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
301 to 350 of 569 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Davor wrote:

Looking at all these weapon qualities, and thinking about monks, I can't help but think about how cool it would be if part of gaining improved Proficiency as a monk meant granting certain Weapon Qualities to your unarmed strikes. What if you get nothing at basic proficiency, but each higher proficiency you get a little more damage AND get to choose a weapon property? You could have deadly, agile, finesse fists, or maybe parry, trip, and versatile (slashing)? There are so many cool combinations, and would really reward unarmed combat while not invalidating weapon-focused combat, because you can always carry a weapon that has the qualities your fists don't.

The more I think about it, the more excited I get. Agile + Forceful? It's like a DIY Flurry of Blows, especially if we get to do two-weapon fighting and it gives extra attacks.

Ah, now that's an interesting idea, a way to pimp out your unarmed strikes all the way through higher levels, no need to resort to magic weapons. What about quality, though, can we get legendary fists?

I wouldn't be surprised if a Monk's fists went up in "quality" as they advance in levels. Maybe tied to their Ki Pool, if that's still a thing (like how they got DR bypass in PF1)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:


Here’s a plea that I’m going to make right now to the team designing the Pathfinder Iconics. Can you have weapon special properties on the iconic’s sheets, along with what their spells do? It’s okay if those sheets are two-sided.

John, Linda, Tonya, and I are putting these together for PaizoCon and GenCon and we're definitely working on finding the very best way to make sure that all the relevant information is readily accessible and easily legible on the iconic playtest sheets for everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, now that's an interesting idea, a way to pimp out your unarmed strikes all the way through higher levels, no need to resort to magic weapons. What about quality, though, can we get legendary fists?

Yes, but you have to beat the 17th level Monk they're attached to before you can cut them off.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fire up the barbeques. We have to have sacred cow burgers seasoned with salty tears.

Now I'm hungry for a sacred cheese burger with sacred salty tear fries on the side... Mmmmmm..... Sacred cheese burger.... ;)

QuidEst wrote:
Flurry, as we know it, is going away

I'm guessing that flurry now reduces the penalty for the 2nd and third attacks with a monk weapon.


TheFinish wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Davor wrote:

Looking at all these weapon qualities, and thinking about monks, I can't help but think about how cool it would be if part of gaining improved Proficiency as a monk meant granting certain Weapon Qualities to your unarmed strikes. What if you get nothing at basic proficiency, but each higher proficiency you get a little more damage AND get to choose a weapon property? You could have deadly, agile, finesse fists, or maybe parry, trip, and versatile (slashing)? There are so many cool combinations, and would really reward unarmed combat while not invalidating weapon-focused combat, because you can always carry a weapon that has the qualities your fists don't.

The more I think about it, the more excited I get. Agile + Forceful? It's like a DIY Flurry of Blows, especially if we get to do two-weapon fighting and it gives extra attacks.

Ah, now that's an interesting idea, a way to pimp out your unarmed strikes all the way through higher levels, no need to resort to magic weapons. What about quality, though, can we get legendary fists?
I wouldn't be surprised if a Monk's fists went up in "quality" as they advance in levels.

Yeah, start as Expert, become Master at 7th level, and Legendary at 15th or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, now that's an interesting idea, a way to pimp out your unarmed strikes all the way through higher levels, no need to resort to magic weapons. What about quality, though, can we get legendary fists?
Yes, but you have to beat the 17th level Monk they're attached to before you can cut them off.

Fists of the Grand Master of Flowers (linked together like a double-ended meteor hammer).


Malthraz wrote:

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.

Huzzah! Another person who gets irrationally bothered with semantics! Kind of. Not as much as me, it seems.

If you really want to get technical, the existence of leather armor at all is ridiculous. You could get similar protection from wearing a well-crafted gambeson, and it would be easier to repair if it gets damaged. Not to mention the fact that a gambeson would likely be cheaper because you wouldn't have to kill livestock in order to make it.

Regarding the semantics of sword names, I have a nitpick though. While I'm far from being anything close to an expert, according to my understanding, the only distinction between a falchion and a messer is the construction of the hilt. Messers have an integrated, knife-like hilt, while a falchion has a pommel that is either threaded or peened. Assuming my knowledge is correct, then two-handed falchions can be a real thing.


1of1 wrote:
StarBreaker wrote:

Any chance you can have advanced combat techniques to allow things like Half-Swording and Mordhau?

"Foolish mortal! You bring a greatsword to a battle with a lich?"

*Fighter reverses grip.*

"You're going to hurt yourself holding the bla... OH GODS HE'S REINTRODUCING ME TO PAIN!!!"

Heh. I always let my players deal damage types outside of the weapon's stats by declaring it an improvised weapon, so long as they can describe how they're going about it. I've also never had a DM tell me no when I've tried it myself.

It's fun to beat skeletons with the butt end of your crossbow. Finally, a use for a crossbow!

That's not even an improvised weapon, that's a legitimate combat technique with many years of documentation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the suggestion of having my Wizard go into combat with a crossbow- only to “magic rail gun” it at an enemy using Telekinetic Projectile.


Weather Report wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, now that's an interesting idea, a way to pimp out your unarmed strikes all the way through higher levels, no need to resort to magic weapons. What about quality, though, can we get legendary fists?
Yes, but you have to beat the 17th level Monk they're attached to before you can cut them off.
Fists of the Grand Master of Flowers (linked together like a double-ended meteor hammer).

Grand Master of Flowers was a cool rank.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dysartes wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Ah, now that's an interesting idea, a way to pimp out your unarmed strikes all the way through higher levels, no need to resort to magic weapons. What about quality, though, can we get legendary fists?
Yes, but you have to beat the 17th level Monk they're attached to before you can cut them off.
Fists of the Grand Master of Flowers (linked together like a double-ended meteor hammer).
Grand Master of Flowers was a cool rank.

Yeah, and the proceeding Master of Spring, etc, very cool, some of the old level titles were great.

In a Greyhawk book they mention an 18th-level Monk, Supreme Master of Petals, I'm serious.


StarBreaker wrote:
1of1 wrote:
StarBreaker wrote:

Any chance you can have advanced combat techniques to allow things like Half-Swording and Mordhau?

"Foolish mortal! You bring a greatsword to a battle with a lich?"

*Fighter reverses grip.*

"You're going to hurt yourself holding the bla... OH GODS HE'S REINTRODUCING ME TO PAIN!!!"

Heh. I always let my players deal damage types outside of the weapon's stats by declaring it an improvised weapon, so long as they can describe how they're going about it. I've also never had a DM tell me no when I've tried it myself.

It's fun to beat skeletons with the butt end of your crossbow. Finally, a use for a crossbow!

That's not even an improvised weapon, that's a legitimate combat technique with many years of documentation.

Yes, I've done it myself. Very useful for breaking coconuts when the little tropical cowards are hiding behind a helmet. Never cut myself, but blades are a bit more awkward to hold than grips. It's nothing practice can't overcome, though.

Using the improvised weapon rules in PF1 simply allowed for a flexible base that applied to all weapons, and that was easily understood by everyone at my table. None of that really has much bearing on PF2, though. That's a whole new can of worms that walk. I'm just sharing how I used rules in PF1 to accomplish this.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad to see the change with exotic weapons not doing more damage but instead offering different “abilities.” I’m hoping to see a plethora of weapons in the game rather than a kukri, greatsword, or lucern hammer for maximizing crits.

A+


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay I have an idea here I'm going to call the reason for inferior weapons. (Sorta. ***wink***)

As we all know weapons were made to hurt people armour was made to protect people, new weapons were made to bypass armour, new armour was made to protect against those weapons etc. etc.

Also, we know that certain weapons were made the way they were based on available resources. Obviously both of these overlap for example in a hot region with scant supplies of metal there would be little need for weapons to be effective vs plate armour and thus not many rondel daggers or war hammers would have been made. Or any for that matter. :)

So back to the game. Why use a board with a nail in it when you can buy a sword that does more damage, is more versatile with different damage types and special abilities? Well the board with a nail in it is cheap and you can make it pretty fast. Floats too but that's an argument for another time. ;)

Also, supplying mass units with weapons was generally done with cheaper weapons. Bill Hooks for you. Halberds for me and my honour guard. Also, an argument for another time. ;)

Now you're probably saying hey yes a board with a nail in it is a valid choice at first level and for commoners due to cost but at higher levels it doesn't make a difference because we're rich mfers! Who cares if my magic weapon costs 500050 vs 50000 and 1 silver piece if it's a much better weapon.

Except what if enhancing a board with a nail it it was much cheaper to enhance than a sword? What if it was also much faster to enhance?

