PDA

View Full Version : Why can only fighters get Weapon Specialization. (3.5)



Chells
2010-07-20, 11:50 AM
It makes perfect sense that fighters get this feat but I'm not sure I understand why no other class can focus on getting really good with a specific weapon. Has this topic been hashed out yet?
Thanks

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-20, 11:53 AM
It makes perfect sense that fighters get this feat but I'm not sure I understand why no other class can focus on getting really good with a specific weapon. Has this topic been hashed out yet?
Thanks

Honestly? Because in AD&D, only fighters could really make use of something called Weapon Specialization. It's not a matter of power by any means, so if your group wants to give anyone access, go for it.

Caphi
2010-07-20, 11:53 AM
Why would any other class want Weapon Specialization?

Frog Dragon
2010-07-20, 11:54 AM
Why would anyone want Weapon Specialization?
Fixed that for you.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-20, 11:54 AM
It's a Sacred Cow from older editions.

Flickerdart
2010-07-20, 11:55 AM
Isn't it a prerequisite for Weapon Supremacy?

Lord Vampyre
2010-07-20, 11:55 AM
This rule is actually a carry over from 2nd edition. The fighters in 2nd edition we're suppose to be the only ones that could specialize in a weapon.

1st edition allowed rangers and paladins to specialize as well.

The concept I believe is to give fighters something the other classes don't have. Although, if I remember correctly Warblades from the ToB can take fighter feats as if they we're a fighter of 2 lvls lower than their current class level.

Chells
2010-07-20, 12:06 PM
Why would any other class want Weapon Specialization?

Seemed like a simple way to do a bit more damage without impacting to hit. My brother has a monk and is unhappy with his damage. We try to stay to the core books (or at least core like books) so while I'm sure there are better feats most of them won't fly in our game. So if anyone has a suggestion for him that is 1) not psionic 2) not prestige class based 3) not campain world specific [no Ebereon, FR, etc.] 4) not based on vairent rules (Incarnum Magic, ToB Manuevers/Stances, PHB2/UA alt rules, etc.) I'll pass it along to him.
Thanks

Prodan
2010-07-20, 12:07 PM
Improved Natural Attack

WarKitty
2010-07-20, 12:07 PM
Why would any other class want Weapon Specialization?

I have a sneak attack combat-focused rogue in my current campaign that could use it.

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 12:08 PM
This rule is actually a carry over from 2nd edition. The fighters in 2nd edition we're suppose to be the only ones that could specialize in a weapon.

1st edition allowed rangers and paladins to specialize as well.

Wasn't 1e just "Fighting Man, Magic User, Elf" and other weird classes like that? Or am I getting confused?

Chells
2010-07-20, 12:10 PM
Improved Natural Attack
Oh yeah should have mentioned I already pointed that one out to him. That got a :smallbiggrin: out of him.



Wasn't 1e just "Fighting Man, Magic User, Elf" and other weird classes like that? Or am I getting confused?
No that was BASIC edition. 1st edition had classes and races.

Mongoose87
2010-07-20, 12:10 PM
Simple: Fighters suck, Weapon Specialization sucks. They're meant for each-other.

Coplantor
2010-07-20, 12:11 PM
I would say it's a 2nd ed leftover, and a bad one. 2nd edition's player's options Skills and Powers (sort of 2.5) gave the chance to every class to specialize, though it was more expensive (character points wise) for non fighters.

Also, Weapon specialization was far more powerful in 2nd edition, you only had half the numerical bonuses (+1/+2 compared to the +2/+4 you get from taking the whole 4 feats in 3.5), but W.Sepc also gaved the fighter more attacks per round, a high level fighter with a sword was able to attack twice per round, and if he was a specialist he got one extra attack on every odd numbered round.

(And the dreaded 16th level dart specialist with high str was a much feared "build")

In conclusion, weapon specialization is worthless today, maybe with a few tweaks it might be useful.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-20, 12:12 PM
Wasn't 1e just "Fighting Man, Magic User, Elf" and other weird classes like that? Or am I getting confused?

That's Original D&D/OD&D/BECMI D&D/0e/whatever else you want to call it; that was the only edition with races as classes. 1e had fighter, paladin, ranger, magic-user, illusionist, monk, cleric, druid, thief, and assassin.

Mongoose87
2010-07-20, 12:18 PM
Let's suppose Weapon Specialization allowed an extra attack at full BaB, every other round, whether you full attack, or not. Is it suddenly worth it?

Coplantor
2010-07-20, 12:19 PM
Can I use that attack with a standard action or it requires a full round action?

Mongoose87
2010-07-20, 12:20 PM
Can I use that attack with a standard action or it requires a full round action?


...whether you full attack, or not.

Answer your question?

Draz74
2010-07-20, 12:21 PM
1e had fighter, paladin, ranger, magic-user, illusionist, monk, cleric, druid, thief, and assassin.

Plus Bard as a wacky proto-PrC.

Coplantor
2010-07-20, 12:23 PM
Silly me. :smalltongue:

Well, it's much more useful now. Actually, another question here! I need to take the 4 feats (WF; WS; GWF; GWS) or just the first two to get an extra attack?

I like how this mixes with a 1 level dip of lion totem barbarian.

Telonius
2010-07-20, 12:27 PM
Seemed like a simple way to do a bit more damage without impacting to hit. My brother has a monk and is unhappy with his damage. We try to stay to the core books (or at least core like books) so while I'm sure there are better feats most of them won't fly in our game. So if anyone has a suggestion for him that is 1) not psionic 2) not prestige class based 3) not campain world specific [no Ebereon, FR, etc.] 4) not based on vairent rules (Incarnum Magic, ToB Manuevers/Stances, PHB2/UA alt rules, etc.) I'll pass it along to him.
Thanks

What level is he right now? What feats does he already have?

EDIT: And are the Core Prestige Classes okay, if necessary?

Keld Denar
2010-07-20, 12:27 PM
There are ways for a non-fighter to get Weapon Spec if you really want it (IE as a prereq for Melee Weapon Mastery). Pious Templar3 gives it as a bonus feat, as does a quite a few levels of Favored Soul.

Lord Vampyre
2010-07-20, 02:21 PM
Wasn't 1e just "Fighting Man, Magic User, Elf" and other weird classes like that? Or am I getting confused?

Your probably thinking of Basic D&D that was released in the red box, where all the demihumans were a class unto themselves. 1st edition still has many of the 2nd edition classes plus assassin.

I have to admit that I'm not as familiar with the 1st edition rules, since I've never actually played them outside of OSRIC, but I have gone through the books a number of times.

Chells
2010-07-20, 02:27 PM
What level is he right now? What feats does he already have?

EDIT: And are the Core Prestige Classes okay, if necessary?

I'm not 100% certian. I think he was working his way towards spring attack, so dodge & mobility. This is his first time with 3.5 so the DM will probaly let him retrain feats if he really wants to take another path. Right now he is 7th level human. I suggested he take Improv. Natural Weapon as his 6th lvl feat since he has yet to picked that one.

Dr.Epic
2010-07-20, 02:28 PM
It makes perfect sense that fighters get this feat but I'm not sure I understand why no other class can focus on getting really good with a specific weapon. Has this topic been hashed out yet?
Thanks

It tries to make fighters more badass than barbarians who get Hulk powers.

Theodoxus
2010-07-20, 02:54 PM
I'm not 100% certian. I think he was working his way towards spring attack, so dodge & mobility. This is his first time with 3.5 so the DM will probaly let him retrain feats if he really wants to take another path. Right now he is 7th level human. I suggested he take Improv. Natural Weapon as his 6th lvl feat since he has yet to picked that one.

Are the alternate class rules from UA available? There's an alternate monk style... Cobra Strike, I think, that gives the Spring Attack feat progression as bonus feats (instead of Stunning Fist/Combat Reflexes, etc).

taltamir
2010-07-20, 02:57 PM
Why would any other class want Weapon Specialization?


Fixed that for you.

the answer to that is:
because your DM banned all the good supplements... I mean, if you are playing a fighter (instead of, say, a warblade or swordsage) then obviously your DM doesn't like martial characters.

Elfin
2010-07-20, 03:03 PM
Let's suppose Weapon Specialization allowed an extra attack at full BaB, every other round, whether you full attack, or not. Is it suddenly worth it?

I'd definitely take it, if this were the case.

Frog Dragon
2010-07-20, 03:09 PM
Three good ways to pump natural attack Damage. INA, Superior Unarmed Strike (ToB, but has nothing to do with maneuvers) and Monk's Belt.

