Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6862364" data-attributes="member: 16814">In 3/4e that's easy -- the weapon focus/specialization features that meant that you were significantly better with your narrow specialization than with other weapons.  The rocket tag of 3e meant that not specializing was a poor choice (although you could do it), but that was an emergent play effect rather than something coded into the rules.  IE, the rules encouraged it, but if everyone at a table agreed to not play rocket tag, it wasn't required.  In 4e, the math actually assumed that you took the focus route, so the system itself punished choosing to generalize.All that said, I don't think that 5e does nearly as much to push specialization.  Yes, fighting style does do some of it (I'm looking at you archery style) and feats can push it further, but the effect is milder than in previous editions.  And, outside of archery style, the effects of fighting style really just push into heavy or one handed weapons, and those are nice, broad categories that makes narrative sense for there to be a difference in skill.  Feats are the big ones, but even those (outside of missile weapons) just reinforce the reasonable differences of one handed vs heavy weapons.Of course, all of that breaks in 5e when it comes to missile weapons.  They made missile weapons too good.  That was unintentional, I think, and really a factor of giving missile weapons the most useful fight style bonus (+10% to hit, yes and thank you) and the most useful feats (no cover, no long range disad, -5/+10, or almost the same but I can shoot in melee without disad for crossbows?) on top of the tactical superiority of killing things from outside of their reach.  Missile weapons need a bit of nerfing to not be an obvious best choice to focus on.</blockquote>

Verification