Isn't that what retraining is for...
I honestly don't understand what the big deal is.
Frankly, it's not a huge deal, but I still have to wonder why.
Why bother reprinting the exact same weapon with a different name? It's like the definition of needless bloat.
The irony here is that the OP is complaining about longswords dying because of power gaming, when the reason they were so much more popular in older editions is because they were so blatantly an optimal choice.snipI'll take your word for it re prior editions, but wasn't the long sword also IRL the weapon of choice for medieval warriors? So didn't the older versions of the game merely reflect a past reality that the game was designed to mimic?
Which medieval warriors, may I ask? Location-wise, I mean? The medieval period spanned several hundred years over quite a few different continents.
Isn't that what retraining is for...
I honestly don't understand what the big deal is.
Frankly, it's not a huge deal, but I still have to wonder why.
Why bother reprinting the exact same weapon with a different name? It's like the definition of needless bloat.
They are in completely different books, published years apart. One of them (the Cutlass) was published for a specific purpose (Skull and Shackles) and wasn't even included in the big equipment book (Ultimate Equipment) so I just don't see what the problem is.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see a problem. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I admit it's not a problem. It just seems like it'd be a lot easier if instead of a hundred weapons Pathfinder had like, 20 and a sidebar about refluffing.
Nothing wrong with that certainly, but I know my players love looking for that right weapon.
And for the record, I would allow them to be synchronised in my campaign, if it ever came up. :-)
In Skull and Shackles I allow Druids to use cutlasses because they're already proficient in Scimitar. :-)
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were moving, my bad!
Why would you need to constantly switch back and forth, it's not politics, you don't have to flip flop, you can pick one and stick with it.
"Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from association football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage."
Figured I'd post the definition, since there seems to be some confusion, here. I swear between this and rampant misuse of the term "strawman" I'm beginning to think I should start disseminating copies of the "Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments" just to keep my sanity.
(And yes, that's a real book. Good read, too.)
Isn't that what retraining is for...
I honestly don't understand what the big deal is.
Frankly, it's not a huge deal, but I still have to wonder why.
Why bother reprinting the exact same weapon with a different name? It's like the definition of needless bloat.
They are in completely different books, published years apart. One of them (the Cutlass) was published for a specific purpose (Skull and Shackles) and wasn't even included in the big equipment book (Ultimate Equipment) so I just don't see what the problem is.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see a problem. :-)
The main problem is it existing in the first place. Most weapons have SOME difference between them, no matter how small. A different damage type, critical range/multiplier, some special weapon property added on, etc. Hell, a difference in weight or gp cost would at least be SOMETHING.
But the cutlass and scimitar are IDENTICAL in stats. There is absolutely no reason the page space spent making the cutlass as a "unique weapon" couldn't instead have been spent on a sentence in the Player's Guide saying "Shackles pirates often use the cutlass as their sword of choice. Mechanically speaking, they are identical to a scimitar, but have a slightly different appearance." Flower that up however you please.
Nothing wrong with that certainly, but I know my players love looking for that right weapon.
I imagine his proposal would INCREASE their fun then, if they're like me. Look up a cool historical weapon, then find something that fits stat-wise and go to town.
Rather than look through the books and hope the weapon you want is there. No, not the one that would be identical mechanically, the one with the flavor you want. Because it can't just be made up for some reason.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were moving, my bad!
Why would you need to constantly switch back and forth, it's not politics, you don't have to flip flop, you can pick one and stick with it.
"Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from association football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage."
Figured I'd post the definition, since there seems to be some confusion, here. I swear between this and rampant misuse of the term "strawman" I'm beginning to think I should start disseminating copies of the "Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments" just to keep my sanity.
(And yes, that's a real book. Good read, too.)
Isn't that what retraining is for...
I honestly don't understand what the big deal is.
Frankly, it's not a huge deal, but I still have to wonder why.
Why bother reprinting the exact same weapon with a different name? It's like the definition of needless bloat.
They are in completely different books, published years apart. One of them (the Cutlass) was published for a specific purpose (Skull and Shackles) and wasn't even included in the big equipment book (Ultimate Equipment) so I just don't see what the problem is.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see a problem. :-)
The main problem is it existing in the first place. Most weapons have SOME difference between them, no matter how small. A different damage type, critical range/multiplier, some special weapon property added on, etc. Hell, a difference in weight or gp cost would at least be SOMETHING.
But the cutlass and scimitar are IDENTICAL in stats. There is absolutely no reason the page space spent making the cutlass as a "unique...
You see his entire argument to me was, he tried saying feats like Slashing Grace or a Warpriest of Besmara couldn't have weapon focus in Cutlass. I proved that wrong, so he tried moving on without acknowledging he was wrong.
Seems like moving the goalposts to keep from admitting he was wrong to me.
Your mileage may vary, but it doesn't matter because I'm the a%#*~+* with the alias. So deal with it. :-)
Not to worry though, forgive and forget and all, so *hugs!*
It would be relevant or interesting to people in a similar circumstance to the person who started the thread in the first place, regardless of the time elapsed since the original poster posted it?
Possibly... It likely isn't. If they didn't bother to continue the discussion in 3 years, it's unlikely that their interested has grown during that time...