Melee Weapon Mastery [Archive] - Wizards Community

Melee Weapon Mastery [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gaia
06-28-07, 12:21 PM I have a little question (maybe stupid). There's this feat in Players Handbook II named Melee Weapon Mastery. It gives a +2 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls to any bludgeoning, piercing or slashing weapon you use. My question is, would this bonus stack with the bonus granted by Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats?
Crash01234567890
06-28-07, 12:35 PM Yes it does. It doesn't however stack with other versions of itself, so a morningstar specialist won't gain the benefit of both bludgeoning and piercing for instance.
Kouk
06-28-07, 12:36 PM It would be a bit silly to have it not work with its prerequisites, but in any event the bonus damage is untyped so it stacks with anything and everything (except itself, as Crash said).
jaelis
06-28-07, 12:53 PM Though it's clear that the feats do stack, it's not stupid to be confused by it. Both the flavor text and the table summary of MWM suggest pretty strongly that they wouldn't, and stacking does make it a much stronger than average feat.
risner
06-28-07, 12:54 PM would this bonus stack with the bonus granted by Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats?

Yes, different sources for unnamed/untyped bonuses stack.
Gaia
06-28-07, 01:22 PM Though it's clear that the feats do stack, it's not stupid to be confused by it. Both the flavor text and the table summary of MWM suggest pretty strongly that they wouldn't, and stacking does make it a much stronger than average feat.

Yes, the flavor text was what confused me in the first place. By the way, thanks a lot by the replies. They helped so much.
RobbyPants
06-28-07, 01:34 PM Of course, if they didn't stack, then there'd be little reason to take it, when taking Greater Weapon Focus would do the same thing (net you +2 to hit and damage) with the prereqs.

I think this is the PHB2's attempt at changing that whole fighters-can't-have-nice-things rule.
wonlee76
06-28-07, 02:00 PM Of course, if they didn't stack, then there'd be little reason to take it, when taking Greater Weapon Focus would do the same thing (net you +2 to hit and damage) with the prereqs.

Of course if it didn't stack there would be a great reason why you would take MWM. The pre-reqs are less harsh than Greater Weapon Focus (Fighter 4 vs. Fighter 8) and a feat that gives a +2 bonus to hit and damage to a class of weapons vs. 1 specific weapon is superior in every way.
Mirtek
06-28-07, 02:13 PM vs. 1 specific weapon is superior in every way.
It's a completly useless feature if you don't plan to use it, which most players do.

If I take focus/specialization in longsword it's because I enjoy my character wielding a longsword. So it doesn't matter if the feat allows me to be just as good with a scimitar, because if I had intended to play a scimitar wielding character, I would have taken WF/WS with scimitar instead of longsword.

It might be temporarily usefull if I am seperated from any longswords for some time, but a DM who knows that his player enjoys playing a character with a longsword is a bad DM if he forces the player to go with a different weapon every second session. And the once in a campaign situation where the character escapes from prison without his usual equipment and only the scimitar he took from the guard is not enough to warrant such a feat
wonlee76
06-28-07, 03:25 PM It might be temporarily usefull if I am seperated from any longswords for some time, but a DM who knows that his player enjoys playing a character with a longsword is a bad DM if he forces the player to go with a different weapon every second session. And the once in a campaign situation where the character escapes from prison without his usual equipment and only the scimitar he took from the guard is not enough to warrant such a feat

If MWM did not stack (I know it stacks with WF and WS but I'm playing devil's advocate in the event MWM gets errata'd in the future or DM houserules), its a feat with zero downside compared to Greater Weapon Focus presuming your PC would've taken Greater Weapon Focus. The feat is still practical for your longsword favoring fighter with the added benefit that "just in case" my weapon is disarmed or sundered, I can still be somewhat effective with my backup dagger, axe, or whatever. You would think your PC never got grappled, sundered or disarmed in his life where you couldn't use your longsword (or whatever weapon of choice it is) for whatever reason.
jaelis
06-28-07, 03:35 PM I agree. With no stacking, MWM is unquestionably better than GWF, and I think the advantage is a worthwhile one. But some people think GWF is too weak, and they might think a non-stacking MWM is too weak too. But it would still be better than GWF.
RobbyPants
06-28-07, 04:00 PM One thing that makes GWF better is it sets you up for GWS, which would be superior to a non-stacking form of MWM. But that requires a hefty investment in a pretty weak class.

But this is all moot, seeing as how it does stack.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gaia 06-28-07, 12:21 PM	I have a little question (maybe stupid). There's this feat in Players Handbook II named Melee Weapon Mastery. It gives a +2 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls to any bludgeoning, piercing or slashing weapon you use. My question is, would this bonus stack with the bonus granted by Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats?
Crash01234567890 06-28-07, 12:35 PM	Yes it does. It doesn't however stack with other versions of itself, so a morningstar specialist won't gain the benefit of both bludgeoning and piercing for instance.
Kouk 06-28-07, 12:36 PM	It would be a bit silly to have it not work with its prerequisites, but in any event the bonus damage is untyped so it stacks with anything and everything (except itself, as Crash said).
jaelis 06-28-07, 12:53 PM	Though it's clear that the feats do stack, it's not stupid to be confused by it. Both the flavor text and the table summary of MWM suggest pretty strongly that they wouldn't, and stacking does make it a much stronger than average feat.
risner 06-28-07, 12:54 PM	would this bonus stack with the bonus granted by Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats? Yes, different sources for unnamed/untyped bonuses stack.
Gaia 06-28-07, 01:22 PM	Though it's clear that the feats do stack, it's not stupid to be confused by it. Both the flavor text and the table summary of MWM suggest pretty strongly that they wouldn't, and stacking does make it a much stronger than average feat. Yes, the flavor text was what confused me in the first place. By the way, thanks a lot by the replies. They helped so much.
RobbyPants 06-28-07, 01:34 PM	Of course, if they didn't stack, then there'd be little reason to take it, when taking Greater Weapon Focus would do the same thing (net you +2 to hit and damage) with the prereqs. I think this is the PHB2's attempt at changing that whole fighters-can't-have-nice-things rule.
wonlee76 06-28-07, 02:00 PM	Of course, if they didn't stack, then there'd be little reason to take it, when taking Greater Weapon Focus would do the same thing (net you +2 to hit and damage) with the prereqs. Of course if it didn't stack there would be a great reason why you would take MWM. The pre-reqs are less harsh than Greater Weapon Focus (Fighter 4 vs. Fighter 8) and a feat that gives a +2 bonus to hit and damage to a class of weapons vs. 1 specific weapon is superior in every way.
Mirtek 06-28-07, 02:13 PM	vs. 1 specific weapon is superior in every way. It's a completly useless feature if you don't plan to use it, which most players do. If I take focus/specialization in longsword it's because I enjoy my character wielding a longsword. So it doesn't matter if the feat allows me to be just as good with a scimitar, because if I had intended to play a scimitar wielding character, I would have taken WF/WS with scimitar instead of longsword. It might be temporarily usefull if I am seperated from any longswords for some time, but a DM who knows that his player enjoys playing a character with a longsword is a bad DM if he forces the player to go with a different weapon every second session. And the once in a campaign situation where the character escapes from prison without his usual equipment and only the scimitar he took from the guard is not enough to warrant such a feat
wonlee76 06-28-07, 03:25 PM	It might be temporarily usefull if I am seperated from any longswords for some time, but a DM who knows that his player enjoys playing a character with a longsword is a bad DM if he forces the player to go with a different weapon every second session. And the once in a campaign situation where the character escapes from prison without his usual equipment and only the scimitar he took from the guard is not enough to warrant such a feat If MWM did not stack (I know it stacks with WF and WS but I'm playing devil's advocate in the event MWM gets errata'd in the future or DM houserules), its a feat with zero downside compared to Greater Weapon Focus presuming your PC would've taken Greater Weapon Focus. The feat is still practical for your longsword favoring fighter with the added benefit that "just in case" my weapon is disarmed or sundered, I can still be somewhat effective with my backup dagger, axe, or whatever. You would think your PC never got grappled, sundered or disarmed in his life where you couldn't use your longsword (or whatever weapon of choice it is) for whatever reason.
jaelis 06-28-07, 03:35 PM	I agree. With no stacking, MWM is unquestionably better than GWF, and I think the advantage is a worthwhile one. But some people think GWF is too weak, and they might think a non-stacking MWM is too weak too. But it would still be better than GWF.
RobbyPants 06-28-07, 04:00 PM	One thing that makes GWF better is it sets you up for GWS, which would be superior to a non-stacking form of MWM. But that requires a hefty investment in a pretty weak class. But this is all moot, seeing as how it does stack.