Hi all. I'm a GM. If I can define it I should be able to make a decision regarding a build one of my players is working on.
Any help with a definition that can be cited would be appreciated.
Thank you in advance. I've failed in my search foo. Books, PRD, previous queries, this site.
An exotic weapon is any weapon on the exotic weapons table. Simple/martial/exotic weapons are grouped according to how difficult they are to learn and use. You can find a definition on pg 140 of the core rulebook.
Yes, the classification is rather arbitrary.
If you're looking for a 'why' of it, the 3.5 books had one. Basically, compare the weapon you're looking at to martial weapons. If it's outright better than they are -- say, 2d6 damage, 19-20/x3 crit for a two-hander, then to pay for being so awesome, it moves up to 'exotic'. Thus, a bastard sword is 'exotic' as it's better than a longsword by one die size, and a falcata is better because of its higher crit multiplier.
Well, that's what should be thought of, anyway. It's not always evident in actual construction (who would ever use a kusarigama?). But it's a good rule for homebrew stuff, like say trying to design that greatfalcata I mentioned.
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons
Most character classes are proficient with all simple weapons. Combat-oriented classes such as barbarians, cavaliers, and fighters are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons they gain from their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon.
That explains the general principles of teh types.
If you are looking for an exact definition...not sure if there is one, but there are various implications of them
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.
The fauchard is more awkward to utilize than a glaive (and as such is an exotic weapon)
Generally speaking, exotic weapons are 'weird', and thus they need special training to use.
...ok, you want an exact mechanical definition?
I vaguely remember a dev mentioning it is a 'point' thing, generally (I am sure there are plenty of exceptions). Simple weapons have 1 point, martial weapons have 2 points, and exotic weapons have 3.
These points give it qualities beyond the 'standard' of weapons of that handedness. This could be a special quality (like trip), an increase in damage dice, or an increase in critical range/threat.
So lets compare some things. Lets look at the long sword and scimitar- both are 1 handed weapons. From what I can tell (and don't quote me on this, this is me working backwards from a half remembered comment), the base of 1 handed weapon would be 1d6 20/x2 (club basically- I am pretty sure it spends its point on the ability to be thrown).
A longsword spends its 2 points increasing the damage dice by one step (d6->d8) and increasing threat range to 19-20. Scimitar spends both points to bring threat range to 18-20.
And lets look at great sword. From my guess (looking at simple weapons), the 2 handed weapon base is 1d8, 20/x2. So greatsword does just like longsword (1d8->2d6, 20/x2-> 19-20/x2).
And lets look at falcata, a 1 handed exotic weapon (3 pts). It increases its damage dice (1d6->1d8), its threat range (20->19-20), and its critical multiplier (x2->x3).
Kukri (light, martial). Base- 1d4, 20/x2. Both points put into threat range increase (20->18-20)
Now, obviously, the devs don't stick to all this religiously. Some items just need sticking somewhere for reasons (I am vaguely sure that daggers might be 2 points...but they fill a niche for simple weapons; also long spears, cause they seem to have SOME mercy), and some abilities are weird. But this generally seems to be how it works.
So if you want to make your own weapons, keep these ideas in mind.
I've always wondered about the point of sticking monk weapons in exotic light, but the points system Lemeres mentioned does make a LITTLE sense. Base 1d4 as a light ... then move up one die, then add 'monk' and some other property. Nunchaku and kama get disarm and trip. Sai (in one edition?) used to have a better disarm. Sianghams ... fell between the cracks and no-one really cared because who uses them anyway.
Of course, greatclubs still suck.
I've always wondered about the point of sticking monk weapons in exotic light, but the points system Lemeres mentioned does make a LITTLE sense. Base 1d4 as a light ... then move up one die, then add 'monk' and some other property. Nunchaku and kama get disarm and trip. Sai (in one edition?) used to have a better disarm. Sianghams ... fell between the cracks and no-one really cared because who uses them anyway.
Of course, greatclubs still suck.
Yeah...monk weapons had the unfortunate tendency to have cool extra features that the developers just felt HAD to be be represented mechanically...and they didn't quite realize that put them into a realm where no one would ever want to actually use them.
Cause outside of monks (and later brawler, of course), no one needs the monk property. So that results in a weapon that the main users can't use natively, and it costs too much of an expense (a feat outside of first level, when people should have built up enough stuff to get better feats) for too little benefit.
It is the also nature of most special quality weapons that fall into exotic, really. Since there are enough simple and martial weapons with those qualities to satisfy if you really felt you needed that boost. Once you get past the quality, it is usually just an ever so slight boost in stats. Or worse- the double special quality for maneuvers that each need their own intense feat investments.