|
I propose you generalize the weapon groups. I've stated it before, but I'd like to talk about it in conjunction with exotic proficiency.
Change the damage of weapons to this. Then, instead of changing the damage dice of the weapon, throw in a modifier based on the size of the creature wielding it. -8, -4, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +4, +8
Close - 1d4
Light - 1d6
One Handed - 1d8
Polearm - 1d10
Two Handed - 1d12 (not 2d6!, D12 is the least used die in the set and it needs some love)
This will cut down on confusing size category charts, and make it simpler for DMs to adjust monster stats as they construct them
Then you have the categories of
Simple - Anyone can use, but they do not have any special properties.
Martial - you need proficiency, and martial weapons allow for use of things like trip, or something else that sets them apart from simple weapons.
Exotic proficiency - Instead of locking any weapon behind exotic proficiency, make it to where someone who specializes in the use of a weapon to get a bonus in how that weapon is used.
Example - Anyone with martial proficiency can use a spiked chain and perform trip maneuvers with it. However someone with exotic proficiency (Spiked Chain) gains a modifier to performing that maneuver with the weapon. (+2, 4, or whatever is deemed appropriate).
Simple weapons include daggers. Daggers have the finesse property so characters can use Dex on attack (no feat).
Proficiency will not be a binary on/off thing in the new edition anymore (see paizo blog: Are You Proficient?)
So you can't make it as simple as you propose. Simple weapons will still need an indication of how proficient someone is with them.
Also there are several weapons that defy the damage die categorization, and in fact you mention one, the spiked chain. It's a two-handed weapon with reach.
Finally i disagree with the flat damage bonus or penalty for size. I hate to bring up 5e again, but what they do, at least for larger weapons, i think is very good. Simply add the weapon's damage die on one extra time. So a Greataxe is 1d12, Large greataxe 2d12, huge 3d12, gargantuan 4d12 and Colossal 5d12. This is a massive increase in damage which makes sense since these weapons are also a LOT larger and its very easy to keep track of. It doesn't work as smoothly when scaling down of course
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually recommended size scaling by pure modifier in another thread myself. It just is so much cleaner than the wonky BS that is PF1 size scaling. Just have +/- 2 for every size change, keep the dice the same. This helps keep Greatsword from dominating because an Enlarged Greatsword wielder only gets the same +2 as an enlarged Longsword wielder.
|
|
Proficiency will not be a binary on/off thing in the new edition anymore (see paizo blog: Are You Proficient?)
So you can't make it as simple as you propose. Simple weapons will still need an indication of how proficient someone is with them.
Also there are several weapons that defy the damage die categorization, and in fact you mention one, the spiked chain. It's a two-handed weapon with reach.
Finally i disagree with the flat damage bonus or penalty for size. I hate to bring up 5e again, but what they do, at least for larger weapons, i think is very good. Simply add the weapon's damage die on one extra time. So a Greataxe is 1d12, Large greataxe 2d12, huge 3d12, gargantuan 4d12 and Colossal 5d12. This is a massive increase in damage which makes sense since these weapons are also a LOT larger and its very easy to keep track of. It doesn't work as smoothly when scaling down of course
I'd be fine with just increasing the number of dice as well. Where it gets confusing is where like a 2d4 weapon goes to 2d6 instead of 3d4, or a 1d12 goes to 3d6, etc.
Are we sure that the simple/martial/exotic paradigm for weapons persists in the new edition? It wouldn't be surprising if it was gone, or if it was gated by proficiency ranks in weapon groups. Like you need to have an expert polearm proficiency to use a fauchard, say.
I think that's probably a reasonable way to do it. If you want your person to be good at swords, you start out with the easier, more common swords and are eventually able to perform impressively with literally anything even vaguely swordlike.
I am 100% against anything that replaces 2d6 with a d12. d12s feel terrible to roll.1D12 is no fun, 2+ is pretty cool
I'm not sure I understand the dislike of rolling a d12. Is it the chance of getting a 1 on a big die? For feel, it seems pretty similar to a D20 to me.
I have a shiny blue anodized aluminum D12 that came as a grab-bag feature from a Kickstarter campaign. I've been itching to have a chance to use it, it rolls nice and has a nice hand feel it's also shiny and blue and cool and shiny. It's part of the reason my upcoming Dwarf Ranger is using a Dwarven Long-axe instead of the Long-hammer.
Are we sure that the simple/martial/exotic paradigm for weapons persists in the new edition? It wouldn't be surprising if it was gone, or if it was gated by proficiency ranks in weapon groups. Like you need to have an expert polearm proficiency to use a fauchard, say.
I think that's probably a reasonable way to do it. If you want your person to be good at swords, you start out with the easier, more common swords and are eventually able to perform impressively with literally anything even vaguely swordlike.
The fighter overview from today confirms that Simple and Martial are still around. Didn't mention exotic, so they may or may not be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter overview from today confirms that Simple and Martial are still around. Didn't mention exotic, so they may or may not be.Are we sure that the simple/martial/exotic paradigm for weapons persists in the new edition? It wouldn't be surprising if it was gone, or if it was gated by proficiency ranks in weapon groups. Like you need to have an expert polearm proficiency to use a fauchard, say.
I think that's probably a reasonable way to do it. If you want your person to be good at swords, you start out with the easier, more common swords and are eventually able to perform impressively with literally anything even vaguely swordlike.
I'm wondering if they might be playing it like this:
Trained: Simple weapons from the groupExpert: Martial Weapons from the group
Master: Exotic Weapons from the group
Or something like that. Fighters can get Master Weapon proficiency at 3rd level, which would mean no starting with exotic proficiency, but at least you don't have to actually expend anything to get it. That or it may be one level down, with Expert unlocking Exotic weapons, in which case you could start with the exotic proficiency at lvl 1 as a Fighter.