Strike of the Giants Prerequisite Question

[werescythe]

I just wanted to ask and check how the prerequisites for the feat: Strike of the Giants works.

So, it says Martial Weapon Proficiency, now does this mean that you need to have the Martial Weapon proficiency or would have proficiency with one weapon that is a Martial weapon qualify you to take this?

[P. G. Macer]

I just wanted to ask and check how the prerequisites for the feat: Strike of the Giants works.

So, it says Martial Weapon Proficiency, now does this mean that you need to have the Martial Weapon proficiency or would have proficiency with one weapon that is a Martial weapon qualify you to take this?

That is quite a good question. It specifically phrases the prerequisite as “Martial Weapon Proficiency”; since “weapon” is singular here, I’d rule as a DM that a character need be proficient in only one martial weapon, so e.g. a 2014 PHB Druid could take it due to scimitar proficiency. As far as I know, that druid and the 2014 Monk are the edgiest edge cases for this, due to granting only a single martial weapon proficiency from their class.

[Theodoxus]

I agree with P.G. Macer, with a caveat that you can only use the feat with a weapon that meets the prerequisite. This ruling would stipulate that you can't use a simple weapon with it - which does break the verisimilitude of using a great club with the Hill Strike... but maybe if you asked nicely (it's not like great clubs are amazingly awesome weapon choices...

[Trask]

I interpreted it as having proficiency with all martial weapons, I.E. a fighter, a barbarian, etc.

[Christew]

I interpreted it as having proficiency with all martial weapons, I.E. a fighter, a barbarian, etc.

Same, and restriction to martial classes makes more sense to me than an exclusion of some casters given the thematics of the feat, but the wording is definitely ambiguous.

See the prerequisite of Fighting Initiate as a counter example: "proficiency with a martial weapon."

That said, I think ruling either way is both supportable by the text and reasonable. All but the strangest caster builds are going to be disincentivized to take the feat anyway.

[werescythe]

I interpreted it as having proficiency with all martial weapons, I.E. a fighter, a barbarian, etc.

Yeah, that was my initial thought.

That is quite a good question. It specifically phrases the prerequisite as “Martial Weapon Proficiency”; since “weapon” is singular here, I’d rule as a DM that a character need be proficient in only one martial weapon, so e.g. a 2014 PHB Druid could take it due to scimitar proficiency. As far as I know, that druid and the 2014 Monk are the edgiest edge cases for this, due to granting only a single martial weapon proficiency from their class.

I had wondered that, the reason I kind of bring it up is because I have an idea for a Soul Knife (since Rogues are proficient with rapiers) and combine it with Cloud Strike to have the option to turn invisible (and deal a little extra damage).

[Psyren]

I interpreted it as having proficiency with all martial weapons, I.E. a fighter, a barbarian, etc.

I actually disagree with this - I think the intent was for any martial weapon to qualify. Requiring all of them doesn't just eliminate rogues, it eliminates monks as well, despite the damage bonuses working with their monk unarmed strikes (because US counts as a "melee weapon attack.")

Enforcing this ban means the only way for monks to qualify is with the foundling background - while certainly flavorful, it doesn't seem fair or intended to force them down this singular path when other martials don't have to.

[Trask]

I actually disagree with this - I think the intent was for any martial weapon to qualify. Requiring all of them doesn't just eliminate rogues, it eliminates monks as well, despite the damage bonuses working with their monk unarmed strikes (because US counts as a "melee weapon attack.")

Enforcing this ban means the only way for monks to qualify is with the foundling background - while certainly flavorful, it doesn't seem fair or intended to force them down this singular path when other martials don't have to.

True, and excluding the Monk is unfortunate, but your way might be a little too inclusive. Monks, rogues, bards, bladesingers, hexblades, war clerics, elves, basically any custom race you want...it makes me wonder if WotC meant for it to be so broad, especially when they've used more specific language before in "proficiency in any martial weapon" as opposed to "martial weapon proficiency".

Really its all fairly fussy because you can just use the giant foundling background. Its just a background, and we can already substitute the skills and features in them by RAW.

[Psyren]

True, and excluding the Monk is unfortunate, but your way might be a little too inclusive. Monks, rogues, bards, bladesingers, hexblades, war clerics, elves, basically any custom race you want...it makes me wonder if WotC meant for it to be so broad, especially when they've used more specific language before in "proficiency in any martial weapon" as opposed to "martial weapon proficiency".

Really its all fairly fussy because you can just use the giant foundling background. Its just a background, and we can already substitute the skills and features in them by RAW.

As you yourself mention though, all you need is the background and literally any race or class can qualify. So the notion that they intended for the feature to be more exclusive/harder to access doesn't really hold water in my view. And the specific language argument goes both ways; they could have just as easily said "proficiency in all martial weapons" if they truly wanted to avoid all ambiguity.