# Dwarven Weapon Training and Superior Weapons



## catsclaw227 (Jan 16, 2009)

Dwarven weapon training gives proficiency and +2 damage for Axes and Hammers.  Does this extend to Superior Weapons as well?  

Can taking this feat substitute the Weapon Proficiency feat to get proficiency with a Craghammer, Waraxe, Execution Axe, Mordenkrad, Double Axe, etc  from Adventurers Vault (page 9)?


----------



## Caliban (Jan 16, 2009)

Yes.

Ask Wizards: 11/14/2008



> *Q:* The Dwarven Weapon Training feat gives you proficiency with all axes and hammers, does this extend to superior weapons like the mordenkrad?
> *A: *Yes, the lucky dwarf with this feat has access to a whole host of axes and hammers, even those that are superior.


----------



## keterys (Jan 16, 2009)

Yeah... it's definitely on my list of things that I think is just flat out a poor decision about 4e, but it definitely works.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 16, 2009)

My player will be very happy!!!

(I didn't think to check Ask Wizards.... doh!)


----------



## Mengu (Jan 16, 2009)

keterys said:


> Yeah... it's definitely on my list of things that I think is just flat out a poor decision about 4e, but it definitely works.




Agreed. And I'd be very curious to see this list.


----------



## nittanytbone (Jan 17, 2009)

Yes, its legit.

I don't have a problem with dwarves having a strong incentive to use axes and hammers myself, so I have no beef.


----------



## urzafrank (Jan 18, 2009)

keterys said:


> Yeah... it's definitely on my list of things that I think is just flat out a poor decision about 4e, but it definitely works.






Mengu said:


> Agreed. And I'd be very curious to see this list.




why does anyone have an issue with a feat that makes Dwarves better with the traditional dwarven weapons? I mean come on it is a racial feat and so far they have all been much much better than general feats anyway


----------



## keterys (Jan 18, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> why does anyone have an issue with a feat that makes Dwarves better with the traditional dwarven weapons? I mean come on it is a racial feat and so far they have all been much much better than general feats anyway




It's flatly poor design, a shackle on exotic hammer and axe design. It's an imbalance between the core rules and the core rules plus AV. It's silly that dwarves shouldn't use warhammers and mauls and battleaxes, but should instead use "rare" and "variant" versions thereof.

I'm very much for dwarves using hammers and axes. It certainly seemed that they did before AV came out, without it applying to exotic weapons.

I'd much rather the feat was, say, +2 damage at heroic, +3 at paragon, +4 at epic, still better than weapon focus hammers and axes, put together, and dwarves could spend a feat for proficiency in an exotic weapon if they chose to. Or not.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Jan 18, 2009)

keterys said:


> I'd much rather the feat was, say, +2 damage at heroic, +3 at paragon, +4 at epic, still better than weapon focus hammers and axes, put together, and dwarves could spend a feat for proficiency in an exotic weapon if they chose to. Or not.



I'd rather it was left as is, with the exception that it doesn't grant proficiency with Superior weapons. If the character has or gains proficiency in a Superior axe or hammer, however, the +2 damage applies to it as well.


----------



## Slaved (Jan 18, 2009)

If a Change must be made why not make the Extra Damage scale by Weapon Class?

Dwarves could get a +3 Item Bonus to Damage with Simple Axes and Hammers, a +2 Item Bonus to Damage with Martial Axes and Hammers, and a +1 Item Bonus to Damage with Superior Axes and Hammers. That way Dwarves are still allowed to use any Axe or Hammer they want but there is a Tradeoff in Damage.

The amount of Tradeoff could be changed of course. This is just a Suggestion for those who think there is a Problem.


----------



## keterys (Jan 18, 2009)

Ulorian said:


> I'd rather it was left as is, with the exception that it doesn't grant proficiency with Superior weapons. If the character has or gains proficiency in a Superior axe or hammer, however, the +2 damage applies to it as well.




So, one problem with it now isn't really seen until epic level where it ends up worse than weapon focus for many dwarves. At which point, they could get weapon focus (blades) or polearms or whatever, and lose the racial affinity. I'm okay with the concept of giving a +1 damage no matter how it works out.

That said, I do think it's worth noting that the current free proficiencies are very helpful for, say, dwarven clerics who can use Mauls and Greataxes and throwing hammers/axes as a result. Even without it actually meaning they get a craghammer or an executioner axe.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 18, 2009)

I personally think it's way too powerful, in the sense it makes dwarves The Best Weapon users. The hammers and axes are more powerful than the sword variants (They only sacrifice a +1 atk for all that variety and potency). Dwarves all ready are the strongest class, this tips them, imho, into outshining all the other races from a balance perspective. 

On the flip side, I think it's great that Eladrin Soldier provides proficiency with all spears (including exotics). Namely because there aren't that many of them, and they aren't too strong, but still a nice benefit.

As far as the argument of "It's not as good as Weapon Proficiency", really, if you are at epic tier and want to squeak by an extra number, just retrain the feat out for the better one.


----------



## keterys (Jan 18, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I personally think it's way too powerful, in the sense it makes dwarves The Best Weapon users.




Agreed.



> The hammers and axes are more powerful than the sword variants (They only sacrifice a +1 atk for all that variety and potency).




You're undervaluing +1 attack for a lot of characters... but free superior weap prof, especially with multiple weapons, is at least equal to the free feat that humans get and probably better... and at heroic tier it's also better than weapon focus... so yeah.



> On the flip side, I think it's great that Eladrin Soldier provides proficiency with all spears (including exotics). Namely because there aren't that many of them, and they aren't too strong, but still a nice benefit.




I'd rather it did it by name if it was going to do it - and I'd still rather other solutions. It is true it's less egregious, but that doesn't make it really good.



> As far as the argument of "It's not as good as Weapon Proficiency", really, if you are at epic tier and want to squeak by an extra number, just retrain the feat out for the better one.




Sure, but why would dwarves suddenly in epic (and starting in paragon) stop using hammers and axes, in favor of other weapons? That doesn't really follow that well.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 18, 2009)

keterys said:


> It's flatly poor design, a shackle on exotic hammer and axe design. It's an imbalance between the core rules and the core rules plus AV. It's silly that dwarves shouldn't use warhammers and mauls and battleaxes, but should instead use "rare" and "variant" versions thereof.




It's not a shackle and nor is it silly if you view the rules as being second to the flavour of the setting and common sense.

I have no problem with exotic weapon design as long as it fits the flavour of the setting and works within the rules.

Every dwarf and their mother isn't going to be running around with a mordenkrad or execution axe because I'm the DM and I think that's just silly.

I guess I never view rules as being independent of a DM's ruling or the setting flavour. I will admit, however, that it is a common player reaction to demand something simply because the rules allow it.


----------



## Eldorian (Jan 18, 2009)

Dwarves don't get a racial bonus to strength, and so far there are no classes that make weapon attacks using con or wis, so it seems that the "overpowered" dwarven feats in regards to weapons exist so that dwarves are still competitive to races with +2 str at classes like fighter.

Personally, I'd rather the feat scale with tier +2/+3/+4 AND grant proficiency.

Also, I wish Eladrin Soldier was a better option for fighters, but then again, Eladrin make excellent swordmages.


----------



## Tenniel (Jan 19, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> "overpowered" dwarven feats in regards to weapons exist so that dwarves are still competitive to races with +2 str at classes like fighter.



Concur.  Eladrin swordmages get +2 int and eladrin soldier, but they gain no access to exotic swords (only exotic spears).

Also, while Dwarves gain a bag load of proficiencies you can only (well, mostly) use one weapon at a time.


----------



## Baumi (Jan 19, 2009)

I think it's ok that they gain superior weapons. 

Why would any martial weapon user take that feat paragon+ if they wouldn't get any additional advantage besides +2 damage? It also makes sense flavor-wise since dwarven were always proud about their superior craftsmanship, especially when it comes to their weapons (and armor). Just because these dwarven weapons are hard for a human to use, doesn't mean that it is the same for a dwarf, nor does superior mean that it is really exotic or rare.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Jan 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> So, one problem with it now isn't really seen until epic level where it ends up worse than weapon focus for many dwarves. At which point, they could get weapon focus (blades) or polearms or whatever, and lose the racial affinity. I'm okay with the concept of giving a +1 damage no matter how it works out.
> 
> That said, I do think it's worth noting that the current free proficiencies are very helpful for, say, dwarven clerics who can use Mauls and Greataxes and throwing hammers/axes as a result. Even without it actually meaning they get a craghammer or an executioner axe.



I don't dislike your idea; I was merely presenting an alternative. Having said that, how about this variant on your version of the feat: 

Dwarven Weapon Training [Dwarf]
Prerequisite: Dwarf
Benefit: You gain proficiency and a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls with Simple and Martial axes and hammers. At 11th level, this bonus increases to +2. At 21st level, it increases to +3.
Special: When attacking with: a) a Simple or Martial axe or hammer with which the character has proficiency through a means other than this feat or b) a Superior axe or hammer with which the character has proficiency, the feat bonus to damage increases by 1.


----------



## urzafrank (Jan 19, 2009)

Ulorian said:


> I don't dislike your idea; I was merely presenting an alternative. Having said that, how about this variant on your version of the feat:
> 
> Dwarven Weapon Training [Dwarf]
> Prerequisite: Dwarf
> ...




This feat is not much better than Weapon Focus and not better  for a dwarven fighter at all.......now when you compare this to Action Surge it is trash Comparing DWT to Weapon focus is just wrong based off of all the really powerful Racial feats in this game. Please do not compare it to racial abilities like the bonus feat for human but to other racial feats that enhance the usual flavor of said race


----------



## Obryn (Jan 19, 2009)

Personally, I like the Dwarven and Eladrin Weapon Training Feats as they are.  Neither race is strictly optimal for a warrior-type, and I think it's a very nice boost.  Also, the Mordenkrads in the game, the better as far as I'm concerned. 

-O


----------



## Nifft (Jan 19, 2009)

Baumi said:


> Just because these dwarven weapons are hard for a human to use, doesn't mean that it is the same for a dwarf, nor does superior mean that it is really exotic or rare.



 What Superior means is that a weapon is *just plain mechanically better* than other, similar, non-Superior weapons.

It's wrong to give away mechanical advantages to one race for no good reason.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Jan 19, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> This feat is not much better than Weapon Focus and not better  for a dwarven fighter at all.......now when you compare this to Action Surge it is trash Comparing DWT to Weapon focus is just wrong based off of all the really powerful Racial feats in this game. Please do not compare it to racial abilities like the bonus feat for human but to other racial feats that enhance the usual flavor of said race



The feat gives a Dwarven Fighter a +1 damage bonus over Weapon Focus, as per keterys' suggestion. Are you sure you understood my post?


----------



## Puggins (Jan 19, 2009)

Nifft said:


> What Superior means is that a weapon is *just plain mechanically better* than other, similar, non-Superior weapons.
> 
> It's wrong to give away mechanical advantages to one race for no good reason.




But you're not giving a mechanical advantage to one race for free.  The race has to use a feat to get that advantage.  The advantage itself isn't particularly exotic- 99% of the time another race could duplicate it with two other feats, although the results vary according to tier.

(1) At heroic, the feat is better than two other feats combined.  Definite Dwarven advantage.

(2) At paragon the feat is as good as two other feats combined.

(3) At Epic, the feat is inferior to two other feats combined.

Once the character hits 11th level, a Dwarf with this feat essentially gains Superior weapon proficiency for free- in other words, he gets a bonus feat.  This is not exactly an overpowering advantage.

The variety available to the dwarf is a nigh-useless advantage.  Really, is there ever a realistic point where a dwarf that can use two types of superior axes has an advantage over a human with the ability to use one type of superior axe?  No adventurer is going to be investing in two +3 different weapons to carry around.  The dwarven ranger can use two types at once, but you won't any sort of advantage in the numbers over a human ranger that is using two dwarven war axes.  It's simply not a big deal- it makes for good flavor, is all.  

A dwarven fighter or ranger simply doesn't have an overwhelming advantage over a human ranger- he's definitely better at wielding axes in the heroic tier, but he's no better at paragon and above.  At that point he just has more flexibility in feat selection.  Well, actually, he doesn't, since humans get an extra feat.  But whatever- you know what I mean.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 19, 2009)

A lot of racial feats exists to allow races to play classes they aren't otherwise that suited to playing.

A dwarf fighter by himself isn't that great to a dragonborn fighter (dragon born get breath for marking, more healing on surges, and of course, the +2 to strength).

With a feat, the dwarf now rules in terms of damage, but he still has a weaker to hit, and of course is down a feat (so if the dragonborn took weapon focus the dwarf only wins because of the exotic weapon). But in that sense I think its just fine.

Even if more exotic weapons are released later on, if they balance with the previous exotic weapons then its fine. Generally having a variety of weapons one can use in dnd doesn't matter very often, you have your one good specialized weapon...and you stick with it.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 19, 2009)

Puggins said:


> Once the character hits 11th level, a Dwarf with this feat essentially gains Superior weapon proficiency for free- in other words, he gets a bonus feat.  This is not exactly an overpowering advantage.



 A mechanical advantage need not be overpowering to be unbalanced. "Overpowering" is just the most extreme example of unbalanced.

Worse, the feat grants an open-ended benefit across a large class of weapons. What happens when the Complete Axemaster is published, along with a Brutal 2 throwing axe (which happens to be Superior)? Most PCs will need to decide if the new weapon is worth spending a feat on -- they must pay for the damage boost with a resource that cannot then be used on a different power boost.

Dwarves get both boosts for free.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 19, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Dwarves get both boosts for free.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




What happens when new feats are published to do new things with a dragonborn's breath weapon. Doesn't' that mean the enlarged breath feat is even strong than it is now?

How about more powers that give player's AP. Doesn't that make action surge better?

How about new powers that do good conditions on a hit, doesn't that make the elf's reroll feat even better?

As far as feat's go, I definitely think the dwarf's feat is a must have if you are playing a dwarven fighter, but then again all of my players always pick up the superior weapon feat so I don't see a big change there. But the bottom line is racial feats are just better than normal feats in most cases. Action Surge for humans is freakin awesome. Lost in the crowd for halfings is great, elven precision makes one of the best racial abilities even better, etc.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 19, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> What happens when new feats are published to do new things with a dragonborn's breath weapon. Doesn't' that mean the enlarged breath feat is even strong than it is now?



 Imagine if Enlarged Breath gave *both* benefits (larger breath plus all later feats, though you could only use one of those later feats at a time). Now we're on the same page regarding Dwarven Weapon Training.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## keterys (Jan 19, 2009)

What if there were a dragonborn breath weapon feat that gave them all the benefits of all the dragonborn breath feats, but only, say, two at once. Would that be balanced?

Why do dwarves automatically get proficiency with Orc Axesmashers and Tribal Hawkaxes and Gnoll Flindhammers? Because someone made an easy mistake, based on what was in the PHB, and gave them superior weapon proficiency without realizing what it actually meant.

Oops. If you want dwarves to still get superior weapon proficiency with a couple dwarven weaopns, you could even go 'If you already have proficiency with all martial weapons, you gain proficiency with the Craghammer and Urgrosh' or whatever. Or those exotic weapons could have a tagline 'proficiency given by dwarven weapon proficiency'. The important thing is that it not be a catchall.

Not that I'm seeing how dwarven melee is so hurt by lack of superior weapons - they were one of the most popular before Adventurer's Vault came out, after all. Resistance to push, minor action second wind, Con bonus, hammer rhythm at paragon, etc.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 19, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Worse, the feat grants an open-ended benefit across a large class of weapons. What happens when the Complete Axemaster is published, along with a Brutal 2 throwing axe (which happens to be Superior)? Most PCs will need to decide if the new weapon is worth spending a feat on -- they must pay for the damage boost with a resource that cannot then be used on a different power boost.
> 
> Dwarves get both boosts for free.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



I don't know that we'll see too many other Superior weapons, post-AV.  I'm almost certain we won't see any new superior weapons that are unbalanced with the current superior weapons, otherwise (imho) Dwarven Weapon Training will be the least of our problems.

I like that it gives added flavor to dwarves.  It's basically a must-have feat, imho, for any dwarven fighter or cleric, but I'm happy with a first-level dwarf fighter using a Mordenkrad for huge damage.

-O


----------



## keterys (Jan 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I like that it gives added flavor to dwarves.  It's basically a must-have feat, imho, for any dwarven fighter or cleric, but I'm happy with a first-level dwarf fighter using a Mordenkrad for huge damage.




But it would make you unhappy if he'd spent a weapon proficiency feat to use that weapon instead, like a human or elf or orc or whatever? Would it also make you unhappy if he were instead using a maul or greataxe, because those aren't dwarfy weapons anymore after AV?


----------



## DrSpunj (Jan 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> Why do dwarves automatically get proficiency with Orc Axesmashers and Tribal Hawkaxes and Gnoll Flindhammers?




Reading this I immediately rationalized it with the following:

Given dwarves' extensive training with various axes & hammers culturally, they very quickly figure out how make good use of most any other axe or hammer they come across. Some dwarves have even made a study of similar weapons used by their racial enemies, so in the midst of battle they can rearm themselves with a fallen enemies axe or hammer if the need arises.

I can see the points being raised on both sides here and wish the racial feats were all useful through all 3 tiers of play so there wasn't a built-in incentive to swap out DWT at Epic levels. That doesn't build a good story in my book. OTOH, my group is at 2nd level so I'm not focusing in on this as a major problem right now.


----------



## Puggins (Jan 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> But it would make you unhappy if he'd spent a weapon proficiency feat to use that weapon instead, like a human or elf or orc or whatever?




He did spend a weapon proficiency feat- Dwarven weapon Training is a weapon proficiency feat that grants dwarves some advantages with a specific class of weapon, but it's a weapon proficiency feat nonetheless.

An axe is a fairly straightforward weapon, and a fighter already knows how to use all the different basic axes as well as all the different swords, spears, polearms and so forth.  Such a variety of weapon knowledge is far more implausible than Dwarven Weapon Proficiency, which deals with a single class of weapon.

I don't see this as bad design at all.  If you changed the feat to read:

_Choose any one axe weapon.  You are proficient with that weapon, and you gain a +2 feat bonus to damage to attacks using that weapon._

Would there be any clear, discernible difference in play?  No, in the vast, vast majority of cases the only functional difference would be a need to retrain the feat once you got a new kind of superior axe- hardly a frequent occurrence.

Given the similar performance between the stated feat and the one in the PHB, the designers chose to go with the more encompassing version that is simpler to read and simpler to annotate on a character sheet.  That's a perfectly valid design decision.


----------



## keterys (Jan 19, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Reading this I immediately rationalized it with the following:




Rationalize
1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a: to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

It certainly works to make an excuse or explain away why the decision was made... but that doesn't make it a good decision in the first place. Would dwarves have been unduly harmed by a version of the feat that didn't include superior weapons? Clearly not, as witnessed by the PHB. Is there a notable balance difference between a dwarf in a group that allows AV superior weapons and one that does not? Yes. Is that a preferable situation? No. Etc.

Obviously, it gives dwarves toys to play with and people like toys, but dwarves would have been fine spending a feat to use the toys same as anyone else (not like bastard sword didn't gets its fair share of feat expenditures, for instance). Disallowing it would potentially "nerf" some builds, and that's a good reason for players of those builds to not like it... but that doesn't make it a good idea. From a design standpoint, though, is really the worst case. But oh well, some people like it, some people don't.


----------



## keterys (Jan 19, 2009)

Puggins said:


> He did spend a weapon proficiency feat- Dwarven weapon Training is a weapon proficiency feat that grants dwarves some advantages with a specific class of weapon, but it's a weapon proficiency feat nonetheless.




Perhaps I should have capitalized Weapon Proficiency, then. DWT is not Weapon Proficiency anymore than Alertness is Skill Focus (Perception).


----------



## DracoSuave (Jan 19, 2009)

Would DWT be broken with a minotaur, or genasi, or other Strength-based race?  Yes.

Are Dwarves a strength based race?  No.


Which is stronger?  +5 to hit for 2d6+5 brutal 1, or +6 to hit for 2d6+4 brutal 1?

Do the math.  Seriously, DO the math.

Assuming the latter is based on the 50% hit chance, then we can examine the expected damage output over twenty rounds.

Dwarf:  8(14)+17 = 112+17=129.
Str-based: 9(13)+16 = 117+16=133.

The dwarf with DWT and Mordenkrad does 129 damage over 20 attacks, a strength based character with Weapon Proficiency Mordenkrad does 133 damage over 20 attacks

Divide both sides by 20 to get DPR, if that's more your speed.

129<133.

Therefore DWT is not more powerful than Str-based race+WP.


Any argument about which does more damage without actual examination of the damage is null-and-void.  And the only determination for brokenness with these feats is damage.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> But it would make you unhappy if he'd spent a weapon proficiency feat to use that weapon instead, like a human or elf or orc or whatever?



It depends on if we're talking Heroic, Paragon, or Epic tiers, so I could compare it to Weapon Focus.

For a fighter or paladin, it's only superior to WF at Heroic tier if it doesn't grant the dwarf additional proficiency.

Put simply, I think racial feats should be beefier than non-racial feats.



> Would it also make you unhappy if he were instead using a maul or greataxe, because those aren't dwarfy weapons anymore after AV?



Not particularly?  I mean, it's absolutely clear that DWT is worth more after AV than before.  But if DracoSuave's math pans out (and I haven't checked his work), this more or less brings dwarven fighters up to par, rather than above par.

-O


----------



## DracoSuave (Jan 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I mean, it's absolutely clear that DWT is worth more after AV than before.




I honestly believe they took Dwarves into consideration when they made AV.


----------



## keterys (Jan 19, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Therefore DWT is not more powerful than Str-based race+WP. Any argument about which does more damage without actual examination of the damage is null-and-void.  And the only determination for brokenness with these feats is damage.




Just so we're clear... were you going to include a comparison of '+2 Con+Dwarven Durability' vs 'Nothing', so that both sides of the equation were square? 

Or possibly compare the defense capabilities of Stand Your Ground vs Goring Charge?

I suppose a feat for halfling fighter that let them do damage on par with a minotaur barbarian would be good too, since it clearly wasn't broken damage?


----------



## DracoSuave (Jan 19, 2009)

Of course I wouldn't include comparisons of those things.... because this thread isn't about comparing those things.  That's sort of an irrelevant argument to bring up.

But compare the offensive outlay of a Dwarven Fighter to a Dragonborn Fighter.  No comparison, the Dragonborn Fighter wins.  But the Dwarven Fighter has better defenses.

I never claimed the DWT Dwarf had offense -equal- to a +2 Str fighter.  I claimed it had offense -less- than a +2 Str Fighter.

That's a much different argument.


----------



## keterys (Jan 20, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Of course I wouldn't include comparisons of those things.... because this thread isn't about comparing those things.  That's sort of an irrelevant argument to bring up.
> 
> But compare the offensive outlay of a Dwarven Fighter to a Dragonborn Fighter.  No comparison, the Dragonborn Fighter wins.  But the Dwarven Fighter has better defenses.
> 
> ...




So, just so we're clear... there's a race that should be more offensively capable (dragonborn) and another that is more defensively capable (dwarf), and we both agree this is fine.

Okay, good. Because it seemed almost like you were trying to justify DWT giving superior weapons because it almost caught the dwarf up to the dragonborn (but not quite), and that was somehow relevant and that +2 str races had anything to do with the feat. That their existence somehow even justified it.

Indeed, I imagine if they'd let minotaurs / bugbears keep oversized weapons, DWT might even have needed an improvement, so it did even more damage. Though, hmm, that doesn't seem relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## urzafrank (Jan 20, 2009)

The detractors of DWT so as i have seen still refuse to accept that the racial feats in 4E are JUST better than the general ones. Not one person on this thread who is lined up against DWT has referred to and/or compared it to any of the other racial feats in the PHB. Every human i know has taken Action Surge cuz getting a big bonus to hit with your daily power(s) is REALLY good. Flaming weapon and Hellfire blood. The list goes on and on. If you want to compare apples to apples that is fine but please stop comparing them to limes


----------



## Nifft (Jan 20, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Do the math.  Seriously, DO the math. (...) Any argument about which does more damage without actual examination of the damage is null-and-void.  And the only determination for brokenness with these feats is damage.



 Are you actually asserting that a Dwarf makes a sub-par Fighter from the perspective of damage output?

Because if so, you are just plain wrong. Dwarves have a host of abilities that give them more damage output as Fighters than most other races, including Dragonborn.

For example, Dwarf Fighters making opportunity attacks hit at least as often as Dragonborn (and probably a lot more often): Fighters add Wisdom to opportunity attack rolls, but Dragonborn get a Charisma bonus, and thus must trade off their Will defense against this class-based bonus. So the Dwarf either has a higher Will defense, or has a better attack bonus on opportunity attacks.

As another example, Dwarf Fighters get a bonus standard action every encounter -- can you guess what ability gives them this standard action? -- so now your numbers, which were already suspect since they don't include opportunity or combat challenge attacks, look like this:

Dwarf: 8(14)+17 = 112+17=129 * 20/20 = *129*
Str-based: 9(13)+16 = 117+16=133 * 19/20 = *126.35*

Yeah, that Dwarf sure needs a free damage boost.

 -- N


----------



## Nifft (Jan 20, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> The detractors of DWT so as i have seen still refuse to accept that the racial feats in 4E are JUST better than the general ones.



 No, that's not the problem. If you read the thread, you'll see nobody complaining that DWT is better than Weapon Focus. That part is fine. In the context of the PHB (only), DWT is a fine feat.

The problem is that it's too open-ended. Feats that give an unlimited number of additional bonus feats are bad design.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> As another example, Dwarf Fighters get a bonus standard action every encounter -- can you guess what ability gives them this standard action? -- so now your numbers, which were already suspect since they don't include opportunity or combat challenge attacks, look like this:
> 
> Dwarf: 8(14)+17 = 112+17=129 * 20/20 = *129*
> Str-based: 9(13)+16 = 117+16=133 * 19/20 = *126.35*
> ...



I think you are talking about Second Wind being a minor action for Dwarves (this opening up the standard for an attack power).  But in my (purely anecdotal) experience, Second Wind isn't used every encounter. I've had many times when the PCs go two or three encounters without using it.  Now, a fighter may do it more often, so that might offset it a bit, but not specifically.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 20, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I think you are talking about Second Wind being a minor action for Dwarves (this opening up the standard for an attack power).



 Bingo.



catsclaw227 said:


> But in my (purely anecdotal) experience, Second Wind isn't used every encounter. I've had many times when the PCs go two or three encounters without using it.  Now, a fighter may do it more often, so that might offset it a bit, but not specifically.



 A non-Dwarf in a short fight can get away without using Second Wind. But the fight presented, which involved 20 rounds of melee attacks, didn't sound like a quickie.

For some groups, those 20 rounds worth of melee attacks might cover four fights. So feel free to amortize the Second Wind ability using that, rather than over one long fight.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## urzafrank (Jan 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> No, that's not the problem. If you read the thread, you'll see nobody complaining that DWT is better than Weapon Focus. That part is fine. In the context of the PHB (only), DWT is a fine feat.
> 
> The problem is that it's too open-ended. Feats that give an unlimited number of additional bonus feats are bad design.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



oh is that it. For real? that is just silly in system that allows retraining the above is such a baseless position. I mean who has ever seen the fighter who never takes a superior weapon feat run around with fully powered up magic versions of every weapon they have the skill to use? Not even in 3.0 or 3.5 did that happen and in 4E it is even less likely. guys come on you have to do better than that


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jan 20, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Personally, I like the Dwarven and Eladrin Weapon Training Feats as they are. Neither race is strictly optimal for a warrior-type, and I think it's a very nice boost. Also, the Mordenkrads in the game, the better as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> -O




Eladrin Swordmage FTW


----------



## Kordeth (Jan 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> No, that's not the problem. If you read the thread, you'll see nobody complaining that DWT is better than Weapon Focus. That part is fine. In the context of the PHB (only), DWT is a fine feat.
> 
> The problem is that it's too open-ended. Feats that give an unlimited number of additional bonus feats are bad design.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




It's a very limited subset of "unlimited number of additional feats," though, isn't it? Consider that the most you'll ever actually get out of it is four bonus feats at any one time (Weapon Prof and quasi Weapon Focus for two different dual-wielded weapons). And unless your battlefields are littered with superior axes and hammers, the odds are a dwarf with DWT is going to do exactly what any other character does: Pick a superior axe or hammer he likes and stick with it. Sure, he has a tiny bit more flexibility if he does run across a different superior axe or hammer, but that's a pretty minor advantage--especially since all the non-dwarf has to do if he wants a new Superior Weapon Proficiency is retrain the feat.


----------



## keterys (Jan 20, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> The detractors of DWT so as i have seen still refuse to accept that the racial feats in 4E are JUST better than the general ones. Not one person on this thread who is lined up against DWT has referred to and/or compared it to any of the other racial feats in the PHB. Every human i know has taken Action Surge cuz getting a big bonus to hit with your daily power(s) is REALLY good. Flaming weapon and Hellfire blood. The list goes on and on. If you want to compare apples to apples that is fine but please stop comparing them to limes




Given I'm one of the more vocal detractors and gave a suggested revision that it be flat out better than weapon focus at all tiers of play, giving a higher bonus, to two types of weapons, while still giving martial proficiency as well... you are mistaken.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jan 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Bingo.
> 
> A non-Dwarf in a short fight can get away without using Second Wind. But the fight presented, which involved 20 rounds of melee attacks, didn't sound like a quickie.
> 
> ...




No, it's a number that represents mean expected damage over 20 attacks.  If you divide it by twenty you get the DPR, but guess what?  It's easier to just calculate over 20 attacks, and gives you the same basis of comparison.  

That said, you have a feat that makes Dwarves closer to other races in the DPR department (tho not equal) and the fact Dwarves are defensive in nature, not withstanding, doesn't change the fact that offensive races are -offensive.-  Genasi built offensively can counter-attack or knock prone, dragonborn get the breath weapon AND better healing surges..  DWT is the only offensive Dwarf benefit, and it doesn't even make their normal attacks equivalent.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Jan 20, 2009)

keterys said:


> Given I'm one of the more vocal detractors and gave a suggested revision that it be flat out better than weapon focus at all tiers of play, giving a higher bonus, to two types of weapons, while still giving martial proficiency as well... you are mistaken.



Speaking of which, I replied to your posted revision with a variant on which I'd appreciate your input.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jan 20, 2009)

danceofmasks said:


> eladrin swordmage ftw




you broke the game


----------



## urzafrank (Jan 20, 2009)

keterys said:


> Given I'm one of the more vocal detractors and gave a suggested revision that it be flat out better than weapon focus at all tiers of play, giving a higher bonus, to two types of weapons, while still giving martial proficiency as well... you are mistaken.




My point was not to compare DWT to Weapon Focus as you have done but to put it next to Action surge and other racial feats to see where the feat truly is. Further more when have a feat that gives +2/+3/+4 as you have suggested then that does put them directly ahead at the cost of one there 18 feats. a Dream for CharOpt guys but much less useful and/or clean for most groups.



Ulorian said:


> Speaking of which, I replied to your posted revision with a variant on which I'd appreciate your input.




I did give input. Simply put not on par with the other racial feats.


----------



## keterys (Jan 20, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> My point was not to compare DWT to Weapon Focus as you have done but to put it next to Action surge and other racial feats to see where the feat truly is. Further more when have a feat that gives +2/+3/+4 as you have suggested then that does put them directly ahead at the cost of one there 18 feats. a Dream for CharOpt guys but much less useful and/or clean for most groups.




Action Surge is a good feat... but DWT is a better one for almost any character in heroic tier. The closest you can consider is that maybe a Warlord who uses it for Lead the Attack and the +3 makes the difference between hitting or not. DWT is, of course, flawed to be far better in heroic tier than later tiers, which is part of the complaint.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about the Dream / less clean bit. The change I made is a far cleaner feat than the original. For CharOpt purposes it means they get +1 damage at all tiers (rather than just heroic) with axes/hammers and can choose whether it's worth a feat for superior weapon proficiency or not (it almost always is)



> I did give input. Simply put not on par with the other racial feats.



There's not a lot of evidence to support that - look at almost every dragonborn feat for comparison. Many of the racial feats are highly specialized - a +3 attack is an awesome bonus, but on one attack every 2 fights, it's hard to compare that to '+1 damage on every attack you make' and declare it the obvious winner. Given that I know several gamers who would declare it the obvious loser, I'd say that they're pretty close. And Action Surge is one of the better racial feats (much like Dwarven Durability)

At any rate, Ulorian, your version is pretty similar to mine except 1 damage less for, say, dwarven clerics who use a martial weapon granted by the feat. It seems fine but I'm not sure it's worth the extra complication.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jan 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Are you actually asserting that a Dwarf makes a sub-par Fighter from the perspective of damage output?
> 
> Because if so, you are just plain wrong. Dwarves have a host of abilities that give them more damage output as Fighters than most other races, including Dragonborn.
> 
> ...




I notice you didn't include the Dragonborn's Dragonbreath in there, or include calculations about how he doesn't Second Wind as often because healing works better on him;  Or any other offensive ability.

Straw man.  Move along.

I mean, no, I didn't include CC or OA damage because... and this is really important to make a note of... I didn't assume we were dealing with a fighter.  See, I know that dwarves can be warlords or rangers (Mordenkrad beast ranger for the wtf) or barbarian or cleric.  None of these classes have Combat Challenge so I didn't include it.


----------



## Smeelbo (Jan 20, 2009)

I'd rather see _Dwarven Weapon Training_ grant proficiencies and a flat +1 racial bonus, so it stacked with _Weapon Focus_ and would thus scale at all three tiers, albeit at the cost of two feats, which seems appropriate.

Smeelbo


----------



## keterys (Jan 20, 2009)

That would definitely fix the scaling problem, but I do think the superior weapons are still an issue.

That said, I do think it'd be interesting if DWT instead of Superior weapons and damage gave a +1 attack bonus with hammers and axes. That might please some of the people dismayed at dwarf comparisons to +2 strength, or those noting that lack of the +2 and +2 prof combine a little nastily.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 20, 2009)

Nifft said:


> A mechanical advantage need not be overpowering to be unbalanced. "Overpowering" is just the most extreme example of unbalanced.




Unless it is overpowered, it's not unbalanced in a material way.  The game isn't about achieving perfection as far as balance. It's about not making anything overpowered, which would detract from the fun.  I am not sure why I should care if something is technically unbalanced but not overpowered.  

If my left shoe weighs a gram more than my right shoe, they are unbalanced, but I am not going to notice or care.  

That seems to be the level of complaint we are talking about here.  The feat is slightly more powerful than some other racial feats (but not all), but not so noticeable that it will overpower the character or break anything.  So...meh, who cares?


----------



## keterys (Jan 20, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> If my left shoe weighs a gram more than my right shoe, they are unbalanced, but I am not going to notice or care.




Fair - what if your left shoe is a cowboy boot and your right shoe is a sandal? That's roughly how I feel about this feat - it gives the wrong things in the wrong way. It's amazing at heroic tier, but gets steadily worse as you get higher level. It gives unbound superior weapons, which isn't at all necessary to encourage its goal, etc.



> will overpower the character or break anything.  So...meh, who cares?




I care about a lot of things that don't break the game, yet still make it seem a lesser game to me


----------



## urzafrank (Jan 20, 2009)

mistwell said:


> unless it is overpowered, it's not unbalanced in a material way.  The game isn't about achieving perfection as far as balance. It's about not making anything overpowered, which would detract from the fun.  I am not sure why i should care if something is technically unbalanced but not overpowered.
> 
> If my left shoe weighs a gram more than my right shoe, they are unbalanced, but i am not going to notice or care.
> 
> That seems to be the level of complaint we are talking about here.  The feat is slightly more powerful than some other racial feats (but not all), but not so noticeable that it will overpower the character or break anything.  So...meh, who cares?



qft


----------



## boar (Jan 20, 2009)

The argument that DWT is poorly designed because it grants "unlimited feats" is, frankly, nuts.  It ignores the fact that the "extra" feats "granted" by DWT are _mutually exclusive._  At best, these "extra feats" can provide flavor (dual wielding different weapons) or avoid a minor inconvenience (you find a new DWT weapon that's better than your current one and don't have to wait for retraining).  The "unlimited feats" argument is a blatant case of forming an opinion first and then searching for evidence to justify it after the fact.  DWT doesn't grant extra feats the way that the human racial bonus grants an extra feat.  Using language that implies it gives "extra feats" in any way is intellectually dishonest, since those feats have no functional effect on the character.

A better way to look at DWT is to consider how it affects race selection for a particular class.  Let's say I'm choosing between human and dwarf for my execution axe fighter.  Here are the options I'm weighing:

Human, 20 STR, WP Execution Axe: 1d12 + 5
Dwarf, 18 STR, DWT: 1d12 + 6

The dwarf has +1 damage thanks to DWT.  The dwarf also gets two powerful combat abilities, better wisdom, more hitpoints, and an extra healing surge.  The human gets a bonus feat (probably the amazing Action Surge) and +1 NAD, and don't forget that with his 20 STR the human is at +1 to hit.  It's by no means a trivial choice.

DWT detractors are also overlooking the somewhat obvious fact that DWT _forces you to use axes or hammers_.  Axes and hammers are good for damage, but some people (justifiably) prioritize accuracy over damage.  The human player in the above comparison could forgo executioner axes and get WP: Fullblade instead.  Now he's at +2 to hit compared to the dwarf.  I'm not saying this flexibility makes the human better than the dwarf -- the dwarf does have a lot going for him -- but again, the choice is by no means trivial.  Even two players who both want "the most powerful character" could choose differently.  This, to me, suggests that DWT is in fact not poorly designed, and actually quite the opposite.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jan 20, 2009)

Well, with your bonus feat, you _could_ take weapon focus ...
Humans are awesome.


----------



## keterys (Jan 20, 2009)

boar said:


> The argument that DWT is poorly designed because it grants "unlimited feats" is, frankly, nuts.




Absolutely - it doesn't give unlimited feats at all. Nifft making a flawed argument there (unlimited feats) doesn't magically make the feat well designed, though  



> DWT detractors are also overlooking




Many of the people objecting to the detractors are missing the part where those arguing against DWT aren't necessarily asking that it be made worse. There's no amount of damage comparisons that will help that fact. Heck, I think the feat should be decidedly better in epic tier than it is now.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jan 20, 2009)

Well, one reason DWT's strong in heroic and meh in paragon:
Dwarves are weaker as far as str-based builds go, without feats such as hammer rhythm.
So DWT gets you a bit of a boost in heroic until your combo matures.


----------



## keterys (Jan 20, 2009)

You know, dwarves getting heroic access to a hammer rhythm equivalent would have been pretty interesting too. Less good if it applies to axes and they can still get the other cool axe stuff, though.

But, that would have been a nice way to make Con work for them, from the beginning.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 21, 2009)

Hmm.  One thing I wanted to do was make clerics a Wis primary class, so all their weapon powers would be something like "Attack: Wis vs AC."  For example, Righteous Brand would be Wis vs AC, 1d[W] damage, target ally gets a bonus to his foe equal to Str mod.  

Anyway, this would naturally make dwarves into very good clerics by virtue of their +2 Wis.  But dwarf clerics would be better at hitting than their fighter counterparts, and they would likely do more damage, especially with DWT.  And this is extra scary with things like mordenkrads or executioner's axes.   I may have to mull this over some ...


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Fair - what if your left shoe is a cowboy boot and your right shoe is a sandal? That's roughly how I feel about this feat - it gives the wrong things in the wrong way. It's amazing at heroic tier, but gets steadily worse as you get higher level. It gives unbound superior weapons, which isn't at all necessary to encourage its goal, etc.




Well since we are talking about feelings, I feel you are overreacting.  It's not like a sandal to a cowboy boot.  Relative to other racial feats, it's in the upper half, but not even the best feat.  It's not "amazing", it's just solidly good (like most racial feats).  It gives a slight boost over a non-dwarf, much like other racial feats give to their race.

And almost all feats get steadily worse at higher levels.

As for something being not necessary - it only matters if it has a material impact on the game.  It again sounds like you are seeking perfection rather than simply rules that function fine.



> I care about a lot of things that don't break the game, yet still make it seem a lesser game to me




Why? How is it a "lesser" game to you simply because it does not achieve perfection while functioning fine?


----------



## keterys (Jan 21, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Relative to other racial feats, it's in the upper half, but not even the best feat.




Err, so? As I've already said, my problem is with the way the feat functions, not with its balance necessarily.



> And almost all feats get steadily worse at higher levels.




Such as... which?



> that function fine.




I don't believe that it functions fine. I think that it was clearly wrong with the PHB and shortly thereafter AV illustrated how it wasn't fine. Games that use or don't use AV superior weapons now materially impact on the balance of dwarves. Yay. Same with other future products, though probably to a lesser extent.

It's not breaking the game, certainly. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> Err, so? As I've already said, my problem is with the way the feat functions, not with its balance necessarily....it wasn't fine. Games that use or don't use AV superior weapons now materially impact on the balance of dwarves.




Ummm...which is it, you don't care about balance, or the reason it is not fine is because it impacts balance?


----------



## Truename (Jan 21, 2009)

I'm confused. The complaint is about DWT giving access to all superior hammers and axes, whereas a non-dwarf has to use a feat to get access to ONE superior weapon? Is that correct?

If that's the complaint, I don't understand it. As far as I can tell, superior weapons are balanced against each other: you either get an extra point of damage (on average), an extra +1 to attack, or something a bit more esoteric. So what does it matter if you have access to one or many superior weapons? Why is that unbalanced?

The "superior weapon" or "entire weapon group" distinction seems like a flavor issue to me: like so many other feats, it boils down to "spend a feat, get +1 damage (or attack)."

I haven't studied all the feats as much as the rest of you have, so I'm probably missing something. What is it?


----------



## keterys (Jan 21, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Ummm...which is it, you don't care about balance, or the reason it is not fine is because it impacts balance?




I care that the poor design of the feat makes AV matter or not for different people's games. I don't care which way a person goes with their game for overall balance, but it highlights the problem that it creates an inequality between person A's game and person B's game and influences the players and DMs accordingly. 

Flatly, I think that giving out the superior weapon proficiencies was either a mistake or stupid design. There's little you can do to dissuade me otherwise and it's really okay to leave it there. It's not a balance concern, it's a design concern. It'd be like seeing 'Humans get +2 attack with any Implement that isn't a wand, rod, staff, orb or holy symbol' and knowing that might be okay, even underpowered for all but a tiny handful of characters, in the PHB, but eventually a design flaw that would rear its head often enough.

I'd much rather the feat were more powerful (such as giving an attack bonus with hammers and axes, which can build up to better results with feats) than have it scale horribly and have that albatross around its neck.


----------



## urzafrank (Jan 21, 2009)

Well at least we can agree to disagree. As to the design in regards to whether having the AV or not will matter for peoples' games. Wotc has stated that they intend to use all of their books in this fashion. Also this has always been the case where one book would make an option or another quite different, so this nothing new. Plus with the some of the masterwork armors in the AV the book is has quite an effect on anyone's game even without the design complaint of DWT


----------



## keterys (Jan 21, 2009)

urzafrank said:


> Plus with the some of the masterwork armors in the AV the book is has quite an effect on anyone's game even without the design complaint of DWT




Yeah, definitely - and the magic items make a big difference, too... but not in a 'changes how this feat works' kinda way, which is pretty critical to my disagreement. I've known DMs that would ban AV because it contains a few broken items, and don't want to weed out the rest, for instance.

Though I do wonder if they'll errata some of the more glaring things like the save penalty items. Veteran's Armor was first up to the chopping block, but is it the last? Dunno.


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (Jan 21, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Dwarf: 8(14)+17 = 112+17=129 * 20/20 = *129*
> Str-based: 9(13)+16 = 117+16=133 * 19/20 = *126.35*
> 
> Yeah, that Dwarf sure needs a free damage boost.
> ...



You're also neglecting that the +1 to hit will be increasingly effective the more [W] we're talking about. The above is just for 1[W]  The flat +2 damage is going to mean less compared to hitting more often the more the weapon's damage is multiplied. Thus, the +Str gets an edge again.

Also you're ignoring the Dragonborn's racial powers, as though the Dwarf gets a bunch and the Dragonborn just gets +2str


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> I care that the poor design of the feat makes AV matter or not for different people's games. I don't care which way a person goes with their game for overall balance, but it highlights the problem that it creates an inequality between person A's game and person B's game and influences the players and DMs accordingly.




Why would you care about "equality" between two different people's games? 

And, since in this case you seem to be saying more options for the character makes them not equal to characters with fewer options, then ANYONE using AV is "unequal" to anyone not using AV, regardless of this feat, since AV's whole point is to offer more options.

I am really not getting your point anymore.  What is this problem of inequality between different games you are talking about? What does that even mean?


----------



## boar (Jan 21, 2009)

> Games that use or don't use AV superior weapons now materially impact on the balance of dwarves.




Keterys, I'd be fine with "leaving it there" if it weren't for a profound flaw with your argument.  I agree that having or not having AV makes a big difference for dwarves.  What you're ignoring is the fact that having or not having AV makes a big difference for _everyone_.  Fighters, paladins, warlords, and even clerics -- that's half the classes in the PHB -- suffer from the absence of AV, regardless of race.

The PHB has a grand total of four superior weapons, two of which don't apply to STR-based melee characters.  A third one, the spiked chain, is basically worse than a greatsword unless you care about reach.  So if a player says, "I want to spend a feat to gain access to a high-damage weapon," their option is...bastard sword.  That's it.  Anyone -- not just dwarves -- who wants to use a powerful axe, hammer, spear, or even two-handed sword is screwed without AV.  Does this mean that "Weapon Proficiency" is a poorly designed feat, since its value improves TREMENDOUSLY with the addition of AV?  By your logic, it does.

Yes, there's a problem, but DWT isn't it.  The true problem is the lack of superior weapons in the Player's Handbook, or more specifically, the power discrepancy in superior weapons between the PHB and AV.  This hurts all STR-based melee fighters who want to do lots of damage, not just dwarves.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 22, 2009)

MadLordOfMilk said:


> You're also neglecting that the +1 to hit will be increasingly effective the more [W] we're talking about. The above is just for 1[W]  The flat +2 damage is going to mean less compared to hitting more often the more the weapon's damage is multiplied. Thus, the +Str gets an edge again.



 The exact same argument goes for the extra Standard action, though: the more often you can attack, the more often you get to actually roll all those [W]s.

Go ahead and do the math with the larger numbers. It'll come out the same -- the Dwarf's extra action is worth more than +1 Str before you add in the effect of the Superior weapons, which can be quite significant for those with the Brutal property.



MadLordOfMilk said:


> Also you're ignoring the Dragonborn's racial powers, as though the Dwarf gets a bunch and the Dragonborn just gets +2str



 I'm "neglecting" a bunch of Dwarf abilities and a bunch of Dragonborn abilities, because I'm highlighting one specific example of a "defensive" power that actually adds to offense, by allowing you to attack more often.

If we were to factor in the Dwarf's ability to negate being knocked prone, and add up the times when his ability to be pushed less turned into him getting an extra attack, his advantage would probably increase.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (Jan 22, 2009)

Nifft said:


> The exact same argument goes for the extra Standard action, though: the more often you can attack, the more often you get to actually roll all those [W]s.
> 
> Go ahead and do the math with the larger numbers. It'll come out the same -- the Dwarf's extra action is worth more than +1 Str before you add in the effect of the Superior weapons, which can be quite significant for those with the Brutal property.
> 
> ...



Well, if you want to number crunch actions.... let's assume 5 rounds per combat, for four combats, which means 20 rounds. Now, there will be two action points spent, allowing for 22 standard actions over those 20 rounds. Dwarves we can assume will get 22/20, non-Dwarves will get anywhere from 18/20-22/20 depending on how often they actually need their second wind. What's the math with that? I'm too lazy to do it right now (read: I don't know how to calculate average damage once brutal comes into effect).


----------



## brendan candries (Jan 22, 2009)

MadLordOfMilk said:


> I don't know how to calculate average damage once brutal comes into effect.




2d6 brutal 1 has an average of 7+1=8
1d12 brutal 2 has an average of 7.5+1=8.5 

in line of these examples, you can assume the brutal weapons doing 1 more average damage per [W] that gets ignored when you crit.


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (Jan 22, 2009)

brendan candries said:


> 2d6 brutal 1 has an average of 7+1=8
> 1d12 brutal 2 has an average of 7.5+1=8.5
> 
> in line of these examples, you can assume the brutal weapons doing 1 more average damage per [W] that gets ignored when you crit.



Wouldn't 1d12 average 6.5 damage and only go up to 7.5 with brutal 2?

(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12) / 2 = 6.5; 1d12 has equal chances for 1-12
Get rid of 1 above and divide by 11 instead, and you get 7.

So 1d12 goes from 6.5 to 7 average damage w/brutal 1, making it on par average-wise with 2d6 but more likely to be high or low: 2d6 is going to most commonly be 7 because more combinations of numbers cause 7 than other numbers IE 1+6 2+5 3+4 4+3 5+2 6+1 versus just 6+6 for 12...)

XdY brutal one where x>0 threw me off a little, but then I realized the varying probabilities are on a bell curve anyway so it all balances out to just being able to average stuff and add them together... hence, (2+3+4+5+6)/5 = 4, so every brutal 1 d6 you add adds another 4dmg, etc...

So, anyway, 2d6 brutal 1 does average 8, but 1d12 brutal 2 only averages 7.5, 1d12 brutal 3 finally averages out to 8 to catch up to 2d6 brutal 1.

...right?


----------



## DracoSuave (Jan 22, 2009)

It's not that hard.  it's the exact same as the Power Attack argument, but in reverse.  Is it viable at that probability range to take -1 to hit to get +1 damage, and is the extra attack saved from not Second Winding making up for the damage loss?

Power Attack is -less- optimal the higher the damage of the weapon is, and so you'll find that DWT actually gets -worse- with Superior Weapons, not better.


----------



## boar (Jan 22, 2009)

I'm seeing some extremely weird math on the posts about Brutal.  Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your intent, but the math for Brutal doesn't need to get so complicated.

2d6 brutal 1 --> 8 expected damage
1d12 brutal 2 --> 7.5 expected damage

Don't let the fact that you're rerolling dice confuse you.  Rolling a 12-sided die with brutal 2 is mathematically equivalent to rolling a 10-sided die with the numbers 3-12 written on it.  Rolling a d6 with brutal 1 is equivalent to rolling a d5 with the numbers 2-6 written on it.  You can just compute the expected values normally.


----------



## brendan candries (Jan 22, 2009)

MadLordOfMilk said:


> Wouldn't 1d12 average 6.5 damage and only go up to 7.5 with brutal 2?
> 
> (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12) / 2 = 6.5; 1d12 has equal chances for 1-12
> Get rid of 1 above and divide by 11 instead, and you get 7.
> ...




idd

my conclusion was right, just fumbled up the numbers. 6.5+1 for de d12.


----------



## Truename (Jan 22, 2009)

boar said:


> Don't let the fact that you're rerolling dice confuse you. Rolling a 12-sided die with brutal 2 is mathematically equivalent to rolling a 10-sided die with the numbers 3-12 written on it. Rolling a d6 with brutal 1 is equivalent to rolling a d5 with the numbers 2-6 written on it. You can just compute the expected values normally.




Which is to say...

average = (lowest number you can roll + highest number you can roll) / 2

1d6 = (1+6)/2 = 3.5
1d6 brutal 2 = (3+6)/2 = 4.5
2d6 = (2+12)/2 = 7
2d6 brutal 1 = (4+12) / 2 = 8

I've crunched the numbers and the effect of superior axes and hammers is +1 average damage:

One-handed military hammer: Warhammer, avg roll 5.5 (6.5 versatile)
One-handed superior hammer: Craghammer, avg roll 6.5 (7.5 versatile)

Two-handed military hammer: Maul, avg roll 7
Two-handed superior hammer: Mordencrad, avg roll 8

One-handed military axe: Battleaxe, avg roll 5.5 (6.5 versatile)
One-handed superior axe: Waraxe, avg roll 6.5 (7.5 versatile)

Two-handed military axe: Greataxe, avg roll 6.5, high crit
Two-handed superior axe: Execution axe, avg roll 7.5, high crit

Net effect of DWT is +3 damage. Is that unbalanced compared to other racial feats?


----------



## Kzach (Jan 23, 2009)

Umm... not sure if this has been pointed out or not as I'm not willing to trawl through the entire thread, but...

...has anyone noticed that in the Character Builder beta, dwarves don't get proficiency in ANY superior weapon, let alone the ones from AV?


----------



## FireLance (Jan 23, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Umm... not sure if this has been pointed out or not as I'm not willing to trawl through the entire thread, but...
> 
> ...has anyone noticed that in the Character Builder beta, dwarves don't get proficiency in ANY superior weapon, let alone the ones from AV?



Is this with or without the Dwarven Weapon Training feat?


----------



## Lord Ernie (Jan 23, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Umm... not sure if this has been pointed out or not as I'm not willing to trawl through the entire thread, but...
> 
> ...has anyone noticed that in the Character Builder beta, dwarves don't get proficiency in ANY superior weapon, let alone the ones from AV?



I don't know what version you're using, but the dwarven fighter I just made to check this is perfectly capable of wielding Craghammers and Execution Axes.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 23, 2009)

Nevermind me, I'm retarded. I was under the impression that dwarves got proficiency in all hammers and axes automatically and that the feat just gave them a damage boost.

Carry on, nothing to see here


----------



## Silverwave (Feb 4, 2009)

Think of it this way :

If your DM wants to give your character a new magic weapon (don't forget, on the treasure parcel, magic items are of higher lvl than you are, so it's objects that a party can't craft with the Enchant magic item ritual), he'll pick one that you can handle (if not, it's not you that gonna end with it anyway). So basically, if you have the DWT feat, your DM will end up only with greater choice of weapon he can give you. So either way, it's not you who choose the good weapons you'll want to use, so, in the end, it doesn't really matter.


----------

