agree with your post.

The real reason is that I have oodles and oodles of minis with spear and shields and I want to use them
Sign In to post comments