RPG market in video games, is mostly based off 5e. Even action games tend to have rpg mechanics at its core. hidden randomized damage, positional benefits, weapons with accuracy and multipliers. BG3 is huge btw, game of the year.
LOL, no definitely not. RPGs in videogames have long long predated 5e and were the dominant form of RPG experience prior to 5e (TBH they probably still are the dominant experience but 5e has certainly massively expanded the exposure of D&D), and D&D has generally had a relatively small share of the market. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Final Fantasy, Dark Souls, Witcher, KoToR, Zelda, Fallout, Dishonoured, Assassin's Creed, Horizon.... etc.. etc... have nothing to do with 5e. The only widely successful game based on 5e is BG3 (with significant inspiration from the Divinity series), and the previous major success based on D&D was back in 1998 with the original Baldur's Gate. Most truly RPG games quickly become "spam the most effective attack until the enemy is dead" and your ability to beat enemies is largely based on your character level rather than your tactics or skill - the Witcher is a prime example of this - dozens of mechanics that almost all players never use because they are completely unnecessary - just whack it with your sword until its dead. Or Elderscrolls is even more along those lines.
BG3 maybe huge and this year's game of the year, but FromSoftware action-RPGs have been game of the year twice in the past 5 years. Since 2014, 8 RPGs have been game of the year only 1 of which has anything to do with D&D.
yeah, that was a mistype, I meant to say dnd. many games I was referring to were out before 5e
the context is most video games using board game ttrpg mechanics and concept in the core of their play/game design, and therefore casual players are not automatically against ttrpg boardgame tactical design
Most RPGs are not tactical though, they have a few small options but in general the outcome of combat is based on the character level rather than the player's skill or tactics - the Souls-like are the slight exception being based on some skill and memorization of animations a bit more but tactics is still rarely important. Turn-based Small-team-based strategy games like XCOM, Invisible Inc, or Battletech (or even grand strategy like Civ, Crusader Kings, or Total War) are a very niche market not nearly as popular as hack & slash RPGs like Elder Scrolls or the Witcher.
Most videogames do not use TTRPG mechanics / design, they use the very basic core concept of : existence of different types of gear + leveling up by experience. Mechanically, most videogames are life-action, not turn based, and the vast majority of the challenge is reaction speed and positioning. Turn-based RPG combat is generally just "spam X until the enemies are dead", or maybe if you are lucking "do X then Y then Z and repeat until they are dead".
I've personally been a bit ambivalent about weapon mastery since its introduction; I like the principle of weapons having extra properties for martials to make them more varied and useful. But the way it is now the system is just way too shallow, and some of the masteries are much better than others.
I much prefer the way Baldur's Gate 3 handles weapons; all weapons have 2+ special "weapon actions". In BG3 they're all once per short rest which I don't think would work in actual D&D (it's a lot easier to take short rests in BG3) but with different limits such as once per turn, some as bonus actions or actions, some not etc. I think such a system could work as mastery rather than simply proficiency.
A bunch of the actions BG3 has probably wouldn't work in actual play as while easy to implement in a video game they're less good when you're relying on players/DMs to keep track of everything, here's the list of BG3 weapon actions for reference.
Two per weapon probably makes most sense for actual play, but with most martials getting access to more at later levels. Basically on martials I want more to do (actions to take) not just some passive or no-brainer to apply over and over ad nauseum.
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.
masteries are bland and made more bland by giving them to more people, spreading it thin. so much mastering going on.
if they wanted tactical, they had slashing-piercing-blunt staring them in the face for some sort of rock-paper-scissors parry/attack system. even if it was only a scaling +/- to damage, it would still be interesting to poke at an axe weilder, and catch claws on a club, or what not. spears against horses, and different shields for different situations. intelligent check and balance stuff. instead they gave us somewhat facilitated two-weapon fighting and two-handed cleave and heavy weapon topple all of which should have been a thing already. it shouldn't take "mastery" to swing a little wide. a master is one who knows that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro. unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa. *does a flip* ... which I have.
BPS isnt tactical, its not a thing that changes based on whats occurring in the field. Its just know weakness. The key to r p s is you don't know which until the moment it happens. Which won't work with this system.
i'm not recommending a system of fighters holding a weapon behind their back and the werewolf they're fighting has to guess which one will come out. plenty of boardgames, card games, and strategy video games use a rock paper scissors strong vs weak counter system... age of empires and fire emblem jump to the fore.
So are you suggesting something like 1e, with the weapon vs. AC chart/modifiers? Because the reality would be the weapon being strong against some armors and weak against others — not against other weapons. So either we go to something like that chart, or things like chain mail has vulnerability to piercing weapons, but resistance to slashing.
ooh, i used to love armor in 2e having different strengths and vulnerabilities to slashing/piercing/blunt damage. but, no, i already thought about that. that's interesting but not 5e. also, you'd have to update every monster to say their ac was based on such and such armor and therefore refer to the chart on page xx. sounds like a chore.
much easier to just say a fighter with mastery in rocks takes less damage from scissors attacks and is less likely to be parried when attacking someone holding scissors. the diagram would be a circle made of three arrows leading counter-clockwise between three points: primarily blunt damage melee weapons, primarily slashing damage melee weapons, and primarily piercing damage melee weapons. i can't imagine this is the first time someone's thought of this in the context of tabletop rpgs but i don't have time to research and/or force it to make plausible sense. so, not as much a 'suggestion,' as a lament that mastery wasn't even slightly more puzzily and interesting. shrug.
I think what we're seeing right now is the Boiler Plate of weapon masteries. They could easily add later features (Feats or a Subclass) built around the assumption that you have weapon mastery, or specific weapon masteries, that then add advanced capabilities.
Right now, they're just trying to get the foundation correct, so expecting them to do fancy things when they haven't even bullet-proofed the foundation, is a bit specious, IMO.
I feel Weapon Masteries were meant to address 2 issues simultaneously and fail on both counts:
Fighters (and Warriors) don't have tactical options. Many of the Masteries don't actually add any tactical options, just a passive buff. Even the tactical ones are abusable or boring and don't have an opportunity cost making an interesting choice. Then half the classes gain access to Masteries, diluting the advantage to Fighters and Warrior class. Finally, it encourages the Golf bag Fighter play that others have highlighted (and other randomness like changing Masteries on a Long Rest).
Weapons don't have distinct identities. This is partly a problem with B/P/S damage not having any difference. Adding unique Traits to weapons was a great step; locking them behind Weapon Mastery completely undid that. Then the Fighter being able to pick and mix Masteries erases the uniqueness of the weapons.
My proposed solution is to address those issues separately by breaking Weapon Masteries into active Manoeuvres for Fighters and passive Traits for weapons:
Fighters get Bonus Action Manoeuvres. Manoeuvres are tactical actions that influence a target until the start of your next turn. Fighters can use Manoeuvres as a Bonus Action and in place of attacks, so there's still an opportunity cost. Looking at the Masteries and the Battle Master for inspiration we have the following: Topple, Push, Grapple, Blind, Goad, Menace, Feint, Slow, and Disarm. (Battle Master would need a bit of reworking but it kinda does anyway).
Make Two Weapon Fighting not cost a Bonus Action. Remove the unnecessary weapon tax (Nick) and action economy tax just so you can actually play your character. Allows TWF to work with Bonus Action Manoeuvres for Fighters.
Make B/P/S damage distinct. Simple way is make crits do something unique. Let's steal from Piercer and Slasher. Piercing crits do an extra weapon die, Slashing crits wound enemies, granting Advantage on attacks until the start of your next turn, and Bludgeoning damage Dazes them until start of your next turn. (We could also give certain armour Resistance/Damage Reduction to different damage types but that's a different discussion).
