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=boy
When did a two handed sword deal 3d6 points of damage ? Before 3rd edition it was 1d10.
And also a fighter wielding two handed weapon is one of the biggest damage dealers in the game.
|
You seem to have missed that between having 150% of STR bonus and 3x Power Attack bonus, 2h are among the best weapon choices in Pathfinder.
Another important point - in 3rd generation D&D, weapon dice aren't important. Your damage comes from all the feat/ability/magic item/buff bonuses. One 2h Fighter I saw recently did a 2d6+33 on his greatsword - at that point, the damage dice are an addition to flat bonuses, not the other way round.
|
|
You seem to have missed that between having 150% of STR bonus and 3x Power Attack bonus, 2h are among the best weapon choices in Pathfinder.
Another important point - in 3rd generation D&D, weapon dice aren't important. Your damage comes from all the feat/ability/magic item/buff bonuses. One 2h Fighter I saw recently did a 2d6+33 on his greatsword - at that point, the damage dice are an addition to flat bonuses, not the other way round.
I feel like this isn't so important. You could say the same thing for the dagger. The darned two handers were scary. Now there not so.
booger=boy
OK, let me break this down for you, because it seems like you're firmly stuck in the 1e/2e era.
Fighter 10, Str 22, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Power Attack, +2 weapon, Weapon Training primary in given weapon.
2h sword = 2d6 + 9 (str) + 2 (WSpec) + 9 (Power Attack) + 2 (weapon) + 2 (weapon training) = 2d6 + 24, avg 31
dagger = 1d4 + 6 (str) + 2 (Wspec) + 3 (Power Attack) + 2 (weapon) +2 (weapon training) = 1d4 + 17, avg 18
There, that's the difference between the weapons nowadays.
In first edition the two handed sword did 1d10 vs. small/medium targets and 3d6 vs. large.
It was a completely different basis for HP and damage though too. You didn't get any bonuses from stats until you hit a 15 for most stats. For STR you needed a 16 just to get +1 bonus to damage (no bonus to hit till 17)
You can do a LOT more damage per round now than you ever could in 1st edition. You can't just dismiss training and feats, as part of the change to weapon damage dice (and monster HP) are BECAUSE those items are now in the game and they weren't previously.
It was made weaker only against the large creatures. Against the vast majority of opponents you're likely to face, it was made better.
2-12 is a better damage range than 1-10.
Besides the benefit of using non-Light Weapons with 2 Hands (base STR/Power Attack), big base damage like on Greatswords is especially good because once your weapon damage is at least 1d8, and ideally 1d10/1d12/2d6, you get disproportionate benefits from Enlarge (compare to a 1d6 weapon going to 1d8). Big weapon damage also plays into Vital Strike. Lower-Damage/High Crit weapons CAN ALSO be nice especially at high levels, but that approach doesn`t work against Crit Immunity (or when Fortification kicks in). The game works just fine in this department.
+1 to Sniggervert. 1:1 comparisons to 1st Edition are pretty much pointless.
The whole system changed, and that has much more effect than isolated dmg dice changes.
AoO`s didn`t exist in earlier editions, for one.
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=boy
Considering 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.
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.
In Angband (which is based on old D&D stuff as far as I heard), small speedy weapons like daggers can be much better than big weapons since they can do 5+ attacks a round...
err..I hope that the following question is not too OT but:
Is there any website where I get to know old editions of D&D? Something like the SRD? Old editions are quite hard to find on the market and I want to get a feeling for the evolution of the product
(To be clear about this: bascially I'm asking if WotC or other license owners gave out some of that old stuff or if they made demo rulebooks, I'm not asking about illegal sources)
You seem to have missed that between having 150% of STR bonus and 3x Power Attack bonus, 2h are among the best weapon choices in Pathfinder.
Another important point - in 3rd generation D&D, weapon dice aren't important. Your damage comes from all the feat/ability/magic item/buff bonuses. One 2h Fighter I saw recently did a 2d6+33 on his greatsword - at that point, the damage dice are an addition to flat bonuses, not the other way round.
I feel like this isn't so important. You could say the same thing for the dagger. The darned two handers were scary. Now there not so.
booger=boy
Many people that are good at math have proven it.
That 33 would not be as high if you were correct since the dagger receives lesser modifiers from strength scores and power attack.
I'm going have to think about this one. 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 swordI like the 3-18 vs large opponents. Its a magical number. :lol:
booger=boy
If you like a weapon that deals 3d6 vs large opponents, and don't care about anything other than weapon damage, please just state that, then people won't waste their time trying to explain the differences between the games.
Your first posts included a bit more, because of which people explain to you why the fighter (who you mention) is good with a two-hander (which you miss) and is just as able to kill a dragon (which you claim he isn't) as in earlier editions.
Honestly, I can understand that people have a bit of 3.x nostalgia, when they turn to pathfinder. But 1st ed nostalgia at this point? That borders the limits of absurdity.
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.In Angband (which is based on old D&D stuff as far as I heard), small speedy weapons like daggers can be much better than big weapons since they can do 5+ attacks a round...
err..
I hope that the following question is not too OT but:Is there any website where I get to know old editions of D&D? Something like the SRD? Old editions are quite hard to find on the market and I want to get a feeling for the evolution of the product
(To be clear about this: bascially I'm asking if WotC or other license owners gave out some of that old stuff or if they made demo rulebooks, I'm not asking about illegal sources)
hmm... I think you might be able to find some books on the Amazon for example but they are probably very expensive.
If I remember correctly there was a software that assisted in character creation and had several AD&D books in electronic format. Pretty much all of the essentials. PHB, DMG, Monster MAnual and a few more. You might be able to obtain it somewhere, I am not sure where though. It was named Core Rules or something like that. Published in late 90s.
You seem to have missed that between having 150% of STR bonus and 3x Power Attack bonus, 2h are among the best weapon choices in Pathfinder.
Another important point - in 3rd generation D&D, weapon dice aren't important. Your damage comes from all the feat/ability/magic item/buff bonuses. One 2h Fighter I saw recently did a 2d6+33 on his greatsword - at that point, the damage dice are an addition to flat bonuses, not the other way round.
I feel like this isn't so important. You could say the same thing for the dagger. The darned two handers were scary. Now there not so.
booger=boy
OK, let me break this down for you, because it seems like you're firmly stuck in the 1e/2e era.
Fighter 10, Str 22, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Power Attack, +2 weapon, Weapon Training primary in given weapon.
2h sword = 2d6 + 9 (str) + 2 (WSpec) + 9 (Power Attack) + 2 (weapon) + 2 (weapon training) = 2d6 + 24, avg 31
dagger = 1d4 + 6 (str) + 2 (Wspec) + 3 (Power Attack) + 2 (weapon) +2 (weapon training) = 1d4 + 17, avg 18
I don't care about all the special training bonuses and such. If the weapon was made weaker than it was made weaker. Were talking about the weapon and not the Feats.
booger=boy
So you want the power to come from the weapon instead of the character's abilities?
Also in those days, you didn't add 50% more STR bonus, nor did it critical on 19-20, only on a 20. Also, you didn't easily get to +6 +7 or even +8 STR Bonus. Nor did you have power Attack STRx2 dmg. 4 attacks per round, etc. Imagine a 2H Sword @ 3d6, in the hands of an enemy with a +8 STR bonus and power attack, do you want to face that?
Now, the baddest creature in the game had less than 150HP, and they easily have more than
Also check out OSRIC if you're looking for the old rules in a new package.
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
But it wasn't toned down. What they did was remove "damage vs large creatures" table because it was silly. It applies to all weapons not just greatsword and the damage is actually higher for gs than it was prior - 2d6 vs 1d10.
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
As many people has shown: They didn't get toned down.
The game consist of a much more than weapon damage dice for determining damage..
A 16 strength character in 1E with a great sword either does:
1d10+1 (Average 7) vs medium creatures
3d6+1 (Average 12) vs large creatures
A Pathfinder character with 16 Str does
2d6+4 (average 11) vs all creatures
So that's a significant boost vs medium creatures and only a slight reduction vs large creatures. If you can't see how 1.5x Str for 2 handed weapons helps significantly over time, I'm not sure if there is much more to say.
Are you kidding? The optimal choice in 2ed was a Fighter with a Girdle of Giant Strength who specialized in darts.
You got your full +12 strength bonus damage on each shot, plus the +2 specialization bonus damage. At level 1 you got 4 attacks per round, and went up to 6 by level 13.
Wait until the OP compares HP on a 1E/2E Wyrm Red Dragon and a 3.5/PF one. That's when the fun will start.
Cause I didn't want to wait (And I was bored...):
The 1st edition MM only went to Ancient, and ancient dragons receive the full 8 hit points per hit dice. The biggest red dragons had 11 hit dice, so the biggest ancient red dragon had 88 hit points. (1E monsters had no ability scores, so no Con bonus)
2e did go up to great wyrm, and a great wyrm red had 23 hit dice (And like 1E, 2E monsters were assumed to have a d8 hitdice unless noted.) I can't find anything that mentions how many hit points a dragon had per hit dice, so I assume the average of 4.5, making the great wyrm red dragon have 103 hit points. (2E monsters had no ability scores, so no Con bonus)
In Pathfinder, a great wyrm red has 29d12 hit dice, and a con modifier of +9, so an average of 449.5 hit points. Even a very young red dragon has 85 hit points, just under the amount the biggest, baddest, 1E red dragon had.
I don't think it was 150. The baddest I remember were 400, like the gods. I think the Tarrasque had 400 then. I'm pretty sure you had multiple attacks. There weren't feats. Abilities were capped at 25, or at least I never saw anything above 25.booger=boy
The highest I've found was also 400, and that was a god. But sometimes even the gods had low hit points. Lolth only had 66. (Granted, she could fully heal herself 3 times a day, so you could actually consider her to have 264)
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.
... except it wasn't, it was toned UP. Base damage was increased from 1d10 to 2d6 and damage vs large was removed. Then you got higher stat bonuses, so anyone likely to use a 2-hander got more strength damage, then they got +50% on top - and that's long before you factor in feats.
2-handed sword with 18 Str in 1st Ed:
3d6+2 damage vs large = 13 damage on average.
1d10+2 damage vs anything else = 7.5 damage on average.
Critical hit on 20, if you played critical hits (as I recall they were not core).
Greatsword with 18 Str in 3.x/PF Ed:
2d6+6 damage vs everything = 13 damage on average.
Threaten on a 19-20.
So you can see, in the hands of anyone likely to use it, the greatsword does the same average or more damage, and that's without feats being taken into consideration. Anyone packing a greatsword and taking on a dragon is going to have a fair few feats stacked up to do even more damage.
|
Is there any website where I get to know old editions of D&D? Something like the SRD? Old editions are quite hard to find on the market and I want to get a feeling for the evolution of the product
(To be clear about this: bascially I'm asking if WotC or other license owners gave out some of that old stuff or if they made demo rulebooks, I'm not asking about illegal sources)
I recommend the following retro-clones:
Original Edition: Swords & Wizardry
First Edition: OSRIC
Basic B/X Edition: Labyrinth Lord
Basic EECMI Edition: Dark Dungeons
Unfortunately, there's not really a good free source for Second Edition as of yet.
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.... except it wasn't, it was toned UP. Base damage was increased from 1d10 to 2d6 and damage vs large was removed. Then you got higher stat bonuses, so anyone likely to use a 2-hander got more strength damage, then they got +50% on top - and that's long before you factor in feats.
2-handed sword with 18 Str in 1st Ed:
3d6+2 damage vs large = 13 damage on average.
1d10+2 damage vs anything else = 7.5 damage on average.
Critical hit on 20, if you played critical hits (as I recall they were not core).Greatsword with 18 Str in 3.x/PF Ed:
2d6+6 damage vs everything = 13 damage on average.
Threaten on a 19-20.So you can see, in the hands of anyone likely to use it, the greatsword does the same average or more damage, and that's without feats being taken into consideration. Anyone packing a greatsword and taking on a dragon is going to have a fair few feats stacked up to do even more damage.
I'm not sure if the STR mapping is quite right or if there is a way to do it quite right. Is 3.5/Pathfinder 18 Str mapped onto 18/00 which would give you a +6 to damage in 1rst.
So it would be 3d6 + 6 instead of +2.
booger=boy
Two things:
1) 18/00 strength was gained by gettign 18 strength first (on 3d6 remember), then rolling 00 on percentile dice. How likely is that, exactly? Whereas in Pathfinder, you are more likely to get 18 strength by point buy of 16, then +2 from racial mod.
2) Yes, 18 is +4 damage in Pathfinder with a one-handed weapon; remember you get +50% strength damage with a two handed weapon, pushing it up to +6.
In other words, you are far more likely to get 18 strength in Pathfinder than 18/anything in 1st ed, by the RAW. If you want to compare maximum at 1st level, though, that's cool - for 1st ed, we can use 18/00 for +3 to hit and +6 damage. But for Pathfinder we use 20 (maximum possible), for +5 to hit and +5 damage (with +50% for +7 damage).
So 1st Ed, +3 to hit and 3d6+6 damage = 17 average vs large, +3 to hit and 1d10+6 damage = 11.5 vs small/medium.
PF, +5 to hit and 2d6+7 damage - 14 average - however, that extra +2 to hit gives you more hits, and more hits = more average damage.
You are STILL better off in Pathfinder if you wish to dish out damage, and that is STILL without factoring in feats and abilities like weapon training or Weapon Specialisation, or the greater number of attacks you get in 3.x when compared to 1st ed, or the fact that in PF critical hits are part of core rules and much more likely.
Hmmm...didn't know that...well ok then. Sorry.I think that posting your name at the end of the post is annoying...Hama, its good form to sign off on what your writing. It just ends up being more work for the reader if he has to scroll back up to remember who it is.
booger=boy
Would make sense on longer posts. Totally unnecessary on one or two line posts.