The Daikyu Bow from the APG is a broken weapon, and I'll prove it

[Captain Morgan]

Verdyn wrote:

Strengths. Being good in the phase of the game that can be most easily mitigated by RP and often involves fewer dice rolls in a session than a single round of combat...

Is *the best* in that phase of the game. If you don't spend time in that phase... Then yeah, it isn't going to be a good choice. On the other hand, if you're playing War for the Crown, suddenly Investigator is king.

Quote:

It doesn't have to. Give me two representative builds representing the classes and a few scenarios and we can just simulate things 1000+ times.

Hey, if you want to go run some numbers, go nuts.

Quote:

I'd still prefer a Cleric or Bard in the healing/support slot in most parties from a sheer optimization standpoint. The Cleric being so focused on pushing out heals and the Bard having the best buffs and debuffs in the game are very hard to ignore.

The Life oracle can probably out heal the cleric despite the bonus slots. The Battle Oracle outfights the War Priest or Battle Muse. The Flames Oracle outblasts them, etc. I don't think an oracle outbuffs the bards, but that's bard's thing. I will say Oracles are way more interesting to play. Inspire Courage is such a static ability, where Oracle curses keep you on your toes and adapting.

Quote:

I feel like the Rogue and Ranger both step on this class's toes and play better. They don't need to do an arcane 3-action dance to do what they're supposed to do in a fight.

Both classes do their best damage when they just stand still and full attack. The 3 action dance is why you play a swashbuckler-- it incentivizes a less static way to play the game and encourages risky behavior.

Rogues have to do their own dance to keep enemies flat-footed. Staying in a flank means they are more likely to get hit and the lack of hit points hurts. Nor do they have the riposte for discouraging attacks against them.

Rangers also have a routine they need to repeat every time they target a new foe, so they will generally do better at bosses but less well at hoards. (Though a archer pinning down enemies that *aren't* being focus fired by the whole team can be awesome.) Rangers also get less skill feats.

I also don't think the dual is really what defines swashbuckling tropes. Doing fancy stunts and generally making your enemies look bumbling by comparison feels more like something you do against mooks. Fighting an equal opponent doesn't really create room for that kind of thing. Most of the classic movies seem to involve the hero fighting hoards effortlessly and then struggling in the climatic boss fight.

And the dual thing also just doesn't work great in a team based game. There are GMG rules for dueling, which the swashbuckler will probably excel in because intimidation and deception factor into it.

Also, the APG has a literal duelist archetype which is pretty distinct from the swash.

Quote:

A Magus can, starting at level 7, have six spells and a brace of mostly damage-dealing cantrips. This isn't enough to make them an actual utility class and not using their 4 'real' slots on damage makes it tough for them to contribute enough to justify taking them over a Fighter who's picked up some archetyped spells.

I'm not even talking about utility. Having a more combat tools means the class can utilize different elements, ranges, area of effects, and general flexibility in a fight.

Quote:

Almost all post-CRB classes end up with odd restrictions that make what should be a smooth table experience into one that is often full of, "Sorry, but..." and, "No, actually..." that can kill the feel of a class

Well, that's just like, your opinion man. I've had a blast with my oracle, as have all my players who have used them. I've seen the Investigator used to great effect in Age of Ashes. Even my witch has been great in Strength of Thousands-- the familiar has gotten more use than any other class feature in the party so far.

The bard and the fighter are designed to be simple and straight forward. That's great if it is what you want-- the game won't punish you for wanting a simpler experience. The post-CRB classes are designed to create a different feel in play. The Advanced Player's Guide in particular is designed around players who want advanced complexity.

[Unicore]

I don't know why a swashbuckler would be interested in getting a Daikyu bow, since that doesn't really stack with any of the class feats or features of the class, but they could get one and be pretty proficient in its use by level 6 for just 2 class feats. We haven't gotten a daring-do mounted swash buckler yet that earns panache from horseback, but it is a build that could be fun to combine with this weapon if they can fire from horseback and then have the horse move and make an attack that can utilize the precise strike feature.

[Golurkcanfly]

pauljathome wrote:

Verdyn wrote:

Is it so much to ask that, with rare exception, all new items, classes, spells, feats, etc. fall within the range of what is printed within the CRB. That doesn't just mean the Wizard to Alchemist range either; I want to see new classes as good as Fighters and Bards.

Yes it is. If Paizo aims for that target then power creep is absolutely inevitable.

1) Paizo will absolutely miss that target from time to time and shoot high. Its inevitable, especially when the combination of options grows and grows
2) That would ultimately completely invalidate the other classes in the Core Rulebook. Why play a <Not Fighter> when <as good as fighter from splat book> fits the same niche as <Not Fighter> but just does it better.

Look at PF1. Or DND 5th. Or 3.5. Or .....
That is proof positive that such an approach is guaranteed to lead to Power Creep and, ultimately, Power Gallop (as the Fighter is replaced by The Skirmisher as best martial and so The Skirmisher becomes the new baseline, to be replaced in turn by the Kick Ass Warrior, etc)

Individual elements may be stronger than others, but the current paradigm is that all new classes are "invalidated" in the same way as CRB ones.

Power Creep in 3.x was an issue of new spells being printed, and every new spell that may slip through the cracks is a new option, and Tome of Battle classes which invalidated Fighter by design because martials sucked and the ToB classes were still weaker than CRB casters. Most other elements were from Prestige Classes which have compounding balance effects and can create strange rules interactions (Beguiler + Rainbow Warrior), not new base classes.

