WPharolin..
I generally appreciate your posts but the Power Attack thing makes no sense.
In actual play most times bonuses by flank buffs or class features compensate the penalties and the outcome damage-wise is devastating.
There should be more feats like Power Attack IMHO.
Moreover, analize weapon damage is a GREAT error. Too many things add as a flat bonus. BTW, is the reason for which past level 10 you say goodbye to every non 20/x4 or 18-20/x2 weapon (barring flcatas or weapons specific for something else like trip).
|
WPharolin..
I generally appreciate your posts but the Power Attack thing makes no sense.
In actual play most times bonuses by flank buffs or class features compensate the penalties and the outcome damage-wise is devastating.
There should be more feats like Power Attack IMHO.
Moreover, analize weapon damage is a GREAT error. Too many things add as a flat bonus. BTW, is the reason for which past level 10 you say goodbye to every non 20/x4 or 18-20/x2 weapon (barring flcatas or weapons specific for something else like trip).
And those weapons are going to be martail or exotic.
Which is why people take the feats.
WPharolin..
I generally appreciate your posts but the Power Attack thing makes no sense.
In actual play most times bonuses by flank buffs or class features compensate the penalties and the outcome damage-wise is devastating.
There should be more feats like Power Attack IMHO.
Moreover, analize weapon damage is a GREAT error. Too many things add as a flat bonus. BTW, is the reason for which past level 10 you say goodbye to every non 20/x4 or 18-20/x2 weapon (barring flcatas or weapons specific for something else like trip).
And those weapons are going to be martail or exotic.
Which is why people take the feats.
which weapons? scimitars or scythes are martial. You mean "falcata or specific weapons"?
Kukri and Rapiers was what you originally wanted to ask the difference about.
As to daggers and kukri, the difference is almost exactly a feat.
Specifically Keen.
But even more than Keen the feat, the Kukri with keen is 15-20 vs the dagger with keen maxing out at 18-20.
So...your point was again?
No, my original statement about kukri's and daggers were an off-handed remark that you inflated. I could have just as well said spoons and forks, war hammers and long spears, or short swords and daggers. But so far you have quoted and replied to a statement that didn't have anything to do with kukris OR rapiers. Than you replied to a statement about kurkis and daggers and got one of the weapons wrong. And no. Kukri isn't worth a feat. I included crit ranges in my second formula.
It aint that simple and you know it. The actual character build also comes into play.You get a DPR build and with both weapons and you might have a legit point.
DPR builds can interchange weapons on almost every occasion and still be effective. DPR builds don't matter in the least. In order for a weapon to be worth a feat, the weapon ITSELF has to be worth a feat. The whole point that I was making was that weapons don't even matter as much as your flat bonuses from other crap (something I already stated). Now you are asking me to make a build to add flat bonuses from other crap. Well...no. I'm not going to make a build that only proves me right. That's just silly. So the question becomes what DPR build can't be done with another weapon? (not many) Are there enough of these builds to care?(no) And finally, can those few builds still be done under my proposed system without granting an advantage to non-fighters? (yes).
I don't even have to check your math to know you have no idea what you are talking about. You now get to go the the DPR threads and prove how the formula that is being used there is wrong.
Now you may have meant that it sucks at level 1, but no such provision was made, which made your post into a TL;DR post.
I meant that it sucks from levels 1 through 8. Which are the levels that I was talking about. It is consistently bad as get to higher level (from 1 to 8-10 or so). You CAN offset this. But I still say pathfinder made a very unneeded change with this feat. It was never hard to use and it was never broken. However, I posted it as an aside. It isn't even relevant. If you want to attack my post or disagree with me then fine. But please address my ACTUAL post don't attack the thing labeled "SIDE BAR".
WPharolin..
I generally appreciate your posts but the Power Attack thing makes no sense.
In actual play most times bonuses by flank buffs or class features compensate the penalties and the outcome damage-wise is devastating.
There should be more feats like Power Attack IMHO.
Moreover, analize weapon damage is a GREAT error. Too many things add as a flat bonus. BTW, is the reason for which past level 10 you say goodbye to every non 20/x4 or 18-20/x2 weapon (barring flcatas or weapons specific for something else like trip).
Power attack can be made to not suck in the same way that monks can be made to not suck. The DPR olympic's aren't incorrect. Power attack can be to great effect. IF, and only if, you offset the penalties with buffs, charging, and flanking tactics. But the argument here is that these weapons are deserving of a feat on their own. Which means I can't include those types of builds and still be considered honest. Flat bonuses would make my argument a lie. I only added power attack as an aside. Including power attack wasn't necessary and isn't important to to my argument. So, even if I'm wrong about power attack, my point still stands on solid ground.
The actual game is made of these bonuses. For the same reason I say is useless analyze weapons without consider flat bonuses, growing and growing with leveling.
And again, for the same very reason, (unless UC introduced something at this regard), the iconic Lonsgword and Battle Axe are laughably senseless.
And you don't make PA working. Generally you obtain an acceptable to-hit just with class features and weapon, at least for the first attack.
The actual game is made of these bonuses. For the same reason I say is useless analyze weapons without consider flat bonuses, growing and growing with leveling.
And again, for the same very reason, (unless UC introduced something at this regard), the iconic Lonsgword and Battle Axe are laughably senseless.
The fact that the game has many flat bonuses isn't an excuse for weapon choice not to matter. If you are being asked to take a feat to gain an exotic weapon, than the weapon MUST be worth a feat. Firstly, because you only get a very finite number of feats in your career. Secondly, because DPR builds aren't the basis for judging individual feats (because the DPR ends up becoming superfluous once your damage is in excess of more than half of a CR's population of monsters). Thirdly, because many games don't even get to 10th level. Fourthly, when you take a feat to gain a weapon, you shouldn't have to wait two more levels to gain another feat to make that choice meaningful.
EDIT: I must apologize to you people. I DID actually make a mistake in doing the power attack math (I did the math just before bed so I was tired). However, all of the other math is correct and my point still stands on very solid ground. Power Attack wasn't even relevant to my original point.
EDIT 2: Here is the correct math for reference. Again I apologize.
Level 1
Dagger - AC 10: 5.72 , AC 15: 3.93, and AC 20: 2.14
Greatsword - AC 10: 11.44, AC 15: 7.86, and AC 20: 4.29
Greatsword(pwr atk) - AC 10: 12.37, AC 15: 8.25, and AC 20: 4.12
Level 8
Dagger - AC 15: 10.97, AC 20: 8.66 and AC 25: 5.77
Greatsword - AC 15: 18.81, AC 20: 14.85, and AC 25: 9.90
Greatsword(pwr atk) - AC 15: 25.08, AC 20: 18.48 and AC 25: 11.88
The fact that the game has many flat bonuses isn't an excuse for weapon choice not to matter.
If you are being asked to take a feat to gain an exotic weapon, than the weapon MUST be worth a feat. Firstly, because you only get a very finite number of feats in your career.
Up to this point agree 100%.
Secondly, because DPR builds aren't the basis for judging individual feats (because the DPR ends up becoming superfluous once your damage is in excess of more than half of a CR's population of monsters).
For me DPR is a tool for comparison between weapons and attacks, not for PC effectiveness. See Batman Wizard :P
Thirdly, because many games don't even get to 10th level.
Not sure. And mine go after 20, so i want the game diverse and interesting up to level 20, otherwise the seller sold me a defective product. So if comes out that swords and axes are not worthy after level 10, ther is a problem.
Fourthly, when you take a feat to gain a weapon, you shouldn't have to wait two more levels to gain another feat to make that choice meaningful.
Agree again. Remember that i was criticizing the method and the critique to Power Attack. Not the fact that the weapon itself, and the weapon damage dice in particular
should not matter more.
For me DPR is a tool for comparison between weapons and attacks, not for PC effectiveness. See Batman Wizard :P
That's fine. As speculation its an interesting excercise but how often do people really play those builds? I suspect there are some but relatively few.
Not sure. And mine go after 20, so i want the game diverse and interesting up to level 20, otherwise the seller sold me a defective product. So if comes out that swords and axes are not worthy after level 10, ther is a problem.
You're absolutely right. The game should be playable through all the levels that it presents itself with. My games tend to go to whatever level is appropriate for the setting. Sometimes that's a low number and sometimes its a high number. But many people report only playing to up to 10th level or even lower than that. The individual components of your character need to stand on their own because you might want to play a game that caps at level 3. Your level 3 characters feats shouldn't be contingent upon something that he could only get if he were level 5.
Agree again. Remember that i was criticizing the method and the critique to Power Attack. Not the fact that the weapon itself, and the weapon damage dice in particular should not matter more.
Well, I have already apologized for my mistakes with power attack so everybody should be happy now :)
Addendum on the DPR: as an example, in game I had the suspicion Falcata was quite too god for my standards (2H use - perfectly fine with the 1H use) so I asked DPR. But is like an experiment: you have several data and draw a conclusion. DPR IS PART OF THE DATA IS NOT THE CONCLUSION.
since the falcata is allegedly the only exotic weapon worth burning a feat on. i propose that instead of nerfing or banning the falcata, that we beef up the power of all the other exotic weapons to compensate.
since the falcata is allegedly the only exotic weapon worth burning a feat on. i propose that instead of nerfing or banning the falcata, that we beef up the power of all the other exotic weapons to compensate.
Again. This.
*deep breath*
There is a difference between a weapon worthy of a feat and a no-brainer. Make it 1H like the rapier.
And yes, IMHO, there are weapons which are worthy at best of a racial ability (dwarven waraxe) or a trait (I would create one for bastard swords). But reduce all the weapons used to 2-4 at max is not the answer.
I agree EWP has problems.
|
|
since the falcata is allegedly the only exotic weapon worth burning a feat on. i propose that instead of nerfing or banning the falcata, that we beef up the power of all the other exotic weapons to compensate.Again. This.
