D&D General Weapon Mastery - Yea or Nay?

[TheSword]

My question is: why would you want to play 5.5E and not use them? To me, they are the major new system that's revised, so I'm not sure why you'd even want to use the new rulebooks without it.

I say this as we're just starting an update for our campaign with a different DM and using the 5.0E rules. No one was pushing to update it, so we're continuing using the content we already have on Roll20.

They obviously don’t want to play a monk then.

 

[SteveC]

They obviously don’t want to play a monk then.

I don't know, maybe they like pain? But you make a good point: I've played with a lot of characters in our campaigns (one of the players seems to theorycraft builds only to get them killed) but I haven't ever seen a monk in play. And from looking at comments online, I can see why. We're going to be playing the Vecna adventure path, so that game will likely go for at least a year or so, but if I do get them to go to 5.5, I'll definitely suggest trying out the monk. And the Champion!

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Nay, nay, nay.

I also appreciate the intent. It makes different weapon types more distinct, but it should be entirely player side and resolved in their turn to run well. If it was like, this weapon does an extra d4 on a crit and this other weapon gets a bonus attack under X circumstances I'd be a big yay. Alternatively if it was something characters unlocked with a feat and only a players who actually cared had it going I'd probably be in the yays.

But having one with a save DC, several that involve disadvantage or advantage being tracked to the next round, and one that effects movement speed is all a lot of extra fiddly bits when you consider that this is every attack every martial character makes. This material was just not ready for prime time.

Also Greatsword should be cleave. The entire historical purpose of greatswords was crowd control.

 

[TheSword]

Nay, nay, nay.

I also appreciate the intent. It makes different weapon types more distinct, but it should be entirely player side and resolved in their turn to run well. If it was like, this weapon does an extra d4 on a crit and this other weapon gets a bonus attack under X circumstances I'd be a big yay. Alternatively if it was something characters unlocked with a feat and only a players who actually cared had it going I'd probably be in the yays.

But having one with a save DC, several that involve disadvantage or advantage being tracked to the next round, and one that effects movement speed is all a lot of extra fiddly bits when you consider that this is every attack every martial character makes. This material was just not ready for prime time.

Also Greatsword should be cleave. The entire historical purpose of greatswords was crowd control.

I’ve never understood the problem with martial’s causing saves through their actions or inflicting disadvantage, movement penalties etc. Casters have been doing it with cantrips for 10 years. I just don’t get it.

 

[TheSword]

I’ll go a step further and say that my single biggest gripe with the 5e system is the fact that actors have been reduced to bags of hp.

Finally there are accessible non-spell ways to affect foes in combat in new ways rather than simple chipping away at their hp.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I’ve never understood the problem with martial’s causing saves through their actions or inflicting disadvantage, movement penalties etc. Casters have been doing it with cantrips for 10 years. I just don’t get it.

A cantrip turn for a non-warlock caster soon becomes a rare, "didn't have something better to do" occasion, whereas the weapon properties are going to get spammed from levels 1-20, many on multiple attacks per round. Also the cantrips that did those things were generally the less damage optimized ones, or else the Warlock had taken invocations to make his cantrip shine.

I don't know, I've DMed a total of three combats in 2024 D&D. So far the weapons properties seem like more of a time suck than cantrips ever were. Maybe it's just my table.

 

[TheSword]

A cantrip turn for a non-warlock caster soon becomes a rare, "didn't have something better to do" occasion, whereas the weapon properties are going to get spammed from levels 1-20, many on multiple attacks per round. Also the cantrips that did those things were generally the less damage optimized ones, or else the Warlock had taken invocations to make his cantrip shine.

I don't know, I've DMed a total of three combats in 2024 D&D. So far the weapons properties seem like more of a time suck than cantrips ever were. Maybe it's just my table.

Those spells like Synaptic Static, Slow, Moonbeam and Burning Hands have been demanding far more saves at their respective level than a masteries equivalent saves. Affecting more than one thing in a round feels like a harsh judgement.

Of course a lot depends on party make up. Only a couple of classes get weapon masteries and they don’t apply in an every case as per my message above.

I’ve played D&D of all editions for a very long time and in 35 years I’ve never found it was the rogue or the fighter that was slowing down combat. In fact the opposite - their turns used to be painfully brief, as the wizard agonized over where to place their darkness spell.

 

[cbwjm]

This is an interesting thread to read, I've not played/run 5.5 so haven't seen weapon mastery in play but I always felt they didn't quite work as is but otherwise looked like a good addition (I was planning on some house rules if I did move, mostly that warriors learn a weapon mastery keyword rather than a specific weapon on the off chance that they switch to a new weapon with the same keyword before able to swap out the proficiency).

I'd say the comparison with cantrips isn't quite applicable in that, particularly from 5th level onwards, there is still only a single attack roll or saving throw for a cantrip rather than an attack and then a saving throw. Once you get up in levels and additional attacks come online, I can see that slowing things down a little. Again, I've never run 5.5 so interesting to hear that many have had a negative response to weapon mastery, though the poll looks roughly even between the yeas and nays.

 

[TheSword]

This is an interesting thread to read, I've not played/run 5.5 so haven't seen weapon mastery in play but I always felt they didn't quite work as is but otherwise looked like a good addition (I was planning on some house rules if I did move, mostly that warriors learn a weapon mastery keyword rather than a specific weapon on the off chance that they switch to a new weapon with the same keyword before able to swap out the proficiency).

I'd say the comparison with cantrips isn't quite applicable in that, particularly from 5th level onwards, there is still only a single attack roll or saving throw for a cantrip rather than an attack and then a saving throw. Once you get up in levels and additional attacks come online, I can see that slowing things down a little. Again, I've never run 5.5 so interesting to hear that many have had a negative response to weapon mastery, though the poll looks roughly even between the yeas and nays.

It’s worth noting that the cantrip comparison was made to avoid folks saying a low levels fighters will be doing this all times while casters are limited to slots. At the point at which fighters are getting 2+ attacks, cantrips become rarer and leveled spells are much more common affecting many more actors.

 

[jasper]

Nay with an exception. If only fighters types got them. AND DEATH TO GRAZE!
well actually, i don't care but I don't remind people they are forgetting them.