Magic weapons are now virtually required to be effective.


Magic Items

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

With the bonus adding damage dice magic weapons are now basically required to be an effective character at medium to high levels and have a huge impact in damage, far more than in P1.
A character with a +2 sword is now doing an extra 2d8 damage. This is a huge improvement over -2 damage. Combine this with more common crits and the non magic using Conan type is almost non-vuable.
This is a cool mechanic and interesting but it does make magic weapons far more of a requirement than before.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kodyboy wrote:

With the bonus adding damage dice magic weapons are now basically required to be an effective character at medium to high levels and have a huge impact in damage, far more than in P1.

A character with a +2 sword is now doing an extra 2d8 damage. This is a huge improvement over -2 damage. Combine this with more common crits and the non magic using Conan type is almost non-vuable.
This is a cool mechanic and interesting but it does make magic weapons far more of a requirement than before.

They were always required before, but I agree it is a must now. One thing I wanted from PF 2e was the removal of needed magic items and WBL.

Magic weapons now work like 4th edition attacks where you get a multiplier to you base weapon (I.e. 2W, 3W, etc). So instead of powers, we have magic weapons.

One thing I do like, if this system stays, is the rune enchantment system. Very Diablo like, but the main thing is it provides easy means of upgrading. I hated star finders constant throwing out gear to get new gear.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah they have been required since 1st edition D&D when you needed +1 (2 3 etc) weapons to deal damage to certain enemies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They weren't already?

Magic weapons have always been required if you are a martial (unless you are doing a niche build like natural attacks or something). Some of tge abilities like Keen are also basically requirements for certain builds. They also overcome DR and basically prevent breaking.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Theoretically, in PF1, if you could get around DR losing out on the bonuses to hit and damage weren't the end of the world. You could work around it with some clever planning, it wasn't easy but it could be done.

Because of the HP inflation/crit system in PF2 if you don't have a magic weapon you are literally useless.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A big tough martial could have used mundane weapons to hit hard enough to bypass damage reduction and still be effective.
With the dice multiplyer mechanic you simply can't do that or do that well enough to be useful.
A way to do that would be to add feats that allow you to double/tripple etc. Your dice but make them not stack with magical effects.
This would be a good way to get the "barbarian smash" and keep power attack for other classes.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Has anybody participated in a PF1 game where a player wanted to do damage with weapons or their body (not, like, spells or bombs or SLAs) in which the players did not acquire a magical weapon or AoMF or similar as soon as was reasonable and use it (or an upgraded version of it) for the rest of their careers?

Since that's pretty much my standard experience.

It does feel like if we disarm the mighty warrior from their noteworthy flaming magical greatsword, they should be significantly less dangerous with the less famous weapon.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's funny, because I thought that they wanted to steer away from magical bonuses and enhancements which were almost required to make some good character builds in 1e...but it seems they did the opposite?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Playing the individualist warrior who relies on his own strength is badwrongfun apparently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Playing the individualist warrior who relies on his own strength is badwrongfun apparently.

Been badwrongfun for approximately...7 editions of DnD counting Pathfinder about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Has anybody participated in a PF1 game where a player wanted to do damage with weapons or their body (not, like, spells or bombs or SLAs) in which the players did not acquire a magical weapon or AoMF or similar as soon as was reasonable and use it (or an upgraded version of it) for the rest of their careers?

Since that's pretty much my standard experience.

It does feel like if we disarm the mighty warrior from their noteworthy flaming magical greatsword, they should be significantly less dangerous with the less famous weapon.

I remember one barbarian with a large adamantine great axe (not magical but a special material) that kept that weapon up until 17th level when the campaign ended. He always did the most damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terrordactyl wrote:
It's funny, because I thought that they wanted to steer away from magical bonuses and enhancements which were almost required to make some good character builds in 1e...but it seems they did the opposite?

