Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3384617" data-attributes="member: 4937">There is alot of truth to that on multiple levels.&nbsp; Let me hit it from a couple of angles, to see how many ring true.1) In the real world, often a weapon is 'exotic' (here meaning rare) precisely because it was hard to use, clumsy, and not very effective.&nbsp; If it hadn't been hard to use, clumsy, and not very effective, then more people would have used it and we wouldn't think of it as exotic.2) The exotic weapon list wasn't chosen for any sort of good reason.&nbsp; It's poor inflexible design IMO.&nbsp; What's exotic in one culture is often ordinary in another.&nbsp; Often as not, the 'exotic' weapons are just some other cultures name for a variation on a weapon which isn't 'exotic'.&nbsp; The name is more 'exotic' (here meaning foreign) than the weapon is.&nbsp; It seems to me that either every culture should get a list of a couple 'exotic' weapons which are unique to that culture (a cultural weapon package), or else none of them should and we should just admit that besides minor differences in appearance they are basically the same weapon regardless of the language used.3) The weapon list doesn't really reflect how much time a person must spend to acquire proficiency in the weapon.&nbsp; If it did, the longbow and the sling would certainly be on the 'exotic' (here meaning difficult) weapon list.&nbsp; Both weapons (if weapon stats were based on realism) would be either worth the feat, or else would appear in some of the most highly sought out/often taken 'cultural weapon packages'.&nbsp; 4) Alot of times the only reason the weapon is on the 'exotic' weapon list is because its mechanically superior to some other weapon.&nbsp; The problem here is that the 'exotic' (here meaning superior) weapon typically isn't so superior as to be worth a feat, since at best it tends to give you about a half to 3/4's of a feat worth of advantage (+1 damage or something).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3384617, member: 4937"] There is alot of truth to that on multiple levels. Let me hit it from a couple of angles, to see how many ring true. 1) In the real world, often a weapon is 'exotic' (here meaning rare) precisely because it was hard to use, clumsy, and not very effective. If it hadn't been hard to use, clumsy, and not very effective, then more people would have used it and we wouldn't think of it as exotic. 2) The exotic weapon list wasn't chosen for any sort of good reason. It's poor inflexible design IMO. What's exotic in one culture is often ordinary in another. Often as not, the 'exotic' weapons are just some other cultures name for a variation on a weapon which isn't 'exotic'. The name is more 'exotic' (here meaning foreign) than the weapon is. It seems to me that either every culture should get a list of a couple 'exotic' weapons which are unique to that culture (a cultural weapon package), or else none of them should and we should just admit that besides minor differences in appearance they are basically the same weapon regardless of the language used. 3) The weapon list doesn't really reflect how much time a person must spend to acquire proficiency in the weapon. If it did, the longbow and the sling would certainly be on the 'exotic' (here meaning difficult) weapon list. Both weapons (if weapon stats were based on realism) would be either worth the feat, or else would appear in some of the most highly sought out/often taken 'cultural weapon packages'. 4) Alot of times the only reason the weapon is on the 'exotic' weapon list is because its mechanically superior to some other weapon. The problem here is that the 'exotic' (here meaning superior) weapon typically isn't so superior as to be worth a feat, since at best it tends to give you about a half to 3/4's of a feat worth of advantage (+1 damage or something). [/QUOTE]

Verification