Which weapon traits do you value most? Why? And for which weapons?
I think that non-damage traits (trip, shove, versatile, reach, etc.) are better than damage traits (deadly and fatal)(why did they go with synonyms?). And of those, I think Reach is clearly the best (but obviously not in all situations)
So maybe something like this:
Highest Value: Damage dice (not a trait, I know), Agile, Finesse, Reach
Average Value: Free-Hand, Grapple, Jousting, Parry, Shove, Trip, Two-Hand, Versatile
Lesser Value: Backstabber, Backswing, Deadly, Disarm, Forceful, Nonlethal, Propulsive, Sweep, Thrown, Twin
Negative Value: Volley
So how would you rate the weapon traits?
I don't find it so clean.
Agile always comes with a lower die, while Volley has a higher die (or should to make for having it).
Free-Hand is a highest value trait IMO, yet it only comes with horrible damage dice (making Monks & Animal Barbs that much better IMO).
Several of the others are great if doing that shtick, yet (near) useless if not. And it all gets reshuffled if one's using two weapons or mixes up weapons.
I think making such a ranking chart would mislead new folk more than aid, though I will say I think Deadly & Fatal have been overrated on the boards.
I can't give you a good answer without understanding the user of the weapon? It is quite a large problem domain.
I agree it's more conditional than that.
Monk and Finesse, for instance, are traits that enable certain types of builds. If you're a monastic weapon monk or a dex based melee, those traits are vital for your functionality.
But if you're neither of those things, weapons with those traits essentially are just weapons that get fewer traits and can make an otherwise appealing weapon not worth the time.
Likewise, as Castiliano points out, traits have implicit rules regarding how they're put on weapons too.
I guess if I had to rate them independently of circumstances, reach would be at the top.
I think I'd put Disarm at its own tier at the bottom though, I find the disarm action to be really pretty hard to justify taking in any situation where the decision matters enough to be important.
The combat maneuver traits are also very much party/pc dependent imo, especially since they are still affected by MAP. Is it better for say the giant instinct barbarian to trip than to just whack it again? Probably depends on who the rest of the party is. The fighter and rogue will probably love that for instance.
I do agree that deadly/fatal are tough to rate. They are certainly better in PF2 than they would have been in PF1 given how crits work, but I doubt they are worth a smaller weapon die for instance.
Reach is definitely awesome though.
|
Personally, I rank Versatile as really good: Not as good as Reach by any means, but still incredibly useful for covering all the damage types with as few weapons as possible.
While not a trait, a low Bulk is also fairly important: Even if you have a good strength score, the heavier armor you are probably wearing will eat up your extra bulk allowance really quickly. Personally, my thief has a mundane Light Mace, a Cold Iron Shortsword, and a Silver Shortsword (plus a runed improvised Gauntlet + Doubling Rings (Greater) Combo) to cover nearly all of his melee damage needs for less than half a bulk...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would consider traits that enable entire builds simply by existing to be "the most notable". Deadly and Fatal are pretty good and to an extent they do help certain crit-fishing builds but at the end of the day they are damage boosts.
Traits that enable builds is stuff like finesse (enabling 18/14 DEX/STR builds), reach (super AoO builds) and trip. The trip trait in conjunction with finesse is a personal favourite as it enables a ton of cool stuff like 18/10 Dex builds that mainly focus on trips and bards tripping using their 3rd action.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sold on Versatile yet, since most versatile weapons combine piercing and slashing, and so far slashing just always seems to be better. I've seen plenty of monsters with a slashing weakness, but none with a piercing weakness or resistance against slashing but not against piercing.
I think maneuver properties aren't so much to gain a bonus on the maneuver, since you could also get that bonus from items that boost your Athletics. The real value is not having to juggle handfuls of items to get a free hand to do the maneuver.
I'm not sold on Versatile yet, since most versatile weapons combine piercing and slashing, and so far slashing just always seems to be better. I've seen plenty of monsters with a slashing weakness, but none with a piercing weakness or resistance against slashing but not against piercing.
I think maneuver properties aren't so much to gain a bonus on the maneuver, since you could also get that bonus from items that boost your Athletics. The real value is not having to juggle handfuls of items to get a free hand to do the maneuver.
Agreed. I think piercing might have been a grand fathered mechanic meant as a nerf in older D&D editions (archery, the only simple reach weapon, all rogue martial weapons, etc). Most uses for it are either niche (rakshasa) or avoidable with much easier options (sailor background, which seems appropriate for a Skull and Shackles style campaign). It does not appear very relevant in Pathfinder anymore.
Most versatile weapons either let you avoid this damage type, or it gives you a damage type you will never use. Overall, you pretty much ignore piercing's existence, and just treat the weapon like it is a default slashing or bludgeoning weapon with one less trait. If they rolled piercing into slashing for an 'opening bloody holes' damage type, then there would be little lost.
Now, a slashing/bludgeoning weapon? THAT would be a worthwhile trait.
|
|
I'm not sold on Versatile yet, since most versatile weapons combine piercing and slashing, and so far slashing just always seems to be better. I've seen plenty of monsters with a slashing weakness, but none with a piercing weakness or resistance against slashing but not against piercing.
I think maneuver properties aren't so much to gain a bonus on the maneuver, since you could also get that bonus from items that boost your Athletics. The real value is not having to juggle handfuls of items to get a free hand to do the maneuver.
Agreed. I think piercing might have been a grand fathered mechanic meant as a nerf in older D&D editions (archery, the only simple reach weapon, all rogue martial weapons, etc). If, for instance, they removed piercing damage (just roll it into slashing as a 'open big bleeding holes' type), you would not lose much from the game. I only know of one significant monster type that you use piercing weapons on (rakshasa).
You used to also use it for aquatic campaigns like skull and shackles.... but you can cover that completely with a single CRB skill feat, available from common backgrounds.
Now, a slashing/bludgeoning weapon? THAT would be a worthwhile trait.
Yep, Rakshasa are the only creatures that come to mind where Piercing is actually good, but you also have to take into consideration that aquatic combat inflicts a penalty on non-piercing attacks.
When you are looking at a Piercing Weapon, the 'Versatile S' or 'Versatile B' traits are extremely good. 'Versatile P' on a non-piercing weapon is not nearly as good.
Yep, Rakshasa are the only creatures that come to mind where Piercing is actually good, but you also have to take into consideration that aquatic combat inflicts a penalty on non-piercing attacks.
When you are looking at a Piercing Weapon, the 'Versatile S' or 'Versatile B' traits are extremely good. 'Versatile P' on a non-piercing weapon is not nearly as good.
And as I said- Underwater Marauder is an extremely accessibly feat that is both thematic and mechanically appropriate for any campaign where you would expect water rules to be a thing. It solves the issue entirely.
And while ver S and ver B are useful, the weapon was already at a minus by having P as its main damage type. While it SHOULDN'T matter if you switch the weapon's damage types around (P/Ver B to B/Ver P), it actually, in practice, completely makes the versatile trait useless on the weapon. That is the sign of a bad mechanic.
It isn't even hard to fix this kind of problem. If you made monsters in the bestiary that are as common and widely used as 'skeletons' and 'zombies', then piercing would matter a lot more.
Additionally, they could play around with existing mechanics, such as creating a feat that gives alternative crit specializations based on damage type. That would give players multiple options for different situations when they crit (example- a sword user against prone opponent doesn't get much benefit currently, and the flat footed condition makes them crit more often). Such a mechanic could actually make ver P into something useful and desirable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally making some monsters with weakness to piercing damage. Example: suicidal gas balls, you really want to make them explode as far as possible.
I'm totally making some monsters with weakness to piercing damage. Example: suicidal gas balls, you really want to make them explode as far as possible.
Yes, but you also have to deal with the fact that suicidal gas balls are hard to use on a frequent basis. Zombies and skeletons? You can throw them practically anywhere- creations of the necromancer, randomly passing by an old battlefield on the way to the next objective, the remains of the man eating monster's victim's (the monster doesn't make them undead, but it sure kills them hard enough for them to turn naturally).
You need a fundamental monster if you want players to go out of their way to carry around its weakness. I think that this edition could pull it off, since we have a heavier focus on golems. Maybe make a ritual made golem with weakness/piercing because it has vulnerable core. If the ritual is easy enough to pull off, and you make the golem good enough to fill a 'skeleton' role, and I think that you could make a golem creation industry in your campaign that could justify piercing damage.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you could give Piercing it's day in the sun with a monster with big armor plating, like an insect carapace, that resists slashing and bludgeoning. But because you can slip in a thin pointy weapon in the joints, piercing isn't resisted.
So carapace-monsters as the third leg of the slashing-weakness, resist-non-bludgeoning triangle of monsters that want a specific type of melee weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Small physical weaknesses are something the game could use more of, imo. I think there's a divide between expectation and reality with the trait versatile and the infrequent use of individual physical weaknesses.
Small physical weaknesses are something the game could use more of, imo.
Agreed. Thematically, piercing resistance/weakness often overlaps with precision resistance/weakness for me, which is unfortunate because I want to see more of both! Some of my favourite little tidbits from the first Bestiary are simple 'bespoke' interactions like the Arboreals' axe vulnerability. Anything to give different weapon types a little bit of contextual flair.