Weapon Focus [all]

[reanjr]

The Weapon Group variant in Unearthed Arcana got me thinking:

How game breaking would it be to remove the specificity of feats such as Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, etc.

Weapon Focus would thus grant you +1 on all attack rolls (regardless of weapon used). Specialization would be a +2 on all damage rolls, etc.

OR: Instead of Weapon Groups (from UA), using weapon categories for feats. Wepon Focus [Simple], Weapon Focus [Martial], Weapon Focus [Exotic]?

OR: Two categories: [Melee] and [Ranged]?

There may be some issues with two-weapon fighting. In addition, I know of at least one feat (high sword low axe from Complete Warrior) that requires Weapon Focus in two distinct weapons. The feat would be not insignificantly easier to get, and there very well may be others.

 

[index]

WF/WS makes a fighter feel a little like a wizard with a spellbook

Nifft wrote :

> ...or into six feats: WF(Simple Melee), WF(Simple Ranged), WF(Martial
> Melee), WF(Martial Ranged), WF(Exotic Melee), and WF(Exotic Ranged).
> That way you do reward martial classes a bit (since generally Martial
> weapons are better than Simple ones).

I like WF(simple melee) and WF(simple ranged). Assuming
you're stacking these on top of the class-based weapon
proficiencies, have them apply only to weapons you're
proficient with. Same restrictions for WF(martial melee)
and WF(martial ranged), and make EITHER WF(simple) a
prerequisite for both.

(If you really want to spend only one feat slot for weapon
focus with a martial weapon, you can use the standard WF
feat for a single one.)

I'm not sure about WF(exotic melee) and WF(exotic ranged).
Almost all exotic weapons are complicated, weapons you
realistically WOULD need lots of individual training with to
avoid skewering yourself. Perhaps having them apply only to
weapons you are proficient with would be enough.

(A few weapons make no sense as exotic weapons. Hand
crossbows are even easier to load and fire than light and
heavy crossbows. The only reason for them not to be simple
weapons is because most characters have never held one to
practice with one.)

Okay, how does this sound? :

WF(simple melee) and WF(simple ranged) feats apply only to
weapons you are proficient with.

WF(martial melee) and WF(martial ranged) feats apply only to
weapons you are proficient with, and both have a prereq of
either WF(simple melee), WF(simple ranged), or BAB +1.

WF(exotic melee) and WF(exotic ranged) feats apply only to
weapons you are proficient with, and both have a prereq of
either WF(martial melee), WF(martial ranged), or BAB +2.

Does that sound both useful and balanced?

About Weapon Group proficiencies... I don't like them, but
only because the the UA rules reduce the number of weapon
proficiencies PC class characters start with: welcome back
to the bad old 1st and 2nd edition days. Restrict NPC
classes to weapon groups as written, and let PC classes
start with their PH weapons, then let both pick up Weapon
Group proficiencies, is my opinion.

Okay, now for Weapon specialization... This feat isn't
really a feat at all, it's a special Fighter class feature
disguised as a feat. It's supposed to represent training
above and beyond Weapon Focus. I think we need to listen to
Greylock's anecdote about fencing training: it certainly
applies. Leave weapon specialization as specific as Staffan
suggests.

off-topic:
(Though I remember a tale David L_____ told me about taking
a kendo class, and getting repeatedly trounced by the star
pupil. So one bout, he switched to using the boken as if it
were a saber and thoroughly trounced the other guy. The
instructor was livid and ordered him out. So even though he
never learned kendo/kenjitsu, he could win that type of
fight by using his saber fencing skills.)

Staffan, I think many people want to make Weapon Focus and
Weapon Specialization less specific because too many have
found good magic weapons during adventures, NONE of which
matched their feats, and their DMs were too stingy with time
or money for them to commission the weapons they wanted.

A big reason so many skip Weapon Focus/Weapon
Specialization, is because most combat feats apply in almost
any situation, whereas WF/WS are so easy to lose the use of
when your primary weapon is stolen or sundered. Taking
WF/WS (as written) makes a fighter a little like a wizard
with his spellbook.

