Base TWF in 5e is more like brutish and unskilled windmilling your two weapons at someone (not literally, I’m exaggerating a little to make a point: it is without the sophistication of being someone who has practiced at TWF to the point of being an expert, because anyone can do it).
Dual Wielder gives you that “middle ground” between no shield and a shield: +1 AC.
What it OUGHT to give you (maybe in place of one of the other sub-features of the Feat) is the stat bonus to your offhand weapon. (right now that comes from the Fighting style for this).
Maybe:
Base TWF: extra BA attack with the secondary/off-hand weapon, but no AC bonus, no stat bonus to damage, limited to light weapons.
Have Dual Wielder give you the +1 AC, but not the “can use non-light weapons” ability. This reflects the “lesser shield benefit” of an offhand weapon.
Move the non-light weapons ability to the related Fighting Style, and not the offhand damage bonus.
Weapon Mastery: Adds the off-hand damage bonus to that weapon when it is your offhand weapon. You only get it when THAT is your off-hand weapon.
Then combine all of that with Defensive Dualist.
A plausible build for a Fighter. A difficult but do-able build for a Ranger or Sword Bard. But a bit harder for a Rogue. Rather difficult for a Wizard.
I love your description for base two weapon fighting. That’s so accurate. I think the feature to draw two weapons at the same time in the feat is redundant since you now draw weapons as part of the attack. That can definitely go and be replaced by add attack bonus to second attack. I don’t think the feat and fighting style should be broken up for you two have to take two feats to make something usable. By this, I mean fighting style and dual wielder for those that don’t get fighting styles. This is especially true when they’ve been making all the other weapon feats into one. Example: Sharpshooter now has you can use it at long and short range without disadvantage and shoot behind cover. Crossbow expert is the same. Take away loading, gain long and short distance.
Dual wielder should be add mod to second attack, add 1 to AC, and use non light weapons. The fighting style should be something like great weapon fighter where you reroll 1s and 2s. I think this would be very useful since most light weapons don’t do alot of damage anyway so it’s better if you’re at least not rolling a 1
How dose graze work dose it scale off of your to hit bonus meaning your proficiency or your to hit damage that would be your str/ dex bonus.
Plus, it says you can increase damage of this effect out side of increasing the bonus it is based off of. So dose this mean you can't apply poison or the frost fang cold damage?
If it is based off of straight the storm giants' belt would give you 9 damage on a miss but if it is your proficiency bonus, then that scales way slower and only monk has a way to boost accuracy by spending ki points were a with deal 3 + 2(Ki point) for damage between 3-9 and max level of 5-15 at level 20 on a miss.
Plus you can't use multiple at the same time which leads to the question of how it works with two weapon fighting.
Base TWF in 5e is more like brutish and unskilled windmilling your two weapons at someone (not literally, I’m exaggerating a little to make a point: it is without the sophistication of being someone who has practiced at TWF to the point of being an expert, because anyone can do it).
Dual Wielder gives you that “middle ground” between no shield and a shield: +1 AC.
What it OUGHT to give you (maybe in place of one of the other sub-features of the Feat) is the stat bonus to your offhand weapon. (right now that comes from the Fighting style for this).
Maybe:
Base TWF: extra BA attack with the secondary/off-hand weapon, but no AC bonus, no stat bonus to damage, limited to light weapons.
Have Dual Wielder give you the +1 AC, but not the “can use non-light weapons” ability. This reflects the “lesser shield benefit” of an offhand weapon.
Move the non-light weapons ability to the related Fighting Style, and not the offhand damage bonus.
Weapon Mastery: Adds the off-hand damage bonus to that weapon when it is your offhand weapon. You only get it when THAT is your off-hand weapon.
Then combine all of that with Defensive Dualist.
A plausible build for a Fighter. A difficult but do-able build for a Ranger or Sword Bard. But a bit harder for a Rogue. Rather difficult for a Wizard.
I love your description for base two weapon fighting. That’s so accurate. I think the feature to draw two weapons at the same time in the feat is redundant since you now draw weapons as part of the attack. That can definitely go and be replaced by add attack bonus to second attack. I don’t think the feat and fighting style should be broken up for you two have to take two feats to make something usable. By this, I mean fighting style and dual wielder for those that don’t get fighting styles. This is especially true when they’ve been making all the other weapon feats into one. Example: Sharpshooter now has you can use it at long and short range without disadvantage and shoot behind cover. Crossbow expert is the same. Take away loading, gain long and short distance.
Dual wielder should be add mod to second attack, add 1 to AC, and use non light weapons. The fighting style should be something like great weapon fighter where you reroll 1s and 2s. I think this would be very useful since most light weapons don’t do alot of damage anyway so it’s better if you’re at least not rolling a 1
oh yah two weapon fighting sucks in 5e and hear we are later and it still sucks the class ability to use multiple weapon masteries make it even more redundant.
Plus it doesn't give you any extra attacks on attacks of opportunity, extra attack, bonus attacks, or attacks made with action surge so why not take a two handed weapon with reach.
Just give it slow topple and push and gg. First hit slows second hit topples third hit pushes them back 10ft. Average movement is 25ft. So slow 15 half to get up from prone 7 rounds down to 5ft. You are 10 ft away and they can't hit you but you can hit them and repeat what you did.
How is this any different from 5e polearm master and sentinel combo?
If battle master fighter still exists in the plyer hand book and I purity certain that it doesn't you could use a maneuver that hits multiple enemies at once.
How dose graze work dose it scale off of your to hit bonus meaning your proficiency or your to hit damage that would be your str/ dex bonus.
Plus, it says you can increase damage of this effect out side of increasing the bonus it is based off of. So dose this mean you can't apply poison or the frost fang cold damage?
If it is based off of straight the storm giants' belt would give you 9 damage on a miss but if it is your proficiency bonus, then that scales way slower and only monk has a way to boost accuracy by spending ki points were a with deal 3 + 2(Ki point) for damage between 3-9 and max level of 5-15 at level 20 on a miss.
Plus you can't use multiple at the same time which leads to the question of how it works with two weapon fighting.
Graze scales only off of Ability Modifier, right now the only way to use Graze weapons is with Strength. So if you got a +9 to Strength, you'd deal 9 damage when you miss. All other bonuses are ignored, you have still technically "missed" the attack and most other extra damage sources require that you hit the target, thus you can not apply their effects.
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.
Okay so to sum it up TWO WEAPON FIGHTING IS SHIT. Sheilds are boring.
Flex is a trash mastery because I would gain more benefits from cleave or graze then flex, push, topple, or slow. You can only use one mastery at a time so you can't push, slow, or cleave while you use flex.
There are no masteries for shields and only one feat for shields that is lack luster when compared to the benefits of reach or great weapon mastery. I not going to go down the crossbow feat rabbit whole so lets avoid that. (THANK YOU)
Great Sword with graze and cleave is better then flex with damage. Polar master or sentinel are less trash with slow, push, and topple. Flex giving you a D10 + D6 is no better than 2D8 from DnD 5e but is worse because their is no +1 to AC. Reach giving you a free disengage and the opportunity to not take melee damage from your enemies is better than +2 ac from shield and their are more feats for polearms then shields making sheilds a sub par option.
The fact that a fighter a give additional mastery to any weapon they use removes any benefit of different masteries with two weapon fighting.
In conclusion two weapon fighting still sucks, sword and board are underwhelming and your best option is still great weapon fighting with great sword with graze and cleave, or polearm master with a reach weapon that with eventually have topple, slow and push. I will also note we have yet to have any feats that require you to have a level above 4. So two weapon fighing peaks at level 4 while great weapon fight scales into the late game.
Conclusion TWF is trash, shields are boring and THW/Polearms are king same as 5e. Oh and the weapon masteries still don't make caster any less op when they can pick as many spells of whatever level they want.(I would like to see warrior get stances and maneuvers like in TOMB 9 swords )
I think part of the problem is that they're trying to make two-weapon fighting what people expect it to be (more attacks) but have to find some way to limit that (because doubling the attacks would be far too much). But realistically that's not what two-weapon fighting is, the advantage of two-weapon fighting is that you can use either one to block or attack, which is good for keeping an opponent off guard.
I think part of the problem is the narrative. Melee attacks in D&D are not individual swings and thrusts, and damage is not necessarily successful strikes. Keeping an opponent off-guard (with successful attack rolls) is a valid way to deplete their hit points. This is good, because realism with dual wielding can represent a few different styles of fighting, some much more aggressive than others.
Which is to say, more attack rolls aren't really a problem except that it's more attack rolls to resolve at the table. Players often like more dice, but it slows things down a little.
That said, I agree on the bottom line: +1 AC and middlin' damage is probably the way to go. I like the idea of a maneuver for dual wielding: Rather than riposte, consider an off-hand-only opportunity attack when either you successfully grapple or an opponent attempts to. Half the reason to carry an off-hand dagger is to get stabby when someone goes corps-a-corps, and most of the other half is to go corps-a-corps and get stabby, and I have a vague notion that grappling will become more important.
I feel that it should be you are picking cleave as a mastery not battle axe and you can use it with whatever weapon qualifies. You can do this in effect at 7th level as a fighter but it seems a unnecessary extra step making the feature over complicated. A fighters 7th level ability shouldn't be this is how it should have worked in the first place.
I dunno, just because two weapons have the same Mastery feature doesn't mean that they're similar enough weapons to just use.
Even with Cleave where they're pretty similar, using the weapons to full effect requires different techniques, as a greataxe and halberd have different reach for one thing, plus a greataxe you might fight with in more of a mixture of horizontal and vertical swings, compared to the halberd which is a mixture of thrusting and swinging down etc., making them very different weapons to master.
But when you go to another feature like Vex the weapons are very different from one another; there isn't a lot in common between handaxe, dart, shortbow, rapier and shortsword.
And really this is no different to how proficiency already functions; as you build your character you choose which weapon(s) you are proficient in, well Mastery is just a subset of those with which you're even better (gain the extra features).
To see if we can go off on a slightly different issue, what do people think about "Master" feats being tied into Mastery somehow? e.g- if you grab the Polearm Master feat, you'll need to have Mastery in at least one type of polearm to gain the benefits. This will make it harder for non-martials to just quickly nab one of these feats early on, as even on martials they IMO should be aimed towards coming in at 8th-level at the earliest (maybe 6th-level on the Fighter since get more ASIs is part of their whole deal)?
I think you pick the mastery you want no the weapon. All weapons can have the slow property but not all weapons can have the cleave or graze property. This is way you can choose if you want to topple or push your enemies and pick weapons that will work with that gimmick but you can't give cleave to a spear or nick to a great ax.
I think you can use the weapon mastery of any weapon you are proficient with but monks, fighters, and barbarians, are suposed to be able to have an extra mastery added on like slow, push, glave, cleave, flex, nick,....ect.
All weapons can have slow only some can have cleave but why have cleave as a mastery when all your weapons have cleave especially when you could have the utility of slow, or push instead of a redundant mastery.
I feel that it should be you are picking cleave as a mastery not battle axe and you can use it with whatever weapon qualifies. You can do this in effect at 7th level as a fighter but it seems a unnecessary extra step making the feature over complicated. A fighters 7th level ability shouldn't be this is how it should have worked in the first place.
I dunno, just because two weapons have the same Mastery feature doesn't mean that they're similar enough weapons to just use.
Even with Cleave where they're pretty similar, using the weapons to full effect requires different techniques, as a greataxe and halberd have different reach for one thing, plus a greataxe you might fight with in more of a mixture of horizontal and vertical swings, compared to the halberd which is a mixture of thrusting and swinging down etc., making them very different weapons to master.
But when you go to another feature like Vex the weapons are very different from one another; there isn't a lot in common between handaxe, dart, shortbow, rapier and shortsword.
And really this is no different to how proficiency already functions; as you build your character you choose which weapon(s) you are proficient in, well Mastery is just a subset of those with which you're even better (gain the extra features).
To see if we can go off on a slightly different issue, what do people think about "Master" feats being tied into Mastery somehow? e.g- if you grab the Polearm Master feat, you'll need to have Mastery in at least one type of polearm to gain the benefits. This will make it harder for non-martials to just quickly nab one of these feats early on, as even on martials they IMO should be aimed towards coming in at 8th-level at the earliest (maybe 6th-level on the Fighter since get more ASIs is part of their whole deal)?
I think you pick the mastery you want no the weapon. All weapons can have the slow property but not all weapons can have the cleave or graze property. This is way you can choose if you want to topple or push your enemies and pick weapons that will work with that gimmick but you can't give cleave to a spear or nick to a great ax.
I think you can use the weapon mastery of any weapon you are proficient with but monks, fighters, and barbarians, are suposed to be able to have an extra mastery added on like slow, push, glave, cleave, flex, nick,....ect.
All weapons can have slow only some can have cleave but why have cleave as a mastery when all your weapons have cleave especially when you could have the utility of slow, or push instead of a redundant mastery.
Are you claiming that this is how the system works in the playtest, or are you saying that this is how it should work? If you're saying this is how the playtest works, then you are wrong in multiple ways.
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)
I love the idea of weapons doing something other than straight damage, but I feel like the weapon mastery system presented in UA really misses the mark. Changing mastery on a rest makes no sense whatsoever and completely pulls me out of the RP party of the game; it smells like a bone thrown to the min-maxers, not part of a logical class progression. Mastering a weapon takes 100s of hours of practice, and your not going to pick one up in a few hours of casual practice. Furthermore, many people have already pointed out that if you can switch your mastery basically at will, having multiple masteries is pointless.
I suggest that instead of mastering a weapon, you master a technique. In other words, weapon technique: cleave, would allow you to use the cleave property of any weapon that has it. This way, having multiples of the feat would enable you to bring a bigger bag of tricks to the fight, without the weirdness of a rapier master waking up one morning and suddenly being a mace expert, just because they found amace of disruption the night before.
That is what i suggested in the playtest. Though I would prefer a more battlemaster maneuver system built in for martials, this is kind of close.
Battle master as the base for fighter is hands down the best idea with action surge, second wind and indomitable
Battle master as a base for fighter, monk and barbarian sounds great. I think it was in 3.5 it was called tomb of battle book of 9 swords. (They were called crusader, swordsage, and warblade.)
We could have stances that would cost part of your movement and required concentration but gave you on going benefits boosts for your bonus action to give you something like tremor sense or double your Streight bonus for a round. Stikes to sue with your attacks and counter to use with your reaction.
WOW now casters arn't the only ones to do cool stuff. I could use my ballista throw maneuver to use an enemy as a projectile weapon. Conter a spell by leaping out of the way with a reaction. Or take up a stance that make me unmovable or gives me additional reach.
I feel that it should be you are picking cleave as a mastery not battle axe and you can use it with whatever weapon qualifies. You can do this in effect at 7th level as a fighter but it seems a unnecessary extra step making the feature over complicated. A fighters 7th level ability shouldn't be this is how it should have worked in the first place.
I dunno, just because two weapons have the same Mastery feature doesn't mean that they're similar enough weapons to just use.
Even with Cleave where they're pretty similar, using the weapons to full effect requires different techniques, as a greataxe and halberd have different reach for one thing, plus a greataxe you might fight with in more of a mixture of horizontal and vertical swings, compared to the halberd which is a mixture of thrusting and swinging down etc., making them very different weapons to master.
But when you go to another feature like Vex the weapons are very different from one another; there isn't a lot in common between handaxe, dart, shortbow, rapier and shortsword.
And really this is no different to how proficiency already functions; as you build your character you choose which weapon(s) you are proficient in, well Mastery is just a subset of those with which you're even better (gain the extra features).
To see if we can go off on a slightly different issue, what do people think about "Master" feats being tied into Mastery somehow? e.g- if you grab the Polearm Master feat, you'll need to have Mastery in at least one type of polearm to gain the benefits. This will make it harder for non-martials to just quickly nab one of these feats early on, as even on martials they IMO should be aimed towards coming in at 8th-level at the earliest (maybe 6th-level on the Fighter since get more ASIs is part of their whole deal)?
I think you pick the mastery you want no the weapon. All weapons can have the slow property but not all weapons can have the cleave or graze property. This is way you can choose if you want to topple or push your enemies and pick weapons that will work with that gimmick but you can't give cleave to a spear or nick to a great ax.
I think you can use the weapon mastery of any weapon you are proficient with but monks, fighters, and barbarians, are suposed to be able to have an extra mastery added on like slow, push, glave, cleave, flex, nick,....ect.
All weapons can have slow only some can have cleave but why have cleave as a mastery when all your weapons have cleave especially when you could have the utility of slow, or push instead of a redundant mastery.
Are you claiming that this is how the system works in the playtest, or are you saying that this is how it should work? If you're saying this is how the playtest works, then you are wrong in multiple ways.
I thought that is how it worked in the play test mutiple weapons all have cleave so you pick the cleave mastery and now you can use all the weapons with the cleave mastery then at level 7 you get a second mattery and can then add slow to your weapons with cleave. I did not state you can only use one mastery at once. So even if you have two masteries you can only use one each attack. So if you hit an enemy you can use vex and if you miss you can use graze but only if the weapon meets the prerequisites for those masteries or has it as a mastery.
Am I wrong and it is only one weapon that you train that gets the mastery effect and not a group of weapons?
I feel that it should be you are picking cleave as a mastery not battle axe and you can use it with whatever weapon qualifies. You can do this in effect at 7th level as a fighter but it seems a unnecessary extra step making the feature over complicated. A fighters 7th level ability shouldn't be this is how it should have worked in the first place.
I dunno, just because two weapons have the same Mastery feature doesn't mean that they're similar enough weapons to just use.
Even with Cleave where they're pretty similar, using the weapons to full effect requires different techniques, as a greataxe and halberd have different reach for one thing, plus a greataxe you might fight with in more of a mixture of horizontal and vertical swings, compared to the halberd which is a mixture of thrusting and swinging down etc., making them very different weapons to master.
But when you go to another feature like Vex the weapons are very different from one another; there isn't a lot in common between handaxe, dart, shortbow, rapier and shortsword.
And really this is no different to how proficiency already functions; as you build your character you choose which weapon(s) you are proficient in, well Mastery is just a subset of those with which you're even better (gain the extra features).
To see if we can go off on a slightly different issue, what do people think about "Master" feats being tied into Mastery somehow? e.g- if you grab the Polearm Master feat, you'll need to have Mastery in at least one type of polearm to gain the benefits. This will make it harder for non-martials to just quickly nab one of these feats early on, as even on martials they IMO should be aimed towards coming in at 8th-level at the earliest (maybe 6th-level on the Fighter since get more ASIs is part of their whole deal)?
I think you pick the mastery you want no the weapon. All weapons can have the slow property but not all weapons can have the cleave or graze property. This is way you can choose if you want to topple or push your enemies and pick weapons that will work with that gimmick but you can't give cleave to a spear or nick to a great ax.
I think you can use the weapon mastery of any weapon you are proficient with but monks, fighters, and barbarians, are suposed to be able to have an extra mastery added on like slow, push, glave, cleave, flex, nick,....ect.
All weapons can have slow only some can have cleave but why have cleave as a mastery when all your weapons have cleave especially when you could have the utility of slow, or push instead of a redundant mastery.
Are you claiming that this is how the system works in the playtest, or are you saying that this is how it should work? If you're saying this is how the playtest works, then you are wrong in multiple ways.
I thought that is how it worked in the play test mutiple weapons all have cleave so you pick the cleave mastery and now you can use all the weapons with the cleave mastery then at level 7 you get a second mattery and can then add slow to your weapons with cleave. I did not state you can only use one mastery at once. So even if you have two masteries you can only use one each attack. So if you hit an enemy you can use vex and if you miss you can use graze but only if the weapon meets the prerequisites for those masteries or has it as a mastery.
Am I wrong and it is only one weapon that you train that gets the mastery effect and not a group of weapons?
You are indeed wrong. The only way to gain Weapon Masteries is via the feat or class feature, you do not get them by simply being proficient in a weapon. The feat and class feature let you choose a weapon to have Mastery in. When you have Mastery in a weapon, you can use the Mastery listed next to it on a table. You can't use a Mastery on a weapon that doesn't have it by default, even if said weapon meets the requirements for said Mastery. The only way to put a Mastery on a weapon that does not have it by default is via the Fighter feature.
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)
I feel that it should be you are picking cleave as a mastery not battle axe and you can use it with whatever weapon qualifies. You can do this in effect at 7th level as a fighter but it seems a unnecessary extra step making the feature over complicated. A fighters 7th level ability shouldn't be this is how it should have worked in the first place.
I dunno, just because two weapons have the same Mastery feature doesn't mean that they're similar enough weapons to just use.
Even with Cleave where they're pretty similar, using the weapons to full effect requires different techniques, as a greataxe and halberd have different reach for one thing, plus a greataxe you might fight with in more of a mixture of horizontal and vertical swings, compared to the halberd which is a mixture of thrusting and swinging down etc., making them very different weapons to master.
But when you go to another feature like Vex the weapons are very different from one another; there isn't a lot in common between handaxe, dart, shortbow, rapier and shortsword.
And really this is no different to how proficiency already functions; as you build your character you choose which weapon(s) you are proficient in, well Mastery is just a subset of those with which you're even better (gain the extra features).
To see if we can go off on a slightly different issue, what do people think about "Master" feats being tied into Mastery somehow? e.g- if you grab the Polearm Master feat, you'll need to have Mastery in at least one type of polearm to gain the benefits. This will make it harder for non-martials to just quickly nab one of these feats early on, as even on martials they IMO should be aimed towards coming in at 8th-level at the earliest (maybe 6th-level on the Fighter since get more ASIs is part of their whole deal)?
I think you pick the mastery you want no the weapon. All weapons can have the slow property but not all weapons can have the cleave or graze property. This is way you can choose if you want to topple or push your enemies and pick weapons that will work with that gimmick but you can't give cleave to a spear or nick to a great ax.
I think you can use the weapon mastery of any weapon you are proficient with but monks, fighters, and barbarians, are suposed to be able to have an extra mastery added on like slow, push, glave, cleave, flex, nick,....ect.
All weapons can have slow only some can have cleave but why have cleave as a mastery when all your weapons have cleave especially when you could have the utility of slow, or push instead of a redundant mastery.
Are you claiming that this is how the system works in the playtest, or are you saying that this is how it should work? If you're saying this is how the playtest works, then you are wrong in multiple ways.
I thought that is how it worked in the play test mutiple weapons all have cleave so you pick the cleave mastery and now you can use all the weapons with the cleave mastery then at level 7 you get a second mattery and can then add slow to your weapons with cleave. I did not state you can only use one mastery at once. So even if you have two masteries you can only use one each attack. So if you hit an enemy you can use vex and if you miss you can use graze but only if the weapon meets the prerequisites for those masteries or has it as a mastery.
Am I wrong and it is only one weapon that you train that gets the mastery effect and not a group of weapons?
You are indeed wrong. The only way to gain Weapon Masteries is via the feat or class feature, you do not get them by simply being proficient in a weapon. The feat and class feature let you choose a weapon to have Mastery in. When you have Mastery in a weapon, you can use the Mastery listed next to it on a table. You can't use a Mastery on a weapon that doesn't have it by default, even if said weapon meets the requirements for said Mastery. The only way to put a Mastery on a weapon that does not have it by default is via the Fighter feature.
under stood weapon mastery is worse then I thought except for fighter and it almost as good as the monk ability to spend ki points to increase accuracy.
the Feat is terrible and only the class features have any machinal impact on the game. I will go as far as saying the new weapon mastery feat is as good as the one in 5e.
The weapon master gimmick of warriors seams poorly implemented. I mean some of them were battle master maneuvers. It just looks like once again warriors got the short end of the stick.
I feel that it should be you are picking cleave as a mastery not battle axe and you can use it with whatever weapon qualifies. You can do this in effect at 7th level as a fighter but it seems a unnecessary extra step making the feature over complicated. A fighters 7th level ability shouldn't be this is how it should have worked in the first place.
I dunno, just because two weapons have the same Mastery feature doesn't mean that they're similar enough weapons to just use.
Even with Cleave where they're pretty similar, using the weapons to full effect requires different techniques, as a greataxe and halberd have different reach for one thing, plus a greataxe you might fight with in more of a mixture of horizontal and vertical swings, compared to the halberd which is a mixture of thrusting and swinging down etc., making them very different weapons to master.
But when you go to another feature like Vex the weapons are very different from one another; there isn't a lot in common between handaxe, dart, shortbow, rapier and shortsword.
And really this is no different to how proficiency already functions; as you build your character you choose which weapon(s) you are proficient in, well Mastery is just a subset of those with which you're even better (gain the extra features).
To see if we can go off on a slightly different issue, what do people think about "Master" feats being tied into Mastery somehow? e.g- if you grab the Polearm Master feat, you'll need to have Mastery in at least one type of polearm to gain the benefits. This will make it harder for non-martials to just quickly nab one of these feats early on, as even on martials they IMO should be aimed towards coming in at 8th-level at the earliest (maybe 6th-level on the Fighter since get more ASIs is part of their whole deal)?
I think you pick the mastery you want no the weapon. All weapons can have the slow property but not all weapons can have the cleave or graze property. This is way you can choose if you want to topple or push your enemies and pick weapons that will work with that gimmick but you can't give cleave to a spear or nick to a great ax.
I think you can use the weapon mastery of any weapon you are proficient with but monks, fighters, and barbarians, are suposed to be able to have an extra mastery added on like slow, push, glave, cleave, flex, nick,....ect.
All weapons can have slow only some can have cleave but why have cleave as a mastery when all your weapons have cleave especially when you could have the utility of slow, or push instead of a redundant mastery.
Are you claiming that this is how the system works in the playtest, or are you saying that this is how it should work? If you're saying this is how the playtest works, then you are wrong in multiple ways.
I thought that is how it worked in the play test mutiple weapons all have cleave so you pick the cleave mastery and now you can use all the weapons with the cleave mastery then at level 7 you get a second mattery and can then add slow to your weapons with cleave. I did not state you can only use one mastery at once. So even if you have two masteries you can only use one each attack. So if you hit an enemy you can use vex and if you miss you can use graze but only if the weapon meets the prerequisites for those masteries or has it as a mastery.
Am I wrong and it is only one weapon that you train that gets the mastery effect and not a group of weapons?
No, you are describing what they should have done, not what they did. As is, its just dumb.
I think the weapon mastery is somewhat doubling down on the already extant problem with fighters, which is poor scaling: they're good low, not as good high. The change I like most in the new version is the indomitable/unconquerable pair, because they actually kick in at the levels where the features matter.
I think the weapon mastery is somewhat doubling down on the already extant problem with fighters, which is poor scaling: they're good low, not as good high. The change I like most in the new version is the indomitable/unconquerable pair, because they actually kick in at the levels where the features matter.
This is an issue for most classes, most meaningful damage comes in by level 11, or level 6. Only Rogue really keeps scaling past level 11 in the UA. Spellcasters are reliant on spells, but right now I think we still have Fireball at 3rd level still outdoing most 4th/5th level damage spells... we will need to see how spells are revised. I'd like to see more Martial damage in Tier 3/4.
This is an issue for most classes, most meaningful damage comes in by level 11, or level 6. Only Rogue really keeps scaling past level 11 in the UA. Spellcasters are reliant on spells, but right now I think we still have Fireball at 3rd level still outdoing most 4th/5th level damage spells... we will need to see how spells are revised. I'd like to see more Martial damage in Tier 3/4.
Damage has never been the issue anyway. The issue is everything else magic can do, and the ability to cast 'solve problem' goes up drastically at higher levels.
The base ability in 5e? That everyone has even without training? Yes. And it should suck. It's basically untrained/unsophisticated fighting with a second weapon in hand.
Your complaint has the same energy as "I wasn't any good at portrait painting when I first picked up a paintbrush on the first day with no practice or training, so painting sucks." Find a HEMA guy with a lot of time and learning invested in fighting florentine, and then put him up against someone who barely knows how to proficiently use a club ... and give him two clubs. Tell me how it goes.
PIck up some Feats and a Fighting style to go with it. Go for Bladesinger or Sword Bard while you're at it. There are some rather solid TWF builds in 5e, and that reflects that for sophisticated fighting styles you need more than just the layman's knowledge of the fighting style. In the real world, you need training and practice with it. In the game world, you need to invest Feats and Features into it.
Damage has never been the issue anyway. The issue is everything else magic can do, and the ability to cast 'solve problem' goes up drastically at higher levels.
I mean it is partly the issue, in the sense that if full casters get to have incredible versatility, then that shouldn't include being as good, or better, at things that other classes are supposed to be the experts at. In game balance terms versatility should usually mean being good in several areas but great at none of them, i.e- jack of all trades vs. specialist. I'm all for casters having the option to build as specialists too if they want, but it needs to come at a similar action economy/resource cost, e.g- a concentration spell + another spell or two to really hold their own.
I don't think Wizards of the Coast have ever fully appreciated just how powerful the Spellcasting feature is, because it gives a class a tremendous amount of flexibility, and access to some of the most powerful class features (spells) in the game.
Which has been the main issue with martials; into tier 3 and 4 their class features are competing with 6th-, 7th-, 8th- and 9th-level spells, limited by a long rest resource sure but in 5e a lot of martial features in these tiers are pretty underwhelming (many of them barely compete with 1st-level spells). Like a 5e Barbarian's Brutal Criticals feature; it's not a bad feature, but on it's own it makes for a pretty underwhelming level, and even with a greataxe it's a maximum (with the third dice) of an extra 18-21 damage 5-10% of the time, so in reality it's an average increase in damage of maybe 2 per hit? And that's from three entire class features, with nothing else gained at those levels. The updated Brutal Criticals in the playtest is at least now only a single feature, and doesn't have a preferred weapon type, but it still only works out at about the same damage increase.
But meanwhile a Wizard can cast investiture of flame to spend 10 minutes immune to fire, dealing automatic aura damage and can breathe fire every turn for free while still casting bonus action spells. And that's one of the less powerful 6th-level spells you can be throwing about.
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.
Damage has never been the issue anyway. The issue is everything else magic can do, and the ability to cast 'solve problem' goes up drastically at higher levels.
I mean it is partly the issue, in the sense that if full casters get to have incredible versatility, then that shouldn't include being as good, or better, at things that other classes are supposed to be the experts at. In game balance terms versatility should usually mean being good in several areas but great at none of them, i.e- jack of all trades vs. specialist. I'm all for casters having the option to build as specialists too if they want, but it needs to come at a similar action economy/resource cost, e.g- a concentration spell + another spell or two to really hold their own.
I don't think Wizards of the Coast have ever fully appreciated just how powerful the Spellcasting feature is, because it gives a class a tremendous amount of flexibility, and access to some of the most powerful class features (spells) in the game.
Which has been the main issue with martials; into tier 3 and 4 their class features are competing with 6th-, 7th-, 8th- and 9th-level spells, limited by a long rest resource sure but in 5e a lot of martial features in these tiers are pretty underwhelming (many of them barely compete with 1st-level spells). Like a 5e Barbarian's Brutal Criticals feature; it's not a bad feature, but on it's own it makes for a pretty underwhelming level, and even with a greataxe it's a maximum (with the third dice) of an extra 18-21 damage 5-10% of the time, so in reality it's an average increase in damage of maybe 2 per hit? And that's from three entire class features, with nothing else gained at those levels. The updated Brutal Criticals in the playtest is at least now only a single feature, and doesn't have a preferred weapon type, but it still only works out at about the same damage increase.
But meanwhile a Wizard can cast investiture of flame to spend 10 minutes immune to fire, dealing automatic aura damage and can breathe fire every turn for free while still casting bonus action spells. And that's one of the less powerful 6th-level spells you can be throwing about.
This gave me an idea. What if we looked at some of the spells and found a way to relocate them for martials, would that put less of a divide between martials and casters? It’s say, for instance, martials had something like ‘decapitate’ which would essentially work the same way as ‘powerword kill’ or ‘volly’ which may work similar to ‘meteor storm’ I kind of like this concept, now that I’m thinking about it. It makes me think of the hunter ranger in 5e, it was really powerful in some situations.
This gave me an idea. What if we looked at some of the spells and found a way to relocate them for martials, would that put less of a divide between martials and casters? It’s say, for instance, martials had something like ‘decapitate’ which would essentially work the same way as ‘powerword kill’ or ‘volly’ which may work similar to ‘meteor storm’ I kind of like this concept, now that I’m thinking about it. It makes me think of the hunter ranger in 5e, it was really powerful in some situations.
Something that would be like Battle Master maneuvers with level requirements, that have a feel comparable to the 5e Hunter Ranger's special ability choices?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I love your description for base two weapon fighting. That’s so accurate. I think the feature to draw two weapons at the same time in the feat is redundant since you now draw weapons as part of the attack. That can definitely go and be replaced by add attack bonus to second attack. I don’t think the feat and fighting style should be broken up for you two have to take two feats to make something usable. By this, I mean fighting style and dual wielder for those that don’t get fighting styles. This is especially true when they’ve been making all the other weapon feats into one.
Example: Sharpshooter now has you can use it at long and short range without disadvantage and shoot behind cover. Crossbow expert is the same. Take away loading, gain long and short distance.
Dual wielder should be add mod to second attack, add 1 to AC, and use non light weapons. The fighting style should be something like great weapon fighter where you reroll 1s and 2s. I think this would be very useful since most light weapons don’t do alot of damage anyway so it’s better if you’re at least not rolling a 1
How dose graze work dose it scale off of your to hit bonus meaning your proficiency or your to hit damage that would be your str/ dex bonus.
Plus, it says you can increase damage of this effect out side of increasing the bonus it is based off of. So dose this mean you can't apply poison or the frost fang cold damage?
If it is based off of straight the storm giants' belt would give you 9 damage on a miss but if it is your proficiency bonus, then that scales way slower and only monk has a way to boost accuracy by spending ki points were a with deal 3 + 2(Ki point) for damage between 3-9 and max level of 5-15 at level 20 on a miss.
Plus you can't use multiple at the same time which leads to the question of how it works with two weapon fighting.
oh yah two weapon fighting sucks in 5e and hear we are later and it still sucks the class ability to use multiple weapon masteries make it even more redundant.
Plus it doesn't give you any extra attacks on attacks of opportunity, extra attack, bonus attacks, or attacks made with action surge so why not take a two handed weapon with reach.
Just give it slow topple and push and gg. First hit slows second hit topples third hit pushes them back 10ft. Average movement is 25ft. So slow 15 half to get up from prone 7 rounds down to 5ft. You are 10 ft away and they can't hit you but you can hit them and repeat what you did.
How is this any different from 5e polearm master and sentinel combo?
If battle master fighter still exists in the plyer hand book and I purity certain that it doesn't you could use a maneuver that hits multiple enemies at once.
Graze scales only off of Ability Modifier, right now the only way to use Graze weapons is with Strength. So if you got a +9 to Strength, you'd deal 9 damage when you miss. All other bonuses are ignored, you have still technically "missed" the attack and most other extra damage sources require that you hit the target, thus you can not apply their effects.
Okay so to sum it up TWO WEAPON FIGHTING IS SHIT. Sheilds are boring.
Flex is a trash mastery because I would gain more benefits from cleave or graze then flex, push, topple, or slow. You can only use one mastery at a time so you can't push, slow, or cleave while you use flex.
There are no masteries for shields and only one feat for shields that is lack luster when compared to the benefits of reach or great weapon mastery. I not going to go down the crossbow feat rabbit whole so lets avoid that. (THANK YOU)
Great Sword with graze and cleave is better then flex with damage. Polar master or sentinel are less trash with slow, push, and topple. Flex giving you a D10 + D6 is no better than 2D8 from DnD 5e but is worse because their is no +1 to AC. Reach giving you a free disengage and the opportunity to not take melee damage from your enemies is better than +2 ac from shield and their are more feats for polearms then shields making sheilds a sub par option.
The fact that a fighter a give additional mastery to any weapon they use removes any benefit of different masteries with two weapon fighting.
In conclusion two weapon fighting still sucks, sword and board are underwhelming and your best option is still great weapon fighting with great sword with graze and cleave, or polearm master with a reach weapon that with eventually have topple, slow and push. I will also note we have yet to have any feats that require you to have a level above 4. So two weapon fighing peaks at level 4 while great weapon fight scales into the late game.
Conclusion TWF is trash, shields are boring and THW/Polearms are king same as 5e. Oh and the weapon masteries still don't make caster any less op when they can pick as many spells of whatever level they want.(I would like to see warrior get stances and maneuvers like in TOMB 9 swords )
I think part of the problem is the narrative. Melee attacks in D&D are not individual swings and thrusts, and damage is not necessarily successful strikes. Keeping an opponent off-guard (with successful attack rolls) is a valid way to deplete their hit points. This is good, because realism with dual wielding can represent a few different styles of fighting, some much more aggressive than others.
Which is to say, more attack rolls aren't really a problem except that it's more attack rolls to resolve at the table. Players often like more dice, but it slows things down a little.
That said, I agree on the bottom line: +1 AC and middlin' damage is probably the way to go. I like the idea of a maneuver for dual wielding: Rather than riposte, consider an off-hand-only opportunity attack when either you successfully grapple or an opponent attempts to. Half the reason to carry an off-hand dagger is to get stabby when someone goes corps-a-corps, and most of the other half is to go corps-a-corps and get stabby, and I have a vague notion that grappling will become more important.
I think you pick the mastery you want no the weapon. All weapons can have the slow property but not all weapons can have the cleave or graze property. This is way you can choose if you want to topple or push your enemies and pick weapons that will work with that gimmick but you can't give cleave to a spear or nick to a great ax.
I think you can use the weapon mastery of any weapon you are proficient with but monks, fighters, and barbarians, are suposed to be able to have an extra mastery added on like slow, push, glave, cleave, flex, nick,....ect.
All weapons can have slow only some can have cleave but why have cleave as a mastery when all your weapons have cleave especially when you could have the utility of slow, or push instead of a redundant mastery.
Are you claiming that this is how the system works in the playtest, or are you saying that this is how it should work? If you're saying this is how the playtest works, then you are wrong in multiple ways.
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)
Battle master as a base for fighter, monk and barbarian sounds great. I think it was in 3.5 it was called tomb of battle book of 9 swords. (They were called crusader, swordsage, and warblade.)
We could have stances that would cost part of your movement and required concentration but gave you on going benefits boosts for your bonus action to give you something like tremor sense or double your Streight bonus for a round. Stikes to sue with your attacks and counter to use with your reaction.
WOW now casters arn't the only ones to do cool stuff. I could use my ballista throw maneuver to use an enemy as a projectile weapon. Conter a spell by leaping out of the way with a reaction. Or take up a stance that make me unmovable or gives me additional reach.
I thought that is how it worked in the play test mutiple weapons all have cleave so you pick the cleave mastery and now you can use all the weapons with the cleave mastery then at level 7 you get a second mattery and can then add slow to your weapons with cleave. I did not state you can only use one mastery at once. So even if you have two masteries you can only use one each attack. So if you hit an enemy you can use vex and if you miss you can use graze but only if the weapon meets the prerequisites for those masteries or has it as a mastery.
Am I wrong and it is only one weapon that you train that gets the mastery effect and not a group of weapons?
You are indeed wrong. The only way to gain Weapon Masteries is via the feat or class feature, you do not get them by simply being proficient in a weapon. The feat and class feature let you choose a weapon to have Mastery in. When you have Mastery in a weapon, you can use the Mastery listed next to it on a table. You can't use a Mastery on a weapon that doesn't have it by default, even if said weapon meets the requirements for said Mastery. The only way to put a Mastery on a weapon that does not have it by default is via the Fighter feature.
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)
under stood weapon mastery is worse then I thought except for fighter and it almost as good as the monk ability to spend ki points to increase accuracy.
the Feat is terrible and only the class features have any machinal impact on the game. I will go as far as saying the new weapon mastery feat is as good as the one in 5e.
The weapon master gimmick of warriors seams poorly implemented. I mean some of them were battle master maneuvers. It just looks like once again warriors got the short end of the stick.
No, you are describing what they should have done, not what they did. As is, its just dumb.
I think the weapon mastery is somewhat doubling down on the already extant problem with fighters, which is poor scaling: they're good low, not as good high. The change I like most in the new version is the indomitable/unconquerable pair, because they actually kick in at the levels where the features matter.
This is an issue for most classes, most meaningful damage comes in by level 11, or level 6. Only Rogue really keeps scaling past level 11 in the UA. Spellcasters are reliant on spells, but right now I think we still have Fireball at 3rd level still outdoing most 4th/5th level damage spells... we will need to see how spells are revised. I'd like to see more Martial damage in Tier 3/4.
Damage has never been the issue anyway. The issue is everything else magic can do, and the ability to cast 'solve problem' goes up drastically at higher levels.
The base ability in 5e? That everyone has even without training? Yes. And it should suck. It's basically untrained/unsophisticated fighting with a second weapon in hand.
Your complaint has the same energy as "I wasn't any good at portrait painting when I first picked up a paintbrush on the first day with no practice or training, so painting sucks." Find a HEMA guy with a lot of time and learning invested in fighting florentine, and then put him up against someone who barely knows how to proficiently use a club ... and give him two clubs. Tell me how it goes.
PIck up some Feats and a Fighting style to go with it. Go for Bladesinger or Sword Bard while you're at it. There are some rather solid TWF builds in 5e, and that reflects that for sophisticated fighting styles you need more than just the layman's knowledge of the fighting style. In the real world, you need training and practice with it. In the game world, you need to invest Feats and Features into it.
I mean it is partly the issue, in the sense that if full casters get to have incredible versatility, then that shouldn't include being as good, or better, at things that other classes are supposed to be the experts at. In game balance terms versatility should usually mean being good in several areas but great at none of them, i.e- jack of all trades vs. specialist. I'm all for casters having the option to build as specialists too if they want, but it needs to come at a similar action economy/resource cost, e.g- a concentration spell + another spell or two to really hold their own.
I don't think Wizards of the Coast have ever fully appreciated just how powerful the Spellcasting feature is, because it gives a class a tremendous amount of flexibility, and access to some of the most powerful class features (spells) in the game.
Which has been the main issue with martials; into tier 3 and 4 their class features are competing with 6th-, 7th-, 8th- and 9th-level spells, limited by a long rest resource sure but in 5e a lot of martial features in these tiers are pretty underwhelming (many of them barely compete with 1st-level spells). Like a 5e Barbarian's Brutal Criticals feature; it's not a bad feature, but on it's own it makes for a pretty underwhelming level, and even with a greataxe it's a maximum (with the third dice) of an extra 18-21 damage 5-10% of the time, so in reality it's an average increase in damage of maybe 2 per hit? And that's from three entire class features, with nothing else gained at those levels. The updated Brutal Criticals in the playtest is at least now only a single feature, and doesn't have a preferred weapon type, but it still only works out at about the same damage increase.
But meanwhile a Wizard can cast investiture of flame to spend 10 minutes immune to fire, dealing automatic aura damage and can breathe fire every turn for free while still casting bonus action spells. And that's one of the less powerful 6th-level spells you can be throwing about.
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.
This gave me an idea. What if we looked at some of the spells and found a way to relocate them for martials, would that put less of a divide between martials and casters? It’s say, for instance, martials had something like ‘decapitate’ which would essentially work the same way as ‘powerword kill’ or ‘volly’ which may work similar to ‘meteor storm’ I kind of like this concept, now that I’m thinking about it. It makes me think of the hunter ranger in 5e, it was really powerful in some situations.
Something that would be like Battle Master maneuvers with level requirements, that have a feel comparable to the 5e Hunter Ranger's special ability choices?