|
Hi all I got a question in regards armor and weapons in regards to Pathfinder RPG and what we know from current historical archeological finds.
Looking at the Core, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Equipment rule books there is a discrepancy in the books vs. documented archeological finds.
As an example, a chain shirt is listed as weighing 25 pounds in the Core Rulebook.
Historically accurately recreated chain mail shirts with 6mm or 8mm diameter rings, 1mm thick, 4 in 1 pattern weigh in at about 12-15. ( yes, I actually own one and it really will stop a blade or arrow, but that is a whole different topic :) )
Based on the item description, what is accounting for the additional weight? Even if you toss in the weight of a complimentary infantry helmet and a leather/padded subarmalis you still don't get to 25 pounds.
I was thinking perhaps that the extra weight might be to account for just the affect on wearing armor, but should not the Armor Check Penalty, Max Dexterity, and and adjusted movement rates already address that?
Thanks and looking forward to anyone's comments and feedback.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you keep thinking off these sorts of questions you will go crazy, or have 300 pages of adjustments and house errata. Just remember that people can fly and throw fireballs in this game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just did some quick Google searching and almost everyone cited 25 lbs for a mail shirt. For example.
That's listed at 11.5 kg, which is about 25.3 lbs.
So...maybe your mail shirt is just unusually light as these things go.
A cursory search shows other armors coming in at around the same weight as the book lists, too.
|
|
This is all old news for D&D in general. The weights are mostly based on what sounded cool, or how it looked like in Conan. The part where I start facepalming is when the Rapier is used as a DEX based weapon, lol.
That's not getting into how the names of weapons are horribly wrong.
This is definitely true in general, and I'm not disputing it. I just did a bit of quick research, and they actually seem to have gotten armor weights vaguely correct.
Why shouldn't Rapiers be used as DEX based weapons? It seems to fit with the description of piranha strike: "You make a combination of quick strikes, sacrificing accuracy for multiple, minor wounds that prove exceptionally deadly." Focused on quick stabbing and and deadly ripostes more than brute strength.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, the armour weights are hit or miss. You can find "evidence" to support it either way depending on where you look. Some of it's reasonable, such as full plate being close in weight to period tournament armour, though that was technically heavier than the full plate that would have been worn by soldiers in the field since it was sports gear rather than fighting gear. Some of it's less reasonable, such as much of the maille which is closer to modern recreation armour which is usually made of thicker wire than period maille.
One thing to keep in mind is that the concepts of "fantasy" armour in most RPGs are anachronisms dating to what we knew of history back when the original D&D came out. That was an understanding of history which was based less on actual history and more on the Victorian idea of reconstructionism (the origin of Vikings supposedly wearing horned helms, for example) which sometimes led to the Victorians just making shit up that sounded cool/plausible. It's not until very recently (in a relative historical sense) western culture started actually getting interested in and rediscovering the truth behind its own lineage of martial arts. Even then, most game designers leave that stuff in as a sort of homage to our collective gaming roots rather than stress over realism and/or accuracy.
Rapiers as DEX based weapons, if you're pushing for realism, really comes down to which period/style of rapier, which school of fencing, and what style of combat you're looking at.
Early period rapiers with the more spike-like blade with a thick cross section were absolutely more STR based and could puncture armour with a solid thrust. Later period dueling rapiers were thinner, lighter and much more of a "swish & flick" affair that relied on quickness and placement but were often only really used in a "to the blood" style of organized combat.
If you keep thinking off these sorts of questions you will go crazy, or have 300 pages of adjustments and house errata. Just remember that people can fly and throw fireballs in this game.
Dude, this. Just so much this. People can be invisible, fly, and shoot magical rainbows that knock people unconscious and blind them. Not to mention an acolyte priest can grow your arm back if it gets chopped off.
Why worry about it? I mean, unless you have a metric crapton of time on your hands and you just like researching these things to pass the hours, then, by all means, have at it.
|
|
This is some great dialogue and while I am happy to play by the posted rules, but it seems to confirm that there was a lot guessing or minimal research in some cases.
Don't get me wrong, awesome fantasy RPG, I was just wondering if ther was a logical reason for the weights, STR vs DEX based weapons logic, slashing vs piercing, etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This game is not historical or historically accurate.
This is some great dialogue and while I am happy to play by the posted rules, but it seems to confirm that there was a lot guessing or minimal research in some cases.
Don't get me wrong, awesome fantasy RPG, I was just wondering if ther was a logical reason for the weights, STR vs DEX based weapons logic, slashing vs piercing, etc...
The 1st edition of the game was written at a time when finding accurate descriptions of weapons and armor was nearly impossible and most of the information was drawn from fantasy and straight from Gygax's mind. He didn't have much in the way of sources, since this was all pre-internet.
It's easy to say it's wrong now, but back then most people had no idea, and accuracy wasn't even the important thing. It was about representing the fantasy aspects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further, a lot of "weights" in the game also reflect "difficulty to carry" so that they interact appropriately with the encumbrance rules. They're less showing how light or heavy an object is, but more what Strength score you need to carry these various items around without difficulty.
Everybody has a different style of game that they're trying to create. That's the nice thing with house rules. If you envision a chain shirt being fairly light, then you can house rule it so.
Keep in mind that if a house rule makes an item so good that everyone is going to want it, it is probably a bad house rule.
I'd also caution (as others have) that using realism as a reason to change things can often have unintended consequences.
Much better to use "because I like this way better" as your reason.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What really bothers me is how absolutely horrible a crossbow is in game when it was the most deadly weapon of war in the Middle Ages. I guess every crossbowman unit was full of fifth level bolt ace gunslingers.
Not so much that the crossbow was more deadly then a sword or bow. What made the crossbow so popular was that it took less time to train peasants to use a crossbow then it did to train them to use a bow. Nor did you have to be particularly strong to use one. The higher pull crosbows had mechanical wenches to cock them. All you had to do was turn a crank. Mid range ones you put your foot in a stirrup and stood up. Difficult, but not impossible.
All this meant you (the nobleman) could quickly field dozens, maybe even hundreds of people with the stopping power of an expert long bowman.
True, the power of the crossbow was it's ease of use compared to a longbow.
It took hundreds of hours (a lifetime of training) to have a good longbowman, but a peasant could be taught to use a crossbow with relative ease. The crossbow was more expensive to manufacture, but you didn't need to maintain a standing unit of crossbowman. You had to feed, cloth, and care for your units of longbowman to ensure their loyalty to you, health, and most importantly their ability to fight.
The crossbow had the same power as a longbow, but didn't have the training requirements nor did crossbowman have the upkeep costs. And that's why it was so damn effective.
What really bothers me is how absolutely horrible a crossbow is in game when it was the most deadly weapon of war in the Middle Ages. I guess every crossbowman unit was full of fifth level bolt ace gunslingers.
Absolutely horrible? I guess I'd disagree with that. A heavy crossbow is a simple weapon, which means virtually everyone can use it, and for the price of one feat your character is capable of doing d10 damage per combat round, possibly critting on a 19+, and all that is from a range of up to 120 feet. Especially at low levels, that is pretty darn pernicious.
|
What really bothers me is how absolutely horrible a crossbow is in game when it was the most deadly weapon of war in the Middle Ages. I guess every crossbowman unit was full of fifth level bolt ace gunslingers.Absolutely horrible? I guess I'd disagree with that. A heavy crossbow is a simple weapon, which means virtually everyone can use it, and for the price of one feat your character is capable of doing d10 damage per combat round, possibly critting on a 19+, and all that is from a range of up to 120 feet. Especially at low levels, that is pretty darn pernicious.
Except when you compare it to a composite longbow, (A martial weapon, but proficiency can be gained with a trait) which can be doing 2d8 per round with rapid shot assuming a 10 STR. If you have a positive STR bonus, it pulls even further ahead. It gets even worse when you get to manyshot.
Frankly, a heavy crossbow isn't worth it until you get crossbow mastery, and even then it is still 2 feats behind an an equivalent longbow user.
|
True, the power of the crossbow was it's ease of use compared to a longbow.
It took hundreds of hours (a lifetime of training) to have a good longbowman, but a peasant could be taught to use a crossbow with relative ease. The crossbow was more expensive to manufacture, but you didn't need to maintain a standing unit of crossbowman. You had to feed, cloth, and care for your units of longbowman to ensure their loyalty to you, health, and most importantly their ability to fight.
The crossbow had the same power as a longbow, but didn't have the training requirements nor did crossbowman have the upkeep costs. And that's why it was so damn effective.
And in sieges they were arguably even superior to the longbow. An arbalest only got about 2 shots per minute vs. the longbow's 12ish, but when you can duck behind a stone wall or wicker fortification to reload, it doesn't matter as much. Another advantage - to fire it you didn't have to make as much of yourself a target above the wall. Also, per shot it probably had a bit more oomph, at least at closer ranges.
But yes - it was mostly used because it made an ill trained peasant army a threat to armored troops.
|
What really bothers me is how absolutely horrible a crossbow is in game when it was the most deadly weapon of war in the Middle Ages. I guess every crossbowman unit was full of fifth level bolt ace gunslingers.Absolutely horrible? I guess I'd disagree with that. A heavy crossbow is a simple weapon, which means virtually everyone can use it, and for the price of one feat your character is capable of doing d10 damage per combat round, possibly critting on a 19+, and all that is from a range of up to 120 feet. Especially at low levels, that is pretty darn pernicious.Except when you compare it to a composite longbow, (A martial weapon, but proficiency can be gained with a trait) which can be doing 2d8 per round with rapid shot assuming a 10 STR. If you have a positive STR bonus, it pulls even further ahead. It gets even worse when you get to manyshot.
Frankly, a heavy crossbow isn't worth it until you get crossbow mastery, and even then it is still 2 feats behind an an equivalent longbow user.
I think the point people are trying to make is that in both historical and game mechanics terms the crossbow is a very good weapon for the untrained user. If you put the investment of lots of training into each of them, the longbow does come out better. But as a basic "I have a bunch of peasants to defend my keep" or "my 2nd level cleric doesn't have any ranged attacks" the crossbow is the more efficient choice.
This a game mechanic to allow encumbrance rules to work. It's not going to match up with real life. It works in the game though.
However, if you had the luxury of training Longbowmen, they were much more effective than crossbows. The rate of fire higher than 8 to 1!
Henry V and Agincourt are lots of fun to study. Though French stupidity played into their loss as much as the English Longbow (and Henry's savvy at picking his battleground).
Except when you compare it to a composite longbow, (A martial weapon, but proficiency can be gained with a trait) which can be doing 2d8 per round with rapid shot assuming a 10 STR. If you have a positive STR bonus, it pulls even further ahead. It gets even worse when you get to manyshot.Frankly, a heavy crossbow isn't worth it until you get crossbow mastery, and even then it is still 2 feats behind an an equivalent longbow user.
Okay, I get that, but if you look at your hypothetical and my hypothetical, you are talking about investing in an ability score, two feats, and minimum 200 gp to get an additional 1-7 damage; My character only invested one feat and 50 gp. So from a simple economy standpoint, heavy crossbow wins. And, I'd daresay that if you start looking at actual economy of character investment, the crossbow is as good, or only slightly less good than its longbow counterpart at mid to high levels.
|
|
I can't believe there are crossbow defenders still. With crossbow mastery and such you are still behind a composite longbow in everything but gold cost - the least important weapon stat. Without DEX to damage it is never worth it and only gets worse.
A Bolt Ace is great, but crossbows are miles behind bows.
Nobody is arguing this, actually. Crossbows suck as compared to bows for non-Bolt Ace PCs. PCs are well trained and elite warriors, though.
What people are talking about here is armies. Of, like 3rd level people with little money and possibly lacking default martial weapon proficiency.
For them, crossbows are probably better.
|
|
I can't believe there are crossbow defenders still. With crossbow mastery and such you are still behind a composite longbow in everything but gold cost - the least important weapon stat. Without DEX to damage it is never worth it and only gets worse.
A Bolt Ace is great, but crossbows are miles behind bows.
I don't think anyone is defending them for character use. (sans the aforementioned Bolt Ace) But that doesn't mean that they're not a solid NPC weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crossbows may not be an OPTIMIZED weapon of choice but that doesn't change it being a valid weapon of choice.
Warriors are going to be better off with a longbow and PBS.
For experts light crossbow + rapid reload and MWP(longbow) is a complete wash. Heavy Crossbow wins for damage but you're effectively taking a full round action to fire and reload. Light Crossbow also has an edge here for being functional without a feat.
Commoners only get one simple weapon though, so what they can use is all up in the air based on that.
What really seems odd to me though, and the biggest point for crossbows over regular bows, is how cheap they are. 35 gold for a light crossbow, 50 gold for a heavy crossbow, 75 for a longbow and 100 for a composite longbow +0.
Those numbers seem weird to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
same thing as always when this terrible type of thread comes up
because dragons
Crossbows may not be an OPTIMIZED weapon of choice but that doesn't change it being a valid weapon of choice.
If we're going that route, why pay for a crossbow for all those peons when free slings are a valid choice?
sling carry str modifiers though, your starved peasants might have STR as their dump stat.
Does doing less DPS make them less valid? Isn't Fourshadow's point that even if the crossbow is less effective it's still valid? Same for the sling right?
Secondly, aren't they much more likely to dump a mental stat? I'd think any conscripted peasant is at least breaking even.
Thirdly, commoners only get 1 weapon proficiency so I think taking one that's free with free ammo have a LOT of appeal. They're starving after all, so they'd spend the cash on food not weapons. ;)
If they were smart they wouldn't have dumped their int.
If they where smart, they wouldn't be peasant. Smart ones grow up to be experts! ;)
|
|
If they were smart they wouldn't have dumped their int.
I laughed SO hard upon reading this.
That said, the three most common weapons peasants were typically trained to use when conscripted were the spear, crossbow, and pitch fork. Pitch forks were because many farmers would bring it with them. It's something familiar. Spears and crossbows didn't take long to teach the conscripts how to use. Remember, these were not professional solders. These were farmers, bakers, and coopers. They were the townsfolk and country folk who got called up to war.
Also remember that quite often if you called up your peasants to war, in the fall they WOULD be heading home. They'd have to, otherwise there would be no crops harvested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are whole layers of absurdity to debating whether a rapier is DEX or STR in real life. DEX-or-STR is a strange abstraction of such colossal properties that it dwarfs things like appropriate item weight.