Your strength would have to get pretty high before its better than a two hander or elven curve blade for two handed fighters. At that level fighters need all the help they can get, so burning a feat to up their damage is pretty reasonable.
Again, is more a matter of diversity. If the weapon were 1H only, I would have considered it brilliant because great for S&B and optimal for the TWF archetype in APG.
As is, every 2H and most 1H will take it. My party is big and melee heavy, seeing every meleer take is, I feel it kinda dumb. Maybe is the way to go for exotics, but the power level have shifted, I asked the DPR to be sure.
OTOH, it surprised (pleasantly, mind it) me to see an exotic weapon worth the feat, and I didn't expect it after the spiked chain nerf. I wonder if UC will have some reach and control exotic weapon comparable to falcata (not in damage of course, but worthy of the feat).
Critical feats. End of story if you are wondering which is better at high level. you must remember that using a falchion over falcata gives 15-20 crit range instead of 17-20. Doesn't crit as hard but it crits more often. This is a big deal. Also remember that when using a falchion over falcata you have the extra crit range from 15-16, and also an extra feat, (since you didn't waste one taking EWP). So from my perspective any class that isn't a fighter is really gimping themselves by taking EWP falcata, cause thats a feat you could spend elsewhere, and its really gimping you even if you are a fighter. I'd take Falchion even if falcata didn't cost an extra much needed feat.I plugged them both into the DPR calculator spreadsheet. Following assumptions:
Level 20 fighter. Strength mod of +13 (36 strength). AC 36 (average CR 20). One +5 weapon with no extra enchants. Power attack. Appropriate weapon feats (Focus, Spec, G.Focus, G.Spec, Imp Crit, Crit Focus). 4 steps of weapon training.Falchion (2d4, 15-20/x2, 2 handed): 67.93 DPR on one attack, 214.78 DPR on a full round attack.
Falcata (1d8, 17-20/x3, 1 handed): 56.53 DPR on one attack, 180.20 DPR on a full round attack
Falcata (1d8, 17-20/x3, 2 handed): 72.49 DPR on one attack, 231.08 DPR on a full round attackClearly, the Falcata is the better weapon - you can use it one-handed for less damage but something in your off hand, or you can wield it two-handed for more damage than the Falchion, for the cost of one extra feat. 5 DPR (20 full round DPR) is not a huge difference, however, so if your build involves using critical mastery to apply two affects, then the falchion is probably better. But they're close, and if your build is more focused on things that get multiplied on a crit (being enlarged for strength and die size, bardsong, other magical boosts to damage, etc), the Falcata is probably worth the feat.
Actually you picked the one level where you are wrong, since at 20th a fighter gets to increase his critical multiplier by 1, so the fachion goes to 15-20 x3, and the falcata to 17-20 x4.
When you do the math, this makes them equal (30% chance of a 200% bonus, for 60% damage boost vs. 20% chance of a 300% bonus, again for a 60% damage boost).
You are correct for every other level.
Since, at mid to high levels, the most important factor in damage dealt is the bonus, not the die, the critical factors become more and more important. Hence the falcata being clearly the best melee weapon in the game (at least damage wise).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does your spreadsheet spit back how often the weapon crits? It would be useful to know how often the "Xing Critical" feats would come into play.
Also, did the falchion user get an extra feat (for not spending one on XWP falcata)? Bleeding critical, maybe?
The spreadsheet's here if you want to make a copy and play with it.
I didn't build two fighters out to 20th level with all feats. So no, the falchion user doesn't have an extra feat, because fighters get enough feats that any feat the falchion user could take that would help his damage, the falcata user could take as well. Bleeding criticals's also very hard to math out, because you then need to start looking into rounds of combat, and hp, and whether the creature can heal itself in any way that would cancel the bleeding. In general, it means the average DPR goes up by 7 after each crit.
With a 95% chance to hit on your first attack, 90% on your second, 65% on your third, and 40% on your fourth (+38 against AC 36), you have the following crit chances: 19%, 19%, 17%, 12% for the Falcata, or 28.5%, 28.5%, 25.5%, and 18% for the Falchion. That's a difference of 9.5%, 9.5%, 8.5% and 6%. So that means there's .095*7 + .095*7 + .085*7 + .06*7 stacking DPR from wielding a falchion over a falcata. When you calculate all that out, the Falcata has an extra 4.69 stacking DPR from bleeding critical and the falchion has an extra 7.035. That's 2.345 extra stacking DPR for the falchion.
Given the numbers above where the falchion was 16.3 DPR behind, it would take just under 7 rounds (6.951, whatever that means) for the extra damage from extra bleeding crits to bring it even. And if the creature dies before then (likely, when you're tossing around that much DPR) or has any magical healing whatsoever (also likely at that level), the counter resets.
Actually you picked the one level where you are wrong, since at 20th a fighter gets to increase his critical multiplier by 1, so the fachion goes to 15-20 x3, and the falcata to 17-20 x4.
When you do the math, this makes them equal (30% chance of a 200% bonus, for 60% damage boost vs. 20% chance of a 300% bonus, again for a 60% damage boost).You are correct for every other level.
