Between different versions of the playtests, different possibilities were floated for classes. Different ways that magic was allocated by class, different methods for game mechanics, different options for player classes. But from the very start, Weapon Mastery has been present, with almost zero change throughout the playtesting.
I've discussed One D&D with several folks recently, and while their opinions on different aspects varied, almost all of them were unimpressed with Weapon Mastery. There have been reasonable criticisms raised of the mechanics, such as how it detracts from many subclasses' features to grant certain abilities as guaranteed on-hit effects (primarily push or topple effects), the comparative weakness of certain properties, or how the multiple saving throws per turn Topple can force slows down gameplay. The only change that's happened was the removal of one property, taking options away from the system instead of adding or testing new ones.
Surely these many playtests would have given the designers opportunity to test different ideas for martial characters. Or is it simply that survey feedback was just that positive towards Weapon Mastery? I have my theories on why that may be the case, but it very much differs from opinions I've seen from most players I've talked to, who see it as uninteresting and imbalanced.
it was extremely positive, only flex was not highly loved. So they removed it
the moved around some masteries to different weapons.
Also, they basically said all martials would get it, so it was more a question of if martials should access the feature. They expanded it to more demi martials over time. warlock, druid, certain subclasses
If you are referring to monks on the topple/push issue, it was unknown how they would handle OH monk, and people were not satisfied with the last open hand monk, or the main class monk. at least partially because they didnt give it enough to stand out from or use mastery.
They apparently took all the feedback, and decided to remove monk mastery, but improve the class in other ways.
so the feature is loved, but that doesnt mean people think its perfect in every way for every class.
it was extremely positive, only flex was not highly loved. So they removed it
Do you have data to back that up? Percentage approval? Number of positive opinions? Is percentage approval the only metric that matters?
And even if it did receive overwhelmingly positive support, does that mean it does not need to be further refined? Does popular vote on an online survey represent what is best for the game?
it was extremely positive, only flex was not highly loved. So they removed it
Do you have data to back that up? Percentage approval? Number of positive opinions? Is percentage approval the only metric that matters?
And even if it did receive overwhelmingly positive support, does that mean it does not need to be further refined? Does popular vote on an online survey represent what is best for the game?
I'm just telling you what happened, I had nothing to do with the decisions they made. The source is Jeremy crawfords feedback videos on the surveys. you can find them at dnd wizards youtube
I'm not surprised that reaction to Weapon Masteries has been largely positive, even if the specific mechanics get a lot of complaints online. I think that, on average, people WANT something like this... something that makes weapon choice more impactful, and that gives martial fighters more skills to help close the gap between martials and spellcasters. I think a lot of people who maybe don't like exactly how Masteries are written still would give positive reactions to polls because they still want it to exist, and don't want to risk having the whole thing abandoned outright with fully negative responses, but I don't think there's ever been one "fix" suggested that everyone can agree on.
I kinda get the impression that Weapon Masteries were dreamed up and all but decided on long before 1DD started testing. I could be wrong, but it just feels like something they’ve had in the cooker for a while now.
I kinda get the impression that Weapon Masteries were dreamed up and all but decided on long before 1DD started testing. I could be wrong, but it just feels like something they’ve had in the cooker for a while now.
I can't remember the exact video but Jeremy Crawford said weapon mastery was experimental and if it didn't test well they would have abandoned it. I don't really like this keep or abandon and only tweak if the test results were still mostly positive.
I kinda get the impression that Weapon Masteries were dreamed up and all but decided on long before 1DD started testing. I could be wrong, but it just feels like something they’ve had in the cooker for a while now.
I can't remember the exact video but Jeremy Crawford said weapon mastery was experimental and if it didn't test well they would have abandoned it. I don't really like this keep or abandon and only tweak if the test results were still mostly positive.
