So who is responsible for nerfing Butterfly Swords?

And why hasn't he been fired yet?

Seriously how do Butterfly Swords get only 1d4 damage, the same as a crappy old dagger? The blades are 15-20 inches long, plus the hilt, plus the pommel (used for bashing) - and they weigh only half a kg? Butterfly Swords are serious close quarter combat swords designed to not only to slash, but also pierce.

Somebody seems to to have gotten the Butterfly Sword mixed up with the Balisong, the folding knife. Butterfly Sword stats should be the same as the Wakizashi, it's as simple as that. When is there going to be errata released to correct this gross mistake?

First: have you ever wielded true Butterfly Swords? Not replicas real ones.

Second: IRL they are a fast but lightly damaging weapon.

Third: They done a much worse representation with the Chakram.

Finally: Daggers cover everything from Knives to Cleavers(the weapon).

What is the rules question?

Is this just a random complaint?

You know, rather than being... like that ^^^ about it you could just look into adjusting it for your home game. Or using something else. Not like there aren't plenty of options to choose from.

Yeah, but you can draw them both at the same time without the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, so using them allows someone who wants to use two-weapon fighting but doesn't want to take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat to spend an extra action to draw them. And they're a Monk weapon, so a Monk could actually use them at the cost of a feat! Obviously they needed to be made terrible, this could be an overpowered combo otherwise, also I cast time stop. Plus, if some options aren't randomly bad, then player skill doesn't exist, we can't punish people for lack of system mastery, and people can just build the characters they want without worrying about being randomly screwed over, which would be awful because

So, no actual rules question?

Just whining about a favorite weapon of yours not being quite a powerful as you would like?

Sounds like some of the Katana threads, where the weeaboos come out of the woodwork to say it needs be 12d6 12-20 x4, and require two feats to wield.

This is the direction this is going, right?

Am I on the right track?

Here's a question: why is it necessary for some weapons to be strictly inferior to other weapons? How does that make the game better?

The "12d6 12-20 x4 katana" thing is a strawman because it's asking for something strictly and vastly better than other weapons. That's very different from asking that a weapon not be arbitrarily worse.

Loads of weapons are inferior in comparison to others than you would think if you are familiar with them. plenty are inaccurately described in terms of size, weight and handedness. My personal gripes are the mere (no way that does less damage than a wooden stick) and the urumi (the real weapon is under 2 pounds, listed in the book as 6)

Or the opposite posts saying the Katana was badly designed and made too powerful. Personally I am happy Paizo didn't go the "A Katana is just a Masterwork Bastard Sword" Route.

One must also remember that the Weapons are abstract in that they cover multiple real world weapons. Like a Bastard Sword covers Hand-&-Half Swords, Ancestral Claymores, & the Real World Longsword.

I was speaking of the thread direction.

There is no Straw Man fallacy here.

The rage threads for a weapon to be better, because some wants it to be, is a valid comparison.

For a weapon to not be worse, it must be better.

The same goes for the "this weapon iz teh broken" threads.

Most of the time they head into levels of ridiculousness, with "experts" shooting flame posts out against other flame posts.

So, my inquiry, as to whether this was a thread in the similar light, or an actual rules question, is a valid question.

Wait.

Is this more off-hand Roberta Yang sarcasm?

Or the opposite posts saying the Katana was badly designed and made too powerful. Personally I am happy Paizo didn't go the "A Katana is just a Masterwork Bastard Sword" Route.

One must also remember that the Weapons are abstract in that they cover multiple real world weapons. Like a Bastard Sword covers Hand-&-Half Swords, Ancestral Claymores, & the Real World Longsword.

I'd love for a "Katana shatters when hitting steel armour" mechanic...

Did you know a katana can cut a tank in half in one clean cut?

...apparently butterfly swords can cut katanas in half.

Asking for a weapon to be better because thematically it should totally be the bestest weapon is very different from asking for a weapon to be better because as it stands it's worse than all the alternatives and offers no benefit in return, effectively punishing certain character concepts for no good reason. The two are only equivalent if you abstract them to the level of "a player asked for a thing to be changed".

Okay. Sure, "Weapon A should be better, for these reasons..." is totally different than "Weapon B should be better, for these reason...".

So, if this is where it's going, then I will put my vote in.

Barbazu Beard should be better, because it is totally cool, and being as bad as it is hurts my ability to create thematic PCs.

I'd love for a "Katana shatters when hitting steel armour" mechanic...

The problem is a Well made Katana would only have a slight notch in the blade. Which is all that happens with an Arming Sword.

Okay. Sure, "Weapon A should be better, for these reasons..." is totally different than "Weapon B should be better, for these reason...".

You're really going to go with "reasons for statements never matter"?

Wow.

That's... impressive.

Then again, I suppose we're really in agreement. After all, both our posts are composed of arrangements of letters, and it's not like one arrangement of letters is really that different from another, right?

And why hasn't he been fired yet?

Seriously how do Butterfly Swords get only 1d4 damage, the same as a crappy old dagger? The blades are 15-20 inches long, plus the hilt, plus the pommel (used for bashing) - and they weigh only half a kg? Butterfly Swords are serious close quarter combat swords designed to not only to slash, but also pierce.

Somebody seems to to have gotten the Butterfly Sword mixed up with the Balisong, the folding knife. Butterfly Sword stats should be the same as the Wakizashi, it's as simple as that. When is there going to be errata released to correct this gross mistake?

You should be angry, daggers can Slashing or Pierce, so the butterfly swords are weaker than daggers.

Do you just want it to be like a wakizashi, op? If so, then just do so. A lot of weapons in this game don't relate well to their real life counterparts. Is there something specific you want it to do other than more damage?

Weapons are different. Sometimes it means that one is out and out better than another. It's the way this game is put together. I've house ruled some things to make weapons different from one another, and it works at my table, but some people aren't going to be happy until their favorite weapons do more damage than the other guys right out of the box.

Here is a helpful forum template.

Do the designers know anything about [my favorite weapon]?! Have they even looked at [my favorite weapons]? Its clearly better than [a weapon I consider inferior]. Obviously, [my favorite weapon] has a better [feature that causes damage] than [another random weapon]. Clearly, the game designers have something against people that use [my favorite weapon].

That should help with similar posts on the future.

-Skeld

Here's a question: why is it necessary for some weapons to be strictly inferior to other weapons? How does that make the game better?

The "12d6 12-20 x4 katana" thing is a strawman because it's asking for something strictly and vastly better than other weapons. That's very different from asking that a weapon not be arbitrarily worse.

And why should some weapons be better?

They have too many weapons, and too many odd opinions on how useful they are. 3.x was supposed to simplify combat (originally) because it was "too tactical, too complex and had too many weapons". Oh, and it had facing. Between the huge number of combat related Feats and the vast number of "different" weapons and odd weapon abilities they have added it has only become more complex and less logical and intuitive.

Oh, and I agree with you. Why should one weapon, in a category, be inferior to another. "Experts" can argue the relative merits of each all day. And do. I don't really see it being settled in an RPG which, although combat heavy, is not terribly combat "realistic".

At the end of my rant, there should be far fewer weapons than there are, and far fewer weapons that are "better" (or worse). For the most part irl, its the user, not the weapon that matters. Imo, of courser :)

Funky Badger wrote:

I'd love for a "Katana shatters when hitting steel armour" mechanic...

The problem is a Well made Katana would only have a slight notch in the blade. Which is all that happens with an Arming Sword.

Hmmm, was informed that the folding technique makes sharp, ut brittle blades. Hence no blade on blade parrying, or metal armour.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Funky Badger wrote:

I'd love for a "Katana shatters when hitting steel armour" mechanic...

The problem is a Well made Katana would only have a slight notch in the blade. Which is all that happens with an Arming Sword.

Hmmm, was informed that the folding technique makes sharp, ut brittle blades. Hence no blade on blade parrying, or metal armour.

The edge is sharp, the core is softer / flexible. Not that I'd suggest banging it on a set of platemail...

Well Notch refers to any damage suffered by the edge of a weapon. But typically refers to deforming of the metal. In a katana's case it would be more of Chipping the edge. Blade on Blade Parrying isn't the Crossing of Swords you see in movies. Most samurai Parryed using a sideways push technique.

<Facepalm>
Things would be so much simpler if items were mapped to a base equivalent for both purposes of damage and feats. We abstract skills, we should also abstract weapon groups.

If it's like a dagger/knife: 1d4
Shortsword: 1d6 (which would include the butterfy swords)
Longswords: 1d8 (as well as anything else with 3' of metal and a 1-handed hilt)
Hand-and-a-half: 1d10 (bastard swod, Katana)
Greatsword: 2d6 (includes nodachi, claymores and other such items).

And to the OP: Aggressive, much? Making such definitive and aggressive statements like that does not help in a discussion.

The weapons are already abstracted enough...

This is why I stick with the Gnomish Battle Ladder.

The OP has yet to post again...I see it going down like this..."I shall post a rant about 'random weapon' and watch them all argue til the world burns!!! MUWHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

So why don't we all stop arguing...the devs are not going to change the weapon damages...they are set...if its your game then CHANGE THEM!!! If its not your game then ask your GM if he agrees, if he doesn't then well too bad he's the GM, roll for initiative and start playing.

<Facepalm>
Things would be so much simpler if items were mapped to a base equivalent for both purposes of damage and feats. We abstract skills, we should also abstract weapon groups.

If it's like a dagger/knife: 1d4
Shortsword: 1d6 (which would include the butterfy swords)
Longswords: 1d8 (as well as anything else with 3' of metal and a 1-handed hilt)
Hand-and-a-half: 1d10 (bastard swod, Katana)
Greatsword: 2d6 (includes nodachi, claymores and other such items).

And to the OP: Aggressive, much? Making such definitive and aggressive statements like that does not help in a discussion.

Bingo. That's pretty much what I do and it works well. Attach fluff as needed. Of course, I haven't had any of those players who pin their character on some specific / advantagious weapon type either...

<Facepalm>

Things would be so much simpler if items were mapped to a base equivalent for both purposes of damage and feats. We abstract skills, we should also abstract weapon groups.

If it's like a dagger/knife: 1d4
Shortsword: 1d6 (which would include the butterfy swords)
Longswords: 1d8 (as well as anything else with 3' of metal and a 1-handed hilt)
Hand-and-a-half: 1d10 (bastard swod, Katana)
Greatsword: 2d6 (includes nodachi, claymores and other such items).

And to the OP: Aggressive, much? Making such definitive and aggressive statements like that does not help in a discussion.

There's a game design argument for the wide crit group existing, but it would simplify things enormously if it weren't a sword group. Possibly the martial thrusting piercing weapons (tridents, rapiers, estocs, etc.)

The weapons are already abstracted enough...

Abstracted would mean fewer more broadly construed weapons. Not a different name / stats for every sword that existed in real life. The weapons in PF / 3.x are unrealistic and often fanciful, not abstract.

If you're into weapons (and I am) it's natural to want to see variation in weapons. But 3.x isn't built to do that well. The combat system is abstract and broad from hit points to damage. The piles of different weapons, made meainingfully different by a difference in stats where none should exist in a system that is this abstract, is annoying and unneccesary. The small differences among weapons belong in a system designed to simulate combat realistically, not in 3.x. Or any other version of D&D for that matter. And God save me from the arguments that would ensue on a board dedicated to that game...

My 2 cp anyway.

Interesting information: The OP seems to post on average, one post per year.

So, it looks like random flamebait.

We all fell for it.

Interesting information: The OP seems to post on average, one post per year.

So, it looks like random flamebait.

We all fell for it.

Probably. But it engendered a debate that is interesting beyond the original rant / flame bait. So, we win :D

This really does not seem to be in the right section. Not really a Rules Question.

If this does get moved, then ignore this post.

I think in 1e, there was a table with speed factors and how different weapons fared against different types of armor. At that point there were tactical reasons beyond damage for every single weapons choice.

Interesting information: The OP seems to post on average, one post per year.

So, it looks like random flamebait.

We all fell for it.

But he made a good point. Most flamebait is non-sense or without merit.

I think in 1e, there was a table with speed factors and how different weapons fared against different types of armor. At that point there were tactical reasons beyond damage for every single weapons choice.

I remember it being ignored, after I spent all that time determining my attacks vs. specific armors with my weapons.

Looking back, I'm glad it was. AC, weapon damage, etc., is a huge abstraction best left to gameplay. It's not real, and making it seem real would slow down an already slow round even more. Most weapons are in the ballpark, and while I have reservations about it, too, I just take it as it is. There's no correlation with real world swords, or how they were used.

I think in 1e, there was a table with speed factors and how different weapons fared against different types of armor. At that point there were tactical reasons beyond damage for every single weapons choice.

Yes, length, weapon speed and armor related modifications. Weapon length came into who attacked first on the initial round, weapon speed factored in after that and some weapons had advantages / disadvantages vs. specific armor types (i.e. vs. chainmail). Also weapons had two damage ranges; one against medium sized (and below) and one vs. Large. A two handed sword was 1-10 vs. man sized and 3-18 vs. larger (and was the default weapon for giant killing...). There was a kind of a holdover from Chainmail with the armor class system numbering (in 1E 10 was no armor, 9 shield, 8 leather, etc.). People argued incessantly about the utility and realism of weapon legnth and speed, etc.. Along with facing, weapon reach and factors like that it made combat more tactical vs. 3.x with Feats replacing that.

*edit* Ninja'd by a minute. And, for the most part, I agree with "A highly regarded expert". We used the variable weapon damage, weapon legnth on the first round... mostly speed too, but I'm pretty sure we glossed over the specific weapon bonus / penalty vs. specific armors. All the more reason because it didn't apply vs. natural armor btw.

I did. Sorry.

I think technically it would be Hasbro. They appear to be the people who own the rights to manufacture and / or distribute Nerf based weapons. As such, I would suspect that if you were looking for the culprit of a weapon that is now 'Nerfed' that you would be after Hasbro.

Yar!

This really does not seem to be in the right section. Not really a Rules Question.

If this does get moved, then ignore this post.

I have flagged this for movement as well. It's premise, and the following discussion, feels more "General Pathfinder" than "Rules" to me (heck, maybe even "Gamer Talk" the way the discussion is evolving).

I also find the notion of "I don't like how this is presented, so someone should lose their job" somewhat offensive (especially with how it was presented). Alas, I can only flag a post once and decided for thread relocation instead.

On the recent topic of 1e/2e AD&D rules, I was always a big fan of them (weapon speeds, weapon vs armor, even the concepts of armor as DR and other optional rules from these and later editions). What can I say, I'm a sucker for details. However, they were a pain to implement in RL games. As such, for my RL TT games, I do not use them. However, I'm much more inclined to use them (and not shy away from games with them in use) for PBP or other text based online games. The flow of PBP's (from what I've experienced) is slower than real life, and has more facility to accommodate optional and advanced rules in the background due to this natural slower pace.

~P

This is a rules question. I want to know how a weapon of the size and shape, with the destructive capabilities of the Butterfly Sword is made worse than a simple dagger. Pathfinder was supposed to fix the problems of 3e, where the Butterfly Sword was a 1d6 slashing weapon. I was fully expecting the weapon to be corrected with 1d6 slashing and piercing. Instead it is made worthless. I simply want to know when this system, which is supposed to fix the problems of 3e, will fix this one they created. A simple errata and a gross mistake can be eradicated.

Anyway back to spewing vitriol and the total lack of common decency.

More like a complaint than a question. Anyway...

It all depends on what you believe a Butterfly Sword is. I'm looking at a pair of 12" blades with about 6" hilts. That puts them in the same size range as a large Tanto (I have one with a 12" blade) or a Kukri both of which do 1-4 damage. Certainly a large weapon for a dagger, but not unusually so. Given the short blade (compared to the 20-24" blade length for short sword type weapons -- the eponymus Short Swod, Gladius and Wakizashi all of which do 1d6 damage) and the fact that only about half the blade was sharpened, I'd say 1d4 is about right. As for piercing, yes they have a point and it can be used, but pretty much every sword made does and they are not all piercing weapons. Most, outside those made primarily for thrusting, are "S" slashing weapons.

I'm sure larger samples of Buttterfly Swords could be found (the ones made by Cold Steel today have 15" blades with a 5" hilt for example) but there are individual variations for just about every weapon in existence.

Yar.

On topic, I do not feel that this is a " gross mistake" at all. The rules are what they are, and taking into account that combat is an abstraction, that this is a game, and that while it is okay to have a design philosophy of "all weapons are not created equal - some will be superior to others", it must be paired with the philosophy of "there needs to be some balance within the mechanics of the game regarding various weapons. For example: if this weapon has special properties and does higher base damage and crit threat, it should probably be of a higher difficulty to wield to balance those abilities out". Which, as far as I can tell, is what paizo is trying to do.

When I saw the rules for the butterfly sword for the first time, I was happy with them. I could accept the 1d4 damage because they can be concealed as one weapon, despite actually being two.

~P

Funky Badger wrote:

I'd love for a "Katana shatters when hitting steel armour" mechanic...

The problem is a Well made Katana would only have a slight notch in the blade. Which is all that happens with an Arming Sword.

Those slight notches? They eventually turn the Katana into a piece of junk with an excessively long hilt.

And "well made" doesn't cut the mustard, because the quality of the steel sucked rocks in the first place. All that folding ever did was take out SOME of the impurities, most definitely not most of them.

Oh, I should point out that if the Katana *had* been treated as a simple masterwork Bastard Sword, it would be doing a lot more damage than it is now.

BTW, this isn't an attack on you, it is simply noting that the Katana was not "all that and a bag of chips" unlike popular Japanese sentiment.

Hmmm, was informed that the folding technique makes sharp, ut brittle blades. Hence no blade on blade parrying, or metal armour.

That brittle effect was more a problem due to poor quality steel than anything else. All that folding did was take out a few of the impurities, not all of them by any means.

Thus, if you wanted the deliriously expensive (during the time period when they were actually in use) katana to last, you didn't use them for a lot, and definitely not against anyone wearing serious armor.

The katana simply didn't have the heft it needed to get through effective armor, and the blade was the wrong shape for that. I checked it out way back when I found people saying it was the perfect sword, but the reality didn't match the hype. Sure, it might have been a fantastic sword, had it actually had modern steel in it. But the blade was too short, as decent quality iron ore was in short supply in Japan, so they made the handle longer to give the blade more penetrating power. To say it was nothing more than a bastard sword (aka arming sword) isn't quite right, since the blade was much shorter and had less mass. Plus, it wasn't always formed with 2 sharp edges.

Me, I'd put the katana as a standard longsword with a longer handle, so you might get a bonus on wielding it two handed. Given the effort involved in producing it, you might be generous and call it "masterwork".

For anyone interested, I recommend the lindybeige video on YouTube The Katana about the properties of this particular weapon (he's a funny guy, IMO, and it's worth watching his other videos on weapons).

I shall refrain from going into too much detail on my thoughts about this "question" (it's really a suggestion), though, other than to say that the Butterfly Swords are at most in the short sword range for size, and are much lighter. Since they come in pairs, and 2d4 damage is better than 1d6, I think they're about right.

Cereal guys, I am super cereal.

For anyone interested, I recommend the lindybeige video on YouTube The Katana about the properties of this particular weapon (he's a funny guy, IMO, and it's worth watching his other videos on weapons).

I shall refrain from going into too much detail on my thoughts about this "question" (it's really a suggestion), though, other than to say that the Butterfly Swords are at most in the short sword range for size, and are much lighter. Since they come in pairs, and 2d4 damage is better than 1d6, I think they're about right.

You can't use both butterfly swords without TWF, in which case you should compare it to two short swords. 2d4 does not compare favorably to 2d6.

It's an exotic. It should be unambiguously better than the martial equivalent in a way not superseded by a single feat with prerequisites no harder to meet than exotic weapon proficiency's +1 BAB prerequisite. If a weapon cannot meet that standard it should not be published as an exotic weapon.