| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm gonna start this by acknowledging this is a VERY meta complaint because the Daikyu bow is a Tian weapon and to be used in either a themed campaign or a "strange man in a strange land" character build BUT, mechanically, its a terrible choice and no Range/Archery Focused character would ever pick it, here's why.
First its a Advanced, uncommon weapon. The uncommon is easy enough to get around its mostly a theme gate that your GM can allow or disallow. However, Advanced is a hard one, and a game mechanic gate. Currently, as far as I can tell (Im no expert) there are only 2 ways into proficiency with a non-racial advanced weapon, that is you are a fighter and you start with trained proficiency with all advanced weapons, or you have martial weapon proficiency and spend a general feat to get weapon proficiency (pick a advanced weapon). At first level the non-fighter path to this is Versatile heritage human in a martial class (Barbarian, Champion, Ranger, Swashbuckler) however Barbarians and Swashbucklers are really melee focused combatants, and a champion is going to use their deity's weapon almost exclusively and no one spends feats on a secondary weapon...so Fighter or Versatile Heritage Human Ranger. But the catch is, if your a fighter you have expert proficiency in in Simple and Martial weapons, and only Trained in Advanced so you start with a 2 less attack bonus vs a martial Longbow or shortbow for instance, and this is a deficit that scales your whole career unless you burn a CLASS feat to make them parity at level 6 (probably eschewing triple shot for better proficiency), and if you take the general feat path to proficiency, you are also only Trained, and the big problem there is that proficiency never improves, you will only ever be trained.
Second, the Daikyu is only Advanced and Uncommon, it has no other traits. long and short bows are both deadly D10, and their composite versions have propulsive. The Daikyu also has a shorter range than a longbow (80ft vs 100ft) despite by its description being a larger bow than a longbow. Generally, Advanced weapons are just that, advanced, and offer some sort of interesting mechanic or more useful traits than a simple or martial weapon to compensate for the feat investment. The only thing the Daikyu has going for it is that it does longbow damage (on normal successes), doesn't suffer the volley 30ft trait that longbows do and it splits the difference between a short and long bow while mounted and is useable, but only to the left side of the mount.
Some may argue that the mounted usability is a big deal for what is essentially a longbow, I don't think so. I don't know about all of you but mounted combat in my experience is a vanishingly rare occurrence, in ~18 years of playing ttrpgs I can count the mounted combats on one hand and everyone I've talked to has similar experiences. And even then, its only useable mounted on the left side of the mount.
The second argument I hear bubbling is the "volley" trait that Daikyu don't suffer, admittedly this is a much bigger deal. I don't have a 2nd addition adventure path handy, so I used my 1e Rise of the rune lords campaign and did some research, in the first module there are ~30 scripted encounters, I looked at the provided maps and of those 30 fights 21 of them are in areas smaller than 30ft across, 9 of them have enough space a archer could potentially get farther than 30ft away and only 3 where the range increment on a bow could even matter. Despite the fact that a longbow would take the penalty from volley 60-80% of the time Diakyu still falls short because it lacks the deadly trait or propulsive (most characters could get into a comp longbow by 2nd-3rd level) AND the fact in most instances your going to have a lower proficiency in that Daikyu bow which makes a longbow inside 30ft or a Daikyu a wash, and really reinforces the surprising usefulness of a shortbow (which in previous additions sucked).
But I wanted numbers, so I wrote a python script to simulate the bows in different scenarios side by side. let the numbers tell the story. My simulation assumes a Fighter taking the ranged Class feats, with 14 str and 16 dex at 1st level, standing still and using all 3 actions to fire arrows at a enemy of equal CR to his own class level. Each scenario was repeated 1000 times to minimize statistical aberrations. The results are interesting, see below.
Fighter 1, Pointblank Shot:
Longbow (expert Proficiency) inside 30ft vs Goblin Commando
of all Engaged Goblin Commandos inside 30ft, average combat lasted 3.86 rounds but the longest 12 rounds with 9.77 arrows fired on average and at most 34 arrows expended on a single foe. During those fights the average damage dealt per hit was 6.24, the most devastating hit was 26, a critical rate of 0.06, and a total accuracy of 0.37
Shortbow (expert Proficiency) inside 30ft vs goblin Commandos
of all Engaged Goblin Commandos inside 30ft, average combat lasted 3.35 rounds but the longest 10 rounds with 8.19 arrows fired on average and at most 27 arrows expended on a single foe. During those fights the average damage dealt per hit was 5.56, the most devastating hit was 22, a critical rate of 0.11, and a total accuracy of 0.48
Daikyu (trained Proficiency) inside 30ft vs goblin Commandos
of all Engaged Goblin Commandos inside 30ft, average combat lasted 4.1 rounds but the longest 11 rounds with 10.49 arrows fired on average and at most 31 arrows expended on a single foe. During those fights the average damage dealt per hit was 5.36, the most devastating hit was 16, a critical rate of 0.07, and a total accuracy of 0.37
What this shows is the shortbow despite doing less damage, having the deadly d10 trait and better accuracy is important. Proficiency and traits matter. The Daikyu as the worst performer of the 3 in the best possible scenario for it, doing slightly less damage on average than a shortbow and a full damage less over time than a longbow.
below in those 9 times out of 30 a longbow can get into a intermediate range, more than 30 ft. but no more than 2 strides to stay near enough allies if needed, lets say 50ft. a long bow becomes king of the hill and its all about accuracy.
Longbow intermediate Range 50ft. vs Goblin Commando
of all Engaged Goblin Commandos at 50ft, average combat lasted 2.91 rounds but the longest 9 rounds with 6.84 arrows fired on average and at most 25 arrows expended on a single foe. During those fights the average damage dealt per hit was 6.61, the most devastating hit was 25, a critical rate of 0.11, and a total accuracy of 0.5
From there I was curious, a couple levels pass, characters upgrade and at 3rd level the ranged first fighter has likely prioritized upgrading to the composite versions of their bows (where applicable, sorry daikyu) and probably gotten a potency rune installed. So what does it look like then, lets say vs. a CR3 grizzly bear?
Fighter 3, potency rune, point blank shot vs. Grizzly Bear
Composite Longbow inside 30ft
of all Engaged Grizzly Bears inside 30ft, average combat lasted 5.92 rounds but the longest 16 rounds with 15.89 arrows fired on average and at most 46 arrows expended on a single foe. During those fights the average damage dealt per hit was 7.78, the most devastating hit was 28, a critical rate of 0.08, and a total accuracy of 0.41
Composite shortbow inside 30ft
of all Engaged Grizzly Bears inside 30ft, average combat lasted 5.34 rounds but the longest 11 rounds with 14.16 arrows fired on average and at most 32 arrows expended on a single foe. During those fights the average damage dealt per hit was 6.9, the most devastating hit was 24, a critical rate of 0.12, and a total accuracy of 0.51
Daikyu inside 30ft
of all Engaged Grizzly Bears inside 30ft, average combat lasted 7.83 rounds but the longest 16 rounds with 21.7 arrows fired on average and at most 46 arrows expended on a single foe. During those fights the average damage dealt per hit was 5.43, the most devastating hit was 16, a critical rate of 0.08, and a total accuracy of 0.41
and again in those 9/30 times
Composite Longbow intermediate Range ~ 50ft
of all Engaged Grizzly Bears at 50ft, average combat lasted 4.58 rounds but the longest 11 rounds with 11.83 arrows fired on average and at most 31 arrows expended on a single foe. During those fights the average damage dealt per hit was 8.17, the most devastating hit was 28, a critical rate of 0.13, and a total accuracy of 0.52
I think you get the point. I also calculated at a range of 120ft which is about the biggest map I saw in mod 1 of RotRL but the results are similar enough to above (just lower accuracy) I didn't include them. The Take away is the Daikyu starts the game weak and that deficit never gets better, it offers half of a benefit in a rare style of combat and as the numbers above show, is better served by a short bow which is less bulky, less expensive and has a lower bar to entry.
So how do you all think the Daikyu could be fixed? My thoughts are make it uncommon martial (like a katana) and give it the deadly trait, but maybe that's too much. In any case the Devs should give it some love in an errata because right now, its trash.
regards,
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone can have their full regular proficiency in the Daikyu bow with 2 class feats. Archery dedication and then level 6 advanced bow training. If you were already not a fighter and wanting to be an archer, then you are just burning 1 additional class feat for the bow.
But even then many characters will be fine with a short bow instead. The ones who will want the Daikyu are ranged characters not investing in STR at all, and people wanting to play mounted archers. It is a niche weapon, but it works well for its niche and is not actually that hard to get. Not having deadly is rough, but by levels 8 to 10 there are ways to get really cheesy with mounted combat or with being a rogue that has no STR mod.
I think it might be a good idea to think of advanced weapons as weapons that make specific niche combat styles work at maximum efficiency. Rather then thinking that advanced is supposed to just mean better than martial.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are lots of broken weapons. So what?
Are there? The Daikyu seems rather unique in its awfulness. I have trouble thinking of a weapon that's as bad as it, maybe only the heavy crossbow. And even then, I can think of more characters that would make use of a heavy crossbow just because it's simple.
EDIT:
I think it might be a good idea to think of advanced weapons as weapons that make specific niche combat styles work at maximum efficiency. Rather then thinking that advanced is supposed to just mean better than martial.
I disagree with this. There are definitely some advanced weapons that support a niche playstyle, like the Bladed Diabolo, Bladed Hoop, or Whip Claw. But there's also plenty of advanced weapons that are strictly superior to martial weapons like the Gnome Flickmace, Rhoka Sword, and Dwarven War Axe. And the Daikyu is certainly not as good as the other niche weapons I mentioned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unconventional Weaponry gives you easy access to it unless your GM is extremely stingy.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, my theory is that the weapon was somehow left in the book after an editing pass cut one or more new Weapon Traits that it did possess at some point in the development process. I suspect they "intended" to reduce it to a Martial Weapon in "exchange" for losing the cut Traits but then that just never got done before the book was printed.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it might be a good idea to think of advanced weapons as weapons that make specific niche combat styles work at maximum efficiency. Rather then thinking that advanced is supposed to just mean better than martial.
I don't think anyone said they weren't supposed to be niche, but they're also supposed to be a step up on the proficiency tier over martial weapons and the daikyu definitely seems lacking mechanically (and also a little bizarre in general, given it's got the only mechanic in the game that requires you to specify facing).
It's worth pointing out it doesn't quite line up with Paizo's trait valuation for other weapons: Trading a die size for deadly is valued as a roughly equal trade (although that's not actually true in practice, generally deadly is worse than a die size). We see it in weapons like the katana or glaive, which trade a die size over similar weapons in order to pick up deadly. But the daikyu loses two traits and is flagged as a tier higher? That doesn't seem to line up consistently.
Also think I have to disagree with your assertion that taking two feats, one of which locks you into a dedication, is a particularly easy or cheap pickup either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There’s no real argument otherwise.
It should probably be a martial weapon. Deadly would be overkill.
Uncommon doesn’t affect power, so that can go either way as the dm requires. Given that it is likely the single least complex ranged weapon, it probably is fine without it.
To remain advanced, it might need 2-3 more traits. Edit: Specifically, Agile, Monk and propulsive might justify it being advanced.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like a lot of "this is broken" complaints with Pathfinder 2e... it's not broken, it's just not as flashy/interesting as less-balanced games have conditioned us to expect a step upward in potency to be.
You're still missing the part where it requires you to spend a whole dedicated Action to draw EVERY ARROW you want to fire from it. This weapon is just fundamentally broken to the point where nobody in their right mind should ever attempt to use it as written.
It's well and truly the worst weapon in the game despite its Advanced category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The comparison should also be to the composite shortbow, not just the shortbow. Trading a damage die for deadly might be even (or at least even enough), but losing propulsive for 20' of range does not work. So if propulsive doesn't push composite bows into advanced, then I don't see why the additional range should either.
Unless they errata composites to be advanced at the same time the fix the obvious Daikyu errors like the reload. In that case objection withdrawn.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that regard, Daikyu stacks up. It is a shortbow, but gives up the deadly trait for a higher base damage, and its extra thing for being made advanced is a longer range category.
Deadly vs a die size is generally considered an equal trade on its own (even if, again, the math doesn't always line up for that, that's how Paizo has tuned other martial weapons). Daikyu loses both deadly and propulsive and is advanced.
Quick reference math on that: assuming 45% chance of a hit, 5% chance of a critical, the 4d8 of a major striking daikyu comes out to 9.9, while the 4d6+3d10 of a major striking shortbow comes out to 7.825.
Also, incorrect numbers on the shortbow, should be 8.525. You forgot to double the 4d6 on a crit. So we're looking at an average of 1.375 damage at level 20... and that's assuming the worst possible case scenario for the shortbow, too.
And that's not even getting into the printing error with the reload or the bizarre facing-based mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the reload of — makes no sense, but if it is a D8 reload 0 ranged weapon you can fire 80 ft while mounted has a perfectly fine niche. Losing volley is a huge deal for a D8 ranged weapon that should be able to be fired with all the regular bow feats. Reload — is unplayable with a bow and will likely be errata’d.
Assuming that is the only change is that it gets a 0 reload, a sprite ranger or rogue on a corgi mount could upgrade from a short bow to a Daikyu bow at 6 and it will definitely feel like an improvement to the character, especially with a striking rune.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the reload of — makes no sense, but if it is a D8 reload 0 ranged weapon you can fire 80 ft while mounted has a perfectly fine niche. Losing volley is a huge deal for a D8 ranged weapon that should be able to be fired with all the regular bow feats. Reload — is unplayable with a bow and will likely be errata’d.
Losing Deadly is also a huge deal. And there's nothing special about the Daikyu that makes it easier to use while mounted than any other bow. In fact the flavor text makes it harder given the introduction of facing.
It specifically changes this aspect of the mounted attack rule: "If you were Medium and on a Large mount, you could attack a creature on one side of your mount, then attack on the opposite side with your next action."
The comparison should also be to the composite shortbowYou probably have a point about that... but I'm not entirely sure. If we should be using the composite version as the benchmark, then doesn't that mean the regular versions are "broken" too because they're literally just the benchmark minus one trait?
Yes actually. That's why I made the specific point about errata-ing composite bows to be advanced. I have no idea why they even went to the trouble of adding regular bows in when composites take no real penalty.
You could interpret that composites are higher level, perhaps argue that they should be (I have), but they are inarguably not. We have weapons that are, and these aren't one of them. This will be an important point when the Inventor comes into the game, assuming their weapon innovation remains the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the reload of — makes no sense, but if it is a D8 reload 0 ranged weapon you can fire 80 ft while mounted has a perfectly fine niche. Losing volley is a huge deal for a D8 ranged weapon that should be able to be fired with all the regular bow feats. Reload — is unplayable with a bow and will likely be errata’d.Losing Deadly is also a huge deal. And there's nothing special about the Daikyu that makes it easier to use while mounted than any other bow. In fact the flavor text makes it harder given the introduction of facing.
It specifically changes this aspect of the mounted attack rule: "If you were Medium and on a Large mount, you could attack a creature on one side of your mount, then attack on the opposite side with your next action."
A long bow cannot be fired while mounted at all. If you are building a mounted mastermind rogue or outwit ranger, and want to be able to fire off a couple of shots with a bow and then be able to move much further than anyone else can keep up with, the short bow is decent, but that deadly damage isn't all that helpful if you are using a feat like double shot and have a damage boosting feature like sneak attack.
I agree that no character would have to go for the DaiKyu, but as long as it is being treated as reload 0, being the mounted bow is a decent niche. It is a weapon that requires feat support to be worth while, but that is true of every single advanced ranged weapon. Edit except maybe the Halfling slingstaff, which lacks feat support altogether really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
except maybe the Halfling slingstaff, which lacks feat support altogether really.
Those are martial in any case.
I did miss the part of long bows being unable to be used while mounted, so thank you for that correction, but given the facing restriction a shortbow still seems much better for almost any situation you'd want to use a bow while mounted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the point of being mounted with a bow is to end up stuck between two enemies that you are trying to fire at at the same time, you ride around your enemies.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really feel like the Daikyu in the book is an oversight and should at least like "have traits" and "be 'reload 0' like the other bows."
So I'm inclined to just completely ignore the weapon until we get the real/fixed version of it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the point of being mounted with a bow is to end up stuck between two enemies that you are trying to fire at at the same time, you ride around your enemies.
You're now adding a lot of conditionals and assumptions to the situation. If you have this specific build, these specific class features, can perform those actions in combat, then of course this weapon as a niche.
That's a rather tiny niche, getting tinier the more circumstances you add to it. If the Daikyu had an additional trait that made it easier to use while mounted, and even Agile would work for that given the way your mount's attacks interact with your own, I could buy that it is supposed to be a mounted niche. As it is, I really don't see what is making you so convinced that is how it is supposed to be used. I know historically they were, but the game mechanics don't really support that aside from very specific conditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the point of being mounted with a bow is to end up stuck between two enemies that you are trying to fire at at the same time, you ride around your enemies.You're now adding a lot of conditionals and assumptions to the situation. If you have this specific build, these specific class features, can perform those actions in combat, then of course this weapon as a niche.
That's a rather tiny niche, getting tinier the more circumstances you add to it. If the Daikyu had an additional trait that made it easier to use while mounted, and even Agile would work for that given the way your mount's attacks interact with your own, I could buy that it is supposed to be a mounted niche. As it is, I really don't see what is making you so convinced that is how it is supposed to be used. I know historically they were, but the game mechanics don't really support that aside from very specific conditions.
It allows you to use a D8 ranged weapon on a horse. At decently greater range than a short bow. I think the facing restriction really wasn’t necessary but was an attempt to add an unnecessary amount of “realism” to the weapon.
Agile would be a massive boost to the weapon. You can’t even get agile on a D6 ranged weapon with a reload of 0 with any range to it because it makes bows way too powerful. The flurry ranger would be absurdly good with a ranged agile weapon. D8 without having to move is the point of the Daikyu. In world it is particularly useful as a cavalry weapon. Everyone knows composite bows are a little overtuned/at the high end of weapon power. Finding any advanced weapon that are just plain always better then them is not going to happen.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't 'reload - ' mean that you are throwing the Daikyu Bow itself like a bola or a javelin?
Other than that obvious error ... yeah, this bow is rather forgettable. Certainly seems like a downgrade compared to a long bow or short bow for standard combat. Especially against the composite varieties of either of those. Could be considered a sidegrade for mounted combat when compared to a short bow. I still don't see it as actually better.
And all of that for the low, low price of gaining proficiency with an advanced weapon...
Sorry, hard pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question I have is "why is this advanced". Advanced locks you out of the archer monk even if it has the monk trait added, and puts every character except fighters at a -2 to hit with it.
Advanced weapons are supposed to be somewhat better than martial weapons, just like martial weapons are better than simple weapons.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is every type of non-western weapon always considered advanced even though weapons that were rarely used IRL, such as flails, are considered martial? My question is, rules aside, what is supposed to make this any harder to use than any other bow? The same goes for slightly heavier axes and swords optimized for dueling (more optimized than the rapier, epee, and foil apparently) what makes these so hard to use that it takes an entire extra feat?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is every type of non-western weapon always considered advanced even though weapons that were rarely used IRL, such as flails, are considered martial?
They aren't. Most such weapons are simple or martial, like any other kind of weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is every type of non-western weapon always considered advanced even though weapons that were rarely used IRL, such as flails, are considered martial?They aren't. Most such weapons are simple or martial, like any other kind of weapon.
Taking a second look they actually did a better job than has been done in the past with making sure weapons from other cultures are properly listed. That said, why is there a difference between a Staff and a Bo Staff when both are just lengths of wood? Why aren't Meterohammers, Urumi, and Warflails advanced weapons when several types of swords and axes are? What makes using a Shortsword more difficult than accurately throwing a Dagger in combat?
These weapons trains and categories are almost entirely arbitrary and often don't even properly balance the weapons so why stick with this system?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone at Paizo obviously missed something with the Daikyu. At the moment any Tien archer should just stick with composite bows until it is officially fixed if playing in games where DMs are sticklers. If in a house game, just change it with a house rule.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It allows you to use a D8 ranged weapon on a horse. At decently greater range than a short bow. I think the facing restriction really wasn’t necessary but was an attempt to add an unnecessary amount of “realism” to the weapon.
Realism doesn't have anything to do with it. The shape of that kind of bow makes it easier to switch sides while on horseback.
Finding any advanced weapon that are just plain always better then them is not going to happen.
I mean, if it's not supposed to be a step up from its martial counterpart it shouldn't be an advanced weapon then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...okay, I guess if you want to argue against your own point, you're free to do that, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to both insist that I should have compared to composite shortbow and agree that composite bows are an unfair example of a martial weapon. At that point you basically end up arguing that because one weapon is too potent they all should be made too potent to match, instead of actually fixing the too potent one.The comparison should also be to the composite shortbowYou probably have a point about that... but I'm not entirely sure. If we should be using the composite version as the benchmark, then doesn't that mean the regular versions are "broken" too because they're literally just the benchmark minus one trait?Yes actually. That's why I made the specific point about errata-ing composite bows to be advanced. I have no idea why they even went to the trouble of adding regular bows in when composites take no real penalty.
You could interpret that composites are higher level, perhaps argue that they should be (I have), but they are inarguably not. We have weapons that are, and these aren't one of them. This will be an important point when the Inventor comes into the game, assuming their weapon innovation remains the same.
More that either fix would work for me. Making composites advanced would eliminate my argument that composites should be the benchmark for martial weapons, as they’d no longer be martial. Also advancing them to be level 1 would satisfy me. But if they’re level 0 martial, then any fair comparison of what the bounds of “martial” includes and what should be advanced should probably be based on them. For bows at least.
To clarify (since I definitely wasn’t clear before), I don’t think all martial ranged weapons are problematic, but non composite bows are definitely weird and arguably broken without some other differentiator between them and composites. So comparing Daikyus to a non composite does little to prove to me that the Daikyu isn’t broken, because I also see those as broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was obsessed with advanced weapons for a bit but I ended up disappointed with most of them.
They are either so good but specific that unconventional weaponry felt cheesy to get access to them or kinda underwhelming for the feat investment.
Also to go on a tangent natural ambition, multi talented and unconventional weaponry from the human ancestry are so powerful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the Daikyu. It does better average damage at longer range than the composite shortbow on Flurry Rangers starting at the second tier striking rune. Instead of needing 18 strength, you need unconventional weaponry. I think that's a fine niche to have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I must be missing something but why can't regular longbows etc be used mounted? everyone is acting like the ability to be used mounted is a big advantage for the daikyu but I can't find where it says that you can't use regular bows when mounted.
It's hidden away in the description of longbows.
"You must use two hands to fire a longbow, and it can’t be used while mounted."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only for Longbows, though. Shortbows are still fair game for mounted combat.
But really, the Daikyu is so poorly written and designed that anyone trying to defend it is grasping at straws to justify poor reviewing and editing on Paizo's behalf. I don't think there have been any characters or tables trying to use this thing. The only threads I see about this weapon are how it's supposed to work, how bad it is, etc. Where's the threads and stories about how awesome this weapon is? Non-existent, I say. And there's a reason for that: Because those threads are true.
In general, the price to pay for using advanced weapons as a whole is just not worth it. Costing feats and/or being limited only to certain classes via proficiency scaling is not worth simply getting feats that better enable other aspects of your character and sticking to weapons you're still proficient with.
Even in the most favorable conditions, a Fighter wanting to use an Advanced Weapon has to sacrifice:
-2 to hit.
-A 6th level (or later) Class feat, or Dedication options.
-A high-level Rune that is of Rare quality and specific to an AP.
For the former, that's no good. You're now no better than any other martial in the party or game, even though Fighters are meant to be the absolute best at weapons, and the increased Proficiency is supposed to simulate that. Sacrificing your biggest accuracy helper just for some minor weapon-specific benefit isn't worth it. Would you be willing to give up a -2 to hit just to use a fancy weapon? The game's math will suggest that is a bad idea.
For the median, it's more palatable, but with Fighters having an expansive amount of feats to choose from, you're having to sacrifice something that would make you more awesome just to maintain the same level of awesome you would otherwise have with a Martial weapon. Again, as with the previous example, it's just not worth it when that 6th level feat could be used to expand viable options available to you. And if you're wanting Dedications, if you already took one prior to this, or want to take one later, whoops, you can't until you invest more feats into it that you might not want.
