I obviously need more ranks in being a smartarse. That was way to easy to be counter. Next level I am taking skill focus(smartarse).
I know the link to them has been posted several times, but in my infinite wisdom I never bookmark them. Do you still have the link?
|
nooo! A dagger was never better than a Two handed sword. A dagger was a wimps weapon, something a magic user had to use. I never saw a fighter armed with a dagger and a shield.
There may have been speed factors but I don't think they really made the dagger equal to the two handed sword or the halbred.
I have this feeling that some awful game designer at the "Other Game" nutured some of our most potent tools.
booger=boy
Are you kidding me?!? Dagger were the BEST weapons in 2nd ed. Unless you were a noob. They were fast. Fast meant you go first. Moving and getting 7 attacks that do 1d4+22 damage when an ancient red dragon has 88 hp = win. With combat and tactics, you'd have to be an utter moron to use anything other then a dagger as they got to act in the first iniative segment.
If you want something to really complain about, I suggest complaining about the fact that '2-handed sword' is actually a more appropriate term than 'greatsword'.
Gee thanks, 3e, I'm glad you could take the time to get terms more wrong than before. Wouldn't want to clear up any old misunderstandings. /sarcasm
Wotc just pulled it all in a single kind of weapon with the corebook. Greatsword pretty much represents any 2 handed weapon that is used like a sword. Starting with a two-hander and proceeding to others.
Yeah, I'm guessing it was something more along the lines of, "Hey, doesn't 2-handed sword sound way too generic? I know- let's call it greatsword instead."
Trying to say that they wanted to make it a catch-all term seems a little off to me, since they took a generic term and substituted a specific one. One that referred to a weapon that was never historically considered a strictly 2-handed sword. You need to get a bit bigger than a greatsword for that.
|
Are you kidding me?!? Dagger were the BEST weapons in 2nd ed. Unless you were a noob. They were fast. Fast meant you go first. Moving and getting 7 attacks that do 1d4+22 damage when an ancient red dragon has 88 hp = win. With combat and tactics, you'd have to be an utter moron to use anything other then a dagger as they got to act in the first iniative segment.nooo! A dagger was never better than a Two handed sword. A dagger was a wimps weapon, something a magic user had to use. I never saw a fighter armed with a dagger and a shield.
There may have been speed factors but I don't think they really made the dagger equal to the two handed sword or the halbred.
I have this feeling that some awful game designer at the "Other Game" nutured some of our most potent tools.
booger=boy
2nd ed gladiator with spiked full plate covered in contact poison (and immune to poison) wielding a dagger and optimized for grapples.
Gross doesn't begin.to explain it...
2E Fighter/thief with the 'Complete Book of Dwarves' Pit Fighter Kit armed with Cestus, Dagger and full spiked armour..that was wicked too..In fact that is what Wellard the Character was.
guys can you drop the stop troll accusations. I thought we had a pretty good thread going. Ok, I'll stop saying "golden days" and call them the "crap days" if that makes everyone feel better.
Anyway it should be fun testing out an injection from the past.
booger=boy
Why not include the weapon damages from Runequest instead, or those from the Star Trek RPG?
They are all different games - mechanically, there is as much the same between 1st edition D&D and Pathfinder as there is between Runequest and Pathfinder.
Are greatswords in Pathfinder wimpy? No. In pathfinder it depends much more on the wielder than on the weapon as part of the fundamental mechanics, but a greatsword, compared to other weapons, is as tough as they get. You can dish far more damage at high level in Pathfinder than in 1st ed, but then the foes have far higher hit points as was pointed out.
|
Let's not even get started on crossbows
Crossbows on 1st Ed were your best friend against platemail wearers. Check out the modifier against AC2 and compare that with a longbow. Seems to be glossed over in many discussions on crossbows in 1st Ed.
S.
Agreed, but (a) Nobody that I knew/played with really wanted to bother with AC adjustments. We were 15-17 (I am 41 now, for the record), and (b) The damage still sucked. Since the most often played characters in our groups were almost always Elf F/M-U or some similar thing ( Myself included), the real best weapon was a Magic Missile, but I digress.
Anyways, it was soon after this ( 1987) that I left DnD for games with mire realistic and detailed combat systems ( Namely Rolemaster).
O-T ended.
Two Handed weapon damage is among the highest of the game.
I am sorry, but this is another "homage to surrealim" thread.
