| 3 people 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).
This is a character who is already equally skilled with the longsword, shortsword, bastard sword, greatsword, scimitar, katar, falchion, machete, dogslicer, elven curve blade, katana, khopesh, nine-ring sword, poly tool, and temple sword. Why are, so-called, advanced swords so much more difficult for this character to learn?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...in most adventures...I really wish people would stop using this as part of their argument.
It is, effectively, circular logic since it's only actually true if most people actively make it be true. There is no inherent frequency to any particular game scenario, even if there are some trends which can be seen if you measure out published adventures, but even then you are showing what is true of published adventures, and that's not the same as what is true of "most adventures." And with a lot of those published adventures, they are actually open enough to accomodate those things which allegedly don't come up and people are simply choosing not to have them come up, then pointing at the campaign rather than their choice as the reason why it didn't come up.
So it's not even kind of the weighty point people often bring it up as if it were.
That's fair. I would offer that designers and pathfinder writers have made the same point, but I'll not use that logic going forward.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think advanced weapons fit pretty nicely in the niche of being worth half a feat (read: an ancestry feat). I would never spend a Fighter class feat on the Necksplitter, but a proper orc isn't gonna feel bad using their first level ancestry feat to pick it up. IMO the change I'd make is actually to Unconventional Weaponry; remove the "region requirement" weirdness and just make it so that UW can be used to qualify for any uncommon weapon that doesn't have an ancestry trait. Not a fan of humans being able to pick up the flickmace easily, if it wasn't obvious.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Third, this is just too hilarious "it'll just birth a situation that leaves him embarazada."
Probably a regional thing (it was the Diccionario General de la Lengua Española Vox), but "embarrassed" is apparently a valid secondary meaning of "embarazada". My family laughed at me for using it that way for the same reason you just have when I was young, so I was a little miffed (and vindicated) to look it up just now and see the definition back us up.
I wouldn't recommend people use it that way, regardless. It's probably a false friend itself!
|
| 1 person 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.
This is unclear. There are two conflicting rules. Mounted Combat specifically says that a character must command their mount. Independent or Mature Animal Companion imply otherwise.
In PFS I've run into GMs who rule one way and GMs who rule the other way. So, in practice as well as theoretically, the situation is unclear.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is unclear. There are two conflicting rules. Mounted Combat specifically says that a character must command their mount. Independent or Mature Animal Companion imply otherwise.In PFS I've run into GMs who rule one way and GMs who rule the other way. So, in practice as well as theoretically, the situation is unclear.
One of those is a general rule for how mounts work and one of those is a specific feat benefit though. The latter overriding the former is one of the basic principles of how PF works.
That's like telling me my elf wizard can't use a shortbow because the wizard's weapon proficiencies override the elf weapon feat.
| 1 person 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.This is unclear. There are two conflicting rules. Mounted Combat specifically says that a character must command their mount. Independent or Mature Animal Companion imply otherwise.
In PFS I've run into GMs who rule one way and GMs who rule the other way. So, in practice as well as theoretically, the situation is unclear.
Yes you are always going to run into GMs who get things wrong. It is just some GMs don't seem to get specific overrides general. It is clear.
Sorry but this is too harsh. I think we need to come up with some way to handle these sorts of rules cases. We do need to legitimately acknowledge the disagreements people have over the rules. But by the same token we should be providing some sort of concensus position to people who ask questions. Probably need to split this meta discussion out into its own thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.I think advanced weapons fit pretty nicely in the niche of being worth half a feat (read: an ancestry feat). I would never spend a Fighter class feat on the Necksplitter, but a proper orc isn't gonna feel bad using their first level ancestry feat to pick it up. IMO the change I'd make is actually to Unconventional Weaponry; remove the "region requirement" weirdness and just make it so that UW can be used to qualify for any uncommon weapon that doesn't have an ancestry trait. Not a fan of humans being able to pick up the flickmace easily, if it wasn't obvious.
I’m not sure I’d even require “uncommon”; pushing a single weapon into a lower tier seems like a valid value of a 1st level ancestry feat.
Meanwhile requiring uncommon makes uncommon weapons more powerful when they’re supposed to just be uncommon. It’s a little weird that in a campaign that adjusts Daikyus to common, it would be harder to use since this feat would be out of reach.
I’m curious if that interaction is what kept Daikyus advanced. A d8 0 reload seems fine for a martial weapon, but unconventional weaponry would push it to simple proficiency, and that might be too powerful if you couldn’t simultaneously do it to any martial weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is unclear. There are two conflicting rules. Mounted Combat specifically says that a character must command their mount. Independent or Mature Animal Companion imply otherwise.In PFS I've run into GMs who rule one way and GMs who rule the other way. So, in practice as well as theoretically, the situation is unclear.
Yes you are always going to run into GMs who get things wrong. It is just some GMs don't seem to get specific overrides general. It is clear.
One of those is a general rule for how mounts work and one of those is a specific feat benefit though. The latter overriding the former is one of the basic principles of how PF works.
That's like telling me my elf wizard can't use a shortbow because the wizard's weapon proficiencies override the elf weapon feat.
As far as I can see there are two general rules
1) Mounted combat requires an Action2) Independent familiars and Mature companions get 1 free action
I have no clue why one of those is more specific than the other.
To me it is completely obvious that there is an ambiguity in the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can see there are two general rules
1) Mounted combat requires an Action
2) Independent familiars and Mature companions get 1 free actionI have no clue why one of those is more specific than the other.
To me it is completely obvious that there is an ambiguity in the rules.
Mature animal companions that get the free action can use it only for stride or strike. Only a few animal companions have the mount trait. If one is on their animal companion mount that has a free stride action, then it does follow the animal will move with the character mounted without command.
The only real argument I can see is if the animal strides in a direction the rider would want. It is unlikely to strike at air and equally as unlikely it will stay put with action happening all around it. With the free action, the rider is technically not commanding. However, the companion is also absolutely loyal and will probably participate in dozens of encounters with the character. Some familiarity in what is expected between companion and character I believe should be considered. It’s also an investment in class feats. Frankly, I feel any GM that holds to the general rule of requiring an action by the rider in these more specific cases is working against their players and not with them.
Independent/Mature basically means that the mount just moves where ever I feel. But then idk. Regardless the Daikyu still is a bad weapon given the needless restrain of "only your left side". What makes your left side any different than your right side? Are they saying that people can't shoot with their either hand? Is everyone right handed?
I think that the problem is that they saw a bow that has asymmetrical limbs and then assumed that it could only be shot from one side. Even if nothing says that is the only way it can be shot. Combined with trying to make counted archery really bad. But then that does not justify not giving the Daikyu the deadly trait like Short and Long bows.
I can answer that. That's based on historical Daikyu's, which were only easily fired from the left side (not entirely certain why that was the case, given asymmetrical bows also had an advantage when you did need to switch sides you fired from). Random googling talks about there being an entire sub-branch of Japanese archery that is firing the Daikyu at right angles to get a better field of effect.
Take the actual accuracy of that with a grain of salt, given the dubious nature of some of the articles I read, but that might be where that came from.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't get the fuss.
Shortbow: 1d6, d10 Deadly, range 60
Longbow: 1d8, d10 deadly, range 100, volley 30
Daikyu: 1d8, no deadly, range 80
If you're a Shortbow user, you lose deadly to get the 1d8 increase.
If you're a Longbow user, you lose deadly to get rid of volley.
If it weren't advanced, just about every bow user would take it because the only time it's not better really is during a Crit. What am I missing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't really get behind the extreme criticisms here, although there is some stuff that clearly needs Errata (Reload) and I do think it's plausible that a Composite Variant could exist (which current RAW doesn't exclude, it just doesn't explicitly support, which also seems within realm of editing snafu IMHO), but that's as far as I would go (not wanting to undermine it's basic premise, i.e. lacking Deadly).
But only adapting the Reload aspect, I've considered it to be a good weapon choice for plenty of builds myself. Giving up deadly for larger damage dice AND range without Volley doesn't seem a bad trade especially for anybody with lower attack proficiency and/or lacks multiattack abilities like Ranger Flurry who will be Critting less often... But even Fighters/Rangers could also value the bigger normal hits without Volley, particularly at higher level where Deadly declines in relative impact (and their 2nd/3rd shots should be hitting more). Even without a Composite version, the efficacy of STR for Compound Shortbow is very marginal, basically if you don't have STR as primary stat you will never get more than +2 damage (primary STR characters can reach +3 damage i.e. +6 STR mod at Level 17 but at lower DEX/attack bonus), which can easily be enough to make STR a "pass" for more complex builds using other stats (like caster multiclass, or just certain skill builds).
I actually recommended Daikyu (and proposed faciliating it's proficiency for Ranged subclass) in context of Playtest Magus since they have lower proficiency compared to standard martial (and Spellstrike gave them big crits anyways, albeit that dynamic could change in final rules). But there's plenty of other builds I would consider it for, and I think it's a reasonable usage of Feats to aim to get by mid-level (for scaling proficiency). Even Fighters and Flurry Rangers aren't Critting all that often on 2nd/3rd attacks especially given it isn't Agile, so I don't think it's really bad for them if they want heavier regular hits.
I do think a concrete/fundamentalist application of "is it worth the Feats" perspective can often leads to flawed outcomes and may be behind the discrepancy of opinion on this. Since a given character could not want to do the things necessary to make other "stronger Feats" viable and not have any pressing "need" for those Feat slots (e.g. as needed for this Advanced weapon).
The OP did seem weirdly focused on appraising it solely by what is achievable at 1st level when that is possible yet not necessary (I get that people may prefer one character image that stays constant over levels, but game itself just doesn't enforce/require that) along with rather restrictive view of Champion weapon choice, while also overlooking Unconventional Weaponry (the RAW perhaps doesn't clearly allow this weapon, but I also don't think it's against RAW to consider it as eligible re: "common in another culture").
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can see there are two general rules
1) Mounted combat requires an Action
2) Independent familiars and Mature companions get 1 free actionI have no clue why one of those is more specific than the other.
To me it is completely obvious that there is an ambiguity in the rules.
Because Independent familiars and Mature companions get their ability off a specific feat, whereas the Mounted Combat rules are general rules about all mounted combat. In fact Impressive Mount for Cavalier is quite specific about it in the context of mounts. It works.
There is a clear direction for resolving conflicting rules. There is no ambiguity here, specific overides general.
There are just a few people who maybe see it as a litte too good and just disagree. I know, there are a couple of issues (like weapon sizes) that I just don't like more than anything.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no clue why one of those is more specific than the other
You have no clue why a feat that modifies how animal companions act in combat is more specific than the default rules for how animal companions act in combat?
I don't know what else could be said here but suggesting that feats are "general rules" and arguing they can't trump normal rules in the book fundamentally breaks the game.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't get the fuss.
Shortbow: 1d6, d10 Deadly, range 60
Longbow: 1d8, d10 deadly, range 100, volley 30
Daikyu: 1d8, no deadly, range 80If you're a Shortbow user, you lose deadly to get the 1d8 increase.
If you're a Longbow user, you lose deadly to get rid of volley.If it weren't advanced, just about every bow user would take it because the only time it's not better really is during a Crit. What am I missing?
1) Crits matter. Especially for fighters
2) Many martials want at least some Str damage added inSo my Ranger or fighter likely would NOT take a Daikyu even if we ignore the reload and advanced. Point blank shot makes the composite longbow a significantly better weapon.
My wizard archer would take it in a shot.
If it was martial and reload 0 it would be a fine weapon. Some characters would take it, some would not (well, in PFS it also needs to lose the uncommon trait since I think there is currently no way to get it right now).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't get the fuss.
Shortbow: 1d6, d10 Deadly, range 60
Longbow: 1d8, d10 deadly, range 100, volley 30
Daikyu: 1d8, no deadly, range 80If you're a Shortbow user, you lose deadly to get the 1d8 increase.
If you're a Longbow user, you lose deadly to get rid of volley.If it weren't advanced, just about every bow user would take it because the only time it's not better really is during a Crit. What am I missing?
You did forget that there are Composite options for the Shortbow and Longbow, which do add more damage, the equivalent of a die size increase in regards to an 18 Strength character. You also don't usually have to spend additional feats for proficiency with them, unlike the Daikyu, which means you can spend feats on other things, like ignoring Volley penalties, or being able to threaten with bows, or literally anything else, depending on the feat options you have.
There's also accuracy with proficiency scaling: Daikyu is Advanced, meaning for most every character, you will be -2 less on your attack rolls, which, with the tight math, is a huge penalty by comparison, and depending on how you get access, you may never move beyond Trained in it.
