Is it me or is it no longer necessary to bring weapons that actually fit indoor / tunnel fights?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Quote:

How then, can you imagine a sword that is say 4 1/2 or 5 feet in total length begin effectually wielded by a person who is 5 or 6+ feet tall in a space that is no more than 3 or 5 feet in height and width??

I can't! At least not without hand waving solid matter so that the sword somehow magically passes through the tunnel walls (and that seems pretty silly to me)...

Thrust. The sword has that sharp pointy thing on the end for a reason.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:

How then, can you imagine a sword that is say 4 1/2 or 5 feet in total length begin effectually wielded by a person who is 5 or 6+ feet tall in a space that is no more than 3 or 5 feet in height and width??

I can't! At least not without hand waving solid matter so that the sword somehow magically passes through the tunnel walls (and that seems pretty silly to me)...

Its called a thrust. The sword has that sharp pointy thing on the end for a reason.

Most swords used regularly in the field don't actually have a "sharp pointy thing on the end". If they did, they'd get dented, chipped, weeakened, and eventually broken.

As for the effectiveness of doing the same motion over and over and over again, it's a goodd way to get disarmed/sundered.


Quote:
Most swords used regularly in the field don't actually have a "sharp pointy thing on the end". If they did, they'd get dented, chipped, weeakened, and eventually broken.

http://www.thearma.org/images/S2000/New_Folder/viewing1.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/images/S2000/vwng1.jpg

http://www.thehaca.com/photos/SeminarsandWorkshops/Prnctn02/alxndr.jpg

http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Attack.html

http://www.facts-about-japan.com/images/gallery/edo//shigekuni.jpg

Exactly what sword DOESN"T have a sharp pointy thing on the end? There's no point in not having one, you might have to thrust sometime.

Quote:


As for the effectiveness of doing the same motion over and over and over again, it's a goodd way to get disarmed/sundered.

The game's combat system isn't complex enough to take that into account.


there should be a mechanic to choke up on the weapon to not take size penalties in small spaces. but deal damage as a smaller weapon.

Also now I am thinking of having a spell be reasearched to heal hurt rotator cuffs. casts tommy John.


Once I played with a GM who didn't allow me to swing my glaive in a forest, and I respect him for that.


doctor_wu wrote:

there should be a mechanic to choke up on the weapon to not take size penalties in small spaces. but deal damage as a smaller weapon.

Also now I am thinking of having a spell be reasearched to heal hurt rotator cuffs. casts tommy John.

ind some AD&D books and they have those rules along with dozens upon dozens of other edge cases that will make your head spin with all the "does anyone remember the rule for that" obscurity. There is a reason you don't see those rules in the common house rules listings...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since coming to these boards I have come to learn that people can bend the rules into the most amazing shapes by using 'edge cases', poor syntax, and a range of other cheeze.

Some days I want those myriad rules back.

I don't like tunnel fighters swinging claymores in a hallway.

The Exchange

There is rule called the gm's best friend or some such, that says you can apply +/- 2 to situations as a dm. This is one of those situations. It's up ther with high winds and archery, or certain difficulties in casting in rough conditions, or targeting issues and concealment for ranged anything.

Of course, you don't have to design encounters with any of those things if you don't want. However, I'm like TOZ, I give them the standard penalty at times and we all move on. Surprisingly, it makes some encounters far more interesting.

Cheers

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Paraxis wrote:

Why punish the guy with the big weapon, what does he get in compensation for having to spend extra feats and magic weapons to use in certain situations?

What is next having rules for weapons getting stuck in shields, broken bones when hit with warhammers, ect?

I mean this is a fantasy game not a real world simulator, fireballs don't fill to volume and my halfling fighter with a polearm can use it to attack in a tight tunnel and hit something 10' away with it. Let the guy have his fun if we can imagine dragons and wizards we can image some cool way this works as well.

Maybe little things like:

Casters
- "you don't cast fireballs in a rain, it will explode immediatly." [A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation.]. Same problem for several spells.
- concentration check in bad weather [Violent Weather: You must make a concentration check if you try to cast a spell in violent weather. *
- concentration check when casting in very cramped spaces and using spell with somatic components [probably only a hoserule]

Meele types normally using small weapons
- the obvious: they do less damage and apply a lesser bonus for power attack/strength.

Bow using guys.
- You can't use the bow if you can't stand, so you can't use it in low ceilings spaces.
- missile weapons don't work well in inclement weather [but no very clear rules for that]

So your guy don't get compensation, but he get a hindrance in some situation like all other people.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Maybe little things like:

Casters
- "you don't cast fireballs in a rain, it will explode immediatly." [A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation.]. Same problem for several spells.

Ok thats the most interesting thing I have read all day.

Would certainly put casters on edge if all the rules were actually used...!

No wonder Melee do it tough when apparently they are the only ones bound by the full RAW.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Shifty wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Maybe little things like:

Casters
- "you don't cast fireballs in a rain, it will explode immediatly." [A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation.]. Same problem for several spells.

Ok thats the most interesting thing I have read all day.

Would certainly put casters on edge if all the rules were actually used...!

No wonder Melee do it tough when apparently they are the only ones bound by the full RAW.

Or... you would just end up with even MORE people who think a fireball is worthless.

As to the OP, I agree with people who only enforce these issues when squeezed. I don't worry about the realism, since it's so far out the window already. Ya know, like how weapons only come in 2 lengths, damage type vs. armor doesn't matter, etc... The rules are so far off reality that I don't think it's worth the effort to worry about it.


If you no longer get screwed periodically for poor equipment selection given that the even the fantasy world has a cramped space from time to time, then why not have only three weapons total? The multitude of weapons presented where a response to a situation in which another was less useful. I know a lot of you came up in the videogame like era of RP, but is it always fun to get your way? I don't want to have to calculate weapon speed into my initiative count again or something like that, but being required to sheath the greatsword and pull out the short sword in a goblin tunnel is not nerfing my build.

I always liked having to think tactically about my load out. This may be a carry over from being a Soldier, but I make these choices daily. Would your life really be ruined if you couldn't go swinging your 2 meter sword around for a battle or two? If so, I am glad haven't played with you yet.

I would ask why spllcasters get a go at all times, but that would likely get the answer, "Because it's magic." lol.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Shifty wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Maybe little things like:

Casters
- "you don't cast fireballs in a rain, it will explode immediatly." [A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation.]. Same problem for several spells.

Ok thats the most interesting thing I have read all day.

Would certainly put casters on edge if all the rules were actually used...!

No wonder Melee do it tough when apparently they are the only ones bound by the full RAW.

That little piece has always been there, from fist edition.

I have noticed that a lot of GM seem to waive those little details that limit the spellcasters powers and then cry because the spellcasters are too powerful.


For an experiment you can go in a closet and swing a broom around like it was a zweihander and let me know how that works out for you. Remember its a S weapon and you would have to house rule it to be a P, hahaha.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range

Rain is neither of these. It's rules lawyering cheese to say that it is, not the rules.

Quote:
For an experiment you can go in a closet and swing a broom around like it was a zweihander and let me know how that works out for you. Remember its a S weapon and you would have to house rule it to be a P, hahaha.

1) A closet is not a tunnel

2) S/P is a damage type, not a method of use.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range

Rain is neither of these. You're trying to be a munchkin because you don't like the wizard. Its not the rules, don't pretend it is.

Quote:
For an experiment you can go in a closet and swing a broom around like it was a zweihander and let me know how that works out for you. Remember its a S weapon and you would have to house rule it to be a P, hahaha.

1) A closet is not a tunnel

2) S/P is a damage type, not a method of use.

A closet is actually much roomier and damage type is indicative of the method of producing said damage type.

For your study
Slash
Pierce


Quote:
A closet is actually much roomier

No, its no. A closet is 6 feet by 4 feet by 3 feet. A tunnel is 5 feet by 5 feet by as much as hundreds of feet. For thrusting that third dimension is more important than the other two.

A closet is actually much roomier and damage type is indicative of the method of producing said damage type.

The game doesn't do that. Type is based on the weapon, not its method of use

What exactly do you think i need to study here? Seriously, random lectures like this that have nothing to do with what i said just come across as a lame attempt at an insult.


Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
I have always brought along weapons that can replace my axe or other weapon which requires a good deal of space to wield when we end up in tunnels or other confined spaces. But, since startingin on PF I have yet to be told I can't swing a great axe, ect. in any environment I have entered. This has been the way it has gone in every game I have played and was just curious if I was missing the bits of reality that did make the tactical bits of planning an assualt necessary.

Has there ever been tules for this? I don't recall that from 2nd ed. And there definitely wasn't in 3e. Maybe it's a GM thing?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ion Raven wrote:
Did archers ever have to wind and unwind their bows? (I've only ever played 3.5 and Pathfinder)

When a round was 1 minute and you got 2 shots (4 with specialization and above 12th level) in one round, spending 10 seconds stringing your bow wasn't a problem. [1st ed]


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you want some rules more detailed than the squeeze rules- look at the old D&D 3.5 DMG2. On page 55, there's a nice little chart for you. I wouldn't have a problem with a DM that used that chart, as long as he was up front about it, and employed it consistently.

Still, I think realism is a joke for this game. I've seen too many DMs concerned with 'realism' that don't know what they're talking about anyways. For example, DMs that read the damage types on the chart and think that the designers knew what the hell they were talking about. Case in point- Designed for Piercing.

And I wouldn't like a game where everyone was swinging around a 2 meter sword anyways- that's ridiculous, and on the extreme upper end of sword lengths anyways (verging well into the territory of swords never meant to see combat).

The Exchange

Weapon damage type is exactly about how it's used. To use your own words, it's rules lawyering cheese to suggest otherwise.

While I wouldn't go so far as to make a fireball go off in the rain, I would give a percentage in hail or falling rocks or similar situations if I thought it added to the challenge. Again, it comes down to personal preference.

Some folk prefer simpler systems, and the rules can work for them. Others like to add other complexities into their combat to make difficult situations that aren't just about hitting more things. Interestingly, the rules are there for folks like that as well.

It surprises me when so many people get bent out of shape by these interpretations.

Cheers


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
I always liked having to think tactically about my load out. This may be a carry over from being a Soldier, but I make these choices daily.

This.

I find it odd that you would simply only ever take one weapon for your character and could use it in any situation no worries.

Fighting in heavy scrub? no worries, fight with my two hander!
Crawling along? no worries, fight with my two hander!
The cramped belowdecks of a pirate ship in a storm? no worries, fight with my two hander!

What the...!?


Quote:
Weapon damage type is exactly about how it's used. To use your own words, it's rules lawyering cheese to suggest otherwise.

Look, you can't just SAY something is rules lawyering cheese you need to show WHY.

Its not rules lawyering cheese. At all. Here's why.

1) Besides squeezing or being swallowed there is no rule for using a weapon in a narrow space. Not imposing a house rule for an area you think is too small for a particular weapon is playing by the rules. No lawyering, no cheese, its what the rules say.

2) The rules do not differentiate HOW a weapon is used. You could, realistically, do piercing damage with a greatsword if you needed to. The rules however do not address that. Damage type is by the weapon and nothing else (unless you do subdual) This is raw. No lawyering, no cheese, no deviation from intent.

3) Because there is no need to know any mechanism of use, there are no rules for mechanism of use. The rules don't care if you're thrusting a greatsword, twirling it over your shoulder , doing an overhand hack at your opponents head or a sideways slice. You stand in an area you don't need to squeeze in, you roll an attack, and try to hit your opponent. Slashing and piercing weapons work the same way to hit. That's it, that's the rules.

Quote:
Some folk prefer simpler systems, and the rules can work for them. Others like to add other complexities into their combat to make difficult situations that aren't just about hitting more things. Interestingly, the rules are there for folks like that as well.

THe rules aren't there for those folks, they need to make them up.

Quote:
It surprises me when so many people get bent out of shape by these interpretations.

call it a house rule and i wouldn't care (much). Try to claim you're "interpreting" something that flatly isn't there and i dislike the chicanery and sophistry.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range

Rain is neither of these. It's rules lawyering cheese to say that it is, not the rules.

Water is not a material body? Interesting .... some base to say that?

You can say a drizzle isn't powerful enough, but rain?
Or bushes, undergrowth and so on.

Plenty of spells have built in limitations people don't want to enforce. Curious as often the guys that don't enforce those limitations are the same that protest the excessive powers of the casters.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Weapon damage type is exactly about how it's used. To use your own words, it's rules lawyering cheese to suggest otherwise.

