Most exotic weapons in PFRPGBeta aren't good enough to spend a feat on. Light and one handed weapons are mechanically about the same as their martial and simple counterparts.
Light exotic weapons, kama, nunchaku & siangham are all worse than a shortsword or a handaxe. While these are all monk weapons, it's not good design to limit these for monks only. If these were martial or simple, the poor monk might find a decent magical weapon even when he's not fighting other monks. Only the sai is alright, because it has a special purpose beyond dealing damage. It grants the greatest bonus on disarm attempts.
One handed exotic weapons, bastard sword and dwarwen waraxe, are basically like their martial counterparts, except they deal a point more damage and look bigger. One point of damage is not worth spending a feat on, and looking awesome isn't restricted to exotic weapons. Dwarven waraxe defends its position as an exotic weapon in the sense that dwarves get it for free. Still, I can't imagine anyone else spending a feat to get one. This might be the intention and dwarven waraxe is probably not supposed to be a weapon one spends a feat on. The only good enough exotic one handed weapon is the whip. This, like the sai has one unique property that other weapons don't have. 15' reach. This justifies it's place in exotic weapons.
Let's move to two handed weapons. Spiked chain is mechanically ok. Somebody will eventually claim it's ridiculous, but mechanically speaking it is what an exotic weapon should be in my opinion. Elven curve blade is ok in the sense that it's better than a greatsword for a disarmer. The other two handed weapons are all double weapons, and fall into bastard sword trap, as they deal 1 point of damage more than their martial counterparts and look awesome.
And that's only the melee weapons. Some ranged weapons are actually weaker than their martial and simple counterparts.
Every exotic crossbow sucks when compared to light crossbow. With one feat, a character can become proficient with a crossbow that has to be reloaded in every five attacks, or one can take a feat that makes reloading a light crossbow into a free action. Light crossbow wins. As for hand crossbow, 1d4 damage might cut it against commoners and rats. Anything else will merely be wondering why it's being shot with needles.
Shurikens - can you say worse than daggers? Compare exotic weapon proficiency(shuriken) with quick draw. Results are similar to repeating crossbow example above.
Bola can somehow justify it's place among exotic weapons for being the only ranged weapon that can trip. Still, I've never heard anyone take proficiency with this unless house rules have been involved.
Net is a special case. I've never seen anyone take proficiency with this, but I've sometimes seen people use these without proficiency. -4 nonproficiency penalty means that a ranged touch attack is still more likely to hit than a normal attack if the enemy has touch AC 4 lower than normal AC.
Someone might think that not every exotic weapon has to be better than their martial counterparts. That simply isn't true. A player shouldn't have to make the choice between equipping his character with an awesome weapon and an effective weapon.
|
Without the book in front of me...
Doesn't the exotic weapons in general have a higher crit multiplier?
Also the double weapons allow you to use both ends of the weapon during combat and definitely should be double weapons. However I might add a few more abilities to double weapons (perhaps a bit more damage output- or an AC bonus- think Darth Maul here).
|
I agree with most everything here. But I'd like to suggest a solution which doesn't involve changing everything, instead adding a few lines to the definition of exotic weapons.
All Exotic Weapons, have a +1 Attack Bonus, +1 Crit Range, and +1 Crit Multiplier, against anyone who is not proficient in the weapon due to it's unfamiliarity, when wielded by someone who is proficient with it.
This means that most any Simple or Martial Weapon can have an exotic equivalent, which is trickier to master, but is surprising to those who are unfamiliar with it.
The shuriken is actually, mechanically, not a horrible choice for an exotic weapon, with a few provisos.
Shuriken are the cheapest thrown weapon in terms of per unit cost, if you are having them enchanted. It is entirely resonable for a character that specializes in thrown with feats to grab 10 +3 holy, and still have cash for a handful of cold iron, silver, and adamantine shuriken as a backup to their primary thrown returning weapon (starknife or whatever), since they are enchanted as ammo. Doing the same with a stack of daggers or darts is cost ineffective, even when most of the time the shuriken goes away. Each shuriken is not used for the trivial amount of damage they do, but as a carrier for a full attack worth of sneak attack, skirmish, other rider damage and strength. It, like the whip, fills a niche, and is a reasonable candidate for exotic, as it does things that other thrown weapons can't.
I must say this is a fairly good analysis of Exotic Weapons (other than missing that Kamas and Nunchakas also have special properties (trip and disarm)). I don't agree with the conclusions quite, but very good analysis.
The on the double weapons - the only non-exotic one is the quarterstaff, doing 1d6/1d6 with x2 crit. The Double Axe and Two-bladed Sword both do 1d8/1d8, with a better crit multiplier/range respectively. That is significant enough of an improvement IMHO. Compared to either dual-wielding battle axes/longswords or longsword/shortsword there is either a -2 penalty for off-hand weapon not being light, or a feat cost to improve with the lighter off-hand weapon.
The toughest comparison is to shortsword/shortsword, there is only the damage increase from 1d6 to 1d8. That is sufficient IMHO, along with the ability to two-hand the double weapon in some situations (such as a first strike after moving).
Much more than a single damage point improvement will essentially make exotic weapons "must-haves" for most, making the martial weapons, supposedly common, virtually extinct. Perhaps I exaggerate here, but I like the current balance.
Some other weapons could use a nudge up, and he makes a very excellent point about repeating crossbow/rapid reload. Shuriken are slightly better than daggers because you can craft them masterwork or magic at 1/50th the cost (since they count as ammunition). You both don't have to retrieve them, and usually can't retrieve them (destroyed on hit, 50% survival on miss). [Edit: What Treelynx said.]
Forgot one important part of opening post. How I'd solve this problem.
Backwards compatible solution would be to make the weak exotic weapons into martial and simple weapons. All weapon stats would remain the same, only some characters would gain a free feat. As all characters gain more feats in PFRPG anyway, this wouldn't change the need to add more feats when converting from 3.5e.
Kama, Siangham, nunchaku, crossbows and shuriken would become simple weapons.
Argument for repeating crossbows being simple rather than martial:
A repeating crossbow is only slightlty better than a regular crossbow, and light crossbow + rapid reload is better than a repeating crossbow. Repeating crossbows become good only when extra attacks are gained, and even then bows are better in both speed and damage. For the price of a repeating heavy crossbow one can get a mighty (+3) composite longbow that deals 2 points more damage on average. For less than the price of a repeating light crossbow one can get a mighty(+1) composite longbow that deals 1 point more damage on average.
Bolas would become martial weapons.
Bastard sword could get dwarven waraxe treatment, meaning some race or class would get proficiency in it for free. This way it doesn't have to stand up to other exotic weapons, as it's not supposed to be worth a feat. This treatment would also fix exotic double weapons.
---
Net I'd like to modify so it'd provide a shield bonus to AC and could be used to make trip attacks with in addition to entangling an opponent, but that pipe dream is most likely outside the scope of PFRPG.
I must say this is a fairly good analysis of Exotic Weapons (other than missing that Kamas and Nunchakas also have special properties (trip and disarm)). I don't agree with the conclusions quite, but very good analysis.
Kama's trip application I didn't mention because sickle can also be used to make trip attacks. Sickle it simple, kama is exotic. Other than that they're identical. Nunchakas' disarm bonus wasn't mentioned because sai just does it better.
Much more than a single damage point improvement will essentially make exotic weapons "must-haves" for most, making the martial weapons, supposedly common, virtually extinct. Perhaps I exaggerate here, but I like the current balance.
Even if the difference was two points, these weapons wouldn't be must haves for everyone if they cost a feat. Even Weapon Specialization isn't taken by every fighter looking to deal damage.
As for the dagger vs shuriken case. Daggers become more cost effective in the long run. You don't have to replace daggers after you hit with them once. Also, bows do sneak attack delivery better than shurikens and everyone who has sneak attack is proficient with at least the shortbow.
Regardless of backwards compatibility, i strongly recommend the Weapons Groups, as per Unearthed Arcana, rather than the plain and bland weapon types (basic/martial/exotic).
It makes sooo much more sense to attribute a weapon group to a race, a class or an organization.
As for the dagger vs shuriken case. Daggers become more cost effective in the long run. You don't have to replace daggers after you hit with them once. Also, bows do sneak attack delivery better than shurikens and everyone who has sneak attack is proficient with at least the shortbow.
I partially disagree.
Cost of dagger at 2gp is equal to the cost of 10 shuriken. One masterwork dagger costs 302 gp, whereas 50 masterwork shuriken cost 310 gp. I could go on, but unless you are filling the air with hundreds of shuriken every attack of every fight, there is a net positive to using the shuriken sometimes. Comparing a character optimized for throwing, to a character optimized for archery is moot, although the composite shortbow is a better skirmish/sneak attack weapon, thrown allows for melee/ranged hybrid tricks with a decent strength bonus. My vote would be to kick up the threat range for the shuriken, and maybe add 5' or 10' to the range increment, as shuriken are made for flight like the dart.
Comparing a character optimized for throwing, to a character optimized for archery is moot, although the composite shortbow is a better skirmish/sneak attack weapon, thrown allows for melee/ranged hybrid tricks with a decent strength bonus. My vote would be to kick up the threat range for the shuriken, and maybe add 5' or 10' to the range increment, as shuriken are made for flight like the dart.
Why is comparing shortbow to shuriken moot? A bow/melee character would carry the bow in one hand and when not using it a melee weapon in the other. A shuriken/melee character would use one hand for shurikens and the other for melee, or shuriken at range and a two handed weapon in melee. I fail to see how shurikens are vastly superior to bows in ranged/melee hybrids.
My vote would be to kick up the threat range for the shuriken, and maybe add 5' or 10' to the range increment, as shuriken are made for flight like the dart.
Yes, beefing up shuriken to make it worth a feat would solve the problem for shuriken.
|
I don't really care about strength of exotic weapons rather that they make sense. A lot of the weapons on the exotic weapon list really aren't weapons that require special training, the exotic crossbows come to mind. There really is no reason that making a crossbow smaller, or making it with a reload cartridge would require special training to figure out. A monkey could pick up and reload a repeating crossbow and fire it. And then weapons that actually would require special training to use are martial, Starknife I'm looking at you. Anyone who attempted to attack me in melee with a starknife in real life would be a person with a slashed wrist in about 5 seconds unless they had spent a loooot of time training with the thing (i.e. in game terms taking the feat)
If you put strange, unusual and/or unwieldy weapons like starknife into exotic weapon category, you'll have to boost their usefulness compared to martial weapons. Right now the starknife is fine as it is, but if made into exotic weapon with no adjustment into stats, it's mechanically not going to be worth a feat. This means, that characters who are considering wielding one are going to decide if their characters are effective or awesome. That decision is bad for the game in my opinion.
I agree with most everything here. But I'd like to suggest a solution which doesn't involve changing everything, instead adding a few lines to the definition of exotic weapons.
All Exotic Weapons, have a +1 Attack Bonus, +1 Crit Range, and +1 Crit Multiplier, against anyone who is not proficient in the weapon due to it's unfamiliarity, when wielded by someone who is proficient with it.
This means that most any Simple or Martial Weapon can have an exotic equivalent, which is trickier to master, but is surprising to those who are unfamiliar with it.
Interesting Idea, however I think you went a little too far.
How about a simple +1 hit, and +1 confirm critical (+2 total).
<|> Had a long post written and it got dumped... grrr! <|>
Basically, I totally agree with the OP... exotic weapons are, with a few exceptions, not worth the feat. Each exotic needs to provide some kind of tangible benefit or special ability to be worth it. Equal to a basic feat in quality.
Double-weapons are IMO similarly useless. Basically, you get a two-handed weapon that acts as two weapons, with an off-hand light weapon penalty. Okay, how is that any better than double wielding two short swords? A d8 vs d6, two-handed bonus vs disarm, etc. Is that worth a feat? I don't think so... get rid of that two weapon penalty and its probably worth it.
Ultimately, the double weapons are there so a character can switch between two handed fighting (1.5 str, all the feats linked to THF) and two weapon fighting, while being able to train in a single weapon. You still have to enchant up both sides of your double weapon, but you gain 1 average damage and +50% or more of your Str mod whenever it is more optimal for you to, versus fighting with two light weapons.
In the same way, the hand and a half weapons, like the bastard sword, are there to allow character's to switch between TWF or a shield, and THF. One of the issues is that it is possible that Two Handed Fighting is, in fact, too good at this time. If the other combat options for the other hand are patched up to be slightly better than they are currently, then it may sort itself out, and it might make sense for characters to spend a feat to allow themselves to use a weapon that gives them meaningful choices in combat.
Double-weapons are IMO similarly useless. Basically, you get a two-handed weapon that acts as two weapons, with an off-hand light weapon penalty. Okay, how is that any better than double wielding two short swords? A d8 vs d6, two-handed bonus vs disarm, etc. Is that worth a feat? I don't think so... get rid of that two weapon penalty and its probably worth it.
I tried to find weapon size modifiers to disarm rolls and found out they don't exist in Beta. (actually, the fact that weapon size doesn't factor into disarm anymore is the reason I think sai is worthy of being an exotic weapon.)
In the same way, the hand and a half weapons, like the bastard sword, are there to allow character's to switch between TWF or a shield, and THF. One of the issues is that it is possible that Two Handed Fighting is, in fact, too good at this time. If the other combat options for the other hand are patched up to be slightly better than they are currently, then it may sort itself out, and it might make sense for characters to spend a feat to allow themselves to use a weapon that gives them meaningful choices in combat.
Still, one can do the same thing with a longsword. Bastard sword offers only +1 damage. That's not enough.
Ultimately, the double weapons are there so a character can switch between two handed fighting (1.5 str, all the feats linked to THF) and two weapon fighting, while being able to train in a single weapon. You still have to enchant up both sides of your double weapon, but you gain 1 average damage and +50% or more of your Str mod whenever it is more optimal for you to, versus fighting with two light weapons.
The problem here is that currently two weapon fighting is viable only with sneak attack dice. Because two weapon fighting in itself requires high dexterity, less stat points can be put into strength. This is why the damage bonus from +50% str bonus when making a single attack will usually be very small. Also, double weapons aren't finessable, so using them will most likely hurt two weapon user's chances to hit quite a bit.
It isn't always about mechanics. Weapons such as repeating crossbows are exotic for the simple fact that they're rare. If they were martial, how many crossbows would you see IG compared to repeating ones?
It can also be about martial training as well. I can picture soilders being taught to use swords and bows, but a spiked chain? A type of crossbow that costs more than a typical watchmen's suit of armour? Not likely.
So what if exotic weapons are a little underpowered, how does that make someone who takes the feat different from someone who takes underpowered ability XY or Z purly for the RP aspect of it? Besides, sacrificing a feat doesn't mean as much in PFRPG due to the increased amount.
|
|
Well, I have been going over the Exotic Weapons and am generally OK with them. Almost all have some special ability, or have great damage and crit ranges.
Some are exotic just because they are not really going to be included in standard weapons training.
Actually I was thinking my next fighter will be a Spiked Chain fighter, or a Dire Flail. These are quite cool. Might take whip as well if it is improved just a bit.
It isn't always about mechanics. Weapons such as repeating crossbows are exotic for the simple fact that they're rare. If they were martial, how many crossbows would you see IG compared to repeating ones?
Quite a lot actually. From players' point of view, normal crossbows will be used by sorcerers, wizards, monks, clerics and other classes not proficient in martial weapons. The rest of the world would use normal crossbows simply because they're a lot cheaper than repeating crossbows.
It can also be about martial training as well. I can picture soilders being taught to use swords and bows, but a spiked chain? A type of crossbow that costs more than a typical watchmen's suit of armour? Not likely.
I doubt anyone would like to see spiked chain moved from exotic weapon category. As for the repeating crossbow, only it's relaoding system is different from normal crossbows, why would it be more difficult to use? Also, if an NPC is not using one, it doesn't matter if he has had training with it or not.
So what if exotic weapons are a little underpowered, how does that make someone who takes the feat different from someone who takes underpowered ability XY or Z purly for the RP aspect of it? Besides, sacrificing a feat doesn't mean as much in PFRPG due to the increased amount.
I fail to see how making a roleplaying choice should make characters mechanically worse.
I don't want exotic weapons to be better, for the simple reason that, if they were, the historical record would show their use as being predominant. But that's not the case. As someone who has trained unarmed and with weapons, the specific tool is a LOT less important than the person using it. I can do more damage with a 3-ft. wooden stick than a less-experienced person can using a 3-ft. steel sword; that's just a reality of combat -- that's why Musashi reportedly stopped using real swords in duels (he was just as well off with wooden replicas).
Also witness the golf match in Tin Cup, in which the main character uses shovels, rakes, etc. to great effect in lieu of golf clubs.
In my homebrew campaign, using a bastard sword is aimed at sheer prestige: "Look at me! I'm so good that I have all these spare feats to burn on exotic weapons!"
Just a homebrewed rule I would like to mention here:
I let people take exotic weapon proficiency for any martial weapon... with that proficiency they can do one of the following:
1. Improve base damage by one step
2. Improve Crit range by one point
3. Improve Crit Damage by one multiplier
4. Turn the weapon into a double weapon provided it is not a 2 handed weapon.
5. Give a + 2 modifier to some other combat related ability (trip, disarm, or AC generally).
|
I don't want exotic weapons to be better, for the simple reason that, if they were, the historical record would show their use as being predominant. But that's not the case. As someone who has trained unarmed and with weapons, the specific tool is a LOT less important than the person using it. I can do more damage with a 3-ft. wooden stick than a less-experienced person can using a 3-ft. steel sword; that's just a reality of combat -- that's why Musashi reportedly stopped using real swords in duels (he was just as well off with wooden replicas).
Also witness the golf match in Tin Cup, in which the main character uses shovels, rakes, etc. to great effect in lieu of golf clubs.
In my homebrew campaign, using a bastard sword is aimed at sheer prestige: "Look at me! I'm so good that I have all these spare feats to burn on exotic weapons!"
Bastard (or hand-and-a-half) swords were fairly common. I don't see how using a claymore effectively (or a broadsword or longsword, for that matter) in combat is any less training intensive than a bastard sword.
Kama were just rice field tools, nothing special, pretty much glorified peasant weapons made "exotic" by kung fu theater. Almost all of the asian style weapons are only "exotic" filtered through western eyes, they aren't exotic in their original setting.
Spiked chains are just goofy.
And how is a whip "exotic", exactly? Because Indy used one? Or nets, for that matter.
"Exotic" weapon proficiency rules, meh. Gamist thinking at its finest. Maybe they should just go back to having a set number of weapon proficiencies per class, and add one/x levels, like the old days. Really. Like, just by being a fighter, ranger or barbarian, you learned how to effectively use over 50 types of weapons (all the simple and martial weapons) during your training as a youth.
Pure crazy talk...
|
|
I dunno about the whip. It took me about ten minutes playing with a bullwhip to make it do what I wanted. It's all in the wrist.
Spiked chains are still goofy, though.
Nets? I doubt it would take much more training than any other weapon. I assume the premise of the martial classes is that they spend years learning their weapons anyway, so why would a net be any different? Seriously, unless you were required to take the EWP at first level, it makes no sense. "Yeah, you know, when I turned sixth level, in the two weeks between that time we sacked the troll lair and the current quest for the princess's magical truffles, I crammed 15 years worth of training and now I can whip people!"
I can see the Exotic Weapons holding their place because they are uncommon. Okay, I can buy that.
But in a game that is feat starved (yes, Pathfinder helps that, but not all that much) I would like to add in my vote for a little something added to Exotic Weapons.
The Hand Crossbow is my weapon of choice in this regard.
For 100gps, you get 1D4 damage, a threat range of 19-20, a multiplier of x2, and a range of 30. Note, you don't even get ammo to shot with it for that 100 gold.
For the same money, you can get 50 daggers and you only give up 2/3rds of your range and gain the ability to use them in melee without provoking AoO.
Come on. That is pretty craptacular. My CotCT Rogue starts out proficient with Hand Crossbow, and when we found one I was first in line to sell the thing.
|
|
Double-weapons are IMO similarly useless. Basically, you get a two-handed weapon that acts as two weapons, with an off-hand light weapon penalty. Okay, how is that any better than double wielding two short swords? A d8 vs d6, two-handed bonus vs disarm, etc. Is that worth a feat? I don't think so... get rid of that two weapon penalty and its probably worth it.
First; I agree whole-heartedly with the OP that the exotic weapons are poorly balanced.
Some are too good - like the spiked chain - that needs to be pegged down a bit. I would suggest making it NOT threaten squares 10' away. The wielder can ATTACK that far away, but during the rest of the time, it is not extended rigid (like a longspear) and thus should not threaten the squares out there; it makes more sense that it has slack and hangs closer to the attack when he's not actively swinging/attack a specific spot - otherwise if it was continuosly flying like a helicopter propeller it would be hitting every wall, statue, table, pillar, door, gate, ally, etc throughout the round. This would make it balanced I believe.
Some are on par - I put the double weapons in that category - to answer nomadicc - the benefit of them is that if you make a move action and can only make one attack, you have the advantage of making a 1.5 Str mod and possible 2xPower Attack damage by attacking with just one end, then can easily switch to making two attacks the following round. This is impossible with two seperate weapons. Furthermore - using 3.5, the double weapon being wielded makes it harder to sunder, disarm, etc, and makes the wielder better at those when making only one attack with two hands.
Others have no point having a feat spent on them when compared to martial.
As was touched on, the Dwarven Waraxe and Bastard sword are identical to the battle axe and longsword respectively except that they do 1 additional point of damage.
Someone said that the point of a bastard sword is that it can be switched freely as a one or two-handed weapon; technically by the rules so can a longsword be wielded in two hands.
The Repeater: Why would anyone spend a feat to have a weapon that they need to reload? For that same feat I can choose "Martial Weapon - Longbow" Fire as often as I want, no reloading, AND I can apply strength damage for a nomial increase in cost of item. Or if I can save a feat by being a "martial" character class that alreayd HAS longbow. OR I can do so as a wizard if I'm an elf! Even with a Hvy Repeater I'm doing 1 pt of extra damage on average and if i spend a second feat on Rapid Reload it's STILL a Move action every other round or so to reload - making me only get one attack. Meanwhile that elven wizard is making full attacks every round and didn't spend a feat on using it!
Here are my suggestions for making these weapons worth the feat:
Dwarven Waraxe / Bastard Sword: Can do damage from weilder's strength score as if he were wielding it in 2 hands (thus getting 1.5 Str mod to damage while wielding in 1 hand). This does NOT increase damage from Power Attack.
With a 22 Str, were talking an extra 3 points of damage. Even at a 28 Str thats only +4 damage. That is worth the feat, I think. And it gives something back to the sword and boarders who are always left behind in favor of the 2-handed fighters.
Repeater: Make 1 size repeating crossbow (not light and heavy). Make reloading it after five shots a SWIFT action. Since thats still not as lucrative as say the long bow that still doesn't need to spend a swift action (and doesn't need a feat to use) - improve the repeater a bit more by: Dmg 1d10 Crit: 19-20 / x3 This is the same critical modifier as a longbow - but the range is better. But you can't add STRENGTH damage, so rolling a critical is not going to be multiplying that strength damage that a mighty long bown can.
Somone with Rapid Reload could then reload it as a Free Action.
Finally alot of the other weapons seems to have neat little tricks etc that justify their exotic nature.
Robert
Quite a lot actually. From players' point of view, normal crossbows will be used by sorcerers, wizards, monks, clerics and other classes not proficient in martial weapons. The rest of the world would use normal crossbows simply because they're a lot cheaper than repeating crossbows.
If Repeating crossbows become martial weapons then it's likely sorcerers/wizards etc will become proficent in them anyway. As I said, the only real reason why it's exotic is because it's rare, so if it suddenly becomes as commplace as a regular crossbow then they should be proficicent with it anyway.
I fail to see how making a roleplaying choice should make characters mechanically worse.
Your've never seen a character weakened by taking a feat or ability motivated purly by roleplay?
If Repeating crossbows become martial weapons then it's likely sorcerers/wizards etc will become proficent in them anyway. As I said, the only real reason why it's exotic is because it's rare, so if it suddenly becomes as commplace as a regular crossbow then they should be proficicent with it anyway.
Being rare does not equal being exotic. A weapon may be rare simply because it's more expensive than other weapons. Also, sorcerers and wizards aren't proficient in martial weapons. If they want to become proficient, they have to spend a feat or multiclass. Multiclassing is bad for loss of caster levels and a feat would be spent under 3.5 or Beta anyway. Also, repeating crossbows don't even offer that much for a character with a poor base attack bonus. The main reason for using one is to gain multiple attacks, which primary arcane casters don't get until 12th level. (And, as Robert Brambley pointed out, why would anyone pick a repeating crossbow when they could get composite longbow instead?)
Your've never seen a character weakened by taking a feat or ability motivated purly by roleplay?
You're missing my point. I find it strange that taking a feat for any reason should result in a significant difference in power if the intention for taking the feat was to make character better at what he does (that is, character's player isn't deliberately shooting themselves in the foot for the sake of "good roleplaying". An example of this is a single classed fighter who picks up metamagic feats to represent their knowledge of the arcane).
|
|
I find it strange that taking a feat for any reason should result in a significant difference in power if the intention for taking the feat was to make character better at what he does (that is, character's player isn't deliberately shooting themselves in the foot for the sake of "good roleplaying". An example of this is a single classed fighter who picks up metamagic feats to represent their knowledge of the arcane).
Thats not only shooting yourself in the foot - thats shooting yourself in the foot with a repeating crossbow! How ironic - you'd need a feat to shoot yourself in the...feet.....
sorry....couldn't help myself.
(And, as Robert Brambley pointed out, why would anyone pick a repeating crossbow when they could get composite longbow instead?)
so then what did you think of my suggestions for correcting this notion?
Robert
I wouldn't be opposed to globally increasing the damage by one step for exotic weapons. Abraham presents a fantastic idea though, it makes exotic weapon proficiency an attractive feat, and it'd give non-fighters a great way to do something interesting in melee.
There is no way bastard sword should be "exotic." Sure, commoners wouldn't normally have one. But they wouldn't normally have heavy armor either, and fighters get that feat for free.
In the early and high middle ages it would've been rare. Noblemen like Robert the Bruce and Mel Gibson... er, William Wallace, had them. In the late medieval to early renaissance they were more common. It's just a sword, used exactly like a longsword, except its design is developed little better.
People lets not forget... the Bastard sword is not an exotic weapon.... neither is the dwarven waraxe.
They are two handed martial weapons that you can take exotic weapon proficiency for to make into one handed weapons.
If you have martial weapon proficiency you can use a bastard sword or dwarven waraxe two handed with no penalty.
|
|
The Hand Crossbow is my weapon of choice in this regard.For 100gps, you get 1D4 damage, a threat range of 19-20, a multiplier of x2, and a range of 30. Note, you don't even get ammo to shot with it for that 100 gold.
For the same money, you can get 50 daggers and you only give up 2/3rds of your range and gain the ability to use them in melee without provoking AoO.
Come on. That is pretty craptacular. My CotCT Rogue starts out proficient with Hand Crossbow, and when we found one I was first in line to sell the thing.
Yeah, it should be a d6 at least, not to be silly.
In my adaptation of Eberron, along with a friend who DMs another campaign, we have tried the following changes:
-each player receives two "points" according to his upbringing (we have used different systems to determine such);
-each upbringing gives acces to certain skills (usually knowledges, crafts and professions), languages (usually two) or weapon proficiencies (usually three, with one exotic treated as a martial);
-each player can use those "points" to purchase a skill to be treated as class, a language he now knows or a weapon he is familiar with, according to his upbringing.
We found that helps to give flavor to character and link them a bit more to their roots.
The choice of skills, languages and weapons can be in relation with the environment the player lived in (desert, plains, forest, etc.), the type of social system (rural, savage, urban, etc.) or the country he lived in (Viking world, Arabian nights, etc.).
The system I'm working on right now for my Eberron adaptation is trying to remain simple, with each area of Khorvaire given skills, languages and weapons. For example, I have:
Karrnath
Extra Weapons : Glaive, Bastard Sword, Double Crossbow
Extra Languages : Khorvak, Urgan
Extra Skills : Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (History)
This helps give acces to some exotic weapons for fighter types, without requiring a feat, as long as it remains in line with the character's upbringing.
I agree with the OP concerning the actual balance of the exotic weapons. The aforementioned system helps solve this in a way by making those weapons linked with an area.
But I also reviewed the list of exotic weapon with my friend.
We have put the Kama with the Sickle (simple weapon)and the Nunchaku with the Light Flail (martial).
We have also created, partly using the splatbooks, versions of all weapon types to be used one-handed with increased damage. Thus there is the Dire Pick, the Long Scimitar (or Katana), the Warmace and the Aundair Spear, to name a few. Same kind of thing for certain light exotic weapons.
Our list of exotic weapons is now longer and contains versions of Mauls, Spears and others. We have made an effort to give access to those through the "point" system according to upbringing. For example, the Aundair Spear is a martial weapon if you are from Aundair and took a point for it.
Finally, I have removed most double weapons from my list as they, IMO, don't make much sense and have no rela historical parallel.
I really like this system as it also brings in flavor and makes certain weapons more available, but in a certain area.
DW
|
|
I'd be all for allowing 1.5 damage one-handed as long as you still have to use a two-handed grip to get the benefit of feats like Overhand Chop, Backswing and Devastating Blow.
That was exactly my suggestion for the weapon to be make appropriate to spend a feat to use it one-handed (as opposed to just one more point on avg between it and longsword). This applies to the Dwarven Waraxe, too.
Robert
|
Many interesting comments here.
I would like to add a comment that may not be popular.
One of the best examples of an exotic weapon is...
The Longbow.
Of course in D&D/PF it is considered a martial weapon and not exotic, but from a real world historical context the longbow was rare, difficult to use and required extensive training and as such was an advantage to the english armies that had trained longbow archers. This weapon did not develop in other cultures, except perhaps japan, and was for an extended time almost exclusive to england and even withjin england the longbow archer was rare.
What was the development to counter the longbow, aside from firearms later? It was the crossbow. The crossbow required much less training to use than a longbow and could approach the longbow's power, if not equal it early on, but it's main advantage being that the crossbow could be used without special training - point and shoot. This allowed both england and other nations to readily field archers that could deliver powerful ammunition against heavily armored enemy warriors and begin to eliminate the advantage of the mounted knight.
So... would anyone agree that a longbow should be an exotic weapon in D&D/PF? I'm guessing there aren't too many hands being raised in agreement but from a real world point of view, the longbow is in my opinion, a text book example of the so called "exotic" weapon.
Actually extensive training is why the longbow is considered a martial weapon whilst a crossbow is a simple weapon.
In my game, the exotic list includes a Greatbow (or Daikyu).
Turning the longbow into an exotic weapon would create a lot of backward compatibility problems and not really solve the problem put forward by the OP.
DW