No...not really, A falcata vs full plate would be nigh useless as the sword is too unwieldy to stab at the vulnerable spots in the armor...and you sure as hell wasn't gonna hack through something that resisted bullets. So yes there is a design flaw in the sword vs late era armor. And even against a suit of brig I would suspect that the falcata would have issues actually cutting anything other the leather outside. Once you reach a certain level of armor, you just not gonna cut through it with human strength. Not that D&D is limited to such...but there is a reason why swords of the 100 year war era and later focuses on the thrust. The romans were VERY good at adopting what worked as well...and there are reasons why the falcata was not adopted as well...like you need a lot of room to use one effectively. And from horseback, the limited range of the falcata made it a worse calvery weapon then the longer spatha. It's not a good weapon. It has acts like a weak axe that costs considerably more effort to produce...so why not get an axe?!?
As for "low grade iron," a falcata made of Damascus steel (i.e., masterwork) would probably be more effective against more modern armors, too. The main reason the falcata went out of use in the real world was the Roman conquest/assimilation of Hispana, not that the weapon was ineffective.
Most weapons (especially one-handed) were fairly ineffective against full plate, even stabbing swords. There's a reason armies started to adopt heavy crossbows (and firearms as they improved) and polearms.
The falcata was less effective than a gladius (short sword) when used in a shield wall, which is why the Romans didn't adopt it. When the Romans assimilated Hispania, the falcata was "forgotten" as Roman culture and attitudes (and fighting techniques) became the norm.
The spatha (longsword) made a better mounted weapon at the time, because of the longer blade and better balance (important when fighting on horseback without stirrups). However, heavy cavalry sabres used similar principles (weight, leverage) with a longer, thinner blade and better steel.
The idea that "the weapon (any weapon) wasn't so awesome because armor could stop it" is absolutely stupid. After all of course armor can stop it that's the point of armor -- this is why armor in pathfinder stops you from getting hit for damage.
Would you drop 1,500 gp for something that doesn't stop damage? Of course not. The weapon's damage rating isn't its "armor penetration rating" -- it's what it is going to do to you if it does connect. The falcata does very nasty things to people when it hits them, thus its damage rating. Armor has nothing to do with this -- if you get hurt by a falcata you have a high probability of death or serious injury. Armor fortunately is designed to stop all weapons some do it better than others -- but that is why some have higher AC bonuses than others.
|
No...not really, A falcata vs full plate would be nigh useless as the sword is too unwieldy to stab at the vulnerable spots in the armor...and you sure as hell wasn't gonna hack through something that resisted bullets. So yes there is a design flaw in the sword vs late era armor. And even against a suit of brig I would suspect that the falcata would have issues actually cutting anything other the leather outside. Once you reach a certain level of armor, you just not gonna cut through it with human strength. Not that D&D is limited to such...but there is a reason why swords of the 100 year war era and later focuses on the thrust. The romans were VERY good at adopting what worked as well...and there are reasons why the falcata was not adopted as well...like you need a lot of room to use one effectively. And from horseback, the limited range of the falcata made it a worse calvery weapon then the longer spatha. It's not a good weapon. It has acts like a weak axe that costs considerably more effort to produce...so why not get an axe?!?
As for "low grade iron," a falcata made of Damascus steel (i.e., masterwork) would probably be more effective against more modern armors, too. The main reason the falcata went out of use in the real world was the Roman conquest/assimilation of Hispana, not that the weapon was ineffective.Most weapons (especially one-handed) were fairly ineffective against full plate, even stabbing swords. There's a reason armies started to adopt heavy crossbows (and firearms as they improved) and polearms.
The falcata was less effective than a gladius (short sword) when used in a shield wall, which is why the Romans didn't adopt it. When the Romans assimilated Hispania, the falcata was "forgotten" as Roman culture and attitudes (and fighting techniques) became the norm.
The spatha (longsword) made a better mounted weapon at the time, because of the longer blade and better balance (important when...
I wouldn't say stabbing swords were ineffective. Less effective then a flanged mace...yes, but not ineffective. There are quite a bit written on how to use those late era swords vs people in armor. As for the use of firearms and crossbows, that has less to do with the effectiveness of the weapon and more to do with the range of the weapon and how easily somebody can be trained to use said weapon. Same with the polearm to a lesser extent. There would be 1 knight to maybe 10 (or more) men at arms in your standard army...men at arms would not have full plate...or in many cases even armor at all. In which case, range is wins.
The shield wall is the winning infantry tactics...not being good for a good tactic is a bad thing. And even if you go out of the army setting and go into personal combat, a well balanced faster sword beats an unwieldy clunker that has to use obvious patterns of movement because it's too unbalanced. Kinda why axes and maces weren't very popular options in duels.
The calvery sabre is not even REMOTELY like a falcata. I'm sorry, but if you think that is the case, you don't understand the importance of mass distribution in a weapon. And even then, the FINAL version of the calvery sabre is a stabbing sword because being able to engage faster = win in real combat.
Considering that applying historical accuracy to a non-historical setting is an exercise in futility, "out of place" is not very meaningful. It was just a suggestion, as well as indicating that similar weapons were in use way past the late Middle Ages/early Renaissance period of D&D/Pathfinder technology.You could consider the Pathfinder falcata to be closer to the Ottoman yatagan. This would fit with the "Byzantine" flavor of Taldor (where the falcata is most used, according to Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting).I haven't read the campaign setting yet, but... doesn't that seem a bit out of place? I mean, once they were the Ottomans, it's not really 'Byzantine' anymore. The kopis would at least be Greek.
I was referring to 'out of place' in shooting for a particular feel. You don't give people maori jade clubs when you're shooting for a medieval knight feel. Not that the falcata is helping with that, really.
As for your other point- yes, heavy cutting weapons never went out of style completely and they became much more popular again once armor was out of the picture.
No...not really, A falcata vs full plate would be nigh useless as the sword is too unwieldy to stab at the vulnerable spots in the armor...and you sure as hell wasn't gonna hack through something that resisted bullets. So yes there is a design flaw in the sword vs late era armor. And even against a suit of brig I would suspect that the falcata would have issues actually cutting anything other the leather outside. Once you reach a certain level of armor, you just not gonna cut through it with human strength. Not that D&D is limited to such...but there is a reason why swords of the 100 year war era and later focuses on the thrust. The romans were VERY good at adopting what worked as well...and there are reasons why the falcata was not adopted as well...like you need a lot of room to use one effectively. And from horseback, the limited range of the falcata made it a worse calvery weapon then the longer spatha. It's not a good weapon. It has acts like a weak axe that costs considerably more effort to produce...so why not get an axe?!?
As for "low grade iron," a falcata made of Damascus steel (i.e., masterwork) would probably be more effective against more modern armors, too. The main reason the falcata went out of use in the real world was the Roman conquest/assimilation of Hispana, not that the weapon was ineffective.
A couple of points.
1) Weapons vs. Armor isn't a good point to reference. Should we just throw the rapier out of the game?
2) The Romans were good at adopting what worked, but everyone's got preferences when it comes to fighting style. This article claims that Alexander the Great adopted the falcata for his armies, and I wouldn't claim he didn't know his stuff. (Whether the article is accurate or not is another story.) Interestingly enough, the gladius was also a Spanish sword, but they invented the falcata for a reason.
3) The spatha is a later period weapon, developed after improvements in metallurgy.
4) An axe can give a good hack, but a properly used cutting sword will split you in half. If they weren't better than axes in at least some ways, people wouldn't have wasted time and money on them.
|
|
1) Weapons vs. Armor isn't a good point to reference. Should we just throw the rapier out of the game?2) The Romans were good at adopting what worked, but everyone's got preferences when it comes to fighting style. This article claims that Alexander the Great adopted the falcata for his armies, and I wouldn't claim he didn't know his stuff. (Whether the article is accurate or not is another story.) Interestingly enough, the gladius was also a Spanish sword, but they invented the falcata for a reason.
3) The spatha is a later period weapon, developed after improvements in metallurgy.
4) An axe can give a good hack, but a properly used cutting sword will split you in half. If they weren't better than axes in at least some ways, people wouldn't have wasted time and money on them.
1)The rapier is actually not a bad weapon vs plate...but I did mention that D&D isn't limited by human possibilities...or hell even a remotely accurate weapon and armor system really.
