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 wantedSo 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?
Definitely the second. Personally, I think it has no point at all, but I don't see a problem. All you're changing is the name. The weapon is a great sword, but the character calls it a long sword. What Pathfinder calls a long sword was any number of weapons of many different lengths. So long as clerics of Iomedae don't go around calling greatswords longswords for the free proficiency, there's no harm.
My examples with weapons was brought up because somebody challenged me on it. My original intent was to ask what the harm was in allowing a custom scale mail that had one extra point of mundane armour bonus, provided the suit carried with it all the other stats of breastplate. The person who wanted scale mail wanted it for the look only. All I meant to add to the conversation was the opinion that if he were my player, I would add a suit of appropriate breastplate, but describe it as a suit of armour made from overlapping scales and called it scale mail.
|
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.
As for my build, it's not a fighter. It can manage its own buffs. The point was, past a certin threshhold defense CAN overcome offense in Pathfinder. Most won't choose that path, but it is and should always be an option.
I'll agree. It's not that hard to build a defensive nightmare. It's not timestop that hurts though, it's disjunction.
And again, I'll agree at the level 1-4 range two-handed weapons overshadow everything else. It really sucks that a the minimum damage from a level 1 raging barbarian with a 2-handed sword is more than my level 1 wizard's max damage ... across 2 - 3 rounds.
I think a level 1 two handed weapon user avg damae is roughly the same as a level 17 3.0 duelist (excluding magic items, certain featsa can also throw this out).
I'll probably be putting up a thread in the houserules and suggestions with various things that bug me in PF several of which are hangovers from 3.5. THey include.
1. Two handed weapons by default are better than the other styles by a a large margin. THW are actually worse in PF than they were in 3.5 where they were also the best but had stiffer competition via feat support.
2. Chainmail, Breastplate, fullplate are usually used over everything else.
3. Overpowered individual spells (timestop, several others)
4. Skills overhaul.
More of a PF 1.25 than say the changes made from 3.0 to 3.5.
|
My examples with weapons was brought up because somebody challenged me on it. My original intent was to ask what the harm was in allowing a custom scale mail that had one extra point of mundane armour bonus, provided the suit carried with it all the other stats of breastplate. The person who wanted scale mail wanted it for the look only. All I meant to add to the conversation was the opinion that if he were my player, I would add a suit of appropriate breastplate, but describe it as a suit of armour made from overlapping scales and called it scale mail.
Right. That was me with the scale mail. ;)
I understand what you are saying. Perhaps I am not making my view clear though. My point is that once you reskin scale mail to breastplate stats, you have changed the definition of what scale mail is. And let's not be mistaken on this point. The stats for any given item is, as far as the game is concerned, the definition of the item.
If you do allow reskinning of equipment, and, using the great sword as a longsword example, you state that yes, you have a longsword that does the damage of great sword, but is a longsword. This does translate to elves being able to use it by default, clerics of Iomedae being able to claim use of said reskinned longsword, etc.
As a friend of mine is prone to say: "Words. They have meaning." Reskinning changes the meaning of those words. And changing that meaning can and will have cascading effects.
But, as I said earlier, it's your game. Play it as you feel comfortable with it and I will do the same. We may not agree on specifics, but the end goal is for folks to enjoy their respective games.
But to call a great sword a longsword just completely breaks the definition of the said items.
The thing is, with "reskinning" it's not as much renaming a greatsword a longsword, it's that you don't think of it as a greatsword to begin with. You think of it as something that 1. don't leave any free hands on a human, 2. deals slashing damage. Because those two are the most central mechanics to describing the item.
You could say that it's a longsword, the same size as a longsword - just that your style of fighting involves balancing with the other hand so you can't use it for a shield, allowing you to get better hits in, and sometimes grabbing on with both hands for extra force.
The end result is the same - a 2d6 weapon that requires both hands - just that the visualization is different.
Also, historically, what we consider a greatsword was often called a long sword ;) A long sword would've been an arming sword, I think, but I'm not good at that stuff.
|
|
Oh believe me, I know that as far as historic accuracy goes, there are numerous issues with the weapons as listed and their respective effectiveness when facing opponents in differing types of armor.
