Well, since we've already abstracted hit points to the point where they don't really (or at least always) reflect physical damage, it's not entirely clear that realism does require a great sword to take away more hit points than a dagger.
Greatswords should do both Slashing and Bludgeoning damages, then go to only Bludgeoning after a few good hits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I managed to accidentally delete a post while trying to edit it to correct typos... -.-'
That... requires a a special kind of talent. ¬¬
The continued claims that someone who finds problem with the system "don't really play" and are only "theorycrafters" is really irritating. It's just like that one guy who likes the Star Wars prequel movies iwll claim that no one else really hates them, they're just trying to look cool by agreeing with public perception.
The continued claims that someone who finds problem with the system "don't really play" and are only "theorycrafters" is really irritating. It's just like that one guy who likes the Star Wars prequel movies iwll claim that no one else really hates them, they're just trying to look cool by agreeing with public perception.
Hey, the prequels did improve with each sequel. Episode III is actually kinda of not completely awful... ish. I didn't even feelike burning the movie theater afterwards....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a perfectly valid opinion. However if I said I though episode 2 was the worst out of the lot would you claim I clearly never saw the movies?
|
That's a perfectly valid opinion. However if I said I though episode 2 was the worst out of the lot would you claim I clearly never saw the movies?
Episode 2 was the worst.
Upon first watching, it felt better than 1 felt. There was action and stuff. But... think about it some more, and blah, that was far and away the worst of the three. And that's saying something.
Way, way off topic.
Playing the Game vs Playing the System/Mechaniques.
I was saying [greatsword] is better for doing lethal damage is what I was saying.
PS: I like daggers.
Here's the thing though: weapons and armour that are in the game should have a time where they're actually useful. People wanting crossbows or daggers to be viable aren't saying they want them to be as good as a greatsword or longbow. On a fighter you wouldn't ordinarily use a dagger. But there should be situations/classes/builds where daggers are a viable option (funnily enough I think they might be with fighters due to an Ultimate Combat archetype).
Here's the thing though: weapons and armour that are in the game should have a time where they're actually useful. People wanting crossbows or daggers to be viable aren't saying they want them to be as good as a greatsword or longbow. On a fighter you wouldn't ordinarily use a dagger. But there should be situations/classes/builds where daggers are a viable option (funnily enough I think they might be with fighters due to an Ultimate Combat archetype).I was saying [greatsword] is better for doing lethal damage is what I was saying.
PS: I like daggers.
Daggers can be good with certain builds. My point was basically that certain weapons are just going to be better than other weapons in combat.
Basically I think the designers and myself view the weapons like this--> Martial weapons are made for combat. That gives them a higher learning curve, and therefore justifies them being a better weapon. Simple weapons(dagger, club) can be used in battle, but they are not generally what you would want to field an army with so they were intentionally made to not be so good in battle.
Yeah, I know some weapons such as the morningstar and crossbow are good for armies, at least according to some scientific shows I watched. Yes, that also means I think some weapons are in the wrong category. And I also want it to be easier to make crossbows good. Speaking of which the Ace bolt puts out good DPR. Without the dex to damage however, which I have not run the numbers for I would expect a pretty good fall off, but I expect them to be a decent choice.
Summary:The game is very much about choices and if you intentionally make an inferior choice you will get inferior results.
PS and edit: I think the disagreement is mostly about how big the gap should be. The bolt ace was not too far behind a fighter archer I made. I am guessing a normal crossbow specialist will be about 20 points behind.
PS and edit: I think the disagreement is mostly about how big the gap should be. The bolt ace was not too far behind a fighter archer I made. I am guessing a normal crossbow specialist will be about 20 points behind.
Off topic, but I figured by level 11 when the Bolt Ace gets the feat Signature Deed (Sharp Shoot) to always hit touch AC that it would smash a standard archer to pieces DPR wise because of the massive accuracy bonus that entails. Did you not go that route? Asking because I'm surprised if the archer still won.
Anyway, closer to being on topic or at least the discussion at hand: "Dagger vs greatsword" is not the same as "bow vs crossbow (ignoring Bolt Ace)." The difference is that in one of those comparisons each choice has its own unique benefits over the other. In the other comparison, the two things function exactly the same except one is just flat out worse no matter what you do, barring one very specific and brand new archetype.
PS and edit: I think the disagreement is mostly about how big the gap should be. The bolt ace was not too far behind a fighter archer I made. I am guessing a normal crossbow specialist will be about 20 points behind.
Off topic, but I figured by level 11 when the Bolt Ace gets the feat Signature Deed (Sharp Shoot) to always hit touch AC that it would smash a standard archer to pieces DPR wise because of the massive accuracy bonus that entails. Did you not go that route? Asking because I'm surprised if the archer still won.
Anyway, closer to being on topic or at least the discussion at hand: "Dagger vs greatsword" is not the same as "bow vs crossbow (ignoring Bolt Ace)." The difference is that in one of those comparisons each choice has its own unique benefits over the other. In the other comparison, the two things function exactly the same except one is just flat out worse no matter what you do, barring one very specific and brand new archetype.
Two similar things is a different argument, but it may been more in-line with the current intent.
There is not that much of a disparity in similar martial weapons because they all get the same bonus from strength. With the composite bows they get bonus to damage, while the crossbow does not. The bow also gets one additional attack. I think giving a normal xbow and extra attack or half dex to damage would make them better. I have not run any numbers.
Two similar things is a different argument, but it may been more in-line with the current intent.There is not that much of a disparity in similar martial weapons because they all get the same bonus from strength. With the composite bows they get bonus to damage, while the crossbow does not. The bow also gets one additional attack. I think giving a normal xbow and extra attack or half dex to damage would make them better. I have not run any numbers.
Upon reflection I think my previous post was a bit of a mess (yay being tired) but at the moment I can't be bothered to fix it. With that said I'm not quite sure I follow your response here which is probably my fault because you were responding to my post which was poorly written, but totally sounded cooler and much clearer in my head.
Just to try to clear things up, if you think I'm disagreeing with you about crossbows being strictly worse that composite bows, I'm not. In fact I agree wholeheartedly. My initial statement above was just about Bolt Ace with Signature Deed in particular being able to go toe to toe with composite bow users potentially. The second part was me just trying to say that daggers have some benefits over greatsword (finesse, concealable, can be used in a grapple), so it's not a strictly inferior weapon in the same way crossbow is to composite bow.
Here's the thing though: weapons and armour that are in the game should have a time where they're actually useful. People wanting crossbows or daggers to be viable aren't saying they want them to be as good as a greatsword or longbow. On a fighter you wouldn't ordinarily use a dagger. But there should be situations/classes/builds where daggers are a viable option (funnily enough I think they might be with fighters due to an Ultimate Combat archetype).I was saying [greatsword] is better for doing lethal damage is what I was saying.
PS: I like daggers.
Daggers can be good with certain builds. My point was basically that certain weapons are just going to be better than other weapons in combat.
Basically I think the designers and myself view the weapons like this--> Martial weapons are made for combat. That gives them a higher learning curve, and therefore justifies them being a better weapon. Simple weapons(dagger, club) can be used in battle, but they are not generally what you would want to field an army with so they were intentionally made to not be so good in battle.
Yeah, I know some weapons such as the morningstar and crossbow are good for armies, at least according to some scientific shows I watched. Yes, that also means I think some weapons are in the wrong category. And I also want it to be easier to make crossbows good. Speaking of which the Ace bolt puts out good DPR. Without the dex to damage however, which I have not run the numbers for I would expect a pretty good fall off, but I expect them to be a decent choice.
Summary:The game is very much about choices and if you intentionally make an inferior choice you will get inferior results.
PS and edit: I think the disagreement is mostly about how big the gap should be. The bolt ace was not too far behind a fighter archer I made. I am guessing a normal crossbow specialist will be about 20 points behind.
I think one thing we have to remember is the current stewards of our game are totally ok with options being inferior if they function in a manner that makes sense fluff wise. They are story focused more then rules focused. If the first priority is story telling tool, and you want associated rather then disassociative options, then we will always see subpar options in the rules because some things are subpart. Child scent isnt going to be as useful a hex as evil eye, but in some stories witches hunt down children, so there it is. And it works exactly how you expect.
My hope is that the strategy guide will help new players sort through the '90%' or at least make informed choices. But its kind of ok for those kinds of options to exist. The key is to make the choice they represent clearer.
Then there are more fundamental issues. Like the supremacy of the full attack vs single attacks/actions. Or that casters are playing dc superheroes and non-casters are playing game of thrones. Those are the sort of fundamental things that the devs can hopefully tackle in stuff like unchained. Maybe we could see a whole series of it.
In particular the ranged combat thing (Crossbows, Bows and guns) has always boiled down to full attacks. Crossbows are supposed to load slower then bows, guns slower then that, which obviously is true, but in the real world, it doesnt take 18 arrow hits to kill someone. So one shot with a crossbow or gun is sufficient. But the game is designed around iterative attacks, which bows are good in, other ranged weapons not so much. Address the full attack issue and we can probably put the bow vs crossbow vs gun issue to bed relatively easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hah! I really want to see the Strategy Guide...
I'm betting it'll give general advice without going on specifics ("Carry a bow! Buy wands! Teamwork is good!"), or, if it does go into specifics and tries to help new players to make informed choices, it'll be as "honest" as the Class Build guide ("Rogues are the most skilled class") and the ARG Race Builder point cost (obviously designed to make Core races seem balanced and elemental races seem more powerful than they are).
Paizo is not going to say anything that might make their products look bad, so I doubt they will even acknowlege Pathfinder balance issues. I'm pretty sure the strategy guide will imply that the TWF Rogue is just as good as the 2-handed Slayer. And that "Mobility" is a good feat.
Hah! I really want to see the Strategy Guide...
I'm betting it'll give general advice without going on specifics ("Carry a bow! Buy wands! Teamwork is good!"), or, if it does go into specifics and tries to help new players to make informed choices, it'll be as "honest" as the Class Build guide ("Rogues are the most skilled class") and the ARG Race Builder point cost (obviously designed to make Core races seem balanced and elemental races seem more powerful than they are).
Paizo is not going to say anything that might make their products look bad, so I doubt they will even acknowlege Pathfinder balance issues. I'm pretty sure the strategy guide will imply that the TWF Rogue is just as good as the 2-handed Slayer. And that "Mobility" is a good feat.
If paizo wasnt willing to admit issues then unchained wouldn't exist.
PS and edit: I think the disagreement is mostly about how big the gap should be. The bolt ace was not too far behind a fighter archer I made. I am guessing a normal crossbow specialist will be about 20 points behind.
Off topic, but I figured by level 11 when the Bolt Ace gets the feat Signature Deed (Sharp Shoot) to always hit touch AC that it would smash a standard archer to pieces DPR wise because of the massive accuracy bonus that entails. Did you not go that route? Asking because I'm surprised if the archer still won.
Anyway, closer to being on topic or at least the discussion at hand: "Dagger vs greatsword" is not the same as "bow vs crossbow (ignoring Bolt Ace)." The difference is that in one of those comparisons each choice has its own unique benefits over the other. In the other comparison, the two things function exactly the same except one is just flat out worse no matter what you do, barring one very specific and brand new archetype.
there is a lot of; depending on: character's stats/build, character's personality, situation/need of the moment, etc...
there are differences between the advertized "Play what you want." and the actual "play what the game/system let you"... GMs also have a lot to play in this, as they can make it The Grand Canyon, just a little crack on the pavement, or anything in between.
Other than the Summoner, I believe the official line for PF:U is something like "We want to try new systems that were not possible to implement due to backward compatibility".... Which is only half the truth... I doubt we'll see any member of the Paizo staff saying they are making Unchained Rogues because the class is completely overshadowed by over half a dozen different classes... Even if we all know that's true.
I believe they'll nerf Barbarians as well... With the excuse thst it's to make it "less mathy" (even though most classes need more bookkeeping than Barbarians).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it goes back to the idea of 'praise in public, punish in private'. Paizo can't officially state that some part of their product is poorly made due to the bad marketing effect that would have from casual customers who don't read everything posted. So they have to deal with such things in-house, behind NDAs. This of course does not mean they agree that some things are broken. I don't think they subscribe to the 'Timmy card' philosophy, and actually believe that most of what they put out is useable in all but the most optimized games. Because they aim for unoptimized games where the differences don't really come up.
Other than the Summoner, I believe the official line for PF:U is something like "We want to try new systems that were not possible to implement due to backward compatibility".... Which is only half the truth... I doubt we'll see any member of the Paizo staff saying they are making Unchained Rogues because the class is completely overshadowed by over half a dozen different classes... Even if we all know that's true.
I believe they'll nerf Barbarians as well... With the excuse thst it's to make it "less mathy" (even though most classes need more bookkeeping than Barbarians).
Well, when the Ninja, which is the Rogue alternate class, does its stuff way better, yeah.
They might be testing the waters for a few things. (but I'm wary of the "no open playtests for Unchained")
I think it goes back to the idea of 'praise in public, punish in private'. Paizo can't officially state that some part of their product is poorly made due to the bad marketing effect that would have from casual customers who don't read everything posted. So they have to deal with such things in-house, behind NDAs. This of course does not mean they agree that some things are broken. I don't think they subscribe to the 'Timmy card' philosophy, and actually believe that most of what they put out is useable in all but the most optimized games. Because they aim for unoptimized games where the differences don't really come up.
they kinda publicly admited that the Summoner has many flaw (but in that particular case, they did say someone managed to get it pass bellow their radars.)
Also, as pointed somewhere else in the thread, the in house writers/designers might not be fully free to disagree with each others.
