The alpha 1 fighter gave me another idea: His new attack bonuses are tied to weapon groups, not one weapon type.
What do you guys think of introducing them as standard. Weapon proficiency, weapon focus, and so on will affect weapon groups, not single weapons.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The alpha 1 fighter gave me another idea: His new attack bonuses are tied to weapon groups, not one weapon type.
What do you guys think of introducing them as standard. Weapon proficiency, weapon focus, and so on will affect weapon groups, not single weapons.
My name is Fatespinner and I approve of this message.
Seriously, Weapon Groups were the best thing to come from Unearthed Arcana. Make 'em standard! There's really no good reason that a fighter from Sandpoint (for example) would know how to wield every weapon under the sun, especially since he probably hasn't even SEEN most of them.
Plus, with Focus and other things applying to a broader selection, the DM no longer has to "conveniently" litter the adventures with progressively fancier greataxes just because the party fighter has invested 6 feats into it. Variety is the spice of life.
|
The alpha 1 fighter gave me another idea: His new attack bonuses are tied to weapon groups, not one weapon type.
What do you guys think of introducing them as standard. Weapon proficiency, weapon focus, and so on will affect weapon groups, not single weapons.
My name is Fatespinner and I approve of this message.
Seriously, Weapon Groups were the best thing to come from Unearthed Arcana. Make 'em standard! There's really no good reason that a fighter from Sandpoint (for example) would know how to wield every weapon under the sun, especially since he probably hasn't even SEEN most of them.
Plus, with Focus and other things applying to a broader selection, the DM no longer has to "conveniently" litter the adventures with progressively fancier greataxes just because the party fighter has invested 6 feats into it. Variety is the spice of life.
Got my vote. I agree 100%.
|
|
I agree as well. Though perhaps some tweaking is in order for the classes with a low number of weapon group proficiencies. I think it should be reasonable for a wizard to be able to use a dagger AND a crossbow, for example.
In fact, I think I would give (dagger, club, maybe a few other simple implements) for free to everyone.
Weapon Groups are made of win. Please make them standard. I like it when a rogue chooses axes and claw weapons instead of the standard fare, or when a wizard chooses crossbows so he can get his 9mm - er, repeating crossbow. Much much more fun IMHO.
Lilith, there's some kind of blank spot below your post. Looks vaguely like another post, but nothing's written there. Can't see anything.
;-P
Seriously, Weapon Groups were the best thing to come from Player's Option: Skills & Powers.
Fixed that for you. :D
Count me in as yet another vote in favor of weapon group proficiencies.
I also approve of this and I say so as someone who has learned to use and taught others to use weapons. Logue, and any others who have wasted some time in the martial arts (Vale, Fakey up above) will no doubt agree that the complexity proficiencies are just D_U_M_B.
Learn staff, then spear comes easy. Learn sword, other swords come easy.
And as has been pointed out. Weapon groups are more flavorful and THAT'S what really attracts me to them. Rogues with claws, wizards with longswords (Gandalf anyone?), clerics with nunchuks (ummm why not?)....
Make it so, Jason.
|
Learn staff, then spear comes easy. Learn sword, other swords come easy.
I don't think this follows at all. Staff -> Spear? Spear is mostly a thrusting weapon while a staff is primarily a swinging/ spinning motion. While you could use a spear roughly like a staff or vice verse it isn't ideal by a longshot. Even sword=sword is not true, some swords you use to thrust, some slashing, and some are sort of a brute force hacking action. All of them require their own unique styles. Heck, wielding a great sword is more like using a two handed axe than like using a short sword.
Personally if it wasn't for the whole issue of chasing down your preferred magic weapon I think most fighters wouldn't have a problem with specializing in one particular weapon, they would pick up a nice magic weapon early on then train for it. This whole concept of needing increasingly more powerful gear for the fighter to stay relevant is IMO the elephant in the room.
|
|
Learn staff, then spear comes easy. Learn sword, other swords come easy.I don't think this follows at all. Staff -> Spear? Spear is mostly a thrusting weapon while a staff is primarily a swinging/ spinning motion. While you could use a spear roughly like a staff or vice verse it isn't ideal by a longshot. Even sword=sword is not true, some swords you use to thrust, some slashing, and some are sort of a brute force hacking action. All of them require their own unique styles. Heck, wielding a great sword is more like using a two handed axe than like using a short sword.
If all do with a spear is thrust then you aren't using it to it's full function. Spears are used to block, spin, trip, and bludgeon people also. Just because in D&D land they slap a 'piercing' lable on it doesn't make it totally true. A short sword is piercing also but I bet you could slash someone with it, or smack them with the pommel for bludgeoning which are all other ways to use them. I've practiced with many styles of swords (chinese broadswords, hand and a half swords, scimitars, chinese hook swords, butterfly swords, Claymores, sabers, Ring swords, short swords, foils, rapiers....) and while you can't use every maneuver with every sword, there is a huge amount of overlap in technique, even with a claymore(greatsword). Single blade styles are very comparable with one another, as are the basics of dual blades.
And using a claymore is nothing like using a 2-handed axe other than that the main focus is to hit hard enough to overpower any attempt at blocking. The actual techniques for offensive and defensive manuevers is radically different. A 2-handed axe is more like a glaive or Kwan Dao in usage than any sword, with the haft being used for some amount of defense.In D&D a sling only has a range increment of 50ft because they are supposedly less accurate yet peasants used them to hunt small game and the distance record for a sling bullet is farther than that of a longbow.
Check out Slinging.org for more info. I used some of the instructions there to construct my own slings and their info is accurate.
I definitely support the integration of weapon groups--I've used these in my games even before UA came out...
For Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, I'm a bit split on this. I would like feats that truly show a person's dedication to a specific weapon. At the same time, I can see how focus in swords is good for all swords. One thought for this would be to apply require a specific weapon for the first-rank feats. The "Greater" versions would provide a higher benefit for that single weapon, and apply half the bonus from the feat to the related group as a whole.
I would also really like to see some differentiation of weapons and the special attacks/options each entails. This was one of the primary things I heard from 4e that I like, though as I haven't seen the full system in play yet I can't say if I really like the 4e mechanics, or just the thought.
Seriously, Weapon Groups were the best thing to come from Unearthed Arcana. Make 'em standard! There's really no good reason that a fighter from Sandpoint (for example) would know how to wield every weapon under the sun, especially since he probably hasn't even SEEN most of them.
Agreed.
wizards with longswords (Gandalf anyone?), clerics with nunchuks (ummm why not?)....
Gandalf had maybe one level of wizard. The rest was fighter. At least it seems like that from the movie ;-). Maybe he was only rogue, not even a wizard. He used use magic device for his staff of light.
It would fighters and the like also make a bit more flexible: Weapon focus, improved critical, and all that would apply to one group of weapon, so if you had that longsword but then found a superior bastard sword, you wouldn't have to pass up the weapon just because you invested 10 feats into one specific weapon type.
Weapons groups was one one the few great ideas in second edition. I'm completely in favor.
I approve also
Got my vote. I agree 100%.The alpha 1 fighter gave me another idea: His new attack bonuses are tied to weapon groups, not one weapon type.
What do you guys think of introducing them as standard. Weapon proficiency, weapon focus, and so on will affect weapon groups, not single weapons.
My name is Fatespinner and I approve of this message.
Seriously, Weapon Groups were the best thing to come from Unearthed Arcana. Make 'em standard! There's really no good reason that a fighter from Sandpoint (for example) would know how to wield every weapon under the sun, especially since he probably hasn't even SEEN most of them.
Plus, with Focus and other things applying to a broader selection, the DM no longer has to "conveniently" litter the adventures with progressively fancier greataxes just because the party fighter has invested 6 feats into it. Variety is the spice of life.
:)
I got beat up once by a tiny Korean girl training to be a cop. Does that count?
Whack! May I please have another? Let's grapple!
Learn staff, then spear comes easy. Learn sword, other swords come easy.
I don't think this follows at all. Staff -> Spear? Spear is mostly a thrusting weapon while a staff is primarily a swinging/ spinning motion.
As Fatey has already excellently replied I will keep this short. Spears are staffs with blades on the end. Parrying with a spear is exactly the same as a staff. All people who learn to use a spear are trained to use a staff first so they can learn how to not cut themselves while wielding it.
UA weapon groups.
Make it so.
|
I'm playing in a game that is currently using Weapon groups, and while I find them balanced in the sense proficiencies, weapon focus and other feats that relate to specific weapons being affected by whole groups seemed too powerful. We stuck to feats affecting only specific weapons.
Honestly as a player I wouldn't mind feats affecting the whole group of weapons, but I don't think the GM would like my fighter doing it.
Weapon groups get a thumbs up from me!
I'm playing in a game that is currently using Weapon groups, and while I find them balanced in the sense proficiencies, weapon focus and other feats that relate to specific weapons being affected by whole groups seemed too powerful. We stuck to feats affecting only specific weapons.
Honestly as a player I wouldn't mind feats affecting the whole group of weapons, but I don't think the GM would like my fighter doing it.
That would worry me, too.
I love the idea of weapon groups, though I think that they could use a little more logical cleaning up in a few cases, but at the same time, I don't like the idea of weapon focus or weapon specialization covering the whole she bang.
In other words, the fighter is reasonably good at using anything not exotic, can spend a little more time learning about heavy swords or axes, but while doing that, has spent more time with the longsword than with any other weapon he has used. Its a narrowing focus, and I like that.
Its not really a game balance thing so much as just something that "feels right" to me. Weapon focus and specialization should cover one weapon (unless there is some extremely similar slightly modified "exotic" version of that weapon).
But maybe its just me.
I have no problems with fighters being a bit more versatile. He won't deal more damage because of it, as he could just specialise in the best weapon there is, anyway. Plus, weapon training is already like that, anyway.
And I like it for another reason: You don't have to stick to the same old weapon for fear of not getting any decent magical weapon if you choose something more exotic - and the DM won't have to feel forced to incorporate his choice of weapon in there.
Allow weapon focus and weapon specialization to apply to a group. Require the improved and superior versions of these feats to apply to a specific weapon.
Heck, you could flat rule that if the feat has a BAB prereq of more than +10, you must select a specific weapon it applies to.
I was tempted to say +5, but I can buy improved crit working with a group, since thats more about (in my mind at least) learning both where to swing and how to swing the weapon. Add in the PHB2 feats with these limitations and I think it works fine.
Of course, at higher levels, you might be able to use polymorph any object to turn that +3 flaming keen greataxe into a +3 flaming keen glaive. So that kinda makes it moot at high level. *EDIT* Just checked Polymorph any Object, and it has a specific caveat stating "magic items are not affected by this spell". Heh, I wonder why...
The use of weapon group proficiencies would also work well with the idea of racial weapon proficiencies.
They discuss racial weapon groups in the UA, and I think weapon groups would be a good adidtion and perfectly backwards compatible.
Just my thought.
I'd like to add my support to this idea.
|
I would also lend my support to this cause :)
To possibly mitigate the issue with the Weapon Focus / Specialization / etc feats applying to the whole group, you could add another feat into the chain: Weapon Focus as a prerequisite to Weapon Group Focus. From the player perspective, I agree with everyone who has said it makes weapon choice (and being bitter later about the lack of availability of your chosen weapon) more interesting. I have had my misgivings about the feats applying, though. I'd be fine either way, but with every character getting "more" feats, I don't think it would be an issue to follow up the weapon-specific feats with a broader weapon-group-specific feat, either. It also makes a certain amount of sense in that you need to perfect these techniques with a single weapon first, then the knowledge you've gained from that you can apply to style-similar weapons (ie. other weapons in the weapon group).
|
|
I love the idea of weapon groups, though I think that they could use a little more logical cleaning up in a few cases, but at the same time, I don't like the idea of weapon focus or weapon specialization covering the whole she bang.
In other words, the fighter is reasonably good at using anything not exotic, can spend a little more time learning about heavy swords or axes, but while doing that, has spent more time with the longsword than with any other weapon he has used. Its a narrowing focus, and I like that.
Its not really a game balance thing so much as just something that "feels right" to me. Weapon focus and specialization should cover one weapon (unless there is some extremely similar slightly modified "exotic" version of that weapon).
But maybe its just me.
It's not just you -- I love the weapon groups and want to see them stay in the rules (and I don't mind that they have some overlap) yet -- just like you -- I, too, think Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization/Imp. Crit and similar feats should only apply to specific weapons, not the whole group.
I dont really see the problem with focus/special feats affect a whole weapon group, i think its a plus. It means you lose you favorite sword you can pick up another sword and fight generally the same. The idea is that you are trained in that particular style of combat that covers taht particular range of weapons. Meaning if you are better with said style then you should extend that benefit to all weapons in that style.
I entirely agree with this idea of weapon groups.
But I'd push it a little further:
Weapon Focus should be for a weapon group as stated.
Weapon Specialization should be for a combination of
weapon group in main-hand
+
weapon group or shield in off-hand (if applicable)
so somebody who likes to wield a sword in one hand and an axe in the other would get the dmg bonus as soon as he has these weapons in hand
but he would not get any bonus at all if he wields a sword and a shield
if somebody specializes in a weapon+shield combination he should be rewarded with extra defense for his shield:
he should gain the dmg bonus on his weapon and 1/2 the specialization bonus as an AC bonus to his shield, for example.
the only thing I'm not sure about: what to do with two-handed weapons or people who specialize in "one-handed" duelling style with nothing in your off-hand.