Exotic doesn't mean better...
Its exotic because you/your culture/planet isn't used to seeing it or using it as a weapon.
There is the crux of the problem. You are having to burn a feat to use a weapon which in all sense belongs to your PCs culture. That is when as a GM you should step in and make it martial or simple for that PC.
It is not worth a feat, especially with the huge Spiked Chain nerf. Yes it was over powered in 3.5, but with the other changes made to trip, it was fine. Now it is about equal to a martial weapon.
Honest question; how many people have seen this weapon even used any more?
The spiked chain is one of the few two-handed weapons that can be finessed. It is also one of only a handful that deal multiple dice of damage. It also has the disarm and trip properties.
That's a whole heck of a lot to put into a single package--an extremely versatile weapon to say the least. You can use it with power attacking two-handers, finesse builds, vital strikers, or trick fighters. Heck, a high level fighter could be all of those things with this weapon, becoming extremely versatile.
You move in and smack a guy for decent damage with greater vital strike. On your next turn you full attack, tripping him with your greater trip and superior Dexterity modifier, followed by a greater disarm to send his weapon hurling away, then while he is on the ground and vulnerable you Power Attack and smack him over and over for a bit more damage.
It's not the cream of the crop, but it most definitely has a niche.
I agree. Exotic Weapon Proficiancy should be a flat trait in it self. It is not worth a feat, especially with the huge Spiked Chain nerf. Yes it was over powered in 3.5, but with the other changes made to trip, it was fine. Now it is about equal to a martial weapon.
Honest question; how many people have seen this weapon even used any more?
I agree that proficiencies are not worth a feat unless it is a weapon like the falcata, but there were no traits in 3.5, and if you change the game too much it mess with backwards compatibility, which was and is one of the game's main selling points.
I will probably change weapon proficiency into a trait for my own game though, with certain exceptions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh... the way I see it exotic weapon proficiency is there more to limit the availability of weapons than to set them up as being significantly more powerful than baseline weapons.
Dwarven war axe is only slightly nicer than baseline weapons so the only ones who take it are dwarves.
Elven curved blade is similar.
These characters get to stand out a bit and do something unique and maybe a tiny bit better than their martial counterparts.
Is it worth a feat for these things? Probably not, but it makes characters stand out a bit in the crowd. It gives monks some weapons fighters don't have, it makes elves a little elfier, and dwarves a little dwarfier. This makes some of the exotic weapons like the bastard sword a little less appealing but there is plenty of room for GMs to play here.
I think a nice work-around would be some traits that granted access to specific exotic weapons that aren't in these categories. For a silly example:
Ham Fisted: Your hands are particularly large and strong, you can treat the bastard sword as a martial weapon.
Weapon Tinkerer: You can treat repeating crossbows and hand crossbows as martial weapons.
Someone who is not a Full BAB character could nab one of these and heirloom weapon to nab one of these exotics at first level.
This kind of stuff is the EXACT reason why I prefer to play 3.5. As a dead system, all the rules are what the rules are. So I don't have to deal with this stuff, as a GM who could give a rat a$$ about this stuff and who wants to actually tell, you know, a fantasy story rather than worry about who has the most legal or optimized build. Their are the posters who go on about optimization, and the anti-optimization posters. Where are the pro-story posters, who think that all this stuff is a bunch of hooey? Oh yeah, like James Jacobs, they were scared out of here...
[soap box]
Are pro-story, optimization, anti-optimization clubs that bar you from joining the other clubs?I like a good story and a decent character. I don't believe that you need the best character possible though.
As for combos the the PF staff can only account for the corebook plus whatever book the new rule is in since not everyone has all the books so yeah if you get a player companion book+setting book+rule book(such as APG) then you might get some crazy stuff. At PFS you can't do much about it. As a home GM shut that nonsense down if it is an issue for you .
I also disagree with the PFS influence. I think the devs just have a cap on how good they want optimized characters to be.
Other than Vital Strike I don't really know of anything that got an unnecessary hit. Others don't like the potion and heirloom nerfs, but I never cared for them anyway so I can't say much about it.PS:What I don't like are the cries of broken. If you are the only one really complaining about something......... Now if you want to say it is broken for your game that is fine, but remember other GM's don't have an issue with it. [/soap box]
If my core concept is someone who has gone through the trials for many years specializing in something, it'd kinda be nice for them to be good at it. That's where optimization comes in.
Also proficiency in theorycrafting can uncover the fact that a character can do X, Y, AND Z as opposed just X and Y or X and Z. So having a firmer grasp on the theory of character building allows one to have a broader choice of character concepts. One that comes off the top of my head is the invisible hunter, akin the the predator (from the movie). Take the swift as shadows alternate racial, combine it with the stealthy sniper advanced rogue talent and standard skill feats, and you have one little man who can pick people off without being seen.
