Eternalknight
First Post
Forsaken One said:
Well, one of my posts above said that as long as the PC didn't use a different weapon. If he did, the bonuses reset itself, or slowly declined for each use of a different weapon.
Weapon Familiar
- Thread starter Forsaken One
- Start date
Well, one of my posts above said that as long as the PC didn't use a different weapon. If he did, the bonuses reset itself, or slowly declined for each use of a different weapon.
Forsaken One
First Post
Eternalknight said:
Ok how about this then it goes up once ever two levels as long as the character does not use other weapon more the 10 times over the two levels?
Eternalknight
First Post
That could work, but again the DM has to keep track of how many times the PC uses the weapon. Ideally, little or no bookwork should be required.
Forsaken One
First Post
How about if a character can take this feat on multiple weapons e.g. (long sword, short bow) it only builds up the bonus for the 2 chosen weapons BUT only one bonus for the both if they use a weapon not chosen they lose one point after combat
Artoomis
First Post
To address some concerns:
Don't worry about using mutliple weapons - if you only allow the feat once, and only for a non-magical weapon (also, BTW, a weapon that gains no effectiveness vs. DR - like a monk's fists), it's pretty well balanced - not much opportunity for abuse.
Keep it as simple as possible - you get the bonus, and it adds as you level. As for repair - keep it simple - if you get it fixed, assume the balance is the same - if not, it wasn't really fixed, was it?
Don't worry about using mutliple weapons - if you only allow the feat once, and only for a non-magical weapon (also, BTW, a weapon that gains no effectiveness vs. DR - like a monk's fists), it's pretty well balanced - not much opportunity for abuse.
Keep it as simple as possible - you get the bonus, and it adds as you level. As for repair - keep it simple - if you get it fixed, assume the balance is the same - if not, it wasn't really fixed, was it?
noretoc
First Post
This seems WAY too pwerful.WAY WAY WAY to powerful. Why would anyone NOT take it.
First, your skill with weapins already increases by level, based on class. This assumes the time that a character can spend training with it. Addding more bonuses every level or two just dosent seem right.
Second, with this feat you can have a cleric be better than the fighter with his his weapon. That also dosen't seem right.
Third think about this. If I can play a mage with the base attack of a fighter (or better since My own base attack stacks with this bonus) why would anyone play a fighter. Heck, play a mage. Have a mend spell in case the weapon get damaged. Or other spells to bring it back, if it gets taken or lost. This just seems way way too powerful.
First, your skill with weapins already increases by level, based on class. This assumes the time that a character can spend training with it. Addding more bonuses every level or two just dosent seem right.
Second, with this feat you can have a cleric be better than the fighter with his his weapon. That also dosen't seem right.
Third think about this. If I can play a mage with the base attack of a fighter (or better since My own base attack stacks with this bonus) why would anyone play a fighter. Heck, play a mage. Have a mend spell in case the weapon get damaged. Or other spells to bring it back, if it gets taken or lost. This just seems way way too powerful.
Artoomis
First Post
noretoc said:
You might be right. Of course:
1. It costs you a feat.
2. It applies to one, and only one, weapon.
3. It only works if the weapon is non-magical.
It probably should be made clear that it also does not work is any temporary enchanments are placed on the weapon (magic weapon and the like).
This looks like one of those really good for low-level characters type of feats. As soon as you start using enchantments on your weapons (even if temporaray ones from spells) you lose the benefits - thus it will not be so useful at higher levels.
It would be outstanding for a Forsaker, though. If the class was playable.
Anyway, this is House Rules stuff, big time.
Creeperman
First Post
God, no.
This feat is insanely powerful. Anyone who DIDN'T take it at level one would be a fool. A class with a one-to-one attack bonus can double it with this feat; a class with a one-for-two attack bonus triples theirs.
While the restriction on one particular non-magical weapon may seem to balance this, unless you make a habit of sundering weapons every session, it doesn't cut it. Especially if, as someone else pointed out, a monk takes this feat for his unarmed strike.
Finally, this feat makes Power Attack or [Superior] Expertise another must-have feat, as you will always have attack bonus to burn for extra damage or AC. Consider the 20th level monk with no extra attack bonuses aside from this feat. He will attack for +35/+32/+29/+26/+23, for 5d20 points of damage. If he chooses to Power Attack for maximum damage, it becomes 5d20+45, with at least a good chance of hitting with every attack. Maximizing AC with Superior Expertise would mean an stacking AC bonus of 15, which pretty well makes him unhittable, especially with a good Dexterity and/or Wisdom.
In other words, this feat is extremely broken. No way would I allow this thing anywhere near my games, as a DM or as a player.
This feat is insanely powerful. Anyone who DIDN'T take it at level one would be a fool. A class with a one-to-one attack bonus can double it with this feat; a class with a one-for-two attack bonus triples theirs.
While the restriction on one particular non-magical weapon may seem to balance this, unless you make a habit of sundering weapons every session, it doesn't cut it. Especially if, as someone else pointed out, a monk takes this feat for his unarmed strike.
Finally, this feat makes Power Attack or [Superior] Expertise another must-have feat, as you will always have attack bonus to burn for extra damage or AC. Consider the 20th level monk with no extra attack bonuses aside from this feat. He will attack for +35/+32/+29/+26/+23, for 5d20 points of damage. If he chooses to Power Attack for maximum damage, it becomes 5d20+45, with at least a good chance of hitting with every attack. Maximizing AC with Superior Expertise would mean an stacking AC bonus of 15, which pretty well makes him unhittable, especially with a good Dexterity and/or Wisdom.
In other words, this feat is extremely broken. No way would I allow this thing anywhere near my games, as a DM or as a player.
Grazzt
Demon Lord
I'm with Creeperman. This "feat" is way out of balance.
First, the rules for feats say (and I know WotC breaks them all the time now, so this is probably irrelevant) that they should give a one-time bonus not a bonus that increases by leveling. This is found in the Rules for Designing Feats (like Dragon 274 or something IIRC).
Next, gaining a +1 to attack per level or +1 to attack per two levels from one feat is the really out-of-whack part. I realize it only applies to one weapon, and I realize it applies to only non-magical weapons, but consider this:
If you had this feat (and had a +10 bonus to attack rolls from this feat using your nonmagical sword) would you give up that weapon to gain a "measley" (in terms of this feat) +5 longsword? Your attack bonus would drop 5 points. Might as well keep the nonmagical weapon. Though you would suffer considerably trying to fight creatures with damage reduction.
Lastly, Creeper- is right. No one in their right mind wouldn't take this feat at first level. And that is one of the measuring sticks for feats (and spells too). If there is no way anyone would NOT take it, then it is probably too powerful and needs to be toned down a great deal.
First, the rules for feats say (and I know WotC breaks them all the time now, so this is probably irrelevant) that they should give a one-time bonus not a bonus that increases by leveling. This is found in the Rules for Designing Feats (like Dragon 274 or something IIRC).
Next, gaining a +1 to attack per level or +1 to attack per two levels from one feat is the really out-of-whack part. I realize it only applies to one weapon, and I realize it applies to only non-magical weapons, but consider this:
If you had this feat (and had a +10 bonus to attack rolls from this feat using your nonmagical sword) would you give up that weapon to gain a "measley" (in terms of this feat) +5 longsword? Your attack bonus would drop 5 points. Might as well keep the nonmagical weapon. Though you would suffer considerably trying to fight creatures with damage reduction.
Lastly, Creeper- is right. No one in their right mind wouldn't take this feat at first level. And that is one of the measuring sticks for feats (and spells too). If there is no way anyone would NOT take it, then it is probably too powerful and needs to be toned down a great deal.
Last edited:
