If I remember my history correctly, the main advantage of the falcata was its ability to shear through armor and shields. Why not scale back its critical ability somewhat, and instead allow it to grant a bonus to sunder attempts, similar to the bec de corbin or lucerne hammer contained in the same book?
Allow the falcata to deal 2d4 damage, critical with a x3 multiplier, and grant a +2 bonus to CMB for attempts to sunder light or medium armor, and shields. Then make it a martial weapon. That brings it roughly online with the other martial one-handed weapons, and we abandon the silliness which suggests that swinging a front-weighted sword is intrinsically more difficult than doing the same with a battle axe.
Allow the falcata to deal 2d4 damage, critical with a x3 multiplier, and grant a +2 bonus to CMB for attempts to sunder light or medium armor, and shields. Then make it a martial weapon.Hey, I like this. I think it would need to be a d8 though? 1d8, x3 multiplier puts it in line with the other one handed martial dudes, then the sunder bonus may or may not require an actual cost. I certainly wouldn't been boggled if it said this.
Also I'm pretty sure you can't two-hand a Falcata, though someone brought it up. I think the APG rules allow you to, which is a bit amusing.
Okay then, 1d8 damage, x3 crit, +2 to sundering light or medium armor and shields, but a falcata's grip doesn't allow it to be used 2-handed.
Make it work however feels right in your game, and inform your players beforehand.
Mostly, the "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" feat seems normally about as good as half a feat.
I would argue that this, right here, is the root of the problem. Why should a feat only be as good as half a feat? That makes no sense at all.
If I have to pay a feat for an Exotic weapon proficiency, then I want to be getting a feat's worth of benefit out of it, not half a feat. Maybe that bastard sword and war axe should deal more damage as well, with an exotic proficiency. Maybe those "special monk weapons" should be jettisoned entirely.
I think I had a falcata once at an Italian diner. Sort of a flatbread with three types of cheeses and olive oil for dipping. It was quite tasty.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
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.Just out of interest... how do you get a +20 static bonus on a one-hander by level 10? Assuming you're not smiting?
+25 would be, hmm. 22 str = +6, +4 Weapon Spec, +2 weapon train fighter, +6 Power attack, +2 magic weapon, would get you exactly to +20 one hander. two handed would be +3 Str and +3 Power Attack, for +26.
Note all medium weapons can be used two handed unless specifically said otherwise. you Simply put your hands together instead of one under the other.
==Aelryinth
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.Just out of interest... how do you get a +20 static bonus on a one-hander by level 10? Assuming you're not smiting?+25 would be, hmm. 22 str = +6, +4 Weapon Spec, +2 weapon train fighter, +6 Power attack, +2 magic weapon, would get you exactly to +20 one hander. two handed would be +3 Str and +3 Power Attack, for +26.
Note all medium weapons can be used two handed unless specifically said otherwise. you Simply put your hands together instead of one under the other.
==Aelryinth
Um... to state your idea correctly: All one handed weapons may be used two handed unless specifically stated otherwise.
light weapons can not be used two handed.
If I remember my history correctly, the main advantage of the falcata was its ability to shear through armor and shields. Why not scale back its critical ability somewhat, and instead allow it to grant a bonus to sunder attempts, similar to the bec de corbin or lucerne hammer contained in the same book?
Allow the falcata to deal 2d4 damage, critical with a x3 multiplier, and grant a +2 bonus to CMB for attempts to sunder light or medium armor, and shields. Then make it a martial weapon. That brings it roughly online with the other martial one-handed weapons, and we abandon the silliness which suggests that swinging a front-weighted sword is intrinsically more difficult than doing the same with a battle axe.
It's because the Falcata that criticals, will just as likely shear through flesh and bone, due to the weight of the blade...
If weapon speed were still in the game, the falcata would be a slower weapon due to the increased time to get the blade moving. I miss the days of Weapon Speed, but they REALLY slowed the game down when I tried to re-implement them in 3.0
What you should really be concerned with is the Scythe in the hands of a 20th level half-orc fighter...that automatically confirms x5 crits.
1d8 (19-20/x3) isn't game breaking, it's nice, but it's still a 1H weapon, it still has normal strength bonuses.
Can you honestly say a 1st level fighter with Falcata Exotic Weapon Proficiency is more dangerous than the 1st level with a great sword and power attack???
I have no concerns over it as a DM. I would also rather face a falcata wielder than a 2H sword wielder as a player.
14STR
1d8+2 (3d8+6)
2d6+3 (4d6+6)
*EFFECTIVELY THE SAME DMG
but power attack would affect the 2H wielder more than the 1H wielder.
18STR
1d8+4 (3d8+12)
2d6+6 (2d6+12)
*EFFECTIVELY THE SAME DMG
power attack -1 TH +2 or +3 dmg @ level 1.
Heavy Fortification...no chance of critical (wasted feat for this battle, power attack still works just fine.)
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.Just out of interest... how do you get a +20 static bonus on a one-hander by level 10? Assuming you're not smiting?
Aerelith, you can't get GWS until 12th level.
24 str +7 (18 start +2 for levels +4 item)
Weapon Spec +2
Weapon Training +2
Power Attack +6
magic weapon +3
Now, admittedly, I was considering starting the THF with only 16 str to get the 25. I mostly did 20 because it was a nice round number. Level 10 is arround where you start hitting those numbers consistently on characters, and it is also the point where most campaigns start to break down IME, and ludicrous damage is not really that big of a deal.
Given that the back cover of the Adventurer's Armory (Pathfinder Companion, pg 35, inside back cover) lists this as 1d8 19-20/x2 and that page 18 of that book notes that values in the Adventurer's Armory explicitly replace those of prior sources, I'm wondering if we can get some confirmation on the stats presented in the APG, as reported in this thread, as the move to d8 19-20/x3 seems to be a re-reversal.
Can you honestly say a 1st level fighter with Falcata Exotic Weapon Proficiency is more dangerous than the 1st level with a great sword and power attack???
How does that even matter? The falcata is one-handed, and you just convincingly demonstrated that it crits as hard and as frequently as a greatsword while leaving a hand free, which has all sorts of benefits!
The appropriate question is, would I rather face a falcata than a bastard sword? Let's use the same test:
14 STR
Falcata: 1d8+2 (3d8+6) avg. 19.5, max 30
Bastard: 1d10+2 (2d10+4) avg. 15, max 24
18 STR
Falcata: 1d8+4 (3d8+12) avg. 25.5, max 36
Bastard: 1d10+4 (2d10+8) avg. 19, max 28
So, um... ouch.
I like the idea of having a 19-20/x3 exotic weapon, but it needs to deal 1d6 damage to fit the standard balance point (and that would STILL be really, really good). And obviously the falcata is the wrong candidate for this weapon. Maybe something toothed or serrated, like the macuahuitl. Deerhorn knives would be a reasonable light (1d4) version.
Anyway. I'm going to suggest that the falcata is best described as a 1d8/18-20 exotic weapon. (Yes, I know, it really shouldn't be exotic. But we're working with mechanical balance and what's already printed.) Introduce some nasty two-pronged dire pick at 1d8/x4, and you've got a nice spread.
The alternative is to up the ante across the board. Bastard swords are 18-20, dwarven waraxes are x4. It might not be a bad idea -- as has been pointed out, EWP is a pretty weak feat in general. But that's a major revision and needs to be a house rule, as opposed to a simple one-line erratum like "Change falcata critical threat range and multiplier to 18-20/x2."
Anyway. I'm going to suggest that the falcata is best described as a 1d8/18-20 exotic weapon. (Yes, I know, it really shouldn't be exotic. But we're working with mechanical balance and what's already printed.) Introduce some nasty two-pronged dire pick at 1d8/x4, and you've got a nice spread.
The alternative is to up the ante across the board. Bastard swords are 18-20, dwarven waraxes are x4. It might not be a bad idea -- as has been pointed out, EWP is a pretty weak feat in general. But that's a major revision and needs to be a house rule, as opposed to a simple one-line erratum like "Change falcata critical threat range and multiplier to 18-20/x2."
I agree with this idea, especially boosting exotic weapons in general. I also agree that would be too much work, though.
As for the part I but in bold- does being exotic really have to mean it's hard to use? I mean, it's not like a kama is hard to use, but it's exotic. Couldn't the falcata just be an obscure weapon from some remote region of Golarion instead? /devil's advocate :P
EDIT: Or maybe they are just hard to use. I've got a kukri here with an 18 inch blade and the thing's a total beast- my longsword (bastard sword for D&D) is easier to use one-handed by a fair degree.
Mostly, the "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" feat seems normally about as good as half a feat.I would argue that this, right here, is the root of the problem. Why should a feat only be as good as half a feat? That makes no sense at all.
If I have to pay a feat for an Exotic weapon proficiency, then I want to be getting a feat's worth of benefit out of it, not half a feat. Maybe that bastard sword and war axe should deal more damage as well, with an exotic proficiency. Maybe those "special monk weapons" should be jettisoned entirely.
+1
It's because the Falcata that criticals, will just as likely shear through flesh and bone, due to the weight of the blade...
So it's like an axe that way. Sounds like a x3 critical to me rather than an increased threat range. Add in the bonus to sundering, just to model the weapon's fearsome reputation for taking armor apart, and you've got a good martial weapon. If you want to make it exotic and a bit more deadly, toss in a bonus to confirming criticals to replace the increased threat range, say +4.
If we do the math on falcata vs. bastard sword now, we get:
5th level Fighter 18 Str vs. AC 19
Masterwork Falcata +11 melee (1d8+5/x3, +4 to confirm criticals)
Avg Dmg on hit: 9.5; Avg Extra Dmg on critical: 19; 5% chance to threaten; 85% chance to confirm; DPR 6.9825
Masterwork Bastard Sword +11 melee (1d10+5/19-20)
Avg Dmg on hit: 10.5; Avg Extra Dmg on critical: 10.5; 10% chance to threaten; 65% chance to confirm; DPR 7.5075
Throw in Power Attack, and our numbers become:
5th level Fighter 18 Str vs. AC 19
Masterwork Falcata Power Attack +9 melee (1d8+9/x3, +4 to confirm criticals)
Avg Dmg on hit: 13.5; Avg Extra Dmg on critical: 27; 5% chance to threaten; 75% chance to confirm; DPR 8.4375
Masterwork Bastard Sword Power Attack +9 melee (1d10+9/19-20)
Avg Dmg on hit: 14.5; Avg Extra Dmg on critical: 14.5; 10% chance to threaten; 55% chance to confirm; DPR 8.7725
A bit less difference.
The falcata still gets the bonus to sundering, so for certain concepts it's a better weapon, but not as a rule of thumb. This supports the observation that the falcata, while a feared weapon in its day, never became a weapon of decision on the ancient or medieval battlefield.
By the by, the higher the AC of the opponent, the more the falcata's bonus to confirmation benefits its DPR.
And as the bonus to Power Attack scales up, the falcata gets even better.
12th level Fighter 24 Str vs. AC 26
+2 Falcata Power Attack +19/+14/+9 melee (1d8+19/x3, +4 to confirm criticals)
Avg Dmg on hit: 23.5; Avg Extra Dmg on critical: 47; DPR 36.3075
+2 Bastard Sword Power Attack +19/+14/+9 melee (1d10+19/19-20)
Avg Dmg on hit: 24.5; Avg Extra Dmg on critical: 24.5; DPR 36.3825
If weapon speed were still in the game, the falcata would be a slower weapon due to the increased time to get the blade moving. I miss the days of Weapon Speed, but they REALLY slowed the game down when I tried to re-implement them in 3.0
I miss weapon speed too, but I never could come up with a good way to make it work in 3.x.
It's because the Falcata that criticals, will just as likely shear through flesh and bone, due to the weight of the blade...So it's like an axe that way. Sounds like a x3 critical to me rather than an increased threat range. Add in the bonus to sundering, just to model the weapon's fearsome reputation for taking armor apart, and you've got a good martial weapon. If you want to make it exotic and a bit more deadly, toss in a bonus to confirming criticals to replace the increased threat range, say +4.
If we do the math on falcata vs. bastard sword now, we get:
-math-
A bit less difference.
The falcata still gets the bonus to sundering, so for certain concepts it's a better weapon, but not as a rule of thumb. This supports the observation that the falcata, while a feared weapon in its day, never became a weapon of decision on the ancient or medieval battlefield.
-more math-
I really like the way the numbers work out on this version.
I don't think any hand weapon could be pinned down as being a 'weapon of decision', though. Superior tactics and cultural assimilation spelled the end of the falcata in the ancient world. No weapon can be modeled well enough in 'any' game to reflect the complexities of its use, thus I don't really worry about accuracy in representing weapons.
I've been thinking, though- wouldn't the easy way to handle it be to just say 'no falcatas' if we don't like the mechanics? I don't see any character concepts or in-game cultures that fall apart without it. That said, I'd probably allow it as-is in my games, unless people really start to abuse it. (It's just easier to avoid house rules, I find.)
