What's Your Weapon?

Friday, April 30, 2018

For many heroes, their choice of weapon says more about their personality and sense of aesthetics than their penchant for mechanical optimization. For others, form follows function, and still others blend the two. But what sort of weapon fits your personality best? Let's take a look at various weapons and figure it out!

Simple, Martial, or Exotic?

All weapons in Pathfinder are simple, martial, or exotic, based on their rough level of power. Unlike in Pathfinder First Edition, exotic weapons are not just a mixture of powerful European weapons and weapons from other cultures that only occasionally had a leg up over their martial kin. In Pathfinder Second Edition, we have a different way of talking about whether a weapon is likely to be found in a particular region, and so a weapon's type instead describes a weapon's mix of power and flexibility. Simple weapons usually have a smaller damage die than similar martial weapons (d6 rather than d8, for instance), and exotic weapons usually use the same damage die as a martial weapon but include additional abilities that make the weapon more complex.

Characters start with proficiency in either groups of weapons or lists of individual weapons, and they can take ancestry or general feats (and, rarely, class feats) to gain more!

Weapon Traits

Whatever your weapon proficiencies, you'll want to choose a weapon with useful traits that match your taste and play style. Even among martial weapons that use two hands, a bo staff, a greatsword, and a glaive all feel very different.

A greatsword deals a lot of damage, perfect for a bruiser character like a worshiper of Gorum: its damage die is d12 and you can seamlessly switch between piercing and slashing damage to avoid enemy resistances and exploit their weaknesses.

A bo staff is all about controlling the fight. Its damage die is only d8, but it has reach (allowing you to Strike enemies up to 10 feet away), parry (allowing you to spend an action to increase your AC much like a light shield), and trip (giving you several benefits to your attempts to trip enemies). Plus, it has the monk trait, which weapon-wielding monks particularly enjoy.

The glaive has a d8 damage die like the bo staff and shares its reach, but that's where the similarities end. The glaive has deadly d8 (dealing additional d8s of damage on a critical hit), and it is forceful (which means once you get it going and build up momentum, your attacks become more and more powerful: 1 extra damage per die on the second attack of your turn, 2 extra damage for any attacks after that). The glaive-user isn't interested in giving up an action for defense like a character with a bo staff; instead, she does best if she artfully sweeps the blade like a brush, focusing on accuracy and multiple attacks to really dish out the damage—particularly fitting for a follower of Shelyn.

We want to give every weapon a different personality like this so that we can better serve the infinite personalities that players bring with their characters!

Some other fun weapon traits I haven't covered yet: Twin weapons like the saw-toothed saber deal more damage if you fight with two of them. Backswing weapons like the greatclub gain a little accuracy after a miss. Backstabber weapons like the dogslicer deal more damage to flat-footed targets. Agile weapons like the shortsword decrease the penalty for making multiple attacks in a single turn. Finesse weapons like the rapier use your Dexterity modifier for attack rolls if you prefer. Two-hand weapons like the bastard sword deal much higher damage if you wield them in two hands instead of one!

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Critical Specialization and Weapon Groups

Traits give us some really cool ways to distinguish weapons, but we decided to throw one more customization factor into the mix, this time for similar groups of weapons: critical specialization effects.

Characters who unlock their weapon's critical specialization effect gain a special bonus effect on a critical hit that's different for each weapon group. For example, let's compare swords, spears, and axes.

Swords make the target flat-footed on a critical hit, making it easier for you and your allies to hit the target again (and making the group's rogue very happy). This cements swords like the greatsword or a longsword as great choices for dealing damage to challenging foes like bosses, as they have high damage and decrease the boss's AC so your team can hit more often.

Spears pierce the target and weaken its attacks. This makes a spear a good option for someone using a more defensive strategy built around negating enemy attacks.

Axes swing to an adjacent target (if any), damaging that target, too! Combined with the fact that axes usually have the sweep trait, giving you a bonus on attacks when you move on to a new target in the same turn, this makes axes extremely well suited for sweeping up groups of enemies.

These are just a few of the possibilities. For instance, daggers can cause persistent bleed damage, and clubs can knock the target up to 10 feet away (particularly amusing on a well-placed Attack of Opportunity).

Weapon Quality

Weapons, as well as other non-weapon items (but come on, those aren't as cool as weapons, right?), can be poor quality, standard quality, expert quality, master quality, or legendary quality.

Quality grants an item bonus or penalty of the same value as the matching proficiency (so an expert bow grants a +1 item bonus to hit and a legendary axe grants a +3 item bonus to hit). You have to have the matching proficiency to Craft a weapon of that quality though, so you can't make a master sword, for instance, unless you are a master at Crafting.

And now you know the basics about weapons! All there is to do now is choose the weapon that suits you. Until next time!

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
451 to 500 of 569 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Who said magic would be rarer?

But yeah, backup weapons are likely to remain a thing.

Resonance.

Magic items won't be as available as in PF1.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

My philosophy was always "you shouldn't expect to always bypass DR". Why bother wasting words on it if the assumption is that PCs will break it every time? So I'm a big fan of having lots of DR.

If you want to invest extra resources specifically in always breaking DR, you're welcome to... otherwise, do what you want to do.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Resonance.

Magic items won't be as available as in PF1.

No, you won't be able to use as many of them on any one day. Slight difference.

And magic weapons don't cost Resonance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:

My philosophy was always "you shouldn't expect to always bypass DR". Why bother wasting words on it if the assumption is that PCs will break it every time? So I'm a big fan of having lots of DR.

If you want to invest extra resources specifically in always breaking DR, you're welcome to... otherwise, do what you want to do.

The problem is it either:

A: Emphasizes the 'I Win' button of casters (if they don't have to worry about SR)

or

B: Makes some fights nigh-impossible to impossible.

Please understand, I don't mind narrative difficulty for characters.

What I do mind is when basically a middle finger is raised in their direction by something 'just short' of GM fiat 'because it's in the rules'.

Sure, a home GM can houserule DR/etc.

An organized play GM cannot.


Wheldrake wrote:
It appears that anyone can use a second weapon in their offhand, and freely choose between the two on each of their three actions.

It's already possible in PF1 with iteratives. TWF penalties only apply when you're making extra attacks over your BAB's baseline. No reason to change that (though I wonder how TWF will work in PF2).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Khudzlin wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
It appears that anyone can use a second weapon in their offhand, and freely choose between the two on each of their three actions.
It's already possible in PF1 with iteratives. TWF penalties only apply when you're making extra attacks over your BAB's baseline. No reason to change that (though I wonder how TWF will work in PF2).

What you're really asking about is the "extra" attacks granted by TWF in PF1.0. We don't know anything about that yet.

Personally, I'm hoping that instead of true extra attacks, TWF grants special reaction actions or defense actions, which would be far more thematically appropriate for TWF than a raw number of extra attacks.

Perhaps we'll find out soon what the Paizonians have in store for TWF in PF2.0.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

My philosophy was always "you shouldn't expect to always bypass DR". Why bother wasting words on it if the assumption is that PCs will break it every time? So I'm a big fan of having lots of DR.

If you want to invest extra resources specifically in always breaking DR, you're welcome to... otherwise, do what you want to do.

The problem is it either:

A: Emphasizes the 'I Win' button of casters (if they don't have to worry about SR)

or

B: Makes some fights nigh-impossible to impossible.

Please understand, I don't mind narrative difficulty for characters.

What I do mind is when basically a middle finger is raised in their direction by something 'just short' of GM fiat 'because it's in the rules'.

Sure, a home GM can houserule DR/etc.

An organized play GM cannot.

I believe you are confusing DR with Regeneration.


Wheldrake wrote:

What you're really asking about is the "extra" attacks granted by TWF in PF1.0. We don't know anything about that yet.

Personally, I'm hoping that instead of true extra attacks, TWF grants special reaction actions or defense actions, which would be far more thematically appropriate for TWF than a raw number of extra attacks.

Perhaps we'll find out soon what the Paizonians have in store for TWF in PF2.0.

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering about: what you can do with TWF (keeping in mind that simply switching between weapons isn't TWF).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nah, sometimes just DR can make a fight nigh unwinnable, depending on party makeup. For instance, DR 5 at low levels when your party has no big single hit characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:

•Will crossbows suck still?

I suspect that unless crossbows will fall behind bows at least a little, if they are supposed to remain simple weapons. There needs to be simple ranged option, which by definition should be worse than the martial ranged option. HOWEVER, there might be a couple of ways to alleviate this issue. 1) Make simple weapons become competitive at higher levels of proficiency. 2) Make light crossbows simple and heavy crossbows martial. (Or some other type of crossbow which is about as good as a composite longbow.) Honestly, this step seems pretty obvious and could have been implemented into PF1. You just need to make a new crossbow, tweak it's load actions, and call it a martial weapon.

Quote:
•Will thrown weapons still suck?

The trouble with thrown weapons is that they only sucked in PF1 as a dedicated fighting style. In PF1, if you had 3 attacks in a full attack and dropped all the enemies in reach with the first 2, you could use your last attack to chuck a weapon at someone out of each. That's a pretty nice bit of flexibility and has made me choose daggers over kukris on several occasions.

Granted, PF2 not having full attacks makes this less likely to come up, but it still lets you spend your last action to hit a distant target you otherwise couldn't.

I'd dig it if dedicated thrown weapons got a boost though. I think there viability will depend if quickdraw is still a thing. I'm also a fan of 5e having them use STR to hit and damage, which helps alleviate dex being used for both finesse weapons and bows.

Quote:
•Can I comfortably use two different types of weapons (say, dagger and axe) without a) being a Fighter or b) feeling over-taxed?

On the one hand, we know weapon groups will be a thing and it sounds like the Fighter will still specialize in one of them. (At least initially.) On the other, we know from the descriptions of weapon traits and various things Mark has said that mixing and matching weapons will be actively encouraged. (You only want to trade off the lower damage dice of an agile weapon when you are making iterative attacks, for example.)

I will say, this will make it so there will be optimal weapon pairings most likely.

Quote:
•Will using a shield offensively feel satisfying or will it continue to feel underwhelming as it does in PF1?

Man, I have not felt that way about PF1 shields at all. Between Shield Slam, Shield Master, and the Shield Champion, offensive shields are pretty great. Shield Master makes them more cost effective and powerful than many melee weapons, and arguably the strongest way to TWF is two shields. Shield slam gives them some limited battle field control without trading off your basic attacks for damage. And Shield Champion lets you be full blown Captain America.

I will say shields are a little more confusing than they probably need to be. And I'd dig it if they kept going in a more reactive direction, knocking enemies around or off balance over 2 shields becoming the optimal way to TWF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
Nah, sometimes just DR can make a fight nigh unwinnable, depending on party makeup. For instance, DR 5 at low levels when your party has no big single hit characters.

We had a fight against an enemy with flight, invisibility and DR at level 2. We're lucky that enemy failed every single save against my color sprays (and that we were able to track it around so I could aim those color sprays). I was out of spells after that fight (sorcerer with maxed CHA). If things hadn't gone so well, we'd have needed to come back with stuff like powder of apparition.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Who said magic would be rarer?

But yeah, backup weapons are likely to remain a thing.

Resonance.

Magic items won't be as available as in PF1.

Resonance doesn't apply to weapons.

Edit: I could have sworn I read this somewhere. Now I can't find it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ampersandrew wrote:
Edit: I could have sworn I read this somewhere. Now I can't find it.

If nowhere else it's mentioned in the Glass Cannon podcast. It's true.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

My philosophy was always "you shouldn't expect to always bypass DR". Why bother wasting words on it if the assumption is that PCs will break it every time? So I'm a big fan of having lots of DR.

If you want to invest extra resources specifically in always breaking DR, you're welcome to... otherwise, do what you want to do.

The problem is it either:

A: Emphasizes the 'I Win' button of casters (if they don't have to worry about SR)

or

B: Makes some fights nigh-impossible to impossible.

Please understand, I don't mind narrative difficulty for characters.

What I do mind is when basically a middle finger is raised in their direction by something 'just short' of GM fiat 'because it's in the rules'.

Sure, a home GM can houserule DR/etc.

An organized play GM cannot.

I may not completely understand your point, so if I've stumbled somewhere, do forgive me.

I'm a very fervent supporter of SR as well (I didn't mention it because it felt tangential). I'm generally in favor of stuff not giving casters a free pass, whether that's effects punishing both equally (lot of this in Fey Boons and Banes) or monsters having multiple layers of defense.

I also don't mind some foes (such as swarms) being easier targets for specific classes/solutions. That said, PF1 gave casters far too many options to be great even against their normal banes (see golems vs. create pit). So that's already bumpy, and if that can't be done right, I'd rather not see it done at all. (It also presents issues in organized play, where party makeup is unpredictable.)

I don't know why GM fiat is getting brought up here? It seems like kind of a non sequitur buzzword. Sometimes a monster takes less damage from your sword, or bow, or alchemist's fire. That's hardly GM fiat. (Now if the monster suddenly had that specific DR mid-fight, then we'd be talking.)

I understand about the potential difficulty of fights (having run some of the robot scenarios in PFS). My experience was that the difficulty actually enhanced the experience for the players. (I also had the other experience with a certain pair of summoned imps in Zarta's boudoir.) It was a different combat experience... but it was memorable, and interesting, and different. And I favor that sort of variety.

Why are home GMs houseruling? What's the houserule? I don't follow.

Paizo Employee Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am sort of confused as to where this "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1" notion is coming from.
I'm not sure either, but maybe because the different weapons have cool and useful abilities in various situations? We worked hard to give weapons those various advantages enough to be worth taking the weapon for its advantages but maybe not dramatic enough to be worth the hassle of constantly switching around between weapons, but that's a tightrope walk we'll need to test with the playtest.

Okay.

A PF1 Skeleton has DR 5/Bludgeoning.

To adequately fight such a creature in PF1, one has to carry Bludgeoning damage.

A PF1 Zombie has DR 5/Slashing.

To adequately fight such a creature in PF1, one has to carry Slashing damage.

How do skeletons and zombies compare in PF2 vs. PF1?

Do they still have DR 5/their thing?

Or has that been eliminated in favor of the weapon special abilities?

I was responding to the question about "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1." I certainly agree that characters in PF1 carried more than one weapon, and you have listed one example of why. However, that isn't really related to what I was saying.

