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

[Stalker0]

It's not the next attack you make during that immediate series of attacks but is "Advantage on your next attack roll against that creature before the end of your next turn." Which means even a reaction opportunity attack benefits from it, in addition to a bonus action attack and a second attack. Melee fighting classes often find ways to have multiple attacks in a round. Polearm Master, for instance, was a popular one. Great Weapon Master is another. Sentinel another.

Obviously some of these change with the new rules, but I expect we will still see Melee fighting classes finding ways to make several attacks a round.

well we are both kind of wrong.

Your right that it is end of next turn, and I completely missed that. However, it is just your "next attack roll". So my original point is still correct, vex only applies to 1 attack period.

 

[ART!]

I'm thoroughly perplexed by the weapon masteries thing. I don't feel like it adds anything of value to the game, other than slowing down combat. It feels like complexity for the sake making the game feel more complex...for the sake of complexity. Sure, it adds more decisions, but not interesting decisions.

And it's also just so arbitrary. Sure, giant hammers might be good for knocking people down, but in most cases the mechanic associated with a given weapon could just as easily apply to almost any other weapon. (And, in fact, they will, since Fighters can arbitrarily assign any mastery to any weapon.)

Do you like it? Why?

In general they're just baked into each weapon, so there's only decisions if you can manage more than one mastery per weapon.

I think just giving all martials combat maneuvers would achieve similar and more cohesive results.

 

[Valetudo]

I see alot of people dogging flex. While I agree that it is probably the weakest weapon mastery, it isnt useless and works really well with 2weapon style fighters. That way you use another weapon mastery on the second weapon.

 

[cbwjm]

Considering I've seen people on these boards complain about how you're nerving the group if you take a d6 weapon over a d8, I think flex is ok. A d10 damage die, and you get a shield bonus to AC, that ain't a bad option, it just isn't the best option.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I see alot of people dogging flex. While I agree that it is probably the weakest weapon mastery, it isnt useless and works really well with 2weapon style fighters. That way you use another weapon mastery on the second weapon.

If you're going for simplicity you take a Nick weapon in your offhand.

 

[Mistwell]

well we are both kind of wrong.

Your right that it is end of next turn, and I completely missed that. However, it is just your "next attack roll". So my original point is still correct, vex only applies to 1 attack period.

Naw because you use Vex on that next attack roll as well. You keep using it, and getting advantage, until you miss once you get it going.

 

[Emberashh]

Its interesting in theory; that a hybrid system of maneuvers and weapon properties could provide the best of both worlds.

But the implementation as recieved is pretty lame and underbaked.

 

[Azzy]

I think that they are nice for differentiating weapons, and I like them in that regard. However, I strongly feel that designing class features around them is a rather poor decision that fails detracts from designing actually interesting class features—especially in regards to the Fighter in particular.

 

[Horwath]

So, people should take the Greatsword (or Maul) over the Greataxe because it averages +0.5 more damage, but Flex is useless because it only averages +1 extra damage?

Because flex uses a mastery "slot" of the weapon. +0,5 damage of greatsword over greataxe uses nothing.

If you had a choice for graze over flex on longsword, you would take graze every time. or cleave. or vex.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, he believes that new players are too stupid to pick a subclass at 1st level so he probably thinks we will believe that flex is a good and interesting design.

I said it once and I'll say it again.

The designers of D&D may be hardcore fans but they play like casuals. That has been the issue since 3e.

They play stereotypical dwarf or human sword and board fighter and cleric with Cantrips spamming casters who don't use optimization.

You hear it in the video. Jeremy Crawford said he wants to be able to turn his brain off after a long day of work even though he is an experienced gamer. That's why Flex is so bad. It is made for people who aren't thinking.

It's why D&D needs more core warrior classes.