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

[Minigiant]

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?

It all depends on what martial/caster you are addressing.

Options?
Adventure day adjustment?
Impact?

 

[Ashrym]

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!

It seems cinematic as I imagine it.

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.

That's conflating subclass with class abilities, and EK's gave up every ability other subclasses gained as an opportunity cost in gaining those spell in the first place.

EK's being a fighter subclass as gave up everything a spellcaster gains in the base class by being a fighter instead. EK's as compared to other full spellcasters is a false equivalent.

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

This is a false equivalent. It implies that the spellcasting ability is equal to the spellcasting power of those other full spellcasters, which is not the case.

Or at least close enough to warrant another benefit to those full spellcasters. I disagree with giving that free benefit to classes that don't need it, particularly when the context of spellcasting is being applied as if these examples are equal. They are not.

The benefits of weapon mastery aren't even closed off. Just pay the feat or use one of the other methods to add them. That's how we avoid stepping on toes here.

I'm not one of the ppl who sees the huge divide in casters vs martials. I see them as different classes with different functions and purposes done in different ways based on different archetypes. I still wouldn't do this.

It's a class based system and some classes get weapon masteries and many do not. Those classes that don't get weapon mastery have plenty of toys. There's no purpose in giving them another toy for free that they can already add if the player wants other than the eat your cake and have it too approach.

This is an "at your table" option. It's not a "convince everyone else this is the way it should be" option.

 

[ECMO3]

That's conflating subclass with class abilities, and EK's gave up every ability other subclasses gained as an opportunity cost in gaining those spell in the first place.

IT is not about who gave up more, it is about being able to use both Green Flame Blade and Cleave.

EK's being a fighter subclass as gave up everything a spellcaster gains in the base class by being a fighter instead. EK's as compared to other full spellcasters is a false equivalent.

Well if there was a full caster that could use both GFB and Cleave you would have a point, but there isn't.

An EK is the only character that can do that without feats, a Valor Bard could do it with one feat, all other full casters actually need two feats to do it.

This is a false equivalent. It implies that the spellcasting ability is equal to the spellcasting power of those other full \spellcasters, which is not the case.

No it isn't. Also I am not suggesting a mastery ability equal to other martial classes. I am suggesting one weapon mastery and it is a mastery that could be applied to fewer and weaker weapons.

It would be a false equivalence if I was asking for the same number of weapon mastery abilities that Paladins and Rangers get and then martial weapon proficiency on top of that.

 

[the Jester]

I think this is a terrible idea, because casters definitely don't need a boost. Having the ability to alter reality with a gesture and a few magic words should require the kind of focus that means you just can't do what a fighter type can do.

But this thread reads very much like a search for affirmation, not for actual honest feedback. No offense, OP, but if you are set on doing this regardless of what everyone else thinks- and there seems to be a pretty overwhelming consensus- just go ahead and do it. There's no need to discuss it if you aren't interested in the answers you're getting. If it fits your game, and if you honestly don't see it causing any balance issues, hey, go for it.

 

[ECMO3]

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?

For Monks it would likely be nick and be used all the time.

For others it would vary and how often it was used would vary depending on the type of PC. A Bladelock, Bladesinger or a Valor Bard would use it a lot, others probably rarely in tier 2+.

 

[Mort]

For Monks it would likely be nick and be used all the time.

For others it would vary and how often it was used would vary depending on the type of PC. A Bladelock, Bladesinger or a Valor Bard would use it a lot, others probably rarely in tier 2+.

Nick, for a monk, is good enough that taking the weapon mastery feat at 4th will always be a strong option.

Giving Nick to a monk, for free, at first level? That's a lot, you're essentially giving the monk an extra attack, and since the monk can substitute their martial arts die for damage, the damage will be decent and scale with level.

Looking at it that way? I'm certainly standing with my original, monks don't need it and shouldn't get it for free.

 

[Ashrym]

IT is not about who gave up more, it is about being able to use both Green Flame Blade and Cleave.

So take the feat. All I think you're doing is validating the existence of that feat.

It's also about giving something to classes that don't need it just because other classes have it.

It's okay for an EK as a fighter who should have weapon mastery because they are a fighter who added magic instead of other fighter options. It's not okay for the valor bard example because the valor bard has enough toys well beyond that EK in their spells.

The bard, if it's important to the player, has options to add weapon mastery and can use them.

Well if there was a full caster that could use both GFB and Cleave you would have a point, but there isn't.

That presumes there needs to be, but there actually is. Take the feat. Done.

An EK is the only character that can do that without feats, a Valor Bard could do it with one feat, all other full casters actually need two feats to do it.

This presumes full casters need this. But if you don't want to spend the feat you can multi-class or use bastions rules.

Yes, the bastion rules allow this and has a 9th level gate, but a training area in your bastion has some decent options.

Valor bards cannot do it with one feat because green-flame blade isn't on the bard cantrips list and magical secrets specifically refers to the spell preparation table, which is different.

You can make a warlock with green-flame blade if you're including those spells. It's on their list. Pick up the weapon with pact of the blade, and gain weapon mastery via bastions at 9th level without spending a feat. You can add agonizing blast and repelling blast to it too, and skip the extra attack invocations because you wanted GFB and cleave.

I'm not sure why the valor bard needs to be able to cast green-flame blade and cleave. The valor bard can replace an attack with vicious mockery for a weapon mastery effect and then stab the target with another attack already. Or cast thunderwave instead.

By the time you're EK adds war magic he's got 5 prepared spells and 6 spell slots that have just accessed 2nd level. That valor bard has 11 prepared spells and 11 spell slots that have just accessed 4th level.

EK's being able to also cast green-flame blade and cleave isn't a reason to also allow valor bards to cast green-flame blade and cleave too. My answer is still to let fighters keep their toys and expect full casters to pay for them if they want them.

Full spellcasters don't need free martial toys.

No it isn't. Also I am not suggesting a mastery ability equal to other martial classes. I am suggesting one weapon mastery and it is a mastery that could be applied to fewer and weaker weapons.

It would be a false equivalence if I was asking for the same number of weapon mastery abilities that Paladins and Rangers get and then martial weapon proficiency on top of that.

It's a false equivalent because we're comparing EK's to full spellcasters because both can cast spells. This is true regardless of how many weapon masteries you want to give full spellcasters, who don't need them, for free because full spellcasters have many toys.

Just use the feat that was created for this purpose.

 

[ECMO3]

That presumes there needs to be, but there actually is. Take the feat. Done.

Ok please tell me how my single class Sorcerer can take a feat and use Cleave.

There is no feat or combation of feats that will allow this for a Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock or Druid to use Cleave.

On the other hand any martial could use take an Origin feat and use both Green Flame Blade and Cleave and Eldritch Knights can do it without any feat.

I'm not sure why the valor bard needs to be able to cast green-flame blade and cleave.

Someone else brought up Green Flame Blade and Cleave, claiming that casters could already do this just by getting the Green Flame Blade Cantrip. That is how this got started and I pointed out at the time they need a feat too, now I realize they can't even do it with the feat.

Full spellcasters don't need free martial toys.

Mastery should not be uniquely a martial toy. They should be available to everyone I think. Less of them for casters than non-casters.

It's a false equivalent because we're comparing EK's to full spellcasters because both can cast spells.

I am not comparing EKs to full casters, you or other people are. All I am saying is they are the only character that can use Green Flame Blade and Cleave (and they are).

I don't see why we need to compare classes and why we need to say this class should not have this cool thing?

There is only one question that matters - would the game be more fun and more cool if full casters and Monks had one weapon mastery. I think the answer is yes and that is why I think they should have it. The fact that other classes have it too is kind of irrelevant.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

What, you're upset a full caster still can't outdamage a fighter in melee combat until Tier 3?

Also, I seem to recall that in at least one of the previous martial vs caster threads, it was you who was arguing that because you could get spells through feats, and all martials could get feats, that spells were a class ability of martials.
By that logic, casters already get weapon masteries as class abilities.

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.

That is why I specified spells, not just cantrips. EKs are absolutely giving up spell power in exchange for doing weapons better than bladesingers and valor bards for example.

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 don't get most of those spells, and even the ones that they do, they only have access to them at levels that most games don't play at.
To even start accessing most of those spells, you have to step out of martial classes and into the half-casters.

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.

Very little of the class abilities that martials get match up to the class abilities that full casters get as soon as you remember that spells and spell slots are a class ability.

We understand that you're only arguing for one weapon mastery. While this may be a balance issue in come cases, I think that most people are opposed on a conceptual level. Much of the pushback you are getting is not just objecting to giving someone elses' nice toys to the group that already has the nice toys, it is the fact that those toys are already available to buy: you just want them for free.

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.

I think I'm going to disagree with that. While Foresight is very useful when it is needed, it isn't needed all of the time, and Advantage on everything, with opponents being at disadvantage to hit you is much more widely applicable.
Furthermore, casters are not limited by having to make sense to what a martial can do, and so could choose a different spell.

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.

Interesting. Why do you believe that classes for whom weapon use and martial combat is very much an afterthought deserve to get those same weapon abilities that the martials and half-casters get?

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.

Doing "fantastic things with weapons as basic class abilities" is pretty much martials' whole schtick.
Doing "fantastic things with magic as basic class abilities" is something that most other classes get instead.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I mean, it's slightly pedantic, but a single classed sorcerer or whatever wouldn't be able to get cleave anyway, right? The Rogue is the only class with a restricted weapon list that gets masteries, and they can only choose masteries of weapons that they are proficient with. So a single classed sorcerer still would need to get proficiency in something that actually has cleave to be able to do so, if the house rule would work the same way.