Aquatic campaigns: Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapons

Whether a weapon is simple, martial or exotic is, for certain weapons, a matter of culture. The naginata, a relatively common martial polearm in Eastern cultures is virtually unheard of in the West...though there are certain analogs. But there is no culture that would consider the Wind and Fire wheels to be a martial or simple weapon- they're 100% exotic.

A classic case of this is the aquatic or maritime culture- many such would have weapons that are simply seen nowhere else, or only in the rarest of circumstances. And of course, certain weapons we consider common would be almost absent.

So, in this thread, I'd like to brainstorm and then maybe organize a list of Simple/Martial/Exotic weapons for Aquatic or Island cultures. If changes are necessary, we'd present the stats to make them playable for standard races.

The first that popped up on my radar- the one that inspired me- was in Savage Species.

The Sharktooth Staff, SS p45-46
Its a Large exotic polearm, 2d6 x3 Slashing, no reach. Wt 10lbs. 20GP.


To update it for a 3.5 aquatic campaign:

Sharktooth Staff
2Handed Martial (Exotic elsewhere) polearm, 2d6 x 3 Slashing (and Bludgeoning?)

Why the switch? In many cultures, a wooden club (often flattened) studded with the teeth of top predators (shark & alligator teeth were commonly used) was a fairly common weapon for warriors. They were heavy enough to break bone, and the teeth shredded lightly armored foes. These clubs persisted in island cultures as top weapons for much longer than in others, probably due to resource constraints.

Any other weapons out there lurking in the various 3.X books? What weapons have you seen statted out in a 3.X book that should be simple or martial in an aquatic campaign setting?

Dannyalcatraz said:

Whether a weapon is simple, martial or exotic is, for certain weapons, a matter of culture.

Click to expand...

In regard to 3.0e/3.5e, your assumption is wrong. Simple, martial & exotic categories are based on game statistics and not on cultural background. Martial weapons are somewhat stronger than simple weapons. And exotic weapons are somewhat stronger than martial weapons. That is all.

For example, in medieval to pre-modern Japan, longsword was something unheard of. And Katana (Bastard Sword) was the most popular type of blade. Still, even in Japan-like setting, Longsword is martial weapon and Katana is exotic weapon. Also, crossbow was something almost never used in pre-modern Japan. Still, crossbow is simple weapons and bows are martial weapons in Japan-like setting.

When reflecting "cultural popularity", 3.5e is mainly using following 3 approaches.

1) Some race is simply proficient in some type of weapon (Elf).
2) Some race can treat certain exotic weapon as martial weapon (Dwarf).
3) Some class gives proficiency to some specific weapon (Rogue, Samurai).

You may create your own tailored race (say, Island Elf) and make it proficient in some specific weapon. Or maybe you can create a new standard class (say, pirate) and make it proficient in some type of weapons.

Another approach could be making some alternative class features. For example, you may make a level 1 paladin alternative class feature which gives proficiency to certain type of weapons, in exchange for proficiency in medium/heavy armor and shield.

Or, you can just encourage PCs and NPCs to take certain Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat. Even a level 1 NPC warrior can have one feat (two, if he is a human).

In regard to 3.0e/3.5e, your assumption is wrong.

Click to expand...

Not entirely. The kama is just an Eastern take on the sickle.

They're virtually identical in their stats, but the kama does have additional powers. Dollars will get you doughnuts, thought that someone proficient with a kama could use a sickle in identical fashion.

But because we have the multiple examples in Western fiction (and historical fact) that the kama gets used by certain martial artists while no such example springs to mind for the sickle, the designers added that trip bonus and "monk weapon" status.

Similarly, a watchman's truncheon or nightstick (straight or with cross-mount handle) is usually considered to be a club. A tonfa has nearly the same dimensions, but is a monk weapon. In real life, you use both in identical fashion. In game, one is simple, one is exotic. The real difference? One is Eastern, one is Western.

Another approach could be making some alternative class features. For example, you may make a level 1 paladin alternative class feature which gives proficiency to certain type of weapons, in exchange for proficiency in medium/heavy armor and shield.

Click to expand...

That might work. And I could just re-skin your racial idea as a cultural one.

Dannyalcatraz said:

Not entirely. The kama is just an Eastern take on the sickle.

They're virtually identical in their stats, but the kama does have additional powers. Dollars will get you doughnuts, thought that someone proficient with a kama could use a sickle in identical fashion.

But because we have the multiple examples in Western fiction (and historical fact) that the kama gets used by certain martial artists while no such example springs to mind for the sickle, the designers added that trip bonus and "monk weapon" status.

Similarly, a watchman's truncheon or nightstick (straight or with cross-mount handle) is usually considered to be a club. A tonfa has nearly the same dimensions, but is a monk weapon. In real life, you use both in identical fashion. In game, one is simple, one is exotic. The real difference? One is Eastern, one is Western.

Click to expand...

Not really. As you have pointed out by yourself already, Kama and Tonfa are exotic weapons because they have a hidden special property (monk can use it for flurry). Quarterstaff became monk weapon in 3.5e. Still, in the core rule, monk weapons are exotic as they are the only one-handed weapons which gives special bonus to monks. Talking about popularity, Kama was never ever actually popular as a weapon even in Japan.

Forget about if some weapons are unpopular or hard to use in the real world or not.Greatclub is just a big wooden club. You can see short sword or it's equivalent in almost any area on the earth. It is not difficult to use a short sword as an efficient melee weapon than to use a sickle as a weapon. Still, short sword is classified as a martial weapon because of it's game statistics.

Shin Okada said:

Not really. As you have pointed out by yourself already, Kama and Tonfa are exotic weapons because they have a hidden special property (monk can use it for flurry).

Click to expand...

You're kind of missing my point.

That the reason why the Kama and Tonfa are exotic weapons is because they are monk weapons, we agree.

But they only have that distinction in game due to perceptions that influenced game design.

In terms of use, the RW tonfa differs minimally (a matter of centimeters) from the RW nightstick; the RW sickle is functionally identical to the kama. The only difference is how they are portrayed in fiction. So because the ninjas and monks of Eastern martial arts films have no real Western counterparts, the 2 Western weapons are "simple" while 2 Eastern ones are "exotic."

Dannyalcatraz said:

In terms of use, the RW tonfa differs minimally (a matter of centimeters) from the RW nightstick; the RW sickle is functionally identical to the kama. The only difference is how they are portrayed in fiction. So because the ninjas and monks of Eastern martial arts films have no real Western counterparts, the 2 Western weapons are "simple" while 2 Eastern ones are "exotic."

Click to expand...

Well, AFAIK modern Tonfa-like nightsticks are actually made after eastern martial arts were introduced into western world and are modeled by tofa and similar Chinese weapons. And modern tonfa-like nightsticks are not in the list of D&D simple/martial weapon list. If you bring tonfa-like modern nightstick into D&D 3.5e, it should be the equivalent of Tonfa instead of club. And typical western sickle is different from Japanese Kama in shape. And, by the way, both of them were never used by RW Ninja. Those are weapon used in Okinawan (Ryukyu) martial arts and no real relation with Ninja. D&D rules are not reflecting RW weapons strictly.

But anyway, what important is, if some weapon is classified as "exotic" in D&D rulebooks and supplements, they are so because they are somewhat superior in stats or because of special rules. Thus, you should not simply make it as a martial or simple weapon just because that weapon is popular in some area of your campaign setting world.

Shin Okada said:

But anyway, what important is, if some weapon is classified as "exotic" in D&D rulebooks and supplements, they are so because they are somewhat superior in stats or because of special rules. Thus, you should not simply make it as a martial or simple weapon just because that weapon is popular in some area of your campaign setting world.

Click to expand...

Ultimately...you're probably right about that. Even if an exotic weapon is almost universally adopted by a culture, that's probably just grounds to give them that XWP as a bonus rather than reclassifying it.

OTOH, that raises the flipside problem: a number of exotic weapons would be relatively more common in aquatic/waterfront cultures. How do you balance the # of XWPs given to a given culture?

The balance is in that the weapons see more everyday use as tools. A farmer would be proficient with a scythe (a normally martial weapon), a net fisherman would be proficient with net (an exotic weapon), a spear fisherman would be proficient with a trident (a normally martial weapon) or some type of spear (all simple), a dock-hand would be proficient with a boat-hook (an exotic weapon with reach?). These proficiencies come about from common use as a tool rather than training. To a carpenter, a hammer is a viable weapon, while to normal Joe it is mainly a tool that could be used as an improvised weapon in a pinch. Does this mean that each craft skill should include a list of weapon proficiencies? Probably, but who wants to do that?

For your sea-culture: add a few exotics as martials, a few martials as simple, a few freebies for certain classes/skill-sets/crafts. In exchange, restrict certain other weapons: for example add cutlass and restrict rapier, add boat-hook and restrict guisarme, etc.

Just my two coppers...

Ciao,
Dave

Think of the Bastard sword example.

Martial weapon to use 2 handed, exotic to use one-handed.

Fairly common weapon, culturally.

Also note that exotic weapon proficiency only applies to a single weapon and not all weapons so it does become expensive. The same is true of martial weapon proficiency by the way, but some classes get proficiency in all martial weapons as a class feature.

So I would go with adding in weapon proficiencies as a modified class feature or you could even do it racially for aquatic races.

ElectricDragon said:

The balance is in that the weapons see more everyday use as tools. A farmer would be proficient with a scythe (a normally martial weapon), a net fisherman would be proficient with net (an exotic weapon), a spear fisherman would be proficient with a trident (a normally martial weapon) or some type of spear (all simple), a dock-hand would be proficient with a boat-hook (an exotic weapon with reach?). These proficiencies come about from common use as a tool rather than training. To a carpenter, a hammer is a viable weapon, while to normal Joe it is mainly a tool that could be used as an improvised weapon in a pinch. Does this mean that each craft skill should include a list of weapon proficiencies? Probably, but who wants to do that?

Click to expand...

As you pointed out, they are all proficient with their tools of trade. But I do not think that this is true when it comes to fight. There is a difference between stabbing a fish and a human. So I would not treat a Level 1 NPC proficient with its working tool but give him a skill focus for the appropriated skill (e.g. survival).

But to responde to the titel, I would go for weapon which can be wield underwater without hindering. That is in my opinion the obvious thing to go for as aquatic or island creature. So I would not use any Bludgeoning weapon for such a culture.