|
Or perhaps he was just using his feats correctly. It would be dumb to use combat expertise on fake decapitated heads, but if you wanted to maximize PSI, it would be smart to use power blow.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.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?
Never mind how dumb that is to try and apply D&D mechanics to a REAL fight...but the motion I mentioned isn't even fighting in a defensive manner. There are method to fight in a defensive manner with feints and counters and baits. The swing to have a cover and an attack is done so you don't umm...get skewered. It is the equivilant to being helpless. You have NO defense when you fight the way he was flailing about...which is what helpless is. Hell he couldn't even dodge a blow as his footwork was all wrong. He might as well have tied himself in a rope and streched his neck out.
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.
Could you expand on what you meant with "modern hands"?
Could you expand on what you meant with "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 heavy as they use heavy cast brass with extra large handles for "modern" hands.
I assume he means that the average human being today is a noticable bit taller that people in the antique and thus have larger hands.
I guess the way to fix this problem would be to size up the blade a bit as well. But I'm no expert on swordplay. Much less -making.
|
|
Yep threeshades is correct. If you hold a lot of antique swords, they will feel small in your hands to most modern males. Makers of swords acount for this by making the handles extra big...usually way too big as they seems to be accounting for the hands of a 6'2" footballer...but the handle of many of the modern made swords are too big.
Wouldn't they normally need to make the whole sword bigger? Sorry for probably sounding incredibly ignorant. :p
This isn't the first time a suppliment has been put out with a EW that was powerful. In Eberron you had a weapon that was 1d10 19-20/x4 Reach. Honestly I like the idea that EW get stronger, it makes the feat worth taking.
As for the historical discussion, just because a weapon was replaced by more advanced weapons doesn't take away from it's ability to do damage. Take a 9mm pistol and a black powder pistol. The 9mm is superior in every way. Still if I got shot with one or the other I'd much rather get shot by the 9mm as I'd have a better chance of surviving.
This isn't the first time a suppliment has been put out with a EW that was powerful. In Eberron you had a weapon that was 1d10 19-20/x4 Reach.
That was a misprint.
|
|
Wouldn't they normally need to make the whole sword bigger? Sorry for probably sounding incredibly ignorant. :p
Which they do to some degree...but that makes the whole thing too heavy. And the longer blade becomes un-wieldy as well. And then the longer blade adds mass in the wrong places that throws the whole sword off even more. The historical variance in the various sword types were there for a reason. It worked. The modern smith can muck around with it to produce a nice sword for modern sized people...but that requires a lot of know how and time...and that is what you get in a custom blade. The production blades however just muck things up and produce things that just kinda sorta look like swords. Pick up a mass produced sword from china or india and then pick up a Jake Powning sword and you will see what I mean. Although Albion does make some pretty nice production swords. Along with Arms and Armor...but these swords cost around $1000 or more.
Yes, but they're so nice!
I've had the good fortune to handle a number of historical blades as well, and I love Albion's reproductions. I have the Earl, Knecht, and Baron. All awesome swords. Can't wait till I can afford some more.
sorry for the derail
Thanks for the information.
As for the historical discussion, just because a weapon was replaced by more advanced weapons doesn't take away from it's ability to do damage. Take a 9mm pistol and a black powder pistol. The 9mm is superior in every way. Still if I got shot with one or the other I'd much rather get shot by the 9mm as I'd have a better chance of surviving.But if they printed stats for both and the black powder pistol was *superior*, you'd probably think that was silly, right?
Um... No.
Most black powder weapons used a larger caliber bullet, and more powder. As such they left a bigger hole, and hit harder (though until later developments like rifling at shorter ranges). Hence they did more damage. Sad fact (and not so sad for those hit) is most people that are hit by a 9mm round that get medical attention survive with few permanent problems.
Um... No.You misspelled "yes of course".
Not at all. For what you said my answer is of correct.
Most black powder weapons used a larger caliber bullet, and more powder.Irrelevant. Anyone statting a semiauto and a black powder gun would ensure that you would get better use out of the semiauto. You might decide to model the larger caliber in some fashion to accomodate, but if your model of these two has the guy with the black powder gun reaching any kind of "damage advantage" on average, you would have failed UTTERLY to map these guns to their real world counterparts. You would very likely model a round of activity with the 9mm as being composed of multiple shots, for instance, or whatever it is you have to do to ensure that the correct weapon (hint: the 9mm) shows up as superior over 6 seconds.
You said, "Take a 9mm pistol and a black powder pistol"
Not "take a semi automatic pistol" OR "Take a larger caliber to make up the difference".
