D&D 5E (2024) This Feels Like 4E

[Horwath]

Why do you want to do it especially as magic items are limited? Would you do it without the buffs?

And about half the weapon masteries apply on all attacks. On the other hand Sap, Topple, Slow, Nick, and Cleave are inherently limited to 1/round or 1/target/round

that is why weapon mastery needs to be weapon agnostic as much as possible.

IE: 11th level fighter with action surge.
6 attacks.

1st attack, topple
then topple until you succeed at it.
Graze if you miss
if you hit your downed target, might as well cleave next to it.
sap your downed target so it gets DISAD on 1st attack after it gets up
and if you have attacks left, might as well slow it.

in this variant, fighters Tactical master could add 2 masteries per attack.

 

[Reef]

that is why weapon mastery needs to be weapon agnostic as much as possible.

IE: 11th level fighter with action surge.
6 attacks.

1st attack, topple
then topple until you succeed at it.
Graze if you miss
if you hit your downed target, might as well cleave next to it.
sap your downed target so it gets DISAD on 1st attack after it gets up
and if you have attacks left, might as well slow it.

in this variant, fighters Tactical master could add 2 masteries per attack.

I’m pretty sure that example is why it’s not agnostic. That just sounds like a nightmare to run to me. If players could do that, I’d switch over to the side who are against Masteries (and I currently love them)…

 

[Marc17]

Oh, for sure new editions have also introduced their fair share of stuff. However, if you look back at just how horrendously organized the original books were....I think that's evidence enough for how ill-suited early D&D was to onboarding new players.

That it succeeded as it did is a testament to two things: one, that Gygax knew how to write operatic prose, even if he didn't know a blessed thing about effective teaching; and that Gygax and Arneson were tapping a market that hungered and thirsted keenly.

True, but I posit that new players being onboarded aren't reading and consuming the rules but just being told what they need to know to play when they sit at the table and make a character. I think what they need to be told now is much more than what it was in the early editions. There will be even more new players won't understand but is needed in play and cause more friction in beginners games.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I had been referring primarily to the Advanced line, so that wouldn't be that much of a problem.

I would still argue that the Basic line was only relatively beginner-friendly compared to the Advanced line. Yes, it is more--significantly so!--compared to 1e, 2e, etc. You'll never hear me say otherwise. But it's still got a pretty high bar.

Have you, for example, ever tried to show something like Super Mario Bros. to an adult who never played any video games before? It's an experience, let me tell you. It's not that folks cannot learn, it's that there's an entire language of terms, mechanics, visuals, symbols, etc. that such a person simply does not know. They have to learn everything from the ground up, and it's really, REALLY hard not to go racing off at 100x the speed they're actually comfortable learning.

The exact same thing applies to TTRPGs, except that they're even more difficult because they're non-visual, abstract, and math-heavy, all of which are significant hurdles to learning. I'm not saying that Basic is some kind of monstrosity or actively anti-player or the like, but it was only kinda-sorta new-player-friendly back in the day...and we've learned a LOT more about how to make a smooth and accessible onboarding experience. Like...literally decades of pedagogy and education studies specifically on how to introduce people to new topics.

And the irony here is that Super Mario Bros is one of the easiest computer games to learn; it was designed at the dawn of the console age to teach you to play through example. And when it was created most of that visual language did not exist.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, like I said, it's your table and your choice. Personally, I don't see it as intended at all. It just doesn't pass the sniff test for me. To me, the rules are there to enable heroic fiction. And constantly drawing and resheathing weapons multiple times in six seconds, every six seconds strains belief, and I can't imagine the designers intended that. But if you and your players enjoy the insane weapon juggling image, and like carting around a small arsenal to maximize all potential benefits, go for it!

But if you have a problem with it, just don't let them. Even if juggling is 100% intentional, you are well within your rights to say.. "Hey, that rule sucks. It's making our game worse. Let's ignore it". I'm pretty sure the rules say that much explicitly. And is there a table out there that doesn't house rule something? It's a time honoured tradition, going all the way back to weapon vs armour, and weapon speed factors .

Bloodsport (irdis Alba), suicide squad
If I were willing to keep looking I'm sure I could find more not coming to mind.
The trouble with design tuned to simply chanting enable enable enable on endless loop is that it becomes routine and swings around to comedy then crashes into farce farce unless the gm steps in to draw the line those rules should have drawn instead of being the one to say "yea that's an awesome idea" while working to allow exceptions that are truly amazing. When we all look back we don't remember the gm allowing a one off or creating a special magic item for Bob, we just remember how Bob played a character named lexx who was freaking awesome with a bow∆. Nobody thinks back and gushes about the time they went through an entire golf bag of weapons like post 101 for the umpteenth time that session after doing it hundreds of times that campaign.

The gm can't be the one to draw every line that the rules should have set. Expecting GM's to do that switches the table dynamic from the GM working with players to enable their pcs to really be awesome d regardless of Rules As Written to one where the gm becomes the adversary who keeps cheating players out of power presented by Rules As a guarantee

∆Years later that player still occasionally brings up stories of Lexx and I have a pdf with the custom bow I created for them (somewhere). Iirc it involved haste and something else being cast round 1/2 on big fights with one coming from magic bow and the other a dragon mark or class well before rising came out. It would have been insanely broken if not made for a unique build & party makeup

 

[CreamCloud0]

i don't know if morphing weapons are exactly a direct solution to the issue of switching weapons multiple times in a six second period of weapon juggling but they are a fairly common trope, one that i believe already exists in DnD in some previous editions magic items? maybe they should be more common, your warhammer that turns into a trident that splits into a pair of scimitars which then merge back together into longsword.

 

[tetrasodium]

i don't know if morphing weapons are exactly a direct solution to the issue of switching weapons multiple times in a six second period of weapon juggling but they are a fairly common trope, one that i believe already exists in DnD in some previous editions magic items? maybe they should be more common, your warhammer that turns into a trident that splits into a pair of scimitars which then merge back together into longsword.

the bloodsport video was linked more to show an example of stupid weapon switching since that was pretty much being done constantly though that movie. I considered linking up like the ~10 minute equilibrium final fight clip a dagger scene from shadow & bone that I couldn't find & others that didn't come to mind with a movie name. They look cool on screen, but none of them really work in ttrpg play at the table because it turns into the kind of mindnumbing slog described in 101.

Creating "transforming weapons" Wouldn't really solve anything unless the weapon comes with rules that fix the problem created by the missing rules creating the weapon juggling slog. Even if the transforming weapon did fix the rule players would simply ignore it & continue with what the rules guarantee them the option of doing unless the creating was even better. Making it better is a pretty tough sell though given that the default rules don't present any difficulties carrying a golf bag of weapons & swapping between them has zero impact on action economy or anything else that the new creation could hypothetically reduce. That brings it down to making itso much more powerful that players choose it simply because it is a nobrainer nonchoice

 

[CreamCloud0]

the bloodsport video was linked more to show an example of stupid weapon switching since that was pretty much being done constantly though that movie. I considered linking up like the ~10 minute equilibrium final fight clip a dagger scene from shadow & bone that I couldn't find & others that didn't come to mind with a movie name. They look cool on screen, but none of them really work in ttrpg play at the table because it turns into the kind of mindnumbing slog described in 101.

Creating "transforming weapons" Wouldn't really solve anything unless the weapon comes with rules that fix the problem created by the missing rules creating the weapon juggling slog. Even if the transforming weapon did fix the rule players would simply ignore it & continue with what the rules guarantee them the option of doing unless the creating was even better. Making it better is a pretty tough sell though given that the default rules don't present any difficulties carrying a golf bag of weapons & swapping between them has zero impact on action economy or anything else that the new creation could hypothetically reduce. That brings it down to making itso much more powerful that players choose it simply because it is a nobrainer nonchoice

oh, i apologize, i might not of paid as much attention as i should've when reading it and of gotten wires crossed on the message of your post, you hilighted the phrase 'the rules are there to enable heroic fiction' in reef's message and that combined with the video made me come away with the impression that yes, having a massive arsenal you've mastered that you switch between as applicable is a fantasy that players have the desire to play out.

 

[Distracted DM]

Really the "golf cart" of weapons was something that you could see in AD&D*. You had your sword +1, +3 vs. lycanthropes and shapechangers, your sword +1, +3 vs. regenerating creatures, your sword +1, +4 vs. reptiles, and so on.

Further, you definitely wanted to carry around an enchanted bludgeoning weapon for skeletons and clay golems (or maybe just a mace of disruption for all undead).

*It needn't be a "Monty Haul" campaign, either, there were a lot of specialized weapons, and on a long enough timeline, especially if you ran published adventures, you'd collect quite a few such things. Of course, there were more extreme campaigns where you were running a blade across a silver piece hoping it would work against a werewolf, and at the end of the adventure, you were fighting with your so-called allies over a dented copper piece as well.

You know what's funny? After running 5e for a long time now and just "magic weapons bypass it all," I actually started re-implementing some of those old 2e/3e immunities and resistances. I wanted the players to have to think strategically about threats, to sweat if they didn't have silver against lycanthropes.

The problem I found is that if something's resistant, the players don't look for an alternative. They just hit it more, and if they lose because they were only doing half damage... well they don't think there was anything else they can do.

Once something is immune, then they start thinking about silver or non-facetank ways to deal with the threat.



As to the other point of juggling weapons mid-combat, I can see the fictional fantasy of a hero smashing a foe with a big mace to knock them over, tossing the weapon aside and leaping atop the downed enemy to stab them with twin blades. It makes me think of a Marvel movie, but I'm sure there are suitably action-ey fantasy movies that've done something like that. The idea of it definitely bothered me originally, but I can see how it's reasonable to some when I imagine it like an action movie... and action movies are definitely the vibe they're going for, I think.

And yeah it looks like WotC themselves have asserted, according to the stuff posted in this thread, that it is by design.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I saw a similar thing in 3e/Pathfinder. If something has damage reduction don’t try to bypass it, just hit it with a weapon that does more damage.