D&D (2024) Weapon masteries should really be linked to weapon properties, not to specific weapons!

[Horwath]

I thought about it for a moment, then realized doing so would eliminate having less damaging or otherwise worse weapons with superior effects kind of balance, which is a choice martials should have.

and since that is not the case, mastery should still be character based not weapon based,

Think of them as Battlemasters maneuvers; Light edition.

 

[Don’t know]

Pls don’t let me die

 

[Corinnguard]

It's the same reason why we haven't had 10 years of players constantly clamoring for more characters to gain a second Fighting Style-- because while Fighting Styles were nice, their abilities were not so important that having a second one felt at all necessary or that we were missing something.

It would be equally nice if a martial with a fighting style could unlock new abilities with the fighting style they already have as they level up. If your martial picked Two-Weapon Fighting as their fighting style at 1st or 2nd level, then they ought to get something at key levels that let them do more than swing two weapons around in combat.

But that would be like The Edition That Must Not Be Named. We can't have that.

Would that be the edition that begins with the number 4? Pathfinder 1st edition had weapon groups. It even had an optional Advanced Weapon Training feature that allowed your character to get additional benefits from a weapon group.

Fighter – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

 

[aco175]

@Don’t know welcome to the site. Not sure what you were referring to, but hope you have fun here.

The original thread started in 2023 I'm guessing with the UA article on masteries. Now that the PHB is out for a while, have any opinions changed? I just started with the mastery system and found it working ok so far, but not sure of any traps to look out for. Players seem to like it and I just make them track it all.

Not sure if some monsters should have something like this? That is more work for the DM though.

 

[Horwath]

@Don’t know welcome to the site. Not sure what you were referring to, but hope you have fun here.

The original thread started in 2023 I'm guessing with the UA article on masteries. Now that the PHB is out for a while, have any opinions changed? I just started with the mastery system and found it working ok so far, but not sure of any traps to look out for. Players seem to like it and I just make them track it all.

Not sure if some monsters should have something like this? That is more work for the DM though.

Masteries are OK, good idea, but they could have been better as I mentioned in OP.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It would be equally nice if a martial with a fighting style could unlock new abilities with the fighting style they already have as they level up. If your martial picked Two-Weapon Fighting as their fighting style at 1st or 2nd level, then they ought to get something at key levels that let them do more than swing two weapons around in combat.

Would that be the edition that begins with the number 4? Pathfinder 1st edition had weapon groups. It even had an optional Advanced Weapon Training feature that allowed your character to get additional benefits from a weapon group.

Fighter – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

It would be that edition, yes. And I will not lie, I have had some schadenfreude in the past at seeing someone tie themselves in painful logical knots in order to justify how their hatred of something 4e did, but their love of the same thing done by a different game they adore, totally isn't ridiculous. (E.g., the post from The Alexandrian where its author had to explain how no no no, mechanical dissociation isn't bad if you do it for a good reason, and Numenera totally does that guys, it's great, don't hate it because it's dissociated, love it because it's good and useful dissociation.)

But I don't think that will happen here. There are some meaningful differences between how PF1e does this. As far as I can tell, for example, weapon groups are only mechanically relevant to the Fighter class, and only refer to (more or less) an extended notion of weapon proficiency. That is, generic hit bonuses and the like, that apply to weapons that have a shared nature or function. By comparison, I was more referring to both the actual weapon-groups themselves, and the feats and features which hooked into those things, adding depth without much complexity. That said, this is a reasonable response since I wasn't as clear as I could've been.

 

[Rabbitbait]

I like how it is now. I just rolled up a barbarian and I liked how I could carefully consider the pros and cons of each weapon. Ended up choosing a greataxe and a maul. Lot's more to take into account than DPR.