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
151 to 200 of 569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Redblade8 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Redblade8 wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
What's that weapon on the center at the bottom with the concave edge...?
That's Charlene.
T_T I don't get the joke... Am a failure.
I think it's no more complex than just giving the weapon a "name".
Full Metal Jacket: Pyle: 'Sir, the private's weapon is called Charlene, Sir.'
This. The other contender of a name was "Vera", but I think I used that joke more recently, so I went with this one. :-)
What, no Bianca? Are we too good for fantasy settings!?

Irving!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:

Honestly, considering the terminology has been so heavily ingrained into D&D, and consequentially Pathfinder, the odds of the longsword being officially rebranded into an Arming Sword, and the Bastard Sword being rebranded into the longsword, etc. likely isn't going to happen. However, this is also without mentioning the fact that, at least in P1e, longswords can be wielded with two hands, thus effectively making them hand-and-a-half swords - ignoring the existence and historical usage of the term "bastard sword," keeping the name longsword isn't unreasonable

Probably, and like I said it bothers me more than it should. I'm far from an expert, heck even the term 'enthusiast' would be a bit generous. 'Having an interest' would be the most accurate way to put it.

Regardless, I believe that bastard swords are labeled correctly. As far as I'm aware, the terminology goes thus: Designed for use with one hand = Arming sword. Designed for use with one or two hands = Bastard sword. Designed for use with two hands only = Longsword.

I'm a history buff, and most of the terminology for swords that we recognize today are a relatively modern construct used for categorization; in a medieval context, while there were distinct differences between some swords in regards to the length of the hilt and blade, more often than not they were just referred to as swords (with the one noteworthy exception being the Messer, which was classified as a knife because, in Germany, there was a point in time where commoners weren't allowed to have swords, but the legal definition of a knife was based off of the construction of the hilt rather than blade length.) The actual terms "arming sword," "longsword," and other specific classifications came a few centuries after their use for historical analysis; from a periodic perspective, they were frequently just classified by whether or not is was a one-handed sword, a two-handed sword, or a mix of both, known...

Yes, I did know that. Something about the laws not specifying the length of the blade but instead the construction of the handle, which is why a messer has an integrated, knife-like handle whereas other swords have the traditional pommel construction. This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.

In any case, I don't think this is particularly relevant, both our discussion about messers and about the change in terminology about swords. Sure swords were referred to simply as 'swords' in historical terms and the modern terminology is a more recent invention used to categorize different types across different time periods and locations, but the language exists for the purposes of clarity. When someone in medieval Germany said 'sword,' the list of mental images that the person he was talking to was quiet a bit smaller than what someone today might come up with. For us, it could mean anything from a hilariously oversized anime sword, to an impractically designed fantasy blade, or a simple-but-practical rapier.

But I'm digressing. My basic point is that because we live in the modern times, modern terminology should be used. That said, I will concede the point that you made that because people are accustomed to using the terms 'arming sword,' 'bastard sword,' etc. as used in PF1e, it makes sense to continue using them as such, even if the language is technically wrong. After all, language only has any value if people understand what is being said, and changing the terminology would only confuse people, and most people probably wouldn't appreciate it. Ultimately there's far more people who would be annoyed if it gets changed than there would be if it wasn't, so there isn't any real reason to change it. As I said before, I merely care far too much about being accurate in my use of language. A man can dream though, can't he? :P


8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.

I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.

Paizo Employee Designer

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.
I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.

Also, Excalibur's scabbard was actually more OP than Excalibur itself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.
I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.

Yeah. Unfortunately you have to homebrew that sort of thing. I'm running a shenanigan-type game and I told my players that they should try throwing the pommel of their sword sometime. They've yet to do it, but that's probably a good thing. More likely than not they'd wind up causing a TPK. Negligent pommel throwing is one of the leading causes of death among adventurers, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spiral_Ninja wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Lots of really interesting features added to weapons! I really like Mark's example of someone switching from a bastard sword to a shield and flail character, which resulted in a wholly different playstyle.

As for exotic weapons. I don't mind it staying as that, it's a staple from earlier editions, so most experienced players will know that it's a weapon that requires more investment to use.
If it was to be changed, I'd suggest "specialist weapons", so you'd have simple, martial and specialist weapons. This seems to fit with the "... include additional abilities that make the weapon more complex" part.

Why not go with what's already there and continue the theme: Simple, Martial, Complex?

The terms balance on either end - simple to complex.

But it also ignores martial in the middle. Plus, IMO, specialist sounds cooler than complex. ;-)

I was thinking of "skilled weapons" too, but 1) it implies that you don't have to be skilled with martial weapons, which you do, and 2) don't want to cause any confusion with actual skills.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.
I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.
Also, Excalibur's scabbard was actually more OP than Excalibur itself.

I mean few things are as dangerous as a big rock!


I am see a lot of short sword fishing fighters in the future.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.
I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.
Also, Excalibur's scabbard was actually more OP than Excalibur itself.

So what are our chances of getting some magical scabbards this time around?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shelyn is getting name-dropped a lot in these playtest articles. Is she becoming more prominent in the new version, or does our article writer just really like her?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tursic wrote:

I am see a lot of short sword fishing fighters in the future.

Are you using short swords to fish or are you fishing for short swords?


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.
I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.
Also, Excalibur's scabbard was actually more OP than Excalibur itself.
I mean few things are as dangerous as a big rock!

There's actually a game where you get "Sword in the Stone" as a weaon. It's a sword with a big boulder attached to the end.

On topic, I do hope this leads to people maybe picking up more than one weapon for use rather than Main weapon and Backup vs [Ghost, Hardness, Elemental, Resistance, etc].

Yes this is me going "Options are a good thing" but when the options in PF1 were for the most part DEAD anyway, may as well go up.

Cutlass was Scimitar with the name shaved off. Scimitar was Longsword with 1 extra crit range. Pickaxes were actual weapons(Though put under Martial) but why use them? Scythe for Edgelords or Crit fishing. Did you know they have Battle Poi? Those weird spinning ropes that you see on Youtube from New Zealand? Yeah those are weapons you can use but dear god WHY?

Lot of weapons that are clones or out paced. Or Feat locked(Exotic and any Two weapon fighting)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathan Goodrich wrote:
Shelyn is getting name-dropped a lot in these playtest articles. Is she becoming more prominent in the new version, or does our article writer just really like her?

Could also be that the god they decided to talk about was Shelyn so they keep talking about it.


Well, here's something else I'm not excited about during the playtest. Weapons types should not be based on damage dice. Simple weapons should be anything you could find in the average peasant conscript's hands, martial weapons should be anything you expect to find in a trained warrior's hands, and exotic weapons should be those weird things that even lifelong soldiers don't see very often. The idea that exotic weapons to more damage is deeply flawed.

Nunchaku are exotic and hard to learn, but not that deadly. A spear is simple to learn and can be absolutely devastating. See my point?

I understand the different types of damage (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning), and various weapons having reach, but I've never understood damage dice being different based on the weapon. Getting stabbed with a sword is just as deadly as getting stabbed with a spear, hit with an axe, or shot with an arrow. All of them are to be avoided in combat. So why not just make damage a uniform thing for every weapon and focus on differentiating weapons based on damage type and weapon reach?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Having been his by a large number of different things from a hatchet to a car to a digging bar and a baseball bat... no. They are not all the same.


Nice to see staves getting some love. As well as the promise of the trip feature being useful in this edition. (It is not in 1e. Tripping is great, but the trip weapon property is pointless)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Weapon traits look great. Really improve how weapons are distinguished from each other.

Do we know if strength is added to damage on a crit or is a crit now just extra dice and special mechanics?

I think I would prefer no strength. Curve the extra damage on crits down a bit, but that is compensated by interesting effects.

----

Like some others have mentioned, I would like weapons names to better align with the common terminology. Such as long sword being a 2 hander, falchion being a one hander.
The one hander sword (PFe1 longsword) being called an arming sword. A curvy two hander (PFe1 fachion) possibly being a kriegsmesser.
I can understand the desire to keep the names the same. I feel fairly rational about this.

What I do not feel rational about is "studded leather armour".
/rant
OMG there is not such thing as "studded leather armour". It's troll poo! The studs are actually rivets for plates that lie between two layers of leather. Two examples of historical armour are the Jack of Plates (lighter) and the Brigandine (heavier). Please get rid of any reference to "studded leather armour".
/rantoff

Expect more ranting in the armour preview.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wasn't excaliber the one that was given to arthur by the strange lady lying in a pond not the one in the rock? I think I remember the scabbard being an invulnerability mcguffin to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.
I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.
Also, Excalibur's scabbard was actually more OP than Excalibur itself.
I mean few things are as dangerous as a big rock!
There's actually a game where you get "Sword in the Stone" as a weaon. It's a sword with a big boulder attached to the end.

