D&D General Mastery Properties, Design Ninja’d Again!

[doctorbadwolf]

So, I like mastery properties. So much so that I’m already adding them to my SRD game Champions of The Ninth Realm, and not just for weapons!

So CoTNR will use mastery ranks rather than expertise, with each rank increasing the die size of your bonus mastery die.

My current idea is that classes like the Alchemist and Witch will have mastery features with tools, martials with weapons, etc.

I had thought to fold mastery with weapons into fighting styles, and create vocations for tools and such, as well.

The Anathemir (like a Witcher with more magic) has ritual tools and thus spell implements they can master, instead.

Has anyone else explored this general space yet? What would you want from mastery of tinker tools, or vehicles, or rod implements?

———- examples————

Short Bow Mastery - When you hit with an attack using a short bow, you can make an additional attack with the weapon as a bonus action, with long and short range cut in half for the attack.

Longbow Mastery - (something with huge distance or a volley action or something idk yet)

Herbalism Mastery - Whenever you craft a consumable item with herbalists kit that restores HP or removes a negative effect, the drinker also gains THP equal to a roll of your Mastery Die.

Card Mastery (Diviner) - (minor divinatoey effects possible with ability check using a type of divination tools like cards, bones, or dice.

Rod Mastery - when you cast a spell that deals damage in a cone, blast, or burst, you can add your proficiency bonus to the damage roll.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry for the constant posts folks who actually read any of this.

I know I want fighters to get more out of being masters-at-arms, and I want tools to matter more, and for specific Spellcasting focus (implement) to matter at all, but I’m kinda running in circles on this one.

And then wotc puts out a preview doing one big part of what I’m working on lol

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I very well doubt that Damage on a Miss is going to survive. Some of the most vocal parts of the D&D influencer community for 5e came in during 3rd edition or before and left for Pathfinder during the 4th edition before coming back for 5e and are going to go ape if something like shows up in the playtest. I have the feeling that Crawford and Co are just including this to get a barometer check on where the community is on this. They will rile up enough of their followers on YouTube and social media to go negative on this one even if their followers don't realize they are just fighting the last edition war.

Personally, I would probably rather see Fighting Styles and these Masteries combined somehow. Having unlockable keyword-based traits doesn't really gibe with the rest of 5e. And most of the attempts to keyword features so far are already facing the chopping block (Arcane, Primal and Divine spell lists) or are only going to make it in a highly neutered form (class groupings). I realize why a designer for D&D gravitates to keyword-based design, but I think a substantial part of the community bounces off the concept enough that including this sort of design introduces more systemetization and complexity than it gains in usability and fun.

At this point, I think that the OGL debacle has left enough of a bad taste in enough playtesters mouths that they will have a tough time reaching their 90 percent, 80 percent and 70 percent thresholds. Never mind the folks who now go through and mark everything 0, I think there is just going to be a lot less willingness to give WOTC a chance and features that previously might have gotten "I like this, but needs work" type responses are going to get a harsher treatment. I am sure it is hard for them to tell at this point with the Druid and Paladin being first out of the gate after the OGL thing and those implementations of those ideas having some major issues. But I am guessing that everything from this point out hits 10 percent less on their scores than what they would have before the OGL fiasco. That is going to lead to a lot more conservative end-product if I am right.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I very well doubt that Damage on a Miss is going to survive. Some of the most vocal parts of the D&D influencer community for 5e came in during 3rd edition or before and left for Pathfinder during the 4th edition before coming back for 5e and are going to go ape if something like shows up in the playtest. I have the feeling that Crawford and Co are just including this to get a barometer check on where the community is on this. They will rile up enough of their followers on YouTube and social media to go negative on this one even if their followers don't realize they are just fighting the last edition war.

Personally, I would probably rather see Fighting Styles and these Masteries combined somehow. Having unlockable keyword-based traits doesn't really gibe with the rest of 5e. And most of the attempts to keyword features so far are already facing the chopping block (Arcane, Primal and Divine spell lists) or are only going to make it in a highly neutered form (class groupings). I realize why a designer for D&D gravitates to keyword-based design, but I think a substantial part of the community bounces off the concept enough that including this sort of design introduces more systemetization and complexity than it gains in usability and fun.

At this point, I think that the OGL debacle has left enough of a bad taste in enough playtesters mouths that they will have a tough time reaching their 90 percent, 80 percent and 70 percent thresholds. Never mind the folks who now go through and mark everything 0, I think there is just going to be a lot less willingness to give WOTC a chance and features that previously might have gotten "I like this, but needs work" type responses are going to get a harsher treatment. I am sure it is hard for them to tell at this point with the Druid and Paladin being first out of the gate after the OGL thing and those implementations of those ideas having some major issues. But I am guessing that everything from this point out hits 10 percent less on their scores than what they would have before the OGL fiasco. That is going to lead to a lot more conservative end-product if I am right.

That is very interesting but also not what this thread is about.

Genuinely, I’d engage if it were on topic, but it’s not.