(Incidentally, despite the tangent, I agree with your later post that always resisting physical damage punishes martial characters over spellcasters [because the martial is being reduced every time if they don't switch and the spellcaster is doing full damage]; that's why actually the answer to your question about skeletons and zombies is "No, only skeletons do that." Zombies have way more HP than you would expect but take *extra* damage from slashing. That way, no matter what weapon you bring, you will beat the zombie, maybe in an extra couple of hits, but if you bring slashing, you are extra awesome. Not going to go too deep into monsters here, but skeletons and zombies were on the podcast already, so I feel fine mentioning them again.)


Shinigami02 wrote:
Nah, sometimes just DR can make a fight nigh unwinnable, depending on party makeup. For instance, DR 5 at low levels when your party has no big single hit characters.

Yeah, I removed a monster from an AP book due to hardness. At 3 Martials and a Channel focused Cleric, at level 1-2 I was fearful it would destroy them even with holding back.

Flip side is I should have run it anyway and seen how my players figured out how to beat it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am sort of confused as to where this "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1" notion is coming from.
I'm not sure either, but maybe because the different weapons have cool and useful abilities in various situations? We worked hard to give weapons those various advantages enough to be worth taking the weapon for its advantages but maybe not dramatic enough to be worth the hassle of constantly switching around between weapons, but that's a tightrope walk we'll need to test with the playtest.
For my part, I think you misunderstand: I--and many other--have always WANTED to be a cool boy with 5 different cool weapons. I hope that PF2E is the game where I can be that cool boy.

Really? I'm not interested in needing a caddie to carry around a golf bag full or weapons for every occasion. I don't imagine I'm the only one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

I don't know why GM fiat is getting brought up here? It seems like kind of a non sequitur buzzword. Sometimes a monster takes less damage from your sword, or bow, or alchemist's fire. That's hardly GM fiat. (Now if the monster suddenly had that specific DR mid-fight, then we'd be talking.)

I think they meant that stuff like DR5/Something at low levels may, depending on party composition or preparedness, screw up or unbalance encounters so badly that a GM fiat is needed to deal with it.

Which may be right, but is also a problem on PF1 as far as I'm aware. So it's not like PF2 is going to create a problem out of nowhere or aggravate it with the new weapon system. If anything the system is going to actually give an incentive to carry more weapons to the less savvy players.
I can totally imagine a new player playing a fighter with a sword taking a greatclub at some point because "hey, I might need to push someone around at some point" and then being glad they have it when they find a horde of skeletons. Right now, unless you know about DR, there's no reason to ever think about grabbing a weapon of a different type, which sucks because you will totally need one from time to time.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am sort of confused as to where this "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1" notion is coming from.
I'm not sure either, but maybe because the different weapons have cool and useful abilities in various situations? We worked hard to give weapons those various advantages enough to be worth taking the weapon for its advantages but maybe not dramatic enough to be worth the hassle of constantly switching around between weapons, but that's a tightrope walk we'll need to test with the playtest.

Okay.

A PF1 Skeleton has DR 5/Bludgeoning.

To adequately fight such a creature in PF1, one has to carry Bludgeoning damage.

A PF1 Zombie has DR 5/Slashing.

To adequately fight such a creature in PF1, one has to carry Slashing damage.

How do skeletons and zombies compare in PF2 vs. PF1?

Do they still have DR 5/their thing?

Or has that been eliminated in favor of the weapon special abilities?

I was responding to the question about "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1." I certainly agree that characters in PF1 carried more than one weapon, and you have listed one example of why. However, that isn't really related to what I was saying.

(Incidentally, despite the tangent, I agree with your later post that always resisting physical damage punishes martial characters over spellcasters [because the martial is being reduced every time if they don't switch and the spellcaster is doing full damage]; that's why actually the answer to your question about skeletons and zombies is "No, only skeletons do that." Zombies have way more HP than you would expect but take *extra* damage from slashing. That way, no matter what weapon you bring, you will beat the zombie, maybe in an extra couple of hits, but if you bring slashing, you are extra awesome. Not going to go too deep into monsters here, but skeletons and zombies were on the podcast already, so...

Ooooo!!!

... what about headshots? That's where the pudding is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
\/\/arlok wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am sort of confused as to where this "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1" notion is coming from.
I'm not sure either, but maybe because the different weapons have cool and useful abilities in various situations? We worked hard to give weapons those various advantages enough to be worth taking the weapon for its advantages but maybe not dramatic enough to be worth the hassle of constantly switching around between weapons, but that's a tightrope walk we'll need to test with the playtest.
For my part, I think you misunderstand: I--and many other--have always WANTED to be a cool boy with 5 different cool weapons. I hope that PF2E is the game where I can be that cool boy.
Really? I'm not interested in needing a caddie to carry around a golf bag full or weapons for every occasion. I don't imagine I'm the only one.

At the same time, due to playing a lot of monster hunter, I'm okay with taking a golf bag of weapons.

Me: Hmm, this looks like a Silver Great Ax moment. Jeeves?
Jeeves: Very good choice sir.

At the very least, I'd like to see a Fighter archetype that gains abilities in different weapon types and quick switching. Some kind of Arms Master


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Arriving late to the party, I'm mostly in favour of all of this, and I like the idea that a fighter might need to carry a few different weapons, because choosing the best weapon for a specific fight is giving the martial more decisions to make and more flexibility, provided the ability to use weapons isn't gated behind weapon specific feats. I really don't like the way PF1 encourages you to specialise, so that beyond about level 3 the best option is always "hit it with my <insert weapon listed in combat feat taken several levels ago>."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
\/\/arlok wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am sort of confused as to where this "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1" notion is coming from.
I'm not sure either, but maybe because the different weapons have cool and useful abilities in various situations? We worked hard to give weapons those various advantages enough to be worth taking the weapon for its advantages but maybe not dramatic enough to be worth the hassle of constantly switching around between weapons, but that's a tightrope walk we'll need to test with the playtest.
For my part, I think you misunderstand: I--and many other--have always WANTED to be a cool boy with 5 different cool weapons. I hope that PF2E is the game where I can be that cool boy.
Really? I'm not interested in needing a caddie to carry around a golf bag full or weapons for every occasion. I don't imagine I'm the only one.

Listen, man: I get where you are coming from. I also like being just a guy with a big cool axe sometimes.

However, I also like the idea of playing a fighter who always has the right tool for the job (even if I gotta eat some feats to make that approach viability). As other people are saying, historic knights kind of fought like that, starting with lance on horseback, a spear on foot, a hammer to attack an armored opponent, a knife to kill a downed foe, and a sword to slay peasants who try to crowd and overwhelm you.

The magic item economy has always hampered this kind of thing, though.


Rysky wrote:

Ooooo!!!

... what about headshots? That's where the pudding is.

To be fair, traditionally Pathfinder's Zombies haven't cared about headshots. They're even called out as one of the few examples where Vorpal is not an insta-kill.

EDIT: Well, undead in general other than Vampires, but that does include zombies.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

My philosophy was always "you shouldn't expect to always bypass DR". Why bother wasting words on it if the assumption is that PCs will break it every time? So I'm a big fan of having lots of DR.

If you want to invest extra resources specifically in always breaking DR, you're welcome to... otherwise, do what you want to do.

I agree. DR isn't much of an equalizer if 90% of the time it can be overcome.

I'd prefer weapon enhancement bonuses to not overcome DR at all (except magic).


Mark Seifter wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am sort of confused as to where this "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1" notion is coming from.
I'm not sure either, but maybe because the different weapons have cool and useful abilities in various situations? We worked hard to give weapons those various advantages enough to be worth taking the weapon for its advantages but maybe not dramatic enough to be worth the hassle of constantly switching around between weapons, but that's a tightrope walk we'll need to test with the playtest.

Okay.

A PF1 Skeleton has DR 5/Bludgeoning.

To adequately fight such a creature in PF1, one has to carry Bludgeoning damage.

A PF1 Zombie has DR 5/Slashing.

To adequately fight such a creature in PF1, one has to carry Slashing damage.

How do skeletons and zombies compare in PF2 vs. PF1?

Do they still have DR 5/their thing?

Or has that been eliminated in favor of the weapon special abilities?

I was responding to the question about "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1." I certainly agree that characters in PF1 carried more than one weapon, and you have listed one example of why. However, that isn't really related to what I was saying.

(Incidentally, despite the tangent, I agree with your later post that always resisting physical damage punishes martial characters over spellcasters [because the martial is being reduced every time if they don't switch and the spellcaster is doing full damage]; that's why actually the answer to your question about skeletons and zombies is "No, only skeletons do that." Zombies have way more HP than you would expect but take *extra* damage from slashing. That way, no matter what weapon you bring, you will beat the zombie, maybe in an extra couple of hits, but if you bring slashing, you are extra awesome. Not going to go too deep into monsters here, but skeletons and zombies were on the podcast already, so...

I really like that monster design decision. I think that makes those two creatures very different things to fight even if they both have a mechanic that is essentially "one type of damage deals more than the other".

To your main point, though: I think some people see all these new abilities and advantages that these new weapon has and just imagine a situation where you are essentially "always fighting skeletons"; I think some people worry that having the right weapon for an encounter will matter too much for a martial character's effectiveness and thus they will feel obliged to always have a selection of weapons on hand; like a rogue who can't reliably hurt skeletons with their knife, perhaps a fighter cannot reliably harm a horde of orcs with his spear as compared to the fighter who cleaves through multiple enemies at a time with their ax.

I suspect specialization will win out in the end cuz of magic rules and feat selection, though.


MerlinCross wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Nah, sometimes just DR can make a fight nigh unwinnable, depending on party makeup. For instance, DR 5 at low levels when your party has no big single hit characters.

Yeah, I removed a monster from an AP book due to hardness. At 3 Martials and a Channel focused Cleric, at level 1-2 I was fearful it would destroy them even with holding back.

Flip side is I should have run it anyway and seen how my players figured out how to beat it.

