D&D (2024) The Great Nerf to High Level Martials: The New Grapple Rules

[Vikingkingq]

I think the Fighter is in a pretty good place; they were already doing well in damage, and they got more versatility in Tactical Mind, Tactical Shift, and Studied Attacks.

I do think Master of Armaments could be a bit better tho. Letting the Fighter use two Masteries at once wouldn't be game-breaking.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This reads as very condescending.

Then you read it differently then it was intended to. It was just something I noticed in many groups I have played. Some people want a simple experience where they can reliably dish out damage without thinking too much. This has different reasons. Often this are players who are tired from work or studying whatever that is and enjoy wrecking face. Sometimes this is what I want to do. But if I chose such a class, I want those abilities to be good. Sometimes, when the right situation presents itself even better than a carefully grafted specialist.

So whatever that was what triggered you, I am sorry. But it was certainly not meant to be condescending.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In my games, anomalous magic can be done via special "rituals".

That is wonderful for you, and I'm sure your players appreciate it. However, claims like "DnD levels are like [Blank]" should not rely on your personal homebrew that no other table uses. If your perception of the game is filtered through homebrew, it is skewed.

Yes, the game can be homebrewed, so you are "technically" correct, but that is like explaining that Skyrim allows you to play as the Onion Knight because modders created a mod. It isn't accurate to most people's experience with the game.

Re Thor, his hammer is an epic tier artifact. In D&D, this kind of magic item is the kind of means that sometimes can cause local, regional, or planetary cataclysm.

Or it is the Hammer of Thunderbolts, a Legendary item. Or it is an artifact. And sure, some artifacts can cause widespread destruction... but most of them can't. The most powerful cataclysmic items in the game I am currently aware of are the Devastation Orbs from Princes of the Apocalypse. And they are "damage a town" level, not planetary in scale.

Is there a single Artifact in DnD that has stats for players to access, that is regional or planetary in scale? Or is this simply a "well, theoritically, a villain might use a magical item that would give them the ability to use their plot and..." Because I don't think I've ever seen a player with an item that can affect a continent on their character sheet.

I am happy that tearing a rope apart requires a reasonably high DC.

You have a point that the 24 Strength Score by itself would be +7, making it likely for Catwoman to burst out of a rope.

I would rather resolve the difficulty by making rope DC 20. (Then the metal manacle is also DC 20, because only its weaker hinge or lock catch needs to be broken, rather than the material strength of the metal cuff itself. In the case of the rope, it is the material strength of the rope, and rope can secure massive ships in storms.)

That said, I think I am ok with Catwoman having a Strength Score of 22, so at least she wouldnt "take ten" from a passive check to automatically break out. In any case, there would be no proficiency bonus from a Weightlifting skill.

She can't rip out of ropes. She has never done so once. This is what I keep trying to explain. You are giving her a higher level of strength that she has, because she is good at fighting unarmed, jumping, and climbing. However, in things like bursting rope or muscling out of a gym bros grapple, she CANNOT do so. So your strength score for her makes no sense.

Unless you think these cops have a Strength of 26 or higher?

Or these ropes are somehow lined with titanium?

Heh, the discussion of the metal manacles is slightly moot, since D&D would use either Strength or Dexterity to escape a restraint.

But yeah, the focus here is the use of Strength specifically.

The proficiency bonus can add anywhere from +2 to +7, or +4 to +14 if expert. So the training in Weightlifting is a big deal for tests requiring brute force.

Just double checking, you remember that Weightlifting as a skill doesn't exist yet, correct? And Proficiency goes to +6, not +7? And that there is no reason to assume that Catwoman the Cat Burglar thief would be particular trained in weightlifting?

The reason I'm not accounting for a +6 on top of her strength is that it is a skill it doesn't make sense for her to have. UNLESS that skill made her better at jumping, which it wouldn't. Again, MY ENTIRE POINT revolves around the difference between Strength being used to restrain people and shatter steel, and strength being needed for climbing ropes and jumping up buildings. A character like Catwoman could easily leap onto the top of a building, as Ninja characters and Phantom Thief characters do so all the time, but they are not "strong" in the sense of breaking steel or arm wrestling. The archetype allows for one thing DnD defines and strength, but not the other. But DnD has combined the two things, in a way that makes it hard to follow the archetype.

D&D Vampires cannot rip thru steel. Its +4 Strength is the same as anyone else with it.

And why can't anyone else rip through steel with an 18 strength? You've taken the exact opposite of my point. We know that Vampire's are famously inhumanly strong... and that is an 18 strength. Instead of declaring that an 18 strength means that DnD vampires are weak, why do we not declare than an 18 strength means that a character is inhumanly strong?

I think one of the great pities of DnD ability scores is we see 20 as "the best a human can do" and forget that a half-vampire Dhampir, or a Demon-Possessed Tiefling, or a Giant-Blooded Goliath ALSO has a 20 strength, and that 20 strength is identical between them. So if we wouldn't blink twice at a Vampire ripping through a steel door, picking a man up by the neck, and throwing him across a room.... why is a human fighter who is stronger than that vampire going to struggle to do the same?

Something like that.

The 2014 Monster Manual approaches this concept of invulnerability by making the Earth Elemental "resistant" to "nonmagical" weapons.

It would be plausible to make creatures that are made out of animate stone (namely self reassembling/regenerating stone without vital organs) to be "immune" to nonmagical weapons.

People speculate that 2024 will discontinue the mechanic of "resistant to nomagical weapons", and simply use the Force damage type to bypass immunity.

Resistant isn't immune. You can still kill a creature made of stone with a whip.

Yes, you could theoretically make a stone creature immune to non-magical weapons, so you couldn't harm it with a sledgehammer either. You could also theoretically do the same thing to a humanoid made of flesh and blood.

You seem to do a lot of "but in theory you could alter the rules" without much discussing of the facts of the rules.

Sometimes, the DMs Guide has core rules that are necessary for playing the D&D game. Here, how to destroy unattended objects. I hope 2024 consolidates this info into the Players Handbook, so the Players Handbook really will have EVERY rule that one needs to play a complete game of D&D.

So, no where. If the DM uses the rules from the item, it has no special immunities to damage type. Heck, shattering manancles with a sword that deals slashing damage is a common trope, so the item doesn't even have any special resistances or immunities to the damage type.

What this really comes down to, is the tone of the story. No man could break stone with his fist... until you are in a story where breaking stone with your fist is something you can do if you are strong enough. Even the DMG's line about not being able to cut through a stone wall with a sword is something that is genre specific. I've seen swordsmen with swords cutting boulders, walls, stone pillars, it happens quite often.

The point is, the high tiers of D&D provide the kinds of effects that duplicate or approximate the superpowers of comic book superheroes.

Superman can innately cast Time Stop, for example, and so on.

It is easy to write up new spells at the appropriate slots for the purpose of representing a specific superpower.


A main difference between superpowers and D&D spells is, the superpower are often "always on". But some D&D spells have extensive duration, such as Mage Armor to thematicize a force body armor. In principle, some spells can have indefinite durations in a balanced way, or even swap out a spell slot for a permanent effect.

I have a design concept where a superpower spell "occupies" a spell slot, instead of expending it, so as long as the slot is "occupied" the spell effect remains indefinitely.

I don't care about your design concept. It sounds like it could be fun in the right circumstance, but it has nothing to do with DnD as it stands.

And sure, Stopping Time and not being able to affect anything is sort of similar to moving really fast and incapacitating a bunch of people. Just like spending 8 hours to sort of change the weather is sort of like altering the weather of the entire planet in a few minutes. Or dominating the mind of a single creature is sort of like dominating the minds of an entire cities worth of people all at once.

But scale and effect are at play here. Sure, both a DnD character and a Super Hero might "manipulate fire" but the effects, control, and variety of abilities are VASTLY different. And even a level 20 Pyro-Mage is only going to be a B-List Fire Superhero at best, maybe less. DnD just doesn't have the level of effects that we see in other fantasy media.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I do think Master of Armaments could be a bit better tho. Letting the Fighter use two Masteries at once wouldn't be game-breaking.

I agree with this. I still want to alter how Weapon Masteries work to have them be the effect the character can do, not tied specifically to the weapon.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I agree with this. I still want to alter how Weapon Masteries work to have them be the effect the character can do, not tied specifically to the weapon.

The latter I disagree with, because it is contrary to a major design goal of the mastery system (namely, increasing diversity of weapon usage).

However, I do think that it's ok for Fighters to be an exception to the rule, as a way to fulfil their role as the "master of weapons." But as I said, I think a modest expansion to Master of Armaments that reads something like this:

"You are a master of weapons. Whenever you attack with a Simple or Martial weapon, you can apply two Mastery properties to that attack. The chosen kind of weapon must qualify for the new property.
Whenever you finish a Long Rest, you can choose any of the kinds of Mastery weapons you're using and replace up to two Mastery properties with another Mastery property. Similarly, the chosen kind of weapon must qualify for the new properties. For example...
These property changes apply only for you, not for others, and the changes end for you when you finish your next Long Rest."

Would be fine.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The latter I disagree with, because it is contrary to a major design goal of the mastery system (namely, increasing diversity of weapon usage).

However, I do think that it's ok for Fighters to be an exception to the rule, as a way to fulfil their role as the "master of weapons." But as I said, I think a modest expansion to Master of Armaments that reads something like this:

Would be fine.

Well, I do disagree with the major design goal of the mastery system to begin with. The issue has never been that there isn't enough diversity between a warhammer, a battleaxe, or a longsword. The issue has been that there is no reason for a strength-based fighter to use a greatclub or a mace, even if visually that is what the player wants.

Personally, I have a character who uses a "battle spear" which is just a reskinned longsword, because fighting with a spear makes sense for them, but using a 1d6 weapon instead of a 1d8 weapon just because it looks right is stupid.

And.... Weapon Masteries really haven't changed that.

Sure, sure each weapon is unique until the Fighter can swap the masteries between weapons, but let us say I'm a Barbarian and I look at the weapons. I want the Sap mastery so which do I pick?

Mace - 1handed, 1d6
Flail - 1 handed, 1d8
Longsword - 1 handed, 1d8 (1d10)

There is... still a right answer. And it is still longsword. Now sure, if you don't want the Sap mastery and you Topple instead... then you pick either the battleaxe or the maul, depending on if you want to use a two-handed weapon or not.

There are minor things that have changed. Rogues might prefer to use Scimitars for Nick, instead of Rapiers, but since Rapiers are just superior Shortswords they won't want to use shortswords unless dual-wielding. And Daggers are simply inferior scimitars, unless you are accounting for the one advantage daggers have always had.

So, personally, I just don't see this actually differentiating weapons in a way that actually leads to any fundamental changes. The best weapons are still the best weapons. No one has really started arguing for the superiority of the Light Hammer compared to other weapons. Aesthetics just now come with baked in mechanics that I would rather be more flexible because 90% of the thing I and many players really want are the proper aesthetics.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Well, I do disagree with the major design goal of the mastery system to begin with. The issue has never been that there isn't enough diversity between a warhammer, a battleaxe, or a longsword. The issue has been that there is no reason for a strength-based fighter to use a greatclub or a mace, even if visually that is what the player wants.

I fully disagree with the first point. It is absolutely an issue that weapons of the same damage die are effectively equivalent; B/P/S is simply not significant enough an axis to result in meaningful differences either quantitatively or qualitatively. If you're going to bother with having them exist as separate entries on the Weapons Table, you should bother to make them distinctive. (Also, weapon diversity isn't quite the same thing as weapon distinctiveness, although the two are related.)

As for the greatclub and the mace, I think those are bad examples; those weapons exist primarily for characters who aren't proficient in martial weapons. A fighter who wants a one-handed bludgeoning weapon can use a warhammer or a flail (although tbh, I would change the name away from flail, as a flail really should work more like a whip), and a morningstar is just a name for a spiked mace, and tbh there's a lot of grey area between a flanged mace and a morningstar. A maul works as either a martial greatclub or a two-handed warhammer, depending on the design. I agree that it's a bit weird that there's not a two-handed bludgeoning martial weapon with reach; they're not using any of the old polearm weapons for anything at the moment, and it wouldn't be hard to add in a bec de corbin or lucerne hammer or poleaxe for the sake of completeness.

Personally, I have a character who uses a "battle spear" which is just a reskinned longsword, because fighting with a spear makes sense for them, but using a 1d6 weapon instead of a 1d8 weapon just because it looks right is stupid.

If you're going for the spear-and-shield combo, can't you just use the Spear Master feat?

And.... Weapon Masteries really haven't changed that.

Sure, sure each weapon is unique until the Fighter can swap the masteries between weapons, but let us say I'm a Barbarian and I look at the weapons. I want the Sap mastery so which do I pick?

Mace - 1handed, 1d6
Flail - 1 handed, 1d8
Longsword - 1 handed, 1d8 (1d10)

There is... still a right answer. And it is still longsword.

Eh, not really. If you're planning to go x-and board, the longsword is only better in corner cases.

Now sure, if you don't want the Sap mastery and you Topple instead... then you pick either the battleaxe or the maul, depending on if you want to use a two-handed weapon or not.

Or you carry multiple weapons, which is how the system is supposed to work. Which increases weapon diversity, the aforementioned design goal.

There are minor things that have changed. Rogues might prefer to use Scimitars for Nick, instead of Rapiers, but since Rapiers are just superior Shortswords they won't want to use shortswords unless dual-wielding. And Daggers are simply inferior scimitars, unless you are accounting for the one advantage daggers have always had.

I wouldn't call Rapiers superior Shortswords, since they're not Light weapons.

Also, Daggers aren't inferior Scimitars to Monks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I fully disagree with the first point. It is absolutely an issue that weapons of the same damage die are effectively equivalent; B/P/S is simply not significant enough an axis to result in meaningful differences either quantitatively or qualitatively. If you're going to bother with having them exist as separate entries on the Weapons Table, you should bother to make them distinctive. (Also, weapon diversity isn't quite the same thing as weapon distinctiveness, although the two are related.)

You are making an assumption here. You are assuming "if you are going to bother having them, you should make them distinctive". However, once more, to me that is not necessarily true. Like you said, B/P/S isn't enough of a difference, so it was simply 1d8 (1d10) that made the difference, meaning I could trivially convince my DM that a spear using those stats was perfectly fine to use.

I'm not advocating for the removal of all weapon flavor, but the ability to easily say "Hey, I want this character to use a Bar Mace, which is way deadlier than a normal mace, because I have this aesthetic in mind. Can I just use the Warhammer stats?" is wonderful to me. I don't mind having three basically the same weapons, because the look of the character matters to me.

As for the greatclub and the mace, I think those are bad examples; those weapons exist primarily for characters who aren't proficient in martial weapons. A fighter who wants a one-handed bludgeoning weapon can use a warhammer or a flail (although tbh, I would change the name away from flail, as a flail really should work more like a whip), and a morningstar is just a name for a spiked mace, and tbh there's a lot of grey area between a flanged mace and a morningstar. A maul works as either a martial greatclub or a two-handed warhammer, depending on the design. I agree that it's a bit weird that there's not a two-handed bludgeoning martial weapon with reach; they're not using any of the old polearm weapons for anything at the moment, and it wouldn't be hard to add in a bec de corbin or lucerne hammer or poleaxe for the sake of completeness.

But those weapons don't exist for martial weapon wielder's either, because of Quarterstaffs. Greatclub is 2-handed, 1d8, Mace is 1handed, 1d6, Quarterstaff is 1d6 (1d8). It is literally both weapons in one. Why use the inferior weapons? And this is my point, the issue people bring up is that everyone uses the same weapons, and that is going to continue, and maybe even get worse with the way weapon masteries are currently implemented.

If you're going for the spear-and-shield combo, can't you just use the Spear Master feat?

The UA playtest one that was never printed? Sure, but I didn't get a level 1 feat and my character is potentially moving away from their spear as they get their class abilities. And I'd currently still not have the feat, considering we haven't hit level 4 yet (PbP game, so it is long). Instead the DM just said "A one-handed, 1d8 versatile weapon? Sure that is perfectly reasonable for you to use" Because it was. Mechanically, I've gained nothing. It is pure aesthetic.

Eh, not really. If you're planning to go x-and board, the longsword is only better in corner cases.

All three have the same weapon mastery. The Longsword is the only one that has anything else, since it has the versatile property. Those corner cases give it a versatility the other two options lack. Making it the superior choice because it gives options.

Or you carry multiple weapons, which is how the system is supposed to work. Which increases weapon diversity, the aforementioned design goal.

Actually, no. Carrying multiple weapons only makes a difference if you use them. And people aren't inclined to swap to a different weapon on every single attack. Many people, myself included, find that deeply troubling.

Additionally, with the current design of the Weapon Masteries, you only get two masteries for most classes. A melee weapon and a ranged weapon. You won't get any benefit from swapping to a different melee weapon, unless you are taking a long rest, or you forgo having a ranged mastery.

However, if you could gain a mastery, then apply it to any applicable weapon you are holding, now if you need to swap weapons, you still have your kit and your skills. You may see people more willing to switch weapons, when their skills translate between the weapons, and you can have a person using a single weapon, like 90% of fantasy warriors do.

I wouldn't call Rapiers superior Shortswords, since they're not Light weapons.

Also, Daggers aren't inferior Scimitars to Monks.

If a weapon design is only good because one class can use them.... that's a problem.

And sure, Rapiers aren't Light weapons, but then if you want to dual-wield.... rapiers were never going to be an option anyways. Not since they gutted the Dual-wielding feat. And, notably, Weapon Mastery has not a single thing to do with that "meaningful difference" between a dual-wielding build and a Rapier and shield build. So if that is the sort of differentiation you want to see, Weapon Mastery's design did not achieve that.

 

[Incenjucar]

Weapons really could use more grid-filling and categories or flowcharts so you can "treat X like Y" for straight upgrades so you don't have to choose between maces or clubs, etc., and it can be a bit easier to keep the golf bag of weapons down a bit.

 

[Vikingkingq]

You are making an assumption here. You are assuming "if you are going to bother having them, you should make them distinctive". However, once more, to me that is not necessarily true. Like you said, B/P/S isn't enough of a difference, so it was simply 1d8 (1d10) that made the difference, meaning I could trivially convince my DM that a spear using those stats was perfectly fine to use.

I'm not advocating for the removal of all weapon flavor, but the ability to easily say "Hey, I want this character to use a Bar Mace, which is way deadlier than a normal mace, because I have this aesthetic in mind. Can I just use the Warhammer stats?" is wonderful to me. I don't mind having three basically the same weapons, because the look of the character matters to me.

I get that, I'm trying to express my design preference here.

But your example of the bar mace confuses me - why not just use a warhammer and call it a bar mace, since it's just a flavour thing and not a mechanical thing in both instances, since there isn't an item called a "bar mace" in the game?

In other words, what does diminishing the distinctiveness of weapons actually get you that you couldn't have had earlier?

But those weapons don't exist for martial weapon wielder's either, because of Quarterstaffs. Greatclub is 2-handed, 1d8, Mace is 1handed, 1d6, Quarterstaff is 1d6 (1d8). It is literally both weapons in one. Why use the inferior weapons? And this is my point, the issue people bring up is that everyone uses the same weapons, and that is going to continue, and maybe even get worse with the way weapon masteries are currently implemented.

Sorry, which do you mean by "those weapons don't exist"? - because I would disagree as to the warhammer, flail, etc.

But if we're talking about the greatclub, mace, and quarterstaff, A. I don't think those are particularly relevant to martial weapon proficient characters, since they're all simple and you can get better martial weapons, and B. for non-martial proficient characters Weapon Mastery has indeed improved diversity in that the Greatclub gives you Push, the Mace gives you Sap, and the Quarterstaff gives you Topple. Now they're not "both weapons in one," and there's distinct reasons to use each one.

The UA playtest one that was never printed? Sure, but I didn't get a level 1 feat and my character is potentially moving away from their spear as they get their class abilities. And I'd currently still not have the feat, considering we haven't hit level 4 yet (PbP game, so it is long). Instead the DM just said "A one-handed, 1d8 versatile weapon? Sure that is perfectly reasonable for you to use" Because it was. Mechanically, I've gained nothing. It is pure aesthetic.

Ah, ok, that is what I did. And it did gain me something mechanically.

All three have the same weapon mastery. The Longsword is the only one that has anything else, since it has the versatile property. Those corner cases give it a versatility the other two options lack. Making it the superior choice because it gives options.

I think the versatility has to be relevant to make it a superior choice.

Actually, no. Carrying multiple weapons only makes a difference if you use them. And people aren't inclined to swap to a different weapon on every single attack. Many people, myself included, find that deeply troubling.

Additionally, with the current design of the Weapon Masteries, you only get two masteries for most classes. A melee weapon and a ranged weapon. You won't get any benefit from swapping to a different melee weapon, unless you are taking a long rest, or you forgo having a ranged mastery.

However, if you could gain a mastery, then apply it to any applicable weapon you are holding, now if you need to swap weapons, you still have your kit and your skills. You may see people more willing to switch weapons, when their skills translate between the weapons, and you can have a person using a single weapon, like 90% of fantasy warriors do.

With all the best will in the world, those people are choosing to play suboptimally and don't really have grounds to complain any more than a Wizard who chooses to cast Fireball on a single target.

You're given two masteries not just so that you can do something at range, but also so that you can gain a benefit from swapping between melee weapons like the system intends.

If you can apply a Mastery to any weapon you're holding, then people have no incentive to use different weapons; they just stick with the weapon they've got and never look at another weapon, because they gain no benefit from swapping weapons. That's exactly what the devs are trying to avoid by attaching the Mastery to the weapon; it encourages people to experiment, try out new combinations, explore archetypes other than Guy With Magic Sword.

If a weapon design is only good because one class can use them.... that's a problem.

Daggers are still good for all classes because they also have Thrown. They just happen to be even better for Monks, and that's not a problem, that's a bonus.

And sure, Rapiers aren't Light weapons, but then if you want to dual-wield.... rapiers were never going to be an option anyways. Not since they gutted the Dual-wielding feat. And, notably, Weapon Mastery has not a single thing to do with that "meaningful difference" between a dual-wielding build and a Rapier and shield build. So if that is the sort of differentiation you want to see, Weapon Mastery's design did not achieve that.

Weapon Mastery absolutely has something to do with the meaningful difference between the Shortsword and the Rapier, because Shortsword has an in-built incentive to dual-wield with Scimitars, Daggers, etc.

Now, personally, I'm a little annoyed that you can't play a dual-wielding Rapier without major feat taxes for little mechanical benefit, given how prevalent the Rapier and Dagger/Main-Gauche was in historical combat (much more common than the Rapier/Buckler). However, Weapon Mastery has made it somewhat distinct in that, since the Rapier is pretty much only used with either Shield for defense or an open hand for spells, it plays differently from other Vex weapons.