Therefore, my idea is there could be a cost/crafting factor in weapons based on how expensive/effective they are.

So most simple weapons are cheap and quick to make as well as cheap and quick to enhance. So you don't worry when you break your +3 board with a nail in it cause you can have another one for cheap in a day or two.

At the very least it gives the designers another metric for balancing weapons as well as a reason for some weapons being lack luster compared other weapons. As yes there is of course specificity in play with any weapon in any situation as to how one could be better than another but there are some weapons that are generally always inferior to other weapons in many situations. It also gives pcs a reason to use something they find cool but not as effective as another weapon as there is a valid reason for going cheap. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
GM Red Box wrote:
The more I read the more I pray HeroLab is ready day one. I love the options but there are so many, as a GM, it will really help to have a program do some record keeping and math.

AS long as it's not HLO.

Classic? Sure. HLO no.

+100
Agreed

Disagree.

A clunky app that looks like the UI was designed in the 90's (which I use weekly) vs. a fresh interactive interface with a lot of potential features to manage party inventory/buffs/shared resources.. I will go with HLO.


Lemartes wrote:

Okay I have an idea here I'm going to call the reason for inferior weapons. (Sorta. ***wink***)

As we all know weapons were made to hurt people armour was made to protect people, new weapons were made to bypass armour, new armour was made to protect against those weapons etc. etc.

Also, we know that certain weapons were made the way they were based on available resources. Obviously both of these overlap for example in a hot region with scant supplies of metal there would be little need for weapons to be effective vs plate armour and thus not many rondel daggers or war hammers would have been made. Or any for that matter. :)

So back to the game. Why use a board with a nail in it when you can buy a sword that does more damage, is more versatile with different damage types and special abilities? Well the board with a nail in it is cheap and you can make it pretty fast. Floats too but that's an argument for another time. ;)

Also, supplying mass units with weapons was generally done with cheaper weapons. Bill Hooks for you. Halberds for me and my honour guard. Also, an argument for another time. ;)

Now you're probably saying hey yes a board with a nail in it is a valid choice at first level and for commoners due to cost but at higher levels it doesn't make a difference because we're rich mfers! Who cares if my magic weapon costs 500050 vs 50000 and 1 silver piece if it's a much better weapon.

Except what if enhancing a board with a nail it it was much cheaper to enhance than a sword? What if it was also much faster to enhance?

Therefore, my idea is there could be a cost/crafting factor in weapons based on how expensive/effective they are.

So most simple weapons are cheap and quick to make as well as cheap and quick to enhance. So you don't worry when you break your +3 board with a nail in it cause you can have another one for cheap in a day or two.

At the very least it gives the designers another metric for balancing weapons as well as a reason for some weapons being lack luster compared...

unless we have zombiefinder game i dont think any one worth his brain gonna find much better weapon after first combat encounter.


khadgar567 wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

Okay I have an idea here I'm going to call the reason for inferior weapons. (Sorta. ***wink***)

As we all know weapons were made to hurt people armour was made to protect people, new weapons were made to bypass armour, new armour was made to protect against those weapons etc. etc.

Also, we know that certain weapons were made the way they were based on available resources. Obviously both of these overlap for example in a hot region with scant supplies of metal there would be little need for weapons to be effective vs plate armour and thus not many rondel daggers or war hammers would have been made. Or any for that matter. :)

So back to the game. Why use a board with a nail in it when you can buy a sword that does more damage, is more versatile with different damage types and special abilities? Well the board with a nail in it is cheap and you can make it pretty fast. Floats too but that's an argument for another time. ;)

Also, supplying mass units with weapons was generally done with cheaper weapons. Bill Hooks for you. Halberds for me and my honour guard. Also, an argument for another time. ;)

Now you're probably saying hey yes a board with a nail in it is a valid choice at first level and for commoners due to cost but at higher levels it doesn't make a difference because we're rich mfers! Who cares if my magic weapon costs 500050 vs 50000 and 1 silver piece if it's a much better weapon.

Except what if enhancing a board with a nail it it was much cheaper to enhance than a sword? What if it was also much faster to enhance?

Therefore, my idea is there could be a cost/crafting factor in weapons based on how expensive/effective they are.

So most simple weapons are cheap and quick to make as well as cheap and quick to enhance. So you don't worry when you break your +3 board with a nail in it cause you can have another one for cheap in a day or two.

