*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.
Kenhood was suggesting that we replace the superior weapon proficiency with the training proficiency. [see msg #13, this thread] Therefor ALL spiked chains would always be lightblade. The base weapon would for all intents and purposes disappear since anyone that could use it would be using it at 'full' power. Since light blades isn't a transitory weapon group for it, mage weapon could be put on it.
As far as Arcane Implement, you may use a mage weapon with the dagger proficiency. So you a using a light blade proficiency to wield it. Therefor I don't see any issue with Arcane Implement. [you are using a light blade proficiency to wield a light blade]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenhood
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.
Quite true. I'd meant to put shurikens. Same argument and nearly the same stats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenhood
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.)
Sorry kenhood but the weapon training feats DO involve learning an encounter, utility and daily power. Instead of a feat [skill training] and an ability they give a feat [weapon prof] and an ability [upgraded weapon stats]. I'm sorry but I can't do as you ask and not point out that training feats are EXACTLY like multclass feats. If you can't see that, I'm sorry but it doesn't make it untrue. The fact that WOTC did it to start off with would seem to imply that they think so too.
Kenhood was suggesting that we replace the superior weapon proficiency with the training proficiency.
Well, not exactly. He's suggesting we remove the multi-class part of the Weapon Training feats. The Proficiency feats would still be there, they'd just be unoptimal for anyone who qualified for Training. Even if the stat and martial class requirements got removed, the Proficiency feats wouldn't disappear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elecgraystone
Therefor ALL spiked chains would always be lightblade.
Even if Training does replace Proficiency, I don't think that's a valid conclusion. You still need the feat to use it as a light blade. It's not the weapon that's getting better; it's the user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elecgraystone
The base weapon would for all intents and purposes disappear since anyone that could use it would be using it at 'full' power.
Yes, for all intents and purposes except two. First, you don't need Weapon Training or Proficiency to use a spiked chain. You don't get the bonus to hit, but you can still use it. Which means there will be people in whose hands the spiked chain is not a light blade. This people also aren't getting +3 to hit with their attacks with the chain, and they should probably be using a different weapon, but unless everybody in the game, including all npcs, got this feat for free, there will still be people who can use the chain, but not as a light blade.
In fact, even if everyone did get the feat, it's only a light blade when you're wielding it. If you put it down, it's just a flail.
Second, it's not a light blade for purposes of enchanting. Why would my being really good with a weapon mean that someone else could enchant it with a property that normally couldn't go on a chain?
You're being circular with your use of Mage Weapon. Say proficiency with the chain means you can use it as a light blade. So if you can enchant the chain with Mage Weapon, you can use it as a light blade. Fine. But you can't enchant the chain with Mage weapon without it already being a light blade.
I'm not being circular at all. If the weapon proficiency has a set of abilities, you have them. If a spiked chain has light blades with the prof, it ALWAYS has it. The weapon listing IS what you get with the feat. If the training feats replace the weapon feats then the listing changes and ALL chains get those abilities. If you don't have the prof, then it's an improvised weapon and gets not of those properties.
Let me put it this way. You need the prof to use a longsword as a heavy blade too, so you can't put the enchantment of it? It's the same argument you are using. If you change/replace the weapon feat with the training feat it fundimentally changes the spiked chain for everyone. The old base listing wouldn't exist anymore, replaced with the training one.
If this isn't true then how would you EVER be able to use the base weapon stats? If you know how to use the weapon, then it's a light blade. If you don't, it's an improvised weapon. It's never the 2d4, reach flail again.
Um, you can use a weapon you're not proficient with and it keeps all it's properties. The only thing you lose is the proficiency bonus, but it's not an improvised weapon. At least, that's my understanding, which seems to be backed up by the "Prof" entry under "Reading the Weapon Tables" on page 219, and how also on page 219 the examples of improvised weapons are things you just pick up, like a rock or a chair, rather than a weapon you don't know how to use. I would think that if using a weapon you weren't proficient with made it an improvised weapon, they'd spell that out pretty clearly. But then again, just a few days ago I was proven wrong about another rule I was 100% certain of, so there's no reason I couldn't be wrong here.
If you could show me the rule (like, page number or link to the FAQ or something) that says that if you aren't proficient with a weapon, you use it like an improvised weapon and it loses all its keywords I'll have no choice but to concede the point. Because if that is the case, then I think you're right. However, as I said before, I'm fairly sure the mechanism for using a weapon untrained is just losing the bonus to hit.
And I still think it's weird that it's the weapon that gets better, not just the user.
Last edited by TwoHeadsBarking; 11th July 2009 at 07:57 PM..
Reason: Reworded last sentence.
You may be correct. I've always played at as improvised. Hmmm...
However, it really doesn't change my argument though. If ALL a weapon proficiency does is give you the weapons prof bonus, then the spiked chain would STILL be a light blade [or never be a light blade]. [PHB pg#201, weapon proficiency] All it does is give proficiency. So if the training feat alters the weapon's stats, the only way to replace the weapon feat is to keep one set of stats.[either the base or the enhanced]
While you find it weird that it's the weapon that gets better, not just the user; I find it weird that the weapon is different if you know how to use it. Not a special technique or anything, you're JUST proficient in it. it boggles my mind that sitting on the table it's one thing, but if I learn how to use it, it gets a whole new set of stats. If that's the case, why aren't the stats the same?
Sorry kenhood but the weapon training feats DO involve learning an encounter, utility and daily power.
Only as additional power-swap feats. Bloodline feats allow the same (cf. Dragon 371, 'Playing Dhampyr'), but a character may possess a bloodline and a multi-class feat. It shouldn't be such a far step to permit a character to possess a multi-class, bloodline, and weapon training feat.
I think this is where we come to the root of our disagreement. I'm arguing based on the spirit of the feats; you're arguing based on the mechanics.
Multi-class represents learning the rudiments of another profession.
Bloodline represents special abilities as a result of a character's heritage.
Weapon Training represents specialized training in a weapon.
Mechanically, they all have the same structure: introductory feat, power-swap feats. True. However, my proposal is that because of the spirit of the feats, a character should not be excluded from weapon training feats because that character also has a multi-class feat. Is it so inconceivable that a character could be a fighter with training as a thief (multi-class) who spent time in the arena mastering the net and spiked chain (weapon training)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elecgraystone
I'm sorry but I can't do as you ask and not point out that training feats are EXACTLY like multclass feats. If you can't see that, I'm sorry but it doesn't make it untrue.
Does it really bother you that much that I won't agree with you?
1. The current weapon mastery feats still exist as written, as multiclass feats, and are the ones you need to open the power swap feat chain.
2. There are new "improved weapon" feats that grant the goodies that the weapon mastery feats do, but have as a prerequisite proficiency with the weapon. E.g.:
Quote:
Improved Garrote
Prerequisite: Str 13, Dex 13, proficiency with garrote
Benefit: When you use a garrote to successfully grab a target, the target takes a -2 penalty to escape the grab. Each turn you successfully maintain a grab with a garrote used with two hands, you have combat advantage against the target you’re grabbing for the purpose of attacking again with the garrote.
If you are a rogue, you can use the garrote with the Sneak Attack class feature and any rogue melee attack power that can be used with a light blade.
3. Add weapon proficiencies for some of these weapons to classes where it makes sense.
Rogue: garotte
Ranger: net
Bard: whip
(maybe some others, I don't know...)
So a Tonk, a rogue, could still get his garrote love with just a single feat and also still multiclass. Other classes would either have to start with the separate proficiency feat, or go with the original feat which is still subject to the multiclass restriction.
You may be correct. I've always played at as improvised. Hmmm...
However, it really doesn't change my argument though. If ALL a weapon proficiency does is give you the weapons prof bonus, then the spiked chain would STILL be a light blade [or never be a light blade]. [PHB pg#201, weapon proficiency] All it does is give proficiency. So if the training feat alters the weapon's stats, the only way to replace the weapon feat is to keep one set of stats.[either the base or the enhanced]
Just making sure I understand you, are you saying that if Training replaces Proficiency, then the spiked chain will permanently gain the light blade and double weapon rules? Does this mean that someone who's not proficient with the chain can use it as a light blade, just like someone who's not proficient with a rapier can use that as a light blade?
Out of curiosity, is this an issue that is currently present in the rules, or does this only arise if Weapon Training replaces Weapon Proficiency? I guess what I'm really asking is that whether you think it is currently legal to enchant a spiked chain with a light blade only enchant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elecgraystone
While you find it weird that it's the weapon that gets better, not just the user; I find it weird that the weapon is different if you know how to use it. Not a special technique or anything, you're JUST proficient in it. it boggles my mind that sitting on the table it's one thing, but if I learn how to use it, it gets a whole new set of stats. If that's the case, why aren't the stats the same?
Well, it helps that I don't think it technically becomes a light blade when you take the feat. I see it as you become so skilled with it that you can use both ends at once, or make attacks of a light blade nature with it. The chain always had the potential to be used as a light blade or a double weapon, but it takes someone willing to devote enough practice to it (i.e. someone willing to take the feat) to learn how to use it as more than a flail.
In response to ryryguy, who's actually discussing the proposal (fancy that):
Does that mean that you spend a normal feat to get the Training bonuses, but you can't take the power swap feats later?
It does virtually the same thing, but it introduces complexity. We have to make additions to classes, create new feats, and so forth. If we specify that Weapon Training feats are not Multi-class feats, we accomplish the same thing, but only have to make a single subtraction, as opposed to multiple additions.
Does that mean that you spend a normal feat to get the Training bonuses, but you can't take the power swap feats later?
That's correct... but you need proficiency first before you can take the new feat, which might require another feat, unless you get it from your class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenHood
It does virtually the same thing, but it introduces complexity. We have to make additions to classes, create new feats, and so forth. If we specify that Weapon Training feats are not Multi-class feats, we accomplish the same thing, but only have to make a single subtraction, as opposed to multiple additions.
It's definitely more complex, but it's meant as a compromise for those who feel that the feats are too strong to just do away with the multiclass restriction across the board. The compromise allows some to get the full power of the feat with a single feat choice, but doesn't open up them up to be grabbed by anyone and everyone wholesale. It ends up being the same as your proposal for Tonk, but not for all characters.
So, yes, more complex, but is it too complex? If you think that adding proficiencies to classes makes it too complex, it could be changed to make membership in that class a requirement for the feat, instead (and go back to granting the proficiency in the feat, too). That seems like mostly semantics, but I guess it does put all the changes in one place - the new feats. And the new feats themselves are not all that complex, they are just the original feats with a different requirement.
Here's an alternative compromise. Change "multiclass" to a new keyword "weapon mastery". A character may only choose a single "weapon mastery" feat. (So basically it works the same way as multiclass, but in a new, separate namespace.)
That is much more simple, but it also doesn't restrict the feats quite as much, so it may not fully satisfy those who are worried that the original proposal gives up too much. It does have the happy bonus effect that bards would no longer be default weapon mastery masters! No one seems to like that aspect of the originals.
Well, anyway, obviously I'm not a judge, and most of the people discussing this aren't judges. So I'm not even sure if the judges are looking for a compromise, but if they are, there are a couple.
Edit: Want to read ryryguy's second idea with slightly different different wording? Then this is the post for you!
What if we made the Training Feats their own catagory, like how multi-class feats are now, and then put in the restriction of only one weapon training feat allowed. So you can take up to one weapon training feat and up to one multi-class feat. Bards would continue to be exempt from the latter restriction, but they'd have to follow the former.
This may not solve all the problems, but it sounded fairly simple in my head.
Last edited by TwoHeadsBarking; 11th July 2009 at 11:16 PM..
Reason: Beaten to the punch by ryryguy.
Just making sure I understand you, are you saying that if Training replaces Proficiency, then the spiked chain will permanently gain the light blade and double weapon rules?
Yes. Proficiency only gives you the bonus to hit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHeadsBarking
Does this mean that someone who's not proficient with the chain can use it as a light blade, just like someone who's not proficient with a rapier can use that as a light blade?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHeadsBarking
Out of curiosity, is this an issue that is currently present in the rules, or does this only arise if Weapon Training replaces Weapon Proficiency? I guess what I'm really asking is that whether you think it is currently legal to enchant a spiked chain with a light blade only enchant.
Currently no. Right now the training feat gives you proficiency AND stuff. The base item would only change if you replace the proficiency with the training feat. Then you have only one weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHeadsBarking
Well, it helps that I don't think it technically becomes a light blade when you take the feat.
But it HAS be a light blade if it's a proficiency feat. If it's an add on feat, then it's a technique. If it's a proficiency, then EVERYONE gets those keywords.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHeadsBarking
I see it as you become so skilled with it that you can use both ends at once, or make attacks of a light blade nature with it.
It works this way if it's a secondary feat or a feat like the original training feat that gives you something AND the proficiency. Replacing it means that it's nothing special and that that's how the weapon works when you learn how to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHeadsBarking
In response to ryryguy, who's actually discussing the proposal (fancy that):
In message 13, the proposer suggested that we replace the proficiency feats with the training feats. This falls squarely under trying to make the training feats NOT multiclass feats and as such we HAVE been discussing the the proposal and the impact those changes would have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryryguy
How about this?
In reply to message 49, That sounds good to me. The only thing I'd add to that is #3, I'd change some of those weapons to martial instead of superior in addition to adding them to classes. I like this better than just changing training feats to their own class of feats. That way if I'm NOT a martial character, I'm not forced to take a multiclass feat THEN the the training feat. I'd rather buy the weapon prof then buy the upgrade.
Ok, awesome. I still disagree with you (I don't think either of us is going to be able to convince the other) but I totally understand your position now.
What if we made the Training Feats their own catagory, like how multi-class feats are now, and then put in the restriction of only one weapon training feat allowed. So you can take up to one weapon training feat and up to one multi-class feat. Bards would continue to be exempt from the latter restriction, but they'd have to follow the former.
I'm following the thread, but I don't know if any of the other judges are.
I agree that the weapon training feats should have their own group, as opposed to being multiclass feats as written. In other words, THB and ryryguy's simultaneous idea. I also like the idea that you need proficiency for the training feats (and I'm not opposed to adding some of the weapons to certain classes' weapon lists). So there's the 'normal' version which has the stat line as written, and the 'trained up' version with the training feat.
I'm content to let you folks battle it out, though. When you think you've come to a consensus, write up a proposal post (since it seems the original proposal isn't agreed upon).
I also like the idea that you need proficiency for the training feats (and I'm not opposed to adding some of the weapons to certain classes' weapon lists). So there's the 'normal' version which has the stat line as written, and the 'trained up' version with the training feat.
Personally if we went this route, it would also make sense to me drop the martial class requirement. You are filling the requirement IMO with the proficiency.
I'm following it. I just haven't had time to think about things in any depth.
I like THB/ryryguy's idea, but I do think there should be some class that can take multiple weapon training feats the way the bard can take multiple multiclasses. I'm tempted to open them up to anyone but say that martial classes can take multiple weapon training, except that might make these too common.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