*deep breath*
There is a difference between a weapon worthy of a feat and a no-brainer. Make it 1H like the rapier.
And yes, IMHO, there are weapons which are worthy at best of a racial ability (dwarven waraxe) or a trait (I would create one for bastard swords). But reduce all the weapons used to 2-4 at max is not the answer.
I agree EWP has problems.
We are acting like martial weapon proficiency isn't a feat, or that martial weapon proficiency is a pre-requisite for exotic.
If you take exotic, you are taking it to focus on a single weapon, just as you would take a martial weapon proficiency feat if you were focusing on a single martial weapon. You aren't likely taking both, unless you are a class that gets martial weapons automatically.
This is because Martial and Exotic weapons are significantly better than simple weapons. The math (when calculated correctly) bears this out.
A 18/20 crit, or a X4 crit is a significant advantage, as are the special features of various martial and exotic weapons.
Exotic can be slightly better than martial, so the require a +1 BaB before you take them, as an advantage to full martial classes.
They are not the same as simple weapons. Martial classes get a significant advantage having access to them. If you don't believe martial and exotic weapons are worthy of a feat, don't use them in your next combat build.
Exactly.
The fact that they are so commonly used shows that people feel they are worthy of selecting as a feat.
|
|
since the falcata is allegedly the only exotic weapon worth burning a feat on. i propose that instead of nerfing or banning the falcata, that we beef up the power of all the other exotic weapons to compensate.
Relative to simple weapons, most exotic weapons are worth burning a feat on.
Only the martial classes get martial weapon proficiency, and nothing in the rules says you have to pick a martial weapon when choosing between the two.
since the falcata is allegedly the only exotic weapon worth burning a feat on. i propose that instead of nerfing or banning the falcata, that we beef up the power of all the other exotic weapons to compensate.
Falcata vs Greatsword: both wielded 2-handed and power attacking
level 8 (22 Str, +2 wpn)
Falcata - AC 15: 24.51, AC 20: 18.06 , and AC 25: 11.61
Greatsword - AC 15: 25.08, AC 20: 18.48 and AC 25: 11.88
Level 20 (36 str, +5 wpn)
Falcata - AC 35: 42.66, AC 40: 30.81, and AC 45: 18.96
Greatsword - AC 35: 41.58, AC 40: 30.02, and AC 45: 18.48
As you can see the x3 crit multiplier only begins to surpass the greatsword at the point when the flat bonuses become large enough to create massive spikes of damage. Your average though is still isn't meaningfully higher. Falcatas are nice but they aren't worth a feat.
|
|
since the falcata is allegedly the only exotic weapon worth burning a feat on. i propose that instead of nerfing or banning the falcata, that we beef up the power of all the other exotic weapons to compensate.Falcata vs Greatsword: both wielded 2-handed and power attacking
level 8 (22 Str, +2 wpn)
Falcata - AC 15: 24.51, AC 20: 18.06 , and AC 25: 11.61
Greatsword - AC 15: 25.08, AC 20: 18.48 and AC 25: 11.88Level 20 (36 str, +5 wpn)
Falcata - AC 35: 42.66, AC 40: 30.81, and AC 45: 18.96
Greatsword - AC 35: 41.58, AC 40: 30.02, and AC 45: 18.48As you can see the x3 crit multiplier only begins to surpass the greatsword at the point when the flat bonuses become large enough to create massive spikes of damage. Your average though is still meaningfully higher. Falcatas are nice but they aren't worth a feat.
Both the greatsword and the falcata require the same amount of feats.
One.
Both the greatsword and the falcata require the same amount of feats.One.
Except that my damage was based on a fighter. Seriously you need to start reading my posts. Three times now you have replied to something without actually knowing what I was saying. Fighters who burn feats on falcatas are hobos.
|
|
Except that my damage was based on a fighter. Seriously you need to start reading my posts. Three times now you have replied to something without actually knowing what I was saying. Fighters who burn feats on falcatas are hobos.
Both the greatsword and the falcata require the same amount of feats.One.
It's hard to keep track of all the goalposts in play.
First it was about the +1 requirement being unfair to your two weapon fighting wizard with 3.5 exotic weapons, then rapiers were just as good as kukri...which makes sense since they are both martial weapons...and now you are talking about fighters, who have the +1 BaB at first level and so don't have to worry about the +1 requirement.
So I ask again, do you have a point or are you just planning to keep moving the goalposts around until you are able to score a point or two?
He was comparing the dagger to the kukri to the scimitar, and nothing their lack of meaningful differences. In fact, there are really only two meaningful differences in the entire game. Light weapon/finesse weapon, or 2 handed weapon. Everything else is dust and sound.
It's hard to keep track of all the goalposts in play.First it was about the +1 requirement being unfair to your two weapon fighting wizard with 3.5 exotic weapons, then rapiers were just as good as kukri...which makes sense since they are both martial weapons...and now you are talking about fighters, who have the +1 BaB at first level and so don't have to worry about the +1 requirement.