It’s the nature of the survey they use. The questions are narrowly phrased which leads to narrow answers. Instead of the scale they use, I wish they did something more like this:
I like a lot about weapon mastery but a few need tweaking for sure, topple, graze & vex should be once per round. Vex more so feels like it's abusable by ranger and topple should go without saying. Graze I feel does a tiny bit too much damage, so for the rare case you miss twice in one round, it balances it back to roughly where I feel it should be, it'd only be an issue for fighter making 4+ attacks a round. Vex and topple for sure are the bigger issues tho, topple is a con save at least.
Thinking about it more, I think another problem with the system is that in truth...it doesn't actually give options in battle. Most characters are going to specialize in one type of weapon, and unless they have multiple equivalent magical weapons, they'll most likely stick to a single weapon.
More so, an option isn't really an option if there is no reason not to take it. The majority of Weapon Mastery properties don't have any disadvantage to not using the property, so there is no reason for the player to not ever use the property on every attack.
So I think three things that would best balance out the system would be:
Limit usage of properties away from "every attack ever". A more-potent property can be balanced against a less-potent one by limiting it to one trigger per turn, such as one Topple attempt versus being free to Slow more than one enemy.
Remove the specified properties per weapon. Let characters choose which properties they're able to use, and then let them choose from those known properties when using applicable weapons, thus giving the player a choice of options rather than one specific effect.
Impose a trade-off for using properties. Even something as simple as "you don't add your ability modifier to the damage roll (unless negative)" balances out the mechanic and makes not using properties an option to consider.
Thinking about it more, I think another problem with the system is that in truth...it doesn't actually give options in battle. Most characters are going to specialize in one type of weapon, and unless they have multiple equivalent magical weapons, they'll most likely stick to a single weapon.
More so, an option isn't really an option if there is no reason not to take it. The majority of Weapon Mastery properties don't have any disadvantage to not using the property, so there is no reason for the player to not ever use the property on every attack.
So I think three things that would best balance out the system would be:
Limit usage of properties away from "every attack ever". A more-potent property can be balanced against a less-potent one by limiting it to one trigger per turn, such as one Topple attempt versus being free to Slow more than one enemy.
Remove the specified properties per weapon. Let characters choose which properties they're able to use, and then let them choose from those known properties when using applicable weapons, thus giving the player a choice of options rather than one specific effect.
Impose a trade-off for using properties. Even something as simple as "you don't add your ability modifier to the damage roll (unless negative)" balances out the mechanic and makes not using properties an option to consider.
I do think some of this could be nice. Some options seem like they should be once per turn, like how Cleave works. And I could see allowing a character to use any weapon mastery they know on any weapon that meets the prerequisites for that mastery. I don't think that would be OP. Would keep from having to juggle weapons for each attack to use different masteries.
Thinking about it more, I think another problem with the system is that in truth...it doesn't actually give options in battle. Most characters are going to specialize in one type of weapon, and unless they have multiple equivalent magical weapons, they'll most likely stick to a single weapon.
More so, an option isn't really an option if there is no reason not to take it. The majority of Weapon Mastery properties don't have any disadvantage to not using the property, so there is no reason for the player to not ever use the property on every attack.
So I think three things that would best balance out the system would be:
Limit usage of properties away from "every attack ever". A more-potent property can be balanced against a less-potent one by limiting it to one trigger per turn, such as one Topple attempt versus being free to Slow more than one enemy.
Remove the specified properties per weapon. Let characters choose which properties they're able to use, and then let them choose from those known properties when using applicable weapons, thus giving the player a choice of options rather than one specific effect.
Impose a trade-off for using properties. Even something as simple as "you don't add your ability modifier to the damage roll (unless negative)" balances out the mechanic and makes not using properties an option to consider.
I think a lot of limits and trade offs are imposed naturally. Topple is great, unless there’s other party members making ranged attacks. So that’s the trade off, advantage for you, disadvantage for everyone ranged. Cleave only helps if you’ve got multiple enemies in close quarters. Slowing someone down might not matter at all.
And changing a weapon’s mastery is a class ability for a fighter. It’s nice to give them something. I did prefer the earlier version, where fighter could not only swap, but also stack multiple masteries on the same weapon. There were good choices, and allowing them fighter only was a good way to go, imo.
The feedback was very positive, so WotC decided to give players exactly that and not develop or iterate on the concept one bit. So here we are, bound to spam Topple of Vex from sun up to sun down, because one weapon means one mastery.
The feedback was very positive, so WotC decided to give players exactly that and not develop or iterate on the concept one bit. So here we are, bound to spam Topple of Vex from sun up to sun down, because one weapon means one mastery.
This sounds like after Tasha’s came out, and everyone was only ever going to play mountain dwarves. Yet, here we are in a world that’s not all dwarves all the time. Sure, there’s people who will pick a mastery, then find a weapon that fits it. But there’s lots and lots of others who just pick whatever weapon is cool for their character, and then end up with whatever mastery happens to be attached. Give folks some credit for not everyone being powergamers.
And for the record, powergamimg, and choosing mastery first is perfectly valid, no method is superior, as long as it’s fun for whoever is playing.
This sounds like after Tasha’s came out, and everyone was only ever going to play mountain dwarves. Yet, here we are in a world that’s not all dwarves all the time. Sure, there’s people who will pick a mastery, then find a weapon that fits it. But there’s lots and lots of others who just pick whatever weapon is cool for their character, and then end up with whatever mastery happens to be attached. Give folks some credit for not everyone being powergamers.
And for the record, powergamimg, and choosing mastery first is perfectly valid, no method is superior, as long as it’s fun for whoever is playing.
It's not about powergaming, it's about actual absence of options. You don't gain any options with this system, you don't make any more tactical decisions in combat than you did in 5e - your weapon can now do one, and only one additional thing that you spam over and over, unless you carry a golf bag of weapons and switch them for every strike - though most classes are limited in how many weapons that can use even in this convoluted and implausible way.
It's not about powergaming, it's about actual absence of options. You don't gain any options with this system, you don't make any more tactical decisions in combat than you did in 5e - your weapon can now do one, and only one additional thing that you spam over and over, unless you carry a golf bag of weapons and switch them for every strike - though most classes are limited in how many weapons that can use even in this convoluted and implausible way.
Yeah, this is my feeling too. Weapon Mastery feels like something that was released in an alpha state and hasn't been worked on since. Like, each weapon can do one thing and only one thing? Even though it could qualify for other options? That's lame...
Weapon Mastery is underdeveloped, they didn't give us changes to make it more useful and provide real options, it should possibly have 2 levels, if you spend 2 of your known masteries on the same weapon (or same mastery), one would have less "Options" but one , or several of those, improved. Giving it utility to have a large number of them (Like the Warrior who swims in them.), and giving one the option of having multiple Weapon Mastery of level 1, or less but some of level 2.
I'd have liked to see them experiment with another "level" of Masteries exclusively for the Fighter. By this I mean, in addition to the greater quantity of Masteries known and the flexibility to change a Weapon's Mastery, I'd like to see Fighters- exclusively- have those Masteries become more powerful at a certain level. Maybe 14 or so? Cleave hits more enemies than 2. Slow reduces movement by 20. Knick gives one additional BA attack. Things like that. Really incentivize Fighters to single class it into 3rd tier play. And really, really give Fighters an edge (pun woefully intended) on other classes when it comes to Weapon Mastery.
This sounds like after Tasha’s came out, and everyone was only ever going to play mountain dwarves. Yet, here we are in a world that’s not all dwarves all the time. Sure, there’s people who will pick a mastery, then find a weapon that fits it. But there’s lots and lots of others who just pick whatever weapon is cool for their character, and then end up with whatever mastery happens to be attached. Give folks some credit for not everyone being powergamers.
And for the record, powergamimg, and choosing mastery first is perfectly valid, no method is superior, as long as it’s fun for whoever is playing.
It's not about powergaming, it's about actual absence of options. You don't gain any options with this system, you don't make any more tactical decisions in combat than you did in 5e - your weapon can now do one, and only one additional thing that you spam over and over, unless you carry a golf bag of weapons and switch them for every strike - though most classes are limited in how many weapons that can use even in this convoluted and implausible way.
Seems I misunderstood your comment, my mistake. I thought you were suggesting people would only choose weapons with those properties, not just that people won't have choices once they choose their weapon. I do agree with the second take.
Though I also like letting fighters swap masteries around on their weapons as a class ability. I like something that sets them apart from other martials. Although this latest UA has that power coming online pretty late -- probably too late for many people to ever use.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If we've learned one thing about UA's over the years, its that the UA version often differs greatly from the published version. So, fingers crossed we get something that allows for a touch more flexibility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Between different versions of the playtests, different possibilities were floated for classes. Different ways that magic was allocated by class, different methods for game mechanics, different options for player classes. But from the very start, Weapon Mastery has been present, with almost zero change throughout the playtesting.
I've discussed One D&D with several folks recently, and while their opinions on different aspects varied, almost all of them were unimpressed with Weapon Mastery. There have been reasonable criticisms raised of the mechanics, such as how it detracts from many subclasses' features to grant certain abilities as guaranteed on-hit effects (primarily push or topple effects), the comparative weakness of certain properties, or how the multiple saving throws per turn Topple can force slows down gameplay. The only change that's happened was the removal of one property, taking options away from the system instead of adding or testing new ones.
Surely these many playtests would have given the designers opportunity to test different ideas for martial characters. Or is it simply that survey feedback was just that positive towards Weapon Mastery? I have my theories on why that may be the case, but it very much differs from opinions I've seen from most players I've talked to, who see it as uninteresting and imbalanced.
it was extremely positive, only flex was not highly loved. So they removed it
the moved around some masteries to different weapons.
Also, they basically said all martials would get it, so it was more a question of if martials should access the feature. They expanded it to more demi martials over time. warlock, druid, certain subclasses
If you are referring to monks on the topple/push issue, it was unknown how they would handle OH monk, and people were not satisfied with the last open hand monk, or the main class monk. at least partially because they didnt give it enough to stand out from or use mastery.
They apparently took all the feedback, and decided to remove monk mastery, but improve the class in other ways.
so the feature is loved, but that doesnt mean people think its perfect in every way for every class.
Do you have data to back that up? Percentage approval? Number of positive opinions? Is percentage approval the only metric that matters?
And even if it did receive overwhelmingly positive support, does that mean it does not need to be further refined? Does popular vote on an online survey represent what is best for the game?
I'm just telling you what happened, I had nothing to do with the decisions they made. The source is Jeremy crawfords feedback videos on the surveys. you can find them at dnd wizards youtube
here is one video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P459wTB9NMs&t=988s
there are other vids where they talk about ratios they are looking for, etc
I'm not surprised that reaction to Weapon Masteries has been largely positive, even if the specific mechanics get a lot of complaints online. I think that, on average, people WANT something like this... something that makes weapon choice more impactful, and that gives martial fighters more skills to help close the gap between martials and spellcasters. I think a lot of people who maybe don't like exactly how Masteries are written still would give positive reactions to polls because they still want it to exist, and don't want to risk having the whole thing abandoned outright with fully negative responses, but I don't think there's ever been one "fix" suggested that everyone can agree on.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I kinda get the impression that Weapon Masteries were dreamed up and all but decided on long before 1DD started testing. I could be wrong, but it just feels like something they’ve had in the cooker for a while now.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I can't remember the exact video but Jeremy Crawford said weapon mastery was experimental and if it didn't test well they would have abandoned it. I don't really like this keep or abandon and only tweak if the test results were still mostly positive.
It’s the nature of the survey they use. The questions are narrowly phrased which leads to narrow answers. Instead of the scale they use, I wish they did something more like this:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I like a lot about weapon mastery but a few need tweaking for sure, topple, graze & vex should be once per round. Vex more so feels like it's abusable by ranger and topple should go without saying. Graze I feel does a tiny bit too much damage, so for the rare case you miss twice in one round, it balances it back to roughly where I feel it should be, it'd only be an issue for fighter making 4+ attacks a round. Vex and topple for sure are the bigger issues tho, topple is a con save at least.
My biggest problem with the masteries was that ranged weapons felt wierd. I thought they should have made a clear group for ranged vs melee options.
Thinking about it more, I think another problem with the system is that in truth...it doesn't actually give options in battle. Most characters are going to specialize in one type of weapon, and unless they have multiple equivalent magical weapons, they'll most likely stick to a single weapon.
More so, an option isn't really an option if there is no reason not to take it. The majority of Weapon Mastery properties don't have any disadvantage to not using the property, so there is no reason for the player to not ever use the property on every attack.
So I think three things that would best balance out the system would be:
I do think some of this could be nice. Some options seem like they should be once per turn, like how Cleave works. And I could see allowing a character to use any weapon mastery they know on any weapon that meets the prerequisites for that mastery. I don't think that would be OP. Would keep from having to juggle weapons for each attack to use different masteries.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think a lot of limits and trade offs are imposed naturally. Topple is great, unless there’s other party members making ranged attacks. So that’s the trade off, advantage for you, disadvantage for everyone ranged. Cleave only helps if you’ve got multiple enemies in close quarters. Slowing someone down might not matter at all.
And changing a weapon’s mastery is a class ability for a fighter. It’s nice to give them something. I did prefer the earlier version, where fighter could not only swap, but also stack multiple masteries on the same weapon. There were good choices, and allowing them fighter only was a good way to go, imo.
The feedback was very positive, so WotC decided to give players exactly that and not develop or iterate on the concept one bit. So here we are, bound to spam Topple of Vex from sun up to sun down, because one weapon means one mastery.
This sounds like after Tasha’s came out, and everyone was only ever going to play mountain dwarves. Yet, here we are in a world that’s not all dwarves all the time.
Sure, there’s people who will pick a mastery, then find a weapon that fits it. But there’s lots and lots of others who just pick whatever weapon is cool for their character, and then end up with whatever mastery happens to be attached. Give folks some credit for not everyone being powergamers.
And for the record, powergamimg, and choosing mastery first is perfectly valid, no method is superior, as long as it’s fun for whoever is playing.
It's not about powergaming, it's about actual absence of options. You don't gain any options with this system, you don't make any more tactical decisions in combat than you did in 5e - your weapon can now do one, and only one additional thing that you spam over and over, unless you carry a golf bag of weapons and switch them for every strike - though most classes are limited in how many weapons that can use even in this convoluted and implausible way.
Yeah, this is my feeling too. Weapon Mastery feels like something that was released in an alpha state and hasn't been worked on since. Like, each weapon can do one thing and only one thing? Even though it could qualify for other options? That's lame...
Weapon Mastery is underdeveloped, they didn't give us changes to make it more useful and provide real options, it should possibly have 2 levels, if you spend 2 of your known masteries on the same weapon (or same mastery), one would have less "Options" but one , or several of those, improved. Giving it utility to have a large number of them (Like the Warrior who swims in them.), and giving one the option of having multiple Weapon Mastery of level 1, or less but some of level 2.
I'd have liked to see them experiment with another "level" of Masteries exclusively for the Fighter. By this I mean, in addition to the greater quantity of Masteries known and the flexibility to change a Weapon's Mastery, I'd like to see Fighters- exclusively- have those Masteries become more powerful at a certain level. Maybe 14 or so? Cleave hits more enemies than 2. Slow reduces movement by 20. Knick gives one additional BA attack. Things like that. Really incentivize Fighters to single class it into 3rd tier play. And really, really give Fighters an edge (pun woefully intended) on other classes when it comes to Weapon Mastery.
Seems I misunderstood your comment, my mistake. I thought you were suggesting people would only choose weapons with those properties, not just that people won't have choices once they choose their weapon. I do agree with the second take.
Though I also like letting fighters swap masteries around on their weapons as a class ability. I like something that sets them apart from other martials. Although this latest UA has that power coming online pretty late -- probably too late for many people to ever use.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If we've learned one thing about UA's over the years, its that the UA version often differs greatly from the published version. So, fingers crossed we get something that allows for a touch more flexibility.