Issues with Advanced Weaponry


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

With the release of Treasure Vault, I was excited to look over the new array of weapons available for characters to take- but I noticed some snags as I planned out specific builds. The build I had in question was a Ranger using falcatas, but this issue expands to other build types as well. So the question was, "How do I get this build to work?" So I thought I would gather all the ways a player could gain training in advanced weapons.

Level: 1
[Ancestry] Weapon Familiarity: Reduced proficiency requirement in specific weapons.
[Human] Unconventional Weaponry: Reduced proficiency requirement in ancestry weapon OR an uncommon weapon belonging to a specific culture.
*[Class] Fighter. Scaling proficiency in all advanced weapons one step behind martial weapons.
Level: 2
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Aldori Duelist and Red Mantis Assassin. Grants scaling proficiency in specific weapons. Must have proficiency to begin with. Increase level to 4 for non humans. Required Feats: Two. RIP rogues that wish to take the Red Mantis Assassin dedication.
Level: 3
[General Feat] Weapon Proficiency: Limit of Trained.
Level: 4
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Butterfly Blade Dedication. Grants scaling proficiency for butterfly blades, must have proficiency to begin with.
Level: 6
*[Class] Advanced Weapon Training [Fighter], all advanced weapons in one group scale to your highest proficiency.
Level: 10
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Provocator Dedication: Increase to one advanced weapon to trained.
Level: 12
[Archetype] Diverse Weapon Expert (Req. Fighter Dedication), trained in all advanced weapons. Total Feat Cost: Two
*[Archetype] Advanced Maneuver (Req. Basic Maneuver, Fighter Dedication), take the Advanced Weapon Training feat. Total Feat Cost: Three.
Level: 16
[Archetype] [Uncommon] Performance Weapon Expert (Req. Provocator Dedication), gains expert proficiency in one advanced weapon.
Special:
*Same applies to Gunslinger, but only to firearms and crossbows. Uncommon.

All these together show that it's very difficult to get scaling proficiency with an advanced weapon that you aren't explicitly incentivized to get via a specific route. Rogues have an especially difficult time compared to other martials due to the need to gain martial weapon proficiency before they can gain access to advanced weapons via weapon proficiency, making certain archetypes difficult to qualify for. Going back to my first example, the only way to make a functional ranger using a falcata would be through the fighter archetype. This would take three feats (one of which providing little benefit), wouldn't come into effect until level 12, and take up space that could be used for other class feats and archetypes to fit the build.

I can't help but compare this to Pathfinder 1e. A martial character could (from levels 1 or 3, depending on BAB) take exotic weapon proficiency to have access to a specific weapon with the same level of proficiency as other weapons. Yet in this, a non-fighter martial struggles to gain proficiency. I understand the idea of fighters as being "experts of weaponry," yet fighters are already a level of proficiency higher than all other classes- there is no need for them to be the exclusive owners of advanced weaponry. Certainly, advanced weapons aren't so powerful that they are worth 3 feats of up to 12th level, right?

With that in mind, I think there are a few options available to allow non-fighter/gunslinger martials to use their preferred methods of destruction:
-Martial Classes can gain access to advanced weapons at a level one proficiency lower upon reaching expert proficiency
-A class feat is added to all martials 1 level after expert proficiency that functions identically to the fighter's "Advanced Weapon Training" feat.
-All martial classes gain a themed version of the above feat. Rogues can gain scaling proficiency with an agile or finesse weapon, barbarians with a melee or thrown weapon, monks with a monk weapon (requiring Monastic Weaponry), and so forth. This keeps the theme of individual classes, but allows them access to advanced weapons that fit that theme.

In any case, I just hope there are feats added that allow me to live out my fantasies of a falcata ranger without having to resort to multiclass shenanigans. If I missed anything, please fill me in, because this wrench in my character build does sting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I distrust that this is being driven solely by character fantasy.

What exactly is the difference between a falcata and similar martial category weapons?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

I distrust that this is being driven solely by character fantasy.

What exactly is the difference between a falcata and similar martial category weapons?

Falcatas are cool. What other reasons does a person need? Regardless, motivation isn't the issue here. The issue is that there is an entire class of weaponry that is nearly inaccessible to most martials.

Edit: Inaccessible as in weaker than other alternatives. From levels 3-4 it's equal, and from levels 12+, but only with heavy feat investment


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've considered getting rid of advanced weaponry altogether in my home games(making all of them martial proficiency). Advanced weapons are a mixed bag in effectiveness, and at least in my main group I know players pick for flavor or aesthetic choices when it comes to weaponry. I also just let Rogues have martial proficiency.

f I were to try and balance that homebrew as a whole, I think I would maybe make a trait called advanced or unwieldy. You take a -1(or 2)(Idk exactly) penalty to attack rolls with this weaponry(while getting your base martial weapon proficiency with use in those weapons) , due to the difficulty it takes to master or use. Feats that would instead give you the proficiency, remove this trait for you.

This is just a band aid for the system as is and by no means a fix to the problem as a whole. I think the class feats, or the themed class feats could be a great way to do it officially, if they ever decide to open up advanced weapons.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

OP is missing Tengu Weapon Familiarity, which lets you pick a common advanced sword.

Unconventional Weaponry might qualify if you're not from Taldor, since the weapon is cuturally specific there and potentially uncommon if you're from across the world.

breithauptclan wrote:
I distrust that this is being driven solely by character fantasy.

Don't be a dick about it.

The general problem the OP is highlighting applies to a huge variety of weapons. If you dislike Falcatas, then pretend they're asking about karambits or daiikyus or any of the other extremely underwhelming advanced options that exist.


Squiggit wrote:

OP is missing Tengu Weapon Familiarity, which lets you pick a common advanced sword.

Unconventional Weaponry might qualify if you're not from Taldor, since the weapon is cuturally specific there and potentially uncommon if you're from across the world.

breithauptclan wrote:
I distrust that this is being driven solely by character fantasy.

Don't be a dick about it.

The general problem the OP is highlighting applies to a huge variety of weapons. If you dislike Falcatas, then pretend they're asking about karambits or daiikyus or any of the other extremely underwhelming advanced options that exist.

Ah, you're right! I was assuming all the weapon familiarity feats were similar, passed over the Tengu. That would allow someone (even a non-tengu) to make that ranger build with Adopted Ancestry, allowing the build to come online around levels 3-5 instead of level 12. Thanks!

Though that still makes it difficult to gain proficiency in common non-swords (such as the broadspear), and requires some really odd workarounds that could be easily fixed by a class feat for martials.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
I distrust that this is being driven solely by character fantasy.

Don't be a dick about it.

The general problem the OP is highlighting applies to a huge variety of weapons. If you dislike Falcatas, then pretend they're asking about karambits or daiikyus or any of the other extremely underwhelming advanced options that exist.

That's not my intent.

My question is why not just reskin a longsword, scimitar, or falchion or something like that in order to make the character look right and have the proficiency stats that they need? If the Advanced weapons are underwhelming, don't use them.

So if that isn't sufficient, what is the difference between a falcatta and other similar martial category weapons?


I agree it can seem a bit unfair its locked out unless your a Fighter or of a specific ancestry, but I think it works.
Ancestry weapon familiarity adds a level of uniquness to ancestries and their weapon styles. Any character can always be adopted as well.
As for Fighters, it really is their thing, they are weapon masters. They dont have 'subclasses,' like every other class, but their choice of feats and weapons are what define them. Having access to a slightly better weapon at the cost of a lvl 6 feat seems fair within the tight system.
Just my 2 cents, I can see your point though, especially with the shear amount of advanced weapons out now. Perhaps later General feats will come out to address this. Currently fixable with the 3 feat Fighter Dedication tax you mentioned, reflavored martial weapons, or DM errata.
Also, as is, the Falcata is OP (IMO), and a lot of players will want it. Its the new Flickmace.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Scaling proficiency in advanced weapons not specific to an ancestry or culture should be available to non-fighters/non-humans, but it probably should have a non-negligible cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Scaling proficiency in advanced weapons not specific to an ancestry or culture should be available to non-fighters/non-humans, but it probably should have a non-negligible cost.

Yeah, this is what I'd think. If they had a feat similar to the fighter's advanced weapon training it would open up a ton of builds. Even if it required the character to be trained, that's a lot easier what would currently be required (by taking the Weapon Proficiency feat followed by the relevant class feat).

Rogue should have something specific too, I think, even if just for agile/finesse weapons. Since they don't have martial weapon proficiency, it's even more difficult for rogues to enter themed archetypes than other martial classes- even archetypes that are thematically very close to rogue.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no reason I should have to jump through so many hoops for Broadspear proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
I distrust that this is being driven solely by character fantasy.

Don't be a dick about it.

The general problem the OP is highlighting applies to a huge variety of weapons. If you dislike Falcatas, then pretend they're asking about karambits or daiikyus or any of the other extremely underwhelming advanced options that exist.

My question is why not just reskin a longsword, scimitar, or falchion or something like that in order to make the character look right and have the proficiency stats that they need? If the Advanced weapons are underwhelming, don't use them.

I totally agree with this. In my current game, I had the idea to include a broadsword but I couldn't find that particular weapon so I just reskinned a bastard sword. It had the same kind of mechanics I wanted anyway.

One of my players is asking for a Nodachi which is basically a Japanese Greatsword so I could probably do something similar for that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
My question is why not just reskin a longsword, scimitar, or falchion or something like that in order to make the character look right and have the proficiency stats that they need? If the Advanced weapons are underwhelming, don't use them.

I think the issue would be, 'what is the point of advanced weapons' if the answer to access is 'why don't you just reskin some other weapon.' One would assume that they print advanced weapons to actually see use and not as a jumping off point for 'what does your longsword looks like?'


10 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
If the Advanced weapons are underwhelming, don't use them.

I don't really like this line of thinking, simply because it basically means Advanced weapons shouldn't even be a part of the game due to them lacking any sort of meaning to be present. Who needs a Hornbow when the Shortbow does the same thing, but better, and doesn't cost a feat? Because it has a fancy name? We can name our weapons whatever we want. What's in a name, after all? We might as well just scrap the entire weapon category and use the publishing space for more actual rules regarding weapons. Such as, I don't know, more detailed rules for how certain weapon types function? Would be far better than entries and an entire useless category of weaponry.

Advanced weapons need to be truly Advanced for them to warrant the title and the investment. If I have to spend feats to utilize them (and/or maintain relevance), they need to be damn worth it, and almost none of them are. There's maybe one or two Advanced weapons that I know see actual play, and that's because they're either actually worth the investment cost, or they're able to acquire them through other non-investment means. Point being, they're in an awful spot, which is borderline "why bother" territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
There's no reason I should have to jump through so many hoops for Broadspear proficiency.

At least the fact that the Broadspear is from a region book provide a solid argument for "it works with Unconventional Weaponry" provided a GM is willing to be liberal with that feat. There's no such luck for the Bladed Hoop.


keftiu wrote:
There's no reason I should have to jump through so many hoops for Broadspear proficiency.

Explain please.

I'm comparing it to a Longspear (because at least I can look up the differences between the two weapons). Broadspear has higher damage die size, and Versatile S and Sweep traits.

So what exactly is the problem? Weapons that have better stats and abilities should be more costly to gain and use. So is the problem that proficiency in a desired Advanced weapon is costly to get, or costly to keep proficiency in at high level play?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
If the Advanced weapons are underwhelming, don't use them.
I don't really like this line of thinking, simply because it basically means Advanced weapons shouldn't even be a part of the game due to them lacking any sort of meaning to be present. Who needs a Hornbow when the Shortbow does the same thing, but better, and doesn't cost a feat? Because it has a fancy name? We can name our weapons whatever we want. What's in a name, after all?

Yes. I have never felt the desire to go after Advanced weapons and proficiency with them.

From what I see, the Advanced weapons do have slightly better stats. Sometimes a damage die increase, sometimes some nice traits. Sometimes both. Sometimes neither.

But I don't understand why that is considered such a bad thing.

Characters don't have to pay any feat taxes in order to have relevant weapons.

They have the option to pay such feats in order to have marginally better weapons for some particular fighting style and build.

And if you want the look without the stat boosts and costs, reskin the weapons that you do have proficiency with.

Everyone gets what they want.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
keftiu wrote:
There's no reason I should have to jump through so many hoops for Broadspear proficiency.

Explain please.

I'm comparing it to a Longspear (because at least I can look up the differences between the two weapons). Broadspear has higher damage die size, and Versatile S and Sweep traits.

So what exactly is the problem? Weapons that have better stats and abilities should be more costly to gain and use. So is the problem that proficiency in a desired Advanced weapon is costly to get, or costly to keep proficiency in at high level play?

I think picking the Longspear(a simple weapon) as the comparison to the Broadspear(an advanced weapon) isn't really a fair comparison, you are jumping over the whole category of martial weapons, which would be the better comparison for advanced weapons.

The spears in Martial category, have various niches and compare closer to the Broadspear. The Gill hook, Elven branched Spear, Dueling spear, dancing spear, lance. They all vary in strength, but our much closer to each other, and also the broadspear. The Gill Hook being the most apt comparison. Reach and grapple I would argue as a pairing of traits is strong, and at least to me feel about as equal as reach, versatile slashing, and sweep.(It depends on what you value imo.)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
keftiu wrote:
There's no reason I should have to jump through so many hoops for Broadspear proficiency.

Explain please.

I'm comparing it to a Longspear (because at least I can look up the differences between the two weapons). Broadspear has higher damage die size, and Versatile S and Sweep traits.

So what exactly is the problem? Weapons that have better stats and abilities should be more costly to gain and use. So is the problem that proficiency in a desired Advanced weapon is costly to get, or costly to keep proficiency in at high level play?

It's a heavy, pointy stick, and right now there's no way for me to get scaling proficiency with it on a non-Human character outside of investing three levels into a specific Archetype and waiting more than halfway through the game's progression to do so.

What's the point of Advanced Weapons existing if only Fighters and multiclass Fighters have any chance of using them? Even firearms aren't that bound to Gunslingers - anyone can use them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of just giving access to advanced weapons for free. They are mechanically more powerful than the martial equivalent simply by having an extra trait.

The issue is, an extra trait is not equivalent to a feat typically.

I just want more archetypes that give specific advanced weapon proficiency


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

So what exactly is the problem? Weapons that have better stats and abilities should be more costly to gain and use. So is the problem that proficiency in a desired Advanced weapon is costly to get, or costly to keep proficiency in at high level play?

I don't think it having a cost is the issue, but the the specific hoops are: not everyone wants to be human or adopted to get one and would like a more straight forward way to do so. Additionally, it can take quite a few levels to manage it even with the hoops.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:

So what exactly is the problem? Weapons that have better stats and abilities should be more costly to gain and use. So is the problem that proficiency in a desired Advanced weapon is costly to get, or costly to keep proficiency in at high level play?

The problem is that, generally, gaining proficiency is either almost free (a level 1 ancestry feat) or absurdly expensive (fighter dedication and a level 12 feat), for something that is often valued more for the cool factor or aesthetics than the actual mechanical value (because almost no advanced weapon is worth a level 12 class feat, many of them don't even outperform martial alternatives).

And as the game continues to grow, we get more and more advanced weapons, many of them with cool aesthetics or unique niches, but often little ability to access without being a fighter (and rarely the mechanics to justify the price).

It's just kind of bad and weird design choices that don't really bear out in any discernibly positive way.


so just pick a martial weapon and say it looks like that advance weapon

cool aesthetic are cheap


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

so just pick a martial weapon and say it looks like that advance weapon

cool aesthetic are cheap

Sure, 'this club just LOOKS like a Bladed Diabolo'... Yeah, that works... :P That's just admitting the entire advanced weapon section is not meant for actual use.


pixierose wrote:

I think picking the Longspear(a simple weapon) as the comparison to the Broadspear(an advanced weapon) isn't really a fair comparison, you are jumping over the whole category of martial weapons, which would be the better comparison for advanced weapons.

The spears in Martial category, have various niches and compare closer to the Broadspear. The Gill hook, Elven branched Spear, Dueling spear, dancing spear, lance.

That's a fair point. I don't think it really answers the question though.

It looks like the Gill Hook is the most powerful of the bunch. Same damage die and has Grapple and Uncommon instead of Sweep and Versatile S. I'm kinda surprised that this one isn't classified as Advanced too. Ranged grapple seems a bit strong.

The dueling spear has the lower d8 damage die and has Disarm lol and Finesse instead of Reach and Sweep. The Broadspear looks quite solidly ahead on this comparison.

Elven Branched Spear drops the damage die down to d6 and has Deadly d8, Finesse, and Uncommon instead of Sweep and Versatile S. This one is a lot harder to compare. Which one is better is going to depend a lot on the rest of the character build for the character using the weapon.

And yes, Uncommon is a trait to keep in mind. It means that if the GM wants, they can require a feat in order to get the weapon in the first place. It isn't necessary for some GMs, but it is an option that has to be considered for general theorycrafting.

So I guess to rephrase my question: is the problem that Advanced weapons aren't powerful enough, or that they cost too much to gain relevant proficiency for? Do you want to not have the Advanced tier of weapons at all and have everything at the Martial proficiency balanced together? Or do you want to have slightly more powerful weapons that require feats to use?

Edit: Apparently this is a fairly hot topic. Haven't seen that many ninja's in a while.


graystone wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

So what exactly is the problem? Weapons that have better stats and abilities should be more costly to gain and use. So is the problem that proficiency in a desired Advanced weapon is costly to get, or costly to keep proficiency in at high level play?

I don't think it having a cost is the issue, but the the specific hoops are: not everyone wants to be human or adopted to get one and would like a more straight forward way to do so. Additionally, it can take quite a few levels to manage it even with the hoops.

That I would certainly agree with.

Though I am also a fan of the idea of having general feats that give additional proficiency in weapons and armor rather than just Trained.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The broadspear isn't actually priced that badly for an advanced weapon (although sweep and versatile aren't the most amazing traits).

It's weird though insofar as that it's basically the closest thing to a normal spear we have, so there's a little bit of a feelsbad from either having to downgrade to the relatively poor longspear, figure out advanced proficiency, or refluff a halberd.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Edit: Apparently this is a fairly hot topic. Haven't seen that many ninja's in a while.

LOL I think most people that have played for a while and make characters that use weapons have tried to use advanced weapons as some point and where [almost] universally disappointed by how it works. As such, it can be a bit of a polarizing subject that irks people.


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

I just make it so weapon training can be taken twice, the second time giving scaling, I think 2 general feats is a fair cost to get scaling in any single weapon


general feat are bad idea from the start

not need to make it worse


2 people marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:
general feat are bad idea from the start

How so?


how could it not be

what is the design merit of take fleet toughness canny acumen in different order

delete general feat and give 10 ancestry feat instead make much more sense


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

I mean...most of my characters don't take all 3 of those. I mean I take two of them usually but not always. Plenty of fun or significant skill or general feats to chose from.


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

how could it not be

what is the design merit of take fleet toughness canny acumen in different order

delete general feat and give 10 ancestry feat instead make much more sense

Those feats have nothing to do with your ancestry, they are personal strengths of you as an individual. So you would just eliminate those aspects and that makes no sense from a flavour perspective. The other problem is that that would change exactly nothing. Instead of taking one of the meta general feats, you would just have a meta for ancestry feats instead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alkarius wrote:


Also, as is, the Falcata is OP (IMO), and a lot of players will want it. Its the new Flickmace.

I think this might be a knee jerk reaction. Another poster did some math and it actually isn't that great for many builds.

For a double slice / twin takedown build you deal more damage with a pick + light pick combo. For a 1h + freehand build it can be good. But doesn't outdamage a dwarven waraxe/ bastard sword with dual handed assault build. Hell earth breaker also works with DHA and is a hammer.

For a fighter you most likely want reach. So Dorn-Dergar or guisarme. Or just a maul for high damg knockdown. Same goes for champions. And if they sword and board - flickmace, boarding pike or chain sword are all better. Due to how reach and MAPless reaction attacks work.

So it actually doesn't impact many builds. Maybe barbs with dual weapon warrior as they most likely don't want a agile offhand. And even then 2x Warhammer might be better due to how strong hammer/flail crits are.

The flickmace was 'OP' due to being a reach 1h flail with a top 1h damg die. Even after the nerf, it's still strong.

So I don't think you have to worry about falcatas all that much. Hell pick is a d6 d10fatal martial as is. With a crit spec that ups that damg a bit.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, a generic Archetype about selecting and mastering one Advanced weapon would be a really elegant fix.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Honestly, a generic Archetype about selecting and mastering one Advanced weapon would be a really elegant fix.

This is what I was about to say.

Aside from Fighters or Human character's with martial proficiency and Unconventional Weaponry there aren't any good ways to get proficiency with any advanced weapon that scales with your base class weapons.

I think that's bad, because it does mean that almost no one should bother, because the expense isn't worth it or it comes online very late.

I think, at most 2 feats (one being a dedication feat for a generic archetype) to get an advanced weapon to scale off your base proficiency should be the tax. Very few advanced weapons are worth the extra tax in the first place, but if someone wants to pay it then it should be a reasonable cost and be available relatively early.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could make it a arms master / weapon master.

Stuff like quick draw and dual handed assault would be nice to have access to more freely. And both fit within such an archetype.


Or just fix the armor and weapon proficiency feats so that they do what they should be doing. Wearing the armor you want or using the weapon you want shouldn't cost more than a feat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Or just fix the armor and weapon proficiency feats so that they do what they should be doing. Wearing the armor you want or using the weapon you want shouldn't cost more than a feat.

For armor the game has really already set the standard of two feats, Sentinel dedication but requiring medium armor proficiency feat for someone who doesn't already have it and is trying to get heavy armor.

I would suggest weapons follow something similar.

One feat is probably too cheap in general, at least based on how things are set up currently.


all this been talked not so long ago

just give mauler dual weapon warrior duelist the same level 6 advance weapon feat fighter gunslinger archer already have

with some limitation base on archetype

monk get one for advance monk weapon require monastic weaponry too

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:


So I guess to rephrase my question: is the problem that Advanced weapons aren't powerful enough, or that they cost too much to gain relevant proficiency for? Do you want to not have the Advanced tier of weapons at all and have everything at the Martial proficiency balanced together? Or do you want to have slightly more powerful weapons that require feats to use?

Edit: Apparently this is a fairly hot topic. Haven't seen that many ninja's in a while.

The problems, as I see them are two-fold:

1.) The generic option to acquire proficiency with Advanced Weapons are too costly. Fighter Dedication and Diverse Weapon Expert are basically never worth it. A twelfth level feat is way too expensive for the effect.
And I think it's disingenuous to say "just reflavor another weapon" when a number of Advanced Weapons have a mechanical niche that isn't covered by martial weapons.

2.) The less generic option are, by definition, less generic. Which means that character building is limited by weapon choice. Which means if a player wants to play with a non-fighter with a non-ancestry specific Advanced Weapon, you must be a human or adopted.
It feels like the kind of very limited character creation path that PF2 has tried to avoid.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading through and considering the various points of view on here, what I have personally come to think on it is that Advanced weapons should exist and be a bit better than martial weapons, but that there needs to be better ways of accessing proficiency for those advanced weapons.

Not that convincing me of anything does any good since I don't write the rules.


the problem seems to be the perceived cost gap between 3 fighter feat at level 12 and 1 level 1 ancestry feat

even if advanced weapon training become level 1 fighter feat it will still be difficult to access to any martial doesn't start with both 14 str and dex at level 4

other than ancient elf and multitalented half elf


2 people marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:
other than ancient elf and multitalented half elf

ancient elf only ignores level: you still need the stats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
If the Advanced weapons are underwhelming, don't use them.
I don't really like this line of thinking, simply because it basically means Advanced weapons shouldn't even be a part of the game due to them lacking any sort of meaning to be present. Who needs a Hornbow when the Shortbow does the same thing, but better, and doesn't cost a feat? Because it has a fancy name? We can name our weapons whatever we want. What's in a name, after all?

Yes. I have never felt the desire to go after Advanced weapons and proficiency with them.

From what I see, the Advanced weapons do have slightly better stats. Sometimes a damage die increase, sometimes some nice traits. Sometimes both. Sometimes neither.

But I don't understand why that is considered such a bad thing.

Characters don't have to pay any feat taxes in order to have relevant weapons.

They have the option to pay such feats in order to have marginally better weapons for some particular fighting style and build.

And if you want the look without the stat boosts and costs, reskin the weapons that you do have proficiency with.

Everyone gets what they want.

Define "relevant weapons." Because if I wanted to be a Rogue Catfolk that would use cool thematic Catfolk finesse weapons for Sneak Attack, I have to burn 3 ancestry feats and wait 13 levels for full proficiency benefits for minor or even no gain. That's just awful design. And sure, we can complain that the issue is with the feat scaling, or with the class proficiencies being stupid, but even if all it took was a single feat, even that is difficult to justify if I have good Ancestry (or General) feat options to take, because these weapon choices weigh against that as well. I'm not just comparing weapons to weapons, I'm now factoring in other character options on top of it, and the Advanced weapons do little to nothing to justify it. "Spend a General or Ancestry feat to use a weapon with 20 more feet of range? Pass. I'd rather have Fleet or Multi-Talented." With this example, even compared to a class feat like Far Shot, it's objectively worse (unless the weapon's base range is 10 feet), because it applies to anything you wield, not just your weapon of choice.

Heck, even the Gnome Flickmace (which is basically just a giant yo-yo flail thingy) is barely worth the feat now, and the only reason it's worth the feat is because of the factor that it's one of the few one-handed reach weapons in the game. There aren't (many) other Advanced weapons like it. If there were more martial one-handed reach weapons, it would be obsoleted because now you're just spending feats for a die size increase, and that's just awful. (Maybe the Scorpion Whip becomes Common with this book, at which point people will suddenly stop being adopted or raised by Gnomes all of a sudden.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Heck, even the Gnome Flickmace (which is basically just a giant yo-yo flail thingy) is barely worth the feat now, and the only reason it's worth the feat is because of the factor that it's one of the few one-handed reach weapons in the game.

Well, 1 handed, reach AND a flail: that crit specialization is what seals the deal for that weapon. With the new book we have an uncommon hobgoblin 1 handed martial Breaching Pike with reach and the advanced chain sword in addition to the various whip varieties and the pantograph gauntlet but people will still go for the highest die damage reach flail: the flickmace.


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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
A rogue using a rapier, shortsword, or even a dagger is a completely playable character.

You know what's a lot less playable? A rogue with a karambit, because you literally can't get your proficiency up with one.

Quote:
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.

When you break down the math, it does pretty much identical damage to a short sword, because that's what happens when you trade a die size for fatal.

Quote:
But those Advanced weapons are not required in order to have a viable character.

That just seems like a pretty bad baseline, like from that starting point you could excise most everything from the game as being superfluous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

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].

1 to 50 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.