Reminds me of when I put in an animated suit of armour. It had hardness 10. The low level party didn't have a martial, and couldn't actually do it any damage. They managed to get it off its feet and took turns jumping off a balcony onto it. (And I handwaved - my mistake after all)

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I really like that monster design decision. I think that makes those two creatures very different things to fight even if they both have a mechanic that is essentially "one type of damage deals more than the other".

Having run and played with it for a while, it's a great deal of fun to fight the big HP enemies with weakness, and see the player's eyes light up when you say "Actually, even though Kyra only rolled 3 with that scimitar, it does 8 damage instead!" Since higher level monsters sometimes have big weaknesses to an energy type, it also makes carrying just the right cantrip really fun (or especially, persistent damage like from an alchemist's fire or acid arrow vs a very large weakness is spectacular).


Mark Seifter wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am sort of confused as to where this "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1" notion is coming from.
I'm not sure either, but maybe because the different weapons have cool and useful abilities in various situations? We worked hard to give weapons those various advantages enough to be worth taking the weapon for its advantages but maybe not dramatic enough to be worth the hassle of constantly switching around between weapons, but that's a tightrope walk we'll need to test with the playtest.

Okay.

A PF1 Skeleton has DR 5/Bludgeoning.

To adequately fight such a creature in PF1, one has to carry Bludgeoning damage.

A PF1 Zombie has DR 5/Slashing.

To adequately fight such a creature in PF1, one has to carry Slashing damage.

How do skeletons and zombies compare in PF2 vs. PF1?

Do they still have DR 5/their thing?

Or has that been eliminated in favor of the weapon special abilities?

I was responding to the question about "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1." I certainly agree that characters in PF1 carried more than one weapon, and you have listed one example of why. However, that isn't really related to what I was saying.

(Incidentally, despite the tangent, I agree with your later post that always resisting physical damage punishes martial characters over spellcasters [because the martial is being reduced every time if they don't switch and the spellcaster is doing full damage]; that's why actually the answer to your question about skeletons and zombies is "No, only skeletons do that." Zombies have way more HP than you would expect but take *extra* damage from slashing. That way, no matter what weapon you bring, you will beat the zombie, maybe in an extra couple of hits, but if you bring slashing, you are extra awesome. Not going to go too deep into monsters here, but skeletons and zombies were on the podcast already, so...

I'm glad some of this still exists. 4E had weird things like killing fire elementals with fire, and tripping snakes, because folks dont want their thing to ever be a disadvantage.


Cuttlefist wrote:
Was hoping for a class blog like Wizard or Ranger, real curious what they are going to do with Ranger, but this is awesome info. I love how they are looking to make different weapons really weigh in on character build.

Wizard and Ranger are fine and all... But they've been around for awhile.

How about a hint at the kineticist, or at least a confirmation of it it'll be brought over "at some point".


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Xelaaredn wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Was hoping for a class blog like Wizard or Ranger, real curious what they are going to do with Ranger, but this is awesome info. I love how they are looking to make different weapons really weigh in on character build.

Wizard and Ranger are fine and all... But they've been around for awhile.

How about a hint at the kineticist, or at least a confirmation of it it'll be brought over "at some point".

I believe Erik stated that while they won't port every class, they want there to be a way to play every class in PF2E eventually. If that makes sense.

I.e they may not port Cavalier (just an example have no proof one way or another) but by adding the global "Knight" archetype any character can invest feats into being quite cavalier like.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Having run and played with it for a while, it's a great deal of fun to fight the big HP enemies with weakness, and see the player's eyes light up when you say "Actually, even though Kyra only rolled 3 with that scimitar, it does 8 damage instead!" Since higher level monsters sometimes have big weaknesses to an energy type, it also makes carrying just the right cantrip really fun (or especially, persistent damage like from an alchemist's fire or acid arrow vs a very large weakness is spectacular).

Hmmm, 3 → 8 doesn't sound like multiplication, but rather like a fixed additive bonus. Is this how weaknesses work now? I can see how a single point of persistent damage from alchemical fire might do wonders in that context! :)

Also, having «just the right cantrip»... Is there going to be a cantrip for each of the energy types?

Ceterum censeo Sorcereribus vim destructivam modo Kineticistis dandam esse!


Catharsis wrote:
Hmmm, 3 → 8 doesn't sound like multiplication, but rather like a fixed additive bonus

Keep in mind that Mark said "rolled 3". There's still STR and other damage bonuses to take into account. It could be (3+1)x2.

However, IIRC, in the Cannon Fodder podcast the skeletons were weak to Positive Energy and this was listed as "Weakness 2" or somesuch, which made them take +2 damage from Positive Energy based attacks (such as the Heal spell)


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:


I was responding to the question about "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1." I certainly agree that characters in PF1 carried more than one weapon, and you have listed one example of why. However, that isn't really related to what I was saying.

