Specialist Fighters

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You have some interesting points.

1: I think there should be a difference between "being able to use" a weapon and "becoming a specialist with" a weapon. Specializing in polearms doesn't prohibit a fighter from using a sword; it just means he has different (and better) abilities when using, say, a halberd. It would be silly to assume a crossbow specialist couldn't be able to defend himself at close range. The fighter must always be versatile with his weapon catalog.

2: I do understand that point. But again, the assumption is that a fighter who specializes in a particular style of weapon would become inept at all others...a "one-trick pony." That is not at all what I would like to see.

It's the optimzier's mind. If you got +1 to hit and +2 to damage with your specialized weapon, you will always prefer to use that weaon. And +1/+2 is a pretty simple thing. If you add even more, like cool maneuvers, that are only available with the right weapon, you (maybe not you specifically, but many players) will feel like you're playing a gimped character.

The only ways to counter this is if weapons give you access to such interesting and powerful maneuvers even without specialization, that it is situationally benefitial to give up the bonuses you have with your specialized weapon. That could be difficult, since you also want specialization to stand out.

I think specialization should be something for everyone except the Fighter, who fights with every weapon as if he was specialized - because he's the goddamn fighter, and that's what he does.

A comprimse could be that a Fighter learns to specialize into multiple weapons over time, and always has some specialization benefits that other classes must buy.

Say, there is a Lesser and a Greater Weapon Specialization feat(ure).
Lesser Specialization
A Fighter enjoys Lesser Specialization with all weapons he is proficient in.
+1 to attack and +2 to damage with specialized weapon.

• Light Blade: Inflict +Dex damage when you have advantage.
• Heavy Blade: 19-20 Critical Hit Range
• Axes: +1d10 Critical Hit Damage
• Spear: Charging enemy takes weapon base damage, and gain +1 with throwing attacks with a spear.
• Flail: When you have advantage and hit, knock the enemy prone.

Greater Specialization
+2 to damage with specialized weapon.

• Light Blade: Once per enemy, when you have advantage on attack and hit, deal +d10 damage and the enemy has disadvantage against you until your next acton.
• Heavy Blade: You can make an attack against every enemy in weapon range against that you haven't used this ability before. You have adantage for this attack.
• Axes: If you hit a bloodied opponent when you have advantage, the enemy must make a consitution save or die. You can attempt this only once per opponent.
• Spear: *something cool*
• Flail: *something cool but different*

Note to Editor: Please balance these abilities fairly and add flavor test. I have to go to breakfast with my colleagues.

3: Agreed, and this is where I think weapon-specific feats could really shine. A feat that lets a character fight with a spear as a double weapon, for example, would be great for fighters and druids alike. But like the Ranger's favored enemy ability or the Rogue's sneak attack, some things can only be done by certain classes...and I think that a Dagger Specialist would know a thing or two that even a skilled assassin doesn't (and vice-versa).

Spear you say? I want Spear & Shield as options. But I've watched 300 too often.

 

[CleverNickName]

It's the optimzier's mind. If you got +1 to hit and +2 to damage with your specialized weapon, you will always prefer to use that weaon. And +1/+2 is a pretty simple thing. If you add even more, like cool maneuvers, that are only available with the right weapon, you (maybe not you specifically, but many players) will feel like you're playing a gimped character.

I understand the desire, but is the "optimizer's mind" something that should be embraced as the standard for all players? Not all players focus on character optimization, after all.

I think specialization should be something for everyone except the Fighter, who fights with every weapon as if he was specialized - because he's the goddamn fighter, and that's what he does.

But the other classes ARE specialists...just not necessarily in weaponry. Rogues specialize in sneak attack. Druids specialize in nature. Monks specialize in unarmed combat. Wizards specialize in schools of magic. And so on. Most of the complaints I've been reading about the Fighter class on this board are along the lines of "why is the Fighter so boring, all he gets are weapons." This idea was meant to fix that--by keeping all of those weapons as-is, and giving him a boost with one weapon of choice.

Not by giving him a bunch of pseudo-magical powers that would change the overall feel and flavor of the class.

A comprimse could be that a Fighter learns to specialize into multiple weapons over time, and always has some specialization benefits that other classes must buy.

I don't have a problem with this...after all, the Ranger gets to choose more Favored Enemies every few levels, and the Bard/Sorc get to swap out spells. I don't think it would be too much of a deal-breaker to let the Fighter choose a second weapon to specialize in at 5th level, and a third at 10th, and so on. It's a bit too power-gamey for my tastes, but others might like it.

Say, there is a Lesser and a Greater Weapon Specialization feat(ure).

Not bad...I like the idea of a scaled ability that improves over time. But I was thinking something a little more reminiscent of the Wizard's school specialization ability (skill bonuses, plus extra crunch):


Weapon and Armor Specialization
At 1st level, a fighter chooses one type of weapon (such as Hammers or Axes) and one type of armor (such as Medium Armor, or Heavy Shields) to specialize in. This choice is permanent, and cannot be changed later.

A fighter gains a +1 bonus to all Trip, Disarm, and Sunder attacks made with weapons of this type, and a +1 bonus to all attack and damage rolls made with weapons of this type. This is an untyped bonus that stacks with all others. This bonus improves by +1 at 5th level, and for every 5 levels thereafter (+2 at 5th level, +3 at 10th level, and so on.) In addition, he also gains a special ability when fighting with his chosen weapon; these abilities vary depending on the type of weapon chosen:

[SBLOCK="Weapons, off the top of my head"]Axes: you have been trained to use the wide blade of a battle axe as a rudimentary shield. Whenver you are fighting defensively or using the total defensive option with any Axe, you gain a +1 shield bonus to your armor class. This bonus improves to +2 if you are armed with a two-handed Axe.

Bows: You have been trained to conserve arrows on the battlefield, and to craft your own ammunition. Your chances for recovering arrows and crossbow bolts improves to 90%, and you gain a +4 competence bonus to all Craft checks made to create or improve ammunition.

Hammers: the force of your hammer blow can knock your opponents off balance. Whenever you score a critical hit with any Hammer, the target must make a Dexterity save (DC = 10 + damage dealt) or be knocked prone.

Polearms: you have battlefield training and experience against calvary. When fighting with any Polearm, you automatically have Advantage against mounted opponents. Furthermore, whenever you score a critical hit with a Polearm against a mounted opponent, the target must make a Dexterity save (DC = 10 + damage dealt) or be dismounted.

Spears: your advanced training in spears allows you to use any spear as a double weapon. When armed with a Spear, you may strike with the tip as a piercing weapon, and/or strike with the butt as a bludgeoning weapon that deals 1d6 points of damage (Crit x2).[/SBLOCK]

The Armor Check Penalty for the fighter's chosen type of armor is reduced by 1, and its armor (or shield) bonus is improved by 1. These bonuses improve by 1 at 5th level, and every 5 levels thereafter. In addition, the fighter gains a special ability when wearing the chosen type of armor or shield:

[SBLOCK="Armor and Shields, off the top of my head"]Bucklers: You retain your shield bonus to Armor Class when fighting with your specialized weapon and a buckler, even if your specialized weapon is two-handed, or being wielded in your off-hand.

Light Armor: You are light on your feet, and have been trained with special skirmish tactics that let you roll out of harms way. When wearing Light armor, opponents have no Advantage against you when you are prone.

Heavy Shield: I have no idea, maybe something about being able to slide down staircases while shooting several arrows, then doing a backflip which somehow causes the shield to fly across the room and lodge itself in the armored chest of an orc or something...[/SBLOCK]

 

[keterys]

You have some interesting points.

1: I think there should be a difference between "being able to use" a weapon and "becoming a specialist with" a weapon. Specializing in polearms doesn't prohibit a fighter from using a sword; it just means he has different (and better) abilities when using, say, a halberd. It would be silly to assume a crossbow specialist couldn't be able to defend himself at close range. The fighter must always be versatile with his weapon catalog.

2: I do understand that point. But again, the assumption is that a fighter who specializes in a particular style of weapon would become inept at all others...a "one-trick pony." That is not at all what I would like to see.

You just suggested that a L10 fighter have +3 to hit and damage with their specialized weapon. There's a fair chance they also have the equivalent of a +2 enhancement better in that weapon (though some of that might be "Flaming Awesome")

So, yeah, they'll be less than half as effective with their backup option, whatever that is. Hence, they are effectively inept _in comparison_.

Aside: Attack bonuses (from a feat, power, item, whatever) don't need to scale with level. +1 or +2 is useful forever and has the same benefit. People continually try to increase attack bonuses every Xth level, and it's basically never a good idea.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I understand the desire, but is the "optimizer's mind" something that should be embraced as the standard for all players? Not all players focus on character optimization, after all.

Yes, the optimizer's mind is something that should be embraced. If the game is balanced and fair for the optimizer, it is balanced and fair for everyone. There is a reason that games like Magic: The Gathering and all competitive videogames rely most heavily on the feedback provided by high-level or professional competitive players in order to create balance. They're the people who know what they are talking about.

