Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Chengar Qordath's page

1,719 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,719 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Now I try to discourage pvp at my tables but don't straight ban it. This may be a situation where you don't have a choice in taking him down. Try and find a Non pvp option first, but it sounds like you have and it may not be possible.

Yeah, the unwritten rule of a no-pvp game is to not do things to other players that, logically speaking, should result in pvp. Really, calling games "No PvP" is a bit of a misnomer in my experience. Usually, it's not so much that the GM is fine with anything up to actual attack rolls against other PCs, what he really means is "No major inter-party conflict or drama."

In that light, trying to expose undercover members of the party and ruin their operations is every bit as much of a hostile act as actually swinging a sword at another PC.

leo1925 wrote:


I believe that these things in the class creation chapter of ACG to be lies that we are being told in order to maintain the illusion of legacy things or the illusion of "balance" of the core rulebook.
Even you need to resort to extremely corner case examples in order to justify it and even that doesn't explain the fact that the warpriest is the only non-INT based class that has 2 skill points outside the core rulebook.

Lies might be a bit extreme, but it does seem to suffer from the same problem as the early version of the race builder (before tons of negative feedback led to changes); everything is priced on the assumption that the core options represent a perfect paragon of balance.

Come to think of it, the race builder is probably a big part of why there's not much crunch to the class building section. Given that the race builder is usually considered to be a horribly balanced mess. Given the fairly dodgy editing and balance in the rest of the ACG, if they'd tried to put out a crunch-filled race builder there'd probably be some way of making a Full BAB 9-level casting character with all good saves.

Not to mention it would put a lot of Paizo's ideas on value of class features out in the open, which could just be all kinds of controversial. Just imagine the forum explosion if the Class Builder said that full BAB was worth twice as much as getting 9th level spells.

Personally, I think that at the very least Brilliant Energy needs some way to be turned off, similar to the elemental enchantments. That way it would at least not render your weapon completely useless against several common categories of enemies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

All of the inconsistencies having to do with size categories bug the hell outta me. Why don't big creatures have 10-ft+ steps? Why do smaller creatures have 5-ft steps at all?*

Eh. To me the problem has less to do with size as it does speed. After all, a 5-foot step is essentially described as a quick shift without dropping your defenses, so I mean, how effectively you cover that distance seems to be as important as anything else.

So it always bugged me that a creature with a base movespeed of 15 and a creature with a movespeed of... let's say 5000 have an identical 'quick step'.

Much moreso at least than a pixie and a giant with the same movespeed being able to shift similarly at least.

I suspect the main reason five foot steps never go beyond five feet is that it would screw martials even more than the current rules do. Martials really don't need to face monsters that can ten foot step away and deny them a full attack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SAMAS wrote:

Conversely, there are also concepts that Pathfinder theoretically can do, but players generally won't do:

Uneven teams/parties -- Particularly stuff like the Avengers or Justice League. Thor is pretty much an Emperyal Lord, compared to Hawkeye and Natasha who might have a Mythic Rank or two at best.

Mid- to High-level starts -- This sometimes does happen, but traditionally we tend to start our characters off at level 1. Thing is, many stories we read or watch will have their heroes already into their careers (take any Police show, for example). Also, combining with the above, parties of mixed level, you will rarely see parties where one character is a Level 1 rookie, while another is a veteran level 3-5. On the other hand, look at Star Wars. Luke might have been first level, but Han Solo had quite a few years as a smuggler, and both Chewbacca and Obi-Wan had been through the Clone Wars.

Really, no RPG (or cooperative game in general) handles massive power disparities between characters very well, because that's the nature of cooperative gaming. In a cooperative game, everyone wants to feel like they're making a roughly equal and valuable contribution. The balance sheet doesn't have to turn out completely perfect, but it should be at a place where everyone's important and useful.

In fiction, it's okay to have a character be the useless damsel in distress who must constantly be rescued by others, or the idiot who always makes the wrong decision that screws over the group. In a cooperative game, nobody wants to play that character.

Granted, the power disparity issue is magnified in Pathfinder/D&D because of how extreme the power curve is as characters level up, compared to a lot of other RPGs.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

You can't say that! Not here! Now the pile on and screams of "STORMWIND!!!" will come!


Well yeah, and there's a reason for it. Not sure why you're being so condescending about it.

Because people who don't have fun the DrDeth approved way are evil badwrongfun-having scum. Duh.

DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:
Since lord of the rings always seems to be brought up, I remember in another thread where someone was saying shelob was an epic level encounter and a cave troll was a CR 17 encounter. I was pretty curious as to how someone finds these creatures that high of a CR, but that thread was pretty dead when I discovered those posts.
I think that was quickly debunked seeing as The Leng Spider is not even an Epic creature and that thing can teleport all over the place... and Last i checked Shelob has no real supernatural powers....

It wasn't debunked at all. Shelob is a Mythic creature, almost a demi-diety. She is intelligent, and has Epic DR.

From LotR wiki:Ungoliant (Sindarin IPA: [uŋˈɡoljant]) was a primordial being in the shape of a gigantic spider. ...There, in a ravine south of the mountain Hyamentir, she established her dark abode and took the form of a monstrous spider, and here sucked up all the light she could find."

It took Morgoth (Sauron's boss and a ARMY of Balrogs to defeat her).

Sure, but that's Ungoliant. Her children, like Shelob, are FAR weaker than she is.

Ascalaphus wrote:

If you look up Pummeling Strike in the table on page 140, you'll see the following:

Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow.

As such, I think it is clear that the RAI is that you only use it with unarmed strikes.

The main entry for the feat is vague, but the summary table isn't. So when you wonder "what does the main entry of the feat mean exactly?", I think you should use that table entry to answer that.

You can't always rely on those tables; sometimes they're less precise than the actual feat, or leave out some restriction. However, in this case it's more precise and quite specific.

If you think we should just ignore that table, can you prove that it is wrong? Or are you just selecting which things you consider rules and which ones you think aren't - and if so, what are you basing that on? Is there a rule somewhere that tells you how to distinguish crunch and fluff? Because without such a rule, distinguishing crunch and fluff is NOT the exact process people often make it out to be, but just a matter of opinion and what happens to be a convenient interpretation at the time.

About all that can really be said against the table entry being RAI is that it's possible the feat was changed at some point in development. Which strikes me as a pretty thin case.

Is is possible that at some in development the devs decided to rewrite Pummeling Style to allow weapons in a very vague way, and didn't update the table? I suppose. But RAI being for it to only be for unarmed strikes seems a lot more likely.

Solkanis wrote:
Ok here is another way of putting it. The requirements for both pummeling style/charge and elemental fist are improved Unarmed strike......then yes it is only usable with unarmed strikes. However....that being said. House rules always supersede book rules. So if a gm allows weapons to be used......well that's their prerogative I guess. Lol

So you're claiming that every feat with Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite can only be used with unarmed attacks ? Perfect Strike rather firmly disproves that premise.

Undone wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Undone wrote:
The fighter was obsolete by the class entry Barbarian.
No, not really.
Undone wrote:
Sacred fist is a better version of the WP though. You can even flurry with a weapon and with 1 level of fighter you can flurry while wielding a tower shield and full plate.

I think it's an oversight that you even can do that. And still, flurry while wielding tower shield and full plate, how good is that anyway?

It doesn't sound like it's plain better than the Warpriest, it just sounds like it's less restricted than the monk.

If you could flurry while in full plate and shield you'd have the first class in the game where you could do good damage while wielding a shield. You lose 0 damage by using one since you can FoB with any appendage.

Alchemists could already do that by putting a shield in one of their vestigial arms.

Claxon wrote:
If I were the GM you mechanically end up with a longspear. It's the only simple reach weapon I can think of. I don't know what you would find on a farm to fit it, but that is what you'd get.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we can just chalk this up to "In order to keep things simple and smooth, the game doesn't simulate every single fiddly little detail of realistic combat." After all, most long weapons have at least some fighting techniques intended for close quarters. BNW already brought up half-swording with a greatsword.

AndIMustMask wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Zwordsman wrote:
They could0d I guess just faq the feat to mean any weapon held in one hand, but that might be going too far the other way.
The correct way is to FAQ/errata the feat, I have no idea how anyone could think differently. The "we will publish the fix in that other book", is a bad idea, seems to me that is very bad for the business.
actually it is by definition good for (their) business, since they're forcing you to buy another product.

Well, unless the new policy of "pay us for errata" ends up damaging the brand enough to offset additional profits.

Not to mention (as has come up many times before) if you take punch as a strict requirement, it raises plenty of question like whether Pummeling Style can be used with punching daggers, gauntlets, and cesti, and if you're not allowed to used unarmed strikes other than punches, like kicks or headbutts. In short, if it meant unarmed strike, they should've said unarmed strike.

As for improved unarmed strike being a pre-req, that changes nothing. There are plenty of other feats that use it as a pre-req, but can be used just fine with weapons. Heck, some feats like Perfect Strike have improved unarmed strike as a requirement despite not being usable at all with unarmed attacks.

Zwordsman wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
It's a relatively small damage boost too, probably not worth the actions you're losing to do it. You could get the same (possibly more) damage from Arcane Strike with better action economy, assuming you grab one of the arcane SLA's that has a CL which advances with character level.

Pretty much, the only time I think i'd use it would be when we're ambushing someone, I've got a wand of gravity bow and enlarge person (or i guess potions), and i'm wielding a double xbow or aminitour double xbow with vital strike. Being up some big tree or hill with that set up, having the larger arrows combined with gravity bow and vital strike can get a lot of dice.

Outside of that.. not worth the action

Even if you've got time to pre-buff, I'm not sure it's really worth it. Enlarging comes with a -2 to hit for ranged attacks.

Ssalarn wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The crossbow would still grow with you, you'd just need to lug around large bolts.

Right, a few quotes down he talks about seeing that line when he was considering lugging around large bolts and it seemed like he was interpreting that to mean he didn't have to.

That being said though, wouldn't the large bolts and/or xbow need to be stowed on like a mount or cart? Since all your equipment enlarges with you, wouldn't you end up with unuseable huge bolts and/or xbow(s)?

Yeah, as I recall the usual suggestion is to drop the large bolts, enlarge, and then pick them back up again.

Ssalarn wrote:
Zwordsman wrote:

More or less this thread is finished but i was making a character and noticed someting

In enlarge and reduce person this is listed
"This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them)."

so. the idea of enlarging yourself to get even bigger damage dice does in fact work.

You need to use the whole quote:

"Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage." Normal in context meaning "the normal size and damage from before you cast the spell".
Enlarge person does not do anything to increase the damage of ranged weapons. They return to normal size as soon as they leave contact with you, so if you're doing gravity bow, enlarge person, Vital Strike with a double crossbow, you're actually hurting yourself, because the enlarge person is just lowering your Dex and AC with no benefit. Unless you're planning on a lugging around a large double crossbow that you can only use when enlarged.

The crossbow would still grow with you, you'd just need to lug around large bolts.

Yeah, neither of the really improves the crossbow. Rapid Reload Crossbow is just outright bad. The Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery feats can already get the reload time down to a free action, so bumping it down to swift is singularly unimpressive, especially when it's a weapon enchantment that wouldn't be affordable until after a dedicated crossbow build should have those feats. And taking away haste as well is just punitive, though it wouldn't really matter since swift-action reload limits the crossbow to two shots a round anyway. The only possible niche it has is for crossbow-users who don't want to bother picking up rapid reload—AKA characters who don't care about using crossbows. Most of those characters wouldn't want to buy a magic crossbow either.

Bolt Reservoir is similarly underwhelming. Zwordsman already pointed out the nasty effects on action economy, and otherwise it doesn't really have anything going for it when compared against an efficient quiver. It's not bad, it just doesn't really add anything new.

Gark the Goblin wrote:
What about Charging Hurler?

That would be another example of an ability that creates an exception to the normal charge rules, so it would work.

Gark the Goblin wrote:
Hmm . . . I wonder if you can make ranged attacks while your mount charges. The horselord Sand Storm ability would be fairly nice then if you pick up Spirited Charge (maybe need Ride-By Attack to make it work). Though there's very few ranged one-handed thrown weapons that deal slashing damage.

Nope, if you and your mount charge, you're limited to a single melee attack, unless you've got some ability that says otherwise (like pounce). Nothing in the horse lord's abilities alters that.

K177Y C47 wrote:
Oh I usually don't assume pre-buffs that are not from the class (i.e. consumables or party bards). My bad xD

Yeah, if we're discussing how Pummeling Style does a lot of damage when it's used by a level 20 character who's had several rounds of self-buffing and buffs from other party members, then I can't really think of much to say on the matter. Of course a level 20 heavily buffed combat-focused character who's invested a lot of feats into boosting damage is going to hit hard. What did you expect?

Ascalaphus wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
And page 140 is especially clear: "Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow".
Well, I think the RAI is pretty much clear by now.

I'll admit, I'd be pretty surprised if the FAQ came down as anything other than unarmed strike. There are several mentions of unarmed strikes in secondary text, and Pummeling Style itself makes no mention of allowing weapons.

That said, some FAQs have been very surprising.

Artanthos wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
I have strength based characters that start with chakram. Not only are they cheaper than bows, I don't have to pay extra to add strength to damage. Perfect for levels 1-5.

The problem is, your premise starts with "Because I can't use a longbow..." It's not so much disputing that longbow is mechanically superior in every way as it is pointing out that there are other options that are cheaper, but still inferior. You're not picking up some chakram because they're better in any way, it's just because you can't afford a longbow yet.

That said, throwing weapons aren't so bad at low levels, They don't really start running into problems until level 6 or so, when magic weapons become a requirement for combat classes, your number of attacks goes up, and the price tag on a composite longbow is utterly trivial.

The longbow is mechanically superior .... but my chakram are not useless, which was the OP's question. Thrown weapons allow me to take advantage of strength bonuses at a time in my characters life when strength bows are not an option.

I'll grant that. Throwing weapons are not useless, they just have a window of usefulness that is far too narrow for my tastes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
I have strength based characters that start with chakram. Not only are they cheaper than bows, I don't have to pay extra to add strength to damage. Perfect for levels 1-5.

The problem is, your premise starts with "Because I can't use a longbow..." It's not so much disputing that longbow is mechanically superior in every way as it is pointing out that there are other options that are cheaper, but still inferior. You're not picking up some chakram because they're better in any way, it's just because you can't afford a longbow yet.

That said, throwing weapons aren't so bad at low levels, They don't really start running into problems until level 6 or so, when magic weapons become a requirement for combat classes, your number of attacks goes up, and the price tag on a composite longbow is utterly trivial.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
voideternal wrote:
I always wanted to make a thrown-weapon build, but I never figured out how to enchant all my weapons. Like, the returning enchantment is too slow, and enchanting multiple weapons is too expensive.

That's always been the real killer with throwing weapons. Carrying a couple dozen 1 gp javelins isn't an issue. Carrying a couple dozen 2000+ gp enchanted javelins...

Since returning doesn't give the weapon back until the next round, to actually pull off a full attack you need as many weapons as you have attacks. With +1 Returning weapons running 8000+ gp each, WBL won't actually make that viable until you're pretty high level. Level 14, if you're going by the "Your weapons should be around 25% of your WBL" guideline.

Personally, I would like to be able to consistently make a full attacks with a simple +1 weapon before I hit level 14.

