Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 929799" data-attributes="member: 5171">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.</blockquote>

Verification