Look, you can't just SAY something is rules lawyering cheese you need to show WHY.

Its not rules lawyering cheese. At all. Here's why.

1) Besides squeezing or being swallowed there is no rule for using a weapon in a narrow space. Not imposing a house rule for an area you think is too small for a particular weapon is playing by the rules. No lawyering, no cheese, its what the rules say.

2) The rules do not differentiate HOW a weapon is used. You could, realistically, do piercing damage with a greatsword if you needed to. The rules however do not address that. Damage type is by the weapon and nothing else (unless you do subdual) This is raw. No lawyering, no cheese, no deviation from intent.

3) Because there is no need to know any mechanism of use, there are no rules for mechanism of use. The rules don't care if you're thrusting a greatsword, twirling it over your shoulder , doing an overhand hack at your opponents head or a sideways slice. You stand in an area you don't need to squeeze in, you roll an attack, and try to hit your opponent. Slashing and piercing weapons work the same way to hit. That's it, that's the rules.

Quote:
Some folk prefer simpler systems, and the rules can work for them. Others like to add other complexities into their combat to make difficult situations that aren't just about hitting more things. Interestingly, the rules are there for folks like that as well.

THe rules aren't there for those folks, they need to make them up.

Quote:
It surprises me when so many people get bent out of shape by these interpretations.

call it a house rule and i wouldn't care (much). Try to claim you're "interpreting" something that flatly isn't there and i dislike the chicanery and sophistry.

Agreed. Here's a REAL greatsword. I have no problem with someone saying this does slashing damage when used for a thrust. Many later two-handed swords also had a similar point, referred to as a 'spatulate point'. It makes for a great cutting sword, that can also thrust- it's just not going to go through armor like a proper longsword.

For the GMs who want a game where space limitations matter more, use squeezing, use circumstance penalties, use the rules from the old DMG2. Rules are out there for you, just use them, and let your players know you plan to do so.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Maybe you should find better references like this site.

If you look it you will see that medieval and renaissance swords had all kind of shapes, from almost pointless to 2 handed swords meant to the used only as thrusting weapons like the estoc.


Quote:
Water is not a material body? Interesting .... some base to say that?

Yes. First of all its basis. Secondly your definition would have the fireball detonate when it hit air. Thirdly material means, in this instance, something substantial. Raindrops are not substantial they're water droplets. Thirdly there are rules for making a fireball work underwater. How on earth would that be possible if RAIN could set it off?

Quote:
Plenty of spells have built in limitations people don't want to enforce. Curious as often the guys that don't enforce those limitations are the same that protest the excessive powers of the casters.

No, these people are reading the rules fairly, logically, and as they're

written. They're not trying to find any excuse they can to arbitrarily and randomly smack the wizard with a ban hammer. If your best argument is that the DM can twist the meaning and intent of the rules into a means for punishing the player for picking a wizard then you're proving the very point you're railing against by NEEDING to twist the rules into a knot in order to punish the wizard.

The Exchange

Sigh...

Ok Norse, let me explain the recent situation where I applied a penalty to the weapons use.

The group were fighting in a set of tunnels. The roof and some walls of the tunnels had root tangles growing out of them that would hinder great arcing swings and using the long yew of a bow. Further down the system, the tunnels opened out a little meaning that while the roots were still there, the tangling effect wouldn't be such a hindrance since there was more room to swing. This opened a tough choice for the group. Stand and fight in the narrower section which limited some of them, but prevented multiple fronts of attack. Or move deeper in and swing freely, but face multiple attack fronts.

Yes, you can use a great sword to just thrust, but that limits your fighting style enough that you wouldn't be as effective at hitting with it. It limits the angles of approaches you can use, the feint and curved paths of attacks and the momentum of weight that the great sword is designed for.

As gm, I implemented the rule of -2 that is in the purview of all gm's. It's right there in the gm section in fact. This is not a house rule, this is a gm applying commons sense to a situation and using the rules as provided.

If you asked me to start using your great sword to just do piercing damage by merely thrusting with it, I would say "sure, but you are going to suffer penalties to hit for doing so" . The weapon damage type tells how the weapon is meant to be us at full efficiently. When you are doing damage with it normally, it is slashing ( or piercing or whatever) . If you change that, then you are not using it effectively.

