I don't think that we want to go back to the days when each weapon had its own weapon speed, and different bonuses or penalties for each type of armor. If we are running a pure combat simulation, fine, but too time-consuming for an RPG, in my opinion.
The key in adjudicating new weapons is ensuring they aren't given inflated stats to become unbalancing, so people choose them for reasons of flavor rather than because they give a mechanical advantage.
This also reflects real life, to an extent. No ancient or medieval weapon was the best in all situations. Some dominated the battlefields for shorter or longer periods of time, but eventually effective counters were discovered and that dominance faded.
|
It isn't cruel, it's applicable. Its nothing than a glorified whip IRL. Anyone wearing better than leather armor would be unaffected by it. If you want to use it, fine, but don't expect to do damage against someone in plate mail.Except it is cruel, as the weapon gets absolutely no benefit whatsoever that could possibly justify such an extreme constraint. At least the whip (which hardly anyone actually uses) has reach beyond even a reach weapon as well as flexible reach, unique properties that no other class can boast. Still not enough to justify the, "And everyone in the universe is completely immune to it," constraint, but it's something.
Life ain't fair. Not all weapons are created equal, not everything is balanced, some stuff sucks, this would be one such thing. Just because some group long ago made such a weapon and devoted a fighting style to it, it doesn't mean that is is actually useful against most stuff you would encounter in a fantasy RPG. I hate how some people like to make everything "balanced" in a game world.
Using a feat for a smidge more potency over a martial weapon is almost always painfully sub-optimal, and so in the end once you become familiar with the system and the resource values you end up being faced with a lot of interesting elements that don't stand up to the overall math of the game.
Unless you're a fighter, in which case you have plenty of feats, and the cost of spending one on EWP is very small.
Sounds like he really didn't want you to play that character, but rather than ruling against it, he is just being very passive/aggressive about it and trying to make you miserable so you give it up. Not the best way to go about things, to put it mildly. I can see limiting character options if they don't fit the campaign world, but allowing them and then penalizing them is kind of bad. Just curious, did he try to discourage you from playing this character and you insisted? Did he tell you upfront this character would face these problems and you chose to play it anyway? And finally, do you always play eastern-inspired characters, no matter what the campaign setting? The answers to these may reveal more about your DM's motivations.i kind of exxaggerated things too much, but he does penalize oriental pcs. 10-40% item price markup (applies to enchanting the item too) and 500 gold piece per item per year registration fee but yeah, it does get pretty extreme. the markup rate for the month is determined by a d4.the penalties only applied to foreign goods owned by foreigners. any westerners could get away with whatever they pleased. his nippophobia bled into his dming. because he was a nippophobe, he never gave eastern loot in any horde. no kimono of the archmage, sun katana, wounding wakizashi, haori of resistance or anything like that.So...your DM prestige classed into Ass Clown? Not many people are willing to invest quite that many ranks in Perform (Douchebaggery)...
my pcs are wierd, but not always eastern inspired.
i'm sorry, it was only 1 pc 2 years ago that was penalized in a low wealth game. (rokugani orphan) something unknown triggered those memories and i usually remember them in a present tense. he hasn't penalized any further pcs yet. in his next campaign, he is allowing his first psion and swordsage to exist in any of his campaigns. he is slowly changing.
i guess minor taxes become quite bloated in a low wealth (but not quite low magic) campaign. everyone had only half thier Wealth by level, but my gear only left me with only a little under a third of my wealth by level. at level 9-10ish (i think) i couldn't even afford to +1 my wakizashi. i had to find gloves of dexterity +2 and had to buy a +2 constitution item. (scarf i think). i had a mithril shirt (not even +1), a +1 Ribbon of resistance, and 2 ability boosters. my other gear was a masterwork wakizashi, a pair of mundane spring loaded daggers and a mundane shortbow with a small amount of arrows. i had to multiclass warlock for 2 levels to get darkvision and +6 to a few social skills. she was mainly a social build. she had improved uncanny dodge, 4d6 sneak attack and 2 invocations. i had also spent 2,000 in registration fees (my shortbow had a sheathe that was similar in design to a japanese paper umbrella) and 1,000 for a permit to carry, use, buy, and sell poisons. and decent poisons were rare.
