Well, what swords were throwable classically? A swordsman can throw a sword in a pinch I suppose, but I'm not aware of any purpose built throwing swords and a quick google search didn't return any either.
What would such a sword look like?
Well, if you search "Cold Steel Greatsword" on youtube, you'll find an old commercial with the world's most charismatic salesman trying to sell you a greatsword partially be showing you how straight he can throw it.
I do honestly consider this to be a non-issue, though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I'm convinced swords need this. Not every weapon group is suited to every trait. I don't expect to see a lot of reach weapons in the knives group, for example. Or d12 reach weapons for that matter. Also, thrown weapons aren't better than other counterparts, they are just different. The thrown trait eats into the weapon's power budget and keeps it from getting other traits, and a returning rune costs you a precious property rune slot. I don't think swords are worse off for lacking this option. You just focus on different things for the build.
There are legit advantages to being able to throw your weapon but they seem pretty balanced against these downsides.
Archers need a bow that is also a d12 slashing reach melee weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archers need a bow that is also a d12 slashing reach melee weapon.
The trick is in how you load the greatsword into the bow.
If the objective is to get thrown weapons with decent damage dice, you could always pick up the Lumberjack dedication, and two-hand toss your one handed Dwarven War Axe for d12.
Axe Thrower. I would not be surprised if GMs push back on that particular rule interpretation.
Maybe it works.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shouldn’t need a class feat to get what the other melee groups get free.
Polearm doesn't have one. Brawling doesn't have it. Shield doesn't have it. Pick doesn't have it. I'm not really seeing why swords would have one [a sword balanced to be thrown really isn't balanced for melee] or would need one balance-wise. As you pointed out plenty of groups include thrown so if having that as an option is important to you, you might want to take one of those groups.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Sword group does not NEED to have a thrown option. Just because you want something does not mean that the game system has to accommodate it.
Just because some other weapon groups do have a thrown option doesn't mean that ALL groups should have a thrown option. Not all choices have to be equally good. If all the weapon groups were exactly the same, why have the groups at all. If there is no difference between the weapon groups, instead of selecting a sword or axe, you can just swing a "weapon" and buy whatever traits you want on it.
So... you're saying that you think daggers should be in the sword weapon group instead of the knife group? That's an interesting take to try to justify.
("It's the same thing but smaller" doesn't really hold up well).
So... you're saying that you think daggers should be in the sword weapon group instead of the knife group? That's an interesting take to try to justify.
("It's the same thing but smaller" doesn't really hold up well).
It'd be interesting to see some weapons belonging to multiple groups.
Daggers were often pretty long. I could see them easily being in both the knife AND the sword groups.
|
So... you're saying that you think daggers should be in the sword weapon group instead of the knife group? That's an interesting take to try to justify.
("It's the same thing but smaller" doesn't really hold up well).
It'd be interesting to see some weapons belonging to multiple groups.
Daggers were often pretty long. I could see them easily being in both the knife AND the sword groups.
Why are knives not in the sword group?
After all, crossbows are in the bow group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'd be interesting to see some weapons belonging to multiple groups.
So you want a weapon that triggers multiple Critical Specializations?
Daggers were often pretty long. I could see them easily being in both the knife AND the sword groups.
Aren't those called shortswords? I don't really see much room between a shortsword and a dagger to wedge in a throwing sword-knife-dagger.
Why are knives not in the sword group?
After all, crossbows are in the bow group.
Because they function differently and often serve a different purpose. For instance, you could see giving a rogue/assassin type class all knives for proficiency but you wouldn't think the same with all swords. Same with subtle type feats/abilities. That and different Critical Specializations: bleed makes more sense for a knife and unbalancing makes more sense with a sword.
In the end though, you have to make arbitrary cut-off no matter how you do it. You could make the same argument with polearms and spears or clubs and hammers or dart and spear.
I think then, OP's point was that why was it deemed necessary to have a cutoff for Swords and Knives, but not Axes and Hatchets, or well I guess Hammers have Clubs as their baby brother weapon group but this is only my speculation based on what I've read in the previous posts. the OP needs to confirm or deny if I've correctly surmised their issue.
Perhaps something like this?
I admittedly don’t watch much anime, but isn’t that more a boomerang than sword?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think then, OP's point was that why was it deemed necessary to have a cutoff for Swords and Knives, but not Axes and Hatchets
I think one thing to look at is the sheer number of swords and knives vs say axes or clubs: there is 16 knives, 22 swords vs 6 axes or 15 clubs. I think it's clear why axes aren't broken up [it's only 6 items] and why knives and swords are separate or it would be a super-group of 38 items. Knives and swords are already bigger than other groups as is before any talk of adding them together.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I feel like the lack of a thrown option is not a mistake at all but rather a "cost" for having the most options available for Weapon groups. Versatility is power and while it's not really awesome for Fighters who have to take a lower to-hit chance for choosing them when using thrown weapons they're already just-as if not more accurate with other options outside of their chosen specialty versus literally every other class.
Daggers were often pretty long. I could see them easily being in both the knife AND the sword groups.Aren't those called shortswords? I don't really see much room between a shortsword and a dagger to wedge in a throwing sword-knife-dagger.
isn't short sword a classification for antique weapons that only exists retroacively? Roman swords etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
isn't short sword a classification for antique weapons that only exists retroacively? Roman swords etc.
There is no historical dictionary for the universal names, classification or terminology of swords. As such, when I say shortsword, I mean the pathfinder equipment item called that. Getting into an debate over terminology isn't something productive or something anyone can 'win' as even the precise definition of the term sword varies with the historical epoch or the geographic region under consideration let alone any particular type of sword.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, actually that leads into one of my biggest complaints about swords. Versatile P is everpresent, and is literally the most useless ability in the game. There are I think 3 rare creatures in the entire bestiary that it offers any benefit to do piercing damage over slashing. It is better to do bludgeoning damage than have slashing and piercing combined.
There's also water.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i mean... there aren't any versatile axes. the whole weapon group deals only slashing damage.
do we need to add in a versatile axe just so that "if i've picked axe as a weapon group i have more damage types"?
swords have different strengths than axes or maces, i do not see a reason to homogenise everything and have in every weapon group every trait possible.
Hmm, actually that leads into one of my biggest complaints about swords. Versatile P is everpresent, and is literally the most useless ability in the game. There are I think 3 rare creatures in the entire bestiary that it offers any benefit to do piercing damage over slashing. It is better to do bludgeoning damage than have slashing and piercing combined.
So the longsword and greatsword, two of the most iconic weapons in the game, are kind of bleh compared to alternatives.
For example, I picked a greatsword for the theme, even though a Maul is better. (Seriously, why is the hammer/flail crit spec so insanely good? It should be a class DC check like the sling/brawling ones, prone is equally or more powerful compared to slow1/stun1.)
But when maul is a flat out better weapon, and has a great secondary ranged, it bugs me a bit.
I kind of feel like swords got a ton of variety, but mostly subpar choices. Even look at the katana and Naginata, another classic pair of weapons. (Not my style but still popular) The Katana is a worse bastard sword (versatile p is useless, and deadly d8 is not worth a die increase at all) and the Naginata is a glaive without forceful.
So give us a decent ranged weapon in that group so I don't feel like I am gimping myself TOO badly using a greatsword hah. The line between knives and swords is rather arbitrary after all.
That's a lot of complaints about the sword group. Maybe you should consider choosing a different group.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What fun would life be if you just power game everything:) I will swing a sword because they are cool! I just think the iconic swords are a bit underwhelming this edition, that is all!
Swords have up to d12 damage, options for every damage type [P, B, S], Agile, Backstabber, Finesse, Forceful, Parry, Twin, Sweep, Deadly, Trip, Monk, Disarm, Concealable, and Finesse... Seriously, what's underwhelming? It's one of the most diverse categories with 22 options but because it doesn't have thrown you're all bummed out? *shrug* I don't know what to tell you: IMO, you shouldn't have an issue finding a "cool" option in swords.
What fun would life be if you just power game everything:) I will swing a sword...
It's not about "power gaming." It just seems from your comments that you really like versatility in your weapon choices. That's my preference as well. I like being able to shake up my routine by switching combat modes. The swords group just isn't a good choice for that play style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the objective is to get thrown weapons with decent damage dice, you could always pick up the Lumberjack dedication, and two-hand toss your one handed Dwarven War Axe for d12.Axe Thrower. I would not be surprised if GMs push back on that particular rule interpretation.
Maybe it works.
Shouldn’t need a class feat to get what the other melee groups get free.
By the way, love your guides. Your sorcerer guide in particular is great.
So are we also gonna advocate for hammers that do slashing damage then or
So are we also gonna advocate for hammers that do slashing damage then or
It's honestly not hard to make: just have a hammer side and on the other side an ax, like the head of a pollaxe. Really, a cut down pollaxe could do Piercing too as they can have a spear head too. And of corse, you could look at it as an axe that can deal bludgeoning.
So are we also gonna advocate for hammers that do slashing damage then orIt's honestly not hard to make: just have a hammer side and on the other side an ax, like the head of a pollaxe. Really, a cut down pollaxe could do Piercing too as they can have a spear head too. And of corse, you could look at it as an axe that can deal bludgeoning.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.So are we also gonna advocate for hammers that do slashing damage then orIt's honestly not hard to make: just have a hammer side and on the other side an ax, like the head of a pollaxe. Really, a cut down pollaxe could do Piercing too as they can have a spear head too. And of corse, you could look at it as an axe that can deal bludgeoning.
To be fair, I wasn't 100% sure of a point because your sentence kind of trails off mid-sentence. I got a comment about B damage on an axe and that isn't a crazy thing: someone suggesting that it's possible has a valid point. Much more so, IMO, than a throwing sword and it's something swords can already do [B damage].
So if I missed the point, in this situation I think you should look at your own post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, actually that leads into one of my biggest complaints about swords. Versatile P is everpresent, and is literally the most useless ability in the game. There are I think 3 rare creatures in the entire bestiary that it offers any benefit to do piercing damage over slashing. It is better to do bludgeoning damage than have slashing and piercing combined.
So maybe your complaint is best targetted not at changing what swords do, which isn't likely to change for core items, but instead targetted at how monsters are designed... New monsters certainly able to be designed with consideration of favoring Weakness: Piercing or Resistance to Slashing/Bludgeoning or "Physical (except Piercing)"
It's also fair to note that even if Piercing may not be uniquely optimal in as many cases, if it can avoid a suboptimality of Slashing it is still useful Trait to have on a Sword. I think Swords tend to be a strong group in total features (incl. damage) even if you don't think this is #1 attraction of them, so there is solid reason to use Swords in the first place. And yet the best Armor Resistance often tends to be vs Slashing (Heavy Plates), so Versatile(P) is nice to have on a Sword (even if it's not strictly better than Versatile(B) on a Slashing weapon).
I think there is also room for Feats/Runes/etc that only work on Piercing weapons (or other damage types), or for that matter to require Versatile damage types.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a 1h fighter for instance the target is probably going to be flatfooted practically all the time anyways.
If you choose to be a 1h Fighter and then choose to use swords knowing they lack synergy, that's your own decision. Designers can (and should) only do so much to make various builds viable, and if you actively ignore big signs saying "these don't synergise well" that's entirely on you.
Just because you like swords doesn't mean they need to be better.