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

[Chaosmancer]

you forgot to add that new GWM adds +1 STR, that would make your primary stat 18 and not 17 at the given level or 20 vs 19.

So old GWM must use default hit rate of 55% and 1 less base damage.

Unless you start with 16 / 16 instead of 17 / 15 and the feat brings you to 17/16 as your top two stats instead of 18/15

I tend to not account for the strength mod, because I feel like it comes with too many extra steps and caveats.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Meh. Just remove Flex and rule that a PC that doesn't want to take advantage of weapon mastery gets a +1 damage. It's, mostly, an irrelevant amount anyway, especially for classes that don't get extra attack.
Then, give the longsword, an iconic weapon, a weapon mastery that's actually meaningful.
Done.
This way, you don't force players who don't want to engage with complex mechanics to do so anyway whenever they want to use something that doesn't have Flex and avoid making iconic weapons like the longsword a Timmy option.

That isn't a bad way to handle it...

My preferred solution is actually to make Weapon Masteries more like Techniques. You pick a technique, and it can apply to any legal weapon. So, for example, you could get the Push Technique and it works whenever you are using a Heavy, Two-Handed, or Versatile weapon.

This prevents the silly visual of weapon swapping. It allows more dynamic use of abilities, and opens up space for new abilities. Right now, you can't have more weapon masteries. With Techniques, of course you could build more, allowing for a more open design.

... And then I might abandon that in favor of combat arts, but that rule set is still in infancy

 

[Njall]

That isn't a bad way to handle it...

My preferred solution is actually to make Weapon Masteries more like Techniques. You pick a technique, and it can apply to any legal weapon. So, for example, you could get the Push Technique and it works whenever you are using a Heavy, Two-Handed, or Versatile weapon.

This prevents the silly visual of weapon swapping. It allows more dynamic use of abilities, and opens up space for new abilities. Right now, you can't have more weapon masteries. With Techniques, of course you could build more, allowing for a more open design.

... And then I might abandon that in favor of combat arts, but that rule set is still in infancy

Eh, honestly, I'd prefer it to work that way as well. Unfortunately, WotC doesn't seem to be going in that direction at all. And yeah, the idea of a fighter constantly switching weapons while a monster tries to hack his face to bits does seem more than a bit silly to me as well, but oh well, more options are still welcome, considering how starved fighters are in that department.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I honestly did not even bother to look at the pre-reqs because that wasn't the point.

The point was that last line. Assuming it is a choice, graze is better.

So, again, going back to your original confusion on why people are so upset with flex and think it is so terrible, we have determined that, if you can use them, every single other mastery is better. That's one major point against flex, sure you can always use it, but it is always the lesser option.

Secondly, and something we haven't addressed, flex removes the versatile property. There is no longer a choice for any weapon that has flex. The entire point of Versatile was the ability to choose to drop the shield to increase the damage. Flex has taken that away. Every flex weapon might as well be re-written without the versatile property. A mastery that eliminates the property of the weapon? That doesn't feel good.

These two reasons are the reasons it is considered a bad mastery. It is, quite literally, "better than nothing, I guess" the Mastery.

The Versatile ability is very weak and is not something that anyone ever plans to use. It is a fallback that is more rarely used than any other weapon property. You're not losing anything by a Weapon Master being able to effectively negate it with Flex. It is existing rarely-used design that can be the root of something additive and better (i.e. Flex). I also don't believe the Versatile ability itself needs to change to be more powerful. It shouldn't make a longword do a better job at being a greatsword than the greatsword itself due to flexibility.

Additionally, something that works all the time should not be as powerful as something that is situational. Flex is fine for what it does. It increases weapon damage size (which impacts every normal and critical hit), and is a pure upgrade for people who want to use two weapons or sword and board, and don't want otherwise complicated mechanics (more than they get from their other abilities).

Also, longswords don't also need to have their base weapon mastery make them the king of all weapons... again. They are reliable and effective, and this design supports that.

I do hope that the final 2024 books will include design that allows a person to invest choices that allow dual-wielding 2 versatile weapons with Flex damage dice and ability score mod on the off-hand damage, without requiring the Light or Finesse property. I want my dual-warhammer/warpick dwarven warrior to be able to open a (reasonable) can of whoop! There are lots of people who've enjoyed dual-wielding longswords too. The path to such design should be available.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The Versatile ability is very weak and is not something that anyone ever plans to use. It is a fallback that is more rarely used than any other weapon property. You're not losing anything by a Weapon Master being able to effectively negate it with Flex. It is existing rarely-used design that can be the root of something additive and better (i.e. Flex). I also don't believe the Versatile ability itself needs to change to be more powerful. It shouldn't make a longword do a better job at being a greatsword than the greatsword itself due to flexibility.

Whether or not we believe versatile is a weak ability, the unique property for versatile weapons essentially making them non-versatile weapons is poor design.

And I don't think any option is making a longsword better than a greatsword. At worst, it gives an option to match the greatsword damage, if you weren't focused on using greatswords.

Additionally, something that works all the time should not be as powerful as something that is situational. Flex is fine for what it does. It increases weapon damage size (which impacts every normal and critical hit), and is a pure upgrade for people who want to use two weapons or sword and board, and don't want otherwise complicated mechanics (more than they get from their other abilities).

Also, longswords don't also need to have their base weapon mastery make them the king of all weapons... again. They are reliable and effective, and this design supports that.

But it doesn't work all the time. For example, Monks get weapon mastery and if they use their biggest weapons that is either a staff or a spear... which have the flex mastery... which Monk's can't utilize at all. Monks would be better off with literally anything else, because they can't benefit from this.

It is an extreme example, perhaps, but it points to the situation we are in. All flex does is make 1-handed weapons deal a die size up, which they could also do by being used two handed, which many people did. All I really want is for Flex to do SOMETHING when used with two-hands. Doesn't even have to be more than just letting the die increase again. But it has to do something.

I do hope that the final 2024 books will include design that allows a person to invest choices that allow dual-wielding 2 versatile weapons with Flex damage dice and ability score mod on the off-hand damage, without requiring the Light or Finesse property. I want my dual-warhammer/warpick dwarven warrior to be able to open a (reasonable) can of whoop! There are lots of people who've enjoyed dual-wielding longswords too. The path to such design should be available.

I also want to have the Dual-Wielder feat go back to how it was.

 

[Clint_L]

Whether or not we believe versatile is a weak ability, the unique property for versatile weapons essentially making them non-versatile weapons is poor design.

This.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Someone may have already mentioned this, but what if Flex actually recognized the Versatile ability?

When you hit with an attack using a Versatile weapon, whether one-handed, or two-handed, you may choose to use the Flex Mastery to increase the weapon's normal or Versatile damage die according to the table below:​

​

1d6 -> 1d8​

1d8 -> 1d10​

1d10 -> 1d12​

It's basically the same functionality as Flex is now, but it also cares about Versatile damage. They just need to make sure that all versatile weapons use only those dice, and it works. It's not really that much extra space compared to the other masteries.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Someone may have already mentioned this, but what if Flex actually recognized the Versatile ability?

When you hit with an attack using a Versatile weapon, whether one-handed, or two-handed, you may choose to use the Flex Mastery to increase the weapon's normal or Versatile damage die according to the table below:​

​

1d6 -> 1d8​

1d8 -> 1d10​

1d10 -> 1d12​

It's basically the same functionality as Flex is now, but it also cares about Versatile damage. They just need to make sure that all versatile weapons use only those dice, and it works. It's not really that much extra space compared to the other masteries.

Are you saying that Flex would allow the use of a versatile weapon (by someone with Fex mastery) as 2 die steps above the base one-handed damage die?

So, I have being brushing up on my probability theory since UA 6 has dropped. So I crunched the number for a champion fighter with longsword and board using flex and as expected it is better than the base.
So, then I though, how do I calculate the effect of a Weapon Master's ability to replace a mastery. It seems only Push and Topple qualify for a versatile weapon.
Topple needs a save to Knock a foe prone. How do I do that, some lessons on conditional probability later and some chat with BingChatGBT (which was surprisingly helpful)
Surprisingly (to me at least), topple is worse than flex in almost all the cases I looked at.
At least with a longsword, one handed, With 2 hands it is very marginally better and gets better at higher levels as the interative chances of topple stack up. Not sure it is worth the loss of 2 AC, and there may be feats that help. It is also very dependent on the con save of the monster.
It could be really worth it on npc casters.
It may fare better with a quarterstaff or spear; I have not checked the maths and I must have a look at the feats to see if there are synergies here.