According to your interpretation of things, you could over come certain DR by just swinging your weapon differently. Good luck with that bud.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Maybe you should find better references like this site.

If you look it you will see that medieval and renaissance swords had all kind of shapes, from almost pointless to 2 handed swords meant to the used only as thrusting weapons like the estoc.

Look at your own reference. ~66 swords on that site and there's THREE you can't thrust with. (I just recognized one of them as the macjewiski chopper i own)


Quote:
According to your interpretation of things, you could over come certain DR by just swinging your weapon differently. Good luck with that bud.

Really? This is my interpretation? I need to sit down and have a talk with myself.


    Damage type is by the weapon and nothing else (unless you do subdual)

You missed something. I don't know how, i don't know where, but you're coming to conclusions that are the COMPLETE opposite of what i said. I'm differentiating between reality and the rules.

Quote:
As gm, I implemented the rule of -2 that is in the purview of all gm's. It's right there in the gm section in fact. This is not a house rule, this is a gm applying commons sense to a situation and using the rules as provided.

If you want to do it because of the roots go ahead. If you're going to do it in every 5 by 5 tunnel then you're making things hell on a warriors better choices in a game that is still essentially dungeons and dragons. A warrior can carry any number of weapons but the way wbl, specialization and weapon focus works when you put penalties on his favored weapon its NOT as simple as just grabbing the backup.

Quote:
If you asked me to start using your great sword to just do piercing damage by merely thrusting with it, I would say "sure, but you are going to suffer penalties to hit for doing so" . The weapon damage type tells how the weapon is meant to be us at full efficiently. When you are doing damage with it normally, it is slashing ( or piercing or whatever) . If you change that, then you are not using it effectively.

By the rules a weapon is not used with any particular style. A weapon is not thrust it just does piercing damage. A weapon is not used to chop it just does slashing damage.


Okay so someone mentioned the absolute kill for this thread in that other thread. Do you give dagger wielders a 0ft reach? your 4 inch long pointy thing cant possibly reach as far as my foot and a half long pointy thing (abstract numbers, point is the same nonetheless) so either one needs reach or the other needs to lose distance, cause as far as "can I imagine it" realism goes, I cant see the dagger wielder not having issues with reach in a sword fight, but much like tight spaces there are no rules for that.

It is bias to penalize one if the other has obvious constraint your willing to ignore.


Shadow_of_death wrote:
Okay so someone mentioned the absolute kill for this thread in that other thread. Do you give dagger wielders a 0ft reach?

Wait, your arm is 0' long, even when holding a 12" weapon?

Similarly, why does your 6' dude always hunch over to fit in a 5' tall imaginary cube?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Shifty wrote:
Similarly, why does your 6' dude always hunch over to fit in a 5' tall imaginary cube?

So the wizard doesn't step on him more than usual.

The Exchange

@Norse - firstly, I'm typing this on an iPad so can't do the quotes sorry.

Secondly, yes, I think I had a disconnect with where you were going with the thrusting thing. I had my head stuck in one place, you telling me something different. you're right, you can thrust with a great sword. Even great axes have pointy bits for such tactics. This of course won't change the damage type, which is what I thought you were saying.

However, if you were in a situation where all you could do with your weapon was thrust, when most of the at tacky style involved sweeping arcs, then you would penalized.

Third, I never said I penalize for every five foot corridor. It only ever pops up occasionally. See my first post for situations where I penalize folks for weapon size. I've even penalized longswords and similar weapons in very crowded areas when hurting innocents was a factor.

You even agree that there are times when penalties for weapon use should apply, according to the post above. Note that there are just as many penalties for caster use in similar situations. There are times when I've called for a caster check so the caster can place his area effect exactly as he needs in very crowded combats so their companions aren't caught up. It's rare, and my players never think it's onerous because it makes common sense at the time. Situations can also limit spell use and make spells prepared for the day useless.

A penalty applied provides a choice for a player. Take the penalty and keep using your tricked out weapon of choice, or change to a lesser weapon to avoid the penalty. If you've gone the path of weapon focus etc, chances are that you'll just cop the penalty and keep swinging.

Anyway, hope that's cleared up a little of our disconnect there. Sorry for my error in what you were saying (I even put words in your mouth it would seem. Bad form on my part.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Water is not a material body? Interesting .... some base to say that?

Yes. First of all its basis. Secondly your definition would have the fireball detonate when it hit air. Thirdly material means, in this instance, something substantial. Raindrops are not substantial they're water droplets. Thirdly there are rules for making a fireball work underwater. How on earth would that be possible if RAIN could set it off?

Quote:
Plenty of spells have built in limitations people don't want to enforce. Curious as often the guys that don't enforce those limitations are the same that protest the excessive powers of the casters.

No, these people are reading the rules fairly, logically, and as they're

written. They're not trying to find any excuse they can to arbitrarily and randomly smack the wizard with a ban hammer. If your best argument is that the DM can twist the meaning and intent of the rules into a means for punishing the player for picking a wizard then you're proving the very point you're railing against by NEEDING to twist the rules into a knot in order to punish the wizard.

Seriously, you live in a desert? Saying that rain hasn't a material consistency mean you haven't ever been outside under a decent rain.

For you something that can modify the trajectory of an arrow or a projectile isn't hard enough to detonate a fireball .... and you speak of logic.

Try a test: the next time there is a good rain in your area take a motorbike and ride in the middle of the rain without anything to cover your face and eyes. See if you are still convinced that "water droplets" have no material consistency after doing that.

Or you are arguing that liquids are totally to be disregarded like it is done for gases?

Just to put in a rule reference:
Rain: Rain reduces visibility ranges by half, resulting in a –4 penalty on Perception checks. It has the same effect on flames, ranged weapon attacks, and Perception checks as severe wind.
Severe Wind –4 to range attack of non siege missile weapons

So rain is solid enough to hinder a piece of wood but not solid enough to hinder the progress of a pea sized ball of fire.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Maybe you should find better references like this site.

If you look it you will see that medieval and renaissance swords had all kind of shapes, from almost pointless to 2 handed swords meant to the used only as thrusting weapons like the estoc.

Look at your own reference. ~66 swords on that site and there's THREE you can't thrust with. (I just recognized one of them as the macjewiski chopper i own)

Fantastic.

Evidently you haven't read more than the first two words of the my post as I haven't said that there weren't pointed swords. I only suggested to use a better reference. I even explicitly pointed out the estoc, a 2 handed sword made only for thrusts.


"In the AD&D game, weapons fall into several categories, based upon how they are used. The three basic categories are slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning. (Spector,p52)." Page 58 of the Advanced Dungeon and Dragons: Dungeon Master Guide states that a fighter wielding a two-handed sword takes up the same "10-foot-wide" space that would be occupied by "...two fighters using swords work[ing] side-by-side."

While this is not AD&D, or even D&D for that matter, it is based upon this game and its inherent rules. I have no doubt that the premise for use still stands otherwise there would be no dual and triple class weapons. To say you can thrust a 15 pound sword designed to hack is just trying to play the system. Must everything be written in order to avoid be called a cheater by bitter PCs that had their twinked fanboy Cloud character rendered ineffective by something as simple as a doorway? Come one now...I think most of us would agree that is just silly and ridiculous. We shouldn't be slaves to the rules, but we should expect some sort of reason to have more than 4 weapons. I don't mean to offend or put aside your point of view and I'm not looking to relive some nostalgic trip down memory lane, but I would like to see a little more justification for tactical play.

References
Spector, Warren. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons: Dungeon Master Guide. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. TSR, 1992. Print.


things like this still happening from the beggining of the d20 system
now, did u use a torches or your players cast light like a popcorns?


Quote:
To say you can thrust a 15 pound sword designed to hack is just trying to play the system.

He's playing the system!

I'm not trying to play the system. The system as written quite often tells reality to sit down and shut up so we can have fun. Using a greatsword in a dungeon is one of those times the game has a minor divergence with reality for simplicities sake.


Quote:
Seriously, you live in a desert? Saying that rain hasn't a material consistency mean you haven't ever been outside under a decent rain.

No, it doesn't.

And it would be nice if you could have one post that didn't start off by insulting people and using your opinion of them AS your point.


Copying this from the other thread because it's actually more appropriate here:

I'm not a physicist or a mathematician, so the following is subject to error.

F=MA. In a swing or a jab, the mass is your mass + the staff's mass. So we can ignore this constant and focus on speed.
The question is, how fast is the staff's swing speed compared to how fast you can lunge?

Angular Speed = 2pi/time = velocity/radius

Assume 1 second, and a grip that allows a staff to be used as a double weapon (in other words, the radius is 1 meter):

swing velocity = 2pi = 6.28 m/s

Now, run speed. Basically we're talking about a one-step sprint, which can exert 1000 pounds of force.
The game codifies combat run speed as 30 feet/round (5 feet/second) or 1.67 m/s, but science is fun and the game isn't always realistic:

real life potential human run speed = 30 mph = about 14.67 m/s

Given the same amount of time, you can propel your body (and the staff end) forward TWICE as fast (conservatively) as you can swing it.
This shows that, at least in real life, a jab can deal twice as much force as a swing.

This doesn't even account for force per square inch.

I'm not going to do any math for swords, as I believe I've proved my point. Jabbing is more than viable, realistically. I will however say that holding a 2H sword with both hands on the hilt isn't realistic or viable. It's not a baseball bat. Why do you think they have that huge part of the blade that isn't sharp, or that hand guard halfway up the blade? Holding your 2H sword like a spear is THE way to use it correctly, swinging or thrusting.


Quote:
Secondly, yes, I think I had a disconnect with where you were going with the thrusting thing. I had my head stuck in one place, you telling me something different.

Blame the small screen :)

Quote:
However, if you were in a situation where all you could do with your weapon was thrust, when most of the at tacky style involved sweeping arcs, then you would penalized.

I have a fair number of scratch lines in my ceiling that would indicate that , realistically, most rooms could be slightly problematic for greatswords.

Quote:
Third, I never said I penalize for every five foot corridor. It only ever pops up occasionally. See my first post for situations where I penalize folks for weapon size. I've even penalized longswords and similar weapons in very crowded areas when hurting innocents was a factor.

You didn't. I think some are...

Like i said, the roots were a fine and occasional/one time nuisance. People keep trying to bring more and more realism into the hitting aspect of the game without balancing it with the damaging aspect of the game. The thing is that reality sucks! Its always trying to stop you from doing what you want to do. Its pretty rare that the players get a bonus out of this sort of thing, so situational modifiers.

Quote:
It's rare, and my players never think it's onerous because it makes common sense at the time. Situations can also limit spell use and make spells prepared for the day useless.

The thing is its far easier for a caster to switch gears and maintain effectiveness than a fighter. Versatility is their real power. If you can't toss a fireball into a crowded theater then you just dominate the evil rogue and have him stab things for you.

Quote:
If you've gone the path of weapon focus etc, chances are that you'll just cop the penalty and keep swinging.

Right, which is why this comes across more as a strait penalty to the already rough life of melee than an admonishment to carry your own arsenal. A fighter is not going to switch out from the weapon focused, specialized two handed adamantite great sword of shocking bursty cleaving overenthusiastic circumcision +4 to use his club.

Quote:
Anyway, hope that's cleared up a little of our disconnect there. Sorry for my error in what you were saying (I even put words in your mouth it would seem. Bad form on my part.)

No problem. It happens


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Hudax wrote:

Copying this from the other thread because it's actually more appropriate here:

I'm not a physicist or a mathematician, so the following is subject to error.

F=MA. In a swing or a jab, the mass is your mass + the staff's mass. So we can ignore this constant and focus on speed.
The question is, how fast is the staff's swing speed compared to how fast you can lunge?

Angular Speed = 2pi/time = velocity/radius

Assume 1 second, and a grip that allows a staff to be used as a double weapon (in other words, the radius is 1 meter):

swing velocity = 2pi = 6.28 m/s

Now, run speed. Basically we're talking about a one-step sprint, which can exert 1000 pounds of force.
The game codifies combat run speed as 30 feet/round (5 feet/second) or 1.67 m/s, but science is fun and the game isn't always realistic:

real life potential human run speed = 30 mph = about 14.67 m/s

Given the same amount of time, you can propel your body (and the staff end) forward TWICE as fast (conservatively) as you can swing it.
This shows that, at least in real life, a jab can deal twice as much force as a swing.

This doesn't even account for force per square inch.

I'm not going to do any math for swords, as I believe I've proved my point. Jabbing is more than viable, realistically. I will however say that holding a 2H sword with both hands on the hilt isn't realistic or viable. It's not a baseball bat. Why do you think they have that huge part of the blade that isn't sharp, or that hand guard halfway up the blade? Holding your 2H sword like a spear is THE way to use it correctly, swinging or thrusting.

The force of the wielder's forward momentum also applies to cuts- in several places it's been calculated that the average male could generate about 2500 lbs. of force with a good swing. Not arguing here- just pointing it out. You can find an example in the ARMA article 'Fight-Book Clues to Quality and Build of Knightly Weapons'.

As for using a 2-handed sword with both hands on the handle- of course you can. There's a reason they were considered a weapon for the stronger man. Here's an excellent example.

@Wrath- I think the example you gave was completely reasonable, and I would be totally fine with that in game.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Maybe you should find better references like this site.

If you look it you will see that medieval and renaissance swords had all kind of shapes, from almost pointless to 2 handed swords meant to the used only as thrusting weapons like the estoc.

I'm trying to figure out if you were referencing my post directly preceding this one... if so, what's your point? Pointy-ness increased as armor advanced, but that doesn't mean that less-pointed swords couldn't thrust.


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

The force of the wielder's forward momentum also applies to cuts- in several places it's been calculated that the average male could generate about 2500 lbs. of force with a good swing. Not arguing here- just pointing it out. You can find an example in the ARMA article 'Fight-Book Clues to Quality and Build of Knightly Weapons'.

Interesting.

I guess that's why it's d12.

Quote:
As for using a 2-handed sword with both hands on the handle- of course you can. There's a reason they were considered a weapon for the stronger man. Here's an excellent example.

Point taken. I stepped on my own argument of the versatility of weaponry.


Any idea what the average swing force of a staff is?


Wow, threads like this one can really show who started gaming in the days of 1st edition AD&D, or before, and those who started with 3rd edition D&D or with PC or console rpgs. Just because there is not a rule spelled out plainly for a situation does not mean you get to throw common sense out the window and do whatever you want. A typical 6 foot tall human swinging a 6 foot long sword also adds about 2 or 2 1/2 feet to their reach from arm length. Also, on the dagger length versus sword length, there are no penalties for that, once you close on the enemy, because while engaged in melee you are not standing still like your feet are glued to the floor. You are moving in and out, dodging and ducking left and right, all the standard movements you might see in theatrical sword fights. These are why in the old rules a two-handed sword required that 10 foot square as their threat space and any fighting done with a two-handed sword, or any other similarly-sized weapon meant for slashing, in less than the standard and generic 10X10 hallway is going to cause problems. Now, whether that problem is a penalty on hitting because of space limitations or on damage because the full strength cannot be put into the attack or on a low enough attack roll, or just on a 1, saying the character hit the wall or ceiling with the weapon, perhaps damaging it, that is up to the GM.


The point of contention is that you don't have to swing it to use it.

Thinking outside the box isn't the same as doing whatever you want.


Hudax wrote:

The point of contention is that you don't have to swing it to use it.

Thinking outside the box isn't the same as doing whatever you want.

And that is up to the player to say how they are using it. If they do not, then they get the penalties that come with the typical "I charge into battle swinging my sword at the enemy" routine.


Shifty wrote:
Shadow_of_death wrote:
Okay so someone mentioned the absolute kill for this thread in that other thread. Do you give dagger wielders a 0ft reach?

Wait, your arm is 0' long, even when holding a 12" weapon?

Similarly, why does your 6' dude always hunch over to fit in a 5' tall imaginary cube?

Draw yourself a 5ft square, stand in the middle, draw another 5ft square and have your friend stand in the middle, without going into his square try to touch him with a ruler, my arm may not be zero feet but it cant even leave my square without help from the ruler, and even then it only barely makes it out. So if I want to hit him with it I have to enter his square, which is represented in the rules as 0 ft of reach.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Seriously, you live in a desert? Saying that rain hasn't a material consistency mean you haven't ever been outside under a decent rain.

No, it doesn't.

And it would be nice if you could have one post that didn't start off by insulting people and using your opinion of them AS your point.

Be basic question still stand:

For you something that can modify the trajectory of an arrow or a projectile is hard enough to detonate a fireball or isn't?

51 to 100 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is it me or is it no longer necessary to bring weapons that actually fit indoor / tunnel fights? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.