What happened to people using longswords?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Okay, I love spears too, so let me edit that:

"Why is there no mechanical love for spears?" ;)

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:

I prefer a bastard sword personally. But then, I love versatility ~and~ bag space.

A better question, I think, would be, "Why is there no love for spears?"

Because she's a lousy singer?


Neo2151 wrote:

Okay, I love spears too, so let me edit that:

"Why is there no mechanical love for spears?" ;)

1d8, x3 crit and the brace feature? Nothing wrong here! Plus you can throw it.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Well, technically there is a reason that the average swordsman in the 18th century didn't carry a "longsword" and instead carried what we'd call a "rapier" or other long, thin, light but strong steel piercing weapon. Besides being more nimble, you could fight with one longer.

The main reason basic double-edged swords of moderate length were so popular when they were is because they are a lot easier to make in large numbers than more complex shapes. In general it was easier for an army to outfit their men with simple blades and teach them how to use them effectively than it was to make more complex blades.

It was a rare, rare person who could afford to have a custom blade made by a master swordsmith.

What people carried in the 18th century was a small sword / court sword. It's what most people think of when they think "rapier". Light and manueverable, almost exclusively a thrusting weapon. A bit of a toy really compared to it's cousin the rapier. An actual rapier was an unwieldy beast.

Blade lengths for Elizabethan era rapiers were often 42 inches plus. The blade was typically an inch across for most of that length. You could thrust or cut with them. The blade lengths increased over time (to truly ludicrous lenghts from 48 inches and up) in a kind of arms race. A major reason you needed a dagger ( or main gauche) was to provide some defence. It was fairly useless weapon against heavy armor but it was primarily a civilian weapon and civilians aren't armored targets. As a dueling weapon it was popular and fashionable. The fact that it was a foreign import to England had a lot to do with that.

As for how rapier and dagger would compare to to sword and board, a master swordsman named George Silver was fairly convincing in espousing the superiority of traditional English broadsword and buckler technique over the imports. You could argue it endlessly of course (and the relative superiority probably had a lot to do with individual skill and experience). Still as battlefield weapons went, traditional military weapons were the norm until time, tactics and gunpowder drove heavy armor into near extinction. By then, the rapier itself was largely being replaced by the small sword, the hanger (a short sword carried by infantry), the cavalry sabre and other weapons.

I actually spent a semester in graduate school exploring the weapons of the period and the social aspects of them. Fun stuff.

The Exchange

R_Chance wrote:
As for how rapier and dagger would compare to to sword and board, a master swordsman named George Silver was fairly convincing in espousing the superiority of traditional English broadsword and buckler technique over the imports. You could argue it endlessly of course (and the relative superiority probably had a lot to do with individual skill and experience). Still as...

[tangent]George Silver was parodied in Romeo and Juliet as Mercurio.[/tangent]

I've never played a character who uses a longsword purely because none of the builds really need it. I have one who uses an Axe and shield, one that uses a Falchion, one that uses a Glaive, one that uses a Mace, and 2 that don't really use anything. I like 'em and stuff, but I really never use them.


Tirq wrote:


[tangent]George Silver was parodied in Romeo and Juliet as Mercurio.[/tangent]

I've never played a character who uses a longsword purely because none of the builds really need it. I have one who uses an Axe and shield, one that uses a Falchion, one that uses a Glaive, one that uses a Mace, and 2 that don't really use anything. I like 'em and stuff, but I really never use them.

Well, Shakespeare was nothing if not fashionable...


Atarlost wrote:
The problem is that AC as avoidance is absolutely terrible at representing how armor actually works. In first edition AD&D they got around this by having an adjustment table. Some weapons had bonuses against heavy armor and penalties against light armor. Others had penalties against heavy armor and bonuses against light armor. I haven't seen the 2nd edition rules, but I understand this was removed because it was widely ignored as difficult to use.

Just wanted to mention a few things:

1) 2e had rules for different weapon types versus armor types, but it wasn't divided into light or heavy. It was divided into leather, chain, and plate I believe. However, the table cold be very complicated, and DMs didn't want to keep checking it for every attack.

2) I think spears are awesome, and very useful in pathfinder with the right builds. A charging hurler barbarian with spears isn't a bad set up.

3) I think Joyd had the best idea about this. Most people gravitate toward the strongest weapon available with the least investment. This is the reason most of my bards or elves (w/o MWP) had longswords. However, most melee classes have access to better weapons that suit their needs such as high crit rate or THWs.

4) Also, mechanically, the longsword has very little versatility so people with specific builds in mind will often be drawn away from it to weapons which better fit their needs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Given how limited 3.x / PF is as a combat simulation (not that earlier editions were much better, or really any good at it), I think the designers should have moved away from the overly long weapon lists and generalized more. Had a limited list of weapon stats and allowed people to apply a number of different names to them rather than trying to represent every individual weapon in existence with different charcteristics. As an example, a short sword, sword, hand and a half sword, and two handed sword. Every sword would use the stats for one of those four categories. Given the grouping of weapon proficiencies into categories like "Simple" and "Martial" there isn't the need for specific weapon proficiencies and individual stats for fighters anymore.

All that trying to differentiate each weapon does is create the opportunity for min-maxing weapons and creating numerous "builds" around specific "superior", in game at least, weapons.

Silver Crusade

Abraham spalding wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Right, but crits are not common. So most of the time you would be comparing d6 damage vs d8 damage. And when a scimitar does crit, it's getting 2d6 as opposed to 2d8. And the only advantage for the scimitar is that it is 1 more likely (18-20) to crit than a longsword (19-20), though, on keen this is 2 more likely (15-20) v (17-20) so the difference becomes more dramatic.

So what I am seeing is a mostly negligible difference between the scimitar and the longsword, where a longsword focuses on reliable damage and the scimitar banks on good rolls to make up for a smaller die.

Crits statistically become rather common at higher levels with a scimitar however, resulting in a critical hit about 30% of the time. Considering this can start as early as you can get a +1 keen weapon it can end up covering most of a game. A long sword by comparison is only going to crit about 20% of the time. Other weapons are going to be about 5~10% of the time.

Since when does level effect crits, besides what feats you can take?

Not sure where you get that crits are statistically more common at higher levels. I think the best crit range you can get is 15-20 and you can get that at low level with a keen rapier.

Silver Crusade

You know that you can restrict what weapons are allowed at your game when you are the DM.


Yes but expect if you ban anything in the Core book you might want to have a good reason.

Crits are more common at higher levels due to the fact of having a better chance to trigger off of lower numbers and having a better chance to confirm since bonuses get higher.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:

Yes but expect if you ban anything in the Core book you might want to have a good reason.

Crits are more common at higher levels due to the fact of having a better chance to trigger off of lower numbers and having a better chance to confirm since bonuses get higher.

Most of the unusual weapons like the Falcata come from the Advanced Players Guide which isn't core.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:


Crits are more common at higher levels due to the fact of having a better chance to trigger off of lower numbers and having a better chance to confirm since bonuses get higher.

Emmmmm no.... What effects crit ranges are feats, type of weapon, and magical properties.

These are high level based. You could max out your crit range before you hit 10th level.

Rolling a 17 on the dice is exactly the same no matter what level you are. The only thing that a higher BAB may effect is if a Nat 17 on the dice still won't allow you to hit a creatures AC. If that is happening then there is something wrong with the challenge rating of the creature or the PC isn't built right.


shallowsoul wrote:


You know that you can restrict what weapons are allowed at your game when you are the DM.

I do. I limit the weapons initially to what is available where the PC is from / at. The cultures / nations in my game are pretty well detailed. If you're from nation "x" you aren't going to be coming in to the game with a weapon too foreign to that locale. The difference between "martial" and "exotic" in my game is a matter of cultural familiarity and relative difficulty in mastering a given weapon as well.

I just think the giant, continuously added to, laundry list of weapons is unneccesary.


R_Chance wrote:
Given how limited 3.x / PF is as a combat simulation (not that earlier editions were much better, or really any good at it), I think the designers should have moved away from the overly long weapon lists and generalized more. Had a limited list of weapon stats and allowed people to apply a number of different names to them rather than trying to represent every individual weapon in existence with different charcteristics. As an example, a short sword, sword, hand and a half sword, and two handed sword. Every sword would use the stats for one of those four categories. Given the grouping of weapon proficiencies into categories like "Simple" and "Martial" there isn't the need for specific weapon proficiencies and individual stats for fighters anymore.

I kind of agree. I like the idea that weapons be divided into simpler categories with proficiencies handled in a better way. I like the idea of a feat giving proficiency in a weapon in which a class is otherwise unfamiliar, but many "exotic" weapons aren't that particularly complicated and just act as some very meta-gaming balance effect. Honestly, I always thought it was crap that you needed an extra proficiency to use a double weapon on top of the TWF feat tree. As if using an orcish double axe is so much harder than using two axes or a dire flail than just two flails. It gets even worse with with the APG and UC - a khopesh is hard to use because of the curve of the blade (that seems a little ethnocentric to europe)? The falcata is just a heavy scimitar why is that so difficult to use? In UC, I note the shotel and the sica which were variable designs to the common sword so that they reach around shields so why is this exotic?

I understand certain weapons are so complicated they require the additional training and investment of time, but I find those more the exception than the rule. Historically speaking, it was noted that the most simple weapons were one-handed swords or daggers and spears. The weapons which required the most training were often two-handed weapons because of the difficulty managing the weight and the use of the whole body more than anything else.

Silver Crusade

R_Chance wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


You know that you can restrict what weapons are allowed at your game when you are the DM.

I do. I limit the weapons initially to what is available where the PC is from / at. The cultures / nations in my game are pretty well detailed. If you're from nation "x" you aren't going to be coming in to the game with a weapon too foreign to that locale. The difference between "martial" and "exotic" in my game is a matter of cultural familiarity and relative difficulty in mastering a given weapon as well.

I just think the giant, continuously added to, laundry list of weapons is unneccesary.

I do that as well with weapons. I assign them by culture and time period at times.


shallowsoul wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:


Crits are more common at higher levels due to the fact of having a better chance to trigger off of lower numbers and having a better chance to confirm since bonuses get higher.

Emmmmm no.... What effects crit ranges are feats, type of weapon, and magical properties.

These are high level based. You could max out your crit range before you hit 10th level.

Rolling a 17 on the dice is exactly the same no matter what level you are. The only thing that a higher BAB may effect is if a Nat 17 on the dice still won't allow you to hit a creatures AC. If that is happening then there is something wrong with the challenge rating of the creature or the PC isn't built right.

You still have to confirm the crit unless you are a level 20 fighter, and the higher your attack bonus is the more likely you are to confirm the crit.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:


Crits are more common at higher levels due to the fact of having a better chance to trigger off of lower numbers and having a better chance to confirm since bonuses get higher.

Emmmmm no.... What effects crit ranges are feats, type of weapon, and magical properties.

These are high level based. You could max out your crit range before you hit 10th level.

Rolling a 17 on the dice is exactly the same no matter what level you are. The only thing that a higher BAB may effect is if a Nat 17 on the dice still won't allow you to hit a creatures AC. If that is happening then there is something wrong with the challenge rating of the creature or the PC isn't built right.

You still have to confirm the crit unless you are a level 20 fighter, and the higher your attack bonus is the more likely you are to confirm the crit.

But it's relatively the same. At low levels you have lower ACs to hit and at higher levels you have higher AC's to hit. Not much difference in having a +5 to hit a 15 AC and a +15 trying to hit a 25 AC, you still need a 10 or better.


To hit bonuses scales faster than monster's AC unless the GM compensates.


One thing that 4e did that I liked was it added another very meaningful dimension for weapons to differ along - some weapons essentially give you +1 to attack rolls with them. (It's actually +3 instead fo +2, due to how 4e handles proficiency.) This allows you to justify a much greater number of weapons without them being all either essentially the same or just better than each other. In general, the game gives sword-like weapons and crossbows an extra +1 to hit, but they do about one die size less damage, so there's basically a tradeoff. Yeah, you can still run the math and figure out which one is mathematically better (although it's tricky, since hits in 4e often carry secondary effects, such as small debuffs or repositioning effects), but it provides another "major" axis - the primary one being damage die size - along which weapons can vary. (There's also far more weapon-group-specific feat material, which also helps differentiate similar weapons.)


I still have a dream about a article I read from WotC before even PF came into existence where they quoted 4e would make a major difference depending upon what weapon you used and your playstyle. Examples included hammers benefitting from con and therefore favoring dwarves. Swords giving access to a wider variety of maneuvers than other weapons. Spears benefiting from ease of use and therefore making it easier to hit or use maneuvers. I still think it was a great idea that I just didn't see fully actualized in the game.


pobbes wrote:
I still have a dream about a article I read from WotC before even PF came into existence where they quoted 4e would make a major difference depending upon what weapon you used and your playstyle. Examples included hammers benefitting from con and therefore favoring dwarves. Swords giving access to a wider variety of maneuvers than other weapons. Spears benefiting from ease of use and therefore making it easier to hit or use maneuvers. I still think it was a great idea that I just didn't see fully actualized in the game.

That was one of the few things I really dug about the game, actually. I'd flat out forgotten, too. Hammers dealt CON, iirc, but it might have cost a feat (though I'm really not a fan of how 4E deals with ability scores, to be honest, which seems to be "look up which two are used for your class and max them"... but I digress.). I'm not really a houseruling man, but a revised weapon list along these lines is worth a little thought. Also a better spread of the EXISTING weapon qualities would be great (halberds are the only core martial proficiency weapon with brace. What is that?) There's the danger of unbalancing things, but a +1 or so to hit here and there shouldn't tip the scales too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:


I just think the giant, continuously added to, laundry list of weapons is unneccesary.

That's because humankind has a gigantic continuously added to laundry list of weapons that is unnecessary.

I mean Pathfinder hasn't even included weapons from the phillipines, malaysia, thailand, india, or properly expressed the vast array of polearms, pikes, and crossbow accessories available.

Ultimately I think that pathfinder 2.0 should do away with the individual weapon mandate and instead mush everything into small to medium sized groups. These weapons would deal the same damage and crit range, have the same handedness and the same reach. You can cover a lot of bases this way. Things like weapon tags can be added to certain groups and the rest done away with.


TarkXT wrote:
R_Chance wrote:


I just think the giant, continuously added to, laundry list of weapons is unneccesary.

That's because humankind has a gigantic continuously added to laundry list of weapons that is unnecessary.

I mean Pathfinder hasn't even included weapons from the phillipines, malaysia, thailand, india, or properly expressed the vast array of polearms, pikes, and crossbow accessories available.

Ultimately I think that pathfinder 2.0 should do away with the individual weapon mandate and instead mush everything into small to medium sized groups. These weapons would deal the same damage and crit range, have the same handedness and the same reach. You can cover a lot of bases this way. Things like weapon tags can be added to certain groups and the rest done away with.

+1

Shadow Lodge

Longswords used to be popular because you were more likely to find a +1 lonsword then something more exotic.

with PFS you can basically get a +1 anything including a piece of hemp rope. Old school mostly had to find magic...


There's another reason, I think, outside of the mechanics of the game. It's a sword-in-the-stone complex - a lot of the fantasy stories we grew up on involved the hero finding a magic sword and saving the day with it. Some of them had villains with evil magic swords. We've seen the sword so often that it's a little cliche by now...to some of us, and depending on its use, but nevertheless.

Granted that some folks overdo it with absurdly exotic or impracticable weapons. Sometimes you can play that off, other times not so much. Myself, I have a fondness for blacksmiths with hammers (I treat cross-peen hammers as light hammers dealing 1d6 instead of 1d4.) I'm also fond of sais - which I may have some [exc]use for in Jade Regent.

Really, though, there's a lot you can justify with good writing.


Elven wizards love them. It's the best melee weapon they know how to use. Mine even fought with his, once.


I think the spear problem is that the brace property isn't very good. It relies on readied actions against charges. Great if you have a whole line of pikemen in an open field and the enemy is a group of lancers or pouncing barbarians. Not so great in a 4-6 person party fighting against a mixture of opponents in a mixture of environments.

In fact, has anyone here ever readied an attack against a charge?

Scarab Sages

Longsword? Pshaw...how about the Short Sword. No reason to ever take one, really... What the game needs is rules for Close,In-fighting, then the short sword, dagger, hand axe etc... would be well-loved weapons.
Kind of hard to swing a great sword in a tunnel that you have to crouch to traverse.

I still love longswords,btw.

-Uriel

Dark Archive

Uriel393 wrote:

Longsword? Pshaw...how about the Short Sword. No reason to ever take one, really... What the game needs is rules for Close,In-fighting, then the short sword, dagger, hand axe etc... would be well-loved weapons.

Kind of hard to swing a great sword in a tunnel that you have to crouch to traverse.

I still love longswords,btw.

-Uriel

Short swords are my preferred weapon when duel wielding. In my current homebrew the Elves are styled after roman military and thus almost all of them are equipped with a Short sword (along with two pila, a tower shield and some chainmail armor)


Since the gladius is just better than the shortsword in that it is piercing and slashing but in every other aspect its the same why use the normal shortsword if you can?


It's always bothered me that Longswords/Bastard swords do Slashing damage, but not Piercing... Were longswords historically used to simply hack enemies to death every single time? Does not the iconic sword-thrust to fell a foe mean anything in PF?

I always house-rule in my games that those weapons can Pierce as well as Slash, until I find a better explanation than "CRB weapon balance."

Umbranus wrote:
Since the gladius is just better than the shortsword in that it is piercing and slashing but in every other aspect its the same why use the normal shortsword if you can?

Yet another house-rule in my games; Short swords can do Piercing and Slashing as well. Inverse to the Longsword classification, I never understand why a dagger can slash, but not a short sword? It's a sharpened length of metal, not a pointy stick.


Possibly because "better" weapons keep coming along that work better if you are going for crits and trips. That said, people in my games use them all the time.


My bard uses a longsword as his close-in melee weapon. He is primarily built to be an archer bard. He even picked up a masterwork longsword in our recent adventure! When we found an impressive +1 keen longsword he was considering making it his primary weapon. Then, the barbarian took it. /cry


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually like weapon groups as a concept of being proficient.


While you can "thrust" with a longsword, they were, in fact, designed and trained to be primarily slashing weapons.

4e has the concept of weapon groups, but it still also has individual weapon proficiency. However, most of the attack or damage enhancing feats apply to weapon groups. So if your character is proficient with both daggers and short swords, then "weapon focus:light blades" applies to both, which is nice.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

While you can "thrust" with a longsword, they were, in fact, designed and trained to be primarily slashing weapons.

And bludgeoning and piercing. Medieval martial arts can prove quite surprising in the versatile way it beats your head in with the hilt of a sword.


Can someone tell me what "longsword" we are talking about when people bring in real world examples?

Not that wikipedia is an unquestionable authority but I just did a google for "wikipedia longsword."

From what I gather a lot of stuff has been called a "longsword."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword

Also, from what I gather, whether it was exclusively a 2-hander or held in one hand, the tip of the weapon was used as an integral part of the weapon.

Following a link from that page, it seems to me the Viking Swords look a lot more like what I picture a longsword to be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_sword

Look in the early 1970's Gygax and Arneson came up with a weapon description to use in a game. It's hard to say now exactly what the inspiration was. I kind of think they knew a bit of the history of things, but they chose to abstract it as "1d8 slashing."

And it has been carried forward, and evolved in magic item charts and whatnot ever since.

Just saying does it really make a lot of sense to pull in real world arguments over this thing?


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
While you can "thrust" with a longsword, they were, in fact, designed and trained to be primarily slashing weapons.

Depends on the era. Broad bladed hacking longswords were common through some periods while slimmer piercing ones where common during others.

In modern longsword fencing (which is based on, but may not be completely accurate to the combat styles of the era) There are multiple pommel, crossguard, broadside and thrust attacks. And apparently, you can even wield a longsword upside down and use it as a hammer.

In fact, if we go by the descriptions on era appropriate texts, the longsword probably should have a trait where you choose one or two weapon qualities out of a list (Such as double with a bludgeoning pommel, trip or disarm for prominent crossguards, or the option to deal slashing or piercing damage with the blade) to represent different variations.


Even a casual dip into sword history and technology will show you how poorly the PF and D&D game rules have mapped real swords into game terms.

As near as I can tell the "longsword" of D&D was modeled on fantasy literature, not on actual military technology.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Even a casual dip into sword history and technology will show you how poorly the PF and D&D game rules have mapped real swords into game terms.

As near as I can tell the "longsword" of D&D was modeled on fantasy literature, not on actual military technology.

And fantasy literature is modeled on real world matters. How closely differs from author to author, though.

A viking sword and other longswords considered "barbaric" by most of europe would be a bastard sword in terms of D&D mechanics. A long sword, per D&D stats and terminology seems to refer to later era hand and a half swords and most two handed swords that could be wielded in one hand that feature straight blades around 3 feet long. The D&D greatsword refers to zweihanders and the like.

The problem is not the system stating these weapons poorly, but rather, stating weapons that were considered outdated by then with more attractive or strictly better stats.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Even a casual dip into sword history and technology will show you how poorly the PF and D&D game rules have mapped real swords into game terms.

As near as I can tell the "longsword" of D&D was modeled on fantasy literature, not on actual military technology.

Oh no doubt. My concern is with mechanics. PAthfinder is a poor system to simulate real medieval melee combat. So I for one am of the idea that grouping weapons together under groups of stats works more efficiently. SAves space on statblocks.


TarkXT wrote:
Oh no doubt. My concern is with mechanics. PAthfinder is a poor system to simulate real medieval melee combat. So I for one am of the idea that grouping weapons together under groups of stats works more efficiently. SAves space on statblocks.

Agreed. Having all similar weapons born of a common stat block is no different than having all town guards come from variations of warrior.

It's a game.


It also gives more freedom to the gms on description of a +1 weapon they find without having weapon focus be useless. Also easier to remember so for wierd weapons you don't end up wondering how much gold this weapon costs when making npcs.


Bladerock wrote:


The problem is not the system stating these weapons poorly, but rather, stating weapons that were considered outdated by then with more attractive or strictly better stats.

Um, outdated is not the same as "worse".

Keep in mind Golarion is in many ways a kitchen sink setting. And like real life weapons are favored not simply for being better or worse but for cultural, economic and practical reasons.

For example. I'm wiling to bet the two favored weapons in LAstwall are the Longsword and the Lance. Mainly because their favor of mounted combat on the plains of belzken and the widespread worship of iomedae. Longswords make good back up weapons for the unmounted knight and nearly everyone, clerics, inquisitors, fighters etc. are proficient in one or both of them.

In Kyonin where elves and their high dex scores are prevalent you see a lot more bows and "woodsman" weapons.

A longsword might be strictly worse than a falcata but for the millions of worshipers of Iomedae it really is one of the best weapons about despite having better options around. Same with Scimitars and Sarenrae.


TarkXT wrote:

Um, outdated is not the same as "worse".

A longsword might be strictly worse than a falcata but for the millions of worshipers of Iomedae it really is one of the best weapons about despite having better options around. Same with Scimitars and Sarenrae.

It would be like making all WWII era guns better than modern guns in a modern setting.

D20 past solved this by simply having most older guns be pretty much the same as their modern counterparts with minor exceptions.

A google search later and the falcata is described as an axe with a cutting haft that can't be held by the blade for leverage. I don't know how this translates as anything other than "axe reskin"


IF things were just about what is good then armies of npcs with longspears and kikko armor outfitted for around 35 gold pieces with a really good armor class and reach for heavy infantry would be common.


doctor_wu wrote:
IF things were just about what is good then armies of npcs with longspears and kikko armor outfitted for around 35 gold pieces with a really good armor class and reach for heavy infantry would be common.

Heh, that's actually just about how the dominant country on my game world's main continent outfits and trains their army's infantry.


I've trained a bit with the germanic longsword and if you go by that then yes you could thrust.

However the weapon in question is large, moderately heavy, and somewhat unwieldy. Generally for larger swords like the longsword they countered this by using rotational motion to counter how slow and unwieldy it was. You basically carried the momentum through from attack to attack, allowing you to attack in iterations much faster.

This being said you can't do this with a thrust. A thrust requires non rotational momentum, which basically means if you want any accuracy at all you're going to have to stop your blade from rotating, jab and then restart the rotational motion. In real world terms its a few seconds versus a half second for an attack.

So basically if you want to use realism like that for the longsword you shouldn't be able to get a full attack off while piercing ever. The weapon is to big to just jab repetitively and a single jab will disrupt the flow of attacks that is normal for a longsword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bladerock wrote:


It would be like making all WWII era guns better than modern guns in a modern setting.

In some cases, as far as raw power, firing rate, and range go? Very much yes. We still use many of these patterns even in modern guns with changes here and there in terms of ergonomics and mechanics with mixed results. What's changed is the materials, manufacturing methods, political setting (we can't order thompson machine guns from Sears catalogs anymore), and economic expectations. Firearm strategies have evolved as well to match the times.

If you wanted to compare say, civil war era firearms to modern firearms I'd be happy to concede your point.

Trouble is it doesn't really carry through when you're talking about melee weapons. From the perspective of a roman soldier wielding "advanced" gladius's, heavy shields and fighting in tight formation that Falcata is pretty damn terrifying as the naked raging celt hacks his shield apart from outside his short swords reach.

Likewise even the most heavily armored knight and horse combination is easily stifled by a group of pikeman whose tactics predate european civilization by magnitudes.

These are factors that are difficult to reflect in stats. And really should not even be tried.

51 to 100 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What happened to people using longswords? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.