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

[Guest 7037866]

I said earlier that there is usually 1-2 engaged players at a table.

You also just wrote...

If a person is always a player and never a DM, then my stated experience is common no matter how long they have played.

Which is what I don't agree with, not as a blanket statement. You might not have meant it that way...

 

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of people seem to love it, but the people who do love it seem to be the ones looking to replicate an OSR-style "simple, gritty, and deadly" type game. That may or may not be what the OP is looking for.

Fair enough. I'm sure there's a shinier fantasy RPG out there that's also simpler than D&D 5e.

 

[Belen]

I've heard good things about Shadowdark, since it sounds like 5.0 is also more complex than your players prefer.

My players love 5e. They also loved PF1e, 3.5, 3.0, 2e, Cypher, C&C…..

They do not mind the complexity. I would find similar human behavior regardless of system.

I am sure some of my players would love masteries; however, it moves the game closer to tactical 3.5/4e/PF1e and I am not going down that road again.

Personally, I will stick with 5.0 or move to C&C, Cypher, or back to 2e before going back to heavy tactical battle map BS.

 

[ART!]

Thanks for helping me make my point.

The DM is forced to remember all of it and track it.

Most players will think that managing all aspects of the combat is on the DM, even their own effects.

You're...welcome? I'm saying they are more for the DM to track, like any condition or limit or effect that is inflicted on NPCs or monsters. I mean, that's how I've always seen it played. Players can put condition markers on the minis, and there are similar markers for some effects, if you're using both minis and markers, but otherwise it's on the DM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My players love 5e. They also loved PF1e, 3.5, 3.0, 2e, Cypher, C&C…..

They do not mind the complexity. I would find similar human behavior regardless of system.

I am sure some of my players would love masteries; however, it moves the game closer to tactical 3.5/4e/PF1e and I am not going down that road again.

Personally, I will stick with 5.0 or move to C&C, Cypher, or back to 2e before going back to heavy tactical battle map BS.

C&C is also a good game from what I hear. I thought the issue was your players not grokking complicated rules.

 

[Distracted DM]

If the weapon masteries aren't built into class features, you don't have to use them- but it probably feels like leaving money on the table. "We could've caught the bad guy if I used weapon masteries."

A player with this cannot fail to deal damage with that weapon (which I find OFFENSIVE to game design completely!!! ) so should just tell me "I hit for X damage" or "I miss for Y damage". If they tell me they miss, I shouldn't have to wait for them to tell me how much "ability damage" they still do.

I will say that as much as I gripe about the Even More Powerful Player Character design direction, I don't agree with you on Graze. It's a tried and true mechanic from other games like Stars/Worlds/Cities Without Number- it's nice that even if a player misses, they still have some impact. A player saying "crap I miss, so they take 3 damage from Graze" isn't too tough to include.

Obviously it's just an opinion and you're welcome to yours, I just can't agree that it's "offensive to game design"

That said, I'd probably house rule it so that it couldn't kill bosses.. something simple like that, or "it can't drop creatures with a legendary action/resistance to zero," or "the damaging graze needs to exceed the creature's PB/Con/HighestStat modifier for graze to deal a killing blow." That's purely because I like the tension created when the players know that a nasty monster has a few HP left and if they can't take it down before its turn comes up it could be big trouble.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I will say that as much as I gripe about the Even More Powerful Player Character design direction, I don't agree with you on Graze. It's a tried and true mechanic from other games like Stars/Worlds/Cities Without Number- it's nice that even if a player misses, they still have some impact. A player saying "crap I miss, so they take 3 damage from Graze" isn't too tough to include.

Obviously it's just an opinion and you're welcome to yours, I just can't agree that it's "offensive to game design"

I've never played any of those, and if they use that sort of design I doubt I would enjoy them.

Otherwise, if a PC misses, they miss. Either get over it or get better at hitting.

I don't buy into the whole "don't feel like they're contributing / having an impact" concept. I am also not a fan of "auto-anything" without a cost. If the Graze feature used a reaction or something, I could get behind it:

"The attack swings just wide and fails to connect, but with a well-timed flick of your wrist you manage to graze it!"

People would be up in arms if an attack cantrip had a rider: if you miss, you still deal your spellcasting modifier damage. Off-hand, I don't know of any feature that allows this... but WoTC has a whole slew of books I have never seen so maybe it does exist?

That said, I'd probably house rule it so that it couldn't kill bosses.. something simple like that, or "it can't drop creatures with a legendary action/resistance to zero," or "the damaging graze needs to exceed the creature's PB/Con/HighestStat modifier for graze to deal a killing blow." That's purely because I like the tension created when the players know that a nasty monster has a few HP left and if they can't take it down before its turn comes up it could be big trouble.

See, and to me the fact that for whatever reason you think a house rule might be needed for it, indicates an issue--even if just a minor one.

 

[Distracted DM]

I've never played any of those, and if they use that sort of design I doubt I would enjoy them.

Otherwise, if a PC misses, they miss. Either get over it or get better at hitting.

I don't buy into the whole "don't feel like they're contributing / having an impact" concept. I am also not a fan of "auto-anything" without a cost. If the Graze feature used a reaction or something, I could get behind it:

"The attack swings just wide and fails to connect, but with a well-timed flick of your wrist you manage to graze it!"

People would be up in arms if an attack cantrip had a rider: if you miss, you still deal your spellcasting modifier damage. Off-hand, I don't know of any feature that allows this... but WoTC has a whole slew of books I have never seen so maybe it does exist?


See, and to me the fact that for whatever reason you think a house rule might be needed for it, indicates an issue--even if just a minor one.

Well I already don't love unlimited cantrips- and as it is they don't add attribute damage. But I could see some feature for melee cantrips that would do that only with melee though, not ranged.

 

[Zardnaar]

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

More complicated than 2014. Feats not optional, weapon masteries, more powerful PCs.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

You shouldn't be the be the one traking them, your players should be. Institute a rule, if they forget to add the mastery effect on their turn then it's too late, they missed their chance.