| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally believe many of the aforementioned weapons were powerful for their time, compared to others of their time. The sling, the kukri, the roman shortsword, all were great weapons of the time.
But none of them would still compare with the knightly weaponry. Military picks, poleaxes, cavalry mace, lance and longsword became the superior medieval weaponry for a reason.
One has to take that into account if you wish to make the weapon more powerful.
"Quarterstaff = long walking stick.
Bo staff = fighting staff"
Oh, please. ((Edit - I think I initially misread part of your post)) To say the user's skill should be reflected in the base weapon stats is like saying there should be separate stats for a dagger worn by a farmer and an assassin. There is already a term for weapons made better than the norm - the masterwork quality. If you want to go the other direction, a really crude long stick would be an improvised weapon. From then on it's not about the stick, but what the user can do with it. For that matter, the concept of a skilled warrior using a "peasant" weapon for various reasons is certainly a valid option for characters, and not one they need to blow an exotic proficiency feat on.
The difference between the two, as per the PF system, is almost non-existent. The bo staff is described as almost identical to a quarterstaff anyway. I don't see how this "slightly" justifies it being made into an exotic weapon, or significantly different stats. Otherwise we are just cluttering the system with minute differences. The "variant eastern weapons and other assorted BS" part of the UC book really wasn't necessary.
Back to the original point:
- slings could use a minor boost, or at least have the option for a rapid reload feat
- tridents or similar spears should have x3 critical or 19-20 threat range to have a piercing 1d8 one-handed martial weapon on par with the longsword/battleaxe. I think we can eliminate their throwing option, though - I don't see how tridents are inherently easier to throw than, say, light maces or hand axes.
- most exotic weapons right now aren't worth spending a trait on, much less a feat; they should be buffed or folded back into the simple/martial weapon they are most similar to. Apart from fluff reasons, is there any reason to take, say, a butterfly knife?
In a suitibly simulationist game, it would be possible to make the differentiation between said Shepard knife and said assassins dagger, taking into account how it is uses to slash or to stab, weight, surface area of the stabbing point, hardness of the metal, the variaty of the guard ect.
As it stands, I can make that differentiation in pathfinder too, all be it is broad strokes. The shepard's knife, designed as a tool for cutting twine, preparing food, ect. might be a improvided weapon (small dagger), while the assassin's dagger is a poisoned masterwork dagger.
The inclusions of multiple versions of the staff weapons, means that I can make encounters that range from beggars with sticks(Improve clubs or improve quarterstaffs) through to Shepard worshipers of Haita with masterwork Bo and their levels in monk.
Effectively I can use a bo, if the staff weapon has been fire hardened, and a staff if it hasn't.
The exotic weapon prof, in this case is effectively "staff defense training", and I see no reason why bo shouldn't be treated by as a staff, if you lack exotic weapon prof.
I personally believe many of the aforementioned weapons were powerful for their time, compared to others of their time. The sling, the kukri, the roman shortsword, all were great weapons of the time.
But none of them would still compare with the knightly weaponry. Military picks, poleaxes, cavalry mace, lance and longsword became the superior medieval weaponry for a reason.
One has to take that into account if you wish to make the weapon more powerful.
And the Pike overtook them in turn. But no one is going to argue that the pike is some how a superior personal weapon to the kukri. Your confusing the evolution of military tactics, and the weapons that compliment said tactic, with the quality of said weapons in small unit combat.
The Kukri is also used as a modern military weapon. It is still drilled with and used, when gurkha rifles fix bayonets. If your argument were true, wouldn't that mean that Kukri is superior to Chivalric weapons
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep - stuff like the kukri (and I guess the falcata) are very good at what they're designed to do; that is to say, hacking into relatively unprotected flesh. Neither would do much of anything trying to hack through plate armour. Of course, a kukri user is trained to stab with the point as well as just hack, so even then they'd have a pretty good option when attacking the guy in plate.
