Why do Martials need better things?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 1,265 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

necromental wrote:
to those who insist on "no-disparity-no-need"

Can you please link to the person whose saying no disparity no need?

necromental wrote:
why does it hurt you guys to have a VARIANT like Unchained 2 or Ultimate Combat 2 that deals with these issues.

I don't know anyone whose hurt by variant rules like presented in Unchained. In fact I've been trumpeting them. Could you link to the person whose said Pathfinder Unchained is awful and ruins the game by merely existing?


? I'm not sure why are you arguing with me? General sentiment goes to Wrath lately, who repeatedly argues that nothing is necessary. Although his last post s kinda conciliatory so...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Being the cynical bastard I am I also can't help but think: I wonder what game(s) he'll be working on (or is trying to work on) since leaving Paizo and whether or not they will/do address these concerns he's all of a sudden decided to voice publicly.

But that's me being quite cynical.

the interview was i believe him talking about problems that showed up and how he fixes them in his game he's making.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
It's okay if they go "Wuxia" or whatever term you want to use... It's okay if they suddenly gain ridiculous abilities like the ability to jump for miles...
At your table. For you to enjoy the game. People have stated they enjoy Pathfinder because it DOES NOT have these things. For them it is very much NOT okay for martials to have these "better things" because it makes the game less enjoyable FOR THEM.

but those things already exist in caster form, so i feel this is pedantry. if they don't want that power then they stay at lower levels. pretty simple.


necromental wrote:
I'm not sure why are you arguing with me?

I'm not. You asserted people who have participated in this thread havea particular stated belief. I have not seen anyone express the beliefs you asserted and so I asked you to please provide links in case I had missed them or so I could see what post had caused you to interpret them as having said the beliefs you asserted they have. This was by no means intended as an argumentative position and I apologise that it came across as such.

necromental wrote:
General sentiment goes to Wrath lately, who repeatedly argues that nothing is necessary.
As Wrath has stated this is because he does not have a problem with how the game functions. It is a complete misinterpretation to believe Wrath is saying there is no disparity. He is not saying that. In fact he has said there is a disparity. He said there is no need to change the game because he enjoys the game WITH the disparity. Here's the relevant quote from a couple of pages back:
Wrath wrote:

John Lynch, not only do some of us not have problems with the game, some of us have tried the "fixes" implemented by these threads and found the game less enjoyable. Two of my friends and I actually used a bit of Kirthfinder for a while, to test things out. Good system, but we didn't enjoy it as much as Pathfinder.

Some of us have tried other systems where the very issues discussed here were addressed and balanced and found those systems not as fun as Pathfinder.


Bandw2 wrote:
the interview was i believe him talking about problems that showed up and how he fixes them in his game he's making.

I suspected it is in his financial interest to make gamers aware of his current stated position in order to draw attention to his new ventures. Still, I can't fault him for it as I don't expect employees of Paizo to publicly air displeasure or disagreement with company decisions. Although the degree he took the arguments back in the day (see: water balloon argument) is taking it a bit far IMO. I can only assume he believed in the arguments at the time and only came to disagree with them as the years went on.

Bandw2 wrote:
but those things already exist in caster form, so i feel this is pedantry. if they don't want that power then they stay at lower levels. pretty simple.

Except you know full well that many of those who don't want that power level in the martial classes are happy to have it in the caster classes. And before you say "Oh! So they want martials to suck so they can feel better" plenty of these people actually play martials.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
but those things already exist in caster form, so i feel this is pedantry. if they don't want that power then they stay at lower levels. pretty simple.
Except you know full well that many of those who don't want that power level in the martial classes are happy to have it in the caster classes.

which is why i said they're being pedant, they're focusing too much on the tiny details, simply let them play at lower levels and then EVERYONE is happy.


Bandw2 wrote:
which is why i said they're being pedant, they're focusing too much on the tiny details, simply let them play at lower levels and then EVERYONE is happy.

Except for those who want to explore the "epicness" of casters without having to deal with the "epicness" of martials (and feel that martials are plenty epic enough at higher levels as expressed in the Core Rules of Pathfinder).

One of us is clearly missing something. All I can draw from this exchange is you want a game that plays substantially different to how the current game does as detailed in the Core Rulebook. Your solution to making people happy who don't want to play the substantially different game is "to simply stick with playing at lower levels." That's great. But that's not the game that Paizo have currently produced and it's not the game they're going to produce in the foreseeable future. You can either use 3PP books, optional rules or houserules to make the current Pathfinder game resemble what you want it to (my preference), play a different game or continue railing on the forums ineffectively for the foreseeable future.

