Are weapon group feats any good?

[pestilenceawaits]

The title is self explanatory. The variant weapon groups feats are in the Unearthed arcana have you used them in your game? it seems like they make weapon focus/ specialization more worth it and it can eliminate burning feats on exotic weapons. I like them but don't know what kind of impact they can have on the game anyone else use them?

[Fax Celestis]

They go a long way towards making things like weapon focus/specialization worth it, yes, and they go a little way towards making the fighter the master of combat he's supposed to be.

[Saithis Bladewing]

I think they make certain feats a lot more useful, and I think they really help make certain Fighter abilities (particularly focus/specialisation) much better. I haven't used them, but I'd love to some day.

[Jimp]

My table top group uses them all the time and they have worked out great for us. Also adds some more flavour to a character since you train in specifics instead of just 'all simple' or 'all martial'.

[Matthew]

I like them, but am not completely sold on their organisation, so have long been using a variant on them.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Although it takes some getting used to the idea of certain characters having a more restricted list to choose from, I like the verisimilitude added. Especially when it comes to the aforementioned feats such as Weapon Focus and Specialization.

[Shisumo]

I found they were a perfect fit for L5R d20, but I don't usually use them in traditional D&D.

(I'm not sure which poll option that translates to.)

[Diggorian]

Weapon Group feats are one of the many varaints in one of D&D groups (so many variants it could be called 3.75 :smallamused:).

At first I was a bit ticked at not being able to pick up any weapon, but I picked enough groups to cover my slashy, bashy, and stabby bases.

[pestilenceawaits]

It doesn't seem like a lot of people use them and the more I read them the more I like them. I like the flavor they add it makes sense to me that someone would be more trained in certain types of weapons and I definitely think it helps fix focus and specialization. It also helps as a DM because now the PCs can actually use most of the magic weapons they get in the loot instead of having to look for that specific one they have spent feats on.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I'm noticing a hella lot of "Not use them but like them" responses. Anyone care to mentione what's preventing them from being used in their respective groups?

(I'm pretty certain the most common answers will be along the lines of, "I like them, but my DM doesn't," and, "I like them but the majority of my players don't." :smallwink:)

[Journey]

I've always used weapon groups. In the 3.x/d20 system, if I DM it, I would rule that specialization, focus, and similar specific weapon feats still apply only to specific weapons, though. Being able to 'specialize' in more than one weapon, ever, just destroys the verisimilitude for me, so I'd have additional variant house rules that restrict specialization to just a single weapon, but would likely grant marginally superior benefits compared to specialization in its current form (and would probably grant benefits to weapons in the same group, but not as potent as the specialization benefit itself to the primary weapon).

[Matthew]

I'm noticing a hella lot of "Not use them but like them" responses. Anyone care to mentione what's preventing them from being used in their respective groups?

(I'm pretty certain the most common answers will be along the lines of, "I like them, but my DM doesn't," and, "I like them but the majority of my players don't." :smallwink:)

I don't use them because once I change one thing, I want to change a whole lot more. I can't resist the urge to tinker with rules, so we just stick to RAW for 3.x games or we might as well be playing House Ruled (A)D&D.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Oh, yeah. I know that feeling.

I just restrain myself by saying, "It's okay if the change was suggested in official material. Try to avoid anything else." :smallbiggrin:

So far, I've managed to do that.

[Fhaolan]

I don't use them because once I change one thing, I want to change a whole lot more. I can't resist the urge to tinker with rules, so we just stick to RAW for 3.x games or we might as well be playing House Ruled (A)D&D.

I feel the same. As soon as I start 'fixing' bits I start down that slippery slope that ends up with me rewriting the entire rulebook.

[Diggorian]

I'll change anything that in my opinion makes the world make a bit more sense than it does in the RAW. Introducing changes to new players entails giving them a list of my changes, addressing their questions, then wowing them with my story-telling (deep immersion style is my preferance).

The increased coverage of the weapon focus and specialization feats I rationalize as certain techniques being translateable to similar weapons. A longsword and a scimitar seem pretty similar to wield. But, I can understand the problem this may make for others.

[MrNexx]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I carefully choose my projects for Palladium. I'm in dangerous territory suggesting something to do with psionics, as it is...

[Matthew]

Oh, yeah. I know that feeling.

I just restrain myself by saying, "It's okay if the change was suggested in official material. Try to avoid anything else."

So far, I've managed to do that.

I feel the same. As soon as I start 'fixing' bits I start down that slippery slope that ends up with me rewriting the entire rulebook.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I carefully choose my projects for Palladium. I'm in dangerous territory suggesting something to do with psionics, as it is...

*Laughs* I feel an almost spiritual bond.

[Golthur]

*Laughs* I feel an almost spiritual bond.
I know the feeling. I'm up to nearly 300 pages of experimental rules already :eek:

I just can't resist tinkering - no idea why.