|
@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.
I guess at a core what we are discussing is common-sense vs game mechanics. I would have thought that the 1.5 x STR came from using two hands to apply more force behind the swing/stab/whatever. This implies that the weapon is being used in its 'usual' mode. By that I mean, for example, a greatsword is slashing so that means slashing with it. Why both having descriptors of slashing etc if they mean nothing? So now the question we are asking is, what happens if I can't slash with a slashing weapon?
A simple rule would be, and it would agree with what your saying, is that any weapon not used in it's primary mode (i.e. slashing etc) counts as an improvised weapon. Meaning in the tunnel you may be stabbing with the point or smashing with the pommel etc.
What you think?
S.
|
|
All of that decidedly on Gygax watch.
Gygax, by his own admission, was forced to put his name to that - TSR's expansion phase, as they were trying to throw him out. Gygax's works are;
PHB, DMG, MM. He has a couple of entries in the FF (i.e. Drow)
Gygax's name but not his work;
UA & MM2.
If nothing else the writing style gives it away.
You would be hung, draw, and quartered at a 1e convention if you turned up with any from the second list :)
|
|
All of that decidedly on Gygax watch.Gygax, by his own admission, was forced to put his name to that - TSR's expansion phase, as they were trying to throw him out. Gygax's works are;
PHB, DMG, MM. He has a couple of entries in the FF (i.e. Drow)
Gygax's name but not his work;
UA & MM2.
If nothing else the writing style gives it away.
You would be hung, draw, and quartered at a 1e convention if you turned up with any from the second list :)
Interesting, some basis for that seeing how most of the materials has been published in Dragon before the UA and most of it was presented on the magazine as Gygax work?
He was forced to sign as his the articles printed in 1982 and '83?
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.
Not to be coy, but you're doing it again.
You're assuming the swinger is remaining in place, not extending out his arms as he swings his staff.
Then you're having the thruster charge while extending his arms.
Excuse, please. Kindly have the swinger charging and extending his arms, too, because that's, like, how it really works.
Y'know, so it reflects what a charging maniac with a 6' long weapon does with that weapon when it hits something.
==Aelryinth
@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.
I guess at a core what we are discussing is common-sense vs game mechanics. I would have thought that the 1.5 x STR came from using two hands to apply more force behind the swing/stab/whatever. This implies that the weapon is being used in its 'usual' mode. By that I mean, for example, a greatsword is slashing so that means slashing with it. Why both having descriptors of slashing etc if they mean nothing? So now the question we are asking is, what happens if I can't slash with a slashing weapon?
A simple rule would be, and it would agree with what your saying, is that any weapon not used in it's primary mode (i.e. slashing etc) counts as an improvised weapon. Meaning in the tunnel you may be stabbing with the point or smashing with the pommel etc.
What you think?
S.
That would make catch off gaurd into a feat tax that a lot of players end up taking along with its other uses. Also this would make catch off guard an easy way to overcome dr for skeltons and things. For example I could start off a build for a human barbarain with catch off guard and power attack. Then get raging vitality at level 3.
Also I always think you can power attack with improvised weapons. There is a saying for pitchers hitting in baseball swing hard in case you make contact.
|
|
Interesting, some basis for that seeing how most of the materials has been published in Dragon before the UA and most of it was presented on the magazine as Gygax work?
If you are interested in hard core old school then check out the forums of Knights and Knaves (sorry I don't have the URL on hand). I learned a lot about such things. The weapon specialization was an attempt to balance the fighter vs magic-user power difference for example. The cavalier and barbarian were awful products of 'pressure' from TSR to get Gary to product what was effectively the first 'splat' books. The direction the UA and the later things like WSG & DSG (by Kim) were really not to Gary's liking - hence the power struggle and ultimately Gary leaving TSR. In my opinion had Gary not been so head strong and TSR not driven so much by the accountants the current rules for D&D would have been darn near perfect. As it is d20 came out of trying to 'fix' what was wrong with the D&D rule set by people (while smart) didn't fully understand the heart of D&D. That's why, again in my opinion, 1e AD&D has soul, d20 has mechanics.
S.
|
|
That would make catch off gaurd into a feat tax that a lot of players end up taking along with its other uses. Also this would make catch off guard an easy way to overcome dr for skeltons and things. For example I could start off a build for a human barbarain with catch off guard and power attack. Then get raging vitality at level 3.
Also I always think you can power attack with improvised weapons. There is a saying for pitchers hitting in baseball swing hard in case you make contact.
Sorry I'm not much a 'mechanics' guy - likely why I DM mainly, I can just make stuff up as I go...
Anyway, feat tax? What do you mean? I don't really get this term? Take the feat and do X or don't and don't do X. Players choice. I remember this mainly in the discussion about heavy armor prof for Clerics. Seemed simple back then to me - don't take it and have your Cleric wear medium armor!
I don't see it as an easy way to overcome DR, I think it's the smart way! If I'm doing bugger all damage to something trying to cut it, my next cunning plan would be to try to smash it. When mechanics intrude on common sense, I choose common sense every time.
I agree with what you say about the 1.5 x STR for two hands and improvised weapons - it should apply no matter what.
S.
Barbarians were definitely on Gary's watch, and Cavaliers. His Gord the Rogue books had Chert as a primary character, he statted him up as 8th level with an 18/96 Strength, and the second novel had Deidre, a female cavalier from Hardby.
So Unearthed Arcana was still a Gary book, and don't try to argue otherwise. Heck, it was where druid/rangers started being possible, and Curly Greenleaf was one of Gary's own PC's! To disavow the first Unearthed Arcana, you have to say Gary didn't write the Gord the Rogue novels.
So, Specialization is definitely there.
There were fewer bonuses to hit, and non-fighters had much worse BAB then now, so AC's were much, much lower. An AC of 0 was actually pretty good all the way up to 10th level. -2 worked fine, and that was plate, shield, 18 dex. -4 for Full Plate and Shield + Dex could be quite hard to hit, and the hardest thing in all the books to hit was Lloth at a -10 AC, I believe? Which is equal to a 30 now, but totally believable. 18/00 str, +5 weapon, and +3 spec meant a max of +11 to hit...spell bonuses were only +1 or +2 on top of that.
Dual wielding was the way you did damage. The penalty for dual wielding was your Dex bonus to hit -3. So, 18 Dex, no penalty, dual wield all day, double your attacks and fricasee your opponents. No special skill required. Hence, high dex theives dual wielded.
The Hammer of Thunderbolts was damage king, because it combined the damage from Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength (which only magic warhammers did), and it did double or triple damage when thrown. A +5 weapon with +18 Str bonuses and spec on top if it could hurt when it hit.
Although, now that I think about it, the Mattock of the Titans, doing more base dmg, was probably more dangerous (a mattock is basically a huge sledge hammer).
Heh. My brother's favorite weapon was always his Dwarven Thrower...
===Aelryinth
|
|
So Unearthed Arcana was still a Gary book, and don't try to argue otherwise.
I'm happy to argue - but once I get references to back up by assertions. Else we'll just get into 'he sai,. she said' type posts. I may start another thread however. Many 'historians' from day I will call to the stand. Perhaps we can even approach it from a written language point of view? In someways the best approach as unless Gary had a brain transplant the PHB & UA were not the same author.
Gary was there at TSR, but UA was a TSR product 'by Gary' as opposed to PHB/DMG/MM which were Gary products under TSR. Important difference that should never be lost in D&D-history.
S.
That would make catch off gaurd into a feat tax that a lot of players end up taking along with its other uses. Also this would make catch off guard an easy way to overcome dr for skeltons and things. For example I could start off a build for a human barbarain with catch off guard and power attack. Then get raging vitality at level 3.
Also I always think you can power attack with improvised weapons. There is a saying for pitchers hitting in baseball swing hard in case you make contact.
Sorry I'm not much a 'mechanics' guy - likely why I DM mainly, I can just make stuff up as I go...
Anyway, feat tax? What do you mean? I don't really get this term? Take the feat and do X or don't and don't do X. Players choice. I remember this mainly in the discussion about heavy armor prof for Clerics. Seemed simple back then to me - don't take it and have your Cleric wear medium armor!
I don't see it as an easy way to overcome DR, I think it's the smart way! If I'm doing bugger all damage to something trying to cut it, my next cunning plan would be to try to smash it. When mechanics intrude on common sense, I choose common sense every time.
I agree with what you say about the 1.5 x STR for two hands and improvised weapons - it should apply no matter what.
S.
Actually this may make catch off guard a bit of an automatic choice but it ends up with adventurers not carrying around stupid amounts of weapons but it alows characters to improvise and could be seen as good from a flavor standpoint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn't all that uncommon to 1-round K-O enemies in 1E, even with the "pathetic" damage listed for various attacks. A Two-Handed Sword was 3d6 base vs. Large sized creatures back in the day. Coupled with +6 damage from 18/00 str., +3 Specialization and a +2 or better magic bonus for your average 7th level fighter, you're looking at 14-29 damage per swing. If 2 swings hit that's 28-58 damage.
These were the days where the BIGGEST Red Dragon had only 88hp.
Your average Ogre had a measly 4d8+1 HP. (That's 19 HP average)
Hill Giants were 8d8+1-2 (37-38 avg.)
Even the Big Bad Balor (aka Type VI Demon) had only 8+8 HD. (72 HP max!)
I'm impressed by how many natural 100's were being rolled.
|
|
It wasn't all that uncommon to 1-round K-O enemies in 1E, even with the "pathetic" damage listed for various attacks. A Two-Handed Sword was 3d6 base vs. Large sized creatures back in the day. Coupled with +6 damage from 18/00 str., +3 Specialization and a +2 or better magic bonus for your average 7th level fighter, you're looking at 14-29 damage per swing. If 2 swings hit that's 28-58 damage.
These were the days where the BIGGEST Red Dragon had only 88hp.
Your average Ogre had a measly 4d8+1 HP. (That's 19 HP average)
Hill Giants were 8d8+1-2 (37-38 avg.)
Even the Big Bad Balor (aka Type VI Demon) had only 8+8 HD. (72 HP max!)
With the exception of the weapon spec, :), very true. It's where the d20 system fails I think. By having huge amounts of hp's you require huge amounts of damage - now with magic easy, but with weapons (e.g. sword/bow) you have to resort to silly game mechanics to up the damage output at higher levels. Fighters fall further behind because of the lack of a sensible way to scale weapon damage as you would magic. Bit tricky to explain why a sword does d8/level of fighter - or perhaps not?
In the D&D Cyclopedia there is, in my mind, the best attempt at fixing this problem - weapon mastery.
S.
I'm impressed by how many natural 100's were being rolled.
Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Bro.
They were the Wands of CLW of 1E.
I think we are assuming there is a shop that sells Gauntlets of Ogre Power...
Yes I was being cheeky about the notion that everyone is treating 18/00 like a given, even though Magic Item availablity was notionally a pain in 1st Ed (D1-3 and Q1 being the big exception).
Of course the Gauntlets were awesome... the current +2 items just aren't the same level of funky, and wheres my Girdle of X Giant strength?.
The part where you are on your hands and knees and trying to thrust straight forward with no leverage and no way to get in a proper gaurd.A great sword is not a spear, thrusting with on is not the same. The concept that thrusting with on in such a confined area would have any hope of causing more damage than a dagger, which can actually be swung in such an area is silly.
THat an axe would be useful is even more so.I might allow someone to halfsword a greatsword for 1d4 1 1/2 str. but no more than that, not in a space where the body could not be adequately used to give striking power.
You're more generous than I.
To even have it pointed in that direction, you'd have had to have drawn it out and stated you were pointing it down the corridor before you started crawling.You'd get the -4 to hit, deal half weapon damage plus half strength and have no chance to confirm a crit on top assuming you had a 5' long Greatsword.
Now a Greataxe or Dire Flail would be even WORSE. (Possibly to the tune of 1 damage plus half, if any st. bonus or even outright unusable.)
Yes, I am a cruel DM and I love to see my melee fighters suffer in the face of caster disparity and... oh wait... The biggest thing I can stuff down a 3'x 3' tunnel is a Carrion Crawler, which doesn't even exist in PF!!! Those kobolds and mites are gonna just roll all over that Fighter 10 who was forced to draw a short sword to deal.
(Protip: No they're not)
A great sword is not a spear
-I have one of each. I realize that.
thrusting with on is not the same. The concept that thrusting with on in such a confined area would have any hope of causing more damage than a dagger, which can actually be swung in such an area is silly.
A dagger can go 6 inches into your liver, a greatsword can go three feet into your liver. The potential for more damage is there.
THat an axe would be useful is even more so.
That would depend a lot on the axe. Some of them have a longer sweep to the blade, which does indeed leave you able to thrust with it. Some have a spike coming out of the top.
I might allow someone to halfsword a greatsword for 1d4 1 1/2 str. but no more than that, not in a space where the body could not be adequately used to give striking power.
Ok, so you don't think its stupid, you just think the squeezing rules aren't severe enough then.
The problem i have with house ruling the very real disadvantages of a big weapon are two fold. 1) In fairness, you would have to house rule the very real advantages of these weapons, which include greater reach and defensive abilities over a dagger. That will quickly become a mess given the 200? weapons already in the game. 2) That realistically, very little will make a fighters life BETTER than "roll attack normally, roll damage normally" while a lot of things will realistically make his life much worse ie, in the raid, on unsure footing in the mud, inside a hallway, in a crowd.. etc. The net effect of adding realism beyond what the rules say is going to be a net negative to the fighting types. Is that really necessary? They have it hard enough already.
They have it hard enough already.
I hear that a lot.
I don't see it at the gametable.
Even if it WERE true, are we just gimping things to 'fix' a level of challenge some people are finding too difficult? See I'm ok with challenging, indeed I'd prefer even MORE challenge.
What are the bad guys attacking with in this situation? Or are they using natural attacks?
What are the bad guys attacking with in this situation? Or are they using natural attacks?
3 orcs at the other end of the 3'x 3' tunnel, They're using a Meteor Hammer, a Whip and a Sling. All without penalty because they invested feats into those weapons and it would be an affront to make them switch to their daggers.
|
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 the guy with the big weapon gets is superior dps in the majority of situations.
I feel no need to compensate him during the odd encounter where the environment does not favor his choices.
I feel no need to compensate him during the odd encounter where the environment does not favor his choices.
Agreed. If I'm already penalizing for wind conditions, the presence of anti-magic fields, visibility, etc. etc. then I see no reason why this can't exist as well. It's such a minor situation that comes up with such rarity it'd hardly be worth the paragraph one would write for the rule.
|
|
What are the bad guys attacking with in this situation? Or are they using natural attacks?
In a typical dungeon corridor?
In my campaigns, probably swords and shields.
In tighter quarters, short swords, spears, assorted piercing weapons. I try to make encounters appropriate to the environment, unless there is a reason to do otherwise.
Well to be fair I said swing, in 3x3 tunnel.
Which is why i pointed out you can thrust with it.
And yes there are axes with a very shllow curve which can thrust, like a Bardiche, as for the front spike, I have never seen a great axe with top spike
A real two handed axe is probably a LOT smaller than what you'd think of as one : roughly large wood axe sized. Anything bigger is just going to be too forward weighted and unbalanced to swing.
Italian I just hope it isn't frageeelay
I would totally allow a battle axe to be used as a short spear though, if you said it had a top spike, but I would treat it as a short spear, not a batte axe ( though I realize that in current rules that isn't much of a difference.)