These are not the same as "take a 9mm pistol and a black powder pistol".
Caliber makes a huge difference in this case (because we are going from a 9mm to a 50 cal) and charge of course makes a difference too. All the other points about speed of fire, accuracy and everything else is side issue to what you said, "It's ability to do damage." Damage is a factor (for firearms) of caliber and charge. The others do affect average damage a round, but that's not what you were talking about. You said Damage, therefore it's "one shot damage" potential is higher than the 9mm.
Sad fact (and not so sad for those hit) is most people that are hit by a 9mm round that get medical attention survive with few permanent problems.That's not even a sad fact. But also note that medical attention has improved a ludicrous amount from the past as well.
I'd love to chase down this one by finding some crazy d00d doing ballistic gellatin with something modelled off of older, black powder stuff (which you needed more of for other reasons too, such as that it sucks compared to modern smokeless powder), but in the end it doesn't matter. Anyone arguing that you'll be better off over any period of time with an older black powder handgun over a modern semiauto... well, those arguments don't really need much commentary.
I never said you would be better off with it -- I said it would have a bigger damage potential on paper shot for shot. Not the same as "better weapon".
So take your attitude consider what you wrote, consider what is being commented on and do something else with it, cause I'm not taking it.
It's your fault for being inspecific.
I fully agree that medical attention has improved vastly and that is an important factor in getting better from a gun shot, but that doesn't change the fact that the larger caliber, and larger charge helps the black powder weapon deal more damage per shot, than the smaller 9mm round. AGAIN this doesn't make the 9mm a "worse" weapon, just not as "damaging" per shot.
|
|
As for the historical discussion, just because a weapon was replaced by more advanced weapons doesn't take away from it's ability to do damage. Take a 9mm pistol and a black powder pistol. The 9mm is superior in every way. Still if I got shot with one or the other I'd much rather get shot by the 9mm as I'd have a better chance of surviving.But if they printed stats for both and the black powder pistol was *superior*, you'd probably think that was silly, right?Um... No.
Most black powder weapons used a larger caliber bullet, and more powder. As such they left a bigger hole, and hit harder (though until later developments like rifling at shorter ranges). Hence they did more damage. Sad fact (and not so sad for those hit) is most people that are hit by a 9mm round that get medical attention survive with few permanent problems.
Once again a misconception. A black powder round is going to going slower then a 9mm bullet. It will slow down much faster then the bullet due to the round shape as well. Yeah it's bigger, but energy is MUCH more influenced by speed then mass. Also the black powder bullet isn't design to mushroom and fragment so the wound channel is actually quite a bit easier to deal with compared to modern bullet wound channels. Once again, I'm not assuming FMJ wound channels as those bullets are specifically designed to wound and not kill. I have been shot before. Bullets do NOT LEAVE SMALL WOUND CHANNEL. I'm sorry, but that is just movie talk your thinking. Yeah you will most likely live from a 9mm hit with proper medical care...but they are gonna have to do some pretty impressive surgery to close off all the wound channels that one bullet does so you don't go septic and die. I got lucky and the bullet hit a rib at a good angle so they ONLY had to go fishing for three fragments.
|
|
Actully energy is equally acceleration and mass. F=MA. Newton.
When you are hit by a bullet, the difference between your speed relative to the bullet and the bullet's speed is the acceleration.
But I do agree that the 9mm bullet is going much faster. Better dieing though chemistry.
Oh fine, nit pick...but in that case, I say, it's better dieing through PYHSICS so :P .
Most black powder weapons used a larger caliber bullet, and more powder. As such they left a bigger hole, and hit harder (though until later developments like rifling at shorter ranges). Hence they did more damage.
I might as well pile on about muzzle velocity, F = MA, and other physics stuff that detracts from the obsession on the Paizo boards with the false "bigger = better" meme when it comes to weapons.
|
The speed of a bullet influences a lot more than just how hard it impacts.
True fact. A 9mm round travels fast enough that it sterilizes itself. So little chance of infection unless dirt gets in the wound.
A Black powder round travels much slower and does not reach teh speeds that heat the bullet enough to burn off germs. so even if you dress teh wound right away the chance of infection is much higher.
What the 9mm has over a black powder is speed, range, accuracy, and rate of fire. Pure damage, the black powder wins.
|
|
The speed of a bullet influences a lot more than just how hard it impacts.
True fact. A 9mm round travels fast enough that it sterilizes itself. So little chance of infection unless dirt gets in the wound.
