D&D (2024) How is Flex still a thing?

[Pauln6]

They sacrificed a fair bit of flavour for simplicity. Level up has made a few tweaks but largely the same. I think you might be disappointed.

 

[Stalker0]

It needs to be better designed, not to not be a generalist option, but to give something that tempts it into being a good first choice.

I still disagree with that.

By default, the generalist option will never be your first pick over a specialized option when your dealing with the specialists niche. I mean if it did, the specialist option would suck.

Cleave is an easy example. If 2 enemies are together, ok cool I pull out the axe. If not, then I'm using a different weapon.


The real questions are:
1) Does flex come up enough that its still worth putting on your mastery list? Or do the other niches come up so often that flex just literally doesn't come up much and is never picked.
2) Are there other more general masteries on one handed weapons that are just better than flex straight up? aka does flex actually have a generalist niche or its just straight up inferior to mastery X

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, maybe because we all don't agree on how utterly terrible it is?

Either way, if you did want to add something to the two-handed version, it would have to be equally simple. Add +1 damage to Critical Hits when used Two-handed. There. At the very least, it would have to be always-on option, which means it can't be equal to abilities that need to be activated/can be resisted.

If you want it to be a passive, non-thinking thing, then just increase the die size again, so longswords become d12 and spears become d10. That's simple and it is always on, unlike something that is only going to happen rarely that they will have to remember.

And yes, I maintain there should be some abilities that are passive. We obviously don't want to redesign the entire game around the lowest-common-denominator of player skill. But I firmly believe there should be at least some options that cater to people who don't want to think that hard on every attack.

It is hilarious to me that the most complex weapons are now the ones that are being advocated for being the simplest so that you don't have to think on every attack. The entire POINT of versatile weapons was that you could analyze what you needed in the fight, and be able to adapt.

 

[Stalker0]

The entire POINT of versatile weapons was that you could analyze what you needed in the fight, and be able to adapt.

ITs fair, but that ship was long since sailed. No one uses them that way.

The main reason is I think a lot of tables are pretty liberal with their weapon swapping, so if a fighter actually did want to switch to THW for a bit (giving up the at wonder dueling +2, but hey), then they would just switch to the greatsword....why bother with the longsword in both hands.

 

[mellored]

ITs fair, but that ship was long since sailed. No one uses them that way.

The ship can sail back.

Give versatile weapons 2 different masteries. Now you deal less damage, but can do more stuff.

then they would just switch to the greatsword....why bother with the longsword in both hands.

For fighter, they wouldn't. But anyone who is at only 2 masteries might just do that.

Also. Magic weapons.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Since the ability to use Weapon Masteries is a class feature, I think Weapon Masteries should be equal in power to a Fighting Style.

"Spellcasting" is also a class feature.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

A one die bump is not enough? Are you suggesting that versatile weapons should do more damage than two handed weapons but be usable one handed? This is at will first level and can be acquired via a feat. You will need to work harder to convince me that this a good idea.

Two handed weapons could use a damage bump too. After Great Weapon Master was removed, there's little reason for any weapon user to forego using a shield if they have proficiency.

 

[kigmatzomat]

And you should also design all casters so that they only have three spells. Because otherwise players who will forget how spells work can never learn them. Right?

No. You design something like the Warlock, where you have a solid, reliable "button mashing" mechanic and then a small, focused, rarely changing list of features.

The Warlock is the "flex" of casters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No. You design something like the Warlock, where you have a solid, reliable "button mashing" mechanic and then a small, focused, rarely changing list of features.

The Warlock is the "flex" of casters.

You mean the one they just annihilated last playtest to make it the wizard?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Two handed weapons could use a damage bump too. After Great Weapon Master was removed, there's little reason for any weapon user to forego using a shield if they have proficiency.

Great Weapon Master was not removed, and I have proven mathematically that if you do not have advantage, the new version does superior damage compared to the old version.