Sunlord Thalachos

Erk Ander's page

97 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Edge93 wrote:
It's not Stunned 1 (At least from what I was told), it's Stunned. Stunned without a number attached means they lose all of their actions for the listed duration.

You didn't get what I meant. I know its Stunned (no save) for 1 round. I proposed it be changed to Stunned 1. My proposal was that it could also replace the usual crit effect that weapons come with. As a further balance point.

Edge93 wrote:

The closest comparison to crit specialization effects would be Brawling, which can make a target Slowed 1 for 1 round if they fail a Fort save against your class DC. So Brawling effects anyone but allows a save and only takes 1 action. This Ancestry thing effects fiends only but allows no save and takes all actions.

That's still busted. Just because it's limited in creature type doesn't make up for the ridiculous discrepancy. IMO it would be appropriate to make it Stunned 1 with no save instead of Stunned for 1 round. I don't think anyone would object to that. It drops the save allowed but is type-specific.

Actually it being limited to creature does in fact partially make up for the power, due to making it conditional. With that said as it is now it need a Fort Save OR it needs to be toned down to Stunned 1. That was my point in the first post. I see we agree on that.

Edge93 wrote:

NOTE: Okay, the above post is based on two notable misconceptions. First, I somehow misread the original mention of this Aasimar ability and thought it stunned fiends if THEY crit YOU, kinda like how armor of x material sickens y creatures if they crit you. That said, you stunning them if you crit them is probably even more broken.

The second, I misread the quoted post. I thought it was saying that this ability (As I thought it was before I realized my mistake) was fine, and that it should be compared to crit specialization effects as a balance point. Hence why I was comparing to the effects of a similar crit ability.

TL;DR The ability as it is is still absolutely broken IMO, perhaps even...

Yeah I realised you got it wrong, maybe I should have been clearer (I was tired yesterday, should have been more orderly in my response). Lets just take it easy with the superlatives. Yes is its very strong if situational and yes it needs some revision but absolutely broken is a strong word.

Either we both agree the ability needs a save (Fort) or be tonned down to Stunned 1. Either works well.


Hmm a lot of kneejerk reactions. I propose we all look at the current core ancestries. Usually most of the so called "OP" stuff is already in Core.

I If fighting fiends the 1-round stun is great, the times it occurs that is. Still I propose it replace a weapons regular crit effect (flatfooted for example sword etc) assuming you have such ability and does Stun 1. It's situational in that only affects fiends which balance out the lack of sving throw, after it requires a crit (or a massive to hit bonus)


The PF bastard sword should simply have stats of the Katana. As such it doesn't compete with the "great-sword" aka the real life Two-handed sword/Slaughter-sword/Montante. The Katana stats feels very appropriate it was well executed by Paizo.

Maybe I would replace the Deadly Trait with the Versatile (B) to represent using the pommel, quillions etc as club/war-hammer. It also differentiates the Bastard Sword from the Katana ever so slightly


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So are ThiCC Tengu going to be a thing now ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Easily Andoran, mostly because they tend to be far less conservative in adopting new tech. For instance inAbsalom the First Guard is VERY conservative where as those member from Andoran tend to want to experiment and progress.

Also pseudo-America.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is why Liane is among the very best. First of all, damn that Dragon was evil. Seriously evil. Also love how you made us feel just how dangerous it a dragon really. All in all, I loved it.


Rysky wrote:


Because the Chanpion is more than just those 3 Feats.
Quote:

No s@+& Sherlock, but I purposely asked for these three ICONIC abilties (because I was pretty much satisfied with everything else in class)

Rysky wrote:
]And Bravery only does for the Fighter, whereas Aura works for the Champion’s allies in addition to themselves.
Quote:

It does very little for the PAladin itself, why this is so hard to understand is beyond me, especially since I have slowly explained the issue. This has to be trolling on your part.

In 2e Dnd the Paladin (Cavalier) had immunity to fear and aura against fear
in 3e he had immunity to fear and an aura against fear
same in 3.5
And in PF first edition, he had immunity to fear and aura against fear

4 Edition paladin lacked any specific Fear resisstance apart from a few utilities

5e was the return of the Immunity and aura of fear.

Do you recognise a pattern ? It should be fairly obvious but I guess I can expect the most basic understanding. Immunutiy is WAY too strong but actual resistance to becoming afraid from the very start would be welcome. And very fitting.