In short, a number of character concepts are based off of "oh I think this ability is nice to build around". Optimization allows to you find more such abilities and even greater variance among others through varying levels of specialization.
That being said there is also enjoyment of the challenge of optimizing particular concepts. While the rage propher PrC is very sub-optimal, the theorycrafters can get to work on making it as effective as possible. It is like the difference between optimizing the wizard in general and optimizing strict blasters. Two very different challenges, because the optimized blaster will have different feats than the optimized god wizard. Each can pertain to different character concepts. People get bored when their character isn't effective and they will associate the concept with the character, so to hedge against that optimization can make an otherwise boring concept fun.
A CL 11+ magic weapon is impossible to repair via make whole without going going post-20 [...] The absolute worst thing that could happen would be for your heirloom weapon to be enchanted past CL 10, because that would mean that if it is destroyed it is gone forever barring some sort of divine intervention.
Wrong, and you should check out the text of Make Whole before getting worked up. It will fix the weapon regardless of its former CL, it just won't restore the former magic properties if the caster isn't high enough. Therefore, getting a Heirloom Weapon sundered is absolutely no worse than getting any other weapon sundered.
|
You countered an argument that nobody is making. You misrepresented the actual claims of those of us who are your opposition in this debate and created the false impression that have refuted our position. That is EXACTLY what a strawman is.
Actually I didn't. Several people want to do something at level 1 that is beyond what the rules allow at level on for the class they want to play. They indicated they should be able to create the concept they want at first level, because they want to have proficiency in a weapon without being a class that studies how to use weapons proficiently.
And I was saying, and am saying, that first level isn't a place where you get to be all things at all times, just because you want to. That the rule makes logical sense, in the same way having a +1 BaB required for weapon focus makes sense.
As to the rogue, I would have made two weapon fighting require a +1, because I agree with you that "...two-weapon fighting is actually HARDER to do". But I would add an option that allowed rogues to take two weapon fighting at first level, despite not meeting the pre-requisites.
My guess is the developers figured that given somatic components, it would make absolutely no sense for a Wizard or other caster to take Two Weapon Fighting at first level, so it was a moot point since "You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component."
|
|
Eh... the way I see it exotic weapon proficiency is there more to limit the availability of weapons than to set them up as being significantly more powerful than baseline weapons.
Dwarven war axe is only slightly nicer than baseline weapons so the only ones who take it are dwarves.
Elven curved blade is similar.
These characters get to stand out a bit and do something unique and maybe a tiny bit better than their martial counterparts.
Is it worth a feat for these things? Probably not, but it makes characters stand out a bit in the crowd. It gives monks some weapons fighters don't have, it makes elves a little elfier, and dwarves a little dwarfier. This makes some of the exotic weapons like the bastard sword a little less appealing but there is plenty of room for GMs to play here.
I think a nice work-around would be some traits that granted access to specific exotic weapons that aren't in these categories. For a silly example:
Ham Fisted: Your hands are particularly large and strong, you can treat the bastard sword as a martial weapon.
Weapon Tinkerer: You can treat repeating crossbows and hand crossbows as martial weapons.
Someone who is not a Full BAB character could nab one of these and heirloom weapon to nab one of these exotics at first level.
This reflects a reasonable compromise. Well done, sir.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I didn't.
Actually you did. Here are your exact words to refresh your memory.
"The fact that every class can't do everything at first level is exactly the way it is supposed to be..."
"Making every character you can imagine at first level isn't the intent of the game, nor should it be the intent of the game. First level characters are not epic heroes. They are a half step above the local blacksmith.
You are not an epic hero at first level. You are a snot nosed kid going out on their first mission to hopefully not get themselves killed by goblins."
Those are not arguments that people are making. You are beating the man of straw.
Several people want to do something at level 1 that is beyond what the rules allow at level on for the class they want to play. They indicated they should be able to create the concept they want at first level, because they want to have proficiency in a weapon without being a class that studies how to use weapons proficiently.
This doesn't address anything that I said. All you are doing is telling me what the rules ARE. I'm talking about what the rules OUGHT TO BE. In order to counter my argument you need to tell me why the rules as is OUGHT TO BE the way they are, not just repeat that the rules exist.
And I was saying, and am saying, that first level isn't a place where you get to be all things at all times, just because you want to. That the rule makes logical sense, in the same way having a +1 BaB required for weapon focus makes sense.
No it doesn't make sense. Not as long as Kama's are exotic weapons. Not as long as the difference between a martial class and everybody else is 5%. Not as long as a high strength score has the potential to add more to your "skill" than BAB. Not as long as 4th level commoners have a higher BAB than 1st level fighters. Not as long as weapons continue to have only relatively minor effects on your actual combat prowess. And not as long as the only two levels of skill that the game bothers with are 'proficient' and 'non-proficient'.
As to the rogue, I would have made two weapon fighting require a +1, because I agree with you that "...two-weapon fighting is actually HARDER to do". But I would add an option that allowed rogues to take two weapon fighting at first level, despite not meeting the pre-requisites.
That is a double standard. If rogues get special treatment for two-weapon fighting AND you agree that "...two-weapon fighting is actually HARDER to do" than they should also get special treatment when it comes to exotic weapons.
My guess is the developers figured that given somatic components, it would make absolutely no sense for a Wizard or other caster to take Two Weapon Fighting at first level, so it was a moot point since "You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component."
That's fine. Requiring me to invest in extra resources (eschew materials) better represents the difficulty of learning to use certain weapon styles while also juggling my ability to use magic, than having a +1 BAB requirement ever could. My character is a 1st level human wizard with eschew materials and two-weapon fighting. I also happen to be wielding war fans. No, it isn't a problem.
I'm not as good as the fighter because the fighter is proficient with long list of weapons, armors, and shields that I am not. In addition he has a higher strength and likely a higher Constitution score (an more HP). But, at first level, the one thing that no one will notice is the difference in our BAB.
Actually I didn't. Several people want to do something at level 1 that is beyond what the rules allow at level on for the class they want to play. They indicated they should be able to create the concept they want at first level, because they want to have proficiency in a weapon without being a class that studies how to use weapons proficiently.
I think you and I have very different ideas of just how much weapon proficiency should be built into the classes. I do think that fighters should get access to more proficiencies, but restricting non full BAB classes to specific weapons just because none of the others fit your concept for those classes is a bit silly. I think the Unearthed Arcana solution is a good compromise. Martial classes still get more proficiencies, thus keeping their advantage in that area, but the other classes aren't hard wired into specific weapon choices that may or may not fit individual concepts.
Remember that being a half elf, you don't get a bonus feat as you would if you were human. So the access to Ancestral Arms is a racial feature in the same way gnomes having access to gnome weapons is a class feature.What was proposed was to have a feat that made a single exotic weapon a martial weapon, which doesn't require a +1 BaB.
It would mean you would have to spend a feat and a trait to be proficient with an exotic weapon at first level for non-martial classes.
Right now it is a class feature of martial classes to be able to take a range of feats earlier than other classes.
It is an advantage martial characters have, in the same way casting cantrips or orisons is an advantage other classes have.
Alright, that makes sense.
I would probably do a more broad feat than the ones proposed, something along the lines of ---
Martial Training: A stint in the military have given you insights into learning weapon skills. You may treat your base attack bonus as one higher for the purpose of qualifying for feats.
That's granted for the purpose of house ruling. I'm more of a fan of a small number of adjustments that broadly affect things, as opposed to multiple narrow adjustments for each possible case.
Granted, I'm probably going to just allow heirloom weapon to strait up allow exotic weapon proficiency in games I run. That seems the simplest.
I agree. Exotic Weapon Proficiancy should be a flat trait in it self. It is not worth a feat, especially with the huge Spiked Chain nerf. Yes it was over powered in 3.5, but with the other changes made to trip, it was fine. Now it is about equal to a martial weapon.
Honest question; how many people have seen this weapon even used any more?
Truthfully the Spiked Chain wasn't overpowered in 3E either. Not by a long shot. What was overpowered was not following the rules, and that still happens without the spiked chain. See the so called "triplock" builds revolved around one critical MISTAKE. The idea that you can trip someone, and then re-trip them when they go to stand (which you can't because your AoO occurs prior to the action that provokes it).
The spiked chain was a convenience weapon. It was just good enough to be worth a feat to some people, while many expert players were perfectly fine with wielding a guisarme, glaive, or ranseur and wearing spiked gauntlets or having armor spikes to allow them to punch people adjacent tot hem. Ultimately, the combat style changes little to none and you saved a feat doing so. The only thing really special about the spiked chain was the fact it was a finesse weapon, but almost nobody except perhaps rogues cared about that because you needed a high strength modifier to capitalize on damage or tripping (though since disarm was an opposed attack, you COULD be fairly decent at that with a Dex build).
As for your question, no. I've not seen anyone use the spiked chain since it was nerfed until I house-ruled it in my games to be a martial weapon with an upgrade for being exotic (exotic proficiency grants it reach), and then I had one guy take it to be his iconic weapon. That's it. I also play with a lot of people, because I play on OpenRPG and we have a lot of players who come and go.
As is, the spiked chain is worse than the heavy flail. 2d4/x2 equates to an average of 5 damage per swing. Heavy flail is an average of 5.5 with double chance to land a critical hit. Both have trip and disarm. Again finesse is useless because the size of the weapon means nothing to a Dexterity build which requires additional feat expenditure to be fairly decent at combat maneuvers.
