Using Weapon Finesse to hit, and Power Attack for Damage on an Estoc


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

but it is a big rapier...

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:
tsuruki wrote:
Sgt Spectre wrote:
Yes, but I always envisioned a Power attack as a wind up (like a baseball bat swing), and then a huge swing for the fences(again baseball reference), basically raw power at the expense of everything else.

With the estoc that just translates into:

Backing up slowly, aiming as best you can, then letting loose with a massive thrust.

I.e, wind up then attack. No different from spears.

yes, but it was just an issue really with one character knowing how to crunch numbers and stack bonuses from everything under the sun from the different splat books while the others didn't.

I just forsee it leading to an imbalance in character potential.

But if the community says that there is no way that he can possibly cause a problem with his damage out-put in that fashion I will leave it alone.

it won't create a problem unless other people want to be awesome face crushers. if they do want to be that he should help them, as their fluff might seem fun but when they're not actually being awesome at what they imagined, they'll want to crunch the numbers.

Yes but then, if I have a party of Falchion Freds going about nuking any and everything they ever meet at their level or 4 or more beyond, then its GG. You have beat Pathfinder what do you want to do now?

If someone builds a character to min max, they should just play a pvp mmo and get their feel good self esteem booster there.

Being awesome comes with time, not so much when your level 1 or 3 normally unless someone is min maxing.

If the GM says, im running a low level campaign... level 3 say. And a player goes and researches for the most broken level 3 to 5 character they can make...why play...if the mentality is "What is the most hands down power hours DPS Olympic character available to me so that a level 3 campaign is a no challenge cake walk... its pointless to play."

People who exploit RAW for the purpose of building a broken character I feel ruin the game. I love gunslinger, but when I see people exploit it so that at like 6th level they have like.... 18 attacks a full attack action....WTF... and my statement stands "Congratulations you have won Pathfinder, what other game system should we play for you to break?"


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

melee falchion people won't win pathfinder. :P

sure they'll do well but then you just throw stuff for their level.

likewise i mean if someone wants to be a bard, he should tell them what spells are good, how to make use of an archetype for what he wants to do. what weapons mesh well with the bard.

then someone wants to be a rogue and sneak sneak? he can tell them how to get HiPS and what magic items will make him stealthier than anything. how to use this to his advantage in combat. yada yada.

he should help them make their own character, not just the best melee DPS monsters around.

because if one of the newer people has a rogue wants to stealth and be able to talk past a guard, but has a pretty lack luster stealth/bluff bonus and only stealth/talk successfully half the time, he's not actually playing what he wanted to play.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
but it is a big rapier...

Well like FLite said, its more like a small lance when I look at it as opposed to a large rapier.

A rapier is a flexible weapon meant to work with a fencers foil. The blade will bend and flex to allow for graceful sword work.

The Estoc doesn't really bend and largely remains stiff as it was designed to punch through armors of the day.... it wouldn't punch through anything if when it made contact with plate armor it bent like a rapier does. A rapier would be used against clothe armors or chain where the sharp points can go between or penetrate the light armor or gaps in chain. Simply put the Rapier doesn't have nearly as much tensile strength as a Estoc. Which is why an Estoc is essentially a smaller lance as opposed to a large rapier. Though the concepts of the Estoc were passed down years later to create the Rapier.

So it went..

Lance--->Estoc--->Rapier as far as weapon evolution goes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

estoc
rapier
lance

one of these things is not like the other.

edit: also no combat rapiers(ones not made for duels) were stiff to puncture soft armor.

Grand Lodge

Bandw2 wrote:
but it is a big rapier...

No, it really isn't.

The rapier is a diamond shaped blade, typically sharpened along much if not all of it's length. The estoc is a square or triangular blade with a sharp point, but it cannot be sharpened to a cutting edge. If it is a scaled up anything it is a scaled up stiletto or rondel dagger.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:

melee falchion people won't win pathfinder. :P

sure they'll do well but then you just throw stuff for their level.

likewise i mean if someone wants to be a bard, he should tell them what spells are good, how to make use of an archetype for what he wants to do. what weapons mesh well with the bard.

then someone wants to be a rogue and sneak sneak? he can tell them how to get HiPS and what magic items will make him stealthier than anything. how to use this to his advantage in combat. yada yada.

he should help them make their own character, not just the best melee DPS monsters around.

because if one of the newer people has a rogue wants to stealth and be able to talk past a guard, but has a pretty lack luster stealth/bluff bonus and only stealth/talk successfully half the time, he's not actually playing what he wanted to play.

Yes but you know there are certain race/class/traits/ feats that when put together make a broken character. that can not be denied. Now a party of said characters would be horrific is what I am saying.

and usually I like to have all the players there when we build characters so they can voice their ideas.

Like you said, someone comes up with a character concept first... I want to be a sneaky rogue.. and then builds accordingly with help from the GM and other players present to help iron out any questions or interpretations of the rules for that campaign. Cool.

But when someone goes online and looks at what other people do to essentially min max and break a class to such points and based on reading how powerful something is builds that class.... then they are no longer doing what we stated above which is. "I want to build something like this, how do I do it" because now its turned into "I want raw power, it doesn't matter how I get it as long as I can nuke the campaign"

Being and Rp'ing the character should be the fun part, not rick'rolling every single encounter thrown your way, by virtue of splat books and RAW exploits.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
FLite wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
but it is a big rapier...

No, it really isn't.

The rapier is a diamond shaped blade, typically sharpened along much if not all of it's length. The estoc is a square or triangular blade with a sharp point, but it cannot be sharpened to a cutting edge. If it is a scaled up anything it is a scaled up stiletto or rondel dagger.

sure, but the estoc was trying to make a rapier that could fight heavier armors and be effective for longer periods. NOT to take a cavalry weapon and downsize it, estocs do not make good lances.

Grand Lodge

Also, the estoc is used from 14th - 17th centuries, where the rapier doesn't really exist before the 16th, and isn't really popularized till the 17th.

The estoc was designed for penetrating armor, and could only thrust. The rapier was designed for civilian self defense against lightly or unarmored assailants, and was a cut and thrust weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
FLite wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
but it is a big rapier...

No, it really isn't.

The rapier is a diamond shaped blade, typically sharpened along much if not all of it's length. The estoc is a square or triangular blade with a sharp point, but it cannot be sharpened to a cutting edge. If it is a scaled up anything it is a scaled up stiletto or rondel dagger.

sure, but the estoc was trying to make a rapier that could fight heavier armors and be effective for longer periods. NOT to take a cavalry weapon and downside it, estocs do not make good lances.

The Estoc came out first, then the rapier. they didn't make a Rapier and decide they wanted to make a stronger one. They made the Estoc and wanted to make an easier to wield one... the Rapier.

What we are saying is that the Estoc is more like a lance than a rapier.
In its design and purpose for simply punching through armor and its body having the tensile strength to do so.

As opposed to a Rapier which has less tensile strength and is Flexible and very agile when swung as it would be used in swings to injure or depending on where it hit like along the wrists where its sharp point would actually slash.

Grand Lodge

Bandw2 wrote:
FLite wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
but it is a big rapier...

No, it really isn't.

The rapier is a diamond shaped blade, typically sharpened along much if not all of it's length. The estoc is a square or triangular blade with a sharp point, but it cannot be sharpened to a cutting edge. If it is a scaled up anything it is a scaled up stiletto or rondel dagger.

sure, but the estoc was trying to make a rapier that could fight heavier armors and be effective for longer periods. NOT to take a cavalry weapon and downside it, estocs do not make good lances.

Actually, it started as a cavalry weapon, as a backup to the lance.

The Estoc went out of fashion as the rapier was coming into existance.

In short, history says you are wrong.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

sigh, I am getting it backwards, estoc -> rapier because they needed something lighter for nobility duels. >_> weird nobility

regardless it won't be an issue unless other guys want to be power players too, in which case they will be out shined and should probably get help from him. they might as for help from him anyway as the case may be.

Liberty's Edge

FLite wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
FLite wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
but it is a big rapier...

No, it really isn't.

The rapier is a diamond shaped blade, typically sharpened along much if not all of it's length. The estoc is a square or triangular blade with a sharp point, but it cannot be sharpened to a cutting edge. If it is a scaled up anything it is a scaled up stiletto or rondel dagger.

sure, but the estoc was trying to make a rapier that could fight heavier armors and be effective for longer periods. NOT to take a cavalry weapon and downside it, estocs do not make good lances.

Actually, it started as a cavalry weapon, as a backup to the lance.

The Estoc went out of fashion as the rapier was coming into existance.

In short, history says you are wrong.

huh, well that was rather blunt no?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.

the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:

sigh, I am getting it backwards, estoc -> rapier because they needed something lighter for nobility duels. >_> weird nobility

regardless it won't be an issue unless other guys want to be power players too, in which case they will be out shined and should probably get help from him. they might as for help from him anyway as the case may be.

and the emergence of better firearms was starting to make many heavy armors obsolete, so the necessity to punch through armor in melee wasn't there anymore as no one really wore heavy armor.

But then I have a group of munchkins... and the monsters designed by the monstrous manual to be a challenge are not and then I am stuck throwing monsters at the group in order to be a challenge are only a challenge because they can one shot a player as the healers essentially take someone from almost dead to full every turn and every turn they drop a monster.

with more than 20+ years as a game master for things from GURPS, Earthdawn, D&D (1st,2nd,3rd & 3.5 to include AD&D) and pathfinder but definitely not limited to the above games... when the party essentially starts munchining creativity is gone and its essentially who can build the best cookie cutter game breaking template.... no thank you sir.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:

on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.

the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents

Different era's really. Fire arms changed how wars were fought.