Quote:
I shall do so, and suggest you do the same with your complaining that the Champion isn’t the Fighter.

Given that my original question wasn't even aimed at you, you could have simply chosen to be silent. And I am not complaining that the champion isn't fighter, I'm critizing that its not its predecessor (or Paladin as it was called for a while in the playtest)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

@Erk

I didn’t miss Bravery at all, I went and read it when you brought it up, it’s great for for the Fighter, Aura of Courage is good for the Paladin and their party (15ft btw). So if you deal with fear effects often it is very much worth it.

It’s precisely because you don’t have the books that the snark is warranted, you’re writing it all off based just on tidbits without seeing everything.

If the three feats are EXACTLY like the playtest why does it then matter if I have the book ? I wanted info on those three feats alone. I neither want nor need to see more, since that all I wanted. My disappointment was of these three feats and these alone. I have said nothing about other feats. You are now willfully missing the point, Aura of Courage does LESS for the PAladin than Bravery does for the Fighter. Which is why its a disappointment. The Paladin used to be immune and then granted resistance to fear. Now he merely reduces the value by 1 for any within 15 feet. And he has to use a valuable featslot for whats been an iconic abliity.

The snark is not warranted and you would do well to realise that. Its not even your thread, so why the need to be rude. Take it elsewhere.


Rysky wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
Is Aura of courage, Divine Grace, Sense Evil still feats.

Yes to all three

Divine Grace is the same.

Aura of Courage reduces the frightened status faster for you and your allies.

Sense Evil is a sense, you can tell you're around powerful evil, no action required.

Erk Ander wrote:
While other classes get their iconic abilties as class features, the Champion has to choose them.
What are you talking about, Champions get their iconic heavy armor abil-yeah I'm still grumpy about that-_-

This is so disappointing. Aura of Courage used to be immunity to fear. Yeah thats too much in this edition, but there are other ways to emulate that. No its not only a feat, its also much weaker than the fighters Bravery.

Same goes for the rest of the "feats".

Yes, outright immunities are too strong with this setup. And it's not weaker than Bravery because Bravery only works on the Fighter, Aura of Courage helps your allies.

As for the "rest of feats" that's kinda out there for you to say, since you're asking questions for them that means you don't have the books and thus don't know what the rest of the Feats are like. And they're exactly that, Feats, you don't have to take them.

You seem to miss that Bravery grants expert in will and makes fear success into crtical success and diminishes fear value for fighter. Aura of Courage merely diminises the condition value for Champ and any within 10 feet. And its a feat so you have use a feat choice where as the Fighter gets a very useful class feature. AoC is not worth it all.

When I said "same goes for the rest of feats" I meant they (DG and SE) were equally disappointing. Since you told me they were exactly like the play-test I obviously know what they are like.

In short there is no reason to be snarky, I know I don't have the books.


Rysky wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
Is Aura of courage, Divine Grace, Sense Evil still feats.

Yes to all three

Divine Grace is the same.

Aura of Courage reduces the frightened status faster for you and your allies.

Sense Evil is a sense, you can tell you're around powerful evil, no action required.

Erk Ander wrote:
While other classes get their iconic abilties as class features, the Champion has to choose them.
What are you talking about, Champions get their iconic heavy armor abil-yeah I'm still grumpy about that-_-

This is so disappointing. Aura of Courage used to be immunity to fear. Yeah thats too much in this edition, but there are other ways to emulate that. No its not only a feat, its also much weaker than the fighters Bravery.

Same goes for the rest of the "feats".


RangerWickett wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
Ok, some Paladin/champion questions. ...
Your comment suggests you were unhappy with how it worked in the playtest. What would you have liked it to have done?

Not the OP, but my general answer is that I would have figured out which class had the most features (probably paladin, monk, or druid) and made that amount of stuff the baseline, then upgunned the other classes to match.

I want a paladin who starts by being able to detect evil, is resistant to fear, is protected by divine power, and whose attacks are somehow empowered by divine magic when fighting evil things. Maybe not simply 'extra damage,' but perhaps some special boon depending on what god you worship.

Maybe that means fighters start off with some choice of fighting style that no one else gets. It could just be some extra feat (so you can do cool axe throwing *and* have fun trick shots with whips *and* are great at climbing onto large monsters), or maybe some new thing (choose one of three: you're good at using the environment as a weapon, or you're good at figuring out the fighting styles of foes and giving allies a boost, or you have a squire who works sorta like an animal companion).

This exactly what I said. While other classes get their iconic abilties as class features, the Champion has to choose them. As I said above would have prefered if Aura of Courage (it should be more like bravey plus any fear-fail should become a success), Divine Grace ( should be a conditional +1 and at later lvls +2 bonus) and Sense Evil were class feautres. The Champions Reaction could be a Feat instead.


Ok, some Paladin/champion questions for the All-Seeing Orb

Is Aura of courage, Divine Grace, Sense Evil still feats. I saw these as iconic abilities (class features) yet they were feats in the playtest. So how do the work now ? The fighter got Bravery as class feature and it was way more useful than Aura of Courage (a feat )was. Divine Grace was a feat that used your reaction to gain a bonus to saves (as such competed with AoO and Paladins Action reaction). Sense Evil was just plain weak in the playtest, what does it do now ? Also What happened to Instrument of Zeal feat and the lvl 12 Smite evil (power attack on evil foes basically) ? Instrument of Zeal was highly situational in the playtest how is it now ?


Lanathar wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:

Ok, some Paladin/champion questions. Is Aura of courage, Divine GRACE, Sense Evil still feats. I saw these as iconic abilities yet not they are feats. So what are they about now ? The fighter got Bravery as class feature and it was way more useful than Aura of Courage (a feat ) was. Divine Grace as feat that used your reaction to gain a bonus to saves (as such competed with AoO and Paladins reaction). Sense Evil was just plain weak in the playtest, what does it do now ? Also What happened to Instrument of Zeal feat as well as the lvl 12 Smite evil (power attack on evil foes basically) ? Instrument of Zeal was highly situational in the playtest how is it now ?

Thanks and btw you can only describe in vague terms if it feels better.

Is the “grace” in divine grace in all caps for a reason? Is it supposed to be emphasised ?

Your comment suggests you were unhappy with how it worked in the playtest. What would you have liked it to have done?

It was a mistake didnt mean for it to be in caps.

With that said yes it was somewhat disappointing. I felt that DG, AoC and Sense Evil/Detect Evil should have been class features.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, some Paladin/champion questions. Is Aura of courage, Divine GRACE, Sense Evil still feats. I saw these as iconic abilities (class features) yet they were feats in the playtest. So what are they about now ? The fighter got Bravery as class feature and it was way more useful than Aura of Courage (a feat ) was. Divine Grace was a feat that used your reaction to gain a bonus to saves (as such competed with AoO and Paladins Action reaction). Sense Evil was just plain weak in the playtest, what does it do now ? Also What happened to Instrument of Zeal feat as well as the lvl 12 Smite evil (power attack on evil foes basically) ? Instrument of Zeal was highly situational in the playtest how is it now ?

Thanks and btw you can only describe in vague terms if it feels better.


magnuskn wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dracovar wrote:
they don't STOP TB, rather, they just slow him down and deny him his fancy nuke.
The also stop him from getting to the Startsone and becoming a full on god.
Quite honestly, not stopping him might work out better for Golarion in the long term. As a God, he can't blatantly interfere and if he tries... well, then there are a lot of other "people" (i.e. gods) well on his power level there to slap him on the fingers, as explained in Inner Sea Gods and other products. And you can't tell me he would be worse than Urgathoa somehow.

A little surprised nobody hires the Mantis God to deal with the Tyrant. Sure the LG types might not be for it, but some of CG and LN wouldn't care. Given that Iomedae occasionally Asks Asmodeus for advice...maybe asking the Mantis Good to visit her old "friend" might not be such a big deal....or maybe it would.


Kyrone wrote:

It may not be everyone cup of tea but I would love some Xcom tactical style game with PF2 fantasy setting and rules, the 3 action economy makes it perfect.

Instead of shooting an mutton in the face you stab an orc in the guts.

Paizo GET THIS DONE ! Contact the makers of Xcom and have them do this. Make a Kickstarter, I'd so contribute to this.


CorvusMask wrote:
Even in 1e planetouched were available to all races. Heck in Starfinder there is picture of shirren ifrit in dawn of flame

I know but its rarely been shown in art of lore. Even though books like Blood of angels clearly wtite non-humans can be aasimar (in fact I think there is a halfling aasimar in said book). Either its just my hopes. Know its not gonna be that way.


I personallt hope only humans give rise to planetouched. Be they Aasimar, ifrit or other. I like that humans have this crossbreed ability with pretty much most sentient beings.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Erk Ander wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


You ignored the bold bit there. That composite longbow required significant gold investment to upgrade to that point. Cantrips are free. A caster shouldn't be able to do comparable damage at will for free, especially when you consider at will damage tends to be biggest contribution a martial character can make while the caster...

Yes you make a good point., but the cantrip is also 2 actions as opposed to the weapons 1, plus range, and a bunch of other things. I'd suggest increasing the range at the very least. maybe adding a mid-level feat that makes cantrip attacks 1 action instead of 2. Due to overall weakening of casters cantrips are going to be way more important.

Bardarok wrote:

With striking taking up a rune slot and only going to three bonus dice won't max Longbow damage be more like: 4d8+3 Str+2d6 Other runes or ~28

Compared to 9d4+7 ~29.5

You get two shots with the bow which does make it more damaging for the action economy but it probably should be if it is a primary weapon.

I'd argue that cantrips should start off closer to weapon damage and then fall behind because as the caster level ups it's more likely that they are going to use a slotted spell or power so cantrips move from primary combat position for a low level caster to a backup option for a high level caster

Striking grants 4 dice (5 in playtest).

I'll agree with you that cantrip range doesn't tend to be very impressive, but that's a solid use for the Reach spell feat or a comparable range enhancing item. I'm somewhat reluctant to make 1 action cantrips the norm because then they become pretty absurdly good when combined with other actions in the same turn. Being able to launch two cantrips or a cantrip and a fireball in the same turn feels like a lot of DPR.

It also makes casters play more and more like martials, which I dislike both for protecting martial's niche and eroding the differences between how the classes play. Getting rid of...

Given that spells are weaker in this edition spell a cantrip isn't necessarily crazy. Also other classes have abilyties they can mix and mash their attacks with.

I'd rather have good cantrips than force casters to use subotimal options as 3.5 did (remember wizards with crossbows).

Also if the casters can rely on their cantrips (when they run out of spells) and not their weapons won't they play less like martials ? The cantrips are here to stay so at-will mechanics ain't going anywhere


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


You ignored the bold bit there. That composite longbow required significant gold investment to upgrade to that point. Cantrips are free. A caster shouldn't be able to do comparable damage at will for free, especially when you consider at will damage tends to be biggest contribution a martial character can make while the caster...

Yes you make a good point., but the cantrip is also 2 actions as opposed to the weapons 1, plus range, and a bunch of other things. I'd suggest increasing the range at the very least. maybe adding a mid-level feat that makes cantrip attacks 1 action instead of 2. Due to overall weakening of casters cantrips are going to be way more important.

Bardarok wrote:

With striking taking up a rune slot and only going to three bonus dice won't max Longbow damage be more like: 4d8+3 Str+2d6 Other runes or ~28

Compared to 9d4+7 ~29.5

You get two shots with the bow which does make it more damaging for the action economy but it probably should be if it is a primary weapon.

I'd argue that cantrips should start off closer to weapon damage and then fall behind because as the caster level ups it's more likely that they are going to use a slotted spell or power so cantrips move from primary combat position for a low level caster to a backup option for a high level caster

Striking grants 4 dice (5 in playtest).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Divine Lance bodes well for cantrip damage in general. 9d4+Casting Stat is respectable high level damage for something free, and I doubt Arcane cantrips are too much worse.

I am not so sure. Comparte it with a composite longbow at that lvl it 5d8+dex+0.5 Str+Runes (fire, holy etc). Given all that its likely the ranged weapon deals at the very least twice as much damage .Plus the bow has FAR longer range (divine lance should have at least 120). The one downside a ranged weapon has is...ammo.


Ascalaphus wrote:

Would you really pay (in credits to buy the fusion, and in opportunity cost because you can't apply other fusions) to gain more crit effects but give up the double damage on a "classic" crit?

Remember, a weapon has to have at least the item level of the combined "fusion pips" you want to put on it. So a "Dangerous" fusion can only be put on a level 5+ item, and consumes 5 of that weapon's possible fusion pips.

I wouldn't use this, except for really hardcore crit effects. Getting 1d6 Burn on a 19-20 isn't as good as doing double regular damage on a 20. Because regular damage is much more, and it's right now, quite possibly taking the enemy out of the fight. Whereas with Burn, the enemy gets to fight back some more before he crisps.

Indeed you make exellent points, taking away the double damage feels like a overall nerf.


