Extra damage dice leave d4 weapons in the dust

[ThatGuySteve]

Leaving aside the question of where should extra damage dice come from which is being discussed elsewhere.

I can't imagine many people choosing the loss of damage required to wield a d4 damage weapon once magic weapons come into play. As more dice are added at higher levels the difference in damage becomes more and more pronounced.

Do the numerous traits that small weapons have really make up for the reduction in damage output?

Could magic weapons add a flat damage dice bonus such as 1d6 per plus? Or 1d6 for 1 handed and 1d8 for 2 handed weapons?

[Syndrous]

Well, just looking at the average damage per die tells you a lot.

Average damage of a d4 weapon with no bonus is 2.5 per roll, average of a d6 is 3.5 and d8 is 4.5.

The advantage of the dagger, a d4 weapon, is that it is easily concealable, has a thrown increment, has a second damage type, is finessable and most importantly has Agile. Agile reduces the multiple attack penalty to - 4 and - 8.

Now, this does mean that some of the d6 weapons are comparable to the d4 weapons, they too have Agile, however, this means for a character with no other way of reducing the MAP, an Agile weapon is better than a 1 point damage increase. So unless the higher damage die weapon has agile, the d4 weapons which I believe almost all have Agile, are superior.

The value of the reduced penalty to additional attacks is pretty insane. Due to the limited nature of bonuses, even when you factor in Potency runes, the weapon with Agile is going to produce more hits. The -8 alone, increases the chance of hitting a level appropriate monster by around 10%. That is a lot.

Now, if you are using a hit and run build, where you stride, strike, stride, then yes the d4 weapons will seriously fall behind. It really depends on the tactics you plan to use.

[ThatGuySteve]

Sure, it is a small difference with a non magical weapon but that 1/2 difference becomes 2/4, 3/6, 4/8, etc as you increase potency.

Agile is certainly a good trait but how often are people using all 3 across to attack? Particularly classes who are likely to be using d4 weapons such as rogues, I don't see them standing toe-to-toe very often.

By level 8 you could have +2 weapons. Is the guy rolling 3d4 going to feel effective standing next to the guy rolling 3d12? Does agile and a 10' range make up the difference?

[vestris]

I just wanted to add that there are some specific weapon's that have d4 as damage die, knives, brawling and shields the outliers are the whip and the light mace.

Knives have a very good damage buff in their critical specialization, and brawling slows in that regard which is very good too. And shields well, no main weapon there.

So if you decide to go for knives or brawling as your main weapon you are likely a rogue or a monk and it allows you to have a very mobile fighting style with very good crits. You can literally bleed living opponents out over time as a rogue with a knife.

Most of the weapons encourage very different fighting styles which I like, and for sure if you fight the heavy armored fighter with a greatsword with your dagger head on as a rogue you will fall behind in damage quickly.

[ThatGuySteve]

vestris wrote:

Knives have a very good damage buff in their critical specialization, and brawling slows in that regard which is very good too. And shields well, no main weapon there.

So if you decide to go for knives or brawling as your main weapon you are likely a rogue or a monk and it allows you to have a very mobile fighting style with very good crits. You can literally bleed living opponents out over time as a rogue with a knife.

It would take several rounds of bleeding 1d4+1/2/3 to catch up with the higher crit damage of a larger dice. Bleed also doesn't stack so once it is going, that's it, no more bonus from crit specialisation unless they pass their save. I'd rather the constant bonus damage of a bigger dice.

[Matthew Downie]

ThatGuySteve wrote:

Is the guy rolling 3d4 going to feel effective standing next to the guy rolling 3d12?

Does 1d4 feel effective compared to 1d12?

[tivadar27]

Agreed, I think, given the way magic weapons work, the lowest damage die should have been d6 in this game. The fact is that while they tried to distinguish weapons by their traits, the *biggest* advantage to any weapon is a big damage die, to the point where all of the other stats (outside of finesse vs non-finesse) largely don't matter.

There are a few stand-out weapons because of this (excluding exotic):
Rapier: Biggest Damage die for a finesse weapon
Longsword, Warhammer and Battleaxe: Biggest Damage die for a 1H weapon
Greatsword, Maul: Only d12 weapons
Crossbow with Ranger or Abadar Deadly Simplicity Cleric: Biggest Damage Dice for single action reload ranged weapon.

