Winning Races: Dwarves

[jbear]

It is a static +2, but it also gives you access to the superior axes and hammers from Adventurer's Vault (since DWT gives you proficiency with "all axes and hammers"), which have Brutal. E.g. Executioner Axe (superior Greataxe) Brutal 2. So in effect, DWT gives you +3. Prior to the stat change, dwarves were one point of attack roll and one point of damage short of everyone else. Now, not only are they on a par with everyone else in stats, they have a feat that gives them Epic level damage bonus at level 1.

Now I was thinking about this change to Dwarven stats and wondering how much of an advantage it gives over other +2 Str +2 Con races, which off the top of my head are Goliaths, Warforged and Minotaurs.

The point of contention is DWT feat which gives not only +2 damage bonus, but also access to superior axes and hammers.

However there has also been a change to the Expertise Feats which now come with additional bonus effects apart from the scaling attack bonus. Am I correct in saying that Axe Expertise now also gives all axes you use the Brutal property?

So if my minotaur fighter picks up Axe Expertise which adds brutal, his normal old battle axe becomes mechanically identical in all but weapon type to a Craghammer, which is a superior weapon. The Great Axe and the Execution Axe also become very nearly mechanically identical if you think about it.

Now a Dwarf of course can pick up this feat as well, and of course should, because damn who isn't going to get these feats now??? So his DWT now can have him handling a War Axe that is Brutal 1. He has an advantage of d12 vs a d10.

And of course he gets a +2 feat bonus with damage. But keep in mind it has cost him 2 feats to get both of these features. My minotaur can also take Weapon Focus and have +1 feat bonus to my axe damage, which becomes +2 at level 11.

So my minotaur has taken 2 feats and uses a one handed versatile battle axe that does 1d10 dmg and has brutal 1. +1 Atq and +1 feat damage. A dwarf has a versatile war axe that does 1d12 dmg and has brutal 1. +1 Atq and +2 feat damage. At level 11 our bonus feat damage is the same. At Epic my minotaur does more.

The difference is there. The Dwarf is slightly better up until epic. When you put a minor action second wind (which he can now do 2/encounter??? Surely not??? Surely that should be: 'You can use your second wind a second time in an encounter as a standard action') into the picture the difference is slightly more pronounced. But it doesn't seem like a Massive Advantage. My minotaur can knock down on a charge (and +2 AC when I do so vs OAs), and interrupt 1/round anyone that is about to kill him and try and kill them first (or whoever is at hand if they can't be reached) ... not entirely worthless features by any means. +1 healing surge which never goes amiss. Skillwise, well who doesn't love a bonus in perception and nature?

So how far ahead is the Dwarf really? Hasn't the Dwarven Advantage via DWT been reduced by the Expertise feat which is available to everyone?

 

[LightPhoenix]

I love the idea of racially-based content (I'd love to see race elevated to near parity with class as a part of character definition) but adding feats like these and in most cases not even making them dwarf-only???

The reason for this is (most likely) because one of the ideas behind Essentials was to remove prerequisites for feats across the board. There are still some, but the number has been greatly reduced and in most cases there seems to be reasoning behind having them. An excellent example would be the improved NAD feats. Generally, a +2 to one NAD isn't worth the feat if the character already has a high score. However, if they get something extra out of it, not only does it make the feat more attractive, but also thematically sensible.

Similarly, if a character has a high Con, why shouldn't they be allowed to take a feat that implies improved stamina simply because they aren't a dwarf? In the case of Resolute Stamina, it has limited use for non-Dwarves due to SW being a Standard Action. On the other hand, if you want to burn an AP and spend two Second Winds, why not? There's no real reason to limit the feat to Dwarves aside from flavor.

On that note, I don't get why there's prerequisites on the feat in the article at all. Resolute Stamina I understand the Con 15, but I'm not certain it's really necessary - most Dwarves will throw points into Con with the Bonus anyway. Quick Steps I could see if they want to keep +1 speed to Paragon Tier, but allowing Dwarves early access removes one of their bigger drawbacks. Solid Footing I don't understand at all, and could easily come up with flavor reasons why other races should get it.

 

[Shin Okada]

I found that in some rare situation, both Clangeddin’s Axe Expertise is worse than current Versatile Expertise.

For example, my Dwarf Avenger can use an Axe as his implement thanks to Symbol of the Sonnlinor feat (Dragon 385).

Versatile Expertise feat just says,

You gain a +1 feat bonus to attack rolls both when using a weapon from the chosen group and when using an implement of the chosen type.

On the other hand, Clangeddin’s Axe Expertise says,

You gain a +1 feat bonus to weapon attack rolls you make with an axe.

Emphasis added.

So, with Versatile Expertise feat, I can use my execution axe for both weapon and implement attacks and can gain attack bonus for all of them.

With Clangeddin’s Axe Expertise feat, I can only gain attack bonus to weapon attacks.

I am interested in if new essential expertise feat will say "weapon attack" or not.

 

[Obryn]

I am interested in if new essential expertise feat will say "weapon attack" or not.

Each individual Expertise feat in HotFL specifies either Weapon or Implement attacks, except for Staff Expertise which specifies both. So, Heavy Blade expertise gives a bonus to defenses against OAs, and a scaling attack bonus that only works for Weapon attacks.

It's the same with Weapon Focus and Implement Focus. It's the biggest change I've seen that's gone (as far as I've seen) unremarked-upon in the preview reviews.

-O

 

[Aegeri]

Personally I think it's just plain logical and makes sense.

What they have to do is back it up by making sure to fill in feats where people need them. So they need to have weapliment feats and similar to back up other users. Preferably with their own benefits as well, just like everything else. Personally I'm picking the Hexblade as a weapliment using Warlock - so I expect weapliment feats to be in Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms. Their attitude was clearly "If this wasn't useful for a character in this book, don't put it there". So I don't think it's unreasonable of me to assume they will publish these and they aren't just hating weapliment classes.

Really there is an entire other book to go. Let's see what they do there and complain about the gaps afterwards. We'll know what the gaps are then to start throwing things at wizards to get them made!

 

[Obryn]

Yep, I kind of expect the weapliment issue to be resolved next month. If nothing else, the upcoming Bladesinger will probably face the same problem, too.

-O

 

[BASHMAN]

See this I don't believe. Nearly every Str based class benefits from Con and/or Wisdom, so the points other races save by having a +2 Str, a dwarf saves in those stats. And again, Battlemind and Avengers both use the dwarves current stat bonuses and benefit from the superior weapons as well, hell Avenger even more so due to increased crit chance, and the Githzerai stat bonuses apply to just as many if not more weapon classes, give proficiency with almost all heavy blades and a +2/3/4 bonus, there is no reason for people to be claiming that DWT is now OP.

Perhaps, but what if I DON'T WANT to play a battlemind or a warthinker or a swordsoul or whatever other class they come up with next. I want to play a fighter, which benefits from his STR bonus. Before, I put my highest stat in STR and CON anyway. Now I'll do the same, and my STR will be 2 higher.

Initially the explaination for DWT existing as a feat was a balance issue- so that Dwarves would be a good pick for Fighters despite their lack of STR bonus. They gave Eladrin the same thing w/ Swords and Spears for the same reason. This was of course BEFORE the feat that gives you +1 to hit was invented, and the one that lets you pick whatever stat you want as your base attack stat was invented. Had those feats been around back then, they may not have invented DWT, as dwarves would have just hit people with axes by looking tough with their high CON scores (which they can also still do, I suppose if they pick WIS instead of STR).

 

[Prestidigitalis]

The reason for this is (most likely) because one of the ideas behind Essentials was to remove prerequisites for feats across the board.

I guess that's valid reasoning. It's moving away from the thinking I espoused above, but I can see where it could make sense. I do like much of what I'm seeing of the Essentials stuff, so maybe it will turn out okay.

 

[Aegeri]

I guess that's valid reasoning. It's moving away from the thinking I espoused above, but I can see where it could make sense. I do like much of what I'm seeing of the Essentials stuff, so maybe it will turn out okay.

It's not quite that extreme though, for example all three Superior NAD feats have a prerequisite of 15 in one of the two relevant stats each. What they're generally doing is instead of having say, 3 NAD feats with three tier prerequisites that everyone retrains all the time: have ONE feat with no tier prerequisite and just scale the effect.

This is entirely logical game design, it's simpler and repeats needless repetition of different feats and similar.

I don't think we'll see the entire death of tier prerequisites for some feats, but in general I think a feat you can take any time that scales in effect will be the norm.

 

[Kerranin]

It's not quite that extreme though, for example all three Superior NAD feats have a prerequisite of 15 in one of the two relevant stats each. What they're generally doing is instead of having say, 3 NAD feats with three tier prerequisites that everyone retrains all the time: have ONE feat with no tier prerequisite and just scale the effect.

This is entirely logical game design, it's simpler and repeats needless repetition of different feats and similar.

I don't think we'll see the entire death of tier prerequisites for some feats, but in general I think a feat you can take any time that scales in effect will be the norm.

I agree, removing the need to retrain feats seems very sensible. Retraining should end up being the exception, not the rule.