Right, but that opens up a whole new can of worms. I mean realistically a lot of what an axe did was simply crush something, which should mean its partially doing Bludgeoning damage.
I try to keep a level of combat realism in my game, sometimes that means that the fighter gets hosed. But I do house rule certian things to give them the appropriate advantages, I wrote a short half feat years before the PHII and still allow it to be taken, I still have full blades ( which I still allow for a exotic weapon proficentcy, I like my real 2H swords) and I have toyed with letting them have reach. I play my opponants realisticly, most people simply will not attack the guy with a greatsword in Wrath gaurd, they just won't do it, so, I give my players a +2 circumstance bonus to intimadate checks when using a large weapon.
Its good that you see the problem, but people running AWAY from the fighter is more along the lines of causing him problems than helping.
I am not sure what the best way to deal with that would be, maybe squeezing should reduce the damage dice on a all weapons which are not onehanded peircing weapons by 2 steps, so a great axe would do D8.
Still a better spear than the spear.
As long as its not completely physically unpossible* I don't like to go outside the rules. The melee types are struggling against mere reality while the magic types are filing the physics of the universe under fiction.
*this is as opposed to merely impossible, which even mid level characters should do on a regular basis.
What your showing is a battle axe, not a great axe,
Battle axe isn't a distinction between hands so much as whether it hews limbs of trees or hew's limbs of people.
it could be used 2 handed, but wouldn't normally be. A great axe is supposed to be a Danish long axe
-no pointy tip there
or a sparth oooo! pointy!
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardiche bardiche
Has a nice big point on the front.
You're making me want to shop on this thread....
So Unearthed Arcana was still a Gary book, and don't try to argue otherwise.I'm happy to argue - but once I get references to back up by assertions. Else we'll just get into 'he sai,. she said' type posts. I may start another thread however. Many 'historians' from day I will call to the stand. Perhaps we can even approach it from a written language point of view? In someways the best approach as unless Gary had a brain transplant the PHB & UA were not the same author.
Gary was there at TSR, but UA was a TSR product 'by Gary' as opposed to PHB/DMG/MM which were Gary products under TSR. Important difference that should never be lost in D&D-history.
S.
Well, Stefan, I find the fact that he wrote his main stories with FOUR characters straight out of Unearthed Arcana (Gord the Theif Acrobat, Chert the Barbarian, Deidre the Cavalier, and Curly the Druid-Ranger) to be pretty much a complete endorsement of the book.
YMMV, of course.
==Aelryinth
I think we are assuming there is a shop that sells Gauntlets of Ogre Power...Yes I was being cheeky about the notion that everyone is treating 18/00 like a given, even though Magic Item availablity was notionally a pain in 1st Ed (D1-3 and Q1 being the big exception).
Of course the Gauntlets were awesome... the current +2 items just aren't the same level of funky, and wheres my Girdle of X Giant strength?.
If you had the Gauntlets, you needed a 15 str to function as a fighter. They really changed things around.
I actually statted up the Girdles of Giant Strength for 3E. It wasn't that hard. You just have to buy into the fact that a +6 limit on Strength is for the birds, and be ready for some massive strength scores.
Also, note that the Gauntlets don't give you a bonus to Strength...they set your strength to a specific limit. That's important. Also, that they only worked for fighters!
Just make up a girdle, reference the Giant's strength, and remove all size mods (+8, +16 for cloud and storm) if you want to use it in 'bonus' fashion (Fire and Cloud Giant end up being identical, but I'd give out Wield Oversized Weapon for Cloud)
Or just set the Strength to X number, and not let it be modified by anything else, including rage or whatnot. Sure, everyone's gonna want that 200k Girdle of Storm Giant Strength, but at that point it just makes sense!
==Aelryinth
|
|
So Unearthed Arcana was still a Gary book, and don't try to argue otherwise.I'm happy to argue - but once I get references to back up by assertions. Else we'll just get into 'he sai,. she said' type posts. I may start another thread however. Many 'historians' from day I will call to the stand. Perhaps we can even approach it from a written language point of view? In someways the best approach as unless Gary had a brain transplant the PHB & UA were not the same author.
Gary was there at TSR, but UA was a TSR product 'by Gary' as opposed to PHB/DMG/MM which were Gary products under TSR. Important difference that should never be lost in D&D-history.
S.
Well, Stefan, I find the fact that he wrote his main stories with FOUR characters straight out of Unearthed Arcana (Gord the Theif Acrobat, Chert the Barbarian, Deidre the Cavalier, and Curly the Druid-Ranger) to be pretty much a complete endorsement of the book.
YMMV, of course.
==Aelryinth
I'm not arguing that point, just that 1e AD&D by the UA had gotten out of Gary's control and he was forced to do a few things he wasn't happy with. UA being one of them. Because of the influence/interference applied by TSR as company on Gary to put together UA/MM2 they are not usually regarded as 1e AD&D cannon. When I get more time I will present evidence to back this up. Of course in the day I played UA/MM2 and AD&D gods forbid WSG & DSG! It wasn't until a few years ago when I went back to 'old school' the sordid history of Gygax and TSR was presented to me.
I personally still think the 1e Dragonlance Adventures was plain awesome.
S.
|
|
I'm impressed by how many natural 100's were being rolled.
I have see one rolled once, but you had:
- gauntlet of ogre power, automatic 18/00 if you were a warrior type and a fairly common object;- wishes: increasing your strength by 105 every time they were cast if you had 16+ in the stat
- cavailers: increasing str/dex/cos by 2d10 every level till level 10
It wasn't so hard getting a 18/00 for a warrior type. The other characters would not get any benefit from the 18/01-00 strength value.
I think we are assuming there is a shop that sells Gauntlets of Ogre Power...Yes I was being cheeky about the notion that everyone is treating 18/00 like a given, even though Magic Item availablity was notionally a pain in 1st Ed (D1-3 and Q1 being the big exception).
Of course the Gauntlets were awesome... the current +2 items just aren't the same level of funky, and wheres my Girdle of X Giant strength?.
They were a very common item in the written adventures.
With the magic items prices I used there was very little magic mart beside a few potions.If you had the Gauntlets, you needed a 15 str to function as a fighter. They really changed things around.
I actually statted up the Girdles of Giant Strength for 3E. It wasn't that hard. You just have to buy into the fact that a +6 limit on Strength is for the birds, and be ready for some massive strength scores.
Also, note that the Gauntlets don't give you a bonus to Strength...they set your strength to a specific limit. That's important. Also, that they only worked for fighters!
Just make up a girdle, reference the Giant's strength, and remove all size mods (+8, +16 for cloud and storm) if you want to use it in 'bonus' fashion (Fire and Cloud Giant end up being identical, but I'd give out Wield Oversized Weapon for Cloud)
Or just set the Strength to X number, and not let it be modified by anything else, including rage or whatnot. Sure, everyone's gonna want that 200k Girdle of Storm Giant Strength, but at that point it just makes sense!
==Aelryinth
The only problem is that with the 3.x version the increase in damage mean an identical increase in to hit.
With the old belts of giant strength the to hit increase was way lower than the damage increase.Maybe to be "balanced" your belts should give out the decrease in to hit from the giant size even if they don't actually increase the size of the user.
|
|
A real two handed axe is probably a LOT smaller than what you'd think of as one : roughly large wood axe sized. Anything bigger is just going to be too forward weighted and unbalanced to swing.Italian I just hope it isn't frageeelay
From the text of your image: "Handle length is perfect for one hand use"
Judging from the image that axe is meant for cavalier use, both when mounted or dismounted, together with a shield.
2) That realistically, very little will make a fighters life BETTER than "roll attack normally, roll damage normally" while a lot of things will realistically make his life much worse ie, in the raid, on unsure footing in the mud, inside a hallway, in a crowd.. etc. The net effect of adding realism beyond what the rules say is going to be a net negative to the fighting types. Is that really necessary? They have it hard enough already.
When you do this kind of pieces I don't get if you are arguing even against the -4 modifier for squeezing or if you are simply unclear,
What your showing is a battle axe, not a great axe,
Battle axe isn't a distinction between hands so much as whether it hews limbs of trees or hew's limbs of people.
it could be used 2 handed, but wouldn't normally be. A great axe is supposed to be a Danish long axe
-no pointy tip there
or a sparth oooo! pointy!
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardiche bardiche [/url]
Has a nice big point on the front.
You're making me want to shop on this thread....
Off centre with the handle, very top heavy for thrusting work ....
Sure, it can be used in a emergency, but as a standard use when you can get better tools for thrusting? I doubt it.The medieval/renaissance professional fighter generally used multiple kind of weapons. It is the "in game" warrior that put all his eggs ina basket and pretend that his single ultra statted, ultra feated weapon should "rule them all".
It is like some spellcaster: "I have made a lightning themed sorcerer, there are too many electrical resistant monsters", "I have made a enchantment based wizard, how is that the creatures with immunity to mind affecting magic are so common?" and so on.
Things like weapon training 1-4 have been put in game to help players when they weren't using their primary weapon, but apparently they had the opposite effect.
Lots to say, so I won't handle it all with quotes.
@Hudax: Your welcome. I thought you seemed like the type who would enjoy that essay. As an interesting addition to that, the (14th? Century) alchemist/swordsman Hanko Dobringer advised swordsman not to hold the pommel in a swing as it would prevent the sword from pivoting about the hands and rob the blow of power. His advice seems to line up quite nicely with Mr. Turner's theories.
@the people who helped supply the 1e stats: Thanks guys, I appreciate it. I've got a few more questions, though. 1)Did the guy with the longer reach get all his potential attacks for the round 1st, or just the 1st one? 2) Did that reach seem to present a reasonable deterrent to the knife-wielder in actual play?
UMM No, a true 2H Sword (which is not in D&D really) is still used with a grip on the hilt. Half swording techniques( withte hand on the blade are certianly viable, even turnning it around and hitting with the hilt, but making good old cuts with the blade from two handed grip on the Hilt is certianly viable.
A Longsword, which in D&D might be a greatsword or a bastard sword depending also sometimes has an extended ricasso for half sword techniques, but they too are supposed to be used in swings along the 8 cuts.
