Melee Weapon Mastery

[zoroaster100]

Does the +2 on attacks and +2 on damage from the Melee Weapon Mastery feat (Player's Handbook 2) stack with Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feat bonuses to attack and damage when using the appropriate weapon?

 

[Legildur]

Seems that it does. There has been some debate on these boards as to whether that was the intent. As written, it certainly does.

 

[Turiann]

Imo it does not stack

In the recapitulative table page 72 of the PHBII the Benefit from Melee Weapon Mastery is stated exactly in those terms:
"Gain Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization benefits with multple weapons"

In the full descriptor page 81 you can read:
".... Your training with one specific weapon now EXTENDS to other weapons of a similar sort..."

Quite clearly, considering both the short description stating it's a Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec., and the description stating it is an extension, and not an addition, there is no doubt, the feat does not give you an additional bonus to attack and damage, it justs lets you extend WF and WS to a wider category of weapons.

The discussion stem from another passage in the descriptor that says "...when using any melee weapon that has that damage type you selected, you gain a +2 bonus on attack rolls and a +2 bonus on damage rolls."
The "+2 bonus on attack rolls" is obviously a typo, and should read "+1 bonus..." as per Weapon Focus skill.

This is not to say that a skill that would add +2 attack and damage rolls over WF and WS would be a bad thing, just in this instance, there is no doubt to me as to what the skill does.

 

[Legildur]

Welcome to the boards Turiann.

Your take on the feat is interesting as I hadn't seen anyone else speculate that the '+2 bonus on attack rolls' as a typo. I reckon you might be on to something there.

Unfortunately, WotC are very specific that the text overrides the table when trying to resolve a conflict between the two.

You could try advising WotC of the possible error and see if they correct it through errata.

Personally, I believe that the feat originally worked as in the short description in the table, but that the text was modified after playtesting/review to the +2/+2 version (and they neglected to update the table entry).

I think it was Andy Collins (on his web site) [but I could be wrong about this] who said that the feats in PHB II were intended to be more powerful in general than those found in the PHB. The end result of the text would certainly support that.

This has been discussed a few times already and a quick search would probably find the threads.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think it was Andy Collins (on his web site) [but I could be wrong about this] who said that the feats in PHB II were intended to be more powerful in general than those found in the PHB. The end result of the text would certainly support that.

I am not certain, but wasn't he saying more that the PHB II feats were supposed to be as powerful and "basic" as the PHB feats, unlike the feats of the most splat books, which are usually only useful for very specific character concepts?

 

[zoroaster100]

Can someone point me to one of the threads where this has previously been discussed, by any chance? A link would be a great boon.