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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
For you something that can modify the trajectory of an arrow or a projectile is hard enough to detonate a fireball or isn't?

No. I do not consider being able to modify the trajectory of an arrow hard enough to blow up a fireball because the following things can throw off the trajectory of an arrow.

An up draft
A stiff breeze
An air density differential between point A and point B

Your fireball detonates on your party and you all die!" Does not sound like a fun evening of gaming.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
No. I do not consider being able to modify the trajectory of an arrow hard enough to blow up a fireball

How about it being able to "modify the trajectory" of a bullet travelling at 2800 fps (that's roughly 1900 mph)? A heavy rain can alter the course of a speeding bullet...


Quote:
How about it being able to "modify the trajectory" of a bullet travelling at 2800 fps (that's roughly 1900 mph)? A heavy rain can alter the course of a speeding bullet...

Every sniping movie i've ever seen has made a big deal about factoring in the wind.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Every sniping movie i've ever seen has made a big deal about factoring in the wind.

Wind is a huge factor, and if your target is out far enough, so is the curvature of the Earth (but with that, we're talking LONG range that is usually with a .50 cal)...

But the course of some (and the key word here is SOME) bullets can be altered by a heavy rain storm...


Wrath wrote:

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

This makes sense or just use the squeezing penalty if you want something bigger. Also you may not want to make your attack at a striaght horizantal slash with a greatsword and the roof hiehgt matters with the swing as well. Remember you are not always in the center of your square so if you stand on one edge of your square you still have some to actually get a swing but it might not be level and if it is diagonal it may not hit a sidewall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But the course of some (and the key word here is SOME) bullets can be altered by a heavy rain storm..

Ok, so if we're agreed that

1) a stiff breeze can throw off an arrow or a bullet and
2) a stiff breeze should not make a fireball blow up prematurely

then the logical conclusion is that "it can throw off an arrow or a bullet" is NOT the standard to use for a material body.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
then the logical conclusion is that "it can throw off an arrow or a bullet" is NOT the standard to use for a material body.

Wind may not be, but rain might...

Because in order for rain to throw off the trajectory of say an arrow, that arrow has to HIT at the very least, a single drop of rain. Seems to me, that if an arrow hitting a drop of rain AND is thrown off course because of it, that rain drop must be pretty solid (solid enough in fact to alter the course of that arrow)...


But in order for rain to throw off the trajectory of say an arrow, that arrow has to HIT at the very least, a single molecule of air. Seems to me, that if an arrow hitting a molecule of air AND is thrown off course, that molecule of air must be pretty solid (solid enough in fact to alter the course of that arrow)...

You're arguing that a liquid is a solid and that rain is a wall.


Unless you're playing in a vacuum everything you shoot or cast is going through some sort of material. The only way to alter the course of something be it arrow, bullet, or fireball is for something to hit whether rain or wind. The only thing that should set off a fireball is something that actually stops it, otherwise you bring in crazy plans where people start tossing sand around as a fireball defensive mechanism...


Ion Raven wrote:
Unless you're playing in a vacuum everything you shoot or cast is going through some sort of material. The only way to alter the course of something be it arrow, bullet, or fireball is for something to hit whether rain or wind. The only thing that should set off a fireball is something that actually stops it, otherwise you bring in crazy plans where people start tossing sand around as a fireball defensive mechanism...

Too be honest if a wave of flame was coming toward you and you had a bag of sand you could throw it into the air and keep from being burned, wih a magical fireball there is no explosive pressure so it would work even better.

So as far as realism goes, that would totally work


So as far as realism goes, that would totally work

..... You do realize that you're arguing for the realism of blocking a magical ball of fire with a handful of sand right? Just so we're all on the same page.

Also note that the ball of fire explodes into a 20 foot blast area, so unless you hit the bead with thrown sand from 20 feet out you're still going to roast.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ion Raven wrote:
Unless you're playing in a vacuum everything you shoot or cast is going through some sort of material. The only way to alter the course of something be it arrow, bullet, or fireball is for something to hit whether rain or wind. The only thing that should set off a fireball is something that actually stops it, otherwise you bring in crazy plans where people start tossing sand around as a fireball defensive mechanism...

Seeing how the range at which a person can throw a handful of sand is a yard or little more, I wouldn't be preoccupied by that.

On the other hand having tornado like winds blowing up a sandstorm would work.

It all depend on how large or massive you feel the object should be to disrupt the fire bead.
I feel that repeated impacts with even small items will disrupt it, BNW disagree.
He do this kind of comments: "Your fireball detonates on your party and you all die!" Does not sound like a fun evening of gaming.", like he was convinced that I would spring that kind of problems on the players as a surprise. For me is a normal part of knowing what your spells do. You don't even need a spellcraft check.
The idea isn't to kill them for my fun, the idea is that there are environment limitations that people should overcome.

A classical example are the spiral staircases in castles. When they are built with defensive use in mind they are made so that the invaders have to fight with the right hand on the internal side of the staircase, so that the central column will reduce their range of movement, in D&D term giving a combat malus. As 3.5. has removed handiness that tactic has become moot, a small loss but acceptable (ambidexterity was interesting, but it was a excessive tax feat for its benefices).

The problem is that sometime the urge to smooth up the game has taken away too many of those modifier, removing le possibility to find obstacles that require a little ingenuity or preparation to overcome them.

To return to the original argument, using freely 2 handed swords and polearms in spaces that will barely admit the character using them grate on my sense of how the game should flow.
Some other people fell it is more than acceptable.
As long as we both know with who we are playing and what are the rules in use we should both be happy. I don't see a reason to omogenize the rules on one position or the other.


Shadow_of_death wrote:
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.

So are you saying unarmed strikes (ie monks not size L or larger or using reach feats such as lunge) and things like armour spikes are range 0?

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

So as far as realism goes, that would totally work

..... You do realize that you're arguing for the realism of blocking a magical ball of fire with a handful of sand right? Just so we're all on the same page.

Also note that the ball of fire explodes into a 20 foot blast area, so unless you hit the bead with thrown sand from 20 feet out you're still going to roast.

Off topic but in the original Traveller RPG (joy - loved that game) the defense against Space Ship based Laser weapons was indeed Sand (as in a Sand Casters).

We return you to your regular broadcast...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Shadow_of_death wrote:

[

Too be honest if a wave of flame was coming toward you and you had a bag of sand you could throw it into the air and keep from being burned, wih a magical fireball there is no explosive pressure so it would work even better.

So as far as realism goes, that would totally work

You will detonate it at the point of impact, not dispel it.

So unless you are an archer, with a ready action that say something like "As soon as the spellcaster cast fireball I will fire a arrow to intercept it and make it detonate" and then you make your spellcraft check to identify the spell the wizard is casting as a fireball it would not work. And you would need to hit a pretty high AC to be successful.
(note that it will work only because in the game missiles don't have a travel time. They hit instantly. That work both for the fireball "projectile" and the arrow, so what matter is only the initiative and the to hit. We can assume that having a ready action you are prepared to fire to a point only a few inches from the hands of the spellcaster)

A fireball as no pressure, but is blocked only by hard cover, and only improved cover allow you to negate its effects with a successful ST.


Shifty wrote:
Shadow_of_death wrote:
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.
So are you saying unarmed strikes (ie monks not size L or larger or using reach feats such as lunge) and things like armour spikes are range 0?

What he's saying is that its unfair to bring in the realistic disadvantages of big honking weapons while leaving out the advantages of big honking weapons, namely reach thats greater than a dagger's but smaller than a spears.

Liberty's Edge

Slaunyeh wrote:
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?

1e has an entry on the weapons table of the minimum space required to effectively use the weapon as it was designed to be used. What people are discussing is that somelike like a 2H-sword is as effective as a spear-like stabbing weapon as when it is swung. Althought you could stab with a 2H-sword this was not it's primary purpose and would be unlikely to be as effective as a swing. For the same reasons you never see a baseball player attempt to poke the ball with the end of the bat rather than swing at the ball...

As for the Reach 0 etc. I agree with whoever said this thread is a spot the 1e players vs those who started with 3e. The 'square' you're character is in is abstraction and was never meant to be where you are exactly. With a dagger you would be darting in under the guard of the 2H-sword wielder for a quick McStabby, whereas the 2H-sword person would be trying to keep a bit of range and then line up for the swing. The idea of 'static' positioning is a rule combat rule construct alone.

In 1e the longer weapon always struck first, but once in range the dagger wielder could carry out multiple attacks based on how much faster (speed factor) the dagger was compared to the opponent.

In many ways hidden under the complex Gygax-ese was a very good combat system and perhaps the 3e writers would have been better served by having a closer read before throwing out many very good sense ideas in the name of 'simplification'.

Best lie has the largest amount of truth - D&D/PF is becoming a worse lie with each iteration.

S.

PS: This discussion is with regards to non-magical effects, magic effects can go against common sense because they are magic. Meaning yes I think we can have a meaningful discussion with regards to a 2H-sword and space as we could carry out experiments to prove A or B, trying to sort out what density of material is required to set off a Fireball, well, not so much...


Ah, the smell of desire to fly headlong into complicated combat rules, strict and precise interpretations of every action taken ever, and the headache inducing number of tables to keep up with the penalties and bonuses for a dude swinging a sword.

Smells like old school D&D.


TarkXT wrote:

Ah, the smell of desire to fly headlong into complicated combat rules, strict and precise interpretations of every action taken ever, and the headache inducing number of tables to keep up with the penalties and bonuses for a dude swinging a sword.

Smells like old school D&D.

In all it's Item Saving Throw, THAC0 and Weapon type vs. Armor type goodness!

Where do I sign up?

My custom DM screen was 7 panels across AND had 3 extra fold down panels too.

Epic times.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
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?

1e has an entry on the weapons table of the minimum space required to effectively use the weapon as it was designed to be used. What people are discussing is that somelike like a 2H-sword is as effective as a spear-like stabbing weapon as when it is swung. Althought you could stab with a 2H-sword this was not it's primary purpose and would be unlikely to be as effective as a swing. For the same reasons you never see a baseball player attempt to poke the ball with the end of the bat rather than swing at the ball...

As for the Reach 0 etc. I agree with whoever said this thread is a spot the 1e players vs those who started with 3e. The 'square' you're character is in is abstraction and was never meant to be where you are exactly. With a dagger you would be darting in under the guard of the 2H-sword wielder for a quick McStabby, whereas the 2H-sword person would be trying to keep a bit of range and then line up for the swing. The idea of 'static' positioning is a rule combat rule construct alone.

In 1e the longer weapon always struck first, but once in range the dagger wielder could carry out multiple attacks based on how much faster (speed factor) the dagger was compared to the opponent.

In many ways hidden under the complex Gygax-ese was a very good combat system and perhaps the 3e writers would have been better...

I was talking about choking up on the greatsword earlier. Move your bottom hand to the top of the grip and grab leaving this will not make it as hard but you will likely still make contact.

I also have done a similar fine move with a chef's knife to have more precise control of the blade.

baseball:
I have seen a busted squeeze play where the baseball player lunged towards the ball bunting and then would have taken hitting it with teh end of the bat sideways to try and bunt the ball so the runner coming down the line from third is not immediately picked off from thrid running down. Also baseballs are small and moving hitting them with the end of the bat is a lot smaller thing to hit with than with a swing of the bat espically with any kind of movement on the ball. So that may not be the best case for thrusting something.


lordfeint wrote:


Epic times.

It leaves a bitter bitter taste in my mouth actually. But to each his own.

Liberty's Edge

Actually a case of where the GM is penalised for trying to inject believability into their game...

How are people on an archer firing a long bow while crawling down a 4' x 4' corridor? I've seen hand-wavy justification on the 2H-sword front that could be lived with if everyone agreed, how about this situation? I would say no-way given the dimensions of a long bow.

S.

Liberty's Edge

lordfeint wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

Ah, the smell of desire to fly headlong into complicated combat rules, strict and precise interpretations of every action taken ever, and the headache inducing number of tables to keep up with the penalties and bonuses for a dude swinging a sword.

Smells like old school D&D.

In all it's Item Saving Throw, THAC0 and Weapon type vs. Armor type goodness!

Where do I sign up?

My custom DM screen was 7 panels across AND had 3 extra fold down panels too.

Epic times.

And yet combats were still faster than under d20 (either 3e/PF or 4e).

We 'simplified' the rules so we could spend more time at the battle-mat?

S.


i would give the longbow squeezing penalties, i wouldn't do this to the shortbow. because this is the shortbow's niche and the reason it gave up the range.

cover penalties would apply to both as appropriate.

unlike the case with the longbow, most shortbow wielders are a lot more more likely to be in barbarian pounce range.


Stefan Hill wrote:

And yet combats were still faster than under d20 (either 3e/PF or 4e).

We 'simplified' the rules so we could spend more time at the battle-mat?

S.

In 3E our combats were incredibly fast. In part because we didn't always use a grid and often times larger decision points mattered a lot more than the small stuff. I can see things being insanely annoying for rules lawyers and those types of players but for everyone else; we make do when doing needs making.

Liberty's Edge

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i would give the longbow squeezing penalties

That's very kind of you, and perhaps I'm a mean old man. But for me the tip to tip distance of a long bow make it impossible to use full-stop in a confined space. The reason I believe Dwarves are always portraited with crossbows. Again, this from a grumpy old 1e player who believes the 1978 film of Lord of the Rings by Bakshi was rather good...


Stefan Hill wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i would give the longbow squeezing penalties

That's very kind of you, and perhaps I'm a mean old man. But for me the tip to tip distance of a long bow make it impossible to use full-stop in a confined space. The reason I believe Dwarves are always portraited with crossbows. Again, this from a grumpy old 1e player who believes the 1978 film of Lord of the Rings by Bakshi was rather good...

i'm not a slave to the RAW, nor am i a slave to Realism either.

if somebody wants to perform an awesome but seemingly unbeleievable deed. i adjust the target numbers accordingly.

i'd do the same for a 2hander in those tight spaces as well.

i see it as a middle ground.

i thank you for the compliment.

Scarab Sages

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.

In my games, it matters.

Scarab Sages

TarkXT wrote:

Ah, the smell of desire to fly headlong into complicated combat rules, strict and precise interpretations of every action taken ever, and the headache inducing number of tables to keep up with the penalties and bonuses for a dude swinging a sword.

Smells like old school D&D.

AD&D was never very complicated.

If you want complicated, try Rolemaster.


Artanthos wrote:


AD&D was never very complicated.

If you want complicated, try Rolemaster.

+1

In fact I cannot + this enough.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

This is actually a fine answer and in all honesty what I was looking for. d20 seems to have done away with the last bit sim that was present in the older version of the game. So it seems I no longer need to worry about stealth being affected by the fact I am carrying a 15 foot spear indoors or that swinging a sledgehammer sized warhammer in a drainage pipe. Interesting...


Stefan Hill wrote:

Again, this from a grumpy old 1e player who believes the 1978 film of Lord of the Rings by Bakshi was rather good...

I liked that film. And the Hobbit too.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Hudax wrote:
Any idea what the average swing force of a staff is?

I don't know of anyone who has calculated that one- I guess staffs just aren't 'cool' enough. I would wager it would be fairly similar to the force of a sword swing, due to several factors, i.e. similar weight, similar length of weapon past the forward hand, and likely similar speed of swing. I can definitely say, however, that I have seen bo staffs snapped in half by over-zealous wielders with such strikes. I should also note that the strike force I mention before is for longswords, not greatswords.

For a paper that you may find interesting, check out this one. I don't agree with all his points, but he goes through a very thorough description of the physics of hand weapons.

Stefan Hill wrote:
1e has an entry on the weapons table of the minimum space required to effectively use the weapon as it was designed to be used. What people are discussing is that somelike like a 2H-sword is as effective as a spear-like stabbing weapon as when it is swung. Althought you could stab with a 2H-sword this was not it's primary purpose and would be unlikely to be as effective as a swing. For the same reasons you never see a baseball player attempt to poke the ball with the end of the bat rather than swing at the ball...

That's not a good analogy, since the physics is very different between baseball bats and swords-especially regarding the desired end results. Real two-handed swords were generally designed to do both cuts and thrusts, and do them well. Also, D&D tends to ignore the tactical value of employing a sword in various techniques. There are times when a two-handed sword would be more effective with a thrust than with a cut, and vice-versa. Likewise, there are times when it would be more useful in a tight space (with enough room to stab forward) and times when it would be more useful in the open.

Modeling real weapons is just difficult in a game, especially when you have a variety of diverse tastes and opinions to attempt to satisfy.

Stefan Hill wrote:

As for the Reach 0 etc. I agree with whoever said this thread is a spot the 1e players vs those who started with 3e. The 'square' you're character is in is abstraction and was never meant to be where you are exactly. With a dagger you would be darting in under the guard of the 2H-sword wielder for a quick McStabby, whereas the 2H-sword person would be trying to keep a bit of range and then line up for the swing. The idea of 'static' positioning is a rule combat rule construct alone.

In 1e the longer weapon always struck first, but once in range the dagger wielder could carry out multiple attacks based on how much faster (speed factor) the dagger was compared to the opponent.

That does sound a bit more realistic, but in real life that first strike is pretty much always more important- not so much in D&D.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
That does sound a bit more realistic, but in real life that first strike is pretty much always more important- not so much in D&D.

It was important in a time when 80 hp at level 10 was a good value for a fighter and a thief with 40 hp at the same level was acceptable.

Now 80 hp are the norm for a level 10 rogue.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
That does sound a bit more realistic, but in real life that first strike is pretty much always more important- not so much in D&D.

It was important in a time when 80 hp at level 10 was a good value for a fighter and a thief with 40 hp at the same level was acceptable.

Now 80 hp are the norm for a level 10 rogue.

That's true. What about the fighter's damage back then? The few times I played earlier editions I was the cleric, so I'm not too familiar with how much damage a fighter could do. Also, what about 2-handed fighter vs. knife fighter?

In real life, the knife guy would often end up with 1 less arm or a split head when he tries to dodge under the guard of the 2-handed fighter. I don't think 40 dmg in a hit was common back in older editions, was it?


40 HP damage? That used to be memorable, i think. Doable with a critical under a strentgh buff and a good roll on a two-handed weapon.
No power-attack, no vital strike, no rage?...Strength precentiles i remember...Hmmmh...long time ago.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Shifty wrote:
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?

Ummm how are truck drivers compensated when they turn up at a suburban McDonalds drive through and the space is too small for their 18 wheeler and they can't get it around in the carpark.

I find converations about compensation a bit humourous... you know you could just buy a dagger and not be fully tricked out with it.

Thread winner for me. As DM I get annoyed at players whining everytime you present with a situation that isn't optimal for their current build. If some are upset by not having room for their 2H sword they would have hated the time I had the Wizards spellbook

stolen and it took 4 days for the party to find and recover it...

yup. Or that time an enemy had been tracking them for weeks, learned their camping routines, waited until the wizard went to study his spells, and then attacked the spellbook.

THey never thought the wizard could pull double duty as watch and spell memorizing agian.

This is an absurd objection, I don't let my Paladins player take her mount into a 3 foot tunnel, dispite her being tricked out for mounted combat, why should a 2handed sword weilder get to do swing it when she can't just ride Chancellor down it and trample those kobolds.

You see, letting her ride her horse in a 3 ft tunnel would be stupid, just like letting someone swing a 2hd sword or a great axe.


Elthbert wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Shifty wrote:
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?

Ummm how are truck drivers compensated when they turn up at a suburban McDonalds drive through and the space is too small for their 18 wheeler and they can't get it around in the carpark.

I find converations about compensation a bit humourous... you know you could just buy a dagger and not be fully tricked out with it.

Thread winner for me. As DM I get annoyed at players whining everytime you present with a situation that isn't optimal for their current build. If some are upset by not having room for their 2H sword they would have hated the time I had the Wizards spellbook

stolen and it took 4 days for the party to find and recover it...

yup. Or that time an enemy had been tracking them for weeks, learned their camping routines, waited until the wizard went to study his spells, and then attacked the spellbook.

THey never thought the wizard could pull double duty as watch and spell memorizing agian.

This is an absurd objection, I don't let my Paladins player take her mount into a 3 foot tunnel, dispite her being tricked out for mounted combat, why should a 2handed sword weilder get to do swing it when she can't just ride Chancellor down it and trample those kobolds.

You see, letting her ride her horse in a 3 ft tunnel would be stupid, just like letting someone swing a 2hd sword or a great axe.

You maybe should be getting perception checks from a ranger or rouge to prevent spying. Heck an encounter with a spy in your campsite might even be fun.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
That does sound a bit more realistic, but in real life that first strike is pretty much always more important- not so much in D&D.

It was important in a time when 80 hp at level 10 was a good value for a fighter and a thief with 40 hp at the same level was acceptable.

Now 80 hp are the norm for a level 10 rogue.

That's true. What about the fighter's damage back then? The few times I played earlier editions I was the cleric, so I'm not too familiar with how much damage a fighter could do. Also, what about 2-handed fighter vs. knife fighter?

In real life, the knife guy would often end up with 1 less arm or a split head when he tries to dodge under the guard of the 2-handed fighter. I don't think 40 dmg in a hit was common back in older editions, was it?

First edition?

18/00 strength, +3 longsword, double specialization 1d8+12 twice round at level 7-12. About 16 damage/attack with a good fighter and not so powerful items (+3 weapon and gauntlets of ogre power)

Non specialized warrior types with best weapon about 1d8+9 in melee at the same level with 3 attacks every 2 rounds.

Archer build with specialization, +1 bow and +3 arrow 1d6+4 x3 at range, much more at point blank.

2 weapon fighting would almost double your damage output.

So about 32 DPS for a specialized fighter, 26 for a unspecialized one, up to 52 for a 2 handed fighter (high dex and gauntlets), 22 for a archer if he wasn't at point blank, about 50 at point blank.

Good AC was generally harder to beat and at the time you rarely thought in terms of DPS, so the comparison isn't easy, but generally even though monsters or NPC weren't so hard to beat unless they had high AC

Unless you were using one of very the optionals critical tables published in Dragon or a home brewed 40 damages in one attack was almost impossible for a PC. I think the cap was around 1d10+22, barring the hammer of thunderbolts (that could do something like 2d4+30 when throw if I recall correctly).

One shotting was really rare.


You see, letting her ride her horse in a 3 ft tunnel would be stupid, just like letting someone swing a 2hd sword or a great axe.

What part of thrusting a 3 inch by 1/10th of an inch by 5 foot blade down a 3 foot by 3 foot by 60 foot tunnel (at -4) strikes you as stupid?

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You see, letting her ride her horse in a 3 ft tunnel would be stupid, just like letting someone swing a 2hd sword or a great axe.

What part of thrusting a 3 inch by 1/10th of an inch by 5 foot blade down a 3 foot by 3 foot by 60 foot tunnel (at -4) strikes you as stupid?

The part where they get 1.5 x STR bonus or worse say they are using power attack. Yes you can thrust, but in no way could you achieve the same results as a full on swing with a great sword. I would rule -4 to hit and damage as spear perhaps. But no way would I allow full greatsword damage.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

You see, letting her ride her horse in a 3 ft tunnel would be stupid, just like letting someone swing a 2hd sword or a great axe.

What part of thrusting a 3 inch by 1/10th of an inch by 5 foot blade down a 3 foot by 3 foot by 60 foot tunnel (at -4) strikes you as stupid?

The part where people pretend to apply the same modifier they use when they swing the same slashing weapon through a wide arc.

And the part where they claim that the great axe has a thrusting point.

What work and what don't work all depend on the tunnel (and so on the terrain).
A straight and regular tunnel? Sure, using the 2 handed sword for thrusting, or a spear or hiding behind a wall shield all work greatly.
A winding natural tunnel that shrink and enlarge and twist, with a irregular bottom? Short sword and buckler are your friends, or a shortspear.

So in most cramped situations if you apply that -4 modifier the greatsword work more than decently, a glaive won't.
The problem is that some people here seem to want to have the tunnel walls becoming insubstantial while they are doing their attack and not getting any modifier at all.

PS.: I know that you can find images of a glaive with a thrusting point. As medieval/renaissance weapons nomenclature is what it is, especially for pole arms, you can find plenty of different forms of killing instruments called with the same name.
For Pathfinder purpose the glaive is a slashing weapon. If the pole arm you are using is meant to do piercing attack and have reach in game you call it a ranseur.


Stefan Hill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

You see, letting her ride her horse in a 3 ft tunnel would be stupid, just like letting someone swing a 2hd sword or a great axe.

What part of thrusting a 3 inch by 1/10th of an inch by 5 foot blade down a 3 foot by 3 foot by 60 foot tunnel (at -4) strikes you as stupid?

The part where they get 1.5 x STR bonus or worse say they are using power attack. Yes you can thrust, but in no way could you achieve the same results as a full on swing with a great sword. I would rule -4 to hit and damage as spear perhaps. But no way would I allow full greatsword damage.

I am not sure you would land many hits using power attack with a minus four penalty to hit. Do I get a x3 crit with a greatsword then is another argument that could come up with that rule and then rolls a natural 20 and confirms. I know I am arguing corner cases...

Spears do 1.5 strength damage as well if wielded in two hands.

All this talk of wielding multiple weapons makes things like the magus' arcane pool to boost a weapon more viable because you can use it on the shortsword in close quarters instead of giving the +1 to your longsword at low levels.

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:

First edition?

18/00 strength, +3 longsword, double specialization 1d8+12 twice round at level 7-12. About 16 damage/attack with a good fighter and not so powerful items (+3 weapon and gauntlets of ogre power)

Specialization wasn't on Gygax's watch!

So in 'by the book' Gygax 1e your Fighter above would do 1d8+9 per hit.

Main point is the ceiling on PC hp's allowing for monster design that doesn't require creature hp's in the thousands. In a few more editions it'll be millions of hp's per critter? Well once an 'Epic' book come out.

S.

Liberty's Edge

doctor_wu wrote:


Spears do 1.5 strength damage as well if wielded in two hands.

Spears doing what spears do best - I'm fine with that. A thrusting greatsword would be 'like' a spear but not a spear. The grip used in a thrusting spear and a greatsword are very different. In short the spear would not get -4 and get full 1.5 x STR bonus. The greatsword in my game would get -4 and would only get 1 x STR or may be even only 0.5 x STR like an off hand weapon.

Harsh but fair.
S.


The part where they get 1.5 x STR bonus or worse say they are using power attack. Yes you can thrust, but in no way could you achieve the same results as a full on swing with a great sword. I would rule -4 to hit and damage as spear perhaps. But no way would I allow full greatsword damage.

-If you want to house rule it that way its fine, it just seems that people have no idea that there's more way to skin a cat when it comes to using weapons, so they think you have to violate the laws of physics to get anything done when in reality all you need to do is use the weapon slightly differently than you'd think.

People pile these negatives on fighters all the time, and then people wonder why the spell casters keep reigning supreme.


@Shadrayl: Thanks for the essay. Very interesting.

@Stefan: You get 1.5x STR for having two hands on the weapon instead of one hand. You get power attack for sacrificing accuracy, not for swinging.

@Enevhar: Fair enough.

This thread reminds me of how in 1e longswords used to deal 1/2 damage to skeletons because you were assumed to be stabbing them instead of hacking them. Which is absurd--and why they changed it. Too bad they didn't change more.

The whole concept of categorising weapons according to damage type is equally absurd. Greatswords are pointy. Shortswords have edges. So do spear heads. Sword pommels are bludgeony. So are spear shafts. In fact, I would say the only weapons that can't deal all 3 types of damage are bludgeoning weapons.

I'll pretend guns don't exist. But if they did they'd basically be clubs that also shoot.

Which brings to mind, this whole argument could be settled by judicious use of the Catch Offguard feat. (By judicious use, I personally mean houseruling that everyone has it.) Greatsword as spear? No problem.


Hudax wrote:

@Shadrayl: Thanks for the essay. Very interesting.

@Stefan: You get 1.5x STR for having two hands on the weapon instead of one hand. You get power attack for sacrificing accuracy, not for swinging.

@Enevhar: Fair enough.

This thread reminds me of how in 1e longswords used to deal 1/2 damage to skeletons because you were assumed to be stabbing them instead of hacking them. Which is absurd--and why they changed it. Too bad they didn't change more.

The whole concept of categorising weapons according to damage type is equally absurd. Greatswords are pointy. Shortswords have edges. So do spear heads. Sword pommels are bludgeony. So are spear shafts. In fact, I would say the only weapons that can't deal all 3 types of damage are bludgeoning weapons.

I'll pretend guns don't exist. But if they did they'd basically be clubs that also shoot.

Which brings to mind, this whole argument could be settled by judicious use of the Catch Offguard feat. (By judicious use, I personally mean houseruling that everyone has it.) Greatsword as spear? No problem.

I was toying around with the idea of a gunslinger with catch off guard that used a musket during the playtest never built it and got into a game though.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As Stephan Hill suggested, There is first edition Weapon entries which included Weapon length, Space required, and Weapon speed. Essentially daggers were faster then great swords.

If you wanted to include those statistics, it probably would not be too difficult. You could probably directly apply them .

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Stefan Hill wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

First edition?

18/00 strength, +3 longsword, double specialization 1d8+12 twice round at level 7-12. About 16 damage/attack with a good fighter and not so powerful items (+3 weapon and gauntlets of ogre power)

Specialization wasn't on Gygax's watch!

So in 'by the book' Gygax 1e your Fighter above would do 1d8+9 per hit.

Main point is the ceiling on PC hp's allowing for monster design that doesn't require creature hp's in the thousands. In a few more editions it'll be millions of hp's per critter? Well once an 'Epic' book come out.

S.

Unearthed Arcana. The original one.

Specialization and double specialization for fighter only. Up to +3 to hit and damage and one extra attack every 2 rounds.

Cavaliers with extra attacks with specific weapons (longsword, horseman mace and I think lance). Cavaliers adding their level to the lance damage when mounted (and double damage on a charge) [they could do more than 40 hp of damage with one attack].

Barbarians, non the current berseker like barbarians but guys with unbelievable (for the time) hit points (double constitution bonus), a few abilities and an hate for magic.

All of that decidedly on Gygax watch.

101 to 150 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.