What's the "baseline" of the Pathfinder community?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

[Rant]I've seen more than a few things over the past couple of days, two today specifically, that lead me to believe there's some unwritten consensus on the optimal "baseline" of character creation. This one particularly irks me.

No one would ever use a rapier?!

Seriously? Why not? Because it would be mechanically inferior to every other weapon in the same damage and crit range? What if I wanted to create a character that was a true fencer, and used his rapier wit, and his actual rapier to right the wrongs he found across the land?

Why? Why does so much of this discussion community just go along with stuff like that? Or not balk at it? Is every game set up with a baseline standard of optimization, and no one can fathom that there could be some seriously meaningful, fun, and awesome games being played with characters that are completely wonky mechanically?

Inquiring minds want to know.[/rant]


I don't think that everyone agrees on a certain power level being a 'baseline'.

Within a single gaming group there can be variation.

Mine, for example, has two optimizers (myself and one other player)-what we do is build around a non-optimal theme and use our understanding of the rules to make the concept playable.

Example: dagger throwing character not based off of Warpriest for increased weapon damage.

Mechanically inferior weapons almost don't matter, as the majority of damage comes from STR bonuses anyway... at least in our group.

That being said, you don't need to make a deliberately crippled character to enjoy the game, as long as everyone in the party is of a similar level of power, the GM simply designs challenges based on that.


Sadly, MendedWall, this is a game of numbers.
The bigger, the better.
Flavor tends to come second to being able to pump DPS/auto-gib.

alexd does have a point, though: table variance does occur.
But the community does seem geared towards optimization.


while the rapier is a fun weapon flavor wise it needs a little building around it to make it a good choice. something like the warpriest sacred weapon or the inspired blade bonuses to using a rapier.

I believe you should strive to be useful if you know how to do so. not particularly "optimized" just not "not trying for flavor".


MendedWall12 wrote:

[Rant]I've seen more than a few things over the past couple of days, two today specifically, that lead me to believe there's some unwritten consensus on the optimal "baseline" of character creation. This one particularly irks me.

No one would ever use a rapier?!

Seriously? Why not? Because it would be mechanically inferior to every other weapon in the same damage and crit range? What if I wanted to create a character that was a true fencer, and used his rapier wit, and his actual rapier to right the wrongs he found across the land?

Why? Why does so much of this discussion community just go along with stuff like that? Or not balk at it? Is every game set up with a baseline standard of optimization, and no one can fathom that there could be some seriously meaningful, fun, and awesome games being played with characters that are completely wonky mechanically?

Inquiring minds want to know.[/rant]

Woohoo! This is me!

Why not? Because an estoc is almost exactly the same weapon, has the same flavor, but is mechanically superior. If you want a long, pointy sword that is useful as a true fencer, go with the one which has the higher damage level even if you don't like the name.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

What's the baseline on *these forums*?
Argumentative, trollish, conflict-fishing, niggling bad-faith-argument mudslingers?

Oh, you mean the baseline of *character creation*. My bad. Misread you there. <g>

There are a lot of strong opinions here, sure. We all feel pasionately about this hobby of ours, don't we. We've invested a lot of ourselves in it, and by gosh we want to be *right*, don't we?

Seriously, though. At the end of the day, I think we all would agree that the real purpose of the RPG hobby (and Pathfinder in particular) is to have fun during our gaming sessions. Which mean that our characters don't really *have* to be fully optimised, all the time. Why not use a rapier? Or a spear for that matter? Or a starknife - what a cute weapon concept, dontcha think? We're here to have fun, and even if giving our favorite dwarf a crossbow isn't *mechanically* superior to using a longbow, a dwarf with a crossbow just *feels right* dunnit?

Or a dapper ladies-man-type swashbuckler (not the class, just the character concept) with a rapier, and a "rapeir wit". I mean come on, RULE OF COOL and all that.

This said, many people do come to these boards seeking to better optimise their characters and be just a little bit tougher and grislier than they already are. And that's all right too, innit?

Personally, I'm all for fun and flavor over optimisation. But that doesn't necessarily get in the way of optimisation discussions. There's space for all flavors of discussion, just don't go thinking that *all* of us are optimisation mavens. <g>


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Or a dapper ladies-man-type swashbuckler (not the class, just the character concept) with a rapier, and a "rapeir wit". I mean come on, RULE OF COOL and all that.

The specific item he was referring to was my comment that treating exotic weapons as martial weapons would eliminate the use of the rapier. Instead of asking me why that would occur in that thread, he came here to cloud the issue. To address that specific question: No one would use the rapier because the estoc is almost exactly the same weapon but does more damage.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Character building (on the forums) is usually, almost purposefully, devoid of role playing reasons. People asking for mechanical advice aren't looking for choices made on role playing concepts.

It's not that we can't fathom it, its that if you want to use a rapier instead of something mechanically better you've already made that decision. If you're asking for build advice you're not asking us to RP your character for you.

Also, nice Stormwind fallacy that optimization automatically means that you need to play some wonky walking mismatch of statistics that could in no way ever make sense from a role playing perspective.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Meanmutton, IMHO the Estoc is definitely not a rapier, a weapon used for fencing and for glorious displays of swordsmanship, footwork and derring-do. Even if the Estoc is a mechanically superior weapon, there's no reason not to use a rapier, which is a cool concept in and of itself, a perfectly acceptable weapon, with its own advantages and drawbacks, just like any weapon. Many players in my home games (over here in France) favor the rapier.

But very few players depend on weapons like the spear, or the shortsword, or the simple but noble mace. Why is that? Just not optimised enough for their tastes?

Then again, if I as a DM hand out a super-cool magic spear, odds are good that some player will decide to use it and be good at it. It just takes proper motivation. <g>


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Meanmutton, IMHO the Estoc is definitely not a rapier, a weapon used for fencing and for glorious displays of swordsmanship, footwork and derring-do. Even if the Estoc is a mechanically superior weapon, there's no reason not to use a rapier, which is a cool concept in and of itself, with a perfectly acceptable weapon, with its own advantages and drawbacks, just like any weapon. Many players in my home games (over here in France) favor the rapier.

They're both long, thin, piercing swords. I don't see any reason a fantasy warrior can't use an estoc for fencing and glorious displays of swordsmanship, footwork, and derring-do. Too many people get hung up on a simple name in this game and that is one item which frustrates me, honestly.


I think I have made the mistake of sticking my oar into questions asking for particular builds and solutions saying you are fine to play with less than fully optimised choices. What I didn't realise was that OP was looking for those answers not moderate options. It's like turning up to a gun fight with a dagger.

Of course not every two weapon fighter needs to use a saw toothed sabre, the old longsword and short sword combination is obviously valid. Ultimately the DM sets the difficulty and the expectation. If DMs throw continually over-taxing encounters at players expect them to feel the need to optimise.

In my shackles game our ranger uses a saw-toothed sabre. I will be sending the red mantis after him as soon as he reaches a high enough level to make it interesting. Power comes at a price after all!


You are not in a "casual" environment , you are in the forums , which is only a small part of the whole community usually.

I have a table i play with friends , in the past there i was the only one who checked the forums for information/guides/builds... my friends used to make builds that made "no sense" , use weapons that "are bad" , would play CRB rogue with no changes...

Today they also check this place and others for info , i can say their way of playing greatly changed to something more along the lines of these forums , where they go for the best option or a close best.

On the other hand , i already fell on a position similar to that of alex , in which i make general choices not based on power anymore and use system mastery to keep it viable.

I would say the baseline changes based on the table itself , in the forums , the baseline often is the "best" option or something atleast quite good , with poor options being tossed aside.

Personally i quite enjoy the forums baseline , not because i follow it blindly , but because it gives me ideas i can then reshape myself to fit my own preferences.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:


In my shackles game our ranger uses a saw-toothed sabre. I will be sending the red mantis after him as soon as he reaches a high enough level to make it interesting. Power comes at a price after all!

The price is supposed to be a feat, not the GM sending assassins after your character because he things you are doing it wrong.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

One problem with establishing a "baseline" is that the game itself lacks any semblance of one. Pathfinder is littered with "trap" options, and choices that require equal investment but with a radically lopsided payoff, etc. Shoot, compare the capabilities of a 17th level wizard vs. a 17th level rogue or fighter.

  • Some players look at this and say, "Well, duh, I'm not going to pick the crappy options, given a choice."
  • Others say, "I refuse to think about it. I'm going to pretend they're all equal, and if anyone says they're not, I'll put my fingers in my ears."
  • Still others say, "I'm no dirty munchkin min-maxer! I'm going to pick all the lousiest options I can possibly find, to prove what a great role-player I am!"

    Still worse, the reasons people pick the options they do vary. Compare:

  • "I'm going to pick the more powerful options because I want a more powerful character!" vs.
  • "I'm going to pick the more powerful options because I don't want to let down my teammates."

    or,

  • "I'm going to pick weaker options because I don't want to accidentally upstage the other participants," vs.
  • "I'm going to pick weaker options because I don't care if my incompetence kills the whole party -- it's the DM's job to fix that anyway!"

    In turn, that stems from the type of game experience the participants want. Compare:

  • "I just want a laid-back beer 'n' pretzels game that lets me frolick and role-play. I don't want to have to deal with hard challenges and fighting and stuff," vs.
  • "Man, we just curb-stomped that last AP. Can we try one that's like super-duper difficult, so we can see if these same characters can actually survive an apocalyptic grimdark end of the world scenario with all epic challenges? I really want to crank the tactics up to 11!"

    --

    With that much disparity within the rules, between tables, and even among participants at the same table, the term "baseline" needs to be much more narrowly defined, if we're going to have a meaningful discussion.


  • 3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Don't take the optimization arguments to heart. You'll just hear more about optimization because most people need less help with fluff.


    How has no one ranted about Fencing Grace and other such feats tied to specific weapons which are the backbone of several decent builds? The katana is better than the long sword, but there are two feats that allow access to Weapon Specialization for not fighters, making it a decent choice still.
    Magi will still use Dervish Dance.

    If exotics all of a sudden became either free or easier to access, sure you'll see a lot more of them, but there are plenty of simple and martial weapons that have uses even when they must consider the exotic weapons their peers.

    Scarab Sages

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Optimization is something that is very easy and entertaining to discuss on an internet forum: lots of perfectly valid opinions and you can compare numbers to prove your points. I don't think that the community is actually all that obsessed with it, it's just a function of the venue that you get a disproportionate amount of discussion centered around it.


    I think you're overreacting about a few cases. Sure there's "pick this, this is better". But that's the only thing that you really can suggest, optimization can be applied everywhere. You can't say "pick this, this is flavourful" because that differs between every character. And some times, what flavour of sword you use doesn't matter, so you go for best (as most aspire to that direction by default).


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Dave Justus wrote:
    The Sword wrote:
    In my shackles game our ranger uses a saw-toothed sabre. I will be sending the red mantis after him as soon as he reaches a high enough level to make it interesting. Power comes at a price after all!
    The price is supposed to be a feat, not the GM sending assassins after your character because he things you are doing it wrong.

    And there is my biggest problem with the optimisation... People who see the rules as being something separate and divorced from the campaign or setting. 'I'll design my character to fit the mechanics I choose' and screw the story. Luckily our players care a great deal about the background and integrity of the setting.

    I don't think that PC is doing it wrong, he actually designed a character with a convincing reason why he would have experience with a red mantis blade and the assassins are looking for the other belongings of his long dead father. It is a tool to make the campaign relevant to his background and skills. It is also a realistic way to to have a magic saw tooth sabre introduced at level five because he takes it from an assassin.

    I'm not a vindictive DM, thank you. It is the equivalent of a vindictive employer punishing an employee. I don't punish people for their decisions. With consent, I expect mechanics to reflect fluff and fit with the campaign.