Both are certianly viable for thrusting, but when thrusting with a sword one uses ost of ones body, when half swording the entire upper body is moved about to give power.This is not something that wouldbe viable in a 3 ft tall 3 foot wide tunnel.
also your math is wrong, the END of the staff is moving at amuch faster rate of speed, it is giant third class lever, jabbing is dangerous becuase it has a short line of attack, but a thrust ca be turned very easily, I have turned live blades with an unarmoured hand with no problem. A swing cannot be, someone is swings asowrd at you andyou try and parry it with your unarmoured hand.... your not going to have a hand,, probably not a body either.
To be fair, I think that 3e/Pathfinder's greatsword is meant to be a true 2-hander. It's the one thing I really liked about older editions- weapon terms and artwork were far, far more accurate.
Also, I'd like to make a slight distinction regarding longsword technique. Although the 'prime' techniques are indeed cuts, a thrust is very often the 'fight-ender' as you wind for an opening and thrust home. It seems to me that a lot of the fights ended by a cut are when you got lucky, or you're just a lot better than your opponent.
There are plenty of times when a thrust doesn't use a 'whole body' mechanic, too. Such as a thrust to the face after winding to a hanging guard. If I was trying to apply game terms to real techniques I would call a 'whole body' thrust a power attack. So, maybe no power attacking in smaller tunnels?
Off centre with the handle, very top heavy for thrusting work ....
Sure, it can be used in a emergency, but as a standard use when you can get better tools for thrusting? I doubt it.The medieval/renaissance professional fighter generally used multiple kind of weapons. It is the "in game" warrior that put all his eggs ina basket and pretend that his single ultra statted, ultra feated weapon should "rule them all".
It is like some spellcaster: "I have made a lightning themed sorcerer, there are too many electrical resistant monsters", "I have made a enchantment based wizard, how is that the creatures with immunity to mind affecting magic are so common?" and so on.
Things like weapon training 1-4 have been put in game to help players when they weren't using their primary weapon, but apparently they had the opposite effect.
The slight 'off-center' point is less of a hindrance than you might expect. What's most important is whether it's in line with the direction in which you're supplying force. Arms & Armor's 'Hungarian Axe' is a great thruster for this reason.
I agree with you on the Weapon Training issue, though. It's why I don't really like most of the fighter archtypes.
I have to say, though, I don't remember the last time I had a fighting character who didn't carry a dagger for a back-up. Heck, even my Summoner has one as a back up to his rapier and longbow. (He's an elf, so he's proficient)
I'm also really enjoying the Paladin I'm playing in Carrion Crown. He fights with longsword and cestus. Sometimes I two-hand the longsword, sometimes I two-weapon fight, and sometimes I go sword and shield, with my quick-draw shield. Is it optimized? Heck no. Is it fun? You bet. I'm never even going to bother with Weapon Focus, and almost any weapon we find in the campaign will be one I can use as effectively as my primary.
|
|
@the people who helped supply the 1e stats: Thanks guys, I appreciate it. I've got a few more questions, though. 1)Did the guy with the longer reach get all his potential attacks for the round 1st, or just the 1st one? 2) Did that reach seem to present a reasonable deterrent to the knife-wielder in actual play?
The longsword was so much the "King of the hill" when you were using speed and damage but not vs armour modifiers (and that is what most DM players that I did know did), that people using other weapons was uncommon it they hadn't class limitations prohibiting it.
If you were using armour modifiers the dagger and short sword were seriously penalized against the harder armour kinds, so the main deterrent against "small and fast" weapons was that -3 to -5 modifier to the to hit against plate (or better) armour.
Note that most swords had a bonus against light armours and most bashing weapons had a good bonus against the heavier weapons. That was one of the balancing factors against the small damage die.
The attack routine was something like:
- every round: declare your actions at the start of the round
- start of the combat or when approaching an enemy from afar -> longer weapon attack -> shorter -> repeat if you had multiple attacks
- successive rounds you did go in initiative order, modified by your weapon or spell speed. If a spellcaster was hit he would lose the spell.
Note: the last first edition game I did was about 20 years ago, so I can be somewhat mistake. My books are in the basement and I don't want to got here and take them out to check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@the people who helped supply the 1e stats: Thanks guys, I appreciate it. I've got a few more questions, though. 1)Did the guy with the longer reach get all his potential attacks for the round 1st, or just the 1st one? 2) Did that reach seem to present a reasonable deterrent to the knife-wielder in actual play?
The longsword was so much the "King of the hill" when you were using speed and damage but not vs armour modifiers (and that is what most DM players that I did know did), that people using other weapons was uncommon it they hadn't class limitations prohibiting it.
If you were using armour modifiers the dagger and short sword were seriously penalized against the harder armour kinds, so the main deterrent against "small and fast" weapons was that -3 to -5 modifier to the to hit against plate (or better) armour.
Note that most swords had a bonus against light armours and most bashing weapons had a good bonus against the heavier weapons. That was one of the balancing factors against the small damage die.
The attack routine was something like:
- every round: declare your actions at the start of the round
- start of the combat or when approaching an enemy from afar -> longer weapon attack -> shorter -> repeat if you had multiple attacks
- successive rounds you did go in initiative order, modified by your weapon or spell speed. If a spellcaster was hit he would lose the spell.Note: the last first edition game I did was about 20 years ago, so I can be somewhat mistake. My books are in the basement and I don't want to got here and take them out to check.
