Magic weapons are now virtually required to be effective.


Magic Items

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

I think you'll find that Magic Weapons are virtually required to be effective in PF1 past low levels as well.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

in PF1 they are virtually, in PF2 they are not virtually.

This comparisson make me sick. You need magic weapons to be very effective in PF1, but their impact is MUCH lower. You dont need even a top weapon depending on class.

In PF2 your weapon PLUS is what defines your fighting capability, everything else is just flavor.

Numbers...

PF 1 level 15 fighter

Weapon training +3, BAB +15, STR 24, +5 weapon, lets say greatsword.

Hit: +32 (counting weapon focus and greater)
Damage: 2d6+22 base (24 to 34, average 29)

PF 1 Level 20 fighter (no magical weapon)

Weapon training +4 BAB +20, STR 22 (i will even remove his str buffing item)

Hit: +32 (again, weapon focus and greater)
Damage: 2d6+17 (19 to 29, average 24), one aditional attack but at -15

PF 2 level 15 fighter

str 21, greatsword +5

hit: +25
damage: 6d12+5 base (11 to 77, average 44)

PF 2 level 20 fighter, no magical weapon

str 22, greatsword

hit: +26
damage: 1d12+6 (7 to 18, average 12.5)

PF1: 20,83% damage increase (there are other factors that could make it higher or lower like enchants, but also high level fighter abilities)

PF2: 252% damage increase

we are talking things that arent even in the same order of magnitude, so please, stop make yourself looking like a fool by failing so much at math.

THERE IS NO COMPARISSON.

(and even meaning far less, i hated the DEPENDENCY of magic weapons of PF1, so it just got 10 times stronger)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kerobelis wrote:
Kodyboy wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


I found a plot hole! NURSE!

I agree
They don't have to, monsters follow their own rules. Of course that creates a different type of outrage...

It's the idea that items are different in monsters' hands that gets me. If a monster gets a hold of a stat boosting item, will it be +2? Will it be +4?

Will my character who is an expert craftmen understand why this weapon does more damage in the hands of a Gnoll yet he can't copy that effect into his sword unless he gets magic? The fighter can't copy the combat techqiune?

I mean the whole Skill system was explained as "Oh you learn by watching others". In that case, as a fighter can I learn that trick with damage if I fight nothing but Gnolls?

It's just bloody weird and for maybe a different topic which I already started over in the monster section.

RafaelBraga wrote:
I want to be a monster.

Would that need it's own rule book later or would we have to wait for Ancestry?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The proficiency damage is a good idea.
I'm going to do a level based damaged increase:

Lv 5 = +1w
Lv 9 = +2w
Lv 13 = +3w
Lv 17 = +4w

And the magic item gives the old +1/+1, so when you find a +5 sword at lv 17 you will have 5w (base + level damage)+ 5 damage (item bonus) that is similar to the 6w you should do with normal rules (the averange damage is more or less the same).

I wish that in the final version, they adjust the proficiency of all classes and use that to add damage to the weapons.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ultrace wrote:
It doesn't allow the Conan type unless they always have their signature weapon on hand. Was there never a story where Conan was captured and disarmed, or had to grab a plain standard sword or axe from a fallen enemy? I think the story would have become far less compelling if he suddenly had to hit everyone 4-5 times as much just because he didn't have his super special sword.

Minor nitpick:

The very first Conan story ever written, The Phoenix on the Sword, takes its title from a magic rune a sage had to place on Conan's sword because only a sword enchanted with that magic rune could harm the demon summoned by Conan's enemies.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but you didn't pick the best example when calling out an iconic character who doesn't depend on magic weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
I think you'll find that Magic Weapons are virtually required to be effective in PF1 past low levels as well.

I think most of us know that, I just personally don't like it, and I think a lot of other people also don't care for it.

Devil's Advocate wrote:
Ultrace wrote:
It doesn't allow the Conan type unless they always have their signature weapon on hand. Was there never a story where Conan was captured and disarmed, or had to grab a plain standard sword or axe from a fallen enemy? I think the story would have become far less compelling if he suddenly had to hit everyone 4-5 times as much just because he didn't have his super special sword.

Minor nitpick:

The very first Conan story ever written, The Phoenix on the Sword, takes its title from a magic rune a sage had to place on Conan's sword because only a sword enchanted with that magic rune could harm the demon summoned by Conan's enemies.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but you didn't pick the best example when calling out an iconic character who doesn't depend on magic weapons.

Except conan never keeps those kinds of magic weapons forever and only really uses them when there's no other way to hurt the thing he's fighting. He really doesn't trust magic at all, he's kind of like the original superstitious barbarian in that way.

@ultrace, yeah true, that didn't occur to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bartheus wrote:
I think Mudfoot's comment about weapon proficiency dictating damage is a good one. If untrained does 1d4, Trained weapon base damage, Expert base damage x 2 and so on, it would go nicely with the proficiency system. Magic weapons could then do cool stuff, not "required to participate" stuff.

