I find really fun that JiCi finds rage and sneak attack as "unique features of that class" but can't accept legendary proficiencies as the same thing but for fighters. I honestly won't bother answering that last comment because its useless as this point and he will make a strawman of whatever I say anyways so there's no point in doing that really. If anything I'm kinda happy he isn't on the design team.
"Gunslingers also get Legendary Proficiency, that's also a class feature!" - no one ever, these boards
That's why I don't consider Legendary Proficiency a class feature, because some people defend it like crazy, unlike what they could say for the Gunslinger...
As far as some of your other ideas for Fighter abilities, I don't dislike them, and a lot of them do sound usable as possible feats. For example, the "give a sword the knife crit-spec" sounds like it could be reworked into a lowish-level feat to have a slashing or piercing weapon(rather than just swords) inflict bleed on a hit(cumulative with crit-spec bleed damage, perhaps, so that then it becomes especially useful for dagger wielders as well). This would be rather similar to how Swipe emulates much of the axe crit-spec effect. I imagine you wanted them as class features instead, but I wouldn't really expect that at this point
I do have to agree about weapon group-specific feats being less than ideal as well, since in my mind the goal should be to focus on specific features of a weapon such as damage types, number of hands, or traits, so that often even weapons in the same group will have partially different arrays of feats available to use with them(And, also, for the hypothetical strike with additional bleed feat, so that I could use it with a macuahuitl, even though it's not in the sword group).
I do also like Bluemagetim's suggestion for a class archetype or similar option that does focus on taking a single weapon and doing increasingly improbable things with it, though I probably shouldn't talk about that more extensively since it'd be quite off-topic, plus this post is already a bit overly long.
Ok...
- Fighter defenders always talk about damage per round, as if it's the ONLY thing the Fighter is good for. To me, the Figter is supposed the better martial class, because they excel in combat more than the others. I agree that they can crit often, but they don't crit better. If a Fighter's critical success was deadlier, such as rolling a Nat 20, NOW it would be more interesting.- Those same Fighter defenders again always emphasize on how they can use multiple weapons, as if every single encounter pushes them to rotate their armory like a Swiss Army Knife in every single round. It's fine if you carry a polearm, a sword, a shield, a bow, arrows, a mace and a dagger, but do NOT make be believe that you rotate between them.
- Combat Flexibility feels like a plaster in case you need more feats. 2 feats on average to use for that one specific weapon you found earlier isn't gonna change your way of fighting that much. On the other hand, if you could apply all of your existing feats to that new weapon you've found, that would be a sweeter deal. It doesn't help that many of the Fighter's feats have very specific requirements that CANNOT be overwritten.
- Many Fighter feats have been given to other classes as of late, and Reactive Strike has been granted as well. That uniqueness has fallen off. Aside from Tactical Reflexes, I have yet to see a feat to allow Ranged Reactive Strikes and/or an advanced feat to grant a 3rd reaction.
- Fighters cannot Shove, Trip and Disarm in one Strike, or use up to 3 maneuvers, which you expect them to be able to do, since they are trained for that. For instance, I would expect one clean Hammer Strike to knock someone off their feet for a short distance (Shove), fall on the back (Trip) and drop their weapons (Disarm). I don't think you can combine maneuvers from Flourishes, Presses or regular traits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its also rather relevant to state that the Fighter might just not be as interesting as other classes who gets benefits from their subclass. Those that can invest more into feats that unlock more versatility other than just expand options with the weapon types that they are planning on using.
But considering how effective they are at advanced and multi weapon usage I have a hard time placing them as the 'worst', but its certainly a case where Champion, Barbarian and Monk gets to pick more than just combat weapon techniques.
After all I picked druid simply because I feel like druids have to few options available at each level due to how many feats are order locked.
And why can’t someone just wanting a simple class that is effective at what it does without complicated bells and whistles be a valid option?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(If you count playtest classes, I'm side-eying the Guardian, who has a similar issue but worse because you can't just roll harder to dig yourself out of it)
The Guardian, when released, is going to be getting a hard look for worst class candidate. The playtest was rough.
Its also rather relevant to state that the Fighter might just not be as interesting as other classes who gets benefits from their subclass. Those that can invest more into feats that unlock more versatility other than just expand options with the weapon types that they are planning on using.
But considering how effective they are at advanced and multi weapon usage I have a hard time placing them as the 'worst', but its certainly a case where Champion, Barbarian and Monk gets to pick more than just combat weapon techniques.