But that is not the issue. The rules are clearly NOT a historically accurate reflection on reality. That said, what is defined as a longsword for a medium creature within the PF rule set is a one handed martial slashing weapon that does 1d8 with a x2 modifier on a confirmed hit with a natural 19-20 on the attack roll. If you change that out to be a two handed slashing martial weapon (or worse a single handed martial weapon) that does 2d6 with a x2 modifier on a confirmed hit with a natural 19-20 on the attack roll, you have changed the definition of what a longsword is within the rule set.
As such, all things to which a longsword relates then also become affected. Clerics of Iomedae gain a more powerful weapon at the cost of being able to use a shield (or not depending on what version of reskinning is used). Elves gain access to a weapon that is arguably more powerful than the exotic weapon they gain access to by virtue of being an elf.
If you do allow reskinning of equipment, and, using the great sword as a longsword example, you state that yes, you have a longsword that does the damage of great sword, but is a longsword. This does translate to elves being able to use it by default, clerics of Iomedae being able to claim use of said reskinned longsword, etc.
The thing is, in the game universe, there isn't just one design of longswords or greatswords or the like - there's thousands of designs of swords, in many different sizes. Grouping them into short/long/bastard/greatsword (for straight blades) are just an easy way to turn a LOT of different sizes and shapes into four main mechanics - it's an abstraction.
Now, there are two different things here: What your character calls the item and what the item is. I can have a morning star, and call it my mace, and that doesn't matter (just like a rogue can call itself an assassin without that changing the class).
The more complex situation is when you want a weapon type, but don't want the actual stats for it - or stats don't exist. To continue on the morning star example, what if I have a flanged mace? Flanged maces are not statted up, but if they where they'd probably have stats either as a mace or a morning star. So if I want to have a flanged mace it might be best to count that as a morning star. I could even call it a mace in game and it wouldn't matter. Now say that a creature type had natural affinity with morning stars - would they automatically get affinity with flanged maces? Maybe, if the GM decides so. Giving them affinity with flanged maces, which you call maces, does NOT however mean they gain affinity with all maces - just because a flanged mace could also be considered a mace.
It, as everything else in the game, requires a gentleman's agreement (goshdarn I hate that expression) and a cooperating group that doesn't try to break the game. But it's not really an issue.
That said, what is defined as a longsword for a medium creature within the PF rule set is a one handed martial slashing weapon that does 1d8 with a x2 modifier on a confirmed hit with a natural 19-20 on the attack roll. If you change that out to be a two handed slashing martial weapon (or worse a single handed martial weapon) that does 2d6 with a x2 modifier on a confirmed hit with a natural 19-20 on the attack roll, you have changed the definition of what a longsword is within the rule set.
Agreed, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about describing it. A longsword can be defined as a one-handed martial weapon that deals 1d8 slashing damage etc and be described as a hooked blade about the size of a dagger. And my character can call it a Kujang. That doesn't mean I've changed the mechanical definition of a longsword.
Likewise, a greatsword can be defined as a two-handed martial weapon that deals 2d6 slashing damage etc, and still be described as a straight ~70cm blade that is held with one hand and balanced with one (leading to requiring two hands to wield). And my character can call it an arming sword, a long sword, a sword, a slasher, a cutlass, a shank, or a pony. That doesn't mean I've changed the mechanical definitions of a greatsword.
You see what we mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is taking examples to the extreme. Could you call a dagger a longsword? Or call a dagger a great sword? Sure, but it doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, my brother wanted his barbarian to use a great axe because he liked the image, but he didn't like the 1d12/x3 damage. So he used 2d6/19-20x2 for his damage and called it a great axe.
Did it matter at all? Yes and no. No it made no difference power-wise. Yes it made a huge difference in that it allowed my brother to have fun playing his character. I am not going to ruin my brother's fun because "a great axe doesn't do 2d6 damage! It does 1d12!"
|
|
So, to be clear, the stance you are taking is a reskinning based solely on what the PC is calling the item, not the actual definition of the item which has that same name.
Which really just leads to all sorts of confusion. When one player says longsword, are they referring to their longsword or to their greatsword which is reskinned to be a "longsword"? This all ties back to my earlier statement of "Words. They have meaning." Adjusting the meaning in non uniform ways leads to an increased potential for confusion and error.
And with that said, I think that this entire reskinning discussion deserves it's own thread to keep it from completely derailing this one.
Longsword are better than two-handed sword. You can't attack with a two-handed sword while grappled. Theorycrafters live in a vacuum and see only the numbers, while there's more to the game than numbers.
But to call a great sword a longsword just completely breaks the definition of the said items.The thing is, with "reskinning" it's not as much renaming a greatsword a longsword, it's that you don't think of it as a greatsword to begin with. You think of it as something that 1. don't leave any free hands on a human, 2. deals slashing damage. Because those two are the most central mechanics to describing the item.
You could say that it's a longsword, the same size as a longsword - just that your style of fighting involves balancing with the other hand so you can't use it for a shield, allowing you to get better hits in, and sometimes grabbing on with both hands for extra force.
The end result is the same - a 2d6 weapon that requires both hands - just that the visualization is different.
Also, historically, what we consider a greatsword was often called a long sword ;) A long sword would've been an arming sword, I think, but I'm not good at that stuff.
This. Thank you for getting what I'm saying. This thread is getting derailed by my having to re-explain myself.
Elves getting free proficiency with the re-skinned greatsword is exactly the same problem I already covered when I pointed out that clerics of Iomedae couldn't get free proficiency with greatsword by calling it a longsword.
I support naming and describing the physical characteristics of weapons and armour whatever the player wants if it only changes fluff and minor details of appearance. Nothing more.
The reason there is that D&D is not a simulation of real combat.
yeah, I agree with all that, just saying shields could be mo'bettah :)
I suppose I forgot to mention Power Attack scales with level and I'm not sure how many other feats scale with level. I'm not opposed to PA scaling with level or feats in general just that it scales to well compared to other options like Dodge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Potential solution for you
Dagger: 1d4
Short Bladed/Hafted: 1d6
Long Bladed/Hafted: 1d8
Polearm: 1d10
Two-Handed: 1d12
All weapons of the same category do the same damage, the only difference being damage type (slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning). Weapons only crit on a roll of 20 and do double damage. If that crit rule seems too simple and basic, make your crit range based on class, martial oriented classes crit on 19-20, everyone else only on 20.
There, now weapon choice is completely about roleplaying and flavor.
|
This may not be new, but it is still an interesting topic.
It does seem that certain weapons and armor are the default for their weight class and all the rest go unused. The exception being on mobs where you find the mythical +1 short sword or splint mail that immediately goes into the "sell" pile.
I would personally love to see a somewhat simplified system where a group of weapons had the same stats and you picked the specific name/look you wanted. Different groups, of course. So in reality, you'd choose from among the 4-6 groups, then pick the specific model you want. I'm not sure that we really need the other 96 weapons or 23 armors that nobody will ever use.
Another idea that I saw in a different game system was that weapons had minor modifiers to them based on the type. PF sorta does this on some weapons, but I'd love to see it across the board. In that system, short swords and daggers gave an initiative bonus because they were faster. Long swords and two handed weapons could bypass DR, do a few extra points of damage, or improve your AC since you could keep the enemy at more than arm's length. Hammers would gain a +1 to hit if the target had armor on, and so on and so forth. (These examples are not truly from the game, but illustrate the types of things they did). In that game you picked a weapon partially because of the damage it did but also because of the cool minor bonus it gave you.
If you went with the system of minor modifiers you could advance it even further by allowing characters to choose one and only one "path" for each weapon type they were proficient with. (IE: DR bypass, AC bonus, or damage bonus to the longsword example above). Feats and class skills could allow them to take several paths, or learn new weapon types. Perhaps, every time you gain a +1 BAB you can gain a new upgrade for the path or a new path.
Anyhow, blah blah. {{puts away designer hat}}
I agree. I'd love to either see all the variants get some reason for someone to take them. As it is now, the only reasons are generally to make you sub-par for fluff reasons, or because you are level 1 and can't afford anything else. No sense having a million options that nobody wants.
stats or it didn't happen.
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.
Very nice build, and it does what you say it does. Well designed.
However, it IS a level 20 build. IME, the game is already completely disintegrating around level 14 or so, and hat happens at level 20 isn't really relevant to "the game". If you were playing that character across a level range, when would you make the sacrifices made to defense, f.ex?
This may not be new, but it is still an interesting topic.... Another idea that I saw in a different game system was that weapons had minor modifiers to them based on the type.
Welcome back to 2nd Ed. :)
Back in AD&D 2nd Edition days, there was no reason to use anything other than a longsword and shield. going from 1d8 to 1d10 was not worth the AC bonus provided by a shield.
If you really want to improve one-handed weapons, drop the power attack bonus for two-handed weapons.
Back in AD&D 2nd Edition days, there was no reason to use anything other than a longsword and shield. going from 1d8 to 1d10 was not worth the AC bonus provided by a shield.
If you really want to improve one-handed weapons, drop the power attack bonus for two-handed weapons.
No, in 1E it was all about the shield. In 2E it was all about dual wielding. You could specialize in the longsword and put 2 proficiency slots into Two Weapon Fighting Style from the Complete Fighters Handbook (giving you no negatives to dual wielding medium sized weapons). With a high Dex and two weapon fighting style you dual wield at no penalty and did your normal strength bonus to damage on both your main and off hands.
Nope weapon specialist dart in second ed with Gaunlets of Ogre powah:) Dual wield thrown darts for exta cheese.
Darts, daggers and shortswords had there uses vs spellcasters though and darts and daggers for getting through stoneskin spells.
Nope weapon specialist dart in second ed with Gaunlets of Ogre powah:) Dual wield thrown darts for exta cheese.
Darts, daggers and shortswords had there uses vs spellcasters though and darts and daggers for getting through stoneskin spells.
True, dart specialists were cheesetastic, funnily enough none of us ever played one, we did have a throwing dagger specialist once though.
Best way to get through stoneskin, a handful of rocks. ;)
I use longswords very often. It's one of my favorite weapons, and I use it out of favor rather than mechanical properties. It's just symbolic to me for some reason.
My current character in a Carrion Crown game I'm in is an Aasimar Inquisitor using an Axiomatic cold-iron Longsword.
Had a pathfinder fighter barb that went longsword and warhammer. At times, would 2h that sword and get to work.
My general rules for weapon selection.
must have a ranged option. usually either a bow or sling
must have a light weapon for dealing with grapple. the simplest is a kick.
must have a primary damage dealing melee weapon, this can either be the light weapon above, or something like a 2handed reach weapon.
must have at least 2 backup weapons, these may either be special materials or alternate damage types. usually both
must have a secondary copy of my primary damage dealing melee weapon. even if it's weaker
must have multiple types of blanched ammunition for different purposes as well as reasonably priced specialty ammo (like smoke arrows, arrows with ropes attached for climbing, or arrows lit by flint and fueled by oiled rags)
though not a requirement, i prefer to conceal or disguise my weapons and prefer weapons capable of these, even if they are slightly suboptimal. if i do openly carry them, they are usually ceremonial in design yet still practical in combat.
my general rules for armor selection
must not slow my movement, i hate being slowed
must have a check penalty of no heavier than -3. it better be eliminated by mithril or at least have the capacity too. i hate being hindered by check penalties
must have a relatively light weight. i hate exiting light load territory. and i usually invest no less than a 13 in strength unless i play very specific arcane casters. i usually like carrying my girl.
must be capable of being either concealed under clothing or able to be disguised as clothing, built into the clothing or posses the glamered enchantment. i like concealing my armor and not giving unwanted attention to my small framed female characters.
i like the element of surprise that occurs when the big stupid orc is defeated by a "Tiny Little Girl." whether actually being young, or simply being small framed and waifly. makes it more fun to spread the reputation of a tiny girl as the greatest warrior. it appeals to my anime side. heavy armor detracts from that image.
I find this issue only comes up with my power gamer group. The min/max crowd pick weapons based on how they work in game. My Role playig group has a wider range of weapons and armor. Both groups are happy and thus, as a GM, I don't worry about it.
|
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.
wow did you jump to a conclusion on that and get defensive or what? my post was to ask you if they removed the names from armor would that allow you to RP better without worrying, or having to deal with, the sideffects of using inferrior armor.
calm down and dont assume people are assulting you.
**ALSO** connan used a basterd sword.
|
|
**ALSO** connan used a basterd sword.Conan used many different weapons at different times. Often whatever he had to hand. long swords, short swords, hand and half swords, axes, spears, fists, rocks, bows, slings, etc. Shields, various types of armor.
Something I wish D&D/PF supported better. More about being more reliant on the character than the gear than about specific weapon stats or even specialization.
im talking about the movie, not the book/comic book. named the atlantian, descirbed as "too big for a normal man to wield in one hand" sounds like a bastard sword to me.
Thing about the longsword is, is it doesn't have major notable strengths--but is a decent weapon--but it doesn't have major weaknesses. Compare to an item that as a better crit range, but maybe does less damage normally (so if you roll crappy like I do, you just end up doing less damage), or an item that has a better crit modifier but of course only crits on a 20, etc.
But it's a one handed weapon with a decent damage die and decent crit range (which you can improve with keen or improved critical feat if you're into that). It doesn't weigh a lot, it doesn't cost a lot, elves are proficient in it, lots of people are proficient in it. If you want a one-handed martial weapon AND you want to play a fairly well-rounded warrior type, it's a good weapon.
It's just not great for specialists. And I think Pathfinder, especially with archetypes and certain feat trees, tends to reward specialization or at least make it look really attractive. So it's become a more neglected weapon than it used to be because of that.
It's also a bit skewed because I think before crit ranges and such existed, the longsword used to be the go to weapon and everything else sucked. Now that it's merely useful and does what it should, it seems like it's lost the game when really other things have been rounded out a bit more (that said, of course there is some equipment that's more optimal than others).
Would be cool to have a straight up "swordmaster" archetype though for fighter or some such. Hm... *goes off to ponder*
Conan used many different weapons at different times. Often whatever he had to hand. long swords, short swords, hand and half swords, axes, spears, fists, rocks, bows, slings, etc. Shields, various types of armor.
Something I wish D&D/PF supported better. More about being more reliant on the character than the gear than about specific weapon stats or even specialization.
The real world longsword were a bastard sword (hand-and-a-half sword), or a claymore (the difference between the claymore and the longswordn is the hilt. The claymore's hilt is V-shaped, whereas the longsword is shaped like a cross). The originally Scottish Gaelic is claidheamh mòr, meaning great sword.
In history, there is no longsword like the one presented in D&D. It is an D&D invention, or a distortion of the arming sword. Of course, classification of weapons are not a precise thing (just look at the morningstar weapon), but this never did exists.
Hell, D&D is rife with distortions of real world weapons (the falchion is two-handed? How does that work?)
Another thing to remember, is that real world infantry combat were rarely a man-to-man affair, and most often a group combat thing, which is a quite different beast altogether.
The pike, one of the most important weapons in medieval and renaissance Europe, is a lot more difficult to use effectively man-to-man than in a group.
yay DP.
Think I may add some feat support for neglected weapons. +2 damage or bonuses to hit sorta thing. Maybe some racial feats to help them out.
The real world longsword were a bastard sword (hand-and-a-half sword), or a claymore (the difference between the claymore and the longswordn is the hilt. The claymore's hilt is V-shaped, whereas the longsword is shaped like a cross). The originally Scottish Gaelic is claidheamh mòr, meaning great sword.
In history, there is no longsword like the one presented in D&D. It is an D&D invention, or a distortion of the arming sword. Of course, classification of weapons are not a precise thing (just look at the morningstar weapon), but this never did exists.
Hell, D&D is rife with distortions of real world weapons (the falchion is two-handed? How does that work?)
While this is true, you can go even further. After the Longsword (Bastard Sword/Hand-and-a-half Sword) came into more predominant use, the arming sword was largely regulated to side-arm status and called a short-sword.
So if the name "Longsword" starts to apply to Bastard Sword as an alternate name, and the d8 Longsword gets downgraded to "Arming Sword" or "Short-sword" then what do we call the d6 short-sword to distinguish it from the arming sword? Sure, you could just call the d8 weapon an Arming Sword, and the d6 weapon a Short-Sword but then we'd be right back to square one with the same problem we had with the Longsword in the first place (except now instead of the longsword and bastard sword being technically the same, instead we're talking about the short-sword and the arming sword being technically the same.)tl;dr - If you stick too hard to real-world analogies, things tend to fall apart easier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real world longsword were a bastard sword (hand-and-a-half sword), or a claymore (the difference between the claymore and the longswordn is the hilt. The claymore's hilt is V-shaped, whereas the longsword is shaped like a cross). The originally Scottish Gaelic is claidheamh mòr, meaning great sword.
In history, there is no longsword like the one presented in D&D. It is an D&D invention, or a distortion of the arming sword. Of course, classification of weapons are not a precise thing (just look at the morningstar weapon), but this never did exists.
Hell, D&D is rife with distortions of real world weapons (the falchion is two-handed? How does that work?)While this is true, you can go even further. After the Longsword (Bastard Sword/Hand-and-a-half Sword) came into more predominant use, the arming sword was largely regulated to side-arm status and called a short-sword.
So if the name "Longsword" starts to apply to Bastard Sword as an alternate name, and the d8 Longsword gets downgraded to "Arming Sword" or "Short-sword" then what do we call the d6 short-sword to distinguish it from the arming sword? Sure, you could just call the d8 weapon an Arming Sword, and the d6 weapon a Short-Sword but then we'd be right back to square one with the same problem we had with the Longsword in the first place (except now instead of the longsword and bastard sword being technically the same, instead we're talking about the short-sword and the arming sword being technically the same.)tl;dr - If you stick too hard to real-world analogies, things tend to fall apart easier.
Which is why I wrote that weapon classification is not a precise thing.
But it doesn't fall apart. Short sword is just a category of swords, not a type of sword. Again D&D got it completely wrong. There should never be a type of sword called short sword, unless you go the way of Warhammer, and use classification such as "main weapon" and "great weapon".Short sword just means a sword with a blade shorter than one meter.
My peeve is that the name longsword is used for something it never was, and the other names for the same sword is used for two other, distinctive, swords. Longsword and Bastard Sword are the same weapon, and should all function, mechanically, like the bastard sword (to a degree at least). Of course, great sword also refers to longsword and other large sword types, like the two-handed sword.
When you use real world references, D&D does fall apart rather quickly. Just look at how armour is handled (you can run in full plate, hell you can do cartwheels, well someone can, I can't, but I can't do cartwheels outside armour).
It is a darn shame that D&D is so far removed from the real world. I prefer my fantasy a bit closer to what is reality (not counting magic of course).
And it is not "chain mail", it is just mail! Plate mail means that there is both plate and mail. Mail is small rings joined together to create armour. The chain part is a pleonasm.
Edit: History nerd rant is over, move along, nothing to see here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THANK YOU for understanding mail and plate. Now if only we could get the books to refer to them all as harness...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THANK YOU for understanding mail and plate. Now if only we could get the books to refer to them all as harness...
Let's just start and see if the games follow suit.
Get it? Suit? Eh?
I usually use a longsword. It is a good weapon. What's not to like about it. To get anything better I need to blow feats which can be worth while but not something I do normally. Other martial weapons have a bonus like bigger critical multiplier but lower threat range or lower damage dice and high threat range. The long sword fall squarely in the middle.
As well the longsword is common. If you are focused on the longsword there is good chance you will be able to find one if you find yourself with out a weapon.
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.
I started thinking about this very thing a little while ago. There is no real advantage to shields, and that's the solution I came up with too. It's the only way to make a 1-handed weapon worth it.
I started thinking about this very thing a little while ago. There is no real advantage to shields, and that's the solution I came up with too. It's the only way to make a 1-handed weapon worth it.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.
Actually, dual-wielding 1hWeap+LShield or HShield+LWeap, or even Shield+Shield, is quite an effective setup.
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.
Actually, Shields gain a bigger need in Armor as DR variant: as armor only provides DR/magic, you need Shields to get good AC (like Shield spell). So after level 4, when everyone has a magic weapon this DR means nothing.
Magic Armor (or Armor with Natural armor) provides DR/Adamantine. So it lssts longer.
Adamantine Armor is DR /-.
Now Power Attack and Deadly Aim are King here since AC is low (without a Shield).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In history, there is no longsword like the one presented in D&D. It is an D&D invention, or a distortion of the arming sword.
Respectfully, this statement is bull-pucky. The late Roman Spatha, Viking Sword, Celtic War sword, Straight bladed Arab and Turkish swords, all fall under the single handed "longsword" category. Later in european history (10-13th centuries) the hand and a half sword became more popular as plate armor improved, and much later than that the 2 handed models (13th -15th iirc?) were used to break up pike formations. A light, fast, single handed sword was the single best weapon for almost a millennium.
But yes, the overall weapons classification is a bit muddled, but I find it works best that way. one handed, long straight blade, slashing weapon? LS. Done
So, to be clear, the stance you are taking is a reskinning based solely on what the PC is calling the item, not the actual definition of the item which has that same name.
Which really just leads to all sorts of confusion. When one player says longsword, are they referring to their longsword or to their greatsword which is reskinned to be a "longsword"? This all ties back to my earlier statement of "Words. They have meaning." Adjusting the meaning in non uniform ways leads to an increased potential for confusion and error.
And with that said, I think that this entire reskinning discussion deserves it's own thread to keep it from completely derailing this one.
In that case why not just wear the better armor? I mean it's not like anyone can even see your char so what what does it matter what he looks like.
|
|
In that case why not just wear the better armor? I mean it's not like anyone can even see your char so what what does it matter what he looks like.So, to be clear, the stance you are taking is a reskinning based solely on what the PC is calling the item, not the actual definition of the item which has that same name.
Which really just leads to all sorts of confusion. When one player says longsword, are they referring to their longsword or to their greatsword which is reskinned to be a "longsword"? This all ties back to my earlier statement of "Words. They have meaning." Adjusting the meaning in non uniform ways leads to an increased potential for confusion and error.
And with that said, I think that this entire reskinning discussion deserves it's own thread to keep it from completely derailing this one.
<sigh> OK, I tried to kill off this aspect of the derail.
To take your stance a step further, why should any of us list any equipment at all and instead just list the damage we do or the overall AC? It's not like we can see the characters so why should it matter if we list any actual equipment?
Hell, why list the class, it's not like the characters really exists, so what does it matter what we put down?
No, you may not be able to see the PC, but IT'S A CONCEPT. It is a mental image and as such, I can see it.
I do find it ironic that you chose to quote the post that raises the point that "Words have meaning". As such, the description of the PC, of the armor, of every aspect would have meaning and pretty much answers the question you poised. ;)
In history, there is no longsword like the one presented in D&D. It is an D&D invention, or a distortion of the arming sword.Respectfully, this statement is bull-pucky. The late Roman Spatha, Viking Sword, Celtic War sword, Straight bladed Arab and Turkish swords, all fall under the single handed "longsword" category. Later in european history (10-13th centuries) the hand and a half sword became more popular as plate armor improved, and much later than that the 2 handed models (13th -15th iirc?) were used to break up pike formations. A light, fast, single handed sword was the single best weapon for almost a millennium.
But yes, the overall weapons classification is a bit muddled, but I find it works best that way. one handed, long straight blade, slashing weapon? LS. Done
The name longsword was specifically used because it had a longer blade than any of those. There is no "single-handed longsword". Why not call it an arming sword, a war sword, a straight sword or just a sword. Hell they could be calling it a broadsword, and it would be far more correct than longsword.
Calling a one-handed only sword a "longsword" is akind to saying that the Falchion is a two-handed Scimitar, when the two have actually very little in common. The one is a fast and agile stabbing and slashing sword often used by cavalry because of its lightness, the other is a meatcleaver. Or that the Claive and Naginata are two different weapons, when they are both a curved blade put on a stick.Edit: The Zweihänder was used in only a short period of the late 15th century to half-way through the 16th. And was used more like a polearm, a friend of mine (former actually, but that is another story) uses a zweihänder in reenactments, he showed me how to used it to brace for a charge. It wasn't really used "to break up pike formation" per se, not alone at least, but used in the front line of said formations.