I admit I’m not following all this on the bonus action attack (last I recall, Nick specifically says you’re taking the Light attack as a part of the Attack Action and thus using it up for the turn), but regarding weapon juggling in general my stance as someone who does prefer to leaven with a touch of realism on repeatable combos is that if you have to use a flow chart to explain how your attack and sheathe/unsheathe goes, it’s too complicated to do in combat. Combining Nick with bonus action features in general is the intended function, but the kind of weapon juggling involved in somehow consistently transitioning between holding a polearm and dual wielding another pair of weapons in the space of six seconds just strains my credulity too much. I’m not saying it’s objectively wrong, just one of those fuzzy areas of rule interactions that can be legitimately ruled either way.
I also rather struggle to think of any fantasy archetype that features repeatedly drawing and sheathing the same three weapons throughout combat.
its not just sheathing weapons, its throwing them, dropping them, picking them up etc. All now use the same mechanic.
And its really common in combat to use multiple weapons. Samurais had katanas, daggers, bows, and shortswords. Viking had spears, shields, and daggers. Romans used pilums scutum and gladius. The idea that combatants didnt switch weapons in combat doesnt hold up to actual facts. Most weapons have optimal uses and ranges which constantly changes in battle.
My point being that the whole weapon shuffle is just a bit too much as a personal take, and seems to be stretching the RAI of the streamlined weapon handling. And yes, I’m aware combatants would carry multiple weapons; however again the idea of trying to juggle them like this in a 6 second window again stretches both credulity and my take on RAI. Swapping from one turn to the next is more in line with what you’re describing.
And its really common in combat to use multiple weapons. Samurais had katanas, daggers, bows, and shortswords. Viking had spears, shields, and daggers. Romans used pilums scutum and gladius. The idea that combatants didnt switch weapons in combat doesnt hold up to actual facts. Most weapons have optimal uses and ranges which constantly changes in battle.
There's a big difference between having several weapons so you can cope with different situations (enemy at range, enemy up close, etc.) compared to swapping three weapons (one of which is a two-handed polearm) every six seconds in a constant cycle while also attacking with each one at least once.
The former is just good tactical sense because if your enemy has a ranged weapon and you don't, you've got to close the distance potentially taking hits the whole way. But the latter is just begging for you to end up dropping a load of weapons on the ground and getting stabbed to death as you try to pick them up again.
Where it gets tricky is how to balance it out a bit better; I've never played in a group that handled weapon swapping strictly, I tried to do it on a character that needed to switch between a ranged two-handed weapon and a melee two-handed weapon, but in the end we just agreed it was annoying for everyone and just allowed one weapon swap at the start of your turn.
So basically, at the start of your turn you could stow one weapon and/or draw one weapon. Dual Wielding would add the ability to draw or stow two weapons (but not both, so you can stow one weapon and draw two, or stow two and draw one, but not stow two and draw two). This keeps it sane and limits the weird exploits that juggling an entire arsenal of weapons in a single turn implies.
The only exception would be thrown weapons, with the thrown weapon property allowing them to be drawn before attacking, so you can throw a whole bunch of darts if you want to (and should always have been able to).
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.
And its really common in combat to use multiple weapons. Samurais had katanas, daggers, bows, and shortswords. Viking had spears, shields, and daggers. Romans used pilums scutum and gladius. The idea that combatants didnt switch weapons in combat doesnt hold up to actual facts. Most weapons have optimal uses and ranges which constantly changes in battle.
There's a big difference between having several weapons so you can cope with different situations (enemy at range, enemy up close, etc.) compared to swapping three weapons (one of which is a two-handed polearm) every six seconds in a constant cycle while also attacking with each one at least once.
The former is just good tactical sense because if your enemy has a ranged weapon and you don't, you've got to close the distance potentially taking hits the whole way. But the latter is just begging for you to end up dropping a load of weapons on the ground and getting stabbed to death as you try to pick them up again.
Where it gets tricky is how to balance it out a bit better; I've never played in a group that handled weapon swapping strictly, I tried to do it on a character that needed to switch between a ranged two-handed weapon and a melee two-handed weapon, but in the end we just agreed it was annoying for everyone and just allowed one weapon swap at the start of your turn.
So basically, at the start of your turn you could stow one weapon and/or draw one weapon. Dual Wielding would add the ability to draw or stow two weapons (but not both, so you can stow one weapon and draw two, or stow two and draw one, but not stow two and draw two). This keeps it sane and limits the weird exploits that juggling an entire arsenal of weapons in a single turn implies.
The only exception would be thrown weapons, with the thrown weapon property allowing them to be drawn before attacking, so you can throw a whole bunch of darts if you want to (and should always have been able to).
6 seconds is a long time
Heres the thing, 5e is mostly measuring things in terms of ratio of speed of attacker. Essentially different classes are faster than others.
Basic user 1 attack:trained user 2 Attacks: expert user 3+ Attacks.
and it actually follows your general premise.
a cleric can only draw a weapon and attack in 6 seconds (or attack and sheathe) (irl, this guy is pretty slow, this would only take 1-2 seconds irl)
a trained guy can attack twice in the same time frame, and draw and sheathe a weapon. (irl this is average it takes about 2-3 seconds to do this) (aka one weapon swap)
a expert/fast guy can do more. to draw and sheathe two weapons requires you to be twice as fast.
the key here is using three weapons is only possible for a trained user, because two of weapons are light. Irl, and in game light weapons are a lot quicker to use and manipulate, thats their property and advantage.
irl, a quick dagger user could draw and throw like 1 dagger per second.
you can't do the three weapon thing with all weapons, just light weapons (and a weapon mastery with a nick weapon), unless you are super fast/skilled. Its basically only fighter and hasted people who could do it with normal weapons.
So essentially yall guys just aren't accepting that certain light weapons are faster and easier to manipulate than other weapons, and irl, they 100% are. That is their main advantage.
do you really think it takes the same time to sheathe/draw a greatsword as a dagger? is that realistic? Are yall against the light property weapons being mechanically faster weapons?
the game is essentially saying, the average trained weapon user can swap weapons once in 6 seconds, unless some of the weapons are light, in which case they can swap 1.5 times. that is extremely reasonable.
so what does it require to be able to this?
you have to be a martial character, who is just better at weapons in general.
you have to mostly be using smaller/lighter weapons
you have to have mastered using a type of light weapon that is designed to be quicker than other weapons (nick)
unless you are a high leveled fighter, the class of weapon masters who are so fit they can double their speed in times of need, or you literally have magic used on you.
totally reasonable to me
and at the end of the day, this is still just equal to one GS swing in damage.
are light weapons just supposed to be garbage in yall guys minds?
irl, a quick dagger user could draw and throw like 1 dagger per second.
We're not talking about drawing and throwing daggers, I even specifically mentioned an exception for thrown weapons because that was always annoying in 5e. Daggers/darts are something that someone specialising in that could absolutely get in a bandolier or whatever for easily drawing and throwing them, especially since drawing and throwing is likely a single movement anyway.
But the issue in question was someone juggling a two-handed polearm plus two one-handed weapons in order to benefit from both Nick and Polearm Master's bonus action attack in a single turn, which is where it gets ridiculous.
Yes, a Fighter can potentially attack 8 (or 9) times in a single turn, but again there's a world of difference between those attacks being made using a single weapon you're already holding after 20 levels of progression, versus being made with three different weapons you're juggling constantly in and out of your pockets like a circus act and can do from a fairly early level (5th should be enough for a 2nd basic attack, Nick and Polearm Master).
Especially when we're talking about drawing/stowing weapons in addition to making all of your normal attacks – if you had to trade attacks to draw extra weapons it would be less of an issue, as at least then there'd be some cost in time involved. But again, this shouldn't apply to thrown weapons like daggers/darts that always should have had an exception.
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.
irl, a quick dagger user could draw and throw like 1 dagger per second.
We're not talking about drawing and throwing daggers, I even specifically mentioned an exception for thrown weapons because that was always annoying in 5e. Daggers/darts are something that someone specialising in that could absolutely get in a bandolier or whatever for easily drawing and throwing them, especially since drawing and throwing is likely a single movement anyway.
But the issue in question was someone juggling a two-handed polearm plus two one-handed weapons in order to benefit from both Nick and Polearm Master's bonus action attack in a single turn, which is where it gets ridiculous.
Yes, a Fighter can potentially attack 8 (or 9) times in a single turn, but again there's a world of difference between those attacks being made using a single weapon you're already holding after 20 levels of progression, versus being made with three different weapons you're juggling constantly in and out of your pockets like a circus act and can do from a fairly early level (5th should be enough for a 2nd basic attack, Nick and Polearm Master).
Especially when we're talking about drawing/stowing weapons in addition to making all of your normal attacks – if you had to trade attacks to draw extra weapons it would be less of an issue, as at least then there'd be some cost in time involved. But again, this shouldn't apply to thrown weapons like daggers/darts that always should have had an exception.
As it is, the only benefit of using light weapons (and thus nick) is being able to use more weapons per turn.
take that away, its an even more inferior option. No real usecase.
(d6+5)+(d6)+(d6+5)=3d6+10 and a free BA (light weapons)
(2d6+5)+(2d6+5)=4d6+10 (minimum 10 damage a turn+ graze)and a free BA
PAM combo damage
light+light+pam+haft=2d6+5 + d10+5 + d4+5
gw+pam+haft= 2d6+5 +d10+5 + d4+5
and great weapon has higher crits, better reaction damage, better feats.
with the swap, at least its useful as part of a combo focused on multi hits. or being able to use 3 attacks per turn.
your answer gives light weapons no real use case, the point of the mastery system and weapon rework is to give all weapons some use case. The only weapon teirs are supposed to be simple weapons are inferior to martial weapons.
I don't think your personal distaste for someone else sheathing or dropping weapons (its not OP or even equally powered, and its definitely possible in time frame) is worth making a lot of weapons and weapon tactics/options worse.
if you want to remove this strategy, you need to add something new to light weapons that gives them a purpose other than, use this if you can't use something bette
Also, improve fighter to compensate for reducing their ability to tactically use more weapons as they get faster.
It's almost as if the idea of being able to draw and stow weapons in a split-second exists solely to facilitate a different poorly-designed mechanic that mandates switching weapons in order to get full advantage out of the mechanic—especially for the class meant to be the expert in said mechanic.
yes the point of mastery is primarily to make fighters a master of multiple weapons. And create a reason to use various weapons instead of only dice size and reach/heavy mattering.
thats the stated reasons for it existence, and its achieving that.
As it is, the only benefit of using light weapons (and thus nick) is being able to use more weapons per turn.
The purpose of Nick is so you don't lose your bonus action when using two-weapon fighting (there are bonus actions other than those that came from GWM and PAM btw), plus you still get to add another mastery on top, as only one of the weapons need Nick in order to keep your bonus action.
Or that would be the benefit it weren't trivial to juggle two-weapon fighting with PAM and GWM weapons thus ensuring that PAM and GWM remain top dog for another entire edition.
Because ultimately that doesn't fix two-weapon fighting; it turns it into a weird juggling act to add on top of other superior weapon options as a weird exploit. I don't want to see rapid weapon switching, I want to see tactical weapon switching to swap to masteries with properly useful, active abilities when they will make the most difference, not just windmill arming fistfuls of weapons to get every effect at once.
I want to see two-weapon fighting be a viable choice without it being used as an exploit. That probably means making Dual Wielder better, as for some reason it got nerfed along with GWM and PAM, by only allowing one non-light one-handed weapon, and no longer needing twin draw/stow because you can now swap weapons easier than breathing.
In fact it should probably be dual wielder that gives the benefit that Nick does IMO, with the benefit of two-handing without it simply being having access to two masteries without switching (which in turn should be limited to one swap at the start of the turn as I said).
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.
The weapon juggling thing really feels like a fighter thing because of the number of masteries they get. i do think the last playtest with them went a LITTLE overboard with weapon masteries. personally I would love to have like 4 and be able to swap the masteries out on attack for like 2 of them. I think that would allow the weapon differences while also not making the amount of weapons you carry become obscene. Not to mention high levels where having multiple magic weapons feels like what a fighter needs to keep some of their features relevant.