    Edit: plus I have three Reaper red mantis figures I have painted and want to use.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Sword wrote:
    And there is my biggest problem with the optimisation... People who see the rules as being something separate and divorced from the campaign or setting. 'I'll design my character to fit the mechanics I choose' and screw the story.

    Blame the game rules, not the player. Let's say the story and the setting insist on me being really cool, and having sunglasses. Paizo probably has a Shades Dude archetype for that, with the following ability:

    Ultimate Awsome wrote:
    Cool sunglasses (Ex): You own a pair of cool sunglasses. This replaces all of your spellcasting ability, and reduces all class Hit Dice to d4s.

    Now, sunglasses in real life provide retinal protection from UV rays, but since UV is not quantified in Pathfinder, this has no game effect. They also make you look cool, but since appearance is meaningless in terms of game mechanics, this also has no effect whatsoever.

    To compound the problem, we open Ultimate Equipment IV and notice that any character can just buy a pair of equally cool sunglasses for 1 sp.

    Now, we can ask "why would someone take this archetype, even for the flavor?" Or, someone could ask, "Why would you punish them for not taking it, and just buying the sunglasses?" But those are secondary questions. The main question is, "Why should wearing sunglasses, in the context of the game, be such a lousy option?"


    I don't blame the rules. They are a skeleton that the player chooses to hang their character on. We allow traits, favoured class options, alternate racial traits, archetypes, expanded equipment, splat book feats, companion guides and magic items to allow players to customise their characters not to allow them to create abominations that waltz through encounters.

    Self restraint is a good virtue to have. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

    In our group If you think a particular combination is going to be really powerful, then you probably shouldn't take it, or at least discuss it with e group first. Like I said, that's the way our group has fun.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    You didn't respond to what kirth said


    Depend really on what type of game you play.

    A few months, back we played a game where magical weapons/armors where very rare.

    At level 3 I finally found a "+1 weapon" it was a battle axe.
    Normally I would have sold it and saved up to upgrade my masterwork scimitar, but knowing how rare these where I actually took weapon focus battle axe and got to use that weapon well into my level 8.

    Now on paper the battle axe does not sound that great, it's a 1d8 damage is great but when compared to a long sword it has an inferior crit range.
    But did I have fun the few times I managed to land that sweet X3 critical damage while 2 handing that weapon.

    Once again, really it boils down to what kind of game you are playing.
    Dare I adventure saying that mechanically, yeah a lot of weapons are inferior when you compare them to other ones.

    The chackram cost 1 gp, can deal 1d8 slashing damage with a range of 30 feet, it also weight one pound.
    The Pilum cost 5 gp, can deal the same amount of damage, has a range of 20 feet, it weight 4 pounds, when it hit a target they lose their shield bonus if they are wielding one until they take a standard action.

    I have yet, in over 4 years of playing this game intensely seen one player use a Pilum. Most martials I played with jump on the opportunity to get the chakram, it's cheap, light and has great range. Some weapons just get less love and/or are looking like strategically inferior choices, often the determining factor of a weapon will be it's raw damage output, it's ability to have reach and crit range and nothing else.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Laiho Vanallo wrote:

    Once again, really it boils down to what kind of game you are playing.

    Dare I adventure saying that mechanically, yeah a lot of weapons are inferior when you compare them to other ones.

    Now imagine the weapons were more or less equal, with equal investment. Not the same -- some would have a bigger crit range, others do more base damage, others have fun properties like trip or whatever -- but more or less even.

    In that case, it wouldn't matter what kind of game you were playing. The person who wanted a swordcane could select that, without that choice gimping his character. The hard-line optimizer that The Sword so hates and despises would have no obviously superior choice, so he'd have to go for something that fit the character/story. Everyone wins.

    Having some options be blatantly better than others (again, given the same investment), is a potential impediment to choosing something thematic but incredibly sub-par, and serves to fuel the "by the numbers" character creation that makes people like The Sword froth at the mouth. It serves no purpose other than, ultimately, to divide the community.


