Only if you assume a party of entirely ranged, otherwise the melee guy just goes and attacks your melee guys instead.
Remember it doesn't have a once per turn limitation, nor is it affected by difficult terrain; pushing a target by enough that it can't reach anyone isn't that unlikely. Push isn't useful in every fight, but when it is useful, it's really useful.
Only if you assume a party of entirely ranged, otherwise the melee guy just goes and attacks your melee guys instead.
Remember it doesn't have a once per turn limitation, nor is it affected by difficult terrain; pushing a target by enough that it can't reach anyone isn't that unlikely. Push isn't useful in every fight, but when it is useful, it's really useful.
Only 1 ranged weapon has push, so you're exclusively talking about a Heavy Crossbow wielding 11th level Fighter.
At first blush, I really like the weapon masteries. They’re interesting, they’ll give martials little but impactful choices to make in combat, in every round if not with every attack. Being able to change which weapon you master is needed flexibility, and adding multiple master ties to the same weapon, or shifting them around is fantastic. What I don’t get is the idea of increasing the number of weapons a fighter can master. In theory, it certainly makes sense, and gives fighters really good flavor as the person who can really make the most of the widest variety of weapons. But in practice, is getting to master 4 or 5 of them of any real value?
Most of the time, for a melee fighter, you’ll have your melee weapon, probably a thrown weapon for when you can’t quite get close enough, and that longbow that you’ve got just in case, but in reality you use it twice in the campaign. If you’re a ranged fighter, you’ve got your bow (or xbow) and that rapier in case they get close, and that’s about it.
I guess my problem is treating getting extra weapon masteries as a big class feature, when you’ll almost never need more than the three you get at level 1.
Also, feel free to discuss the masteries in general. We can’t let all the threads be about the warlock changes.
people have said this a lot, but I'm not sure how much they actually playtested weapon mastery.
weapon mastery isn't an, I'm good at these two weapons thing, its, I have these capabilities in my aresenal for the day. They are also not, I have learned topple, its I can use topple on trident. If you want to also topple with greatsword, that is an extra mastery slot.
two masteries is incredibly limiting. Lets take a monk, they might want nick so they can unarmed attack and free attack in one turn. That means most of the time, for dps focused rounds, they probably want nick, and vex. However, if they need to knock something down, they need a quarterstaff mastery. They can never do the dps combo, and topple in the same day.
you can easily imagine the same monk might want to push an enemy off a cliff, into aoe, or away from an ally, so the ally can move without Aoo. that would need 4 masteries in one day.
masteries are basically like prepared spells. Sure some people may only use 2 ever, but the guy with 6 cantrips has a lot more options in battle.
Only if you assume a party of entirely ranged, otherwise the melee guy just goes and attacks your melee guys instead.
Remember it doesn't have a once per turn limitation, nor is it affected by difficult terrain; pushing a target by enough that it can't reach anyone isn't that unlikely. Push isn't useful in every fight, but when it is useful, it's really useful.
Only 1 ranged weapon has push, so you're exclusively talking about a Heavy Crossbow wielding 11th level Fighter.
its not just one person on the field. if one person topples, the other person with a pike can push, push and step back 10 feet. it takes 15 feet to stand, and can't reach the guy who pushed them.
there is also a sentinel guy who can push 20 feet, then push as a reaction if the monster tries to approach them or people behind him.
polearm guy can push pike push with its haft as a BA, take out a heavy xbow and push, then step back 20 feet.
Brawler can decide on attack which mastery to use, so they can topple with a reach improvised, then push two times on their own (2 attacks+BA)
Only if you assume a party of entirely ranged, otherwise the melee guy just goes and attacks your melee guys instead.
Remember it doesn't have a once per turn limitation, nor is it affected by difficult terrain; pushing a target by enough that it can't reach anyone isn't that unlikely. Push isn't useful in every fight, but when it is useful, it's really useful.
Only 1 ranged weapon has push, so you're exclusively talking about a Heavy Crossbow wielding 11th level Fighter.
its not just one person on the field. if one person topples, the other person with a pike can push, push and step back 10 feet. it takes 15 feet to stand, and can't reach the guy who pushed them.
there is also a sentinel guy who can push 20 feet, then push as a reaction if the monster tries to approach them or people behind him.
polearm guy can push pike push with its haft as a BA, take out a heavy xbow and push, then step back 20 feet.
Brawler can decide on attack which mastery to use, so they can topple with a reach improvised, then push two times on their own (2 attacks+BA)
So if the two martial characters in the party happen to both be right next to each other and they happen to have rolled initiative so they act in the correct order and they happen to have taken the those two particular weapon masteries and they hit / enemy fails the save and them hitting that many times doesn't just kill the enemy. That seems pretty circumstantial to me...
I will say that the claim of 'mathematically most powerful' indicates that JC can't do math. Which probably shouldn't be a surprise. Vex with a rapier will beat flex with a longsword unless you're actually only ever attacking targets once, which isn't really a factor after tier 1.
I will note that Graze is atrocious at high levels because you don't miss enough.
vex does nothing if you already have advantage, which you have a lot of means of doing in 1dnd. graze also becomes less effective the more accurate you are.
As someone who ran a lot of numbers and playtested a bunch of times, Flex was actually fairly useful for twf and sword and board. Because you often had at some point gotten most of the benefit from other masteries. One guy prone+grapples enemy, what do the other two melee guys do to help him eliminate the enemy? vex/graze/push/topple/slow all become of no use. you basically can sap it.
the problem is it was boring, and actually ran counter to the idea of a versatile weapon. It made them less versatile, IE no reason to use them two handed.
mathematically, some builds will end up being worse now, in actual team play.
Only if you assume a party of entirely ranged, otherwise the melee guy just goes and attacks your melee guys instead.
Remember it doesn't have a once per turn limitation, nor is it affected by difficult terrain; pushing a target by enough that it can't reach anyone isn't that unlikely. Push isn't useful in every fight, but when it is useful, it's really useful.
Only 1 ranged weapon has push, so you're exclusively talking about a Heavy Crossbow wielding 11th level Fighter.
its not just one person on the field. if one person topples, the other person with a pike can push, push and step back 10 feet. it takes 15 feet to stand, and can't reach the guy who pushed them.
there is also a sentinel guy who can push 20 feet, then push as a reaction if the monster tries to approach them or people behind him.
polearm guy can push pike push with its haft as a BA, take out a heavy xbow and push, then step back 20 feet.
Brawler can decide on attack which mastery to use, so they can topple with a reach improvised, then push two times on their own (2 attacks+BA)
So if the two martial characters in the party happen to both be right next to each other and they happen to have rolled initiative so they act in the correct order and they happen to have taken the those two particular weapon masteries and they hit / enemy fails the save and them hitting that many times doesn't just kill the enemy. That seems pretty circumstantial to me...
uhhh, two martials are likely to be within 5 to 10 feet of an enemy. And players can choose where they are in battle.
topple is one of the baseline masteries, that if you have access to, you will probably take, however the more people that have it, the less useful it is.
masteries can be selected each day. Its highly likely players will pick complimentary masteries based on what the other guys can do, since many mastery effects don't stack well.
and, to the point of this thread, yes, the more masteries you have access to, the more you can use them circumstantially, instead of picking the two that are best in general. You can have access to generally useful and specifically useful in the same day.
And that was only one example of the way to pull that off, I provided two others that only need 1 player. there are more, with BM, EK, feats, barbarian, etc.
IME Pushing isn't nearly as good as the YT talking heads make it out to be. It relies on very precise positioning which it is often not possible to achieve, and it relies on having allies that cast a small number of specific spells all the time. Basically you need a melee-cleric in the party for it to useful reliably. Sometimes it is amazing, the rest of the time it is useless.
That or it pushes melee back from the range guy who then can move back 30 feet so the melee guy loses multiple rounds of doing damage.
Only if you assume a party of entirely ranged, otherwise the melee guy just goes and attacks your melee guys instead.
If its only one enemy you might have a point. But lets say you are facing two ogres, crowd controlling one of them while the melee people dog pile the other reduces the damage taken. This is why repelling blast is such a solid feature for eldritch blast not for environmental damage gimmicks.
At first blush, I really like the weapon masteries. They’re interesting, they’ll give martials little but impactful choices to make in combat, in every round if not with every attack. Being able to change which weapon you master is needed flexibility, and adding multiple master ties to the same weapon, or shifting them around is fantastic. What I don’t get is the idea of increasing the number of weapons a fighter can master. In theory, it certainly makes sense, and gives fighters really good flavor as the person who can really make the most of the widest variety of weapons. But in practice, is getting to master 4 or 5 of them of any real value?
Most of the time, for a melee fighter, you’ll have your melee weapon, probably a thrown weapon for when you can’t quite get close enough, and that longbow that you’ve got just in case, but in reality you use it twice in the campaign. If you’re a ranged fighter, you’ve got your bow (or xbow) and that rapier in case they get close, and that’s about it.
I guess my problem is treating getting extra weapon masteries as a big class feature, when you’ll almost never need more than the three you get at level 1.
Also, feel free to discuss the masteries in general. We can’t let all the threads be about the warlock changes.
people have said this a lot, but I'm not sure how much they actually playtested weapon mastery.
weapon mastery isn't an, I'm good at these two weapons thing, its, I have these capabilities in my aresenal for the day. They are also not, I have learned topple, its I can use topple on trident. If you want to also topple with greatsword, that is an extra mastery slot.
two masteries is incredibly limiting. Lets take a monk, they might want nick so they can unarmed attack and free attack in one turn. That means most of the time, for dps focused rounds, they probably want nick, and vex. However, if they need to knock something down, they need a quarterstaff mastery. They can never do the dps combo, and topple in the same day.
you can easily imagine the same monk might want to push an enemy off a cliff, into aoe, or away from an ally, so the ally can move without Aoo. that would need 4 masteries in one day.
masteries are basically like prepared spells. Sure some people may only use 2 ever, but the guy with 6 cantrips has a lot more options in battle.
Having play tested it a lot outside the fighter its a shit feature just because its boring as heck and slows down the game in many cases. The fighter who has enough and can change between them quickly without weapon swaps is actually somewhat entertaining with it. So, yes 2 masteries is incredibly limiting.
How I wish it actually was you learned the mastery and could apply it to any weapon that qualified for it. Then 2 masteries would be pretty decent and a little entertaining.
Only 1 ranged weapon has push, so you're exclusively talking about a Heavy Crossbow wielding 11th level Fighter.
A level 9+ fighter can add push to any two-handed weapon.
I must say that the mastery feature does have major problems in general:
If the goal is to add interesting decision making... it fails. It does accomplish making weapons somewhat different from one another, which is nice, but I'm not sure it's worthwhile.
Resolving them will slow play significantly... which isn't worth it for their relatively small real effect.
Making them stronger but with limited uses would probably result in more interesting game play, though at that point they're kind of redundant with battle master maneuvers.
At first blush, I really like the weapon masteries. They’re interesting, they’ll give martials little but impactful choices to make in combat, in every round if not with every attack. Being able to change which weapon you master is needed flexibility, and adding multiple master ties to the same weapon, or shifting them around is fantastic. What I don’t get is the idea of increasing the number of weapons a fighter can master. In theory, it certainly makes sense, and gives fighters really good flavor as the person who can really make the most of the widest variety of weapons. But in practice, is getting to master 4 or 5 of them of any real value?
Most of the time, for a melee fighter, you’ll have your melee weapon, probably a thrown weapon for when you can’t quite get close enough, and that longbow that you’ve got just in case, but in reality you use it twice in the campaign. If you’re a ranged fighter, you’ve got your bow (or xbow) and that rapier in case they get close, and that’s about it.
I guess my problem is treating getting extra weapon masteries as a big class feature, when you’ll almost never need more than the three you get at level 1.
Also, feel free to discuss the masteries in general. We can’t let all the threads be about the warlock changes.
people have said this a lot, but I'm not sure how much they actually playtested weapon mastery.
weapon mastery isn't an, I'm good at these two weapons thing, its, I have these capabilities in my aresenal for the day. They are also not, I have learned topple, its I can use topple on trident. If you want to also topple with greatsword, that is an extra mastery slot.
two masteries is incredibly limiting. Lets take a monk, they might want nick so they can unarmed attack and free attack in one turn. That means most of the time, for dps focused rounds, they probably want nick, and vex. However, if they need to knock something down, they need a quarterstaff mastery. They can never do the dps combo, and topple in the same day.
you can easily imagine the same monk might want to push an enemy off a cliff, into aoe, or away from an ally, so the ally can move without Aoo. that would need 4 masteries in one day.
masteries are basically like prepared spells. Sure some people may only use 2 ever, but the guy with 6 cantrips has a lot more options in battle.
Having play tested it a lot outside the fighter its a shit feature just because its boring as heck and slows down the game in many cases. The fighter who has enough and can change between them quickly without weapon swaps is actually somewhat entertaining with it. So, yes 2 masteries is incredibly limiting.
How I wish it actually was you learned the mastery and could apply it to any weapon that qualified for it. Then 2 masteries would be pretty decent and a little entertaining.
Since they were first released I've believed it should simply be a yes/no feature. Either you can use the mastery property of any weapon you are proficient with, or you can't use masteries at all. I hate this swapping between a small number of weapons between LRs.
I get that masteries are based on cantrips, but I hate it. I don't want martials to play like spellcasters!
Making them stronger but with limited uses would probably result in more interesting game play, though at that point they're kind of redundant with battle master maneuvers.
One of the things that Baldur's Gate 3 does with weapons that's interesting is that if you're proficient with a weapon you gain several special attacks that you can only use once each per short rest. While these do kind of compete with battle master, since the battle master also gets these it isn't really a problem as it basically just lets them do even more.
Obviously they could tie this instead to weapon mastery rather than just proficiency, but these bonus action attacks are a lot more fun; for a start they're extra things that you actively get to do, and a lot of them benefit coordination. Most of these are a bonus on top of an ordinary attack, but a few are special actions or bonus actions, some trade a lower damage dice for a strong effect. For example, the Backbreaker attack on warhammers and mauls deals 1d4 + STR damage, but can knock the target prone.
There are some that aren't all that balanced, and overall it's a bit complex for a direct port, but if WotC had two mastery actions per weapon (with crossover for similar weapons) they could balance it more easily. You can read the full list of Baldur's Gate 3 weapon actions here (bg3.wiki), it's a pretty good set IMO and a lot of fun to use. There is some overlap with mastery features, for example "Tenacity" is basically Graze but as a reaction to missing. Even though they're limited use, I find it more engaging than fixed masteries, and the fact you get several rather than just one is a big part of that appeal.
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.
At first blush, I really like the weapon masteries. They’re interesting, they’ll give martials little but impactful choices to make in combat, in every round if not with every attack. Being able to change which weapon you master is needed flexibility, and adding multiple master ties to the same weapon, or shifting them around is fantastic. What I don’t get is the idea of increasing the number of weapons a fighter can master. In theory, it certainly makes sense, and gives fighters really good flavor as the person who can really make the most of the widest variety of weapons. But in practice, is getting to master 4 or 5 of them of any real value?
Most of the time, for a melee fighter, you’ll have your melee weapon, probably a thrown weapon for when you can’t quite get close enough, and that longbow that you’ve got just in case, but in reality you use it twice in the campaign. If you’re a ranged fighter, you’ve got your bow (or xbow) and that rapier in case they get close, and that’s about it.
I guess my problem is treating getting extra weapon masteries as a big class feature, when you’ll almost never need more than the three you get at level 1.
Also, feel free to discuss the masteries in general. We can’t let all the threads be about the warlock changes.
people have said this a lot, but I'm not sure how much they actually playtested weapon mastery.
weapon mastery isn't an, I'm good at these two weapons thing, its, I have these capabilities in my aresenal for the day. They are also not, I have learned topple, its I can use topple on trident. If you want to also topple with greatsword, that is an extra mastery slot.
two masteries is incredibly limiting. Lets take a monk, they might want nick so they can unarmed attack and free attack in one turn. That means most of the time, for dps focused rounds, they probably want nick, and vex. However, if they need to knock something down, they need a quarterstaff mastery. They can never do the dps combo, and topple in the same day.
you can easily imagine the same monk might want to push an enemy off a cliff, into aoe, or away from an ally, so the ally can move without Aoo. that would need 4 masteries in one day.
masteries are basically like prepared spells. Sure some people may only use 2 ever, but the guy with 6 cantrips has a lot more options in battle.
Let's not take a monk, since, well, there's a, like, thousand-post thread about the many problems with a monk. Let's take the fighter, as I had originally. Particularly since that's the one that gets extra masteries and treats it like its a big deal. And also because we don't yet know how masteries will interact with monk's unarmed strike, so its not entirely clear what a monk will be able to do.
But for the fighter, at the point where you're getting 5 or 6 of them, you're probably rolling around with a really good primary weapon. And also, by then, you can put whatever mastery you like on that weapon. Want your vorpal longsword to have push today instead of sap, you got it. You get into a fight and realize push isn't really going to work for you in this battle. Do you, swap your vorpal sword for that +1 morning star that's been gathering dust in your pack, because you really want to sap someone after all, or do you just deal with not having the perfect mastery for the next 3-5 rounds until the fight ends and keep using the vorpal sword?
Now, yes, I cherry picked weapons that may be pretty extreme examples to make the point. But really, how often are any characters running around with multiple weapons of the same quality tier? Weapons close enough in power to the point where the mastery option outweighs the weapon's non-mastery properties. If I've got a Frost Brand Greatsword, I'm not putting it down because I really need to topple instead of graze, unless my maul is just as good. I guess in some very high-magic campaigns, someone might have a frost brand and a maul that's just as good, but that sort of thing doesn't happen often. That's the point I was trying to make. You're going to just use the better weapon and accept a lesser mastery for a minute.
Also, while I'm at it, I'm really annoyed they dropped the fighter feature that let you put two masteries on the same weapon at the same time. I imagine it was probably abuse-able, but that's the kind of thing that was going to give people some tactical choices within each fight. And it really would have made the fighter stand out from other classes which get masteries.
Making them stronger but with limited uses would probably result in more interesting game play, though at that point they're kind of redundant with battle master maneuvers.
One of the things that Baldur's Gate 3 does with weapons that's interesting is that if you're proficient with a weapon you gain several special attacks that you can only use once each per short rest. While these do kind of compete with battle master, since the battle master also gets these it isn't really a problem as it basically just lets them do even more.
Obviously they could tie this instead to weapon mastery rather than just proficiency, but these bonus action attacks are a lot more fun; for a start they're extra things that you actively get to do, and a lot of them benefit coordination. Most of these are a bonus on top of an ordinary attack, but a few are special actions or bonus actions, some trade a lower damage dice for a strong effect. For example, the Backbreaker attack on warhammers and mauls deals 1d4 + STR damage, but can knock the target prone.
There are some that aren't all that balanced, and overall it's a bit complex for a direct port, but if WotC had two mastery actions per weapon (with crossover for similar weapons) they could balance it more easily. You can read the full list of Baldur's Gate 3 weapon actions here (bg3.wiki), it's a pretty good set IMO and a lot of fun to use. There is some overlap with mastery features, for example "Tenacity" is basically Graze but as a reaction to missing. Even though they're limited use, I find it more engaging than fixed masteries, and the fact you get several rather than just one is a big part of that appeal.
I don't like once per SR features. I prefer masteries because they are available when the situation demands it, not once per SR. And even then its a lot more tolerable in BG3 where you have complete control of resting and can do it whenever you want.
At first blush, I really like the weapon masteries. They’re interesting, they’ll give martials little but impactful choices to make in combat, in every round if not with every attack. Being able to change which weapon you master is needed flexibility, and adding multiple master ties to the same weapon, or shifting them around is fantastic. What I don’t get is the idea of increasing the number of weapons a fighter can master. In theory, it certainly makes sense, and gives fighters really good flavor as the person who can really make the most of the widest variety of weapons. But in practice, is getting to master 4 or 5 of them of any real value?
Most of the time, for a melee fighter, you’ll have your melee weapon, probably a thrown weapon for when you can’t quite get close enough, and that longbow that you’ve got just in case, but in reality you use it twice in the campaign. If you’re a ranged fighter, you’ve got your bow (or xbow) and that rapier in case they get close, and that’s about it.
I guess my problem is treating getting extra weapon masteries as a big class feature, when you’ll almost never need more than the three you get at level 1.
Also, feel free to discuss the masteries in general. We can’t let all the threads be about the warlock changes.
people have said this a lot, but I'm not sure how much they actually playtested weapon mastery.
weapon mastery isn't an, I'm good at these two weapons thing, its, I have these capabilities in my aresenal for the day. They are also not, I have learned topple, its I can use topple on trident. If you want to also topple with greatsword, that is an extra mastery slot.
two masteries is incredibly limiting. Lets take a monk, they might want nick so they can unarmed attack and free attack in one turn. That means most of the time, for dps focused rounds, they probably want nick, and vex. However, if they need to knock something down, they need a quarterstaff mastery. They can never do the dps combo, and topple in the same day.
you can easily imagine the same monk might want to push an enemy off a cliff, into aoe, or away from an ally, so the ally can move without Aoo. that would need 4 masteries in one day.
masteries are basically like prepared spells. Sure some people may only use 2 ever, but the guy with 6 cantrips has a lot more options in battle.
Let's not take a monk, since, well, there's a, like, thousand-post thread about the many problems with a monk. Let's take the fighter, as I had originally. Particularly since that's the one that gets extra masteries and treats it like its a big deal. And also because we don't yet know how masteries will interact with monk's unarmed strike, so its not entirely clear what a monk will be able to do.
But for the fighter, at the point where you're getting 5 or 6 of them, you're probably rolling around with a really good primary weapon. And also, by then, you can put whatever mastery you like on that weapon. Want your vorpal longsword to have push today instead of sap, you got it. You get into a fight and realize push isn't really going to work for you in this battle. Do you, swap your vorpal sword for that +1 morning star that's been gathering dust in your pack, because you really want to sap someone after all, or do you just deal with not having the perfect mastery for the next 3-5 rounds until the fight ends and keep using the vorpal sword?
Now, yes, I cherry picked weapons that may be pretty extreme examples to make the point. But really, how often are any characters running around with multiple weapons of the same quality tier? Weapons close enough in power to the point where the mastery option outweighs the weapon's non-mastery properties. If I've got a Frost Brand Greatsword, I'm not putting it down because I really need to topple instead of graze, unless my maul is just as good. I guess in some very high-magic campaigns, someone might have a frost brand and a maul that's just as good, but that sort of thing doesn't happen often. That's the point I was trying to make. You're going to just use the better weapon and accept a lesser mastery for a minute.
Also, while I'm at it, I'm really annoyed they dropped the fighter feature that let you put two masteries on the same weapon at the same time. I imagine it was probably abuse-able, but that's the kind of thing that was going to give people some tactical choices within each fight. And it really would have made the fighter stand out from other classes which get masteries.
The point of monk was just because they are two mastery, like everyone except fighter, barbarian, and oddly warlock.
fighter can't swap any properties unlimitedly, they can swap mastery that fits the properties of the weapon. longsword cant use light required masteries, or heavy req masteries.
They also have to decide in the beginning of the day which masteries for which weapons they will use.
weapon swaps are limited by number of attacks, and fighter has the most number of attacks. a lvl 20 fighter can make 6 to 10 attacks per round.
they can totally use, for example, nick, vex, push and cleave for example in one turn. the next turn they might want to nick sap topple cleave.
fighter actually has a lot of reason to want more masteries, and they are the only one who can really make good use of the system, in part because they can master a number of weapons. Other classes, its just an extra effect for their weapon, not a tactical option.
as far as quality teirs on weapons, sometimes its worth it to use a lower quality weapon, also they are probably going to have different suggested system for item acquisition. Bastions can already create magi items
I don't like once per SR features. I prefer masteries because they are available when the situation demands it, not once per SR. And even then its a lot more tolerable in BG3 where you have complete control of resting and can do it whenever you want.
Not saying it should be ported directly; once per short rest abilities are less of a burden in Baldur's Gate 3 because short rests happen instantly whenever you want (you're just limited to two per long rest unless you have a Bard with Song of Rest).
It would probably make more sense if you had something like proficiency uses per short rest, shared between all weapon actions. Once they're made limited use (on success), the actions can then become strategic and impactful rather than either being spammed annoyances or passive yawnfests.
Battle master could even then be built upon such system, i.e- manoeuvres would be special weapon actions (not tied to any specific weapon) with superiority dice giving you extra uses that gain a bonus from the roll (damage by default unless specified otherwise).
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.
The point of monk was just because they are two mastery, like everyone except fighter, barbarian, and oddly warlock.
fighter can't swap any properties unlimitedly, they can swap mastery that fits the properties of the weapon. longsword cant use light required masteries, or heavy req masteries.
They also have to decide in the beginning of the day which masteries for which weapons they will use.
weapon swaps are limited by number of attacks, and fighter has the most number of attacks. a lvl 20 fighter can make 6 to 10 attacks per round.
they can totally use, for example, nick, vex, push and cleave for example in one turn. the next turn they might want to nick sap topple cleave.
fighter actually has a lot of reason to want more masteries, and they are the only one who can really make good use of the system, in part because they can master a number of weapons. Other classes, its just an extra effect for their weapon, not a tactical option.
as far as quality teirs on weapons, sometimes its worth it to use a lower quality weapon, also they are probably going to have different suggested system for item acquisition. Bastions can already create magi items
Yes, a fighter can have 5-6 weapons mastered at a time. They can, theoretically, swap among them in a given round. My point is, they won’t actually do it.
For one, they’re never going to swap a 1-handed weapon for a 2-handed, because they’ll lose an action doffing their shield. Second, they won’t have that many good weapons (I mean, how often are you walking around carrying 4 or 5 melee weapons, anyway?) And even if you are, you’re not going to swap your +3 weapon for a +1 because the mastery on the +1 is better in a given situation. You’ll just use the +3, so you can hit more reliably, and do damage more reliably. Damaging is always going to be more important, because dead is the status effect you most want to apply to an enemy.
And, if you throw in the possibility of having something like crusher/slasher/piercer, you’re going to be actively discouraged from a lot of swapping.
There's such an obvious solution for weapon masteries, I'm surprised WotC hasn't seen it. Martials learn 2 masteries, and can apply them to any valid weapon. On further levels, most Martials will get more masteries, and can apply two valid masteries to the same weapon, choosing one to use per attack or per turn. Fighters can do more things, like apply 3 valid masteries per weapon, or apply one invalid mastery to a weapon to make wild combos, or apply 2 masteries to a valid weapon and can use them both on the same attack. Suddenly weapons get much more customizeable, and provide turn by turn tactics while retaining Fighter identity as master of melee combat.
The point of monk was just because they are two mastery, like everyone except fighter, barbarian, and oddly warlock.
fighter can't swap any properties unlimitedly, they can swap mastery that fits the properties of the weapon. longsword cant use light required masteries, or heavy req masteries.
They also have to decide in the beginning of the day which masteries for which weapons they will use.
weapon swaps are limited by number of attacks, and fighter has the most number of attacks. a lvl 20 fighter can make 6 to 10 attacks per round.
they can totally use, for example, nick, vex, push and cleave for example in one turn. the next turn they might want to nick sap topple cleave.
fighter actually has a lot of reason to want more masteries, and they are the only one who can really make good use of the system, in part because they can master a number of weapons. Other classes, its just an extra effect for their weapon, not a tactical option.
as far as quality teirs on weapons, sometimes its worth it to use a lower quality weapon, also they are probably going to have different suggested system for item acquisition. Bastions can already create magi items
Yes, a fighter can have 5-6 weapons mastered at a time. They can, theoretically, swap among them in a given round. My point is, they won’t actually do it.
For one, they’re never going to swap a 1-handed weapon for a 2-handed, because they’ll lose an action doffing their shield. Second, they won’t have that many good weapons (I mean, how often are you walking around carrying 4 or 5 melee weapons, anyway?) And even if you are, you’re not going to swap your +3 weapon for a +1 because the mastery on the +1 is better in a given situation. You’ll just use the +3, so you can hit more reliably, and do damage more reliably. Damaging is always going to be more important, because dead is the status effect you most want to apply to an enemy.
And, if you throw in the possibility of having something like crusher/slasher/piercer, you’re going to be actively discouraged from a lot of swapping.
Basic +X weapons are generally plentiful and don't require attunement so you can easily rack up an arsenal of +X weapons.
The point of monk was just because they are two mastery, like everyone except fighter, barbarian, and oddly warlock.
fighter can't swap any properties unlimitedly, they can swap mastery that fits the properties of the weapon. longsword cant use light required masteries, or heavy req masteries.
They also have to decide in the beginning of the day which masteries for which weapons they will use.
weapon swaps are limited by number of attacks, and fighter has the most number of attacks. a lvl 20 fighter can make 6 to 10 attacks per round.
they can totally use, for example, nick, vex, push and cleave for example in one turn. the next turn they might want to nick sap topple cleave.
fighter actually has a lot of reason to want more masteries, and they are the only one who can really make good use of the system, in part because they can master a number of weapons. Other classes, its just an extra effect for their weapon, not a tactical option.
as far as quality teirs on weapons, sometimes its worth it to use a lower quality weapon, also they are probably going to have different suggested system for item acquisition. Bastions can already create magi items
Yes, a fighter can have 5-6 weapons mastered at a time. They can, theoretically, swap among them in a given round. My point is, they won’t actually do it.
For one, they’re never going to swap a 1-handed weapon for a 2-handed, because they’ll lose an action doffing their shield. Second, they won’t have that many good weapons (I mean, how often are you walking around carrying 4 or 5 melee weapons, anyway?) And even if you are, you’re not going to swap your +3 weapon for a +1 because the mastery on the +1 is better in a given situation. You’ll just use the +3, so you can hit more reliably, and do damage more reliably. Damaging is always going to be more important, because dead is the status effect you most want to apply to an enemy.
And, if you throw in the possibility of having something like crusher/slasher/piercer, you’re going to be actively discouraged from a lot of swapping.
Basic +X weapons are generally plentiful and don't require attunement so you can easily rack up an arsenal of +X weapons.
In the campaign I’ve been playing in for the last 5+ years everyone has a magic weapon but 3 of the 5 players have one magic weapon while two of us have two. I have a +1 spear that I’ve had since about 4th level and a +3 Moon Sickle (mainly for the DC bump on my Land Druid) that I got at 14th or 15th level. My DM let each player choose one magic item, which he had to approve, as a gift from an ancient red dragon we helped. The other character that has two magic weapons is the Fighter.
So I don’t know if I would call that an arsenal of +X weapons after 16 levels of play.
Remember it doesn't have a once per turn limitation, nor is it affected by difficult terrain; pushing a target by enough that it can't reach anyone isn't that unlikely. Push isn't useful in every fight, but when it is useful, it's really useful.
Only 1 ranged weapon has push, so you're exclusively talking about a Heavy Crossbow wielding 11th level Fighter.
people have said this a lot, but I'm not sure how much they actually playtested weapon mastery.
weapon mastery isn't an, I'm good at these two weapons thing, its, I have these capabilities in my aresenal for the day. They are also not, I have learned topple, its I can use topple on trident. If you want to also topple with greatsword, that is an extra mastery slot.
two masteries is incredibly limiting. Lets take a monk, they might want nick so they can unarmed attack and free attack in one turn. That means most of the time, for dps focused rounds, they probably want nick, and vex. However, if they need to knock something down, they need a quarterstaff mastery. They can never do the dps combo, and topple in the same day.
you can easily imagine the same monk might want to push an enemy off a cliff, into aoe, or away from an ally, so the ally can move without Aoo. that would need 4 masteries in one day.
masteries are basically like prepared spells. Sure some people may only use 2 ever, but the guy with 6 cantrips has a lot more options in battle.
its not just one person on the field. if one person topples, the other person with a pike can push, push and step back 10 feet. it takes 15 feet to stand, and can't reach the guy who pushed them.
there is also a sentinel guy who can push 20 feet, then push as a reaction if the monster tries to approach them or people behind him.
polearm guy can push pike push with its haft as a BA, take out a heavy xbow and push, then step back 20 feet.
Brawler can decide on attack which mastery to use, so they can topple with a reach improvised, then push two times on their own (2 attacks+BA)
So if the two martial characters in the party happen to both be right next to each other and they happen to have rolled initiative so they act in the correct order and they happen to have taken the those two particular weapon masteries and they hit / enemy fails the save and them hitting that many times doesn't just kill the enemy. That seems pretty circumstantial to me...
vex does nothing if you already have advantage, which you have a lot of means of doing in 1dnd. graze also becomes less effective the more accurate you are.
As someone who ran a lot of numbers and playtested a bunch of times, Flex was actually fairly useful for twf and sword and board. Because you often had at some point gotten most of the benefit from other masteries. One guy prone+grapples enemy, what do the other two melee guys do to help him eliminate the enemy? vex/graze/push/topple/slow all become of no use. you basically can sap it.
the problem is it was boring, and actually ran counter to the idea of a versatile weapon. It made them less versatile, IE no reason to use them two handed.
mathematically, some builds will end up being worse now, in actual team play.
uhhh, two martials are likely to be within 5 to 10 feet of an enemy. And players can choose where they are in battle.
topple is one of the baseline masteries, that if you have access to, you will probably take, however the more people that have it, the less useful it is.
masteries can be selected each day. Its highly likely players will pick complimentary masteries based on what the other guys can do, since many mastery effects don't stack well.
and, to the point of this thread, yes, the more masteries you have access to, the more you can use them circumstantially, instead of picking the two that are best in general. You can have access to generally useful and specifically useful in the same day.
And that was only one example of the way to pull that off, I provided two others that only need 1 player. there are more, with BM, EK, feats, barbarian, etc.
If its only one enemy you might have a point. But lets say you are facing two ogres, crowd controlling one of them while the melee people dog pile the other reduces the damage taken. This is why repelling blast is such a solid feature for eldritch blast not for environmental damage gimmicks.
Having play tested it a lot outside the fighter its a shit feature just because its boring as heck and slows down the game in many cases. The fighter who has enough and can change between them quickly without weapon swaps is actually somewhat entertaining with it. So, yes 2 masteries is incredibly limiting.
How I wish it actually was you learned the mastery and could apply it to any weapon that qualified for it. Then 2 masteries would be pretty decent and a little entertaining.
A level 9+ fighter can add push to any two-handed weapon.
I must say that the mastery feature does have major problems in general:
Making them stronger but with limited uses would probably result in more interesting game play, though at that point they're kind of redundant with battle master maneuvers.
Since they were first released I've believed it should simply be a yes/no feature. Either you can use the mastery property of any weapon you are proficient with, or you can't use masteries at all. I hate this swapping between a small number of weapons between LRs.
I get that masteries are based on cantrips, but I hate it. I don't want martials to play like spellcasters!
One of the things that Baldur's Gate 3 does with weapons that's interesting is that if you're proficient with a weapon you gain several special attacks that you can only use once each per short rest. While these do kind of compete with battle master, since the battle master also gets these it isn't really a problem as it basically just lets them do even more.
Obviously they could tie this instead to weapon mastery rather than just proficiency, but these bonus action attacks are a lot more fun; for a start they're extra things that you actively get to do, and a lot of them benefit coordination. Most of these are a bonus on top of an ordinary attack, but a few are special actions or bonus actions, some trade a lower damage dice for a strong effect. For example, the Backbreaker attack on warhammers and mauls deals 1d4 + STR damage, but can knock the target prone.
There are some that aren't all that balanced, and overall it's a bit complex for a direct port, but if WotC had two mastery actions per weapon (with crossover for similar weapons) they could balance it more easily. You can read the full list of Baldur's Gate 3 weapon actions here (bg3.wiki), it's a pretty good set IMO and a lot of fun to use. There is some overlap with mastery features, for example "Tenacity" is basically Graze but as a reaction to missing. Even though they're limited use, I find it more engaging than fixed masteries, and the fact you get several rather than just one is a big part of that appeal.
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 not take a monk, since, well, there's a, like, thousand-post thread about the many problems with a monk. Let's take the fighter, as I had originally. Particularly since that's the one that gets extra masteries and treats it like its a big deal. And also because we don't yet know how masteries will interact with monk's unarmed strike, so its not entirely clear what a monk will be able to do.
But for the fighter, at the point where you're getting 5 or 6 of them, you're probably rolling around with a really good primary weapon. And also, by then, you can put whatever mastery you like on that weapon. Want your vorpal longsword to have push today instead of sap, you got it. You get into a fight and realize push isn't really going to work for you in this battle. Do you, swap your vorpal sword for that +1 morning star that's been gathering dust in your pack, because you really want to sap someone after all, or do you just deal with not having the perfect mastery for the next 3-5 rounds until the fight ends and keep using the vorpal sword?
Now, yes, I cherry picked weapons that may be pretty extreme examples to make the point. But really, how often are any characters running around with multiple weapons of the same quality tier? Weapons close enough in power to the point where the mastery option outweighs the weapon's non-mastery properties. If I've got a Frost Brand Greatsword, I'm not putting it down because I really need to topple instead of graze, unless my maul is just as good. I guess in some very high-magic campaigns, someone might have a frost brand and a maul that's just as good, but that sort of thing doesn't happen often. That's the point I was trying to make. You're going to just use the better weapon and accept a lesser mastery for a minute.
Also, while I'm at it, I'm really annoyed they dropped the fighter feature that let you put two masteries on the same weapon at the same time. I imagine it was probably abuse-able, but that's the kind of thing that was going to give people some tactical choices within each fight. And it really would have made the fighter stand out from other classes which get masteries.
I don't like once per SR features. I prefer masteries because they are available when the situation demands it, not once per SR. And even then its a lot more tolerable in BG3 where you have complete control of resting and can do it whenever you want.
The point of monk was just because they are two mastery, like everyone except fighter, barbarian, and oddly warlock.
fighter can't swap any properties unlimitedly, they can swap mastery that fits the properties of the weapon. longsword cant use light required masteries, or heavy req masteries.
They also have to decide in the beginning of the day which masteries for which weapons they will use.
weapon swaps are limited by number of attacks, and fighter has the most number of attacks. a lvl 20 fighter can make 6 to 10 attacks per round.
they can totally use, for example, nick, vex, push and cleave for example in one turn. the next turn they might want to nick sap topple cleave.
fighter actually has a lot of reason to want more masteries, and they are the only one who can really make good use of the system, in part because they can master a number of weapons. Other classes, its just an extra effect for their weapon, not a tactical option.
as far as quality teirs on weapons, sometimes its worth it to use a lower quality weapon, also they are probably going to have different suggested system for item acquisition. Bastions can already create magi items
Not saying it should be ported directly; once per short rest abilities are less of a burden in Baldur's Gate 3 because short rests happen instantly whenever you want (you're just limited to two per long rest unless you have a Bard with Song of Rest).
It would probably make more sense if you had something like proficiency uses per short rest, shared between all weapon actions. Once they're made limited use (on success), the actions can then become strategic and impactful rather than either being spammed annoyances or passive yawnfests.
Battle master could even then be built upon such system, i.e- manoeuvres would be special weapon actions (not tied to any specific weapon) with superiority dice giving you extra uses that gain a bonus from the roll (damage by default unless specified otherwise).
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.
Yes, a fighter can have 5-6 weapons mastered at a time. They can, theoretically, swap among them in a given round. My point is, they won’t actually do it.
For one, they’re never going to swap a 1-handed weapon for a 2-handed, because they’ll lose an action doffing their shield.
Second, they won’t have that many good weapons (I mean, how often are you walking around carrying 4 or 5 melee weapons, anyway?) And even if you are, you’re not going to swap your +3 weapon for a +1 because the mastery on the +1 is better in a given situation. You’ll just use the +3, so you can hit more reliably, and do damage more reliably. Damaging is always going to be more important, because dead is the status effect you most want to apply to an enemy.
And, if you throw in the possibility of having something like crusher/slasher/piercer, you’re going to be actively discouraged from a lot of swapping.
There's such an obvious solution for weapon masteries, I'm surprised WotC hasn't seen it. Martials learn 2 masteries, and can apply them to any valid weapon. On further levels, most Martials will get more masteries, and can apply two valid masteries to the same weapon, choosing one to use per attack or per turn. Fighters can do more things, like apply 3 valid masteries per weapon, or apply one invalid mastery to a weapon to make wild combos, or apply 2 masteries to a valid weapon and can use them both on the same attack. Suddenly weapons get much more customizeable, and provide turn by turn tactics while retaining Fighter identity as master of melee combat.
Basic +X weapons are generally plentiful and don't require attunement so you can easily rack up an arsenal of +X weapons.
In the campaign I’ve been playing in for the last 5+ years everyone has a magic weapon but 3 of the 5 players have one magic weapon while two of us have two. I have a +1 spear that I’ve had since about 4th level and a +3 Moon Sickle (mainly for the DC bump on my Land Druid) that I got at 14th or 15th level. My DM let each player choose one magic item, which he had to approve, as a gift from an ancient red dragon we helped. The other character that has two magic weapons is the Fighter.
So I don’t know if I would call that an arsenal of +X weapons after 16 levels of play.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?