| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped coming to Paizo for the LONGEST time simply because the Advice Forum is all about numbers with little to no regard for character concept. So sick of the DPR OPTIMIZERS telling players: "Oh, you wanted to play a [fill in base class with weapon option idea]?? Pssh, you should be taking [Base Class] plus a dip in [Another Class] and also [Another More Different Class] and don't use the weapon you said, that doesn't have enough damage/crit/whatever, you should be using [Forum Approved Weapon "A"]
I'm all for advice, but when the final "product" has no resemblance to the initial idea, there is a problem.
I agree with you. It's poor form for anyone to tell a fellow player that their character design or style is badwrongfun. It's unfortunate that this happens on advice forums.
The OP's question may be rephrased as "Am I just crazy, or are axes always numerically inferior to other weapons? Is flavor the only reason to wield an axe?" I think this is a question mainly regarding mechanics, so a discussion of numbers seems appropriate.
The answer to this question is that axes are not mechanically inferior to other weapons. Depending on your situation and preferences, axes can be your best mechanical choice. I mentioned the example that a dwarf may choose the Dwarven Longaxe over a Greatsword or other options. On paper, one may do more damage, but in a game, with AoO, movement, etc. the other may be advantageous. Also, someone who may want to take advantage of the feat Sliding Axe Throw will definitely want axes.
This is the advice forum. It has bad advice as well as good. Always be wary of people who make claims such as "this is the best always!" or "if you don't do this, you are doing it wrong!" Luckily, Pathfinder is very well designed, and these types of statements are almost always wrong. The answer to most "Which is best?" questions is "It depends". In my opinion, this is a hallmark of excellent game mechanics.
Flavor is a great reason to choose axes, but it's not the only reason. Axes can be a great mechanical choice, too!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind when people like me are talking about which weapon will produce the highest damage per attack is that the difference will likely be a small fraction of a single point of damage; there are far better reasons to choose a weapon than which one will give you an extra tenth of a point of average damage per attack - which one you think is cool, which one you think you'll get access to magic versions of, which one will get you harassed by the city guard, etc.
Why do I feel like this thread has devolved into a common Deadwood scene
Al Sweringen (sp?) - EB, are you just repeating back to me what I just said in different words?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the people in here saying "I'm a real roleplayer, I choose things for flavor." Yeah, we all do.
But they're coming to the advice forums.
Wow, I think that an unarmed strike was just compared to an exotic weapon for a level 20 character...
Also, not all advice is mechanics. Someone may seek advice to fine-tune their backstory, or how to deal with a party member's personality, or how to handle those pesky goblin babies.
It's hard to tell, but I think your point is that weapon choice can heavily influence what you may call "character effectiveness". What you really mean by "effective" is really "effective in melee combat". Furthermore, you specifically mean "dealing hp damage in melee combat".
You try to show evidence for this point by comparing an unarmed strike to a falcata. This isn't too reasonable, because you're basically comparing "no weapon" to "exotic weapon". Anyways, it's not correct in general. Why? Well, simply, monks. At level 20, a monk who has feats, class features, and items all geared toward unarmed strikes can be just as "effective" as one carrying a falcata. Heck, if the two fought, that falcata could just be disarmed. It also may be advantageous in adventures (real games, not theoretical level 20s that start next to each other and have a series of full attacks) for a character to be viewed as an unarmed non-combatant or ambassador rather than some goon with a big frightening sword.
So, even with the falcata and unarmed strike. Can you just say generally which is "better" in all cases? Nope.
Yeah, you actually can say that wielding a weapon is better. You can find corner cases where an unarmed fighter might come out on top. But in terms of raw numbers, viability against DR throughout all levels, etc, a weapon is going to win out.
You can say that, sure. It still won't be true in all cases, in general... and saying it again won't make a poor argument any better.
There are advantages to going unarmed that just aren't as quantitative as damage dice (I've already mentioned some). There are also a host of style feats and other monk-centric mechanics that make unarmed attractive. Still, unarmed isn't strictly "better" than the falcata, for example. Likewise, the falcata is not strictly "better" than unarmed.
I haven't even mentioned role-playing and flavor. I was simply demonstrating that there are more mechanics at work in a real game than theoretical level 20s that always start 100 feet from each other in a 100% combat environment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You haven't shown one thing unarmed has going for it.
I've mentioned several. Not all of these benefits are quantitative. Heck, not all of them are entirely related to combat! When creating a monk, choosing unarmed is not "bad". In many cases (perhaps not all) an unarmed monk will have some advantages over a monk that carries around and tries to use a falcata. I don't think this is an earth-shattering or shocking claim...
All I've said is that in some games (again, real games with combat and non-combat) unarmed can be an excellent choice, both mechanically and for flavor.
No you still haven't mentioned one that unarmed has going for it.
So here is where I mentioned something unarmed has going for it...
At level 20, a monk who has feats, class features, and items all geared toward unarmed strikes can be just as "effective" as one carrying a falcata. Heck, if the two fought, that falcata could just be disarmed. It also may be advantageous in adventures (real games, not theoretical level 20s that start next to each other and have a series of full attacks) for a character to be viewed as an unarmed non-combatant or ambassador rather than some goon with a big frightening sword.
You still wouldn't ever choose unarmed if you were going for high damage.
If you were only going for maximum damage while not disarmed, or in jail without your weapon, or in the king's dining hall where weapons aren't allowed... and completely disregarding the rest of the game? This is an advantage that unarmed has. It also has, as I will mention again, specific features and style feats related to it. Enemies can be less suspicious of unarmed characters. Unarmed can be effective, especially for a monk. It can be more effective than a monk weapon, depending on the situation. To say that one option is "better" than the other is misleading.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians have axes? Have you seen the iconic barbarian lately? Pretty sure that's a greataword.
Large bastard sword if your talking about Amiri. Took a feat to have a -2 to to attack. Mechanically its not so awesome. Roleplaying wise its offset by her rage and she got it off a giant or something like that.
What I gather from this is that people on this thread would not build a barbarian with an axe, even though everyone knows that barbarians have axes (ask any 6 year old), because the axe has a slightly lower percentage to cause as much damage on a regular basis...for a character that is basically "Hulk. Smash!"Conan used a sword. Beowulf used a sword. The misconceptions of young children are not better than the actual major sources for the barbarian class.
Do a Google image search for barbarian Swords, axes, and spears are about equal there. And movie Conan is a large portion of the sword wielders.
Given how often Conan goes into a violent rage compared to how often he just steals people's stuff, I agree with the argument that he may culturally be a barbarian, but he's best represented in game with rogue and fighter levels.
The traditional raging berserker archetype is the viking raider, who often fought with axes as they were much easier to maintain over the years - you'd get a smith from the nearest large town to make you an axe head as a young man, sharpen it as needed, and stick a new haft in it when you wore out the old one.
Barbarians have axes? Have you seen the iconic barbarian lately? Pretty sure that's a greataword.Large bastard sword if your talking about Amiri. Took a feat to have a -2 to to attack. Mechanically its not so awesome. Roleplaying wise its offset by her rage and she got it off a giant or something like that.
It is awesome if she goes Titan Mauler (which seems tailor made for her) and get's the minuses to disappear at level 6. Then there is the whole Sunblade thing, which allows for some ridiculous damage dice...
It could suck less.
on the whole unarmed strike discussion, while a monk won't do remarkable damage using unarmed strikes, it should be noted that an unarmed fighter focusing on it can do some really nice damage.
Whether it's the OPTIMAL or not isn't really relevant, it is by far enough to contribute and pull one's weight in a standard AP.
It is awesome if she goes Titan MaulerBarbarians have axes? Have you seen the iconic barbarian lately? Pretty sure that's a greataword.Large bastard sword if your talking about Amiri. Took a feat to have a -2 to to attack. Mechanically its not so awesome. Roleplaying wise its offset by her rage and she got it off a giant or something like that.
She doesn't however. Her backstory and build as far as I can tell are rather awkward.
Yeah, you actually can say that wielding a weapon is better.
Perhaps your primary mistake is assuming that if a monk wields a weapon, she must wield it for the entire adventure. That's not true. Likewise, a monk who may often go unarmed may choose to pull out a weapon for a specific situation.
When you said that wielding a weapon is "better", it was inaccurate and misleading. It's "best" to use the right tool for the right job, and a weapon isn't always right.
Here, for illustration...
Your Monk may choose to use unarmed combat. This isn't a build per say, because draw a couple weapons and you just became an armed Monk. Unarmed and armed Monks aren't built any differently - the difference is which weapon happens to be superior at this moment.
Pros:
Makes it really easy to use shuriken as needed
Deflect arrows also is easier
Take advantage of advancing damage
Cons:
Defeating DR can be difficult
Amulet of Mighty Fists is terribly expensive and takes up the amulet slot
Hints:
Carry weapons anyways (flurry friendly). Specifically Cold Iron, Silver, and when you can afford it, Adamantium (at 16th level you can sell them). This gives you a secondary option vs these DR's. Make sure to take Quick Draw, so when you find out the monster has a specific type of DR you can pull the appropriate weapons instantly.
The Armed Monk:
The Armed Monk uses either a Quarterstaff, Kamas, Nunchaku or Sai in combat. All Monks should have weapons available for when things like DR become a problem. You will find to-hit with weapons is often better than unarmed (since enchantments are cheaper and masterwork is available)
Pros:
Weapon enchantment is just superior in price to amulet of mighty fists (though you may want the amulet anyways)
Special material weapons can be held for DR defeating
Cons:
Damage is static
you don't benefit from the Ki powers that make your unarmed strikes hit as magic/lawful/adamantium with your primary weapon
you may not have a hands free for throwing shuriken
Hints: keep your hands free to throw shuriken, then use quick draw to draw the appropriate weapons when you get into melee when that is your best option. This can allow you to at least benefit a bit from feats like deflect arrow, and gives you the versatility of the Shuriken
Ranged Combat:
Good for Monks - no, really.
Shuriken used normally are a poor ranged weapon. The base damage is insignificant, the range isn't good, there's no great critical multiplier, the only real advantage is they can be drawn as a free action.
However, in the hands of a Monk, Shuriken can be thrown using Flurry of Blows. One of the greatest disadvantages of the Monk is that you need to full attack to get the advantage of flurry, but with Shuriken, that doesn't necessarily require you to get into melee range. A Monk can throw 2 shuriken per round at first level, adding Str bonus to each.
As levels increase, you have a choice to make. You can invest some feats and make sure this type of combat remains viable, or you can ignore it and let it fade into a poor option. I recommend giving it a try at low levels, and if you like the versatility, pick up Deadly Aim at least.
You've made bold general statements that one thing is better than another. (I won't even touch the "enemies are more suspicious of unarmed people") All I would need is "corner cases" to contradict these broad statements and show these statements to be inaccurate. However, I've shown more than that. Unarmed can be just as effective as using a weapon, and during a campaign a monk will likely choose to use both styles.
he's arguing that all weapons are equal. They're clearly not.
Sigh. You just made another bold, inaccurate statement. I haven't stated anything like that.
This has dragged on long enough. If you think at this point I have been saying that "all weapons are equal" then you are ignoring me, or are being intentionally disingenuous. Either way, it doesn't help the OP and isn't leading to an interesting or thoughtful discussion.
Edit: I think you just replied to just one sentence of my post, and your reply was complaining that I only reply to individual sentences...
I miss the days when we built characters because we wanted to see if they'd be interesting. I'll bet none of you have an 8 or 9 as an ability score!
but talmerian, EVERY optimizer has an eight or a nine in something, in fact they usually have several 7's in somethings.
and while i agree that number-crunching and accepting nothing else isn't my idea of fun, just a quick note: some people actually DO have fun number-crunching to eke out a little more damage, and finding rules-lawyer ways to fit a square peg into a round hole and then make it sing show tunes. we're all friends here.
on your axes comment: i personally prefer hammers on my 'barians, but that's just me.
Except no.I miss the days when we built characters because we wanted to see if they'd be interesting. I'll bet none of you have an 8 or 9 as an ability score!but talmerian, EVERY optimizer has an 89 or a nine in something, in fact they usually have several 7's in somethings.
except yeah, because that's what dump stats are usually used as. and while i said every optimizer, i should have clarified with "every optimizer that doesn't have NAA (like myself)".
except yeah, because that's what dump stats are. and while i said every optimizer, i should have clarified with "every optimizer that doesn't have NAA (like myself)".Except no.I miss the days when we built characters because we wanted to see if they'd be interesting. I'll bet none of you have an 8 or 9 as an ability score!but talmerian, EVERY optimizer has an 89 or a nine in something, in fact they usually have several 7's in somethings.
NAA? Regardless, not everyone has several 7s. Its not always smart nor optimized, and saying every optimizer has it is an accusation that doesn't need to be made.
NAA?
"Negative Attribute Aversion", I believe.
|
What I gather from this is that people on this thread would not build a barbarian with an axe, even though everyone knows that barbarians have axes (ask any 6 year old), because the axe has a slightly lower percentage to cause as much damage on a regular basis...for a character that is basically "Hulk. Smash!"Conan used a sword. Beowulf used a sword. The misconceptions of young children are not better than the actual major sources for the barbarian class.
To be fair, Conan used whatever he had available at the time. Most of the time it was a sword but I am reasonably certain that he's used an axe in the fiction on occasion.
NAA? Regardless, not everyone has several 7s. Its not always smart nor optimized, and saying every optimizer has it is an accusation that doesn't need to be made.except yeah, because that's what dump stats are. and while i said every optimizer, i should have clarified with "every optimizer that doesn't have NAA (like myself)".Except no.I miss the days when we built characters because we wanted to see if they'd be interesting. I'll bet none of you have an 8 or 9 as an ability score!but talmerian, EVERY optimizer has an 89 or a nine in something, in fact they usually have several 7's in somethings.
NAA is 'Negative Attribute Aversion', as lemmy pointed out. and almost every "optimized" build i have ever seen uses one or more dump stats (usually wis or cha) to squeeze out every point towards whatever it is they're optimizing for, unless the point of their build is specifically for a "well-rounded" character.
also, it's not an accusation, it's an observation. having (one or more) dump stats isn't somehow bad or wrong to have on a character--provided they plan to roleplay them accordingly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THIS! 100%I stopped coming to Paizo for the LONGEST time simply because the Advice Forum is all about numbers with little to no regard for character concept.
You think the name of your class name defines you?
I suggest having the number and abilities meet the concept, and there is not a damn thing wrong with that.
I think it's sad that some think the only way to meet a concept is through one class.
Worse, is the people who use "flavor" as a defense for obstinately sticking to a poor class choice, when the basis of "flavor" is based off of class and feat names.
They don't even consider that roleplay is key to flavor, not class names.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we all have common ground here, actually. Let's take a moment to try and understand each other.
I suggest having the number and abilities meet the concept, and there is not a damn thing wrong with that.
Agreed. I think many players with a more "numbers-crunching" side have experienced people poo-pooing their methods in threads or wherever. They are often accused of not considering a character concept and role-playing, which is an unfair and unfounded accusation. Just because you are discussing numbers, some people assume you don't have an awesome character concept, backstory, and role-playing style. This can lead to those number-crunchers getting defensive and feeling misunderstood.
I'm all for advice, but when the final "product" has no resemblance to the initial idea, there is a problem.
Agreed. I think many players with more of a role-playing flair have experienced threads or conversations where people tell them that their character isn't "doing it right" if they don't have the hardest hitting weapons or the most synergistic feats. They are often accused of disregarding the mechanical aspect of the game and refusing to consider more effective mechanical options, which is often untrue. This can lead to those role-players getting defensive and feeling misunderstood.
If you're reading this, perhaps you consider yourself in one of the aforementioned "camps". But this game involves numbers and role-playing! Most players happily marry a cool concept with some effective mechanics. The Pathfinder community isn't made up of "number-crunchers" and "real role-players", it's mostly people who enjoy a bit of both aspects to this game.
My rule of thumb is to:
1) Never tell somebody the way they play is badwrongfun. Their character concept, their build, their playstyle, all just as valid as mine.
2) Never assume someone's suggestion/advice is a command or judgement or anything more than simply suggestions and advice. It's too easy to get defensive when it seems someone is telling you how to play "correctly".
Sometimes, I want a really small character who uses a really big axe because there's a STORY behind it.
I hear you there! One time we completely derped on the inappropriate sized weapon rules and my halfling paladin with 14 str found a mace of the titans. He could just barely lift it over his head but he could fight with it. He took horrendous negatives to hit with it but it was so funny to see my 3 foot nothing halfling swinging an 8 foot long, 160lb hammer XD He was essentially swinging an overlarge fully grown orc everywhere. It was also very funny to see him dragging the massive lump of iron everywhere he went.
Later we realized that he couldnt actually wield it, but we were having so much fun with it that we decided to let it slide :)
Nother funny one, I had a two weapon fighting goblin with good cha (ya the thought of it...) who would wield 2 pure gold kikuris and would do performance combat. The crowd just loved the little guy and he could do damage above and beyond what you would expect of the light weapons. The crowd (or at least the he thought there was a crowd, he was a little touched in the head) just loved it when his twin blades, Shiny and Shinier flashed in the sunlight. His name was Tiny the Terrible :) Sniff.
What made him good was performance checks. Every time he did something like charge or crit or multiple attacks or get max damage he got an additional d6 to his damage until the end of his next turn. This would stack up real quickly as we counted rolling a d1 as getting max damage ;)
Every attack he got +d6 damage and every time he crit he got +d6 and if he charged or full attacked he got more d6s!
You've ignored the double cost, the difficult with dealing with DR, and the half cap for enhancements. Aka, you want agile on your amulet of mighty fists? Fine but you can never get to the point where you bypass the alignment based damage reductions. Want flaming on there too? There goes a whole nother set of damage reductions you can't beat.
You might have missed this errata.
THIS! 100%I stopped coming to Paizo for the LONGEST time simply because the Advice Forum is all about numbers with little to no regard for character concept.
You think the name of your class name defines you?
I suggest having the number and abilities meet the concept, and there is not a damn thing wrong with that.
I think it's sad that some think the only way to meet a concept is through one class.
Worse, is the people who use "flavor" as a defense for obstinately sticking to a poor class choice, when the basis of "flavor" is based off of class and feat names.
They don't even consider that roleplay is key to flavor, not class names.
I posted my thoughts in this thread as they relate to the larger issue that I've encountered here on this forum, and specifically mentioned your post as an example. Judging by the responses here, it was an apt correlation. If you feel defensive enough to come in here and rebuke me then please consider being part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
I also believe that it is poor form to come in here and try to bully people in to your way of thinking with derision and back-handed slights. (Which you and that other person also did in the previous thread as well.)
@the rest of the thread:
Sorry for this derail! Back to axes!
Actually it is relevant because he's arguing that all weapons are equal. They're clearly not.
He's not. From what I've gathered, he's claiming that most weapons have some quality which means there isn't any other weapon which is strictly better in all ways.
If you're arguing that no weapon is strictly better then you're arguing they're all equal. They can't be equal and unequal at the same time. You can claim that the difference is so small as to be virtually unnoticeable but that would still leave them unequal.Actually it is relevant because he's arguing that all weapons are equal. They're clearly not.He's not. From what I've gathered, he's claiming that most weapons have some quality which means there isn't any other weapon which is strictly better in all ways.
Nice way to cut in what I said. I didn't say "no weapon is strictly better", I said "no weapon is strictly better in every way". There are of course exceptions (the boarding axe being strictly better in every way than the handaxe), but generally all weapons have some kind of benefit compared to every other weapon. This of course doesn't balance them up, but can give them a niche which gives them some use.
For example, I think it's obvious that the falcata is a more useful weapon than a khopesh - I in no way think the trip ability makes up for losing two "points" of criticals. However, the falcata isn't strictly better in every way; the khopesh does have something the falcata doesn't in it's trip ability.