Weapon Reliance [Flaw]

[ExHunterEmerald]

This came to me as I was thinking about the backstory of one of my newer characters...

Nathan Graves only had one "toy" his entire childhood--a longsword, nicked from a dwarven mark during his time as a cutpurse. The blade was comically large for the boy, but he loved it dearly, and became formidable in its use.
As he grew, he found it harder and harder to wield, often remarking that it was "too small" for his body size. Imagine his delight when he found a zweihander in a general store years later.

FLAW: WEAPON RELIANCE
You only learned how to wield a certain weapon--as such, you face difficulty trying to adjust to new ones.
Effect: You select a specific weapon type. You use this weapon normally. When you use any other weapon, you take a -2 on attack and damage rolls. This stacks with a non-proficiency penalty, if applicable.
Special: You may only gain this flaw at first level, even if your DM normally allows flaws to be taken past the time of character creation.
In addition, the feat you gain for taking this flaw must pertain to the weapon in question--for example, if you had Weapon Reliance: Greatsword, you would be able take Weapon Focus: Greatsword.


Edit: Had a thought. (Rare for me, just go with it...)
I think I'll add a Ranged/Melee thing, because the more I think about it, a -2 to every single other weapon in existence is pretty heavy. Also, the flavor I was going for isn't quite like that. Opinions?

[Gnifle]

I like the idea of relying on one weapon, but you are absolutely right a -2 on all other attacks is a bit too excessive, even if it only applies to range/melee, how about making it a -1 adj. instead.

[Ashheart]

Great for a background story but with a massive penalty.
You could try narrowing it down even more by saying that the penalty only applies to weapons that deal other types of damage.
Say a Blunt Weapon Reliance would gain a -1 or -2 on all attack with Piercing and Slashing weapons.
A Club and a Hammer are prety much alike in the way you wield them, but a club and a rapier...totaly differend.

Still a great Flaw.

[Closet_Skeleton]

It needs to be -2 because -1 to a weapon you'll never use isn't harsh enough.

[ExHunterEmerald]

Hmm.
Maybe I could use the variant weapon group proficiencies, or the 'similar weapons' thing--A club and a hammer work about the same, but even a longsword and a greatsword don't...
Maybe something like "One-handed sword," "Two-handed sword," "Hammer/Club" and so forth?

[Miles Invictus]

Restrict it to classification (light/1H/2H) and damage type (slash/pierce/bludge).

I think a -1 penalty is enough, given that there are a number of creature types that resist certain damage types. If you think it's too lenient, then you could add that the player cannot take weapon focus for any weapon type that he doesn't rely on.

[Darkshade]

this sounds like a good flaw, and I think our Mr. Greenhilt may have taken it as well.

how about these changes, choose a melee or ranged weapon, whenever you use a weapon of that type with a different classification then the one you chose (light/1hand/2hand) you take a -1 penalty with that weapon, also whenever you use a weapon that deals a different damage type (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning) you take a -1 penalty, these penalties stack when you are using a weapon that is nothing like your chosen weapon.

so Longsword to Greatsword is -1 and longsword to club is -1, but longsword to spiked chain is -2

[Yakk]

Weapon Reliance: Ray
Weapon Reliance: Touch Attack

[Fizban]

Depends on if you classify those as weapons, but weapon focus sets the precedent, so yeah.

Also: weapon reliance: [whatever], any casting class ever. Even if the -2 applies to your attack roll spells, you don't have to take any in the first place.

[Darkshade]

simply add the additional requirement that the weapon selected be a real physical weapon, no unarmed, no ray, no touch attack.

[heretic]

Now if you were truly sadistic as a DM, you would have the party find a +5 longsword after the fighter took Weapon Reliance (Bastard Sword).

I can see where this would be frustrating. I think it should apply to groups of weapons, maybe divided the same way as the UA weapon groups.

[Rama_Lei]

simply add the additional requirement that the weapon selected be a real physical weapon, no unarmed, no ray, no touch attack.

I'd allow unarmed but not rays or touch attacks. Relying on your firsts to fight makes more sense than relying on touching someone

[Darkshade]

ahh but the unarmed comes into a balance issue, you can never be without your unarmed attacks, I like that with real weapons you rely on, things can happen to prevent you from being able to use them...
like it being shattered

[Yakk]

The example of rays/touch attacks simply illustrates the problem.

If you have any character who is designed to use a particular kind of weapon, and lacking ability to attack with other weapons, this "flaw" isn't all that serious.

Basically, this is a class of flaw/disadvantage that only really hurts if the DM targets it -- if you are in a campaign where you are constantly disarmed, or where you don't get weapons custom-built for characters, this flaw is serious. Otherwise it is really really minor for a heckload of classes and builds.

Lastly, the effect described is already captured by the "weapon focus" feat -- that you are better with one weapon than you are with any other.

I don't like it. :)

[ArmorArmadillo]

Too powerful even at -2, you'll almost never use other weapons so it's almost meaningless.

[Icewalker]

Yeah, a -2 to all other weapons is too much, lower it and make it into groups, just like everyone else suggested. I always end up just agreeing with everyone before me.

First thing that came to my mind during your background story is Roy. Definitely fits in for this, although none of the characters have stats or feats because that could bring up problems with the storyline.

[Rama_Lei]

Well if it gets out control , you can solve it easily. Simply throw something agaist it that has DR. A longsword? Throw some skeletons at it.