Also, at high levels where almost everybody hits almost
everybody, Power Attack is usually better than Weapon
Specialization, even if you have your chosen weapon. At
decent level, warrior types can usually easily afford to eat
a -2 attack penalty in return for a +2 damage bonus, or +4
damage bonus with a two-handed weapon. WS gives them a
little extra damage without worrying about missing on badly
rolled attacks, but I'm not sure it's worth a feat slot.

I was so glad I designed my Barbarian/Fighter with Power
Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, without any Weapon Focus or
Specialization, when the DM had the rest of the group find
him as a prisoner without any equipment... And for several
months of real time, the DM would not allow me to buy a
greatsword for the character, which is what he'd started
with. Eventually he looted a +3 bastard sword that he was
always asking wizards to enlarge into a greatsword for him.
If I'd given that character Weapon Focus (Greatsword) in
preparation for Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) as I
wanted to, I would have felt severely cheated. (Actually, I
felt cheated anyway, but that's because the DM gave all
undead maximum hit points without increasing CR, which made
my Cleave/Great Cleave build useless even with a 20 STR.)

Another anecdote: my ranger/wizard was supposed to be a
bowyer, but the DM had him find a flaming longsword on his
first adventure (as a PC rather than as a background militia
member). Since at the time, he was the closest thing that
group had to a front-line warrior, his fate was sealed: that
sword almost became his only weapon. Again, the luck of the
loot dice and the fact that no other PC was a warrior type
would have had me cursing if I'd chosen Weapon Focus.

--index

 

[RangerWickett]

In my game, I use the following feats.

Simple Weapon Proficiency: Everyone has this, and it covers things like clubs, spears, maces, and daggers, as well as crossbows. Basically anything that only involves swinging a heavy object, or stabbing with a pointy object. This includes a few things that are currently martial, like great clubs.


Martial Weapon Proficiency: This consists of the following set of feats. Fighters, rangers, paladins, and barbarians start with all of these. Bards get any combination of three feats from this list or the Exotic Weapon Proficiency lists. Rogues get two.

• Axe, Hammer, and Pick Proficiency.
• Bow Proficiency.
• Flail Proficiency.
• Long Arms Proficiency.
• Polearm Proficiency.
• Small Arms Proficiency.
• Sword Proficiency.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Fighters automatically get one of these at first level, and bards can choose from either this list or the martial list.

• Chained Weapon Proficiency. This covers spiked chains, kusari-gama, and the like.
• Double Weapon Proficiency. If you have this feat, you can use double-weapons that you have the appropriate other proficiencies for without having to take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. For instance, with this feat, anyone can use a quarterstaff (Simple Weapon), but to use a dire flail you'd have to have this and Flail Proficiency, and to use an Urgrosh you'd have to have Axe, Hammer, and Pick, and Sword Proficiencies.
• Improvised Weapon Proficiency. This covers things like using chairs, ladders, and other Jackie Chan-esque weapons. This feat lets you use those items as weapons with minimal chance of them breaking, and with no penalty to attack.
• Whip Proficiency.
• Miscellaneous. You must take feats individually for other weapons that don't have a broad category - things like blowguns, bolas, shotputs, and skiprocks.

Weapon Style Focus: Pick one fighting style, meaning a specific arrangement of one or two weapons, and either a shield or not. Thus you could choose quarterstaff, rapier with no shield, longsword with shield, or hammer and sickle. When fighting with this style, you get a +1 bonus to attacks.

If you pick two weapons, you gain this bonus as long as you are armed with both weapons, even if you are only attacking with one this turn. If you pick a single weapon without a shield, you lose this bonus if you wear a shield, and likewise if you pick a weapon with a shield, and then do not use the shield. Prereq: Base attack bonus +1.


Weapon Style Specialization: Pick a fighting style you have Weapon Style Focus in. You gain a +2 bonus to damage when attacking using that style. Prereq: Weapon Focus, Fighter Level 4.



I like this better, because you can have characters that go longsword/shortsword, without having to take two separate feats. Makes sense, no?

 

[Staffan]

Staffan, I think many people want to make Weapon Focus and
Weapon Specialization less specific because too many have
found good magic weapons during adventures, NONE of which
matched their feats, and their DMs were too stingy with time
or money for them to commission the weapons they wanted.

I see your point. It's just that I consider that to be a feature, not a bug.

Though you may be right in that Power Attack is a bit too good in comparison to Weapon Spec nowadays.

By the way, you don't have to pretend that this is Usenet. If you want to reply to someone's post, click the Reply button on the individual post, and you'll get the contents of that post in Quote tags (like above). Also, you don't have to hit Enter at the end of each line, wordwrapping is handled automagically. If you want to quote multiple posts, well, if you hit reply you'll see how the Quote tag works.

 

[Gort]

Also, at high levels where almost everybody hits almost
everybody...

People always say this, but I haven't seen it myself. My 18th level fighter needs a seventeen to hit himself (str 22, BAB 18, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, AC 47...) and about a twelve to hit the more lightly armoured party members in our group.

Heck, I've had to invest in a can-opener (brilliant energy longsword) so I can connect a little bit more. Where is the idea that at high levels attack bonuses exceed ACs, cause I sure haven't seen it. The main reason being that there are lots of ways to increase your AC (magic armour, magic shield, natural armour, deflection, insight etc) and only a couple to increase your attack (magic weapon, extra strength, competence) and the attack increasers are more expensive. Where're the huge attack bonuses coming from, cause my fighter wants one.

 

[index]

I like the archives

Staffan wrote:

By the way, you don't have to pretend that this is Usenet. If you want to reply to someone's post, click the Reply button on the individual post, and you'll get the contents of that post in Quote tags (like above). Also, you don't have to hit Enter at the end of each line, wordwrapping is handled automagically.

....

I know. I just like the bare look over at the archives ( http://www.enworld.org/forums/archive/index.php/f-45 for example), but the forum block quoting doesn't show up over there. Also, I can't see the block quoting if I use a text mode browser such as elinks instead of a GUI browser such as Opera even if I'm not looking at the archives.

Ironically, 'primitive' text mode browsers such as lynx always word wrap automagically, but 'advanced' text mode browsers such as elinks try to preserve the existing formatting, so that I end up having to scroll horizontally, which is a PITA with a text mode browser.

If the enworld forums had an email gateway, I'd be there yesterday. (Of course, I'm always complaining about how I have email saved as far back as 1991 and can quickly stuff based on keywords, while most web forums regularly discard old stuff, but enworld seems to avoid the discarding old stuff problem. Still, email is the easier interface for text discussions.)

> Does this style of quoting
> actually bother people? If
> so, I'll quit.

As long as I have to copy-and-paste for spell-checking anyway, I've been using vim to edit my postings. There, it's actually easier to use angle bracket quoting instead of forum-code quoting. It seems that every different web forum has a slightly different way of encoding quoting and such. (Speaking of vim, since I'm using the text box on the web page to edit this instead of vim, I have to keep going back to delete vim control codes that I reflexively type.)

--index, who really should go to bed

 

[index]

I wrote:

Staffan, I think many people want to make Weapon Focus and
Weapon Specialization less specific because too many have
found good magic weapons during adventures, NONE of which
matched their feats, and their DMs were too stingy with time
or money for them to commission the weapons they wanted.

And Staffan responded:

I see your point. It's just that I consider that to be a feature, not a bug.

I think I already explained why I consider it a mis-feature. I suspect you haven't played under a DM so stingy that for several real world months, none of the places you travel through on an important quest have any greatswords (nor mighty composite longbows) to sell.

(We were really, really, getting sick of looted +1 scimitars. We ended up giving several away because we couldn't buy anything with them; none of the people we were meeting could offer close to 1/2 'market' price for them.)

 

[index]

Gort wrote :

People always say this, but I haven't seen it myself. My 18th level fighter needs a seventeen to hit himself (str 22, BAB 18, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, AC 47...) and about a twelve to hit the more lightly armoured party members in our group.

Heck, I've had to invest in a can-opener (brilliant energy longsword) so I can connect a little bit more. Where is the idea that at high levels attack bonuses exceed ACs, cause I sure haven't seen it. The main reason being that there are lots of ways to increase your AC (magic armour, magic shield, natural armour, deflection, insight etc) and only a couple to increase your attack (magic weapon, extra strength, competence) and the attack increasers are more expensive. Where're the huge attack bonuses coming from, cause my fighter wants one.

...

I must confess that I've never actually seen it except in a few one- or two-shot high power games, but that's because I could only find local DMs so stingy I was still playing a 6th level character after two years real time. But it's what everyone talks about on the Internet.

But it sounds like your group is rich like a standard 18th level D&D group, and investing heavily in AC. STR 22? Haven't you bought an item with Enlarge Person and Polymorph yet? (Enlarge first to make sure your weapons match your polymorphed giant size. Carry a Large longsword. Enlarge yourself to Large and your longsword to Huge. Then polymorph into one of the Huge giants.) What about an item with Truestrike 5/day? (I don't know of any DM that would allow Truestrike at will. I wouldn't.)

(The reach of a giant is so valuable in combat, it's a wonder more heros don't polymorph. Size also makes it more difficult for big brutes to swallow you.)

BAB keeps going up, fast for fighters, but there is no level-based AC bonus (except for monks, and their bonus isn't large).

There are many ways to increase attack (enhanced weapons, luck, haste, insight, bane bonuses on weapons, strength) and many ways to increase STR (polymorph, size, enhancement, inherent). It seems to me that if you can't hit yourself, you're investing heavily in AC and not in attack, though I confess I haven't done a detailed analysis.

According to the DMG item creation section, enhancement bonuses to AC are only half the price of enhancement bonuses to weapons, while natural armor bonuses are equal in cost, and luck, insight, sacred/profane, and other AC bonuses are more expensive. Attack bonuses other than enhancement bonuses seem to be cheaper though, since you have to refer to the 'use-activated or continuous' item section, depending on the spell, rather than paying per 'plus'. Attacks can benefit from competence, insight, luck, morale, and profane/sacred bonuses (in addition to enhancement). STR can benefit from enhancement, inherent, and size bonuses, as well as typeless (racial) bonuses from polymorph.

If you want to bring up bumping DEX to improve AC, well, we can talk about missile or finesse weapons to benefit from the same DEX adjustments.

What is the 'brilliant energy' weapon property? I don't think I've seen that before.

If my character was rich and desperate to hit stuff, I'd invest in (a) area effect weapons such as a Cone of Cold gauntlet that is use-activated instead of spell-trigger, or (b) several bracelets of Truestrike 5/day, use-activated after arming via button-press. Use up a gauntlet or bracer slot.

(As a DM, I'd double the price of Truestrike items since the spell is supposed to be caster only.)

--index

 

[Nifft]

Erp. Never mind.

 

[Paddraigh]

Sure, it would be neat. Anything to enhance a char within reason. But this doesn't really make practical sense to me. In college I was a fencer of minor talent. I can tell you that the weapon groups require specific skill and training. I was very good at saber, decent with an epee and down-right lousy with the foil. Three weapons, all swords, very different styles and skills.

Weapon Focus suggests specialised training in a particular school. Basic class abilities take care of the rest. My Weapon Focused, soon to be Specialised bastard sword wielder can handle a longsword with minor skill, and doesn't mind whipping out a bow, but he spent years learning how to get that extra oomph out of a bastard sword. May as well ask why Clerics have domains.

You are so right! I am a trained swordsman, and i am using a one-and-a-half-handed sword with some skill, but i am very bad with longsword and shield and i would never try fencing with some of this light thrusting weapons you are using.

And there is no reason why someone who is quite good with a dagger should be equaly successfull with, say, a spear.

So i would say no to Weapon Focus or Specialisation on Weapon Groups, and an even bigger NOOO to Focus on Simple, Martial, Exotic Weapons.