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

[Stalker0]

Lets not insult people's intelligence over this; that's just gatekeeping. Flex is designed to appeal to people who want to shut off their brain and just smash things. Which is valid. Don't like it? Then don't take Flex. Its not meant for you, its meant for others.

There is no issue with having a super simple mastery option, but people are arguing whether flex is at all worth it. If for example flex was:

"Gain the versatile damage of the weapon at all times, and a +1 to damage".... its still just as simple but now has more power. So simplicity alone is not a valid rationale if flex truly is "weak".

Right now flex takes the 4.95 average longsword damage (assuming basic crit on a 20) to about 6.05, so effectively 1.1 damage. Is that "enough" to justify it versus the others....I guess we will see what the surveys think.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you don't want to use flex, wouldn't that cut you out of some pretty common weapons? There are a lot of character concepts that use flex weapons.

 

[deganawida]

Then avoid picking Flex (which should be to d12). Flex exists for people who want to switch their brains off - but that doesn't somehow mean that Topple, Cleave, and Push don't exist.

I think that you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that Flex is bad, nor am I saying that I am not one who enjoys having less on my character sheet. I am a person who wants less on his character sheet, as I want to pay attention to what is around me and use that to aid me in combat. Rather, the quibble that I have is the characterization of everyone who does not care for the masteries and prefers a simpler fighter as wanting to shut our brains off.

 

[mellored]

Its not tactically complex, it doesn't do much other than add an effective +1 damage average.

I agree we need a simple option, but +1 is too weak.

+2 would probably be better.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"Gain the versatile damage of the weapon at all times, and a +1 to damage".... its still just as simple but now has more power. So simplicity alone is not a valid rationale if flex truly is "weak".

Having to add +1 is not shutting your brain off, sir. And think of the poor newbie who should not be expected to do such high level math.

 

[Asisreo]

If you don't want to use flex, wouldn't that cut you out of some pretty common weapons? There are a lot of character concepts that use flex weapons.

This is what I'm so confused about on why flex is getting compared to irrelevant masteries.

To clarify, what we're looking at isn't a comparison to graze or cleave when looking at flex.

We're talking about flex vs slow vs topple. Only one of which actually adds any actual damage at any point, which is flex. If you're going longsword, you're probably not even optimizing for damage anyways, you're looking on having a shield for extra defense.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

yes I do.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Then avoid picking Flex (which should be to d12). Flex exists for people who want to switch their brains off - but that doesn't somehow mean that Topple, Cleave, and Push don't exist.

If Versatile was 1d12, then there would be no reason to use a 2-handed Greatsword or Greataxe. Just 2-hand the Versatile weapon for the same damage.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

If you don't want to use flex, wouldn't that cut you out of some pretty common weapons? There are a lot of character concepts that use flex weapons.

yeah that is an issue but if they let fighters pick and replace sooner that wouldn't be an issue

 

[Mephista]

There is no issue with having a super simple mastery option, but people are arguing whether flex is at all worth it.

People did the same thing with the Champion subclass. It was determined to do less damage than a Battlemaster who never got a single short rest. Champion remains the more played choice.

People will argue, champion players will still take Flex even if the charop peeps determine it to be trash.