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

[Horwath]

No one is forcing anyone to do anything, though, are they?

FWIW, I agree completely. If a DM doesn't want weapon masteries, don't include them. Just because they lack the "optional" label doesn't mean squat really and players should understand that IMO.

every martial should have gotten 2 masteries at 1st level and extra 2 whenever it's appropriate for the class.
those 2 masteries could be traded in for a feat, I have posted a dozes simple feats in one reply here, but here they are:
Take for 1st level:

+3 skills
+1 skill, +1 expertise
+6 tools/languages
+2 HP per level
martial weapons
+2 armor categories
+1 saving throw
+1 fighting style
+1 DC(applies to a ALL DCs you have)
+1 damage with weapons, +2 for Heavy and Versatile weapons
+1 heal/damage per die rolled for spells
+1 ASI

these are as simple as it gets, OFC you can always limit them more.

 

[FrogReaver]

You could join the discussion instead of trying to win it.

There isn’t a discussion here. It’s just going to be an endless cascade of goal post moves as has already been acknowledged.

 

[payn]

And the game can still be designed this way... so long as any individual DM who wants the game to be like that wishes to spend a bit of time doing the work themselves.

If a DM wants the D&D game to be as simple as possible... they can just strip out as much stuff as they want-- just retype or copy/paste all the rules they wish to use out of the book, any PDFs, or DDB into a Word document and then edit the game down to their heart's content.

Heck... the Sidekick rules that came with Icespire Peak were talked about being used and turned into stripped-down and "easy" PC class rules years ago.

Right, its hardly a new concept to remove parts of a game for preferential reasons. It's just a win, IMO, when the game is designed to help facilitate users in this respect.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Right, its hardly a new concept to remove parts of a game for preferential reasons. It's just a win, IMO, when the game is designed to help facilitate users in this respect.

It only helps certain users though. It doesn't help other users who prefer the game in other ways. So no one gets to claim that their preferred way is the way the game should have been made. Every person will have a different game that facilitates different people.

 

[payn]

It only helps certain users though. It doesn't help other users who prefer the game in other ways. So no one gets to claim that their preferred way is the way the game should have been made. Every person will have a different game that facilitates different people.

What other ways exactly? I can understand a rules as written mindset, but the modularity is the RAW. Are you suggesting folks want a solid set of rules with no interchangeability and a modular system is not acceptable to that preference?

 

[ezo]

And the game can still be designed this way... so long as any individual DM who wants the game to be like that wishes to spend a bit of time doing the work themselves.

If a DM wants the D&D game to be as simple as possible... they can just strip out as much stuff as they want-- just retype or copy/paste all the rules they wish to use out of the book, any PDFs, or DDB into a Word document and then edit the game down to their heart's content.

Heck... the Sidekick rules that came with Icespire Peak were talked about being used and turned into stripped-down and "easy" PC class rules years ago.

Sure, but the point was more that the module-style design initially I thought was supposed to include this in 2014??? I could be wrong.

FWIW, I love the sidekick rules... one of the few gems in Tasha's IMO. I would totally play a game or run one with all sidekick classes...

every martial should have gotten 2 masteries at 1st level and extra 2 whenever it's appropriate for the class.
those 2 masteries could be traded in for a feat, I have posted a dozes simple feats in one reply here, but here they are:
Take for 1st level:

+3 skills
+1 skill, +1 expertise
+6 tools/languages
+2 HP per level
martial weapons
+2 armor categories
+1 saving throw
+1 fighting style
+1 DC(applies to a ALL DCs you have)
+1 damage with weapons, +2 for Heavy and Versatile weapons
+1 heal/damage per die rolled for spells
+1 ASI

these are as simple as it gets, OFC you can always limit them more.

Way more than I would want to give at 1st level. Spread it out over the first five levels maybe, then sure.

I think all the "feat"-style options in the list are fine, but I would definitely limit it to just a couple. (Not the 2 masteries and extra 2 whenever.... I just don't care for that much "power" in the game personally.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Expecting the players to remind the DM of effects the player has caused assumes that the player will remember.

I have ADHD, and the odds of me remembering that the target I hit has disadvantage on their first attack before the start of my next turn - when umpteen things could happen between now and then - is unlikely.

And I'm not alone in this.

That doesn't make it the DM's responsibility to remember your abilities.

 

[payn]

There isn’t a discussion here. It’s just going to be an endless cascade of goal post moves as has already been acknowledged.

Ah, what you mean is there isnt an argument to be had. I agree, take care.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What other ways exactly? I can understand a rules as written mindset, but the modularity is the RAW. Are you suggesting folks want a solid set of rules with no interchangeability and a modular system is not acceptable to that preference?

I'm saying that the game can have and does have some modularity. But it is impossible for it to have complete modularity. And thus modularity it does have will please a specific subset of people but it won't please others. So there's no point in arguing whether what modularity it does have is the "right" type for people or the "wrong" type for people or "too much" or "not enough". No one will agree.

Any modularity a specific person wants will need to be made by that person themself. The designers of D&D will not be able to do it.

 

[payn]

I'm saying that the game can have and does have some modularity. But it is impossible for it to have complete modularity. And thus modularity it does have will please a specific subset of people but it won't please others. So there's no point in arguing whether what modularity it does have is the "right" type for people or the "wrong" type for people or "too much" or "not enough". No one will agree.

Any modularity a specific person wants will need to be made by that person themself. The designers of D&D will not be able to do it.

Ah, I agree that design cant fulfill everyone, but that the designers cant help anyone, is something I cant agree with.