Same here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terrordactyl wrote:
It's funny, because I thought that they wanted to steer away from magical bonuses and enhancements which were almost required to make some good character builds in 1e...but it seems they did the opposite?

they wanted to steer away from the big 6 (magic weapon, magic armor, attribute + items, cape of resistance, ring and amulet of armor) they have only weapons and armor, the cape is folded into the armor and the attribute items are lategame and (theoretically) somewhat optional


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
Terrordactyl wrote:
It's funny, because I thought that they wanted to steer away from magical bonuses and enhancements which were almost required to make some good character builds in 1e...but it seems they did the opposite?
they wanted to steer away from the big 6 (magic weapon, magic armor, attribute + items, cape of resistance, ring and amulet of armor) they have only weapons and armor, the cape is folded into the armor and the attribute items are lategame and (theoretically) somewhat optional

Well they made magic weapons and armor virtual required as the character advances, even more so than PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Playing the individualist warrior who relies on his own strength is badwrongfun apparently.
Been badwrongfun for approximately...7 editions of DnD counting Pathfinder about.

I know it, when they said they were trying to reduce the dependence on magic items, I thought that would change, but I guess they meant still being dependent on magic items, but just fewer of them.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

The topic is wrong. They are not "virtualy required" they ARE required.

In the new system youre are actually playing your magic weapon searching for adventurers with cool abilities to wield you.

+5 to damage is ok (but +5 to hit is a bit too much), 6 times the damage of a non-magical weapon is not "a bit too much", its just plain fail at math and game design.

Sorry to be salty, but there isnt a "mild" way to make it clear.


RafaelBraga wrote:

The topic is wrong. They are not "virtualy required" they ARE required.

In the new system youre are actually playing your magic weapon searching for adventurers with cool abilities to wield you.

+5 to damage is ok (but +5 to hit is a bit too much), 6 times the damage of a non-magical weapon is not "a bit too much", its just plain fail at math and game design.

Sorry to be salty, but there isnt a "mild" way to make it clear.

I have to agree here. This is my single biggest disappointment with the new system. I like the idea of being able to just put cool effects on weapons instead of being required to get a boring +x weapon to keep up with monster HP. I feel like it's wholly unnecessary to scale damage that hard when the level scaling already takes care of the issue of level mattering to the encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep.. i was hoping for something like "+1d6" damage to a flaming weapon at most... but cool effects like some weapons stopping regeneration, other weapons being able to do a melee attack at range (like a wind sword doing a wind slash at range), just adding cool stuff... but the core of the power being on the character.

There were so many possibilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Has anybody participated in a PF1 game where a player wanted to do damage with weapons or their body (not, like, spells or bombs or SLAs) in which the players did not acquire a magical weapon or AoMF or similar as soon as was reasonable and use it (or an upgraded version of it) for the rest of their careers?

Since that's pretty much my standard experience.

It does feel like if we disarm the mighty warrior from their noteworthy flaming magical greatsword, they should be significantly less dangerous with the less famous weapon.

Did anyone look into other ways of doing damage besides picking up their flaming magical greatsword or was it deemed the best way to do damage all the time every time to the point it's expected(Like everything else in PF1 just the same thing again and again).

Well good news. Now you don't even need to worry about anything that might be the lesser option. Just take your magic weapon.

Wonder how this works for low magic games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What PF2 seems to be doing is shifting the massive pile of static damage modifiers from different sources in 3.x/PF1 (which scale pretty high as you get to higher levels) into extra dice from weapon potency. This was something that many people "know:" base weapon damage is pretty much meaningless compared to static bonuses and the critical threat range/multiplier in 3.x/PF1 once you hit about 7th-8th level.

So, instead of needing a bunch of feats and buffs stacked with a magic weapon, in PF2 you seem to just need a magic weapon.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:

What PF2 seems to be doing is shifting the massive pile of static damage modifiers from different sources in 3.x/PF1 (which scale pretty high as you get to higher levels) into extra dice from weapon potency.

So, instead of needing a bunch of feats and buffs stacked with a magic weapon, in PF2 you seem to just need a magic weapon.

I actually liked finding ways of up damage with all the mods. I could build 2 different Fighters with different gear set ups. Close to the same damage maybe not but felt differently. Example; one just picks up the standard feats and magic weapon, fighter 2 really combs through the feats, picks up some Alchemical boosts and maybe looks into Trip/Dirty trick to debuff the target.

Now? Just turn in your sword, here's your Magic one. Turn that back in after 3-4 levels for a new one.

Glad the weapons got special abilities but just flat damage on magic weapons feels.... mundane of all things.


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

There are also the rules on page 190 (Improving Quality) and page 372 (Upgrading Potency).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
There are also the rules on page 190 (Improving Quality) and page 372 (Upgrading Potency).

Which makes my friend who's main character story is to prove himself with a weapon he forged himself(And upgrading it as the story goes along).

But I'm just picturing a common fighter that picked up Flail and finds +1 say... Halberd. If they don't use it, they're behind almost instantly.

*sigh* I don't know. I've used APB for so long that magic for 'hit and damage' really didn't matter too much if only because it was partially built into the system.

Was kinda hoping to see that expanded on more than just Proficiency. I mean heck, PF1 Unarmed had their damage increase with levels.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:

What PF2 seems to be doing is shifting the massive pile of static damage modifiers from different sources in 3.x/PF1 (which scale pretty high as you get to higher levels) into extra dice from weapon potency. This was something that many people "know:" base weapon damage is pretty much meaningless compared to static bonuses and the critical threat range/multiplier in 3.x/PF1 once you hit about 7th-8th level.

So, instead of needing a bunch of feats and buffs stacked with a magic weapon, in PF2 you seem to just need a magic weapon.

I'd rather the damage autoscale and have magic weapons be for fun and flavor. That way the common trope of strong independent warrior who don't need no magic items would be valid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kodyboy wrote:

With the bonus adding damage dice magic weapons are now basically required to be an effective character at medium to high levels and have a huge impact in damage, far more than in P1.

A character with a +2 sword is now doing an extra 2d8 damage. This is a huge improvement over -2 damage. Combine this with more common crits and the non magic using Conan type is almost non-vuable.
This is a cool mechanic and interesting but it does make magic weapons far more of a requirement than before.

This isn't anything new, and it honestly hasn't changed the importance of having magic weapons. Magic Weapons of certain bonuses were required to easily penetrate certain kinds of DR (something that I believe will not, and should not, be retained in PF2), so in a way, it was a similar gain against certain enemies. On top of that, Magic Weapons made you hit more and for harder.

The Automatic Bonus Progression from the Unchained book should have been more than enough proof that "Characters of higher levels cannot exist without magic (items)." If you want a no-magic (or extremely low magic) campaign, that's not something the game was designed for. Magic has been the meta since 3.X, and the game has been explicitly created for magic to thrive and be an integral part of the game's system. I would instead suggest you look elsewhere for a game whose magic is extremely limited or non-existent, because it most certainly isn't Pathfinder (or earlier editions of D&D for that matter).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kodyboy wrote:

With the bonus adding damage dice magic weapons are now basically required to be an effective character at medium to high levels and have a huge impact in damage, far more than in P1.

A character with a +2 sword is now doing an extra 2d8 damage. This is a huge improvement over -2 damage. Combine this with more common crits and the non magic using Conan type is almost non-vuable.
This is a cool mechanic and interesting but it does make magic weapons far more of a requirement than before.

This isn't anything new, and it honestly hasn't changed the importance of having magic weapons. Magic Weapons of certain bonuses were required to easily penetrate certain kinds of DR (something that I believe will not, and should not, be retained in PF2), so in a way, it was a similar gain against certain enemies. On top of that, Magic Weapons made you hit more and for harder.

The Automatic Bonus Progression from the Unchained book should have been more than enough proof that "Characters of higher levels cannot exist without magic (items)." If you want a no-magic (or extremely low magic) campaign, that's not something the game was designed for. Magic has been the meta since 3.X, and the game has been explicitly created for magic to thrive and be an integral part of the game's system. I would instead suggest you look elsewhere for a game whose magic is extremely limited or non-existent, because it most certainly isn't Pathfinder (or earlier editions of D&D for that matter).

I think a nice compromise would be making ABP the default in PF2e. That way we could focus on getting our cool magical effects from loot and crafting while still getting the baseline bonuses expected of characters. I hate having to constantly focus on upgrading from a +1 to a +2.


It's a whole new system, there are numerous ways they could have designed it.

They could have granted ABP as the baseline, eschewed +X items, and only allowed items that provided effects. This could be fun, but "Hero has a crazy magical sword" is a very common trope in fantasy, something which this hinders significantly. I mean, you can have a Fireball Sword, but it's not going to be anything more powerful than that.

They could have simply rebalanced the game without any sort of ABP (from items or otherwise), thereby simplifying the math, but the problem with this is that there is no apparent character growth between what he gets as he levels and the items he acquires from his travels. If the Level 1 character can get items similar to a Level 20 character, it creates some sort of arbitrary balancing point that will baffle and enrage most players.

In short, they understand that the Big 6 was a problem, but also a "necessary evil" in several fantasy stories. So they compromised and cut it down to the Big 3 (Weapon, Armor, Stat Enhancer) by consolidating certain benefits.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

+n armour is pretty meh, afaict. They could have ditched the armour from the Big 3 by making the character's expertise in the armour provide the benefits you get from the armour (notably ACP). And ditch the bizarre rule about armour expertise being the minimum of armour and shield. And make medium and heavy armour better, of course.

And maybe...they could have had the user's expertise determine the dice multiplier, not the weapon? So a Master with swords does 3d8 with a longsword? The +2 sword could give +2 to hit and +2 damage, so he'd be doing 3d8+6 with it - good but scarcely essential.

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


Mudfoot wrote:


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

Huh. That particular nitpick changes everything... though still not true of handwraps of mighty fists, it does kind of allow the conan type.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


"Good weapons are good," is the option they've gone with, and it's only slightly more extreme than in other editions (+5 to hit and +5 to damage and penetrate most forms of DR was pretty significant in PF1). If you want to tell a story where bad weapons are as good as good weapons, then just houserule in automatic bonus progression.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that now, you have to completely forget about having a backup weapon.

Let's say I am a Scythe wielding Slayer. In PF1, I have my +5 Scythe as my main weapon. I get grapled by a monster, or I get disarmed. I could still grab my shortsword or my dagger, two weapons way easier to find/loot, to defend myself, even if it is not magical (but you can also say they are +1 only), and at worst I would get a difference of 8 damages (if I take my dagger. Only 1d4+4 if my dagger is +1). Since my backup weapon was, as its name suggest, a backup weapon, I would not spend thousands of GP to enhance it.

In PF2, my +5 Scythe now has 6D10 (can't remember the Scythe's damage die). With a normal dagger, I would have at best a difference of 2 damages (if I roll only 1s with the Scythe and 4 with the dagger) and at worst a difference of 59 damages (with only 6s with the Scythe and 1 with the dagger).

Conclusion : you cannot have backup weapons in PF2, or you have to spend thousands to enhance them. And if your main weapon is not magical, even if you don't count resistances, you're useless.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

If most of the damage bonus would come from the wielder, instead of the weapon, you would not need the "videogamesque" runes which allow moving the magic to another weapon (you want to use). Also, enemy NPC warriors need not be armed with magic weapons to be a credible threat.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps a simple change would be?...

Have your weapon proficiency modifier (the +1 / +2 bonus only, not the total including level) effect damage dice also? But have this not stack with the damage dice from magic weapons.

Trained in longswords: 1d8
Expert in longswords: 2d8
Master in longswords: 2d8
Legend in longswords: 4d8.

To get more dice above 4d8, they'd need to go for a +4 potency rune, which woulnd grand 5d8 total damage dice.

Lower potency magic weapons would still be worthwhile since the bonus also counts towards attack, and does stack (item + proficiency).

Might work. Hard to be tell - might have fatal unintended consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:

Perhaps a simple change would be?...

Have your weapon proficiency modifier (the +1 / +2 bonus only, not the total including level) effect damage dice also? But have this not stack with the damage dice from magic weapons.

Trained in longswords: 1d8
Expert in longswords: 2d8
Master in longswords: 2d8
Legend in longswords: 4d8.

To get more dice above 4d8, they'd need to go for a +4 potency rune, which woulnd grand 5d8 total damage dice.

Lower potency magic weapons would still be worthwhile since the bonus also counts towards attack, and does stack (item + proficiency).

Might work. Hard to be tell - might have fatal unintended consequences.

That would be an idea, but then, why bother buying +1 to +3 potency rune ? A +3 potency rune costs you 1175 GP. Being Legendary is free.

Edit : A +3 potency rune actually costs you 65+400+1175 = 1640 GP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Almarane wrote:
Yossarian wrote:

Perhaps a simple change would be?...

Have your weapon proficiency modifier (the +1 / +2 bonus only, not the total including level) effect damage dice also? But have this not stack with the damage dice from magic weapons.

Trained in longswords: 1d8
Expert in longswords: 2d8
Master in longswords: 2d8
Legend in longswords: 4d8.

To get more dice above 4d8, they'd need to go for a +4 potency rune, which woulnd grand 5d8 total damage dice.

Lower potency magic weapons would still be worthwhile since the bonus also counts towards attack, and does stack (item + proficiency).

