Try this:
Saber/Sabre (Exotic Weapon)
Damage Small 1d6/ Med 1d8 Slashing
Crit 18-20 x2
Weight 4lbs
Price 25 gpYou can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a saber sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon. A character can use a saber as a scimitar as a martial weapon.
Or just use it as a martial weapon without the whole exotic/finesse extras.
Do you mean to say that if you use it as a scimitar, it gets scimitar stats?
If you can use it as a 1d8/18-20 one-handed martial weapon, it's overpowered. It's basically a better scimitar and/or longsword.
As i said if it was the case then the kukri should be 1d3, according to the same logic.
Wrong. The dagger has four advantages over the kukri:
1. Daggers are simple weapons, and thus basically every character is proficient with them. Kukris are martial weapons.
2. Daggers can deal either piercing or slashing damage, a major advantage in overcoming DRs. Kukris only deal slashing damage.
3. Daggers can be thrown without incurring a -4 improvised weapon penalty. Kukris cannot.
4. Daggers weigh half as much as kukris do.
You cannot make any of the same comparisons between longswords and scimitars. Literally the only difference between longswords and scimitars are that longswords deal 1d8 damage with a 19-20 x2 crit, while scimitars deal 1d6 with a 18-20 x2 crit. They're both martial weapons, they both only deal slashing damage, they both can't be thrown without taking a penalty, and they both weigh exactly the same. Thus, moving the scimitar up to 1d8 damage makes it the same or better in literally every manner, compared to a longsword.
The same cannot be said of the kukri vs the dagger. EDIT2: To be quite honest, the kukri would be perfectly balanced against the dagger if the kukri were a simple weapon and the dagger were a martial weapon. Generally speaking, going "up" a proficiency type (simple->martial->exotic) is supposed to raise the weapon's power level by one step. Power level being one of damage dice, crit range, crit multiplier, or special abilities. Daggers are a proficiency level below kukris and have 3 significant advantages over them (weight isn't major) while kukris only have one over the dagger. It should be reversed, by all rights but common sense.
EDIT: This is a silly argument anyway, because the scimitar is the superior weapon even at 1d6 damage. No matter what kind of bonuses you get, a longsword will only deal 1 more damage on a non-crit than a scimitar will, but a scimitar will crit 50% more often. In mathematical terms, the longsword has a flat damage bonus over the scimitar, but the scimitar has a scaling damage bonus over the longsword. Scaling > Flat.
|
Try this:
Saber/Sabre (Exotic Weapon)
Damage Small 1d6/ Med 1d8 Slashing
Crit 18-20 x2
Weight 4lbs
Price 25 gpYou can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a saber sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon. A character can use a saber as a scimitar as a martial weapon.
Or just use it as a martial weapon without the whole exotic/finesse extras.
Do you mean to say that if you use it as a scimitar, it gets scimitar stats?
If you can use it as a 1d8/18-20 one-handed martial weapon, it's overpowered. It's basically a better scimitar and/or longsword.
Yes, I need to clarify that. If you have weapon proficiency with the scimitar, it functions as a scimitar. You need to send a feat for Exotic Weapon Proficiency to get the bump up to 1d8 and use finesse. I couldn't think of an elegant way to phrase that in a quick post. Even with XWP it might be a little too much. I was just trying to show how easy it can be to house rule little things like this.
From watching examples of the weapons in use the difference between a "long sword" and "scimitar" is not the amount of damage they do but how they do it. Differences came in when used against certain armors.
But none of this matters mechanically in Pathfinder. Unless you have expanded the rules to consider that sort of thing, it doesn't really matter in a discussion about mechanical balance.
Personally, I dont see a reason both could not do 1d8. It wouldnt effect game balance that much from my view.
Define "that much". How much is too much?
Would it be okay to leave all races as they are now, but give dwarves +2 strength on top of everything else?
Would it be okay to give clerics full BAB and d10?
Would it be okay to give wizards access to every spell in the book?
I think if you can balance something without destroying the game, then balance it.
And I don't see how d6 scimitars destroy the game in anyway, so I vote for balance.
But then when it comes to weapon lists i dont see a need for expansive lists when a shorter list can encompass most easily. For example, i dont see a need for gladius, wakizashi, katzbalger, xiphos when all are easily covered by short sword. Or a stat up for katana and german long sword when both are covered by bastard sword. Or different stats for a yari or norse boar spear when they both fit under a basic spear.The d20 system and most games derived from it are honestly not complex enough to deal with the subtle differences.A fact I personally appreciate and is one of the reasons I enjoy D20 games.
-Weylin
You're missing your own point I think.
Your argument doesn't sound like "give scimitars d8". It sounds like "don't have scimitars as a separate weapon at all, just use longsword stats".
While I would find the latter too boring, I could go with it from a balance stand point, because in that case, it would be a 1d8/19-20 weapon, not a 1d8/18-20 weapon.
In fact, just go and make weapons completely modular!
Make it a building block system.
Basic statistics for a melee weapon is
Simple light weapon, d4 damage x2 crit; plus one boost.
Turning it into a one-handed weapon gives it another boost, and turning it into a two-handed weapon yet another for up to 2 boosts for size.
Requiring martial training gives it one more boost, and requiring special training (i.e. exotic weapons) yet another, for up to 2 boosts for training.
What you can do with a boost:
Examples:
The weapons from the core rules aren't quite as orderly as that, but it's not far from the official system, which is something like the above plus a little wriggling space, and pre-defined weapons.
I think the core rules don't need 200 different weapons with only slight differences, but some broader variations should be there:
We have the "heavy blades" (short sword, long sword, greatsword - all of which have better damage) and the "graceful blades" (kukri, scimitar, falchion, all of which have better crit ranges), which allows a bit more variety rules-wise.
as to why the scimitar was left at 1d6?
[threadjack]
I think I would be ok with scimitar being bumped to 1d8 18-20/x2 crit if a longsword did 1d8 19-20/x2 slashing or piercing.. I can't figure out where a few of these damage types came from for the life of me. Stabbing has always been a more deadly tactic than slashing, it's just that most people have a lot harder time stabbing another human than slashing. Even soldiers killed with knife wounds tend to have 7-8 slashing wounds that are mostly superficial before the killing blow gets them.[/threadjack]
|
There you have your answer why it had the same damage as a longsword in 2e, but has a smaller damage die in 3e: In 2e, the weapons were pretty much the same in game terms, while 3e, with its introduction of other crit modifiers offered a way to differentiate the weapons: Either more base damage or better chance of critting.I don't agree.
And the damage was the same from before 2nd edition. It was already the case in 1st ed.
But nevermind.Anyway, crit range or not, i don't agree its damage should be lower than a longsword's.
The two weapons have the same lethal potential, so they should do the same damage. 1d8.
I houseruled that years ago.Besides, the argument that the scimitar should make less damage than the longsword because of its crit range doesn't make sense.
If it was the case, then the kukri should be 1d3, as it is the same size than a dagger, but with a better crit range.
um doesn't the kukri require a feat, are you also requiring a feat from your scimitar users, or are you keeping it martial, If I'm wrong and kukri is also a simple weapon I'll be quiet.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I still think it should do 1d8, its balance is in the character's bab.
Then why limit it to the scimitar? If you're not measuring balance by the weapon, but rather by the BAB of the wielder, then why attempt to maintain any semblance of balance whatsoever? Just go ahead and make it do d12 damage and a 15-20/x3 crit range. The balance will be provided by the difference in BAB. But by using BAB to balance a weapon, you're actually further unbalancing it, since a the higher someone's BAB, the more likely they are to score a hit with a given weapon. If you gave unbalanced weapons to low-BAB classes but not full-BAB classes, then I could see it evening out a little bit, but not if a fighter can use the über d8 scimitar as easily as a 3/4 BAB druid.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Just go ahead and make it do d12 damage and a 15-20/x3 crit range.
I sort of agree with this. Scimitar shouldn't be 1d8 (it breaks the mold and performs much better with 1d8 than it should compared to other weapons.)
So houseruling Scimitar to 1d8 is similar to house ruling it to 1d12 with 15-20/x3.
Also, as I haven't seen it pointed out yet. Doing x3 (or higher) with expanded crit (15-20) shouldn't be allowed either, since going down the improvement road on both sides (threat and multiplier) is multiplicative (performs better when combined than just increasing a weapon on one side or the other.)
So:
1d8 x4 < 1d8 19-20x3
1d8 18-20x2 < 1d8 19-20x3
Erh, isn't it so that the die type becomes more and more negligible the higher your strength?
Strength 18
Scimitar 1d6(3.5)+4 = 7.5
Longsword 1d8(4.5)+4 = 8.5
one point of damage difference and that is negated by the improved crit-chance.
Once had a sick Bard/Barbarian build that did xdx +21 with a spear.
Frankly I could not care less if the spear did 1d8 or 1d6...
Just my 2c
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Erh, isn't it so that the die type becomes more and more negligible the higher your strength?
When dealing with a fringe case, yes, the difference isn't that noticeable. Same with very low-strength (incurring a penalty to damage, for instance). But rules balance assumes all things being equal. If the goal is to balance weapons, one should do so under the assumption that each is being used by someone with an average strength, as this will be the case for most characters. The fact that damage dice become negligible to extremely strong melee combatants is a function of their class/ability scores, not the weapons.
Besides, the argument that the scimitar should make less damage than the longsword because of its crit range doesn't make sense.Of course it does. It makes perfect sense.
I kind of see where the OP is going with this. It's math balanced game rules vs. "reality" (or imagined reality). In the real world, some weapons would be just better than others. Period. There's no cosmic game designer balancing rules to make one weapon better than another.
If something like Pathfinder (and D&D before it), with it's multi-cultural mashing of weapons, were to take place in the real world, individuals wouldn't choose weapons based on things like crit ranges, because they couldn't comprehend them. They'd use a long sword because it was easy to get, because they were training in it's use, or a variety of other reasons.
So from the point of 1e logic, where balance over "realism" (I use the term lightly) was not so big an issue, the Scimitar did more damage.
One thing that 3rd edition did really well was bring the concept of balance into the game as more than just a passing thought. Some things, like weapons, are in generally very well balanced against each other. It makes for an interesting game, gives mechanical reasons for certain flavor options, and many more good things besides. But being a story-telling focused DM (who's pretty mediocre at math), it's taken me quite a while to acquire an appreciation for 3.x's idea of balance, and I understand why someone wouldn't be comfortable with the idea.
A scimitar doing 1d8 damage made it essentially a longsword with a different name; same as having a katana use the same stats as a bastard sword.
Unless you used the rules where given weapons got bonuses or penalties against certain types of armor.
um doesn't the kukri require a feat, are you also requiring a feat from your scimitar users, or are you keeping it martial, If I'm wrong and kukri is also a simple weapon I'll be quiet.
Dagger versus kukri:
Forgetting throwing and extra damage type capabilities the dagger gets, the kukri is better because it's a martial weapon. They're both light weapons, with the same damage, but the kukri has a better crit range because it is martial over the simple dagger.
Longsword and scimitar, on the other hand, are in exactly the same category: one-handed martial weapons. It's not the kukri deal where the scimitar can be better because its in a higher category. If one has the better crit range (and everything else being the same), it cannot have the same damage or things are unbalanced now.
the scimitar isnt a graceful weapon, if it was, then you could use weapon finesse with it.
which you cant, even in 3.x
I know a dancing dervish paladin/duelist who disagrees.
I still think it should do 1d8, its balance is in the character's bab.
What does the BAB have to do with balance? BAB doesn't change at all.
and mind you, I take weapons for what the class can use, not critical hit damage, and mind you, I dont care for the spear all that much.
Fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger.
4 Classes that can use both the longsword and the scimitar.
Kaeyoss,
Essentially my stance is don't bother having a scimitar as a seperate weapon in an abstract combat system like D&D/PFRPG. If you are going to include it, then stat it up same as the long sword.
What's the point of having weapons differ in damage di(c)e, crit range and crit multiplier if all weapons are the same?
In a system like 2e, I can see it not making a difference.
Of course, since then, countless new weapons have been invented. They don't necessarily follow the same exhaustive math design stage, though, because very few people are as gifted as Jonathan is when it comes to rule design.
And this is why the Falcata exists (exotic 1-hand 1d8 19-20/x3). Ick.
Also, in 1st edition, Scimitar did 1d8 to small and medium, 1d8 to large. Longsword did 1d8 to small and medium, 1d12 to large. Not the same.
In the real world, some weapons would be just better than others. Period.
But this isn't the real life. You can tell from all the stuff, like magic and dragons, that the real world just doesn't have ;-P
There's no cosmic game designer balancing rules to make one weapon better than another.
So there shouldn't be one in the game? Are you trying to get Jason fired?
If something like Pathfinder (and D&D before it), with it's multi-cultural mashing of weapons, were to take place in the real world, individuals wouldn't choose weapons based on things like crit ranges, because they couldn't comprehend them. They'd use a long sword because it was easy to get, because they were training in it's use, or a variety of other reasons.
But we only want that sort of imbalance in two weapons?
I say bring back the 2d20/2-20x10 katana. It really was that awesome a sword, ask any Otaku.
Or is that too realistic?
But being a story-telling focused DM (who's pretty mediocre at math), it's taken me quite a while to acquire an appreciation for 3.x's idea of balance, and I understand why someone wouldn't be comfortable with the idea.
Well, math is a reality.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
maybe but the character of mine that carries it is a druid.
and as I already stated, dont like the spear
So you made a houserule for one specific character in your campaign. Going back to the original post, why would Paizo be expected to justify not adopting that houserule in their whole system. Especially if you never made a point to raise the issue of weapon balance (which I still don't think is an issue) during the playtest?
I don't think anyone here is trying to tell you not to houserule your game the way you want for your druid or whomever, but when your initial post implies that Paizo has slighted you by not including your houserule, what kind of reaction do you expect?
Would not have issue with a dagger and rapier both doing d4(19–20/×2) slash (not the best use of either weapon) and d6 piercing(18-20/x2) personally. Or preferably dropping Rapier to d4. unless you hit something important (read as "critical hit") rapier are not a very damaging weapon.But then we start getting into a seriously overhaul of the system unfortunately.
-Weylin
You are aware that the rapier has a diamond shaped blade so that when it penetrates the target it leaves a large gaping hole behind right? The sort of thing that makes you bleed out. This being beyond any organ damage you just did too.
Like the arrow the rapier isn't made for massive trauma it's more about the long term, and deep penetration damage that couldn't be healed at the time.
However if we were going to change the weapons as you suggest (and interesting idea) I would suggest going with x3 on the critical hit.
snip
paladin,ranger,fighter,barbarian
4 Classes that can use both the longsword and the scimitar.--------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe but the character of mine that carries it is a druid.
and as I already stated, dont like the spearSo? What does that have to do with weapon balance?
Why is the Falchion a two handed weapon. In reality it is a one handed weapon. Basically a machete with a crossguard. As well traditionally the falchion was very cheap weapon and was probably more of tool than weapon in the hands of peasants.
So what does this two handed falchion even look like and why is it worth 75 GP? Just curios mostly.
Never been a big fan of some of the weapon divisions myself or some of the terms chosen that have stuck with the system through all incarnations.
From watching examples of the weapons in use the difference between a "long sword" and "scimitar" is not the amount of damage they do but how they do it. Differences came in when used against certain armors.
Personally, I dont see a reason both could not do 1d8. It wouldnt effect game balance that much from my view.
But then when it comes to weapon lists i dont see a need for expansive lists when a shorter list can encompass most easily. For example, i dont see a need for gladius, wakizashi, katzbalger, xiphos when all are easily covered by short sword. Or a stat up for katana and german long sword when both are covered by bastard sword. Or different stats for a yari or norse boar spear when they both fit under a basic spear.
The d20 system and most games derived from it are honestly not complex enough to deal with the subtle differences.A fact I personally appreciate and is one of the reasons I enjoy D20 games.
-Weylin
The funny thing is, I did both the Yari and the Boar Spear for an upcoming product from 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming and, while I used the basic Spear as a base point, there were necessary changes. A yari has a considerably higher standard of crafting and so is quite a bit more expensive; a boar spear has unique bonuses because of the integral cross-bar. Both aren't necessarily "better" than a simple spear, but they are different.
Why is the Falchion a two handed weapon. In reality it is a one handed weapon. Basically a machete with a crossguard. As well traditionally the falchion was very cheap weapon and was probably more of tool than weapon in the hands of peasants.
So what does this two handed falchion even look like and why is it worth 75 GP? Just curios mostly.
This is probably based off a grosse messer, which was one- or two-handed to use, rather than an actual falchion.
Agreed, personally I find that the D&D system, while not perfect, is well past "good enough" and well done for something that is so abstract...
Besides it's not like the actual damage of a weapon really matters past level 5 anyways. (joke!)