Dwarven Weapon Training and Superior Weapons

[DrSpunj]

Why do dwarves automatically get proficiency with Orc Axesmashers and Tribal Hawkaxes and Gnoll Flindhammers?

Reading this I immediately rationalized it with the following:

Given dwarves' extensive training with various axes & hammers culturally, they very quickly figure out how make good use of most any other axe or hammer they come across. Some dwarves have even made a study of similar weapons used by their racial enemies, so in the midst of battle they can rearm themselves with a fallen enemies axe or hammer if the need arises.

I can see the points being raised on both sides here and wish the racial feats were all useful through all 3 tiers of play so there wasn't a built-in incentive to swap out DWT at Epic levels. That doesn't build a good story in my book. OTOH, my group is at 2nd level so I'm not focusing in on this as a major problem right now.

 

[Puggins]

But it would make you unhappy if he'd spent a weapon proficiency feat to use that weapon instead, like a human or elf or orc or whatever?

He did spend a weapon proficiency feat- Dwarven weapon Training is a weapon proficiency feat that grants dwarves some advantages with a specific class of weapon, but it's a weapon proficiency feat nonetheless.

An axe is a fairly straightforward weapon, and a fighter already knows how to use all the different basic axes as well as all the different swords, spears, polearms and so forth. Such a variety of weapon knowledge is far more implausible than Dwarven Weapon Proficiency, which deals with a single class of weapon.

I don't see this as bad design at all. If you changed the feat to read:

Choose any one axe weapon. You are proficient with that weapon, and you gain a +2 feat bonus to damage to attacks using that weapon.

Would there be any clear, discernible difference in play? No, in the vast, vast majority of cases the only functional difference would be a need to retrain the feat once you got a new kind of superior axe- hardly a frequent occurrence.

Given the similar performance between the stated feat and the one in the PHB, the designers chose to go with the more encompassing version that is simpler to read and simpler to annotate on a character sheet. That's a perfectly valid design decision.

 

[keterys]

Reading this I immediately rationalized it with the following:

Rationalize
1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a: to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

It certainly works to make an excuse or explain away why the decision was made... but that doesn't make it a good decision in the first place. Would dwarves have been unduly harmed by a version of the feat that didn't include superior weapons? Clearly not, as witnessed by the PHB. Is there a notable balance difference between a dwarf in a group that allows AV superior weapons and one that does not? Yes. Is that a preferable situation? No. Etc.

Obviously, it gives dwarves toys to play with and people like toys, but dwarves would have been fine spending a feat to use the toys same as anyone else (not like bastard sword didn't gets its fair share of feat expenditures, for instance). Disallowing it would potentially "nerf" some builds, and that's a good reason for players of those builds to not like it... but that doesn't make it a good idea. From a design standpoint, though, is really the worst case. But oh well, some people like it, some people don't.

 

[keterys]

He did spend a weapon proficiency feat- Dwarven weapon Training is a weapon proficiency feat that grants dwarves some advantages with a specific class of weapon, but it's a weapon proficiency feat nonetheless.

Perhaps I should have capitalized Weapon Proficiency, then. DWT is not Weapon Proficiency anymore than Alertness is Skill Focus (Perception).

 

[DracoSuave]

Would DWT be broken with a minotaur, or genasi, or other Strength-based race? Yes.

Are Dwarves a strength based race? No.


Which is stronger? +5 to hit for 2d6+5 brutal 1, or +6 to hit for 2d6+4 brutal 1?

Do the math. Seriously, DO the math.

Assuming the latter is based on the 50% hit chance, then we can examine the expected damage output over twenty rounds.

Dwarf: 8(14)+17 = 112+17=129.
Str-based: 9(13)+16 = 117+16=133.

The dwarf with DWT and Mordenkrad does 129 damage over 20 attacks, a strength based character with Weapon Proficiency Mordenkrad does 133 damage over 20 attacks

Divide both sides by 20 to get DPR, if that's more your speed.

129<133.

Therefore DWT is not more powerful than Str-based race+WP.


Any argument about which does more damage without actual examination of the damage is null-and-void. And the only determination for brokenness with these feats is damage.

 

[Obryn]

But it would make you unhappy if he'd spent a weapon proficiency feat to use that weapon instead, like a human or elf or orc or whatever?

It depends on if we're talking Heroic, Paragon, or Epic tiers, so I could compare it to Weapon Focus.

For a fighter or paladin, it's only superior to WF at Heroic tier if it doesn't grant the dwarf additional proficiency.

Put simply, I think racial feats should be beefier than non-racial feats.

Would it also make you unhappy if he were instead using a maul or greataxe, because those aren't dwarfy weapons anymore after AV?

Not particularly? I mean, it's absolutely clear that DWT is worth more after AV than before. But if DracoSuave's math pans out (and I haven't checked his work), this more or less brings dwarven fighters up to par, rather than above par.

-O

 

[DracoSuave]

I mean, it's absolutely clear that DWT is worth more after AV than before.

I honestly believe they took Dwarves into consideration when they made AV.

 

[keterys]

Therefore DWT is not more powerful than Str-based race+WP. Any argument about which does more damage without actual examination of the damage is null-and-void. And the only determination for brokenness with these feats is damage.

Just so we're clear... were you going to include a comparison of '+2 Con+Dwarven Durability' vs 'Nothing', so that both sides of the equation were square?

Or possibly compare the defense capabilities of Stand Your Ground vs Goring Charge?

I suppose a feat for halfling fighter that let them do damage on par with a minotaur barbarian would be good too, since it clearly wasn't broken damage?

 

[DracoSuave]

Of course I wouldn't include comparisons of those things.... because this thread isn't about comparing those things. That's sort of an irrelevant argument to bring up.

But compare the offensive outlay of a Dwarven Fighter to a Dragonborn Fighter. No comparison, the Dragonborn Fighter wins. But the Dwarven Fighter has better defenses.

I never claimed the DWT Dwarf had offense -equal- to a +2 Str fighter. I claimed it had offense -less- than a +2 Str Fighter.

That's a much different argument.

 

[keterys]

Of course I wouldn't include comparisons of those things.... because this thread isn't about comparing those things. That's sort of an irrelevant argument to bring up.

But compare the offensive outlay of a Dwarven Fighter to a Dragonborn Fighter. No comparison, the Dragonborn Fighter wins. But the Dwarven Fighter has better defenses.

I never claimed the DWT Dwarf had offense -equal- to a +2 Str fighter. I claimed it had offense -less- than a +2 Str Fighter.

That's a much different argument.

So, just so we're clear... there's a race that should be more offensively capable (dragonborn) and another that is more defensively capable (dwarf), and we both agree this is fine.

Okay, good. Because it seemed almost like you were trying to justify DWT giving superior weapons because it almost caught the dwarf up to the dragonborn (but not quite), and that was somehow relevant and that +2 str races had anything to do with the feat. That their existence somehow even justified it.

Indeed, I imagine if they'd let minotaurs / bugbears keep oversized weapons, DWT might even have needed an improvement, so it did even more damage. Though, hmm, that doesn't seem relevant to the discussion at hand.