Life ain't fair. Not all weapons are created equal, not everything is balanced, some stuff sucks, this would be one such thing. Just because some group long ago made such a weapon and devoted a fighting style to it, it doesn't mean that is is actually useful against most stuff you would encounter in a fantasy RPG. I hate how some people like to make everything "balanced" in a game world.
"Screw you, b$+#%," is not a conducive philosophy towards creating a quality game.
And to actually go off of real-world efficacy would require you to rework the entire weapon list because quarterstaves do not work that way. Axes are much smaller than that. Longsword beats the shortsword by far more than a paltry +1 damage. There's a lot more to a bow's range and accuracy than they're putting in there. The katana is not a masterwork weapon. They have dire flails.
The weapons are already designed for balance rather than realism, that's the game we're all here to play. This is heroic fantasy, not gritty realism, and when someone pays a feat to get an intriguing exotic weapon, they get a benefit for it, to represent their exotic heroic fighting style. Why would the urumi actually being worth a damn be worse than the dire flail?
Spitting in the face of long-established design philosophy in the name of so-called realism in a game where giant robotic demon spiders are a core monster and punching fire to death is a good idea is just plain hypocrisy.
And did I mention the dire flail?
Using a feat for a smidge more potency over a martial weapon is almost always painfully sub-optimal, and so in the end once you become familiar with the system and the resource values you end up being faced with a lot of interesting elements that don't stand up to the overall math of the game.Unless you're a fighter, in which case you have plenty of feats, and the cost of spending one on EWP is very small.
If you're using outside material and can get access to significant damage die increases, it can become a legitimately meaningful increase in damage since once you start getting into the extremely high damage die, you're getting into an exponential curve that can make the investment a +Ouch bonus to damage.
my pcs are wierd, but not always eastern inspired.
i'm sorry, it was only 1 pc 2 years ago that was penalized in a low wealth game. (rokugani orphan) something unknown triggered those memories and i usually remember them in a present tense. he hasn't penalized any further pcs yet. in his next campaign, he is allowing his first psion and swordsage to exist in any of his campaigns. he is...
Weird PCs can be a challenge to DM, and may cause the DM considerable extra work. I kind of like them (within limits), if they are created weird for the purpose of being different and interesting, and if the backstory and roleplaying are entertaining and can be made to fit with the rest of the group and the campaign. I detest them and will ban them frequently if I think they were created by a player reading various splat books and finding loopholes and bizarre, illogical combinations whose sole purpose is to create an ubercharacter that will dominate the game, or if they simply don't fit at all with the campaign world or the rest of the party. Either way, sounds like your DM is becoming more flexible. I would keep testing his limits if the weird characters are fun for you, but work with him and respect his preferences when he says something crosses his line.
Weird PCs can be a challenge to DM, and may cause the DM considerable extra work. I kind of like them (within limits), if they are created weird for the purpose of being different and interesting, and if the backstory and roleplaying are entertaining and can be made to fit with the rest of the group and the campaign. I detest them and will ban them frequently if I think they were created by a player reading various splat books and finding loopholes and bizarre, illogical combinations whose sole purpose is to create an ubercharacter that will dominate the game, or if they simply don't fit at all with the campaign world or the rest of the party. Either way, sounds like your DM is becoming more flexible. I would keep testing his limits if the weird characters are fun for you, but work with him and respect his preferences when he says something crosses his line.
my pcs are wierd, but not always eastern inspired.
i'm sorry, it was only 1 pc 2 years ago that was penalized in a low wealth game. (rokugani orphan) something unknown triggered those memories and i usually remember them in a present tense. he hasn't penalized any further pcs yet. in his next campaign, he is allowing his first psion and swordsage to exist in any of his campaigns. he is...
i don't try to become the ubercharacter. i beleive most heroes have to be unique in some way. exotic heritage or fighting style is one way. another is strange personalities. i do not try to disrupt the gorup, nor do i try to build the ubercharacter. i actually tone down my optimization by a reasoanable portion to fit the party. i do it to add variety, and because it's fun. i try to find ways to fit them with the group as well. my dm comes up with even wierder, possibly disturbing characters. i never go that far. i never make my pcs younger than 12 and never make them older than thier 20s. (or the equivalents) my average is 16-18ish while appearing a reasonable amount younger than they are. mainly due to a combination of height, weight, and facial features.
I fail to see how a Fighter is "lacking in feats" he gets a total of 21 feats (11 from his class alone). By fifth level he has six feats already. Unless you are trying to be a jack of blades and advance several combat trees at once a fighter should be devestating with his chosen weapon or style. If advancing several at once, well that's what generalization gets you...jack of blades and master of none.
-Weylin
|
|
Life ain't fair. Not all weapons are created equal, not everything is balanced, some stuff sucks, this would be one such thing. Just because some group long ago made such a weapon and devoted a fighting style to it, it doesn't mean that is is actually useful against most stuff you would encounter in a fantasy RPG. I hate how some people like to make everything "balanced" in a game world."Screw you, b&~@&," is not a conducive philosophy towards creating a quality game.
And to actually go off of real-world efficacy would require you to rework the entire weapon list because quarterstaves do not work that way. Axes are much smaller than that. Longsword beats the shortsword by far more than a paltry +1 damage. There's a lot more to a bow's range and accuracy than they're putting in there. The katana is not a masterwork weapon. They have dire flails.
The weapons are already designed for balance rather than realism, that's the game we're all here to play. This is heroic fantasy, not gritty realism, and when someone pays a feat to get an intriguing exotic weapon, they get a benefit for it, to represent their exotic heroic fighting style. Why would the urumi actually being worth a damn be worse than the dire flail?
Spitting in the face of long-established design philosophy in the name of so-called realism in a game where giant robotic demon spiders are a core monster and punching fire to death is a good idea is just plain hypocrisy.
And did I mention the dire flail?
If...Using a feat for a smidge more potency over a martial weapon is almost always painfully sub-optimal, and so in the end once you become familiar with the system and the resource values you end up being faced with a lot of interesting elements that don't stand up to the overall math of the game.Unless you're a fighter, in which case you have plenty of feats, and the cost of spending one on EWP is very small.
I never said I was designing the Pathfinder RPG, just how I would rule it in my game. I don't consider that modification to be anything out of the ordinary, it already applies to whips. BTW, I would never allow a dire flail in one of my games either.
...Seriously? You would disallow the kukri? Why?...The Kukris stats are already there, a Kukri is a Dagger, simple as that! Just like a Katana is a Bastard Sword and a Kopi is a Scimitar. Of this group only the Urumi can be truly called an exotic weapon.
The only thing Kukris share in common with a dagger is the 1d4 damage. Daggers can be thrown, can deal piercing damage, weigh less, cost less, are easier to use (simple vs martial) and are easier to conceal than any other melee weapon. With the Kukri, you give all that up for a 50% increase in threat range. That's it. They are nowhere near the same weapon.
In reply to Mok: - Personally I prefer the broad to focus development of the fighter instead of narrow to broad. More so when it comes to fighting styles than weapons admittedly. In what I see in fiction and in real life, generalism only gets you so far, focus is what takes you to mastery. And with 21 feats it is easy to master at least 3 fighting styles even if you use an exotic weapon.
In reply to Zappo: - This brings up what I am in general against...seperate stats for every single weapon out there. Unless the weapon has something very unique it does that others in its class dont I think it should be treated as a 'generic'. Especially in an abstract combat system like Base D20.
To take dagger as an example....I dont think there needs to be seperate listings for a stilleto, kukri, seax, katar, tanto, aiguchi, kitchen knife, etc. Stat wise they should be 1d4 and nothing special in an abstract combat system in my view.
Same with Katana. Once you strip away the hype surrounding it, then it is just another bastard sword (i dont miss the days of the 3d6 Katana).
It would be different if the combat system were less abstract and more direct including attack vs defense rolls, armor as DR, dodge as an option not a flat +1AC and such. Then I could see needing more detail of a weapons abilities.
In general:- My biggest issue with the exotic weapon system is that the -4 non-proficient is too steep to me if you are simply trying to hit someone with the weapon. I would rather see it as "you cannot use any of the weapon features if you are not proficient with an exotic weapon" or something similar
-Weylin
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I approve of your medieval knight in ren-era armor wielding a caveman club. Wait, you're being attacked by a longsword - despite your armor literally being designed to defend against slashing attacks, here, it does normal damage.
What, whip swords? No way man, we play our game totally realistic.
Ok, I approve of your medieval knight in ren-era armor wielding a caveman club. Wait, you're being attacked by a longsword - despite your armor literally being designed to defend against slashing attacks, here, it does normal damage.
What, whip swords? No way man, we play our game totally realistic.
*sigh* First of all fully articulated field plate is late medieval, not Rennaisance. It just got fancier, heavier and less useful, in the Rennaisance. The Rennaisance for that matter didn't just start on a given year everywhere. There's a lot of overlap. As for clubs, hell they never really went out of style as improvised weapons or even regular ones.
Plate armor was designed to withstand piercing, slashing and bludgeoning weapons. A sword rarely penetrated a gap in plate (which is what you always see in the movies) it usually just dented it and transmitted energy to the soft squishy thing underneath. The ability of plate armor in D&D / PF to resist damage is represented by it being harder to hit (as I'm sure you know). In short, it gets banged on a lot, but rarely with any result.
No one plays any fantasy RPG with "total realism", you're right. But the "whip sword" was an inefficient weapon and as a result very limited in it's geographic / cultural spread and useage even within that area. In short, there's no particular reason to include that weapon unless you want to. Not every DM may "want to". If a player has to have that weapon, find a game that allows it. A lot of them do.
You make some good points, but hyperbole doesn't make your case, it just weakens it.
R_Chance,
This brings up something I (and my group) would like to see more worldbuilders take the time to do. When it comes to the urumi, meteor hammer, chakram, scorpion whip and other such exotic weapons I would like to seem them firmly assigned to given races/ethnic groups/nations instead of just thrown out there and maybe a few mentioned regarding a given race/nation.
-Weylin
There has never been "realism" in D&D. Even in your own example, you admit it - plate armor and swords don't go hand and hand. And yet that sword has just as good of a chance of hitting - despite some plate being neigh invincible to it - as a warhammer - which was designed specifically against that armor.
The problem is that for some people, the cutoff point on what counts as "too exotic" is "whatever doesn't fit psuedo-European standards."
Branch out, man.
This isn't a historical reality simulator. It's a fantasy roleplaying game. Where you're meant to play as fantasy and fantastic characters. If you can't envision a fantastic character that doesn't use a longsword, you have a problem.
There has never been "realism" in D&D. Even in your own example, you admit it - plate armor and swords don't go hand and hand. And yet that sword has just as good of a chance of hitting - despite some plate being neigh invincible to it - as a warhammer - which was designed specifically against that armor.
The problem is that for some people, the cutoff point on what counts as "too exotic" is "whatever doesn't fit psuedo-European standards."
Branch out, man.
This isn't a historical reality simulator. It's a fantasy roleplaying game. Where you're meant to play as fantasy and fantastic characters. If you can't envision a fantastic character that doesn't use a longsword, you have a problem.
There is some "realism". It depends on how much you need. I never said plate armor and swords didn't go hand in hand. Together they are iconic symbols of the western knight. The fact is, in real life, it was damn hard to kill somebody in plate armor. The warhammer was designed to transmit a lot of force to a small area. Oddly enough, that makes it harder to land a proper blow with than a sword which has a larger area for impact. Striking and only contacting with the haft of the warhammer doesn't do much good. The sword has a "sweet spot" where it will deliver maximum punch but is potentially deadly across most of the length.
This game is what people want it to be. It could just be psuedo-European, just Japanese, just anything. Or everything. No one group or game "has to be" anything. It might be a (psuedo) historical reality simulator for some or a wild melange of cultures and ideas for others. That's the point. Your'e meant to "have fun". To each their own on that. Just find the group you like and go forth :)
R_Chance,
This brings up something I (and my group) would like to see more worldbuilders take the time to do. When it comes to the urumi, meteor hammer, chakram, scorpion whip and other such exotic weapons I would like to seem them firmly assigned to given races/ethnic groups/nations instead of just thrown out there and maybe a few mentioned regarding a given race/nation.
