Exotic Weapons

[heavyfuel]

So 5e's idea of an exotic weapon is "refluff it". If we look at the Monk entry in the PHB, they tell us that a nunchaku is basically just a quarterstaff, and a kama is just a sickle. The same happens in the DMG when it starts to talk about alternative campaign settings. Even the Bastard Sword, a classic weapon, became a versatile longsword. Not even half as cool.

But after my players requested actual exotic weapons, it got me thinking: The main issue is that Exotic Weapons are supposed to be stronger than their non-exotic counterparts, and simply giving proficiency seems wrong. They're certainly not worth a feat each anymore, so I decided to do two things, one based off the Exoticist Fighter from 3.5, and the other off the Tavern Brawler feat.

The 3.5 rule, for those who are unfamiliar, had the Exoticist Fighter as a character option that allowed the Fighter to exchange his Martial Weapon proficiencies for proficiency with 4 exotic weapons (among some lesser things). Basically, trading their versatility for a bit more power. This would work best in campaigns were magic items are semi-random, as it would really, really, make the player think twice before getting jumping into EWs, especially since a +1 Longsword should be more common than +1 Courtblade.




So, the rules:


Anyone who has proficiency with all martial weapons can exchange it for proficiency with 2 Exotic Weapons. Martial weapon proficiency can no longer be acquired through multiclassing.
"Exoticist" feat, where you can gain proficiency with 4 exotic weapons and +1 Str or Dex.
A magical exotic weapon is one category rarer than an otherwise non-exotic one.


As for what would Exotic Weapons be, I though of a few, mostly based off 3.5:

Bastard Sword: Versatile, 1d10/2d6
Longblade: Finesse, Versatile, 1d8/1d10
Courtblade: Finesse, Two-handed, 2d6
Nunchaku: Finesse, 1d6. Counts as polearm.
Greathammer: Heavy, Two-handed, 3d6

Greatbow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range): range 250/1000, 1d10
Great crossbow: reload (1 shot), range 270/1080, 2d6 (historically had longer range than the English Longbow)
Bolas: Finesse, Thrown, range 20/60, 1d4. Can be used to Shove a creature from range, knocking it Prone.

[Oscredwin]

I think a few of those need the "Heavy" keyword.

[heavyfuel]

The Bastard Sword? Sure. But the Courtblade? Do we really want a Finesse Heavy weapon?

[Kane0]

How about backgrounds also giving an exotic weapon prof i stead of a tool prof?

[EvanescentHero]

How about backgrounds also giving an exotic weapon prof i stead of a tool prof?

That seems way too powerful using these rules.

[Fwiffo86]

The main issue is that Exotic Weapons are supposed to be stronger than their non-exotic counterparts

What makes this true?

Isn't an English Longsword exotic when playing an Oriental Adventures game?

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think exotic weapons need to be better than existing weapons, just different. Refluffing will fit the vast majority of cases anyway, even spiked chains (just make it the same as a halberd).

That said, I think the system you propose is too complicated. Why not just tell your players that they have to invest in-game time training with the new weapon, spending X short or long rests focusing on the training, in order to learn the weapon. It would be basically the same as attunement.

[Galen]

There's a half-feat (Weapon Master) that anyone can take to become proficient in any four weapons of their choice. Note that it doesn't say Martial weapons. You can use this as an excuse to make weapons that are a bit cooler (read: better) than the existing ones. Want to be proficient? Sure, just spend a half-feat!

[Gritmonger]

Yeah, I'd concur on the exotic-doesn't-mean-better. Exotic to me wouldn't be a new variant of somebody's favorite sword, but a truly unusual weapon that doesn't work like a conventional stab-slash-bludgeon mechanic of a swung or thrusted weapon.

Punch daggers, whips, lassos, mancatchers, urumi, bagh nakha, war fans, and chakram...

Those might require some slightly adjusted mechanics and special training, but yet another sword that somebody wants to be special isn't that amenable to the relatively simplified mechanics of 5th edition.

[Oscredwin]

The Bastard Sword? Sure. But the Courtblade? Do we really want a Finesse Heavy weapon?

I don't think we want a Finesse Heavy weapon (that just makes dex too good), but a 1 handed heavy weapon is also a big deal. GWM+Dueling+a shield?

[JNAProductions]

The Greathammer seems a bit much. +50% damage over every other two-handed option, and you can get that at character creation with martial classes?

[Giant2005]

As Galen said, we already have the Weapon Master feat which covers the feat needs.
Are you aware that this is a pretty significant buff to the Warlock?

[Oscredwin]

Are you aware that this is a pretty significant buff to the Warlock?

It might be a buff to the bladelock, the weakest of the warlocks. I still think they prefer a glaive because of polearm master (16 average damange on bonus action and extra OAs vs 7 extra damage and an available bonus action and a ASI/feat).

[bondpirate]

Haven't played 5th ed yet, but if exotic weapons are just re-fluffed regular weapons, then that would give them more module support or easier to adapt them to one for a DM. Otherwise, or this may just be anecdotal, you get a lot of generic weapons in published material. It also allows more flexibility on random roll charts for the DM without it having to be explicit or custom made. Just my 2 copper.

[Gritmonger]

Haven't played 5th ed yet, but if exotic weapons are just re-fluffed regular weapons, then that would give them more module support or easier to adapt them to one for a DM. Otherwise, or this may just be anecdotal, you get a lot of generic weapons in published material. It also allows more flexibility on random roll charts for the DM without it having to be explicit or custom made. Just my 2 copper.

The magic items you roll up are now, unless they are specific weapons of a very special kind, just generically "+1 weapon" or "+1 ammunition" or "+1 Armor" and the like, partly to allow a GM to easily customize weapons to the player group. So, really - that kind of adaptation is mostly built-in...

[heavyfuel]

What makes this true?

Isn't an English Longsword exotic when playing an Oriental Adventures game?

Ok... So this isn't intrinsically true. But from a balance perspective, they should be. Why would make the investment, whatever that investment is, just to get something that is equal to or worse than something you previously had?


I don't think exotic weapons need to be better than existing weapons, just different. Refluffing will fit the vast majority of cases anyway, even spiked chains (just make it the same as a halberd).

That said, I think the system you propose is too complicated. Why not just tell your players that they have to invest in-game time training with the new weapon, spending X short or long rests focusing on the training, in order to learn the weapon. It would be basically the same as attunement.

It's just that most campaings offer little to no downtime. Also, is it really complicated? You change martial weapon prof for 2 exotic weapon prof. The multiclassing bit is just to avoid 1 level dips that make the choice meaningless.


There's a half-feat (Weapon Master) that anyone can take to become proficient in any four weapons of their choice. Note that it doesn't say Martial weapons. You can use this as an excuse to make weapons that are a bit cooler (read: better) than the existing ones. Want to be proficient? Sure, just spend a half-feat!

I could swear Weapon Master specified martial weapons, though it makes sense that it doesn't. Might as well forget about my proposed feat and just use Weapon Master, especially since it's on the weak end of feats anyways.


The Greathammer seems a bit much. +50% damage over every other two-handed option, and you can get that at character creation with martial classes?

How about 2d8?


As Galen said, we already have the Weapon Master feat which covers the feat needs.
Are you aware that this is a pretty significant buff to the Warlock?

As it's been said, only to bladelocks, which aren't that relevant (I don't think I've ever seen someone play a bladelock before)

[Easy_Lee]

As it's been said, only to bladelocks, which aren't that relevant (I don't think I've ever seen someone play a bladelock before)

Going a bit off topic, but this required a response.

A bladelock can start with one level in fighter for con proficiency, heavy armor proficiency, and the GWF fighting style. He picked variant human and takes polearm mastery. He then takes the rest of his levels in warlock for his full feat progression, full warlock casting, and only one level of delay. He picks up war caster at level 5 so he has that for the rest of his leveling career.

Among his chosen invocation is agonizing blast. Due to war caster, he can use this in place of opportunity attacks. He gets extra opportunity attacks from polearm mastery, yielding some of the highest effective DPR due to his extremely potent and frequent opportunity attacks. He can maintain witch bolt on his chosen target, dealing significant bonus-action damage to that target each round. He can also use hex as his preference, or focus on any other concentration spell. Due to con proficiency + war caster, he will never lose his spell.

When he picks up lifedrinker at level 13, he's adding both Str Mod and Cha Mod on up to three attacks per turn if he takes his bonus attack. Due to his other invocations, such as devil's sight and otherwordly leap, he can ensure that his target is never out of reach. Even if it was, he can still just hit it with agonizing eldritch blasts for competitive damage. And for those few circumstances where dealing heavy damage will not solve that problem, warlocks have access to some of the best control, confusion, and misdirection type spells.

And that's just one way to play a blade-pact warlock. Do you really think they're not relevant?

[Gritmonger]

I'm sorry, I've been reading a lot of the backlogged SUE files, and as a result, I'm kind of sensitive to Katana-fetishism, which is what some of this seems like. The idea that exotic=better I don't think is a given. If you want to make it true for your campaign world, that's great - I'd be more interested in things like I'd mentioned, trying to adapt truly unusual weapons.

Right now in the PHB, two weapons are listed under special: Lance and Net.

So let's look at an exotic weapon that doesn't really have a true analogue - the urumi. It takes a lot of training, because it is effectively a whip made from several blades, that tends to spark when flailed about and to inordinately do a lot of damage to the wielder if unskilled.

At it's base, it'd be a whip - 1d4 damage, reach, finesse.

If it takes enough concentration that you can't really do anything with your other hand, it would qualify as two-handed. Let's say that for instance.

Maybe then we can up the damage to 1d6, since we are talking about sharp blades instead of leather doing 1d4. So now we have something of an equivalent of a two-handed shortsword with reach. Not terribly overbalanced, and also not light (blades instead of leather again).

And the Chakram - essentially a circular blade, thrown like a frisbee.

So a dart, made to be thrown, does 1d4 (an improvement over 3rd and 2nd...) and could easily double for shuriken, but a chakram is a bit heavier, and does slashing instead of piercing damage. Which just about matches a thrown handaxe - 1d6 slashing, light, thrown, 20/60 - but for the Chakram, you can't really use it as a held weapon, so you could add finesse, and make it a ranged only weapon. It would be heavier than a dart, to be sure - so it wouldn't qualify as "light" anymore either. You also couldn't carry nearly as many.

Those I might see as exotic, and deserving a slightly different mechanic. Given that there are already longswords and battleaxes that effectively are the same mechanically, with the only difference being a cost in gold pieces... and that there are already five swords defined, with a lot of different mechanical options from heavy, two-handers (Greatsword) to light, finesse weapons (scimitars and shortswords which, again, only have a price difference)... I'm not sure other sword mechanics merit much of a difference.

[HoarsHalberd]

On topic exotic doesn't mean better, focus on other things than just bigger numbers. Special abilities, like a guan dao user not in heavy armor could give up its movement to jump and add falling damage = 1d6 per 100 lbs the user weighs to one attack, but if it misses, the user takes that damage and falls prone.

Easy lee, your build should be prefaced with "assuming, like me, your interpretation on polearm mastery runs contrary to Mike Mearls' stated ruling." Just to add some deterrent to the players who will be surprised when their DM goes nope on the common sense issue of requiring a specific weapon to be held to allow the opportunity attack but not being needed to attack with it.

[Fwiffo86]

Ok... So this isn't intrinsically true. But from a balance perspective, they should be. Why would make the investment, whatever that investment is, just to get something that is equal to or worse than something you previously had?

This is the method of thinking that lead to the power creep in 3.x. A different weapon (exotic) certainly can fill a niche you find interesting, but making the exotic weapons better, means players will automatically select them instead of other options simply on that principle.


As it's been said, only to bladelocks, which aren't that relevant (I don't think I've ever seen someone play a bladelock before)

This is completely unnecessary, bladelocks are automatically proficient with their lockweapon no matter what form it takes. Even if they "convert" a pre-existing weapon. It's right in the bladelock description.

[heavyfuel]

Going a bit off topic, but this required a response.

A bladelock can start with one level in fighter for con proficiency, heavy armor proficiency, and the GWF fighting style. He picked variant human and takes polearm mastery. He then takes the rest of his levels in warlock for his full feat progression, full warlock casting, and only one level of delay. He picks up war caster at level 5 so he has that for the rest of his leveling career.

Among his chosen invocation is agonizing blast. Due to war caster, he can use this in place of opportunity attacks. He gets extra opportunity attacks from polearm mastery, yielding some of the highest effective DPR due to his extremely potent and frequent opportunity attacks. He can maintain witch bolt on his chosen target, dealing significant bonus-action damage to that target each round. He can also use hex as his preference, or focus on any other concentration spell. Due to con proficiency + war caster, he will never lose his spell.

When he picks up lifedrinker at level 13, he's adding both Str Mod and Cha Mod on up to three attacks per turn if he takes his bonus attack. Due to his other invocations, such as devil's sight and otherwordly leap, he can ensure that his target is never out of reach. Even if it was, he can still just hit it with agonizing eldritch blasts for competitive damage. And for those few circumstances where dealing heavy damage will not solve that problem, warlocks have access to some of the best control, confusion, and misdirection type spells.

And that's just one way to play a blade-pact warlock. Do you really think they're not relevant?

First things first: That's assuming your DM even allows for variant human, since he's... you know... variant. Also multiclassing, since it too is optional. And Feats as well. You're relying on 3 variant rules to make your case, while it's certainly true that many DMs allows for all 3, many won't ("many", not "the majority").

Then there's Mike Mearl's rulling, but that's not RAW, though very very likely RAI. I'm pretty sure the actual majority of DMs would rule against it, but that's just speculation. Personally, I'm still undecided. I'd have to number crunch to see where I stand.

But yeah, this works great against melee enemies that have no way to hit from afar, but how many times are you really going to be in that situation?


This is the method of thinking that lead to the power creep in 3.x. A different weapon (exotic) certainly can fill a niche you find interesting, but making the exotic weapons better, means players will automatically select them instead of other options simply on that principle.

This is completely unnecessary, bladelocks are automatically proficient with their lockweapon no matter what form it takes. Even if they "convert" a pre-existing weapon. It's right in the bladelock description.

You're using "power-creep" wrong. There never was any power-creep -aka, increase in the power of weapons that came later compared to the power of the weapons that came earlier- in 3.5 (maybe 3.PF, but I'm not that familiar with the system). In 3.5, the generally considered "best weapons" are the Spiked Chain (exotic), a combo of Guisarme+Armor Spikes (martial), and the Gnome Quickrazor (exotic). Out of these 3, only the Quickrazor isn't present in the PHB, and it's only better for 1 single class in a game that had over 1000 classes. Other weapons (like the Courtblade) were sometimes considered OP when used by crit-fishers, but crits suck in 3.5 since every relevant enemy will be immune to them.

I know that about bladelocks, it's still all good.

[Easy_Lee]

First things first: That's assuming your DM even allows for variant human, since he's... you know... variant. Also multiclassing, since it too is optional. And Feats as well. You're relying on 3 variant rules to make your case, while it's certainly true that many DMs allows for all 3, many won't ("many", not "the majority").

Not going to get off topic any further, but once again, this needs a response.

I have never, ever, EVER, met a single DM who banned any of those things. If it's in the PHB, then it's allowed in the vast majority of games. That majority is so vast that the minority do not even matter for the sake of debate. There is no amount of bold, capslock, or text color I could use to fully emphasize how little the "feats and multiclassing optional" claims matter in any discussion of D&D 5e.

Regarding the polearm mastery thing, it's up to the DM, sure. But so is everything else. Because it's the RAW ruling, because we have a dev tweet backing it up, and because this is still only one way to play the blade lock, the existence of a dissenting opinion does not matter in the aggregate.

