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

[ezo]

don't care how they will balance that but it must be done.

They balanced it by making it a bonus action to attack with a second weapon.

So, apparently you do care how they balanced it?

At the simplest level, you have four options (let us say):

d8 + shield (4.5 dmg, +2 AC)
2d6 (7 dmg)
d8 + d6 (8 dmg)
d8 ranged (4.5 dmg, "but at a safe distance?")

The higher damage, and two chances to hit instead of one, is why the bonus action is the requirement. Could they have done it differently? Sure.

I think attacking with two weapons should be: +1 to attack roll, roll both damage dice and use the higher roll.

This way you get a slightly higher damage average than just the d8 (d8+d6 averages 5.23 taking the higher roll), but the +1 to attacks makes this average slightly higher still. It is almost a +1 to attack, +1 to damage.

I don't know if it would continue to work with fighting styles and feats factored in, but further discussion is best left for another thread IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When we play tested the weapon mastery rules in my home campaign, I liked them. They slowed things down slightly, but it was only two players and they knew what they were doing.

My new campaign at school has eight players, half of them brand new, three of whom have weapon mastery. And it is slowing combat down substantially. The things it adds - another decision point, more tactics, more rolls - are flaws not features for someone who is trying to learn a ton of stuff at once. Kinda wishing these had been an optional rule.

If it's an issue for your table, why not just skip it? It doesn't break the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Talking about RAW. Sone DMs wont know or layers will get salty for stripping out shiniest. They may not understand it but they want it.

Traditional pattern is revisions are more complicated but sell less. They cater to veterans vs newbies.

In what way does 5.5 cater to veterans? I know some vets like it, but IMO they're hardly being catered to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, if you are binding yourself by RAW, you have to use them.

Which is why I never bind myself to RAW.

 

[mamba]

Yeah 5.5e in general seems more focused on keeping existing players interested than drawing new players in.

the streamlining of language / rules and organization are mostly there to make it easier for new players. There is very little in 2024 that I see as being there to keep existing players interested over making it easier / enjoyable for new players

 

[Micah Sweet]

I understand that, but I’m also pointing out that spellcasting doesn’t make a class complex either. If someone is truly a beginner, like they’ve never played before, have no idea what dice or what, and have never looked at any RPG before, computer or paper, there’s really just the fighter and the barbarian. I wouldn’t even put the rogue in this group. But I also have a hard time believing that every new player just plays a fighter or barbarian too.

I think it’s arguable that D&D 5e or 5.5 shouldn’t be someone’s first go-round with TTRPGs if they are really green.

But it almost certainly will be, because WotC has sucked all the air out of the room.

 

[Will Brandiman]

I feel like this is not too com plicated to explain. Maybe I need an example.

We have 90 minutes sessions after school. Combats are now taking much longer than they used to, and the new thing that has made them slower is weapon masteries with beginning players. So we don't get nearly as much done. There. That is the issue.

I feel like folks are trying to make this about martial vs. spell casters or something. It is not. It is a very specific issue with the new rules and beginning players.

I'm just not seeing what is so complicated or time consuming? You have, at most, 3 mastery properties to choose from and, unless you're allowing ridiculous weapon juggling, likely only one (maybe 2) in use by each player on a given round. Most masteries are very straightforward mechanically. Why are they causing problems?

 

[ART!]

Masteries are another step at level 1, and also usually involve tactical considerations that the beginning player has no context for. They also involve more math, which is a bigger barrier for more new players than a lot of folks realize.

I've been running the D&D Club at my school for years. I have lots of experience. What I've noticed in the first few sessions this year is that weapon masteries, specifically, are grinding things to a halt.

Amen!

And yet players want them because they're more powerful than without them. Once I started trying out the 2024 playtest fighter in our weekly game, some other players got envious of my weapon masteries.

Me, I'm kind of sick of them. When I play a fighter it's because I don't want to have to think about much, mechanically.

this is one of the reasons why TWF should have always been part of Attack action or just part of attacking with main hand.
2014 completely fumbled TWF and now because of "muh compatibilitah" it is hotfixed with Nick mastery.

TWF is a weapon set, you have;

1Hander + Shield,
2hander,
TWF,

that is it.

you could say that 1Hander+free hand is a weapon set, but that is just desperation to have free hand to do something else.

now those 3 sets, OFC counting melee/ranged balance should work as a basic action, don't care how they will balance that but it must be done.

Because if you need Bonus action for Offhand attack then you need Bonus action to "ready" a shield, Bonus action to "load" a bow and Bonus action to pre-swing Heavy 2Handed weapon.

OMG 1000% this
I'm tempted to house rule something like:

drop weapon properties, and instead of X weapon masteries you have X weapons that you can do one of the following with:

add a damage die
get advantage on your next attack
add to your AC against the opponent you attacked
grant advantage to a chosen ally
etc.

Just a few options, but they're good for all or most weapons.

 

[Belen]

I feel like this is not too com plicated to explain. Maybe I need an example.

We have 90 minutes sessions after school. Combats are now taking much longer than they used to, and the new thing that has made them slower is weapon masteries with beginning players. So we don't get nearly as much done. There. That is the issue.

I feel like folks are trying to make this about martial vs. spell casters or something. It is not. It is a very specific issue with the new rules and beginning players.

Every single time masteries are discussed, the anti-casters crowd shows up. I cannot get people to play full casters in my games.

Masteries bite. The main reason I will not use them is that it is another mess for me to track as a DM. Every combat I’d have to be tracking players masteries or reminding them to use them or hearing them say they forgot about x, etc.

This already happens and now they add a ton more complexity.

My experience is that most groups have 1 or 2 folks on the ball and properly learns their character.

Or even more worse, I need minis and battlemap to properly plan how to use my masteries.

 

[Will Brandiman]

Why are you tracking your player's masteries? That's their job!