D&D 5E Weapon Specialization?

[Obryn]

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.

If the point of specialization is to let a player make Axey Axeman the Axemaster, it seems kind of weird if the recommended DM response to this valid and expected character idea is "Don't let him get any cool axes."

-O

 

[billd91]

If the point of specialization is to let a player make Axey Axeman the Axemaster, it seems kind of weird if the recommended DM response to this valid and expected character idea is "Don't let him get any cool axes."

-O

It's a matter of degree (not hyperbole). A variety of axes are common enough. The issue is more about one variety of axe and over-specialization. So it's not about Axey the Axemaster as long as he can adapt when he finds a magical hatchet. It's more about Barry the Bardichemaster and the rigidity of his choice.

 

[Stormonu]

It's a matter of degree (not hyperbole). A variety of axes are common enough. The issue is more about one variety of axe and over-specialization. So it's not about Axey the Axemaster as long as he can adapt when he finds a magical hatchet. It's more about Barry the Bardichemaster and the rigidity of his choice.

And magically screws the guy who takes whip specialization instead of long sword specialization.

If magic weapon distribution was fairly distributed across the weapon list then I would agree the balance between specialization and generalization would have a balancing point. But when 50% or more magic weapons are swords (and one kind of sword at that), using it as a balancing factor would be bad. Although, at the same time, if every weapon has an equal chance of a magical version showing up either the party is going to end up with a lot of unused magic weapons (due to class weapon restrictions or "+3 dagger? Think I'll keep using my +1 Long Sword, thank-you-very-much") or a very eclectic combination of weapons in a group...

Not to say that's a bad thing, just a little out of the ordinary for D&D.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

An overspecialized character needs to wait a bit longer for his special thing. And eventually he will get it, but his weapon won´t update as often...

Also, when I read it, I have the impression, that expertise dice and sneak attack for martial types are the way to go. This way, a dagger +3 will be better than a longsword +1, as long as you have some damage that does not scale with weapon damage...

after a few levels it does not matter. Same with specialization: Even if you specialize heavily in a longsword (Which eventually gives +1 to hit, +2 damage!), after a few levels, it does not matter a lot:

longsword +1: +2 to hit, +3 damage 1d8 (longsword) + 3d8 (expertise)
dagger +3: +3 to hit, +3 damage 1d4 (dagger) + 3d8 (expertise)

depending on your class and stat bonuses and the target AC, the difference should be very very small...

 

[Mirtek]

It's more about Barry the Bardichemaster and the rigidity of his choice.

Yeah, because where would be getting to if players were allowed to play the character they enjoy

 

[billd91]

Yeah, because where would be getting to if players were allowed to play the character they enjoy

<hyperbole>So if I want to play a character who can defeat the gods themselves on alternate Thursdays whose dates are evenly divisible by 6 but be a milquetoast every other day, I should be able to do so?</hyperbole>

Kind of a fine line between reasonable and unreasonable, isn't it? There are some players who want to constrain options because they don't want over-specialization (leading to characters who are sub-par or even useless when their specialization is neutralized by circumstances). There are others who want to constrain choices so that a player can't make a gimped/twinked out character at all. Meanwhile, there are some players who want to twink out their characters with a specialty or other synergizing abilities even if they risk being neutralized in certain circumstances. etc etc. Funny thing, a good many of these desires are grossly incompatible.

That's the predicament the designers are in. At some point, they have to say "We can't cater to everyone. Everyone will have to stop being rigid and accept some compromise for their visions of what D&D Next should be."

 

[slobo777]

Yeah, because where would be getting to if players were allowed to play the character they enjoy

Isn't that an anti-specialisation sentiment?

Because Barry is much better served here if he can equip the bardiche as his signature weapon, but not be penalised when he inevitably needs to swap it out indoors, at range etc.

So perhaps give him a fancy reach spinning cleave signature move along with the bardiche, but make it situationally useful and not just a pure numbers upgrade. Then he isn't sub-optimal when he can't do it.

 

[pemerton]

Options to Specialize didn't come around until Unearthed Arcana, but it was a welcome addition. Specialization in 1e is pretty beefy - it gives you more attacks, sorely-needed bonuses to hit, and extra damage. You could also double-specialize, which was pretty insane. I forget the rules on multiple specializations - I want to say it was restricted, but can't remember atm

In UA, a ranger or fighter can specialise in only one weapon (and can double specialise in that weapon, for +3/+3, provided that it is a one-handed melee weapon), which must be chosen at 1st level. Because a UA ranger has a restricted weapon list at 1st level, specialisation must be in bow, crossbow, knife, dagger, hand axe, spear or sword.

(Cavaliers and paladins get weapons of choice rather than weapon specialistion, in lance, one sword, and one hafted melee weapon.)

In OA, a samurai has a class ability to specialise in two weapons, but they must be katana and daikyu.

My understanding of 2nd ed AD&D is that it permitted any fighter to specialise in any number of weapons.

 

[pemerton]

I think lateral options are the way to go here.

<snip>

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.

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.

perhaps give him a fancy reach spinning cleave signature move along with the bardiche, but make it situationally useful and not just a pure numbers upgrade. Then he isn't sub-optimal when he can't do it.

I agree that, if specialisation is to exist at all, then this is the way to go.

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 think this is basically right. Hence the answer, as suggested in the quotes above, is to make specialisation itself a source of versatility rather than a source of power.

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).

But the Sharpshooter is not better than non-specialised fighters.

Precise Shot sacrifices damage for negating cover penalties. This is important for archers, but melee fighters generally don't have the same issues with cover that archers do.

Shift is not archery specific, and Snap Shot is simply the archery version of Jab, to which other fighters have access. Furthermore, Shift and Snap Shot/Jab are situational bonuses - Shift is taking a modest damage hit in order to get a modest amount of movement, and Snap Shot/Jab is taking a major damage hit in order to get a large amount of movement. Neither is simply a power-up, and a fighter who had access to neither of them would be less mobile in combat, but not necessarily less mechanically effective as a fighter for that reason - for example, s/he could be very sticky and/or charge-y instead, negating the need for the mobility that Snap Shot, Jab and Shift open up.

 

[GameDoc]

Now look what I started with this thread...

I have always felt like there ought to be an effect of weapon choice, at least for fighters (and perhaps other warriors) who have many weapons to choose from and are defined by the use of weapons in combat. Most martial one-handed weapons deal 1d8 damage, so why pick one over the other? It seems like their should be an effect for choosing a longsword vs. a battleaxe vs. a flail vs. a warhammer. One choice should not be superior to the other, just different so that a fighter might build a style or persona around his weapon, or choose to carry a couple of different types to swap out in different situations.

I know some people say this is too complex for their tastes and the weapon choice should just be cosmetic, but I'd like to have the option for it to be more than that.

I think the idea of weapon specialization granting a bonus maneuver is a good one. It doesn't give the fighter a mechanical advantage, just more options. I also like the idea of making it a specialty. Maybe call it "Weapon Master" and each feat gives you a new maneuver based on your weapon of choice. You could even choose to take a different weapon with each feat, so a Weapon Master could devote himself fully to one type of weapon or pick a variety. I think the unit of specialization should be weapon group (swords, axes, hammers) rather than specific individual weapons.