Dwarven Weapon Training and Adventurer's Vault Weapons

[Grimgrin]

Thanks guys. I was a bit perplexed when I put the two books together, as the feat seemed a bit overpowered. It certainly beats Elven Precision as far as racial feats go. If the design goal with 4E was to make it so there were no "no-brainer" choices, then giving superior proficiencies is probably a mistake. I would never make a dwarf who didn't take it. I don't think it will break a game, as it's only 1.5 to 2 points difference in average damage, but it's certainly an easy feat to choose.

That's my problem with the feat, it is so beneficial it becomes a must-have. All dwarves end up using craghammers or waraxes which I find boring, even dwarven warlocks will get Pact Hammers.

 

[Pseudonym]

Nothing in the feat excludes superior weapons.

I think the designers realized something was up because in the PHB2 racial feats like Goliath Greatweapon it specifically states simple and martial. Not sure why the PHB feats never got clarified in an errata. *shrug*

 

[DracoSuave]

I think the designers realized something was up because in the PHB2 racial feats like Goliath Greatweapon it specifically states simple and martial. Not sure why the PHB feats never got clarified in an errata. *shrug*

The PHB feats start at 2, go up to 2 in paragon, and then cap at 2.

Goliath Greatweapon starts at 2, goes up to 3, and caps at 4.

DWT and ES have this whole 'Doesn't scale and becomes worse than Weapon Focus' thing going on. Feats that become obsolete aren't broken.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

That's my problem with the feat, it is so beneficial it becomes a must-have. All dwarves end up using craghammers or waraxes which I find boring, even dwarven warlocks will get Pact Hammers.

If your damage depends on hitting things over the head, you're already probably going to get *a* Superior Weapon, may as well make it an axe or hammer and be more dwarfy. Proficiency on the various superior weapons really isn't that big a deal because you're unlikely to actually switch between, say, a craghammer or a mordenkrad often, and even then it'll be a pain to have them both decent.

Does suck if your dwarf doesn't want to use an axe or hammer, but them's the breaks.

Also, note that the damage falls off once you hit epic. Of course, I hear most people don't go to epic levels, but still, even then, it just saves one feat. It's not that big a deal.

I think the designers realized something was up because in the PHB2 racial feats like Goliath Greatweapon it specifically states simple and martial. Not sure why the PHB feats never got clarified in an errata. *shrug*

Yup. On the other hand, they get more total damage out of their feat, enough to make up for the one point extra average [w] damage they're losing by not having a superior weapon, so long as it's a 1[w] power.

Of course, this also falls by the wayside at epic levels, where that extra 1 point per [w] die starts really adding up.

Brad

 

[Obryn]

Has anyone realized how deep this thread necro is?

Anyway, in effect DWP is about where a racial feat should be, IMO - worth somewhere around 1.5 to 2 feats. In this case it's Weapon Focus plus Superior Weapon, with a +1 damage perk at low levels and a damage penalty at high levels.

It's not game-breaking; it just saves a feat they'd probably be spending anyway.

-O

 

[keterys]

I think my objection to it is more an objection to superior weapons in general and unfettered access to any that anyone might make ever. I'd rather it was +2/+3/+4 with military axes and hammers.

 

[Lord Ernie]

I think my objection to it is more an objection to superior weapons in general and unfettered access to any that anyone might make ever. I'd rather it was +2/+3/+4 with military axes and hammers.

If that's your main fear, introduce whatever hammer or axe you wish, and remodel the feat to +2 damage and proficiency with military axes and hammers, and the craghammer, mordenkrad, waraxe and execution axe. Problem solved. Flavourwise, I'd at least keep the mordenkrad/craghammer proficiency, since these are explicitly called dwarven weapons.

 

[Walking Dad]

I think my objection to it is more an objection to superior weapons in general and unfettered access to any that anyone might make ever. ...

Not a good point. Superior Weapon Proficiency also gives access to any single Superior Weapon they will ever do and you can even choose non-axes and hammers. As already pointed out, there is not a that great benefit to be proficient in many different weapons.

In your example, having access to all martial weapons would be better than/equal to have access to one Superior Weapon. In practice, I would always choose one superior I can choose and simple weapons over all simple and all martial weapons.

 

[Walking Dad]

If that's your main fear, introduce whatever hammer or axe you wish, and remodel the feat to +2 damage and proficiency with military axes and hammers, and the craghammer, mordenkrad, waraxe and execution axe. Problem solved. Flavourwise, I'd at least keep the mordenkrad/craghammer proficiency, since these are explicitly called dwarven weapons.

I would also keep the waraxe, as it was called 'Dwarven Waraxe' in 3.x.

 

[Pseudonym]

Has anyone realized how deep this thread necro is?

I noticed but, meh. *shrug*

I don't mind thread necromancy so much if the alternative is a dozen threads asking the same question.