[3.5] Weapon Groups

[Zovc]

What do you think of the Unearthed Arcana variant that introduces weapon groups?

It seems less abstract to me, but I've had no martial training. I just have trouble grasping that if I can fight proficiently with a Scimitar, how can fighting with a Longsword, or even a "bastard sword" be that different.

[Mongoose87]

I like it.
a) It makes fighter less suck
b) It makes sense, for someone who is trained with a weapon to be able to apply it to similar weapons.

[Eldariel]

What do you think of the Unearthed Arcana variant that introduces weapon groups?

It seems less abstract to me, but I've had no martial training. I just have trouble grasping that if I can fight proficiently with a Scimitar, how can fighting with a Longsword, or even a "bastard sword" be that different.

The AD&D rule is much more sensible. Weapon Specialization represents that you are a master of a weapon, not just skilled. If you master the smallest details and intricacies of a specific weapon, that knowledge is of little use with even slightly different weapons.

However, if you are proficient in a weapon, you can apply the basic skills and some of the specialist skills to other similar weapons. In AD&D, the unproficiency penalties were halved for similar weapons (mind you, what's presently "Weapon Focus" was efficiently "Weapon Proficiency" back then; that is, Fighters didn't start proficient in every weapon, but you had to pick your proficiencies).


The UA variant is fine from a balance- and gamist PoV, but logically makes little sense; it's a bit too easy to become a master of a whole weapon group. Ultimately, if you plan on making crafting magic weapons harder and giving a lot of strong weapons as treasure, it seems like a solid variant to not punish Fighter-types for specializing (which is a weak option to start with), but...meh, ultimately doesn't fix anything much and is on a kinda light logical foundation.

[Stegyre]

I love it, but I take it one step further, to prevent the use of multi-classing to circumvent it: a character has only the number of weapon group proficiencies as granted by the class with the most proficiencies. Proficiencies granted by other classes are subsumed in that. Thus, a fighter / rogue has basic weapons + 4 groups -- the rogue's two groups are subsumed in the fighter's four.

(Now, add the rules for fractional BAB and saving rolls.)

[valadil]

Looks decent, but I've never played with it. I think I'd like the idea better if there was more variety in what different weapons could do.

[jiriku]

I have used it in several campaigns. Nothing really changed. Character creation felt a little different, and I suppose the character sheet was more "realistic", but basically the players selected proficiency with the weapons they wanted to use, and then used those weapons pretty much exclusively.

Which was exactly what they did in games with the default weapon proficiency system.

[BooNL]

I like the system and use it in pretty much all games I DM.

While for non weapon focused characters not a lot changes I've found that players are more willing to switch around weapons with this variant. Also, it's easier to access exotic weapons (the +1 bab req isn't really required either), so those get some screentime as well.

[Kaiyanwang]

I'm currently using it and it rocks, exspecially if you choose exotic proficecny at level 1 (BAB +1 like fihgters, barbarians and so on) and choose the right group like flails and chains, a good polearm feat combo, and swords if you have enough splats*.

I use it in gestalt, with a fine adjustment of rules. If you want my opinion, they are better in 4th edition (one of the few things I like in 4th). But if you want my opinion, fighters should have the weapon supremacy feat tier in addition to their bonus feats, so it needed at least another thread.

See Eldariel.





* Swords are versatile in this way. In the same group you have 1 exotic BIIG sword, 2 sundering sword, 2-3 disarming swords, 1 tripping sword, bastard sword, critting, sword, high multiplier critical sword...