Ah, that sounds fairly reasonable. The more I hear about it, the more I think I may have like 1e better than 2e.
I still remember that I never liked weapon speed, though. Mostly for the number of people I met who always seemed to get warped impressions of the speed of actual weapons as a result- i.e. thinking that a 2-handed sword was so slow that you could actually walk out of the way of the swing. (not that that was necessarily correct according to the rules, but that they somehow got that impression from it)
|
|
Ah, that sounds fairly reasonable. The more I hear about it, the more I think I may have like 1e better than 2e.
I still remember that I never liked weapon speed, though. Mostly for the number of people I met who always seemed to get warped impressions of the speed of actual weapons as a result- i.e. thinking that a 2-handed sword was so slow that you...
D&D 3.X is more similar to the D&D (basic/expert/companion/master) rules than the AD&D rules.
The "basic" version had fixed, identical bonuses for all the stats while AD&D had sightly or greatly different rules for each characteristic (18/00 strength with its +3 to hit/+6 damage, 18 intelligence with extra languages and a % chance to learn wizard spells, charisma with a % modification to first impression and loyalty [and those modification were different]);
it had mastery rules for weapons (relatively similar to the effect of taking a feat chain with a single kind of weapon).
AD&D has its pro and its cons, for sure combat was faster than the current incarnation.
|
|
I still remember that I never liked weapon speed, though. Mostly for the number of people I met who always seemed to get warped impressions of the speed of actual weapons as a result- i.e. thinking that a 2-handed sword was so slow that you...
Weapon Speed Factors in 1e were used very differently than in 2e. They counted in case of ties, determining number of attacks once you got inside the guard of a long weapon, and lastly fir determining if a spell caster actually got to cast before getting clobbered. Language and rule location sucked, the the underlying game ideas were genius.
Feel free, however, to propose houserules that you feel simulate the difference between a gladius and a greatsword.
I propose common sense :)
Read the arguments in this thread.
Imagine these arguments playing out in real time at a game table between players and GM while combat is stalled.
Or imagine a newish GM double checking the "close quarters combat" rules, trying to remember if a longsword applies or not and at what penalty, etc. (This is an example. Please do not follow up with an argument about how it would be someone to try to use a longsword (or not) in close quarters combat).
If what you imagine is a smooth, streamlined discussion that resolves quickly, and you like the idea of extra close quarters combat rules, use them and proudly so!
If what you imagine is a clusterfudge of player vs GM tension and lots of confusion that slows combat incredibly, then it's probably better to avoid such mechanics for the sake of keeping gameplay entertaining.
Either option is possible. It depends a lot on very different play styles and personalities involved.
To be fair, I think that 3e/Pathfinder's greatsword is meant to be a true 2-hander. It's the one thing I really liked about older editions- weapon terms and artwork were far, far more accurate.Well I thought so when it came out, then sword and fist came out, it had the Full Blade in it, and the full blade discription sounded exactly like a true 2-hander. as for the other I agree completely I really wish the terms and art reflected reality a bit better.
Also, I'd like to make a slight distinction regarding longsword technique. Although the 'prime' techniques are indeed cuts, a thrust is very often the 'fight-ender' as you wind for an opening and thrust home. It seems to me that a lot of the fights ended by a cut are when you got lucky, or you're just a lot better than your opponent.There are plenty of times when a thrust doesn't use a 'whole body' mechanic, too. Such as a thrust to the face after winding to a hanging guard. If I was trying to apply game terms to real techniques I would call a 'whole body' thrust a power attack. So, maybe no power attacking in smaller tunnels?
Certianly a long sword can thrust, and thrust can be vicious and effective, but unless you are looking at a really late longseord it is not the primary means of attack for one (really I think the really late stabbing longswords need a differnet name). In full speed sparring I have found cuts to be quite efffective as fight enders, much more often than thrust. That experiance has led me to be in the George Silver school of cuts are beter than thrust.
As for your thrust not using the whole body, I think your misunderstanding me. I am not sayng that you are using your whole bodys str when thrusting, that would be completely unnecessary unless your opponant had heavy armour, but when you thrust properly you are indeed using your whole body, not just your arms, either you pass forward,or turn your torso as you thrust, or you passback and turn...
I think the original designers weren't too happy with Sword & Fist considering how hard it got hit with errata (if I remember correctly, the Fullblade got killed by errata-turning into a size large weapon). But I'm fine with saying that Fullblade is the real 2-handed sword if you're using those.
I think we've just got a bit of misunderstanding on thrusting- Yes, you do often step, turn, etc. with attacks, but it's not always required. Sometimes you just step slightly forward or lean forward and press forward with your arms. No it's not as much force, but I consider the damage die to be both force & placement so I'm not going to restrict damage based on amount of force generated unless it' really severe. Also, I wasn't trying to say fights don't get ended with a cut, just that thrusts do a big share of the work. Lots of times it comes down to- I try to cut, you block, I wind to an opening and thrust. That's not to say it's ALL the time. Here's what I'm talking about. (EDIT: I'd also like to say, the Masters seemed pretty opposed to free-standing thrusts. In the open, you should cut, but once you're in the bind it's all thrusts. It's just that most of the fight happens in the bind.)
As for thrusting in a tunnel- I would crouch on one knee with my sword in Pflug, then lunge forward by leaning my torso low and thrusting forward with my arms. Plenty of force to skewer someone with, even if it's not as much as a standing thrust. So if I was being picky as DM, I would force them to take kneeling penalties and squeezing penalties. But I wouldn't reduce the damage, because of the abstract nature of the damage die as I mentioned before.
Regarding the characterization of 'pointy' longswords as a late development: Type XVa and XVIa longswords developed around 1300 A.D., vs. about 1250 A.D. for Type XIIa and type XIIIa. That's about 50 years for the 'early longswords' and 300 for the pointy ones. Not to mention that the pointy ones were around when Liechtenauer himself was likely only a baby. (EDIT: Also, Silver was himself a late-period master, in the era of the type XVIII longswords- which were, as a rule, extremely pointy.)
Weapon Speed Factors in 1e were used very differently than in 2e. They counted in case of ties, determining number of attacks once you got inside the guard of a long weapon, and lastly fir determining if a spell caster actually got to cast before getting clobbered. Language and rule location sucked, the the underlying game ideas were genius.I still remember that I never liked weapon speed, though. Mostly for the number of people I met who always seemed to get warped impressions of the speed of actual weapons as a result- i.e. thinking that a 2-handed sword was so slow that you...
Ok, so it was the 2e weapon speed rules that are the culprit, then.
Also, thanks to Diego for the tidbit on the divide between the old basic & advanced versions. As for combat speed, I blame the battle mat.
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.
Small weapons can be used in a grapple. Big ones not so much.
Small weapons can be used in either hand. Big ones need both.Small weapons can be concealed via Sleight of Hand. Big ones not so much.
A well trained warrior knows how to use big weapons in small spaces, such as modifying grip and using their body weight. Want an example? Try (IRL) getting "inside" a skilled fencer's or Kendo user's attack and you'll get a free welt.
If you consider a 5' wide, 10' high tunnel a small space, think again.
If by "small space" you mean a phone booth or something you have to squeeze through, then it's "an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up.", and you should be using the appropriate rules.
I agree, they turned it into a large weapon that does 2d8... I kept it an exotic weapon and let it do 2d8, I never found it to be over powering. Compared to other exotic weapons it wasn't all that, but it did offer a lot of flavor.
Sounds like it would be fun, and an exotic weapon actually worth the feat. I agree it's probably not that overpowering.
Yes, you step forward, you lean forward, with a thrust the force of a man leaning forward is plenty of force to kill an unarmoured opponant. but most of the thrust in these fights would never penetrate decent armour. Also I find that people who spend a lot of time practicing certian techniques tend to think those tenchniques are a great deal of the fight, becuase, in their experiance, they are. However, in my experiance very few longsowrd fights end up in the bind, certianly when sparing I do everything I can to prevent it, and am totally prepared to back up over and over to prevent it, but thats because I like to cut.Watching this fights I just kept looking at those juicy lead legs that were just hanging out there to be chopped. Almost yelling, "DISMEMBER ME"!
I'm not going to get into armored vs. unarmored, since Pathfinder doesn't handle it well, and I think you're probably aware of the sort of quagmire that the discussion 'what weapon can penetrate what armor' is. I agree with you on training- cross-training with other groups can be very informative. My opinions on the use of the bind are also influenced by the Masters, who often would refer to it by saying things such as 'Now here is where the True Art lies' or other similar things.
I should point out- that vid was a drill, not sparring, but yes they should watch their legs even if their not a valid target for the drill. I posted it to show the type of thrust I was referring to.
How tall are you? I am not sure I could do that in a 3 ft tall tunnel, but, it certianly would be a reasonable technique. While I agree that damage has something to do with placement, it isn't much, or a dagger could do as much damage as a longsrod, and it can't. I mean a dagger blade will go all the way through someone, but a dagger does 1d4 not 2d6. I actually think the old way of having weapons do different damage to larger and smaller creatures made a lot of sense.
I'm 6'3". It's quite do-able, but you do have to watch your head when you lean forward. Also, you're not going to be able to move around much at all. But with kneeling and squeezing you're at -6AC, so it seems ok to me.
Fair point about the damage dice, too. It just falls into the 'not going to worry about it' category for me.
Well as I remember think the pointy longswords didn't come into common use until more like 1350 and a hundred years is a long time for a weapon system which was only really in use for 300 to 400 years and the other swords never fell out of use.I know when Silver lived, but I think his conclusions are basically valid, he was not just discussing longswords, in fact, he didn't really like long swords, he was a Cut and Thrust sword man, which he called a shortsword(closer to what D&D calls a longsword than a rapier, but really with no corralary in D&D), but weapons in general, lethal cuts are fight ending, lethal thrust are often not, even if the guy dies later, who cares if he still kills you.
Type XVIa was definitely around as early as 1300, and the evidence for XVa is there too, maybe even back to 1250. My point was simply that 66%-75% of the time is hardly a 'late developement'. The pointy swords were far more common in general, though with the reduction in armor later in the period of longsword use, it became less important.
I didn't mean to imply you didn't know when Silver lived, sorry if you took it that way. I just think he's one opinion among many, and the prevalence of pointy longswords seems to be a good indication his opinion wasn't necessarily in the majority.