[Fwiffo86]

Not going to get off topic any further, but once again, this needs a response.

I have never, ever, EVER, met a single DM who banned any of those things. If it's in the PHB, then it's allowed in the vast majority of games. That majority is so vast that the minority do not even matter for the sake of debate. There is no amount of bold, capslock, or text color I could use to fully emphasize how little the "feats and multiclassing optional" claims matter in any discussion of D&D 5e.

Regarding the polearm mastery thing, it's up to the DM, sure. But so is everything else. Because it's the RAW ruling, because we have a dev tweet backing it up, and because this is still only one way to play the blade lock, the existence of a dissenting opinion does not matter in the aggregate.

I do. I ban those things. I have mentioned many times how I run a featless game. I suppose a game without any variant rules is more accurate though.

[Easy_Lee]

I do. I ban those things.

They you're not playing 5e, you're playing Fwiff-e

[Fwiffo86]

They you're not playing 5e.

Opinion. I use the 5e rules. My players make 5e characters. We don't use variant rules. How is that not playing 5e?

[Easy_Lee]

Opinion. I use the 5e rules. My players make 5e characters. We don't use variant rules. How is that not playing 5e?

Not an opinion. Playing a game with only some of the rules is a different game. One does not leave the Queen out of the game when playing chess. If one does, one is no longer playing chess.

[Fwiffo86]

Not an opinion. Playing a game with only some of the rules is a different game. One does not leave the Queen out of the game when playing chess. If one does, one is no longer playing chess.

I think your analogy works better if phrased "One does not add a Queen to the game when playing chess. If one does, one is no longer playing chess.

Since we are not using "optional" rules, we are by default, playing using the actual rules. It is a better position to say that using variant and optional rules leans more in the non-5e category.

[HoarsHalberd]

Not an opinion. Playing a game with only some of the rules is a different game. One does not leave the Queen out of the game when playing chess. If one does, one is no longer playing chess.

However this is more akin to choosing to play 2D chess over 3D chess. The rules are prefixed by a clear rule saying optional. One does not demean someones gaming for wanting to play standard chess just because you prefer to add optional rules such as 3D or any of the other variants that may be presented in the pack you get.

[Easy_Lee]

However this is more akin to choosing to play 2D chess over 3D chess. The rules are prefixed by a clear rule saying optional. One does not demean someones gaming for wanting to play standard chess just because you prefer to add optional rules such as 3D or any of the other variants that may be presented in the pack you get.

Nor does one claim to be playing 3d chess when one is, in fact, playing 2d. These forums are about 5e, meaning that the default rules are assumed. The default rules can only mean those rules that most people use.

In short, people who play without feats or multiclassing don't matter when discussing balance or character builds.

[Fwiffo86]

Nor does one claim to be playing 3d chess when one is, in fact, playing 2d. These forums are about 5e, meaning that the default rules are assumed. The default rules can only mean those rules that most people use.

In short, people who play without feats or multiclassing don't matter when discussing balance or character builds.

I thought "default" meant no variation. Consensus rules are what you are talking about. That is by no means the "default".

What I choose to do with my game is not relevant to input I have regarding builds, feats, or any other discussion. I don't appreciate the insinuation that because my players are playing a game without variant rules that I some how am less than equal.

[HoarsHalberd]

Nor does one claim to be playing 3d chess when one is, in fact, playing 2d. These forums are about 5e, meaning that the default rules are assumed. The default rules can only mean those rules that most people use.

In short, people who play without feats or multiclassing don't matter when discussing balance or character builds.

The default are the rules presented in books minus any clearly defined as optional or variant. Are you familiar with the definitions of those words?

[Easy_Lee]

The default are the rules presented in books minus any clearly defined as optional or variant. Are you familiar with the definitions of those words?

Default means standard (as in the two are synonymous). Featless is not standard, never has been, and never will be. Same goes for multiclassing and variant human. Believe what you will, but usage is how one defines standard and default, not interpretation.

[heavyfuel]

Easy_Lee. If you're o inclined to continue debating this, could you start a new thread? I really want to get back to discussing Exotic Weapons here. Thanks

[Easy_Lee]

Easy_Lee. If you're o inclined to continue debating this, could you start a new thread? I really want to get back to discussing Exotic Weapons here. Thanks

I'm not the one who argued with me, you know. And I'm pretty sure the subject of exotic weapons is pretty much exhausted. We all told you the same thing: use the feat or treat them as variations on martial weapons.

If the current selection of weapons doesn't work for you, I made a post about my thoughts on honebrewing weapon types once, since there's a pretty consistent formula for calculating weapon damage based on its features. It's in my signature if you want to take a look at it.

[Fwiffo86]

Believe what you will, but usage is how one defines standard and default, not interpretation.

How I define default: from Merriam Webster website.

Full Definition of DEFAULT
1 : failure to do something required by duty or law : neglect

2 archaic : fault

3 : a failure to pay financial debts

4 a : failure to appear at the required time in a legal proceeding
b : failure to compete in or to finish an appointed contest <lost the game by default>

5 a : a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative <remained the club's president by default>
b : a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence of a choice made by the user

I wish to draw your attention to 5a. I read this to say "without" alternatives.

[Galen]

Not an opinion. Playing a game with only some of the rules is a different game. One does not leave the Queen out of the game when playing chess. If one does, one is no longer playing chess.
A more apt analogy would be using - or not using - a chess clock. You can play chess with a clock or without a clock, it's still chess. Your zeal on the subject is appreciated (I love feats too!), but is nonetheless misguided.

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm not the one who argued with me, you know. And I'm pretty sure the subject of exotic weapons is pretty much exhausted. We all told you the same thing: use the feat or treat them as variations on martial weapons.

If the current selection of weapons doesn't work for you, I made a post about my thoughts on honebrewing weapon types once, since there's a pretty consistent formula for calculating weapon damage based on its features. It's in my signature if you want to take a look at it.

I'd agree that exotic weapons don't mean better. The difference is more in the fact that the weapons are wielded unlike other weapons and need special training. For example, if you know how to use a longsword, then you have a reasonable ability to use a short sword, broad sword, etc. Nunchuku, not so much. These exotic weapons were designed for many different reasons, they don't necessarily do more damage.

Many weapons were designed with specific purposes and/or from common tools. A flail, for example, potentially grew from farming tools, but was also effective in getting around a shield to still do damage. Most of the variations in pole arms were to help against specific types of armor or situations (like hooks to dismount calvary).

So instead of extra damage, you could add special attacks for certain circumstances with a feat. Such as an opportunity for dismounting targets for a polearm master using the appropriate weapon.

For something like the bastard sword, I wouldn't even consider it exotic. We've set it as a heavy, versatile weapon 1d10/1d12.

I don't know if any of you have the Palladium books on weapons and armor. They are a thorough look at different weapons from different cultures, and the damage is fairly consistent. Some game systems differ in their opinion on whether getting stabbed by a sword or a dagger should do more damage. The increasing weights of weapons (or leverage of pole-arms) often increases the chance of doing damage, but that being stabbed by a 6" blade in the chest does the same basic amount of damage as a 2' blade.

In any event, because of the way D&D is designed, and the way it handles AC and damage, I'd stick with the existing damage ranges. Adding special maneuver options (particularly with a feat), not to mention role-playing options, such as weapons disguised as tools, covers most of the bases pretty well.

As for the off-topic discussion, I think that the PHB is pretty clear at the beginning of Chapter 6 Customization OPTIONS regarding feats and multiclassing being an optional ruleset:

"But this chapter is for players who-with the DM's permission-want to go a step further."

"This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats."

"Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign."

Feats grew out of the optional 2nd edition Skills rules in the entirely optional rule-book High Level Campaigns, the rules of which were an extension of the optional non-weapon proficiency rules.

Never is a long time.

Ilbranteloth