Weapon Synergy: An Alternative to "Exotic" Weapons in Your Pathfinder Game

I've touched on a lot of different aspects of Pathfinder over the years. From spells, to skills, to character builds, to blow-by-blow playthroughs on campaigns, it seems like there's always something new to talk about. This week I wanted to focus on something that's always bothered me because it's both a limiting factor on mechanics, but also because it's one of those times where the mechanical limitation juts up so high that I can't cover it over with story reasons to make it blend into the background.

So today we're going to talk about "exotic" weapons, why I don't think they work, and some ways to adjust this for your game.

One man's exotic is another man's common.

For folks who want to help me keep the content flowing, consider becoming a Patreon patron! And if you want to make sure you don't miss any of my updates, then make sure you sign up for my weekly newsletter as well.

Let's Talk About "Exotic"

Folks who've been watching the development and changes in RPGs for the last little while have no doubt noticed there have been attempts to stop the use of "race" to differentiate between creatures, and to try use words like "species" instead. I'm doing this myself in my Species of Sundara series (the elf book is out for Pathfinder Classic and DND 5E for those who haven't checked it out yet). However, a lot of designers are digging deeper, and trying to find ways to change both the mechanics as well as the language we use to be more inclusive, and to leave behind older terms and ideas that have baggage attached to them.

I'd argue that "exotic" weapons are worth looking at for this reason.

Some weapons are more "exotic" than others.

There's a long list of exotic weapons in Pathfinder, and it covers everything from firearms, to sleeve launchers, to whips. However, as you look through the list, certain commonalities in general weapon type start cropping up. Weapons in this category tend to be associated with a certain species, or associated with a certain culture. And while one can argue that weapons that aren't widespread, or which require specialized training to use should be restricted, the problem comes with the use of the word exotic, and with how it may or may not apply to the story you're telling, and the background a character has.

Because at the end of the day, a lot of the weapons we see in these charts are very similar to one another in practice and use. The techniques for using a bastard sword aren't all that different from the ones involving a katana, a tetsubo and a greatclub are close enough that they probably couldn't legally get married, and the difference between a rope gauntlet, a cestus, and a standard gauntlet are so small as to be nearly laughable. The separation between them seems to be pretty arbitrary, and all it does is frustrate players, or force them to find workarounds to get the proficiencies they want, often at the expense of necessary resources.

So how do we make this more amenable without just throwing the baby out with the bath water?

Weapon Synergy

If you played Dungeons and Dragons back in the days of 3.5, chances are you remember the idea of skill synergy. Basically it said that, because you have been trained so well in skill X, and skill X is similar to skill Y, you will receive a bonus to represent this transfer of ability and knowledge. It was an idea that got left behind, but I think it could be reused to what I'm calling Weapon Synergy.

This feels unusual... but not all that unusual.

The idea behind this mechanic is that if a character is proficient in a particular weapon (or even armor) that is similar to a rarer or more unusual weapon, then that skill and ability transfers over. So if you're already proficient with the short sword, for example, then you would also be proficient with the wakizashi, gladius, and any other weapons of a similar style and type where the techniques and training would transfer relatively easily. The scimitar transfers over to the cutlass, the saber, etc. for the purposes of mechanics. If you are already proficient with both the sickle and the longsword, then a temple sword may take some getting used to, but not that much. If you're already familiar with punch daggers, then an ax gauntlet or a scissore isn't really that much different.

You could, if you wanted to, limit this feature so that players can only claim a certain amount of synergies at a time. Perhaps they only get 1 per so many points of Base Attack Bonus (every odd number seems fair), with additional bonuses from those who receive the Weapon Training background. Maybe they take a -1 instead of a -4 when using the synergistic weapon rather than the type they trained with. Those are just suggestions off the top of my head, but generally speaking, I don't see being able to use a wider variety of gear to be that much of a problem for the average game.

Whether you choose to limit it, or have it apply across the board, this idea can save you a lot of frustration when it comes to letting your players really untie the limitations placed on what they can and can't fight with. Because while some weapons have fun abilities or unique bonuses, none of them are so game breaking that allowing them to be used without spending a precious feat slot first will break the game.

I say this on behalf of everyone who's wasted a much-needed slot so they can one-hand a bastard sword.

"Uncommon" Instead of "Exotic"

The other thing I'd suggest is to use the category of "uncommon" weapons instead of "exotic". Because as I pointed out above, if you look at a lot of the exotic weapon choices (aside from things like the whip, the net, etc.) you basically have a weapon list that centers humans from a Western(ish) European setting as the default normal. And if a weapon or fighting style falls too far outside of that baseline, it trips and falls into the "exotic" category.

And the question that never seems to get asked is, "Exotic to whom, exactly?"

While I advocate using uncommon weapons as a designation, I would also suggest that this category should fluctuate based on where a game takes place, and where a character is actually from. Because if you have a character who was raised and trained in a particular culture, or by a particular species, then that would actually flip-flop what they consider to be normal and exotic. A noble warrior from an Eastern-inspired nation may never have seen the equivalent of the Dane ax with its 1d12 damage, but the katana would be the weapon he was trained to fight with, and to carry as his sidearm. Someone raised by orcs, or elves, or gnomes, might find the weapons and fighting styles of their adopted family and community came more naturally to them. And so on, and so forth.

This requires a lot more work on your part as a GM, and it means you need to communicate more with your players. You could even, if you wanted, have them trade proficiencies based on their unique backgrounds so they are customizing their history instead of using their backstory to just get free proficiencies that others at the table don't. But with so much of our games wrapped up in violence and the threat of violence, what our PCs bring to the battlefield matters. And there are so many fun, unique character concepts that people have just left behind because it took too many resources to make the more "exotic" choices work in their games.

Lastly, while we're on the subject of "exotic" weapon builds, my Tips For Building a Whip-Wielding Swashbuckler just got itself a facelift. If you want to see some of the gymnastics you have to go through to really crank up some unusual weapon choices, this guide makes a pretty good case for it in my opinion.

Like, Share, and Follow For More!

That's all for this week's Crunch topic! For more of my work, check out my Vocal archive, and stop by the YouTube channel Dungeon Keeper Radio! Or if you'd like to read some of my books, like my alley cat noir novel Marked Territory, my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife or my latest short story collection The Rejects, head over to My Amazon Author Page!

To stay on top of all my latest releases, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now on Pinterest as well! And if you'd like to help support me and my work, consider Buying Me A Ko-Fi or heading over to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a regular, monthly patron! Even a little bit of help can go a long way, trust me on that one.

Alignment's Roots Go Deeper Than We Might Think (How Much Stuff Do You Lose Pulling It Out?)

Since I recently started doing my Alignment Deep Dives series, I've been thinking a lot more about alignment as a concept. Because while it doesn't exist in all games, and it's been mostly de-fanged in the 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, it still has quite a lot of teeth in my preferred game of choice, Pathfinder. And while I've seen a lot of people saying they want to remove alignment from their games entirely because it, "just gets in the way," I thought I'd take a moment to go down that rabbit hole. Because I've found the roots go a lot deeper than we tend to think... both mechanically, and otherwise.

So, if you're someone who is serious about yanking alignment out by its roots, here are some things you're going to have to change, re-write, or re-conceptualize.

Trust me, in the end it's just not worth the effort.

First, The Obvious Stuff

There are a lot of obvious parts of the game that rely on character alignment to determine certain effects or limitations. Paladins must maintain their lawful good alignment, barbarians cannot be lawful, clerics must remain within a step of their deity in order to maintain their connection to their powers, druids must remain neutral, etc. This is the most obvious thing alignment is used for, and honestly I think it's about as far as a lot of players and DMs think of it; it's just an impediment that stops them from playing certain characters, or which restricts the actions they can take in-game without dealing with consequences.

No, Geoff, you cannot play a barbarian/monk with Way of The Great Ax.

 

And sure, alignment does do that. It also stops players from claiming to be good characters on one hand, and then casting spells with the Evil descriptor on the other hand. It makes it clear that certain actions, use of certain items, and even certain classes require you to maintain a certain philosophy and behavior. If you're going to be an antipaladin, a bloody jake, etc., then you've got to devote yourself to that.

To be very clear, alignment doesn't actually stop players from taking in-game actions. However, if you are a character that requires a certain alignment to maintain your powers, then altering too far in any particular direction might mean you face consequences for those actions. And if your character doesn't depend on alignment at all? Well, they might consider their actions necessary for the greater good, or they might think of good and evil as philosophical concepts rather than anything physical. The character may not even think in terms of good and evil, but only in terms of what is expedient and efficient. That doesn't stop them from being good or evil, but it means they themselves are not concerned with those labels since it doesn't affect their life in any meaningful way. And unless there's a local spellcaster, they'll probably go their whole life without ever having someone use a spell to check and see what their alignment actually is.

Another consideration is that eliminating alignment either removes or severely undercuts many abilities in the game. From smite, to domain powers, to specific spells and magic weapons, alignment is one of the major guiding forces that underwrites them, or makes them useful at all. So if you get rid of it, you either get rid of these things, or you need to re-write them. From the holy avenger, to holy/unholy weapons, to spells like holy smite and chaos hammer, they cease to function without alignment to determine their effects.

But alignment affects far more than just the party. It is a huge part of the cosmos at-large. Without it, entire aspects of the game just fall... the hell... apart.

When Heaven and Hell Are Real

In the Golarion setting (as in a majority of other settings I've seen for fantasy RPGs), there is a planar multiverse. And without fail there are planes that are attached entirely to certain alignments. So there are planes that are wholly good or wholly evil, wholly lawful and wholly chaotic. Most games have at least one heaven, and at least one hell, though Golarion has the hells and the abyss, as well as heaven and the celestial realms, among other places.

Go then... there are other worlds than these.

Alignment is predicated on the idea that there are places, beings, actions, and things that are wholly good, or wholly evil (wholly lawful or wholly chaotic as well, but that tends to get less play in most games). Good and evil are facts in these settings, not philosophies, or opinions. Because if that were not the case, how could demons and devils exist? How could angels, celestials, and other beings that are wholly determined by the aligned energies that spawned them? How could the realms they are from (and even the gods who command them) be truly good or truly evil if good and evil were up for debate, rather than cosmic facts of the universe? And if we get rid of these places, and the creatures that live in them, then what becomes of their results on the world? With no angels or devils we have no aasimar or tieflings. We lose the celestial and infernal bloodlines, and all the things that draw power from them. Because the alignment of these outsiders is their main, defining attribute... without it, their reason for being sort of fades away.

Perhaps the biggest example of why alignment is often necessary is the idea of divine judgment. When characters die, they go to the afterlife they've earned/deserve based on their actions... but what determines whether those actions were good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or otherwise? What determines whether they were proper adherents to their particular faith, or people who just said the words and never followed the dictates of their deity? The very idea means there must be actions that are good or evil, and that the gods have a checklist they can use to grade someone to determine where they end up.

For divine judgment to function, good and evil must be facts. If you remove alignment, it throws that aspect into chaos, and removes that basic building block.

You May As Well Go Back To The Drawing Board

This rabbit hole goes a lot deeper when you stop and ask just how many creatures, outsiders, antagonists, and even nations (in the core setting, at least) are resting on a foundation of alignment. From Cheliax's obsession with devils, to Nidal's embrace of dark powers, to the Worldwound itself, so many of these things rest on good and evil being real, tangible facts in the setting. While some of these aspects might still function without alignment, others are going to topple right over like dominoes that hit an unfortunate breeze. And as anyone who's ever tinkered with a mechanically complex game knows, the more things that fall over, the more you're going to have to do to back fill what you changed... which could come with its own unexpected consequences.

Do you need alignment to play fantasy RPGs in general, and Pathfinder in particular? Absolutely not! Just because it's a traditional element doesn't make it required to play in the slightest. But if you want to rip alignment out of a game where it already exists, actually has a function, and is sewn into the fabric of the setting, all you're going to do is rip the lining out of your blanket, and drop all the fluff on the floor.

And that isn't going to get you anywhere. Trust me.

I say this as someone who writes and tinkers with RPGs as a living... you are just going to make a colossal amount of work for yourself if you try to remove a functional alignment system. Instead, if it is such a problem for your table, consider playing a game that doesn't use alignment at all, or where it's a completely vestigial thing that will have no effect on the game. Or, if your only issue is a relatively minor component of how alignment works in your Pathfinder game (the aforementioned barbarian/paladin multiclass), dig through the rulebooks and ask questions on the forums... chances are good there's actually a way to do what you want without changing a single aspect of the rules as they're written.

It might be obscure, and it might be in the reams of optional rules that have been written for the game, but I can practically guarantee you that it's out there, and it's an option. Don't go in to remove an organ that's connected to so much stuff if there's a way to do what you want without elective surgery.

 

Also, before we go, I wanted to let everyone know I've got a new novel out from Eric Flint's Ring of Fire Press! If you've got a soft spot for cats, and you'd love a hard-hitting noir mystery set on the mean streets of New York City, then Leo's adventure in Marked Territory is definitely one that you don't want to miss.

Seriously, go get your copy today!

Like, Follow, and Stay in Touch!

That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday!

Again, for more of my work, check out my Vocal archive, and stop by the YouTube channel Dungeon Keeper Radio. Or if you'd prefer to read some of my books, like my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife or my latest short story collection The Rejects, then head over to My Amazon Author Page!

To stay on top of all my latest releases, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now Pinterest as well! To support my work, consider Buying Me a Ko-Fi, or heading to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a regular, monthly patron. That one helps ensure you get more Improved Initiative, and it means you'll get my regular, monthly giveaways as a bonus!

The 5 Totally Useless Statements You See In Every RPG Discussion

As a fan of RPGs, there's nothing I love better than sitting down and having a long talk about my favorite games (except, you know, actually playing them). I'll talk about rules, I'll talk about stories, and if I've got a receptive audience I'll even talk about how to subvert the accepted tropes of a given genre to do something unexpected. However, I also spend a lot of time on the Internet, and while I love the RPG community as a whole, I would take it as a huge, personal favor if we could remove these five phrases from our lexicon when it comes time to express our views on the games we love.

Just as a preface, this article is not meant to attack anyone specific. I am not calling out anyone, nor am I demanding that everyone do things my way. Just pointing out some things I've seen over the past few years, and why I think these behaviors are total nonsense.

All right, starting at the top...

#5: Every Table Is Going To Do It Their Own Way

For good, or for ill.

This is one of the first lines people whip out whenever there's a nuanced or controversial subject under discussion. When I first posted Sexuality Matters in Roleplaying Games (And Here's Why), this phrase was legion in the comments sections. It was as if, somehow, hundreds of my fellow gamers had forgotten that I'm just some schmuck on the Internet with a blog and an opinion, and that I have no ability to declare, rule, or mandate that any game out there be played a certain way.

This phrase is appropriate in one context: someone is going on a One, True Way to Game rant, and insisting that anyone who does things in a manner other than this one, prescribed way is playing the game wrong. If that isn't happening, then this phrase serves no purpose except as a placeholder.

Every Table is Going to do it Their Own Way is just like That's What My Character Would Do; a phrase we usually hold up as a shield when someone has made a suggestion, or asked us to re-examine our opinions on an issue. If you have an opinion, state it. Instead of a meaningless, "well, everyone has to make up their own minds," say, "in this situation, I would prefer a game that X's over Y-ing, and here's why."

Don't remind us that everyone has an opinion. We know that already, and you're breaking up the flow of the discussion.

#4: The DM Can Just Change That Rule, If He Wants

Yeah, I can... wait what?

This is another dandelion that sprouts in otherwise verdant lawns. This one typically crops up whenever someone is asking a question about a certain game mechanic, particularly one that falls into a gray area because of wording. Some gamers will insist that a mechanic works one way, and others will point out that because of the wording it could work a different way. Then someone stands up in the middle of the discussion and says, "It works however the DM says it works."

Again, this phrase is inherently true. It is the DM's job to adjudicate the rules, and to interpret them in a way that the table is satisfied with. It is also within the DM's purview to change rules, with the consent of the rest of the table, in order to make the game more enjoyable.

Bringing it up contributes nothing to the conversation, though, unless the person asking the question is somehow unaware of Rule 0, which gives the DM such power. Not only that, but if someone is asking for legitimate input on how a given rule has been run at other people's tables, or if a rule should function with X or Y interpretation, then saying, "just do whatever you want" wastes space, distracts from the conversation, and makes you look vaguely like an NPC yelling out stock lines while the main characters are trying to solve the plot.

#3: This is So Unrealistic!

I know, right? Magical fireballs conjured from the ether should TOTALLY do more damage.

I know that most people who use this phrase when it comes to RPGs don't realize the sheer irony of calling games that allow you to play immortal bloodsucking badasses, demon-tainted barbarians, or wizards who can conjure lightning from thin air unrealistic. But it is. It is not only ironic, but it is ironic in the most painful, eye-rolling, head-desking way.

No, it is not realistic that a gunslinger can reload a musket in a bare few seconds. It is also not realistic that you can use that musket to shoot a necromancer raising an army of the dead to do her bidding. It's also unrealistic that a level 1 fighter can take a critical hit to the face and die, but a level 10 fighter taking that same ax to the bridge of his nose would barely even bleed. It is not a roleplaying game's job to simulate reality as we know it. A roleplaying game's job is to act as a conflict resolution system and storytelling tool.

Note that this is not a, "magic exists, therefore no complaints are valid," argument. Simply that the way physics work in the game world is not bound by the laws of how physics, damage, or chemistry work in the real world. The system for falling damage should be enough to explain that, but sometimes we need to be reminded. Yes, we know that the actual long range of traditional longbows, period crossbows, etc. isn't what it says in the book. We know that rapier fighters can attack faster and more often than someone swinging a greatsword. The book also lets you play as a hulking, tusked brute who can see in the dark. Perspective, people.

#2: It's So Broken!

Assassins... not even once.

There is a trend in video game criticism where some players will use the phrase, "this isn't a real video game," as a way to deride games they personally don't like, or which do not cater to the things they want from a game. The phrase "X is so broken," is essentially that, but with RPGs.

Again, this phrase has its uses, and there are time when it is appropriate. For example, if you begin your post with, "X is so broken," and then go on to explain why you feel it is that way, using examples from the game and pointing out instances where the "broken" thing in question creates real problems, you will be given a pass on my complaint. If you can show that you have a full grasp of what the rules say, and that you have carefully thought through your opinion about why a given ability exists the way it does, then you may have a point that it is not properly balanced. However, if you're just shouting about game mechanics you don't like, then you're not helping anything.

Put another way, if you just want to shout that you don't like a thing, scroll on by.

#1: That's Historically Inaccurate!

Ridiculous! Ducks didn't harness the power of magic till 1582, 200 years after this campaign is set!

This one gets the top honor because it is deep-fried bullshit on a stick on multiple levels. The biggest one, though, is that if you are playing an RPG that takes place anywhere other than the Earth you actually live on with unchanged history from the way things actually happened (which means no secret vampire cabals, no hidden mage sanctums, and no behind-the-scenes war between heaven and hell), this argument is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Now, the closer your game world is to Earth's actual history, the more these complaints may become valid. However, you cannot argue that the trends in real human history are at all valid when your game is set in another world that has never shared any of its history with the one you live in. Social structures, religion, ideas about freedom, and how the economy works are independent from your experiences in this world as soon as you set foot in Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Golarion, or any of a dozen other settings.

So, before you make the "historically inaccurate" argument, ask yourself the reason why you're making it, and look at the context of the thing you're objecting to. Then ask yourself if the argument you want to make is valid, based on the history of the game world where the campaign in question is happening. If it isn't, then tuck your objection back in the box, and close the lid, because it won't contribute to the conversation being had.

And if someone is having a conversation about how historically inaccurate the pseudo-medieval fantasy RPG world full of wizards and dragons is when compared to the actual history we experienced, just walk on by. Even if it's meant as a joke, there are going to be all kinds of terrible things jumping into this bait-filled swimming pool.

All right, that's all I've got for this Monday. Hope you at least had a few moments of amusement, and that none of my bile splashed on your shoes from up here on my soap box. If you want to make sure you keep up-to-date on my latest posts, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter. If you would like to get into the holiday spirit, you can drop a few dimes in my jar by becoming a patron right here on my Patreon page!