Weapon Specialization: For whom, if any?

Remove all ads!

Been thinking about the weapon specialization feat that Fighters get, but I can't for the life of me find a character that it would actually be all that advantageous to pick during EARLY GAME. Pure fighters and other warrior classes that don't have anything stellar awaiting them in the higher character levels notwithstanding, of course.

Battlecleric - needs at least level 7 cleric for the ultimate damage booster ASAP, and preferably level 10+ to get a decent amount of castings of it per day as well. Even then, spells levels 6 and 8 are just jam-packed with goodies, so that diverting four levels into fighter carries a HUGE opportunity cost. Also, if alignment and/or favored class allows, going at least one level in Paladin enables the +1 STR / +1 WIS quest bonus which is such a natural for a battlecleric. Or any cleric for that matter.

Druid - very hard to combine with fighter due to favored class restrictions, especially since druids would often want a Dreadmaster mix-in to increase WIS or even Monk for Evasion and AC. Also, top level spells really make or break a druid so there's the opportunity cost for sidestepping again.

Wizard or Sorcerer - surely you jest? Being two whole spell levels behind isn't ever going to be weighed up by getting a measly +2 damage bonus. Plus sorcerers get such a nice deal by getting a Paladin mix-in.

Bard - Maybe. But then again, it can be argued that Tymora's Melody at 5th level is going to make much bigger difference to your party than your personal +2 damage. At that point, there's some seriously powerfull buffs lurking just around the corner (Emotion: Hope at clvl 7 and final song at 11) and any sidestepping is going to put your 8th level spells into jeopardy since you need to reach level 26 (!!) to access them.

In short, it seems that while the specialization is nice on paper, the advantages of it are easily eaten away by losing something else instead. At least until your main class has reached its full potential first, which puts us into the twenties level range and HOF mode. And by then, it has lost most of its signifigance amidst all the powerfull weaponry and buffs.

So, I challenge you: Outline me a character that you would seriously consider using the specialization during early game - WITHOUT it turning into a negative trait later on. Any takers?

 

Sir Rechet, that is an impossible challenge when you take away the warrior classes. Even for the Rogue it is no good, as you miss out on 2d6 sneak attack damage from their Rogue levels to get a +2 damage on all melee attacks. The only other consideration is the Monk.... I can't see any possible benefits in trying to add 4 fighter levels to a Monk.

 

Never liked specialization that much so I won't accept the challenge.

But I second Blades suggestion though, make it a single class Fighter that should make room for that feat.

 

To be fair, Rechet, the examples you gave were all spell casting classes, which in 3e, we all know (at least those of us who are IWD2 veterans) are a bad idea to heavily multiclass, at least in normal mode. Even the bard, I'm not terribly sure that I'd even bother with a single non-bard level, at least until after gaining the War Chant song, besides which bards really aren't meant to be in melee anyways ... well, at least until they've gained some useful defensive spells, like Mirror Image, and some good items (such as the STR enhancing bard instrument)... and even then, bards are probably still better off hanging back, and using ranged combat and singing, and only entering melee if the need is desperate.

It is worth noting that if you are playing in HOF, after you've taken 20 levels of nearly any spellcasting class, the gains after that point seem to slow considerably... and it may not be such a bad thing to start taking fighter levels, particularly for clerics and maybe druids, who might see more action in melee. (Not sure that it'd be a good idea for sorcs and wizzies. Maybe for bards.) Of course, you were asking about taking 4 ftr levels "early", so this point is a bit off of that question.


I'll give you some possible classes that might benefit from 4 fighter levels of Fighter (and specialization in one or more weapons).

Paladin: I guess that it depends on how greatly or little you value pally spell casting (and whether or not you will be playing into HOF). Pally spellcasting can be a nice supplement to your cleric for lower level divine spells, but they're hardly make-or-break for the character, particularly for normal mode. One can easily make the argument that 4 levels of fighter (for the weap. specialization) for a normal mode pally may be worth the loss of 4 pally levels (4 lost levels of spellcasting, 4 lost levels of fairly lame undead turning, and 4 lost levels of Lay Hands).


Ranger: Pretty much the same arguments as for pally, though I think that the losses for the ranger may be a little bit greater... 4 lost levels of developing your stealth skills and 4 lost levels of ranger spell casting. I'm of the opinion that ranger spellcasting is actually quite nice in a support role when you head into HOF mode. Rangers can summon some very useful animal summons without worrying about summoning uncontrollable elementals. Personally, I prefer keeping my rangers pure, but I could see someone playing only normal mode, prefering the 4 ftr levels and weap. spec. over the 4 ranger levels.


