Post/Author/DateTime	Post
haferka 04-10-07, 05:27 PM	I was looking at an FAQ entry and curious if you could elaborate on the ruling. See D&D FAQ v.3.5 31 Update Version: 03/23/07 page 30 (last question). If a weapon deals two different types of damage (such as a dagger), could I take Melee Weapon Mastery (Player’s Handbook II, 81) for both types of damage? And if I did, would both bonuses apply when using a weapon that dealt both of those types of damage simultaneously (such as a morningstar)? Yes and no. A character with Weapon Focus (morningstar) and Weapon Specialization (morningstar) could take Melee Weapon Mastery with either bludgeoning weapons or piercing weapons (since the morningstar deals both types of damage), or he could take it once for each. The feat’s bonus wouldn’t stack with itself, however, even if the weapon deals both types of damage simultaneously. There are a total of 3 weapons that deal multiple Damage Types: Morningstar, Bite & bow(any) with serpent tongue arrows. All other weapons deal one damage type OR another.. not both. As I understand it, a Bite is elligable for Brutal Strike (bludgeoning) and Slashing Fury(slashing) and any other similar feat.. Why then.. if you can apply multiple melee damage types can you not gain the Melee Weapon Mastery Feat benifits multiple times. As I understand it.. The Feat grants an unamed bonus .. just like Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization.. which the FAQ specificly does allow to stack with Melee or Ranged Weapon Mastery. Does the bonus from Melee Weapon Mastery (Player’s Handbook II, 81) stack with bonuses from Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization? Yes. A character with Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword), and Melee Weapon Mastery (slashing) would have a +3 bonus on attack rolls and a +4 bonus on damage rolls with longswords, and a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls with all other slashing weapons. Why would Melee Weapon Mastery(Bludgeoning) not stack with Melee Weapon Mastery(Piercing)?
ClementWillowbreaker 04-10-07, 05:31 PM	Because they would be even more broken than the feats are as written (which are very bad). I'm not saying melee characters shouldn't have really good combat feats, its just that Weapon Mastery is so far off the scale it isn't even funny. Personally, if you were to follow what the table says, that MWM gives the benefits of Weapon Focus/Specialization to the entire type (the original version of the feat) instead of adding a new huge bonus, then there is no problem with the feat stacking. +2 to hit and +4 to damage for two lvl8+ feats is nice.
jaelis 04-10-07, 05:34 PM	Why would Melee Weapon Mastery(Bludgeoning) not stack with Melee Weapon Mastery(Piercing)? The same reason weapon focus (bastard sword) and weapon focus (shortsword) don't stack when you're wielding a sunblade. MWM is really just one feat, that can be applied to different things. Even unnamed bonuses from the same source don't stack, and here there is just one source.
haferka 04-10-07, 05:39 PM	Because they would be even more broken than the feats are as written (which are very bad). ... OK. I was looking for a better reason than.. cuz its broken... If its broken.. Perhaps a better "fix" would be to errata the 3 weapons that allow multiple damage types to ONLY allow a single type at a time.. like all the other weapons with multiple damage types. OR.. Cut the Weapon Mastery bonus in half if you already have it once... Bite with all 3 Feats would be: +2(B)+1(P)+1(S)=+4 (plus the Focus & Specialization bonuses).. Personally I think It should be a flat +1 not +2 per feat...
haferka 04-10-07, 05:41 PM	The same reason weapon focus (bastard sword) and weapon focus (shortsword) don't stack when you're wielding a sunblade. MWM is really just one feat, that can be applied to different things. Even unnamed bonuses from the same source don't stack, and here there is just one source. OK. The problem with that statement... I see them NOT stacking becouse you can wield the weapon as EITHER a shortsword OR a Bastart Sword.. not both. And I see the Feats like Weapon Focus(WEAPON) as a space saver.. not a rule element in itself... Its' a smart way to write a rule that is multipurpose.
Aryxbez 04-10-07, 05:53 PM	Although the FAQ says so, technically you could have both feats because it applies to all weapons that deal those damage. so could apply Melee weapon mastery to blunt and piercing. Although it doesn't make sense. I would allow since it makes the morningstar even cooler than before. Although my players probably wouldn't do it for the reason it not making sense.
Part-Human2 04-10-07, 07:19 PM	Does It Stack? (Part Four) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040210a) Unnamed Bonuses A bonus that doesn't have a name stacks with anything except itself. This is always true, but it's sometimes hard to remember. For example, many feats provide unnamed bonuses, so don't panic when you read a feat description and it provides a bonus without a name. An unnamed bonus from a feat stacks with any other bonus; however you can't stack that unnamed bonus if you take the feat twice.
jaelis 04-10-07, 08:39 PM	And I see the Feats like Weapon Focus(WEAPON) as a space saver.. not a rule element in itself... Its' a smart way to write a rule that is multipurpose. That's not an unreasonable way to see it, but it is not what the game designers had in mind. I know this because the FAQ says so. Of course, you're always welcome to play as you wish!
Zherog 04-10-07, 08:39 PM	Because they would be even more broken than the feats are as written (which are very bad). Enlighten me. What's broken about those feats as written?
ClementWillowbreaker 04-10-07, 09:16 PM	Enlighten me. What's broken about those feats as written? They give three times the benefit of GWF (+2 hit, and +2 damage = +1 to hit) for more lenient requirements (slightly), and apply it to all weapons of a type, instead of a single one. Even assuming a character only uses a few different weapons, this is easily GWF for two or three weapons in the character's repertoire. GWF kinda sucks, but not so much that a good feat needs to increase its benefits six to nine times over. Or do you think New Toughness should give you 18hp?
MerlintheTuna 04-10-07, 09:57 PM	Improved Toughness can, actually, if you're 18th level. "Better than Great Weapon Focus" doesn't mean much - Greater Weapon Focus is made of bleh and fail. Melee Weapon Mastery is fine.
ShinAkuma2 04-10-07, 10:02 PM	Or do you think New Toughness should give you 18hp? That's still less than Improved Toughness. :thinks:
runestar 04-10-07, 10:07 PM	I see it more as because the same feat does not stack with itself unless explicitly stated otherwise, even for unnamed bonuses. You can argue that weapon mastery: slashing is a completely different feat from weapon mastery: piercing, but I view them as subsets of the same feat. It is not so much a matter of game balance, but rather, an accurate and literal application of the rules.:)
Neutronium_Dragon 04-10-07, 10:08 PM	Clement, as the authors stated in some of their interviews, Melee Weapon Mastery and similar feats *are* more powerful than the PHB ones by intent - because there was a general understanding that the PHB ones were simply underpowered relative to their prerequisites. As an 8th level feat, +1 to hit with one weapon just doesn't cut it compared to the class feature(s) that you're picking up with any other class - and those other classes are generally getting features at every level rather than every second level. The fighter-oriented feats and substitution levels in the PHB2 were intended to correct that problem by being made equivalent to higher level class features - which are almost always more powerful than what a standard-to-PHB feat gives you.
haferka 04-10-07, 10:17 PM	I agree that the feat is 'to good' compared to existing feats. But, the problem here is that the earlier feats are either to weak or to restrictive. The FAQ ruling is an effort to restrict a feat that is 'to good'. There needs to be a reasonable effort to 'fix' older rule items. If a rule item is not being used...it means that ...SELF EDITED ... REMOVING RANT... I would suggest an errata to lower the bonus to +1/+1(spec weapons), +1 hit OR +1 damage(non-spec weapons), allow the feat to stack where appropriate. greater weapon focus & spec...LOWER THE LEVEL REQ. even if that means raising the requirement on weapon mastery. I opologize for gramar...I'm typing on my phone.
DarkRhystar 04-10-07, 10:18 PM	Why would Melee Weapon Mastery(Bludgeoning) not stack with Melee Weapon Mastery(Piercing)? They're not separate feats. They're the same feat, taken twice with a different parameters. Since they're the same source, they don't stack with one another. Weapon Mastery does stack with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization by the way.
UnknownMourner 04-10-07, 11:09 PM	Same source = no stacking.
Silverthumb128 04-10-07, 11:30 PM	They give three times the benefit of GWF (+2 hit, and +2 damage = +1 to hit) Wait, wait, whoa, how does +2 damage = +1 to hit? It gives the same bonus as GWF(once), and WS, not 3x GWF.
runestar 04-10-07, 11:52 PM	Wait, wait, whoa, how does +2 damage = +1 to hit? It gives the same bonus as GWF(once), and WS, not 3x GWF. That is the power attack formula. -1 to hit = +2 damage when power attacking with a 2-handed weapon. Weapon focus can be construed as granting +2 damage, since it lets you power attack for 1 point more than you normally could. Not sure how apt an analogy it is in this case though.:P
Nezkrul 04-10-07, 11:58 PM	Because they would be even more broken than the feats are as written (which are very bad). someone's never played a fighter 1 to 20, then a wizard 1 to 20. fighters suck as a core class (imo). they're capstone ability is: a feat. so why not a feat thats really good that requires fighter levels? or do you want gwf for your 20th level feat? if you don't like it, play something else. i certainly do.
Silverthumb128 04-11-07, 01:23 AM	That is the power attack formula. -1 to hit = +2 damage when power attacking with a 2-handed weapon. Weapon focus can be construed as granting +2 damage, since it lets you power attack for 1 point more than you normally could. Not sure how apt an analogy it is in this case though.:P Runestar's always making everyone's arguments make sense for them. :D
haferka 04-11-07, 09:54 AM	They're not separate feats. They're the same feat, taken twice with a different parameters. Since they're the same source, they don't stack with one another. OK. I accept that. I would "suggest" the following errata... Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery -Lower the bonus to +1/+1 -Require Fighter Level 6 Greater Weapon Focus -Allows Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery "to hit" bonuses to stack Greater Weapon Specialization -Allow Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery "to damage" bonuses to stack
Silverthumb128 04-11-07, 10:12 AM	OK. I accept that. I would "suggest" the following errata... Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery -Lower the bonus to +1/+1 -Require Fighter Level 6 Greater Weapon Focus -Allows Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery "to hit" bonuses to stack Greater Weapon Specialization -Allow Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery "to damage" bonuses to stack Alright, but if you took the feat with Morningstar twice, and it did stack, but you'd nerfed it, you'd just end up with the same bonus you'd have if you took it as it already is: +2/+2.
Zherog 04-11-07, 11:43 AM	... or do you want gwf for your 20th level feat? Or worse - Dodge. :D I've never seen anything at all wrong with the power level of Weapon Mastery. *shrug*
Merestil Haye 04-11-07, 11:53 AM	Really there is no need to change the feat at all. The basic rules about stacking were there when the feat was written. The designers knew what it stacked with and what it didn't. This is such a basic rule of D&D that it's quite inconceivable that the designers overlooked it - and indeed the FAQ tells us that they did not, that they used it to evaluate the feat and set parameters. As it is first available to an 8th level character it should compare reasonably with what other characters are getting at 8th level. An obvious compariison is the Greater Magic Weapon spell; true it comes online a little earlier for dedicated casters, but 8th level marks the earliest at which the enhancement bonus on the weapon exceeds the minimum - it goes to +2. So this feat, which offers the featholder a +2 to hit and damage with all weapons that deal a type of damage, is at once better (it works all the time, applies to multiple weapons and gives an unnamed bonus) and worse (the spell can be applied to one weapon one day, and to another weapon the next, based on need). But the point is the bonus is commensurate with bonuses that other characters get at the same time and for the same purpose. Greater Weapon Focus? It fails that test miserably. I don't consider it worth the paper the online SRD is printed on. The fact that it has costlier prereqs than MWM (it requires 8 levels of fighter whereas MWM requires 4) is just adding insult to injury.
haferka 04-11-07, 03:48 PM	After looking at it.. I would say.. you are correct that the feat is fine as written. But the PH feats Greater Weapon Focus & Greater Weapon Specialization need to be rewritten as follows... My whole complaint stemed from the fact that the Greater Weapon Focus & Specialization feats are to weak.. thus they made the Weapon Mastery feats look WAY to good. Greater Weapon Focus {add this to the end of the description} The to hit bonuses from multiple Melee Weapon Mastery and Ranged Weapon Mastery Feats stack for any weapon that has Greater Weapon Focus and the appropriate Damage type. Greater Weapon Specialization {add this to the end of the description} The to damage bonus from multiple Melee Weapon Mastery and Ranged Weapon Mastery Feats stack for any weapon that has Greater Weapon Focus and the appropriate Damage type. Another possible "fix is to make the bonus from Greater weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization +4.
Merestil Haye 04-11-07, 05:09 PM	No, those statements are not necessary, because the basic rule on bonuses stacking already makes that clear. Here is the rule.Stacking In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.This rule, which underpins every single stacking calculation in the d20 game, makes it quite clear that the bonuses from the Weapon Mastery feats stack with GWF and GWS. I agree GWF and GWS need to be rewritten - their poor bonus and huge cost (I consider Fighter 5 to be among the worst class levels in the entire game, and Fighter 7 to be just as bad) combine to make them junk. My fix gives them bonuses that scale with fighter level in the same way that Greater Magic Weapon scales with caster level - +1 per 4 fighter levels (max 5), and gives characters using these weapons the ability to bypass a DR; DR /Magic from GWF and DR /[Alignment] from GWS; this alignment is chosen when the character takes the feat, and the character must be that alignment or have that alignment subtype. (True Neutral characters cannot make a choice and get no benefit). The ability is retained so long as the character does not become the exact opposite alignment.
Zherog 04-11-07, 06:12 PM	(I consider Fighter 5 to be among the worst class levels in the entire game, and Fighter 7 to be just as bad) Fighter 3 ain't no picnic either. ;)
Neutronium_Dragon 04-11-07, 06:43 PM	Fighter 3 at least gives you a bump to your Reflex and Will saves. F5 and F7 don't even do that.
Zherog 04-11-07, 06:54 PM	True enough.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-11-07, 06:57 PM	fighters suck as a core class (imo). they're capstone ability is: a feat. so why not a feat thats really good that requires fighter levels? Sure. Let's give them an awesome feat. MWM is not fighter-specific. It does nothing to address the problems of the Fighter class- it is a four-level dip to most people. Greater WF and WS are Fighter-specific. Fix those. But instead of doing that, WotC added crazy-good feats in other books. Why? Because they can't charge us money if they errata the PHB feats to be good. This trend is widespread now- the MIC revises huge chunks of item-pricing lifted right out of the DMG, for example. It's great the WotC has seen some of the problems of 3.5. Sanitizing it from Polymorph was a great decision. But they didn't make any money from doing it. So we will never see that again. In the future, we will probably have a Complete Shapechanger. So Wizards, put your ink where your mouth is. Don't back-door it with supplements.
Neutronium_Dragon 04-11-07, 07:18 PM	MWM is fighter-specific to the extent that Specialization is (since Specialization is a prerequisite). However, it's just one of several feats (some of which have MWM as a prerequisite along with much higher fighter levels) which give a much-needed boost to fighters in the PHB2. Now, it shouldn't stop there, but MWM is exactly what it needs to be for an 8th level, two-prerequisite feat.
NineInchNall 04-11-07, 07:27 PM	How in crap's sake is MWM anywhere near powerful enough to be called broken? It's better than Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, but how is that even anywhere near relevant to the overall power of a character who has MWM? Looking at the whole, I can't honestly say a Fighter 8 with MWM is a more powerful character than a Wizard who can end combats with a single action (evard's black tentacles, solid fog, or ice web), or a Druid who can end combats with a single action (boreal wind or murderous mist), or a Cleric who can ... Ad nauseum. :confused: A feat is overpowered if it makes a character too powerful for the threats he faces to the point where he makes his teammates feel insignificant. A feat's broken if it takes the game and removes all challenge (or, conversely, artificially inflates challenge to obscene levels). MWM is neither of those things.
haferka 04-12-07, 09:53 AM	How in crap's sake is MWM anywhere near powerful enough to be called broken? It's better than Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, but how is that even anywhere near relevant to the overall power of a character who has MWM? Looking at the whole, I can't honestly say a Fighter 8 with MWM is a more powerful character than a Wizard who can end combats with a single action (evard's black tentacles, solid fog, or ice web), or a Druid who can end combats with a single action (boreal wind or murderous mist), or a Cleric who can ... Ad nauseum. :confused: A feat is overpowered if it makes a character too powerful for the threats he faces to the point where he makes his teammates feel insignificant. A feat's broken if it takes the game and removes all challenge (or, conversely, artificially inflates challenge to obscene levels). MWM is neither of those things. I am convinced.. BUT.. I believe that the "Greater Weapon Focus" & "Greater Weapon Specialization" Feats should be erratad to ALLOW "Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery" bonuses to stack for your weapon. As written, the "Greater..." Feats are just to weak to compete against all the nice "Tactical" feats... and Allowing Weapon Mastery Bonuses to stack for a character build around a very specific weapon is a GREAT idea.
Merestil Haye 04-12-07, 12:36 PM	I am convinced.. BUT.. I believe that the "Greater Weapon Focus" & "Greater Weapon Specialization" Feats should be erratad to ALLOW "Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery" bonuses to stack for your weapon.No, they do not need errata. They already stack. You do not need to errata them to say they stack.
haferka 04-12-07, 02:51 PM	No, they do not need errata. They already stack. You do not need to errata them to say they stack. I am suggesting that the to hit & to damage bonuses from "MULTIPLE" Weapon Mastery feats should stack when you have "Greater" Weapon focus (to hit) and Weapon Specialization (to damage). Example: (again)... Weapon Focus (morningstar) Weapon Specialization (morningstar) Melee Weapon Mastery (Bludgeoning) Melee Weapon Mastery (Piercing) Greater Weapon Focus (morningstar) Greater Weapon Specialization (morningstar) With the current rules.. Melee Weapon Mastery does NOT stack with itself.... I am suggesting that is "should" be allowed to stack when you wield an appropiate weapon and posses the Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization Feats... Reason: There is ALWAYS a better feat than Greater Weapon Focus or Greater Weapon Specilization.. so nobody is taking it..