Simple weapons vs. martial weapons is a design paradigm of the game. The fact that it takes two feats to allow a crossbow to function as well as (actually better than) a bow, makes perfect sense as a crossbow is the club to the longbow's longsword. A club would require Weapon Specialization and Improved Critical to be as good as a longsword; a light crossbow with Rapid Reload is as good as a longbow (better than its martial equivalent, the shortbow) and a heavy crossbow with Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery is better than a longbow, and equivalent to a composite longbow (STR +1). From a balance perspective the crossbow makes perfect sense.Well, no, not really. Nominally diffrerent, but not substantially. Being simple is hardly an issue since the vast majority of classes who rely on weapons can relatively easily get proficiency with a longbow, if they don't have it already.
That woudl be true in and ideal world but not here. THe crossbow never get as effective as the bow for fightres, rangers or any martial for the matter.
That have been proven many times wiht many numbers.
Just to state a fact you need to feats witht he crossbow to not provoke AoO.
I've spun off a thread to discuss trying to fix up the crossbow.
Just to state a fact you need to feats witht he crossbow to not provoke AoO.
Bows also provoke AoOs.
Grab a flask of Acid and have it be 1d3+1.
The overall point of my post, though, was the next line: Crossbows are so much worse than bows that characters like Harsk or Daryl have no redeeming qualities. It would be nice if there was something crossbow users could do that bow users can't.
This , totally this.
Iam fine if hte crossbow have lower DPR thant he bow, fine, but then the crossbow have nothing to make htem stand for fighters or rangers.
Even the archer archetype have new tricks for the bow and then the crossbowman archetypes sucks so hard.
One big hit for crossbow would have been thematically correct (because the diference between the arbalest and the longbow is much more than the 1d8 and 1d10), and then the crossbowman do not have to out-DPR the archer becuase he is doing something diferent not just inferior.
Bows also provoke AoOs.
Just to state a fact you need to feats witht he crossbow to not provoke AoO.
But then they need one feat to solve it: point blank master.
For the crossbow you need point blank master plus anotehr special crossbow feat.
Grab a flask of Acid and have it be 1d3+1.
Or Liquid Ice, if Ray of Frost is your bag.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, the woes of the crossbow almost pale compared to those of the sling. Halflings are supposed to prefer slings to bows, but they're just awful weapons. Again, simple weapon malady.
There are (almost) no ways to bolster slings with feats or suchlike. In 3.5 (I haven't checked in PF) ranger spells talk about boosting bows, not ranged attacks in general, forcing all ranged rangers to use bows.
This is a problem. Ranged characters are being driven to all use the same ranged weapons (bows, guns; shuriken for ninjas). I'd like many more different viable ranged weapons, each with its own peculiarities. But all of them viable.
But this is a digression: I was agreeing with the idea that crossbows were designed as simple weapons, and they are quite deliberately not as good as bows. And I'm okay with that.And I was stating that even with the penalties, I still find the bow preferable to the crossbow.
So, for my level 2 sorcerer, I should prefer a 25% chance of doing 1d8-1 damage to a 45% chance of doing 1d8, just to save a move action? Even if that move action doesn't occur during combat, or I wouldn't have moved anyway? (I'm assuming a target with an AC of 14, since that's the Bestiary guideline for CR 2)
Saying 'both options are so bad you should use a cantrip instead' is moving the goalposts.
Incidentally, the woes of the crossbow almost pale compared to those of the sling. Halflings are supposed to prefer slings to bows, but they're just awful weapons. Again, simple weapon malady.
Ironically there is a good (i.e. usable without nerfing yourself into the ground) sling. Behold, the sling glove!... an exotic weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Experience Points are absurd and unnecessary.
|
So, for my level 2 sorcerer, I should prefer a 25% chance of doing 1d8-1 damage to a 45% chance of doing 1d8, just to save a move action? Even if that move action doesn't occur during combat, or I wouldn't have moved anyway? (I'm assuming a target with an AC of 14, since that's the Bestiary guideline for CR 2)
Yep. Or rather, I prefer that.
Saying 'both options are so bad you should use a cantrip instead' is moving the goalposts.
Who said that?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But this is a digression: I was agreeing with the idea that crossbows were designed as simple weapons, and they are quite deliberately not as good as bows. And I'm okay with that.And I was stating that even with the penalties, I still find the bow preferable to the crossbow.So, for my level 2 sorcerer, I should prefer a 25% chance of doing 1d8-1 damage to a 45% chance of doing 1d8, just to save a move action? Even if that move action doesn't occur during combat, or I wouldn't have moved anyway? (I'm assuming a target with an AC of 14, since that's the Bestiary guideline for CR 2)
Saying 'both options are so bad you should use a cantrip instead' is moving the goalposts.
Sorry. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the character that eventually gets to nuke entire villages having to struggle at the beginning with not being optimal in combat with a weapon.
Yep. Or rather, I prefer that.
You and I have very different opinions on the value of a move action. I'm curious, what are you doing with those move actions that you'd rather have a smaller chance of doing less damage? If I really need to move (or spend the move action on something else), I can skip reloading, and resort to some other attack.
Who said that?
If your sorcerer is using a crossbow instead of acid splash, he truly has nothing better to do, and having to roll a 14 or better makes little difference.
I have a hard time interpreting that in any other way that to mean 'If you're not using a cantrip instead, you're clearly not concerned with accomplishing anything, so the difference between needing a 14 and needing an 18 is academic.'
I apologize if you meant something else, but that is how I read it.
|
|
You and I have very different opinions on the value of a move action. I'm curious, what are you doing with those move actions that you'd rather have a smaller chance of doing less damage? If I really need to move (or spend the move action on something else), I can skip reloading, and resort to some other attack.
Skirmishing, for the most part.
I apologize if you meant something else, but that is how I read it.
Well, it's not how I meant it. It may have been how I said it however.
I suppose that's a matter of psychology. I would rather deal consistent damage than variable spikes. This is why I prefer the greatsword to the greataxe. I'd rather be able to expect to deal 7 damage with a bell curve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the character that eventually gets to nuke entire villages having to struggle at the beginning with not being optimal in combat with a weapon.
That was not at all my point. Really, the opposite: I was trying to demonstrate that crossbows have a role in the game as the ranged weapon of choice for characters that are not supposed to be good with weapons.
As far as I can tell, and I apologize for putting words in your mouth if I am mistaken, TOZ is trying to say that crossbows are in fact so awful he'd rather use a bow with which he lacks proficiency and take a strength penalty to damage than use a crossbow, and therefore crossbows have no use at all.
The problem is that crossbows are SO bad that it's rarely worth the effort; there's usually something more useful you can do, especially since classes that aren't good with weapons usually cast spells.
If my sorceress can't use Acid Splash or Daze for some reason, I'd rather just stand there ... maybe use Aid Another on an ally. Firing a weapon just feels like a total waste of time.
My mistake.
My issue with the crossbow is how blown out of proportion the disparity between a bow and a crossbow is, when the only real disparity is their rate of fire. Bows are obscenely and unrealistically more powerful than crossbows. I'm not sure why this bias against the crossbow is strong as it seems to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose that's a matter of psychology. I would rather deal consistent damage than variable spikes. This is why I prefer the greatsword to the greataxe. I'd rather be able to expect to deal 7 damage with a bell curve.
Generally, I'd agree with you (though, since it's a game, swinging for the fences sometimes has its place).
The issue I have with cantrips is that the steady damage is so small compared to what martial characters can pull off. If I plink a bad guy for 2 damage, then the barbarian smacks him for 14, I have a hard time convincing myself that the 2 made a difference. If I hit for 5 instead, I can think 'maybe it would still be conscious if I'd missed.' That's better, even if I miss half the time the cantrip would have hit.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying cantrips should be better. The fact that, on average, they're the same as using a crossbow just means they're in the right place.
Seriously. Chain Mail is awful. It doesn't support itself at all. It just hangs. All that weight is focused on your shoulders. Chain pants are usually held up with big ol' suspenders, so that's on your shoulders too. It isn't even that protective.Eh... That's not my experience at all. Using one made for my size, it fits quite slimly, and a belt distribute the weight quite well. I haven't worn chain leggings, but those I've seen wear it has used a belt for that too.
Against any sort of mass weapon, Chain basically sucks.Wait, no, this is not correct. Why do you think it was used extensively for close to two millenia? Because riveting just is that fun?
You want to find out how much of a sissy you really are? Try wearing a suit of chain around for a few hours. It sucks.I've worn a mail hauberk for days on end. Granted it was just a hauberk, nothing close to a full plate in coverage, but it wasn't that bad. I mean it clearly weighted me down a bit, but not close to the degree you seem to be claiming. Ten hours in mail in ~15C made me less tired than ten hours in a t-shirt in ~25C, though the physical activity wasn't that heavy. I don't do any acrobatics stuff in it (I'm a pretty bulky person and have a bad back on top of that) but had no issues moving about in it, and I have climbed trees in it quite well.
EDIT: Honestly, I feel more physically limited by having gained 30 pounds the last six years than by wearing the mail. Granted, gaining 30 pounds does feel quite a lot, but it doesn't "suck" nor does it prevent me from being physically active most of the time.
Sounds like we had very different experiences with chain mail. I've seen chain pants that were held up by only a belt, but never worn them myself, so I can't really compare. I will say that the suspenders, with very wide shoulder straps, seemed like a much more efficient means of carrying the weight, but it does mean your carrying the weight of the chain shirt and pants on your shoulders. It's a hell of a workout.
Against mass weapons, chain stops the tissue trauma, but a lot of the impact is still going to be distributed through flesh (rather than across the armor itself, like with plate and other more rigid armors). Basically you're still going to get bruises and broken bones, which is better, but not great.
I really hated chain mail. Its what I started with, and admittedly my chain wasn't great (it was a hand me down made for someone a little larger than me). After wearing it for a while pretty much every kind of armor I tried seemed more comfortable.
I think the worst part for me was actually the doublet I wore beneath the chain. It was padded like a quilt and was just too darn hot. With plate or leather I could wear different kinds of padding that didn't make me sweat so much. Chain made me flirt with heat stroke a few times. I don't recommend it.
Basically, my whole experience with Chain made me hate it. Everything about it, from basic care, to repair, to actual use I found to be a huge pain in the butt. I'll take pretty much any other kind of armor over chain.
And you're totally right about gaining weight though. Its the same sort of thing. 30 pounds of fat will slow you down just as much, if not more, than 30 pounds of metal armor.
|
|
Incidentally, the woes of the crossbow almost pale compared to those of the sling. Halflings are supposed to prefer slings to bows, but they're just awful weapons. Again, simple weapon malady.Ironically there is a good (i.e. usable without nerfing yourself into the ground) sling. Behold, the sling glove!... an exotic weapon.
I didn't know that existed. It's kind of obscure (web supplement and an AP PG). But it does provide a decent set of rules. Just paint it over and call it a Halfling War Sling. That way halflings use their racial weapon familiarity to treat it as Martial. Everyone who's not proficient just uses it as a regular sling.
I apologize if you meant something else, but that is how I read it.Well, it's not how I meant it. It may have been how I said it however.
No worries. I shouldn't have accused you of moving the goalposts. What I should have said is 'For the purposes of this comparison, acid splash and ray of frost are irrelevant: The question is if the bow or crossbow is the better option.'
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I added a Feat to slings to allow them to add Dex instead of Str to damage. That seems, to me, to be fun, as logical as Dervish Dance, make Halflings actually really good slingers, relatively balanced (given the need for said Feat and getting reloading them to be a Free Action somehow) and probably fixes the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is really absurd is that you can't use pole arms with a single hand. You know... Like it was done by warriors of every civilization ever.Sure, but it did take special training...hmm if there was only a archetype for that....pssst -Phalanx Soldier.
Somehow I doubt every soldier ever is a 3rd level Fighter... To say they were all 3rd level Fighters with a very specific archetype is even more absurd.
The training doesn't seem to be that special either, since it's so freaking common. I'm pretty sure a bunch of 1st~2nd level Warriors used pole arms one-handed without much problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That seems to be designer M.O. Instead of admitting that something doesn't reflect reality and expanding the bounds of a weapon's attack possibility, just create a feat to allow someone to do it or give a huge penalty when they try it. Like the thread on here about having to take a -4 to use the butt of a spear to hit someone because it's technically an improvised weapon.
|
|
I added a Feat to slings to allow them to add Dex instead of Str to damage. That seems, to me, to be fun, as logical as Dervish Dance, make Halflings actually really good slingers, relatively balanced (given the need for said Feat and getting reloading them to be a Free Action somehow) and probably fixes the problem.
Hmm. I might make that a feat that requires you to be Small maybe. Just for the David/Goliath theme that halflings and gnomes seem to have going, and to keep the elves from stealing it.
I like that slings use Strength. Theoretically that makes them viable for many warrior types. But for halflings, with a double-dip of small weapons and strength penalty, I see the use of dex-for-damage.
(I'm normally fervently against dex-to-damage and consider Dervish Dance a naughty feat, rewarding one of the already-best weapons.)
Sorry. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the character that eventually gets to nuke entire villages having to struggle at the beginning with not being optimal in combat with a weapon.That was not at all my point. Really, the opposite: I was trying to demonstrate that crossbows have a role in the game as the ranged weapon of choice for characters that are not supposed to be good with weapons.
And that is fine for those character but what about the ones that do care about weapons?
If what you say is the ponly purpose of crossbows then crossbow ranger combat style and the crossbowmen fighter archetype shoudl have never existed. Or at least the book should have stated it clearly
"look, we are putting this archetype here, but it is not a serios archetype we jsut wanted to fill sapce"
I'm pretty sure a bunch of 1st~2nd level Warriors used pole arms one-handed without much problem.
To be fair, they used them as part of a block of troops, and opposed to single combat, which is more generally what the Pathfinder rules model.
Not saying it isn't a flaw. Just saying that the further you get away from the baseline of a small rag-tag group of humans fighting the small groups of medium or Large creatures, the more it breaks down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that is fine for those character but what about the ones that do care about weapons?
If what you say is the ponly purpose of crossbows then crossbow ranger combat style and the crossbowmen fighter archetype shoudl have never existed. Or at least the book should have stated it clearly
"look, we are putting this archetype here, but it is not a serios archetype we jsut wanted to fill sapce"
And those kinds of questions are why I spun off a thread to talk about ways to make crossbows better: I agree the rules should allow you to make a badass with a crossbow, and currently they don't, really.
The Iconic Ranger uses a crossbow. That should be a more viable character option.
I'm pretty sure a bunch of 1st~2nd level Warriors used pole arms one-handed without much problem.To be fair, they used them as part of a block of troops, and opposed to single combat, which is more generally what the Pathfinder rules model.
Not saying it isn't a flaw. Just saying that the further you get away from the baseline of a small rag-tag group of humans fighting the small groups of medium or Large creatures, the more it breaks down.
Still doesn't explain why you can't use a spear one-handed... -.-'
Sure, it won't be as effective as a legion of guys with the same Teamwork Feat, but it should at least be possible to hold a freaking spear in your hand!
And that is fine for those character but what about the ones that do care about weapons?
If what you say is the ponly purpose of crossbows then crossbow ranger combat style and the crossbowmen fighter archetype shoudl have never existed. Or at least the book should have stated it clearly
"look, we are putting this archetype here, but it is not a serios archetype we jsut wanted to fill sapce"
And those kinds of questions are why I spun off a thread to talk about ways to make crossbows better: I agree the rules should allow you to make a badass with a crossbow, and currently they don't, really.
The Iconic Ranger uses a crossbow. That should be a more viable character option.
Ok, Sorry for being heated, it just htat this topic really annoy me.
Use a shortspear, which is one-handed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is really absurd is that you can't use pole arms with a single hand. You know... Like it was done by warriors of every civilization ever.Sure, but it did take special training...hmm if there was only a archetype for that....pssst -Phalanx Soldier.Somehow I doubt every soldier ever is a 3rd level Fighter... To say they were all 3rd level Fighters with a very specific archetype is even more absurd.
The training doesn't seem to be that special either, since it's so freaking common. I'm pretty sure a bunch of 1st~2nd level Warriors used pole arms one-handed without much problem.
I dunno. It takes a LOT of drilling to march in a Hoplite formation. In fact, pretty much as soon as possible they made the spear into a pike and dumped the shield. Earlier, they used a shorter spear and a shield. In any case, Long spear and shield was the essence of the hoplite formations, which specifically were made so you'd protect the guys next to you with your shield, not yourself". Per wiki "ndividual hoplites carried their shields on their left arm, protecting not only themselves but also the soldier to the left. This meant that the men at the extreme right of the phalanx were only half-protected. In battle, opposing phalanxes would exploit this weakness by attempting to overlap the enemy's right flank.[citation needed] It also meant that, in battle, a phalanx would tend to drift to the right (as hoplites sought to remain behind the shield of their neighbour). The most experienced hoplites were often placed on the right side of the phalanx, to counteract these problems. According to Plutarch's Sayings of Spartans, "a man carried a shield for the sake of the whole line".[10]
The phalanx is an example of a military formation in which single combat and other individualistic forms of battle were suppressed for the good of the whole. .. With his friends jostling and pushing on both sides and behind, and his enemies forming a solid wall in front of him, the hoplite had little opportunity for feats of technique and weapon skill, but great need for commitment and mental toughness. By forming a human wall to provide a powerful defensive armour, the Hoplites became invincible in the battlefield. The Hoplites were elite soldiers with much disciplined and taught to be loyal and trustworthy. They had to trust their neighbours for mutual protection, so a phalanx was only as strong as its weakest elements. Its effectiveness depended on how well the hoplites could maintain this formation while in combat, and how well they could stand their ground, especially when engaged against another phalanx. The more disciplined and courageous the army, the more likely it was to win—often engagements between the various city-states of Greece would be resolved by one side fleeing before the battle. The Greek word dynamis, "will" or "ability to fight", was used to express the drive that kept hoplites in formation."Many other peoples used a shorter spear with a shield, yes, but the Hoplite was the main long spear and shield user- and note, these troops were well drilled disciplined elite soldiers. Also note the hoplite was only dominant on the battlefield for a brief period- from about 500BC, ending in 338 BC at the battle of Chaeronea when the Macedonians switched from the long spear and Aspis (heavy shield) to the sarissa or pike. For a while a small buckler was carried over the shoulder, but not wielded.
Note about the butt-spike "The spearhead was usually a curved leaf shape, while the rear of the spear had a spike called a sauroter ('lizard-killer') which was used to stand the spear in the ground (hence the name). It was also used as a secondary weapon if the main shaft snapped. This was a common problem especially for soldiers who were involved with the initial clash with the enemy. Despite the snapping of the spear, Hoplites could easily switch to the sauroter without great consequence." Note it was only used when the shaft broke.
Vikings used smaller spears, which could be thrown. One saga does mention a spear so very long that a man had to stretch his arm to touch the rivet (that would be a long spear). This was considered notable and highly unusual.
One mistake the rules do have is that they make a Spear (not long or short) a two handed weapon, whilst it was actually usable either way. It also can be thrown IRL. I suppose calling a Spear a martial weapon in one hand would be reasonable.
But Longspear and shield was used in formation only, by highly trained elite troops.
|
|
I added a Feat to slings to allow them to add Dex instead of Str to damage. That seems, to me, to be fun, as logical as Dervish Dance, make Halflings actually really good slingers, relatively balanced (given the need for said Feat and getting reloading them to be a Free Action somehow) and probably fixes the problem.Hmm. I might make that a feat that requires you to be Small maybe. Just for the David/Goliath theme that halflings and gnomes seem to have going, and to keep the elves from stealing it.
I like that slings use Strength. Theoretically that makes them viable for many warrior types. But for halflings, with a double-dip of small weapons and strength penalty, I see the use of dex-for-damage.
(I'm normally fervently against dex-to-damage and consider Dervish Dance a naughty feat, rewarding one of the already-best weapons.)
Eh...I'm cool with Elves or Humans doing it. They're doing it with a d4 as compared to the d8 of a longbow (or the d6 a Halfling can get with a sling-staff), and need to invest several Feats into this build in addition to the Archery Feats. Seems fair.
And I do like slings being strength based by default, I just thought Halfling Slingers needed something.
Stuff
There's a pretty large gap between learning the hoplite formation and using spears one-handed.
While that may have been the most effective formation for spear and shield, I doubt every 2nd level Warrior who ever lived would simply forget how to hold his shield and spear because he doesn't have his friends around him.
Even if hoplite troops were the only ones to use spear and shield, I doubt all, or even most of them were 3rd level fighters with one very specific archetype.
StuffThere's a pretty large gap between learning the hoplite formation and using spears one-handed.
While that may have been the most effective formation for spear and shield, I doubt every 2nd level Warrior who ever lived would simply forget how to hold his shield and spear because he doesn't have his friends around him.
Even if hoplite troops were the only ones to use spear and shield, I doubt all, or even most of them were 3rd level fighters with one very specific archetype.
Again, we're not talking just spear & shield, we're talking LONG spear and shield.
StuffThere's a pretty large gap between learning the hoplite formation and using spears one-handed.
While that may have been the most effective formation for spear and shield, I doubt every 2nd level Warrior who ever lived would simply forget how to hold his shield and spear because he doesn't have his friends around him.
Even if hoplite troops were the only ones to use spear and shield, I doubt all, or even most of them were 3rd level fighters with one very specific archetype.
It have to be seen if that a long spear and shield was sffective in 1 to 1 combat or was just effective in a formation.
There's still a huge difference between "effective" and "possible". Besides, it's not like PF has the most realistic rules for combat.
But whatever, I'm bored with this discussion... Let's move on to the next absurd/unnecessary rule.
Many other peoples used a shorter spear with a shield, yes, but the Hoplite was the main long spear and shield user- and note, these troops were well drilled disciplined elite soldiers...
I'm curious as to where you found this information. My understanding is that hoplite units were primarily citizen militia from families that could afford the equipment. Certainly well-drilled (otherwise they'd have been useless in formation and a positive liability out of it), but 'elite' seems like an overstatement.
Better trained than the Psiloi, absolutely, but not professional soldiers.
(Note please that I'm not looking for anything like an argument, only a source so I can further edumacate my history-nerd self.)
(Edit: shoot me a PM if you'd rather. No need to clutter up a thread of the absurd with historical realities.)
So here's a thought on the spear thing. Are we perhaps undervaluing a d6 damage value? Most militaries used shortswords (gladius, i'm looking at you). Longswords were often considered two-handed weapons, yes? So perhaps there's to much emphasis on 1d8 as a 'typical' weapon.
Though in the mean time, I do agree with the spear as a 1-handed martial idea.
It have to be seen if that a long spear and shield was sffective in 1 to 1 combat or was just effective in a formation.StuffThere's a pretty large gap between learning the hoplite formation and using spears one-handed.
While that may have been the most effective formation for spear and shield, I doubt every 2nd level Warrior who ever lived would simply forget how to hold his shield and spear because he doesn't have his friends around him.
Even if hoplite troops were the only ones to use spear and shield, I doubt all, or even most of them were 3rd level fighters with one very specific archetype.
Both Troy and 300 have pretty good cinematic examples of spear and shield use in skirmish and 1-on-1 combat.
Both movies are highly stylized, but pathfinder isn't exactly a realistic combat simulator, so I don't find that to be too much of an issue.
In my personal experience I've tried it with practice equipment and done ok. I'm not very good with that style of fighting, but I'm good enough with similar styles to put together a working hodgepodge. I can definitely see how it would work, and given some practice I think I could get good at it.
That being said, it requires a very well balanced spear. You wield it from the balance point, so it wouldn't work well with most other kinds of polearms.
Of course, that's coming from a realistic approach. In the Dynasty Warriors games there's a few people who use pole arms in one hand. I don't see those games as being any less realistic than pathfinder, so I don't have an issue with mechanically modeling the use of just about any polearm in one hand. The bonus damage you lose from one-handing it is enough of a drawback that the style remains balanced.
You can use just about anything as an improvised weapon, but no matter if you're stronger than a titan, if you're Medium, you just can't swing that Large greatclub, nor swing a Medium greatclub in one hand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that Pathfinder defines its longspear as an ~8 foot weapon (spear ~5ft, shortspear ~3ft). That's significantly shorter than the Greek dory, or many other single handed melee spears (which crop up literally all over the world, in the hands of elite and non-elite alike - the spear is history's commonest weapon).
You have to go down to ~3ft before Pathfinder will allow it to be a one handed weapon.
A longspear and shield wielder need not be a hoplite, he might be This Apache guy or this Viking guy or this Mycenaean guy or these Assyrian guys.
In pathfinder mini terms, it would be this guy.
Not this guy
|
|
Nothing “absurd…”
The skill point system- maybe expand abilities (like 2ed did by breaking each down into 2 i.e. Strength to Stamina/Muscle) or make sure the skills match the ability.
Racial bonuses/penalties to ability scores.
Resurrection rules. It seems too easy to raise a dead character and have no penalty for it whatsoever (since often the player has enough resources at high level to come back with no disadvantages).
The Charm spell.
The heavy reliance on the possession of certain magical items.
Take 20 on traps...I mean, if a thief is searching for a trap and doesn't find it, wouldn't it stand to reason they do "find" it and trigger it?
The surprise round is a bit janked... I usually only do a surprise round if there is truly a surprise occurring.
I haven’t really looked into this, but the awards for sticking to one class feels like they should be higher (only because I’m biased towards single-class characters!). I realize this may not be fair to those who want prestige or multi-class people, but I’ve admitted my bias!
I come from years and years of 2ed. PF rules are the best, no matter the technicalities.
Alignment only bothers me when the players forget what their character’s alignment actually is (sometimes intentionally). For a lot of people, it’s difficult to hold morals other than onesown, and it’s easy to fall into “playing yourself.”
I only wish "epic" levels weren't so epicly hard to parse out.
The rules on higher ground. I had a post on this issue. If a Halfling were facing a giant, both of whom are on the same footing/floor…neither would get a higher ground bonus. However, if the Halfling put down a footstep, stepped on it, raising himself up about a foot off the ground, by the rules he’d get the high ground bonus. This is dumb.
“Zahmahkibo wrote: Requiring +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action. That much more trivia for new players to learn, that much more annoyance for 1st level rogues, bards, and clerics.” I agree. Annoying.
XP: I’ve done XP the same as I did in 2ed. I award for not only monsters, but other things done by the players…skill checks, good RPing, even a good joke. I’m always afraid of characters leveling too fast this way, but so far in our RotRL campaign this has not been the case at all. If it were, I’d simply switch to Slow Advancement. Players love this, as they can earn XP in all sorts of ways and helps my immersion.
The weakness of an arcane caster in early levels has always bothered me…but then again so do their power at higher levels. And I’m a fan of arcane casters! Wizards really suck at low levels unless in a balanced group. At high levels they are god.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that Pathfinder defines its longspear as an ~8 foot weapon (spear ~5ft, shortspear ~3ft). That's significantly shorter than the Greek dory, or many other single handed melee spears (which crop up literally all over the world, in the hands of elite and non-elite alike - the spear is history's commonest weapon).
You have to go down to ~3ft before Pathfinder will allow it to be a one handed weapon.
A longspear and shield wielder need not be a hoplite, he might be This Apache guy or this Viking guy or this Mycenaean guy or these Assyrian guys.
I
Apache and Viking didn't use longspears, their spears were 'spears', that could be thrown, and used one or two handed. As I noted about "One saga does mention a spear so very long that a man had to stretch his arm to touch the rivet (that would be a long spear). This was considered notable and highly unusual." Mycenaean's were Greeks.
As to troy and 300, of course they had nothing to do with reality since the worst thing that could happen is your Hoplite formation breaks. In any case, they were portrayed with 'spears" for the most part.
aboniks: those were quotes from wiki, but I am a scholar of such things. Remember, other than the Spartans and the Immortals, there were no "professional soldiers" but the Hoplites were considered elite troops. More than simple militia by far. The Samurai and Knights were also not "professional troops" nor were the Vikings (except maybe the Housecarls) etc. In fact the Hoplites were pretty close to the Knights or Samurai of their day. Well drilled, with the best equipment money could buy, and they fought nearly every year.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
a full attack shouldn't require a full round action and full attacking while moving shouldn't require a special class ability. nor should iteratives get so progressively less accurate to the point the 3rd and 4th attacks are guaranteed misses.
This. It's hard to see how the later attacks are less likely to hit, when anyone who's watched even average boxers can see that the first swings exist to set up the later ones to successfully hit. If anything, the iterative attack boni should go in reverse order.
But as has been mentioned several times in this thread, it's just plain hard to be a person who both A) has extensive martial arts training and B) cares about realism in Pathfinder combat.