The rules-set we have, of course, doesn't reflect these limits and options. You can't stab with a kukri, because it's a 'slashing damage' only weapon. On the other hand, it hacks through armour like a hot knife through butter, because all you need to do is exceed the AC, then apply full damage. Armour as DR actually makes it worse, since more potential raw damage = better armour bypass.
While keeping the combat system at a certain level of abstraction is generally a pretty good idea, what you tend to end up with is a situation where certain weapons (most notably the 'medieval European' stuff - like the longsword (Pathfinder's 'bastard sword') and the like) losing out because the things they were designed to be good at aren't being modelled in the system.
One Ultimate Combat disappointment for me was the lack of support for Talhoffer-esque medieval European combat styles: using the whole of the sword for cuts, thrusts, 'murder blows' with the hilt whilst holding the blade, tripping and grappling with the crosspiece - all that good stuff. Asian martial arts are fine and dandy for wuxia-style games, which are also cool to play, but the whole 'eastern is always better than western' school of thought on fighting arts, armour, and weaponry just tends to bug me... My 2cp I guess...
Yep - stuff like the kukri (and I guess the falcata) are very good at what they're designed to do; that is to say, hacking into relatively unprotected flesh. Neither would do much of anything trying to hack through plate armour. Of course, a kukri user is trained to stab with the point as well as just hack, so even then they'd have a pretty good option when attacking the guy in plate.
The rules-set we have, of course, doesn't reflect these limits and options. You can't stab with a kukri, because it's a 'slashing damage' only weapon. On the other hand, it hacks through armour like a hot knife through butter, because all you need to do is exceed the AC, then apply full damage. Armour as DR actually makes it worse, since more potential raw damage = better armour bypass.
While keeping the combat system at a certain level of abstraction is generally a pretty good idea, what you tend to end up with is a situation where certain weapons (most notably the 'medieval European' stuff - like the longsword (Pathfinder's 'bastard sword') and the like) losing out because the things they were designed to be good at aren't being modelled in the system.
One Ultimate Combat disappointment for me was the lack of support for Talhoffer-esque medieval European combat styles: using the whole of the sword for cuts, thrusts, 'murder blows' with the hilt whilst holding the blade, tripping and grappling with the crosspiece - all that good stuff. Asian martial arts are fine and dandy for wuxia-style games, which are also cool to play, but the whole 'eastern is always better than western' school of thought on fighting arts, armour, and weaponry just tends to bug me... My 2cp I guess...
I don't think the 'asian is always better' thing exists, or rather its a made up complaint by people who don't like asian stuff.
Rather I think what is going on here is that a, UC had as part of its brief to provide material that would be useful for Jade regent, so Asian influenced stuff was included, and b. It is easy to create Wuxia flavour within the pathfinder's system.
Wuxia flavour is easy to do. You can make a game that feels right for that with relative easy. While hyper detailed combat, is based on real medieval european, or asian fighting styles is very difficult, and near impossible within pathfinder as writen.
There isn't a western 'wuxia-esque' subsystem provided, because actually, DnD/pathfinder is the western Wuxia.
|
|
I don't think the 'asian is always better' thing exists, or rather its a made up complaint by people who don't like asian stuff.
I'd respectfully disagree, and point to the nodachi (the falchion is dead), four-mirror armour (chainmail is dead), and similar things as way of proof.
Now, I do like Asian/wuxia stuff... I just don't like it being automatically flat-out better than everything else.
I don't think the 'asian is always better' thing exists, or rather its a made up complaint by people who don't like asian stuff.I'd respectfully disagree, and point to the nodachi (the falchion is dead), four-mirror armour (chainmail is dead), and similar things as way of proof.
Now, I do like Asian/wuxia stuff... I just don't like it being automatically flat-out better than everything else.
But that is comparing an imaginary near eastern weapon to a real far eastern weapon.
Real world Falchions should probably have the same stats as a falcata. They are effectively a heavy chopping sword, in the same class as the falcata. Pathfinder falchions are obsolete already(with one possible exception being crit feat characters), because it didn't keep up with the greatsword. Now compare the greatsword and the Nodachi, and use the Nodachi stats for two-handed scimitars and things look a little better right?
As for four mirror armour and chain mail. You trade price for weight. Appart from that, they are identical. Not sure how it means chain mail is dead. I would happily still use chain, if I thought it fit the character better(especially if encumbrance is in play).
My biggest problem with it is that it isn't different enough. Four mirror armour, in the real world is a composite partial plate armour. It's probably better done as slightly worse half-plate, with some sort of funky anti magic effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have issues with weapons that should be decent normally, aren't so, and then are made good with a bunch of feats on. Point in case: Slings and crossbows.
Seriously. The crossbow should be the basic to-go weapon for someone who doesn't focus on ranged combat. That's the longbow. Crossbows are only good if you spend a whole bunch o' feats and get class abilities for it. Switch those around. Increase crossbow damage by one step and critical multiplier by one step (and this is one case where I think it's okay to break 19+/x2 vs 20/x3 principles, since it's only one attack per round) and allow mighty crossbows that require more strength and do more damage. Remove all those weird feats and make rapid reload cause reload as a swift/swift/move for hand/light/heavy.
Slings should be martial weapons that are reloaded as swift actions (free with rapid reload) with 1d6 bludgeoning damage and 20/x3 crit. Remove all those weird feats.
Make longbow an exotic weapon.
So for no feat cost (simple weapon) you have:
Hand crossbow, 1d6, 19-20/x3, move to reload (one handed)
Light crossbow, 1d10, 19-20/x3, move to reload.
Heavy crossbow, 2d6, 19-20/x3, full to reload.
For one feat cost you have:
Hand crossbow, 1d6, 19-20/x3, swift to reload (one handed)
Light crossbow, 1d10, 19-20/x3, swift to reload
Heavy crossbow, 2d6, 19-20/x3, standard to reload
Sling, 1d6+Str, 20/x3, swift to reload (one handed)
Shortbow, 1d6, 20/x3, free to reload
For two feats you have:
Sling, 1d6+Str, 20/x3, free to reload (one handed)
Longbow, 1d8, 20/x3, free to reload
The more feats and BAB, the more the sling and longbow will gain. Longbow is somewhat higher damage but sling is better damage type and free add-strength-to-damage that doesn't need to be adjusted for buffs.
Neat and nice. IMO.
That's the difference between D20 wargamers and storyteller players
Right. Because the storyteller players are superior, there's no overlap, and role playing ability is completely tied up in the mechanics of the system *rolls eyes*
the latter have an implied acceptance that Storyteller is not a game of uniform execution as opposed to personal expression from both game masters (The modern world isn't composed of dungeons so I don't like using the term DM in Storyteller) and players alike.
It isn't personal expression: its completely at the expression of the story teller (which remember has about an 85% chance of not being you), which can be random and erratic even with the SAME story teller. I like having an idea of what my character can and can't do so my creativity and craziness doesn't wind up breaking the game.
What needs to happen is a sit down brain trust with dedicated playtesters cleaning up the actual 'to hit' rules. As I have said before, a will'o wisp, Ogre and a plate armored fighter might share a 20 AC, but actually hitting each and doing damage is different. We have an homogenized system that crunches everything into a single mass and then tries to tweak it with feats, etc.
Combat now hangs between an antiquated simple die roll of yore and the desire for a system that actually FEELS like a fight from an action flik. A weapon like the falcata, at best a failed short sword that didn't enjoy much RW success, has been glorified as PF's uber weapon. I remember the 3.0 Spiked Chain, beneficiary of numerous builds, granting my low end Fighter Ginsu like blending powers. That I disarmed a 'master' with a chain weapon with maybe 30 minutes instruction and practice in a 70's MA meet (O, and I was terrible!) 3 of 5 matches defies the status it held.
Worldwide, the spear has consistently served as a solid military grade weapon with the sword as a sidearm. beside them, all other melee weapons become variant or alternate choices. I hereby dodge the missle weapon part of this discussion as the dominant missle weapon changes greatly based on technology and military thinking.
Something that never made sense to me is this. Backwards curiving weapons all have 18-20 x2 crits except for the kukri which has the forward curving blade of the falcata 19-20 x3. WHY?
I don't think the 'asian is always better' thing exists, or rather its a made up complaint by people who don't like asian stuff.I'd respectfully disagree, and point to the nodachi (the falchion is dead), four-mirror armour (chainmail is dead), and similar things as way of proof.
Now, I do like Asian/wuxia stuff... I just don't like it being automatically flat-out better than everything else.
Yes of course, just like all Katanas are masterwork.
Eastern swords cut through steel ibeams and stuff don't you know, western swords suck, they ae brutish sloppy weapons. I mean didn't you see the Highlander, Conner new that, thats why hekept the Katana and dumped the sword he had trained ith all his life.
Plus eastern hand to hand is much better than those silly Western skill, Talhoffers wrestling, all those silly greek Pankration specialist, boxing, they all are humbeled before the might of Kung Fu.
The fact that Medieval swords have better steel than virtually any Katana, or that these men were increadinble skilled, and that there were schools of marital arts all over the western world.
Ehh stupid europeans its a wonder they survived with their backword ways. Certianly they could have enever fought successful battles against the mighty easterners with their metal cutting swords and thier lightning fast light armour.
Sarcasm off.
This is a long standing problem in D&D, it is a function ofthe problem in western culture. It is annoying, but I don' see it going away anytime soon.
No one here(that I have seen) is claiming that...
Prof Potts least of all.
His argument is that the Eastern Weapons are needlessly better than their European versions. He didn't say they should be better.
And I agree, however if your going to bother making them at all, they do need to be different, and personally I am in favour of having more options, and being able to choose between them.
I also disagree that like for like, the asian weapons are mechanically better than the european. First of, many have no european weapon to compare too, for instance the Sansetsukon and Kusarigama just don't have european versions to my knowledge, and certainly don't in the Pathfinder weapons section. In other cases, such as the nodachi, he isn't comparing like for like(or is comparing it to a weapon that is less powerful than perhaps it should be falshion as discribed is a curved greatsword, kukri's are effectively curved short swords, and scimitars curved longswords, if falchions followed the example set down by these weapons they would deal d10 damage, not 2d4. In other words, the same damage as the Nodachi)
You appear to be building up a straw man.
...I don't think the 'asian is always better' thing exists, or rather its a made up complaint by people who don't like asian stuff.I'd respectfully disagree, and point to the nodachi (the falchion is dead), four-mirror armour (chainmail is dead), and similar things as way of proof.
Now, I do like Asian/wuxia stuff... I just don't like it being automatically flat-out better than everything else.
Yes of course, just like all Katanas are masterwork.
Eastern swords cut through steel ibeams and stuff don't you know, western swords suck, they ae brutish sloppy weapons. I mean didn't you see the Highlander, Conner new that, thats why hekept the Katana and dumped the sword he had trained ith all his life.
Plus eastern hand to hand is much better than those silly Western skill, Talhoffers wrestling, all those silly greek Pankration specialist, boxing, they all are humbeled before the might of Kung Fu.
The fact that Medieval swords have better steel than virtually any Katana, or that these men were increadinble skilled, and that there were schools of marital arts all over the western world.
Ehh stupid europeans its a wonder they survived with their backword ways. Certianly they could have enever fought successful battles against the mighty easterners with their metal cutting swords and thier lightning fast light armour.
Sarcasm off.
This is a long standing problem in D&D, it is a function ofthe problem in western culture. It is annoying, but I don' see it going away anytime soon.
No one here(that I have seen) is claiming that...
Prof Potts least of all.
His argument is that the Eastern Weapons are needlessly better than their European versions. He didn't say they should be better.
And I agree, however if your going to bother making them at all, they do need to be different, and personally I am in favour of having more options, and being able to
And they have two western swords which are same rough group, which are arguably even better, IE. the bastard sword and great sword. The Nodachi isn't as good as the the Falchion should be. The only bell and whistle is brace, up there is the best weapons. If you can't look at the Nodachi and say, okay, so this is the stats for a two-handed curved blade, I shall use it for blades which fall into that description, from around our world and myriad fantasy worlds, renaming it as needed, then I am sorry, but I think that says more about baggage against asian weaponry than any bias towards such weapons on the part of the designers.
This trend doesn't exists anywhere but you guys head.
I'm a little confused as to your point zombie. You seem to be saying that the game mechanics for Asian weapons aren't superior, but that we should repaint all of the western weapons as eastern ones so that they match mechanically?
I'm a little confused as to your point zombie. You seem to be saying that the game mechanics for Asian weapons aren't superior, but that we should repaint all of the western weapons as eastern ones so that they match mechanically?
Not really.
The "long sword" is the real worlds best known, most iconic example of the the long straight "one handed" sword. There have been long straight swords in other cultures, but generally speaking when we use them in games, we treat them as long swords.
All I am saying is that the Nodachi is probably the best known real world example of the curved bladed two handed sword, so we do with the Nodachi, what we do with the Longsword. And no, the falchion as described in dnd/pathfinder doesn't perform the role, because A, it isn't as mechanically good as it should be, and B, real world falchions are broad bladed scimitars, no two handed scimitars.
So in the same way that I can take the Ninja class, and use it to make an greek thanotic death-dealing assassin of fate, and I can take a european alchemist and make an taoist internal alchemist, I can use the Nodachi as a catch all term for curved two-handed swords, without blanching, because I already do something similar for the vast majority of the weapons as is.
Hope that is clearer.
Honestly, I think the majority of the Weapons systems are rubbish. Any weapon that does D6 damage looks decent at 1st level... but eventually the HPs so far outdistance the weapon damage it kind of becomes redundant. HOW many arrows do you need to hit with to drop a person??
While AWESOME in LOTR... Boromir fighting on looking like a porcupine was a LITTLE over the top...
That said, trying to determine random damage for 50+ different weapons is a losing battle, when one solid hit can and should kill you dead with any of them. Debating the differnce between a skilled slinger and a skilled archer REALLY would require a forensics team.... and the result would be the same....
I'm ESPECIALLY not pleased with the various catagories of simple/martial/one handed light/ exotic/ blah blah blah...
I remember being VERY excited when i saw all the weapons that fighters and such were now proficent in from the get go... (instead of spending proficiencies like the 2E game I was coming from...)
But having examined it a little closer... I'm NOT a fan of it. It seems the system pushes you towards specific weapons, and if you want any variety at all, it hits you hard for feats... Definitely not as cool as I thought at first glance.
Added point,
There are WAY too many discrepncies between weapons that do the same thing. Many different cultures gave us many different weapons. Most of their differences are entirely cosmetic.
Every culture developed a long sword... a poking stick... a curved slashing weapon...
Trying to nitpick over which culture gets the d6 and which one gets d6 +1 is tedious. There is no reason at all for us to have two seperate entries for Hand axe and throwing axes... i saw some people trying to come up with 'tomahawk'...
It's the same weapon. Just fluff the general appearnce.
AD&D had that built into the game in the form of weapon speed and pluss and minuses to hit versus specific armor type. The problem was that for most people it was complications that they refused to use so it was chucked out of the game at 3.0.They should have kept weapon speed at the very least.
That was a rule I always used in my campaigns.
As for weapon effectiveness vs specific armor types: I preferred the system used by Rolemaster.
We always used weapons speed too.
Honestly i hated that. Was VERY glad to see it go by the wayside. I like the 'initative modifiers' a hundred times more than the old weapon speeds.
Just the idea that if you use a heavy weapon... great axe... greatsword.. you will NEVER go first in the round was VERY frustrating. Anyone fighting with natural weapons was almost always going first... 15 years we played that, never liked it.
Weapons vs Armor types? We played for YEARS before we ever really noticed it, and by then we just skipped it. Honestly it was too vague to be the least bit realistic...
Combat and tactics put some modifiers in the actual weapon descriptions, and we started to use THOSE... Which I kind of liked, But treating all piercing and all blunt weapons equally... ehhhhh... I didn't like that.
It's a little odd that against an opponent in full plate, a katana is a better choice of weapon than a heavy mace.
Turnips. They should do AT LEAST 1d8. Improvised shurikens my butt! IRL a thrown turnip is enough to take off a man's head with a single toss by an irate child.
Sorry if this is a repeat, but what's the deal with the falchion? Why would anyone take it over a greatsword? It has a slightly better crit range, but inferior damage -- and it's considerably more expensive. For story reasons, I wanted to do a build with a falchion, but just couldn't justify it...
Am I missing something?
Marsh.
As you level up the flat +'s to damage from strength, weapon enhancement bonus, and weapon specialization on crits begin to exceed the greatsword's extra damage dice.
I'm working on a rewrite of the weapon rules.
That sounds neat, I'd be interested to see it. So far, my favorite fix of the weapon system has been Kirth's--I'll be implementing that in my next game.
wsell actually what D&D calls a long sword in the Real world would have been called an Arming Sword, and the D&D bastard sword would have been called a long sword, or War sword. I understand your point, butthen they did not need to make a new weapon, just errata falchion and put a not that the Nodachi was the equvilent of a Falchion.I'm a little confused as to your point zombie. You seem to be saying that the game mechanics for Asian weapons aren't superior, but that we should repaint all of the western weapons as eastern ones so that they match mechanically?Not really.
The "long sword" is the real worlds best known, most iconic example of the the long straight "one handed" sword. There have been long straight swords in other cultures, but generally speaking when we use them in games, we treat them as long swords.
All I am saying is that the Nodachi is probably the best known real world example of the curved bladed two handed sword, so we do with the Nodachi, what we do with the Longsword. And no, the falchion as described in dnd/pathfinder doesn't perform the role, because A, it isn't as mechanically good as it should be, and B, real world falchions are broad bladed scimitars, no two handed scimitars.
So in the same way that I can take the Ninja class, and use it to make an greek thanotic death-dealing assassin of fate, and I can take a european alchemist and make an taoist internal alchemist, I can use the Nodachi as a catch all term for curved two-handed swords, without blanching, because I already do something similar for the vast majority of the weapons as is.
Hope that is clearer.
And if you say "Arming sword" to a randomly selected sample of one hundred people, the chances are none of them will know what your talking about.(In a randomly selected sample of roleplayers, two will know, what it is, one of those will care, and probably insist that it is a travisty that it isn't the best weapon in their system of choice.)
You could do that, but you'd be perpetuating even more annoying (to me) discrepancy of pretending falchions are two handed curved blades. The Nodachi is simply the most iconic of such blades. It ain't no big deal. I mean the european weapon names by and large dominate the naming conventions, it isn't the end of the world that a japanese weapon gets to be the iconic for the curved two handed sword.
If you wanted an accurate display of the differences of weapons you would actually change not a lot. A handful of weapons are the best in RL as in RP mechanics and the rest is there for flavor and showing off.
Take the Trident - just because some roman marketing manager at the Circus Maximus thought it would be cooler to let Gladiators use unusual and silly weapons doesn't mean a Trident is somehow a good weapon.
In RL the Trident is inferior to the Spear in every concievable way unless you want to stab small and fast creatures under water - but it looks splendid on a Priestess of some Watergod complete with seashell bikinis :-)
|
|
Sorry if this is a repeat, but what's the deal with the falchion? Why would anyone take it over a greatsword? It has a slightly better crit range, but inferior damage -- and it's considerably more expensive. For story reasons, I wanted to do a build with a falchion, but just couldn't justify it...
Am I missing something?
Marsh.
As BigNorseWolf mentions, it basically comes down to the damage bonuses which get multiplied on confirmed criticals. I'm not one of the big maths DPR guys (check out some of the DPR optimisation threads for the formulas and stuff... of course reading those threads plays hard and fast with your sanity... you have been warned... ;) ), but the principle is simple enough to illustrate.
To keep things simple we'll say out character is missing on a d20 roll of 1 to 10, and hitting on a roll of 11 to 20. That also means that 50% of his critical threats are confirming. We'll also assume he's got something which doubles the critical threat range of his weapon (because that's when this stuff really starts to kick in) - a weapon with the keen property, a keen edge spell, the Improved Critical Feat - something like that.
So, if he's using a Greatsword, he's getting a base average damage (from the 2d6 weapon damage) of 7pts per hit. His critical threat range will be 17-20. In a series of 20 rolls, assuming every possible number is rolled once, he'll score 6 normal hits (rolling 11 to 16), and 4 critical threats (rolling 17 to 20), 50% of which will confirm - so 8 normal hits and 2 criticals. So, he's getting to roll his damage 12 times - once for each normal hit, and twice for the two criticals (because a Greatsword has a x2 critical multiplier). So, in 20 dice rolls he's averaging 12x7 = 84 points of damage.
If he instead uses a Falchion, he starts with a base average damage of 5pts (2d4 weapon damage), but has a critical threat range of 15-20. In his 20 rolls he'll score 4 normal hits and 6 critical threats, 3 of which will confirm, for a total of 7 normal and 3 criticals. So, he's getting to roll his damage 13 times, and he's averaging 13x5 = 65 points of damage.
So far it looks pretty good for the Greatsword, but the key thing here is that the Falchion user is getting to roll his damage that one extra time, and the damage roll includes a bunch of bonuses above just the weapon's base dice. So, if the guy has a +1 damage bonus, using a Greatsword adds +12 to his 20 die-roll average, and using a Falchion adds +13. Since the Greatsword's average damage over the 20 rolls exceeded the Falchion's by 19 pts, the guy needs a damage bonus of +19 for the Falchion to equal the Greatsword's average damage over the 20 rolls. If the guy has a damage bonus of +20 or more, then the Falchion is doing more damage, on average, than the Greatsword.
Since a level 1 Barbarian with 20 Stength (24 raging) can pump out a damage bonus of +13 while raging and using the Power Attack Feat, it's easy to see that hitting a +20 damage bonus isn't too hard by mid-level play, at which point the two-hand melee character is better off with a Falchion than a Greatsword, in the example 20 roll sequence.
If you use a Nodachi instead, then your average base damage is 71.5, so you only need a damage bonus of +13 to be beating the Greatsword for average damage - as mentioned, a level 1 Barbarian can pull this off (so any dedicated two-handed melee character getting access to keen effects, around level 5-ish, is bound to have at least that much).
Of course, the Falcata broke the curve long before the Nodachi came along. It only scores a critical threat as much as the Greatword, but you get to roll your damage three times on a confirmed critical, rather than two. That means, over the course of the 20 roll sequence, while the Great sword is rolling damage 12 times, and the Falchion and Nodachi are rolling damage 13 times, the Falcata is rolling damage 14 times. This gives the Falcata an average base damage over the 20 rolls of 63 - the lowest of the lot, but since it's getting two more damage rolls than the Greatsword, it only needs a damage bonus of +11 to be inflciting more avearge damage than the Greatsword. With the x1.5 damage two-handing gives you from both Strength and Power Attack, it's hard for a character designed as a two-handed melee type to not hit at least this much bonus damage at pretty low level.
All this doesn't include the addition of things that trigger on a successful critical (such as Critical Feats, and elemental burst weapon qualities), which makes the higher threat-range weapons even more attractive.
So... In the past the Falchion was the two-hander of choice for most mid to high level melee characters. Two-handing a Falcata pretty much destroyed any other weapon as far as simple DPR calculation is concerned, but the Falchion was still pretty attractive for those who wanted their critical-based effects to trigger more often. Now the Nodachi has killed the Falchion, by being the same, but better. Only non-full-melee half-orcs are likely to ever use a Falchion now, as they get it as a racial weapon proficiency... Ho hum... :)
Oh, and anyone who's played the Conan d20 game knows what an arming sword is... they fixed a lot in that game's combat rules.
Make longbow an exotic weapon.That's inadequately simulationist. Longbows are simple compared to slings. Anyone can take a bow, short or long provided it's draw weight is within their capacity, and point it at something and fire and have it go in the general direction of their target their first shot. Slings have release timing issues and could go anywhere. From a learning curve perspective bows are simple or martial and slings martial or exotic.
I don't care much for simulationist, it's more for balance. But I'll answer anyways: While it's quite easy to pick up a long bow and fire a single weak shot (-4 penalty for non-proficiency), actually becoming decent with it requires a lot of work and focus. I mean, this is a weapon where the users _skeleton_ got whacked out of shape because it was so straining to use.
LinkyClaiming that a longbow could be considered exotic isn't far from the truth, though one may debate if it's really "over the line". It's not outlandish to think, and therefore acceptable. Thus over to the balance/game mechanics factor.
A sling is also a bit tricky to use, but I got decent enough after about 3 months of training to effectively hit a .8 m plate at 30m (90 ft.) about 50% of the time. I think martial fits good for it.
That's mostly strength and endurance training, not accuracy. Accuracy for any martial ranged weapon is good enough if you can hit massed troops. It therefore shouldn't be represented by a to hit penalty, but by the inability to use high draw bows. Like ones with a strength rating too high for you.
Well, training as training. The same could be said for the greatclub, chain mail, greataxe and whatsoever. You could replace most of the system with strength requirements, but right now, stuff like that is represented by requireing feats. As said, it's "real enough" for me, and that's where the actual gaming mechanics kicks in. I don't like long bow being the go-to weapon for all characters ranged needs, whether main ranged or not. Only a few non-elf, non-half elf with ancestral weapon, non-cleric of erastil, non-combat class characters would think of anything but the longbow.
That way, focused ranged combatants will probably pick up the bow, while those who only do ranged as a secondary tactic might settle for a crossbow, sling or shortbow. I like that.
Having trained with a once Olympic archer, the difference between his level of 'training' and and the two years of my experience was drastic. Though we both practiced with what British archery clubs call 'war bows' (60 to 80 lbs. to full pull), I fatigued by the second set of arrows, about 20-24, while he did some dozen or more sets. Neither of us were firing legitimate 'Longbows', which start significantly above 100 lb. pulls. Of moderate strength, no better than a 10, I have drawn a legit longbow once, not to full pull. I can easily support stat requirements for such weapons.
The real problem is that there is no rules to take into account the difference between the handling of different weapons. An axe should do much greater damage than a sword, but a sword is a more responsive and accurate weapon; better at hitting small targets and finding a chink in armour, much better at parrying. Whilst an axe doesn't need to find a chink in armour; it just crushes its way though.
A falchion would be somewhere between the two, and a rapier would be even more responsive than a normal sword.
Shields should also add a lot more to AC but are generally made of wood and would probably start to break after a few rounds of heavy combat. There is no way you would block a two handed axe blow with a shield, it would cut straight through the shield and into your arm.
I agree that shields are underrated, but, flails are pretty hard to use, shield rapping should be a feat.
+1 to shields needing to be better.
As for flails, yes they ARE hard to use... but that's what the proficiency is for. I am NOT in favor of charging extra feats to use a weapon the way it was designed to be used.
That's like having a proficency for longsword...and needing a feat to stab with it.
Flails on chains were used to get around shields. That's their job.
|
Mace-and-chain (flail with spiked metal balls) were rare because they contained a lot of for-the-day expensive iron, not because they were difficult to use. They were heavy weapons explicitly designed to shred armor -- especially helmets, while they were being worn.
Watch The Black Shield of Falworth (Tony Curtis version); it's 1950s cheesecake Hollywood, but there's a realistic combat with medieval weaponry at the end; and what works and what's worthless is made apparent.