Sounds like a x3 critical to me rather than an increased threat range. Add in the bonus to sundering, just to model the weapon's fearsome reputation for taking armor apart, and you've got a good martial weapon.
And nobody ever wields a battleaxe again.
If you're going to make it martial, I'd probably do it as a 1d10/x2 with the sunder bonus.
Edit: Actually, I really like that. It's unwieldy and likely to cause a glancing blow, but equally likely to crush your head through your helmet. It becomes a fantastic weapon for poorly-trained militia (large base die), and though it doesn't scale as well for a truly exemplary combatant (no extra crit dots to multiply your static bonuses), it does still have a good tactical function (+2 sunder). That seems to match up to comments about its actual historical properties.
Remember that that "half a feat" tends to stack multiplicatively with other feats. As I said before, you simply can't GET that +1 crit range any other way except exotic weapon proficiency- and then improved critical comes along and doubles it. Similarly, just increasing your die size (the other use of exotic weapon proficiency that relates to damage) is also not something else you can buy- though it tends to be about half of weapon specialization, not a stupendous feat.
Anyway, part of the issue is that unlike most of the mechanical areas, weapons have to map to reality much more so than say, physical feats or magic spells.
I think that Exotic Weapon Proficiency isn't super strong because they don't want everyone just using exotic weapons. Can you honestly say if instead of (19-20)x3, you could get a 1 handed weapon that did 1d8 or even 1d6 for (17-20)x2, that that wouldn't be pretty darned popular? What if it was a two handed weapon that was 2d4 (17-20)x2? Even though that's worse than Improved Critical (which you can't get until like 12th level normally), it would still be taken, and it would still stack with it.
The problem is that they can't decide of EWP is for weapons that are mechanically superior - many of which simply aren't "better" enough to matter - for weapons that are in practice weird or require specialized training - the double weapons or many of the sillier things fit here - or for weapon that are non-European - repeating crossbow, "masterwork bastard sword," monk weapons.
This is so problematic because so many weapons that fit into only one catagory are shoved into the same catagory as the others. So bastard swords are apparently "exotic," repeating crossbows somehow require "specialized training," and a 1d4 weapon with no special abilities is considered "better" then others.
I think F33b is on to something here I have taken alook at all three books and this is what I have found.
APG
Falcata 18 gp 1d6 1d8 19 20/ x3 4 lbs. S
Campaign
Dueling sword, Aldori 20 gp 1d6 1d8 19 20/x2 3 lb. Slashing
Falcata 16 gp 1d6 1d8 19-20/x3 4 lb. Slashing
Armoury
Dueling sword, Aldori 20 gp 1d6 1d8 19 20/ 3 3 lbs. S
Falcata 18 gp 1d6 1d8 19 20/ 2 4 lbs. S
You maybe wondering why I have included the dueling sword in the last 2 well if you look it changes crit as does the falcata. Maybe it was the mythical cut and paste again but either way we now have 2 weapons that have diffrent stats and that have 19-20/x3 so which is it and what do people think about the dueling sword being 19-20 x3?
Given that the back cover of the Adventurer's Armory (Pathfinder Companion, pg 35, inside back cover) lists this as 1d8 19-20/x2 and that page 18 of that book notes that values in the Adventurer's Armory explicitly replace those of prior sources, I'm wondering if we can get some confirmation on the stats presented in the APG, as reported in this thread, as the move to d8 19-20/x3 seems to be a re-reversal.
The Adventurer's armory has numberous typos and errata that you can already find on these boards using the search function. If you look at the line below Falcata, you will see the Aldori Dueling Sabre, which has 1d8 19-20X3 crit AND the bennefit of being able to be finnessed AND is 1 or 2 handed. They mixed up the stat lines for the 2, and the Aldori Dueling Sabre is a 19-20X2 crit that is finnessable and 2 handable. Also, the APG came out after the Adventurer's Armory.
I honestly think the Martial/EWP divide was a poor design choice from way back in 3.0.
Rather than make EWP weapon+ but have them unlocked with a feat it probably would've been better to include the common exotics (bastard sword, dwarven waraxe)in the martial list. That way the 1st level fighter could have a bastard sword without having to burn one of his feats. Of course you'd probably have to nerf the weapon some to fit within the current martial weapon design guidelines.
Such as Bastard Sword d8/19-10 x2 when held onehanded and 1d12/19-20 x2 when held with two-hands. That way it would be functionally identical to a long sword when used in one hand, better than a long sword when held two handed and inferior to the greatsword as a two handed weapon. In effect it's a martial weapon with the "flexible" trait.
Because I think people may be interested, I am going to post this thread from the user suggestions. Its an idea for making all weapons have 3 levels of proficiency, and as you get more levels you get new abilities with the same weapon.
For example:
RAPIER
Simple: One-handed, -4 atk penalty, 1d6/18-20
Martial: One-handed, no atk penalty, 1d6/18-20, Finesse
Exotic: One-handed, no atk penalty, 1d8/18-20, Finesse, Disarm, +1 to Combat Expertise
Sounds like a x3 critical to me rather than an increased threat range. Add in the bonus to sundering, just to model the weapon's fearsome reputation for taking armor apart, and you've got a good martial weapon.And nobody ever wields a battleaxe again.
If you're going to make it martial, I'd probably do it as a 1d10/x2 with the sunder bonus.
Edit: Actually, I really like that. It's unwieldy and likely to cause a glancing blow, but equally likely to crush your head through your helmet. It becomes a fantastic weapon for poorly-trained militia (large base die), and though it doesn't scale as well for a truly exemplary combatant (no extra crit dots to multiply your static bonuses), it does still have a good tactical function (+2 sunder). That seems to match up to comments about its actual historical properties.
You may have missed the earlier suggestion I had that if it's martial with 1d8 x3crit and +2 to sunder light or medium armor (and shields), then it can't be wielded 2-handed, thanks to the particulars of the grip.
This keeps the battle axe relevant for those who want the option of swinging for the bleachers.
The 1d10 x2 could work, but I prefer some kind of critical hit advantage, just to keep it in line with other heavy chopping weapons in the game.
When I was doing my redesign, I dropped the increased threat range because the only way to really use the weapon effectively was to swing it in a heavy chop and hope to cleave through whatever got in the way. I really see an increased threat range as indicative of weapons which can be wielded with some measure of precision. But I like the idea that a serious hit from a falcata cleaves your skull in half right through your helmet, something a straight bladed sword can't really do (but an axe can). Hence a x3 multiplier.
Because I think people may be interested, I am going to post this thread from the user suggestions. Its an idea for making all weapons have 3 levels of proficiency, and as you get more levels you get new abilities with the same weapon.
I've already finished that work, and sent it out to my group.
The way things look now,RAPIER
Simple: One-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d6/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d6/18-20, finesse.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d6/18-20, finesse and Lunge (as the feat, but specific to this weapon).
LONGSWORD
Simple: One-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d8/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d8/18-20, finesse (supersedes dueling sword).
FALCATA (Broadsword)
Simple: One-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d8/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20/x3.
BASTARD SWORD
Simple: Two-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d10/19-20.
Martial: Two-handed melee, or one-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d10/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee, 1d10/19-20; or two-handed melee, 2d8/19-20.
(Etc.)
Because I think people may be interested, I am going to post this thread from the user suggestions. Its an idea for making all weapons have 3 levels of proficiency, and as you get more levels you get new abilities with the same weapon.
I've already finished that work, and sent it out to my group.
The way things look now,RAPIER
Simple: One-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d6/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d6/18-20, finesse.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d6/18-20, finesse and Lunge (as the feat, but specific to this weapon).LONGSWORD
Simple: One-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d8/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d8/18-20, finesse (supersedes dueling sword).FALCATA (Broadsword)
Simple: One-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d8/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20/x3.BASTARD SWORD
Simple: Two-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d10/19-20.
Martial: Two-handed melee, or one-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d10/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee, 1d10/19-20; or two-handed melee, 2d8/19-20.(Etc.)
Awesome. Mind sending me the list? I would be really interested in seeing it
Because I think people may be interested, I am going to post this thread from the user suggestions. Its an idea for making all weapons have 3 levels of proficiency, and as you get more levels you get new abilities with the same weapon.
I've already finished that work, and sent it out to my group.
The way things look now,RAPIER
Simple: One-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d6/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d6/18-20, finesse.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d6/18-20, finesse and Lunge (as the feat, but specific to this weapon).LONGSWORD
Simple: One-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d8/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d8/18-20, finesse.FALCATA (Broadsword)
Simple: One-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d8/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20/x3.BASTARD SWORD
Simple: Two-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d10/19-20.
Martial: Two-handed melee, or one-handed melee with -4 competence penalty to attacks; 1d10/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee, 1d10/19-20; or two-handed melee, 2d8/19-20.(Etc.)
For everything but the rapier, your "simple" lines are just the same as your "martial" lines except with the penalty for nonproficiency. If we're allowing for these things to actually be used effectively as simple and martial weapons, I'd recommend actually doing so (killing the nonproficiency penalty).
RAPIER
Simple: One-handed melee, 1d6.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d6/18-20, finesse.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d6/18-20, finesse, disarm, and lunge (as feat).
LONGSWORD
Simple: One-handed melee; 1d6.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d8/18-20, finesse.
FALCATA (Broadsword)
Simple: Two-handed melee; 1d8/19-20.
Martial: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee; 1d8/19-20/x3, trip.
BASTARD SWORD
Simple: Two-handed melee; 1d10.
Martial: Two-handed melee; 1d10/19-20.
Exotic: One-handed melee, 1d10/19-20; or two-handed melee, 2d8/19-20.
For everything but the rapier, your "simple" lines are just the same as your "martial" lines except with the penalty for nonproficiency. If we're allowing for these things to actually be used effectively as simple and martial weapons, I'd recommend actually doing so (killing the nonproficiency penalty).
Three things:
(1) I wanted some slight nod towards backward-compatibility; in general, the Exotic uses got changed the most, to make them worth the cost of a feat.
(2) There are a number of weapons that aren't all that useful to people who haven't specifically trained with them. I can use light clubs, swords, knived, unarmed strikes with pretty good skill, but I wouldn't be able to hit a person with a meteor hammer or rope dart with anywhere near the surety I can hit them with a club. Indeed, I'm almost inclined to give weapons like those a -8 nonproficiency penalty for simple use, and a -4 for martial.
(3) These are houserules. You can always change them however you like, if you want to use them at your house.
For the record, Kirth, you don't need to give penalties a type, unless you've changed the rules for penalties. Penalties always stack.
For the record, Kirth, you don't need to give penalties a type, unless you've changed the rules for penalties. Penalties always stack.
Agreed; it's an editorial quirk of mine. In the Pathfinder rules, the lack of specified type for bonuses can mean either (a) "untyped," or (b) "Jason forgot to list the type" -- with no way to tell the one from the other. What I've done in my homebrew rules documents, then, is to give ALL bonuses and penalties a type notation (even if it means I specifically call it an "untyped bonus") -- lack of a type notation therefore automatically means "Kirth forgot to list the type."
It seems like most of the math I'm seeing here is based on a single weapon.
How would the falcata stack up against, say, the bastard sword or other leading contenders if we're looking at the AGP two weapon fighter variant? Does any of this math change if we assume that at some point one or more sun blades are available?
How would the falcata stack up against, say, the bastard sword or other leading contenders if we're looking at the AGP two weapon fighter variant? Does any of this math change if we assume that at some point one or more sun blades are available?
Two-weapon falcata vs. two-weapon bastard sword would be the same comparison as one-handed falcata vs. one-handed bastard sword -- except in the case of a sun blade. However, I'd submit that basing our assessment of basic weapon properties on a single corner-case item is a bit bizarre. I'd rather leave the sun blade out -- ban it, even, if need be -- and have a rational weapon system.
|
As for the part I but in bold- does being exotic really have to mean it's hard to use? I mean, it's not like a kama is hard to use, but it's exotic. Couldn't the falcata just be an obscure weapon from some remote region of Golarion instead? /devil's advocate :P
Real-world cultures developed in isolation due to the logistics of getting wagons and horses over mountains and across seas.
Throw in standard magical effects, like flight and teleportation, and many of the real-world barriers to exploration and trade disappear.
Many of the weapons on the exotic list are simple peasant weapons, from Farfarawayland.
So Stig McStick, Stick-Fighter Master is proficient with every stick on the simple and martial lists, and with every stick he sees in his home town, even improvised sticks that aren't even weapons, or just fell off a tree, because he's focussed his whole life on learning to fight with sticks, to become one with the stick.
Then an odd-looking stranger walks into town, and gives him some lip for not stepping out of his way. He raises a stick to beat Stig McStick, who doesn't take kindly to this, so he trips the stranger up, and relieves him of his stick.
All of a sudden, Stig McStick becomes Wally Wankhands, poking himself in the eye, swinging it randomly, like an epileptic in a strobe-lit rave, before tripping his own feet, hurling himself on the floor, and dropping the the stick into the stranger's grasp.
