D&D (2024) Not loving weapon mastery with beginners

[Zardnaar]

Not sure how this applies to weapon masteries or are you saying battlesmastrrs are already complex?

If you can use a battlemaster these new rules are no big deal.

Objectively it's more complexity with feats no longer being optional.

Subjectively it's up to you if you like that.

 

[ezo]

It was during the run up to 5E.

I think it was Mearls anyway. Low AC high ht points. From memory the average AC was 14.5 or 15 in the MM.

Yep, the goal posts shifted. Now, instead of missing a lot, your damage is usually inconsequential and it takes many hits to defeat a foe. In the long run, combat takes about the same amount of time really.

FWIW, the average AC is 13 in tier 1, and +2 to AC per tier (so 19 in tier 4) roughly. Given bonuses, this equates to the roughly 65% success rate in combat (+/- 5%). Frankly, I find the "new way" more boring than missing.

My personaly preference is for a success rate around 1/3. I would rather be happily surprised when I hit, not bored that "oh yeah... I hit again... and again... and again" because in practice, with spells, advantage, etc. that 65% is usually closer to 75-85% IME. BORING!!!

 

[TiQuinn]

I think the point is less that weapon mastery is more difficult than spells, but that it is yet another decision/slowdown point for the game in general.

I guess so.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It’s a new thing that makes martials more interesting to play.

Does it really?

I haven't bothered with the new rules, so I've never actually used masteries at the table. What about them makes martials more 'interesting' to play? In what way?

 

[cbwjm]

Does it really?

I haven't bothered with the new rules, so I've never actually used masteries at the table. What about them makes martials more 'interesting' to play? In what way?

Different things depending on the weapon. They add little things like slowing on a hit, dealing damage on a miss, or allowing you to make an off-hand attack as part of the attack action instead of a bonus action. I can't remember them but they are probably in the free rules on dndbeyond.

 

[kittenhugs]

Does it really?

I haven't bothered with the new rules, so I've never actually used masteries at the table. What about them makes martials more 'interesting' to play? In what way?

We're getting into subjective territory here but at the very least, giving martials a way of applying effects in combat to enemies using their weapons makes them more mechanically complex than "roll to hit, roll for damage."

The weapon masteries also add a bit more depth to choosing what kind of weapons you'll be swinging around, e.g. whether you want the possible extra swing of a greataxe, the chance to knock people prone with a maul, or having a higher minimum damage output with a greatsword.

People can and do shake their head and go "but that's not interesting actually" and at that point it's a matter of taste.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah really. Even in this thread several people have asked which specific weapon mastery properties were slowing things down, but no answer was given.

It honestly just feels like complaining about weapon mastery "slowing things down" is a convenient scapegoat for people who just didn't want the rules to change because they don't see anything wrong with the 2014 rules, because it's the most obvious new addition to the rules that didn't exist before.

Except I, who started the thread, did cite specific examples, and I have consistently been very supportive of the 2024 updates and think they are an overall improvement. Try again.

It is possible to like something and still criticize aspects of it. The world is not black and white. In fact, as I also emphasized in my OP, I like masteries for experienced players.

It’s not quite as simple as just “opt out of them” for some campaigns, as we use DDB. However, if they were official options I could toggle them on or off.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

I haven't bothered with the new rules, so I've never actually used masteries at the table. What about them makes martials more 'interesting' to play? In what way?

Nick is definitely interesting, it makes dual-wielding actually be a viable way to build a character which it never was before.

Push, Slow, and Topple offer battlefield control options. Personally I find that boring I just want to kill stuff dead - but many people will find it interesting to have ways to move enemies around like chess pieces

Sap is interesting if you want to play as a tank/support character sacrificing damage for protecting your allies. Boring for many but it's a nice addition if you want to play a protector type character

Graze and Vex are boring but straightforward, reliable increases in damage.

Cleave does absolutely nothing 90%+ of the time, but occasionally gives you an awesome moment of getting to attack two enemies at once which is always interesting when it comes up

Overall the only one that really makes gameplay more interesting is Nick, but the rest offer some flavorful options which weren't there before and many people will find that interesting

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Except I, who started the thread, did cite specific examples, and I have consistently been very supportive of the 2024 updates and think they are an overall improvement. Try again.

Well ok then I guess I'm bad at reading because I just re-read all your posts and I still don't see your explanation of which weapon mastery properties are causing issues. Can you explain again?

Slow, Sap, Vex, and Graze all just happen without the player needing to decide or do anything so I don't see how they could be an issue

Push is a simple decision, "want to move that guy 10 feet away?" Ok he's over there now

Topple requires the DM to roll a d20, surely this can't take long

Cleave basically never even does anything so can't be cleave causing problems

Nick is clunky and freaking confusing I'll grant you that, for new players and experienced players as well. But 2014 two-weapon fighting was confusing also, it just didn't come up as much because it was bad and now Nick makes two-weapon fighting great.

 

[Horwath]

Yep, the goal posts shifted. Now, instead of missing a lot, your damage is usually inconsequential and it takes many hits to defeat a foe. In the long run, combat takes about the same amount of time really.

FWIW, the average AC is 13 in tier 1, and +2 to AC per tier (so 19 in tier 4) roughly. Given bonuses, this equates to the roughly 65% success rate in combat (+/- 5%). Frankly, I find the "new way" more boring than missing.

My personaly preference is for a success rate around 1/3. I would rather be happily surprised when I hit, not bored that "oh yeah... I hit again... and again... and again" because in practice, with spells, advantage, etc. that 65% is usually closer to 75-85% IME. BORING!!!

that might be true but it is harder to balance, not that they did a good job with CR system in the 1st place.

higher hit rate and higher HPs are more reliable in outcome than low hit rate and low HPs.

that is why the added Graze to greatsword, so it is even more reliable damage output.

maybe there should be more scale in "critical hits"

beat AC by 5; +50% damage
beat AC by 10; +100% damage
beat AC by 15; +150% damage
beat AC by 20; +200% damage

miss AC by 5 or less: only 50% damage and you cannot trigger and on hit riders.

maybe add if your roll nat 20 you add +50% damage for the flavor.