Alternatively, you could use that gold you save to invest in other options, like oils, potions, belts, and the odd wondrous item. It's not really a loss—you just can't max out your DPR. A well-rounded character often does better than a DPR machine, anyways.

I mean, a +1 to attacks and damage is nice, and overcoming Magic DR is sometimes useful, but I never said the fighting style was as good as a longbow. I'm just not sure the GP limit alone is so crippling.

It is also not as good as a crossbow, sword and board or basically anything else. Potions also cost you in game actions to apply, and they can get expensive. They also take time to apply to every weapon. It is not just about not maxing out DPR, but if you intend to deal damage throwing weapons are a poor choice even if you don't go for the best build possible.

Indeed. There's a huge difference between "my DPR is .1% lower than it could be if I tanked my defenses" and "I'm incapable of inflicting significant damage on my enemies."

Relying on non-magical weapons quickly runs into a whole host of issues, most notably.

1) Hitting. That enhancement bonus to hit is rather nice, especially if you're using a throwing build that's taking a -2 for TWF and another -2 for Rapid Shot. And possibly Deadly Aim or cover penalties as well.

2) DR. Sure, you can carry a huge golf bag of types different weapons to somewhat offset that, assuming you have the carrying capacity. and can afford it (adamantine weapons don't come cheap).

3) Some enemies (most notably incorporeals) are just flat-out immune to non-magical weapons. Especially since oils and spells like Magic Weapon are only applied to one weapon per use.

4) Missing out on all those other nice weapon enhancements. Distance is very nice to have with the shorter ranges of thrown weapons, and anyone using a ranged weapon likes Seeking.

Lucy_Valentine wrote:
I think the basic problem with this thread is that the OPs premise doesn't hold. Even if there isn't good build using throwing weapons as primary damage dealing technique, that doesn't make them useless. They're nice backups for many.

I think it boils down to a question of what someone means by "useless." Obviously they're not completely useless, since thrown weapons are still capable of inflicting some damage. However, like almost every other ranged weapon in the game they suffer from being significantly outperformed by the composite longbow. It would be like if the katana was a 2d10 17-20 x4 weapon. Sure, everything else wouldn't be [u]useless[/u], but other than flavor there wouldn't be much reason to take any other weapon.

voideternal wrote:
I always wanted to make a thrown-weapon build, but I never figured out how to enchant all my weapons. Like, the returning enchantment is too slow, and enchanting multiple weapons is too expensive.

That's always been the real killer with throwing weapons. Carrying a couple dozen 1 gp javelins isn't an issue. Carrying a couple dozen 2000+ gp enchanted javelins...

Since returning doesn't give the weapon back until the next round, to actually pull off a full attack you need as many weapons as you have attacks. With +1 Returning weapons running 8000+ gp each, WBL won't actually make that viable until you're pretty high level. Level 14, if you're going by the "Your weapons should be around 25% of your WBL" guideline.

Personally, I would like to be able to consistently make a full attacks with a simple +1 weapon before I hit level 14.

Vital Strike can be really good if you have some way of massively increasing your damage dice. I used it quite a bit in a game where we were using the Dreamscarred Press Psionic rules, since I was running a half-giant (so swinging a large weapon) who could increase his size by two categories, and then swing an Impact weapon on top of that. The end result being an 8d6 greatsword. Full attacks were still doing better damage, but it was way too much fun to roll 32 dice when I was doing a level 16+ vital strike.

mmsbhs wrote:

Hmmm, Coriat's post is convincing, at least for me. I guess now it goes back to does one evil act turn you evil, especially if motives are "good" ("good" being intent, not actual moral goodness), or can your inquisitor do it once and still be good aligned? I would argue yes, but only because the CRB makes it very clear that the alignment is not a railroad, and there would be some kind of consequence. If it happens repeatedly, then I'd definitely shift their alignment.

