Why is Weapon Supremacy not a fighter feat? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Why is Weapon Supremacy not a fighter feat? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Turin71
03-16-07, 04:10 PM Hello to all,

My question is not only about Weapon Supremacy, although this is the one that I least undersatnd, but also about other feats

Bounding assult, Rapid blitz both for melee and not Fighter feats.

Slashing Fury, and the other three feats that have Melee weapon mastery as prereq. (I can't remember their names right now)

Why would these not be Fighter bonus feats. It seams to me that fighters should not be limited like this and all the feats made for fighting, especially melee fighting, should be fighter bonus feats.

I also noticed that, because of this, it is impossible to take both Rapid Blitz and Weapon Supremacy unless you are Epic.

Does anybody have any feelings about this?
Bopple
03-16-07, 08:19 PM There have been similar precedences.
Most think they are just plain mistakes.
enygmatic_me
03-16-07, 08:37 PM One of two reasons:

1) To intentionally frustrate the players who like playing fighters by forcing them to use non-bonus feats on it.

2) Editing mistake.

I am inclined to go with the latter here, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the former is the truth. It is my belief that the editing staff has at least one (or more) rules sadists who's true joy in life is to find new ways to dumbfound and aggravate the players.
jaelis
03-16-07, 10:23 PM I'll put in my bid for a mistake.
Kouk
03-17-07, 10:54 AM Ask customer service, sometimes they know the answer.
jaelis
03-17-07, 11:31 AM Check out the link in my sig...
mkill
03-17-07, 02:38 PM For the next edition, they should just mark all combat-applicable feats with a [Combat] marker instead of [General], and let the fighter choose a Combat feat as bonus feat. That way, no authors and editors could be forgetting a crucial line of text, because there would be no need for it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Turin71 03-16-07, 04:10 PM	Hello to all, My question is not only about Weapon Supremacy, although this is the one that I least undersatnd, but also about other feats Bounding assult, Rapid blitz both for melee and not Fighter feats. Slashing Fury, and the other three feats that have Melee weapon mastery as prereq. (I can't remember their names right now) Why would these not be Fighter bonus feats. It seams to me that fighters should not be limited like this and all the feats made for fighting, especially melee fighting, should be fighter bonus feats. I also noticed that, because of this, it is impossible to take both Rapid Blitz and Weapon Supremacy unless you are Epic. Does anybody have any feelings about this?
Bopple 03-16-07, 08:19 PM	There have been similar precedences. Most think they are just plain mistakes.
enygmatic_me 03-16-07, 08:37 PM	One of two reasons: 1) To intentionally frustrate the players who like playing fighters by forcing them to use non-bonus feats on it. 2) Editing mistake. I am inclined to go with the latter here, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the former is the truth. It is my belief that the editing staff has at least one (or more) rules sadists who's true joy in life is to find new ways to dumbfound and aggravate the players.
jaelis 03-16-07, 10:23 PM	I'll put in my bid for a mistake.
Kouk 03-17-07, 10:54 AM	Ask customer service, sometimes they know the answer.
jaelis 03-17-07, 11:31 AM	Check out the link in my sig...
mkill 03-17-07, 02:38 PM	For the next edition, they should just mark all combat-applicable feats with a [Combat] marker instead of [General], and let the fighter choose a Combat feat as bonus feat. That way, no authors and editors could be forgetting a crucial line of text, because there would be no need for it.