Proposal: Slight Tweak to Goliath Great Weapons Prowess

[dimsdale]

The Goliath Great Weapons Prowess Feat gives a goliath two things: weapon proficiency to simple and military 2H weapons and a +2 for damage when using them.

I proposes that the +2 carry over to superior weapons in which a goliath has to used an additional feat in order to gain proficiency of the weapon. Here's an example. Suppose a goliath barbarian sees a fullblade laying on the ground, dropped by an slain undead creature. If the barbarian wants to gain proficiency in the weapon, the goliath has to use a feat to train in it. But, by definition of the Goliath Great Weapon Prowess Feat, he wont get the +2 damage for the weapon because it isn't a military or simple 2H weapon. That doesn't make sense to me.

Proposal: If a Goliath has the Great Weapons Prowess Feat and has used another feat to train in using a superior great weapon (i.e. the fullblade), let the goliath have the additional +2 damage that is part the Great Weapons Prowess Feat.

Change the feat to: +2 damage in using any 2H simple, 2H military, and any trained (using a feat) 2H superior weapon.


Your thoughts everyone.

thanks

dimsdale

 

[Ozymandias79]

I say NO because the feat bonus increases by 1 at the higher tiers unlike the feat Dwarven Weapon Training which instead gives a flat +2 feat bonus and proficiency to all hammer & axes(even superior)

so I vote NO

Ozzy

 

[dimsdale]

I say NO because the feat bonus increases by 1 at the higher tiers unlike the feat Dwarven Weapon Training which instead gives a flat +2 feat bonus and proficiency to all hammer & axes(even superior)

so I vote NO

Ozzy

I didn't think of that. Thanks Ozy for bringing it up.

One more tweak:

Eliminating the +1 damage increases for higher tiers for superior weapons if superior weapons are included in the Goliath Great Weapons Prowess, thus allowing trained superior weapons a flat +2 damage bonus.

 

[elecgraystone]

I actually like the feat as is. Unlike the Dwarven and Eladrin versions, it doesn't encourage you to find the best superior weapon of that class. I like that fact that it make martial weapons a better option for them instead. Also, 2 handed weapons is a MUCH bigger category than a normal weapon group. It'd give you too much 'bang for your buck'. I'd be against modifying it to include superior weapons because of those reasons.

 

[Ozymandias79]

I must say I completely agrees with Elecgraystone's post and it also sums up how I felt about the feat too

Sorry, Dimsdale, but I can't agree with you on this subject.

Ozymandias79

 

[Atanatotatos]

I agree with both Ozy's and Elec's points, so NO! as well.

 

[Dunamin]

I proposes that the +2 carry over to superior weapons in which a goliath has to used an additional feat in order to gain proficiency of the weapon. Here's an example. Suppose a goliath barbarian sees a fullblade laying on the ground, dropped by an slain undead creature. If the barbarian wants to gain proficiency in the weapon, the goliath has to use a feat to train in it. But, by definition of the Goliath Great Weapon Prowess Feat, he wont get the +2 damage for the weapon because it isn't a military or simple 2H weapon. That doesn't make sense to me.

Respectfully, whether the feat is balanced is a far greater concern than whether it makes sense.

I don't see any problems with the feat as is, so I vote NO as well. Last nail in the coffin and all that.

 

[dimsdale]

Respectfully, whether the feat is balanced is a far greater concern than whether it makes sense.

I don't see any problems with the feat as is, so I vote NO as well. Last nail in the coffin and all that.

Thanks for the quick responses everyone. I respect the decisions the judges make, regardless whether or not I'm in favor of them. It is clear to me eveyone puts in a lot of thought to their decisions and make an effort to be fair.

thanks

dimsdale