If I may, some of Forms and feats etc grant bonus to attacks. These are are worth FAR more than bonus to damage, I would change that if I were you


Zero the Nothing wrote:

Not sure what will actually be in the book, but I'd like to see...

1. Class-specific feats. Maybe ones that let Solarians do something other than fire damage.
2. Options to change Solarian key ability without multiclassing.
3. Some kind of ranged Stellar Revelations. Either a Graviton one for throwing your weapon and/or a Photon one for launching a bolt of energy.
4. Basic Melee operative weapon that isn't a baton or a knife. I just wanna do Kung Fu on people with my Operative, why aren't the Battlegloves operative weapons?
5. Something to help change the area type of Stellar Revelations, especially Zenith's. When I'm fully attuned and want to use Supernova, I wanna kill the bad guys, not my friends. Give me a cone.

The produkt Star Classes Solarian more than few of those issues


I would do what Zero the Nothing advices. Make a exploit similiar to Pistol-whip. However you gain the improved unarmed feat as well a special attack specialization. Your unarmed attacks also gain the operative keyword. In addition a combat-maneuver can be made as a part of a full attack acion (replacing one attack). Maybe a +2 to this combat-maneuver.

This would be a roughly lvl 6 exploit.

Its still vastly inferiour to even a basic weapon, due to damage, DR etc


Has this been updated or it thrashed ?


yukongil wrote:
whatever build path you choose, just be sure to miss a 95% chance shot WAAAAY more than 5% of the time...if it can be in a clutch moment that results in your entire squad being wiped out, bonus!

LOL


Captain Morgan wrote:
A One Punch Man punch doesn't knock people prone. They are usually still standing after it, but their entire torso has exploded. I don't actually see any relation to the feat.

I wasn't being literal, should have been more clear. Maybe I am misremembering but has he not knocked folks (in the case where he doesn't kill them outright). Either way you get my point. The idea is that monk should be able to punch folks with such force as to knock them prone. As of now the Barb has that ability and its imo much better than the knockdown strike


A few changes I'd like to see is the monk getting proficiency's with monk-weapons from the start and not as a optional feat. Another thing is getting expert proficient in perception. Also the whole monk-weapon proficiency feels like a feat tax
It feels more than a little odd that pretty much every martial class besides the monk get it.

Another thing I found a little weird is how the monk can get mastery in two saves or legendary in one and mastery in one. And the legendary save is not the strong one (where critical failure become failure). Where as other classes like the Barb, rogue, ranger etc get the powerful Legendary in one save as well as mastery in another. I'd like to see the monk getting mastery in 3 saves. As the monk is all about balance between soul, mind and body (yada, yada). It would also make the monk standout when it comes to gaining saves.

Another sort of redundant feat is the "Shattering Strike" (SS) feat. Given that monk already ignores most metallic DR by lvl 17 I think this feat should be removed and added to Perfect form (PF) feature. As of the SS feel somewhat redundant. And PErfect Form only really helps on the First strike in a round at that lvl. Adding SS to PF would mean that you get at least something out the Perfect Form feauture

The last part is the knock out strike, I feel the Barbs version was far more sensible and also its improved version Awesome Blow was more like I would envision an unarmed warrior would strike his opponents in that also knocks prone (Think one-punch-man)


Yeah I also reacted at how weak this spell was.


Phillip Gastone wrote:

]

So he likes war

That was intense


Helmic wrote:

I really don't like manual spell heightening. It's extra bookkeeping and I'm not entirely sure what the point of it is. Just let the player make a list of prepared spells, and then they can cast those spells at whatever level they have the slots for. Much simpler, don't see it as being particularly OP as you're spending the resources regardless.

Spontaneous casters just don't get anything universally that makes them better - instead, spontaneous spellcasting is a sacrifice in order to have something else the class itself provides, or they just get more slots. 5e not doing a great job doesn't mean PF2 can't make spontaneous casters exciting. Sorcerers in particular should at least have a fantastic blasting option that maybe limits their spell selection further to just those that deal damage but then makes them a viable damage alternative to a martial, an arcane alternative to playing an archer.

Bloodlines have plenty of potential to be a larger part of a sorcerer's identity, I don't think it's necessary that they get spell heightening as an exclusive is worth complicating the magic system as a whole.

Thank you. This exactly my opinion. If the point is to remove the problematic Vancian casting why the keep the "manual spell heigtening" ? A caster will still be forced to guess the amount of spells and spell slots you must allocate because you have to manual heighten spells rather than allowing spontaneous heigtening (as long you have slots left).

Bards and sorcs get something else, such as more spells slot or even the dreaded mana-spellcasting style.


I always saw spontaneous heightening as part of the arcanist spell casting style. It feels really weird to implement that kind of spellcasting style and not include spontaenous heightening. In Pf1 we had caster lvls so it was sort automatic.

Either wau I suggets keeping it simple. BArds and Sorcs gain extra spel slots. Maybe 5 per lvl.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the caster lvl issue. I understand how its meant to solve a issue, but they also halved the amount of spells you can get. This AND the heightening mechanic is a harsh. Maybe increase the amount of spells u gain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could also give spontaenous casters, the spell-point/mana system. And prepared casters the Arcanist. Given that spellcasters are greatly weakened already I fail to see the issue. Is it really that bad a suggestion ?

Also I think the caster vs martial disparity is something that can be partially fixed by giving martials something else to do or contribute.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is pretty cool. Radiant blast isn't very damaging though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Might be a little controversial but a better spellcastiong method ? Spellpoint or Arcanist spellcasting for clerics. Also a CANTRIP with long range that deals damage, preferbly alignment damage.

Also if the clerics spells had a niche. For instance the few offensive clerics spells could for instance be partyfriendly (the Divine know their own) up to say Cha-modifier targets. Or they could have other cool features, like Flame strike. Which currently halves flame-resistance but IMO should completely ignore fire-resistance. But fire-immunity should lead to a higher save succes (as it is now). The Divine spell list is pretty much the worst so improving the spell quality and spell-casting method (arcanist or spellpoint/mana) would do wonders.


Maybe a cantrip that deal Good/evil damage ?

Also the offensive cleric spells are stricly worse. SAdly enough


Just wanna say this is AWESOME!


Well a simple solution is to allow full weapon specialization on small arms. It's nowhere near OP. Longarms etc already deal far more than small arms even prior to weapon spec. Both mechanic sub-classes deal far more damage (roughly 33% I think) with long arms than trick attack with full weapon spec on a small arm. There are alot of old threads and a customization spreadsheet that allows you test out various changes on the DPR of classes. Search the topic


This looks insanely good. Very Proffesional. I will continue to check it outand see if find something concerning. Doubt that though. One Question are lighsabers usable with Dex as main stat for damage and attack. Personally I believe they should be since lightsabers dont gain so much from superior str given the properteries of the weapon see this video to futher understand my point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpdTooRUbv4


We have gone over this is in past. Damagewise Soldier, Solarian and both types of Mechanics do more damage than Operatives. The first 2 and drone mechanic have DPR 40-50 larger than the Operative. Yes its very good at skills and if it invest in INT over DEX it can be better than MEchanics and TEchmans at Computers and/or Engineering.

Just search for the math in the various threads about damage. The At lvl 20 a soldier and solarian deal TWICE the DPR of a Operative.


Slim Jim wrote:
While it's true that a longsword has room for two hands on the hilt, that's not always where both hands were. A knight (as opposed to a fencing master as seen in some of the videos linked on the first page) with a longsword was typically well-armored and could grip his sword anywhere along the length of the blade with his gauntlets. --He could swing it like a club, smashing his opponent's helm with the crossguard, stun him, then jimmy the point through a chink. A spear is too ungainly for that kind of work versus an armored opponent, especially in a very crowded melee with an adjacent opponent while the back end of your spear is hanging out several feet and being knocked around by other movement. The longsword was an all-purpose weapon: it wasn't the best crowbar, the best basher, the best pig-sticker, or the best slicer, and it didn't have lengthy reach -- but it did them all adequately in one package.
Quote:

This is exactly what I said. I am not sure you read my reply at all.

You can stun the opponent in armor with a mace or hammer, but you'll then you'll need a second weapon to get through the...

You can do more than just stun. The weapons can deform plate armour and you will feel it. Especially warhammers had spikes that could be used to penetrate plate. The best weapon to deal with armour is bludgeoning weapons. All knights had daggers also such misericords to stabb through visors.


I wanna point that while some masters romanticized the sword, reality is clearly another issue. Example is the first verse here.

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi/Sword_in_Two_Hands/Wide_Play

The strength of the Longsword lay in its versatility. Its the bard of swords. Thats why it was secondary weapon in all Europe, together with the dagger ofc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Hollywood fight-scenes have never accurately depicted technique with a longsword; they are always shown as cumbersome bashers even though historical examples seldom weighed over 3 lbs and were frighteningly nimble. The so-called German school of fencing ("Deutsche Schule; Kunst des Fechtens") specialized in longsword and trained to defeat armored adversaries. In the Orient, the spear was considered superior to the sword on the battlefield; in the West, the longsword was superior to the spear.

Never ever heard that the longsword was superior to the the spear in Europe. Sure it was a nobles weapon and at least one Master said it was the weapon to start with (due to complexity). But its actual superiority to the spear is very questionable.

Slim Jim wrote:
No culture without longswords developed fully-enclosed, articulated plate armor, and no such culture's best lesser armor would have stopped a longsword whose point was designed to be levered into joints. But to this day, games treat it as a cheap "starter" sword that your hero almost immediately throws away upon acquiring a better weapon, when in actuality they were the top-shelf and far beyond the monetary means of the commoner. They were the apex European war sword for over 400 years.

This is also a very questionable claim. The emergeance of plate armour has less to do with longswords. A maiille or even gambeson can stop the cuts of a longsword. Let alone plate, which is barely scratched. Yes you can thrust with the point but you can do that with a LARGE variety of weapons just as well. And thursting through the mail and gambeson in joints, armspits of plate (because you can't thrust through plate) is very hard. Even if you half-sword. Swords (longsword. katana) as a weapon are not very good against maille or better. Yes you can strike with hilt, pommel etc. But you can also just use a mace, warhammer. LongsSwords were secondary weapons and were good SECONDARY because of the versatility, since in a pinch they can do alot of different things, but you don't start with it. As main weapons they are not super good if the opponent is wearing more than maille. The Poleaxe is however. Thats why knights usually had swords as secondary weapons.

Slim Jim wrote:


You might think that a rapier's hand-protecting hilt cups and/or basket-work were innovations over the longsword; actually they are not, because you can't spin a sword with a round guard (or tsuba). Rapiers, and their ever more diminutive "smallsword" descendants, flourished in "polite society" because they were less deadly and therefore suitable for use in affairs-of-honor, which, despite depiction of duels in movies, were usually fought "to the blood" (or first scratch, hopefully something that would heal to leave a handsome scar on the forehead or cheek; the Prussians in particular were really into that sort of thing, and students at military academies were accounted cowards if they did not duel). Longswords were not designed for such niceties; they were made for expediently putting the enemy down permanently.

When you say spin, do you mean "winding" in the "bind" ? Also there were plenty of longswords that had complex hilts, they are absolutely beautiful and they protect you hands. If anything the complex hilt longswords were the apex of swords. Google Swiss sabers (technically not "longswords") or complex hilt longswords. Also longswords were used to duel sometimes to first blood. Sometimes to death, I think talhoffer or some such guy was a "champion" who fought duels on behalf of people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer


HWalsh wrote:

Operatives are underpowered?

Uh... What?

They have the best skills, they can easily have the highest saves, they have the best skill bonuses bar none, their trick attack puts them above every class that isn't specifically Soldier or specifically a Melee Solarian.

What more do you want from a class? They are the most powerful freaking class in the game.

They are not underpowered. But All types of Soldiers, Solarians and MEchanics outdamage them.


Here are comparassions

Operative comparasion TA vs Full attack .

Operative comparasiom TA, vs Sniper vs TA with sniper.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Operative is not OP at all. He is sort nmbr 2 at all skills that are not Dexcbased.

In terms of damage the Soldier and the Solarion both outdamage him. But so do both the mechanics as well. I have spredsheet modfied by another poster with all the roundsdown.


Robert Gooding wrote:
...operative ranks 3rd in dpr, look at any of the spreadsheets many people have made behind only the solarion and the soldier

Dude I have done the calculations myself with those very spreadsheets. In fact my posts are all over the board on this very topic. Both Mechanics outdamage the Operative after from 13 or so. Don't remember how much they outdamage priot. Around lv 10 trhey deal equal damage.

Do you want me to post it again ?


Robert Gooding wrote:
People are also forgetting that operative is primarily a skill class, they already have the best of both worlds with a high dpr compared to other skill classes and best skill bonuses, if want to look at a short changed class look at the mechanic, the operative is fine

The Mechanic is arguebly better at it chosen skills than the operative (unless the operative has INT as highest stat) is. Both Mechanics also deal more DPR than Operative. The Mechanic is a great class.

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>