I suspect you'll take option three and if so I'll leave you to it. But seriously. Check out D&D 5th edition or 13th Age. You might surprise yourself and actually find exactly what you're looking for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm mucking about with a Naked Fighter build again... sort of.

With magic tattoos (Belt +6 STR, Amulet of Mighty Fists +3) he is still technically 'naked' but now...

Can punch +34/+29/+24/+19 doing 1D3+34, Crit threat 19+, x3 damage, autoconfirms. Crits force two Fort saves DC 30, blind and deafen.

Sooo...

With a minimum damage of 105 on a crit (plus exploding the targets eyes and ears, striking as a +3 weapon...)

A suboptimal build, but kinda funny to think about. I've used the full WBL amount of 880000 gold but MAN is that one scary naked dude.

Not really trying to make any point here, just sharing my ramblings because it came up earlier in the thread.

No point in doing a naked caster, it's pretty much the same as a normal one, just with Eschew Materials.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

except it IS the game produced, the abilities exist as caster abilities.

why is a martial a martial, because it can't cast, why can it not cast? because it's a martial, there's no defining reason why something is a martial other than it has horrible narrative power.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

I'm mucking about with a Naked Fighter build again... sort of.

[snip]

A suboptimal build, but kinda funny to think about. I've used the full WBL amount of 880000 gold but MAN is that one scary naked dude.

Not really trying to make any point here, just sharing my ramblings because it came up earlier in the thread.

No point in doing a naked caster, it's pretty much the same as a normal one, just with Eschew Materials.

Well, I think you're making a point whether you're trying to or not. Martials are much more gear-dependent than casters, which is a point that's often raised (and just as hotly denied) in the discussion of disparity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

except it IS the game produced, the abilities exist as caster abilities.

why is a martial a martial, because it can't cast, why can it not cast? because it's a martial, there's no defining reason why something is a martial other than it has horrible narrative power.

I consider all non-casters to be martials.

So Monk, Fighter, Rogue, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Ninja, Samurai...

Hybrids and the rest, even Paladins and Rangers, are casters.

I don't see those as a huge problem, it's the closer you get to full casters that things start getting wonky...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Wrath wrote:

@Kudaku,

Mate, thank you very much for linking that chat. It was really good.

I must say, it is very hard to argue from my current stance (no issue in power disparity), when even one of the main designers of the game disagrees.

<sigh> I shall take this opportunity to eat humble pie and leave you to your thread.

I find it illuminating that he's waited until after leaving Paizo before expressing these ideas (haven't listened to these videos in detail, just going off initial impressions). Especially given his ardent stance on Pathfinder's rules being fine as they were written while employed by Paizo (see his claims regarding water balloons and crossbows). I wonder how long he's had these opinions.

Thanks for watching it! I was a little worried it would get lost in the debate.

For what it's worth I think Kirth has a very good point in that many games play with unwritten rules or gentleman's agreements (frequently subconsciously), and because of that the martial/caster disparity is toned down or not evident. I suspect this is partially in play in your games, which is a good thing! :)

alexd1976 wrote:
What does he disagree with? I don't have the opportunity to watch the link because work reasons.

He discusses a few different things:

In the first link he outlines the linear fighter v quadratic wizard argument, how the cleric (as an example of a caster) becomes more powerful with each book released since they automatically add everything new to their available spell list and wizards can do the same by spending money to learn spells. By comparison the fighter has a very limited amount of feats available and isn't able to vary his list, which makes him inflexible and unable to benefit in the same way.

In the second link he explains how if a fighter always performs at power level X, a rested wizard is running at power level X + 5 and a wizard that's completely out of spells is running at power level X - 5. +5 and -5 even out to X, which is how the wizard was thought to be balanced with the fighter. However in practice the party will stop and rest when the Wizard is running low, so the X-5 aspect will rarely or never come into play. The result is a class that is always running at X + y, where Y is rarely or never lower than 0.

In the third link he explains that Paizo needed to test high-power late game when working on the concept for the Mythic rules, and outlines how the math breaks down in the late game.

That's a rough summary, if you get the chance I strongly recommend watching either the snippets I linked to or the entire interview. :)

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Being the cynical bastard I am I also can't help but think: I wonder what game(s) he'll be working on (or is trying to work on) since leaving Paizo and whether or not they will/do address these concerns he's all of a sudden decided to voice publicly.

But that's me being quite cynical.

I think your skepticism (a much nicer word than cynicism!) is healthy, and not entirely unfounded. SKR is a businessman selling a product, and he's spent a fair bit of time fixing his public relations issues by distancing himself from unpopular Wizards and Paizo policies. That said, I doubt he's downright lying about it. I would be very surprised to see a current member of the design team were to acknowledge the martial/caster disparity problem, or at least doing so without immediately following it up by announcing Paizo's variant of the Tome of Battle, which in itself seems unlikely to see the light of day. It's counterproductive to draw attention to your product's inadequacies unless you're selling a patch to fix said problem.

It's interesting you bring up the water balloon fight discussion. SKR goes into quite a bit of detail on that topic, outlines why crossbows are inherently worse than bows in 3.x because the system is (somewhat) grounded in realism, and how he's come to think that disparity is a bad thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
He states that the balance was done assuming that the wizard is strong as long as he has spells and weak after that while the fighter is always at half strength. But that actually no one keeps on adventuring while the wizard is weak so in the end you have always strong wizards and always mediocre fighters. ( recounted in my words)
I wish I could have bought him a drink at PaizoCon.

Me too. "Buy SKR a drink" kickstarter?


necromental wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Thanks for the summary of the link guys.

Nice paraphrased quote.

As for you John Lynch 106, I'm not that interested in replying to what you wrote, I will apologize if I said something offensive, I do get rather emotionally charged on here sometimes.

I'm gonna try to contribute something useful here:

Lots of threads exist about this, attempts have been made to talk about disparity, people have made houserules...

this thread is entitled "Why do Martials need better things"

They need better things because they are too focused. They can be good (or even very good) in combat, but lack flexibility.

At the very least, more skill points would be a start.

They need better things because virtually every class overshadows them.

They need better things because a new player should be able to pick ANY class with the expectation that the game is balanced enough to allow for that.

They need better things because they don't have enough nice things. They have OPTIONS, but not POWER. A well built Fighter can be OK at knocking people over. I've seen numbers showing their chances DECLINE against level appropriate opponents as they level.

They need better things because there seems to be a culture of people who are actively working against letting them even have the nice things they are entitled to.

It's okay if they go "Wuxia" or whatever term you want to use... It's okay if they suddenly gain ridiculous abilities like the ability to jump for miles... The baseline that any class should compare to is Wizard or Sorcerer.

Don't try to nerf casters, the game is supposed to be fun. Let Martials enjoy it too and stop worrying about whether or not their abilities are 'realistic'.

Nicely put. And again to those who insist on "no-disparity-no-need", why does it hurt you guys to have a VARIANT like Unchained 2 or Ultimate Combat 2 that deals with these issues.

I guess it doesn't. But I bought the Book of Nine Swords once, you can best believe I won't be tricked into buying it again. . .


Nathanael Love wrote:
necromental wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Thanks for the summary of the link guys.

Nice paraphrased quote.

As for you John Lynch 106, I'm not that interested in replying to what you wrote, I will apologize if I said something offensive, I do get rather emotionally charged on here sometimes.

I'm gonna try to contribute something useful here:

Lots of threads exist about this, attempts have been made to talk about disparity, people have made houserules...

this thread is entitled "Why do Martials need better things"

They need better things because they are too focused. They can be good (or even very good) in combat, but lack flexibility.

At the very least, more skill points would be a start.

They need better things because virtually every class overshadows them.

They need better things because a new player should be able to pick ANY class with the expectation that the game is balanced enough to allow for that.

They need better things because they don't have enough nice things. They have OPTIONS, but not POWER. A well built Fighter can be OK at knocking people over. I've seen numbers showing their chances DECLINE against level appropriate opponents as they level.

They need better things because there seems to be a culture of people who are actively working against letting them even have the nice things they are entitled to.

It's okay if they go "Wuxia" or whatever term you want to use... It's okay if they suddenly gain ridiculous abilities like the ability to jump for miles... The baseline that any class should compare to is Wizard or Sorcerer.

Don't try to nerf casters, the game is supposed to be fun. Let Martials enjoy it too and stop worrying about whether or not their abilities are 'realistic'.

Nicely put. And again to those who insist on "no-disparity-no-need", why does it hurt you guys to have a VARIANT like Unchained 2 or Ultimate Combat 2 that deals with these issues.
I guess it doesn't. But I bought the Book of Nine Swords once, you can...

I wasn't a fan of that one either TBH...

HOWEVER, now, if they put out a primarily Fighter oriented book, with feats requiring fighter levels and granting cool stuff... I would buy that.

3.x had so much power creep, all you had to do was Prestige Class-Win.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually you had lots of Prestige class suck, and occasional prestige class win, and then "OMG WTH were they thinking?!?".

===Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Actually you had lots of Prestige class suck, and occasional prestige class win, and then "OMG WTH were they thinking?!?".

===Aelryinth

Pale Master was a fun one. Played a game where monsters were allowed... made a half-black dragon wartroll (so immune to acid), pale master (immune to non-lethal damage)... regeneration was treated as non-lethal, so... NO HIT POINT DAMAGE!

It was fun.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Until they made a ruling that if your regen had no weakness, it was changed to fast healing.

But, yeah.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:
Finally, he talks about some of Paizo's experiences with high high-level games. This was eyeopening for me.

Holy crap, that is eyeopening to here that up until they were getting ready to write Mythic, they apparently had very little idea how high level play worked. That... explains a lot, really.


Aelryinth wrote:

Until they made a ruling that if your regen had no weakness, it was changed to fast healing.

But, yeah.

==Aelryinth

Ah, did not know that, we were using Epic rules from 3.0 at the time, and didn't care much about errata, or nerfing our characters. It got a bit out of control. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with putting out fighter only feats is that fighters are largely on par with casters (casters might be able to get into higher theoretical levels of killing stuff, but when a fighter can kill APL appropriate challenges in one turn it's really irrelevant) in combat as has been stated by most people in this thread multiple times. This is by using all of their current resources dedicated to killing stuff. If you start removing resources from them dedicated to killing stuff and start spending those resources on out of combat stuff, they'll start to fall behind in their ability to kill stuff.

Whatever you do to give fighters more narrative power (on par with the wizard/sorcerer) it needs to not be at the expense of their ability to kill stuff. Adding in fighter only feats to cover out of combat abilities would result in a power hit for their in combat abilities.

So no, I don't think a Fighter-oriented book that has fighter only feats is going to do anything with regards to the disparity. Instead you need to look at something that's additive rather than simply replacing existing abilities. And it needs to be additive in a way that won't give fighters more resources to spend on combat.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I honestly, think they need to go through every combat feat and maybe general feats and give it a utility oriented ability in conjunction with their current ability.

something they can do that they couldn't do before that isn't related to numbers.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bonus training feats!
More stats by Fighter levels to shore up weaknesses and reflect constant training!
More skill points!

oh, that would mean a class chassis rebuild. NM.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

The problem with putting out fighter only feats is that fighters are largely on par with casters (casters might be able to get into higher theoretical levels of killing stuff, but when a fighter can kill APL appropriate challenges in one turn it's really irrelevant) in combat as has been stated by most people in this thread multiple times. This is by using all of their current resources dedicated to killing stuff. If you start removing resources from them dedicated to killing stuff and start spending those resources on out of combat stuff, they'll start to fall behind in their ability to kill stuff.

Whatever you do to give fighters more narrative power (on par with the wizard/sorcerer) it needs to not be at the expense of their ability to kill stuff. Adding in fighter only feats to cover out of combat abilities would result in a power hit for their in combat abilities.

So no, I don't think a Fighter-oriented book that has fighter only feats is going to do anything with regards to the disparity. Instead you need to look at something that's additive rather than simply replacing existing abilities. And it needs to be additive in a way that won't give fighters more resources to spend on combat.

Good point. A new book could easily just ADD class features to the base class. I like that. Obviously having different/new feats would happen too, perhaps something along the lines of compressing feat chains/replacing existing feats with scaling ones that have less prerequisites.

I have made many a fighter, and despite the number of feats, it still feels like a Ranger in terms of choice: Do I want to be ranged, or... not ranged.

It would be much nicer if the base fighter stood out as an excellent CMB/CMD class, with specialization making them better against other members of their own class.

I mean, really, with a name like Fighter, you think they would be good at all the martial stuff, just saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I find it illuminating that he's waited until after leaving Paizo before expressing these ideas (haven't listened to these videos in detail, just going off initial impressions). Especially given his ardent stance on Pathfinder's rules being fine as they were written while employed by Paizo (see his claims regarding water balloons and crossbows). I wonder how long he's had these opinions.

From what he's said in the past, I get the sense that as long as he was working for Paizo he felt obligated to defend the official company line, regardless of any personal doubts or bits of the system he didn't like. I do recall him mentioning that a couple of the monk rulings the forum heard about through him were things he personally disagreed with, yet still got put on the spot trying to defend since back when he worked for Paizo he was pretty much the dev team's face on the forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder crossbows lol physics fail. Crossbows take longer to load than bows, not because they're made by or for idiots, but because they require more strength to pull. Because of the high draw strength a mechanical advantage is necessary which results in a slower draw. The net result is that when you pull the trigger they shoot really f-ing hard, because conservation of energy is a real thing. Not being able to get any effective strength bonus on a crossbow is silly. If it takes no strength to pull, it also takes no time or effort. Realistic crossbows would be something like 1 1/2 strength.

Obviously that ain't how it works in pathfinder, but for Paizo to claim their stance on crossbows is realism is incorrect. It's based on Legolas and an arbitrary rule of cool for bows, not science or anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chocobot wrote:

Pathfinder crossbows lol physics fail. Crossbows take longer to load than bows, not because they're made by or for idiots, but because they require more strength to pull. Because of the high draw strength a mechanical advantage is necessary which results in a slower draw. The net result is that when you pull the trigger they shoot really f-ing hard, because conservation of energy is a real thing. Not being able to get any effective strength bonus on a crossbow is silly. If it takes no strength to pull, it also takes no time or effort. Realistic crossbows would be something like 1 1/2 strength.

Obviously that ain't how it works in pathfinder, but for Paizo to claim their stance on crossbows is realism is incorrect. It's based on Legolas and an arbitrary rule of cool for bows, not science or anything.

Crossbows deal fixed damage because the bow is always drawn back to the same point. Users STR is not part of the equation, because a mechanical device is holding the string at the same place it always does until the trigger is pulled. Whether it is loaded by a STR 18 fighter or a STR 7 wizard, the string stops where it stops...

I do feel they should do more damage, however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
chocobot wrote:

Pathfinder crossbows lol physics fail. Crossbows take longer to load than bows, not because they're made by or for idiots, but because they require more strength to pull. Because of the high draw strength a mechanical advantage is necessary which results in a slower draw. The net result is that when you pull the trigger they shoot really f-ing hard, because conservation of energy is a real thing. Not being able to get any effective strength bonus on a crossbow is silly. If it takes no strength to pull, it also takes no time or effort. Realistic crossbows would be something like 1 1/2 strength.

Obviously that ain't how it works in pathfinder, but for Paizo to claim their stance on crossbows is realism is incorrect. It's based on Legolas and an arbitrary rule of cool for bows, not science or anything.

Crossbows deal fixed damage because the bow is always drawn back to the same point. Users STR is not part of the equation, because a mechanical device is holding the string at the same place it always does until the trigger is pulled. Whether it is loaded by a STR 18 fighter or a STR 7 wizard, the string stops where it stops...

I do feel they should do more damage, however.

realistically speaking, the pull of the crossbow is based on the same prinsibles of a bow.

Even more realistically, a crossbow should come with a strength rating of it's own, and the higher the rating, the more time it would need to be wound up.
ofc then we have a diferent problem, stronger charaacters could wind up harder pull crossbows faster (similar to how someone on a bicycle with gears can be faster or slower depending on his leg strength).

in order ofc to not have a convulted physicas system, but instead have a fun game system, the crossbows shold come with a strength rating that represent the average time (reload time) one with such strength needs to wound it.

so a crossbow(str 14) could be a move action if you have 14 str, a swift action if you have 16, a free action if you have 18. similary, someone could load it with 12 str if he had a stradard action, or even with 10 strength if he had a full round action.
despite the loading time, the damage would still be 1d10+2.

as for "realism" you can say that for higher strength you just use a different mechanism (like move action is the standard pulley, swift is a lever pulley, free action is just that you are so more strong than the pull that you can pull it with your bare hand, standard/full round action is just smaller gears in the pulley, so more turning(time) needed)

that seems much more realistic to crossbows not having str bonus, even though they can be beuild with the same pull strength (actually even higher) than a composite bow


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Bonus training feats!

More stats by Fighter levels to shore up weaknesses and reflect constant training!
More skill points!

==Aelryinth

Making/letting skills do more would be more useful. Someone who really masters a skill should be able to do things that aren't trivially duplicated by low level spells and surpassed by mid level ones. And you shouldn't be rolling to succeed, it should be automatic except in the most difficult cases. By the time the wizard has finished saying, "I prepared Levitation for just this," the Rogue should be at the top of the wall tossing a rope down. The sorceror who thinks Invisibility makes it impossible to notice him without magic should be stared at by the master detective. Where the wizard charms people one at at a time the demagogue should be moving whole crowds to action. While the priest prays for their god the master healer should be curing diseases and halting poison without the contents of their medicine bag. Make skill a better resource rather than a more plentiful one, something which magic supplements rather than supersedes. When you'd rather have someone doing things with their skills than their magic, then you're getting somewhere. Let magic be the solution to the things only magic can do; let skills (and I'm including combat ability) beat it elsewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
chocobot wrote:

Pathfinder crossbows lol physics fail. Crossbows take longer to load than bows, not because they're made by or for idiots, but because they require more strength to pull. Because of the high draw strength a mechanical advantage is necessary which results in a slower draw. The net result is that when you pull the trigger they shoot really f-ing hard, because conservation of energy is a real thing. Not being able to get any effective strength bonus on a crossbow is silly. If it takes no strength to pull, it also takes no time or effort. Realistic crossbows would be something like 1 1/2 strength.

Obviously that ain't how it works in pathfinder, but for Paizo to claim their stance on crossbows is realism is incorrect. It's based on Legolas and an arbitrary rule of cool for bows, not science or anything.

technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.


Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.

Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.
Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?

you pull crossbows back into a predetermined trigger mechanism as far as i'm aware.


The other thing to remeber is that a lot of crossbows usually had a mechanism to sperd up reloading...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.
Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?

crossbows are build with a strength rating irl.

if a crossbow has a 50lb pull, or a 200lb pull is fixed based on materials, strings, pull distance.

then, regardless if you pull it with 60 or 100, it will always fire at 50lb

that's why i said all crossbows in pf should have a straight strength rating, akin to composite longbows


Bandw2 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.
Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?
you pull crossbows back into a predetermined trigger mechanism as far as i'm aware.

Yeah, but say... But you need the strength to get there. If you have a trigger that requires you to pull the string further, wouldn't that in turn transfer add more force to the projectile?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
PIXIE DUST wrote:
The other thing to remeber is that a lot of crossbows usually had a mechanism to sperd up reloading...

more like make it possible to load for weaklings.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.
Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?
you pull crossbows back into a predetermined trigger mechanism as far as i'm aware.
Yeah, but say... But you need the strength to get there. If you have a trigger that requires you to pull the string further, wouldn't that in turn transfer add more force to the projectile?

yes


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

hmmm, maybe we could make a house rule that crossbows have a str mod, and sicne you load them with two hands you can use 1.5 your str mod to determine how strong of a crossbow you can load.


I hear the 'crossbows can pierce fullplate' thing a lot when they come up, but why can't bows do that if they had the same pull strength?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.
Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?

crossbows are build with a strength rating irl.

if a crossbow has a 50lb pull, or a 200lb pull is fixed based on materials, strings, pull distance.

then, regardless if you pull it with 60 or 100, it will always fire at 50lb

that's why i said all crossbows in pf should have a straight strength rating, akin to composite longbows

Yeah. that's what I was trying to get at. There is no reason for crossbows not to add Str modifier to damage. In fact, since the lever allows you to add more strength than you'd normally be capable of if you were just pulling it (because, you know... that's what levers do! Maximize strength!). There is an argument to be said that they should allow even greater strength. They could be the 2-handed weapons of ranged combat (the ones that require at least a move action to load, anyway, that way they would require 2 feats to full attack, but would then deal more damage than other options. The feat investment balances the damage boost).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Opuk0 wrote:
I hear the 'crossbows can pierce fullplate' thing a lot when they come up, but why can't bows do that if they had the same pull strength?

arrows are made of light materials, bolts, used in crossbows are much thicker and made with heavier materials, you;re basically firing a wooden stake with metal head and sometimes core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Opuk0 wrote:
I hear the 'crossbows can pierce fullplate' thing a lot when they come up, but why can't bows do that if they had the same pull strength?

due to the crank pulley system.

realistically, if one can pull a bow with enough strength to pierce a full plate, then if in the same thing you add a crank, multipling your strength by a factor of X (depending on how small the gear is, similar to how you use a low gear in a bicycle to go up a hill) then the resulting force of the bolt will ALWAYS be higher than an arrow.


Lemmy wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.
Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?

crossbows are build with a strength rating irl.

if a crossbow has a 50lb pull, or a 200lb pull is fixed based on materials, strings, pull distance.

then, regardless if you pull it with 60 or 100, it will always fire at 50lb

that's why i said all crossbows in pf should have a straight strength rating, akin to composite longbows

Yeah. that's what I was trying to get at. There is no reason for crossbows not to add Str modifier to damage. In fact, since the lever allows you to add more strength than you'd normally be capable of if you were just pulling it (because, you know... that's what levers do! Maximize strength!). There is an argument to be said that they should allow even greater strength. They could be the 2-handed weapons of ranged combat (the ones that require at least a move action to load, anyway, that way they would require 2 feats to full attack, but would then deal more damage than other options. The feat investment balances the damage boost).

about what i said a few posts up:

shroudb wrote:


in order ofc to not have a convulted physicas system, but instead have a fun game system, the crossbows shold come with a strength rating that represent the average time (reload time) one with such strength needs to wound it.

so a crossbow(str 14) could be a move action if you have 14 str, a swift action if you have 16, a free action if you have 18. similary, someone could load it with 12 str if he had a stradard action, or even with 10 strength if he had a full round action.
despite the loading time, the damage would still be 1d10+2.

as for "realism" you can say that for higher strength you just use a different mechanism (like move action is the standard pulley, swift is a lever pulley, free action is just that you are so more strong than the pull that you can pull it with your bare hand, standard/full round action is just smaller gears in the pulley, so more turning(time) needed)

that seems much more realistic to crossbows not having str bonus, even though they can be beuild with the same pull strength (actually even higher) than a composite bow


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Opuk0 wrote:
I hear the 'crossbows can pierce fullplate' thing a lot when they come up, but why can't bows do that if they had the same pull strength?
due to the crank pulley system.

You don't even need to go that far. A lot of crossbows were cocked by putting your foot on the bow and pulling up on the string using both hands (and your back and leg muscles, etc.) Obviously, your arms AND your back AND your legs are stronger than your arms alone, so you can pull a crossbow harder than a normal bow.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i personally enjoy method 4


Opuk0 wrote:
I hear the 'crossbows can pierce fullplate' thing a lot when they come up, but why can't bows do that if they had the same pull strength?

Crossbows had way higher pull strengths than bows.

Also, the English longbow supposedly can penetrate plate (testing I saw had found that it's true, although only from close range).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
LoneKnave wrote:
Opuk0 wrote:
I hear the 'crossbows can pierce fullplate' thing a lot when they come up, but why can't bows do that if they had the same pull strength?

Crossbows had way higher pull strengths than bows.

Also, the English longbow supposedly can penetrate plate (testing I saw had found that it's true, although only from close range).

Mongolian compound bows could pierce plate too i believe.


Bandw2 wrote:
hmmm, maybe we could make a house rule that crossbows have a str mod, and sicne you load them with two hands you can use 1.5 your str mod to determine how strong of a crossbow you can load.

after further consideration that should probably 1.5 for light crossbow, 2x for heavy crossbow(better mechanical advantage causes slower load), .5 for hand crossbow (cause it's tiny and offhand capable) Cost would be the same as bow str 100 for heavy, 75 for light, maybe 50 for hand.

And if you don't have the required str you just can't load it, period. Attaching different mechanisms or using longer actions is way too complicated. You can still shoot it if you get someone else to load it for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LoneKnave wrote:
Opuk0 wrote:
I hear the 'crossbows can pierce fullplate' thing a lot when they come up, but why can't bows do that if they had the same pull strength?
Crossbows had way higher pull strengths than bows.

Crossbows have way higher pull strength than (normal) bows, but a much shorter string, which means much less leverage to amplify the pull strength. If I could somehow make and deploy an eight-meter long bow, I could get unbelievable amounts of penetration using only a 20-30 pound pull.

Of course, that thirty pound pull would provide continuous acceleration for close to eight meters (because of the bow geometry), which in turn would mean that the arrow would be flying at an unbelievable rate. And I'd also need either to rig up some sort of ingenious launching system or I'd need an arrow that was eight meters long.

But that's why longbows have so much better penetration than self bows. Better leverage.

551 to 600 of 1,265 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do Martials need better things? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.