Weapon Proficiency Question

[Thundershield]

Originally Posted by Goumindong

You are

Oh. Right. Busted.

Well, should've picked my words more carefully. I was thinking more broadly, or maybe I was thinking it was a Human BRV Fighter who put his +2 in Con... *shrug*

Anyway, the point still stands. Racial affinity would be apparent under similar circumstances (same stats, same level, same weapon, Weapon Focus vs. racial equivalent).

EDIT: Well, I can see the points people have listed above, that access to the superior weapons is meant as compensation for their lack of Strength to make them great Fighters. The problem, however, is that this wouldn't be the right way to compensate.

If people want to use a superior weapon, they'll take Weapon Proficiency. Getting the proficiency and a bonus that's only superior until level 11 rolled up into one feat is hardly a show of racial affinity in the long run. As soon as you hit the Paragon levels we're back to the issue that Dwarves and Eladrin are inferior Fighters and the supposed racial affinity is gone. By Epic levels, it's actually a racial inferiority (unless you spend a feat on Weapon Focus to "catch up".)

A "proper" way to make Dwarves and Eladrin truly good at something is by making them unique at it, such as by giving them unique combat options through class-specific feats or special properties in powers. If memory serves, there's already a few Fighter powers that say "If you're a Dwarf, deal additional damage equal to your Constitution modifier."

So, that's why I didn't take class or fluff into consideration with the "balancing" of the racial affinity feats. If you want Dwarves to be good Fighters, make them good Fighters - don't simply make them good at swinging better weapons. That'd mean that Dwarf Avenger is still a better choice than Dwarf Fighter, and wouldn't satisfy any fluff besides saying "dwarves are better at using hammers and axes than other races, until they become paragons or epic". What I wanted to do with my house rule was simply changing that to "dwarves are better at using hammers and axes than other races, but still require the training other races do", which I believe gives a better feel.

[Goumindong]

Originally Posted by Thundershield

If people want to use a superior weapon, they'll take Weapon Proficiency. Getting the proficiency and a bonus that's only superior until level 11 rolled up into one feat is hardly a show of racial affinity in the long run. As soon as you hit the Paragon levels we're back to the issue that Dwarves and Eladrin are inferior Fighters and the supposed racial affinity is gone. By Epic levels, it's actually a racial inferiority (unless you spend a feat on Weapon Focus to "catch up".)

I think you're making the wrong comparison.

Take a paragon lvl Wisdom Based Melee Character

Dwarf/Human/Elf all get the same bonus to attack.

Dwarf Spends for Dwarven Weapon prof
Elf Spends for Weapon Superiority and Weapon Focus

The advantage of the dwarf with the war axe/execution axe is not any + to damage[+1 heroic, even paragon, - 1 epic], but another feat

I.E. At paragon tier and below the Dwarf never has to make the choice between +2 dmg/attack and another feat. At epic tier he is making the choice between an Epic Feat and Weapon Focus @ +1. In both instances the Elf is making the choice between the Epic Feat and Weapon Focus @ +2 or +3, a much harder choice.

I mean, think about it like this. At Epic Tier, would you give 1 dmg/attack to gain a feat? Probably. (maybe not at heroic as 1 dmg is a larger portion of your damage and there are fewer feat choices) In fact, i would wager that most people would make that choice quite a few times if you were able. But would you give up 3 dmg to gain one feat? Maybe not.

If the Elf makes the choice for feat parity then he is down 2 dmg/attack. If he makes the choiec for damage pairity(or in this case, +1 dmg/attack over the dwarf at epic), then the dwarf gets an extra feat over the Elf.

Both ways will typically make the Dwarf better with that weapon than the Elf, they just make him better in a way that may not be expressed in damage[or it might be because he might be able to take hammer rythm when the elf is still short, or Deadly Axe, or Agile Opportunist and/or Stonefoot Reprisal or Melee Training which give him more damage in an indirect manner]

[Thundershield]

Originally Posted by Goumindong

I think you're making the wrong comparison.

[...]

The advantage of the dwarf with the war axe/execution axe is not any + to damage[+1 heroic, even paragon, - 1 epic], but another feat

I.E. At paragon tier and below the Dwarf never has to make the choice between +2 dmg/attack and another feat. At epic tier he is making the choice between an Epic Feat and Weapon Focus @ +1. In both instances the Elf is making the choice between the Epic Feat and Weapon Focus @ +2 or +3, a much harder choice.

I mean, think about it like this. At Epic Tier, would you give 1 dmg/attack to gain a feat? Probably. (maybe not at heroic as 1 dmg is a larger portion of your damage and there are fewer feat choices) In fact, i would wager that most people would make that choice quite a few times if you were able. But would you give up 3 dmg to gain one feat? Maybe not.

If the Elf makes the choice for feat parity then he is down 2 dmg/attack. If he makes the choiec for damage pairity(or in this case, +1 dmg/attack over the dwarf at epic), then the dwarf gets an extra feat over the Elf.

Both ways will typically make the Dwarf better with that weapon than the Elf, they just make him better in a way that may not be expressed in damage[or it might be because he might be able to take hammer rythm when the elf is still short, or Deadly Axe, or Agile Opportunist and/or Stonefoot Reprisal or Melee Training which give him more damage in an indirect manner]

But that's the point: It shouldn't be a "difficult choice". Racial affinity should be an obvious advantage. It should be clear that a dwarf is better than others at using axes and hammers. As it stands, dwarves are semi-better. They can save a feat, but get a smaller damage bonus. It's a trade. A fairly good trade, sure, but not a clear advantage.

Hence the change I'm suggesting: It would make for a superior Weapon Focus feat for these races, and it would also make the use of superior weapons less of a no-brainer. I mean, currently you'll most never see a dwarf with the traditional dwarven arms: Battleaxes, warhammers, and the maul. They'll be using fancy or quirky things like waraxes, craghammers, and mordenkrads instead. This change would promote more diversity in weapons without removing the racial affinity the feats represent.

[Flipguarder]

Originally Posted by Thundershield

Hence the change I'm suggesting: It would make for a superior Weapon Focus feat for these races, and it would also make the use of superior weapons less of a no-brainer. I mean, currently you'll most never see a dwarf with the traditional dwarven arms: Battleaxes, warhammers, and the maul. They'll be using fancy or quirky things like waraxes, craghammers, and mordenkrads instead. This change would promote more diversity in weapons without removing the racial affinity the feats represent.

I already feel stupid if Im playing a non-goliath based two-handed fighter. I feel like this would make certain races simply better for classes (not as it is now, where classes are not optimal fits for certain races) at heroic tier. Maybe if it had a pre-req of 21st level. But it seems overpowered at heroic and even paragon levels. Its basically "you get an extra feat for being your race, on top of all your other racial bonuses that humans have to give up to gain that.

[DracoSuave]

At heroic tier, without the exotic weapon rider, +1 damage is a poor exchange for -1 to hit with all attacks. Regardless of what the feat offers at higher tiers, if your feat isn't good enough at heroic levels to be worth taking (and it isn't, strictly by that above comparison) then you won't see more diversity in dwarves with hammers/axes. You'll see less, because you won't see dwarves running around with hammers or axes. They'll be relegated to totems and holy symbols, rods and staffs. Well, except for Avengers. But other than that, Dwarves will be more likely to be cast in the roles of spellcasters. But hand-to-hand Dwarves? A thing of the past.

Dwarf Battlecleric? No.
Dwarf Fighter? No.

Your only weapon-using dwarf will be the Dwarf Avenger.



How's that diversity working out for ya?