Dwarven Weapon Training and Superior Weapons

[boar]

The argument that DWT is poorly designed because it grants "unlimited feats" is, frankly, nuts. It ignores the fact that the "extra" feats "granted" by DWT are mutually exclusive. At best, these "extra feats" can provide flavor (dual wielding different weapons) or avoid a minor inconvenience (you find a new DWT weapon that's better than your current one and don't have to wait for retraining). The "unlimited feats" argument is a blatant case of forming an opinion first and then searching for evidence to justify it after the fact. DWT doesn't grant extra feats the way that the human racial bonus grants an extra feat. Using language that implies it gives "extra feats" in any way is intellectually dishonest, since those feats have no functional effect on the character.

A better way to look at DWT is to consider how it affects race selection for a particular class. Let's say I'm choosing between human and dwarf for my execution axe fighter. Here are the options I'm weighing:

Human, 20 STR, WP Execution Axe: 1d12 + 5
Dwarf, 18 STR, DWT: 1d12 + 6

The dwarf has +1 damage thanks to DWT. The dwarf also gets two powerful combat abilities, better wisdom, more hitpoints, and an extra healing surge. The human gets a bonus feat (probably the amazing Action Surge) and +1 NAD, and don't forget that with his 20 STR the human is at +1 to hit. It's by no means a trivial choice.

DWT detractors are also overlooking the somewhat obvious fact that DWT forces you to use axes or hammers. Axes and hammers are good for damage, but some people (justifiably) prioritize accuracy over damage. The human player in the above comparison could forgo executioner axes and get WP: Fullblade instead. Now he's at +2 to hit compared to the dwarf. I'm not saying this flexibility makes the human better than the dwarf -- the dwarf does have a lot going for him -- but again, the choice is by no means trivial. Even two players who both want "the most powerful character" could choose differently. This, to me, suggests that DWT is in fact not poorly designed, and actually quite the opposite.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, with your bonus feat, you could take weapon focus ...
Humans are awesome.

 

[keterys]

The argument that DWT is poorly designed because it grants "unlimited feats" is, frankly, nuts.

Absolutely - it doesn't give unlimited feats at all. Nifft making a flawed argument there (unlimited feats) doesn't magically make the feat well designed, though

DWT detractors are also overlooking

Many of the people objecting to the detractors are missing the part where those arguing against DWT aren't necessarily asking that it be made worse. There's no amount of damage comparisons that will help that fact. Heck, I think the feat should be decidedly better in epic tier than it is now.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, one reason DWT's strong in heroic and meh in paragon:
Dwarves are weaker as far as str-based builds go, without feats such as hammer rhythm.
So DWT gets you a bit of a boost in heroic until your combo matures.

 

[keterys]

You know, dwarves getting heroic access to a hammer rhythm equivalent would have been pretty interesting too. Less good if it applies to axes and they can still get the other cool axe stuff, though.

But, that would have been a nice way to make Con work for them, from the beginning.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Hmm. One thing I wanted to do was make clerics a Wis primary class, so all their weapon powers would be something like "Attack: Wis vs AC." For example, Righteous Brand would be Wis vs AC, 1d[W] damage, target ally gets a bonus to his foe equal to Str mod.

Anyway, this would naturally make dwarves into very good clerics by virtue of their +2 Wis. But dwarf clerics would be better at hitting than their fighter counterparts, and they would likely do more damage, especially with DWT. And this is extra scary with things like mordenkrads or executioner's axes. I may have to mull this over some ...

 

[Mistwell]

Fair - what if your left shoe is a cowboy boot and your right shoe is a sandal? That's roughly how I feel about this feat - it gives the wrong things in the wrong way. It's amazing at heroic tier, but gets steadily worse as you get higher level. It gives unbound superior weapons, which isn't at all necessary to encourage its goal, etc.

Well since we are talking about feelings, I feel you are overreacting. It's not like a sandal to a cowboy boot. Relative to other racial feats, it's in the upper half, but not even the best feat. It's not "amazing", it's just solidly good (like most racial feats). It gives a slight boost over a non-dwarf, much like other racial feats give to their race.

And almost all feats get steadily worse at higher levels.

As for something being not necessary - it only matters if it has a material impact on the game. It again sounds like you are seeking perfection rather than simply rules that function fine.

I care about a lot of things that don't break the game, yet still make it seem a lesser game to me

Why? How is it a "lesser" game to you simply because it does not achieve perfection while functioning fine?

 

[keterys]

Relative to other racial feats, it's in the upper half, but not even the best feat.

Err, so? As I've already said, my problem is with the way the feat functions, not with its balance necessarily.

And almost all feats get steadily worse at higher levels.

Such as... which?

that function fine.

I don't believe that it functions fine. I think that it was clearly wrong with the PHB and shortly thereafter AV illustrated how it wasn't fine. Games that use or don't use AV superior weapons now materially impact on the balance of dwarves. Yay. Same with other future products, though probably to a lesser extent.

It's not breaking the game, certainly. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

[Mistwell]

Err, so? As I've already said, my problem is with the way the feat functions, not with its balance necessarily....it wasn't fine. Games that use or don't use AV superior weapons now materially impact on the balance of dwarves.

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

 

[Truename]

I'm confused. The complaint is about DWT giving access to all superior hammers and axes, whereas a non-dwarf has to use a feat to get access to ONE superior weapon? Is that correct?

If that's the complaint, I don't understand it. As far as I can tell, superior weapons are balanced against each other: you either get an extra point of damage (on average), an extra +1 to attack, or something a bit more esoteric. So what does it matter if you have access to one or many superior weapons? Why is that unbalanced?

The "superior weapon" or "entire weapon group" distinction seems like a flavor issue to me: like so many other feats, it boils down to "spend a feat, get +1 damage (or attack)."

I haven't studied all the feats as much as the rest of you have, so I'm probably missing something. What is it?