Survivor Design.

[takyris]

So I'm reading a lot of 3.5E ranting, and I'm also reading a lot of power-play stuff, and it kind of got me to thinking about something, both as a DM and as a player.

Am I the only one who considers Weapon-Specific feats to be dangerous, and makes them such as a DM?

Example:

In the campaign I DM, the party dwarf will occasionally run into monsters that are immune to slashing damage (like clay golems). Or that are much more vulnerable to a specific weapon (like, say, the +2 Holy Lawful Evil-Outsider-Bane weapon against Demons). For all that, the party's dwarven fighter is reluctant to put down his dwarven waraxe, even though he might have a longsword or warhammer that fits the bill for the creature at hand. Why? Because he's dumped Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Improved Critical into it.

I also have monsters that will atttempt to disarm the person doing 30+ damage per hit, under the assumption that not all monsters are stupid. I enforce "you drop things if you're stunned" rules. I added random distances and directions for where weapons end up on disarms.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I do that EVERY combat -- but it comes up often enough that, for my group, taking weapon-specific feats is understood to be a limiting factor. Powerful, yes, but limiting.

As a player, I don't take weapon-specific feats. I just don't. Usually, it's because I'm trying to create "Survivor"-type characters, characters who are likely to remain standing when everyone else is down. I tend to bump up saves, go for Improved Init and Quick Draw, and so forth. The only times I go for weapon-specific feats are when I'm making an "I've devoted my whole life to the study of the ____" character -- and those characters seem pretty dull after awhile.

How do other folks feel about this? SHOULD D&D have weapons effectively acting as extensions of the character -- so that Bill the Fighter is defined as much by his Shocking-Burst Warhammer as he is by his red hair and absurd battle cry? This is often the defense I hear raised against monsters that disarm or destroy equipment -- but the people raising this defense, in my opinion, are the same ones who ditch "the weapon that is so important to my character concept" as soon as a better one comes along. Provided it's another version of the weapon with which they've got Focus, Specialization, and Improved Critical, of course.

I'm sort of looking forward to 3.5E more than I was before after hearing about the DR changes. This is a good way to make "the ideal fighter" into a guy who has a LOT of different weapons to choose from -- in the interest of being effective. Gotta have something silver, something sharp, something blunt, and so on.

 

[Nifft]

I dunno -- it's a risk, but so is wearing heavy armor, or taking Spell Focus.

As a DM, I give monsters the kind of weapons that suit them and their goals. If a bunch of yugoloths are fighting a bunch of devils, the yugoloths are going to have Corrosive Burst weapons and Improved Crit with those weapons. They're going to try to hit their enemy with what they perceive is its weak point.

Ogre hunters, on the other hand, are going to have javelins, longspears, large scimitars and nets. They're going to try to entangle, encircle and generally immobalize their prey. It's likely one of their number will have a level of Druid, and it's very likely that the Druid will have prepared Entangle.

The party's Dwarf should be allowed to spend his money on as many axes as he can afford, perhaps selling two magic weapons to get one equivalent magical axe. It may be worth it to him to use axes.

On the other hand, that's only 3 Feats: Wep. Focus, Wep. Specialization, and Imp. Crit. With the large number of Feats that a Fighter gets, he should be able to excel in several weapon types.

-- Nifft

 

[Norfleet]

One of the upsides of being a rogue in 3E is the ability to turn nearly anything into a weapon. When most of your damage is sneak attack damage anyway, it doesn't really matter what kind of weapon you're using.

Weapon-specific feats can turn out to be an annoying waste of a feat, particularly when your chosen weapon renders itself unavailable or ineffective. I prefer to burn feats on general moves which work satisfyingly well with any weapon. With the number of really impressive feat combos out there, combined with the fact that I am the master of the d6 and d4, means that whole range of weapons deal out truly impressive damage in my expert hands, and when all that fails, there's always demolitions.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. Most of my PCs have a favored weapon. I just figure that there's going to be a style of fighting that suits them better than others. Fighters are proficient in all simple and martial weapons, but some fighters are going to like the feel of a hammer in their hands rather than a rapier or longsword. So I'll usually throw a couple feats at their favorite weapon, if I have the feats to spare (I'm also a huge fan of Iron Will and its brothers.)

But any smart adventurer is also going to have backups and contingencies. The axe-lovin' fighter will still have a heavy mace on his belt. The morningstar-specialized cleric will still keep a shortsword for emergencies.

So I don't think that having a favored weapon and putting feats into it is detrimental, though assuming that your favored weapon will always be available, or always be the best weapon for the job, is.

 

[Zhure]

I find focussed fighters who specialize in one specific type of weapon tend to run into problems in worlds without Ye Olde Magic Shoppe (tm). Unless it's a very common weapon (which sort of defeats the purpose of being unique), then finding an enchanted weapon of one's favorite brand is difficult at best.

What I do for those players who want to be experts in a specific weapon is allow the Ancestral Weapon ability for Samurai from OA (Prerequisite: Iron Will, the feat is Soul Forge). Basically it's a very limited form of Craft Magic Arms & Armor restricted to one specific weapon and the user doesn't have to be a caster. I also allow them to swap out to a different weapon of the same type, in the event the original is irretrievable lost or destroyed, but that takes time for the user to attune himself to a new weapon.

All very much house rules and I've yet to have anyone take me up on it, so it must be sub-standard.
Greg

 

[yennico]

I dunno -- it's a risk, but so is wearing heavy armor, or taking Spell Focus.

On the other hand, that's only 3 Feats: Wep. Focus, Wep. Specialization, and Imp. Crit. With the large number of Feats that a Fighter gets, he should be able to excel in several weapon types.

I agree with Nifft. Other Classes also have feats useful under special cicrumstances.

A fighter gets a large number of feats , so three feats does not really matter. IMHO a real fighter should specialize (weapon focus, weapon spec.) in at least two weapons. One of this weapon is his favorite weapon, but the other is e.g. a small weapon like a dagger. A small weapon can be used while in a grapple.

Just my 2 cents
yennico

 

[takyris]

Interesting. I tend to take a slightly different route with my Fighters. Admittedly, my feat choices are dependent upon abilities, but I would MUCH rather that a mid-level fighter have:

Power Attack -- not even for cleave -- just for hittin' stuff. Especially under those new DR rules.

Quick Draw -- for switching between combat styles.

Ambi & Two-Weap -- not because I ALWAYS want to use it, but because sometimes it's a better option. My second weapon would most often be a spiked shield, so that I don't have to change too much with my hands.

Expertise & friends -- Tripping and Disarming are great tactics, and if you can do them with extra benefits, it helps a bunch. For particularly tough baddies, going into Defensive Mode with Expertise can let me stay up a bit longer while the archer or back-rank polearm-wielder concentrates on damage.

Save Buffs.

And finally, the Ranged feats -- because they apply to any and all ranged weapons I might use.

With those feats, I've got a character who can dish out damage appropriate to the type of fight he's in -- low difficulty but high hit points (Two Weapon), low AC but DR (Power Attack), powerful opponent (Expertise), or mobile opponent (Ranged Feats). And if someone sunders my axe, I can just switch to my longsword or scimitar or whatever without pause.

Maybe it's not as exciting as a character concept, but it seems much more likely to survive. Or perhaps I am wrong and full of it.

 

[Zhure]

I think you're building a different version of a specialist, Takyris, a flexible fighter. That's the kind I build.

(Who am I kidding? I build PsyWars when I feel the need to be a melee guy, and they're sort of forced into a niche with the free weapon specialization. Has anyone built a PsyWar past 6th who lacked Weapon Focus?)

Greg