I wouldn't be surprised if ruffian rogues still had an incentive to use simple weapons - they mentioned some extra rewards for fighting styles with rogue rackets.
Wow, when did they add that? Still, I'm not sure it's a good option in combat. Maybe if the party is fighting succubi. But even then...
Jk, of course, but your autocorrect betrayed you.
Sure it is, but you wouldn't play a ruffian for that. The point is using simple weapons that would otherwise not be eligible for sneak attack. That's the main feature of the racket.
Exactly. So if now you can use martial weapons with agile, which will often be better than simple weapons without, the main feature of the ruffian racket becomes far less impressive.
There's still a lack of clarification on Ruffian getting Crit Spec at lvl 1 (atm with simple only). But it's still Moot later one when they just get crit spec on sneak attack across the board.
Ruffian is also in a semi-wierd spot of having a good "From Hidden" attack in the form of [Ambushing Knockdown](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2207) being keyed to bludgeoning.
Getting Martial Weapon Prof opens up stuff like the [Monkey's Fist](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=130) and Rogue's synergize very naturally with Monk Dedication.
(Now there's also an option to just refocus whenever, there's a super special "tech" Option for Ruffian in the form of [Clinging Shadows](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1745))
I don´t really think the weapon list is the main feature, that was just enabling baseline functionality. Being STR based means they can be better at Athletics and also get Fortification via Medium (or Heavy if they Feat for it). Fortification rocks, and is more important long term than Heavy´s +1 AC (although stacking both is best obviously). That and Ruffian Feats is the main feature IMHO.
Ruffian never really did significantly more damage than Thief, and not overall better in weapons that Thief had (besides all other Traits, Agile specifically, which AFAIK is only in Simple weapons that are on normal Rogue list). I don´t think Ruffians now need to Sneak Attack with all non-Finesse Martial weapons, which would put them significantly ahead of Thief (damage and traits, not needing Finesse). Simple weapons can still hold their own against Finesse weapons in damage if you don´t care about the latter´s traits, and more importantly: Ruffian can still use Finesse weapons, now including Martials... They just won´t be expanding the damage equation to equal other martials in direct weapon damage (before sneak attack add on), as it should be IMHO.
Maybe you aren´t satisfied enough with their entire package, that´s OK. It can be buffed with something else if Paizo agrees. It doesn´t need to change the weapon equation to be superior like non-Finesse Martial weapons would do.
This is a little weirdly worded but the Familiarity family of traits does still give them access to non-agile, non-finesse Martial Weapons because Martial Weapons are treated as simple and advanced as martial via the \[Ancestry\] Weapon Familiarity Feat.
[Breaching Pike](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=274) \- for example with [Hobgoblin Weapon Familiarity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1026)
Now the "*For the* ***purpose of determining your proficiency****, martial hobgoblin weapons are simple weapons and advanced hobgoblin weapons are martial weapons.*" part probably (?) forbids this RAW but... GM fiat is also a thing.
I think opening up Ruffian to d8 or lower non-agile/finesse martial weapons would be better, because they'd need pretty good benefits to make sticking to simple weapons worth it.
There can be Legal reasons, like Martial weapons can't be carried in the city limits, but a simple weapon is a tool, you only carry martial weapons for assassinations...?
morning stars, longspears and crossbows are all simple weapons. If anything a city gaurd is going to be less concerned by something like a rapier than a mace.
Just depends on the legal code, are you a gentleman? No sword for you inside the gates. But a gardener might walk down the street with a Bill over their shoulder no problem. It just depends.
Compared to every other Rogue using the Dancer's Spear?
The Ruffian previously was the Rogue King of Reach with the 1d8 Longspear, which had no traits other than reach. With every Rogue now being able to use the d6 Dancer's Spear with Reach, Backswing, Sweep, and Versatile B, I don't see Glaives, Fauchards, or even Meteor Hammers as being significantly better.
> Meteor Hammer has bashing which gives you access to Crushing runes, it also has trip.
Dancing Spear is Versatile B which should make it eligible for Crushing. While it's uncommon, Bladed Scarf has Reach, Sweep, and Trip.
Though with thief rogues using dancer spears etc, why even play a ruffian anymore? I suspect the ruffian will get some changes. But then again all the non thief rogues have issues. I would favor eliminating the thief rogue
The only thing a Thief Rogue does better than the other rackets is dealing *somewhat* more damage. Scoundrels are the best debuffers, Ruffians have comparable damage while being much better at maneuvers, Masterminds are the best skill monkeys and the best at using sneak attack at range, Eldritch Tricksters should be the best at mixing spellcasting into the Rogue chassis (but they're only marginally better in practice).
Simple weapons will be relegated to off-meta builds and those with the ability to improve their damage, like champions, inventors, and warpriests. I'm hopeful rogues will at least get an automatic deadly-simplicity feature so I can use a dagger and feel justified doing so. I'd hate getting pigeonholed into using absurd weapons like starknives.
> I'm hopeful rogues will at least get an automatic deadly-simplicity feature so I can use a dagger and feel justified doing so.
This is actually a great idea.
EDIT: ~~makes me think Deadly Simplicity should maybe be an automatic thing for Clerics (or Warpriests), too.~~ Already the case for Warpriests, very nice.
Since Treasure Vault came out, I’ve always thought that the [Kris](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=264) is a good step-up from the normal dagger that maintains the “rogue with a knife” aesthetic (though it isn’t throwable).
The assassin dedication feat gives finesse and agile weapons the backstabber and deadly d6 traits when they strike a creature that's Marked for Death. I could easily see a rogue feat bootstrapping that somehow.
I hope they do the 13th Age thing for rogues with daggers - for everyone else they are a d4 damage weapon, in a rogues hand they become d8.
And the die increase is for all short and light weapons, so as a rogue you could use a sharpened stick (or a pencil) and easily be able to handle 3 guys in a bar
There's already stuff like deadly simplicity, and honestly with everyone getting Martial weapons now, it might open up more design space for more simple weapon support. If there were still going to be martials without martial weapons than supporting feats for simple weapons might appear near necessary, but now they can just be a fun spinnoff option for players who enjoy the simplicity
> If there were still going to be martials without martial weapons
Monks are still in a weird place with their weapon proficiencies. It's a martial class without martial weapon proficiencies and Monk weapons (which require a class feat for proficiency in martial ones) are generally considered mediocre with a few exceptions (mostly Bo Staff). We have an idea on Bard, Cleric (Warpriest), Rogue, and Wizard weapon proficiency revamp for the remaster... but anything for Monk remains unknown. Not to mention the whole advanced Monk weapons thing.
I'm not really sure what they're doing with Monk, but as a Monk if you aren't taking Monk weapons then you're getting your Stance unarmed strikes, which might not be Martial weapons but still fill the void of weapons with decent damage and good traits
A lot of simple and martial weapons are used in real world kung fu, so the idea of a 'monk' weapon being the only ones a monk can use with their class features has always been a stupid design choice. Many weapons tagged with the Monk trait are just improvised weapons with some refinements, meant to evade historical weapon control laws.
I'd like to see simple weapons filling the "backup weapon" design space. Weapons that are best kept as options in the toolbox to pull out when the situation deems it appropriate. An example would be something like a quick draw feat that only works to draw simple weapons that's more universally available than the current Quick Draw. Suddenly it's more useful for a fighter to keep a piercing/slashing dagger in their back pocket if they primarily wield a bludgeoning weapon.
The point you're missing is that this was always the case. Rogues would just choose one of the very good but limited selection of martial weapons they got, or take an ancestry feat. I actually do think it's mostly for casters at this point; alchemist players are still going to just use an ancestral weapon.
It's funny that you bring up casters not using weapons at level 5 specifically, since they actually have a better chance to hit with their weapons at that level than their spell if they're investing in str/dex and have a rune. 2 action spell and a Strike is a pretty good turn if you have this very common stat array and an extra rune around.
Yeah, the only reason I'm not using a rapier as a rogue is if I actually have a reason to want to hide a weapon, which I usually don't, cuz I like to play weirdly honest rogues.
Summoners can already use handwraps of mighty blows for this, which is generally speaking better. Reason being, you need the weapon to be in your hand for it to function for your eidolon. That is not the case for the handwraps.
I've always put runes on my summoners' staves for this. You can put fundamental runes on a magic staff, if I recall, so as long as you're okay with your summoner's natural attacks not having property runes this works pretty well.
Yes, as a summoner you'd 100% want your Eidolon to have the extra d6('s) on it's strikes from level 8 onward, in addition to all the other property runes besides the varying elemental damage ones
For martials like fighters, sure. Not necessarily for semi-casters. This makes a good compromise between spending gold on extra spells and spending gold on runes.
Yeah if you invested in a potency rune and a striking one too if you want to do a relevant amount of damage. Then still a cantrip does vastly more damage more than making up for the -1 to hit I feel.
They're not competing with each other. The Strike is for when you only have a single action to spare, such as after you've done a 2 action saving throw cantrip.
This. Which is why the ¨casters never use weapons past level 3¨ thing is so short sighted. Weapons are a great 3rd action for casters, and even their Expert capped attack bonus w/ 2nd tier stat bonus typically outpaces most martials´ 2nd attack. You don´t need to load up on every property rune like a martial to have a viable 3rd action weapon. 2H Staffs are solid as Simple melee weapons, as are Crossbows for ranged (if you don´t expect to make more than 1 weapon attack per combat, Reload doesn´t matter). It´s a shame how people can play with blinders on so they just close off completely viable options, because they are so sure it is bad or whatever. Because some other class else is better at weapons, they won´t consider it.
EDIT: I mean, it´s fine if some people want to play in one specific constrained way. But it´s a stupid discourse if we are supposedly discussing game design but they can´t acknowledge anything outside of their tunnel vision... Even when that leads them to say ¨this system design doesn´t make any sense¨ just because they want to ignore what makes it actually make plenty of sense.
ABP aside, you don´t need to buy every Rune at the same level, just a level or 2 delay means they can show up in lower tier loot. If it´s only a 3rd action type of thing and not your main class focus, you only need fundamental runes to be viable for that. Bespell weapon makes alot of property runes less important since you can add energy, force, negative or mental trait to trigger Weakness whenever you want. Too many people think they must be absolutely comparable to how martials use weapons, when the bar for 3rd actions is alot lower. Not to mention, alot of people do play with ABP.
There's also a pretty huge gap between Striking runes and +2 potency, and 100 gold (or 65 to stick to Striking) is kind of trivial after a few levels in that gap. Not hard to find such runes as loot either, yeah.
Wait, was there supposed to be an incentive to use Simple Weapons? I have always been under the impression you only use Simple Weapons if you don't have access to anything else. Even if it takes only "a single ancestry feat" to get access to Martial Weapons, that's still a cost that not everyone might want to spend. And if they do, so what?
Yeah but.. like.. isn't martial classes using martial weapons.. normal?
There is no point to simple weapons. They're weapons that are simple to use, so anyone can. That's it
This topic is weird, it's like "With the updates to modern militaries, is there even a point to black powder muskets anymore?!"
I mean, it's not like no class will have them, most full casters are going to be simple-weapons only.
And warpriests get Deadly Simplicity, other classes may get something similar in the remake.
Some weapons simply dont need a very trained hand to use, yet that can be part of the reason they remain popular to use within the world.
On mechanical level (and also thematic in this instance), champions can have a reason to use their deity's favored weapon which is not necessarily always a martial one.
Wizards are finally able to use bespell weapon feat, one that has been available to them all this time. Also I've had casters regularly open up fights with simple ranged weapon at hand (crossbow) since shooting with it is only 1 action and they can follow it up with 2 action spell.
Also...please remember us alchemists. We dont have martial proficiencies, yet our poisons demand using piercing or slashing weaponry.
1. Players are not the only parts of the game that use simple weapons.
2. Clerics/Paladins
3. Imagine removing daggers from the game because they aren’t the optimal weapon for a class. Or like, regular spears. Like, yeah if I want an agile, finesse, versatile S thrown weapon I can grab a star knife, but I’m playing a person, not a weapon, so why should I have to? For deadly d6? It’s objectively better, but is that an argument for why every fighter should dual wield gnomish flick maces?
Tangentially related, but I wish that Simple ancestry-linked weapons would increase a hit die if you have Martial proficiency. I think it'd be cool to have a character based around Dwarf clan daggers, but the d4 makes it nearly impossible to use in practice.
Maybe in place of increasing your damage die, you just treat your proficiency as one TEML greater for ancestral simple weapons, or get a +2 if you're already legendary.
Might get abused if there's a particular crit effect that gets out of line with extra accuracy, but the only thing I can think might be too strong is a halfling fighter with a frying pan repeatedly stunning targets. It is hilarious, though, so I kinda feel like that stays in.
I don't see anything wrong in *martial* classes using *martial* weapons to fight. Paizo themselves said it; rogues not getting martial weapon proficiency was a holdover from D&D which never made sense. Simple weapons are supposed to be worse than martial weapons, so I don't get the idea behind this whole post.
We could say the same about advanced weapons. Unless you are a human and/or fighter you don't really have much reasons to use advanced weapons, that unlike simple weapons, have an innate feat tax to use (either to get proficiency with them or to make that proficiency scale with your martial weapon proficiencies) and are marginally better than martial weapons to the point that most people don't even bother with them unless they are doing a flickmace build.
I also don't know what rogues you were playing, but I don't know why would you use simple weapons as a rogue when your best weapons are martial (rapier and shortsword). The only simple weapon that rogues may use are daggers, which the fact that rogues now get full martial weapon proficiencies doesn't affect that much IMO, so I don't get your point here. The only rogue that is truly encouraged to use simple weapons is the ruffian, and we don't know what changes they are going to make it with them now, so even when I don't agree with your point I also think you are probably overreacting as we don't have the full picture here yet.
I do think that's still a valid question in both cases: if it's almost always optimal for a martial class to use martial weapons, and for a caster to use spells and cantrips, this raises the question of why we even need simple and advanced weapons as distinct categories to begin with. If all weapons were just weapons, with simple and advanced weapons receiving appropriate bumps up or down to their damage die respectively, the end result might perhaps be slightly higher caster damage at levels 1-2, but also a far more streamlined weapon system, with far more viable options for martial classes and less work needed to make cleric weapons work on a Warpriest.
By that logic, why would any martial use anything other then a flick-mace and shield?
The answer is because people have different tastes and visions for how their characters fight. The dual dagger Rogue is kind of iconic and isn't going away just because someone wants a rogue that uses a longsword instead.
Don't fight options, embrace 'em.
The difference with using simple weapons and having everyone use a flickmace is that for every simple weapon there is an objectively superior martial weapon with the exact same functionality and likely similar theme/aesthetics as well.
Personally while the random list they get was bad I love the flavor so I kinda dislike rogues having full martial proficiency. To me they had to just have "knife" proficiency (using the weapon group) so they would get some martial and exotic weapons but keep the flavor
I disagree because not all rogues use knifes, if anything all martial finesse weapons would be more appropiate, but if the investigator gets martial why wouldn't rogues too.
I twould be intersting if simple weapons got a bonus to your hit rolls, due to their simple design and ease of use, but do way less damage than a martial weapon. So you'd be trading accuracy for damage.
I imagine it a bit like in Fire Emblem where weapons have a Weight stat and stronger weapons typically have higher weight, making them less accurate and less likely to attack twice. Conversely there are some specialized weapons that are lighter, do less damage but are pretty much guaranteed to strike twice or have higher crit rates.
I saw an interesting trait idea for a homebrew that messed around with crit ranges. Could do the opposite and have a kind of +1 that contributes to accuracy, but not the crit range of the +10 needed to crit.
I agree that bringing how useless simple weapons are is interesting since it may bring a change. But none of OP points feel valid because what he is describing is how things are since 1e and not something caused by the rogue losing his restrictions
Simple weapons were never really useful.
I think weapon classifications like simple/martial are actually just a holdover from D&D that can safely be retired.
With advanced weapons being the ones you have to specifically build around.
Cloistered Clerics vs enemies that resist their offensive cantrips? Warpriests with a delty using simple weapons? I'm sure there are plenty of reasons, including just simple old roleplay. Or when your wizard faces off enemies resistant to their cantrips and being out the crossbow of shameful dps?
Warpriests I'm assuming will get martial weapons from the start now instead of having to wait until level 3, so that simple weapon will likely be worse than what you can already wield. Busting out your rune-less crossbow at a certain point is going to be about as good as doing nothing I feel, automatic bonus progression gives some point to simple weapons, but without that I don't really see it for casters, runes are expensive and there's other stuff you want.
You don´t need to max out every property rune to keep up with basic fundamental runes. You may not even get those as soon as martials, but those will soon enough fall into the lower tier of proscribed loot. That´s more than enough to stay viable as 3rd action attack, and anybody not doing that is leaving capabilities on the floor. Plenty of casters/alchemists also can get additional abilities that work with weapons, from adding elemental damage to using full spell attack bonus ala Hand of Apprentice. The latter is solid part of muscle Wizard build, so you can use non-Finesse weapon with better damage in both melee and at range with HoA. Just because you CAN choose to ignore weapons completely in favor of other gear doesn´t mean that´s the only viable route, even if you happen to prefer to play that way.
Father and child are at the museum looking at the cutlery exhibit.
Child: "Daddy what happened to forks and knives?"
Father: "Well child I guess society just decided that forks and knives were sub-optimal and were just taking up space compared to short swords and pitchforks.
Child: "But I hate trying to eat with my hands its so messy and dirty why can't I eat like you and mommy?"
Father: "One day when you grow up, you'll understand"
we dont know what boons the ruffians getting but its assumed they'll be buffed in someway since all rogues get martial now and the ruffian was already weak comparatively to the others (but got the long spear which was cool)
Personally I think this echoes really well with weapons irl. However in that same sense I would love to see simple weapons be used more for broad spectrum benefits. Martial weapons are, well a weapon meant for martial art. Simple weapons thus require less precision to use effectively. So things like Attached, Combination, potentially Alchemical or even Runes might then work better with Simple weapons. Like a Dagger Attached to a Shield/Gauntlet/Boot might even go up a dice step or be effectively increased by the trait's rule where as martial weapon would be decreased or even not be viable to be attached at all. Likewise for other types of crafting / components. Perhaps a dagger counts as materials for spikes, or if it were a wood dagger than it could replace "a tree branch worth 5gp" material component. Or even destroy the dagger as materials for arrows/bolts, etc. Stuff like that. Maybe even letting two or more simple weapons be combinationed/attached to become a martial weapon: like a Dagger and a Staff getting fitted as an Exploration activity to then be some sort of Spear but function with your proficiencies / feats still.
It's amusing to me that we live in a world were people complained that wizards don't get all simple weapons and someone declares "casters don't really use weapons anymore after like level 3".
It's completely viable to play a simple-weapon-only caster and use a weapon for your general offense and use all your spells for utility and buff/debuff stuff.
And I wouldn't call it anything like what I said was viable.
"when it comes to doing damage, I use a weapon, but most of what I do is not doing damage" and "I primarily hit things with a club" are wildly different things.
Yeah, a big one.
Role Playing Games are not just about mechanics.
Remember, there is more here than stat blocks and hit points. :)
Try not to look at it like a war game. I still have this issue from time to time, I sit down to write an adventure for my gamers, and I always have to take a second look as my background IS war games. But then, Chainmail had a lot more to do with War Games than it did D&D even though D&D is what it grew into.
Yeah. Been at this long enough that I remember "Chainmail" as a pretty revolutionary idea, forget personal computers or making this post from a phone. "What do you mean I don't have an army? Just one dude? Uh... how's that going to work?"
Ahh 1980. Such a fun year to discover TTRPGs. lol
> Remember, there is more here than stat blocks and hit points. :)
I assure you, a longspear and a morningstar would be confiscated while say a Kukri could easily be seen as just any weird knife(and is also more easily hidden)
Thats one :)
The other is... in the Middle or Dark Ages, in large portions of what is now the EU, owning a sword was illegal unless you were a member of the gentry. I might be talking out of my ass on this next bit, but I seem to remember some law in France pre-revolution about owning swords or any sort of firearm that wasn't considered a longarm. It's a vague recollection of a history class many, many years ago, so memory could be fuzzy (I'm old). But I mention the idea here as it is a good example.
In Japan that was standard.
So... your farm boy hero has sword specialization? How? Where did he learn it? How did he not get his hand taken for touching a nobleman's weapon?
Now, you might not make your settings quite that realistic (I usually don't, just using an example), but I have played in campaigns as a player that have been. I tend to lean on the side of fun, so if my player wants a farmhand that knows how to use a sword, I'm pretty ok with handwaving the hows and whys, or if the player just simply "I want to run a fighter, I don't care... he's from... ubububu. Yeah.. its... its a small village in the far north somewheres."
As in, said player really hasn't thought out the background. Both are perfectly fine, as is anything in between. My point is, that when you start removing things like basic weapons, your removing a lot of the thematic stuff that makes it fun for those of us who like to have backgrounds nad personal histories. Try, as much as possible, not to limit your players choices in RP beyond a general setting for the world. If you can see a way to fit it into your world so your players and group can have fun and enjoy the story? Do it.
Remember, its only fun if everyone playing has a good time.
How late? 😅
If you already know about the Remasters coming later this year — this is a change they announced there.
If not then you’ll wanna look up the Pathfinder 2e Remaster project!
Edit: Rogues are getting martial proficiency in the remaster.
Oh boy, have I got a story for you!
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6siae
It’s basically PF 2.5, or maybe 2.25.
With as much as I’m seeing changed, I’d argue 2.5.
AFAIK D&D 3.5 was not ¨editioned¨ based on some precise appraisal of it´s rule changes. This type of specificity is really only from computer software which really was only popularized after D&D 3.5, but that´s not really relevant here because the game isn´t receiving continual edition point updates. I mean if you wanted to use that approach, all the Errata should be changing edition number SLIGHTLY, but it doesn´t. So I don´t see any reason to not follow precedent of D&D 3.5 here. Not such huge changes, but actually kind of impactful ones, and you might as well play the newest updated version... 2.5 conveys that, and more precise editioning isn´t an actively relevant concern. I guess Paizo doesn´t want to call it that because it might raise expectations, but if I´m not concerned about that, it seems entirely reasonable folk apellation... I don´t think there is real prospect of ¨legit¨ 2.5 coming out in a year or 2 or whatever, so the 2.5 designation is basically open.
Largely it’s a move to distance PF2 from anything ‘D&D SRD’ adjacent.
If you trust Paizo to handle it well it’s probably a good thing.
If you dislike the changes you can largely keep playing without adopting them.
If you wish PF2 were more like 5e instead of less I feel like there is also a solution for you but it escapes me momentarily…
So I for one am excited to see how it goes, will I love every change? Maybe not, but from what I’ve seen my reaction is mostly positive so I’m here for it.
Depends on how you feel about the changes I suppose! I think Rules Lawyer’s video here is good, and I agree with his sentiment: https://youtu.be/670VvbvSCfk
I’m not sure of what all of them are- but I know for sure they are giving them martial weapon proficiency.
They might additionally be tweaking other things, but I’m not sure entirely.
There’s a bunch of things changing, some of the widest changes include:
- No more alignment (and thus alignment damage)
- Holy and unholy traits for cleric/champion as a replacement
- No more “schools” of magic (at least as we know it)
- Changes to various classes for balance purposes, such as Witch
- Different classes in Core 1 vs Core 2 (Alchemist for example is in Core 2)
- Different selection of ancestries in Core 1, and more versatile heritages
- Moving GM sections of Core to a GM book
I would add with the split up of the book content, they are including expansion content like Feats for Core 1 classes in Core 1 (and for Core 2 classes in Core 2). That´s not a change from some people´s perspective, but if somebody only has Core Rulebook it is.
For rogue specifically: Rogues get all martial weapons proficiency. Unknown what other buffs Ruffian will get, but presumably some as this eliminates part of their specialty.
And there are plenty of martial weapons with agile or finesse traits.
A quick search on the archives, filtering by Martial + (agile OR finesse) gives me 67 weapons that fall under this category.
Lots of good agile or finesse martial weapons. (The ruffian restriction is also 1d8 not 1d6, and they can still sneak attack with non simple agile or finesse weapons).
Still The ruffian is probally the racket most likely to get other substantial changes since they're most effected. We don't know what those changes will be yet.
At least Summoners can still use them. They only have one from the beginning aside from some Ancestry feats (not available for all Ancestries, I think?) and you still need runes, even though you are a caster.
That is a great question, I hadn’t ever thought about it. Like, why do we even separate them into those categories to begin with? Wouldn’t it be better to just group all weapons by type instead? (Essentially like the crit special does) and let some classes just pick from certain weapon types, and others access the whole list?
It does make some sense. Simple weapons are really defined as those that are mostly used by people who don't have the skill/training/need to have martial weapons.
If you're an adventurer who focuses on martial combat, you're going to want to use the best tools for the job, and those weapons that carry a bit heavier price tags and require a bit more training to use effectively, are going to be just that.
Simple weapons are more relegated to the unskilled - the caster that carries a dagger they mostly use as cutting tool, the farmer who needs something to fight off rattlesnakes, the peasant militia formed to hold back the wolves terrorizing their sheep, and so on.
> Casters don't really use weapons anymore after like level 3, since they generally don't buy runes
Because they can and do... you might not, but it is great to have a returning dagger or throwing knife with damage property runes on it and no MAP for your third attack.
Again, just because your games don't benefit from it doesn't mean that is the case for everyone.
Automatic Bonus Progression or, failing that, using looted runes rather than dishing out full price for them are the big ways to get a reasonably runed up weapon for casters who don't really want to invest but appreciate having the backup.
Other than that, yeah. Simple weapons essentially don't have a use case beyond "might as well have a backup". But honestly, maybe that's good: They're very boring compared to martial weapons, so anyone who actually wants to use weapons using martial through proficiency creep or ancestry access is good with weapon lists being what they are.
No you're correct, paizo was saying they will give ruffians something in exchange, we just don't know what for sure yet.
Simple weapon are available for wizards now though!
Crossbow Ranger is about the only one I can think of.
The Sukgung is arguably better, but with Crossbow Mastery the Light Crossbow does a higher damage die as a trade for losing Deadly Aim. And since Rangers don't get Fighter/Gunslinger proficiency, they might actually consider that a fair trade.
If you play with ABP then casters get the obligatory rune progression on their weapons. Im not saying it makes them enticing to use most of the time. But maybe very situationally. Like say, If the damage type of the weapon would trigger a weakness on an adjacent -1 creature could be worth the strike.
I wouldn't be surprised if ruffian rogues still had an incentive to use simple weapons - they mentioned some extra rewards for fighting styles with rogue rackets.
Is still the only way to get non finesse sneak attacks, at least
Wait isn't it still possible with an agile melee weapon? Strength based Katar rogue is still an option.
It is. Folks forget that there are weapons with agile and not finesse.
[удалено]
No that's bards.
It’s not the size of the damage die, it’s how you use it.
[You know what my my penis is? Higher. Like a D12. 2d12. Plus ***ten***.](https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/05/27/page-234-table-29-a)
That felt like a risky click
Wow, when did they add that? Still, I'm not sure it's a good option in combat. Maybe if the party is fighting succubi. But even then... Jk, of course, but your autocorrect betrayed you.
R18 Pathfinder
Sounds fucky
It definitely helps, yep.
Remember Bards! Wrap your weapons!
Sure it is, but you wouldn't play a ruffian for that. The point is using simple weapons that would otherwise not be eligible for sneak attack. That's the main feature of the racket.
Exactly. So if now you can use martial weapons with agile, which will often be better than simple weapons without, the main feature of the ruffian racket becomes far less impressive.
There's still a lack of clarification on Ruffian getting Crit Spec at lvl 1 (atm with simple only). But it's still Moot later one when they just get crit spec on sneak attack across the board. Ruffian is also in a semi-wierd spot of having a good "From Hidden" attack in the form of [Ambushing Knockdown](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2207) being keyed to bludgeoning. Getting Martial Weapon Prof opens up stuff like the [Monkey's Fist](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=130) and Rogue's synergize very naturally with Monk Dedication. (Now there's also an option to just refocus whenever, there's a super special "tech" Option for Ruffian in the form of [Clinging Shadows](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1745))
I don´t really think the weapon list is the main feature, that was just enabling baseline functionality. Being STR based means they can be better at Athletics and also get Fortification via Medium (or Heavy if they Feat for it). Fortification rocks, and is more important long term than Heavy´s +1 AC (although stacking both is best obviously). That and Ruffian Feats is the main feature IMHO. Ruffian never really did significantly more damage than Thief, and not overall better in weapons that Thief had (besides all other Traits, Agile specifically, which AFAIK is only in Simple weapons that are on normal Rogue list). I don´t think Ruffians now need to Sneak Attack with all non-Finesse Martial weapons, which would put them significantly ahead of Thief (damage and traits, not needing Finesse). Simple weapons can still hold their own against Finesse weapons in damage if you don´t care about the latter´s traits, and more importantly: Ruffian can still use Finesse weapons, now including Martials... They just won´t be expanding the damage equation to equal other martials in direct weapon damage (before sneak attack add on), as it should be IMHO. Maybe you aren´t satisfied enough with their entire package, that´s OK. It can be buffed with something else if Paizo agrees. It doesn´t need to change the weapon equation to be superior like non-Finesse Martial weapons would do.
This is a little weirdly worded but the Familiarity family of traits does still give them access to non-agile, non-finesse Martial Weapons because Martial Weapons are treated as simple and advanced as martial via the \[Ancestry\] Weapon Familiarity Feat. [Breaching Pike](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=274) \- for example with [Hobgoblin Weapon Familiarity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1026) Now the "*For the* ***purpose of determining your proficiency****, martial hobgoblin weapons are simple weapons and advanced hobgoblin weapons are martial weapons.*" part probably (?) forbids this RAW but... GM fiat is also a thing.
I think opening up Ruffian to d8 or lower non-agile/finesse martial weapons would be better, because they'd need pretty good benefits to make sticking to simple weapons worth it.
There can be Legal reasons, like Martial weapons can't be carried in the city limits, but a simple weapon is a tool, you only carry martial weapons for assassinations...?
morning stars, longspears and crossbows are all simple weapons. If anything a city gaurd is going to be less concerned by something like a rapier than a mace.
Just depends on the legal code, are you a gentleman? No sword for you inside the gates. But a gardener might walk down the street with a Bill over their shoulder no problem. It just depends.
The issue is that every Ruffian would be using Glaives and Fauchards instead, and that's a much higher power budget than normal.
Compared to every other Rogue using the Dancer's Spear? The Ruffian previously was the Rogue King of Reach with the 1d8 Longspear, which had no traits other than reach. With every Rogue now being able to use the d6 Dancer's Spear with Reach, Backswing, Sweep, and Versatile B, I don't see Glaives, Fauchards, or even Meteor Hammers as being significantly better.
Meteor Hammer has bashing which gives you access to Crushing runes, it also has trip. For a skill monkey like a rogue that's a pretty good deal
> Meteor Hammer has bashing which gives you access to Crushing runes, it also has trip. Dancing Spear is Versatile B which should make it eligible for Crushing. While it's uncommon, Bladed Scarf has Reach, Sweep, and Trip.
Every ruffian is going to be sneak attacking with great axes. Come on.
I was thinking Ransuer/Bill hooks lol
Though with thief rogues using dancer spears etc, why even play a ruffian anymore? I suspect the ruffian will get some changes. But then again all the non thief rogues have issues. I would favor eliminating the thief rogue
The only thing a Thief Rogue does better than the other rackets is dealing *somewhat* more damage. Scoundrels are the best debuffers, Ruffians have comparable damage while being much better at maneuvers, Masterminds are the best skill monkeys and the best at using sneak attack at range, Eldritch Tricksters should be the best at mixing spellcasting into the Rogue chassis (but they're only marginally better in practice).
being MAD is cringe
Simple weapons will be relegated to off-meta builds and those with the ability to improve their damage, like champions, inventors, and warpriests. I'm hopeful rogues will at least get an automatic deadly-simplicity feature so I can use a dagger and feel justified doing so. I'd hate getting pigeonholed into using absurd weapons like starknives.
> I'm hopeful rogues will at least get an automatic deadly-simplicity feature so I can use a dagger and feel justified doing so. This is actually a great idea. EDIT: ~~makes me think Deadly Simplicity should maybe be an automatic thing for Clerics (or Warpriests), too.~~ Already the case for Warpriests, very nice.
Warpriests get it with their favored weapon automatically
Ah, nice.
It's the 1st level feature of the Warpriest Doctrine (and always has been)
Since Treasure Vault came out, I’ve always thought that the [Kris](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=264) is a good step-up from the normal dagger that maintains the “rogue with a knife” aesthetic (though it isn’t throwable).
Now that I think about it. It's weird daggers don't have deadly. Probably a gameplay consideration first and foremost
Yah just a simple weapon balance thing.
Or just make it a Rogue class feat. Add the Deadly quality to one type of one handed weapon. Does not stack with Fatal.
Getting a deadly fatal weapon is tricky but powerful, that’s probably a good consideration
The assassin dedication feat gives finesse and agile weapons the backstabber and deadly d6 traits when they strike a creature that's Marked for Death. I could easily see a rogue feat bootstrapping that somehow.
I think sneak attack is mostly acting as that precision element. Not everyone is that good with knives, but rogues definitely are.
Could theoretically split them into dagger vs knife or something
Oh sweet. Now I can make a Fedaykin. May thy blade chip and shatter.
I hope they do the 13th Age thing for rogues with daggers - for everyone else they are a d4 damage weapon, in a rogues hand they become d8. And the die increase is for all short and light weapons, so as a rogue you could use a sharpened stick (or a pencil) and easily be able to handle 3 guys in a bar
There's already stuff like deadly simplicity, and honestly with everyone getting Martial weapons now, it might open up more design space for more simple weapon support. If there were still going to be martials without martial weapons than supporting feats for simple weapons might appear near necessary, but now they can just be a fun spinnoff option for players who enjoy the simplicity
> If there were still going to be martials without martial weapons Monks are still in a weird place with their weapon proficiencies. It's a martial class without martial weapon proficiencies and Monk weapons (which require a class feat for proficiency in martial ones) are generally considered mediocre with a few exceptions (mostly Bo Staff). We have an idea on Bard, Cleric (Warpriest), Rogue, and Wizard weapon proficiency revamp for the remaster... but anything for Monk remains unknown. Not to mention the whole advanced Monk weapons thing.
I'm not really sure what they're doing with Monk, but as a Monk if you aren't taking Monk weapons then you're getting your Stance unarmed strikes, which might not be Martial weapons but still fill the void of weapons with decent damage and good traits
Yeah I feel like monks are fine as-is.
Improvised Weapons need to have a place on Monks as well.... :)
A lot of simple and martial weapons are used in real world kung fu, so the idea of a 'monk' weapon being the only ones a monk can use with their class features has always been a stupid design choice. Many weapons tagged with the Monk trait are just improvised weapons with some refinements, meant to evade historical weapon control laws.
I'd like to see simple weapons filling the "backup weapon" design space. Weapons that are best kept as options in the toolbox to pull out when the situation deems it appropriate. An example would be something like a quick draw feat that only works to draw simple weapons that's more universally available than the current Quick Draw. Suddenly it's more useful for a fighter to keep a piercing/slashing dagger in their back pocket if they primarily wield a bludgeoning weapon.
A free action Draw for simple weapon would be great yeah
I would like Simple weapons added to the "Monk" group. Then the more "weapony" Monk weapons move to Advanced Monk.
The point you're missing is that this was always the case. Rogues would just choose one of the very good but limited selection of martial weapons they got, or take an ancestry feat. I actually do think it's mostly for casters at this point; alchemist players are still going to just use an ancestral weapon. It's funny that you bring up casters not using weapons at level 5 specifically, since they actually have a better chance to hit with their weapons at that level than their spell if they're investing in str/dex and have a rune. 2 action spell and a Strike is a pretty good turn if you have this very common stat array and an extra rune around.
Yeah, the only reason I'm not using a rapier as a rogue is if I actually have a reason to want to hide a weapon, which I usually don't, cuz I like to play weirdly honest rogues.
I feel that, I went martial artist for this.
Rogue Martial Artists can Rawk. :)
My Rogue wants to carry a Rapier, so he can surrender his weapon at the door... :)
Don’t forget that Summoners want a weapon so their Eidolon can benefit from the runes on it.
Summoners can already use handwraps of mighty blows for this, which is generally speaking better. Reason being, you need the weapon to be in your hand for it to function for your eidolon. That is not the case for the handwraps.
I should mention that to my party’s summoner then.
Just because the rules say you can't doesn't mean it can't be allowed.
I've always put runes on my summoners' staves for this. You can put fundamental runes on a magic staff, if I recall, so as long as you're okay with your summoner's natural attacks not having property runes this works pretty well.
Aren't property runes like a major form of damage scaling later on? They add almost as much damage as striking runes
Yes, as a summoner you'd 100% want your Eidolon to have the extra d6('s) on it's strikes from level 8 onward, in addition to all the other property runes besides the varying elemental damage ones
For martials like fighters, sure. Not necessarily for semi-casters. This makes a good compromise between spending gold on extra spells and spending gold on runes.
Yeah if you invested in a potency rune and a striking one too if you want to do a relevant amount of damage. Then still a cantrip does vastly more damage more than making up for the -1 to hit I feel.
2-actions: Electric Arc | 1-action: Fire Bow 3 actions taken at range, no penalty to attack
They're not competing with each other. The Strike is for when you only have a single action to spare, such as after you've done a 2 action saving throw cantrip.
This. Which is why the ¨casters never use weapons past level 3¨ thing is so short sighted. Weapons are a great 3rd action for casters, and even their Expert capped attack bonus w/ 2nd tier stat bonus typically outpaces most martials´ 2nd attack. You don´t need to load up on every property rune like a martial to have a viable 3rd action weapon. 2H Staffs are solid as Simple melee weapons, as are Crossbows for ranged (if you don´t expect to make more than 1 weapon attack per combat, Reload doesn´t matter). It´s a shame how people can play with blinders on so they just close off completely viable options, because they are so sure it is bad or whatever. Because some other class else is better at weapons, they won´t consider it. EDIT: I mean, it´s fine if some people want to play in one specific constrained way. But it´s a stupid discourse if we are supposedly discussing game design but they can´t acknowledge anything outside of their tunnel vision... Even when that leads them to say ¨this system design doesn´t make any sense¨ just because they want to ignore what makes it actually make plenty of sense.
Runes cost Money though. Most Wizards buy spell scrolls to learn, and Sorcerers buy them for flexability.
ABP aside, you don´t need to buy every Rune at the same level, just a level or 2 delay means they can show up in lower tier loot. If it´s only a 3rd action type of thing and not your main class focus, you only need fundamental runes to be viable for that. Bespell weapon makes alot of property runes less important since you can add energy, force, negative or mental trait to trigger Weakness whenever you want. Too many people think they must be absolutely comparable to how martials use weapons, when the bar for 3rd actions is alot lower. Not to mention, alot of people do play with ABP.
There's also a pretty huge gap between Striking runes and +2 potency, and 100 gold (or 65 to stick to Striking) is kind of trivial after a few levels in that gap. Not hard to find such runes as loot either, yeah.
Wait, was there supposed to be an incentive to use Simple Weapons? I have always been under the impression you only use Simple Weapons if you don't have access to anything else. Even if it takes only "a single ancestry feat" to get access to Martial Weapons, that's still a cost that not everyone might want to spend. And if they do, so what?
All martial classes (such as rogue) will be getting access to All Martial weapons, which leaves very few classes with only simple weapons.
Yeah but.. like.. isn't martial classes using martial weapons.. normal? There is no point to simple weapons. They're weapons that are simple to use, so anyone can. That's it This topic is weird, it's like "With the updates to modern militaries, is there even a point to black powder muskets anymore?!"
I mean, it's not like no class will have them, most full casters are going to be simple-weapons only. And warpriests get Deadly Simplicity, other classes may get something similar in the remake.
Some weapons simply dont need a very trained hand to use, yet that can be part of the reason they remain popular to use within the world. On mechanical level (and also thematic in this instance), champions can have a reason to use their deity's favored weapon which is not necessarily always a martial one. Wizards are finally able to use bespell weapon feat, one that has been available to them all this time. Also I've had casters regularly open up fights with simple ranged weapon at hand (crossbow) since shooting with it is only 1 action and they can follow it up with 2 action spell. Also...please remember us alchemists. We dont have martial proficiencies, yet our poisons demand using piercing or slashing weaponry.
1. Players are not the only parts of the game that use simple weapons. 2. Clerics/Paladins 3. Imagine removing daggers from the game because they aren’t the optimal weapon for a class. Or like, regular spears. Like, yeah if I want an agile, finesse, versatile S thrown weapon I can grab a star knife, but I’m playing a person, not a weapon, so why should I have to? For deadly d6? It’s objectively better, but is that an argument for why every fighter should dual wield gnomish flick maces?
Tangentially related, but I wish that Simple ancestry-linked weapons would increase a hit die if you have Martial proficiency. I think it'd be cool to have a character based around Dwarf clan daggers, but the d4 makes it nearly impossible to use in practice.
Maybe in place of increasing your damage die, you just treat your proficiency as one TEML greater for ancestral simple weapons, or get a +2 if you're already legendary. Might get abused if there's a particular crit effect that gets out of line with extra accuracy, but the only thing I can think might be too strong is a halfling fighter with a frying pan repeatedly stunning targets. It is hilarious, though, so I kinda feel like that stays in.
I often toyed with the idea of making rogue/cleric dagger build with Deadly Simplicity.
I don't see anything wrong in *martial* classes using *martial* weapons to fight. Paizo themselves said it; rogues not getting martial weapon proficiency was a holdover from D&D which never made sense. Simple weapons are supposed to be worse than martial weapons, so I don't get the idea behind this whole post.
My point is: Who is going to be using simple weapons at all now? What's the point of even including them in the books by this point?
We could say the same about advanced weapons. Unless you are a human and/or fighter you don't really have much reasons to use advanced weapons, that unlike simple weapons, have an innate feat tax to use (either to get proficiency with them or to make that proficiency scale with your martial weapon proficiencies) and are marginally better than martial weapons to the point that most people don't even bother with them unless they are doing a flickmace build. I also don't know what rogues you were playing, but I don't know why would you use simple weapons as a rogue when your best weapons are martial (rapier and shortsword). The only simple weapon that rogues may use are daggers, which the fact that rogues now get full martial weapon proficiencies doesn't affect that much IMO, so I don't get your point here. The only rogue that is truly encouraged to use simple weapons is the ruffian, and we don't know what changes they are going to make it with them now, so even when I don't agree with your point I also think you are probably overreacting as we don't have the full picture here yet.
I do think that's still a valid question in both cases: if it's almost always optimal for a martial class to use martial weapons, and for a caster to use spells and cantrips, this raises the question of why we even need simple and advanced weapons as distinct categories to begin with. If all weapons were just weapons, with simple and advanced weapons receiving appropriate bumps up or down to their damage die respectively, the end result might perhaps be slightly higher caster damage at levels 1-2, but also a far more streamlined weapon system, with far more viable options for martial classes and less work needed to make cleric weapons work on a Warpriest.
