D&D (2024) Why are weapon masteries limited?

[cbwjm]

I like to use the random treasure tables, often mixed in with items I choose. I rarely, if ever, tailor items to the players instead it's tailored to the encounter. Had an evil dwarf cleric in +1 chainmail, none of the players could make use of it so they just carried it around until they could trade it, really not an issue.

 

[Horwath]

Why would the DM care? You made something, the players found no value in it, so from now on just roll up items.

I mean, I would feel like a waste of time if something I think about and put it into game ends up as a glorified gold piece.
But that's just me.

If you want to run your game that way, go ahead I suppose.

I randomly determine magic items and treasure the PCs get. I NEVER tailor treasure to "party needs" short of a story-driven element like a McGuffin or something.

Finding someone with 500-2000 gp to "buy" an unwanted magic item is not easy--who has that sort of gold?
If you do, finding someone with an item you actually want to buy and have the gold to pay them, also not easy typically.
Oh, and you have a lot of magic items and gold on you? Well, that will attract the attention of a lot of NPCs and creatures who would love to remove that burden from you.

that is always a good plot hook for a urban dungeon crawl, going after thieves into sewers.

The very idea of a "mage guild" with a list of magic items available for sale is a bit laughable IMO. Using the rules in Xanthar's for putting the word out to buy and sell anything beyond uncommon items is pricey and time consuming as well.

it there is money out there some will want to buy it. but I agree it can take time.

 

[Horwath]

Had an evil dwarf cleric in +1 chainmail, none of the players could make use of it so they just carried it around until they could trade it, really not an issue.

that is completely different.

A rogue defeating a paladin might find nothing of direct usage without a "fence" in between.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I like to use the random treasure tables, often mixed in with items I choose. I rarely, if ever, tailor items to the players instead it's tailored to the encounter. Had an evil dwarf cleric in +1 chainmail, none of the players could make use of it so they just carried it around until they could trade it, really not an issue.

In my current game we got a sentinel shield pretty early on (2nd level I think), which one PC used but they switched to two weapon fighting at 4th level, so for the next two levels we just carried it around. He had an offer to sell it, but decided to keep it in case he ever wanted the extra AC.

We also had a staff of the python but the PC who could use it died. We still have it around. It is a good item and someday we might have a PC who can use it again...

I mean, I would feel like a waste of time if something I think about and put it into game ends up as a glorified gold piece.
But that's just me.

Sure, I get that part, but I think you'd get a feel for your group if they would want something like that, right?

that is always a good plot hook for a urban dungeon crawl, going after thieves into sewers.

Oh yeah, and I've used it several times when players aren't careful about being too "flashy" when it comes to magic and gold.

it there is money out there some will want to buy it. but I agree it can take time.

Not always. You have to think many magic items are great for adventurers and such, but "ordinary folk" (even weathy lords or whatever) don't have the same needs for such items IMO.

 

[Charlaquin]

that is maybe too much.

But I would treat them as maneuvers,

you know a number of them, and you can apply them to all weapons in the category:

Nick: can apply to all light weapons
Vex: can apply to all finesse and ranged weapons
Graze: can apply to all melee 2Handed and Versatile weapons
Cleave: can apply to all melee slashing weapons
Push: can apply to all heavy weapons
Slow: can apply to all weapons
Topple: can apply to all melee heavy weapons
sap: can apply to all melee blunt weapons

The more I think about it, the more I like this idea. If you get a mastery feature, you choose a mastery instead of a weapon. When you make an attack with a weapon you’re proficient with, you can apply one Mastery property you know to the attack if the weapon meets the requirements for that Mastery property. It would no longer serve the function of making different weapons more distinct from each other, but it would make weapon masteries actually offer tactical options instead of always doing the same thing every round, and it would make having multiple weapon masteries actually beneficial, as the more masteries you can access, the more versatile your attacks would be. And it would completely eliminate the “I found a magic weapon but it’s the wrong kind” effect. Personally I’m not convinced that last point is a positive, but clearly a lot of folks would consider it one, so who am I to disagree.

 

[Minigiant]

Not at all by any stretch of the imagination.


Not at all by any stretch of the imagination.

AD&D had treasure tables and IME people used them regularly. Sometimes a magic item or weapon came up that no one wanted or could use, and guess what, it wasn't a big deal. It was sold, traded, or given away to a retainer, ally, local ruler or whatever.

Just like DMs have used dice for random encounter tables and a whole slew of things... nothing "bad" about DMing that way.

You might not like it personally, but you are not the be-all-end-all judge of proper DMing. Right?

You are missing the point.

Specialization.

1e &2e assumed that you'd use particular weapons and the weapon tables were geared to them. If you specialized to something else, you would be a lot less likely to get some of them as treasure.

So a polearm or dart expert would rock nonmagical weapons until the DM purposely gave them magic versions

 

[cbwjm]

that is completely different.

A rogue defeating a paladin might find nothing of direct usage without a "fence" in between.

I don't see how. If the problem of the treasure is that randomly determined is but planned treasure is fine, what does it matter since in both instances a fence can just convert it for the players?

 

[Guest 7037866]

You are missing the point.

No, I know your point, I just don't agree with it.

Specialization.

1e &2e assumed that you'd use particular weapons and the weapon tables were geared to them. If you specialized to something else, you would be a lot less likely to get some of them as treasure.

Most players specialized in more standard weapons. I can't think of any who ever bothered specializing in something like a pole-arm or dart...

So a polearm or dart expert would rock nonmagical weapons until the DM purposely gave them magic versions

Getting +1/+2 to a weapon (+3/+3 with double specialization for fighters and rangers) is hardly "rocking" those weapons, although the faster attack rate was nice.

Honestly, I don't recall in 2E if the double specialization was expanded beyond those two classes or not... or if 2E even had double specialization.

I've never seen a DM purposefully give someone a magic weapon just to satisfy something they took specialization in. YMMV of course.

 

[cbwjm]

Honestly, I don't recall in 2E if the double specialization was expanded beyond those two classes or not... or if 2E even had double specialization.

I've never seen a DM purposefully give someone a magic weapon just to satisfy something they took specialization in. YMMV of course.

2e did have greater weapon mastery eventually, not sure if it showed up in the fighter's handbook or if it wasn't until skills and powers. They also had a couple of "specialisation light" abilities that non-fighters could take, one to get +1 to hit, and another (I think, I could be wrong with this one) that could get them an addition 1/2 attack.

They also brought in style specialisation which I think was in the fighters handbook but that I mostly remember from skills and powers and the old icewind dale/baldurs gate games that could get you some nice bonuses. Things like two-handed weapons whoch would increase your weapon speed or weapon and shield which would provide better protection against missiles.

 

[ECMO3]

so everyone plays a sorcerer then?

No we build a variety of classes, Fighters and Barbarians are the only ones I've seen that seem to get so specialized that they can't use a lot of magic weapons effectively (which is ironic because thematically Fighters should be able to any weapons) It is not all of them only a few that take a bunch of feats that end up pigeonholing themselves. Those players gernerally don't seem to have as much fun with those builds as other players who play more diverse builds including other players playing Barbarians or Fighters.

Also Sorcerers generally have little use for most magic weapons .... now if you had said Wizard or Warlock I would get what you are saying.

sorry, but that is just bad DMing

Well I disagree and I disagree both as a player and as a DM.