D&D 3E/3.5 Will 3E exotic weapons appear in 4E?

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero

• Aug 27, 2007

• #1

Almost a decade on, there's still a lot of hate for 3E's exotic weapons (well, many of them). Despite that, a lot of them, like the dwarven waraxe, have become staples at a lot of tables.

Will these make the cut in 4E? Should they?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

D

drothgery

First Post

• Aug 27, 2007

• #2

I'd say that most of the 3.5 PHB exotic weapons are fine, but the entire selection of two-handed melee weapons...

Axe, orc double
Chain, spiked
Flail, dire
Hammer, gnome hooked
Sword, two-bladed
Urgrosh, dwarven

... needs to go, as no one can figure out how you'd actually use these things. And obviously the monk weapons don't need to be in PH1 if the monk isn't.

 

M

Malhost Zormaeril

First Post

• Aug 27, 2007

• #3

The problem is mostly that the choice of "simple" vs. "martial" vs. "exotic" was made implying a standard human medieval european culture, and that assumption breaks down when you go for more exotic locales (like, say, Athas).

It would have been better if there was a straight-up list of weapons and other lists detailing which are simple, which are martial and which are exotic for several kinds of culture templates (Roman, Frankish, Byzantine, Arab, Indian, Chinese, etc., and maybe also Orcish, Elven, Dwarven, Gnomish, ...) -- at least in the DMG. Of course, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon, though.

 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero

• Aug 27, 2007

• #4

I still like the suggestion of using this as a gnome hooked hammer since it's both a weapon and a tool, which makes a lot more sense than the default one.

I think the more out-there exotics might be best served up in a culture/race/class splatbook.

 

R

ruleslawyer

Registered User

• Aug 27, 2007

• #5

Or you could just give weapons racial traits. So, apply the "dwarf" descriptor to an axe and you get +1 to damage and +2 hardness, or the like.

 

Creamsteak

Explorer

• Aug 27, 2007

• #6

I always thought the actual purpose of the simple/martial/exotic was supposed to be to seperate weapons that are "slightly" better than others. This broke down with some of the double weapons and monk weapons I guess, but in most cases it was true.

 

A

Aust Diamondew

First Post

• Aug 27, 2007

• #7

Malhost Zormaeril said:

The problem is mostly that the choice of "simple" vs. "martial" vs. "exotic" was made implying a standard human medieval european culture, and that assumption breaks down when you go for more exotic locales (like, say, Athas).

It would have been better if there was a straight-up list of weapons and other lists detailing which are simple, which are martial and which are exotic for several kinds of culture templates (Roman, Frankish, Byzantine, Arab, Indian, Chinese, etc., and maybe also Orcish, Elven, Dwarven, Gnomish, ...) -- at least in the DMG. Of course, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon, though.

Click to expand...

Exotic weapons in DnD aren't exotic because they are from a different culture or some far away land but because they gain an additional mechanical benefit(s) over martial weapons and are thus more difficult to use requiring a feat.
They should really rename them, as the term 'exotic weapon' is a misnomer.

 

Sammael

Adventurer

• Aug 27, 2007

• #8

I think the PH will focus on a smaller number of weapons which are more meaningful (as seen from the seminars and such, each weapon will have different "special abilities").

I think the current exotic weapons won't appear until one of the later supplements. If PH2 is focused on Eberron-type things, then we will probably see the Valenar double scimitar in there...

 

H

hazmat

First Post

• Aug 27, 2007

• #9

I hope that different weapon types get different sets of maneuvers and that exotic weapons get an expanded set and maybe even have some race specific maneuvers.

So there wouldn't have to be a dwarven waraxe anymore but a dwarven style of fighting with a waraxe. And a bastard sword would have a mix of manuvers similar to those available to a long sword and a greatsword.

But that's just wishful thinking

 

Kaodi

Hero

• Aug 27, 2007

• #10

I think some of those exotic double weapons are troubled more by how they are depicted than if they are completely unsuitable. With a longer haft, the double-bladed sword might be believable (for fantasy), but I don't really see what is wrong with the dwarven urgrosh, which is basically a long-handled axe with a spear point at the other end, right? Dire flail though... that one is just wrong, hehehe... Orc double axe might be OK if it weren't depicted as having two blades at both ends, instead of just one...