Three playtest innovations I will swipe for my home games


General Discussion


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I doubt my group will be playing PF2, though of course we don't know what the final product will be like. But in the interests of balancing out my commentary, much of which has been negative (I did not enjoy the playtest) here are three bits of the playtest PF2 that I am likely to incorporate into my home games, which are a heavily houseruled PF1:

(1) Four kinds of magic, each with a governing skill. I *really* like this. It is flavorful, and allows different characters to be expert on their own kinds of magic without stepping on each others' toes. I need to sort out which PF1 classes use which kind of magic, and then I'm good to go with this one.

(2) Weapon runes that can be placed on a weapon. One of my continuing struggles as a PF1 GM is PCs who specialize in a strange weapon. Putting that exact strange weapon into treasure can really strain verisimilitude. Not doing so can be devastating to the PC's effectiveness. There's a huge pressure to just use longswords, it's safer...but this is sad. Being able to seize the Sahuagin King's trident and convert it into something the Tian PC can actually use is very appealing to me, though I haven't settled on the exact mechanics yet.

(3) Reduced skill list. I say I'll swipe it, but actually I pre-swiped it: the shortened skill list we use in the home games is strikingly similar (we even picked some of the same names, notably Culture). The game is more fun when a party can cover a reasonable fraction of the skills, and when skills are general enough that if you take it, you'll have ample chances to use it. Narrow skills, in our hands, frustrate the players--you take a skill because you hope it will flesh out your character, then it never comes up and that feels pointless. Or the GM ties herself in knots making it come up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I almost certainly will be playing PF2e, but this is relevant for me because I've already swiped some things from it. XD

Namely:

+10/-10 crits on spells; while it doesn't fit quite as nicely into the swingy math of PF1e, it still helps.

Weapon runes, sort of. This is a pre-swipe - it's been a standing rule of mine for a while that any decent-sized town contains a magical craftsman that can transfer weapon enchantments from one weapon to another for a small fee. That said, I do occasionally drop "artifact" weapons that have unique enchantments that can't be moved, because sometimes it fits.

The action system, again sort of. The full three-action system doesn't really fit, but I have gotten rid of full attacks and changed up the two-weapon fighting rules, which has resulted in something closer to the more mobile combat of 2e.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
The action system, again sort of. The full three-action system doesn't really fit, but I have gotten rid of full attacks and changed up the two-weapon fighting rules, which has resulted in something closer to the more mobile combat of 2e.

Read up on the Unchained Action Economy rules. :)

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/unchaine d-action-economy/


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm familiar with them, I just don't think they fit well with the rest of PF1e.


I've starting using the 50/50 failure chance at anything while blind (except dialed it back to anything that would require a skill check or roll; most recently a tooth fairy flying down an alleyway while blinded). I'm considering using the 50% miss chance on targeted spells while blind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

[relevantpost]I doubt there's anything good on, but I'm going to check out netflix while I do some PF2 writing.[/relevantpost]


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a few things in mind, but the easiest one that comes to mind: Put the Conjuration (Healing) spells back in Necromancy, where they belong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yes, UnArcaneElection!

Healing spells being in Necromancy again is one of my absolute favorite lore changes from the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One quick houserule makes the Unchained action system work vastly better for PF1: the first ex-swift action used per turn is a free action instead of 1 action. This prevents the many feats/classes that rely on being able to do a swift action in addition to everything else from being screwed. Examples include Maguses, Inquisitors, Arcane Armor Training, Arcane Strike, etc.


The Background system. I may integrate it into PF1 background both to give a bit more structure, and slightly more impact {of course some changes would have to be made) and in other games that don't really have a background systems, as I found it makes people think about there backstories, and in turn, there character, in a more detailed and interesting ways.


Weapon traits and maybe Poison. Also maybe yoinking trinkets as maybe a psudo magic item slot(?) rather than "burn it and drop it".

Related question cause my friend already put Healing spells into Necromancy in his home games; why?

I mean, okay Conjuration doesn't sound like that's where they should be but Necromancy, the study of unlife, technically doesn't sound like it should be the place to put spells that cater to prolonging the living state. At best, at least to me, Necromancy can "Fake" life. Example being False Life.