I forgot to factor the fighter's 20th level ability in altogether. Once you add auto-confirm crits and +1 crit multiplier, the numbers are:
Falchion does 85.25 / 291.50Falcata (2H) does 84.48 / 288.85
So at 20th level, and only at 20th level fighter (if you don't take an archetype that replaces that ability), the falchion comes out ahead. It would also come out ahead before that if you stack shocking burst, flaming burst, and icy burst on your weapon (although then you'd have to cut it back to a +4, which would hurt slightly). Conversely, at 11th level, a fighter with the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype could dual-wield falcatas as if he was wielding a light weapon in his off hand, which would bring the falcata DPR up to 57.38 / 330.56 at 20th level.
If you want to take the Two-Handed Fighter archetype instead, they get extra damage on power attacks at 15th level, which would bring the falchion to 94.55 / 323.30 and the falcata to 93.78 / 320.65 at 20th level (although without the critical multiplier boost, the falcata would still win).
It's certainly possible to construct builds where the falchion is better than the falcata. In fact, if you're looking for crit range only (say, you want to apply blinding or stunning critical), it's certainly going to be a better weapon even if it's doing less theoretical DPR. But for a fighter, it's nowhere near the point of "Why spend a feat and take a falcata, the falchion's so much better".
Lance, 2 handed? I don't think there is any option for that. Yes, the text say "while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand" but it would be more precise with "while mounted you should wield a lance one handed". Especially for a charge.
-There IS an option for that. It says you CAN use a lance once handed. it does not, regardless of what you think it "should" say, prevent you from using it in two hands while mounted.
|
The falcata is overpowered as written. There are four axes to this argument:
I) Any damage calculations have not compared it through the levels and seem to forget that as written it could be wielded one- or two-handed on the fly. That flexibility is a powerful option for a professional fighter choosing when to sword-and-board.
II) The damage output when two-handing a falcata is ridiculous through the levels when wielded by a barbarian or fighter using power attack. The criticals are simply too strong to be ignored.
III) Any argument that says that the rarity of a weapon is a balancing factor is moot if one character has Craft Arms and Armor, and any smart party will have it.
IV) Any basis of historical context is thrown out the window if it is somehow wielded two-handed. Which is of course impossible. It may as well be a powered chainsaw from Warhammer40k. The design of the falcata's haft is very similar to a rapier or some cutlass styles. Only one hand can wield it.
--the item can be perfectly balanced by taking the last line from the rapier and applying it to the falcata. Simply state that the 1 1/2 times strength bonus cannot be applied when wielded two handed.
|
|
Showing the work on a true statistical analysis is far beyond what I can type into this form, but given some assumptions, such as 20th level fighters, +44 to hit (+20BAB, 2 weapon focus, 10 strength, 6 weapon training (gloves of dueling), +5 weapon, and +1 inherent (ioun stone), wielding two handed falcata vs. the falchion using power attack and furious focus, gives the following:
(Note in the 20th level fighter category, crits are automatically confirmed so no calculations are needed to adjust the probable damage output of every critical hit by calculating all the possible die rolls to confirm said critical)
Falcata damage averages 246.45 per round for EITHER the falcata and the falchion versus AC 36. Damage rises to 318.525 per round if using boots of speed or haste.
WHOA! That means the items are balanced right? Well, not exactly, because we don't start and play 20th level fighters with ideal gear through every adventure. Furthermore, this was merely versus AC 36, and the numbers skew towards the falcata's favor the higher the AC goes up from there. The damage output is the same for armor classes below 36.
What about the same gear on a 12th level fighter? Then we have to worry about even if there ARE critical threats, we have to roll a d20 on every confirmation which also has to hit the AC on that given roll. Will the weapons be even?
Oddly enough, the weapons are exactly even up to attacking armor class 29. As the AC goes up, the falcata becomes more powerful. At AC 29 or below, the average damage output is actually the same.
Example (above gear @ 12th level), averaging for all possible die rolls and potential and confirmed crits):
Falcata average damage per round vs. AC 34 = 99.975
Falchion average damage per round vs. AC 34 = 94.395
Now, I have to admit that I was shocked by my own work. I have a player using a falcata two-handed in my campaign, and I struggle as I look at the weapon and ask "where is the other hand? On the blade?" Not to mention, the bursty crits for 100+ points of damage are hard to believe.
Now, if average damage is what balances a weapon, and across a campaign perhaps it is, then the weapons are roughly the same. However, a falcata can be wielded 1h at any time, which offers some strategic advantage, and it is incredibly bursty, which should offer more advantage as well. However, it does take a feat to use...
|
Yar!
Sorry calagnar, but your crunch is very misleading. It does not take into account to hit chance, automatic misses from rolling a 1, critical threat range, or confirmation chance. Your crunch assumes that you always hit, and that half of your hits are confirmed critical hits, which is very inaccurate, and in my experience simply does not happen in game.
Anyways, here is the breakdown for my crunch.
** spoiler omitted **...
And the plus side of the Elven Curveblade is that it isn't even considered an Exotic Weapon if you are an elf; it is merely a martial weapon!
|
|
Lance, 2 handed? I don't think there is any option for that. Yes, the text say "while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand" but it would be more precise with "while mounted you should wield a lance one handed". Especially for a charge.
-There IS an option for that. It says you CAN use a lance once handed. it does not, regardless of what you think it "should" say, prevent you from using it in two hands while mounted.
RAW wise you are right. Reality wise I have I don't see any way for a person to use a lance 2 handed efficiently from a mount.
AFAIK it was never used 2 handed by proficient users while mounted in the history of cavalry.
Lance, 2 handed? I don't think there is any option for that. Yes, the text say "while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand" but it would be more precise with "while mounted you should wield a lance one handed". Especially for a charge.
-There IS an option for that. It says you CAN use a lance once handed. it does not, regardless of what you think it "should" say, prevent you from using it in two hands while mounted.RAW wise you are right. Reality wise I have I don't see any way for a person to use a lance 2 handed efficiently from a mount.
AFAIK it was never used 2 handed by proficient users while mounted in the history of cavalry.
Considering that the whole point of the lance and the stirrup was that you braced it one handed in a solid position to use the momentum of the horse as the striking power, there shouldn't be any point to a lance being used with both hands.
Heck, there probably ought to be specific rules about the lancing using the strength modifier of the horse rather than the rider.
|
Lance, 2 handed? I don't think there is any option for that. Yes, the text say "while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand" but it would be more precise with "while mounted you should wield a lance one handed". Especially for a charge.
-There IS an option for that. It says you CAN use a lance once handed. it does not, regardless of what you think it "should" say, prevent you from using it in two hands while mounted.RAW wise you are right. Reality wise I have I don't see any way for a person to use a lance 2 handed efficiently from a mount.
AFAIK it was never used 2 handed by proficient users while mounted in the history of cavalry.
Considering that the whole point of the lance and the stirrup was that you braced it one handed in a solid position to use the momentum of the horse as the striking power, there shouldn't be any point to a lance being used with both hands.
Heck, there probably ought to be specific rules about the lancing using the strength modifier of the horse rather than the rider.
I agree about the horse having the most effect when using a lance, in realistic terms, however, the two-handed lancing has historical backing.
Parthian and Sassanid cavalry, not to mention steppe cataphracts, used lances two-handed. This is reckoned to be tied into the traditional horse archery type of warfare needing two hands. Naturally there were then warriors adept at riding without using hands and bracing themselves for a charge using the lance in both. European lance usage being one handed had more to do with the earlier heavy cavalry, Germanic for instance, using maces, war picks and swords and needing the other one for a shield to deflect their counterparts.
Here's a nice Osprey cover to illustrate the point: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/book.aspx?bookcode=s485x
Lance, 2 handed? I don't think there is any option for that. Yes, the text say "while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand" but it would be more precise with "while mounted you should wield a lance one handed". Especially for a charge.
-There IS an option for that. It says you CAN use a lance once handed. it does not, regardless of what you think it "should" say, prevent you from using it in two hands while mounted.RAW wise you are right. Reality wise I have I don't see any way for a person to use a lance 2 handed efficiently from a mount.
AFAIK it was never used 2 handed by proficient users while mounted in the history of cavalry.
Considering that the whole point of the lance and the stirrup was that you braced it one handed in a solid position to use the momentum of the horse as the striking power, there shouldn't be any point to a lance being used with both hands.
Heck, there probably ought to be specific rules about the lancing using the strength modifier of the horse rather than the rider.
I agree about the horse having the most effect when using a lance, in realistic terms, however, the two-handed lancing has historical backing.
Parthian and Sassanid cavalry, not to mention steppe cataphracts, used lances two-handed. This is reckoned to be tied into the traditional horse archery type of warfare needing two hands. Naturally there were then warriors adept at riding without using hands and bracing themselves for a charge using the lance in both. European lance usage being one handed had more to do with the earlier heavy cavalry, Germanic for instance, using maces, war picks and swords and needing the other one for a shield to deflect their counterparts.
Here's a nice Osprey cover to illustrate the point: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/book.aspx?bookcode=s485x
Would I be correct in assuming those people didn't use the stirrup? I'd say the reason European heavy cavalry used a lance once handed, is that with the stirrup, you merely had to couch the lance well once handed, and then you used the strength of the horse. Trying to use your muscles on top of that would likely remove the static bracing needed to properly transfer the momentum of the horse to the target.
The falcata is overpowered as written. There are four axes to this argument:
I) Any damage calculations have not compared it through the levels and seem to forget that as written it could be wielded one- or two-handed on the fly. That flexibility is a powerful option for a professional fighter choosing when to sword-and-board.
II) The damage output when two-handing a falcata is ridiculous through the levels when wielded by a barbarian or fighter using power attack. The criticals are simply too strong to be ignored.
III) Any argument that says that the rarity of a weapon is a balancing factor is moot if one character has Craft Arms and Armor, and any smart party will have it.
IV) Any basis of historical context is thrown out the window if it is somehow wielded two-handed. Which is of course impossible. It may as well be a powered chainsaw from Warhammer40k. The design of the falcata's haft is very similar to a rapier or some cutlass styles. Only one hand can wield it.
--the item can be perfectly balanced by taking the last line from the rapier and applying it to the falcata. Simply state that the 1 1/2 times strength bonus cannot be applied when wielded two handed.
I don't see the OP'ness in either post. You would have to break the math down like Bobson did above to disprove his point.
Even as you said it uses a feat so I don't mind it being better. Actually if I have to spend a feat it should be better. Spending a feat to give me a weapon that is no better than the other weapons is like me taking Skill Focus(craft:underwater basket weaving). I would rather the DPR to be a 3 point difference as opposed to 5, but I can live with 2 points more than what I like as a DM.
I don't see the OP'ness in either post. You would have to break the math down like Bobson did above to disprove his point.