Telonius
2010-07-20, 03:21 PM
I'm not 100% certian. I think he was working his way towards spring attack, so dodge & mobility. This is his first time with 3.5 so the DM will probaly let him retrain feats if he really wants to take another path. Right now he is 7th level human. I suggested he take Improv. Natural Weapon as his 6th lvl feat since he has yet to picked that one.

I would seriously try to talk him out of that progression. It's a waste of precious feats for a Monk. Does he realize that, in order to use Spring Attack, he won't be able to use Flurry that round (at least not without acquiring Pounce somehow, which it sounds like he won't be able to do)?

However, there's one possible exception to that: if you can convince him to take some levels of Duelist at 10th. If you're sticking with Monk that long, you may as well grab Improved Evasion at 9th. Duelist will improve his BAB and hitpoints, as well as giving him the potential to get a fairly monstrous AC. (Note: you can still skip the Spring Attack feat. It really is rubbish).

The ideal solution from a power perspective would be to get him into Druid ASAP, but I am guessing that's out of the question.

Horizon Walker is another possibility, if he's going in for more of a Grasshopper-like "I wander the world" sort of Monk. It's perfectly viable for melee, and all you'd need is Endurance and 8 ranks of Know (Geography) to get in.

If he insists on Monk the whole way through, there's not much that can be done that the others haven't said already.

Chells
2010-07-20, 03:25 PM
the answer to that is:
because your DM banned all the good supplements... I mean, if you are playing a fighter (instead of, say, a warblade or swordsage) then obviously your DM doesn't like martial characters.

Seems to me that if ToB is the only "Good" martial supplement, then there is a problem. Either all the other martial classes are weak (which is not the case in the games I've played) or the Tome of Battle is over-powered.

Eldariel
2010-07-20, 04:04 PM
Either all the other martial classes are weak (which is not the case in the games I've played)

Chances are the flaws of the classes are being fixed by other aspects of the game; a class is weak if you could reasonably substitute an NPC Warrior and achieve the same results and that's what happens with many of the warrior-type classes.

They're efficient one-trick ponies that lack true power but when built as such, can dish out a lot of damage and pull off approximately one other trick, two on high levels. ToB classes cut the "one-trick pony"-part out.


However, in many games, simply dealing your Str*1.5+Weapon Damage 4 times per turn and having a heapton of magic items is gonna be enough to appear useful. There's just nothing the class is doing there.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-20, 05:10 PM
(which is not the case in the games I've played)

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Did you have houserules? A lenient DM? Unfocused casters? Blaster wizards? Healbot clerics? Core only?

There are just too many variables. Only empirical evidence is valid, and time and time again melee classes have been shown wanting, mostly because they lack the options caster classes get. A human fighter gets 11 class-based options over the course of their career and cannot ever change them. A wizard gets that many options per day at third level, can change them freely, and can augment them more easily with the power of metamagic.

AslanCross
2010-07-20, 06:07 PM
Seems to me that if ToB is the only "Good" martial supplement, then there is a problem. Either all the other martial classes are weak (which is not the case in the games I've played) or the Tome of Battle is over-powered.

There is indeed a problem: full casting. Casters simply have so many ways to affect the battlefield while melee classes are limited to just swinging swords. This is a problem that is not remedied in core alone, because that's all fighters can do.

Complete Warrior is the first 3.5 supplement, if I'm not mistaken, so the options were still a bit conservative in power (the outliers here are Shock Trooper and Hulking Hurler, which I'm sure WOTC didn't expect to be as strong as they are).

The Ubercharger Shock Trooper and the Hulking Hurler can deal thousands of damage.

Tome of Battle is not overpowered. Martial maneuvers do not scale by level like casters do. Mountain Hammer (a 2nd level maneuver) will forever deal 2d6 damage, unlike Scorching Ray (a 2nd level core spel) which does 4d6 damage base and can go up to 4d6 x 3 rays, not including metamagic.

ericgrau
2010-07-20, 06:39 PM
Barbarians get +2 to hit and +3 damage which increases to +3 & 4.5 by level 12, though it's not unlimited. If we say the fighter tree is garbage then we need to also say rage is too, because they aren't far apart. But the reality is that among core options both are decent and it only becomes less worth it when compared to a handful of crazy things available in splatbooks. For example don't tell me a certain 1/3rd of a feat that appears in every build out there wasn't a colossal imbalanced publishing slip-up. Meanwhile the other multipurpose feats rarely (never?) even get a mention in builds; heck neither does the other 2/3rds of that feat. And no, forcing class A to take something on page 137, part 2 of feat X in book Y b/c class B is "OP" is not really a balance solution in disguise.

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 06:39 PM
Complete Warrior is the first 3.5 supplement, if I'm not mistaken, so the options were still a bit conservative in power (the outliers here are Shock Trooper and Hulking Hurler, which I'm sure WOTC didn't expect to be as strong as they are).


Second, actually - Miniatures Handbook was first. Your point stands of course.

Eldariel
2010-07-20, 06:51 PM
Barbarians get +2 to hit and +3 damage which increases to +3 & 4.5 by level 12, though it's not unlimited. If we say the fighter tree is garbage then we need to also say rage is too, because they aren't far apart. But the reality is that among core options both are decent and it only becomes less worth it when compared to a handful of crazy things available in splatbooks. For example don't tell me a certain 1/3rd of a feat that appears in every build out there wasn't a colossal imbalanced publishing slip-up. Meanwhile the other multipurpose feats rarely (never?) even get a mention in builds; heck neither does the other 2/3rds of that feat. And no, forcing class A to take something on page 137, part 2 of feat X in book Y b/c class B is "OP" is not really a balance solution in disguise.

Now, to be fair, Elusive Target and Combat Brute get quite a bit of use. Main prob with Combat Brute is that it focuses on Sundering though, which kinda sucks. As such, you mostly use it for Momentum Swing.

And Shock Trooper gets a lot of use in unexpected circumstances since it really helps Bull Rushing. Dungeoncrashers love it too. Elusive Target, on the other hand, is great for any melee-type seeking to fight other melee-types because it specifically trumps the Power Attackers. Of course, its biggest problem is requiring Mobility & Dodge, but if you have those, might as well.


The rest are rather fringe though; Sun School is fringe by virtue of being Monk-specific and mostly helping with Dimension Door, Raptor School just isn't very good, and Giantbane is too specialized to use outside builds that get really small, and kinda sucks even there. Cavalry Charger mostly suffers of mounted chargers being so ridiculously feat-starved anyways that affording it reasonably is just not possible. Oh, and it doesn't really do much either.

And the problem with the Fighter feat tree was never that the bonuses are irrelevant, just that 12 levels in a class should buy you more than that. Well, that and the whole "you shouldn't need to spend 4 feats on +2/+4"-part. Meh.

Grommen
2010-07-20, 08:46 PM
Simple: Fighters suck, Weapon Specialization sucks. They're meant for each-other.

Something like that.....ya.

taltamir
2010-07-21, 02:05 AM
Seems to me that if ToB is the only "Good" martial supplement, then there is a problem. Either all the other martial classes are weak (which is not the case in the games I've played) or the Tome of Battle is over-powered.

you are correct in asserting that either all the other martial classes are weak, or the ToB is overpowered... those are indeed the only two options...

and the correct answer is... *drumroll*: "all the other martial classes are weak".

I recommend you read this: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0

also, search the forums for any attempt to say otherwise.
I have TRIED to come up with ways in which fighters are not that weak, monks don't suck as bad, wizards are not as powerful, etc etc. Every time I was empirically proven utterly wrong by people far more knowledgeable then me, and shown exactly why...
If you don't want to search, or think the situation you have is different, well, start a thread and post a build.

that being said, I recognize that some classes (eg, wizard), can be less then fun to play... with a slew of nerfs, being very weak early on, and very VERY tedious book keeping.
of course, there are answers to that. ACFs or simply alternative classes. A socerer is not as powerful, but much less tedious, and still game breaking...
A druid is very powerful from level 1 through 20, is still a full caster (for all the versatility), doesn't have to guard his spellbook against a DM who is out for it, loses nothing if his animal companion dies, etc etc.

sambo.
2010-07-21, 02:22 AM
This rule is actually a carry over from 2nd edition. The fighters in 2nd edition we're suppose to be the only ones that could specialize in a weapon.

1st edition allowed rangers and paladins to specialize as well.

The concept I believe is to give fighters something the other classes don't have. Although, if I remember correctly Warblades from the ToB can take fighter feats as if they we're a fighter of 2 lvls lower than their current class level.

wep specialisation first reared it's ugly head in 1ed Unearthed Arcana.

it cost extra weapon proficiency slots to take and was actually pretty worthwhile.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-21, 11:32 AM
Wasn't 1e just "Fighting Man, Magic User, Elf" and other weird classes like that? Or am I getting confused?

