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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="index" data-source="post: 1648685" data-attributes="member: 21195">WF/WS makes a fighter feel a little like a wizard with a spellbookNifft 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).  Assumingyou're stacking these on top of the class-based weaponproficiencies, have them apply only to weapons you'reproficient with.  Same restrictions for WF(martial melee)and WF(martial ranged), and make EITHER WF(simple) aprerequisite for both.(If you really want to spend only one feat slot for weaponfocus with a martial weapon, you can use the standard WFfeat for a single one.)I'm not sure about WF(exotic melee) and WF(exotic ranged).Almost all exotic weapons are complicated, weapons yourealistically WOULD need lots of individual training with toavoid skewering yourself.  Perhaps having them apply only toweapons you are proficient with would be enough.(A few weapons make no sense as exotic weapons.  Handcrossbows are even easier to load and fire than light andheavy crossbows.  The only reason for them not to be simpleweapons is because most characters have never held one topractice with one.)Okay, how does this sound? :WF(simple melee) and WF(simple ranged) feats apply only toweapons you are proficient with.WF(martial melee) and WF(martial ranged) feats apply only toweapons you are proficient with, and both have a prereq ofeither WF(simple melee), WF(simple ranged), or BAB +1.WF(exotic melee) and WF(exotic ranged) feats apply only toweapons you are proficient with, and both have a prereq ofeither 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, butonly because the the UA rules reduce the number of weaponproficiencies PC class characters start with: welcome backto the bad old 1st and 2nd edition days.  Restrict NPCclasses to weapon groups as written, and let PC classesstart with their PH weapons, then let both pick up WeaponGroup proficiencies, is my opinion.Okay, now for Weapon specialization...  This feat isn'treally a feat at all, it's a special Fighter class featuredisguised as a feat.  It's supposed to represent trainingabove and beyond Weapon Focus.  I think we need to listen toGreylock's anecdote about fencing training: it certainlyapplies.  Leave weapon specialization as specific as Staffansuggests.off-topic:(Though I remember a tale David L_____ told me about takinga kendo class, and getting repeatedly trounced by the starpupil.  So one bout, he switched to using the boken as if itwere a saber and thoroughly trounced the other guy.  Theinstructor was livid and ordered him out.  So even though henever learned kendo/kenjitsu, he could win that type offight by using his saber fencing skills.)Staffan, I think many people want to make Weapon Focus andWeapon Specialization less specific because too many havefound good magic weapons during adventures, NONE of whichmatched their feats, and their DMs were too stingy with timeor money for them to commission the weapons they wanted.A big reason so many skip Weapon Focus/WeaponSpecialization, is because most combat feats apply in almostany situation, whereas WF/WS are so easy to lose the use ofwhen your primary weapon is stolen or sundered.  TakingWF/WS (as written) makes a fighter a little like a wizardwith his spellbook.Also, at high levels where almost everybody hits almosteverybody, Power Attack is usually better than WeaponSpecialization, even if you have your chosen weapon.  Atdecent level, warrior types can usually easily afford to eata -2 attack penalty in return for a +2 damage bonus, or +4damage bonus with a two-handed weapon.  WS gives them alittle extra damage without worrying about missing on badlyrolled attacks, but I'm not sure it's worth a feat slot.I was so glad I designed my Barbarian/Fighter with PowerAttack, Cleave, Great Cleave, without any Weapon Focus orSpecialization, when the DM had the rest of the group findhim as a prisoner without any equipment... And for severalmonths of real time, the DM would not allow me to buy agreatsword for the character, which is what he'd startedwith.  Eventually he looted a +3 bastard sword that he wasalways asking wizards to enlarge into a greatsword for him.If I'd given that character Weapon Focus (Greatsword) inpreparation for Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) as Iwanted to, I would have felt severely cheated.  (Actually, Ifelt cheated anyway, but that's because the DM gave allundead maximum hit points without increasing CR, which mademy Cleave/Great Cleave build useless even with a 20 STR.)Another anecdote: my ranger/wizard was supposed to be abowyer, but the DM had him find a flaming longsword on hisfirst adventure (as a PC rather than as a background militiamember).  Since at the time, he was the closest thing thatgroup had to a front-line warrior, his fate was sealed: thatsword almost became his only weapon.  Again, the luck of theloot dice and the fact that no other PC was a warrior typewould have had me cursing if I'd chosen Weapon Focus.--index</blockquote>

Verification