Rogue: This may be the best class for taking 4 levels of fighter, though a lot would depend on your definition of "early". As most of you know, I'm one of the people that actually likes playing rogues. I enjoy using their skills and making sneak attacks. However, I'm not against giving up 4 rogue levels for 4 fighter levels. That said, my pattern of mixing in the levels tends to go like this... Start with 1 level of rogue, for the skills burst at creation. Then on first level-up, take the first fighter level, to get all of the weapon profs. Then take about 3-4 rogue levels to pump up the rogue's skills. Then flip back and forth with about 1 ftr level for every rogue level, until I've reached 4 total fighter levels, then take only rogue levels the rest of the way.

The only two potentially serious "losses" caused by taking fighter levels is 2 sneak attack dice (1d6 per 2 rogue levels) and the delaying of getting to 10 rogue levels, and gaining access to Improved Evasion. The upside for a rogue of taking those 4 levels is this: +16 HP (i.e. +4 HP per level), +1 BAB, +3 Feats (IIRC), and access to weapon specialization. (I think that it's worth noting that this may be the biggest reason why rogues gain more from 4 ftr levels than most other classes. They gain the feats and weapon spec. But they also gain the extra HP's, which the ranger or pally (as 1d10 HP classes), or barbarian (as a 1d12 HP class) would not. Indeed, the barb would actually lose 8 HP by taking 4 ftr levels.

Also, with the first fighter level, you gain weapon proficiency in all martial weapons. (BTW, you would get this same benefit, if you took only 1 level of ranger instead.) I suppose that you could look at this as a number of semi-free feats, though I'm not sure that by itself it's worth as much as one might think. Oh, it's nice to have weap prof in all martial weapons, but it is all that likely that a rogue is going to want to be good in ALL martial weapons. No rogue that I've played has ever used "all" martial weapons. Aside from bow (which they get at creation anyways), my rogues would tend to limit themselves to only using one, maybe two, martial weapon types (usually polearms, for the reach particularly in sneak attacks, and sometimes long swords).



Rechet, though you don't state it explicitly, I think that the gist of your point is that Weapon Specialization really isn't all that special, and doesn't seem worth the "cost" required in taking 4 fighter levels to most other classes. I agree with this assessment. And I suppose that I could say that it's why I upgraded weapon focus and weapon specialization in LOS rev 2 to try to enhance the value of those feats.

---------- Added 0 hours, 12 minutes and 42 seconds later... ----------

Blades, I think that the potential value of 4 ftr levels for a rogue may depend greatly on how you intend to play the rogue. If you are really, really heavy into sneak attacking, then yes, losing the 2d6 would hurt. OTOH, if you were going to keep the rogue is strictly an archer and backup tank, but never bother with sneak attacks, then the 4 ftr levels and weapon spec might be a nice little addition to the rogue's archery skills.

But even if you do intend to use a rogue more aggressively with sneak attacks and in melee, it can be a debatable trade-off. Are those 2d6 of sneak attack dice worth more than an extra 16 HP, +1 BAB, 3 extra feats, and weapon specialization? The answer may vary from person to person. If you were totally into using SA's as much as possible, then you'd probably want to inflict the max damage and want the extra SA dice. OTOH, if you don't mind sending your "combat rogue" into melee from time to time, you might find the extra HP, BAB, feats, profs in all martial weapons, and weap spec valuable. I can see it going either way.

I've played both pure rogue and rog X/ftr 4 builds, and believe that both can be highly successful if built properly and played to take advantage of their strengths.

 

Well, not take away per se -- I'm just assuming that a warrior character would pick it up regardless. Favored classes allowing and it making sense (ie. you can't specialize in fists), of course. See the canonical <warrior class>/Fighter(4) tank suggestions in this very forum, for example.

Even without this assumption, it's not all readily apparent if a barbarian should take a HP penalty and delay the upgraded rages and damage reduction by four levels. Or making pallies and rangers delay their already lacking spellcasting abilities even more.

Point about rogue/fighter MC characters taken. Surely a powerfull combo in the hands of a player that enjoys that sort of micromanagement.

 

Not really; you can alternate Fighter and Ranger levels to buy just about everything at the normal rate. Even if you do spend a few points cross-class, your max skill levels are not reduced.

 

I don't think that you could keep a Ranger X/Ftr 4's skill levels exactly as high as a pure Ranger, unless perhaps you gave the ranger an excessively high (for a ranger) INT score. That said, I doubt that it would fall so far behind that it would really hurt all that much.

