Before the playtest I'd been experimenting how to make weapons more mechanically distinct in ways that support the various narratives and fantasies. My group's experiences playtesting the lacklustre implementation of the Weapon Mastery system has only reinvigorated my efforts.
I've always leant towards universal rules that mechanically better support certain play styles, as opposed to class-restricted special rules, but see that they're simpler and can be more specifically designed.
For my Rogue player, however, they really enjoyed the following simple changes to TWF and daggers that let them play their dagger wielding rascal with flair:
Light: Remove the requirement to use a Bonus Action for the extra attack from a second Light weapon.
Swift: If you miss with a weapon attack roll, you can use a Bonus Action to make an attack with a weapon with this trait. [This trades the better damage of a shortsword for a greater chance of scoring a hit and triggering Sneak Attack. Also gives an interesting choice whether they take the safe option to Disengage and withdraw if they miss their first attack, or whether they risk it all for the extra Swift attack.]
Parry: If you're hit by a melee attack you can use your Reaction to increase your AC by +1 for each weapon you're wielding with this Trait against the triggering attack. [Mechanically supports the fantasy of parrying daggers (and swords)]
The Rogue player now has an interesting choice between (a) slightly more damage with 2 shortswords, (b) more reliability to hit and proc Sneak Attack with 2 daggers, or (c) a compromise with a shortsword and dagger. Or they keep a hand free for other shenanigans.
For the Rapier + Dagger, I gave the Rapier the Traits:
Swift
Parry
Disarm: Can substitute an attack to make an Athletics check or attack roll (your choice) against a creature's Strength Saving Throw (or Strength Save DC, as I play it), making them drop one item they're holding if you succeed.
Rapier and Dagger for the Rogue has a benefit (Parry goes to +2 instead of +1) but means you've got your hands full, preventing other activity. Importantly, we found solo Rapier became as attractive as double Shortswords as Swift somewhat offset the advantage of the Light extra attack.
That's a fair point. I also get the desire to make daggers more of an option for rogues (perhaps THE option for some builds/types), but there's also the point that daggers are nearly ubiquitous and very cheap compared to other options. I think every class has proficiency with daggers, so it would very much need to be a rogue-specific thing and probably something that would require more than a 1 level dip with multi-classing.
I guess, if you approach it from the other end (i.e. sneak attack is the only damage contribution that matters), then a rogue just simply doesn't care what melee weapon(s) they wield with the only appreciable differences becoming access to magic weapons and their respective bonuses.
The "gun-and-blade" idea is cool, though. I like it a lot, and it's something that I've kind of envisioned in at least one concept character I've had. Though, it was a rapier instead of a scimitar and that brings up the other complaint I have about rogue weapons...
I'm assuming you're responding to my post. Multiclassing was indeed a concern I had, and I think it would be best if this class feature was only granted if your starting class is Rogue - like I mentioned it is a proficiency extendor and not all proficiencies are granted upon entering the class through multiclassing. The cost of weapons shouldn't really concern whether something can be done, unless it is a limited resource - like ammunition.
Rogue's main portion of damage comes through Sneak Attack, so yes it is very much the focus point of the class. In the UA they also granted certain options, where you could trade part of your Sneak Attack damage for inflicting conditions or taking tactical actions. However that doesn't stop you from wanting a proper choice of weapon. For a choice to make sense its options needs to be weighed against each other and found somewhat equivalent in value but with different pros and cons, otherwise there's no choice. No other class has much of an affinity for daggers, but it would be flavorful if Rogues had certain benefits naturally that others could work to acquire (getting the feat).
You're not limited on your choice of melee weapon used in the gun-and-blade scenario I made above, beyond it being one handed - as the Crossbow Expert feat requires to perform a bonus action attack with a hand crossbow. (Edit: obviously to get the Sneak Attack damage proc you need a finesse or ranged weapon)
Before the playtest I'd been experimenting how to make weapons more mechanically distinct in ways that support the various narratives and fantasies. My group's experiences playtesting the lacklustre implementation of the Weapon Mastery system has only reinvigorated my efforts.
I agree about the rather boring version of weapon mastery we've seen and hope for something more interesting. It did rather well in the surveys, but that could just as well be due to the lack of a better alternative and limits on feedback options.
Personally I would prefer if they took the Fighter - Battle Master's maneuvers as a foundation to make universal martial actions/attack options to improve tactical/combat decision making for martials. Basically re-introduce many of the actions that were available in 3e. They could then revamp the Battle Master to build on top of that system, akin to how Fighter - Champion is building on top of a very basic swing/critical hit martial design.
I've always leant towards universal rules that mechanically better support certain play styles, as opposed to class-restricted special rules, but see that they're simpler and can be more specifically designed.
This is the more elegant solution that one should strive to achieve for a core system like weapons.
But like you said it is often simpler to just give the classes that needs a lift, a lift. (Personally I don't really know if Rogue needs a lift, I've not played it, but it seems like the consensus is that they are not great, with the main problem circling back to the ability to proc Sneak Attack because of limited weapon attacks. That being said, the hard hitters in my current campaign are multiclassing into Rogue for the Sneak Attack damage, compared to investing further into single EA martial classes which primarily get defensive or utility bonuses on their mid-way levels, whereas Rogue gets +1d6 damage per round per 2 levels beyond the 1st with no resource limit.)
For my Rogue player, however, they really enjoyed the following simple changes to TWF and daggers that let them play their dagger wielding rascal with flair:
Light: Remove the requirement to use a Bonus Action for the extra attack from a second Light weapon.
Swift: If you miss with a weapon attack roll, you can use a Bonus Action to make an attack with a weapon with this trait. [This trades the better damage of a shortsword for a greater chance of scoring a hit and triggering Sneak Attack. Also gives an interesting choice whether they take the safe option to Disengage and withdraw if they miss their first attack, or whether they risk it all for the extra Swift attack.]
Parry: If you're hit by a melee attack you can use your Reaction to increase your AC by +1 for each weapon you're wielding with this Trait against the triggering attack. [Mechanically supports the fantasy of parrying daggers (and swords)]
The Rogue player now has an interesting choice between (a) slightly more damage with 2 shortswords, (b) more reliability to hit and proc Sneak Attack with 2 daggers, or (c) a compromise with a shortsword and dagger. Or they keep a hand free for other shenanigans.
For the Rapier + Dagger, I gave the Rapier the Traits:
Swift
Parry
Disarm: Can substitute an attack to make an Athletics check or attack roll (your choice) against a creature's Strength Saving Throw (or Strength Save DC, as I play it), making them drop one item they're holding if you succeed.
Rapier and Dagger for the Rogue has a benefit (Parry goes to +2 instead of +1) but means you've got your hands full, preventing other activity. Importantly, we found solo Rapier became as attractive as double Shortswords as Swift somewhat offset the advantage of the Light extra attack.
I wouldn't be against playing around with multiple weapon properties on each weapon to grant more interesting choices for weapon combinations. However it also runs the risk of becoming very complex and would skew towards martial classes wanting to mainly run 2x weapons - depending on what they do - compared to a shield or free-hand.
Also is it just me not understanding the properties or would a Rapier + Dagger in your scenario not be able to do TWF bonus action attacks? (at least without Dual Wielder feat) The Dagger would essentially just be there to buff up Parry? The Swift property you want to use on the Rapier and the Light property seems to be tied to be combined with another Light weapon to grant the free TWF bonus attack, which is already a requirement for TWF (2x Light weapons) - unless you changed that too but didn't write it in your post.
Personally, I agree that I don't think the Rogue needs a buff. My intent was more a side grade that enabled all the weapons for the class fantasy to be worth taking mechanically. All the Martials in my playtest got a little boost.
Personally I would prefer if they took the Fighter - Battle Master's maneuvers as a foundation to make universal martial actions/attack options to improve tactical/combat decision making for martials. Basically re-introduce many of the actions that were available in 3e. They could then revamp the Battle Master to build on top of that system, akin to how Fighter - Champion is building on top of a very basic swing/critical hit martial design.
I think we've agreed on this before! Part of my personal system playtest is giving Fighters Bonus Action Manoeuvres. No limited uses or bonus damage, with a more standardised system to maintain simplicity and consistency (you roll a Skill versus the target's relevant Saving Throw DC). My player's Fighter is an EK so haven't had to figure out how I'd overhaul BM but agree it would build on top.
I wouldn't be against playing around with multiple weapon properties on each weapon to grant more interesting choices for weapon combinations. However it also runs the risk of becoming very complex and would skew towards martial classes wanting to mainly run 2x weapons - depending on what they do - compared to a shield or free-hand.
With the list of additional Traits I gave to the weapons I tried to keep it to just an additional 1 or 2, mainly on the Martial weapons, and to make the mechanics fit the name and narrative to keep them intuitive.
Personally I think 5e already suffers from making TWF too powerful (I think that stems from Finesse extending to damage rolls but that's a whole different can of worms). Anecdotally, not seen TWF overwhelm the table under the new Traits or TWF but I'm relatively strict about having a free hand for certain actions and weapon juggling shenanigans.
For context, my Fighter player uses a Longsword (1d8 S, Parry, Versatile [1d10]) and shield (1d6 B, Shove) with Duelling, the Ranger 2x Scimitars (1d8 S, Finesse, Light, Sweep) with TWF, the Paladin a Halberd (1d10 S, Heavy, Reach, Sweep, Topple, Two-handed), the Thief Rogue a Dagger (1d4 P, Finesse, Light, Parry, Swift, Thrown), and the Swashbuckler Rogue normally just a Rapier (1d8 P, Disarm, Finesse, Parry, Swift) so they can grab disarmed weapons, etc, but sometimes with a dagger for the Parry bonus.
Also is it just me not understanding the properties or would a Rapier + Dagger in your scenario not be able to do TWF bonus action attacks? (at least without Dual Wielder feat) The Dagger would essentially just be there to buff up Parry? The Swift property you want to use on the Rapier and the Light property seems to be tied to be combined with another Light weapon to grant the free TWF bonus attack, which is already a requirement for TWF (2x Light weapons) - unless you changed that too but didn't write it in your post.
You're correct! In this instance the dagger isn't there to be attacked with (or use Swift) but just to add the Parry bonus as they were often used historically. Kinda what I was hoping for with the design.
I did forget to mention that Swift doesn't add ability mod damage unless you have TW Fighting Style.
Swift and Light are separate in my system but can interplay: for example, a Rogue could miss with their main shortsword attack, miss with their offhand dagger attack, then use a Bonus Action to activate Swift on the dagger to make a third attack for 1d4 S.
@Bearbug I didn't go either way for Rogue needing a buff. I legit don't know where they stand. My current campaign (at mid tier 3) has a full Rogue too, but it's hard to parse where his true power level is, as he has access to once per day conjure Purple Worm poison, which really skyrockets his average DPR, as our combat encounters are usually few in number and rounds.
Yes, the BM maneuvers as a foundation for martials has been proposed on this board a couple of times, both in context to martials needing buffs and the weapon mastery mechanic.
In relation to TWF in 5e, the problem I see is the disparity when comparing to a two-hander, specifically because your "off-hand" weapon only gets to attack once. So if you only add the damage die on damage rolls (instead of also getting the modifier through the specific Fighting Style) it means any time your comparative character makes an attack beyond the first, your TWF get only half the damage die for the same additional attack. It makes the TWF's Extra Attack feature worse, their opportunity attacks worse, Haste, etc. So you kinda have to give the TWF something additional to not be the consistent lesser build choice. BA attacks through something like PAM further increases this divide by reducing the benefit of TWF in comparison to a two-hander. It is going away but adding on Great Weapon Master which served to further increase two-handers' damage output did TWF no favors in the comparison. And the Dual-wielder feat is pitiful in comparison, granting +1 average damage per weapon attack and +1 AC. To further salt the wounds, even sword'n'board players gets the Fighting Style - Duelist that puts their d8 weapon on level with a d12 weapon, with none of the other baggage that TWF has AND they get the shield's added +2 AC, including any feats that utilizes this build composition.
TWF with the Fighting Style is stronger than a non-PAM two-hander/Duelist d8 in tier 1 play, at the cost of the bonus action. In tier 2 with the Extra Attack feature it mostly goes even in damage, but the TWF still use their bonus action, so they are spending more resources for the same output, and still with weaker OAs. Any further attacks just piles on the wrong side for TWF.
It is difficult to make TWF comparable without either making it UP or OP compared to other options without mechanically making them work similarly (aka your TWF attacks with both weapons every time and use the damage dice from both but the modifier only once and at no resource cost) at which point they are functionally the same so why bother.
TWF's strongest addition to the game is in tier 1 play with the Fighting Style or to provide a simple weaponization of the bonus action to grant something like the Rogue multiple weapon attacks that they really want in order to proc Sneak Attack.
In the scenario of the parry dagger you mentioned, mechanically it seems superior to just equip a shield, unless you're switching it up during combat - where donning and doffing a shield requires an action. That's also one reason why the scenario I made had the AC bonus last until your next turn - to be somewhat equivalent to a shield, at the cost of your reaction.
Thread-hopping from another thread where we went off-topic, whereas this thread is more on-topic for the discussion about Warlock, multi-classing, spell slots and survivability:
However just like before, a Rogue's main damage stat coincide with the stat that boost armor. So while a Rogue will definitely boost their DEX up max, your Warlock tend to not have that same preference, keeping it at +2 max. So the Rogue does have a slight leg-up or an equivalent AC (in case of Mage Armor) as the Warlock up till level 3 + a shopping trip for a chain shirt/scale mail.
Since we were talking about levels 1-3 boosting your stats is not applicable. A warlock with mage armour is going to be looking at 13+2(dex) vs a Rogue's 12+3(dex) at those levels, alternatively the warlock can take the unlimited false life invocation for a huge amount of survivability at 1st level: 5-8 temporary hit points is massive when your max HP is only 10, and then can retrain it later on if they want to.
Yes, just like I said. If the Warlock uses one invocation on Mage Armor, they can get equivalent AC as a Rogue who invests nothing they wouldn't already do. However as soon as that Warlock selects the Hexblade at level 3 (under the UA's proposed standardized subclass progression beginning at), they gain Medium Armor proficiency and thus can upgrade their Mage armor from 13 + 2 DEX to 14 + 2 DEX (at the affordable price range, but later 15 + 2 DEX) and now they have a useless invocation.
Also in the UA7 it seems they've nicked the option to replace an invocation as you level up, which was still present in UA5. Could be oversight or a deliberate change. If the latter, it's not as flexible to cast out previous and now much less impactful invocations.
It is true that 8 temp hit points when your HP is only 8 + CON mod, is quite an increase. However if you completely avoid being hit by having enough AC, then that accounts much better to your survival.
Giving warlocks defensives magic is a major no-no because warlocks get armour proficiency. Shield is only available to classes that don't get any armour proficiency which is as it should be and honestly the one change I'm most hoping for in the 2024 release is for Shield to get one sentence added to it's mechanics: "you can only benefit from this spell if you are not wearing armour and not using a shield."
One major difference between the two is that Warlocks have a rather large section of their class that wants to hit things in the face up close. Wizards and Sorcerers generally do not. Wizards have the Bladesinging subclass which also grants light armor proficiency, generally has to go for DEX for dmg and AC, whilst the subclass also have a short term AC bonus equal to their INT mod, atop another subclass feature that lets you soak damage by expending spell slots, and they also have Shield/Absorb Element. A level 2 Bladesinger is generally considered to be having 18 passive AC (12 + 3 DEX + 3 INT) during their first two major fights of the day. Sorcerer don't really have anything that makes them want to go into melee combat, except the hilariously poorly balanced Storm Sorcery that I don't think many find is viable outside very casual play groups or hyper specific builds that utilize winged races to avoid being at risk of getting caught in melee on an enemy's turn.
My point is that many Warlocks, especially those who seek to make a melee build with Hexblade, do multi-class to either acquire better armor proficiencies (mostly from Cleric/Paladin) and/or multiclass into other full caster classes like Sorcerer, to acquire additional spell slots and defensive magics. I just think Warlock should have more of these options already within their class, seeing how they have: Low quantity of spell slots to cast spells per given combat, 4 out of 27 invocations directly require melee weapon attacks to function, and another 2 granting defensive options in terms of Mage Armor, and False Life. Both defensive options are largely obsolete for a Hexblade, Mage Armor at level 1 when they acquire Medium Armor and a Shield, and False Life is largely inconsequential once you hit 50 HP, which should happen around level 6/7.
Also the Hexblade gets access to Shield as a learn-able spell. It just feels pretty shitty using a 3rd+ level spell slot to cast Shield.
With the previous Shell Invocation x2, Pact of the Tome and the SR 1st level spell slot, plus Magical Cunning that brings a level 5 Warlock with 2 SR up to 13 eligible spell casts per adventuring day in the best case scenario, herein 6 are 1st level and 7 are 3rd level. However it is much more reasonable to figure only 1 SR on most days so down to 10 spell casts for Warlock. In comparison Sorc could have access to 13 spell slots, 7x 1st lvl, 4x 2nd lvl, and 2x 3rd lvl, but all in the very first fight. Wizard comes out at 11 spell slots with 6x 1st lvl, 3x 2nd lvl, 2x 3rd lvl. Not to mention that this is where Warlock peaks comparable to other full casters in terms of spell slot numbers and level.
That WAY too powerful for warlock. Either a warlock can have similar number of spells cast per day as a full caster - in which case why do they exist? Just play a full caster OR they can have a spammable cantrip / extra attack that deals equal damage to a fighter using weapons. They cannot have both. Warlock is fundamentally a half-caster, it gets an always available high damage spammable attack, lots of HP boosting options, and a little bit of spellcasting on the side, just like Ranger and Paladin. It's why I liked the UA warlock that made the warlock follow the same spell scaling as other half-casters with the choice to use your invocations build the "other half" of your choice - either more spellcasting or more weapon focused or more utility/support focused. If the warlock even gets similar casting to a full caster it needs to have EB & pact of the blade taken away to keep the classes balanced. It's really bad for the game if one class can simultaneously be just as good a caster as a wizard and just as good a weapon user as a fighter.
Like I said, level 5 is where Warlock peaks with these options compared to other full casters. Lets take a look at level 10 instead: Oh and for those who want to know what I'm talking about: Here See the first spoiler and the paragrafs following it.
Warlock: 2x 5th level spell slots + 1x 1st level spell slot [per Short Rest] or the equivalent of 9 spell slots with maximum Short Rests. In addition you add 1x 1st level spell slot from Pact of the Tome, then 2x 1st level spell slots from Shell Invocation (which are limited to casting Shield/Absorb Element). Then you can use Magical Cunning to replenish half your Pact Magic spell slots, meaning the 2x 5th level spell slots, replenishing 1 of those. That grants a sum of 9 + 3 + 1 = 13 spell casts per adventuring day in the best case scenario for Warlock. Same as it was at level 5.
Wizard: In rapid succession level 1/2/3... etc. They have 4x/3x/3x/3x/2x. Atop they can use Arcane Recovery on a Short Rest to recover 10 [wizard level] / 2 = 5 levels worth of spell slots. For quantity we can go 3x 1st level and 1x 2nd level spell slots regained. That sums up to 4 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 1 = 19 spell casts per adventuring day.
Sorcerer: In rapid succession level 1/2/3... etc. They have 4x/3x/3x/3x/2x. Same as Wizard. They can also create additional spell slots with Font of Magic at the expense of Sorcery Points, of which they have 10 points. It costs 2 SP for a 1st level and with slightly more bang for your buck, 3 SP for a 2nd level. But we measure quantity, meaning 10 / 2 = 5 additional 1st level spell slots. That sums up to 4 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 5 = 20 spell casts per adventuring day.
And remember that we are using the best case scenario for Warlocks, meaning 2 Short Rests per adventuring day, which is... not a given. Additionally the Warlock is spending 4 of their invocations to achieve this, of which they at level 5 have 5 of, and at level 10 they have 7 invocations. I feel like this is pretty much how you said you wanted it to be: Warlock using their invocations to somewhat close the gap up to other full casters in terms of spell casting. Every SR not taken is -3 spells for Warlock to a minimum of 7 spells. Wizards require a SR for Arcane Recovery, so they'll also drop -4 spells if no SR are taken at all to 15 spells per day.
So while it looks quite generous at level 5, it quickly turns in favor of arcane casters (here meaning Wiz/Sorc).
Of course at level 11, arcane casters get mainly just a 6th level spell slot, whilst the Warlock gains a third Pact Magic spell slot (accounting +4 spells per day with 2x SRs and Magical Cunning replenishing 2 slots instead of 1), a Mystical Arcanum (6th level spell slot), and with the Shell Invocations +2 spells, bringing their total up to 13 + 4 + 1 + 2 = 20 spells. Which is on par with Wizards and Sorcerers again, but still considering the best possible scenario for Warlock, and a Tuesday for a Wizard. Worth noting is the quality of those spells for Warlock is 8x 1st level spell slots (4 of which are restricted), 11x 5th level spell slots, and a 6th level spell slot. My proposals brought about 7 of those 1st level spell slots, including the 4 restricted to defense, at the cost of 3 Invocations. 1 Invocation, the Pact of the Tome, is straight out of UA7.
After level 11, arcane casters and Warlocks acquire additional spell slots at about the same pace. However arcane casters also have way better flexibility in spells learned, especially at 6th level spells and above. Warlocks mainly acquire 1 new spell per level up till level 9, and thereafter one spell every other level, meaning they have a very limited selection in comparison to arcane casters. Having read the UA7 again, it appears Warlock has changed so their subclass doesn't just add the additional spells to their spell list to be learned, but actually grants them direct access to those spells. This is a massive upgrade from previously. However Sorcerer, which previously followed a similar pattern to Warlock but got extra spells from most of their subclasses, they now receive more spells prepared naturally. Unfortunately we haven't seen many subclasses from Sorc, so we don't know whether their subclasses will supplement their natural higher number of spells prepared.
The Warlock spell list is neither that impressive when it comes to direct damage spells, mostly because they would be competing against Eldritch Blast. Neither do Warlock have many spells that scale well with level. Meaning most of their early spell selection are somewhat limited to support options, many used out of combat. (To avoid confusion, support in this sense meaning spells that either buff/debuff or have a utility use).
As such, I don't find it problematic to increase Warlock's number of spell casts, especially as level 1 spell slots.
Should be more strategy & support focused, the current version is too focused on being a frontliner / melee / weapon based. They should have a tool for every job but not one tool to solve all problems, they should have the most options of any class, in terms of solving problems in & out of combat.
Need more ways to use tools by combining them with magic - let them magically animate tools to do stuff, and use tools to alter the terrain of a combat - e.g. making puddles of acid or oil, magically building walls or cover, animating tools to hinder enemy movement.
i.e. give me a Druid based on engineering & alchemy rather than nature.
Barbarian
Should be a monster in combat: should reliably deal the most damage and be capable of taking the most punishment of any character / class.
Should be melee and DPR focused : you run into the fray and hand the a** of the enemy to them in their face.
Shouldn't need to worry about running out of Rage, any and every combat they should be able to Rage without worry of running out, and Rage should reliably last for the entire combat so long as they are trying to kill things.
Should be able to be scare NPCs whether in combat or outside of it.
At higher levels, should get some mobility boost - like a super jump (like Hulk) or magic wings or something else... (should be subclass features) so they continue getting into the face of the enemy.
Bard
Should be the ultimate support class (not cleric), not a discount Wizard with a little healing and skills.
Less expertise (Rogues and Rangers should be the skill experts) and more Jack of All Trades.
More Divine spells, but less casting focused - give them something else unique to do in combat other than just Bardic Inspiration.
Cleric
Should be the best defensive caster, they have the favour of a divine being protecting them they should feel like it.
Offensively they should be more reactive - turning enemy hostility back on themselves - and nova-y for that real divine retribution theming. Rather than right now where they are incredibly powerful as sustained damage dealers with Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon.
Needs some more features for the Social pillar out-of-combat, clerics are spreaders of faith, symbols of hope, or can be terrifying doomsayers they should have more ways to use their magic in social situations.
Druid
They call the forces of nature to battle. The masters of manipulating the battlefield to drown, slow, strangle, or trip their enemies.
They need more elemental damaging spells, a Wizard should not be better at throwing lightning bolts than a Druid.
Their battlefield control needs to be less reliant on being outside, wood buildings were once trees, dungeons are carved into the rock and soil, bathwater was once a raging river...
Less "furry" - there should be druids that focus on animals but it shouldn't be a requirement for all druids. Druids should be able to focus on plants, animals, rocks/earth, water, air, or fire.
Fighter
The masters of tactics, weapons, strategy, and warfare. They should have the most options of any class when wielding weapons & armour, and should be able to swap around their equipment for the best load out for the particular foe they are facing.
Should have more out-of-combat options particularly at sizing up enemies, forts, or battlefields for cover, advantageous positions, or vulnerable positions. While a Rogue might be good at hiding, a Fighter should be good at finding a route out of sight line of a sentry, while a Wizard can teleport across the river, a Fighter should be able to make a makeshift raft or bridge.
Monk
The ultimate combat debuffer. They should be able to identify and exploit the weaknesses of enemies, and use the enemy's strengths against them.
Needs more debuffing options other than just Stunning Strike, especially targeting different saving throws so they can identify & exploit the enemy's weaknesses.
Should have options outside of combat especially for negotiation and resolving conflicts peacefully and building understanding between parties.
Paladin
The holy knight in shining armour leading the charge on their divine quest, be that as a beacon in the dark or a burning force for revenge.
Their spells & spell list needs to be revamped so they are more than just a Smite machine, and have other good uses for their spellslots in combat.
As part of the above, they should have a unique caster-focused option for their Fighting Style, and some way to customize them to specialize for their particular quest.
Ranger
The ultimate explorer & tracker. They should be able to use the weather & terrain to their advantage, be that setting traps for enemies, luring enemies into danger, finding vantage points, or hiding in the shrubbery.
Need better skills, a Bard should not be a better scout than the Ranger.
Their spells & spell list needs to be revamped so they actually use their spells for something other than just Hunter's Mark.
Should get movement buffs & options and ways to ignore & exploit terrain hazards.
Rogue
The sly trickster, and master infiltrator, or cocky charmer.
Needs more options in combat to set up their sneak attack : feinting, tripping, distracting, or hiding.
Magic needs nerfing so it doesn't overshadow the Rogue's skills.
Sorcerer
The magical specialist vs the Wizard's magical Jack-of-all-Trades. Their magic should be more powerful than any other, but more limited in scope as well.
Keep their number spells known lower than any other caster, but give them a wide range of spells to choose from and much more & better Metamagic.
Warlock
Should be split into two to resolve it's bipolar nature. One being the magic-warrior that can turn cantrips into the equivalent of weapon strikes and can use magically conjured weapons & armour, the other being the master of the occult a spellcaster with a creepy theme with a strange occult object or creature that is the focus of their power and with abilities focusing on learning the magical/elemental weaknesses of their enemies & exploiting them.
Wizard
The magic nerds that know everything about everything. They should have the largest number and most diverse range of spells available and the ability to swap them around easily.
They should solve all problems with the right spell, thus should have minimal out-of-combat options other than Intelligence-based skills which they should excel at.
This was excellent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Before the playtest I'd been experimenting how to make weapons more mechanically distinct in ways that support the various narratives and fantasies. My group's experiences playtesting the lacklustre implementation of the Weapon Mastery system has only reinvigorated my efforts.
I've always leant towards universal rules that mechanically better support certain play styles, as opposed to class-restricted special rules, but see that they're simpler and can be more specifically designed.
For my Rogue player, however, they really enjoyed the following simple changes to TWF and daggers that let them play their dagger wielding rascal with flair:
The Rogue player now has an interesting choice between (a) slightly more damage with 2 shortswords, (b) more reliability to hit and proc Sneak Attack with 2 daggers, or (c) a compromise with a shortsword and dagger. Or they keep a hand free for other shenanigans.
For the Rapier + Dagger, I gave the Rapier the Traits:
Rapier and Dagger for the Rogue has a benefit (Parry goes to +2 instead of +1) but means you've got your hands full, preventing other activity. Importantly, we found solo Rapier became as attractive as double Shortswords as Swift somewhat offset the advantage of the Light extra attack.
I'm assuming you're responding to my post. Multiclassing was indeed a concern I had, and I think it would be best if this class feature was only granted if your starting class is Rogue - like I mentioned it is a proficiency extendor and not all proficiencies are granted upon entering the class through multiclassing. The cost of weapons shouldn't really concern whether something can be done, unless it is a limited resource - like ammunition.
Rogue's main portion of damage comes through Sneak Attack, so yes it is very much the focus point of the class. In the UA they also granted certain options, where you could trade part of your Sneak Attack damage for inflicting conditions or taking tactical actions. However that doesn't stop you from wanting a proper choice of weapon. For a choice to make sense its options needs to be weighed against each other and found somewhat equivalent in value but with different pros and cons, otherwise there's no choice.
No other class has much of an affinity for daggers, but it would be flavorful if Rogues had certain benefits naturally that others could work to acquire (getting the feat).
You're not limited on your choice of melee weapon used in the gun-and-blade scenario I made above, beyond it being one handed - as the Crossbow Expert feat requires to perform a bonus action attack with a hand crossbow. (Edit: obviously to get the Sneak Attack damage proc you need a finesse or ranged weapon)
I agree about the rather boring version of weapon mastery we've seen and hope for something more interesting. It did rather well in the surveys, but that could just as well be due to the lack of a better alternative and limits on feedback options.
Personally I would prefer if they took the Fighter - Battle Master's maneuvers as a foundation to make universal martial actions/attack options to improve tactical/combat decision making for martials. Basically re-introduce many of the actions that were available in 3e. They could then revamp the Battle Master to build on top of that system, akin to how Fighter - Champion is building on top of a very basic swing/critical hit martial design.
This is the more elegant solution that one should strive to achieve for a core system like weapons.
But like you said it is often simpler to just give the classes that needs a lift, a lift. (Personally I don't really know if Rogue needs a lift, I've not played it, but it seems like the consensus is that they are not great, with the main problem circling back to the ability to proc Sneak Attack because of limited weapon attacks. That being said, the hard hitters in my current campaign are multiclassing into Rogue for the Sneak Attack damage, compared to investing further into single EA martial classes which primarily get defensive or utility bonuses on their mid-way levels, whereas Rogue gets +1d6 damage per round per 2 levels beyond the 1st with no resource limit.)
I wouldn't be against playing around with multiple weapon properties on each weapon to grant more interesting choices for weapon combinations. However it also runs the risk of becoming very complex and would skew towards martial classes wanting to mainly run 2x weapons - depending on what they do - compared to a shield or free-hand.
Also is it just me not understanding the properties or would a Rapier + Dagger in your scenario not be able to do TWF bonus action attacks? (at least without Dual Wielder feat) The Dagger would essentially just be there to buff up Parry? The Swift property you want to use on the Rapier and the Light property seems to be tied to be combined with another Light weapon to grant the free TWF bonus attack, which is already a requirement for TWF (2x Light weapons) - unless you changed that too but didn't write it in your post.
I think we've agreed on this before! Part of my personal system playtest is giving Fighters Bonus Action Manoeuvres. No limited uses or bonus damage, with a more standardised system to maintain simplicity and consistency (you roll a Skill versus the target's relevant Saving Throw DC). My player's Fighter is an EK so haven't had to figure out how I'd overhaul BM but agree it would build on top.
With the list of additional Traits I gave to the weapons I tried to keep it to just an additional 1 or 2, mainly on the Martial weapons, and to make the mechanics fit the name and narrative to keep them intuitive.
Personally I think 5e already suffers from making TWF too powerful (I think that stems from Finesse extending to damage rolls but that's a whole different can of worms). Anecdotally, not seen TWF overwhelm the table under the new Traits or TWF but I'm relatively strict about having a free hand for certain actions and weapon juggling shenanigans.
For context, my Fighter player uses a Longsword (1d8 S, Parry, Versatile [1d10]) and shield (1d6 B, Shove) with Duelling, the Ranger 2x Scimitars (1d8 S, Finesse, Light, Sweep) with TWF, the Paladin a Halberd (1d10 S, Heavy, Reach, Sweep, Topple, Two-handed), the Thief Rogue a Dagger (1d4 P, Finesse, Light, Parry, Swift, Thrown), and the Swashbuckler Rogue normally just a Rapier (1d8 P, Disarm, Finesse, Parry, Swift) so they can grab disarmed weapons, etc, but sometimes with a dagger for the Parry bonus.
You're correct! In this instance the dagger isn't there to be attacked with (or use Swift) but just to add the Parry bonus as they were often used historically. Kinda what I was hoping for with the design.
I did forget to mention that Swift doesn't add ability mod damage unless you have TW Fighting Style.
Swift and Light are separate in my system but can interplay: for example, a Rogue could miss with their main shortsword attack, miss with their offhand dagger attack, then use a Bonus Action to activate Swift on the dagger to make a third attack for 1d4 S.
@Bearbug I didn't go either way for Rogue needing a buff. I legit don't know where they stand. My current campaign (at mid tier 3) has a full Rogue too, but it's hard to parse where his true power level is, as he has access to once per day conjure Purple Worm poison, which really skyrockets his average DPR, as our combat encounters are usually few in number and rounds.
Yes, the BM maneuvers as a foundation for martials has been proposed on this board a couple of times, both in context to martials needing buffs and the weapon mastery mechanic.
In relation to TWF in 5e, the problem I see is the disparity when comparing to a two-hander, specifically because your "off-hand" weapon only gets to attack once. So if you only add the damage die on damage rolls (instead of also getting the modifier through the specific Fighting Style) it means any time your comparative character makes an attack beyond the first, your TWF get only half the damage die for the same additional attack. It makes the TWF's Extra Attack feature worse, their opportunity attacks worse, Haste, etc. So you kinda have to give the TWF something additional to not be the consistent lesser build choice. BA attacks through something like PAM further increases this divide by reducing the benefit of TWF in comparison to a two-hander. It is going away but adding on Great Weapon Master which served to further increase two-handers' damage output did TWF no favors in the comparison. And the Dual-wielder feat is pitiful in comparison, granting +1 average damage per weapon attack and +1 AC.
To further salt the wounds, even sword'n'board players gets the Fighting Style - Duelist that puts their d8 weapon on level with a d12 weapon, with none of the other baggage that TWF has AND they get the shield's added +2 AC, including any feats that utilizes this build composition.
TWF with the Fighting Style is stronger than a non-PAM two-hander/Duelist d8 in tier 1 play, at the cost of the bonus action. In tier 2 with the Extra Attack feature it mostly goes even in damage, but the TWF still use their bonus action, so they are spending more resources for the same output, and still with weaker OAs. Any further attacks just piles on the wrong side for TWF.
It is difficult to make TWF comparable without either making it UP or OP compared to other options without mechanically making them work similarly (aka your TWF attacks with both weapons every time and use the damage dice from both but the modifier only once and at no resource cost) at which point they are functionally the same so why bother.
TWF's strongest addition to the game is in tier 1 play with the Fighting Style or to provide a simple weaponization of the bonus action to grant something like the Rogue multiple weapon attacks that they really want in order to proc Sneak Attack.
In the scenario of the parry dagger you mentioned, mechanically it seems superior to just equip a shield, unless you're switching it up during combat - where donning and doffing a shield requires an action. That's also one reason why the scenario I made had the AC bonus last until your next turn - to be somewhat equivalent to a shield, at the cost of your reaction.
Thread-hopping from another thread where we went off-topic, whereas this thread is more on-topic for the discussion about Warlock, multi-classing, spell slots and survivability:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/unearthed-arcana/193994-separating-feats-asis-and-class-levels-from-each?page=5
Yes, just like I said. If the Warlock uses one invocation on Mage Armor, they can get equivalent AC as a Rogue who invests nothing they wouldn't already do. However as soon as that Warlock selects the Hexblade at level 3 (under the UA's proposed standardized subclass progression beginning at), they gain Medium Armor proficiency and thus can upgrade their Mage armor from 13 + 2 DEX to 14 + 2 DEX (at the affordable price range, but later 15 + 2 DEX) and now they have a useless invocation.
Also in the UA7 it seems they've nicked the option to replace an invocation as you level up, which was still present in UA5. Could be oversight or a deliberate change. If the latter, it's not as flexible to cast out previous and now much less impactful invocations.
It is true that 8 temp hit points when your HP is only 8 + CON mod, is quite an increase. However if you completely avoid being hit by having enough AC, then that accounts much better to your survival.
One major difference between the two is that Warlocks have a rather large section of their class that wants to hit things in the face up close. Wizards and Sorcerers generally do not. Wizards have the Bladesinging subclass which also grants light armor proficiency, generally has to go for DEX for dmg and AC, whilst the subclass also have a short term AC bonus equal to their INT mod, atop another subclass feature that lets you soak damage by expending spell slots, and they also have Shield/Absorb Element. A level 2 Bladesinger is generally considered to be having 18 passive AC (12 + 3 DEX + 3 INT) during their first two major fights of the day. Sorcerer don't really have anything that makes them want to go into melee combat, except the hilariously poorly balanced Storm Sorcery that I don't think many find is viable outside very casual play groups or hyper specific builds that utilize winged races to avoid being at risk of getting caught in melee on an enemy's turn.
My point is that many Warlocks, especially those who seek to make a melee build with Hexblade, do multi-class to either acquire better armor proficiencies (mostly from Cleric/Paladin) and/or multiclass into other full caster classes like Sorcerer, to acquire additional spell slots and defensive magics. I just think Warlock should have more of these options already within their class, seeing how they have: Low quantity of spell slots to cast spells per given combat, 4 out of 27 invocations directly require melee weapon attacks to function, and another 2 granting defensive options in terms of Mage Armor, and False Life. Both defensive options are largely obsolete for a Hexblade, Mage Armor at level 1 when they acquire Medium Armor and a Shield, and False Life is largely inconsequential once you hit 50 HP, which should happen around level 6/7.
Also the Hexblade gets access to Shield as a learn-able spell. It just feels pretty shitty using a 3rd+ level spell slot to cast Shield.
Like I said, level 5 is where Warlock peaks with these options compared to other full casters. Lets take a look at level 10 instead:
Oh and for those who want to know what I'm talking about: Here See the first spoiler and the paragrafs following it.
Warlock: 2x 5th level spell slots + 1x 1st level spell slot [per Short Rest] or the equivalent of 9 spell slots with maximum Short Rests. In addition you add 1x 1st level spell slot from Pact of the Tome, then 2x 1st level spell slots from Shell Invocation (which are limited to casting Shield/Absorb Element). Then you can use Magical Cunning to replenish half your Pact Magic spell slots, meaning the 2x 5th level spell slots, replenishing 1 of those. That grants a sum of 9 + 3 + 1 = 13 spell casts per adventuring day in the best case scenario for Warlock. Same as it was at level 5.
Wizard: In rapid succession level 1/2/3... etc. They have 4x/3x/3x/3x/2x. Atop they can use Arcane Recovery on a Short Rest to recover 10 [wizard level] / 2 = 5 levels worth of spell slots. For quantity we can go 3x 1st level and 1x 2nd level spell slots regained. That sums up to 4 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 1 = 19 spell casts per adventuring day.
Sorcerer: In rapid succession level 1/2/3... etc. They have 4x/3x/3x/3x/2x. Same as Wizard. They can also create additional spell slots with Font of Magic at the expense of Sorcery Points, of which they have 10 points. It costs 2 SP for a 1st level and with slightly more bang for your buck, 3 SP for a 2nd level. But we measure quantity, meaning 10 / 2 = 5 additional 1st level spell slots. That sums up to 4 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 5 = 20 spell casts per adventuring day.
And remember that we are using the best case scenario for Warlocks, meaning 2 Short Rests per adventuring day, which is... not a given. Additionally the Warlock is spending 4 of their invocations to achieve this, of which they at level 5 have 5 of, and at level 10 they have 7 invocations. I feel like this is pretty much how you said you wanted it to be: Warlock using their invocations to somewhat close the gap up to other full casters in terms of spell casting. Every SR not taken is -3 spells for Warlock to a minimum of 7 spells. Wizards require a SR for Arcane Recovery, so they'll also drop -4 spells if no SR are taken at all to 15 spells per day.
So while it looks quite generous at level 5, it quickly turns in favor of arcane casters (here meaning Wiz/Sorc).
Of course at level 11, arcane casters get mainly just a 6th level spell slot, whilst the Warlock gains a third Pact Magic spell slot (accounting +4 spells per day with 2x SRs and Magical Cunning replenishing 2 slots instead of 1), a Mystical Arcanum (6th level spell slot), and with the Shell Invocations +2 spells, bringing their total up to 13 + 4 + 1 + 2 = 20 spells. Which is on par with Wizards and Sorcerers again, but still considering the best possible scenario for Warlock, and a Tuesday for a Wizard.
Worth noting is the quality of those spells for Warlock is 8x 1st level spell slots (4 of which are restricted), 11x 5th level spell slots, and a 6th level spell slot. My proposals brought about 7 of those 1st level spell slots, including the 4 restricted to defense, at the cost of 3 Invocations. 1 Invocation, the Pact of the Tome, is straight out of UA7.
After level 11, arcane casters and Warlocks acquire additional spell slots at about the same pace. However arcane casters also have way better flexibility in spells learned, especially at 6th level spells and above. Warlocks mainly acquire 1 new spell per level up till level 9, and thereafter one spell every other level, meaning they have a very limited selection in comparison to arcane casters. Having read the UA7 again, it appears Warlock has changed so their subclass doesn't just add the additional spells to their spell list to be learned, but actually grants them direct access to those spells. This is a massive upgrade from previously. However Sorcerer, which previously followed a similar pattern to Warlock but got extra spells from most of their subclasses, they now receive more spells prepared naturally. Unfortunately we haven't seen many subclasses from Sorc, so we don't know whether their subclasses will supplement their natural higher number of spells prepared.
The Warlock spell list is neither that impressive when it comes to direct damage spells, mostly because they would be competing against Eldritch Blast. Neither do Warlock have many spells that scale well with level. Meaning most of their early spell selection are somewhat limited to support options, many used out of combat. (To avoid confusion, support in this sense meaning spells that either buff/debuff or have a utility use).
As such, I don't find it problematic to increase Warlock's number of spell casts, especially as level 1 spell slots.
This was excellent.