Instead of melee with heavy armor... it was light or no armor and at range.

Plus with a stiff weapon like an estoc you just get in close it doesn't have a cutting edge and just pierces. Once you get inside the point there is little difference between it and a pole except it is triangular in construction but the edges were generally not sharpened and were really just there.

Kind of reminds me of a fight I was in where someone came at me with a baseball bat... once I got in close where he couldn't swing and carry the inertia with it, it was over and between me headbutting him and chocking him out he was done.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Angry Ghost wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

sigh, I am getting it backwards, estoc -> rapier because they needed something lighter for nobility duels. >_> weird nobility

regardless it won't be an issue unless other guys want to be power players too, in which case they will be out shined and should probably get help from him. they might as for help from him anyway as the case may be.

and the emergence of better firearms was starting to make many heavy armors obsolete, so the necessity to punch through armor in melee wasn't there anymore as no one really wore heavy armor.

plate armor was basically created TOO defeat firearms, but it just became too cost prohibitive and heavy after a while and so they stopped. you didn't see people wearing full plate until guns started showing up.

Quote:


But then I have a group of munchkins... and the monsters designed by the monstrous manual to be a challenge are not and then I am stuck throwing monsters at the group in order to be a challenge are only a challenge because they can one shot a player as the healers essentially take someone from almost dead to full every turn and every turn they drop a monster.

with more than 20+ years as a game master for things from GURPS, Earthdawn, D&D (1st,2nd,3rd & 3.5 to include AD&D) and pathfinder but definitely not limited to the above games... when the party essentially starts munchining creativity is gone and its essentially who can build the best cookie cutter game breaking template.... no thank you sir.

which is fine and all, but if someone wants to play a character and can't back that character up, then you've failed as a GM. I'd also say the opposite, as my group "munchikins" but in that they try to make the most unusual types of fighting styles work.

Grand Lodge

Bandw2 wrote:

on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.

the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents

It is one of the things I liked about GURPS, the way they handled armor made modeling that a lot easier. Of course, the downside is that once weapons and armor reach a certain point of power (for example at the higher tech levels), the armor is so much stronger that if anything gets through the armor, you are probably dead.

Which is accurate, but not really terribly fun at the gaming table.

(one game we had a goblin dagger master as a PC. She was a spinning cuisinart of death against lightly armored targets. Then we ran into someone in heavy armor... )


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Angry Ghost wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.

the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents

Different era's really. Fire arms changed how wars were fought.

Instead of melee with heavy armor... it was light or no armor and at range.

Plus with a stiff weapon like an estoc you just get in close it doesn't have a cutting edge and just pierces. Once you get inside the point there is little difference between it and a pole except it is triangular in construction but the edges were generally not sharpened and were really just there.

Kind of reminds me of a fight I was in where someone came at me with a baseball bat... once I got in close where he couldn't swing and carry the inertia with it, it was over and between me headbutting him and chocking him out he was done.

the estoc's advantage however is it's length. they aren't going to try to get that close because they have a longsword or what ever as well. it let you keep your blade between you and the enemy, a well seasoned fighter will keep his guard up and it's much easier to use an estoc on an advancing opponent than a baseball bat. the estoc you just have to put in front of him. :P

you can move the estoc close you your torso and back step, etc easily to reestablish the distance between you and if he keeps coming, he's probably run through. even if he does get close it still can be used to parry, even weakly.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

sigh, I am getting it backwards, estoc -> rapier because they needed something lighter for nobility duels. >_> weird nobility

regardless it won't be an issue unless other guys want to be power players too, in which case they will be out shined and should probably get help from him. they might as for help from him anyway as the case may be.

and the emergence of better firearms was starting to make many heavy armors obsolete, so the necessity to punch through armor in melee wasn't there anymore as no one really wore heavy armor.

plate armor was basically created TOO defeat firearms, but it just became too cost prohibitive and heavy after a while and so they stopped. you didn't see people wearing full plate until guns started showing up.

Quote:


But then I have a group of munchkins... and the monsters designed by the monstrous manual to be a challenge are not and then I am stuck throwing monsters at the group in order to be a challenge are only a challenge because they can one shot a player as the healers essentially take someone from almost dead to full every turn and every turn they drop a monster.

with more than 20+ years as a game master for things from GURPS, Earthdawn, D&D (1st,2nd,3rd & 3.5 to include AD&D) and pathfinder but definitely not limited to the above games... when the party essentially starts munchining creativity is gone and its essentially who can build the best cookie cutter game breaking template.... no thank you sir.

which is fine and all, but if someone wants to play a character and can't back that character up, then you've failed as a GM. I'd also say the opposite, as my group "munchikins" but in that they try to make the most unusual types of fighting styles work.

Plate came about in the 13th and peaked in the 16th. When firearms became more viable...

After 1650, plate armour was mostly reduced to the simple breastplate (cuirass) worn by cuirassiers. This was due to the development of the flintlock musket, which could penetrate armour at a considerable distance, severely reducing the payoff from the investment in full plate armour

mounted cavalry used heavy plate to protect them and their horses from melee combatants and archers... not guns.

Grand Lodge

Bandw2 wrote:


the estoc's advantage however is it's length. they aren't going to try to get that close because they have a longsword or what ever as well. it let you keep your blade between you and the enemy, a well seasoned fighter will keep his guard up and it's much easier to use an estoc on an advancing opponent than a baseball bat. the estoc you just have to put in front of him. :P

you can move the estoc close you your torso and back step, etc easily to reestablish the distance between you and if he keeps coming, he's probably run through. even if he does get close it still can be used to parry, even weakly.

It also has a wide cross guard, a striking pommel, and can be wielded with one hand half up the blade. If you get in past the tip, and the wielder knows what he is doing, he shifts his grip and has a short quarter staff with a weighted steel head. Or he can smash the quilions into your throat, or shove cross body with it to reestablish the distance. The supposed "getting inside the guard" of greatswords and bastard swords is highly over rated, and works best if your opponent doesn't know what he is doing.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.

the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents

Different era's really. Fire arms changed how wars were fought.

Instead of melee with heavy armor... it was light or no armor and at range.

Plus with a stiff weapon like an estoc you just get in close it doesn't have a cutting edge and just pierces. Once you get inside the point there is little difference between it and a pole except it is triangular in construction but the edges were generally not sharpened and were really just there.

Kind of reminds me of a fight I was in where someone came at me with a baseball bat... once I got in close where he couldn't swing and carry the inertia with it, it was over and between me headbutting him and chocking him out he was done.

the estoc's advantage however is it's length. they aren't going to try to get that close because they have a longsword or what ever as well. it let you keep your blade between you and the enemy, a well seasoned fighter will keep his guard up and it's much easier to use an estoc on an advancing opponent than a baseball bat. the estoc you just have to put in front of him. :P

you can move the estoc close you your torso and back step, etc easily to reestablish the distance between you and if he keeps coming, he's probably run through. even if he does get close it still can be used to parry, even weakly.

Yes, the handguards proved to be problematic for that as far as shortening your grip to try to do the hand and a half approach historically done with a bastard sword or claymore, which was why when people were fighting someone who got in close historically they dropped their back up lance in favor of a smaller weapon. Since they would just use a weapon for upclose as opposed to improvise a weapon for upclose. And especially since a Estoc is only used for a thrust it is far easier to predict than something that can slash or thrust and would have a sharp edge that could still cut even when used in grappling or close quarters.

Grand Lodge

Angry Ghost wrote:
FLite wrote:


In short, history says you are wrong.

huh, well that was rather blunt no?

Probably. I am home sick with a cold, and the board crash ate everything I posted last night. So I am a little grouchy.

Sorry Bandw2, that crossed a line and I shouldn't have said it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

yes, more viable, the plate armor only came about in the first plate because they were the only thing that could stop a bullet.

your second paragraph is taken directly from wikipedia.

and no the term bullet proof originated from armor smiths saying that about their plate armor. you didn't NEED plate armor until they started introducing early firearms, which was mid 13th century, see a reoccurring date?

Liberty's Edge

FLite wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:
FLite wrote:


In short, history says you are wrong.

huh, well that was rather blunt no?

Probably. I am home sick with a cold, and the board crash ate everything I posted last night. So I am a little grouchy.

Sorry Bandw2, that crossed a line and I shouldn't have said it.

It happens, im sure he isn't bothered by it.

Hope you get better, but it all boils down to skill with their weapon as to whether they were trained with improvisional combat. Turning a musket from firearm to spear to club.

Essentially an Estoc now feels like a musket with a fixed bayonet kinda... but it cant shoot.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
FLite wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:
FLite wrote:


In short, history says you are wrong.

huh, well that was rather blunt no?

Probably. I am home sick with a cold, and the board crash ate everything I posted last night. So I am a little grouchy.

Sorry Bandw2, that crossed a line and I shouldn't have said it.

I don't hold grudges, especially when I am wrong. though the thought is appreciated.

Grand Lodge

Angry Ghost wrote:


And especially since a Estoc is only used for a thrust it is far easier to predict than something that can slash or thrust and would have a sharp edge that could still cut even when used in grappling or close quarters.

And Bludgeon. Pathfinder keeps forgetting that these weapons were designed to bludgeon in close combat as backup. Those pommels hurt.

Grand Lodge

Angry Ghost wrote:
FLite wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:
FLite wrote:


In short, history says you are wrong.

huh, well that was rather blunt no?

Probably. I am home sick with a cold, and the board crash ate everything I posted last night. So I am a little grouchy.

Sorry Bandw2, that crossed a line and I shouldn't have said it.

It happens, im sure he isn't bothered by it.

Hope you get better, but it all boils down to skill with their weapon as to whether they were trained with improvisional combat. Turning a musket from firearm to spear to club.

Essentially an Estoc now feels like a musket with a fixed bayonet kinda... but it cant shoot.

Probably why they went away.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Angry Ghost wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.

the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents

Different era's really. Fire arms changed how wars were fought.

Instead of melee with heavy armor... it was light or no armor and at range.

Plus with a stiff weapon like an estoc you just get in close it doesn't have a cutting edge and just pierces. Once you get inside the point there is little difference between it and a pole except it is triangular in construction but the edges were generally not sharpened and were really just there.

Kind of reminds me of a fight I was in where someone came at me with a baseball bat... once I got in close where he couldn't swing and carry the inertia with it, it was over and between me headbutting him and chocking him out he was done.

the estoc's advantage however is it's length. they aren't going to try to get that close because they have a longsword or what ever as well. it let you keep your blade between you and the enemy, a well seasoned fighter will keep his guard up and it's much easier to use an estoc on an advancing opponent than a baseball bat. the estoc you just have to put in front of him. :P

you can move the estoc close you your torso and back step, etc easily to reestablish the distance between you and if he keeps coming, he's probably run through. even if he does get close it still can be used to parry, even weakly.

Yes, the handguards proved to be problematic for that as far as shortening your grip to try to do the hand and a half approach historically done with a bastard sword or claymore, which was why...

but the estoc as you mention, was a defensive weapon, you didn't thrust at people with it, you had them skewer themselves on it. that's how you properly use an estoc, you simply evade parrying and then try to poke him when he advances, if you miss you back up. if he gets too close use your shield if you don't have one, punch him. medieval combat was a lot more brutal and refined than you even see on game of thrones.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:

yes, more viable, the plate armor only came about in the first plate because they were the only thing that could stop a bullet.

your second paragraph is taken directly from wikipedia.

and no the term bullet proof originated from armor smiths saying that about their plate armor. you didn't NEED plate armor until they started introducing early firearms, which was mid 13th century, see a reoccurring date?

Ehh plate armor/ Heavy armor came about before fire arms it was used by lords and knights as they were the only people who could afford it. It was used to provide maximum protection on the field of battle where mobility was not going to as much of an issue as the rider was mounted and elevated giving him a reach advantage against enemies.

Firearms made heavy armor like plate obsolete, PERIOD.
Today with advanced composites my IOTV and plate carrier using a shape to deflect the round, but the rounds impact still ruins the plate, and the ballistic plates are over an inch thick.

Plate armor was NOT made for the purpose to counter Firearms. True it was one of the armors that could counter primitive firearms and often a master armor maker would shoot his armor with a pistol to see if it would withstand the impact and people purchasing the armor would actually look for this ding as proof before purchasing.

Correct,
I took the quote from wiki because I didn't feel like typing it all as my space bar is messed up and it takes for ever for me to type something that doesn't look like sheer poop because of it. So I just googled what I knew to be true and saw it on WIKI and copied it, sorry if I didn't cite it.

Grand Lodge

Angry Ghost wrote:


Hope you get better, but it all boils down to skill with their weapon as to whether they were trained with improvisional combat. Turning a musket from firearm to spear to club.

I admit, I am not a great authority on early medieval fighting style training. (One problem is that because of how they morphed into modern fencing, very little of it survived.) But I get the impression that much of what we think of a "improvisational" or "dirty fighting" was actually a standard core of their training at least among professional fighters. The disposable peasants were probably pretty much given a spear, taught how not to get tangled with one another, but the armored cavalry were taught their weapons, how to wrestle, and close combat.

That said, there is at least one story about a cocky noble who challenged a peasant to a fight when the lord was wielding a two handed sword, and the peasant a knife. The peasant did get in his guard and killed the lord, so clearly not everyone learned close fighting equally well...

Liberty's Edge

@BandW2

you are correct, it did require them to skewer themselves which is why it was developed as a back up lance. Something that required them to bring their own inertia to the fight. Bracing for a charge with such a long weapon with proper bracing could prove devastating in addition to a mounted soldier using one as they were less prone to breaking then the longer lances and could be used when someone got inside the lance... you could pierce as your elevation from the horse kept you at excellent distance to prevent them at that point from getting inside it.

