A complete inversion of that argument is that there are occasional CR-appropriate enemies with very high AC. Let's say you can only hit a Plated Tankbeast on a 17. You've got Improved Critical with your choice of scythe or falchion. Which do you prefer? Part of the falchion's crit range doesn't even hit.
In addition to its superior average output, the falcata lets you hedge your bets by having a little of each.
I honestly don't remember where I saw the Falcata printed as 19-20/x3... but it's firmly in my memory banks. Just glanced through some of my books and didn't see it specifically, but they are all 3.5e now so *shrug*.
In my google efforts looking for 19-20/x3, I came across this good explanation of the situation:
The area-analogy was the best example for this.With 19-20/x2 you have 2 chances to do one instance of extra damage, resulting in a "crit potency" of 2x1 = 2.
With 20/x3 you have 1 chance to do two instances of extra damage, resulting in a "crit potency" of 1x2 = 2.
With 18-20/x2 you get a "crit potency" of 3x1 = 3.
With 20/x4 you get a "crit potency" of 1x3 = 3.
With 19-20/x3 you get a "crit potency" of 2x2 = 4.Bye
Thanee
Otherwise I couldn't find anything on this crit range. It must have been a discussion of a theoretical nature, not an actual printed weapon. Or, it was a printed weapon that was a mistake and later errata'd (but not before there was much discussion about it).
Kaisoku, it's printed 19-20 *3 in the APG. I don't know what you mean?
Kaisoku, it's printed 19-20 *3 in the APG. I don't know what you mean?
He means before the APG.
It is possible that it was the Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign setting, Kasisoku.
aaaahhh
chainsaw and shotgun dude, chainsaw and shotgun.
1- The Falcata was used by regular militia and regular people, not crazy specially trained types. The other exotic weapons in the PHB are either fantastic (double bladed Sithsaber or whatever), are not meant as weapons but can be used as such by people trained in their use (the monk weapons), or are only exotic when wielded a certain way (dwarven waraxe, bastard sword)....In the case of say, nunchakus or farm implements, it's usually implying that they were stuck using improved weapons, usually by an oppressive government. But in this case, it's implying that the Spanish inhabitants were, well, dumb, for using such an unwieldy weapon. Consistently speaking, this should be a martial weapon. It was used for martial purposes, in a similar fashion to other weapons wielded by their contemporaries.+1
The falcata, falx, or whatever the users called it, is not remotely exotic.
It's not exotic for coming from far, far away, since it was used in Eastern Europe (and BTW, 'coming from far away' has always been a rotten reason for making a weapon cost a feat).
It's not exotic for being difficult to use; you lift it up, you bring it down.
It's not exotic in that it was restricted to a secretive, reclusive caste of mystical ascetics; it was used by big hairy men, who were probably drunk.If you want to reflect its historical infamy, keep it as a martial weapon, scale back the crit range, and give it a bonus to sundering, or the ability to ignore up to +1/+2 worth of shield bonus.
Apparently, having a forward curved blade is sufficient to be exotic.
i love my falcata (real one on the wall) it is a heavy chopper and my weapon of choice for the inevitable zombie apocalypse. I agree not exotic but hardly an obsolete for inefectiveness.
This I saw the part about "obsolete" and giggled. It's like saying the Khopesh is "obsolete". The main reason these weapons fell into disuse is because they are harder to make than a straight blade.
Many of the key design features of both weapons are present in the saber/scimitar/shamshir, though emphasised in slightly different ways.
In my humble opinion, is not so important how hystorically accurate is the PF Falcata. One could refluff it as [insert big damn one handed sword]. BTW, for its shape can easily be a Kukri Sword or how it's called that thing.
One can refluff a weapon if it fits: I refluffed the Scythe as short pole Bec-du-Faucon (Pollax) because fits better with the supposed wielder.
Vicious strike, an hook to trip, piercing and slashing, done. Not a big issue.
The point here is the 19-20/x3 (as I said above, very strong but not SO no-brainer).
EDIT: this not to say that I didn't find what Sieglord posted interesting. I did. Thank you, sir.
The main reason for cutting edged weapons to become obsolete was armour once you get armour that cant be cut through its no-longer effective as you can see from the medieval weapons. Once armour is designed to stop an edge from cutting you cant do anything, weapons even edged weapons became more of a bludgeoning weapon designed to focus the energy on a small edge thus increasing effectiveness. For an example the sword verses plate armour you can not cut through plate with any edged weapon, so they became edged but not sharp so the force would dent and bend the armour and break the bones.
Even from the example of the falcata once the roman armour and shields became resistant to the cut you are left with blunt force to bend the armour shield. Going off topic slightly but this is why the old arguement about the knight verses samurai is a no brainer you have 1 with a cutting weapon and armour to resist cutting weapons to some extent and 1 with a weapon (poleax IS the weapon of the armoured man at arms ie foot knight) and armour designed to STOP cutting weapons. what else can I say.
If a medieavl poleax (an axe blade on the end of a 5-6 foot pole cant cut through plate armour then nothing will made of steel.
This only changes when the firepower of the age becomes better and better untill we have the english civil war where plate armoured men where never seen. Thus recovered the cutting power of swords.
..so they became edged but not sharp so the force would dent and bend the armour and break the bones...
Ah, no, that is a common myth but proven wrong.
If you look at the german long swords you see that later versions became much more tapering, without fuller but rather with a diamond back. These were still razor sharp, but also very stiff and pointy and were used to find the openings in plate armor in the helmet or the armpits to deliver a powerful thrust. These Swords could still cut quite well and there are several historical sources that depict or describe how very sharp these weapons were.
The reason why Falcatas became obsolete was mainly because it was found that armor could either be thrusted with pointy swords or be crushed with brutal force, and the Falcata wasn't very good at either. It enjoyed it's time int he sun as long as Roman armor sucked as much as it's early chainmail versions did.
So, historically, the excellent stats the Falcata enjoys here in the game are totally undeserved.
Openings! have you ever seen or tried to cut through plate armour? Watch all the videos on the net and you will see that everyone has a thin sheet of metal held in place so it is unable to move in any direction. A cutting edge is at its most powerful when drawn that is why swords such as the katana and sabre were curved. A sharp edged weapon drawn across plate will only dent slightly and scratch it.
if you see one of my earlier posts I mention that swords were used two handed one on the blade so as to give more control and thus make it better for finding the openings in plate.
thats why we have the rondel dagger and the bodkin arrow head small point for piercing the gaps and chain in the openings in armour. Even the legendary english/welsh longbow has been found to not pierce plate everytime but would still be deadly from the force behind the impact.
Your final statement says just what I have but has stopped short of all cutting edged weapons which would find the same problem.
Also you need to take into mind the space needed to weild said katana/sword to make an effective cut in the time period we are talking roman, you couldnt work effectively as a unit while swinging a sword. thats why the romans developed the sytle we know best shield and thrusting sword.
I would love to see/read the material you have seen/read about swords cutting through 15th century steel plate armour.
Bit of a ramble I know but did my best :)
Micman you read as if your someone who knows what hes talking about and isnt brain washed into the anime katana why of thinking and as I cant find anything for PM's maybe I should start a new thread for us to chat. So as not to derail this thread anymore than it already has been :)
Openings! have you ever seen or tried to cut through plate armour?...
I said "using openings to deliver a powerul THRUST", not cut.
And yes, I practise "half-sword" techniques quite often.
*edit* ninjad by Immos post and agreeing.
Done under heading immortalis/micman thread :) you would be most welcome Kerym :)
Please do. I am seriously looking at restating some of the weapons or even banning most of the Exotic Weapons until I come up with ways to not have them be no brainers
It's an hard call - the weapon should be anyway be worthy of the precious feat expended. Even if the Falcata is very strong, I prefer the Falcata and the Meteor Hammer to the Bastard Sword as standard for the EWP - but I see the point.
Maybe Exotic weapons should be more specific, or good in two things without be outrageous (see the Khopesh that is good for trip like the flail, but for damage too like a longsword).
Another idea could be make the Martial Weapons good for something anyway. Say, add the option for a second guard past the ricasso for the greatsword (Enhancing the armor for defensive feats and defensive combat, damage shifted toward piercing). A flambard blade for sunder. An elaborated guard for the longsword for bonus to Combat Expertise and vs Disarm. To the rapier to feint..
In this way, the exotic is maybe good for the specific thing, but the "base" weapons are worthy anyway. In Complete Warrior designers did something similar - there were sword that shared proficiency with the base, with similar bonuses.
Just a thought, of course.
@Rathendar:
Or I could just call in Benares and win the thread. DON'T MAKE ME DO IT!
The Falcata is hardly a no brainer. It is the highest damage potential melee weapon in the game, but is it worth spending a feat on? At level 10, your average 2 handed melee character is looking at arround +25 to damage, and a 1 hander is looking at arround a +20. With some weapon comparisons, assuming each is guaranteed to hit:
Formula: avg damage + avg damage*crit chance*(crit multiple-1)
longsword: 26.95 / 29.4 w/imp. crit
scimitar: 27.025 / 30.55
Bastard swd 1H: 28.05 / 30.6
Falcata 1H: 29.4 / 34.3
Two Handed Sword: 35.2 / 38.4
Elven Curve Blade: 35.075 / 39.65
Falcata 2H: 35.4 / 41.3
So, it is 1 better damage than the previous best damage 1 handed exotic weapon and about 2.5 better than the longsword. This gap is doubled with the increased threat range.
For two handed use, you are just hitting the point where it is better than the two handed sword, and it is better if you have increased threat range. It has passed the ECB though, and wont look back.
For reference, Weapon Spec adds 2.2 to your damage using this formula.
My conclusion: for any build that would take Bastard Sword, the Falcata is a no brainer. At +11 damage the Falcata pulls ahead, and you lose nothing on the crit range when using critical feats. For other 1 handed builds with feats to spare on increasing damage, it is a worthwhile feat at mid to high levels, but there may be better ways to increase your damage. You need a +17 to damage before it is as good as weapon spec, so I would wait until arround lvl 7 when you can almost take improved critical or until you can get your hands on a keen one. Some people may prefer the scimitar/rapier for the more frequent crits, especially if they use critical feats.
For 2 handed use, you really need improved critical to make it worth your while. Otherwise, you will be doing about the same ammount of damage as other 2 handed weapons for about the entirety of the game. With improved critical, you only need +10 damage to beat out the THS, which you can do at lvl 1. At lvl 10, you are looking at this feat being ~3 average damage if you also have improved critcal, and growing from there at 1 damage every 5. Its also worth noting that the ECB may be better for some builds that want more crits and do not care so much about their damage, like those relying on critical feats.
Overall, I think it is good, worth the feat, but is not a mandatory feat.
Great thread for my Tuesday morning, folks! Enjoyed reading both the mathletes and the history buffs. And the civility, so thanks! =-)
Is it just me, or would anyone else like to see the geek squad on Deadliest Warrior test all these weapons (against both armored and unarmored foes) and then rejigger the damage for each based on their results? Might be hard with the purely mythological ones like the elven curveblade, but still.
Seriously, a lot of the problem in comparing weapons across historical periods and then trying to translate into PF/D&D is the highly simplified/abstract nature of PF/D&D combat, and the fact that weapons and armors from a wide variety of regions and epochs (both real and imaginary) are found on the same battlefield in our beloved fantasy game.
Armor makes a huge difference in the performance of a weapon. Including that variable (which was tried way back in AD&D), makes combat far more unwieldy and doesn't really work unless combat is all you want to do. If that's the case, I daresay there are probably better medieval tactical combat simulators out there, or if not, someone could easily invent one.
On the OP's original point, I generally have a problem from a game balance point of view when any one choice becomes the mechanically obvious one to take, in whatever facet of the game. The truly obsessive optimizers then tend to produce the exact same characters over and over again. Boring, in my opinion.
Note that things like Burst enhancements favor the Falcata, and while comparing a single one-handed weapon to a two-hander is possible, you need to take into account that he could instead be using a Shield or TWF.
Especially TWF.
I mean, with the full strength offhand and Two Weapon Fighter being able to reduce offhand penalties for one-hand weapons, it's ridiculously good compared to a two-handed build (although definitely feat intensive).
WAIT! Now I remember where I saw stats like these... in Dungeons and Dragons Online! The Khopesh had these exact stats, and there were multiple versions that looked like falcata. Some small research shows that one of the unique named khopesh in the game was actually called "Dynastic Falcata".
My experience with a TWF, two-falcata build was quite devastating as I recall.
This is the game that gave "glancing blows", whirlwind style, to two-handers through, so there was a balance in this madness.
____
Now that we've covered the OP topic quite thoroughly, I've got a tangential question...
Would a Dao and DaDao work as unique weapons? Or should they just be different names/looks for a scimitar and falchion? I'm leaning towards the latter (what with the katana/bastard sword correlation).
Armor makes a huge difference in the performance of a weapon. Including that variable (which was tried way back in AD&D), makes combat far more unwieldy and doesn't really work unless combat is all you want to do.
An easy-ish way to do things is simply give a bonus on the weapon side.
For instance... a flail might have a +1 to attack against someone using a shield. Or a spear/rapier/etc might have a +1 to attack against chain (chain shirt & chainmail).
Keeps it abstract, and simple enough to apply on the fly, instead of getting into weapon DRs or different ACs vs specific weapons, etc.
Yeah I can see the problems (and had them trying to bring real history into it) of stating the weapons after all you either have all weapons of a type doing x or every weapon doing x,y,z. After all what really does warrant damage? Its the hardest thing to do I think, after all your working within a base frame work so you still need to present each weapon with merits. What makes the 2 hander take the weapon he does or the 2 weapon fighter?
I thought the sword and fist alt weapon rules were good for the time as in, if you want this weapon its just like this weapon we already have. unfortunatley people started as they do with the 'its not the same' well what do we want do we really want a whole book on weapons where every historic and fantastical weapon is diffrent? take a look at the book 'from stone to steel' this goes some way to make each weapon historical accurate and give stats for ever weapon they could find, even then they missed some well known ones.
I know someone who got so fed up with the what about this weapon and this weapon isnt right he did infact redo all the weapons, light simple weapons did D x and 2 handed melee did 2dx and so on they soon wanted the old rules back.
I dont know what the designers were thinking when they made the falcata, I dont know how Gygax first came up with the weapon damage rules. what I do know is they do work to give us a choice of weapons to pick from which are diffrent enough to make us think which to take.
1 last thought in my group (weve been playing 3.x since the releasea as many have). We have always played the bladed gauntlet as 17-20 and I can only think of 1 player that took it and then only once. Did it ruin our game? no it didnt. Maybe i'm just lucky with my group past and present I dont know.
Well dao means 'knife' or 'cut' so they would be the same. You see Dao in other weapons names as well which means they were meant for cutting.
Forgot LOL @ Brian bachman - Deadlist warriar makes me mad its so biased its un-real they miss information and rig up test to show what they want.
As an example when they had the knight face a pirate the pirate won because he had a pistol! In another they stated that 1 side only had 1 effective weapon when even their test showed they had 3 (winning 3 catagories) another had a warrior not really trained in unarmed combat win against someone that was trained from walking and when? in unarmed combat. Yes I would give a better show then them. But would it help with stating weapons here i dont think so as you still have to have a base for the simplist weapon and then work up to your base max damage and as we see people want them all to be diffrent. Hard.
The Falcata is hardly a no brainer. It is the highest damage potential melee weapon in the game, but is it worth spending a feat on?
I think he meant it's a no-brainer compared to other exotic weapons.
