Considering how low the damage sealing is now that Great Weapon Master is gone (reduced to atoms), I would like the the weapon masteries features (Mastery, Expert and Adept) to increase the damage done by a weapon that uses that mastery. How much? For starters, just multiplying the modifier used for the attack so Mastery would be X2, Expert X3 and Adept X4. Before anyone says that this is beyond broken, remember that Wizards no longer make concentration checks if they so damn desire, but I'd like to think that there may be more ways to improve the masteries beyond just damage.
I think we will have to wait and see when its all out to know how good or bad off fighters are without the old heavy weapon master. But right now with all the one feats, and weapon properties by some calculations you will be doing better than in 5e in damage. Little things like nick can add up. It is all white room crap so who knows if it will be that good in play, but check treantmonks video today about it.
I think the main issue for me is the properties are mostly boring.
Treantmonk crunches the numbers with a UA fighter that has Cleave and Graze (ignoring Vex, which he admits is probably over-tuned) and compares it to a standard 5e Great Weapon Master fighter. The UA fighter comes out way ahead on average damage, although I think he probably overestimated the number of times Cleave would probably come into play (with the restrictions of the targets both being within 5' of the fighter and within 5' of each other).
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.
I agree in some areas, disagree in others, and don't know what to think in some.
Weapon Expert and Weapon Adept appear to be basically useless. This feature is not very powerful or cool, and it will likely very rarely be used and potentially feel worthless. Swapping out masteries at best lets you do a bit more damage, and it does not feel like an important or interesting ability for tiers of play where the Fighter is supposed to be a paragon of battle.
When you look over all of the masteries, you'll see that none of them are particularly powerful. Sure, you can move someone a bit with Push or deal a couple extra points of damage through Flex or Cleave. However, the biggest thing these masteries do are give you more choices and complexity with relatively little effect.
Unfortunately, I do not see a clear alternative to masteries for those that do not want to use them. It would not be too hard for Wizards to engineer simple but still effective options that you could pick to make your weapons have less confusing but still powerful effects that were designed to simplify the process for those who seek a game where they are allowed to just take it easy and play, while staying being able to make some choices and do so damage.
This could easily be accomplished by saying "Get X weapon masteries OR this other feature", and it would be a perfectly doable way of allowing for optional simplicity or complexity. However, the playtest has chosen to provide no alternative options and over-complicate two of the Warriors that are loved for being simple.
Hopefully, WotC will eventually realize how it's possible to make something that works for both complex and simple loving players.
I worry that they won't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The extra masteries for a Fighter do not matter and the Fighter's abilities that interact with mastery come in too late and are quite boring and conservative. There is no scaling and no added depth as level goes up.
Nick & Rapier: Rogue and Ranger thank you. Why design mechanics for other classes in the Fighters toolbox?
Flex: Of course, the most poorly designed weapon ability (Versatile) gets the worst designed mastery. Maybe there is something here for the designers to learn.....like basic maths.
I would of liked to of seen the maneuvers from Battlemaster folded into the base Fighter and a couple of non combat abilities added in. It was obvious more love and care was put into the spellcasters, as usual.
The extra masteries for a Fighter do not matter and the Fighter's abilities that interact with mastery come in too late and are quite boring and conservative. There is no scaling and no added depth as level goes up.
Nick & Rapier: Rogue and Ranger thank you. Why design mechanics for other classes in the Fighters toolbox?
Flex: Of course, the most poorly designed weapon ability (Versatile) gets the worst designed mastery. Maybe there is something here for the designers to learn.....like basic maths.
I would of liked to of seen the maneuvers from Battlemaster folded into the base Fighter and a couple of non combat abilities added in. It was obvious more love and care was put into the spellcasters, as usual.
While I agree the masteries are boring and don’t add enough scaling damage to matter late game I’m confused as to why everyone hates flex. I rarely saw anyone use a versatile weapon in two hands. Most players just pick a two handed weapon. Flex + Dueling allows you a d10 and the +2 to damage while holding a shield for better AC. It’s probably the best low level option since it increases you offense and defense. Also the Dex fighter is probably the superior fighter so Nick and Vex are very good for the fighter as well.
While I agree the masteries are boring and don’t add enough scaling damage to matter late game I’m confused as to why everyone hates flex. I rarely saw anyone use a versatile weapon in two hands. Most players just pick a two handed weapon. Flex + Dueling allows you a d10 and the +2 to damage while holding a shield for better AC. It’s probably the best low level option since it increases you offense and defense. Also the Dex fighter is probably the superior fighter so Nick and Vex are very good for the fighter as well.
You might use a versatile weapon one-handed alongside a shield, the main edge they have in two-handing is that you can also Grapple; with Flex at least you wouldn't lose damage when you grab someone.
But I think Eubani's main point is that it's such a minor boost; a die step on average is only 1 point of extra damage, and it does nothing for two-handing the weapon (in fact mastering the weapon actively discourages you from ever using it two handed). So I'm also in the prefer something else camp, though I'm not sure what to replace it with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It is only 1 die step, but then it puts you on par with some 2-handed weapons (glaive and halberd), and you can use a shield. With dueling style, you’re doing more damage than glaive or halberd, or for that matter a greataxe or greatsword. Plus you get a shield boost to AC. Even if you go with the great weapon style which brings that damage up a bit, you still don’t get the shield. It is, as it always has been a trade off between offense and defense.
Plus, it’s a good choice for new players, as it’s a passive bonus, so there’s nothing to remember to do, and no tactical decisions to make about if it’s a good choice to try and knock someone prone or whatever.
I mean, to me, flex is boring and I won’t likely use it much, but looking only at damage output of these properties and ignoring other factors is looking only at part of the story.
While I agree the masteries are boring and don’t add enough scaling damage to matter late game I’m confused as to why everyone hates flex. I rarely saw anyone use a versatile weapon in two hands. Most players just pick a two handed weapon. Flex + Dueling allows you a d10 and the +2 to damage while holding a shield for better AC. It’s probably the best low level option since it increases you offense and defense. Also the Dex fighter is probably the superior fighter so Nick and Vex are very good for the fighter as well.
You might use a versatile weapon one-handed alongside a shield, the main edge they have in two-handing is that you can also Grapple; with Flex at least you wouldn't lose damage when you grab someone.
But I think Eubani's main point is that it's such a minor boost; a die step on average is only 1 point of extra damage, and it does nothing for two-handing the weapon (in fact mastering the weapon actively discourages you from ever using it two handed). So I'm also in the prefer something else camp, though I'm not sure what to replace it with.
Their was no reason to use the versatile feature unless you were small or you didn’t have access to two handed weapons. If you were small and a Str build that’s already pretty niche
I legit don't know why they don't have small sized heavy options, make the halfling maul or whatever. It is not like a twp handed swords weight is that insanely more than a long swords. Heavy is clearly more about the leverage and not the actual weight.
Their was no reason to use the versatile feature unless you were small or you didn’t have access to two handed weapons. If you were small and a Str build that’s already pretty niche
You quoted me describing another reason; grappling. You can't grapple with a two-handed weapon because then you can't attack with it, but with a versatile weapon you can (just attack one-handed while grappling).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Their was no reason to use the versatile feature unless you were small or you didn’t have access to two handed weapons. If you were small and a Str build that’s already pretty niche
You quoted me describing another reason; grappling. You can't grapple with a two-handed weapon because then you can't attack with it, but with a versatile weapon you can (just attack one-handed while grappling).
Grappling is just as niche as Str based small characters
Nick & Rapier: Rogue and Ranger thank you. Why design mechanics for other classes in the Fighters toolbox?
We have seen both Rogue and Ranger in these play-tests. Neither of them will be able to use Nick because they do not have any features that let them unlock and utilize weapon masteries.
Each weapon now has a Mastery property, as shown in the weapon tables above. That property is usable only by a character who has a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, that unlocks the property for the character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I legit don't know why they don't have small sized heavy options, make the halfling maul or whatever. It is not like a twp handed swords weight is that insanely more than a long swords. Heavy is clearly more about the leverage and not the actual weight.
It is a little odd. There used to be this weapon size vs creature size. Where if they were both medium, for example, you could one hand the weapon, if the weapon was a size larger it took two hands, and a size smaller you could dual wield. So small PCs had to use smaller weapons, but they also got an AC and to hit boost, so there was a trade off. It seems like they got rid of the boost but kept part of the size difference mechanic. Just kind of shafted small PCs on that front. But I guess there were a lot of other differences in the mix, too.
Nick & Rapier: Rogue and Ranger thank you. Why design mechanics for other classes in the Fighters toolbox?
We have seen both Rogue and Ranger in these play-tests. Neither of them will be able to use Nick because they do not have any features that let them unlock and utilize weapon masteries.
Each weapon now has a Mastery property, as shown in the weapon tables above. That property is usable only by a character who has a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, that unlocks the property for the character.
I thought they said they’ll probably give rangers a mastery, but I may be mistaken. Dual wielder rangers are an archetype that goes back to 1e, I’d be surprised if they don’t find some way to incorporate them and let them be effective
I get the impression weapon masteries were developed a bit later, and they’re still looking at the best ways to integrate them into everything.
Ranger will definitely get a way to access the system, possibly Paladin as well. Rogue I'm hopeful for too, but worst case scenario they can just dip.
The UA provides a feat, so Rogues should be able to get it that way (as they still get the extra ability score increase at 10th-level IIRC).
That said I don't think mastery in its current form is all that critical for the Rogue; Nick is nice for a pair of daggers but it's not like using a bonus action for a second attack is a huge problem, as you only need it if you missed with the first attack. Obviously being able to still Disengage or such in the same turn you needed that second attack is handy, but is it worth a feat or a multi-class dip? I'm not so sure. Meanwhile Vex is useless on a rapier if you only have one attack, and on a pair of shortswords it's taking your bonus action and only helping you do a small bit of extra damage.
I think it would be interesting to see a Rogue sub-class with weapon mastery built in though, maybe on an updated Swashbuckler? Or even the Assassin?
Update: I seem to have misunderstood Vex, I thought it was end of the current turn; in that case it might be worth it for a rapier though I'm not sure if Vex will survive the UA (seems too strong compared to the other masteries, maybe it'll stay if we get a higher level of mastery in future?).
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.
Ranger will definitely get a way to access the system, possibly Paladin as well. Rogue I'm hopeful for too, but worst case scenario they can just dip.
The UA provides a feat, so Rogues should be able to get it that way (as they still get the extra ability score increase at 10th-level IIRC).
That said I don't think mastery in its current form is all that critical for the Rogue; Nick is nice for a pair of daggers but it's not like using a bonus action for a second attack is a huge problem, as you only need it if you missed with the first attack. Obviously being able to still Disengage or such in the same turn you needed that second attack is handy, but is it worth a feat or a multi-class dip? I'm not so sure. Meanwhile Vex is useless on a rapier if you only have one attack, and on a pair of [Tooltip Not Found] it's taking your bonus action and only helping you do a small bit of extra damage.
I think it would be interesting to see a Rogue sub-class with weapon mastery built in though, maybe on an updated Swashbuckler? Or even the Assassin?
How would vex be useless? It lasts until the end of your next turn.
It really bothers me that they brought two weapon fighting to a good place in previous UA and not decided to lock that fix behind a mastery. Not only does it once again make two weapon fighting unattractive for classes without weapon mastery, it also makes it so that classes with mastery now dont get interesting mastery abilities when two weapon fighting, I truly hope they go back to the fix being universal and add actual masteries on light weapons.
Like others have mentioned, adding more masteries isnt a very exciting key feature.. First 2, maybe 3 masteries are probably useful if you are looking for a melee and ranged weapon.. but beyond that its a pretty lame feature.
Weapon mastery has me wondering about unarmed focused warrior builds.. Is a barbarian or fighter supposed to find the mastery entirely useless if they wanna build a hand-to-hand brawler? I think there needs to be an unarmed combat mastery for sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think we will have to wait and see when its all out to know how good or bad off fighters are without the old heavy weapon master. But right now with all the one feats, and weapon properties by some calculations you will be doing better than in 5e in damage. Little things like nick can add up. It is all white room crap so who knows if it will be that good in play, but check treantmonks video today about it.
I think the main issue for me is the properties are mostly boring.
Treantmonk crunches the numbers with a UA fighter that has Cleave and Graze (ignoring Vex, which he admits is probably over-tuned) and compares it to a standard 5e Great Weapon Master fighter. The UA fighter comes out way ahead on average damage, although I think he probably overestimated the number of times Cleave would probably come into play (with the restrictions of the targets both being within 5' of the fighter and within 5' of each other).
I agree in some areas, disagree in others, and don't know what to think in some.
Weapon Expert and Weapon Adept appear to be basically useless. This feature is not very powerful or cool, and it will likely very rarely be used and potentially feel worthless. Swapping out masteries at best lets you do a bit more damage, and it does not feel like an important or interesting ability for tiers of play where the Fighter is supposed to be a paragon of battle.
When you look over all of the masteries, you'll see that none of them are particularly powerful. Sure, you can move someone a bit with Push or deal a couple extra points of damage through Flex or Cleave. However, the biggest thing these masteries do are give you more choices and complexity with relatively little effect.
Unfortunately, I do not see a clear alternative to masteries for those that do not want to use them. It would not be too hard for Wizards to engineer simple but still effective options that you could pick to make your weapons have less confusing but still powerful effects that were designed to simplify the process for those who seek a game where they are allowed to just take it easy and play, while staying being able to make some choices and do so damage.
This could easily be accomplished by saying "Get X weapon masteries OR this other feature", and it would be a perfectly doable way of allowing for optional simplicity or complexity. However, the playtest has chosen to provide no alternative options and over-complicate two of the Warriors that are loved for being simple.
Hopefully, WotC will eventually realize how it's possible to make something that works for both complex and simple loving players.
I worry that they won't.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Great idea, actually. Weapon masteries could be a good way to differentiate shields.
Absolutely. I’m still campaigning for shields to be more useful.
The extra masteries for a Fighter do not matter and the Fighter's abilities that interact with mastery come in too late and are quite boring and conservative. There is no scaling and no added depth as level goes up.
Nick & Rapier: Rogue and Ranger thank you. Why design mechanics for other classes in the Fighters toolbox?
Flex: Of course, the most poorly designed weapon ability (Versatile) gets the worst designed mastery. Maybe there is something here for the designers to learn.....like basic maths.
I would of liked to of seen the maneuvers from Battlemaster folded into the base Fighter and a couple of non combat abilities added in. It was obvious more love and care was put into the spellcasters, as usual.
While I agree the masteries are boring and don’t add enough scaling damage to matter late game I’m confused as to why everyone hates flex. I rarely saw anyone use a versatile weapon in two hands. Most players just pick a two handed weapon. Flex + Dueling allows you a d10 and the +2 to damage while holding a shield for better AC. It’s probably the best low level option since it increases you offense and defense.
Also the Dex fighter is probably the superior fighter so Nick and Vex are very good for the fighter as well.
You might use a versatile weapon one-handed alongside a shield, the main edge they have in two-handing is that you can also Grapple; with Flex at least you wouldn't lose damage when you grab someone.
But I think Eubani's main point is that it's such a minor boost; a die step on average is only 1 point of extra damage, and it does nothing for two-handing the weapon (in fact mastering the weapon actively discourages you from ever using it two handed). So I'm also in the prefer something else camp, though I'm not sure what to replace it with.
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.
It is only 1 die step, but then it puts you on par with some 2-handed weapons (glaive and halberd), and you can use a shield. With dueling style, you’re doing more damage than glaive or halberd, or for that matter a greataxe or greatsword. Plus you get a shield boost to AC. Even if you go with the great weapon style which brings that damage up a bit, you still don’t get the shield. It is, as it always has been a trade off between offense and defense.
Plus, it’s a good choice for new players, as it’s a passive bonus, so there’s nothing to remember to do, and no tactical decisions to make about if it’s a good choice to try and knock someone prone or whatever.
I mean, to me, flex is boring and I won’t likely use it much, but looking only at damage output of these properties and ignoring other factors is looking only at part of the story.
Their was no reason to use the versatile feature unless you were small or you didn’t have access to two handed weapons. If you were small and a Str build that’s already pretty niche
I legit don't know why they don't have small sized heavy options, make the halfling maul or whatever. It is not like a twp handed swords weight is that insanely more than a long swords. Heavy is clearly more about the leverage and not the actual weight.
You quoted me describing another reason; grappling. You can't grapple with a two-handed weapon because then you can't attack with it, but with a versatile weapon you can (just attack one-handed while grappling).
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.
Grappling is just as niche as Str based small characters
We have seen both Rogue and Ranger in these play-tests. Neither of them will be able to use Nick because they do not have any features that let them unlock and utilize weapon masteries.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.It is a little odd. There used to be this weapon size vs creature size. Where if they were both medium, for example, you could one hand the weapon, if the weapon was a size larger it took two hands, and a size smaller you could dual wield. So small PCs had to use smaller weapons, but they also got an AC and to hit boost, so there was a trade off.
It seems like they got rid of the boost but kept part of the size difference mechanic. Just kind of shafted small PCs on that front. But I guess there were a lot of other differences in the mix, too.
Its definitely more streamlined this way, though.
I thought they said they’ll probably give rangers a mastery, but I may be mistaken. Dual wielder rangers are an archetype that goes back to 1e, I’d be surprised if they don’t find some way to incorporate them and let them be effective
I get the impression weapon masteries were developed a bit later, and they’re still looking at the best ways to integrate them into everything.
Ranger will definitely get a way to access the system, possibly Paladin as well. Rogue I'm hopeful for too, but worst case scenario they can just dip.
The UA provides a feat, so Rogues should be able to get it that way (as they still get the extra ability score increase at 10th-level IIRC).
That said I don't think mastery in its current form is all that critical for the Rogue; Nick is nice for a pair of daggers but it's not like using a bonus action for a second attack is a huge problem, as you only need it if you missed with the first attack. Obviously being able to still Disengage or such in the same turn you needed that second attack is handy, but is it worth a feat or a multi-class dip? I'm not so sure.
Meanwhile Vex is useless on a rapier if you only have one attack, and on a pair of shortswords it's taking your bonus action and only helping you do a small bit of extra damage.I think it would be interesting to see a Rogue sub-class with weapon mastery built in though, maybe on an updated Swashbuckler? Or even the Assassin?
Update: I seem to have misunderstood Vex, I thought it was end of the current turn; in that case it might be worth it for a rapier though I'm not sure if Vex will survive the UA (seems too strong compared to the other masteries, maybe it'll stay if we get a higher level of mastery in future?).
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.
How would vex be useless? It lasts until the end of your next turn.
It really bothers me that they brought two weapon fighting to a good place in previous UA and not decided to lock that fix behind a mastery. Not only does it once again make two weapon fighting unattractive for classes without weapon mastery, it also makes it so that classes with mastery now dont get interesting mastery abilities when two weapon fighting, I truly hope they go back to the fix being universal and add actual masteries on light weapons.
Like others have mentioned, adding more masteries isnt a very exciting key feature.. First 2, maybe 3 masteries are probably useful if you are looking for a melee and ranged weapon.. but beyond that its a pretty lame feature.
Weapon mastery has me wondering about unarmed focused warrior builds.. Is a barbarian or fighter supposed to find the mastery entirely useless if they wanna build a hand-to-hand brawler? I think there needs to be an unarmed combat mastery for sure.