Regardless, the greater loss would be the 4 lost levels towards gaining ranger spell casting. Nothing much to write home about in normal mode, but nicely useful in HOF. I might even go so far as to suggest that Ranger X/ftr 4 may be a better normal mode only build, but suggest that pure ranger is better for going into HOF, due to the spellcasting. Unlike traditional spellcasting classes (sorc, wizzy, cleric, druid) which mostly reach their potential at level 20, ranger (and pally) spellcasting is really only starting to get mildly useful by that level.

 

Don't give a Druid fighter levels. Beast Claw already makes him better than most fighters at low levels, Thorn Spray makes him better sorcerers/wizard until 10+ (not to mention the spell sucks when cast at melee range)... etc.
If I were to take weapon specialization for early-late game use it would have to be on a character who can attack multiple times per round. This in mind, one-hand and two-hand melee are out. Dual-wielding is impractical, so its out. Monks need their levels, so a flurry of blows build is out. That leaves archer builds.
Any dedicated archer would gladly take those 4 levels asap along with ranger levels for the favored enemy feats. Ranger spellcasting for such a build would be irrelevant, unless for some reason you want to solo one through the game. You can probably mix in other classes to further boost your ranged BAB and damage, or if you want a customized archer.
Although archery in IWD2 isn't as powerful as melee or thrown weapon combat (since damage becomes more important than BAB over time), a dedicated archer should be able to cross the low/high damage threshold easily while retaining the benefits of using a bow/bugged crossbow (longer range, choice of elemental/poisoned/damaging/etc arrows/bolts, faster attacks, higher BAB).

 

So it seems that I'm not the only one that labels the specialization as "nice idea, but no cigar". If you're taking several fighter levels anyway, of course you'd pick it, but taking a detour JUST FOR IT requires rather extremely specific circumstances before it actually pays off in the end.

 

I wouldn't say that dual wielding is "impractical", just inefficient and/or not "power-gamey". I'd certainly agree that DW is every inefficient for a high STR character. However, I'd also say that DW can be quite useful for lower or moderate STR characters, if you can find a good off-hand weapon... by which I don't necessarily mean one of those parrying daggers, i.e. a dagger that may stink offensively but gives something like +3 AC ... might as well use a shield, or a buckler if you are using weapon finesse. There are some weapons that may confer a useful ability, but may not be all that potent as main hand weapons, but are worth carrying as off-hand weapons. The Golden Heart sword may be an extreme example of this, but you get the point.

I guess that I disagree, though perhaps with some reservations. I guess that it depends on how "dedicated" one sees the archer being. I don't see ranger spellcasting as irrelevant for a archer-ranger at all. For the most part, ranger spellcasting has usually seemed like non-combat buffing or animal summoning, though in HOF, which is where you'd obviously get the most mileage out of ranger spellcasting, you might find yourself needing to summon additional animal allies... and frankly, spending a round summoning up those animals can be time well spent.

Of course, if you're one of those players (not you specifically, SI) that just doesn't like using summons, well, you're ignoring a major portion of most caster classes capabilities... which is fine by itself. But for a ranger, those animal summoning spells seem like their most potent spell casting "weapon"... so if one doesn't like using summons, one then in turn shouldn't trash the ranger class as being weak if one is refusing to use one of the things that makes them useful.

Well, for whatever it's worth, I think that the tweaks to bows, as well as the new bows, in my Light of Selune mod make archery a bit more potent than in vanilla IWD2.

Regardless, I enjoy using archery, even if it is less than optimal, because it seems like the appropriate thing to do in a D&D fantasy environment. I like having a warrior that loves archery, and tend to find that the idea of a dedicated or semi-dedicated "slinger" or axe/hammer-tosser doesn't hold the same visceral appeal as an archer. There's a certain elegance to an archer that the slinger or axe/hammer/dart/dagger tosser can't match, at least for me.

---------- Added 0 hours, 14 minutes and 54 seconds later... ----------

Honestly, Rechet, for any of the primary spellcasting classes (wizzy, sorc, cleric, druid, and bard), this really is rather obvious. Even the class most likely to be in melee a lot, the cleric, is still probably better off staying pure class, as he can gain more than enough to-hit and damage bonuses from his buffs to offset whatever might be gained by 4 ftr levels and weapon spec.

It is much easier to see potential value for one of the secondary spellcasting classes (i.e. ranger and paladin), particularly in normal mode, since those classes don't really start being decently effective spellcasters until HOF (or possibly in smaller parties in NM). Even a non-casting class, such as barbarian, is hurt by the 4 levels of fighter because you delay gaining the really good high level barbarian abilities (greater rage and innate damage resistance). And the same is true for monks.

It really seems that the only class where one can argue in favor of Ftr-4 is rogue, and even then it's at the cost of sneak attack dice (which may or may not be a problem, of course, depending on whether you use sneak attacks). A non-sneak attacking rogue that prefers archery would probably get a lot of value out of 4 ftr levels and weap spec in Bows.

 

If I seem to dislike archery its only in IWD2 so no worries. I'm pretty sure a dedicated archer would take a detour and take fighter levels asap. How else would he get Point Blank + Rapid Shot + Dirty Fighting + Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization + Favored Enemy feats in the first few levels? Any less and he might as well have picked up a shield and done wizard-guard duty.
My idea of a dedicated archer is one who'd go on to take feats like Envenom Weapon/Arterial Strike/Hamstring/Crippling Strike, Maximize Attack (?), Improved Critical, Dirty Fighting, Heretic's Bane (?), Precise Shot, and probably the +element damage feats if they somehow also worked on weapons wielded and not just spells cast. Unlikely though. And he always buys/steals the most damaging/debilitating arrows/bolts whenever possible.

 

Even with my somewhat close to dedicated archers, I've never bothered with the Precise Shot feat. Maybe I wasn't role-playing the character enough, but it always seemed better to use a true melee weapon in melee, so that you don't take a big to-hit penalty (whether -8 w/o Precise Soot or -4 with it) or an AC penalty for not using a melee weapon (that does still exist in 3e/IWD2, doesn't it?).

I never really bothered with Dirty Fighting either. I guess that I've never been fond of feats that only triggered on a critical hit. It seems like you're not getting enough value for the cost... though I will admit that if you're playing a pure fighter and have Feats to burn, it'd be as good as any other "fighter" feat, I suppose, after you've taken the weapon feats you really care about.

I do like Heretic's Bane since there are so many clerics and druids floating around in IWD2... though I do with that the bonuses were +2 rather than +1.

I don't think that I've ever bothered with Maximized Attack for any tank. Again, it seems like a wasted feat since you can only use it once a day, AND you have to actually remember to use it. I guess that I'm just a fan of Feats with effects that seem too limited in their value, only on critical hits or only usable once a day, and have to remember to trigger them for each use. At least with Rapid Shot you can simply switch it on and leave it that way.


I guess that for the most part, not counting some sort of cleric mix in, the feats that seem necessary for a dedicated archer are WF in Bows (or whatever) and Rapid Shot. Beyond that, it's mostly just whatever make for good Feat choices for most any tank. Heretic's Bane, if you meet the pre-reqs. Improved Crit, absolutely 100% yes!!! And depending on the STR/DEX balance, I am fond of Weapon Finesse. (I should note that I'm fond of Mindchild's Custom DLL where Weapon Finesse is tweaked to work with any weapon in which you have weapon focus or better.) Some of the ranger-archers I've played have had a much higher DEX than STR, so weapon finesse came in handy. (Besides, while Two Weap Fighting may not be the most efficient fighting style, it can be fun to role-play an archer whipping out a pair of short swords when he goes into melee.)

I wouldn't go that far, SI. Actually, in some parties when I've had a fairly dedicated ranger-archer as a 3rd "tank", he was usually the mage's bodyguard and would switch to melee weapons when he had to act as the bodyguard. And the upside is that he was a pure warrior with warrior HP's, rather than rogue HP's.

 

I would actually see a Druid as an ideal class for weapon specialization, if you're doing staggered character addition instead of level squatting. You only really need to get a Druid up to level 12 for Barkskin, which makes him an ideal candidate for level-dragging to boost your other guys to level 30. Picking up 4 fighter levels early on helps your level-dragging, increases your damage, and gets you closer to the 5 attacks per round cap that you won't ever reach naturally if you're the designated low man on the totem pole.

(Other than Barkskin, I see Druids as mostly pretty useless in HoF, or at least inferior to a cleric. Static Charge/Call Lightning are no longer worth the hassle, and while the animal summoning spells are useful they're not great and the highest-level ones are a hassle because they can summon hostile elementals unless you buff first with Magic Circle Against Evil. Everything good they've got also belongs to clerics, except Barkskin.)

-Max

Edit: obviously you will time your acquisition of fighter levels to make sure that you DO hit Druid 12 by the time you need it, which means doing math based on your current party levels and experience totals. It could be that the fighter levels come pretty late, depending upon how soon you add your druid.

 

I wouldn't call Druids "useless" in HOF. Obviously, it's a case of taste in one's spellcasting.

For example, I see nothing wrong with animal summons. I don't feel the crushing need for every summons to be "great". For the most part in HOF, particularly with animal summons, I'm happy to summon cannon fodder that's capable of holding its own against whatever I'm facing, since quite often the purpose of summoning something less than the absolutely most powerful summons is simply trying to even the odds, rather than summon a devastating foe to take down the enemy (I suppose that what summoning a Shambler would be for).

I do definitely agree that it's a pain that high level "animal" summons are uncontrollable elementals that require protection from evil on the party. (I'm less concerned by the "uncontrollable" part than the requirement for PfE on the party.) This seems to weaken the value of high level druidic "animal" summons compared to cleric summons.

Also, I'm completely content to use multi-turn kill zones with damaging spells that occur over a number of turns rather than all at once, but some people just don't have the patience for that tactic. Druids can be very useful with this tactic with entangle spells to set up the kill zone, and spells like spike growth and spike stones to start grinding the baddies down.

I do agree that Call Lightning probably looses its punch in HOF, though I'd still cast it for the Guardian, simply because it does heavy electrical damage.


Personally, I wouldn't add 4 levels of fighter to a druid in normal mode, but in HOF once you reach level 20, I see no problem with taking fighter levels, though it will hurt the duration of some of the druid's spells. Of course, I think that one could do the same thing with clerics once they reach level 20 in HOF.

 

Entangle is a nice spell on paper, especially since you're going to max out GSF: Transmutation anyway for Tremor. In practice I have found that I rarely cast it in spite of having six copies memorized--because of terrain restrictions and opportunity cost--and when I do cast it I regret it because it just makes the battle bog down with too many graphics.

I didn't say animal summons were bad per se, and I do cast them frequently. However, I also cast Monster Summoning I as a sorc 1 spell just as frequently. Mostly I don't care what I'm casting, I just want a meat shield and/or flank guard. However, clerics have Animate Dead (long-duration summons are less hassle), better healing spells, Holy Power, domain spells, etc.

After actually looking at the experience tables, I don't think adding the fighter levels will slow down average-level accumulation enough to be worthwhile per se, so just add them when you feel like you want weapon specialization and extra BAB more than another +1 on Barkskin and more animal summons.

-Max

 

Perhaps (on the graphics bogging down), but it's never seemed like a problem to me. My biggest gripe about Entangle in IWD2 is that it's an outdoors-only spell. In IWD1, you could use it indoors.

Oh, Animate Dead is a generally better spell, but if I'm looking for cannon fodder ASAP, I'll cast a Summon Animal or Monster spell. Animate Dead seems like a better spell for a pre-battle summoning than an in-battle summoning. I do enjoy using Animate Dead summons for areas where I might want a summons to tag along with the party thru an entire area... Their duration can take you thru an entire large area and most of them can get thru just about any doorway or narrow passage. Of course, by the time you're into HOF, even plain ol' animal or monster summons will have a rather significant duration.

The last time I used an IWD2 Druid, I tended to use it as a secondary mage and archer... sort of like an ranger that was heavier on the spell casting and weaker on the tanking ability.

I guess what it comes down to in my parties is that I tend to have 2 honest-to-goodness tanks (of some flavor), a cleric (that tends to favor melee, as a 3rd tank), a mage, a rogue, and a 6th "utility" character that tends to hang back and favor archer. Sometimes this utility character is a druid, sometimes it's a bard, and sometimes it's a ranger-archer.

One thing that I've never gotten much use out of with Druids is their shape changing. I just tend not to remember to use it.

 

Depending on the stats on your druid (caster type vs. melee tank), the shapechanges actually improve your melee capabilities considerably. In fact, the shapes trump even dedicated fighters in their stats - more attacks per round at earlier levels, good AC that can further boosted by spells and some forms are quite fast, especially the cats.

 

Ok... I guess the problem is that unless one actually knows the stats of those shapes, you are left to blindly choose between the stats you created for your druid vs. the unknown stats of the shapechanges.

 

I wouldn't say that. The druid's main shapes are listed/implied at character creation. You should be able to figure out how being an Earth Elemental or Panther would affect your stats, for example. Its each's special quirk that you need to find out by yourself.

Compare him to a cleric then the druid is indeed inferior. Use him as he is (healer/support with some really nasty damage-over-time nukes) and he ages quite well into HoF.
Of course, this part depends on play style. Personally I like to leave my enemies to simmer by themselves every once in a while, without endangering my other characters and without using up more spells than what I need to make a good kill zone. A druid fits well in a summoner's party as a 5th character since the cleric would breath easier if he/she had help keeping everybody in top shape, and the party wizard would definitely appreciate it if someone could help him/her nuke stuff. Adding an extra cleric/wizard/sorc is redundant, and warriors aren't needed when most of the tanking/fighting is already taken cared of by the bards and summons.