|
I've seen others posting comments that some weapon types need "more love", and I must say that I agree, to some extent. But I rather think it's more about certain weapon groups (such as Reach Weapons and Shields used weapons) that need more love.
WFRP has a lot of qualities, and that same line of thought could be applied in PF RPG as well (since the mechanics would support it effortlessly).
For example, 'Disarming' (e.g. Ranseur could have it) could be a quality that lets you add +2 to your Disarm CMB check. Or, alternatively, table 7-5 could include a text like "+2 to Disarm CMB checks" (of course, the font size would need to be smaller). 'Tripping' could be another such quality, and more weapons could have it (I think spears should give you bonus on tripping a foe). Shields should give you (at least) +2 (or maybe the whole shield bonus?) to Bullrush attempts. And so on.
Also, in my opinion it wouldn't be a bad idea if the weapon type (piercing, bludgeoning, slashing) would have more impact in the rules -- for example, certain feats ('Stunning/Staggering Critical' and such) would benefit from bludgeoning weapons (e.g. +2 to save DC).
Thoughts?
Great idea. If weapons had descriptors, there would be no need to repeat text in multiple weapon descriptions. It would be easier at a glance to get an idea of what the different weapons do.
I wonder if it makes sense to give armors DR against slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing, depending on the armor type. I'm all for finding ways to make weapon type more relevant, but I'm against doing that with feats. Feats are fun to pick without having to fret about too many details. Combat actions automatically available to everyone, on the other hand, might provide some room to play with weapon type.
EDIT: James Jacobs gave a good rationale for repeating text in weapon descriptions (link here), so I take back that suggestion.