Let's talk about what we learned from Paizo Con.


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:


I'm glad to hear ABP is coming back and immediately available, but knowing that we'll have to convince groups to use alternate rulesets to make heroes who aren't at the mercy of the gobs of bonus stats they get from gear is a little disappointing.

My reading from his comment is the implication that it will likely be available before the end of the year (when the GM guide is released), though not certainty. But also the implication that it won't be in the CRB/books released on day 1 (which is what I think of as immediately).

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Add me to the waiting with bated breath for the GM guide crowd. As soon as we get options for ABP and, even more so, stripping level out, my group could easily be swayed to get aboard. Having official support for such options adds a veneer of respectability (and the implicit nod from above that the system can handle the change without exploding in an unexpected manner) that a GM just houseruling the changes lacks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
On the surveys, you guys resoundingly said that you wanted to reduce the amount of damage and bonuses the PCs got from items and rather have more of it be from your progression in your class and your choices in building the character, but you also resoundingly did not want to remove those +items entirely, so we did what you guys asked. That being said, I've been pushing for options to remove those bonus items entirely since my first days here (when I asked to find space and get the ABP added to Unchained after the text all came in); even though not many people wanted that option percentagewise, that's still a lot of people that did, so we're going to get that to you as soon as possible. We've announced our first RPG book after launch is the GMG this winter!

Well, I'm definitely happy with this. It was a big deal for me and one of the items on my really short list of dislikes of PF2e. So now I can say I'm definitely pleased with what we got with in this second edition.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lightning Raven wrote:
citricking wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:

I expected the designers to take advantage of building a new system from scratch.

This was an issue in PF1e and it's been in every system where you create the christmas tree effect. It was said several times they wanted to do away with it. Over and over and over.

Yet, here we are. Potency runes (i'm assuming they still do what they did) and Striking runes made it into the final release. Now, I'm eagerly looking for ways to get rid of them and enjoy the rest.

Fortunately they've hinted at an optional automatic bonus progression system being in the core rulebook, which should take care of weapon/armor concerns.

If true, then this is very much welcome for me and my group. We've been playing for a while now with ABP and it will stay for good.

In addition to what others have mentioned, it's also worth mentioning that Striking runes are no longer the "obvious must" choice, since they only add dice of damage and other things do that also.

For example, if you are using a longsword, a Striking rune adds 1d8 slashing damage but a Flaming rune adds 1d6 fire damage. In many cases the Flaming rune could be a better choice outright, for triggering vulnerabilities or getting past slashing resistance.

What this has me really hoping is that "greater flaming" and "major flaming" will be options, so that a character who wants the fieriest fire sword possible can have that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I guess Striking runes may not be the "got to" choice for weapons with small dices, which can make these elemental dice more appealing. Hopefully, the game's environment breeds these types of choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
citricking wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:

I expected the designers to take advantage of building a new system from scratch.

This was an issue in PF1e and it's been in every system where you create the christmas tree effect. It was said several times they wanted to do away with it. Over and over and over.

Yet, here we are. Potency runes (i'm assuming they still do what they did) and Striking runes made it into the final release. Now, I'm eagerly looking for ways to get rid of them and enjoy the rest.

Fortunately they've hinted at an optional automatic bonus progression system being in the core rulebook, which should take care of weapon/armor concerns.

If true, then this is very much welcome for me and my group. We've been playing for a while now with ABP and it will stay for good.

In addition to what others have mentioned, it's also worth mentioning that Striking runes are no longer the "obvious must" choice, since they only add dice of damage and other things do that also.

For example, if you are using a longsword, a Striking rune adds 1d8 slashing damage but a Flaming rune adds 1d6 fire damage. In many cases the Flaming rune could be a better choice outright, for triggering vulnerabilities or getting past slashing resistance.

What this has me really hoping is that "greater flaming" and "major flaming" will be options, so that a character who wants the fieriest fire sword possible can have that.

Yeah, I'm hoping something along these lines too. In fact I kinda think it would be cool if the elemental and alignment runes just added a dice of your weapon size period, since you have to decide if you want the different damage type for potential weakness exploitation despite the risk of it getting nixed by creatures with resistance (especially if they resist "all except x", because then your weapon damage and elemental damage BOTH get dropped IIRC, in the same way that a great weak to both slashing and fire would take their weakness twice from such a weapon). But the fact that elemental runes have a special effect on crit added on might cause that to leave Striking runes actually underpowered. XD

Also I just want to say, assuming the idea is for the max do be 6 weapon dice, implying 2 can come from your character, I think thats a pretty decent balance to remain heroic without your weapon while still having the weapon be great.

3 dice with basic quality mundane weapon versus 6 dice and +3 accuracy with Legendary (+3 as it now seems to he called) Major Striking Rune Weapon is a fairly reasonable gap for a massively magic sword to make and is a DARN sight better than 1 dice versus 6 dice and +5 accuracy.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It also seems like the accuracy bonus from quality is less "required" now, too. After all, a Champion with a legendary-quality weapon only has +1 to-hit over a Fighter with a regular-quality weapon. Assuming the Champion is expected to hit reasonably often with that legendary weapon, that implies that a Fighter will hit reasonably often without.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I also think the balance between character damage and powerful weapon damge sounds good now. Maybe not perfect but good.

I wouldn't want it that the weapon has no influence on accuracy & damage. I also find it very believable that accuracy now comes from quality (better balanced weapon) and raw additional damage comes from magic runes. It just feels right.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
It also seems like the accuracy bonus from quality is less "required" now, too. After all, a Champion with a legendary-quality weapon only has +1 to-hit over a Fighter with a regular-quality weapon. Assuming the Champion is expected to hit reasonably often with that legendary weapon, that implies that a Fighter will hit reasonably often without.

A note on this, I feel like all main martial characters are actually going to get Legendary in a group of weapons, given some stuff we've seen:

Wizards are said to get to Expert in simple weapons

Bards get there at level 11 or 13, I forget which

Rogues now get Expert at 5th level, so either they've been bumped to full martial proficiency or that's the new standard for just-below-martial

And the big one, Barbarian feature Weapon Specialization mentions the damage increase you get for being Legendary in a weapon. Seems odd that they'd do this if you can't get Legendary as a Barbarian.

None of this guarantees anything but I think it's how it will be, martials will get Legendary in one group of weapons and master in all simple and martial instead of master in a group and expert in all.

And fighters will still stand out because they get Legendary in a group at 13th level still, crazy early, and will likely become legendary in all martial weapons instead of one group and maybe even become legendary in advanced weapons!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yes, I tend to agree. Fighters have "+2 accuracy" as a class feature until probably about level 17, and then probably instead have "can use any weapon equally well". Either way, John Wick is definitely a Fighter. :P


Lightning Raven wrote:
Well, I guess Striking runes may not be the "got to" choice for weapons with small dices, which can make these elemental dice more appealing. Hopefully, the game's environment breeds these types of choices.

We will see. The playtest damage rules just meant that using a weapon with a smaller damage die was just a flatly bad decision. Rogues got use out of shortswords, but not daggers, and d12s and d8s ruled two handed or one handed, respectively, with a choice of S,B or P, with a bias toward S/P from swords.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Well, I guess Striking runes may not be the "got to" choice for weapons with small dices, which can make these elemental dice more appealing. Hopefully, the game's environment breeds these types of choices.
We will see. The playtest damage rules just meant that using a weapon with a smaller damage die was just a flatly bad decision. Rogues got use out of shortswords, but not daggers, and d12s and d8s ruled two handed or one handed, respectively, with a choice of S,B or P, with a bias toward S/P from swords.

That's was one of my worries indeed. If in PF1e the dice size almost didn't matter since the bulk of damage came from bonuses, now the size does really matter a lot. This may take more effort to circumvent if the game expects a lot more dice being added.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Well, I guess Striking runes may not be the "got to" choice for weapons with small dices, which can make these elemental dice more appealing. Hopefully, the game's environment breeds these types of choices.
We will see. The playtest damage rules just meant that using a weapon with a smaller damage die was just a flatly bad decision. Rogues got use out of shortswords, but not daggers, and d12s and d8s ruled two handed or one handed, respectively, with a choice of S,B or P, with a bias toward S/P from swords.

The fact that elemental damage Runes apparently now scale just like Striking and for what's likely a similar price is a huge boon for d4 weapons, allowing them to meaningfully compete with d6 ones in a very interesting manner.

This does little for larger die sizes, of course.

Paizo Employee Designer

15 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that you roll more dice and thus die size means more is a feature, not a bug; it means you can put way more cool options on a smaller weapon size, you don't need to do things like 1.5x Strength bonus in PF1 for two-handed weapons, and so on. The fact that the damage die didn't matter much in PF1 unless you were doing die size bumps is the reason why a one-handed d8 weapon was more powerful after a certain point than any two-handed weapon in PF1.

For the specifics of shortsword vs dagger, shortsword is martial and dagger is simple, so shortsword is supposed to be better. A dagger with an upgrade to make up for being simple (say cleric or redeemer of Pharasma) is actually one of the most powerful upgraded simple weapons in that it's strictly better than the shortsword. Most are on par.