No idea what I would put Healing spells under, those tend to get their own tree/area at times though.


MerlinCross wrote:

Weapon traits and maybe Poison. Also maybe yoinking trinkets as maybe a psudo magic item slot(?) rather than "burn it and drop it".

Related question cause my friend already put Healing spells into Necromancy in his home games; why?

I mean, okay Conjuration doesn't sound like that's where they should be but Necromancy, the study of unlife, technically doesn't sound like it should be the place to put spells that cater to prolonging the living state. At best, at least to me, Necromancy can "Fake" life. Example being False Life.

No idea what I would put Healing spells under, those tend to get their own tree/area at times though.

I mean in 2e and 1e of D&D they were necromancy. I think it has to do with the fact that necromancy creates life and unlife technically, it meshes soul and body weirdly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

Weapon traits and maybe Poison. Also maybe yoinking trinkets as maybe a psudo magic item slot(?) rather than "burn it and drop it".

Related question cause my friend already put Healing spells into Necromancy in his home games; why?

I mean, okay Conjuration doesn't sound like that's where they should be but Necromancy, the study of unlife, technically doesn't sound like it should be the place to put spells that cater to prolonging the living state. At best, at least to me, Necromancy can "Fake" life. Example being False Life.

No idea what I would put Healing spells under, those tend to get their own tree/area at times though.

I believe the idea in this is that Necromancy is supposed to be magic that deals with/controls life force period, not specifically unlife.

At least that's how I've heard it said in any mention of healing spells being Necromancy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^Nailed it.


Edge93 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Weapon traits and maybe Poison. Also maybe yoinking trinkets as maybe a psudo magic item slot(?) rather than "burn it and drop it".

Related question cause my friend already put Healing spells into Necromancy in his home games; why?

I mean, okay Conjuration doesn't sound like that's where they should be but Necromancy, the study of unlife, technically doesn't sound like it should be the place to put spells that cater to prolonging the living state. At best, at least to me, Necromancy can "Fake" life. Example being False Life.

No idea what I would put Healing spells under, those tend to get their own tree/area at times though.

I believe the idea in this is that Necromancy is supposed to be magic that deals with/controls life force period, not specifically unlife.

At least that's how I've heard it said in any mention of healing spells being Necromancy.

And yet these days it's usually depicted "Necromancy = Unlife" to the point it's basically a given. And with all the talk of killing "Sacred Cows" over the course of the playtest, reviving the cow of "Healing = Necromancy" seemed a weird one to me.

However, in the interest of moving away from that(And not taking over another topic), lemme move to a different thing.

I'm interested in seeing how to port back the new Shields to PF1. They only seem like they can work under the idea of 3 actions so I might rule it as Swift? Maybe feat to make so or Move action? (Cough, related. How do you think Animated Shield will work in PF2?)


MerlinCross wrote:

(Cough, related. How do you think Animated Shield will work in PF2?)

I think there's an item called Floating Shield that is basically that.

It's just a light wooden shield that defends on its own for a bit without hands needed but it can't be used for Shield Block.

As to porting shields, assuming you are doing this partly to bring along Shield Block (And that you are not porting 3 action economy), 2 suggestions:

Move action to raise, immediate action to block.

Swift to raise, expend an Attack of Opportunity to block.

The former prevents full attacks and so honestly would probably be pretty bad by PF standards unless you were a caster or a Path of War class.

The latter is much stronger, allows a bunch of shield blocking with combat reflexes, but may not be well-liked by anyone who uses swift actions a lot. I can see S&B Paladins a bit miffed at not being able to shield, lay on hands self, and attack in the same round.

Then again in the first one shield blocking would also prevent a swift action in the next round.

And maybe have a feat with BAB requirement to reduce or nix the action cost? Maybe tack it onto the Shield Master feat?


Edge93 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

(Cough, related. How do you think Animated Shield will work in PF2?)

I think there's an item called Floating Shield that is basically that.

It's just a light wooden shield that defends on its own for a bit without hands needed but it can't be used for Shield Block.

As to porting shields, assuming you are doing this partly to bring along Shield Block (And that you are not porting 3 action economy), 2 suggestions:

Move action to raise, immediate action to block.

Swift to raise, expend an Attack of Opportunity to block.

The former prevents full attacks and so honestly would probably be pretty bad by PF standards unless you were a caster or a Path of War class.

The latter is much stronger, allows a bunch of shield blocking with combat reflexes, but may not be well-liked by anyone who uses swift actions a lot. I can see S&B Paladins a bit miffed at not being able to shield, lay on hands self, and attack in the same round.

Then again in the first one shield blocking would also prevent a swift action in the next round.

And maybe have a feat with BAB requirement to reduce or nix the action cost? Maybe tack it onto the Shield Master feat?

Well you're talking to someone that hates people trying to get 15 attacks per round or something stupid. Even 3-4 seems like it's pushing it. So introducing it as "Move, Immediate" can give a reason for Vital Strike line to be picked up. And I use some Feat tax rules anyway so it's not that much of a problem(Tax wise).

The idea to use Attack of Opportunity is a decent idea too. And maybe each Shield feat can give +1 Block use?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Weapon traits and maybe Poison. Also maybe yoinking trinkets as maybe a psudo magic item slot(?) rather than "burn it and drop it".

Related question cause my friend already put Healing spells into Necromancy in his home games; why?

I mean, okay Conjuration doesn't sound like that's where they should be but Necromancy, the study of unlife, technically doesn't sound like it should be the place to put spells that cater to prolonging the living state. At best, at least to me, Necromancy can "Fake" life. Example being False Life.

No idea what I would put Healing spells under, those tend to get their own tree/area at times though.

I believe the idea in this is that Necromancy is supposed to be magic that deals with/controls life force period, not specifically unlife.

At least that's how I've heard it said in any mention of healing spells being Necromancy.

And yet these days it's usually depicted "Necromancy = Unlife" to the point it's basically a given. And with all the talk of killing "Sacred Cows" over the course of the playtest, reviving the cow of "Healing = Necromancy" seemed a weird one to me.

{. . .}

Necromancy: Also works on sacred cows.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I like much of how they streamlined crafting. Having the amount of the income increase gradually as there proficiency increases, but jumping more as they reach certain 'ranks'. it is a little similar to something I was mulling over anyway, prior to reading the playtest rules. In a way it introduced the concept that the rank (UTEML) impacts the degree of what your success means. I like that concept. A trained individual making who succeeds at a roll, if measured against an Expert at that skill for instance will probably be out shined consistently, unless the trained individual got a critical. Or this is kind of how I look at it in general.

It also has the benefit of avoiding the issue of people with an ability to craft magic or traps, or other items defined with a rate of 1000gp/day, the old rules allowed them to have immense crafting income if they just have the needed starting capital to blow away any relevant skilled based crafting. The new rules allow crafting to give people custom items, as well as a means to get income. But it doesn't have a hole that allows you to rapidly multiply your capital after a specific point. [you could control it by saying, sorry they won't buy your potions any longer, but the players may point to a rule saying, but it says I can sell it for half price, so I want at least that]

So the crafting rules work as a framework that helps fix the appearance that income as being too slow linear progression, as well as the sudden issue with certain non-mundane crafting abilities, of your starting capital being able to be rapidly multiplied via crafting.

I love the concept of the weapons traits giving the weapons more than just damage dice, handedness and complexity tiers. This is wonderful addition in my opinion. Makes me wish armor had both positive and negative traits. Being able to parry because of using a parrying weapon is great rather than requiring a feat to be able to parry was an improvement.

I like the general concepts of the runes, including portability. I've seen the concept of gems that could be swapped out on items. This is a pretty clean and understandable method. Portable, but not end user portable, as there is still a small cost towards a transference. I also personally like the potency increasing damage dice, making the original weapon remain relevant. I look forward to seeing how people won't be entirely dependent on the magic enchantments to get reasonable damage multiples however.

At first I like having multiple actions to begin with, and it felt like it was a great way to handle being able to attack with two weapons at an early level. However, I become severely disappointed when I realized by the RAW rules, without a feat for some sort of two weapon fighting 'special action', there is absolutely no reason to hold a second dagger in their off hand, in order to get a second attack. Carrying a second identical weapon in your other hand is if anything a liability to being able to get another attack action in, since it limits your options of trying to do a grab or other maneuver. By nature, it is equally efficient and available, to make a second attack with your dagger in your first hand than to try to get another attack in using your other hand. This seemed to simply not make sense. I can understand wanting a feat to make it more usable, but making a second weapon flat out being a liability in a fight by default, seemed harsh. If I could find a easy way around that I'd consider it (and would likely use the improvement in 2nd edition).


Loreguard wrote:
At first I like having multiple actions to begin with, and it felt like it was a great way to handle being able to attack with two weapons at an early level. However, I become severely disappointed when I realized by the RAW rules, without a feat for some sort of two weapon fighting 'special action', there is absolutely no reason to hold a second dagger in their off hand, in order to get a second attack. Carrying a second identical weapon in your other hand is if anything a liability to being able to get another attack action in, since it limits your options of trying to do a grab or other maneuver. By nature, it is equally efficient and available, to make a second attack with your dagger in your first hand than to try to get another attack in using your other hand. This seemed to simply not make sense. I can understand wanting a feat to make it more usable, but making a second weapon flat out being a liability in a fight by default, seemed harsh. If I could find a easy way around that I'd consider it (and would likely use the improvement in 2nd edition).

Now I think that in the final version there will be a feat for two-weapon styles for every martial class but maybe it would be worth it to give a small bonus regardless, to make the fighting style have some merit even without feats. Maybe an action like this.

Off-hand attack: Make a strike with a light weapon held in your off-hand, if you haven't attacked with a weapon using your off-hand this turn reduce the MAP for this strike by 2 (the culmative penalty increases as normal).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm surprised more people haven't realized this but there actually is a built-in benefit to two-weapon fighting. Not to wielding paired weapons, but harking back to the original D&D twf where you were supposed to wield a one-handed weapon in your main hand and a light weapon in your off hand.

Namely, if your off hand weapon is agile and your main hand weapon is not, then you can make your first attack with your main weapon - boosting your damage over striking first with the agile weapon - and your second attack with the agile weapon - boosting your accuracy over striking second with the main weapon.

It's small, but it's there.


MaxAstro wrote:

I'm surprised more people haven't realized this but there actually is a built-in benefit to two-weapon fighting. Not to wielding paired weapons, but harking back to the original D&D twf where you were supposed to wield a one-handed weapon in your main hand and a light weapon in your off hand.

Namely, if your off hand weapon is agile and your main hand weapon is not, then you can make your first attack with your main weapon - boosting your damage over striking first with the agile weapon - and your second attack with the agile weapon - boosting your accuracy over striking second with the main weapon.

It's small, but it's there.

I assume most people think about this. There is also just the option of holding a weapon with a different dmg type or traits, like a whip in the off-hand. But I do think most, if not all martial classes should be able to benefit more from it (and I think they will be).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, that's true. I'd be surprised if the majority of martial classes didn't eventually get at least one TWF feat. I'd also put money on there being a TWF archetype.

I will say that your suggested action has some balance issues - if it doesn't stack with agile then it obviates agile weapons, and if it does stack with agile then +3 to hit on your second attack is so good that everyone will want to TWF all the time.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Nettah wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I'm surprised more people haven't realized this but there actually is a built-in benefit to two-weapon fighting. Not to wielding paired weapons, but harking back to the original D&D twf where you were supposed to wield a one-handed weapon in your main hand and a light weapon in your off hand.

Namely, if your off hand weapon is agile and your main hand weapon is not, then you can make your first attack with your main weapon - boosting your damage over striking first with the agile weapon - and your second attack with the agile weapon - boosting your accuracy over striking second with the main weapon.

It's small, but it's there.

I assume most people think about this. There is also just the option of holding a weapon with a different dmg type or traits, like a whip in the off-hand. But I do think most, if not all martial classes should be able to benefit more from it (and I think they will be).

@MaxAstro

I acknowledge, often twf was one one-handed weapons and one light weapon. However, I think two light weapons was also a reasonably common option in the past for someone who focused on something like a dagger. I wouldn't have an issue with someone needing a feat to be effective at using two full one-handed weapons, but two light ones seem reasonable if they are proficient with the light weapon.

You are correct about there being a small choice difference available right now, between attacking first with your main weapon, and then using a second agile weapon. You have a better chance of doing more damage that way with the first attack, but it becomes harder to hit with the second (potentially)lighter weapon. Or you can use the lighter weapon to hit first, and will have the same chance to hit the first time, but the second one, will have a slightly better chance to hit than the other second attack.

However, I think in practice from a math standpoint, in the end, people will either need accuracy or damage as their priority. Which means they will either use their larger weapon for all their attacks, or will use their agile weapon for all but their last attack. (which as far as I can see will normally have no reason not to use their biggest weapon for their last attack)

@Nettah
I think you are right, most people are going to see the primary, if only benefit of holding two weapons, will be using weapons with different traits, and/or doing different damage types to leverage weakness, or get around resistance. I guess there is also having a non-lethal weapon available in cases where that would be of advantage. But I think this means most attacks will be repeat attacks with the same relevant weapon, rather than an attack using each arm.

Although, in a bit of retrospect, I'm perhaps wrong about it with respect to the last attack each round, which might tend to just always be the large one. It just seems a bit disappointing to me, when both weapons are used the big one being the last, since it seems backwards to me from what I would expect to see/read in a fiction story describing such an encounter. In them, I would expect hearing the bigger weapon feeling like the primary, or first weapon, with the smaller one being a followup strike.

I suppose if I were writing a fiction to describe an adventure, I'd probably not worry too much about the actual game choice of order, and would describe the actions of a particular round for a person, an the others in the encounter in an order that makes the most enjoyable story, than technical iteration of the rules, so maybe it doesn't matter as much. But it is likely the origin of my feeling of it having a feeling of it being off, a bit.


MaxAstro wrote:

Yeah, that's true. I'd be surprised if the majority of martial classes didn't eventually get at least one TWF feat. I'd also put money on there being a TWF archetype.

I will say that your suggested action has some balance issues - if it doesn't stack with agile then it obviates agile weapons, and if it does stack with agile then +3 to hit on your second attack is so good that everyone will want to TWF all the time.

Nearly all light weapons are also agile. I haven't thought a lot about the math and all the different scenarios, it was pretty much just a random number. However I doesn't seem game-breaking to me with the numbers stacking.

A scenario with a fighter swinging twice with a greatsword or once with a longsword and then a shortsword with these rules end up with favoring the greatsword by 1,475 dmg on average per round, where it currently favors the greatsword by 2,225 dmg.

But it might be such a good action it makes Double Slice less mandatory or worth the feat. It might be a bit too strong on rogue that is currently using 1-handed weapons with a free hand without getting a benefit, but then again rogues could also get dedication to get double slice or something else to better utilize their off-hand.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Actually, Loreguard, if you do the math then one-handed weapon + light weapon is strictly a benefit over either other option. Let's consider three attach routines. In the first one, let's say you attack with a one-handed weapon twice, giving something like this:

+9 (1d8+3), +4 (1d8+3)

For the second attack routine, let's attack with an agile weapon twice:

+9 (1d6+3), +5 (1d6+3)

Now for the final routine, let's attack once with a one-handed weapon and then once with an agile weapon:

+9 (1d8+3), +5 (1d6+3)

As you can see, this effectively lets you take the best aspect of each of the preceding two attack routines. On the first attack, you have maximum accuracy anyway so the larger weapon gets you +1 damage. On the second attack, losing a point of damage for a point of accuracy is a great trade.

Going back to 3.5 D&D (or even PF1e), where the inspiration for this came from, there was a similar issue with the "two light weapons" setup - mechanically speaking there was no reason to do it. The twf penalties for dagger + dagger were the same as they were for longsword + dagger (even with the appropriate feats), so why not get that extra damage on the first attack? The only mechanical reason people would pair the same weapon was for feats like Weapon Focus, which obviously don't exist in 2e.


MaxAstro wrote:

Actually, Loreguard, if you do the math then one-handed weapon + light weapon is strictly a benefit over either other option. Let's consider three attach routines. In the first one, let's say you attack with a one-handed weapon twice, giving something like this:

+9 (1d8+3), +4 (1d8+3)

For the second attack routine, let's attack with an agile weapon twice:

+9 (1d6+3), +5 (1d6+3)

Now for the final routine, let's attack once with a one-handed weapon and then once with an agile weapon:

+9 (1d8+3), +5 (1d6+3)

As you can see, this effectively lets you take the best aspect of each of the preceding two attack routines. On the first attack, you have maximum accuracy anyway so the larger weapon gets you +1 damage. On the second attack, losing a point of damage for a point of accuracy is a great trade.

Going back to 3.5 D&D (or even PF1e), where the inspiration for this came from, there was a similar issue with the "two light weapons" setup - mechanically speaking there was no reason to do it. The twf penalties for dagger + dagger were the same as they were for longsword + dagger (even with the appropriate feats), so why not get that extra damage on the first attack? The only mechanical reason people would pair the same weapon was for feats like Weapon Focus, which obviously don't exist in 2e.

But the first scenario only requires wielding a single weapon in one-hand to achieve, which I generally would favor over something equal to that small dmg difference.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, that's true of the second scenario, as well. The cost of TWF is always giving up your second hand.

Whether it's worth it or not is going to be very build-dependent; if you aren't doing anything with your other hand anyway, why not?

But the benefit being small makes sense to me when it's something that's available to every character for free without the "pay to play" feat that earlier editions had.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I feel like my primary complaint about TWF is that it never seems to give you a reason for the super-iconic swashbuckler style TWF. I really want Rapier and Main-Gauche to be a reasonable thing to do, and I'm sorry but it just isn't in the playtest. If I cared about damage I'd use something other than a Main-Gauche (probably a Shortsword), and if I cared about defense I'd just use a Shield and occasionally punch people with it. The ability to trade most of the Shield's defense (1 point of AC and the ability to shield block) for slightly more damage doesn't seem like a reasonable trade off at all. The only other thing a Main-Gauche gives you that the Rapier doesn't is versatile S, which doesn't seem terribly useful compared to picking up the ability to shield punch for bludgeoning damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rooneg wrote:
I feel like my primary complaint about TWF is that it never seems to give you a reason for the super-iconic swashbuckler style TWF. I really want Rapier and Main-Gauche to be a reasonable thing to do, and I'm sorry but it just isn't in the playtest. If I cared about damage I'd use something other than a Main-Gauche (probably a Shortsword), and if I cared about defense I'd just use a Shield and occasionally punch people with it. The ability to trade most of the Shield's defense (1 point of AC and the ability to shield block) for slightly more damage doesn't seem like a reasonable trade off at all. The only other thing a Main-Gauche gives you that the Rapier doesn't is versatile S, which doesn't seem terribly useful compared to picking up the ability to shield punch for bludgeoning damage.

I personally see swashbuckler more as a rapier combined with a free-hand but there are several TWF feats available to give you a better combination than you would get with a shield. And if you are going with rogue or ranger as a base instead of a fighter you wouldn't be able to wield a shield without a general feat.


MaxAstro wrote:

Actually, Loreguard, if you do the math then one-handed weapon + light weapon is strictly a benefit over either other option. Let's consider three attach routines. In the first one, let's say you attack with a one-handed weapon twice, giving something like this:

+9 (1d8+3), +4 (1d8+3)

For the second attack routine, let's attack with an agile weapon twice:

+9 (1d6+3), +5 (1d6+3)

Now for the final routine, let's attack once with a one-handed weapon and then once with an agile weapon:

+9 (1d8+3), +5 (1d6+3)

Ooorrrr.... THF:

+9 (1d12+3), +4 (1d12+3)

Which dominates everything else, hands down.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

True, although at the cost of fewer weapon special abilities and less flexibility. "Raw damage and no versatility" should be a valid choice, after all.


MaxAstro wrote:
True, although at the cost of fewer weapon special abilities and less flexibility. "Raw damage and no versatility" should be a valid choice, after all.

THF a bit more flexible in combat than TWF because you can let go of your weapon with one hand without dropping anything. TWF commits to three actions to open a door (etc.) rather than two.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I feel like TWF being mostly only a thing you bother with it you invest feats in it is probably a good thing. Having it as a default options seems unnecessarily complicated. Opt in complexity is a valid goal in this case.

That is, once the other classes have TWF feat support available.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Three playtest innovations I will swipe for my home games All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion