Proposal: Weapon Training Feats are not Multi-Class Feats

[KenHood]

How about this...?

It does virtually the same thing, but it introduces complexity. We have to make additions to classes, create new feats, and so forth. If we specify that Weapon Training feats are not Multi-class feats, we accomplish the same thing, but only have to make a single subtraction, as opposed to multiple additions.

 

[ryryguy]

Does that mean that you spend a normal feat to get the Training bonuses, but you can't take the power swap feats later?

That's correct... but you need proficiency first before you can take the new feat, which might require another feat, unless you get it from your class.

It does virtually the same thing, but it introduces complexity. We have to make additions to classes, create new feats, and so forth. If we specify that Weapon Training feats are not Multi-class feats, we accomplish the same thing, but only have to make a single subtraction, as opposed to multiple additions.

It's definitely more complex, but it's meant as a compromise for those who feel that the feats are too strong to just do away with the multiclass restriction across the board. The compromise allows some to get the full power of the feat with a single feat choice, but doesn't open up them up to be grabbed by anyone and everyone wholesale. It ends up being the same as your proposal for Tonk, but not for all characters.

So, yes, more complex, but is it too complex? If you think that adding proficiencies to classes makes it too complex, it could be changed to make membership in that class a requirement for the feat, instead (and go back to granting the proficiency in the feat, too). That seems like mostly semantics, but I guess it does put all the changes in one place - the new feats. And the new feats themselves are not all that complex, they are just the original feats with a different requirement.

Here's an alternative compromise. Change "multiclass" to a new keyword "weapon mastery". A character may only choose a single "weapon mastery" feat. (So basically it works the same way as multiclass, but in a new, separate namespace.)

That is much more simple, but it also doesn't restrict the feats quite as much, so it may not fully satisfy those who are worried that the original proposal gives up too much. It does have the happy bonus effect that bards would no longer be default weapon mastery masters! No one seems to like that aspect of the originals.

Well, anyway, obviously I'm not a judge, and most of the people discussing this aren't judges. So I'm not even sure if the judges are looking for a compromise, but if they are, there are a couple.

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Edit: Want to read ryryguy's second idea with slightly different different wording? Then this is the post for you!

What if we made the Training Feats their own catagory, like how multi-class feats are now, and then put in the restriction of only one weapon training feat allowed. So you can take up to one weapon training feat and up to one multi-class feat. Bards would continue to be exempt from the latter restriction, but they'd have to follow the former.

This may not solve all the problems, but it sounded fairly simple in my head.

 

[elecgraystone]

Just making sure I understand you, are you saying that if Training replaces Proficiency, then the spiked chain will permanently gain the light blade and double weapon rules?

Yes. Proficiency only gives you the bonus to hit.

Does this mean that someone who's not proficient with the chain can use it as a light blade, just like someone who's not proficient with a rapier can use that as a light blade?

Yes.

Out of curiosity, is this an issue that is currently present in the rules, or does this only arise if Weapon Training replaces Weapon Proficiency? I guess what I'm really asking is that whether you think it is currently legal to enchant a spiked chain with a light blade only enchant.

Currently no. Right now the training feat gives you proficiency AND stuff. The base item would only change if you replace the proficiency with the training feat. Then you have only one weapon.

Well, it helps that I don't think it technically becomes a light blade when you take the feat.

But it HAS be a light blade if it's a proficiency feat. If it's an add on feat, then it's a technique. If it's a proficiency, then EVERYONE gets those keywords.

I see it as you become so skilled with it that you can use both ends at once, or make attacks of a light blade nature with it.

It works this way if it's a secondary feat or a feat like the original training feat that gives you something AND the proficiency. Replacing it means that it's nothing special and that that's how the weapon works when you learn how to use it.

In response to ryryguy, who's actually discussing the proposal (fancy that):

In message 13, the proposer suggested that we replace the proficiency feats with the training feats. This falls squarely under trying to make the training feats NOT multiclass feats and as such we HAVE been discussing the the proposal and the impact those changes would have.

How about this?

In reply to message 49, That sounds good to me. The only thing I'd add to that is #3, I'd change some of those weapons to martial instead of superior in addition to adding them to classes. I like this better than just changing training feats to their own class of feats. That way if I'm NOT a martial character, I'm not forced to take a multiclass feat THEN the the training feat. I'd rather buy the weapon prof then buy the upgrade.

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Ok, awesome. I still disagree with you (I don't think either of us is going to be able to convince the other) but I totally understand your position now.

 

[elecgraystone]

That's cool. I'll agree to disagree.

 

[KenHood]

What if we made the Training Feats their own catagory, like how multi-class feats are now, and then put in the restriction of only one weapon training feat allowed. So you can take up to one weapon training feat and up to one multi-class feat. Bards would continue to be exempt from the latter restriction, but they'd have to follow the former.

Yes. I like this solution.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I'm following the thread, but I don't know if any of the other judges are.

I agree that the weapon training feats should have their own group, as opposed to being multiclass feats as written. In other words, THB and ryryguy's simultaneous idea. I also like the idea that you need proficiency for the training feats (and I'm not opposed to adding some of the weapons to certain classes' weapon lists). So there's the 'normal' version which has the stat line as written, and the 'trained up' version with the training feat.

I'm content to let you folks battle it out, though. When you think you've come to a consensus, write up a proposal post (since it seems the original proposal isn't agreed upon).

 

[elecgraystone]

I also like the idea that you need proficiency for the training feats (and I'm not opposed to adding some of the weapons to certain classes' weapon lists). So there's the 'normal' version which has the stat line as written, and the 'trained up' version with the training feat.

Personally if we went this route, it would also make sense to me drop the martial class requirement. You are filling the requirement IMO with the proficiency.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

I'm following it. I just haven't had time to think about things in any depth.

I like THB/ryryguy's idea, but I do think there should be some class that can take multiple weapon training feats the way the bard can take multiple multiclasses. I'm tempted to open them up to anyone but say that martial classes can take multiple weapon training, except that might make these too common.