|
Thematically they were always a classic staple weapon used by at least 1 party member back in the day, but now with all these crazy feats (Dervish Dance)and high crit chances/damage (Falchion and Falcata) no one that I have ever seen truly uses a longsword anymore. The only real exceptions known to me is that +1 longsword usually found in an AP early on that helps with combat but is eventually phased out for their originally intended weapon, usually built to wreck AP's. Idk, maybe I'm just used to seeing too much powergaming in my area that all the feel of a classic dungeon crawl is ruined with a random kid showing up and one-shotting EVERYTHING. Okay, that is all
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone uses the FotM builds and min/max advice on the forums. I'd say that the majority of actual players know nothing of these extreme cases and you'll see longswords at most normal tables.
Powergaming is the exception, not the rule. GMs need to step up and squash anything that doesn't feel right in his/her campaign.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like in real life, better weapons came along?
My active characters use:
Druid 8
- longbow
- scimitar
Ranger 14
- compound longbow
- longsword
Witch 3
- crossbow
- dagger
Ranger 22 (in 4e)
- spiked chain
- daggers
- longbow
The spiked chain is a backstory choice, the ranger was raised as a slave working for a blacksmith and constructed his first makeshift weapon by linking together bits of metal left over from the blacksmith's labors. Otherwise he'd probably use bastard swords.
One issue (for clerics, anyway) is that most deities have weird favored weapons, most of which are already in non-martial classes (crossbow, dagger sling, etc). Longsword limits you to Iomedae, as far as I know.
There does seem to be a dearth of classic sword-and-board fighting types.
|
|
Not everyone uses the FotM builds and min/max advice on the forums. I'd say that the majority of actual players know nothing of these extreme cases and you'll see longswords at most normal tables.
Powergaming is the exception, not the rule. GMs need to step up and squash anything that doesn't feel right in his/her campaign.
There is hope then...that makes me happy haha
And to Adamantine Dragon, I love deep and enthralling backstories that involve them crafting a weapon to survive and then going on to use it throughout their career...thats extra flavor there =D
Treppa: Yeah Iomedae is a pretty boring deity imo, but the other deities weapons arent exactly made to be broken either. The cleric is limited with their feat choices to be "broken" in combat with their weapon
|
|
My Elven Cleric of Cayden Cailean use a Longsword rather than a rapier. Most of the Falcata/Falchion love comes from the idea that these are optimal weapons and sure they are if your main concern is crunching the numbers. However I reckon most people would choose a weapon that they like rather than what is the optimal.
|
Not everyone uses the FotM builds and min/max advice on the forums. I'd say that the majority of actual players know nothing of these extreme cases and you'll see longswords at most normal tables.
Powergaming is the exception, not the rule. GMs need to step up and squash anything that doesn't feel right in his/her campaign.
What is FotM?
|
|
I was just thinking sword and board for my next pfs guy and this cinches it. He'll be captain above average with 12 in most stats, sword+board, all the standard hero package, but I'm probably going to give him an odd reason for being a pathfinder. Perhaps tracking down my other 2hand fighter to kill him for his crimes.
I may be a bit old fashioned, but I find that a longsword can be a good base weapon for many melee characters, at least to start.
|
|
What is FotM?Not everyone uses the FotM builds and min/max advice on the forums. I'd say that the majority of actual players know nothing of these extreme cases and you'll see longswords at most normal tables.
Powergaming is the exception, not the rule. GMs need to step up and squash anything that doesn't feel right in his/her campaign.
Flavor of the Month.
flavor of the month
n.
A person or thing that is currently but temporarily popular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Elven Cleric of Cayden Cailean use a Longsword rather than a rapier. Most of the Falcata/Falchion love comes from the idea that these are optimal weapons and sure they are if your main concern is crunching the numbers. However I reckon most people would choose a weapon that they like rather than what is the optimal.
I dunno, a falcata is a pretty badass-lookin' weapon, on top of having some stellar stats for a one-handed weapon.
I also know that a friend of mine prefers the Katana and I've leaned towards using the Bastard Sword from time to time.
I have another friend that likes longswords for his Paladin characters (although that's mainly because the Holy Avenger is treated as a longsword).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, rules-wise, longswords suck. That is all.
|
Thing is, when you've got access to a long sword with all martial weapons to choose from ( for classes like ranger, fighter, paladin, etc ), it's usually more fun to pick something more unusual or that does a tad more damage.
I had a sword and board paladin that chose a long sword just because I figured it was common, and it worked. Most other characters like the rogue/barbarian in our group was willing to not carry a shield so they could power attack two handed with a greatsword.
Giving up +2 to AC when they're always getting hit anyway, for extra damage is usually a fair trade.
And if you're picking another weapon , you're usually picking it for a reason, some weapon property or extra crit potential.
The long sword is just there as the basis to compare other weapons against, and for goons to use. At 15gp it's a cheap enough weapon that deals decent damage and crits often enough, but not for enough damage that it'll outright kill most 1st level characters. So it's a "safe" choice. A goon squad with greatswords though, could have a really good day and tpk a party.
Historicly the longsword, as the term is understood, only saw popularity for about two centuries (around 1350 - 1550), and then only really in Europe. It continued to see use after this but favour went to lighter blades and the assorted fighting styles that went with them.
And so may well be the case in the Pathfinder Universe.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a longsword. Its a fine baseline weapon, but I do like my different characters to use different weapons. I try to temper mechanics with flavor.
My 4th edition warlord fought almost exclusively with one for 8 levels. My first ranger in 2nd edition had about four of them. I played a high chivalry 3.5 knight for some time who used one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the Longsword used regularly. It's a toss-up between that and scimitar (mostly based on flavor, with the occasional battle axe thrown in) for sword and shield types (though some do go Heavy Shield/Short Sword instead), the go-to weapon for non-finesse Bards, and used exclusively by Clerics and melee Inquisitors of Iomedae.
All assuming a lack of Exotic Weapon Proficiency of course, but frankly, IME almost nobody takes that. Mechanically, it's worth it for a Falcata or a few others, but I've never actually had a player go through the books optimizing their weapon choice.
Other stuff? Sure. I see optimization of stats and spells all the time, but people almost never consider the effort involved worth it on a weapon.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
European were constantly modifying armor and weapons to get better performance (at least against what the then FotM weapon/armor) and then adapting their tactics and style of combats to the new weapons and armors, while Japanese kept using the same kinds of weapons and armours for a long time and adapted their combat style to that.
Pathfinder players are somewhat similar to the middle ages Europeans, they adapt their combat styles to the new weapons and armor that came out, trying to find the beast combination.
First edition AD&D had rules that did help with the flavour of that kind of approach, making some weapon better against some kind or armor and worse against others, but they were simply too cumbersome to be widely used. a bit of a pity as we have rapier wielding guys perform equally well against a unarmored opponent (their preferred kind of target) and a enemy in full plate and shield or a +15 in natural armor.
Sadly using even simplified rules to show the difference of using a mace against a person in a loincloth darting around and someone in heavy armor will make the game slower and subtract more value from the game that it will add.
Because, rules-wise, longswords suck. That is all.
Can anyone elaborate on this?
"It's a toolbox; use the right tool for the job."
I mean to say, if the longsword does the job, fine. If there is something better that's available, then use that.
/I hate these BS topics BTW. They're half-troll to begin with. Using a weapon other then a longsword does not mean you're some kind of dirty optimizer.
I like the longsword for characters I make that where I just don't have the feats to spend on Exotic weapons. So if I'm going sword and board it with with a class that isn't the ranger or fighter I'm usually short on feats.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can anyone elaborate on this?Because, rules-wise, longswords suck. That is all.
The longsword is a baseline martial weapon. d8, 19-20x2. It's basically the standard of combat weapons. The other standard is the Battle Axe, d8 20 x3.
In PF, at high levels, the +1 dmg over a scimitar is neglible...you want crits. If you go two handed, you want a bigger weapon, and go Greatsword for the +2.5 dmg.
The longsword was the result of the evolution of almost two thousand years of swordsmithing. It was decently effective against armor, flexible, fast enough to duel with those in lighter armor, and usable for stabbing, hacking, slicing, and crushing, used properly.
It is literally the pinnacle of the swordsmith's art.
However, it fell out of favor when armor became unimportant. Rapiers exist for dueling other men in no armor. In a real fight, they'd get bent into uselessness rapidly, and would certainly be of little effect against something with good natural armor. Rapiers don't even do well against most shields. A longsword is too slow for something as speed dependent as dueling, and so fell out of favor.
Too, our world has no great monsters to ply weapons against. If it did, I imagine spears would be far, far more important in the game then they are portrayed.
Now, historically, axes and maces are better weapons to use against armor. However, axe wielders and mace swingers die fighting swords. Spear wielders die unless they can keep swords at reach...there's a historic African king who tested this by splitting up his forces and equipping half with swords, the other half with spears...the latter were slaughtered.
The falcata in reality is an extremely unwieldy weapon. It's very tip weighted, and so is effectively an axe you can't wield well with one hand...a slimmer battle-axe, and that's all it should be statted at. You can't thrust with it, or reverse it to smash with the hilt easily. Yes, it can hack through armor...but so can an axe. A falcata wielder going up against a swordsman would be killed by thrustwork he can't emulate. Remember, it's an ANCIENT Iberian weapon...it fell out of flavor because it didn't work.
This is also why scimitars and katanas are considered inferior weapons by swordsmiths of the West. They are slicing and hacking weapons, they are not that effective on the thrust, and so lack the flexibility of the straight blades of the west. Sure, they LOOK prettier, but the Crusaders proved over adn over that scimitars against armor didn't work, and longswords against armor did.
So, yah, the longsword had pride of place in 1E for a reason. It was the best sword, proven on the anvil of history.
Although, technically the bastard sword in 1E was a better weapon...2-8/2-16 when wielded with two hands, and a longsword in one? Bastard swords were statistically the best weapon, flexibility and all. It's just the idea of fighting without a shield for a serious fighting man was an excuse to die, and thus bastard swords' extra damage didn't apply...unless you were a half-ogre, but that's a different argument.
==Aelryinth
One handed weapons are in a slightly awkward place in Pathfinder; most (obviously there are wide categories of exceptions) characters that want to fight without a shield and aren't using Dervish Dance or something will tend towards a two-handed weapon. Many TWF characters will tend towards just using the same weapon in both hands to save on feats, which means using two light weapons if you don't want to eat penalties everywhere. (Also many players like the visual of using paired weapons.) That mostly leaves weapon/shield users - but not most clerics and most oracles, who aren't profiecient, and many fighters, who might prefer to use a close weapon so that their highest weapon training group bonus can apply to both weapons and shields. Once things are narrowed down to classes that are naturally proficient in martial weapons and builds where a one-handed weapon makes sense, I'd say that longswords are easily the most common weapon I see players use.
Can anyone elaborate on this?Because, rules-wise, longswords suck. That is all.
The longsword is a baseline martial weapon. d8, 19-20x2. It's basically the standard of combat weapons. The other standard is the Battle Axe, d8 20 x3.
In PF, at high levels, the +1 dmg over a scimitar is neglible...you want crits. If you go two handed, you want a bigger weapon, and go Greatsword for the +2.5 dmg.
Right, but crits are not common. So most of the time you would be comparing d6 damage vs d8 damage. And when a scimitar does crit, it's getting 2d6 as opposed to 2d8. And the only advantage for the scimitar is that it is 1 more likely (18-20) to crit than a longsword (19-20), though, on keen this is 2 more likely (15-20) v (17-20) so the difference becomes more dramatic.
So what I am seeing is a mostly negligible difference between the scimitar and the longsword, where a longsword focuses on reliable damage and the scimitar banks on good rolls to make up for a smaller die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually use a fair number of moringstars on my characters. RIght now my charaters use moringstar or lance/greatsword. Although don't some npcs have things like longspear in formation. Polearms could actually be underused unless you are a homebrew Gm.
My bard uses a longsword and buckler. It's the best weapon I can use and it works pretty a okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but crits are not common. So most of the time you would be comparing d6 damage vs d8 damage. And when a scimitar does crit, it's getting 2d6 as opposed to 2d8. And the only advantage for the scimitar is that it is 1 more likely (18-20) to crit than a longsword (19-20), though, on keen this is 2 more likely (15-20) v (17-20) so the difference becomes more dramatic.
So what I am seeing is a mostly negligible difference between the scimitar and the longsword, where a longsword focuses on reliable damage and the scimitar banks on good rolls to make up for a smaller die.
Crits statistically become rather common at higher levels with a scimitar however, resulting in a critical hit about 30% of the time. Considering this can start as early as you can get a +1 keen weapon it can end up covering most of a game. A long sword by comparison is only going to crit about 20% of the time. Other weapons are going to be about 5~10% of the time.
You're misreading crits' power.
#1 As soon as you're above 20 dmg, the +1 dmg from a longsword is lost to the increased incidence of crits from the scimitar. Actually, the scimitar's crits mean 10% more damage over time...as soon as that 10% is more then 2 pts, which is 20 dmg avg, the scimitar is better then the longsword.
#2 Fighters at high levels extract mass power from Critical Hit feats. You have to crit to activate those feats. Stunning/Blinding going off 30% of the time against a foe is much, much better then 20% of the time!
==Aelryinth
Can anyone elaborate on this?Because, rules-wise, longswords suck. That is all.
The longsword is a baseline martial weapon. d8, 19-20x2. It's basically the standard of combat weapons. The other standard is the Battle Axe, d8 20 x3.
In PF, at high levels, the +1 dmg over a scimitar is neglible...you want crits. If you go two handed, you want a bigger weapon, and go Greatsword for the +2.5 dmg.
Right, but crits are not common. So most of the time you would be comparing d6 damage vs d8 damage. And when a scimitar does crit, it's getting 2d6 as opposed to 2d8. And the only advantage for the scimitar is that it is 1 more likely (18-20) to crit than a longsword (19-20), though, on keen this is 2 more likely (15-20) v (17-20) so the difference becomes more dramatic.
So what I am seeing is a mostly negligible difference between the scimitar and the longsword, where a longsword focuses on reliable damage and the scimitar banks on good rolls to make up for a smaller die.
Aelryinth ninjaed me but I was pretty much going to say the exact same thing. When you are a crit based class like say a Fighter or a Magus you want that extra crit. That's why you dual wield kukris instead of daggers or short swords, because the damage you miss out is easily made up for in crits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the first thing that happened is that two handed weapons started doing the damage they should be doing. I think they only did a d10 vs a longswords d8 in 2e.
They also started doing 1.5 X strength, along with easier access to items that boosted strength.
Monsters got more hit points, requiring more damage. Monsters also got severe bumps in to hit off of their strength, making ac almost irrelevant. That left the only viable option as a fighter to be kill kill kill. Since your AC was irrelevant there was no point in using a shield. Since you're not using a shield anyway, you may as well get some extra damage out of that hand.
In short what should people be using the longsword FOR ?
2h'ers in 2e were 1-10/3-18 vs Size L. That's the equivalent of a 22 Str bonus vs 3.5 against anything bigger then size M.
Note in 4E, using a weapon 2handed gives you +1 bonus. The extra damage becomes a facet of the weapon, not the wielder.
Didn't 1E have Str limits on who could effectively use some of the weapons, or am I misremembering?
==Aelryinth
Crits statistically become rather common at higher levels with a scimitar however, resulting in a critical hit about 30% of the time.Right, but crits are not common. So most of the time you would be comparing d6 damage vs d8 damage. And when a scimitar does crit, it's getting 2d6 as opposed to 2d8. And the only advantage for the scimitar is that it is 1 more likely (18-20) to crit than a longsword (19-20), though, on keen this is 2 more likely (15-20) v (17-20) so the difference becomes more dramatic.
So what I am seeing is a mostly negligible difference between the scimitar and the longsword, where a longsword focuses on reliable damage and the scimitar banks on good rolls to make up for a smaller die.
Most dice do not have a straight random roll. The easiest way to tell how is to roll a dice and see how long it rolls, a short roll means its most likely a well manufactured die that will give a completely random roll.
Considering this can start as early as you can get a +1 keen weapon it can end up covering most of a game. A long sword by comparison is only going to crit about 20% of the time. Other weapons are going to be about 5~10% of the time.
A 10% difference is not so big. Yes, you're correct, that the expanded crit makes a very big difference for critical feats, but a class that may not be taking critical feats won't see much of a big difference, since as I said, crits are not very common.
Even assuming the dice give 100% random rolls and crits for expanded range give a 30% chance, that is not a lot. You're rolling regular damage 70% of the time.
So, in exchange for a 10% less often crit for the longsword, you have a larger die, meaning 70% of the time you do slightly better damage, and 20% of the time when you do crit, you statistically do better damage due to the larger die.
So the way I am seeing it, only 10% of the time does the Scimitar do better damage (ignoring critical feats) when it [statistically] crits when the longsword doesn't.
The current PF difference between 1h and 2h weapons is about right for low levels, since a TWF with two one-handed weapons can compete. But as you get to higher levels and the BAB extra attacks per round stack up, 2h weapons get overbalanced compared to fighting with two one-handed weapons.
Other than that the difference between a longsword and other one-handed weapons is rapidly dwarfed by a typical melee martial character's enhancement, strength, magical and other bonuses that are applied.
My 4e ranger uses a spiked chain. A spiked chain does 2d4 damage. Most 4e rangers use dual bastard swords and I have had many comments about how underpowered the spiked chain is, especially for any critical hit situation where it's maximum of 8 damage compares to the bastard sword's 10 damage.
But average damage on a non-critical hit is 5 vs 5.5, or a difference of .5 per attack. My ranger has a +28 non-weapon damage bonus. So on an average hit he does 33 damage vs the bastard sword's 33.5, or an increase of 1% of damage. For major encounter or daily powers that difference drops to much less than 1% difference.
It really ends up being a minor difference.
(NOTE: Edited some math errors when I had the bastard sword wrongly set as a d12 instead of a d10...)
"It's a toolbox; use the right tool for the job."
I mean to say, if the longsword does the job, fine. If there is something better that's available, then use that.
/I hate these BS topics BTW. They're half-troll to begin with. Using a weapon other then a longsword does not mean you're some kind of dirty optimizer.
I don't think anyone in this thread said that. Sounds like the dirty optimizer is projecting! :P
I'm a big longsword nut. Both of my PbP characters wield one in two hands, and I think I've sported one in every CRPG I've played to date. I don't like using a two handed weapon when a one handed weapon in two hands will do the job. When it comes down to it, you aren't necessarily gimping yourself at all. Most of your damage comes from numerical bonuses to begin with. I've never been able to reconcile the damage difference between 1h/2h weapons either. I'd houserule it to something a little smaller (or just make bastard swords the rule rather than the exceptions and greatswords exotic... But I sense I wouldn't be too popular at my table. :P
I've personally never seen the need for "great mauls" and "earthbreakers" to be statted up when I, and my large-size monsters, will probably just sport a warhammer. Seriously though, its a matter of taste. Nobodies judging anyone in here.
Like in real life, better weapons came along?
More like in game life better weapons came along. Designers over valued other, more unusual, weapons leaving the long sword both a vanilla and non-optimal choice. Hence the profusion of weapons that, historically speaking, are rarer than the standard longsword. Many were historically rarer because they were not superior, or even equal, in real life. If they had been superior in rl, then everyone and his grandmother would have been toting them around and the long sword (one handed, double edged blade, length c.3') would be the historical curiosity.
Some weapons are cutural oddities of course and swords did become longer / heavier in response to improved armor in the late Middle Ages. The longswords run as the standard European sword from late Roman times throughn the 1300s is pretty good.
Imo, of course.
Crits also matter a lot more the more static bonus damage you get on it. At level 1 a good crit with a high bonus could drop.
Cold iron morningstar is a good backup weapon for really cheap and costs 16 gp sure it may only do d8 with X20 crit but going agianst DR really sucks your damage total down.
Well, technically there is a reason that the average swordsman in the 18th century didn't carry a "longsword" and instead carried what we'd call a "rapier" or other long, thin, light but strong steel piercing weapon. Besides being more nimble, you could fight with one longer.
The main reason basic double-edged swords of moderate length were so popular when they were is because they are a lot easier to make in large numbers than more complex shapes. In general it was easier for an army to outfit their men with simple blades and teach them how to use them effectively than it was to make more complex blades.
It was a rare, rare person who could afford to have a custom blade made by a master swordsmith.
Well, technically there is a reason that the average swordsman in the 18th century didn't carry a "longsword" and instead carried what we'd call a "rapier" or other long, thin, light but strong steel piercing weapon. Besides being more nimble, you could fight with one longer.
He was also fighting in the city against unarmored opponents without shield. Different weapons work against different opponents better than the abstract rules can account for.
Almost all of my physically oriented characters use the long sword as their primary weapon. The rest generally have it as a backup weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think (unless I missed someone's post), that people are forgetting the biggest reason that longs words were used in 1st and 2nd edition games: almost all the magic weapons found were long swords. It's been a while but I believe the percentage was something like 75% in the old DMGs. Very few players created their own magic weapons for their group and so most groups relied upon taking a weapon prof. (remember the days when you had to pick a specific weapon to be proficient with?) that would result in a weapon found that would be magical.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer a bastard sword personally. But then, I love versatility ~and~ bag space.
A better question, I think, would be, "Why is there no love for spears?"
I love spears.