Forgot LOL @ Brian bachman - Deadlist warriar makes me mad its so biased its un-real they miss information and rig up test to show what they want.
As an example when they had the knight face a pirate the pirate won because he had a pistol! In another they stated that 1 side only had 1 effective weapon when even their test showed they had 3 (winning 3 catagories) another had a warrior not really trained in unarmed combat win against someone that was trained from walking and when? in unarmed combat. Yes I would give a better show then them. But would it help with stating weapons here i dont think so as you still have to have a base for the simplist weapon and then work up to your base max damage and as we see people want them all to be diffrent. Hard.
I agree that DW frequently rigs their results to make for more interesting television or to come up with the result they "want". However, they are doing that deliberately, in my opinion, and some of the techniques they are using seem to me to be potentially very effective and informative (e.g. measuring the force applied by a blow, or measuring the velocity of a shot), if applied rigorously.
They have been effective in debunking a few myths that you hear commonly, like showing that a katana can not cut through chainmail, so would likely be largely ineffective against anyone wearing metal armor.
I'm curious:
How does this math hold up with larger sizes?
For example, is the falcata still a clearly better choice than, say, a bastard sword at +2 sizes over medium? What about +3?
1d8 turns into 2d6. 1d10 turns into 2d8. From there, it's just adding an additional die/dice of the same kind.
I am too tired to do the full out math on this, but I suspect it's not a huge difference (perhaps one additional damage point or so, depending on how the crits amplify things).
I agree Sieglord I have started a new thread for just such debates I know I'm as bad for going off topic that is why I started the other thread if anyone wants to discuss this and other historic(ish) things please go to the other thread so we dont take this one farrrrr off topic.
Sorry cfalcon will try harder :)
I can understand that you're not in favor of an unbalanced mechanic, but what's your beef with the actual historical falcata? It's a great weapon for its purpose. It's likely that it went out of favor for cultural reasons rather than technological ones anyways.1- The Falcata was used by regular militia and regular people, not crazy specially trained types. The other exotic weapons in the PHB are either fantastic (double bladed Sithsaber or whatever), are not meant as weapons but can be used as such by people trained in their use (the monk weapons), or are only exotic when wielded a certain way (dwarven waraxe, bastard sword). An exotic weapon used by someone non-proficient is wildly inaccurate. Taking a historical martial weapon and calling it exotic is actually implying negative things about the people using them. In the case of say, nunchakus or farm implements, it's usually implying that they were stuck using improved weapons, usually by an oppressive government. But in this case, it's implying that the Spanish inhabitants were, well, dumb, for using such an unwieldy weapon. Consistently speaking, this should be a martial weapon. It was used for martial purposes, in a similar fashion to other weapons wielded by their contemporaries.
2- When you ARE proficient, it really reaps the benefits. Is this weapon really BETTER than, say, a longsword? Or a bastard sword? Weapons made with much better technology hundreds of years later? This implies that everyone in the middle ages didn't know how to make a sword- and here we are supposing the occasional access to whatever Exotic Weapon Proficiency is supposed to model. Why didn't the Falcata show up here?
I'm left thinking that they just jammed the weapon in to fit a niche (or if this originated in 3.5, then someone else did).
Anyway, this tangent could be a whole other thread, and would probably be better suited for another forum.
1-This is why I like the category 'Superior Weapon' in 4e. You have to take a feat to get them, so just come right out and say they're better.
I just look at the stats for the most part, what the real weapon was doesn't influence my decision much anymore. I used to get hung up on that stuff, but decided it wasn't worth it. :)2-Better at cutting, anyways. Pathfinder/D&D are too abstract to model all the differences accurately.
But yeah, you're right about this tangent being suited for another thread. I won't follow it after this.
