• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D (2024) Do you actually like weapon masteries?

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
They are so...minimal, its hard to hate them, but I cant say that they thrill me.

Why cant they just take inspiration from the cantrips they have since 2014!?

Bleeding Strike: stop healing for a turn
Ringing blow: move a creature in any direction 5 ft.
Puncture: advantage against metal armor, stop reaction for a turn.
Lure strike: attack at +10 ft range, pull the target and deal damage.
Guardian strike: deal damage, the target receive X damage if it move on its next turn.

and give the fighter more skills! Martial characters interact with the world through their skills, not magic, so they need some actual skills!
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Stalker0

Legend
Any reason these couldn't just be fighter-specific feats (perhaps with a feat tree) instead of a different system?
so either you would need to give fighters more feats (which could mean they could just take other feats and ignore this system, which might lead to combos you don't want), or these fighter specific feats have to be for masteries, in which case how is that really any different than what they are doing now?
 


Clint_L

Legend
I'm thoroughly perplexed by the weapon masteries thing. I don't feel like it adds anything of value to the game, other than slowing down combat. It feels like complexity for the sake making the game feel more complex...for the sake of complexity. Sure, it adds more decisions, but not interesting decisions.

And it's also just so arbitrary. Sure, giant hammers might be good for knocking people down, but in most cases the mechanic associated with a given weapon could just as easily apply to almost any other weapon. (And, in fact, they will, since Fighters can arbitrarily assign any mastery to any weapon.)

Do you like it? Why?
I...tend to agree. Haven't really tried them out yet, though.

In general, I think D&D combat is slow and tedious due to all kinds of structural reasons and masteries as currently designed are just one more thing that adds complexity but not in a very compelling way. And I agree that they are arbitrary.

I would like to see them as an optional rule rather than baked into the game. I don't think I'll want to deal with them as currently designed.
 



I...tend to agree. Haven't really tried them out yet, though.

In general, I think D&D combat is slow and tedious due to all kinds of structural reasons and masteries as currently designed are just one more thing that adds complexity but not in a very compelling way. And I agree that they are arbitrary.

I would like to see them as an optional rule rather than baked into the game. I don't think I'll want to deal with them as currently designed.
I am interested to hear you definition of slow. I DM for a group of 5. Average combat encounter is probably less than 5 minutes. Our longest combat session ever in 16 months of playing together is maybe 20-25 minutes. Belabored combat is often related to the DM.
 

Remove ads

Top