In short the PF Spiked Chain is patently bad.
I house ruled that simple weapons are simple weapons (that is stuff like the kama is simple) because it breaks verisimilitude to heck to imagine that a guy has to spend a feat to learn how to use a kama, which is nothing more than a farming implement that can be used to whack people.
The strait truth is that if it is going to have a feat tax, you better be getting something worth taxing. I don't try to screw over my players by forcing them to take traps to be different than the "I whack it with my greatsword" guys and his bajillion clone brethren.
It's incomprehensible to me that in one sentence you can say how good disarm and sunder are, and in the next sentence point out the counter-strategy of carrying backup weapons.
Can you get someone's damage down a little by forcing them to use their backup weapon, yeah. Is that difference worth that it takes to happen? Generally not, in my opinion. You'd nerf the fighter's damage output more (and, in most cases, probably have an easier roll to make) throwing Slow instead of Dispel Magic, and then sunderguy is free to do something better than sunder with his turn.
Having slow isn't exactly something that an Ettin might have at his disposal, and if the fighter doesn't have iterative attacks it's pretty meaningless anyway. However shattering the stabby-thing that the guy wants to cut your balls off with puts him at a disadvantage. This is especially true if you have reach and he doesn't, since there is virtually no drawback (and can be preformed during an AoO) even without the feat (hey, you're big, you're strong, you deal a lot of damage, and you can break, and then he's stuck with his gauntlets unless he indeed does have a backup weapon which he must now draw).
Of course, again, you're basically arguing against a single instance of getting your weapon destroyed and/or lost. There are a multitude of things that could go wrong which can result in the loss of your weapon. The very fact that you can lose your trait permanently makes it a risky trait to pickup.
If you have Weapon Finesse AND Power Attack, spiked chain isn't all that bad looking. Better than the heavy flail with such a character.
If you have Weapon Finesse AND Power Attack, spiked chain isn't all that bad looking. Better than the heavy flail with such a character.
Hmm? how? Wouldn't high STR+Power Attack be better?
Having slow isn't exactly something that an Ettin might have at his disposal, and if the fighter doesn't have iterative attacks it's pretty meaningless anyway. However shattering the stabby-thing that the guy wants to cut your balls off with puts him at a disadvantage. This is especially true if you have reach and he doesn't, since there is virtually no drawback (and can be preformed during an AoO) even without the feat (hey, you're big, you're strong, you deal a lot of damage, and you can break, and then he's stuck with his gauntlets unless he indeed does have a backup weapon which he must now draw).
He doesn't have Slow, but he does have Dispel Magic? I'm not following the train of thought here.
He doesn't have Slow, but he does have Dispel Magic? I'm not following the train of thought here.
Having slow isn't exactly something that an Ettin might have at his disposal, and if the fighter doesn't have iterative attacks it's pretty meaningless anyway. However shattering the stabby-thing that the guy wants to cut your balls off with puts him at a disadvantage. This is especially true if you have reach and he doesn't, since there is virtually no drawback (and can be preformed during an AoO) even without the feat (hey, you're big, you're strong, you deal a lot of damage, and you can break, and then he's stuck with his gauntlets unless he indeed does have a backup weapon which he must now draw).
If it's pre-weapon enchantment, you just got your shiny toy busted and it's useless until you can have someone use magic to fix it. Later on, you can end up with Dispel Magic coming into play.
My point has - this entire time - been that there are a lot of situations that can screw up heirloom weapon. The weapon can get lost, busted, stolen, dropped, and/or make your life more complicated.
Also, for one that seems to know a lot about the game, you seem to have forgotten that Dispel Magic is a very common spell, while Slow is limited to Sor/Wiz and Bard. Meanwhile, Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers, Wizards, Oracles, and Antipaladins (as well as anyone else who bothered to research this spell that basically is anti-other spells). Dispel magic also allows no saving throw, so there's no downside to having it, even if you're an NPC with a mediocre casting stat, because it relies entirely on your caster level.
Again, this still doesn't address stuff like your weapon getting randomly lost during epic adventure. "Goodbye space sword!"
If you have Weapon Finesse AND Power Attack, spiked chain isn't all that bad looking. Better than the heavy flail with such a character.
Is it better than not spending two feats and dealing more damage while being just as accurate (or more) and dealing far more damage, while still getting all the benefits of having a trip and disarm weapon, or using a weapon with a superior damage with reach?
2d4+3+1 (with power attack & weapon finesse & exotic proficiency) versus 1d10+6+3 (with power attack) or 2d4+6+3 (with power attack and exotic proficiency).
You do the math.
EDIT: I readjusted the mods, since by having Power Attack you must have a 13 Str, which means you already have an above-average strength to even take the feat.
Again, this still doesn't address stuff like your weapon getting randomly lost during epic adventure. "Goodbye space sword!"
