And if realism is such a goal then weapons should interact with armors differently....
I am working on something similar to this in one of my games with respect masterwork weapons and armor. It doesn't come up too often, but that's because of the direction the game has gone in, but I'm okay with what I've seen so far. Whenever my homebrew goes live ill be using it more often and may have more experiences to share.
|
And if realism is such a goal then weapons should interact with armors differently....Was it 1st or 2nd Ed that had different weapons performing differently against different armours?
Both had some degree. Second ed made more sense basically armors were better/worse vs slah/pierce/blunt but did not take specific weapons into account. 1E did it by weapon vs AC but not specifically by armor worn
Citation?Also it is a "Medieval Fantasy Setting" so there is that...
Don't care to search for them so I guess we can drop that, but where do you get "medieval fantasy setting" from? Is that a quote from somewhere? Googling for:
+Pathfinder +"medieval fantasy setting"mostly gets results from people discussing about it...
That said, "medieval" is kinda vague and large and covers about a millenium of time, not to mention it's extremely europe-centric while Pathfinder covers a lot of other ground too, both in core and in the Golarion setting.
Does someone actually posted something scientific about composite longbows being actually that superior?
I rembmer a Tv show, it is probably a wweaker evidence than the one presented in favor of the sling.
One problem is defining a 'composite longbow' so that it makes sense. The Japanese daikyu was made from composite materials but was probably little different in performance to an English/Welsh warbow ('longbow'). The English/Welsh warbow was not composite as such, but required a careful selection of the best wood to get an optimum natural blend.
The ancient Egyptian longbow and Indian longbows, meanwhile, were certainly long bows but lacked the power of the Japanese daikyu and the English warbow.
Do you choose to represent the classic English warbow as a composite or non-composite longbow? I would suggest using it as the composite bow as its performance far outshone the simpler longbows.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is like the rogue archetypes, most of them are so bad that why to fill pages with them anyways? it is just to fill pages?
In order for Paizo to make money, they have to release content.
Of course.
But why he disparities in quality? I mean, when they release an AP almost always is a wonderful product, the same with bestieries, etc. They are really good at making RPG books.
But for certain things they seems to just not care. Like all those slinger feats that fails to make a decent character, or the rogues archetype, or vow of poverty.
Or the crossbowman fighter archetype, I am probably overreacting, but it seems that "longbow should be the best, so crossbowman have to suck".
I mean, I can understand that sometimes balance is hard to achieve, and they release a lot of content in a year, but soemtimes it seems (to me) that design things just to suck and some others to be just to be better because some personal preference.
Going off a lot of their comments on the forums, I kind of have the impression that the Developers have a vision for how Pathfinder ought to be played, and base a lot of their rules around that idea. So whenever they try to make rules for anything that doesn't match their vision of "goodrightfun" we end up with rules that are really weak and badly implemented. Possibly because they don't see any reason to really try when they're making rules they don't have any interest in, and maybe even think shouldn't exist in the first place.
Stuff like comparing non-longbow ranged weapon builds to water balloon wielders or dismissing Vow of Poverty with "being poor sucks" really comes across to me as the Devs saying that there's a right way and a wrong way to have fun playing Pathfinder. I tend to think that's a pretty bad way to think about gaming.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going off a lot of their comments on the forums, I kind of have the impression that the Developers have a vision for how Pathfinder ought to be played, and base a lot of their rules around that idea. So whenever they try to make rules for anything that doesn't match their vision of "goodrightfun" we end up with rules that are really weak and badly implemented. Possibly because they don't see any reason to really try when they're making rules they don't have any interest in, and maybe even think shouldn't exist in the first place.
Stuff like comparing non-longbow ranged weapon builds to water balloon wielders or dismissing Vow of Poverty with "being poor sucks" really comes across to me as the Devs saying that there's a right way and a wrong way to have fun playing Pathfinder. I tend to think that's a pretty bad way to think about gaming.
I think it's more like incorrect triage.
Their goal makes sense--they don't want to waste labor making content that most people won't buy and aren't interested in. The problem is that they appear to be using their own taste to judge what people are interested in. There's logic there, and it clearly pays off since, as far as gaming companies are concerned, they're huge.
The problem is that they are so huge, they're basically deciding what people are interested in, now, rather than just reacting to it. When they first started, they'd probably lose money doing a product showcasing, say, Inuit weapons. Not a lot of people are already fans of that sort of thing. However, now, if they put a chapter on Inuit weapons in one of their books, I guarantee you there will be a whole new generation of gamers excited by cable-backed bows and ulus.
Going off a lot of their comments on the forums, I kind of have the impression that the Developers have a vision for how Pathfinder ought to be played, and base a lot of their rules around that idea. So whenever they try to make rules for anything that doesn't match their vision of "goodrightfun" we end up with rules that are really weak and badly implemented. Possibly because they don't see any reason to really try when they're making rules they don't have any interest in, and maybe even think shouldn't exist in the first place.
Stuff like comparing non-longbow ranged weapon builds to water balloon wielders or dismissing Vow of Poverty with "being poor sucks" really comes across to me as the Devs saying that there's a right way and a wrong way to have fun playing Pathfinder. I tend to think that's a pretty bad way to think about gaming.
I think it's more like incorrect triage.
Their goal makes sense--they don't want to waste labor making content that most people won't buy and aren't interested in. The problem is that they appear to be using their own taste to judge what people are interested in. There's logic there, and it clearly pays off since, as far as gaming companies are concerned, they're huge.
The problem is that they are so huge, they're basically deciding what people are interested in, now, rather than just reacting to it. When they first started, they'd probably lose money doing a product showcasing, say, Inuit weapons. Not a lot of people are already fans of that sort of thing. However, now, if they put a chapter on Inuit weapons in one of their books, I guarantee you there will be a whole new generation of gamers excited by cable-backed bows and ulus.
well put.
In many ways, dark sun proved this.
|
Meanwhile, if you could only deal 1/4 of the damage required to kill an enemy of equal CR to you, I would consider that a serious failure on the part of a dedicated damage-dealing character.Instead I will stay that as long as I can get to 1/4 of the damage on an equal CR creature with a weapon in a build that focuses on that weapon, I'm content.
Because being able to drop an equal CR character in a single round if everyone contributes equally is underpowered...
This mindset is a central problem on the boards IMHO.
|
|
I overlooked it because it was from the same person who overstated the number of people at that event from 20k to 100k, and because actual science testing the weapons shows otherwise.So you discount slings because Herodetus couldn't count?
If you have any actual scientific evidence, please post it.There is plenty of scientific evidence about slings being able to achieve the same range as bows. www.slinging.org is a good place to start. As with bows the combat effective range is likely to be a lot less than maximum achievable range. In real life at least, given Pathfinder is skewed well in favour of the firer over the target in one-on-one scenarios.
Post some of this evidence then. I see distance records for slings, but not with any accuracy.
But let us look at slinging.org, since you sent me there. Particularly the article "The Sling in Medieval Europe"
"The medieval period is of interest because this traditional style of warfare reached its pinnacle of development. Over the course of this martial evolution, new technologies and military tactics began to relegate the role of the slinger to that of an auxiliary soldier and ultimately removed it from the battlefield of medieval Europe. Imperialism eventually spread these innovations to the rest of the world, sealing the sling’s fate."
Why?
"Arrows (and crossbow bolts) have great penetration potential because the entire mass of the projectile is concentrated in a thin cylinder directly behind a sharp point, which has a small impact area of about 0.08cm. In contrast, early sling projectiles were roughly spherical, with no defined tip. The impact area was much larger, about 1.9cm, severely reducing the projectile’s ability to penetrate flesh or armor. (Gabriel, 1991) These projectiles typically weighed about the same as arrows, so the sling had no advantage in payload mass (Korfmann, 1973; Gabriel, 1991; Richardson, 1998a; Skobelev, 2000). However, it should be noted that projectiles as large as a fist, perhaps half a kilogram or more in mass were sometimes used in slings (Hawkins, 1847; Korfmann, 1973; Wise, 1976; Ferrill, 1985; Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.3.16)."
And
"The sling enjoyed more than 10,000 years as humanity’s premier ranged weapon. Its remarkable simplicity meant that by Hellenistic times, it had reached its pinnacle of development; there was simply nothing left to improve in its design. However, other weapons continued to develop, which eventually surpassed the sling in effectiveness. Better armor and tactical changes further reduced its value. This transition was slow, taking place over the last two millennia. However, it was during medieval times that an experienced slinger would find, for the first time in history, that he was simply outmatched."
So be careful what you cite...
|
|
Ciretose, the main issue with SKR's post is that it is a blatant Strawman argument.
No one is asking for crossbows to be better, which is what you are saying as well. They just want them to be fair.
Why should they be "fair"? What is "fair"?
They were good at what they were made for. Untrained soldiers.
They were slow to reload, strength was largely irrelevant...but they delivered heavy base damage with good accuracy.
It is a good weapon for the untrained.
|
|
I think it's more like incorrect triage.
Their goal makes sense--they don't want to waste labor making content that most people won't buy and aren't interested in. The problem is that they appear to be using their own taste to judge what people are interested in. There's logic there, and it clearly pays off since, as far as gaming companies are concerned, they're huge.
The problem is that they are so huge, they're basically deciding what people are interested in, now, rather than just reacting to it. When they first started, they'd probably lose money doing a product showcasing, say, Inuit weapons. Not a lot of people are already fans of that sort of thing. However, now, if they put a chapter on Inuit weapons in one of their books, I guarantee you there will be a whole new generation of gamers excited by cable-backed bows and ulus.
So because you are interested in having slings be equal to other things, everyone is...
Clearly the people who have been making the worlds most popular role playing game have been missing out on the huge untapped sling market. If only a 3pp would tap into this vast potential income stream....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks C-note, Nico and Illy-J for pulling some actual numbers on this subject. To everyone: these guys have proven my asser6tion that while the sling deals less damage than a longbow it is not a worthless weapon to build around. There is one more tiny detail to point out though: if the goal is to be able to consistently deal 1/4 the damage needed to bring down an APL - equal CR foe, then because of the bow and crossbow's superiority as a starting weapon it requires less focus for them to get there.
The longbow or crossbow wielder then get the added advantage (after hitting the 1/4 damage mark) of being able to have a secondary focus like a melee weapon, skill focus or what have you. The slinger however needs ALL of their attention focused squarely on their single weapon. This brings me back to my central point - can't we give these guys a break?
An archetype to ease back on the feat consumption or maybe a different range of feats to give them a few tricks NOT related to DPR and provide more utility/versatility?
Maybe a better build for a slinger isn't as a DPR guy. An intimidate master probably fits the bill better with Bludgeoner, Weapon Focus/Dazzling Display, etc. I don't know; it just seems silly to run yourself ragged to make a feat-heavy build to end up consistently outpaced by most competitors if you go for ranged DPR.
Because being able to drop an equal CR character in a single round if everyone contributes equally is underpowered...Meanwhile, if you could only deal 1/4 of the damage required to kill an enemy of equal CR to you, I would consider that a serious failure on the part of a dedicated damage-dealing character.Instead I will stay that as long as I can get to 1/4 of the damage on an equal CR creature with a weapon in a build that focuses on that weapon, I'm content.
When that is the epithome of optimization for it, yes it is. Because if everyone puts that amount of optimization in, the characters will steamroll everything - leading to either there being no challenge to the game, or the DM increasing the challenge of enemies, and then the slinger becomes underwhelming again.
|
|
@Mark - I agree with that for the most part, and I wouldn't be opposed to an archetype.
What bothers me is the Tim Taylor Tool Time call for "MOAR POWER" because every option should be equal.
Some options are better. That is why they were the popular options. That is what the water balloon analogy was about. If you want to be a water balloon warrior, that will be harder.
But you will then be "the" water balloon warrior.
As I said, I have a sling based Halfling Barbarian in one of my current games. The goal wasn't to be "optimal" but to be a fun concept. He took childlike as well (far from optimal) so that he is seen as a little kid with a toy sling as he wanders around.
Will I do as much damage as a two handed fighter or a longbow specialist? No. Will I be able to do lots of interesting things with the concept.
Yes, and I have.
Do I contribute? Absolutely.
When you have an non-standard concept, it requires more effort to make it work.
That is why the standard concept is the one most seen in the setting. It works the best.
One of the reasons all the Core classes got a boost was that they weren't being played, because they weren't as good as the "new hawtness"
Slings were in decline when high quality bows and crossbows came into existence, because they aren't as good. They had uses, some people still preferred them, but for pure battlefield utility...not as good.
|
|
When that is the epithome of optimization for it, yes it is. Because if everyone puts that amount of optimization in, the characters will steamroll everything - leading to either there being no challenge to the game, or the DM increasing the challenge of enemies, and then the slinger becomes underwhelming again.Because being able to drop an equal CR character in a single round if everyone contributes equally is underpowered...Meanwhile, if you could only deal 1/4 of the damage required to kill an enemy of equal CR to you, I would consider that a serious failure on the part of a dedicated damage-dealing character.Instead I will stay that as long as I can get to 1/4 of the damage on an equal CR creature with a weapon in a build that focuses on that weapon, I'm content.
Which is why my suggestion was to nerf manyshot by making Deadly Aim precision damage.
Then we more or less have parity.
The assumption that a damage dealer focused character should do. 25 monster health per turn means that monsters will tend to live around 2 rounds in a 4 person party if everyone focuses fire. Assuming iconic roles, the slinger is neither a tank nor a utility person, meaning the party will need to pick up the slack in those areas. This means the healer, mage and front liner need to be putting up some serious damage to drop the creature in one round, and also pick up the slack from the slinger in party capabilities. If everyone else is putting up the damage and also filling another role, then your slinger is the weak link as all you have is the damage.
Ranged characters need to contribute well in damage because they help the monsters focus fire on the remaining front liner simply by not being in the front lines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually fine with composite bows being a lot better than slings, if they cost more. And, as it happens, the Core rules including pricing calculations! Compared to a sling, a composite bow deals more damage and has a greater chance of hitting at range -- in other words, it's a lot like a +1 sling. But it also has better crits (keen, +1 property), and also essentially reloads itself (+1 property). "But!" you say, "It requires a Martial proficiency!" Ah, there's a cost multiplier for that in the core rules, too: x 0.75.
So, by the RAW, a composite longbow costs 13,500 gp. The prices listed in the weapons chapter are obviously misprints. Either that, or anyone choosing a sling should have an extra 13.5K worth of gear...
"But it's not that bows are better! Slings are worse!" OK, then. How about a weapon property that's essentially an illusion that makes your longsword look like a club. Is paying an extra 13,500 gp a fair exchange value for gaining this property? Because, in game terms, that's essentially what you're doing when you pick a sling and then try to even come close to a bow.
Or think of it this way instead: imagine a feat that grants any one weapon you wield the equivalent of +3 worth of item enhancements. Would that feat be overpowered?
Based on all this, an argument could be made that weapon enhancements are too expensive. I wouldn't necessarily argue against that, but that would be a topic for another thread. So, using them as they are, the disparity in usefulness between the composite longbow and the sling is equivalent to the total gear of a 5th-6th level character. And you still can't use Manyshot with it!
That, to me, isn't "almost as good." It's not even "still viable." It's an affront to the math that the game system is built on.
Which is why my suggestion was to nerf manyshot by making Deadly Aim precision damage.Then we more or less have parity.
Which doesn't solve the "realism" argument at all and still leaves the Longbow enormously much better than any other ranged weapon - even at close range.
Why not simply ban manyshot, and apply the weaknesses bows had to them? Like penalties for being used outside of that specific longbows environment?If the idea was to make a realistic game and the result was that longbows where much much better than slings, I'd have no issues with that. But when longbows are better than slings for reason _that have no basis in reality_, such as shooting someone at point blank range at insane speeds with no risk or firing several arrows at the same time, that's just silly, and "REALISM!!!!" is a bad argument then.
Also, you still have not given any reason for claiming pathfinder tries to model "the medieval period".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post some of this evidence then. I see distance records for slings, but not with any accuracy.
Let's leave the goalposts where they were, shall we? Accuracy drops off with distance with any weapon system.
Over the course of this martial evolution, new technologies and military tactics began to relegate the role of the slinger to that of an auxiliary soldier and ultimately removed it from the battlefield of medieval Europe. Imperialism eventually spread these innovations to the rest of the world, sealing the sling’s fate."
You need to learn the difference between the effectiveness of a weapon and it's role on the battlefield. The article is talking about the evolution of formal 'combined arms' tactics using cavalry, infantry and missile troops. That the missile troops were armed with the latest longbows or crossbows is unsurprising given their new role within the medieval system. That the longbow and crossbow were best suited for that role is down to the fact that they hit hard and had long range.
None of this makes the sling a useless or ineffective weapon, in the same way as the widespread adoption of plate armour did not make mail ineffective, or the adoption of a bolt-action rifle did not make lever-action rifles suddenly less deadly.
"[b]Arrows (and crossbow bolts) have great penetration potential because the entire mass of the projectile is concentrated in a thin cylinder directly behind a sharp point, which has a small impact area of about 0.08cm.
One of my first posts pointed out that sling bullets do not need to penetrate to be damaging. They transfer their force through the armour to stun and injure heavily armoured opponents. Penetration is irrelevant to the argument.
Post some of this evidence then. I see distance records for slings, but not with any accuracy.
As Sadurian said, accuracy over range is irrelevant to the discussion. Pathfinder vastly simplifies the effect of range on accuracy. Going by some of the stats you quoted, with a similar weight to an arrow but less surface area, a sling bullet is less affected by wind etc over a set range.
But let us look at slinging.org, since you sent me there. Particularly the article "The Sling in Medieval Europe"
Why do you keep coming back to the medieval Europe period? Pathfinder covers a wide range of cultures and pre-modern technologies. And given magic is the dominant factor in the game, trying to base an argument around a defined period and culture in the real world is pointless.
"The medieval period is of interest because this traditional style of warfare reached its pinnacle of development. Over the course of this martial evolution, new technologies and military tactics began to relegate the role of the slinger to that of an auxiliary soldier and ultimately removed it from the battlefield of medieval Europe. Imperialism eventually spread these innovations to the rest of the world, sealing the sling’s fate."
I don't care about how slingers were used in the real world. I'm just interested in a rules set that is not irrationally biased against slings, irrespective of how other missile weapons work in the game. Plus slingers, and other missile troops for that matter, were pretty much always auxiliaries. Not many militaries based their armies around specific missile weapons, the Mongols and 100 Years War English are a few that spring to mind.
Why?
"Arrows (and crossbow bolts) have great penetration potential because the entire mass of the projectile is concentrated in a thin cylinder directly behind a sharp point, which has a small impact area of about 0.08cm. In contrast, early sling projectiles were roughly spherical, with no defined tip. The impact area was much larger, about 1.9cm, severely reducing the projectile’s ability to penetrate flesh or armor. (Gabriel, 1991) These projectiles typically weighed about the same as arrows, so the sling had no advantage in payload mass (Korfmann, 1973; Gabriel, 1991; Richardson, 1998a; Skobelev, 2000)However, it should be noted that projectiles as large as a fist, perhaps half a kilogram or more in mass were sometimes used in slings (Hawkins, 1847; Korfmann, 1973; Wise, 1976; Ferrill, 1985; Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.3.16)."
Shall I pick and choose a few writers with evidence about how damaging slings could be?
"The sling enjoyed more than 10,000 years as humanity’s premier ranged weapon. Its remarkable simplicity meant that by Hellenistic times, it had reached its pinnacle of development; there was simply nothing left to improve in its design. However, other weapons continued to develop, which eventually surpassed the sling in effectiveness. Better armor and tactical changes further reduced its value. This transition was slow, taking place over the last two millennia. However, it was during medieval times that an experienced slinger would find, for the first time in history, that he was simply outmatched."
So what? A particular author thinks the sling was the premier weapon for 10,000 years? There were plenty of cultures that never used the sling, some that never used bows, some that only used boomerangs and throwing spears..... That sentence sounds more like rhetorical flourish than anything else. Simplicity of a design does not necessarily mean a more complicated design is always better, not does something newer automatically be better than something older. eg Aztec slingers using slings were effective against Spanish conquistadors wearing post-Medieval metal armour. Just like Roman-era slingers using lead bullets could be effective against soldiers wearing the most "modern" armour of the period.
So be careful what you cite...
Do you seriously think that when referring you to slinging.org I didn't know you would selectively choose information on the site to support your argument? An argument, for that matter, that is trying to disprove a case that I am not trying to make.
In looking at slings in Pathfinder I do not care whether other weapons were, for a range of real world reasons, more widely used or that slings were at various times supplanted by other missile weapons. I only care that how slings perform, based on the current Pathfinder rules set, is inaccurate and that those rules are deliberately biased against them (or more accurately biased towards long bows over every other missile weapon).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you still have not given any reason for claiming pathfinder tries to model "the medieval period".
"The standard Pathfinder Roleplaying Game campaign takes place in a time period similar to the medieval and early Renaissance age of iron and steel."
Note the quotation marks and decide if you want to continue this argument.
|
|
None of this makes the sling a useless or ineffective weapon, in the same way as the widespread adoption of plate armour did not make mail ineffective, or the adoption of a bolt-action rifle did not make lever-action rifles suddenly less deadly.
And as the builds showed, it isn't useless or ineffective.
It is just not optimal.
Which is accurate.
No, it is worse than the shortbow in every category. That is neither realistic nor great for players who want to play a slinger. The builds actually demonstrate quite conclusively that Pathfinder does not support any sort of meaningful sling use.
You use the word optimal but I wonder if you know how the word is supposed to be used. 'Optimal' in what situation? 'Optimal' refers to something that is best in a given situation, such as the optimal tool for a job.
Unless you are going back to your strawman of trying to defend an argument that never was, of course, in pretending that the discussion is attempting to prove that the sling should be the best missile weapon in the game?
|
|
No, it is worse than the shortbow in every category. That is neither realistic nor great for players who want to play a slinger. The builds actually demonstrate quite conclusively that Pathfinder does not support any sort of meaningful sling use.
You use the word optimal but I wonder if you know how the word is supposed to be used. 'Optimal' in what situation? 'Optimal' refers to something that is best in a given situation, such as the optimal tool for a job.
Unless you are going back to your strawman of trying to defend an argument that never was, of course, in pretending that the discussion is attempting to prove that the sling should be the best missile weapon in the game?
My argument is that the sling can do 1/4 of damage by CR and is therefore not useless.
I was right.
You've proceeded to insult the Devs and then get mad that no testable evidence actually supports your position.
But please continue, you are helping my case that some people just won't be satisfied...
|
|
THe numbers totally show it is useless. It sucks basically, in melee your halfing is doing 27 damage, how many rounds does he need to kill a CR 10 creature?
None of this makes the sling a useless or ineffective weapon, in the same way as the widespread adoption of plate armour did not make mail ineffective, or the adoption of a bolt-action rifle did not make lever-action rifles suddenly less deadly.
And as the builds showed, it isn't useless or ineffective.
It is just not optimal.
Which is accurate.
And I'm full attacking in melee with the lesser option I have why, exactly?
Swap it out for point blank master if it bothers you.
|
|
I have to sayt hat it is a terrilbe argument. You were right, but you are the only one who thinks that is "Ok" afther spending all your feats in a singel combat style.
My argument is that the sling can do 1/4 of damage by CR and is therefore not useless.I was right.
If 4 of me can remove an equal CR combatant from the game in one round, yes I can do my job as a damage dealer.
If the only real difference between the sling and bow in damage is the manyshot feat, the problem isn't the sling.
|
|
THen, "slings are fine, because they are dierent, you can attack in melee with them, is a great advantage" is totally false.
And I'm full attacking in melee with the lesser option I have why, exactly?
Swap it out for point blank master if it bothers you.
It is a great advantage if you aren't a 6th level Ranged ranger or a 4th level fighter.
Who are the only two people that can take Point Blank Master.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's like watching a fundamentalist being shown mountains of scientific evidence of evolution but refusing to believe because he 'knows' that he's right.
My argument is that the sling can do 1/4 of damage by CR and is therefore not useless.
I was right.
No you aren't. Really, you are not. You may be convinced that a sling should do so little damage and have such poor range, plus be under-represented by Feats and abilities, and still be 'right', but that doesn't make it so.
You've proceeded to insult the Devs and then get mad that no testable evidence actually supports your position.
I'm not mad at all. Not really sure why you think that.
As for the evidence that supports my position, you may want to go back and read the last god knows how many pages of this thread for the evidence that has been presented. There are ancient eye-witness reports, contemporary anecdotal reports, academic historical papers, and even evidence from modern hobbyists.
@Gallo - So at this point the site you referred me to go to actively refutes your argument, but it seem you are upset at me for this...
If you are going to argue against your own citation, I'm not sure what to say to you.
Who says I'm upset at you? You are just taking certain information from the site to support the argument that you are making to counter an argument I am not making.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you still have not given any reason for claiming pathfinder tries to model "the medieval period".
"The standard Pathfinder Roleplaying Game campaign takes place in a time period similar to the medieval and early Renaissance age of iron and steel."
Note the quotation marks and decide if you want to continue this argument.
That'll be the medieval and early Renaissance setting that includes the pilum, falcata, gladius, khopesh and metallic-cartridged revolver.
That medieval and early Renaissance setting.
|
|
Also, you still have not given any reason for claiming pathfinder tries to model "the medieval period".
"The standard Pathfinder Roleplaying Game campaign takes place in a time period similar to the medieval and early Renaissance age of iron and steel."
Note the quotation marks and decide if you want to continue this argument.
That'll be the medieval and early Renaissance setting that includes the pilum, falcata, gladius, khopesh and metallic-cartridged revolver.
That medieval and early Renaissance setting.
You do realize that is a direct quote from a pathfinder book, right?