Trouble is it doesn't really carry through when you're talking about melee weapons. From the perspective of a roman soldier wielding "advanced" gladius's, heavy shields and fighting in tight formation that Falcata is pretty damn terrifying as the naked raging celt hacks his shield apart from outside his short swords reach.
Likewise even the most heavily armored knight and horse combination is easily stifled by a group of pikeman whose tactics predate european civilization by magnitudes.
These are factors that are difficult to reflect in stats. And really should not even be tried.
These are often weapons with specialized uses that don't exist in the game system. A lone soldier with an unwieldy shield meant for phalanx formations is much less of a challenge than one with a shield designed to fight on their own. Yet, P&P design philosophies would probably make the shield meant for phalanx formations superior in every way to the regular shield or the same with additional bonuses.
Basically, i agree with you. These are factors that shouldn't be pushed into the stats.
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...
You're missing the fact that you don't hit 95% of the time, and the effect on iteratives.
Let's say you're level 10, with +20 to attack, and using a longsword or scimitar against something AC 30.
With the longsword:
you'll hit on a 10 or higher, and 4/11 swings THAT HIT will crit.
If you get a full attack, you'll hit 55/30% of the time, but your crit odds are .2 x .55/.2 x .30, or roughly 16%.
With the scimitar, same odds:
Standard attack, 6/11 swings you'll crit. That means that more then half the time you hit something, you'll crit. That's VERY significant.
Full attack: Your crit odds are .3 x .55/ .3 x .30, or 25.9%. Another way of saying this is +26% dmg, vs +16% dmg.
The way it works out is this:
On attacks that hit, the scimitar crits half the time, and confirms half the time.
On attacks that hit, the longsword crits 1/3 the time, and confirms half the time.
This carries over into mounting iteratives. As you get more and more attacks, the odds of getting a crit attack accumulate over time and the extra damage can be quite significant. It's also a great way to quickly drop an enemy.
The +1 damage of the longsword becomes less and less valuable over time next to the ability to suddenly/reliably get off crits for double damage, or deal status effects.
Sure, 20% vs 30% doesn't seem much, but remember that's 50% MORE OFTEN you get the crit. THe rolling impact of those kind of crits just gets better and better by level.
===Aelryinth
Ok I see a lot of disagreements over the "differances" between a long sword and other blade weapons of historicly simmiler length/ design.
I look at the game numbers as a baseline as to what the designers thought/ intended with the weapons. I will admit as GM I missed that swords did not perice (I always have though they did slashing/ pericing damage depending on how they where used in a paticluer fight) Most sword/ dagger/ knife designs I see in historical referances are edged and pointed. I use longswords as a "defult" weapon for many guards/ soilders of fair or better intended quility. Most of my reason is a sop to my base thoughts on ease of manafacture and training. City Guards may have diffaculity moving through a crowded city with longer blades or polearms/ spears.
As to space needed for a homebrew game set up one of the minor dieties for their temples that they had to have high tunnels and chambers to allow the deities great blade (greatsword) the room to fight properly.
My elven alchemist uses a longsword with a masterwork buckler because he's not proeficient with the falcata. The longsword became a weapon for elves without level in a class that provides martial weapon proeficiency. :P
IF things were just about what is good then armies of npcs with longspears and kikko armor outfitted for around 35 gold pieces with a really good armor class and reach for heavy infantry would be common.
This actually sounds very similar to the NPCs in my own games. The most common weapons and armors you come across in my games tend to those that are relatively simple and effective, such as longspears; slings; clubs; morning stars; studded leather; scale mail; and splint mail.
Many, many NPCs that you encounter in my games generally will be wielding these low cost, low-tech, weapons and armors because they're readily available and because they work. Clubs are simple, free, and ranged. Longspears are 1d8/x3 reach weapons. Slings are free and don't require hundreds of GP to benefit from strength modifiers (making them ideal for creatures like orcs, gnolls, and giants). Armor tends to be studded leather for light mobile units, scale mail for those on a budget, and splint or banded mail for most of the bruisers.
Most NPCs that use other sorts of equipment generally do so because they have some sort of gimmick, or trick, or because they have more money or are expected to have more elaborate gear. Chainmail is pretty common too, among some of the more important NPCs who can afford he extra Dex (maybe breastplates), but it depends.
That's fine by me as well, since plenty of martial weapons aren't going to be quite a common among people. I do wish swords in general were a little more attractive. In D&D, you might as well use the kukri/scimitar/falchion in place of other swords; because as Aelryinth pointed out, they're just pretty much better past the lowest levels.
My approach is very similar to Ashiel's.
Also, even if every PC I run into uses some exotic weapon, that doesn't really change the general fact that in my worlds simple, recognizable weapons are far, far more common than exotic weapons. PCs are expected to be unique, memorable and utilize unusual skills and abilities. Even if the entire party has some odd weapon, all that does is reinforce the notion that the PCs are special.
Just don't see the problem with the whole issue here. Other than a random comment from a player about how odd it is that the PCs all have some unusual weapon, there is never an issue around what the PC decides to use. There MIGHT, on occasion, be some difficulty in locating special types of rare weapons, but even that I generally deal with by allowing local weapon makers to create weapons on request of the PC.
To Ashiel and Adamantine Dragon:
Do you follow the NPC's wealth/level guideline in your game? Does 4th and 5th-level NPC use masterwork version of those "simple" weapons? After all, if they can afford masterwork clubs, they should be able to afford masterwork warhammers, no? If they don't have masterwork weapons, can they still challenge de PCs? I'm asking because I'm always running campaing where most opponents are humanoids, even during the higher levels, and I'm just curious about how others people handle those kind of things.
Maerimydra:
I use the WBL as a general guide, not a hard and fast rule. Every few levels I'll do an accounting to see how things stack up and if necessary I will make some adjustments to bring things into line.
But do I monitor WBL in every encounter and watch every character's inventory before, during and after every session?
Oops, I misread your comment.
For NPCs I do about the same thing. I also tend to merge the encounter wealth into the NPC's gear, meaning the encounter might include magical armor and/or weapons and if so, the NPCs will darn well be using them.
But I mostly design encounters to be challenging to the party, not to follow some chart in a book.
|
Hm...
Most of the time, very few of my players (or the rest of my team for that matter, when I'm not DM) go for a weapon based on specialization, but they go on a weapon based on preference. That being said, many of them are straight classic fantasy nerds (obviously, or they wouldn't be playing this game) and when I tell them the words "Iconic weapon", I'm guessing the first word they'll throw back at me is longsword. They only ever change it up from the traditional basic weapons (longsword, dagger, spear, longbow, etc.) if they have unique character designs.
That said, since I design at least a quarter of my NPCs with the thought of "my players are gonna loot them later" I give them weapons my PCs can use and would enjoy using. Thus, longsword are fairly common.
The one exception to this little process is the katana. If you have a character using one of those it better be WELL justified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Ashiel and Adamantine Dragon:
Do you follow the NPC's wealth/level guideline in your game? Does 4th and 5th-level NPC use masterwork version of those "simple" weapons? After all, if they can afford masterwork clubs, they should be able to afford masterwork warhammers, no? If they don't have masterwork weapons, can they still challenge de PCs? I'm asking because I'm always running campaing where most opponents are humanoids, even during the higher levels, and I'm just curious about how others people handle those kind of things.
Yes I do follow NPC wealth guidelines in my game. Some might have masterwork weapons at 4th-5th level but honestly most don't. Many of my NPCs will carry an oil of magic weapon if they need a bit more oomph; and NPC adepts cast bless.
Also, yes, you don't need masterwork gear to challenge PCs. You just need to fight like PCs fight. Here's an example of a simple, CR 1 encounter that you might find in my games.
2 1st level warriors + 1 1st level adept
All three are wielding longspears, wearing studded leather, carrying slings, and have a couple of alchemical items and maybe a single potion or oil.
The adept will generally open the battle by casting sleep from behind the cover of the warriors (+4 AC vs ranged, adds to the base AC of 14 or so from wearing the armor and marginal Dex mod to make 'em fairly tricky to hit), unless the enemy is composed of stuff that sleep doesn't work on (like elves); otherwise cast bless.
The warriors chug their potion of enlarge person, growing twice as tall and bringing their longspears to 2d6 damage with a 20 ft. reach. With this, they will traditionally try to flank opponents whenever possible, and make it difficult to move around (if you have a foe with a 20 ft. reach on each side, then moving can be a pain).
If they're fighting a foe that's hard to hit (such as a martial character in chainmail + shield), then they'll both toss an alchemist fire on them as a splash-weapon touch attack (potentially dealing around 4d6 damage over 2 rounds). The adept, when out of spells, will typically toss a tanglefoot bag at somebody, or may be armed with their own alchemical weapons.
A CR 5 encounter either has way more of these 1st level guys (making bless really nice for mass-buffing tons of mooks, or has NPCs whose CR is set according to the more detailed Bestiary rules; where every 2 extra NPC levels adds +1 CR (so a 3rd level warrior is CR 1, a 5th level warrior CR 2, etc), instead of the cluster**** that is the CR=Level-2 from the CRB (which falls apart really fast past the lowest levels; proving to me it was never seriously tested). I also use the Bestiary rule that they get wealth based on their CR instead of level.
So a CR 5 (1,600 XP) might be composed of a party of 3rd level NPC-classed NPCs (such as 2 3rd level warriors, 1 expert, 1 adept). Alternatively, it might be a pair of 7 HD warriors.
I also use the Bestiary rule that they get wealth based on their CR instead of level.
I think you nailed it down with that. Giving suggested wealth to NPCs his like throwing walking treasure chests at the PCs. +1 to attack rolls here and +1 to AC there won't be noticed by the PCs during the encounters, but the PCs' wealth will increase insanely faster thanks to all the loot dropped by the NPCs and this can become a real problem in a campaing were the PCs fight a lot of humanoids with NPC levels. I my current game, I give half or less of the suggested wealth to random NPCs while BBEGs that play an important role in the story are given suggested wealth by level.
Right now I'm wondering how I will equip the soldiers of the next city the PCs will visit. I guess I'll go for short spear and tower shield, backed by a row of longspear wielding soldiers, and all platoons will be commanded by a bard with Inspirational Boost and Song of the Heart (3.5). Since there's multiple tribes of trolls in the neighborhood, it would make sense to give them some vials of alchemist's fire too. :P
Getting magical weapons no one int the partey is proficient with sucks and isn't fun as a player so I try to aviod that as a gm.
I also think finding a magical weapon or even masterwork from an enemy and a challenging fight winning it is more fun than just finding it sitting in a chest.
As to PC wealth increasing with npc encounters also depends on how fast you level up with fast medium or slow. Lots of npcs armed with masterwork equipment and other durable expensive goods in a slow track game most likely will result in a lot of wealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also use the Bestiary rule that they get wealth based on their CR instead of level.I think you nailed it down with that. Giving suggested wealth to NPCs his like throwing walking treasure chests at the PCs. +1 to attack rolls here and +1 to AC there won't be noticed by the PCs during the encounters, but the PCs' wealth will increase insanely faster thanks to all the loot dropped by the NPCs and this can become a real problem in a campaing were the PCs fight a lot of humanoids with NPC levels. I my current game, I give half or less of the suggested wealth to random NPCs while BBEGs that play an important role in the story are given suggested wealth by level.
Right now I'm wondering how I will equip the soldiers of the next city the PCs will visit. I guess I'll go for short spear and tower shield, backed by a row of longspear wielding soldiers, and all platoons will be commanded by a bard with Inspirational Boost and Song of the Heart (3.5). Since there's multiple tribes of trolls in the neighborhood, it would make sense to give them some vials of alchemist's fire too. :P
That's why I said the method described in the CRB is a cluster****. If you follow the guidelines in the Gamemastering section of the CRB, it suggests that the CR for NPCs is equal to their NPC class level -2, while PC-classed NPCs are CR level-1, but the WBL table for them sets NPC classed NPCs at the wealth of PC-classed NPCs -1.
Which means that a 17th level PC-classed NPC would have 75,000 gp worth of gear and be CR 16, while an 18th level warrior would have 75,000 gp worth of gear and be CR 16; but that's laughable. Compared to any real CR 16 encounter, you are just giving gold and XP away in droves. They're weaker than most CR 8 encounters for crying out loud.
Which is why I advise using the rules in the Bestiary for determining the CR of enemies. Most people accept specific trumps general, and the rules in the Bestiary are far more specific for determining CR than the rules in the CRB. Furthermore, unlike the nonsense in the CRB Gamemastering section (which appears to have been written by someone who's never ran games higher than 5th level), the Bestiary rules are mostly a drag & drop from 3.x; have been around longer and work a lot better in general.
So again, I'd advise bestiary rules. Bestiary says that adding 2 NPC levels adds +1 CR, and to give NPC WBL based on CR, not total HD. This results in NPCs far more in line with traditional bestiary values. For example, an ogre is CR 3. A 7th level warrior with 1,650 gp is right in line with the strength of an ogre pretty closely; while also having the correct treasure value (a CR 3 encounter on medium usually provides 800 gp worth of treasure, and 1600 gp worth of treasure sold for half price is 800 gp).
|
Getting magical weapons no one int the partey is proficient with sucks and isn't fun as a player so I try to aviod that as a gm.
I also think finding a magical weapon or even masterwork from an enemy and a challenging fight winning it is more fun than just finding it sitting in a chest.
Once the alarm is raised or even just recently, than I think all the stored magical weapons should be issued out to help defend the place.
Well lets look at it this way.
Mechanically, why choose a longsword? If no mechanical reason
What role playing reason is there to choose a longsword? What does the longsword say about a character that other, mechanically superior weapons can't?
One reason I can think of is you get profciency with longsword but not other martial weapons diety favored weapon for example.
|
Well lets look at it this way.
Mechanically, why choose a longsword? If no mechanical reason
What role playing reason is there to choose a longsword? What does the longsword say about a character that other, mechanically superior weapons can't?
Because I *want* to use a longsword because it fits my mental picture?
You could equally well argue for "mechanically superior" races, classes, etc. But if all meat shields were half-orc barbarians (or whatever else is deemed to be the optimal choice) I don't think it would improve the overall gaming experience.
Well lets look at it this way.Mechanically, why choose a longsword? If no mechanical reason
What role playing reason is there to choose a longsword? What does the longsword say about a character that other, mechanically superior weapons can't?
Depends on the culture and environment. If the longsword is a standard weapon in the area / culture then why not use it? I doubt the "superiority" of a lot of weapons is all that apparent from the character (not player) perspective. Aside from the fact that the superiority of a lot of weapons comes down to questionable design decisions.
Because I *want* to use a longsword because it fits my mental picture?Well lets look at it this way.
Mechanically, why choose a longsword? If no mechanical reason
What role playing reason is there to choose a longsword? What does the longsword say about a character that other, mechanically superior weapons can't?
This isn't really answering the question.
What about your mental picture of the person requires a longsword to be there?
You could equally well argue for "mechanically superior" races, classes, etc. But if all meat shields were half-orc barbarians (or whatever else is deemed to be the optimal choice) I don't think it would improve the overall gaming experience.
Races are complex enough that there's usually a mechanism for meat shielding to make more than one choice viable (half orcs for damage/visibility, dwarves for the save bonuses, humans for the extra feat, gnomes for the size bonus) There's some subjective value judgements to be made there.
Weapons are far simpler and come down to math once you're in the same type.
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.
Also the Fact that Elves got +1 to Longswords and Bows... (Makes Sense because they played with them for a 100 years before Adulthood to Adventuring)..
I like How 3rd Edition fixed that by saying Elves were just PROFICIENT with Longswords and Bows.. instead of the +1...
In 2nd Edition Just about everyone played an Elf With a Longsword at least once
2nd ed armors provides resistance to types of attacks (chain resisted slashing, plate resisted piercing and slashing, leather resisted blunt, etc)... I didn't think the bonuses were hard to use at all, I really liked them. :)
I have included something similar in my house rules.
|
|
I *want* to use a longsword because it fits my mental pictureWhat about your mental picture of the person requires a longsword to be there?
Because for some character role models I envision (such as, say, a sword-and-board fighter like a crusader, St. George vs. the dragon, the Norman troops chasing after Robin Hood, etc.) the type of sword they are wielding looks more like a longsword than anything else.
If I'm trying to build a Roman legionary, I'll probably go for a short sword. A (Richard Lester) musketeer, just about any Errol Flynn character, or Inigo Montoya will steer me towards choosing a rapier. James Bond would use a Beretta .22; Harry Callahan a Magnum .45. And Indiana Jones would have a Bullwhip (and a sidearm as a backup).
The choice of weapon is often an integral part of the character archetype.
It might annoy some people, but there's nothing wrong with using a scimitar and saying it looks like a Longsword. Same with kurki/shortswords and the like. Honestly, you could take a greataxe and call it a scythe, or a heavy warhammer and call it a tetsubo or something.
You do not have to be enslaved by mechanics for your flavor.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might annoy some people, but there's nothing wrong with using a scimitar and saying it looks like a Longsword. Same with kurki/shortswords and the like. Honestly, you could take a greataxe and call it a scythe, or a heavy warhammer and call it a tetsubo or something.
You do not have to be enslaved by mechanics for your flavor.
Why bother with calling them anything, then? If what matters is that it does 2d6 damage, call it a 2d6 damage dealer - that's at least being honest. For some people, flavour matters rather more than mechanics; for other people, not so much.
There are two people who would have to know that this "longsword" wasn't really a longsword; the GM, and the player. I'm not prepared to play those kinds of metagames - either it's a longsword or it isn't. If it really matters at some point I might complain that the longsword has been unfairly emasculated by the rules, but until then I'll work within the limitations of the system.
It might annoy some people, but there's nothing wrong with using a scimitar and saying it looks like a Longsword. Same with kurki/shortswords and the like. Honestly, you could take a greataxe and call it a scythe, or a heavy warhammer and call it a tetsubo or something.
You do not have to be enslaved by mechanics for your flavor.
Why bother with calling them anything, then? If what matters is that it does 2d6 damage, call it a 2d6 damage dealer - that's at least being honest. For some people, flavour matters rather more than mechanics; for other people, not so much.
There are two people who would have to know that this "longsword" wasn't really a longsword; the GM, and the player. I'm not prepared to play those kinds of metagames - either it's a longsword or it isn't. If it really matters at some point I might complain that the longsword has been unfairly emasculated by the rules, but until then I'll work within the limitations of the system.
A sword is a sword is a sword. Given that D&D/PF already fails utterly to represent any real difference between scimitars and longswords, I don't really see a point. "I'm wielding a sword" is sufficient. Now some sorts might be 1d8/19-20, and some sorts might be 1d6/18-20, but how they look aesthetically matters very little.
Finding a nearby analog to weapons has been something that has been done for ages. Why invent wholly new statistics for weapons when existing statistics function just fine otherwise? Why should an Indian sword be better than an Arab sword that is better than a German sword, when they're all just swords you hold in one hand and deal slashing damage. :P
Refluffing has been a very tried and true tradition to keeping game balance while achieving something desired. Deciding that your fireball spell actually manifests as a dark ball of black fire, or deciding that you conjure the power of the dark god Brony to summon rainbow colored tentacles with black tentacles, or deciding that when you cast fly that you have immaterial wings sprout from your back for the duration of the spell. Since none of these things actually affect the way the game works, all are perfectly reasonable. It seems like martial characters should get some wiggly room as well.
=======================================================================
That being said, longswords and certain other weapons would be more attractive if damage dice scaled with your level, similar to how damage dice scaled for Jedi in Star Wars d20. If every time you gained a new iterative attack (6th, 11th, and 16th) you added a bonus damage die onto your weapon, then weapons like longswords would be very attractive to warrior classes; while scimitars and rapiers would be about even but likely favored by those who didn't get the higher base damage (clerics, druids, magi, bards, etc).
Since a 16th level fighter would increase his average damage by 13.5 with a longsword, but only 10.5 with a scimitar. If that extra damage was static and not multiplied on critical hits, then the longsword would deal 18 average damage per swing vs 14 average damage per swing, but the scimitar would crit more frequently. If it worked with Vital Strike, then it would also have that going for it.
I'll brainstorm some ideas for a bit.
Boarding pike for example. 3 gp more than longspear for x3 crit.
Boarding pike for example. 3 gp more than longspear for x3 crit.
Err, longspears already have x3 crit. ?_?
Oh, are you saying "just use a longspear"? XD
Boarding pike for example. 3 gp more than longspear for x3 crit.Err, longspears already have x3 crit. ?_?
Oh, are you saying "just use a longspear"? XD
d'oh I rememberd it as X2 for some reason doh.
d'oh I rememberd it as X2 for some reason doh.Boarding pike for example. 3 gp more than longspear for x3 crit.Err, longspears already have x3 crit. ?_?
Oh, are you saying "just use a longspear"? XD
The shortspear gets X2 on critical hits for some reason. :\
The shortspear gets X2 on critical hits for some reason. :\d'oh I rememberd it as X2 for some reason doh.Boarding pike for example. 3 gp more than longspear for x3 crit.Err, longspears already have x3 crit. ?_?
Oh, are you saying "just use a longspear"? XD
.. because it's short?
Like in real life, better weapons came along?
That an martial classes got a buff in PF. It is a lot easier for martial classes to get bonuses to damage that multiply on a critical hit. This makes the crossover point happen at a much lower level.
For example, for a straight two-hand fighter in PF, the crossover point is around level 4. At that point, you will generally do more damage with a falchion than a great sword. In 3.5, a straight fighter didn't do better with a falchion until around level 8.
|
|
Like in real life, better weapons came along?That an martial classes got a buff in PF. It is a lot easier for martial classes to get bonuses to damage that multiply on a critical hit. This makes the crossover point happen at a much lower level.
For example, for a straight two-hand fighter in PF, the crossover point is around level 4. At that point, you will generally do more damage with a falchion than a great sword. In 3.5, a straight fighter didn't do better with a falchion until around level 8.
With the help of excel, I managed to do some calculations. What you need is a +19 damage for Falchion and Great Sword is about equal, now with 20+ the Falchion edges out. With keen or improve crit the threshold changes from +19 to just +9.
|
| 4 people 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.
What does that even mean?
It means that it was 4.5 years ago and they're not going to respond.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like a pointless argument to advance though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue, though, is that it's not even a formal argument in the debate sense. It is a personal statement and a couched one at that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thread cemetery is quite lively today...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been damned impressed with the level of necromancy going on.