|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:18PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
The problem is that the way things have gone, there's usually been a "best" weapon to take advantage of specific abilities/feats/powers/PrCs/etc.
You build around a polearm if you're building a Polearm Gamble fighter. You can't just pick up a shortsword and have your character be as effective.
This is only true in editions where it's true.
That sounds like a stupid statement, but it shows the point; it doesn't HAVE to be the case that you specialize every time you choose a game element.
People inherently specialize, even if versatility is present. Why? Because there's always going to be a best option. And unless "best" is so situationally-dependent without being affected significantly by permanent character choices (like feats), versatility is an asset in creating the character, but not playing it.
People specialize because, in almost every edition of D&D, specialization is optimization. But that said, yes, your statement is true.
But weapon choice should matter. Whether it's the Fire Emblem RPS triangle or the AD&D Weapon Type vs Armor table or the Hackmaster reach/speed/damage trifecta, you should be able to look at a situation and say "weapon X is the best choice here." And ideally, which weapon fills the X slot should change depending on the situation such that no weapon is ever always the best choice (though the 'always decent' niche is one that should have a weapon to fill it, just not 'always best'.)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:19PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
What you choose to use, versus what you are capable of using, can be an important distinction. No one is forcing a particular fighter to use all weapons. Simply giving them the ability to.
An ability that you're not using is self-evidently not a distinctive feature of your character, nor does it contribute to your character's balance.
I disagree completely.
The fighter is good at every weapon and all armors. That is a fact. That is a class feature. Your fighter can pick up any weapon and go to town. That is your character's ability. It is one of the things that sets your fighter apart from all the other characters.
Choosing not to use it does not make it go away.
That's like saying a wizard's access to the fireball spell is nonexistent if he didn't memorize the spell. He still has access. And tomorrow he may well choose to take advantage of that fact. Just as tomorrow you may feel the need to use a weapon different from the one you are using now.
Especially if fighters get different bennies depending on what type of weapon they are using at the time (as is the whole suggestion I've been making).
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:25PM
#63
|
|
|
Seriously though, I said it already, specialize all you want. Take the feats. Be a god with a polearm. Good on ya. That's cool.
But when the dragon eats your glaive, you can still pull the sword sticking out of his treasure pile and get back to hackin'.
In 3E, this was true of barbarians, paladins, and rangers as well as fighters. And I see no reason why it shouldn't be. The game should probably strive to avoid "Your favorite weapon is gone, now you suck!" being a class feature.
The fighter can demonstrate his flexibility in other ways: by shifting styles with whatever weapon is in his hands. A barbarian is always going to swing for the fences with whatever weapon he's wielding, and a paladin is always going to imbue it with holy power and get to smiting. It the fighter who's deciding on a round-by-round and blow-by-blow basis what exactly he's going to do with his weapon. Fight aggressively, or defensively? Focus on a single target, or split his attention? Cover allies, or himself? Stand ground, or stay mobile? This precise control over technique is in my mind what separates the fighter from the other martial classes. I think it's expressed very well through the XD/maneuver mechanic, and I also like what 4E Essentials did with its stance-based fighters.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:28PM
#64
|
|
|
That's like saying a wizard's access to the fireball spell is nonexistent if he didn't memorize the spell. He still has access. And tomorrow he may well choose to take advantage of that fact. Just as tomorrow you may feel the need to use a weapon different from the one you are using now.
Especially if fighters get different bennies depending on what type of weapon they are using at the time (as is the whole suggestion I've been making).
But what you're suggesting is the golf-bag style of fighter, and that's precisely what people object to. If you choose not to golf-bag it, and only carry a single weapon, then you're not like a wizard who hasn't prepared fireball but still has it available in his book. You're more like a sorcerer who hasn't learned fireball at all, even though by the rules he could have.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:29PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
The problem is that the way things have gone, there's usually been a "best" weapon to take advantage of specific abilities/feats/powers/PrCs/etc.
You build around a polearm if you're building a Polearm Gamble fighter. You can't just pick up a shortsword and have your character be as effective.
This is only true in editions where it's true.
That sounds like a stupid statement, but it shows the point; it doesn't HAVE to be the case that you specialize every time you choose a game element.
Fighters have had weapon specialization in 1e, 3e, and 4e. It was nearly always optimal for pretty much any style of play to pick a weapon and specialize in it. You weren't making a more versatile character by not specializing, you were making a flat out weaker character. The only time that versatility comes up at all is when your DM takes away your favorite weapon and forces you to use something else. And if your DM is doing that, then no class features ever printed are going to help you.
I can't comment on 2e due to insufficient knowledge. But in the ones I do know about, it's been true in all of them.
But weapon choice should matter. Whether it's the Fire Emblem RPS triangle or the AD&D Weapon Type vs Armor table or the Hackmaster reach/speed/damage trifecta, you should be able to look at a situation and say "weapon X is the best choice here." And ideally, which weapon fills the X slot should change depending on the situation such that no weapon is ever always the best choice (though the 'always decent' niche is one that should have a weapon to fill it, just not 'always best'.)
I agree, it would be nice to have this deep a weapon system. And it truly is required before versatility with weapons becomes a useful thing. My point about specialization isn't even necessarily tied to optimization, in that there is always a best option so you should pick it to be optimal, but rather that because of the other character choices you make (feats, powers, builds, etc) then a certain weapon or group of weapons becomes "always best," even if in the abstract they all have their advantages or disadvantages. For example, take the old Guardian feat, where you could use a shield to disrupt an enemy's attack. Well, if you lose your sword&board, but there's a polearm handy, your versatility means squat because now you're a feat down relative to everyone else in the group. Or, even, if there's an advantage that polearms have in general that might be applicable to the situation, it will very likely be swamped by your character choices. If it isn't swamped by your character choices, then that makes your character choices less meaningful, which itself is bad.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:29PM
#66
|
|
|
I really wish that they would separate classes from backgrounds so that weapon/armor proficiencies, HD, and bonus skills could be somewhat independent of class.
The warrior background might give you an increased HD and all weapon/armor proficiencies and training in athletics.
The swashbuckler background might grant skill training in acrobatics and athletics as well as proficiency with light armor and finesse weapons.
The thief background might grant skill training in the stealth and thievery skills as well as proficiency with light armor and finesse weapons.
Etc.
Then the Fighter class could have d8 HD and expertise.
The Rogue class could have d8 HD, sneak attack, and rogue tricks (ala the 4e thief).
This way it would be easy to create the character concept you want without all the stuff you don't. You can make a Dex based Thief Fighter, a Str based Warrior Fighter a Dex or Str based Martial Artist Fighter, etc. You could even make a Templar like character by creating a Warrior Cleric and many other combinations. Removing proficiencies from classes also minimizes the impact of 1 level "dips".
TL/DR: Background determines proficiencies and bonus skills. Class determines how you fight.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:31PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
This is why I think fighters should be able to specialize in multiple weapons at once.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:34PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
This is why I think fighters should be able to specialize in multiple weapons at once.
That doesn't solve the problem, it only makes it less likely to show up.
Solving the problem requires simultaneous specialization for all weapons, which isn't really specialization at all.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:40PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
Fighters have had weapon specialization in 1e, 3e, and 4e. It was nearly always optimal for pretty much any style of play to pick a weapon and specialize in it. You weren't making a more versatile character by not specializing, you were making a flat out weaker character. The only time that versatility comes up at all is when your DM takes away your favorite weapon and forces you to use something else. And if your DM is doing that, then no class features ever printed are going to help you.
I can't comment on 2e due to insufficient knowledge. But in the ones I do know about, it's been true in all of them.
It was in 2E. I phrased it the way I did because I didn't know whether or not specialization was in 1E.
You're right. That's the way it has worked in D&D so far, with a very few exceptions (first-level fighters in 2E benefited greatly by carrying multiple weapons, because your specialization bonuses in the long sword don't help you against skeletons or flying enemies. I mean, they made you less bad against skeletons, but the unspecialized blunt weapon was still better.) That doesn't mean that it has to continue to be true, though.
I agree, it would be nice to have this deep a weapon system. And it truly is required before versatility with weapons becomes a useful thing. My point about specialization isn't even necessarily tied to optimization, in that there is always a best option so you should pick it to be optimal, but rather that because of the other character choices you make (feats, powers, builds, etc) then a certain weapon or group of weapons becomes "always best," even if in the abstract they all have their advantages or disadvantages. For example, take the old Guardian feat, where you could use a shield to disrupt an enemy's attack. Well, if you lose your sword&board, but there's a polearm handy, your versatility means squat because now you're a feat down relative to everyone else in the group. Or, even, if there's an advantage that polearms have in general that might be applicable to the situation, it will very likely be swamped by your character choices. If it isn't swamped by your character choices, then that makes your character choices less meaningful, which itself is bad.
I agree, with things that have existed so far.
I'm not saying that specialization options shouldn't exist. There's nothing wrong with that. But what needs to happen is that there needs to be a drawback to specializing; it shouldn't be the right choice all the time.
In my opinion, weapon choice needs to be situational and matter for the fighter class to have a niche. Otherwise, it's just the generic guy.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 2:56PM
#70
|
|
|
The fighter is the guy who uses weapons but doesn't fall into an archetype covered by a different class that uses weapons. This isn't that hard, people.
|
|
|