(Incidentally, despite the tangent, I agree with your later post that always resisting physical damage punishes martial characters over spellcasters [because the martial is being reduced every time if they don't switch and the spellcaster is doing full damage]; that's why actually the answer to your question about skeletons and zombies is "No, only skeletons do that." Zombies have way more HP than you would expect but take *extra* damage from slashing. That way, no matter what weapon you bring, you will beat the zombie, maybe in an extra couple of hits, but if you bring slashing, you are extra awesome. Not going to go too deep into monsters here, but skeletons and zombies were on the podcast already, so I feel fine mentioning them again.)

Thank you very much for the response, and for the clarification, and understanding why the clarification was a concern.


Catharsis wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Having run and played with it for a while, it's a great deal of fun to fight the big HP enemies with weakness, and see the player's eyes light up when you say "Actually, even though Kyra only rolled 3 with that scimitar, it does 8 damage instead!" Since higher level monsters sometimes have big weaknesses to an energy type, it also makes carrying just the right cantrip really fun (or especially, persistent damage like from an alchemist's fire or acid arrow vs a very large weakness is spectacular).

Hmmm, 3 → 8 doesn't sound like multiplication, but rather like a fixed additive bonus. Is this how weaknesses work now? I can see how a single point of persistent damage from alchemical fire might do wonders in that context! :)

Also, having «just the right cantrip»... Is there going to be a cantrip for each of the energy types?

Ceterum censeo Sorcereribus vim destructivam modo Kineticistis dandam esse!

Linguistics: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (18) + 3 = 21

Other ____ of Sorcerers _____ (I can guess, hooray for etymology) (I can't tell what declension you're approximating to get a tense) ____ to be.

It's been about three years since I took about the first half of introductory Latin

Edit: man, I should have done better with that roll!

Liberty's Edge

Catharsis wrote:
Hmmm, 3 → 8 doesn't sound like multiplication, but rather like a fixed additive bonus. Is this how weaknesses work now? I can see how a single point of persistent damage from alchemical fire might do wonders in that context! :)

The Glass Cannon podcast already revealed this (Positive Energy Vulnerability 2 upped damage by 2 points).

It's reciprocal with how Resistance works, which is neat.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Xelaaredn wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Was hoping for a class blog like Wizard or Ranger, real curious what they are going to do with Ranger, but this is awesome info. I love how they are looking to make different weapons really weigh in on character build.

Wizard and Ranger are fine and all... But they've been around for awhile.

How about a hint at the kineticist, or at least a confirmation of it it'll be brought over "at some point".

I think we can safely assume that Mark is keenly interesting in how Kineticists translate to PF2.

You know, something that could be worth considering next year when the core rulebook is published would be a designer's guide to cobbling together classes they haven't yet converted out of the classes and options that they have released. It won't work for every class, but it would be a great insight into what they see as the core flavor and mechanics of classes, as well as highlight a few ability combinations that might not necessarily occur to us at first glance. If they also released Unchained/Starfinder style monster guide for NPCs of those classes too, more APs would be usable as is.

And if any popular class turned out to be a pain to convert, that might give them ideas on priority levels for the first class splatbook.


Kalindlara wrote:

{. . .}

I don't know why GM fiat is getting brought up here? It seems like kind of a non sequitur buzzword. Sometimes a monster takes less damage from your sword, or bow, or alchemist's fire. That's hardly GM fiat. (Now if the monster suddenly had that specific DR mid-fight, then we'd be talking.) {. . .}

Suddenly I have this vision of a "new" dreaded monster: The Borg. Whatever you throw at them, they build resistance to . . . .


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
If you want to invest extra resources specifically in always breaking DR, you're welcome to... otherwise, do what you want to do.

Somewhat relevant.


@Mark

When can we expect indepth information about combat styles, combat interactions and combat maneuvers?
Personally i am very interested on how Dual-weapons are going to be used in the new system?

Will it be a weird system where you use 2 actions to use both weapons without interative penalties?
Will it be a extra action for attack purposes ( 3 Actions + 1 Action(Attack Offhand) )?
Or will the offhand weapon be a part of your attack as a extra damage modifier?

Scarab Sages

The Sideromancer wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Having run and played with it for a while, it's a great deal of fun to fight the big HP enemies with weakness, and see the player's eyes light up when you say "Actually, even though Kyra only rolled 3 with that scimitar, it does 8 damage instead!" Since higher level monsters sometimes have big weaknesses to an energy type, it also makes carrying just the right cantrip really fun (or especially, persistent damage like from an alchemist's fire or acid arrow vs a very large weakness is spectacular).

Hmmm, 3 → 8 doesn't sound like multiplication, but rather like a fixed additive bonus. Is this how weaknesses work now? I can see how a single point of persistent damage from alchemical fire might do wonders in that context! :)

Also, having «just the right cantrip»... Is there going to be a cantrip for each of the energy types?

Ceterum censeo Sorcereribus vim destructivam modo Kineticistis dandam esse!

[dice=Linguistics]1d20+3

Other ____ of Sorcerers _____ (I can guess, hooray for etymology) (I can't tell what declension you're approximating to get a tense) ____ to be.

