D&D 5E What the Weaponmaster needs in 5e, and how to make it happen.

[mellored]

My fear is that new tactical feature rapidly turn to gimmick play.

I'm not sure what you mean.

You mean doing the same thing over and over? That already happens with weapon attacks.

 

[bedir than]

I just need to review something.

The "Weaponmaster" isn't a master of weapons, but a master of defense/stickiness/adaptability?

I was rather hoping for a Fighter that was dedicated to a single subset of weapons, like a master of weapons. Not a fighter dedicated to the defense of allies, which is something that would be done through use of shields/tactics/etc.

If a class name evokes something that it doesn't actually do it is poorly named, and likely not a class.

 

[mellored]

I just need to review something.

The "Weaponmaster" isn't a master of weapons, but a master of defense/stickiness/adaptability?

I was rather hoping for a Fighter that was dedicated to a single subset of weapons, like a master of weapons. Not a fighter dedicated to the defense of allies, which is something that would be done through use of shields/tactics/etc.

If a class name evokes something that it doesn't actually do it is poorly named, and likely not a class.

Agreed.

Also, here you go.
Weapon Master, based on being a master of weapons.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just need to review something.

The "Weaponmaster" isn't a master of weapons, but a master of defense/stickiness/adaptability?

Yeah, I may not have explained it too well in the OP:

For those who don't recall, the Weaponmaster was the early name of the Battlemaster in the playtest, and the de-facto sub-class name retroactively applied to all 4e fighters when they were superseded by the Essentials Knight & Slayer. (It was also a Dragon Mag fighter build with a few powers that did different things depending on what weapon you used, but I'm guessing that's not important).

So, it's the sub-class name retroactively applied to all 4e fighters that had preceded the Essentials Slayer/Knight - All Defender Role, but encompassing quite a range a concepts, and, of course, having the typical pre-Essentials classes' wealth of choices, player agency and tactical depth.

I was rather hoping for a Fighter that was dedicated to a single subset of weapons, like a master of weapons.

Ironically there was a Dragon mag build by the name that was just that. It wasn't much developed, though.

But, no the idea isn't a single-weapon specialist.

If a class name evokes something that it doesn't actually do it is poorly named, and likely not a class.

Take it up with Mike Mearls. He applied the name after the fact. I agree it's not a great fit as names go. I could waffle around typing "pre-Essentials-4e-AEDU-Fighter" every time or I can use the name he gave us. :shrug:

 

[Krachek]

I'm not sure what you mean.

You mean doing the same thing over and over? That already happens with weapon attacks.

By adding slowly more tactical rules, we slowly retrobuild 4ed.
More reactions, more small effects, more accurate positioning, more headaches!

 

[cmad1977]

By adding slowly more tactical rules, we slowly retrobuild 4ed.
More reactions, more small effects, more accurate positioning, more headaches!

More hours long kobold battles!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mellored]

By adding slowly more tactical rules, we slowly retrobuild 4ed.
More reactions, more small effects, more accurate positioning, more headaches!

Ah... complexity. I wouldn't worry.

First, 5e action economy is much tighter as a baseline.
4e had action, move action, minor action, reaction, free action, and several opportunity actions.
5e has action, move, bonus, and reaction. (move can't be traded).

So right there, you have half the number of actions in the base rule. Just avoid abilities like tunnel fighter.


I agree there shouldn't be a large number of small effects, particularly lingering effects like +2 AC. That doesn't mean martial classes should only do damage. Just make it a big effect, with minimal tracking.
i.e.
Don't slow someone by 10' each attack, make it Strength save to immobilize. (more impact, less to track)
Don't give +2 AC for a round, give disadvantage on a single attack. (more impact, no tracking).
*Both of which are already in the game.
Big impacts also mean you won't do 3 different things in a turn. Maybe have a stance, where you could only have 1 effect at a time (similar to concentration).


Accurate Positioning is for fireball and similar AoE's, not maneuvers. More of a wizard thing than a weapon user thing.

More hours long kobold battles!

That won't happen unless we add 20hp kobolds.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Look, imagine if Fighter said:

It's not broken. It's not overpowered. It's not even something that you can't possibly envision a Fighter doing. But doesn't that make you say, "Diplomacy is a fighting style?"

The mechanic just doesn't match the description of the ability that grants it. If you want the Fighter to have such an ability, that's fine, but mashing them all together into one box is very inelegant.

It's like putting the druidcraft cantrip on the Wizard spell list, or animate dead on the Paladin's. It works. You can even invent reasons to do it for a given campaign. But it's a flavor fail.

I don't understand where the problem lies, with any of those examples. Maybe the Paladin example, but IMO the evil paladin should be supported by the spell list, so....yeah, sure. Animate dead.

There absolutely should be fighting styles like that. Proficiency in a skill is boring, and doesn't match the type of mechanical benefit that Fighting Styles grant, but I'm otherwise all for it. Redo it as a bonus instead of proficiency and I'm all in.

 

[bedir than]

Take it up with Mike Mearls.

He isn't presenting this as a class concept in 5th edition.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

He isn't presenting this as a class concept in 5th edition.

He named the thing that Tony is converting to 5e in this thread. Therefor, if the name bugs you, take it up with Mearls.

Or, alternatively, we could focus on the point of the thread.