Falcatas would have been rubbish for close orders formation fighting.Part of the problem is the fact that we can't test it -- the method for making actual Falcata's has been lost -- also when originally in use the people using them failed the weapon more than the weapon failed them.
I am reasonably certain that if we measured a specimen of a proper falcata we could manufacture one just fine with modern techniques and materials.
I'm rather curious where you the impression that it was user error for that matter. Sometimes you can make a device which is just to difficult to be worth using.
Falcatas would have been rubbish for close orders formation fighting.Part of the problem is the fact that we can't test it -- the method for making actual Falcata's has been lost -- also when originally in use the people using them failed the weapon more than the weapon failed them.I am reasonably certain that if we measured a specimen of a proper falcata we could manufacture one just fine with modern techniques and materials.
I'm rather curious where you the impression that it was user error for that matter. Sometimes you can make a device which is just to difficult to be worth using.
Geek contribution.
IN the Dresden novel Changes, which I just re-read (came out in paperback), Harry's Brother Thomas uses a falcata during the big dust up at the end of the novel...while break-dancing with a magnum in the other hand.
Heh.
A falcata is no worse a formation weapon then an axe. It's a chopping weapon, bring it down from above. With the arc, it's better then a straight blade for trying to get around a shield.
===Aelryinth
Falcatas would have been rubbish for close orders formation fighting.Part of the problem is the fact that we can't test it -- the method for making actual Falcata's has been lost -- also when originally in use the people using them failed the weapon more than the weapon failed them.I am reasonably certain that if we measured a specimen of a proper falcata we could manufacture one just fine with modern techniques and materials.
I'm rather curious where you the impression that it was user error for that matter. Sometimes you can make a device which is just to difficult to be worth using.
I'm not saying that it was user error -- just the user failing the weapon -- these weapons were used against the Romans... but not in formation, and not by a disciplined military.
The Romans won of course, but through superior tactics, not superior weaponry.
AND even then the falcata had an impact on the Romans' armor, weapons and shields that lasted for the entirety of the Roman empire.
Also while we can do many amazing things with modern manufacturing practices we don't understand the how of the things our ancestors have done -- all current modern examples of the falcata have been bigger, and heavier than the samples found (or rather than how the samples would have been at the time of their use) -- much like the Khopesh we don't understand how they were formed or the techniques used.
It has been speculated that if we still had those techniques to combine with our current knowledge that we could achieve some really spectacular things.
Also while we can do many amazing things with modern manufacturing practices we don't understand the how of the things our ancestors have done -- all current modern examples of the falcata have been bigger, and heavier than the samples found (or rather than how the samples would have been at the time of their use) -- much like the Khopesh we don't understand how they were formed or the techniques used.
It has been speculated that if we still had those techniques to combine with our current knowledge that we could achieve some really spectacular things.
If you put out the specs you want (dimensions, weight, etc), you could make pretty much anything you want given the current available alloys and materials. You might well spend a pretty penny, but you can do it.
I will certainly admit a current blacksmith, or something just using common steel might be flummoxed, but you give a modern machinist the specs and make it out of nano-structured steel, I guarantee you will exceed anything done in the past.
If you put out the specs you want (dimensions, weight, etc), you could make pretty much anything you want given the current available alloys and materials. You might well spend a pretty penny, but you can do it.
I will certainly admit a current blacksmith, or something just using common steel might be flummoxed, but you give a modern machinist the specs and make it out of nano-structured steel, I guarantee you will exceed anything done in the past.
Hm... and interesting suggestion -- but one that's probably too expensive to test.
Also part of the problem is that the falcata wasn't really alloyed -- it was an iron weapon originally... which is part of our problem in duplicating it, to date an exact replica in correct materials hasn't been done.
Could it be with nano-structured materials? I wouldn't pretend to know, but you would have some history buff out there somewhere that would still call foul... personally I wouldn't.
However until your machinist/engineer builds said replica we won't be able to test or prove a thing.
In the end I would believe that the falcata fell out of use because of two things:
1. The culture that made it was lost which lead to:
2. The method of making it was lost which meant:
3. It was too expensive for the Romans to mass produce on the cheap.
Roman weaponry, armor and equipment was designed to be 'good' but 'cheap' -- much like a lot of our modern military equipment: It is not top of the line... but because our training for our military is so good, and we have so much of it, it doesn't have to be top of the line... simply of 'good' quality will suffix.
Roman weaponry, armor and equipment was designed to be 'good' but 'cheap' -- much like a lot of our modern military equipment: It is not top of the line... but because our training for our military is so good, and we have so much of it, it doesn't have to be top of the line... simply of 'good' quality will suffix.