So I ask again, do you have a point or are you just planning to keep moving the goalposts around until you are able to score a point or two?
Well allow me to reiterate the conversation so you won't be lost anymore. Its actually quite easy to do when you pay attention.
My very first point was that a feat or even a skill point was too much to ask for exotic weapon proficiency. But I said if it HAD to be a feat that the +1 BAB prereq was meaningless. Please note that I never set a goal or even offered up a solution until later so no goal posts existed.
You had two points to counter my argument the first was that it 'made sense' for fighter types to have quicker access to exotic weapons (fair enough but I disagree). And to back up your argument you told me what the rules were as if I didn't already know. Your second point was a strawman about our side wanting everything at first level.
Later I made a proposal to fix said problem. You countered by repeated both of your first points
Next I made an off handed remark about kukri's and rapiers.
Then in a later post, entirely unrelated in any way to my previous remarks and having absolutely nothing to do with either rapier's or kukri's I mentioned being insulted by +5 to 10% bonuses. For some reason you quoted this unrelated response (which was addressed to someone else I might add) and used it to to go on and on about kukris and rapiers as if I cared. oh and then you said something about kukris being exotic weapons. Whatever.
Then later I made a post that had a simple formula demonstrating that DAGGERS and KUKRIS were not significantly different. You countered by saying that daggers are martial...yeah.
Next someone called me out on my simplistic formula because it didn't have enough room for variables. He was right, so a made a post with a much more complex series of formulas that did account for those variables. During this post I very clearly stated that I was using a fighter in all my formulas. You countered by talking about the irrelevant point in my side bar.
Next I responded to someone else's post about falcatas and demonstrated that they were not worth a feat (again not addressed to you). You responded by saying that fighters don't have greatsword proficiency.
The reason you think there are moving goal posts is because you don't bother to thoroughly read before you begin telling people that they are wrong. You have demonstrated in this thread that you will resort to strawman arguments, non-sequiturs, and one instance of an ad-hominem attack (accusing me of being a troll). You have made the same points over and over and have misunderstood many of the arguments that both myself and others were making.
It's hard to keep track of all the goalposts in play.First it was about the +1 requirement being unfair to your two weapon fighting wizard with 3.5 exotic weapons, then rapiers were just as good as kukri...which makes sense since they are both martial weapons...and now you are talking about fighters, who have the +1 BaB at first level and so don't have to worry about the +1 requirement.
So I ask again, do you have a point or are you just planning to keep moving the goalposts around until you are able to score a point or two?
Well allow me to reiterate the conversation so you won't be lost anymore. Its actually quite easy to do when you pay attention.
My very first point was that a feat or even a skill point was too much to ask for exotic weapon proficiency. But I said if it HAD to be a feat that the +1 BAB prereq was meaningless. Please note that I never set a goal or even offered up a solution until later so no goal posts existed.
You had two points to counter my argument the first was that it 'made sense' for fighter types to have quicker access to exotic weapons (fair enough but I disagree). And to back up your argument you told me what the rules were as if I didn't already know. Your second point was a strawman about our side wanting everything at first level.
Later I made a proposal to fix said problem. You countered by repeated both of your first points
Next I made an off handed remark about kukri's and rapiers.
Then in a later post, entirely unrelated in any way to my previous remarks and having absolutely nothing to do with either rapier's or kukri's I mentioned being insulted by +5 to 10% bonuses. For some reason you quoted this unrelated response (which was addressed to someone else I might add) and used it to to go on and on about kukris and rapiers as if I cared. oh and then you said something about kukris being exotic weapons. Whatever.
Then later I made a post that had a simple formula demonstrating that DAGGERS and KUKRIS were not significantly different. You countered by saying that daggers are martial...yeah.
Next someone called me out on my simplistic formula because it didn't have enough room for variables. He was right, so a made a post with a much more complex series of formulas that did account for those variables. During this post I very clearly stated that I was using a fighter in all my formulas. You countered by talking about the irrelevant point in my side bar.
Next I responded to someone else's post about falcatas and demonstrated that they were not worth a feat (again not addressed to you). You responded by saying that fighters don't have greatsword proficiency.
The reason you think there are moving goal posts is because you don't bother to thoroughly read before you begin telling people that they are wrong. You have demonstrated in this thread that you will resort to strawman arguments, non-sequiturs, and one instance of an ad-hominem attack (accusing me of being a troll). You have made the same points over and over and have misunderstood many of the arguments that both myself and others were making. Well, I'm done holding your hand.
In fact, there are really only two meaningful differences in the entire game. Light weapon/finesse weapon, or 2 handed weapon. Everything else is dust and sound.
+1
|
|
He was comparing the dagger to the kukri to the scimitar, and nothing their lack of meaningful differences. In fact, there are really only two meaningful differences in the entire game. Light weapon/finesse weapon, or 2 handed weapon. Everything else is dust and sound.
