# Let's Look At Pathfinder 2's Weapons!



## TwoSix (May 1, 2018)

I guess it isn't controversial enough to comment on. 

Overall, I like it...slightly complex, but elegantly so.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 1, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I guess it isn't controversial enough to comment on.
> 
> Overall, I like it...slightly complex, but elegantly so.




The complexity is acceptable because it’s being used to make the weapon mechanics deeper. Thats the key. Complexity is the currency you use to buy depth. As long as the designers are thrifty with it, it’ll go over well.


----------



## Mistwell (May 1, 2018)

Too complex for me.


----------



## Tumorseal (May 1, 2018)

This kind of stuff will make playing a fighter fun.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 1, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Too complex for me.




Can't win 'em all


----------



## i_dont_meta (May 1, 2018)

Can't wait for the D&D 5E conversion...


----------



## Sunseeker (May 1, 2018)

What's with all this +3 stuff?  I get not going crazy and making weapons go up to +10 million.  To the same question, why does proficiency go up to +6 in 5E?  We've got 20 levels, 9 levels of spells, +3 weapons, and I can't even tell you what level proficiency goes up to in PF2.  

Is there any way we could get a system that is nicely divisible by 5?  or by 2?  

Beyond that, these weapons seem gimmicky and remind me of _again_ of decking our wargame minis.


----------



## Ancalagon (May 1, 2018)

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



> 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




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?


----------



## wakedown (May 1, 2018)

A moment to weep for the thousands of hours that will be lost as players suddenly remember then discuss with their GMs that extra +1 damage or +1 to hit last round from a forceful or agile weapon...  in some cases that extra +1 being the difference between a critical fumble, fumble, hit or critical hit and something else...


----------



## Leatherhead (May 1, 2018)

shidaku said:


> What's with all this +3 stuff?  I get not going crazy and making weapons go up to +10 million.  To the same question, why does proficiency go up to +6 in 5E?  We've got 20 levels, 9 levels of spells, +3 weapons, and I can't even tell you what level proficiency goes up to in PF2.
> 
> Is there any way we could get a system that is nicely divisible by 5?  or by 2?
> 
> Beyond that, these weapons seem gimmicky and remind me of _again_ of decking our wargame minis.




I think I can crack this math.

Firstly, I would like to point out: The range is -1 to +3, which _is_ 5 different values. 
In D&D, its +0 to +3, which is 4 different values ( for your multiple of 2).

Proficiency starts at +2 then goes up to +6 (a 5 number range again), because there is such a thing as  1/2 proficiency (Bards use it for jack of all trades) and because it's intended to be added with your stat modifier. That means, at the end of the game, when you are more badass than everything, your bonus will be +11 (see what they did there?) 

And there are technically 10 levels of spells (Cantrips yo!), they just aren't split up evenly over all 20 levels.

However, that does make me wonder what kind of reaction people would have if they didn't cast level one spells until level 3.


----------



## Imaculata (May 1, 2018)

wakedown said:


> A moment to weep for the thousands of hours that will be lost as players suddenly remember then discuss with their GMs that extra +1 damage or +1 to hit last round from a forceful or agile weapon...  in some cases that extra +1 being the difference between a critical fumble, fumble, hit or critical hit and something else...




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


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 1, 2018)

It certainly looks to give martial classes more bits to play with. Like most of these not really enough info to get even a decent glimpse


----------



## wakedown (May 1, 2018)

I don't know if these little weapon riders were what various weapon-wieldling characters were missing in play.   I don't think I've had that many barbarians pine over using a glaive vs a greatsword but find their solution is met by adding in an increasing damage bonus per hit.  Or a fighter who regains interest in greatclubs because they pick up a nominal hit bonus after a miss.

Mostly the biggest issue (related to weapons) was the gap in weapon performance between 18-20 crit range weapons vs "only on a 20" crit range weapons, particularly when crit ranges doubled to 15-20 or 19-20 at high level.

I think my issue is I could see some players actually shy away from certain weapons now because they don't want to feel they have to remember various rider conditions, bonuses and effects from attack to attack or round to round.


----------



## Kaodi (May 1, 2018)

If you think it will be hard to remember how your primary weapon works imagine how difficult it must be remember how more than a dozen spells you know work. Really, I think this is just going to make selecting a weapon more difficult. If you find it too hard to remember how your primary weapons work then how hard can you really be trying?


----------



## Ancalagon (May 1, 2018)

wakedown said:


> A moment to weep for the thousands of hours that will be lost as players suddenly remember then discuss with their GMs that extra +1 damage or +1 to hit last round from a forceful or agile weapon...  in some cases that extra +1 being the difference between a critical fumble, fumble, hit or critical hit and something else...



That is a valid concern...


----------



## Sunseeker (May 1, 2018)

Leatherhead said:


> I think I can crack this math.
> 
> Firstly, I would like to point out: The range is -1 to +3, which _is_ 5 different values.
> In D&D, its +0 to +3, which is 4 different values ( for your multiple of 2).
> ...




Zero really isn't a value, it's an absence of value.  

Most people probably aren't going to be starting out with -1 weapons, either.  I realize that 5E proficiency starts at 2 and goes to 6, for a total value of 5, but it still makes the numbers look weird.  Why not start at 1 and go to 5?

I get that there's always a bit of front-loading to classes, to make sure that people are getting their proverbial "moneys worth" from early play (since some DM's never go past low levels).  But I still feel like there's a simple math that's being missed out on, an _elegance_ as was put in another thread that seems to be lost in the drive for wargame-style complexity.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (May 1, 2018)

Looks great!


----------



## zztong (May 1, 2018)

I do like that there will be more attributes with which weapons can be associated. I don't really trust Paizo to correctly associate them with the weapons. The Glaive description, for instance, doesn't really seem like a Glaive, unless perhaps they're envisioning something like an Eastern weapon in a Kung Fu movie. Perhaps that's the heart of the matter. They're after a fantasy setting that is more distant from a simulation. Their imagery often has me thinking more of something like Anime than Medieval.

Assuming they don't shift the math off into superheroic, I can be happy that they'd be giving me weapon attributes to use to fix up my own weapon chart.


----------



## Parmandur (May 1, 2018)

shidaku said:


> What's with all this +3 stuff?  I get not going crazy and making weapons go up to +10 million.  To the same question, why does proficiency go up to +6 in 5E?  We've got 20 levels, 9 levels of spells, +3 weapons, and I can't even tell you what level proficiency goes up to in PF2.
> 
> Is there any way we could get a system that is nicely divisible by 5?  or by 2?
> 
> Beyond that, these weapons seem gimmicky and remind me of _again_ of decking our wargame minis.



The numbers are bellcurve related, I believe (the 5E Proficiency bonus specifically replaces the average of the playtest Proficiency dice pool mechanic).

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


----------



## Parmandur (May 1, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

shidaku said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

shidaku said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> 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?



shidaku said:


> 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.





Charlaquin said:


> 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. 


Arilyn said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

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 (May 1, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

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 (May 1, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> My impression is: PF2 proficiency = level (!)
> 
> • So, to hit with a sword: d20 + ability + level
> • To cast a spell: DC 10 + ability + level
> ...



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 (May 1, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> My impression is: PF2 proficiency = level (!)
> 
> • So, to hit with a sword: d20 + ability + level
> • To cast a spell: DC 10 + ability + level
> ...



  So ripping 13A instead of 5e?
;P


----------



## Parmandur (May 1, 2018)

shidaku said:


> 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've played 3.x and it was true there, so I don't see why it wouldn't be for PF1.

It is a game that rewards system mastery of builds.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 1, 2018)

A thought re: weapons that require two hands (like the greatsword) vs weapons with the two-hand property (like the bastard sword). The blog only says weapons with the two-hand property deal more damage when used in two-hands. It doesn’t say how that damage is increased. What if instead of increasing the damage die like the Versatile property in 5e, the Two-hand property is how they denote that some weapons multiply strength mod to damage when weilded in two hands. Then they can slap that property on weapons like the bastard sword that only require one hand, on weapons like the greatsword that require two hands, and could even leave it off of some weapons that require two hands like the bo staff.


----------



## Yaarel (May 1, 2018)

Probably the staff (bo stick) can count as two light finesse weapons, one in each hand, because of using both sides of the staff, rapidly. Probably good for parrying defense bonus too.

The staff is an archetypal weapon that − like the sword − can enjoy some plot protection by making it an excellent choice.


----------



## Arilyn (May 1, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


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




Nope, just frustration at the "PF is so complex" argument. It really isn't that hard. Messy? Maybe. Lots of choice? Yep. The only really frustrating part is GMing it, cause of the ridiculously long monster descriptions. That part is overly complex for sure. That's the part that has got me over to 13th Age. 
But playing? Not a big deal.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 1, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> Nope, just frustration at the "PF is so complex" argument. It really isn't that hard. Messy? Maybe. Lots of choice? Yep.
> But playing? Not a big deal.



I'm similarly frustrated with the misplaced praise of 5e as 'simple.'   (If, indeed, praise it is meant to be.)  Sure, 3.5 is more complex than 5e, but they're both still D&D, and both still plenty complex.  PF's 'complexity' is fed by being the most lavishly-supported RPG in history, AFAICT, so, just maybe, there's some sour grapes to the 'toooo complex!' complaints.



> The only really frustrating part is GMing it, cause of the ridiculously long monster descriptions. That part is overly complex for sure. That's the part that has got me over to 13th Age.



 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.


----------



## Parmandur (May 1, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm similarly frustrated with the misplaced praise of 5e as 'simple.'    Sure, 3.5 is more complex than 5e, but they're both still D&D, and both still plenty complex.  PF's 'complexity' is fed by being the most lavishly-supported RPG in history, AFAICT, so, just maybe, there's some sour grapes to the 'toooo complex!' complaints.
> 
> 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 much heard of them.  But 3.x?  Nope, I'll 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.



Most of the people that I know who play 5E consider it quite challenging and complex, but they find it worthwhile to put the effort into it to play. It is certainly not a simple game, by most any measure.

PF1, nor it seems PF2, is not onerously complicated, but the game certainly plays to a particular style.


----------



## Mistwell (May 1, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> The numbers are bellcurve related, I believe (the 5E Proficiency bonus specifically replaces the average of the playtest Proficiency dice pool mechanic).
> 
> And yes, PF2 is very complex, crunchy wargame: it's their jam.






shidaku said:


> 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*.




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.


----------



## Morrus (May 1, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


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




Well, the emotive terms aside, 5E certainly has a considerably lower rules overhead than Pathfinder. That's served it very well, but that doesn't mean there isn't a decent market for those who enjoy a more rules-dense D&D-ish fantasy system.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 1, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> 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.




EXACTLY!  Thank you.  This is what I've been getting at.


----------



## Shasarak (May 1, 2018)

I like what they are doing with these new Weapon mechanics.  It adds a lot of design space as well as giving weapon users something juicy to play with.  I certainly prefer this to the old boring 1d4/1d6/1d8 weapon system previous editions of DnD used.

I always liked Weapon Quality from back in the day and would like to see how this interacts with the magic weapon system.

I did laugh at some of these "explanations" though.


----------



## Parmandur (May 1, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> 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 (May 2, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 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 (May 2, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> 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 (May 2, 2018)

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


----------



## Aldarc (May 2, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> 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 (May 2, 2018)

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.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 2, 2018)

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 (May 2, 2018)

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 (May 2, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> 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 (May 2, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> 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.





CubicsRube said:


> 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 (May 2, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> 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 (May 2, 2018)

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 (May 2, 2018)

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


----------



## Sunseeker (May 2, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> 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 (May 2, 2018)

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 (May 2, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> 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.


----------



## Kurviak (May 3, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> 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 (May 3, 2018)

Duplicated post


----------



## barasawa (May 3, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


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




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 (May 3, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> 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 (May 3, 2018)

barasawa said:


> 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 (May 3, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> 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 (May 4, 2018)

*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 (May 5, 2018)

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 (May 6, 2018)

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 (May 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## mellored (May 7, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> 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 (May 13, 2018)

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 (May 13, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> 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 (May 13, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> 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 (May 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> _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 (May 13, 2018)

barasawa said:


> 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 (May 13, 2018)

Kurviak said:


> 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 (May 13, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> _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 (May 13, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> 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.



CapnZapp said:


> 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.


CapnZapp said:


> 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 (May 13, 2018)

The Human Target said:


> 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.


----------



## Shasarak (May 14, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




Have you tried to just reflavour Gilgamesh's Greataxe as a Knife?  Sounds like it would be a pretty easy fix at the table.


----------

