Proposal: Weapon Training Feats are not Multi-Class Feats

[Kalidrev]

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.

Quite honestly... unless I'm missing some kind of weird loophole or building trick that I haven't thought of yet (and I'm sure there's a ton of them), I don't really see how any class could really abuse having tons of weapon training feats. Sure, you're proficient at using 3 different types of superior weapons... but you only have the ability to use (at maximum) two at a time... and that's if they are one handed. So congratulations, you can wield a bastard sword and a whip. But what about that bola/blowgun/garrote/spiked chain? You can only really get good by focusing on a particular weapon (on a mechanical standpoint), so I don't see why anyone should be restricted from having proficiency in more than one of these, even if they are the special "training/multiclass" weapon feats. If I'm not mistaken, even the power swap feats that come after the training feats require you to wield the particular weapon it was meant for while using the power, so again, no harm.

Am I missing something?

 

[covaithe]

I, too, had lost track of this thread, and it exploded from like four posts to four pages in the meantime.

I've skimmed it, but not followed the arguments in detail.

I confess I don't understand why WotC have used the Multiclass keyword on feats so much. I don't understand why, say, having some spellscar powers, bought with feats as usual, would prevent you from being able to learn to use a whip in combat. Maybe it was originally for balance because most of the feats in the PHB sucked, but in practice I think there are enough good feats out there now that spending a lot of feats for power swaps is just not that big a problem. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something.

I'm strongly tempted just to vote yes on the original proposal and stop thinking about it. Can someone give me a concrete example of an overpowered build that would be made possible if we did this?

 

[ryryguy]

I confess I don't understand why WotC have used the Multiclass keyword on feats so much. I don't understand why, say, having some spellscar powers, bought with feats as usual, would prevent you from being able to learn to use a whip in combat. Maybe it was originally for balance because most of the feats in the PHB sucked, but in practice I think there are enough good feats out there now that spending a lot of feats for power swaps is just not that big a problem. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something.

I'm strongly tempted just to vote yes on the original proposal and stop thinking about it. Can someone give me a concrete example of an overpowered build that would be made possible if we did this?

covaithe -

I don't have an example of an overpowered build for you. In fact I don't think the original proposal would necessarily result in overpowered characters. I don't think it would be a terrible thing if the original proposal passed.

But just a few points of clarification. First, these feats being "multiclass" doesn't prevent anyone with another multiclass feat being able to use a whip (or net or garrote...) in combat. Anyone can get just the regular weapon proficiency feat and apply it to whip. These weapon mastery feats give proficiency, plus something extra.

And that's the fundamental objection that some have - if you lift the multiclass restriction, these feats become the default choice for martial characters. No martial character will take "weapon proficiency (whip)" if they have unrestricted access to "weapon mastery (whip)". And then, the whip itself doesn't have just the properties of its (allegedly) superior weapon listing, when used it will in practice always get the extra from the feat as well. You've kind of powered up the whip itself through the back door.

Second, my guess as to why WotC made these multiclass is indeed because of the power swap follow-on feats. But don't forget this is not only protection against overpowered builds. It's also protection against bad builds. I'm pretty sure WotC stated that explicitly about the original multiclass feats - they feared unrestricted power swapping would lead to people making very scattered choices resulting in ineffective characters. That's why I don't think removing the restriction will result in overpowered builds.

 

[covaithe]

Thanks, ry. Those are helpful points.

 

[elecgraystone]

Two thumbs up ryryguy! I was going to type up a reply to covaithe but you said it WAY better than I would have.

 

[KenHood]

...That's why I don't think removing the restriction will result in overpowered builds.

Well said. Can we place this to a vote?

 

[JoeNotCharles]

I never really liked the way Weapon Training were Multiclass feats. So, I vote YES to the proposal that any character can take one (and only one) Weapon Training feat in addition to any multiclass feats.

 

[KenHood]

Hurray!

 

[garyh]

I never really liked the way Weapon Training were Multiclass feats. So, I vote YES to the proposal that any character can take one (and only one) Weapon Training feat in addition to any multiclass feats.

The same Yes from me.

 

[KenHood]

Woo-hoo!

One more and Tonk learns garrote at level 2.

And the cord would help hold up his pants.