Melee Weapon Mastery

[airwalkrr]

The idea behind it is that WotC thinks they had previously somewhat underpowered fighters, and they're trying to make up for it.

Then they released the Bo9S.

QFT

 

[Corsair]

QFT

If you are using the ToB, you are pretty much already admitting that you don't think the Fighter is up to snuff as the primary warrior-type in your campaigns. That is why the ToB exists, specifically to add power to the warrior-types should the DM choose to, as far as I can tell.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

If you are using the ToB, you are pretty much already admitting that you don't think the Fighter is up to snuff as the primary warrior-type in your campaigns. That is why the ToB exists, specifically to add power to the warrior-types should the DM choose to, as far as I can tell.

I just think it should be called out as such in the text. Like: "If you use this book, it's suggested that you just eauthanize the Fighters in your campaign gently and humanely. They'll thank you for it."

I'd probably rebuild the Fighter a bit by adding some maneuvers and such from the Bo9S and then cut the Warb0rken out.

But that's another thread for another time.

Reading the text, there's really no way to say that it DOESN'T stack ... it just doesn't really click, especially given the text in the table at the head of the chapter. And, as usual, the text in the actual FEAT always trumps the text in a table, and the text of the feat not only gives the fighter a bonus with all slashing weapons, but that bonus adds to their focus weapon.

It would, honestly, be dumb to require the fighter to have +1 Attack and +2 Damage with his FAVORED WEAPON and then give +2 Attack and +2 Damage with all other slashing weapons, but not his favored weapon. That means by taking the feat you suddenly use your focus weapon LESS SKILLFULLY than any other slashing weapon that exists. You focus in Longsword and take MWM and suddenly you're better off switching to a battleaxe or Falchion, even if you never use either of those weapons? Just doesn't make any sense at all.

--fje

 

[frankthedm]

Really? Can you show me where it says that? As I read the feat, the "intent" is ambiguous at best, and the effect is to add bonuses that, by all the rules, do indeed stack.

Read the description of the feat & the feat list. Both those locations state the feat lets you use weapon focus and specialization bonuses with other weapons. When you get to the actual effect of the feat, that is where the benefit is listed as giving all weapons of one type +2/+2. Because the faq and customer service are supposed to use effects over descriptions, their 'official' answer has to be 'use the rules text'. Any other answer from them would be out of their bounds. Only errata could say 'the description is correct'.

I think the effect as allowing multiple weapons to receive weapon specialization is a huge benefit, but I can see how some think that’s not enough in games where it is assumed you can buy or makes the fighter’s favored weapon easily.

I use the “weapon focus and specialization bonuses with other weapons” and if a fighter of 8th or higher level has the feat, he/she also gains Greater Weapon Focus as a bonus feat with that weapon group.

I say some folks are forgetting/ignoring a fighter is supposed to be versatile on the battlefield, not the greatest damage dealer. The barbarian trades away survivability for that capacity, or is at least supposed to (mithral fullplate, DMs who won’t kill PCs, power attack doing 2 for 1 with a two handed weapon, rage not ending when knocked out & Law vs.Chaos alignment axis being underplayed all reward the barbarian over the fighter). The ranger two weapon fights, the paladin does a spirited charge, the barbarian swings for damage; the fighter does all of those and more. Unfortunately, sometimes the system is unrewarding of versatility over focus. Notably how so many feats realistically fail against the Big Bad Hungry Monster.

Also Better mounts than the warhorse for those other than the Paladin, mount and druid are not always obvious selections. Handle animal can provide them, though not everyone realizes this.

 

[frankthedm]

It would, honestly, be dumb to require the fighter to have +1 Attack and +2 Damage with his FAVORED WEAPON and then give +2 Attack and +2 Damage with all other slashing weapons, but not his favored weapon.

That is increadably dumb. That is why the rules for stacking still allow the higher bonus to apply.

If the figher seems weak, 2 main things are:

Kill more barbarians.

Give out more heavy armor and tower shields in treasure hoards.

 

[kaomera]

If you are using the ToB, you are pretty much already admitting that you don't think the Fighter is up to snuff as the primary warrior-type in your campaigns. That is why the ToB exists, specifically to add power to the warrior-types should the DM choose to, as far as I can tell.

Well, either that or you're admitting that you still don't see a single power-balance issue with the Fighter as it stands and that allowing other classes that also specialize in melee combat and could reasonably be considered somewhat better in some situations doesn't seem like any kind of a problem, IMC.

YMMV, of course...

Back on topic, the Weapon Mastery feats seem like the logical extension of the Weapon Focus / Weapon Spec. tree. When I first read them, I didn't notice that the bonus was untyped (not that it would have mattered, since the bonuses from the other two feats are, anyway, but I wasn't thinking along those lines). Getting +2/+2 with a whole class of weapons is nice, but not spectacular at higher levels. +3/+4 with your favorite weapon (possibly +0/+10 with Power Attack) is really nice. It's almost worth putting off the high-end Barbarian class features for, but I think it's at best a tough call. For a Fighter with a two-handed melee or TWF build I think it's almost compulsory, which I admit is kind of a shame. If there where even more options for really good feats at that level, I'd be even happier than I am to see MWM.

 

[Nail]

I say some folks are forgetting/ignoring a fighter is supposed to be versatile on the battlefield, not the greatest damage dealer.

FWIW, I'm finding that giving the Ftr a bonus feat at every level does that: it adds extra versatility without necessarily making the Ftr the biggest damage dealer (the Bbn schtick).

As for the feat in question: I'm not sure how you can read the feat text without realizing the atk and dam bonuses stack with WF, GWF, WS, and GWS.

 

[frankthedm]

As for the feat in question: I'm not sure how you can read the feat text without realizing the atk and dam bonuses stack with WF, GWF, WS, and GWS.

It is not about 'realizing' that! Most folks agree that is exactly what the rules text of the feat does {+2/+2 stacks with WF & WS].

Some of us look at the rest of the text associated with the feat and feel the descriptive text is FAR more in line with an 8th level feat {+1/+2 is WF & WS].

Until wotc issues errata, the faq and customer service are supposed to say "use the rules text". That is the officlal default answer when description and rules collide.

 

[Nail]

It is not about 'realizing' that! Most folks agree that is exactly what the rules text of the feat does....

Oh? I thought that's what this thread was about! The OP seems to think so....

Some of us look at the rest of the text associated with the feat and feel the descriptive text is FAR more in line with an 8th level feat {+1/+2 is WF & WS].

You'll need to explain what you mean here. I'm not clear.

 

[frankthedm]

You'll need to explain what you mean here. I'm not clear.

PHB 2, Read the description of the feat & the feat list. Both those locations state the feat lets you use weapon focus and specialization bonuses with other weapons.

When you get to the actual effect of the feat, that is where the benefit is listed as giving all weapons of one type +2/+2, which as written will stack with weapon focus and specialization bonuses.

The table in the PHB2 is also on the wotc site...