Does everyone take Superior Weapon Proficiencies?

[Skallgrim]

Huh! I can understand the rogue and wizard not caring (really, the Rogue is best off with a simple dagger).

Question, though - does the dwarf fighter use one of the Superior Weapons? He lucks out and gets proficiency in all the axes and hammers, so I'd be surprised if he didn't avail himself of one.

Also, is the Ranger looking into bastard swords?

-O

The dwarf is now using an Execution Axe, but he's been promiscuous in his use of weapons (waraxe, greataxe, throwing hammer). He took the feat for the damage bonus before Martial Power even came out, so it's not as if he took it to get access to Superior Weapons, though he is now using one.

The ranger is looking into bastard swords, but as both he and I have played GURPS, and at least one of us has wielded a bastard sword, the benefits in the game are clashing off the reality firmly fixed in our minds that bastard swords are way too damn big to wield in each hand! God help me if someone wants to wield a double flail or double axe. I wince just thinking about it.

To prevent my head from exploding, I may have to "re-skin" the bastard sword and introduce some awesome elven blade which has the same stats (maybe even removing versatile, as he'll NEVER use it as a two-weapon ranger anyway) and let him use that. It will work exactly the same, and it won't make my brain hurt.

 

[chitzk0i]

To prevent my head from exploding, I may have to "re-skin" the bastard sword and introduce some awesome elven blade which has the same stats (maybe even removing versatile, as he'll NEVER use it as a two-weapon ranger anyway) and let him use that. It will work exactly the same, and it won't make my brain hurt.

Just call 'em longswords.

 

[Ahglock]

I expect down the line people will take superior weapon, i don't expect to see many people take toughness. Most wont take it for the same reason I won't. I like feats that provide more active benefits instead of passive ones. Even if its a really cool passive benefit a few extra HP I don't really get to actively use. I occasionally get to say, cool I'm conscious or not bloodied because i took toughness, but I don't actively use it, it doe snot really open up new options.

Active feats fun, passive feats boring.

 

[King Nate]

When folks are asking for advice, it's one of the first ones I suggest.

Well, right there is the reason why everybody in your game has the feat. When players ask me which feat they should take I usually say something like, "They all have their pluses and minuses, it really depends on what you want your character to do. Tell me how you envision your character and I can recommend a few feats to accomplish that."

As a player my first level fighter/rogue with a short sword/shield has the +4 bonus to initiative feat. I want to be the first one charging into combat helping the rest of the party by doing my job as a fighter.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In my group now, 5/6 of them have superior weapons. 2 people use Bastard Swords (Swordmage & Warlord), 1 uses a Fullblade (Cleric), 1 uses a Greatbow (Ranger), and 1 uses a Craghammer (Fighter). The only one without is the party's Wizard.

It sounds as though Adventurers Vault has contributed towards this effect, since three of the four superior weapons are from there!

My game is PHB/DMG/MM only, and I'm not seeing any superior weapons yet (including dead guys the party has had two paladins, two fighters, three clerics, three warlords, a rogue, two rangers, three warlocks and two wizards so far!)

Possibly a function of power creep with AV?

 

[Mengu]

Possibly a function of power creep with AV?

Actually I think it's a general problem with feats. "Always on" feats are simply numerically better than "sometimes on" feats. Superior weapon proficiencies, much like weapon focus, are always on. Prior to AV, Weapon focus was one of the first feats for an archer ranger. Now, it's Weapon Focus and Great Bow, in whichever order they feel like getting them.

For instance, instead of a Bastard Sword doing 1d10 damage all the time, it would be better design if the Bastard sword did 1d8 damage all the time much like a longsword, but once per encounter could as a free action do 1d12 damage. So when you are using those encounter or daily powers that do 2[W]+ damage, you can flip it on to dish out some extra damage. This would make it more in tune with other feats.

Similarly if the toughness feat instead of granting 5 additional hit points, said "first time you are reduced to 0 hitpoints or below during any encounter, you are instead reduced to 1 hit point." This would still have the flavor of being tough, let you survive one extra blow, and be more in line with the "weaker" feats.

Sorry if this derails the thread a bit.

 

[Obryn]

Well, right there is the reason why everybody in your game has the feat. When players ask me which feat they should take I usually say something like, "They all have their pluses and minuses, it really depends on what you want your character to do. Tell me how you envision your character and I can recommend a few feats to accomplish that."

As a player my first level fighter/rogue with a short sword/shield has the +4 bonus to initiative feat. I want to be the first one charging into combat helping the rest of the party by doing my job as a fighter.

Erm, that's why I asked everyone if it was a popular feat in their campaigns, too. I know that's why my newest players are taking it. But the veteran players, and the ones on their second characters, are, too.

It sounds as though Adventurers Vault has contributed towards this effect, since three of the four superior weapons are from there!

My game is PHB/DMG/MM only, and I'm not seeing any superior weapons yet (including dead guys the party has had two paladins, two fighters, three clerics, three warlords, a rogue, two rangers, three warlocks and two wizards so far!)

Possibly a function of power creep with AV?

I don't think I'd call it power creep, per se. When I think power creep, I think of a new choice that's identical to the old choice, but superior in every way. (For example, there's a Level 1 Fighter Daily in Martial Power that's exactly like Brute Strike, only it also Marks the target for the rest of the battle on a hit.) Adding in more Superior Weapons just made it so hammer, axe, bow, spear, and flail folks could do what sword folks already could with the bastard sword.

I don't know that too many would pick it in a core-only game.

-O

 

[King Nate]

Erm, that's why I asked everyone if it was a popular feat in their campaigns, too. I know that's why my newest players are taking it. But the veteran players, and the ones on their second characters, are, too.

If they are on their second characters, then it sounds like the feat didn't help them too much with their first character, lol.

But to answer your question, no it is not a popular feat in my campaign.

The various Multiclass feats are the popular feats in my campaign and that is probably because I surprised everyone when I first made my character and choose the Multiclass feat. People trying to tell me that I can't multiclass at first level. I explained and showed them that I could and everyone now thinks multiclass is the greatest feat ever invented.

As their main DM, I influenced their choices as you also influence your player's choices as you directly stated. Your veterans may have also been influenced by you in previous games and to your play style as my veterans have adapted to my play style. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your play style as it is a popular play style, as you can tell by the number of post in this thread that agree with you.

However, if you try teaching methods to your new players that don't max/min, then somewhere down the line you'll start to see people building characters they want to roleplay and not characters that are only looking for the best bonus they can get. That's my two copper pieces.

 

[Obryn]

...I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your play style as it is a popular play style, as you can tell by the number of post in this thread that agree with you.

However, if you try teaching methods to your new players that don't max/min, then somewhere down the line you'll start to see people building characters they want to roleplay and not characters that are only looking for the best bonus they can get. That's my two copper pieces.

Huh. Thanks for the unwarranted assumptions about my players, my DMing style, and our game. I'll take "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle" for $500, Alex.

-O

 

[Doctor Proctor]

That's more or less how I feel, actually. To me, magic is not something you just pour into an item; it's integral to the item itself. You don't forge a normal sword and then turn it magic. The enchantment takes place as part of the forging, and alters the properties of the sword.

To put it in a real-world context, say you have a Damascus steel sword and a crude iron battle-axe. You can't suck the Damascus out of the sword and pour it into the battle-axe. I look on magical properties as being the same kind of thing.

While I realize you were trying to give an example, a Damascus blade would be better represented as some sort of Superior weapon. It would be what makes the difference between say, a Greatsword and a Fullbalde. Or a Waraxe and a Battleaxe.

Plus, how would you explain a Wizard enchanting their own items? A Wizard that takes a Battleaxe and enchants it to be +1 Flaming didn't craft the weapon...he just added an enchantment. He can also strip that enchantment away from said weapon. Why then, is it so wrong to be able to combine the two actions?

What I'm planning to do instead is give PCs books of magical lore and special ritual components that enable them to create magic items with particular abilities - for example, a lore-book explaining how to make a Thundering weapon, and enough dedicated components to create one such weapon. That allows them to make weapons that fit their needs, without grinding my DM gears. (It also gives me a nice little quest hook, if the lore-book calls for something like dragon blood in addition to the other components...)

That's fine if you want to do that, but that's not RAW. It's a houserule.

Also, in my games, "named" magic items tend to level up with the character - one of my PCs has a frost weapon whose numeric bonus scales with the level of the wielder. That way he doesn't have to get rid of his family's ancestral sword just because he's outgrown it, and I don't have to hand out an endless series of magic longswords to keep him adequately armed.

That's fine if you want to do that too. It's a good idea, and I would say that in that case it's perfectly fine to say that the magic is part of the weapon and can't be taken away. If the player later decides that they want a magic Bastard Sword they'll have to get rid of this weapon since the enchantment won't transfer. For normal weapons though, they're nowhere near as powerful, so what's the point in making it unduly difficult to move enchantments around?