Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 9510887" data-attributes="member: 6750235">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...<table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>Class </td><td>Masteries </td><td>Cantrips </td><td>Spell Levels </td></tr><tr><td>barbarian </td><td>4 </td><td>0 </td><td>0 </td></tr><tr><td>bard </td><td>0 </td><td>4 </td><td>9 </td></tr><tr><td>cleric </td><td>0 </td><td>5(6) </td><td>9 </td></tr><tr><td>druid </td><td>0 </td><td>4(5) </td><td>9 </td></tr><tr><td>fighter </td><td>6 </td><td>0 </td><td>0 </td></tr><tr><td>monk </td><td>0 </td><td>0 </td><td>0 </td></tr><tr><td>paladin </td><td>2 </td><td>0(2) </td><td>5 </td></tr><tr><td>ranger </td><td>2 </td><td>0(2) </td><td>5 </td></tr><tr><td>rogue </td><td>2 </td><td>0 </td><td>0 </td></tr><tr><td>sorcerer </td><td>0 </td><td>6 </td><td>9 </td></tr><tr><td>warlock </td><td>0 </td><td>4+ </td><td>9 </td></tr><tr><td>wizard </td><td>0 </td><td>5 </td><td>9 </td></tr></table>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.</blockquote>

Verification