PHB2: Melee Weapon Mastery - am I missing something?

[jontherev]

For those questioning the bonus: it is unnamed. It stacks with everything.


For those who believe this feat is actually just the "right" amount of boost, and WF/WS/GWF/GWS are just underpowered: I have to say I disagree. Weapon Focus - a mere +1 to your attack - is a very plain, very uninspiring feat, it's true - and it may seem dinky next to some of the fluff that's been thrown out in recent supplements. But the truth is, +1 to your attack is HUGE. It really, really is HUGE. That's +1 to every attack you ever make, ever. That's +1 to disarms, sunders, full attacks, single attacks, cleaves, critical confirmations... Sure, +1 doesn't seem like much, but over the course of an encounter, or a level, or a campaign: THAT ADDS UP. And for a two-handed fighter with PA, that +1 to attack can also be a +2 to damage. +2 to damage on every hit, every cleave, doubled for every crit... Believe me, the numbers add up and they add up quickly. Weapon Focus is a no-brainer feat because it really is that good: +1 to every attack you ever make REALLY IS powerful. If you don't believe it, look to every other D&D mechanic: +1 to saves, +1 to AC, +1 to weapon attack/damage... All of these things are big because that's the point of D&D: a higher number is better. Even a higher number that's only higher by one is still higher, and it will always be better. This is why bless is such a great level 1 cleric spell and why bards are actually useful. +1 is GREAT!

Constrast that with +2 to attack, +2 to damage. That's rediculous. That's also a +6 to damage for a two-handed PAer, which is even MORE outrageous. The benefit of having +2 to EVERY attack and +2 to EVERY damage over the course of a long campaign is amazing. Clearly, this is broken; clearly, this is much too powerful.


That's why I say "get it while you can" because if anyone at WotC cared about quality it'd be out in a heartbeat.

Edit: The MWM(bludgeoning) + MWM(piercing) + morningstar tactic is PRICELESS! What a wonderful abuse of a broken rule!

So you think this feat by itself makes fighters more powerful than wizards and clerics? Have you used it? I did, and all it did was put me on level ground at high levels with the spell casters. The paladin was a little jealous because I was consistently outdamaging him, but that's how it SHOULD be imo. You're not really giving any compelling reasons here for it's being broken imo.

 

[Diggus Rex]

If this feat is miswritten then what is it supposed to look like?

It gives my focused and specialized longsword a total of +3 to hit and +4 to damage, and all of the slashers I use get +2 hit and +2 damage. Is this supposed to be a +1/+1?

 

[Plane Sailing]

It's really a fair feat, given that fighters are typically under-dealing damage.

That's not a sentiment I see used often... Fighters seem to be right at the top of the damage dealing tree by all accounts (at least most of the occasions where someone cares about it... mook clearing by fireball doesn't really count!)

 

[Nifft]

That's not a sentiment I see used often... Fighters seem to be right at the top of the damage dealing tree by all accounts

I agree with the "fighters are weak" sentiment. In my experience, they're best suited to feat-intensive tricks (like tripping with a spiked chain) rather than direct damage.

Druids, Clerics and Barbarians seem to be the best at melee damage.

Cheers, -- N

 

[milo]

I have never really had an issue with any certain class being under or overpowered in my campaigns. My biggest issue is normally who is running the character. A creative player can make any class be overpowered in my opinion. I have seen some interesting builds in my few years as a player/DM. If you look at a short adventure, then yes a wizard or sorcerer will outdamage the fighter or anyone else in the party. If you drag it out until they are out of spells then suddenly the fighter is outdamaging the spellcasters.

 

[Felon]

So you think this feat by itself makes fighters more powerful than wizards and clerics? Have you used it? I did, and all it did was put me on level ground at high levels with the spell casters. The paladin was a little jealous because I was consistently outdamaging him, but that's how it SHOULD be imo.

So, IYO, fighters SHOULD outdamage paladins, their fellow warrior class. But if another class (like a little wizard with his d4 hit dice) outdamages a fighter, that's something broken that needs fixing? You reject the notion of "level ground" in one instance, but not another? That's a compelling arguement I'd love to hear.

 

[frankthedm]

I agree with the "fighters are weak" sentiment. In my experience, they're best suited to feat-intensive tricks (like tripping with a spiked chain) rather than direct damage.

That is the thing, the fighter are more versatile. The barbarian should be out-damaging the fighter. The barbarian pays with his own life for that extra damage output. The fighter will usually have a lot of different options. Sadly in D&D one usually wins by killing the foe. Sometime a fancy trick can help, but most of the time damage output is what is going to determine who wins.

Also a fighter will seem weak if the DM fails to use lots of weak foes. The barbarian should be overkilling his foes more often than not. I have seen many times where mooks tend to have roughly enough HP to be one-shotable by a barbarian’s swing, but not other characters. This makes the fighter suffer since his damage output won't be enough to accomplish much and eventually causes a “why bother?” attitude. Even worse are mooks who are built to take 2 swings from a barb. The fighter is practically guaranteed to spend two rounds hacking through a single foe and has virtually no hope of ever using greatcleave.

But what can really make the fighter seem weak is when the DM won't kill PCs. The barbarian trades his AC for damage output. If the DM holds back and tries to avoid killing PCs, the barbarian is now getting extra damage output at no cost since his life is not at greater risk. Where as the fighter is now punished for wearing heavy armor since the extra AC was protecting him from a danger that did not exist, death.

 

[Felon]

For those questioning the bonus: it is unnamed. It stacks with everything.


For those who believe this feat is actually just the "right" amount of boost, and WF/WS/GWF/GWS are just underpowered: I have to say I disagree. Weapon Focus - a mere +1 to your attack - is a very plain, very uninspiring feat, it's true - and it may seem dinky next to some of the fluff that's been thrown out in recent supplements. But the truth is, +1 to your attack is HUGE. It really, really is HUGE.

Well, maybe not huge, but it's significant, and it does get sold short.

A lot of folks have gotten into the frame of mind that if it ain't a nuke, it's garbage. The notion that warriors are balanced with spellcasters due to factors other than nukability has faded from the minds of many. Now, a warrior should have superlative AC, three times the HP of a wizard, AND on top of that, should be on par with casters in terms of damage output. Oh, and they shouldn't have to burn up slots or otherwise shoot their wad. Screw small consistent benefits, I want every swing of my sword to hit like a capped-out fireball. Then things will be on level ground.

And lo and behold, The Tome of Battle was created, and they said "this is good".

 

[Felon]

I agree with the "fighters are weak" sentiment. In my experience, they're best suited to feat-intensive tricks (like tripping with a spiked chain) rather than direct damage.

Druids, Clerics and Barbarians seem to be the best at melee damage.

Case in point. Fighters are "weak" because they deal less direct damage. Aren't barbarians "weak" due to their relatively lower AC?

What's wrong with effectiveness stemming from feat-intensive tricks? Why isn't zone control with a reach weapon and Combat Reflexes "strong"? Why isn't using a spoked chain to trip enemies "strong"? I've played these characters. There was never any doubt that they were making effective contributions to the group. They were weak in certain areas, but so is just about every class (well, maybe not druids, heh).

Every class can't be a top-notch nuker...at least, they certainly SHOULDN'T.

 

[Nifft]

That is the thing, the fighter are more versatile. The barbarian should be out-damaging the fighter. The barbarian pays with his own life for that extra damage output. The fighter will usually have a lot of different options. Sadly in D&D one usually wins by killing the foe. Sometime a fancy trick can help, but most of the time damage output is what is going to determine who wins.

Also a fighter will seem weak if the DM fails to use lots of weak foes. The barbarian should be overkilling his foes more often than not. I have seen many times where mooks tend to have roughly enough HP to be one-shotable by a barbarian’s swing, but not other characters. This makes the fighter suffer since his damage output won't be enough to accomplish much and eventually causes a “why bother?” attitude. Even worse are mooks who are built to take 2 swings from a barb. The fighter is practically guaranteed to spend two rounds hacking through a single foe and has virtually no hope of ever using greatcleave.

But what can really make the fighter seem weak is when the DM won't kill PCs. The barbarian trades his AC for damage output. If the DM holds back and tries to avoid killing PCs, the barbarian is now getting extra damage output at no cost since his life is not at greater risk. Where as the fighter is now punished for wearing heavy armor since the extra AC was protecting him from a danger that did not exist, death.

The thing is, a Fighter's versatile attacks start to be just plain useless against too many foes at a certain level.

Improved Sunder? Great, have fun against this bebelith.

Improved Trip? Good luck fighting foes who are Huge, or flying, or oozes, or snakes, or incorporeal...

Great Cleave ... "Awesome, a room full of mooks!" -- "Fireball." -- "Where'd my mooks go?!"

Tactical options? Fighter: "I have a +4 bonus to Sunder checks, Trip checks, Bull Rush checks, Disarm checks, and Grapple checks!" -- Barbarian: "I have +8 Strength! GAH HA HA HA HA!!!"

- - -

Basically, the Fighter's chosen niche -- whatever it may be -- is swiftly eroded by the Druid, Cleric and Wizard. A self-buffed Cleric can out-perform a Fighter at inflicting damage or tanking (absorbing damage and controlling the battlefield). A Wild Shaped Druid has the option of choosing a wide variety of bonus feats (on the fly), and of course has multiple special attacks to choose from as well (including Trip, Pounce, and Improved Grab -- again, on the fly). (Oh, and they can cast spells, too.)

Wizards tend to mop up multitudes of mooks more efficiently than Fighters. (Fewer times per day, sure -- unless they make, find or buy wands or staffs.)

Druids, of course, can melee, deal area damage, and throw a variety of utility spells, in addition to bringing a formidable Animal Companion with them, and summoning helpers.

Where is a Barbarian most helpful? In an anti-magic field, or when facing Rogues -- Uncanny Dodge + Cleave makes for a nice surprise against a pair of wanna-be flankers.

Anyway. Just my experience.

Cheers, -- N