things i like/dislike about PHB2 - a sort of review

[DracoSuave]

My question was: Does the +2 refer to the weapon type used (Two Handed Melee Weapons) or to the Weapon Types Given proficiency through the feat?
It seems kinda lame that a Goliath who decides to take this feat and Weapon Proficiency (Mordenkrad) deals less minimun damage than a Goliath wielding a Warhammer. Currently i have it set so the bonus applies to all Two-Handed Melee Weapons.

Most melee characters are Str-based, goliaths are strength based. As well, while other weapon training feats -do- add to superior weapons, this one adds at paragon and epic levels, whereas the other feats become invalidated by Weapon Focus.

 

[Arivendel]

Most melee characters are Str-based, goliaths are strength based. As well, while other weapon training feats -do- add to superior weapons, this one adds at paragon and epic levels, whereas the other feats become invalidated by Weapon Focus.

So is this a no? I really cant tell what you are trying to point at here, it seems like you are trying to say the feat only applies the +2 feat bonus to damage to the simple and military two handed weapons you gained proficiency off through this feat, but i cant be sure.

 

[Reigan]

It's important these feats exists to allow players to plug weaknesses in their characters if they want to, its not just all about buffing what you're already good at.

I think the 4e approach of narrowing class focus and unifyied mechanics is paying off now in providing new and interesting classes that don't come with a whole load of new rules that you have to persuade your dm to learn.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think the 4e approach of narrowing class focus and unifyied mechanics is paying off now in providing new and interesting classes that don't come with a whole load of new rules that you have to persuade your dm to learn.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what 4e is doing though? Narrowing class focus, sure, but every single class has its own huge batch of rules (the pages of powers), each of which has its own distinctive wrinkle. There are much more rules for the DM to learn.

And unified mechanics has been ditched in favour of 'exception based design' which means that you can't necessarily rely upon anything being consistent!

The one element of consistency is the assumed 'to hit' chance of PCs and monsters as you go up levels... but apparently even that isn't right as they needed to introduce feats to fix gaps at paragon and epic levels...

Cheers

 

[Reigan]

Isn't that the exact opposite of what 4e is doing though? Narrowing class focus, sure, but every single class has its own huge batch of rules (the pages of powers), each of which has its own distinctive wrinkle. There are much more rules for the DM to learn.

And unified mechanics has been ditched in favour of 'exception based design' which means that you can't necessarily rely upon anything being consistent!

The one element of consistency is the assumed 'to hit' chance of PCs and monsters as you go up levels... but apparently even that isn't right as they needed to introduce feats to fix gaps at paragon and epic levels...

Cheers

And those exceptions are all on your character sheet or power cards printed out in front of you, you don't have to keep looking stuff up in books all the time now. The core mechanics supporting the exceptions are the same, a druid stunning someone uses the same exception mechanic as a fighter. I don't expect to see a class that doesn't use powers and the same progression as you have now any time soon.

If only 3e core math was as easy to fix as publishing a couple of feats.

 

[Plane Sailing]

And those exceptions are all on your character sheet or power cards printed out in front of you, you don't have to keep looking stuff up in books all the time now.

But that doesn't help the DM, and your original point was that "classes that don't come with a whole load of new rules that you have to persuade your dm to learn. "

But he does need to learn them, he needs to understand them if he is going to make adventures which properly challenge PCs and give people the chance to shine too.

I wouldn't want to play a game where the DM isn't expected to know how all the rules work - it's pretty hard for him to be the arbiter of the game if he doesn't know how it works.

Cheers

 

[ferratus]

I wouldn't want to play a game where the DM isn't expected to know how all the rules work - it's pretty hard for him to be the arbiter of the game if he doesn't know how it works.

Well, most of the powers work on the same template. They do damage and possibly a list of effects.

For the exceptions, or to double check what exactly the damage/effect is, you do what you always did with wizard spells. You look them up in the book.

If you have power cards, you can just hand it to the DM to look at.

 

[Hussar]

But that doesn't help the DM, and your original point was that "classes that don't come with a whole load of new rules that you have to persuade your dm to learn. "

But he does need to learn them, he needs to understand them if he is going to make adventures which properly challenge PCs and give people the chance to shine too.

I wouldn't want to play a game where the DM isn't expected to know how all the rules work - it's pretty hard for him to be the arbiter of the game if he doesn't know how it works.

Cheers

You do have a good point here. If you look at the Penny Arcade podcasts, you can see the players making all sorts of mistakes and the DM isn't catching them at all. I can understand with Wil Wheaton's character because it was very new and it's possible that the DM (I want to say Chris Perkins, but, I'm not sure) actually doesn't know how the class works.

I think 4e really hands a lot of that sort of oversight to the players. The players have to be responsible for the mechanics of their character to a greater degree than earlier editions. Hang on, that's not quite right.

Some classes require more oversight from the player than those classes required in earlier editions. Fighter is a pretty good example. Other than at level up, you could ignore most of the rules for a 3e fighter in the day to day play. They only changed at very specific times. A 4e fighter, by virtue of the powers, has many more knobs and levers to play with than the 3e fighter did.

Multiply this by the four other players at the table and the DM simply cannot keep track of the rules for every player.

I don't think 4e has made a DM's life easier in this respect. A number of classes are much more complicated than they used to be.

Where it has made a DM's life easier is in the standardization. You no longer have weird effects (or spells that come with their own effects table) that come out of left field. No more Whelm spells that do subdual damage (or the Shadowcaster's shadowbolt that does that all the time), or color spray that has its own effects table.

I think it's a net wash in the end. The non-casters got a lot more complicated and the casters got less.

 

[evilbob]

Goliath Greatweapon Prowess says:
"You gain Proficiency with all simple and military two-handed melee weapons and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with such weapons"
My question was: Does the +2 refer to the weapon type used (Two Handed Melee Weapons) or to the Weapon Types Given proficiency through the feat?
It seems kinda lame that a Goliath who decides to take this feat and Weapon Proficiency (Mordenkrad) deals less minimun damage than a Goliath wielding a Warhammer. Currently i have it set so the bonus applies to all Two-Handed Melee Weapons.

Since you still seem to have questions about this feat, I'll give you my interpretation: yes, it applies only to "such weapons" - i.e. "all simple and military two-handed melee weapons" that you gain a proficiency with using this feat.

In other words, yes: if you are a melee character who already has these proficiencies and tends to only use one group of weapon, this feat is strictly better than Weapon Focus at level 1, the same at level 11, and worse at level 21. You should retrain at level 21 to Weapon Focus (whatever you're using).

And yes, that means it does not apply to superior weapons. But don't feel too bad: first, this feat isn't useful for melee types after level 20 anyway, as above. Just take Weapon Focus if you're also using a superior weapon, and all you're losing is 1 damage for 10 levels.

Second, to address your specific example, superior weapons that grant Brutal 1 aren't useful after about level 18, thanks to the Gauntlets of Destruction. Once you get those, forget a mordenkrad and go back to a maul, cause your hand-slot item just gave you better-than-a-feat.

 

[Obryn]

In other words, yes: if you are a melee character who already has these proficiencies and tends to only use one group of weapon, this feat is strictly better than Weapon Focus at level 1, the same at level 11, and worse at level 21. You should retrain at level 21 to Weapon Focus (whatever you're using).

The feat is +2/+3/+4, for damage, depending on tier. It's strictly better than weapon focus right down the line, but limited to Simple & Martial Weapons. Well, and Goliaths. I kinda like it, but I don't know that I could give up my superior weapons for it.

-O