Really? That seems like an awful lot, at least to me. As far as I can tell, it's wielded in a fashion similar to that of the punch dagger, which only does 1d4 points of damage.
I watched some show about ancient weapons and fighters (I can't recall the title) that had a scizore in it. Granted, it did a lot of damage to the poor sides of beef hanging around, but a d10's worth? Can someone better versed in "battle math" help me understand why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the designers wanted to incentivize the use of these "cool new weapons."
Personally, I consider the scizore to be a punching dagger, with punching dagger stats, just as I consider a naginata to be a glaive, and a kama to be a sickle. A rose by any other name...
I went and looked it up. The show is called "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike TV. You can watch full episodes there or it's on Netflix's streaming list. The very first episode had Apaches vs. Gladiators. It was just silly and I turned it off.
Real gladiators in Rome used weapons made of lead, not sharp, and sometimes with protections of cork. :)
They ate the pizza whole, duh.
Good point. If Fred Flintstone can eat a rack of ribs the size of his car, a whole pizza should be no problem.
Maybe the scizore evolved from a butt-scratcher, then.
I removed a post and the replies to it. Do not use that word that way.
I went and looked it up. The show is called "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike TV. You can watch full episodes there or it's on Netflix's streaming list. The very first episode had Apaches vs. Gladiators. It was just silly and I turned it off.
The show can be pretty silly, but seeing the actual weapons in use and the extent of the damage that can be done is pretty cool. They had a guy take the scizore to a hanging side of beef. He nearly split it in two with the first swing. Whether you want to equate that with 1d10 damage or not...
|
This site has some interesting, if brief, stuff on the historical weapon (under the 'arbelas' listing) - based on a type of knife used to cut shoe leather, it seems.
The Pathfinder version is interesting, but ultimately not a brilliant choice for most combatants. Compared with a normal longsword, for example, you're trading a +1 average damage (1d8 Vs 1d10) for a -1 to hit. The Power Attack 'standard', by comparison, gives you +2 damage for a -1 to hit. The scizore also has the worst of all critical threat ranges and multiplies - the lowly 20/x2. On the other hand, the +1 shield bonus, and the new performance quality make it an interesting choice. I'd happily build a character who used one of these - probably a two-weapon fighting type using one of these and a kukri, to simulate the gladiator fighting style - and not worry overly about the weapon's statistics being sub-optimal.
"I removed a post and the replies to it. Do not use that word that way."
"Scizore"? Now I'm intrigued.
me too what did it ryme with?
bag?
glitter?
trucker?
i am being sarcastic of course please dont ban me.
I went and looked it up. The show is called "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike TV. You can watch full episodes there or it's on Netflix's streaming list. The very first episode had Apaches vs. Gladiators. It was just silly and I turned it off.The show can be pretty silly, but seeing the actual weapons in use and the extent of the damage that can be done is pretty cool. They had a guy take the scizore to a hanging side of beef. He nearly split it in two with the first swing. Whether you want to equate that with 1d10 damage or not...
Deadliest Warrior is such a patently awful show.
The only thing good about it is the introduction to weapons of warfare.
I went and looked it up. The show is called "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike TV. You can watch full episodes there or it's on Netflix's streaming list. The very first episode had Apaches vs. Gladiators. It was just silly and I turned it off.The show can be pretty silly, but seeing the actual weapons in use and the extent of the damage that can be done is pretty cool. They had a guy take the scizore to a hanging side of beef. He nearly split it in two with the first swing. Whether you want to equate that with 1d10 damage or not...Deadliest Warrior is such a patently awful show.
The only thing good about it is the introduction to weapons of warfare.
I find watching them do hard to arbitrarily different human analogs mildly amusing for a good 10 minutes of the half hour, but the whole premise is laughable because their 'tests' are about as scientific as scientology.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
High damage weapons means quicker matches; not something you usually want for gladitorial events. I was also thinking the damage was high...but I would not take it as low as a punching dagger. Maybe 1d6 or 1d8.
How about 30+?
I find watching them do hard to arbitrarily different human analogs mildly amusing for a good 10 minutes of the half hour, but the whole premise is laughable because their 'tests' are about as scientific as scientology.I went and looked it up. The show is called "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike TV. You can watch full episodes there or it's on Netflix's streaming list. The very first episode had Apaches vs. Gladiators. It was just silly and I turned it off.The show can be pretty silly, but seeing the actual weapons in use and the extent of the damage that can be done is pretty cool. They had a guy take the scizore to a hanging side of beef. He nearly split it in two with the first swing. Whether you want to equate that with 1d10 damage or not...Deadliest Warrior is such a patently awful show.
The only thing good about it is the introduction to weapons of warfare.
I think that manages to be an insult to scientology.
The 5 minutes of random killing at the end of the show is entertaining. Like Pirate vs Knight where the pirate kicks him over and shoots him in the face.
Like Pirate vs Knight where the pirate kicks him over and shoots him in the face.... And now I have to watch that show... ;)
That's 5 minutes of a 1 hour show full of truly awful fake scientific weapon tests more often than not carried out by untrained fanboys. Also, trash talking that's just sad. I am pretty sure it is scripted.
Deadliest Warrior is so bad it's hilarious.
