What would make you take Weapon Focus/Specialization?

[GoatBoy]

Well I know what would make you take them. Pre-reqs, and even then it would only be grudgingly.

But what would a feat that added a flat bonus to attack or damage have to offer to be worthwhile? Or should it be something like a function of your level, say, half your level to damage rolls? That's a lot better (after fourth level), but it still doesn't feel like much when compared to Uberchargers or the Mailman.

This is just a thought experiment, really. Assume that the feats are standing on their own merits and not serving as pre-reqs. That is, don't suggest something that works because some other feat or some prestige class requires it. I simply ask, how much more attack/damage do you expect in exchange for a feat? Or is such a bonus not even the domain of feats?

[Eldariel]

Well, they'd need to be attached to a more worthwhile class for one. As Fighter doesn't really do anything, having to take a billion Fighter-levels to be able to invest feats in minor bonuses, it doesn't really make much sense.

That said, it's all a matter of opportunity cost. How strong are the alternative feats I could take? And what else do I gain out of them?


Half level would end up incredibly strong, as that's raw damage that can then be multiplied by charge multipliers for instance. It'd also be boring. AD&D 2E Player's Options gave stronger rewards for higher levels of weapon mastery; Grand Mastery gave half an extra attack, for instance, and there was a weapon die size increase too. Such rewards could be much more enticing, though ultimately numeric rewards are only so good in 3.5 without more work. And feats that only give numeric rewards are boring.

I'd point out that it also depends on context; TWFer gets much more out of extra numbers than a THFer, and Archer even more so. That's why Ranged Weapon Mastery is a great archery feat while Melee Weapon Mastery is "well, if you have to invest in Weapon Focus, might as well". +2/+2 might be more than good enough in some builds.

[Feytalist]

Low-level games. If the game is expected to only reach level 4, there are worse capstones than Weapon Specialisation. Same with E6, although in that case there are a few more options, and Weapon Focus/Specialisation can grow obsolete. But even then, it can be worthwhile.

Other than that, Weapon Mastery feats. That's about it, really.

[Malachei]

Only as a prerequisite, for example in Jack B. Quick. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869062/6_hits_to_1:_Jack_B._Quick)

Without prerequisites?

As a Warblade, perhaps but even then, only while clenching my teeth and if better feats are not allowed.

[Golden Ladybug]

On an Archer, I totally would. It leads into Ranged Weapon Mastery, and +4 Damage is nothing to sneeze at on an Archer, especially if you grab some of those feats while also getting other cool stuff (Pious Templar grants Weapon Specialisation with your Deity's Favoured Weapon, and since Ehlonna is already giving your everythingbane Arrows that return to you and never break for taking levels in this class...).

Even so, non-cleric (they have better options), non-psionic (they don't need it, they can already pump out ridiculous amounts of damage) archers can do pretty well with them.

[Amphetryon]

If Weapon Specialization comes as a part of a PrC that does other good things (like the aforementioned Pious Templar), I'll take it.

[Essence_of_War]

If I'm playing a Warblade who is really focused on std. action strikes, I'll seriously consider taking the entire weapon focus line up through Melee Weapon Mastery, and hope that I can get a wizard to heroics me into Weapon Supremacy.

[CTrees]

Low-op games.

Alternatively, boost the bonuses a bit and have them apply to groups of weapons? Then it may be more tempting. Probably not a winner, but.

[navar100]

If I know I will always use a particular weapon. If I'm always going to use a long sword with shield or I'm always going to use a greatsword, I'll consider it. Contrary to others, I do not find those feats to be worthless garbage. They're not the best feats EVAR! either, but they have value. As with all feats it depends on my mood at the time for that character.

[Malachei]

Contrary to others, I do not find those feats to be worthless garbage.

I agree they're not garbage at all. The attack roll is the most important and most frequent roll a non-caster makes, and even a 5% increase can help. Still, I'd say there are many better feats.

[Larkas]

Alternatively, boost the bonuses a bit and have them apply to groups of weapons? Then it may be more tempting. Probably not a winner, but.

Same here. If Weapon Focus was combined with Weapon Specialization and gave a flat +2/+2, it might be more worthwhile. Still, most of its value would still stem from pre-reqs...

[Urpriest]

Craven is well-regarded, and gives +level damage with a drawback. I'd look to that for comparison.

[Callista]

An untyped +1 is always welcome. In core-only games, it's often a good option.

At the moment, my paladin has Weapon Focus (Greatsword). Three reasons: One, we're playing a mid-power game, and the most powerful character is a moderately-optimized Factotum. Two, it's the deity's favored weapon. And three, as a paladin, I've got serious MAD and the +1 is equivalent to two more points of Strength, which in point buy are too expensive when I have to focus on Wisdom, Constitution, and Charisma as well.

There's two sorts of optimization: Optimizing to create the most powerful character possible, and optimizing to create the character that'll be the most fun. Optimizing for power is a great puzzle and a nice intellectual challenge; but it's optimizing your fun that's the really practical skill. If you're optimizing for maximum fun, you will match your character to the party, match your character to the game's overall power level, and focus on abilities that let you do things that are interesting to the story and useful to the party. And it takes every bit as much skill as creating the character with the maximum possible power.

[Clustered Chaos]

All of the following being true:

The feat line applies to a category of damage and not a specific weapon type.
The feat automatically scales with HD, so that it costs 1 feat instead of 1-4.
The feat is not class specific. Anyone can take it and get the scaling benefits.
The character has multiple weapons that would benefit (spear + longbow > WF: Piercing).
The character can't take something better, such as Knowledge Devotion.

Which means in a RAW game, nothing could. There's not nearly enough feats to justify minor numbers stuff (major numbers stuff is another matter). Weapon Focus is a waste, and so is 4 Fighter levels for anything other than Dungeoncrasher. Warblade 6+s also have plenty of better things to do.

[Callista]

Which means in a RAW game, nothing could. There's not nearly enough feats to justify minor numbers stuff (major numbers stuff is another matter). Weapon Focus is a waste, and so is 4 Fighter levels for anything other than Dungeoncrasher. Warblade 6+s also have plenty of better things to do.Who actually plays that kind of game, though? I mean--who plays a game where everybody has created the most powerful possible character with the most powerful possible options? There's more to it than that. We create characters who are interesting and can do interesting things, who fit into the party, who fit the concept we want to role-play. If I were going for power, I'd have stayed far, far away from paladins in the first place. Weapon Focus in your deity's favored weapon is a useful and flavorful choice for a paladin and that's really all I needed. You just have to survive and contribute to the party, that's all; and I'm doing that just fine. Choosing supposedly "sub-optimal" options doesn't need to mean that your enjoyment of the game becomes sub-optimal. It may mean the exact opposite--you create an uberpowered character, you end up unbalancing the party.

[Telonius]

Whenever I see new feats (or changes to existing feats) being suggested, I always ask myself if there's any reason characters wouldn't take that feat. If it's so good that its intended beneficiary would be silly not to take it (something like Natural Spell for Druids, Power Attack for most full-BAB characters, Weapon Finesse or Craven on most Rogues) then it's basically a Feat Tax. It really ought to be a class feature, not a feat.

The Weapon Focus/Specialization Line runs a big risk of doing something like that for Fighter. The feats, as written, are not very good except in low-op or core-only games. But if you make them too much better then they don't really work as feats either. I hesitate to open it up to everybody. It's really Fighters' schtick - only Fighters are supposed to get Specialization anyway. Personally if I were making any changes to that line of feats, it would only be in combination with fixing the Fighter class generally.

[pffh]

I usually combine weapon focus and weapon specialization into one feat that gives +1 hit and +2 damage for every 4 BAB you have (min +1 hit and +2 damage) to a maximum of +5 hit and +10 damage at 20.

I also lump the weapons into groups (one handed: slashing, two handed: slashing, one handed piercing and so forth and ranged: bow and ranged: thrown) and when you select the feat you select one of these groups.

The greater version increases the damage bonus to +3 per 4 BAB and lets you full attack with a standard action.

Also I let levels in classes with medium or full BAB count as 1/2 fighter level for determining pre requisites for fighter feats.

[Righteous Doggy]

@Callista This forum has plenty of people who's first thoughts are optimization. Warblade 20 is perfectly viable btw!(and still very fun. althought a dip into unarmed spirit totem whirling frenzy barbar sounds cool, its not required to have fun)

I don't expect a lot out of a feat. I know there's alot of broken ones, but character concept comes before optimization in my book, and feats are great for building character! I think that a +1 to attack can mean alot sometimes though, but that +2 to damage tends to seem lacking to me. I also think it would be cool if weapon specializaton and focus were one thing. I'm already devouting myself to one weapon! Don't make me feel feat taxed about it.

[Clustered Chaos]

Who actually plays that kind of game, though?

People that want their characters to survive so that they can continue to enjoy playing them. Especially since Weapon Focus modifies melee mechanics, meaning we're talking about a character who is, at best average and therefore needs all the help they can get to be good.


I mean--who plays a game where everybody has created the most powerful possible character with the most powerful possible options?

Not someone who the Weapon Focus line is relevant to obviously.


You just have to survive and contribute to the party, that's all

Which Paladin + Weapon Focus moves you well away from.


you create an uberpowered character, you end up unbalancing the party.

The enemies are over there.

[dspeyer]

There's two sorts of optimization: Optimizing to create the most powerful character possible, and optimizing to create the character that'll be the most fun.

I suspect it's the latter where weapon focus/specialization really fall down. Adding 1 just isn't fun.

A nifty fix might be that the feat gets you +1 atk, +2 dmg and the ability to perform a weapon-specific special move. Even if a lot of the moves are pretty situational, that would make it more interesting. It would also give many of the less popular weapons a reason to exist. On the other hand, it would require coming up with interesting techniques for all the weapons, of which there are many.

[Eldariel]

I suspect it's the latter where weapon focus/specialization really fall down. Adding 1 just isn't fun.

A nifty fix might be that the feat gets you +1 atk, +2 dmg and the ability to perform a weapon-specific special move. Even if a lot of the moves are pretty situational, that would make it more interesting. It would also give many of the less popular weapons a reason to exist. On the other hand, it would require coming up with interesting techniques for all the weapons, of which there are many.

Just using Weapon Focus-line means you only get bonuses with one weapon so they should be substantial; it should capture the "master of X"-feel (unless we wanna make a PRC for that). Things like eventually gaining an extra attack and increasing weapon damage die size should all be the kinds of things you could do with it, too. If the chain is going to contain multiple feats, the feat effects should at least be interesting instead of "Divine Favor in 3 feats".

[Andorax]

I take them as-is when I'm playing a character who's concept is mastery of a particular type of weapon. Then again, I tend to play fairly low-optimization games.

[navar100]

Whenever I see new feats (or changes to existing feats) being suggested, I always ask myself if there's any reason characters wouldn't take that feat. If it's so good that its intended beneficiary would be silly not to take it (something like Natural Spell for Druids, Power Attack for most full-BAB characters, Weapon Finesse or Craven on most Rogues) then it's basically a Feat Tax. It really ought to be a class feature, not a feat.

The Weapon Focus/Specialization Line runs a big risk of doing something like that for Fighter. The feats, as written, are not very good except in low-op or core-only games. But if you make them too much better then they don't really work as feats either. I hesitate to open it up to everybody. It's really Fighters' schtick - only Fighters are supposed to get Specialization anyway. Personally if I were making any changes to that line of feats, it would only be in combination with fixing the Fighter class generally.

Pathfinder did that for Fighters. They get built-in pluses to hit and damage with weapon groups that increase as the levels progress - similar mechanic to ranger favored enemies. Weapon Focus/Specialization still exist which stacks, but even without them you still get combat pluses for a combat class. Nice.

[nedz]

UA Sneak Fighter and Feat Rogue equate a feat to +1d6(average 3.5) points of situational damage. These feeats both equate to +2 points (assuming you convert the +1 to hit to +2 damage with Power Attack) which is also situational unless you only ever use 1 weapon.
So if you only ever use 1 type of weapon and get lots of attacks then they almost break even with sneak attack, maybe.
So for TWF and Archery then yes, if no better feats are available.

The real problem is that they are boring and give no further options.

[Righteous Doggy]

Actually, UA also comes with groups for specific feats, and create your own. and you can get two feats in the TOB that add up to 2 sneak attack dice I think.

[Larkas]

Out of curiosity: is Weapon Specialization a pre-req for anything other than Greater Weapon Spec.?

[Righteous Doggy]

Out of curiosity: is Weapon Specialization a pre-req for anything other than Greater Weapon Spec.?

Weapon Mastery <insert type here> and Weapon Supremacy come to mind. Necropotent maybe? plenty of things though!

[Tamer Leon]

I personally like the Tomes idea of scaling feats; they make every feat seem like a genuine, worthwhile investment.

In keeping with this line of thinking, I would roll Focus, Specialization, Improved Critical, etc. into one feat that scales with BAB and call it 'Weapon Devotion' or something.

[Flickerdart]

We create characters who are interesting and can do interesting things
Pro tip: +1 to hit is not "interesting things". +2 to damage is not "interesting things".

[Larkas]

Weapon Mastery <insert type here> and Weapon Supremacy come to mind. Necropotent maybe? plenty of things though!

Oooooh, just checked PHB2, and there are LOTS of things. Should totally be class features instead of feats, IMHO, though :smallfrown: Aside from the Fighter and the Favored Soul, is there any other class that offers a shot at Weapon Spec.?

Please, bear with the stupid questions :smalltongue: Under the point-of-view of an old AD&D player, anything that does so is invading the Fighter's turf :smallbiggrin:

[Amphetryon]

Aside from the Fighter and the Favored Soul, is there any other class that offers a shot at Weapon Spec.?
The aforementioned Pious Templar does, as do a couple other Prestige Classes. The Warblade base class does, at the slightly reduced pace of Warblade 6+ instead of Fighter 4+. Other feats, like Knowledge Devotion and Craven, flat-out beat Weapon Specialization in terms of expected damage output, often with less onerous prerequisites.

[NeoSeraphi]

I personally like the Tomes idea of scaling feats; they make every feat seem like a genuine, worthwhile investment.

In keeping with this line of thinking, I would roll Focus, Specialization, Improved Critical, etc. into one feat that scales with BAB and call it 'Weapon Devotion' or something.

Ask and you shall receive (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13155349#post13155349).

[Larkas]

The aforementioned Pious Templar does, as do a couple other Prestige Classes. The Warblade base class does, at the slightly reduced pace of Warblade 6+ instead of Fighter 4+. Other feats, like Knowledge Devotion and Craven, flat-out beat Weapon Specialization in terms of expected damage output, often with less onerous prerequisites.

Gotcha. Eldariel posted above something I had forgotten even existed: the AD&D Player's Options books. The Weapon Mastery was seen as an integral part of the Fighter back in the day by my group. I'm considering the merits of homebrewing a subsystem like it for 3E, but keeping it compatible with everything else, or at least breaking as few things as possible. Thanks for the help :smallsmile:

[Particle_Man]

People that want their characters to survive so that they can continue to enjoy playing them. Especially since Weapon Focus modifies melee mechanics, meaning we're talking about a character who is, at best average and therefore needs all the help they can get to be good.

The enemies are over there.

Surely that depends on the DM. If the PCs are not optimized, either the DM can say "optimize better or I kill your dudz LOL" or the DM can scale the encounter to be fun and challenging but not an auto-TPK.

[Clustered Chaos]

First you have to find things that wouldn't kill such a weak party. That's easier said than done.

Once you do that, then... what? You get more 25 HP Kobold Rogues running around blaming you for everything bad that happens to your character? The world has enough of those.

Clearly you're not concerned about max power or you wouldn't be melee. At the same time, that means you need to work especially hard to do anything at all.

[Chronos]

There's nothing wrong with the Fighter per se: The idea is that you should be able to take that chassis, and construct almost any sort of soldier, armsman, or warrior you like, by taking the right feats. The problem is that there just aren't enough feats that are good enough.

To the OP, the bonus really needs to scale in some way with level (or possibly with Strength or Dex; something that let you add your Str mod twice might be worthwhile). And they're a good thing to use for prerequisites: If you've got a PrC based on being really good at using daggers, you want the entrants to have already specialized in daggers in some way. But I'd still be much more interested in something that actually gave you a new capability, rather than just doing something you've always been able to do, but with slightly higher numbers.

[Flickerdart]

The problem with merely making things scale with levels is that all you get with more levels is a better soldier, instead of Hercules. It would be like a Wizard only getting 1st level spells, ever. Sure, they scale, but even if you uncapped them, they would still suck.

[nedz]

Please, bear with the stupid questions :smalltongue: Under the point-of-view of an old AD&D player, anything that does so is invading the Fighter's turf :smallbiggrin:

They are not stupid questions, its just that there are several tanks parked on that lawn, and they are not driven by fighters.

[Rubik]

There's nothing wrong with the Fighter per se: The idea is that you should be able to take that chassis, and construct almost any sort of soldier, armsman, or warrior you like, by taking the right feats. The problem is that there just aren't enough feats that are good enough.There's actually a lot wrong with the fighter.

That's why it's T5. At the very least it needs a severely souped-up skill set. As it stands a fighter knows nothing about his enemies, what they are, or how they fight (various Knowledge skills). He knows nothing about tactics or strategy (Knowledge: History specifically). And he can't see or hear anyone sneaking up on him (so he'll very likely be ganked PDQ since he can't defend against ambushes), or find enemies who are hiding (even a little bit), or successfully frisk a captive, or tie one up, or question one, or even stand watch.

[Averis Vol]

this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238078) is my absolute favorite fix for the fighter problem, it turns them into what they are supposed to be, (and hey, it gets the weapon focus/spec line for free) tactical warriors who are cunning, ever vigilant and great with a sharp stick. are they going to rival a cleric? hell no. do they feel like real warriors? definately.

[Akal Saris]

I'd take weapon focus+spec on a build that generates lots of attacks and (1) has room in the build, and (2) qualifies for the feats. So, for example, an archer, a two-weapon fighter, or a character with flurry would all be cases where I'd look more closely at Weapon Spec.

(1) is the major issue - often there are simply better feats for any given build. Either they are more interesting (robilar's gambit) or simply give better numbers (power attack). So this limits weapon spec mostly to games that are core-only, or core+phb2, etc.

(2) is the second problem - I simply don't build many characters with 4 levels in fighter. Off-hand I remember a crossbow fighter I made that used weapon spec (great crossbow), and a daring outlaw/daring warrior build that took the weapon spec chain as well.

I'm more inclined to take Weapon Spec in Pathfinder, where there are more feats and the fighter is steered into a crit-fisher build, which is one case where Weapon Spec can be more appealing, especially in an archery build along with Deadly Aim. The many different fighter kits also make taking more than 2 levels of fighter more appealing.

[Sutremaine]

I suspect it's the latter where weapon focus/specialization really fall down. Adding 1 just isn't fun.

A nifty fix might be that the feat gets you +1 atk, +2 dmg and the ability to perform a weapon-specific special move. Even if a lot of the moves are pretty situational, that would make it more interesting.
Something like a tactical feat that you grow into?

Maybe the feat should be retrainable after some in-game practice and give a relevant bonus to a weapon's special properties. Sundering for bludgeoning weapons, tripping and disarming for weapons that can already do that, a +1 to crit range, a x1 to crit multiplier (save that for the higher BAB characters though)... Something like Pact Augmentation for Binders, but with weapon boosts. In the case of Pact Augmentation, you get a list of bonuses and pick one, or more than one as your binder level increases.

It might not let you do stuff directly, but it makes existing options attractive enough to be worth trying.

[AslanCross]

I once tried to homebrew a fighter class feature that gave him additional skill points that could be invested in his martial abilities (attack, defense, physical fortitude and mental fortitude). I kind of liked it as it gave the level of customization and specialization that I liked in a fighter (I didn't really like how the Tomes series assumed that all fighters are generals-in-the-making with morale-related and command-related class features). Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec gave specific maneuvers per weapon group that kind of looked like 1/3 of a tactical feat. Eventually they were supposed to tree into tactical feats, but I got lazy/felt the fix was too complex.

[navar100]

I personally like the Tomes idea of scaling feats; they make every feat seem like a genuine, worthwhile investment.

In keeping with this line of thinking, I would roll Focus, Specialization, Improved Critical, etc. into one feat that scales with BAB and call it 'Weapon Devotion' or something.

Definitely. If 5E does the smart thing and combine all the Focus and Specialization feats into one feat that scales with level that would get applause from me. Hopefully they'll finally realize it is a feature for Feats to be that good and have many scaling feats.

[Razgriez]

Simple: Because I'm playing a Fighter type dang it!

No really, it's as simple as that. Now, it may be because of the typical adventures I'm in, but I don't look at Weapon focuses and Spec as "Oh, it's only +1/+2". I look at it as a RP opportunity.

Now does that mean, I think they are the greatest feats ever? No, far from it. If I was to rewrite the rules (Which I'm tempted to). I'd turn the Weapon focus tree into something better (Better Bonus numbers, maybe expand the number of low tier classes that can use it, each with a unique, themed bonus, etc.) But I don't think it's useless or lowers your usefulness in the team (When you're a one trick pony, Anything that helps you do your primary job better, is rather Important.)

[Flickerdart]

Simple: Because I'm playing a Fighter type dang it!

No really, it's as simple as that. Now, it may be because of the typical adventures I'm in, but I don't look at Weapon focuses and Spec as "Oh, it's only +1/+2". I look at it as a RP opportunity.

How is +1 to hit and +2 to damage an RP opportunity that you wouldn't have without those bonuses? Moreover, those two feats could be spent on feats that actually let your character do something else (and thus present an actual roleplay opportunity) so in that sense, +1/+2 is actually costing you roleplay rather than improving it.

[Fyermind]

Compare to the good feat we actually take for archers and twfs:
Knowledge devotion.
+2 attack and damage on everything, but it isn't automatic you have to check for it.

My idea for the weapon focus chain:
To adapt this it should be something about a fighter's expertise in weapon-play, provide a few small useful bonuses (+2 to hit, +2 dodge to AC?) and have it rely on an opposed check equal to BAB/2 + 2 for each specialization feat you have (perhaps improved to 3/4th BAB from fighter levels to keep the fighter specialization)

After you had hit once and been hit once you would get the bonus automatically.

Other feats in the chain would improve the odds of it happening, increase damage, allow tricks with other alternate combat styles such as tripping, etc.

[Righteous Doggy]

How is +1 to hit and +2 to damage an RP opportunity that you wouldn't have without those bonuses? Moreover, those two feats could be spent on feats that actually let your character do something else (and thus present an actual roleplay opportunity) so in that sense, +1/+2 is actually costing you roleplay rather than improving it.

It symbolizes your dedication and practice, your honing with a single weapon. Focusing and specializing in a particular weapon. We can RP without any of these books if we wanted. If we want to use feats to further a character idea(or flaws/traits) I don't see why not!

[Anxe]

I take those feats when I don't want to worry about a build for my fighter. So much easier to just get a flat bonus than a new ability or something.

[Razgriez]

How is +1 to hit and +2 to damage an RP opportunity that you wouldn't have without those bonuses? Moreover, those two feats could be spent on feats that actually let your character do something else (and thus present an actual roleplay opportunity) so in that sense, +1/+2 is actually costing you roleplay rather than improving it.

Because if I say "My character is skilled in the use of (Weapon)", having those feats helps to reinforce that. And I sometimes like to give better descriptions of how I attack with a weapon I'm focused in, over a weapon I lack Focus with.

Focus says "I know how to swing my weapon in ways to help me strike true vs. my foes.". Spec means "I know how to use this weapon to inflict the most damage out of it.


Useless Feats, are what happens when you burn a feat slot, for a feat that lack benefits, or can't be used often enough. Those are things like Whirlwind Attack (Requires a significant amount of feats, + Dex and Int at 13., lack of fights where more than 2 enemies are within melee range of you. Which means Fighters may have to go with a MAD build for it. And Rogues might have to give up some potentially more useful Special Abilities post 10th level, to make up for the Feat slot burn). Great Cleave (Again, Few fights where 3 or More enemies will be within Melee range at once. + it is not common enough where you'll drop more than 2 foes a round with Great Cleave.) is useless as is. But the Focus tree provides constant bonuses while using that weapon. No rare circumstances (unless your DM is being intentionally malicious by making sure every fight you're in, is outside your skill set), no having to go extremely out of your way to get it.


Again, that is not to say that it could be better. Because it can be better, if rewritten in a good way. But I do think it's rather silly to say "It's useless". Now, I don't know about you, but I do not believe, that just because something doesn't provide multiple extra functions or abilities to a class, it's useless. Yes, those are important, but still, so are flat bonuses to the main purposes of your class. Just because one Feat isn't as shiny or has all the bells and whistles of another Feat, doesn't make it useless. Though, I will agree with others, for Fighters, they should've just been made as a Class Feature Ability, in addition to bonus feats, rather than having to burn the bonus feats to get them.

[Flickerdart]

Because if I say "My character is skilled in the use of (Weapon)", having those feats helps to reinforce that. And I sometimes like to give better descriptions of how I attack with a weapon I'm focused in, over a weapon I lack Focus with.

Focus says "I know how to swing my weapon in ways to help me strike true vs. my foes.". Spec means "I know how to use this weapon to inflict the most damage out of it.
You can just say your character does those things without needing a feat for it. Because quite frankly, that's what you're doing already. Because "knowing how to swing my weapon" is what BAB is, and "knowing how to inflict the most damage out of it" is frankly a lie, because not only can a ton of other feats get way more damage out of that weapon, but Greater Weapon Spec is actually the "most" damage in that sense.

So yes, you wasted two feats on something that doesn't expand your possible roleplaying at all.

[Morithias]

There is ONE build I used that used these feats. I called it the "kill you without making a roll build".

It was an deathstalker on one side and a rogue (fighter bonus feat varient) on the other side.

Round 1. Hide in plain sight, take 12 on hide check via savvy rogue and skill mastery. Study opponent
Round 2. Cast any spells that might help with the attack. Study opponent
Round 3. Standard action, make a spot check with "find the weakness" skill trick taking 12 in order to make next attack a touch attack. Move action to move in close taking 12 on move silently.
Round 4. Stab them taking 10 on your only attack that round with weapon mastery. Opponent makes fort save. If they survive make a hide check at a -20 pen (hide checks take a -20 pen when you're attacking. If they see you, use a move action to flee as far away as possible and hide in plain sight again taking 12 again.

Repeat until opponent fails a fort save.

[Larkas]

I tried my hand at converting weapon mastery from AD&D to 3E (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241800). It doesn't exactly fix Weapon Focus or Specialization, but...

[Kane0]

Hmm, I'd take focus it if it gave +1 attack and +2 damage per 5 BAB
Then specialization would be something like an extra AoO per round with it, some kind of reach, a TWF bonus or another kind of nice little thing along those lines.

[Knaight]

It symbolizes your dedication and practice, your honing with a single weapon. Focusing and specializing in a particular weapon. We can RP without any of these books if we wanted. If we want to use feats to further a character idea(or flaws/traits) I don't see why not!

It does so poorly. Mechanically representing dedication and practice to a single weapon should involve being significantly better at that weapon than other weapons. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization provide tiny, marginal benefits more appropriate to kind of preferring a particular weapon, a bit, while still using a bunch of them. Something like High Sword Low Axe, on the other hand, actually represents someone trained in a sword and axe, good with that combination, and capable of vicious tricks with those that they can't really pull off with other weapons.

[Acanous]

the only way WF/WS would be even close to worth taking is if they changed it so it applies to "Any weapon". IE, you focus in using weapons, regardless of type. Dagger? +2. Crossbow? +2. Heavy Mace? +2. Chainsaw? +2.
Then I'd consider it, but it would still come after power attack/leap attack/etc. Probably take it at 15, right after Robilar's Gambit.

[Eldan]

I wouldn't take them. There's a few reasons for this, allow me to name them.

First of all, numbers are essentially boring to me. It makes very little difference to me whether a sword attack deals 1d8+1, 1d8+3 or 1d8+3000 damage, except that the last one would allow you to destroy different kinds of objects than the first two. Numerical differences only become interesting when they are large enough to make a change in the magnitude of the effect that is discernible in its effect on the game world. (Sorry about that sentence. I tried wording it normally, and I can't).
Abilities, however, are interesting. I want to give my character more choice in his possible actions, not slight improvements to what he can already do.

Feats are scarce. I have yet to play any character from level 1 to 20, and if I did, most of them would only gain 7-10 feats over their entire career. I won't spend one of those precious resources on something that doesn't give me more options. For a fighter, I want power attack or martial study, not weapon focus improved [whatever maneuver]. For a wizard, I want silent spell or a reserve feat, not spell focus or arcane thesis.

[Garwain]

I used them on a dagger thrower build (The Shredder). with a lot of attacks, the extra +2dam starts to add up. And especially the ranged weapon mastery feat, which adds more damage, and also important, adds +10 range, which is very welcome for a dagger thrower. Those feats are crucial in the build.

[2xMachina]

Only if we get a lot more feat slots. (Yes, even when forced to be a fighter)

I mean, look at the options.

Trip feat chain
Bullrush feat chain
AoO feat chain

All create 'options', and would take up the feat slots you have as a fighter. There's simply no space for a useless feat that's boring.

[INoKnowNames]

Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are very cool names. They sound lke "Oh, these things mean that for choosing to use one weapon, I get special options with them!". Instead, however, it just a numbers boost. And a rather pathetic numbers boost at that.

Weapon Focus, being able to upgrade the rate at which you hit, is only slightly worth a glance. Weapon Specialization, being -only- damage, is completely ignorable, since there are so many feats that can easily destroy it in how much damage they can make the feat user gain, while still providing some additional affect.

If the Weapon F/S Line increased more, based on your Fighter Level, giving more insentive to play a Fighter, then it being only a minute bonus for other classes might be something, since it would be more for the Fighter than anyone else. And while I still wouldn't usually take it on anything that doesn't count as having Fighter Levels (Warblade comes to mind as one of the few acceptions), it would make me consider the merrits of a Fighter as a character rather than as an NPC.

And if it actually added something else to your abilities with a weapon, it'd definitely deserve another look.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

In a core-only game there aren't many other options for a fighter

[Eldariel]

In a core-only game there aren't many other options for a fighter

Which is the primary problem with playing a Fighter in a Core-Only game.

[Fitz10019]

Only if we get a lot more feat slots. (Yes, even when forced to be a fighter)

I mean, look at the options.

Trip feat chain
Bullrush feat chain
AoO feat chain

All create 'options', and would take up the feat slots you have as a fighter. There's simply no space for a useless feat that's boring.

This 'options' comment made me think it'd be interesting if Weapon Focus through Specialization also had extra impact on special attacks and defenses against them (+x attack roll offensively, +y opposed roll defensively):

Bull Rush
Disarm
Feint
Sunder
Trip

You understand this weapon not only in your own hands, but how it can be used against you.

[Lans]

I'd leave the bonuses to attack and damage, but make weapon focus be+1/2 BAB, and let weapon specialization give an additional iterative on a standard action attack or something interesting.

Ideas
Maybe an equivalent bonus to ac/reflex for weapon focus and dr/fort saves for weapon spec. Or a reroll every 5 levels for attack and damage and have the greater versions make it so you can take the greater of the two.