Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5612757" data-attributes="member: 59248">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/keterys.html" target="_blank">keterys</a> -- Sure.  But house rules like this aren't relevant in LFR anyway.@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/nyronus.html" target="_blank">Nyronus</a>: Superior Weapon prof varies a lot in facility -- which I think is most of the beef the OP has with it, really, rather than the feat tax issues.  Two handed weapons usually have good or great SWP options; so do full one-handed options.  But throwing weapons have no superior weapon options (that do more damage than non-superior weapons; mostly the superior thrown weapons are only made worthwhile via feats, or have combinations of abilities -- like the Cahulaks; a superior thrown double weapon with reach; weapon of choice for a ranger who prefers to be able to do everything reasonably than once thing well, or maybe a fighter who wants to use dual strike without being a tempest?  Arena, maybe), and dagger features don't usually work with superior [parrying] daggers.This is actually probably more of a problem for people who can take superior weapons -without- the feat.  Dwarves, Eladrin, and Gith are going to start out looking for superior axes, spears, and heavy blades (well, bastard sword and fullblade), as are Arena fighters.  So it's pretty tough for a player playing an Eladrin to go for  throwing build when they could be using a Greatspear, or a Dwarf to throw axes/hammers when they could be using waraxes instead.  IMO, the real solution is to provide superior weapons in the missing categories -- or to do it ad-hoc as Klaus suggests.Similarly, I like superior implements in principle.  Accurate implements are kinda boring (if often optimal), but the rest provide interesting flavor.Now, here's the problem I have with superior whatzits: They make you boring.  And they punish you for diversity.  This actually isn't as much of a problem if you're getting multiple superior profs at once; a dwarf can carry around hand-axes for thrown use, an execution axe for slugging it out, and a gouge for charging and make use of what's appropriate; an Eladrin can switch between a gouge and a greatspear depending on whether they need the reach or the damage, with some tridents in reserved to throw.  But it really punishes characters who use both weapons and implements, who have to choose which path to ignore (hmm.  I could actually see tradeoff feats that let you deal with double-specialization options in a novel fashion; either ones that lock you into a single item type for both weapon and implement but let you grab, say, both a superior implement and a superior weapon on the same weapliment type, or feats for classes like Avenger, PH Paladin [huh.  Why didn't they come up with a new name for that?] and Templar  that lets them trade a small penalty (probably something minor-but-important like -1 to a defense) for two proficiencies.  The problem being, of course, that two for the price of one is strictly better than one for the price of one even if you don't planning on using both (the issue with Versetile Expertise in its original setting; it would be fine now if you changed the breakpoints on the bonuses to 11/21), so unless you're going to class-lock such boosts [which is bloaty], you have to give them some other disad.</blockquote>

Verification