Also, I don't watch game of thrones, never been interested in it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Angry Ghost wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

yes, more viable, the plate armor only came about in the first plate because they were the only thing that could stop a bullet.

your second paragraph is taken directly from wikipedia.

and no the term bullet proof originated from armor smiths saying that about their plate armor. you didn't NEED plate armor until they started introducing early firearms, which was mid 13th century, see a reoccurring date?

Ehh plate armor/ Heavy armor came about before fire arms it was used by lords and knights as they were the only people who could afford it. It was used to provide maximum protection on the field of battle where mobility was not going to as much of an issue as the rider was mounted and elevated giving him a reach advantage against enemies.

Firearms made heavy armor like plate obsolete, PERIOD.
Today with advanced composites my IOTV and plate carrier using a shape to deflect the round, but the rounds impact still ruins the plate, and the ballistic plates are over an inch thick.

Plate armor was NOT made for the purpose to counter Firearms. True it was one of the armors that could counter primitive firearms and often a master armor maker would shoot his armor with a pistol to see if it would withstand the impact and people purchasing the armor would actually look for this ding as proof before purchasing.

Correct,
I took the quote from wiki because I didn't feel like typing it all as my space bar is messed up and it takes for ever for me to type something that doesn't look like sheer poop because of it. So I just googled what I knew to be true and saw it on WIKI and copied it, sorry if I didn't cite it.

to be completely honest, no one used full plate prior to the 13th century because the manufacturing techniques weren't up to the task. Nobles prior to then usually wore breastplates with neck guards. They also were assumed to be taken prisoner and so didn't need awesome armor. a captured noble is better than a dead noble. Often wars would end when you captured the opposing sides heir or one of their uncles.

but yes most nobles wore the heavy armor to protect against stray firearm shots. It wasn't well made for land combat due to exhaustion, long skirmishes would just tire out your side and the knight would be taken down. Cavalry used it because it makes your charge like 70% more deadly as lances might deflect off of your horses armor now and bounce off of you, you could charge with full abandon into enemy ranks.

IT WAS NOT made to counter arrows or swords they were just also ineffective against it.

Liberty's Edge

but my biggest issues is that I don't want and the players don't want to have to be min maxing power games just to feel competitive in the campaign.

Wow we got off on a tangent didn't we?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

you keep bringing up that it was a back up weapon, but it was also used by the poles as a main weapon as well. it was a largely effective weapon.

Grand Lodge

Angry Ghost wrote:


Plate armor was NOT made for the purpose to counter Firearms. True it was one of the armors that could counter primitive firearms and often a master armor maker would shoot his armor with a pistol to see if it would withstand the impact and people purchasing the armor would actually look for this ding as proof before purchasing.

As you know, there is an order of magnitude difference between stopping a pistol bullet, and stopping a musket/rifle bullet.

There was a style of armor (too sick to look it up properly) that was designed for stopping (mostly) rifle bullets, that worked by putting all the metal on the front, and having nearly no back. From what I can recall without going and getting my books, armor had been steadily evolving toward more plate, less chain before firearms, and once firearms entered the picture evolved further to only plate, no chain, and finally to no plate, no chain except for specific functions, to metal helmets only, until advanced composites came out, and now we are sliding back the other direction (I wonder how long till someone comes out with really effective HEAP rifle ammo.)

Grand Lodge

Angry Ghost wrote:

but my biggest issues is that I don't want and the players don't want to have to be min maxing power games just to feel competitive in the campaign.

Wow we got off on a tangent didn't we?

Yup.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Angry Ghost wrote:

but my biggest issues is that I don't want and the players don't want to have to be min maxing power games just to feel competitive in the campaign.

Wow we got off on a tangent didn't we?

then you need to make something that favors the newer players. mechanically the magus isn't OP, he's making an unusual fighting style not suck is all. in essence he's par for the course. at least from what i've heard in the 2 threads.

Grand Lodge

I think honestly, you are not going to have a lot of luck arguing against power attack with an estoc. You will have a lot more luck pointing out he can't take it as his black blade.

Liberty's Edge

@Bandw2

Plate armor was not made to counter firearms....

you can reference records and the art of the Era.
Men wearing plate fighting with sword and shield fighting other men in plate with sword and shield which is historically accurate.

another wiki quote.
As firearms became better and more common on the battlefield the utility of full armour gradually declined

The development of powerful rifled firearms made all but the finest and heaviest armour obsolete. The increasing power and availability of firearms and the nature of large, state-supported infantry led to more portions of plate armour being cast off in favour of cheaper, more mobile troops. Leg protection was the first part to go, replaced by tall leather boots. By the beginning of the 18th century, only field marshals, commanders and royalty remained in full armour on the battlefield, more as a sign of rank than for practical considerations. It remained fashionable for monarchs to be portrayed in armour during the first half of the 18th century, but even this tradition became obsolete. Thus, a portrait of Frederick the Great in 1739 still shows him in armour, while a later painting showing him as a commander in the Seven Years' War (1760s) depicts him without armour.

