D&D 5E (2014) Weapon Specialization?

[Jester David]

I can't believe this just now struck me, but where is fighter weapon specialization? That uses to be the fighter's "thing" beyond just using weapons. I like combat superiority and how it stays around, but now that I've noticed the absence of weapon specialization I kind of miss it.

It was a big part of the fighter for two editions (2e & 3e). It was their defining feature and did get lip service in 4e. It seems odd to dismiss it without consideration.

The "Weapon Master" could easily be a build or fighting style, giving up protecting people or other tricks for CS options tied to a single weapon. Fewer powers but straight bonus damage.

 

[slobo777]

Really, there is just no way to make the options equal.

Sounds like a challenge!

I would suggest that a weapon generalist could gain a specialism benefit that represents that choice (going beyond Fights-with-all-weapons to benefits from fighting with multiple weapons). In which case, you can "specialise" in generalisation! 4E in fact has this in the Master at Arms expertise feat - it grants a form of quickdraw, so you can quickly swap between e.g. bow and sword, and make better use of your chosen weapon: flexibility.

5E won't need that, so the challenge is up - what kind of specialism would a fights-with-any-weapon specialism be?

If this can work, then specialist and generalist don't compete with each other, but depending on where you put them (fighting styles or specialisms), they compete with other choices for those parts of the build.

 

[steeldragons]

This actually brings up an intriguing issue that I've been working on/thinking about for my own homebrew system I'm pickin' away at and trying to solidify...

As it stands now (in my WiP system) "Weapon Specialist" is simply one of the 10 starting options for the Fighter (Warrior) classes. It is something a fighter can be, not an archetype that all fighters (or rangers/paladins/etc...) need to be effective...however, now I'm thinkin'...

What if...Weapon Specialization is something anyone can take, in the form of a "Weapon Mastery" [or whatever] skill? You would need to build up your skill ranks/points in your chosen weapon mastery skill (I'm thinking, for my system that would be "3" skill points or an "Expert" level of training) before being able to take the Weapon Specialist specialty?

So, in 5e terms, what if you had a Weapon Mastery skill/background/specialty that required a minimum level [just for example, or some other criteria] before you could take up the "Weapon Specialist" specialty?

Like +1 to hits and damage with the Skill and then, when you get to take the "Weapon Specialist" Specialty you're +3 or so and get special maneuvers/tricks/conditions also?

Or is that too fiddley or something? Do those who want weapon specialist style fighters need to have it from 1st level or it just sucks/doesn't count/whatever?

Just thinkin' out loud.
--SD

 

[Magil]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]: I wouldn't mind improvements coming as you level up, that's why I suggested them as a specialty (and 4th edition already did this by implementing many facets of weapon specialization as feats). Though I do think there should be some minor benefit at level 1.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

First, fair warning, I am on drugs for bad pain... so if this is super dumb, I blame drugs...


Can someone with a head for numbers run a weapon speclist build and a CS dice build to see how they stack up.

Give both the same weapon (i would do 1st both longsword, then both great axe)

Give a +1 to hit and +2 damage to the weapon spec, and let them attack 2/3 so 2 attacks round 1 then 1 round 2, and so on... at level 1 how does it match up?

Then at level 5 let the Bonus increase to +3/+3 and let him attack twice per round?


How far are those apart?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Well, it doesn't have to be mandatory to balance on specialization. But you wouldn't like the alternative.

Consider this:
You are a sword specialist, when fighting alongside a generalist fighter under favorable situations, you are even. But if you can't use your swords (say you are fighting something outside of melee range, or a monster resistant to metal or swords), suddenly you are worse off because all of sword tricks aren't useable, but the generalist has all of their tricks lined up on a bow or a club just fine. In this case, the generalist is clearly better.

The "obvious" fix to this is to make the specialist perform better when they have their sword, as an attempt to balance things over time. But that just inverts the situation. Suddenly you are outperforming the generalist fighter under favorable situations, and then you have to figure out which benchmark is the one you are going to use for inter-class balance, and total party VS monster balance. But the specialist is going to come out on top most of the time regardless of the pick.

Really, there is just no way to make the options equal.

If weapon specialization is through specialties it becomes much easier. A fighter can pick "sword master" to get cool sword maneuvers and bonuses, or he can pick something like Survivor or Defender for completely different bonuses.

 

[cmbarona]

I think the proper way to do this would be through Fighter Themes. Certain Maneuvers would only be available to people who specialize in a certain weapon. This makes it different, but not more or less powerful. Clearly, there will be some overlap. A Shield specialist would get some of the Protector Maneuvers, a Crossbow specialist would get some of the Sharpshooter Maneuvers. Those "general" maneuvers would allow them to switch out to different weapons in a pinch (Protect can be used with or without a shield, for example). And of course, they would still have access to Deadly Strike and Parry no matter what weapon they specialize in.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In my opinion, if ws returns, it should be either in themes (fighter specific or not) or as a feature, which the get more than once.

In ADnD, usual fighters were specialized in 4 or 5 weapons, and if they found one new, they could specialize in it too after a while...

 

[Obryn]

Honestly, even though focusing on specific weapons has been the fighter's gig from Unearthed Arcana 1e through 4e, I'd like to see it put to bed now.

I'd like a Fighter to be pretty much equally awesome with whatever he happens to find - swords, axes, bows, maces. And heck - still scary with beer steins, ladders, bricks, and coffin lids.

In most D&Ds these days, the rewards of specialization are so great that it's crazy to have a weapon-using character without it. And then, it becomes dumb to use anything other than their single best weapon.

I'd like Next to finally butcher this sacred cow. I don't think it makes the game more fun; I think it rather straight-jackets weapon-using characters. It's a boring way to spend a feat.

EDIT:

In ADnD, usual fighters were specialized in 4 or 5 weapons, and if they found one new, they could specialize in it too after a while...

...sorta. In AD&D, you had to become Proficient in a limited number of weapons and you were varying degrees of bad with everything else, depending on your class. Options to Specialize didn't come around until Unearthed Arcana, but it was a welcome addition. Specialization in 1e is pretty beefy - it gives you more attacks, sorely-needed bonuses to hit, and extra damage. You could also double-specialize, which was pretty insane. I forget the rules on multiple specializations - I want to say it was restricted, but can't remember atm because it was frequently houseruled one way or the other. Even so, you'd still be hauling around another weapon for a few levels.

In 2e, the idea of "group" proficiencies came about, and it was an improvement over the system. But I really think the whole Weapon Proficiency system was a weak point of the two editions.

-O

 

[GMforPowergamers]

First, fair warning, I am on drugs for bad pain... so if this is super dumb, I blame drugs...


Can someone with a head for numbers run a weapon speclist build and a CS dice build to see how they stack up.

Give both the same weapon (i would do 1st both longsword, then both great axe)

Give a +1 to hit and +2 damage to the weapon spec, and let them attack 2/3 so 2 attacks round 1 then 1 round 2, and so on... at level 1 how does it match up?

Then at level 5 let the Bonus increase to +3/+3 and let him attack twice per round?


How far are those apart?

ok, so I ran some numbers..
4 fighters 2 with axes and 2 with longswords, 2 specialist 2 with Dice. All 4 have 16 str
Specialist at 1st level is +1/+2 and attack 2/3
A) Long sword +6 to hit and 1d8+1d6+3 damage (avg 11 damage, crit 17)
B) Long sword +7 to hit and 1d8+5 damage (avg 9.5, crit 13)
C) Great axe +6 to hit 1d12+1d6+3 (avg 13, crit 21)
D) Great axe +7 to hit 1d12+5 (avg 11.5, crit 17)

Vs AC 12
A=8.55 DPR B=11.66 DPR C= 10.16DPR, and D=14.21

Vs AC 16
A=6.35 DPR B= 8.81 DPR C= 7.55 DPR, and D=10.76

so that is WAY closer then I would think. It might be easier then I thought to make this work.