Proposal: Weapon Training Feats are not Multi-Class Feats

KenHood · Jul 9, 2009

The way weapon training feats work irks me.

In order for a garrote to function like a garrote or a whip to function like a whip or a blowgun to function like a blowgun, you have to take a multi-class feat. If you've already taken a multi-class feat, you can't make those weapons work like they should. You can only take Superior Weapon Proficiency, but then those weapons aren't very superior, they're pretty doggone lame, as in "Yay! I just spent a feat to master a weapon that inflicts 1d4 damage!"

(And HOW does a garrote inflict 1d4 damage without grabbing the target? Are you slapping the victim with the cord?! Okay. Deep breaths. Calm down.)

Could we make the weapon training feats just be weapon training feats, instead of multi-class feats? It makes more sense with the special weapons and opens up options for players (like me) that want that sort of thing.

This would cover...
Blowgun Training (Dragon 373)
Bola Training (Dragon 368)
Garrote Training (Dragon 373)
Net Training (Dragon 368)
Whip Training (Dragon 368)
Spiked Chain Training (Dragon 272)

Moon_Goddess · Jul 9, 2009

You could always play a bard....

sorry couldn't resist.

TwoHeadsBarking · Jul 9, 2009

KenHood said:
(And HOW does a garrote inflict 1d4 damage without grabbing the target? Are you slapping the victim with the cord?! Okay. Deep breaths. Calm down.)

*whip crack noises*

Oh, also, I believe that this will open up Weapon Training to non-martial classes, provided that they take a martial class multiclass feat first.

Hmm, three feats to use a spiked chain as an implement, and then one more feat or an at-will power to be able to hit people with it too. Yes, I want. Effective? No, but so very, very cool.

ryryguy · Jul 9, 2009

Hmm, why did they make these multiclass feats in the first place? This is all it says in the article (from Dragon 368):

Since the weapon mastery training feats require a great deal of focused training, each one is a multiclass feat.

Not much meat on that bone. It's basically just fluff.

Mechanically, I can only think of a few reasons.

One is that they don't want a character getting more than one of the weapon mastery feats - no mastery of both net and garrote. That could be satisfied by making a new category of "weapon mastery" feats that you can only take one of. So one weapon mastery plus one multiclass would be allowed.

Another is that the follow-on Novice/Adept/Expert feats allow power swapping, just like the regular multiclass feats, and they want to keep a cap on that. I'm not sure why that would be - I guess it would slightly reduce the odds of finding a broken combo. It would also help a player from diluting the character too much - part of the "you can't make a substandard character through poor choices" philosophy. Anyhow, if you want to address the excess power swapping issue, you could make a new feat that basically gives the same benefits as the standard mastery feat, but does not count as a prerequisite for the Novice/Adept/Expert path (and would not count as a multiclassing feat).

The final thing is that making these regular feats would pretty much make superior weapon proficiency feats for these weapons mostly superfluous. I actually think that's part of the reason for the restriction on regular multiclass feats - why would you ever take Skill Training if you can take another multiclass feat that grants that skill, plus more goodies? Same would be true with regard to weapon mastery feats with regard to superior weapon proficiency feats. I'm not sure how much of a big deal that is though - as Ken has pointed out, the benefits of these "superior" weapons without the mastery feats are somewhat dubious.

Kalidrev · Jul 9, 2009

I for one, completely agree with you Ken. What in the world would be the point of wielding a Superior Weapon if there is nothing "Superior" about it? With the exception of the Bastard Sword (which with the weapon proficiency feat by itself does it's job; wield big weapon in one hand... done), these weapons practically REQUIRE that you pick up the multiclass feat for them to be effective in ANY way. If picking up the proficiency for the weapon doesn't let you use their BASIC functions... we may as well not have them at all. It would be like having a superior weapon proficiency for a Kusarigami (kama on a rope with a circular metal ring at the end) as a superior weapon that was only +2 proficiency and dealt 1d6 damage as a two-handed reach weapon, THEN adding a feat that let's you disarm with it. Well... the whole POINT of the weapon is that it's used to disarm. Granted...if a stranger to the weapon picked it up, he'd realize he could swing it around as a reach weapon... but that's someone who isn't even PROFICIENT with the weapon. Someone who took the time (i.e. the feat) to train in the weapons uses should automatically be familiar with the disarming techniques used with the weapon in question. You shouldn't have to spend 2 (two) feats just to be able to make a weapon do what it was designed to do IMHO.

Ecce · Jul 10, 2009

What's the details on blowgun training, I'm curious?

JoeNotCharles · Jul 10, 2009

Well, you're never required to spend two feats: you either spend the Superior Weapon Proficiency, and get to use the weapon with it as listed, or the multiclass feat, and get that plus some basic special abilities (and the ability to spend power-swap feats for more). The only issue is that most characters can't take more than one multiclass feat, so you can't have a fighter that's good with more than one of these weapons, and anyone that's used a more conventional multiclass can't use them at all.

Jack-of-all-trades or no, it doesn't make much sense that bards can learn as many weapons as they want, but fighters are stuck with one.

ryryguy · Jul 10, 2009

JoeNotCharles said:
Jack-of-all-trades or no, it doesn't make much sense that bards can learn as many weapons as they want, but fighters are stuck with one.

Well, bards can't actually take these straight up because it requires being in a martial class. But obviously that's easily solved by starting out with a fighter (or other martial class) multiclass feat.

elecgraystone · Jul 10, 2009

Since Ecce asked, I'll quickly go over the weapon training feats.

Blowgun: doubles range, free reload, hit crit and rogues can use it with powers!
Garrote:-2 penalty to escape the grab, combat advantage and rogues can use it with powers!
Bolo:trade damage for immobilized [or prone on a crit].
Net: add slowed
Whip:-2 targets hit.

The weapon feats are really good. The weapons themselves...

Net and bolo seem pretty weak, only having their weapon groups [thrown flails] stand out.
Whip is the only one handed reach weapon! Sounds superior!
Blowgun is a dagger with ammo and no melee. Weak.
Garrote lets you damage during grab attack. As such, it ranks as superior.
So 2 out of the 5 are good without the feats...

As for 'why multi-class'? Mainly the power swap feats.

TwoHeadsBarking · Jul 10, 2009

Ecce said:
What's the details on blowgun training, I'm curious?

Better range, crits, reload time, and can be used to sneak attack and with Rogue powers. The encounter power dazes and doesn't break stealth. The utility power gives a bonus to attack and damage with your next blowgun attack. The daily power stuns for a turn and dazes for longer. All are Dex vs AC and deal terrible damage because they're working with the blowgun's d4.

Among these "superior" weapons, the Spiked Chain's the only one worth using without the Weapon Training feat, since it's a glaive with +1 to hit. And apparently +1 to hit is worth a feat, at least in heroic tier. I guess the whip is nice too for anyone who wants to land a melee attack but doesn't want to get attacked back or care about the damage they deal.

The image of someone using a net without Weapon Training amuses me. How? What exactly are you trying to do?