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 can only agree with this. Consider it a house-rule I will definitely apply in my games, even if it would never become an official rule.
Nope, not at all.
The Javelin in ineffective as a melee weapon, and is a worse thrown weapon on top of that. If the Chakram is "a little" better than a Javelin, then the Falcata is "a little" better than the Morningstar.Note that I don't really care about the Chakram either, but it is just as much better than it's nearest equivalent as the Falcata is, and at least the Falcata isn't a completely ludicrous weapon IRL.
-Kle.
Chakram is martial. Javelin is simple. And we are talking about threats and multipliers, impacting a lot more on the weapon use. I really don't see the point, sorry.
I can only agree with this. Consider it a house-rule I will definitely apply in my games, even if it would never become an official rule.
Is not an idea of mine - is another poster's. You can find really nice solutions on the boards. Another good one (not mine) is a 1:3 trade instead of 1:2 for the feat deadly aim for crossbows only. Is not THAT MUCH, but is something.
No. IMHO the two cases are not even comparable*, but in case you are making my point.
diversity should be encouraged, but choices so good or so bad you MUST take / you will NEVER take should be avoided or fixed.
* consider the increased multiplier as a "step" means you are not IMO considering in which way bonuses to damage works with criticals.
* consider the increased multiplier as a "step" means you are not IMO considering in which way bonuses to damage works with criticals.The game designers seem to consider increased multipliers as a "step", so I figure I might as well go with it.
-Kle.
And the purpose of the whole thread was: is their decision correct, at least for every combat style?
They are humans (barring JJ which belongs to carnosauria)
OK but I ask: isn't a little bit too much put aside every one handed and two handed axes and straight swords?
You realize that your "falcata is fine" has THE SAME EXACT VALUE of my hyperbolyc "must" have, do you?
You realize that criticism has the purpose of improving the game and keep it living, and pathfinder itself is born from constructive criticism of 3.5, do you?
Why should I be able to point out the good or the bad of the game only if paid by paizo?
I am sorry what you said makes no sense.
My experience is that nobody I know, or my friends know, has taken Falcata Proficiency in a couple dozen campaigns in the entire time since the original Setting Guide came out.
I've known people to play Commoners, too, but that doesn't make it a reasonable option compared to a cleric.
Tagged
Note that the real-world falcata weapon has been demonstrated to be an excellent headcleaving weapon, but it is slow and unwieldy...especially when wielded in one hand. Basically, it's a battleaxe with the haft being a blade instead of a shaft. You don't duel with a falcata. It's a hacking weapon, pure and simple. And it's not designed to be two handed, unlike, say, an axe, or even a longsword, which simply adds a couple inches to the hilt.
If you were going to reflect realism, you'd have to give the thing -2 to hit to reflect the horrible balance and lack of flexibility of the thing.
Boomerangs are exotic weapons because they are useful without some very specialized and invidualized training...which is what EWP should actually stand for.
4E made a difference between simple and martial weapons. Kirthfinder upgraded this to proficiency. Take EWP longsword, and you can do more things with the longsword. Take it with the Bastard Sword, and you're rocking 2-16 dmg against size L in addition to one handing the thing.
On the other hand, it being the national weapon of Taldor is probably why they keep beating the crap out of them scimitar-wielding Qadiri.
===Aelryinth