Fighter Weapon groups in PFS - Missing weapons


Rules Questions

Lantern Lodge

31 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm posting this here cos this is a specific to PFS question.
In regular Pathfinder this question would be resolved with a simple decision by a GM. And after looking at different posts on this subject, no answer has yet to come forth.

Question: For weapons currently not assigned to a Fighter Weapon group, which Weapon groups should such weapons be assigned to in PFS?

So I notice that some weapons like Longaxe, Dwarven does not appear in any Fighter Weapon groups. In regular PF, the GM could decide on which group or groups they belong to. But in PFS there does not seems to be any ruling on this.

*!*I understand that the Fighter may not be the most exciting of classes, but I hope it does not get sidelined on an issue like this.*!*

Could a list for PFS on which weapon groups they belong to be made for these missing weapons?

Sczarni

I know this may seem like a PFS specific question, but it really isn't. PFS would still default to the normal PFRPG rules regarding this, which means that if a weapon isn't found in a Fighter's Weapon Group, then it has no Weapon Group.

The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It wrote:
Note that some FAQ answers tell you to talk to your GM for permission to use a particular option. If you are playing in Pathfinder Society and the PFS staff haven’t addressed the question in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, an entry in the PFS FAQ, or a clarification by the campaign staff, the default answer to this question is “no,” as it’s probably odd enough to have unexpected effects on the PFS campaign.

In order to get your question answered, you need to make an FAQ request in the Rules Forum. If or when it gets answered, it will be binding in PFS.

But this is not the appropriate forum for such a request.

Lantern Lodge

The problem is there is no question in terms of rules for normal Pathfinder. There is nothing to FAQ.
How weapons not in a weapon group is already clearly covered in the rules. The GM decided what weapon group, weapons not in the lists get added to.

I'm rising this, as it is something that could be covered by PFS staff in in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, an entry in the PFS FAQ, or a clarification.

The issue lies in PFS side of the court as PFS is its own campaign with its own rules. Only the equivalent of the over all GM for PFS, the coordinator for PFS, Mr. Mike Brock, or another PFS staff can make a ruling on this. And it is specific to PFS.

I know that the fighter is very basic, when compared to the many other newer classes out there. And there are many other issues that are likely more pressing to resolve. But with the fighter being one of the core classes, could this matter be look into? As it stands, it feels like a logic loophole. Weapons that appears in official books not being reflected in weapon groups for PFS.

Sczarni

Secane wrote:
PFS is its own campaign with its own rules.

This is the assumption most non-PFS players come to when they hear about Organized Play, and it's really not true. PFS doesn't "make up" rules, it defaults to the PFRPG rules set. There are houserules in place that modify, limit, or ban certain rules elements, but nothing that creates new rules that aren't already found in the PFRPG rules set.

Creating a list of weapons to be assigned to Fighter groups is not the purview of the PFS staff. That would be an assignment for the Design team, and the best place to bring that to their attention would be in the Rules Questions forum.

If you wish to hear the opinion of someone from the PFS staff, I provide you with this useful quote from John Compton:

John Compton wrote:

Sometimes you'll come across a character option that's missing a key piece of information; let's use your example of ice tomb. Here's how I recommend proceeding.

Player: I use the ice tomb hex!
GM: Oh, that's going to hurt! What's the range on that?
Player: Um, there's no range listed.
GM: Huh, it's kind of strange that there's no range listed, so let's work under an assumed range of 60 feet for this session. Right now you're 40 feet from the hill giant, so that should be no problem for you. Once the session is over, we can research it a bit more and see if we're just missing something in the text.
Player: And if there's not?
GM: Then we can check the FAQ or errata on paizo.com. If it's not there, one of us can ask about it on the rules forum. Just keep in mind that until we can nail down an exact answer, you might get a different range from a different GM. So long as we're both good with 60 feet for today, let's get back to the combat and keep things moving.
Player: Cool.

Let's say you're playing two sessions that day, or you play again before you can get a ruling. Here's what I would do.

GM: Welcome everyone. Let's get settled so that we can start soon.
Player: Hey GM? I recently got the ice tomb hex, and it's been a little weird because it doesn't list a range. If it's possible, might I suggest a fair range to use until the matter is resolved on the messageboards?
GM: *Reads the hex* Right you are--there's no range. What have you worked with before?
Player: My last GM said 60 feet.
GM: Hmmm...I would say 30 feet because that seems to be the range for lots of other witch hexes. I trust that won't ruin how your character works?
Player: It's a little shorter than I'd like, but I can work with it.
GM: Good to hear. Thanks for bringing this up. I hadn't noticed it before.

Assuming that lack of information means the answer is infinity is a rather dangerous train of thought. In that case, the witch in question might start trying to kill demons on another plane, assassinate someone miles away from on a mountaintop, or something equally concerning.

The Rules forum is the best place to get a clarification about a vague rule. Remember that if you're aiming for an FAQ, it's helpful to present a concise, well-worded question; it's harder for a developer or designer to know quite what to answer if there are lots of facets to your FAQ-ed post.

Thanks,
John

Just imagine this dialog replaced the words "Ice Tomb" with "Fighter Weapon Groups" instead.

Sczarni

I'm not telling you this issue doesn't matter. There are a couple weapons I'd like added to the list of Weapon Groups as well. I'm just telling you this isn't the best place to have that discussion. The Rules Forum is really where you need to go.

Lantern Lodge

I understand your point Nefreet,

My only gripe with this is that the rules in the CRB did clearly state what to do in a situation where a weapon does not appear in one of the listed weapon groups.

That said, I do understand your point and thank you for pointing out the sources.

If it is more appropriate for this thread, please move this thread to the rules forum. While I strongly feel this is a PFS specific problem, I do agree that it would be better to address it as a rules question.

Sczarni

I'd personally love it if the Fauchard could be officially classified as a part of the Polearm Weapon Group. "This polearm is similar to a glaive". I have a Sohei I want to play soon that would love to "Flurry of Polearms" with a Fauchard.

What Weapon Group did you want your Longaxe to be in? Until there is a ruling you could just follow John Compton's outline, and ask your GM before each session how he or she would like to handle the issue. If you're wanting to put it in the "Axes" group, I'm sure few if any GMs would have a problem with that.

I'll likely be doing the same thing with my Sohei.


Nefreet wrote:

.

If you wish to hear the opinion of someone from the PFS staff, I provide you with this useful quote from John Compton:

Spoiler:
John Compton wrote:

Sometimes you'll come across a character option that's missing a key piece of information; let's use your example of ice tomb. Here's how I recommend proceeding.

Player: I use the ice tomb hex!
GM: Oh, that's going to hurt! What's the range on that?
Player: Um, there's no range listed.
GM: Huh, it's kind of strange that there's no range listed, so let's work under an assumed range of 60 feet for this session. Right now you're 40 feet from the hill giant, so that should be no problem for you. Once the session is over, we can research it a bit more and see if we're just missing something in the text.
Player: And if there's not?
GM: Then we can check the FAQ or errata on paizo.com. If it's not there, one of us can ask about it on the rules forum. Just keep in mind that until we can nail down an exact answer, you might get a different range from a different GM. So long as we're both good with 60 feet for today, let's get back to the combat and keep things moving.
Player: Cool.

Let's say you're playing two sessions that day, or you play again before you can get a ruling. Here's what I would do.

GM:

...

I found this advice to be simple but very helpful, really well put with a great example. I have gone (via Nefreets helpful link) to the original post and marked it as an FAQ candidate, as I feel this piece of advice definitely belongs there.


I started threads in both Rules Questions and Society GD for the same question [url]a year ago[/url] and six months ago without any luck Secane. I don't expect you'll get much more of a response than I did.

Lantern Lodge

@Nefreet,
I was using the Longaxe as an example. I would actually want to know what weapon group the Dwarven Boulder Helm is in. Given that I do have a character take wears one and it is such an unusual weapon.

@ZanThrax,
Well if we all start requesting for a FAQ on this, may be it would work?

-
I just feel that as the fighter is a core class, such a subject should be addressed.
It may not be the most popular class around, but fighters are played commonly enough that the issue of missing weapons in the weapon groups should be addressed.

It is not something that should fall to table variation.

Shadow Lodge

Close weapon, definitely.

Sorry, I'm not helping any.


Secane wrote:


@ZanThrax,
Well if we all start requesting for a FAQ on this, may be it would work?

-
I just feel that as the fighter is a core class, such a subject should be addressed.
It may not be the most popular class around, but fighters are played commonly enough that the issue of missing weapons in the weapon groups should be addressed.

It is not something that should fall to table variation.

Sorry that this hasn't been covered for you yet, but as Nefreet says your best bet is to raise this in the General Pathfinder Rules thread and to FAQ it once. Until it gets answered I'm afraid you will have to let it fall to table variation or work around it.

From James Jacobs:
Is a question with more FAQ-clicks more likely to be answered?
No. The staff can see that some posts have a lot of FAQ flags, but the staff also evaluates the complexity of the question, how much impact the answer has on player characters, and other factors. Just because someone managed to rally a lot of support about a particular question doesn't mean it's the most important, urgent, or relevant question.
In other words, sometimes it’s better or more efficient for the staff to answer a question with fewer FAQ flags than one with many FAQ flags.

Sczarni

If I was your GM I'd probably let you treat the Boulder Helm as part of the Close Weapon Group.

So long as you let me treat the Fauchard as part of the Polearm Weapon Group ;-).

Lantern Lodge

Nefreet wrote:

If I was your GM I'd probably let you treat the Boulder Helm as part of the Close Weapon Group.

So long as you let me treat the Fauchard as part of the Polearm Weapon Group ;-).

Makes sense to me!

After all Wikipedia says "A fauchard is a type of polearm weapon..."
If it says so on the internet, it must be true!!! :D

Jokes aside, the Fauchard's description does says it is a polearm and should logically be placed in the polearms weapon group.
But since it is not "officially" listed in the weapon groups... the Fauchard does/may not count as one in PFS as far as weapon groups is concern, on the decision of the table GM.

It is this sort of logic loops that I hope a faq would resolve.

*If any paizo stuff is seeing this, please move this thread to the Rules Questions section if you deem it more appropriate then the PFS section. Thank you.

Sczarni

I flagged the initial post. They'll probably get to it when the day starts and they've had their coffee.

Time for me to go back to studying for my next midterm.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Nefreet wrote:

I flagged the initial post. They'll probably get to it when the day starts and they've had their coffee.

Time for me to go back to studying for my next midterm.

Yap its moved. Thank you.

Hope more people would see this and FAQ it. It would make a Core class like the Fighter more complete and close loopholes when it comes to weapon choices.


Secane wrote:
It would make a Core class like the Fighter more complete and close loopholes when it comes to weapon choices.

Yarr, fighter and cleric both suffer from this sort of thing. New domains and weapons feel just out of reach, especially in PFS. At least imo.

Grand Lodge

Is there a list of weapons that do not currently belong to a Fighter Weapon Group?

Lantern Lodge

MrSin wrote:
Secane wrote:
It would make a Core class like the Fighter more complete and close loopholes when it comes to weapon choices.
Yarr, fighter and cleric both suffer from this sort of thing. New domains and weapons feel just out of reach, especially in PFS. At least imo.

I guess it is the draw back of so many source materials. Honestly without sites like Archives of Nethys that consolidates information like archetypes and spells from different sources into 1 location, it would be harder to make or play characters.

New domains and weapons would be harder to be applied to previously released content without re-labeling, erratas or faqs.

That said, I hope weapons released in the future will contain a quick label (Example, Fauchard, weapon Group: Polearms) stating which weapon group they belong to under the weapon chart or description. This will help not just fighters, but some other classes that have archetypes making use of weapon groups.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Is there a list of weapons that do not currently belong to a Fighter Weapon Group?

I believe someone posted a list on another thread sometime back. Got to find it again. :S


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Is there a list of weapons that do not currently belong to a Fighter Weapon Group?

The ones I know of are everything in the ARG, plus the Aldori Dueling Sword. Will have a look to see if anything from ISWG is missing.

edit: also Bladed Scarf, Klar (which is odd, since it is in UE), Ogre Hook (ditto), and War Razor from ISWG don't have weapon groups.

Grand Lodge

I would really like to see a compiled list, if anyone has one.

Sczarni

And the aforementioned Fauchard.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This may not be *entirely* accurate, but I did a quick check on my database for this information. It looked at all the weapons in my non-magical weapons table, checked to see if they existed in Fighter Weapon groups, and returned the ones that didn't.

In short, this should be indicative of all the weapons that don't have a fighter weapon category (did not look at ammunition/firearms in this). The reason it might not be perfect is if I have something in one table as "Shuriken (5)", but it's looking for "Shuriken". Not perfect, but useful. Or maybe the fighter weapon group just says "shield" instead of each individual shield. Take the information with a grain of salt.

Spoiler:
Aldori dueling sword
Axe, boarding
Battle ladder
Battle poi
Bich'hwa
Blade boot
Bladed scarf
Boarding gaff
Boarding pike
Brass knife
Butterfly knife
Cat-o'-nine-tails
Chain, spiked
Claw blades
Combat scabbard
Combat scabbard, sharpened
Crystal chakram
Cutlass
Dwarven dorn-dergar
Dwarven double waraxe
Dwarven maulaxe
Fauchard
Flailpole
Flambard
Flask thrower
Flickmace
Flindbar
Garrote
Grappling hook
Halfling double sling
Halfling stitched sling
Hanbo
Helmet, dwarven boulder
Hook hand
Injection spear
Jolting dart
Katar, tri-bladed
Klar
Kobold tail, long lash
Kobold tail, pounder
Kobold tail, razored
Kobold tail, spiked
Kobold tail, sweeper
Launching crossbow
Longaxe, dwarven
Longhammer, dwarven
Lungchuan tamo
Pickaxe
Piston maul
Rhomphaia
Ripsaw glaive
Rope gauntlet
Sea-knife
Shoanti bolas
Shortsword
Shrillshaft javelin
Shuriken (5)
Sling glove
Spiked heavy shield
Spiked light shield
Stingchuck
Switchblade knife
Syringe spear
Tailblade, ratfolk
Tepoztopilli
Terbutje, steel
Thorn bow
Thorn bracer
Totem spear
War razor


That's a much longer list than I'd have guessed. But Shortsword, shuriken (5), and the spiked shields can come off - the spikes are listed separately from the shields in the weapon groups, and shortsword is listed as short sword.

I think you could probably argue that the ones that modify natural attacks don't really need weapon groups as your character is still using his natural attacks. Other than that, RAW, none of these weapons can benefit from Weapon Training (except for a Weapon Master fighter), or anything else that keys off of the Fighter Weapon Groups.

edit: Maybe the ones that "function as" a standard weapon except for whatever's special about them could be argued as counting as the standard weapon for weapon group purposes as well. That would cut the list down to about half if so.

Scarab Sages

Yeah, like I said, there's definitely some case sensitivity issues. It's not ideal, just one of the many things on my list that I want to figure out a better way to do at some point.

In any case, definitely more than a few weapons that don't fall into groups. Most of them setting-specific, which should explain why. The times weapon groups are brought up are usually in the setting-neutral big RPG books. I imagine most GMs can just figure out what group a weapon belongs into as needed for their own games though.

Lantern Lodge

That is a way longer list then I thought.

Given that all these weapons come from an official book and most are legal for use in PFS... This should be resolved.

I agree with ZanThrax, natural weapons should be taken out.
And I think Short sword is under Blades, Light.

I would suggest using archives of nethys's compilation of
weapon groups
as a reference point to check against.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's what I pulled from :) It's my site. Yeah, actually just changed the short sword spelling (added the space) so they linked up better. If I remove natural weapon enhancements (think I got them all) and shields, the list looks more like:

Spoiler:
Aldori dueling sword
Axe, boarding
Battle ladder
Battle poi
Bich'hwa
Blade boot
Bladed scarf
Boarding gaff
Boarding pike
Brass knife
Butterfly knife
Cat-o'-nine-tails
Chain, spiked
Combat scabbard
Combat scabbard, sharpened
Crystal chakram
Cutlass
Dwarven dorn-dergar
Dwarven double waraxe
Dwarven maulaxe
Fauchard
Flailpole
Flambard
Flask thrower
Flickmace
Flindbar
Garrote
Grappling hook
Halfling double sling
Halfling stitched sling
Hanbo
Helmet, dwarven boulder
Hook hand
Injection spear
Jolting dart
Katar, tri-bladed
Klar
Launching crossbow
Longaxe, dwarven
Longhammer, dwarven
Lungchuan tamo
Pickaxe
Piston maul
Rhomphaia
Ripsaw glaive
Rope gauntlet
Sea-knife
Shoanti bolas
Shrillshaft javelin
Sling glove
Stingchuck
Switchblade knife
Syringe spear
Tepoztopilli
Terbutje, steel
Thorn bow
Thorn bracer
Totem spear
War razor

Grand Lodge

Lord, that is a bigger list than it should be.

Lantern Lodge

Karui Kage wrote:

That's what I pulled from :) It's my site. Yeah, actually just changed the short sword spelling (added the space) so they linked up better. If I remove natural weapon enhancements (think I got them all) and shields, the list looks more like:

** spoiler omitted **

THANK YOU so much for Archive of Nethys!

I recommend it to all other PFS players I meet as the go to site for whats legal for PFS play. Even my homebrew group is encourage to use it.

Your clear labelling of which source a specific feat, spell, item...etc comes from, really helps us plan what books to buy for our PFS characters. :)

On weapons...
That is 59 weapons in weapon group limbo... wow...

Some are kinda clear-cut, so even different GMs would find it hard to dispute them.
But some others are really on the fences and others are just so unusual, they would likely be subjected to table variation.

*Do you all think an ideal like "Fighters may pick one weapon to apply weapon training to, in place of a weapon group" help resolve this?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the last solution would be more than fair, personally. Whether or not it will become law is beyond me, but the entire goal of picking a weapon group is so it applies to at least one weapon. Having the alternative of just picking a single weapon if there is no group to support it seems more than fair.

I'm glad you enjoy the site! :) If you ever have any suggestions or desires for material on it, you can always feel free to shoot me a mail: asknethys@karuikage.net


FYI- A number of those are given weapons groups in Humans of Golarion pg. 24/25.

Still a lot not answered, but maybe a dozen that can be grouped.


Look like we're down to the following:

(Spiked chain was on the list, but is in UE as a Flail)

Spoiler:
Axe, boarding
Battle ladder
Bich'hwa
Blade boot
Boarding gaff
Boarding pike
Brass knife
Butterfly knife
Cat-o'-nine-tails
Combat scabbard
Combat scabbard, sharpened
Crystal chakram
Cutlass
Dwarven dorn-dergar
Dwarven double waraxe
Dwarven maulaxe
Fauchard
Flailpole
Flask thrower
Flickmace
Flindbar
Garrote
Grappling hook
Halfling double sling
Halfling stitched sling
Helmet, dwarven boulder
Hook hand
Injection spear
Jolting dart
Katar, tri-bladed
Longaxe, dwarven
Longhammer, dwarven
Lungchuan tamo
Pickaxe
Piston maul
Rhomphaia
Ripsaw glaive
Sea-knife
Shrillshaft javelin
Stingchuck
Switchblade knife
Syringe spear
Tepoztopilli
Terbutje, steel
Thorn bow
Thorn bracer
Totem spear

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is quite true! I went ahead and added these into my database, I'll need to update my header to reflect that it pulls data from Humans of Golarion too... there were some problems. I'll address those below.

Anyhow, with the new data in, these are the missing weapons:

Spoiler:
Axe, boarding
Battle ladder
Bich'hwa
Blade boot
Boarding gaff
Boarding pike
Brass knife
Cat-o'-nine-tails
Combat scabbard
Combat scabbard, sharpened
Crystal chakram
Cutlass
Dwarven dorn-dergar
Dwarven double waraxe
Dwarven maulaxe
Fauchard
Flailpole
Flask thrower
Flickmace
Flindbar
Garrote
Grappling hook
Halfling double sling
Halfling stitched sling
Helmet, dwarven boulder
Hook hand
Injection spear
Jolting dart
Katar, tri-bladed
Longaxe, dwarven
Longhammer, dwarven
Lungchuan tamo
Pickaxe
Piston maul
Rhomphaia
Ripsaw glaive
Sea-knife
Shrillshaft javelin
Stingchuck
Switchblade knife
Syringe spear
Tepoztopilli
Terbutje, steel
Thorn bow
Thorn bracer
Totem spear

Now, here's the problem with Humans of Golarion.

1: It's not listed as legal material in the Additional Resources. While I'd certainly allow a player to treat his aldori dueling sword as a heavy blade based on it (it isn't listed elsewhere), I'd hesitate saying it's 100% legal because...

