log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E A case for weapon master

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
Moderately armored isn't a terrible feat if your game doesn't have MCing. But if it does, it's a much lower opportunity cost to simply grab armor from a one-level dip.
I prefer having the saves of a warlock vs fighter honestly. I multiclass some, but don’t feel it is always what I want. But I do that at times when it fits
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
if it was a full feat I could see your point.
If it was a flexible half-feat it would be better, since the primary users of this feat are casters. Restricting it to Str or Dex means you'd have to keep your Dex under 14 for this to be useful, and then you're really hurting until either level 4 or you're a VHuman.
 

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
If it was a flexible half-feat it would be better, since the primary users of this feat are casters. Restricting it to Str or Dex means you'd have to keep your Dex under 14 for this to be useful, and then you're really hurting until either level 4 or you're a VHuman.
You have a point there. I usually go variant human for this and other reasons. Surviving to level 4 is hard with non human blade pact in particular for me.

in that sense I wish level 4 feat came at 1st sometimes...not sure how it would effect the game.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
You have a point there. I usually go variant human for this and other reasons. Surviving to level 4 is hard with non human blade pact in particular for me.

in that sense I wish level 4 feat came at 1st sometimes...not sure how it would effect the game.
I gave out bonus feats at level 1 in my last game, players seemed to enjoy the flexibility. The Theros setting also does this as a campaign rule.
 

You have a point there. I usually go variant human for this and other reasons. Surviving to level 4 is hard with non human blade pact in particular for me.

in that sense I wish level 4 feat came at 1st sometimes...not sure how it would effect the game.

Probably all half feats are not balanced right. In a different thread, someone proposed having them +1 to two abilities. And after a while I thought, that might actually work. So you only give up the freedom of incrrasing your main stat by 2 immediately and you advance more slowly but get some side bonuses on your way up. Some benefits are so minor, that the increase in powers is neglaectable and it boils down to flavour.
 

TL;DW. A basketball player is upset that we are talking about the Weapon Master feat.

Why are we talking about this feat? Is it really so slow, that there is literally, nothing else to talk about?

The Mind Flayers must have conquered the Material Plane🏴‍☠️🆘‼️
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I can see it from the magical weapon property’s viewpoint. I’m sure there’s some magical weapon properties that would be good for a caster. In which case gaining proficiency in said weapon could be a big deal.
 

GlassJaw

Hero
Weapon Master is awful. Honestly if a player had a cool character concept and they wanted to use a weapon that their class didn't allow, I would just give it to them.

Every time I see these threads pop up, it affirms my belief that the feat system needs to be throw out and rebuilt. Every feat needs to be chopped in half. Balancing the current level of "power" that each feat needs to have has clearly proven too difficult. The devs backed themselves into a corner.

Make feats less powerful but grant more of them. I know the devs were resistant to too much choice but as it stands now, there is hardly any choice because the bulk of the feats are useless compared to a minority that are clearly superior.
 

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
Weapon Master is awful. Honestly if a player had a cool character concept and they wanted to use a weapon that their class didn't allow, I would just give it to them.

Every time I see these threads pop up, it affirms my belief that the feat system needs to be throw out and rebuilt. Every feat needs to be chopped in half. Balancing the current level of "power" that each feat needs to have has clearly proven too difficult. The devs backed themselves into a corner.

Make feats less powerful but grant more of them. I know the devs were resistant to too much choice but as it stands now, there is hardly any choice because the bulk of the feats are useless compared to a minority that are clearly superior.
I said the same before about weapon mast but now see it as situationally useful. Not often, but sometimes.

I just made an arcana cleric and took heavily armored at 1 (variant human). I have a 15 str, 14 con and 16 wis.

at 4 I could take this feat and get str to 16 with use of a war hammer, long sword or whatever now being proficient.

at level 8, I can bump wis to 18 with 16 str, heavy armor on arcana cleric chassis. Honestly a good melee cleric.

the opportunity cost is there. Could limit self to use of mace and move scores around so that at 4 I take resilient con. for same ability stats at 8.

it might be superior but I don’t want to have the DM to have to handwave proficiencies, personally.

This is just the example that got me rethinking a ‘terrible’ feat. I like war hammers and axes. What can I say?

one thing I M convinced of however is that I would be very hesitant to take this feat with anything other than a variant human. So situational does not mean very often.
 

GlassJaw

Hero
it might be superior but I don’t want to have the DM to have to handwave proficiencies, personally.

Why not? I trust the consensus that the interwebs has determined.

If I was DM, I would let you spend a single feat and have whatever armor and weapon proficiencies you wanted.
 

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
Why not? I trust the consensus that the interwebs has determined.

If I was DM, I would let you spend a single feat and have whatever armor and weapon proficiencies you wanted.
The consensus of the interwebs?

Not being disrespectful but curious. You mean that sincerely—I should expect a DM to change rules because some people on the internet think he should?

i am happy to solve problems with the rules as they are. I don’t generally see one feat as a huge investment for a variant human—and I realize that is subjective.

than again, some people are very concerned about a 16 vs an 18 in ability score. I have nearly never seen that make a huge difference in game. I guess there are times where I have missed by one, just not coming to mind...
 

GlassJaw

Hero
The consensus of the interwebs?

Not being disrespectful but curious. You mean that sincerely—I should expect a DM to change rules because some people on the internet think he should?
I was being tongue-in-cheek but basically, yes.

If you search - even just this forum - you will find a multitude of discussions on feats. And if you cull the data, you'll find a consensus has generally has been reached.

Is design by committe infallible? Of course not. But the information gained is absolutely legitimate and useful.
 

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
Ok got ya.

yeah not dismissing outright but as a group we tend to hew pretty closely to rules with minimum of UA or homebrew.

though in AD&D days we had critical hits on 20, spell points to an extent....

I think for me it simply does not seem that mathematically bad. The lore may be another matter.

to do one or two higher steps in weapon damage dice and to be able to claim more of what is found without a penalty is wiorth half a feat. A 16 vs a 17 In an ability is not that much of a cost to me. Maybe worth half a feat.

and that’s the price of a half emphasis on half, feat.

i look at it this way: if I take heavily armored and weapon master, I am giving up a single ASI since each gives me a 1/2 ASI. Or one ASI plus weapons and armor for a feat.

An ASI for a step up in armor and most relevant weapons seems....reasonable.

solutions others put out Included giving all weapons for a weapons master feat. Ok, sure. But if I already have simple weapons and add 4 martial weapons I feel “good enough” for most adventurers anyway.

so I don’t look at weapon master alone necessarily but with a complementary feat. I think the opportunity cost of one ASI for armor and weapons Is not bad actually though it may not be consensus on the interwebs.

if a dm would handwave it and give you that for free? Sure then it’s a bad deal. But then so is taking anything that could be had for free.
 

Horwath

Hero
here is a little rework of a Heavy armor master feat.
It is a good feat for heavy armors, but medium armor master is kid of a weak feat and we could morph two armor mastery feats into one and extend it on light armors also.

Armor Mastery:
gain +1 str, dex or con

when you are wearing an armor that you are proficient you gain:

light armor: +1 AC in light armor and damage reduction of 1 against bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage.
medium armor: ignore stealth penalty for medium armor and damage reduction of 2 against bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage.
heavy armor: ignore str requirement and damage reduction of 3 against bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage.
Shields: increase damage reduction by 1.
 

cbwjm

Hero
I took arcana cleric. With a low dex...heavily armored is great. I know some don’t like the opportunity cost of a half feat (one point!) in an ability. I don’t like delaying spell progression most of the time.

I do not like hexblade theme much either and think fiend is cool. These feats keep me from having to pick a patron or a deity domain I am not interested in.

if it was a full feat I could see your point.
This is why the armour feats have a place in the game, losing class abilities to pick up a level in another class is often not the way I want to go.
 


Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I'm a bit confused here - are we talking weapon or armor? A cleric taking a feat to improve their AC? That's good. But an arcana cleric, which if memory serve, is a casting cleric, gains little from an exra weapon - their time in battle is better spent casting spells.
 

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
I'm a bit confused here - are we talking weapon or armor? A cleric taking a feat to improve their AC? That's good. But an arcana cleric, which if memory serve, is a casting cleric, gains little from an exra weapon - their time in battle is better spent casting spells.
In this case:

Take gfb and or bb. With a 20 ac with plate, you can hit with weapon (mace or with weapons master hammer) for hammer1-8, gfb 1-8 as well as str, say +3 and wisdoms say +4. So first attack 2-16 +7; Second target would be 1-8 +4, +4. Now add spiritual weapon 1-8 +4’as well as spiritual guardians. And perhaps you secured a magic weapon.

that is a lot of punch. I think they melee as well as or better than other clerics when properly equipped.

of course if you cast a big spell that round, you might not melee at all.

but at times you really can and it’s fun when you do.
 


Undrave

Hero
In this case:

Take gfb and or bb. With a 20 ac with plate, you can hit with weapon (mace or with weapons master hammer) for hammer1-8, gfb 1-8 as well as str, say +3 and wisdoms say +4. So first attack 2-16 +7; Second target would be 1-8 +4, +4. Now add spiritual weapon 1-8 +4’as well as spiritual guardians. And perhaps you secured a magic weapon.
Too many shorthand so I have trouble following... What's gfb and bb?! And a Cleric doesn't get a second attack, what do you mean by 'second target'?!

And if you want to be a melee Cleric, you're better off with someone who gets Divine Strike (and even there, from 5 to 8 you'll suck).

Weapons Master is a bad feat that was badly designed that nobody ever needs.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top