Might work. Hard to be tell - might have fatal unintended consequences.

That would be an idea, but then, why bother buying +1 to +3 potency rune ? A +3 potency rune costs you 1175 GP. Being Legendary is free.

Because your potency rune could exceed your proficiency? Eg, an expert proficient PC using a +2 potency rune.

Or because your potency rune could exceed your weapon quality, granting a better +item bonus to attack rolls. Eg: a +2 potency rune on an expert quality weapon.

Either way, either the rune or weapon quality effects attack bonus with a +item bonus, that stacks with your weapon proficiency. So either one of those will always matter.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bartheus wrote:
If most of the damage bonus would come from the wielder, instead of the weapon, you would not need the "videogamesque" runes which allow moving the magic to another weapon (you want to use). Also, enemy NPC warriors need not be armed with magic weapons to be a credible threat.

One of the things that always bugged me about higher level play is that every mook has magic gear out the wazoo because the math needs it - linking damage to proficiency gets around that immersion issue (although I just started assuming Golarion was really high magic - until Resonance came about...so I guess I was wrong) and gets us away from those "Must Haves" that made buying gear so dull after a while (Sure, I'd get my cool thing, then I'd buy the Big 6, then something cool, then upgrade the Big 6).

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What is the dpr comparison of a weapon with just the bonus to hit vs a weapon with equivalent cost with bonus damage dice?


Yossarian wrote:

Perhaps a simple change would be?...

Have your weapon proficiency modifier (the +1 / +2 bonus only, not the total including level) effect damage dice also? But have this not stack with the damage dice from magic weapons.

Trained in longswords: 1d8
Expert in longswords: 2d8
Master in longswords: 2d8
Legend in longswords: 4d8.

To get more dice above 4d8, they'd need to go for a +4 potency rune, which woulnd grand 5d8 total damage dice.

Lower potency magic weapons would still be worthwhile since the bonus also counts towards attack, and does stack (item + proficiency).

Might work. Hard to be tell - might have fatal unintended consequences.

Interesting idea.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Almarane wrote:
Yossarian wrote:


Trained in longswords: 1d8
Expert in longswords: 2d8
Master in longswords: 2d8
Legend in longswords: 4d8.

I love this idea too. Sure it requries some big shuffling in the current system, but it is perfectly doable and likely to be a cool improvement.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I much prefer it tied to proficiency or class level than a magical +. Your basically saying you’re an awesome 10th level fighter but if I take your magical sword away you can’t do any damage. With this method why aren’t we limiting the damage dice casters get for their spells to the magical plus to their staff.

Make classes good at what they do. Don’t require items to make them viable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean yeah the first time a group runs a "Prison break" section or any other events that see a loss of gear for a bit, your damage goes right back down to level 1 basically.

Some feats might be able to boost it but nothing like a full die of it.

Also how do you balance this against weapon wielding enemies? I mean, you might have a magic weapon around level 4-5. So let's just say it's a longsword for 2d8.

So how is an enemy for that level that uses weapons, let's say Gnoll, supposed to keep up with that damage if they are using the same tools as the PC. Only way to do so is to give them Magic weapons themselves but that wrecks the wealth table.

Wait a minute..., why does Gnoll Sergent have 2d6 on it's 1d6 Scimitar?

I found a plot hole! NURSE!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take on the problem (to me it is by far the biggest problem of the edition, worse than all other added together)

Rearrange weapon proficiencies around to "balance"(my take should be 6, 11, 16 lv to make on par with PF1 extra attacks)

Untrained: reduce weapon die by 1 step(d8 to d6)
Trained: 1 x WD
Expert: 2 x WD
Master: 3 x WD
Legendary: 4 x WD

WD = Weapon Damage = The base die of the weapon PLUS the bonus from the character Strength modifier plus item modifier.

Item modifier = The "plus" of the weapon.

In this version weapons go from +1 to +3 only (+5 is a HUGE modifier... they reduced all spell bonus to +1 cause "the edition changed, every +1 matter" then left the weapon with +5, wich make absolute no sense)

Generic weapons can only be +1

Named rare weapons can be +1 or +2: Flame tongue, Icebrand, Sword of Sharpness, Trident of the Tides, Dagger of Venom, Dueling Rapier, Shield of the Lion, Any named weapon used in all this 40 years of DnD.

