D&D 4E 4E Exotic Weapons?

[Fallen Seraph]

I think exotic-weapons should be a "campaign appropriate" feat, so have some base-rules in the core-book for the feat and what it means to use a exotic-weapon, but then just classify all the weapons under simple, ranged, martial.

This way in a campaign, the DM have the rules to proclaim what would happen if you have the exotic-weapon feat, what bonuses if any you get by using a exotic-weapon (the people you would be facing would be unprepared for a unusual/unknown weapon), etc.

This works since, in say a European-centric campaign, Chinese/Japanese-styled weapons may be not known and thus be exotic... But in a Eastern-centric campaign, European-weapons like the rapier would be exotic. Or if your world has everything in equal abundance then none are exotic.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't know, I think it might have a place in the 4e concept of battlefield control. You don't have to defend yourself if no one can get close to you. Of course it's not historically accurate but if we look at sources like Kill Bill, God of War and Heavenly Sword, this kind of weapon *is* viable.

That's a big "if" there.

 

[pawsplay]

This works since, in say a European-centric campaign, Chinese/Japanese-styled weapons may be not known and thus be exotic... But in a Eastern-centric campaign, European-weapons like the rapier would be exotic. Or if your world has everything in equal abundance then none are exotic.

A rapier is essentially the same as a jian. And a kama is a sickle, a nunchaku is a short flail, a sai is a baton used as it it were a smallsword, and butterfly swords are just cutlasses. A claymore is a no-daichi, a glaive is a naginata, a falchion is a dao.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

True say, probably wasn't best choice, but I think though still holds true though, that something that is common in one land, that may be odd and unusual to others wouldn't/shouldn't be exotic to that land but should be exotic to another.

This would especially hold true in a fantasy world, where truly bizarre weapons can be created.

 

[Cryptos]

I don't know, I just don't think the designation 'exotic' is entirely necessary or welcome. Shouldn't the question of whether or not a weapon is exotic be up to the campaign setting, or in the case of a homebrew, the DM?

I was looking at the 3.5 PBH after lurking here last night, and the one thing that did occur to me is that invariably, all the exotic weapons in 3.x look like they should actually be called "things you could use to hurt yourself if you move the wrong way." For the most part. The rest of them just look like mini-versions of larger weapons, which is even more silly as an 'exotic weapon.'

"Hey, Jeb, lookie here! I just invented the Kama!"

"Looks like a tiny scythe to me, Vern."

Anyway, looking at how they've talked about weapon proficiency thus far, and what little they've shown us so far (mostly in the context of races - the elf, the "all humans will be proficient in a weapon" comment) it seems to me that you'll be proficient in a weapon rather than in broad weapon types. That kind of nixes the entire point of the exotic weapon proficiency. Could be wrong, but it looks like they're leaning in that direction.

Fewer weapons for the Elf (longsword and rapier are gone), that comment about humans, the stuff about fighters getting maneuvers with a certain type of weapon from talents (being a swordsman or an axe specialist) seems to imply that they're looking more for specialists in individual weapons. And if they're all taken individually in terms of proficiency, then that effectively takes the place of exotic.

We should keep in mind also that we don't know what proficiency vs. non-proficiency will mean in the new system. With the aversion to blanket penalties, it could just mean that you can't use your combat feats, talents or maneuvers with weapons you're not proficient in, rather than something like a -4 penalty to use them. In other words, anyone can pick up and try to swing a sword. But you have to have training in using a longsword if you want to do that Triple Backflip Ankle Sweep of Death maneuver with it. Much like how in SAGA, there's no penalty per se for untrained skill use, it's just there are certain things you can do if you are trained that you can't untrained, and if you're trained, you can then buy a focus in it and become even better at it.

 

[Kaisoku]

Unfortunately, 3e has used the same feat for two concepts with regards to exotic weapon proficiency.

One is to classify a set of weapons as being "non-standard for the setting". Meaning, kama, nunchaku, etc. These weapons, stats-wise, aren't any "better", rather they are just different flavour. You don't get anything out of the feat other than to say "I know how to use these weapons that are funny looking and have funny sounding names".
Mechanically, you've lost a feat for no benefit.

The other is to classify weapons that would grant you a bonus over the standard normal weapons. A Bastard sword isn't an exotic weapon.. rather, you use it in an exotic way to it's full benefit. Normally, you use a Bastard sword two-handed (at 1d10, a simple weapon quality). One handed requires exotic proficiency.. to get 1d10 in one hand (better than martial weapon quality).
Mechanically, you've increased damage by 1 or so.

Compared to Weapon Specialization, it's half as useful, but then there's other weapons that give extra options (bonuses on disarm or able to drop on trip attempts, or special reach conditions, etc). That and weapon spec is fighter only, and anyone can pick up exotic proficiency.


Ultimately, I'd like to see a feat actually GIVE something. Kamas and Nunchaku should be useable by those people with the analog european weapon proficiencies... mechanically it shouldn't matter, as it only affects roleplaying situations (which are poorly represented by mechanical feats... where someone could pick weapon focus instead, etc).

If a weapon gives something extra, then yeah.. or make it a blanket feat that gives the extra, or whatever. But a feat should give you something is the point here.

 

[Gloombunny]

The "better than a normal weapon" usage ended up giving rise to a lot of weapons that are just like a normal weapon only better, which really didn't make any sense.

 

[pawsplay]

The "better than a normal weapon" usage ended up giving rise to a lot of weapons that are just like a normal weapon only better, which really didn't make any sense.

"This dagger is so exotic... it has a basket hilt on it and a broad blade for parrying!"

 

[just__al]

True say, probably wasn't best choice, but I think though still holds true though, that something that is common in one land, that may be odd and unusual to others wouldn't/shouldn't be exotic to that land but should be exotic to another.

This would especially hold true in a fantasy world, where truly bizarre weapons can be created.

I think a bonus to perform (weapon drill) would be appropriate, but not actually fighting against the foreign weapon.

Sure it's kind of impressive to see somebody go all kung-fu with a pair of nunchuks (sp?) but they still fight like a flail and you already know how to defend against flailing weapons...