Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GreatLemur" data-source="post: 3736352" data-attributes="member: 28553">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 &quot;exotic&quot; to describe what should have been something like &quot;advanced&quot; weapons.&nbsp; So instead of just being a bunch of mechanically superior weapons you need special feats to use, they also threw in the &quot;Asian&quot;-style Monk weapons, despite the fact that they're mechanically inferior.&nbsp; I really don't see the sense in that.&nbsp; D&amp;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 &quot;exotic weapons&quot; as a category.As for sillyness like the spiked chain . . . yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing that go.&nbsp; But why not replace it with a regular chain?&nbsp; It'd be more believable, and in fact would have a real historical basis.&nbsp; Just change the damage from 2d4 piercing to 1d4 bludgeoning, and you've got a perfectly reasonable weapon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GreatLemur, post: 3736352, member: 28553"] 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 [i]inferior[/i]. 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 [i]regular[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification