Soemthing akin to the terbutje or greater terbutje stats would seem more appropriate then.
Clear what you're looking for is the chainsaw chainsaw.
But we're not talking about all periods. We're talking about one period: the period in which articulated plate armor and rapiers exist. That means we should be using the terminology of that period, which is happily one of the better documented periods. Specifically, it's the period the historical European treatises are mostly from. We should be using the terminology of that period, which is somewhat consistent. Short swords are mostly for cavalry. Long swords or large swords (depending on language) are big one or two handed weapons. A few two hand only weapons are still in use but on the way out. Bastard swords are shorter than Long swords. Rapiers are narrow one handed weapons about the length of a long sword. Sabers are starting to be a thing over in Eastern Europe, but haven't really moved west. There are ten thousand weird and wonderful polearms half of which are called Guisarmes.
By a remarkable coincidence :-), this seems to be a pretty close approximation of the period that Gary Gygax was laying out the weapons for, except that in his the best of the plate armor hadn't yet been developed.
But we're not talking about all periods. We're talking about one period: the period in which articulated plate armor and rapiers exist. That means we should be using the terminology of that period, which is happily one of the better documented periods. Specifically, it's the period the historical European treatises are mostly from. We should be using the terminology of that period, which is somewhat consistent. Short swords are mostly for cavalry. Long swords or large swords (depending on language) are big one or two handed weapons. A few two hand only weapons are still in use but on the way out. Bastard swords are shorter than Long swords. Rapiers are narrow one handed weapons about the length of a long sword. Sabers are starting to be a thing over in Eastern Europe, but haven't really moved west. There are ten thousand weird and wonderful polearms half of which are called Guisarmes.By a remarkable coincidence :-), this seems to be a pretty close approximation of the period that Gary Gygax was laying out the weapons for, except that in his the best of the plate armor hadn't yet been developed.
And yet firearms are considered verboten despite their relative ubiquitous nature at the time. :/
When most people conjure up an image of the 'medieval' world, they're thinking of a combination of concepts that naturally seem to go together instead of a proper historical era.
If I had to place it, say this system at it's core is probably closest to the Late Middle Ages, Hundred Years War era, with things like the rapier thrown in 'early' because another type of sword doesn't really break the concept.
Looks like a longsword to me.Estocs are not even considered swords by some fencing experts, contemporary as well as modern.
Here's a sword that's hard to categorize according to what's in the Pathfinder rules now:
How would you two-hand that?
But the Zulu, wielding spears and hide shields, were still able to repel European troops wielding firearms.
To be fair, the Zulu victory at Isandlwana took a numerical superiority of 10-1 and an incompetent deployment by the British, who afterwards utterly crushed the Zulus in a subsequent invasion. The difference between weapons is often overstated, but it's pretty safe to say that rifled firearms render spears very obsolete.
|
But the Zulu, wielding spears and hide shields, were still able to repel European troops wielding firearms.To be fair, the Zulu victory at Isandlwana took a numerical superiority of 10-1 and an incompetent deployment by the British, who afterwards utterly crushed the Zulus in a subsequent invasion. The difference between weapons is often overstated, but it's pretty safe to say that rifled firearms render spears very obsolete.
"Whatever happens, we have got.
The Maxim gun, and they have not"Yeah, rifles and machine guns pretty much ended the days of melee and muscle powered ranged combat. The above mentioned Maxim gun was so effective that four of them (plus small arms) in the hands of 700 men were enough to rout roughly 5000 natives in Shanghai. There's a reason why so much of the tribal world got divvied up amongst Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, the USA, the Netherlands, and Spain. Good firearms in well trained hands are devastating. You want an interesting read, read some of the accounts from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, which is probably the first war where both sides had significant heavy machine guns. Or the opening battles of WWI. The descriptions are just fantastically brutal.
But the Zulu, wielding spears and hide shields, were still able to repel European troops wielding firearms.To be fair, the Zulu victory at Isandlwana took a numerical superiority of 10-1 and an incompetent deployment by the British, who afterwards utterly crushed the Zulus in a subsequent invasion. The difference between weapons is often overstated, but it's pretty safe to say that rifled firearms render spears very obsolete.
But if they were magical spears...
But if they were magical spears...But the Zulu, wielding spears and hide shields, were still able to repel European troops wielding firearms.To be fair, the Zulu victory at Isandlwana took a numerical superiority of 10-1 and an incompetent deployment by the British, who afterwards utterly crushed the Zulus in a subsequent invasion. The difference between weapons is often overstated, but it's pretty safe to say that rifled firearms render spears very obsolete.
Then they get a +1 bonus to attack and damage.
They also cost as much as arming a fire team with Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifles. This isn't exactly a winning strategy.
|
But if they were magical spears...But the Zulu, wielding spears and hide shields, were still able to repel European troops wielding firearms.To be fair, the Zulu victory at Isandlwana took a numerical superiority of 10-1 and an incompetent deployment by the British, who afterwards utterly crushed the Zulus in a subsequent invasion. The difference between weapons is often overstated, but it's pretty safe to say that rifled firearms render spears very obsolete.Then they get a +1 bonus to attack and damage.
They also cost as much as arming a fire team with Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifles. This isn't exactly a winning strategy.
Unless you also give them all protection from arrows spells or the missile shield feat.
'I wield a greatsword!'
'Are you sure it's not just a zweihander?'
'It is. But it's a great one! Seriously, look at the work the smith put in the blade, the crosspiece, the ricasso ... it's just a great sword, isn't it?'
'@#$% that, I'm gonna use a warhammer.'
And for those arguing about short sword vs sword vs long sword in the game ... well, it does have short spear, spear, and long spear. Make of that what you will.
Seriously, I've seen some games bicker as far as modern studied-into-the-ground firearms. If two D20-system games can disagree on the range increment and damage of an M1911A1 .45 pistol or an AK47, the best we can do is just go with the weapon titles we have here. If your group is OK with it, you can translate the terms back into something sensible, but otherwise it is what it is.
|
|
And for those arguing about short sword vs sword vs long sword in the game ... well, it does have short spear, spear, and long spear. Make of that what you will..
Don't even get me started on the short spear and trident only having a x2 critical when spears, longspears, and arrows have a x3.
Is this really less capable of inflicting a grievous wound than this?