Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tayne" data-source="post: 5735819" data-attributes="member: 6685115">A friend and I had a minor disagreement about this. I, personally, believe the system as fine as is, though I am always more of the attitude that &quot;there's always room for improvement&quot; as opposed to &quot;if it ain't broke don't fix it.&quot;His position makes sense, from a rules-as-simulation perspective. How is swinging a falcata so different from a longsword or scimitar? Is aiming and firing a repeating crossbow so different from doing the same with any other? Fauchards and halberds? So on and so on. In some cases the answer is a definitive yes, in others, it's not so clear.Of course, the true reason for exotic weapon proficiencies is simple - exotic weapons tend to have advantages over martial ones. Requiring a feat balances out that advantage. But is it an overcorrection, to the point of being prohibitive? Not for fighters, perhaps. But for other martial classes, particularly non humans?Is there a better way to handle this? He proposed one feat for multiple proficiencies to make the option more attractive - either pre-set packages of exotic weapons or like a 'pick three' option. That didn't sound too unreasonable to me. A lot of feats have become better since 3.5, perhaps it would be best if exotic weapon proficiencies got a small improvement as well too keep them attractive as an option. On the other hand, feats are also much more plentiful in PF. Have you ever made any houserule changes to exotic weapon proficiency? Would you consider it?-------------------------------------------------Sub topicThe conversation that lead to this topic was, in my opinion, interesting in its own right.We were talking about the tendency of races to have their own weapons. The elven curveblade, the dwarven waraxe, etc. Then I thought of the old joke - &quot;In China, they just call chinese food 'food.'&quot; An elf would no more think of a a sword as an &quot;elven curve blade&quot; than you or I would think of a cross bow as a &quot;human bolt launcher.&quot; It's the other races that would start naming weapons after their inventors.But, what WOULD elves and dwarves think of as &quot;human&quot; weapons? It's difficult to imagine, but the idea continues to fascinate me.Polearms strike me as somehow very human-y. Or perhaps other races would think of the flail as the &quot;human chain-club?&quot;Thoughts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tayne, post: 5735819, member: 6685115"] A friend and I had a minor disagreement about this. I, personally, believe the system as fine as is, though I am always more of the attitude that "there's always room for improvement" as opposed to "if it ain't broke don't fix it." His position makes sense, from a rules-as-simulation perspective. How is swinging a falcata so different from a longsword or scimitar? Is aiming and firing a repeating crossbow so different from doing the same with any other? Fauchards and halberds? So on and so on. In some cases the answer is a definitive yes, in others, it's not so clear. Of course, the true reason for exotic weapon proficiencies is simple - exotic weapons tend to have advantages over martial ones. Requiring a feat balances out that advantage. But is it an overcorrection, to the point of being prohibitive? Not for fighters, perhaps. But for other martial classes, particularly non humans? Is there a better way to handle this? He proposed one feat for multiple proficiencies to make the option more attractive - either pre-set packages of exotic weapons or like a 'pick three' option. That didn't sound too unreasonable to me. A lot of feats have become better since 3.5, perhaps it would be best if exotic weapon proficiencies got a small improvement as well too keep them attractive as an option. On the other hand, feats are also much more plentiful in PF. Have you ever made any houserule changes to exotic weapon proficiency? Would you consider it? ------------------------------------------------- Sub topic The conversation that lead to this topic was, in my opinion, interesting in its own right. We were talking about the tendency of races to have their own weapons. The elven curveblade, the dwarven waraxe, etc. Then I thought of the old joke - "In China, they just call chinese food 'food.'" An elf would no more think of a a sword as an "elven curve blade" than you or I would think of a cross bow as a "human bolt launcher." It's the other races that would start naming weapons after their inventors. But, what WOULD elves and dwarves think of as "human" weapons? It's difficult to imagine, but the idea continues to fascinate me. Polearms strike me as somehow very human-y. Or perhaps other races would think of the flail as the "human chain-club?" Thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification