(...) If you want to see if it's a good idea or not, throw your PCs up against NPCs who get to use those as well, and watch the complaints start to mount. Enemy using a longsword? Ooops guess you get to fight at disadvantage every time they hit you, good luck hitting that 20 AC now (having fun yet?). What you want to move? Oh, if only you didn't get toppled on the enemy's turn, now you lose half your movement rate. Trying to get closer to that archer... good luck when he keeps knocking 10 ft off your movement every round, then backing up (you'll be dead long before you get there). (...)
We don't know what would be the rules / guidelines from the Monster Manual regarding NPCs and weapon masteries. They might be a PC-only class feature. Sure, a DM can decide to give a particular NPC a mastery for fun or challenge, but doesn't mean it will be a rule per se. The NPCs will still have stat blocks.
Care to quote where in the PHB, DMG, or MM does it say that?
Earlier editions had NPC versions of classes, 5e got rid of those. So show me where it says NPCs don't use the same abilities as PCs? Absent a rule that says otherwise, an NPC fighter has the same abilities as a PC fighter. A fighter is a fighter, regardless of whether it is an NPC or PC.
Care to quote where in the PHB, DMG, or MM does it say that?
Earlier editions had NPC versions of classes, 5e got rid of those. So show me where it says NPCs don't use the same abilities as PCs? Absent a rule that says otherwise, an NPC fighter has the same abilities as a PC fighter. A fighter is a fighter, regardless of whether it is an NPC or PC.
That is not really how it works. The only characters in the game that use "PC classes" are the PC's. NPC's and everything that is to be represented in the game gets a stat block with a couple of exceptions (see below). You have them in the Monster Manual, Appendix B: Noneplayer Characters starting on page 342. This is confirmed in the rules glossary under Non-Player Characters who it very clearly states should be treated as "monsters".
You have a substantial section in the DMG on page 89 covering the creation of NPC's and this is where you have the exceptions.
The exceptions are NPC's that are used as party members (see Low-Level Followers and Adventurer NPC's) or NPC "Villains" covered on page 96 and 97 where it quite literally gives you additional class options like the Cleric: Death Domain and Paladin: Oathbreaker though it does illustrate that NPC villains can be fully designed class characters.
So if you are creating say city guards or a local wizard NPC, unless you plan to make them party members, followers or villains, they should be given a stat block like monsters and you have specific stat blocks for that in the Monster Manual.
This of course aren't "rules" as there is no such thing in D&D, but if you are going by the advice of the DMG and the assumption of the game, that is how it works.
Why it works that way? My best guess would be that creating PC's every time you need a guard or a bard in a tavern would be a pain in the butt. I don't think it has anything to do with the balance of the game or anything like that. I think the basic principle is, make the game easy to prepare for and make sure that the player characters are special. Which makes sense given the exceptions, for example making main NPC followers and party members or villains of the story special is a reasonable way to spend some extra time creating them in the eyes of the game creators.
I have not run a game under 2024 but when I do, I'm going to let my players know that enemies from the PC Species (Humans, Dwarves, etc.) may have Weapon Masteries as well as other PC Class features. The idea that the PCs can use certain abilities while enemies of the same race or class can't is simply irrational IMHO. If my party faces off against a group of Monks with quarterstaffs, I WANT them to worry about being Toppled. Just like fighting enemies that cast spells or do elemental damage, the PCs SHOULD be prepared to change their tactics when fighting different kinds of enemies.
You know all of those horror stories that DMs tell about their player or party that is so powerful they blast through every encounter like it was cotton candy? I don't worry about those because I let my players know early on that if they can do something, eventually they will run across someone else who can do it as well. Will every Human guard or soldier have Action Surge? No. However, enemies of merit might and BBEGs certainly will.
In my MANY years of RPG experience, this can be very educational for a party that isn't very good at team tactics. Whoop your party with a weaker party who uses good tactics and meshes their abilities well and they'll learn PDQ that they can do more and do it better.
I have not run a game under 2024 but when I do, I'm going to let my players know that enemies from the PC Species (Humans, Dwarves, etc.) may have Weapon Masteries as well as other PC Class features. The idea that the PCs can use certain abilities while enemies of the same race or class can't is simply irrational IMHO. If my party faces off against a group of Monks with quarterstaffs, I WANT them to worry about being Toppled. Just like fighting enemies that cast spells or do elemental damage, the PCs SHOULD be prepared to change their tactics when fighting different kinds of enemies.
You know all of those horror stories that DMs tell about their player or party that is so powerful they blast through every encounter like it was cotton candy? I don't worry about those because I let my players know early on that if they can do something, eventually they will run across someone else who can do it as well. Will every Human guard or soldier have Action Surge? No. However, enemies of merit might and BBEGs certainly will.
In my MANY years of RPG experience, this can be very educational for a party that isn't very good at team tactics. Whoop your party with a weaker party who uses good tactics and meshes their abilities well and they'll learn PDQ that they can do more and do it better.
The design of the mechanic isn't really there to balance the game, or be realistic in some quasi-narrative sense, it's there strictly to make it easier and smoother to run. You throw a bunch of monks with quarterstaffs against the players and manage class abilities and weapon masteries, it will be about like it would be if you had 15-20 players at the table, each taking their turn... Your fights are going to take 3-4 hours to complete if you are extremely efficient.
You're welcome to try it, but you're not the first person to have this idea you know. Putting PC class-based characters against the players, especially anything after say 4-5th level will add 2-3 hours to any fight. After 10th level, I crap you not a fight will take 4 to 6 hours to complete and it just gets worse from there. After 15th level you will find that fights are actually impossible to finish like you end up with a permanent cycle of attrition.
I have not run a game under 2024 but when I do, I'm going to let my players know that enemies from the PC Species (Humans, Dwarves, etc.) may have Weapon Masteries as well as other PC Class features. The idea that the PCs can use certain abilities while enemies of the same race or class can't is simply irrational IMHO. If my party faces off against a group of Monks with quarterstaffs, I WANT them to worry about being Toppled. Just like fighting enemies that cast spells or do elemental damage, the PCs SHOULD be prepared to change their tactics when fighting different kinds of enemies.
You know all of those horror stories that DMs tell about their player or party that is so powerful they blast through every encounter like it was cotton candy? I don't worry about those because I let my players know early on that if they can do something, eventually they will run across someone else who can do it as well. Will every Human guard or soldier have Action Surge? No. However, enemies of merit might and BBEGs certainly will.
In my MANY years of RPG experience, this can be very educational for a party that isn't very good at team tactics. Whoop your party with a weaker party who uses good tactics and meshes their abilities well and they'll learn PDQ that they can do more and do it better.
The design of the mechanic isn't really there to balance the game, or be realistic in some quasi-narrative sense, it's there strictly to make it easier and smoother to run. You throw a bunch of monks with quarterstaffs against the players and manage class abilities and weapon masteries, it will be about like it would be if you had 15-20 players at the table, each taking their turn... Your fights are going to take 3-4 hours to complete if you are extremely efficient.
You're welcome to try it, but you're not the first person to have this idea you know. Putting PC class-based characters against the players, especially anything after say 4-5th level will add 2-3 hours to any fight. After 10th level, I crap you not a fight will take 4 to 6 hours to complete and it just gets worse from there. After 15th level you will find that fights are actually impossible to finish like you end up with a permanent cycle of attrition.
Our extended group has done this, and it doesn't take any longer to run than using monsters with stat blocks. Players take a long time to decide their 'moves' and are far more likely to treat the encounter as a chess game, than the DM is. We play with NPCs having the exact same rules as PCs.
Granted, Weapon Mastery is now going to make this an extreme headache, but having separate rules for PCs and NPCs just doesn't make sense (and as I stated, there are no rules saying NPCs are different in 5e). If PCs have abilities and skills, where did they learn them from? If NPCs don't have PC abilities, then there'd be no one to train the PCs. Also, having separate rules for both makes it likely that the PCs will develop god-complexes knowing that an NPC of equal class and level stands no chance against them.
This is just poor design. One set of "rules" for everyone, and balance toward PvP would have fixed this - yet they once again chose not to, and now there's a whole lot of tables that need to deal with the consequences. There's one set of rules to the universe, all within must abide by those rules. Having different rules for PCs than NPCs just breaks suspension of disbelief.
We play as close to RAW as possible, trying to keep the number of houserules to a minimum (to avoid issues our extended group has run into in the past) - so unless there's a rule (call it a rule, statement, whatever) in either the PHB or DMG that says "NPCs don't get these" - then they get them, just as PCs do. If a 20th level PC gets something, you can bet the 20th level archvillain their fighting gets it too.
Our extended group has done this, and it doesn't take any longer to run than using monsters with stat blocks. Players take a long time to decide their 'moves' and are far more likely to treat the encounter as a chess game, than the DM is. We play with NPCs having the exact same rules as PCs.
Granted, Weapon Mastery is now going to make this an extreme headache, but having separate rules for PCs and NPCs just doesn't make sense (and as I stated, there are no rules saying NPCs are different in 5e). If PCs have abilities and skills, where did they learn them from? If NPCs don't have PC abilities, then there'd be no one to train the PCs. Also, having separate rules for both makes it likely that the PCs will develop god-complexes knowing that an NPC of equal class and level stands no chance against them.
This is just poor design. One set of "rules" for everyone, and balance toward PvP would have fixed this - yet they once again chose not to, and now there's a whole lot of tables that need to deal with the consequences. There's one set of rules to the universe, all within must abide by those rules. Having different rules for PCs than NPCs just breaks suspension of disbelief.
We play as close to RAW as possible, trying to keep the number of houserules to a minimum (to avoid issues our extended group has run into in the past) - so unless there's a rule (call it a rule, statement, whatever) in either the PHB or DMG that says "NPCs don't get these" - then they get them, just as PCs do. If a 20th level PC gets something, you can bet the 20th level archvillain their fighting gets it too.
Well... all I can say is that you absolutely should always do what you feel is right for your game, RAW or not. The only thing anyone can offer in terms of feedback is going to be based on our own experiences, not sure how else anyone could advise you.
What I can say is that if your goal is RAW, if that is the target which mind you I don't think it should be if the price for it is something that doesn't make sense to you, but assuming that this is the goal.
RAW is quite clear. NPC = Monsters. This is outlined in the rules glossary under Nonplayer Characters. Supported by what the DMG advises and the fact that NPC's are covered in Appendix B of the monster manual. I don't think you can get any clearer on what RAW is.
To answer your question, no there is nothing in the rules that says "you can't use classes for NPC's", in fact their is (as pointed out early) an example on how to create class based villains. But everything about the rules and advice suggests that this is an exception for a very specific purpose, not the rules.
Part of the reason as I pointed out earlier is that this is not a balance thing, but a streamlining thing, but because its designed this way (NPC's = Monsters) there was no attempt to actually balance NPC (Class based) character. How for example do you determine what the CR of a 5th level Monk is? CR does not equal Level for example, how are you going to do the encounter calculation? What equipment does a 5th level NPC get? All of these decisions are outside of the construct of RAW encounter building because its not supported by the rules.
None of that really matters, you should do as you wish, but using classes for NPC's is definitely working off the rails of RAW, its not a supported feature of the game.
I have not run a game under 2024 but when I do, I'm going to let my players know that enemies from the PC Species (Humans, Dwarves, etc.) may have Weapon Masteries as well as other PC Class features. The idea that the PCs can use certain abilities while enemies of the same race or class can't is simply irrational IMHO. If my party faces off against a group of Monks with quarterstaffs, I WANT them to worry about being Toppled. Just like fighting enemies that cast spells or do elemental damage, the PCs SHOULD be prepared to change their tactics when fighting different kinds of enemies.
You know all of those horror stories that DMs tell about their player or party that is so powerful they blast through every encounter like it was cotton candy? I don't worry about those because I let my players know early on that if they can do something, eventually they will run across someone else who can do it as well. Will every Human guard or soldier have Action Surge? No. However, enemies of merit might and BBEGs certainly will.
In my MANY years of RPG experience, this can be very educational for a party that isn't very good at team tactics. Whoop your party with a weaker party who uses good tactics and meshes their abilities well and they'll learn PDQ that they can do more and do it better.
I know horror stories about DMs that run the game with a mentality of "If the PCs can do something, they'll run across NPCs that can do it too." Not saying that's your case, and not saying that there's a right or wrong way to play the game. Whatever is fun for the table is the right way to play. That said, calling "irrational" to have different rules for PCs and NPCs talks about a lack of creativity and just understanding of the game. I'm not calling it irrational to use the same rules for both. I can see how that could work at some tables. But if you can't see how separate rules can also be really fun for other tables, then those MANY years of experience have not taught you a lot.
I have not run a game under 2024 but when I do, I'm going to let my players know that enemies from the PC Species (Humans, Dwarves, etc.) may have Weapon Masteries as well as other PC Class features. The idea that the PCs can use certain abilities while enemies of the same race or class can't is simply irrational IMHO. If my party faces off against a group of Monks with quarterstaffs, I WANT them to worry about being Toppled. Just like fighting enemies that cast spells or do elemental damage, the PCs SHOULD be prepared to change their tactics when fighting different kinds of enemies.
You know all of those horror stories that DMs tell about their player or party that is so powerful they blast through every encounter like it was cotton candy? I don't worry about those because I let my players know early on that if they can do something, eventually they will run across someone else who can do it as well. Will every Human guard or soldier have Action Surge? No. However, enemies of merit might and BBEGs certainly will.
In my MANY years of RPG experience, this can be very educational for a party that isn't very good at team tactics. Whoop your party with a weaker party who uses good tactics and meshes their abilities well and they'll learn PDQ that they can do more and do it better.
The design of the mechanic isn't really there to balance the game, or be realistic in some quasi-narrative sense, it's there strictly to make it easier and smoother to run. You throw a bunch of monks with quarterstaffs against the players and manage class abilities and weapon masteries, it will be about like it would be if you had 15-20 players at the table, each taking their turn... Your fights are going to take 3-4 hours to complete if you are extremely efficient.
You're welcome to try it, but you're not the first person to have this idea you know. Putting PC class-based characters against the players, especially anything after say 4-5th level will add 2-3 hours to any fight. After 10th level, I crap you not a fight will take 4 to 6 hours to complete and it just gets worse from there. After 15th level you will find that fights are actually impossible to finish like you end up with a permanent cycle of attrition.
Our extended group has done this, and it doesn't take any longer to run than using monsters with stat blocks. Players take a long time to decide their 'moves' and are far more likely to treat the encounter as a chess game, than the DM is. We play with NPCs having the exact same rules as PCs.
Granted, Weapon Mastery is now going to make this an extreme headache, but having separate rules for PCs and NPCs just doesn't make sense (and as I stated, there are no rules saying NPCs are different in 5e). If PCs have abilities and skills, where did they learn them from? If NPCs don't have PC abilities, then there'd be no one to train the PCs. Also, having separate rules for both makes it likely that the PCs will develop god-complexes knowing that an NPC of equal class and level stands no chance against them.
This is just poor design. One set of "rules" for everyone, and balance toward PvP would have fixed this - yet they once again chose not to, and now there's a whole lot of tables that need to deal with the consequences. There's one set of rules to the universe, all within must abide by those rules. Having different rules for PCs than NPCs just breaks suspension of disbelief.
We play as close to RAW as possible, trying to keep the number of houserules to a minimum (to avoid issues our extended group has run into in the past) - so unless there's a rule (call it a rule, statement, whatever) in either the PHB or DMG that says "NPCs don't get these" - then they get them, just as PCs do. If a 20th level PC gets something, you can bet the 20th level archvillain their fighting gets it too.
Well, there are a lot of examples of NPCs not following the rules of PCs. Have you read the entries of specialist wizards, for example? The ones called Diviner, Abjurer, etc. Does any of those stat blocks follow the same rules as a PC Diviner, Abjurer, etc.? It's not just wizards. Look at the stat block of Bard, Druid, etc. None of them follow the same rules as PCs. Are you allowed to build NPCs the exact same way as PCs? Absolutely. Is that wrong? Of course not, whatever works at your table. Is WotC telling you that NPCs and PCs follow different rules? Very clearly. You don't need to justify your choices by saying "Nowhere in the book does it say..." You're the DM, do whatever you want. But the book is obviously telling you that a Diviner PC and a Diviner NPC are different.
I'm assuming you also roll death saves for NPCs when they drop? The book is also very clear about that being a PC exclusive thing, and NPCs doing it too being an exception to the rule. I'm also assuming you allow players to choose any creature in the MM as their species? I mean, if it's the same rules for everyone, then how come only NPCs get to be mind flayers or dragons? You would also have to have NPCs ALWAYS be the same level as the party. Why would NPCs be allowed to be of higher or lower level?
This is actually NOT a PvP kind of game. At all. That's not how the game was designed, nor intended to be designed. "balance toward PvP would have fixed this" No, not at all. That would have just heavily limited class/subclass design. Support spells and features are often really effective because you have other people in the party to take advantage of it. But in a PvP between a damage dealer and a support character, it probably would end up poorly for the support one. Like Bardic Inspiration; it's a great feature, but in a PvP it's useless.
Having different sets of rules for both can add a lot of fun to the table, as I said before. It seems, like with Darkaiser, that you lack enough creativity when it comes to world building. You can't come up with a reason why a PC could have abilities that NPCs don't. You seem to think that the only way a PC can ever acquire a feature is by learning it from someone else. It's a very limited scope. And if you think that making PCs and NPCs have different rules will make the PCs develop god complex, that means that you're too limited to see that different =/= better. And NPC wizard could have a spell that the PCs simply can't learn, and that is really powerful. An NPC fighter could have more attacks than any PC fighter could. They could even have Legendary Actions, which PCs don't have access too. This is so simple, I'm surprised you're not seeing it.
In the end, D&D isn't a video game (a PvP one, at that). You can try to treat it like that, if you want, but that doesn't mean that the game is poorly designed because it doesn't fit your style. And if you can't find a way to explain in-game why PCs and NPCs don't follow the same rules, well, WotC is not to blame for your lack of creativity. Maybe you should play a video game instead.
I think they are more balanced and it's good that Martials, at lower levels, aren't wasting their ASI choosing Feats that have -5 to hit, but gives a +10 damage if you do. Feats like Tavern Brawler and Skulker are much better.
I like them, but I don't like the weapon juggling folks are doing with the Light property. It's abusive and I'm hoping WotC clarifies their intent and fixes this farce.
Now that the 2024 PHB has been out for a while, where do you stand with regards to the weapon mastery mechanics? Are you enjoying them (as player or DM)? Do you think they add interesting options to the game? Do you feel they bog the game down? Make it hard for newer players to navigate their character options? Do you think some masteries are overtuned/too powerful? Do you have house rules for any of them?
Let's discuss weapon mastery.
They are more OP nonsense, designed to make the game "fun" for the min-maxing player, and hell for the DM. Imagine how much "fun" it will be for the players when the NPC's start doing this every turn to players' PC's. I have stated before I play about 7 different game systems. Pathfinder 2e has built in feat's that players can choose that do this. It is a nightmare for DM's, and trivializes fights, making them boring for all the other players.
I have been DMing with Weapon Mastery since the playtest. Never once cause a problem.
Frankly, if a DM struggles to adjusts to the fairly inconsequential (especially compared even to basic rules spells) effects of Weapon Mastery, the problem is not the system, it is a DM who is either too ridged or who has never been good at game balance. Seems rather unfair to martial classes to say “you can’t have anything more interesting than swing a sword” because an insignificant handful of timid DMs, constantly scared of their own players and insecure in their ability to balance the game, don’t want players to have options.
"If the poorly-designed never-iterated mechanic is unbalanced and throws off your game, you're just a terrible DM."
Because Weapon Mastery is garbage. It's a lazy mechanic that's designed to be abused. It's designed to let parties destroy enemies in melee via abusing Topple, while spitefully screwing over ranged attackers. It's designed to let you Push enemies through miles of Spike Growth and make it impossible for melee enemies to ever close the distance. It's designed to give (some) martials balance-breaking extra attacks. And more to the point, it's a mechanic designed so that a player who uses the right weapons and abuses the mechanic in the right ways is much more powerful than a player who doesn't. All while being a mechanic that doesn't actually encourage meaningful choice, but instead optimizing your entire build around one or two options.
It's a mechanic that exists for the optimizer crowd that 2024 5e panders to, and being exploitable is the goal.
Oh, and it's something that the class that are supposedly the masters of weapons get nothing whatsoever to make them meaningfully better with weapons than anyone else.
D&D is a linear progression system. You choose your class, at 3rd level you choose your sub-class and from that point barring the occasional feat every 4 levels you do not make any further choices for your character. With one key exception. Spell casters pick new spells and can effectively do so at every level.
This is the main reason why spell casting classes overwhelm the game because most players will choose the option that gives them the most amount of options and give them the most amount of progressive choices and utility.
Picking a class like Fighter-Champion by comparison to a Sorcerer is really very boring from a mechanical point of view.
Suffice it is to say I don't agree that 5e is an "Optimizer" system, there is barely anything to optimize. You make a couple of choices and the rest is linear. Comparing that to an actual optimizer system like Pathfinder 2e you really start to see the difference. In Pathfinder 2e you make 3-4 selections/decisions at every level and you are always picking from quite literal lists of hundreds of options. That's an optimizer system. 5e's "optimizations" are pretty obvious and pretty limited.
Weapon Mastery I think is mostly an attempt to breath some life into Martial Classes to allow them to be more than just swing a sword and do some damage which, even with Weapon Mastery they mostly are.
I have been using the weapon masteries in my current campaign and I think you're overselling it. They are really not nearly as useful as you are suggesting, their impact is barely noticeable.
Now that the 2024 PHB has been out for a while, where do you stand with regards to the weapon mastery mechanics? Are you enjoying them (as player or DM)? Do you think they add interesting options to the game? Do you feel they bog the game down? Make it hard for newer players to navigate their character options? Do you think some masteries are overtuned/too powerful? Do you have house rules for any of them?
Let's discuss weapon mastery.
They are more OP nonsense, designed to make the game "fun" for the min-maxing player, and hell for the DM. Imagine how much "fun" it will be for the players when the NPC's start doing this every turn to players' PC's. I have stated before I play about 7 different game systems. Pathfinder 2e has built in feat's that players can choose that do this. It is a nightmare for DM's, and trivializes fights, making them boring for all the other players.
I have been DMing with Weapon Mastery since the playtest. Never once cause a problem.
Frankly, if a DM struggles to adjusts to the fairly inconsequential (especially compared even to basic rules spells) effects of Weapon Mastery, the problem is not the system, it is a DM who is either too ridged or who has never been good at game balance. Seems rather unfair to martial classes to say “you can’t have anything more interesting than swing a sword” because an insignificant handful of timid DMs, constantly scared of their own players and insecure in their ability to balance the game, don’t want players to have options.
"If the poorly-designed never-iterated mechanic is unbalanced and throws off your game, you're just a terrible DM."
Because Weapon Mastery is garbage. It's a lazy mechanic that's designed to be abused. It's designed to let parties destroy enemies in melee via abusing Topple, while spitefully screwing over ranged attackers. It's designed to let you Push enemies through miles of Spike Growth and make it impossible for melee enemies to ever close the distance. It's designed to give (some) martials balance-breaking extra attacks. And more to the point, it's a mechanic designed so that a player who uses the right weapons and abuses the mechanic in the right ways is much more powerful than a player who doesn't. All while being a mechanic that doesn't actually encourage meaningful choice, but instead optimizing your entire build around one or two options.
It's a mechanic that exists for the optimizer crowd that 2024 5e panders to, and being exploitable is the goal.
Oh, and it's something that the class that are supposedly the masters of weapons get nothing whatsoever to make them meaningfully better with weapons than anyone else.
D&D is a linear progression system. You choose your class, at 3rd level you choose your sub-class and from that point barring the occasional feat every 4 levels you do not make any further choices for your character. With one key exception. Spell casters pick new spells and can effectively do so at every level.
This is the main reason why spell casting classes overwhelm the game because most players will choose the option that gives them the most amount of options and give them the most amount of progressive choices and utility.
Picking a class like Fighter-Champion by comparison to a Sorcerer is really very boring from a mechanical point of view.
Suffice it is to say I don't agree that 5e is an "Optimizer" system, there is barely anything to optimize. You make a couple of choices and the rest is linear. Comparing that to an actual optimizer system like Pathfinder 2e you really start to see the difference. In Pathfinder 2e you make 3-4 selections/decisions at every level and you are always picking from quite literal lists of hundreds of options. That's an optimizer system. 5e's "optimizations" are pretty obvious and pretty limited.
Weapon Mastery I think is mostly an attempt to breath some life into Martial Classes to allow them to be more than just swing a sword and do some damage which, even with Weapon Mastery they mostly are.
I have been using the weapon masteries in my current campaign and I think you're overselling it. They are really not nearly as useful as you are suggesting, their impact is barely noticeable.
Building on the above, which I agree with, the people complaining about weapon mastery being for power gamers ignore a pretty obvious reality - players do not decide they equipment. DMs control what loot drops; DMs control what is available in the store; DMs control the availability of crafting as a system.
Weapon masteries are such a minor boon that, if a DM is having a problem with them, that is really more of a DM flexibility and skill problem than a system problem. But, even if it were a real problem, the simple reality? The DM made their own bed by giving out whatever items are causing them problems. They should have to sleep in it.
As an aside, I would hardly say 5e caters to power gamers - frankly, I think that, due to its rather linear leveling and minimal character choices, it is less prone to power gaming than some other editions. Every edition caters to power gamers in their own way as folks try to break whatever system they are playing - that’s a shared reality among systems and those who play them, and has been for five decades. Hardly something to start an edition war over - it isn’t really an edition war anyone could “win.”
Hardly something to start an edition war over - it isn’t really an edition war anyone could “win.”
The weird thing for me to see is the old guard proclaiming weapon masteries as being for power gamers when it was literally the old guard that invented it the concept and introduced it into D&D back in 1e. Hell looking at the 5e weapon masteries, in some cases I swear they just cut-pasted the rules right out of the BECMI manual.
I think the only mistake they (WOTC) made, which they just keep making over and over again is that they make these rules core rules. Just for the love of god why? Create a baseline, basic game and then you can add any modular/optional rules to your heart's content. Create 1000 splash books for all I care, but make them all optional and give people the option, why make it core to the game? This lesson was learned in the 1980's, why do we need to keep re-learning it.
Hardly something to start an edition war over - it isn’t really an edition war anyone could “win.”
The weird thing for me to see is the old guard proclaiming weapon masteries as being for power gamers when it was literally the old guard that invented it the concept and introduced it into D&D back in 1e. Hell looking at the 5e weapon masteries, in some cases I swear they just cut-pasted the rules right out of the BECMI manual.
I think the only mistake they (WOTC) made, which they just keep making over and over again is that they make these rules core rules. Just for the love of god why? Create a baseline, basic game and then you can add any modular/optional rules to your heart's content. Create 1000 splash books for all I care, but make them all optional and give people the option, why make it core to the game? This lesson was learned in the 1980's, why do we need to keep re-learning it.
Derisively referring to people as "the old guard" doesn't make that reality or their position any less valid.
Weapon Mastery is a mechanic for the type of player who wants choices with clear superior options, especially when exploiting other rules makes a significant difference. It is a mechanic for the type of player who expects the designers to actively excise any options from the game they disapprove of. It is a mechanic for the player who cares more about mindless spam than meaningful use.
It is a mechanic designed for the people whom the designers deemed as the only people who matter to them, but that doesn't actually make your opinion more important.
There aren’t clearly superior options. There are situationally superior options, which is what makes it interesting.
Hardly something to start an edition war over - it isn’t really an edition war anyone could “win.”
The weird thing for me to see is the old guard proclaiming weapon masteries as being for power gamers when it was literally the old guard that invented it the concept and introduced it into D&D back in 1e. Hell looking at the 5e weapon masteries, in some cases I swear they just cut-pasted the rules right out of the BECMI manual.
I think the only mistake they (WOTC) made, which they just keep making over and over again is that they make these rules core rules. Just for the love of god why? Create a baseline, basic game and then you can add any modular/optional rules to your heart's content. Create 1000 splash books for all I care, but make them all optional and give people the option, why make it core to the game? This lesson was learned in the 1980's, why do we need to keep re-learning it.
Derisively referring to people as "the old guard" doesn't make that reality or their position any less valid.
Weapon Mastery is a mechanic for the type of player who wants choices with clear superior options, especially when exploiting other rules makes a significant difference. It is a mechanic for the type of player who expects the designers to actively excise any options from the game they disapprove of. It is a mechanic for the player who cares more about mindless spam than meaningful use.
It is a mechanic designed for the people whom the designers deemed as the only people who matter to them, but that doesn't actually make your opinion more important.
There aren’t clearly superior options. There are situationally superior options, which is what makes it interesting.
The thing I don't agree with and this is just from my own experience playing with 5e Weapon Mastery is that they increase the power level of martial classes. This is simply not true, they don't... at all. Not even a little bit.
Overall I like that they were added because it gives martial characters more tactical options, which they sorely needed. They were not the only change to do so, of course, they were just one of many changes that increased tactical options. The change to unarmed strikes, grappling, and shoving was another change that was subtle but kind of a fundamental sea change on the melee combat tactics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'll be honest. I've only looked at them, and yea, I think I hate them. I think they're fiddly, they require work and bookkeeping, I think they're unclear.
If there's ever any question like 'wait, how many attacks do I have with this?' - then you've made a very bad rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Do you have some specific examples you'd can lay out? I've yet to find one that's unclear in application, and you can't tell me it's more disruptive to the flow of the game than a) remembering to roll for and b) actually rolling the Wild Magic table and playing out the effects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good catch! But the point stands. There will be fewer saving throws resulting from monster attacks to (I guess) speed up the game.
My Homebrew: Magic Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | My house rules
Currently playing: Fai'zal - CN Githyanki Rogue (Candlekeep Mysteries, Forgotten Realms) ; Zeena - LN Elf Sorcerer (Dragonlance)
Playing D&D since 1st edition. DMs Guild Author: B.A. Morrier (4-5⭐products! Please check them out.) Twitter: @benmorrier he/him
We don't know what would be the rules / guidelines from the Monster Manual regarding NPCs and weapon masteries. They might be a PC-only class feature. Sure, a DM can decide to give a particular NPC a mastery for fun or challenge, but doesn't mean it will be a rule per se. The NPCs will still have stat blocks.
My Homebrew: Magic Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | My house rules
Currently playing: Fai'zal - CN Githyanki Rogue (Candlekeep Mysteries, Forgotten Realms) ; Zeena - LN Elf Sorcerer (Dragonlance)
Playing D&D since 1st edition. DMs Guild Author: B.A. Morrier (4-5⭐products! Please check them out.) Twitter: @benmorrier he/him
Care to quote where in the PHB, DMG, or MM does it say that?
Earlier editions had NPC versions of classes, 5e got rid of those. So show me where it says NPCs don't use the same abilities as PCs? Absent a rule that says otherwise, an NPC fighter has the same abilities as a PC fighter. A fighter is a fighter, regardless of whether it is an NPC or PC.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
That is not really how it works. The only characters in the game that use "PC classes" are the PC's. NPC's and everything that is to be represented in the game gets a stat block with a couple of exceptions (see below). You have them in the Monster Manual, Appendix B: Noneplayer Characters starting on page 342. This is confirmed in the rules glossary under Non-Player Characters who it very clearly states should be treated as "monsters".
You have a substantial section in the DMG on page 89 covering the creation of NPC's and this is where you have the exceptions.
The exceptions are NPC's that are used as party members (see Low-Level Followers and Adventurer NPC's) or NPC "Villains" covered on page 96 and 97 where it quite literally gives you additional class options like the Cleric: Death Domain and Paladin: Oathbreaker though it does illustrate that NPC villains can be fully designed class characters.
So if you are creating say city guards or a local wizard NPC, unless you plan to make them party members, followers or villains, they should be given a stat block like monsters and you have specific stat blocks for that in the Monster Manual.
This of course aren't "rules" as there is no such thing in D&D, but if you are going by the advice of the DMG and the assumption of the game, that is how it works.
Why it works that way? My best guess would be that creating PC's every time you need a guard or a bard in a tavern would be a pain in the butt. I don't think it has anything to do with the balance of the game or anything like that. I think the basic principle is, make the game easy to prepare for and make sure that the player characters are special. Which makes sense given the exceptions, for example making main NPC followers and party members or villains of the story special is a reasonable way to spend some extra time creating them in the eyes of the game creators.
I have not run a game under 2024 but when I do, I'm going to let my players know that enemies from the PC Species (Humans, Dwarves, etc.) may have Weapon Masteries as well as other PC Class features. The idea that the PCs can use certain abilities while enemies of the same race or class can't is simply irrational IMHO. If my party faces off against a group of Monks with quarterstaffs, I WANT them to worry about being Toppled. Just like fighting enemies that cast spells or do elemental damage, the PCs SHOULD be prepared to change their tactics when fighting different kinds of enemies.
You know all of those horror stories that DMs tell about their player or party that is so powerful they blast through every encounter like it was cotton candy? I don't worry about those because I let my players know early on that if they can do something, eventually they will run across someone else who can do it as well. Will every Human guard or soldier have Action Surge? No. However, enemies of merit might and BBEGs certainly will.
In my MANY years of RPG experience, this can be very educational for a party that isn't very good at team tactics. Whoop your party with a weaker party who uses good tactics and meshes their abilities well and they'll learn PDQ that they can do more and do it better.
The design of the mechanic isn't really there to balance the game, or be realistic in some quasi-narrative sense, it's there strictly to make it easier and smoother to run. You throw a bunch of monks with quarterstaffs against the players and manage class abilities and weapon masteries, it will be about like it would be if you had 15-20 players at the table, each taking their turn... Your fights are going to take 3-4 hours to complete if you are extremely efficient.
You're welcome to try it, but you're not the first person to have this idea you know. Putting PC class-based characters against the players, especially anything after say 4-5th level will add 2-3 hours to any fight. After 10th level, I crap you not a fight will take 4 to 6 hours to complete and it just gets worse from there. After 15th level you will find that fights are actually impossible to finish like you end up with a permanent cycle of attrition.
Our extended group has done this, and it doesn't take any longer to run than using monsters with stat blocks. Players take a long time to decide their 'moves' and are far more likely to treat the encounter as a chess game, than the DM is. We play with NPCs having the exact same rules as PCs.
Granted, Weapon Mastery is now going to make this an extreme headache, but having separate rules for PCs and NPCs just doesn't make sense (and as I stated, there are no rules saying NPCs are different in 5e). If PCs have abilities and skills, where did they learn them from? If NPCs don't have PC abilities, then there'd be no one to train the PCs. Also, having separate rules for both makes it likely that the PCs will develop god-complexes knowing that an NPC of equal class and level stands no chance against them.
This is just poor design. One set of "rules" for everyone, and balance toward PvP would have fixed this - yet they once again chose not to, and now there's a whole lot of tables that need to deal with the consequences. There's one set of rules to the universe, all within must abide by those rules. Having different rules for PCs than NPCs just breaks suspension of disbelief.
We play as close to RAW as possible, trying to keep the number of houserules to a minimum (to avoid issues our extended group has run into in the past) - so unless there's a rule (call it a rule, statement, whatever) in either the PHB or DMG that says "NPCs don't get these" - then they get them, just as PCs do. If a 20th level PC gets something, you can bet the 20th level archvillain their fighting gets it too.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Well... all I can say is that you absolutely should always do what you feel is right for your game, RAW or not. The only thing anyone can offer in terms of feedback is going to be based on our own experiences, not sure how else anyone could advise you.
What I can say is that if your goal is RAW, if that is the target which mind you I don't think it should be if the price for it is something that doesn't make sense to you, but assuming that this is the goal.
RAW is quite clear. NPC = Monsters. This is outlined in the rules glossary under Nonplayer Characters. Supported by what the DMG advises and the fact that NPC's are covered in Appendix B of the monster manual. I don't think you can get any clearer on what RAW is.
To answer your question, no there is nothing in the rules that says "you can't use classes for NPC's", in fact their is (as pointed out early) an example on how to create class based villains. But everything about the rules and advice suggests that this is an exception for a very specific purpose, not the rules.
Part of the reason as I pointed out earlier is that this is not a balance thing, but a streamlining thing, but because its designed this way (NPC's = Monsters) there was no attempt to actually balance NPC (Class based) character. How for example do you determine what the CR of a 5th level Monk is? CR does not equal Level for example, how are you going to do the encounter calculation? What equipment does a 5th level NPC get? All of these decisions are outside of the construct of RAW encounter building because its not supported by the rules.
None of that really matters, you should do as you wish, but using classes for NPC's is definitely working off the rails of RAW, its not a supported feature of the game.
I know horror stories about DMs that run the game with a mentality of "If the PCs can do something, they'll run across NPCs that can do it too." Not saying that's your case, and not saying that there's a right or wrong way to play the game. Whatever is fun for the table is the right way to play. That said, calling "irrational" to have different rules for PCs and NPCs talks about a lack of creativity and just understanding of the game. I'm not calling it irrational to use the same rules for both. I can see how that could work at some tables. But if you can't see how separate rules can also be really fun for other tables, then those MANY years of experience have not taught you a lot.
Well, there are a lot of examples of NPCs not following the rules of PCs. Have you read the entries of specialist wizards, for example? The ones called Diviner, Abjurer, etc. Does any of those stat blocks follow the same rules as a PC Diviner, Abjurer, etc.? It's not just wizards. Look at the stat block of Bard, Druid, etc. None of them follow the same rules as PCs. Are you allowed to build NPCs the exact same way as PCs? Absolutely. Is that wrong? Of course not, whatever works at your table. Is WotC telling you that NPCs and PCs follow different rules? Very clearly. You don't need to justify your choices by saying "Nowhere in the book does it say..." You're the DM, do whatever you want. But the book is obviously telling you that a Diviner PC and a Diviner NPC are different.
I'm assuming you also roll death saves for NPCs when they drop? The book is also very clear about that being a PC exclusive thing, and NPCs doing it too being an exception to the rule. I'm also assuming you allow players to choose any creature in the MM as their species? I mean, if it's the same rules for everyone, then how come only NPCs get to be mind flayers or dragons? You would also have to have NPCs ALWAYS be the same level as the party. Why would NPCs be allowed to be of higher or lower level?
This is actually NOT a PvP kind of game. At all. That's not how the game was designed, nor intended to be designed. "balance toward PvP would have fixed this" No, not at all. That would have just heavily limited class/subclass design. Support spells and features are often really effective because you have other people in the party to take advantage of it. But in a PvP between a damage dealer and a support character, it probably would end up poorly for the support one. Like Bardic Inspiration; it's a great feature, but in a PvP it's useless.
Having different sets of rules for both can add a lot of fun to the table, as I said before. It seems, like with Darkaiser, that you lack enough creativity when it comes to world building. You can't come up with a reason why a PC could have abilities that NPCs don't. You seem to think that the only way a PC can ever acquire a feature is by learning it from someone else. It's a very limited scope. And if you think that making PCs and NPCs have different rules will make the PCs develop god complex, that means that you're too limited to see that different =/= better. And NPC wizard could have a spell that the PCs simply can't learn, and that is really powerful. An NPC fighter could have more attacks than any PC fighter could. They could even have Legendary Actions, which PCs don't have access too. This is so simple, I'm surprised you're not seeing it.
In the end, D&D isn't a video game (a PvP one, at that). You can try to treat it like that, if you want, but that doesn't mean that the game is poorly designed because it doesn't fit your style. And if you can't find a way to explain in-game why PCs and NPCs don't follow the same rules, well, WotC is not to blame for your lack of creativity. Maybe you should play a video game instead.
I think they are more balanced and it's good that Martials, at lower levels, aren't wasting their ASI choosing Feats that have -5 to hit, but gives a +10 damage if you do. Feats like Tavern Brawler and Skulker are much better.
I know I am in the minority on the first one.
I like them, but I don't like the weapon juggling folks are doing with the Light property. It's abusive and I'm hoping WotC clarifies their intent and fixes this farce.
D&D is a linear progression system. You choose your class, at 3rd level you choose your sub-class and from that point barring the occasional feat every 4 levels you do not make any further choices for your character. With one key exception. Spell casters pick new spells and can effectively do so at every level.
This is the main reason why spell casting classes overwhelm the game because most players will choose the option that gives them the most amount of options and give them the most amount of progressive choices and utility.
Picking a class like Fighter-Champion by comparison to a Sorcerer is really very boring from a mechanical point of view.
Suffice it is to say I don't agree that 5e is an "Optimizer" system, there is barely anything to optimize. You make a couple of choices and the rest is linear. Comparing that to an actual optimizer system like Pathfinder 2e you really start to see the difference. In Pathfinder 2e you make 3-4 selections/decisions at every level and you are always picking from quite literal lists of hundreds of options. That's an optimizer system. 5e's "optimizations" are pretty obvious and pretty limited.
Weapon Mastery I think is mostly an attempt to breath some life into Martial Classes to allow them to be more than just swing a sword and do some damage which, even with Weapon Mastery they mostly are.
I have been using the weapon masteries in my current campaign and I think you're overselling it. They are really not nearly as useful as you are suggesting, their impact is barely noticeable.
Building on the above, which I agree with, the people complaining about weapon mastery being for power gamers ignore a pretty obvious reality - players do not decide they equipment. DMs control what loot drops; DMs control what is available in the store; DMs control the availability of crafting as a system.
Weapon masteries are such a minor boon that, if a DM is having a problem with them, that is really more of a DM flexibility and skill problem than a system problem. But, even if it were a real problem, the simple reality? The DM made their own bed by giving out whatever items are causing them problems. They should have to sleep in it.
As an aside, I would hardly say 5e caters to power gamers - frankly, I think that, due to its rather linear leveling and minimal character choices, it is less prone to power gaming than some other editions. Every edition caters to power gamers in their own way as folks try to break whatever system they are playing - that’s a shared reality among systems and those who play them, and has been for five decades. Hardly something to start an edition war over - it isn’t really an edition war anyone could “win.”
The weird thing for me to see is the old guard proclaiming weapon masteries as being for power gamers when it was literally the old guard that invented it the concept and introduced it into D&D back in 1e. Hell looking at the 5e weapon masteries, in some cases I swear they just cut-pasted the rules right out of the BECMI manual.
I think the only mistake they (WOTC) made, which they just keep making over and over again is that they make these rules core rules. Just for the love of god why? Create a baseline, basic game and then you can add any modular/optional rules to your heart's content. Create 1000 splash books for all I care, but make them all optional and give people the option, why make it core to the game? This lesson was learned in the 1980's, why do we need to keep re-learning it.
There aren’t clearly superior options. There are situationally superior options, which is what makes it interesting.
The thing I don't agree with and this is just from my own experience playing with 5e Weapon Mastery is that they increase the power level of martial classes. This is simply not true, they don't... at all. Not even a little bit.
Overall I like that they were added because it gives martial characters more tactical options, which they sorely needed. They were not the only change to do so, of course, they were just one of many changes that increased tactical options. The change to unarmed strikes, grappling, and shoving was another change that was subtle but kind of a fundamental sea change on the melee combat tactics.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'll be honest. I've only looked at them, and yea, I think I hate them. I think they're fiddly, they require work and bookkeeping, I think they're unclear.
If there's ever any question like 'wait, how many attacks do I have with this?' - then you've made a very bad rule.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Do you have some specific examples you'd can lay out? I've yet to find one that's unclear in application, and you can't tell me it's more disruptive to the flow of the game than a) remembering to roll for and b) actually rolling the Wild Magic table and playing out the effects.