2)Yeah alexander may have brought the falcata to the near east where it developed into the kukuri...but you have realize that heavy armor can not be used in those area due to heat and/or humidity...so the falcata would be somewhat more viable as a weapon choice. Besides which it would make a good secondary brush clearing tool in the jungles. Weapons like the machete and falcata are good in those kind of settings. In europe...less so. The mainz gladius pattern is from the iberia penninsula (aka spain). The romans did indeed like the mainz pattern, it was certainly not the first or last form of the gladius in roman history...nor was it even the most popular one.
3)Late era?!? The spatha is a roman weapon. It is NOT a late era weapon, at all.
4)Yes the swords have the advantage of better balance and speed. The falcata does not. Therefore it is a bad sword.
Another consideration:
The romans used what worked... and what could be mass produced. They were a civilization of standardization -- which lead to their great use of unit warfare. Because of this they wanted weapons and armor that was realitively easy to produce while still being cheap and effective. Their swords were the a wonderful example of this. The roman weaponry and armor were not the "best" of the time -- but they were good and easy to make in bulk -- add to this well trained soldiers and you had a lethal combination (much like the modern USA army -- they might not be the *best* trained, and they might not have the absolutely *best* equipment available -- but they have great equipment, great training and great team tactics -- which makes them very hard to handle).
Indeed in the late years of the roman empire when the training started to lack, and loyalty to the state wasn't as great the roman military started facing heavy losses.
Kindly note that Axes are used to cut wood, and swords are not.
Swords are better on soft tissue because of the edge. For getting through armor, you want that axe.
a falcata has a non-linear shape and thrusting profile. You can use an axe to thrust, too...it doesn't meant its good at it, and it certainly isn't as good as a normal blade.
Falcatas fell out of style for a reason. Long blades never did, nor did axes.
==Aelryinth
1)The rapier is actually not a bad weapon vs plate...but I did mention that D&D isn't limited by human possibilities...or hell even a remotely accurate weapon and armor system really.
2)Yeah alexander may have brought the falcata to the near east where it developed into the kukuri...but you have realize that heavy armor can not be used in those area due to heat and/or humidity...so the falcata would be somewhat more viable as a weapon choice. Besides which it would make a good secondary brush clearing tool in the jungles. Weapons like the machete and falcata are good in those kind of settings. In europe...less so. The mainz gladius pattern is from the iberia penninsula (aka spain). The romans did indeed like the mainz pattern, it was certainly not the first or last form of the gladius in roman history...nor was it even the most popular one.
3)Late era?!? The spatha is a roman weapon. It is NOT a late era weapon, at all.
4)Yes the swords have the advantage of better balance and speed. The falcata does not. Therefore it is a bad sword.
1) The rapier is a terrible weapon against plate armor. The best you can hope to do is half sword and hope you can penetrate the voiders under the arm. Good luck with that- it can be difficult to pierce authentic mail with a longsword, which is better designed for the purpose. The other half of your point- totally agreed.
2) Some good points. The blade from the mainz gladius appeared as early as 700 B.C. in Spain. (I should say- a blade similar to) It is arguably the 1st of the swords we now think of as gladius. Why it wasn't the most popular could be many factors.
3) I meant, late ROMAN. As in, the Romans were around for 100s of years. It was certainly more from the later part rather than the earlier.
4) I was referring to damage on bare flesh, which seems to be how D&D judges weapons. I've never seen axes be able to match the cutting power of swords in this respect.
a falcata has a non-linear shape and thrusting profile. You can use an axe to thrust, too...it doesn't meant its good at it, and it certainly isn't as good as a normal blade.
From practical experience, the profile of a falcata places the point directly in line with the forearm when held in a 'handshake' style. This allows for a surprisingly effective thrust. Supposedly some even have a bit of a sharpened false edge, which would further enhance the thrusting ability.
I appreciate your calculations, but i wholeheartedly disagree.Uh, you can't disagree with math? I mean, that's like disagreeing with gravity. If you need help I can do more calculations.
Bumblebees disagree with gravity on a daily basis.
Bumblebees disagree with gravity on a daily basis.
Weapon base dmg is a non-factor as you level..most of the dmg comes from bonuses. Nobody cared that the spiked chain did crappy dmg...it had reach/adjacent. NO other weapon had that (duoms don't count).
People are making the same argument here. nobody cares about base dmg of a weapon except at low levels, and they are arguing the x3 multiplier is 'meh' too. It's the other thing...the improved crit range, which makes the grade at higher levels, because it affects non-dmg effects going off.
Well, in 3.5 this is for sure true. In PF is true, too, but sometimes the high damage die could count (say I want a mobile fighter that spams Vital Strike).
This without considering buffs able to increase size like enlrge person. High damage weapons benefit far more from them.
Not to say that is optimal, or that I wouldn't prefer a Scythe or Falchion over a Greataxe or Greatsword generally. Nevertheless...
whoa there!
Vs Bare flesh as our meter, an axe is gonna do a LOT of things a sword won't.
A good edged sword will cut to the bone, but rarely would it dismember an opponet. The Axe on the other hand used by an average wielder will shatter bone beneath the cut, due to the wieght and heft of the swing.
so I can get hit by a sword and bleed profusely,
or I can get hit by an axe, and bleed profusely crying about my poor broken arm/leg/chest whatever got hit.
The axe saw more promient and wider use simply because it did work against most things, armored opponet or not, if you got hit with an axe, you knew it.
A prime example is the German Bearded axe, used by knights on or off horseback to take down armored opponets both on horseback and of foot. Light enough to use one handed, but still in the flanged mace wieght category, the axe had it's wieght used on a single cutting edge at the end of a curved handle.
Think of a hammer, your not going to knock a nail in with just the hammer head, the momentum of the swing comes from the handle, and a curved handle increases that momenteum, and adds the angle neccasary for throwing as well.
The axe saw MUCH wider use throughout the world then any of the swords you are speaking of, simply cause it is simple to use, powerful as all get out and on bare flesh will DISMEMBER an opponet.
If we are using the bare flesh allegory, I disagree entirely with your statement.
~Elvnsword
Who likes swords as much as the next guy, but knows there is a reason the butcher uses a cleaver, and not a sword...
The calvery sabre is not even REMOTELY like a falcata. I'm sorry, but if you think that is the case, you don't understand the importance of mass distribution in a weapon. And even then, the FINAL version of the calvery sabre is a stabbing sword because being able to engage faster = win in real combat.
Did you even follow the link to heavy cavalry sabre I provided? Here it is again.
There was a difference between the light and heavy cavalry sabres: "At the outbreak of the American Civil War, there were two types of sabers issued to the Federal Cavalry: “light” and “heavy”. The light version was popular, but the heavy model, dubbed the “Old Wrist Breaker” was the one worth owning, as it was a superior weapon. Its 36" blade offered big reach advantages over most sabers, and its substantial weight gave it the leverage to easily crush bones and sever limbs or even a head with a single blow." (emphasis mine)
If you're talking about the Indian Cavalry Sabre as the "FINAL version," it's primarily a thrusting weapon based on European fencing swords. It's pretty much a rapier modified to allow slashing.
Severing limbs with a sword is not at all uncommon. It can be done with a good bowie knife even. It may be easier to achieve with an axe, granted, but an axe just doesn't have the available cutting surface do match what a good cutting sword can do. It does have the benefit of being able to cut & crush, which is going to be useful against armor. Against flexible armor, however, a blow from an axe will be much more likely to break bones when a sword may have just split flesh.
As I said, though, on bare flesh a sword is better at cutting. A good cutting sword can split you literally in half- as in, split the ribcage, sever the spine, and leave you in two pieces. I have seen this type of cut done- not on people, of course, but it's not a myth.
As for being more common than any specific sword design- the design of an axe is more generic thus you'll see it in more places. Axes aren't really more common than cutting swords if you considered all cutting swords one unit. There are numerous cultures that didn't consider axes a weapon for war, but only a handful that didn't use swords. (and for those, it may be a lack of technology)
Also- butchers? Really? That's hardly relevant.
|
|
The calvery sabre is not even REMOTELY like a falcata. I'm sorry, but if you think that is the case, you don't understand the importance of mass distribution in a weapon. And even then, the FINAL version of the calvery sabre is a stabbing sword because being able to engage faster = win in real combat.Did you even follow the link to heavy cavalry sabre I provided? Here it is again.
There was a difference between the light and heavy cavalry sabres: "At the outbreak of the American Civil War, there were two types of sabers issued to the Federal Cavalry: “light” and “heavy”. The light version was popular, but the heavy model, dubbed the “Old Wrist Breaker” was the one worth owning, as it was a superior weapon. Its 36" blade offered big reach advantages over most sabers, and its substantial weight gave it the leverage to easily crush bones and sever limbs or even a head with a single blow." (emphasis mine)
If you're talking about the Indian Cavalry Sabre as the "FINAL version," it's primarily a thrusting weapon based on European fencing swords. It's pretty much a rapier modified to allow slashing.
Since I have held both those swords in hand...no the heavy calvery saber is NOTHING like ANY falcata I have ever handled. What your reading is a bunch of marketing blurb from a company notorious for exaggerating the truth. The FINAL version of the calvery saber is the patton saber...which was used into WW 2.
No...not really, A falcata vs full plate would be nigh useless as the sword is too unwieldy to stab at the vulnerable spots in the armor...
As for "low grade iron," a falcata made of Damascus steel (i.e., masterwork) would probably be more effective against more modern armors, too. The main reason the falcata went out of use in the real world was the Roman conquest/assimilation of Hispana, not that the weapon was ineffective.This is probably true. In fact, I just watched an episode of 'Deadliest Warrior' where a really, really big guy with a 'Celtic Longsword' hit the armor of a Persian immortal (bronze scales over leather), and could not penetrate it.
Also note that the falcata had a reputation for a dangerous weapon not because of its shape, but because it *was* in fact made of what was at the time excellent steel.
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Deadliest Warrior is not a factual show.
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Deadliest Warrior is not a factual show.
Well, they had a real, actual, fleshy big celtic guy with a real, shiny, definitely metal sword hack into an impact dummy in real leather and bronze persian armor. And this guy was friggin big. When he hit the impact dummy in the unarmored neck he nearly took they guy's head clear off. This was not professional wrestling.
They don't know crap about using the weapon... hell they put a "ninja" into a face to face showdown... not exactly correct idea here.
They don't use the weapons as intended, instead just hacking away like amatuers without regard to weapon design (etc).
The BS meter might be set slightly lower than "1000 Ways to Die" however . . . ;)
They don't know crap about using the weapon... hell they put a "ninja" into a face to face showdown... not exactly correct idea here.They don't use the weapons as intended, instead just hacking away like amatuers without regard to weapon design (etc).
The constraints of the show require face to face showdowns. That is what the show is about-- in a face to face showdown, who would win?
None the less, the representative force for the Celts seemed, if anything, probably better trained that your average ancient Celt.
Cause you know, we have such great accounts to go on about how the Celts were trained and all.
Nope I'm sorry I've seen nothing on that show that gives me any reason to lend them legitmacy on any point.
|
|
They don't know crap about using the weapon... hell they put a "ninja" into a face to face showdown... not exactly correct idea here.They don't use the weapons as intended, instead just hacking away like amatuers without regard to weapon design (etc).
The constraints of the show require face to face showdowns. That is what the show is about-- in a face to face showdown, who would win?
None the less, the representative force for the Celts seemed, if anything, probably better trained that your average ancient Celt.
No, the guy was a muscle bound bufflo (a period accurate term for a foolish fighter who is all muscle and no brains/skill/finesse). He maybe stronger then your average ancient Celt...but better trained...HELL NO.
No, the guy was a muscle bound bufflo (a period accurate term for a foolish fighter who is all muscle and no brains/skill/finesse). He maybe stronger then your average ancient Celt...but better trained...HELL NO.
They don't know crap about using the weapon... hell they put a "ninja" into a face to face showdown... not exactly correct idea here.They don't use the weapons as intended, instead just hacking away like amatuers without regard to weapon design (etc).
The constraints of the show require face to face showdowns. That is what the show is about-- in a face to face showdown, who would win?
None the less, the representative force for the Celts seemed, if anything, probably better trained that your average ancient Celt.
Hey, nice to see some other people who actually know the terms. :)
I'm giving moon glum the benefit of the doubt and assuming he meant 'physical training' instead of 'skills training'.
I've got a question for you- you mentioned a bit upthread that you've had the chance to handle actual falcatas. Were they modern, or antique? I ask because the article I linked before has a quote from Craig Johnson of Arms & Armor saying that most modern replicas are poorly weighted. Maybe that has caused some bias? If you have handled antiques, then I would be interested to hear some more detailed thoughts on their handling.
The closest I've come is my Cold Steel HTC kukri, which has a 15" blade with the exact profile of a falcata. I've always found it to be quite agile, but it's still not a great comparison because of differences in cross-section and the fact that 15" is a bit short for a falcata.
|
|
No, the guy was a muscle bound bufflo (a period accurate term for a foolish fighter who is all muscle and no brains/skill/finesse). He maybe stronger then your average ancient Celt...but better trained...HELL NO.
They don't know crap about using the weapon... hell they put a "ninja" into a face to face showdown... not exactly correct idea here.They don't use the weapons as intended, instead just hacking away like amatuers without regard to weapon design (etc).
The constraints of the show require face to face showdowns. That is what the show is about-- in a face to face showdown, who would win?
None the less, the representative force for the Celts seemed, if anything, probably better trained that your average ancient Celt.
Hey, nice to see some other people who actually know the terms. :)
I'm giving moon glum the benefit of the doubt and assuming he meant 'physical training' instead of 'skills training'.
I've got a question for you- you mentioned a bit upthread that you've had the chance to handle actual falcatas. Were they modern, or antique? I ask because the article I linked before has a quote from Craig Johnson of Arms & Armor saying that most modern replicas are poorly weighted. Maybe that has caused some bias? If you have handled antiques, then I would be interested to hear some more detailed thoughts on their handling.
The closest I've come is my Cold Steel HTC kukri, which has a 15" blade with the exact profile of a falcata. I've always found it to be quite agile, but it's still not a great comparison because of differences in cross-section and the fact that 15" is a bit short for a falcata.
Well I have held two from a dig site to be cataloged in my archeology lab. They were not in great shape however. But from those, I can honestly say that most modern ones are badly balanced compared to those. Mostly the moderns ones are too hilt heavy as they use heavy cast brass with extra large handles for "modern" hands.
Well I have held two from a dig site to be cataloged in my archeology lab. They were not in great shape however. But from those, I can honestly say that most modern ones are badly balanced compared to those. Mostly the moderns ones are too hilt...
Sweet. I'm a bit jealous, now. Even if they weren't in great shape- that's to be expected after 2000+ years. (even though some have survived quite well, those are the lucky ones)
Judging by the quote from Craig and your comments, it seems most modern ones are both too heavy overall and also carry too much weight towards the hilt. Both common mistakes, unfortunately. Counter-intuitively, too much hilt weight actually makes a sword harder to swing.
It's good to know you have some experience with the real thing- it gives your opinion on them more authority.
I guess my general thought here can be summed up as this- if they went to the expense of making these weapons, yet they performed in a manner similar to axes, why not just make and use axes? I personally think it comes down to the differences in the way that swords and axes function.
|
|
Well I have held two from a dig site to be cataloged in my archeology lab. They were not in great shape however. But from those, I can honestly say that most modern ones are badly balanced compared to those. Mostly the moderns ones are too hilt...Sweet. I'm a bit jealous, now. Even if they weren't in great shape- that's to be expected after 2000+ years. (even though some have survived quite well, those are the lucky ones)
Judging by the quote from Craig and your comments, it seems most modern ones are both too heavy overall and also carry too much weight towards the hilt. Both common mistakes, unfortunately. Counter-intuitively, too much hilt weight actually makes a sword harder to swing.
It's good to know you have some experience with the real thing- it gives your opinion on them more authority.
I guess my general thought here can be summed up as this- if they went to the expense of making these weapons, yet they performed in a manner similar to axes, why not just make and use axes? I personally think it comes down to the differences in the way that swords and axes function.
Yeah I miss my archeology lab classes. Those were my favorite in college. I have a degree with anthroplogy with a focus in folklore and historical anthropology :) .
And very true. Many companies don't have a good heat treatment on the blade so they over build the blade to be strong. Then they tack on a big heavy honking hilt to compensate and you get this blob of metal that kinda looks like a sword...but it's not a sword.