    The Sword wrote:
    We allow traits, favoured class options, alternate racial traits, archetypes, expanded equipment, splat book feats, companion guides and magic items to allow players to customise their characters not to allow them to create abominations that waltz through encounters.

    So, what you're saying is that you ban the wizard, cleric, and druid? Because it's their insane power that curbstomps encounters, not the guy using a greataxe instead of a greatclub.


    To be honest Kirth I agree with 90% of what you say Kirth. I don't despise anyone, I have said in a lot of cases hard line optimisers are driven to be be that way by DMs making encounters too difficult. Im sure we have all had a character die in an unfair fight only to decide to make a character that won't suffer the same again.

    In the games we play spell casters don't dominate. I don't know why, I just think they tend to use their magic to assist the group rather than just themselves. Haste usually comes before attacking spells and fly is cast on the fighter as often as the wizard.

    That said, I do have a real problem when players use the multitude of combinations to get a spell DC that monsters can only pass on a 19 or 20; or an AC which is 10 higher than the next best PC; or saves that are 5 better across the board than the next best PC; or to hit bonuses that mean most monsters are hit on a 3+. That destroys meaningful encounter building for me and I'd rather not bother writing adventures for those people. Luckily I don't have to, as the the group doesn't play that way.

    To answer your previous point about sunglasses, I agree, players shouldn't have to make those kind of decisions, everything option should be tempting in some way. However I don't think a player should need to do 1hp more damage per hit, or criting with a x3 not x2 sI ply to survive or feel good about their character. For that reason I sympathise with the OP.

    I'm not trying to be confrontational here. In a group of optimisers I recognise you need to optimise.


    It's good to have sub-optimal options in the game. Sometimes it is fun to play that hero that only fights with a stick when everyone else is using real weapons. I think there was a Japanese hero like that (or perhaps I misremembered).


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    Boomerang Nebula wrote:
    It's good to have sub-optimal options in the game. Sometimes it is fun to play that hero that only fights with a stick when everyone else is using real weapons. I think there was a Japanese hero like that (or perhaps I misremembered).

    Are you thinking of Arya Stark's weapon master in Game of Thrones?

    Sure, there are real "trap" options that you shouldn't invest feats and other resources in, like using a crossbow, since you'll never put down the hurt with it like a longbow can.

    One might even argue that the longbow outshines even the best of melee weapons. Does that mean that every character should use a longbow, all melee weapons being "trap options"?

    It is often argued here that full caster classes like wizards so grievously outshine martial characters that one might consider every martial build to be a "trap option" in comparison.

    I only have one word for such kerfuffle. "Pffft!". Oh, and "kerfuffle", that's two words. And our fanatical devotion to the Pope. (buggers, wrong sketch).

    Optimisation is fine. Some players enjoy it. Using non-optimized weapons (or archetypes, options or whatever) is also fine - I mean it's not like you're going to ruin your fellow players' fun simply because you aren't quite as über-optimized as they are. Going all gung-ho on cool fluff in favor to mechanics is even fine, as long as your fellow players realize that your fluffy character isn't going to pull the same weight as the über-archer or the god-wizard.

    I mean Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas and Gimli didn't bellyache because Merry and Pippin weren't top gun combattants, did they?


    Horse-prince-dude griped about their lack of relative reach. ;)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Boomerang Nebula wrote:
    It's good to have sub-optimal options in the game. Sometimes it is fun to play that hero that only fights with a stick when everyone else is using real weapons. I think there was a Japanese hero like that (or perhaps I misremembered).

    Why can't you make that good though, instead of the worst garbage like pathfinder options?

    They don;t really have a range, they are either "usable" or "the worst trash, never take"


    CWheezy wrote:
    Boomerang Nebula wrote:
    It's good to have sub-optimal options in the game. Sometimes it is fun to play that hero that only fights with a stick when everyone else is using real weapons. I think there was a Japanese hero like that (or perhaps I misremembered).

    Why can't you make that good though, instead of the worst garbage like pathfinder options?

    They don;t really have a range, they are either "usable" or "the worst trash, never take"

    The point of the story is that the hero still wins even with a substantial handicap.


    Also if every option was good the optimisers would have nothing to keep them occupied.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Bad choices are essential in game design. They allow the player to:

    a) reduce complexity by avoiding them (it's relieving if the number of 'good choices' is very limited)
    b) improve by learning to avoid them (that's part of the mechanical skills of a Pathfinder veteran)
    c) take them anyway for flavor reasons
    d) take them to be successful despite their weakness (feels more rewarding)

    As others said, a rapier is fine. There was a time when no estoc was available - people had fun then, too.

    There are cases where optimization improves fun. And there are cases where it does the opposite. I guess the latter ones happens when players are too worried they won't be competitive and when the GM exerts too much pressure with over-the-top encounters. It can't be stressed enough: Playing an RPG is about fun. Everything else comes second (or third etc.).


    Boomerang Nebula wrote:
    CWheezy wrote:
    Boomerang Nebula wrote:
    It's good to have sub-optimal options in the game. Sometimes it is fun to play that hero that only fights with a stick when everyone else is using real weapons. I think there was a Japanese hero like that (or perhaps I misremembered).

    Why can't you make that good though, instead of the worst garbage like pathfinder options?

    They don;t really have a range, they are either "usable" or "the worst trash, never take"

    The point of the story is that the hero still wins even with a substantial handicap.

    That is the point of a story. Pathfinder is a game. And in a game the player who picks the weak options (and isn't more skilled then the opponents) loses the game.


    In much the same way some people like to roll stats on 3d6 straight down, it is sometimes having characters that aren't the most efficient. In one of my campaigns we had a gnome fighter with a (small) glaive-guisarme, nobody could call that min-maxing.


    If you had a choice between a glaive-guisarme that did 1d8 damage, and a guisarme-glaive that was exactly the same except it only did 1d6 damage, could you see yourself ever choosing the latter?


    What about a Glaive-glaive-glaive-guisarme-glaive?


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    In my experience, the right way to look at statements like that is to take a step back. Is it literally true? No. Absolutes rarely are. It isn't meant to be.

    But derailing the thread on that is missing the point. A simple reinterpretation gets what you actually want to talk about instead of the absolute you disagree with. "In such a world, Estocs are strictly mechanically superior to rapiers." If it's not clear that's what was meant, it's appropriate to ask the question. A discussion of semantics is rarely what you really want in an advice thread like that, though.

    Once you decode what they meant, you can address that. For example, if the mechanically better weapon was developed later in the history of the world (likely - the mechanically inferior weapon is unlikely to catch on in a world with the superior one without a good reason), there might be more magical rapiers. Or there might be a social advantage to using a more "gentlemanly" weapon. Or it might just be a mechanically worse option.

    So, to answer your question directly. I don't react to that because I'd rather address the point they're making rather than the way they said it. It's possible to overcome that inclination, but the post you're referring to doesn't come close.


    MeanMutton wrote:
    They're both long, thin, piercing swords. I don't see any reason a fantasy warrior can't use an estoc for fencing and glorious displays of swordsmanship, footwork, and derring-do. Too many people get hung up on a simple name in this game and that is one item which frustrates me, honestly.

    And thanks for proving my point. They're both long pointy swords, and the estoc does more damage, so of course everyone, or at least everyone smart, would take the estoc, because: winning.

    Never mind the fact the the rapier, historically speaking, was a sword designed both for slashing and piercing, and was an elegant weapon used by gentleman. While the estoc was basically designed as a giant punching dagger, good for going through plate armor. But you see, all that is fluff, and this is a game, and winning, and DPR and all that. So if every player had an equal choice between the rapier and the estoc, they would of course take the estoc, or at least that's assumption of a very large faction of this community.


    MeanMutton wrote:
    ... Because an estoc is almost exactly the same weapon, has the same flavor, but is mechanically superior.

    It has a higher base-damage. 1d6 = 3.5 / 2d4 = 5. But it also costs a feat!

    To determine if a weapon is truly "superior" you can not simply ignore the costs! Many say a feat is worth more then 1.5 damage, which would make an Estoc an infgerior (!) weapon to a Rapier. If you value a feat at leass then 1.5 damage it is a good choice - for you.

    The value depends on player and even more on the build of your character. Some builds are very feat strapped, while others simply can spend several featchoices for minorish numerical bonus, instead of needing them all to unlock worthwile abilits at all.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    If you really want to see someone hung up on a name, just talk about longswords in my group. We have one guy who has a rant about how the historical longsword is much longer than the one in-game and that should be called an "arming sword".

    Let me just point out that I didn't know before this conversation what an estoc was, historically or in-game. I'm not that knowledgeable about medieval weaponry in the real world. But I assume that characters are, given time, able to suss out the shape of mechanics. And in their world, fighting with an estoc would be a strictly better plan. So if I had someone who was routinely risking their life, they'd need to have a compelling reason to do that with an inferior choice. It wouldn't be impossible, but my go-to choice would be estoc, not rapier.

    Now, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. But be aware that the last post you made was at least nudging up against the line of the often-contentious "roll-play vs role-play" arguments. If you take that plunge, this discussion is unlikely to remain productive.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Guru-Meditation wrote:
    MeanMutton wrote:
    ... Because an estoc is almost exactly the same weapon, has the same flavor, but is mechanically superior.

    It has a higher base-damage. 1d6 = 3.5 / 2d4 = 5. But it also costs a feat!

    To determine if a weapon is truly "superior" you can not simply ignore the costs! Many say a feat is worth more then 1.5 damage, which would make an Estoc an infgerior (!) weapon to a Rapier. If you value a feat at leass then 1.5 damage it is a good choice - for you.

    The value depends on player and even more on the build of your character. Some builds are very feat strapped, while others simply can spend several featchoices for minorish numerical bonus, instead of needing them all to unlock worthwile abilits at all.

    FYI - the original conversation was in a thread about "What if I removed the feat tax from exotic weapons?" In that context, MeanMutton is mechanically correct.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    MendedWall12 wrote:
    Never mind the fact the the rapier, historically speaking, was a sword designed both for slashing and piercing, and was an elegant weapon used by gentleman. While the estoc was basically designed as a giant punching dagger, good for going through plate armor.

    In history, but not in Pathfinder, where a rapier is a weapon never used for slashing and is exactly as capable of sundering a breastplate as a battleaxe or warhammer. If Pathfinder doesn't give you the flavor of a rapier in its mechanics, why not just take an estoc or whatever, and then draw a picture of your character holding a rapier?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Wheldrake wrote:
    Are you thinking of Arya Stark's weapon master in Game of Thrones?

    Miyamoto Musashi. Philistine!


    MendedWall12 wrote:
    MeanMutton wrote:
    They're both long, thin, piercing swords. I don't see any reason a fantasy warrior can't use an estoc for fencing and glorious displays of swordsmanship, footwork, and derring-do. Too many people get hung up on a simple name in this game and that is one item which frustrates me, honestly.

    And thanks for proving my point. They're both long pointy swords, and the estoc does more damage, so of course everyone, or at least everyone smart, would take the estoc, because: winning.

    Never mind the fact the the rapier, historically speaking, was a sword designed both for slashing and piercing, and was an elegant weapon used by gentleman. While the estoc was basically designed as a giant punching dagger, good for going through plate armor. But you see, all that is fluff, and this is a game, and winning, and DPR and all that. So if every player had an equal choice between the rapier and the estoc, they would of course take the estoc, or at least that's assumption of a very large faction of this community.

    No the assumption is, stripped of all fluff what decision do you make?

    The answer is the mechanically most advantageous one.

    If presented you with Weapon A and Weapon B and they were identical mechanically except for one had a bigger damage die or larger crit range, and had no fluff description how else would you choose?


    Truth of the matter: you're on the Paizo Forums so you're getting optimization bias.
    People on here are people who will actually visit the forums.
    Most players don't.
    Most people actually just want their character to be cool, even if it means sacrifice of optimization. (not saying that the optimizationizaers are uncool, just that many players don't put that kind of thought into it).

    APs don't REQUIRE you to be optimized.
    And optimization often doesn't mean squat in the long run.
    So the Estoc deals 2d4 instead of 1d6.
    You average a damage more. Whoop whoop. A whole damage.
    While it *could* make the difference, it most likely will not.


    Matthew Downie wrote:
    MendedWall12 wrote:
    Never mind the fact the the rapier, historically speaking, was a sword designed both for slashing and piercing, and was an elegant weapon used by gentleman. While the estoc was basically designed as a giant punching dagger, good for going through plate armor.
    In history, but not in Pathfinder, where a rapier is a weapon never used for slashing and is exactly as capable of sundering a breastplate as a battleaxe or warhammer. If Pathfinder doesn't give you the flavor of a rapier in its mechanics, why not just take an estoc or whatever, and then draw a picture of your character holding a rapier?

    Right. Correct, because the boards are for mechanical advice. And all things equal more damage is superior to less damage. I get that the original argument is flawed because the estoc actually costs a feat in Pathfinder. I know, but there's also this:

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Now imagine the weapons were more or less equal, with equal investment. Not the same -- some would have a bigger crit range, others do more base damage, others have fun properties like trip or whatever -- but more or less even.

    In that case, it wouldn't matter what kind of game you were playing. The person who wanted a swordcane could select that, without that choice gimping his character. The hard-line optimizer that The Sword so hates and despises would have no obviously superior choice, so he'd have to go for something that fit the character/story. Everyone wins.

    Having some options be blatantly better than others (again, given the same investment), is a potential impediment to choosing something thematic but incredibly sub-par, and serves to fuel the "by the numbers" character creation that makes people like The Sword froth at the mouth. It serves no purpose other than, ultimately, to divide the community.

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    If you think there is anything approaching "consensus" among gamers, you are quite delusional.

    e.g. this very thread.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I never agreed to that.


    The Sword wrote:

    I have said in a lot of cases hard line optimisers are driven to be be that way by DMs making encounters too difficult.

    In the games we play spell casters don't dominate. I don't know why, I just think they tend to use their magic to assist the group rather than just themselves. Haste usually comes before attacking spells and fly is cast on the fighter as often as the wizard.

    That said, I do have a real problem when players use the multitude of combinations to get a spell DC that monsters can only pass on a 19 or 20; or an AC which is 10 higher than the next best PC; or saves that are 5 better across the board than the next best PC; or to hit bonuses that mean most monsters are hit on a 3+. That destroys meaningful encounter building for me and I'd rather not bother writing adventures for those people. Luckily I don't have to, as the the group doesn't play that way.

    I've often pointed this out, but it always seems to get lost: Paizo has verbally committed to supporting the entire range of playstyles, and often say "There is no one right way to play" to reinforce that message.

    What you're describing above is a single playstyle that suits your group. Other groups have different preferences along the beer n' pretzels vs. ultra-optimized apocalypse spectrum. Some people (like me) actually enjoy playing all across the spectrum, at different times.

    The game rules, as published, only support a fraction of the spectrum. That happens to be the portion you're most comfortable in, so of course it's no skin off your nose, but for others it's a real problem. It also represents something of a misalignment of mission statement vs. results.

    The fact of the matter is that more balanced options support a wider range of playstyles than do seriously imbalanced ones. (Again, when I say "balanced," I don't mean "the same," I mean, "different, but equally effective in a different way.") By producing a better balanced game, Paizo would support your group, and the ultracasual group, and the hardcore optimizer group, and the people like me (who enjoy them all, and like to switch off) equally. By failing to do so, they reduce the fan base proportionately. (Granted, if they're happy with the market share they have and project that they'll have in 5 years, they can settle for that, but in that case they should really adjust the mission statement accordingly: "Pathfinder: The Gentleman Non-Optimizer's Game!")

    1 to 50 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What's the "baseline" of the Pathfinder community? All Messageboards