I always like the idea of corruption as a powerful story tool. Gives a hint of sadness to the whole thing. A game where a PC is trying to do a good thing but ends up destroying his own soul...

Have to agree on that. I could see a lot of story fun to be had with a character who uses torture once in some kind of extreme situation, and has it end up working (or at least appearing to work). And that leads to the temptation to keep using it, because you know this minion can tell you where the children are before the mass-sacrifice happens, but he just won't give up the info. Then have the reasons slowly get thinner and thinner, until they start sounding like excuses.

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Losing that first level feat is pretty big, though. You don't get power attack until 3rd, that's a significant reduction in the android barbarian's damage capability for those first two levels.

On the other hand, depending on the bad guys you face, power attack can be overkill for a barbarian at level 1. If you're facing goblins with 6 hp, you really don't need to take your damage from 2d6+9 to 2d6+12.

wraithstrike wrote:
Exotic weapons are not supposed to be superior to martial or simple weapons, just rare enough to need special training.

Even the "needs special training" definition of exotic weapons doesn't really work all the time. I have a hard time imagining that there's much of a combat training difference between a Quarterstaff and a Bo Staff, a greatclub and a tetsubo, or a normal crossbow and a repeating one.

Really, what makes a weapon exotic seems to be incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent, other than the fact that having a non-English name markedly increases the chances of being an exotic weapon.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The bard can cast while performing.

Also, you just listed two "pony tricks". The bard is also amazing at skills (tragically, better than even the rogue), makes an excellent archer, a skilled buffer (especially once you hit seventh level), and has a handy mix of utility spells. To say nothing of the varied applications of his performances.

I think his objection was more that the bard spell list is lacking in offensive punch, compared to pre-3rd edition.

Vincent Takeda wrote:
I know some gms who dont like seeing CN on your character sheet because their previous experience would make the alignment seem like the player had 'moral/ethical tourettes'

I would bet that the majority of GM hangups on particular alignments, concepts, or playing a character that's a different gender from the player ultimately stem from having had a session with "That Guy" at some point.

I know I'd probably be a lot warrier of letting guys play female characters if my first GM experience with it had been a neckbeard who wanted to use a class out of The Book of Erotic Fantasy and kept talking about how big his character's breasts were and how much sex she had. Lucky for me, my first couple experiences in that field were guys who just played female characters as actual human beings (or Elves, Dwarves, etc).

Sadurian wrote:

My view is that a character regularly wielding two shields would be laughed at. He certainly would at our table. By me, for a start. He would need to come up with a really good backstory to avoid ridicule, and any pointing out cheesy rule exploits would make things worse.

Rather than painstaking search obscure martial arts and 'well I did it when LARPing so it must be true', I would encourage you to look to historical warriors. Being a professional soldier makes your choice of weapon rather more important than someone who is trying something out to see it is possible.

The fact that there are no records of the warriors of any nation in history regularly and deliberately equipping themselves with two shields speaks volumes.

If the standard the needs to be met for a fighting style to be "goodrightfun" is that it was frequently used in mass combat by professional soldiers, then at least half of the weapons in the game need to be taken out, and nearly all of the exotic weapons.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Shield Master wrote:

Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.

I'm sorry, nowhere in there does it say to treat it as a weapon enhancement. It literally just says to add to attack and damage as if it were a weapon enhancement.

Seems like a case of excessive hair-splitting to justify a stealth-nerf.

Honestly, part of the problem is that pretty much every weapon is going to be wielded with a mixture of both dexterity and strength. Even a traditionally brute force weapon like a greataxe needs a decent amount of agility and precision if you want to hit the target somewhere that'll matter. Unfortunately, Pathfinder's combat model is a bit too abstract to really show the difference between weak but precise weapons vs. less precise but heavy-hitting ones. That's why I usually prefer systems where armor is a type of damage reduction rather than adding to your change to not be hit.

Howie23 wrote:

I would like to thank Stereofm for illustrating the difference seen in this matter between Francophones and Anglophones.

