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

[Mirrorrorrim]

How many times have you seen characters actually flex their flex weapons? Because I haven't seen the Versatile property be actually used in practice since 4e. Which is why it's given to some weapons as a freebie.

Versatile without Flex isn't compelling because you have to use 2 hands for less damage than just wielding a 2-hd weapon. It really is for corner cases where you can get a small damage bump when you're not in ideal circumstances. But it shouldn't be bumped up to deal the same damage as a 2-hd weapon otherwise it invalidates that weapon.

I am more interested in a way to optionally increase my 1-hd longsword damage to 1d10, rather than have to wield my longsword in two hands to deal 1d10 damage. 1d10 damage with a 1-hd weapon is desirable design space, and Flex gives that to me, which is why I like it. Longswords should still deal 1d8 for non-masters otherwise it's just a treadmill for all weapons to get bumped up in comparison to each other. But it's ok for Masters to get that 1d10 as a unique option.

 

[EthanSental]

This at least had me pulling out the Rules Cyclopedia to reread their version of weapon mastery….which was spending gold and down time to get better to hit with a weapon. I didn’t notice any other bonus adds from that previous edition attempt but it meant more back then to for a +2/+4 etc to hit than in newer editions. I like the idea of 5е weapon masteries and look forward to more feedback from people using them at the table.

 

[Mistwell]

I like the broad concept but the specifics still need a lot of work.

Mostly, I'd prefer those weapon mastery properties to be a list of techniques warrior classes can pick from and apply broadly. Those techniques can still have their prerequisites as far as what kinds of weapons they work with, so weapon choice still matters there. (i.e. working only with Light, Versatile, or Heavy; working only for Martial weapons; only for melee weapons; only for weapons doing bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage; etc.)

Changing them to a broad list of techniques would also make the system much more modular. Future splats can simply introduce more techniques the way they do spells.

That's sort of how a mid level fighter can use them right?

 

[Mistwell]

I just had an interesting idea. What if there were attunable magical "Mastery" weapons as treasure that granted the wielder the use of that Weapon's Mastery, or maybe even others that mix up the Masteries, like a magical whip that can Topple or Slow?

And maybe Grandmaster Weapons (attunable by Fighters only) that allowed more than one Mastery ability at the same time

Oh damn, those are great ideas!

 

[Mistwell]

Why would it be desirable for magic to undermine the value of a class feature?

Traditionally, including in 5e, they can do just that. Or undermine a racial feature.

 

[Mistwell]

I love the concept, but I'm not married to the execution. I feel it will need significant playtesting to make sure it works correctly. Already people have ranked the different abilities, pushing people towards the "optimal" weapon choice.

I mean, all these things are situational, like spells of the same level as each other. Right now people are, for example, ranking the Slow effect pretty low and cleave pretty high. But for all we know a year into use a longbow that slows foes will be considered way over powered, and cleave weak because it's too hard to set up. We've seen this happen with new rules before, where people rank things one way and then with use they end up ranking them radically differently. It could be they're all pretty well balanced and we just don't know it yet.

 

[Incenjucar]

Traditionally, including in 5e, they can do just that. Or undermine a racial feature.

And?

 

[Mistwell]

I'm moderately concerned about Vex. Advantage on every attack after the first against an enemy is really powerful. I am honestly surprised more people aren't similarly expressing concern about it, especially if Elven Accuracy remains an option.

Yup, this is the one that I think is likely overpowered. I won't know until it's in use but it sure feels roughly equivalent to a key power of a class, like Reckless Attack for a barbarian. Would a barbarian trade no advantage on the first attack in a round but advantage on the rest of their attacks that round for not granting foes advantage to attack them? Seems like a pretty fair trade, in which case that makes Vex roughly the same power level of Reckless Attack. That feels like too much.

I also wonder if this is a hint at the future true strike, changing it to a bonus action to grant advantage. Which would still be slightly weaker than Vex I think.

 

[Mistwell]

And?

And it's generally considered to be desirable to continue with the tradition for magic items unless something says otherwise?

 

[mellored]

And why would a

Sorry, but no. Weapon design has to work at both the no-mastery and mastery level.

Weapon design was a failure of 5e. We need to accept that and move on.

So without rewriting the whole thing (possibly drop the weapon table all together), mastery is a decent solution.

At least I can't think of anything better off the top of my head.