Or rather, what if you didn't need exotic weapon proficiency to wield them?
Would everyone just start using exotic weapons?
Would there just be certain weapons that everyone used religiously like falcata (I keep hearing it's the best melee exotic), etc?
Or rather, what if you didn't need exotic weapon proficiency to wield them?
Would everyone just start using exotic weapons?
Would there just be certain weapons that everyone used religiously like falcata (I keep hearing it's the best melee exotic), etc?
You'd narrow down the weapons people would use pretty dramatically. Elven Curve Blade, Falcata, Spiked Chain, Repeating Crossbow all have some really good bonuses to them that make them significantly better than martial weapons which serve a similar role.
No one would ever use a Rapier, Longsword, or Glaive.
Greatswords would still be used by a lot of barbarians, though.
|
Or rather, what if you didn't need exotic weapon proficiency to wield them?
Would everyone just start using exotic weapons?
Would there just be certain weapons that everyone used religiously like falcata (I keep hearing it's the best melee exotic), etc?
You'd narrow down the weapons people would use pretty dramatically. Elven Curve Blade, Falcata, Spiked Chain, Repeating Crossbow all have some really good bonuses to them that make them significantly better than martial weapons which serve a similar role.
No one would ever use a Rapier, Longsword, or Glaive.
Greatswords would still be used by a lot of barbarians, though.
Repeating Crossbow? With its full action reload? Also spiked chain is trash and elven curve blade is meh for the most part. Fauchard though, I'd LOVE a martial version of that.
Weapon selection is already stagnant (scimitar/rapier/greatsword/composite longbow/etc), so this would only moderately push the power curve up slightly for melee since longbow's basically the master of non bolt ace/throwing ranged combat.
So crit builds would be better considering what people would take (Fauchard for reach/2h, Falcata for 1h.)
Spiked Chain is nowhere near as worth a feat as it used to be as well. Thematically, it is pretty cool though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we'd see something other than falchions, scimitars and longbows for a change...
But if you're looking for weapon variety, I'm glad to present the solution to your problems! ;)
I just wanted to see what was the consensus on the 'must have' exotic weapons
For all the choices they give you, there are a lot of weapons, both martial and exotic, that just aren't worth the weight in your backpack.
Do you guys think it'd be better to have fewer weapons instead of more?
Not really , in the end we mostly see the same weapons being picked over and over , but that doesnt mean having options that only appear rarely is bad , the more options the better to me.
Not really , in the end we mostly see the same weapons being picked over and over , but that doesnt mean having options that only appear rarely is bad , the more options the better to me.
Agreed in principle that more choices are always good, but at the same time options that aren't worthwhile choices shouldn't really count as options. Ideally, every weapon in the game ought to have something going for it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might see more of the exotic weapons make a appearance at tables. I still expect to see the usual assortment (battleaxes, short and long swords etc) at the table. Even if one removes the Exotic weapons Feat Tax one still has to invest in the right feats to make proper use of a weapons special abilites. If a weapon has trip one still has to have improved trip to not take a AOO.
In the end if a player loves a certain selection of weapons they go with those. Only a few tend to always go with the "best" or what they think is the best weapon for them. If I ever took a Viking archtype I'm almost always going for battleaxe. Just seems a better fit than a Halberd imo.
As for Exotic I would not be bothered so much by it if it applied to weapons that were truly exotic. As oppose to a penalty because the devs think weapon XYZ is better so your going to be feat taxed if you take it. Playing a Fighter type I rather take Iron Will or dodge as opposed to Exotic Weapons Feat.
You might see more of the exotic weapons make a appearance at tables. I still expect to see the usual assortment (battleaxes, short and long swords etc) at the table. Even if one removes the Exotic weapons Feat Tax one still has to invest in the right feats to make proper use of a weapons special abilites. If a weapon has trip one still has to have improved trip to not take a AOO.
In the end if a player loves a certain selection of weapons they go with those. Only a few tend to always go with the "best" or what they think is the best weapon for them. If I ever took a Viking archtype I'm almost always going for battleaxe. Just seems a better fit than a Halberd imo.
As for Exotic I would not be bothered so much by it if it applied to weapons that were truly exotic. As oppose to a penalty because the devs think weapon XYZ is better so your going to be feat taxed if you take it. Playing a Fighter type I rather take Iron Will or dodge as opposed to Exotic Weapons Feat.
The only reason to take a battleaxe is because you don't like the word "dwarf". A dwarven waraxe is clearly and unambiguously superior.
I can't imagine any reason to take a longsword instead of a rhoka, falcata, or bastard sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they like it, not every choice is rooted in mechanics or what's best, if they did I wouldn't have a Inquisitor of Shelyn using a Sai in my group, yet there she is. :-D
Not really , in the end we mostly see the same weapons being picked over and over , but that doesnt mean having options that only appear rarely is bad , the more options the better to me.
This would reduce options, though. If there's no penalty to taking exotic weapons over martial weapons so lots of martial weapons are just out the door. No reason to take a rapier, longsword, or battleaxe any more so you lose those options.
I don't think it's a bad idea Davor, but i'm more inclined to do something like:
Fighters: 2nd level gain proficiency in exotic weapons.
(a one level dip is already a popular choice to get heavy armor, pushing exotic weapon proficiency to 2nd will keep the 1 level dip from being crazy good)
Also I think a number of the exotic weapons could be downgraded to martial.
A lot of the monk weapons are exotic for no reason I know of. Most of them are just re-skinned daggers with the disarm ability, No reason they couldn't be martial.
The lasso, whip, net (to name just a few) I don't see why these should cost a feat to use either.
Or rather, what if you didn't need exotic weapon proficiency to wield them?
Would everyone just start using exotic weapons?
Would there just be certain weapons that everyone used religiously like falcata (I keep hearing it's the best melee exotic), etc?
The only weapons which require Exotic Weapon Proficiency to even consider wielding them is the Bastard Sword, Katana, and the other Dwarf weapon (can't think of the name right now), which has a FAQ that says "No Feat = Can't use. Period."
Everything else is just a -4 penalty to use. So really, outside of 3 weapons, you can certainly wield them just fine.
It's just players (not just the Power Gamers) don't want to deal with a -4 Penalty to hit. It's a brutal penalty, especially in the early game.
Agreed in principle that more choices are always good, but at the same time options that aren't worthwhile choices shouldn't really count as options. Ideally, every weapon in the game ought to have something going for it.
They should, at least to a certain degree. You generally don't want one option dominating another one in all ways. That's the primary reason using a bastard sword one-handed requires the exotic weapon feat - without it, the long sword is the dominated option. This is also why there are plenty of martial weapons that dominate simple weapons - they require a new level of feat to use - the martial feat. Questions may arise whether any costs imposed are really balancing. Cash costs aren't balancing past initial character generation. Proficiency feats might be, but there are many exceptions and ways around them with class options, race options, and so on that this is a very haphazard method. It's almost (though perhaps not quite) enough to make one miss the days of 1e/2e weapon proficiencies.
I don't think it's a bad idea Davor, but i'm more inclined to do something like:
Fighters: 2nd level gain proficiency in exotic weapons.
(a one level dip is already a popular choice to get heavy armor, pushing exotic weapon proficiency to 2nd will keep the 1 level dip from being crazy good)
If I was going to do something like this, I'd add it to the weapon-group training. i.e. Axes group gets full-proficiency with all Axes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I've done in my home game is make ALL weapons have "simple," "martial," AND "exotic" stats, depending on the proficiency of the user. For example, someone with Exotic proficiency with the rapier will be far more effective with it than someone who only has Simple proficiency with the rapier.
What I've done in my home game is make ALL weapons have "simple," "martial," AND "exotic" stats, depending on the proficiency of the user. For example, someone with Exotic proficiency with the rapier will be far more effective with it than someone who only has Simple proficiency with the rapier.
That's a pretty cool idea... I might very shamelessly steal that one.
I could even use i in conjunction with my Custom Weapon Generation System. The wielder could use a different base template and gain access to additional weapon modifications depending on his proficiency...
Hmmm... Ideas, ideas...
@mean mutton
Of course in terms of mechanics some weapons are better than others. Sometimes it's more than just how much damage a weapon does. I want to eventually make a ranger using TWF and two handaxes as weapons. Sure they are better weapons I just feel like using those weapons.
SHAMELESS. SELF. PROMOTION.
ACTIVATE!
But if you're looking for weapon variety, I'm glad to present the solution to your problems! ;)
Why choose between style and efficiency when you can have both? ^^
Should I have said "options so underpowered there is no mechanical reason to ever use them"? Or am I just not allowed to point out the problem with bloat? A very real problem that hurts not only us, the consumers, but in the long term, Pathfinder as a whole and, consequently, Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should I have said "options so underpowered there is no mechanical reason to ever use them"? Or am I just not allowed to point out the problem with bloat? A very real problem that hurts not only us, the consumers, but in the long term, Pathfinder as a whole and, consequently, Paizo.
What works for *you* may not work for everybody else. One person's worthless is another person's perfect choice for their character, whether it's mechanically optimal or not. You are free to criticize the number of options that are available in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. We want the critique, but the manner in which you present your criticisms should be a consideration.
I'd be happy to discuss this further at community@paizo.com if you have any additional concerns, and avoid further derailing the thread.
What works for *you* may not work for everybody else. One person's worthless is another person's perfect choice for their character, whether it's mechanically optimal or not. You are free to criticize the number of options that are available in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. We want the critique, but the manner in which you present your criticisms should be a consideration.
I'm criticizing the mechanical properties of weapons... In a thread about weapon selection. From a purely mechanical PoV, an weapon that is objectively worse than another one from the same category has little to no worth and does harm to the game and its community. The way I see it, my commentary was pertinent to the thread's subject, and a polite and sincere answer to the comment of another poster.
I'd be happy to discuss this further at community@paizo.com if you have any additional concerns, and avoid further derailing the thread.
I appreciate the offer, but in my experience, concerns expressed via that address go either unnoticed or ignored more often than not...
In any case, out of respect for you and the community, I'll drop the subject.
A very real problem that hurts not only us, the consumers, but in the long term, Pathfinder as a whole and, consequently, Paizo.
How could this possibly cause real harm to the consumers?
By the time you are deciding that there are some weapons that are sub-optimal choices, you are so far down the Pathfinder rabbit hole you're all in for game system.
The overall system complexity is a big turnoff to new gamers, but the market being what it is, Paizo is doing just fine.
Now now, we all know that believing Pathfinder is not perfect in every way is the worst sort of thoughtcrime.
A very real problem that hurts not only us, the consumers, but in the long term, Pathfinder as a whole and, consequently, Paizo.How could this possibly cause real harm to the consumers?
I'll no longer derail the thread. If you want, send me a PM or create a thread about the subject and I'll share my thoughts.
|
|
Thanks Lemmy. I had a chance to look at your rules one weapons. Good stuff.
I also agree with Lemmy. When a feat is nothing more than a tax. When some weapons arbitrarily classified as exotic. Simply because the Devs think they are too powerful is bad game design imo. I'm not wasting a feat to get a falcata. Better damage values or no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or rather, what if you didn't need exotic weapon proficiency to wield them?
Would everyone just start using exotic weapons?
Would there just be certain weapons that everyone used religiously like falcata (I keep hearing it's the best melee exotic), etc?
Most exotic weapons aren't worth the feat, but a handful are, so they'd see constant use.
They really should have made the weapons simple, martial, and superior, with superior weapons simply being better than martial rather than a weapon that's considered weird/tricky/unusual/rare.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO Pathfinder is much better about this than D&D was. There are so many different ways to get proficiency with exotic weapons that you seldom need to spend a feat on it. In v3/3.5 I had house-rules to make exotic proficiency less of a burden, but in Pathfinder I haven't seen the need.
As to the large number of weapons leading to some being 'useless'... I disagree. Even if we accepted (I don't) that there are some which a PC would never buy, because an option which is superior in every way significant to them is available, the variety is still useful for GMs;
Trying to find the right weapon to base an improvised weapon off? It helps to have more than just the 'best' option in each category. Want to introduce a cult with weird traditions? Having an unusual weapon type helps differentiate them. Players have lost their equipment and need to scavenge to survive? Let them get hold of some weapons they wouldn't normally use. Et cetera.
IMO Pathfinder is much better about this than D&D was. There are so many different ways to get proficiency with exotic weapons that you seldom need to spend a feat on it. In v3/3.5 I had house-rules to make exotic proficiency less of a burden, but in Pathfinder I haven't seen the need.