It's almost as if the idea of being able to draw and stow weapons in a split-second exists solely to facilitate a different poorly-designed mechanic that mandates switching weapons in order to get full advantage out of the mechanic—especially for the class meant to be the expert in said mechanic.
yes the point of mastery is primarily to make fighters a master of multiple weapons. And create a reason to use various weapons instead of only dice size and reach/heavy mattering.
thats the stated reasons for it existence, and its achieving that.
You know how you achieve that in a sensible matter? You allow weapons to have multiple effects they can apply, so instead of allowing unlimited swaps per turn, it becomes a tactical consideration of which weapon you choose to wield and what effects you choose to apply. Do you want to use the heavy weapon that can knock enemies down or deal damage on a near-miss? Do you want to use the one-handed weapon that can hinder enemies and set up easier blows?
The real problem is that Fighters gain no real benefit from the mechanic because it incentivizes using only one or two masteries, which any other class with the feature can do. Every melee martial wants Topple, and either Graze or Vex. Ranged martials want Vex and maybe Slow. That the Fighter can add a third or fourth option on doesn't really matter when the majority of the options suck compared to others.
And sure, you can juggle your weapons around...but do all your weapons have the same magical bonus? Do you want to swap from a Reach weapon to another without mid-turn? It's not only conceptually stupid, but making the mechanic revolve around weapon juggling inherently devalues trying to use anything except a single preferred property.
Well, I do think the mastery system would probably have been better, at least for fighters if they learned masteries, instead of weapons. And I think fighters should primarily be using the property based mastery system they have for weapon mastery over the weapon based one.
I also think taking away the two masteries on a weapon feature was not really what people wanted.
The other facet is they did want weapons to be more unique, and if you use the property based one for everyone, then many will be same. Like all versatile d8/d10 would be the same. All heavy 2d6 is the same, etc.
and they made some design decisions to be able to ration out masteries effectiveness to other classes and fighter progression/subclasses. Like brawler had a really good mastery use. 3 1h masteries, 3 2h masteries, could choose on each hit which one, and eventually could use 2/3 at once. But they wanted that to be the specialized version, not the baseline.
Basically, mastery isn't how I'd prefer it to be if I was designing it, but they have their own reasons/values they are pursuing here, and at this point they are in the binary take it or leave it phase on most things. So its better it does exist than it doesnt by my playtests. Even with its flaws it has made combat a lot more interesting for fighters, and builds slightly more interesting for other classes.
As for using non magic weapons sometimes, yeah, sometimes its worth it. I've had to do it many times. And its not really up to the player if they have a useful magic item, or how many they have, or which it is a lot of times.
I had one build for one dnd, a gunkatta fighter/monk, she started the lvl 3 campaign with a +1 pistol(d10vex). but it would not have been fun or smart tactics/play to just spam pistol. she was throwing daggers(nick), letting off shots, doing kicks and punches/grapples, using a maul(topple) flavored as a cybernetic kick.
couldn't pull off the character concept, or be effecient by just shooting the d10 magic item all the time.
I agree that Weapon Mastery could use some tweaks. We shall see if it remains unchanged when the PHB comes out, pending feedback they received. It was overwhelming liked overall but they may have received feedback that it needs changes. Or they may have internally known but put out the base version for UA.
Would amending the weapon swapping to once per turn with the Light property giving the swap as part of the each attack help give TWF improvements while not being an exploited feature?
Would amending the weapon swapping to once per turn with the Light property giving the swap as part of the each attack help give TWF improvements while not being an exploited feature?
The thing with swapping is that anyone with mixed weapons will need to do it at some point. The most common is going to be characters with both melee and ranged weapons. So this means we need at least the ability to swap one for one.
This to me suggests to keep it sane and reasonable the default should be the ability to swap once (stow one weapon and/or draw one weapon) per turn. I'd argue it should be the start of the turn to keep this simple and clear and minimise shenanigans/exploits. Plus it makes it easier to think of it as something your character was already doing when their turn starts.
But there are two main exception cases:
Thrown weapons require you to be able to draw one per attack, because otherwise you can only throw weapons you are already holding (plus one drawn). So "draw and throw" should definitely be a feature of the thrown property.
Two-weapon fighting requires an exception because to switch to two-weapon fighting may require drawing two weapons at once (or stowing two to switch to single weapon fighting). But doing this quickly feels like a specialist feature IMO, which is why I feel like it should be made either a feature of the fighting style, or the Dual Wielder feat. I would also say it should allow you to draw or stow two weapons, but not both. This allows you switch from two-weapons to one-weapon, or vice versa, but if you already have two weapons you can only swap one. This feels reasonable to me, and if you really want to swap two at once, you'd need to drop at least one of the weapon you're already holding in order to do it quickly.
This to me feels reasonable and realistic, while still allowing for faster, more intuitive weapon switching than 5e does.
The benefit of two-weapon fighting should be having two weapon masteries available at the same time, which is why I think Nick should be removed as a mastery and relocated to the Dual Wielder feat. This way you could have Topple and Slow available at once or whatever. If Fighters get back two masteries per weapon, then two-weapon fighting enables you to have four masteries to hand at once etc.
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 that Weapon Mastery could use some tweaks. We shall see if it remains unchanged when the PHB comes out, pending feedback they received. It was overwhelming liked overall but they may have received feedback that it needs changes. Or they may have internally known but put out the base version for UA.
Would amending the weapon swapping to once per turn with the Light property giving the swap as part of the each attack help give TWF improvements while not being an exploited feature?
this is essentially already the rule, except if you are a mid to high level fighter. And I think its important fighter gets more swaps scaling with attacks, because otherwise it effects their value proposition for using weapons tactically. AKA they need to use graze/vex/push more often because those benefit every attack, and they can only swap once.
Would amending the weapon swapping to once per turn with the Light property giving the swap as part of the each attack help give TWF improvements while not being an exploited feature?
The thing with swapping is that anyone with mixed weapons will need to do it at some point. The most common is going to be characters with both melee and ranged weapons. So this means we need at least the ability to swap one for one.
This to me suggests to keep it sane and reasonable the default should be the ability to swap once (stow one weapon and/or draw one weapon) per turn. I'd argue it should be the start of the turn to keep this simple and clear and minimise shenanigans/exploits. Plus it makes it easier to think of it as something your character was already doing when their turn starts.
But there are two main exception cases:
Thrown weapons require you to be able to draw one per attack, because otherwise you can only throw weapons you are already holding (plus one drawn). So "draw and throw" should definitely be a feature of the thrown property.
Two-weapon fighting requires an exception because to switch to two-weapon fighting may require drawing two weapons at once (or stowing two to switch to single weapon fighting). But doing this quickly feels like a specialist feature IMO, which is why I feel like it should be made either a feature of the fighting style, or the Dual Wielder feat. I would also say it should allow you to draw or stow two weapons, but not both. This allows you switch from two-weapons to one-weapon, or vice versa, but if you already have two weapons you can only swap one. This feels reasonable to me, and if you really want to swap two at once, you'd need to drop at least one of the weapon you're already holding in order to do it quickly.
This to me feels reasonable and realistic, while still allowing for faster, more intuitive weapon switching than 5e does.
The benefit of two-weapon fighting should be having two weapon masteries available at the same time, which is why I think Nick should be removed as a mastery and relocated to the Dual Wielder feat. This way you could have Topple and Slow available at once or whatever. If Fighters get back two masteries per weapon, then two-weapon fighting enables you to have four masteries to hand at once etc.
What is your intent here?
Is your main goal to prevent level 11+ fighters, or fighters using Action surge from having more ability to swap than other classes?
or is your intent not to have light weapons provide a single equipment action per turn?
Because otherwise this is already what the rule achieves With a rule that
one swap per turn if you have two attacks per round.
throwing can be done once per attack
dual wielder feat already allows you to draw/sheathe two weapons simulateoudly when you could normally do one.
Abstracting most of the baseline features of light weapons to feats is not a good idea, because its needs a baseline use case, like other weapons have, (heavy weapons do more damage, reach weapons give reach, thrown weapons give full damage/retain properties when thrown) and the dual wielder feat and light weapons are already underperforming.
also, every one has access to all masteries they have access to each turn via weapon swaping. The dual wielder isn't getting an advantage of 4 options. and you can only take advantage of masteries based on how many attacks you have. So essentially 3. in your world.
and, if you are going to do this, what is the baseline value/purpose of light weapons? with your suggestion its basically an ability to use a BA to do less damage than a heavy weapon.
with your suggestion, a non light weapon user with a feat can
attack 3 times for 3d6+10=20.5 with a free BA and use 3 masteries a turn, from a selection of all masteries they have access to.
a heavy user with a feat
can get 10 foot reach, can attack 2-3 times for 4d6+10=24 with a free BA and 2d6+d10+d4+15=30 (using BA) can attack an enemy as it comes into reach with a reaction. and has access to 2 masteries per turn out of all masteries they have access to.
would you say access to 1 more 1h mastery per round is equal in value to reach/ 4-10 more dpr, and a reaction to people who come into range?
*also only fighters and barbarians even have access to more than 2 masteries per day. So no value for anyone else.
I get that you don't like the concept of people switching weapons more than once a round, but as it stands, light weapons need this to have relevancy at all.
right now the only value of light weapons if you have martial weapon proficiency is that you can juggle weapons more to gain more attacks, for the same damage, and access to a few more masteries. (AkA mix light weapons with non light weapons)
and the DW feat is just not competitive as it stands. IMO it needs a much bigger change, or they need to add another feat that benefits DW, or both.
As far as the fighter thing, I think fighter is well balanced now, and fun having access to more weapons per round as they gain more attacks.
As I said before, if you want to make this change to limit swaps,
1) create a baseline value for light weapons thats worthwhile with no feats
2) come up with a way that getting more attacks as you level/use action surge on fighter doesnt feel like you must only use graze, push and vex because you can't swap weapons and most masteries are only useful one time per round.
the current equipment rules aren't just for flavor, they are mitigating balance issues and increasing usability. I am open to having a better use for light weapons, or some other mechanic for fighters to not get less value/utility as they gain attacks. But making changes to equip rules without doing that, is just making the gameplay/balance worse because a portion of the users dislike the flavor. You can reflavor at no cost to mechanics, but changing mechanics in a balanced way (good homebrew)is a much harder task for your average player.
For weapon swapping to be reasonably realistic and simple, without enabling weird weapon juggling exploits.
Is your main goal to prevent level 11+ fighters, or fighters using Action surge from having more ability to swap than other classes?
Why should they be able to? Attacking more quickly with the same weapon you're already holding is a very different thing to juggling weapons at the same time. And there's nothing about Fighter that gives any justification for some need to be able to swap weapons more.
or is your intent not to have light weapons provide a single equipment action per turn?
I'm not sure you've really read what I wrote?
But to reiterate, I want to be able to do one swap at the start of your turn (stow one and/or draw one), and for Dual Wielder to allow one of these to be two weapons (stow two and draw one, or stow one and draw two).
Basically I want it to be simpler for swapping for the turn, because in my experience that's how everyone plays it anyway (if you start ranged and enemies close, next turn you go melee etc.). I'm open to two-weapons being able to draw at once in the same way as standard, but Dual Wielder definitely needs more of a sweetener on it, and moving Nick to that so that two-weapons can mean two masteries is definitely my preferred solution.
But by the same token I absolutely do not see any benefit to allowing weapon swapping mid-turn; pick what you're attacking with and then do that.
And I will not be swayed by the idea that Fighters should be weapon jugglers as that just gets silly; I much preferred the earlier UA feature of being able to put two masteries on one weapon, as this would mean two-weapon fighting could give you access to four choices (two of which you can use per turn). Having to carry around armfuls of weapons and swing fistfuls of them at enemies each turn isn't even remotely my image of a skilled fighter.
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 mean, the obvious think to do is to mimic computer-games, where your character gets two "load outs" and you can swap between those two however you like during combat, but you can only change those loadouts while outside of combat unless you spend your turn to change them. i.e.
Holding / Equiping Items
Your character can hold one item in each hand, and have a second set of items that fills each hand within easy reach - either tucked into your belt or slung over your back. Once on your turn, you can swap between these sets of equipment as a free action. You can spend 1 Action to change the items you are holding and/or have within easy reach with other items you are carrying.
Then just add special pieces of equipment to deal with thrown weapons:
Bandolier
Common, Equipment, 5sp, 1lb + weight of attached items
This specially designed belt has 10 pockets, straps, and special pouches that allow you to have additional items within easy reach. Each pocket can hold 1 item that weighs no more than 1 lb, items can be drawn from this belt as a free action as long as you have a free hand. You may wear up to 2 bandoliers at a time.
Quiver Common, Equipment, 5sp, 1lb + weight of attached items
A quiver allows you to store 20 arrows, bolts, or other types of ammunition within easy reach, allowing you to reload your weapon as long as you have a free hand. Alternatively it can hold up to 10 javelins, spears, tridents, or other one-handed or versatile weapons with the Thrown property. These can be drawn from the quiver and equipped as a free action as long as you have a free hand. You may only have 1 quiver equipped at a time.
And I will not be swayed by the idea that Fighters should be weapon jugglers as that just gets silly; I much preferred the earlier UA feature of being able to put two masteries on one weapon, as this would mean two-weapon fighting could give you access to four choices (two of which you can use per turn). Having to carry around armfuls of weapons and swing fistfuls of them at enemies each turn isn't even remotely my image of a skilled fighter.
Fun fact: You can't even have four Masteries across two weapons while two-weapon fighting unless you have the Dual Wielder feat, because only three Weapon Mastery properties can be applied to Light weapons: Nick, Slow, and Vex.
I should clarify in my message I'm assuming Nick would be moved to Dual Wielder and light weapons that currently have it would get something else, meaning at least one new mastery, or some masteries loosening their restrictions to include light weapons.
I should also have repeated that my general view of weapon mastery is I like the idea of differentiating weapons more and gaining useful abilities on them, but I hate like 90% of the system as proposed because the passive abilities are boring, and the active ones are too freely useable.
I'd prefer more considered active abilities so it feels like doing something meaningful, rather than either just spamming or build optimising. Basically if in doubt, everything I say about weapon mastery is from the perspective of wanting big changes to it, but sadly through the UA we've just gotten the exact same version of the feature over and over without even slight refinements, except for canning Flex and not replacing it with anything, I guess.
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 mean, the obvious think to do is to mimic computer-games, where your character gets two "load outs" and you can swap between those two however you like during combat, but you can only change those loadouts while outside of combat unless you spend your turn to change them. i.e.
Holding / Equiping Items
Your character can hold one item in each hand, and have a second set of items that fills each hand within easy reach - either tucked into your belt or slung over your back. Once on your turn, you can swap between these sets of equipment as a free action. You can spend 1 Action to change the items you are holding and/or have within easy reach with other items you are carrying.
Then just add special pieces of equipment to deal with thrown weapons:
Bandolier
Common, Equipment, 5sp, 1lb + weight of attached items
This specially designed belt has 10 pockets, straps, and special pouches that allow you to have additional items within easy reach. Each pocket can hold 1 item that weighs no more than 1 lb, items can be drawn from this belt as a free action as long as you have a free hand. You may wear up to 2 bandoliers at a time.
Quiver Common, Equipment, 5sp, 1lb + weight of attached items
A quiver allows you to store 20 arrows, bolts, or other types of ammunition within easy reach, allowing you to reload your weapon as long as you have a free hand. Alternatively it can hold up to 10 javelins, spears, tridents, or other one-handed or versatile weapons with the Thrown property. These can be drawn from the quiver and equipped as a free action as long as you have a free hand. You may only have 1 quiver equipped at a time.
I like, maybe in Holding/Equiping Items: You can spend 1 Action or Bonus Action; and in Quiver: You may only have 1 quiver equipped at a time, or 2 quiver with X Feat. (Maybe CROSSBOW EXPERT and/or SHARPSHOOTER)
I like, maybe in Holding/Equiping Items: You can spend 1 Action or Bonus Action; and in Quiver: You may only have 1 quiver equipped at a time, or 2 quiver with X Feat. (Maybe CROSSBOW EXPERT and/or SHARPSHOOTER)
There would certainly be options to have subclasses/ feats & magic items alter how these would work. I personally would keep changing your equipment an Action but have certain classes/subclass or feats let you do it as a Bonus Action - e.g. Thief Rogue should definitely get changing your load outs as part of their Fast Hands ability, but I could also see a subclass like Battlemaster letting you have 3 load outs instead of 2, or a feat like Great Weapon Master allowing you to have 2x two handed weapons stored within "easy reach". SS could absolutely allow you to have 2 quivers. And there should be a magical bandolier that causes items to magically return to the bandolier after being thrown.
And I will not be swayed by the idea that Fighters should be weapon jugglers as that just gets silly; I much preferred the earlier UA feature of being able to put two masteries on one weapon, as this would mean two-weapon fighting could give you access to four choices (two of which you can use per turn). Having to carry around armfuls of weapons and swing fistfuls of them at enemies each turn isn't even remotely my image of a skilled fighter.
Fun fact: You can't even have four Masteries across two weapons while two-weapon fighting unless you have the Dual Wielder feat, because only three Weapon Mastery properties can be applied to Light weapons: Nick, Slow, and Vex.
I should clarify in my message I'm assuming Nick would be moved to Dual Wielder and light weapons that currently have it would get something else, meaning at least one new mastery, or some masteries loosening their restrictions to include light weapons.
I should also have repeated that my general view of weapon mastery is I like the idea of differentiating weapons more and gaining useful abilities on them, but I hate like 90% of the system as proposed because the passive abilities are boring, and the active ones are too freely useable.
I'd prefer more considered active abilities so it feels like doing something meaningful, rather than either just spamming or build optimising. Basically if in doubt, everything I say about weapon mastery is from the perspective of wanting big changes to it, but sadly through the UA we've just gotten the exact same version of the feature over and over without even slight refinements, except for canning Flex and not replacing it with anything, I guess.
I wasn't so much talking about what weapon masteries light weapons have, though yeah, removing nick means there are less options, I am talking about light weapons serving a purpose in and of themselves. Right now, you use light weapons if you don't have access to heavy, or as part of a juggle combo. Or you just do less damage. Remove the juggle combo and it has no actual use, other than you have no choice.
to clarify, my position isnt, everything is great with weapon mastery and the light property, I'd like changes, but if weapon mastery is the way it is, and light weapons are how they are, then equipping needs to be how it is imo.
that said, its still a lot better than it was imo. Playing melee oriented builds without mastery feels really bad now.
And I don't really see mastery changing much, it tested well and hasn't been iterated or expanded since it first arrived. I'm hoping dual wielding feat will be improved, or a new feats added for that style but, I'm not expecting it
Oh, and if you think a Barbarian/Monk multiclass is actually inferior to a pure-classed Monk...
Getting Rage damage on Unarmed Strikes even with DEX is a greater damage increase than each step of the Martial Arts die and gives greater benefit to the Monk with their bonus-action attacks than it does for a pure Barbarian.
Deflect Attacks has obvious synergy with Rage reducing bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage.
Evasion has obvious synergy with Danger Sense.
A Barbarian/Monk can use the Barbarian's Unarmored Defense for DEX/CON instead of DEX/WIS, as Stunning Strike doing damage on a successful save actually provides a benefit to low-WIS Monk builds.
You are right that Barbarian 1 / Monk 1 is an offensive powerhouse capable of dealing 2*(3+2+1d6) +2+1d6 = 22.5 damage in tier 1.
Could you explain your math?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My point being that the whole weapon shuffle is just a bit too much as a personal take, and seems to be stretching the RAI of the streamlined weapon handling. And yes, I’m aware combatants would carry multiple weapons; however again the idea of trying to juggle them like this in a 6 second window again stretches both credulity and my take on RAI. Swapping from one turn to the next is more in line with what you’re describing.
There's a big difference between having several weapons so you can cope with different situations (enemy at range, enemy up close, etc.) compared to swapping three weapons (one of which is a two-handed polearm) every six seconds in a constant cycle while also attacking with each one at least once.
The former is just good tactical sense because if your enemy has a ranged weapon and you don't, you've got to close the distance potentially taking hits the whole way. But the latter is just begging for you to end up dropping a load of weapons on the ground and getting stabbed to death as you try to pick them up again.
Where it gets tricky is how to balance it out a bit better; I've never played in a group that handled weapon swapping strictly, I tried to do it on a character that needed to switch between a ranged two-handed weapon and a melee two-handed weapon, but in the end we just agreed it was annoying for everyone and just allowed one weapon swap at the start of your turn.
So basically, at the start of your turn you could stow one weapon and/or draw one weapon. Dual Wielding would add the ability to draw or stow two weapons (but not both, so you can stow one weapon and draw two, or stow two and draw one, but not stow two and draw two). This keeps it sane and limits the weird exploits that juggling an entire arsenal of weapons in a single turn implies.
The only exception would be thrown weapons, with the thrown weapon property allowing them to be drawn before attacking, so you can throw a whole bunch of darts if you want to (and should always have been able to).
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.
6 seconds is a long time
Heres the thing, 5e is mostly measuring things in terms of ratio of speed of attacker. Essentially different classes are faster than others.
Basic user 1 attack:trained user 2 Attacks: expert user 3+ Attacks.
and it actually follows your general premise.
a cleric can only draw a weapon and attack in 6 seconds (or attack and sheathe) (irl, this guy is pretty slow, this would only take 1-2 seconds irl)
a trained guy can attack twice in the same time frame, and draw and sheathe a weapon. (irl this is average it takes about 2-3 seconds to do this) (aka one weapon swap)
a expert/fast guy can do more. to draw and sheathe two weapons requires you to be twice as fast.
the key here is using three weapons is only possible for a trained user, because two of weapons are light. Irl, and in game light weapons are a lot quicker to use and manipulate, thats their property and advantage.
irl, a quick dagger user could draw and throw like 1 dagger per second.
you can't do the three weapon thing with all weapons, just light weapons (and a weapon mastery with a nick weapon), unless you are super fast/skilled. Its basically only fighter and hasted people who could do it with normal weapons.
So essentially yall guys just aren't accepting that certain light weapons are faster and easier to manipulate than other weapons, and irl, they 100% are. That is their main advantage.
do you really think it takes the same time to sheathe/draw a greatsword as a dagger? is that realistic? Are yall against the light property weapons being mechanically faster weapons?
the game is essentially saying, the average trained weapon user can swap weapons once in 6 seconds, unless some of the weapons are light, in which case they can swap 1.5 times. that is extremely reasonable.
so what does it require to be able to this?
you have to be a martial character, who is just better at weapons in general.
you have to mostly be using smaller/lighter weapons
you have to have mastered using a type of light weapon that is designed to be quicker than other weapons (nick)
unless you are a high leveled fighter, the class of weapon masters who are so fit they can double their speed in times of need, or you literally have magic used on you.
totally reasonable to me
and at the end of the day, this is still just equal to one GS swing in damage.
are light weapons just supposed to be garbage in yall guys minds?
We're not talking about drawing and throwing daggers, I even specifically mentioned an exception for thrown weapons because that was always annoying in 5e. Daggers/darts are something that someone specialising in that could absolutely get in a bandolier or whatever for easily drawing and throwing them, especially since drawing and throwing is likely a single movement anyway.
But the issue in question was someone juggling a two-handed polearm plus two one-handed weapons in order to benefit from both Nick and Polearm Master's bonus action attack in a single turn, which is where it gets ridiculous.
Yes, a Fighter can potentially attack 8 (or 9) times in a single turn, but again there's a world of difference between those attacks being made using a single weapon you're already holding after 20 levels of progression, versus being made with three different weapons you're juggling constantly in and out of your pockets like a circus act and can do from a fairly early level (5th should be enough for a 2nd basic attack, Nick and Polearm Master).
Especially when we're talking about drawing/stowing weapons in addition to making all of your normal attacks – if you had to trade attacks to draw extra weapons it would be less of an issue, as at least then there'd be some cost in time involved. But again, this shouldn't apply to thrown weapons like daggers/darts that always should have had an exception.
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.
As it is, the only benefit of using light weapons (and thus nick) is being able to use more weapons per turn.
take that away, its an even more inferior option. No real usecase.
(d6+5)+(d6)+(d6+5)=3d6+10 and a free BA (light weapons)
(2d6+5)+(2d6+5)=4d6+10 (minimum 10 damage a turn+ graze)and a free BA
PAM combo damage
light+light+pam+haft=2d6+5 + d10+5 + d4+5
gw+pam+haft= 2d6+5 +d10+5 + d4+5
and great weapon has higher crits, better reaction damage, better feats.
with the swap, at least its useful as part of a combo focused on multi hits. or being able to use 3 attacks per turn.
your answer gives light weapons no real use case, the point of the mastery system and weapon rework is to give all weapons some use case. The only weapon teirs are supposed to be simple weapons are inferior to martial weapons.
I don't think your personal distaste for someone else sheathing or dropping weapons (its not OP or even equally powered, and its definitely possible in time frame) is worth making a lot of weapons and weapon tactics/options worse.
if you want to remove this strategy, you need to add something new to light weapons that gives them a purpose other than, use this if you can't use something bette
Also, improve fighter to compensate for reducing their ability to tactically use more weapons as they get faster.
yes the point of mastery is primarily to make fighters a master of multiple weapons. And create a reason to use various weapons instead of only dice size and reach/heavy mattering.
thats the stated reasons for it existence, and its achieving that.
The purpose of Nick is so you don't lose your bonus action when using two-weapon fighting (there are bonus actions other than those that came from GWM and PAM btw), plus you still get to add another mastery on top, as only one of the weapons need Nick in order to keep your bonus action.
Or that would be the benefit it weren't trivial to juggle two-weapon fighting with PAM and GWM weapons thus ensuring that PAM and GWM remain top dog for another entire edition.
Because ultimately that doesn't fix two-weapon fighting; it turns it into a weird juggling act to add on top of other superior weapon options as a weird exploit. I don't want to see rapid weapon switching, I want to see tactical weapon switching to swap to masteries with properly useful, active abilities when they will make the most difference, not just windmill arming fistfuls of weapons to get every effect at once.
I want to see two-weapon fighting be a viable choice without it being used as an exploit. That probably means making Dual Wielder better, as for some reason it got nerfed along with GWM and PAM, by only allowing one non-light one-handed weapon, and no longer needing twin draw/stow because you can now swap weapons easier than breathing.
In fact it should probably be dual wielder that gives the benefit that Nick does IMO, with the benefit of two-handing without it simply being having access to two masteries without switching (which in turn should be limited to one swap at the start of the turn as I said).
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.
The weapon juggling thing really feels like a fighter thing because of the number of masteries they get. i do think the last playtest with them went a LITTLE overboard with weapon masteries. personally I would love to have like 4 and be able to swap the masteries out on attack for like 2 of them. I think that would allow the weapon differences while also not making the amount of weapons you carry become obscene. Not to mention high levels where having multiple magic weapons feels like what a fighter needs to keep some of their features relevant.
Well, I do think the mastery system would probably have been better, at least for fighters if they learned masteries, instead of weapons. And I think fighters should primarily be using the property based mastery system they have for weapon mastery over the weapon based one.
I also think taking away the two masteries on a weapon feature was not really what people wanted.
The other facet is they did want weapons to be more unique, and if you use the property based one for everyone, then many will be same. Like all versatile d8/d10 would be the same. All heavy 2d6 is the same, etc.
and they made some design decisions to be able to ration out masteries effectiveness to other classes and fighter progression/subclasses. Like brawler had a really good mastery use. 3 1h masteries, 3 2h masteries, could choose on each hit which one, and eventually could use 2/3 at once. But they wanted that to be the specialized version, not the baseline.
Basically, mastery isn't how I'd prefer it to be if I was designing it, but they have their own reasons/values they are pursuing here, and at this point they are in the binary take it or leave it phase on most things. So its better it does exist than it doesnt by my playtests. Even with its flaws it has made combat a lot more interesting for fighters, and builds slightly more interesting for other classes.
As for using non magic weapons sometimes, yeah, sometimes its worth it. I've had to do it many times. And its not really up to the player if they have a useful magic item, or how many they have, or which it is a lot of times.
I had one build for one dnd, a gunkatta fighter/monk, she started the lvl 3 campaign with a +1 pistol(d10vex). but it would not have been fun or smart tactics/play to just spam pistol. she was throwing daggers(nick), letting off shots, doing kicks and punches/grapples, using a maul(topple) flavored as a cybernetic kick.
couldn't pull off the character concept, or be effecient by just shooting the d10 magic item all the time.
I agree that Weapon Mastery could use some tweaks. We shall see if it remains unchanged when the PHB comes out, pending feedback they received. It was overwhelming liked overall but they may have received feedback that it needs changes. Or they may have internally known but put out the base version for UA.
Would amending the weapon swapping to once per turn with the Light property giving the swap as part of the each attack help give TWF improvements while not being an exploited feature?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The thing with swapping is that anyone with mixed weapons will need to do it at some point. The most common is going to be characters with both melee and ranged weapons. So this means we need at least the ability to swap one for one.
This to me suggests to keep it sane and reasonable the default should be the ability to swap once (stow one weapon and/or draw one weapon) per turn. I'd argue it should be the start of the turn to keep this simple and clear and minimise shenanigans/exploits. Plus it makes it easier to think of it as something your character was already doing when their turn starts.
But there are two main exception cases:
This to me feels reasonable and realistic, while still allowing for faster, more intuitive weapon switching than 5e does.
The benefit of two-weapon fighting should be having two weapon masteries available at the same time, which is why I think Nick should be removed as a mastery and relocated to the Dual Wielder feat. This way you could have Topple and Slow available at once or whatever. If Fighters get back two masteries per weapon, then two-weapon fighting enables you to have four masteries to hand at once etc.
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.
this is essentially already the rule, except if you are a mid to high level fighter. And I think its important fighter gets more swaps scaling with attacks, because otherwise it effects their value proposition for using weapons tactically. AKA they need to use graze/vex/push more often because those benefit every attack, and they can only swap once.
What is your intent here?
Is your main goal to prevent level 11+ fighters, or fighters using Action surge from having more ability to swap than other classes?
or is your intent not to have light weapons provide a single equipment action per turn?
Because otherwise this is already what the rule achieves With a rule that
one swap per turn if you have two attacks per round.
throwing can be done once per attack
dual wielder feat already allows you to draw/sheathe two weapons simulateoudly when you could normally do one.
Abstracting most of the baseline features of light weapons to feats is not a good idea, because its needs a baseline use case, like other weapons have, (heavy weapons do more damage, reach weapons give reach, thrown weapons give full damage/retain properties when thrown) and the dual wielder feat and light weapons are already underperforming.
also, every one has access to all masteries they have access to each turn via weapon swaping. The dual wielder isn't getting an advantage of 4 options. and you can only take advantage of masteries based on how many attacks you have. So essentially 3. in your world.
and, if you are going to do this, what is the baseline value/purpose of light weapons? with your suggestion its basically an ability to use a BA to do less damage than a heavy weapon.
with your suggestion, a non light weapon user with a feat can
attack 3 times for 3d6+10=20.5 with a free BA and use 3 masteries a turn, from a selection of all masteries they have access to.
a heavy user with a feat
can get 10 foot reach, can attack 2-3 times for 4d6+10=24 with a free BA and 2d6+d10+d4+15=30 (using BA) can attack an enemy as it comes into reach with a reaction. and has access to 2 masteries per turn out of all masteries they have access to.
would you say access to 1 more 1h mastery per round is equal in value to reach/ 4-10 more dpr, and a reaction to people who come into range?
*also only fighters and barbarians even have access to more than 2 masteries per day. So no value for anyone else.
I get that you don't like the concept of people switching weapons more than once a round, but as it stands, light weapons need this to have relevancy at all.
right now the only value of light weapons if you have martial weapon proficiency is that you can juggle weapons more to gain more attacks, for the same damage, and access to a few more masteries. (AkA mix light weapons with non light weapons)
and the DW feat is just not competitive as it stands. IMO it needs a much bigger change, or they need to add another feat that benefits DW, or both.
As far as the fighter thing, I think fighter is well balanced now, and fun having access to more weapons per round as they gain more attacks.
As I said before, if you want to make this change to limit swaps,
1) create a baseline value for light weapons thats worthwhile with no feats
2) come up with a way that getting more attacks as you level/use action surge on fighter doesnt feel like you must only use graze, push and vex because you can't swap weapons and most masteries are only useful one time per round.
the current equipment rules aren't just for flavor, they are mitigating balance issues and increasing usability. I am open to having a better use for light weapons, or some other mechanic for fighters to not get less value/utility as they gain attacks. But making changes to equip rules without doing that, is just making the gameplay/balance worse because a portion of the users dislike the flavor. You can reflavor at no cost to mechanics, but changing mechanics in a balanced way (good homebrew)is a much harder task for your average player.
For weapon swapping to be reasonably realistic and simple, without enabling weird weapon juggling exploits.
Why should they be able to? Attacking more quickly with the same weapon you're already holding is a very different thing to juggling weapons at the same time. And there's nothing about Fighter that gives any justification for some need to be able to swap weapons more.
I'm not sure you've really read what I wrote?
But to reiterate, I want to be able to do one swap at the start of your turn (stow one and/or draw one), and for Dual Wielder to allow one of these to be two weapons (stow two and draw one, or stow one and draw two).
Basically I want it to be simpler for swapping for the turn, because in my experience that's how everyone plays it anyway (if you start ranged and enemies close, next turn you go melee etc.). I'm open to two-weapons being able to draw at once in the same way as standard, but Dual Wielder definitely needs more of a sweetener on it, and moving Nick to that so that two-weapons can mean two masteries is definitely my preferred solution.
But by the same token I absolutely do not see any benefit to allowing weapon swapping mid-turn; pick what you're attacking with and then do that.
And I will not be swayed by the idea that Fighters should be weapon jugglers as that just gets silly; I much preferred the earlier UA feature of being able to put two masteries on one weapon, as this would mean two-weapon fighting could give you access to four choices (two of which you can use per turn). Having to carry around armfuls of weapons and swing fistfuls of them at enemies each turn isn't even remotely my image of a skilled fighter.
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 mean, the obvious think to do is to mimic computer-games, where your character gets two "load outs" and you can swap between those two however you like during combat, but you can only change those loadouts while outside of combat unless you spend your turn to change them. i.e.
Then just add special pieces of equipment to deal with thrown weapons:
I should clarify in my message I'm assuming Nick would be moved to Dual Wielder and light weapons that currently have it would get something else, meaning at least one new mastery, or some masteries loosening their restrictions to include light weapons.
I should also have repeated that my general view of weapon mastery is I like the idea of differentiating weapons more and gaining useful abilities on them, but I hate like 90% of the system as proposed because the passive abilities are boring, and the active ones are too freely useable.
I'd prefer more considered active abilities so it feels like doing something meaningful, rather than either just spamming or build optimising. Basically if in doubt, everything I say about weapon mastery is from the perspective of wanting big changes to it, but sadly through the UA we've just gotten the exact same version of the feature over and over without even slight refinements, except for canning Flex and not replacing it with anything, I guess.
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 like, maybe in Holding/Equiping Items: You can spend 1 Action or Bonus Action; and in Quiver: You may only have 1 quiver equipped at a time, or 2 quiver with X Feat. (Maybe CROSSBOW EXPERT and/or SHARPSHOOTER)
There would certainly be options to have subclasses/ feats & magic items alter how these would work. I personally would keep changing your equipment an Action but have certain classes/subclass or feats let you do it as a Bonus Action - e.g. Thief Rogue should definitely get changing your load outs as part of their Fast Hands ability, but I could also see a subclass like Battlemaster letting you have 3 load outs instead of 2, or a feat like Great Weapon Master allowing you to have 2x two handed weapons stored within "easy reach". SS could absolutely allow you to have 2 quivers. And there should be a magical bandolier that causes items to magically return to the bandolier after being thrown.
I wasn't so much talking about what weapon masteries light weapons have, though yeah, removing nick means there are less options, I am talking about light weapons serving a purpose in and of themselves. Right now, you use light weapons if you don't have access to heavy, or as part of a juggle combo. Or you just do less damage. Remove the juggle combo and it has no actual use, other than you have no choice.
to clarify, my position isnt, everything is great with weapon mastery and the light property, I'd like changes, but if weapon mastery is the way it is, and light weapons are how they are, then equipping needs to be how it is imo.
that said, its still a lot better than it was imo. Playing melee oriented builds without mastery feels really bad now.
And I don't really see mastery changing much, it tested well and hasn't been iterated or expanded since it first arrived. I'm hoping dual wielding feat will be improved, or a new feats added for that style but, I'm not expecting it
Could you explain your math?