Proposal: Weapon Training Feats are not Multi-Class Feats

JoeNotCharles · Jul 10, 2009

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.

JoeNotCharles · Jul 10, 2009

elecgraystone said:
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.

CaBaNa · Jul 10, 2009

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.

elecgraystone · Jul 10, 2009

TwoHeadsBarking said:
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.

JoeNotCharles said:
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?

JoeNotCharles said:
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].

JoeNotCharles said:
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.

JoeNotCharles · Jul 10, 2009

elecgraystone said:
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!

elecgraystone said:
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.)

KenHood · Jul 10, 2009

elecgraystone said:
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.

Kalidrev · Jul 10, 2009

TwoHeadsBarking said:
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.

Kalidrev · Jul 10, 2009

*deleted due to unfortunate double-posting* Sorry all.

TwoHeadsBarking · Jul 10, 2009

JoeNotCharles said:
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.

Tongue (mostly) in cheek there.

JoeNotCharles · Jul 10, 2009

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...