Generally, "1e" refers to 1st edition AD&D, first published in 1977 as the Monster Manual, with the Players Handbook following in '78, and the DMG in '79. Earlier editions are usually referred to by box color, with the earliest being "White Box." Other versions of Basic D&D are refered to by author... Mentzer or Holmes.

And, in defense of earlier weapon specialization, it was pretty awesome in 2e, and arguably broken in 1e. In 2e, the +1 to Hit and +2 to damage were great, and the extra half of an attack (one extra attack every other round) was awesome... no one else got anything like it until 7th level. 1e Specialization had a number of other features that I don't recall off the top of my head, but it got pretty ugly, especially with bow weapons.

Roderick_BR
2010-07-21, 12:18 PM
It makes perfect sense that fighters get this feat but I'm not sure I understand why no other class can focus on getting really good with a specific weapon. Has this topic been hashed out yet?
Thanks
Back to the original question, why others don't get it. In 3.x, ideally, every class has a key feature. Barbarians get rage, paladins smites and spells, rangers combat style, etc. They need to train and focus on that area. Since the fighter's "feature" is extra training in mundane combat (feats), he gain access to a few exclusive feats.
In short, while barbarians are focusing into smashing things into tiny bits, and paladins are meditating and praying, fighters are learning how to use a sword with more skill.

I think I saw someone mentioning letting Weapon Specialization, Greater, Mastery and Supremacy to let fighters to attack more times. That would make the Weapon Focus tree way more useful.
Could be something like
Weapon Specialization: "When using the chosen weapon, the fighter can make two attacks as a default action. The 2nd attack is made at -5. The fighter need to have a minimum base attack bonus of +6".
Greater Weapon Specialization: 3 attacks.
Weapon Mastery: 4 attacks.
Weapon Supremacy: You can make an extra attack at your max base attack bonus (5 attacks).

Calemyr
2010-07-21, 02:21 PM
Fighters have only two things going for them - they are reliable and they are they are very customizable.

Reliable: While a caster has many ways of taking down enemies in single or mass combat, they are supposed to be limited in how many times they can do so, while a fighter can fight at his best time and time again. The problem with this is two-fold. First, casters quickly gain far more spells than they're likely to need in a day so they have little to no motivation to conserve their resources. Second, DMs are rarely going to put enough encounters in a day nor enough expense to resting to actually exhaust a mage, so they end up with ridiculous power AND reliability because they never run out of spells. Thus casters reach R2D2 (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0440.html) levels of munchkin min-maxing just by following the rules laid out for them.

Customizable: The whole purpose of the fighter (near as I can tell, at least) is the ability to make them anything you want. Sword and board tank, elegant fencer, crowd clearing beserker, two handed weapon master, hawkeyed archer, relentless champion. The list goes on. Instead of giving you class features, they give you a list of class features and give you a chance to build your own. That's a great idea except for one problem: they aren't given feats diverse enough or numerous enough to make use of this. In order to accomplish this, fighters should have limited access to the skillsets of other classes as feats, but instead they are given a pool of feats all directed to two things and only two things: dealing and mitigating damage.

Weapon Specialization faces the exact same problems as the fighter itself. It was meant to be a reliable, inexhaustible way to increase damage for a fighter's signature weapons. However, in a setting where the number of combats (and rounds thereof) are rarely sufficient to tax a barbarian's rage abilities or a caster's spell capacity, this constant bonus loses value markedly.

If you want to balance fighters and casters in a campaign, you need to take advantage of the one thing they still have on their side: time. As long as casters are allowed to rest after every combat, they'll rule the field every time. You have give them a reason to forego rest, such as time affecting the plot and/or the encounters they face. That's when fighters will shine, being able to give it their all every turn while casters are forced to manage their resources or risk failure. In other words, the biggest problem with fighters are DMs and generic enemy tactics that play directly to a caster's strengths without taking advantage of their weaknesses.

That's just my take on it. I don't really have a horse in the race because I prefer storytelling over optimization, and so my games don't attempt to make combats hard enough to be worth the effort of optimizing too much.

Ingus
2010-07-21, 05:09 PM
Isn't it a prerequisite for Weapon Supremacy?

That and Melee Weapon Mastery. With a gish, those feats could be... :smallbiggrin: