| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I propose we make we make a Dragon Dragon. A dragon made up of smaller tinier dragons. Insert Power Rangers/Voltron joke here.
Oh, you mean the "wyrm that walks"? Horrifying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in the interest of coming to some type of consensus I should first say that this game is for everyone not just one group or one person. So let’s focus on coming up with something that will make the most of us happy…or maybe the most of us not unhappy. :)
So let us see where we agree. This isn’t really in any hard and fast order except for the first two being the easiest to implement as well as not ruffling too many feathers.
1. The weapon should do damage in line with its geometry/form. ie: If it has a point it should be able do piercing damage, if it has a sharp edge it should be able do slashing damage, if it has a weighted striking surface it should be able to do bludgeoning damage. Weapons with multiple different structures should be able to choose which with any given attack. So a Poleaxe has the choice of all three, most swords piercing or slashing. While a spiked mace does both piercing and slashing at the same time etc. I don’t think anyone on this thread has had any objection to this. If so please say so. So agree or disagree?
2. Weight. Okay I added this one as I don’t think it was really mentioned too much. This is simple. Most weapons weigh far too much compared to their real life counterparts. 8 lbs for a one handed sword! 2-3 lbs is more accurate. This is a win for everyone as we’ll all be able to carry more stuff. Martials especially benefit. Agree or disagree?
3. General use should at least somewhat make sense and have some consistency. So what I mean by this is if a weapon of a certain length has reach why does a much longer one not have it? Why does a Bardiche have brace but a Ranseur does not? Why can’t one use a regular sized spear one handed? There are more examples than this but these are a few of the ones that are very puzzling and easy to fix. So all I’m arguing here is some consistency and some common sense on a few of these basic rules. Google the above weapons if you are unsure of what they look like before you agree or disagree with me. So agree or disagree?
4. The advanced rules for weapons hinted at by the designers. (This one overlaps with the point above.) Such as I think hammers knocking people back and swords that critically hit making people flat footed. Well I’d like these rules to make sense too as well as be very fun. While hammers knocking people back on a critical sounds okay swords making people flatfooted seems a bit odd. I could maybe see hammers or clubs making people flatfooted on a critical when you bash them upside the head. My idea for swords is that most of them are capable of great defence when needed so a defense bonus option mode. Possibly that could be a rule. Possibly. So here I’m arguing for cool fun stuff that makes sense not just gamey rules. Although I’ll be happy as long as the stuff isn’t completely out of left field. Agree or disagree?
5. Naming. I suppose as I’ve said before there are only really a few weapons that I would like renamed. 3-5. Longsword and bastard sword chief among them. I actually think point 6 is better than renaming a few. So would renaming 3-5 weapons be a go or no go for you?
6. Generic Naming. Note I’m not talking about the current names. I’m thinking something more like what I mentioned earlier in the thread and other’s mentioned as well. Here is another example:
One handed swords: A,B,C,D,E,F etc.
Two handed swords: A,B,C,D,E,F etc.
One handed Bludgeoning weapons: A,B,C,D,E,F etc.
Two handed Bludgeoning weapons: A,B,C,D,E,F etc.
Pole Arms: A, B, C, D, E, F etc.
Etc. etc. for all the weapons.
So you would have all the varieties of stats for the weapons we have now, so no balance issues. The difference is that instead of a long sword you would have one handed sword C. Sword C would have those same stats and in the description it would give several examples of swords fitting those mechanics. For Deities favoured weapons it would just be Scimitar(Sword D). This way the weapon enthusiasts are happy and I think the people that wanted generic naming are happy. I’m not sure who this makes unhappy. Agree or disagree?
7. Armour. See my post above I realize that most likely won’t happen but I think it would be amazing for all of the reasons I stated. This is a long shot I know. Agree, disagree?
Anyways, I would love to hear everyone’s response to my suggestions. Let’s try to work towards a solution so everyone has fun. Thanks. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it's true that a longsword has room for two hands on the hilt, that's not always where both hands were. A knight (as opposed to a fencing master as seen in some of the videos linked on the first page) with a longsword was typically well-armored and could grip his sword anywhere along the length of the blade with his gauntlets. He could swing it like a club, smashing his opponent's helm with the crossguard, stun him, then jimmy the point through a chink. A spear is too ungainly for that kind of work versus an armored opponent, especially in a very crowded melee with an adjacent opponent while the back end of your spear is hanging out several feet and being knocked around by other movement. The longsword was an all-purpose weapon: it wasn't the best crowbar, the best basher, the best pig-sticker, or the best slicer, and it didn't have lengthy reach -- but it did them all adequately in one package.This is exactly what I said. I am not sure you read my reply at all. You can stun the opponent in armor with a mace or hammer, but you'll then you'll need a second weapon to get through the... You can do more than just stun. The weapons can deform plate armour and you will feel it. Especially warhammers had spikes that could be used to penetrate plate. The best weapon to deal with armour is bludgeoning weapons. All knights had daggers also such misericords to stabb through visors.
I'm not sure why we're arguing. On the first page of thread I asserted that articulated plate armor developed in response to the longsword. --I made no observation as to what was the most effective weapon versus plate after everybody was suited up in plate.
The longsword was the most effective sword.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "rollplayers" don't care past the "Slashing, 1d6, 18-20", while the blank slate would allow the historical role players a chance to be as accurate as they like.
Hello judgemental person. If you spent more time reading, and less time assuming you would have read the logical reasons as to why this is low on the importance scale, and it's not due to "People hate RP'ing". Now if you read and disagree with the logic that is fine, but don't go around being pompous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wanna point that while some masters romanticized the sword, reality is clearly another issue. Example is the first verse here.
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi/Sword_in_Two_Hands/Wide_Play
The strength of the Longsword lay in its versatility. Its the bard of swords. Thats why it was secondary weapon in all Europe, together with the dagger ofc.
Versatility is one of the big strong points of swords. But don't underestimate the importance of the ability to wear them. Spears, poleaxes and lances were all used as primary weapons by knights at different times and contexts, and they were very effective, but you can't just wear one on your hip (or back, the back sheath wasn't really a thing, and spears don't just Velcro on back there like in many computer games). So you can do other things while you're armed. Not really as easy to do with a longer weapon. So swords are something that you can basically always have around and count on. And as you said, it's a great second weapon. Archers often had a sword for when things get up close, pikemen often had one too for when things got inside the pike range. The famous landsknechts (who were mostly pikemen) even had their own style of sword, the katzbalger.
Spears and poleaxes and the other large weapons really were just taken to war and duels or on guard duty. Nobody would just go around town with a spear unless they were expecting trouble. The really big greatswords are more like polearms in this regard. They're too big to wear.
This conversation has me missing old GURPS weapons tables. focusing on how the weapon was used, rather than how it was shaped, lead to a much more reasonable weapon approximations. Your weapon was better when used for its intended purpose but you could use it for other purposes about as well, some were balanced. I don't know if Pathfinder is ready for swing/thrust and cut/crush/impaling modifiers though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pass. I'll take 'possibly inaccurate flavor' over Generic Branding: the Game, even if it increases the possibility of 'Well, actually...' historc opinion discussions.What's really to be gained by assigning names like arming sword or longsword or whatever, versus just having sets of stats that you select for you weapon that you can then call whatever you like.
Character 1: "How do you have a sword that has the reach quality?"
Character 2: "Well, it's my Really Long Sword".
Well, specifically not having an interaction like that.
Names have a place in the game world, haphazardly jammed together stats and mechanical terminology doesn't.
What why? To me that's great!
Names have a place in the game world, to allow players to have the weapon they want. The stats don't need to "accurately" reflect anything as long as they're balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the Munich Cut and Thrust is a thing of beauty, and would be a complex hilt Pathfinder long sword.
The Munich Cut 'n Thrust would be another example of an "S or P" straight-bladed arming sword with a one-handed hilt.