I've basically never seen that happen, except in a few rare cases where the DM was running an adventure they didn't write and its events or tactics called for that (or sunder, etc.)
I have seen your standard "party gets captured and stripped of gear" scenario play out a few times, but never one in which the party didn't ultimately get said gear back.
Which all goes back to my original point of "how dangerous the possibility of losing your heirloom sword forever is is extremely campaign dependent."
I suspect campaigns in which losing it is a real risk are much less common than ones in which there isn't much risk, but at the end of the day, that isn't that important. What's important is that in many campaigns the risk will be low to nil.
If you have Weapon Finesse AND Power Attack, spiked chain isn't all that bad looking. Better than the heavy flail with such a character.Hmm? how? Wouldn't high STR+Power Attack be better?
Not if you are aiming to get a good defense (high Dexterity) and/or better ranged attacks, but still want Power Attack.
With Armor Training the way it is, it makes sense that a fighter might want a higher Dex than Strength to capitalize on his AC. In such cases, it would make sense to use a finessible weapon like the spiked chain.
The problem with most finessible weapons, however, is damage. Power Attack helps make up for that somewhat.
I'm not saying it would be a common occurrence, just noting that the spiked chain does have a niche.
If you have Weapon Finesse AND Power Attack, spiked chain isn't all that bad looking. Better than the heavy flail with such a character.Hmm? how? Wouldn't high STR+Power Attack be better?Not if you are aiming to get a good defense (high Dexterity) and/or better ranged attacks, but still want Power Attack.
With Armor Training the way it is, it makes sense that a fighter might want a higher Dex than Strength to capitalize on his AC. In such cases, it would make sense to use a finessible weapon like the spiked chain.
The problem with most finessible weapons, however, is damage. Power Attack helps make up for that somewhat.
I'm not saying it would be a common occurrence, just noting that the spiked chain does have a niche.
Well the maximum Dex modifier in Mithral Full Plate is +8 (with Armor Training 5), which you can get to with only a 14 Dex (14 + 6 + 5 +1 level = +8).
Likewise, I would think the smarter Dex based Fighter would wield something like a Rapier two-handed if he wanted to have a Dex-based power attacking weapon. But let's say you're doing this: You get a non-OP (arguably UP) option that is little better (arguably no better) than if you didn't spend two feats and a mule to get it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Likewise, I would think the smarter Dex based Fighter would wield something like a Rapier two-handed if he wanted to have a Dex-based power attacking weapon. But let's say you're doing this: You get a non-OP (arguably UP) option that is little better (arguably no better) than if you didn't spend two feats and a mule to get it.
Rapier: You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon. You can't wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage.
Likewise, I would think the smarter Dex based Fighter would wield something like a Rapier two-handed if he wanted to have a Dex-based power attacking weapon. But let's say you're doing this: You get a non-OP (arguably UP) option that is little better (arguably no better) than if you didn't spend two feats and a mule to get it.Rapier: You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon. You can't wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage.
Jiggy, that is completely irrelevant to what I said. RAW it still works with Power Attack which is ultimately my point. Why would you want 1.5 your strength modifier on damage rolls when you've only got a +1 to damage from Strength (we noted it's entirely Dex focused, and splitting it up would result in poor accuracy). You just want to wield it two handed for the power attack benefits, which is still 100% legal.
|
|
Again, this still doesn't address stuff like your weapon getting randomly lost during epic adventure. "Goodbye space sword!"
Over 200 people were killed by lighting last year. Does that keep you indoors during rainstorms?
Personally, I don't plan my life around extremely improbable events and I don't plan my characters around them either.
Again, this still doesn't address stuff like your weapon getting randomly lost during epic adventure. "Goodbye space sword!"Over 200 people were killed by lighting last year. Does that keep you indoors during rainstorms?
Personally, I don't plan my life around extremely improbable events and I don't plan my characters around them either.
I might hide if I had lightning rods strapped to my back, or had lightning specifically looking to blast me because I chopped its minion's legs off with my +3 father's longsword.
If it's good enough for Xykon, it's good enough for me.
|
Remember that being a half elf, you don't get a bonus feat as you would if you were human. So the access to Ancestral Arms is a racial feature in the same way gnomes having access to gnome weapons is a class feature.
What was proposed was to have a feat that made a single exotic weapon a martial weapon, which doesn't require a +1 BaB.
It would mean you would have to spend a feat and a trait to be proficient with an exotic weapon at first level for non-martial classes.
Right now it is a class feature of martial classes to be able to take a range of feats earlier than other classes.
It is an advantage martial characters have, in the same way casting cantrips or orisons is an advantage other classes have.
Your point throughout this entire thread is that a class that does not have +1 BAB should never be able to use an exotic weapon. Half elves can do this by burning a feat to gain proficency with one weapon. What it seems you are saying is "Burning a feat to use an exotic weapon is bad, except when you burn a feat at first level to use an exotic weapon." It is in the rules for a character to do so, and I have no problem with this. If you were a fighter who acted that way in my group, my cleric would refuse to heal you. You haven't earned the right to be healed, take a level of cleric. The wizard wouldn't buff you, you haven't earned the ability to buff. The game is about synergy, class options coming together to make a better character. Also: quit telling others to have the wrong/bad fun. If they like it, good for them. If you don't, cool for you. Find a group that plays your way, I'll find a group that plays my way.
|
|
Again, this still doesn't address stuff like your weapon getting randomly lost during epic adventure. "Goodbye space sword!"Over 200 people were killed by lighting last year. Does that keep you indoors during rainstorms?
Personally, I don't plan my life around extremely improbable events and I don't plan my characters around them either.
I might hide if I had lightning rods strapped to my back, or had lightning specifically looking to blast me because I chopped its minion's legs off with my +3 father's longsword.
If it's good enough for Xykon, it's good enough for me.
There is nothing about the sword that makes it the in-game equivalent of a 'lightning rod'. It's far less conspicuous than say a wizard's arcane bond with is generally pretty conspicuous. As far as anyone is concerned it's just a sword like any other.
The only reason enemies would target your heirloom sword is because your GM wants to be a jerk. I file that sort of tactic right up there with destroying spellbooks.
There is another possibility which is your GM does swipe it because he wants to use it as a plot hook. That isn't really anything to complain about either, because it puts your character in the spotlight and presumably it means you are going on a quest of some sort to recover it.
I think the fact that it's being wielded by the character is enough to make it a lightning rod.
I had a paladin lose his bastard sword, shield, and full plate to a pair of sorcerers in about a round and a half. He was forced to take up his mace.
Thank you TriOmegaZero. That's exactly my point. What did that mean to your character? "Ah crap, you dirty mages. Those were expensive". What does it mean to the guy with heirloom weapon? "OMG MY BABY"! :P
I still say it's astounding the amount of rage that the idea of losing a bit of equipment, or the arguments that somehow it's implausible that it could happen. Like I said earlier, my 13 year old brother lost an adamantine sword, a mwk suit of full plate, and several mwk weapons in a single encounter and was captured, and he didn't whine or cry fowl. He winced when he failed those saving throws, but the game went on and he of course ended up being the hero that overcame his minor setback.
We should all look to this 13 year old for ideas of how to act like mature gamers. :P
Had a barbarian loses his favortite +3 vorpal greataxe to a group of theiving kolbolds. (Damn them aiding each others disarm.) He screamed and cryed while he punched each and everyone of their faces in drug them back to town and with help from an alchemist to help harden the bone made a kobold axe.
I use the word "broken" from time to time because it has "kick" to it and is guaranteed to get a reaction out of fellow posters, thereby furthering the discussion. It's what politicians call a "power word."
Power Word: Troll? I like it. Should basically be a spell version of Antagonize. I'd say based on its power level maybe 8th level spell :)
|
|
]
Your point throughout this entire thread is that a class that does not have +1 BAB should never be able to use an exotic weapon. Half elves can do this by burning a feat to gain proficency with one weapon. What it seems you are saying is "Burning a feat to use an exotic weapon is bad, except when you burn a feat at first level to use an exotic weapon." It is in the rules for a character to do so, and I have no problem with this. If you were a fighter who acted that way in my group, my cleric would refuse to heal you. You haven't earned the right to be healed, take a level of cleric. The wizard wouldn't buff you, you haven't earned the ability to buff. The game is about synergy, class options coming together to make a better character. Also: quit telling others to have the wrong/bad fun. If they like it, good for them. If you don't, cool for you. Find a group that plays your way, I'll find a group that plays my way.
No.
My point is that they should not have it at first level unless they have +1 BaB at first level.
Because that is the rule.
Any class that has a +1 BaB can take exotic weapon proficiency. Every class has at least +1 BaB at 2nd level.
Now most classes don't get a feat at 2nd level, so you may have to wait until 3rd to actually take exotic weapon proficiency, but any class can take it.
Just not at first level. Just like you can't take weapon focus at first level unless you are a full BaB class.
or finesse if i remember right
or finesse if i remember right
No that changed in PF (thank God).
or finesse if i remember rightNo that changed in PF (thank God).
As they should change Exotic Weapon Proficiency. I'm not sure about making it easier to pay for, but not being able to be proficient in the weapon you plan to wield at 1st level (even at the cost of a feat!) is pretty lame.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I buy a quarterstaff, I tell everyone it looks like a double sword (still paying for and using the mechanics of the quarterstaff), later when I have the cash and feat to use the double sword I buy a double sword. Fluffwise no one has to think anything changed if I don't want them to, now I'm just using the stats of my new weapon. Pf rules legal and everything
Perhaps for Pathfinder in general, yes, but not for Pathfinder Society play. Different players have proposed "reskinning" game elements ("I'm riding a horse, but I want to refer to it as a giant boar. Is it okay for me to have a 'giant boar' mount, as long as I use the stats for a horse?") and ask on these boards if that's okay.
The answer from PFS HQ has been consistent. ("No. You can claim your character is insane and imagines that he's riding a giant boar. But as far as all the other players and GM are concerned, it's a horse.")
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Mark M has said that he is working on an official way to handle characters affected by this change. In the past, characters affected by significant changes to feats or class features have been allowed to rebuild, or have been grandfathered. In the meantime, while awaiting the official answer, the characters are playable as is.
Could you cite this, my friend? Mark has stated, "As of now, since the pdf has been updated and we are no longer shipping older printings of the book, the new version of the trait stands and is the only legal version in Pathfinder Society Organized Play."
If he's stated somewhere else that we can continue to play with the illegal version of the trait, that's terrific news, but around here we've been interpreting his words otherwise.
I removed a handful of posts. Play nice.
|
|
Eschew Materials fixes my somatic component two weapon fighting issue comment
Sorry, I forgot to comment on this earlier.
"To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. You can’t cast a spell of this type while bound, grappling, or with both your hands full or occupied."
Which has nothing to do with eschew materials.
Meaning your TWF wizard is going to have some problems casting anything with somatic components if he has two weapons out, regardless of eschew materials.
|
|
No.My point is that they should not have it at first level unless they have +1 BaB at first level.
Because that is the rule.
Any class that has a +1 BaB can take exotic weapon proficiency. Every class has at least +1 BaB at 2nd level.
Now most classes don't get a feat at 2nd level, so you may have to wait until 3rd to actually take exotic weapon proficiency, but any class can take it.
Just not at first level. Just like you can't take weapon focus at first level unless you are a full BaB class.
But they do. Half elves can. Thus, rules as written, first level characters with no BAB may use an exotic weapon for the price of feat. And I believe now you are the one arguing how the game *should* be, not how the game is. So, tell me, have you banned half-elves from your game?
|
|
But they do. Half elves can. Thus, rules as written, first level characters with no BAB may use an exotic weapon for the price of feat. And I believe now you are the one arguing how the game *should* be, not how the game is. So, tell me, have you banned half-elves from your game?
These are benefits to being those particular races. You are essentially suggesting these benefits get watered down.
Elves get early access to elf weapons, dwarves to war axes, etc. That's the benefit of playing those races.
Which has nothing to do with eschew materials.Meaning your TWF wizard is going to have some problems casting anything with somatic components if he has two weapons out, regardless of eschew materials.
I'm very much aware of the limitations. I built this concept knowing full well what they are. It won't be a problem I assure you. I cast enlarge person before I draw my second war fan. In fact, with War Fans it is preferable to draw one the first round and one on the second round due to the free bluff check. If for some reason I do not have access to one of my War Fans I cast Shadow Weapon (I did this when a monk disarmed me and took my fan away, for instance). However, even with both hands full, if for some reason I can't attack in melee I can still cast Flare, Spark, Hold Portal, Flare Burst, Feather Fall, and True Strike (I have the wooden archery target woven onto the War Fan). As I get higher level this limitation will effectively vanish.
|
|
As I get higher level this limitation will effectively vanish.
This being the entire point I am making.
You don't always get the optimal outcome at first level, you can't always do what you want at first level.
I still am trying to find war fans, which I am going to guess are exotic, meaning you have to take three feats at first level based on what you described (twf, Eschew, Exotic)
Martial Weapon Proficiency is a feat you can take without the BaB requirement, it isn't unreasonable Exotic should have a higher criteria.
As I get higher level this limitation will effectively vanish.This being the entire point I am making.
You don't always get the optimal outcome at first level, you can't always do what you want at first level.
When you made this point you did so to specifically counter those of us who were against the +1 BAB requirement for exotic weapons. Now you are making this point to obscure my statement about my wizards dependency on his hands diminishing as he increases in level. And yet, no one on this entire thread, at any point, has ever made the claim that first level characters should be able to do whatever they want or that they should always get the most optimal outcome. I'm not making the claim now, and I've never made the claim before. This is a strawman argument.
I still am trying to find war fans,
...which I am going to guess are exotic, meaning you have to take three feats at first level based on what you described (twf, Eschew, Exotic)
No, I've already explained this to you.
Martial Weapon Proficiency is a feat you can take without the BaB requirement, it isn't unreasonable Exotic should have a higher criteria.
It isn't reasonable to even have 'exotic' weapons at all. It is a meaningless designation for as long as repeating crossbows sit along side spiked chains. 'Exotic' means four things at once but never more than one of those things for any single weapon. Those fours things are: "Difficult to wield (Spiked Chain)", "Hard to Find (Repeating Crossbow)", "Asian (Kama)", and "Too good to let players have without spending resources above and beyond martial weapons (non-existent)"
It isn't reasonable to even have 'exotic' weapons at all. It is a meaningless designation for as long as repeating crossbows sit along side spiked chains. 'Exotic' means four things at once but never more than one of those things for any single weapon. Those fours things are: "Difficult to wield (Spiked Chain)", "Hard to Find (Repeating Crossbow)", "Asian (Kama)", and "Too good to let players have without spending resources above and beyond martial weapons (non-existent)".
The bolded line (emphasis mine) is the only one that should qualify as an exotic weapon for the purposes of dealing with feats and requirements. There should be no feat-tax to wield what frankly amounts to simple weapons and/or weapons that are patently worse than existing martial weapons. There's not a single crossbow worth as much as a standard issue bow, not even the repeating crossbow which could at least get iterative attacks between reloads. Stuff like kamas and sianghams are complete jokes. Shurikens are jokes (one of the only throwing weapons that could possibly be worthwhile and they still are prohibitively bad - mostly due to the feat requirement for non-monks and the fact as thrown weapons they have poopy range).
If the weapon requires a feat then it should be strait-up better than existing options. For example, in 3E you could take a large bastard sword and wield it in 2 hands with EWP: Bastard sword, giving you a 2d8 greatsword with no to-hit penalties (in 3.5/Pathfinder this gives a -2 to hit which makes it a useless option because the to-hit penalty offsets the damage increase), meaning for a feat you got superior weapon options. This was also a handy trick for those who wanted to dual-wield longswords, as you could wield two small bastard swords as light weapons while dealing 1d8 with the weapon.
In my own games I have removed the feat tax from weapons that are not superior to existing weapons, and have placed them in their appropriate category (simple for most monk weapons, for example). For weapons that actually use the Exotic Proficiency, they are either innately better or in most cases get better when you take the feat.
For example, in my games a spiked chain is a martial weapon (it is almost identical to the heavy flail, other than having worse damage output) and can be wielded by anyone with martial proficiency. However by spending the EWP feat, you learn to make the most of the weapon and regain the reach the weapon lost in Pathfinder, making it an above-average weapon in your hands.
Meanwhile, no I don't think that the EWP feat should require a +1 BAB. Base Attack demonstrate-ably has no bearing on weapon proficiency but the skill or effectiveness of fighting with said weapon. You do not gain proficiencies based on base attack, and there are too many examples of classes without a perfect base attack wielding exotic weapons. Ciretose's logic is screwed up.
Likewise, if you are investing 1/10th of your feats into being able to use a slightly above average weapon, then you should be able to at any level. It's just the ability to fight without a -4 penalty. It's not like a wizard with a spiked chain is going to suddenly begin fighting better than the fighter without one (the fighter likely has more strength, more HP, gets faaaar better returns on Power Attack, etc).
If the +1 BAB can go the way of the dodo with Weapon Finesse, there is frankly no reason at all that EWP shouldn't get the same treatment.
There should be no feat-tax to wield what frankly amounts to simple weapons and/or weapons that are patently worse than existing martial weapons.If the weapon requires a feat then it should be strait-up better than existing options.
Exactly. There are many things you should not be able to do at first level but having to worry about weapon selection is not one of them. At the point that your bonus to damage is higher than the average die roll of the weapon you are wielding the choice of weaponry becomes of secondary importance. At the point that your bonus damage becomes higher than the full range of the die roll of any weapon, than the weapon itself has little meaning, unless it has a cool trick it can do (and tripping and disarming isn't good enough). But when you have +30 damage, dealing an extra 2 - 8 damage is not noticeably better than dealing an extra 1 - 4 damage. And high critical multipliers vs high critical ranges don't actually change your average damage by all that much. Once its gotten to that point the only thing that matters is how many hands you are using to weild the weapon, not what specific weapon you are using. And you will get to that point very early in your career.
In my own games I have removed the feat tax from weapons that are not superior to existing weapons, and have placed them in their appropriate category (simple for most monk weapons, for example). For weapons that actually use the Exotic Proficiency, they are either innately better or in most cases get better when you take the feat.For example, in my games a spiked chain is a martial weapon (it is almost identical to the heavy flail, other than having worse damage output) and can be wielded by anyone with martial proficiency. However by spending the EWP feat, you learn to make the most of the weapon and regain the reach the weapon lost in Pathfinder, making it an above-average weapon in your hands
I've been playing around with something similar recently. What I've done is to remove exotic as a category all together. Than I've added a line to each weapon that grants it some sort of bonus or trick if you have the weapon focus feat (another insultingly bad feat in dire need of a pick me up).