Weapon Mastery wording problem?

[Dr_Rictus]

So, consider the Melee Weapon Mastery and Ranged Weapon Mastery feats from PHB2.

Their summary descriptions say "Gain Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization benefits with multiple weapons." But that's not what their Benefits texts actually say. They simply give an unnamed +2 bonus to attack and weapon damage rolls with all weapons (melee/ranged respectively) sharing a damage type with the speicalized weapon. Which would include the specialized weapon itself, thus making this feat of greater benefit than Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization combined.

If I had to guess (and, so far, I do), I'd say that the designers' intent might have been that the bonus from Weapon Mastery did not stack with the bonuses for Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with the original weapon. But if so, they've failed to say it.

Has there been any clarification of this that I'm not aware of?

 

[Troll Wizard]

They stack

If you want an official confirmation send in a letter to the Sage in Dragon Magazine or you can read Andy Collin's comments on WOTC's thinking behind PH2's feats.

On the "these feats are too powerful" issue, consider this:

I think the vast majority of the feats in D&D are too weak, too boring, or both.

Historically, we've been way too conservative about creating exciting, potent feats. We've spent way too much ink printing feats that give you a small numerical bonus (often only applying in a corner-case game situation), and not nearly enough creating new equivalents of Cleave and Spring Attack. PH2 represents an intentional shift in that mentality.

The other tricky issue is that unlike, say, spells, feats don't have an easy ranking system to compare them against one another. If Spring Attack were a "4th-level feat" and Toughness were a "0-level feat," it'd be easier to see how much better the former is supposed to be compared to the latter. PH2 has a lot of feats that, due to their high prereqs, are effectively "high-level" feats, and thus are very much intended to be more powerful than those that've come before.

Some folks will freak out when they see what's available in PH2. I think that's just flat-out a good thing--it's about time folks got excited about a new D&D book.

Andy Collins
Developer
Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D

Source: http://p198.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm10.showMessageRange?topicID=1042.topic&start=1&stop=20

 

[Henry]

If I had to guess (and, so far, I do), I'd say that the designers' intent might have been that the bonus from Weapon Mastery did not stack with the bonuses for Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with the original weapon. But if so, they've failed to say it.

Has there been any clarification of this that I'm not aware of?

My guess? The feat's abilities changed during playtesting to be more powerful than what they were originally.

Andy's message gives me more reason to believe this is the case.

 

[Deset Gled]

If you want an official confirmation send in a letter to the Sage in Dragon Magazine or you can read Andy Collin's comments on WOTC's thinking behind PH2's feats.

Careful there, partner. Them's fightin' words in these parts.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Victim]

The thing is that the weapon mastery feats aren't really exciting, they're just passive bonuses. Since they apply to the character's main weapon too, they still don't provide an incentive to use the non specialized weapons. And they only require 4 levels of fighter, which makes Fighter 4/Other-fighty-type X build that much sweeter - it's not like they're a reason to stay in the class.

In terms of class balance, it's not like fighter types (especially the fighter barb ones) were weak in terms of hitting people and doing damage. It's everything else that they lack.

 

[hafrogman]

On the other hand, if they provide no bonus other than to weapons that are NOT your favorite weapon, why would it be required for Weapon Supremacy?

 

[Dr_Rictus]

On the other hand, if they provide no bonus other than to weapons that are NOT your favorite weapon, why would it be required for Weapon Supremacy?

Where are you getting "no bonus" from? There hasn't been any such scenario suggested. Look at the numbers again.

 

[hafrogman]

Where are you getting "no bonus" from? There hasn't been any such scenario suggested. Look at the numbers again.

You were suggesting that they would not stack with weapon focus and weapon specialization.

If one has weapon focus, greater weapon focus and weapon specialization in, say, longsword. You want to be the greatest swordsman in the land. But before you can take weapon supremacy (longsword) you have to take melee weapon mastery, which, 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).

That at least was my understanding of your implications.

 

[comrade raoul]

See, I don't think the stacking interpretation necessarily follows from Andy Collins' post. The prerequisites for Melee or Ranged Weapon Mastery aren't that high: they're way lower than Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization, but a stacking Weapon Mastery is better than both of those feats put together (and better than any feat in the book, I think, except, arguably, for Weapon Supremacy). Either Greater Weapon Specialization is a "lower-level" feat than we always thought, or something's wrong with Melee Weapon Mastery.

Personally, I don't see any compelling mechanical reason why they should stack -- combat characters (including fighters) get enough of a boost from the PH2 rules as it is -- but see a lot of mechanical reasons why they shouldn't (in addition to being arguably just overpowered, Melee or Ranged Weapon Mastery make a four-level dip into the fighter class way too good).

The most charitable interpretation is to assume a wording problem, I think. I'd really like to hear some official response on this front.