Does everyone take Superior Weapon Proficiencies?

[nittanytbone]

I am playing a protecting paladin and have not seen the need for Bastard Sword Prof or Weapon Focus. My role isn't to do damage; its to mark the right foe and absorb a lot of attacks. Most of my damage comes from making monsters defy my mark and take a heap of Radiant. Plus, many of my encounter and daily powers come from implements, so the extra point of damage doesn't come into play when it is really needed.

 

[yesnomu]

My Swordmage took Bastard Sword, and my Barbarian took Mordenkrad (and loves it, even in heroic-- he'll adore it in Paragon when he takes Hammer Rhythm). But my fellow party members haven't taken anything special, so far.

I really like superior weapons, and wish there was some kind of implement equivalent. Implement wielders are really getting the short ends of the stick so far in this edition, I hope Arcane Power/Divine Power help make up ground.

 

[Eldorian]

I really like superior weapons, and wish there was some kind of implement equivalent. Implement wielders are really getting the short ends of the stick so far in this edition, I hope Arcane Power/Divine Power help make up ground.

Yah, what's up with the annoying requirements on the weapon focus equivalents for implement wielders? I was thinking of making a Dark pact warlock with the necrotic/psychic damage feat but the 13 con/wis is just annoying.

 

[RefinedBean]

I try to take it for weapon-based strikers myself, since I'd say they benefit the most (although defenders are pretty close).

 

[Mengu]

I try to take it for weapon-based strikers myself, since I'd say they benefit the most (although defenders are pretty close).

Indeed, Bastard Sword or Greatbow makes a significant difference for the ranger, since you want as big a die as possible with twin strike.

 

[chitzk0i]

In one game I'm in, several players won't be here next session, so both remaining players will bring in another character. I normally run a human barbarian and the DM and I put together a Tiefling resourceful warlord for me. (Infernal Strategist is awesome! +Int to damage for me and my flanking buddy? Thanks!) He wound up using a Grasping Tratnyr from the AV. The warlord can throw it at a distant enemy, pull them adjacent, and then the barbarian can Pressing Strike into flanking position. My DM ruled that the Tratnyr as printed was just too useless, so he said it's only range 5/10 but +3 proficiency.

We were on such an optimizing jag that we tinkered with my barbarian, too. He switched from a greatsword to a greatspear and picked up Rain of Blows (since he already has a fighter PP). Once I'm flanking, each attack will be for 1d10+15, plus extra for Howling Strike!

Before this, no one in our group used a superior weapon...

 

[Starglim]

I haven't seen it. Our group has one Swordmage with a greatbow out of five characters created after Adventurer's Vault came out - no apparent interest in bastard swords. I've played three martial characters and always found a better use for a feat.

Agreed that Toughness is amazingly better though.

 

[the Jester]

I've got eight players, and we've had 10 pcs so far, and not one of them has had a superior weapon.

Shrug. You tell me.

 

[evilgenius8000]

Yes, a lot of the people I play with have used superior weapons. I don't think it means they're broken -- just an easy 1st level feat. As for the bastard sword, my swordmage skipped it in favor of the khopesh to have his pick of the best axe and sword feats.

 

[Thundershield]

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.

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...)

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.

While you're fully in your right to do that with your campaign, and it makes sense, it's not quite how it works in 4E.

You can actually "suck" the craftsmanship out of a weapon or armor and "pour" it into another. Many special materials, such as Mithral or Adamantine or even Githyanki Silver, are now "enchantments" you can simply move from one item to another with the Transfer Enchantment ritual.

That's actually a nice way of letting a player keep his ancestral weapon, since he can just have new enchantments transferred onto it, thus never actually outgrowing it. And he can even get these enchantments from weapons that aren't necessarily the exact same type of weapon as his family heirloom.

That said, I'm certainly not against alternate ways of handling magic items. Weapons of Legacy for 3.5 seemed incredibly promising at first, and the idea of weapons that can somehow level up with the players is still something I'm looking for good mechanics for. So far, the best I've seen in that regard is the new rules for artifacts, but giving everybody an artifact every game is... probably not a good idea.

But I digress... Back on topic.