Even as you said it uses a feat so I don't mind it being better. Actually if I have to spend a feat it should be better. Spending a feat to give me a weapon that is no better than the other weapons is like me taking Skill Focus(craft:underwater basket weaving). I would rather the DPR to be a 3 point difference as opposed to 5, but I can live with 2 points more than what I like as a DM.
I think part of the question was, why aren't any other EWPs as desirable. Is it that the Falcata is so much better, or the others need to step it up? I say the latter.
I think part of the question was, why aren't any other EWPs as desirable. Is it that the Falcata is so much better, or the others need to step it up? I say the latter.
Exactly. I asked because I'm rather ambivalent about it.
I wanted to know what other people think about it, I asked for experience in game and DPR.
I've a pouncing barbarian now very good with the weapon. Not game breaking, but very good.
Consider that my main concern was "will other exotic disappear?". Balance concerns me far less than flavour. In my setting the weapon is the weapon of the barbarian tribes, so the Knight's Bastard sword was not great before, now is put ashame.
In addition, I was wondering if it's a good idea for exotic make it very powerful (like falcata, worthy of the feat) but very specific (main hand only).
Anothe idea is to power up Bastard Sword, maybe making it more "balanced (I mean weighted up)" as a weapon (less penalty for Power Attack and Combat Expertise.. maybe half?
Since this is homebrew, a by-book diversity could come from more cool exotic-maybe the best solution.
If you haven't already checked it out, look at Kirth Girsen's Houserules thread. His houserules for weapons are genius and take care of problems like some exotics being superawesome and others being awful. Won't help if you're playing something like Pathfinder Society, of course, but if you're houseruling things for your home games, it's worth a look.You have a link? I don't find it in the forum.
HERE is the main thread; click on the "Weapons" document.
Thanks for the plug, Wynterknight!
|
|
AFAIK it was never used 2 handed by proficient users while mounted in the history of cavalry.
Here's a nice Osprey cover to illustrate the point: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/book.aspx?bookcode=s485x
I stand correct.
I would never have thought about that kind of position, it seem awfully awkward (like the quote system of this forum, BTW).If you haven't already checked it out, look at Kirth Girsen's Houserules thread. His houserules for weapons are genius and take care of problems like some exotics being superawesome and others being awful. Won't help if you're playing something like Pathfinder Society, of course, but if you're houseruling things for your home games, it's worth a look.You have a link? I don't find it in the forum.HERE is the main thread; click on the "Weapons" document.
Thanks for the plug, Wynterknight!
TY, very interesting.
I think part of the question was, why aren't any other EWPs as desirable. Is it that the Falcata is so much better, or the others need to step it up? I say the latter.I don't see the OP'ness in either post. You would have to break the math down like Bobson did above to disprove his point.
Even as you said it uses a feat so I don't mind it being better. Actually if I have to spend a feat it should be better. Spending a feat to give me a weapon that is no better than the other weapons is like me taking Skill Focus(craft:underwater basket weaving). I would rather the DPR to be a 3 point difference as opposed to 5, but I can live with 2 points more than what I like as a DM.
One of the Paizo Devs said the reason was that the choosing of an exotic weapon should be about RP, not power. <---paraphrase
I think any feat should make you better though.My search-fu is failing me so I can't find the post at the moment.
I'm a noob so could someone please tell me why everyone insists on comparing two weapons at a level other than 1, with str scores other than 10, and all of this gear? Whats the point of having super str and super gear, max level just to compare weapons? It seems to me that a proper comparison of weapon is min & max damage. Greatsword - minimum damage 2 hp. Falcata - minimum 1 hp. Greatsword max damage - 12. Falcata max damage - 8. Same crit range so same potential to threaten. GS min crit- 4 hp. Falcata min crit - 2 hp. GS max - 24 hp. Falcata max - 24 hp. Seems the GS is a bit better to me. What am i missing?
Crit range and all those other things combine to determine (DPR)Damage per round. If you play WoW it is known as DPS(Damage per Second?).
The Falcata has the advantage of being able to be used one handed if you want more AC. The Falcata will do more damage on average due to it havign a similar crit range, but a higher multiplier.All those things such as strength, feats, and weapons bonuses are multiplies on a crit so you can't just use base weapon damage.
Example
2d6+6 x2 is about 26 points of damage on a crit
1d8+6 x3 is about 31 points of damage on a crit
I'm a noob so could someone please tell me why everyone insists on comparing two weapons at a level other than 1, with str scores other than 10, and all of this gear? Whats the point of having super str and super gear, max level just to compare weapons? It seems to me that a proper comparison of weapon is min & max damage. Greatsword - minimum damage 2 hp. Falcata - minimum 1 hp. Greatsword max damage - 12. Falcata max damage - 8. Same crit range so same potential to threaten. GS min crit- 4 hp. Falcata min crit - 2 hp. GS max - 24 hp. Falcata max - 24 hp. Seems the GS is a bit better to me. What am i missing?
First level is a very small portion of a character's career, and let's be honest, you will not find any fighter with a 10 strength out there.
Once levels advance the weapon die becomes less and less of a contributor to the overall damage. Things like power attack, weapon specialization, weapon training, strength bonus, rage, favored enemy, and smite all tend to become a larger and larger chunk of dealt damage as levels advance. Since criticals give a bonus to those included factors as well, they become an important part of damage calculations.
Yar!
I'm a noob so could someone please tell me why everyone insists on comparing two weapons at a level other than 1, with str scores other than 10, and all of this gear? Whats the point of having super str and super gear, max level just to compare weapons? It seems to me that a proper comparison of weapon is min & max damage. Greatsword - minimum damage 2 hp. Falcata - minimum 1 hp. Greatsword max damage - 12. Falcata max damage - 8. Same crit range so same potential to threaten. GS min crit- 4 hp. Falcata min crit - 2 hp. GS max - 24 hp. Falcata max - 24 hp. Seems the GS is a bit better to me. What am i missing?
I already did pretty much this in my first post in this thread ( though I used an 18 str instead of 10).
The issue is more complicated than what a weapon looks like at one static point. The issue includes other factors such as:
how quickly and dramatically a weapon shifts in DPR when used with different levels & stats & gear
why other weapons do or do not shift as dramatically
why other weapons that require the expenditure of a feat to use properly do or do not show a specific amount of benefit when compared to both other weapons that require a feat to use and other weapons that do not, cross-compared to how weapon effectiveness improves at different levels with different stats and gear, etc.
...simply, all these other things in addition to the base no gear level one weapon effectiveness comparison, is important. It makes a difference that matters.
~P
If you are silly enough to allow the Falcata, then you should probably allow it two-handed. Unless you want to create a different wholly better sword, you shouldn't up the damage range to two-handed ranges (2d6). The Falcata clearly is superior in terms of "stuff", and it is, imo, broken. It's also silly given what the sword represents, and is culturally insensitive to, say, pretty much everything else.
But if you are asking, by game rules, can they use it two handed? Sure thing.
Basically- if you take this weapon and say "what does this imply?", then the answer is, an entirely new and superior tier of weaponry, because the Falcata just is overbudget, period. If you are ok with this, then I'd suggest coming up with new fantastic weaponry that wouldn't really be that effective but that your crew enjoys (maybe that silly Klingon weapon or w/e)- or just buff the regular weapons to be that good, and people might actually use real world weapons that were selected because they are effective, and improved over time.
Who suggested upping it to 2d6 or did I miss something?
Why is it broken? It is not much better than a falchion.What do you think is in line for a weapon that is good enough for a feat?
How is it culturally insensitive?
The other exotic weapons are the baseline.
The problem is that the other exotic weapons are a lousy baseline; none of them are anywhere close to being worth the cost of a feat, so only people who pick them up for free as a racial benefit are going to get any benefit at all from them.
It's more reasonable, in my opinion, to use the baseline of 1 feat = 1 feat, and work from there. In that sense, the falcata is worth a feat; the others aren't, and would therefore need to be improved (which is the approach I took).
Firstly, The Falcata is not a superior weapon IRL to the "straight" sword. Otherwise all the armies would have adopted and used it.
It is odd, difficult to make and relatively unbalanced and unwieldy. Like it's smaller cousin the kukri, it takes a good deal of handling to get used to it. IT is not particularly better than a machete, it simply has the 'cool' factor.
That being said, the fantasy falchion we have isn't like it's real world version. the Falchion was as similar to a scimitar as a falcata is to a kopis. Yet designers decided to make it a two hand version of the scimitar.
Likewise, they tried to come up with a weapon that was better than normal swords (for whatever reason they had) and named it falcata, because... well longsword was already taken!
In our game, My magus has a falcata, it was supposed to be some other weird sword we found, but we did not have the suppliment for it (maybe it was adventurer's armory) so we substituted in the falcata, which seemed to make sense since this weapon is an ancient azlanti sword that we found, it would be unlike those we are familiar with and 'different'.
The Azlant were supposed to be an advanced race, something like 'atlanteans' so it goes to figure their weaponry might be a step above and long forgotten are the secrets to its making in the smithy's of the common world. Hence it's requirement to take a EWP to use it, which, because it was already a magic weapon, My Magus did so.
In that way the Falcata fits nicely in the storyline of wandering the ancient ruins of a lost society.
The Problem comes when the DM let's everyone buy anything from any book. I have said this many times in other threads about magic items. Just because it's in the book doesn't mean A) that's the price or B) it is available.
Why would your character know about falcatas? No backround for it? Then no, you can't start with one. Found it on an adventure? Traveled to an ancient lost temple and found one? Left to you in a family will coupled with a map to the lost tomb of an ancestor?
All Plausible, just because it's 'mundane' doesn't mean it's not 'treasure'.
But I have to agree that is 'worth' the feat, however someone else may want to do something else with that feat, so it's not a given.
We will likely not have a falcata in every campaign we are in, and, this is so far the only falcata in this campaign.
Lance, 2 handed? I don't think there is any option for that. Yes, the text say "while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand" but it would be more precise with "while mounted you should wield a lance one handed". Especially for a charge.
-There IS an option for that. It says you CAN use a lance once handed. it does not, regardless of what you think it "should" say, prevent you from using it in two hands while mounted.RAW wise you are right. Reality wise I have I don't see any way for a person to use a lance 2 handed efficiently from a mount.
AFAIK it was never used 2 handed by proficient users while mounted in the history of cavalry.
The Roman cavalry long thrusting spear was called a contus (from Greek language kontos, barge-pole). It was usually 3 to 4 m long, and grasped with both hands. It was employed by equites contariorum and equites catafractarii, fully armed and armoured cataphracts. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance
Lance, 2 handed? I don't think there is any option for that. Yes, the text say "while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand" but it would be more precise with "while mounted you should wield a lance one handed". Especially for a charge.