That description just reminded me of the Kirkhammer from Bloodborne, and now I want to see trick weapons converted into Pathfinder in general.

Do you think my players will notice how Soulsborne-inspired my games are if I were to homebrew them myself?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:

Well, here's something else I'm not excited about during the playtest. Weapons types should not be based on damage dice. Simple weapons should be anything you could find in the average peasant conscript's hands, martial weapons should be anything you expect to find in a trained warrior's hands, and exotic weapons should be those weird things that even lifelong soldiers don't see very often. The idea that exotic weapons to more damage is deeply flawed.

Nunchaku are exotic and hard to learn, but not that deadly. A spear is simple to learn and can be absolutely devastating. See my point?

I understand the different types of damage (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning), and various weapons having reach, but I've never understood damage dice being different based on the weapon. Getting stabbed with a sword is just as deadly as getting stabbed with a spear, hit with an axe, or shot with an arrow. All of them are to be avoided in combat. So why not just make damage a uniform thing for every weapon and focus on differentiating weapons based on damage type and weapon reach?

Longbows, Longswords, Longspears, and Battleaxes already do have the same damage die (1d8) in PF1 so I don’t exatly see your point.

However being stabbed by a Dagger is normally much less deadly and being stabbed by a Greatsword. That is why they have a smaller and larger damage die respectively to account for that. Changing the damage die is usually a trade-off for some kind of benefit the weapon has (expanded crit range for Rapier and Scimitar) or compensation for requiring more effort to wield effectively (such as the larger damage die for the Bastard Sword).

Also splitting damage dice into, say, 1d6 for simple, 1d10 for martial, and 1d12 for Exotic and only seperating weapons by reach and damage type is just kind of boring mechanically. Why would anyone pick a Battleaxe or a Rapier over a Longsword if they all do the same damage, but the Longsword can do Slashing OR Piercing damage? Reach is already a strong enough mechanic to incentive players into picking up a Reach weapon.


Honestly I have always used whatever weapon is the strongest I could. So no jhterest in weapon for fluff. Wonder if PF2 will have clear cut cases.


MerlinCross wrote:
Yeah I still think that choice A will beat out B and C if that happens. But you want to talk about DEAD choices, PF1 weapons had some REALLY Dead choices, *Cough* Crossbow *Cough*.

Agreed. I really hope that the CRB weapons are balanced overall. While there's room for specific weapons to shine in very specific scenarios, hopefully they're not too narrow in the CRB at least. Then later books can introduce more esoteric weapons which can be included or discarded at the GM's whim. For this reason I really hope we get "Asian"-inspired weapons.

MerlinCross wrote:
But when it came to weapons you usually picked your weapon at level 1 and stuck with it most the game. Different magic verisions of it but you picked Greatsword or Greataxe for Two handed, a few swords for 1 handed/shield, 2-3 spears of reach and Longbow or gun if ranged.

That's a good point. Hopefully this means things like Weapon Focus or Weapon Training will be kept fairly minimal and we'll instead get more flavourful options if we're going to get weapon specific feats.

Although just as clerics get more spell points when they get extra domains, I'm a bit concerned about what fighters will get. Just as picking multiple domain powers of the same level doesn't really increase your potency significantly, the same is true for weapon feats. So hopefully we'll see some sort of rider benefit that isn't just "fighters get more stamina with each new weapon feat they take".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Yeah I still think that choice A will beat out B and C if that happens. But you want to talk about DEAD choices, PF1 weapons had some REALLY Dead choices, *Cough* Crossbow *Cough*.

Agreed. I really hope that the CRB weapons are balanced overall. While there's room for specific weapons to shine in very specific scenarios, hopefully they're not too narrow in the CRB at least. Then later books can introduce more esoteric weapons which can be included or discarded at the GM's whim. For this reason I really hope we get "Asian"-inspired weapons.

MerlinCross wrote:
But when it came to weapons you usually picked your weapon at level 1 and stuck with it most the game. Different magic verisions of it but you picked Greatsword or Greataxe for Two handed, a few swords for 1 handed/shield, 2-3 spears of reach and Longbow or gun if ranged.

That's a good point. Hopefully this means things like Weapon Focus or Weapon Training will be kept fairly minimal and we'll instead get more flavourful options if we're going to get weapon specific feats.

