It's always sort of annoyed me that you can't have a swashbucklker with a hammer, or a bladebound estoc or so on. Especially when these distinctions don't really have any balance implications behind them. Wondering if anyone else feels the same.
Martials aren't allowed to have nice things.
I think it's in the hard-coding of 3.5's OGL somewhere, and it's legacy that's made it into Pathfinder.
I comcur, and therefore ignore most of said requirements as a houserule.
It's always sort of annoyed me that you can't have a swashbucklker with a hammer, or a bladebound estoc or so on. Especially when these distinctions don't really have any balance implications behind them. Wondering if anyone else feels the same.
Swashbuckler with a hammer? Seriously? That's your big hangup? I really can't see Zorro or Erroll Flynn with a hammer.
And yeah the estoc does have a balance hangup, otherwise you wouldn't be pushing for it.
I do wish that I could have a Bladebound Staff Magus. It is an obscure reference, but I want to wield a special black staff.
I do wish that I could have a Bladebound Staff Magus. It is an obscure reference, but I want to wield a special black staff.
I'm going with... Dresden Files.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish that I could have a Bladebound Staff Magus. It is an obscure reference, but I want to wield a special black staff.
Being a baby stormbringer isn't the only way to have a "special black staff". Ask Khelbun "Blackstaff" Arunsun sometime.
I do wish that I could have a Bladebound Staff Magus. It is an obscure reference, but I want to wield a special black staff.I'm going with... Dresden Files.
Actually, it is from a Sword and Sorcery setting for Savage Worlds, but both may have similar inspiration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sort of related, but it always irked me that wide crit range weapons have so much more support then high crit multiplier. Swashbucklers regain grit on crits, and there are all sorts of crit fishing feats - but there is nothing for the dude with a hammer.
To add insult to injury, high crit weapons are generally worse since much of their power gets wasted on overkill.
I do wish that I could have a Bladebound Staff Magus. It is an obscure reference, but I want to wield a special black staff.
If it's neither Khelben Arunsun nor Stormbringer, it is really obscure, so cough it up, it might be interesting.
I do wish that I could have a Bladebound Staff Magus. It is an obscure reference, but I want to wield a special black staff.If it's neither Khelben Arunsun nor Stormbringer, it is really obscure, so cough it up, it might be interesting.
In a Sword and Sorcery setting for Savage Worlds, there is a type of spellcaster that is very relies on a special Blackstaff to cast spells through.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see hammer swashbucklers being particularly flavorful - precise strike should totally work with bludgeoning weapons, mind. There is truth to the damage of a well placed hammer strike.
I DO think there should really be a quarterstaff-based swashbuckler.
The class would be perfect for the flashy, defensive weapon, and it's a weapon in desperate need of some class/archetype based support.
Not to say hammers (and axes) don't need support, of course. Knight Magenta is spot on about how the x3 and x4 crit weapons, especially hammers, need more support. Bolt Ace is the closest we get.
Other than that, I don't really find the locking particularly frustrating. Magus's one-handed restriction makes sense, and I think it just shouldn't have scaled spellstrike criticals in any way at all.
Investigators's restrictions limiting the Inspired weapon enchant is probably the only one that really annoys me from a personal perspective. Some of the favored-weapon only divine archetypes and prestige classes are annoying too.
Im more annoyed by the general plague of useless and arbitrary reatrictions that prevade the system. Theres a lot of justification after the fact, but in the end no real reason you cabt have a two handed magus or spear wielding swashbuckler. Its usually alleviated by archetypes, but I think thats more of a curse than boon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler with a hammer? Seriously? That's your big hangup? I really can't see Zorro or Erroll Flynn with a hammer.And? Someone who'd build such a character wouldn't be trying to play Zorro in the first place, obviously.
And yeah the estoc does have a balance hangup, otherwise you wouldn't be pushing for it.And what balance issue is that? Because it was really just a random example to show how arbitrary the restrictions are, since mechanically it's just a slightly bigger rapier (which is a valid target for bladebound). It's actually not a very impressive weapon.
Though I find your belief that the only reason someone could want something is so they could cheat the system to be both very amusing and very disheartening. What do you get out of assuming such bad faith in a discussion?
The estoc is a 2d4 weapon with an 18-20 crit range. I find it rather hard to believe that it's a random choice example.
And gaming the system is an old gamer passtime, especially in a Charop venue like this one.
The estoc is a 2d4 weapon with an 18-20 crit range. I find it rather hard to believe that it's a random choice example.And gaming the system is an old gamer passtime, especially in a Charop venue like this one.
Exotic Weapon proficiency feat for an increase of 1.5 in average damage over a rapier (or scimitar, the most swashbuckly of weapons) doesn't quite trip the "gaming the system" alarms for me.
And what does the Estoc provide that the Katana, Rhoka Sword, and Urumi (perfectly usable swords with the Swashbuckler class, but without the historic dueling background of the Estoc) do not? 0.5 average damage? Why does that trip the powergaming alarms?
Weapon Versatility allows to switch between the three physical damage types, so a warhammer would work. Needs still a bit of GM fiat, but given you invest a feat (plus Weapon Focus as prerequisite)...
Weapon Versatility allows to switch between the three physical damage types, so a warhammer would work. Needs still a bit of GM fiat, but given you invest a feat (plus Weapon Focus as prerequisite)...
Honest question here, but would that change things really? A swashbuckler needs a one handed piercing weapon. The feat would allow a hammer to do piercing but would it make it a piercing weapon?
I ask because we were discussing the estoc earlier and it's wording makes it clear that weapon finesse doesn't make it a light weapon just allows you to treat it as such so there's precedent for table Variance there.
It doesn't need to be a light weapon. In fact, the estoc works perfectly fine for the Swashbuckler's abilities since it is a one-handed weapon and the Swashbuckler's abilities rely on "a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon" to work.
The problem is that it isn't a light or one-handed slashing weapon (for Slashing Grace), it isn't a rapier (for Dueling Grace), and it isn't a Starknife (for Starry Grace). You're giving up a lot by not using a weapon in one of those categories.
Of course, you could just give up on the Dex-based swashbuckler and make a Str-based swashbuckler who uses an estoc. Alternately, you could use a Morningstar two-handed under the assumption that it doesn't stop being a one-handed piercing weapon when its used two-handed, if you want to game the system. Kinda trashes the flavor, though, in my opinion.
Edit: I realize now that I missed the point where Estoc was paired with bladebound magus and warhammer was paired with Swashbuckler. My mistake and I didn't mean to move this from a "hard restriction" discussion to a "soft restriction" discussion.
The feat would allow a hammer to do piercing but would it make it a piercing weapon?
As said, needs still a bit of GM fiat.
Depends on the mechanic. For the fighter? It works. For the swashbuckler or gunslinger? I feel those classes are too narrow in focus.
Nope, works for me.
Depends on the mechanic. For the fighter? It works. For the swashbuckler or gunslinger? I feel those classes are too narrow in focus.
The whole point of those classes is to focus on a specific style of combat. You pick the swashbuckler to swash, and the gunslinger to shoot.
I hate that a heavy pick, or spiked heavy shield is a legit weapon for a swashbuckler, but not a cutlass. What pirate in his right mind uses a rapier? They give you an archetype for scimitars, whips, falcatas, throwing daggers, guns, one that NEEDS rapiers, but not even the pirate(corsair) archetype can use the most iconic pirate sword without two feats?
I hate that a heavy pick, or spiked heavy shield is a legit weapon for a swashbuckler, but not a cutlass. What pirate in his right mind uses a rapier? They give you an archetype for scimitars, whips, falcatas, throwing daggers, guns, one that NEEDS rapiers, but not even the pirate(corsair) archetype can use the most iconic pirate sword without two feats?
I'm in a Skull & Shackles PbP right now, and my pirate PC (arcane duelist bard) uses a rapier, thank you kindly. Though I do recall at the start griping that it's aggravating that all these new weapons were created after the CRB and no one gets to use them unless they had proficiency in all simple/martial weapons; for classes like the bard and rogue, with an unusual set of weapon proficiencies, it was annoying. I would've like saber and cutlass proficiencies, but I don't mind a rapier. Your point stands however :)
While samurai historically used many weapons besides katana, though I find it difficult to separate this iconic weapon to the samurai class. Historically samurai used the composite long bow, katana, wakizashi, some used spears, some used arquebus, some even used throwing stars to disable attackers, but katana is still an iconic samurai weapon, as currently built into the class.
wasn't the arquebus (teppo) an ignoble weapon reserved for ashigaru?
wasn't the arquebus (teppo) an ignoble weapon reserved for ashigaru?
Eventually yes, but when the arquebus was first introduced to daimyo in Kyushu by Portuguese traders, the first to use arquebus were samurai. Nobunaga then began training ashigaru to use it for massive volleys during the Sengoku Period, about 30 years after their introduction.
Teppou Bushi as a gunslinger archetype are included in the Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror as part of Way of the Samurai (PFRPG)
It's always sort of annoyed me that you can't have a swashbuckler with a hammer, or a bladebound estoc or so on. Especially when these distinctions don't really have any balance implications behind them. Wondering if anyone else feels the same.
Nope. The rules as published are usually pretty good and if I want an exception at our home table I talk to my GM and explain what I want to do and we usually come to a balance consensus on the idea.
The only time this is ever an issue from my viewpoint would be if the combo would be a power problem at a table or for folks in organized play who absolutely HAVE to have that special flower character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. The rules as published are usually pretty good and if I want an exception at our home table I talk to my GM and explain what I want to do and we usually come to a balance consensus on the idea.The only time this is ever an issue from my viewpoint would be if the combo would be a power problem at a table or for folks in organized play who absolutely HAVE to have that special flower character.
I guess it's good to know ahead of time what will cause more ire at the table -- playing the "classic" Scimitar + Heightened Shocking Grasp Bladebound Magus or the Special Snowflake <weapon exception required> Bladebound Magus.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support the idea of different sorts of weapons enabling meaningfully-different combat experiences. For example, I would like for a glaive specialist and a rapier specialist to feel different in gameplay. The same goes for defense (and other elements) as well: I'd like for someone who mainly dodges incoming attacks to feel different from the guy who defends himself with full plate and a shield.
But Pathfinder approaches this concept in a really bizarre and self-contradictory fashion.
On the one hand, the level of differentiation between weapons is extreme. I've lost count of how many different versions of "one-handed sword with curved blade" there are, and each one has unique stats. The list of mechanically-differentiated weapons is unbelievably long. Furthermore, as the OP notes, many class abilities or other mechanics require that you invest in a very particular weapon (and might also require you to wield that weapon in a specific way) in order to get a benefit.
But on the other hand, 99% of the time the net result of picking a weapon and investing in it is not the ability to have a meaningfully-different gameplay experience, but simply to be able to deal a level-appropriate amount of damage with your full-attack. Just like everybody else.
So Pathfinder's weapon system has all the complexity of a deeply diversified and robust combat simulation, but none of the depth that such complexity is supposed to enable.
So to answer the OP's question: I like what Pathfinder thinks it's doing by attaching class features to specific weapons, but I don't like what it's actually doing.
While samurai historically used many weapons besides katana, though I find it difficult to separate this iconic weapon to the samurai class. Historically samurai used the composite long bow, katana, wakizashi, some used spears, some used arquebus, some even used throwing stars to disable attackers, but katana is still an iconic samurai weapon, as currently built into the class.
The difference is that the Samurai can use all of those weapons, and only it's Weapon Expertise relies on a certain weapon, and he can choose from the katana, longbow, naginata, or wakizashi.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually like to have more mechanics tied to weapon type! I think the different weapons play way too similar - it doesn't make much of a difference whether I use a Greatsword or a Greataxe, all my feats and class features behave exactly the same either way. The only difference are class features and feats that trigger off critical hits (and that's mostly "oh, i get a point of panache back because of <number on the dice>, how exiting *yawn*"). Weapons are 99% flavor and base stats right now.
I'd like to have specific combat styles for the weapon types - like a better version of Cleave only for axes. Using an axe instead of a sword should change the way my character acts in combat.
Part of the problem is that it's probably too late to change stuff. See people complaining about piercing and swashbuckler? If they started to do more stuff people would probably complain more that stuff is limited, because we've been in an environment where weapons don't matter for so long.
"Why should axes get better cleaves and not my hammers?"
"Why should axes and hammers get better cleaves and not my Picks?"
....
"Why should everything but rapiers and cestus get better cleaves?"
"Why should everything but rapiers get better cleaves?"
"Why do different weapons not influence how I fight?"
it's a cycle and you need to pick your battles.
This whole thread does make me see why 13th Age uses the system that it does for weapons and classes.
This whole thread does make me see why 13th Age uses the system that it does for weapons and classes.
Making weapon damage depend on class does really help smooth out the "other people are as good at fighting as the fighter" problem. It goes both ways though, sometimes some people have a concept in mind and they want their character to fight with something in particular, and in that case they either have to wrestle with the weapons table or get the GM to allow reskinning something, which is annoying. On the other hand, sometimes just going through a list of options (like a weapons table) is going to inspire people to do something like "I'm going to make a blowgun specialist!" so saying "there's no difference between a sword and an axe in the rules" gets in the way of those people.
(My last 13A character fought with a silver carving fork, but mostly chaos magic.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually like to have more mechanics tied to weapon type! I think the different weapons play way too similar - it doesn't make much of a difference whether I use a Greatsword or a Greataxe, all my feats and class features behave exactly the same either way. The only difference are class features and feats that trigger off critical hits (and that's mostly "oh, i get a point of panache back because of <number on the dice>, how exiting *yawn*"). Weapons are 99% flavor and base stats right now.
I'd like to have specific combat styles for the weapon types - like a better version of Cleave only for axes. Using an axe instead of a sword should change the way my character acts in combat.
I like the thought, but worry about how complicated a system it would make. "The cleave feat lets you hit through multiple enemies. Your damage is increased if wielding an axe, and decreased if wielding a piercing weapon. Also further increased if you're two handing." Not the worst, but put that on everything and things becone a mess.
More in general, I'm finding myself believing that a system should try as little as possible to tell you how you can play a character. I had a thought of restricting spheres of power access based on class, but came to the conclusion that it is not the rules' place to create such restriction. Basically, the rules should never say "no you can't do that, that's dumb." Their job is only to provide balance & consistency (as best they can).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More in general, I'm finding myself believing that a system should try as little as possible to tell you how you can play a character. I had a thought of restricting spheres of power access based on class, but came to the conclusion that it is not the rules' place to create such restriction. Basically, the rules should never say "no you can't do that, that's dumb." Their job is only to provide balance & consistency (as best they can).
Truer damned words have never been spoken on this website, and likely never will be.
In a Sword and Sorcery setting for Savage Worlds, there is a type of spellcaster that is very relies on a special Blackstaff to cast spells through.I do wish that I could have a Bladebound Staff Magus. It is an obscure reference, but I want to wield a special black staff.If it's neither Khelben Arunsun nor Stormbringer, it is really obscure, so cough it up, it might be interesting.
Do you refer to Nyx?