-There IS an option for that. It says you CAN use a lance once handed. it does not, regardless of what you think it "should" say, prevent you from using it in two hands while mounted.RAW wise you are right. Reality wise I have I don't see any way for a person to use a lance 2 handed efficiently from a mount.
AFAIK it was never used 2 handed by proficient users while mounted in the history of cavalry.
The Roman cavalry long thrusting spear was called a contus (from Greek language kontos, barge-pole). It was usually 3 to 4 m long, and grasped with both hands. It was employed by equites contariorum and equites catafractarii, fully armed and armoured cataphracts. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance
LOL another hilarity of inaccuracy perpetrated by the woefully lacking wiki.
Do you think the article meant to say either/or instead of both?Both assuming the wielding of a lance on horseback with both hands on the shaft simultaneously?
How?
I challenge the ergonomics and effectiveness of this.
I think it meant both as in left or right, not left and right, and is likely taken from poor translation of greek or latin, as it's implications are impractical at best.
I've been tempted to treat weapons as fashion statements:
Light does 1d6 20/x3 or 1d6 19-20/x2
One Handed does 1d8 20/x3 or 1d8 19-20/x2
Two handed does 1d12 20/x3 or 1d12 19-20/x2
If you want to spend a feat on an Exotic Weapon, you can.
The exotic version of the weapon will have one of the following attributes:
Reach
Trip
Disarm
Finesse
A critical range of 18-20/x2 for the same die size.
Bell curve damage: 1d6 becomes 2d3, 1d8 becomes 2d4, 1d12 becomes 2d6.
You can say XWP is a bad feat, but it's pretty clear that it's intended to be-...
Feats should not suck. That does not mean some won't be better than others becaue a feat=a feat is not really possible. If a feat is so bad that people will only take it for RP reasons (EWP, skill focus(profession) then the feat is better off not existing. Improving the base damage by one step normally nets you less than one point of damage for DPR. Maybe they could have only increased the threat range and given it the ability to cause bleed damage on a crit as an example, but if a feat is so bad that nobody wants it then it is not balanced, and normally that means it is broken on the weak side of the scale. Even the devs have said that. We don't have everyone running around with the feat so that also takes it out of the too good category.
Firstly, The Falcata is not a superior weapon IRL to the "straight" sword. Otherwise all the armies would have adopted and used it.In fact, the Falcata did fall out of use. Straight versus curved is choosing some attributes over others: both have merits. Certainly if weapons of that period were to be viewed as somehow superior to later, more advanced swords, one would expect similar love given to period equivalent weapons (gladius, spatha).
In that sense, the falcata is worth a feat; the others aren't, and would therefore need to be improved (which is the approach I took).IIRC, you improved martial weapons AND exotic weapons. If you model, say, a spaniard fighter from 1300 AD in your game, he wouldn't be wholly inferior to one from 300 AD. By rules, that's not the case.
The Azlant were supposed to be an advanced race, something like 'atlanteans' so it goes to figure their weaponry might be a step above and long forgotten are the secrets to its making in the smithy's of the common world.The problem is that this isn't a special fictional world thing- this is a real world weapon, and the game is making claims about it. WotC clearly took a stance when they assigned all weapons to a grid- it's not perfect, but with a few exceptions (such as the falchion erroneously being 2 handed, something I referenced in my post but did not chase, and the spear being modeled very weak), the thing manages to not make claims about real world weapons. I was very much expecting Paizo to continue to do this- it's about the only thing of merit with the weapon system. If you are going to do fantasy stuff with them, at least give them ALL cool stuff, so you can have the weapon you see your character with.
Feats should not suck.Some should, and this doesn't fix the feat. It creates an imbalance between one weapon and all the others. You can't just say, ok, everyone who wanted to use a longsword gets to use a Falcata THERE ALL FIXED!!1
This...
Why should a feat suck? If the weapon requires a feat it should be better. I don't get the Falacata and Longsword connection.
After further reading it seems your issue is that the feat is gained too easily, not that it gives a better weapon. I guess I can understand that, but not every commoner will be taking the feat either so I think that part is more hyperbole than an actual point.
I think exotic weapons should be region based*, and then there should have been advanced weapons.
*People from region X get weapons A, B and C. Those from another place treat them as exotic weapons, but that is not today's argument.
LOL another hilarity of inaccuracy perpetrated by the woefully lacking wiki.Do you think the article meant to say either/or instead of both?
If you can demonstrate that its wrong, go ahead. But i see no reason to read it as a mistake in language unless you have to think that no lance was ever wielded in two hands.. which would be incredibly circular of you.
I would appreciate it if you could make a point instead of laughing at people.
Both assuming the wielding of a lance on horseback with both hands on the shaft simultaneously?
How?
The same way you put it on one side of your body when you're standing.
http://img364.imageshack.us/i/britonmarcacontwn3un.jpg/sr=1
I beleive someone above directed you to an osprey picture on the matter.
And here's someone testing the ergonomics of it. It seems to work.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21711359@N08/4789977405/in/set-721576243615034 25/
What does the introduction of vital strike do to the DPR for the two hander? A lot of these simulations seem to be assuming full attacks, but i rarely see full attacks at my tables.
What does the introduction of vital strike do to the DPR for the two hander? A lot of these simulations seem to be assuming full attacks, but i rarely see full attacks at my tables.
Most games do have full attacks, but not for every round. Even if your bad guys like to fly to stay out of range then the fighters should be flying also. If you stop every attempt to engage in melee no matter what then it is time for archers.
What does the introduction of vital strike do to the DPR for the two hander? A lot of these simulations seem to be assuming full attacks, but i rarely see full attacks at my tables.Most games do have full attacks, but not for every round. Even if your bad guys like to fly to stay out of range then the fighters should be flying also. If you stop every attempt to engage in melee no matter what then it is time for archers.
Well its not just that. I've TRIED throwing bad guys into melee. I really have. its just that if something gets near the fighter, the fighter hurts it. The rest of the party focuses fire, and finishes them off or weakens them to the point that the fighter needs 1 attack, or at least kills things before all of his attacks expire.
Well its not just that. I've TRIED throwing bad guys into melee. I really have. its just that if something gets near the fighter, the fighter hurts it. The rest of the party focuses fire, and finishes them off or weakens them to the point that the fighter needs 1 attack, or at least kills things before all of his attacks expire.What does the introduction of vital strike do to the DPR for the two hander? A lot of these simulations seem to be assuming full attacks, but i rarely see full attacks at my tables.Most games do have full attacks, but not for every round. Even if your bad guys like to fly to stay out of range then the fighters should be flying also. If you stop every attempt to engage in melee no matter what then it is time for archers.
In that case give the rest of the party a problem of their own. It is harder to focus fire when someone/something is focused on you. :)
|
|
In Pathfinder Beta (or was it Alpha?) there was a combat feat that increased the critical multiplier from x2 to x3 with a chosen weapon.
It was removed as it was determined to be vastly overpowered.
Now we have the ability to spend one feat to change a longsword's crit from x2 to x3. What's the difference?
You can't do it with a polearm or a ranged weapon, which greatly limits the hideously sickening potential.
Falcatas are nice, but they're still just a 5' weapon -- you won't get too many AoOs with those at higher level (i.e., when you need Enlarge just to keep even with monster reach).
What about the same gear on a 12th level fighter? Then we have to worry about even if there ARE critical threats, we have to roll a d20 on every confirmation which also has to hit the AC on that given roll. Will the weapons be even?
Oddly enough, the weapons are exactly even up to attacking armor class 29. As the AC goes up, the falcata becomes more powerful. At AC 29 or below, the average damage output is actually the same.
Incorrect. When you switched from level 20 fighter to level 12 fighter, it looks like you kept the +1 critical multiplier in your calculations. For someone with a decent + on damage, the falcata will do better than the Falchion at every AC. The exception to this is the level 20 fighter - not because he auto-confirms crits (which affects both weapons the same), but because he adds +1 to the multiplier.
The falcata would be equivalent in DPR to a weapon with a base 17-20 crit range (improves to 13-20) or a 20/x5 crit (except against ACs high enough that some threats aren't hits).
The other exotic weapons are the baseline. If Paizo wanted to set a new baseline, they should have done that when they ported, not by introducing uberstuff in splatbooks. If the Falcata had done one of the following things, people would not be saying it was overbudget:
1- Keep the damage range of an equivalently "purchased" martial weapon, and add on x1 to the crit range. As an example, 1d8, 18-20x3. Or, 1d8, 20x4.
2- Actually up the damage die up by one. For instance, 1d10, 19-20x2.The second is pretty much what the bastard sword is. The first has been implemented several times.
I agree with the argument that EWP: Falcata is somewhat like a stacking version of Improved Critical: Battleaxe that is available at level 1. It's a potential issue, especially since being able to take IC: Battleaxe twice would result in a smaller range (18-20 vs. 17-20) than a keen / improved falcata. I don't agree it's as big an issue as some others here think, as the battleaxe is rather vanilla, and the ability to stack improved critical abilities on it isn't particularly game-breaking. Pirate's math posts have justified this conclusion, at least to me.
However, what you advocate in point #1 here is quite a bit more egregious than the existing falcata. I think you may have intended the examples to be 1d8, 20/x4 (improved battleaxe) or 1d6, 18-20/x3 (improved scimitar) - but even at 1d6 base damage, an 18-20/x3 critical is far more unbalanced than 19-20/x3, and you would in fact lead to an enormous outcry of "overbudget." So no, I disagree that Paizo has committed a major blunder by publishing this.
Edit: corrected myself concerning improved critical weapon types.
Recently my players and me discussed about exotic weapons.We took a look at the stats of the APG Falcata (d8, 19-20/x3 1H). The discussion raised after seeing a PC using it two-handed.
The weapon always felt "wrong" because of its stats, and we observed how progressively every PC at the table able to spend a feat on it will do it. It's clearly superior to every other sword.
Some of my player suggested to houserule it as "one handed only", mostly because the weapon is actually a big help for S&B and for two-weapon fighters (and because of the shape of the grip, so there is a fluff reason too).
Other players said that more weapons like falcata should exist because most exotics are lame. In the same book, take a look at the boomerang.
I'm somewhat in the middle (I think that the weapon is maybe too strong, but spend a feat to switch from a d8 to a d10 is weird - things like reach or bonus to maneuvers should be added to exotic weapons, when proper, to justify the feat).
What do you think?
I'm using these swords with a two-weapon fighter. He still does nowhere near as much damage as the two-hander warrior. But they are a better choice than any other weapon for a two-weapon guy.
That's the only problem I have. Is the Falcata is now a no brainer for a min-maxer for every type of build. In this game critting is king. And a weapon the crit ability of the average sword and the multiplier of the average axe is clearly superior to every other option. It is only personal style that would prevent every player from taking it.
As far as positives go at least you don't fee like you wasted a feat. Using a feat to go from 1d8 to 1d10 damage rarely feels worth it. Falcata is one of the few weapons that makes you feel as though that Exotic Weapon Proficiency you spent the feat for was well worth it.
If they would make more Exotic Weapons worth spending a feat on, then the Falcata wouldn't stand out as it does.
I'm using these swords with a two-weapon fighter. He still does nowhere near as much damage as the two-hander warrior. But they are a better choice than any other weapon for a two-weapon guy.
That's the only problem I have. Is the Falcata is now a no brainer for a min-maxer for every type of build. In this game critting is king. And a weapon the crit ability of the average sword and the multiplier of the average axe is clearly superior to every other option. It is only personal style that would prevent every player from taking it.
As far as positives go at least you don't fee like you wasted a feat. Using a feat to go from 1d8 to 1d10 damage rarely feels worth it. Falcata is one of the few weapons that makes you feel as though that Exotic Weapon Proficiency you spent the feat for was well worth it.
If they would make more Exotic Weapons worth spending a feat on, then the Falcata wouldn't stand out as it does.
There is a middle ground. This is why in my opinion the weapon should be errata'ed as 1H only. It would be the best weapon for 1-2 styles, and worthy of the feat FOR THOSE STYLES, not for EVERY STYLE.
I agree that the feat does not feel wasted. IMO if vital Strike was better (say, scaling with level) choose a weapon with a greater dice could have been better.
And swords and axes suck anyway, compred to scimitars and picks. So one of the problems of the Bastard are there.
I would fix it dividing exotic in two gropus, design-wise: those slightly more powerful, which you can take with your race (dwarven waraxe) or a trait (imagine a trait for bastard sword, maybe human only if you wish).
Then stuff more interesting like falcata (1H anyway) and meteor hammer would need a feat.
|
Falcata's fine.
You want silly, look at the Chakram - best thrown weapon in the game, plus it's just as good as a Heavy Mace in melee, plus, it weighs one pound.
-Kle.
That would be a problem if anyone would actually use thrown weapons. The chakram is slightly better than the javelin which is a simple weapon.
That would be a problem if anyone would actually use thrown weapons. The chakram is slightly better than the javelin which is a simple weapon.Falcata's fine.
You want silly, look at the Chakram - best thrown weapon in the game, plus it's just as good as a Heavy Mace in melee, plus, it weighs one pound.
-Kle.
I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm.
|
|
I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm.That would be a problem if anyone would actually use thrown weapons. The chakram is slightly better than the javelin which is a simple weapon.Falcata's fine.
You want silly, look at the Chakram - best thrown weapon in the game, plus it's just as good as a Heavy Mace in melee, plus, it weighs one pound.
-Kle.
I hope so. But I also remember people complaining about the Starknife for being better than the light hammer. Some people complain about rather strange things.
I'm using these swords with a two-weapon fighter. He still does nowhere near as much damage as the two-hander warrior. But they are a better choice than any other weapon for a two-weapon guy.
That's the only problem I have. Is the Falcata is now a no brainer for a min-maxer for every type of build. In this game critting is king. And a weapon the crit ability of the average sword and the multiplier of the average axe is clearly superior to every other option. It is only personal style that would prevent every player from taking it.
As far as positives go at least you don't fee like you wasted a feat. Using a feat to go from 1d8 to 1d10 damage rarely feels worth it. Falcata is one of the few weapons that makes you feel as though that Exotic Weapon Proficiency you spent the feat for was well worth it.
If they would make more Exotic Weapons worth spending a feat on, then the Falcata wouldn't stand out as it does.
There is a middle ground. This is why in my opinion the weapon should be errata'ed as 1H only. It would be the best weapon for 1-2 styles, and worthy of the feat FOR THOSE STYLES, not for EVERY STYLE.
I agree that the feat does not feel wasted. IMO if vital Strike was better (say, scaling with level) choose a weapon with a greater dice could have been better.
And swords and axes suck anyway, compred to scimitars and picks. So one of the problems of the Bastard are there.
I would fix it dividing exotic in two gropus, design-wise: those slightly more powerful, which you can take with your race (dwarven waraxe) or a trait (imagine a trait for bastard sword, maybe human only if you wish).
Then stuff more interesting like falcata (1H anyway) and meteor hammer would need a feat.
I wouldn't mind if they made the weapon only a 1hander you couldn't use with two hands. From the pictures it looks like that is what it is.
I know it's hard to define how much of an advantage a weapon has over another. In real life every sword wielder didn't use a Falcata because in real life the weapon isn't very good. It's primarily a chopping weapon.
The reality is the sword was never designed soley for chopping. The handle and blade of a common longsword and broadword were designed to be used with all manner of offensive and defensive moves. But in D&D, a chopping sword is best because of the crit and threat range. Kind of funny.
In real swordplay a short or long sword wielder would probably destroy a Falcata wielder in battle with the versatility of his weapon. But not so in D&D. Same with the shield and armor not showing its advantages. Like the Breastplate allowing you to trap blades isn't worked into the system save as higher AC, but in real fighting a heavy armored foe was nigh unbeatable by some speedy light sword wielder.
Funny how D&D is that way.