A player in one of out games wanted something like the falcata, but two-handed. So the question is this: is it too cheesy to allow this exotic weapon:
[Two-handed falcata variant] Cost: x, Dmg: 1d10, Crit: 19-20/x3, Wt: x, Type: S
Note: According to the weapon size table, the increased damage should be 2d6. But that seemed too good to me.
the falcata, despite being a 1handed weapon is already the best 2hander out there from a pure caclulation from DPR.
you don't need to make it better at it's abused purpose.
it's already somehow better than all the other exotic weapons.
A player in one of out games wanted something like the falcata, but two-handed. So the question is this: is it too cheesy to allow this exotic weapon:
[Two-handed falcata variant] Cost: x, Dmg: 1d10, Crit: 19-20/x3, Wt: x, Type: S
Note: According to the weapon size table, the increased damage should be 2d6. But that seemed too good to me.
A falcata, weilded in two hands, is already the highest DPR weapon around for most builds.
If he wants one that's two-handed, for instance for the Two-Handed Fighter class, then he needs to use a large falcata and take a -2 to attack rolls for using a weapon for a large character. It's 2D6 19-20/x3 and is a two-handed weapon for him, but he takes a -2 to attack rolls with it.
If he's not going with the Two-Handed Fighter archetype, then he should just suck it up and use the falcata that already exists, but simply wield it in two hands for the higher STR and Power Attack bonuses. Or he could still use the large one, but the -2 on attack rolls ends up hurting DPR more than the +2.5 average damage per swing helps it.
Theoretically speaking, there is no rule (per RAW) which prevents him from wielding a falcata two-handed as it is. It is, however, a very common house-rule to forbid wielding a falcata two-handed; the reason is two-fold: first, from a fluff stand-point, the hilt of real life falcatas were constructed with one-handed wielding in mind, and could not accommodate two hands. Secondly, from a mechanical perspective, the falcata is one of the most powerful weapons in the game, very much well worth the price of the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat; many people feel that strictly limiting the falcata to one-handed wielding, thus preventing the wielder from benefiting from two-handed Power Attack Bonuses, keeps the falacata from being stepping over the line from 'powerful and worth a feat to wield' to 'so powerful you'd be crazy not to use it.'
A greatsword is a two-handed martial weapon that does 2d6, 19-20/x2. If he wants to blow an feat on EWP ("2h falcata") for it and pay a smith to custom craft a masterwork "2h falcata" version for him, I'd allow it at 1d12 (like a greataxe), 19-20/x3.
But he probably won't have too much luck finding magic versions of his custom sword as loot/treasure.
Edit: The lack of loot-able versions isn't necessarily a negative if he wants to keep specializing in his custom weapon, adding magical abilities to it and developing his mastery in it. He could even become a weapons instructor and open his own specialty school when he retires.
A greatsword is a two-handed martial weapon that does 2d6, 19-20/x2. If he wants to blow an feat on EWP ("2h falcata") for it and pay a smith to custom craft a masterwork version for him, I'd allow it at 1d12 (like a greataxe), 19-20/x3.
But he probably won't have too much luck finding magic versions of his custom sword as loot/treasure.
This is a rather tired argument, but...
If you would allow someone to take a stackable Improved Critical feat at level 1 for a greataxe, would you allow it with other weapons as well? A falchion, perhaps, or a scythe?
A player in one of out games wanted something like the falcata, but two-handed. So the question is this: is it too cheesy to allow this exotic weapon:
[Two-handed falcata variant] Cost: x, Dmg: 1d10, Crit: 19-20/x3, Wt: x, Type: S
Note: According to the weapon size table, the increased damage should be 2d6. But that seemed too good to me.
Your player sounds very much like a powergamer. Personally, I'd never allow it. As has been said already, the Falcata is the best weapon in the game based on DPR. If he wants a big two handed version of it, make him use a large weapon.
This is a rather tired argument, but...
That didn't seem necessary. :(
If you would allow someone to take a stackable Improved Critical feat at level 1 for a greataxe, would you allow it with other weapons as well? A falchion, perhaps, or a scythe?
Neither I nor the original poster said he'd get it at first level. I deliberately specified masterwork: on average a fighter starts out with only 175gp total. As he gains wealth, sure he could afford to commission a smith, but that's money he's not spending on armor, a belt of strength, healing potions, etc. And with a one of a kind sword, he's gonna either 1) keep paying to enhance his unique blade, or 2) use something else and waste that feat.
And I'm ok as a GM allowing an exotic two-handed weapon at 1d12, 19-20/x3. Blowing a whole feat on a single exotic weapon at that damage and crit/multiplier is fine with me; an exotic weapon feat should give some bang for its buck.
But that is only for going up to the next damage die, not an increase in improved critical range or multiplier. If he later adds keen to the blade, all the other blade enhancements will cost increasingly more. If he goes for the Improved Critical feat, he is already a minimum +8 BAB. At those levels, a little boost (and yes, I've seen the math) to one weapon for a full BAB melee-er is acceptible to keep up with the casters.
Yeah, I think the player is trying to beat the system. But I'd like to find little ways to work with them to get them a PC they will enjoy playing. If the original poster had said the player has a history of this or munchkin-ing, I'd have said "No."
Blowing a whole feat on a single exotic weapon at that damage and crit/multiplier is fine with me; an exotic weapon feat should give some bang for its buck
Exotic weapon feats already give a bang for its buck. Between a normal falcata and elven curve blade, you're looking at two of the best weapons in the game. Honestly, if min-maxing that hard is the only way for them to get a PC they'll enjoy playing, I'd rather not have them at my table. Working with people is one thing, but there's certainly limits.
Blowing a whole feat on a single exotic weapon at that damage and crit/multiplier is fine with me; an exotic weapon feat should give some bang for its buckExotic weapon feats already give a bang for its buck. Between a normal falcata and elven curve blade, you're looking at two of the best weapons in the game. Honestly, if min-maxing that hard is the only way for them to get a PC they'll enjoy playing, I'd rather not have them at my table. Working with people is one thing, but there's certainly limits.
Eh, I gave my reasons and I never said it was anything beyond my opinion. If the player persists in similar behavior, I'd just put on my evil GM cap.
A player in one of out games wanted something like the falcata, but two-handed. So the question is this: is it too cheesy to allow this exotic weapon:
[Two-handed falcata variant] Cost: x, Dmg: 1d10, Crit: 19-20/x3, Wt: x, Type: S
Note: According to the weapon size table, the increased damage should be 2d6. But that seemed too good to me.
I believe that the regular Falcata is cheesy enough as it is. If this is actually for flavor (which I doubt that it is), then then I would just let him have one, but make it damage wise the same. Otherwise, I would just say no, use a great sword or elven curved blade.
I'm still trying to decide if I should allow the normal Falcata in my current game. hmm... maybe I will go with the 1 hand only variant.
The 1-handed variant is a pretty slick house-rule. But as a GM I nonetheless prefer to specify that the falcata is a 1d8 19-20/x2 weapon that does x3 criticals on a natural 20. This significantly tones the weapon down, but its more in line with other exotic weapons.
Such a falcata could scale up to a two-handed weapon "safely", but I still wouldn't recommend it.
The 1-handed variant is a pretty slick house-rule. But as a GM I nonetheless prefer to specify that the falcata is a 1d8 19-20/x2 weapon that does x3 criticals on a natural 20. This significantly tones the weapon down, but its more in line with other exotic weapons.
Such a falcata could scale up to a two-handed weapon "safely", but I still wouldn't recommend it.
that is actually a pretty decent way to balance the falcata, think I might steal it
It looks like weapons, as they go up the chard of handed-ness and Simple to Exotic, each step adds one thing each: Damage dice, threat range, crit multiplier, or special abilites and for the most part add up that way.
so a "2h Falcata" could jump to 2d6 or an equivalent like d8's do in martial weapons.
By that logic you could get other exotic weapons that follow that pattern, but new flavor would be cool, change the dice depending
2d4, 19-20/x4 is a Scythe more for murder than farming.
2d4, 18-20/x3 is a weighted more like a falchion with the foreword thing
or a favorite of mine put it "-on-a-stick" give it reach, and that's it, or Sunder! or trip/disarm but that's a waste of high crit stuff
but I'd be down for an exotic scythe that crits twice as much, (or an axe that crits both faster AND harder)
The 1-handed variant is a pretty slick house-rule. But as a GM I nonetheless prefer to specify that the falcata is a 1d8 19-20/x2 weapon that does x3 criticals on a natural 20. This significantly tones the weapon down, but its more in line with other exotic weapons.
I don't have a problem with the falcata in our game for now. We're running a very tough adventure path, and the power of the weapon seems appropriate. In less brutal AP's, however, the proposed fix sounds good. Good job, Lorekeeper!
Thanks for the input, folks. The 2-handed falcata variant does sound beastly. I think in the future I'll disallow 2-handing the standard falcata, too.