Keith Symcox's page

I start out by saying that I like what I am seeing in the pathfinder system. This, however, has not been enough in the past to keep a system alive, as the gaming graveyards are filled with good systems that didn't get enough play to stay in print.

The problem I see with this system is that it requires the 3.5 books to play, and those will shortly go out of print as WOTC bails on 3.5 and goes to 4E.

Since you are going to have to fight against WOTC and their muscle to get this system accepted, have you considered launching a living campaign using pathfinder? This is a lot of work for someone, but at least one of the authors is from the circle in the LG campaign and so knows how to get it started.

All indications are that the new 4E living campaign (LFR) is going to gut the regional system that made LG interesting. There is an opportunity to not only capture the gamers who like the regional system, but also develop a vehicle that exposes new gamers to the system.

Naginata, used by Japanese bushi from horseback. It's a two handed polearm, essentially a cutting blade mounted on a roughly 5 foot pole. They used to ride through the infantry slashing to either side. Never managed to cut the heads off their horses. The Nagamaki, a shorter heavier blade was also used in a similar manner. Chinese made similar usages of slashing pole arms. Bows are, of course, routinely wielded from horseback as well. It simply requires (well, not simply it takes real skill) the rider to control the mount with knee pressure. And be coordianted enough to wield the weapon effectively.

I quote from Wikipedia: "During the Gempei War (1180-1185), in which the Taira clan was pitted against Minamoto no Yoritomo of the Minamoto clan, the naginata rose to a position of particularly high esteem. Cavalry battles had become more important by this time, and the naginata proved excellent at dismounting cavalry and disabling riders. The widespread adoption of the naginata as a battlefield weapon forced the introduction of sune-ate (shin guards) as a part of Japanese armor. The rise of importance for the naginata can be seen as being mirrored by the European pike, another long pole weapon employed against mounted warriors."

I see no mention of this weapon used FROM horseback, rather used as a polearm AGAINST cavalry.

Also from Wikipedia about the Nagamaki "The nagamaki is designed for large sweeping and slicing strokes. It also works as a spear. Traditionally, it was used as infantry weapon. Warriors used the weapon against horsemen. Still, it required more time and materials to create a nagamaki than spears or naginatas, this is why it was not so widely spread. The closest exemplar of real nagamaki you can see today is nagamaki-naoshi. It appears to be like a long katana-shaped halberd, but straighter and thinner, with a very long tsuka. In contrast to it naginata is shorter, wider and more curved to the tip."

Once again, an infantry weapon used in two hands AGAINST cavalry. There is no mention of its use by cavalry.

Bows, I agree with, but see my original post about two handed MELEE weapons.

I agree that it is possible to wield weapons that are traditionally two handed weapons on horseback (e.g.the bastard sword), but that is only because the momentum of the horse allows the wielder to use the weapon in one hand.

One thing that has always been a "reality break" in 3.5 is the concept of using a 2 handed melee weapon off of horseback. As far as I know, there has never been a military unit that used a two handed melee weapon from horseback for the simple reason that you would cut off your horse's head and then fall ignominiously out of the saddle because you had no balance. Even the lance or spear was "couched" so that it could be used in one hand while charging. The bastard sword is called the hand and a half sword because it can only be used one handed while on horseback, where the horse does all the momentum work.

Yet in 3.5, I see people using greatswords off of horseback so that they can get their x2 power attack.

Can we fix this in pathfinder?

I propose that this new edition make a blanket statement that all spells that are detrimental to the opponent must have SR. Too many 3.5 combats are nerfed by glitterdust and the whole array of no SR conjuration spells from CA that mimic the evocation school.

Monster CRs are usually calcuated factoring in SR. If spells with no SR are allowed to defeat them, the effective CR is much lower than the putative SR. e.g. a golem is supposed to be almost immune to magic, but their will save is poor. Seldom does one ever fight a golem that isn't blind (from glitterdust) and these days the wizards simply ray of xxxx them to death.