D&D General Weapon Mastery - Yea or Nay?

[Merlecory]

Similarly, a "hit" isn't whether or not you hit your opponent- it's about whether or not you penetrate their defenses.

Snip

The big weapons with Graze, then, are more efficient at penetrating armor (if I had a complaint about Graze, is that the mastery isn't applied to weapons that in real life were actually good at penetrating armor) due to their mass and striking power. This "armor-piercing" is reflected in the fact that, no matter how good your armor is, you can't complete negate these attacks.
Snip

As for your Green Flame Blade example, the spell probably should deal some damage on a miss (compare it with Acid Arrow, which does). The reason why comes down to two things- balance (if every flaming sword you find in game can deal some damage past armor, armor becomes less useful) and largely that "damage on a miss" was a concept introduced in 4e, and a few (but very loud) people trotted it out as another reason to hate 4e, because they felt it made the game less realistic (somehow). Thus when 5e was made, the concept was removed from the game (except for spells, where apparently it's ok, lol) to placate this crowd. Now, apparently, in 2024, they apparently found that the amount of players who hate it are an acceptable loss if they bounce off the game (I presume).

Piercing defenders would make sense for things that have some sort of armour (plate, a tough hide, scales, etc). A character who blocks with a shield or dodges out of the way but is cut is hit. I wouldn't have issue with the unarmored person suffering from GFB or poisoned weapons, except that the attack did miss.

Melf's acid arrow sprays an area with acid, which is why did damage on a miss (not a lot of lab wear on the battlefield, alchemists not withstanding). Maybe flaming things should, but the rules don't seem to say they do, and you can quickly pass by a fire without being burned.

 

[James Gasik]

Snip



Piercing defenders would make sense for things that have some sort of armour (plate, a tough hide, scales, etc). A character who blocks with a shield or dodges out of the way but is cut is hit. I wouldn't have issue with the unarmored person suffering from GFB or poisoned weapons, except that the attack did miss.

Melf's acid arrow sprays an area with acid, which is why did damage on a miss (not a lot of lab wear on the battlefield, alchemists not withstanding). Maybe flaming things should, but the rules don't seem to say they do, and you can quickly pass by a fire without being burned.

So if a character doesn't wear armor, like say, a Monk, do you feel using Strength to hit them makes sense?

 

[Merlecory]

So if a character doesn't wear armor, like say, a Monk, do you feel using Strength to hit them makes sense?

Yes. A stronger warrior can more quickly and easily maneuver their weapon.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes. A stronger warrior can more quickly and easily maneuver their weapon.

And from that, I assume you're fine with Str to hit for thrown weapons as well (harder to dodge?).

Fair enough then, though I know a lot of people who think that it should be Dexterity to hit with everything.

And of course, lots of people object to things like Wisdom to hit with bows because you have better depth perception, Strength to hit for bows because your arrows fly faster, Intelligence to hit with rapiers because you've studied intricate fencing maneuvers, or Charisma to hit by bluffing your opponent into a feint.

(We have of course, Shillelagh and Bladelocks, but their excuse is "magic" so not worth discussing).

The point is, just about any part of the system someone can have a hangup over because it doesn't "make sense" to them. Even if you come up with an explanation, people can and will poke holes in it. Why some of these things seem to be ignored or glossed over, and others become hills to die on fascinate (and frustrate) me.

Armor making you harder to hit being a prime example. We know it's not really about "hitting" the target, but partial effects on a "miss" still rankle a lot of people (unless it's magic, where most can accept magic missile and things like armor not being able to protect you from things like spike growth or being pelted for bludgeoning damage from rock hard ice from ice storm without missing a beat).

 

[Lidgar]

Interesting to see the poll results. I'm a little surprised by the number of folks that are not fans of weapon mastery - at least how it's currently executed.

As for slowing the game down, in retrospect, it feels more like the cumulative effect of a new subsystem coupled with all the rule changes and spell updates.

In regards to flavor, it felt more "gamest," if that makes sense. Like little tricks that become repetitive versus unique/flavorful. The Sap, Topple, and Vex properties are the most annoying to track for folks.

We might give them another go next session. We hadn't picked up on the importance the Nick property has on TWF - so we might at least keep that for our TWF champion fighter.

 

[James Gasik]

Not being able to choose which special trick you're going to use each turn (without weapon swapping) and being forced to use the same one over and over and over again is probably my biggest problem with the system. I want warriors to be doing more than "I swing", but weapon masteries aren't really specialized maneuvers like the Battle Master has. There's the strategic decision, to choose your masteries and what weapons you'll carry around, but less tactical, in the moment decision points.

Every time you hit with your weapon you're going to set up your off hand attack, or force a save to maybe knock a guy down, or give yourself future advantage. It's less boring than "I swing and do 11 damage", but only just.

And of course, even the Battle Master only gets to "do the thing" a few times before he has to nap. Something that surprises is me is that I've yet to hear complaints about Maneuver X combined with Weapon Mastery Y, but I'm sure it's happening somewhere.

Of course, I get that not everyone wants the tactical, turn by turn decisions- that's why it's been a feature of spellcasting more than weapon combat for so much of D&D's history. Some people just want to roll dice and deal damage, and not want the decision paralysis of "should I parry, disarm, or trip?"

Ironically, the weapon mastery that was designed for these people, the one that let you access Versatile damage, was voted down during the playtest as being too small a benefit and "too boring". Lol.

I'm not sure what the better approach is. You could make things like flanking, marking, and disarms optional, and most tables won't touch them. You can make topple part of the game system, something some characters can do at will and have people annoyed they can't really opt out of it because some classes are designed around having weapon masteries, with nothing to replace them with.

D&D is this chimera, multiple games occupying the same body, and not really matching anyone's ideal vision.

 

[Theory of Games]

D&D is this chimera, multiple games occupying the same body, and not really matching anyone's ideal vision.

If this were true, it wouldn't be as popular - marketing can only buy so much. The true beauty of D&D is GM Fiat: we can make the game do whatever our groups want to (within reason) and WotC can't change that