D&D 5E Weapon Specialization?

[GX.Sigma]

So the specialist isnt gimped, he's still better than other classes at fighting.

Then it's the same problem as my Scenario 2 above: A specialist is better than a non-specialist. Thus, all non-specialists are less viable than they would be if they were specialists. Thus, there's pressure for everyone to specialize.

Does your character really have to be maxed out and top to hit to be effective?

To put it simply, yes. Obviously a non-specialist wouldn't be unplayable, but they'd be much less desirable than a specialist (no one wants to play a character that's weaker than it could be). We saw this with 4e's feat taxes. People wanted to take feats that spoke to their character, and often did, but it's terrible game design to force the player to choose between fun and effectiveness.

If the axe specialist finds a flaming longsword of doom...he made the choice to specialize, its supposed to be limiting.

Not really, because everyone is pressured to specialize, so everyone is limited.

When they fight creatures immune to bladed weapons they may feel a twinge of regret

I don't know of any creatures that are immune to bladed weapons. Can you name a few?

My point is that power is always better than versatility, because versatility (especially in a team game like D&D) isn't very valuable. If you give players the choice between power and versatility, they will quickly learn that power is the correct choice. Then they will resent you for trying to trick them into choosing the wrong one.

 

[Magil]

I would like to point out a type of "weapon specialist" already exists in DnD Next. It's called the Sharpshooter, and it specializes in ranged weaponry (as in, it obstinately performs better with ranged weapons than melee weapons).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My point is that power is always better than versatility, because versatility (especially in a team game like D&D) isn't very valuable. If you give players the choice between power and versatility, they will quickly learn that power is the correct choice. Then they will resent you for trying to trick them into choosing the wrong one.

That is a wrong assumption. Versatility is often undervalued... Of course, everyone should have something, where he is really good at. But beeing quite good in many things is not bad either.

It just depends, how expensive your investment is, and how much the possibe gain.
If you have to spend all your feat, just for a little bonus to hit, and you could otherwise be quit good at many things, versality could be valuable.

If you specialize in shield use or wielding magic as a weapon, or using a bow effectively, your standard melee attack could be a little bit weaker, and you would still not feel less useful (a ranged attack at the beginning must be made up by the melee specialist)

And last but not least, specialization just cost one of many slots, and you can easily specialize in a different weapon on level up, not using up a resource, you could spend otherwise. Here versality and power are no opposites... but you may need another level to train in your newly found magic weapon...

 

[SkidAce]

Then it's the same problem as my Scenario 2 above: A specialist is better than a non-specialist. Thus, all non-specialists are less viable than they would be if they were specialists. Thus, there's pressure for everyone to specialize.To put it simply, yes. Obviously a non-specialist wouldn't be unplayable, but they'd be much less desirable than a specialist (no one wants to play a character that's weaker than it could be). We saw this with 4e's feat taxes. People wanted to take feats that spoke to their character, and often did, but it's terrible game design to force the player to choose between fun and effectiveness.Not really, because everyone is pressured to specialize, so everyone is limited.I don't know of any creatures that are immune to bladed weapons. Can you name a few?

My point is that power is always better than versatility, because versatility (especially in a team game like D&D) isn't very valuable. If you give players the choice between power and versatility, they will quickly learn that power is the correct choice. Then they will resent you for trying to trick them into choosing the wrong one.

I see your all your points, I just don't agree. Fair enough, thanks for the discussion and it did help me understand your side of it.

Haven't run into any resentment though.

 

[Salamandyr]

If some kind of specialization is necessary, and I for one have no interest in it, perhaps it would be better to go back to what AD&D had prior to specialization; weapon proficiencies.

Prior to weapon specialization, a characters baseline competency, ie his to hit bonus, was presumed to be with weapons he was trained with. Rather than getting a bonus for weapons he trained with, perhaps he should get a penalty for weapons he's not trained with. For instance, a fighter might begin play with proficiency in longsword, hand axe, spear, and longbow. When using any other weapon, he has disadvantage (it was a -2 penalty in AD&D). As he progresses in levels, he is able to add more weapons he's proficient with.

Weapon proficiencies have a few advantages, that spiraling specialization doesn't. They allow the player to show areas of competency without limiting him to a particular style. This allows him to train in a variety of weapon types, so he can adjust if the battle...using a bow against aerial opponents, readying a spear against charging monsters, etc. It keeps the bonus bloat down. And it's easier to balance with other characters.

Weapon specialization is the biggest single reason the fighter appears boring to so many players. It basically takes a character whose defining characteristic is mastery of battle and turns them into a one-trick pony who becomes sub-par in any battle where his schtick cannot be applied. This lends to the feeling of helplessness for higher level fighters whose class benefits actively discourage them from using the flexibility that is inherent in the class.

 

[billd91]

If some kind of specialization is necessary, and I for one have no interest in it, perhaps it would be better to go back to what AD&D had prior to specialization; weapon proficiencies.

Prior to weapon specialization, a characters baseline competency, ie his to hit bonus, was presumed to be with weapons he was trained with. Rather than getting a bonus for weapons he trained with, perhaps he should get a penalty for weapons he's not trained with. For instance, a fighter might begin play with proficiency in longsword, hand axe, spear, and longbow. When using any other weapon, he has disadvantage (it was a -2 penalty in AD&D). As he progresses in levels, he is able to add more weapons he's proficient with.

Weapon proficiencies have a few advantages, that spiraling specialization doesn't. They allow the player to show areas of competency without limiting him to a particular style. This allows him to train in a variety of weapon types, so he can adjust if the battle...using a bow against aerial opponents, readying a spear against charging monsters, etc. It keeps the bonus bloat down. And it's easier to balance with other characters.

Weapon specialization is the biggest single reason the fighter appears boring to so many players. It basically takes a character whose defining characteristic is mastery of battle and turns them into a one-trick pony who becomes sub-par in any battle where his schtick cannot be applied. This lends to the feeling of helplessness for higher level fighters whose class benefits actively discourage them from using the flexibility that is inherent in the class.

I agree that too-narrow specialization yields a result too akin to the one-trick pony, but I would argue that 1e's weapon proficiencies produced a result too close to that as well. The proficiencies were too specific. 3e's, at least as starting packages, may be a bit too broad. The happier medium, I thought, was the weapon grouping as presented in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook.

I don't mind some level of specialization. If someone wants to excel with axes, that sounds fine to me. But I wouldn't mind seeing that specialization apply to a broad group of varied axes and not just the one specific axe form. I would also like to see the bonus be fairly minor.

I would also like to see specializations in fighting styles or specialties. We already see that with the sharpshooter and archer. He's better with ranged weapons than melee, but he's got a variety of ranged weapons he can use from a bow to a tankard flung across the bar room.

 

[Leatherhead]

Does your character really have to be maxed out and top to hit to be effective?

Does your character really need to have a bonus for a RP restriction?

But more importantly:

A 1-5 effectiveness scale only works if the axe specialist is constantly forced to use non-axe weapons. And really, that's just not fun for the specialist as it would break their character concept to be consistently using something else.

 

[Kavon]

While I like the concept of weapon specialization, I also don't like being forced to throw all your things into one basket just to stay on top of your game.

Instead, I would like specialization to give something other than numeric increases. Let it give more options, maneuvers, tricks, whatever, when using that particular weapon. It makes you more formidable, without having to add +X to attack and/or damage.
It makes the specialist "special" compared to some other guy using the same weapon.

 

[Stormonu]

There needs to be a balancing point - a reason why some fighters would want to generalize, and some specialize. Right now, there's really no reason not to specialize and until someone finds an advantage not too, it ain't going to happen.

One of the main obstacles against generalists is the fact that in a given combat, no one really changes out weapons. You tend to stick with the same weapon through the entire fight. If, instead it was common to say, A) make an opening shot with a bow/crossbow, then B) rush into melee and whack someone with a mace, then C) drop the mace to parry with a sword, then D) end up wrestling over a dagger.

Until you see this sort of mix-n-match weapon use, weapon specialization will rule. Go with common weapon swaps and folks are likely to argue about "golf-bag" fighters and tracking half a dozen weapon stats for a single combatant.

 

[billd91]

There needs to be a balancing point - a reason why some fighters would want to generalize, and some specialize. Right now, there's really no reason not to specialize and until someone finds an advantage not too, it ain't going to happen.

One incentive to remain generalized... Don't cater to player desires with magic item/weapon placement. If you're not constantly providing magic items tailored for them, nor allowing them to buy their choice, they may have to make-do.