D&D (2024) Not loving weapon mastery with beginners

[Zardnaar]

I’ve seen new players stumble a bit with rogues and monks.



Okay, that hasn’t been my experience in 5e.

Monks aren't basic. I've seen them sing with experienced players. They're better (2014) than internet says. Caveat you know what you're doing.

 

[TiQuinn]

Monks aren't basic. I've seen them sing with experienced players. They're better (2014) than internet says. Caveat you know what you're doing.

I understand that, but I’m also pointing out that spellcasting doesn’t make a class complex either. If someone is truly a beginner, like they’ve never played before, have no idea what dice or what, and have never looked at any RPG before, computer or paper, there’s really just the fighter and the barbarian. I wouldn’t even put the rogue in this group. But I also have a hard time believing that every new player just plays a fighter or barbarian too.

I think it’s arguable that D&D 5e or 5.5 shouldn’t be someone’s first go-round with TTRPGs if they are really green.

 

[Horwath]

Maybe there could be global mastery that can be applied to all weapons and be super simple.

Yes, we all bashed on Flex mastery as boring and very weak, but there could be something there, for simplicity sake.

Mastery:
Deadly; when you take mastery for a weapon, you can take Deadly instead of it's default mastery.

Add +1 to damage with the weapon, add +2 for 2Handed melee or Versatile weapon.

 

[Zardnaar]

I understand that, but I’m also pointing out that spellcasting doesn’t make a class complex either. If someone is truly a beginner, like they’ve never played before, have no idea what dice or what, and have never looked at any RPG before, computer or paper, there’s really just the fighter and the barbarian. I wouldn’t even put the rogue in this group. But I also have a hard time believing that every new player just plays a fighter or barbarian too.

I think it’s arguable that D&D 5e or 5.5 shouldn’t be someone’s first go-round with TTRPGs if they are really green.

Depends if they have experienced players around to help. Rogues simple enough with help not as simple as the C&C Rogue (context I have new player in C&C playing a rogue and 5E said BM).

2 chose fighter/barbarian 2 chose pre constructed characters (DoSW are good for this) last one sorcerer who at least has played BG3.

Worst class for complexity imho is the warlock. Very easy to screw that one up. Probably followed by Druid.

Sorcerers decent for newbies if experienced players nudge them (this spells good).

 

[ART!]

There's no way weapon mastery is more complicated for a brand new player than spells.

Some players choose fighter because it is the least-complicated option, but now (the 2024 fighter) it is more complicated, so players looking for the simplest option in a 2024 game have more to learn than in a 2014 game. I think this is the OP's concern.

You only have one weapon, there isn't even a decision to make so it really only slows things down as being another step in the process that needs to be explained.

If you are using 2-weapon fighting, and/or choose the 2-weapon fighting style, you might well have two weapons and therefore two weapon properties.

This feels like a problem that could be solved by writing their weapons' mastery effects down on index cards and handing them to players at the start of each session.

Fighters start with three weapon masteries, and can switch one out each long rest. They could choose to just use one weapon all the time, but the weapon property/mastery system incentives switching weapons.

I think the question is how do you approach spellcasting with beginners and why are weapon masteries different. It’s not obvious why it’s slowing down the game for beginners because all of it is new, including spells. Since so many classes have spells, what’s the difference between a beginner picking up the mechanics of a spell vs a weapon mastery?

Spells have 3 possible types of components, varying durations (which, if that's more than one turn or round, is something to track), a wide variety of ranges, one or more paragraphs of effect description, etc.

I’m guessing you don’t play with new players often (which the OP is taking about). IME, new players take forever to learn what spells do and to pick the spell they want to use.

This.

 

[jayoungr]

Kinda wishing these had been an optional rule.

Is there a reason you can't just use the 2014 rules?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I have a fairly new and forgetful players. They have not had any issues with Mastery so far.

Like seriously, what is tripping people up. New Players normally use the same weapon, so there should only be one effect. The Ranger with the Longbow slows enemies, and the duel wielding Fighter gets to make an extra attack and keep his bonus action.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe there could be global mastery that can be applied to all weapons and be super simple.

Yes, we all bashed on Flex mastery as boring and very weak, but there could be something there, for simplicity sake.

Mastery:
Deadly; when you take mastery for a weapon, you can take Deadly instead of it's default mastery.

Add +1 to damage with the weapon, add +2 for 2Handed melee or Versatile weapon.

I guess you could do that. I don’t really see how it’s any less complex than, like, Graze, or Push, or even Topple.

Am I crazy? Everyone’s acting like weapon masteries introduce a ton of complex decision trees, but… Every mastery does exactly one thing, and it does that one thing every time you hit with it. Is it so hard to remember that whenever you hit with your longsword your target gets disadvantage on its next attack? How is that any harder to learn than which die you’re supposed to roll when you hit?

 

[ezo]

I guess you could do that. I don’t really see how it’s any less complex than, like, Graze, or Push, or even Topple.

Am I crazy? Everyone’s acting like weapon masteries introduce a ton of complex decision trees, but… Every mastery does exactly one thing, and it does that one thing every time you hit with it. Is it so hard to remember that whenever you hit with your longsword your target gets disadvantage on its next attack? How is that any harder to learn than which die you’re supposed to roll when you hit?

Honestly, I don't understand why it is so hard for people to learn, but for some people it is...

I have a player who, nearly two years later, still thinks it is correct to add your proficiency bonus to weapon damage. We've told him at least a dozen times, worked out his character sheet to say "Attack +8, damage 1d8+5" for example, and he still forgets to add the +5 to damage half the time. He will tell me he does 3 damage, for example... when I know he can't do less than 6.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

How is that any harder to learn than which die you’re supposed to roll when you hit?

It's really not. Weapon Mastery isn't complicated at all but it does add something new to the pile of rules to know. It also doesn't actually add all that much to the game - similar homebrew rules have existed as third party content since forever and were never all that popular.

Some people will see Weapon Mastery as a good thing since it adds some minor new options that are really simple and don't impact gameplay much. Other people will see Weapon Mastery as a bad thing since it adds some minor new complexity and don't impact gameplay enough to justify existing.

As with any homebrew rule where you're evaluating "is the juice worth the squeeze", reasonable people disagree on whether it's a worthwhile addition to the game. Either way, I'd say Weapon Mastery is vastly overrated and vastly overhated.