Weapon Mastery wording problem?

[Question]

Andy is right that most feats are currently underpowered. Does that mean we will be seeing erratas of some of the current feats in the future?

 

[Drowbane]

back when 3.0 was still fresh, I was offering up homebrew versions of the Weapon Mastery line from 2e. Focus: as normal. Spec: as normal. Mastery: +3 to hit /+3 dmg (final math with focus and spec) High Mastery: +1 to Crit Modifier... prereq of Fi 8 or so. Grandmastery: +1 Attack on a full attack, and weapon dmg increase as if gaining a size. prereq Fi 12 or so.

Hmm... I guess I really didn't have a point here.

 

[KarinsDad]

Andy is right that most feats are currently underpowered. Does that mean we will be seeing erratas of some of the current feats in the future?

WotC shot themselves in the foot.

It is not that most feats are underpowered. It is that every new book comes out with at least a handful and sometimes a boatload of feats that are more powerful than many of the core feats. Hence, players start taking more and more non-core feats (if the other books are allowed in the campaign) and they get the impression that many feats are underpowered.


Another reason for it is that there are just so many darn feats. Another shot in the foot. With a list of thousands of feats, it is inevitable that 20% are viewed as the best, 20% are viewed as ok, especially for a specific PrC, and 60% are viewed as substandard.


So, instead of balancing out the feats that have come out previously, WotC is taking a "most feats are too weak and hence new ones should be strong" approach and are beefing up the feats in the new books. Another shot in the foot.


What they need to do is sit down with the entire list of all of their feats, break them down into different categories (e.g. + to skills, + to hit, + to damage, + to caster level, etc.), and come up with a comprehensive list of metafeat rules on what is and is not allowed in a feat. Then, using the metafeat rules, go back and revise all of the feats so that they follow the feat building rules.

They should also do this for PrC special abilities.

The metafeat rules should also include feat trees for all stronger feats. One issue with many of the stronger feats is that you can often take them with one or zero feat prerequisites. For example, the feats in this thread, Weapon Mastery, require two feats and 4 levels of Fighter. Each feat then gives more power (if they stack which they do since they are unnamed bonuses) and can be used by more characters than the GWF / GWS progression. That's not balance. That's power creep.

You can tell by these two feats that WotC does not have metafeat rules on how to create feats. They are merely brainstorming ideas and balance is based on whomever happens to be in the review meeting.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

if the bonuses DIDN'T stack with your old feats doesn't actually make you any better at wielding your longsword (other than as a prequisite for other feats).

Well, no. I'm tempted to just repeat "look at the numbers again," but apparently that was inadvertantly too cryptic.

The bonuses provided by Weapon Mastery are greater than those of Focus and Speicalization combined (specifically, the bonus to attack is greater by +1). So you would indeed be better at wielding your longsword.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

WotC shot themselves in the foot.

It is not that most feats are underpowered. It is that every new book comes out with at least a handful and sometimes a boatload of feats that are more powerful than many of the core feats...

Yes, I'm inclined to see this as simply the old, old power creep phenomenon as well. Which, if I'm told it's now been elevated to a design philosophy, doesn't exactly make me feel confident about quality control at WotC these days. But I wasn't up for that bit of editorializing before.

 

[hafrogman]

Well, no. I'm tempted to just repeat "look at the numbers again," but apparently that was inadvertantly too cryptic.

The bonuses provided by Weapon Mastery are greater than those of Focus and Speicalization combined (specifically, the bonus to attack is greater by +1). So you would indeed be better at wielding your longsword.

It wasn't too cryptic, we're simply looking at different numbers. I'm looking at greater weapon focus as well, because I assume if it doesn't stack with weapon focus it wouldn't stack with it's greater cousin as well. I was specifically considering this feat because it is also a prequisite for weapon supremacy.