After all I picked druid simply because I feel like druids have to few options available at each level due to how many feats are order locked.
Fighters I think are designed to have a very strong kit but pretty basic and potentially boring to some people. It is the does what it says on the tin class. They may not be the most flavorful but they are one of the most competent at doing their job of any class in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(If you count playtest classes, I'm side-eying the Guardian, who has a similar issue but worse because you can't just roll harder to dig yourself out of it)The Guardian, when released, is going to be getting a hard look for worst class candidate. The playtest was rough.
The guardian isn't my thing but I really hope the class ends up good on release. Plus, having a champion-like class without the divine flavor is certainly something I want in the system since I don't really vibe with divine classes that much (kinda ironic for someone that has an inquisitor pfp like me).
Fighter is just the best combat class in the game, nothing can out damage a fighter doing its fighting style with the defense the fighter has. Remaster heavy armor barb can get real close though sometimes. Remaster took a lot of power away from fighter and upped barb so they are much closer now for certain builds.
As for the play test stuff, I can't imagine Guardian turning out well. Little going for it besides its proficiencies and even those weren't great. Everything on it was just too little for what it was trying to do.
The necro looks like its getting some much needed improvements, but I still think it will have to be uncommon for how disruptive its primary mechanic can be.
I must have missed this. What did the remaster take away from the fighter?
If we don't count count "other classes getting better, while Fighter didn't change much"? Really just the ability to squeak in access to a second weapon group at full proficiency via archetype, for the level 5-18 range, which is... I dunno, didn't feel like super necessary to lose, even if most of the archetypes that did it are improved for non-fighters now via adding advanced weapon access. (Except Martial Artist, bizarrely? That one just lost the proficiency equalizing text and gained absolutely nothing)
I can understand why the design of Fighter would put it as someone's "worst" class, albeit not if power is an issue. It is the pinnacle of "Strong because big number", and it has excellent, unique feats on top, that to this day make me wrinkle my nose a little at being fighter-specific. That said, the only part of the class that truly bothers me, specifically is that I do not think access to at least a second weapon group in that level 5-18 range would really... Break it. A trip focused Guisarme Fighter is already probably the strongest thing you can do with the class and has been from day 1, if someone wants to double slice with an axe and sword, or spend the extra feats to swap between a sword and bow, I'd just let them use premaster dedications, or pay a 6th level fighter feat and just do it if they wanted to that badly.
I was just thinking that I wouldn't mind an option for fighter that gave them the bumped up proficiency in a secondary weapon group and a related dedication ontop. Essentially picking bow and gaining the archer dedication as a bonus.It's a lot of power, though. Fighter already gets the most 'always on' damage boost, restricted only by the fact you kind of lock yourself into a playstyle with the weapon group (and even then not always, some weapon groups have a lot of flex). If you let them get their booster on, essentially, every weapon they will ever need, that's going to be awkward.
Ok, do you guys want the Fighter to use multiple weapons or just one?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If JiCi only knew the feature he hates so much (combat flexibility) allows the fighter to switch their weapon focus daily by taking Advanced Weapon Training every day. I'm sure he's not going to come up with a very minor problem now and complain about it out as if the fighter was the worst class or something...
But anyways. This whole figher discussion is meaningless. There's one person that thinks the fighter is bad and they are clearly not engaging this discussion with an open mind or actual play knowledge, so I think it really doesn't make much sense keep this whole thing going since nothing of use is going to come out of here. Let's redirect this thread to the classes that have actual problems and not one of the classes that performs the best in the system please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remaster took a lot of power away from fighterI must have missed this. What did the remaster take away from the fighter?
What Shoebox said. You used to be able to take archer or mauler and be better off then anyone else at swapping to ranged and using Felling strike as your tactical flexibility feat or have knockdown pole arm and sword dualing for a mix of great offense and a more defensive style.
That's a lot of flexibility that's gone now.
If your fighter is skilled in a school that teaches half-swording and the mordhau, they should be able to use their sword in a vast number of situations, only being badly disadvantaged by a skilled user with great reach and footwork to keep them at bay.You're asking for a level of specificity that d20 grid-based systems are not good at modelling in general - you'd need to rejigger the entire system primarily around melee fighting with length of weapons and movement to the exact inch (which was in the very first D&D I think, to be fair) and now you have problems modelling, say, a dire bear.
Like, I can see a PF2e-like that does that, and that system does exist in some specifically medieval themed works, but the D&D space since AD&D wants to model martial warriors primarily by their fancy way of getting additional damage (rage, sneak attack, spells, etc) than by swordplay.
For what it's worth, Haft Striker Stance shows a very easy path to homebrewing what you want - I'd add a requirement to be in heavy armour or wear gauntlets for flavour, drop the dual wielding thing and make the alternate weapon 1d4 backswing, 1d6 backswing if two-handed, uses the club crit spec while still counting as a sword and you could probably justify dropping it two levels in exchange, meaning it's something a swordfighter can pick up with a little experience.
You don't need exact ranges down to inches; you can go long-polearm, polearm, sword, axe/mace, and dagger/grapple for distances. Monsters would be reclassified based on their closest fit, and you'd take a -1 penalty on attacks for each range band outside of your weapon's ideal distance. Trying to pass an opponent's weapon would give them an extra reaction (once per round) that would be used to make an attack, and if they hit, you fail to close the distance. Fighters, with their many reactions, could hold off multiple attackers outside their ideal ranges, while other martial classes would feel the pressure being surrounded and have their own ways of dealing with that.
Tentacle monsters with 30 foot reach would be unassailable.
Tentacle monsters with 30 foot reach would be unassailable.
As they should be, though any monster designed like that should come with rules for hacking away tentacles.
You'd need to entirely redo the movement system, though. A Step will now, what, move you two range bands? How does difficult terrain work? How do you calculate flanking? How do large creatures using weapons, or people mounted on large creatures, which is already a mess in PF2e, calculate their reach? How do you make using an axe/mace, which is historically one of the best weapons, mathematically good when you have a substantial chance of being stopped by a swordsman? You're hyperfocusing on one specific RL melee concept, but you're not considering the knock-on effect on anything else.
Nah, just have the first two range bands at 5 ft. spacing and the rest at adjacent, and it works fine.
Axes/maces were okay weapons, ones that were used a lot because they were easy and common, but always a step below a proper polearm or a mass of spears. You wanted a proper warhammer/pick or a polaxe if you wanted to take those weapons and make them better. They also would have struggled with closing distance against a guy with a sword, watch HEMA sword vs. axe battles.
Axes and maces were good because they were able to punch through armour while holding a shield, a thing swords and spears are worse at especially when not massed (remember, D&D is a squad battle game, three guys with spears is not a shield wall).
Guys in plate armour didn't carry shields on foot. They used picks or hammers with backup daggers. If we're talking the days of mail hauberks, a good sword could thrust and break links to deal damage.
The longer reach of a sword is, IRL, balanced against the fact that good armour means the mace guy can gamble on pushing through your sword and hitting you with something not so easily shrugged off.
Swords were pretty terrible against plate unless you were halfswording and handing the reach advantage back to the guy with the axe.
Polearms do make a tradeoff on their armour penetration for their reach and also don't let you use a shield,
You don't use a shield if you're wearing plate armour. That was a thing for the joust, not for fighting on foot. Shields should provide no AC bonus to characters in heavy armour.
They're also vulnerable to getting hacked by more solid weapons
There's little evidence that this actually happened. The zweihander was likely used to control a few pikes at once to make an opening for others to exploit.
Oh, and don't forget how deadly getting knifed while grappled is - and it specifically has to be a knife because anything else is too long to be useful for that trick.
Halfswording was practised for just such cases. A knife might be more ideal, but it takes longer to draw a knife than to switch your grip on a sword. PF2 fumbles here as well.
You can represent all of this but this is a lot of effort for marginal gains compared to the trait system, especially once you start adding all the other things you want to portray like martial arts and magical movement. And this has to be balanced for every martial class with every reasonable combination of weapons!
Balance isn't my biggest concern. Let what worked in history, not your weird pop culture take on things, result in more effective warriors.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
NGL that sounds like a really lame game. Pass.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance isn't my biggest concern. Let what worked in history, not your weird pop culture take on things, result in more effective warriors.
I enjoy the weird pop culture takes in my games, personally. I would prefer this gam kept leaning into those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or this is a game and weapon qualities in the game are only inspired by reality to give just enough differentiation to feel like the weapon they represent.
The balance I'm asking for is precisely that all the things in history are balanced roughly as per history. Because history is broad! Your view is biased in favour of sword techniques and polearms and, I think, a point in time where increasingly powerful crossbows and the emergence of guns is what's actually killing off earlier successful armaments like shields and axes.
Swords are pretty bad weapons on the battlefield. If anything, I'd favour hammers, picks, and polearms as the most effective weapons. Axes and maces were peasant weapons, as were shields after the advent of plate armour.
It's also an environment of increasingly large standing armies, which frankly is not what PF2e is trying to emulate - many factors like the 'push' of a longer weapon are only relevant when there's twenty similarly armed guys next to you. I doubt a truly perfect emulation of the shot-and-pike era where conflict sizes are a baseline of four-man teams will really end up as you expect.
A halberd or ranseur well wielded will make a man with an axe work hard to get within striking range. Watch HEMA sparing polearm versus one-handed weapon and shield and you'll see that the reach really is a huge advantage.
One of this has a better return on time spent than the other. But in the meantime, have you tried Pendragon?
Pendragon isn't half of what I'd want. The Riddle of Steel, with QoL hacks and fixes from other derived systems, is where I'd go for crunchy combat. It is tough to find a game, though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All historical weapons were made to fight humans. The fact that we're using them in this fantasy setting against monsters is already wildly unrealistic. I would not want them to spend any development time on making weapons hew closer earth battlefield useage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All historical weapons were made to fight humans. The fact that we're using them in this fantasy setting against monsters is already wildly unrealistic. I would not want them to spend any development time on making weapons hew closer earth battlefield useage.
This is blatantly false. Weapons have always been used for hunting, and primative man used little more than sticks and rocks to send megafauna to extinction. If anything, the existence of greater numbers of such beasts would push even further towards having swords be sidearms and polearms be primary weapons.
Ok, do you guys want the Fighter to use multiple weapons or just one?I'm fine with fighter weapon mastery affecting just one category.
I disagree with the implication that this is needed for "use" though.
Fighters use multiple weapons as proficiently as any other martial, with many of the classes' features and feats not dependent on weapon category. Switch hitting (i.e. switching between sword and board, 2-H, ranged) when your primary go-to weapon just won't do is reasonably viable. The main issue being 'gp, at high levels'. I do not agree with your position that the class as currently written is insufficient to realize the 'fighter' vision - to me, that conclusion rests on a premise of "give me everything or it's worth nothing" that I don't share.
Combat Flexibility is VERY situational, THAT's the problem.
I don't need a "specific situation" to Rage except that "I'm angry", or Hunter's Edge except for "I'm tracking", or Panache except for "I'm showing off".
Combat Flexibility feels like they couldn't come up with something so they said "Let's just give them even MORE feats".
If Combat Flexibility allowed me to "pick 3 feats and apply them to my chosen weapon group, regardless of requirements and prerequisites", THAT would be true Flexibility.
Imagine if I could use Shield-related feats with weapons with the Parry traits.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pendragon isn't half of what I'd want. The Riddle of Steel, with QoL hacks and fixes from other derived systems, is where I'd go for crunchy combat. It is tough to find a game, though.
Weird, it's almost like the changes you're advocating for are wildly unpopular with the vast majority of players. Perhaps most people are more interested in enjoyable mechanics and sticking to an interesting shared fiction rather than painful levels of realism? :O
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All historical weapons were made to fight humans. The fact that we're using them in this fantasy setting against monsters is already wildly unrealistic. I would not want them to spend any development time on making weapons hew closer earth battlefield useage.This is blatantly false. Weapons have always been used for hunting, and primative man used little more than sticks and rocks to send megafauna to extinction. If anything, the existence of greater numbers of such beasts would push even further towards having swords be sidearms and polearms be primary weapons.
What are you even talking about?
Ancient man did not square off against D&D like creatures or we would be dead.
A humanoid race with equal or higher human intelligence with darkvision as an advantage would wipe humanity out if we had to compete against them.
Not to mention magic.
Stop trying to apply reality to this game. It's not real at all. It's a fantasy story game, not it's all real game.
That's why even in Arthurian legend, the knights use swords. They're not all getting wiped out by Swiss pikemen in a mass formation created to break horse cavalry.
Pendragon isn't half of what I'd want. The Riddle of Steel, with QoL hacks and fixes from other derived systems, is where I'd go for crunchy combat. It is tough to find a game, though.Weird, it's almost like the changes you're advocating for are wildly unpopular with the vast majority of players. Perhaps most people are more interested in enjoyable mechanics and sticking to an interesting shared fiction rather than painful levels of realism? :O
BattleTech Classic is popular and has as much crunch, so you really can't make that claim.
What are you even talking about?
Ancient man did not square off against D&D like creatures or we would be dead.
They did square of with huge beasts like mammoths and whales using only very simple tools, though.
A humanoid race with equal or higher human intelligence with darkvision as an advantage would wipe humanity out if we had to compete against them.
If they had a sensitivity to daylight, they'd struggle because they'd hunt us at night, and we'd do the same in the day. Removing these penalties because PCs might want to play them is stupid.
That's why even in Arthurian legend, the knights use swords. They're not all getting wiped out by Swiss pikemen in a mass formation created to break horse cavalry.
Those legends also come from an age when a coat of mail and a shield were still knightly weapons. They never saw combat with men in plates of armour who were trying to bash each other to death.
Also, polearms don't only work in formation. Go watch some HEMA open weapons duelling and you'll see why you don't bring an axe and shield up against a halberd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are you even talking about?
Ancient man did not square off against D&D like creatures or we would be dead.
They did square of with huge beasts like mammoths and whales using only very simple tools, though.
A humanoid race with equal or higher human intelligence with darkvision as an advantage would wipe humanity out if we had to compete against them.If they had a sensitivity to daylight, they'd struggle because they'd hunt us at night, and we'd do the same in the day. Removing these penalties because PCs might want to play them is stupid.
That's why even in Arthurian legend, the knights use swords. They're not all getting wiped out by Swiss pikemen in a mass formation created to break horse cavalry.Those legends also come from an age when a coat of mail and a shield were still knightly weapons. They never saw combat with men in plates of armour who were trying to bash each other to death.
Also, polearms don't only work in formation. Go watch some HEMA open weapons duelling and you'll see why you don't bring an axe and shield up against a halberd.
Dwarves have no sensitivity to sunlight.
Elves live so long they would absolutely waste us.
Illithids or aboleths or even worse real demons or devils would annihilate us.
If an evolutionary biologist were rating humans in the tree of creatures in a D&D world, we would be dead, food, or a slave race. You want that level of realism? Regular weapons would be a joke to many of the creatures in the game if you did realism.
Polearms have real weaknesses in single combat. They were best in formation. Polearms are unwieldy and smaller arms users that bypassed them would go to town on a polearm wielder. Its why they often carried short swords or shorter weapons for up close work.
Some dueling competition doesn't change the reality of combat. You wouldn't use a shield against a halberd which is made for breaking heavy armor. You would looking to move very fast to breach the reach of the halberd and get in close. Reach can be both an advantage and disadvantage in combat.
It's irrelevant because humans could not wield a halberd long enough against magic or against a giant or dragon or other huge creatures, especially alone.
Humans used to be frightened of grizzly bears, lions, and tigers. Creatures of nightmare to humans. There are a ton of D&D creatures that make bears, lions, and tigers seem like puppies and kittens.
No one wants that level of realism.
Swords were used on the battlefield, just depends on the sword and the army strategy. Different units had different strategies. If that strategy incorporated a sword, then it was used.
Swords are very versatile in build and purpose.
Dwarves have no sensitivity to sunlight.
They also have no desire to be above ground, and breed slowly compared to us. The lack of reach and slow speed is also something they'd struggle to overcome.
Elves live so long they would absolutely waste us.
One loss for them is like 100 for us because they just don't reproduce quickly enough. Skill doesn't save you from a stray arrow or getting hit from behind by the human tribe that has 10 or 20 times your numbers.
Illithids or aboleths or even worse real demons or devils would annihilate us.
They should also annihilate Golarion, as heroes are meant to be rare, and only the largest cities have anybody who can fight at or above 7th level. They all have to hold the idiot ball to make the setting function so we can assume they'd have the same lack of initiative if they were real.
Polearms have real weaknesses in single combat. They were best in formation. Polearms are unwieldy and smaller arms users that bypassed them would go to town on a polearm wielder. Its why they often carried short swords or shorter weapons for up close work.
That's when you either shift your grip or drop your primary arm and go for a grapple with your dagger.
Some dueling competition doesn't change the reality of combat. You wouldn't use a shield against a halberd which is made for breaking heavy armor. You would looking to move very fast to breach the reach of the halberd and get in close. Reach can be both an advantage and disadvantage in combat.
Ryangwy was saying that axes, maces, and shields should have a place just because they were common before the advent of plate armour. They were well out of favour by the time plate armour and guns ruled the battlefield. Using anything but plate armour (or a breastplate) should mark you as a peasant or a role where you don't expect to be attacked. Using leather should mark you out as an idiot when a gambeson does the job better and doesn't need a dead cow per set of armour.
It's irrelevant because humans could not wield a halberd long enough against magic or against a giant or dragon or other huge creatures, especially alone.
Those same creatures that mostly sit in the wilderness and avoid human settlements? By your logic, Golarion should be ruled by dragons who are, in turn, thralls to outsiders who are, in turn, ruled by gods. There's no room for anything else to happen.
Humans used to be frightened of grizzly bears, lions, and tigers. Creatures of nightmare to humans.
So frightened that we made cave lions extinct, drove bears and wolves into hiding, and expanded into what used to be their territory. Even Tigers, if we weren't protecting them, can be killed with simple wire traps and a spear with no ability to fight back.
There are a ton of D&D creatures that make bears, lions, and tigers seem like puppies and kittens.
Too bad they only show up to fight on level PCs and otherwise do nothing to impact the world. Golarion is a snapshot of a theme park. If we pretend it's a living world, it only works if these threats are very few in number or are, for some reason, unwilling to even try their luck against a settlement unless they're desperate or stupid.
Swords were used on the battlefield, just depends on the sword and the army strategy. Different units had different strategies. If that strategy incorporated a sword, then it was used.
With the tech level of Golarion, they would be uncommon as battlefield weapons. Knights would carry hammers/picks on horseback as a backup for their lance, with a dagger for close work. On foot, they carried polearms and daggers. Nobody was going to battle in the age of pike and shot armed with a sword and shield.
Swords are very versatile in build and purpose.
This makes them excellent sidearms for self-defence, but they are the pistol or home defence shotgun of weapons. Near useless as military tools once the phalanx was out of fashion.
Unless you want firearms in your games so you can get to sabres and other similar weapons, which you don't because you don't like guns in fantasy and want armour to be useful, you are stuck with swords being civilian defence weapons and duelling toys for the rich.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They also have no desire to be above ground, and breed slowly compared to us. The lack of reach and slow speed is also something they'd struggle to overcome.
Made up fantasy rubbish. A real race with their characteristic would waste us.
One loss for them is like 100 for us because they just don't reproduce quickly enough. Skill doesn't save you from a stray arrow or getting hit from behind by the human tribe that has 10 or 20 times your numbers.
See above.
Real living creatures competing for resources with advantageous traits would waste us. You're applying real evolution and biology here, right? Not made up fantasy limitations that aren't real. You want realism, right?
Realism is elves that 800 years would utterly annihilate humanity. They would have no reason to breed slow. They are competing for resources and power like humans did and will waste us.
They should also annihilate Golarion, as heroes are meant to be rare, and only the largest cities have anybody who can fight at or above 7th level. They all have to hold the idiot ball to make the setting function so we can assume they'd have the same lack of initiative if they were real.
So it's realism when you want realism and made up stuff when you want that?
That's when you either shift your grip or drop your primary arm and go for a grapple with your dagger.
Or you figure out that the real versions of these weapons were built with a specific purpose in mind. Absent that purpose, they would be inferior like using a polearm in one on one combat or trying to use a bow in a melee.
We don't want that version of the weapon. We want the imaginary, fantasy versions where bows can be fired effectively like in seconds and swords or halberds can be standardly carried weapons with minimal differences in capability.
We don't want the real versions of what were basically military weapons built often to counter some military advancement from an opponent or to support from military strategy in the warfare of that time.
So we don't need a focus on realism or even a close simulation. A fun fantasy version of weapons usable if you feel like using them.
Made up fantasy rubbish. A real race with their characteristic would waste us.
Why do you get to pick and choose what traits we keep and which are discarded as "made-up fantasy rubbish" when you can't even handle guns in your fantasy?
So it's realism when you want realism and made up stuff when you want that?
You have to use all the evidence. Evidence says that monsters on Golarion are very few in number and passive; otherwise, we wouldn't have a setting to play in.
Or you figure out that the real versions of these weapons were built with a specific purpose in mind. Absent that purpose, they would be inferior like using a polearm in one on one combat or trying to use a bow in a melee.
So why did knights, who didn't fight in strict formation, carry polearms when on foot during the period when plate was common? You've refuse to answer this simple question.
We don't want that version of the weapon. We want the imaginary, fantasy versions where bows can be fired effectively like in seconds and swords or halberds can be standardly carried weapons with minimal differences in capability.
You, for whom guns in their fantasy is apparently a step too far, don't want this. Nobody else has had a choice because the bigger games have chosen to be abstract.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns are a genre issue, not a realism issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They also have no desire to be above ground, and breed slowly compared to us. The lack of reach and slow speed is also something they'd struggle to overcome.Made up fantasy rubbish. A real race with their characteristic would waste us.
One loss for them is like 100 for us because they just don't reproduce quickly enough. Skill doesn't save you from a stray arrow or getting hit from behind by the human tribe that has 10 or 20 times your numbers.See above.
Real living creatures competing for resources with advantageous traits would waste us. You're applying real evolution and biology here, right? Not made up fantasy limitations that aren't real. You want realism, right?
Realism is elves that 800 years would utterly annihilate humanity. They would have no reason to breed slow. They are competing for resources and power like humans did and will waste us.
They should also annihilate Golarion, as heroes are meant to be rare, and only the largest cities have anybody who can fight at or above 7th level. They all have to hold the idiot ball to make the setting function so we can assume they'd have the same lack of initiative if they were real.So it's realism when you want realism and made up stuff when you want that?
That's when you either shift your grip or drop your primary arm and go for a grapple with your dagger.Or you figure out that the real versions of these weapons were built with a specific purpose in mind. Absent that purpose, they would be inferior like using a polearm in one on one combat or trying to use a bow in a melee.
We don't want that version of the weapon. We want the imaginary, fantasy versions where bows can be fired effectively like in seconds and swords or halberds can be standardly carried weapons with minimal differences in capability.
We don't want the real versions of what were basically military weapons built often to counter some military advancement from an opponent or to...
Once you start changing the characteristics of the race as presented you are no longer even having the same discussion. Part of the definition of elves is a low Birth rate. If you start snipping off bits and replacing them then it’s no longer even the same discussion. In the REAL WORLD long lived races tend to have lower birth rates.
Guns are a genre issue, not a realism issue.
Also very true.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you get to pick and choose what traits we keep and which are discarded as "made-up fantasy rubbish" when you can't even handle guns in your fantasy?
Because you've decided reality is the barometer and real evolution doesn't care about fantasy limitations.
You have to use all the evidence. Evidence says that monsters on Golarion are very few in number and passive; otherwise, we wouldn't have a setting to play in.
You're making arguments about real world Earth, not Golarion.
So why did knights, who didn't fight in strict formation, carry polearms when on foot during the period when plate was common? You've refuse to answer this simple question.
What type of knight? A non-noble mercenary knight? What era of knight? Early Celts or the later horse cavalry we see in movies with the shiny armor? What age? Why type of battlefield? What were they doing?
I have all types of books and of course the Internet to pull information from. I've read on knights for ages and their history with weapons and armor.
It's far more varied than you paint it.
You, for whom guns in their fantasy is apparently a step too far, don't want this. Nobody else has had a choice because the bigger games have chosen to be abstract.
Nobody wants it including you. Halberds were not made for indoor combat in dungeons. Polearms in general weren't. Sticking realism in games like these is something no one wants because when you study these weapons for real, you find they were made for specific purposes you don't even talk about for use in large scale battles.
You're bringing up some dueling competition when it is very clear halberds were not much involved in dueling culture. They were primarily made for heavy chopping against horses and heavy armor by military units involved in large scale battle.
It was a fairly useless weapon in close up, one on one battles easily bypassed by even a moderately skilled warrior to get into melee combat.
You're asking for realism no one wants in their fantasy games. Plenty of organizations who do Medieval battle reenactments using weapons for their intended purposes, but that isn't PF or similar games.
Guns are a personal preference. Some like it in their fantasy, some don't. I certainly don't expect Paizo to remake the game for my preferences on guns. I get rid of them myself. Seems some folks want the game remade to their preferences rather than do the work themselves when the consensus is not agreeable to them.
Do the work yourself to make weapons more "realistic." I've read too many ancient military history books to want realistic weapons in my fantasy games. I know what they were made for and D&D/PF is a hodgepodge of weapons from different times, countries, strategies, and even smithing capabilities often created for specific purposes like beating horse cavalry, puncturing armor, or the like.
I have no need for this level of realism in my fantasy. I'm not part of a unit of Swiss Pikemen or heavy horse cavalry or Welsh longbowmen.