What's pathfinder 2e like?

[Dienekes]

So if you don't want the gameplay around weapon damage types to be switching weapons when you encounter something with resistance, what do you want the gameplay around to it to be?

Honestly, don't know. I'm not a game designer, but I do fight with medieval weapons and I do not use a spear the same way I use a longsword or the way I use a poleaxe or the way I use a dagger.

In my own nonsense homebrewery of games, I've toyed with when I'm bored at work. My idea of reworking melee weapons like this.

Strike Attack: 1d20+modifiers+Strength
Strike Damage: 1dX+Str with various tags
Thrust Attack: 1d20+modifiers+Dexterity
Thrust Damage: 1dX+Str with various tags

A sword would have very balanced Strike and Thrust damage. A mass weapon would heavily favor strikes. Spears would heavily favor thrusts.

The warrior then learns a list of maneuvers that are limited based on if your attack is a Strike or a Thrust and what tags you have on your damage.
Spears might have the Set tag, so they can choose to brace their spears and thrust at those that enter their range and keep them from moving closer.
Any weapon might use the Precision Thrust maneuver where the attack is more difficult but it reduces the opponent's DR based on armor.
Hammers might have the armor breaker maneuver that only works on Strikes against enemies with metal armor, which makes the the aforementioned Precision Thrust easier.
Larger swords and axes would have access to attacks like Cleave.

Create an interesting and diverse list of maneuvers, split them up among weapon, attack, and damage types and hopefully you'll end up seeing picking up a weapon actually makes the player in question start to feel they're using different weapons and not just doing the same thing with different numbers.

Now mind you, this would by necessity make the D20 system way more complicated especially in its martial fighting. Which has usually been given a backseat to magic in terms of complexity. So it wouldn't be for everyone, but I think I'd find it interesting.

[MeeposFire]

Can't be a veteran of the Gleemax forum wars about katanas because there was no reference to bacon or uranium for the katanas.

[RedWarlock]

That's true, but I don't think people want the game to spend its complexity there. I do not think people want "should this character use a spear or a sword" to be a major character decision

Actually, that's one of the decisions I WOULD like to matter. I would love if there was cost/benefit analysis that put what weapon the character selected for use as a major choice to be made. "Call it whatever you want, sword, spear, hammer, glaive-glaive-guisarme, it does 1d8+str, nothing else matters," sounds like the worst thing ever.

Edit: And also a decision with a variety of choices, and no one obvious answer for all cases. A good decision has different answers for varying contexts.

[NigelWalmsley]

Sure? My point isn't that no one cares about it, it's that most people don't. And the problem is that unlike tweaking a specific class, however weapons work is how they work for everyone. If you make the Barbarian care about some bit of technical minutia that lots of people don't enjoy, that only pisses off whatever subset of people who would otherwise play Barbarians and don't like it. But every martial character uses a weapon, and many non-martials do as well. The weapon rules have to be something everyone can live with.

[Morty]

D&D weapons have historically been an illusion of choice. Trap options and simplicity wrapped up in a lot of tables and numbers to disguise it. It could be boiled down to "you deal XdY+Z damage, describe it as you will" or a robust set of options, but it's never really been either. PF2E is trying to do the latter, but I don't know how well it works. Many of the tags feel pretty minor and fiddly.

[Crake]

D&D weapons have historically been an illusion of choice. Trap options and simplicity wrapped up in a lot of tables and numbers to disguise it. It could be boiled down to "you deal XdY+Z damage, describe it as you will" or a robust set of options, but it's never really been either. PF2E is trying to do the latter, but I don't know how well it works. Many of the tags feel pretty minor and fiddly.

Can you give me an example of a "trap option" weapon? From my understanding, it's generally a balance between weapon damage, crit range, and crit modifier, with 1 dice size being equal to 1 crit range being equal to 1 crit multiplier, hence why greatsword and greataxe do equivilent damage, while falcion and scythe do less damage due to their increased crit range/crit modifier.

[Firechanter]

Can you give me an example of a "trap option" weapon?

The absolute majority of Exotic Weapons are trap options in 3E/PF. The cost of 1 feat for 1 avg point of damage is a terrible, terrible deal. Arguably, in 3.5 you can work with size stacking but PF pretty much puts the kibosh on that, too.
Ironically atrocious: the Spiked Chain is the gold standard of exotic weapons in 3.5, and has been nerfed to the ultimate trap in PF: it still costs a feat, but is several steps WORSE in every way than the Heavy Flail, a Martial weapon. Here you pay your feat to LOSE 1 point of threat range and half a point of damage and get an inferior damage type on top.

Enough traps for you? ^^

[Crake]

The absolute majority of Exotic Weapons are trap options in 3E/PF. The cost of 1 feat for 1 avg point of damage is a terrible, terrible deal. Arguably, in 3.5 you can work with size stacking but PF pretty much puts the kibosh on that, too.
Ironically atrocious: the Spiked Chain is the gold standard of exotic weapons in 3.5, and has been nerfed to the ultimate trap in PF: it still costs a feat, but is several steps WORSE in every way than the Heavy Flail, a Martial weapon. Here you pay your feat to LOSE 1 point of threat range and half a point of damage and get an inferior damage type on top.

Enough traps for you? ^^

That sounds more like exotic weapon proficiency is the trap option rather than the weapons themselves. If you had ways to get free exotic weapon proficiencies, such as through the exotic weapons master fighter ACF (from dragon magazine I think?), I imagine those weapons would all actually be perfectly fine?

[Kurald Galain]

That sounds more like exotic weapon proficiency is the trap option rather than the weapons themselves. If you had ways to get free exotic weapon proficiencies,

Well that's not hard. Half-elves can start with EWP for free, Tengu are proficient with all exotic swords, gnomes can be proficient in any weapon they've made themselves, and there's a 1500-gp ioun stone that lets you treat an exotic weapon as martial.

I mean, the Dodge feat also sucks; but you don't hear anyone complain that armor class is useless

[Morty]

Crossbows are also famously a trap option. Though to be fair to 3.5/PF, 5E is a far worse offender when it comes to this.

[Gnaeus]

Well that's not hard. Half-elves can start with EWP for free, Tengu are proficient with all exotic swords, gnomes can be proficient in any weapon they've made themselves, and there's a 1500-gp ioun stone that lets you treat an exotic weapon as martial.

I mean, the Dodge feat also sucks; but you don't hear anyone complain that armor class is useless

Hardly for free. They give up adaptability. Which is skill focus in a skill of your choice (probably only good as a prerequisite for some other PRC) or tradable for better stuff like +2 will, a variety of crummy spell likes, skill unlocks, differing skill bonuses or weapon proficiency packages. That’s still a trap option by my definition, unless you are using it to qualify for some unrelated feat or PRC that requires exotic weapon proficiency, which could exist.

[Crake]

Crossbows are also famously a trap option. Though to be fair to 3.5/PF, 5E is a far worse offender when it comes to this.

I mean, seems to me simple weapons that do the same damage as martial weapons (at least, light crossbow to longbow), with similar stats (19-20 crit range vs x3 crit multiplier), but at the expense of an extra action to reload, that doesn't really seem like a trap option. Especially when you can get deadeye and crossbow sniper to add 1.5x your dex to damage, so specializing into it isn't actually that bad.

But, point is, a trap option is one that seems alright at first, but is actually bad. Crossbows are overtly more painful to use than bows, and clearly meant to be for people without martial weapon proficiency to use as an early-game ranged option, without putting them on parity with martial weapon users using bows. Someone with martial weapon proficiency isn't going to use a crossbow, unless they're specifically specializing into it with the above mentioned feats for example, becuase the crossbow is overtly worse than the longbow. If it's obviously worse, it's not really a 'trap' is it? It's just... a worse option, and intentionally so.

[NigelWalmsley]

Calling weapons "trap options" seems kind of like overstating. "Trap option" usually means something like "taking Skill Focus (Survival) when you could take Natural Spell", not "you deal 1 or 2 less damage on each attack". At anything but very low level, very low optimization play, weapon choice is not a significant factor in character power. Yes, a Greatsword is better than a Greatclub. No, your character is not useless if they pick the latter instead of the former.

[Crake]

Calling weapons "trap options" seems kind of like overstating. "Trap option" usually means something like "taking Skill Focus (Survival) when you could take Natural Spell", not "you deal 1 or 2 less damage on each attack". At anything but very low level, very low optimization play, weapon choice is not a significant factor in character power. Yes, a Greatsword is better than a Greatclub. No, your character is not useless if they pick the latter instead of the former.

I disagree. A trap option is exactly that, a trap. It's an option that lures you into picking it, seeming better than it is, only for it to be a let down. Skill focus (Survival) is not a trap option for just that reason, as it doesn't seem great on the surface, even my newest players can recognise it as a bad feat unless they really want to specialize in a particular skill. A better example of a trap feat is something like Deflect Arrows and Snatch Arrows. On the surface, being able to deflect a ranged attack, or snatch an arrow out of the air sounds interesting, but in practise, the likelihood of being able to deflect a single ranged attack, when ranged attacks typically come in volleys, or being able to grab an arrow or throwing knife out of the air, is rarely going to actually come in handy. Thus, the feat sounds cool, lures a player into picking it, only to turn out to be a very disappointing feat for the player.

Other examples include things like spring attack/shot on the run in a game that goes to late levels and iterative attacks become far better options, great cleave, because the likelihood of you downing a second enemy after the first is highly unlikely, improved sunder, because you don't want to be destroying your potential equipment, shield bashing, because you don't realise you need to also take the two weapon fighting feat, and the quick draw feat, because you can draw a weapon as part of a move action to move already once you get 1 bab.

But skill focus is definitely not among that list. Nobody's getting tricked into picking skill focus because they think it's such an amazing feat.

[NigelWalmsley]

I think you underestimate how appealing Skill Focus is to people. I've definitely seen people pick Skill Focus (or similarly bad feats like Alertness or Endurance) because they though they were cool. People who don't understand the system very well often make the mistake of assuming that feats are fluff abilities that you use to augment your character's backstory, rather than a major source of relevant abilities (which is not entirely unfair, as the designers did produce a lot of feats like that).