Lastly, there's Rarity. A GM can veto this weapon for any number of reasons. Maybe it's not available in the region you're at. Maybe it's a giant headache that the GM doesn't want to deal with. There's not really much that can be done here if the GM doesn't want it to outside of finding a table that lets you have it. Personally, I'd really only allow it after clarifying some rules ambiguities behind it, but even then there's plenty of incentive not to use the weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have no clue why a feat that modifies how animal companions act in combat is more specific than the default rules for how animal companions act in combat?
I have no clue why one of those is more specific than the other
If you're talking about Mature Animal companion then no, I don't see it.
I think it is just as reasonable to assert that the specific rules about mounted combat override the general rules about how animal companions work as it is to assert that the specific rule for a mature companion overrides the general rules for mounted combat.
If you're talking about some other feat then please tell me which other feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually recommended Daikyu (and proposed faciliating it's proficiency for Ranged subclass) in context of Playtest Magus since they have lower proficiency compared to standard martial (and Spellstrike gave them big crits anyways, albeit that dynamic could change in final rules).
I'm not sure I get the logic on this point. I would think you'd want the weapon with a higher crit, specifically because you want to maximize your crits so badly with the playtest magus, so might as well use the weapon that doubles down on that playstyle. Are you taking the opposite approach, and recommending it so that the daikyu's higher base damage acts as a safety for when you don't quite pull it all off?
This isn't criticism or even an argument against your advice; I'm merely trying to follow your logic on this point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Propulsive is ok. For most characters it is a pretty serious commitment to get a +2 at 5th level and that is pretty much where it tops out. All to max out an attribute that doesn’t really do anything else for you.
If you are playing a switch hitter, you probably dont need an advanced weapon. Athletics is ok but you don’t really need it as a dedicated archer. Maxing out charisma is probably a more useful choice.
A fight can get the Daikyu at level 6 for 1 feat. No ancestry feats, no dedications. In return you get a D8 weapon that benefits from a +2 damage from point blank shot. There is really no other weapon a fighter can dump STR and do decent damage.
Rangers, rogues, and even investigators can get a lot out of archer dedication even if they don’t want want to pick up a Daikyu. At any point after level 6 you might find that the extra damage die scaling with striking runes worth picking up. All of this is true even if you don’t want to be a mounted archer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't get the fuss.
Shortbow: 1d6, d10 Deadly, range 60
Longbow: 1d8, d10 deadly, range 100, volley 30
Daikyu: 1d8, no deadly, range 80If you're a Shortbow user, you lose deadly to get the 1d8 increase.
If you're a Longbow user, you lose deadly to get rid of volley.If it weren't advanced, just about every bow user would take it because the only time it's not better really is during a Crit. What am I missing?
1) Crits matter. Especially for fighters
2) Many martials want at least some Str damage added inSo my Ranger or fighter likely would NOT take a Daikyu even if we ignore the reload and advanced. Point blank shot makes the composite longbow a significantly better weapon.
My wizard archer would take it in a shot.
If it was martial and reload 0 it would be a fine weapon. Some characters would take it, some would not (well, in PFS it also needs to lose the uncommon trait since I think there is currently no way to get it right now).
Yep Crits matter.
Technically Daikyu has a minor niche. But in practice I'm never going to take it.
As a casual user the other common bows are good enough and I'll spend that left over feat on my main class purpose.
As a dedicated archer. I'll be picking up Point Blank Shot and going with a composite long bow.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Unicore on propulsive - 14-18 str is a huge investment for an archer, for a bonus that’s very minimal once you get to 7th-8th level. I’d rather put the points elsewhere. That’s 2-5 stat boosts you’re saving (depending on whether you go for the str flaw as well), on stats which scale much better than +1-2 damage.
That being said, I’d just add deadly d10 to the Daikyu, make it reload 0 and call it a day. As a martial it would probably be too good relative to the shortbow/longbow, unless your GM is making you pay for access.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the Daikyu have something that's really worth devoting feats towards though? Like Advanced Bow Training is two feats, while a long/shortbow is 0 feats.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that’s the problem. It is about advanced weapon budget better than a shortbow already (the advanced paying for the extra dice size - deadly d10 is not worth a full dice, and neither is advanced, so you lose deadly d10 for a full dice size and 20ft range). That’s... not very exciting though, most advanced weapons aren’t really. My theory is that they’re where less tested weapons/trait combos that may be too strong go - e.g. Sawtooth Sabre has agile+twin, a precursor to agile+forceful. This was deemed not that strong after a while, so we got a simple weapon with agile+twin, then eventually an agile+forceful martial weapon.
The bladed diabolo has thrown 40, which wasn’t deemed that strong relative to thrown 20 so now we have a thrown 30 martial weapon.
Similarly the flickmace is a 1h reach weapon with a decent damage dice, which is already considered pretty strong so we’re unlikely to ever see a 1h d6 martial reach weapon.
Other advanced weapons are just a martial+a minor trait - Necksplitter is a battleaxe with forceful, Dwarf Waraxe is a battleaxe with two hand d12, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have no clue why a feat that modifies how animal companions act in combat is more specific than the default rules for how animal companions act in combat?
I have no clue why one of those is more specific than the otherIf you're talking about Mature Animal companion then no, I don't see it.
I think it is just as reasonable to assert that the specific rules about mounted combat override the general rules about how animal companions work as it is to assert that the specific rule for a mature companion overrides the general rules for mounted combat.
If you're talking about some other feat then please tell me which other feat.
I already quoted the feat. Impressive Mount is a Cavalier archetype feat. Mature Animal Companion (Ranger) is a feat.
The Mature Animal Companion rules don't give the animal an action if not commanded, the feats do.Your point is just wrong. The feats override the general rules. This is not two general rules conflicting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is just as reasonable to assert that the specific rules about mounted combat override the general rules about how animal companions work[...]
Well, hold on right here. Animal companions getting a free action isn't a general rule though. There's nothing in the rules for animal companions about them gaining free actions anywhere (except for that vague bit about animal companions defending themselves or acting on their own if you leave them alone but that's another issue). It's something you spend a feat to pick up and is a specific benefit of that feat.
the advanced paying for the extra dice size - deadly d10 is not worth a full dice, and neither is advanced, so you lose deadly d10 for a full dice size and 20ft range)
So the daikyu's fine at advanced, but the katana, wakisazhi, machete, naginata and etc. need to be errata'd down to simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the advanced paying for the extra dice size - deadly d10 is not worth a full dice, and neither is advanced, so you lose deadly d10 for a full dice size and 20ft range)So the daikyu's fine at advanced, but the katana, wakisazhi, machete, naginata and etc. need to be errata'd down to simple.
Yes they look very average.
Though I would have thought the Repeating Hand Crossbow is the other advanced weapon to dicuss here.
It is reload 0 (for a short while anyway) so it can use with feats like Hunted Shot as well as Crossbow Ace. A bit of a crossover between traditional bows and crossbows.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Independent/Mature basically means that the mount just moves where ever I feel. But then idk. Regardless the Daikyu still is a bad weapon given the needless restrain of "only your left side". What makes your left side any different than your right side? Are they saying that people can't shoot with their either hand? Is everyone right handed?
I think that the problem is that they saw a bow that has asymmetrical limbs and then assumed that it could only be shot from one side. Even if nothing says that is the only way it can be shot. Combined with trying to make counted archery really bad. But then that does not justify not giving the Daikyu the deadly trait like Short and Long bows.
Facing gets even weirder because facing isn't a thing in the system as far as I can tell.
|
|
the advanced paying for the extra dice size - deadly d10 is not worth a full dice, and neither is advanced, so you lose deadly d10 for a full dice size and 20ft range)So the daikyu's fine at advanced, but the katana, wakisazhi, machete, naginata and etc. need to be errata'd down to simple.
Well, the budget difference between simple and martial is much bigger (dice and a half) relative to martial to advanced (half a dice). But it is true the katana and wakizashi need an extra something.
|
|
Well, the budget difference between simple and martial is much bigger (dice and a half) relative to martial to advanced (half a dice). But it is true the katana and wakizashi need an extra something.the advanced paying for the extra dice size - deadly d10 is not worth a full dice, and neither is advanced, so you lose deadly d10 for a full dice size and 20ft range)So the daikyu's fine at advanced, but the katana, wakisazhi, machete, naginata and etc. need to be errata'd down to simple.
Could give them Twin with each other?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So take unconventional weaponry then and the feat cost is lessened although that forces you to human.
Anyway a Daikyu with the same point blank feat is still superior to a shortbow as the weapon now is 1d8+2. Sure if you want to pump strength to 18 then sure composite is good but that could be four stat boosts going to something more useful than strength. Yes the deadly on bows can be useful but it’s just inferior to the bigger damage die you get.
Like I agree it’s not the best use ever but I hardly see the outrage. Look at the list Exorcist posted. The bonuses the Daikyu give you are way more relevant than most advanced weapons. Is it worth the feats? Maybe I haven’t done all the maths but going up a damage dice has benefits and there is absolutely benefits to never having to pump strength a mostly useless stat. Some builds are starved for feats and some are starved for stats. I wouldn’t take this if I was the first but I would consider it for the second.
Like I I was a human that had no plans to take fighter or archer I’d use a feat for this from ancestry and use my stats for something else. (Likely to either invest in Cha or Int). Most fights in the early game take place within thirty feet and most fights late game feature enemies with such extremely mobility that you usually can’t get out of 30 feet range.
This take is exactly right. Unconventional weaponry requires access to all martial weapons to pick up the daikyu as a martial, so we're left with something like the human ancestry ranger or investigator that really benefits from this. You also need to exclude fighters or archer archetypes where point blank shot longbow is typically better unless you're playing a mounted archer. That's a small niche, but it is one where it's the best possible weapon. That seems like perfect balancing for an advanced weapon in a game expansion to me. The only change that needs to be made is the reload typo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually recommended Daikyu (and proposed facilitating it's proficiency for Ranged subclass) in context of Playtest Magus since they have lower proficiency compared to standard martial (and Spellstrike gave them big crits anyways, albeit that dynamic could change in final rules).I'm not sure I get the logic on this point. I would think you'd want the weapon with a higher crit, specifically because you want to maximize your crits so badly with the playtest magus, so might as well use the weapon that doubles down on that playstyle. Are you taking the opposite approach, and recommending it so that the daikyu's higher base damage acts as a safety for when you don't quite pull it all off?
Yeah, that was my rationale for that approach... Avoid "over-kill" to favor the meat and potatoes where it can still make a difference. Not to mention the larger die does also increase crit damage somewhat, with max Striking Runes (4 dice, which Magus Potency granted early in Playtest) coming close to equivalent of Deadly d10.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Advanced Weapon Training is] a level 6 feat too, which means 6 levels of underperforming
Just use a standard bow until yout get top notch proficiency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also fighters get an extra floating feat at 9th level that has to be 8th level or less. By that point a fighter could have point blank, assisting shot, double shot, triple shot and impossible aim (although if your goal is to always shoot as many arrows as possible you might have decided a 2d8+5 was better than a 2d6+5 and deadly d10 or a 2d8+3 with deadly). There is also mobile stance, but then you are giving up PBS. And of course a human could start with it if they want to and never spend a class feat on it.
Could it have kep propulsive and not been over powered? Probably. It’s not really that much extra damage over 20 levels of play, but that would almost every fighter to have to boost STR and DEX. At least without it DEX fighters and other martials have a weapon to build towards that eventually out paces either a short bow or a longbow with the right feats, without ever investing in STR. It makes STR penalized ancestries a lot more viable as ranged fighters.
Yeah, that was my rationale for that approach... Avoid "over-kill" to favor the meat and potatoes where it can still make a difference. Not to mention the larger die does also increase crit damage somewhat, with max Striking Runes (4 dice, which Magus Potency granted early in Playtest) coming close to equivalent of Deadly d10.I actually recommended Daikyu (and proposed facilitating it's proficiency for Ranged subclass) in context of Playtest Magus since they have lower proficiency compared to standard martial (and Spellstrike gave them big crits anyways, albeit that dynamic could change in final rules).I'm not sure I get the logic on this point. I would think you'd want the weapon with a higher crit, specifically because you want to maximize your crits so badly with the playtest magus, so might as well use the weapon that doubles down on that playstyle. Are you taking the opposite approach, and recommending it so that the daikyu's higher base damage acts as a safety for when you don't quite pull it all off?
Appreciated, thank you.