Great, then I have a stable target to smash to bits.
Dagger damage with a twf build vs Kukri. Let's go.
Both do 1d4 plus strength, both are light.
But one crits on 19/20 and one crits on 18/20.
Let's go with his 8th level character, 22 strength, 2 plus two weapons.
And let's look at CR 8 bestiary averages, with would be AC 21
So BaB (8) + 6 for strength will mean you have a +14 to attack, hitting on 7 or above (65% hit).
You are TWF so you should have a -2 to attack, so now you are hitting on a 9 or above (55% hit), but you get more attacks. And you should have improved TWF as well at this point, so now you have four attacks, two hit on 9 or above and two at +14 or above.
So we have a dagger, it crits on a 19 or 20, so 10% of the time you get a chance to crit.
The Kukri crits on 18-20, so 15% of the time you get a chance to crit.
Now lets add Keen. The Dagger crits 17-20, or 20% of the time. Pretty nice.
The Kukri on the other hand, now crits on 15-20, or 30% of the time.
But let's look deeper.
The Kukri is now going to trigger a crit on almost half of successful attacks.
9-14 is not a crit. 15-20 is a crit.
It will trigger a crit on all but one offhand attack.
And you will be attacking 4 times in a round.
This is before you start adding in critical feats and such. This is just when you get to double your damage on that attack.
The dagger meanwhile is going to trigger a crit significantly less often.
Daggers are great. I think they are the best simple weapon in the game, and if you aren't doing a crit build, they can be in some ways better then kukri, since you can throw them and they have two damage types.
But if you have a crit build, it's not even a question that you take the kukri if you already don't have martial weapon proficiency.
If you don't think a 10% increase to crit chance is worth a feat, go protest the "improved critical" feat.
Now lets add Keen. The Dagger crits 17-20, or 20% of the time. Pretty nice.
When I take a feat to gain a weapon that weapon has to be worth a feat by itself. You have just ruined your own point and again failed to understand either Ashiels points or mine. Weapons should not be contingent upon other feats or weapon properties. IF a weapon requires a feat than the only feat you should need to make that weapon worthwhile is the feat that granted you proficiency in its use. But other feats and magic properties are supplemental (and should also give you an immediate benefit). The weapon must still have intrinsic value in order to be worth a feat in the first place.
But let's look deeper.
|
|
When I take a feat to gain a weapon that weapon has to be worth a feat by itself. You have just ruined your own point and again failed to understand either Ashiels points or mine. Weapons should not be contingent upon other feats or weapon properties. IF a weapon requires a feat than the only feat should need to make use of the weapon is the feat that granted you proficiency. But other feats and magic properties are supplemental (and should also give you an immediate benefit). The weapon must still have intrinsic value in order to be worth a feat in the first place.
I am not sure where to even start with this.
You are trying to argue if feat is dependent on how it interacts with other things in the game, isn't a viable feat.
Every build is about how things interact with each other a two weapon fighter isn't going to get as much out of power attack as a two handed fighter, and a two handed fighter isn't likely to take two weapon defense or double slice.
If you are doing a build to take advantage of crits, and a weapon has the potential to crit 10% more often than another weapon, it is worth the feat to take it.
Martial and exotic weapons are better than simple weapons. That is why it costs a feat to use them.
You are trying to argue if feat is dependent on how it interacts with other things in the game, isn't a viable feat.Every build is about how things interact with each other a two weapon fighter isn't going to get as much out of power attack as a two handed fighter, and a two handed fighter isn't likely to take two weapon defense or double slice.
No. Two weapon fighting is a good feat. It doesn't require greater two weapon fighting to be good. It doesn't require you to get improved two weapon fighting in order to notice a difference in your characters ability. If you later gain Improved two weapon fighting it supplements your original feat, but it isn't necessary.
The problem is that weapons are not worth a feat on their own. It is only through additional bonuses that they can be made to be good. Which of course I've already stated.
If you are doing a build to take advantage of crits, and a weapon has the potential to crit 10% more often than another weapon, it is worth the feat to take it.
No it isn't. Not without referencing other feats and abilities outside of the weapon itself. A weapons usefulness should not be precluded because you don't have some other supplement.
Martial and exotic weapons are better than simple weapons. That is why it costs a feat to use them.
You have not shown that to be the case.
I'd almost buy the argument if it went Simple Proficiency->Martial Proficiency->Exotic Proficiency, but as it is it is the same feat tax for a Martial Weapon Proficiency as it is for an Exotic Weapon Proficiency (1 feat for 1 weapon), which if Exotics are supposed to be better is pretty meaningless. WPharolin has already noted that the Greatsword is superior to every exotic weapon in the core rulebook (the heavy flail likewise is strait-up superior to the spiked chain in terms of both damage and abilities).
Likewise, the base attack bonus argument is fundamentally flawed (as noted before) because there are classes that have less than a +1 BAB that have exotic proficiencies (bard, rogue, monk), as well as creatures that have a +1 BAB that aren't proficient in martial weapons at all.
However, if you are going to be expending a feat to gain the ability to use a weapon, it should be clearly superior to other weapons of its kind, and be superior enough to warrant a feat. 9/10 times, exotic weapons do not meet this criteria, or come close to it. The falcata is probably the best exotic weapon out right now, and might be legitimate (the swordbreaker dagger is also very good for someone emphasizing disarming, due to the ability to stack bonuses).
However, there's no logical reason that it should require Fighter-level attack modifiers with weapons to use a Kama. Likewise, there is no balance issues with stuff like rogues, clerics, and sorcerers expending a feat for what amounts to a flavor difference (because the wizard will never rival the fighter in terms of strait combat, and neither will the cleric due to choice of weapon).
weekly william practically allowed open access to unmodified 3.5 splatbooks if there wasn't already an official update by paizo publishing.
all you had to do was answer a 5 page packet of questions, write a backstory, create a miniature family tree, and write a small list of connected NPCs, consisting of friends, foes, rivals and so on.
traits were not an immediately allowed thing but he would allow some of them if the reason was included in the backstory
and he hates to use errata. he tries to make sure everybody has first printing books if it is possible.
he also allows a limited list custom items if you follow the formula. for example, reslotted items that have the same effect as another item but in a different slot. or spell effects with similar effects with slight modifications, like a special fireball that deals force damage.
his caveat was that anything the players can use, the DM himself can use as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be better if martial weapon proficiency gave you a fighter weapon group (as per weapon training). That way, one feat will get you a small group of martial weapons. Another feat would get you a single exotic weapon.
Then you can justify making exotic weapons better than martial, and martial better than simple.
It would be better if martial weapon proficiency gave you a fighter weapon group (as per weapon training). That way, one feat will get you a small group of martial weapons. Another feat would get you a single exotic weapon.
Then you can justify making exotic weapons better than martial, and martial better than simple.
In my home games, simple weapon proficiency (feat) grants all simple weapons. Martial weapon proficiency (feat) grants all martial, with all simple being a prerequisite. Exotic Weapon Proficiency is for 1 weapon, and the weapon is going to be worth it.
|
|
In my home games, simple weapon proficiency (feat) grants all simple weapons. Martial weapon proficiency (feat) grants all martial, with all simple being a prerequisite. Exotic Weapon Proficiency is for 1 weapon, and the weapon is going to be worth it.It would be better if martial weapon proficiency gave you a fighter weapon group (as per weapon training). That way, one feat will get you a small group of martial weapons. Another feat would get you a single exotic weapon.
Then you can justify making exotic weapons better than martial, and martial better than simple.
One day I would love to catalog all of the loopholes you have added to your your home game so that you don't actually have to deal with "rules".
I imagine you at a soccer game yelling to the ref that is it "cruel" you can't use your hands. But back to the horribly thread-jacked topic at hand.
Giving all of the martial weapons as a single feat instantly makes one of the primary advantages of martial classes moot. Getting proficiency will all martial weapons is one of the primary reasons anyone would take a level dip in a martial class.
Exotic weapon proficiency isn't a feat that requires you to have martial or even simple weapon proficiency. It just requires you have +1 BaB.
Exotic and Martial weapons are better than simple weapons. And even simple weapons are a feat, unless you have it as a class feature.
Since WPharolin is trying to move the goalposts...again, I'd like to come back to the fundimental question.
Is it worth a feat to take either martial or exotic weapon proficiency if you are creating a character made to engage in combat?
If you don't think so, post a build with out it and I'll counter your build with a similar one that has it, swapping out a feat, and we'll see.
|
|
some other supplement.
You have not shown that to be the case.
Martial and exotic weapons are better than simple weapons. That is why it costs a feat to use them.
I clicked on your profile and noticed your race is troll.
If you are holding to the argument that simple weapons are just as good as martial or exotic weapons, despite the fact your own math showed they aren't...
Have a nice day, sir.
since the falcata is allegedly the only exotic weapon worth burning a feat on. i propose that instead of nerfing or banning the falcata, that we beef up the power of all the other exotic weapons to compensate.Falcata vs Greatsword: both wielded 2-handed and power attacking
level 8 (22 Str, +2 wpn)
Falcata - AC 15: 24.51, AC 20: 18.06 , and AC 25: 11.61
Greatsword - AC 15: 25.08, AC 20: 18.48 and AC 25: 11.88Level 20 (36 str, +5 wpn)
Falcata - AC 35: 42.66, AC 40: 30.81, and AC 45: 18.96
Greatsword - AC 35: 41.58, AC 40: 30.02, and AC 45: 18.48As you can see the x3 crit multiplier only begins to surpass the greatsword at the point when the flat bonuses become large enough to create massive spikes of damage. Your average though is still isn't meaningfully higher. Falcatas are nice but they aren't worth a feat.
Do you consider how smites, challenges, weapon specialization stack up and add up with a x3 multiplier combined with a 19-20 (17-20 at high level) threat?
Because the number in the other thread were different. The more you go up with level, the more you have a chance to add flattbonuses, which on their turn create big bursts of damage (x3) with a double threat.
|
|
since the falcata is allegedly the only exotic weapon worth burning a feat on. i propose that instead of nerfing or banning the falcata, that we beef up the power of all the other exotic weapons to compensate.Falcata vs Greatsword: both wielded 2-handed and power attacking
level 8 (22 Str, +2 wpn)
Falcata - AC 15: 24.51, AC 20: 18.06 , and AC 25: 11.61
Greatsword - AC 15: 25.08, AC 20: 18.48 and AC 25: 11.88Level 20 (36 str, +5 wpn)
Falcata - AC 35: 42.66, AC 40: 30.81, and AC 45: 18.96
Greatsword - AC 35: 41.58, AC 40: 30.02, and AC 45: 18.48As you can see the x3 crit multiplier only begins to surpass the greatsword at the point when the flat bonuses become large enough to create massive spikes of damage. Your average though is still isn't meaningfully higher. Falcatas are nice but they aren't worth a feat.
Do you consider how smites, challenges, weapon specialization stack up and add up with a x3 multiplier combined with a 19-20 (17-20 at high level) threat?
Because the number in the other thread were different. The more you go up with level, the more you have a chance to add flattbonuses, which on their turn create big bursts of damage (x3) with a double threat.
He said
"A weapons usefulness should not be precluded because you don't have some other supplement."
So no he doesn't.
Again, what happens in the actual game instead?
I always understood the game to work in such a matter that you combo'd things such as class abilities, feats, and so on, not try to make things work in a vacuum.
It seems WP is playing a completely different game than most of us do, and therefore we don't have much to discuss.
|
|
I always understood the game to work in such a matter that you combo'd things such as class abilities, feats, and so on, not try to make things work in a vacuum.
It seems WP is playing a completely different game than most of us do, and therefore we don't have much to discuss.
It is always nice when you and I agree :)
One day I would love to catalog all of the loopholes you have added to your your home game so that you don't actually have to deal with "rules".
You don't have to. When I change the way something works in the game (see "house rule") when I'm running it, I give players the knowledge of the change up front and if there is a new change I am considering then I discuss it with the group and get their feedback as well.
I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by saying stuff like this. I'm not arguing my house rules are RAW (which you continually accuse me of and hound me just because we disagree on the RAW for Diplomacy and you can't let that go for some reason), and never do. I never said that the EWP didn't have a +1 BAB. I've been discussing why it SHOULDN'T.
Notice that I didn't say "Hey in Core Pathfinder you can just do this thing right here because that's what I do", I say "in my home games I have this change". That's called sharing ideas. It's what people do on discussion boards. That's pretty much the whole point, rather than constantly trying to bait and harass people because they don't agree with your interpretations of something.
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Now begone, lest I gather up my fire and acid to overcome thine regeneration.
I imagine you at a soccer game yelling to the ref that is it "cruel" you can't use your hands. But back to the horribly thread-jacked topic at hand.
If you've joined a soccer league then you play by their rules. If you're playing a variation of soccer in your back yard and have made a variation of soccer, then you might change it. Just as there are variations of games like Chess, Checkers, Magic the Gathering, Scrabble, Monopoly, or any other game.
I R Not @ w0ld CuP sokkor pl@yah, d00d. Dost ya getteth it yaet?
Giving all of the martial weapons as a single feat instantly makes one of the primary advantages of martial classes moot. Getting proficiency will all martial weapons is one of the primary reasons anyone would take a level dip in a martial class.
Might be. I can't recall the last time I've seen someone dip just for proficiency. A quick bonus feat, +2 fortitude, hit points, and a few new class skills, sure. Heck, I've seen people dip 2 levels of Ranger for the +3 Fort, +3 Ref, Track, Weapon Style, access to ranger spells via spell-trigger items, the +12 skill points and class skills (the d10 HD isn't bad either). I've seen people dip barbarian for Rage and Fast Movement. I've seen people dip Paladin 2 for Smite, Detect Evil, Divine Grace, +3 Fort, +3 Will, access to Paladin spells via spell-trigger items, and so forth.
Anyone who actually has a comprehension of this game knows there is often little meaningful difference between most simple and martial weapons, and virtually no benefit for most exotic weapons. The quarterstaff is stronger than most martial weapons in terms of a Fighter-specific weapon, and not only is it simple but it's free. Likewise a Longspear is 1d8/x3 + brace and reach, for an average of -1 damage compared to a Glaive (1d10/x3, reach) and can be wielded competently by almost everyone. At 20th level, a Fighter isn't going to care if it's a glaive or a longspear as long as he has Weapon Training +7 (+5 class, +2 gloves) and full specialization, +15 damage from strength, +5 from weapon enhancements, and +18 from Power Attack.
Long story short, the 1d8 vs 1d10 is meaningless. Heck, the Longspear is even equal to the Glaive if you consider the Brace quality to be worth an average of 1 point of damage. Yet the Longspear is a simple weapon usable by almost everyone (including rogues and sorcerers) while the Glaive is supposedly this awesome class feature worth multiclassing for.
|
|
One day I would love to catalog all of the loopholes you have added to your your home game so that you don't actually have to deal with "rules".You don't have to. When I change the way something works in the game (see "house rule") when I'm running it, I give players the knowledge of the change up front and if there is a new change I am considering then I discuss it with the group and get their feedback as well.
I don't care what you house rule for your house game. I don't play at your house.
What I do care about is when you try to say either a) Your house rules are "the" rules or B) Your house rule should be "the" rules.
Because I don't like your house rules. Which is why I am glad the Devs haven't used any of them.
So if you don't want criticism of your house rules, or for people to point out that your house rules are in direct conflict with "the" rules, don't post them on the forums.
Otherwise, expect people to continue to point out the myriad of flaws in your game vs the one we are all paying money to play.
Have a lovely day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care what you house rule for your house game. I don't play at your house.
What I do care about is when you try to say either a) Your house rules are "the" rules or B) Your house rule should be "the" rules.
Because I don't like your house rules. Which is why I am glad the Devs haven't used any of them.
So if you don't want criticism of your house rules, or for people to point out that your house rules are in direct conflict with "the" rules, don't post them on the forums.
Otherwise, expect people to continue to point out the myriad of flaws in your game vs the one we are all paying money to play.
Have a lovely day.
Why are you playing Pathfinder? Pathfinder is a heavily house-ruled reincarnation of 3.x. There are a large variety of rules in Pathfinder that came about because they were somebody else's house rules. Same with previous editions of D&D. Someone decided something worked better. Wanna know why Weapon Finesse doesn't have a +1 BAB requirement anymore? Because someone said it was a good idea for it not to have it, because it didn't add anything to play; but I'm sure there was someone that whined and moaned that now there was no reason for rogues to start off at 1st level Fighters instead. Oh the horror.
In fact, why are you here starting problems by basically telling everyone "STFU NOOB, GTFO, WE HAZ RULEZ" who are sharing ideas, experiences, and thoughts as to how they can tweak or improve their games, or give the Devs ideas for future Paizo products?
|
|
\
Why are you playing Pathfinder? Pathfinder is a heavily house-ruled reincarnation of 3.x. There are a large variety of rules in Pathfinder that came about because they were somebody else's house rules. Same with previous editions of D&D. Someone decided something worked better. Wanna know why Weapon Finesse doesn't have a +1 BAB requirement anymore? Because someone said it was a good idea for it not to have it, because it didn't add anything to play; but I'm sure there was someone that whined and moaned that now there was no reason for rogues to start off at 1st level Fighters instead. Oh the horror.
In fact, why are you here starting problems by basically telling everyone "STFU NOOB, GTFO, WE HAZ RULEZ" who are sharing ideas, experiences, and thoughts as to how they can tweak or improve their games, or give the Devs ideas for future Paizo products?
No, you missed the point.
I think that the rule for weapon proficiency is great the way it is.
I don't think that simple weapons are as good as martial or exotic weapons.
And based on the DPR Olympics, Math doesn't think that simple weapons are as good as martial weapons.
Some people, you in particular, are constantly asking for rules to be revised in the players favor and complaining when rules restrict you from doing what you want to do with every build you want, at the level you want to do it.
Go back to the original post of this thread. You will find that in one sense it has nothing to do with anything you have posted in this thread, but in another sense it has everything to do with it.
You are exactly the kind of person I was thinking of when thanking the Devs for making clarifications in the game. Because in every situation you seem to complain about what you "can't" have or "can't" do, not seeming to realize the challenge of restrictions is exactly what makes the game a game rather than a thought experiment.
Much like the person who can't understand why people just don't pick up the ball when watching a soccer game, you don't seem to understand that the limitations of the game, are themselves, the game.
If you want to be able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want, write a fantasy novel.
If you want to play a game, then you have to understand that the rules are put there for a reason.
In this case, the reason is that simple weapons are not as good as martial weapons, or exotic weapons. Therefore people who want to use better weapons that do more damage/trigger criticals/have special abilities, will have to make a cost/benefit analysis and decide if they want to spend the feat to get the thing.
And since most builds that are combat oriented seem to use martial weapons...I'm guessing most people see that simple weapons are not as good as martial weapons.
Hell, based on how much you want to be able to access them for free, you seem to understand they have more value.
However in your game you never seem to want to have to deal with the cost benefit equation, or the fact you can't be all things to all people. I could perhaps psychoanalyze this style of play as reflective of someone who wants to be powerful in an imaginary world to compensate, but I want to leave on a more positive note.
If you are taking the position that simple weapons are just as good as martial weapons, make a combat build without the feat and I'll make a build with the feat, and we'll see which one people want to play.