At the very least it gives the designers another metric for balancing weapons as well as a reason for some weapons

...

???


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This makes me actually looking forward to trying a martial character in 2E.

I love weapons having more to them instead of simply be damage dice. Not only does that make picking a character's primary weapon more interesting, it makes a deity's favored weapon more tempting to use even if it doesn't have the highest damage dice. Plus maybe I'll actually manage to convince players in my games to carry more than one weapon instead of being cripplingly overspecialized (though this will likely depend on how weapon specific feats in 2E are).

Love the idea of weapons (& hopefully armor) having a way to connect to specific regions of a world. I've been planning to do this in my own homebrew, so having an official version will be helpful to mimic. Especially for armor, I'm almost hoping that we might see something about armor and environment (so I don't have to explain to a player why the desert blacksmith isn't offering full-plate, even though it has the best AC).

Also loving the mundane weapon quality. Hopefully its actually useful to play unlike masterwork weapons (which my players often skipped to save overall cost, going from simple weapons to magic ones). Not to mention its a flavorful way of expressing the quality of a town's blacksmith by the quality of work they can produce.

Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
It sounds like the weapons will be generating more minor bonuses and penalties for the poor GM to keep track of, though. Will there be new conventions in the stat-blocks to make it easier for the GM to remember, without having to open the equipment chart in the book for every NPC?

Building on this, can we please have range increments for ranged weapons/attacks included in enemy statblocks? I always hated having to look that up in the middle of an encounter because I forgot the exact range of a crossbow or something offhand.


Maybe I have played to many videogames but I would prefer that the axes would lower AC based on armor/natural armor.

Grand Lodge

If/when the inquisitor class is brought to 2nd ed, I would like to see it proficient in martial weapons. For being a weapon of the church, it seems like they should be more broadly trained on forms of combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope we get away from limited "monk weapons", personally. It always kind of enforced an Asian flavor on a character, which is boring. Not to mention glaring gaps in what they can use. Not even something that sorta resembles a jian.


Charon Onozuka wrote:
Plus maybe I'll actually manage to convince players in my games to carry more than one weapon instead of being cripplingly overspecialized (though this will likely depend on how weapon specific feats in 2E are).

Yes, I hope they use something similar to Weapon Group feats, ala 3rd Ed Unearthed Arcana.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One big hope is that investing in multiple styles/weapons and thus having a better tool for the job will be viable compared with putting everything into one weapon/style. Obviously the all in guy shouldn't suck in certain situations and should excel in some.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Not to mention glaring gaps in what they can use. Not even something that sorta resembles a jian.

Now that you mention it PF1 was really short of opportunities to say "En garde, I'll let you try my Wu-Tang style" in character.

A whole lot of the source material that inspires the monk is about swords, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
I hope we get away from limited "monk weapons", personally. It always kind of enforced an Asian flavor on a character, which is boring. Not to mention glaring gaps in what they can use. Not even something that sorta resembles a jian.

Me too, I think Asian names should be used for flavour, longsword = katana, greatclub = tetsubo, warhammer = dai tsuchi, etc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Since everyone is talking about Monk, one thing that has always bothered me is the way some weapons work on Monk. A specific example to the type I mean is "Brass Knuckles". I could never fathom why I would want to give up my damage on Monk to 1d3 except possibly at early levels to bypass DR (like Silver Brass Knuckles... Silver Knuckles?). I always felt that with a Monk they should give a bonus like +1 to damage or at the very least let me use them to add additional magical effects to my Unarmed Strike, such as Flaming. (How else am I going to perform a Shoryuken?) Granted there is the Amulet of Mighty Fists but then I'm giving up an neck slot for something I feel the Knuckles should be able to do.

In short the option to perform your Unarmed Strike Damage or Weapon Damage when using a Monk Weapon is a change I was happy to see in D&D 5E and would be very happy to see in PF 2E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hrodwulf wrote:

Since everyone is talking about Monk, one thing that has always bothered me is the way some weapons work on Monk. A specific example to the type I mean is "Brass Knuckles". I could never fathom why I would want to give up my damage on Monk to 1d3 except possibly at early levels to bypass DR (like Silver Brass Knuckles... Silver Knuckles?). I always felt that with a Monk they should give a bonus like +1 to damage or at the very least let me use them to add additional magical effects to my Unarmed Strike, such as Flaming. (How else am I going to perform a Shoryuken?) Granted there is the Amulet of Mighty Fists but then I'm giving up an neck slot for something I feel the Knuckles should be able to do.

In short the option to perform your Unarmed Strike Damage or Weapon Damage when using a Monk Weapon is a change I was happy to see in D&D 5E and would be very happy to see in PF 2E.

Yes, the 5th Ed monk is nice design, being able to deal up to d10 damage with a club or dagger is really cool.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
I hope we get away from limited "monk weapons", personally. It always kind of enforced an Asian flavor on a character, which is boring. Not to mention glaring gaps in what they can use. Not even something that sorta resembles a jian.
Me too, I think Asian names should be used for flavour, longsword = katana, greatclub = tetsubo, warhammer = dai tsuchi, etc.

I'd rather the asian weapons be used for variety, personally. There are a whole host of them which aren't just palette-swapped other weapons, and even among the ones which appear to be it rarely turns out to actually be that simple. For the ones which might appear at a glance to be palette-swapped, simply shuffling around the traits can make them enough of their own thing to be interesting. I just hope that they don't slap the exotic tag on too many of them for no reason, but I have enough benefit of the doubt for the designers to believe that the only exotic weapons in the new edition will be for mechanical reasons and that, as mentioned in the blog, they will use other means to differentiate what is common in an area, and that uncommon!=exotic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leedwashere wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
I hope we get away from limited "monk weapons", personally. It always kind of enforced an Asian flavor on a character, which is boring. Not to mention glaring gaps in what they can use. Not even something that sorta resembles a jian.
Me too, I think Asian names should be used for flavour, longsword = katana, greatclub = tetsubo, warhammer = dai tsuchi, etc.
I'd rather the asian weapons be used for variety, personally. There are a whole host of them which aren't just palette-swapped other weapons, and even among the ones which appear to be it rarely turns out to actually be that simple. For the ones which might appear at a glance to be palette-swapped, simply shuffling around the traits can make them enough of their own thing to be interesting. I just hope that they don't slap the exotic tag on too many of them for no reason, but I have enough benefit of the doubt for the designers to believe that the only exotic weapons in the new edition will be for mechanical reasons and that, as mentioned in the blog, they will use other means to differentiate what is common in an area, and that uncommon!=exotic.

Not me, I used to, but now it smacks of "Orientalism", where anything that is Asian/Oriental is automatically different and/or better (tank-slicing katana, etc).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
Not me, I used to, but now it smacks of "Orientalism", where anything that is Asian/Oriental is automatically different and/or better (tank-slicing katana, etc).

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it has to be automatically better to be different. And, under the reworked simple-martial-exotic paradigm, different+better would be an exotic weapon, and have an additional barrier to entry. But if there's a distinctly different style to use of any weapon, I'd say that weapon deserves to exist in this system. To borrow your example, a Katana shouldn't be a tank-slicing beast, sure, but there's no reason that it can't be exactly the same damage dice as, say, an equivalent style sword but instead of normal sword traits it has sweep instead (example pulled from nowhere for illustrative purposes only). Now it plays differently to its competition without being definitively better except for certain play styles that prioritize sweep instead of normal sword traits.

Then there's weapons like the meteor hammer or the 3-section staff or so many others which have few counterparts if any. If Asian-style weapons are only flavor, then these have nowhere to go, and that would be sad.

I'd be alright with many of these weapons waiting until a later expansion book, but I think it would go a long way to reinforcing uncommon!=exotic to have many of them in the CRB.

EDIT: for the sake of clarity, I feel this way about any/all weapons outside the bubble of what is usually considered normal in fantasy RPGs, not just Asian weapons. Those just happen to be what was being talked about. I'd love to be able make a Maori-style warrior that uses a Mere Club and Taiaha right out of the gate, for example, and play my favorite Sentinels of the Multiverse character. I could do that be replacing the flavor, sure, but it would feel more exciting if there were mechanical options to differentiate it, too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Weather Report wrote:
Leedwashere wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
I hope we get away from limited "monk weapons", personally. It always kind of enforced an Asian flavor on a character, which is boring. Not to mention glaring gaps in what they can use. Not even something that sorta resembles a jian.
Me too, I think Asian names should be used for flavour, longsword = katana, greatclub = tetsubo, warhammer = dai tsuchi, etc.
I'd rather the asian weapons be used for variety, personally. There are a whole host of them which aren't just palette-swapped other weapons, and even among the ones which appear to be it rarely turns out to actually be that simple. For the ones which might appear at a glance to be palette-swapped, simply shuffling around the traits can make them enough of their own thing to be interesting. I just hope that they don't slap the exotic tag on too many of them for no reason, but I have enough benefit of the doubt for the designers to believe that the only exotic weapons in the new edition will be for mechanical reasons and that, as mentioned in the blog, they will use other means to differentiate what is common in an area, and that uncommon!=exotic.
Not me, I used to, but now it smacks of "Orientalism", where anything that is Asian/Oriental is automatically different and/or better (tank-slicing katana, etc).

The mentions of bo staff in the blog have me extremely worried about this, especially considering Ultimate Combat's take on these things. If a Bo is different from a quarterstaff, I'm going to seriously be smurfed off! It's just a stick, people!


Leedwashere wrote:
Then there's weapons like the meteor hammer or the 3-section staff or so many others which have few counterparts if any.

Spiked chain that deals bludgeoning damage and quarterstaff, respectively, is close enough. Another problem is opening up a flood of exotic weapons for every possible culture, why stop at Asia, as you said, Congo throwing knife, macuahuitl, zweihander, etc, etc.


Igwilly wrote:

One hope: polearms. Now with this weapon variety, I just hope that polearms get their time in the spotlight too. I loved these polearms lists in old-school editions. Gygax was crazy on those ones, not for no reason :)

It is always fun to look at historical arms books there were a LOT of crazy looking polearms over the years and often designed for specific uses which were pretty different between them.


kaid wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

One hope: polearms. Now with this weapon variety, I just hope that polearms get their time in the spotlight too. I loved these polearms lists in old-school editions. Gygax was crazy on those ones, not for no reason :)

It is always fun to look at historical arms books there were a LOT of crazy looking polearms over the years and often designed for specific uses which were pretty different between them.

Beware the Lithuanian Choad-Scraper!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Man oh man, a lot to love here.

Crafting Quality vs Magic: I really like the idea that weapon quality adds to hit, while +1 enhancements add to damage. I've never totally bought the idea that the most basic enchantment makes you somehow more skilled with the weapon or otherwise make you more likely to hit. Hit harder? Absolutely. But making it easier to avoid being parried or dodged implies there's something akin to Dancing Weapons going on. But the idea that a weapon can be forged so that it is better balanced and easier to use sans magic? That makes sense and has a lot of pop culture support.

Crit Specialization: Looks like the Stunning Critical type feats are getting turned into this, which is awesome. (I'm hoping this comes as part of the whole package for increasing Proficiency to Master or Legendary or whatever, rather than requiring it's own feats.) Those feats were cool, but required very high levels, and were hard to justify vs doing raw damage. They also skewed the balance of 19-20 threat range vs x3 damage weapons. Making the effect automatic is tight. It also means fighting the occasional underleveled mooks will make you feel REALLY badass. Criting more often doesn't just kill things quicker, but can send those little punks flying, or kill multiple in one blow, etc.

The Golfbag: Curious how this will work out. Will Bulk add a meaningful constraint on how many weapons we can carry that is easy to track? Will Quickdraw exist, and will it be OP as heck? No entirely sure how to feel on this yet. On the one hand, it seems a little silly to be carting around so many weapons. On the other, you can also argue pulling out weapons, dropping them, and pulling out another can be pretty cool.

Weapon names: Don't really care bout the nomenclature that much, as long as the terms are distinct enough from other game terms to avoid confusion. I also think they should use "Monk" as a weapon trait, and I don't expect it to count against their total trait budget. (Unless Monks can do something very new and exciting with Monk weapons...)

Reach: I wonder if we now threaten adjacent too... With AoOs no longer being the norm it seems like it might be pretty reasonable.

Ranged Weapons? Anyone else notice there's not much mention of ranged weapons in here? Archery is definitely something that should be re-examined in PF2e. It manages to be both overpowered compared to melee and super samey in build and play.

Overall this looks like a really slick way to make characters play differently from each other, and for getting a new weapon to potentially change up your combat style and keep things fresh. If I have been using a mundane Greatsword and find a +1 Axe, it isn't just cool because it is magic but because my play style gets changed up.

Kudos, Paizo! Can it be August yet?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Toblakai wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
GM Red Box wrote:
The more I read the more I pray HeroLab is ready day one. I love the options but there are so many, as a GM, it will really help to have a program do some record keeping and math.

AS long as it's not HLO.

Classic? Sure. HLO no.

+100
Agreed

Disagree.

A clunky app that looks like the UI was designed in the 90's (which I use weekly) vs. a fresh interactive interface with a lot of potential features to manage party inventory/buffs/shared resources.. I will go with HLO.

I guess HLO is great if you don't mind continuing to have to pay for each expansion package while also now paying a monthly fee on top of it. And the fact that the resources put into giving it that beautiful UI could've been used to overhaul the regular HL UI.

To each their own I suppose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
Another problem is opening up a flood of exotic weapons for every possible culture, why stop at Asia, as you said, Congo throwing knife, macuahuitl, zweihander, etc, etc.

:|

Why stop, indeed? You and I clearly disagree about the value of variety at a very fundamental level. What you see as a problem, here, I see as a fantastic opportunity. I'll take more options over fewer every time.


Leedwashere wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Another problem is opening up a flood of exotic weapons for every possible culture, why stop at Asia, as you said, Congo throwing knife, macuahuitl, zweihander, etc, etc.

:|

Why stop, indeed? You and I clearly disagree about the value of variety at a very fundamental level. What you see as a problem, here, I see as a fantastic opportunity. I'll take more options over fewer every time.

Not sure about fundamental level, I just don't want a weapons table that takes up 100+ pages to account for every nuance and variation between real world weapons.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
John, Linda, Tonya, and I are putting these together for PaizoCon and GenCon and we're definitely working on finding the very best way to make sure that all the relevant information is readily accessible and easily legible on the iconic playtest sheets for everyone.

Huzzah for readily accessible and easily legible iconic playtest character sheets. Need another set of eyes or a proof-reader? I volunteer as tribute!

The more in advance the GenCon Playtest GMs can get their hands on these, the better the experience for all the players trying this out at GenCon!

One reason why I love GMing for OrgPlay pregens is that they’re old friends. As a GM, I try to know what special abilities they have so that I can point out to a struggling player, “Did you notice that Keskodai has that nifty telepathic ability?” If I know their abilities, I can help my players feel awesome when they try out their characters.

Thank you for getting an early start on these! Much appreciated!

Hmm


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I guess HLO is great if you don't mind continuing to have to pay for each expansion package while also now paying a monthly fee on top of it. And the fact that the resources put into giving it that beautiful UI could've been used to overhaul the regular HL UI.

To each their own I suppose.

I think it boils down to most people fear/dislike change.

I am looking forward to the tactical console being updated automatically as players add/remove buffs from their characters. Shared resource tracking is planned also, which again would be very nice feature. These kind of features would be very hard to integrate into the existing app. Plus $25/year is a minimal amount, I spend more on Starbucks each week.

But as you said, to each their own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why no mentioned of ranged or thrown options? I see one mention of bows in this whole post. I feel weird that in a whole blog about weapons, you only have one spectrum of them and not the other. Sure hitting things is fun but sometimes you want to hit things without getting close. In the old blog post about the fighter it was mentioned that Paladins will have a thing with armor. Does that mean Rangers will get more talk with ranged weapons? I don't really want to combine Paladins/Armor and Rangers/Ranged weapons in single articles.


I sorta just feel "Monk weapons" doesn't quite need to be a thing. That said, there's no mention of such a quality in the blog, it seems? For some reason, I thought otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brew Bird wrote:


"Dogslicer" was coined by goblins. Goblins give things funny names. Because they're funny.

Serious medieval realism has never been the goal of Pathfinder, it's had tongue-in-cheek aspects since inception.

Actual weapon names are more than a little tongue in cheek or "apply directly to forehead" themselves.

Bed de corbin Ravens beak

Guisarme : Weeding iron

zweinhander: two hander

claymore (both types): sword

Zanbatō: is an actual horse chopper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meophist wrote:
I sorta just feel "Monk weapons" doesn't quite need to be a thing. That said, there's no mention of such a quality in the blog, it seems? For some reason, I thought otherwise.

The bo staff is mentioned to be a monk weapon.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:


"Dogslicer" was coined by goblins. Goblins give things funny names. Because they're funny.

Serious medieval realism has never been the goal of Pathfinder, it's had tongue-in-cheek aspects since inception.

Actual weapon names are more than a little tongue in cheek or "apply directly to forehead" themselves.

Bed de corbin Ravens beak

Guisarme : Weeding iron

zweinhander: two hander

claymore (both types): sword

Zanbatō: is an actual horse chopper.

And let us not forget the imfamous Bohemian Ear Spoon!


\/\/arlok wrote:
Meophist wrote:
I sorta just feel "Monk weapons" doesn't quite need to be a thing. That said, there's no mention of such a quality in the blog, it seems? For some reason, I thought otherwise.
The bo staff is mentioned to be a monk weapon.

That's where I read it.

…How did my ctrl-f search miss it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Not me, I used to, but now it smacks of "Orientalism", where anything that is Asian/Oriental is automatically different and/or better (tank-slicing katana, etc).

It use to be the claymore was the legendary weapon, right up there with the katana. I don't think anyone ever declared the claymore fetish as "offensive to Scotsman" so it seems like a double-standard to apply that to the katana worship. Sometimes us geeks get attached to stupid things (see Lovecraft for an example) and it's got nothing to do with racism or anything of that ilk.


Meophist wrote:
I sorta just feel "Monk weapons" doesn't quite need to be a thing. That said, there's no mention of such a quality in the blog, it seems? For some reason, I thought otherwise.

They do in fact mention a Monk weapon trait. We don't know what it actually does for the monk though. As for whether the monk needs it... Depends what the monk can do I guess. Compare the Unchained Monk to the PF1 Fighter. At level 1, allowing the Monk to attack twice can only be balanced against the Fighter if the Monk hits less hard. Hence, the Monk can't flurry with a greatsword. (Without getting into weird Crusader's Flurry builds.) We dunno what the monk will look like in 2e, but I think it is safe to assume they will have a unique mechanic that needs to be balanced against other martials, and it seems like weapon access is still part of how the devs will do that.

The alternative to the trait is the 5e approach where you just give the monk a blanket limitation in their own text for what constitutes a monk weapon. The problem is that is VERY limiting. 5e has far fewer weapons and no plans to release more of them. Pathfinder wants to give us way more weapon options, which means it will be a lot harder to parse out a general rule for what should constitute a monk weapon. All those weapon traits won't help either. Seems more likely to get confusing in practice, as well. You gotta flip between tables a lot.

Pathfinder also wants to release more content down the line, and balancing new weapons becomes a lot harder if you have to also consider the monk corner case when assigning categories. The 5e approach also prevents the player from being able to execute a lot of concepts. (In fact, the 5e approach just pretty much tells you what combination of weapon traits are and aren't allowed. Can't see how that's more elegant TBH.) I can never make a monk who has a reach weapon, or anything resembling a longsword. (Well, I guess there's the Kensai.) With the Monk weapon trait, if people complain they don't have X kind of weapon, Paizo can release something that scratches that itch.

Also: flavor. Monks do have a different flavor from the Euro Classes. It's easier to give monks those kinds of crazy Exotics this way.


42nfl19 wrote:
Why no mentioned of ranged or thrown options? I see one mention of bows in this whole post. I feel weird that in a whole blog about weapons, you only have one spectrum of them and not the other. Sure hitting things is fun but sometimes you want to hit things without getting close. In the old blog post about the fighter it was mentioned that Paladins will have a thing with armor. Does that mean Rangers will get more talk with ranged weapons? I don't really want to combine Paladins/Armor and Rangers/Ranged weapons in single articles.

I also noticed the lack of ranged discussion here, but the Fighter blog did have a couple mentions of things they can do with bows, so it looks like ranged weapons will be a valid specialty for them just as much melee. (Also, I don't think they actually said Paladins are gonna be the armor class. That is an assumption by the community, though I think it is a pretty good one.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aristophanes wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:


"Dogslicer" was coined by goblins. Goblins give things funny names. Because they're funny.

Serious medieval realism has never been the goal of Pathfinder, it's had tongue-in-cheek aspects since inception.

Actual weapon names are more than a little tongue in cheek or "apply directly to forehead" themselves.

Bed de corbin Ravens beak

Guisarme : Weeding iron

zweinhander: two hander

claymore (both types): sword

Zanbatō: is an actual horse chopper.

And let us not forget the imfamous Bohemian Ear Spoon!

"So what do you call that body of water over there?

"That's a river, you idiot"

Shortly,
"We welcome you to the 'River, you Idiot' River"

301 to 350 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