So, to say something more on topic- I once had a ftr/rog in 3.0 with a feat to let him do x3 crits with his short swords. It was very noticeably more powerful, and that was without the 1d8 of the falcata. I remember occasionally doing 60+ damage with a single shortsword attack. It was sick.That's actually reachable with improved critical on, say, a handaxe (base multiplier of x3 on a 20, then you can make it into x3 on 19 and 20- unless you meant he had improved critical AND the +1 multiplier feat). That +1 multiplier feat really gets good when you put it on like, a scimitar or kukri (I had it as a custom feat in my 3.0 games, and phased it out after it was just kind of too good- it wasn't even player abuse, we just eventually did the math carefully).
That being said, I think the playstyle of your group will determine whether the falcata is really a game-breaker or not. It's only a problem if people really abuse it.I don't really think it's that out line for a feat or anything. It's just not consistent with the other exotic weapons.
Interesting point- you mentioned the possibility of a 2d6(18-20/x2) weapon. It's been done in the Jovar. (Planar Handbook, IIRC) I haven't seen those take over our games, either.Well, I suspect you'd see a lot of fighter / barbarian types chase that down if you put it in a Pathfinder supplement- anyone going for massive damage and with a spare feat might consider something like that.
Yeah, I didn't state the case properly- he had the crit + x1 feat, imp. crit., and keen. Plus TWF. I'd see those ~60 dmg hits multiple times per round on occasion.
It is definitely better than other exotics. It would be better modeled as 18-20/x2, basically a big kukri. (since that's what it is...) But the thinblade already has those stats.
I think the issue of falcata and Jovar style weapons would come up a lot more in organized play than at home.
ASSUMING IT IS AN ISSUE the Jovar is not even comparable to the falcata, imo.
|
Please do. I am seriously looking at restating some of the weapons or even banning most of the Exotic Weapons until I come up with ways to not have them be no brainers
It's an hard call - the weapon should be anyway be worthy of the precious feat expended. Even if the Falcata is very strong, I prefer the Falcata and the Meteor Hammer to the Bastard Sword as standard for the EWP - but I see the point.
Maybe Exotic weapons should be more specific, or good in two things without be outrageous (see the Khopesh that is good for trip like the flail, but for damage too like a longsword).
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad for some exotic weapons to be only slightly better than martial - if the feat you expend granted proficiency in a group of similar weapons?
(And I'm a big believer that Martial Weapon proficiency should grant proficiency in groups, too.)
ASSUMING IT IS AN ISSUE the Jovar is not even comparable to the falcata, imo.
Not really, no. I was citing it as an example of things that people might say are too good. It is basically an Elven Curve Blade with higher damage dice, after all.
The bigger problem is how utterly useless all the other "exotic" weapons are, not how powerful this one is.
And the usage of "exotic" is still dumb >:I
I don't see why it is a problem that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat can be as good as another feat rather than only as good as half a feat. Yes, this weapon is stronger than most other exotic weapon choices, but most other exotic weapon choices aren't actually used (since they're not worth a feat).
If you want some really powerful weapons, the Arms and Equipment Guide had Mercurial Longsword (1d8, 20/x4) and Mercurial Greatsword (2d6, 20/x4). The Eberron Campaign Setting had the Talenta Sharrash (1d10, 19-20/x4). The latter was errata'ed to x2, but it was a nice few months before that :)
The orcish shot-put had the same crit range and multiplier as the Falcata.
Is it just me, or would anyone else like to see the geek squad on Deadliest Warrior test all these weapons (against both armored and unarmored foes) and then rejigger the damage for each based on their results? Might be hard with the purely mythological ones like the elven curveblade, but still.
Considering what a crap job Dealiest Warrior does with everything else it gets its hands on? No I would not.
Elven thinblade would probably be called the schiavona in historical terms.
All this makes me smile because a while ago, I was objecting to the 19-20x3 crit range of the falcata, as well I was for the 1d6 damage of the scimitar.
In my opinion, both weapons should be 1d8 and crit 18-20x2.
I am glad that the falcata changed to crit 18-20x2.
Now I am waiting for the damage change for the scimitar to 1d8.
Although I don't really mind, it is the way I always houseruled these two weapons.