Well from a social anthropologist PoV the simple answer is for prestige. Harder to make, more expensive metal = showing off your wealth. From a more practical outlook, those who had the money to afford it would take the small advantage of the extra metal cutting length and a "shaft" that didn't easily splinter and break when your life is on the line. And then there is the awe factor. This weapon in the days was like a guy walking out there with a chain gun. May not be the most effective weapon...but it sure did make you think about getting out of the fights with all your limbs in tact :) .
Yeah I miss my archeology lab classes. Those were my favorite in college. I have a degree with anthroplogy with a focus in folklore and historical anthropology :) .
And very true. Many companies don't have a good heat treatment on the blade so they over build the blade to be strong. Then they tack on a big heavy honking hilt to compensate and you get this blob of metal that kinda looks like a sword...but it's not a sword.
Well from a social anthropologist PoV the simple answer is for prestige. Harder to make, more expensive metal = showing off your wealth. From a more practical outlook, those who had the money to afford it would take the small advantage of the extra metal cutting length and a "shaft" that didn't easily splinter and break when your life is on the line. And then there is the awe factor. This weapon in the days was like a...
Yep- the popular term in the sword community is SLO- sword-like object. (though I'm guessing you may have heard that one already.
As far as prestige is concerned, they could just go with a finely made sword of some other variety. I'm sure it's got to factor in there at least a bit. Another practical advantage- axes tend not to penetrate deeper than the length of the blade from the haft. I think the 'awe' factor comes into play a lot with cutting swords of many types at this point. Even the best of cutting swords can't cut through good armor, but against the unarmored opponent can cut far more than practically necessary. I mean, a blow from an axe to the shoulder can penetrate to the artery and kill just as easily, but if guy next to him sees you chop his arm off at the shoulder with your falcata there's got to be a hard hit on morale.
|
|
Call him what you will, but I bet he could kick a ninja's ass.
No, the guy was a muscle bound bufflo (a period accurate term for a foolish fighter who is all muscle and no brains/skill/finesse). He maybe stronger then your average ancient Celt...but better trained...HELL NO.
No, no he can't. Any REAL fighter would kick the living snot out of him. The way he moves shows that he isn't trained to fight.
No, no he can't. Any REAL fighter would kick the living snot out of him. The way he moves shows that he isn't trained to fight.Call him what you will, but I bet he could kick a ninja's ass.
No, the guy was a muscle bound bufflo (a period accurate term for a foolish fighter who is all muscle and no brains/skill/finesse). He maybe stronger then your average ancient Celt...but better trained...HELL NO.
Seconded.
|
Well, not in reality or anything. It's an older weapon, inferior to the much more advanced things.
First let me start by saying, this is Pathfinder, it's an RPG based in a fantasy world with an anchor in reality, I'm sure we all know that and that's why we love it!
So I'll just say that when you say something like "more advanced things" it destroys your whole argument. I don't play Pathfinder to use advanced things. If I did I would play Traveller or some futuristic RPG so I could just shoot someone with a laser from my spaceship at a 1000 meters.
Tha Falcata "was" and "is" a fantastic powerful weapon. That thing can slice through steel and even leave a dent as a reminder.
The Roman legion actually redesigned their shields with more reinforcement because of the strength and quality of the iron used to make the Falcata. Basically they were very well made weapons. They buried steel plates in the ground and let the weaker steel corrode off, using the remaining "stronger steel" to forge the sword. They were designed to basically hit around shields "like an axe", but with the ease of use "like a sword".
If we had Falcata's from those days around today they would stand out. Superior sword quality these days is practically non-existent, where we fight our wars at a distance.
The x3 crit is justified. And being an exotic weapon is too.
BTW the Elven Thinblade and such comes from "Races of the Wild" 3.5 book.
So is the falcata among the exotic weapons that actually are worth the proficiency feat?
So is the falcata among the exotic weapons that actually are worth the proficiency feat?
