D&D 5E Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat

WaterRabbit · Apr 22, 2019

Chaosmancer said:
I'd argue that a feat that allows you to become proficient in weapons that most games do not use isn't great.

Especially since the tables in the DMG for blackpowder weapons do give the layout for who should get proficiency in them if they are a common staple of your world.

So, you are looking at getting proficiency in a weapon that is incredibly rare, and that your DM did not give proficiency for to begin with.

That isn't "real utility" that's a niche that it just happens to cover.

I don't know what point you are arguing here. Obviously if a weapon is a common staple then this feat would not apply outside of its normal use. No one is arguing that this is a great feat.

Think "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" as an example of where this feat could be used to expand a player's proficiencies.

Otherwise, it is a niche feat that usually multiclassing would be a better choice -- unless of course multiclassing isn't being used.

bedir than · Apr 23, 2019

WaterRabbit said:
The real utility of the is feat is to allow players to become proficient in weapons that are not in the standard tables. For example, if you have black powder weapons in you game, players could only become proficient in them using this feat. Or if the campaign focuses on ship to ship combat, the players could become proficient with cannons with this feat.

This allows character to become proficient in weapons that would not be available just through multiclassing.

In my campaign siege weapons are a tool. They require a crew and don't make sense to just be a proficiency. They also might require different checks for different activities (aim, repair)

WaterRabbit · Apr 23, 2019

bedir than said:
In my campaign siege weapons are a tool. They require a crew and don't make sense to just be a proficiency. They also might require different checks for different activities (aim, repair)

Well that is fantastic. However, siege weapons generally have an operator that is proficient (i.e., allows the use of a proficiency bonus). If your campaign takes place primarily on a ship that has canon's that are used in ship-to-ship actions, then it is good to have proficiency in the weapon. In most campaigns, players would never bother with learning siege weapons.

However, in most campaigns the riding rules also come up rarely. I am quite sure that Mounted Combatant isn't chosen that often either. But in the right campaign, it probably is a great feat. This is probably the case for a good number of the feats that aren't that useful compared to just a few.

So yes Weapon Master is a poor feat to pick unless there is a campaign specific reason to make it worthwhile. Great Weapon Master on the other hand is always useful based on the character build except for a few campaign settings where using two-handed weapons is a drawback.

Not all feats have to be 100% useful in all settings.

bedir than · Apr 23, 2019

WaterRabbit said:
Well that is fantastic. However, siege weapons generally have an operator that is proficient (i.e., allows the use of a proficiency bonus). If your campaign takes place primarily on a ship that has canon's that are used in ship-to-ship actions, then it is good to have proficiency in the weapon. In most campaigns, players would never bother with learning siege weapons.

However, in most campaigns the riding rules also come up rarely. I am quite sure that Mounted Combatant isn't chosen that often either. But in the right campaign, it probably is a great feat. This is probably the case for a good number of the feats that aren't that useful compared to just a few.

So yes Weapon Master is a poor feat to pick unless there is a campaign specific reason to make it worthwhile. Great Weapon Master on the other hand is always useful based on the character build except for a few campaign settings where using two-handed weapons is a drawback.

Not all feats have to be 100% useful in all settings.

One can be proficient in tools. They're even downtime rules on how to learn new tools.

Treating seized weapons similar to wagons and ships and dirigibles Make sense because all require a crew.

Chaosmancer · Apr 23, 2019

WaterRabbit said:
I don't know what point you are arguing here. Obviously if a weapon is a common staple then this feat would not apply outside of its normal use. No one is arguing that this is a great feat.

Think "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" as an example of where this feat could be used to expand a player's proficiencies.

Otherwise, it is a niche feat that usually multiclassing would be a better choice -- unless of course multiclassing isn't being used.

I was being a little snippy to be honest. The phrase "real utility" made me think that you wanted to imply this was the true use of the feat that we hadn't considered. That it was a great feat if only we had thought about it in the right way.

Apologies for assuming, but I've been embroiled in some heated discussions recently and it's made me a little more short than I should be with people.

WaterRabbit said:
Well that is fantastic. However, siege weapons generally have an operator that is proficient (i.e., allows the use of a proficiency bonus). If your campaign takes place primarily on a ship that has canon's that are used in ship-to-ship actions, then it is good to have proficiency in the weapon. In most campaigns, players would never bother with learning siege weapons.

However, in most campaigns the riding rules also come up rarely. I am quite sure that Mounted Combatant isn't chosen that often either. But in the right campaign, it probably is a great feat. This is probably the case for a good number of the feats that aren't that useful compared to just a few.

So yes Weapon Master is a poor feat to pick unless there is a campaign specific reason to make it worthwhile. Great Weapon Master on the other hand is always useful based on the character build except for a few campaign settings where using two-handed weapons is a drawback.

Not all feats have to be 100% useful in all settings.

Mounted Combatant does give things the player cannot otherwise have though, which is why in a campaign where combats happen outside more than inside, allowing for combatants to be mounted, it can be a great feat.

Weapon Master gives you something you normally have (proficiency) and it is either proficiency with weapons other classes use well, or proficiency in weapons that the DM decided you did not get proficiency with for plot reasons.

They come from different mindsets for me.

WaterRabbit · Apr 23, 2019

bedir than said:
One can be proficient in tools. They're even downtime rules on how to learn new tools.

Treating seized weapons similar to wagons and ships and dirigibles Make sense because all require a crew.

Ok, in your game they are tools. However, in the rules they are weapons especially in light of the new Saltmarsh supplement. One can apply a proficiency bonus to them they use an attack roll, etc. Tool use doesn't normally have an attack roll. In a game in which siege weapons are rarely used, I doubt anyone would even bother learning them as a tool proficiency. In a game that involves their frequent use, then a weapon proficiency works.

But again, this is picking apart one example to disprove the general. There are many weapons that can be introduced into a game in which the normal weapon proficiencies don't apply. This feat would be one possible gateway into becoming proficient with them. As I mentioned earlier, "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" provides an example.

The real problem isn't this feat, but how they handle weapon proficiencies in general. But that is another discussion.

WaterRabbit · Apr 23, 2019

Chaosmancer said:
Mounted Combatant does give things the player cannot otherwise have though, which is why in a campaign where combats happen outside more than inside, allowing for combatants to be mounted, it can be a great feat.

Weapon Master gives you something you normally have (proficiency) and it is either proficiency with weapons other classes use well, or proficiency in weapons that the DM decided you did not get proficiency with for plot reasons.

They come from different mindsets for me.

Well if you take the feat, you obviously didn't have that something.

However, this seems like a good fix on saw on gdnd:

Weapon Master
Increase your Strength or Dexterity by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You gain proficiency with any four weapons of your choice; OR you gain a fighting style of your choice from the Fighter's list.

Chaosmancer · Apr 24, 2019

WaterRabbit said:
However, this seems like a good fix on saw on gdnd:

Weapon Master
Increase your Strength or Dexterity by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You gain proficiency with any four weapons of your choice; OR you gain a fighting style of your choice from the Fighter's list.

Assuming multi-class is legal, why take this over a level of fighter?

The only thing I can think of is having an odd stat, otherwise a single level of fighter is better every time and that is the thing I keep running up against with this feat.

Eubani · Apr 24, 2019

I find 4 proficiencies in weapons is wasteful in that most people I know when they are after weapon proficiency are only after one or two, beyond that is a waste. Trimming two weapons off and adding something else like a fighting style or some other weapon based ability makes it non wasteful, more likely to be taken and better reflects the name of the feat.

WaterRabbit · Apr 24, 2019

Chaosmancer said:
Assuming multi-class is legal, why take this over a level of fighter?

The only thing I can think of is having an odd stat, otherwise a single level of fighter is better every time and that is the thing I keep running up against with this feat.

In case you were confused, the title of the thread is "Fixing the Terrible Weapon Master Feat". So, the question you pose isn't any different than the reasons someone would take the original feat. Multiclassing isn't allowed; playing to level 20 and don't want to give up a capstone ability through multiclassing just to get a weapon; gain access to weapon proficiencies in the base table.

So, what I am assuming you meant was that you don't think the proposed change is sufficient to make the feat viable. Fair enough. But maybe offer your own tweak or build on what others have posted.

D&D 5E Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat

WaterRabbit

Explorer

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller

WaterRabbit

Explorer

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller

Chaosmancer

Legend

WaterRabbit

Explorer

WaterRabbit

Explorer

Chaosmancer

Legend

Eubani

Legend

WaterRabbit

Explorer

Similar Threads