Do you feel treasure vault introduced minor power creep?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at some of the new weapons, some are basically advanced weapons with the martial weapon label and straight up better than other existing weapons.

It's weird to see the scimitar just be straight up inferior with the release of this book.

It's quite minor I know, but I don't really like it.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed! Weapons with Martian labels, but no Venutian? That's down right discriminatory! ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not really? I don't remember seeing anything that beats any of the existing flails, bows or repeating hand crossbow, so there has been no effective change to the power ceiling. Maybe the combination bow might be the pick for switch hitting now, but that's less power creep and more quality of life for non-abp players.


gesalt wrote:
Not really? I don't remember seeing anything that beats any of the existing flails, bows or repeating hand crossbow, so there has been no effective change to the power ceiling. Maybe the combination bow might be the pick for switch hitting now, but that's less power creep and more quality of life for non-abp players.

What about the other weapon groups? I know sword has minimum of 1


What did the scimitar get replaced by?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say no to power creep. We expect advanced weapons to be good so the ceiling is getting wider but not taller. The martial weapons all seem to be fine. I don't see them being better than usual.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Definitely. Adding options is necessarily power creep (the Alchemist got a nice boost for example).
Now, I don't think it will affect the game balance much to call that a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh not really. The maul is great, flickmace is still great even with the nerf. I don't really see many of the new items rendering old ones useless.

I agree with the wider not taller ceiling anology.

I mean some of the stuff like the insight coffee just seems like it should've been an errata for the investigator. "Fixing" it's damage with a strange consumable is kind of backwards to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Can you be specific OP?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally advanced weapons to date have not been good enough, barring a few examples (like the flickmace).

Something like "Adding a monk bow" is arguably power creep since the added range on the gakgung is much more useful in Monastic Archer Stance than the extra deadly die, so monk archers are better. But Monastic Archer stance also calls out "bows with the monk trait" which there weren't any before this. The same goes for heavier armors that weren't made of metal and low-dex Druids.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

More options must add more power, though as others have noted, it differs whether it's expanding wider or higher. If the peak stats remain the peak stats, then the power creep's going where it should, to the alternate options so they can contend in this tight math.
One might argue that have alternate options leads to alternate solutions which is a type of power creep itself, but since that's more in terms of expanding agency than overshadowing opponents, I'd say it's fine. Early adventures will remain viable, which is a great thing IMO, having seen early PF1 APs lose so much oomph as to need an overhaul before being playable for a later competitive party.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm more disappointed in the newer traits like brace and razing. They seem very niche yet appear as if budgeted as good traits (same goes for hampering).

If razing worked against constructs, that would've been cool.


Lollerabe wrote:

I'm more disappointed in the newer traits like brace and razing. They seem very niche yet appear as if budgeted as good traits (same goes for hampering).

If razing worked against constructs, that would've been cool.

Last time I read through it, it does indeed work on constructs. Hazards too naturally if you don't have the requisite skills to disable it, might as well smack it with a razing weapon.


Squiggit wrote:
Can you be specific OP?

To be specific, panabas is purely above the power curve for a martial weapon.

No I don't believe uncommon suddenly gives more traits.


That is just a better scimitar yeah. A better falchion too. I always felt that the scimitar should have been finesse/forceful to be a foil to the shortsword. Maybe the scimitar always sucked. The panabas seems fine though as a martial weapon. I don't see people picking it over a bastard sword in most cases.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Can you be specific OP?

To be specific, panabas is purely above the power curve for a martial weapon.

No I don't believe uncommon suddenly gives more traits.

Nah. Forceful is somewhat inconsistently used but isn't really that good.

I mean if you look at a necksplitter, it is 1d8, forceful, sweep, advanced. Basically an extra trait.

Now look at Panabras vs a bastard sword.

Bastard sword is 1d8 2h 1d12.

Panabras 1d6 2h 1d10 Sweep, Forceful

So vs a bastard sword it loses an entire weapon die, for two traits. Seems right on budget.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Can you be specific OP?

To be specific, panabas is purely above the power curve for a martial weapon.

No I don't believe uncommon suddenly gives more traits.

The Wish Blade was also an uncommon martial weapon 1d6, Two-Hand D10 with two other traits (Disarm and Resonant) that predated the Panabas. It's arguable forceful and sweep are better traits, but I don't think it's obvious.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Panabas has been noted for errata already.


Also minor contention, the panabas was introduced in impossible lands and reprinted in treasure vault.


CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Can you be specific OP?

To be specific, panabas is purely above the power curve for a martial weapon.

No I don't believe uncommon suddenly gives more traits.

Nah. Forceful is somewhat inconsistently used but isn't really that good.

I mean if you look at a necksplitter, it is 1d8, forceful, sweep, advanced. Basically an extra trait.

Now look at Panabras vs a bastard sword.

Bastard sword is 1d8 2h 1d12.

Panabras 1d6 2h 1d10 Sweep, Forceful

So vs a bastard sword it loses an entire weapon die, for two traits. Seems right on budget.

Weapon die is equal to one trait

It gets an extra trait, it's on par with advanced weapons


WatersLethe wrote:
The Panabas has been noted for errata already.

Oh? So they are aware. This is good. I didn't know this.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:

Weapon die is equal to one trait

It gets an extra trait, it's on par with advanced weapons

Depends on the trait. Certain traits are considered higher or lower value, depending on what they do.

It's worth noting though that mathematically, it's definitely not on par with advanced weapons. As printed, the Panabas is worse than a bastard sword in the majority of circumstances, and bastard swords are martial.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Luis Loza on Reddit: "The panabas is actually something I have my eye on. We don't ever want to invalidate other weapons, so we'll probably have to revisit it and tweak it a bit to allow scimitars and falchions to maintain their niche."


Squiggit wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Weapon die is equal to one trait

It gets an extra trait, it's on par with advanced weapons

Depends on the trait. Certain traits are considered higher or lower value, depending on what they do.

It's worth noting though that mathematically, it's definitely not on par with advanced weapons. As printed, the Panabas is worse than a bastard sword in the majority of circumstances, and bastard swords are martial.

The comparison to the scimitar is fair. It's only the fact that forceful is a bad trade in every case except for the neck splitter and elven curved blade that the panabas is still worse than a bastard sword. Just based on number of traits and comparable weapons though, it's out of place.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Can you be specific OP?

To be specific, panabas is purely above the power curve for a martial weapon.

No I don't believe uncommon suddenly gives more traits.

Nah. Forceful is somewhat inconsistently used but isn't really that good.

I mean if you look at a necksplitter, it is 1d8, forceful, sweep, advanced. Basically an extra trait.

Now look at Panabras vs a bastard sword.

Bastard sword is 1d8 2h 1d12.

Panabras 1d6 2h 1d10 Sweep, Forceful

So vs a bastard sword it loses an entire weapon die, for two traits. Seems right on budget.

Weapon die is equal to one trait

It gets an extra trait, it's on par with advanced weapons

Sorry, but that is completely wrong. Traits have variable value.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
aobst128 wrote:


The comparison to the scimitar is fair. It's only the fact that forceful is a bad trade in every case except for the neck splitter and elven curved blade that the panabas is still worse than a bastard sword. Just based on number of traits and comparable weapons though, it's out of place.

I guess, but that kind of sounds more like an argument that the Scimitar and Falchion are missing a trait, given that the Panabas itself is barely on the right curve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

apg was the biggest pc powerup and recently dark archive give magus a significant buff

hallowed necromancer time mage and shadow caster also significantly buff caster of every spell list

problem is if treasure vault have any new archetype that give player access to a different section of alchemy item

archetype give level -3 mutagen or even all elixir without healing trait would be something very powerful


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
aobst128 wrote:


The comparison to the scimitar is fair. It's only the fact that forceful is a bad trade in every case except for the neck splitter and elven curved blade that the panabas is still worse than a bastard sword. Just based on number of traits and comparable weapons though, it's out of place.
I guess, but that kind of sounds more like an argument that the Scimitar and Falchion are missing a trait, given that the Panabas itself is barely on the right curve.

Yup, boost them up a bit so they aren't so bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
aobst128 wrote:


The comparison to the scimitar is fair. It's only the fact that forceful is a bad trade in every case except for the neck splitter and elven curved blade that the panabas is still worse than a bastard sword. Just based on number of traits and comparable weapons though, it's out of place.
I guess, but that kind of sounds more like an argument that the Scimitar and Falchion are missing a trait, given that the Panabas itself is barely on the right curve.

Yeah. I'd rather forceful weapons be better in general but it's a little late for that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Scimitars should have thrown, so that well-hydrated women can more easily lob them at people as a way of indicating right to rule.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aobst128 wrote:
...the ceiling is getting wider but not taller.

Whether wide or tall, a big house is still a big house. Only the tall house casts its shadow over its neighbors, however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do not believe scimitar or falcata needs additional traits


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
I do not believe scimitar or falcata needs additional traits

But if the scimitar being underpowered isn't a problem, then it shouldn't be a big deal that the panabas is slightly better, should it? It sits right in the middle, which should be fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
I do not believe scimitar or falcata needs additional traits

Then you'd have the same complaint against a rapier/Nunchaku/Kukri/Khakkara/Katana/Gnome Hooked Hammer/Flail/Dogslicer/Boarding Axe vs the scimitar [1d6 1 handed weapons with 3 traits vs 2 traits]. 3 traits for martial weapons began in core and continued from there.

For instance;
Gnome Hooked Hammer [Trip, Two-Hand 1d10, Uncommon, Versatile P]
Flail [Disarm, Sweep, Trip]
Katana [Deadly d8, Two-Hand 1d10, Uncommon, Versatile P]
Kukri [Agile, Finesse, Trip, Uncommon]
Nunchaku [Backswing, Disarm, Finesse, Monk, Uncommon]
Rapier [Deadly d8, Disarm, Finesse] are all core.

It was inevitable that we'd get 1d6 1 handed weapon with 3 traits that included Forceful and Sweep. Now if you're happy with scimitar hen you never have to pick up a panabas.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather have Paizo add a minor trait to the Scimitar and Falchion than nerf the Panabas. The weapon is alright, and Scimitar and Falchion have been quite mediocre since the CRB days.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I still think the scimitar should have been finesse and agile.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I still think the scimitar should have been finesse and agile.

That's just a shortsword. Finesse and forceful would have been better. We still lack a good forceful finesse weapon. That would actually be a niche it could fill because it's possible in the budget from what I could tell but it just doesn't exist.


Backswing could be pretty fitting for both the Scimitar and the Falchion, but I think Paizo values it a lot to be able to fit.

Maybe a small deadly die would be appropriate. I would like agile and forceful combination, but I think that's unlikely.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Power creep? Nah, it's just patching some holes - that was sort of the whole stated intent.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand the legacy game reasons the scimitar should be a dex weapon, but PF2 tends to put more emphasis on the actual mechanics of historical weapons and if the scimitar were agile and/or finesse then most one-handed swords should be agile and/or finesse.

Like the reason scimitars (and cavalry sabres) were curved was not "to make them lighter or easier to wield" but to focus the point of impact (like an axe) and to ensure that the blade slid out of the target on a slash as these were cavalry weapons.

I would leave the Scimitar where it is and give it Jousting if we're going to add a trait.


Actually, the glaive isn't so bad as a forceful weapon. You trade a damage die but gain deadly and forceful which is a little more fair.

Sovereign Court

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I understand the legacy game reasons the scimitar should be a dex weapon, but PF2 tends to put more emphasis on the actual mechanics of historical weapons and if the scimitar were agile and/or finesse then most one-handed swords should be agile and/or finesse.

Like the reason scimitars (and cavalry sabres) were curved was not "to make them lighter or easier to wield" but to focus the point of impact (like an axe) and to ensure that the blade slid out of the target on a slash as these were cavalry weapons.

I would leave the Scimitar where it is and give it Jousting if we're going to add a trait.

Jousting on a scimitar, now that's quite an interesting twist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Lollerabe wrote:

I'm more disappointed in the newer traits like brace and razing. They seem very niche yet appear as if budgeted as good traits (same goes for hampering).

If razing worked against constructs, that would've been cool.

Last time I read through it, it does indeed work on constructs. Hazards too naturally if you don't have the requisite skills to disable it, might as well smack it with a razing weapon.

Only vs objects unfortunately. So against an animated armor, yes. Vs any construct without the object tag ? Nope.


Most of the Razing weapons seemed good in general with that trait as a relatively minor but neat bonus.

As for the channel topic, sure, it seems so, to some weaker and more niche things. That's not a problem, though. We've yet to see the whole book but I very much doubt it'll be a problematic one, except in the sense that there'll be so much cool stuff in it it'll be hard to use it all (and a fair bit of the cool stuff won't scale well or will miss something small) ¯\_('v')_/¯


never liked jousting

wanted a charging trait that deal additional circumstance equal to damage dice damage if attacker move more than 10 feet before attacking


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Only the good kind: lots of support for play styles that needed it, ranging from alchemists, throwers, some of the new gun and crossbow options, another finesse polearm.

Meanwhile the 'worst' offender in terms of normal power creep is that the fatal d12 falcata is a better d8 strength option than the versatile longsword, and the Nodachi is very nearly a straight upgrade on the Naginata... but they're both locked behind a feat tax anyway, so it bears questioning if they exceed a class feat's worth of power increase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not so minor anymore if that new magic ammo that slows even on a crit success with an indefinite duration until target Escapes is any indication.


gesalt wrote:
Not so minor anymore if that new magic ammo that slows even on a crit success with an indefinite duration until target Escapes is any indication.

I just saw that and I don't savor telling my gunslinger player no on it when they get to finding out about it.

I get it takes an extra action, I still think it's too powerful


aobst128 wrote:
Actually, the glaive isn't so bad as a forceful weapon. You trade a damage die but gain deadly and forceful which is a little more fair.

Getting both works. Too many weapons trade a damage die for just deadly, but deadly on its own isn't worth a die. Like, the math just doesn't work, especially since deadly doesn't add a die on striking rune (and only normal striking, for some reason - I never understood this). You could make a wakizashi deadly d12 and it would still be worse than a short sword from 4-11 in all cases... (and without running exact numbers, I think the expected damage stays lower at pretty much every level unless you're punching down enough to have a really high crit rate)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gesalt wrote:
Not so minor anymore if that new magic ammo that slows even on a crit success with an indefinite duration until target Escapes is any indication.

The ammo that changes damage to bludgeoning and knocks prone on hit and stunned 1 and prone on crit (well, measured against Ref DC) also seems pretty strong. Add to that a bow user can poach Fake Out and put a gauntlet bow on their free hand to use it at-will, and I'd say archer fighter is doing very well with this release.

1 to 50 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Do you feel treasure vault introduced minor power creep? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.