D&D 5E (2014) What the Weaponmaster needs in 5e, and how to make it happen.

[Tony Vargas]

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

More options to re-enable past play styles (or to be ignored by those who already feel their style is adequately supported).

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

Do you want to start a "What Kobold Dragonshields need in 5e and hot to make it happen" thread?

"20 hp!" .. "There's no way something that size has 20 hps." .. "Ever played a halfling?"

"Shifty!" .. "There's no minor actions or shifting in 5e, that's absolutely impossible." .. "Bonus Action Disengage, then."

uh.. OK.. next thread...

 

[bedir than]

I'm saying that part of the reason it doesn't exist in 5e is because the naming convention is so poor. WotC reviewed things and decided some didn't work.

This doesn't work. It's like having a Wizard that doesn't cast spells or a Fighter that doesn't fight.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm saying that part of the reason it doesn't exist in 5e is because the naming convention is so poor. WotC reviewed things and decided some didn't work.

This doesn't work. It's like having a Wizard that doesn't cast spells or a Fighter that doesn't fight.

This thread isn't really about creating a class for 5e called "Weaponmaster," though. It's about creating a 5e class that is the spiritual successor of the 4e class called "Weaponmaster."

Or to put it another way, "Weaponmaster" is just the codename used to refer to this project while it's under construction, the way WotC has codenamed their projects.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This thread isn't really about creating a class for 5e called "Weaponmaster," though.

It could be a class or sub-class, and it wouldn't hurt if it took on other missing martial options, like from B09S, or 3.5 fighter builds that can't be done well yet or whatever.

It's about creating a 5e class that is the spiritual successor of the 4e class called "Weaponmaster."

The 4e class was called Fighter, had what amounted to half a dozen or so sub-classes ('builds'), that were all labeled 'weaponmaster' as if they were a single sub-class, to differentiate them from the paired-down Essentials Knight & Slayer.

Or to put it another way, "Weaponmaster" is just the codename used to refer to this project while it's under construction, the way WotC has codenamed their projects.

It's the name that least ambigiously references the missing option in question. It's /still/ ambigious, because it was also a build in Dragon Mag, and was in the working name of the battlemaster in the playtest.

Yes, that kinda all sucks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In another thread (that shall not be named), Elfcrusher came up with an idea that I thought perfect for this thread:

... The target may make a contested Wisdom (Insight) roll versus the character's Charisma (Deception) to resist making the attack....

I would rather have it be an Intelligence roll, but D&D is lacking a "Battle" skill.

Funny, I thought about that: Int + Prof vs. Wis(Insight), but now it occurs to me that part of the class could be a general rule to this effect: e.g. when a skill test is called for in the context of combat, the (insert class name) is assumed to have proficiency, and may use Int in place of whichever stat would otherwise have been applicable. The wording is a little tricky, but I think the concept is clear. E.g., if the DM says, "Ok, the terrain is tricky here so you'll have to roll Athletics or Acrobatics each round, and if you fail you'll be considered to be Restrained on your turn." The (insert class name) gets proficiency, regardless of whether he has such in Athletics or Acrobatics, and gets to use his Int modifier if he so chooses.

Since the Weaponmaster was a very combat-focused class (probably the least out-of-combat goodies of any class in 4e, one place where it didn't break from tradition), and since 5e is wide open to checks in combat, especially when resolving improv maneuvers, something like that could make a lot of sense.

Battle Skill: Personally, I abhor 'skill inflation' more than other forms of bloat, because I feel each new skill 'creates incompetence' the moment it's introduced. But 5e already has open-ended tool proficiencies, and the DM has so much lattitude with checks that any issues could probably be handled at most tables who care to introduce one.

Proficient in Combat Skill Use: In contrast, this could be a nice blanket ability that makes the Weapon Master good at combat tricks, even when the DM decides some off-the wall skill applies to the action he just declared. ("Sure, you can try that, roll DEX and add proficiency in basket weaving" "Good thing I took Applications of Basket Weaving In HTH Combat 113a in Fighter College.")
Being able to swap in one stat, as well, would certainly make it a more effective ability, from the DM's side of the screen, I'd be concerned that it leaves the DM with nothing to frame the action but DC.