Note that the exotic racial weapons are also pretty different:
Halfing Sling staff: another d10 single action reload weapon, really good.
Dwarven Waraxe: d12 in 2H, d8 in 1H, *amazing*
Elven Curve Blade: A d8 finesse weapon... but can't be used with finesse striker, so essentially pretty bad.

I like the notion of damage dice increasing with magic weapon bonus, but it also creates a pretty big gap in weapon efficiency.

[PossibleCabbage]

For the most part it seems like d4 weapons are ones with a huge pile of traits (e.g. whip, sai, starknife), have a reliable way to increase the damage to respectable levels (staves are d8 if you 2 hand them, light picks are fatal d8), or aren't things that will be your primary choice of weapon unless they are your deity's sacred weapon (which you have a class feature to address). Since things like daggers, fists, and light shield bashes are more "holdout weapons" than primary combat options for most people.

Still, I'm not sure if deadly simplicity is really enough to convince Pharasmans to use daggers instead of taking the ancestry feat that gives you proficiency in better weapons (warhammers for dwarves, glaives for gnomes, etc.)

[Captain Morgan]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For the most part it seems like d4 weapons are ones with a huge pile of traits (e.g. whip, sai, starknife), have a reliable way to increase the damage to respectable levels (staves are d8 if you 2 hand them, light picks are fatal d8), or aren't things that will be your primary choice of weapon unless they are your deity's sacred weapon (which you have a class feature to address). Since things like daggers, fists, and light shield bashes are more "holdout weapons" than primary combat options for most people.

All this. A lot of these d4 weapons are like Caster back up options in particular.

The other important thing to remember is they do less damage because you can dump strength while wielding one. There are significant benefits to that still, even with the more spread out ability boosts.

[graystone]

Captain Morgan wrote:

All this. A lot of these d4 weapons are like Caster back up options in particular.

What's a bummer is that the only monk ranged weapon is a d4 one [and that's AFTER you take a feat to use it]. :(

[ThatGuySteve]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For the most part it seems like d4 weapons are ones with a huge pile of traits (e.g. whip, sai, starknife), have a reliable way to increase the damage to respectable levels (staves are d8 if you 2 hand them, light picks are fatal d8), or aren't things that will be your primary choice of weapon unless they are your deity's sacred weapon (which you have a class feature to address). Since things like daggers, fists, and light shield bashes are more "holdout weapons" than primary combat options for most people.

Even with fatal, a light pick will do less average damage than a short sword in almost every case. Short swords then get Finesse and Versatile on top.

Staffs used 2 handed are the worst 2 handed weapon - lowest damage dice and no other traits. Switching to a 2 handed grip also uses an action so even the wizard looking to crack a head probably won't bother as he wants a hand free to cast.

Captain Morgan wrote:

All this. A lot of these d4 weapons are like Caster back up options in particular.

The other important thing to remember is they do less damage because you can dump strength while wielding one. There are significant benefits to that still, even with the more spread out ability boosts.

Remember only Rogues get +dex to damage with Finesse weapons, anyone else who dumps Str also dumps damage.

[Mark Seifter]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Still, I'm not sure if deadly simplicity is really enough to convince Pharasmans to use daggers instead of taking the ancestry feat that gives you proficiency in better weapons (warhammers for dwarves, glaives for gnomes, etc.)

Probably only if they were going finesse anyway I'd imagine. A d6 dagger compares very favorably to a top-tier martial agile finesse weapon like a shortsword.

In general when we worked out what kinds of benefits you get for going down a die size, going down from d6 to d4 gave more benefit than usual because you're just losing so much of a percentage of your current damage compared to d12 to d10 or the like. This actually means that Deadly Simplicity on a simple d4 might produce a slightly better option like a d6 dagger v shortsword, whereas often Deadly Simplicity will be just right to bring a simple weapon up to par.

[tivadar27]

At the *very* least, the character design space for weapons with lower damage dice is greatly reduced. Mark makes a good point about Deadly Simplicity (similar to what makes Crossbows so good...). The fact is in PF1e, a damage die only reduced your damage output by a flat 1. Now it reduces it by 1 per magical +1 bonus, and that's a much bigger hit, particularly when flat adds to damage are even harder to find in 2e.

[Xenocrat]

ThatGuySteve wrote:

Staffs used 2 handed are the worst 2 handed weapon - lowest damage dice and no other traits. Switching to a 2 handed grip also uses an action so even the wizard looking to crack a head probably won't bother as he wants a hand free to cast.

A wizard with Eschew Materials doesn't ever need a free hand and will always two hand his magic staff.

[Bublitz]

The whole magic weapon system creates a exponential scale that more and more breaks the balance.
Everything seems to work fine with normal weapons (+0)

By adding weapon dmg dice each +1 enchantment they instead got rid of "+1" and now is TIMES (x1) one, or two... three. They kept the % gap of damage between weapons but forgot that a weapon dealing 2 points of damage and another dealing 4, its 100% more, but its harmless if you take it by the numbers. But this same weapon +5 will be dealing 50 damage and the other one 25, still 100% more damage but the gap is just unbearable.

Magic items just STOMP sneak attack from rogues for example, because they are fine as long you dont have any magic weapon in the game.

A +5 greatsword, ALONE, wielded by a feat-less class-less lv 1 peasant deals 6d12 points of damage (6 to 72 dmg)

A rogue, lv 17, with 4d6 sneak, getting in position with a +5 weapon S.sword, deals 6d6 + 4d6(joke-sneak) = 10d6 (10 to 60 dmg)

This is just wrong as i see. Sneak attack should AT LEAST scale with extra damage dice. Or enchantments should go for fixed dice maybe. I dont know.
When you build your math based on %, the bigger the number,...BIGGER the gap (sounds obvious but its exponential problem).

I used sneak attack just as a bonus reference to point out that, everything is about weapon dice size. Thats it. This system CLEARLY favors big dices alone.

(And for the rogues, i always pictured them as massive damage dealers who need to find a spot, an opening or wharever... it seems sneak attack is a compensation, a POOR ONE, because i could just grab a d12sword and the hell with s-attack... R.I.P assassin.)

[Deighton Thrane]

Xenocrat wrote:

ThatGuySteve wrote:

Staffs used 2 handed are the worst 2 handed weapon - lowest damage dice and no other traits. Switching to a 2 handed grip also uses an action so even the wizard looking to crack a head probably won't bother as he wants a hand free to cast.

A wizard with Eschew Materials doesn't ever need a free hand and will always two hand his magic staff.

One of the requirements for Somatic casting is having a free hand, and that's what Eschew Materials replaces the Material component with. As far as I know, the only way for a wizard to get rid of a Somatic Component is to use Quickened Casting to cast a verbal only spell. So wizards are definitely going to want a one handed weapon.

[CommanderCoyler]

So, it looks like simple weapons start(ed) at d6 for one handers and d10 for two handers and martial weapons d8 for one handers and d12 for two handers. Then the following things lower the penalty by one each (to a minimum of d4, which is the reason why so many weapons are d4):
Reach: Increases the number of things you can attack without moving
Agile: Effective +1 to hit on attacks after the first each turn
Fatal: Improve damage by two die types on a crit and add an extra die of the new type
Forceful: +1 damage (per die) per attack after the first each turn with the same weapon
Finesse: Use dex to hit.

Now for my opinions:
Reach is fine with losing a die type, getting to hit more things (or hit past allies) is very useful.
Agile: the +1 to hit (5% extra hit and crit chance) is worth losing 1 damage per hit. Especially as no agile weapons are two-handed. This lets you pair an agile weapon with a non-agile one to get your full power on the first attack, then weaker but more accurate second and third attacks.
Fatal: Works only on a crit, but is a damage increase. I'm on the fence.
Forceful: If, if you hit with all three attacks in a turn works out the same as a non-forceful weapon. Needs a buff, maybe double the bonus?
Finesse: Offers no mechanical advantage, doesn't need to be penalised.

[Fuzzypaws]

They need to kill the sacred cows of the old standby weapon damage die sizes, like d8 longswords. Once you accept that a longsword can be d10, you can fix the other weapons in line with that. The lowest damage die should be d6, for things like daggers. Shortswords, shortbows and rapiers can be d8. Etc.

Likewise, much how they currently give extra traits to the smallest die weapons, they can also give extra or better traits to two handed weapons to make up for taking an extra hand.

Not only does this go a long way to fixing the extent to which the PF2 magic weapon paradigm breaks the game, but it also just makes weapons more satisfying in general.

[Zwordsman]

I can say.. I will be using darts (or shuriken depends if i take fighter multiclass) on my main playtest characte the whole way through

I simply feel that using mostly thrown darts/shuriken fits my alchemist far better for how he plays.

currently there are no rules for dartshurikens being destroyed on use.. so at least I'll be able to afford the one and slap returning on it

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Deighton Thrane wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

ThatGuySteve wrote:

Staffs used 2 handed are the worst 2 handed weapon - lowest damage dice and no other traits. Switching to a 2 handed grip also uses an action so even the wizard looking to crack a head probably won't bother as he wants a hand free to cast.

A wizard with Eschew Materials doesn't ever need a free hand and will always two hand his magic staff.

One of the requirements for Somatic casting is having a free hand, and that's what Eschew Materials replaces the Material component with. As far as I know, the only way for a wizard to get rid of a Somatic Component is to use Quickened Casting to cast a verbal only spell. So wizards are definitely going to want a one handed weapon.

If you're holding a magic staff you can use it to make Somatic gestures without needing a free hand.

page 379, Casting Spells from a Staff wrote:

While holding a staff, you can use Somatic Casting actions even without a hand free by gesturing with the staff instead of your hand, regardless of whether you’re casting spells from the staff or any of your other spells.

(The same is true for wands, but those make very poor weapons, even if you sharpen them.)

[graystone]

Zwordsman wrote:

I can say.. I will be using darts (or shuriken depends if i take fighter multiclass) on my main playtest characte the whole way through

I simply feel that using mostly thrown darts/shuriken fits my alchemist far better for how he plays.

currently there are no rules for dartshurikens being destroyed on use.. so at least I'll be able to afford the one and slap returning on it

Take the Shuriken if you can as it has a reload of 0: that means drawing and throwing it are part of the same action.

[Fuzzypaws]

graystone wrote:

Zwordsman wrote:

I can say.. I will be using darts (or shuriken depends if i take fighter multiclass) on my main playtest characte the whole way through

I simply feel that using mostly thrown darts/shuriken fits my alchemist far better for how he plays.

currently there are no rules for dartshurikens being destroyed on use.. so at least I'll be able to afford the one and slap returning on it

Take the Shuriken if you can as it has a reload of 0: that means drawing and throwing it are part of the same action.

We thought the Reload -- on darts meant Reload 0 at first. Sad day for the rogue when I realized it was actually called out as not working that way. Darts should just be listed as Reload 1, and Quick Draw should have text saying it reduces the Reload for thrown weapons by 1 to a minimum of 0.

[Mark Seifter]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

So, it looks like simple weapons start(ed) at d6 for one handers and d10 for two handers and martial weapons d8 for one handers and d12 for two handers. Then the following things lower the penalty by one each (to a minimum of d4, which is the reason why so many weapons are d4):

Reach: Increases the number of things you can attack without moving
Agile: Effective +1 to hit on attacks after the first each turn
Fatal: Improve damage by two die types on a crit and add an extra die of the new type
Forceful: +1 damage (per die) per attack after the first each turn with the same weapon
Finesse: Use dex to hit.

It's not quite that simple but it's a good first look (you can see it's off by using some examples; for instance short sword is finesse+agile but d6 not d4, forceful is not worth a full die size, despite its amazing synergy with some abilities like Certain Strike, so will often be paired with sweep, deadly, or something else, and so on).

[Deighton Thrane]

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Deighton Thrane wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

ThatGuySteve wrote:

Staffs used 2 handed are the worst 2 handed weapon - lowest damage dice and no other traits. Switching to a 2 handed grip also uses an action so even the wizard looking to crack a head probably won't bother as he wants a hand free to cast.

A wizard with Eschew Materials doesn't ever need a free hand and will always two hand his magic staff.

One of the requirements for Somatic casting is having a free hand, and that's what Eschew Materials replaces the Material component with. As far as I know, the only way for a wizard to get rid of a Somatic Component is to use Quickened Casting to cast a verbal only spell. So wizards are definitely going to want a one handed weapon.

If you're holding a magic staff you can use it to make Somatic gestures without needing a free hand.

page 379, Casting Spells from a Staff wrote:

While holding a staff, you can use Somatic Casting actions even without a hand free by gesturing with the staff instead of your hand, regardless of whether you’re casting spells from the staff or any of your other spells.

(The same is true for wands, but those make very poor weapons, even if you sharpen them.)

Was actually coming back to make an addendum about this. I'm actually kind of curious if this is going to be common, because the touch AC math actually expects that you'll be using either the spell duelist's gloves, or spell duelist's wand. That, and the fact that even two handed, the staff is a d8 weapon, much like the better one handers. Mind you, it's entirely possible to make a wizard that doesn't make any spell attack rolls at all.

Also, curious about the casting with a staff thing, not the sharpening a wand to stab somebody.

[Chess Pwn]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

Agile: the +1 to hit (5% extra hit and crit chance) is worth losing 1 damage per hit.

Just wanted to point out something here that I see said a lot but isn't true. A +1 to your second attack is not a crit increase most of the time. For it to increase that means you're critting on a 19 after it, so 4 more means you were critting on a 15 for your first swing and that just doesn't happen much if at all. That's having an attack bonus only 5 less than their AC, a +10 against an AC 15 enemy.

[Zwordsman]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

graystone wrote:

Zwordsman wrote:

I can say.. I will be using darts (or shuriken depends if i take fighter multiclass) on my main playtest characte the whole way through

I simply feel that using mostly thrown darts/shuriken fits my alchemist far better for how he plays.

currently there are no rules for dartshurikens being destroyed on use.. so at least I'll be able to afford the one and slap returning on it

Take the Shuriken if you can as it has a reload of 0: that means drawing and throwing it are part of the same action.

We thought the Reload -- on darts meant Reload 0 at first. Sad day for the rogue when I realized it was actually called out as not working that way. Darts should just be listed as Reload 1, and Quick Draw should have text saying it reduces the Reload for thrown weapons by 1 to a minimum of 0.

Honestly I don't get why Darts aren't free reload like shurikens.

I get they're trying to make them more like those lawn darts from the 90's and such..
but honestly it makes throwing prohibitvely hard outside of monk

[Fuzzypaws]

Zwordsman wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

graystone wrote:

Zwordsman wrote:

I can say.. I will be using darts (or shuriken depends if i take fighter multiclass) on my main playtest characte the whole way through

I simply feel that using mostly thrown darts/shuriken fits my alchemist far better for how he plays.

currently there are no rules for dartshurikens being destroyed on use.. so at least I'll be able to afford the one and slap returning on it

Take the Shuriken if you can as it has a reload of 0: that means drawing and throwing it are part of the same action.

We thought the Reload -- on darts meant Reload 0 at first. Sad day for the rogue when I realized it was actually called out as not working that way. Darts should just be listed as Reload 1, and Quick Draw should have text saying it reduces the Reload for thrown weapons by 1 to a minimum of 0.

Honestly I don't get why Darts aren't free reload like shurikens.

I get they're trying to make them more like those lawn darts from the 90's and such..
but honestly it makes throwing prohibitvely hard outside of monk

I agree, they should be Reload 0. But in the meantime, I ruled that since he has two free hands due to not using a shield, he can use one Interact action to draw two weapons (darts), one in each hand. This doesn't seem to be addressed or forbidden anywhere, and it makes them much more playable and sane than taking a separate draw-weapon action for each dart. And it's not like there's off-hand penalties, soooo....

[Bublitz]

How this thread is not about weapon damage dice increase math anymore?... i mean, whats going on.

[CommanderCoyler]

Bublitz wrote:

How this thread is not about weapon damage dice increase math anymore?... i mean, whats going on.

There's only so much you can say about it directly. Some (myself included) have looked into why d4 weapons are still a thing, and why/how that could/should be changed.

The dart/shuriken topic... I don't know.

[graystone]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

The dart/shuriken topic... I don't know.

Well they ARE d4 weapons. ;)

[Zwordsman]

I mostly brought that example up because
A) originally some folks were saying why anyone would ever choose a d4 weapon in this game.
B) because most thrown weapons for most classes, are 3-4 D4 weapons (dart, knife) and 1 D6 (javelin). So it was valid for the discussion on the issue of the D4 weapons dropping behind other magical weapon damages. (it does open up if you have martial weapons a bit, shuriken, light hammer (d6))

Throwing is a fairly popular concept, though p1 had a really hard time with it, p2 so far is a bit better at least. but it still has the weird issue of the reload--which is an opportunity cost for the d4. so while a tangent still on the topic of the issues with d4.
----
Off hand though. i feel like the D4 issue is related, in part, to an overly cautious caution of Sneak Attack

[ThatGuySteve]

I don't think bumping d4s up to d6s is the fix we need as then there is pressure to bump up d6 weapons to d8s, d8s to d10s, etc. That will maintain the difference in damage and small weapons will still be weak.

Making potency add a flat rate of 1d6 (or 1d8 for 2 handed) per plus would do more to balance out weapons and make unusual weapons more attractive at higher levels.

[tivadar27]

ThatGuySteve wrote:

I don't think bumping d4s up to d6s is the fix we need as then there is pressure to bump up d6 weapons to d8s, d8s to d10s, etc. That will maintain the difference in damage and small weapons will still be weak.

Making potency add a flat rate of 1d6 (or 1d8 for 2 handed) per plus would do more to balance out weapons and make unusual weapons more attractive at higher levels.

I kind of like this idea. You can still have things that add an additional die of weapon damage (Power Attack), but it'd equal magic weapons out a bit and mean you're not always looking for the one with the highest die.

[sadie]

I like the fact that +1 weapons now add more of the basic damage die. There's supposed to be a difference between impaling somebody with a massive +2 greatsword or stabbing somebody with a +2 dagger. Too often in Pathfinder 1e, the basic weapon didn't matter all once you'd layered a few things on top of it, and this change returns more importance to the core physical weapon.

At the same time there needs to be a limit to the effect of the basic weapon die. Probably the most sensible dividing line is that bonuses which are inherent to the weapon should, such as +1, flaming, ice etc add the weapon's own die, while those from beyond the weapon use dice of their own. Sneak attack is nothing to do with the weapon used, so it doesn't use the weapon's die.

[ThatGuySteve]

sadie wrote:

I like the fact that +1 weapons now add more of the basic damage die. There's supposed to be a difference between impaling somebody with a massive +2 greatsword or stabbing somebody with a +2 dagger. Too often in Pathfinder 1e, the basic weapon didn't matter all once you'd layered a few things on top of it, and this change returns more importance to the core physical weapon.

At the same time there needs to be a limit to the effect of the basic weapon die. Probably the most sensible dividing line is that bonuses which are inherent to the weapon should, such as +1, flaming, ice etc add the weapon's own die, while those from beyond the weapon use dice of their own. Sneak attack is nothing to do with the weapon used, so it doesn't use the weapon's die.

If flaming/frost/etc also added weapon size dice that would make the disparity even worse. I agree that a big weapon should do more damage than small but the difference as it stands now is just too high.

Traits and critical specialisations could perhaps do more to differentiate different weapons. Give d8 1handed and d12 2handed weapons some more traits to make up for trimming their damage.

[Bublitz]

It seems sneak attack is ok as long we dont use magic weapons. It seems all damage is fairly ok ...as long we dont add extra weapon dice because it creates a exponential curve that opens the gap of damage TOO MUCH.

+5 greatsword, alone, wielded by a lv 0 bunnyrabbit: 6d12 (6 to 72 dmg)

+5 shortsword, wielded by lv17 rogue with 4d6 sneakttack: 6d6 + 4d6: (10 to 60 dmg). And he needs to find position, dance and wharever.

just rough math to show that sneak attack should scale with weapon dice plus that even if the % of damage between weapons remains the same, the gap in solid numbers is too much.

2 points of damage is still 100% more damage than 1 point of damage.
... and so is 100 to 50.

[Jason S]

ThatGuySteve wrote:

Could magic weapons add a flat damage dice bonus such as 1d6 per plus? Or 1d6 for 1 handed and 1d8 for 2 handed weapons?

1d10 for all weapons.

I'd be happy to have a +1 weapon just do +1 (or +2 or 3) damage as well.

[CommanderCoyler]

Jason S wrote:

I'd be happy to have a +1 weapon just do +1 (or +2 or 3) damage as well.

That would require other ways of getting the extra damage, such as 4e's getting better powers as you level up, or 5e's extra attacks. Otherwise hp soon outstrips the damage you can do and fights will take ages

[Shade325]

I'm in favor of the OP's suggestion magic weapons all do the same damage per plus. 1d6 was the suggestion. I'd even take 1d4. Make it even across the board.

[Jason S]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

That would require other ways of getting the extra damage, such as 4e's getting better powers as you level up, or 5e's extra attacks. Otherwise hp soon outstrips the damage you can do and fights will take ages

In PF1, a +1 weapon did +1 damage. Most of us were OK with it.

The designers can change monster hit points at any time, they don't need to outstrip damage. The designers PICK the hp, they know exactly what they're doing.

CommanderCoyler wrote:

I'm in favor of the OP's suggestion magic weapons all do the same damage per plus. 1d6 was the suggestion. I'd even take 1d4. Make it even across the board.

I'd like them to just pick something. There's too much difference between D12s and D4s when it comes to magic items.

It makes sense to pick a D6 for additional damage. We have plenty of them and while it adds to your damage, it doesn't make combat all about your weapon. And the change is less dramatic, which is good for scaling.

I hope Paizo makes this change, it would fix a lot of concerns without completely changing the system they've created.

[CommanderCoyler]

Jason S wrote:

CommanderCoyler wrote:

That would require other ways of getting the extra damage, such as 4e's getting better powers as you level up, or 5e's extra attacks. Otherwise hp soon outstrips the damage you can do and fights will take ages

In PF1, a +1 weapon did +1 damage. Most of us were OK with it.

The designers can change monster hit points at any time, they don't need to outstrip damage. The designers PICK the hp, they know exactly what they're doing.

3.5 characters also got extra attacks as they levelled up...

Jason S wrote:

CommanderCoyler wrote:

I'm in favor of the OP's suggestion magic weapons all do the same damage per plus. 1d6 was the suggestion. I'd even take 1d4. Make it even across the board.

I'd like them to just pick something. There's too much difference between D12s and D4s when it comes to magic items.

It makes sense to pick a D6 for additional damage. We have plenty of them and while it adds to your damage, it doesn't make combat all about your weapon. And the change is less dramatic, which is good for scaling.

I hope Paizo makes this change, it would fix a lot of concerns without completely changing the system they've created.

Wasn't my original statement, but yes I agree that combat should be less about your weapon. It should be more about how you wield it, i.e. your class and feats

[Zwordsman]

Points for that! Less about your weapons, and more about the wielder.

Also the reason I wish the "boosts" were connected to the character and not weapons. (except for stuff like flaming, returning etc)

[Jason S]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

3.5 characters also got extra attacks as they levelled up...

You said: The designers need other ways to increase damage (to what it is currently) if they change crit damage to adding D6.

I said: They don't need to increase damage, they can just decrease monster hp.

[ThatGuySteve]

Jason S wrote:

CommanderCoyler wrote:

3.5 characters also got extra attacks as they levelled up...

You said: The designers need other ways to increase damage (to what it is currently) if they change crit damage to adding D6.

I said: They don't need to increase damage, they can just decrease monster hp.

All spells that do damage would also need to be rebalance then. Probably easier to adjust weapon damage than overhaul half the system.

[Jason S]

ThatGuySteve wrote:

All spells that do damage would also need to be rebalance then. Probably easier to adjust weapon damage than overhaul half the system.

Except that spell damage is currently pitiful.

Example: At 3rd level

Wizard can cast Acid Arrow 3 times per day, once per round. Does 1d8 damage and 1d8 persistent, if it even hits (which is not the case in PF2).

Fighter can hit with his +1 weapon for 2d0 + 4 multiple times per round.

I thought they would fix blaster wizards in PF2, instead they just took away the ability to make them viable.

So yeah, no need to nerf spell damage.

[HWalsh]

The problem is the people using d4 weapons (that stay d4) are mostly rogues.

The same people with the best skills and the highest damage.

Highest damage?

Oh yeah. Sneak attack is very powerful and so easy to get off you practically have to not try.

A level 5 Paladin with a +1 D8 longsword vs a level 5 Rogue with a +1 D4 making 2 attacks is as follows:

Paladin:
1st attack -0 (2d8+4)
2nd attack -5 (2d8+4)

Rogue:
1st attack -0 (2d4+2d6+4)
2nd attack -4 (2d4+2d6+4)

Paladin:
Avg damage: 13+13=26

Rogue:
Avg damage: 16+16=32

So... Yeah no. This is without the synergy of adding things like Fighter multiclass and Double Slice.

D4 weapons are fine.

Yes a guy with a d4 weapon will get outshined by a +5 d12 weapon. That's a +5 weapon. You're not going to see that in a level 1's hand.

Heck a freaking HOLY AVENGER was nerfed to only be a +3 weapon.

[ThatGuySteve]

HWalsh wrote:

The problem is the people using d4 weapons (that stay d4) are mostly rogues.

So anyone other than a rogue wanting to use a d4 weapon is just out of luck? The dual wielding fighter build is a prime example of someone who might want to use a small weapon in their off hand.

Sneak attack is conditional so there will be occasions when you don't get it and you damage will drop dramatically. Fighters/paladins/etc will always be doing their damage without needing to shuffle around for flanking.

The difference doesn't show up as much when you are just using +1 weapons, it is higher levels that it really breaks down.

6d4 avg 15
6d8 avg 27
6d12 avg 39

Full 4d6 sneak would bring a dagger up to 29 but you could then start comparing other class's features. Barbarians add their rage damage, fighters get higher proficiency so hit more often, etc.

HWalsh wrote:

You're not going to see that in a level 1's hand.

The maths needs to balance st every level, not just 1st.

[j b 200]

I'm ok with not every weapon being equally good. A +1 dagger should not do as much damage as a +1 great axe. It shouldn't. As someone up-thread mentioned, the dagger has many traits that are beneficial outside of the straight up math.

Really it make it more realistic. Rogues should use clubs or short swords or rapiers. The only time you use a dagger is if you need it for concealment. That's ok.

In P1 the difference between a +5 longsword and a +5 dagger was an average of 2 damage a round. That's ridiculous. Now a +5 longsword does on average 12 more damage per round than a +5 dagger, that's not a ton but it makes more sense. Also, as the number of dice goes up, you are more likely to approach the mean instead of swingy damage where I roll a 1 on my d8 but a 4 on my d4.

[Zwordsman]

HWalsh wrote:

The problem is the people using d4 weapons (that stay d4) are mostly rogues.

Alchemists, unless they expand their weapon choice via multiclass or general feat, have a pretty good likelihood of being stuck with d4.

Simple weapons that aren't d4. Club. Longspear. Morning Star, Spear.
All other simple melee weapon I see are D4.

Soo the Alchemist, who is not a martial, and not a caster, but is a pseduo martial kinda. Also, generally may need an open hand for drawing bombs/support items. So. club, morning star, spear being the only choices there I think.

So it isn't just Rogues, Plus alch's don't get dex to damage the rogues do.

Range is a bit better. But. Everyone should always have a melee weapon on hand.

[PossibleCabbage]

I figure alchemists benefit a lot from taking an ancestry trait that gives them weapons.

Just looking at one-handed options
Being a Dwarf gets you a 1d6 plus fatal d10 weapon, and 2 1d8 weapons one with sweep and one with shove.
Being an Elf gets you a 1d6 finesse weapon and a 1d8 versatile weapon.
Being an a Gnome gets you a 1d6 agile, finesse, trip weapon.
Being a Goblin gets you a 1d6 agile, finesse, backstabber weapon
Being a Halfling gets you a 1d6 agile, finesse, versatile weapon.
Humans and half-humans don't get a lot though.

A couple of ancestries have interesting exotic options which might be worth considering for alchemists, like the gnome flickmace (1d8 and reach), or the dwarf waraxe (1d8 sweep, and 1d12 two-handed, remember removing a hand from your weapon is not an action, even if regripping is.)

It generally feels like if a single feat can address a shortcoming of a class, it's probably fine.