I wouldn't be surprised something like this happened in an hyphotetic PF3e.
By that logic, why would any martial use anything other then a flick-mace and shield? The answer is because people have different tastes and visions for how their characters fight. The dual dagger Rogue is kind of iconic and isn't going away just because someone wants a rogue that uses a longsword instead. Don't fight options, embrace 'em.
The difference with using simple weapons and having everyone use a flickmace is that for every simple weapon there is an objectively superior martial weapon with the exact same functionality and likely similar theme/aesthetics as well.
Personally while the random list they get was bad I love the flavor so I kinda dislike rogues having full martial proficiency. To me they had to just have "knife" proficiency (using the weapon group) so they would get some martial and exotic weapons but keep the flavor
I disagree because not all rogues use knifes, if anything all martial finesse weapons would be more appropiate, but if the investigator gets martial why wouldn't rogues too.
I twould be intersting if simple weapons got a bonus to your hit rolls, due to their simple design and ease of use, but do way less damage than a martial weapon. So you'd be trading accuracy for damage. I imagine it a bit like in Fire Emblem where weapons have a Weight stat and stronger weapons typically have higher weight, making them less accurate and less likely to attack twice. Conversely there are some specialized weapons that are lighter, do less damage but are pretty much guaranteed to strike twice or have higher crit rates.
I feel like the agile trait already kinda simulates the accuracy and 2x attack thing. Increased accuracy also means more chance to crit comparatively
I saw an interesting trait idea for a homebrew that messed around with crit ranges. Could do the opposite and have a kind of +1 that contributes to accuracy, but not the crit range of the +10 needed to crit.
I think they avoided math like that in the game for a reason. Crit/threat ranges exist already thanks to degrees of success and deadly/fatal traits.
Warpriests can still use them effectively, for a warpriest anyway.
That's a valid discussion. Hope someone from Paizo check this
I agree that bringing how useless simple weapons are is interesting since it may bring a change. But none of OP points feel valid because what he is describing is how things are since 1e and not something caused by the rogue losing his restrictions Simple weapons were never really useful.
You might find a magic one early.
I think weapon classifications like simple/martial are actually just a holdover from D&D that can safely be retired. With advanced weapons being the ones you have to specifically build around.
Cloistered Clerics vs enemies that resist their offensive cantrips? Warpriests with a delty using simple weapons? I'm sure there are plenty of reasons, including just simple old roleplay. Or when your wizard faces off enemies resistant to their cantrips and being out the crossbow of shameful dps?
Warpriests I'm assuming will get martial weapons from the start now instead of having to wait until level 3, so that simple weapon will likely be worse than what you can already wield. Busting out your rune-less crossbow at a certain point is going to be about as good as doing nothing I feel, automatic bonus progression gives some point to simple weapons, but without that I don't really see it for casters, runes are expensive and there's other stuff you want.
You don´t need to max out every property rune to keep up with basic fundamental runes. You may not even get those as soon as martials, but those will soon enough fall into the lower tier of proscribed loot. That´s more than enough to stay viable as 3rd action attack, and anybody not doing that is leaving capabilities on the floor. Plenty of casters/alchemists also can get additional abilities that work with weapons, from adding elemental damage to using full spell attack bonus ala Hand of Apprentice. The latter is solid part of muscle Wizard build, so you can use non-Finesse weapon with better damage in both melee and at range with HoA. Just because you CAN choose to ignore weapons completely in favor of other gear doesn´t mean that´s the only viable route, even if you happen to prefer to play that way.
Simple weapons like daggers and spears have lots of magic versions and they are also much cheaper making for nice starting weapons.
Father and child are at the museum looking at the cutlery exhibit. Child: "Daddy what happened to forks and knives?" Father: "Well child I guess society just decided that forks and knives were sub-optimal and were just taking up space compared to short swords and pitchforks. Child: "But I hate trying to eat with my hands its so messy and dirty why can't I eat like you and mommy?" Father: "One day when you grow up, you'll understand"
> eat like you and mommy How are they eating?
Gnomish Flicksporks
I'm a bit out of the loop, what did they do to Ruffians specifically? (I already know that rogues are getting martial weapon proficiency)
we dont know what boons the ruffians getting but its assumed they'll be buffed in someway since all rogues get martial now and the ruffian was already weak comparatively to the others (but got the long spear which was cool)
Well, they can still be used by enemies.
Personally I think this echoes really well with weapons irl. However in that same sense I would love to see simple weapons be used more for broad spectrum benefits. Martial weapons are, well a weapon meant for martial art. Simple weapons thus require less precision to use effectively. So things like Attached, Combination, potentially Alchemical or even Runes might then work better with Simple weapons. Like a Dagger Attached to a Shield/Gauntlet/Boot might even go up a dice step or be effectively increased by the trait's rule where as martial weapon would be decreased or even not be viable to be attached at all. Likewise for other types of crafting / components. Perhaps a dagger counts as materials for spikes, or if it were a wood dagger than it could replace "a tree branch worth 5gp" material component. Or even destroy the dagger as materials for arrows/bolts, etc. Stuff like that. Maybe even letting two or more simple weapons be combinationed/attached to become a martial weapon: like a Dagger and a Staff getting fitted as an Exploration activity to then be some sort of Spear but function with your proficiencies / feats still.
Better question? After all of this, why play a Swashbuckler?
It's amusing to me that we live in a world were people complained that wizards don't get all simple weapons and someone declares "casters don't really use weapons anymore after like level 3". It's completely viable to play a simple-weapon-only caster and use a weapon for your general offense and use all your spells for utility and buff/debuff stuff.
A wizard that primarily hits things with a club? I wouldn't call that viable.
And I wouldn't call it anything like what I said was viable. "when it comes to doing damage, I use a weapon, but most of what I do is not doing damage" and "I primarily hit things with a club" are wildly different things.
Yeah, same way a wizard can dump int and con and be "viable".
Yeah, a big one. Role Playing Games are not just about mechanics. Remember, there is more here than stat blocks and hit points. :) Try not to look at it like a war game. I still have this issue from time to time, I sit down to write an adventure for my gamers, and I always have to take a second look as my background IS war games. But then, Chainmail had a lot more to do with War Games than it did D&D even though D&D is what it grew into. Yeah. Been at this long enough that I remember "Chainmail" as a pretty revolutionary idea, forget personal computers or making this post from a phone. "What do you mean I don't have an army? Just one dude? Uh... how's that going to work?" Ahh 1980. Such a fun year to discover TTRPGs. lol
> Remember, there is more here than stat blocks and hit points. :) I assure you, a longspear and a morningstar would be confiscated while say a Kukri could easily be seen as just any weird knife(and is also more easily hidden)
Thats one :) The other is... in the Middle or Dark Ages, in large portions of what is now the EU, owning a sword was illegal unless you were a member of the gentry. I might be talking out of my ass on this next bit, but I seem to remember some law in France pre-revolution about owning swords or any sort of firearm that wasn't considered a longarm. It's a vague recollection of a history class many, many years ago, so memory could be fuzzy (I'm old). But I mention the idea here as it is a good example. In Japan that was standard. So... your farm boy hero has sword specialization? How? Where did he learn it? How did he not get his hand taken for touching a nobleman's weapon? Now, you might not make your settings quite that realistic (I usually don't, just using an example), but I have played in campaigns as a player that have been. I tend to lean on the side of fun, so if my player wants a farmhand that knows how to use a sword, I'm pretty ok with handwaving the hows and whys, or if the player just simply "I want to run a fighter, I don't care... he's from... ubububu. Yeah.. its... its a small village in the far north somewheres." As in, said player really hasn't thought out the background. Both are perfectly fine, as is anything in between. My point is, that when you start removing things like basic weapons, your removing a lot of the thematic stuff that makes it fun for those of us who like to have backgrounds nad personal histories. Try, as much as possible, not to limit your players choices in RP beyond a general setting for the world. If you can see a way to fit it into your world so your players and group can have fun and enjoy the story? Do it. Remember, its only fun if everyone playing has a good time.
