As of now it’s fun because it’s new, but in reality it will become a single choice and is likely to force DMs to always provide certain weapons as rewards or available in shops. In 5e I prefer longswords cosmetically, but when a battle axe, war hammer  or any d8 weapon is given as treasure an it’s magical I will typically use it no problem. In 5eR if my build is based around a weapon property I’m goin to be less interested in switching out that weapon until I find one with the same property. Higher level fighters will have less of an issue with this and maybe it will be fun for them switching properties to match situations, but more likely they will just use the same property 90% or more of the time. Also since Weapon Mastery has been given to so many classes and subclasses base fighter needs something else anyway.

IMHO Weapon Mastery should not be a class feature for anyone, but a FEAT instead. All classes already have access to some sort of weapon, be it simple or martial, which to me indicates they are proficient with that type of weapon. When it comes to levelling up and you are allowed an Ability Score improvement take a FEAT instead and then take Weapon Mastery.

Quote from Badger5804 >>

IMHO Weapon Mastery should not be a class feature for anyone, but a FEAT instead. All classes already have access to some sort of weapon, be it simple or martial, which to me indicates they are proficient with that type of weapon. When it comes to levelling up and you are allowed an Ability Score improvement take a FEAT instead and then take Weapon Mastery.

 It IS a feat for those classes that don't get it as a feature, though maybe too many classes now seem to be getting it as a feature (I haven't read all the way through the latest update yet).

I don't mind the idea of the Fighter class getting it mastery automatically with weapons and being able to do more with it than other classes. Because I do think Fighters need something they can do other than "hit monster with sword" every single round (even if some players like fighters for the simplicity).

Though, as Ain_Undos says, I worry it may turn into a "non-choice" if one or two properties are mechanically much better than others such that it becomes pointless to switch weapons anyway.

Quote from Badger5804 >>

IMHO Weapon Mastery should not be a class feature for anyone, but a FEAT instead. All classes already have access to some sort of weapon, be it simple or martial, which to me indicates they are proficient with that type of weapon. When it comes to levelling up and you are allowed an Ability Score improvement take a FEAT instead and then take Weapon Mastery.

I disagree, weapon mastery is obviously to patch some of the weaknesses in classes and redress the martial - caster imbalance that exists in 5E. You shouldn't hide something to help balance the classes behind feats. Which is a mistake people keep making thinking this was meant to be a warrior feature, in fact in interview Jeremy Crawford talked about some of the masteries were designed specifically for Rogue.

I don't think Weapon masteries need to be that interesting, interesting features slow down play and while I think all classes should have interesting features, I think those should be class features, not weapon properties. Weapon masteries need to be enough to add something to how the game is played but not to overshadow class features, so I think it's about the right area to be honest.

The issue would be if they slowdown the pace of the game. So the Topple should be modified for not requiring another roll.

Quote from DarkSch666 >>

The issue would be if they slowdown the pace of the game. So the Topple should be modified for not requiring another roll.

 Yeah, like, knock the target prone if your attack roll exceeds their AC by 5, for example.

It will be.

Spellcasters don't use weapons. They HAVE weapons, but they rarely get used. 

Rogues don't get extra attacks, and their mastered weapons are best used with multiple attacks. 

Monks don't use weapons. 

So it's basically rangers (ish), barbarians, and fighters... And of that, it's a fighter thing. 

Unfortunately even with the ability to swap mastery with a long rest (which is a laughable restriction anyhow), players tend to stick with a singular weapon

What's also missed is that playtesting isn't play.  This may be a novelty that people will enjoy for a few months (if that) and then it'll fade to the wayside. 

"Monks don't use weapons" is patently false.  Now they get some added versatility for secondary effects when using weapons.  Giving them more benefit from magical weapons.

Masteries can be swapped out on a long rest, so if you find a magic weapon with a different mastery you can swap if you want. I know some players like to stick with one type of weapon for flavor/theme. But some don't and will use whatever weapon does the most damage. Masteries gives some options, but you have to make those choices if it is worth it or not.

And I would prefer if the Warrior group would be the only ones with Masteries and the rest need the Feat. But I'm not expecting that change. So, one concession would be that Paladins, Rangers, Rogues only get one mastery, and the Warrior group goes unchanged on the number they have.

If you are basing your build around a weapon mastery property you either go Fighter, don't plan on always having the best weapon with that mastery, or have a nice DM that customizes magic items for the party. There are some builds that could work despite this, but it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. And even with Fighter there are some masteries that are not compatible due to prerequisites, I believe. So even then you might get a nice magic weapon that will not fit your build.

Edit: And would masteries be any more boring than, "I use the Attack action to swing my longsword at the Orc. Ok, I'm done until next turn". Next turn:  "I use the Attack action to swing my longsword at the Orc. Ok, I'm done until next turn."

I agree paladin, ranger, rogue should only get one.  Maybe at the midpoint get a second, maybe.

I think the issue is the Masteries don't give you options to do anything different, they just give an extra effect, so it doesn't give you the choice to vary your actions, they'll still be: I attack with my longsword (in that example, literally nothing changes with a Mastery).

Mostly this comes down to fundamental issues of 5e combat design which won't change this edition, so Masteries can only ever be a band aid.

Dealing damage is the most important strategy, so doing anything else is disincentivised. There's no cost to moving and attacking so no benefit in forcing your opponent away or chasing you (unless you have a specific feat or magic). Status conditions and actions are often too easy to recover from or not that strong (standing up, moving around, or casting a spell in a melee, grappled, etc.) so a martial is unlikely to substitute damage for a temporary condition. WotC doesn't want them too strong for casters so gives them as Masteries so they get used, but without the significance of choice. So it becomes boring.

Same thing for defensive attributes like shields. They're completely passive and boring unless you take a feat. If Mastery gave Shields a Deflect Reaction or gave the Dodge or Bash action as Bonus Action, suddenly there's an interesting choice for Reactions (Block or opportunity attack) and Bonus Actions (Dodge, Bash, class specific, etc.). 

Quote from Dakka19>>

I think the issue is the Masteries don't give you options to do anything different, they just give an extra effect, so it doesn't give you the choice to vary your actions, they'll still be: I attack with my longsword (in that example, literally nothing changes with a Mastery).

This is my problem with masteries as well; if it's supposed to compete with spellcasting then it needs a lot more depth to compete, but if they add that then they need a way to limit it for half-casters or they'll still end up being the best of both while pure martials are disadvantaged.

Martials need a lot more active abilities to give them things to do if they're to compete with the versatility of spellcasting. This is a big part of why Battle Master is such a good sub-class for Fighter as it gains more abilities it can use in tandem with what Fighter is already good at (hitting things with weapons); while its resource is quite limited it's got a great mix of options.

But by comparison weapon mastery is so, so boring, same as Fighting Styles are; you pick the one that goes best with the weapon you have. The end. The masteries aren't so strong that they justify carrying around a range of weapons, and even if they did, your choice of Fighting Style discourages you from doing so. They need to ditch fighting styles, make weapon masteries stronger, and add some kind of three-stage progression to them to gain multiple abilities on one weapon so you get more stuff you can do with it over time, with full martials getting two of the stages as standard (Fighters getting all three), with feats to advance progress on other classes.

Quote from Haravikk >>

Martials need a lot more active abilities to give them things to do if they're to compete with the versatility of spellcasting. This is a big part of why Battle Master is such a good sub-class for Fighter as it gains more abilities it can use in tandem with what Fighter is already good at (hitting things with weapons); while its resource is quite limited it's got a great mix of options.

 Which class is the most popular martial, out of curiosity? Because if having choices was the most important aspect to making a martial be fun, then Monk and Rogue would be the most popular martials since they both get multiple options for their BA and multiple options for their Reaction.

Battle Master may be held up as a favourite, but IME I've actually seen just as many Samurais as Battle Masters, and many of the players taking Battle Master ended up switching out of it around level 6-7 because it was not as effective as the spellcasters.

Quote from Agilemind>>

Which class is the most popular martial, out of curiosity? Because if having choices was the most important aspect to making a martial be fun, then Monk and Rogue would be the most popular martials since they both get multiple options for their BA and multiple options for their Reaction.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask that you actually read my posts before quoting in them future, because this is maybe the fifth time in as many days that you've quoted me in response to an argument I didn't make. What I said is that martials (pure martials in particular) need more active abilities, I said nothing about classes with fewer active abilities being less fun or less popular. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here but whether intentional or not I am getting really tired of you repeatedly straw-manning me.

Martials are competing against spellcasters; the spellcasting feature on a full caster is nine major class features (new spell levels) with eleven minor features in between (extra spell slots and usually more prepared spells) giving a huge amount of build customisation and versatility to every full caster as standard. And that's on top of a full five Ability Score Increases, and additional features unique to each class. This allows most casters to have either an answer to any situation both in and out of combat, or to excel in one or two specific areas, or some mixture of the two (you get enough spell choices to have some specialties and a decent mix of utility).

All pure martials have by comparison is dealing damage, taking damage, and not a whole lot else, and they don't even excel at these as a spellcaster can potentially outperform them on both with the right spell choices and a campaign that doesn't push the limits of their spell slots far enough. Weapon mastery doesn't give pure martials any particular edge, and it doesn't add any meaningful variety either; there's no real incentive to juggle multiple weapons at the same time (i.e- multiple melee and/or multiple ranged) and there's no meaningful progression.

So if the feature is intended to close the gap at then it isn't going to work. Meanwhile being limited to fewer masteries isn't much of a penalty, so with Paladin and Ranger now also having mastery they get all the benefits while also being half-casters.

Quote from Haravikk >>

Quote from Dakka19>>

I think the issue is the Masteries don't give you options to do anything different, they just give an extra effect, so it doesn't give you the choice to vary your actions, they'll still be: I attack with my longsword (in that example, literally nothing changes with a Mastery).

This is my problem with masteries as well; if it's supposed to compete with spellcasting then it needs a lot more depth to compete, but if they add that then they need a way to limit it for half-casters or they'll still end up being the best of both while pure martials are disadvantaged.

Martials need a lot more active abilities to give them things to do if they're to compete with the versatility of spellcasting. This is a big part of why Battle Master is such a good sub-class for Fighter as it gains more abilities it can use in tandem with what Fighter is already good at (hitting things with weapons); while its resource is quite limited it's got a great mix of options.

But by comparison weapon mastery is so, so boring, same as Fighting Styles are; you pick the one that goes best with the weapon you have. The end. The masteries aren't so strong that they justify carrying around a range of weapons, and even if they did, your choice of Fighting Style discourages you from doing so. They need to ditch fighting styles, make weapon masteries stronger, and add some kind of three-stage progression to them to gain multiple abilities on one weapon so you get more stuff you can do with it over time, with full martials getting two of the stages as standard (Fighters getting all three), with feats to advance progress on other classes.

I feel that the band aid, rather than masteries is the mixed subclasses, i.e. the arcane trickster and the eldritch knight, and some of the options for monk are just blatantly a m of caster and martial. And they try patching casters with martial skills as well. 

Overall it just dilutes class identity, which is also a problem with multiclassing. 

The fighting styles and masteries are.... Well, they're mechanics used to give a bit of crunch to a relatively bland (not that that's bad, that's why 5 is easily digestible) edition. 

The weapon mastery is just so irrelevant that I see players forgetting it half the time or DM's not bothering to use it. Plus, they aren't exactly things that I am considering first and foremost when choosing what weapon I want to be wielding nor am I going to be swapping them out on the reg like I would spells. First I'd have to find a damned smith selling weapons, or I'd have to strap an entire armory to my back.... At best it's going to be an add on like an attuned weapon might give.

I would find it funny to have the anime trope character with a dozen weapons on their back switching up their weapons for different effects.  Too bad you can only have a couple available at any given time.

The rogue has been fixed if they keep it as is in this UA. Cunning Strike doesn’t completely close the gap on spellcasters, but it gives the rogue an actual chioce every time they land there sneak attack. Now is a Rogue with thieves tools better than a Wizard with knock will always be debatable depending on the circumstances, but I feel Cunning Strike is fun. It’s like WotC heard us say we want battle master maneuvers for all fighters and said no, but here we will put them on all rogues. Lol. I get it, they don’t want to get rid of a fan favorite subclass just to make it the base fighter. Also there is a question of balance at that point because superiority dice grow as you level, so would that mean all the other fighter subclass features need to be nerfed if they were all given superiority dice. I’m of a kind of having my cake and eating it too. Give all fighters d4 superiority dice that never scale up and don’t give them as many maneuver options or uses per rest then keep battle  master subclass and give them scaling dice by level, more options and uses as they level. So all fighters do what Battle masters do but Battle masters do it much better. To me that’s fun. Weapon Masteries are nice, but aren’t fun.

I'm sure I suggested a rogue feature of reducing sneak attack damage in return for othe effects in a forum post months ago.

Maybe I'll see if I can find it so I can enter Smug Mode.

Masteries also need some balance, Vex is so much better than Flex... The Flex one is terrible, only upscaling the die one step. Maybe it should grant the Two-handed/Heavy/Reach (depending the weapon) property if used two-handed, opening styles/feats to those weapons if used two-handed with Mastery. I wonder why the spear doesn't have the Reach property, is a weapon used in reality for second line.

Currently I already use the homebrew rule that using a Versatile weapon two-handed gets the Two-handed property. Prefer to give versatility and in this case is for Versatile weapons, making them maybe more interesting.

Quote from DarkSch666 >>

Masteries also need some balance, Vex is so much better than Flex... The Flex one is terrible, only upscaling the die one step. Maybe it should grant the Two-handed/Heavy/Reach (depending the weapon) property if used two-handed, opening styles/feats to those weapons if used two-handed with Mastery. I wonder why the spear doesn't have the Reach property, is a weapon used in reality for second line.

Currently I already use the homebrew rule that using a Versatile weapon two-handed gets the Two-handed property. Prefer to give versatility and in this case is for Versatile weapons, making them maybe more interesting.

 what does Two-Handed add that Versatile leaves out? Push mastery includes both and no two-handed-only feats come to mind.

although, now that you mention it i wouldn't mind UA7 testing out Reach and Versatile addable by Weapon Adept. maybe require some materials during a long rest (additional iron bar, some chain, etc). suddenly the fighter has a mace with Reach with stats better than 'improvised.' or they get to go up one die for a two-handed dagger. or sword chucks! ...or maybe this all falls under creative player dm fiat and doesn't need to risk 3.0e levels of rules layering.