The show can be pretty silly, but seeing the actual weapons in use and the extent of the damage that can be done is pretty cool. They had a guy take the scizore to a hanging side of beef. He nearly split it in two with the first swing. Whether you want to equate that with 1d10 damage or not...
That's the episode I was talking about, I think. He also pulverized the ribs of a different beef with a cestus. It may depend on the wielder, I dunno. He was an MMA world champ or something like that.
EDIT: I should really read the posts immediately above mine. Sorry for the redundancy!
Like Pirate vs Knight where the pirate kicks him over and shoots him in the face.... And now I have to watch that show... ;)That's 5 minutes of a 1 hour show full of truly awful fake scientific weapon tests more often than not carried out by untrained fanboys. Also, trash talking that's just sad. I am pretty sure it is scripted.
Deadliest Warrior is so bad it's hilarious.
Yeah, it was the trash talking that made me turn it off. It wasn't worth the wait to see the final segment of the show.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can wait till the right near the end of the show you can see them entering in there data on a high-powered computer system, which is a laptop running excel.
They've obviously run out of material. They're doing "Vampire vs. Zombie" on the latest episode. Stupid, but still better than when they ran "Saddam Hussein vs. Pol Pot". The show's name is "Deadliest Warrior" not "Deadliest Mass Murderer." Bleh.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, Deadliest warrior is pretty lame. I've watched it occasionally, but their tests are pretty poor, and they never seem to compare weapons in ways that actually matter. Likewise, they never take into consideration things like weapon speed; just the sheer destructive force of something against a stationary target. Also, in their test of the Shaolin Monk vs Maguai Warrior they didn't even consider the fact that the monk wielded a martial art style. They also overly favored the Maguai warrior's stone and shark-tooth clubs because they dealt tremendous damage to a stationary gel dummy, while mostly ignoring the killing power of the hook-swords, siangham, chain-dart, and so forth, because the amount of collateral destruction wasn't as impressive.
Honestly, the show is stupid, but it can be fun to watch. I just wish they'd drop the smack talk, because it really brings it down.
EDIT: Also, I pretty much lost any level of respect for deadliest warrior when they fanboyed in the extreme and said that spartans could just "shrug off" glass shards in the eyes. After explaining and showing the ground-glass powder that ninja were supposed to have used to blind their opponents, and explained that blinking would grind the glass deeper into your eyes, and that most people went permanently blind after being subjected to it; they just said "oh well Spartans are trained from a young age to be used to pain, so they'll be fine".
I don't care if you're lovechild of Conan the Barbarian and Hercules, no one is going to tell me that you're going to continue fighting effectively while you're essentially blind, bleeding, and in horrible pain, from freaking glass in your eyes.
|
d10 balances, only good thing about it as a weapon. really, -1 to hit. why would you want to use it? you deal no damage if you miss. course power attack would not be so popular if people valued successfully hitting over increased damage. admitting you can afford to trade at higher levels att for damage _if_ you are full bab and high str. but dont those builds use 2hw for 2d6/d12 or d10 w/ better crits and 1&1/2 str damage? oh but this has the ac option. kind of has free mini power attack. feat starved classes might like. and it stacks w/ pa.
taking a full round action to eqip & forces you to pick ac bonus vs attack makes it hard onthe action economy. people who want to mix spells with melee are better w/ a heavy shield and a weapon with a weapon cord. resonable dms know a weapon cord should not work with a scizore. course some casters would like 1 hand free. ac casting(no theat for flank)or att when not casting
balanced enough to justifie some people taking it without leading overwhelming people to it.
|
|
The +1 shield bonus is a weirdly helpful bit to the thing if you happen to be a class without Shield Proficiency, but with the Martial Weapon Proficiency for this thing: unlike a buckler, there's no armour check penalty, it only weighs 3lbs (Vs a buckler's 5lbs), there's no arcane spell failure chance, it's harder to disarm, and you always have the option of attacking with it if you want.
The main downside is that the question of whether you can enchant weapons which grant a shield bonus (like this one) as shields or not is still up in the air (as far as I know - please point me to an answer if we've had one).
In fact, apart from the enchantment question (and the same question directed towards shield-related Feats, I guess) the scizore is out and out better than a buckler or a light shield.
|
|
You have to wield the scizore as a weapon and it doesn't make your hand free like the light shield, so you can't cast spells with that hand, which is why sometimes clerics and paladins choose light shield.
Technically you can't use a hand with a light shield for somatic components either. The usual routine is to use your (light) shield hand to hold your weapon (which is allowed), cast the spell, then recover the weapon (since switching weapon hands is a free action). The presence of weapon cords in the game these days makes this tactic less important (with a weapon cord you can drop the weapon as a free action, cast, then recover the weapon as a swift action), so Clerics and the like often go with a heavy shield too (unless you have something else important to do with your swift action).
A buckler allows you to both cast, and to wield a weapon in the shield hand (at a -1 penalty and losing the shield bonus), of course.
So, what's the consensus on pronunciation? I'm guessing it's pronounced "Scissor" but I think I prefer "Psi-Zore" since that sounds like a cool He-Man villain.
I imagine it's like the Pokemon, Sci-zor
So, what's the consensus on pronunciation? I'm guessing it's pronounced "Scissor" but I think I prefer "Psi-Zore" since that sounds like a cool He-Man villain.
I think on the show they pronounced it like "skit-ZOR-eh"
