Proposal: Weapon Training Feats are not Multi-Class Feats

[TwoHeadsBarking]

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...

So, are you trying to stop fighters from getting +2 to hit and damage against large foes with shields, or do you not want rogues to be able to combine sneak attack and reach, even though the most common way of gaining combat advantage (flanking) can only be done when you're adjacent to your target?

 

[elecgraystone]

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..)

LOL That's OK. That's one of the reasons I was thinking that all double weapons were a no-no. Spiked Chain Training seemed to pass without a hitch...

Ok, so I did understand you correctly. Well, I'm against that idea.

No problems there either. Just throwing out ideas. I'm actually ok with how they work now other than the fact they are limited to martial classes. Seems pretty lame that other weapon based characters can't learn them. Why is my swordmage, that knows all weapons martial and under, less able to learn them than a rogue with a limited weapon selection?

DO use the Spiked chain as a double-weapon, do you lose the reach benefit?

Nope! Everything says 'add'. Try not to bring real life into a D&D game on what's realistic though. As stated above, in what world is a blowgun a d4 high crit weapon? I DOES make twin whips pretty useless though...

But they are 'normal heroic feats'.

No they aren't. They are multiclass feats. Pick up any of the books with feats in them and you'll see NO multiclass feats listed in the heroic sections; they have their own section in the book for a reason.

I'm sorry KenHood, but you want to have your cake and eat it too. The feats ,as is, are stronger than your normal feats JUST like the other multiclass feats are [a skill AND an encounter power]. As such, you might as well propose dropping the multiclass tag all together since they are just 'normal heroic feats'. It makes as much sense.

 

[Kalidrev]

If things work the way I think they do (with the way that penalties stack), I still think dual whips could be better for a fighter who wants to make absolutely sure that a close ally will not get hurt by a particular enemy or two... The only thing I'm not sure about is the little part about it saying that penalties that come from the same power don't stack. If a penalty comes from a feat (in this instance Whip Training, giving an enemy a -2 penalty to attack a particular ally), and that feat is activated twice because of a given power (say a fighter's Dual Strike or a Rangers Twin Strike), and both attacks target one creature (and both hit), would the penalties stack or not? If not, is it because both sets of penalties come from the same power (due to the fact that the power allows you to hit twice)? If so, does this mean that a whip-wielder who attacks one enemy on his normal standard action, and then uses an action point to use a DIFFERENT attack power (and both hit the same enemy), the penalties would stack then? Would he have to just assign a different ally to that second attack in order for the second set of penalties to apply to that particular enemy?

 

[elecgraystone]

Dual Strike can no longer hits the same target. You have to attack 2 different people as of the last errata.

As far as stacking? IMO it wouldn't stack, so multiple hits would need to assign the -2 to additional people. However, it stacks nicely with the -2 for marking.

 

[elecgraystone]

I just thought of a perfectly wonderful combo for my warlock if KenHood's proposal goes through. Get a mage weapon-spiked chain, then I get the arcane implement feat from the arcane. For 1 feat and 1 2nd level item I have a +3 prof flail, light blade, offhand, reach 2d4 weapon AND it acts as my implement. Maybe I should stop arguing against this...

 

[KenHood]

I'm sorry KenHood, but you want to have your cake and eat it too. The feats ,as is, are stronger than your normal feats JUST like the other multiclass feats are [a skill AND an encounter power]. As such, you might as well propose dropping the multiclass tag all together since they are just 'normal heroic feats'. It makes as much sense.

Perhaps it makes as much sense to you, but obviously I disagree.

To remind folks of the original proposal: I want to turn Weapon Training Feats into regular feats, not multi-class feats.

 

[elecgraystone]

You still have feats that are more powerful than they should be. If we just look at your first post, you'd have superior weapon feats and the training feat and both cost the same. You don't see the parallel between that and the multiclass feats?
Skill training [add trained skill] -> Pact initiate [Add trained skill AND encounter power]
Superior weapon [add weapon prof] -> Weapon training [add prof AND extra's]

What would you say if I'd propose dropping multiclass from the starting multiclass feats? Why should I only be able to pick only one even though the feat is clearly better than a normal heroic feat?

As I said above, I'm all for making some of the base weapons martial do to their non-suprerior nature. However, to change the training feats to normal heroic feats, you'd have to nerf them.

Superior ranged weapons:
hand crossbow: +2, d6, 10/20, free reload
Blowgun: +3, d4, 10/20, free reload, high crit, small

The blowgun training feat is clearly better as is. Unless you're a drow, who'd pick the crossbow? You'd need to drop a +1 prof or the high crit to make it a balanced pick.

 

[KenHood]

You don't see the parallel between that and the multiclass feats?

Isn't it obvious that I don't? You state an argument, I say I don't agree, and you state the argument again. Can't you understand that you've failed to convince me and let it be?

What would you say if I'd propose dropping multiclass from the starting multiclass feats? Why should I only be able to pick only one even though the feat is clearly better than a normal heroic feat?

That's not the issue, and it's a false argument because it is founded on a difference in kind. For example, were I to say that I would not permit you to drop multi-class from a multi-class feat, you would state something along the lines of "Ah! See, you don't think it's appropriate to let a character take as many multi-class feats as he wishes, therefore it is equally inappropriate to permit a character to take as many weapon training feats as he wishes."

A weapon training feat is designated multi-class as a sort of 'keyword', but that does not make it the same thing as a true multi-class feat. 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.)

So, please, do not attempt to obscure my proposal with a comparison between objects of different types.

Superior ranged weapons:
hand crossbow: +2, d6, 10/20, free reload
Blowgun: +3, d4, 10/20, free reload, high crit, small

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.

---

Granted, I do believe that the article's rules for certain weapons is a little out of line with their capabilities in real life.

I wouldn't put 1d4 damage on a whip--maybe 1 point. Whenever I've been hit with them, they leave a nasty welt and maybe a scratch if they hit bare flesh. The type of whips that people consider lacerating to the bone, such as the cat of nine tails, tend to have glass or hooks embedded in the end. Those usually don't crack, because they don't have the 'popper' on the tip. So, that kind would inflict damage, but not distract an opponent.

A small blowgun would probably only inflict 1 point of damage as well. Typically, blowgun darts are used as a conveyance of poison. The dart itself doesn't kill the target (though you can kill small game, like a pigeon or rat with a well-placed blowgun dart). Also, the range of the blowgun is...uhm...optimistic. A blowgun's effective range tends to fit a ratio of 1 foot of distance per 1 inch of blowgun length. If the blowgun is a small weapon, comparable in length to a dagger--say one foot long--then that blowgun would have an effective range of about 12 feet. After that, the force of the needle drops off radically.

'Course, I'm one of those people that doesn't believe you should have different statistics for dagger and kukri, katana and bastard sword, long sword and broadsword, full-blade and two-handed sword.

As regards the double-weapons and spiked chain, I don't think it would 'break the game' for us to have them in L4E, though I do believe double-weapons to be a bit on the silly side, and the spiked chain is just plain crazy, about as loopy as the urumi, which is a self-inflicted injury waiting to happen. (However, I'm opposed to nerfing rules and content as a general practice. I think our DM's will prevent abuse, and I don't believe our players are out to take advantage of the system. Also, on the timescale and pace of PbP games, I don't see characters getting that much opportunity to expend multiple weapon proficiencies and create an uber-character. After about a year, we've got one level 4 character, and that's only because the player is an extremely active DM.)

Were I left to my druthers, I would go one step further and propose an elimination of weapon proficiencies in general, though I doubt anyone would support me because the majority of our understanding of weapons is based on sport, literature, or movies, not on actual usage. The general principles of melee weapons breaks down into short stick, middle stick, long stick, and cord. A knife is short stick with an edge. A mace is a middle-sized stick with a heavy weight on one end. A sword is a middle stick with an edge. And so forth. The basic movements associated with a stick apply to its edged and weighted cousins. And to strip it down even further, if you can understand the principles of wielding a simple, middle-sized stick (say 3 or 4 feet long), you can wield pretty much anything you pick up.

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

I just thought of a perfectly wonderful combo for my warlock if KenHood's proposal goes through. Get a mage weapon-spiked chain, then I get the arcane implement feat from the arcane. For 1 feat and 1 2nd level item I have a +3 prof flail, light blade, offhand, reach 2d4 weapon AND it acts as my implement. Maybe I should stop arguing against this...

Much to my regret, this doesn't work. The problem is that while the chain can be wielded as a light blade, there's no way it could be enchanted as one*. So you can't put Mage Weapon on it. Also. you have to be able to use it as a light blade, which requires the Weapon Training feat, in order to use it as an implement with Arcane Implement (light blades). So you need at least two feats, but at least then it means you can use whatever enchantment you want. Provided that the martial class restriction is removed from Weapon Training. If not, then you need to use another feat to multi-class into somethin martial, which requires some variant of this proposal to pass. If it doesn't, then, well, no Spiked Chain implement for you.

I know, I'm sad too.

*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. Would the enchantment fall off/become nullified? I don't think you could put the enchantment on in the first place, because Training doesn't make the chain a light blade, it just means you can use it like one.

 

[garyh]

After about a year, we've got one level 4 character, and that's only because the player is an extremely active DM.

"That, and me mates and I chased off a dragon! No one else in the whole of tha' Transitive Isles done as much!"