For more fun and entertaining examples of historiography, look into the difference seen between English speaking accounts of the Battle of Waterloo in contrast to Continental Europe's perspective. Let's just say the views of the contributions of the British-Dutch and the Prussians are a tad bit different.

Have to admit, the English-speaking accounts of the Hundred Years War always remind me of how people from the American South talk about the American Civil War. It's just that in case of a civil war, there's another English-speaking side to offer their version of events.

Claxon wrote:
I was mostly poking fun. I think the true answer is that neither is really obviously superior or inferior, but rather have strengths and weaknesses. And overall, the abilities of either crossbowmen or longbowmen were less important than leadership, tactics, strategy, and a multitude of other factors.

Fair enough then. I agree that crossbow vs. longbow is a case of each weapon having pros and cons. Part of the problem is that many of of the crossbow's advantages really don't translate well to D&D (and thus Pathfinder).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Stereofm wrote:

I can get behind SOME of this. Now, pray tell, how did the DEADLY, SKILLED, TALENTED, English/Scottish/Gaelic bowmen did get their asses kicked consistently by the "inferior" dastardly French Crossbowmen until the advent of mass-scales guns ?

Bows are just century-old propaganda to me

Disclaimer : I may be biased, I am actually French

I think the battles of Crecy and Agincourt tell a slightly different story

The English victories at both those battles had less to do with the Longbow being some sort of medieval superweapon than the fact that the English fought intelligently, and the French didn't. The crossbowmen at Crecy might have been at just a bit of a disadvantage of account of:

1) Lacking vital equipment left in the baggage train.
2) Fighting at the end of a long day of marching, while the English were rested.
3) Attacking while the sun was in their eyes.
4) Attack enemies on high ground.
5) Being attacked by their own knights because said knights wanted to get into melee, and the crossbowmen were in between them and the enemy.

All Crecy really proves is that longbows are better than crossbows when the crossbowmen are being commanded by morons, and the longbowmen have competent leadership. Which isn't really much of a surprise.

Also, bear in mind who eventually won that war.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

If you want "balance" meaning all weapons are the same, then go back to the OD&D Red Box - where all weapons did 1d6. Daggers did 1d6; longswords did 1d6; greatswords did 1d6; bows did 1d6, but at least at range...

Otherwise, use the rules as-is

I think there are a lot more options there that the dichotomy of all weapons being identical or doing things exactly the way Pathfinder's current incarnation handles them.

Really, the big problem Pathfinder weapons have is that way too many weapons and up being the exact same as some other weapon, except better/worse. I don't think there would be as many issues if every weapon had its own strengths and weaknesses, but that's not the case in Pathfinder. Instead, we end up with things like every other ranged weapon being used exactly like a longbow, except with worse damage potential and bigger feat taxes attached. It's not a case of options creating diversity, it's one option being so much better than the others that there's no reason to take anything else.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I made a relevant post about the topic of crossbows vs. bows vs. Earth "realism" today.
The drastic reversal from the man who brought us the concept that people wanting to be able to be cool with crossbows were demanding a water balloon fighting style is interesting.

Have to admit, my opinion of SKR has gone up a lot once we started hearing more of his actual thoughts on game design rather than him trying to explain/defend Pathfinder's mechanical choices. For whatever the conditional approval of one random internet person is worth.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Hey, I didn't want to bring this up (because, honestly, I know little-to-nothing about it), but did Conan use a magic weapon?

All I remember is, "This...this you can trust."

And I learned that from Jontron.

As I recall from the films, his sword sits in that ambiguous middle area where it could be magic, or it could just be superior craftsmanship.

Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

Chengar - Yeah, neutral is an option. But i feel like a persons reasons, goals and focus areas are more the things that define alignment, not just an action.

You can have the kindest man do gruesome or "evil" things if you set the right scene. A father that beats his daughters rapist to death with a tire iron, or a cop that frames a rich man that have bought his freedom five times after hit and runs.

A good person that hates the fact that he must kill someone, he does not want to, and he wishes it would just resolve. But he knows that it will not and time runs out. With a sad heart, a broken spirit, but a strong will he does it, and he does not regret, but he is sadden.

The idea of my inquisitor when (or if) he tortures someone than he hates the fact that he must do such an act to reach the goals that he should have reached without those means. He sees it as a personal failure and as a result he often drinks and is sad by the fact that he has done those acts.

But at the same time it was what was needed to be done, and it was the last and only resort he had. If he had not done it, someone else, someone weak and innocent would be harmed. His lack of will would condemn someone else into pain and misery.

I agree that a person's reasons and goals are important for defining their alignment. So are the means they use to achieve them. I would be hard-pressed to call Bob the Goblinslayer a good person if his goblin-slaying is powered by eating the souls of orphan children.

I think there's a big difference between a good person who does something evil in a specific extreme circumstance, and one who does so on a regular basis. If a character is torturing often enough for it to be a major defining aspect of his character, I'd be hard-pressed to call them a good person.

rpdjoker wrote:

Link here

Sorry Chengar it was just bugging me your link wasn't formatted correctly.

Having noticed it, it bugs me too.

Though SKR might be useful for semi-official response on the matter. He's no longer a Paizo employee, but he was still one of the designers on the ACG so he'd probably be able to contribute something to the discussion, even if it wouldn't be an official FAQ/errata.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Essentially, the problem is that Pathfinder is really two different games rolled into one. Magic-wielding characters get to play in the high fantasy realm of superpowered spells that reshape reality. Characters without spells or other magic, by contrast, are bound by a whole lot of "that's not something a real-world human could do" restrictions.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DeusTerran wrote:

My two cents is; if other weapon options had different flavors of support (as in tactics, maneuvers, and special ammo)they would get seen in a better light.

Whats the difference between a Bow and a Crossbow; range, damage, and feat support. Whats the difference between armed melee and unarmed melee? Damage and attack options. Sword and Board/other Sword you got attack, disarm, sunder, ect. Unarmed you can do all that, and grab the guys face and shove it into your knee whilst screaming LUCHA at the top of your lungs.

Lets look at slings, sure they're not the greatest damage wise, but say there was the option of delivering sunder and disarm attempts with it. And/or being able to deliver thrown splash weapons (50ft range tangle-foot bag anyone?

If everything was equal, that would defeat the purpose of options. What the other options need is a different kind of support that lets them be competitive but in a different light

Have to agree on this. Part of the problem with ranged weapon is that every non-longbow weapon just plays like a weaker, crappier longbow.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Howie23 wrote:
Eigengrau wrote:
Why can't someone make an Efficient Quiver but in the form of a Repeating Crossbow's magazine? I see absolutely no reason why not.

Because the D&D family originated in miniature historical gaming and in an English speaking country (sort of, but I digress). Or, if you prefer, the world of, "The English Yeoman Longbowmen were gods, as demonstrated at Agincourt," along with a seasoning of, "Richard I was killed by a dastardly and cowardly crossbow. obviously this weapon should not be considered by anyone why has the time to develop real skill."

Disclaimer: this post is intended as humor. Please rebut in kind.

Have to agree with this. In the English-speaking world, longbows often occupy a similar space to the katana of the stereotypical anime fanboy. The difference being that "Katanas should be 2d10 and 17-20 x4" never actually made it into Pathfinder.

Torbyne wrote:
Is the feat investment worth it for moving up from 1D8 to 1D10?

Not by itself, no. And since Crossbow Mastery's other big benefit (No AoOs for reloading) is granted at level 1 of Bolt Ace...

Torbyne wrote:
Looking through the options i keep coming back to either Light Crossbows using Clustered Shots or Double Crossbows with Vital Strike. the reloading action economy just doesnt mesh with any others... am i missing something?

Crossbow mastery?

1 to 50 of 1,719 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.