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.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm all for a different front end (what the players see) as long as the back end (what I, the DM, see) remains no more complex than 5E.

I will never again DM a system where I'm required to spend an hour statting up NPCs, equipping them, etc only to see them die in the first round without ever acting.

What I'm on the market for is a substantial crunch increase in chargen, without going back to LFQW ten-round buffing or what I said: NPCs as PCs.

 

[CubicsRube]

I second reducing the burden on the gm. One reason i will never ever run pf1. I have enough going on in my real life to manage, i don't need extra admin in my free time.

As a player though, i would want them to be very careful with sotuational modifiers. Im fine with complex builds, and even choices of various types of attacks and options. But if theres all these small modifiers thst only take place because the moon is in the right phase, you are color co-ordinated woth your foe, etc etc, then I personally am out.

I played a game that took an hour to resolve hunting bison. As a 5th level barbarian. That is not epic, and not the kind of story I want to remember.

 

[zztong]

Is there a weapon where you can unscrew the pommel and throw it at an opponent to end him rightly?

In PF1e I would have said "Yes, the Improvised Weapon."

 

[Aldarc]

I'm all for a different front end (what the players see) as long as the back end (what I, the DM, see) remains no more complex than 5E.

I will never again DM a system where I'm required to spend an hour statting up NPCs, equipping them, etc only to see them die in the first round without ever acting.

I second reducing the burden on the gm. One reason i will never ever run pf1. I have enough going on in my real life to manage, i don't need extra admin in my free time.

I largely agree with you both, but I am also wondering if Paizo operates under a different set of presumptions here, namely the extent which GMs are "statting up NPCs, equipping them, etc only to see them die in the first round without ever acting." I wonder that because Pathfinder 1 seemed to be heavily attached to Paizo's Adventure Path line of products. So the burden of "statting up NPCs" and the like was mostly on the producer-side. So while there is a GM-side and player-side, there is also a producer-side when it comes to the described burden. This would become a much larger problem for GMs when one is homebrewing, but if one is running Paizo's adventures, then this problem may even be negligible. (IME, I had an easier time running some Paizo adventures than I have had with running WotC 5E adventures.)

 

[Sunseeker]

I largely agree with you both, but I am also wondering if Paizo operates under a different set of presumptions here, namely the extent which GMs are "statting up NPCs, equipping them, etc only to see them die in the first round without ever acting." I wonder that because Pathfinder 1 seemed to be heavily attached to Paizo's Adventure Path line of products. So the burden of "statting up NPCs" and the like was mostly on the producer-side. So while there is a GM-side and player-side, there is also a producer-side when it comes to the described burden. This would become a much larger problem for GMs when one is homebrewing, but if one is running Paizo's adventures, then this problem may even be negligible. (IME, I had an easier time running some Paizo adventures than I have had with running WotC 5E adventures.)

I'd like to state, for the record that "building monsters" or NPCs in 3.X or Pathfinder is one of the most boring exercises in gaming I have ever experienced.

And yet, I still love to run 3.5 and Pathfinder. How do I reconcile this? By ignoring the instructions on the back of the box. I have two sets of NPCs
"Generic humanoids" (did this for 5E too, and it's notably faster). Consisting of several of the base classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Barbarian, Wizard) levels 1-20. These are moderately well-built (as in: I followed online build-guides) NPCs designed to have a sex and a race (and sometimes a name) slapped on them when the players need to fight someone or encounter someone who could be fought but is otherwise a generic NPC. These make up the vast majority of Town Guards, Bandits, Cooky Old Shopkeeps, Local Priests and so forth.

I did this ages ago, and part of it was simply experimenting with character building for myself, so I figured if I was doing the work anyway, I might as well put it to use.

I have, since oh, probably 2014 never remade these.

My second set of NPCs are "Custom Baddies", which I threw build instructions to the wind and built monsters designed around two variables:
How hard do I want them to hit?
and
How long do I want them to last?
With an optional third variable of:
How cool do I want them to be?

For example, I built several Slivers from MTG into monsters. For those unfamiliar, slivers are highly synergistic monsters who share their specific abilities with other slivers while they are in play (in a D&D context: in range).
View attachment 97010
There were no feats to this monster, no classes, just high offense and high defense and two special abilities. In 4E terms, you'd probably call this an Elite Solo Leader.

I find this approach exceedingly fun (I hate plug-and-play monsters) as I love custom-building monsters. I also find it simple and just as compatible with 3.5/PF1 as it was with 4E.

I find the idea that people are stating up NPCs for each individual combat to be a little preposterous. Isn't that what the Bestiaries are for?

 

[Wrathamon]

pathfinder to me has always been about complexity and crunchy power creep. I think them doing it in a different way is great. I may not want to run it, but at least they know their audience.

I think there are some cool magic item mechanics in there that would be cool to use.

 

[Charlaquin]

You guys know they said they’re going with a simpler process for stating NPCs this time, right?

 

[Sunseeker]

You guys know they said they’re going with a simpler process for stating NPCs this time, right?

Didn't they say that about all of their design goals?

Because as we already pointed out, that's not where their previews have been leading us.

 

[Kite474]

Looks cool. A bit much to keep track of but it looks fun. And by god Ill take it over how dull 5e is starting to get.

 

[Parmandur]

You guys know they said they’re going with a simpler process for stating NPCs this time, right?

Simpler is a low bar to pass. I reckon it will probably resemble Starfinder somewhat in the NPC/monstrous department, which is simpler enough to have upset a lot of PF folks.