Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

UC Tetsubo?


Paizo Products

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I don't have a balance problem with this weapon (though some might), I'm just confused by the reasoning behind it's category and stats. AFAIK, it's just a big, metal-shod club. Not sure why a big metal club would get a x4 crit; most of them have been piercing weapons to date. I'm even more confused by why it's an exotic weapon - seems to me that if you can use one club, you can use them all? Doesn't seem like there'd be a lot of subtlety or special training involved.
-Kle.


What is the damage dice? Martial x4 weapons exist.

Personally, I don't see a problem about the fact is bludgeoning -at least for diversity.


1d10.

Maybe the Tetsubo has a particular method of fighting.

A baseball bat is not a ground breaker, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the Tetsubo is special ins some way.


Wikipedia wrote:
It has been said that one purpose of the kanabō type of weapons was to smash enemies' armor, bones and the legs of their warhorses.[10] The art of using this cumbersome weapon, kanabō-jutsu or Tetsubo-jutsu,[11][12] consisted of a mastery of both balance and strength; it required great skill to recover from a miss with the heavy club, which could leave a wielder open to a counter-attack.

Wikipedia article

The "smash bones" part seems to support the x4 crit multiplier. The "required great skill" part seems to support the exotic weapon distinction.


Makes sense - it's x4 AND an high damage dice (d10). It's an exotic weapon "by the book".

You can think that it seems a club, but is balanced in a different way. more difficult, but more devastating.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Distant Scholar wrote:


The "smash bones" part seems to support the x4 crit multiplier. The "required great skill" part seems to support the exotic weapon distinction.

Both of these would also seem to apply to greatclubs, heavy maces, heavy flails, really any serious impact weapon...

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Makes sense - it's x4 AND an high damage dice (d10). It's an exotic weapon "by the book".

Yes, I understand that it's extremely favorable damage/crit makes it a good candidate for "Exotic".

What I don't understand is why they decided to make something so amazingly basic into a superweapon. Why not choose something weirder or more complex? If this thing is so dang good, why bother making all those expensive and inferior Greatswords and Falchions? Why doesn't everybody use them?

I also find it somewhat bizarre that a big metal-sheathed club with some studs on it is more complicated to learn to use than any of those fiddly polearms that allow you to (automatically, with proficiency) perform multiple combat options/maneuvers with them...
-Kle.


x4 crit does seem excessive to me. I get that its a pimped out great club. The exotic prof even works if its super heavy and needs special training. But x4? why not x3?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anburaid wrote:
x4 crit does seem excessive to me. I get that its a pimped out great club. The exotic prof even works if its super heavy and needs special training. But x4? why not x3?

From what I've seen of the weapon, it's deadlier than a greataxe (which 1d10/x3 would make it inferior to).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaiyanwang wrote:

Makes sense - it's x4 AND an high damage dice (d10). It's an exotic weapon "by the book".

You can think that it seems a club, but is balanced in a different way. more difficult, but more devastating.

I don't see how it is an exotic weapon, "by the book".

A scythe does 2d4 damage, x4 crit, can do either Slashing OR Piercing, AND has Trip as a special property (which is one of the most coveted and useful weapon abilities out there).

The scythe is a martial weapon.
It does on average 0.5 less damage per hit than the tetsubo, but has better minimum damage and other features which more than make up for it.

Also, I think most would agree that learning to fight with a full size two-handed war scythe in combat would be much more difficult to learn than just swinging a metal-shod baseball bat.

Personally, I don't see how the Tetsubo is a 'super weapon'.
It doesn't even come close to deserving a feat to use.

In my group, we loved the Goliath Greathammer from 3.5, and ported that over to Pathfinder when we converted. Exotic, 1d12, bludgeoning, x4, and gave +2 to sunder attempts.
We never had a problem with it.

This new Tetsubo should clearly be a martial weapon, especially if they consider the No-Daichi to be martial.

EDIT: Also, take a look at the Pathfinder Earth Breaker. It's a bludgeoning weapon that does 2d6 damage and x3 crit.
That's two full steps in damage dice above the Tetsubo (1d10>1D12>2D6).
So the tetsubo SACRIFICES damage for x4 crit, and gains nothing else?
Again, sounds like martial weapon "by the book" to me.


They have shown this weapon used and how deadly it was on that show Deadliest Warrior and quite honestly it is devastating.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see it, either. I could have gone with a martial weapon. Make it 1d10 and x3 crit. Sure, it's more powerful than a greatclub, but frankly, the greatclub sucks. The stats make sense for a simple weapon, not a martial one.

And they did create a martial weapon that is as good as or better than a comparable weapon (the nodashi is like a falchion, just better). Why not here?

But in my game, if you want a tetsubo, you take a greatclub (which is a simple weapon in my games) and call it a tetsubo. Same for the naginata (=glaive) or wakizashi (=short sword). Or nodashi (= greatsword). Or daikyo (composite longbow). Or yari (spear). Or yumi (longbow)

Making them all superior exotic weapons not only stinks of "ninja weapons are better" syndrome, but also means that most Eastern warrior types need special training to wield what should be basic weapons for them.


KaeYoss wrote:

I don't see it, either. I could have gone with a martial weapon. Make it 1d10 and x3 crit. Sure, it's more powerful than a greatclub, but frankly, the greatclub sucks. The stats make sense for a simple weapon, not a martial one.

And they did create a martial weapon that is as good as or better than a comparable weapon (the nodashi is like a falchion, just better). Why not here?

But in my game, if you want a tetsubo, you take a greatclub (which is a simple weapon in my games) and call it a tetsubo. Same for the naginata (=glaive) or wakizashi (=short sword). Or nodashi (= greatsword). Or daikyo (composite longbow). Or yari (spear). Or yumi (longbow)

Making them all superior exotic weapons not only stinks of "ninja weapons are better" syndrome, but also means that most Eastern warrior types need special training to wield what should be basic weapons for them.

Agreed.

And I'm not sure if you ever used the Earth Breaker from the Inner Sea World Guide (and I think the Adventurer's Armory?) but it makes for the perfect Great Club with a little extra 'oomph'.
2d6 x3, and Martial. Definitely sums up a big metal covered beating stick.


KaeYoss wrote:


Making them all superior exotic weapons not only stinks of "ninja weapons are better" syndrome, but also means that most Eastern warrior types need special training to wield what should be basic weapons for them.

Um, you mean Samurai are better. Ninja never used Tetsubos.


Ravennus, I see your point but scythe is actually SLIGHTLY above the average. Anyway, reread the martial weapon in core - you will see that if the crit is increased (18-20 instead of 19-20) or the multipliers goes up (x4 instead of x3) the damage dice goes down. See scimitar/falchion vs longsword/greatsword. Or picks vs axes.

Now, at high level (or maybe after level 4?) that decrease of damage dies means almost nothing, but is what I meant for "by the book".


Kaiyanwang wrote:

Ravennus, I see your point but scythe is actually SLIGHTLY above the average. Anyway, reread the martial weapon in core - you will see that if the crit is increased (18-20 instead of 19-20) or the multipliers goes up (x4 instead of x3) the damage dice goes down. See scimitar/falchion vs longsword/greatsword. Or picks vs axes.

Now, at high level (or maybe after level 4?) that decrease of damage dies means almost nothing, but is what I meant for "by the book".

Exactly. The damage dice go down when the multiplier goes up.

That's exactly what I'm referring to, and why I think the Tetsubo should be a Martial Weapon and NOT an Exotic weapon.

The damage dice goes down 2 steps compared to the Earth Breaker and so it gains x4 crit instead of x3.
There is nothing extra added to earn it the 'exotic' definition. Nothing to warrant spending an extra feat on, at all.

In fact, "by the book", exotic weapons often keep the damage dice and up the critical rating OR keep a high critical rating and up the damage dice.

The Elven Curve Blade is exactly like the Falchion except it GAINS a step of damage dice (2d4 to 1d10), is harder to sunder, and you can finesse it. That is presumably what makes it exotic.

The new Katana is another perfect example.
Either you look at it like a longsword with a better crit range, or a scimitar with 1d8 damage instead of 1d6.
And I've heard it gives a bonus to coup de graces.

There are many other examples as well that have already been established.
The Urumi, Rhoka, and even the Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe not to mention the Falcata.

Hence why I think this Tetsubo (and to a lesser degree the No-Daichi) is such an odd fit with the weapon balance that's already been established.


In my opinion, it's just again taking a weapon which was used because no other weapon was available out from the japanese arsenal.
Chakus, Kamas and all the other stuff are nothing but the martial version of an improvised weapon (Chaku = harvesting flail, Kama = harvesting sickle) which happens to look cool if used by kabuki theatre ninjas or mutated turtles and was used by peasants and in disguise ("only soldiers may use swords? no prob, if one asks me, this is nothing but a sickle, made for harvesting) but sucks compared to a "real" weapon.
Since style trumps realism, we need a way to balance these things and give them some abilities they'd have in kabuki, alright, exotic fits.

Ravennus wrote:


Also, I think most would agree that learning to fight with a full size two-handed war scythe in combat would be much more difficult to learn than just swinging a metal-shod baseball bat.

To be more precise: In the real world, a scythe is a horrible weapon, not for the enemy but for the user. Only peasants who are forced to war who could not afford another weapon would use a reforged scythe as some sort of improvised bill hook (to get cavalry off the horse)

Arguing by this, it would be an exotic weapon if not an improvised one.

On the other hand, scythes are stylish - hey, I'm playing the grim reaper!
My current druid uses one (until he'll be able to shapeshift) and he wouldn't if he'd need a feat for that.

So my basic argument: Yeah, by pure logic, you're right but many players would not accept it. I'd say, by logic, both the scythe and the tetsubo would be exotic but since the scythe is demanded in more regular builds while the tetsubo is truly exotic, scythe = martial and tetsubo = exotic is ok


Ksorkrax wrote:

In my opinion, it's just again taking a weapon which was used because no other weapon was available out from the japanese arsenal.

Chakus, Kamas and all the other stuff are nothing but the martial version of an improvised weapon (Chaku = harvesting flail, Kama = harvesting sickle) which happens to look cool if used by kabuki theatre ninjas or mutated turtles and was used by peasants and in disguise ("only soldiers may use swords? no prob, if one asks me, this is nothing but a sickle, made for harvesting) but sucks compared to a "real" weapon.
Since style trumps realism, we need a way to balance these things and give them some abilities they'd have in kabuki, alright, exotic fits.

Ravennus wrote:


Also, I think most would agree that learning to fight with a full size two-handed war scythe in combat would be much more difficult to learn than just swinging a metal-shod baseball bat.

To be more precise: In the real world, a scythe is a horrible weapon, not for the enemy but for the user. Only peasants who are forced to war who could not afford another weapon would use a reforged scythe as some sort of improvised bill hook (to get cavalry off the horse)

Arguing by this, it would be an exotic weapon if not an improvised one.

On the other hand, scythes are stylish - hey, I'm playing the grim reaper!
My current druid uses one (until he'll be able to shapeshift) and he wouldn't if he'd need a feat for that.

So my basic argument: Yeah, by pure logic, you're right but many players would not accept it. I'd say, by logic, both the scythe and the tetsubo would be exotic but since the scythe is demanded in more regular builds while the tetsubo is truly exotic, scythe = martial and tetsubo = exotic is ok

But the Tetsubo is not a monk weapon, right? Or did I miss that?

Also, we are talking game balance and design here. While RPG design is never perfect, nor should be, the design of the Tetsubo makes it worthless as an exotic weapon. Game mechanics-wise, there is no reason to spend a feat on it. Flavor-wise sure, if that's all you want... though you would save yourself a feat just re-flavoring something that already exists like the Earth Breaker.

Plus, it also goes against established pathfinder weapon design.
The Chaku, Kama, etc are horrible exotic weapons that are often equivalent to simple are martial weapons in relation to stats... but they were never really meant for Joe Schmoe fighter to use. They are given to monks for free. Making them exotic was just a 3rd edition hold-over to limit these strange Asian weapons to Asian flavored classes. They didn't want a Cleric of Lathander running around with shuriken and nunchucks.

*shrug*

Anyway, just my 2 coppers.
I'm just looking at it from a design standpoint.

IMO, the Scythe is only 'demanded in normal builds', as you say, because it has been there from the beginning.
Personally, anyone in my gaming group who thought about it would consider a scythe more exotic than a big studded metal covered stick any day.

Our logic must therefore differ.
But again, I'm looking at the stats. The crunch. The mechanics, and just ignoring the flavor for the moment (which honestly, could be anything).


Ravennus wrote:


Also, we are talking game balance and design here. While RPG design is never perfect, nor should be, the design of the Tetsubo makes it worthless as an exotic weapon. Game mechanics-wise, there is no reason to spend a feat on it.

Yeah, you're right on that - I don't like it when more fluff means less power. One should either make it martial or enhance it (/add some specialty to it, not necessarily just up the damage or crit) if it's not worth the feat

Quote:

IMO, the Scythe is only 'demanded in normal builds', as you say, because it has been there from the beginning.

Personally, anyone in my gaming group who thought about it would consider a scythe more exotic than a big studded metal covered stick any day.

Our logic must therefore differ.

Twas only an explanation - I don't have any statistics about it whatsoever

As for the "big studded metal covered stick", that's not how one should picture the tetsubo, if you do, there's no difference to the greatclub. Think "awesome mystical ninja stuff" and ignore how it was actually used (you know, it's from asia, asian soldiers fight while flying in bamboo forests)

Lantern Lodge

You all seem to be assuming that the weapons balance is the same as a greatclub or other such weapons. When in reality the weapon is shaped like a baseball bat, made out of pure iron or wood sheathed in iron, and covered with metal studs.

Comparing the great club to the tetsubo is like comparing a metal pole to a metal pole with a 2 foot cube chunk of cement on the end. The balance, weight, and strength needed to use the two are drastically different, even though they are very similar is style used.

In my opinion an exotic weapon means that it requires some kind of special training that you can not get from using other weapons, example: if you learn to swing a short sword then swinging a long sword is not to far off since their weight, balance, blade, etc. are very similar. Where as an exotic weapon requires something else to learn to use effectively, such as a specific special stance, specific flick of the wrist, moving your body in a specific way when you swing, etc. that no other weapon teaches you to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My money's on the weapon's puzzlingly powerful statistics being based on nothing more than the designers being enamored of the thing's air of mystical Asian martial-artsy badassery.

i.e. It's Asian, so it must be automatically better than anything those idiotic, backwards European clods could ever come up with.

sigh...


Here's what I see happening during the design stages...

Stage 1
It's asian-themed in a european-based setting. This is enough to give it exotic weapon proficiency (look at the kama/sickle, nunchuku/flail).

Stage 2
People making the weapons look at the weapon and go "If it's going to cost a feat, then it should be better than a martial weapon".

.
I think the issue is mostly with Stage 1: insisting that just because it looks new/different and comes from somewhere "not-here" that it should require a feat to learn proficiency. I'm all for a "get used to it period".. but feats are incredibly limited compared to how many weapons are accessible (and being made on a continuous basis).

If exotic-"not here" just meant that you had a temporary penalty until used for a while, while exotic-"hard to use" meant you needed special training to get these weird extra benefits, I'd think there'd be a lot less "asian weapons are automatically better".

Actually, I like the method mentioned before, where exotic means you get more out of existing weapons, denoting the character's training letting him get more out of a weapon, rather than the weapon enabling the character. Puts more power into the hands of the character, instead of the tools he uses (one more step away from the christmas tree effect).


Ravennus wrote:


Exactly. The damage dice go down when the multiplier goes up.
That's exactly what I'm referring to, and why I think the Tetsubo should be a Martial Weapon and NOT an Exotic weapon.

I fear you didn't get what I meant. To be martial, should have been 2d4. Any dice above (d10, 2d6 - I KNOW that 2d6>d10, but the point is that d10>2d4) makes it exotic.

I already explained why I don't agree whit that past level 4 this does not matter.

So, I see your point, but I was just explaining why is exotic.

And frankly, the balance of weapons is already gone. Step 1, worthless nerf of spiked chain. Step 2, introduce falcata. All guidelines are worthless since then.


Kaisoku wrote:


Stage 1
It's asian-themed in a european-based setting. This is enough to give it exotic weapon proficiency (look at the kama/sickle, nunchuku/flail).

Hmm... that could be solved through some simple archetypes: "Eastern Fighter Archetype: replace the fighter's weapon profiencies by list of weapons like katana, dao, yari, urumi..." (something like this for all classes or maybe more specific: "if the class originally gives profiency in spears, then..." and if you take this archetype in one class, you have to apply the corresponding archetype at any class you take -> you are a eastern fighter who multiclasses to ranger? you have to take easter ranger archetype)


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Ravennus wrote:


Exactly. The damage dice go down when the multiplier goes up.
That's exactly what I'm referring to, and why I think the Tetsubo should be a Martial Weapon and NOT an Exotic weapon.

I fear you didn't get what I meant. To be martial, should have been 2d4. Any dice above (d10, 2d6 - I KNOW that 2d6>d10, but the point is that d10>2d4) makes it exotic.

Right, increasing the Scythe's damage from 2d4 to 1d10 would make it exotic. Then reducing the damage types from two to one and removing a special property would reduce it right back down to martial.


Starbuck_II wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:


Making them all superior exotic weapons not only stinks of "ninja weapons are better" syndrome, but also means that most Eastern warrior types need special training to wield what should be basic weapons for them.

Um, you mean Samurai are better. Ninja never used Tetsubos.

Ninja use all kinds of weapons, can do all kinds of magic, and are generally better than anyone else - especially pirates.


Fozbek wrote:


Right, increasing the Scythe's damage from 2d4 to 1d10 would make it exotic. Then reducing the damage types from two to one and removing a special property would reduce it right back down to martial.

Nope. 1d10/x4 2H is exotic. The rest is mostly icing. 2d4/x4 or 1d8/x4 would be a martial 2H weapon.


Kaisoku wrote:

Here's what I see happening during the design stages...

Stage 1
It's asian-themed in a european-based setting. This is enough to give it exotic weapon proficiency (look at the kama/sickle, nunchuku/flail).

The problem is that this reasoning was always nonsense. Especially when you then go and create an Asian-themed class (like the Samurai) who gets to use those exotic weapons but still gets to use all the European-style weapons (all of which should be exotic for them).

The "exotic" category, where "exotic" means "from forn parts", needs to be put to death for our own good. It's just not sensible. As I just showed, it makes a real mess when you further explore those forn parts and provide more information about characters who come from there.

In that case, you basically have to recreate the whole weapon table from their point of view - to a Japanese bushi, a sickle is exotic, but a kama is simple.

The only proper "exotic" category that makes sense is where "exotic" means "superior; too good to be martial".

That might sound like focussing too much on the crunch and not on the fluff, but let's be honest: A game system with tons of weapons that are (mostly) all balanced and put into specific categories and have quite detailed descriptions including what sort of special tricks you can do with them is already pretty focussed on the crunch.

So let's cut the pretence and make it all about the crunch. The fluff will attend to itself.

Kaisoku wrote:


Actually, I like the method mentioned before, where exotic means you get more out of existing weapons, denoting the character's training letting him get more out of a weapon, rather than the weapon enabling the character.

I played with that idea, too, but gave up on it because it was too much trouble, since you either need to create two (or maybe three, if you stick to simple/martial/the other one) entries for each weapon (or at least state what will improve when you take the extra feat), or leave it wide open (with a general list of things you can improve) and risk things getting out of hand (that latter idea would have to be field tested).


KaeYoss wrote:
Fozbek wrote:


Right, increasing the Scythe's damage from 2d4 to 1d10 would make it exotic. Then reducing the damage types from two to one and removing a special property would reduce it right back down to martial.

Nope. 1d10/x4 2H is exotic. The rest is mostly icing. 2d4/x4 or 1d8/x4 would be a martial 2H weapon.

So damage is all that matters for exotic-ness? That doesn't follow through. Kamas, nunchuks, sais, sianghams, whips, spiked chains, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, bolas, hand crossbows, repeating crossbows, nets, shuriken, staff slings, swordbreaker daggers, khopeshes, temple swords, chain spears, mancatchers, boomeranges, and lassos are all exotic weapons that do equal or less damage with equal or less critical stats compared to a simple or martial weapon of the same category (or a one handed and a light weapon in the case of the dual weapons).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

Interesting read.

Don't have anything to add (yet) but I'm amused that in a flurry of eastern = overpowered (No-dachi vs Greatsword, Ninja vs Rogue, Katana in general) the argument that the tetsubo is underpowered for a EWP just, amuses me.

Edit: and then I read this:

Fozbek wrote:


So damage is all that matters for exotic-ness? That doesn't follow through. Kamas, nunchuks, sais, sianghams, whips, spiked chains, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, bolas, hand crossbows, repeating crossbows, nets, shuriken, staff slings, swordbreaker daggers, khopeshes, temple swords, chain spears, mancatchers, boomeranges, and lassos are all exotic weapons that do equal or less damage with equal or less critical stats compared to a simple or martial weapon of the same category (or a one handed and a light weapon in the case of the dual weapons).

This actually has been a debate since D&D 3.x.

What makes a weapon exotic? The weapons are influenced by Western notions to be certain (temple swords, kamas and sais being three examples) but logically simple < Martial < Exotic should be in benefit of power but some weapons were legacy, and remained as such.

To use the humble Longsword as an example.
1d8 19-20.

The scimitar is seen as a comprable martial weapon at 1d6 18-20. Increase in range = drop in die.

The greatsword is 2d6 19-20 it trades the free hand (and higher AC, TWF, etc) for the higher damage.

The Falchion follows the same pattern of the Scimitar at 2d4 18-20

So why is the Bastard Sword exotic? Because while it is an inferior Greatsword (1d10 19-20) it is better than a longsword with the same stats. Whether you feel that the additional point of damage alone is worth a feat is a matter of speculation.

Tangent: Would a simple longsword be 1d6 19-20? It wouldn't be a light weapon, so no finessing it.

Also, IIRC, KaeYos has his own system that basically abstrats everything down to Simple/Martial/Exotic and he flavours to taste. So a martial verson of the Green Destiny for example does 1d8 19-20 like a long sword. (please correct me if I'm wrong)


Fozbek wrote:


So damage is all that matters for exotic-ness?

NO, is one of the parameters. And it should not be, or at least not alone, if you ask me (at least the damage dice rolled) but is ONE of the reasons a weapon can be labeled as Exotic.


I'm personally of the opinion that the Exotic Weapon rules are a total messy disaster and have been since 3.0. The designers needed to pick one: weapons that are difficult to wield without specialized training should be Exotic (ie simulationist), weapons that are actually exotic to the default campaign world should be exotic, or weapons that are mechanically better than martial weapons should be exotic (ie gamist).

What we've had for the last decade is a total mishmash of confusing competing design goals such that it's impossible to accurately classify a weapon based on any set of criteria. It's essentially random whether a weapon is martial or exotic, and there are even examples of exotic weapons that should be simple weapons by two of the three above criteria (mostly the monk weapons).

By criteria 1 or 2, the tetsubo might qualify as exotic. By criteria 3, it doesn't, as it's almost completely inferior to a scythe.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Fozbek wrote:


So damage is all that matters for exotic-ness?

NO, is one of the parameters. And it should not be, or at least not alone, if you ask me (at least the damage dice rolled) but is ONE of the reasons a weapon can be labeled as Exotic.

Right. Which, like I said, means that increasing the Scythe's damage from 2d4x4 to 1d10x4 made it exotic, then removing an "or" damage type and removing a valuable (arguably the most valuable) special ability dropped it right back down to martial. Especially when you consider than the difference in average damage between 2d4 (5) and 1d10 (5.5) is less than one full point, and the scythe produces more reliable results with both a higher minimum and a tighter cluster around the average result.


Fozbek wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Fozbek wrote:


So damage is all that matters for exotic-ness?

NO, is one of the parameters. And it should not be, or at least not alone, if you ask me (at least the damage dice rolled) but is ONE of the reasons a weapon can be labeled as Exotic.
Right. Which, like I said, means that increasing the Scythe's damage from 2d4x4 to 1d10x4 made it exotic, then removing an "or" damage type and removing a valuable (arguably the most valuable) special ability dropped it right back down to martial. Especially when you consider than the difference in average damage between 2d4 (5) and 1d10 (5.5) is less than one full point, and the scythe produces more reliable results with both a higher minimum and a tighter cluster around the average result.

I essentially agree with you, but I was showing how assignment of martial/exotic generally works.

And AGAIN, the scythe is slightly above a standard martial so, since we are going in circles, I just drop the discussion. Have fun.


KaeYoss wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:


Actually, I like the method mentioned before, where exotic means you get more out of existing weapons, denoting the character's training letting him get more out of a weapon, rather than the weapon enabling the character.
I played with that idea, too, but gave up on it because it was too much trouble, since you either need to create two (or maybe three, if you stick to simple/martial/the other one) entries for each weapon (or at least state what will improve when you take the extra feat)...

You mean, like THIS?


Fozbek wrote:

I'm personally of the opinion that the Exotic Weapon rules are a total messy disaster and have been since 3.0. The designers needed to pick one: weapons that are difficult to wield without specialized training should be Exotic (ie simulationist), weapons that are actually exotic to the default campaign world should be exotic, or weapons that are mechanically better than martial weapons should be exotic (ie gamist).

What we've had for the last decade is a total mishmash of confusing competing design goals such that it's impossible to accurately classify a weapon based on any set of criteria. It's essentially random whether a weapon is martial or exotic, and there are even examples of exotic weapons that should be simple weapons by two of the three above criteria (mostly the monk weapons).

By criteria 1 or 2, the tetsubo might qualify as exotic. By criteria 3, it doesn't, as it's almost completely inferior to a scythe.

Last time I checked this was a western fantasy world with some eastern influence,ie the monk. If I was living in Golarion and walking around a large city I would expect to see greatswords, longswords, scimitars, staves, shortswords, falchions, etc because they are common in a western fantasy world, but if I saw a guy walking around with a no-dachi or a giant spiked tetsubo, I'd be like, "What the hell kind of weapon is that?" Imo, your reasoning falls flat on it's face in point 2, bolded above.

If I saw a guy fighting with a falcata who wasn't in Taldor, I'd be marveled at his weapon with an odd grip and strangely curved blade. If I saw a hunga-munga, I'd be amazed anyone could fight effectively with that thing, same as a khopesh with it's strange blade. Weapons that are not normal for the campaign world should be exotic. Which is why I support the "make the no-dachi exotic!" movement.


Fozbek wrote:


So damage is all that matters for exotic-ness?

I did write "mostly".

Fozbek wrote:


That doesn't follow through.

That's because your logic is faulty. There are some criteria that can put a weapon into a higher category, but the most important criterion - weapon damage - doesn't as much get you into martial and then exotic as it disqualifies you from the lower categories.

Well, not quite true: It's the damage die/critical qualities combo.

Fozbek wrote:
Kamas, nunchuks, sais, sianghams, whips, spiked chains, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, bolas, hand crossbows, repeating crossbows, nets, shuriken, staff slings, swordbreaker daggers, khopeshes, temple swords, chain spears, mancatchers, boomeranges, and lassos are all exotic weapons that do equal or less damage with equal or less critical stats compared to a simple or martial weapon of the same category (or a one handed and a light weapon in the case of the dual weapons).

Some of them don't belong into the exotic category:

Kamas, for example, are just sickles. Maybe they have a slightly different shape, but their stats are identical (with the exception that the kama costs only a third of what the sickle costs, and the kama is designated as a monk weapon).

The kama is unnecessary, a waste of space. Same goes for a lot of other "monk weapon". Toss them all, let players use the local variants and call them fancy foreign names, and just give the monk the ability to flurry with all simple weapons, plus maybe a few martial ones. Or with all weapons.

Those weapons were put into exotic not because they're too powerful for the other categories, but because someone thought that fancy stuff from forn parts needs to be there. A simple weapon kama would not break any balance.

Others have similar problems. The hand crossbow was somehow considered exotic because it's not something that appears to often and seems a bit "dangerous" because all the dangerous guys use it. Nobody really cares because it's mostly drow and rogues who use them, and they get the proficiency. But judging from the stats, it's totally a simple weapon.

Now the spiked chain used to be worthy of the exotic category. The natural 10' reach combined with its bonuses made it a dangerous weapon despite its totally crappy damage rating.

Now that the reach is gone, it doesn't belong into the exotic category at all. Looking at the damage alone, it's definitely simple. It does have two extra bonuses (actually, three: You can use weapon finesse with it), and this might be a case where they weigh in - but to bump it up. It would probably be just a bit too good to be a simple weapon.

On the other hand, a two-handed weapon that does 1d10 points of damage and has x4 crits is too good to be a martial weapon.

2d4/x4 is martial. The martial weapon might get a quirk or two (like the scythe with its trip ability and two types of damage), but that's not too much to let it stay martial. However, if you increase the damage, you're beyond martial.


Kaisoku wrote:
Actually, I like the method mentioned before, where exotic means you get more out of existing weapons, denoting the character's training letting him get more out of a weapon, rather than the weapon enabling the character.
KaeYoss wrote:
I played with that idea, too, but gave up on it because it was too much trouble, since you either need to create two (or maybe three, if you stick to simple/martial/the other one) entries for each weapon (or at least state what will improve when you take the extra feat)...
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You mean, like THIS?

That reminds me of a simpler version of the BECMI/Rules Compendium table. I like it.


Matt Stich wrote:
Fozbek wrote:

I'm personally of the opinion that the Exotic Weapon rules are a total messy disaster and have been since 3.0. The designers needed to pick one: weapons that are difficult to wield without specialized training should be Exotic (ie simulationist), weapons that are actually exotic to the default campaign world should be exotic, or weapons that are mechanically better than martial weapons should be exotic (ie gamist).

What we've had for the last decade is a total mishmash of confusing competing design goals such that it's impossible to accurately classify a weapon based on any set of criteria. It's essentially random whether a weapon is martial or exotic, and there are even examples of exotic weapons that should be simple weapons by two of the three above criteria (mostly the monk weapons).

By criteria 1 or 2, the tetsubo might qualify as exotic. By criteria 3, it doesn't, as it's almost completely inferior to a scythe.

Last time I checked this was a western fantasy world with some eastern influence,ie the monk. If I was living in Golarion and walking around a large city I would expect to see greatswords, longswords, scimitars, staves, shortswords, falchions, etc because they are common in a western fantasy world, but if I saw a guy walking around with a no-dachi or a giant spiked tetsubo, I'd be like, "What the hell kind of weapon is that?" Imo, your reasoning falls flat on it's face in point 2, bolded above.

Errr... no, actually, you just illustrated my reasoning for point 2 exactly. Please read again, slower and without preconceived notions this time. I said that they needed to pick one of those three reasons and stick to it. If all non-western-campaign-setting weapons were exotic and no western-campaign-setting weapons were exotic, I'd be fine with it. Alternately, if all weapons that required specialized training were exotic and the rest weren't, I'd be fine with that. Alternately, if all weapons that were mechanically superior were exotic and the rest weren't, I'd be fine with that. I'm not fine with the current system, which is a hodgepodge mishmash of all three methods with some non-western weapons that aren't exotic, some hard-to-use weapons that aren't exotic, and some mechanically superior weapons that aren't exotic. It's a total mess.


KaeYoss wrote:

That's because your logic is faulty. There are some criteria that can put a weapon into a higher category, but the most important criterion - weapon damage - doesn't as much get you into martial and then exotic as it disqualifies you from the lower categories.

Well, not quite true: It's the damage die/critical qualities combo.

So 5.5 average damage with a x4 critical and NOTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER is exotic, while 5.0 average damage with a x4 critical, two optional damage types, and a useful weapon special property is martial? That extra half a point of base weapon damage, which is utterly insignificant past the first couple of levels, should require a feat, while the weapon that's much, much more useful in general shouldn't?

I'm sorry, your reasoning is lousy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fozbek wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

That's because your logic is faulty. There are some criteria that can put a weapon into a higher category, but the most important criterion - weapon damage - doesn't as much get you into martial and then exotic as it disqualifies you from the lower categories.

Well, not quite true: It's the damage die/critical qualities combo.

So 5.5 average damage with a x4 critical and NOTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER is exotic, while 5.0 average damage with a x4 critical, two optional damage types, and a useful weapon special property is martial? That extra half a point of base weapon damage, which is utterly insignificant past the first couple of levels, should require a feat, while the weapon that's much, much more useful in general shouldn't?

I'm sorry, your reasoning is lousy.

I suspect the TETSUBO and the NODACHI were accidentally switched in terms of one being exotic and the other not and that forthcoming errata will fix this.


Fozbek wrote:


Errr... no, actually, you just illustrated my reasoning for point 2 exactly. Please read again, slower and without preconceived notions this time. I said that they needed to pick one of those three reasons and stick to it. If all non-western-campaign-setting weapons were exotic and no western-campaign-setting weapons were exotic, I'd be fine with it. Alternately, if all weapons that required specialized training were exotic and the rest weren't, I'd be fine with that. Alternately, if all weapons that were...

In that case I did misread it. I agree with you on that point then, but what would determine the exoticness if we used #2? If the world is european based, how far east would you need to go to begin the exotics? Is a scimitar still martial? What about a kilij? Would the falcata become a martial weapon?


Matt Stich wrote:
Fozbek wrote:


Errr... no, actually, you just illustrated my reasoning for point 2 exactly. Please read again, slower and without preconceived notions this time. I said that they needed to pick one of those three reasons and stick to it. If all non-western-campaign-setting weapons were exotic and no western-campaign-setting weapons were exotic, I'd be fine with it. Alternately, if all weapons that required specialized training were exotic and the rest weren't, I'd be fine with that. Alternately, if all weapons that were...
In that case I did misread it. I agree with you on that point then, but what would determine the exoticness if we used #2? If the world is european based, how far east would you need to go to begin the exotics? Is a scimitar still martial? What about a kilij? Would the falcata become a martial weapon?

It would be up to the creator of the campaign world to declare how rare (exotic) each weapon is. That, incidentally, makes #2 the most difficult method to enforce and the one that's least feasible from a generic system (rather than a specific campaign setting) standpoint, like the core rulebook.

Personally, I prefer method 3, where mechanics determine the amount of mechanical options you have to expend to use a weapon, because it creates the least cognitive dissonance. As much as I'll get crucified for saying it, 4th edition actually had it right in this regard. In 4E, weapons are classified based primarily on how mechanically superior they are (in fact, they changed "exotic" to "superior").

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
From what I've seen of the weapon, it's deadlier than a greataxe (which 1d10/x3 would make it inferior to).

Cool.

I've never seen anyone killed with either of those weapons.

OTOH, if you're being sarcastic, this guy has you beat - intentionally or not:

ItoSaithWebb wrote:
They have shown this weapon used and how deadly it was on that show Deadliest Warrior and quite honestly it is devastating.

Sir, my hat is off to you.

BTW, I've always hated the Scythe - pretty much useless as a weapon IRL, but pretty sweet in D&D. I figure it's too ingrained to ever go at this point, though.
-Kle.


Fozbek wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

That's because your logic is faulty. There are some criteria that can put a weapon into a higher category, but the most important criterion - weapon damage - doesn't as much get you into martial and then exotic as it disqualifies you from the lower categories.

Well, not quite true: It's the damage die/critical qualities combo.

So 5.5 average damage with a x4 critical and NOTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER is exotic, while 5.0 average damage with a x4 critical, two optional damage types, and a useful weapon special property is martial? That extra half a point of base weapon damage, which is utterly insignificant past the first couple of levels, should require a feat, while the weapon that's much, much more useful in general shouldn't?

I'm sorry, your reasoning is lousy.

+1

Exactly what's I've been saying.


As usual, I haven't read every post on this thread, so if this has already been pointed out, sorry for the duplicate post.

Pathfinder (just like D&D, and every single other role-playing game before it...with the POSSIBLE exception of the Cyberpunk 2020/Friday Night Firefight rules) bases its weapon damage/statistics on the premise of GAME BALANCE and THEME...not on the real-world ability of that weapon to do damage to a human body.

If weapons were "statted out" on the basis of their real-world abilities, fghters would never use anything but sa-jyat-koen (three-section staves, which would look something like this Dmg: 5d6, Threat: 15-20, Crit: x5, and would include +4 to Disarm and Trip attacks and have 10' of Reach...but would require THREE Exotic WP feats to learn to use safely.), and rangers (or other missile weapon fighters) would never use anything but atlatls (spear-throwers, which would look like the three-section-staff stats plus a 40 ft range increment).

If weapon stats were presented realistically, any axe built specifically for war would deal bludgeoning damage (with a penalty being assigned to damage and threat range if it were sharpened), and any two-handed sword would also deal only bludgeoning damage...and cost more than any adventurer could ever hope to afford before level 8-10.

