Melee Weapon Mastery

[Venator]

It seems obvious to me that the editor screwed up this feat. The flavor text is clearly different from the feat RAW description. So now every gamer can make this feat whatever they want: those who like to think in terms of RAW will debate until the last single word to prove that the intent is irrelevant, and those who cannot accept the feat because they think it's too powerful will just trump the RAW and adjudicate it differently.

The problem is that the intent is ambiguous.

It seems the only way the community will be "happy" with one conclusion is to contact David Noonan somehow, and ask him what his intent was upon submitting the feat.

I have failed miserably in my efforts to contact him, but hopefully someone savvier than I cares to help.

 

[BASHMAN]

They have to stack, otherwise, you Weapon Specialization just disappeared. Did you suddenly get worse at using a dwarven war-axe just because you picked up a long sword?

 

[Venator]

It didnt disappear, it was got spread around to every other slashing weapon you happen to pick up.

 

[maggot]

They have to stack, otherwise, you Weapon Specialization just disappeared. Did you suddenly get worse at using a dwarven war-axe just because you picked up a long sword?

Huh? Assume no stacking.

Before Weapon Mastery: Waraxe +1 to hit/+2 damage, Longsword nada
After Weapon Mastery: Waraxe +2 to hit/+2 damage, Longsword +2 to hit/+2 damage

You are better with the waraxe after Weapon Mastery than before. The +2 damage has not disappeared. You still get it.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I just don't see the ground for the argument that it doesn't stack.

Here are our precedents:

1) Table Text vs. Page Text ... the Rules Lawyer Law here is that the text trumps the table. This is from WotC.
2) Stacking ... This is pretty fundamental stuff. When named bonuses are encountered, only the higher is applied. When unnamed bonuses are encountered, check to see if they are from the same named source. (Note not just "same source", because then you open arguments for stacking from Character Spell and Item Spell or Item Effect). When unnamed bonuses are encountered and they are NOT from the same named source, they stack.

I mean, some people may not like it and my wish to change it for their games for whatever reason, and it may have been bungled a bit because it should have made a call to Fighter Level ... but the text of the feat says nothing about granting "Weapon Focus" or "Weapon Specialization" bonuses to anything anywhere. It says it grants a +2/+2 to all slashing or piercing or bludgeoning weapons. It's an un-named bonus from a totally different source ... they don't reference eachother at all in terms of granting the bonuses. So they stack.

It's an unfortunate line of text in the table, but the table is apocryphal anyway. It's just there to let you know in a general way what the feat does.

--fje

 

[maggot]

I just don't see the ground for the argument that it doesn't stack.

Clearly, by the rules as written without any errata, it stacks. There is no real RAW argument that it shouldn't stack. But there are these factors:

1. Wizards makes many errors in their books. Some are fixed with errata, some not.
2. The introductory flavor text for the feat does not match the results of the feat.
3. The table text for the feat does not match the abilities of the feat.
4. The +2/+2 is suspiciously like the +1/+2 you already get from Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization: the feats mentioned in the table and prerequisites for the feat. If the feat had given out +1/+1, there would be far less room for argument.
5. A stacking +2/+2 for Weapon Mastery is way more powerful than Greater Weapon Focus.
5a. GWF requires F8, WM requires F4.
5b. GWF gives +1/+0, WM gives +2/+2.
5c. GWF works with one weapon, WM works with all of the same damage type.

So the argument can be made that the "intent" of the feat is to not stack. Perhaps the line was left off, or perhaps it was deleted. Or perhaps that was never the intent. But there is certainly an argument to be made for that being the intent.

My questions are for those that say it was created to help out fighters because fighters are so weak. Where has this been stated? Where is this intent found? I cannot find it in the feat because it only helps out F4s. Finding F4s in a campaign isn't that tough.

And does Wizards really think fighters are weak? Where have they said exactly that?

 

[interwyrm]

Assuming that weapon mastery doesn't stack with WF and WS, when the fighter in question picks up GWF, does it give him no benefit?

 

[maggot]

Assuming that weapon mastery doesn't stack with WF and WS, when the fighter in question picks up GWF, does it give him no benefit?

Good question. I was thinking yes, but obviously the "doesn't stack" argument would say no. Hmm.... That makes GWF absolute useless except for grabbing GWS later.

 

[comrade raoul]

Assuming that weapon mastery doesn't stack with WF and WS, when the fighter in question picks up GWF, does it give him no benefit?

On this interpretation it wouldn't stack with the normal versions, but would stack with both greater versions. A fighter with a nonstacking MWM, WF, WS, and GWF in the longsword would get +3/+2. Once he got GWS, he'd finish with +3/+4.

Plausibly, this is so counterintuitive that it provides reason to think the intent was to have them stack. A rules implication so confusing would probably have been explicitly included in the description of the feat. I do, however, believe that this is probably the most balanced interpretation of the feats.

 

[pawsplay]

So the argument can be made that the "intent" of the feat is to not stack. Perhaps the line was left off, or perhaps it was deleted. Or perhaps that was never the intent. But there is certainly an argument to be made for that being the intent.

I would not assume, merely because a feat is wildly imbalanced, that it was not intended to workin a certain away.