Power Creep in 5e is also the result of intentionally strong designs to replace weaker ones, such as the Hexblade which was supposed to "patch" the Bladelock, but also power crept the other options because the buff applied to it's existing powers.

People are not asking for new options to be better than old ones. They're asking for them to not be intentionally worse.

[Cyouni]

Okay, someone describe how Swashbuckler is objectively worse than Fighter and Rogue, without mentioning their offense.

Because it turns out offense isn't the only thing that matters in the game.

[Squiggit]

Unicore wrote:

I don't know why a swashbuckler would be interested in getting a Daikyu bow, since that doesn't really stack with any of the class feats or features of the class, but they could get one and be pretty proficient in its use by level 6 for just 2 class feats. We haven't gotten a daring-do mounted swash buckler yet that earns panache from horseback, but it is a build that could be fun to combine with this weapon if they can fire from horseback and then have the horse move and make an attack that can utilize the precise strike feature.

A mounted swashbuckler/swashbuckler that can use ranged weapons would be really cool, ngl. Kinda bummed they're limited to melee and thrown only.

But even if it hypothetically did exist, you'd probably want a shortbow. Similar damage even without strength, easier to use because it's martial. Not to mention the facing rules make the daikyu kind of awkward to use while mounted. It's really more of an infantry weapon as written.

[Golurkcanfly]

Cyouni wrote:

Okay, someone describe how Swashbuckler is objectively worse than Fighter and Rogue, without mentioning their offense.

Because it turns out offense isn't the only thing that matters in the game.

Well, they're also worse at using their various skills than the Rogue. They can get their damage booster from their skills, yes, but the Rogue uses them just as well and still does good damage without them.

But Swashbuckler is honestly the least egregious. It just has consistency issues and varies much more from combat to combat.

[Verdyn]

nephandys wrote:

You don't have to do any of those things to get Panache.

You do if you're a Swashbuckler who's taken the Fencing style which is what I was using for my example. All other means of regaining Panache are subject to the GM's whims and should require a Very Hard check to accomplish.

Quote:

You also have those skills maxed out so they work just fine against a boss.

I'm going to pick some levels where things probably don't work that well.

Fencing Swashbuckler - Level 5
Dex 20 - Cha 18 (Other stats aren't overly relevant for seeing how well using a limited set of actions to gain Panache functions)

Acrobatics: +14 = 5 (Dex) + 9 (Proficiency)
Deception: +13 = 4 (Cha) + 9 (Proficiency)

Against something like a Barbazu, he's got a 65% chance to tumble through and a 55% chance to feint. That tumble has a good chance of letting that Barbazu smack you with an AoO. Even worse, unless your weapon is the right material you're not dealing full damage.

Not to mention that they can just dimension door away from you if they ever feel threatened.

Is this a duel you'd want to take with your Swashbuckler?

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Cyouni wrote:

Okay, someone describe how Swashbuckler is objectively worse than Fighter and Rogue, without mentioning their offense.

Because it turns out offense isn't the only thing that matters in the game.

Okay.

Rogues get more skill feats and increased skill proficiencies. Much better out of combat utility. Plus some class feats are specifically for out-of-combat fidelity.

Fighters get more interesting feat combos (Improved Knockdown, Combat Grab, etc.) and have better overall armor between commonly using Heavy armor and having access to an armor specialization even if not. They also have more flexible class feats compared to Swashbucklers, and don't need a gimmick to properly participate in a fight. Imagine if a Fighter had to do a skill check at the start of every combat to get their proficiency increase. That's basically the Swashbuckler.

[HumbleGamer]

Cyouni wrote:

Okay, someone describe how Swashbuckler is objectively worse than Fighter and Rogue, without mentioning their offense.

Because it turns out offense isn't the only thing that matters in the game.

To me a swashbuckler is tied to a specific routine, which makes the class less proficient when it comes to action management and different attack patterns ( or shortly, versatility ).

For example:

Until lvl 7: Stride + Skill+ Finisher, or Skill + Strike + Finisher ( eventually, the precise one since it's the second attack ).

By lvl 8 on: Skill + Finisher + Bravado ( or +2 AC, depends your character ).

By lvl 10 Skill + finisher + bravado (since you'll benefit from the +2 AC stance ).

And that's it, more or less.

A fighter has access to a huge amount of combat feat, which can be used depends the situation, while a rogue has a load of skills and some peculiar feats which enhances his possibilities.

[thewastedwalrus]

Verdyn wrote:

thewastedwalrus wrote:

By fighting someone lower level?

That's not the fantasy either. Robin Hood versus the Sherrif of Nottingham for example is perilous to both men and in some tellings ends with both men dead. What it doesn't feature is Robin getting run through with a skewering strike while attempting a Tumble Through action.

A PC solo fighting an at-level or level-1 opponent is pretty perilous for both parties. And Robin should probably fetch some help if he doesn't want to rely on a bit of luck (and perhaps reconsider his tactics if they don't work out).

[Perpdepog]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Verdyn wrote:

thewastedwalrus wrote:

By fighting someone lower level?

That's not the fantasy either. Robin Hood versus the Sherrif of Nottingham for example is perilous to both men and in some tellings ends with both men dead. What it doesn't feature is Robin getting run through with a skewering strike while attempting a Tumble Through action.

A PC solo fighting an at-level or level-1 opponent is pretty perilous for both parties. And Robin should probably fetch some help if he doesn't want to rely on a bit of luck (and perhaps reconsider his tactics if they don't work out).

Like the fact that Robin is mixing it up with swordplay when he's a much better archer. Throw Will Scarlet and Little John at the Sheriff, instead, and have Robin shoot the guy.

[Cyouni]

Note how everything thus far that's been mentioned about the swashbuckler vs the fighter/rogue is subjective, and completely ignores things like the fact that the swashbuckler has monk mobility, better AC potential than the rogue, and can output damage close to that of the finesse fighter of the same Str even excluding finishers (simply by holding precise strike and not popping finishers, they get a ~10-20% damage boost, scaling closer to the former at higher levels). Also the completely unique ability to set up for advantage+1 on skill rolls if they choose, giving them completely unsurpassed use in their chosen skill.

[nephandys]

Verdyn wrote:

Is this a duel you'd want to take with your Swashbuckler?

Sure, because there are these things called your team, buffs, item bonuses, status effects, etc all of which you intentionally leave out in your example while cherry-picking what you state is a bad level, an enemy with AOO (pretty uncommon), and dimensional door. So in the worst possible circumstances you can come up with I've got a 65% and 55% chance to succeed. That really doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

[Verdyn]

nephandys wrote:

Sure, because there are these things called your team, buffs, item bonuses, status effects, etc all of which you intentionally leave out in your example while cherry-picking what you state is a bad level, an enemy with AOO (pretty uncommon), and dimensional door. So in the worst possible circumstances you can come up with I've got a 65% and 55% chance to succeed. That really doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

My character isn't part of some hivemind and should be able to function alone. As for the monster, of course, I looked for a bad match-up. Who cares what a character can do under ideal circumstances when the player can just turn their brain off and chuck dice?

[Cyouni]

So how's the rogue going to do against the barbazu? It loses hard in a straight-up fight, between weaker defenses, lower HP, and no way to get flanking.

[Verdyn]

Cyouni wrote:

So how's the rogue going to do against the barbazu? It loses hard in a straight-up fight, between weaker defenses, lower HP, and no way to get flanking.

The rogue should be a rogue and plink away with sneak attacks from stealth using modifiers from terrain to increase their odds of success. The rogue isn't only a duelist even if they can grab a rapier and shank somebody in melee.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Cyouni wrote:

Note how everything thus far that's been mentioned about the swashbuckler vs the fighter/rogue is subjective, and completely ignores things like the fact that the swashbuckler has monk mobility, better AC potential than the rogue, and can output damage close to that of the finesse fighter of the same Str even excluding finishers (simply by holding precise strike and not popping finishers, they get a ~10-20% damage boost, scaling closer to the former at higher levels). Also the completely unique ability to set up for advantage+1 on skill rolls if they choose, giving them completely unsurpassed use in their chosen skill.

It only has this mobility while Panache is active. Not a guarantee, nor a constant effect compared to Monks, which is effectively a choice not to activate by comparison. The point being made is that against on-level or harder enemies, the types of enemies in which the Swashbuckler trope is depicted to shine against, Panache is harder to gain and therefore it results in taking longer to actually pull off the fantasy trope, with actions spent either not benefitting from Panache (their primary damaging and class-defining feature), or trying to get Panache (and accounting for failure probabilities). Actions spent not killing/neutralizing the baddies (or successfully performing actions killing/neutralizing the baddies) are actions that are consequently wasted. But while it's active? Sure, spending 1 action to get into position compared to 2 might be valuable, but it's not like they need to be a Swashbuckler or Monk with crazy movement to do this. An Elf Wizard can have 50 movement, and covers most of the battlefield they need with a single action. Evidence: I have such a character in actual play who has done this consistently in Age of Ashes AP content. The amount of times where having more than 40 movement has come into play has really only mattered in one or two moments (which weren't even part of the Age of Ashes AP content, I might add), meaning this renders not such a resounding victory for the Swashbuckler.

The AC outputs are pretty consistent enough that it won't particularly matter. A Thief Rogue, the most common type, will probably have identical AC constantly. The biggest benefit a Swashbuckler has over Rogues in this case is proficiency in Parry weapons, and really, that's a benefit even Investigators can have if they really wanted. And considering they bank on one attack/round, it's a good use of a 3rd action to stay in the front lines if they have to spend actions for Devise a Stratagem. I will say that a Rogue is probably far more efficient at ranged combat, however.

A Finesse Fighter is pretty rare in my experience. Having played with a few fighters already, none of them have chosen Dexterity as an attribute focus. I won't necessarily disagree with it, since this is the equivalent of comparing a 16 Intelligence Wizard to a Spellcaster Magus, but we might as well take optimization off the table by that point, in which case this discussion about how close they are becomes pretty moot.

I must be missing something with the "unique ability" of making their chosen skill acquiring an advantage, but even if they can, they are far less flexible in skill training compared to any other class, a very understandable complaint in regards to creating freeform characters that function quite differently from others of the same class.

[Unicore]

Maybe this thread is done and people should start a new thread to talk about the swashbuckler if there is honest questions that people are trying to resolve about it.

[Arcaian]

Verdyn wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

So how's the rogue going to do against the barbazu? It loses hard in a straight-up fight, between weaker defenses, lower HP, and no way to get flanking.

The rogue should be a rogue and plink away with sneak attacks from stealth using modifiers from terrain to increase their odds of success. The rogue isn't only a duelist even if they can grab a rapier and shank somebody in melee.

Now this is just being inconsistent - using your same level 9 skill modifier of +14 (though it probably should have a +1 item bonus), the rogue only has a 60% chance of success to Hide. Modifiers from the terrain are definitely going to be inconsistent in my experience (concealment vs cover), but even if we assume them, you explicitly picked the worst-case scenario for the Swashbuckler. Something like a Gibbering Mouther has a +15 Perception, so you're at a base of 50% and standard cover only takes you to 60%. It's a secret check, so you don't know if you made it or not - unlike the Swashbuckler. Or something like a Giant Crawling Hand has a Precise Lifesense within 30ft. If you start your turn hidden and Strike, then Hide, and finally Sneak, you'd need a 70ft move speed to be more than 30ft away from the square you revealed yourself to be in. Given you don't have that, the Giant Crawling Hand will simply Stride up to your square, automatically sense you, and your strategy is ruined.

It's pretty clear that PF2 is a game designed around a group of PCs playing together - if you're fighting an on-level enemy chosen to exploit your weaknesses, your chances of victory are always going to be pretty close to even. That's true for even the most powerful classes in the game - a str-based fighter at level 5 is going to struggle to be successful against a flying creature with a ranged weapon (perhaps a level 5 version of a Strix Kinmate). A 5th level bard on their own is going to be defeated by a large amount of 5th level enemies. Classes have weaknesses, there are enemies that can exploit them, and an on-level creature exploiting that should always be very risky for a class to fight, because that's what level means - if it becomes a 'duel you'd want to take' consistently, there's something wrong with the balance.

[Angel Hunter D]

Unicore wrote:

Maybe this thread is done and people should start a new thread to talk about the swashbuckler if there is honest questions that people are trying to resolve about it.

I don't think anyone really wants to talk about the swashbuckler, it's just the example they got stuck on. I'd be happy complaining about the Daikyu more.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Maybe this thread is done and people should start a new thread to talk about the swashbuckler if there is honest questions that people are trying to resolve about it.

I don't think anyone really wants to talk about the swashbuckler, it's just the example they got stuck on. I'd be happy complaining about the Daikyu more.

To be fair, there really isn't much more to talk about it other than ways to balance/fix it. It's already proven that it's broken by RAW. Is there anything else to discuss beyond that?

[Angel Hunter D]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Maybe this thread is done and people should start a new thread to talk about the swashbuckler if there is honest questions that people are trying to resolve about it.

I don't think anyone really wants to talk about the swashbuckler, it's just the example they got stuck on. I'd be happy complaining about the Daikyu more.

To be fair, there really isn't much more to talk about it other than ways to balance/fix it. It's already proven that it's broken by RAW. Is there anything else to discuss beyond that?

The inherent flaws with advanced weapons and trait budgets?

[Golurkcanfly]

Advanced Weapons certainly are a strange holdover, since they're either good enough to be worth it over a feat/access tax, or just not taken except for thematic reasons because the feat tax isn't worth it. Many could be made Uncommon Martial weapons with a few tweaks and I don't think anyone would really complain except Flickmace enjoyers decrying it getting bumped down from d8 to d6 (where it should honestly be anyways).

[Unicore]

I don't think anyone is arguing that there the Daikyu bow is not in need of basic errata for the reload entry. Everyone says, "a mistake was made on this weapon." The weapon is curious beyond the reload rate as well. The description of it includes things that, if forced into the mechanics of the game, complicate all of combat with having to keep track of pawn facing, literally only for this one weapon. It is not a very good idea to have a mechanic like that, especially one that adds quite a bit of complexity the one in 1000 times a character decides to build for this weapon. It feels like someone was very enthusiastic to share their knowledge of archery and this bow, and text was included that doesn't pass the general principle of keeping things simple. Because of these two inconsistencies, this bow stands out as point of friction far more than most other weapons in the game for people trying to figure out how to recreate the power balance chart of weapons that the development team must be looking at when they are creating new content.

The fact that everyone sees that this bow is sticking out from the pile, makes some people wonder if we can extrapolate that these inconsistencies with the weapon means it must have been included in the book without careful consideration and, if you are already discontent with the general power level of options in the game, then your vision for what additional changes could be coming for this weapon are going to be pushing for a lot more to be added.

When one thing sticks out from the pile in a negative way, it is probably not a great idea to expect that one thing to be revised into any new standard for design. If the developers agree that the mistakes with this weapon include that it is not powerful enough to justify being an advanced weapon, which is not as obvious a conclusion as the other inconsistencies with the weapon, then the most likely solution would be to make it an uncommon martial weapon, not try to add additional traits to it.

Getting d8 weapons without investing in strength is generally pretty difficult in PF2. Getting ranged D8 weapons with 0 reload and no negative drawbacks alone is pushing more towards advanced than martial, especially with a very decent range.

A starlit span magus might just want to use this bow to have 100ft range on touch attack spells and not suffer from the really damning consequences of volley for any non-fighter martial that doesn't have a good way to mitigate them, especially for the cost of 1 ancestry feat. A starlit span magus has a very hard time boosting STR on top of DEX and INT. With a Daikyu, they don't have to to have the ability to keep up good damage and excellent range on their spells. A rogue has to spend two feats to get this weapon, but can do that at level one, with weapon proficiency and unconventional weapon feats, and then retrain feats into archer when necessary, a good archetype for this build, to make sure the proficiencies all boost at the right times anyway.

These are on top of mounted archer builds.

SO there are some builds that might find it worth the cost of admission as is, as long as the reload mechanic gets fixed, which does need to happen. I think it would be a mistake to give a weapon like this deadly D8 and make it an obviously superior weapon to the regular longbow. Getting advanced weapons is much too easy and then all the feats like point blank shot become incredibly more powerful. There is already a point where the longbow becomes a better weapon than a short bow with point blank shot, just because of the increase in die size. It would be a totally unnecessary push towards power creep to underestimate the value of 0 reload, D8 weapon with no range or accuracy drawbacks.

[Themetricsystem]

Did this thread really turn into a discussion where people are arguing over if there is even ONE halfway viable build for a single Class that could feasibly make use of this Weapon occasionally?

Mark, if you're still reading the forums occasionally and you notice this, please take this as a sign that the Daikyu is in desperate need of fixing, I mean... it's in a FAR worse spot than the original Bladed Scarf ever was and that got tweaked very quickly.

[graystone]

Unicore wrote:

SO there are some builds that might find it worth the cost of admission as is, as long as the reload mechanic gets fixed, which does need to happen.

Is there? What does it have over a repeating crossbow? 20' less range? Or a repeating hand crossbow that's truly 1 handed so the other hand is free throughout the round. The Daikyu just looks worse with the new weapons that have come out.

[Unicore]

graystone wrote:

Unicore wrote:

SO there are some builds that might find it worth the cost of admission as is, as long as the reload mechanic gets fixed, which does need to happen.

Is there? What does it have over a repeating crossbow? 20' less range? Or a repeating hand crossbow that's truly 1 handed so the other hand is free throughout the round. The Daikyu just looks worse with the new weapons that have come out.

These are other advanced weapons, that require spending an action reloading every couple rounds. With the fix to the reload entry, the Daikyu is pretty much on par with these weapons. 20ft less range for not having to use 2 hands and not having to spend time reloading every 5 shots is a fair trade off.

[pauljathome]

Verdyn, I've an honest question for you.

You've publicly stated that you don't like PF2. Its obvious from your comments that you don't like PF2.

PF2 is obviously just not the game for you. And that is absolutely fine and dandy (no sarcasm). Its not for everybody. No game is.

So why the heck do you spend so much time on the PF2 boards? Why not go and hang out on the boards dedicated to the games that you DO like?

[pauljathome]

Unicore wrote:

These are other advanced weapons, that require spending an action reloading every couple rounds. With the fix to the reload entry, the Daikyu is pretty much on par with these weapons. 20ft less range for not having to use 2 hands and not having to spend time reloading every 5 shots is a fair trade off.

I haven't really kept up with other advanced ranged weapons but if that analysis is correct then I think it just means that Paizo is printing MORE bad weapons.

The Daikyu (if we take away the reloading and facing nonsense) would be a fine martial weapon. Its a better weapon than a shortbow or longbow for some characters, worse for others. It adds a useful choice to the game.

But it is absurd as an Advanced Weapon. Its just not worth the cost of using an Advanced weapon.

[Golurkcanfly]

It's the problem with Advanced Weapons in general. Either they're not worth the feat because they're on par or outclassed by existing martial weapons, or they're weapons that are just strictly better (Gnome Flickmace) that encourage cheesy concepts to get access to them.

I agree that a lot of these most recent Advanced Weapons, especially the ranged ones, could be martial. Sure, the Repeating Crossbow doesn't have the downside of the Volley trait compared to a Longbow, but it also has a 3-action reload every five shots and no Deadly trait, either.

[Unicore]

The short bow would be a completely useless weapon if the Daikyu was a martial weapon. Base die size gets increasingly important as the game progresses to higher levels and while I really like deadly and fatal weapons, very many players would rather have an increased die size than a D10 deadly weapon because they feel like critical hits are too uncommon on most non-fighter builds.

If anything, the newer advanced ranged weapons make it clear that the developers do have the silo of advanced weapons figured out to the power level they want it to be, but that some players are struggling to understand why that power level is where it is. Disagreeing with that assessment in fine, but it doesn't seem like the mistakes made with the DaiKyu had to do with its power level.

[pauljathome]

Unicore wrote:

The short bow would be a completely useless weapon

Uh, you think deadly D10 and propulsive have no value, even at high levels? You think various classes being proficient with shortbows but not martial weapons in general has no value? You think classes getting automatic expertise in shortbows has no value?

I rather strongly and vehemently disagree, even at high level.

And not all the game is at high level. Even if (and I am certainly not conceeding the point) the short bow is useless at high level that still makes it a very useful weapon when not at high level.

[SaveVersus]

pauljathome wrote:

Verdyn, I've an honest question for you.

You've publicly stated that you don't like PF2. Its obvious from your comments that you don't like PF2.

PF2 is obviously just not the game for you. And that is absolutely fine and dandy (no sarcasm). Its not for everybody. No game is.

So why the heck do you spend so much time on the PF2 boards? Why not go and hang out on the boards dedicated to the games that you DO like?

Verdyn can like something and still not like the direction it's going. They don't have to be exclusive feelings.

I don't have the experience with the game that Verdyn has - and everyone's level of enjoyment is different - but this seems more of a GM fix* to me rather than anything else. If some players are choosing to play classes that are point-for-point suboptimal to other classes, then I feel the GM should adjust for that, IF the players are having fun.

Just like if the party has zero healers; you would adjust the fight accordingly and allow for more time between fights so the party can use Medicine, or take potions. If a party wants to be a Magus, Swashbuckler, Witch, and Investigator, the GM shouldn't chuckle and say, "Man, are you guys going to have a bad time;" the GM should make sure every fight doesn't end in near TPKs every time. Same thing if the party makes four Fighters; the GM shouldn't make the bulk of the game about Sherlock style, procedural roleplaying.

*: and by "fix" I don't inherently mean something is wrong with these classes. Using the four Fighters example, a fix would be to add more combat to the adventure and lessen the deduction checks.

[graystone]

Unicore wrote:

These are other advanced weapons, that require spending an action reloading every couple rounds. With the fix to the reload entry, the Daikyu is pretty much on par with these weapons.

You're talking about a magus so that's 5 rounds before reload: doesn't seem much of an issue and advanced is what the Daikyu is so... it's not really relevant.

Unicore wrote:

20ft less range for not having to use 2 hands and not having to spend time reloading every 5 shots is a fair trade off.

For people that would want these type of weapons, I don't think it's really a fair trade. Daikyu seems a REALLY niche use for a pretty niche category. I don't see the benefit of spending multiple feats for it over what else I could do with those feats.

Unicore wrote:

The short bow would be a completely useless weapon if the Daikyu was a martial weapon.

Would it? I don't think so.

Shortbow is d6 P, Deadly d10, 60'
Daikyu is d8 P, 80'
So a die increase and +20' range vs deadly d10... it's seems like a fairly even trade vs one being martial and the other being advanced. Then add to that that the composite version has Propulsive added so how does Propulsive and Deadly d10 compare to a die increase and 20' range?

[Golurkcanfly]

Unicore wrote:

The short bow would be a completely useless weapon if the Daikyu was a martial weapon. Base die size gets increasingly important as the game progresses to higher levels and while I really like deadly and fatal weapons, very many players would rather have an increased die size than a D10 deadly weapon because they feel like critical hits are too uncommon on most non-fighter builds.

If anything, the newer advanced ranged weapons make it clear that the developers do have the silo of advanced weapons figured out to the power level they want it to be, but that some players are struggling to understand why that power level is where it is. Disagreeing with that assessment in fine, but it doesn't seem like the mistakes made with the DaiKyu had to do with its power level.

Just did the calculations of Composite Shortbow (starting at 14 STR, going up to 18 STR at 10th) vs Daikyu on a Fighter, 2 Strikes each.

At every level, the Composite Shortbow does equal or more damage on average, gets much better with bonuses to hit, and is still ahead at penalties to hit. And the Daikyu is only even at levels 5-9. Every other level and the Composite Shortbow is ahead.

The Daikyu's actual advantage is range, and 60ft is enough range for the grand majority of combats anyways.

And with typical martial accuracy + Weapon Spec, the damage difference is still in the Shortbow's favor at most levels, but they follow almost the exact same path, with them never straying more than a single point of damage on average from each other.

[Unicore]

Short bow. Not composite shortbow. Investing in Str and Dex is not a great option for a whole lot of martials that have prime mental stats or close to it. Those other advanced bows are not propulsive either.

[Squiggit]

Even without benefiting from propulsive the daikyu does not look especially amazing next to the shortbow.

Certainly not worth something like a level 6 fighter feat.

[Golurkcanfly]

Unicore wrote:

Short bow. Not composite shortbow. Investing in Str and Dex is not a great option for a whole lot of martials that have prime mental stats or close to it. Those other advanced bows are not propulsive either.

Except the Composite Shortbow already obsoletes the regular shortbow by your logic, and the data shows that the Shortbow gets significantly better as accuracy improves without really getting any worse.

Quote:

The short bow would be a completely useless weapon if the Daikyu was a martial weapon.

That is, verbatim, what you said. The Shortbow is already completely useless next to the Composite Shortbow, which is, quite literally, a strictly better version of the Shortbow. The regular Shortbow is already the worst version of itself.

And without propulsive (it's not hard to invest a little bit into STR for some extra damage) they end up roughly even, except with the Daikyu slightly ahead instead of the Shortbow, but still behind the Composite Shortbow.

And the Shortbow improves dramatically with accuracy bonuses, which, again is still a niche the Daikyu does not have thanks to no Deadly trait.

This trend is largely true for other ranged weapons, where they fall behind Shortbows and Longbows either due to requiring a feat tax (which could instead be spent on a feat to make the already stronger weapons even better) or have an additional downside for no tangible upside.

[thewastedwalrus]

Could also be a non-fighter with the archer dedication and the 6th-level Advanced Bow Training.

I'd be interested in how the daikyu compares vs a regular shortbow when proficiency isn't as high as a fighter's. If the character only crits on a 20 then it seems like the flat damage would probably overtake the deadly increase.

And Strength isn't free, some characters would rather put their boosts elsewhere. Obviously weapons designed for high-Str characters will benefit from them having that, and probably be better for those characters than other options. If the daikyu is worse or equal to a regular shortbow objectively, then that would be a problem.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Could also be a non-fighter with the archer dedication and the 6th-level Advanced Bow Training.

I'd be interested in how the daikyu compares vs a regular shortbow when proficiency isn't as high as a fighter's. If the character only crits on a 20 then it seems like the flat damage would probably overtake the deadly increase.

And Strength isn't free, some characters would rather put their boosts elsewhere. Obviously weapons designed for high-Str characters will benefit from them having that, and probably be better for those characters than other options. If the daikyu is worse or equal to a regular shortbow objectively, then that would be a problem.

Well, if you are a Fighter, you're already 2 less than usual to your attack rolls, and if you're a non-Fighter, you need an ancestry feat or something to select it to even be trained to begin with, which using something untrained at 1st level is a minimum of 3 less than usual. So you are either burning feats to keep up with the projected math (which don't kick in until 6th level via class/dedication feats, or 13th via ancestry feats), which could have been spent on other, better feats, or you are purposefully bad for your party by not being proficient (enough) with your weapons, which defeats the entire point of this being a team game where you contribute fairly to the success of your party.

Really, an Archer doesn't get a whole lot out of investing any Strength to their character when Intelligence for more trained skills and languages, or Charisma for face skills or in-combat debuffs, are far more valuable than an increase in Bulk limitations and a +2 to damage rolls by 20th level.

[Golurkcanfly]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Could also be a non-fighter with the archer dedication and the 6th-level Advanced Bow Training.

I'd be interested in how the daikyu compares vs a regular shortbow when proficiency isn't as high as a fighter's. If the character only crits on a 20 then it seems like the flat damage would probably overtake the deadly increase.

And Strength isn't free, some characters would rather put their boosts elsewhere. Obviously weapons designed for high-Str characters will benefit from them having that, and probably be better for those characters than other options. If the daikyu is worse or equal to a regular shortbow objectively, then that would be a problem.

Well, if you are a Fighter, you're already 2 less than usual to your attack rolls, and if you're a non-Fighter, you need an ancestry feat or something to select it to even be trained to begin with, which using something untrained at 1st level is a minimum of 3 less than usual. So you are either burning feats to keep up with the projected math (which don't kick in until 6th level via class/dedication feats, or 13th via ancestry feats), which could have been spent on other, better feats, or you are purposefully bad for your party by not being proficient (enough) with your weapons, which defeats the entire point of this being a team game where you contribute fairly to the success of your party.

Really, an Archer doesn't get a whole lot out of investing any Strength to their character when Intelligence for more trained skills and languages, or Charisma for face skills or in-combat debuffs, are far more valuable than an increase in Bulk limitations and a +2 to damage rolls by 20th level.

Bonus skills from Intelligence stop mattering pretty shortly as you gain more skill increases (and DCs expect you to have more at Expert or Master), Charisma is character-dependent, and Athletics is still really solid.

And even in this situation, the Composite Shortbow is equal to or strictly better than the regular Shortbow unless you have 8 STR, and with just 14 STR, the Composite Shortbow is ahead of the Daikyu.

So, there's not really a reason for the Shortbow to exist except for those 8 STR characters.

Meanwhile, the Daikyu provides an actually interesting alternative, where you can choose between dice damage or better criticals + propulsive. This provides a much more tangible choice than "There's no downside to taking this option if I have more than 8 STR" as the extra gold cost is trivial beyond 1st-level.

But then, the Daikyu is Advanced, and RAW doesn't actually work. If you do want it even with the feat tax, you're still better off grabbing another feat that boosts your combat capabilities.

[Verdyn]

Arcaian wrote:

Now this is just being inconsistent - using your same level 9 skill modifier of +14 (though it probably should have a +1 item bonus), the rogue only has a 60% chance of success to Hide. Modifiers from the terrain are definitely going to be inconsistent in my experience (concealment vs cover), but even if we assume them, you explicitly picked the worst-case scenario for the Swashbuckler. Something like a Gibbering Mouther has a +15 Perception, so you're at a base of 50% and standard cover only takes you to 60%. It's a secret check, so you don't know if you made it or not - unlike the Swashbuckler. Or something like a Giant Crawling Hand has a Precise Lifesense within 30ft. If you start your turn hidden and Strike, then Hide, and finally Sneak, you'd need a 70ft move speed to be more than 30ft away from the square you revealed yourself to be in. Given you don't have that, the Giant Crawling Hand will simply Stride up to your square, automatically sense you, and your strategy is ruined.

The Rogue can always attempt to sneak up, break off and run if they fail, and rinse and repeat until the job is done. You may counter that a Swashbuckler with a bow could also try this but they aren't going to be experts in stealth and will take longer due to never landing sneak attacks.

Unless you can show me how the Swashbuckler can do better against those same threats I'm still more convinced by the tactics a Rogue can use here.

[Verdyn]

pauljathome wrote:

Verdyn, I've an honest question for you.

You've publicly stated that you don't like PF2. Its obvious from your comments that you don't like PF2.

PF2 is obviously just not the game for you. And that is absolutely fine and dandy (no sarcasm). Its not for everybody. No game is.

So why the heck do you spend so much time on the PF2 boards? Why not go and hang out on the boards dedicated to the games that you DO like?

Most of the games I prefer don't have dedicated forums and Reddit and FB groups are cesspits. This is one of the more active RPG forums these days so here I find myself.

[thewastedwalrus]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Could also be a non-fighter with the archer dedication and the 6th-level Advanced Bow Training.

I'd be interested in how the daikyu compares vs a regular shortbow when proficiency isn't as high as a fighter's. If the character only crits on a 20 then it seems like the flat damage would probably overtake the deadly increase.

And Strength isn't free, some characters would rather put their boosts elsewhere. Obviously weapons designed for high-Str characters will benefit from them having that, and probably be better for those characters than other options. If the daikyu is worse or equal to a regular shortbow objectively, then that would be a problem.

Well, if you are a Fighter, you're already 2 less than usual to your attack rolls, and if you're a non-Fighter, you need an ancestry feat or something to select it to even be trained to begin with, which using something untrained at 1st level is a minimum of 3 less than usual. So you are either burning feats to keep up with the projected math (which don't kick in until 6th level via class/dedication feats, or 13th via ancestry feats), which could have been spent on other, better feats, or you are purposefully bad for your party by not being proficient (enough) with your weapons, which defeats the entire point of this being a team game where you contribute fairly to the success of your party.

Really, an Archer doesn't get a whole lot out of investing any Strength to their character when Intelligence for more trained skills and languages, or Charisma for face skills or in-combat debuffs, are far more valuable than an increase in Bulk limitations and a +2 to damage rolls by 20th level.

Yeah, using an advanced weapon at level 1 is pretty much never a great idea. But at level 6+ it could make sense if you already wanted Archer dedication for something else so it only costs you one feat.

One feat for a constant benefit like using a better weapon seems pretty solid if it matches the character. Whether the daikyu could count as a better weapon than a regular shortbow is interesting, and probably only would when fighting higher-level enemies or while not being a fighter (when crits only on 20).

[Golurkcanfly]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Could also be a non-fighter with the archer dedication and the 6th-level Advanced Bow Training.

I'd be interested in how the daikyu compares vs a regular shortbow when proficiency isn't as high as a fighter's. If the character only crits on a 20 then it seems like the flat damage would probably overtake the deadly increase.

And Strength isn't free, some characters would rather put their boosts elsewhere. Obviously weapons designed for high-Str characters will benefit from them having that, and probably be better for those characters than other options. If the daikyu is worse or equal to a regular shortbow objectively, then that would be a problem.

Well, if you are a Fighter, you're already 2 less than usual to your attack rolls, and if you're a non-Fighter, you need an ancestry feat or something to select it to even be trained to begin with, which using something untrained at 1st level is a minimum of 3 less than usual. So you are either burning feats to keep up with the projected math (which don't kick in until 6th level via class/dedication feats, or 13th via ancestry feats), which could have been spent on other, better feats, or you are purposefully bad for your party by not being proficient (enough) with your weapons, which defeats the entire point of this being a team game where you contribute fairly to the success of your party.

Really, an Archer doesn't get a whole lot out of investing any Strength to their character when Intelligence for more trained skills and languages, or Charisma for face skills or in-combat debuffs, are far more valuable than an increase in Bulk limitations and a +2 to damage rolls by 20th level.

Yeah, using an advanced weapon at level 1 is pretty much never a great idea. But at level 6+ it could make sense if you already wanted Archer dedication for something else so it only costs you one feat.

One feat for a constant benefit like using a better weapon seems pretty solid if it...

The difference is that you could just grab a feat with more solid impact. And if you cared about the damage, you could have just invested into the composite shortbow, which performs roughly the same as the Daikyu at significantly boosted ACs and drastically outperforms it at lower ACs.

[thewastedwalrus]

Yes, if you have the Strength for it. I'm not trying to say it would be good for characters that have 14/18 Str.

1 Feat compared to 2+ boosts may be a decent trade for some characters.

[Captain Morgan]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Bonus skills from Intelligence stop mattering pretty shortly as you gain more skill increases (and DCs expect you to have more at Expert or Master),

This is one of the more pervasive PF2 myths. It only really applies if you're rolling against a creature's stats, like Demoralize or Trip. The level based DCs scale slowly enough to where if you put some ability score boosts in the relevant stat or invest in a cheap hand me down item you equal or exceed your odds on a trained skill check.

I suppose rarity adjustments could potentially pop up more at high levels, but there are also a lot more bonus sources available at high level: follow the expert, mutagens, buff spells... There are a lot of ways to shift the math without investing skill increases.

[Squiggit]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Yes, if you have the Strength for it. I'm not trying to say it would be good for characters that have 14/18 Str.

1 Feat compared to 2+ boosts may be a decent trade for some characters.

But, again, the damage doesn't really shift much in the daikyu's favor even with 10 strength.

[pauljathome]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

The Shortbow is already completely useless next to the Composite Shortbow,

As you yourself point out, this isn't true for characters with low strength.

I think that this whole discussion makes my primary point pretty much clearly correct.

There is room in the game for the shortbow, composite shortbow, longbow, composite longbow and Daikyu. Depending on level, character, campaign type, how important the weapon is to the character, etc ALL may be the best option for a particular character. That is when they are all martial weapons.

Even as a martial weapon the Daikyu is most definitely NOT clearly superior to any of the alternatives in all circumstances

[Golurkcanfly]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Bonus skills from Intelligence stop mattering pretty shortly as you gain more skill increases (and DCs expect you to have more at Expert or Master),

This is one of the more pervasive PF2 myths. It only really applies if you're rolling against a creature's stats, like Demoralize or Trip. The level based DCs scale slowly enough to where if you put some ability score boosts in the relevant stat or invest in a cheap hand me down item you equal or exceed your odds on a trained skill check.

I suppose rarity adjustments could potentially pop up more at high levels, but there are also a lot more bonus sources available at high level: follow the expert, mutagens, buff spells... There are a lot of ways to shift the math without investing skill increases.

Like any d20 game, PF2e has the same "defer to the expert" skill resolution system. No reason to try and pick that lock and end up making it impossible to open instead of letting your buddy who has a +10 bonus over you do it instead. The entire premise of being a party-based game necessitates having different party members handle different tasks.