Question. Has anyone found anything about Mastery properties for Unarmed? With Unarmed Fighting Style, fighters who specialize as breakers are kind of cheated, otherwise.
Currently playing fighter with this style, tavern brawler, and expertise in Athletics which I will convert to the Grappled feat.
Sorry, no mastery properties for unarmed strikes as they are not weapons to have properties on. But the new tavern brawler and grappler feat will help, as you mentioned for your fighter.
I feel like the Weapon Masteries were a step in the right direction but fell flat in their follow through. Some major oversights in my opinion was the lack of interplay between the weapon and the mastery in a lot of cases where there is already a better weapon.
Like the Whip it has Slow attached to it and is a Reach weapon with lackluster damage. Why slow? What will decreasing someone's movement by 10ft do unless you're kiting which is an real scene has to be the scenario sort of thing. Rather Topple on the Whip giving the wielder the option to trip an opponent with a Whip which iirc was in 3.5e feels like a more useful option with the reach function. It also halves their movement speed to stand so kiting is still an option. Or maybe even a Disarm would have been cool for the Whip.
How about the Longsword? It isn't employed that much in a lot of campaigns because there are stronger two handed weapons like a Greatsword and just as powerful but more advantageous one handed weapons like a Rapier. What the Longsword has to its boon is Versatile which would be great if that also applied to the masteries to signify how it is the quintessential all arounder knight's sword. They should have given it Vex which the Shorts word ie a one-handed sword and Sap the two-handed sword mastery so as a play you could choose while fighting to go two or one handed literally playing out your fighter's technically ability with the sword in how you choose wield it from one attack to the next.
I know I am already homebrewing rules for this in my game and I am happy they did it I just feel like they fell a but short.
Longsword was an afterthought. It was supposed to have flex, but people complained about it. Flex would have been mathematically amazing, but we can't have nice things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Longsword was an afterthought. It was supposed to have flex, but people complained about it. Flex would have been mathematically amazing, but we can't have nice things.
This kind of epitomizes my issue with the discourse around martials. People complained that martials are boring, that weapons are boring, because they all do the exact same thing. They said they wanted martials to have options but then when WotC add in a bunch of options, people immediately start complaining their their favourite weapon from an aesthetic point of view doesn't have the most powerful option in terms of dealing damage attached to it. I kind of wish WotC had made all of the Weapon Masteries DPR-neutral, and instead only had them debuff the enemy - slow, sap, disarm, something that prevents them making opportunity attacks, something that reduces their ac by 1 or that gives a -1d4 to their next saving throw.
Longsword was an afterthought. It was supposed to have flex, but people complained about it. Flex would have been mathematically amazing, but we can't have nice things.
This kind of epitomizes my issue with the discourse around martials. People complained that martials are boring, that weapons are boring, because they all do the exact same thing. They said they wanted martials to have options but then when WotC add in a bunch of options, people immediately start complaining their their favourite weapon from an aesthetic point of view doesn't have the most powerful option in terms of dealing damage attached to it. I kind of wish WotC had made all of the Weapon Masteries DPR-neutral, and instead only had them debuff the enemy - slow, sap, disarm, something that prevents them making opportunity attacks, something that reduces their ac by 1 or that gives a -1d4 to their next saving throw.
I'd of been fine with DPR neutral, my main issue is I don't think they should be linked to weapons. Let the maritals learn a certain number of masteries as they level, and they can freely use them with whatever weapon they want. While I get the weapon diversity argument, I think having more options at the fly is more important to entertaining game play.
Longsword was an afterthought. It was supposed to have flex, but people complained about it. Flex would have been mathematically amazing, but we can't have nice things.
This kind of epitomizes my issue with the discourse around martials. People complained that martials are boring, that weapons are boring, because they all do the exact same thing. They said they wanted martials to have options but then when WotC add in a bunch of options, people immediately start complaining their their favourite weapon from an aesthetic point of view doesn't have the most powerful option in terms of dealing damage attached to it. I kind of wish WotC had made all of the Weapon Masteries DPR-neutral, and instead only had them debuff the enemy - slow, sap, disarm, something that prevents them making opportunity attacks, something that reduces their ac by 1 or that gives a -1d4 to their next saving throw.
I'd of been fine with DPR neutral, my main issue is I don't think they should be linked to weapons. Let the maritals learn a certain number of masteries as they level, and they can freely use them with whatever weapon they want. While I get the weapon diversity argument, I think having more options at the fly is more important to entertaining game play.
Dagger with topple or push doesn’t seem right to me so making WM divorced from weapon seems like it would allow weird combos.
My main problem with WM is they have the Unarmed Fighting Style, yet know mastery for Unarmed combat, which shortchanges anyone that takes that style...
Longsword was an afterthought. It was supposed to have flex, but people complained about it. Flex would have been mathematically amazing, but we can't have nice things.
This kind of epitomizes my issue with the discourse around martials. People complained that martials are boring, that weapons are boring, because they all do the exact same thing. They said they wanted martials to have options but then when WotC add in a bunch of options, people immediately start complaining their their favourite weapon from an aesthetic point of view doesn't have the most powerful option in terms of dealing damage attached to it. I kind of wish WotC had made all of the Weapon Masteries DPR-neutral, and instead only had them debuff the enemy - slow, sap, disarm, something that prevents them making opportunity attacks, something that reduces their ac by 1 or that gives a -1d4 to their next saving throw.
I'd of been fine with DPR neutral, my main issue is I don't think they should be linked to weapons. Let the maritals learn a certain number of masteries as they level, and they can freely use them with whatever weapon they want. While I get the weapon diversity argument, I think having more options at the fly is more important to entertaining game play.
Dagger with topple or push doesn’t seem right to me so making WM divorced from weapon seems like it would allow weird combos.
I don't really have any issue with the Dagger WM. It makes sense and can totally make a Monk broken because they can use daggers, do an attack, nick, FoB etc. I kind of like that and on a pure rogue build like an assassin it makes them great for hit and run because you can Attack, Nick, Disengage etc.
I think the DPR not being tied to weapons is a good idea and I like that they kept what we got on the conservative side of things, but I just feel like some of the WM choices were a bit off. Again, Whips getting Slow is pointless and does nothing to lure me into using a Whip. A Whip with Topple would though because I could Whip from 10ft then once they are prone run in and dagger them. Great rogue combo. I think that is more so how fighters or martials should be played. Instead of one powerful spell/move its a bunch of stacking combos and buffs to make it work.
As for Longsword, I made it my primary weapon for my Psi-Warrior, so I am a bit miffed that they only give Fighters one Fighting Style now; RAW apparently only lets us take the Fighter Feats upon taking the class same with Origin when creating, and it has Versatile so now I cannot take both Two Weapon Fighting and Duelist to capitalize on that unique property of the Longsword nor is using it one way or the other to provide a unique WM benefit. So, the Versatility of the weapon is kind of meaningless. Which just feels like a missed opportunity.
It is a missed opportunity. That opportunity was "flex" which would have allowed you to do your versatile damage, while using the weapon one handed. So your sword and shield character would have been hitting with a d10 using your versatile weapon one handed. Then you'd take duelling on top of that and be averaging the same kind of average damage that a two hand specialist was doing.
But people thought that was boring, so now, it's sap. Yay. I can hardly contain my excitement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
It is a missed opportunity. That opportunity was "flex" which would have allowed you to do your versatile damage, while using the weapon one handed. So your sword and shield character would have been hitting with a d10 using your versatile weapon one handed. Then you'd take duelling on top of that and be averaging the same kind of average damage that a two hand specialist was doing.
But people thought that was boring, so now, it's sap. Yay. I can hardly contain my excitement.
I feel like that is a missed opportunity. It doesn't mechanically express the item's characteristic of being "versatile" or something to be used in different ways to do different things. Flex is just a min/max damage boost. It makes it better in a martial's hands, but it doesn't make it really stand out. Giving it the versatility of wielding it in one hand for Sap and two-handed for Vex is a nice way to mechanically express that this weapon can be used in different grips. Almost as if it is a different sword fighting style. As a fighter then once you get two attacks you can open two-handed to Vex an opponent for the advantage and then drop into a guard by switching to a one-handed grip to Sap the opponent to give them a disadvantage. It makes pure Longsword without a shield more viable and more technical. Flex is just points on a die and not an expression of the weapon's character.
Longsword was an afterthought. It was supposed to have flex, but people complained about it. Flex would have been mathematically amazing, but we can't have nice things.
This kind of epitomizes my issue with the discourse around martials. People complained that martials are boring, that weapons are boring, because they all do the exact same thing. They said they wanted martials to have options but then when WotC add in a bunch of options, people immediately start complaining their their favourite weapon from an aesthetic point of view doesn't have the most powerful option in terms of dealing damage attached to it. I kind of wish WotC had made all of the Weapon Masteries DPR-neutral, and instead only had them debuff the enemy - slow, sap, disarm, something that prevents them making opportunity attacks, something that reduces their ac by 1 or that gives a -1d4 to their next saving throw.
I'd of been fine with DPR neutral, my main issue is I don't think they should be linked to weapons. Let the maritals learn a certain number of masteries as they level, and they can freely use them with whatever weapon they want. While I get the weapon diversity argument, I think having more options at the fly is more important to entertaining game play.
Dagger with topple or push doesn’t seem right to me so making WM divorced from weapon seems like it would allow weird combos.
No weapon makes sense with push. And any weapon makes sense with topple as it makes sense with unarmed combat and you body is still available while using a daggers, but even without the rest of your body a dagger to the back of your knee might knock you down.
For many of these especially given how often it can trigger I just accept its basically magic as bolts will not push someone back, especially not 10 feet even Hollywood shotguns don't throw people back 10 feet, maybe Bollywood. Every time you kit someone you wont create a opening, Every time yo hit someone you wont knock them off balance so they are at disadvantage to attack. Every time you hit someone it wont slow them etc. Its magic at this point.
Honestly, I would prefer weapon specials that are less common but more significant; bg3 making them encounter powers worked well for me.
Same but that ship has sailed. I think when that many people on the field are applying conditions on every attack it will bog things down, and it just feels weird. Some kind of limit, once per encounter, strength/dex mod per day whatever and scale them up to take that into account would be better imo.
To me the missed opportunity was in not finding ways to let you switch them. I know there’s that fighter power that allows a limited form of that, and I’d hoped for more of that sort of thing. I wanted masteries to give you a round-to-round tactical choice in which one to use. Now it’s a choice at character generation, which isn’t terrible, but really after that, once the DM hands you a magic weapon, you end up locked in to whatever you got handed. I’d hoped for a system that was a little more dynamic.
Honestly, I would prefer weapon specials that are less common but more significant; bg3 making them encounter powers worked well for me.
I wish they had reoriented the game towards once-per-turn abilities rather than per attack. I'm so sick of the entire optimization meta being "how many attacks can I fit in one turn". They should have made all bonus damage - rage, smite, hunter's mark, hex, spirit shroud, etc.. - be 1/turn but a higher amount of damage, and done the same for masteries make them 1/turn only just like stunning strike, smite, and cunning strike.
Longsword was an afterthought. It was supposed to have flex, but people complained about it. Flex would have been mathematically amazing, but we can't have nice things.
This kind of epitomizes my issue with the discourse around martials. People complained that martials are boring, that weapons are boring, because they all do the exact same thing. They said they wanted martials to have options but then when WotC add in a bunch of options, people immediately start complaining their their favourite weapon from an aesthetic point of view doesn't have the most powerful option in terms of dealing damage attached to it. I kind of wish WotC had made all of the Weapon Masteries DPR-neutral, and instead only had them debuff the enemy - slow, sap, disarm, something that prevents them making opportunity attacks, something that reduces their ac by 1 or that gives a -1d4 to their next saving throw.
I'd of been fine with DPR neutral, my main issue is I don't think they should be linked to weapons. Let the maritals learn a certain number of masteries as they level, and they can freely use them with whatever weapon they want. While I get the weapon diversity argument, I think having more options at the fly is more important to entertaining game play.
Dagger with topple or push doesn’t seem right to me so making WM divorced from weapon seems like it would allow weird combos.
No weapon makes sense with push. And any weapon makes sense with topple as it makes sense with unarmed combat and you body is still available while using a daggers, but even without the rest of your body a dagger to the back of your knee might knock you down.
For many of these especially given how often it can trigger I just accept its basically magic as bolts will not push someone back, especially not 10 feet even Hollywood shotguns don't throw people back 10 feet, maybe Bollywood. Every time you kit someone you wont create a opening, Every time yo hit someone you wont knock them off balance so they are at disadvantage to attack. Every time you hit someone it wont slow them etc. Its magic at this point.
I don't understand how the Dagger Topples someone. It sounds like the unarmed attack does in this scenario not the Dagger itself. Which I would be cool with Unarmed getting Topple. Plus, I actually like Nick quite a bit. It is one if the better ones because it frees up the Bonus Action for Disengage or Bonus Action spells.
Honestly, I would prefer weapon specials that are less common but more significant; bg3 making them encounter powers worked well for me.
I wish they had reoriented the game towards once-per-turn abilities rather than per attack. I'm so sick of the entire optimization meta being "how many attacks can I fit in one turn". They should have made all bonus damage - rage, smite, hunter's mark, hex, spirit shroud, etc.. - be 1/turn but a higher amount of damage, and done the same for masteries make them 1/turn only just like stunning strike, smite, and cunning strike.
I agree with this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Honestly, I would prefer weapon specials that are less common but more significant; bg3 making them encounter powers worked well for me.
I wish they had reoriented the game towards once-per-turn abilities rather than per attack. I'm so sick of the entire optimization meta being "how many attacks can I fit in one turn". They should have made all bonus damage - rage, smite, hunter's mark, hex, spirit shroud, etc.. - be 1/turn but a higher amount of damage, and done the same for masteries make them 1/turn only just like stunning strike, smite, and cunning strike.
I don't think increasing the damage would be necessary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Longsword was an afterthought. It was supposed to have flex, but people complained about it. Flex would have been mathematically amazing, but we can't have nice things.
This kind of epitomizes my issue with the discourse around martials. People complained that martials are boring, that weapons are boring, because they all do the exact same thing. They said they wanted martials to have options but then when WotC add in a bunch of options, people immediately start complaining their their favourite weapon from an aesthetic point of view doesn't have the most powerful option in terms of dealing damage attached to it. I kind of wish WotC had made all of the Weapon Masteries DPR-neutral, and instead only had them debuff the enemy - slow, sap, disarm, something that prevents them making opportunity attacks, something that reduces their ac by 1 or that gives a -1d4 to their next saving throw.
I'd of been fine with DPR neutral, my main issue is I don't think they should be linked to weapons. Let the maritals learn a certain number of masteries as they level, and they can freely use them with whatever weapon they want. While I get the weapon diversity argument, I think having more options at the fly is more important to entertaining game play.
Dagger with topple or push doesn’t seem right to me so making WM divorced from weapon seems like it would allow weird combos.
No weapon makes sense with push. And any weapon makes sense with topple as it makes sense with unarmed combat and you body is still available while using a daggers, but even without the rest of your body a dagger to the back of your knee might knock you down.
For many of these especially given how often it can trigger I just accept its basically magic as bolts will not push someone back, especially not 10 feet even Hollywood shotguns don't throw people back 10 feet, maybe Bollywood. Every time you kit someone you wont create a opening, Every time yo hit someone you wont knock them off balance so they are at disadvantage to attack. Every time you hit someone it wont slow them etc. Its magic at this point.
I don't understand how the Dagger Topples someone. It sounds like the unarmed attack does in this scenario not the Dagger itself. Which I would be cool with Unarmed getting Topple. Plus, I actually like Nick quite a bit. It is one if the better ones because it frees up the Bonus Action for Disengage or Bonus Action spells.
Well since my argument is it should not be the weapons that grant masteries but the character that was the point. But if you need to see it as the dagger it can just be knife to the knee. A knife to the knee making someone fall makes a whole lot more sense than a crossbow bolt throwing someone back 10 feet.
If you look way back at the playtest for 5e, they originally didn't have extra attack as an ability, they had increased damage for single attacks (double base weapon damage, triple, quadruple).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry, no mastery properties for unarmed strikes as they are not weapons to have properties on. But the new tavern brawler and grappler feat will help, as you mentioned for your fighter.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I feel like the Weapon Masteries were a step in the right direction but fell flat in their follow through. Some major oversights in my opinion was the lack of interplay between the weapon and the mastery in a lot of cases where there is already a better weapon.
Like the Whip it has Slow attached to it and is a Reach weapon with lackluster damage. Why slow? What will decreasing someone's movement by 10ft do unless you're kiting which is an real scene has to be the scenario sort of thing. Rather Topple on the Whip giving the wielder the option to trip an opponent with a Whip which iirc was in 3.5e feels like a more useful option with the reach function. It also halves their movement speed to stand so kiting is still an option. Or maybe even a Disarm would have been cool for the Whip.
How about the Longsword? It isn't employed that much in a lot of campaigns because there are stronger two handed weapons like a Greatsword and just as powerful but more advantageous one handed weapons like a Rapier. What the Longsword has to its boon is Versatile which would be great if that also applied to the masteries to signify how it is the quintessential all arounder knight's sword. They should have given it Vex which the Shorts word ie a one-handed sword and Sap the two-handed sword mastery so as a play you could choose while fighting to go two or one handed literally playing out your fighter's technically ability with the sword in how you choose wield it from one attack to the next.
I know I am already homebrewing rules for this in my game and I am happy they did it I just feel like they fell a but short.
"Life is Cast by Random Dice"
Burn my candle twice.
I have done my life justice
Against random dice.
Longsword was an afterthought. It was supposed to have flex, but people complained about it. Flex would have been mathematically amazing, but we can't have nice things.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
This kind of epitomizes my issue with the discourse around martials. People complained that martials are boring, that weapons are boring, because they all do the exact same thing. They said they wanted martials to have options but then when WotC add in a bunch of options, people immediately start complaining their their favourite weapon from an aesthetic point of view doesn't have the most powerful option in terms of dealing damage attached to it. I kind of wish WotC had made all of the Weapon Masteries DPR-neutral, and instead only had them debuff the enemy - slow, sap, disarm, something that prevents them making opportunity attacks, something that reduces their ac by 1 or that gives a -1d4 to their next saving throw.
I'd of been fine with DPR neutral, my main issue is I don't think they should be linked to weapons. Let the maritals learn a certain number of masteries as they level, and they can freely use them with whatever weapon they want. While I get the weapon diversity argument, I think having more options at the fly is more important to entertaining game play.
Dagger with topple or push doesn’t seem right to me so making WM divorced from weapon seems like it would allow weird combos.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
My main problem with WM is they have the Unarmed Fighting Style, yet know mastery for Unarmed combat, which shortchanges anyone that takes that style...
I don't really have any issue with the Dagger WM. It makes sense and can totally make a Monk broken because they can use daggers, do an attack, nick, FoB etc. I kind of like that and on a pure rogue build like an assassin it makes them great for hit and run because you can Attack, Nick, Disengage etc.
I think the DPR not being tied to weapons is a good idea and I like that they kept what we got on the conservative side of things, but I just feel like some of the WM choices were a bit off. Again, Whips getting Slow is pointless and does nothing to lure me into using a Whip. A Whip with Topple would though because I could Whip from 10ft then once they are prone run in and dagger them. Great rogue combo. I think that is more so how fighters or martials should be played. Instead of one powerful spell/move its a bunch of stacking combos and buffs to make it work.
As for Longsword, I made it my primary weapon for my Psi-Warrior, so I am a bit miffed that they only give Fighters one Fighting Style now; RAW apparently only lets us take the Fighter Feats upon taking the class same with Origin when creating, and it has Versatile so now I cannot take both Two Weapon Fighting and Duelist to capitalize on that unique property of the Longsword nor is using it one way or the other to provide a unique WM benefit. So, the Versatility of the weapon is kind of meaningless. Which just feels like a missed opportunity.
"Life is Cast by Random Dice"
Burn my candle twice.
I have done my life justice
Against random dice.
It is a missed opportunity. That opportunity was "flex" which would have allowed you to do your versatile damage, while using the weapon one handed. So your sword and shield character would have been hitting with a d10 using your versatile weapon one handed. Then you'd take duelling on top of that and be averaging the same kind of average damage that a two hand specialist was doing.
But people thought that was boring, so now, it's sap. Yay. I can hardly contain my excitement.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I feel like that is a missed opportunity. It doesn't mechanically express the item's characteristic of being "versatile" or something to be used in different ways to do different things. Flex is just a min/max damage boost. It makes it better in a martial's hands, but it doesn't make it really stand out. Giving it the versatility of wielding it in one hand for Sap and two-handed for Vex is a nice way to mechanically express that this weapon can be used in different grips. Almost as if it is a different sword fighting style. As a fighter then once you get two attacks you can open two-handed to Vex an opponent for the advantage and then drop into a guard by switching to a one-handed grip to Sap the opponent to give them a disadvantage. It makes pure Longsword without a shield more viable and more technical. Flex is just points on a die and not an expression of the weapon's character.
"Life is Cast by Random Dice"
Burn my candle twice.
I have done my life justice
Against random dice.
No weapon makes sense with push. And any weapon makes sense with topple as it makes sense with unarmed combat and you body is still available while using a daggers, but even without the rest of your body a dagger to the back of your knee might knock you down.
For many of these especially given how often it can trigger I just accept its basically magic as bolts will not push someone back, especially not 10 feet even Hollywood shotguns don't throw people back 10 feet, maybe Bollywood. Every time you kit someone you wont create a opening, Every time yo hit someone you wont knock them off balance so they are at disadvantage to attack. Every time you hit someone it wont slow them etc. Its magic at this point.
Honestly, I would prefer weapon specials that are less common but more significant; bg3 making them encounter powers worked well for me.
Same but that ship has sailed. I think when that many people on the field are applying conditions on every attack it will bog things down, and it just feels weird. Some kind of limit, once per encounter, strength/dex mod per day whatever and scale them up to take that into account would be better imo.
To me the missed opportunity was in not finding ways to let you switch them. I know there’s that fighter power that allows a limited form of that, and I’d hoped for more of that sort of thing. I wanted masteries to give you a round-to-round tactical choice in which one to use. Now it’s a choice at character generation, which isn’t terrible, but really after that, once the DM hands you a magic weapon, you end up locked in to whatever you got handed. I’d hoped for a system that was a little more dynamic.
I wish they had reoriented the game towards once-per-turn abilities rather than per attack. I'm so sick of the entire optimization meta being "how many attacks can I fit in one turn". They should have made all bonus damage - rage, smite, hunter's mark, hex, spirit shroud, etc.. - be 1/turn but a higher amount of damage, and done the same for masteries make them 1/turn only just like stunning strike, smite, and cunning strike.
I don't understand how the Dagger Topples someone. It sounds like the unarmed attack does in this scenario not the Dagger itself. Which I would be cool with Unarmed getting Topple. Plus, I actually like Nick quite a bit. It is one if the better ones because it frees up the Bonus Action for Disengage or Bonus Action spells.
"Life is Cast by Random Dice"
Burn my candle twice.
I have done my life justice
Against random dice.
I agree with this.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don't think increasing the damage would be necessary.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Well since my argument is it should not be the weapons that grant masteries but the character that was the point. But if you need to see it as the dagger it can just be knife to the knee. A knife to the knee making someone fall makes a whole lot more sense than a crossbow bolt throwing someone back 10 feet.
If you look way back at the playtest for 5e, they originally didn't have extra attack as an ability, they had increased damage for single attacks (double base weapon damage, triple, quadruple).