*And other weapons.
Well so far in Pathfinder I have been seeing more or less the same weapons being used alot that were abused in 3.5. Two handed swords, axes, high crit weapons like falchions (schimitars with magus and dervish dance or so I hear). Longbows and shortbows. Various exotics sometimes get used for special effects (trip, high crit etc). A Cleric might use a mace but its not hard to get a better weapon. Crossbows and various thrown weapons occasionally get used for ranged attacks.
I can't remeber the last time someone used a longswod as a primary weapon and it has been a few years since I saw a sword and board type fighter (axe and shield but W/E).
Daggers, shortswords, longswords, most swords that don't have a 18-20 crit range, bastard swords, all seem to be hardly used. Weapon finesse may get used by a rogue but smart rogues these days seem to be high strength and splash a level of barbarian or fighter (2d6+9 + sneak atack often more).
In 2nd ed the uber weapon was a liongsword and two handed weapons sucked. The Duelist was popular in 3.0, was nerfed hard in 3.5 and seems to have got nerfed again in Pathfinder. Its ok to have a two handed sword user dealing around 2d6 base with +9 or more from strength and + oddles form power attack. Heaven help a rapier dealing 3 or 4d6 base damage via older verisons of a duelist.
Improved weapon finesse doesn't exist and one would have to spend two feats on it to deal 1d6+4 roughly at level 1 with 18 dexterity. Such a character would presumably have around 18 AC due to chain shirt and dex, maybe 20 with a shield vs AC 20 for full plate and 12 dex. Without spending a single feat the two handed weapon user has 1d12+9 or 2d6+9 damage (16 avg damage vs 7.5). The rapier user would have a higher initiative, speed, ref save and skill bonuses though. Assuming the THW spend 2 feats on power attack and furious focus the 2d6+9 becomes 2d6+12 (avg 19 which is around 250% more damage than the hypthetical improved wepaon finesse fighter). The extra advanatges provided by high dex do not mitigate the 250% damage bonus. At level 6 with vital strike and with power attack scaling it gets even worse.
The Sword and board character is in a similar position dealing 1d8+4 and at level 1 having +2 AC over the THW user. Average damage climbs up to 8.5 or 9.5 if they blow a feat on a d10 exotic weaponn or if one is a Dwarf using the d10Dwarvern axe. +2 AC, vs 200% avg damage. If they spend their starting feats on the exact same build they can get damage up to 1d8+6 or 10.5 avg damage (maybe 1d10+6, 11.5 avg damage).
IN D&D/PF offense is always better than defense and has been since 1st and second ed. In earlier editions the longswod was the powergamers wepaon of choice although a dart specialist was funny with lotsa 1d3 attacks and weapon specialization and wet dream of Gauntlets of Ogre Power.
Put simply atm archery and two handed weapons seem to be better than sword and board, TWF or sword and empty hand. I'm assuming there are highly specialised builds that prove me wrong (magus+ schimitar?). A basic THW user is a very basic build using a 2-3 feats and so effective. Are they to effective compared to other options? 3.5 gave extensive feat support to the other styles but alot of those feats don't seem to exist and the lower damage builds suffer vs DR more than a two handed weapon user. 4th eds power sustem more or less gave Rogues weapon finesse and improved weapon finesse for free and the world didn't end.
I still see people use longswords.
Although honestly, I'm surprised I don't see anyone complaining about the Falcata. I've NEVER seen anyone use it in fact, and it sounds like it would be a great weapon for power gamers (1-handed 1d8 19-20/x3 weapon. It's in APG.) Get keen, and it's a 17-20/x3 weapon. Level 20 fighter? 17-20/x4. And you can always use 1-handed weapons with 2 hands.
They seem that way because they are better.
|
i was talking about this with my gaming party a few days ago.
it seems like they should just give stat blocks then let the player fill in the blanks.
example, who would use scale mail past levels 1-2 when brest plate is so much better?
seems like people us chain shirt and studed leather the most of light armors
brest plate and scale/chainmail as medium
and banded mail and full plate on heavy armors
other then those i never see the others used with the exception of druids.the point being that you use brest plate once you can afford it, or what ever the best item for that catagory is.
same with weapons, its either great axe or great sword for 2 handers , excluding reach players, and rapiers/scimitars, kukuris, and daggers/short swords.
why would anyone take a heavy mace over a morning star? its just all around better!!
mind you these are not always true, but aside RP i dont see why you wouldnt use the best stated item.
|
It all depends on the character. I've got a rogue in PFS who is running the two weapon route using a rapier and a short sword.
I've got a halfling cleric in a home game who wears scale mail and uses a heavy mace (he's 5th level). He's not a melee build so if he is using his mace, he's in trouble, but the scalemail works well for the concept; a breastplate would not fit for the mental image I have of him.
I've always viewed equipment as being more tied with concept rather than "what can I get that will be the uberultimate xyz". YMMV, but I enjoy running that route.
While this is quite common, and I do it quite a bit as well, I just as often am willing so sacrifice 1.5 to 3 or so damage for a more flavourful weapon. Especially if that makes the GM more likely to grant such items as loot as your not sharing it with the other guy ;) Honestly, it depends on the kind of build I am going for mostly, if I am building that furious finishing vital striking barbarian, you better believe I am going to grab the weapon with the highest base damage. But with most other builds, especially high str builds like a two handed fighter, most of your damage comes from bonuses and str, not your base hit die. After building a natural attacking alchemist and an unarmed fighter, I came to realize you can still be potent even if you have a smaller hit die as long as you can support it with other abilities/feats ect. Want to have fun? Build a barbarian with body bludgeon, eldritch heritage (ork) X2 and giant hide armour. get your game on and start swinging those giants around as your weapon >:D
@Marthian: The reason you dont see the Falcata more often is probably because it is an exotic weapon. Most optimizers are loath to spend a feat on exotic weap prof. when there are so many other feats that could optimise your build. Unless the build is centered around said exotic weapon, they rarely get seen because of that feat tax.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a paladin of Iomedae who uses a longsword and shield in Pathfinder Society. I don't feel that he lacks for much hitting power at all. Could I probably do more damage with another weapon? Sure. But he's a paladin of Iomedae. It just makes sense.
I love longsword on my Paladins. Mainly for the versatility. If I want to 2H I'm good. If I feel I need the ac, then I ready my shield and am good to go.
It just feels right. But its really more preference for me.
I guess I am lucky... my players tend more towards weapons that fit what little concept their characters have...
On the falcata: I use a homebrewed pathfinderized version of unearthed arcana's weapon group feats... I have it to were weapons depend on the region of the world for their availability. And in the 30 campaigns since I started that I have seen one character use a falcata. Yes, I said one. She was a Divine Hunter Paladin who had the Falcata as her backup weapon. Not because of stats, it was and I quote: "I looked it up on Google. It looks awesome." The other player who even considered the Falcata chose a Longsword instead. When that got destroyed by a rust monster he took a Bastard Sword simply for the fact that it was cheaper in the current area.
I think this is less an indictment of the long sword, and more of the relative weakness of the SHIELDS in this genre. In most historical circumstances, if you had to choose between a weapon or a shield, you took the shield. Even a fairly small shield spelled the difference between life and death. Protected from missiles (held over head), most melee weapons, and could be used as an offensive weapon as well. Make shields mathematically more effective (say double the current AC bonus for anything but a buckler) and you would see a lot more Sword and board style fighters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, Bucklers give +1, lights give +2, heavies +3, towers +4.
You can two hand shields by RAW. Shield mastery gives you basically a free extra attack if you're using two shields (depending on how you interpret it anyway). Shields aren't inferior weapons in PF, you just have to specialize, like you do everything else.
In my games, Bucklers give +1, lights give +2, heavies +3, towers +4.
