PHB1 Powers and Feats, as they'd be written today

[DracoSuave]

That's the problem tho. Publishing the number of changes required would be a much larger undertaking than simply putting out an advertising blurb or pamphlet.

You -could- justify, say, printing the updated PHB2 How To Read A Power + Stealth rules on a pamphlet and distribute that for a reasonably small cost, enough that free-for-the-consumer is a viable option to build sales and good will.

However something much larger than that requires some form of financial return otherwise it's not a feasible business undertaking, nor is it really a good idea to kill a bunch of trees to do it.

The -work- that would be involved in terms of design is not a bad idea, but this sort of deal should go into future printings, accompanied with a web-document, in order to make this cost effective.

It'd be -nice- if it were free, but sadly, the printers, the ink, and the paper all cost them money, and it's not worth the cost in comparison to other avenues of distribution.

Yes, sometimes companies do do freebies, but it's not reasonable to expect them to take a major cost to accomplish something that doesn't translate into sales.

 

[Splart]

Dwarven Weapon Training

Dwarven Weapon Training should be:

Dwarven Weapon Training
Prerequisite: Dwarf
Benefit: You gain proficiency with all simple and military axes and hammers and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with such weapons. The bonus increases to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.

Similar for Eladrin Weapon Training

Two problems with these feats as originally written. First, at low level, they are over powered. No superior axes or hammers existed in PHB1, so they didn't realize they would be giving free prof with craghammers, waraxes, etc. Second, at high levels, the +2 damage is overtaken by Weapon Focus +3, so in epic tier dwarves retrain out Dwarven Weapon Training to learn Weapon Focus Hammers, which just seems silly.

--Splart

 

[abyssaldeath]

Dwarven Weapon Training should be:

Dwarven Weapon Training
Prerequisite: Dwarf
Benefit: You gain proficiency with all simple and military axes and hammers and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with such weapons. The bonus increases to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.

Similar for Eladrin Weapon Training

Two problems with these feats as originally written. First, at low level, they are over powered. No superior axes or hammers existed in PHB1, so they didn't realize they would be giving free prof with craghammers, waraxes, etc. Second, at high levels, the +2 damage is overtaken by Weapon Focus +3, so in epic tier dwarves retrain out Dwarven Weapon Training to learn Weapon Focus Hammers, which just seems silly.

--Splart

I'm going to have to say it was completely intentional. Especially since AV was already written when the PHB was released. Just because YOU didn't know about superior axes and hammers when 4e came out doesn't mean the dev's didn't.

As for you the epic retraining silliness. +1 to damage isn't enough for me to spend a feat. Especially at epic.

 

[keterys]

And yet, it's a change they made in the Goliath to those style of feats, and one that as far as I can tell is a change for the better. So postulating that they'd make that change if they redid things makes some sense.

 

[abyssaldeath]

They also added more damage to the Goliath feat. So even if they were to limit the Dwarven feat to martial weapons they would probably increase the damage for that feat as well.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

And yet, it's a change they made in the Goliath to those style of feats, and one that as far as I can tell is a change for the better. So postulating that they'd make that change if they redid things makes some sense.

Goliaths have a racial bonus to STR, which dwarves do not. Dwarven Weapon Training makes dwarves better than they would otherwise be at being Fighters and Melee Clerics. Within the context of the game as a whole there is nothing wrong with it as written.

 

[keterys]

Goliaths have a racial bonus to STR, which dwarves do not. Dwarven Weapon Training makes dwarves better than they would otherwise be at being Fighters and Melee Clerics. Within the context of the game as a whole there is nothing wrong with it as written.

There's a lot wrong with it... but obviously there is _some_ right as well.

 

[Psikus]

Dwarven Weapon Training should be:

Dwarven Weapon Training
Prerequisite: Dwarf
Benefit: You gain proficiency with all simple and military axes and hammers and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with such weapons. The bonus increases to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.

Similar for Eladrin Weapon Training
--Splart

I would make a small correction to your version of the feat: while I agree that it's better to limit the proficiencies to martial weapons, I would have the damage bonus work with superior weapons, too (both for dwarves and eladrin). The goliath feat is fine, as their ability bonuses already make them great for 2-handed weapons, and somebody in the game should have a use for mere military weapons. But you don't really want to discourage dwarves from using Waraxes, Mordenkrads and Urgroshes!

So, my revised revision:

Dwarven Weapon Training
Prerequisite: Dwarf
Benefit: You gain proficiency with all simple and military axes and hammers and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with all axes and hammers. The bonus increases to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.

 

[DracoSuave]

I would make a small correction to your version of the feat: while I agree that it's better to limit the proficiencies to martial weapons, I would have the damage bonus work with superior weapons, too (both for dwarves and eladrin). The goliath feat is fine, as their ability bonuses already make them great for 2-handed weapons, and somebody in the game should have a use for mere military weapons. But you don't really want to discourage dwarves from using Waraxes, Mordenkrads and Urgroshes!

So, my revised revision:

Dwarven Weapon Training
Prerequisite: Dwarf
Benefit: You gain proficiency with all simple and military axes and hammers and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with all axes and hammers. The bonus increases to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.

I wouldn't change it at all. The feat is balanced as it is. It's not like you can go around dual-wielding mordenkrad in one hand and an execution axe in the other.

EDIT:
It's already been proven that the Dwarf with Mordenkrad and DWT does do less a bit less DPR with a Strength based class than a Strength based class with a Maul and Weapon Focus.

Dwarves -need- this feet as is or else the changes you make to the feat will make Dwarven HammerAxeBeards rare unless they're a) Avengers or b) Laser Clerics with a Crusader's hammer or c) Hexhammer.

So, Avengers, and ranged spellcasters would get the most mileage out of a feat that is designed for melee attacker dwarves.

The feat would not hit its intended target and would not be used as intended except by -one- class.
/EDIT:

At -most- I would give the escalating bonus at higher tiers, but other than that, they clearly have said they -made- superior hammers, axes, and spears with full knowledge of these feats. They didn't go 'Whoops! Mordenkrad!' they went 'Alright, we have a huge hammer for dwarves to use now.'

And with the addition of -other- races getting 'Exotic weapon proficiencies (plural) + damage bonus' feats, I think that such a change is out of touch with the direction of design they're intending to go towards.

I think such a change is only good for appealing to your aesthetics but has nothing to do with how the game is being designed and balanced, so I suggest you rethink this idea.

 

[keterys]

I wouldn't change it at all. The feat is balanced as it is.

It's not actually balanced as is - it's worth more than a feat. But, that might be okay if it were supporting a playstyle that needed help.

So does the dwarf fighter need help? Well, no, it doesn't. It was popular and effective before AV came out. And now, does it need it to hang even? Well, no, it's the most popular fighter choice by a healthy margin. And quite popular for a lot of other choices. And when there are lots of good Wis and Con-based melee options, the dwarf will get even more popular. And his brutal weaponry.

Does the dwarf need help so it can do as much damage as someone Str-based? Well, let's see, comparing 2 Str + Maul + WF to Mordenkrad and DWT, we're looking at a difference of 1 damage in favor of the dwarf, behind 1 to attack. Which is slightly in favor of the Str-based race.

As well it should be, since that race didn't get one of the other Dwarves' bonus. Like Con or Wis, both helpful for a fighter. Or resistance to forced movement. Invaluable. Minor action Second Wind. Superb. Adding Con to healing surges at higher level. Bloody fantastic.

And, really, if you're looking at Brash Strike between an 18 Str/16 Con Half-Orc and a 16 Str/18 Con Dwarf, it'll be something like +8 Att, 2d6+8 damage for the Orc and +7 Att, 2d6b1+9 for the dwarf, or 1 Att vs. 2 Dmg, against level-appropriate enemies (say AC 16 or so) the dwarf is actually ahead for damage. An odd outcome for the defensive choice to be better in offense than the offensive choice

Course, it all clears up at higher level. Especially at much higher level, since the feat is designed to not scale. So eventually the dwarf only gains choice of superior weapon over other races, giving him good reason to use any superior he wishes, like a Fullblade, if he's of the mind. So that doesn't serve well at encouraging that RP choice at epic either. Nor does it help paragon or epic dwarves to 'catch up' to their Str-driven brethren at that level if for some reason they did need to.

Assuming that all of the WotC hands are talking to each other on matters such as superior weapons in AV, dwarven options in MP, and balance of races in general is a leap of faith I don't care to partake in - so many cooks in the kitchen making a lot of batches of soup with whatever's ready.