Greatswords and nodachis- why Uncommon doesn't solve the exotic weapon problem


General Discussion


5 people marked this as a favorite.

tl;dr- Individual characters shouldn't be granted access to uncommon weapons, uncommon exotic weapons should become uncommon martial, and GMs should be given the authority to make common weapons uncommon.

The Exotic Weapon Problem

Simple and martial weapons make enough sense on paper. Simple weapons are straightforward enough that anyone can pick them up. For example, jab your opponent with the pointy end of the spear. Meanwhile, martial weapons take more training, so you have to specifically learn to use one with Martial Weapon Proficiency. About half of the classes get a few martial weapon proficiencies for free. And martial classes are skilled enough at fighting to be competent with whatever strange weapons they may find. But then there are exotic weapons, which mostly fall into one of two groups, both of which have strange to negative implications.

The first type of exotic weapon is the accidentally-too-powerful kind. For example, the elven curve blade is almost entirely an upgrade to the normal greatsword. It's lighter, finessable, and threatens critical hits more often. The only downside is the slightly lessened damage dice, 1d10 vs 2d6. This is effectively gameplay and story segregation. The concept of martial characters getting all martial weapons is that they're that good, but these weapons are too powerful from a game design standpoint, so they have to be locked off.

The second type of exotic weapon is the more concerning one. Weapons that don't fit in a pseudo-Medieval-European setting like most of Avistan. I could get into how WotC and Paizo both have a habit of raiding the thesaurus to expand weapon tables, like how the only difference between a gladius and a longsword is that the former apparently gets the crowd more excited, but that's not what this is about. If you accept that wakizashis, katanas, and nodachis are sufficiently different from shortswords, longswords, and greatswords to warrant different stats, I could understand a paladin from Absalom only knowing how to use Avistani longswords and not Tien katanas. But if I head over to Minkai and make a paladin... she's still familiar with Avistani longswords and not Tien katanas. Even Tien characters need Exotic Weapon Proficiency to learn them, because apparently martial characters are specifically familiar with Avistani weapons. The samurai class mitigates this somewhat by providing proficiency in wakizashis, katanas, and naginatas, but still leaves two questions. One, why wouldn't an Avistani samurai just use Avistani shortswords, longswords, and glaives instead? And two, what if a Tien samurai wanted a two-hander? The only options would still be using an Avistani greatsword instead of a Tien nodachi or to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency to learn a local weapon.

The only weapons I can think of that are actually more complex are Numeria's lasers and Alkenstar's way-post-Medieval guns.

Common and Uncommon Weapons

Entering 2e, Paizo definitely seems to have noticed the unfortunate implications of that latter group, and just made them uncommon instead. Martial characters actually know how to use every weapon now, and it's just locked by setting, which weapons are available. Except there are a few problems.

First, there are still a grand total of 4 exotic weapons. So the first problem I mentioned still exists. If we already have this tool to let GMs restrict access to weapons, why do fighters still need to learn those four weapons individually? If you have an uncommon weapon class, there should be no need for exotic weapons.

Second, item rarity should be determined on a setting level, not a character level. Using the example of Tien characters and katanas, suppose my Minkaian paladin travels to Absalom. Theoretically, katanas are an uncommon weapon there. But because they were specifically granted access to the weapon, there's apparently some secret Tien black market that this character and this character only can access to find katanas. Or similarly, if an elf with the Elven Weapon Familiarity feat goes to the Five Kings Mountains, they'd apparently find some secret elven black market to buy an elven curve blade.

And third, there are no provisions for converting an item to uncommon instead. This follows off the previous point. If I set a game in Minkai, I could grant everyone access to Tien katanas... but they'd also still have access to Avistani longswords, which are theoretically less common in Minkai.

The Common/Uncommon split actually can work in theory to solve both halves of the exotic weapon problem. Just not with the current implementation.

The Weapon Proficiency Problem

This is a separate issue, but continues off things mentioned in all that explanation. In 1e, characters bought proficiency in singular weapons, unless they took a level in a martial class. But in 2e, the Weapon Proficiency feat just upgrades you to the level of martial classes, being proficient in all but 4 weapons in existence. You can then take the feat again to learn individual exotic weapons. This has two issues:

First, all of those "simple plus some" classes are now irreplicable. Why does a Bard only know certain weapons, but if my Sorcerer wants to learn to fight with a rapier and pretend to be a Bard, he has to learn to use all martial weapons with it? And second, if I want my character to specifically learn to use firearms, which would presumably be exotic, they'd have to learn all martial weapons first.

Additionally, there's the issue of fighter weapon groups. These technically already existed in 1e, but they were specific to the class. But now that they're tied to the TEML system, it introduces a third way you can gain proficiencies. On a per-group basis.

Thus, I also propose a change to weapon proficiency in general. Everyone is trained in simple weapons, and instead of giving martial characters all weapons and most other characters a handful of specific weapons, you let each class pick so many weapon classes to be trained in. The Weapon Proficiency feat would be gaining training in another weapon class. The fighter class abilities could be gaining training in a handful. And you could even extend the system to have thematic options, like forcing clerics to pick their deity's favored weapon's group or gunslingers to pick guns. This is actually simpler than the current system, because you don't have to deal with martials and characters with Weapon Proficiency getting everything, but exotic weapons being taken on an individual basis and some classes starting with specific martial weapons. Weapons would effectively just be skills like Athletics or Thievery. And it protects future weapons like firearms which do deserve the exotic name, without having to make a separate system to gain proficiency in them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think all the regional and race-based weapons that are just "X but different" (or worse, "X but better") should be folded into one weapon. So, for example, you'd just have Greatsword (with an entry saying Elven Curve Blades and Katanas are fine skins to use, depending on where you got it). Then you could have a feat related to mastery of a weapon to unlock some of the bonuses those special snowflake weapons got, or even the bonuses of feats that are no longer General Feats.

For example, mastery in the Greatsword could give you the old Elven Curve Blade extended crit range. Greataxe could get some cleaving damage, Shortbow could have Point Blank Shot, and Dagger could get +1 damage when attacking a flanked foe.

If you want the flavor of a different weapon, make a different mastery feat (with the caveat that only one mastery feat applies at a time, either as a hard limit on taking them or decided when the item is made/found). For example, maybe you make an Orcish Bloodletter dagger feat that gives it +1 Bleed damage, or a Weeaboo Cutter Greatsword feat that gives your glorious Nippon steel some totally undeserved DR piercing.


Personally,

I would remove simple, martial and exotic categories.

Class level of proficiency in weapons is good enough of destinction.

Make all melee and thrown weapons use either str or dex for attack and damage.

make all ranged attacks use dex for attack and damage.

Give all weapons minimum strength requirement.

Without minimum strength add -5 penalty to attack and damage.

I.E. dagger would have minimum strength of 6

Great-ax would have minimum strength of 20


RazarTuk wrote:
And third, there are no provisions for converting an item to uncommon instead. This follows off the previous point. If I set a game in Minkai, I could grant everyone access to Tien katanas... but they'd also still have access to Avistani longswords, which are theoretically less common in Minkai.

I feel like this is a particularly odd reading of the rules. Given that this is a playtest, so presumably putting anything to the theme of rule zero into the playtest is discouraged, since they want a baseline for feedback, but it seems odd that rule zero seems to need to be explicit, either in rule zero form, or in the text of the rarity section, to conclude that the GM can't change the rarity of something.


I imagine the final book could talk more about this, about how GMs determine which weapons and items are exotic to their campaign or region. Possible regional supplements can give possible arrays for "common/uncommon/exotic" in a certain region. The problem only needs a bit of clarification on what the system means by it.

Silver Crusade

My suggestion

Change the damage codes based on martial/non-martial/race and possibly region. So a wizard could use a longsword for a D6 damage while a fighter with a longsword would do a D8. Classes such as bard with specific weapons listed would also get to use the higher damage codes. Races would get to use the higher damage codes for racial weapons.

I don't think that this fixes everything but it might start things in a good direction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Admittedly this is a distinctly D&D and fantasy problem. In modern day settings, you would never try and model different regional guns differently. You would go with pistol, heavy pistol, shotgun, rifle, sniper, etc. Which leads credence to the idea that a short sword from a different region is a short sword with a different name and there really shouldn't be any mechanical difference even if there is some small difference in real-life usage.

I do agree that the commonality system has issues around purchasability. I had the same problem with the monk weapons. I'm a monk in a two-monk party, one of us has access and the other doesn't. It seems strange to me that I can't just ask my fellow monk person to buy me some shuriken while he's getting some for himself.

Additionally the weapon non-proficiency penalty doesn't really seem all that severe initially. Not having a ranged weapon at all seems worse than having one, but being stuck at -2. And for monk's specifically you can take a feat for all simple weapons or take a feat for all monk weapons. Since you're much more likely to find neat simple weapons than monk weapons it feels like a toss-up mechanically and a pity in terms of story.

While I feel like there's a need for the rarity system, it feels unrefined and frustrating that the moment in how it's implemented.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Greatswords and nodachis- why Uncommon doesn't solve the exotic weapon problem All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion