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.
I dunno. We've already seen these classes and they didn't have this. I don't know whether or not there will be time for more play-tests of these classes, because it would feel unusual and annoying for the developers to make a change as important as this and not have it be tested and voted upon by fans, as all other important features have been/will be.
That being said, Xalthu does raise a good point about whether or not the mechanics for weapon masteries had been fully created when Ranger and Rogue were tested.
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.
Unarmed masteries might appear on the Monk's UA, either they have new masteries exclusive to unarmed strikes and/or monk weapons, or they'll have a feature to copy a mastery from a weapon and apply it to unarmed strikes... at the cost of all your spirit points... once per turn... and once per long rest. (The fact that I don't find this unlikely at all is scary)
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.
I dunno. We've already seen these classes and they didn't have this. I don't know whether or not there will be time for more play-tests of these classes, because it would feel unusual and annoying for the developers to make a change as important as this and not have it be tested and voted upon by fans, as all other important features have been/will be.
That being said, Xalthu does raise a good point about whether or not the mechanics for weapon masteries had been fully created when Ranger and Rogue were tested.
Page 1 of the UA says:
When we revisit the Experts and Priests in future Unearthed Arcana articles, some of them will gain access to these special properties.
I think they almost certainly mean Paladins and Rangers (and possibly Rogues) will have access to these new Weapon Mastery properties. It may be that, like the Barbarian, their choices will be somewhat limited, however.
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.
I dunno. <Snipped>
Page 1 of the UA says:
When we revisit the Experts and Priests in future Unearthed Arcana articles, some of them will gain access to these special properties.
I think they almost certainly mean Paladins and Rangers (and possibly Rogues) will have access to these new Weapon Mastery properties. It may be that, like the Barbarian, their choices will be somewhat limited, however.
My apologies, I missed that part of the UA. Thanks for pointing it out! :)
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.
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.
I dunno. <Snipped>
Page 1 of the UA says:
When we revisit the Experts and Priests in future Unearthed Arcana articles, some of them will gain access to these special properties.
I think they almost certainly mean Paladins and Rangers (and possibly Rogues) will have access to these new Weapon Mastery properties. It may be that, like the Barbarian, their choices will be somewhat limited, however.
My apologies, I missed that part of the UA. Thanks for pointing it out! :)
Rogue is going to need a whole heck of a lot more than that as getting one will just bring them in line to where rogue was at their UA and it was received really poorly.
I feel the designers lack the courage to demand choices in the recent design philosophy. Now flexibility in options is good. Flexibility to change and add options as you progress is good. Having different options and combinations all be viable is good. However, there needs to be restrictions/limitations to make choices feel meaningful. Unfortunately, the Fighter Weapon Masteries are a good example of how this hasn't been done:
5 Masteries when any Master can change daily is largely unnecessary and useless. Now if you restricted the change of a Mastery to every level (or a week), then suddenly the Fighter having 5 options becomes a bit more valuable than the Barbarian limited to 2.
The playtesting I've done is a mix. My players liked the idea and options but didn't like the presentation (Cleave Mastery and Cleave GWM having different mechanics, etc.) or the fact that some were active and some passive. Their feedback was they wanted all Masteries to be active boni, as those ones 'felt' like they represented the increased fighting more. One summarised it like this: Mastery feels like it should be cheating the action economy; every weapon should have a unique trait that anyone can use instead of their attack (pike has Push, whip has Disarm/Topple, Mace has Sap, etc.) but a Master gets to use it for free. That way they're consistent and easy to understand, and you're still allowing weapons to be unique and interesting to non-martial characters.
My personal issue with Flex is similar to my previous issue with all weapons pre-Mastery: it's boring. There are still 3 weapons that are identical except for damage type (which still doesn't matter a whit) and you will always need to have Flex on it. At least scimitar and shortsword are now different (well, only for those with Mastery). I don't want massive lists, but differentiating them by more than just damage type is nice.
On a different note I'm a fan of making shields more engaging like the suggestions listed. Making a +1 AC small shield (Light, Finesse, 1d4 weapon) with Protection Mastery and a +2 AC medium shield (Light 1d4 weapon) with Protection Mastery doesn't feel too bad to me, especially as you'd need to be a Fighter (for Nick substitution/addition) with Two Weapon Fighting Style and Dual Wield to abuse it, which doesn't seem like an abuse at that point.
Like Dakka19 I've been finding it a bit mixed; I like the idea, and the more active masteries are definitely the most fun, after all that's really what martials need so badly in 5e, namely more to actually do that's different from just "I attack, then I attack and oh… I guess I'll also attack". Some of the passive ones aren't bad, but they're boring. The balance is also all over the place.
But the main thing is the lack of depth to the system; it's not really a martial answer to spellcasting at all, especially when we expect half casters will get it as well (and probably some full-caster sub-classes), so really it's just a slight improvement to weapons.
I think we need more than one level of "mastery"; say for example if each weapon had a technique, an expertise, and a mastery. Techniques would all be active abilities that are either a special attack, or an action, and simply being proficient is enough to unlock this, so just using a weapon properly is special. Expertise and mastery might build upon the technique with alternative special attacks, passive boosts etc.
Gaining the weapon expertise feature would allow you to use a weapon's technique as part of a normal attack (once per turn if it was an action), as well as unlocking the expertise feature. Weapon mastery would then do the same for the expertise and mastery feature.
With this kind of system, Fighters being able to customise a weapon's features would then become a lot more powerful, since they're able to pick things they can use together. And their higher level feature could allow the mastery to be used as part of an attack (same as for technique and expertise).
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 do people feel about simply giving mastery to everyone who picks up the weapon? If we are gonna end up giving basically every weapon wielding character mastery anyway, why are we paying for it with features? Just let weapons have abilities and free up the features for more unique abilities. I do think the fighters ability to add two masteries to the same weapon can stay, but otherwise I just dont see why we have to treat this as a class ability.
I feel like there is still a long way to go for martials to be as interesting as casters, so basic features like mastery should just be built into the system.
How do people feel about simply giving mastery to everyone who picks up the weapon? If we are gonna end up giving basically every weapon wielding character mastery anyway, why are we paying for it with features?
I think the purpose of Mastery is to give Warriors a little something extra (and Fighters a lot of it). Everyone else has to burn a Feat in order to get there, and even then they only get one, and not until 4th level or later.
So, no, it's not being given to everyone who picks up a weapon, nor should it. They should pay for it, with a Feat, just like Warriors have to pay for spells with some sort of limited resource (like a Feat or a subclass).
Rogue, paladin, ranger need a free single primary weapon mastery of choice
I don't agree. Rogues already get a bonus feat at some point, and can pick up Weapon Mastery as a Feat with whatever their signature weapon might be. And their Sneak Attack Damage is already a pretty compelling feature.
To some extent, I could maybe see letting there be a Fighting Style for it, for the Ranger and Paladin... but they already have plenty of things working in their favor (smite, smite spell, damage bonuses, hunter's mark, hail of thorns, etc.) that make me think that like a Rogue, they should also have to pay a Feat for it.
I think Weapon Mastery should remain a Warrior class only special ability, in terms of free class features. And I'm not even sure the Monk needs it.
So, Barbarian with PAM, wielding a Halberd (if they're facing two or more opponents) ... between Cleave and the PAM bonus attack, could have as much as 4 attacks in a round starting at 5th level. Two of the attacks are somewhat weaker than the other two, but ... still, 4 attacks. Especially if you have some sort of bonus damage you can add to each hit, like if you take a level of Ranger in there somewhere (so that Hunter's Mark doesn't require Concentration), and combine that bonus damage with Frenzy damage or (If you allow Path of the Giant from UA) Elemental Cleave.
Going with Elemental Cleave, that's as much as 3d10 + 1d4 + (3 * Str Mod) + (4 * Rage Bonus) + 8d6 + (4 * any magic bonuses). Assuming a +1 Halberd, a mere +2 Str Mod, at 5th level: 30 - 102 damage per turn (56 being the average or expected-value), if all four hits land.
I'm sort of wondering if the Cleave attack should be a Bonus Action attack.
So, Barbarian with PAM, wielding a Halberd (if they're facing two or more opponents) ... between Cleave and the PAM bonus attack, could have as much as 4 attacks in a round starting at 5th level. Two of the attacks are somewhat weaker than the other two, but ... still, 4 attacks. Especially if you have some sort of bonus damage you can add to each hit, like if you take a level of Ranger in there somewhere (so that Hunter's Mark doesn't require Concentration), and combine that bonus damage with Frenzy damage or (If you allow Path of the Giant from UA) Elemental Cleave.
Going with Elemental Cleave, that's as much as 3d10 + 1d4 + (3 * Str Mod) + (4 * Rage Bonus) + 8d6 + (4 * any magic bonuses). Assuming a +1 Halberd, a mere +2 Str Mod, at 5th level: 30 - 102 damage per turn (56 being the average or expected-value), if all four hits land.
I'm sort of wondering if the Cleave attack should be a Bonus Action attack.
Cleave says you can only make the extra attack once per turn, so that wouldn't work.
Also, to your post before this one. What I could see is allowing monks to apply some of the masteries to their unarmed strikes.
Cleave says you can only make the extra attack once per turn, so that wouldn't work.
I think johnkzin is assuming two regular attacks, one extra attack from Cleave, then one bonus action attack from Polearm Master? Probably just as well the UA already did away with a Hunter Ranger's Horde Breaker or you could have had five attacks with a similar build.
Also, to your post before this one. What I could see is allowing monks to apply some of the masteries to their unarmed strikes
While that could be interesting, I think I'd prefer to see different abilities for "unarmed mastery" personally, unless this would be in addition? I would like to see Monks gain access to regular mastery on any weapon they use though, even if it's still mostly quarterstaffs (though with Nick we might be able to get some viable two weapon options at last).
If they do make the mastery system more detailed (more levels of mastery) they could maybe have "martial arts" function in essentially the same way, but with some specific masteries? Could even make things like Flurry of Blows, Patient Defence etc. somehow "masteries"? Will be interesting to see what they do, though with some of the weird choices they've made I remain cautious. 😉
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.
Cleave says you can only make the extra attack once per turn, so that wouldn't work.
I think johnkzin is assuming two regular attacks, one extra attack from Cleave, then one bonus action attack from Polearm Master? Probably just as well the UA already did away with a Hunter Ranger's Horde Breaker or you could have had five attacks with a similar build.
Also, to your post before this one. What I could see is allowing monks to apply some of the masteries to their unarmed strikes
While that could be interesting, I think I'd prefer to see different abilities for "unarmed mastery" personally, unless this would be in addition? I would like to see Monks gain access to regular mastery on any weapon they use though, even if it's still mostly quarterstaffs (though Nick we might be able to get some viable two weapon options at last).
If they do make the mastery system more detailed (more levels of mastery) they could maybe have "martial arts" function in essentially the same way, but with some specific masteries? Could even make things like Flurry of Blows, Patient Defence etc. somehow "masteries"? Will be interesting to see what they do, though with some of the weird choices they've made I remain cautious. 😉
Ahh, 5th level. My mistake. Thank you for the correction.
Something I just thought of. The new light weapon property says that you can use the bonus action attack as long as you attack with a different light weapon than the first. Does that mean you can attack them sheath or throw something like a dagger and then make the bonus action attack with another dagger since you can draw it as part of the attack. If you have two attacks you could basically attack once using any other weapon then stow the weapon before attacking with let’s say two daggers? Am I reading that correctly? If I am fighters can do a whole lot of different things at the same time especially with the ability to switch out masteries.
Something I’ve seen in a lot of play test is the ability to swap things easily then it gets removed for the final product. That’s usually done so play testers can try a bunch of the different versions of the features. Then it changes for the final print. Sometimes that change sucks because we didn’t see it coming.
A interesting idea. But I think the point of Protection was to show 'Mastery' in using armor resulting in + 1 AC. It would take away that skill from wearing armor to place on shields.
A interesting idea. But I think the point of Protection was to show 'Mastery' in using armor resulting in + 1 AC. It would take away that skill from wearing armor to place on shields.
That’s defense. Protection is where you can use your reaction to boost the ac of an adjacent ally.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I dunno. We've already seen these classes and they didn't have this. I don't know whether or not there will be time for more play-tests of these classes, because it would feel unusual and annoying for the developers to make a change as important as this and not have it be tested and voted upon by fans, as all other important features have been/will be.
That being said, Xalthu does raise a good point about whether or not the mechanics for weapon masteries had been fully created when Ranger and Rogue were tested.
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.Unarmed masteries might appear on the Monk's UA, either they have new masteries exclusive to unarmed strikes and/or monk weapons, or they'll have a feature to copy a mastery from a weapon and apply it to unarmed strikes... at the cost of all your spirit points... once per turn... and once per long rest. (The fact that I don't find this unlikely at all is scary)
Page 1 of the UA says:
I think they almost certainly mean Paladins and Rangers (and possibly Rogues) will have access to these new Weapon Mastery properties. It may be that, like the Barbarian, their choices will be somewhat limited, however.
My apologies, I missed that part of the UA. Thanks for pointing it out! :)
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.Rogue is going to need a whole heck of a lot more than that as getting one will just bring them in line to where rogue was at their UA and it was received really poorly.
Rogue, paladin, ranger need a free single primary weapon mastery of choice
I feel the designers lack the courage to demand choices in the recent design philosophy. Now flexibility in options is good. Flexibility to change and add options as you progress is good. Having different options and combinations all be viable is good. However, there needs to be restrictions/limitations to make choices feel meaningful. Unfortunately, the Fighter Weapon Masteries are a good example of how this hasn't been done:
5 Masteries when any Master can change daily is largely unnecessary and useless. Now if you restricted the change of a Mastery to every level (or a week), then suddenly the Fighter having 5 options becomes a bit more valuable than the Barbarian limited to 2.
The playtesting I've done is a mix. My players liked the idea and options but didn't like the presentation (Cleave Mastery and Cleave GWM having different mechanics, etc.) or the fact that some were active and some passive. Their feedback was they wanted all Masteries to be active boni, as those ones 'felt' like they represented the increased fighting more. One summarised it like this: Mastery feels like it should be cheating the action economy; every weapon should have a unique trait that anyone can use instead of their attack (pike has Push, whip has Disarm/Topple, Mace has Sap, etc.) but a Master gets to use it for free. That way they're consistent and easy to understand, and you're still allowing weapons to be unique and interesting to non-martial characters.
My personal issue with Flex is similar to my previous issue with all weapons pre-Mastery: it's boring. There are still 3 weapons that are identical except for damage type (which still doesn't matter a whit) and you will always need to have Flex on it. At least scimitar and shortsword are now different (well, only for those with Mastery). I don't want massive lists, but differentiating them by more than just damage type is nice.
On a different note I'm a fan of making shields more engaging like the suggestions listed. Making a +1 AC small shield (Light, Finesse, 1d4 weapon) with Protection Mastery and a +2 AC medium shield (Light 1d4 weapon) with Protection Mastery doesn't feel too bad to me, especially as you'd need to be a Fighter (for Nick substitution/addition) with Two Weapon Fighting Style and Dual Wield to abuse it, which doesn't seem like an abuse at that point.
Like Dakka19 I've been finding it a bit mixed; I like the idea, and the more active masteries are definitely the most fun, after all that's really what martials need so badly in 5e, namely more to actually do that's different from just "I attack, then I attack and oh… I guess I'll also attack". Some of the passive ones aren't bad, but they're boring. The balance is also all over the place.
But the main thing is the lack of depth to the system; it's not really a martial answer to spellcasting at all, especially when we expect half casters will get it as well (and probably some full-caster sub-classes), so really it's just a slight improvement to weapons.
I think we need more than one level of "mastery"; say for example if each weapon had a technique, an expertise, and a mastery. Techniques would all be active abilities that are either a special attack, or an action, and simply being proficient is enough to unlock this, so just using a weapon properly is special. Expertise and mastery might build upon the technique with alternative special attacks, passive boosts etc.
Gaining the weapon expertise feature would allow you to use a weapon's technique as part of a normal attack (once per turn if it was an action), as well as unlocking the expertise feature. Weapon mastery would then do the same for the expertise and mastery feature.
With this kind of system, Fighters being able to customise a weapon's features would then become a lot more powerful, since they're able to pick things they can use together. And their higher level feature could allow the mastery to be used as part of an attack (same as for technique and expertise).
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 do people feel about simply giving mastery to everyone who picks up the weapon? If we are gonna end up giving basically every weapon wielding character mastery anyway, why are we paying for it with features? Just let weapons have abilities and free up the features for more unique abilities. I do think the fighters ability to add two masteries to the same weapon can stay, but otherwise I just dont see why we have to treat this as a class ability.
I feel like there is still a long way to go for martials to be as interesting as casters, so basic features like mastery should just be built into the system.
I think the purpose of Mastery is to give Warriors a little something extra (and Fighters a lot of it). Everyone else has to burn a Feat in order to get there, and even then they only get one, and not until 4th level or later.
So, no, it's not being given to everyone who picks up a weapon, nor should it. They should pay for it, with a Feat, just like Warriors have to pay for spells with some sort of limited resource (like a Feat or a subclass).
I don't agree. Rogues already get a bonus feat at some point, and can pick up Weapon Mastery as a Feat with whatever their signature weapon might be. And their Sneak Attack Damage is already a pretty compelling feature.
To some extent, I could maybe see letting there be a Fighting Style for it, for the Ranger and Paladin... but they already have plenty of things working in their favor (smite, smite spell, damage bonuses, hunter's mark, hail of thorns, etc.) that make me think that like a Rogue, they should also have to pay a Feat for it.
I think Weapon Mastery should remain a Warrior class only special ability, in terms of free class features. And I'm not even sure the Monk needs it.
So, Barbarian with PAM, wielding a Halberd (if they're facing two or more opponents) ... between Cleave and the PAM bonus attack, could have as much as 4 attacks in a round starting at 5th level. Two of the attacks are somewhat weaker than the other two, but ... still, 4 attacks. Especially if you have some sort of bonus damage you can add to each hit, like if you take a level of Ranger in there somewhere (so that Hunter's Mark doesn't require Concentration), and combine that bonus damage with Frenzy damage or (If you allow Path of the Giant from UA) Elemental Cleave.
Going with Elemental Cleave, that's as much as 3d10 + 1d4 + (3 * Str Mod) + (4 * Rage Bonus) + 8d6 + (4 * any magic bonuses).
Assuming a +1 Halberd, a mere +2 Str Mod, at 5th level: 30 - 102 damage per turn (56 being the average or expected-value), if all four hits land.
I'm sort of wondering if the Cleave attack should be a Bonus Action attack.
Cleave says you can only make the extra attack once per turn, so that wouldn't work.
Also, to your post before this one. What I could see is allowing monks to apply some of the masteries to their unarmed strikes.
I think johnkzin is assuming two regular attacks, one extra attack from Cleave, then one bonus action attack from Polearm Master? Probably just as well the UA already did away with a Hunter Ranger's Horde Breaker or you could have had five attacks with a similar build.
While that could be interesting, I think I'd prefer to see different abilities for "unarmed mastery" personally, unless this would be in addition? I would like to see Monks gain access to regular mastery on any weapon they use though, even if it's still mostly quarterstaffs (though with Nick we might be able to get some viable two weapon options at last).
If they do make the mastery system more detailed (more levels of mastery) they could maybe have "martial arts" function in essentially the same way, but with some specific masteries? Could even make things like Flurry of Blows, Patient Defence etc. somehow "masteries"? Will be interesting to see what they do, though with some of the weird choices they've made I remain cautious. 😉
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.
Ahh, 5th level. My mistake. Thank you for the correction.
Something I just thought of. The new light weapon property says that you can use the bonus action attack as long as you attack with a different light weapon than the first. Does that mean you can attack them sheath or throw something like a dagger and then make the bonus action attack with another dagger since you can draw it as part of the attack. If you have two attacks you could basically attack once using any other weapon then stow the weapon before attacking with let’s say two daggers? Am I reading that correctly? If I am fighters can do a whole lot of different things at the same time especially with the ability to switch out masteries.
Something I’ve seen in a lot of play test is the ability to swap things easily then it gets removed for the final product. That’s usually done so play testers can try a bunch of the different versions of the features. Then it changes for the final print. Sometimes that change sucks because we didn’t see it coming.
A interesting idea. But I think the point of Protection was to show 'Mastery' in using armor resulting in + 1 AC. It would take away that skill from wearing armor to place on shields.
That’s defense. Protection is where you can use your reaction to boost the ac of an adjacent ally.