Body armour remained in use throughout the 18th century with cavalry units, especially cuirassiers, including front and back plates that could protect the wearer from distanced fire and either helmets or "secrets", a steel protection they wore under a floppy hat.

*big wiki quote*

this was at the 16th century, as stated on the wiki page and as I stated earlier.

Firearms made plate irrelevant, now plate protected better than chain or leather obviously... but it got to the point so quickly with the musket just blowing through it that it was worthless.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:

but my biggest issues is that I don't want and the players don't want to have to be min maxing power games just to feel competitive in the campaign.

Wow we got off on a tangent didn't we?

then you need to make something that favors the newer players. mechanically the magus isn't OP, he's making an unusual fighting style not suck is all. in essence he's par for the course. at least from what i've heard in the 2 threads.

the weapon finesse and the power attack are not the issue.

Constantly looking for ways like but not limited to make an estoc his black blade by citing its just a large rapier... which it isn't as we have discussed. Choosing racial traits from Asia... to apply to his Drow Noble... and there are no Drow in Xian... but ok.

I just want him to look at developing a story and then the character as opposed to make a character and push the limits to make the story follow his abilities... i.e. I wandering Xian swordsmaster comes and teach a drow noble who managed to escape from his house how to be the ultimate swordsman... let alone wonder how coming out of his cave in underdark.. is some how immediately linked with Xian... and there hasn't been any war since.

I want a story and character creation/ development to follow that story.
Not Character creation and then bending history and possibility to give reason to the slight possibility of the practicality of the character.

Liberty's Edge

FLite wrote:
I think honestly, you are not going to have a lot of luck arguing against power attack with an estoc. You will have a lot more luck pointing out he can't take it as his black blade.

Roger that.

But I gotta head out for a bit

thanks for the info and debate.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

there are 4 inventions that obsoleted armor in the 17th century.

Rifling, the conical bullet, manufacturing the bullet with the charge attached, and finally the magazine/breech loading.

you're forgetting the 300 years where firearms and plate armor both got progressively better and better until firearms finally won.\

keep quoting wikipedia, but it isn't entirely accurate about the 300 years after firearms got introduced.

full plate wasn't used in early medieval, they used chainmail, neck guards, and usually armor on the sword arm while they had a shield in the other.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

you know i forgot about the drow noble
don't let him do that
make him a normal drow, especially if he's male. if he's a normal drow he can take racial feats to get noble drow powers.

edit: if you really want to force someone to make a "character" rather than a PC, put more of the campaign time into RP, if he feels like he's doing nothing for a while, point out he shouldn't have been so combat focused. just don't try to sound as passive aggressive as i said it.

Grand Lodge

Bandw2 wrote:


edit: if you really want to force someone to make a "character" rather than a PC, put more of the campaign time into RP, if he feels like he's doing nothing for a while, point out he shouldn't have been so combat focused. just don't try to sound as passive aggressive as i said it.

That is the hard part.

Liberty's Edge

Bandw2 wrote:

there are 4 inventions that obsoleted armor in the 17th century.

Rifling, the conical bullet, manufacturing the bullet with the charge attached, and finally the magazine/breech loading.

you're forgetting the 300 years where firearms and plate armor both got progressively better and better until firearms finally won.\

keep quoting wikipedia, but it isn't entirely accurate about the 300 years after firearms got introduced.

full plate wasn't used in early medieval, they used chainmail, neck guards, and usually armor on the sword arm while they had a shield in the other.

Yes, but my point still stands, Plate armor wasnt developed to stop firearms, plate was developed to make the wearer impervious to swords and spears. Which led to the creation of some hammers and picks which created such a puncturing edge on them like an Estoc that would help them go through Plate.

Essentially a sword swing doing 80-137 joules of force.
A pistol doing 500+
and A rifle in the 1,000+

That helped make armor and plate obsolete.
Earlier pistols were tested against plate armor and like I said left the ding in the armor which was often looked for while slashes with a sword would do little if anything.

Plate did get better but only marginally so especially when compared to costs. If I could outfit a platoon of people with firearms or one person with plate armor.. which is better. Especially when the man with the firearm if it was rifled could kill the plate wearer at such distance so he was completely worthless. Now, I have a rank and file of said men... why wear armor.

Like in 1776, how many Colonists or British wore plate armor? as it was irrelevant.

Firearms advancement came in leaps and bounds, but the ability to make Plate armor in shape and design and keep its weight down so that it was still viable so that the person wearing it could close on the unarmored or lightly armored rifleman had become a non issue... which is why Plate and armor faded and why we use firearms today in modern war.

Im sorry if perhaps i'm misreading your point. But its just that what I am taking away is that you are stating the Reason Plate was developed, was solely because firearms were made and it was designed to stop firearms and was largely successful until recently (1600 +300 years puts it at 1900's) But we have has what we would consider conventional plate longe before conventional firearms.

