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

[Malhost Zormaeril]

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.

That's true for some weapons, but untrue for others. Lots of specialised weapons introduced in splatbooks wind up in the Exotic category because they're weird and usually a hallmark of some kind of society, but aren't particularly good from a mechanics standpoint. For example, for double weapons, they're all exotic, save for the quarterstaff, which is simple. Now, it is true that the exotic double weapons all do 1d8/1d8 or 1d8/1d6 while the staff does 1d6/1d6, but I hardly think that difference justifies two whole familiarity categories...

The same thing is valid for firearms, which are slightly better than crossbows (1d12 for a musket, I think, vs. 1d10 for a heavy crossbow) but it does cost around 1.3 gp a shot, very much more expensive than the 1 sp for a crossbow bolt.

Similarly, bastard swords and dwarven waraxes are only exotic if you want to wield them one-handed, a kind of poor man's Monkey Grip. Otherwise you're fine with Martial Weapon Proficiency.

Finally, some of the (in my opinion) best weapons in the game are Simple or Martial. For high damage output, you're much better off with a scythe than an orc double axe. And don't even get me started on the whip!

Still, that's neither here nor there, is it? We'll have to see if the folks at Wizards think they can do better than this. I'm not counting on it, though.

 

[Nifft]

gnome hooked hammer

Sad to say, if only one Exotic weapon were to be cut...

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

Strongly disagree. Maybe racial talents to better exploit the features of special weapons, but one thing I really hated in 3.5e was the power creep inherent in new weapon types, particularly exotic weapons. There should be a standard array of weapons, a few special trick weapons, and then loads of ways to customize your character to better exploit these existing weapons.

The other thing I dislike about tons of new weapons is the way it can make Warrior types feel dumb for specializing in Core stuff. (Spellcasters suffer from this problem less: a Wizard with Spell Focus (Conjuration) will find much to enjoy when spells are added, while a Warrior type with Weapon Focus (War Axe) may feel dumb when the Mercurial Jagged Full Axe appears.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[mmadsen]

Frankly, the whole weapon proficiency system is (a) divorced from reality, and (b) not fun. That's a bad trade-off.

 

[Creamsteak]

There should be a standard array of weapons, a few special trick weapons, and then loads of ways to customize your character to better exploit these existing weapons.

I definitely agree with this general idea. Portability is pretty key. It also allows weapons to grow in a non-magic way.

Weird thought, you could even see progression as a craft apply to the weapons you weild. Bob the blacksmith fighter is only skilled enough to craft/afford a longsword. With more practice, the bastard sword or greatsword. Possibly even taking it further as the character becomes more powerful. The epic craftsman would seem more epic.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

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

This idea I like. They could do it either with specific rules for the weapon, or as racial abilities that can be used when using this particular kind of weapon.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[TwinBahamut]

I rather dislike the simple/martial/exotic division myself. I really prefer the "Weapon Groups" concept from Unearthed Arcana.

Regardless, the entire idea of "monk weapons" being exotic always struck me as strange. They are all functionally simple or martial weapons (can't remember which), with an added benefit for only one class. However, the only class that can get this benefit is already proficient with all those weapons anyways. Thus, there is no mechanical reason they should be exotic, since there is no benefit for anyone to ever take the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency: (insert monk weapon). Flavor-wise, this choice merely adds to the problematic of making the Monk feel like an Oriental Adventures class that is nonsensically transplanted European setting. It is especially problematic for the poor kama, which is just a sickle with a different name and a common farming implement.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

From the notes about how your weapon selection will really make a noticeable difference in 4E, I am half-suspecting that the notion of exotic weapons will go away, or at least be folded into weapon specialization.

In any event, I hope they make more allowance for Weapon Groups in the core this time around.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

That's true for some weapons, but untrue for others. Lots of specialised weapons introduced in splatbooks wind up in the Exotic category because they're weird and usually a hallmark of some kind of society, but aren't particularly good from a mechanics standpoint. For example, for double weapons, they're all exotic, save for the quarterstaff, which is simple. Now, it is true that the exotic double weapons all do 1d8/1d8 or 1d8/1d6 while the staff does 1d6/1d6, but I hardly think that difference justifies two whole familiarity categories...

The same thing is valid for firearms, which are slightly better than crossbows (1d12 for a musket, I think, vs. 1d10 for a heavy crossbow) but it does cost around 1.3 gp a shot, very much more expensive than the 1 sp for a crossbow bolt.

Similarly, bastard swords and dwarven waraxes are only exotic if you want to wield them one-handed, a kind of poor man's Monkey Grip. Otherwise you're fine with Martial Weapon Proficiency.

Finally, some of the (in my opinion) best weapons in the game are Simple or Martial. For high damage output, you're much better off with a scythe than an orc double axe. And don't even get me started on the whip!

Still, that's neither here nor there, is it? We'll have to see if the folks at Wizards think they can do better than this. I'm not counting on it, though.

Good points, lets hope they can come up with some consistency in their weapon proficiency system. Even now looking again at the core rules, many weapons (monk weapons) are exotic and they're clearly weaker than martial or simple weapons.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Give all characters proficiency with the dire flail.

 

[Masquerade]

I would like to see the at least the two-bladed sword stay. Thanks to such influences as Phantom Menace and Chrono Cross, it's practically a staple. The whip, bolas, and some of the monk weapons should probably stay, too.

The remainder of the exotic weapons (especially those introduced outside the PHB), unfortunately, tend to be just "an axe...but bigger" or "a flail...but pointier." Not exactly inspiring.

(As an aside, I wouldn't be offended at all if the simple/martial/exotic breakdown was replaced with weapon groups or some other alternative.)