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

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Assuming that you're actively avoiding subclasses that already grant one of these capabilities, I think its only two feats: Martial weapon training and weapon master. You could be doing this combo any time from level 8 onwards.

Mastery should not be uniquely a martial toy.

Interesting. What martial-combat-based abilities do you think should actually be martial (and maybe half-caster) exclusive?

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.

The game would probably be more fun and cool for the player of any class getting a substantial buff like that. The feelings of the rest of the table, including the DM and any players of the class you just poached an iconic ability from should be taken into account however.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

So why ask for advice?

Seriously - it's obnoxious to ask for advice and then inform us that the only criterion that matters is what you, personally, think is cool. Why did you waste our time?

If the only thing that matters is what each of us think is cool, then great. Not much to actually discuss, though, is there?

 

[Ashrym]

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

I thought this was in reference to valor bards and this looks like moving the goal post. I don't think you've demonstrated why sorcerers need weapon mastery at all or cleave in particular, but the sorcerer needs the martial weapon training feat before 9th level and can use a training area in their bastion to gain the weapon mastery trait of a great axe for cleave with the empower option.

This costs one feat and downtime before the adventure.

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

These classes don't need cleave and giving them a free weapon mastery doesn't change their weapon proficiencies. You're incorrect though.

A druid with the warden primal order has proficiency in martial weapons and can take the weapon mastery feat at 4th level for cleave.

A warlock with pact of the blade is proficient in that weapon, which can be a battle axe, to qualify for the weapon master feat.

Any of them can take the martial weapon training feat and then the weapon master feat for +2 worth of ability score increase and that weapon mastery.

Cleave is still moving the goal post from weapon mastery to specific weapon mastery. Any of them can spend one feat for weapon mastery within their weapon proficiencies.

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.

There's nothing wrong with that. Just because a martial class has an option doesn't mean a full caster needs the same option. Full casters have plenty of options not available to martial characters. Using that option removes extra attack for most of them, though, so the desire to give free stuff to casters in order to match an unlikely option for martials makes even less sense.

It's also something you're incorrect about. Rogues cannot cleave either. Weapon mastery isn't weapon proficiency.

Several spellcasters can take the weapon mastery feat and also apply it to green-flame blade, however.

Someone else brought up Green Flame Blade and Cleave, claiming that casters could already do this just by getting the Green Flame Blade Cantrip.

They weren't wrong. Cleave attacks a second target in the attack and green-flame blade damages a second target in the attack. Green-flame blade is better, however, because it doesn't require a second attack roll and typically does more damage unless the cleave can stack some bonus damage on the attack.

Vicious mockery also replicates sap. Ray of frost replicates slow. Thorn whip does pull instead of push.

Weapon masteries don't replicate chill touch preventing healing or mind sliver inflicting a save penalty, or many other cantrip options.

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.

Only if you push the goal posts cherry picking cleave because of weapon proficiencies. But I did demonstrate otherwise above.

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

Hard disagree. Weapon mastery is a martial trait with no good reason to give it to full casters other than your desire for it.

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).

Which is meaningless outside of that comparison. Just because it's harder to do something EK's can do easily isn't a reason to give that ability to everyone else.

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

That's like saying all martials should cast wish because wizards can and fighters can't. Just because something exists doesn't make you entitled to it.

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.

Hard disagree. It becomes less fun for players who see their toys being given away. It's the whole basis for protecting iconic spells for spellcasters. That same protection goes the other way.

 

[ezo]

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.

Yeah, gotta agree with @Clint_L here. Why ask if you are just looking for validation to something you want to do anyway?

It is YOUR game, why does it matter to you if we agree or not? So why bother asking?

From the OP:

If I kept it to one single mastery the martials would still have more weapons, so I don't feel like it would step on their toes much.

Thoughts?

So, what was the point of this ^ ???

Would the game be more fun and cooler if everyone could action surge? Cast fireball or haste once per encounter? Auto-succeed on one attack roll, ability check, or saving throw per long rest? Etc. etc. etc.?

If so, why not do all those things as well??

Casters and monks can use a feat to get a Weapon Mastery, so why bother giving it to them for free? Martials generally have to take a feat if they want some spells.

Should monks get weapon mastery? No. Should a Kensai subclass? Yes.
Should fighters get spells? No. Should an Edlritch Knight subclass? Yes.
Should wizards get weapon mastery? No. Should a Bladesinger subclass? Yes.
Should rogues get spells? No. Should an Arcane Trickster subclass? Yes.
Should warlocks get weapon mastery? No. Should a Hexblade patron grant it? Yes.
Should clerics get weaopn mastery? No. Should a War Domain subclass? YES!

And this is where I would put weapon mastery for casters and monks--in an appropriate subclass. The class shouldn't have them, but one subclass per caster class and Monk getting it when appropriate to a weapon-focused subclass? Certainly.

That's as far as I would allow it personally.

Hard disagree. It becomes less fun for players who see their toys being given away. It's the whole basis for protecting iconic spells for spellcasters. That same protection goes the other way.

Yep, one of many reasons why not eveyone should have all the cool toys everyone else has.

 

[ECMO3]

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

Oh they can. Just not with a cantrip, even when using a weapon with that Cantrip.

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.

I may have stated that, but I did not argue that as my position has always been that all martials should get some spell casting abilities as part of their class.

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.

Rangers and Paladins have the most unique spell lists in the game.

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.

Agreed, but I hardly think this is a reason to deny giving casters and monks mastery.

People always want to make threads like this about what class has more than what other class and that is just not a consideration that I think is relevant to the question.

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.

I play a lot of high level games, all the way to level 20. Foresight is great, but it is not as good as +20 on 3 saves a day.

In high level games using 2014 rules, Wisdom save proficiency was pretty much mandatory on a Fighter past level 15 or so if you wanted to be effective. If you did not have Wisdom save proficiency you usually spent most fights, frightened, incapacitated or worse helping the bad guys. The new indomitable has more or less solved that problem, freeing up another feat.

Also I think you have the underlined backwards. Foresight lasts 8 hours and it is very useful in general, affecting dozens of rolls, maybe even hundreds at some tables, however it is often not needed for many of those rolls, for many of them the ramifications of failing are not that bad and at the level you get it, it is not effective most of the time when needed, because at that level the DC is so high that even with advantage you usually (sometimes always) fail.

There is no save in the game that is going to fail very often with a +20.

In the 2024 rules Indomitable is much more powerful at 17th level than it is at 9th level.

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 don't think thye should have the same, I just think one mastery would be cool.

 

[Pauln6]

Personally, I think only Rangers and Fighters should get weapon masteries as class features. Everyone else should be able to pick one up as a feat and those with the mastery feature should have a feat for adding a second mastery to a weapon as per the playtest.

 

[ezo]

Agreed, but I hardly think this is a reason to deny giving casters and monks mastery.

Then do you see ANY reason for denying it... because despite numerous attempts to convince you otherwise, it doesn't seem you do. Hence...

I just think one mastery would be cool.

And that is fine. As myself and others have said, if you want to do it, do it. If none of the players object, have fun!

However, that doesn't mean I agree that I think this is a good thing and I would never do it in my own games (even if I played 2024 edition). If you want it, use the feat, that is why it is there.

 

[Horwath]

Personally, I think only Rangers and Fighters should get weapon masteries as class features. Everyone else should be able to pick one up as a feat and those with the mastery feature should have a feat for adding a second mastery to a weapon as per the playtest.

weapon masteries should have been "battlemaster's maneuvers light" feature, but that was probably too "complicated" for all. Fighter had similar at higher levels.

So, what should have been:
Learn a mastery, apply it to attack with any weapon that qualifies for it.

I.E:

Slow: apply to all weapons
Push: apply to all weapons
Vex: apply to all light, finesse or ranged weapons
Nick: apply to all light weapons
Cleave: apply to all melee 2Handed or Versatile weapons
Graze: apply to all melee 2Handed or Versatile weapons
Topple: apply to all 2Handed or Versatile weapons
Sap: apply to all 1Handed melee weapons
Flex(yes that one): apply to all Versatile weapons.
Flex(improved): increase Versatile damage die by one step(d8->d10, d10->d12) and use that damage even when fighting with Versatile weapon with one hand

now when you hit(or in case of miss with Graze) you can apply ONE mastery you know and if the weapon applies to your attack.

Fighter's feature can be that you can later on apply 2 masteries at once with a single attack.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think thye should have the same, I just think one mastery would be cool.

I think giving them any at all would be less fun and less cool.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I love full spellcasters, and I vote no.

If a full spellcaster wants to train to master weapons that their subclass does not already give them, they have to make the effort to train. Which means they are not focused on their primary class progression, but something else. Whether a level in another class that gives weapon mastery, or a feat, or something else.

I'm fine spending your limited resources (levels, feats, etc.) on things important to the character. But I'm not going to give out freebie class abilities that your class doesn't already get.

I already hand out magic items and boons for letting people do other things outside their class.