Give weapons unique passive Traits. Going back to the Masteries for inspiration, we want passive Traits that any character who's proficient with a weapon benefits from. Would need play testing but I was thinking all Bludgeoning weapons have Graze, Scimitars and Axes have Cleave, Swords and Daggers gain Parry (Reaction +1 AC for each weapon with Parry vs one melee attack), Daggers & Rapiers get Swift (use a Bonus Action to reroll a missed attack), maybe some weapons get Charge (Advantage or +1 for every 10ft moved on 1st attack after moving at least 10ft straight towards target), etc. Have Versatile offer a different Trait when the weapon is used in two hands (Spear gets Reach, etc.). This is strictly a buff to all characters, however, most Simple weapons would lack these Traits, making them more of a benefit to Martials.
Some weapons allow use of Manoeuvres. For example, the Rapier and Trident could have Disarm, allowing any character to use Disarm as a Bonus Action. Polearms could get Topple, Two-Handed (and Versatile) and Heavy weapons might have Topple or Push, whips could get Grapple and Disarm, Bows and Crossbows get Push or Slow, etc. Fighters could use these weapon Manoeuvres as part of an attack with the weapon (limited 1/turn?).
Definitely needs some play testing to balance weapons and identify if certain Manoeuvres get abused. Maybe Fighters are limited in Manoeuvres they know or maybe targets have Advantage on saves against Manoeuvres after the first time they're used on them, etc. Some of the changes I've already implemented in my games and my players love the B/P/S crits and TWF change.
Other classes could tie into Weapon Traits and Manoeuvres. For example, Barbarians could have a class feature that offers them the choice between Whirlwind Swing (Cleave applies to all enemies in Reach while Raging), Fury Charge (Charge deals an additional weapon die when Raging), and Mighty Swings (Rage damage applies to Graze). Bards could get access to Goad and Distract while Barbarians can Menace as Bonus Actions.
My main feedback was regarding this topic. I feel like they are making a lot of microsystems that would be more ellegant with a macrosystem as basis, like "spellcasting". I am looking at cunning strike, weapon masteries, battle master maneuvers, monk ki stuff, new bard tricks.
the maneuver system of battlemaster is an obvious candidate for baseline. Much like spells but short rest recovery, smaller effects and no anti-magic interaction.
Tome of Battle from 3.5 did an amazong job in outlining the concept, although it went to far into animeland for my taste. I dont think there needs to to many "maneuver levels", just more uses and slight upgrades as you level. ToB also showed how you could have rage, sneakystuff and generally all limited use martial abilities in one supersystem while still keeping them unique and semi-separate. Recharge could for instance happen in different ways, some could require rage or active hising to utilize etc.
baldurs gate 3 also showed how it could work as "weapon mastery" on weapons giving out 1-3 1/short rest special moves.
A supersystem like this makes it much more streamlined, easier to balance in the long run and gives the ability to have mulitclasses progressing the supersystem just like a wizard/cleric does today. Most importantly it would also give real choices in battle instead of the current weapon masteries which basically is a slight permanent boost that will make people start using weird weapons purely for optimization purposes (trip on every attack...I am looking at you).
Personally I feel like the Weapon Mastery system was just meant as a straight buff to martial classes to cement that "these classes deal in weapon combat", and to grant more consideration into what weapons you might want to bring on your adventure. The in-combat "toolbox" approach to Weapon Masteries is something I'm really not keen on seeing. I would hate to see Fighters go through a weapon swap montage during their turns to get optimized mastery trait effects, ala; "First I hit them with my Maul to Topple them prone, then I switch to my Javelin to apply Slow and finally I swap to my Pike to Push them back 10 ft." - To me this line of actions feels discombobulated and ridiculous, not to mention I think the draw/stow mechanics would nip this in its bud.
I would like to see the weapon mastery mechanic developed a bit, so there's less lack of support of extra attacks; aka Topple or Sap or Slow doesn't benefit from hitting multiple attacks on the same target, whilst Vex does. Limiting the mastery trait to just one attack would equally cause some disparity where some traits are very powerful on their one hit, whilst others have less appeal.
The idea that the Weapon Mastery mechanic in itself could implement some tactical decisions in combat for martial classes seems disproportionate to me. I would rather have your actions in combat be expanded upon, maybe in the way that Bearbug suggests above by stealing the Fighter Battlemaster's Maneuver mechanic and craft a system, like "advanced combat actions". Newer players who don't want complexity can choose to ignore it, until they are ready to delve into it. Based on weapon properties, like Light, Heavy, Ranged, you can then perform special actions or apply certain benefits or traits to your weapon attacks. Limit it behind character levels, class, class levels and/or weapon properties. You could have it function with unlocks for martial classes like the UAs proposed Weapon Mastery - but instead of the Fighter being able to use up to 6 weapons with mastery traits, you get 6 (or whatever number appropriate) combat actions that can enhance your decision-making during combat. Like Rasmus suggests a macro system similar to spell slots that eases the multiclassing aspects of this system could be a good foundation. The Fighter would be the sole weapon expert and Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, and Paladin would acquire combat actions at half the pace, similar to full and half casters. Whether Monk would partake in this system is a maybe depending on what WotC intends to do with Monk Weaponry - similar to how they were removed from having Weapon Mastery in the UA.
For the fans of the Battlemaster subclass, you could always have a specialist class that unlocks more actions, can use it more fluently, can use multiple combat actions per turn, get extra damage benefit or whatever. Perhaps the use of this system normally induces a penalty, like you half the ability modifier for attack and damage rolls or you roll with disadvantage. The Battlemaster subclass could ignore this penalty, so the class isn't just gone but doubles down on this particular mechanic of combat.
Also just to note, I feel the UAs version of Fighter to be able to swap out mastery properties feels... lackluster, and works to undermine the entire point of having different mastery properties in the first place. Similarly how you can change which weapons you have mastery in once per long rest removes the actual feel of mastery if you can attain mastery overnight (in the 2 hour span of light activity you are permitted to still achieve a long rest). This may be a testing capacity ability that we wont see on release, and I hope we wont.
For a straight Fighter in combat there's not really much tactical thinking going on outside of flanking rules and perhaps the odd possibility for opportunity attacks. Possibly also one of the reasons why the Battlemaster subclass seems so well liked, because it adds a lot of options. Similarly Polearm Master and Sentinel is considered a great feat combo, because it can trigger reliably and your positioning means a lot for the role you might have in the party, increasing tactical decision-making in combat.
I get that we want to make combat feel fluent and keep up the pace, but it would be a welcome change if there were more options than just; go up to enemy and press A to attack.
The problem with all the "just give battlemaster maneuvers to all martials" is that battlemaster maneuvers really aren't that great - 4/6 battlemasters I have played with ended up rebuilding their character because they were disappointed in the maneuvers. Even the Weapon Masteries we have now are uneven in their effectiveness and will probably reduce weapon diversity rather than expand it because one or two weapon masteries will be "the best" and everyone will just use the weapons with them. Meanwhile it is adding huge complexity for new players to get a handle on. Already new players are advised to avoid spellcasters because of their complexity, making martials equally complex as spellcasters means there is no simple class for new players to start at. - Sure you can say "just ignore them" but that's like telling a new player to play a spellcaster and just ignore the levelled spells and only use cantrips.
The solution IMO, is to just expand the weapon feats to give players the choice of more complexity or more raw damage. e.g.
Feat: Weapon Master 4th level feat
ASI: Increase your Strength or Dexterity by +1
Choose one melee and one ranged weapon with which you are proficient. When you hit with an attack with that weapon, you can choose to add one of the following effects. You can only add this effect once per turn:
Heavy Strike : deal 1d4 additional damage
Trip : the target must make a DEX save or fall prone
Poison : the target must make a CON save or be poisoned until the end of their next turn.
Stagger: the target cannot make attacks of opportunity until the end of their next turn.
Slow: the target's movement speed is reduced by 15 ft until the end of their next turn.
Push: the target must make a STR save or be pushed 10 ft away from you.
I disagree. The Battle Master Manoeuvres really aren't all that great as the sole benefit of a Subclass. As a base fighter feature in the suggestion I made, I think they work perfectly; not too complicated (a Bonus Action to do a non-damage effect; no one complains about Cunning Action), not overpowered as you highlight, and not a build tax through Subclass, Feat, or weapon. I don't know what level the feature would come or whether it should be staggered though.
This would also open design space to improve the Battle Master fighter so it's actually interesting (maybe as a proper controller/commander).
Nor does expanding weapon Traits to make each weapon distinct make them overly complex. We're looking at 1 or 2 extra simple Traits per weapon for most, and all passive. If well designed, the Traits should reinforce the fantasy of the weapon, be consistent, and be intuitive, something I can't say for Weapon Masteries.
Making Weapon Master a feat is not my favourite solution as it's just making another feat tax for martial classes.
i think i'd rather have seen weapons being the point around which all this mastery junk revolves. maybe by expanding weapon 'proficiency' and adding weapon 'expertise' to the mix. if you're proficient, you can do the push/topple/vex/etc listed in the weapon's description, but you do it as a bonus action attack or via 'Use an Object' Action (no damage, +PB to any check or DC). also, enemy gets a save (because Shove exists and stuff like 'trip' should too). easier to push/shove when you're using the proper tool, as it were, but in trade i'd be more stingy with how many weapon proficiencies non-warrior classes get. although, there's always earning proficiency via gold and time during downtime activities so it's more like a speedbump for early levels and increasing complexity as you go.
and for the warriors, if you've gained 'expertise' in a weapon (say from a class feature or 4th level feat), then you can replace an attack with the appropriate weapon mastery as laid out in the UA: no resource, no additional action, no save/check/contested-roll, yes attack damage. for most classes, no-skill-check expertise shouldn't be as easy as pulling a different club out of your golf bag, casey jones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Making Weapon Master a feat is not my favourite solution as it's just making another feat tax for martial classes.
It's not a feat tax because it would be entirely optional, that's the point of feats! They aren't required to have a viable character. Sure you can choose to go GWM or Sentinel or Charger or you could take Maneuvers. Martials do not need a collection of weak battlefield control effects to be viable, which means they are perfect real-estate for a feat. Not every player wants a pile of mostly-pointless options on their character, lots of them are happy just Attack-Attack-Attacking so let them have a simple character sheet without the massive clutter of options. If martials are feeling weak, then just give them all an additional feature:
Powerful Attacks: you add double your ability modifier to the damage of your weapon attacks
That way GWM, Charger, or whatever else you still think is a "feat tax" isn't anymore because you get to deal tons of damage without it, so you can use feats for fun things instead of straight DPR enhancement.
I disagree. The Battle Master Manoeuvres really aren't all that great as the sole benefit of a Subclass.
No, they aren't that great. period. There is precisely two that I have seen players actually enjoy using: Riposte and Precise Attack. All of the others end up not having any impact on the battle more often than not, for various reasons:
knocking prone makes your ranged allies have Disadvantage on attack which annoys them.
most enemies you Goad are in melee with you and would attack you anyway.
lots of enemies are immune or have resistance to fear (or they die before it gets to their turn anyway).
most enemies don't use weapons/items and even if they do they can just pick them back up as a free action if you Disarm them.
pushing requires specific positioning & an ally with a persistent AoE to be useful which just doesn't happen that often.
Feinting is just worse than making a BA attack most of the time.
the 2-3 movement based-ones are super circumstantial, and usually you're better just killing the enemies threatening your allies than mucking about with positioning.
Slow is really only useful if you can apply it at range and even then half the time the map is so small it doesn't stop them attacking you anyway.
Cleave is a tiny bit of damage so hardly ever going to kill the secondary target making it worse than doing focused damage on one target...
1. knocking prone makes your ranged allies have Disadvantage on attack which annoys them.
I mean, this isn't a problem if you a) don't have any ranged allies looking to attack the same target or b) ask them if they're going to attack it first (or take a different manoeuvre if this is likely to happen a lot). If you've got several melee fighters attacking the same target, granting them all (and yourself if you do it early) advantage can be fantastic – way more powerful than the single extra attack from a Riposte, although that's a manoeuvre I take a lot.
2. most enemies you Goad are in melee with you and would attack you anyway.
It still stops them from attacking other allies they can reach if there's anyone else fighting alongside you. And it also works with ranged attacks; that's one of the reasons I like Battlemaster because it works pretty much as well for both melee and ranged Fighter builds; some people swear by Arcane Archer but I've always thought it was a bit lacklustre early on.
3. lots of enemies are immune or have resistance to fear (or they die before it gets to their turn anyway).
Using the monster search on DDB I make it roughly 23% with immunity, harder to check for resistance (advantage on saves or whatever). But there are actually loads that can be affected; nearly all dragons aren't immune, and while they might burn a legendary resistance to beat it that's more than worth a superiority dice you get back on a short rest, plus you still do the extra damage.
Will it suck if you get an enemy that's immune? Sure, but that's the benefit of having more than one manoeuvre choice.
4. most enemies don't use weapons/items and even if they do they can just pick them back up as a free action if you Disarm them.
You know who else can pick up the weapon as a free object interaction? The person who did the disarming! Just grab it at the end of your turn and now the enemy has to disarm you to get it back, and you can stow it at the start of your next turn if that leaves you holding two weapons you can't use (e.g- 2 two-handed weapons).
5. pushing requires specific positioning & an ally with a persistent AoE to be useful which just doesn't happen that often.
Environmental factors are situational on your DM providing them, but allied persistent AoEs can happen as often as your allies are willing/able to do it. You're allowed to talk to your party members, you know! They're also useful for getting enemies away from allies (or yourself) without having to Disengage.
6. Feinting is just worse than making a BA attack most of the time.
Where are you getting the bonus action attack from? Polearm Master or two-weapon fighting are the only consistent ones I can think of, but if you're going for either of these you can just pick a different manoeuvre.
Great Weapon Master also gives a good bonus action attack but it's most reliable when you're sure you're going to kill something that turn, otherwise you're gambling on a 1 in 20 chance of a critical hit you might not get, so I'd be inclined to take the advantage on an attack instead.
7. the 2-3 movement based-ones are super circumstantial, and usually you're better just killing the enemies threatening your allies than mucking about with positioning.
Manoeuvring Attack is a bit meh, but Bait and Switch is fantastic as it can not only get an ally out of danger, but also boost yours or their AC by an average of 4.5-6.5.
8. Slow is really only useful if you can apply it at range and even then half the time the map is so small it doesn't stop them attacking you anyway.
Where are you getting half the time from? This is entirely up to your DM and how the combat starts; if you're ambushing you can try to set up the conditions you need. Not every fight happens in a 30x30 foot whiteroom killbox.
9. Cleave is a tiny bit of damage so hardly ever going to kill the secondary target making it worse than doing focused damage on one target...
Do you mean Sweeping Attack? This one's a bit disappointing, I've never ended up taking it, but that's a good argument for fixing it into something decent. I don't think Bearbug1941 is suggesting that manoeuvres be used as a feature/template without any modification whatsoever because they're already perfect; everybody knows some manoeuvres are better than others, including WotC, that's why they released better versions of some in Tasha's Cauldron.
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.
I agree Battle Master can be underwhelming. I'm not arguing it's good as is but saying in my eyes it fails because it does what all Fighters should be able to.
That's why I'm suggesting all fighters should get some form of their manoeuvres on the base class. It's a straight buff that gives them options they didn't have before that aren't just boring damage increases. They allow creative engagement with combat, especially when paired with Fighter subclasses and my suggestion for expanded weapon Traits.
I do think my suggested Manoeuvres system is very simple (I mean half of them are already part of the attack rules anyway, just now a free Bonus Action) and wouldn't have to be engaged with but I hate this false concept that because some people might like a simple character, the base Fighter must always be devoid of anything interesting.
I won't address all of your list but I feel you vastly underrate the effectiveness of some of those Manoeuvres/conditions and how far they can go with a bit of creativity from the player and interacting with the environment but respect that experiences will vary. However, I'd say you're flat out wrong that they're "mostly useless".
I will say you missed the point that I argue TWF shouldn't cost a Bonus Action so wouldn't compete and that I suggested Cleave be a weapon Trait, not a Manoeuvre, so all of these are straight buffs that don't interfere with damage unless you have additional Bonus Action features (GWM Cleave for example but that won't be happening every turn - and can we discuss how frustrating it is that we now have two features called Cleave that work differently?!).
Disarm is the only point that I would agree has minimal impact (although if your player isn't roguishly kicking away their weapon or picking it up themselves, for shame!) but I think that has more to do with poor mechanics to support it. Picking up a weapon in enemy Reach provoking an Opportunity Attack solves this (having play tested this I can confirm it works very well - had a Fighter player rugby tackle a pirate captain off the side of a ship after being disarmed and not wanting to risk it).
Ignoring all of the above though, would you say you're content with the Fighter & Weapon Masteries as presented in the UA? Apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth but it seems your preferred design for the Fighter is a very simple generic slate, made interesting through Feat investment? Mine is that the Fighter should be the martial with simple tactical options built into the base class and then Feats are optional, rather than mandatory to make the class interesting. If we're coming at it from those opposite approaches then it makes sense why my suggestion seems to not be your cup of tea.
The weapon masteries meet my general expectations. They are a simple, straight forward bolt-on that patches rather than fixes some of the issues with weapons/martials in 5e. Would another system be better? Probably. This is way better than what we currently have though, and for a backwards compatible upgrade. This 5.5 edition was never going to be a cure-all. I think this will be lessons learned for the eventual 6e. For now, it's good enough and it's surveyed really well. They literally have been given no reason to revisit it, as the feedback appears to have indicated that the rules as presented were a home run.,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Ignoring all of the above though, would you say you're content with the Fighter & Weapon Masteries as presented in the UA? Apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth but it seems your preferred design for the Fighter is a very simple generic slate, made interesting through Feat investment? Mine is that the Fighter should be the martial with simple tactical options built into the base class and then Feats are optional, rather than mandatory to make the class interesting. If we're coming at it from those opposite approaches then it makes sense why my suggestion seems to not be your cup of tea.
Fighter major schtick is that they get more feats than any other class, this allows tons of customization for your character to be as complex or as simple as you want - they should be the martial version of Warlock, being able to be built to fight with any weapon and any style and excel at it. Every player I've talked to who loves playing Fighters love them for their extra feats more than anything else. I personally have never played a straight Fighter, but I have frequently played MCs with Fighter because I've never found the martial feats in 5e all that exciting so 4-5 levels of Fighter is typically all I want.
Side Rant:
But I very often play martials or half-caster, because I personally find the "let me spend 5 minutes checking all my spells, oh no I don't have anything that works in this situation" or the "Oh their is an environmental challenge, let me just spend 10 minutes reading all my spells to see if any of them say 'fixes this challenge' in their descriptions" deeply unsatisfying as a player - give me a beefy boy who just walks up to the trap and smashes it with a fist or just runs up gets the thing heedless of the risk of being attacked, rather than the casters who can't see beyond the rim of their spellbooks to do the obvious solution. - Honestly the number of times I've just interrupted the casters in the party arguing over who is going to cast Mage Hand to just say 'I walk over and grab the thing' is embarrassing....
The problem has always been that a couple of feats are just so much better than anything else that you don't actually see any customization but rather every Fighter taking the same set of feats. There should be more equivalently powerful but distinct feats to enable Fighter players to choose what they want - they can choose to have a complex build that can sacrifice a little bit of damage to impose a variety of conditions to their heart's delight, or they can choose to have a simple build that just excels at killing stuff with their weapon of choice, or they can choose to be a sturdy tank who takes whatever the enemies throw at them.
Every player I've talked to who loves playing Fighters love them for their extra feats more than anything else. I personally have never played a straight Fighter, but I have frequently played MCs with Fighter because I've never found the martial feats in 5e all that exciting so 4-5 levels of Fighter is typically all I want.
Interestingly I agree with this point but have drawn different conclusions from it (for context: my experiences come from having played an EK Fighter for a short adventure & Battle Master for a one-shot as well as GM'd two Fighters in two campaigns).
My observation with the Fighter was that the extra Feats were the best bit because there wasn't enough interesting in the base Fighter and so they were required to get the Fighter up to par in terms of engaging gameplay. Ideally for me the Feats would be solely for customisation, not needed to shore up a class weakness (as I see it).
But then I'm a big believer that every class should be allowed to customise their character without sacrificing mechanical strength (the 5e24 half Feats make this a lot less of an issue but feel like a half-step to maintain backwards compatibility). I'd prefer to see Feats & ASIs completely divorced and Feats rebalanced to bring some of the worst offenders in line (the UA have already made a good start with some of these).
I'm going to see if there's a thread about Feats where we can discuss how we'd like to see them rebalanced as I'm aware we've veered away from the topic of Weapon Masteries.
Commiserating with your mini-rant:
I feel your pain about casters and slow players which can be a frustrating part of the game and depends a lot on individual table composition and experience (I've got a wizard player who still doesn't know her spells 4 years in 🥲 but we've found a balance of brutal pacing/time-keeping from myself and tools to simplify her preparation/lists). I definitely think the game could standardize a bit more about how spells operate to make them consistent and simpler to learn, and I'm not a fan of spells that completely negate challenges, rather preferring that spells offer a new way to surmount it or improve your odds.
The problem with all the "just give battlemaster maneuvers to all martials" is that battlemaster maneuvers really aren't that great - 4/6 battlemasters I have played with ended up rebuilding their character because they were disappointed in the maneuvers. Even the Weapon Masteries we have now are uneven in their effectiveness and will probably reduce weapon diversity rather than expand it because one or two weapon masteries will be "the best" and everyone will just use the weapons with them. Meanwhile it is adding huge complexity for new players to get a handle on. Already new players are advised to avoid spellcasters because of their complexity, making martials equally complex as spellcasters means there is no simple class for new players to start at. - Sure you can say "just ignore them" but that's like telling a new player to play a spellcaster and just ignore the levelled spells and only use cantrips.
The solution IMO, is to just expand the weapon feats to give players the choice of more complexity or more raw damage. e.g.
<Snip the feat>
I'm not saying you necessarily have to take the maneuvers 1-to-1 and use for this system, but it could be a foundation. I agree that a few of the maneuvers have little to no appeal, some are super situational to the point that unless the DM sets it up, it's not going to be worthwhile. When crafting a new macro system for unlocking and possibly uses and populating it with available choices it is obviously a good time to reconsider and rebalance the options - especially if the macro system ends up having a drawback - like a penalty and/or limited resources.
However imagine this system doesn't require a limited resource and you remove the superiority dice from the equation (so no added damage or roll bonuses). I imagine a maneuver like Brace which basically gives you an OA trigger whenever an enemy enters your melee threat range, that would certainly seem quite good to grab, if for no other reason than to trade your reaction for additional damage - pair it with Sentinel for basically free Polearm Master combo. I do believe the proposed system should utilize a limited resource and like spell slots, your level in martial classes should account how many of these actions you have available at any given time AND how many times per short/long rest you can use them. Just spitballing to get a feel for it, lets say you get a number of uses per long rest equal to your Fighter level and half your levels in Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, and Paladin. WotC have used Second Wind charges for adding some out-of-combat uses, which could easily be worked into this system.
As for new players, there's quite a lot of systems and rulesets that are optional in 5e. Some increase quality of life (repicking choices from previous levels), some adds straight power (like expanded spell lists), some remove inflexibility and some add complexity (like the flanking rules). While these optional rulesets are up to the DM's discretion whether to use or not, a similar mindset could be used here. Additionally if this "advanced combat actions" ruleset had some kind of drawback, it would even out more between those who use it and those who wont. Additionally or alternatively if you can only use these advanced combat actions a set number of times per short/long rest, you really have to consider when to use them and it would level out differences between using them and not using them.
You're being disingenuous when you compare my statement with creating a spell caster and ignoring their leveled spells. I would equate it more to a Ranger only using Hunter's Mark. You're leaving out some of your character's potential, but not the entire purpose of it.
And like Bearbug, I'm not in favor of adding feats to fix this issue, and I'm in favor of WotC granting the Fighter in the UA some more utility and would wish they actually moved away from just spamming the Fighter with ASIs. I do however think the feats in 5e is rather underwhelming and to spice them up would be a good choice IMO. Right now there's only a handful of feats being considered at any given time, which is quite poor compared to how many feats actually exists.
I'm not overly confident about the success of granting every weapon multiple mastery properties.
That's all the time I have for now. I'll reply to the rest when I got more time.
If it is built into the class then it is not optional rules like flanking - which are completely separate from classes and often only appear in the DMG not in the PHB. If it is in the class design then it is on the player's character sheet, which means the player is being told by the game they should try to use it. And if the martial-spells are powerful enough to be worth the additional effort of rolling more saves/checks and tracking more conditions and tracking more limited use resources then ignoring them will cripple the newbie's character, as you're proposal effectively turns Fighter into a half-caster (half-casters get approximately 1 spellslot per level). Ignoring them would be like playing a Monk but never using Ki, you'd not have a viable character at all.
@Agilemind: I think you're overexaggerating two things: The power of this system - in rough terms you can equate it to using the Battlemaster's maneuvers but without the superiority die bonus. That in itself is not very powerful, with the likely better candidates from the maneuver list being Riposte and Brace which both allow you to use your reaction to get an extra weapon attack under certain circumstances that reliably happen. If this is limited to 2 uses per long rest as a level 1 Fighter, I doubt the extra attack does much in terms of skewing average damage per day compared to any other class.
And I think you're overrating the complexity of this system. Again take the same example as above, your level 1 Fighter picks up Riposte and Brace as their advanced combat actions of choice and have two uses per long rest to get an extra attack whenever an enemy misses an attack against you or enters your melee threat range. That's not difficult for a newcomer to understand and work with.
How many newcomers do you think utilize the grapple and shove actions? Then compare to more seasoned players - at least in tier 1 and perhaps tier 2 play. There already exists situations where knowledge of the game's mechanics means that seasoned players have an "advantage" over newcomers, and that seems perfectly fine. After all it feels nice that your potential grows with your knowledge of the game.
I'm not saying the above is exactly how this proposed system should function, it is just an example to get a feel for what it could be. I also know that removing the superiority die makes some maneuvers useless - again the maneuvers are just a foundation for what you could make for this system. In the instance of maneuvers which rely on the superiority die, like Precision Maneuver (add the superiority die to your attack roll) such maneuvers could be reworked if they even should be included - at least as a base advanced combat actions, it could easily be worked into a revised version of the Battlemaster. Rightfully we're going off-topic compared to the topic at hand, although this system is meant as an alternative way to explore what the Weapon Mastery system seeks to provide: more tactical choices and decisions for martial classes - personally I don't think the Mastery system will work out that way, I only think it serves to give an indirect or direct buff to martial classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Most RPGs are not tactical though, they have a few small options but in general the outcome of combat is based on the character level rather than the player's skill or tactics - the Souls-like are the slight exception being based on some skill and memorization of animations a bit more but tactics is still rarely important. Turn-based Small-team-based strategy games like XCOM, Invisible Inc, or Battletech (or even grand strategy like Civ, Crusader Kings, or Total War) are a very niche market not nearly as popular as hack & slash RPGs like Elder Scrolls or the Witcher.
Most videogames do not use TTRPG mechanics / design, they use the very basic core concept of : existence of different types of gear + leveling up by experience. Mechanically, most videogames are life-action, not turn based, and the vast majority of the challenge is reaction speed and positioning. Turn-based RPG combat is generally just "spam X until the enemies are dead", or maybe if you are lucking "do X then Y then Z and repeat until they are dead".
I've personally been a bit ambivalent about weapon mastery since its introduction; I like the principle of weapons having extra properties for martials to make them more varied and useful. But the way it is now the system is just way too shallow, and some of the masteries are much better than others.
I much prefer the way Baldur's Gate 3 handles weapons; all weapons have 2+ special "weapon actions". In BG3 they're all once per short rest which I don't think would work in actual D&D (it's a lot easier to take short rests in BG3) but with different limits such as once per turn, some as bonus actions or actions, some not etc. I think such a system could work as mastery rather than simply proficiency.
A bunch of the actions BG3 has probably wouldn't work in actual play as while easy to implement in a video game they're less good when you're relying on players/DMs to keep track of everything, here's the list of BG3 weapon actions for reference.
Two per weapon probably makes most sense for actual play, but with most martials getting access to more at later levels. Basically on martials I want more to do (actions to take) not just some passive or no-brainer to apply over and over ad nauseum.
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.
ooh, i used to love armor in 2e having different strengths and vulnerabilities to slashing/piercing/blunt damage. but, no, i already thought about that. that's interesting but not 5e. also, you'd have to update every monster to say their ac was based on such and such armor and therefore refer to the chart on page xx. sounds like a chore.
much easier to just say a fighter with mastery in rocks takes less damage from scissors attacks and is less likely to be parried when attacking someone holding scissors. the diagram would be a circle made of three arrows leading counter-clockwise between three points: primarily blunt damage melee weapons, primarily slashing damage melee weapons, and primarily piercing damage melee weapons. i can't imagine this is the first time someone's thought of this in the context of tabletop rpgs but i don't have time to research and/or force it to make plausible sense. so, not as much a 'suggestion,' as a lament that mastery wasn't even slightly more puzzily and interesting. shrug.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I think what we're seeing right now is the Boiler Plate of weapon masteries. They could easily add later features (Feats or a Subclass) built around the assumption that you have weapon mastery, or specific weapon masteries, that then add advanced capabilities.
Right now, they're just trying to get the foundation correct, so expecting them to do fancy things when they haven't even bullet-proofed the foundation, is a bit specious, IMO.
I feel Weapon Masteries were meant to address 2 issues simultaneously and fail on both counts:
My proposed solution is to address those issues separately by breaking Weapon Masteries into active Manoeuvres for Fighters and passive Traits for weapons:
Definitely needs some play testing to balance weapons and identify if certain Manoeuvres get abused. Maybe Fighters are limited in Manoeuvres they know or maybe targets have Advantage on saves against Manoeuvres after the first time they're used on them, etc. Some of the changes I've already implemented in my games and my players love the B/P/S crits and TWF change.
Other classes could tie into Weapon Traits and Manoeuvres. For example, Barbarians could have a class feature that offers them the choice between Whirlwind Swing (Cleave applies to all enemies in Reach while Raging), Fury Charge (Charge deals an additional weapon die when Raging), and Mighty Swings (Rage damage applies to Graze). Bards could get access to Goad and Distract while Barbarians can Menace as Bonus Actions.
Keen to hear people's thoughts.
My main feedback was regarding this topic. I feel like they are making a lot of microsystems that would be more ellegant with a macrosystem as basis, like "spellcasting". I am looking at cunning strike, weapon masteries, battle master maneuvers, monk ki stuff, new bard tricks.
the maneuver system of battlemaster is an obvious candidate for baseline. Much like spells but short rest recovery, smaller effects and no anti-magic interaction.
Tome of Battle from 3.5 did an amazong job in outlining the concept, although it went to far into animeland for my taste. I dont think there needs to to many "maneuver levels", just more uses and slight upgrades as you level. ToB also showed how you could have rage, sneakystuff and generally all limited use martial abilities in one supersystem while still keeping them unique and semi-separate. Recharge could for instance happen in different ways, some could require rage or active hising to utilize etc.
baldurs gate 3 also showed how it could work as "weapon mastery" on weapons giving out 1-3 1/short rest special moves.
A supersystem like this makes it much more streamlined, easier to balance in the long run and gives the ability to have mulitclasses progressing the supersystem just like a wizard/cleric does today. Most importantly it would also give real choices in battle instead of the current weapon masteries which basically is a slight permanent boost that will make people start using weird weapons purely for optimization purposes (trip on every attack...I am looking at you).
Personally I feel like the Weapon Mastery system was just meant as a straight buff to martial classes to cement that "these classes deal in weapon combat", and to grant more consideration into what weapons you might want to bring on your adventure. The in-combat "toolbox" approach to Weapon Masteries is something I'm really not keen on seeing. I would hate to see Fighters go through a weapon swap montage during their turns to get optimized mastery trait effects, ala; "First I hit them with my Maul to Topple them prone, then I switch to my Javelin to apply Slow and finally I swap to my Pike to Push them back 10 ft." - To me this line of actions feels discombobulated and ridiculous, not to mention I think the draw/stow mechanics would nip this in its bud.
I would like to see the weapon mastery mechanic developed a bit, so there's less lack of support of extra attacks; aka Topple or Sap or Slow doesn't benefit from hitting multiple attacks on the same target, whilst Vex does. Limiting the mastery trait to just one attack would equally cause some disparity where some traits are very powerful on their one hit, whilst others have less appeal.
The idea that the Weapon Mastery mechanic in itself could implement some tactical decisions in combat for martial classes seems disproportionate to me. I would rather have your actions in combat be expanded upon, maybe in the way that Bearbug suggests above by stealing the Fighter Battlemaster's Maneuver mechanic and craft a system, like "advanced combat actions". Newer players who don't want complexity can choose to ignore it, until they are ready to delve into it. Based on weapon properties, like Light, Heavy, Ranged, you can then perform special actions or apply certain benefits or traits to your weapon attacks. Limit it behind character levels, class, class levels and/or weapon properties. You could have it function with unlocks for martial classes like the UAs proposed Weapon Mastery - but instead of the Fighter being able to use up to 6 weapons with mastery traits, you get 6 (or whatever number appropriate) combat actions that can enhance your decision-making during combat. Like Rasmus suggests a macro system similar to spell slots that eases the multiclassing aspects of this system could be a good foundation. The Fighter would be the sole weapon expert and Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, and Paladin would acquire combat actions at half the pace, similar to full and half casters. Whether Monk would partake in this system is a maybe depending on what WotC intends to do with Monk Weaponry - similar to how they were removed from having Weapon Mastery in the UA.
For the fans of the Battlemaster subclass, you could always have a specialist class that unlocks more actions, can use it more fluently, can use multiple combat actions per turn, get extra damage benefit or whatever. Perhaps the use of this system normally induces a penalty, like you half the ability modifier for attack and damage rolls or you roll with disadvantage. The Battlemaster subclass could ignore this penalty, so the class isn't just gone but doubles down on this particular mechanic of combat.
Also just to note, I feel the UAs version of Fighter to be able to swap out mastery properties feels... lackluster, and works to undermine the entire point of having different mastery properties in the first place. Similarly how you can change which weapons you have mastery in once per long rest removes the actual feel of mastery if you can attain mastery overnight (in the 2 hour span of light activity you are permitted to still achieve a long rest). This may be a testing capacity ability that we wont see on release, and I hope we wont.
For a straight Fighter in combat there's not really much tactical thinking going on outside of flanking rules and perhaps the odd possibility for opportunity attacks. Possibly also one of the reasons why the Battlemaster subclass seems so well liked, because it adds a lot of options. Similarly Polearm Master and Sentinel is considered a great feat combo, because it can trigger reliably and your positioning means a lot for the role you might have in the party, increasing tactical decision-making in combat.
I get that we want to make combat feel fluent and keep up the pace, but it would be a welcome change if there were more options than just; go up to enemy and press A to attack.
The problem with all the "just give battlemaster maneuvers to all martials" is that battlemaster maneuvers really aren't that great - 4/6 battlemasters I have played with ended up rebuilding their character because they were disappointed in the maneuvers. Even the Weapon Masteries we have now are uneven in their effectiveness and will probably reduce weapon diversity rather than expand it because one or two weapon masteries will be "the best" and everyone will just use the weapons with them. Meanwhile it is adding huge complexity for new players to get a handle on. Already new players are advised to avoid spellcasters because of their complexity, making martials equally complex as spellcasters means there is no simple class for new players to start at. - Sure you can say "just ignore them" but that's like telling a new player to play a spellcaster and just ignore the levelled spells and only use cantrips.
The solution IMO, is to just expand the weapon feats to give players the choice of more complexity or more raw damage. e.g.
Feat: Weapon Master
4th level feat
ASI: Increase your Strength or Dexterity by +1
Choose one melee and one ranged weapon with which you are proficient. When you hit with an attack with that weapon, you can choose to add one of the following effects. You can only add this effect once per turn:
I disagree. The Battle Master Manoeuvres really aren't all that great as the sole benefit of a Subclass. As a base fighter feature in the suggestion I made, I think they work perfectly; not too complicated (a Bonus Action to do a non-damage effect; no one complains about Cunning Action), not overpowered as you highlight, and not a build tax through Subclass, Feat, or weapon. I don't know what level the feature would come or whether it should be staggered though.
This would also open design space to improve the Battle Master fighter so it's actually interesting (maybe as a proper controller/commander).
Nor does expanding weapon Traits to make each weapon distinct make them overly complex. We're looking at 1 or 2 extra simple Traits per weapon for most, and all passive. If well designed, the Traits should reinforce the fantasy of the weapon, be consistent, and be intuitive, something I can't say for Weapon Masteries.
Making Weapon Master a feat is not my favourite solution as it's just making another feat tax for martial classes.
i think i'd rather have seen weapons being the point around which all this mastery junk revolves. maybe by expanding weapon 'proficiency' and adding weapon 'expertise' to the mix. if you're proficient, you can do the push/topple/vex/etc listed in the weapon's description, but you do it as a bonus action attack or via 'Use an Object' Action (no damage, +PB to any check or DC). also, enemy gets a save (because Shove exists and stuff like 'trip' should too). easier to push/shove when you're using the proper tool, as it were, but in trade i'd be more stingy with how many weapon proficiencies non-warrior classes get. although, there's always earning proficiency via gold and time during downtime activities so it's more like a speedbump for early levels and increasing complexity as you go.
and for the warriors, if you've gained 'expertise' in a weapon (say from a class feature or 4th level feat), then you can replace an attack with the appropriate weapon mastery as laid out in the UA: no resource, no additional action, no save/check/contested-roll, yes attack damage. for most classes, no-skill-check expertise shouldn't be as easy as pulling a different club out of your golf bag, casey jones.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
It's not a feat tax because it would be entirely optional, that's the point of feats! They aren't required to have a viable character. Sure you can choose to go GWM or Sentinel or Charger or you could take Maneuvers. Martials do not need a collection of weak battlefield control effects to be viable, which means they are perfect real-estate for a feat. Not every player wants a pile of mostly-pointless options on their character, lots of them are happy just Attack-Attack-Attacking so let them have a simple character sheet without the massive clutter of options. If martials are feeling weak, then just give them all an additional feature:
Powerful Attacks: you add double your ability modifier to the damage of your weapon attacks
That way GWM, Charger, or whatever else you still think is a "feat tax" isn't anymore because you get to deal tons of damage without it, so you can use feats for fun things instead of straight DPR enhancement.
No, they aren't that great. period. There is precisely two that I have seen players actually enjoy using: Riposte and Precise Attack. All of the others end up not having any impact on the battle more often than not, for various reasons:
I mean, this isn't a problem if you a) don't have any ranged allies looking to attack the same target or b) ask them if they're going to attack it first (or take a different manoeuvre if this is likely to happen a lot). If you've got several melee fighters attacking the same target, granting them all (and yourself if you do it early) advantage can be fantastic – way more powerful than the single extra attack from a Riposte, although that's a manoeuvre I take a lot.
It still stops them from attacking other allies they can reach if there's anyone else fighting alongside you. And it also works with ranged attacks; that's one of the reasons I like Battlemaster because it works pretty much as well for both melee and ranged Fighter builds; some people swear by Arcane Archer but I've always thought it was a bit lacklustre early on.
Using the monster search on DDB I make it roughly 23% with immunity, harder to check for resistance (advantage on saves or whatever). But there are actually loads that can be affected; nearly all dragons aren't immune, and while they might burn a legendary resistance to beat it that's more than worth a superiority dice you get back on a short rest, plus you still do the extra damage.
Will it suck if you get an enemy that's immune? Sure, but that's the benefit of having more than one manoeuvre choice.
You know who else can pick up the weapon as a free object interaction? The person who did the disarming! Just grab it at the end of your turn and now the enemy has to disarm you to get it back, and you can stow it at the start of your next turn if that leaves you holding two weapons you can't use (e.g- 2 two-handed weapons).
Environmental factors are situational on your DM providing them, but allied persistent AoEs can happen as often as your allies are willing/able to do it. You're allowed to talk to your party members, you know! They're also useful for getting enemies away from allies (or yourself) without having to Disengage.
Where are you getting the bonus action attack from? Polearm Master or two-weapon fighting are the only consistent ones I can think of, but if you're going for either of these you can just pick a different manoeuvre.
Great Weapon Master also gives a good bonus action attack but it's most reliable when you're sure you're going to kill something that turn, otherwise you're gambling on a 1 in 20 chance of a critical hit you might not get, so I'd be inclined to take the advantage on an attack instead.
Manoeuvring Attack is a bit meh, but Bait and Switch is fantastic as it can not only get an ally out of danger, but also boost yours or their AC by an average of 4.5-6.5.
Where are you getting half the time from? This is entirely up to your DM and how the combat starts; if you're ambushing you can try to set up the conditions you need. Not every fight happens in a 30x30 foot whiteroom killbox.
Do you mean Sweeping Attack? This one's a bit disappointing, I've never ended up taking it, but that's a good argument for fixing it into something decent. I don't think Bearbug1941 is suggesting that manoeuvres be used as a feature/template without any modification whatsoever because they're already perfect; everybody knows some manoeuvres are better than others, including WotC, that's why they released better versions of some in Tasha's Cauldron.
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.
I think you may be misunderstanding me...
I agree Battle Master can be underwhelming. I'm not arguing it's good as is but saying in my eyes it fails because it does what all Fighters should be able to.
That's why I'm suggesting all fighters should get some form of their manoeuvres on the base class. It's a straight buff that gives them options they didn't have before that aren't just boring damage increases. They allow creative engagement with combat, especially when paired with Fighter subclasses and my suggestion for expanded weapon Traits.
I do think my suggested Manoeuvres system is very simple (I mean half of them are already part of the attack rules anyway, just now a free Bonus Action) and wouldn't have to be engaged with but I hate this false concept that because some people might like a simple character, the base Fighter must always be devoid of anything interesting.
I won't address all of your list but I feel you vastly underrate the effectiveness of some of those Manoeuvres/conditions and how far they can go with a bit of creativity from the player and interacting with the environment but respect that experiences will vary. However, I'd say you're flat out wrong that they're "mostly useless".
I will say you missed the point that I argue TWF shouldn't cost a Bonus Action so wouldn't compete and that I suggested Cleave be a weapon Trait, not a Manoeuvre, so all of these are straight buffs that don't interfere with damage unless you have additional Bonus Action features (GWM Cleave for example but that won't be happening every turn - and can we discuss how frustrating it is that we now have two features called Cleave that work differently?!).
Disarm is the only point that I would agree has minimal impact (although if your player isn't roguishly kicking away their weapon or picking it up themselves, for shame!) but I think that has more to do with poor mechanics to support it. Picking up a weapon in enemy Reach provoking an Opportunity Attack solves this (having play tested this I can confirm it works very well - had a Fighter player rugby tackle a pirate captain off the side of a ship after being disarmed and not wanting to risk it).
Ignoring all of the above though, would you say you're content with the Fighter & Weapon Masteries as presented in the UA? Apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth but it seems your preferred design for the Fighter is a very simple generic slate, made interesting through Feat investment? Mine is that the Fighter should be the martial with simple tactical options built into the base class and then Feats are optional, rather than mandatory to make the class interesting. If we're coming at it from those opposite approaches then it makes sense why my suggestion seems to not be your cup of tea.
The weapon masteries meet my general expectations. They are a simple, straight forward bolt-on that patches rather than fixes some of the issues with weapons/martials in 5e. Would another system be better? Probably. This is way better than what we currently have though, and for a backwards compatible upgrade. This 5.5 edition was never going to be a cure-all. I think this will be lessons learned for the eventual 6e. For now, it's good enough and it's surveyed really well. They literally have been given no reason to revisit it, as the feedback appears to have indicated that the rules as presented were a home run.,
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Fighter major schtick is that they get more feats than any other class, this allows tons of customization for your character to be as complex or as simple as you want - they should be the martial version of Warlock, being able to be built to fight with any weapon and any style and excel at it. Every player I've talked to who loves playing Fighters love them for their extra feats more than anything else. I personally have never played a straight Fighter, but I have frequently played MCs with Fighter because I've never found the martial feats in 5e all that exciting so 4-5 levels of Fighter is typically all I want.
Side Rant:
But I very often play martials or half-caster, because I personally find the "let me spend 5 minutes checking all my spells, oh no I don't have anything that works in this situation" or the "Oh their is an environmental challenge, let me just spend 10 minutes reading all my spells to see if any of them say 'fixes this challenge' in their descriptions" deeply unsatisfying as a player - give me a beefy boy who just walks up to the trap and smashes it with a fist or just runs up gets the thing heedless of the risk of being attacked, rather than the casters who can't see beyond the rim of their spellbooks to do the obvious solution. - Honestly the number of times I've just interrupted the casters in the party arguing over who is going to cast Mage Hand to just say 'I walk over and grab the thing' is embarrassing....
The problem has always been that a couple of feats are just so much better than anything else that you don't actually see any customization but rather every Fighter taking the same set of feats. There should be more equivalently powerful but distinct feats to enable Fighter players to choose what they want - they can choose to have a complex build that can sacrifice a little bit of damage to impose a variety of conditions to their heart's delight, or they can choose to have a simple build that just excels at killing stuff with their weapon of choice, or they can choose to be a sturdy tank who takes whatever the enemies throw at them.
Interestingly I agree with this point but have drawn different conclusions from it (for context: my experiences come from having played an EK Fighter for a short adventure & Battle Master for a one-shot as well as GM'd two Fighters in two campaigns).
My observation with the Fighter was that the extra Feats were the best bit because there wasn't enough interesting in the base Fighter and so they were required to get the Fighter up to par in terms of engaging gameplay. Ideally for me the Feats would be solely for customisation, not needed to shore up a class weakness (as I see it).
But then I'm a big believer that every class should be allowed to customise their character without sacrificing mechanical strength (the 5e24 half Feats make this a lot less of an issue but feel like a half-step to maintain backwards compatibility). I'd prefer to see Feats & ASIs completely divorced and Feats rebalanced to bring some of the worst offenders in line (the UA have already made a good start with some of these).
I'm going to see if there's a thread about Feats where we can discuss how we'd like to see them rebalanced as I'm aware we've veered away from the topic of Weapon Masteries.
Commiserating with your mini-rant:
I feel your pain about casters and slow players which can be a frustrating part of the game and depends a lot on individual table composition and experience (I've got a wizard player who still doesn't know her spells 4 years in 🥲 but we've found a balance of brutal pacing/time-keeping from myself and tools to simplify her preparation/lists). I definitely think the game could standardize a bit more about how spells operate to make them consistent and simpler to learn, and I'm not a fan of spells that completely negate challenges, rather preferring that spells offer a new way to surmount it or improve your odds.
I'm not saying you necessarily have to take the maneuvers 1-to-1 and use for this system, but it could be a foundation. I agree that a few of the maneuvers have little to no appeal, some are super situational to the point that unless the DM sets it up, it's not going to be worthwhile. When crafting a new macro system for unlocking and possibly uses and populating it with available choices it is obviously a good time to reconsider and rebalance the options - especially if the macro system ends up having a drawback - like a penalty and/or limited resources.
However imagine this system doesn't require a limited resource and you remove the superiority dice from the equation (so no added damage or roll bonuses). I imagine a maneuver like Brace which basically gives you an OA trigger whenever an enemy enters your melee threat range, that would certainly seem quite good to grab, if for no other reason than to trade your reaction for additional damage - pair it with Sentinel for basically free Polearm Master combo. I do believe the proposed system should utilize a limited resource and like spell slots, your level in martial classes should account how many of these actions you have available at any given time AND how many times per short/long rest you can use them. Just spitballing to get a feel for it, lets say you get a number of uses per long rest equal to your Fighter level and half your levels in Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, and Paladin. WotC have used Second Wind charges for adding some out-of-combat uses, which could easily be worked into this system.
As for new players, there's quite a lot of systems and rulesets that are optional in 5e. Some increase quality of life (repicking choices from previous levels), some adds straight power (like expanded spell lists), some remove inflexibility and some add complexity (like the flanking rules). While these optional rulesets are up to the DM's discretion whether to use or not, a similar mindset could be used here. Additionally if this "advanced combat actions" ruleset had some kind of drawback, it would even out more between those who use it and those who wont. Additionally or alternatively if you can only use these advanced combat actions a set number of times per short/long rest, you really have to consider when to use them and it would level out differences between using them and not using them.
You're being disingenuous when you compare my statement with creating a spell caster and ignoring their leveled spells. I would equate it more to a Ranger only using Hunter's Mark. You're leaving out some of your character's potential, but not the entire purpose of it.
And like Bearbug, I'm not in favor of adding feats to fix this issue, and I'm in favor of WotC granting the Fighter in the UA some more utility and would wish they actually moved away from just spamming the Fighter with ASIs. I do however think the feats in 5e is rather underwhelming and to spice them up would be a good choice IMO. Right now there's only a handful of feats being considered at any given time, which is quite poor compared to how many feats actually exists.
I'm not overly confident about the success of granting every weapon multiple mastery properties.
That's all the time I have for now. I'll reply to the rest when I got more time.
If it is built into the class then it is not optional rules like flanking - which are completely separate from classes and often only appear in the DMG not in the PHB. If it is in the class design then it is on the player's character sheet, which means the player is being told by the game they should try to use it. And if the martial-spells are powerful enough to be worth the additional effort of rolling more saves/checks and tracking more conditions and tracking more limited use resources then ignoring them will cripple the newbie's character, as you're proposal effectively turns Fighter into a half-caster (half-casters get approximately 1 spellslot per level). Ignoring them would be like playing a Monk but never using Ki, you'd not have a viable character at all.
@Agilemind: I think you're overexaggerating two things: The power of this system - in rough terms you can equate it to using the Battlemaster's maneuvers but without the superiority die bonus. That in itself is not very powerful, with the likely better candidates from the maneuver list being Riposte and Brace which both allow you to use your reaction to get an extra weapon attack under certain circumstances that reliably happen. If this is limited to 2 uses per long rest as a level 1 Fighter, I doubt the extra attack does much in terms of skewing average damage per day compared to any other class.
And I think you're overrating the complexity of this system. Again take the same example as above, your level 1 Fighter picks up Riposte and Brace as their advanced combat actions of choice and have two uses per long rest to get an extra attack whenever an enemy misses an attack against you or enters your melee threat range. That's not difficult for a newcomer to understand and work with.
How many newcomers do you think utilize the grapple and shove actions? Then compare to more seasoned players - at least in tier 1 and perhaps tier 2 play. There already exists situations where knowledge of the game's mechanics means that seasoned players have an "advantage" over newcomers, and that seems perfectly fine. After all it feels nice that your potential grows with your knowledge of the game.
I'm not saying the above is exactly how this proposed system should function, it is just an example to get a feel for what it could be. I also know that removing the superiority die makes some maneuvers useless - again the maneuvers are just a foundation for what you could make for this system. In the instance of maneuvers which rely on the superiority die, like Precision Maneuver (add the superiority die to your attack roll) such maneuvers could be reworked if they even should be included - at least as a base advanced combat actions, it could easily be worked into a revised version of the Battlemaster.
Rightfully we're going off-topic compared to the topic at hand, although this system is meant as an alternative way to explore what the Weapon Mastery system seeks to provide: more tactical choices and decisions for martial classes - personally I don't think the Mastery system will work out that way, I only think it serves to give an indirect or direct buff to martial classes.