A Black powder round travels much slower and does not reach teh speeds that heat the bullet enough to burn off germs. so even if you dress teh wound right away the chance of infection is much higher.What the 9mm has over a black powder is speed, range, accuracy, and rate of fire. Pure damage, the black powder wins.
I still don't think so. Your ignoring mushrooming and fragmentation.
And even in the modern bullets, the 7.62X39 has a bullet that weights about 3 times what the .223 has. However they both produce about the same energy at muzzle and the .223 has more energy at 100 yards.
Most black powder weapons used a larger caliber bullet, and more powder. As such they left a bigger hole, and hit harder (though until later developments like rifling at shorter ranges). Hence they did more damage.I might as well pile on about muzzle velocity, F = MA, and other physics stuff that detracts from the obsession on the Paizo boards with the false "bigger = better" meme when it comes to weapons.
I fully agree that just about any modern firearm is going to be better than just about any black powder weapon (I leave room only because I'm not aware of *all* the possible corner cases, were there *could* be a really really crappy modern weapon and a really really sweet black powder weapon that compare favorable for the black powder).
Of course what round is used will matter a lot too, etc etc. My basic point however would be that just because it's modern doesn't mean it will deal more damage, or be a better weapon -- it just means we've found a trade off in the weapon that we (as a society) like/are willing to make.
|
|
Most black powder weapons used a larger caliber bullet, and more powder. As such they left a bigger hole, and hit harder (though until later developments like rifling at shorter ranges). Hence they did more damage.I might as well pile on about muzzle velocity, F = MA, and other physics stuff that detracts from the obsession on the Paizo boards with the false "bigger = better" meme when it comes to weapons.I fully agree that just about any modern firearm is going to be better than just about any black powder weapon (I leave room only because I'm not aware of *all* the possible corner cases, were there *could* be a really really crappy modern weapon and a really really sweet black powder weapon that compare favorable for the black powder).
Of course what round is used will matter a lot too, etc etc. My basic point however would be that just because it's modern doesn't mean it will deal more damage, or be a better weapon -- it just means we've found a trade off in the weapon that we (as a society) like/are willing to make.
Umm WHAT trade off?!? The 9mm will do everything better then the black powder round. It's like comparing a bone club to a flanged mace. The only advantage that the bone club has is that it is easier to produce.
So, the thread is still going, huh?
A couple of things to add:
Since I had never really seen Deadliest Warrior, I watched a bunch of it online. I've got to say- even though it's filled with inaccuracies, it's still fun to watch. I especially like the trash-talking. :)
To add to the point about weapon grip sizes, I've noticed that the difference is much less noticeable when examining medieval/renaissance weapons than with ancient ones. (2000+ years old) I've seen grips on the m/r weapons run the gamut from tiny to amusingly fat. Also, if you want a weapon that actually handles like a museum piece, Albion is worth the price.
Last point- I don't think the comparison between guns is terribly relevant, as the difference between two guns can be much greater than the difference between two swords. (performance wise) In my xp, at least.
You know why the falcata being an exotic weapon doesn't bug me?
Because the sling is a simple weapon. Seriously. I'd kill myself trying to use one of those.
Weapon classifications in d20 games don't really mean much. Also . . . falchion.
That is all.
I just remembered a question I had for the people complaining about the stats on a 'historical' basis- What about the spear?
|
|
You know why the falcata being an exotic weapon doesn't bug me?
Because the sling is a simple weapon. Seriously. I'd kill myself trying to use one of those.
Weapon classifications in d20 games don't really mean much. Also . . . falchion.
That is all.
Yeah...the sling...I have so many players who think the sling works like modern sling shots...geh. I can use a historical sling...but I have been taught how to by experts...and it's like 10 times hard then to learn how to use a historical bow (which is really wierd as they aren't shelved...so your arrow won't go where the arrow is pointing ).
The falchion also REALLY bugs me.
|
|
I just remembered a question I had for the people complaining about the stats on a 'historical' basis- What about the spear?
Spears are the weapons that most fighting cultures used the most. They are easy to maufacture, use very little steel, have great reach, can make absolutely fast attacks, can cleave (I have cut tatami otome with my viking spear...and in fact can do so easier then with a katana) and are all round GREAT weapons. The trouble is that PF and 3.5 combat does not give enough for reach. A dagger fighter would be in serious trouble vs a swordsmen...much less a spearmen. There are other issues as well.
I just remembered a question I had for the people complaining about the stats on a 'historical' basis- What about the spear?Spears are the weapons that most fighting cultures used the most. They are easy to maufacture, use very little steel, have great reach, can make absolutely fast attacks, can cleave (I have cut tatami otome with my viking spear...and in fact can do so easier then with a katana) and are all round GREAT weapons. The trouble is that PF and 3.5 combat does not give enough for reach. A dagger fighter would be in serious trouble vs a swordsmen...much less a spearmen. There are other issues as well.
Exactly my point- D&D doesn't model the effectiveness of the spear well at all. Yet I never really hear people complaining about that one. I used to get worked up about the inaccuracies, but now I just choose not to be.
For example- I allow the falchion to be used 1-handed as an exotic weapon. Is it accurate? Probably not, but it allows it to be used properly with barely any change to the rules. My house rules were only 1 page long in 3.5, and I like to keep it that way. That's why I'll give a go at using falcata as written, and only adjust it if things get out of hand.
|
|
I just remembered a question I had for the people complaining about the stats on a 'historical' basis- What about the spear?Spears are the weapons that most fighting cultures used the most. They are easy to maufacture, use very little steel, have great reach, can make absolutely fast attacks, can cleave (I have cut tatami otome with my viking spear...and in fact can do so easier then with a katana) and are all round GREAT weapons. The trouble is that PF and 3.5 combat does not give enough for reach. A dagger fighter would be in serious trouble vs a swordsmen...much less a spearmen. There are other issues as well.Exactly my point- D&D doesn't model the effectiveness of the spear well at all. Yet I never really hear people complaining about that one. I used to get worked up about the inaccuracies, but now I just choose not to be.
Well I DO...but nobody else seems to care. They only care about this sword or that. Not even maces or axes get the sword love.
Well, maces and axes got a bit of love from the designers in 3e, at least. Maces used to be one of the worst weapons, since 'they were for clerics'.
It's funny you mention people only caring about swords, though, since it's swords that made me give up on accuracy. I once had the idea that I would completely rework the weapon chart into something more historically accurate, but gave up after a very ill-advised attempt to model the entire Oakeshott typology in 3.5 rules. :/
I can still understand people who might want to make a tweak here or there to the items they consider the 'worst offenders, however. I just personally decided that I wouldn't be able to get the sort of accuracy that would satisfy me without adding entire new categories of weapons stats, along with adding some modifiers for dmg type vs. armor type like in 2e. (one of the few things I actually liked about that system)
|
|
Well, maces and axes got a bit of love from the designers in 3e, at least. Maces used to be one of the worst weapons, since 'they were for clerics'.
It's funny you mention people only caring about swords, though, since it's swords that made me give up on accuracy. I once had the idea that I would completely rework the weapon chart into something more historically accurate, but gave up after a very ill-advised attempt to model the entire Oakeshott typology in 3.5 rules. :/
I can still understand people who might want to make a tweak here or there to the items they consider the 'worst offenders, however. I just personally decided that I wouldn't be able to get the sort of accuracy that would satisfy me without adding entire new categories of weapons stats, along with adding some modifiers for dmg type vs. armor type like in 2e. (one of the few things I actually liked about that system)
Yeah well the maces in particular get me because the flanged mace was so effective that it was banned by the church at one point for causing unholy damage. I actually like the advanced weapon system that 2e developed. It wasn't very accurate...but at least they put some effort. But the main issue is, an accurate combat system us complicate...WAY to complicated for D&D.
Back on track --
The falcata isn't really that impressive either. Consider:
It does the same average damage (ignoring critical hits) as the long sword. This seems at least likely to me. The long sword is a weapon of averages, and as such really isn't a *great* weapon. It is a good weapon, but not great, due to the design.
Both the falcata and the long sword critical hit at the same rate. They are both 19~20. So we aren't saying that the falcata is more likely to get in a great hit than the long sword.
However the falcata does do more damage on a critical hit than the long sword. The balance and design of the falcata does lend it a better chance of dealing really lethal damage if you land a "perfect" strike. The long sword's design really doesn't support that as well.
O_o
But.. the x3 with a 19-20 threath IS powerful.
I am NOT against it because makes EWP worthy one time for all.. I hope there are more cool exotics in the next books..
But you cannot dismiss it with a "it's a longsword that deals x3 damage on a critical"..
x3 damage can be A LOT, expecially with a falcata wielded two-handed..
Actully energy is equally acceleration and mass. F=MA. Newton.When you are hit by a bullet, the difference between your speed relative to the bullet and the bullet's speed is the acceleration.
But I do agree that the 9mm bullet is going much faster. Better dieing though chemistry.
I can't let this one slip by.
Force is mass times acceleration. Acceleration is equal to the change in velocity divided by the time over which the acceleration takes place.
The force a bullet applies to you is a better measure of whether a round will knock you down than the damage it will do. (If someone wants to jump into a discussion of impulse, please do. It's been a long time since I thought about it. And I don't want to lead the discussion there, but would like to relearn it.)
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 (mass times the square of velocity)
The energy a round loses as it passes through you goes into damaging and rearranging your insides. It will be proportional to the difference in the squares of the entry and exit velocities.
Can anyone confirm or deny this story I heard from a gun manufacturer? US troops in Afghanistan were/are supplementing the standard issue Beretta (9mm?) side arm with .45 automatics (a WW2 design) because the .45 was better at putting opponents down than punching relatively neat holes in them.
|
|
Can anyone confirm or deny this story I heard from a gun manufacturer? US troops in Afghanistan were/are supplementing the standard issue Beretta (9mm?) side arm with .45 automatics (a WW2 design) because the .45 was better at putting opponents down than punching relatively neat holes in them.
Actually some US troops use +p+ 9mm rounds with modified berratas so they can have knock down AND high cap magazines. But the colt 1911 has always been a good sidearm and so many US troops use that too. But the choice really is a matter of preference really...and money. Modified berrata is expensive. Your run of the mill 1911 is not. A cutomized 1911 is even MORE then the berrata.
|
|
There is a reason you aim for legs when trying to stop someone. An assault rifle can riddle a torso with holes and if the guy's lucky, he's still walking.
If you hit the same guy, once, with a .50 cal desert eagle, chances are he won't be walking anymore. This despite the fact that assault rifles have significantly higher bullet speeds, and are far more suited to piercing armour or obstacles.
Umm no, the reason assault rifles seem to have very little stopping power is that they are generally loaded with FMJ...with on purpose is stuppose to leave lots of wounds before they kill. It's a tactic of war. A dead solder is cheap for the enemy to deal with. A wounded soldier is not. If you load up an assualt rifle with hollow point rounds, it will have MUCH more stopping power then a dessert eagle.
Actually some US troops use +p+ 9mm rounds with modified berratas so they can have knock down AND high cap magazines. But the colt 1911 has always been a good sidearm and so many US troops use that too. But the choice really is a matter of preference really...and money. Modified berrata is expensive. Your run of the mill 1911 is not. A cutomized 1911 is even MORE then the berrata.
Can anyone confirm or deny this story I heard from a gun manufacturer? US troops in Afghanistan were/are supplementing the standard issue Beretta (9mm?) side arm with .45 automatics (a WW2 design) because the .45 was better at putting opponents down than punching relatively neat holes in them.
Thanks for the info. Didn't realize that automatic design went all the way back to 1911.
|
|
Having fired either weapon, with various ammunition, I beg to differ.Umm no, the reason assault rifles seem to have very little stopping power is that they are generally loaded with FMJ...with on purpose is stuppose to leave lots of wounds before they kill. It's a tactic of war. A dead solder is cheap for the enemy to deal with. A wounded soldier is not. If you load up an assualt rifle with hollow point rounds, it will have MUCH more stopping power then a dessert eagle.There is a reason you aim for legs when trying to stop someone. An assault rifle can riddle a torso with holes and if the guy's lucky, he's still walking.
If you hit the same guy, once, with a .50 cal desert eagle, chances are he won't be walking anymore. This despite the fact that assault rifles have significantly higher bullet speeds, and are far more suited to piercing armour or obstacles.
Having fired my SKS with hollow points at ballistic gel(okay not exactly balistic gel, we used the home made variant using 55 gallon drums as molds and my work walk in fridge :P ) vs my little brother's desert eagle, I beg to differ from you beg to differ.
The only problem there really is, is that the rest of the exotics aren't as good.
Sounds like a good reason to make them as good. If the weapon is only worth half a feat, and you spend a full feat for it then it's more of a trap than anything.
The biggest problem I have is the fact they nerfed the spiked chain until it is worse than a martial weapon (heavy flail) but then put out those dwarven weapons which are better than the spiked chain was to begin with.
Did someone really just bring up Desert Eagles :|
Did someone really just bring up Desert Eagles :|
caliber elitism meets D&D. Thread complete.
I haven't been reading this thread and don't intend to start. I tried when it first went up and stopped somewhere around post 10. Just too technical for me to really care. I figured I'd handle it when and if someone ever actually tried to wield one in my game.
Still I am posting for a reason. Last night as we were setting up for my GURPS game one of the players who is also in my PF game came up to me. He mentioned this thread, said the OP was right, and that he would never use one in my campaign.
Just thought it an interesting event that one of my players declared it overpowered and something he would never use.