That wouldn't work at all for people that don't actually gain martial proficiency, erasing dozens of viable concepts as basic as a martial bard.

What could be a viable alternative solution would be to simply make it level dependent like:

Attack trait: blahblahblah. At 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter (8,12,16,20) increase your damage by 1 weapon die. (with probably some language to only make it apply to actual weapons and not spells/innates/etc)


On the plus side if you guys wanted to do automatic bonus progression (which is what it sounds like to me) then it should be a lot easier this edition.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
On the plus side if you guys wanted to do automatic bonus progression (which is what it sounds like to me) then it should be a lot easier this edition.

Oh no doubt.

This is again such an occasion of "the systems are really good, the content... needs work"


shroudb wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
On the plus side if you guys wanted to do automatic bonus progression (which is what it sounds like to me) then it should be a lot easier this edition.

Oh no doubt.

This is again such an occasion of "the systems are really good, the content... needs work"

Well Like I said on another thread (maybe this one >.>) Some people are going to want magic items to be impactful and some are not. You can'

t please everyone.


shroudb wrote:

That wouldn't work at all for people that don't actually gain martial proficiency, erasing dozens of viable concepts as basic as a martial bard.

What could be a viable alternative solution would be to simply make it level dependent like:

Attack trait: blahblahblah. At 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter (8,12,16,20) increase your damage by 1 weapon die. (with probably some language to only make it apply to actual weapons and not spells/innates/etc)

Of course changes like these would require rebalancing which classes get weapon proficiencies and when they get them, changes are also possibly required for other subsystems like feats related to fighting. Still I personally think that if there is a martial bard, then he should have better than normal (= Trained) weapon proficiency, isn't that the point of the different ranks in proficiencies? Otherwise he isn't really martially trained beyond the basics.


Tying damage to proficiency opens up a whole other can of worm since atm there is no way to increase you proficiency with weapons unless you vmc fighter. Also, at that point you are effectively killing gish since they can't keep up with the damage


The other issue with this is in PF1 I sometimes had a +5 equivalent weapon but it was only +1 with a bunch of neat effects (i.e. Lucky, shock, holy sword).

You MUST invest in the weapon potency rune ASAP. I am not a fan of that.


Now the strategy for any intelligent foe from mid level and up will be to first disarm


kurviak wrote:
Now the strategy for any intelligent foe from mid level and up will be to first disarm

meh, they lose an action to maybe make you lose an action /shrug

(plus you need a crit to actually disarm)


shroudb wrote:
kurviak wrote:
Now the strategy for any intelligent foe from mid level and up will be to first disarm

meh, they lose an action to maybe make you lose an action /shrug

(plus you need a crit to actually disarm)

I think it's a good investment to loose an action to potentially reduce your opponent damage by orders of magnitude


kurviak wrote:
shroudb wrote:
kurviak wrote:
Now the strategy for any intelligent foe from mid level and up will be to first disarm

meh, they lose an action to maybe make you lose an action /shrug

(plus you need a crit to actually disarm)

I think it's a good investment to loose an action to potentially reduce your opponent damage by orders of magnitude

If fell in his space. You can't pick it up (I assume, maybe excluding usual entering an occupied space shenanigans or reach) and he only needs one action to pick it up again.


Xenocrat wrote:
kurviak wrote:
shroudb wrote:
kurviak wrote:
Now the strategy for any intelligent foe from mid level and up will be to first disarm

meh, they lose an action to maybe make you lose an action /shrug

(plus you need a crit to actually disarm)

I think it's a good investment to loose an action to potentially reduce your opponent damage by orders of magnitude
If fell in his space. You can't pick it up (I assume, maybe excluding usual entering an occupied space shenanigans or reach) and he only needs one action to pick it up again.

that needs errata basically:

Disarm action states that it fells into his space

Disarm weapons state that "you still need a free hand to grab it" yet i haven't read a rule anywhere about grabbing disarmed weapons


Xenocrat wrote:
kurviak wrote:
shroudb wrote:
kurviak wrote:
Now the strategy for any intelligent foe from mid level and up will be to first disarm

meh, they lose an action to maybe make you lose an action /shrug

(plus you need a crit to actually disarm)

I think it's a good investment to loose an action to potentially reduce your opponent damage by orders of magnitude
If fell in his space. You can't pick it up (I assume, maybe excluding usual entering an occupied space shenanigans or reach) and he only needs one action to pick it up again.

Interesting, so this basically makes disarming a waste of time... I hope this gets changed in a way tha allows more dynamic maneuvering in combat


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do we already have someone working on a variant to tie weapon damage die to weapon proficiency?
Because i feel like at least one is coming, fast.

I mean... think about it. Potency runes that improve item bonus rather than granting one, max +1 on master weapons, max +2 on legendary weapons, +1 die on expert/master/legendary proficiency, and a couple class features adding damage die for barbarians during rage? Needs some more baking, but...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Weapon damage based on proficiency sounds the best to me. Classes (like rogue) that have a lower proficiency can make up for it with more sneak attack or other class features. This will help differentiate the classes from each other.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Ive thought about the expert / master etc give extra dice. But when fighters start out life as experts in all simple and martial and trained in Exotic. Unless you took everyone down by one "training" you have a 1st level fighter with 2d8 (2d12 with great sword) cleaving his way through everything in sight.

If martials started life trained in some groups. and then advanced at 4th/8th/12th/16th/20th for your +5 dice. maybe adding Grand master / Supreme Master before Legendary then its less about he weapon and more about the skill. Possibly with Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers not reaching full +5 at all .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to note about the damage from magic weapons is that it really cuts into the room for different material weapons to beat dr. A regular plus 1 longsword loses about the same damage from low level vampire dr as the step down to a silver normal weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a random note.

They should really make some magic item that empowers thrown items. like darts or shurikens. If magic items are an absolute requirement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I started a thread here re: brainstorming alternate solutions to the magic weapon problem (which I entirely agree is a problem in that it reduces variety and options amongst characters). It seems like there are a bunch of us thinking along the same lines!

Here is a summary of a potential fix so far:

Proficiency:

Each character receives bonus damage die on their weapon attacks equal to their proficiency modifier with that weapon. The bonus damage die is of the type that the weapon normally would deal. For instance, A character with Master Proficiency (a +2 modifier to attacks) with swords wielding a Longsword adds 2d8 to their weapon damage.

If a character is wielding a weapon untrained, do not apply a penalty to damage in this way.

Weapon Quality:

Weapons of higher than normal quality deal additional damage on a successful Strike. Add a number of damage die of the type the weapon would normally deal equal to the Item Quality modifier of the weapon. For instance, a Legendary (+3) Longsword would deal 4d8 damage (1d8 base + 3d8 quality bonus).

---

What this proposed change does is allow characters who are highly skilled with their chosen weapon to deal more damage than those who are less skilled. However, because Item Quality also increase weapon damage, those who are less proficient with weapons can still gain a benefit to damage from using a higher quality (or magic) weapon.

Example: A Fighter with Legendary Weapon Proficiency and a +3 Legendary Weapon (let us suppose a Longsword) would deal a total of 7d8 base damage; 3d8 (proficiency) + 4d8 (weapon quality); an actual improvement over the current system! [This could be capped at 6 dice of damage total if the developers believe that cap should be maintained.]

Additionally, classes such as the Monk, who, under the current system, rely on very specific items such as Handwraps of Mighty Fists to stay relevant as damage dealers, wouldn't need to pursue such items so heavily given their native proficiency bonus to damage.

Magic Weapons then become more interesting as their added value comes in the form of unique enchantments and abilities (eg. Frost, Returning), while still receiving a bonus to damage due to their inherent high quality craftsmanship (ie Item Quality). Potency Runes can absolutely still be included to increase the to-hit bonus up to a +5 as currently implemented, leaving highly accurate weapons (more accurate than "physically possible") in the Magic Weapons' wheelhouse.

---

Personally, I like tying damage increases to Proficiency rather than Level (as some have suggested) for a couple reasons:

- First, Proficiency is already gated by level - what we gain is added granularity in regards to when individual classes receive these bonuses via proficiencies, increasing the contrast between various classes' martial abilities, rather than flattening it with a straight level-based bonus. A frontline Fighter will deal more damage with their weapons than a Wizard wielding a similar weapon - as many of us believe should be the case. [Wizards, of course, would retain alternative means of damage via their Spells.]

- Second, it incentivizes the development of more detailed proficiency rules across the classes, which [imo] adds design depth to individual classes. For instance, to keep up with expected damage increases, the Barbarian (to use one example) could receive an increased step of proficiency while in their rage as part of their Critical Brutality and Weapon Fury class features. [ex. Weapon Fury would read: "Your proficiency rank for simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks increases to expert. While raging, this proficiency increases to master."] Classes like the Cleric could receive increased proficiency in their Deity's Favoured Weapon, and the Rogue, who already adds bonus damage via Sneak Attack, could receive an increase to their proficiency in a new "Rogue Weapon Group" (perhaps all finesse weapons?) subset of items.

---

To me, this is a clear and elegant solution to the "problem" at hand; it adds depth and granularity to the game, emphasizes the role of martial combatants as both melee and ranged weapon damage dealers, and returns the feeling of magic weapons as special, unique items to the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Making a weapon do like 6 times more damage due to quality(or magic) is beyond dumb.

The solution to this problem is not having it at all.

Spread the damage around character level, similar to how cantrip work and scrap the bad idea. Trying to build uppon a failed idea just will waste more work.


Mudfoot wrote:
Nitpick: +n weapons aren't actually magical in PF2, just better.

Potency runes are pretty clearly magical. It's weapon qualities that are non-magical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

This seems very reasonable to me.


Bruno Mares wrote:

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

This seems very reasonable to me.

Why put alchemist into casters?

If anything, the new alchemist, needs to be more martial based to keep up with other classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bruno Mares wrote:

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency [modifier] with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

That's a great suggestion.

It fits neatly with the existing math, yet still differentiates between different classes.

And it doesn't require any changes to the current descriptions of the class write-ups. Just an extra sentence in the equipment section, and the removal of a couple sentences on magical weapons in the treasure section.

Really, really nice.

shroudb wrote:

Why put alchemist into casters?

If anything, the new alchemist, needs to be more martial based to keep up with other classes.

Yeah, Bruno Mares isn't making any proprietary suggestions about which classes should have advancements at which levels, or anything like that. They're just listing the levels at which, according to the current rules, the proficiency modifiers of those classes hit the next multiple of 4. And thus the levels at which (according to the suggested change) a given class would get a die of damage increase.

(So, to explain the first number in each list:

At level 2 a fighter's proficiency modifier with weapons is +3 (+2 lvl + 1 expert), but it goes to +5 at level 3 (+3 lvl +2 master). So a fighter's first die increase comes at level 3.

At level 2 a ranger's/monk's (unarmed) proficiency modifier is +2 (+2 lvl), but it goes to +4 at level 3 (+3 lvl +1 expert). So monk's and ranger's first die increase comes at level 3 as well.

Every other class doesn't hit a proficiency modifier of +4 or above until level 4 (+4 lvl), and so every other class doesn't get their die increase until level 4.)


Porridge wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency [modifier] with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

That's a great suggestion.

It fits neatly with the existing math, yet still differentiates between different classes.

And it doesn't require any changes to the current descriptions of the class write-ups. Just an extra sentence in the equipment section, and the removal of a couple sentences on magical weapons in the treasure section.

Really, really nice.

shroudb wrote:

Why put alchemist into casters?

If anything, the new alchemist, needs to be more martial based to keep up with other classes.

Yeah, Bruno Mares isn't making any proprietary suggestions about which classes should have advancements at which levels, or anything like that. They're just listing the levels at which, according to the current rules, the proficiency modifiers of those classes hit the next multiple of 4. And thus the levels at which (according to the suggested change) a given class would get a die of damage increase.

(So, to explain the first number in each list:

At level 2 a fighter's proficiency modifier with weapons is +3 (+2 lvl + 1 expert), but it goes to +5 at level 3 (+3 lvl +2 master). So a fighter's first die increase comes at level 3.

At level 2 a ranger's/monk's (unarmed) proficiency modifier is +2 (+2 lvl), but it goes to +4 at level 3 (+3 lvl +1 expert). So monk's and ranger's first die increase comes at level 3 as well.

Every other class doesn't hit a proficiency modifier of +4 or above until...

Ynvm, I misread what he wrote.

Still, there's still hope they'll give Alchemist expert/mastery to bombs and or stuff like crossbow/mechanical weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've put forth this idea before in other threads, but I feel like the simplest and most straightforward answer is to add your proficiency bonus to damage just like you do for every other stat. +1/level comes in right between the average of 1d6 and 1d8 per 4 levels, and if magic weapons still added +1 to +5 then it would bump it up to between 1d8 and 1d10. Those with higher proficiency would have a bigger bonus to damage just like they did to attack; admittedly not a lot, but more than they have now and not so much that it unbalances the game like an extra die would. Fighter would have slightly higher damage normally, but barbarian would go a little higher while raging, as it should be. No need to create a wacky new subsystem, just applying the existing system to the one thing it doesn't apply to already. The math stays simple and I don't need to buy 12d12 for when the +5 greatsword crits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:
I've put forth this idea before in other threads, but I feel like the simplest and most straightforward answer is to add your proficiency bonus to damage just like you do for every other stat. +1/level comes in right between the average of 1d6 and 1d8 per 4 levels, and if magic weapons still added +1 to +5 then it would bump it up to between 1d8 and 1d10. Those with higher proficiency would have a bigger bonus to damage just like they did to attack; admittedly not a lot, but more than they have now and not so much that it unbalances the game like an extra die would. Fighter would have slightly higher damage normally, but barbarian would go a little higher while raging, as it should be. No need to create a wacky new subsystem, just applying the existing system to the one thing it doesn't apply to already. The math stays simple and I don't need to buy 12d12 for when the +5 greatsword crits.

The problem with static +X as opposed to +die is that it makes daggers do almost as much as greatswords in later levels.

The original die becomes almost irrelevant.

+die is much better and ensures there's a tangible difference in wielding a big massive weapon as opposed to a slim finesse weapon.

It's just the fact that it's only tied to +x that keeps it from being perfect imo.


Porridge wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency [modifier] with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

...

At level 2 a fighter's proficiency modifier with weapons is +3 (+2 lvl + 1 expert), but it goes to +5 at level 3 (+3 lvl +2 master). So a fighter's first die increase comes at level 3.

At level 2 a ranger's/monk's (unarmed) proficiency modifier is +2 (+2 lvl), but it goes to +4 at level 3 (+3 lvl +1 expert). So monk's and ranger's first die increase comes at level 3 as well.

Every other class doesn't hit a proficiency modifier of +4 or above until...

So, to play the opposition - if you are proposing increasing damage at the exact same level most classes would gain proficiency... why not just make it an inherent part of the proficiency mechanic?

Also, why is it Wizards and Alchemists need to do as much weapon damage as a Fighter? I haven't really heard any reasonable arguments to that point as of yet. To me, part of this fix is to help give better tools to the martial classes in weapon-based combat - evening out the caster-martial disparity even more. After all, if you can make a Wizard that deals 6d8 damage with a +5 Longsword, as well as 12d6+ damage with their high level spells, why even bother with a fighter? It seems like most of the reason people are Multiclassing Fighter is for the armor proficiency anyway... there are many people who have brought forward concerns that the Wizard / Fighter MC/Gish is strictly superior in terms of high level power, and this solution doesn't really do anything to address that.

I don't really want to be the broken record about it but I haven't heard any convincing arguments as to WHY this is any better than a different mechanical approach, aside I suppose, for it's simplicity as a rules "Patch".

I think we can do better ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As many others proposed similarly, I believe it'd be the best if it was something like...

...add your weapon dice of a number equal to whichever is the higher of your proficiency or your weapon's potency...

This way, legendary weapons still matter in making a total newbie warrior capable of putting the hurt on that rampaging dragon, while also making a 20th level Fighter skewer hill giant skulls in a single drive with that totally ordinary pitchfork found on the nearby barnhouse while goofing around.


I agree with MrShine here.
My group has already begun to question the usefulness of pure martial classes in general.

Clerics and wizards in particular can reach equal levels of offensive power with their weapons AND have 10th level spellcasting at their disposal.
Not to mention powers like Channel Energy.


MrShine wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency [modifier] with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

...

At level 2 a fighter's proficiency modifier with weapons is +3 (+2 lvl + 1 expert), but it goes to +5 at level 3 (+3 lvl +2 master). So a fighter's first die increase comes at level 3.

At level 2 a ranger's/monk's (unarmed) proficiency modifier is +2 (+2 lvl), but it goes to +4 at level 3 (+3 lvl +1 expert). So monk's and ranger's first die increase comes at level 3 as well.

Every other class doesn't hit a proficiency modifier of +4 or above until...

So, to play the opposition - if you are proposing increasing damage at the exact same level most classes would gain proficiency... why not just make it an inherent part of the proficiency mechanic?

Also, why is it Wizards and Alchemists need to do as much weapon damage as a Fighter? I haven't really heard any reasonable arguments to that point as of yet. To me, part of this fix is to help give better tools to the martial classes in weapon-based combat - evening out the caster-martial disparity even more. After all, if you can make a Wizard that deals 6d8 damage with a +5 Longsword, as well as 12d6+ damage with their high level spells, why even bother with a fighter? It seems like most of the reason people are Multiclassing Fighter is for the armor proficiency anyway... there are many people who have brought forward concerns that the Wizard / Fighter MC/Gish is strictly superior in terms of high level power, and this solution doesn't really do...

For starters, "alchemist" is not a caster. He isn't a "martial" either. He lacks the resources and flexibility of spells, and he lacks the staying power and damage of combat feats and proficiencies. That's why he's one of the worst classes (tge worst actually) of the playtest, and that's why there's so many threads asking the class to be fixed.

Secondary, martial in this edition do much more damage than blasters.

The only case for martial/caster discrepancy comes from picking up their early damage options through multiclass (notably double slice)

So, it's more than the latter class feats of fighter aren't that great, rather than the fighter being weak on general. He isn't. Just some of his damage options are easily picked up early and their scaled follow through feats aren't that great. All of which can be fixed by balancing just him, and not the whole system.


shroudb wrote:
Secondary, martial in this edition do much more damage than blasters.

Can you proof that claim?

Sorcerer spell level 9 Cone of Cold: 19d6+9 = average 75 damage in a 30/60 feet cone.
Sorcerer spell level 9 Disintegrate: 18d10+9 = average 108 damage to a single target against touch AC.

Show me how a martial class that can even come close to that.

shroudb wrote:
The only case for martial/caster discrepancy comes from picking up their early damage options through multiclass (notably double slice)

This is not true.

A Caster can raise his STR to 20(22 with item) and can take armor training/ martial weapon training with general feats. No multiclassing needed.


Repentia wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Secondary, martial in this edition do much more damage than blasters.

Can you proof that claim?

Sorcerer spell level 9 Cone of Cold: 19d6+9 = average 75 damage in a 30/60 feet cone.
Sorcerer spell level 9 Disintegrate: 18d10+9 = average 108 damage to a single target against touch AC.

Show me how a martial class that can even come close to that.

shroudb wrote:
The only case for martial/caster discrepancy comes from picking up their early damage options through multiclass (notably double slice)

This is not true.

A Caster can raise his STR to 20(22 with item) and can take armor training/ martial weapon training with general feats. No multiclassing needed.

Burst? Sure:

Fighter does 6d8+3d6+7/9d6+7 for 5 attacks per turn, top that. (198.5 damage at 1 main 4 offhand)

But burst is irrelevant, fighter extends zero resources to do the above damage. Sorc has what? 3 level 9 spells?

Before you start talking about accuracy, the +5 sword and main stat in strength vs the +3 wand/gloves and the max +5dex means that fighter has +4 starting accuracy.

So, compared to the sorc, he attacks at +4/+4/0/-4/-4 so average the same. And his slashes don't allow saving throws.

P. S. Only 1 potent item per character. If he pushes strength to 22 that's a max 22 to casting stat, which means - 1 to all his DC/caster rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Repentia wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Secondary, martial in this edition do much more damage than blasters.

Can you proof that claim?

Sorcerer spell level 9 Cone of Cold: 19d6+9 = average 75 damage in a 30/60 feet cone.
Sorcerer spell level 9 Disintegrate: 18d10+9 = average 108 damage to a single target against touch AC.

Show me how a martial class that can even come close to that.

Optimized casters generally have around a 50% chance of enemies making their saves against equal level opponents, slightly better for some, but often worse as well. Crit fails are going to be 5% more often than 10-15%.

So call it half.

Disintegrate has about a 50% chance to hit, plus a 50% for the enemy to make the save. So call it 35-40% of that damage.

Fighters hit about 55% on their top hit (which does a lot of damage), 30% on their second hit, 5% on their final hit, and have feats to make that better with reduced penalties, minimal damage on misses, and extra attacks.

Magicians are BAD at HP damage in this edition compared to fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another bad thing which we are seeing in some playtests is when one character has a magic weapon and the others do not. I guess this is a problem for the L4 adventure. Major bad feels for the character without the weapon!

I like the simple gain an extra dice every 4 levels. It could be made a bit more complicated by gating based on classes (i.e. martials, every 4 levels, casters, every 5 levels). Call it some sort of name and fill it in the class tables (i.e. Powerful blow 1, 2, 3, etc.). This way, no feel bads for martials and it further differentiates the martials from the casters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MrShine wrote:

So, to play the opposition - if you are proposing increasing damage at the exact same level most classes would gain proficiency... why not just make it an inherent part of the proficiency mechanic?

Also, why is it Wizards and Alchemists need to do as much weapon damage as a Fighter? I haven't really heard any reasonable arguments to that point as of yet. To me, part of this fix is to help give better tools to the martial classes in weapon-based combat - evening out the caster-martial disparity even more. After all, if you can make a Wizard that deals 6d8 damage with a +5 Longsword, as well as 12d6+ damage with their high level spells, why even bother with a fighter? It seems like most of the reason people are multi-classing Fighter is for the armor proficiency anyway... there are many people who have brought forward concerns that the Wizard / Fighter MC/Gish is strictly superior in terms of high level power, and this solution doesn't really do anything to address that.

I don't really want to be the broken record about it but I haven't heard any convincing arguments as to WHY this is any better than a different mechanical approach, aside I suppose, for it's simplicity as a rules "Patch".

Yeah, good.

So here are some desiderata that one might want a solution to this issue to satisfy:

  • 1. It makes it such that magical weapons no longer required in order to be effective. (The main issue)
  • 2. It takes a subject's proficiency into consideration. (A nice feature)
  • 3. It differentiates, at least to some extent, between martial and non-martial classes. (A nice feature)
  • 4. It doesn't require large-scale revisions to the game's math and numerical balance. (In order to be a change the devs are likely to consider/an easy houserule to implement)
  • 5. It doesn't require large-scale revisions to the game's class and proficiency set-up. (In order to be a change the devs are likely to consider/an easy houserule to implement)
So let's consider some proposals according to these desiderata.

I. Bruno's suggestion: The number of additional damage dice you get with a weapon is equal to your proficiency modifier with that weapon/4.

I like this suggestion because it satisfies all of these desiderata.

(1) Magic weapons are not longer necessary to be effective.

(2) Proficiency adds to your proficiency modifier, so it makes a difference with respect to how many dice you get.

(3) Martial classes get higher proficiency earlier than non-martial classes, so they'll get more damage dice more quickly.

(4) The game's math is largely untouched.

(5) The game's class descriptions and proficiency set-up is untouched.

And it's incredibly simple -- you just need to add that one line to the description of weapon proficiencies, remove the stuff about weapon potency runes adding damage dice, and bam! You're done.

OK. Let's compare it to some of the other options on the table (which I also like, but not as much):

II. The number of additional damage dice you get with a weapon is equal to your level/4.

This is pretty close to Bruno's proposal. But proficiency doesn't play any role in this proposal, and there's no difference between how martial and non-martial classes are treated.

III. Don't use extra damage dice with weapons. Instead, just add level to damage.

This yields about the same average results as Bruno's proposal for most weapons. But it makes the difference between high dice and low dice weapons vanish, and removes damage die size as an interesting distinguishing feature between weapons.

IV. The number of additional damage dice you get with a weapon is determined entirely by your weapon proficiency (or by some combination of your weapon proficiency and the weapon quality).

This is a nice idea, but it requires a large-scale revision of the game's math and underlying assumptions. Classes that don't get high level weapon proficiency (including some martial classes) are now significantly weaker in combat, and so need to modified in order to have effective non-weapon options available (or need to be given higher weapon proficiencies, which detracts from the special perks that only martial classes like the Fighter currently get). Monster HP needs to be scaled down because most classes will be doing a lot less damage. Spell damage will probably now be too high compared to weapon damage and these lower monster HPs, and so might need to get adjusted downwards as well. And so on.

Now don't get me wrong -- if PF2 was set up like this, and balanced nicely, I'd be totally happy. Likewise, if PF2 ditched Vancian casting, and adopted a thematic-style casting along the lines of Spheres of Power or Rolemaster, I'd be ecstatic. But these kinds of revisions require large-scale changes to the game's structure, set-up, and math. And, as such, they're changes it's unlikely the devs will take seriously. Likewise, if we're looking for house rules to adopt if we the current system survives, a simple house rule that can be slotted into the game is much easier to implement than one that requires a whole-scale rebalancing of lots of different aspects of the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MrShine wrote:

Also, why is it Wizards and Alchemists need to do as much weapon damage as a Fighter?...

...there are many people who have brought forward concerns that the Wizard / Fighter MC/Gish is strictly superior in terms of high level power, and this solution doesn't really do anything to address that.

First, as an aside, Bruno's proposal (which appeals to proficiency modifiers) will differentiate Wizards/Alchemists from Fighters, because Fighters get higher proficiency modifiers. But I take your point to be that the difference isn't as large as you'd like. And I understand the concern that multi-classing seems awfully good (too good?) as it stands.

But these are all distinct issues. One issue is allowing characters to be effective in combat without magical weapons. Another distinct issue is how big the gap between weapon using Wizards and Fighters should be. (They now both effectively have full BAB, for example, which one might dislike.) Yet another distinct issue is whether the multi-classing rules, as currently presented, are adequacy balanced.

These are all features of the play test rules one might want to have changed. But they're separate issues, and issues that one would ideally handle separately.

(For one, not everyone who agrees that one of these issues is a problem will agree that the other issues are problems too. For another, the natural way to deal with these issues, if they are problems, seems to be different in each case. For example, the most natural way to deal with imbalances in the current multi-classing feats is to change those feats.)


Magic Weapons aren't virtually required to be effective, they are required.

What I dislike most about this is how it forces a martial to invest in their potency ruin asap. It is mandatory resource expenditure, and often times it means that is the only weapon a character is going to use. How difficult would it be to fund a decent backup weapon? A good ranged option? How about javelins that are worth anything???

My suggestion is to tie extra damage dice to level instead of magical weapons. At levels 4/8/12/16/20 you get an extra dice. It perfectly preserves the expected damage progression the system was built on. It makes carrying a variety of weapons easy, and you'll do competent damage with them. It makes high quality mundane equipment worthwhile.

Characters will have a choice what to do with their funding. They aren't required to have the highest potency ruin. Now, having the best +X weapon is still very desirable, and magic weapons will still have very desirable property runes to make them special.

I see tieing it to level as a way to give players choice in how to spend their resources, reduces the DM pressure to make sure they have the best weapon potency asap. It allows DM to be stingier or more generous with magic weapons etc without unbalancing the game. It allows non magic using characters to be more relevant.

It also means its the fighter not just his special sword that is responsible for his badassery.


Lucas Yew wrote:

As many others proposed similarly, I believe it'd be the best if it was something like...

...add your weapon dice of a number equal to whichever is the higher of your proficiency or your weapon's potency...

This way, legendary weapons still matter in making a total newbie warrior capable of putting the hurt on that rampaging dragon, while also making a 20th level Fighter skewer hill giant skulls in a single drive with that totally ordinary pitchfork found on the nearby barnhouse while goofing around.

This rule, I like it. Classes that naturally get proficiency can be cool without magic (and maybe get more flavorful items), and the less martially inclined (eg: the ones that can't use armor) can still keep up if they spend the money/feats.

That still leaves the +5 bonus in the leagues of either magic weapons or a Legendary feat. Lvl 17 maybe?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like many, I dislike tying damage progression to runes rather than skill. While I enjoy finding and acquiring powerful items, I'd prefer to pretend to be a character who survives through skill, not wealth. There's also a fair chance I'll only play Pathfinder 2E through forum games, which move so slowly that it's easy for characters to outlevel their equipment.

