PHB2: Melee Weapon Mastery - am I missing something?

Diirk said:
Even then it fails; mastery gives +2 hit, +2 damage. Focus + Specialisation gives +1 hit, +2 damage. Its already better. Not allowing it to stack makes greater weapon focus completely useless.
I suspect that the "+2 to hit/ +2 to damage" was the cap on the bonus that could be applied to other weapons. In effect you had to have Greater weapon focus to get the bonus up to "+2 to hit/ +2 to damage"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Actually, I'm fairly certain most people -- WotC included -- accept that the core weapon focus/spec feats are too weak. This feat is balanced for its level; it's the earlier feats that were unbalanced (i.e., useless).

So yes, you're a fighter 4/ranger 5 with weapon spec (scimitar), you take this feat, and now you get +3 attack, +4 damage with scimitars, or +2/+2 with any other slashing melee weapon. It's really a fair feat, given that fighters are typically under-dealing damage.
 

Diggus Rex said:
I like the Weapon Groups variant in UA myself give to Weapon Focus/Specialization more utility. It lets those feats apply to a favored weapon type: not just longswords but also greatsword, falchion, scimitar, and bastard sword -- weapons that are arguably part of the longsword family.


Seconded.

If not as a general rule for all classes (which IMO would be ideal), it should definitely (and at the very least) be written into the 4E rule set for Fighters.
 

evilbob said:
While you're completely reading it correctly and the "text trumps table" rule is clear, this is one of those not-so-rare situations in which it feels like the standard WotC editing team (of one retarded 6-yr old who is also blind) missed this glaring error somehow (somewhat similar to the other scores of mistakes in this and every other supplement book WotC publishes). I honestly do not believe they intended to list a feat with benefits that are better than 2 other "standard" fighter feats put together that each have greater prereqs (greater weapon focus and greater weapon spec.).
Actually, I believe that comments from authors of PHBII was that it was intended to provide more powerful options, particularly for fighters, so it is no real surprise that MWM is more powerful.
 

RangerWickett said:
Actually, I'm fairly certain most people -- WotC included -- accept that the core weapon focus/spec feats are too weak. This feat is balanced for its level; it's the earlier feats that were unbalanced (i.e., useless).
FWIW, I agree weapon focus et al are underpowered, and that this feat -- with it's +2/+2 bonus that stacks with the others -- balances things back out.

I disagree that "most people" accept that. Heck, I doubt "most people" accept anything. :D
 

I agree with Nail. Folks have been complaining that Fighters are weak for a long time. A feat or two comes along that might close the "weaknes" gap a bit and folks are looking at pinholes in the rules to blow open.
 

Angerland said:
I agree with Nail. Folks have been complaining that Fighters are weak for a long time.
Folks are complaining about everything all the time. That doesn't vindicate.

Fighters are great performers, have been for years, it just required a player to sit down and figure out how to string together the right feats--oh, and have a book or two besides the PHB. The PHB II feats just make it fall-off-a-log easy by saying "here, guys, RIGHT HERE: meet these requirements, and get this big bump in damage-dealing" pointing to the big-time smackdown feat to work towards with giant neon arrows.

But, y'know, that sounds OK to me actually. Character design shouldn't always require a meticulous ship-in-a-bottle process in order to get an effective result.
 

Nail said:
FWIW, I agree weapon focus et al are underpowered, and that this feat -- with it's +2/+2 bonus that stacks with the others -- balances things back out.
My problem with MWM isn't so much that it's too powerful, but that it's silly, in the context of the other rules.

An 8th-level longsword-specialist fighter is faced with the choice between Greater Weapon Focus (longsword): +1 with longswords; and Melee Weapon Mastery (slashing): +2/+2 with all slashing.

A Ftr4/Bbn4 has no choice. He cannot take the inferior feat at all. He can, however, take Melee Weapon Mastery.

MWM is in all conceivable ways superior to a feat with higher prerequisites, and it doesn't reward fighters for sticking with fighter, it rewards all warrior-types (including clerics and such, just at a higher level!) for dipping in fighter for 4 levels. Silly.

I'd definitely follow the table over the text in this case. The fighter's problems could/should be solved in different ways.
 

jasin said:
An 8th-level longsword-specialist fighter is faced with the choice between Greater Weapon Focus (longsword): +1 with longswords; and Melee Weapon Mastery (slashing): +2/+2 with all slashing.

Aren't you forgetting that a pure fighter can take both? Someone who's dipped into Fighter or got Specialisation by some other means (e.g. Divine Crusader) can only take MWM. He'll take MWM at 8th level and GWF at 9th.

A Ftr4/Bbn4 has no choice. He cannot take the inferior feat at all. He can, however, take Melee Weapon Mastery.
That character can't take MWM at all. He'll have to wait for 9th level. If his 8th level were Fighter then his Fighter feat would be WS, not MWM.
 

Quartz said:
Aren't you forgetting that a pure fighter can take both? Someone who's dipped into Fighter or got Specialisation by some other means (e.g. Divine Crusader) can only take MWM.
And that's what's silly. "No, you haven't invested enough to take the weaker feat! You can only take the better one! The weaker one is reserved for fighters."

That character can't take MWM at all. He'll have to wait for 9th level. If his 8th level were Fighter then his Fighter feat would be WS, not MWM.
True, that.

That doesn't make it any less silly.
 

Remove ads

Top