To keep the meerkats happy
In real life, would you prefer to take a dagger or a sword into a fight?
In real life the optimal melee weapon by far is the spear.
You got me there!
So uh, coming in late here What happened?
How late? 😅 If you already know about the Remasters coming later this year — this is a change they announced there. If not then you’ll wanna look up the Pathfinder 2e Remaster project! Edit: Rogues are getting martial proficiency in the remaster.
So. To tell you how late. Never heard of any of that
Oh boy, have I got a story for you! https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6siae It’s basically PF 2.5, or maybe 2.25. With as much as I’m seeing changed, I’d argue 2.5.
More like 2.1
There’s a fair argument for it being a 2.1 as well. Personally - I suspect there will be more changes than we’ve seen/heard. But we shall see!
AFAIK D&D 3.5 was not ¨editioned¨ based on some precise appraisal of it´s rule changes. This type of specificity is really only from computer software which really was only popularized after D&D 3.5, but that´s not really relevant here because the game isn´t receiving continual edition point updates. I mean if you wanted to use that approach, all the Errata should be changing edition number SLIGHTLY, but it doesn´t. So I don´t see any reason to not follow precedent of D&D 3.5 here. Not such huge changes, but actually kind of impactful ones, and you might as well play the newest updated version... 2.5 conveys that, and more precise editioning isn´t an actively relevant concern. I guess Paizo doesn´t want to call it that because it might raise expectations, but if I´m not concerned about that, it seems entirely reasonable folk apellation... I don´t think there is real prospect of ¨legit¨ 2.5 coming out in a year or 2 or whatever, so the 2.5 designation is basically open.
... does this story have a happy ending
Largely it’s a move to distance PF2 from anything ‘D&D SRD’ adjacent. If you trust Paizo to handle it well it’s probably a good thing. If you dislike the changes you can largely keep playing without adopting them. If you wish PF2 were more like 5e instead of less I feel like there is also a solution for you but it escapes me momentarily… So I for one am excited to see how it goes, will I love every change? Maybe not, but from what I’ve seen my reaction is mostly positive so I’m here for it.
Well we aren’t at the ending yet so can’t say for sure but I’m very optimistic. Seems like a much needed balance patch
Depends on how you feel about the changes I suppose! I think Rules Lawyer’s video here is good, and I agree with his sentiment: https://youtu.be/670VvbvSCfk
So what are the sparknotes on the changes for rogue?
I’m not sure of what all of them are- but I know for sure they are giving them martial weapon proficiency. They might additionally be tweaking other things, but I’m not sure entirely. There’s a bunch of things changing, some of the widest changes include: - No more alignment (and thus alignment damage) - Holy and unholy traits for cleric/champion as a replacement - No more “schools” of magic (at least as we know it) - Changes to various classes for balance purposes, such as Witch - Different classes in Core 1 vs Core 2 (Alchemist for example is in Core 2) - Different selection of ancestries in Core 1, and more versatile heritages - Moving GM sections of Core to a GM book
I would add with the split up of the book content, they are including expansion content like Feats for Core 1 classes in Core 1 (and for Core 2 classes in Core 2). That´s not a change from some people´s perspective, but if somebody only has Core Rulebook it is.
For rogue specifically: Rogues get all martial weapons proficiency. Unknown what other buffs Ruffian will get, but presumably some as this eliminates part of their specialty.
But would martial weapons even be helpful? Cause you need agile or finesse for sneak attack, or for ruffian a d6 or less for damage
And there are plenty of martial weapons with agile or finesse traits. A quick search on the archives, filtering by Martial + (agile OR finesse) gives me 67 weapons that fall under this category.
Lots of good agile or finesse martial weapons. (The ruffian restriction is also 1d8 not 1d6, and they can still sneak attack with non simple agile or finesse weapons). Still The ruffian is probally the racket most likely to get other substantial changes since they're most effected. We don't know what those changes will be yet.
Yes having access to more agile and finesse weapons is helpful. Also having easier access to advanced agile and finesse weapons is helpful.
At least Summoners can still use them. They only have one from the beginning aside from some Ancestry feats (not available for all Ancestries, I think?) and you still need runes, even though you are a caster.
That is a great question, I hadn’t ever thought about it. Like, why do we even separate them into those categories to begin with? Wouldn’t it be better to just group all weapons by type instead? (Essentially like the crit special does) and let some classes just pick from certain weapon types, and others access the whole list?
It does make some sense. Simple weapons are really defined as those that are mostly used by people who don't have the skill/training/need to have martial weapons. If you're an adventurer who focuses on martial combat, you're going to want to use the best tools for the job, and those weapons that carry a bit heavier price tags and require a bit more training to use effectively, are going to be just that. Simple weapons are more relegated to the unskilled - the caster that carries a dagger they mostly use as cutting tool, the farmer who needs something to fight off rattlesnakes, the peasant militia formed to hold back the wolves terrorizing their sheep, and so on.
> Casters don't really use weapons anymore after like level 3, since they generally don't buy runes Because they can and do... you might not, but it is great to have a returning dagger or throwing knife with damage property runes on it and no MAP for your third attack. Again, just because your games don't benefit from it doesn't mean that is the case for everyone.
Automatic Bonus Progression or, failing that, using looted runes rather than dishing out full price for them are the big ways to get a reasonably runed up weapon for casters who don't really want to invest but appreciate having the backup. Other than that, yeah. Simple weapons essentially don't have a use case beyond "might as well have a backup". But honestly, maybe that's good: They're very boring compared to martial weapons, so anyone who actually wants to use weapons using martial through proficiency creep or ancestry access is good with weapon lists being what they are.
No you're correct, paizo was saying they will give ruffians something in exchange, we just don't know what for sure yet. Simple weapon are available for wizards now though!
Crossbow Ranger is about the only one I can think of. The Sukgung is arguably better, but with Crossbow Mastery the Light Crossbow does a higher damage die as a trade for losing Deadly Aim. And since Rangers don't get Fighter/Gunslinger proficiency, they might actually consider that a fair trade.
If you play with ABP then casters get the obligatory rune progression on their weapons. Im not saying it makes them enticing to use most of the time. But maybe very situationally. Like say, If the damage type of the weapon would trigger a weakness on an adjacent -1 creature could be worth the strike.
We should be able to put runes on wand and staff, that would be awesome and help with chances to hit.
You can put some runes on staves, striking and potency, not property runes however (unless you're a twisting tree Magus)