Dwarven Weapon Training and Superior Weapons

[keterys]

Ummm...which is it, you don't care about balance, or the reason it is not fine is because it impacts balance?

I care that the poor design of the feat makes AV matter or not for different people's games. I don't care which way a person goes with their game for overall balance, but it highlights the problem that it creates an inequality between person A's game and person B's game and influences the players and DMs accordingly.

Flatly, I think that giving out the superior weapon proficiencies was either a mistake or stupid design. There's little you can do to dissuade me otherwise and it's really okay to leave it there. It's not a balance concern, it's a design concern. It'd be like seeing 'Humans get +2 attack with any Implement that isn't a wand, rod, staff, orb or holy symbol' and knowing that might be okay, even underpowered for all but a tiny handful of characters, in the PHB, but eventually a design flaw that would rear its head often enough.

I'd much rather the feat were more powerful (such as giving an attack bonus with hammers and axes, which can build up to better results with feats) than have it scale horribly and have that albatross around its neck.

 

[urzafrank]

Well at least we can agree to disagree. As to the design in regards to whether having the AV or not will matter for peoples' games. Wotc has stated that they intend to use all of their books in this fashion. Also this has always been the case where one book would make an option or another quite different, so this nothing new. Plus with the some of the masterwork armors in the AV the book is has quite an effect on anyone's game even without the design complaint of DWT

 

[keterys]

Plus with the some of the masterwork armors in the AV the book is has quite an effect on anyone's game even without the design complaint of DWT

Yeah, definitely - and the magic items make a big difference, too... but not in a 'changes how this feat works' kinda way, which is pretty critical to my disagreement. I've known DMs that would ban AV because it contains a few broken items, and don't want to weed out the rest, for instance.

Though I do wonder if they'll errata some of the more glaring things like the save penalty items. Veteran's Armor was first up to the chopping block, but is it the last? Dunno.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

Dwarf: 8(14)+17 = 112+17=129 * 20/20 = 129
Str-based: 9(13)+16 = 117+16=133 * 19/20 = 126.35

Yeah, that Dwarf sure needs a free damage boost.

-- N

You're also neglecting that the +1 to hit will be increasingly effective the more [W] we're talking about. The above is just for 1[W] The flat +2 damage is going to mean less compared to hitting more often the more the weapon's damage is multiplied. Thus, the +Str gets an edge again.

Also you're ignoring the Dragonborn's racial powers, as though the Dwarf gets a bunch and the Dragonborn just gets +2str

 

[Mistwell]

I care that the poor design of the feat makes AV matter or not for different people's games. I don't care which way a person goes with their game for overall balance, but it highlights the problem that it creates an inequality between person A's game and person B's game and influences the players and DMs accordingly.

Why would you care about "equality" between two different people's games?

And, since in this case you seem to be saying more options for the character makes them not equal to characters with fewer options, then ANYONE using AV is "unequal" to anyone not using AV, regardless of this feat, since AV's whole point is to offer more options.

I am really not getting your point anymore. What is this problem of inequality between different games you are talking about? What does that even mean?

 

[boar]

Games that use or don't use AV superior weapons now materially impact on the balance of dwarves.

Keterys, I'd be fine with "leaving it there" if it weren't for a profound flaw with your argument. I agree that having or not having AV makes a big difference for dwarves. What you're ignoring is the fact that having or not having AV makes a big difference for everyone. Fighters, paladins, warlords, and even clerics -- that's half the classes in the PHB -- suffer from the absence of AV, regardless of race.

The PHB has a grand total of four superior weapons, two of which don't apply to STR-based melee characters. A third one, the spiked chain, is basically worse than a greatsword unless you care about reach. So if a player says, "I want to spend a feat to gain access to a high-damage weapon," their option is...bastard sword. That's it. Anyone -- not just dwarves -- who wants to use a powerful axe, hammer, spear, or even two-handed sword is screwed without AV. Does this mean that "Weapon Proficiency" is a poorly designed feat, since its value improves TREMENDOUSLY with the addition of AV? By your logic, it does.

Yes, there's a problem, but DWT isn't it. The true problem is the lack of superior weapons in the Player's Handbook, or more specifically, the power discrepancy in superior weapons between the PHB and AV. This hurts all STR-based melee fighters who want to do lots of damage, not just dwarves.

 

[Nifft]

You're also neglecting that the +1 to hit will be increasingly effective the more [W] we're talking about. The above is just for 1[W] The flat +2 damage is going to mean less compared to hitting more often the more the weapon's damage is multiplied. Thus, the +Str gets an edge again.

The exact same argument goes for the extra Standard action, though: the more often you can attack, the more often you get to actually roll all those [W]s.

Go ahead and do the math with the larger numbers. It'll come out the same -- the Dwarf's extra action is worth more than +1 Str before you add in the effect of the Superior weapons, which can be quite significant for those with the Brutal property.

Also you're ignoring the Dragonborn's racial powers, as though the Dwarf gets a bunch and the Dragonborn just gets +2str

I'm "neglecting" a bunch of Dwarf abilities and a bunch of Dragonborn abilities, because I'm highlighting one specific example of a "defensive" power that actually adds to offense, by allowing you to attack more often.

If we were to factor in the Dwarf's ability to negate being knocked prone, and add up the times when his ability to be pushed less turned into him getting an extra attack, his advantage would probably increase.

Cheers, -- N

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

The exact same argument goes for the extra Standard action, though: the more often you can attack, the more often you get to actually roll all those [W]s.

Go ahead and do the math with the larger numbers. It'll come out the same -- the Dwarf's extra action is worth more than +1 Str before you add in the effect of the Superior weapons, which can be quite significant for those with the Brutal property.

I'm "neglecting" a bunch of Dwarf abilities and a bunch of Dragonborn abilities, because I'm highlighting one specific example of a "defensive" power that actually adds to offense, by allowing you to attack more often.

If we were to factor in the Dwarf's ability to negate being knocked prone, and add up the times when his ability to be pushed less turned into him getting an extra attack, his advantage would probably increase.

Cheers, -- N

Well, if you want to number crunch actions.... let's assume 5 rounds per combat, for four combats, which means 20 rounds. Now, there will be two action points spent, allowing for 22 standard actions over those 20 rounds. Dwarves we can assume will get 22/20, non-Dwarves will get anywhere from 18/20-22/20 depending on how often they actually need their second wind. What's the math with that? I'm too lazy to do it right now (read: I don't know how to calculate average damage once brutal comes into effect).

 

[brendan candries]

I don't know how to calculate average damage once brutal comes into effect.

2d6 brutal 1 has an average of 7+1=8
1d12 brutal 2 has an average of 7.5+1=8.5

in line of these examples, you can assume the brutal weapons doing 1 more average damage per [W] that gets ignored when you crit.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

2d6 brutal 1 has an average of 7+1=8
1d12 brutal 2 has an average of 7.5+1=8.5

in line of these examples, you can assume the brutal weapons doing 1 more average damage per [W] that gets ignored when you crit.

Wouldn't 1d12 average 6.5 damage and only go up to 7.5 with brutal 2?

(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12) / 2 = 6.5; 1d12 has equal chances for 1-12
Get rid of 1 above and divide by 11 instead, and you get 7.

So 1d12 goes from 6.5 to 7 average damage w/brutal 1, making it on par average-wise with 2d6 but more likely to be high or low: 2d6 is going to most commonly be 7 because more combinations of numbers cause 7 than other numbers IE 1+6 2+5 3+4 4+3 5+2 6+1 versus just 6+6 for 12...)

XdY brutal one where x>0 threw me off a little, but then I realized the varying probabilities are on a bell curve anyway so it all balances out to just being able to average stuff and add them together... hence, (2+3+4+5+6)/5 = 4, so every brutal 1 d6 you add adds another 4dmg, etc...

So, anyway, 2d6 brutal 1 does average 8, but 1d12 brutal 2 only averages 7.5, 1d12 brutal 3 finally averages out to 8 to catch up to 2d6 brutal 1.

...right?