[Morty]

Now that I think about it, is the simple/martial/exotic split even necessary? Exotic weapons are, as mentioned, frequently not worth the trouble. The difference between simple and martial weapons is frequently marginal - unless the simple weapons are just a waste of space, like crossbows. So it's dubiously useful from a balance perspective and makes very little sense from a realistic one. The only real purpose for a "simple" category are weapons that are obviously inferior, like wooden clubs, but I don't think they need such a special consideration.

[Boci]

Now that I think about it, is the simple/martial/exotic split even necessary? Exotic weapons are, as mentioned, frequently not worth the trouble. The difference between simple and martial weapons is frequently marginal - unless the simple weapons are just a waste of space, like crossbows. So it's dubiously useful from a balance perspective and makes very little sense from a realistic one. The only real purpose for a "simple" category are weapons that are obviously inferior, like wooden clubs, but I don't think they need such a special consideration.

Crossbows aren't a waste of space, they are your most potent ranged option weapon-wise, if you are only proficient with simple weapons. They're a waste of space if you have proficiency with martial weapons, but then resistance is also a waste of space if you have immunity.

The benefit of exotic/superior though was questionable, both mechanically and fluffwise, and sure enough 5th ed dropped the third catagory.

[Morty]

Crossbows aren't a waste of space, they are your most potent ranged option weapon-wise, if you are only proficient with simple weapons. They're a waste of space if you have proficiency with martial weapons, but then resistance is also a waste of space if you have immunity.

I'm really curious why 3E's treatment of crossbows of all things finds so many ardent defenders; I know I go on about them a lot but I have many weird hills to die on. Regardless, their off-handed mention is seriously not the point.

The benefit of exotic/superior though was questionable, both mechanically and fluffwise, and sure enough 5th ed dropped the third catagory.

5E's entire weapon list could be condensed to five lines without a lot of effort, so the simple/martial split is also questionable.

[Boci]

I'm really curious why 3E's treatment of crossbows of all things finds so many ardent defenders; I know I go on about them a lot but I have many weird hills to die on. Regardless, their off-handed mention is seriously not the point.

You said something untrue and were called out on it, that hardly makes me an ardent defender.

[Kurald Galain]

Now that I think about it, is the simple/martial/exotic split even necessary?

It is a good idea in principle to have a "better" kind of weapon that can be obtained at the cost of a feat. However, the 3E implementation has the issue that the benefit is too low for the cost; and the issue that it is pretty arbitrary flavor-wise which weapons are considered "harder to learn".

But it would be nice (assuming a developed and consistent world) if bland feats like Weapon Specialization could be refluffed to "you have learned how to use the Xrajfifnian Flurgleblade, which is exactly like a longsword except it deals +2 damage".

[Morty]

It is a good idea in principle to have a "better" kind of weapon that can be obtained at the cost of a feat. However, the 3E implementation has the issue that the benefit is too low for the cost; and the issue that it is pretty arbitrary flavor-wise which weapons are considered "harder to learn".

But it would be nice (assuming a developed and consistent world) if bland feats like Weapon Specialization could be refluffed to "you have learned how to use the Xrajfifnian Flurgleblade, which is exactly like a longsword except it deals +2 damage".

3E's implementation is indeed poor, I just struggle to think of a game that does it properly. Most fantasy RPGs with pre-gunpowder weapons just have a big or small list of them. Dark Heresy has weapon categories that are just better, but this is stuff like plasma, power, melta or bolt weapons. You won't have those as a starting character and access to them means you're in big leagues now.

I don't think there's a good reason for D&D not to just have a unified weapon list, with poor-quality stuff like wooden clubs having a sidebar. And exotic weapons being situational and off to the side, maybe. I also don't think Weapon Specialization would be appreciably improved by making it give you a new weapon instead of making you slightly better at using an existing one.

[NigelWalmsley]

The reason for the simple/martial/exotic split is the same reason for having all the weapons in the first place. It's a compromise between the people who don't care and the people for whom it is very important that a Guisarme is different from a Ranseur. It might not be the best possible set up, but it's not really so bad as to need fixing. Weapons take up about eight pages, and a lot of that is fluff or stuff like size scaling. You're just not going to get all that much from simplifying it, compared to simplifying feats or spells.

[NomGarret]

It is a good idea in principle to have a "better" kind of weapon that can be obtained at the cost of a feat. However, the 3E implementation has the issue that the benefit is too low for the cost; and the issue that it is pretty arbitrary flavor-wise which weapons are considered "harder to learn".

But it would be nice (assuming a developed and consistent world) if bland feats like Weapon Specialization could be refluffed to "you have learned how to use the Xrajfifnian Flurgleblade, which is exactly like a longsword except it deals +2 damage".

This is similar to how I run it in 4e, though now that I think about it, it’s kinda flipped. You can have a Fullblade, for instance, but until you have the feat it’s treated as a Greatsword. Basic (or martial) proficiency lets you use it like a similar weapon, but you need to spend a feat to master the extra potential.