Although just as clerics get more spell points when they get extra domains, I'm a bit concerned about what fighters will get. Just as picking multiple domain powers of the same level doesn't really increase your potency significantly, the same is true for weapon feats. So hopefully we'll see some sort of rider benefit that isn't just "fighters get more stamina with each new weapon feat they take".

I mean I've been playing games where the weapons actually have reasons besides damage. Small example;

Spear - Easiest to use and hit with, can do Spearwall set up with.
Sword - Average.
Axe - Slightly more damage, breaks shields and other objects
Hammer - Hardest to hit with, breaks EVERYTHING

Just space out the different weapon groups to make them feel more like actual different tools of destruction rather than the very bland; Two hander, 1 hander, reach we have now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I just remembered a question I've been meaning to ask:

One of my biggest pet peeves with P1e's core weapons was the fact that the Morningstar, with its reduced weight, similar damage dice, cheaper cost, and multiple damage types, completely outclassed the Heavy Mace in every single way. I recognize that it was a 3.5 holdover, and as a result I'm fairly confident that this balance issue is going to be addressed.

That being said, I'm curious as to how it's being addressed; is the Morningstar going to have its damage dice reduced? Is it instead going to have its proficiency level bumped up to martial? Or is something else going to happen?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To everyone complaining about exotic weapons being stronger, you must have misread. They said that exotic weapons use the same damage die as martial, but they have more abilities. I think this is rather true to life as the more complex weapons are often incredibly flexible in terms of use. I still remember having a Kyoketsu-shoge used on me...


ElSilverWind wrote:
MidsouthGuy wrote:

Well, here's something else I'm not excited about during the playtest. Weapons types should not be based on damage dice. Simple weapons should be anything you could find in the average peasant conscript's hands, martial weapons should be anything you expect to find in a trained warrior's hands, and exotic weapons should be those weird things that even lifelong soldiers don't see very often. The idea that exotic weapons to more damage is deeply flawed.

Nunchaku are exotic and hard to learn, but not that deadly. A spear is simple to learn and can be absolutely devastating. See my point?

I understand the different types of damage (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning), and various weapons having reach, but I've never understood damage dice being different based on the weapon. Getting stabbed with a sword is just as deadly as getting stabbed with a spear, hit with an axe, or shot with an arrow. All of them are to be avoided in combat. So why not just make damage a uniform thing for every weapon and focus on differentiating weapons based on damage type and weapon reach?

Longbows, Longswords, Longspears, and Battleaxes already do have the same damage die (1d8) in PF1 so I don’t exatly see your point.

However being stabbed by a Dagger is normally much less deadly and being stabbed by a Greatsword. That is why they have a smaller and larger damage die respectively to account for that. Changing the damage die is usually a trade-off for some kind of benefit the weapon has (expanded crit range for Rapier and Scimitar) or compensation for requiring more effort to wield effectively (such as the larger damage die for the Bastard Sword).

Also splitting damage dice into, say, 1d6 for simple, 1d10 for martial, and 1d12 for Exotic and only seperating weapons by reach and damage type is just kind of boring mechanically. Why would anyone pick a Battleaxe or a Rapier over a Longsword if they all do the same damage, but the Longsword can do Slashing OR Piercing damage? Reach is already a...

Getting stabbed in a vital area with a dagger is just as lethal as getting stabbed in the same place as a sword or spear. It all equals out to damaging or destroying an important internal organ. In fact, that's most of the reason half-swording was such a common technique against armored foes, and why the dagger was the most common secondary weapon carried into battle in the Middle Ages. A lot of actual sword fighting consisted of throwing the other guy to the ground and stabbing through the gaps in his armor with a dagger. Unless of course you had a warhammer or mace, and then you just tried to beat the other guy's brains out.

And again, I don't like the idea of separating weapons by damage dice, so all simple, martial, and exotic weapons having on damage die a per category is not what I meant or something I would enjoy.

I've played a few times with a houserule that all weapons do a D8 of damage, but varying rules for reach and what happens with damage type (you have to be in the same square to use a dagger, slashing has a bleed effect, bludgeons are better against armor, and so on) and it worked relatively well. If nothing else having something like this as an optional rule would satisfy people like me who don't care for the current damage mechanic and want something more realistic.


The scabbard is worth ten of the sword because it kept you from bleeding to death.

Lore-ignorance aside (apologies if I was too acerbic), I'm curious as to how the new rules will apply to things like claws, and morphic weapons (like a mezlan's limbs). Also, if it's a related enough note, will a high hit dice monster need a special weapon to bypass damage resistance?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlatan wrote:
And I do think a lot of ppl came here to read more about magical weapons and how they'll work, rather than just normal weapons themselves. I can only assume we're getting more dice, rather than just "half your dmg is fire" ala STF.

I don't want to get ahead of myself but I'm hoping that magic abilities like flaming and shocking let martials use resonance to shoot that energy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Combat Monster wrote:
Charlatan wrote:
And I do think a lot of ppl came here to read more about magical weapons and how they'll work, rather than just normal weapons themselves. I can only assume we're getting more dice, rather than just "half your dmg is fire" ala STF.
I don't want to get ahead of myself but I'm hoping that magic abilities like flaming and shocking let martials use resonance to shoot that energy.

I also hope that the elemental upgrades get a buff, IE having the bonus damage they add being directly tied to the damage dice of the weapon being enhanced, if not having larger damage dice than the base weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope we can finally get Meowmere!

https://terraria.gamepedia.com/Meowmere


14 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.
Yeah. Unfortunately you have to homebrew that sort of thing. I'm running a shenanigan-type game and I told my players that they should try throwing the pommel of their sword sometime. They've yet to do it, but that's probably a good thing. More likely than not they'd wind up causing a TPK. Negligent pommel throwing is one of the leading causes of death among adventurers, after all.

What I'm hearing is that we need a new style feat chain. Something like... Pommeling Style? ^_^


Okay, a second Pathfinder 2nd Edition blog post about which I am cautiously optimistic (the first being Domains). Wish I had known that this was coming when I posted yesterday what I am copying here about weapons:

With respect to weapons, I'd like to see something like what Kirthfinder does, only fleshed out more and updated for the little bit we already know about Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

Each weapon (or at least each of the common ones) has at least 3 ranks of proficiency described for it.

I: Corresponds to Kirthfinder Simple Weapon Proficiency. Weapons considered Simple in Pathfinder 1st Edition have rank I minimum proficiency (Trained in Pathfinder 2nd Edition). Most classes -- but not a few like Monks and Wizards -- get across-the-board Weapon Proficiency I.

II: Corresponds to Kirthfinder Martial Weapon Proficiency: Weapons considered Martial in Pathfinder 1st Edition have rank II minimum proficiency (Expert in Pathfinder 2nd Edition). Classes proficient with "all martial weapons" get across-the-board Weapon Proficiency II, while those that are proficient with specific martial weapons get Weapon Proficiency II with those weaopns. Weapons considered Simple in Pathfinder 1st Edition do not require this level of proficiency, but usually give some additional benefit if you have it.

III: Corresponds to Kirthfinder Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Weapons considered Exotic in Pathfinder 1st Edition have rank III minimum proficiency (Master in Pathfinder 2nd Edition). Classes proficient with an Exotic Weapon in Pathfinder and classes with a Deity's Favored Weapon(*) class feature get Weapon Proficiency III with those weapons, with the latter case applying even if the Deity's Favored Weapon(*) has a lower minimum proficiency. Weapons considered Simple or Martial in Pathfinder 1st Edition do not require this level of proficiency, but usually give some additional benefit if you have it. To reflect difficulty in training to use some actual weapons such as Bows and Slings that are listed as Martial or even Simple in Pathfinder 1st Edition, these weapons should probably be moved to minimum Weapon Proficiency III, or even higher.

(*)Also Favored Weapon of an exceptionally zealous organization or philosophy such the Hellknights.

IV and up: Corresponds to Kirthfinder Exotic Weapon Proficiency when more than one Exotic Weapon Proficiency option is available to get different extra benefits (this would be Legendary in Pathfinder 2nd Edition). Only a few weapons in Kirthfinder have such multiple Exotic Weapon Proficiency options. Conceivably, weapons made using the recently released Pathfinder Custom Weapon Creation Rules could have a minimum proficiency of IV or greater.

Weapon Familiarity from your upbringing(*) gives bonus ranks in weapon proficnecy. When it says somebody is proficient with certain weapons (no ifs, ands, or buts), but does not give more detail (such as "martial proficiency"), it gives the minimum number of ranks required to be proficient with these weapons. When it says somebody treats certain weapons as martial weapons, it gives at least one (but usually just one) bonus rank of proficiency that is added to any proficiency ranks (including across-the-board proficiency ranks) you get from your class; however, different class-based proficiency ranks with the same weapons do not stack unless the class description specifically says that they do (this would usually occur in a prestige class, not a base class).

(*)Now I forgot whether that is supposed to be Ancestry or Heritage . . . .

* * * * * * * *

With respect to sword naming: How about this for a compromise:

The sword that is optionally one-handed, optionally two-handed (both as Martial) and slightly smaller than a Longsword (but bigger than an Arming Sword) gets the name Bastard Longsword.

The sword that is normally two-handed, normally two-handed (and requires Exotic proficiency for one-handed use) and slightly smaller than a Greatsword (but bigger than the Longsword) gets the name Bastard Greatsword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathan Goodrich wrote:
Shelyn is getting name-dropped a lot in these playtest articles. Is she becoming more prominent in the new version, or does our article writer just really like her?

Clearly a sign of Shelyn-bias.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Leedwashere wrote:
I also like how the axe blade directly below the words "dwarven weapons" looks like a dude with a beard and the hammer to the right of it looks like a dragon breathing fire. That's a nice touch! :D

That hammer is actually inspired by a historical piece in a Venice museum. Which is really cool. I'm wondering if the hammer/pick design that is a hand holding a dagger will show up. They seem to have been fairly popular historically with multiple examples existing and art depictions. They are pretty cool looking.


In short I would have liked to see a bit more on the spear, other than that very minor little thing I am looking forward to more detailes in the future.


I noticed this in the description of a "reach" weapon: "has reach (allowing you to Strike enemies up to 10 feet away" this seems to lack the inability to hit adjacent enemies. Perhaps this restriction has been removed, or perhaps it wasn't mentioned to keep the blog shorter.

I imagine that the rules for increasing weapon damage dice from size changes will be different in PF2, because of how weapon enhancements add die damage rather than static damage, combined with the new power attack could get really overpowered if the great sword went from 1d12 to 3d6 at size large, 6d6 for +1 great sword and perhaps 9d6 for power attacking with a +1 greatsword, also you'd still have an action to attack again with a possible other 6d6. I'll be looking forward to hearing how medium sized characters using large weapons and enlarged PCs work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
(with the one noteworthy exception being the Messer, which was classified as a knife because, in Germany, there was a point in time where commoners weren't allowed to have swords, but the legal definition of a knife was based off of the construction of the hilt rather than blade length.)

I'm pretty sure that explanation of the messer is a myth. For one, German cities were actually some of the most permissive with weapons. You were more likely to be fined for /not/ having a sword than for owning one (citizens were expected to serve in the militia, so had to be properly armed). And carry was common. French and English cities had lots of restrictions on carrying in the cities (ownership was fine, and outside of cities you could carry to your heart's content), but the German cites tended to be much freer. It seems that the main reason for the messer's construction might have been guild laws on who can make them rather than civil laws on who can own them. Swordsmiths had a monopoly on swords, so knifesmiths created them as a workaround to get into the market.

Jean Chandler did a great series of lectures on swords in the German Free Cities at IGX. This one is my favorite. The others can be found by looking at the channel's listed videos. I don't think he really gets into the messer thing, but does show how common ownership and carrying of weapons was in German towns. And the interesting unwritten rules on escalation of violence with their use. Really worth a watch.

/tangent

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Clearly a sign of Shelyn-bias.

Good. ^_^


Really hoping to see some other classes like the Magus. Also want to see how Archetypes will work in this new edition?


I really dig being able to take an action to raise your AC with a bo-staff, switching between damage types, and increasing iterative damage with the glaive.

I also like the critical effect of swords lowering the target's AC, and spears hampering the target's attacks.

Looks like reach weapons can hit adjacent foes (like in 5th Ed), nice.

I do not like "monk' as a weapon trait (I love the class), if you are in a campaign setting with no monks, you have these weapons with the name of a class that doesn't exist in the world attached to them. That stuff should be contained within the class.

I also really do not like weapons called "saw-toothed sabre" and "dogslicer", sounds really cheesy and juvenile, and a bit sci-fi for some reason.

Finally, weapon quality, I guess this will stack with magic items, so, a Legendary Quality +3 weapon would be +6 to hit, and 4 x weapon damage dice?


Mark Seifter wrote:
My favorite moment about the weapons system was when Luis's bastard sword fighter Randyll died and he made a new flail/shield fighter, Solveig, and after just one battle with the new character, he said he was blown away by how different it felt just from switching weapons, even before all the differences from feats, the shield, and all the rest.

By the time we read about something in a blog, it comes across as Paizo is going to use it, regardless of the feedback.

I get where Paizo is trying to go with this, but at first blush, it feels like something that is going to become unwieldy (no pun intended) after a few splat books. What do I mean? PF 1e has problems with focused builds that are so specialized that they can trivialize encounters. This is made possible by convergence of a bunch of independent mechanics that all seemed cool in a vacuum, but were never envisioned as working in concert.

In an effort to keep introducing new and interesting weapons, Paizo runs the risk of publishing a lot of cheese enablers. Yeah, you're play testing, but let's not pretend that a couple of play test are going to ferret out the Pistolero builds of 1e. Players simply won't be able to put all the pieces together prior to launch and a large part of that will be because we won't have access to all the pieces.

I'm also curious how Paizo is "balancing" these unique properties. In MMORPG's the benefit of secondary effects is typically correlated to XP per hour of populations segmented into users of those abilities. How is Paizo going to figure out if a Longsword's AC lowering is too powerful compared to a Dagger's bleed? It's one thing to try the same battle with a different weapon, but that isn't the same as using character's that have been built to leverage these qualities.

In theory what you've discussed is interesting, but it really comes down to the nuts and bolts of how things are implemented. I mean look at the commotion over weapon cords...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Finally, weapon quality, I guess this will stack with magic items, so, a Legendary Quality +3 weapon would be +6 to hit, and 4 x weapon damage dice?

I expect this is replacing the bonus to hit. So a +1 weapon will deal +1[W] die to damage, but not augment the to hit. Otherwise you end up double dipping. By removing it from the to hit bonus you also remove the reliance on getting new weapons "just to keep up" (although you will lag behind in damage if you keep using a +1 weapon at higher levels).

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Redblade8 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Redblade8 wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
What's that weapon on the center at the bottom with the concave edge...?
That's Charlene.
T_T I don't get the joke... Am a failure.
I think it's no more complex than just giving the weapon a "name".
Full Metal Jacket: Pyle: 'Sir, the private's weapon is called Charlene, Sir.'
This. The other contender of a name was "Vera", but I think I used that joke more recently, so I went with this one. :-)

Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
I do not like "monk' as a weapon trait (I love the class), if you are in a campaign setting with no monks, you have these weapons with the name of a class that doesn't exist in the world attached to them. That stuff should be contained within the class.

The game's core assumption is that the Classes in the book exist. You can easily remove the Monk in which case the property does nothing, but the Class exists by default, and handling it as a weapon property is much more elegant, future proofed, and easier to work with than having some sort of list in the Monk class as to what weapons they can use.

Weather Report wrote:
I also really do not like weapons called "saw-toothed sabre" and "dogslicer", sounds really cheesy and juvenile, and a bit sci-fi for some reason.

Both are Golarion specific and have existed for years. The dogslicer being a traditional goblin weapon and goblins being inclined to such names (their other traditional weapon is the 'horsechopper'). Saw-toothed sabres are used by the followers of Achaekek, the Mantis God, and are designed to visually mimic mantis claws.

Both seem reasonable in context.

Weather Report wrote:
Finally, weapon quality, I guess this will stack with magic items, so, a Legendary Quality +3 weapon would be +6 to hit, and 4 x weapon damage dice?

We don't know that they stack, and indeed I'd say it's unlikely given the game's tight math thus far.

Personally, I suspect that one of the following two options is the correct one:

1. Magic weapon bonuses subsume those of mundane weapons, much as they did the masterwork bonus in PF1.

2. Magic weapons add no bonus to hit inherently, just add damage dice. So a Legendary +4 weapon has +3 to hit and does 5dX damage (like John Lynch 106, this option is the one I consider likeliest).

Either of these would almost certainly be combined with required weapon quality in order to be enchanted (ie: you need an Expert weapon to make it magic, a Master weapon to make it +3, etc.)


I have a question for the devs : WHY ??

Why did you think it was necessary to rework all the weapons in this 2nd edition ???

When I read the blog, it reminded me of RoleMaster damage tables for weapons (and their infamous critical strike table).

Seriously, PF weapons are not the most realistic or simulationnist system but they work well and most importantly you have the choice : you can choise a weapon that just deals damage or you can go for another weapon taht may deal less damage but will have several additional abilities (reach, brace, trip etc ...).

In this 2nd edition, I have to deal with weapons that have 2 or 3 abilites + the weapon-group trait and the critical specilization ...

Moreover, where is the baalance betweeen an ability thaat amkes your weapon deal more damage after each attack and another one who reduces the penalty for attacking another target in the same round (a suboptimal tactic that noone uses).

Lastly, what is the point of telling us in one of the first previews that magical +X for weapons were not part of this 2nd edition if you tell us now that there will be quality +X for weapons ?

It's exactly the same stupid thing !!

I must say that I was rather excited at the idea of a 2nd edition when it was first announced, but all the latest previews have really smashed down my enthousiasm ...

Dark Archive

Mark Seifter wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sightless Swordsman wrote:
This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.
I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.
Also, Excalibur's scabbard was actually more OP than Excalibur itself.

On the topic of Scabbards Mark.. one of my most amusing fighter builds in PF1 was a fighter with Equipment Trick, Quickdraw, and an Aldori Dueling Sword who would start most fights drawing his weapon while closing in on the enemy, hurling the scabbard at the enemy then following it up with a standard attack with the sword. It was surprisingly effective. Will there be a way to do similar in the new edition?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Biggest possibility that this opens up? Sword canes having a trait or feat that lets you use the scabbard part as either a second weapon or as a parrying weapon.

At least that's what I'd like to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


*resists urge to inquire about a particular exotic weapon that's been inspired by recent forums and instead nods quietly and watches*

I doubt the Banhammer will be in Core - but maybe in a splat-book down the line...

Fiorrill wrote:
Really hoping to see some other classes like the Magus. Also want to see how Archetypes will work in this new edition?

I'm pretty sure we're not going to see any non-Core classes as part of the playtest, but I'm open to being proved wrong.

Noir le Lotus wrote:
Moreover, where is the baalance betweeen an ability thaat amkes your weapon deal more damage after each attack and another one who reduces the penalty for attacking another target in the same round (a suboptimal tactic that noone uses).

I'm pretty sure that's why we have a playtest. And how can you claim a tactic is "suboptimal" that "no-one uses" for a version of game very few have played to this point?

Noir le Lotus wrote:

Lastly, what is the point of telling us in one of the first previews that magical +X for weapons were not part of this 2nd edition if you tell us now that there will be quality +X for weapons ?

It's exactly the same stupid thing !!

A, Please cite your source for this claim.

B, Are you sure whatever you're on about is exactly the same?

+ + +

In terms of the article, I think the only thing I'd've liked to have seen in there would be a full stat block for one of the weapons, to get an idea of how they'll be presented. Other than that, a good piece!


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Finally, weapon quality, I guess this will stack with magic items, so, a Legendary Quality +3 weapon would be +6 to hit, and 4 x weapon damage dice?
I expect this is replacing the bonus to hit. So a +1 weapon will deal +1[W] die to damage, but not augment the to hit. Otherwise you end up double dipping. By removing it from the to hit bonus you also remove the reliance on getting new weapons "just to keep up" (although you will lag behind in damage if you keep using a +1 weapon at higher levels).

Now that sounds groovy.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I do not like "monk' as a weapon trait (I love the class), if you are in a campaign setting with no monks, you have these weapons with the name of a class that doesn't exist in the world attached to them. That stuff should be contained within the class.

The game's core assumption is that the Classes in the book exist. You can easily remove the Monk in which case the property does nothing, but the Class exists by default, and handling it as a weapon property is much more elegant, future proofed, and easier to work with than having some sort of list in the Monk class as to what weapons they can use.

Weather Report wrote:
I also really do not like weapons called "saw-toothed sabre" and "dogslicer", sounds really cheesy and juvenile, and a bit sci-fi for some reason.

Both are Golarion specific and have existed for years. The dogslicer being a traditional goblin weapon and goblins being inclined to such names (their other traditional weapon is the 'horsechopper'). Saw-toothed sabres are used by the followers of Achaekek, the Mantis God, and are designed to visually mimic mantis claws.

I disagree about the monk thing, and all counts.

As for the goofy, child-like weapon names, they have been lame sounding since day one, for me, and they should not be on a standard weapon table, maybe an alternate regional name for an existing properly named one.

151 to 200 of 569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: What's Your Weapon? All Messageboards