Issues with Advanced Weaponry


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
That just seems like a pretty bad baseline, like from that starting point you could excise most everything from the game as being superfluous.

But that is also kinda the point. All of the extra cool stuff is only marginally better than the standard stuff and could be excised from a particular player's build without harming their character's effectiveness very much.

One of the strengths of PF2 that I, at least, really like - is that when I am discussing character creation with someone - especially someone new to the game - I don't have to go:

"So what type of combat role are you looking for?"

"___________"

"Oh, well if you want to do that, then you will need to get this weapon, with these couple of feats and pick up this archetype and get that feat from there, and be sure to be of this ancestry. Otherwise your character will be so far behind the other combatants that it will feel bad."

The one PF1 campaign that I played for a while had two other characters in it. One was a Rogue using fairly standard stuff and focusing on sneak attack. The other was a Swashbuckler that picked up Combat Stamina, Combat Reflexes, Fencing Grace, Combat Expertise, and Threatening Defender.

One of those two characters was much more effective in combat than the other. Simply because of the build choices.

I don't want to go back to that.


How does a house rule where characters can pick any one advanced weapon and add it to their usual list class proficient weapons sound as a balance patch? It's a straight buff to nearly every class with a slight, relative, nerf to the already excellent fighter.


graystone wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
and then people that don't scour all of the internet build recommendations in order to figure out how to get just the right Advanced weapon that matches their combat style are at a significant disadvantage.
What you describe is what we have how: if you pick the right race [or adopt into it] and maybe take the right archetype and maybe a general feat can get that advanced weapon: meaning those that don't make their Acrobatics roll to jump through all he hoops can't do so.

Yes. And I would agree that the current state is a bit of a problem.

I just don't support swinging the pendulum too far the other way and making the Advanced weapons so ubiquitously available that there is no distinction or cost to get them.

graystone wrote:
Also, if "A rogue using a rapier, shortsword, or even a dagger" is perfectly fine, then what is the issue if someone spends a feat to to get a Kukri, fighting fans or a Kris? Often, he only difference between simple -> martial -> advanced is a single trait [and sometimes a questionable one like disarm].

And if all the player wants is the description of the weapon, then they can have the description of the weapon with the stats of the Martial weapons.

But if they do in fact want that one extra trait, they shouldn't be opposed to paying a bit of a cost for it. Yes, an Archetype dedication and a level 12 feat is probably a bit too high of a cost. As is Adopted Ancestry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The answer to why advanced weapons are so difficult to use is obviously game balance but I keep getting stuck on what the in-universe justification for a broadspear, literally a pointy stick, being more difficult to use than a longbow, which takes years to master. I just don't get it at all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Slacker 2.0 wrote:
How does a house rule where characters can pick any one advanced weapon and add it to their usual list class proficient weapons sound as a balance patch? It's a straight buff to nearly every class with a slight, relative, nerf to the already excellent fighter.

If we are throwing out houserules to see what sticks, I would propose:

------------------------
Weapon Advancement
General Feat 5
Prerequisites: Weapon Proficiency

Choose a weapon category or Advanced weapon that you gained proficiency with from Weapon Proficiency. When you gain a proficiency in a weapon higher than Trained from your class features, you also gain that proficiency with the weapon or weapon category chosen.
------------------------

Now it only costs two general feats to get proficiency with your Advanced weapons. Or all martial weapons if you are a Rogue. Or all Simple weapons if you are a Wizard.

But it also doesn't make you better with those weapons than you are with your class specific weapons.

Should probably put in something to prevent using it with Fighters and their proficiency bump in their favored weapon though.


how does that make sense when advanced weapon training are level 6 and weapon expertise are level 13

unless all these feat lower level greatly


25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

how does that make sense when advanced weapon training are level 6 and weapon expertise are level 13

unless all these feat lower level greatly

Makes a lot of sense actually: "You gain proficiency with all advanced weapons in that group". So as a fighter, you could spend a 5th level general feat to get 1 advanced weapon proficiency or spend a 6th class feat for all advanced in a group. And the same for weapon expertise [you get every weapon with the racial trait].

For instance, elven expertise gets an elf wizard 10 weapons proficiencies up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Define "relevant weapons."

A weapon that you can use that you can play the game and have fun with. A rogue using a rapier, shortsword, or even a dagger is a completely playable character.

Yes, all of the powergamers that want to chase after that last half point of damage and +1 bonus may not like that Advanced weapons are locked behind feats.

But those Advanced weapons are not required in order to have a viable character. You can play the game just fine with a relevant weapon that you do get proficiency in automatically. If we buff Advanced weapons too much or make the cost to get them too low, then we lose that - and then people that don't scour all of the internet build recommendations in order to figure out how to get just the right Advanced weapon that matches their combat style are at a significant disadvantage.

Playable, yes. But hardly varied in playstyle. The rogue using those weapons is extremely common and cliche, almost to the point that the sole reason they stick to those weapons, and only those weapons, is because their base class proficiency is reliant on this. You otherwise have to spend an egregious amount of feats for something that, honestly, shouldn't need feats if it was properly balanced to begin with. And no, I don't mean that Advanced weapons should be free to acquire, I mean that Advanced weapons need to be and do more to make them worth taking feats for. Because instead of me taking a feat to use a specific weapon, I could be taking said feat to move faster, have more HP, be less likely to die, have more investiture, get special spellcasting abilities; the list goes on.

To be clear, locking Advanced weapons behind feats is fine, because the Advanced weapons shouldn't be easy to wield or acquire, and they should be rewarding to use in place of their Simple and Martial counterparts. They're specialized weapons that require specific training to utilize. However, a lot of them aren't rewarding whatsoever because of the added scaling investments, and because you're comparing to other character options, and not just weapons in general of lesser tiers. If I published a feat that let you use a specific weapon that had 20 feet more range and one step die size higher on a lower proficiency scale, would you take it over Fleet or Multitalented or Natural Ambition? No. No you wouldn't. That makes it a poorly designed Advanced weapon.

And if I find some Rare weapon and realize "Oh, I can't use this, I need to sink feats into XYZ to do so," guess what it turns into? Gold to fund a weapon I can use. Instead of using a neat, flavorful item that was a reward from a bad guy, I just repurpose it into a bland weapon that's usable, even if it's of the same item type. Rogues using Sword Canes is as outlandish as Wizards using Swords (no, Magi don't count) and Fighters casting Spells; practically unheard of, except for that weirdo player in your group that wants to do wacky crazy stuff, whom should be the exception and not the rule, especially given that the rules don't actively support any of it.

As for Advanced weapons putting other weapon categories at a disadvantage, that's kind of the entire point of them being Advanced. If a Sawtooth Sabre had the same stats as a Shortsword, what makes it an Advanced weapon, then? Because it's Uncommon? Because it has a neat name? Because of Golarion setting copyright laws? There's no discerning feature besides the fact that it's labeled an Advanced weapon, which is absurd since there needs to be more to distinguish Sawtooth Sabres over Shortswords. Who would ever spend feats for a weapon name when you can just use a Shortsword that does the same exact thing? The inverse of the argument you present is equally true: If Advanced weapons are so bad that they are equal to or worse than Martial weapons, why even print them out or make them available, which constitutes them being trap options, something which this edition has gone to great lengths to abolish? The last thing a game like this needs is more apparent trap options, and it has plenty of them as it is.


In a system with weapon runes, it seems like we shouldn't really have the advanced weapon category anymore. Instead, add a third rune type with its own unique slot, and allow players to add an additional property to their existing weapon. Special ancestry-related weapons could just come factory equipped with the matching rune.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

how does that make sense when advanced weapon training are level 6 and weapon expertise are level 13

unless all these feat lower level greatly

Weapon Expertise is a bit of a distraction, since normal martial classes don't need it either. The level 1 ancestry feats already switch which proficiency is used, to one that automatically upgrades at 5. I think only classes with weird weapon selections like the wizard need it.

Anyway, the general feat would need to be level 7, not 5. At level 5 you don't get a general feat but an ancestry feat.

And then I think the balancing falls into place nicely. If you get an advanced weapon through ancestry feat + martial class, you go up at 5. If you take the general feat route to get one that's not on your ancestry-advised list, then you get it at level 7. Enough to show a difference, not enough to cripple.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Anyway, the general feat would need to be level 7, not 5. At level 5 you don't get a general feat but an ancestry feat.

I noticed that, but I would still list the feat itself as a level 5 feat. Because that is when it would first become useful. That is when martial classes get their first proficiency boost.

Similarly only a couple classes can actually get the level 2 skill feats at level 2. Most have to wait until level 3. But the feats are still listed as level 2 feats.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Anyway, the general feat would need to be level 7, not 5. At level 5 you don't get a general feat but an ancestry feat.

I noticed that, but I would still list the feat itself as a level 5 feat. Because that is when it would first become useful. That is when martial classes get their first proficiency boost.

Similarly only a couple classes can actually get the level 2 skill feats at level 2. Most have to wait until level 3. But the feats are still listed as level 2 feats.

Yeah rogues, investigators, and some chaining through just the right archetypes, can take expert skill feats at level 2.

But nobody gets general feats at level 5. Level 5 general feats don't exist in the game. Even if they did exist, nobody has a way to actually take them before level 7. Since part of the discussion was going all "oh it's so wrong that the suggested general feat comes before the L6 fighter feat", I wanted to point out that no, that won't happen.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think it is an Advanced Weapon and it probably is not Optimized, but I did take Goblin Weapon Familiarity for my Goblin Rogue at level 1 for Pathfinder Society, and as a Rogue I do plan on getting Goblin Weapon Frenzy to pick up the critical specialization. It felt worth it to me for a thematic and cool and unique weapon to my ancestry, gives me a stronger connection to my character and his weapons.

The feeling behind it is something like, "These are MY special weapons and nobody else can use them." Even though, as has been pointed out, adopted ancestry and so on and so forth. It just feels cool to have something rarer and kind of tailored to your character/ancestry instead of generic "Shortsword+Rapier" which I can almost guarantee you is more optimized mathematically. It's like when you use the gear in a Computer RPG because it looks cooler even if it's worse. Also this game doesn't have transmog haha.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
There's no reason I should have to jump through so many hoops for Broadspear proficiency.

You think that's bad? Try getting proficiency in something like Thorn Whip or any uncommon (or rare) ancestry's traditional weapons as a non-member, non-human. Adopted Ancestry (Human) -> Unconventional Weaponry, that's 5th level at earliest (in normal rules, the ancestry paragon option lets you do so at 3rd since it will give you an ancestry feat each odd level on top of the extra one you start with).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

We are going to make tiers of weapons and each is going to be better than the other, thus: Simple, Martial, Advanced.

We are only going to let martial characters get Martial weapons, thus: Only martial character get Master with martial weapons.

We need to make fighters the best at weapons, thus: Only fighters get legendary with martial weapons.

Advance weapons would be too good if classes can get them to legendary/master easily, thus: Advanced weapons cap 1 tier below unless they pay significantly.

Advance weapons are too good compared to martial weapons, thus: Make advanced weapons barely better than martial weapons.

Advanced weapons are useless for their cost, thus: Lets make sure nothing is ever better because that's "power creep".

The game was too easy so let's balance around players having legendary and maxed out weapon, thus: Advanced weapons are even more useless.

******************

The devs literally wrote themselves into a corner where they cannot fix advance weapons without admitting that they messed up and changing a whole lot of things.

Just like they wont actually fix the issues with Alchemist outside of minor QoL improvements.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the basic problem with advanced weapons is that it's kind of impossible to balance "more traits, higher die size, etc." against -2 to hit.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, you can try to balance "extra X traits/die size at the cost of level/type Y feat", but to-hit odds are not really on the table.


I wonder if a solution to advanced weaponry access would be to give a general feat that allows a character to treat a specific advanced weapon as martial at the expense of a smaller die size (like the Leshy's "add reach" ancestry feat).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I wonder if a solution to advanced weaponry access would be to give a general feat that allows a character to treat a specific advanced weapon as martial at the expense of a smaller die size (like the Leshy's "add reach" ancestry feat).

If you get rid of everything after "martial" I think so.

Most advanced weapons are already less than a die size better than equivalent martial weapons. You'd basically be spending a feat to make yourself worse.


I don't see the problem. if you want and advanced weapon, be a fighter.

It's like being a fighter pilot and then complaining that you aren't issued to use a scar.

Needing the fighter dedication to use an advanced weapon effectively seems to me to be the right cost.

regardless of whether or not they are worth it. from a lore and ambiance of the world it makes perfect sense to me and is in line the with rest of the design present in the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
I don't see the problem. if you want and advanced weapon, be a fighter.

that's NOT really a satisfying answer as ha archetype requires a 14 str even if you want a weapon ha doesn't care about str: this means you might need to be 10th level to get into the archetype and maybe spend 6 stat point in places you don't want, and you haven't even taken the feat for the weapon you want. So for me, this solution gets a big thumbs down.


graystone wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
I don't see the problem. if you want and advanced weapon, be a fighter.
that's NOT really a satisfying answer as ha archetype requires a 14 str even if you want a weapon ha doesn't care about str: this means you might need to be 10th level to get into the archetype and maybe spend 6 stat point in places you don't want, and you haven't even taken the feat for the weapon you want. So for me, this solution gets a big thumbs down.

I think the answer was intended to be less satisfying than that, as in "be a fighter", not even MCD Fighter. That leaves Advanced Weapons purely in the realm of the weapon masters: Fighters. Who knows, maybe the extra traits of (good) Advanced Weapons were balanced around the cost of a 6th level Fighter feat? Dunno, but it'd explain a bunch, like the seeming ambivalence toward other classes accessing them.

As suggested above, I think the cost of a Dedication would suffice, maybe with another feat at 8th to mirror how other Archetypes duplicate feats from classes. Add cool feats too hopefully. Not that I think that's necessarily balanced (and that varies by weapon too), but it's simple and straightforward for those inclined.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:

I don't see the problem. if you want and advanced weapon, be a fighter.

It's like being a fighter pilot and then complaining that you aren't issued to use a scar.

Needing the fighter dedication to use an advanced weapon effectively seems to me to be the right cost.

regardless of whether or not they are worth it. from a lore and ambiance of the world it makes perfect sense to me and is in line the with rest of the design present in the game.

Then why even call them "Advanced" weapons? Why not just call them "Fighter" weapons, and make it so only Fighters can ever be proficient in them ever, if the entire point is that only Fighters can use them? Because it's not. This is a flawed premise derived from Fighters being the only class that has any innate proficiency scaling with such weaponry, saying it should be the gold standard doesn't have much basis if the intent is other classes can and should be able to use such weapons as well.

And what do you mean that it's "the right cost?" Have you ever taken Fighter dedication, and gone into Advanced weapons this way, and went "I am completely satisfied with my decision" or "This makes sense for a feat cost"? What about main class Fighter spending their 6th level Class feat on it? Have you selected a weapon and went "This is on par with my other 6th level Class feat choices"? I don't think so. Because having built several Fighters in the past, based on weapon choices, I have not once looked at Advanced weapons and went "Man, I should totally spend my 6th level class feat on proficiency scaling for this." Meanwhile, wanting to have a Catfolk Rogue character using a Finesse Reach weapon, I tried making one and just went "Wow, this character concept doesn't come online until 13th level, this is stupid."

Plenty of NPCs whom aren't in possession of class levels (i.e. Fighter levels) use Advanced weaponry, and don't have any problems with proficiency or scaling simply because the NPC rules pitch the baby out with the bathwater. And when the baby is a problem child, of course it's going to seem like it's fine from a lore perspective, because the lore doesn't care about mechanics. But the players are forced to, which means they have to deal with the problem child that is stupid Advanced weaponry scaling. Even back in PF1, it was difficult to justify spending a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency on a single weapon as a Martial.

So, if I have a character wanting to become an Aldori Swordlord, for example, I have a much harder time achieving the same thing an NPC doesn't even have to invest a single feat or have standard scaling toward. Has that NPC had to spend 2 or 3 ancestry or class feats to get the same (or higher) pluses to hit with my standardized weaponry? No. Because they don't follow those rules. And when NPCs can ignore the worst parts of the system, you're not going to look at it in the same way.


In a home game I would allow downtime activities that take a lot of day so 30 or 60 to convert a single Advanced weapon to a Martial weapon for a PC.


Gamerskum wrote:
In a home game I would allow downtime activities that take a lot of day so 30 or 60 to convert a single Advanced weapon to a Martial weapon for a PC.

Awesome.

But that isn't really balanced for standard rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, one thing about advanced weapons is that it does feel cool to be able to say "because I'm a Dwarf, I can use a Dorn-Dergar or a Dwarven War Axe which are good weapons."

So things like the Flickmace where being able to use it effectively is basically "be a fighter" or "be a gnome" are fine. Since (particularly with the latest errata) you can make any class with any ancestry, and choosing an ancestry for their weapons is as valid as choosing it for any other feat the ancestry gets.

The problem is the scads of advanced weapons that don't have a ancestry associated with it and the use of "Unconventional Weaponry" is dubious. Like there are Advanced Monk Weapons and it doesn't appear the Monk has a way in class to become proficient in them (this could be easily fixed with a later feat that has monastic weaponry as a prereq though.)


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

We actually just made the decision to add the traits for every other martial class to the fighter's advanced weapon training feat.

The fighter will be fine without that exclusivity, and it makes the weapons a lot more accessible-- but notably, its at the same level as most class's AoO, so i think its a competitive choice, overall.


Personally, I'm fine with advanced weapons having some kind of investment to them, but I think there should be more ways to get that investment, open to more characters, without them feeling like they're taking a "lesser" weapon. Two ideas I'd like to see implemented:

First, a new level 3 general feat, Advanced Weapon Expertise:
Prerequisite: Trained proficiency in at least one Advanced Weapon
Choose an Advanced Weapon you are proficient with. When you gain Expert or Master proficiency with at least one weapon, you gain matching proficiency with the chosen Advanced weapon.

This does give Fighters a little extra versatility between levels 5 and 13 (where they could get Master proficiency with a weapon outside of their chosen group), but overall it shouldn't allow any wacky shenanigans. You still have to get training (and access, for uncommon/rare weapons) some other way, likely through the Weapon Proficiency feat, but if you have some other way to get trained in such a weapon then this gives you a relatively easy way to get scaling proficiency. Keeping it lower level is intentional, as I wanted to make sure characters didn't have to "go without" having the higher proficiency if they get it at a level when they don't get a general feat.

The second change would just be to open up some class's critical specialization effects to allow them to work with unusual weapons. Rogues, for instance, have a pretty limiting number of weapons to pick from if they want the critical bonus; personally, I'd like to see it opened up so they can get less conventional weapons and still get the effect (as long as they go through the effort to get the weapon in the first place, at least). This could be another general feat, but I think just changing the class features would be better; it avoids more feat taxing, and also keeps characters that don't naturally get critical specializations from getting them too easily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Too many classes rely on weapons to gate advanced weapons behind just one class. If that's the intent, I would expect the gate to be consistent but the gates are all over the place through various archetypes and ancestries as well as unconventional weaponry in general.


I've been mulling on this.

I do think there should be initial investment to gain advanced weapons.

I do think it shouldn't take more than one feat.

I'm not enjoying the idea that everyone who understands the game will just take the feat for a better weapon and basically leave all martial weapons in the trash

So far my thoughts. Bare with me, it has a point.

Lock everyone into the new errata ability scores of 2 free boosts

The race you pick let's you treat your races weapons as one category down for proficiency.

So if your race is had longbow in there, it would be considered a simple weapon for you. If it had gnome flickmace, it becomes martial.

This is only for your race, if you want to use a weapon that's not within the bounds of your race and you don't normally have proficiency with it you need

1: adopted ancestry

2: the ancestry weapon familiarity

So 2 feats for your dwarf to wield a gnome flickmace well

My reasoning

Gives added incentive to not everyone be human with adopted ancestry

Gives objective bonuses to races and classes. Suddenly the gnome barbarian can start with a flick mace, but a dwarf has to sink two feats.

A elf wizard can suddenly use a longbow.

Seeing as humans can get extra ancestry/class/general feats, this seems to be a, mostly, fair tradeoff.

I don't think this is perfectly balanced but it makes it so there is a cost to advanced weapons outside of your ancestry still, you are more rewarded within your ancestry, Humans option for a extra level 1 class feat is incredibly powerful especially for martials so it's not like they are left in the dust.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I general agree with what you're saying Martialmasters, except I think when you say "I do think it shouldn't take more than one feat" I don't quite agree.

Because the example you give takes two feats.

Adopted Ancestry, and a the Ancestries weapon familiarity feat.

However you also propose changing how ancestries work, basically giving everyone weapon familiarity with their ancestry for free and reducing the effective type from say advanced to martial or martial to simple.

However this still leaves any advanced weapons that are connected to an ancestry in the graveyard.

However, I am for doing what you propose, as an elf wizard being able to wield a bow without additional investment on the part of the character isn't going to break anything. They still have poor proficiency advancement with their now treat-as-simple longbow, it just means that using a longbow isn't the worst possible idea for your wizard. And it thematic.

I do think we still need other options, because no one should have to take adopted to get access. And I don't think you should be forced to spend ancestry feats as the only option to accomplish this.

I think spending class feats (on a dedication) or general feats should also be acceptable paths.

A second general feat to get scaling (with your base class) proficiency in weapons and armor should be available.

Heck if you're not already trained in medium armor, you would have to take the armor proficiency feat multiple times to get heavy, and then the next theoretical feat to get it to scale. Quite expensive. Same for weapon proficiency too.


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

Kind of feel like we should throw a bunch of options for Advanced Weapon access up to see what sticks. I see a lot of good ideas.

I like separating an individual advanced weapon proficiency from proficiency in a group. I like the idea of giving every class access to the Advanced Weapon Training feat. I like investigating using the rune system as a point of balance. I like making the general feats for proficiency actually do their jobs.

It seems like there's a lot of potential knobs to turn, but we're all basically agreed that Advanced Weapons are not worth a -2 to hit, ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Accidentally posted this in the wrong thread, glad I caught it be for the hour was up:

1 general feat to grant scaling proficiency with all simple weapon. (This is basically only for wizards)

1 general feat to grant scaling proficiency with all martial weapons. (This is for Rogues and the casters)

1 general feat to grant scaling proficiency with 1 advanced weapon. (This is for martial characters).

Fighter would keep the class feat granting proficiency with all advanced weapons.

Fighter/Champion dedication would grant something other than redundant proficiency. So instead they lower the level at which you get the respective proficiency by 2. That means for example that a Martial with Fighter dedication would get Expert at 3th level instead of 5th, and casters would get expert at 5th instead of 7th. To get weappn/armor just have 1 feat that grants the respective proficiency and make it auto scale, class feats should be better than general feats.

Weapon Familiarity should not lower the proficiency type by 1. Instead it should add the proficiency to your class list. Yes that means all Elfs with weapon familiarity can use a longbow. No I do not see any issue with that, or adopted being able to grant it for any ancestry.


My personal preference is that every weapon familiarity works like Tengu's.

Where they make a specific weapon group the usual 'martial are simple, advanced are martial'

Elves with bow and elf weapons, Halfling with slings and halfling weapons,Dwarves with hammer and dwarf weapons, etc, etc.

Unconventional Weaponry would work either by the usual human pick a type(pick a weapon group, gain racial familiarity etc etc) or just pick one specific advanced weapon no matter the rarity.

certain locations or ethnicities might habetheir own familiarity(alkenstar and dongun hold allowing both dwarves and humans to get advanced firearms)

Scarab Sages

I just let all classes take Advanced Weapon Training as a L6 class feat.

I also changed unconventional weaponry so that it's just a way to get uncommon weaponry, like if you want your Gebbite sprite to start the campaign with a katana. But if you want your human to use dwarf weaponry, he needs to go the Adopted Ancestry + Dwarven Weapon Familiarity route.

Unconventional Weaponory:
You've familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another culture. Choose a common or uncommon simple or martial weapon that doesn't have any trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc). You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a simple weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I general agree with what you're saying Martialmasters, except I think when you say "I do think it shouldn't take more than one feat" I don't quite agree.

Because the example you give takes two feats.

Adopted Ancestry, and a the Ancestries weapon familiarity feat.

However you also propose changing how ancestries work, basically giving everyone weapon familiarity with their ancestry for free and reducing the effective type from say advanced to martial or martial to simple.

However this still leaves any advanced weapons that are connected to an ancestry in the graveyard.

However, I am for doing what you propose, as an elf wizard being able to wield a bow without additional investment on the part of the character isn't going to break anything. They still have poor proficiency advancement with their now treat-as-simple longbow, it just means that using a longbow isn't the worst possible idea for your wizard. And it thematic.

I do think we still need other options, because no one should have to take adopted to get access. And I don't think you should be forced to spend ancestry feats as the only option to accomplish this.

I think spending class feats (on a dedication) or general feats should also be acceptable paths.

A second general feat to get scaling (with your base class) proficiency in weapons and armor should be available.

Heck if you're not already trained in medium armor, you would have to take the armor proficiency feat multiple times to get heavy, and then the next theoretical feat to get it to scale. Quite expensive. Same for weapon proficiency too.

The Wizard example fails because Wizards aren't proficient with Simple weapons. The same is true for Rogues and Martial weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Right, I keep forgetting the devs felt the need to give certain classes not all the weapons in proficiency range.

I know giving wizards all simple weapons wouldn't hurt anything.

And I'm fairly sure giving rogues all martial weapons isn't going to break anything either, since they still need to use an agile or finesse weapon to gain sneak attack. Like maybe there's a weapon that's better than what they currently have access to, but I don't think it's going to be a problem. Elven branch spear is the one thing that comes to mind, for having a reach weapon but still.


My group thinks he idea unnecessary but I'll still tinker with it to give it better verbage for my own fun and interest.

First step is to standardize the change in wording for the various ancestral weaponries.

Then maybe change the weapon proficiency feat to instead give you proficiency in a single weapon, and have it's proficiency scale with your unarmed proficiency progression? Since literally every class in the game is trained in unarmed and scales it with whatever their classes progression chart is with it.

Feels almost to too good on that last one but I dunno


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to make a Hook Sword Monk and realized it was impossible.

Please rework this system Paizo.


Secret Wizard wrote:

I wanted to make a Hook Sword Monk and realized it was impossible.

Please rework this system Paizo.

Not impossible. You're just going to have very bad attack rolls due to not getting increases to your proficiency with them.


I have to assume the reprinted advanced monk weapons are future proofing for a advanced monk weapon path at some point. The hoops you have to go through are obnoxious but we've been over that already.


Paizo for the love of Hanspur, please write new Advanced Weapon Proficiency rules before the Tian Xia expansion.

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Issues with Advanced Weaponry All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.