but it is a big rapier...
melee falchion people won't win pathfinder. :P
sure they'll do well but then you just throw stuff for their level.
likewise i mean if someone wants to be a bard, he should tell them what spells are good, how to make use of an archetype for what he wants to do. what weapons mesh well with the bard.
then someone wants to be a rogue and sneak sneak? he can tell them how to get HiPS and what magic items will make him stealthier than anything. how to use this to his advantage in combat. yada yada.
he should help them make their own character, not just the best melee DPS monsters around.
because if one of the newer people has a rogue wants to stealth and be able to talk past a guard, but has a pretty lack luster stealth/bluff bonus and only stealth/talk successfully half the time, he's not actually playing what he wanted to play.
|
but it is a big rapier...
No, it really isn't.
The rapier is a diamond shaped blade, typically sharpened along much if not all of it's length. The estoc is a square or triangular blade with a sharp point, but it cannot be sharpened to a cutting edge. If it is a scaled up anything it is a scaled up stiletto or rondel dagger.
but it is a big rapier...No, it really isn't.
The rapier is a diamond shaped blade, typically sharpened along much if not all of it's length. The estoc is a square or triangular blade with a sharp point, but it cannot be sharpened to a cutting edge. If it is a scaled up anything it is a scaled up stiletto or rondel dagger.
sure, but the estoc was trying to make a rapier that could fight heavier armors and be effective for longer periods. NOT to take a cavalry weapon and downsize it, estocs do not make good lances.
|
|
Also, the estoc is used from 14th - 17th centuries, where the rapier doesn't really exist before the 16th, and isn't really popularized till the 17th.
The estoc was designed for penetrating armor, and could only thrust. The rapier was designed for civilian self defense against lightly or unarmored assailants, and was a cut and thrust weapon.
|
|
sure, but the estoc was trying to make a rapier that could fight heavier armors and be effective for longer periods. NOT to take a cavalry weapon and downside it, estocs do not make good lances.but it is a big rapier...No, it really isn't.
The rapier is a diamond shaped blade, typically sharpened along much if not all of it's length. The estoc is a square or triangular blade with a sharp point, but it cannot be sharpened to a cutting edge. If it is a scaled up anything it is a scaled up stiletto or rondel dagger.
Actually, it started as a cavalry weapon, as a backup to the lance.
The Estoc went out of fashion as the rapier was coming into existance.
In short, history says you are wrong.
sigh, I am getting it backwards, estoc -> rapier because they needed something lighter for nobility duels. >_> weird nobility
regardless it won't be an issue unless other guys want to be power players too, in which case they will be out shined and should probably get help from him. they might as for help from him anyway as the case may be.
on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.
the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents
sigh, I am getting it backwards, estoc -> rapier because they needed something lighter for nobility duels. >_> weird nobility
regardless it won't be an issue unless other guys want to be power players too, in which case they will be out shined and should probably get help from him. they might as for help from him anyway as the case may be.
and the emergence of better firearms was starting to make many heavy armors obsolete, so the necessity to punch through armor in melee wasn't there anymore as no one really wore heavy armor.
plate armor was basically created TOO defeat firearms, but it just became too cost prohibitive and heavy after a while and so they stopped. you didn't see people wearing full plate until guns started showing up.
But then I have a group of munchkins... and the monsters designed by the monstrous manual to be a challenge are not and then I am stuck throwing monsters at the group in order to be a challenge are only a challenge because they can one shot a player as the healers essentially take someone from almost dead to full every turn and every turn they drop a monster.with more than 20+ years as a game master for things from GURPS, Earthdawn, D&D (1st,2nd,3rd & 3.5 to include AD&D) and pathfinder but definitely not limited to the above games... when the party essentially starts munchining creativity is gone and its essentially who can build the best cookie cutter game breaking template.... no thank you sir.
which is fine and all, but if someone wants to play a character and can't back that character up, then you've failed as a GM. I'd also say the opposite, as my group "munchikins" but in that they try to make the most unusual types of fighting styles work.
|
|
on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.
the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents
It is one of the things I liked about GURPS, the way they handled armor made modeling that a lot easier. Of course, the downside is that once weapons and armor reach a certain point of power (for example at the higher tech levels), the armor is so much stronger that if anything gets through the armor, you are probably dead.
Which is accurate, but not really terribly fun at the gaming table.
(one game we had a goblin dagger master as a PC. She was a spinning cuisinart of death against lightly armored targets. Then we ran into someone in heavy armor... )
on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.
the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents
Different era's really. Fire arms changed how wars were fought.
Instead of melee with heavy armor... it was light or no armor and at range.Plus with a stiff weapon like an estoc you just get in close it doesn't have a cutting edge and just pierces. Once you get inside the point there is little difference between it and a pole except it is triangular in construction but the edges were generally not sharpened and were really just there.
Kind of reminds me of a fight I was in where someone came at me with a baseball bat... once I got in close where he couldn't swing and carry the inertia with it, it was over and between me headbutting him and chocking him out he was done.
the estoc's advantage however is it's length. they aren't going to try to get that close because they have a longsword or what ever as well. it let you keep your blade between you and the enemy, a well seasoned fighter will keep his guard up and it's much easier to use an estoc on an advancing opponent than a baseball bat. the estoc you just have to put in front of him. :P
you can move the estoc close you your torso and back step, etc easily to reestablish the distance between you and if he keeps coming, he's probably run through. even if he does get close it still can be used to parry, even weakly.
|
|
the estoc's advantage however is it's length. they aren't going to try to get that close because they have a longsword or what ever as well. it let you keep your blade between you and the enemy, a well seasoned fighter will keep his guard up and it's much easier to use an estoc on an advancing opponent than a baseball bat. the estoc you just have to put in front of him. :P
you can move the estoc close you your torso and back step, etc easily to reestablish the distance between you and if he keeps coming, he's probably run through. even if he does get close it still can be used to parry, even weakly.
It also has a wide cross guard, a striking pommel, and can be wielded with one hand half up the blade. If you get in past the tip, and the wielder knows what he is doing, he shifts his grip and has a short quarter staff with a weighted steel head. Or he can smash the quilions into your throat, or shove cross body with it to reestablish the distance. The supposed "getting inside the guard" of greatswords and bastard swords is highly over rated, and works best if your opponent doesn't know what he is doing.
yes, more viable, the plate armor only came about in the first plate because they were the only thing that could stop a bullet.
your second paragraph is taken directly from wikipedia.
and no the term bullet proof originated from armor smiths saying that about their plate armor. you didn't NEED plate armor until they started introducing early firearms, which was mid 13th century, see a reoccurring date?
In short, history says you are wrong.huh, well that was rather blunt no?
Probably. I am home sick with a cold, and the board crash ate everything I posted last night. So I am a little grouchy.
Sorry Bandw2, that crossed a line and I shouldn't have said it.
I don't hold grudges, especially when I am wrong. though the thought is appreciated.
|
|
And especially since a Estoc is only used for a thrust it is far easier to predict than something that can slash or thrust and would have a sharp edge that could still cut even when used in grappling or close quarters.
And Bludgeon. Pathfinder keeps forgetting that these weapons were designed to bludgeon in close combat as backup. Those pommels hurt.
|
|
In short, history says you are wrong.huh, well that was rather blunt no?
Probably. I am home sick with a cold, and the board crash ate everything I posted last night. So I am a little grouchy.
Sorry Bandw2, that crossed a line and I shouldn't have said it.
It happens, im sure he isn't bothered by it.
Hope you get better, but it all boils down to skill with their weapon as to whether they were trained with improvisional combat. Turning a musket from firearm to spear to club.
Essentially an Estoc now feels like a musket with a fixed bayonet kinda... but it cant shoot.
Probably why they went away.
Yes, the handguards proved to be problematic for that as far as shortening your grip to try to do the hand and a half approach historically done with a bastard sword or claymore, which was why...on the weapon debate, the thing i don't like about the rapier, and why this is probably how i feel, is that it isn't a combat weapon. it best it's for duels, the weapon is weak and only the best ones could bend very well.
the Estoc is the battle weapon designed to be used in combat with opponents using it's length to keep people at a distance and to combat people with heavier armor and still be manageable against smaller and lighter armored opponents
Different era's really. Fire arms changed how wars were fought.
Instead of melee with heavy armor... it was light or no armor and at range.Plus with a stiff weapon like an estoc you just get in close it doesn't have a cutting edge and just pierces. Once you get inside the point there is little difference between it and a pole except it is triangular in construction but the edges were generally not sharpened and were really just there.
Kind of reminds me of a fight I was in where someone came at me with a baseball bat... once I got in close where he couldn't swing and carry the inertia with it, it was over and between me headbutting him and chocking him out he was done.
the estoc's advantage however is it's length. they aren't going to try to get that close because they have a longsword or what ever as well. it let you keep your blade between you and the enemy, a well seasoned fighter will keep his guard up and it's much easier to use an estoc on an advancing opponent than a baseball bat. the estoc you just have to put in front of him. :P
you can move the estoc close you your torso and back step, etc easily to reestablish the distance between you and if he keeps coming, he's probably run through. even if he does get close it still can be used to parry, even weakly.
but the estoc as you mention, was a defensive weapon, you didn't thrust at people with it, you had them skewer themselves on it. that's how you properly use an estoc, you simply evade parrying and then try to poke him when he advances, if you miss you back up. if he gets too close use your shield if you don't have one, punch him. medieval combat was a lot more brutal and refined than you even see on game of thrones.
|
|
Hope you get better, but it all boils down to skill with their weapon as to whether they were trained with improvisional combat. Turning a musket from firearm to spear to club.
I admit, I am not a great authority on early medieval fighting style training. (One problem is that because of how they morphed into modern fencing, very little of it survived.) But I get the impression that much of what we think of a "improvisational" or "dirty fighting" was actually a standard core of their training at least among professional fighters. The disposable peasants were probably pretty much given a spear, taught how not to get tangled with one another, but the armored cavalry were taught their weapons, how to wrestle, and close combat.
That said, there is at least one story about a cocky noble who challenged a peasant to a fight when the lord was wielding a two handed sword, and the peasant a knife. The peasant did get in his guard and killed the lord, so clearly not everyone learned close fighting equally well...
yes, more viable, the plate armor only came about in the first plate because they were the only thing that could stop a bullet.
your second paragraph is taken directly from wikipedia.
and no the term bullet proof originated from armor smiths saying that about their plate armor. you didn't NEED plate armor until they started introducing early firearms, which was mid 13th century, see a reoccurring date?
Ehh plate armor/ Heavy armor came about before fire arms it was used by lords and knights as they were the only people who could afford it. It was used to provide maximum protection on the field of battle where mobility was not going to as much of an issue as the rider was mounted and elevated giving him a reach advantage against enemies.
Firearms made heavy armor like plate obsolete, PERIOD.
Today with advanced composites my IOTV and plate carrier using a shape to deflect the round, but the rounds impact still ruins the plate, and the ballistic plates are over an inch thick.Plate armor was NOT made for the purpose to counter Firearms. True it was one of the armors that could counter primitive firearms and often a master armor maker would shoot his armor with a pistol to see if it would withstand the impact and people purchasing the armor would actually look for this ding as proof before purchasing.
Correct,
I took the quote from wiki because I didn't feel like typing it all as my space bar is messed up and it takes for ever for me to type something that doesn't look like sheer poop because of it. So I just googled what I knew to be true and saw it on WIKI and copied it, sorry if I didn't cite it.
to be completely honest, no one used full plate prior to the 13th century because the manufacturing techniques weren't up to the task. Nobles prior to then usually wore breastplates with neck guards. They also were assumed to be taken prisoner and so didn't need awesome armor. a captured noble is better than a dead noble. Often wars would end when you captured the opposing sides heir or one of their uncles.
but yes most nobles wore the heavy armor to protect against stray firearm shots. It wasn't well made for land combat due to exhaustion, long skirmishes would just tire out your side and the knight would be taken down. Cavalry used it because it makes your charge like 70% more deadly as lances might deflect off of your horses armor now and bounce off of you, you could charge with full abandon into enemy ranks.
IT WAS NOT made to counter arrows or swords they were just also ineffective against it.
you keep bringing up that it was a back up weapon, but it was also used by the poles as a main weapon as well. it was a largely effective weapon.
|
|
Plate armor was NOT made for the purpose to counter Firearms. True it was one of the armors that could counter primitive firearms and often a master armor maker would shoot his armor with a pistol to see if it would withstand the impact and people purchasing the armor would actually look for this ding as proof before purchasing.
As you know, there is an order of magnitude difference between stopping a pistol bullet, and stopping a musket/rifle bullet.
There was a style of armor (too sick to look it up properly) that was designed for stopping (mostly) rifle bullets, that worked by putting all the metal on the front, and having nearly no back. From what I can recall without going and getting my books, armor had been steadily evolving toward more plate, less chain before firearms, and once firearms entered the picture evolved further to only plate, no chain, and finally to no plate, no chain except for specific functions, to metal helmets only, until advanced composites came out, and now we are sliding back the other direction (I wonder how long till someone comes out with really effective HEAP rifle ammo.)
but my biggest issues is that I don't want and the players don't want to have to be min maxing power games just to feel competitive in the campaign.
Wow we got off on a tangent didn't we?
then you need to make something that favors the newer players. mechanically the magus isn't OP, he's making an unusual fighting style not suck is all. in essence he's par for the course. at least from what i've heard in the 2 threads.
there are 4 inventions that obsoleted armor in the 17th century.
Rifling, the conical bullet, manufacturing the bullet with the charge attached, and finally the magazine/breech loading.
you're forgetting the 300 years where firearms and plate armor both got progressively better and better until firearms finally won.\
keep quoting wikipedia, but it isn't entirely accurate about the 300 years after firearms got introduced.
full plate wasn't used in early medieval, they used chainmail, neck guards, and usually armor on the sword arm while they had a shield in the other.
you know i forgot about the drow noble
don't let him do that
make him a normal drow, especially if he's male. if he's a normal drow he can take racial feats to get noble drow powers.
edit: if you really want to force someone to make a "character" rather than a PC, put more of the campaign time into RP, if he feels like he's doing nothing for a while, point out he shouldn't have been so combat focused. just don't try to sound as passive aggressive as i said it.
|
|
edit: if you really want to force someone to make a "character" rather than a PC, put more of the campaign time into RP, if he feels like he's doing nothing for a while, point out he shouldn't have been so combat focused. just don't try to sound as passive aggressive as i said it.
That is the hard part.
like seriously drow noble is a 47 RP race or some such with a ton of ability score bonuses. rest is kosher, drow noble i wouldn't let any of my players touch.
@ 80-90% of the damage, unless, once again as i said, someone has issue with that and also wants to be doing tons of damage, then who cares?
BTW, plate armor never made it to the Americas because of it's weight, they wore breastplates as they would often have to walk everywhere. especially early colonial, when just maybe a few people would have had plate, and usually on horse back.
1776 was 4-1/2 centuries after firearms were introduced and 100 years after plate armor stopped being cost effective. In the Napoleon era is when the gun truly took the battlefield however. They finally started adjusting tactics to favor the gun and that pretty much was it. after war changed to make the gun more powerful no amount of armor could stand agaisnt them effectively.
however now some 2-1/2 centuries after 1776 we're getting back into heavy armor again.
its just when I look at his
+3 to hit and +6 Damagecompared to others
+2 to hit and +4 Damageessentially I wonder that the fighter mage person is able to out fighter the fighters, just based off his knowledge and that he looks and researches forums for super powered builds while the others create something that they think would be fun as opposed to building something that is powerful.
First, he can't use Spell Combat if he's wielding a two-handed weapon, so he should rarely use his weapon two-handed.
Second, all of his damage is going to come from the Empowered Shocking Grasp that he delivers through the weapon, so it's really the 3d6 x 1.5 electricity damage at 1st level that you need to worry about.
Third, as the GM, you can just rein his power level in. Restrict his caster level to actual character level and don't let him have extra tricks with metamagic feats. His magus class features are going to be strong enough without any Varisian Tattoo/Magical Lineage/Wayang Spell Hunter shenanigans.
And you have every right to restrict your players to certain content. Many of the splat books have easily exploitable wording, and some of the APs have traits that are good for that AP but overpowered anywhere else. Don't approve anything you aren't comfortable with.
If you're really worried, you can even set maximums for attack, damage, AC, HP, and saves for the characters.
ah thanks
its funny you mention the magical lineage and wayang spell hunter traits... is that more common now these days people exploiting that?
we had an issue last game where that happened and it was presented to me that with those and metamagic feats he was able to lower a spells level to 0 and make it a cantrip casting it infinitely. Until it was read that a spell can never go below its starting level.
Yes, those are favorite exploits. Even when read correctly, they are still really good. (Magical Knack is another favorite until you realize that it can't raise your caster level past your character level.)
If I were a very tricky player, I would get my GM to focus on the additional 1-2 points of damage I'm getting for finessing a weapon two-handed so that he doesn't notice that a) I'm casting while wielding a two-handed weapon and b) casting at too high a caster level. :-)
If your other players want something simple that still does a ton of damage, try the Two-Handed Fighter fighter archetype and just house-rule that Power Attack has the same multiplier as your strength bonus: if you're strength is x1.5, PA is x1.5, and if your strength is x2, PA is x2. (That also makes Double Slice work better, if you have any two-weapon fighters.)
Alternatively, the Unchained Barbarian has all the benefits of a normal barbarian with less math.