First of all, let me say I like the approach Pathfinder took to weapon balancing this edition... Up to a point.
What they did is create rules for weapon design:
* single-handed martial weapons start at d8 damage and one trait
* two-handed martial weapons start at d12 damage and one trait
* weapon can be reduced in damage die size to add a trait
* simple weapons start at one lower damage die
* Fatal trait is worth 2 normal traits
* Agile trait cannot be added to two-handed weapons
Note: I'm using trait here to mean combat-related traits, not Uncommon/Monk.
Overall, I like the idea for this approach, but after playing a bit, I feel it is too simplistic.
Why? Well, there is a strict grading to reasons:
1. d4 vs d8 (or d8 vs d12 for two-handed weapons) is okay damage difference early on, but you have to remember magical upgrades now add weapon damage dice instead of a fixed modifier, meaning that Greater Striking Main-gauche is significantly less damaging than a Greater Striking Longsword: 3d4 vs 3d8 is noticeable difference.
2. Most traits are very situation-dependent. Damage is the primary purpose of weapons (at least, most weapons); even if I play a character build to trip enemies, a trip trait on the weapon will be used occasionally, not often.
3. Not all traits are the same. Agile is very powerful in many cases, but Finesse is either critical or completely wasted, while Versatile is mostly useless but sometimes quite handy.
All this means that if I want to play a frontline warrior (Fighter/Barbarian/...), there is a strict subsection of weapons worth exploring. I decided to build a Gnome Barbarian with a Fauchard, leaning into Sweep trait, but honestly, mechanically speaking the drop in damage is not worth it.
There's one additional problem this creates: Dex based builds. They fare the worst; not only do they have to take a Finesse weapons which all have lower damage dice, but unless you are one particular build of Rogue, you don't get the ability damage bonus either - so you have double drop on your damage potential.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I separate my proposed solution (at least, the solution for direct issue):
Limit damage dice variation and more granular trait "cost".
Base price is:
Single-handed martial weapon: d8 with 2 trait points; d6 with 5 trait points
Two-handed martial weapon: d12 with 2 trait points, d10 with 5 trait points
"Big" traits would cost 2 or even 3 trait points (Agile, Fatal), while smaller, or build-dependent traits would cost less (but also might be limited to lower damage die; Finesse would cost 1 but only on lower damage die).
I would allow d4 damage, but on special weapons and with even more trait points / super-special traits. I'm thinking whips. Or maybe Stilleto with Fatal and special "crit requires 9 higher instead of 10" trait.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flagged to move to homebrew forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're undervaluing traits quite a bit. I'd say on my meteor hammer wielding liberator trips as often as she strikes. Wasting an enemy's action is incredibly valuable and it enables the other characters due to flat-footed. And the main-gauche isn't meant to be used for damage, it's to provide additional defense for dual wielders.
In addition, it's true that dex builds don't deal as much damage. They make up for this with better defenses (easier to reach the armor cap than Strength characters as well as better Reflex saves) more skills that use dex, and getting to be out of melee in the case of ranged characters.
That said, I think you're assuming a lot about how Paizo balances weapons. They've said they have a system to work it out, but they haven't said what that system is.
|
That said, I think you're assuming a lot about how Paizo balances weapons. They've said they have a system to work it out, but they haven't said what that system is.
I think people have gotten close to it. Traits are divided into 1, 2 and 3 point traits. A dice size is 2 points.
Bases are
- 1H Simple - d6 and 1 point
- 2H Simple - d10 and 0 points (though no traitless d10 simple exists)
- 1H Martial - d8 and 1 point
- 2H Martial - d12 and 1 point
- 1H advanced - d8 and 2 points
- 2H advanced - unknown (only 1 2H advanced exists and it... isn't a prime example to base things off of)
1 point traits - Versatile, Two-Hand (+2 dice sizes), Shove, Trip, Grapple, Disarm, Sweep, Deadly, Twin, Thrown, Parry, Backstabber
2 point traits - Agile, Backswing, Reach, Forceful
3 point traits - Fatal
Though some values are unknown for how Deadly/Fatal dice are set, where Finesse is (theoretically it's only like 1 point but it seemingly has a dice cap) and restrictions on certain combinations (e.g. Agile+Forceful or Agile+Backswing).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you need to actually test this and see if there's a practical issue.
The differences between the upper and lower end for each "handedness" are what, 2 points per die? (d8-d12 for two handers, d4-d8 for one handers)
How many additional attacks to defeat an enemy does that actually translate to, versus how many extra hits your traits net you.
As well, finesse is a MUCH smaller damage loss than it used to be. At the top end, a melee character who starts with strength 10 will be strength 18 at the end of the characters life, versus 22 for someone who started at 18 (only a 2 point difference). For most Finesse characters, you'll start with a Str 12 or 14 and be only 1-2 points behind after a certain point in your characters life.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These calculations fail to take Bulk, Damage Types, and Specialization Effects into account.
Also, the OP did not mention Reach at all, which is the most valuable Trait for a Melee Weapon.
My Giant Instinct Barbarian uses a Fauchard, and I am not at all disappointed.
Deadly D8, Sweep, and Reach make it totally worth the D8. Trip is just gravy.
I like that the damage dice actually matter. I also like that it's FAR easier to have a backup weapon with a higher damage die if you find yourself in a situation where your main weapon's traits aren't suitable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you focused in too much on the traits - my point was entirely about damage. I agree Reach is a good example of a trait that is worth more than some other traits.
When we are talking about one dice, d4 vs d8 makes sense. But since runes multiply the dice, 3d4 vs 3d8 does have significant damage impact on your output, and I'm sorry, but I don't see which d4 weapon is worth it over taking a d8 weapon with that one right trait.
I think you focused in too much on the traits - my point was entirely about damage. I agree Reach is a good example of a trait that is worth more than some other traits.
When we are talking about one dice, d4 vs d8 makes sense. But since runes multiply the dice, 3d4 vs 3d8 does have significant damage impact on your output, and I'm sorry, but I don't see which d4 weapon is worth it over taking a d8 weapon with that one right trait.
Dunno, i wouldn't say d4 weapons are main weapons, they tend to be side weapons with extra traits instead of the showstopper d6s or d8s with one hand. Might be just me but d4 weapons are fine even if they are never used as the main weapon, starknife is never going to see play as the core weapon in a optmized build(Unless it's a rogue or swashbuckler as die size is not that much of a problem for them and traits like throw can be a lot more important) but it's nice to see variety.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you focused in too much on the traits - my point was entirely about damage. I agree Reach is a good example of a trait that is worth more than some other traits.
When we are talking about one dice, d4 vs d8 makes sense. But since runes multiply the dice, 3d4 vs 3d8 does have significant damage impact on your output, and I'm sorry, but I don't see which d4 weapon is worth it over taking a d8 weapon with that one right trait.
For one trait? No, it probably isn't worth it. Which is why most martial d4 weapons have 4 or 5 traits, almost all of which are useful. Compared to a longsword, if I have a starknife, I get to use dexterity instead of strength, have a 20 ft. ranged attack that doesn't require me to draw another weapon, and get easier follow up attacks. Not to mention deadly helping make up for the damage difference on occasion. For a lot of characters, those things will be worth the damage decrease.
I consider finesse, fatal, deadly, reach, trip, agile, thrown (with decent range) and parry to all be traits worth taking a damage dip for. Most d4 weapons have 3 or more of those things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's one additional problem this creates: Dex based builds. They fare the worst; not only do they have to take a Finesse weapons which all have lower damage dice, but unless you are one particular build of Rogue, you don't get the ability damage bonus either - so you have double drop on your damage potential.
I agree, and after watching a YouTube video talking about how much PF2 took away from Dexterity (such as Initiative now mainly being based on Wisdom (Perception) and a big reduction in the number of Dex skills), I decided to follow the path of D&D5e: Finesse allows any character to add either Str of Dex (choose whichever is better) to both the attack and damage roles (Basically like a Thief Rogue already does).
Then I changed the Thief's ability, so they are able to add the Finesse tag to any 1-handed weapon that they are at least Trained in (so, if you are Trained in Longsword, for example, that Longsword becomes a Finesse weapon for you.) It's true that this is weaker IMO that being the only (sub-)class that can add Dex to damage with Finesse weapons, I think this version balances better against the Ruffian and Scoundrel. Also, this rules change makes it possible to create Dex Monks or Fighters (or other characters) that can add their Dex to damage with their Finesse weapons.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Samurai, I don't know that I agree with whatever video you watched. Dexterity didn't really lose much if anything (certainly not Initiative for the most part - you can roll it off of Stealth most times, or Acrobatics if you're creative) - plus finesse weapons do better damage now that stats and a secondary strength score are cheap.
Light or no armor is still arguably superior to heavy armor as well...
I certainly wouldn't be looking to add more to Dex in PF2E.
There's one additional problem this creates: Dex based builds. They fare the worst; not only do they have to take a Finesse weapons which all have lower damage dice, but unless you are one particular build of Rogue, you don't get the ability damage bonus either - so you have double drop on your damage potential.
I agree, and after watching a YouTube video talking about how much PF2 took away from Dexterity (such as Initiative now mainly being based on Wisdom (Perception) and a big reduction in the number of Dex skills), I decided to follow the path of D&D5e: Finesse allows any character to add either Str of Dex (choose whichever is better) to both the attack and damage roles (Basically like a Thief Rogue already does).
Then I changed the Thief's ability, so they are able to add the Finesse tag to any 1-handed weapon that they are at least Trained in (so, if you are Trained in Longsword, for example, that Longsword becomes a Finesse weapon for you.) It's true that this is weaker IMO that being the only (sub-)class that can add Dex to damage with Finesse weapons, I think this version balances better against the Ruffian and Scoundrel. Also, this rules change makes it possible to create Dex Monks or Fighters (or other characters) that can add their Dex to damage with their Finesse weapons.
Giving weapons like glaives and picks finesse so easily seems like not a great path to walk down.
For one trait? No, it probably isn't worth it. Which is why most martial d4 weapons have 4 or 5 traits, almost all of which are useful. Compared to a longsword, if I have a starknife, I get to use dexterity instead of strength, have a 20 ft. ranged attack that doesn't require me to draw another weapon, and get easier follow up attacks. Not to mention deadly helping make up for the damage difference on occasion. For a lot of characters, those things will be worth the damage decrease.
I consider finesse, fatal, deadly, reach, trip, agile, thrown (with decent range) and parry to all be traits worth taking a damage dip for. Most d4 weapons have 3 or more of those things.
I've never said taking a damage dip isn't worthwhile, but question is how much of a damage dip. I've seen some characters in action with a Starknife and it was pitiful. My own Gnome Barbarian is sadly outclassed with my Fauchard, and Barbarians are actually best comparison here due to highest fixed damage bonus.
Compare to a d6 weapon like Shortsword. Is Deadly and Thrown truly worth it? I don't see it (admittedly, Shortsword suffers from the weak Sword specialization bonus, while Starknife has much better Knife specialization). Shortsword is a good comparison for a reasonable dip and you get most of the relevant traits, without sacrificing quite so much damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For one trait? No, it probably isn't worth it. Which is why most martial d4 weapons have 4 or 5 traits, almost all of which are useful. Compared to a longsword, if I have a starknife, I get to use dexterity instead of strength, have a 20 ft. ranged attack that doesn't require me to draw another weapon, and get easier follow up attacks. Not to mention deadly helping make up for the damage difference on occasion. For a lot of characters, those things will be worth the damage decrease.
I consider finesse, fatal, deadly, reach, trip, agile, thrown (with decent range) and parry to all be traits worth taking a damage dip for. Most d4 weapons have 3 or more of those things.
I've never said taking a damage dip isn't worthwhile, but question is how much of a damage dip. I've seen some characters in action with a Starknife and it was pitiful. My own Gnome Barbarian is sadly outclassed with my Fauchard, and Barbarians are actually best comparison here due to highest fixed damage bonus.
Compare to a d6 weapon like Shortsword. Is Deadly and Thrown truly worth it? I don't see it (admittedly, Shortsword suffers from the weak Sword specialization bonus, while Starknife has much better Knife specialization). Shortsword is a good comparison for a reasonable dip and you get most of the relevant traits, without sacrificing quite so much damage.
Have you actually looked at how many additional actions it takes your party to drop a BadGuy due to your lower damage die, and then factored in additional contributions (most notably hits, but things like trip can also indirectly add additional hits) from those traits to determine if there's any actual tangible advantage or disadvantage based on damage die?
Its easy to say you're doing less damage, because you are - its less easy to prove that in any way matters relative to the actual encounters you face.
|
|
Giving weapons like glaives and picks finesse so easily seems like not a great path to walk down.
Glaives require 2 hands, so they can't use the ability with them. They must be using the weapon in 1 hand.
A pick would be legal, if they became trained in it, but by default a Rogue is only trained in basic weapons and the rapier, sap, shortbow, and shortsword. The rapier and shortsword are already Finesse, so by default this only adds the sap and all non-finesse basic weapons.
If the character gains the ability to use a pick some other way (like Dwarven Weapon familiarity), I'm fine with allowing them to use it finesse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main concern with the rules as stand is that a d4 martial or advanced weapon is basically never worth using. There are d6, d8, and d10 weapons which are a step down but are worth using because of traits, but like whips, sais, and starknives are a hard sell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our Champion from AoA is a Starknife user, he still does great damage between his 2 attacks w/agility and the various blade bond specials. The 20 ft range gives him a lot of lee-way in movement to. It's been super fun, and him not having to swap out to another weapon to fire at a distance has been a huge boon in places.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think massively buffing one-handed weapons like that is a good call. Paizo already did the balancing job for us in terms of stats and weapons.
Or are you still doing that thing, Samurai, where you're trying to rewrite the whole game despite not having actually played it at all, because I definitely remember a lot of people making fun of you for that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played many times now (last Sunday most recently), and my play experiences have even changed some of my house rules (the way shields now work in my rules, for instance).
But I feel people made fun because they don't fully know me or my gaming experience. I'm a published game author with almost 40 years of experience in multiple systems, even had a hand in shaping some of them over the years, so I certainly feel able to modify my own games, and offer advice to others that may be unhappy or want to make changes as well. I'm not charging for my rules download, the way many authors on DM's Guild do, so you are free to take or leave my suggestions.
I'm a big believer in the sentiment that "The game you hold in your hands is now your game, do with it as you wish." That feeling doesn't change whether I wrote the book myself or someone else wrote it and I bought it. If I wrote it and someone is posting changes for something they don't like, I'm open to hearing them and I may even point out unseen rules interactions that the gamer didn't consider. If I like their change better than my original rule, I may even make the change "official" and give them credit for the idea (there are 3 other people credited for ideas in my house rules at the end).
My main concern with the rules as stand is that a d4 martial or advanced weapon is basically never worth using. There are d6, d8, and d10 weapons which are a step down but are worth using because of traits, but like whips, sais, and starknives are a hard sell.
I'd say whips have some appeal, just because one handed reach AND trip are a nice combination of traits.
But I'll agree it's pretty hard to get excited about sais or tekko-kagi or bladed diabolos.
Sai is especially bad since it's basically just a dagger that does bludgeoning instead of slashing but you can't throw it.
Part of it I think is a matter of audience. Rogues don't get proficiency with a big chunk of the weapons we're talking about and the majority of fighters, champions and barbarians I see are predisposed toward Strength builds anyways. It's unclear, looking at some of these weapons, who's really intended to use them.
Maybe Swashbucklers or Investigators will get more mileage out of them, if they have the proficiency and are predisposed toward using finesse weapons.
Our Champion from AoA is a Starknife user, he still does great damage between his 2 attacks w/agility and the various blade bond specials. The 20 ft range gives him a lot of lee-way in movement to. It's been super fun, and him not having to swap out to another weapon to fire at a distance has been a huge boon in places.
Great damage is measured by comparing it to the damage of the people around you. How does his average damage compare to a Champion wielding a longsword or the other members of the group?
Why is Reach the best trait? For attack of opportunity?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main concern with the rules as stand is that a d4 martial or advanced weapon is basically never worth using. There are d6, d8, and d10 weapons which are a step down but are worth using because of traits, but like whips, sais, and starknives are a hard sell.
If you feel that way, what if magic weapons add 1d6 or 1d8 each step instead of an additional weapon damage die? That would benefit weaker weapons that do 1d4 damage, and in turn weaken big 2-handed weapons that do 1d10 or 1d12. It would standardize the magical bonuses, closer to how they were back in 1e, where they typically added 1d6 damage, whether it is fire, cold, electricity, etc.
Versatile is useless, since there is always a "not piercing" damage type among the two, and that is the one you stick with, and you might as well just give the weapon that damage and save the trait.
Versatile never gives you Slashing/Bludgeoning. Those are the only ones people care about. unless they added in a bunch of monsters with weakness:piercing, then it is pretty much just "that thing you use in a rakshasa or aquatic campaign".
And aquatic campaigns likely skip it, since there is a very easy to grab skill feat that removes the water mechanics for damage types.
Pathfinder grandfathered in D&D's weapon system. And I am pretty sure that piercing is a nerf (found on: most archery weapons, the only simple reach weapon, most of the martial weapons that rogues get; no slashing on one or two handed simple weapons).
grading to reasons:
1. d4 vs d8 (or d8 vs d12 for two-handed weapons) is okay damage difference early on, but you have to remember magical upgrades now add weapon damage dice instead of a fixed modifier, meaning that Greater Striking Main-gauche is significantly less damaging than a Greater Striking Longsword: 3d4 vs 3d8 is noticeable difference.
Yeah but you don't use a main-gauche in a vacuum. You use it as an offand weapon for defensive purposes. It doesn't provide as big a bonus as a shield by default, but it does have the agile and finesse traits making it better for many builds. And if you take some of the Twin Parry related feats, it usually nets you +1 over say, a short sword. I'll gladly take +1 to my AC over even the 4 points of damage with a major striking rune.
PF2 weapons are like PF2 armor. There is quite likely a best option for your particular build, but there isn't necessarily a best option for all builds. A breast plate is not better than leather armor, or vice versa. Each is better for certain characters.
There's a horsechopper giant barbarian in my AoA game, and while his damage per hit is lower than it could be, the extra damage he does from attacks of opportunity more than makes up for it.
Why is Reach the best trait? For attack of opportunity?Attack of Opportunity is part of what makes reach useful. The other part is being able to potentially put yourself in position for an optimal number of attacks while leaving your enemy needing to Step/Stride toward you to attack you in return.
Attack of Opportunity gives you a large chance of a full value (no multiple attack penalty attack), and places some restrictions on enemy movement. Every turn. It is a major power boost.
Reach greatly increases the chance of that attack occuring, and restrict enemy movement more.What is it worth? Definitely more than fatal or forceful. On the scale above I'd start Reach at 3 points, with Fatal back at 2.
|
|
Why is Reach the best trait? For attack of opportunity?Attack of Opportunity is part of what makes reach useful. The other part is being able to potentially put yourself in position for an optimal number of attacks while leaving your enemy needing to Step/Stride toward you to attack you in return.Attack of Opportunity gives you a large chance of a full value (no multiple attack penalty attack), and places some restrictions on enemy movement. Every turn. It is a major power boost.
Reach greatly increases the chance of that attack occuring, and restrict enemy movement more.What is it worth? Definitely more than fatal or forceful. On the scale above I'd start Reach at 3 points, with Fatal back at 2.
The thing is that's only if you have AoO and the weapons table doesn't agree with this assessment. Every reach weapon only loses 1 dice size (see: Halberd vs Greatsword, Ranseur vs Maul, those are the only directly comparable ones) whereas Fatal (greatpick vs any d12 weapon, pick vs any d8 one hander, light pick vs any d6 agile one hander) loses both a dice size and traits.
The thing is that's only if you have AoO and the weapons table doesn't agree with this assessment. Every reach weapon only loses 1 dice size (see: Halberd vs Greatsword, Ranseur vs Maul, those are the only directly comparable ones) whereas Fatal (greatpick vs any d12 weapon, pick vs any d8 one hander, light pick vs any d6 agile one hander) loses both a dice size and traits.Why is Reach the best trait? For attack of opportunity?Attack of Opportunity is part of what makes reach useful. The other part is being able to potentially put yourself in position for an optimal number of attacks while leaving your enemy needing to Step/Stride toward you to attack you in return.Attack of Opportunity gives you a large chance of a full value (no multiple attack penalty attack), and places some restrictions on enemy movement. Every turn. It is a major power boost.
Reach greatly increases the chance of that attack occuring, and restrict enemy movement more.What is it worth? Definitely more than fatal or forceful. On the scale above I'd start Reach at 3 points, with Fatal back at 2.
Yes I am disagreeing with the ratings of the designers. This a discussion thread after all. Reach with AoO is so strong, every martial needs to get it, or understand why they are not taking it.
AoO is maybe +30% chance of a full value attack action each round.AoO plus reach is maybe +60% chance of a full value attack in a round.
But even if you exclude AoO, reach is worth 2 pips by itself:
- Reach allows you to attack from a second rank, with far less drop in damage or attack rate than a ranged weapon.
- It often saves you a movement action, because you can reach from where you are.
- The various Paladin reactions benefit greatly from a reach weapon
Fatal is vastly overrated by the designers, what is it? Maybe +30% damage in 15% of hits. Good, but would you take it compared with +15% damage on all hits from an increased die size - no.
Those numbers are just eyeball estimates and will vary a lot based on particular GMs and campaigns. Someone probably has better numbers on these. But the estimates are not even close.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from the melee meta which certainly currently strongly favours some traits over others (e.g. reach, trip, hammer or flail group) when it comes to damage dice and weapon choices you usually look at 3 sets of data: Minimum damage, average damage, maximum (burst) damage.
For this discussion we will disregard minimum damage, as every dice from d4 to d12 has the same minimum damage and there currently are no weapons that use more than one dice.
So lets compare some weapon dice (which largely is old news, but nonetheless important):
1d8 averages 4.5. 1d12 averages 6.5. If we take the d8 as the baseline the d12 does 44% more average damage. 1d8 maximum is 8. 1d12 maximum is 12. If we take the d8 as the baseline the d12 is capable of 50% more maximum damage. To no surprise the d12 does more average damage than the d8 and also eclipses the smaller dice when is comes to maximum damage, which is further emphasized on critical hits (and also important in terms of "lucky" burst damage).
These relations will not change if you factor in striking weapons, which just add additional dice, however they will greatly change if you factor in static bonusses.
Lets consider a fighter and a giant instinct barbarian, both having 18 strength and being level 7 characters using +1 striking weapons.
Fighter static bonus: +4 from strength, +3 from weapon specialisation; total +7. Barbarian static bonus: +4 from strength, +2 from weapon specialisation, +10 from instinct ability while raging; total +16.
Fighter using d8 weapon 2d8+7 (average 16, maximum 23) versus fighter using d12 weapon 2d12+7 (average 20, maximum 31). Again taking the d8 weapon as a baseline the d12 weapon does 25% more average damage and 35% more maximum damage.
Barbarian using d8 weapon 2d8+16 (average 25, maximum 32) versus barbarian using d12 weapon 2d12+16 (average 29, maximum 40). Again taking the d8 weapon as a baseline the d12 weapon does 12% more average damage and 25% more maximum damage.
So when considering static bonusses for the fighter the average increase in damage came down from 44% to 25% and the maximum from 50% to 35% when using a d12 instead of a d8 weapon. For the barbarian the average increase in damage came down from 44% to just 12% and the maximum from 50% to 25% when using a d12 instead of a d8 weapon.
Which means that for the purpose of comparing weapons and damage dice as a player (and as a game designer) you not only need to compare their in vitro stats, but also ask yourself about the individual value and efficiency of each trait and/or damage dice as your character progresses in between levels 1 and 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Property Runes makes a difference too, when you are doing 3d4 damage you likely have 2 property runes with it doing 1d6 each. And together with the static damage bonuses makes the difference smaller.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Property Runes makes a difference too, when you are doing 3d4 damage you likely have 2 property runes with it doing 1d6 each. And together with the static damage bonuses makes the difference smaller.
Yeah at, say, 13th level, a Fighter is doing 3dX+9+2d6. That's 23.5 for d4 weapons, and 29.5 for d8 ones. That's a bit over a 25% damage increase.
That sounds like a lot, but let's compare real weapons in actual combat taking their properties into account, shall we?
How about we look at a light pick (an actual 1d4 weapon with damage adding stuff) and a longsword.
Assuming attacking a high AC at level 13, the Fighter should have +28 to hit on their first attack vs. AC 34.
That's a DPR of 42.55 for two attacks with the light pick, and 45.55 for two attacks with the longsword, meaning that any attack that costs two or more actions you're probably favoring the longsword. On the other hand on three attacks, the pick goes to a DPR of 52.73 and the longsword to only 51.625, and any boost to accuracy or additional attacks on top of that help the pick more than the longsword. So those look really competitive depending on specific build and options.
Now, that's a crit-focused weapon on a Fighter (who will do better than other Classes with such weapons), but there are other possible d4 weapons out there for other builds, and even more 1d6 options (indeed, the standard pick using the above Fighter math has a DPR of 46.325 on two attacks, and 52.5 on three, making it better than either of the above options), and I certainly wouldn't say that analysis strongly favors the longsword (the highest damage weapon in the example).
That's all ignoring anything but DPR, too, something that should not be assumed as many non-DPR properties are quite useful and worth a small hit to damage.
In addition to pure damage calculations, the existance of trait monsters like Whip can single-handedly enable certain builds or strategies. Whip fighters dumping STR for great trippage at a range, and re-tripping AoOs are pretty cool. So is whip bards tripping with their 3rd action after spells.
What do you mean re-tripping on AoOs? I have not seen any ability in PF2 that allows that. I assumed it was deliverate, since since provokes AoOs AFTER you finish getting up, which removes the protection that PF1 added against complete trip-locking.
Yeah, I don't see how you could do that. Trip isn't a Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was referring to the critical specialisation of the flail group, which knocks the target prone. I should have been a bit more clear.
This also obviously doesn't crit-lock, but is a pretty cool thing you can do with trips and AoOs.
Why is Reach the best trait? For attack of opportunity?
If you have range and your target does not then they are spending at least one action to try to move into range to retaliate with you. You can move around with less chance of triggering any AOO or reactions and also if you have aoo or reactions a larger footprint to apply those in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean re-tripping on AoOs? I have not seen any ability in PF2 that allows that. I assumed it was deliverate, since since provokes AoOs AFTER you finish getting up, which removes the protection that PF1 added against complete trip-locking.
Critical specialization of flails is that a crit strike knocks people prone. Theres nothing better than being a meteor hammer fighter and basically pronelocking an enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean re-tripping on AoOs? I have not seen any ability in PF2 that allows that. I assumed it was deliverate, since since provokes AoOs AFTER you finish getting up, which removes the protection that PF1 added against complete trip-locking.Critical specialization of flails is that a crit strike knocks people prone. Theres nothing better than being a meteor hammer fighter and basically pronelocking an enemy.
Can confirm, AOO focused maul fighter with bard support and flanking is gross.
The critical specialization effect from the flail group is definitely good. It's also a different thing than a Trip.
Using the word "trip", which means a specific action that results in knocking the enemy prone on a success, when you're thinking of a critical specialization effect, which is a bonus effect on another action and only knocks prone on a critical success, is not ideal.
The critical specialization effect from the flail group is definitely good. It's also a different thing than a Trip.
Using the word "trip", which means a specific action that results in knocking the enemy prone on a success, when you're thinking of a critical specialization effect, which is a bonus effect on another action and only knocks prone on a critical success, is not ideal.
I mean, its not ideal but its not entirely misleading since the concept has been around since... 3e?
Also, a lot of cases in my experience were set up by someone else (the Champion) tripping the "target" and then the Fighter moving into aoo range. "Trip-lock" is a fairly accurate description.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who's homebrewed weapons and playtested them in my current campaign, reach is insanely good, especially if it's mixed with a Maneuver trait (trip/shove/disarm/grapple). I think the trait that's the least used (backswing) is actually quite strong on a Fighter with a Press ability, and even without feats is rather decent if mixed with forceful or deadly. d4 die weapons are really your "bag of traits" items where you can just go crazy with what it can/can't be, and you never use them with the sole intention of dropping a body by damage alone. You have to think about weapons like you do damage spells, do you want maximum carnage? Or do you want something that stings that also has a rider effect that might cripple the enemy for a turn? A rapier is d6 1h with some traits littered around, and it's quite the compelling option, as is the spiked chain, which is d8 2h, but it also does a lot of thing besides "make it bleed more" and people utilize it. "Make it dead faster" is a mindset that doesn't exist in PF2 on the dev's end too much anymore, and it shows in how strong the options are aren't "MOAR DPS" are in practice.
The critical specialization effect from the flail group is definitely good. It's also a different thing than a Trip.
Using the word "trip", which means a specific action that results in knocking the enemy prone on a success, when you're thinking of a critical specialization effect, which is a bonus effect on another action and only knocks prone on a critical success, is not ideal.
I mean, its not ideal but its not entirely misleading since the concept has been around since... 3e?
Also, a lot of cases in my experience were set up by someone else (the Champion) tripping the "target" and then the Fighter moving into aoo range. "Trip-lock" is a fairly accurate description.
...and sounding like the 3E concept, which works in a way you can't do in PF2 is exactly WHY it's a misleading phrasing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
