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.

 

[mellored]

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.

you could do 1 damage with playing cards, but attack 6 times with each action.

 

[Yaarel]

I dont know if P2 can pull it off, but I find diversifying weapon statistics an interesting approach.

For example, a light weapon suffers less or no penalty when making iterative attacks, while iterative attacks with a heavy weapon potentially deals higher damage but with increasing attack penalties.

This approach seems ‘realistic’ enough for my tastes. And makes weapon choice more flavoring.

Certain weapons − hopefully the iconic weapons − will probably enjoy slightly better stats overall. But atleast there is a wider range of choice.

 

[barasawa]

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.

Thanks for the update. Last time I looked I could have sworn they were asking $9 and change for the pdf.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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 can die from a single knife hit, because I am not a level 15 fighter like Gilgamesh is. I have about six Hit Points, and the fact that you're much more likely to kill me with one hit from a greatsword than one hit from a knife is the minimum degree of realism necessary for me to start taking a game seriously.

 

[CapnZapp]

I can die from a single knife hit, because I am not a level 15 fighter like Gilgamesh is. I have about six Hit Points, and the fact that you're much more likely to kill me with one hit from a greatsword than one hit from a knife is the minimum degree of realism necessary for me to start taking a game seriously.

No, you're looking at this the 80s simulationism way.

What I'm saying is, maybe Gilgamesh shouldn't need to stab his foes twice as much with a knife than with a greataxe, since, well, he's frikkin Gilgamesh.

And because it's FUN if you get to choose your weapons without knowing that some of them are TWICE as good as others (more if you can take a greatweapon feat but no smallweapon feat).

If one weapon makes your level 15 hero feel more like a level 8 hero, maybe that weapon choice is no choice at all.

What I'm saying isn't "make knives do d12 damage in the hands of peasants"

What I'm saying is: make the game enable all kinds of weaponry for heroes.

If that means Gilgamesh dealing d12 knife stabs... Or if it means he gets to stab twice as fast with knives than greataxes... Or whatever, I don't care, as long as we finally rid ourselves from the tyranny of 80s simulationism non-choice!

 

[Kurviak]

Thanks for the update. Last time I looked I could have sworn they were asking $9 and change for the pdf.

You are 100% wrong, the PDFs where told been free in their initial press announcement

 

[barasawa]

You are 100% wrong, the PDFs where told been free in their initial press announcement

So why did you make a totally unnecessary reply that comes across as you being a complete jerk?
Please refrain from such actions in the future.
Just to prevent getting into a stupid war of words since I can be rather defensive at times, I am blocking you, just so you know.

 

[The Human Target]

I can die from a single knife hit, because I am not a level 15 fighter like Gilgamesh is. I have about six Hit Points, and the fact that you're much more likely to kill me with one hit from a greatsword than one hit from a knife is the minimum degree of realism necessary for me to start taking a game seriously.

It'd be much easier for an average person to kill you with a knife than a clumsy heavy "greatsword."

Not that "greatswords" were ever much of a thing.

That's the other big problem with D&D simulationism besides not being very fun or creative.

It's pretty bunk, being based very little on actual reality.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No, you're looking at this the 80s simulationism way.

In this case, I'm attempting to model the real world in the language of D&D, which actually works fairly well when you stick to level 1 characters who don't have magic.

What I'm saying is, maybe Gilgamesh shouldn't need to stab his foes twice as much with a knife than with a greataxe, since, well, he's frikkin Gilgamesh.

By that logic, why have any weapons at all? If killing someone with a rock that you find on the ground is exactly as effective as killing them with a sword, then swords never would have been invented. That world doesn't look anything like our real world, though; nor does it resemble the vast majority of fantasy stories. In the real world, as in any believable fantasy world, a sword is a better weapon than a dagger in the vast majority of situations.

I will concede that the rules don't give daggers their due in those situations where a dagger would be more useful, such as in a grapple.

And because it's FUN if you get to choose your weapons without knowing that some of them are TWICE as good as others (more if you can take a greatweapon feat but no smallweapon feat).

What you consider fun, is what I consider ridiculous. Daggers are less powerful than swords. That's just a fact of reality. You can't inflict as grievous of a wound when you have a much smaller blade. You're much more likely to kill someone if you hit them with a sword than if you hit them with a dagger, and if the game rules don't reflect that, then that's a catastrophic failure of the rules to do their job.

Pathfinder is a role-playing game, which means the player makes decisions from the perspective of their character. I should choose to use a sword instead of a dagger, because my character would choose to use a sword instead of a dagger, because that's what makes sense for how the world works.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It'd be much easier for an average person to kill you with a knife than a clumsy heavy "greatsword."

Everything about that sentence is wrong. People often survive knife wounds. People rarely survive two-handed sword wounds. Two-handed swords are neither clumsy nor heavy.