Fixing the Weapon Focus Line (3.5)

[PhantasyPen]

Please don't say "don't take them." I love the flavor of these feats, and I want to make them worthwhile choices for people who agree.

So my first instinct with this feat line is to just straight-up make the entire line into a Class Feature for the Fighter class, since only a fighter is going to get anything from Weapon Specialization and onwards anyways.

The second thing I want to do with these "feats" is to have them apply to the weapon groups as described in Unearthed Arcana, instead of a single weapon line, allowing for a slightly more versatile warrior, and meaning you're not totally screwed over if the DM doesn't hand out a magical weapon which doesn't perfectly match your exact specialization.

For a third boost, I would perhaps like to see what doubling the bonuses would do (So Weapon Mastery will give a +8 bonus to hit and a +12 bonus to damage total).

This is just the stuff off the top of my head, what does the playground think? Does this work? If it doesn't work, why not (other than magical bullcrockery, that's a different conversation I'm not looking for right now.)? What are some alternate changes you all think I could make?

[Vizzerdrix]

I had a dm change weapon focus to +1 per 4 bab, and you could change it to a diffrent weapon with an hour of practicing each day. The fighter said it felt better, and no one complained.

[ranagrande]

My fix for this (and many other feat chains) is to just consolidate them into a single feat. You take it once, and get the benefits of each subsequent feat whenever you meet the prereqs for it.

[Nifft]

UA's Groups are a good idea. Other grouping methodologies would also be welcome.


For example, grouping by background:

- Weapon Focus (Hunter) -> Longbow, Shortbow, Hand Axe, Spear

- Weapon Focus (Guard) -> Crossbow, Halberd, Club, Unarmed Strike

- Weapon Focus (Heavy Infantry) -> Javelin, Short Sword, Heavy Pick, Flail

- Weapon Focus (Raider) -> Battleaxe, Warhammer, Throwing Axe, Armor Spikes

- Weapon Focus (Peasant) -> Quarterstaff, Dagger, Sickle, Sling

- Weapon Focus (Aristocrat) -> Rapier, Darts, Bastard Sword, Pistol

- Weapon Focus (Knight) -> Lance, Long Sword, Heavy Mace, Gauntlet (and gauntlet can be used as a throwing weapon)

[Ellrin]

Please don't say "don't take them." I love the flavor of these feats, and I want to make them worthwhile choices for people who agree.

So my first instinct with this feat line is to just straight-up make the entire line into a Class Feature for the Fighter class, since only a fighter is going to get anything from Weapon Specialization and onwards anyways.

The second thing I want to do with these "feats" is to have them apply to the weapon groups as described in Unearthed Arcana, instead of a single weapon line, allowing for a slightly more versatile warrior, and meaning you're not totally screwed over if the DM doesn't hand out a magical weapon which doesn't perfectly match your exact specialization.

Honestly, this sounds a lot like the Pathfinder fighter. The Weapon Focus feat tree is still its own thing, and still honestly sucks, but the fighter also gains a class feature called Weapon Training that gives him a scaling bonus on attack and damage for a wide group of weapons (such as polearms, axes, heavy blades, bows, etc.). As he advances in level, he can choose more weapon groups, which have progressively lower bonuses (which still scale), or else choose from a wide variety of pseudo-feats (because Paizo loves class-specific lists of pseudo-feats).

[ViperMagnum357]

They did offer 1 fix, in Dragon 310: the Kensai Variant of the Fighter gains a scaling bonus to Attack and Damage rolls for 1 weapon while narrowing your bonus feat list, yet keeping the entire Focus line. That allows you to gain appreciable, useful attack and damage boosts to your chosen weapon, and makes a TWF/MWF build much more viable.

[Karl Aegis]

You get them automatically if you use the same weapon long enough. Think of it as the weapon gaining experience points while you gain experience points. So you can grind while you grind.

[Ringadon]

My fix for this (and many other feat chains) is to just consolidate them into a single feat. You take it once, and get the benefits of each subsequent feat whenever you meet the prereqs for it.

My DM does the same thing and it makes them not feel like a waste of feat.

[SirNibbles]

The weapon group idea seems good.

[Necroticplague]

What's wrong with Weapon Focus? While a roughly 10% increase in expected damage isn't interesting, it's not bad.

[lylsyly]

fixed years ago:

Wpn Focus: +2 to hit and damage
Wpn Spec: +2 to hit and damage
G Wpn Focus: Ditto
G Wpn Spec: Ditto
Wpn Mastery:Ditto

All Stack of course

[ngilop]

Letting them scale to Base Attack is how I fixed it.

I also let weapon focus apply to opposed sunder and disarm attempts.

with all the feats a Fighter ended up getting +12 to attack and +26 damage and +1 attack at full BaB that stacks with haste.

[Necroticplague]

Having absolutely massive +numbers, like several of these suggestions have been, is a horrible idea. If one's to-hit gets too high, it creates a severe problem with encounter design. If you use characters that are some modicum of challenge for the one with the pumped up attack, then the rest of the party will struggle to scratch the thing. If you use enemies with AC that are a modicum of challenge for the less focused character to hit, then the one with these broken WF lines will never miss.

[ngilop]

pumped up numbers don't invalided other classes


Mostly because those other classes have abilities, and skill sets that are just plain better than the fighter.

I will never understand why letting classes being good at literally what they are supposed to be good at somehow invalidates everyone else.

wizards still have spells, bard have their inspirations, warlocks their invocations


AND since it is a feat EVERYBODY can take it.

[Telonius]

Adaptable Focus added as a feature of Fighter5. With one hour of practicing on a weapon in which you're proficient, you can change which weapon gets your Focus/Specialization bonus. Keep that focus for as long as you want, or until you spend another hour to switch it again. Warblade gets this earlier, but it's something that Fighters should have.

Weapon Focus gives +1 to hit per 5 Fighter levels (minimum +1). Greater Focus doubles the bonus. Ends up being +8 instead of +2 by level 20 (for the mythical character that stays in Fighter the full 20 levels).

Weapon Specialization gives +2 to damage per 5 Fighter levels. Greater Specialization doubles the bonus. Ends up being +16 instead of +4.

Making it based on Fighter levels specifically gives a player some sort of reason to stay in the class for the full 20 levels; at the same time it makes it kind of unlikely that anyone would actually get the full bonuses.


Having absolutely massive +numbers, like several of these suggestions have been, is a horrible idea. If one's to-hit gets too high, it creates a severe problem with encounter design. If you use characters that are some modicum of challenge for the one with the pumped up attack, then the rest of the party will struggle to scratch the thing. If you use enemies with AC that are a modicum of challenge for the less focused character to hit, then the one with these broken WF lines will never miss.

This seems like a feature, not a bug, to me; especially considering the casters already have similar things going for them.

[Necroticplague]

This seems like a feature, not a bug, to me; especially considering the casters already have similar things going for them.
1.How is 'making the DM's job significantly harder' a good thing?
2.The fact the game is already broken isn't an excuse for making it even more broken. Yes, casters need nerfs. That's no excuse for making me have to send someone who's either invincible to the rest of the party, or a complete cakewalk for you.
bounded accuracy ftw

AND since it is a feat EVERYBODY can take it.
Great, more feat taxes just to be able to hit people, as if the game didn't have enough taxes for PRCs and good feats already. Doesn't counter the idea that those buffs are a bad idea in the slightest.

[Gemini476]

Having absolutely massive +numbers, like several of these suggestions have been, is a horrible idea. If one's to-hit gets too high, it creates a severe problem with encounter design. If you use characters that are some modicum of challenge for the one with the pumped up attack, then the rest of the party will struggle to scratch the thing. If you use enemies with AC that are a modicum of challenge for the less focused character to hit, then the one with these broken WF lines will never miss.

Is that really a bad thing, though? The "broken WF Fighter never misses" bit, that is. That seems like a worthy reward, IMHO. Then again, I'm fond of OD&D where you end up with an unmodified 80% hit chance.

What broken interactions can you think of?

[ngilop]

1.How is 'making the DM's job significantly harder' a good thing?
2.The fact the game is already broken isn't an excuse for making it even more broken. Yes, casters need nerfs. That's no excuse for making me have to send someone who's either invincible to the rest of the party, or a complete cakewalk for you.
bounded accuracy ftw

Great, more feat taxes just to be able to hit people, as if the game didn't have enough taxes for PRCs and good feats already. Doesn't counter the idea that those buffs are a bad idea in the slightest.

It is not a tax. I do no understand your hatred for mundane character and for weapon combat focused.

And do not say you do not have that hatred, it is very evident. Just because a fighter gets a better boost to hit AC and deal damage over other classes that doe snot mean those classes are 100% pointless. I am a wizard I can just slap a baleful polymorph, enervate, or even a disintegrate on something.

The idea of every class being forced into melee combat just because weapon focus and weapon specialization gives better number is beyond ludicrous.

The issue at the core is those are the same numbers you got from 2nd ed., but the HP number from PCs and monsters exploded.

Yeah +2 damage was pretty good back when things had 100-120 HP at 20th level and you got your 4 attacks a round.


but here we are in 3rd ed where things have 400+ HP at level 20 and a fighter might only get 1 attack a round if he had to move.

[heavyfuel]

What's wrong with Weapon Focus? While a roughly 10% increase in expected damage isn't interesting, it's not bad.

I also never understood the hatred for Weapon Focus. It's a fine feat for combatant types.

I do give it and its entire chain for free to Fighters, but this is to buff Fighters, not the feats themselves.

[Necroticplague]

Is that really a bad thing, though? The "broken WF Fighter never misses" bit, that is. That seems like a worthy reward, IMHO. Then again, I'm fond of OD&D where you end up with an unmodified 80% hit chance. The fighter always hitting isn't a problem. The fighter always hitting while the rogue and barbarian struggle to do so, however, is a problem.


It is not a tax. I do no understand your hatred for mundane character and for weapon combat focused. If everyone who wants to hit enemies takes it so they can trivialize the attack roll, it essentially does for characters that use attack rolls.

Also, why is a respect for the game's mechanics (that a roll should actually mean something) a hatred for mundane characters?


And do not say you do not have that hatred, it is very evident. Just because a fighter gets a better boost to hit AC and deal damage over other classes that doe snot mean those classes are 100% pointless. I am a wizard I can just slap a baleful polymorph, enervate, or even a disintegrate on something. I already responded to a similar response, so I'll bold it to make it harder to miss this time:
Other Things Being Broken Doesn't Excuse Breaking It More.
Yes, wizards are overpowered. The proper solution is to nerf the wizard, not break the fighter.

The fact already existent mechanics can give so many bonuses that the die roll becomes meaningless is no excuse to trivialize it even further.

And of course it doesn't make them pointless. It just makes them significantly less useful in combat, because they have a chance to fail, while this fighter doesn't.

[Elkad]

I've been giving the whole chain to Fighters for free, and the 'one hour of practice' retrain as well.

I like moving the retrain to L5.

And I may get rid of the free bit and just boost the feats like others in this thread have done.

WF. Add ¼ BAB to your to-hit with that weapon. (min 1)
WS. Add ½ BAB to damage with that weapon.
GWF and GWS do the same (stacking).

So you'd end up with +10 to hit, +20 damage with all 4 feats.

Wandering off-topic, I gave fighters a D12 for HP long ago. I keep considering changing it to a D16, except the days I consider a D20. Might have to boost Barbarian as well (The other d12/d10 classes are fine)

[Nifft]

I've been giving the whole chain to Fighters for free, and the 'one hour of practice' retrain as well.

I like moving the retrain to L5.

And I may get rid of the free bit and just boost the feats like others in this thread have done.

WF. Add ¼ BAB to your to-hit with that weapon. (min 1)
WS. Add ½ BAB to damage with that weapon.
GWF and GWS do the same (stacking).

So you'd end up with +10 to hit, +20 damage with all 4 feats. Hmm, that's interesting. I like rewarding BAB, since it seems to be expensive in WotC's designs.



Wandering off-topic, I gave fighters a D12 for HP long ago. I keep considering changing it to a D16, except the days I consider a D20. Might have to boost Barbarian as well (The other d12/d10 classes are fine) One way to buff Barbarians is to make the extra HP from Rage work more like temporary HP (except not be temp HP because you want that to stack), so they don't risk killing themselves by taking full advantage of their primary class feature. Also, give earlier DR/--.

For Fighters, maybe grant the benefits of the Combat Focus feat line at odd levels, so they'd get the ability to gain fast healing via Combat Vigor.

[PhantasyPen]

UA's Groups are a good idea. Other grouping methodologies would also be welcome.


For example, grouping by background:

- Weapon Focus (Hunter) -> Longbow, Shortbow, Hand Axe, Spear

- Weapon Focus (Guard) -> Crossbow, Halberd, Club, Unarmed Strike

- Weapon Focus (Heavy Infantry) -> Javelin, Short Sword, Heavy Pick, Flail

- Weapon Focus (Raider) -> Battleaxe, Warhammer, Throwing Axe, Armor Spikes

- Weapon Focus (Peasant) -> Quarterstaff, Dagger, Sickle, Sling

- Weapon Focus (Aristocrat) -> Rapier, Darts, Bastard Sword, Pistol

- Weapon Focus (Knight) -> Lance, Long Sword, Heavy Mace, Gauntlet (and gauntlet can be used as a throwing weapon)

Hmm, not bad, also I see what you did there.


You get them automatically if you use the same weapon long enough. Think of it as the weapon gaining experience points while you gain experience points. So you can grind while you grind.

Is my thread a meme generator now?
https://i2.imgflip.com/2avbdk.jpg


What's wrong with Weapon Focus? While a roughly 10% increase in expected damage isn't interesting, it's not bad.

I don't dislike weapon focus, however I feel that it could be better, particularly when one compares it to content produced later in 3.X's life cycle. Also, these numbers we're all throwing around? Rogue and Barbarian can meet or exceed them easily.


Adaptable Focus added as a feature of Fighter5. With one hour of practicing on a weapon in which you're proficient, you can change which weapon gets your Focus/Specialization bonus. Keep that focus for as long as you want, or until you spend another hour to switch it again. Warblade gets this earlier, but it's something that Fighters should have.


Agreed, this does feel like something Fighter's should have, which is probably why they gave it to Fighter 2.0.


I also never understood the hatred for Weapon Focus. It's a fine feat for combatant types.

I do give it and its entire chain for free to Fighters, but this is to buff Fighters, not the feats themselves.

My problem is that it shouldn't be a feat chain in the first place, it should have been a class feature.


I've been giving the whole chain to Fighters for free, and the 'one hour of practice' retrain as well.

I like moving the retrain to L5.

And I may get rid of the free bit and just boost the feats like others in this thread have done.

WF. Add ¼ BAB to your to-hit with that weapon. (min 1)
WS. Add ½ BAB to damage with that weapon.
GWF and GWS do the same (stacking).

So you'd end up with +10 to hit, +20 damage with all 4 feats.

Wandering off-topic, I gave fighters a D12 for HP long ago. I keep considering changing it to a D16, except the days I consider a D20. Might have to boost Barbarian as well (The other d12/d10 classes are fine)

Hmm, I think I like this version the best out of the proposed versions so far, but instead of BAB I'd probably base it off of Fighter levels.

Giving the Fighter a d12 however feels excessive? They're not supposed to be the unkillable juggernaut, they're the dreadnoughts.

[Cosi]

Yes, wizards are overpowered. The proper solution is to nerf the wizard, not break the fighter.

You are formulating the problem wrong. Wizards are not overpowered, nor are Fighters underpowered. That power disparity should be fixed, but it should not be fixed by nerfing the Wizard until RAW Weapon Focus is good. RAW Weapon Focus is offensively terrible. You spend a feat -- of which you will likely ever get only a single digit number -- and in exchange you get a +1 bonus on attack rolls most of the time. That's garbage. Any game that tries to make that its balance point will be garbage. Frankly, you barely need to nerf the Wizard at all. The broken things are spells (specifically: spells that allow the player to open the monster manual, also arguably some other stuff). Fix those and leave the Wizard alone. It is a well designed class that, aside from cheese, is at a perfectly reasonable balance point.

That said, I do agree with you that just making the numbers Weapon Focus gives you is the wrong approach. Things that give simple numeric bonuses are boring. Weapon Focus should try to make your choice of weapon meaningful, not make whatever weapon you happen to wield marginally better. So the correct fix is to use the weapon style feats from Complete Warrior as a starting point. Figure out how you think an axe is different from a flail is different from a crossbow is different from a spear, and give people bonuses that fit that mold.

[Extra Anchovies]

I share Necroticplague's feelings about using Weapon Focus as a way to balance the fighter numbers-wise.

If you want to keep changes minimal, backport the Pathfinder fighter's weapon training and advanced weapon training. Also consider backporting the advanced weapon training feat (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/advanced-weapon-training-combat/) to allow decently early access to the advanced trainings, expanding the advanced training unlocks from levels 9/13/17 to levels 5/9/10/13/15/17/20.

If you're open to Tome of Battle, there's probably something you could do with requiring one maneuver known of each level be in a discipline associated with the specialty weapon, and/or giving one extra readied maneuver from any of those disciplines.


Adaptable Focus added as a feature of Fighter5. With one hour of practicing on a weapon in which you're proficient, you can change which weapon gets your Focus/Specialization bonus. Keep that focus for as long as you want, or until you spend another hour to switch it again. Warblade gets this earlier, but it's something that Fighters should have.This is the opposite of what Weapon Focus does, and I dare say the opposite of what Weapon Focus should be. The purpose of weapon focus is to allow characters to specialize in some but not all weapons. "Focus" is right in the name, after all. Adaptable Focus takes "better at fighting with certain weapon(s)" and spreads it to "better at fighting". The Fighter may need better numbers, but that's an entirely different problem; see below.

I got partway into writing a post which went in a quite different conceptual direction. I leave it here for the purpose of discussion, because I don't care to elaborate more on the details of its ideas but I do consider those ideas worthy of discussion.


The problem in making +numbers the only benefit of weapon specialization (which I here use as a name for the entire tree) is that either specialists are overpowered with their specialty weapon, or underpowered without. Weapon specialization does however need to include some +numbers, because D&D 3rd is a game largely of +numbers. If you want a less-numbers-game alternative, I've had great fun playing D&D 5th.

As a feat? eh, roll the feat tree together and you're fine. But rebuilding the concept of a weapon specialist as a class feature? Now that opens some doors.

+(level÷2) to hit
+level to damage
+(level÷4) to AC and saves
+(level÷2) to skill and ability checks which can involve the weapon (e.g. social interaction while visibly wearing the weapon,

Yes, skill and ability checks. Fighters can and should have eventually superhuman ability. They are more than "the guy at the gym". This is a fantasy game, and fantasy should allow for fantastical things without always involving magic.

I got this far and was about to start listing ideas for special actions or qualities which could be spread out over the levels when I realized that I'm building a generic class and shoving "must have a weapon of a certain type to be a functional character" onto it for no particular reason. Then I wrote the first half of this post.

[Venger]

Please don't say "don't take them." I love the flavor of these feats, and I want to make them worthwhile choices for people who agree.

So my first instinct with this feat line is to just straight-up make the entire line into a Class Feature for the Fighter class, since only a fighter is going to get anything from Weapon Specialization and onwards anyways.

The second thing I want to do with these "feats" is to have them apply to the weapon groups as described in Unearthed Arcana, instead of a single weapon line, allowing for a slightly more versatile warrior, and meaning you're not totally screwed over if the DM doesn't hand out a magical weapon which doesn't perfectly match your exact specialization.

For a third boost, I would perhaps like to see what doubling the bonuses would do (So Weapon Mastery will give a +8 bonus to hit and a +12 bonus to damage total).

This is just the stuff off the top of my head, what does the playground think? Does this work? If it doesn't work, why not (other than magical bullcrockery, that's a different conversation I'm not looking for right now.)? What are some alternate changes you all think I could make?
What flavor?


My fix for this (and many other feat chains) is to just consolidate them into a single feat. You take it once, and get the benefits of each subsequent feat whenever you meet the prereqs for it.
This is a good idea.

[Necroticplague]

You are formulating the problem wrong. Wizards are not overpowered, nor are Fighters underpowered. That power disparity should be fixed, but it should not be fixed by nerfing the Wizard until RAW Weapon Focus is good. RAW Weapon Focus is offensively terrible. You spend a feat -- of which you will likely ever get only a single digit number -- and in exchange you get a +1 bonus on attack rolls most of the time. That's garbage.How is it intrinsically garbage? Against a fair challenge, it's roughly equal to a 10% increase in expected damage. If you have a 50/50 shot at hitting someone, it's actually more beneficial to expected damage than power attack. And if your main job is going to be making attack rolls, something that will basically always apply to that is a considerable use.


Any game that tries to make that its balance point will be garbage. Frankly, you barely need to nerf the Wizard at all. The broken things are spells (specifically: spells that allow the player to open the monster manual, also arguably some other stuff). True, but I believed it to be known this was the case. Simply saying 'wizard' is a shorthand of referencing the spellcasting system's imbalance.


Fix those and leave the Wizard alone. It is a well designed class that, aside from cheese, is at a perfectly reasonable balance point. I disagree that it takes cheese. Using spells in very straightforward ways can still be vastly more powerful than mundanes.


That said, I do agree with you that just making the numbers Weapon Focus gives you is the wrong approach. Things that give simple numeric bonuses are boring. Weapon Focus should try to make your choice of weapon meaningful, not make whatever weapon you happen to wield marginally better. So the correct fix is to use the weapon style feats from Complete Warrior as a starting point. Figure out how you think an axe is different from a flail is different from a crossbow is different from a spear, and give people bonuses that fit that mold.
Agreed here. If one wants to change Weapon Focus into something more memorable, do what 4e did, and make the bonus to attack a side benefit of a feat that lets you do something more interesting with that weapon type.

[Elkad]

Hmm, I think I like this version the best out of the proposed versions so far, but instead of BAB I'd probably base it off of Fighter levels.

Giving the Fighter a d12 however feels excessive? They're not supposed to be the unkillable juggernaut, they're the dreadnoughts.

Basing it off BAB leaves Focus (and only focus) for the other Martials, Rogues, Hybrids, Monks, blasting Warlocks and other laggards. They all need the help vs T1 types. (And yes, I realize there is CoDzilla to consider. I keep considering knocking Clerics back to light armor and simple weapons, or heavy armor and 1/2 bab.)


My other HP consideration I keep mulling over is going 1e/2e style. Since multiclassing doesn't work the same, it needs a tweak.

Any level in a 1/2BAB class can receive a max of +2hp from statmods (normally Con).
Any level in a 2/3 BAB class can receive a max of +3hp from statmods.
Any level in a 1/1 (full) BAB class gets full con mod.

So if your 20con dorf went Fighter1-2/Cleric1/Rogue1/Wizard1 he'd get 10+5, d10+5, d8+3, d6+3, d4+2. At the low levels it would have little effect anyway, as the Wizards are all still sporting 12-14 con without items, but at the high levels they would be seriously squishy if you got past their defenses.

That's turning into "not 3.5" though.

[Telonius]

1.How is 'making the DM's job significantly harder' a good thing?
2.The fact the game is already broken isn't an excuse for making it even more broken. Yes, casters need nerfs. That's no excuse for making me have to send someone who's either invincible to the rest of the party, or a complete cakewalk for you.
bounded accuracy ftw


I played with my houserules for a full 20-level campaign, and didn't notice any appreciable increase in difficulty for me. (I've always suspected the CR lines were assigned by a group of monkeys set up with typewriters, so I've always done extra work on that part anyway - I tailor the encounter to the party).

Action economy is still a thing; multiple enemies can and should be there to split the party's attention. Melee should be a cakewalk to a class whose focus is supposed to be melee. Tangling with a Fighter (or a Barbarian, or any of the other primary melee classes) up close should be something that poses a serious threat to your life.

As much as casters need nerfs - and I totally agree, they do - melee also needs buffs. Larger numbers that help their class specifically, should be part of that. (Fighter needs to do its job, and a Cleric or a Druid shouldn't be able to out-fight a Fighter).



This is the opposite of what Weapon Focus does, and I dare say the opposite of what Weapon Focus should be.

I do agree that it turns the concept of Weapon Focus on its head - but it does so in a way that makes Fighter's role a bit more distinct (as opposed to the other melee classes). He's the weapons expert, able to pick up whatever weapon is necessary for the task at hand, and mix it up in melee in a threatening way. Weapon Focus still does its regular thing for any other class that wants to pick it up - +1 to hit with a particular weapon.

[zergling.exe]

Agreed here. If one wants to change Weapon Focus into something more memorable, do what 4e did, and make the bonus to attack a side benefit of a feat that lets you do something more interesting with that weapon type.

4e didn't make Weapon Focus interesting. They did what most people are advocating in this thread: Feat consolidation and scaling. You get +1 damage per 10 levels with Weapon Focus in 4e. Funnily enough, it doesn't have the to-hit bonus that 3e had.

[Seerow]

My version of weapon focus is it gives a floating point that can be used to adapt your weapon with a non-magical weapon property.

So you could, for example, make it a +1 to hit or +2 damage if you wanted. But you can switch that from those bonuses to instead gain reach. Or switch that to make it a throwing weapon. Or to gain a bonus on a combat maneuver. Or to use nonlethal damage without the normal penalty, or change your damage type. And so on.

Weapon Focus gives one point worth of upgrades that can be switched as a move action.
Weapon Specialization increases your effective size category by 1 while wielding your chosen weapon (so bonus damage, increased reach and the relevant bonus to combat maneuvers), and lets you shift your upgrade as a swift action.
Greater Weapon Focus gives a second point of upgrades that can be switched.
Greater Weapon Specialization gives another +1 size category, and you can switch your weapon upgrades as a free action.

Weapon Mastery gives a bonus upgrade point, and allows you to apply all but one of your upgrade points to weapons other than your specialized weapon within the category. (So Weapon Mastery by itself allows 1 point to be used by other weapons. Weapon Master with Greater Weapon Focus allows for 2 points to be used by other weapons).

[Glimbur]

There are other choices beyond +numbers. I like Seerow's ideas above and also thought that weapon focus etc might let you reroll attack and/or damage a certain number of times per encounter. Someone who is focusing on that weapon is more consistent, which might make sense.

[Necroticplague]

4e didn't make Weapon Focus interesting. They did what most people are advocating in this thread: Feat consolidation and scaling. You get +1 damage per 10 levels with Weapon Focus in 4e. Funnily enough, it doesn't have the to-hit bonus that 3e had.

The feats I was referencing wasn't actually called 'Weapon Focus' in 4e. I was referring to the various Expertise feats, which typically give a scaling bonus to attack and some other benefit.

[Lans]

What if it gave massive bonuses in exchange for medium penalties to you using other weapons? So one feat, but when you level up you can get two points of BAB with this weapon in exchange for 0 for your use of other weapons. After doing this a certain amount of times you also get an increased crit range, higher damage die, extra attack and the weapon supremacy benifits.

[Mordaedil]

My real problem with weapon focus (and specialization for that matter) isn't that the bonus it gives isn't big enough, it's that the +1, +2 or whatever isn't really special enough to be worth a feat. I'd consider implementing something akin to "weapon tricks" where your pick in weapon focus gives you small tricks you can perform with said weapon that characters without the feat cannot, that add both flair and usefulness to the weapon as well as aid the player in combat.

Consider taking weapon focus (scythe) giving you "swipe" allowing you to strike 3 targets in an arc at an angle in front of you, using your normal attack routine against each or a single attack to hit them all, not sure.

Or weapon focus (rapier) giving you "lunge" allowing you to close distance in an instant and then retreat for a single attack.

Specialization would allow them to more versatility and greater focus would just improve the abilities, but I dunno, some of these I thought up start to sound a bit too much like normal feats.

But this is how I would "fix" these feats.

[NerdHut]

So my first instinct with this feat line is to just straight-up make the entire line into a Class Feature for the Fighter class, since only a fighter is going to get anything from Weapon Specialization and onwards anyways.

The second thing I want to do with these "feats" is to have them apply to the weapon groups as described in Unearthed Arcana, instead of a single weapon line, allowing for a slightly more versatile warrior, and meaning you're not totally screwed over if the DM doesn't hand out a magical weapon which doesn't perfectly match your exact specialization.

This is something I've done with my fighter fix, which wasn't just a wholesale boost of its strengths, but focused on raising its floor so it's easier to make a good fighter. Pulling from PF Fighter and from 3.5 Ranger, a fighter can specialize in weapon groups, such as light blades or hammers. This scales with level much like Favored Enemy.

For the feat tree, I changed it to damage type (Slashing, Bludgeoning, Piercing) instead of specific weapons (Axe, Hammer, Spear). It works for my table alright, but I can see its strengths and weaknesses.