Are all weapons part of a weapon group in PFS?


Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade ****

57 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

This has been asked several times before, and nobody at Paizo has responded.

Quick summary: Fighter weapon groups have been defined in multiple books. Each time, they give a "complete" list of all weapons that fall into each group. Notes in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Equipment have said something like:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
For the purpose of the fighter class's weapon training ability, weapon groups are defined as follows (GMs may add other weapons to these groups, or add entirely new groups).

But there are plenty of PFS legal weapons that aren't mentioned at all in these lists, such as the new weapons introduced in the Advanced Race Guide. Common sense would dictate that the dwarven longhammer from the Advanced Race Guide would fall into the hammer group, and any home group GM who doesn't allow it is violating Wheaton's Law, but we all know that PFS runs on pure RAW, not common sense.

So here are the questions, as specific as I can make them:

1. In Pathfinder Society, are all legal, non-improvised weapons assumed to be part of at least one weapon group?

2. If the answer is that they're always in a group, can we assume that the obvious, common sense answers can be used to add them to groups? (ie Anything with "axe" in its name is in the axe group, anything with "hammer" in its name is in the hammer group, anything with reach is in the polearm group, any weapon that's worn instead of wielded in a hand is in the close group, etc)

And before anyone says this is a rules question, not a PFS question, that's why I included the quote from Ultimate Equipment, above. Paizo has already published their official answer to the general rules question. I don't expect them to ever clarify that further than the quote above. It doesn't help PFS. That's why this is a PFS specific question.

***

with the words "GMs may". It is up to mike brock. Per raw I would say weapons not mentioned are not in a group. If I am Dming a table aslong as it makes sense I will not rule against a player making an intelligent grouping.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Finlanderboy wrote:

with the words "GMs may". It is up to mike brock. Per raw I would say weapons not mentioned are not in a group. If I am Dming a table aslong as it makes sense I will not rule against a player making an intelligent grouping.

Pretty much completely agreed, but that's why I started this thread to ask Mike Brock or John Compton to respond. Please click the FAQ button.

I actually want to make a character that revolves around one of these undefined weapons (Dwarven Foehammer Fighter wielding a Dwarven Longhammer), and I don't want to encounter table variation.

***

I can understand that.

I am curious what DMs would nto allow it?

*****

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Well, the specific weapon he's asking about could be considered either a polearm or a hammer. Personally, I'd call it a polearm, same with the dwarven longaxe, until I'd see something different calling it out.

That'd be the table variation he wants to avoid I'm sure.

Scarab Sages ***** Venture-Agent, Washington—Ballard aka WiseWolfOfYoitsu

Sniggevert wrote:

Well, the specific weapon he's asking about could be considered either a polearm or a hammer. Personally, I'd call it a polearm, same with the dwarven longaxe, until I'd see something different calling it out.

That'd be the table variation he wants to avoid I'm sure.

While I agree with what you've said, several weapons fall into multiple categories. Look at Unarmed Strike for instance: Close, Natural and Monk. The Bardiche is a Polearm and an Axe. There are several others as well.

Silver Crusade ****

Sniggevert wrote:

Well, the specific weapon he's asking about could be considered either a polearm or a hammer. Personally, I'd call it a polearm, same with the dwarven longaxe, until I'd see something different calling it out.

That'd be the table variation he wants to avoid I'm sure.

Actually, no.

Weapons can be in more than one group. For instance, a dagger is in both light blade and thrown weapon, while unarmed strike is in both the monk and natural weapon groups. The fighter class description in the Core Rulebook even explicitly calls out how to handle the weapon training bonuses if you have bonuses in more than one group and use a weapon that's in both of them (use the higher bonus - they don't stack). I'd assume that the dwarven longhammer is in both the hammer and polearm groups, and the dwarven longaxe is in both the axe and polearm groups.

The table variation I'm worried about is stuff like this thread. Some people say that a weapon's groups not being covered by the rules is an oversight that should be dealt with using common sense, thus allowing the weapons to be considered part of the obvious groups. Others say that the lists of which weapons are in which group are absolute RAW, and any weapons not listed aren't part of any group by RAW, thus leading to my question #1.

Silver Crusade ***

This has been a problem for a long time. I don't see them fixing it any time soon. I asked the same question 3 years ago when I started PFSP. So I don't expect an response to this at any time. My biggest complaint with it is this includes Golarion only weapons.

Shadow Lodge **

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If only weapons descriptions told you what weapon groups the belonged to like spells tell you what lists they are on.

Liberty's Edge *****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:

with the words "GMs may". It is up to mike brock. Per raw I would say weapons not mentioned are not in a group. If I am Dming a table aslong as it makes sense I will not rule against a player making an intelligent grouping.

This, but I will warn them about the potential for Table Variation.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:

I can understand that.

I am curious what DMs would nto allow it?

I categorically refuse to give a blanket answer on a question like this. No matter what Wheaton might say. Especially when absolutely no context is given for the question, which generally raises a corner case flag alert in my mind.

For what purpose are you asking this? Because the answer might very well vary on that context. And I refuse to be backed into a corner blindly.

In short, my answer is that it has to be on a case by case basis. For some weapons may very well wind up in a weapon group of one.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Um... He said. He wants to make a dwarven foehammer (archtype?) wielding a dwarven longhammer

Sczarni *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Fauchards are described as polearms that are similar in style to glaives (which are in the polearm group), and yet they have never been added to any weapon groups.

My Sohei would very much appreciate an answer to this particular question.

Shadow Lodge ****

Raw says GMs may add to the weapon groups. Therefore, raw is that there will be table variation. So, if you trust your GMs will agree with your decision of which group they are in then go for it. Realize that you are at the mercy of the GM if it works or not. I have a character in the same boat. So far I haven't played with a GM yet that has taken issue with it, but I carry plenty of extra weapons in case they do.

****

I'll allow it if you end up at one of my tables, but more often than not I rule in favor of the player unless its just straight cheese. Using a class ability with an iconic racial weapon has no cheese to me.

Lantern Lodge

I really wish they could straighten this out some time.

Maybe as a blog post, titled something like "Weapons for Everyone!", or as a list in the addition resources.

**

Whatever makes you happy (until officially listed), just don't break the game.


Nefreet wrote:

Fauchards are described as polearms that are similar in style to glaives (which are in the polearm group), and yet they have never been added to any weapon groups.

My Sohei would very much appreciate an answer to this particular question.

Fauchards could also be paired with sickles, wherever they go... The cheap peasant weapon group?

Dark Archive

Look, as PFS GMs, we're expected to stick with the Rules as Written. Even though it's dumb that a dwarven longhammer isn't in the hammer weapon group, it's rather disrespectful to expect the GM to make a special exception to the rules for you.

A GM is well withing their rights to invalidate what is probably a core part of your build. Save this build for a home game where you're GM can make a reasonable ruling, and play something else for PFS.

when the rules say something like "For the purpose of the fighter class's weapon training ability, weapon groups are defined as follows (GMs may add other weapons to these groups, or add entirely new groups)", in PFS the GM are not allowed to adjust things like it suggests. Because you're not going to have the same GM every time, there are some sacrifices you are going to have to make in order to be able to play your characters at any PFS event in the world.

**** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Victor Zajic wrote:

Look, as PFS GMs, we're expected to stick with the Rules as Written. Even though it's dumb that a dwarven longhammer isn't in the hammer weapon group, it's rather disrespectful to expect the GM to make a special exception to the rules for you.

A GM is well withing their rights to invalidate what is probably a core part of your build. Save this build for a home game where you're GM can make a reasonable ruling, and play something else for PFS.

when the rules say something like "For the purpose of the fighter class's weapon training ability, weapon groups are defined as follows (GMs may add other weapons to these groups, or add entirely new groups)", in PFS the GM are not allowed to adjust things like it suggests. Because you're not going to have the same GM every time, there are some sacrifices you are going to have to make in order to be able to play your characters at any PFS event in the world.

I don't think it's a special exception to ask which fighter weapon group a weapon belongs to. There have always been weapons that weren't listed in the groups (halfling sling staff, fauchard, lucerne hammer, etc.), but no one has ever suggested that these weapons can't benefit from fighter's weapon training just because they were introduced after the CRB.

In Ultimate Equipment, they did a good job of catching up the fighter weapon groups to include the expanded weapon lists, but they're not perfect, and weapons have been introduced since UE came went to press.

It would be a special exception to expect a GM to create a new fighter weapon group, and no one should expect that. But it's perfectly reasonable for someone to expect a weapon that has the word "hammer" in the description 3-4 times to fall into the "hammer" group. That falls under RAI.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Dorothy Lindman wrote:


I don't think it's a special exception to ask which fighter weapon group a weapon belongs to. There have always been weapons that weren't listed in the groups (halfling sling staff, fauchard, lucerne hammer, etc.), but no one has ever suggested that these weapons can't benefit from fighter's weapon training just because they were introduced after the CRB.

The problem is you're asking in the wrong place. The PFS section is not the place for asking for rule variation or clarification, that should be in the general Pathfinder Rules forum with a FAQ request so that it can be served appropriately.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:


I don't think it's a special exception to ask which fighter weapon group a weapon belongs to. There have always been weapons that weren't listed in the groups (halfling sling staff, fauchard, lucerne hammer, etc.), but no one has ever suggested that these weapons can't benefit from fighter's weapon training just because they were introduced after the CRB.
The problem is you're asking in the wrong place. The PFS section is not the place for asking for rule variation or clarification, that should be in the general Pathfinder Rules forum with a FAQ request so that it can be served appropriately.

As I mentioned in the first post in the thread, I think the wording in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Equipment about "GMs may add other weapons to these groups" IS the official rules answer. That's why this is a PFS specific question. It's up to Mike Brock and John Compton, as the lead GMs for this campaign, to make that determination for weapons in PFS.

And until they do, I'll avoid making my character and potentially facing table variation. But I know I'm not the only one wondering about this. It's not exactly a critical question, so I don't expect this to be their top priority, but hopefully, it won't take too long for us to get some sort of response.

Thanks to everyone who clicked the FAQ button on the first post - that was the main point of the thread.


Victor Zajic wrote:

Look, as PFS GMs, we're expected to stick with the Rules as Written. Even though it's dumb that a dwarven longhammer isn't in the hammer weapon group, it's rather disrespectful to expect the GM to make a special exception to the rules for you.

A GM is well withing their rights to invalidate what is probably a core part of your build. Save this build for a home game where you're GM can make a reasonable ruling, and play something else for PFS.

when the rules say something like "For the purpose of the fighter class's weapon training ability, weapon groups are defined as follows (GMs may add other weapons to these groups, or add entirely new groups)", in PFS the GM are not allowed to adjust things like it suggests. Because you're not going to have the same GM every time, there are some sacrifices you are going to have to make in order to be able to play your characters at any PFS event in the world.

If the longhammer is like a polehammer, then it is a polearm. Some of them even had good sized spearheads on the top. Using a pole weapon isn't quite the same thing as a hammer (this is getting into minutiae, I know).

***

Honestly this maybe somethign coming out in another bookt hat it would take to answer.

Now the answer to most GMs seems very common sense. But the problem with common sense is that it is rarely common.

Lantern Lodge ****

You could pick a similar weapon from UE, such as the lucerne hammer, which is only in the polearms group.

Sczarni *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Perhaps we should come to a consensus on *how* this question can best be answered, since new weapons keep getting released.

My Sohei is still hoping that the Fauchard counts as the polearm it is described as.

Would the best answer be to...

1) Make a master list, sticky it here in the Forum, and update it every time a new source gets released?

2) Have a GM notate their opinion on the player's Chronicle X number of times?

3) Release an FAQ about "common sense", and to avoid possible extreme interpretations?

4) Rule that "Not all weapons belong in a Weapon Group"?

I think we can all agree that an answer is needed, as the 30+ FAQ hits can show, but I'm not sure what form that answer should come in.

Silver Crusade ****

So... getting back into PFS play after about 6 or 7 months away, and still wondering this question. We've got more than 40 FAQ clicks, and still no response from PFS management.

Once again, this thread isn't for debating the question, and it IS a PFS specific question. Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Equipment specifically say that the GM has final control over this. So I'm waiting for the main PFS GM (not individual table GMs, but the main campaign coordinator at Paizo) to provide an answer.

If you want to help, click the FAQ button on the first post.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

But, again, clicking FAQ won't help anything if we can't offer suggestions on how to answer said FAQ.

Do you have any ideas beyond the 4 points I listed above?

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

We could allow weapon group single weapon if no better solution appears

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Nefreet wrote:

Perhaps we should come to a consensus on *how* this question can best be answered, since new weapons keep getting released.

My Sohei is still hoping that the Fauchard counts as the polearm it is described as.

Would the best answer be to...

1) Make a master list, sticky it here in the Forum, and update it every time a new source gets released?

2) Have a GM notate their opinion on the player's Chronicle X number of times?

3) Release an FAQ about "common sense", and to avoid possible extreme interpretations?

4) Rule that "Not all weapons belong in a Weapon Group"?

I think we can all agree that an answer is needed, as the 30+ FAQ hits can show, but I'm not sure what form that answer should come in.

I like #1, perhaps it could be done in the Additional Resources entry for the weapon's source though, to keep a limit on the amount of documents to keep track of? Technically you're already supposed to have it with you...

Silver Crusade ****

Now that we have a new PFS campaign coordinator, this seems like a good time to bump this thread. It's a year old, with 45 FAQ clicks, so I'm hoping it'll get her attention. I'm sure she has plenty on her plate right now, so I'm not expecting a quick answer, but knowing that it's on her "to do" list (even if it's at the bottom) would be nice.

Everyone please click "FAQ" on the first post in the thread.

***

FAQ'd and as I wasn't around last time this was discussed I'm just gonna drop this here.

season 7 guide on table variation wrote:

As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure

everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right
for your table during cases not covered in these sources.

We are not robots, surely we have some discretion? especially when it would be unfun - and not having a weapon that should be in weapon group be groupless is unfun (minor unfun but still unfun). Also adding weapons to weapon groups does not contradict the written rules in any way. As long as it is reasonable (no, an elven branched spear is not going to find it's way into the hammer group!) I say let it slide.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber

Personally I think that any new material that has weapons should list its weapon groups in the description. For already published materials that didn't do that, add it to the next errata document.

Lantern Lodge *****

Or even just text stating that "All weapons not listed as part of a weapon group make up their own singleton weapon group."

My 'dwarven longhammer' is part of the 'dwarven longhammer group.'

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:

Perhaps we should come to a consensus on *how* this question can best be answered, since new weapons keep getting released.

My Sohei is still hoping that the Fauchard counts as the polearm it is described as.

Would the best answer be to...

1) Make a master list, sticky it here in the Forum, and update it every time a new source gets released?

2) Have a GM notate their opinion on the player's Chronicle X number of times?

3) Release an FAQ about "common sense", and to avoid possible extreme interpretations?

4) Rule that "Not all weapons belong in a Weapon Group"?

I think we can all agree that an answer is needed, as the 30+ FAQ hits can show, but I'm not sure what form that answer should come in.

As the thread has been bumped, this should be bumped.

An FAQ on current weapons does nothing to solve future releases.

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Klein wrote:
Personally I think that any new material that has weapons should list its weapon groups in the description. For already published materials that didn't do that, add it to the next errata document.

That would be ideal. This is something Paizo really should have thought of years ago. You'd think having to recompile a list of weapons by fighter weapon group first for Ultimate Combat and then again for Ultimate Equipment would have been enough to convince them to specify the weapon group for all new weapons as they're published.

Grand Lodge *****

I think Paizo noticed that and has been working on including it in new books. At least Melee and Ranged tactics toolbox have included sidebars on what weapon groups the newly introduced weapons fall in to. I would like to see however where the ARG weapons go however.

Grand Lodge **

Quintin Verassi wrote:
I think Paizo noticed that and has been working on including it in new books. At least Melee and Ranged tactics toolbox have included sidebars on what weapon groups the newly introduced weapons fall in to. I would like to see however where the ARG weapons go however.

I didn't notice that. I'll have to go back and check my copies of those books.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Unfortunately, Inner Sea Races was an opportunity to fix weapon groups for racial weapons, but it did not. It's still a fine book despite this criticism.

Dark Archive *

Fromper wrote:


So here are the questions, as specific as I can make them:

1. In Pathfinder Society, are all legal, non-improvised weapons assumed to be part of at least one weapon group?

2. If the answer is that they're always in a group, can we assume that the obvious, common sense answers can be used to add them to groups? (ie Anything with "axe" in its name is in the axe group, anything with "hammer" in its name is in the hammer group, anything with reach is in the polearm group, any weapon that's worn instead of wielded in a hand is in the close group, etc)

And before anyone says this is a rules question, not a PFS question, that's why I included the quote from Ultimate Equipment, above. Paizo has already published their official answer to the general rules question. I don't expect them to ever clarify that further than the quote above. It doesn't help PFS. That's why this...

if it's not listed in a specific list of martial 1 handed, martial light, martial 2 handed, and simple weapons, I'd generally say it's classified as an exotic weapon. Thus it would require a feat to be proficient in. For example bastard swords are an Exotic weapon, not a martial weapon.

By the way, dwarven longaxe and dwarven longhammer are also classified as "exotic 2 handed" thus require the exotic weapon proficency (weapon name) feat to use... Unless you're a dwarf, in which case it's considered a martial weapon.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber

Daniel, those are not weapon groups. See the Fighter class for what the Weapon Groups are. They are similar weapons grouped together (swords, hammers, bows, etc.) for the purpose of specific feats and powers.

Grand Lodge * Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Andrew Klein wrote:
Daniel, those are not weapon groups. See the Fighter class for what the Weapon Groups are. They are similar weapons grouped together (swords, hammers, bows, etc.) for the purpose of specific feats and powers.

Specifically for use with the Fighter's Weapon Training ability, or things that work in a similar fashion.

So, in an example which has been floating around for a while, there is an exotic weapon, called the fauchard, from the Classic Horrors Revisited book, as a Derro weapon. It is a reach weapon, with Trip keyword, two-handed exotic weapon.

Is it a polearm? Two-handed reach weapon, yes. Polearm, not specified.

Fauchard:
Exotic Weapons Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight Type Special
Two-Handed Melee Weapons
Fauchard 14 gp 1d8 1d10 18–20/×2 — 10 lbs. S reach, trip

Fauchard: This polearm is similar to a glaive, being a curved blade affixed to the end of a pole. Unlike a glaive, though, the cutting edge of a fauchard is along the concave side, causing the blade to resemble that of a sickle or scythe. The resulting weapon is more awkward to utilize (and as such is an exotic weapon), but its increased threat range over a glaive and the ability to trip foes make it a dangerous weapon in the hands of a skilled user.

The fluff says polearm, but not defined as part of the Polearm weapon group....

Silver Crusade ****

In my specific example, the Dwarven Longhammer and the Foehammer Fighter archetype were both introduced in the Dwarf chapter of the Advanced Race Guide. The Foehammer gets specific abilities that only work with weapons in the hammer weapon group. I would assume these two new things were meant to work together, but nobody at Paizo has confirmed or denied that. So I've held off on making the character, for fear of table variation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It would be weird using Martial Versatility with a weapon, that has no listed group.

EDIT: I wish Inner Sea Races had considered creating Racial Fighter Weapon Groups. Such as a Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, Etc, weapon groups, with appropriate weapons in said groups.

It would be great for thematic builds.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
It would be weird using Martial Versatility with a weapon, that has no listed group.

Hey, if I want my Weapon Focus (Dwarven Longhammer) to also work as Weapon Focus (Dwarven Longhammer), who the heck are you to stop me?!?!?!


I admit I wouldn't mind seeing weapon groups like "dwarven weapons," "elven weapons," etc for race specific things like dwarven boulder helmets, elven branched spears, orc double axes, and such.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

If we can fix this in PFS, fine. Although it would probably be neater to fix this with a general rules-FAQ, putting every already published weapon in a group, and whenever a new books adds weapons, it should add the weapon to at least one group.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

PFS isn't going to get the pull to put that in new material. It probably needs to be a general rule along the lines of...

-players are allowed to use common sense to place weapons in weapon groups

-a weapon can be placed in its own group if you're not sure

-weapon group "whatever weapon group this pointy thing goes in" is an acceptable answer.

-If a weapon has a word in its name or description its part of that weapon group

**

BigNorseWolf wrote:
-If a weapon has a word in its name or description its part of that weapon group

This would need a "use common sense" caveat. I wouldn't want the "Hammer of Sword Crushing" in the sword group.

Grand Lodge *****

Hammer of Sword Crushing isn't a type of weapon. Dwarven Longhammer is better, but a better example for what you want is the swordbreaker, which is actually a dagger... except swords isn't a group. The groups for swords are light blades (light and/or 1 handed bladed weapons) and heavy blades (1 handed or 2 handed bladed weapons.) Note that many, if not all weapons from the CRB and other books that list weapons will cram some weapons into more than 1 group per weapon.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild / Are all weapons part of a weapon group in PFS? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.