Well it's been pointed out to him numerous times that the damage delivery is better and proved to him mathematically at least 5 times in this thread already but he just keeps on plugging away..We are not going to change his mind on this so I think we should just stop feeding his ego and let this thread die.
Interestingly, historical greatswords are NOT two-handed swords at all. They're 'swords of war', which are also referred to as longswords, and they're swords that can be wielded either in one or two hands. These are on occasion referred to as bastard swords ;)
The true two-handed sword was a VERY late development and was chiefly used to fight massed ranks of pikemen. Oh, and what D&D refers to as a longsword is really a single-hand sword.
Finally, it's worth noting that later swords were more useful for thrusting than for slashing since this allowed them to overcome heavier armor.
/historical nerdity
Interestingly, historical greatswords are NOT two-handed swords at all. They're 'swords of war', which are also referred to as longswords, and they're swords that can be wielded either in one or two hands. These are on occasion referred to as bastard swords ;)
The true two-handed sword was a VERY late development and was chiefly used to fight massed ranks of pikemen. Oh, and what D&D refers to as a longsword is really a single-hand sword.Finally, it's worth noting that later swords were more useful for thrusting than for slashing since this allowed them to overcome heavier armor.
/historical nerdity
IIRC, fencing school invented half-blade and pummel techniques to overcome the "damage reduction" of the full plate.
For the two-handed sword, I guess one possible example is the Zweihander used by Landskenchts vs pikemen formation. The weapon is awesome because it was partially a polearm, too.
Interestingly, historical greatswords are NOT two-handed swords at all. They're 'swords of war', which are also referred to as longswords, and they're swords that can be wielded either in one or two hands. These are on occasion referred to as bastard swords ;)
The true two-handed sword was a VERY late development and was chiefly used to fight massed ranks of pikemen. Oh, and what D&D refers to as a longsword is really a single-hand sword.Finally, it's worth noting that later swords were more useful for thrusting than for slashing since this allowed them to overcome heavier armor.
/historical nerdity
IIRC, fencing school invented half-blade and pummel techniques to overcome the "damage reduction" of the full plate.
For the two-handed sword, I guess one possible example is the Zweihander used by Landskenchts vs pikemen formation. The weapon is awesome because it was partially a polearm, too.
Yes, the zweihander is an example of a 'true' two-handed sword. And it's a radically different beast from a greatsword.
And the use of half-swording and other techniques was quite common, but the chief way of overcoming plate armor was by using a more dedicated thrusting sword, which tended to be stiffer and have quite a different cross section from older cutting weapons. A thrusting sword still won't let you punch a hole through plate armor, but it will be much more effective in hitting the weak spots at the joints.
This sword is an example of a bastard sword that is heavily leaned towards the thrust. It's not bad for cutting, but that's not its primary purpose.
I pointed it out recently in the Ultimate Combat suggestion thread.
Imho, should be added some rule for modification of blade, hilt, and similar stuff for Bastard Sword, Longsword and Greatsword. Adding piercing damage, bonus when fighting defensively and similar stuff.
Barring cool historical reference, could rebalance them out, because there arlittle reasons to use those or axes. 18-20/x2 and x4 weapons are just better.
Didn't know the sword linked. I knew daggers like the Misericorde (Misericordia, Mercy in Italian), or the Rondel Dagger.
in 1E, there was no penalty for move and attack. You could move double the distance in a straight line with a charge.
The dart thing was nice until they came out with the dmg limitation on how much str bonus you could add = max dmg of weapon. so, for darts, +3.
The lower HP of foes and much fewer ways to gave dmg bonuses meant the base weapon dmg was far more important then it is in PF. In PF, STYLE and Crit Range are the main weapon qualifiers.
A long sword in 1E could be wielded in two hands for +1 dmg. And it did S or P, as I recall. It's noted correctly. A bastard sword is essentially a larger version of the longsword, beloved of half-ogres.
There was an extreme amount of effort put to towards realism for 1E weapons, 'balance' is an interesting notion from that standpoint. Few people ever bothered to use TH vs Armor tables, but that was another point of balance. Xbows had extreme armor punch.
Longspears/pikes in 1E did 3-18 dmg, too, as I recall, and could also be set against a charge. A heavy lance was 3-9/3-18 dmg. That was an auto-kill on an ogre on the charge, exclusive of str bonuses.
IN PF, the longsword is an inferior weapon to the scimitar in the long term, the reverse in 1E. That d12 base dmg against big things definitely made the sword shine. scimitars were stuck at d8/d8...until Drizzt used them, only druids used scimitars.
===Aelryinth
What just irks me is that IMO Axes and "straight" swords are generally more iconic weapons that picks and scimitars.
here is the thread, in case. There is a link about a proposal regarding crossbows too, in case.
If someone shows me wrong, I'm very happy in this case :)
Hodor! Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor!
:))
Hodor! Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor!
:))
???
GoT?
Shush you!, lest my winter wolf bites your butt *giggles*
Hodor! Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor!
:))
???
GoT?
Do you know any other Hodors?
Do you know any other Hodors?Hodor! Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor!
:))
???
GoT?
I know GoT very partially. Care to elaborate?
Because i repeat myself ;)? You know, I'm getting older...
Someone did. :)I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that those "almighty two handers" in 2e could be outperformed by tiny little darts in the hands of a fighter.
...Seriously, dart fighters were scary.
I did.... I think my character's great-grandchildren still carry the scars from the baddie specialist fighter with a Potion of (Fire? Cloud?) Giant Strength. I laughed when I saw the guy with the crossed bandolier of darts.... then he drank a potion and suddenly I was eating 6 shots at d3 + 13. 84-96 damage. I was an 8th level specialty priest of a warrior god and packing 16 con, and I was still splattered in a single round.
Do you know any other Hodors?Hodor! Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor Hodor!
:))
???
GoT?
I know GoT very partially. Care to elaborate?
Because i repeat myself ;)? You know, I'm getting older...
Hodor! The mentally retarded guy who knows only one word: his own name (Though I think he was named after the one word he would ever say). He's saying his own name over and over.
Hodor! The mentally retarded guy who knows only one word: his own name (Though I think he was named after the one word he would ever say). He's saying his own name over and over.
I know THAT. I asked about the meaning. Nevermind.
Removed some posts and replies - let's stop with the accusations.
As far as the signatures issue goes, I would ask that they not be used.
I know THAT. I asked about the meaning. Nevermind.
Hodor! The mentally retarded guy who knows only one word: his own name (Though I think he was named after the one word he would ever say). He's saying his own name over and over.
I was reminded of Hodor when someone with a puerile name insisted on repeating it over and over.
I was reminded of Hodor when someone with a puerile name insisted on repeating it over and over.I know THAT. I asked about the meaning. Nevermind.
Hodor! The mentally retarded guy who knows only one word: his own name (Though I think he was named after the one word he would ever say). He's saying his own name over and over.
:P sorry
the post was after a thing I was keep repeating.
A case of guilty conscience! :D :D :D
Were talking about the Weapon and not the Fighter class and all the amazing Feats he can take which are two different things.
The Fighter is not the Two Handed sword
The Feats are not the Two Handed sword
You forget that in earlier editions, only selected classes were permitted to wield a THS. So the "feats" were intrinsic in the weapon.
In 3rd ed. any cleric can take a martial weapon prof. and start swinging.
To allow a clear distinction, the focus has shifted (a bit) from the weapon itself to the way you can handle it.
Were talking about the Weapon and not the Fighter class and all the amazing Feats he can take which are two different things.
The Fighter is not the Two Handed sword
The Feats are not the Two Handed swordYou forget that in earlier editions, only selected classes were permitted to wield a THS. So the "feats" were intrinsic in the weapon.
In 3rd ed. any cleric can take a martial weapon prof. and start swinging.
To allow a clear distinction, the focus has shifted (a bit) from the weapon itself to the way you can handle it.
Which is quite right really, the weapon is a tool, it's the man that is dangerous!
In 3rd ed. any cleric can take a martial weapon prof. and start swinging.
To allow a clear distinction, the focus has shifted (a bit) from the weapon itself to the way you can handle it.
A cleric of Gorum doesn't need the silly feat.
That only applied if you actually had a DM that used the weapon speed part of 1st edition rules. During the entire lifetime of 1st edition, among all of the tournaments and campaigns I played not ONE single DM ever used those rules. They didn't use the weapon type vs armor rules either.
Are you kidding me?!? Dagger were the BEST weapons in 2nd ed. Unless you were a noob. They were fast. Fast meant you go first. Moving and getting 7 attacks that do 1d4+22 damage when an ancient red dragon has 88 hp = win. With combat and tactics, you'd have to be an utter moron to use anything other then a dagger as they got to act in the first iniative segment.
We used weapon speed rules in 2ed all the time. Swashbuckler-fighters rocked for that reason -- fencing blades might not hit hard (but you got full str backing them up) but they were faaaaast.
pathfindnders,
in the mists of time, maybe further back than Paizoids even know about there were big weapons that did alot of damage. Take the two handed sword for instance. A great big sword, which I believe is the Greatsword today, that did 3-18 points of damage per hit. What does it do today? About 50% less. How can you kill a dragon with such a thing?
Today I peer back and wonder, what happened? If I'm dreaming up a fighter these days it doesn't seem to include the good ol two-hander anymore. Its become an expensive weapon to avoid.
Why did we have to give up its might?
booger=boyConsidering your "prestige" post I am thinking you skipped from 1st or 2nd edition straight to Pathfinder. That is cool though. What you will find is that the game has changed a lot.
The best way to boost damage is not so much with the weapon itself, but my raising modifiers and your number of attacks, along with multiple dice abilities such as sneak attack.
The kukri(1d4) is a death dealing weapon. You go up against a crit focused build, and you might get stun-locked.no, I've got first. 3rd. Like to look at 2nd edition stuff. Got some 4th. I think it's useful to be acquainted with the different editions so you can compare and contrast stuff. And resist changes if need be. :lol: I'm sure some of the people here are here because 4th was unacceptable to them.
I've long wondered why the Greatsword/Two-handed got toned down. I hope people don't get the idea that I'm anti-3rd/Pathfinder.
booger=boy
'
The great sword didn't get toned down. It go averaged out by dice type and changed. There isn't damage vs size anymore. So the vs small/medium damage went up and the vs large damage went down. Then 1.5 x Str bonus multiplier was added. As feats for two handed weapons enhance the appeal of the weapon. You had options like that in 2E with fighter hand book using combat styles but the 2 handed combat style was the weakest of the 4 styles if I remember correctly.
The weapon inherently does NO damage. It just lays on a rack. It's not until someone swings the weapon that it does damage. Extra strength damage is a feature of the weapon.
If I, as an IT guy who rarely works out, pick up a two-handed sword, I'm barely going to be able to wield it, let alone put enough muscle behind it to do real damage. If a body builder does the same, he's going to get a much more powerful effect.
OTOH, if I stab a person with a knife, I don't think the difference between me and the body builder would be as great (it would still be there, just not as great).
So, in effect, quite a bit of the potency is still in the weapon, it's just mathematically dealt with differently. It now requires an effective Strength to make good use of it.
I must confess, the +50% to strength always struck me as a not-so-hot idea, and here's why:
Say you take a longsword, and you swing it two handed. If you have a strength of 14, you go from +2 to +3 damage. Perfectly reasonable. But if you only have a strength of 10, you get no gain at all, the same if you have a wimpy strength of 8, you go from -1 to -1. Surely you should be able to use the weapon more effectively in both hands and deal more damage? Apparently not. Worse, if your strength drops to 6, your one-handed attack at -2 damage increases to a two-handed penalty of -3!
Below strength 12, I would rule two handed weapons gain an effective +2 to strength rather than +50% to the bonus.
The weapon inherently does NO damage. It just lays on a rack. It's not until someone swings the weapon that it does damage. Extra strength damage is a feature of the weapon.
Swords don't kill people. Cuts do.
The weapon inherently does NO damage. It just lays on a rack. It's not until someone swings the weapon that it does damage. Extra strength damage is a feature of the weapon.Swords don't kill people. Cuts do.
I beg to differ. Cuts don't kill people either. It's the loss of blood, effluvia, and the so-called 'vital organs' that happens after that seems to kill people. Mind you, those organs and blood and stuff all escape with the help of this force called 'gravity', so really, it's gravity that kills people.
Worse, if your strength drops to 6, your one-handed attack at -2 damage increases to a two-handed penalty of -3!This is not accurate; you add 1.5x your Strength bonus when wielded in two hands. A negative number is not a bonus.
Mathematically, it is a negative bonus and the multiplier applies, but even if it doesn't you still are not gaining anything when verisimilitude says that you should.
Mathematically, it is a negative bonus and the multiplier applies, but even if it doesn't you still are not gaining anything when verisimilitude says that you should.Worse, if your strength drops to 6, your one-handed attack at -2 damage increases to a two-handed penalty of -3!This is not accurate; you add 1.5x your Strength bonus when wielded in two hands. A negative number is not a bonus.
In game terms, that's called a penalty.