Specialist Fighters

[CleverNickName]

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.

I appreciate the amount of math you put into this post; it looks like you are very comfortable with probability and statistics. The numbers check, as far as I can tell.

The thing is, I don't believe that everyone plays the game like this. My players don't do a quick probability analysis when deciding to arm themselves; they listen to my description of the situation and the setting, and choose the weapon/spell that seems like the best fit. The math is an afterthought, if it is considered at all.

When my players are fighting a werewolf, they reach for the silver arrows no matter what their build or optimization. Fighters will draw a dagger when they are grappling, even if they took the Weapon Focus (bastard sword) feat. I can rattle off a dozen situations in the game where a fighter would reach for a non-optimal weapon, but that's beside the point. They go with the weapon they think will be most effective, regardless of their build.

But let's look at it from another angle. Assuming a fighter spent his life learning to master a particular type of weapon, why wouldn't I expect him to use it as much as possible? Why wouldn't I want to reward that? Samurai are known for their skill with swords, not spiked chains. Other weapons remain available should he need them, and the fighter can fight with them as well as he could before ever specializing in the first place...they do not become crappy choices because they are not "optimized for his build" or something. If a Bow Specialist is beset by skeletons, he isn't penalized for picking up a club...but if he sticks to his "optimized" bow, he has to deal with damage reduction.

I remain unconvinced that weapon specialization will break the game, or that it will make the Fighter class less fun to play. The "+1 to hit and damage for weapon X" mechanic has been around for a long time in many flavors, and I haven't noticed any of the problems I've seen described in this thread.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

Mkay, I guess we're done then.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I appreciate the amount of math you put into this post; it looks like you are very comfortable with probability and statistics. The numbers check, as far as I can tell.

I really just threw out some random example numbers to illustrate a point...

The thing is, I don't believe that everyone plays the game like this. My players don't do a quick probability analysis when deciding to arm themselves; they listen to my description of the situation and the setting, and choose the weapon/spell that seems like the best fit. The math is an afterthought, if it is considered at all.

When my players are fighting a werewolf, they reach for the silver arrows no matter what their build or optimization. Fighters will draw a dagger when they are grappling, even if they took the Weapon Focus (bastard sword) feat. I can rattle off a dozen situations in the game where a fighter would reach for a non-optimal weapon, but that's beside the point. They go with the weapon they think will be most effective, regardless of their build.

Well, your players are playing it right. That's how the game should play. Players never should have to think otherwise.

That's exactly why designers need to approach the game the way I've been talking about. Things like weapon specialization's flaws can and will hurt players who play the way you like them to. It is the job of a designer to build the game and look at the math so it doesn't. A player shouldn't have to take a mathematical penalty for switching to a dagger when it is appropriate, so the designer shouldn't put such a penalty into the game. It's as simple as that.

But let's look at it from another angle. Assuming a fighter spent his life learning to master a particular type of weapon, why wouldn't I expect him to use it as much as possible? Why wouldn't I want to reward that? Samurai are known for their skill with swords, not spiked chains. Other weapons remain available should he need them, and the fighter can fight with them as well as he could before ever specializing in the first place...they do not become crappy choices because they are not "optimized for his build" or something. If a Bow Specialist is beset by skeletons, he isn't penalized for picking up a club...but if he sticks to his "optimized" bow, he has to deal with damage reduction.

This goes straight back to the points I made in my first post in this thread. The fighter shouldn't be using a single weapon as much as possible because that contradicts the stated role of the fighter class. The fighter is a class designed to use a wide variety of weapons, so specialization undercuts that concept.

I remain unconvinced that weapon specialization will break the game, or that it will make the Fighter class less fun to play. The "+1 to hit and damage for weapon X" mechanic has been around for a long time in many flavors, and I haven't noticed any of the problems I've seen described in this thread.

Just because a mechanic has been around forever doesn't mean it is good. Also, if you haven't noticed the problems that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that many others do see it as a problem, and an easily fixable one at that. Surely, if you don't see it as a problem, you don't a have an issue with us fixing the problem, right? It won't affect you either way.

Mkay, I guess we're done then.

Suit yourself, then.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fighter is a class designed to use a wide variety of weapons, so specialization undercuts that concept.

Specialization represents an expansion of the fighter concept that reflects the way many RW martial artists master a narrow range or even single weapon, and as such, is a benefit to the game.

Arguably, the specialist represents a better simulation of martial training than the warrior who is equally good at all weapons.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Specialization represents an expansion of the fighter concept that reflects the way many RW martial artists master a narrow range or even single weapon, and as such, is a benefit to the game.

Arguably, the specialist represents a better simulation of martial training than the warrior who is equally good at all weapons.

This isn't true, though. Real world warriors are expected to learn many different weapons. Some weapons are even considered to be valuable to learn simply because learning one weapon makes learning others easier. Medieval combat manuals teach how learning the sword is a good first step to learning how to learn other weapons. Most martial art styles are defined by a long list of weapons they use, rather than a single weapon.

Historical knights and samurai were expected to master a variety of combat tools and techniques, not just one. Knights used swords, daggers, lances, and pole-arms, among others. Samurai were expected to use long swords, short swords, bows, knives, spears, and, later on, guns. Modern soldiers need to learn how to use rifles, pistols, knives, bayonets, hand grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and so on.

The only people who are expected to specialize in a single weapon are people like the stereotypical early modern fencer; a civilian. Pure weapon specialization is the path of the dabbling waepon-user, not the soldiers that inspire the fighter class.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This isn't true, though. Real world warriors are expected to learn many different weapons.

But they don't learn ALL weapons as they do in D&D.

A typical Samurai learned mastered his long blade, archery (stationary and mounted), and a select group of polearms. Certain schools of samurai also learned a specific two-weapon form involving the mastery of a short blade as well.

A European typical knight leaned mastery of swords & daggers; training in a mace, hammer, ace or flail (but not all), and a polearm or two was common. Actual mastery of non-swords as a main weapon was rare and notable, in no small part because the sword was as much a symbol of station as a weapon. Mastery of archery was rare among the gentry.

And pit either Samurai or knight against someone who is a specialist, and he'll come up short. Neither would be as good at stationary archery as a Welsh bowman, or a match in mounted archery against a Mongol mounted archer.

Even in modern dojos, you can tell the difference between a guy who knows how to use a knife properly as part of generalized weapon training and a guy who has mastered small blades over a lifetime of training.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The thing is, I don't believe that everyone plays the game like this. My players don't do a quick probability analysis when deciding to arm themselves; they listen to my description of the situation and the setting, and choose the weapon/spell that seems like the best fit. The math is an afterthought, if it is considered at all.

When my players are fighting a werewolf, they reach for the silver arrows no matter what their build or optimization. Fighters will draw a dagger when they are grappling, even if they took the Weapon Focus (bastard sword) feat. I can rattle off a dozen situations in the game where a fighter would reach for a non-optimal weapon, but that's beside the point. They go with the weapon they think will be most effective, regardless of their build.

But don't you see it as a problem that what they naturally/intuitively thing to be effective may mathematically and statically be the worst choice?

So even if they take the choice that makes the most sense based on roleplaying and considering the gameworld situation, the choice they make is not the best one provided by the system?

I see that as a failure of design.

THe optimizer doesn't really care that much - he has precalculated his attack bonuses in various situations and can predict the best action already. He will deliberately choose to ignore in-game world logic over mechanical logic and make the best choice.

And if both the immersed player considering the in-game narrative and the optimzier sit at the same table, there will be a notable disconnect - the first will see the second out-performing, and wonders why that is, because it was him that took the in-game narratively logic choice.

And if you don't have the optimizer at the table you may feel yourself lucky because there are no such disconnects, but you will find your players struggling more than the system may suggest, because it makes assumptions that the players do optimize.

Or maybe the system failed to make such assumptions and the optimzier group instead has to deal with vastly overpowered characters.

The best rules are those where fiction and mechanics serve each other and enforce each other.

There could be ways around this - maybe fighting with the suboptimal weapon in the narrative logical situation also grants so much advantages that at the minimum, it compensates any specialization bonuses you lose (but what happens if specialization and situational advantages coincide, could that become too much of a reward?).

 

[CleverNickName]

But don't you see it as a problem that what they naturally/intuitively thing to be effective may mathematically and statically be the worst choice?

So even if they take the choice that makes the most sense based on roleplaying and considering the gameworld situation, the choice they make is not the best one provided by the system?

I see that as a failure of design.

I think "failure of design" is an overstatement. The game will not break or become less balanced, and other players will not suddenly be outstriped, by a Fighter who gets a bonus to using daggers. After all, the game designers seem to have already decided--for whatever reason--that halfings are automatically Sling Specialists in the 5E playtest. Few people noticed; even fewer complained about it.

I understand that people do not like specialist characters of any stripe. And that's Kool and the proverbial Gang. I do not believe a Fighter should be forced to specialize in a weapon or armor any more than a Wizard should be forced to specialize in a school of magic.

 

[SKyOdin]

But they don't learn ALL weapons as they do in D&D.

A typical Samurai learned mastered his long blade, archery (stationary and mounted), and a select group of polearms. Certain schools of samurai also learned a specific two-weapon form involving the mastery of a short blade as well.

A European typical knight leaned mastery of swords & daggers; training in a mace, hammer, ace or flail (but not all), and a polearm or two was common. Actual mastery of non-swords as a main weapon was rare and notable, in no small part because the sword was as much a symbol of station as a weapon. Mastery of archery was rare among the gentry.

Wait, are you actually saying that swords were the main weapons knights used? I hate to break it to you, but a swords were fairly useless on the battlefields of medieval Europe. A sword, particularly a slashing sword, is primarily effective against unarmored or lightly armored opponents. For fighting an opponent wearing heavy plate armor, you need a weapon designed to fight an opponent in armor.

In any case, the primary weapon of the mounted knight was a lance. Swords were strictly back-up weapons, akin to a modern soldier's handgun. Even foot soldiers generally favored spears or pole-weapons over swords. This is also true of Samurai.

And pit either Samurai or knight against someone who is a specialist, and he'll come up short. Neither would be as good at stationary archery as a Welsh bowman, or a match in mounted archery against a Mongol mounted archer.

This sounds like a stretch. On what basis do you make this claim? I haven't seen any reconstruction or comparison between historically segregated types of warrior that actually sounded plausible. Making the claim that a "specialist" would defeat a "generalist" needs some kind of more solid backing. Particularly when the only example you give of specialists are archers, a distinct category of warrior that is totally removed from the front-line soldier (and only arguably falls under the umbrella of the Fighter class).

Even in modern dojos, you can tell the difference between a guy who knows how to use a knife properly as part of generalized weapon training and a guy who has mastered small blades over a lifetime of training.

Again, can you actually back up this claim? Particularly since you seem to be making an unfair comparison between "experienced, lifetime of training specialist" and "guy who took a few general courses".

To me, it seems like you are arguing that: "Of course a specialist would beat a generalist, because obviously a specialist is better than a generalist." That is the definition of circular logic.

I for one, am not convinced that "specialists" who train in only one weapon even exist, outside of particular outliers such the difference between archery and melee combat.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Wait, are you actually saying that swords were the main weapons knights used?

No. I'm well aware of the reasons for the preference of maces, flails, etc. on the battlefield against fully armored opponents, and the extensive lance training. I'm also aware that the fully armored knight was among the rarer units on the battlefield. Use of the sword- especially on horseback- gave more reach against lesser-armored foes that a mace or hammer would.

This sounds like a stretch.

Archaeologists have noted skeletal deformities in the arms & torsos of lifelong archers due to the pull of their weapons. Without that level of training, a knight would be giving up range to his Welsh foe, not to mention accuracy.

Again, can you actually back up this claim? Particularly since you seem to be making an unfair comparison between "experienced, lifetime of training specialist" and "guy who took a few general courses".

I've seen my share of knife sparring matches between guys who have had US special forces training and guys who are lifelong knife specialists.

The skill of both was evident, however, the knife specialists generally had a much broader array of effective techniques at their disposal, including a Dutch fellow who displayed (for lack of a better phrase) a "carving" technique in which his knife almost never left contact with his opponent. In the time it took for his opponent do a trio of thrusts, he had traced a line from just above his opponent's wrist, across his neck, and along his femoral artery.

The thrusts might have been fatal, but his technique would have caused rapid exsanguination from at least two major blood vessels.