Talk:Weapon Specialist (3.5e Trait)

Free Exotic Weapon Proficiency

People who feat into an exotic weapon would normally use that weapon exclusively anyway. So in most cases this trait is just a free exotic weapon proficiency, isn't it? Marasmusine (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2013 (MDT)

Yes, Marasmusine, this feat is basically a free exotic weapon proficiency. I'm not really sure how to balance it... --Luantha (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2015 (MST)

I don't think that is entirely fair; There are many drawbacks to focusing only on one weapon, alone. After all, there is a reason for the old guideline for players of "Carry one weapon for each damage type, along with a ranged weapon". Personally, I'd be more specific with what weapon proficiency you gain from the trait, myself, and use different traits to justify different proficiencies; Nobles are raised to use Rapiers as they are elegant weapons... or something similar.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with trading all proficiencies for a single proficiency of some kind, though. It can just as easily leave a character helpless before foes as it does give them great strength. Jwguy (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2015 (MST)

It might matter for the party's principle martial combatant. If I'm a wizard or similar, I don't mind giving up my already limited proficiencies to have a bastard sword in one hand, thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2015 (MST)

If you're a wizard, a class that is traditionally overpowered simply by virtue of his spells compared to martial classes, and you want to use a bastard sword in one hand with this trait, instead? Okay.

You get to start dealing with somantic component rules and material component rules (Depending on the spell and your GM, you might need a free hand to grab the material component, and a free hand to make somantic gestures) which may prevent you from using some spells while using your bastard sword, unless you have the Somantic Weaponry feat or Eschew Materials applies. Even if you just use spells that don't have these features, I still feel like we're comparing apples to oranges: A wizard is powerful because of his arcane spells and the overwhelming variety and amount of them - is there a reason letting him use a bastard sword makes him unbalanced (or more unbalanced, I should say)?

Because you can do the same thing with Arcane Disciple (using it to take Wieldskill, and a ton of other spells). And that's in Faerun. Jwguy (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2015 (MST)

You need a free hand for S components. You do not need a free hand for M components. SRD:Components (Spell Descriptor). I'm basically using a bastard sword instead of a dagger or staff, with no real detriment. Arcane Diciple is a feat? Marasmusine (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2015 (MST)

It isn't explicitly stated, but it is implied; You have to retrieve material components to prepare them for the spell, although it is considered a free action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#spellComponents)

Again, I'd argue there are detriments relating to free-handedness, but a wizard's power comes from his magical ability. Unless you spend a great bit of time buffing yourself, why would a sword be so much more unbalanced than a dagger, or even a staff (which is much more powerful, can only be used by casters of the same type, and expands on the wizards only drawback - his prepared casting). I think you'd have a better argument with a Repeating Crossbow, because of enchanted ammunition and the lack of mortal physical danger that a front-line wizard faces, but even then, I still think the staff is the better fit.

As for Arcane Disciple, yes, it is a feat. But I'm just pointing out that the same thing can be achieved with relatively little difference. Plus, I want to say that I think Wieldskill was made a non-domain spell for clerics and arcane casters in one of the revisions to the spell compendium, but I can't remember if that's the case or not, and my copy is at home. --Jwguy (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2015 (MST)

Something I just thought of, and wanted to point out:

It might matter for the party's principle martial combatant. If I'm a wizard or similar, I don't mind giving up my already limited proficiencies to have a bastard sword in one hand, thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2015 (MST)

This seems to imply that the trait would be fine otherwise, and that we're judging the quality and balance of the trait purely on a per-character basis. I don't think that is appropriate. The wizard suffers the same disadvantage that a fighter does by taking this trait, it is just less hindering for the wizard than it is for the fighter. This is the case with all traits and flaws, and they are incredibly susceptible to being gamed on a per-character basis, even the Unearthed Arcana ones.

If I remember correctly, I mentioned this as my reasoning for having more punishing and forceful flaws that didn't exactly line up with UA's guidelines in our discussion at Talk:War-torn_(3.5e_Flaw), although it wasn't entirely relevant to this discussion. --Jwguy (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2015 (MST)