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.

 

[Kurviak]

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.

I don’t know the statistics but I have been following both sratfinder and pf communities and I think the number of upset people is low but very vocal

 

[Kurviak]

Duplicated post

 

[barasawa]

I like some of these abilities, but some are... bizarre.



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?

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

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

Twin: I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that dual weapons doesn't give you extra attacks anymore, and twin weapons are the way to get the best damage with two weapons. Of course, it could be that they haven't changed fighting with two weapons, except to add twin weapons which are specially designed to do so and really shine when using a pair of them like they were meant to.

Backswing: I'm pretty sure they're going on the old trope of the big guy with the big club that misses on his swing, the foe doesn't pay enough attention, and then always seems to get nailed on the backswing. I don't have a problem with that. After all, it's a game that we are supposed to have fun with, not a real combat simulator. If it was, it would be a LOT different.

Backstabber: Sure someone being flat footed is advantageous for the one attacking them, but if you got the sneaky underhanded and roguish appropriate weapon, you get to do even MORE damage! Seems to be an even better reason for backstabbers to go for certain types of weapons rather than the biggest thing they can get the GM to let them backstab with. Again, it's something playing into the common tropes. At first I thought it was odd that the Dogslicer, an almost exclusively goblin used weapon, would have that ability, but then I remembered that the goblin idea of fighting fair is any fight where they win without getting hurt.

Of course, all this is guesswork, but it's my impression of the stuff. I'd totally go for it and find the idea nice. Though the glaive damage only being a d8 seems a bit low for most polearms in d20 derived games. I'm a bit, err, questioning on is Swords being able to make opponents flat footed. But since it's under Critical Specialization, it seems it'll need an ability or feat, and will only take effect on a crit, but I'd like to know more before deciding on that.
Still, I'm not complaining, it's looking really good overall.

Too bad I'm going to have to wait a long time, since I don't have the spare cash to throw it at a beta like that. I'd rather save it for the actual release than pay for something that will likely change, possibly a LOT.

 

[Raith5]

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.

Agree with this line.

I think weapon choice should matter far more than the dice you roll, but the system has to be smart where it puts any complexity. So I dont understand putting too much complexity into weapon design when it should IMO be an power/option for PCs or a trait for monsters/NPCs. This is because think weapons should only have the powerful properties in the skilled hands - I dont think a wizard picking up a longsword should have any expanded crit range.

I am in the market for something that allows character design more complicated and something more tactical than 5e, but any prospective system has to be reasonable.

 

[houser2112]

Too bad I'm going to have to wait a long time, since I don't have the spare cash to throw it at a beta like that. I'd rather save it for the actual release than pay for something that will likely change, possibly a LOT.

It doesn't have to cost you a dime. You only have to pay if you pre-order the playtest books (and I think that window has closed, anyway). You can download the pdfs for free.

 

[Bromjunaar]

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

Any true and proper long sword (and maybe even some short swords!) should have this as a passable option in all situation, else it is not a true and proper long sword! (With a GM APPROVED stamp applied, of course)

 

[C Wessel]

DMing new rules

As a long time DM of multiple games and game systems it is most important to have a good time. Complexity has it's place so long as it doesn't take away from the smoothness of game play. To that end, most of the time I make up dice rolls, skill checks, hits, and damage, only pretending to follow the actual rules. At the end of each game session everyone has had a good time and I only defer to rules when a player asks a specific question. But even then, as game master I often make up something on the spot rather than worry about details. Players though will often pour over their character creations because it gives them great pleasure to flesh them out with flavor that they can share with their fellow players. I nod politely and tell them to be sure that they keep track of the attack and damage stats because I'm not doing it. So, in other words I don't really care what new edition of which game changes which rules. Be it D&D or Pathfinder I'm going to keep the game moving and let my players keep track of the details. (Just a random thought from an old guy)

 

[Tom Storey]

This was tried ages ago, 70's and 80's it failed miserably and you don't remember the games and don't see them around anymore. I wonder if they fixed some of the mistakes in weapon descriptions and use they made before doing this?

 

[CapnZapp]

I've been a role-player for decades and come to the conclusion variety of archetypes and freedom to create cool concepts should trump "realism" any time.

The simulationist idea that bigger weapons do more damage is soo tired and only serves to restrict choice.

In other words: it makes everyone use a Greatsword or whatever deals the most damage.

I'd far prefer a system like WFRP where every "handweapon" has the same stats, so you are free to create a cool axe thrower, spear wielder or whatever you fancy, without you being mechanically discriminated against for not picking the "biggest" weapon.

We all know that level of simulationism is a lie anyway. You can die from a single slash or stab with a knife, so it's not like Greatswords getting d12 and the Dagger only getting d4 is the only plausible way to represent reality anyway.

 

[Shasarak]

I've been a role-player for decades and come to the conclusion variety of archetypes and freedom to create cool concepts should trump "realism" any time.

The simulationist idea that bigger weapons do more damage is soo tired and only serves to restrict choice.

In other words: it makes everyone use a Greatsword or whatever deals the most damage.

I'd far prefer a system like WFRP where every "handweapon" has the same stats, so you are free to create a cool axe thrower, spear wielder or whatever you fancy, without you being mechanically discriminated against for not picking the "biggest" weapon.

We all know that level of simulationism is a lie anyway. You can die from a single slash or stab with a knife, so it's not like Greatswords getting d12 and the Dagger only getting d4 is the only plausible way to represent reality anyway.

I think on balance that I would prefer a Greatsword doing d12 damage over a character doing d12 damage from throwing playing cards no matter how cool those playing cards maybe.