# Does everyone take Superior Weapon Proficiencies?



## Obryn (Dec 4, 2008)

Everyone who uses weapons, that is?

Honestly, this is by far the most-taken feat in my game.  (Second place is Toughness, in a complete reversal from 3e )  When folks are asking for advice, it's one of the first ones I suggest.  Feats are cheap, and good feats can be hard to find.

In my group now, 5/6 of them have superior weapons.  2 people use Bastard Swords (Swordmage & Warlord), 1 uses a Fullblade (Cleric), 1 uses a Greatbow (Ranger), and 1 uses a Craghammer (Fighter).  The only one without is the party's Wizard.

Personally, especially after Adventurer's Vault, it seems almost silly _not_ to.  In some cases, it's one of the few ways to get an extra +1 to attack.  Failing that, a die size increase is a huge benefit that will pretty much make a difference on every single attack.  (And, personally, I'm a huge fan of the Brutal property.)  With the Transfer Enchantment ritual, you even avoid the 3e pitfalls of specializing in a hard-to-find weapon.

Now, I don't see this as a problem - in fact, I think it's pretty cool.  I'm just wondering if everyone else is seeing this.

-O


----------



## cjais (Dec 4, 2008)

I see it as a bit of a problem. It locks the player in with regards to weapon usage, and as a DM, it's kinda frustrating to be so restricted when dealing out magic weapons: "Here's a Greatspear, a Waraxe and a Bastard Sword, I guess you can figure out who takes what". If you ignore their Superior Weapon feats, they feel wasted. 

I'd much rather have the freedom of giving them a broad range of weapons, which they can then decide how to use best.


----------



## infocynic (Dec 4, 2008)

cjais said:


> I see it as a bit of a problem. It locks the player in with regards to weapon usage, and as a DM, it's kinda frustrating to be so restricted when dealing out magic weapons: "Here's a Greatspear, a Waraxe and a Bastard Sword, I guess you can figure out who takes what". If you ignore their Superior Weapon feats, they feel wasted.
> 
> I'd much rather have the freedom of giving them a broad range of weapons, which they can then decide how to use best.



If the enchantment type is compatible, they could always perform the Transfer Enchantment ritual from the adventurer's vault to copy the properties from one magic item that you give them onto another.


----------



## Skallgrim (Dec 4, 2008)

Our group has ONE player with a superior weapon proficiency, the human cleric, who used his bonus feat for Triple Flail.  The dwarf fighter took Dwarven Weapon Training, the Ranger uses Longswords, the wizard didn't bother, and while the Rogue likes the look of Kukri, to her (and me) it is basically a short sword with +1 damage (as the lowered proficiency bonus balances Rogue Weapon Talent) and she could get that +1 to damage with Two Weapon Fighting anyway.

Almost everyone has had another feat that they are more excited about.  The cleric wasn't even particularly interested in triple flail, but we had a mini with a flail, and he liked the extra proficiency bonus it conveyed.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 4, 2008)

infocynic said:


> If the enchantment type is compatible, they could always perform the Transfer Enchantment ritual from the adventurer's vault to copy the properties from one magic item that you give them onto another.



Yep, it has quite literally not been an issue in my game.  The Transfer Enchantment ritual costs a paltry 25gp a pop.  When the party got a +2 Flaming Maul, the Swordmage claimed it.  His Frost enchantment went to the cleric's fullblade, and the cleric's acid enchantment went to the drow ranger's longsword.  The +2 Flaming enchantment went into the Swordmage's bastard sword.  Total cost was 75gp, and it was pretty cool, IMHO.



Skallgrim said:


> Our group has ONE player with a superior weapon proficiency, the human cleric, who used his bonus feat for Triple Flail.  The dwarf fighter took Dwarven Weapon Training, the Ranger uses Longswords, the wizard didn't bother, and while the Rogue likes the look of Kukri, to her (and me) it is basically a short sword with +1 damage (as the lowered proficiency bonus balances Rogue Weapon Talent) and she could get that +1 to damage with Two Weapon Fighting anyway.
> 
> Almost everyone has had another feat that they are more excited about.  The cleric wasn't even particularly interested in triple flail, but we had a mini with a flail, and he liked the extra proficiency bonus it conveyed.



Huh!  I can understand the rogue and wizard not caring (really, the Rogue is best off with a simple dagger).

Question, though - does the dwarf fighter use one of the Superior Weapons?  He lucks out and gets proficiency in all the axes and hammers, so I'd be surprised if he didn't avail himself of one.

Also, is the Ranger looking into bastard swords?

-O


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 4, 2008)

cjais said:


> I see it as a bit of a problem. It locks the player in with regards to weapon usage, and as a DM, it's kinda frustrating to be so restricted when dealing out magic weapons: "Here's a Greatspear, a Waraxe and a Bastard Sword, I guess you can figure out who takes what". If you ignore their Superior Weapon feats, they feel wasted.
> 
> I'd much rather have the freedom of giving them a broad range of weapons, which they can then decide how to use best.



Then your basic problem isn't with superior weapons, its with the concept of weapon specialization itself.


----------



## Yumepenguin (Dec 4, 2008)

cjais said:


> I see it as a bit of a problem. It locks the player in with regards to weapon usage, and as a DM, it's kinda frustrating to be so restricted when dealing out magic weapons: "Here's a Greatspear, a Waraxe and a Bastard Sword, I guess you can figure out who takes what". If you ignore their Superior Weapon feats, they feel wasted.
> 
> I'd much rather have the freedom of giving them a broad range of weapons, which they can then decide how to use best.




I don't think that's really a bad thing.  You have to do the same thing with armor unless everybody takes the feats to all be at Scale armor.

Also, the DMG encourages a DM to get a "wishlist" from the players to ensure people are getting what fits for how they want their character to play.

If you don't like that then it's fine, but for times when many characters have special weapons I'd find it highly advisible because they'll feel their feat is useless if they're not constantly using their superior weapon type.


----------



## Mengu (Dec 4, 2008)

In my game, only the Rogue got Kukri, and that was more for flavor than anything else (really I think the dagger is the best rogue weapon). In our other game, no one has a superior weapon though one person is considering it because we just found a magic bastard sword.

I'm playing a Warlord with a Longsword, and have no intention of upgrading to a superior weapon. There are many other feats I'd like to grab before that.

Toughness is probably the most commonly picked feat, I have 2 players with it, and a third planning on it next time he gets a feat. And in our other game, we have 1 person with it, and 2 others planning to get it (including myself for my warlord).

Every wizard in every game we play has leather armor proficiency.
Every rogue in every game we play has backstabber.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 4, 2008)

Mengu said:


> Every wizard in every game we play has leather armor proficiency.



The Wizard in mine got a Shimmering Robe +1 (from AV) and hasn't looked back.  I think it's safe to say she'll never get Leather at this point.   "You don't provoke Opportunity Attacks by making Ranged or Area Attacks" is just too huge a benefit.



> Every rogue in every game we play has backstabber.



Yep, that one's a gimme.  Even more than Lethal Hunter is for Rangers.

-O


----------



## Evilhalfling (Dec 4, 2008)

No one in my table group took it - Fighter, warlord, rogue, ranger (level 4)
Since the group dropped to 3 players 2 took toughness and one took durability.  They are retraining other feats for Martial Power options - improved inspiring word and the reuse sneak attack with AP feat.  Both saying "this is just exactly what I was looking for." 

They used a transfer enchantment ritual on a +2 magic x-bow, turning it into a throwing axe (eh...close enough) The warlord is considering using this as his primary weapon - same chance to hit as his +1 longsword, and no tedious weapon shifting.  When I put in the (useless) +2 x-bow I had no idea it would become such a favored weapon. 

In the one online game Im playing that uses AV -(L20) the dwarf uses a (dwarf weapon prof) Craighammer, while others use longbow, maul, staff and longsword.  Im not sure the elf cleric even has a weapon.  _When I suggested that he needed something,  he picked up a magic dagger and longbow._


----------



## cjais (Dec 4, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Then your basic problem isn't with superior weapons, its with the concept of weapon specialization itself.




Oh yeah, it definately is. I'm not that bothered by it, and won't be such an  to give them weapons without regard for their feats.

It just ruins a bit of the surprise when you have to tailor all the "legendary magical weapons" in the setting as conveniently superior weapons of their chosen type. 
I like it when I can hand out magical items that are useful for more than one party member, and then watch them "fight" over it. Whether its leather armor, scale armor, neck items or weapons. It's a bit disheartening to see their faces when I give them a worthless +3 Greatspear, just because the spear-wielding Warlord couldn't make it that day. 

And I don't think I'l consider the "Transfer Enchantment", that's a bit too gamist and artificial, even for me.


----------



## Nail (Dec 4, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Now, I don't see this as a problem - in fact, I think it's pretty cool.  I'm just wondering if everyone else is seeing this.



Yep, Superior Weapon proficiency is good.  If you "do the numbers" and calculate the "Give to Gets" ratio (how many enemies you can kill before you get bloodied), Superior Weapon Proficiency is generally the second best choice.  

The best choice, of course, is toughness.  Yes, toughness really is that good; do the math and you'll see.


----------



## scarik (Dec 4, 2008)

cjais said:
			
		

> And I don't think I'l consider the "Transfer Enchantment", that's a bit too gamist and artificial, even for me.




I hope you have this same issue with all the magic that gives you game benefits.

Otherwise you're saying it's ok for a Wizard to take an ordinary sword and infusin it with magical energy to make it +2 Flaming, but its is not ok for him to pick up a +2 Flaming Battle Axe and suck the magic out of the item entirely then infusing a longsword with it?

i think its an awesome visual to have the mage set both weapons down in front of him on a table beside his ritual book as he reads out the incantation while slowly pouring residuum over both weapons until he reaches the final lines, picks up both weapons and shouts the last phrase. 

Then in a burst of arcane power the battle axe ignites and the flames surge across the wizard's body and ground out into the longsword until the axe eventually dims until its fire dies out forever and the sword now burns with its lost power.

Bonus points if you rule the axe crumbles to dust at the very end.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 4, 2008)

Nail said:


> Yep, Superior Weapon proficiency is good.  If you "do the numbers" and calculate the "Give to Gets" ratio (how many enemies you can kill before you get bloodied), Superior Weapon Proficiency is generally the second best choice.
> 
> The best choice, of course, is toughness.  Yes, toughness really is that good; do the math and you'll see.



Grindtastic but very true. 







cjais said:


> And I don't think I'l consider the "Transfer Enchantment", that's a bit too gamist and artificial, even for me.



I like the concept myself. Unless the enchantment on the weapon came about spontaneously {Becoming magic though it's own rich history and Glories], I don't mind one wizard transfering another's wizard's work from one hunk of steel to another.


----------



## Ibixat (Dec 4, 2008)

Nail said:


> Yep, Superior Weapon proficiency is good.  If you "do the numbers" and calculate the "Give to Gets" ratio (how many enemies you can kill before you get bloodied), Superior Weapon Proficiency is generally the second best choice.
> 
> The best choice, of course, is toughness.  Yes, toughness really is that good; do the math and you'll see.





Do you consider toughness as a must have even at higher level or more important lower level and then retrainable, maybe to be picked up again later on.  I would never get rid of it on a defender but my rogue has other feats that would quite likely have more impact at 6th-9th level.  It just feels like a feat that scales poorly, I almost think it should have been 5+(level/3) hp to make it scale better through 30th


----------



## cjais (Dec 4, 2008)

scarik said:


> i think its an awesome visual to have the mage set both weapons down in front of him on a table beside his ritual book as he reads out the incantation while slowly pouring residuum over both weapons until he reaches the final lines, picks up both weapons and shouts the last phrase.
> 
> Then in a burst of arcane power the battle axe ignites and the flames surge across the wizard's body and ground out into the longsword until the axe eventually dims until its fire dies out forever and the sword now burns with its lost power.
> 
> Bonus points if you rule the axe crumbles to dust at the very end.




That's a good way of putting it, I hadn't thought of that


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 4, 2008)

Ibixat said:


> Do you consider toughness as a must have even at higher level or more important lower level and then retrainable, maybe to be picked up again later on. I would never get rid of it on a defender but my rogue has other feats that would quite likely have more impact at 6th-9th level. It just feels like a feat that scales poorly, I almost think it should have been 5+(level/3) hp to make it scale better through 30th



Retraining it in the later levels of a tier actually does sound like a good plan. Since you get the whole amount of HP for the tier when you take it, trading it out midway through the tier will let the HP you have gained going through the tier make up for it, freeing op the feat. Then at the new tier, retraining back to toughness. Thus when the character is facing a whole new shload of foes and expectations in the new tier, they have extra HP JIC, but later on after they have gained more HP from class and the ratio of “Toughness HP to Class HP“ is not as favorable, they just retrain it again.


----------



## Nail (Dec 4, 2008)

Ibixat said:


> Do you consider toughness as a must have even at higher level or more important lower level and then retrainable, maybe to be picked up again later on.



"Must have"?  No.  

It's _best_ at the lower levels of each tier, just as you'd expect.  10 hp means more at 11th level than it does at 20th.

Toughness is very good (for a 4e feat).  If you keep in mind that in order to damage something, you have to expose youself to the chance of being hit, you'll "get" why toughness is good.  How many attacks can you take (on average) before you become bloodied?

Toughness adds to that.  

Given how it stands in RAW (+5 hp per tier of play), it's good.  Scaling it with level would make it even better.  Too good, maybe.


Back on topic: Extra damage is good.  Superior weapon proficiency gives you ~1 hp extra damage per attack.  However, so does the feat Weapon Focus.  So if you don't want to specialize in a single weapon, take a weapon group instead.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 4, 2008)

scarik said:


> Otherwise you're saying it's ok for a Wizard to take an ordinary sword and infusin it with magical energy to make it +2 Flaming, but its is not ok for him to pick up a +2 Flaming Battle Axe and suck the magic out of the item entirely then infusing a longsword with it?




That's more or less how I feel, actually.  To me, magic is not something you just pour into an item; it's integral to the item itself.  You don't forge a normal sword and then turn it magic.  The enchantment takes place as part of the forging, and alters the properties of the sword.

To put it in a real-world context, say you have a Damascus steel sword and a crude iron battle-axe.  You can't suck the Damascus out of the sword and pour it into the battle-axe.  I look on magical properties as being the same kind of thing.

What I'm planning to do instead is give PCs books of magical lore and special ritual components that enable them to create magic items with particular abilities - for example, a lore-book explaining how to make a Thundering weapon, and enough dedicated components to create one such weapon.  That allows them to make weapons that fit their needs, without grinding my DM gears.  (It also gives me a nice little quest hook, if the lore-book calls for something like dragon blood in addition to the other components...)

Also, in my games, "named" magic items tend to level up with the character - one of my PCs has a frost weapon whose numeric bonus scales with the level of the wielder.  That way he doesn't have to get rid of his family's ancestral sword just because he's outgrown it, and I don't have to hand out an endless series of magic longswords to keep him adequately armed.



Nail said:


> Back on topic: Extra damage is good. Superior weapon proficiency gives you ~1 hp extra damage per attack. However, so does the feat Weapon Focus. So if you don't want to specialize in a single weapon, take a weapon group instead.




You're missing one important element, though.  Weapon Focus gives you +1 per attack.  Superior Weapon Proficiency gives you (on average) +1 _per weapon die_.  Your basic attacks for 1[W] get +1 damage either way; but an encounter power that does 3[W] damage still only gets +1 from Weapon Focus, but +3 from Superior Weapon Proficiency.  Thus, at Heroic tier, SWP is the better feat.

Of course, Weapon Focus scales with tier, which makes it less clear-cut as you advance.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Dec 4, 2008)

Yep IMC 3 of 4 superior....ranger (bastard swordx2), cleric (Bastard sword) and fighter (whatever the supe axe is called)...not superior is the Wiz, who has a longsword anyway!


----------



## fba827 (Dec 4, 2008)

Between all the character rerolls (from deaths and character changes and such we're talking about 15 PCs) I have yet to see anyone in my group take this feat for any of their characters.

Edit: not saying it isn't good for some builds, I'm just saying it's far from being a "must have" in my group.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 4, 2008)

I think most people take both.

For my part, I generally take Superior Weapon proficiency (or a different feat that grants the proficiencies) with my characters.

Dwarf ranger: Dwarven weapon training and twin craghammer
Human battle cleric: Superior weapon proficiency: fullblade
Eladrin warlord: Eladrin soldier, greatspear, and tratnyrs
Human great weapon fighter: Just uses a heavy flail--the character seemed a lot more viable before martial power.
Human strength paladin: Superior weapon proficiency: bastard sword
Human warlord: Superior weapon proficiency: bastard sword

If I get a chance to play my rogue, it will be superior weapon proficiency: Double sword (and backstabber)



Nail said:


> Back on topic: Extra damage is good.  Superior weapon proficiency gives you ~1 hp extra damage per attack.  However, so does the feat Weapon Focus.  So if you don't want to specialize in a single weapon, take a weapon group instead.


----------



## Nail (Dec 4, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> You're missing one important element, though.  Weapon Focus gives you +1 per attack.  Superior Weapon Proficiency gives you (on average) +1 _per weapon die_.



True!  A good reminder.

Consider, though, how often you use 2[W] (or higher powers).  So far my PCs tend to be using a lot of 1[W] powers.  Still, your point stands.


----------



## Victim (Dec 4, 2008)

In our group, only the warlock and my warlord don't use superior weapons.  The ranger has a greatbow, the fighter has a bastard sword, and the pally has a triple flail.

I tried out a Spiked Chain and didn't like it much; I prefer one handed weapons on my warlord, since my HP and surges aren't very good.  And right now, new martial power feats are trumping superior weaponry for my character.   Both the tactical presence booster and the one that adds a bonus to granted attacks seem more desireable right now.


----------



## Ibixat (Dec 4, 2008)

Elder-Basilisk said:


> I think most people take both.
> 
> For my part, I generally take Superior Weapon proficiency (or a different feat that grants the proficiencies) with my characters.
> 
> ...




I'm sorely tempted by the double sword cheese myself, but I'm sticking to my dagger hand crossbow drow.  I'll take it over the mechanical benefit =(


----------



## Mengu (Dec 4, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> Weapon Focus gives you +1 per attack. Superior Weapon Proficiency gives you (on average) +1 _per weapon die_. Your basic attacks for 1[W] get +1 damage either way; but an encounter power that does 3[W] damage still only gets +1 from Weapon Focus, but +3 from Superior Weapon Proficiency. Thus, at Heroic tier, SWP is the better feat.




Just to add, superior weapons also yield slightly better damage on criticals, than Weapon Focus.


----------



## Eldorian (Dec 4, 2008)

Nail said:


> Back on topic: Extra damage is good.  Superior weapon proficiency gives you ~1 hp extra damage per attack.  However, so does the feat Weapon Focus.  So if you don't want to specialize in a single weapon, take a weapon group instead.




Actually, superior weapons really shine when you use powers that do multiple [W] damage, which is basically most of the time after heroic tier.  That's why they're better than weapon focus.  Plus they stack.


----------



## Gruns (Dec 5, 2008)

*Plus...*



Nail said:


> (snip)
> Toughness is very good (for a 4e feat).  If you keep in mind that in order to damage something, you have to expose youself to the chance of being hit, you'll "get" why toughness is good.  How many attacks can you take (on average) before you become bloodied?




Not to mention that Toughness always adds at least 1 to your Healing Surge value, sometimes 2. This is what I feel is what makes Toughness so good. Those extra Hit Points add up fast. It's a lot more to get excited about then the initial "it's just 5 Hit Points per tier" effect.
Later!
Gruns


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 5, 2008)

Eldorian said:


> Actually, superior weapons really shine when you use powers that do multiple [W] damage, which is basically most of the time after heroic tier. That's why they're better than weapon focus. Plus they stack.



Weapon focus stacks up pretty evenly to superior weapons.

At heroic tier the majority of your attacks will deal 1[W] damage.  So most of the time +1 from weapon focus is just as good as a weapon that does +1 per [W] on the average attack.  This slightly favors superior weapons.

At paragon tier weapon focus does +2 per attack.  So its better for at wills and attacks that do 1[W].  Its even for attacks that do 2[W], and behind for attacks that deal 3[W] or more.  This is pretty much a wash.

At epic tier weapon focus does +3 per attack.  Even though your at wills deal 2[W] now, +3 still beats +2 from superior weapons.  For attacks that deal 3[W], both choices are even.  Superior weapons only pull ahead for 4[W] or more.

But seriously?  We know you're going to take both of them anyways, since they stack.  They're not really in competition.


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 5, 2008)

I think I'm the only player in my group with a superior weapon; I'm an artificer multi-classed into rogue, so going for rapier was pretty much a no brainer for me.


----------



## nittanytbone (Dec 5, 2008)

I am playing a protecting paladin and have not seen the need for Bastard Sword Prof or Weapon Focus.  My role isn't to do damage;  its to mark the right foe and absorb a lot of attacks.  Most of my damage comes from making monsters defy my mark and take a heap of Radiant.  Plus, many of my encounter and daily powers come from implements, so the extra point of damage doesn't come into play when it is really needed.


----------



## yesnomu (Dec 5, 2008)

My Swordmage took Bastard Sword, and my Barbarian took Mordenkrad (and loves it, even in heroic-- he'll adore it in Paragon when he takes Hammer Rhythm). But my fellow party members haven't taken anything special, so far.

I really like superior weapons, and wish there was some kind of implement equivalent. Implement wielders are really getting the short ends of the stick so far in this edition, I hope Arcane Power/Divine Power help make up ground.


----------



## Eldorian (Dec 5, 2008)

yesnomu said:


> I really like superior weapons, and wish there was some kind of implement equivalent. Implement wielders are really getting the short ends of the stick so far in this edition, I hope Arcane Power/Divine Power help make up ground.




Yah, what's up with the annoying requirements on the weapon focus equivalents for implement wielders?  I was thinking of making a Dark pact warlock with the necrotic/psychic damage feat but the 13 con/wis is just annoying.


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 5, 2008)

I try to take it for weapon-based strikers myself, since I'd say they benefit the most (although defenders are pretty close).


----------



## Mengu (Dec 5, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> I try to take it for weapon-based strikers myself, since I'd say they benefit the most (although defenders are pretty close).




Indeed, Bastard Sword or Greatbow makes a significant difference for the ranger, since you want as big a die as possible with twin strike.


----------



## chitzk0i (Dec 7, 2008)

In one game I'm in, several players won't be here next session, so both remaining players will bring in another character.  I normally run a human barbarian and the DM and I put together a Tiefling resourceful warlord for me.  (Infernal Strategist is _awesome!_  +Int to damage for me _and_ my flanking buddy?  Thanks!)  He wound up using a Grasping Tratnyr from the AV.  The warlord can throw it at a distant enemy, pull them adjacent, and then the barbarian can Pressing Strike into flanking position.  My DM ruled that the Tratnyr as printed was just too useless, so he said it's only range 5/10 but +3 proficiency.

We were on such an optimizing jag that we tinkered with my barbarian, too.  He switched from a greatsword to a greatspear and picked up Rain of Blows (since he already has a fighter PP).  Once I'm flanking, each attack will be for 1d10+15, plus extra for Howling Strike!

Before this, no one in our group used a superior weapon...


----------



## Starglim (Dec 7, 2008)

I haven't seen it. Our group has one Swordmage with a greatbow out of five characters created after _Adventurer's Vault_ came out - no apparent interest in bastard swords. I've played three martial characters and always found a better use for a feat.

Agreed that Toughness is amazingly better though.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 7, 2008)

I've got eight players, and we've had 10 pcs so far, and not one of them has had a superior weapon. 

Shrug. You tell me.


----------



## evilgenius8000 (Dec 7, 2008)

Yes, a lot of the people I play with have used superior weapons. I don't think it means they're broken -- just an easy 1st level feat. As for the bastard sword, my swordmage skipped it in favor of the khopesh to have his pick of the best axe and sword feats.


----------



## Thundershield (Dec 7, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> That's more or less how I feel, actually. To me, magic is not something you just pour into an item; it's integral to the item itself. You don't forge a normal sword and then turn it magic. The enchantment takes place as part of the forging, and alters the properties of the sword.
> 
> To put it in a real-world context, say you have a Damascus steel sword and a crude iron battle-axe. You can't suck the Damascus out of the sword and pour it into the battle-axe. I look on magical properties as being the same kind of thing.
> 
> ...



While you're fully in your right to do that with your campaign, and it makes sense, it's not quite how it works in 4E.

You can actually "suck" the craftsmanship out of a weapon or armor and "pour" it into another. Many special materials, such as Mithral or Adamantine or even Githyanki Silver, are now "enchantments" you can simply move from one item to another with the Transfer Enchantment ritual.

That's actually a nice way of letting a player keep his ancestral weapon, since he can just have new enchantments transferred onto it, thus never actually outgrowing it. And he can even get these enchantments from weapons that aren't necessarily the exact same type of weapon as his family heirloom.

That said, I'm certainly not against alternate ways of handling magic items. Weapons of Legacy for 3.5 seemed incredibly promising at first, and the idea of weapons that can somehow level up with the players is still something I'm looking for good mechanics for. So far, the best I've seen in that regard is the new rules for artifacts, but giving everybody an artifact every game is... probably not a good idea.

But I digress... Back on topic.


----------



## Skallgrim (Dec 8, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Huh!  I can understand the rogue and wizard not caring (really, the Rogue is best off with a simple dagger).
> 
> Question, though - does the dwarf fighter use one of the Superior Weapons?  He lucks out and gets proficiency in all the axes and hammers, so I'd be surprised if he didn't avail himself of one.
> 
> ...





The dwarf is now using an Execution Axe, but he's been promiscuous in his use of weapons (waraxe, greataxe, throwing hammer).  He took the feat for the damage bonus before Martial Power even came out, so it's not as if he took it to get access to Superior Weapons, though he is now using one.

The ranger is looking into bastard swords, but as both he and I have played GURPS, and at least one of us has wielded a bastard sword, the benefits in the game are clashing off the reality firmly fixed in our minds that bastard swords are way too damn big to wield in each hand!   God help me if someone wants to wield a double flail or double axe.  I wince just thinking about it. 

To prevent my head from exploding, I may have to "re-skin" the bastard sword and introduce some awesome elven blade which has the same stats (maybe even removing versatile, as he'll NEVER use it as a two-weapon ranger anyway) and let him use that.  It will work exactly the same, and it won't make my brain hurt.


----------



## chitzk0i (Dec 8, 2008)

Skallgrim said:


> To prevent my head from exploding, I may have to "re-skin" the bastard sword and introduce some awesome elven blade which has the same stats (maybe even removing versatile, as he'll NEVER use it as a two-weapon ranger anyway) and let him use that.  It will work exactly the same, and it won't make my brain hurt.




Just call 'em longswords.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 8, 2008)

I expect down the line people will take superior weapon, i don't expect to see many people take toughness.  Most wont take it for the same reason I won't.  I like feats that provide more active benefits instead of passive ones.  Even if its a really cool passive benefit a few extra HP I don't really get to actively use.  I occasionally get to say, cool I'm conscious or not bloodied because i took toughness, but I don't actively use it, it doe snot really open up new options. 

Active feats fun, passive feats boring.


----------



## King Nate (Dec 8, 2008)

Obryn said:


> When folks are asking for advice, it's one of the first ones I suggest.




Well, right there is the reason why everybody in your game has the feat. When players ask me which feat they should take I usually say something like, "They all have their pluses and minuses, it really depends on what you want your character to do. Tell me how you envision your character and I can recommend a few feats to accomplish that."

As a player my first level fighter/rogue with a short sword/shield has the +4 bonus to initiative feat. I want to be the first one charging into combat helping the rest of the party by doing my job as a fighter.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 8, 2008)

Obryn said:


> In my group now, 5/6 of them have superior weapons.  2 people use Bastard Swords (Swordmage & Warlord), 1 uses a Fullblade (Cleric), 1 uses a Greatbow (Ranger), and 1 uses a Craghammer (Fighter).  The only one without is the party's Wizard.




It sounds as though Adventurers Vault has contributed towards this effect, since three of the four superior weapons are from there!

My game is PHB/DMG/MM only, and I'm not seeing any superior weapons yet (including dead guys the party has had two paladins, two fighters, three clerics, three warlords, a rogue, two rangers, three warlocks and two wizards so far!)

Possibly a function of power creep with AV?


----------



## Mengu (Dec 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Possibly a function of power creep with AV?




Actually I think it's a general problem with feats. "Always on" feats are simply numerically better than "sometimes on" feats. Superior weapon proficiencies, much like weapon focus, are always on. Prior to AV, Weapon focus was one of the first feats for an archer ranger. Now, it's  Weapon Focus and Great Bow, in whichever order they feel like getting them.

For instance, instead of a Bastard Sword doing 1d10 damage all the time, it would be better design if the Bastard sword did 1d8 damage all the time much like a longsword, but once per encounter could as a free action do 1d12 damage. So when you are using those encounter or daily powers that do 2[W]+ damage, you can flip it on to dish out some extra damage. This would make it more in tune with other feats.

Similarly if the toughness feat instead of granting 5 additional hit points, said "first time you are reduced to 0 hitpoints or below during any encounter, you are instead reduced to 1 hit point." This would still have the flavor of being tough, let you survive one extra blow, and be more in line with the "weaker" feats.

Sorry if this derails the thread a bit.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 8, 2008)

King Nate said:


> Well, right there is the reason why everybody in your game has the feat. When players ask me which feat they should take I usually say something like, "They all have their pluses and minuses, it really depends on what you want your character to do. Tell me how you envision your character and I can recommend a few feats to accomplish that."
> 
> As a player my first level fighter/rogue with a short sword/shield has the +4 bonus to initiative feat. I want to be the first one charging into combat helping the rest of the party by doing my job as a fighter.



Erm, that's why I asked everyone if it was a popular feat in their campaigns, too.  I _know _that's why my newest players are taking it.  But the veteran players, and the ones on their second characters, are, too.



Plane Sailing said:


> It sounds as though Adventurers Vault has contributed towards this effect, since three of the four superior weapons are from there!
> 
> My game is PHB/DMG/MM only, and I'm not seeing any superior weapons yet (including dead guys the party has had two paladins, two fighters, three clerics, three warlords, a rogue, two rangers, three warlocks and two wizards so far!)
> 
> Possibly a function of power creep with AV?



I don't think I'd call it power creep, _per se_.  When I think power creep, I think of a new choice that's identical to the old choice, but superior in every way.  (For example, there's a Level 1 Fighter Daily in Martial Power that's exactly like Brute Strike, only it _also_ Marks the target for the rest of the battle on a hit.)  Adding in more Superior Weapons just made it so hammer, axe, bow, spear, and flail folks could do what sword folks already could with the bastard sword.

I don't know that too many would pick it in a core-only game.

-O


----------



## King Nate (Dec 8, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Erm, that's why I asked everyone if it was a popular feat in their campaigns, too.  I _know _that's why my newest players are taking it.  But the veteran players, and the ones on their second characters, are, too.





If they are on their second characters, then it sounds like the feat didn't help them too much with their first character, lol. 

But to answer your question, no it is not a popular feat in my campaign. 

The various Multiclass feats are the popular feats in my campaign and that is probably because I surprised everyone when I first made my character and choose the Multiclass feat. People trying to tell me that I can't multiclass at first level. I explained and showed them that I could and everyone now thinks multiclass is the greatest feat ever invented. 

As their main DM, I influenced their choices as you also influence your player's choices as you directly stated. Your veterans may have also been influenced by you in previous games and to your play style as my veterans have adapted to my play style. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your play style as it is a popular play style, as you can tell by the number of post in this thread that agree with you. 

However, if you try teaching methods to your new players that don't max/min, then somewhere down the line you'll start to see people building characters they want to roleplay and not characters that are only looking for the best bonus they can get. That's my two copper pieces.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 8, 2008)

King Nate said:


> ...I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your play style as it is a popular play style, as you can tell by the number of post in this thread that agree with you.
> 
> However, if you try teaching methods to your new players that don't max/min, then somewhere down the line you'll start to see people building characters they want to roleplay and not characters that are only looking for the best bonus they can get. That's my two copper pieces.





Huh.  Thanks for the unwarranted assumptions about my players, my DMing style, and our game.  I'll take "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle" for $500, Alex.

-O


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Dec 8, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> That's more or less how I feel, actually.  To me, magic is not something you just pour into an item; it's integral to the item itself.  You don't forge a normal sword and then turn it magic.  The enchantment takes place as part of the forging, and alters the properties of the sword.
> 
> To put it in a real-world context, say you have a Damascus steel sword and a crude iron battle-axe.  You can't suck the Damascus out of the sword and pour it into the battle-axe.  I look on magical properties as being the same kind of thing.




While I realize you were trying to give an example, a Damascus blade would be better represented as some sort of Superior weapon.  It would be what makes the difference between say, a Greatsword and a Fullbalde.  Or a Waraxe and a Battleaxe.

Plus, how would you explain a Wizard enchanting their own items?  A Wizard that takes a Battleaxe and enchants it to be +1 Flaming didn't craft the weapon...he just added an enchantment.  He can also strip that enchantment away from said weapon.  Why then, is it so wrong to be able to combine the two actions?



> What I'm planning to do instead is give PCs books of magical lore and special ritual components that enable them to create magic items with particular abilities - for example, a lore-book explaining how to make a Thundering weapon, and enough dedicated components to create one such weapon.  That allows them to make weapons that fit their needs, without grinding my DM gears.  (It also gives me a nice little quest hook, if the lore-book calls for something like dragon blood in addition to the other components...)



That's fine if you want to do that, but that's not RAW.  It's a houserule.



> Also, in my games, "named" magic items tend to level up with the character - one of my PCs has a frost weapon whose numeric bonus scales with the level of the wielder.  That way he doesn't have to get rid of his family's ancestral sword just because he's outgrown it, and I don't have to hand out an endless series of magic longswords to keep him adequately armed.




That's fine if you want to do that too.  It's a good idea, and I would say that in _that_ case it's perfectly fine to say that the magic is part of the weapon and can't be taken away.  If the player later decides that they want a magic Bastard Sword they'll have to get rid of this weapon since the enchantment won't transfer.  For normal weapons though, they're nowhere near as powerful, so what's the point in making it unduly difficult to move enchantments around?


----------



## nittanytbone (Dec 9, 2008)

Its value is highly situational.  Generally, Superior Weapon Prof is best when:

- Most of your powers deal [W] damage.
- You have powers that deal multiple [W] damage.
- There aren't other feats you want.
- Your encounters tend to be shorter, so your ratio of At Will Attacks to Encounter Power Attacks is lower -- this could be a function of DM encounter design or party composition (i.e., you have a warlord to make encounters fast and brutal).

So, I'd say Avenging Paladins, some fighters (especially great weapon fighters), some rogues, most melee rangers, and some warlords/battle clerics will be interested.

If you assume that most fights last 6 rounds then superior weapon prof is worth about 4.05 extra damage at level 1.  But at level 10 its worth 6.95 extra damage -- almost twice as much.

LEVEL 1 = 4.05 damage
1 * encounter power for 2W (+2 damage) * 65% to hit = 1.3
5 * at will powers for 1W (+1 damage) * 55% to hit = 2.75

LEVEL 10 = 6.95
3 * encounter powers for 2W (+2 damage) * 65% to hit = 3.9
1 * daily power for 3W (+3 damage) * 65% to hit = 1.95
2 * at will powers for 1W (+1 damage) * 55% to hit = 1.1


----------



## MacMathan (Dec 9, 2008)

IMC out of 5 players (Fighter, Cleric, Warlord, Rogue and Warlock)  so far only the Rogue has gone with a weapon feat to use a rapier.


----------



## Solodan (Dec 9, 2008)

Part of the reason is that Superior weapon training is a level one or none type feat - you either start with it or don't get it at all (usually).

Also, since AV is fairly new, the feat also is a great one to try out the new shiny stuff with.

I'm guessing over time we'll see less and less as new heroic feats are introduced that are "cooler" than just an increase in weapon die.


----------



## Gruns (Dec 9, 2008)

*None here*

The group I DM for only consists of 3 PCs, but they're all melee types: Eladrin TacLord, Dragonborn Paladin, Halfling Rogue. So far none of them have expressed any interest at all in Superior Weapons. Maybe they'e waiting for the later levels when powers have more [W]'s in them to matter, but I doubt it. Paragon seems to have too many other interesting/useful feats to fill up with.
As it turns out, I'd be hard pressed to find a feat among them they all three of them have! One multiclassed, one took Ritual Caster, one has Durable, I think two took Toughness... etc... The point being, I wouldn't say there is a generic feat in 4E that is a must have for everyone. (Although I personally am a fan of Toughness).
Later!
Gruns


----------



## Milambus (Dec 9, 2008)

Gruns said:


> The group I DM for only consists of 3 PCs, but they're all melee types: Eladrin TacLord, Dragonborn Paladin, Halfling Rogue.




What weapon is your Eladrin TacLord using?

Eladrin Solider with Greatspear is pretty much the best weapon choice for him.  Reach, +3 prof, 1d10 + 2 damage.  

My human TacLord just took prof with Greatspear (previously he was using a Spiked Chain).


----------



## Gruns (Dec 9, 2008)

*TacLord Weaponry*



Milambus said:


> What weapon is your Eladrin TacLord using?
> 
> Eladrin Solider with Greatspear is pretty much the best weapon choice for him.  Reach, +3 prof, 1d10 + 2 damage.
> 
> My human TacLord just took prof with Greatspear (previously he was using a Spiked Chain).




"She" just uses a longsword and light shield. I tried to convince her that Greatspear was well, superior, but she insists on carrying the shield.
She also just swapped out Eladrin Soldier for some other feat, since most of the time her standard action is her telling the rogue to sneak attack something, instead of her actually attacking.
The rogue intends to take the Daggermaster PP, so he's never going to go with a Superior Weapon. And the paladin would rather spend his feats on mostly useless stuff such as Ritual Caster, Dragonborn Senses and the like. (This is the same player that had a Sorcerer in 3.5 and chose Jump and Spider Climb as his two lvl 1 spells...)
Later!
Gruns


----------



## elecgraystone (Dec 9, 2008)

Gruns said:


> The rogue intends to take the Daggermaster PP, so he's never going to go with a Superior Weapon.



He could always pick up an offhand defensive weapon, like a parrying dagger. A +1AC for a feat isn't bad.


----------



## Ibixat (Dec 9, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> He could always pick up an offhand defensive weapon, like a parrying dagger. A +1AC for a feat isn't bad.




That wouldn't be too bad, if you have 13 strength you can grab light shield for 1 ac and reflex though and then shield spec in paragon for 2 ac and reflex total and still be able to use the hand if needed for climbing and the like.


----------



## elecgraystone (Dec 9, 2008)

*Shrug* Parrying dagger and two weapon defense give you +2 ac and +1 ref defense, you don't need the 13 strength and you can get it in the heroic tier.


----------



## luide (Dec 9, 2008)

Gruns said:


> She also just swapped out Eladrin Soldier for some other feat, since most of the time her standard action is her telling the rogue to sneak attack something, instead of her actually attacking.



How is this actually working? 
Considering that you only get melee basic attack (based on str, not dex) with both the Commanders Strike or Opening Shove AND that you can only deal Sneak Attack damage once per round (excluding some PP's), I can't really see this being too effective tactic except in very specific circumstances.

Like if Rogue was a Brutal Scoundrel with str at least 14-16 and having missed with his attack previously in same round.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 10, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> It sounds as though Adventurers Vault has contributed towards this effect, since three of the four superior weapons are from there!
> 
> My game is PHB/DMG/MM only, and I'm not seeing any superior weapons yet (including dead guys the party has had two paladins, two fighters, three clerics, three warlords, a rogue, two rangers, three warlocks and two wizards so far!)
> 
> Possibly a function of power creep with AV?




it's not all power creep in the usual sense of the term. Before adventurer's vault, there were only a few superior weapons: 
A superior reach weapon flail
A superior one-handed sword (that also happened to be ever so slightly superior to the two-handed sword because the greatsword is a lousy weapon)
A superior light blade

there were no superior axes, hammers, spears, javalins, one-handed flails, or daggers.

The character who wanted to spend a feat to get a better weapon before Adventurer's Vault did so if he wielded a sword and shield. If he wielded a warhammer, on the other hand, he was out of luck. 4th edition's tying of various weapon feats to various statistics (Hammer/Con/Hammer Rhythm, etc) means that, for most planned characters (which is most characters), their weapon type of choice is set at character creation. The dwarf with a 16 Str/18 Con is going to wield hammers. The dwarf with the 18 Str/15 Con is going to wield axes, etc. So what happened when adventurers vault brought out superior axes, hammers, etc is that the characters who were already committed by build to wield a type of weapon that was not supported by a superior weapon in the PHB, gained access to superior weapons, went out, and bought them.

Now, there is a little power creep involved. Dwarven Weapon Training and Eladrin Soldier are classic examples of power creep via future expansion, much like polymorph or druid wildshape were in 3rd edition. You have access to all hammers, axes, spears, and longswords, just wait until a better one comes out and you have access to it. Likewise, the double sword works out as a clear and obvious upgrade for the previous superior light blade (the rapier), largely because the characters who previously used the rapier did not have much to do with their off-hand anyway. But power creep in 4th edition is better seen in the powers of the Adventurer's Vault items (encounter powers on numerous magic items, etc) and the classes, backgrounds, and feats in the Forgotten Realms book, and the powers, feats, and alternate class features (the latter mostly for fighters) in Martial Power than in the superior weapons from Adventurer's Vault.


----------



## Ibixat (Dec 10, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> *Shrug* Parrying dagger and two weapon defense give you +2 ac and +1 ref defense, you don't need the 13 strength and you can get it in the heroic tier.




Two weapon defense has a pre-requisite of Two weapon Fighting.  I'll take 2 ac and reflex for 2 feats sooner than 2 ac 1 reflex and 1 damage for 3 feats.

And I think overall shields can get better always on enchantments than the parry dagger would, though the enchantment from bloodthirsty weapon does NOT say it applies to attacks with itself only, so that would be a viable offhander parry dagger for a boost.
"Gain a +1 item bonus to attack rolls against bloodied targets, and add an item bonus equal to the enhancement bonus of this weapon to damage rolls against bloodied targets."
Unlike most weapons that say "with this weapon" when they have a property that one leaves it open.

A defensive parry dagger would boost your second wind defense bonus as well.  Hmm now you have me searching the book for weapons that have properties that are not limited to their own use...
prime shot weapon "Property: You deal +1 damage if no ally is closer to the
target than you are."
Oooh staggering weapon... Subtle weapons, this is kinda funny... I'm so going to start getting some of these just to carry them around in my off hand for random bonuses.


----------



## elecgraystone (Dec 10, 2008)

Gruns said that the rogue would NEVER think about a superior weapon because they were going daggermaster. You can see my point can't you? It's a viable option that doesn't degrade his dagger master options in the least.


----------



## Gruns (Dec 10, 2008)

*Oh yeah.*



luide said:


> How is this actually working?
> Considering that you only get melee basic attack (based on str, not dex) with both the Commanders Strike or Opening Shove AND that you can only deal Sneak Attack damage once per round (excluding some PP's), I can't really see this being too effective tactic except in very specific circumstances.
> 
> Like if Rogue was a Brutal Scoundrel with str at least 14-16 and having missed with his attack previously in same round.




Ah. I suppose I should mention our "Accidental House Rules". As we were all total 4E noobs during character creation (of course), we didn't realize the "One Sneak Attack per Round" actually meant per ROUND and not per TURN. Thus, they saw Commander's Strike and thought of the "combo" with a rogue, and well, by the time we realized it was wrong, it was too late.  If only they would have listended to me in the first place and made the TacLord a BattleCleric. The rogue is in fact an Artful Dodger (with 12 Str) and so he misses his Basic Attacks quite often. Much more often than he mathematically should, it seems. And the Warlord is always telling him he sucks, etc... Our sessions are very Keystone Caper-esque. In fact last session the comment was made about how this group would be more effective if everyone just ran around throwing cream pies and whacking each other with rubber hoses. For example, the rogue will spend several minutes thinking of the perfect place to Positioning Strike someone for the most strategic benefit to gain flanking with the Eladrin, and on her turn, the Eladrin will absentmindedly Fey Step away to a different enemy. It's sort of sad, really...
We also don't abide by the Melee range part of Commander's Strike, and I allow her to shout out orders to anyone that can hear her. Most of the time this doesn't matter, as she's usually on melee with everyone anyway. Well, up until the time she's the one needed to provide the flanking bonus...
It's a small group of just 3 PCs, so while these two things definitely help, they don't break the game for us. Perhaps if we were a more optimized group, or you know, didn't absolutely suck when it comes to tactics...

Later!
Gruns


----------



## Gruns (Dec 10, 2008)

*Hmm...*



elecgraystone said:


> Gruns said that the rogue would NEVER think about a superior weapon because they were going daggermaster. You can see my point can't you? It's a viable option that doesn't degrade his dagger master options in the least.




Hmm... He already has the Two Weapon Fighter feats, for flavor reasons, (and the minor damage/defense bonuses). I think I'll throw a Parrying Dagger into a loot pile when he hits level 11 (and can get the Daggermaster PP). I'll be sure to pick a property that is "Always on" so to speak, such as Defensive. This makes sense on a PARRYING Dagger. Probably just a +2 since I don't want to expend too much on a weapon we never uses as a weapon.
Honestly, he probably doesn't even know about Parrying Daggers since I'm the only one that has an actual copy of AV. The other players have all looked through it, but you can only glean so much in the 10-15 minutes they combed through the book.
Later!
Gruns


----------



## elecgraystone (Dec 10, 2008)

I know what you mean Gruns. I don't have a copy of AV myself, so I've had to look through it like your player, 10 or 15 min at a time. I think he'll be pleased when he gets one in some loot and finds out what it does.


----------



## Nail (Dec 10, 2008)

Gruns said:


> "She also just swapped out Eladrin Soldier for some other feat, since most of the time her standard action is her telling the rogue to sneak attack something, instead of her actually attacking.




...you know that Sneak Attack damage can only be applied once per round, right?  So if the rogue has already hit with a Sneak Attack, that Commander's Strike of the warlord ain't doing nearly as much.


----------



## elecgraystone (Dec 10, 2008)

Check out post #64 Nail. It'll explain everything to you.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 11, 2008)

I'm running an Assault Swormage and really haven't found a reason to use Superior Weapon as a feat when there are better ones for what I want to do. Min/maxing that little bit of damage doesn't fit the flovor or what I'm trying to do. Intelligent Blademaster has been much better because I rolled a great stat and can pump Int for both accuracy and defense. As a defender, I've found this to be a very good thing. The second feat is Improved Initiative because in the groups I play in, it makes interacting with the rogue much more efficient then trying to just deal damage on my own. The ability to set up flanks and do good damage with a solid defense has been better than just dealing better damage myself I feel.


----------



## Nail (Dec 11, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> Check out post #64 Nail. It'll explain everything to you.



So now that they know the rule...they aren't correcting themselves?  To each his own, I guess.  Our group makes mistakes all the time; when we find out, we correct them.  Simple.


----------



## Gruns (Dec 12, 2008)

*Ok...*



Nail said:


> So now that they know the rule...they aren't correcting themselves?  To each his own, I guess.  Our group makes mistakes all the time; when we find out, we correct them.  Simple.




If you read the explanation in my post, you'll see why the correction is _not_ so simple. The group is already tactically insufficient. To remove their one saving grace of occassionally dealing Sneak Attack damage twice in the same round (which I also mentioned rarely actually happens) would totally gimp this party even more than they gimp themselves.
As I said, when we realized the mistake, we considered changing the Warlord into a Cleric, since Warlords are much less effective when you only have two allies as opposed to the expected four. This would require a change from Eladrin to Dwarf or something, and basically be a whole new character from concept to completion. In the end, we decided to opt for the more fun, easy route and let this rule slide. It's not like the rogue is trying to use a Double Bladed Sword as a light blade or something ridiculous like that...
Later
Gruns


----------

