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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of the exotic weapons, I've personally designed PCs that used and enjoyed the:

Greatspear
Bastard Sword
Maul
Jovar
Urgosh
Longaxe
Whip
Kusarigama
(as well as some- especially polearms- from the DCv1 and other sources)

I respect many of the others, like the Elvish blades, hydraflail, scourge, throwing rings, and weapons made for the use of certain races (like that pincher weapon that requires multiple limbs) and I kinda think the 2 bladed sword was pretty cool...

The Gnomish Hooked hammer needed work, like the suggestion made above.

The Dire Flail was pretty stupid.

The spiked chain would have been perfect if the designers had stuck to the blunt version from OA- that, at least, has the benefit of being a real weapon.

A version of the whip as a metal slashing weapon would be cool, and would simulate that Urimi/Chuttuval sword that someone posted a few months ago. (FREAKY!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urumi)

 

[Imp]

Aren't fighters in 4e supposed to have various supermurderous weapon maneuvers that are keyed to weapon types? If so, wouldn't implementing exotic weapons involve creating maneuvers with for example a fighting chain that caused markedly different effects than what would be available with a sword or spear or something?

Sounds good to me, and it'd be better than the lame approach of ooh a spear that does more damage, exotic!

 

[The Souljourner]

The exotic weapons were supposed to be mechanically better than non-exotics. At least, that's what the ended up trying to make them. Some, like the monk weapons, are only mechanically better under very very limited circumstances (i.e. if you're a monk and they're magical/of a material and you need that).

The only truly awful exotic weapons were either those that were unbalanced, or those that were utterly beyond suspension of disbelief (mercurials and most weird double weapons).

Yes, 1d8/1d8 two bladed sword is worth an exotic feat. Why? Because it lets you get 1d8 with your offhand, plus it only takes a single type of weapon focus/specialization, vs. longsword/shortsword which takes two.

As for weapon groups... they have this, they're called martial vs. simple weapons. Fighters don't have to take proficiency at all anymore... they know *every single weapon*. Polearm? Check. Axe? Check. Longbow? Check. They just know everything. And I think it's great. The only things they don't know are the unusual weapons, which are exotic, and generally have a mechanical bonus (whip notwithstanding).

I like exotic weapons.... it's a way to make your character unusual and unique. Do you really want to go back to the days where everyone only ever uses a longsword?

-Nate

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Hear, hear. Let's ditch the silly weapons group and keep the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe.

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.

 

[Baduin]

I don't see a need to invent silly and ineffective weapons when there is an infinite amount of perfectly usable and much more stranger real historic weapons.

It is true that most variations happens in the polearms. When you use eg Iron Heroes system, they can be made quite different by giving them bonuses to disarm, trip etc.

There is a lot of very good books about weapons and armor. I hope they make use of them. Why not keep things historically accurate - it's not as if that was very difficult. Keeping things historical has one special benefit - historical weapons were optimized with really great care by professional. There were no suboptimal weapons in history. Accordingly, if you keep things historical, each weapon will be different and special, each will have advantages and disadvantages, and will be useful with different manouvers and in different situations.

Since there will be a lot more feats, weapon group seem more practical. I would suggest rather broad classifications -
1 simple weapons, including crossbows
2 European close-combat and throwing weapons,
3 bows and longbows (it was one of the most difficult weapons to master)
4 Eastern close combat and throwing weapons, including throwing stars, disks etc.

Some practical suggestions about particular weapons:

The bastard sword shouldn't be exotic. It is only a variant name of a longsword, possibly a bit greater one. The only thing necessary to use one one-handed is great enough strength.

On the other hand, a true two-handed sword - not a medieval warsword or a greatsword, but a Renaissance zweihander

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweihander

is quite different. It has a special construction, can be gripped by the guard or by the ricasso, can be only used on foot etc. In fact, it resembles more a poleweapon than a normal sword.

Sabres, especially tulwars and shamshirs, depend on speed and sharpness, not on strength. They could receive bonus damage from dexterity. They can easily cut off a head or a hand, but are not very useful against heavy armor.

 

[frankthedm]

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...

Yes it does once the critical multipler gets increased. The step to martial would be x3 or 19-20 crit, the step to exotic is the damage upgrade or a 'speacial ability' of the weapon, like the spear end of the urgosh's 'set to charge'.

If a player wanted a 1d8 x2 crit / 1d8 x2 crit double mace at martial, that would be reasonable.

Big thing I am worried about is how much mearls borrows from Iron Heroes. In that game, the weapons were balanced very carefully against one another and intrisicly tied to character abilities, making creation of a new weapons very iffy.

Thankfully, the spiked chain stands a good chance of not coming back.

 

[F4NBOY]

There are 4 swords in this image, I think the third larger might be the Bastard Sword.
If it's going to be considered an "exotic" weapon in 4E, dunno.

 

[GreatLemur]

Regardless, the entire idea of "monk weapons" being exotic always struck me as strange.

Yeah, that's always been a weird thing about 3.x, and I think it stems from the fact that they illogically used the word "exotic" to describe what should have been something like "advanced" weapons. So instead of just being a bunch of mechanically superior weapons you need special feats to use, they also threw in the "Asian"-style Monk weapons, despite the fact that they're mechanically inferior. I really don't see the sense in that. D&D ain't generally set in medieval Europe, the Monk class is not about dudes visiting from China, and there isn't any reason in the world a Rogue shouldn't be allowed to use a kama.

So, yeah, I'm hoping we see the end of "exotic weapons" as a category.

As for sillyness like the spiked chain . . . yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing that go. But why not replace it with a regular chain? It'd be more believable, and in fact would have a real historical basis. Just change the damage from 2d4 piercing to 1d4 bludgeoning, and you've got a perfectly reasonable weapon.

 

[Gargoyle]

I'm not sure what they will or should do, but there needs to be a way of dealing with unusual weapons in the game so that:

1. They are not too commonly used...otherwise we'll see every other creature wielding them. This means there has to be a significant cost to use them, not just that they are rare or cost more gold. I'm not sure a single feat is enough of a cost sometimes, but I do think this part of the 3E rules is probably about right.

2. The power level of unusual weapons needs to be under control. If they take a feat to use, they need to give some sort of advantage, but they can't always be the best choice. This ties in to #1 of course.

3. The artwork for an unusual weapon needs to make it look like it could hurt someone other than the wielder. I don't have a problem with spiked chains, but I just have trouble imagining someone using the one pictured in the PHB without hurting themselves. Better suspension of disbelief plz!

4. These weapons need to look different and play differently, not just do more damage. The exotic weapons such as the mercurial blades, or the elven thinblade...they are just mechanically better, and not very interesting. Make the elven thinblade better for casters in some way, not just a better rapier. Have mercurial weapons that while doing better damage also slowly poison their wielder...that sort of thing. If it doesn't look different, make it feel different.

It sounds like the new fighter class will be weapon specialists of sorts, and I think exotic weapons add some fun to the game, so it will be interesting to see what type of system they come up with, and what weapons make it into 4E.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

As long as the spiked chain is out, I'll be happy. Was there ever any consensus reached on what this thing is even supposed to look like?