that you like axes and want your fighter to be better with axes than with any other weapon group.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Weapon Specialization?
- Thread starter GameDoc
- Start date
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
"Being better with axes than with any other weapon group" means you only ever use axes.
If you're only using axes, your axe attacks should be on par with other fighters' attacks (with any type of weapon).
If your axes are just as good as their weapons, and your non-axes are worse than your axes, then axe specialization necessarily means that your axes are on the baseline, and your non-axes are worse than the baseline.
Ergo, axe specialization serves only to punish the specialist for using non-axes.
I would like to see fighters get a damage bonus for all attacks based on their level (something I have house ruled for a long time) and thematic bonuses based on the weapon.
Maybe swords become more accurate and then get an extra attack at a 2nd level of specialization.
Axes might get an increased critical threat range and then an enhanced critical modifier.
Etc etc as the weapon groups go on.
Fighters should do more damage with weapons then any other class but generic plus bonuses just dont scream "specialist" to me. It should be something more thematic and flavorful but still useful.
Maybe swords become more accurate and then get an extra attack at a 2nd level of specialization.
Axes might get an increased critical threat range and then an enhanced critical modifier.
Etc etc as the weapon groups go on.
Fighters should do more damage with weapons then any other class but generic plus bonuses just dont scream "specialist" to me. It should be something more thematic and flavorful but still useful.
Iosue
Legend
I think lateral options are the way to go here. If we make "specialized vs. generalized" a crunch distinction, we simply dictate the fluff de facto. Which ever is better is what everyone wants to use.
So we make "specialized vs. generalized" a fluff distinction. Borrowing from BECMI's weapon mastery, we give each weapon type various special maneuvers. The generalist, we'll call him Man-at-Arms, can access the first level of say, two different weapon groups. The specialist, let's call him Weaponmaster, gets two levels of the weapon he specializes in. The levels don't progress -- that is to say each new level merely allows access to a new maneuver of roughly the same power. The maneuvers don't become more powerful. Power is purely a function of fighter level and CS dice.
As characters level up, they get access to more maneuvers. The generalist gets another weapon group (or may take a maneuver from one he's already chosen), and the specialist gets the next maneuver in the chain of his preferred weapon.
Both the generalist and the specialist suffer no penalties for using weapons outside of their chosen groups; they merely don't have access to those weapons' maneuver lists.
So we make "specialized vs. generalized" a fluff distinction. Borrowing from BECMI's weapon mastery, we give each weapon type various special maneuvers. The generalist, we'll call him Man-at-Arms, can access the first level of say, two different weapon groups. The specialist, let's call him Weaponmaster, gets two levels of the weapon he specializes in. The levels don't progress -- that is to say each new level merely allows access to a new maneuver of roughly the same power. The maneuvers don't become more powerful. Power is purely a function of fighter level and CS dice.
As characters level up, they get access to more maneuvers. The generalist gets another weapon group (or may take a maneuver from one he's already chosen), and the specialist gets the next maneuver in the chain of his preferred weapon.
Both the generalist and the specialist suffer no penalties for using weapons outside of their chosen groups; they merely don't have access to those weapons' maneuver lists.
Yes
No, since that won't satisfy players who want their specialized fighter be noticeably better with his signature weapons than with other weapons.
That's why the specialist needs to be better.
We're talking about two mutually exclusive player preferences here. WotC can
't satisfy both and has to decide which kind of players to aggrieve.
The one edition to catch them all is impossible.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
OK, scenario 2:
An axe specialist will only ever use axes.
If an axe specialsist's axe attacks are better than all attacks from non-specialists, that means that all of the specialist's attacks will be better, 100% of the time. Ergo, the game is imbalanced in favor of the specialist. In other words, the system punishes you for not specializing.
Now you have created a system where everyone has to specialize if they want to be effective. In doing so, you have either created a false choice where specializing is always correct (eg, 4e's feat tax), or explicitly removing choice, and forcing everyone to specialize (eg, 2e's proficiency slots). I hope I don't need to explain why those systems sucked.
Last edited:
Because you personally do not like them. But that doesn't mean that those system suck, just that some people like them and some don't.
There are people who want exactly what you describe and don't care if it punishes people who don't specialize.
WotC can only chose which of these groups to punish
Last edited:
..
I personally think that, like Dual-wielding, you cannot have front-loaded specialization benefits. If you specialize, it means taking a feat. At the beginning you may, say, gain a slight improvement to certain manouvres, or access to a new one, that only you can do with your favoured weapon type. A perma-bonus, you are all right, is probably NOT the way to allow a generalist to play in the same game as a specialist who has a permanent +1 to hit or +2 to damage.
The only downside / opportunity cost in that case is whether that feat could be more optimally spent on some other feat, or that you may find a magic weapon of some other type but because there are no "transfer enchantment" rituals in 5e, you may decide it's best to not use the magic weapon, because the extra +1/+1 is not worthwhile.
I'm hoping specialization allows you extra sweet maneuvers, not permanent bonuses. If it's a permanent bonus, it means, e.g. dual-wielders get twice the benefit (which I would be the first to admit, to always wanting to take advantage of).
In real life, things are not balanced. A specialist in my field could be more than 2x as effective as a non-specialist in a given area, but in tradeoff might be only 90% as good in other areas as the generalist. Things are lobsided and imbalanced in real life. For example, I'm a generalist programmer. The more 3d programming experience I get, my main programming skills also improve, but my domain-specific knowledge improves by leaps and bounds. Whereas most of the other types of general programming is nowhere near as intellectually demanding. What I'm saying is...in real life you'd have +1 to hit and +2 damage when using your specialty weapon, on a specific type of meanouver, but also, say, perhaps a +1 damage bonus just using your favored weapon against any enemy using any maneuver, since you are that much better with your weapon and specialization should make you, simply, "better". But in game-design terms, it means you are pigeon-holed and will likely stow away that fancy sword you just found because you're an axe-guy, and magic or no magic, with flatter math you are just better off with your favored weapon than a magic non-favored weapon.
D&D is not real life, and if they design specialization without regard to the fact that there will be no generalists since it's so much poorer a choice from level 1, then I agree with the forum posters who say "let's find another way to give them a boost other than always-on flat bonuses". Stuff like, "when you crit, you have advantage on all attacks for the next round on the enemy", or "when you spend a CS die to parry with a sword, and roll max, you can deal this damage to the enemy as well as reducing your own, as a sort of riposte strike". Fun stuff like that.
I personally think that, like Dual-wielding, you cannot have front-loaded specialization benefits. If you specialize, it means taking a feat. At the beginning you may, say, gain a slight improvement to certain manouvres, or access to a new one, that only you can do with your favoured weapon type. A perma-bonus, you are all right, is probably NOT the way to allow a generalist to play in the same game as a specialist who has a permanent +1 to hit or +2 to damage.
The only downside / opportunity cost in that case is whether that feat could be more optimally spent on some other feat, or that you may find a magic weapon of some other type but because there are no "transfer enchantment" rituals in 5e, you may decide it's best to not use the magic weapon, because the extra +1/+1 is not worthwhile.
I'm hoping specialization allows you extra sweet maneuvers, not permanent bonuses. If it's a permanent bonus, it means, e.g. dual-wielders get twice the benefit (which I would be the first to admit, to always wanting to take advantage of).
In real life, things are not balanced. A specialist in my field could be more than 2x as effective as a non-specialist in a given area, but in tradeoff might be only 90% as good in other areas as the generalist. Things are lobsided and imbalanced in real life. For example, I'm a generalist programmer. The more 3d programming experience I get, my main programming skills also improve, but my domain-specific knowledge improves by leaps and bounds. Whereas most of the other types of general programming is nowhere near as intellectually demanding. What I'm saying is...in real life you'd have +1 to hit and +2 damage when using your specialty weapon, on a specific type of meanouver, but also, say, perhaps a +1 damage bonus just using your favored weapon against any enemy using any maneuver, since you are that much better with your weapon and specialization should make you, simply, "better". But in game-design terms, it means you are pigeon-holed and will likely stow away that fancy sword you just found because you're an axe-guy, and magic or no magic, with flatter math you are just better off with your favored weapon than a magic non-favored weapon.
D&D is not real life, and if they design specialization without regard to the fact that there will be no generalists since it's so much poorer a choice from level 1, then I agree with the forum posters who say "let's find another way to give them a boost other than always-on flat bonuses". Stuff like, "when you crit, you have advantage on all attacks for the next round on the enemy", or "when you spend a CS die to parry with a sword, and roll max, you can deal this damage to the enemy as well as reducing your own, as a sort of riposte strike". Fun stuff like that.
Or because you are focused on axes, your axes are a little better than par with other fighters, but your non axes are worse than baseline.
Here's my viewpoint with an example. Scale of 1-5, 5 best.
Generic fighter (all weapons 4)
Specialist fighter (spec 5, all others 3)
Clerics, magic users everyone else etc (weapons 1,2, or 3)
So the specialist isnt gimped, he's still better than other classes at fighting.
You trade versatility for specif effectiveness.
I know, I know, "but in order to be all they can be now all fighters have to be specialists!!!!!!!!!!"
I say "why" and "bull".
Does your character really have to be maxed out and top to hit to be effective? I don't get the part where people explain the fighter is gimped if he has the opportunity to specialize and doesn't.
And you would still plan adventures on the baseline fighter. The specialist would cut through (pun intended) some encounters like butter, but not all of them.
I'm rambling and not writing coherent thought passages, I know. Its a tough subject.
Bottomline? If the axe specialist finds a flaming longsword of doom, either the opportunities to set things on fire offset his spec loss to his character or they don't, he made the choice to specialize, its supposed to be limiting.
Similar Threads
