D&D (2024) Should full casters and Monks have one weapon mastery?

[Ashrym]

The idea of weapon mastery / specialization goes back a long way. Masters box set, AD&D, 2e, 3.5, 4e all used the general concept that this was a thing and generally a fighter thing.

5.24 adding effects similar to how cantrips adds effects works and correlates. Here is an easy chart to see that correlation...

Class​	Masteries​	Cantrips​	Spell Levels​
barbarian​	4​	0​	0​
bard​	0​	4​	9​
cleric​	0​	5(6)​	9​
druid​	0​	4(5)​	9​
fighter​	6​	0​	0​
monk​	0​	0​	0​
paladin​	2​	0(2)​	5​
ranger​	2​	0(2)​	5​
rogue​	2​	0​	0​
sorcerer​	0​	6​	9​
warlock​	0​	4+​	9​
wizard​	0​	5​	9​

Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers have class options that can give them cantrips at a cost. Warlocks can add more cantrips than they'll ever need through invocations; usually have 4, 6, 7, or maybe 9 cantrips.

Barbarians have a lot of weapon masteries because they have little magic and a lot of martial combat presence. If weapon mastery does get expanded they deserve a piece of that.

Bards have the least number of cantrips as another way in which they're weaker than other full spellcasters. They still have plenty of magic and even the more martial subclasses are still jacks of many trades. They should use an existing option for weapon mastery or go without.

Clerics have plenty of cantrips, spells, and additional class options. They should use an existing option for weapon mastery or go without.

Druids have plenty of cantrips, spells, and additional class options including wild shape. They should use an existing option for weapon mastery or go without.

Fighters have the most weapon masteries because they have little magic or other abilities and a lot of martial combat presence. If weapon mastery does get expanded they would gain it as a priority.

Monks do not have weapon mastery or much magic. That's because they focus on martial arts and inner power instead. They should use an existing option for weapon mastery or go without.

Paladins split martial and magical abilities. That's why they have a limited number of weapon mastery options.

Rangers split martial and magical abilities. That's why they have a limited number of weapon mastery options.

Rogues have the most limited weapon mastery options. This is because the class is limited in magical abilities and also does not have the same martial presence as a barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger.

Sorcerers have plenty of cantrips, spells, and additional class options. They should use an existing option for weapon mastery or go without.

Warlocks have plenty of cantrips, spells, and additional class options. A ridiculous amount in the invocations. They should use an existing option for weapon mastery or go without.

Wizards have plenty of cantrips, spells, and additional class options. Eventually spell mastery too. They should use an existing option for weapon mastery or go without.

It seems clear that the general intent grants weapon mastery inverse to magical ability, Every class that should have weapon mastery has it, and not everyone needs the shiny new toy.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Ok there are three errors here.

First Cleave only does 1d12 with a Greataxe or 1d10 with a Glaive. Those are the only two weapons that have that property, there are no 2d6 weapons with it.

Second Cleave does not add Strength. You only get the weapon damage, not the modifier damage

Third if you don't have the cleave mastery you can't use Cleave. You would only get the Green Flame Blade damage in that case.

Soooo. What you're saying here is that the Caster version of cleave is, in fact, already better than the martial one.

Ironically the only Class that can do both secondary Green Flame Blade damage and Cleave without resorting to a feat is a martial, specifically a Fighter with the Eldritch Knight subclass.

That's not ironic. That's logical. Training in weapons at the expense of their ability with spells is their entire shtick.

Yes they are all spells. Martials have had "cool spells" since the first 5E rules were published and under the 2024 rules martials have the most exclusive spell lists in the game.

Giving a list of abilities that only spellcasters get access to as an answer to what martials can do in lieu of the spells that casters get rather proves the point don't you think?
Martials haven't got powerful effects like that since Bo9S and 4e.

It actually works great because of Armor of Agathys. AOA is a bonus action to cast now, so you don't lose your attack when you need to reup and AOA with your highest level slot is going to be more hps then a d10 class would get.

You pretty much give up using other leveled spells in melee and at high level you need all your invocations to focus on bladewielding, but it is very effective in melee when played this way.

I've seen it played with a GOO Warlock and that is really good, but I think a Fiend Bladelock would be even better and I think either of these are better in melee than most single class non-caster builds.

You really think that setup could beat a fighter at their own game?

At higher level. All martials get an epic boon at level 19 and 20 and some of them get a good capstone at level 20 (others don't),

I think I understand. - It is the fact that martials get an epic boon and a capstone rather than 9th level spells that balances the classes out?

finally some of their higher level abilities are comparable to a 9th level spell and lower level abilities are comparable to lower level spells.

No. Epic Boons and most capstones are a lot better than 5th level spells and things like Indomitable(3) are better than comparable 9th level spells. Many of the subclass abilities of martials compare well to the high level spells full casters are getting at the level you get them as well (and high-level subclass abilities for martials are generally much better than high level subclass abilities for non-martials)

The archetypal 9th level spell effect that a martial class could emulate whilst still keeping Martial flavour is probably Foresight. What ability do the martials get that you think compares to that?

 

[James Gasik]

So thinking about this, I don't really believe that masteries are a huge deal. If a caster had them, sure, they could add a neat rider to a melee cantrip attack.

Which is far from the most efficient use of their resources. Being in melee sucks, and if you have a choice, you really shouldn't be there as a caster.

For most casters, you're talking about making a single attack with some extra damage to do what? Prone an enemy or push them back? They have spells that can do that to multiple foes at once and worse.

I don't even see the Monk as a problem, as unarmed has no mastery, so a big chunk of their attacks are just going to be damage, with the potential for one stun attempt per turn.

Now I get it- there's a thing that the warrior types have been given that full casters don't natively get, and the instant reaction is "hey, we got something cool, it's ours, don't let the finger wigglers get it!".

But in the grand scheme of things, masteries aren't a big deal. I mean, what's the most impressive thing they could do? A Fighter at higher levels could run around making single attacks against foes to knock a bunch of them prone? Push them back? Give themselves higher accuracy that they really don't need?

And let's not forget that Paladins and Rangers are, in fact, casters. So them having masteries already makes them less special, not that they really are.

Basically Wizards of the Coast gave some classes a bowl of grits and we're immediately acting like it's steak. If there's going to be a mechanic that really settles the martial/caster debate, this isn't it.

To the OP: just make Weapon Master an origin Feat. See how many of your players actually take it over something else. I've a sneaking suspicion most won't in the first place.

 

[Corinnguard]

Basically Wizards of the Coast gave some classes a bowl of grits and we're immediately acting like it's steak. If there's going to be a mechanic that really settles the martial/caster debate, this isn't it.

If WoTC had granted all of the martial classes access to combat maneuvers without doing a three-level dip into Fighter (Battlemaster) or requiring the Martial Adept feat, would they do a better job of settling the martial/caster debate?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

...

I think having a spell is cool as martial too...

Also: it is masteries, because several classes each get one.

 

[James Gasik]

If WoTC had granted all of the martial classes access to combat maneuvers without doing a three-level dip into Fighter (Battlemaster) or requiring the Martial Adept feat, would they do a better job of settling the martial/caster debate?

No. Not really. Because maneuvers are a resource spent to get a fairly minor effect that don't scale. Cantrips are able to be used as often as needed, and most attack cantrips do scale. They're not the same thing, of course, but if you want to do something more than just hit point damage, it costs a "martial" something.

I know a lot of people are happy with that. I know there are people who wouldn't want maneuvers in the first place (if there weren't, then every Fighter would be a Battle Master and we know that's not true).

But if you want parity between weapon users and spell users, masteries aren't it. They're better than not having masteries at all, don't get me wrong, but they're like a hamburger without the hamburger, just condiments on a bun.

A lot of people want martials to be as resourceless as possible (beyond just hit points). Yet Fighters have resources. Barbarians have resources. Paladins and Rangers have spells. The only class without any resources to track is the Rogue!

The Rogue is going to get the choice to deal less damage in exchange for a cool effect. This is something all weapon users should have a variation of at minimum- it's like being able to do called shots or disarms in 2e- take a penalty to hit, do cool thing.

Wizards is too conservative with the abilities of martials, while happy to have spells do anything. Why? Because there are people who rejected a game where martials had more awesome things they could do. They don't want martials to feel "magical". They want Jack Burton, a normal guy in an extraordinary situation, somehow fighting monsters without any weird mystical hoodoo.

And paradoxically, a lot of these same people want overpowered spellcasters- they just want using magic to be dangerous and risky, and for spellcasters to need the protection of fighting men again.

Now that casters have been allowed to step out of the shadow of martials, there's only one way you can get true parity- by making martials more overtly preternatural, and that's just not popular.

This isn't to say that martials are useless or anything- if you want consistent damage potential so enemies die faster, a Fighter is still your huckleberry. But just rolling attacks and dealing damage turn after turn when the casters are able to pull not only combat-warping moves out of their bag of tricks, but have all this out of combat utility to boot can get boring, no matter how big the numbers are. And they aren't that big, Wizards has seen to that.

But even if you don't want Fighters with the kind of super moves you see in the average anime, there are things they should be doing routinely. Blocks, parries, disarms, ripostes, half-swording, swapping weapons, tripping foes, shield bashing, taking advantage of the environment by leaping behind cover or doing a good ol' shoulder roll, grabbing someone with a free hand, throwing pocket sand, targeting weak points in armor, maneuvering to put the sun in their opponent's eyes- the list goes on, and the game doesn't fully support these things. There's little reason to move in combat. Specialized maneuvers are gated behind limited subclass and Feat choices. A sword is just as good against all sorts of enemies as a hammer (with vanishingly small exceptions).

Weapon masteries technically give you reasons to switch weapons, but you got people going "oh what, he's going to use one weapon to do this move, then switch it to do another move? That's busted and silly! Never no mind the silly Wizard man just made six guys go slack jawed staring at some pretty lights!"

 

[Minigiant]

Wizards is too conservative with the abilities of martials, while happy to have spells do anything. Why? Because there are people who rejected a game where martials had more awesome things they could do. They don't want martials to feel "magical". They want Jack Burton, a normal guy in an extraordinary situation, somehow fighting monsters without any weird mystical hoodoo.

And paradoxically, a lot of these same people want overpowered spellcasters- they just want using magic to be dangerous and risky, and for spellcasters to need the protection of fighting men again.

Now that casters have been allowed to step out of the shadow of martials, there's only one way you can get true parity- by making martials more overtly preternatural, and that's just not popular

Well the other option is to scale combat benchmarks with tier and only let martials be able to be traditional combat capable at high levels (without magic items).

This is the "death knights and dragons squish archmages and high m/patriarchs".

But that fights with bounded accuracy or balloons HP/damage.

D&D mostly has conflicting desires.

 

[ECMO3]

Soooo. What you're saying here is that the Caster version of cleave is, in fact, already better than the martial one.

IT is not Cleave though. If you are asking if Green Flame Blade does more damage than Cleave, the answer is yes in most cases it does, a lot more in fact, when you consider chance to hit on the order of twice as much damage in tier 2 and more than that at higher levels. But if you are a caster and you want to use this and Cleave you need a mastery.

That's not ironic. That's logical. Training in weapons at the expense of their ability with spells is their entire shtick.

Eldritch Knight does not give up anything in terms of Cantrips. They get both Green Flame Blade and Cleave and their Cantrip scales the same as everyone else. They are not giving up anything in this example.

Giving a list of abilities that only spellcasters get access to as an answer to what martials can do in lieu of the spells that casters get rather proves the point don't you think?

No because martials get spells too. If we had a clean division where casters got spells and martials didn't this might be relevant.

The idea that martials as a group do not cast spells is just untrue. There are some that don't cast spells, but those are a distinct minority and they include many Monks that don't get weapon masteries either.

Martials haven't got powerful effects like that since Bo9S and 4e.

Martials get a lot of things they can do that are more powerful than weapon masteries and in 2024 most of them have some pretty powerful class abilities too.

I am suggesting casters and Monks get one weapon mastery, not that they get something like Elusive.

You really think that setup could beat a fighter at their own game?

It "can" but you really have to sell out on that role exclusively. If that is what you are purposely building your character to do it should be good.

On the flip side a Ranger, Paladin or Figther-Eldritch Knight can be a better Gish than such a Warlock would be.

I think I understand. - It is the fact that martials get an epic boon and a capstone rather than 9th level spells that balances the classes out?

I never said they balance the classes out, I said they get effects that are comparable to or better than 9th level spells, and they do.

The archetypal 9th level spell effect that a martial class could emulate whilst still keeping Martial flavour is probably Foresight. What ability do the martials get that you think compares to that?

Indomitable(3) is better than Foresight in play. At this level a +17 on 3 saving throws (higher at higher levels) is better than advantage on D20 rolls for 8 hours. This is especially true when without Resilient or Mage Slayer most fighters will auto fail Wisdom saves at this level and other lower level spells offer advantage and disadvantage for specific fights.

The reason it is better is advantage and disadvantage have limited effectiveness at this level because the target rolls are usually either very easy or very difficult.

Slippery Mind is also comparable to Foresight and Disciplined Survivor is better than Foresight and players get these earlier than casters get 9th level spells.

 

[ECMO3]

If WoTC had granted all of the martial classes access to combat maneuvers without doing a three-level dip into Fighter (Battlemaster) or requiring the Martial Adept feat, would they do a better job of settling the martial/caster debate?

I would be strongly against this unless all classes get it. Fighters and Rangers and Paladins getting battlemaster maneuvers when Wizards, Warlocks and Clerics don't is a non-starter for me.

I am not against martials getting to their thing and I think they have lots of unique things in 2024, but I am against them getting these fantastic things with weapons as basic class abilities that other classes don't get.

 

[Corinnguard]

I would be strongly against this unless all classes get it. Fighters and Rangers and Paladins getting battlemaster maneuvers when Wizards, Warlocks and Clerics don't is a no-starter for me.

I am not against martials getting to their thing and I think they have lots of unique things in 2024, but I am against them getting these fantastic things with weapons as basic class abilities that other classes don't.

If full spellcasters and monks had access to a single weapon mastery, which weapon mastery would be it and how often would they use it compared to a martial?