It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
This recently came up at a Dungeon Delve last night. The feat Dwarven Weapon Training says "You gain proficiency and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with axes and hammers."
I had been looking at the Adventurer's Vault items on the D&DI compendium, and thought the Craghammer looked pretty cool. The only thing was that the craghammer is a superior weapon, and the PHB has this to say on Superior weapons "Superior Weapons are even more effective then military weapons but require special training to use. You can learn to use a superior weapon by taking the Weapon Proficiency feat." (p215)
Does the DWT feat allow dwarves proficiency with superior weapons?
It would seem to make sense to me, because it has training right in the feat name =] and because it does not say "you gain proficiency and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with SIMPLE AND MILITARY axes and hammers" or "blah blah.. ...axes and hammers except those of Superior quality"
This recently came up at a Dungeon Delve last night. The feat Dwarven Weapon Training says "You gain proficiency and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with axes and hammers."
I had been looking at the Adventurer's Vault items on the D&DI compendium, and thought the Craghammer looked pretty cool. The only thing was that the craghammer is a superior weapon, and the PHB has this to say on Superior weapons "Superior Weapons are even more effective then military weapons but require special training to use. You can learn to use a superior weapon by taking the Weapon Proficiency feat." (p215)
Does the DWT feat allow dwarves proficiency with superior weapons?
It would seem to make sense to me, because it has training right in the feat name =] and because it does not say "you gain proficiency and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with SIMPLE AND MILITARY axes and hammers" or "blah blah.. ...axes and hammers except those of Superior quality"
Currently dwarven Weapon Training and the Eladrin Soldier feats give you proficiency with all weapons of the mentioned types, even superior ones.
This might be errata'd in the future, or it may not.
This is where the DM rules how he wants it. To me, it would seem slightly overpowered that EVERY Melee dwarf or Elf can take a single feat to get proficiency AND a +2 do damage with a single feat. Don't get me wrong, I like the way it's currently worded myself. I'm playing a Dwarf Barbarian right now and would love the extra feat slot I used for the wep proff, but it seems a bit overpowered...
Just to toss out an idea, but what about changing the wording of DWT ever so slightly?
Pretty much, it treats axes and hammers as being one step down the proficiency chain. A battleaxe (martial) would be considered a simple weapon, while the craghammer (superior) would become a martial weapon. Which is nice, but if your class doesn't grant you martial weapon proficiency, then it's not going to do you as much good.
Same line of thought for Eladrin Soldier and spears would be applied as well.
Just to toss out an idea, but what about changing the wording of DWT ever so slightly?
Pretty much, it treats axes and hammers as being one step down the proficiency chain. A battleaxe (martial) would be considered a simple weapon, while the craghammer (superior) would become a martial weapon. Which is nice, but if your class doesn't grant you martial weapon proficiency, then it's not going to do you as much good.
Same line of thought for Eladrin Soldier and spears would be applied as well.
I was thinking something like that. It's certainly a workable idea.
Do you think that dwarven clerics getting to save a feat is overpowered but dwarven fighters saving a feat is fine? 'cuz clerics are the only characters who want to use melee weapons but don't get military proficiencies to start with. Well, them and melee warlocks, who also don't seem like they're so close to overpowered that they should have to spend an extra feat.
Just to toss out an idea, but what about changing the wording of DWT ever so slightly?
Pretty much, it treats axes and hammers as being one step down the proficiency chain. A battleaxe (martial) would be considered a simple weapon, while the craghammer (superior) would become a martial weapon. Which is nice, but if your class doesn't grant you martial weapon proficiency, then it's not going to do you as much good.
I think that would work. It adds some flavour, without being overpowered.
In fact, that's pretty similar to what they did it in 3E, with dwarf and gnome Weapon Familiarity abilities.
Racial Feats have to have a little more kick than the equivalent type-less feat at the same tier. Prerequisites allow a little push in the power level of the feat.
Look at Hellfire Blood compared to Astral Fire. +1 to hit AND bolsters fear, which is a type that spreads across damage types. Is Hellfire Blood broken? It's hardly an auto-include, even on characters that take it.
If you're a melee class, what is the cost you're taking for taking the Eladrin and Dwarf weapon feats?
Neither race includes a +2 to strength, which means that you're taking a -1 to hit over Strength based races. When you look at 'optimized' builds for non-Swordmage Meleers, Dwarves and Eladrin don't even show up on the radar. Dwarves only show up for Hexhammer builds, and Eladrin only show up for Swordmage builds, and rarely at that. Now, is +2 damage a fair price for -1 to hit? In most cases, it's actually not in your favor, especially as your damage goes up. The better the weapon, the worse the trade-off. Dwarves and Eladrin actually -need- a feat like this to be on the same radar with Strength races, never mind the same tier.
If Character Ops don't bat an eye at Stunties and Pointies -despite- the existance of these feats, then chances are the technology is not as omgpowerful as you think.
Last night, after a D&D game, I was talking with the guy playing a Dwarf Fighter and the DM, and one of the topics that came up was Dwarven Weapon Training and Superior-class axes and hammers.
In short, the DM was insistent that there had been an official ruling that DWT did not give you any kind of proficiency with Superior-class axes and hammers, and that you explicitly had to take the Weapon Proficiency feat to become proficient with them, going so far as to proclaim anyone that thought otherwise was a *grandma unfriendly term* idiot. Since I'm playing an Elf Ranger in his game I just let the matter drop.
And since I'm not exactly a frequent visitor to the WotC sites outside of Star Wars updates, I was wondering if anyone had seen such an official clarification regarding this issue?
Well, it's either a case of "we didn't think of that" when they made Ad Vault, or they knew it, and thought it was ok. Even if they didn't consider it, it isn't too bad.
Ultimately, any class that wants to use axes, hammers or spears is going to require strength, with the exception of a paladin who wants charisma. Rogue uses Dex, but he doesn't use those weapon groups. Swordmage, also doesn't use those weapon groups. So, you have fighter, paladin, warmage, cleric, melee ranger and barbarian. All make their weapon attacks using a primary stat that does not get racial bonuses from either of the races.
So, I say a 'superior weapon prof with a bonus to damage' is fine and dandy way to make up for an otherwise suboptimal racial choice to go with the class.
Last night, after a D&D game, I was talking with the guy playing a Dwarf Fighter and the DM, and one of the topics that came up was Dwarven Weapon Training and Superior-class axes and hammers.
In short, the DM was insistent that there had been an official ruling that DWT did not give you any kind of proficiency with Superior-class axes and hammers, and that you explicitly had to take the Weapon Proficiency feat to become proficient with them, going so far as to proclaim anyone that thought otherwise was a *grandma unfriendly term* idiot. Since I'm playing an Elf Ranger in his game I just let the matter drop.
And since I'm not exactly a frequent visitor to the WotC sites outside of Star Wars updates, I was wondering if anyone had seen such an official clarification regarding this issue?
There has been no official errata, and the RAW text is quite clear in that it makes absolutely no distinction regarding weapon categories, only weapon types.
At the risk of being snarky, your DM is the one who's being a *grandma unfriendly term* idiot.
__________________ ++++++++++++
Travis Stout
"An absolute monarchy is one in which the sovereign does as he pleases so long as he pleases the assassins."
--Ambrose Bierce
Yes. Dwarven Weapon Training grants proficiency with all axes and hammers. So those listed in the Adventurer's Vault would apply as well.
Good Gaming!
Paul
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Customer 10/07/2008 12:53 PM Does the Dwarven Weapon Training feat from the 4th edition Player's Handbook give proficiency with all the Axes and Hammers in the Adventurer's Vault? Specifically, the Khopesh, Craghammer, Waraxe, Execution Axe, Mordenkrad, Double Axe, and Urgrosh. All of these are in the axes or hammer group.
Dwarven Weapon Training [Dwarf]
Prerequisite: Dwarf
Benefit: You gain proficiency and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with axes and hammers.
If not all, which ones does it give proficiency for? Thanks.
********************
Page Number: PH: 194, AV: 9
Book Name: PH; AV
looking at the Pregen level 11 PC's (Sample Paragon Characters), the Dwarf fighter has DWT and is using a Morkenkrad without having weapon prof Morkenkrad.
(granted, there are problems with that pc--wrong damage for a Morkenkrad, also has weapon focus Morkenkrad, etc)
Yes. Dwarven Weapon Training grants proficiency with all axes and hammers. So those listed in the Adventurer's Vault would apply as well.
I suppose it's also worth noting that this is probably a balanced rule. Dwarves should be good at melee and failing to get that +2 racial strength bonus is a huge hit to their effectiveness. The extra damage from the superior weapons (and the slight arguably improvement of DWT over weapon focus) makes up for missing a little more often.
If there is a place where it may be broken it's with Eladrin swordmages who get a racial int bump on Int-based melee attacks /and/ Eladrin Soldier. EDIT: Or, not -- as eladrin soldier doesn't give prof to the superior heavy blades.
-KS
Last edited by KidSnide; 17th October 2008 at 04:40 AM..
If you're a melee class, what is the cost you're taking for taking the Eladrin and Dwarf weapon feats?
Neither race includes a +2 to strength, which means that you're taking a -1 to hit over Strength based races. When you look at 'optimized' builds for non-Swordmage Meleers, Dwarves and Eladrin don't even show up on the radar. Dwarves only show up for Hexhammer builds, and Eladrin only show up for Swordmage builds, and rarely at that. Now, is +2 damage a fair price for -1 to hit? In most cases, it's actually not in your favor, especially as your damage goes up. The better the weapon, the worse the trade-off. Dwarves and Eladrin actually -need- a feat like this to be on the same radar with Strength races, never mind the same tier.
If Character Ops don't bat an eye at Stunties and Pointies -despite- the existance of these feats, then chances are the technology is not as omgpowerful as you think.
Although I'll note that the Dwarven abilities can make for a pretty darned effective defender with the resistance to forced movement and the ability to second wind as a minor.
Linear Mode
