|
As title, a wishlist for weapons and armor that either should be in the game, or ones already in the game with lacking descriptions/rules.
Personally, I'd really like to see a one-handed or light chain as a weapon.
Totally should already be in the game, the classic low-level street gang weapon, and it's not in pathfinder. Yeah, kinda improvised, but if you've ever held a length of metal chain, you can tell really quick that it would definitely function as a real weapon with no changes in design.
I'd love to see things like trick weapons from Bloodborne, not for fanboyism but because I think martials should have access to various modes of engagement without the need to enchant several weapons and invest on Quick Draw.
A jian with specific stats. Longsword/rapier/temple sword doesn't really seem to cut it.
|
Reverse bladed katana, because I'm a Rurouni Kenshin fanboy.
I'd also like to see Broadswords added... Cause why do we have Shortswords and Gladius but not Broadswords?
Also Legio, Longsword is an ambiguous term that refers to a very wide variety of one-handed, two-handed and hand and a half swords... But the Pathfinder Longsword is merely a long-bladed Shortsword. Though you are right about Falchions, and Exotic weapons are made Exotic due to their need for specialized training with the specific weapon as opposed to being covered by general martial training.
I think there's enough weapons in the game as such and adding more isn't really a high priority. Now, quite a few could use some repair -- say, move greatclub to simple, make quarterstaves cooler than they are now.
I've mentioned earlier that I think bastard sword and dwarven waraxe proficiencies are a wasted feat. Not sure how you'd improve those tho.
>Longsword is not an ambiguous term in HEMA. It refers specifically to two handed swords of the late medieval and renaissance periods, and is distinct from greatswords or zweihanders. The longsword we have in game is an arming sword.
Well that's not much of a definition of a sword, now is it? Shouldn't it be defined through blade length/width/weight/form or other factors related to the blade itself, instead of the time period when it was actively used?
I would like a polearm with the monk special weapon ability. There's already monk reach weapons, but none are polearms.
OOOOH! A bokken that can be used in combat. I know there's an NPC in Jade Regent with one, but would need one in an actual weapons entry table if ever to be used in PFS.
Basically what they had for Jade Regent, but it still counted for katana-specific feats and abilities.
There is a Tengu-specific bokken too.
True, but since it's stated as wood katana that does d8 and bludgeoning damage, there's no way to upgrade an existing weapon into it slowly (or maybe I'm missing something and a regular katana becomes a wooden katana that does bludgeoning with a +12,000 gp upgrade cost). I'd like something a samurai character could start off with at level 1 for flavour reasons while still benefiting from Weapon Expertise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, weapon masters handbook gave us rules for making new weapons.
Make new weapons to your heart's content.
As for the inaccuracy of already existing weapons...I'm sorry that they don't fit your ideas of how they should be represented in game. Truly, it doesn't matter how the weapon "functioned" in "reality" because this is a game and the names are only names. The weapons will continue to primarily be chosen based on their mechanics.
I'd be more in favor of naming swords (for the game) as soemthing along the lines of
light sword 1
light sword 2 (exotic)
one-handed sword 1
one-handed sword 2
and so forth. Because for the most part, the mechanics are what matter to the game. Call it whatever you want it to be, as a GM you can call your scimitar whatever you want. As long as you treat it in all ways mechanically, as a scimitar.
The inaccuracies of names does bother me, but not as much as missing versions of the real options. Shields get it even worse. A real buckler is nothing like the in game buckler and there isn't really anything like a real buckler in the game. And light and heavy shields are always assumed to be strapped, even though many such shields were center grip.
|
The inaccuracies of names does bother me, but not as much as missing versions of the real options. Shields get it even worse. A real buckler is nothing like the in game buckler and there isn't really anything like a real buckler in the game. And light and heavy shields are always assumed to be strapped, even though many such shields were center grip.
Did a lot of them not just have a hoop you put your arm through then it had a centre grip? Unless that is exactly what your talking about then disregard this.
Many shields throughout history just had a center grip with no straps required. A strapped shield is really only good for mounted combat and maybe phalanx, where the extra mobility isn't as useful.
|
|
The inaccuracies of names does bother me, but not as much as missing versions of the real options. Shields get it even worse. A real buckler is nothing like the in game buckler and there isn't really anything like a real buckler in the game. And light and heavy shields are always assumed to be strapped, even though many such shields were center grip.Did a lot of them not just have a hoop you put your arm through then it had a centre grip? Unless that is exactly what your talking about then disregard this.
No, several shields that I have used are just a handle, no strap at all. Center grip shields are more common historically.
|
|
The inaccuracies of names does bother me, but not as much as missing versions of the real options. Shields get it even worse. A real buckler is nothing like the in game buckler and there isn't really anything like a real buckler in the game. And light and heavy shields are always assumed to be strapped, even though many such shields were center grip.Did a lot of them not just have a hoop you put your arm through then it had a centre grip? Unless that is exactly what your talking about then disregard this.No, several shields that I have used are just a handle, no strap at all. Center grip shields are more common historically.
Many shields throughout history just had a center grip with no straps required. A strapped shield is really only good for mounted combat and maybe phalanx, where the extra mobility isn't as useful.
Then why is it in game that all shields are strapped on? To slow down martial's? To pusnish weapon switching without taking quick draw and eating up action economy?
Then why is it in game that all shields are strapped on? To slow down martial's? To pusnish weapon switching without taking quick draw and eating up action economy?
I assume that originally it was just from faulty research back in the old days of DnD, and now it's almost traditional. Also, strapped shields are way more common in movies, because that's what knights used a lot, because of being mounted.
I'm not really sure how the buckler got so corrupted. Pretty much all bucklers were center gripped. The in game buckler is a little closer to being a bracer, though it's not really that either.
|
|
Reverse bladed katana, because I'm a Rurouni Kenshin fanboy.
I'd also like to see Broadswords added... Cause why do we have Shortswords and Gladius but not Broadswords?
Also Legio, Longsword is an ambiguous term that refers to a very wide variety of one-handed, two-handed and hand and a half swords... But the Pathfinder Longsword is merely a long-bladed Shortsword. Though you are right about Falchions, and Exotic weapons are made Exotic due to their need for specialized training with the specific weapon as opposed to being covered by general martial training.
Longsword is not an ambiguous term in HEMA. It refers specifically to two handed swords of the late medieval and renaissance periods, and is distinct from greatswords or zweihanders. The longsword we have in game is an arming sword.
Exotic weapons are not exotic in a great number of cases. The falcata is not a particularly exotic weapon, nor is the bastard sword, the kama is literally a sickle, the katana is the cultural equivalent of the arming sword in areas where it was prevalent, a khopesh is an ancient weapon, but not an exotic one, a dwarven longaxe or longhammer is a pollaxe or lucerne hammer (which is especially stupid since we already have a lucerne hammer), a sling staff was historically a simple weapon. These are all allegedly exotic weapons in pathfinder, not because they require specialized training to use, but because they are either better than other options, like the katana, or because they are uncommon weapons.
Broadsword, on the other hand, is an ambiguous neologism developed in the Victorian period to refer to certain sorts of older swords, and had very little fixed definition at the time. In modern parlance a broadsword could be assumed to refer to a sort of basket hilted sword prevalent in the 16th through 18th centuries, and distinct from the backsword only in that it has two sharpened edges, but even that is largely a modern way of figuring things.
I mostly stand corrected, particularly about arming swords. But longsword is still a generally ambiguous term that actually includes bastard swords in the umbrella and a few one-handed swords.
But yeah there are definitely a few exotic weapons that shouldn't be exotic. Like the Falcata and Kama.
However the Katana were a cultural equivalent to the arming sword in Japan... but only insofar as how wide-spread they were. The Japanese didn't really have an arming sword equivalent in terms of form and function, the Wakizashi is closest but is essentially a short-sword, though the Wakizashi should NOT be Exotic. As well the Nodachi was their version of a Greatsword (and why the hell is that one NOT Exotic? it's insanely unwieldy)
And speaking as someone who personally trained with a full-sized Katana for many years, they are absolutely not easy to use with a single hand. In Pathfinder they are martial if two-handed, exotic only if one-handed. Believe me it takes years of training to properly handle a katana with one-hand, even so most forms have you only briefing removing your offhand from the grip for one or two strikes. The Bastard sword is also considered martial when two-handed, exotic when one-handed. This seems perfectly reasonable given the size and weight of both the Bastard Sword and Katana
I assume that originally it was just from faulty research back in the old days of DnD, and now it's almost traditional. Also, strapped shields are way more common in movies, because that's what knights used a lot, because of being mounted.
There's a lot of annoying relics from early D&D, since Pathfinder is based on D&D Paizo can't be overly faulted for something like this as it's mostly just fluff anyways. They can't be expected to get EVERYTHING right. Personally I'm houseruling things like straps as accessories for shields the next time I GM a home game... among other changes.
I'm not really sure how the buckler got so corrupted. Pretty much all bucklers were center gripped. The in game buckler is a little closer to being a bracer, though it's not really that either.
Yeah this always bothered me. The IRL buckler is actually a type of targe, but even those targes' were pretty restrictive for what the free-hand could do (this is covered more or less by the penalty to attack rolls made with that hand).
The in game buckler resembles the targe, which was strapped to the forearm and used with a two handed sword.
Edit: ninjad
Targe still isn't a great fit, though it may be the closest. The targe is still pretty big and is what I usually think of as an in game light shield. Targes even occasionally had shield spikes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's sort of what I'm getting at. Realistically there are only so many stat-lines you need to define the mechanics of different weapons. Beyond that it's best to just use the stats for something similar. That's how "shortsword" and "longsword" are now. They're realistically just a generic set of mechanics for a broad range of similar weapons, many of which vary by quite a bit with regards to length/width/weight/shape etc.
So I guess my wishlist is for a shorter, more simplified weapon list as the standard.
My feeling is that the more curved blades should be the ones that have a wider crit range, while the more hacking style blades should be the ones with a higher multiplier. I guess you could just add curved and hacking as special weapon qualities and get that though.
If you file off the "deadly" property (which is a bit of a nonsense, really) the katana is just a bastard scimitar, which is otherwise missing from the game.
Need a polearm chainsaw. I have one in my shed but not in PF.
If you file off the "deadly" property (which is a bit of a nonsense, really) the katana is just a bastard scimitar, which is otherwise missing from the game.
Need a polearm chainsaw. I have one in my shed but not in PF.
That actually does already exist the Ripsaw Glaive
|
|
Do you really want me to get into Oakeshott typology? It's actually a very good definition, considering that longsword is a class of swords, as opposed to a specific sort of sword. There are a number of different types of longsword, categorized by Ewart Oakeshott as some of the types X through XXII, all with defining characteristics. By comparison, a Gladius Hispaniensis is a specific thing with a definite form and design. Longsword is a class of weapon, a longsword of a given type has the further defined characteristics you're looking for.>Longsword is not an ambiguous term in HEMA. It refers specifically to two handed swords of the late medieval and renaissance periods, and is distinct from greatswords or zweihanders. The longsword we have in game is an arming sword.
Well that's not much of a definition of a sword, now is it? Shouldn't it be defined through blade length/width/weight/form or other factors related to the blade itself, instead of the time period when it was actively used?
So what would you classify in the "Long Sword" Category?
Does it really matter what PF calls a certain weapon? Names will vary based on setting. shortsword<longsword<greatsword makes intuitive sense for putting things into the handedness categories PF uses. If I was statting out the Roman military, I would likely use "shortsword" stats rather than "gladius" stats.
Personally I'd replace the shortsword with the gladius for anyone using the little stabber. Since it is also kind'a a little slasher. The game already acknowledges slashing with the shorter (by definition) dagger, why not with a shortsword?
Truthfully, tho, about the only time I've found myself wanting weapons to be added were when I was wanting a two-handed good bludgeoner. Earthbreaker fits that quite well, and while it'd be nice to have a better crit range, for some reason 2d6 bludgeoning damage doesn't imply a lot of 'precision'. Oh well.
One other thing I wonder..why are hand- and throwing-axes considered separate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happened to types I toIX?
[joke] VII VIII IX [/joke]
[url=http://myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott.html[/url]
For anyone interested in what Legio is talking about here is a short write up as well as more information about the Oakeshott typologies. myArmoury is a wealth of knowledge about medieval weaponry for those interested in the history.
I would love to see more variations in weapons myself since there are so many that were used. I do understand though that it has to be streamlined or you can start to lose people when weapon liste get to large.
As for historical bucklers? I use light shields and say that they do not have to be strapped since they are center grip only as a house rule.
- Swordpike
- Two-handed martial spear (greatspear)
- Kontos
- Voulge
- Pike (basically a 15ft-long spear)
- Corseque
- Dagger-axe (Gee in Chinese)
- Broadsword
- More Gnome/Halfing/Orc racial weapons
- One-handed reach weapon that isn't a whip, like a longflail or longmace
- Weaponized musical instruments
- Bayonet for crossbows
- Punching dagger for bows
- Lance-like weapons, basically OTHER weapons that can be used one-handed while mounted