For the latter, good luck trying to get that accessible outside of the one spot or item or whatever in the book it's in, much less transferred to the weapon you prefer, since by RAW, you need the formulas of the runes to transfer them, even if they're in a runestone.
There's also the General Feat for Weapon Proficiency regardless of being a Fighter, but the fundamental problems with that then become that A. Non-Martial proficient classes need multiple investments with this feat, delaying its viability, and B. You will not progress beyond Trained, even though the rules expect every character expected to participate with the game's math at the endgame to at-least be Expert, with Master being the standard, and Legendary being the "excels at" category. Trained in the endgame is like the participation rewards at youth athletic events, where it's just there just to be there, and very little else.
But even expanding on it further with the Unconventional Weaponry feats, you're still stuck at Trained until 13th, and then you just instantly progress to your full proficiency, at the cost of two Ancestry feats, all the while being mediocre to bad at it for 12 levels. Pretty bad design, really.
It's just a shame that the Exotic Weapon problems of PF1 have simply been magnified in PF2 with even further costs and even greater sacrifices required for the same little return like in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the very least the Daikyu is missing some sort of "mounted archer" archetype thing that gives you the advanced->martial for proficiencies with bows you use on a horse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Daikyu is a D8 bow with no volley. It also can be used mounted. If you are not investing in STR (which is many characters) then it is an upgrade over the short bow by the level you could reasonably expect to get it, especially if you are a character wanting a S8 ranged weapon because you want to fire it 3 or more times a turn instead of single, most accurate shots as possible. A non fighter could start using one at level three if they really want, but they might as well wait till 6 to get the full proficiency bonus. Just like the repeating crossbow, a character specked in to using it can be better off than the same character using a non advanced option.
Then it also has its specific niche of being able to be fired while mounted. A pretty great option for smaller characters who ride mounts for mobility and might have STR penalties that they don’t really want to over come. It is bulky, but it can pretty much be your only weapon and you are probably wearing the lightest armor possible if you use one, so it works out.
The only “problem” with the bow is the reload entry which really looks like a typo.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Daikyu is a D8 bow with no volley. It also can be used mounted. If you are not investing in STR (which is many characters) then it is an upgrade over the short bow by the level you could reasonably expect to get it, especially if you are a character wanting a S8 ranged weapon because you want to fire it 3 or more times a turn instead of single, most accurate shots as possible. A non fighter could start using one at level three if they really want, but they might as well wait till 6 to get the full proficiency bonus. Just like the repeating crossbow, a character specked in to using it can be better off than the same character using a non advanced option.
Then it also has its specific niche of being able to be fired while mounted. A pretty great option for smaller characters who ride mounts for mobility and might have STR penalties that they don’t really want to over come. It is bulky, but it can pretty much be your only weapon and you are probably wearing the lightest armor possible if you use one, so it works out.
The only “problem” with the bow is the reload entry which really looks like a typo.
You kind of answered why it's bad compared to even the likes of Crossbows, because there are feats to make Crossbows better, while having superior range, and requiring less feats for appropriate proficiency tiers. Spending feats to improve existing weaponry compared to making new weaponry viable just means the new weaponry will always be behind by comparison.
Seriously, a basic Crossbow is on-par with the Daikyu, and that's without investing in feats just for proficiency. At what point does someone go: "You know what? Instead of taking a feat making my Crossbow damage dice bigger and getting +2 damage, I'm gonna spend more feats just to be on the same tier but with a poorly written bow that's Uncommon to begin with!"
Maybe someone who values flavor more than effectiveness. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on campaign/table preferences. But the feats being spent in this case aren't really providing more options or improving existing options, as they are intended to do, it's just the same effect with more steps and cost involved, which defeats the entire purpose of feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, a basic Crossbow is on-par with the Daikyu, and that's without investing in feats just for proficiency. At what point does someone go: "You know what? Instead of taking a feat making my Crossbow damage dice bigger and getting +2 damage, I'm gonna spend more feats just to be on the same tier but with a poorly written bow that's Uncommon to begin with!"
Agreed. Even in the extremely specific situation they mention: a non-str martial, mounted, going for as many shots as possible (which, while mounted, is 2 or you're not getting anything out of your mount without more feats invested) with the specific class or ancestry feats that make a Daikyu run off martial instead of advanced proficiency...a short bow or a crossbow might still the better choice. They certainly aren't noticeably worse choices. The Daikyu in that character's hands edges out at range 60-80' (as you can get an additional shot compared to the crossbow and at a lower penalty than the shortbow), but if you're a ranger targeting your hunted prey, even that isn't true.
There's more feats you can sink into this build, and after the 5th or 6th feat maybe the Daikyu starts coming into its own, but that's a hell of a lot of feats to be slightly better than a shortbow, and even then only in some pretty extreme circumstances that are just unlikely to come up in most games. I don't think they need to be better in all circumstances, but compared to composites they're not even on par for most builds.
In other topics, looking at the advanced weapons has made me hope that some of the adventure entries get reprinted in Guns and Gears. I question what has made some weapons simple or martial, based on the guidelines they describe in the CRB. As a for instance, just based on the description of the weapons, I would have assumed the alchemical crossbow, stiletto pen, wish knife, and wish blades would be advanced, and nightsticks and pois martial. 3 of those are LO items, so I think those did get a pass by the design team. So I don't think they're wrongly placed, I just am less sure what makes what an advanced weapon, if the complex and niche traits on those items don't qualify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to Verdyn's question, the reason is mainly a bit of realism: Most of the typically-advanced weapons from other cultures have a tendency to be false friends. They have enough similarity to weapons you're familiar with to make you think you know what you're doing, but are just different enough to throw you off when using them. The differences in sword weighting and balance would have a noticeable effect on your swing, for example, if you were to go from an arming sword to a wakizashi (or vice versa), and you'd be liable to forget that the wakizashi isn't double-edged like the arming sword.
So, for example, if a Spaniard was trained with the espada ropera, but then decided to try a katana because it's just a sword, it'll just birth a situation that leaves him embarazada. And nobody wants that, so advanced/exotic classifications exist to cover false friends like that (along with weapons that actually are unusually difficult to use well).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Advanced should probably recommend "this weapon requires specific training to use well" (fire poi! bladed hoop!).
I'm just unclear on why an asymmetric bow is fundamentally harder to use than a symmetric one, since that seems the basic distinction thematically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But really, the Daikyu is so poorly written and designed that anyone trying to defend it is grasping at straws to justify poor reviewing and editing on Paizo's behalf. I don't think there have been any characters or tables trying to use this thing.
Literally 3 posts above you is Queaux mentioning it working in a niche for 'em. Aside from the dumb Reload - issue and the general incomplete/stingy feel of the thing, it's not unfeasible to use, just not especially good. I do agree it could use a revised version at some point.
Edit: oh oop Queaux's post was loosely addressed in later posts. I don't think their opinion is *wrong* or anything, though. Unconventional Weaponry is rude, but not quite as rude for Ranger as Fighter, and ancestry feats don't tend to bite into combat prowess as much as class feats.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A mounted archer doesn’t have to command its mount every round to gain the advantage of being mounted, especially once their mount gains an independent action. The point is that when you spend an action to move, you make it a losing proposition to keep up with you. Crossbows have to be reloaded and running reload doesn’t work if you are not doing the moving.
Also 20 extra ft of range when you can move 50 ft is nice to have for keeping your foes in a tough spot. Yes a character with STR and DEX might prefer a composite bow, but you have to really boost STR to make a composite short bow keep up with a D8 weapon with runes. Especially since STR might otherwise be a nearly useless star for you. It really is not a bad weapon in practice, assuming it is supposed to be reload 0. It isn’t a must have weapon for every archer but that seems quite intentional.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the rules ambiguity around the daikyu makes people dislike it. Tight rules tables can't play with it because of the typo and ambiguous use of unconventional weaponry. I'm sure more people would like it if those issues were cleared up.
That said, at the tables I play at, the thing is the most optimal choice for human dex focused martials with all martial proficiency at levels 12+ and pretty much on par with the other best option starting at 4+. Those are certainly a lot of qualifiers, but a niche exists for it where it's the best option. I don't think you can ask for anything more out of a weapon.