What's up with that Falcata?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 309 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Darkheyr wrote:

What sort of desert eagle though? They exist in pretty different calibers. If it was the .50 AE version, did you use hollow point ammunition in both weapons or only on the SKS?

Not to mention that the SKS isn't an assault rifle. Larger caliber than most of those, too - most modern AR's use 5.56, or in the SIG550 case, 5.6.

My comparison was just that - SIG550 vs a Desert eagle using .50 Action Express. The SIG is significantly more precise and will punch through quite a bit of a wall and still wound someone (or body armor at that); the desert eagle will be less efficient at that, but will likely tear out a far bigger chunk.

Umm what?!? So much wrong....

The SKS being a 30 cal makes it not an assault rifle you say? Then the AK 47 must not be one too. Or the HK G series of rifles. Or the FN Fal.

IF your using hollow points, the bullets shouldn´t be able to punch through a wall PERIOD. A hollow point is designed to mushroom and fragment and basically be ruined when it hits something as soft as flesh. Unless you mean dry wall...in which case even a .22 LR will punch through the ¨wall¨. This is another reason the military uses FMJ rounds.

Vs body armor, you use FMJ. Even rifle hollow points will have issues getting past body armor. Which is also another reason to use FMJ.

I serious doubt you have done any tests with your sig with hollow points on any test medians if you think hollow points can make it through any sort of real cover.

Dark Archive

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Did someone really just bring up Desert Eagles :|

Well, they are the falcata of guns. :-p

==
AKA 8one6


Desert Eagles are joke weapons, true posting.


Cold Napalm wrote:


Umm what?!? So much wrong....

The SKS being a 30 cal makes it not an assault rifle you say? Then the AK 47 must not be one too. Or the HK G series of rifles. Or the FN Fal.

IF your using hollow points, the bullets shouldn´t be able to punch through a wall PERIOD. A hollow point is designed to mushroom and fragment and basically be ruined when it hits something as soft as flesh. Unless you mean dry wall...in which case even a .22 LR will punch through the ¨wall¨. This is another reason the military uses FMJ rounds.

Vs body armor, you use FMJ. Even rifle hollow points will have issues getting past body armor. Which is also another reason to use FMJ.

I serious doubt you have done any tests with your sig with hollow points on any test medians if you think hollow points can make it through any sort of real cover.

Good job on making up claims I never did, at no point in this thread.

1. The SKS is indeed not an assault rifle. Its a carabine. Among other things, the bullet is quite a chunk slower than those fired by modern assault rifles. Caliber has nothing to do with it.
2. MANY modern assault rifles use 5.56 ammo, among other things because it is far lighter than the older 7.62 cartridges. AK47 and FN Fal's are old rifles, just as the SKS is an old carabine. The HK G36 is actually using 5.56 too - what you are thinking of is likely the G3, its fifty years old predecessor.
3. I do not need you educating me on military rifles and ammunition, thank you.
4. No, I did NOT shoot through walls using hollow point. I did fire both weapons using hollow point and FMJ though. Using FMJ ammo, the rifle will run through far more of an obstacle, and the desert eagle will make far bigger holes. Using hollow point, the desert eagle STILL makes bigger holes.

And that last bit is the relevant bit: The desert eagle will do more damage. By quite a bit. Just like an old black powder weapon can do more damage than a .22 caliber sidearm.
That doesn't make the desert eagle (or the black powder weapon) a better weapon, however, because it falls short in numerous other cases. Its a typical BFG, and makes big holes. It doesn't punch through stuff very well though (even with FMJ ammo), is far less precise, and pretty damn unwieldy compared to an efficient assault rifle.

Now, if you'd model the desert eagle game stats on per-shot damage vs the assault rifle, and seeing that the only precision mechanic PF applies per weapon is range increment... Eh. We'd probably see a lot of desert eagle users, simply because the main advantages of assault rifles - precision and obstacle penetration - does not exist in the game. Similar issues with many weapons out there - my favourites are still spears and polearms, or crossbows.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:
The only problem there really is, is that the rest of the exotics aren't as good.

Sounds like a good reason to make them as good. If the weapon is only worth half a feat, and you spend a full feat for it then it's more of a trap than anything.

The biggest problem I have is the fact they nerfed the spiked chain until it is worse than a martial weapon (heavy flail) but then put out those dwarven weapons which are better than the spiked chain was to begin with.

Exactly. Paizo is terribly schizophrenic when it comes to exotic weapons. On the one hand, they create absolutely terrible weapons that you'd be a fool to even waste a Martial Weapon Proficiency feat on and on the other, you get actually good weapons that are worth the feat investiture of the EWP. They made the spiked chain a straight up trap weapon compared to the heavy flail and then they created the falcata that is actually worth spending a feat on. I just don't get the line of thinking that goes into it.

Honestly EWP should have been rewritten to be Superior Weapon Proficiency, and the feat could actually be worth something for each and every one of them if they'd just decided to put "funny-looking" weapons in the appropriate category for mechanical balance, rather than charging a feat tax just to be able to have a funny looking weapon that you'll rarely find in a treasure hold.


+1 to this. And I want to point out that if one complains about it, it's not because wants absolute, flat, boring balance.. I still prefer different options to no-true-options.

Nevertheless... in the APG, take a look on Falcata and take a look Boomerang.. which one, I ask, can be considered worthy of a feat?


Disciple of Sakura wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:
The only problem there really is, is that the rest of the exotics aren't as good.

Sounds like a good reason to make them as good. If the weapon is only worth half a feat, and you spend a full feat for it then it's more of a trap than anything.

The biggest problem I have is the fact they nerfed the spiked chain until it is worse than a martial weapon (heavy flail) but then put out those dwarven weapons which are better than the spiked chain was to begin with.

Exactly. Paizo is terribly schizophrenic when it comes to exotic weapons. On the one hand, they create absolutely terrible weapons that you'd be a fool to even waste a Martial Weapon Proficiency feat on and on the other, you get actually good weapons that are worth the feat investiture of the EWP. They made the spiked chain a straight up trap weapon compared to the heavy flail and then they created the falcata that is actually worth spending a feat on. I just don't get the line of thinking that goes into it.

Honestly EWP should have been rewritten to be Superior Weapon Proficiency, and the feat could actually be worth something for each and every one of them if they'd just decided to put "funny-looking" weapons in the appropriate category for mechanical balance, rather than charging a feat tax just to be able to have a funny looking weapon that you'll rarely find in a treasure hold.

There are actually two problems with the Falcata, and rather big ones at that that directly impact its viability for the worse. I don't think anyone else will figure out what those are any time this year though.

In all honesty the line of thinking seems to be 'Does it make that class work?' followed by 'Is that class a spellcaster?'

If Yes, then Yes improve it.

If Yes, then No nerf it.

If the answer to the first question is No then it will probably be changed, but the change won't make any meaningful difference.

Grand Lodge

Darkheyr wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:


Umm what?!? So much wrong....

The SKS being a 30 cal makes it not an assault rifle you say? Then the AK 47 must not be one too. Or the HK G series of rifles. Or the FN Fal.

IF your using hollow points, the bullets shouldn´t be able to punch through a wall PERIOD. A hollow point is designed to mushroom and fragment and basically be ruined when it hits something as soft as flesh. Unless you mean dry wall...in which case even a .22 LR will punch through the ¨wall¨. This is another reason the military uses FMJ rounds.

Vs body armor, you use FMJ. Even rifle hollow points will have issues getting past body armor. Which is also another reason to use FMJ.

I serious doubt you have done any tests with your sig with hollow points on any test medians if you think hollow points can make it through any sort of real cover.

Good job on making up claims I never did, at no point in this thread.

1. The SKS is indeed not an assault rifle. Its a carabine. Among other things, the bullet is quite a chunk slower than those fired by modern assault rifles. Caliber has nothing to do with it.
2. MANY modern assault rifles use 5.56 ammo, among other things because it is far lighter than the older 7.62 cartridges. AK47 and FN Fal's are old rifles, just as the SKS is an old carabine. The HK G36 is actually using 5.56 too - what you are thinking of is likely the G3, its fifty years old predecessor.
3. I do not need you educating me on military rifles and ammunition, thank you.
4. No, I did NOT shoot through walls using hollow point. I did fire both weapons using hollow point and FMJ though. Using FMJ ammo, the rifle will run through far more of an obstacle, and the desert eagle will make far bigger holes. Using hollow point, the desert eagle STILL makes bigger holes.
[\QUOTE]

1) Yes the russian rounds are slower then the .223...and the SKS is a carbine. But a bullet out of an SKS is pretty much the same effectiveness as one out of an AK47. Both the .223 and the 7.62x39 have pretty similiar muzzle energy. The .223 keeps that energy better at 100 yards...but the 7.62x39 is less affected by wind. In anycase, nott he point as we aren't talking about if the .223 or the 7.62x39 is the better round.

2) Yes the .223 is lighter. And is a VERY good reason to use it for a weapon of WAR. It's almost as if being able to carry more ammo is important in a war or something...but once again, not relivant to what you said as we are not comparing the merits of those two rounds. Oh and the HK417 (one of my favorite assault rifles) is chambered for .308 win.

3) Fine...but what you said in point 4 is NOT what you said before. At least what you impied in your comment anyways since you never specified that you were talking about FMJ going through walls...which would have been irrelivant anyways.

4) See above about your experience with FMJ. Yeah when the bullet doesn't deform and fragment, the caliber is size determines the size of the whole...so bigger caliber = bigger hole. But that isn't what was being discussed now was it. Once you have bullets that are hollow points, you see a LOT less difference in wound channel damage due to just caliber size and more with how far the bullet goes in along with how it fragments. The .50 AE mushroomed to about 22mm. The 7.62x39 mushroomed to 16mm. Thats not a big deal in difference of entery wound size. The 7.62x39 however went about twice as deep at 100 yards and 3 times as much at 25 yards. Deeper wound channel = more damage. But even then, we are talking about a .50 cal ball round vs a 9mm modern bullet. 50 caliber is about 12-13mm...and will not mushroom so it will stay that size. The 9mm however, using the hollow point WILL mushroom...to around double size. That's 18mm...so the 9mm will even have a bigger entry wound. If we use conservative expansion, the 9mm will still expand over the 12-13 of the ball round.

301 to 309 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What's up with that Falcata? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion