Let's Look At Pathfinder 2's Weapons!

Paizo has a new Pathfinder 2nd Edition blog up, and this time we're taking a look at weapons! We find out about the Simple/Martial/Exotic scale, weapon traits, critical specialization, weapon groups, and weapon quality.

​

You can read the full article here, but here are the highlights:

• Simple weapons have smaller damage dice, while exotic weapons have additional abilities.
• The simple/martial/exotic scale deals with power and flexibility rather than being a regional descriptor.
• Weapon traits --
  • Greatswords can switch between piercing and slashing damage; d12 damage
  • Bo staff is d8, has reach, parry, and trip, plus the "monk" trait
  • Glaive is d8, has reach, "deadly d8" (extra d8s on a critical), forceful (builds up momentum doing extra damage on iterative attacks)
  • Twin weapons like saw-toothed safer do more damage if you have two
  • Backswing weapons like great club gain accuracy after a miss
  • Backstabber weapons like the dog slicer to more damage to flat footed targets
  • Agile weapons like the short sword decrease penalties for multiple attacks
  • Finesse weapons like the rapier use your Dex mod for attacks
  • Two-handed weapons like the bastard sword do more damage with two hands
• Critical specialisation is an unlockable weapon ability which has a special effect.
  • Swords make the target flat-footed
  • Spears weaken the target's attacks
  • Axes damage adjacent targets
  • Daggers cause persistent bleed damage
  • Clubs knock the target 10 feet
• Weapon quality goes from poor, standard, expert, master, legendary and grants -1 to +3 bonus/penalty to hit.

 

[Parmandur]

Yep, just what the game needs. More stacking bonuses to remember.

That is certainly what I always felt was missing in 3.x myself.

 

[Sunseeker]

And yes, PF2 is very complex, crunchy wargame: it's their jam.

I suppose if you repeat something enough times it becomes true?

It isn't the case in PF1, and you'd know that if you played it. It isn't even the case in Starfinder. So I don't exactly get why it seems to be the case here.

 

[Charlaquin]

I suppose if you repeat something enough times it becomes true?

It isn't the case in PF1, and you'd know that if you played it. It isn't even the case in Starfinder. So I don't exactly get why it seems to be the case here.

Pathfinder is a pretty complex game... I’m not sure what metric you’re using to evaluate wargameyness, but it’s certainly complex.

 

[Arilyn]

I suppose if you repeat something enough times it becomes true?

It isn't the case in PF1, and you'd know that if you played it. It isn't even the case in Starfinder. So I don't exactly get why it seems to be the case here.

I taught my 10 year old daughter how to play PF. No problem at all. She wanted spells, picked a sorceror, didn't stumble over choice of bloodlines, had no trouble with the numbers, and you know, role played in this supposedly crunchy war game for min/maxers.

As far as weapons go, I think if the game is going to pay attention to different types, they need to be more detailed. You should go really simple, and have damage purely based on class, for example, or actually differentiate the weapon properties. PF has chosen to differentiate the weapons, so I feel they are on the right track. The current system has too many weapons that get taken a lot, and others that have absolutely no advantages.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Twin does more damage!?! *how* I could see them working better together (less penalties for two weapon fighting?) but more damage? how does this work?

Probably /instead/ of TWFing is the only way it'd make sense.

Backswing: Yes, some weapons you can recover easier from a miss... but wouldn't this be a quick, agile weapon, not a great club?

'Backswing' as an attribute of a club makes some sense. 'Backswing' making you hit better after a miss, not so much. Backswing is the path before the attack, no? 'Follow-through' that after...

Backstabber ... again I'm a bit confused. If your foe is flat footed, he's vulnerable end of story no?

A small, agile, close-in weapon, would gain more /benefit/ in attacking a vulnerable foe, narrowing the gap in it's damage potential relative to the biggest baddest weapons?

I suppose if you repeat something enough times it becomes true?

It's amazing, sometimes, how often you have to repeat things that are unequivocally true: like D&D (PF is a clone of a D&D ed) is a wildly complex game. Yes, it is.

It was also originally a wargame - it said so right on the cover of 0D&D. It didn't much change when it went from 'wargame' to 'RPG,' either.

Pathfinder is a pretty complex game... I’m not sure what metric you’re using to evaluate wargameyness, but it’s certainly complex.

Complex, yes. Wargameyness, well, it didn't take much to append the mini handbook to 3e. 2e really struck me as the only ed to really try to distance itself from wargaming roots. 5e has pretensions of doing so, with it's "TotM by default" line, but doesn't do anything to back it up.

I taught my 10 year old daughter how to play PF. No problem at all.

I'm not sure if that's the proud-parent effect, or the anyone who disagrees with me is stupid effect, or a hefty helping of both. ;P

Seriously, though, everytime someone acknowledges the complexity of an RPG, someone brings kids into it. I've run Champions!, arguably among the most complex RPGs anyone's ever contemplated designing, for kids younger than 10. It's just not evidence of simplicity.

It is evidence of fairly good cat-herding skills, though.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, kids are capable of handling a lot of complex information, especially when it’s gamified. That a kid can learn an RPG system does not mean that system isn’t complex.

 

[zztong]

I've run Champions!, arguably among the most complex RPGs anyone's ever contemplated designing, for kids younger than 10. It's just not evidence of simplicity.

My friends and I got into Champions 1e when we were in 8th grade, right around the time it was released. We were learning algebra and this game fit right in. That aside, age isn't really a factor in games and wargames. There's a 60-something year old person at the table who has constant trouble with Pathfinder rules and even Hero Lab doing all the math doesn't help her. I've seen even those who have a strong grasp on it discover that once they entered their characters into Hero Lab that the paper versions of the characters weren't entirely correct.

Pathfinder is complex in that lots and lots of simplicity makes for more than a human being can keep straight in their head along with the plot. I love wargames, Squad Leader and Third Reich were among my favorites. They're easier than Pathfinder because they're smaller than Pathfinder.

 

[Yaarel]

My impression is: PF2 proficiency = level (!)

• So, to hit with a sword: d20 + ability + level
• To cast a spell: DC 10 + ability + level

If I am understanding this right, advancement makes higher level heroes dramatically more powerful than lower level heroes.

 

[Parmandur]

My impression is: PF2 proficiency = level (!)

• So, to hit with a sword: d20 + ability + level
• To cast a spell: DC 10 + ability + level

If I am understanding this right, advancement makes higher level heroes dramatically more powerful than lower level heroes.

More than that, it is: d20 + level + Proficiency (which is -1 to +3 in scale) + other boni/mali.

They have explicitly said that they are going for high level means untouchable by lower level.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My impression is: PF2 proficiency = level (!)

• So, to hit with a sword: d20 + ability + level
• To cast a spell: DC 10 + ability + level

If I am understanding this right, advancement makes higher level heroes dramatically more powerful than lower level heroes.

So ripping 13A instead of 5e?
;P