With you 100%. These days I always tell my GM my character is using an Arming Sword even though he clearly has a 1d8 Longsword on his character sheet.
I like these weapon versions. Good stuff to use for campaigns interested in historical verisimilitude. For high-fantasy games - maybe. Historically accurate or not, warriors wielding giant two-handed blades has become something of a fantasy trope that is hard to separate from certain canons.
One thing that strikes me as odd though is that this suddenly makes the martial Greataxe a superior two-handed option in the non-polearm department. I suppose you could take the next step and revamp axes and all that, but then while you're at it you might as well make blunt weapons more effective versus armor and then rewrite the whole system....
EDIT: Maybe not. I missed that war swords have Brace now.
Now if we had only some functional rules for half-swording that made it worth using. :P
Another potential issue I notice is that pretty much nobody is going to use the Arming Sword under these rules unless they intend to TWF with their Shield -- at a notable mechanical disadvantage and/or feat tax for doing so.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've long just wanted to strip the name of all the weapons and just have sets of mechanics.
Call it whatever the frack you want, it's your character.
Now you don't need a shortsword or gladius, you just have one set of identical stats.
I haven't looked to see how many weapons would could condense down into 1 set of mechanics, but I bet we could do quite a few (by also appending that a set of mechanics can be a bludgeoning or piercing or slashing weapon, but not in the connotation that exists now just that you can have a generic weapon with one of those three types).
Let the player decide what their weapon looks like and what to call it. As long as they're obeying the mechanics and limitations it shouldn't matter.
We would need to retool weapon groups for fighters, and maybe a few specific feats, but honestly I don't think it would be a big problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While a lot of things about the names of weapons are arguably wrong depending on what one's criteria are, it's worth remembering that names of archaic weapons never really had some definitive system. They changed over time and from place fo place. If a lot of names are based on common-culture usage that people are now used to... so what? That's how it's always worked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only complaint would be you have now removed the 2d6 2handed martial weapon from the game. The warsword doesn't take the place of the greatsword, it is a downgrade of it. That 2d6 is actually fairly important in maintaining the balance between 2 weapon and 2handed styles. Other then that its fine, I just personally don't care enough to make the change.
With you 100% Claxon. I have thought of tearing out all the names on the weapons, condense them down to a set of statistics based off of simple criteria: Damage Type, Proficiency Level, etc.
Most anything else I could extrapolate from a few known qualities, call it whatever you want, this GM doesn't care.
I've long just wanted to strip the name of all the weapons and just have sets of mechanics.
Call it whatever the frack you want, it's your character.
Now you don't need a shortsword or gladius, you just have one set of identical stats.
I haven't looked to see how many weapons would could condense down into 1 set of mechanics, but I bet we could do quite a few (by also appending that a set of mechanics can be a bludgeoning or piercing or slashing weapon, but not in the connotation that exists now just that you can have a generic weapon with one of those three types).
Let the player decide what their weapon looks like and what to call it. As long as they're obeying the mechanics and limitations it shouldn't matter.
We would need to retool weapon groups for fighters, and maybe a few specific feats, but honestly I don't think it would be a big problem.
It sounds like you might be interested in the weapon approach of a low-key d20 system called Legend.
http://www.ruleofcool.com/
Basically, you hand-pick the stats and flavor for your weapon. There's no definitive table of weapons. Every weapon starts out doing a d6 with no properties, and you choose a certain number of basic upgrades for it. So between two weapons of hypothetically equal power, one might deal more damage while another may have semi-unique abilities.
Oh shoot. I meant to change the arming sword to 1d8 damage. Too late to edit it now.
Oh. Well I dig the new arming sword, then. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank goodness they at least got armor correct, right?
^_^
That was the joke, yes.
The English language terminology used in the classification of swords is imprecise, and has varied widely over time. Historical terms without a universal consensus of definition (such as "broadsword", "long sword", "short-sword", "bastard sword", "great sword", "full-bladed sword", "side-sword", "dual-bladed sword" and "two-handed sword") were used to label weapons of similar appearance but of different historical periods and fabrication technology, often by describing their size or shape relative to other unrelated weapons, without regard to their intended use and fighting style. In modern times, many of these terms have been given specific, often arbitrary meanings that are unrelated to any of their historical meanings.
Medieval people (up to maybe 1400 a.d.) just called everything a "sword". Maybe they'd add "big sword" or "small sword" but they didn't care for classification like we do today. Modern collectors and historians started trying to come up with specific names to differentiate the weapons and of course everyone had their favorite system with arbitrary names.
Point being, there are several competing systems for classifying swords and each is just as valid as the next.
Kazaan,
Mostly well done.
Gladius / Shortsword should remain P/S
Yes, it's primary use was stabbing when used by the front line of a shield wall formation, and even more specifically, stabbing underhand through any tiny gaps in the wall. Attacks over the shield wall were done with spears / javelins (I know the right names, not using them) from the second rank.
When the formation broke, the shortsword was used as a stabbing and slashing weapon.
Surviving weapons show many if not most were sharpened at least halfway down the blade and show use damage supporting this.
EDIT Once the formation went down, the shortsword became a mucking big knife and the battle become a free for all street-fight.
Remember though, you made this suggestion for a game where a locked shields shield wall, let alone a turtle or hedgehog formation is not possible. The gospel is that you can only have one medium sized combatant in a 5 foot square. While the roots of the game are from wargames, the simulation part was tossed very, very early.
How would you classify the Highland Claymore or German Zweihänder swords? I always felt that these were the basis for the D&D/Pathfinder Greatsword and neither would be particularly useful for bracing against a charge.
The Zweihander was very much a niche weapon.
It was the counter to the pike formations. Ahead of the main formation, you sent out a bunch of desperate men, usually "volunteered" to avoid execution, with Zweihanders to break up the pike formations before the main formation hit. These volunteers were called the Forlorn Hope and, unsurprisingly, they usually died.
Now, since desperate men generally did not want to die, they did come up with fighting styles that traded off the huge damage of a baseball style swing for a more survivable but less damaging combat style. This of course made them less effective at their designated purpose.
Since this is a non-simulationists game...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that bothers many people is the legacy of incorrect sword terminology that rose out of D&D and has been perpetuated throughout games, both tabletop like Pathfinder as well as working its way into computer-based RPGs. So what would a proper sword spectrum look like for Pathfinder? {. . .}
Good idea, but needs some tweaks, including that not everybody is the same height (even just among Humans), an issue not mentioned in Shab's videos. Also want to make use of Kirthfinder's concept of weapons giving more benefits as you get higher proficiency.
1) Shortsword: light martial weapon, 1d6(p) damage, 19-20/x2 crit
This needs to be P or S, like the Gladius. Not sure what to put in if you get Exotic proficiency with it.
2) Arming Sword: 1-h martial weapon, 1d6(p or s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, no benefit from using two-handed but, if proficient, is treated as light for TWF penalties, treated as shortsword for feats and abilities.
Change 1d6 to 1d8, as noted above. If you gain Exotic proficiency with it, you can also gain two-handed fighting technique benefits with it.
3) Bastard Sword: 1-h martial weapon, 1d8 damage(p or s), 19-20/x2 crit, treated as Longsword for feats and abilities (eg. Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, etc).
No change here (beyond yours).
4) Longsword: 1-h exotic weapon, 1d10(s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, if lacking exotic proficiency, you must treat is as a 2-h martial weapon, treated as full 2-h weapon when wielded in two hands.
Add that if you have Exotic proficiency with it, you can alternatively choose to do Piercing damage instead of Slashing.
5) War Sword: 2-h martial weapon, 1d10(s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, brace, treated as Longsword for feats and abilities.
"War Sword" sounds awfully redundant -- really needs a better name. Shab called it a Longsword, but the handle really looks more like the Greatsword handle, so it does need its own category. Note that for somebody not as tall as the modern average, but more in line with the Medieval/Renaissance average, a sword this large might well hit the ground like a Greatsword if you tried to use it like a Longsword. This would also be true for somebody short (especially having short arms and legs) like a Dwarf -- for them it should be treated like a Greatsword below, including needing Exotic proficiency.
Also upgrade to 1d12 (or maybe 2d6) Slashing or Piercing -- if you are going to use Brace with a weapon that doesn't have some kind of wing blades, you are going to be using it to do Piercing damage, not Slashing, even if you do Slashing most of the rest of the time.
Also add the Disarm and Sunder properties to it, but only against Polearms, and only if you have Exotic proficiency.
6) Greatsword: 2-h exotic weapon, 2d6(s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, brace, can be used as if you have the Lunge feat, if you actually have the Lunge feat you can use it without taking AC penalty (for this weapon only), in Polearms fighter weapon group.
If the previous size of sword is upgraded to 2d6 damage, make this one do 3d4. Also see note above about adding Piercing damage (usually when you use Brace. It isn't a true Polearm (the handle is very different), so I would leave it in Heavy Blades -- making it Exotic should be enough.
As with the previous size of sword, add the Disarm and Sunder properties to it, but only against Polearms, and only if you have Exotic proficiency.
Sorry for asking for confirmation. I sometime have an hard type reading tones.
In my defense, I did include a smiley, though it's a more eastern-based emoticon. ^_^
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons
Just had a thought (well, actually earlier today, but this was the first that I could post):
The sword between the Longsword and the Arming Sword would get the name Bastard Longsword.
The sword between the Greatsword and the Longsword would get the name Bastard Greatsword.
This seems like a reasonable compromise between historical accuracy and modern RPG convention.