Depending on the equipment in question, much of the stuff actually is top of the line these days. When they figured out how much they were spending on training, they figured out that shafting people who cost millions in training with cheap equipment was a bad idea (particularly notable in pilots).
This is not, of course, universal. Big shinies suck away money from less glamorous equipment (hence, we still use M-16s and M-4s). However we do have some pretty amazing toys.
The Roman equipment was not spectacular, but it was very well suited to their tactics and training. The Legions were a pretty much unmatched force for a very long time.
Who made the falcata in the first place anyway?
This is not, of course, universal. Big shinies suck away money from less glamorous equipment (hence, we still use M-16s and M-4s). However we do have some pretty amazing toys.
Which makes my point for the average soldier :D
The Roman equipment was not spectacular, but it was very well suited to their tactics and training. The Legions were a pretty much unmatched force for a very long time.
Which is why I'm saying that it isn't necessarily the weapon's fault or some flaw with the weapon itself that caused the falcata to fall into disuse.
You can have a really great weapon -- but if you can't use it correctly against your opponent, or your opponent outnumbers you, and out trains you then it's not going to matter how good your weapon (or skill with it) is -- you will fall.
Remember the 300? Yeah they were great, yeah they had great equipment (there wasn't just 300 either)... but they still lost -- they fell, and didn't win. Not because they were chumps, but due to numbers and attrition -- which proves my point all the more... it isn't always simply "what weapon last the longest is the best"... many times other factors play into it.
Who made the falcata in the first place anyway?
The Spaniards are thought to have developed it off of a Celtic weapon. Supposedly the Celts were using iron long before the Romans were, and it was from the Celts (again supposedly) that most of the ancient world picked it up from.
I've heard it said that the reason Alexander the Great went south and east is because when he tried to go north the Celts kicked his butt and told him, "no."
I do know he hired a large amount of Celts to go with him and that's where we get Galatians from (Gauls are/were from the same stock as Celts).
Here. Fixed
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **No good on a full attack, but ready him against a spellcaster and they will never cast. Actually the sniping option is viable. It’s not the greatest DPR, but you have a move action. It also goes up by 12 next level, between the next step of vital strike and full dex to damage.
Again, sorry for the misread earlier.
You're still not showing your work.
Actually the Crossbowman fighter Arch-type seems like it can be quite good once it reaches 11th lvl. Dex bonus to damage means you don't need a high strength and can still dish out the damage so you get to use the same stat for to hit and damage which the bow user can't and does not cap at +5. It also has some other really nice abilities like getting to deny an opponent their dex bonus when using a readied action.
The Crossbow man might be cool, I just hate that a 100% Dex focused fighter build is giving up armor training.
Developer
|
You're still not showing your work.
I apologize, but I'm really not sure what you want. The stats were a 20 point buy? Maybe I left that out. You've got all the feats, the ability scores, the traits, and the damage-relevant items. Anyone can reproduce these numbers and check my math.
I use a spreadsheet for these, so I won't claim it's 100% error-proof, but I'm fairly confident.
If you had any questions on the type of math done, just check the DPR Olympics, that's where I got the math.
I have followed this very long thread and I agree with those that say that the composite longbow is not overpowered, but that the crossbow is under powered.
I have a few house rules that bring things more inline. The bow is still superior, but no more than a longsword is superior to a mace (martial vs. simple)
First I changed Manyshot because I didn’t think it was very fun. My version can only be used as a standard action and can be used to fire two arrows at one person or one each at two ajacent people. This adds a little fun and flexibilty to a bow using besides just stand there and full attack.
Manyshot (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When making a standard attack action with a bow, your attack fires two arrows, albeit at a -2 penalty. You may either target both arrows at the same target or at two adjacent targets.
If you fire both arrows at the same target and the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
If you fire at two adjacent targets, roll to see if your first arrow hits your primary target. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus -2) against a foe that is adjacent to the first with your second arrow. If your first attack missed then your second arrow is wasted.
Second I added mighty to the crossbow and added a magic enchantment that allows a crossbow to cock itself. In a world where magic is so plentiful, having a magic force effect that pulls back a cord should be so simple that it is a no-brainer.
Crossbows
A mighty crossbow requires that a character have a Str bonus equal to or greater than the bonus of the crossbow to cock it or else use some kind of mechanical or magical assistance. A mighty crossbow will always add the full Str bonus when shot, regardless of the Str of the user. For example, if a character with a +2 Str bonus shoots a crossbow with a +4 Str bonus, he would still add the full +4 Str bonus to damage. He would then need to use a windlass or have someone else cock the crossbow for him before using it again. He could also get it enchanted with the reloading ability to have it automatically cock the crossbow, but see the reloading ability below.
A crossbow can be equipped with windlass for an extra 50 gold. This allows a character to cock a crossbow when he does not meet the minimum Str requirement. It takes one round per point of Str the crossbow has to cock it with a windlass, regardless of the Str of the character.
Reloading
When a crossbow with this ability is used, it will automatically cock itself. This allows the user to load another bolt into the crossbow as a free action and shoot as many times in a full-attack action as you could if you were using a bow. If the crossbow is mighty the price for this ability increases by 100 gp per +1 bonus. However, you must have a Str bonus at least equal to the Str of the mighty crossbow in order to use the full attack action. If you have insufficient Str the jolting of the crossbow as it fires and re-cocks makes it impossible to reload quickly.
Moderate conjuration; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, unseen servant; Price 1,000 gp, +100 gp per +1 Str bonus.
Try to draw that massive composite bow back with 6 points of STR damage...
OOPS...
While the halfling wizard winds his windlass on his heavy crossbow...
Modern reBar (short for reinforcing bar, used in concrete building) can be used to very closely approximate the iron of the middle Ages. The chief problem of the current recreations is they tend to make the blade more like a Kukri, with a thick blade that bevels in the outer quarter to the edge, rather than beveling from the back (flat) of the sword to the cutting edge like the actual Falcata did. Other than that, most historians and sword experts Ive seen consider the Falcata to be one of the truely superior forms of sword, the best design for the function (that of a "chopping" blade) But at the time, it was VERY expensive. Otherwise, it would have become in the west what the Katana became in Japan; the "embodiment" of the sword
That's my understanding of it too -- but I didn't want to really come off fanboi-like. I think the falcata was in all likelihood a superior weapon... just like the khopesh, but I don't have proof, or the means of supplying proof, other than what I know of martial activities using such weapons... which isn't good proof at all for the internet really.
Alorha, your Deadeye Dan does around 50% the DPR that a Composite Longbow user does. And that's for a class archetype built specifically around using the Crossbow. It get's much worse when you try this with a class that can't afford to waste feats on EWP, Rapid Reload, and Crossbow Mastery that don't give you anything that a Composite Bow doesn't give you already.
Also, saying that Deadeye Dan still has his move action is misleading. Either he is full attacking for 40DPR (pathetic), or he is spending his move action to reload both bolts in his double crossbow for the slightly better 45DPR. That 45DPR get's cut in half if he only has one bolt to fire. So he's either going to be doing even worse damage each round, or he doesn't have any more of a move action than an archer has.
And as a side note, your Deadeye Dan has Crossbow Mastery without having the Rapid Shot prereg.
Spoiler:Modern reBar (short for reinforcing bar, used in concrete building) can be used to very closely approximate the iron of the middle Ages. The chief problem of the current recreations is they tend to make the blade more like a Kukri, with a thick blade that bevels in the outer quarter to the edge, rather than beveling from the back (flat) of the sword to the cutting edge like the actual Falcata did. Other than that, most historians and sword experts Ive seen consider the Falcata to be one of the truely superior forms of sword, the best design for the function (that of a "chopping" blade) But at the time, it was VERY expensive. Otherwise, it would have become in the west what the Katana became in Japan; the "embodiment" of the swordHm... and interesting suggestion -- but one that's probably too expensive to test.
Also part of the problem is that the falcata wasn't really alloyed -- it was an iron weapon originally... which is part of our problem in duplicating it, to date an exact replica in correct materials hasn't been done.
Could it be with nano-structured materials? I wouldn't pretend to know, but you would have some history buff out there somewhere that would still call foul... personally I wouldn't.
However until your machinist/engineer builds said replica we won't be able to test or prove a thing.
In the end I would believe that the falcata fell out of use because of two things:
1. The culture that made it was lost which lead to:
2. The method of making it was lost which meant:
3. It was too expensive for the Romans to mass produce on the cheap.Roman weaponry, armor and equipment was designed to be 'good' but 'cheap' -- much like a lot of our modern military equipment: It is not top of the line... but because our training for our military is so good, and we have so much of it, it doesn't have to be top of the line... simply of 'good' quality will suffix.
I think the top-heavy blade also equates to a longer loping attack, thus a slower attack.
You're still not showing your work.I apologize, but I'm really not sure what you want. The stats were a 20 point buy? Maybe I left that out. You've got all the feats, the ability scores, the traits, and the damage-relevant items. Anyone can reproduce these numbers and check my math.
I use a spreadsheet for these, so I won't claim it's 100% error-proof, but I'm fairly confident.
If you had any questions on the type of math done, just check the DPR Olympics, that's where I got the math.
My point was that if the crossbow is only viable with one build, maybe two(which is what I am suspecting) it is not a strength of the crossbow, but that build such as the archetype focused only for the crossbow. A variant made to support weapon X does not mean weapon X is viable. It does not that the weapon does not suck all the time. I think people want the xbow to be reliable without having to depend on an archetype.
PS:I did not see any feats or anything else the first time you brought this up either. Was it in a spoiler or link that I overlooked?
edit:I see the spoiler now, but does it only work with a double crossbow? I will look in the DPR thread to see the entire build later.
|
Developer
|
Alorha, your Deadeye Dan does around 50% the DPR that a Composite Longbow user does. And that's for a class archetype built specifically around using the Crossbow. It get's much worse when you try this with a class that can't afford to waste feats on EWP, Rapid Reload, and Crossbow Mastery that don't give you anything that a Composite Bow doesn't give you already.
Also, saying that Deadeye Dan still has his move action is misleading. Either he is full attacking for 40DPR (pathetic), or he is spending his move action to reload both bolts in his double crossbow for the slightly better 45DPR. That 45DPR get's cut in half if he only has one bolt to fire. So he's either going to be doing even worse damage each round, or he doesn't have any more of a move action than an archer has.
And as a side note, your Deadeye Dan has Crossbow Mastery without having the Rapid Shot prereg.
Right on all points. When I shifted the build to single striking I forgot to check the prereqs of what I switched out - exotic weapon for rapid shot. This was foolish on my part on a number of reasons. First, rapid shot is better DPR, even when you can't double-load, even against the readied shot. I underestimated it. Second, as you said, it made my build impossible.
I should have tossed critical focus. If you make Dan legal via adding in rapid shot and taking out crticial focus he deals 49.31 on a standard action. (This assumes both crossbow bolts get the vital strike benefit, but the second cannot crit, which I believe is how it works. I had forgotten vital strike on the second bolt above)
He deals 58.76 DPR in general (if he does not have his weapon double loaded, as it'd be difficult to model DPR not knowing how often this can be fulfilled). +1 Attack is worth 0.93, +1 damage is worth 2.28, and an extra attack is worth 21.47.
This is the worst DPR. The 49 is also the best single attack damage.
It's an interesting concept, though I agree on face it's much weaker than a pure DPR figher. Much, much weaker. I also cannot use the simple weapon defense, as double crossbows are exotic. If you use your move action to rehide and snipe, your single attack damage drops to 30.
I still stand by Composite Bows not being overpowered. I have to agree on crossbows, though. I was wrong. One thing my numbers do show, though, is that if you allow a fighter to add DEX all the time, like the gunslinger will, the DPR comes back in line. Maybe that's the way to go.
The ability is dump STR is nice, but not enough.
I still stand by Composite Bows not being overpowered. I have to agree on crossbows, though. I was wrong.
If it's any consolation, you convinced me to make a crossbow fighter for my next character. :)
Will you name him Deadeye Dan?
I can't promise that, alas. :)
Alorha, your Deadeye Dan does around 50% the DPR that a Composite Longbow user does. And that's for a class archetype built specifically around using the Crossbow. It get's much worse when you try this with a class that can't afford to waste feats on EWP, Rapid Reload, and Crossbow Mastery that don't give you anything that a Composite Bow doesn't give you already.
Also, saying that Deadeye Dan still has his move action is misleading. Either he is full attacking for 40DPR (pathetic), or he is spending his move action to reload both bolts in his double crossbow for the slightly better 45DPR. That 45DPR get's cut in half if he only has one bolt to fire. So he's either going to be doing even worse damage each round, or he doesn't have any more of a move action than an archer has.
And as a side note, your Deadeye Dan has Crossbow Mastery without having the Rapid Shot prereg.
Reload a double crossbow to deal DPR IMHO is not the way to go. i suppose the weapon is used for sniping and other stuff involving thinking outside the box, and what can bring to a Deadly Stroke.
I wouldn't mind a dex based feat for half dexterity to damage for crossbowmen, but as is, one should maybe just remember that it's useless have different weapon if the only stuff people wanna do is PEWPEWPEW.
Let's them play differently (with fixes if necessary).