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
The fact that the damage die didn't matter much in PF1 unless you were doing die size bumps is the reason why a one-handed d8 weapon was more powerful after a certain point than any two-handed weapon in PF1.

Uh, what? Two handed weapons absolutely dominated the game over 1 handed weapons in PF1. Not through damage dice themselves but due to the increased benefit of power attack and strength.

Paizo Employee Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The fact that the damage die didn't matter much in PF1 unless you were doing die size bumps is the reason why a one-handed d8 weapon was more powerful after a certain point than any two-handed weapon in PF1.
Uh, what? Two handed weapons absolutely dominated the game over 1 handed weapons in PF1. Not through damage dice themselves but due to the increased benefit of power attack and strength.

Well yes, of course. To get the most damage, you wielded it in two hands.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The fact that the damage die didn't matter much in PF1 unless you were doing die size bumps is the reason why a one-handed d8 weapon was more powerful after a certain point than any two-handed weapon in PF1.
Uh, what? Two handed weapons absolutely dominated the game over 1 handed weapons in PF1. Not through damage dice themselves but due to the increased benefit of power attack and strength.

For clarity, Mark is specifically talking about the falcata, a one-handed weapon that when used in two hands got explosive value out of its unique 19-20x3 crit modifier. The fact that it had a smaller damage dice than proper two-handers was basically meaningless under that system.

Worth mentioning that, in the playtest at least, Fighters who gave up on a 2H weapon to run with an empty hand had some of the best debuff abilities available to the class. It's a design philosophy I approve of; if the goal of both weapon loadouts is simply to do the most damage then there is going to be a winner and a loser in that race and the loser is going to be effectively a non-option. By making the goal of one-handed weapons different you can make the choice more meaningful, while also expanding the ways you can differentiate one Fighter's pattern of rounds from another's.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I am liking: Thrash. Grapple is a potent way to debuff an enemy, but having it factor into multiple attack penalties and have a critical failure condition made it really hard to find a time to use it, especially when flanking and demoralize were on the table.

Thrash makes a dedicated grappler feel super viable. You may not do quite as much damage as a strike, but making the target flatfooted for your allies, immobile, or potentially waste actions escaping is an excellent trade.


Getting back to runes briefly, do you kind people remember if in the playtest weapons and armors had room for more than 1 rune? And do you feel this is still true in 2e, in that case?

I'm wondering if we'll see greatswords with striking and daggers with fire or also greatswords with striking and fire.

(And I know you didn't ask, but I also am excited to see more grappling at the table!).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

Getting back to runes briefly, do you kind people remember if in the playtest weapons and armors had room for more than 1 rune? And do you feel this is still true in 2e, in that case?

I'm wondering if we'll see greatswords with striking and daggers with fire or also greatswords with striking and fire.

(And I know you didn't ask, but I also am excited to see more grappling at the table!).

In the playtest, potency and property fines were separate tracks. Expert gear could have up to +2 and 1 property, master up to +4 and 2 properties, and legendary was +5 with 3 properties as I recall.

Logan Bonner made a comment in the current rune thread about "fundamental" runes not counting against others, but I'm not sure we have fully deciphered what that means.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

We know that Frostbrand, from spoiler #99, is Greater Striking and Greater Frost. Also, in another thread, one of the devs implied that Striking runes are a kind of rune called a "fundamental" rune that doesn't count against an item's rune limit.

Also, the fact that he said "rune limit" instead of something like "doesn't count as the item's one rune" implies rune limits greater than one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:
Voss wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Well, I guess Striking runes may not be the "got to" choice for weapons with small dices, which can make these elemental dice more appealing. Hopefully, the game's environment breeds these types of choices.
We will see. The playtest damage rules just meant that using a weapon with a smaller damage die was just a flatly bad decision. Rogues got use out of shortswords, but not daggers, and d12s and d8s ruled two handed or one handed, respectively, with a choice of S,B or P, with a bias toward S/P from swords.
That's was one of my worries indeed. If in PF1e the dice size almost didn't matter since the bulk of damage came from bonuses, now the size does really matter a lot. This may take more effort to circumvent if the game expects a lot more dice being added.

It seems to be the case. Looking at the stat blocks from the bestiary, it looks like maybe some of the lost damage from the lack of potency runes is going to be made up for inherently in your character, through additional damage dice like we see in one of the ranger spoilers, and additional damage bonuses and ways to deal additional damage on your turn, as in the barbarian’s thrash ability.

As touched on by now, there’s also the benefit of other weapon upgrades. A striking dagger may only deal 2d4, but that makes it better than weapons that are a die step or 2 above the dagger. Not to mention, things like flaming which would make your dagger deal an additional d6.

So as a ranger with that precision hunter’s tactic, and a striking dagger of flame, I’d be dealing 2d4 + 1d8 piercing + 1d6 fire damage. Which isn’t bad at all for a dagger.

Sure, it requires some upgrades to the weapon itself, but I like the idea of better weapons being deadlier. Of course a longsword will deal more damage than a dagger, but a character that wants to use daggers can find ways to make their damage at least comparable I think.

Silver Crusade

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The fact that the damage die didn't matter much in PF1 unless you were doing die size bumps is the reason why a one-handed d8 weapon was more powerful after a certain point than any two-handed weapon in PF1.
Uh, what? Two handed weapons absolutely dominated the game over 1 handed weapons in PF1. Not through damage dice themselves but due to the increased benefit of power attack and strength.

Excuse me good sir, we are but humble followers of the Great One, would you like to sit for a moment and talk about the Almighty Falcata?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you folks, I just noticed that thread and am coming back from there. I have no more questions (well, I'm actually full of questions, but at this point it would be really difficult for anyone but the Paizo staff to answer them!) and I'll let you get back to the regularly scheduled programming ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dreadwalker wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Voss wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Well, I guess Striking runes may not be the "got to" choice for weapons with small dices, which can make these elemental dice more appealing. Hopefully, the game's environment breeds these types of choices.
We will see. The playtest damage rules just meant that using a weapon with a smaller damage die was just a flatly bad decision. Rogues got use out of shortswords, but not daggers, and d12s and d8s ruled two handed or one handed, respectively, with a choice of S,B or P, with a bias toward S/P from swords.
That's was one of my worries indeed. If in PF1e the dice size almost didn't matter since the bulk of damage came from bonuses, now the size does really matter a lot. This may take more effort to circumvent if the game expects a lot more dice being added.

It seems to be the case. Looking at the stat blocks from the bestiary, it looks like maybe some of the lost damage from the lack of potency runes is going to be made up for inherently in your character, through additional damage dice like we see in one of the ranger spoilers, and additional damage bonuses and ways to deal additional damage on your turn, as in the barbarian’s thrash ability.

As touched on by now, there’s also the benefit of other weapon upgrades. A striking dagger may only deal 2d4, but that makes it better than weapons that are a die step or 2 above the dagger. Not to mention, things like flaming which would make your dagger deal an additional d6.

So as a ranger with that precision hunter’s tactic, and a striking dagger of flame, I’d be dealing 2d4 + 1d8 piercing + 1d6 fire damage. Which isn’t bad at all for a dagger.

Sure, it requires some upgrades to the weapon itself, but I like the idea of better weapons being deadlier. Of course a longsword will deal more damage than a dagger, but a character that wants to use daggers can find ways to make their damage at least comparable I think.

My whole issue with weapons having smaller dice is because there's no other metric other than damage to evaluate that benefit. Often, weapon traits aren't enough of a compensation for choosing a significantly lower damaging weapon.

If there were balancing factors such as higher accuracy with lighter weapons, DR penetration, special attacks, increased attack rate and other variations, this could easily create a more robust attack system.

I think there should be more benefits for a particular playstyle. For example, weapon+shield is higher defense (that's already in the game), two-handed higher damage, but there's nothing much in-between, at least not unless you're creating builds solely investing in some maneuver (disarm, trip, etc, that can let you take advantage of the weapons) or looking for higher crit chance, which is not even a thing anymore (so far).


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lightning Raven wrote:

My whole issue with weapons having smaller dice is because there's no other metric other than damage to evaluate that benefit. Often, weapon traits aren't enough of a compensation for choosing a significantly lower damaging weapon.

If there were balancing factors such as higher accuracy with lighter weapons, DR penetration, special attacks, increased attack rate and other variations, this could easily create a more robust attack system.

I think there should be more benefits for a particular playstyle. For example, weapon+shield is higher defense (that's already in the game), two-handed higher damage, but there's nothing much in-between, at least not unless you're creating builds solely investing in some maneuver (disarm, trip, etc, that can let you take advantage of the weapons) or looking for higher crit chance, which is not even a thing anymore (so far).

I think you're missing the fact that weapon traits very much are more impactful than in PF1e.

Lighter weapons *are* more accurate, by reducing multi-attack penalty (Agile).

There are also class feats built around certain weapon types, and the math supports different weapon damage sizes. The rogue one-two punch to get a sneak attack with the second weapon is an example of this philosophy.

There are also secondary benefits, like having a free hand for certain maneuvers and feats.

I guess what I'm saying is your concerns aren't founded based on all the things we've seen so far.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, don't underestimate Agile; with how the math works, it's arguably one of the strongest weapon traits, if not the strongest.

EDIT: Also, free-hand Fighters were really good in the Playtest; they didn't win any damage contests, but they could throw around some really nice debuffs. Debuffs in general seems to be a lot more meaningful in PF2e, too.


Well, that certainly makes me happy.

As long there is a meaningful trade-off for the damage, I'm all on board. But I also had a lot more expectations regarding the traits, which is why things that reduced penalties or added extra dice for critical hits, didn't actually excited me. Traits like Parry (could easily be a +2 and spend a reaction rather than an action spent for a +1), Reach (always neat), Forceful and Sweep actually brought a little bit of a different playstyle, but they're still just minor bonuses, which wasn't what I expected when it was stated in teases for the playtest that fighters with different weapons would play differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I plan on using exploding dice as a house rule in my game, which should benefit smaller die weapons more since it is more likely to kick in. I've never used it before, so hopefully it doesn't throw things out of balance too much. Just in case, I'll be sure to let my players know it is an experimental house rule and could be dropped if it makes the game less fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

The fact that elemental damage Runes apparently now scale just like Striking and for what's likely a similar price is a huge boon for d4 weapons, allowing them to meaningfully compete with d6 ones in a very interesting manner.

This does little for larger die sizes, of course.

They also likely scale separately. In PF1, +1 flaming costs as much as +2. In PF2, it seems likely to be closer to two +1 weapons. That's making some assumptions about how flaming works, but seems reasonable.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The fact that the damage die didn't matter much in PF1 unless you were doing die size bumps is the reason why a one-handed d8 weapon was more powerful after a certain point than any two-handed weapon in PF1.
Uh, what? Two handed weapons absolutely dominated the game over 1 handed weapons in PF1. Not through damage dice themselves but due to the increased benefit of power attack and strength.
Excuse me good sir, we are but humble followers of the Great One, would you like to sit for a moment and talk about the Almighty Falcata?

How exotic!


Turtle Bear wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Voss wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Well, I guess Striking runes may not be the "got to" choice for weapons with small dices, which can make these elemental dice more appealing. Hopefully, the game's environment breeds these types of choices.
We will see. The playtest damage rules just meant that using a weapon with a smaller damage die was just a flatly bad decision. Rogues got use out of shortswords, but not daggers, and d12s and d8s ruled two handed or one handed, respectively, with a choice of S,B or P, with a bias toward S/P from swords.
That's was one of my worries indeed. If in PF1e the dice size almost didn't matter since the bulk of damage came from bonuses, now the size does really matter a lot. This may take more effort to circumvent if the game expects a lot more dice being added.

It seems to be the case. Looking at the stat blocks from the bestiary, it looks like maybe some of the lost damage from the lack of potency runes is going to be made up for inherently in your character, through additional damage dice like we see in one of the ranger spoilers, and additional damage bonuses and ways to deal additional damage on your turn, as in the barbarian’s thrash ability.

As touched on by now, there’s also the benefit of other weapon upgrades. A striking dagger may only deal 2d4, but that makes it better than weapons that are a die step or 2 above the dagger. Not to mention, things like flaming which would make your dagger deal an additional d6.

So as a ranger with that precision hunter’s tactic, and a striking dagger of flame, I’d be dealing 2d4 + 1d8 piercing + 1d6 fire damage. Which isn’t bad at all for a dagger.

Sure, it requires some upgrades to the weapon itself, but I like the idea of better weapons being deadlier. Of course a longsword will deal more damage than a dagger, but a character that wants to use daggers can find ways to make their damage at least comparable I think.

They can't. You can apply all those upgrades to a weapon that isn't a dagger and get (at minimum) 2d6+1d8+1d6. (If the goal is to retain a Dex attack and agile). The dagger and smaller damage dice serve no purpose at all.

Going smaller than the maximum in the same weapon class (finesse/agile, one or two handed) is just a net loss. There isn't any way to get that loss back or make up for it, as you can apply the same class or rune bonuses to any other weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
I plan on using exploding dice as a house rule in my game, which should benefit smaller die weapons more since it is more likely to kick in. I've never used it before, so hopefully it doesn't throw things out of balance too much. Just in case, I'll be sure to let my players know it is an experimental house rule and could be dropped if it makes the game less fun.

I've found a site that works really well for testing out the statistics of die rolls for things like this, Anydice. It's got a simple programing language for running statistical analysis on die rolls. They've got an explode function built in, and have it covered in an article. Using that for guidelines, I've built a super simple program comparing the results of rolling two of any of the damage dice types, with each die exploding on the max roll. Hopefully I didn't screw it up. here's a really messy one with 1-5 dice of each type. Both with and without exploding, so you can compare things. It's too messy to use most charts, but if you look at the Table view with Summery data, you can at least judge the means and maximums of each method. You can also modify these yourself, like take a subset of these can run them by themselves for a cleaner chart view.

My quick look shows that, exploding does indeed do more damage, as you'd expect. Whether or not it's too much will be personal taste. Larger dice size still does more damage on average. The progression is still pretty similar for the mean, but the maximums get more extreme with exploding. It does close the gap between average damage of the different die types a bit though, d12s do 2.6 times as much as the same number of d4s without exploding, but 2.16 times as much with exploding. The d6 do on average 1.4 times as much damage as d4s without exploding and 1.27 times as much with exploding. The average damage for all increase, and the maximum damage increases dramatically (technically, the max is infinite, but this has to stop after a number of steps, and the odds for the very extreme rolls become very unlikely). A crit with a good exploding dice roll could get quite crazy, including one-shotting powerful creatures.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Going smaller than the maximum in the same weapon class (finesse/agile, one or two handed) is just a net loss. There isn't any way to get that loss back or make up for it, as you can apply the same class or rune bonuses to any other weapon.

Actually this is just plain false. Critical Specialization have to be taken into account with this edition. Two examples of this would be with a Glaive(d8) vs a Greataxe(d12); when not critting the G.Axe wins, but with a crit it becomes Glave(2d8) to G.Axe(1d12) and that’s before Expert Weapon Quality. A Master Quality Glaive (+2) will go from a 1d8 to 3d8 with a crit while the G.Axe stays at 1d12 even at the same quality.

Another example is with the Light Pick(1d4) vs Shortsword (1d6). The short sword will win on average, until a crit; when the 1d4 turns into a 1d8 because of fatal. Which means a Light Pick with a Striking Rune will soar in damage value while the Shortsword will grow linearly.

This makes a world of difference with a crit now being just Atk Roll > Enemy AC +10. At early levels this might not mean much, except for Fighters which get Master Prof (+6) with Simple Weapons at level 3, but a Fighter with a Legendary Quality (+3) Weapon will be able to hit with a Glaive for 4d8, before even adding in property runes.

So yes, a bigger Die is better for more static damage, but claiming lower die weapons in the same weapon class (finesse/agile, one or two handed) as a net loss that you can’t get value back from just isn’t true.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

They can't. You can apply all those upgrades to a weapon that isn't a dagger and get (at minimum) 2d6+1d8+1d6. (If the goal is to retain a Dex attack and agile). The dagger and smaller damage dice serve no purpose at all.

Going smaller than the maximum in the same weapon class (finesse/agile, one or two handed) is just a net loss. There isn't any way to get that loss back or make up for it, as you can apply the same class or rune bonuses to any other weapon.

As stated previously by Mark, the dagger sucks because it's a simple weapon. If you want it to be as good as a martial weapon then it's gonna require some investment (Sacred Weapon will do it for example). A Rogue option that makes daggers good would be a great thing to have in the game since it's such an iconic Rogue weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Voss wrote:
Going smaller than the maximum in the same weapon class (finesse/agile, one or two handed) is just a net loss. There isn't any way to get that loss back or make up for it, as you can apply the same class or rune bonuses to any other weapon.

Actually this is just plain false. Critical Specialization have to be taken into account with this edition. Two examples of this would be with a Glaive(d8) vs a Greataxe(d12); when not critting the G.Axe wins, but with a crit it becomes Glave(2d8) to G.Axe(1d12) and that’s before Expert Weapon Quality. A Master Quality Glaive (+2) will go from a 1d8 to 3d8 with a crit while the G.Axe stays at 1d12 even at the same quality.

Another example is with the Light Pick(1d4) vs Shortsword (1d6). The short sword will win on average, until a crit; when the 1d4 turns into a 1d8 because of fatal. Which means a Light Pick with a Striking Rune will soar in damage value while the Shortsword will grow linearly.

This makes a world of difference with a crit now being just Atk Roll > Enemy AC +10. At early levels this might not mean much, except for Fighters which get Master Prof (+6) with Simple Weapons at level 3, but a Fighter with a Legendary Quality (+3) Weapon will be able to hit with a Glaive for 4d8, before even adding in property runes.

So yes, a bigger Die is better for more static damage, but claiming lower die weapons in the same weapon class (finesse/agile, one or two handed) as a net loss that you can’t get value back from just isn’t true.

It certainly was true in the playtest. Crits did not happen enough for the benefits of extra damage on a crit to compare well with a weapon with a higher damage die.

Now they say they've increase hit rates in 2e, which means increased crit rates too. So maybe they will be closer in value, we'll have to see.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The statement that it was "just a net loss" was not true even in the playtest.

I also find it a little amusing that the designers have a stated goal of making different weapons play differently and then some people are like "these weapons do the most damage so no other weapons are worth using!"

Like... In order for different weapons to be different, they can't all do the most damage. If all you care about is DPR then sure, you are going to grab the most damaging weapon - because "being the most damaging weapon" is that weapon's role. But if you care about things other than damage, like "accuracy on second and third attacks" or combat maneuvers or crit fishing, then the weapon you want is likely to not be the most damaging weapon.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

The statement that it was "just a net loss" was not true even in the playtest.

I also find it a little amusing that the designers have a stated goal of making different weapons play differently and then some people are like "these weapons do the most damage so no other weapons are worth using!"

Like... In order for different weapons to be different, they can't all do the most damage. If all you care about is DPR then sure, you are going to grab the most damaging weapon - because "being the most damaging weapon" is that weapon's role. But if you care about things other than damage, like "accuracy on second and third attacks" or combat maneuvers or crit fishing, then the weapon you want is likely to not be the most damaging weapon.

Well, other than combat maneuvers, all those things are different approaches to getting the most damage.

Ideally a good crit fishing design should be competitive with a good straight attack design and both with one focused on making multiple attacks more effective. There's little point in being accurate on those second and third attacks if you're still doing less damage overall than by maxing out the first attack.
Combat maneuvers are a different approach and not so easily compared.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

With how PF2e works, though, those styles are going to be differently effective on different types of creatures. For example, weapons with strong critical hits are going to be devastating against groups of low level creatures, while weapons that have high second and third attack accuracy are going to be very effective against "boss monsters" - but less effective against highly mobile boss monsters, for which you will want a weapon with reliable single hit damage.

That's kinda the brilliance of PF2e math/monster design, imo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

With how PF2e works, though, those styles are going to be differently effective on different types of creatures. For example, weapons with strong critical hits are going to be devastating against groups of low level creatures, while weapons that have high second and third attack accuracy are going to be very effective against "boss monsters" - but less effective against highly mobile boss monsters, for which you will want a weapon with reliable single hit damage.

That's kinda the brilliance of PF2e math/monster design, imo.

Yeah, as I eluded to early in the thread, people tend to treat these DPR comparisons as white room scenarios, but monster design variance provides a significant X factor. Even a less exciting trait like versatile can provide you with 5 extra damage a hit against the right low level enemy.

They were also enemies that took massive debuffs if a critical hit dealt more than X damage to them. Crit fishing weapons help a lot there, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

With how PF2e works, though, those styles are going to be differently effective on different types of creatures. For example, weapons with strong critical hits are going to be devastating against groups of low level creatures, while weapons that have high second and third attack accuracy are going to be very effective against "boss monsters" - but less effective against highly mobile boss monsters, for which you will want a weapon with reliable single hit damage.

That's kinda the brilliance of PF2e math/monster design, imo.

Yeah, as I eluded to early in the thread, people tend to treat these DPR comparisons as white room scenarios, but monster design variance provides a significant X factor. Even a less exciting trait like versatile can provide you with 5 extra damage a hit against the right low level enemy.

They were also enemies that took massive debuffs if a critical hit dealt more than X damage to them. Crit fishing weapons help a lot there, too.

Oooh. . . I must find this. I like the sound of that.

Also Crit fishing is going to feel very different at times. I can see the arguments for static DPR against high AC enemies; makes sense. Against low AC enemies like an Ooze? Time to put on the overalls and funny looking hat, cause that’s when the crit fisherman shines.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

With how PF2e works, though, those styles are going to be differently effective on different types of creatures. For example, weapons with strong critical hits are going to be devastating against groups of low level creatures, while weapons that have high second and third attack accuracy are going to be very effective against "boss monsters" - but less effective against highly mobile boss monsters, for which you will want a weapon with reliable single hit damage.

That's kinda the brilliance of PF2e math/monster design, imo.

Yeah, as I eluded to early in the thread, people tend to treat these DPR comparisons as white room scenarios, but monster design variance provides a significant X factor. Even a less exciting trait like versatile can provide you with 5 extra damage a hit against the right low level enemy.

They were also enemies that took massive debuffs if a critical hit dealt more than X damage to them. Crit fishing weapons help a lot there, too.

Oooh. . . I must find this. I like the sound of that.

Also Crit fishing is going to feel very different at times. I can see the arguments for static DPR against high AC enemies; makes sense. Against low AC enemies like an Ooze? Time to put on the overalls and funny looking hat, cause that’s when the crit fisherman shines.

The Brain Collector is one of the creatures with this effect in the Playtest Bestiary.

Unfortunately, Oozes are immune to critical hits, so crit fishing against them won't be particularly effective.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

With how PF2e works, though, those styles are going to be differently effective on different types of creatures. For example, weapons with strong critical hits are going to be devastating against groups of low level creatures, while weapons that have high second and third attack accuracy are going to be very effective against "boss monsters" - but less effective against highly mobile boss monsters, for which you will want a weapon with reliable single hit damage.

That's kinda the brilliance of PF2e math/monster design, imo.

Yeah, as I eluded to early in the thread, people tend to treat these DPR comparisons as white room scenarios, but monster design variance provides a significant X factor. Even a less exciting trait like versatile can provide you with 5 extra damage a hit against the right low level enemy.

They were also enemies that took massive debuffs if a critical hit dealt more than X damage to them. Crit fishing weapons help a lot there, too.

It's also not like weapon design assumes that it's worth it to trade down a die size in order to get deadly d8 (it's not on the whole, though as you say, situationally it could be an advantage, particularly with fewer overall weapon dice than before meaning the damage gap is smaller for a lower die size). Consider the glaive and the guisarme. Both are reach. The glaive is one die size smaller, and it has deadly, but it also has forceful instead of trip, which is a more powerful ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
situationally it could be an advantage, particularly with fewer overall weapon dice than before meaning the damage gap is smaller for a lower die size.

... Did Mark just confirm that no dice are coming from anywhere else to replace the loss of +4/+5 weapons?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
situationally it could be an advantage, particularly with fewer overall weapon dice than before meaning the damage gap is smaller for a lower die size.
... Did Mark just confirm that no dice are coming from anywhere else to replace the loss of +4/+5 weapons?

The loss of weapon dice dmg seems to be made up for my class abilities (such as Hunter's Edge which saw an improvement from the playtest or the Barbarian instinct specialization which we haven't seen yet)

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
situationally it could be an advantage, particularly with fewer overall weapon dice than before meaning the damage gap is smaller for a lower die size.
... Did Mark just confirm that no dice are coming from anywhere else to replace the loss of +4/+5 weapons?

It's been hinted at before that the bonus damage PCs get from Class to make up for lower damage dice won't be in the form of dice. That's looking more and more likely.

The total damage probably still winds up in the same vicinity.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't sure which thread to drop this in, but, new archetype revealed on the Know Direction discord:

Quote:

The archetype from the Impossible Lands region is...

The Student of Perfection!
"You studied martial arts at Jalmeray’s Houses of Perfection."


Mark might be talking about things like the great axe(1d12) vs great sword(2d6) in 1e as well. That was the initial impression i got from it, but i can see your point as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

The statement that it was "just a net loss" was not true even in the playtest.

I also find it a little amusing that the designers have a stated goal of making different weapons play differently and then some people are like "these weapons do the most damage so no other weapons are worth using!"

Like... In order for different weapons to be different, they can't all do the most damage. If all you care about is DPR then sure, you are going to grab the most damaging weapon - because "being the most damaging weapon" is that weapon's role. But if you care about things other than damage, like "accuracy on second and third attacks" or combat maneuvers or crit fishing, then the weapon you want is likely to not be the most damaging weapon.

It doesn't matter what the system is, you're always going to run into a certain subset of the gaming population that declares their way is the "one true way". This weapon is the best, so no others are worth using, and that kinda thing. Totally ignoring that different people might have very valid reasons for preferring a different weapon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
situationally it could be an advantage, particularly with fewer overall weapon dice than before meaning the damage gap is smaller for a lower die size.
... Did Mark just confirm that no dice are coming from anywhere else to replace the loss of +4/+5 weapons?

It's been hinted at before that the bonus damage PCs get from Class to make up for lower damage dice won't be in the form of dice. That's looking more and more likely.

The total damage probably still winds up in the same vicinity.

Seems like the character bonus damage is decoupled from weapon die size, yes. That makes small weapons a bit stronger.

And different classes seem to get their bonus damage differently - not like the generic bonus damage in Starfinder. e.g. Barbarian gets static bonus damage, Ranger gets beefed up precision damage. ...That is, if the bonus damage from weapon proficiency will not be the generic bonus and we just saw it on the barbarian spoiler card.

51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Let's talk about what we learned from Paizo Con. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.