Khakkara-Only legal for Tengus?

Was looking into making a Kitsune who used one of these weapons but then I realized . . . are they only legal for Tengu? They don't have a racial trait, and their description doesn't mention a region, so I don't think Unconventional weaponry works. Again, a region isn't mentioned so you can't be from a region to pick it up. No gods have it as their holy weapon (a bit odd considering it is widely regarded as a holy staff . . . .)

I think Tengu weapon familiarity is the ONLY way to pick it up legally unless you find one. Or, I guess, if you have the inventor skill feat you could INVENT the formula for it and then build your own, but that requires you to be either the inventor class or level 7.

That feels like an oversight, but unconventional weaponry should work as well, since I don't think its actually meant to key off a mentioned region. I'd really just ask your GM.

Yep, Unconventional Weaponry should work. Even w/o the Tengu trait, the weapon's specifically tied to a culture, as shown by the Tengu feat.

Yep, Unconventional Weaponry should work. Even w/o the Tengu trait, the weapon's specifically tied to a culture, as shown by the Tengu feat.

I'm not convinced. Just because a weapon shows up on a racial list doesn't make it 'of that culture.' Just because Azarketi have 'hand crossbow' on their list of racial weapons doesn't mean it is an Azarketi weapon. Heck, longswords appear on both the elf and Hobgoblin list, that doesn't mean that they are both Elf and Hobgoblin weapons.

Anyway, you might be right, just seemed like a shame to me that I couldn't make my Kitsune with a Khakkara. I guess unless I take adopted ancestry which doesn't really fit with the character.

Or, I guess, if you have the inventor skill feat you could INVENT the formula for it and then build your own, but that requires you to be either the inventor class or level 7.

You can't invent the formulas for Uncommon items with the inventor feat.

But seeing how the weapon is just uncommon and not advanced or anything, it doesn't seem too hard to get your hands on one. Unless your GM is REALLY stingy with Uncommon stuff, you should be able to find one in any larger city.

It's a bit weird for PFS characters, but I feel like there has to be a boon of some sort that would allow this to be taken, it's just a run-of-the-mill Uncommon Martial Weapon after all...

Very odd indeed, but for normal nonorganized games this is a really simple "Ask your GM" kind of thing and I really think that the main reason it's considered Uncommon at all is that its basically just like an extremely versatile club that has a pointy tip and jingly bits that are attached for the purpose of helping farmers, ranchers, and wardens scare animals off their land, in other words, it's not exactly an "adventurers weapon" so much as it is flavored to be used by the common NPC workers of the land which is pretty much just never really something that PC adventurers would ever actually DO unless they did so before gaining Class levels or AFTER they retire.

Is there really no way to add a random non-racial trait'd Uncommon Weapon to a PFS Character?

Is there really no way to add a random non-racial trait'd Uncommon Weapon to a PFS Character?

Nope. Tengu can get it because is is specifically called out in their racial weaponry feat, just like Longswords are called out for Elves, but otherwise, not that I can find.

A 'kinda related' issue is trying to get full proficiency with a War Razor on a Rogue: Ironically, the big problem here is the fact that it is a common weapon and therefore not an option for Unconventional Weaponry...

The whole rarity system (for weapons at least) seems to have fallen apart at publication: The underlying idea seems pretty good, but only providing a single rarity rating for each item kinda ruined it. Ideally, each item should have a different rarity rating in each geographical region (even if the 'region' is an entire continent, this would be very helpful for campaigns that want to travel the world a bit more).
At minimum, there should be a comment in each uncommon items as to whether or not it is common somewhere (some specialized gear is probably uncommon (at best) everywhere).

The rules already change rarity based on physical location in the world. See Different Contexts.

The rules already change rarity based on physical location in the world. See Different Contexts.

Yes, rarity has always been campaign/location dependent. I think the issue here is more that in most cases no baseline is published for what weapons with the Uncommon tag are Common in any given place, and instead the GM needs to make those assignments from scratch.

The counterexample would be the weapons presented in the first book of Fist of the Ruby's Phoenix, which do specify that they are Common in Tian Xia. Otherwise you end up making your own list for your campaign (the list of regional weapon access that PFS implemented as a campaign rule is one example of what that list might look like, but any two GMs doing this might end up with a different list.)

Castilliano wrote:

Yep, Unconventional Weaponry should work. Even w/o the Tengu trait, the weapon's specifically tied to a culture, as shown by the Tengu feat.

I'm not convinced. Just because a weapon shows up on a racial list doesn't make it 'of that culture.'

Why not. A culture can have cultural significance for a weapon without that weapon being unavailable to the world at large.

The longsword that you mention is a great example of this. Both Elf and Hobgoblin treat it with cultural reverence. Humans just use it as a standard battle implement.

VampByDay wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

Yep, Unconventional Weaponry should work. Even w/o the Tengu trait, the weapon's specifically tied to a culture, as shown by the Tengu feat.

I'm not convinced. Just because a weapon shows up on a racial list doesn't make it 'of that culture.'

Why not. A culture can have cultural significance for a weapon without that weapon being unavailable to the world at large.

The longsword that you mention is a great example of this. Both Elf and Hobgoblin treat it with cultural reverence. Humans just use it as a standard battle implement.

Either way, still no way to get it on my kitsune.

Either way, still no way to get it on my kitsune.

Well, there is no way to force the GM to let you have one. Maybe that is important for PFS or something.

I don't see any good reason to not allow it to work with Unconventional Weaponry or the like.

Even if you don't have the ability to buy one because it is uncommon, anyone trained in all Martial weapons would be proficient in the Khakkara.

Couldn't such a character buy a shifting dagger, turn it into a Khakkara, and use it?

Even if you don't have the ability to buy one because it is uncommon, anyone trained in all Martial weapons would be proficient in the Khakkara.

Couldn't such a character buy a shifting dagger, turn it into a Khakkara, and use it?

That is an interesting idea but is parsing the rules pretty finely.

I suspect that many of those GMs who would insist that you can't find the weapon would also rule that you can't shift the weapon into one that you can't buy.

Gisher wrote:

Even if you don't have the ability to buy one because it is uncommon, anyone trained in all Martial weapons would be proficient in the Khakkara.

Couldn't such a character buy a shifting dagger, turn it into a Khakkara, and use it?

That is an interesting idea but is parsing the rules pretty finely.

I suspect that many of those GMs who would insist that you can't find the weapon would also rule that you can't shift the weapon into one that you can't buy.

Yes. And at this point it stops being a rules problem and becomes an interpersonal problem between the players. Why is the GM so dead-set against allowing the character to have this particular weapon?

Gisher wrote:

Even if you don't have the ability to buy one because it is uncommon, anyone trained in all Martial weapons would be proficient in the Khakkara.

Couldn't such a character buy a shifting dagger, turn it into a Khakkara, and use it?

That is an interesting idea but is parsing the rules pretty finely.

I suspect that many of those GMs who would insist that you can't find the weapon would also rule that you can't shift the weapon into one that you can't buy.

I don't see any such restriction in the wording of shifting. Am I missing a rule from somewhere else?

I don't see any such restriction in the wording of shifting. Am I missing a rule from somewhere else?

No.

But it is blatantly an end-run around the GMs ability to prevent access to things that are marked as Uncommon.

My take on Uncommon is that you should be able to outright ask the GM, "is this available EVER in this campaign or just out of theme?", and get a straight answer. It's okay to answer No; not everything makes sense in every campaign. But no being evasive about it if the door is really shut.

And if the door is open, then you should be able to ask "what kind of ways are there to get that thing?"

That's really one of the key differences between Rare and Uncommon for me; Uncommon is not so rare and unknown that you can't think of what kind of sidequest would work to get it.

Gisher wrote:

I don't see any such restriction in the wording of shifting. Am I missing a rule from somewhere else?

No.

But it is blatantly an end-run around the GMs ability to prevent access to things that are marked as Uncommon.

The question at hand is whether there is a way, within the rules, for a non-Tengu to get a khakkara. I think I found one.

No one asked whether a particular GM would be happy about it or allow it.

The question at hand is whether there is a way, within the rules, for a non-Tengu to get a khakkara. I think I found one.

No one asked whether a particular GM would be happy about it or allow it.

I honestly don't understand your point.

It makes no difference at all if you've convinced yourself and some others that something is by the rules if the GM says "no".

By Rule 0 the GMs word is law, one way or the other. So, strictly by the rules, absolutely anything is legal or illegal at a GM whim.

About the only difference is whether you can reliably expect your interpretation to fly at many tables, especially at PFS tables.

And I personally think taking a shifting rune for the obvious purpose of sidestepping the uncommon access rules is just not going to fly at a great many tables. It wouldn't fly at my table (in PFS I'd just say no, in a home game I'd laugh at you and ask why you're doing something that bizarre when all you need to do is justify to me why your character would have access to a khakkara)

The confusion is mutual.

Are you saying that my solution violates some rules? If so, then please cite them.

Are you saying that my solution is valid, but that a GM might choose to forbid it anyway? That's true, but in a trivial sense. The same can be said about literally every argument in this forum.

Adopted Ancestry, as written, can be taken for Common ancestries. By using Different Contexts, a kitsune from a region where tengu are common (e.g., Kwanlai in Tian Xia) could take Adopted Ancestry (Tengu) to gain access to the Tengu Weapon Familiarity ancestry feat.

Granted, it's a bit of a workaround and can restrict certain character concepts.

I'm not sure that I can explain it better than pauljathome already did. But I can give it a shot.

There are three scenarios here: 1) the GM is more than happy to let your character have the weapon. 2) the GM is willing to let your character have the weapon but wants some build investment for it. 3) the GM doesn't want your character to have the weapon.

In scenario 1, there is nothing more that needs done. Your character finds/buys/crafts the weapon and the game moves on.

In scenario 2, you need to do something simple like take Unconventional Weaponry. At which point your character finds/buys/crafts the weapon and the game moves on.

In scenario 3, you should probably just move on with the game without the weapon. Your solution might be valid in the most technical rules reading, but it is going to irritate your GM. And playing a game after irritating the GM doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

So there is nothing mechanically wrong with your idea. The problem is with the interpersonal aspects of the game.

I'm not sure that I can explain it better than pauljathome already did. But I can give it a shot.

There are three scenarios here: 1) the GM is more than happy to let your character have the weapon. 2) the GM is willing to let your character have the weapon but wants some build investment for it. 3) the GM doesn't want your character to have the weapon.

In scenario 1, there is nothing more that needs done. Your character finds/buys/crafts the weapon and the game moves on.

In scenario 2, you need to do something simple like take Unconventional Weaponry. At which point your character finds/buys/crafts the weapon and the game moves on.

In scenario 3, you should probably just move on with the game without the weapon. Your solution might be valid in the most technical rules reading, but it is going to irritate your GM. And playing a game after irritating the GM doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

So there is nothing mechanically wrong with your idea. The problem is with the interpersonal aspects of the game.

Actually you did explain it much better. So let me try to explain my position better.

This is all just an intellectual exercise for me. VampByDay proposed a puzzle. I enjoyed trying to solve it. I have no intention of trying it myself.

Exploring the rules is one of the main reasons that I like this forum. It may be that all GMs everywhere would refuse to allow this. Fine. It may be that this is a loophole that Paizo might want to close (as they did after I suggested using shifting on magical staves). Also fine. I enjoy exploring the rules for its own sake.

But I would suggest that perhaps GMs are more varied in their approaches than you suggest. For a few, there might be another possible scenario. Let's call it 2b.

2b) The GM is willing to let your character have the weapon but wants you to justify it under the rules rather than just give it to you.

In this scenario, my argument might help. Just a thought.

Actually you did explain it much better. So let me try to explain my position better.

This is all just an intellectual exercise for me. VampByDay proposed a puzzle. I enjoyed trying to solve it. I have no intention of trying it myself.

Ah, OK. Yes, as the solution to a logic puzzle your idea for a shifting rune would work for nearly any mundane weapon. If I am remembering correctly, it wouldn't work for specific magic weapons, and not magical staves. But would for most anything else.

A 'kinda related' issue is trying to get full proficiency with a War Razor on a Rogue: Ironically, the big problem here is the fact that it is a common weapon and therefore not an option for Unconventional Weaponry...

I feel like there's a missing 'conventional weaponry' feat somewhere.

The idea behind unconventional weaponry is neat, but it feels weird when you end up making it easier for someone to learn how to use a weapon that isn't something they should have regular access to.

Like it's easier for a Sorcerer from Cheliax to learn how to use a katana than it is for one from Tian Xia where the weapons are actually from.

I feel like there's a missing 'conventional weaponry' feat somewhere.

The idea behind unconventional weaponry is neat, but it feels weird when you end up making it easier for someone to learn how to use a weapon that isn't something they should have regular access to.

Like it's easier for a Sorcerer from Cheliax to learn how to use a katana than it is for one from Tian Xia where the weapons are actually from.

Wouldn't you just use Weapon Proficiency for that then? If the weapon is already common in your area, the only benefit that Unconventional Weaponry gives is proficiency.

Maybe the difference is that Unconventional Weaponry lowers the proficiency needed for the weapon rather than increasing the proficiency that you have. That may make a difference as your class's weapon proficiency increases.

Yes, the inability to scale makes Weapon Proficiency only viable for games that will end at low level or for meeting prerequisites.

Not scaling proficiencies were, unfortunately, one of the worst decisions made in designing this (mostly great) system.

Yes, the inability to scale makes Weapon Proficiency only viable for games that will end at low level or for meeting prerequisites.

Not scaling proficiencies were, unfortunately, one of the worst decisions made in designing this (mostly great) system.

Indeed. Both Weapon Proficiency and Armor Proficiency. And it is fairly obvious and easy to do too. Make the higher tier of weapon/armor have the same proficiency as the lower tier that you already have.

So the Wizard that takes Armor Proficiency would get light armor proficiency equal to their unarmored proficiency at all levels.

A Witch that takes Weapon Proficiency would get martial weapon proficiency equal to their simple weapon proficiency.

Yes, that means fewer characters taking Champion archetype solely for the armor proficiency - but that is probably a good thing. You should be taking Champion archetype because you want to be a Champion. Same with Bastion archetype. You take the archetype because you want the other feats from the archetype in addition to the armor proficiency. If you only want the armor proficiency, that is what the general feat Armor Proficiency is for.

There is another possibility to consider, one that I'm familiar with as a GM, and that is setting / role-play based. When GM-ing I prefer and encourage (but do not actually mandate) role-play thinking during character development as opposed to pure power-game character development. That's not a judgement by the way.

For uncommon anything then, what that means is requiring the player to come up with an in-setting-believable way to fit things together.

E.g. if your Kitsune came from the Kitsune suburbs of Borington City in the Vanilla Kingdom, where the only known armaments are longsword, shortsword, longbow, and leather armor... then the markets may not have a Khakkara to buy, the character may not run across one, and the character may not even understand the concept of "Khakkara". As a result, the character also could not Craft one, shift a weapon into one, or go seeking one... just not in the character's worldview.

Obviously that can be easily solved in character concept, but if the GM wants to run e.g. a Tolkien-esque world, then he/she may ask for some character investment to explain how they have this unusual weapon. How *much* investment may depend on the player's story and how it flavors the character. I.e.
1) "Um, I just want a Khakkara because of the traits but will role play as regular joe" >> may not meet the bar for the setting
2) "I'm a well-travelled merchant and specialize in bringing unusual weapons to urban collectors, I'll be using *only* weird weapons and make it a central part of my role-play" >> probably opens the door to just about anything, with some roleplay requirements
3) "I'm a Kitsune witch and in our culture we use a signature spirit stave as a symbol of our role as advisors and masters of the arcane. Oh BTW mechanically the spirit stave is a Khakkara" >> could fit the setting, especially if Kitsune are uncommon and the culture is mysterious
4) "I'm a streetwise orphan making my way through a rough world. Never had the money for a real weapon so I hung a ring and some sharp metal bits, scavenged from the street, onto an oak staff (Khakkara). It's kept me alive so far" >> seems legit

Depending on how you play it those could net you access as a regular weapon (making it Common for you) or might require a feat tax.

Other commenters suggested some RAW options, so I'm not adding anything new mechanically, but maybe that will help your GM conversation.