I'm not entirely sure that's a positive because it means the extra benefit of some of the exotic weapons (and I agree with Zhayne that superior would have been a more consistent designation) is largely avoided. I suppose you could argue it limited your choices, but chances are there's some other uncompensated benefit for making that choice as well. And that doesn't exactly undermine the idea that the game design principles exhibited by the exotic weapon proficiency are inconsistent.
As to the large number of weapons leading to some being 'useless'... I disagree. Even if we accepted (I don't) that there are some which a PC would never buy, because an option which is superior in every way significant to them is available, the variety is still useful for GMs;
Trying to find the right weapon to base an improvised weapon off? It helps to have more than just the 'best' option in each category. Want to introduce a cult with weird traditions? Having an unusual weapon type helps differentiate them. Players have lost their equipment and need to scavenge to survive? Let them get hold of some weapons they wouldn't normally use. Et cetera.
On these points, I completely agree.
It's a legacy problem they inherited by staying backwards compatible with 3.X D&D. Of the problems imported from d20, it's really a minor one and the easiest to fix on your own. When in doubt, let characters take a trait to get some exotic weapon training if you really want. Or just let them use them.
Let's go down the list with light (not counting Eastern):
First, explanation:
1) Suck- means worse than non-exotic (definitely not even close to worth feat)
2) Okay- equal to non-exotic, usually just worth the flavor or small niche. Spiked Chain is here now (Martial Flail is better except in Niche situations)
3) Better- Worth a feat
4) Amazing- More than Worth a feat
Exotic (suck):
Halfing Rope-shot: Not really sure point.
Helmet Dwarven Boulder: Due to "Hand" rules sucks. If it was okay to use off hand like Barbazu beard it would be Okay.
Butterfly Knife: A dagger you can unveil as a free action. Seeing as daggers already have +2 conceal, you'd think the bonus to this would be higher.
Rope Gauntlet: Brass Knuckles you have to soak in water.
Exotic (Okay):
Aklys: Nunchaku, but retrieve a thrown one without a weapon cord. Plus performance combat
Knuckle Axe: Performance, high Crit Brass Knuckles
Barbazu Beard: Overrides "hand" unwritten rules. Saying good bye to rules only useage.
Gnome Pincher: Disarm, Steal +2.
Kama: Trip. Sickle basically that Monk.
Katar, Tri-Blade: Punching Dagger with +1 Crit. If really liked Punching Daggers, Yay!
Deer Horn Knife: Monk. Blocking. Same stats as a Punching dagger but can throw
Maulaxe Dwarf: Battleaxe that can deal blunt if want.
Nunchaku: Monk, Disarm Club.
Quadrens: Short sword counts as a dagger for River Rat (in flavor description), causes Bleed 1 on a crit
Dagger: Deals Blunt instead, Disarm, Sunder Monk bonuses.
Sica: Dagger that deals +1 hit vs Shield bearers
Thorn Bracer: Can attack while holding stuff in same hand.
Exotic: Better:
Battle poi: Fire damage, less penalties for TWF, unclear if add Str Fire bonus (lol).
Swordbreaker Dagger:? +4 Disarm, Sunder (+6 disarm since Disarm/Sunder weapon).
Flying Talon: Grants you the reach of 10 (with no qualifiers so less if you are huge?), so equip a whip in other hand and enjoy 30 ft reach with your whip. But seriously, reach is always good. One of the few attack adjacent reach weapons.
Scorpion Whip: 15 reach, Light, Lethal, Performance, more if can use a whip
Whip: 15 reach, one handed, Nonlethal, can't hurt certain armor
I'll agree that Whips may be worth a feat... But only if youw ant to use them for something else than doing damage. They are pretty useful for pulling tricky stunts in combat.
A lot of people here say that there would be no mechanical reason to pick %a weapon% instead of %another weapon that is exotic% if this feat weren't there. But isn't it already the case?
For example, compare Glave to Glaive-guisarme. There is no mechanical reason to pick the former, since the latter also gives you "brace" with no drawbacks.
Or compare "Guisarme" to "Horsechopper". Same problem essentially.
Source: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons