Dwarven Weapon Training... really?

[Reaper Steve]

Proficiency with every axe and hammer (superior or otherwise) and +2 to damage with all the above just strikes me as crazy good for a single feat.

I thought that way back in the day I read a discussion about it maybe not being intended to provide proficiency in superior weapons, but I can't find anything. CB and RC also reflect the original text with no stipulations.

Any thoughts? OK as is? Outlawed? Clarified/errated and I missed it?

Thanks,
Steve

 

[OpenPalm]

If you're using a Bastard Sword or Fullblade, Githzerai Blade Master is even better since it gives you a scaling damage bonus +2/3/4. DWT is a great feat, but not out of line when it comes to other great D&D feats

 

[TerraDave]

When it came out I don't think there were any superior axes or hammers. And thats when I liked it.

AV changed that.

 

[Reaper Steve]

I wasn't aware of Githzerai Blade Master... that's enough to show me that there's a trend an DWT isn't a unique concept.

A player of mine just emailed me a solid justification... prior to Essentials, dwarves were +2 CON/WIS and it was less than optimum to give them 18 STR so DWT was a way to increase their damage. But now that Essentials let's a dwarf have +2 STR/CON, I wonder if that breaks DWT?

 

[Reaper Steve]

When it came out I don't think there were any superior axes or hammers. And thats when I liked it.

AV changed that.

Good point, but I hope the designers knew the superior axes/hammers were coming because AV was released right on the heels of the core books.

 

[BobTheNob]

Our group has a dwarf who took this at level 1, and that was a while ago now...

So, from experience, does it "break" anything? Nah.

Is it powerful? Compared to alot of other PHB feats, yes. Compared to essentials feats, its about on par.

The other thing to consider is that it is racial. I have never had a problem with powerful racial feats, in fact, I like racial feats to be a "step above" others, as they tend to be tempting and give "racial definition". Its good, but you have to be a dwarf, and dwarfs generally therefore end up fighting using axes and hammers : bingo!

Besides, I actually think Eladrin weapon training is better. Spears are such a versatile group

 

[TerraDave]

When I started a thread on the waraxe some time back, low str was the rational...

EDIT: Also, as keeper of the list here...yes AV came out in Sept and I don't think there was much question they had compiled some of it (as they had done some of MP...). Buy this book and roll a d12 instead of a d10?

 

[Mapache]

A player of mine just emailed me a solid justification... prior to Essentials, dwarves were +2 CON/WIS and it was less than optimum to give them 18 STR so DWT was a way to increase their damage. But now that Essentials let's a dwarf have +2 STR/CON, I wonder if that breaks DWT?

Not if Avengers and Battleminds didn't break it. Dwarves have had melee classes that rely on their favored attributes for a long time.

 

[Obryn]

Not if Avengers and Battleminds didn't break it. Dwarves have had melee classes that rely on their favored attributes for a long time.

This.

Don't get so focused on Fighters. There are other classes out there.

-O

 

[Gort]

Proficiency with every axe and hammer (superior or otherwise) and +2 to damage with all the above just strikes me as crazy good for a single feat.

I thought that way back in the day I read a discussion about it maybe not being intended to provide proficiency in superior weapons, but I can't find anything. CB and RC also reflect the original text with no stipulations.

Any thoughts? OK as is? Outlawed? Clarified/errated and I missed it?

Thanks,
Steve

Yeah, this was me! Everyone shouted me down though.

Dwarven supremacy!