It's been about three years since I took about the first half of introductory Latin

Edit: man, I should have done better with that roll!

It’s meant to say: Furthermore I consider that Sorcerers should be given destructive force in the fashion of Kineticists. It’s a riff on Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.


I know Pathfinder isn't meant to be realistic, but I would love to see some of the stupider weapons purged from the tables. Spiked chains, dire flails and scythes for starters - any 'weapon' where you have a better chance of damaging yourself than the opponent, or it takes a very helpful opponent, standing in just the right spot to be able to hit them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neriathale wrote:
I know Pathfinder isn't meant to be realistic, but I would love to see some of the stupider weapons purged from the tables... scythes for starters

War scythes are a real thing. Are they the best polearm? Probably not, but people definitely used them as very effective weapons.

While we are on flails, even the standard ones appear to be quite a rare weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neriathale wrote:
I know Pathfinder isn't meant to be realistic, but I would love to see some of the stupider weapons purged from the tables. Spiked chains, dire flails and scythes for starters - any 'weapon' where you have a better chance of damaging yourself than the opponent, or it takes a very helpful opponent, standing in just the right spot to be able to hit them.

I agree about dire flails and other double weapons. They're really silly and aren't used much anyway. I'm not sure about the spiked chain, it is something that would be really problematic to use, but I kind of like it for some reason. Like a weirder and much less practical version of some of the Japanese chain weapons. And it is the favored weapon of Zon Kuthon, so will probably stay because of that.

I disagree on the scythe though. They were used as weapons. Although when used as such they normally had the head remounted vertically on a straight pole. It was common in peasant uprisings, particularly in eastern Europe I believe. But there is also a German fighting manual from the 1540s showing techniques with a standard scythe. I doubt using them this way was common at all, and it isn't the most practical thing. But this might be a representation of them being used as a peasant weapon in duels or feuds where they weren't remounting them. It's in a section with other peasant weapons such as sickles, two-handed agricultural flails and a big knobbly sticks. This is the only book talking about how to fight with these weapons though as far as I know (well I think Tallhoffer has like a single image of a guy with the flail). So they're certainly weird as weapons (except the remounted ones) but certainly has it's uses. For one, it's a great weapon to give farmers in a mob situation along with pitchforks (probably use the trident stats). Also the favored weapon of Urgathoa. Maybe they should be exotic weapons because of the odd handling, or have a trait like "Awkward." Also maybe break up the War Scythe (remounted version) from the agricultural scythe, because they handle quite a bit differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malthraz wrote:
Neriathale wrote:
I know Pathfinder isn't meant to be realistic, but I would love to see some of the stupider weapons purged from the tables... scythes for starters

War scythes are a real thing. Are they the best polearm? Probably not, but people definitely used them as very effective weapons.

While we are on flails, even the standard ones appear to be quite a rare weapon.

Well you have the actual scythe (with a horizonal blade, not the warscythe that have its blade adjusted into a vertical position) which is the one that Neriathale is talking.

However i do not have a issue with "silly weapons" per say, and i feel the argument of realism is a bit wasted on a game of high fantasy. However when it comes to logic, thats a entire different story...

Regardless of how silly the Scythe is as a weapon, it is a staple of fantasy weaponry. Especially with how characters in videogames (Magus in Chrono Trigger) or characters in mythos (Death himself) or in series (Ruby in RWBY). The Scythe albeit silly as hell is very iconic in its form rather than its use.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
I'm not sure about the spiked chain, it is something that would be really problematic to use, but I kind of like it for some reason. Like a weirder and much less practical version of some of the Japanese chain weapons. And it is the favored weapon of Zon Kuthon, so will probably stay because of that.

Yes, I think of it like the Meteor-Hammer (one of the hardest of Shaolin weapons to master).


Malthraz wrote:
While we are on flails, even the standard ones appear to be quite a rare weapon.

The two handed flails seem to have been much more common than the single handed ones. Particularly as a peasant weapon by putting spikes on an agricultural flail. I know the Hussites were famous for using them (along with early guns and War Wagons, reinforced wagons used as movable fortifications), and they kicked some knightly ass. But yeah, the single handed flails were apparently fairly rare. There are a few surviving examples (and some allegations that they're fakes) and a handful of artistic depictions.


The scythe and spiked chain are both sacred weapons for core deities (Urgathoa and Zon-Kuthon respectively) so I doubt they're going away.


Spiked chain should be something monks are handy with.


One question (which may have been answered in the 10 pages already, apologies if it has) is this:

How do weapon qualities and weapon proficiencies and magical weapon enhancements interact?

IE:
I'm a 13th level Fighter - Legendary Proficiency Longsword (+3)
I have a +5 Strength Bonus (+5)
I'm using a Legendary Quality Longsword (+3)
I've put a +2 Enchantment on that sword (+2, and 2 additional damage dice)

So that mean, when I attack, I'm rolling:

1d20+26 for 3d8+5 damage?

451 to 500 of 569 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: What's Your Weapon? All Messageboards