Why?
Because it was a stick from Japan....
You see?
No, nor do we.
It seems like most of the math I'm seeing here is based on a single weapon.
How would the falcata stack up against, say, the bastard sword or other leading contenders if we're looking at the AGP two weapon fighter variant? Does any of this math change if we assume that at some point one or more sun blades are available?
I agree with Kirth. I do not want to base ballance on a wierd magic weapon that breaks rules. Basicly, a TWF would have -4/-4 with falcata and -2/-2 with a sunblade. The extra to hit gives the sunblade an advantage though, since the difference between weapon damage*hit probablity is less than .1 of the total damage.
basicly, the sunblade is better when:
dmg1*hit% - dmg2*(hit%+.1) <0
solving this for hit%, sunblade is better when
hit% < .1/(dmg1/dmg2)-1)
Using my numbers of 28.05/30.6 for bastard and 29.4/34.3 for falcata, when you have +20 to damage, you get an 82% with the falcata when keen and would need 200% not keen, if there was not an upper bound on hitting. (Because it maxes at 95%, the falcata is better if you hit on a 2). Even keen, the sunblade will average more if you hit on anything but a 4. The higher you go in damage, the lower this number will go, and it is not including feats like 2 weapon rend that require both attacks to hit to do bonus damage. As you go up in damage from the +20, falcata will slowly get better, but you will not see a time when the falcata is better half the time in the scope of normal d&d damage.
Many of the weapons on the exotic list are simple peasant weapons, from Farfarawayland.
... which is why I've eliminated all "special monk weapons." The kama is a sickle. Period. The nunchaku is a light flail -- you can swing it like a flail and bash people with it perfectly well with martial weapon proficiency, or you can whirl it around like Bruce Lee with exotic proficiency, but the basic weapon is the same.
As for the part I but in bold- does being exotic really have to mean it's hard to use? I mean, it's not like a kama is hard to use, but it's exotic. Couldn't the falcata just be an obscure weapon from some remote region of Golarion instead? /devil's advocate :PReal-world cultures developed in isolation due to the logistics of getting wagons and horses over mountains and across seas.
Throw in standard magical effects, like flight and teleportation, and many of the real-world barriers to exploration and trade disappear.
Many of the weapons on the exotic list are simple peasant weapons, from Farfarawayland.
So Stig McStick, Stick-Fighter Master is proficient with every stick on the simple and martial lists, and with every stick he sees in his home town, even improvised sticks that aren't even weapons, or just fell off a tree, because he's focussed his whole life on learning to fight with sticks, to become one with the stick.
Then an odd-looking stranger walks into town, and gives him some lip for not stepping out of his way. He raises a stick to beat Stig McStick, who doesn't take kindly to this, so he trips the stranger up, and relieves him of his stick.
All of a sudden, Stig McStick becomes Wally Wankhands, poking himself in the eye, swinging it randomly, like an epileptic in a strobe-lit rave, before tripping his own feet, hurling himself on the floor, and dropping the the stick into the stranger's grasp.
Why?
Because it was a stick from Japan....
You see?No, nor do we.
I didn't say it made sense. Hence the '/devil's advocate' part.
As long as the mechanics make it worth a feat, it can be exotic. I'd consider the 'why' pure fluff. Because it's awkward to use, from a distant land, or just because you need to build your forearms up to maneuver it properly- all would be valid fluff to me.
I agree with Kirth that kama should just use sickle stats. I'm not a fan of the 'it sucks, but it's from far away and u don't know how to use it' mindset. Like I said upthread, I prefer 4e's term 'superior weapon'.
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.Just out of interest... how do you get a +20 static bonus on a one-hander by level 10? Assuming you're not smiting?Aerelith, you can't get GWS until 12th level.
24 str +7 (18 start +2 for levels +4 item)
Weapon Spec +2
Weapon Training +2
Power Attack +6
magic weapon +3Now, admittedly, I was considering starting the THF with only 16 str to get the 25. I mostly did 20 because it was a nice round number. Level 10 is arround where you start hitting those numbers consistently on characters, and it is also the point where most campaigns start to break down IME, and ludicrous damage is not really that big of a deal.
Actually I didn't miscalculate, I used Melee Weapon Mastery as part of the Weapon Spec chain (it's automatic, sorry).
I just never default to an 18+2 starting strength for builds...16 is much more 'average'. I make it all up with feats, which aren't stat dependent.
Also, that falcata TH sword comparison doesn't work, because you can use the Falcata two handed and get the same str bonus. The second you do, it blows the TH sword out of the water...and the falchion, too.
==Aelryinth
Also, that falcata TH sword comparison doesn't work, because you can use the Falcata two handed and get the same str bonus. The second you do, it blows the TH sword out of the water...and the falchion, too.
Exactly! Because EWP isn't actually worth a feat, except for the falcata. But what if EWP in the greatsword could give it 3d6/19-20, for example (vs. 2d6/19-20 for Martial proficiency)? Or EWP for the falchion made it 2d6/18-20 (thus superseding the "curve blade")?
I would probably try to keep the power level of all the exotic powered things on par with the ones we've seen (half a feat)
Ugh. Something in me dies a little bit every time someone spends a whole feat to get half a feat. If you're going to require a whole feat... give 'em a whole feat, is what I say.
As for the part I but in bold- does being exotic really have to mean it's hard to use? I mean, it's not like a kama is hard to use, but it's exotic. Couldn't the falcata just be an obscure weapon from some remote region of Golarion instead? /devil's advocate :PReal-world cultures developed in isolation due to the logistics of getting wagons and horses over mountains and across seas.
Throw in standard magical effects, like flight and teleportation, and many of the real-world barriers to exploration and trade disappear.
Many of the weapons on the exotic list are simple peasant weapons, from Farfarawayland.
So Stig McStick, Stick-Fighter Master is proficient with every stick on the simple and martial lists, and with every stick he sees in his home town, even improvised sticks that aren't even weapons, or just fell off a tree, because he's focussed his whole life on learning to fight with sticks, to become one with the stick.
Then an odd-looking stranger walks into town, and gives him some lip for not stepping out of his way. He raises a stick to beat Stig McStick, who doesn't take kindly to this, so he trips the stranger up, and relieves him of his stick.
All of a sudden, Stig McStick becomes Wally Wankhands, poking himself in the eye, swinging it randomly, like an epileptic in a strobe-lit rave, before tripping his own feet, hurling himself on the floor, and dropping the the stick into the stranger's grasp.
Why?
Because it was a stick from Japan....
You see?No, nor do we.
To add insult to injury, my fighter can fire a compound longbow like it ain't no thing, and despite it being a highly specialized weapon that took years of training to fully master, my fighter just plunks away without ever undergoing special training.
He then picks up a repeating crossbow, a weapon which is fired by pulling a lever, and no longer comprehends what the hell he's doing.
Like I said, the problem with EWP is that there's three types of weapons with no overdraw between them. "Better" weapons that aren't better enough to deserve a feat, weird weapons that actually would take specialized training, and "non-European" weapons. The problem is that they're not only all the same feat, but the third category is just flat out insulting. So the feat tells you that bastard swords are weeeiiird and exotic, that dire flails are somehow better then a greatsword, and that nobody in the planet understands how to use a repeating crossbow - the easiest weapon in the world - without first undergoing super specialized training for it, all because "White people didn't make it"
|
I think F33b is on to something here I have taken alook at all three books and this is what I have found.
APG
Falcata 18 gp 1d6 1d8 19 20/ x3 4 lbs. SCampaign
Dueling sword, Aldori 20 gp 1d6 1d8 19 20/x2 3 lb. Slashing
Falcata 16 gp 1d6 1d8 19-20/x3 4 lb. SlashingArmoury
Dueling sword, Aldori 20 gp 1d6 1d8 19 20/ 3 3 lbs. S
Falcata 18 gp 1d6 1d8 19 20/ 2 4 lbs. SYou maybe wondering why I have included the dueling sword in the last 2 well if you look it changes crit as does the falcata. Maybe it was the mythical cut and paste again but either way we now have 2 weapons that have diffrent stats and that have 19-20/x3 so which is it and what do people think about the dueling sword being 19-20 x3?
+1
You are indeed correct Immortalis, as has been stated in other threads and errata. Basically disregard most of the stats in AA for weapons as several are messed up. Use official errata or APG. They did change a few things in the AA on purpose but it is to confusing to remember which they changed on purpose and which they changed on accident. Use AA if it is the only place that item is listed (IMO). Yes APG supercedes anything else assuming your looking at one of the changes made on purpose (Khopesh and Ogre Hook) and not one made on accident like dueling sword and falcata.