|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As a point of balance, I think flick mace should be d6.
Reach is imo a major weapon trait that should cost a die tier of damage. There are no 2h d12 reach weapons - the strongest are all d10. The strongest 2h non-reach weapons are d12 and the strongest non-reach 1h weapons are d8. Thus, a 1h reach weapon should be d6 (+ some minor weapon trait, like trip).
Also I disagree with the concept that advanced weapons should have a higher die of damage. None of the other advanced weapons (dwarven waraxe, orc necksplitter, sawtooth saber) have higher damage dice.
Damage die and traits are not considered independent when figuring out what stats a weapon of a particular category should have.
Each thing - damage die, every trait that has a mechanical function - has a particular weighted value and the total of those weighted values is meant to be equal across all simple weapons, equal across all martial weapons, and equal across all advanced weapons.
It is also intended that the total of those weighted values be higher for advanced weapons that for martial weapons, and martial weapons in turn higher than simple weapons.
And that is why the flickmace is balanced at a d8. Reach is the "something better" it gets for being an advanced weapon and is also further paid for by not having other mechanical traits like 1-handed 1d8 martial weapons do.
It's not "advanced weapons should have a higher die of damage" it's "advanced weapons have better stats overall than martial weapons."
I still don't think a flick mace should be d8, even if advanced weapons are supposed to be stronger than martial weapons.
In PF1, the best core 2h martial weapon was the greatsword. Other weapons were different and had arguable use-case, but for a vast majority of the time, any choice that wasn't the greatsword was a choice of flavor and an intentional nerf to one's own character.
In PF2, there are several good 2h weapons because their damage is the same, and the minor weapon traits give them different flavor. You don't have to feel like you're nerfing yourself for choosing maul over greatsword.
Hypothetical question: If paizo released an advanced weapon called "Greatersword" that had d12 damage and only one trait that said "this weapon deals 1 additional damage per weapon dice", would that be healthy for the game?
Answering the hypothetical: That's a heavily loaded question that basically presumes that the only things which matter are damage (and reach) - which is false.
An advanced sword that was functionally identical to the greatsword, but had a specific improvement? That's exactly what advanced weapons are supposed to be, so that'd be fine.
And to address the implication you are making: If you feel like you're "nerfing yourself" because you pick something besides the flickmace, that's just a feeling, it's not a reality. Any other advanced weapon is just as powerful, and thus just as valid a choice.
voideternal wrote: I still don't think a flick mace should be d8, even if advanced weapons are supposed to be stronger than martial weapons.
In PF1, the best core 2h martial weapon was the greatsword. Other weapons were different and had arguable use-case, but for a vast majority of the time, any choice that wasn't the greatsword was a choice of flavor and an intentional nerf to one's own character.
In PF2, there are several good 2h weapons because their damage is the same, and the minor weapon traits give them different flavor. You don't have to feel like you're nerfing yourself for choosing maul over greatsword.
Hypothetical question: If paizo released an advanced weapon called "Greatersword" that had d12 damage and only one trait that said "this weapon deals 1 additional damage per weapon dice", would that be healthy for the game?
Say they bring in a half giant race and gave it a fullblade (a bigger greatsword from 3.5 and 4) and that weapons dice was 2d6 (scaling to 4d6 with striking etc). Would it be ok for people to spend a feat to get a .5 damage increase per damage dice and I don't see how it would break anything.
Other than the fact that paizo won't make a 2d6 weapon because it messes up the one dice per weapon per tier they have currently set up. So I know hyperthetical.
thenobledrake wrote: Answering the hypothetical: That's a heavily loaded question that basically presumes that the only things which matter are damage (and reach) - which is false.
An advanced sword that was functionally identical to the greatsword, but had a specific improvement? That's exactly what advanced weapons are supposed to be, so that'd be fine.
And to address the implication you are making: If you feel like you're "nerfing yourself" because you pick something besides the flickmace, that's just a feeling, it's not a reality. Any other advanced weapon is just as powerful, and thus just as valid a choice.
Fair enough. Do you then agree that the flickmace, orc necksplitter, and dwarven waraxe, as all advanced 1 handed d8 weapons, are roughly equal in power level?
Wind Chime wrote: Say they bring in a half giant race and gave it a fullblade (a bigger greatsword from 3.5 and 4) and that weapons dice was 2d6 (scaling to 4d6 with striking etc). Would it be ok for people to spend a feat to get a .5 damage increase per damage dice and I don't see how it would break anything.
Other than the fact that paizo won't make a 2d6 weapon because it messes up the one dice per weapon per tier they have currently set up. So I know hyperthetical.
To this point, I'd like to clarify that the change from d6 -> d8 is average 1 damage, and the equivalent analogy I was aiming for was d12 -> d14, and not 2d6.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
voideternal wrote: Fair enough. Do you then agree that the flickmace, orc necksplitter, and dwarven waraxe, as all advanced 1 handed d8 weapons, are roughly equal in power level? Well, lets take a look at how one-handed martial weapons become advanced:
Aldori Dueling Sword => Longsword + Finesse
Dwarven Waraxe => Bastard Sword + Sweep
Orc Necksplitter => Battleaxe + Forceful
So for your investment of likely one feat you get a weapon with an additional trait. How beneficial these extra traits are is debatable of course. Forceful is only as good as you can reliably hit multiple times, Sweep helps to hit multiple times but requires the targets to be adjacent and Finesse enables or helps DEX based characters. Also note that all base weapons already have one trait.
For the Gnomish Flickmace things get a little bit more complicated as the closest we can get for a martial equivalent is the Fail. However the Flail itself is no d8 weapon as it has to trade in its many traits (Disarm, Sweep, Trip) for a reduced dice. The flickmace on the other hand keeps the d8 but trades in 2 lower tier traits for one top tier trait.
On paper this does not make the Flickmace stand out from the other three because all are one-handed d8 weapons that you payed for to unlock one additional trait, so why does it stand out nontheless?
First of all not all weapon groups are equal. Flail and Hammer are far superior to any other weapon group because a knock-down effect combos with itself and works as well versus minions and bosses. The Sword specialization effect, while quite similar, does not impose an action cost to remove the condition but is still good. The Axe effect simply has to fulfill too many conditions before it triggers, starting with the requirement for two targets, so it will easily let you down in boss-fights and is too weak as far as I am concerned.
Second not all weapon traits are equal. Reach is one of the most powerful traits, especially in PF2E because it consistently messes with action economy (yours and your enemies) and severely improves the AoO's your character might posses and reduces chances to fall prey to enemy AoO's. Compared to other traits it is so easy to apply it virtually is 2 birds with one stone. Any other combination of 2 weaker traits just pales in comparison. The Aldori Sword has Finesse, which has its uses and Versatile P which is discussed as being week, simply because currently we miss monsters which have the respective weakness. The Necksplitter and Waraxe both have Sweep and both Forceful and Two-Handed d12 boost damage.
My personal ranking would therefore be:
1. Gnomish Flickmace (superior weapon group and weapon trait)
.
.
.
2. Aldori Duelling Sword (good weapon group and purposeful weapon traits)
3. Dwarven Waraxe (bad weapon group, okish weapon traits)
4. Ork Necksplitter (bad weapon group, okish weapon traits)
Note that the decision between 3 and 4 is rather close and probably depends if you like a hand free for combat manoeuvres but being able to increase damage on the fly (Waraxe) or if you are a character that can manage to hit consistently with 2nd and 3rd attacks (probably Fighter) and you are anyway planning to use a shield (Necksplitter).
Disclaimer: As you can see from my considerations I rate both Sweep and Axe specialization as having very low in-game value, mostly because the requiremnets on positioning. Having enemies line up in order to utilize these traits is hard to impossible to achieve, especially as enemies like the flanking bonus too. In our current AP our level 7 Fighter, who is using a regular Battleaxe, has managed to apply Sweep 3 or 4 times since we started playing and the crit effect exactly one single time since he has it available. And he has rolled his fair share of crits...
voideternal wrote: Fair enough. Do you then agree that the flickmace, orc necksplitter, and dwarven waraxe, as all advanced 1 handed d8 weapons, are roughly equal in power level? Yes, those three are roughly equal in power.
As are a flail, a scimitar, and a battleaxe (which are what I view as rough "martial version" equivalents of those weapons).
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: voideternal wrote: Fair enough. Do you then agree that the flickmace, orc necksplitter, and dwarven waraxe, as all advanced 1 handed d8 weapons, are roughly equal in power level? Yes, those three are roughly equal in power.
As are a flail, a scimitar, and a battleaxe (which are what I view as rough "martial version" equivalents of those weapons). I wouldn't rate them as equal in power. They all have their place though.
The flickmace is a concern because it has no close peer.
It is a one handed reach weapon. It's only competitor are the two whips
which are 1d4S Disarm, Finesse, Reach, Trip
It would still be the best weapon for a shield using martial with a good reaction if it was a 1d6 weapon. Maybe Paizo needs to introduce one of those.
Paizo has made reactions very important in PF2. If your martial doesn't have a good reaction power then your character is about 30% short of optimal. (Which may or may not be a concern to you)
Paladin and fighter both have strong reactions that are greatly improved by reach, and excellent shield based powers. It is just the best option for shield based martials by a country mile.
Gortle wrote:
Paladin and fighter both have strong reactions that are greatly improved by reach, and excellent shield based powers. It is just the best option for shield based martials by a country mile.
I don't think its that clear cut. If you're using flickmace and shield you can not (generally speaking) take advantage of BOTH two weapon fighting AND the flick mace reach.
Sword and shield two weapon fighting is also a very good option. Especially if you get reach from something else such as Enlarge.
I think the flick mace is GOOD, mind. Just not as obviously superior as you do.
I haven't played it enough to really know (L4 currently), but I'm quite liking my Paladins shifting ability on his weapon. He uses it as a flick mace about 1/2 the time but about 1/2 the time slashing (or once specifically axe) is just a better choice
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Reach is a great trait to have, no doubt... but it is being treated as universally applicable and always better than something else as a result, and that's not the case. Like all other traits, it is situational - which means some situations it'd be "better" to have access to another trait.
That's why I don't by the "no close peer" argument, or think that comparing it to the whips in the game and saying that proves it being 1d8 is "too good"
Taking the whip and moving toward the flickmace, giving up finesse is almost worth a damage die size increase by itself (compare a longsword and a shortsword), and giving up disarm and trip definitely covers the rest of 1 die size increase - then making the weapon advanced, rather than martial, pays for the other die size increase. The only way it'd be "more balanced" to have the flickmace be a d6 weapon is to add all the other traits back on - that's just how weapon building works in this edition.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I strongly agree with Ubertron_X's analysis. If I were to nitpick, regarding flail/hammer vs sword, the sword has the advantage of applying flat-footed for a whole round, whereas flail/hammer's flat-footed duration depends on initiative order. That said, I'd still agree that between flail/hammer vs sword, flail/hammer is stronger.
I also agree with Gortle in that the flickmace has no peer. The flickmace has no peer because the reach trait isn't any ordinary trait. It's a trait so defining and unique that imo it shouldn't be a weapon trait and instead deserves its own column in the weapon table. It's a trait so game changing that weapons with reach should only be compared with other weapons with reach. It's a trait that is considered alongside class features like reaction based attacks and class feats. It's the only trait that affects action economy.
All other weapon traits either affect damage (through raw damage or accuracy) or hands (through enabling certain actions like grapple disarm shove trip or the weapon being 1-handed to begin with). Reach, and reach alone, affects:
- Whether you need to Step to the enemy with 10-feet reach
- Whether you can get your reaction attack (AoO, retributive strike, opportune backstab, vengeful strike, riposte-line)
- Whether you need to Stride before you Strike the 2nd enemy
- Whether the caster adjacent to you needs to step once or twice to avoid AoO
- The number of Stride actions an enemy has to take to move around your AoO character to get to the backline
These reach-specific situations are many and different and game-warping. Reach can't be compared to other traits like backswing or shove or versatile. A d12 weapon can be versatile. A d12 weapon can be shove. But a d12 weapon, imo, should not be reach. Reach is so important it should have limitations, just like 1-handed vs 2-handed weapons. There shouldn't be a 1-handed d10 weapon (excluding class specific perks like animal barbarian), and there shouldn't be a 2-handed d12 reach weapon.
Imo, in the list of martial weapons, there's a design "gap" for 1-handed reach weapons. Just like there are many martial 1-handed d8 weapons with a damage or hand perk, I think there is an omitted space for martial 1-handed d6 reach weapons with a damage or hand perk. The advanced flickmace then, should be an advanced 1-handed d6 reach weapon with two perks, just like the necksplitter and dwarven waraxe are advanced 1-handed d8 weapons with two perks and not a 1-handed d10 weapon.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The flick mace is not allowed in my games both for how silly it is and because there's no way it should be a d8. If you want reach with a 1h weapon at my table, you will have to settle for the scorpion whip's d4.
pauljathome wrote:
I don't think its that clear cut. If you're using flickmace and shield you can not (generally speaking) take advantage of BOTH two weapon fighting AND the flick mace reach.
Don't limit your thinking on shield to that. Using a shield has value - even if you don't get into two weapon fighting. It is a good strategy even if all you want is the +2 AC bonus. Shield with a couple of feats like Shielded Stride and Reflexive Shield is good. For sure there are extra things you can do with it. But your interest may lie with other feats and powers. Pick and choose.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Data Lore wrote: The flick mace is not allowed in my games both for how silly it is and because there's no way it should be a d8. If you want reach with a 1h weapon at my table, you will have to settle for the scorpion whip's d4. Consider lowering the dice to 1d4 and give some extra perks instead of removing it.
1 more 1d4 reach weapon would mean more choice, while removing it ( as well as having just one 1d8 reach one handed weapon) is not IMO the right choice
First, I think it's false to assume that simply removing a troublesome option is somehow bad. The game has an exhaustive weapon list,removing one item from the dozens that exist isn't some huge deal.
Moreover, the flavor of the thing is, I think, quite silly. As a DM, if I want to say there are no Flick Maces in my Golarion because I am the DM and I believe they are silly, then that's what it is. Similarly, if I want to say there are no Elves or no Wizards or the party is to be made up entirely of Leshies for a particular go around, well, that's how my campaign will go. I am under no obligation to allow every option or to obsess about it in online forums just because it's in the CRB.
Also, the Scorpion Whip exists thanks to Extinction Curse. I am fine with players using it and I let them know that. It's an uncommon item from an AP, so I am already effectively adding a weapon for one that got removed since it's normally only available if you play that AP and the DM decides to allow it. So, it's basically a moot point.
Data Lore wrote: First, I think it's false to assume that simply removing a troublesome option is somehow bad. The game has an exhaustive weapon list,removing one item from the dozens that exist isn't some huge deal.
Moreover, the flavor of the thing is, I think, quite silly. As a DM, if I want to say there are no Flick Maces in my Golarion because I am the DM and I believe they are silly, then that's what it is. Similarly, if I want to say there are no Elves or no Wizards or the party is to be made up entirely of Leshies for a particular go around, well, that's how my campaign will go. I am under no obligation to allow every option or to obsess about it in online forums just because it's in the CRB.
Also, the Scorpion Whip exists thanks to Extinction Curse. I am fine with players using it and I let them know that. It's an uncommon item from an AP, so I am already effectively adding a weapon for one that got removed since it's normally only available if you play that AP and the DM decides to allow it. So, it's basically a moot point.
Removing alternatives is your result towards something which you don't like.
The game has no exhaustive 1 hand reach weapon list, so even removing just one ( instead of tuning down it) means to limit choices more than it could do for example to remove a polearm.
If you say that you want to use a modified version of pathfinder world where flickmaces do not exist is ok, but it is something you added only with your last post ( while the first one seemed just a fix due to a complaint about the flickmace).
That's the reason I suggested to consider not to limit but instead to balance things out.
Ps: saying that some weapons are exclusive to a campaign is imo wrong, while it could be that their first appearance is tied to one. I am sure we will see new weapon lists in the incoming books, and they will include weapons we found in adventures.
Thanks for sharing your opinion on how you think that a GM making decisions about what to allow in their game is "wrong". I will be ignoring that opinion.
Data Lore wrote: Thanks for sharing your opinion on how you think that a GM making decisions about what to allow in their game is "wrong". I will be ignoring that opinion. That's not what I meant and I am sure you know it ( I simply replied to your "that weapon exists because of EC" for what concerns weapons which are not in the CRB ).
Apart from that, be my guest.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The flickmace is not an overpowered weapon, nor is without peer.
It compares most poorly to a guisarme, which deals better damage and doesn't cost a feat because it's a martial weapon. The 'trip' trait is also a much more reliable method of Trip than the flail crit spec effect because crits are unlikely and can't be planned for. The flickmace also can't benefit from the Knockdown feats, which are essential for any Trip fighter. The flickmace is sub-optimal for any build focused on damage or Trip.
The flickmace's combination of shield + reach is very good, especially for classes with a cool Reaction, but the lack of agile weapons lowers the expected accuracy. So even for sword-and-board builds, the flickmace isn't OP.
NECR0G1ANT wrote: The flickmace is not an overpowered weapon, nor is without peer.
It compares most poorly to a guisarme, which deals better damage and doesn't cost a feat because it's a martial weapon. The 'trip' trait is also a much more reliable method of Trip than the flail crit spec effect because crits are unlikely and can't be planned for. The flickmace also can't benefit from the Knockdown feats, which are essential for any Trip fighter. The flickmace is sub-optimal for any build focused on damage or Trip.
The flickmace's combination of shield + reach is very good, especially for classes with a cool Reaction, but the lack of agile weapons lowers the expected accuracy. So even for sword-and-board builds, the flickmace isn't OP.
I really think we play different games.
Leaving apart the comparison with the guisarme which is ... I mean, why even bother to compare a 2h with 1h ( not to say that the 1h is way better because of the dice, weapon group, and the possibility to use a shield or a free hand or another weapon ).
Reach has too many value here, and agile is in my opinion not enough to compensate the gap.
I also think that the more somebody plays the game, the more he/she's going to realize that everytime you'll have lost an action because 5 feet out of range, the flickmace would have prevented this ( mostly, as you also pointed out, with classes which shine with their reaction, like champion, fighter and barbarian ).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: I also think that the more somebody plays the game, the more he/she's going to realize that everytime you'll have lost an action because 5 feet out of range, the flickmace would have prevented this Or it could be the more they realize that 5 feet of difference isn't all the commonly going to make a difference.
Whether that 5 feet is from not using a reach weapon, or from being a dwarf, or from wearing heavy armor, or medium armor but not meeting the strength requirement to ignore the speed penalty.
Reach is good (as is mobility via Speed). It's not so good as to be the only route to a viable character, or some game-changing benefit that complete overshadows all other possible options though.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: I also think that the more somebody plays the game, the more he/she's going to realize that everytime you'll have lost an action because 5 feet out of range, the flickmace would have prevented this Or it could be the more they realize that 5 feet of difference isn't all the commonly going to make a difference.
Whether that 5 feet is from not using a reach weapon, or from being a dwarf, or from wearing heavy armor, or medium armor but not meeting the strength requirement to ignore the speed penalty.
Reach is good (as is mobility via Speed). It's not so good as to be the only route to a viable character, or some game-changing benefit that complete overshadows all other possible options though. When the turn starts you could ave to step or not. And sometimes you will be effectively using your third action ( raise shield, lay on hand, 1 action spell/can't rip, etc... ).
It's not nearly close as "having 5 more or less feet speed", since the combat is dynamic ( enemies which where within your reaction could be slightly far away on your next turn , or you could simply about to swap target and this new one is 10 feet from you, forcing you to stride, or double step, or just 1 step if you have reach and the enemy has or could have aoo, or no action use if you have lunge and a reach weapon for example).
It's just action efficient in contrast to any other weapon without reach.
Apart from that, you can achieve any fight with or without reach. But the difference is neat.
I'm just saying, the circumstances in which you actually get a difference of Step then Strike vs. Strike twice because you have reach instead of a difference of Stride then Strike vs. Step then strike because you have reach or needing to Stride/Step just as many times whether you have reach or not are pretty rare and also pretty low impact when they do occur.
Because if a difference of 5 feet effective engagement range were as important as it is made out to be by statements alleging flickmace "too good" then there'd be lots of folks pointing to all the other 5-foot differences in effective engagement range as "better and more efficient" - especially because most of them are actually lower investment to get than the flickmace.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The flick mace is a really good weapon... For really specific builds.
1) It only works for one handed strength based combatants.
2) Gnomes aren't really great melee combatants with a strength penalty. They can do it, but you aren't going to see a huge amount of them.
3) Everyone but gnomes and humans (and I guess maybe halflings?) need to wait until level 5 to be able to pick up the general feat and then ancestry feat.
4) Reach is only really amazing if you have a reaction like AoO or Retributive Strike. Which means fighters and paladins only until level 6.
5) If you're starting an AP at level 1, by the time you've hit 5 or 6 there is a good chance you've found some sweet magic weapons, and they probably weren't flick maces. Sure, you might be able to transfer runes, but there's plenty of situations that prevent it. This is the sort of thing you bring in when your high level character dies, not start an AP with.
6) Opportunity costs. I have a hard time not getting Natural Ambition on any human character I build. Fighters certainly benefit from having both Sudden Charge and Reactive Shield, for example. Champions are one of the only classes I look at and don't want another 1st level class feat.
7) Flavor. You have to really come up with a specific back story to be adopted by gnomes, and the weapon is a bit silly to boot. Lots of people are going to pass on the weapon because it doesn't fit their vision, and others will pass because they don't want to be called a munchkin.
So it is a really good choice on Human Shield Paladins. But they also won't get the sweet crit specialization without further feat investment. Even then... I really like the Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe's ability to drop a broken shield and go HAMF with d12s.
Anyone else? It is OK, but not amazing when you consider the opportunity cost. Though with archetypes, weapon styles are a little more open and other classes can pick up shield feats and what not, which helps.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