Generally speaking, a lot of people are simply unaware of how powerful various choices in the game are. Not that many people are aware that, for example, pretty much every damage spell in 3E (like fireball or lightning bolt) is the weakest spell available to a wizard for that level. Even various designers working for WotC or Paizo seem unaware of the fact that certain feats are much stronger or weaker than intended. Things like this, where choices that seem normal and fair on the surface are actually overly strong or weak, can have a big negative impact on people's games that they never intended, such as when a player who doesn't care about optimization accidentally becomes much stronger or weaker than the other players. The optimizer's mindset is the only thing that fix such problems.

But the other classes ARE specialists...just not necessarily in weaponry. Rogues specialize in sneak attack. Druids specialize in nature. Monks specialize in unarmed combat. Wizards specialize in schools of magic. And so on. Most of the complaints I've been reading about the Fighter class on this board are along the lines of "why is the Fighter so boring, all he gets are weapons." This idea was meant to fix that--by keeping all of those weapons as-is, and giving him a boost with one weapon of choice.

The problem with this argument is twofold. First, you are simply not keeping your definition of "specialist" consistent across those different examples. A "specialist in nature" is nowhere near the same thing as "a specialist in making whirlwind trip attacks with a spiked chain every turn" (a typical one-trick fighter build that the 3E rules encouraged). Second, you're neglecting most of the other dedicated weapon-using classes.

Also, I'd argue that you're forgetting that part of the approach you are suggesting is the rationale behind the 3E Fighter, which ended up making the 3E Fighter a very, very bad class that is pretty widely hated for good reason.

 

[CleverNickName]

So, yeah, they'll be less than half as effective with their backup option, whatever that is. Hence, they are effectively inept _in comparison_.

Compared to being just a standard fighter with no specialization at all? All other weapon ability remains unchanged; specializing in one weapon does not diminish the fighter's ability with any other weapon. How is that a bad thing?

I'm not trying to be belligerent, honest. I'm just confused at how being good at one weapon makes a fighter inept at all others...comparatively or otherwise.

 

[keterys]

It's pretty basic math, and fairly well exampled by many years of D&D, yeah.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, the optimizer's mind is something that should be embraced. If the game is balanced and fair for the optimizer, it is balanced and fair for everyone. There is a reason that games like Magic: The Gathering and all competitive videogames rely most heavily on the feedback provided by high-level or professional competitive players in order to create balance. They're the people who know what they are talking about.

Indeed. But they are not the only ones who know what they are talking about. I think I have a fairly good grasp of game balance and design, and even so, I tend to choose character options more for their flavor and panache, than for their bonuses. Sure, Thor is a "more awesome" god with better domains and favored weapon, but Loki's got style, man.

Generally speaking, a lot of people are simply unaware of how powerful various choices in the game are. Not that many people are aware that, for example, pretty much every damage spell in 3E (like fireball or lightning bolt) is the weakest spell available to a wizard for that level. Even various designers working for WotC or Paizo seem unaware of the fact that certain feats are much stronger or weaker than intended. Things like this, where choices that seem normal and fair on the surface are actually overly strong or weak, can have a big negative impact on people's games that they never intended, such as when a player who doesn't care about optimization accidentally becomes much stronger or weaker than the other players. The optimizer's mindset is the only thing that fix such problems.

Generally speaking, a lot of people are also aware of how powerful various choices int he game are, and choose other options instead.

Magic: the Gathering is a poor choice for comparison because it is a head-to-head, competitive game, and Dungeons and Dragons is not. There is a high incentive to build a better deck than the other players, for example, but there is no incentive whatsoever to build a better character than the other players. You don't "win the game" in D&D because your character is awesome; you simply have fun. And contrary to popular belief, you can have loads of fun with a sub-optimal character build.

The problem with this argument is twofold. First, you are simply not keeping your definition of "specialist" consistent across those different examples. A "specialist in nature" is nowhere near the same thing as "a specialist in making whirlwind trip attacks with a spiked chain every turn" (a typical one-trick fighter build that the 3E rules encouraged). Second, you're neglecting most of the other dedicated weapon-using classes.

You are right; I am defining "specialist" as "someone who excels at something," not necessarily weapons or combat. The implication is that there are things that rogues, etc., can do that no other class can do...I would like to see that in the fighter. (Beyond the fighter-only feats, anyway.)

I'm not "neglecting" the other classes that use weapons. I'm just saying that not every class should be specialists in weaponry. Learning to use a weapon is not the same thing as devoting one's life to mastering it.

Also, I'd argue that you're forgetting that part of the approach you are suggesting is the rationale behind the 3E Fighter, which ended up making the 3E Fighter a very, very bad class that is pretty widely hated for good reason.

Hated by whom? It's actually the most popular class with my 3.5E gaming group (and my personal favorite besides.) I don't want to get into an edition war over it, but the wuxia-style fighter of 4th Edition seems to be the most widely hated version in my neck of the woods...hence the use of weapon specialization instead of at will/encounter/daily powers. But to each his own, and all that.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Compared to being just a standard fighter with no specialization at all? All other weapon ability remains unchanged; specializing in one weapon does not diminish the fighter's ability with any other weapon. How is that a bad thing?

I'm not trying to be belligerent, honest. I'm just confused at how being good at one weapon makes a fighter inept at all others...comparatively or otherwise.

There are a few important reasons for this.

The most important is opportunity cost. Do you go for the attack that has a 45% chance of succeeding or the attack that has a 65% chance of succeeding? Do you go for the attack that does 7 damage or the one that does 14 damage? A choice between a 45% chance to do 7 damage and a 65% chance to do 14 damage isn't a choice at all. Only a fool would pick the weaker and less accurate attack. A weaker option may as well not exist so long as the player actually has the freedom to make a choice.

The other issue is a matter of game assumptions. Does the game's math assume that the fighter is making attacks with or without the specialization bonus? If it is with, then the non-specialized attacks will be weaker than acceptable and the fighter will only be able to use specialized attacks to stay on par with his allies. If it is without, then the fighter will be more powerful than his allies whenever he uses a specialized weapon. If there is no coherent game math this argument breaks down, but that is in of itself a bad situation, so...

Also, if weapon specialization is the core mechanic for fighters, then the fighters essentially stops being a fighter when he switches to a different weapon. It is the same thing as a wizard getting caught in an anti-magic field: deprivation of central class features. Not exactly ideal.

Basically, if you want a fighter to ever pick up a weapon other than the weapon he is specialized in, you must never give him even a +1 bonus to a specialized weapon.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Indeed. But they are not the only ones who know what they are talking about. I think I have a fairly good grasp of game balance and design, and even so, I tend to choose character options more for their flavor and panache, than for their bonuses. Sure, Thor is a "more awesome" god with better domains and favored weapon, but Loki's got style, man.

I'll be blunt. Based on your ignorance of why weapon specialization leads to one-trick characters, I can safely say you overestimate your grasp of game balance and design. This is normal enough, since game design is generally far more tricky than most people expect it to be.

Also, what you choose in your own game is irrelevant. Simply because you are aware that an option is inferior and choose it anyways, or because many people are unaware that some options are better than others, doesn't change the fact that these options should be balanced, and that imbalances can lead to all kind of problems for those people who don't want to optimize. In fact, balance is more important for those who don't want to optimize than those who do!

Magic: the Gathering is a poor choice for comparison because it is a head-to-head, competitive game, and Dungeons and Dragons is not. There is a high incentive to build a better deck than the other players, for example, but there is no incentive whatsoever to build a better character than the other players. You don't "win the game" in D&D because your character is awesome; you simply have fun. And contrary to popular belief, you can have loads of fun with a sub-optimal character build.

You're mistaken.

Balance is important to competitive games, cooperative games, and even single-player games. It' important to all games. This has nothing to do with "winning" or "being better than other players" or "having fun with only optimal builds". That's just a strawman you're creating.

Hated by whom? It's actually the most popular class with my 3.5E gaming group (and my personal favorite besides.) I don't want to get into an edition war over it, but the wuxia-style fighter of 4th Edition seems to be the most widely hated version in my neck of the woods...hence the use of weapon specialization instead of at will/encounter/daily powers. But to each his own, and all that.

Hated by a lot of people. Certainly myself, and the dozens of ENWorlders who gave me precious experience points for my vitriolic insults towards the class, and many people I have met online. The 3E group I played with completely phased out the fighter in favor of duskblades, hexblades, and Tome of Battle classes. There are posts attacking the 3E fighter every day here on ENWorld. Look at the big thread that came up when a 5E designer blog praised the 3E fighter to see a lot of them. It is controversial and widely hated; there is no doubt in my mind about it.

Also, yeah, if you have to start a sentence with "I don't want to get into an edition war", then you might want to reconsider starting an edition war. I don't see any wuxia in the 4E fighter though. It's got a lot more "Gwaaaar!" and "You shall not pass!" than floaty floatiness and magic stuff.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Basically, if you want a fighter to ever pick up a weapon other than the weapon he is specialized in, you must never give him even a +1 bonus to a specialized weapon.

...or give him strong plot-based reasons why using his specialized weapon would be A Bad Idea.

(speaking as someone who has had Kensai not use their Weapon of Choice for certain situations...)