You can two hand shields by RAW. Shield mastery gives you basically a free extra attack if you're using two shields (depending on how you interpret it anyway). Shields aren't inferior weapons in PF, you just have to specialize, like you do everything else.
You can do that can't you... huh...
P.S.: nice to meet a fellow Underworld Knights fan.
Funny thing about that, I have no idea what you're talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well.
Reach weapons get a crap deal in general compared to their historical role.
The greatsword was an extremely specialized and shortlived weapon on Earth's battlefields, but has always enjoyed a privileged status in D&D et al. because of Conan, I think.
Crossbows have been totally borked because they need to keep pace with bows, which are preposterously great, mechanically, in Pathfinder. Neither one really captures the "coolness" of the real weapon, mechanically, in my opinion.
The falcata is everywhere in my games. I'm okay with that.
Two-handed weapons are just more effective, and shields are a joke, in Pathfinder.
Even having said all that, it's just a game. That I know that greatswords are inexplicably... well... great! with all of their idealized advantages and not a single realistic drawback, well, that just means I know Pathfinder. And that my next frontline combatant PC is probably going to wield a greatsword. Just like the last one.
Or maybe a falcata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that if I want weapons and armor to behave themselves logically, I can always crack open Burning Wheel: the game where swords are crap against full plated mail, and halberds are the best, most versatile weapon, and greatswords don't even have a listing they were so rare and specialized.
But Pathfinder has much the Burning Wheel does not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish the game made that effective.
Unlikely.
The aim of the game development is to make combats fast. Over in a few rounds, as opposed to dragging on.
Thus, PF always places a heavy emphasis on offense. Compared to offense, defense will always lose out. The game is intended to work that way.
Sure, the whole affair leads to rocket tag combat; ideally the one who goes first will not need to worry about a counterattack from the, now dead, opponent; but hey: this way, we will set a new record regarding Encounters Per Second.
|
I don't know. I was using a sword and board style skirmisher ranger for awhile in Kingmaker. At 5th level, he had Dodge, Shield Focus, Missile Shield, and Shield Slam. With a +1 Breastplate, Ring of Protection +1, DEX 16 and +1 Heavy Steel Shield, he had a decent ac of 26 (CR 5 High attack recommendation is +10, needing a 16 or better to hit.) He could knock aside 1 missile weapon a round that got past that AC, and used his Shield Slam a few times to knock smaller opponents into walls and knock them down. And yes, his weapon of choice was a longsword.
|
|
zylphryx, let me ask you a question. if they removed the name off brest plate, and instead said callit what ever the hell you want to, would that ruin your mental immage of your character?
The name has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the style of the armor ... to appear to be covered in scales (hence the term scale mail) as opposed to looking like a gladiator or musketeer type. Basically I'm going for a look not a numbers comparison.
As to your question, why would you possibly think the name of the armor would have any bearing at all? Aside from a single point of AC, they have identical stats, one fits the mental image I have for a PC, the other doesn't, as I stated originally. To jump to an assumption that the choice is made because of the name of the armor is completely asinine.
I still think that Longswords are the default weapon... if nothing else for NPCs?
I sword and board as well with a Longsword. Of course, like the poster earlier, my character is a paladin of Iomedae so...
zylphryx, let me ask you a question. if they removed the name off brest plate, and instead said callit what ever the hell you want to, would that ruin your mental immage of your character?The name has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the style of the armor ... to appear to be covered in scales (hence the term scale mail) as opposed to looking like a gladiator or musketeer type. Basically I'm going for a look not a numbers comparison.
As to your question, why would you possibly think the name of the armor would have any bearing at all? Aside from a single point of AC, they have identical stats, one fits the mental image I have for a PC, the other doesn't, as I stated originally. To jump to an assumption that the choice is made because of the name of the armor is completely asinine.
What he means is if you called the breastplate scale mail, as in, if you had scale mail that gave the bonus in the book, or scale mail that gave the bonus breastplate gave, which would you take?
Pay the money for breastplate, get all its stats, but describe it as extra well made scale mail for the look of it.
A rose by any other name, etc. etc.
I actually want to play into this whole discussion a bit with a character. Take a fighter and only "semi-optimize" him, keepign an eye toward a high degree of combat flexibility.
Longsword and heavy blades gets the first weapon training. Longswords and bows get priority on weapon focus feats.
Andhe's kind of an 'everyman' fighter of the party. Sounds fun to me, anyway.
I think this is less an indictment of the long sword, and more of the relative weakness of the SHIELDS in this genre. In most historical circumstances, if you had to choose between a weapon or a shield, you took the shield. Even a fairly small shield spelled the difference between life and death. Protected from missiles (held over head), most melee weapons, and could be used as an offensive weapon as well. Make shields mathematically more effective (say double the current AC bonus for anything but a buckler) and you would see a lot more Sword and board style fighters.
The reason there is that D&D is not a simulation of real combat.
In real combat a single hit could kill you or cripple you for the rest of your life even if you survived. Using any means to avoid that single hit, like armor and using shields, even if it means fighting with a weapon that takes abit longer to get your own hit in was a good deal.Sure you could use a greatsword or a big axe and probably break through someone's shield more easily than with a longsword. But at the same time you're totally vulnerable for the shield users weapon. So most didn't do that and used a shield as well.
In D&D that's different. At later level you have so many hitpoints you can easily survive quite a few hits. Magic healing makes any wounds that don't kill you practically non-existant after the fight and the crippling effect of wounds is not part of the system anyway.
Now it usually becomes the better tactic to use the big weapon to bash the other guy into the ground fast, even if it means you take one or two hits from a weaker weapon, instead of focusing on defense.
|
|
Longswords are okay if you're not going to be doubling the crit range, not going to be investing in exotic weapon proficiency, and don't have a huge bonus to double if you do crit. I mean, they do have good damage dice compared to the scimitar if you can't count on that crit.
So they're pretty good weapons for people who aren't actually primary fighters; Str 12 clerics*, or NPC warriors for example.
*Assuming they get the proficiency somehow, perhaps as a favored weapon.
zylphryx, let me ask you a question. if they removed the name off brest plate, and instead said callit what ever the hell you want to, would that ruin your mental immage of your character?The name has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the style of the armor ... to appear to be covered in scales (hence the term scale mail) as opposed to looking like a gladiator or musketeer type. Basically I'm going for a look not a numbers comparison.
As to your question, why would you possibly think the name of the armor would have any bearing at all? Aside from a single point of AC, they have identical stats, one fits the mental image I have for a PC, the other doesn't, as I stated originally. To jump to an assumption that the choice is made because of the name of the armor is completely asinine.
What he means is if you called the breastplate scale mail, as in, if you had scale mail that gave the bonus in the book, or scale mail that gave the bonus breastplate gave, which would you take?
Pay the money for breastplate, get all its stats, but describe it as extra well made scale mail for the look of it.
A rose by any other name, etc. etc.
He has said, TWICE, that he taking the armor that LOOKS LIKE scale armor. Name means nothing. How is that hard to grasp?
One advantage of longswords is its availability as dropped treasure, especially in published material. I can't tell you the times my fighter/rogue scythe wielder found a magical scythe in found loot (I can't, cause it never happened). Unless you have a party crafter or a generous GM, using an unusual weapon basically means you're paying double to enchant/upgrade it.
|
IN D&D/PF offense is always better than defense and has been since 1st and second ed.
Not true. There are defensive builds even a pure fighter cannot hit with less than a natural 20. The problem is, if people actually use them the rage fueled screams of NERF by the DPR builds are deafening.
I have a build I am currently using that can hit 80 AC, lowest save caps at 50, has evasion, and can Greater Invis + Mind Blank.
|
|
One advantage of longswords is its availability as dropped treasure, especially in published material. I can't tell you the times my fighter/rogue scythe wielder found a magical scythe in found loot (I can't, cause it never happened). Unless you have a party crafter or a generous GM, using an unusual weapon basically means you're paying double to enchant/upgrade it.
This is a good point.
Although personally I've gone the other way around with this: I let people with CMAA use Craft(Weapons) to turn one enchanted weapon into a more appropriate weapon, keeping the same enchantments as long as requirements are still met (vorpal <> slashing, disruption <> bludgeoning etcetera).
I do this because I would rather people be happy they found an interesting weapon with cool powers, than that they sell it to purchase/craft a weapon of the correct type.
IN D&D/PF offense is always better than defense and has been since 1st and second ed.Not true. There are defensive builds even a pure fighter cannot hit with less than a natural 20. The problem is, if people actually use them the rage fueled screams of NERF by the DPR builds are deafening.
I have a build I am currently using that can hit 80 AC, lowest save caps at 50, has evasion, and can Greater Invis + Mind Blank.
I think the point he was making was that fielding those high AC builds makes for very dull combat, and so the game's design as a whole shies away from that.
My elf wizard loves his longsword. He even used it, once. Arr...
|
|
zylphryx, let me ask you a question. if they removed the name off brest plate, and instead said callit what ever the hell you want to, would that ruin your mental immage of your character?The name has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the style of the armor ... to appear to be covered in scales (hence the term scale mail) as opposed to looking like a gladiator or musketeer type. Basically I'm going for a look not a numbers comparison.
As to your question, why would you possibly think the name of the armor would have any bearing at all? Aside from a single point of AC, they have identical stats, one fits the mental image I have for a PC, the other doesn't, as I stated originally. To jump to an assumption that the choice is made because of the name of the armor is completely asinine.
What he means is if you called the breastplate scale mail, as in, if you had scale mail that gave the bonus in the book, or scale mail that gave the bonus breastplate gave, which would you take?
Pay the money for breastplate, get all its stats, but describe it as extra well made scale mail for the look of it.
A rose by any other name, etc. etc.
Sure, but that would be +1 scale mail. ;)
Seriously though, if reskinning armor is what he meant, why stop there? Why not have scale mail reskinned to the stats of full plate?
Overall I'm not a fan of reskinning as it takes away the inherent advantages/shortfalls of an item and turns the game into an exercise in number crunching and manipulation. You lose the benefits and limitations from the choices you make for your PC. Just my opinion and as such YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the point is, if you choose a lesser armour because you like to role-play up its chinks and vulnerabilities (a fighter in scale mail facing down a fighter in full plate, knowing in his heart that he's going to have the tougher time and subconsciously feeling the breeze through his scales) then that's great. But if it's the look of scale mail you want, what does the actual AC value matter? And indeed, why not reskin scale mail to the stats of full plate? As long as you realize that you're moving into heavy armour territory, how does it break the game for you to have the fluff you want (the look of scale mail), but still keep up with the mechanical armour bonuses the game expects you to have. You pay for full plate, you need the proficiencies for full plate, it takes just as long to put on, all that stuff, but you just call it scale mail and say it looks like overlapping metal scales.
Obviously, there have to be limitations. It's one thing to say that this suit of scale mail offers the same mundane protection as full plate (four higher than core), but you can't get a suit of full plate and say it offers an extra +4 armour bonus from mundane protection. Full plate caps out at +9 for a reason. Personally, I'd say no to making scale mail act like full plate, as well, because then you get people who want to look like they wear leather (or plain clothes!!) and just reskin them as full plate. You'd also have the problem of druids in leather with full plate stats. Some limitations need to apply.
But if the only difference is between scale mail and breastplate, which is a single point of armour and a little bit of cost and weight, nobody has to fall on the grenade of immersive role-playing and say, "I can't get the extra point of AC because it ruins my character image".
As long as you pay the cost, honestly, what's the problem?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issues with reskinning equipment is that, just as you said for full plate, each armor (in sticking with this twist to the original discussion) caps at a specific armor bonus for a reason. Saying it is "exceptionally well made" armor would indicate masterwork quality and denote a reduction in armor check penalties but not an increase in armor bonus.
In moving this back towards the original post somewhat, would you allow a longsword to be reskinned with the stats for a greatsword?
Bottom line is if want to home rule the possibility of reskinning equipment, then go for it. It's your game. Personally it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and as such would not allow it, but then that would be for my game.
Back in second edition, if you weren't using a longsword, you were stupid. They were simply the best weapon. 1d12 versus larger creatures baby!
In PFS, people prefer damage over defense. Thus, the rise of the two-handers. Of people with shields, there are simply a lot of equivalent weapons and better weapons than the longsword.
There is nothing surprising here. People use what is effective to save their character's lives....just like in real life.
In my games, Bucklers give +1, lights give +2, heavies +3, towers +4.
You can two hand shields by RAW. Shield mastery gives you basically a free extra attack if you're using two shields (depending on how you interpret it anyway). Shields aren't inferior weapons in PF, you just have to specialize, like you do everything else.
Yeah, you can turn shields into effective weapons if you specialize enough. However, it's much harder to build an effective character using a shield for their primary purpose: defense.
Historically and in fantasy literature, people specializing in attacking with shields were rare. People using them to defend themselves were very common. I wish the game made that effective.
Well, at low levels (where history and most fantasy take place) shields are VERY effective. The difference between having AC 19 and 21 when fighting orcs, is dropping their chance to hit you with a third! Assuming your fighter has 19 by armor+dex when fighting an orc, the orc's DPR is ~3.15, which means three orcs will drop a 15 hp fighter in two turns. Add a shield or fight defensively and it drops to ~2.25, so now they need three turns. Do both and it drops to 1.35, now needing 4 full turns.
So gimli is still going to have a better chance in melee than legolas.
While I'm not for completely "reskinnability", where it just says "slashing weapon, martial, 1d8, 19-20x2", I would've have preferred if it was a little more vague - such as "Long blade" and a description that could include longswords, broadswords, scimitars and others. Bastard sword could be open enough to include any one-and-a-half-hand swords as well as falcata and others.
We actually use this when it comes to armor - we simply have two armors of each weight class and leave descriptions pretty open, so you could have a hardened leather cuirass with heavy armplates and it'd give the same stats as a breastplate.
Also: Is it just me that finds the notion of curved blades having an easier time critting with straight blades dealing more "standard" damage a bit off? I'm not a pro by any means, whether historically or in practical weapon usage, but my impression from the few times I've played arounds with different medieval weapons is that it's far easier to get to an opponents weak spots with a straight blade - it's much simpler to stab with them in my experience, and also easier to make short slices. Curved blades seems more fit to make larger slashes with, especially heavier ones like a falchion.
|
|
While I'm well aware of power gaming and not bad at it when I decide I want to do it, I have a lot more fun when I play concepts, rather than overpowering blocks of stats/numbers.
My current PFS melee character is a Dwarven barbarian with a Dorn-Dergar. I just love the mental image of an unkept raging Dwarf swinging a shotput on a long chain with deadly ability.
Turn and face the strange cha cha changes...
Its a nice generic weapon for your typical warrior or knight.
The entire point of being an adventurer is that you're damned atypical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IN D&D/PF offense is always better than defense and has been since 1st and second ed.Not true. There are defensive builds even a pure fighter cannot hit with less than a natural 20. The problem is, if people actually use them the rage fueled screams of NERF by the DPR builds are deafening.
I have a build I am currently using that can hit 80 AC, lowest save caps at 50, has evasion, and can Greater Invis + Mind Blank.
stats or it didn't happen.
My issues with reskinning equipment is that, just as you said for full plate, each armor (in sticking with this twist to the original discussion) caps at a specific armor bonus for a reason. Saying it is "exceptionally well made" armor would indicate masterwork quality and denote a reduction in armor check penalties but not an increase in armor bonus.
In moving this back towards the original post somewhat, would you allow a longsword to be reskinned with the stats for a greatsword?
Bottom line is if want to home rule the possibility of reskinning equipment, then go for it. It's your game. Personally it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and as such would not allow it, but then that would be for my game.
Yes, I would allow a character to get a weapon that costs, weighs, and acts like a great sword and call it a longsword if he wanted.
I'd also let him call it a vorpal parsnip if he wanted to.
Would I allow him to get himself an inch-long blade and say it does 2d6 and weighs as much as a great sword, no, of course not.
Funny thing about that, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Underworld Knights was a small time fantasy comic/manga whose first supporting character was a Dwarf named Borthos Brewhammer. And how you described him is almost exactly how he introduced himself...
In my games, Bucklers give +1, lights give +2, heavies +3, towers +4.
You can two hand shields by RAW. Shield mastery gives you basically a free extra attack if you're using two shields (depending on how you interpret it anyway). Shields aren't inferior weapons in PF, you just have to specialize, like you do everything else.
Yeah, you can turn shields into effective weapons if you specialize enough. However, it's much harder to build an effective character using a shield for their primary purpose: defense.
Historically and in fantasy literature, people specializing in attacking with shields were rare. People using them to defend themselves were very common. I wish the game made that effective.
You might wanna look up how Greco-Roman warfare worked...
|
|
Yes, I would allow a character to get a weapon that costs, weighs, and acts like a great sword and call it a longsword if he wanted
So it would be a really heavy one handed weapon that did the equivalent damage to a great sword and still allows the use of a shield? Or is it really just a great sword (requiring 2 hands, not allowing shield use) and being given the moniker? If the former, I would argue you are allowing some overpowered mechanics. If the latter, then what is the point? If it looks like a great sword and acts like a great sword, it's a great sword.
I'd also let him call it a vorpal parsnip if he wanted to.
I think I very well may name the next generic magic weapon any of my characters get this. And this brings up another possibility. If we are talking about simply "naming" weapons, armor, etc. then sure, go for it. A named item is always more interesting than a generic one. But to call a great sword a longsword just completely breaks the definition of the said items.
Would I allow him to get himself an inch-long blade and say it does 2d6 and weighs as much as a great sword, no, of course not.
Why not? If you are allowing a blade that is almost half the length to take on the added mass and pick up the extra damage, why not allow a simple small knife to do the same?
IN D&D/PF offense is always better than defense and has been since 1st and second ed.Not true. There are defensive builds even a pure fighter cannot hit with less than a natural 20. The problem is, if people actually use them the rage fueled screams of NERF by the DPR builds are deafening.
I have a build I am currently using that can hit 80 AC, lowest save caps at 50, has evasion, and can Greater Invis + Mind Blank.
Such builds existed in 3.5 as well but they were feat intensive, still sucked vs spellcasters, gave up alot of offensive powers and made you more or less immune to mooks.
|
|
stats or it didn't happen.IN D&D/PF offense is always better than defense and has been since 1st and second ed.Not true. There are defensive builds even a pure fighter cannot hit with less than a natural 20. The problem is, if people actually use them the rage fueled screams of NERF by the DPR builds are deafening.
I have a build I am currently using that can hit 80 AC, lowest save caps at 50, has evasion, and can Greater Invis + Mind Blank.
Sent via PM. As I am involved in an area match I don't plan on posting the specifics on the forums.
Caps at values include full buffs (Protection from Spells, Greater Heroism, Barkskin, Haste, Foresight) and full defensive.
Your example seems to include numerous buff spells including foresight which is level 9. Your 80 AC fighter should probably have bigger things to worry about such as timestop. Its not to hard to stack every deflection, competance, natural armor bonus one can find from various sources.
The examples I used were deliberately chosen to show the damage difference at level 1-4 where two handed weapon users are kinda nuts. They to can benefit from the exact same buff spells your example is using and use an animated shield so they can use a +5 animated shield and a two handed sword/axe or whatever.