Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mind Rogue 07-31-04, 02:45 PM	I was wondering if any of you have actually used the weapon groups. I am thinking of incorporating it, and I was thinking, should I require my players to take weapon focus et al. for individual weapons or for each weapon group?
schulerta 07-31-04, 03:41 PM	I will be using it in my next campaign. I will allow Weapon Focus and Improved Crit for a weapon group, but specialization requires the fighter to select a specific weapon. The weapon groups make the elven weapon familiarity much more attractive too. Elven fighters will have the most proficiencies. Troy
Vahenir 07-31-04, 06:22 PM	I've allowed this system for a long time (long before UA) though my system is slightly different (I may or may not adopt UA's version, though there is, as I said, little difference). I love the system, but I still make characters take feats for each individual weapon - because the feats are supposed to represent specialization of some sort... extra training. You shouldn't be able to apply your uber-training in a longsword, for example, to a greatsword. The weapons are far too different. That's just my take on it though. And that's how I've always done it and it works great.
Fiendish Banana Golem 08-01-04, 03:45 PM	One of my groups I'm playing with wanted to try Weapon Groups, so I suggested a modification, which they all liked: The difference between classes (Bard, Cleric, etc.) that get all Simple weapons and those that get all Martial weapons (Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger) is too large to be represented by a single weapon group. (UA gives Simple classes Basic+2, Martial gets Basic+3, with Fighters getting Basic+4). To that end, to maintain parity between Martial and Simple classes, all classes that normally grant all Martial weapon proficiencies receive Basic+4 weapon groups. Fighters, to maintain their edge, receive Basic+5.
Kiirnodel 08-05-04, 02:01 AM	Yea I have tested it...it works out fine... My guys are less flexible but the free exotic weapon proficiency turned out nicely...mind you one of them according to change is a sixthe level fighter that (because if shaky and non-proficiencies) Couldn't hit the standard orc of of the MM half the time! Less flexibility but more fun! Personally I like the system
Greyman 08-05-04, 07:14 AM	Personally I've never liked the fact that each martial weapon required a seperate proficiency feat, but that the martial classes automatically gained proficiency in all of them. Nobody ever seemed to actually take one of those feats to expand their weapon lists, it was either multiclass for that front-loaded benefit, or stick with the class list. For a time I played using a variant that martial proficiency feat granted proficiency in all martial weapons, but that swung things too far in favour of taking the feat. Then I implemented Weapon Groups and that worked out much better. Characters became proficient in fewer weapons than by the standard system but in exchange their weapon feats applied to an entire group. But there's no problem, playwise, with applying weapon focus, or even weapon specialisation, to an entire group. Characters don't carry around golfbags of weapons for every occassion (despite what the opponents to the new damage reduction rules would have you believe) they usually just tote their favourite melee weapon, ranged weapon, and maybe a spare light/throwing weapon (though "sunder" spares are packed away by the more paranoid). Two weapon fighters do get a little extra benefit from weapon focus when fighting with two weapons from the same group, but no more than they would gain from using two of the exact same type of weapon. Treasure placement seems a little more realistic, and easier, when you don't have to worry about catering for a specific set of focuses.
Eclipse Lutgehr 08-05-04, 07:44 AM	All of my latest campaigns, save one, use the weapon groups. I've found it to be a decided improvement when handing out treasure. I allow the weapon focus and specialization feats to go for an entire group, and thusfar I've found no real problems with it. As to the "Golfbag Syndrome", I've managed to implement the fix I found on Monte Cook's website. It can be found here (http://www.montecook.com/dmonly.html). I'd suggest pointing those arguers of "Golfbag Syndrome" there and see how they like it. It works quite well IMO.
Mind Rogue 08-05-04, 10:03 PM	The idea for weapon group feats was that it would allow players to experiment and try new items, especially ones left as treasure. It would be a shame for a 4th level fighter who has focus, specialization, and exotic proficiency with his +1 bastard sword to sell a +1 flaming longsword that he finds on a fallen enemy. Without weapon group feats, he is mathmatically hurting himself, he hits less often and actually does the same amount of damage, on average. If he can carry over his feats, he'll pick up the sword, knowing that the flaming property makes up for the smaller weapon. It is abusable by two-weapon fighting. Before, a ranger might choose to use two shortswords so that all of his feats apply to both blades, or a longsword and a shortsword, knowing that he won't be maximizing his feats. With it, he'll take the long-short and see his overall damage increase slightly. It is only a slight increase in damage dealt (about 1 point per primary attack), and whats good for the gander is good for the goose - NPC's can send it right back to them.