2. It has some pretty big conflicts with Ultimate Equipment. A chain spear, in UE, is a Flail. In HoG, it's Double and Spears. A chakram in UE is Heavy Blades and Thrown. In HoG, it's a Light Blade.

There's a number of others, it's kind of frustrating. I think what I'm going to (with the Archives) is denote which categories come from UE and which come from HoG, just to be safe. I'll also need to indicate up top that while UE is PFS-Legal, HoG hasn't been indicated as such.

So, yeah. It definitely helps when it comes to suggesting categories, but it doesn't quite solve the problem.

Shadow Lodge

Unless overwritten by pfs specific rules, pfs uses base rules. In this case there's no special pfs rules; so base rules for weapon groups plainly states that "GMs may add other weapons to these groups." In other words, you have to ask every game if the GM agrees with you that your blade boots are close weapons (etc).


gnoams wrote:
Unless overwritten by pfs specific rules, pfs uses base rules. In this case there's no special pfs rules; so base rules for weapon groups plainly states that "GMs may add other weapons to these groups." In other words, you have to ask every game if the GM agrees with you that your blade boots are close weapons (etc).

In the case of "GMs permission" the answer is usually "No". See: Cavalier

Its also not the safest best because the fighter class is really reliant on weapons group since its where he gets his full BAB+ from and its one of his only 3 class features after feats.

Scarab Sages

I suppose it depends on the GM. I know that if a PFS player in one of my games was using a legal weapon that just didn't happen to be grouped, I'd be okay with a grouping he suggested if it made even a modicum of sense. That said, it'd still be preferable to have some official ruling. I'm still a fan of the "if a weapon cannot be found in a group, the player may take weapon training in that specific weapon instead of a group" option.

Shadow Lodge

MrSin wrote:
gnoams wrote:
Unless overwritten by pfs specific rules, pfs uses base rules. In this case there's no special pfs rules; so base rules for weapon groups plainly states that "GMs may add other weapons to these groups." In other words, you have to ask every game if the GM agrees with you that your blade boots are close weapons (etc).

In the case of "GMs permission" the answer is usually "No". See: Cavalier

Its also not the safest best because the fighter class is really reliant on weapons group since its where he gets his full BAB+ from and its one of his only 3 class features after feats.

The answer is varies by GM. It's definitely risky to do since you will likely run into GMs that disagree with you for one reason or another. Just because you are playing organized play does not mean the GM can't make rules calls. That is part of the GMs role, pfs play doesn't change that. The GM can't make house rules, but this is a case where it clearly states GM call.


Nefreet wrote:
Secane wrote:
PFS is its own campaign with its own rules.

This is the assumption most non-PFS players come to when they hear about Organized Play, and it's really not true. PFS doesn't "make up" rules, it defaults to the PFRPG rules set. There are houserules in place that modify, limit, or ban certain rules elements, but nothing that creates new rules that aren't already found in the PFRPG rules set.

Creating a list of weapons to be assigned to Fighter groups is not the purview of the PFS staff. That would be an assignment for the Design team, and the best place to bring that to their attention would be in the Rules Questions forum.

If you wish to hear the opinion of someone from the PFS staff, I provide you with this useful quote from John Compton:

John Compton wrote:

Sometimes you'll come across a character option that's missing a key piece of information; let's use your example of ice tomb. Here's how I recommend proceeding.

Player: I use the ice tomb hex!
GM: Oh, that's going to hurt! What's the range on that?
Player: Um, there's no range listed.
GM: Huh, it's kind of strange that there's no range listed, so let's work under an assumed range of 60 feet for this session. Right now you're 40 feet from the hill giant, so that should be no problem for you. Once the session is over, we can research it a bit more and see if we're just missing something in the text.
Player: And if there's not?
GM: Then we can check the FAQ or errata on paizo.com. If it's not there, one of us can ask about it on the rules forum. Just keep in mind that until we can nail down an exact answer, you might get a different range from a different GM. So long as we're both good with 60 feet for today, let's get back to the combat and keep things moving.
Player: Cool.

Let's say you're playing two sessions that day, or you play again before you can get a ruling. Here's what I would do.

GM:

...

What you've just described is exactly what any GM does--make a judgment call based on that campaign's philosophy and that GM's ideas on how to adjudicate GM-call issues. The fact that PFS has a particular approach to resolving such issues does not make that approach any less arbitrary or campaign-specific.

The CRB specifically empowers GMs to decide how unlisted weapons fit into weapon groups--not just in a Rule Zero fashion, but explicitly in the text for weapon groups. This freedom is incompatible with the "no table variance" paradigm of PFS, so PFS makes the call for the entire campaign. Since they stay silent, the default PFS stance is "restrict". That's a valid and understandable system. However, that doesn't make this system somehow more correct, "blessed", or rules-endorsed than that of GMs who take an active role in addigning weapon groups. It's as much a campaign-specific ruling as making an updated group list for PFS. More to the point, it has exactly the same degree of rules support as GM Bob deciding that a newly-published weapon should be in the close weapons group for his Bobtopia campaign.

Grand Lodge

It would be sad if one chose one of those weapons, for the Martial Versatility feat, and had no idea what their feat applied to.

Also, things like the Brawler, who is proficient with all weapons in the Close Fighter Weapon Group, and can use all those weapon in his Brawler's Flurry, has to wonder if "am I proficient with this", or "can I flurry with this" and have no answer.

Scarab Sages

For PFS, it's best to just pretend those weapons don't exist if you have class features that depend on weapon groups until there is an update. Otherwise you have to deal with table variation at every game you play in.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a lot of weapons to "pretend they don't exist".

I would rather see these get grouped, than continually adding Subdomains to Gods.

I would hate to pick a weapon in PFS, and have to debate with the Judge as to whether my PC is proficient, or not, with it.

Scarab Sages

blackbloodtroll wrote:

That's a lot of weapons to "pretend they don't exist".

I would rather see these get grouped, than continually adding Subdomains to Gods.

I would hate to pick a weapon in PFS, and have to debate with the Judge as to whether my PC is proficient, or not, with it.

Agreed.

Grand Lodge

If anything, the ones with feats specific to them should be grouped.

The Dwarven Boulder Helmet, has like, three feats dedicated to it.

Why is it not grouped?

Lantern Lodge

Karui Kage wrote:
I'm glad you enjoy the site! :) If you ever have any suggestions or desires for material on it, you can always feel free to shoot me a mail: asknethys@karuikage.net

Well offhand, one of my players did mention he prefers the way spells for classes like wizards to be grouped into their respective schools. Something like how d20pfsrd does it.

I did mention that the custom search function can give the same results, but he does not agree. Says he prefers all the spells grouped and listed on 1 page. :S

Not sure if you thought about it or is grouping of spells under both lvl and schools something easy to do. Other than using the search function.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If anything, the ones with feats specific to them should be grouped.

The Dwarven Boulder Helmet, has like, three feats dedicated to it.

Why is it not grouped?

Possibly weapon grouping was not high on the priority list. Given the amount of content most Pathfinder books has, I'm amazed at the relatively low amount of errors. And unlike some publishers, Paizo do actively correct such errors. They may need time to come up with a solution or decision, but as you can see in the list of FAQs and PDF updates, the game is ever improving.

Scarab Sages

Secane wrote:

Well offhand, one of my players did mention he prefers the way spells for classes like wizards to be grouped into their respective schools. Something like how d20pfsrd does it.

I did mention that the custom search function can give the same results, but he does not agree. Says he prefers all the spells grouped and listed on 1 page. :S

Not sure if you thought about it or is grouping of spells under both lvl and schools something easy to do. Other than using the search function.

You can message me on the side if you want more details, but there are some new advanced filters coming for Spells that should help do just that.

Grand Lodge

I figured Inner Sea Combat would handle a few though.

Lantern Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I figured Inner Sea Combat would handle a few though.

Did they list the weapon groups in Inner Sea Combat?

Scarab Sages

They did, but it seems to be missing the same material as UE (which is what I used since it came out more recently).

Lantern Lodge

Karui Kage wrote:
They did, but it seems to be missing the same material as UE (which is what I used since it came out more recently).

Aawww... I was really hoping that would solve some of the more setting specific items. (Some are in weapon groups now, but others are still out.) :(

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shameless bump. Please faq if you agree that this question should be faqed.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Fighter Weapon groups in PFS - Missing weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.