D&D 5E Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat

[pming]

Hiya!

Ok so I think we can all agree that the Weapon Master feat is pretty terrible.

As [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] said, it works just fine and as intended. There is absolutely nothing 'terrible' about it...it just is a feat that doesn't temp min/max'er power gamers who are primarily interested in just increasing their DPR. Not that there is anything wrong with power gaming, but if that's your cup o' tea then there are other games out there to cater to that style of play (3.x/PF/4e, Palladium, Synnibarr, etc).

Nobody in my group has taken it because we don't use feats. However, when we did try them out I do specifically remember two of my players had taken it for their character because it fit the character concept and vision (iirc, one was a dragonborn sorcerer and another was a human thief).

We eventually decided to nix Feats because they only served to steer characters down the same cookie-cutter road (e.g., if you were a strong fighter/barbarian, you took GWM...so pretty much every single Fighter or Barbarian with a two handed sword had GWM...which was pretty much exactly the opposite of what Feats were supposed to help you accomplish; more diverse characters).

Anyway, I'd suggest just leaving the Feat as-is and just create a new feat that gives you what you want. That way, if you do come across a player who has/wants "the PHB version", nothing changes for them. Why change it? Just add what you want...over time your game will become more and more unique and taylored to your play style (which, IMHO, is a good thing).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Xeviat]

The problem with Weapon Master is that there are two classes of feats: feats which increase your options (skilled, weapon master, some of the skill feats) and feats which increase your power (great weapon master, sharpshooter, etc). These occupy two different design spaces. Since feats take up ability score increases, which are mostly chosen for combat (but can be noncombat) I think it's "working as intended". Not a design decision I would have made, but I wasn't a designer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[doctorbadwolf]

add: You can choose to forgo 1 weapon in favor of shield proficiency, or forgo two weapons and instead gain a fighting style.

 

[Shiroiken]

My biggest issue is with the name, because it implies something that warriors would take. However, most warriors are already proficiency with all weapons already, so it's more for non-warrior classes that want options beyond their Class weapons. If I was god-king of D&D, I would change the name of this to "Weapon Proficiency," and make a different feat named "Weapon Master" designed to help warriors.

Oh, and I agree that changing it to "all simple and martial weapons" would simplify the feat and bring it more in line with light/medium/heavy armor proficiency feats.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not that there is anything wrong with power gaming, but if that's your cup o' tea then there are other games out there to cater to that style of play (3.x/PF/4e, Palladium, Synnibarr, etc).

This is incredibly dismissive.

There are plenty of players who wants D&D to support their playstyle, whatever that may be. They aren't planning on switching games any sooner than you are.

 

[CapnZapp]

We eventually decided to nix Feats because they only served to steer characters down the same cookie-cutter road (e.g., if you were a strong fighter/barbarian, you took GWM...so pretty much every single Fighter or Barbarian with a two handed sword had GWM...which was pretty much exactly the opposite of what Feats were supposed to help you accomplish; more diverse characters).

On the other hand, now you have a group where all of your Fighters and Barbarians have no feats. How is that more diverse?

Not saying you're wrong about feats-no-adding-diversity. Am questioning the logic of your decision, however. I would have thought feats and no feats can both lead to undiverse characters, so how about combating the real issue at play here: which likely is groupthink among your players...

Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

My biggest issue is with the name, because it implies something that warriors would take. However, most warriors are already proficiency with all weapons already, so it's more for non-warrior classes that want options beyond their Class weapons. If I was god-king of D&D, I would change the name of this to "Weapon Proficiency," and make a different feat named "Weapon Master" designed to help warriors.

Oh, and I agree that changing it to "all simple and martial weapons" would simplify the feat and bring it more in line with light/medium/heavy armor proficiency feats.

1st point: I agree

2nd point: since one weapon is all you use (at any given time) that would actually not be measurably more powerful. Even if you think "longsword in my main hand, shortsword in my off hand, longbow for ranged weaponry and halberd for that one occasion I'm in the back rank" that is still covered by the feat already. So I'm having a real hard time contesting this claim.

 

[Shiroiken]

2nd point: since one weapon is all you use (at any given time) that would actually not be measurably more powerful. Even if you think "longsword in my main hand, shortsword in my off hand, longbow for ranged weaponry and halberd for that one occasion I'm in the back rank" that is still covered by the feat already. So I'm having a real hard time contesting this claim.

For the most part this is true. However, this tweak would provide two small benefits (without breaking anything IMO). First, it's simple, in that you don't have to write so much down on your character sheet. Second, if you find a magic weapon that's not part of your choices, you can still benefit from it. To use your example, what do you do when you find a flail +1? If you had all simple and martial weapons, you could use it. As it is, you chose wrong and can't get much use out of it.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

This is incredibly dismissive.

There are plenty of players who wants D&D to support their playstyle, whatever that may be. They aren't planning on switching games any sooner than you are.

Yeah, I agree. I apologize for that.

There are, however, quite a few "crunch" PDF's at DM's Guild. Why not go there and buy some of them, rather than try and finagle some particular result or 'shortcoming' out of the core rules?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[auburn2]

It is a pretty weak and unpopular feat for sure but I do think it is balanced and like it as written. Who would use it? A bladesinger, maybe a another character who had an odd dexterity who had a really good magical weapon they were not proficient in.

I think combat bonuses you suggest would overpower the feat, especially if you keep the +1 stat increase. I think to do that you should just make a specialization feat, make it 1 weapon instead of 4 and give a +1dmg with that weapon.