The point of banning the double weapons from AV was that most of them had multiple keywords that interacted in strange ways, like counting as BOTH a Heavy Blade and a Light Blade, and everything, even the axes, being Defensive. (And it was easier to ban them than try to fix them.)
Spiked Chain and Quarterstaff (from the Dragon 368 Gladiators article) don't have those problems, so they're ok IMHO. (Only Spiked Chain is approved yet though because we just started voting on the 368 article.) So it's not that our setting has no concept of double weapons, just that we don't use the specific ones from AV.
This then makes them TOO good. No other weapons give conditions or minuses to hit. We are stuck with them either being too weak for Superior Weapon Proficiency normally and too strong for it to it include the training bonuses. I'd be more inclined to change net, blowgun and bolo's martial weapons since they aren't very superior. Whip and garotte both give unique features so I'd keep them both superior. Then require that you have proficiency in the weapons to take the basic training feat, dropping the multiclass.
That way fighters and others that get martial weapons could more easily pick up and it solves the issue with the proficiency giving out too much.
I don't really understand this suggestion. Make net, blowgun and bolo martial I get - it means you can use them with the Proficiency bonus but none of the special abilities, without having to spend a feat at all (as long as you're not limited to simple weapons).
Why "require proficiency in the weapons to take the basic training feat"? They're all limited to martial classes, which I believe already have proficiency in all the martial weapons, so it doesn't change anything about these, but it would mean that for the ones that are still superior you now need 2 feats to get the special abilities!
By "dropping the multiclass" do you mean that you'd throw out the power swap feats entirely?
I must be reading this wrong somehow, because it just doesn't make any sense to me.
double weapons are the only way to get a defensive d12 weapon, which is what Kamotz really wants, a HUGE scythe, with serration, that has a solid end to use as a shield after the follow through... I could go on, but it's off topic.
just to contribute to the thread, I like weapon training to be available, whatever that may mean.
Actually, the spiked chain is allowed as a double weapon.
I thought all double weapons got banned, NOT just AV ones. If that isn't the case, then I'm mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles
The point of banning the double weapons from AV was that most of them had multiple keywords that interacted in strange ways, like counting as BOTH a Heavy Blade and a Light Blade, and everything, even the axes, being Defensive. (And it was easier to ban them than try to fix them.)
And the spiked chain double weapon doesn't? A heavy blade, light blade, off hand defensive d8 weapon is bad but a flail, light blade, offhand, reach 2d4 weapon is good? Looks like the same amount of keywords... And two of the AV double weapons have LESS keywords than the spiked chain. So was it JUST the defensive part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles
Why "require proficiency in the weapons to take the basic training feat"? They're all limited to martial classes, which I believe already have proficiency in all the martial weapons, so it doesn't change anything about these, but it would mean that for the ones that are still superior you now need 2 feats to get the special abilities!
The base weapons [whip and garrote] are worth the feat and the special abilities are worth a feat. This cost was 'paid' for by making it a multi class feat, which are stronger than a normal feat. SO changing them from multiclass requires you pay more than a single feat.
For the other three weapons, lets be honest. the base weapons are NOT superior weapons and are at best martial. As such, they are worth that much of a feat. So most martial players would be able to use them but others would have to get the feat [like they'd want a longsword].
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles
By "dropping the multiclass" do you mean that you'd throw out the power swap feats entirely?
Yes I do. I'd also drop the 'martial class' requirement. That was kind of the point of requiring the weapon proficiency, to replace that. [just forgot to add it before] Plenty of non-martial classes use weapons so I fail to understand why only martial ones can use training feat. Well except the bard, which seems to the the ultimate weapon master!
Sorry, back to power swap feats. I'll be honest, I'm not a big fan of the training ones. Now if enough people wanted to keep them, call them training power swap feats instead of multiclass feats. Basically, everything is exactly the same as before, but the feat required to get them isn't a multiclass feat.
Let me bottom line it. The training feats are too strong to be a normal heroic feat. The only options I see to keeping them a multiclass feat is breaking it down into two feats. One for the weapon and one for the training. KenHood's suggestion that Superior Weapon Proficiency automatically include the abilities afforded under training and the Weapon Training feat only be there for the power swaps means you get all the goodies up front, getting more than you paid for IMO.
And the spiked chain double weapon doesn't? A heavy blade, light blade, off hand defensive d8 weapon is bad but a flail, light blade, offhand, reach 2d4 weapon is good? Looks like the same amount of keywords... And two of the AV double weapons have LESS keywords than the spiked chain. So was it JUST the defensive part?
Holy crap, you're right! I totally missed that Spiked Chain Training says, "and a light blade". (The default spiked chain entry doesn't say any such thing.) I definitely would have voted against that if I'd noticed.
(Stupid Reaper's Touch sucking up all the discussion...)
That JUST passed, too, so I can't even go back and propose an amendment for 3 months. (I'd probably just amend it to remove the Light Blade property, not ban it entirely.) Enjoy your exploit, rogues!
Quote:
Originally Posted by elecgraystone
Explanation
Ok, so I did understand you correctly. Well, I'm against that idea. It's more than a small tweak, it's essentailly a completely new weapon mastery system. We'd have to sit down and analyze it very carefully, and I don't care enough about weapon mastery to do that. I'd rather just ban them if people think they don't work as-is. (Rather than adopt a system that requires so many rules changes, I mean - I'm still open to being pursuaded about the less invasive ideas.)
Let me bottom line it. The training feats are too strong to be a normal heroic feat.
But they are 'normal heroic feats'. Any character that meets the prerequisites can take the feat at the heroic teir--sounds like a normal heroic feat to me. Also, if you accept Dragon 368 without approving 373, there are no limits on how many weapon training feats you may take.
A bard can take an unlimited amount of them, because WOTC specified the feats as multi-class. Like others have mentioned, it's a bit silly that bards can be the masters of all weapons, but not the martial classes. So, I stand by my proposal, eliminate the 'multi-class' part of weapon training feats. Leave them as plain feats, then players that want a character with a variety of weapon options can use them without waiting two or three years of game-time to acquire two feats (proficiency, then training) so they can enjoy them in play.
Actually, the spiked chain is allowed as a double weapon.
I've always wondered something about the Spiked-chain-as-double-weapon thing... If you DO use the Spiked chain as a double-weapon, do you lose the reach benefit? I can't find anything that says otherwise, but unless you're rapidly swinging this thing all about your body like Jackie Chan does with that rock-tied-to-a-rope weapon (Shanghai Noon), I don't see how it could be a double-weapon AND still maintain it's reach.
I'd probably just amend it to remove the Light Blade property, not ban it entirely.
Sigh, why do you have to break my heart? If I want to waste three feats so my warlock can channel spells through a spiked chain, I should be able to do so. Oh, and I would need to use the overhaul to change her ability scores so she could actually qualify for some of those feats.
I'm thinking more about fighters that can take both Light Blade and Flail feats to apply to the same weapon, and rogues that can now use it to do sneak attack damage...
I'm thinking more about fighters that can take both Light Blade and Flail feats to apply to the same weapon, and rogues that can now use it to do sneak attack damage...
So, are you trying to stop fighters from getting +2 to hit and damage against large foes with shields, or do you not want rogues to be able to combine sneak attack and reach, even though the most common way of gaining combat advantage (flanking) can only be done when you're adjacent to your target?
Holy crap, you're right! I totally missed that Spiked Chain Training says, "and a light blade". (The default spiked chain entry doesn't say any such thing.) I definitely would have voted against that if I'd noticed..)
LOL That's OK. That's one of the reasons I was thinking that all double weapons were a no-no. Spiked Chain Training seemed to pass without a hitch...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles
Ok, so I did understand you correctly. Well, I'm against that idea.
No problems there either. Just throwing out ideas. I'm actually ok with how they work now other than the fact they are limited to martial classes. Seems pretty lame that other weapon based characters can't learn them. Why is my swordmage, that knows all weapons martial and under, less able to learn them than a rogue with a limited weapon selection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalidrev
DO use the Spiked chain as a double-weapon, do you lose the reach benefit?
Nope! Everything says 'add'. Try not to bring real life into a D&D game on what's realistic though. As stated above, in what world is a blowgun a d4 high crit weapon? I DOES make twin whips pretty useless though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenHood
But they are 'normal heroic feats'.
No they aren't. They are multiclass feats. Pick up any of the books with feats in them and you'll see NO multiclass feats listed in the heroic sections; they have their own section in the book for a reason.
I'm sorry KenHood, but you want to have your cake and eat it too. The feats ,as is, are stronger than your normal feats JUST like the other multiclass feats are [a skill AND an encounter power]. As such, you might as well propose dropping the multiclass tag all together since they are just 'normal heroic feats'. It makes as much sense.
If things work the way I think they do (with the way that penalties stack), I still think dual whips could be better for a fighter who wants to make absolutely sure that a close ally will not get hurt by a particular enemy or two... The only thing I'm not sure about is the little part about it saying that penalties that come from the same power don't stack. If a penalty comes from a feat (in this instance Whip Training, giving an enemy a -2 penalty to attack a particular ally), and that feat is activated twice because of a given power (say a fighter's Dual Strike or a Rangers Twin Strike), and both attacks target one creature (and both hit), would the penalties stack or not? If not, is it because both sets of penalties come from the same power (due to the fact that the power allows you to hit twice)? If so, does this mean that a whip-wielder who attacks one enemy on his normal standard action, and then uses an action point to use a DIFFERENT attack power (and both hit the same enemy), the penalties would stack then? Would he have to just assign a different ally to that second attack in order for the second set of penalties to apply to that particular enemy?
Dual Strike can no longer hits the same target. You have to attack 2 different people as of the last errata.
As far as stacking? IMO it wouldn't stack, so multiple hits would need to assign the -2 to additional people. However, it stacks nicely with the -2 for marking.
I just thought of a perfectly wonderful combo for my warlock if KenHood's proposal goes through. Get a mage weapon-spiked chain, then I get the arcane implement feat from the arcane. For 1 feat and 1 2nd level item I have a +3 prof flail, light blade, offhand, reach 2d4 weapon AND it acts as my implement. Maybe I should stop arguing against this...
I'm sorry KenHood, but you want to have your cake and eat it too. The feats ,as is, are stronger than your normal feats JUST like the other multiclass feats are [a skill AND an encounter power]. As such, you might as well propose dropping the multiclass tag all together since they are just 'normal heroic feats'. It makes as much sense.
Perhaps it makes as much sense to you, but obviously I disagree.
To remind folks of the original proposal: I want to turn Weapon Training Feats into regular feats, not multi-class feats.
Last edited by KenHood; 11th July 2009 at 06:27 AM..
You still have feats that are more powerful than they should be. If we just look at your first post, you'd have superior weapon feats and the training feat and both cost the same. You don't see the parallel between that and the multiclass feats?
Skill training [add trained skill] -> Pact initiate [Add trained skill AND encounter power]
Superior weapon [add weapon prof] -> Weapon training [add prof AND extra's]
What would you say if I'd propose dropping multiclass from the starting multiclass feats? Why should I only be able to pick only one even though the feat is clearly better than a normal heroic feat?
As I said above, I'm all for making some of the base weapons martial do to their non-suprerior nature. However, to change the training feats to normal heroic feats, you'd have to nerf them.
Superior ranged weapons:
hand crossbow: +2, d6, 10/20, free reload
Blowgun: +3, d4, 10/20, free reload, high crit, small
The blowgun training feat is clearly better as is. Unless you're a drow, who'd pick the crossbow? You'd need to drop a +1 prof or the high crit to make it a balanced pick.
You don't see the parallel between that and the multiclass feats?
Isn't it obvious that I don't? You state an argument, I say I don't agree, and you state the argument again. Can't you understand that you've failed to convince me and let it be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elecgraystone
What would you say if I'd propose dropping multiclass from the starting multiclass feats? Why should I only be able to pick only one even though the feat is clearly better than a normal heroic feat?
That's not the issue, and it's a false argument because it is founded on a difference in kind. For example, were I to say that I would not permit you to drop multi-class from a multi-class feat, you would state something along the lines of "Ah! See, you don't think it's appropriate to let a character take as many multi-class feats as he wishes, therefore it is equally inappropriate to permit a character to take as many weapon training feats as he wishes."
A weapon training feat is designated multi-class as a sort of 'keyword', but that does not make it the same thing as a true multi-class feat. A multi-class involves a character learning the rudiments of another profession. (Typically, acquiring a new skill and an encounter or daily power.) A weapon training feat involves a character acquiring specialized knowledge of a single weapon, usually permitting to use said weapon as it functions in real life. (For example, bolas and nets entangle, blow guns are quiet, and garrotes choke people.)
So, please, do not attempt to obscure my proposal with a comparison between objects of different types.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elecgraystone
Superior ranged weapons:
hand crossbow: +2, d6, 10/20, free reload
Blowgun: +3, d4, 10/20, free reload, high crit, small
Well, I'd say that the reason a character would take a hand crossbow is that it's a simple weapon, not a superior weapon. Your character does not have to spend a feat on it.
---
Granted, I do believe that the article's rules for certain weapons is a little out of line with their capabilities in real life.
I wouldn't put 1d4 damage on a whip--maybe 1 point. Whenever I've been hit with them, they leave a nasty welt and maybe a scratch if they hit bare flesh. The type of whips that people consider lacerating to the bone, such as the cat of nine tails, tend to have glass or hooks embedded in the end. Those usually don't crack, because they don't have the 'popper' on the tip. So, that kind would inflict damage, but not distract an opponent.
A small blowgun would probably only inflict 1 point of damage as well. Typically, blowgun darts are used as a conveyance of poison. The dart itself doesn't kill the target (though you can kill small game, like a pigeon or rat with a well-placed blowgun dart). Also, the range of the blowgun is...uhm...optimistic. A blowgun's effective range tends to fit a ratio of 1 foot of distance per 1 inch of blowgun length. If the blowgun is a small weapon, comparable in length to a dagger--say one foot long--then that blowgun would have an effective range of about 12 feet. After that, the force of the needle drops off radically.
'Course, I'm one of those people that doesn't believe you should have different statistics for dagger and kukri, katana and bastard sword, long sword and broadsword, full-blade and two-handed sword.
As regards the double-weapons and spiked chain, I don't think it would 'break the game' for us to have them in L4E, though I do believe double-weapons to be a bit on the silly side, and the spiked chain is just plain crazy, about as loopy as the urumi, which is a self-inflicted injury waiting to happen. (However, I'm opposed to nerfing rules and content as a general practice. I think our DM's will prevent abuse, and I don't believe our players are out to take advantage of the system. Also, on the timescale and pace of PbP games, I don't see characters getting that much opportunity to expend multiple weapon proficiencies and create an uber-character. After about a year, we've got one level 4 character, and that's only because the player is an extremely active DM.)
Were I left to my druthers, I would go one step further and propose an elimination of weapon proficiencies in general, though I doubt anyone would support me because the majority of our understanding of weapons is based on sport, literature, or movies, not on actual usage. The general principles of melee weapons breaks down into short stick, middle stick, long stick, and cord. A knife is short stick with an edge. A mace is a middle-sized stick with a heavy weight on one end. A sword is a middle stick with an edge. And so forth. The basic movements associated with a stick apply to its edged and weighted cousins. And to strip it down even further, if you can understand the principles of wielding a simple, middle-sized stick (say 3 or 4 feet long), you can wield pretty much anything you pick up.
Last edited by KenHood; 11th July 2009 at 08:12 AM..
I just thought of a perfectly wonderful combo for my warlock if KenHood's proposal goes through. Get a mage weapon-spiked chain, then I get the arcane implement feat from the arcane. For 1 feat and 1 2nd level item I have a +3 prof flail, light blade, offhand, reach 2d4 weapon AND it acts as my implement. Maybe I should stop arguing against this...
Much to my regret, this doesn't work. The problem is that while the chain can be wielded as a light blade, there's no way it could be enchanted as one*. So you can't put Mage Weapon on it. Also. you have to be able to use it as a light blade, which requires the Weapon Training feat, in order to use it as an implement with Arcane Implement (light blades). So you need at least two feats, but at least then it means you can use whatever enchantment you want. Provided that the martial class restriction is removed from Weapon Training. If not, then you need to use another feat to multi-class into somethin martial, which requires some variant of this proposal to pass. If it doesn't, then, well, no Spiked Chain implement for you.
I know, I'm sad too.
*If you disagree with this, then I ask you what would happen if you put a light blade only enchantment on it, and then someone who wasn't proficient tried to use it. Would the enchantment fall off/become nullified? I don't think you could put the enchantment on in the first place, because Training doesn't make the chain a light blade, it just means you can use it like one.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
