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

No. They already have access to effects.

Warlocks can add Repelling Blast and Eldritch Smite, giving push and topple.

Clerics can add slow via Spiritual Guardians.

Green Flameblade has Cleave.

Ect...

And it would be unthematic for a monk: who should not be forced into using weapons.

Plus anyone can use a feat to get it.

Though I could see some subclasses like Bladesinger and Kensi getting one up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Around 10th level, 1 or more of the weapons you have Mastery in can get an upgraded form.

Like Cleave can be 2 attack.
Push pushes further.

Or select high heroic Grandmasteries like Crumple, Skewer, or Decapitate
Fighters get that with their 3rd attack.
Paladins get that with different smites.
Rouges get that with cunning strike.
Barbarian's get that with brutal strike.
Rangers... are sad.
 

Green Flameblade has Cleave.

It doesn't.

We have a Warlock that does this with a Greataxe and you need the mastery to do the extra cleave attack, he had to get it through a Paladin multiclass. This is really the epitome of it. Without having the Cleave ability the Cantrip doesn't do much more than a regular fighter with Cleave could do. You need both the Cleave mastery AND the Cantrip to really maximize it on the adjacent enemy.
 
Last edited:

Sure, but there’s higher stat requirements for those. And it’s still a slowdown for your higher level spells.

The stat requirement can be an issue for a Cleric, but it is not really an issue for the others. A Valor Bard or Bladelock is almost always going to have the stats for Paladin multiclass and a Druid is going to have the stats for Ranger. A Wizard is usually going to have the stats for a Ranger multiclass (not always, but usually).

Clerics are the only full caster class that is being played in a Gish role and usually doesn't have it, typically lacking the Charisma for a Paladin and lacking the Dexterity for a Ranger.
 

Fighters get that with their 3rd attack.
Paladins get that with different smites.
Rouges get that with cunning strike.
Barbarian's get that with brutal strike.
Rangers... are sad.
Rangers got a defensive feature for some reason.

But no. Grandmasteries would be separate from class and part of equipment. Possibly simplifying Masteries by making them more powerful and reliable.
 

The stat requirement can be an issue for a Cleric, but it is not really an issue for the others. A Valor Bard or Bladelock is almost always going to have the stats for Paladin multiclass and a Druid is going to have the stats for Ranger. A Wizard is usually going to have the stats for a Ranger multiclass (not always, but usually).

Clerics are the only full caster class that is being played in a Gish role and usually doesn't have it, typically lacking the Charisma for a Paladin and lacking the Dexterity for a Ranger.

Most cha gishes rely on Dex and cha not str and cha???
 


After playing 2024 for a couple months I am thinking about giving full casters each one weapon mastery. There are two reasons for this.

First Truestrike is the most common Cantrip I am seeing cast in combat now, but it is not doing the cool effects that martials are doing with attacking (or using Truestrike).

Second the Gish classes seem really gimped and a little less dynamic in melee. Valor Bards are super powerful and lots of Clerics and Bladelocks are pretty effective in melee too, but something is missing compared to the martials. Something is missing for Monks too. The end result is the casters end up taking a Paladin or Ranger level anyway for the mastery, without losing a spell slot.

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?
That would be a very polite. No. And my martials are sending you a bill for stepping on their toes and scuffing their shoes. Shoe polish isn't cheap.
 

fef7a2b6-eea6-4150-81fa-409aea7f202b.gif
 

No they shouldn't unless they get unique spells.

The uniqueness come from their ability to mix spell lists.

All full casters should have a unique spell from level 1-9.

Over the years and editions bards have had many unique spells. WotC keeps giving them away to clerics and wizards. They don't need unique spells, however; they need a spell list that suits the flavor of the class.

Bards are only full casters because WOTC (and most of the D&D community) couldn't balance them as a 2/3 caster and refused to make unique bardmagic nor give it a flavor past mid levels.

That's an argument of presumption in that it's based on presuming bards should have been "2/3's casters" in the first place, which isn't true.

Bards were powerful casters in all editions. Not quite as powerful as other some other spellcasters but still on the powerful side of spell casting. 5e maintains that difference in other way. If we compare a bard to a cleric, druid, or wizard that's maintained through the spell preparation mechanic and subclass features. Arcane recovery alone places wizards above bards. If we compare a bard to a sorcerer that's maintained through metamagic and subclass features. Either innate sorcery or font of magic places sorcerers above bards.

If we're going to use an old spell progression table as the basis of what "should be" then also cut back clerics and druids to "2/3's casters", remove spells from warlocks and rely solely on invocations, and seriously gut spells from paladins and rangers to match.

3.5 bards casting mass suggestion over a dozen times per day was more magic than most 3.5 magic classes could hope to demonstrate. Combining the 3.5 bard songs and spells into one mechanic (spells) does make for a full caster, and we tried the half-caster before 5.14 -- it wasn't popular. ;-)

Bards were also powerful magicians in some mythology. It makes sense to have them as a powerful magician in a fantasy game to match. Anyone who wants to play them differently can take a few levels of fighter then a few levels of rogue then continue as a druid if they want. Or make and arcane trickster with the musician feat claiming to be a bard.

The only thing "should have been 2/3's caster does" is deny those other mythological bard archetypes. That's not necessary or desirable.

Monks in 2024 are crazy OP as everyone knows.

"More fun" and "OP" aren't the same thing. ;-)

And Bards should be half-casters. Never should be full-casters, never should get expertise by default.

Bards are more often depicted as dabblers in everything, not focused and dedicated enough to be full caster or have expertise by default.

:p

See my comments above.
 

Remove ads

Top