Named Legendary top tier weapons are +3: Holy Avenger, Vorpal Sword, Dwarven Thrower, Oathbow, Bow of Thunderbolts, Lifestealer, All other top tier weapons.

The plus of the weapon add on the hit roll and on each dice of the damage roll (like the strength bonus)

Now you have a system were magic weapon matter, but the adventurer wielding than is the most important thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:


Nitpick: +n weapons aren't actually magical in PF2, just better.
Huh. That particular nitpick changes everything... though still not true of handwraps of mighty fists, it does kind of allow the conan type.

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.

This rule makes the weapon far more important important than the warrior. As Thulsa Doom asked, "What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?" In PF2, the answer is, "everything."


RafaelBraga wrote:

My take on the problem (to me it is by far the biggest problem of the edition, worse than all other added together)

Rearrange weapon proficiencies around to "balance"(my take should be 6, 11, 16 lv to make on par with PF1 extra attacks)

Untrained: reduce weapon die by 1 step(d8 to d6)
Trained: 1 x WD
Expert: 2 x WD
Master: 3 x WD
Legendary: 4 x WD

WD = Weapon Damage = The base die of the weapon PLUS the bonus from the character Strength modifier plus item modifier.

Item modifier = The "plus" of the weapon.

In this version weapons go from +1 to +3 only (+5 is a HUGE modifier... they reduced all spell bonus to +1 cause "the edition changed, every +1 matter" then left the weapon with +5, wich make absolute no sense)

Generic weapons can only be +1

Named rare weapons can be +1 or +2: Flame tongue, Icebrand, Sword of Sharpness, Trident of the Tides, Dagger of Venom, Dueling Rapier, Shield of the Lion, Any named weapon used in all this 40 years of DnD.

Named Legendary top tier weapons are +3: Holy Avenger, Vorpal Sword, Dwarven Thrower, Oathbow, Bow of Thunderbolts, Lifestealer, All other top tier weapons.

The plus of the weapon add on the hit roll and on each dice of the damage roll (like the strength bonus)

Now you have a system were magic weapon matter, but the adventurer wielding than is the most important thing.

Really like this idea, a lvl 9 fighter with a normal longsword should be doing more damage than a 1st level fighter… I know that the 9th level fighter Will hit more often, but the damage right now Will be equal counting both have +4 to strenght


This also let people left clerics, rogues, bards, alchemist and all other 3/4 BAB increasing proficiency at lv 8 and 15 to keep on par with PF1 and all 1/2 BAB increasing proficiency at level 11.

I would for balance sake (and fun, since is not fun to play a bad swordsman if you want to be a good one) allow a genetal feat that allow you to chose a single weapon and put your profiency with it on par with a fighter...

Weapon Focus... maybe for the first time in 18 year really meaning focus on a weapon.

And fighters(and all other full BAB that get increases at 6,11 and 16) dont need it cause they plus is BEING focused on all weapons (their bread and butter)

And for sure, if people commit to math, they will surely find even better and more balanced solutions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

I mean yeah the first time a group runs a "Prison break" section or any other events that see a loss of gear for a bit, your damage goes right back down to level 1 basically.

Some feats might be able to boost it but nothing like a full die of it.

Also how do you balance this against weapon wielding enemies? I mean, you might have a magic weapon around level 4-5. So let's just say it's a longsword for 2d8.

So how is an enemy for that level that uses weapons, let's say Gnoll, supposed to keep up with that damage if they are using the same tools as the PC. Only way to do so is to give them Magic weapons themselves but that wrecks the wealth table.

Wait a minute..., why does Gnoll Sergent have 2d6 on it's 1d6 Scimitar?

I found a plot hole! NURSE!

I agree


Kodyboy wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

I mean yeah the first time a group runs a "Prison break" section or any other events that see a loss of gear for a bit, your damage goes right back down to level 1 basically.

Some feats might be able to boost it but nothing like a full die of it.

Also how do you balance this against weapon wielding enemies? I mean, you might have a magic weapon around level 4-5. So let's just say it's a longsword for 2d8.

So how is an enemy for that level that uses weapons, let's say Gnoll, supposed to keep up with that damage if they are using the same tools as the PC. Only way to do so is to give them Magic weapons themselves but that wrecks the wealth table.

Wait a minute..., why does Gnoll Sergent have 2d6 on it's 1d6 Scimitar?

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...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to be a monster.

1 to 50 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.