-Weylin
It's what I've done with my world. I don't have all the "exotics", but the ones I do have are anchored in a specific nation / area / culture. Some of my "regular" weapons are as well, the longbow for example. My world originated in about 1973-4 as a setting for medieval / fantasy wargames (Chainmail, 3rd edition along with a strong dose of Tolkien and Norse mythology). We picked up D&D in 74 and it just went from there. The idea of different nations / cultures and weapons was built in. Degrees in history and anthropology have only reinforced that cultural / national diversity as I have revised the world over time (from edition to edition usually). It helps give the world "flavor" and makes the world more... organic. I'm glad I've continued to revise and expand on my original campaign (although occasionally there was the urge for a total re-work). It gives it depth and a sense of "history" that makes for a good game.
With the right feat or class, you can kill a man in full plate by punching him to death.
In my homebrew hand to hand system you'd be more likely to hurt yourself than someone in plate. Grappling is the preferred hand to hand method against plate. Unless you're a monk :)
Most of my games are based on a mix of Cultures through history. Classic Medieval Europe, Renn Europe, Viking, Roman Era, Native Ameraican Flava and the typical Fantasy shlock of Dorfes, elves and the lot. Would I allow this weapon? Nah, wouldn't fit the feel for me.
Even if a player wanted to use one, since it had no real impact on the battlefiields and is almost unheard of except for weapon nuts I'd just shake my head and move them along.
And my Long Time Game from the 80s uses some mods for different weapons vs armor. Hammers work best vs Plate, slashing is good vs Leather, piercing vs Chain armors and other more specific stuff. We've got a character that loves his Rapier and Main Gauche and they all love his quip: "VIA, it's in plate. Dwarf, crush that for me, if you would be so kind?" It's not impossible for him to find the gaps and hit white meat it's just easier if he runs the ends and finds skirmishers and caster than take on a steel can. They like it that way and we've played it so long, it's normal.
You like it, roll with it. It just doesn't fit with my setting.
Have Fun out there!!
~ W~
Wallsingham, i'm interested in doing the exact same thing in my next campaign. We used to use it years ago, but when 3rd ed came out, we just kinda forgot about it.
Any chance you could give me some more details?
Cheers
In reply to Zappo: - This brings up what I am in general against...seperate stats for every single weapon out there. Unless the weapon has something very unique it does that others in its class dont I think it should be treated as a 'generic'. Especially in an abstract combat system like Base D20.
To take dagger as an example....I dont think there needs to be seperate listings for a stilleto, kukri, seax, katar, tanto, aiguchi, kitchen knife, etc. Stat wise they should be 1d4 and nothing special in an abstract combat system in my view.
Same with Katana. Once you strip away the hype surrounding it, then it is just another bastard sword (i dont miss the days of the 3d6 Katana).
It would be different if the combat system were less abstract and more direct including attack vs defense rolls, armor as DR, dodge as an option not a flat +1AC and such. Then I could see needing more detail of a weapons abilities.
In general, I agree with you. The point of my post however was that the Kukri is unique compared to your generic knife-like weapon. It's not balanced for throwing at all, and it's capable of causing grievous wounds for a blade it's size. Now there's nothing wrong with describing it as something other than a historical Kukri-type blade. Perhaps a short sword with a serrated edge (just spitballing, I know there's probably better ideas). And I'm all for the generic dagger being described as a stilleto or a butterfly knife, or switchblade, whatever you want. My point was that there are significant mechanical differences between the dagger and kukri, and thus they should stand separate.
In general, I agree with you. The point of my post however was that the Kukri is unique compared to your generic knife-like weapon. It's not balanced for throwing at all, and it's capable of causing grievous wounds for a blade it's size. Now there's nothing wrong with describing it as something other than a historical Kukri-type blade. Perhaps a short sword with a serrated edge (just spitballing, I know there's probably better ideas). And I'm all for the generic dagger being described as a stilleto or a butterfly knife, or switchblade, whatever you want. My point was that there are significant mechanical differences between the dagger and kukri, and thus they should stand separate.
And that is the issue we run into (and something I brought up on a crossbow thread). Weapons are at odds with the rest of the combat subsystems. Weapons are tryign to be specific while the rest of combat is abstract, sometimes oddly so to me. As example, AC would be better shown more clearly as "TN to Wound" than "TN to Hit" (which is one area i think True20 is better than Base D20).
If you are going to factor the mechanical advantages of the kukri (which I acknowledge there are...not the least of which being it behaves more like a hatchet than a knife) you would need to do it for every single weapon. There is a huge advantage against plate or chain if using a stilleto instead of a seax. But a stilleto doesnt get a bonus against those armors, so why should the kukri get any? The RAW also doesnt draw a distinction between a fighting knife and a throwing knife which are balanced differently.
It comes down to two options (as it so often does), either generic weapons with no extras beyond maybe reach for some or a proliferation of weapons that each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Which still leaves them at odds with the rest of the combat system.
-Weylin
And that is the issue we run into (and something I brought up on a crossbow thread). Weapons are at odds with the rest of the combat subsystems. Weapons are tryign to be specific while the rest of combat is abstract, sometimes oddly so to me. As example, AC would be better shown more clearly as "TN to Wound" than "TN to Hit" (which is one area i think True20 is better than Base D20).
If you are going to factor the mechanical advantages of the kukri (which I acknowledge there are...not the least of which being it behaves more like a hatchet than a knife) you would need to do it for every single weapon. There is a huge advantage against plate or chain if using a stilleto instead of a seax. But a stilleto doesnt get a bonus against those armors, so why should the kukri get any? The RAW also doesnt draw a distinction between a fighting knife and a throwing knife which are balanced differently.
It comes down to two options (as it so often does), either generic weapons with no extras beyond maybe reach for some or a proliferation of weapons that each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Which still leaves them at odds with the rest of the combat system.
-Weylin
I don't think it matters that the martial weapon that deals 1d4 damage with a threat range of 18-20 is called a Kukri. That's just a choice the designers (of 3.0 if I'm not mistaken) went with because they needed a weapon to fulfil that role. I'm not up on all my ancient weapons, but I'm sure other choices could have been made that fit the role just as well. And that's why I think you can describe the weapons any way you like. Just like a Bastard Sword is generally accepted to substitute for a Katana. I do the same with darts being equal to throwing knives. You're absolutely right that a dagger doesn't suit a throwing knife because the latter are not balanced at ALL for melee combat, and should be accurate for more than 10'. So if I want a character with throwing knives, I give them darts with the serial numbers filed off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it matters that the martial weapon that deals 1d4 damage with a threat range of 18-20 is called a Kukri. That's just a choice the designers (of 3.0 if I'm not mistaken) went with because they needed a weapon to fulfil that role. I'm not up on all my ancient weapons, but I'm sure other choices could have been made that fit the role just as well. And that's why I think you can describe the weapons any way you like. Just like a Bastard Sword is generally accepted to substitute for a Katana. I do the same with darts being equal to throwing knives. You're absolutely right that a dagger doesn't suit a throwing knife because the latter are not balanced at ALL for melee combat, and should be accurate for more than 10'. So if I want a character with throwing knives, I give them darts with...
that is why overall I would prefer a very generic weapons list in an abstract system. Instead of several different swords with different mechanical advantages something like:
Very Light Blade (1d4) - knives of any sort...katar, stilleto, seax
Light Blade(1d6)- covering short sword, rapier, lighter scimitars
Medium Blade (1d8)- covering broad swords, scimitars (still nnoyes me they do d6), khopesh, etc
Heavy Blade (1d10) - covering bastard sword, katana, miao dao
Very Heavy Blade (2d6) - great swords, no-dachi, etc
Describe/decide, the weapon your character uses then figure out where it fits best. Default type being slashing for all blades just for abstract sake (in a more detailed system the rapier would be moved up one level when used as a piercing weapon and the broad sword down one when used as a piercing weapon).
-Weylin