General RPG Rules DiscussionDiscuss the rules of any game except D&D or Pathfinder, such as Arcana Evolved, Mutants & Masterminds, Star Wars Saga, d20 Modern, and the like.
Oh, it is - but the greatsword also required more training, and that's reflected too. If you actually rack up the greatsword-related feats you're going to be a scary area-denial machine.
I don't think anyone was saying that the greatsword was bad (in-game), just that it was curious that it was less effective against armor. Even in abstract terms, the greatsword in real life is better in terms of both power and reach when it comes to armor.
Another note on the topic is that Banned Actions are very rare for PCs and should only be used when they make the most logical sense for the species in question. If you don't want LotR style Dwarves and you think a dwarf is simply a short human, re-write them to reflect the changes.
I think there are probably points in a continuum betweend dwarves being short humans and dwarves being cosmic incarnations of sinking to the bottom.
I don't think anyone was saying that the greatsword was bad (in-game), just that it was curious that it was less effective against armor. Even in abstract terms, the greatsword in real life is better in terms of both power and reach when it comes to armor.
That's actually not quite accurate. Yes a greatsword has better reach, but not better power against armor. Greatswords were used for two primary purposes.
The first and foremost purpose was to hew through lines of light infantry with spears/pikes, targeting first the flimsy spears and pikes, where thin wood can't hold up to the force of a greatsword. Then secondly the infantry themselves, and these light infantry rarely wore armor heavier than leather (and rarely chain) so there was no need for a greatsword to be effective against armor.
The second primary use was to use the weapon against cavalry in a rather brutal attack, taking the horses' legs. They were on occasion also set as secondary pikes themselves for dismounting riders.
On a more technical note, keep in mind that Longswords technically ARE "epee's a deux main" or 2-Handed weapons. This is how they are meant to be wielded. In almost all respects, in western martial arts, the longsword is considered a superior weapon to the "greatsword". While greatswords are large and grant you reach, they are wielded the same way as a longsword but are harder to master and of much more limited use.
That's actually not quite accurate. Yes a greatsword has better reach, but not better power against armor.
How do you figure?
Quote:
The first and foremost purpose was to hew through lines of light infantry with spears/pikes, targeting first the flimsy spears and pikes, where thin wood can't hold up to the force of a greatsword. Then secondly the infantry themselves, and these light infantry rarely wore armor heavier than leather (and rarely chain) so there was no need for a greatsword to be effective against armor.
The second primary use was to use the weapon against cavalry in a rather brutal attack, taking the horses' legs. They were on occasion also set as secondary pikes themselves for dismounting riders.
Their usage, again, is not in question. Considering a weapon a few inches longer and probably at least a half pound heavier, it should be evident that it can deliver a more powerful blow. A greatsword is not too heavy to achieve optimal speed in the hands of a strong enough wielder.
Secondly they live in tunnels and caverns. There is little to no real need for jumping or swimming so they would have no extended need to train in these skills.
You, sir, need to do some serious research about spelunking. There is always water, chasms, and other issues that make jumping and swimming very useful skills.
Other than that, good post.
__________________
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by keteryck, on Iron Heroes
You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeapThaumaturgist
"Home" is what you defend with your life ... from ninjas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalker0
Minions are a convenience, a way to allow a dm to run many guys with little effort, and a chance for players to really strut their stuff. They are not so that Bobo the clown can kill the legion of the damned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
Victory should come like the dawn, not like a light switch.
Spoiler:
Hate skill ranks? Try Sadrik's Fix.
Interested in Blood Throne? Find out more.
You, sir, need to do some serious research about spelunking. There is always water, chasms, and other issues that make jumping and swimming very useful skills.
Other than that, good post.
I've done a fair share of both caving and cave diving. I have never needed to swim while caving. As I mentioned before, a dwarf accustomed to cave Diving.... would be a cliff dwarf.
Granted, yes there are the occasional underground rivers, lakes, etc. but they are just that... rare. Most water encountered during spelunking can be bypassed without being a 'swimmer', either wading, rope-bridge, etc. The largest danger of water encountered while caving is the risk of unsafe terrain; slides, cave-ins, etc.
When looking at this from the perspective of a dwarf, they aren't going to be swimmers. Even if encountering a true underground river, they will take other paths than learning to swim it. Hell most dwarves would simply walk the bottom while holding their breath if they have to. More commonly they'd simply make rope-pull barges or as is typical of dwarves and loving to build things, use the excuse to build a bridge.
The same can pretty much be said for chasms. Dwarf legs are not proportional to a humans. Part of what is required for jumping is the 'spring' formed when bending the knee. The longer the sections of the spring, the more jump you get. This can be seen by looking at athletes. Hurdlers, long jumpers, etc. all have one thing in common, long legs. With dwarven legs not only being short, but rather disproportionately short in relation to their torso, and considering the heavier mass of a dwarf, I can full see where making exceptional feats of jumping are not something they can accomplish. Again, they would rely on other methods to bypass large chasms.
May I ask if you've ever had western martial arts training? (And I don't mean this sarcastically.)
Quote:
Their usage, again, is not in question. Considering a weapon a few inches longer and probably at least a half pound heavier, it should be evident that it can deliver a more powerful blow. A greatsword is not too heavy to achieve optimal speed in the hands of a strong enough wielder.
But their usage IS the question. You don't use a hammer to put in a screw or a screwdriver to hammer a nail. Likewise, you don't use a butcher knife to spread butter. You don't use a paring knife to dress a side of beef. You use a tool for what it was meant to do.
Greatswords simply are NOT meant to counter Armor. Period. It is not what they are made for, it is not how they were used, and its not how a sword was meant to be used and just because it weighs more and is longer doesn't make it more effective against said armor. Actually, smaller and sharper blades are MUCH more effective against armor. Why?
Due to common misunderstandings not only of the sword but, of plate armor, people keep making the argument that a heavy sword was needed to smash or cut through armor. Wrong.
Armorers, soldiers, and swordmasters alike realized that trying to cut through plate with a sword was sheer stupidity. More often than not, significant damage would be done to any sword when trying to "hack" through plate armor. Getting in between the joints with a weapon designed for thrusting as well as cut however, was easier and more effective than trying to cut through solid steel plating. There were much better tools such as axe, daggers and other short bladed swords (including longswords that could wielded single handed) which could deliver greater cutting ability and shock absorption without sustaining a great deal of weapon damage (that would also have been very expensive to repair) than the greatsword.
Now if you wanted to "cleave" plate... the chosen weapons were crossbows or heavy Blunt weapons such as hammers, maces, morningstars, etc. You don't cut through the armor so much as dent it to the point of being ineffective such as jamming joints, opening more gaps in the armor, caving in helms, etc.
This is why it makes perfect sense that the greatsword is 'statted' to be less effective against armor than smaller blades.
Ahh... so you don't want to live to an old age, huh.
Quote:
The largest danger of water encountered while caving is the risk of unsafe terrain; slides, cave-ins, etc.
I would have said hypothermia.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
May I ask if you've ever had western martial arts training? (And I don't mean this sarcastically.)
Oh, yes. I've fought boffer combat as well as SCA armored combat. I'm also familiar with such texts as Burton's Book of the Sword as well as Talhoffer, etc.
Quote:
But their usage IS the question. You don't use a hammer to put in a screw or a screwdriver to hammer a nail. Likewise, you don't use a butcher knife to spread butter. You don't use a paring knife to dress a side of beef. You use a tool for what it was meant to do.
It is just not that relevant in this particular instance. A flanged mace was not designed to kill a baby seal, yet I assure you it will do the job. Simply because the greatsword was designed primarily for its reach does not mean it does not also benefit from its weight and leverage.
Quote:
Greatswords simply are NOT meant to counter Armor. Period.
I disagree, although the nature of our disagreement is not what you think it is. I will note that sword of all varieties were used in armored combat, hopefully not a point of controversy.
Quote:
It is not what they are made for, it is not how they were used, and its not how a sword was meant to be used and just because it weighs more and is longer doesn't make it more effective against said armor. Actually, smaller and sharper blades are MUCH more effective against armor. Why?
Due to common misunderstandings not only of the sword but, of plate armor, people keep making the argument that a heavy sword was needed to smash or cut through armor. Wrong.
Armorers, soldiers, and swordmasters alike realized that trying to cut through plate with a sword was sheer stupidity.
Agreed. However, that is equally true for the longsword. For a heavily armored foe, the prime targets are the face-grille, the armpit, the wrists, the elbows, the knees, and the bend in the waist. A longer weapon allows a wider selection of targets, and when striking against a vulnerable joint, the greatsword, just as the longsword, would be grasped firmly, probably using an alternate grip, and stabbed forward much as a spear. It would clearly be superior for striking at the vulnerable wrists or an exposed neck because of its length and weight. Furthermore, although unlikely to cleave plate, the blade or pommel can still be used for effective striking, hoping to stun or unbalance a foe. The only circumstance in which the longsword would be superior would be the classic grapple-and-neckstab, a maneuver that it ouside the realm of a "basic strike" in most RPGs but which you are free to mark in the longsword's favor.
Furthermore, not all foes are wearing full plate. Against mail, brigandines, or leather of all varieties, the greatsword has greater capability than the longsword to pierce armor. And, clearly, against an unarmored foe, the greatsword is more likely to kill in one blow.
Although slightly less agile and certainly not as good for close-quarters, the greatsword clearly does more damage in every way a traditional RPG measures it, against foes in heavy armor, medium armor, or mostly unarmored.
I find myself wondering why I am debating historical weapon in a thread about a fantasy game which does not suppose to be historical, based on a spy game in which the katana is described as always a masterwork weapon.
Well, again, it's not less effective against armor - you just have to do a little work.
Weilding a longsword two-handed, at 18 Str, using the stance you get from Sword Basics, you do 1d12+9 damage, or an average of 15.5 points.
Weilding a greatsword at 18 Str, using the stance you get from Greatsword Basics, you do 16 points of damage (since you maximize damage on targets that have not moved). Plus you get Guard +2, so your AC is higher. And you have a chance to knock your opponents flat on their keister.
If you assume that any criticals will be activated, the greatsword edges ahead a bit farther, even keeping in mind the +1 you get from the sword stance - again, if you pick your targets based on their (lack of) movement.
And you definitely compare favorably in terms of damage output to the guy who is going sword & board - then again, he's got the potential for the various Shield feats.
Curious, does maximize do what I think it does? Static, maximum damage against a nonmoving foe? That would be very different from D&D.
Yep. if you're in the stance (half action to enter, only one stance at a time) and someone hasn't moved since your last turn, you get to do maximum weapon damage. (Bonus damage dice like sneak attack or a flaming sword are not maximized).
There's some subtle synergies there, too. Zweihanders and claymores both have the massive quality which requires a nice high Str to use but gives a chance of knocking the foe down - it'll cost them a half action to get up and leave them with the choice of moving away or doing something else and suffering a max-damage hit next round. Since the chance to knock down is based on the damage…
Weilding a longsword two-handed, at 18 Str, using the stance you get from Sword Basics, you do 1d12+9 damage, or an average of 15.5 points.
Weilding a greatsword at 18 Str, using the stance you get from Greatsword Basics, you do 16 points of damage (since you maximize damage on targets that have not moved). Plus you get Guard +2, so your AC is higher. And you have a chance to knock your opponents flat on their keister.
And of course, since stances are usually not weapon specific, nothing is stopping you from using the stance you get from Sword Basics when wielding a Greatsword.
And of course, since stances are usually not weapon specific, nothing is stopping you from using the stance you get from Sword Basics when wielding a Greatsword.
True, but that would put you behind in damage. (you'd be roughly equivalent to a sword'n'board swordsman in damage & AC though)
The greatswword stance only works with two-handed melée weapons, so the longsword guy can't use it to maximize his damage.
Completely unrelated to the uses and abuses of great swords....
I just hauled out City Works by FFG, to see how much work would be needed to use it with Fantasy Craft.
Pretty much everything except the first chapter can be used straight up with no conversion at all. Most of the modifications I made in later chapters were to fit the book in to an Industrial Age setting - increasing the population of Residential blocks, etc..
I am pretty happy about that - Mike Mearls did a great job on that book, and I can keep on using it, even for my Steampunk games.
The Auld Grump
__________________ Oh, I am a cook, and a captain bold, and the mate of the Nancy brig,
The midship mite,
And the Bo'sun tight,
And the crew of the captain's gig...
I have my copy now, thanks to a special order. Even after paging through it twice, I find I still have lots of questions, like how nonlethal damage works. Still, it is coming together in my mind. So far, I am very impressed.
There are some peculiarities. For instance, classes are almost completed defined by a central set of mechanics, tasks, and special qualities. Only their skill lists are background driven, for the most part. For instance, a mage could be anything from a bone-waving tribal sorcerer to the librarian of Unseen University. What unites them is that they cast spells, very powerful spells. Your Specialty more or less defines your adventuring profession, although some are rather abstract. The classic D&D classes are represented as specialties, so you can be a Fighter (dude who wears armor and uses lots of weapons) who advances as a Soldier or a Captain or maybe even an Explorer. So, for instance, a traditional D&D paladin might be some curious-sounding combination such as Cavalier (speciality) + Lancer (class that focuses on mounted combat and combat toughness), going into the Paladin class. A traditional fighter would be a Fighter (speciality) Soldier (class focused on combat feats and proficiencies and improved defense). Some of the specialties are kits or things that might be represented by class variants. For instance, the Gladiator and Guardian specialties impart melee mastery and bodyguard skills, respectively, to a class. It would be very difficult to do a 1:1 conversion from PCs in D&D to Fantasy Craft using some kind of mechanistic process, but doing it holistically is pretty easy. For instance, your typical fighter would be a Fighter-Soldier, but Regdar might be a Fighter-Captain in keeping with his high Charisma.
Partly as a result of this peculier vocabulary, converting someone like Conan can be interesting. For instance, Barbarian doesn't really fit very well since he isn't known for his Berserk Rage, so he's probably a Tribesman (good athletics bonus, probably better from an aesthetic viewpoint than Acrobat or Rogue, other very considerable options). Tribesman also gives him thick hide, so he doesn't bother with armor that isn't fitted steel plate. His first few levels might be in Burglar, reflecting his penchant for larceny, alertness, and agility, so he picks Resolve as one of his origin skills since Burglars don't get that. Burglar gives him a core ability that helps him perform high DC Dex based checks. The next few levels might be in Soldier, then Edgemaster, reflecting his legendary sword skill, and after level 10 or so, he might finish out as a Captain, a king and leader of men more than an athlete.
So to summarize, Fantasy Craft, despite very similar structures, uses a different vocabulary from D&D or Pathfinder. It bears some resemblance to d20 Modern in a number of respects, as well as True20. Overall, it reminds me in tone, scope, and style most of Rolemaster and Fantasy D6, two games I would consider very different. It has Rolemaster's penchant for detail and gory realism balanced with dramatic effects, and D6 Fantasy's generic, toolkit approach based on very simple core mechanics.
Tribesman also gives him thick hide, so he doesn't bother with armor that isn't fitted steel plate.
And if you want to go with the loincloth-only version you apply the Beefy Heroes campaign quality on p. 322.
FantasyCraft really is like some great big machine with all these different pieces so that you could just spend all your time trying the different combinations out and never even get to playing/running.
Tribesman also gives him thick hide, so he doesn't bother with armor that isn't fitted steel plate.
Because of the way Thick Hide stacks (greatest Thick Hide at full, +1 DR for each other Thick Hide) a dwarf tribesman can be really tough, without any armor at all. Not as scary as if they stacked fully, but DR4 is pretty good.
The Auld Grump
__________________ Oh, I am a cook, and a captain bold, and the mate of the Nancy brig,
The midship mite,
And the Bo'sun tight,
And the crew of the captain's gig...
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
