Is there a better way to handle Exotic Weapon Proficiency?

Tayne

First Post
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?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


It's worth noting, for this conversation, that Paizo already did this to some extent with Ultimate Combat. The Firearms are Exotic weapons, in base rules, but you only spend one Exotic Weapon feat to get them all- you just take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearms) and you can use that Pistol just as easily as that Shotgun. Whether you love or hate the idea of firearms in a D&D-style game, you must admit that's an interesting step to take, mechanically.

I think doing Exotic Weapon Groups makes sense too. Certainly not one Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat for everything- it doesn't make sense that learning to use a Two-Bladed Sword would let you also use a Repeating Crossbow- but I think it does make sense that learning the Two-Bladed Sword would let you use an Orc Double-Axe, for example. Aren't Longsword and Battleaxe in the same weapon category, that you learn with one feat? Why would the double versions be so different?
 

I am house ruling weapon proficiencies to be traits, of a category that you can take more than one of. So you can take the Additional Traits feat and get a martial or exotic proficiency and one other trait (another proficiency ir whatever), or spend a beginning trait on a proficiency.

I think I may make some other weak or limited feats into traits, too.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
 

Good idea

It's worth noting, for this conversation, that Paizo already did this to some extent with Ultimate Combat. The Firearms are Exotic weapons, in base rules, but you only spend one Exotic Weapon feat to get them all- you just take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearms) and you can use that Pistol just as easily as that Shotgun. Whether you love or hate the idea of firearms in a D&D-style game, you must admit that's an interesting step to take, mechanically.

I think doing Exotic Weapon Groups makes sense too. Certainly not one Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat for everything- it doesn't make sense that learning to use a Two-Bladed Sword would let you also use a Repeating Crossbow- but I think it does make sense that learning the Two-Bladed Sword would let you use an Orc Double-Axe, for example. Aren't Longsword and Battleaxe in the same weapon category, that you learn with one feat? Why would the double versions be so different?

Except, Martial Weapon Proficiency feat only gives you ONE proficiency, not all. And double-axes and swords should not be the same because of axe and sword are the same, but rather it's use as a double-weapon.

I think I like the Weapon Groups as well, it could be based on the Figher ones:
Exotic Axes, Heavy Blades, Light Blades, Bows, Close, Crossbows, Double etc.

So a character taking Exotic Heavy Blade proficiency could use a Bastard Sword, Elven Curve Blade, Katana, No-Dachi. I'm not sure if we should allow overlap, like having double-bladed sword in both the Heavy Blade AND the Double group. But I'm inclined to allow it. A feat is pretty valuable, and being able to use several weapons is not that advantagous in this game as the system rewards specialization (magic item, feats, etc).

I really like the suggestion... this will probably be in a future campaign at least. I'd allow the same for Martial Weapon and Simple Weapon feats, but ONLY the feats. Rogues will not suddenly become proficent with longswords because they can use Rapiers. But if they take Martial Heavy Blade prof. feat, I think they should be allowed the use of both Longswords AND Scimitars.

And this way Commoners won't be as screwed ;)
 

Don't worry about letting the weapons overlap in Two Groups.

There's already precedent for that in the Fighter Weapon groups.

Look at starknife.
 

Remove ads

Top