Not sure if already mentioned, but there are some interesting interactions with Pole-Arm Master.
Lance: potentially Topple your opponent when they enter your reach.
Pike: opponent starts 30 ft. from you; moves 20 ft. And triggers Reactive Strike; if hit, they’re Pushed 10 ft. back again. They now still have 20 ft. to move to get to you, but have only 10 ft. of movement left.
Halberd: Reactive Strike - looks like Cleave’s additional attack works, as long as there’s another creature within 5 ft. of them. Also, the Cleave attack doesn’t use your BA, so you can still get your PAM BA attack when you attack during your turn.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
Not sure if already mentioned, but there are some interesting interactions with Pole-Arm Master.
Lance: potentially Topple your opponent when they enter your reach.
Pike: opponent starts 30 ft. from you; moves 20 ft. And triggers Reactive Strike; if hit, they’re Pushed 10 ft. back again. They now still have 20 ft. to move to get to you, but have only 10 ft. of movement left.
Halberd: Reactive Strike - looks like Cleave’s additional attack works, as long as there’s another creature within 5 ft. of them. Also, the Cleave attack doesn’t use your BA, so you can still get your PAM BA attack when you attack during your turn.
Also, by using push when they are in close range, it puts them 20 feet away if you hit with both attacks, which sets up your reaction strike again or by moving away you could put them at the 30 feet for them to not be able to reach you or (option b) you could chase them 10 feet and push them again with your bonus action attack. You could even use this at close range to push multiple targets away to trigger the reaction again on one of them. Not to mention that this gives you an incredible amount of battle field control where you can reposition after every push to put targets where you want them. Polearm master just got really strong.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
I do like this idea. It makes sense and gives dex players a semi powerful weapon. It’s original.
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
I really like the idea of being able to gain reach on a one-handed build, but I wonder about the value of finesse; it would certainly make two-handed DEX builds more interesting, but you'd suffer a big loss of performance if you had to switch to one-handed which feels a bit weird.
I was wondering about the possibility of making Flex a feature with brackets, so a battleaxe might be Flex (Cleave), so you might have reach one-handed, or Cleave when two-handed?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
No you would do a d8 with reach. Reach is one handed suggestion. This suggestion was a replacement for flex not an addition.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
Except it is bad. The average of one extra damage that it deals on a hit is pretty pitiful compared to the utility or raw damage of every other mastery. I do like the idea of a very simple mastery option, but Graze already fills that role with being a) simple, b) satisfying, and c) effective. I suppose Graze and Flex are available on different weapons, so maybe having Flex knock a weapon up 2 notches to either a d12 or 2d6 would be better. But in its current form, it's by far the worst option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
No you would do a d8 with reach. Reach is one handed suggestion. This suggestion was a replacement for flex not an addition.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
Except it is bad. The average of one extra damage that it deals on a hit is pretty pitiful compared to the utility or raw damage of every other mastery. I do like the idea of a very simple mastery option, but Graze already fills that role with being a) simple, b) satisfying, and c) effective. I suppose Graze and Flex are available on different weapons, so maybe having Flex knock a weapon up 2 notches to either a d12 or 2d6 would be better. But in its current form, it's by far the worst option.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
Except it is bad. The average of one extra damage that it deals on a hit is pretty pitiful compared to the utility or raw damage of every other mastery. I do like the idea of a very simple mastery option, but Graze already fills that role with being a) simple, b) satisfying, and c) effective. I suppose Graze and Flex are available on different weapons, so maybe having Flex knock a weapon up 2 notches to either a d12 or 2d6 would be better. But in its current form, it's by far the worst option.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Flex turns a 1d8 into a 1d10, 1 extra damage. Going two-handed turns a 1d8 into 2d6, 2.5 extra damage. I dunno where you got the idea that two-handed=1d10. It's not like dueling is super amazing compared to other fighting styles, so that's not much of a selling point. You also have to compare flex to the other choices of mastery. Once you do that, you realize a mastery is worth more than 1 damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
Except it is bad. The average of one extra damage that it deals on a hit is pretty pitiful compared to the utility or raw damage of every other mastery. I do like the idea of a very simple mastery option, but Graze already fills that role with being a) simple, b) satisfying, and c) effective. I suppose Graze and Flex are available on different weapons, so maybe having Flex knock a weapon up 2 notches to either a d12 or 2d6 would be better. But in its current form, it's by far the worst option.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Flex turns a 1d8 into a 1d10, 1 extra damage. Going two-handed turns a 1d8 into 2d6, 2.5 extra damage. I dunno where you got the idea that two-handed=1d10. It's not like dueling is super amazing compared to other fighting styles, so that's not much of a selling point. You also have to compare flex to the other choices of mastery. Once you do that, you realize a mastery is worth more than 1 damage.
I just thought about this since we were discussing the damage output. If you have the two weapon fighting style and dual wielder that means with the current flex rule, you could be using a long sword that does D10 damage in one hand and a short sword in the other that does a D6. So, you could be doing (1D10+1D6+strength x2) and that’s with just 1 attack and the bonus action attack, which if you have the Nick mastery with the short sword then you make that without the bonus action.
Now if they do revert dual wielder back to the way it was where you could use two non-light weapons that takes the D6 to a D10. That’s actually not bad at all. I keep forgetting about feats and how they could impact with the masteries and fighting styles. But things like dual wielder, great weapon master, and polearm master definitely have an impact. I can’t think of anything else off the top of my head at the moment. Fir the record, I’m still not liking flex much but it gets better with feats.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
Except it is bad. The average of one extra damage that it deals on a hit is pretty pitiful compared to the utility or raw damage of every other mastery. I do like the idea of a very simple mastery option, but Graze already fills that role with being a) simple, b) satisfying, and c) effective. I suppose Graze and Flex are available on different weapons, so maybe having Flex knock a weapon up 2 notches to either a d12 or 2d6 would be better. But in its current form, it's by far the worst option.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Flex turns a 1d8 into a 1d10, 1 extra damage. Going two-handed turns a 1d8 into 2d6, 2.5 extra damage. I dunno where you got the idea that two-handed=1d10. It's not like dueling is super amazing compared to other fighting styles, so that's not much of a selling point. You also have to compare flex to the other choices of mastery. Once you do that, you realize a mastery is worth more than 1 damage.
Once you realize what versatile does then you will understand where the d10 comes from. Why did you make that argument without even understanding the weapon properties?
Edit:
Also like I said in my last post it’s not about the 1 extra damage it’s about the AC added by a shield.
The problem is Flex is boring. It may be a mechanically okay little bump to damage while still allowing shields but it doesn't feel like a fun new benefit, especially when it will often be taken with Dueling Fighting Style, which is also just a damage bump.
In contrast, Pike and PAM give you more options that complement each other and open up new strategies and play styles, whilst also adding more damage.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
Except it is bad. The average of one extra damage that it deals on a hit is pretty pitiful compared to the utility or raw damage of every other mastery. I do like the idea of a very simple mastery option, but Graze already fills that role with being a) simple, b) satisfying, and c) effective. I suppose Graze and Flex are available on different weapons, so maybe having Flex knock a weapon up 2 notches to either a d12 or 2d6 would be better. But in its current form, it's by far the worst option.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Flex turns a 1d8 into a 1d10, 1 extra damage. Going two-handed turns a 1d8 into 2d6, 2.5 extra damage. I dunno where you got the idea that two-handed=1d10. It's not like dueling is super amazing compared to other fighting styles, so that's not much of a selling point. You also have to compare flex to the other choices of mastery. Once you do that, you realize a mastery is worth more than 1 damage.
Once you realize what versatile does then you will understand where the d10 comes from. Why did you make that argument without even understanding the weapon properties?
Edit:
Also like I said in my last post it’s not about the 1 extra damage it’s about the AC added by a shield.
I understood what it does, but I didn’t consider fighting styles and feats until after I read the feedback everyone was giving from the post. I’d still rather have something different than a damage boost but given the responses it’s not as bad as I originally thought. I’m more of a utility person myself and think that if martials are to keep up with casters it’s not always about damage, though, damage does play a part. I like how most of the other abilities do something unique but flex is just kind of boring.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Flex turns a 1d8 into a 1d10, 1 extra damage. Going two-handed turns a 1d8 into 2d6, 2.5 extra damage. I dunno where you got the idea that two-handed=1d10. It's not like dueling is super amazing compared to other fighting styles, so that's not much of a selling point. You also have to compare flex to the other choices of mastery. Once you do that, you realize a mastery is worth more than 1 damage.
Once you realize what versatile does then you will understand where the d10 comes from. Why did you make that argument without even understanding the weapon properties?
Edit:
Also like I said in my last post it’s not about the 1 extra damage it’s about the AC added by a shield.
I understood what it does, but I didn’t consider fighting styles and feats until after I read the feedback everyone was giving from the post. I’d still rather have something different than a damage boost but given the responses it’s not as bad as I originally thought. I’m more of a utility person myself and think that if martials are to keep up with casters it’s not always about damage, though, damage does play a part. I like how most of the other abilities do something unique but flex is just kind of boring.
My argument was never that flex is fun or interesting. My argument is that it is technically not weak or bad. It’s actually an improvement on to the property it’s found on in such a way it makes the property obsolete. That’s the real problem with flex. The fix I would implement for versatile weapons is to give them two masteries depending on if it is being wielded one or two handed. So a longsword could have flex one handed and cleave two handed. A warhammer could have push one handed and graze two handed. Any combinations are fine, but versatile weapons should be versatile in there masteries as well.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Flex turns a 1d8 into a 1d10, 1 extra damage. Going two-handed turns a 1d8 into 2d6, 2.5 extra damage. I dunno where you got the idea that two-handed=1d10. It's not like dueling is super amazing compared to other fighting styles, so that's not much of a selling point. You also have to compare flex to the other choices of mastery. Once you do that, you realize a mastery is worth more than 1 damage.
Once you realize what versatile does then you will understand where the d10 comes from. Why did you make that argument without even understanding the weapon properties?
Edit:
Also like I said in my last post it’s not about the 1 extra damage it’s about the AC added by a shield.
I understood what it does, but I didn’t consider fighting styles and feats until after I read the feedback everyone was giving from the post. I’d still rather have something different than a damage boost but given the responses it’s not as bad as I originally thought. I’m more of a utility person myself and think that if martials are to keep up with casters it’s not always about damage, though, damage does play a part. I like how most of the other abilities do something unique but flex is just kind of boring.
My argument was never that flex is fun or interesting. My argument is that it is technically not weak or bad. It’s actually an improvement on to the property it’s found on in such a way it makes the property obsolete. That’s the real problem with flex. The fix I would implement for versatile weapons is to give them two masteries depending on if it is being wielded one or two handed. So a longsword could have flex one handed and cleave two handed. A warhammer could have push one handed and graze two handed. Any combinations are fine, but versatile weapons should be versatile in there masteries as well.
I see what you’re saying. The extra damage should come from the fighting style and the mastery should give flexible benefits that compliment the trait depending on what you’re doing with it. Makes sense. Did you notice that most of the masteries are available for versatile weapons when it comes to fighters? That being said, I think giving versatile weapons multiple masteries would step on the fighter’s toes a bit. I do love your idea, though, I just can’t think of a way to implement it without making the fighter feature obsolete.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
Except it is bad. The average of one extra damage that it deals on a hit is pretty pitiful compared to the utility or raw damage of every other mastery. I do like the idea of a very simple mastery option, but Graze already fills that role with being a) simple, b) satisfying, and c) effective. I suppose Graze and Flex are available on different weapons, so maybe having Flex knock a weapon up 2 notches to either a d12 or 2d6 would be better. But in its current form, it's by far the worst option.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Flex turns a 1d8 into a 1d10, 1 extra damage. Going two-handed turns a 1d8 into 2d6, 2.5 extra damage. I dunno where you got the idea that two-handed=1d10. It's not like dueling is super amazing compared to other fighting styles, so that's not much of a selling point. You also have to compare flex to the other choices of mastery. Once you do that, you realize a mastery is worth more than 1 damage.
Once you realize what versatile does then you will understand where the d10 comes from. Why did you make that argument without even understanding the weapon properties?
Edit:
Also like I said in my last post it’s not about the 1 extra damage it’s about the AC added by a shield.
The AC added by a shield has absolutely nothing to do with Flex, especially since there are plenty of other masteries you can put on one-handed weapons. No sane person actually uses a versatile property with both hands, so if you're making the claim that Flex lets you deal two-handed damage while still keeping a shield, you have to compare the damage that Flex does with an actual two-handed weapon: the greatsword, which does 2d6, 1.5 higher (on average) than 1d10.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
Except it is bad. The average of one extra damage that it deals on a hit is pretty pitiful compared to the utility or raw damage of every other mastery. I do like the idea of a very simple mastery option, but Graze already fills that role with being a) simple, b) satisfying, and c) effective. I suppose Graze and Flex are available on different weapons, so maybe having Flex knock a weapon up 2 notches to either a d12 or 2d6 would be better. But in its current form, it's by far the worst option.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Flex turns a 1d8 into a 1d10, 1 extra damage. Going two-handed turns a 1d8 into 2d6, 2.5 extra damage. I dunno where you got the idea that two-handed=1d10. It's not like dueling is super amazing compared to other fighting styles, so that's not much of a selling point. You also have to compare flex to the other choices of mastery. Once you do that, you realize a mastery is worth more than 1 damage.
I just thought about this since we were discussing the damage output. If you have the two weapon fighting style and dual wielder that means with the current flex rule, you could be using a long sword that does D10 damage in one hand and a short sword in the other that does a D6. So, you could be doing (1D10+1D6+strength x2) and that’s with just 1 attack and the bonus action attack, which if you have the Nick mastery with the short sword then you make that without the bonus action.
Now if they do revert dual wielder back to the way it was where you could use two non-light weapons that takes the D6 to a D10. That’s actually not bad at all. I keep forgetting about feats and how they could impact with the masteries and fighting styles. But things like dual wielder, great weapon master, and polearm master definitely have an impact. I can’t think of anything else off the top of my head at the moment. Fir the record, I’m still not liking flex much but it gets better with feats.
None of that really makes Flex better. It's still only adding one damage per attack. All the other stuff that you added on, while decent, is completely independent of and barely improved upon by Flex. Your build would be much better off using some other weapon in your main hand.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The AC added by a shield has absolutely nothing to do with Flex, especially since there are plenty of other masteries you can put on one-handed weapons.
I mean it kind of does because Flex gives no benefit to two-handing (actually actively discourages you from doing so), and the major benefit of a one-handed weapon is you can use the other hand for something else, such as a shield. So comparing to a two-handed weapon where there are no options for the other hand is a bit strange?
Of course a one-handed weapon with just about any other Mastery is going to outperform Flex because 1 extra damage on average just isn't worth it when you could have Vex (though that's probably overpowered), or something situationally more useful like Push (which is also going to be more fun most of the time, because I love pushing enemies to help allies or trigger AoEs/hazards) or Topple (potentially give all front-liners advantage).
No sane person actually uses a versatile property with both hands
Characters that can't take full two-handed weapons like Monks do, so does anyone that wants to use grappling (since you need to be able to keep a hand free). There are also a load of niche uses depending upon your campaign, for example if you're in combat while climbing and such.
Free hand considerations may get ignored in 99.9% of all white-room comparisons online, but they can and do matter in actual play, and that's where versatile becomes a lot more valuable as you can two-hand for the slight increase in damage, but you've also got a free hand for anything you might need it for (and can one hand when that's in use).
Just wanted to point these things out, but I otherwise agree that Flex is in its current form could be better (it's both boring and not that good); if anything it contradicts the entire point of being versatile in the first place.
And a tiny bit of extra damage never interests me; it's why I don't like most weapon fighting styles, the only one I actually use is two-weapon fighting for a two-weapon build but that's mainly because two-weapon fighting is (and has always been in 5e) total bullshit and no way am I remembering to do different damage on the off-hand attack. I much prefer protection/interception or blessed/druidic warrior (for Paladin/Ranger).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not sure if already mentioned, but there are some interesting interactions with Pole-Arm Master.
Lance: potentially Topple your opponent when they enter your reach.
Pike: opponent starts 30 ft. from you; moves 20 ft. And triggers Reactive Strike; if hit, they’re Pushed 10 ft. back again. They now still have 20 ft. to move to get to you, but have only 10 ft. of movement left.
Halberd: Reactive Strike - looks like Cleave’s additional attack works, as long as there’s another creature within 5 ft. of them. Also, the Cleave attack doesn’t use your BA, so you can still get your PAM BA attack when you attack during your turn.
Lots of debates.
Let’s add another one. Anyone have an idea on how to improve cleave? I mean, I don’t like that the targets have to be next to each other. How about if they made it next to you? This was you actually have more options and it’s more likely to happen, or even five feet from you or a target? What do you guys think?
Number two: What to replace flex with since it seems unanimous that no one likes it?
Also, by using push when they are in close range, it puts them 20 feet away if you hit with both attacks, which sets up your reaction strike again or by moving away you could put them at the 30 feet for them to not be able to reach you or (option b) you could chase them 10 feet and push them again with your bonus action attack. You could even use this at close range to push multiple targets away to trigger the reaction again on one of them. Not to mention that this gives you an incredible amount of battle field control where you can reposition after every push to put targets where you want them.
Polearm master just got really strong.
An Idea I like for flex is the ability to add other properties. For example if you are holding it one handed you could get reach added to the weapon and if you are holding it with 2 hands you could get finesse added to the weapon. This would simulate how swords were used, with 1 hand being used to increase the reach and two hands being used to increase power and speed.
I do like this idea. It makes sense and gives dex players a semi powerful weapon. It’s original.
I really like the idea of being able to gain reach on a one-handed build, but I wonder about the value of finesse; it would certainly make two-handed DEX builds more interesting, but you'd suffer a big loss of performance if you had to switch to one-handed which feels a bit weird.
I was wondering about the possibility of making Flex a feature with brackets, so a battleaxe might be Flex (Cleave), so you might have reach one-handed, or Cleave when two-handed?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So you’d do a d10 with reach and still have a shield? Goodbye glaive and halberd.
Personally, I don’t see flex as that bad. You do damage on par with a polearm, but get to keep your shield. It’s not as cool as the battlefield control options, but it’s not bad. It’s just not flashy. And it’s good to have options that just add something passive for people who don’t want to have too many choices in combat.
No you would do a d8 with reach. Reach is one handed suggestion. This suggestion was a replacement for flex not an addition.
Except it is bad. The average of one extra damage that it deals on a hit is pretty pitiful compared to the utility or raw damage of every other mastery. I do like the idea of a very simple mastery option, but Graze already fills that role with being a) simple, b) satisfying, and c) effective. I suppose Graze and Flex are available on different weapons, so maybe having Flex knock a weapon up 2 notches to either a d12 or 2d6 would be better. But in its current form, it's by far the worst option.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I see. My mistake. I misunderstood.
Is flex bad? It gives you the same bonus you gain for giving up your shield (+2 AC) to fight two-handed, and technically still works with the dealing fighting style. So at level 1 your fighter could be doing 1d10+ 2 from dueling + Str and have AC 18 from chain mail and shield. The real problem is flex is better than the versatile property. It doesn’t work with property it instead supplants the property. Versatile was already a weak property unless you couldn’t use two-handed weapons and flex makes the property seem weaker.
Flex turns a 1d8 into a 1d10, 1 extra damage. Going two-handed turns a 1d8 into 2d6, 2.5 extra damage. I dunno where you got the idea that two-handed=1d10. It's not like dueling is super amazing compared to other fighting styles, so that's not much of a selling point. You also have to compare flex to the other choices of mastery. Once you do that, you realize a mastery is worth more than 1 damage.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I just thought about this since we were discussing the damage output. If you have the two weapon fighting style and dual wielder that means with the current flex rule, you could be using a long sword that does D10 damage in one hand and a short sword in the other that does a D6. So, you could be doing (1D10+1D6+strength x2) and that’s with just 1 attack and the bonus action attack, which if you have the Nick mastery with the short sword then you make that without the bonus action.
Now if they do revert dual wielder back to the way it was where you could use two non-light weapons that takes the D6 to a D10.
That’s actually not bad at all. I keep forgetting about feats and how they could impact with the masteries and fighting styles. But things like dual wielder, great weapon master, and polearm master definitely have an impact. I can’t think of anything else off the top of my head at the moment.
Fir the record, I’m still not liking flex much but it gets better with feats.
Once you realize what versatile does then you will understand where the d10 comes from. Why did you make that argument without even understanding the weapon properties?
Edit:
Also like I said in my last post it’s not about the 1 extra damage it’s about the AC added by a shield.
The problem is Flex is boring. It may be a mechanically okay little bump to damage while still allowing shields but it doesn't feel like a fun new benefit, especially when it will often be taken with Dueling Fighting Style, which is also just a damage bump.
In contrast, Pike and PAM give you more options that complement each other and open up new strategies and play styles, whilst also adding more damage.
I understood what it does, but I didn’t consider fighting styles and feats until after I read the feedback everyone was giving from the post. I’d still rather have something different than a damage boost but given the responses it’s not as bad as I originally thought. I’m more of a utility person myself and think that if martials are to keep up with casters it’s not always about damage, though, damage does play a part. I like how most of the other abilities do something unique but flex is just kind of boring.
My argument was never that flex is fun or interesting. My argument is that it is technically not weak or bad. It’s actually an improvement on to the property it’s found on in such a way it makes the property obsolete. That’s the real problem with flex. The fix I would implement for versatile weapons is to give them two masteries depending on if it is being wielded one or two handed. So a longsword could have flex one handed and cleave two handed. A warhammer could have push one handed and graze two handed. Any combinations are fine, but versatile weapons should be versatile in there masteries as well.
I see what you’re saying. The extra damage should come from the fighting style and the mastery should give flexible benefits that compliment the trait depending on what you’re doing with it. Makes sense. Did you notice that most of the masteries are available for versatile weapons when it comes to fighters? That being said, I think giving versatile weapons multiple masteries would step on the fighter’s toes a bit. I do love your idea, though, I just can’t think of a way to implement it without making the fighter feature obsolete.
The AC added by a shield has absolutely nothing to do with Flex, especially since there are plenty of other masteries you can put on one-handed weapons. No sane person actually uses a versatile property with both hands, so if you're making the claim that Flex lets you deal two-handed damage while still keeping a shield, you have to compare the damage that Flex does with an actual two-handed weapon: the greatsword, which does 2d6, 1.5 higher (on average) than 1d10.
None of that really makes Flex better. It's still only adding one damage per attack. All the other stuff that you added on, while decent, is completely independent of and barely improved upon by Flex. Your build would be much better off using some other weapon in your main hand.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I mean it kind of does because Flex gives no benefit to two-handing (actually actively discourages you from doing so), and the major benefit of a one-handed weapon is you can use the other hand for something else, such as a shield. So comparing to a two-handed weapon where there are no options for the other hand is a bit strange?
Of course a one-handed weapon with just about any other Mastery is going to outperform Flex because 1 extra damage on average just isn't worth it when you could have Vex (though that's probably overpowered), or something situationally more useful like Push (which is also going to be more fun most of the time, because I love pushing enemies to help allies or trigger AoEs/hazards) or Topple (potentially give all front-liners advantage).
Characters that can't take full two-handed weapons like Monks do, so does anyone that wants to use grappling (since you need to be able to keep a hand free). There are also a load of niche uses depending upon your campaign, for example if you're in combat while climbing and such.
Free hand considerations may get ignored in 99.9% of all white-room comparisons online, but they can and do matter in actual play, and that's where versatile becomes a lot more valuable as you can two-hand for the slight increase in damage, but you've also got a free hand for anything you might need it for (and can one hand when that's in use).
Just wanted to point these things out, but I otherwise agree that Flex is in its current form could be better (it's both boring and not that good); if anything it contradicts the entire point of being versatile in the first place.
And a tiny bit of extra damage never interests me; it's why I don't like most weapon fighting styles, the only one I actually use is two-weapon fighting for a two-weapon build but that's mainly because two-weapon fighting is (and has always been in 5e) total bullshit and no way am I remembering to do different damage on the off-hand attack. I much prefer protection/interception or blessed/druidic warrior (for Paladin/Ranger).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.