Liberty's Edge

FLite wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


edit: if you really want to force someone to make a "character" rather than a PC, put more of the campaign time into RP, if he feels like he's doing nothing for a while, point out he shouldn't have been so combat focused. just don't try to sound as passive aggressive as i said it.
That is the hard part.

and then the issue arrises with said character causing fights or doing actions that he knows will provoke a character to action while not necessarily a fight.

But He can RP, which is great and I love having him here for RP.
its just some classes can be min maxed easier and earlier than others.
and some books I will not allow... so some classes cant be min maxed, especially when taking into consideration 3rd party published material....

So im back to the issue of, when combat starts, he kills everything... essentially doing 80-90% of damage while using splat books, racials and other things keeps an AC of around 24 to 36 varying from his level of 1 to 7... and he is a caster in that game.

This new game he is the Drow Noble, Magus Kensai black blade with the Xian Racial traits no doubt maximizing his sword abilities and meager spell abilities.

I just dont want the new players to think that is the only successful way to play a game is by min maxing munchkinism. Researching classes for maximum damage output in conjunction with races and traits until what you build isnt something you made, but just a mold of someone else's exploits (quite literally) as if it were some kind of college or university final.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

like seriously drow noble is a 47 RP race or some such with a ton of ability score bonuses. rest is kosher, drow noble i wouldn't let any of my players touch.

@ 80-90% of the damage, unless, once again as i said, someone has issue with that and also wants to be doing tons of damage, then who cares?

BTW, plate armor never made it to the Americas because of it's weight, they wore breastplates as they would often have to walk everywhere. especially early colonial, when just maybe a few people would have had plate, and usually on horse back.

1776 was 4-1/2 centuries after firearms were introduced and 100 years after plate armor stopped being cost effective. In the Napoleon era is when the gun truly took the battlefield however. They finally started adjusting tactics to favor the gun and that pretty much was it. after war changed to make the gun more powerful no amount of armor could stand agaisnt them effectively.

however now some 2-1/2 centuries after 1776 we're getting back into heavy armor again.


Angry Ghost wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:

its just when I look at his

+3 to hit and +6 Damage

compared to others
+2 to hit and +4 Damage

essentially I wonder that the fighter mage person is able to out fighter the fighters, just based off his knowledge and that he looks and researches forums for super powered builds while the others create something that they think would be fun as opposed to building something that is powerful.

First, he can't use Spell Combat if he's wielding a two-handed weapon, so he should rarely use his weapon two-handed.

Second, all of his damage is going to come from the Empowered Shocking Grasp that he delivers through the weapon, so it's really the 3d6 x 1.5 electricity damage at 1st level that you need to worry about.

Third, as the GM, you can just rein his power level in. Restrict his caster level to actual character level and don't let him have extra tricks with metamagic feats. His magus class features are going to be strong enough without any Varisian Tattoo/Magical Lineage/Wayang Spell Hunter shenanigans.

And you have every right to restrict your players to certain content. Many of the splat books have easily exploitable wording, and some of the APs have traits that are good for that AP but overpowered anywhere else. Don't approve anything you aren't comfortable with.

If you're really worried, you can even set maximums for attack, damage, AC, HP, and saves for the characters.

ah thanks

its funny you mention the magical lineage and wayang spell hunter traits... is that more common now these days people exploiting that?
we had an issue last game where that happened and it was presented to me that with those and metamagic feats he was able to lower a spells level to 0 and make it a cantrip casting it infinitely. Until it was read that a spell can never go below its starting level.

Yes, those are favorite exploits. Even when read correctly, they are still really good. (Magical Knack is another favorite until you realize that it can't raise your caster level past your character level.)

If I were a very tricky player, I would get my GM to focus on the additional 1-2 points of damage I'm getting for finessing a weapon two-handed so that he doesn't notice that a) I'm casting while wielding a two-handed weapon and b) casting at too high a caster level. :-)

If your other players want something simple that still does a ton of damage, try the Two-Handed Fighter fighter archetype and just house-rule that Power Attack has the same multiplier as your strength bonus: if you're strength is x1.5, PA is x1.5, and if your strength is x2, PA is x2. (That also makes Double Slice work better, if you have any two-weapon fighters.)

Alternatively, the Unchained Barbarian has all the benefits of a normal barbarian with less math.


Gwen Smith wrote:
Alternatively, the Unchained Barbarian has all the benefits of a normal barbarian with less math.

This is not strictly true unless it was errata'd to increase the damage bonus for 2H weapons so it's equal to the Strength increase version.

Currently, you benefit the most from Unchained Barbarian if you dual wield.

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Using Weapon Finesse to hit, and Power Attack for Damage on an Estoc All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.