It's a nice weapon and probably is one of the better EWP choices out there. I still think EWP is a fairly marginal use of a feat but the main thing is that a 19-20/x3 weapon seems to violate design principles. Until now an EWP upgrade of a martial weapon has always either upgraded base damage or crit range. It's never been used to upgrade crit modifier of a martial weapon (Longsword -> Falcata). While it could be argued that it's actually an upgraded battle axe (d8 x3 becomes d8 19/20 x3) I think this is a bad precedent to set for the weapon classes.
I generally shy away from slippery slope arguments but does this mean we could potentially see an Exotic Scythe with 2d4 19-20/x4. It just seems the synergy between keen effects and burst elemental damage is potentially too large and I'm not sure that's been factored into the final cost of the weapon.
Generally put I expect one of the following from an exotic weapon:
It's the same as a "normal weapon" but has one of the following:
Better critical range
better critical multiplier
1 size better damage
1 less on the "handiness" chart
Otherwise I expect it to be a weapon unlike one already in the book.
Personally I think the OP kind of hit the problem on the head:
"Generally an exotic weapon is worth about 1/2 a feat..."
The idea that you spend a whole feat to get half a feat indicates to me that the exotic weapons to date have been crap.
Of course, what the fight would come down to would basically be pirate vs. ninja. In such matches, I usually bet on the robot monkey.
Fool! The robot monkey doesn't hold a candle to the zombie android!
|
|
No, no he can't. Any REAL fighter would kick the living snot out of him. The way he moves shows that he isn't trained to fight.Call him what you will, but I bet he could kick a ninja's ass.
No, the guy was a muscle bound bufflo (a period accurate term for a foolish fighter who is all muscle and no brains/skill/finesse). He maybe stronger then your average ancient Celt...but better trained...HELL NO.He seemed to move like a real fighter to me. Did you see him crack those 8 heads open in like 10 seconds with that little celtic cudgel?
Defenseless targets are easy to hit. He flailed around too much to actually do that effective. A trained fighter would have flowed the attacks so that the weapon would offer a defense as he swung vs just trying to hit as fast as he can.
The reason swords are more iconic weapons than axes basically has two reasons: Firstly, an axe is a tool adapted to use as a weapon, while a sword is purely a weapon. Secondly, an axe can hew - hit strongly with a small blade area - and it can do it very well. But it cannot slice (drawing the length of the blade across the target) very well and in and of itself, isn't much use for thrusting, either (having a separated spear-like head or lobe like a halberd doesn't count). A sword, particularly a regular cruciform sword like those typical of medieval europe, was capable of hewing, of slicing, and of thrusting, making it very versatile. Likewise, there are many examples of swords severing limbs - many corpses recovered from archaic battlefields had severed legs, which fit with the lack of armor on many warrior's legs - only the elite could afford a long byrnie or hauberk with leggings underneath, but any professional warrior would have torso armor.
The reason swords are more iconic weapons than axes basically has two reasons: Firstly, an axe is a tool adapted to use as a weapon, while a sword is purely a weapon. Secondly, an axe can hew - hit strongly with a small blade area - and it can do it very well. But it cannot slice (drawing the length of the blade across the target) very well and in and of itself, isn't much use for thrusting, either (having a separated spear-like head or lobe like a halberd doesn't count). A sword, particularly a regular cruciform sword like those typical of medieval europe, was capable of hewing, of slicing, and of thrusting, making it very versatile. Likewise, there are many examples of swords severing limbs - many corpses recovered from archaic battlefields had severed legs, which fit with the lack of armor on many warrior's legs - only the elite could afford a long byrnie or hauberk with leggings underneath, but any professional warrior would have torso armor.
That seems a pretty fair assessment.
For the axe lovers out there, I would like to add that they do have the advantage of being able to hook- which can be quite useful.
I think this thread is pretty played-out, though.
As for the OP, I would say-
Yes, the falcata is a step above other XWPs.
No, I don't think it is a sign of a new direction, but rather a 'one-off'.
I'm going to try it as-is in my games, and if it proves too good, I'll go to 1d8 18-20/x2, with a +2 to sunder attempts.
And just for you cfalcon, the dreaded curvy, pointy weapon. :P
The idea that you spend a whole feat to get half a feat indicates to me that the exotic weapons to date have been crap.
QFT
Exotic weapons went the wrong way. Instead of making them worth the feat, the conversion made the only one actually worth it not.