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]

Paizo's stated up-front goals for PF2 include each of the following as specified bullet points: Easier to Play, Clean, Modular Information-Based Design, Simplified Actions.

Between the Healing spell preview and this Weapons preview, they are not achieving those goals.

They should decide if they want "very complex" or "easier clean and simplified". Right now they appear to be...all over the place. I personally would prefer they actually meet those stated goals better. If not, ah well, I just won't play this version.

Heh, I hadn't seen those bullet points: that has certainly not been my impression from previews of specific elements, at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Heh, I hadn't seen those bullet points: that has certainly not been my impression from previews of specific elements, at all.

That also explains the "Why make PF2 like 5e?" thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

Paizo's stated up-front goals for PF2 include each of the following as specified bullet points: Easier to Play, Clean, Modular Information-Based Design, Simplified Actions.

Between the Healing spell preview and this Weapons preview, they are not achieving those goals.

I couldn't disagree more. Simplified actions? Absolutely. "You get 3 actions, everything you do on your turn costs one action unless otherwise specified" is infinitely simpler than "free action, full-round action, immediate action, move action, standard action, swift action, and other". Modular, information-based design is admittedly pretty buzzwordy, I'm not entirely sure what it's supposed to mean, but looking at the spell, item, and power blocks, it's very easy to find the information you're looking for at a glance, they're very well organized, and one of the 4e-isms I'm happiest to see PF2 bringing back. Clean? Impossible to tell yet, as we've been getting such scattered previews. We'll have a better idea if they're hitting this goal or not once the full playtest is out. Easier to Play? Again, hard to tell just based on the info we have so far. I'll get back to you once I've actually played it. I will say, it looks to me not to be any harder to play so far.

 

[TwoSix]

They should decide if they want "very complex" or "easier clean and simplified". Right now they appear to be...all over the place. I personally would prefer they actually meet those stated goals better. If not, ah well, I just won't play this version.

In their defense, there's a LOT of daylight between "actually easy and simple" and "easier and simplified compared to PF1".

 

[Mistwell]

In their defense, there's a LOT of daylight between "actually easy and simple" and "easier and simplified compared to PF1".

Fair enough, but starting from PF1, this is going in the "more complex than PF1" direction.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm similarly frustrated with the misplaced praise of 5e as 'simple.

Well it's definitely simPLER than a number of previous editions. I'm not sure if it's actually simpler than 2e, but the unified mechanics make it feel simpler.

Nod. I'm running 5e & 4e and I've run 13A & would have not trouble running it fairly regularly - not to mention plenty of other games, but for lack players who have so as much heard of them. But 3.x? Nope, I'll happily play it if I'm invited and can come up with a cool/viable character that fits the campaign, but I'd rather not ever have to run it again.

I can't comment on 4e and 13A, but I agree with you concerning playing vs running 3.X (and PF).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well it's definitely simPLER than a number of previous editions. I'm not sure if it's actually simpler than 2e, but the unified mechanics make it feel simpler.

2e streamlined some of the baroque Gygaxian chaos of 1e, but also got very bloated towards the end. 3.0, by comparison, was consolidated and streamlined at it's core, 3.5 also became bloated, and PF even more so. 5e is /smaller/ than those editions at the end of their runs (even 1e, for the moment, I think), but, at it's core, not particularly simpler than 3.x/PF or any other d20 games that use Class/Level, extensive spell lists, varied spell-casting sub-systems, modular multi-classing, etc....

...it really differs in where the complexity is experienced and how it feels. Compared to 3e or 4e, for instance, 5e's complexity feels more familiar to players most comfortable with AD&D or other TSR versions, and familiar complexity feels simpler than novel simplicity. 5e's complexity is heavily borne by the DM, and how hard it hits players depends on class choices (and how they're arrived at). If you just pick a (sub) class based on what sounds fun, and it happens to be Champion Fighter, you experience far less complexity, if it happens to be a Druid or Wizard, a lot more - the DM, OTOH, has to keep all the party's classes straight - and work at balancing them with eachother in the context of his campaign. ;P (As a player, if you really want to acquire system mastery and evaluate/understand all the classes, then the 5e PH presents at least as much complexity as the 3.5 PH1, and more than the 4e PH1 - and you can make the game almost as hard on yourself as it is on your DM. And, again, the only thing saving 5e is the relative lack of supplements.)

I can't comment on 4e and 13A,

13A has been out a year or so longer than 5e, but isn't any more bloated, I don't think. It's easier to run than 5e, but doesn't lend itself so much to the classic style and old-school techniques that make running 5e so much fun (for some of us). It's fun to run in it's own right, though, just a very different kind of fun. 4e was just /easy/ to run. Like phone-it-in, less prep time than any one player put into it, easy - which could actually make it less engaging to run than to play, but is convenient when running 1/week, right after work...

but I agree with you concerning playing vs running 3.X (and PF).

In contrast, I quite enjoy running 5e, but have felt little urge to play it, perhaps because it is so lacking in player options compared to 3.x/PF & 4e.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

 

[Aldarc]

Fair enough, but starting from PF1, this is going in the "more complex than PF1" direction.

It seems as if they are simplifying the base game that everything builds on: e.g., ancestral/class/skill feats, proficiencies, action economy, etc. But some of the moving parts, such as weapons, spells, and such appear to have greater complexity via the distinction of tactical choices.

 

[ZickZak]

I love this. I m not talking point by point, but in general. If you want to have an easy, simplified RPG, go play 5e.
I myself am completely missing something between 4e and 5e re complexity and so far these previews seem perfect.