If your arguments against the way the tetsubo ( an extremely dangerous and fearsome weapon...light years ahead of the threat presented by a baseball bat) are based on game balance and design, the go right ahead...you might have a case. But if you're basing your arguments on some premise involving "real life"...give it up. Nothing about this game is based on real life, nor should it be. It is, after all...FANTASY.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:


Actually, I like the method mentioned before, where exotic means you get more out of existing weapons, denoting the character's training letting him get more out of a weapon, rather than the weapon enabling the character.
I played with that idea, too, but gave up on it because it was too much trouble, since you either need to create two (or maybe three, if you stick to simple/martial/the other one) entries for each weapon (or at least state what will improve when you take the extra feat)...
You mean, like THIS?

Yep, that's the one I was talking about.

I remembered your handle after I stepped away from the computer, but didn't come back to this thread until now.

Nice work by the way. This is the kind of stuff I had hoped was in UC, and will hope it becomes standard practice in Pathfinder 2...

Shadow Lodge

Klebert L. Hall wrote:

BTW, I've always hated the Scythe - pretty much useless as a weapon IRL, but pretty sweet in D&D. I figure it's too ingrained to ever go at this point, though.
-Kle.

It's even weirder in PF to boot. The description of the scythe in the weapons section springs to mind the falx - an Ancient Balkan weapon that a curved invard edge, but with a blade that was pointed upwards instead of crosswise. It was a war scythe basically. Note that this can't properly be represented by the two-handed sword, since the combat style and wounds it caused were different. A falchion might be possible, but I've always liked that there was an actual proficiency for such a cool weapon and the falchion itself has a a different kind of blade and is more akin to a big knife, such as messer, than the zweihander or falx.

About the falx, it caused the Roman trooper armor to evolve out of necessity, you know. Those masters of war were so afraid of the kind mayhem a falx could cause, cleaving horses and men - a charge from a Dacian war party armed with falxes would leave men without limbs or heads.

But then we get to the actual pictures of the PF scythe and how it has been presented in the APs, Rise of the Runelords with it's +1 large keen scythe(how the hell was that thing supposed to fight with it? Why is the damage piercing? What? How?!) in particular and I sigh. Yeah, it reminds of the grim reaper and the Grim Harvestman favored weapon makes more sense that way, but at least get the descriptions and representations straight.

Here's the weapon I'm making allusions to. It's there at the very top. Nasty looking thing, right? And here's the scythe from PF. Seems pretty similar to the description, right?

I don't know what went on in the brains of the d20PFSRD folk when they uploaded that picture there, either. That scythe has nothing to do with the description. :P


Sieglord wrote:
Pathfinder (just like D&D, and every single other role-playing game before it...with the POSSIBLE exception of the Cyberpunk 2020/Friday Night Firefight rules) bases its weapon damage/statistics on the premise of GAME BALANCE and THEME...not on the real-world ability of that weapon to do damage to a human body.

I just had to comment on this because it has pissed me off in the past.

Cyberpunk 2020/FNF may have looked good but it was super unrealistic, you could be shot with an AP round from a 7,62 assault rifle at close range while wearing just a flak t-shirt and you would just get a scratch... ridiculous.

Liberty's Edge

Sieglord wrote:


If weapons were "statted out" on the basis of their real-world abilities, fghters would never use anything but sa-jyat-koen (three-section staves, which would look something like this Dmg: 5d6, Threat: 15-20, Crit: x5, and would include +4 to Disarm and Trip attacks and have 10' of Reach...but would require THREE Exotic WP feats to learn to use safely.), and rangers (or other missile weapon fighters) would never use anything but atlatls (spear-throwers, which would look like the three-section-staff stats plus a 40 ft range increment).
It is, after all...FANTASY.

Here, I fixed your post for you.

Your ideas of weapon effectiveness might be the most fanciful I have ever encountered, so I guess you win the thread.

Overly-complicated martial arts weapons have enjoyed basically zero battlefield success historically. Javelins are fine, but fare poorly compared to bows and crossbows, even if the javelineers use atlatls for better performance.
-Kle.


RobRob wrote:
Sieglord wrote:
Pathfinder (just like D&D, and every single other role-playing game before it...with the POSSIBLE exception of the Cyberpunk 2020/Friday Night Firefight rules) bases its weapon damage/statistics on the premise of GAME BALANCE and THEME...not on the real-world ability of that weapon to do damage to a human body.

I just had to comment on this because it has pissed me off in the past.

Cyberpunk 2020/FNF may have looked good but it was super unrealistic, you could be shot with an AP round from a 7,62 assault rifle at close range while wearing just a flak t-shirt and you would just get a scratch... ridiculous.

Let me see -- Ap round halves armor, A [bkevlar[/b] t-shirts was SP 10, meaning 5 (a flak jacket was sp 20 or 10 against ap), the 7.62 was popping 6d6+2 dice meaning 23 damage meaning 11 points after penetrating the armor putting you at critical if the shot hit where the armor was covering. If it hit you in the brain bucket that would be 46 damage (halved is 23 again) with no SP and your brains scattered all over kingdom come (putting you deep in mortality 3). At the point you are at critical your Int, Ref, and CL stats are automatically halved, and you have to make a stun save at -2 or be useless for the rest of combat.

Oh by the way if that bullet hit an arm or leg instead, that limb would have been shattered in cyberpunk and instead of being at critical you would be at mortal 9 and have to make an immediate death save.

So yeah if you are extremely lucky and the gun flukes out and you get minimum damage you get to be that one in a million that came out okay while just wearing kevlar -- otherwise you're parts... meaning loot.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / UC Tetsubo? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.