Tying damage to runes also takes away unarmed combat's advantages in politically-oriented games. For example, I love building monks who act as assassins or bodyguards. I can't imagine them saying, "I'm sorry, my lord. I know you're in danger, but I need a moment to wrap this cloth around my hands before I can strike down your foes, for only when they feel the smooth touch of silk are my fists truly mighty."

I'd prefer not to tie weapon damage to proficiency unless there are ways for casters to increase their proficiency in a variety of weapons. I like gishes and have a hard time imagining a seasoned adventurer walking into a dragon's lair or even a bandit's camp without a backup weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a correction in the few past posts:

A fighter doenst 6d12+5 damage,

A fighter does 1d12+5 damage

A magic weapon do 5d12 damage

never forget that.

A sorceror do 10d8, 11d12 or whatever the number.

Thats the correct analysis and the main problem of this whrole thread.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Coming back to this discussion, there is a similar thread on making a weapon's potency less central.

IMO, tying weapon damage to proficiency (expert +d, master +2d, and legendary +3d) plus weapon quality (expert no extra dice but can have a rune, master +1d, legendary +2d) and relegating potency to a straight +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls (plus penetrating DR/magic) makes a nice compromise between skill and weapon (note that both are important in many stories). It also keeps the system math reasonably close to the current playtest version; current damage with a +5 potency rune is x6 dice vs. a fighter in the proposed system with legendary proficiency (+3d) and a legendary quality weapon (+2d) is x6 dice.

Some other adjustments would need to be made so that other classes wouldn't be completely left behind compared to the fighter (the first two provide other characters options to gain master proficiency and do x5 dice):
- Barbarians' Critical Brutality would give them expert proficiency with melee weapons and unarmed attacks, as well as the critical specialization effects, when raging. Weapon Fury would then increase the proficiency of melee and unarmed attacks when raging to master, as well as granting expert proficiency to simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks when not raging.

- Add a Fighter Dedication feat that allows master proficiency in a weapon group (level requirement 16 or 18, must already have expert proficiency).

- Rogues' Sneak Attack increases might need to be re-balanced to occur at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th. Or possibly 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th. (The math would need to be checked against the fighter's damage; rogues shouldn't consistently be doing more damage than the fighter).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

May I suggest a small, and hopefully elegant, compromise?

Disclaimer: I like characters with funky fighting styles, like switching weapons for different situations, or having a lot of thrown items, or using a whip for reach and rapier for fencing. So I want mechanics that make those styles not be crap. However, my main goal is to capture the flavor of fantasy movies and literature, and only be complicated if it adds joy to the gaming experience.

* Magic weapons add 1d6 of damage, flat.
* 'Masterwork' weapons add +1 to attack rolls.
* Level grants extra damage dice at 6th, 11th, and 16th.
* Legendary adds an extra damage die.

Magic Weapons Add 1d6 of Damage, Flat
This damage will normally be 'force' damage, which just lets the weapon hurt ghosts and other incorporeal creatures more easily. That's fairly classical in fantasy fiction - the magic sword being the only way to hurt the spectral foe.

However, you could create flaming, frost, shocking, nonlethal(?), etc. weapons by just switching this damage type.

'Masterwork' Weapons Still Add to Attack Roll
We already have expert, master, and legendary proficiency. There's no need to double-up with items also having those modifiers. Just have 'masterwork' which adds +1 to your attack roll.

If you have your ancestral family blade passed down for generations, you're likely to keep it for longer, because no other weapon will have a higher attack bonus.

Level Grants Extra Damage Dice at 6th, 11th, and 16th
At the same rate martials got extra attacks in PF1, now they get extra damage dice. This extra damage dice will also apply to alchemicals, so at high level an alchemist fire is just as good as a thrown dagger.

Legendary Proficiency Grants a Final Extra Damage Die
PCs tend to get magic weapons by 3rd level, and fighters get legendary proficiency at 13th, so damage with a longsword would look like:

1st level - 1d8
3rd - 1d8+1d6
6th - 2d8+1d6
11th - 3d8+1d6
13th - 4d8+1d6
16th - 5d8+1d6

How's that?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RafaelBraga wrote:

Just a correction in the few past posts:

A fighter doenst 6d12+5 damage,

A fighter does 1d12+5 damage

A magic weapon do 5d12 damage

never forget that.

A sorceror do 10d8, 11d12 or whatever the number.

Thats the correct analysis and the main problem of this whrole thread.

Why give the fighter credit for the base damage? Isn’t it the greatsword responsible for the d12, rather than the fighter? The only thing the fighter contributes to his damage is the +5 in this example. After all, if the fighter loses his +6 greatsword and has to use a mundane dagger he finds, he loses all 6d12, not just the 5d12 from the +5.

It sounds like you guys are advocating for the 13th Age system where martial capability is completely divorced from the weapon. A fighter is just as deadly with a dagger as he is with a great axe (or a coffee cup, for that matter, if you are a fan of Riddick).

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Magic Items / Magic weapons are now virtually required to be effective. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.