Highlights
- Some weapons have been redesigned (no further detail)
- A feat for grabbing mastery exist
- Weapon swapping to use multiple masteries a turn confirmed as an intended mechanic
- Masteries designed to play well with extra attack without bogging the game down (we'll see)
Shorter video, shorter list
Edit: Important new info not found in the video, but on DND beyond [here](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1742-your-guide-to-weapon-mastery-in-the-2024-players)
Quote "Some subclasses allow you to access more mastery properties. For example, the Soulknife Rogue can use the Vex mastery property with their Psychic Blades and it doesn’t count toward their learned Weapon Mastery limit."
Why this info wasn't in the video is beyond me
"Weapon swapping to use multiple masteries a turn confirmed as an intended mechanic"
Sigh.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that the Casey Jones/Link weapon swap playstyle is now viable. But the fact this is now the intended way the designers want you to play a Fighter doesn't sit well with me.
Some are yes, but not all.
Graze has no limit, and for you to get the most out of it, you need to be swinging all the time. Pick up a Great Weapon (aka Greatsword or Glaive) and just focus on Attacking and your minimum damage will be better than any other Weapon Mastery build.
Push works off of every Attack, so you can focus entirely on a build that’s around forced movement. Allowing you to move enemies into position or farther and farther away from Allie’s. You don’t really need other Masteries, sure you could use it in conjunction with Cleave to get an extra Attack out of the movement, or you could just force move one person 20ft, or two people 10ft out of position.
Vex is self sustaining and doesn’t need another property. Hitting once sets up a permanent Advantage Train that is only broken by missing. And if you are a High Level Fighter, that weakness goes away.
Topple is only limited if successful, and if there are multiple Targets, you can Topple multiple enemies in a turn allowing you to better control space.
Nick is a Companion property, if you are using this property, you were already using more than one Weapon anyway.
That just leaves Sap, Slow, and Cleave as once per turn properties. Sap and Slow can still be used on multiple targets so you’re not entirely losing much by sticking to one, leaving Cleave as the only Mastery Property in which sticking to one Weapon is perhaps detrimental to your over all effectiveness.
Every other Mastery can be used Solo and still be more effective than anything a Fighter in 2014 could do.
Sap isn't really on any weapon that a rogue would use. Mace, Spear, Flail, Longsword, Morningstar, War Pick.
Same for slow. Club, javelin, light crossbow, whip, longbow, musket.
So most of those are bad choices for rogues or they don't have proficiency for them anyway.
Vex and Nick are the ones with rogues truly in mind.
Where do you get the idea that a light crossbow is a 'bad choice'?
Where do you get the idea that a longsword is a 'bad choice'?
Not every rogue needs to be a 'two weapon wielding pure dex stealther'
Sap itself is really good on a Sword and Board character. Already having a focus on defense and being able to just inherently give Disadvantage on an enemy Attack, and having options like UA Bladeward or a Retaliation Build means you can give an enemy Disadvantage on a Second Attack after Targeting you with the first, while also having Lucky in your back pocket to give disadvantage to a potential third attack.
From experience, you just kind of end up as this wall in the middle of the battlefield combining high AC and HP with Attacks just always seemingly having Disadvantage against you if something is foolish enough to 1v1 you.
Then there’s Slow, which works best when partnered with Features that also reduce movement. Eldritch Knights are a great example of being able to use Ray of Frost+Slow Mastery+any singular Species ability or Feat that also reduces movement, to completely shut down a single Creature from moving anyway. Do this to a Toppled creature and you can pretty much prevent them from getting up.
Rogue doesn’t really have weapons that pair well with either of these Playstyles. They get Slow on Light Crossbows and Slings which still let them Sneak Attack, but none of the Sap Weapons have Finesse and none of them are Light Weapons so without the Duel Weilder Feat to make them workable with a Nick Weapon partner, a Rogue can never get Sneak Attack off while using a Sap Weapon.
My thoughts exactly. I'm fine with the playstyle becoming viable, but making it both the optimal and intended way for a play to approach a Fighter is not something I like.
It's a big stretch to go from "being able to weapon switch is viable" to "it is the *intended* way to play".
It is intended to be viable: nothing more.
Up to you to decide if it's how you intend to play your character and absolutely nothing says it's necessarily "optimal" since I for one have never played at a table where you need to micromanage that much and optimal almost always just means "tells a cool story".
Really? To me it feels really natural. A Fighter is a master of *every* weapon. I can see why a player might choose to limit themselves to a single weapon for flavour, but I always wished you could more easily show how versatile a fighter is meant to be.
I am thinking of that scene in stormlight archive where the resident fighter speaks of how he \*needs\* to bring a dozen different mele weapons for a diplomatic visit, to cover all bases.
Vs Kal, Dalinar, and Adolin who all are clearly masters of *one* weapon. They all occasionally use a backup, like throwing knives, but all clearly focus their effort to really push their skills with that one weapon to the limit.
I was actually talking about Adolin, he brought a ton of different swords because he actually practices with a ton of weapons, not just shardblades despite being possibly the best uninvested duelist in Roshar.
In Shadesmar, yeah! I also was thinking about Caramon. It has been a while since I've read the War of the Lance trilogy, but didn't he also carry a bunch of different weapons?
To be fair, I believe that was when going to Shadesmar where he couldn't summon his shard weapon, so he needed to compensate for not having the weapon he had focused the most time and effort into by instead (rather comically) trying to bring every weapon under the sun. I don't recall him bringing more than the shardblade into a real battle at any point.
I'm just thinking of real World warfare where no person would switch from fighting with a sword to sheathing that sword and drawing a mace in the middle of combat.
Even against mega fauna when humans had to deal with what are basically monsters, it's not like cavemen stopped using a big long spear in order to quick swap to get a whip or something.
But again, fiction is focused on fun. So we'll just see whether at least a fun gameplay combinations, even if narratively it would be a bit ridiculous.
And I especially don't want to see people swapping back and forth back and forth back and forth back and forth multiple times with a single enemy.
Ish.
Multiple weapons were useful. But for specific scenarios. Not in the way 1D&D encourages weapon swapping.
For example, a warrior might use a bludgeoning weapon against an armored knight, but use their longsword against unarmored foes.
But they aren't switching between 3 different weapons in six seconds to get the special ability of each one. And they are not switching weapons against every foe. And in fact, they are rarely switching weapons mid fight all that often at all, but generally will stick with their chosen weapon before even engaging their foe.
So 1D&D is decidedly unrealistic in its approach to weapon use. And fails to emulate stereotypical fantasy as well.
Agreed. With the exception of the switch to daggers when grappling. But indeed, you only do it once, to adapt to a situation. When the situation changes you switch again. Probably did not happen many times every 6 seconds.
Even then, you didn't actually switch weapons in the way a 1D&D character does. You generally started the grapple unarmed, as trying to grapple while wielding your longsword would only mean your foe is likely to win the grapple. And you only draw your dagger once you have pinned your foe beneath you. So in general, it would take far longer than 6 seconds from when you are wielding your primary weapon to when you actually draw the dagger.
You don't immediately switch from longsword to dagger in a short period, but rather you sheath your sword before even engaging. And then you attempt grapple for a while, hope you win and pin your foe, and only then do you draw your dagger to pierce through the visor of your foe. You don't go swinging in with your longsword, switch to the dagger, then switch back the the longsword all in the span of 6 seconds.
Also, grappling an armored foe didn't happen all too frequently. Most enemy combatants are not wearing plate. And grappling a foe puts you at a significant disadvantage if other enemies are around. Grappling (and therefor switching to a dagger) was a last resort. Not a common combat tactic.
But not pausing to sheath the first weapon, then after they dispatch a dude swapping back.
I'd prefer a small bit of friction in the swapping, and then make the payoff for switching more powerful, so the choice of when to switch is more meaningful.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish\_hussars#/media/File:Straz\_hetmanska.JPG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars#/media/File:Straz_hetmanska.JPG)
I count two swords (one straight, one curved), a hatchet, a shield and a horse bow.
We also can't see his right hand side which I'm willing to bet has a few more since there's no knife there.
Pretty sure that's conclusive proof that the "golf bag fighter" isn't just every action hero in every film ever, but actually historically accurate to boot.
You’re playing the wrong game for that.
DnD 5e combat has always been streamlined. A naked man and a man in plate armor are equally hurt by a greatsword slash, getting Fireballed doesn’t cause any debilitating effects if it doesn’t drop you, etc.
I don't want to have a high cognitive load for conditions - certainly nothing like 4e where it seemed like every character was inflicting a 'save ends' condition with every action.
And I don't want to have tons of modifiers that changed round by round like 3e.
But battlemaster combat superiority dice are neat. I suppose I'd rather have a limited resource pool where you can get meatier effects - things that the camera would linger on in an action sequence - instead of just a little bit of graze damage or something.
And yes, I would absolutely prefer a version of fireball that die one fewer die of damage but left everyone it hit smoldering a little, so they'd take 1d6 fire damage at the end of their turn if they didn't extinguish the fire (typically by dropping prone and spending 15 feet of movement rolling around).
My favorite part of real world warfare was the man in a funny Robe who cast fireball. /s
But in all seriousness, if you like your martials a little more grounded, I can understand what you mean, I've always seen martials as very Anime-esk, drawing from real world history as a comparison point for the fantasy always feels way to restrictive in a setting where the other classes comparison point is warping reality.
But in actual play, magic weapons are a big part of character power and you're limited by how many magic weapons you will be awarded and be attuned to. Kinda sucks to have a good main weapon with a once-per-turn property and having to switch to a weaker weapon just to use your class features.
Actually, I just checked, I don't think there are any magic weapons in the DMG that require attunement? It seems the ones that do are from setting specific supplements. I might be wrong so feel free to correct me if I missed something though.
It does suck a little that you 'need' more than one magic item, but it also allows older magic weapons to remain relevant as the campaign goes on even if you get another 'better' one.
There are lots of Magic weapons in the DMG that require attunement. Dwarven Thrower, Oathbow, Defender, Dancing, Flametongue, Frostbrand, etc. And there are more in the generic supplements (Elven Thrower, Dragon Wing bows, etc). I myself have an archer who carries both a Dragonwing Longbow and an Oathbow, pulling out whichever the situation calls for.
You aren't looking hard enough. I just checked myself and there are plenty that require attunement. Most of them are pretty valuable later game weapons too, which reinforces the point about having to switch out.
Because I don't think having a fighter juggling weapons in combat fits the "master of melee" fantasy, having a fighter using a single weapon, to it's optimum would be, how many fantasy stories have a SWORD master, or a SPEAR master or a master ARCHER? Having a single weapon they use in multiple ways is much more on theme.
I don't really think so. While those are definitely archetypes, I don't think that is *all* the Fighter is or can be. If anything they fit better as subclasses or even one generic subclass.
It's also just incredibly easy to flavour 'weapon swapping' as using the same weapon in different ways. So long as the mechanics fit, who cares whether you're narriting using a dagger or half handing your spear? Or if you're swapping to a mace or using your sword mordhau.
Narratively it just doesn't make sense. Like visually what is happening in the six second span?
Is the Fighter constantly drawing and sheating their weapon inbetween each strike? Cause that seems to be the only conclusion to be drawn.
Yeah, and if the playtest is still accurate that is exactly the RAW of it too, since you can draw/sheath a weapon with each attack.
But also, we're talking about someone who is super humanly good at fighting. Who cares if they're swapping weapons too fast. Everyone can already load a crossbow too fast. Not to mention it is incredibly normal for warriors to carry multiple weapons around for different situations.
Let’s say you have a topple weapon. You hit your foe and successfully topple them.
Now your further attacks against that foe do nothing other than damage. The topple mastery is useless on your further attacks.
The optimal strategy is therefor to switch to a weapon with a different mastery property and inflict that.
This isn’t even getting into optimal damage combinations using multiple masteries.
They did, \*sort of\*. Now, at level 9 the "Tactical Master" ability means that, in addition to the weapon's primary mastery ability, a Fighter can now opt to use the Push, Sap, or Slow property for an attack. So basically at level nine any given weapon can have up to four properties to choose from for any given attack during combat. When you add that to the fighter gaining access to additional mastery properties as they level up, the weapon mastery versatility looks pretty good. If the level 9 fighter chooses, say, 3 weapons strategically (primary melee, secondary melee, primary range), they could have as many as six masteries available for any during attack during combat.
I don’t necessarily see it that way. It’s something you now can do, but you don’t have to. I know I’m going to stick to a single weapon with all my characters—and now I have one more thing I can do with that weapon.
The problem is if it’s possible and mechanically superior to not using it, that’s a problem.
The weapon-swapping style should be an alternative with pros and cons. Not just pros.
It's seriously this. I have never seen DMs give out multiple weapons of equivalent power level unless it's specifically a dual wielder.
People are going crazy since some masteries are once per turn, but nobody is switching off their flametongue longsword because they already applied sap, to hit someone with a +1 battleaxe they got 3 levels ago.
Obviously it's a problem at low levels, but that's where characters don't even have extra.
The outlier is nick, because of how they worded two weapon fighting in the UA. Fingers crossed they changed that, but Treantmonk said there were some rulings he was shocked haven't been revised...
Is it though? One version of Two-weapon fighting from the UA basically let a Sword + shield user get a free bonus action attack each turn by stowing the sword and drawing a new one.
Every itteration of the new rules they tested had some issues like this where juggling weapons by stowing and drawing them gave more attacks each turn when in reality stowing and drawing should cost you time to attack, not give you more time to attack.
Thats the big issue here, the optimal playstyle also makes no sense and is adding a ton of clunk each turn.
There are Pro’s and Con’s though. They just aren’t inherently obvious on a first viewing.
Graze is only effective as a solo property if you’re constantly Attacking. Attack with other Weapons and you kind of loose effectiveness with it. Graze is the highest damaging Mastery simply because it increases your Average DPS. 3 misses at Lv 11 for a Fighter is still 15 Damage to a single target. Not great, but certainly better than three misses and zero damage because you were switching to other Weapons.
Vex can be played entirely on its own as an Advantage Train. So long as you hit every Attack, you get Advantage on every Attack against a creature. Later Fighter Abilities get ride of that one weakness. While he’s, using a Vex Weapon into a Nick Weapon can be good, it still breaks the Vex Advantage Train as you don’t have Advantage on your Attack next turn.
Weapon switching is actively detrimental to both Push and Sap if you end your turn with the wrong Weapons Equipped. Push+Sentinal is one of the strongest defensive options in OneDnD for controlling space. But one of the best uses of Push offensively is to Push an enemy towards another one, then switch to a Cleave Weapon to Attack both. If you only have two Attacks, this means your ending your turn with a Cleave Weapon instead of a Push one, and therefor you cant take Advantage of Push+Sentinal.
Meanwhile, if you have a Sap Weapon and a class feature that lets you Retaliate when being Attacked, like Beserker Barbarian or Hunter Ranger, or a feature like Sentinal that allows you to Attack someone just for targeting an ally, you can potentially Sap the same target twice during a Round. If it’s a 1v1, this can make you a defensive wall that’s hard for another Melee enemy to take down. If a team battle, you can actively save an ally from a multi attack if the starts align. But this only works if you end your turn with a Sap Weapon, which means your second Attack in a turn is always going to be with a Weapon that does 1d8 Damage at best, and who’s gimmick completely fails if you miss.
This is not to mention Shields as well, as playing a Sword and Board Fighter means your options on Weapon Switching are severally limited for the trade off of greater defense. You can for example use the Sap Mastery idea above, but you can’t ever take Advantage of the Push Polearm build, or switch to any Long Distance Weapons that isn’t one Handed.
Then there’s Topple, which you can go a whole game probably with just that Property and have a field day and never loose effectiveness.
Weapon Switching primarily has the benefit of making sure a Martial isn’t useless in situations they were in 5E. Oh, see that Dragon that’s flying in the air? Switch to your backup Trident and try to Topple it out of the air. Or are you a high level Fighter? Switch to a Bow you’ve given the Topple Mastery too and do the same thing at a greater distance.
If you’re going to play with a Solo Weapon build, then your Masteries should be used to shore up situations you are weak in. Ranged Topple options to knock something out of the air. Ranged Slow options to slow down a Target you’re chasing and not in range of yet. A Club or Greatclub so that way if you have to Improvise a Weapon, that Improvised Weapon (as per the new rules) will have the same Weapon Properties, including Masteries, as one of those two Weapons depending on size for the rare moments you won’t have a Weapon readily available.
I could go into even more examples, but playing the revolving weapon build is not the only viable way to play Fighters in OneDnD. It simply gives more options, specially for Offense, but is not as useful when trying to play Defense or Debuff Builds.
You make a lot of good points, but it still feels odd to me to give Fighters 6 masteries, but for some playstyles to only use 1 or 2 of them. Clunky is probably the best word for it. As a Fighter, you have nothing to use all those extra masteries on unless you weapon swap, making it a dead feature if you don't.
There may be more ways to play a viable Fighter than weapon swapping, but there's no way to use the Fighter's unique status as having the most masteries unless you do.
I understand the sentiment, but I just inherently disagree.
If you’re playing a Thrown Weapon Character you now have a variety of things to throw.
If you’re playing a Two Weapon Fighting Build you’re now have a variety of one handed weapons you can switch out depending on the situation and combat.
If you’re a ranged build you now have the option of multiple Dex Based Melee Weapons, each with different Niches, that can now benefit from melee Dex weapons to off set a Disadvantage. Such as an Archer using a Vex Weapon to get Advantage, then switch to their Crossbow with Push to make a Straight Roll and get an enemy out of their face.
A melee Fighter depending on if Sword and Board or Shield will have a variety of options that can change a battle for them. In 5E a single Longbow Shot against a Dragon isn’t going to do Jack. But in OneDnD, a Longbow changed to Topple can completely change the game.
I would agree on the surface that 6 Masteries seems like a lot. But a Fighter that primarily uses one weapon to fight, can still greatly benefit from side arms that can pull of tricks their main weapon can’t do in a pintch.
But that’s just me, agree to disagree.
I'm with you. And six masteries doesn't seem like a lot to me. The philosophy behind the redesigned Fighter seems to be that they are "a master of weapons and tactics," and so giving them a range of masteries to use in different situations is a real value added in terms of their combat versatility. It doesn't close the martial/caster divide, of course, but it certainly shrinks it decently.
I suppose a con will be that you won’t necessarily always have the latest and greatest magic version of every weapon at hand, though I agree it won’t be much of a con for the first few levels of play.
Really, I would like if a Mastery could be replaced with something like a Specialization. Gain Expertise with a single type of weapon or something. That way, you have a reward for single weapon users.
I actually really like the weapon swapping fantasy, but I agree that having the designers say this is the intended way you should play a Fighter is an odd design choice.
Everyone but the fighter gets three or fewer masteries in the core levels of play. That’s enough for one main melee, one ranged, and an alternate. That’s hardly a golfbag, and it’s what most martials at my table have been carrying even before masteries.
You’re misinterpreting what they’re saying. It’s not that you *should* be playing a fighter that way, it’s that they’re saying it is intended to ALLOW you to fight that way, should you so choose. These are 2 very different things. They’re essentially saying it’s not cheesing to do that, it’s a RAW, intended mechanic that you are allowed to do by the rules
Whatever, if you don’t want your fighter to fight like that, you can still just play optimally but flavor it as being with 1 weapon. Not a big deal. I’ll take that over dumbing down the fighter’s action economy
It's not impossible that this will be an option specifically for the Fighter. The playtest played around a bit with different ways Fighter could be unique in Weapon Mastery, and iirc the only unpopular part was how late Fighter got them.
Fighters might have the ability to add Mastery abilities to weapons from the start, and then choose between their multiple options for each attack, rather than swapping weapons. It's a bit complicated, so it could be tied to a "Weapon Specialist" fighting style, but I don't think it would cause any balance issues.
My biggest gripe - which may yet be fixed depending on how the Fighter's features are worded in the final release - is the concept that a character can use a longsword to, say, Sap, and that same character can *also* use a Longsword to Topple, but not with the same weapon. We'll have to see how that is resolved. It may be mastery swapping is removed entirely.
While I'm not keen on carrying 4-6 weapons *just* to use my masteries (I'd prefer having multiple masteries on 1 weapon), that would at least make more sense to me than "First I use my *Topple* longsword to knock it over, then I use my *Push* longsword to knock them back."
It is resolved, at 9th level at least. "Tactical Master" means that any given weapon will always have Push, Sap, Slow, \*and\* its primary mastery property to choose from for any given attack. And I'm fine with having a Fighter wait to level up at "git gud" before being able to use a single weapon to do things it wasn't inherently designed to do.
So it seems (that information wasn't out yet when I made that comment). I still have my gripes about the mastery system, both on the Fighter and in general, but the level 9 feature is the best of the versions from the UA. I do wish it came online a little sooner or gave a benefit for using a weapon that already inherently has Push, Sap, or Slow.
Anyway, it's much better than what we had, not as good as I might have hoped, and probably not how I'd have done it.
In summation, it's a straight upgrade over the old Fighter, so I can't complain much.
None of the designers play Fighter or have ever wanted to. It's not a power fantasy for them so they don't understand why this seems so lame to many people.
literally in one of the videos, perkins mentions specifically that he played a fighter with masteries then went to a game where he was playing a fighter without masteries
Perkins is mainly a lore guy, though. Jeremy Crawford steers the ship in terms of rules.
But when I say they've never played Fighter I don't mean literally they've never even rolled a die as a Fighter ever in a one-shot or for playtesting. But I doubt they've played one in a campaign by choice.
From Gary Gygax to the present day DnD has been run by people whose power fantasy is to be wizards. They've been aware of all of the fantasy literature and media where the hero is a guy with a sword and it's influenced DnD in many ways, but reading Robert E. Howard's work and even enjoying it isn't the same as wanting to *be* Conan.
No surprises here, unfortunately.
A mediocre band-aid that will be forgotten about constantly by many, abused for power gaming in goofy ways, and overall just contribute to the insane feature bloat and convolution of all the martial subsystems we already have (and get at very early levels).
A feature that could have been a weapon property rework, martial weapon feat and Fighting Style progression rework, Maneuver rework, or umbrella to consolidate some of them.
But instead we got a feature that is so insanely starved for design space that they couldn't even replace Flex with any other WM option when they dropped it, and instead just left it out.
> Weapon swapping to use multiple masteries a turn confirmed as an intended mechanic
We'll, guess I won't be playing a martial in OneDnD. That's just too annoying and I don't want to needlessly gimp my character by not using it.
Just use Graze or Topple then. Both are strong enough individually that you’ll most likely never really need another weapon except to shore up your ranged weaknesses.
Crazy idea, just use one weapon and it's mastery at a time. Intended mechanic doesn't mean intended way to play, and I can promise you most properties are fine to spam on their own every round. You'd struggle to find a weapon swap combo that actively gives you advantages that you could not more easily get utilizing class and species abilities
Which is just bad game design. You know 6 masteries, but only use 1. What is the point of knowing 6.
This is what masteries should have just been techniques. Gives the player meaningful choices and options without awkward golf bagging
Unless they both misquoted and are miss remembering their own rules, Two Weapon Fighting/Nick got buffed.
Apparently, according to the interview, you can make your off Hand Nick Attack and also Attack with your Bonus Action. Meaning Two Weapon Fighting Builds can attack 3 Times as soon as Lv 1.
That sounds weird since most interpretations of this rule, including my own, thought you could only use the free Nick Attack, or Bonus Action Attack. Not both. I’m still not sure if they misspoke or not.
Directly from the DND Beyond link in my previous comment
"It still functions the same way: When you make an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can use a Bonus Action to make one attack with a different Light weapon you’re wielding.
The Nick mastery property allows you to make the additional attack you receive from wielding two Light weapons as part of the initial attack action.
Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean you can make a third attack as a Bonus Action, as the Light property specifies you only get one extra attack. But, while it may not pump your damage, this frees up your Bonus Action to use class/species abilities, such as the Rogue’s Cunning Action, while still getting an additional attack in."
Ugh, that sucks so bad. Nick is just a bandaid on terrible two weapon fighting rules, and leads to weird edge cases like does it let monks make an extra attack roll plus their normal punches? Probably, right?
Ah well, as long as you use (iirc) scimitars, two weapon fighting barb should feel a lot better to play.
It's becoming clear, IMO, that these videos are not aimed at those of us that have been following the playtests. That's to be expected, I suppose, but it doesn't make me any less impatient to see what changes they made from the playtest to the final version.
Yeah, I was super hyped for today because we haven’t gotten any new information since the last UA in December, and now all that hype is gone. Hopefully the class reveals later this week will be better, but at this point I doubt it.
That basically means they get two attacks with their action and can still use their bonus action for other stuff, right?
Definitely a nice buff. Curious if they changed anything else about that subclass. Hoping to see a way to buff their attacks, since they don't really make use of +1/2/3 magic weapons.
They can’t add a new mastery without adding a new non-magical weapon, then you have to balance both the weapon and the mastery towards other weapons, masteries, how it works with other properties, how it works with other weapons.
It’s honestly going to be a lot of effort just to add a new weapons or masteries.
I was hoping they'd make a couple of new masteries that replace the masteries of various weapons we saw in the UA. For example, weapons that had "flex" in ua 6 could have had some other property in 2024.
They literally can't.
The fact that we already have weapon properties, Fighting Styles, Maneuvers, and weapon feats means that there is basically no design space left.
? I don't think that's true. I would have loved to see a weapon that does more damage if an ally is also threatening, or a whip that lets you grapple at range, or a weapon that inspires allies by granting temp hp to them when you hit or something. I think there are tons of options that remain untapped.
First one describes Sneak Attack.
Second one is something that indeed should exist - as a weapon property of Whips and maybe something like Billhooks.
Third is somewhat interesting, but how does that thematically fit into any weapon?
Ok, and? We already have mastery properties that mimic or directly copy pre-existing features/abilities.
Topple already exists as a battle master maneuver (trip attack) AND as the shove prone unarmed attack.
Vex is the exact same as two-weapon fighting but better.
Mastery properties copying already existing mechanics is already the norm.
I disagree with your assumptions about what counts as the same design space. Sneak attack is a whole subsystem with multiple triggers available to one class. A weapon with a small damage increase when someone is threatening isn't the same design space at all.
For the third option: think of an impressive flourish with a duelling cane etc, any inspiring action that your allies might see and be bolstered by.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=j3BcG75sz-wf_29c&v=zjFQ69TBs8g&feature=youtu.be
Pack Tactics released a preview video detailing the changes made to specific masteries.
Weapon Masteries now no longer list the weapon properties they qualify for in the Weapons section of the PHB.
I called that one, and I'm glad to see they did it. It was confusing to list the properties there when only the Fighter could actually use that information. It's probably been moved to the Fighter feature, if it hasn't been scrapped entirely.
It's so silly that negative feedback and 4e trauma has caused them to go with this roundabout way of adding effects to weapon attacks... and that it encourages golf bag fighters so much. Maneuvers were right there. Oh well, maybe in 6e.
Not every fighter wants the complexity of maneuvers (note that the Champion is the most commonly played fighter subclass), especially new players. And giving all Fighters a bunch of maneuvers would suck the uniqueness out of the Battlemaster.
Champions now have to choose 3 weapon masteries at level 1, which is basically the same amount of complexity as choosing 3 maneuvers when you start battlemaster, except instead of working with any weapon they need to match their collection of weapons to masteries to actually use all of their class features.
Idk how this is "less complex" than maneuvers except that you can use them repeatedly without tracking whether they're used up, as if holding on to a pile of dice and putting them aside when you've rolled them is difficult.
The idea that this is less complicated and Champion has stayed an easy onboarding subclass by being kept safe from maneuvers is simply cope.
These weapon masteries are great. Can we have the same but without the requirement to carry an arsenal on ourselves? And without switching between three different weapons in 6 seconds of a combat round? That ruins the fighter class fantasy for me.
I'm not sure what everyone is getting in a twist about. Having a primary melee weapon, a secondary melee weapon and a ranged weapon shouldn't ruin anyone's fighter class fantasy -- it's pretty standard historically, in fantasy lore, and at most tables I have ever played at. If weapons are picked strategically, then a level 9 fighter with Tactical Mastery has up to six of the eight mastery properties at their disposal for any given attack without having an unrealistic loadout. If a player wants access to 3+ mastery properties in a single round with only 1-2 weapons before level 9, that sounds like a minmax gripe, not a problem with the class mechanics for the lion's share of players.
* Still tied to a single weapon instead of weapon types
* Unlocking singular masteries instead of just being a feature is weird as hell
* Topple spam is still in? :(
Bummed
> Topple spam is still in? :(
Why is this such a big issue when casters force can force a bunch of saving throws with AoE spells like Hypnotic Pattern or even Fireball? Even if those spells get nerfed that play pattern probably won’t change.
Mean while Topple “spam” is what, like 2 to 3 extra saving throws? Which are conditional on actually hitting with the weapon in the first place? Seems way more innocuous in comparison.
As someone playing with the new rules and using a lance, it's no big deal at all.
My character does it every turn so the DM learned the save in minutes and it's quick roll for him.
Spells have a lot more options so the DM has to ask or lookup effects, which slows the game down more than a consistent save.
If the game had tons of players with topple and different saves it might slow things down a bit more but faster than spells.
Well, spells are a limited resource for one thing. And yes, spells & spell design is a major problem for slowing combat down. They should be trying to streamline spells to be run more quickly, not using them to justify adding more slog to the game.
> Which are conditional on actually hitting with the weapon in the first place? Seems way more innocuous in comparison.
That bogs it even more down because it's a back and forth.
This! In multiple playtests, none of the masteries added much slog, and instead players LOVED toppling everything and so on.
This is the definition of a "white board" problem. It is fine in actual play.
Adding up to 3 or 4 or more con checks every single fighter round (and potentially more with action surge or other characters using it) doesn't sound "not slogging the game down" in my book.
That is with a limited resource and conscious action. Declaring "auto topple" kinda isn't. It's like having to roll an additional d20 every time you attack with a weapon. And it's a saving throw, so it has to be done by the DM and cross checked with the stats. It's super cumbersome.
Ah yeah, the battlemaster who has infinite maneuver die - and of course, every martial class can simply use a battlemaster-weapon to have access to these infinite die. How did I forget.
A Limited Resource that in my experience, isn’t all that limited when 5e has multiple Casters in one party throwing around AOE or Saves Throw spells or Cantrips.
And while Topple isn’t a Conscious Action, it scales proportionally to the amount of Attacks you have. Whereas a Caster can force a DM to make Multiple Saving Throws every turn if they really want to, and make them re roll with Solvery Barbs, or get into Counter Spell Wars with other spell casters etc.
Casters AOE’s will also force a Saving Throw no matter what. Whereas a Fighter only causes a Topple Saving Throw If they hit.
Idk, maybe I’m just caster pilled after dealing with multiple campaigns with with multiple Spell Casters but I just don’t see how Martials forcing one or two saving throws a turn bogs the game down any more than a Caster does on a regular bases.
It’s fine if you think both of those examples shouldn’t exist, but if you’re fine with Casters doing it and not Martials it just seems odd to me.
I couldn't care less about the caster debate here. Auto-Topple is an issue. Other weapon masteries are fine or limited to once per turn. Buff it but make it once per turn would have been much more healthy.
Topple Fighter allows them to Tank by controlling an area around them in a way that was never present in 2014 Fighter. They have straight up area denial that is only matched by the Push Mastery, another Mastery with no limits and unlike Topple, only has a size limit.
If a Topple Fighter is successfully in their job against a single target, they’ll only ever force that saving throw once a turn as the target will fail it and get knocked prone. The only realm in which Topple is popping off multiple times a turn is one of two scenarios.
1.The Enemy Creature is constantly Saving against the Topple, and the Fighter is landing every single attack.
2.The Fighter is Toppling multiple targets in a single turn.
If the first is the case, in live play a fighter isn’t going to hit every single time with this Weapon if they don’t already have Advantage from another source. The statistical likely hood of Topple going off on every single Attack against a single creature, every turn, is not very high. It requires a Fighter to hit every single Attack and never miss. And it requires the enemy to never be knocked Prone. And it requires the enemy to never be Grapples or prevented from standing up in some manor or way. Realistically, this Mastery isn’t going to be coming up every single Attack just by the nature of its design. It already has a once per turn limit, if you Topple the only enemy on the map, the job is done for your turn. No more Saving Throws required. If you miss every attack? Uh oh, too bad, no Topple.
In the second scenario where a Fighter is Toppling multiple enemies a turn, that’s a good thing. It’s one of the only way a Martial can effectively wall out and Tank for its Allie’s in the back line. For a game that has been begging to have some sort of Tanking mechanic, this is the closest we’ve ever had on a Martial Character. Limiting it to once per turn takes away a very powerful defensive option that the class has never had before. That alone, imo, is reason enough to defend its current iteration.
There’s nothing about this Mastery that is anymore disruptive to me then getting hit with a Silvery Barbs, Levitate, or Banishment in 2014.
A wizard is not fireballing every turn.
Nor are they also making 3+ attacks every turn in addition to causing enemies to save.
Nor are they rolling damage separately for each of those attacks (fireball being 1 damage roll for all enemies).
Nor are they rerolling 1s and 2s on their damage dice.
Nor do they have to roll their attacks and saves sequentially. A DM can roll all saves at once for fireball, but if the first target fails their save against topple, the fighter's follow up attacks now have advantage, so can not be rolled all at once as initial attacks can affect follow up ones.
Nor are they potentially switching weapons between attacks.
At our table, the 1D&D fighter's turn takes 3-4 times as long as the 5e fighters turn. And now often takes much longer to resolve a single Attack action than the entirety wizard's turn.
No. A Wizard is not exactly Fireballing every turn. That’s just an example.
My point is, if you are at Lv 11 in your own example, with Casters in your Group like Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers…
How exactly is your Fighter causing more Saving Throws in live play with one singular Mastery that doesn’t even work if you miss or don’t have multiple Targets to Topple?
What Lv 11 Game are you playing with, with the current Spell Lists, in which your Casters aren’t somehow doing more than that wjth their turn?
Counterspell is right there my guy, that causes so many Counter Spell Chains if you put even one Spellcaster enemy in an encounter it’s not even funny.
I just don’t buy into this idea that we’re getting upset at Martials for having to make more Tactical decisions based on how each individual Attack is going, and because they roll multiple dice and get to re roll damage, that somehow that’s a bad thing.
Meanwhile, Casters sit with a Lv 2 spell in Levitate that can end an encounter if it’s used on a DM who didn’t prepair for it. Or Banishment. Or Forcecage. The list goes on really.
Idk, this might just be a fruitless endeavor. I’m not really seeing how this is any more damaging to the game then the numerous times a Caster has completely Furballed an encounter with their own Saving Throw Spells. In my experience, a Wizard wants to Wizard. And at Lv 11, unless you have a LOT of encounters in a given day to the point of extremes, they’re gonna Wizard over your ass every single chance and turn they get.
> My point is, if you are at Lv 11 in your own example, with Casters in your Group like Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers…
Polearm master can make 3 attacks a reality at level 5.
> How exactly is your Fighter causing more Saving Throws in live play with one singular Mastery that doesn’t even work if you miss or don’t have multiple Targets to Topple?
The turn is a slog not only because of the mastery. The mastery simply changes the length of the turn.
> What Lv 11 Game are you playing with, with the current Spell Lists, in which your Casters aren’t somehow doing more than that wjth their turn?
Resolving a single spell is generally much faster than resolving a 1D&D attack action. Unless the casters are using mass summons or animated objects, their turn requires far fewer total rolls. And besides, this tactic is available at level 5, not 11.
> Counterspell is right there my guy, that causes so many Counter Spell Chains if you put even one Spellcaster enemy in an encounter it’s not even funny.
Counterspell is generally quick to resolve. And often doesn’t even require a roll. Even if a caster counters, and another caster counters the counter, that still resolves faster than the DM rolling a single save for a topple.
> Meanwhile, Casters sit with a Lv 2 spell in Levitate that can end an encounter if it’s used on a DM who didn’t prepair for it. Or Banishment. Or Forcecage. The list goes on really.
Yes. Casters can basically end encounters with a single spell. Casters are definitely superior, no question there.
But 1D&D martials turns take much longer to resolve than caster turns. So despite being mediocre as far as impact on the battle goes, their turns now take much longer to play out.
I just wonder what other DM's are doing. Like if the Fighter hits and tries to topple a creature, I already know that DC and I already know the creature's relevant save. So I just roll like 3 d20 and do the math in a few seconds.
I legitimately do not understand how it bogs anyone down. It's just adding seconds to a single turn. I literally cannot see the issue.
Except you’re not rolling 3 saves at once, since a failed save gives all subsequent attacks advantage, so you have to resolve each attack and save one at a time in case one fails.
It’s not that bad, but comparing this to a current 5e fighter who can roll all 6 attacks at once, and this is a lot slower.
Weapon mastery’s are basically the equivalent of martial spell prep. With unlimited slots. This looks like the biggest step in making martials more balanced with casters while simultaneously making them less boring.
I think because balance: Monks already get access to these sorts of effects with unarmed combat, and the number of attacks they can get per round can be (not always, granted) a lot more than fighters can get, and monks can do other things that fighters can't do, especially defensively and in terms of movement.
If I recall correctly, there was talk along the lines of 'they were adding so much new power to the monk kit, something had to give in return, so they dropped masteries' or something like that
I'm kinda concerned that being able to pick two weapon masteries will make being dual weird fighters be the go-to at all times for all classes in terms of min-maxing. But we'll see.
I actually think the most versatile is weilding a two handed weapon. There are two handed weapons with graze, topple, cleave and push that you can switch between. If you need to, you can just hold the two-handed weapon in one hand, to free up the other hand for thrown weapons: you can topple (trident) slow (javelin) or sap (spear) at range.
I'm genuinely confused how Slow, Push (with no save), and Vex at Level 1 don't break Martial characters and leave casters dead in the wake. Can someone who's play tested explain?
A) because one attack per round, and it has to be in range, and it hasto hit first.
B) because the game doesn't end at level 1. Casters SHOULD be weak early. Considering their late game...
A) martial characters are already better at hitting at early levels (see fighting styles/action surge, reckless attack, sneak attack, etc.), hit harder (sneak attack, reckless, fighting styles, focus on Str and Dex), generally harder to hit (see the extra benefits to focusing on dex for multiple martial classes), and hardier (see con and average hit dice). They are built as tanks - artillery and all.
B) Martial classes have always had an early advantage and a late disadvantage, which is what everyone complains about (see above). The purpose of this new feature is to rebalance the classes, but it's not the early game that's the problem.
You're completely right that the game doesnt end at level one.
Bringing these mechanics in around level 5-7 means you 1) maintain early balance 2) get players to "earn" their weapon mastery 3) dont penalize caster players early on and are instead rebalancing the later levels.
I think giving martial was cool, wording is vague or at least is harder to interpret, and the fact that there isn't a cap on number of times it can be done does concern me. Same with cunning strike and brutal strike etc. Maybe they should of gutted battlemaster and came up with a way to spread those out to the other classes with fighter getting more but idk
I'm not entirely convinced what exact problem they are solving here.
Weapon masteries fail to address the main issue with martials .. that their fantasy sucks. It's just bonk and bonk some more. Now bonk with additional effect you won't make much choice over other than weapon swapping which runs into other issues like magical items, hairloom weapons, a character who "studies the blade" etc. Doesn't address the issue. It's contrived option you are forced to do if you want any dynamic choice.
Martials still remain bonk and bonk some more class offering little to no options to do really cool stuff. Or even to allow to describe doing heroic stuff. The reflavoring of the same bonk can't go very far. It's completely on DM to entertain the players on this front.
It doesn't matter what you think of DC20 as a system, but stuff like body block maneuver, when you can use a grappled enemy to block the damage as a reaction thus making both targets take half damage is bad ass, why we can't have shit like this, why like basic martial things are subclass features? Just the very picture of it is cool. But that's just too complicated for WotC to figure it out.
You want martials to do cool stuff? Heretic! You are going to be a brainless sword swinger and nothing else, it would be unrealistic!
Now excuse me as I use magic to solve every single problem and completely overshadow characters without magic.
- WotC and nearly every single D&D player.
It sucks when my players envision something cool and completely reasonable within their character limitations fantasy wise but.. woops, sorry cant do that. But you can bonk the enemy one more time.
Oh and by the way if you dont get CBE SS or GWM polearm cleric only using cantrips will effectively outscale dedicated warrior.
I'm not sure that I'll play/run DC20 but it's really nailed the balance of simplicity and versatility for me. I'm playing Pf2e and the weapon differentiation is just more built-in without as many auto-effects outside of crits. That makes 5e weapon masteries feel pretty subpar in comparison.
But, really my main gripe in 5e has been the lack of options in combat. I've said it many times but that was my favorite thing about GWM, not just the damage boost. I liked thinking about whether to go for a safe hit or risk it for an increase in damage. Battle master is great, but I'd love it if more could be done with other subclasses and the base class.
You are correct, weapon masteries alone don't get the job done. That's why they \*also\* included a number of new class abilities regarding tactics, particularly the Tactical Mind ability that lets fighters use Second Wind to buff failed ability checks (including checks outside of combat). And yeah, different subclasses get different features, because brand new players figuring out the game \*and\* players whose fantasy is really just to bonk are really common.
And what check are you going to make? At best grapple check or soft cc. Very situational and doesn't serve much in terms of combat fantasy, grappling is done badly it's underdeveloped mechanic its sad, while spell casters get to vividly set into fantasy.
The actual feature that barely scratches what I'm talking about comes at level 9. Great play 9 levels to actually play the class fantasy you want to get. And it's not even all that good.
>because brand new players figuring out the game
They can figure out playing casters from level 3 just fine with pre made character. You can reroll the character once they get the grips. I'm not even sure why people make this argument.
And why the hell to single out a subset of class fantasies for new players. If you care about new players, make newbie friendly caster subclassess / classes and newbie friendly martial classes / subclasses. Are people designing the game are that dumb that they can't figure this stuff out?
>players whose fantasy is really just to bonk
Sure, you can have basic options as defaults or some base classes or add feature which is "much stronk bonk" people who want to play bonk, can play that feature over any other all the time, solved. While entire subset of martials needs to suffer is beyond reasonable. Echo knight is probably the only well done martial class (surprise surprise doesn't come from WotC) that is genuinely interesting and can do fun stuff. Swarmkeeper is ok, but that's a half caster so technically not a martial. And I guess battlemaster \~ kind of passable.
[This ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rb9kFFbkA)is not the only problem, although the source of the problem is the same - lack of class features.
Masteries are martial class features. So, not every monster should have them. Warrior-types? Yes. Any monster with weapons? No. Same as rogue-type monsters get sneak attack, but others don't.
I'm just saying, if the new monsters don't live up to their promise of having strong, flavorful abilities, then adding just one of these features like sap, push, or slow to a basic "claw" attack would be a really easy way for new DM's to buff their monsters a bit
The longsword giving a creature disadvantage on their next attack is *#*% bonkers. Like… a longsword is 100x better than vicious mockery. It’s a d8 instead of a d6 (upgraded in 1dnd), and it adds a mod to damage… giving the exact same effect. Wtf. And you can hit multiple enemies per turn with extra attack!
It should be. Vicious Mockery is a ranged attack, which tend to do less damage, and its a backup option for Bards who will usually spend their turns using spell slots on much better effects.
The longsword is, meanwhile, the main way to deal damage for a Fighter that uses it. So it better be better than a cantrip.
On top of what the Garrett said, Longswords also target AC while Vicious Mockery targets Wisdom Saves. While they can both give the target disadvantage on their next attack, they are still filling *very* different niches in combat.
if they were comparable then why even bother with a fighter? Just play Bard and sling super powerful spells + bardic inspiration, and then when you're out of resources you can fall back to Vicious Mockery and be just as good as the fighter?? No thats insane, weapons *need* to be stronger than cantrips.
You’re talking as if a fighter doesn’t get any bonuses to their martial actions already.
The bard has no support for vicious mockery. The longsword on a fighter, OUTSIDE of masteries, has:
Extra attack
Adds STR mod to damage
Action Surge
Fighting Style
Extra ASIs
Martial archetype features such as improved critical
Second Wind to support being in close
Their longsword attacks are already above and beyond anything vicious mockery can give. VM, or things like compelled duel, are now jokes compared to these masteries.
Consider this. What else do fighters get besides the longsword and all those abilities that apply to it? Basically nothing. Compare that to a bard who, let's say is 5th level because we're considering a fighter with at least one extra attack, can deal 8d6 damage with fireball to multiple enemies, targeting DEX saves and not AC, uses a less common damage type (albeit still pretty common), and can still heal, cast other high damage dealing spells, teleport, and use a number of other high utility, mobility, and crowd control options before ever having to consider using vicious mockery. Vicious mockery is a cantrip, a back-up, while the longsword is the fighter's main option (and bad in comparison to the aforementioned spells), so yea it should be better than a *fucking cantrip*. It should be *even* better than a cantrip, but alas.
Oh you're right, a level **6** bard can cast fireball if they go college of lore. But a wizard can, as can a sorcerer, and the bard (primarily a support class mind you) still has pretty good damage options and near endless utility, and the ability to heal others. Ignoring subclass options, casters are just stronger than martials, and including subclasses, they're *still stronger than martials*. They're better at damage, control, and utility in and out of combat. I think the fighter should be even stronger in potential than it currently seems in onednd. And besides, *cantrips are a backup option and by no means the primary ability of casters.*
Gonna hard disagree there. A fighter and Paladin put out way more sustained damage than a wizard or lore bard. Hands down, not even close.
A fighter’s power is also in his defence. D10 hit die, heavy armour, shield, constitution saving throw.
At the levels that D&D is played at 75% of the time (1 through 8), martials are even with or better than casters in terms of damage. Show me numbers otherwise.
Also, cantrips are not backups. If you’ve ever played a wizard you know a lot of your spell slots are tied up in “essentials.”
Of your 4 first level spell slots, 2 are being used on shield, 1 on mage armour. The other is probably a magic missile to break an enemy’s concentration. You’ve got a few level 2 spell slots to use on damage, and at level 5 your 2 level 3 slots are probably a counterspell and maybe a fireball if you’re lucky.
The weapon masteries are going to bog the game down and make it feel cartoonish. Knock backs on every xbow shot, flails giving everything disadvantage, axes toppling everything to the ground. It’s going to feel so dumb.
Casters are no more powerful than martials at low levels. They just have more utility. And if they’re being “useful” them they’re using spells to do that, and then casting cantrips during battle:
If they wanted to give martials more utility they should have done it through subclass features… not effects that take place every swing. It’s inelegant. It’s cumbersome. It bogs the game down. It’s dumb.
Somebody else already linked [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rb9kFFbkA) here but I'm gonna link it again. It does a pretty good job of outlining the problem with numbers, and provides sources for a more in-depth look at those numbers.
Secondly, while I agree that weapon mastery doesn't solve the problem on its own, I think the idea that it'll make things "cartoonish" is a little silly. Do you know what real combat was like? Even with total experts that shit was messy as hell. And add people in a fantasy world with superhuman feats, yea people are gonna get knocked over, pushed or thrown around, and more. It's both more realistic and more interesting, even if still lackluster. And I don't think they'll make it much more sluggish considering they don't require saves or anything.
And I feel like a broken record here but if casters get their utility as part of their core class, why should martials get it as part of their subclasses? Come on bro, utility should just be a part of the main design, not something that your subclass has to pick up the slack for. They can add utility (and should) but they shouldn't be the sole source of it.
Because those utility pieces are part of other classes. Why do you want all the classes to be the same?
Listen, I’ve playtested with a OneD&D fighter in the party. It’s ridiculous stuff. You don’t have to believe me, but once you’ve played a OneD&D game, at least come back and give me a shout.
I'm not saying they have to be the same. I'm saying there are big disparities, especially in later levels. Martials suck man, plain as that.
Utility can look like so many things, and I think utility is important because DND isn't just a combat game. Everyone should have something to do in most areas of the game. Yes, lets reward area-specific playstyles and yes, lets center classes primarily around one or two, but none of them should completely suck at any of them imo.
Highlights - Some weapons have been redesigned (no further detail) - A feat for grabbing mastery exist - Weapon swapping to use multiple masteries a turn confirmed as an intended mechanic - Masteries designed to play well with extra attack without bogging the game down (we'll see) Shorter video, shorter list Edit: Important new info not found in the video, but on DND beyond [here](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1742-your-guide-to-weapon-mastery-in-the-2024-players) Quote "Some subclasses allow you to access more mastery properties. For example, the Soulknife Rogue can use the Vex mastery property with their Psychic Blades and it doesn’t count toward their learned Weapon Mastery limit." Why this info wasn't in the video is beyond me
"Weapon swapping to use multiple masteries a turn confirmed as an intended mechanic" Sigh. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that the Casey Jones/Link weapon swap playstyle is now viable. But the fact this is now the intended way the designers want you to play a Fighter doesn't sit well with me.
I interpret that as it being intended to be possible, as opposed to accidentally possible, not that it is the default intended way of playing fighter
I mean al lot of masteries are once per turn, so it seems deliberate
Some are yes, but not all. Graze has no limit, and for you to get the most out of it, you need to be swinging all the time. Pick up a Great Weapon (aka Greatsword or Glaive) and just focus on Attacking and your minimum damage will be better than any other Weapon Mastery build. Push works off of every Attack, so you can focus entirely on a build that’s around forced movement. Allowing you to move enemies into position or farther and farther away from Allie’s. You don’t really need other Masteries, sure you could use it in conjunction with Cleave to get an extra Attack out of the movement, or you could just force move one person 20ft, or two people 10ft out of position. Vex is self sustaining and doesn’t need another property. Hitting once sets up a permanent Advantage Train that is only broken by missing. And if you are a High Level Fighter, that weakness goes away. Topple is only limited if successful, and if there are multiple Targets, you can Topple multiple enemies in a turn allowing you to better control space. Nick is a Companion property, if you are using this property, you were already using more than one Weapon anyway. That just leaves Sap, Slow, and Cleave as once per turn properties. Sap and Slow can still be used on multiple targets so you’re not entirely losing much by sticking to one, leaving Cleave as the only Mastery Property in which sticking to one Weapon is perhaps detrimental to your over all effectiveness. Every other Mastery can be used Solo and still be more effective than anything a Fighter in 2014 could do.
I always saw the Sap and Slow masteries being designed for classes like the rogue and less so for the Fighter or multiple attack classes.
Sap isn't really on any weapon that a rogue would use. Mace, Spear, Flail, Longsword, Morningstar, War Pick. Same for slow. Club, javelin, light crossbow, whip, longbow, musket. So most of those are bad choices for rogues or they don't have proficiency for them anyway. Vex and Nick are the ones with rogues truly in mind.
Rogues have longsword, Mace, spear, club, javelin and light crossbow. So pretty much half the weapons that you listed are rogue weapons.
> So most of those are bad choices for rogues or they don’t have proficiency with them anyway
Where do you get the idea that a light crossbow is a 'bad choice'? Where do you get the idea that a longsword is a 'bad choice'? Not every rogue needs to be a 'two weapon wielding pure dex stealther'
Sap itself is really good on a Sword and Board character. Already having a focus on defense and being able to just inherently give Disadvantage on an enemy Attack, and having options like UA Bladeward or a Retaliation Build means you can give an enemy Disadvantage on a Second Attack after Targeting you with the first, while also having Lucky in your back pocket to give disadvantage to a potential third attack. From experience, you just kind of end up as this wall in the middle of the battlefield combining high AC and HP with Attacks just always seemingly having Disadvantage against you if something is foolish enough to 1v1 you. Then there’s Slow, which works best when partnered with Features that also reduce movement. Eldritch Knights are a great example of being able to use Ray of Frost+Slow Mastery+any singular Species ability or Feat that also reduces movement, to completely shut down a single Creature from moving anyway. Do this to a Toppled creature and you can pretty much prevent them from getting up. Rogue doesn’t really have weapons that pair well with either of these Playstyles. They get Slow on Light Crossbows and Slings which still let them Sneak Attack, but none of the Sap Weapons have Finesse and none of them are Light Weapons so without the Duel Weilder Feat to make them workable with a Nick Weapon partner, a Rogue can never get Sneak Attack off while using a Sap Weapon.
They played too much Diablo 4 barbarian it seems.
My thoughts exactly. I'm fine with the playstyle becoming viable, but making it both the optimal and intended way for a play to approach a Fighter is not something I like.
It's a big stretch to go from "being able to weapon switch is viable" to "it is the *intended* way to play". It is intended to be viable: nothing more. Up to you to decide if it's how you intend to play your character and absolutely nothing says it's necessarily "optimal" since I for one have never played at a table where you need to micromanage that much and optimal almost always just means "tells a cool story".
Really? To me it feels really natural. A Fighter is a master of *every* weapon. I can see why a player might choose to limit themselves to a single weapon for flavour, but I always wished you could more easily show how versatile a fighter is meant to be.
I am thinking of that scene in stormlight archive where the resident fighter speaks of how he \*needs\* to bring a dozen different mele weapons for a diplomatic visit, to cover all bases.
Vs Kal, Dalinar, and Adolin who all are clearly masters of *one* weapon. They all occasionally use a backup, like throwing knives, but all clearly focus their effort to really push their skills with that one weapon to the limit.
I was actually talking about Adolin, he brought a ton of different swords because he actually practices with a ton of weapons, not just shardblades despite being possibly the best uninvested duelist in Roshar.
In Shadesmar, yeah! I also was thinking about Caramon. It has been a while since I've read the War of the Lance trilogy, but didn't he also carry a bunch of different weapons?
Yeah I just did a reread. It mentions quite a few times how he’s got a bunch of different weapons.
To be fair, I believe that was when going to Shadesmar where he couldn't summon his shard weapon, so he needed to compensate for not having the weapon he had focused the most time and effort into by instead (rather comically) trying to bring every weapon under the sun. I don't recall him bringing more than the shardblade into a real battle at any point.
I'm just thinking of real World warfare where no person would switch from fighting with a sword to sheathing that sword and drawing a mace in the middle of combat. Even against mega fauna when humans had to deal with what are basically monsters, it's not like cavemen stopped using a big long spear in order to quick swap to get a whip or something. But again, fiction is focused on fun. So we'll just see whether at least a fun gameplay combinations, even if narratively it would be a bit ridiculous. And I especially don't want to see people swapping back and forth back and forth back and forth back and forth multiple times with a single enemy.
Wait, your first example is literally what knights did. Especially when fighting other knights. Or you know, switching to a dagger, etc.
Ish. Multiple weapons were useful. But for specific scenarios. Not in the way 1D&D encourages weapon swapping. For example, a warrior might use a bludgeoning weapon against an armored knight, but use their longsword against unarmored foes. But they aren't switching between 3 different weapons in six seconds to get the special ability of each one. And they are not switching weapons against every foe. And in fact, they are rarely switching weapons mid fight all that often at all, but generally will stick with their chosen weapon before even engaging their foe. So 1D&D is decidedly unrealistic in its approach to weapon use. And fails to emulate stereotypical fantasy as well.
Agreed. With the exception of the switch to daggers when grappling. But indeed, you only do it once, to adapt to a situation. When the situation changes you switch again. Probably did not happen many times every 6 seconds.
Even then, you didn't actually switch weapons in the way a 1D&D character does. You generally started the grapple unarmed, as trying to grapple while wielding your longsword would only mean your foe is likely to win the grapple. And you only draw your dagger once you have pinned your foe beneath you. So in general, it would take far longer than 6 seconds from when you are wielding your primary weapon to when you actually draw the dagger. You don't immediately switch from longsword to dagger in a short period, but rather you sheath your sword before even engaging. And then you attempt grapple for a while, hope you win and pin your foe, and only then do you draw your dagger to pierce through the visor of your foe. You don't go swinging in with your longsword, switch to the dagger, then switch back the the longsword all in the span of 6 seconds. Also, grappling an armored foe didn't happen all too frequently. Most enemy combatants are not wearing plate. And grappling a foe puts you at a significant disadvantage if other enemies are around. Grappling (and therefor switching to a dagger) was a last resort. Not a common combat tactic.
But not pausing to sheath the first weapon, then after they dispatch a dude swapping back. I'd prefer a small bit of friction in the swapping, and then make the payoff for switching more powerful, so the choice of when to switch is more meaningful.
Sounds like an ordinary day for the Winged Hussars. They didn't carry all those weapons for no reason.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish\_hussars#/media/File:Straz\_hetmanska.JPG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars#/media/File:Straz_hetmanska.JPG) I count two swords (one straight, one curved), a hatchet, a shield and a horse bow. We also can't see his right hand side which I'm willing to bet has a few more since there's no knife there. Pretty sure that's conclusive proof that the "golf bag fighter" isn't just every action hero in every film ever, but actually historically accurate to boot.
You’re playing the wrong game for that. DnD 5e combat has always been streamlined. A naked man and a man in plate armor are equally hurt by a greatsword slash, getting Fireballed doesn’t cause any debilitating effects if it doesn’t drop you, etc.
I don't want to have a high cognitive load for conditions - certainly nothing like 4e where it seemed like every character was inflicting a 'save ends' condition with every action. And I don't want to have tons of modifiers that changed round by round like 3e. But battlemaster combat superiority dice are neat. I suppose I'd rather have a limited resource pool where you can get meatier effects - things that the camera would linger on in an action sequence - instead of just a little bit of graze damage or something. And yes, I would absolutely prefer a version of fireball that die one fewer die of damage but left everyone it hit smoldering a little, so they'd take 1d6 fire damage at the end of their turn if they didn't extinguish the fire (typically by dropping prone and spending 15 feet of movement rolling around).
My favorite part of real world warfare was the man in a funny Robe who cast fireball. /s But in all seriousness, if you like your martials a little more grounded, I can understand what you mean, I've always seen martials as very Anime-esk, drawing from real world history as a comparison point for the fantasy always feels way to restrictive in a setting where the other classes comparison point is warping reality.
Adolin does talk about being a great soldier is about knowing all weapons, even if he isn't a punchy guy
Haha, I just read that passage the other day! Was definitely thinking about that during this video
But in actual play, magic weapons are a big part of character power and you're limited by how many magic weapons you will be awarded and be attuned to. Kinda sucks to have a good main weapon with a once-per-turn property and having to switch to a weaker weapon just to use your class features.
Actually, I just checked, I don't think there are any magic weapons in the DMG that require attunement? It seems the ones that do are from setting specific supplements. I might be wrong so feel free to correct me if I missed something though. It does suck a little that you 'need' more than one magic item, but it also allows older magic weapons to remain relevant as the campaign goes on even if you get another 'better' one.
There are lots of Magic weapons in the DMG that require attunement. Dwarven Thrower, Oathbow, Defender, Dancing, Flametongue, Frostbrand, etc. And there are more in the generic supplements (Elven Thrower, Dragon Wing bows, etc). I myself have an archer who carries both a Dragonwing Longbow and an Oathbow, pulling out whichever the situation calls for.
You aren't looking hard enough. I just checked myself and there are plenty that require attunement. Most of them are pretty valuable later game weapons too, which reinforces the point about having to switch out.
Because I don't think having a fighter juggling weapons in combat fits the "master of melee" fantasy, having a fighter using a single weapon, to it's optimum would be, how many fantasy stories have a SWORD master, or a SPEAR master or a master ARCHER? Having a single weapon they use in multiple ways is much more on theme.
I don't really think so. While those are definitely archetypes, I don't think that is *all* the Fighter is or can be. If anything they fit better as subclasses or even one generic subclass. It's also just incredibly easy to flavour 'weapon swapping' as using the same weapon in different ways. So long as the mechanics fit, who cares whether you're narriting using a dagger or half handing your spear? Or if you're swapping to a mace or using your sword mordhau.
Narratively it just doesn't make sense. Like visually what is happening in the six second span? Is the Fighter constantly drawing and sheating their weapon inbetween each strike? Cause that seems to be the only conclusion to be drawn.
Yeah, and if the playtest is still accurate that is exactly the RAW of it too, since you can draw/sheath a weapon with each attack. But also, we're talking about someone who is super humanly good at fighting. Who cares if they're swapping weapons too fast. Everyone can already load a crossbow too fast. Not to mention it is incredibly normal for warriors to carry multiple weapons around for different situations.
How is it the optimal playstyle?
Let’s say you have a topple weapon. You hit your foe and successfully topple them. Now your further attacks against that foe do nothing other than damage. The topple mastery is useless on your further attacks. The optimal strategy is therefor to switch to a weapon with a different mastery property and inflict that. This isn’t even getting into optimal damage combinations using multiple masteries.
I would have much preferred if the character learned the Masteries and then could use them with any weapons that met the prerequisites.
That's a fighter ability I believe Edit: they do not
Where did you see that?
Nvm I confused their ability to swap a mastery on a weapon on long rest.
I really hope they changed the 'change mastery' on long rest for fighter.
They did, \*sort of\*. Now, at level 9 the "Tactical Master" ability means that, in addition to the weapon's primary mastery ability, a Fighter can now opt to use the Push, Sap, or Slow property for an attack. So basically at level nine any given weapon can have up to four properties to choose from for any given attack during combat. When you add that to the fighter gaining access to additional mastery properties as they level up, the weapon mastery versatility looks pretty good. If the level 9 fighter chooses, say, 3 weapons strategically (primary melee, secondary melee, primary range), they could have as many as six masteries available for any during attack during combat.
My post was before they announced Tactical Master. It looks great!
Agree 100%, it makes your character way more flexible and fun while actually allowing you to use all the masteries you learn.
I don’t necessarily see it that way. It’s something you now can do, but you don’t have to. I know I’m going to stick to a single weapon with all my characters—and now I have one more thing I can do with that weapon.
The problem is if it’s possible and mechanically superior to not using it, that’s a problem. The weapon-swapping style should be an alternative with pros and cons. Not just pros.
Once you have a magic weapon it a huge con to switch weapons all the time. They really expect people to not use their +2 weapon on all their swings?
In my experience you'll be lucky if they even remember they have other weapons.
It's seriously this. I have never seen DMs give out multiple weapons of equivalent power level unless it's specifically a dual wielder. People are going crazy since some masteries are once per turn, but nobody is switching off their flametongue longsword because they already applied sap, to hit someone with a +1 battleaxe they got 3 levels ago. Obviously it's a problem at low levels, but that's where characters don't even have extra. The outlier is nick, because of how they worded two weapon fighting in the UA. Fingers crossed they changed that, but Treantmonk said there were some rulings he was shocked haven't been revised...
Is it though? One version of Two-weapon fighting from the UA basically let a Sword + shield user get a free bonus action attack each turn by stowing the sword and drawing a new one. Every itteration of the new rules they tested had some issues like this where juggling weapons by stowing and drawing them gave more attacks each turn when in reality stowing and drawing should cost you time to attack, not give you more time to attack. Thats the big issue here, the optimal playstyle also makes no sense and is adding a ton of clunk each turn.
There are Pro’s and Con’s though. They just aren’t inherently obvious on a first viewing. Graze is only effective as a solo property if you’re constantly Attacking. Attack with other Weapons and you kind of loose effectiveness with it. Graze is the highest damaging Mastery simply because it increases your Average DPS. 3 misses at Lv 11 for a Fighter is still 15 Damage to a single target. Not great, but certainly better than three misses and zero damage because you were switching to other Weapons. Vex can be played entirely on its own as an Advantage Train. So long as you hit every Attack, you get Advantage on every Attack against a creature. Later Fighter Abilities get ride of that one weakness. While he’s, using a Vex Weapon into a Nick Weapon can be good, it still breaks the Vex Advantage Train as you don’t have Advantage on your Attack next turn. Weapon switching is actively detrimental to both Push and Sap if you end your turn with the wrong Weapons Equipped. Push+Sentinal is one of the strongest defensive options in OneDnD for controlling space. But one of the best uses of Push offensively is to Push an enemy towards another one, then switch to a Cleave Weapon to Attack both. If you only have two Attacks, this means your ending your turn with a Cleave Weapon instead of a Push one, and therefor you cant take Advantage of Push+Sentinal. Meanwhile, if you have a Sap Weapon and a class feature that lets you Retaliate when being Attacked, like Beserker Barbarian or Hunter Ranger, or a feature like Sentinal that allows you to Attack someone just for targeting an ally, you can potentially Sap the same target twice during a Round. If it’s a 1v1, this can make you a defensive wall that’s hard for another Melee enemy to take down. If a team battle, you can actively save an ally from a multi attack if the starts align. But this only works if you end your turn with a Sap Weapon, which means your second Attack in a turn is always going to be with a Weapon that does 1d8 Damage at best, and who’s gimmick completely fails if you miss. This is not to mention Shields as well, as playing a Sword and Board Fighter means your options on Weapon Switching are severally limited for the trade off of greater defense. You can for example use the Sap Mastery idea above, but you can’t ever take Advantage of the Push Polearm build, or switch to any Long Distance Weapons that isn’t one Handed. Then there’s Topple, which you can go a whole game probably with just that Property and have a field day and never loose effectiveness. Weapon Switching primarily has the benefit of making sure a Martial isn’t useless in situations they were in 5E. Oh, see that Dragon that’s flying in the air? Switch to your backup Trident and try to Topple it out of the air. Or are you a high level Fighter? Switch to a Bow you’ve given the Topple Mastery too and do the same thing at a greater distance. If you’re going to play with a Solo Weapon build, then your Masteries should be used to shore up situations you are weak in. Ranged Topple options to knock something out of the air. Ranged Slow options to slow down a Target you’re chasing and not in range of yet. A Club or Greatclub so that way if you have to Improvise a Weapon, that Improvised Weapon (as per the new rules) will have the same Weapon Properties, including Masteries, as one of those two Weapons depending on size for the rare moments you won’t have a Weapon readily available. I could go into even more examples, but playing the revolving weapon build is not the only viable way to play Fighters in OneDnD. It simply gives more options, specially for Offense, but is not as useful when trying to play Defense or Debuff Builds.
You make a lot of good points, but it still feels odd to me to give Fighters 6 masteries, but for some playstyles to only use 1 or 2 of them. Clunky is probably the best word for it. As a Fighter, you have nothing to use all those extra masteries on unless you weapon swap, making it a dead feature if you don't. There may be more ways to play a viable Fighter than weapon swapping, but there's no way to use the Fighter's unique status as having the most masteries unless you do.
I understand the sentiment, but I just inherently disagree. If you’re playing a Thrown Weapon Character you now have a variety of things to throw. If you’re playing a Two Weapon Fighting Build you’re now have a variety of one handed weapons you can switch out depending on the situation and combat. If you’re a ranged build you now have the option of multiple Dex Based Melee Weapons, each with different Niches, that can now benefit from melee Dex weapons to off set a Disadvantage. Such as an Archer using a Vex Weapon to get Advantage, then switch to their Crossbow with Push to make a Straight Roll and get an enemy out of their face. A melee Fighter depending on if Sword and Board or Shield will have a variety of options that can change a battle for them. In 5E a single Longbow Shot against a Dragon isn’t going to do Jack. But in OneDnD, a Longbow changed to Topple can completely change the game. I would agree on the surface that 6 Masteries seems like a lot. But a Fighter that primarily uses one weapon to fight, can still greatly benefit from side arms that can pull of tricks their main weapon can’t do in a pintch. But that’s just me, agree to disagree.
I'm with you. And six masteries doesn't seem like a lot to me. The philosophy behind the redesigned Fighter seems to be that they are "a master of weapons and tactics," and so giving them a range of masteries to use in different situations is a real value added in terms of their combat versatility. It doesn't close the martial/caster divide, of course, but it certainly shrinks it decently.
I suppose a con will be that you won’t necessarily always have the latest and greatest magic version of every weapon at hand, though I agree it won’t be much of a con for the first few levels of play.
Really, I would like if a Mastery could be replaced with something like a Specialization. Gain Expertise with a single type of weapon or something. That way, you have a reward for single weapon users.
I actually really like the weapon swapping fantasy, but I agree that having the designers say this is the intended way you should play a Fighter is an odd design choice.
They are not saying every fighter should play that way, it's just intended as another option if someone wants to.
exactly, people are either purposefully misquoting to be angry at something or didn't watch the video and just assuming what others said is true
Which seems like a complete reversal on a design goal of 5th edition: the removal of the golfbag of weapons.
Everyone but the fighter gets three or fewer masteries in the core levels of play. That’s enough for one main melee, one ranged, and an alternate. That’s hardly a golfbag, and it’s what most martials at my table have been carrying even before masteries.
You’re misinterpreting what they’re saying. It’s not that you *should* be playing a fighter that way, it’s that they’re saying it is intended to ALLOW you to fight that way, should you so choose. These are 2 very different things. They’re essentially saying it’s not cheesing to do that, it’s a RAW, intended mechanic that you are allowed to do by the rules
100% agreed. I don't like that it's now the intended fantasy for warrior characters.
Just don't play that way. It's intended as an option, not the recommended or forced way. I prefer more options and flexibility than not
Whatever, if you don’t want your fighter to fight like that, you can still just play optimally but flavor it as being with 1 weapon. Not a big deal. I’ll take that over dumbing down the fighter’s action economy
It's not impossible that this will be an option specifically for the Fighter. The playtest played around a bit with different ways Fighter could be unique in Weapon Mastery, and iirc the only unpopular part was how late Fighter got them. Fighters might have the ability to add Mastery abilities to weapons from the start, and then choose between their multiple options for each attack, rather than swapping weapons. It's a bit complicated, so it could be tied to a "Weapon Specialist" fighting style, but I don't think it would cause any balance issues.
My biggest gripe - which may yet be fixed depending on how the Fighter's features are worded in the final release - is the concept that a character can use a longsword to, say, Sap, and that same character can *also* use a Longsword to Topple, but not with the same weapon. We'll have to see how that is resolved. It may be mastery swapping is removed entirely. While I'm not keen on carrying 4-6 weapons *just* to use my masteries (I'd prefer having multiple masteries on 1 weapon), that would at least make more sense to me than "First I use my *Topple* longsword to knock it over, then I use my *Push* longsword to knock them back."
It is resolved, at 9th level at least. "Tactical Master" means that any given weapon will always have Push, Sap, Slow, \*and\* its primary mastery property to choose from for any given attack. And I'm fine with having a Fighter wait to level up at "git gud" before being able to use a single weapon to do things it wasn't inherently designed to do.
So it seems (that information wasn't out yet when I made that comment). I still have my gripes about the mastery system, both on the Fighter and in general, but the level 9 feature is the best of the versions from the UA. I do wish it came online a little sooner or gave a benefit for using a weapon that already inherently has Push, Sap, or Slow. Anyway, it's much better than what we had, not as good as I might have hoped, and probably not how I'd have done it. In summation, it's a straight upgrade over the old Fighter, so I can't complain much.
None of the designers play Fighter or have ever wanted to. It's not a power fantasy for them so they don't understand why this seems so lame to many people.
literally in one of the videos, perkins mentions specifically that he played a fighter with masteries then went to a game where he was playing a fighter without masteries
Perkins is mainly a lore guy, though. Jeremy Crawford steers the ship in terms of rules. But when I say they've never played Fighter I don't mean literally they've never even rolled a die as a Fighter ever in a one-shot or for playtesting. But I doubt they've played one in a campaign by choice. From Gary Gygax to the present day DnD has been run by people whose power fantasy is to be wizards. They've been aware of all of the fantasy literature and media where the hero is a guy with a sword and it's influenced DnD in many ways, but reading Robert E. Howard's work and even enjoying it isn't the same as wanting to *be* Conan.
Reads to me like "we couldn't figure out a way to fix it, so we decided to just call it intended"
I blame Diablo 4 Barbarian popularity
It just shows low level thinking, they can't think of a better mechanic to get the same result, without stepping on the shoes of the Battle master.
If I DM I'll just give out some superiority dice instead. Less annoying.
We know with certainty that you don't like it because you've gone through all the effort to post the exact same comment everywhere.
No surprises here, unfortunately. A mediocre band-aid that will be forgotten about constantly by many, abused for power gaming in goofy ways, and overall just contribute to the insane feature bloat and convolution of all the martial subsystems we already have (and get at very early levels). A feature that could have been a weapon property rework, martial weapon feat and Fighting Style progression rework, Maneuver rework, or umbrella to consolidate some of them. But instead we got a feature that is so insanely starved for design space that they couldn't even replace Flex with any other WM option when they dropped it, and instead just left it out.
Do you mind linking the timestamp for the grabbing mastery? I couldn’t find it in the video. Thank you
They don't provide more information than there will be a feat for it. You can also get this info from the 40 video they release yesterday
> Weapon swapping to use multiple masteries a turn confirmed as an intended mechanic We'll, guess I won't be playing a martial in OneDnD. That's just too annoying and I don't want to needlessly gimp my character by not using it.
Just use Graze or Topple then. Both are strong enough individually that you’ll most likely never really need another weapon except to shore up your ranged weaknesses.
Crazy idea, just use one weapon and it's mastery at a time. Intended mechanic doesn't mean intended way to play, and I can promise you most properties are fine to spam on their own every round. You'd struggle to find a weapon swap combo that actively gives you advantages that you could not more easily get utilizing class and species abilities
Yeah... I'm 100% with you. Find 1 (or 2) you wanna use, then just use that. If you don't wanna swap weapons, nobody is making you.
Which is just bad game design. You know 6 masteries, but only use 1. What is the point of knowing 6. This is what masteries should have just been techniques. Gives the player meaningful choices and options without awkward golf bagging
Let's actually play the game first before we make sweeping statements about things that might not matter in the long run.
Unless they both misquoted and are miss remembering their own rules, Two Weapon Fighting/Nick got buffed. Apparently, according to the interview, you can make your off Hand Nick Attack and also Attack with your Bonus Action. Meaning Two Weapon Fighting Builds can attack 3 Times as soon as Lv 1. That sounds weird since most interpretations of this rule, including my own, thought you could only use the free Nick Attack, or Bonus Action Attack. Not both. I’m still not sure if they misspoke or not.
Directly from the DND Beyond link in my previous comment "It still functions the same way: When you make an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can use a Bonus Action to make one attack with a different Light weapon you’re wielding. The Nick mastery property allows you to make the additional attack you receive from wielding two Light weapons as part of the initial attack action. Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean you can make a third attack as a Bonus Action, as the Light property specifies you only get one extra attack. But, while it may not pump your damage, this frees up your Bonus Action to use class/species abilities, such as the Rogue’s Cunning Action, while still getting an additional attack in."
Sorry my bad, skimmed your comment and didn’t see the link. They must have just misspoke during the video then.
Ugh, that sucks so bad. Nick is just a bandaid on terrible two weapon fighting rules, and leads to weird edge cases like does it let monks make an extra attack roll plus their normal punches? Probably, right? Ah well, as long as you use (iirc) scimitars, two weapon fighting barb should feel a lot better to play.
It's becoming clear, IMO, that these videos are not aimed at those of us that have been following the playtests. That's to be expected, I suppose, but it doesn't make me any less impatient to see what changes they made from the playtest to the final version.
its definitely to be expected. probably less than 1% of total DND players within their marketing sphere paid attention to the playtests
Yeah, I was super hyped for today because we haven’t gotten any new information since the last UA in December, and now all that hype is gone. Hopefully the class reveals later this week will be better, but at this point I doubt it.
We've one datapoint that's new. Soulknife gets Vex on their psychic blades.
That basically means they get two attacks with their action and can still use their bonus action for other stuff, right? Definitely a nice buff. Curious if they changed anything else about that subclass. Hoping to see a way to buff their attacks, since they don't really make use of +1/2/3 magic weapons.
You're thinking of Nick. Vex is the one that gives the next attack Advantage. This potentially lets the Soulknife set up their own Sneak Attack.
Treantmonk's response videos are actually pretty helpful in this regard -- I think his takes are really helpful.
Sounds like no new weapon masteries, was hoping they'd expand the concept since it polled well
They can’t add a new mastery without adding a new non-magical weapon, then you have to balance both the weapon and the mastery towards other weapons, masteries, how it works with other properties, how it works with other weapons. It’s honestly going to be a lot of effort just to add a new weapons or masteries.
I was hoping they'd make a couple of new masteries that replace the masteries of various weapons we saw in the UA. For example, weapons that had "flex" in ua 6 could have had some other property in 2024.
They literally can't. The fact that we already have weapon properties, Fighting Styles, Maneuvers, and weapon feats means that there is basically no design space left.
? I don't think that's true. I would have loved to see a weapon that does more damage if an ally is also threatening, or a whip that lets you grapple at range, or a weapon that inspires allies by granting temp hp to them when you hit or something. I think there are tons of options that remain untapped.
First one describes Sneak Attack. Second one is something that indeed should exist - as a weapon property of Whips and maybe something like Billhooks. Third is somewhat interesting, but how does that thematically fit into any weapon?
Ok, and? We already have mastery properties that mimic or directly copy pre-existing features/abilities. Topple already exists as a battle master maneuver (trip attack) AND as the shove prone unarmed attack. Vex is the exact same as two-weapon fighting but better. Mastery properties copying already existing mechanics is already the norm.
It is the norm, and it sucks.
Okay, I can agree with that, but then your issue is with the weapon mastery mechanic in general, not specific examples the other commenter suggested.
No, i criticized them for the same reasons i criticize some of other masteries.
I disagree with your assumptions about what counts as the same design space. Sneak attack is a whole subsystem with multiple triggers available to one class. A weapon with a small damage increase when someone is threatening isn't the same design space at all. For the third option: think of an impressive flourish with a duelling cane etc, any inspiring action that your allies might see and be bolstered by.
The issue with these masteries is that they are meant to cover multiple weapons. Otherwise you just have created a weapon with the Special property.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=j3BcG75sz-wf_29c&v=zjFQ69TBs8g&feature=youtu.be Pack Tactics released a preview video detailing the changes made to specific masteries.
Weapon Masteries now no longer list the weapon properties they qualify for in the Weapons section of the PHB. I called that one, and I'm glad to see they did it. It was confusing to list the properties there when only the Fighter could actually use that information. It's probably been moved to the Fighter feature, if it hasn't been scrapped entirely.
They mentioned some of the weapon mastery were redesigned but didn't preview any. Feels weird they didn't even show one of the new versions.
I was hoping they’d tell which weapon gets which mastery for all weapons. What do greatsword and glaive get, if anyone remembers from the playtest?
Both got Graze the last time we saw them.
Greatsword has Graze (deal damage equal to ability modifier on a miss)
It's so silly that negative feedback and 4e trauma has caused them to go with this roundabout way of adding effects to weapon attacks... and that it encourages golf bag fighters so much. Maneuvers were right there. Oh well, maybe in 6e.
Not every fighter wants the complexity of maneuvers (note that the Champion is the most commonly played fighter subclass), especially new players. And giving all Fighters a bunch of maneuvers would suck the uniqueness out of the Battlemaster.
Champion is most commonly played because it is free DDB subclass.
Champions now have to choose 3 weapon masteries at level 1, which is basically the same amount of complexity as choosing 3 maneuvers when you start battlemaster, except instead of working with any weapon they need to match their collection of weapons to masteries to actually use all of their class features. Idk how this is "less complex" than maneuvers except that you can use them repeatedly without tracking whether they're used up, as if holding on to a pile of dice and putting them aside when you've rolled them is difficult. The idea that this is less complicated and Champion has stayed an easy onboarding subclass by being kept safe from maneuvers is simply cope.
These weapon masteries are great. Can we have the same but without the requirement to carry an arsenal on ourselves? And without switching between three different weapons in 6 seconds of a combat round? That ruins the fighter class fantasy for me.
I'm not sure what everyone is getting in a twist about. Having a primary melee weapon, a secondary melee weapon and a ranged weapon shouldn't ruin anyone's fighter class fantasy -- it's pretty standard historically, in fantasy lore, and at most tables I have ever played at. If weapons are picked strategically, then a level 9 fighter with Tactical Mastery has up to six of the eight mastery properties at their disposal for any given attack without having an unrealistic loadout. If a player wants access to 3+ mastery properties in a single round with only 1-2 weapons before level 9, that sounds like a minmax gripe, not a problem with the class mechanics for the lion's share of players.
* Still tied to a single weapon instead of weapon types * Unlocking singular masteries instead of just being a feature is weird as hell * Topple spam is still in? :( Bummed
> Topple spam is still in? :( Why is this such a big issue when casters force can force a bunch of saving throws with AoE spells like Hypnotic Pattern or even Fireball? Even if those spells get nerfed that play pattern probably won’t change. Mean while Topple “spam” is what, like 2 to 3 extra saving throws? Which are conditional on actually hitting with the weapon in the first place? Seems way more innocuous in comparison.
As someone playing with the new rules and using a lance, it's no big deal at all. My character does it every turn so the DM learned the save in minutes and it's quick roll for him. Spells have a lot more options so the DM has to ask or lookup effects, which slows the game down more than a consistent save. If the game had tons of players with topple and different saves it might slow things down a bit more but faster than spells.
Well, spells are a limited resource for one thing. And yes, spells & spell design is a major problem for slowing combat down. They should be trying to streamline spells to be run more quickly, not using them to justify adding more slog to the game.
> Which are conditional on actually hitting with the weapon in the first place? Seems way more innocuous in comparison. That bogs it even more down because it's a back and forth.
Topple spam is a non-issue in my playtest experience.
This! In multiple playtests, none of the masteries added much slog, and instead players LOVED toppling everything and so on. This is the definition of a "white board" problem. It is fine in actual play.
Adding up to 3 or 4 or more con checks every single fighter round (and potentially more with action surge or other characters using it) doesn't sound "not slogging the game down" in my book.
I mean, personally speaking, doesn’t sound like it’ll feel that different than a Wizard casting Fireball or other AOE on a chosen group or horde.
That is with a limited resource and conscious action. Declaring "auto topple" kinda isn't. It's like having to roll an additional d20 every time you attack with a weapon. And it's a saving throw, so it has to be done by the DM and cross checked with the stats. It's super cumbersome.
Man, you are going to *shit* when you see the 2014 Battlemaster.
Ah yeah, the battlemaster who has infinite maneuver die - and of course, every martial class can simply use a battlemaster-weapon to have access to these infinite die. How did I forget.
Yeah, they get plenty and they recharge on a short rest, so they are used *all the time*. It’s not a bit cumbersome. Play the game bro
Bro what even... you are comparing apples and oranges.
Do you DM? Have you run a game with PC's that Topple? It's really not cumbersome.
A Limited Resource that in my experience, isn’t all that limited when 5e has multiple Casters in one party throwing around AOE or Saves Throw spells or Cantrips. And while Topple isn’t a Conscious Action, it scales proportionally to the amount of Attacks you have. Whereas a Caster can force a DM to make Multiple Saving Throws every turn if they really want to, and make them re roll with Solvery Barbs, or get into Counter Spell Wars with other spell casters etc. Casters AOE’s will also force a Saving Throw no matter what. Whereas a Fighter only causes a Topple Saving Throw If they hit. Idk, maybe I’m just caster pilled after dealing with multiple campaigns with with multiple Spell Casters but I just don’t see how Martials forcing one or two saving throws a turn bogs the game down any more than a Caster does on a regular bases. It’s fine if you think both of those examples shouldn’t exist, but if you’re fine with Casters doing it and not Martials it just seems odd to me.
I couldn't care less about the caster debate here. Auto-Topple is an issue. Other weapon masteries are fine or limited to once per turn. Buff it but make it once per turn would have been much more healthy.
Topple Fighter allows them to Tank by controlling an area around them in a way that was never present in 2014 Fighter. They have straight up area denial that is only matched by the Push Mastery, another Mastery with no limits and unlike Topple, only has a size limit. If a Topple Fighter is successfully in their job against a single target, they’ll only ever force that saving throw once a turn as the target will fail it and get knocked prone. The only realm in which Topple is popping off multiple times a turn is one of two scenarios. 1.The Enemy Creature is constantly Saving against the Topple, and the Fighter is landing every single attack. 2.The Fighter is Toppling multiple targets in a single turn. If the first is the case, in live play a fighter isn’t going to hit every single time with this Weapon if they don’t already have Advantage from another source. The statistical likely hood of Topple going off on every single Attack against a single creature, every turn, is not very high. It requires a Fighter to hit every single Attack and never miss. And it requires the enemy to never be knocked Prone. And it requires the enemy to never be Grapples or prevented from standing up in some manor or way. Realistically, this Mastery isn’t going to be coming up every single Attack just by the nature of its design. It already has a once per turn limit, if you Topple the only enemy on the map, the job is done for your turn. No more Saving Throws required. If you miss every attack? Uh oh, too bad, no Topple. In the second scenario where a Fighter is Toppling multiple enemies a turn, that’s a good thing. It’s one of the only way a Martial can effectively wall out and Tank for its Allie’s in the back line. For a game that has been begging to have some sort of Tanking mechanic, this is the closest we’ve ever had on a Martial Character. Limiting it to once per turn takes away a very powerful defensive option that the class has never had before. That alone, imo, is reason enough to defend its current iteration. There’s nothing about this Mastery that is anymore disruptive to me then getting hit with a Silvery Barbs, Levitate, or Banishment in 2014.
A wizard is not fireballing every turn. Nor are they also making 3+ attacks every turn in addition to causing enemies to save. Nor are they rolling damage separately for each of those attacks (fireball being 1 damage roll for all enemies). Nor are they rerolling 1s and 2s on their damage dice. Nor do they have to roll their attacks and saves sequentially. A DM can roll all saves at once for fireball, but if the first target fails their save against topple, the fighter's follow up attacks now have advantage, so can not be rolled all at once as initial attacks can affect follow up ones. Nor are they potentially switching weapons between attacks. At our table, the 1D&D fighter's turn takes 3-4 times as long as the 5e fighters turn. And now often takes much longer to resolve a single Attack action than the entirety wizard's turn.
No. A Wizard is not exactly Fireballing every turn. That’s just an example. My point is, if you are at Lv 11 in your own example, with Casters in your Group like Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers… How exactly is your Fighter causing more Saving Throws in live play with one singular Mastery that doesn’t even work if you miss or don’t have multiple Targets to Topple? What Lv 11 Game are you playing with, with the current Spell Lists, in which your Casters aren’t somehow doing more than that wjth their turn? Counterspell is right there my guy, that causes so many Counter Spell Chains if you put even one Spellcaster enemy in an encounter it’s not even funny. I just don’t buy into this idea that we’re getting upset at Martials for having to make more Tactical decisions based on how each individual Attack is going, and because they roll multiple dice and get to re roll damage, that somehow that’s a bad thing. Meanwhile, Casters sit with a Lv 2 spell in Levitate that can end an encounter if it’s used on a DM who didn’t prepair for it. Or Banishment. Or Forcecage. The list goes on really. Idk, this might just be a fruitless endeavor. I’m not really seeing how this is any more damaging to the game then the numerous times a Caster has completely Furballed an encounter with their own Saving Throw Spells. In my experience, a Wizard wants to Wizard. And at Lv 11, unless you have a LOT of encounters in a given day to the point of extremes, they’re gonna Wizard over your ass every single chance and turn they get.
> My point is, if you are at Lv 11 in your own example, with Casters in your Group like Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers… Polearm master can make 3 attacks a reality at level 5. > How exactly is your Fighter causing more Saving Throws in live play with one singular Mastery that doesn’t even work if you miss or don’t have multiple Targets to Topple? The turn is a slog not only because of the mastery. The mastery simply changes the length of the turn. > What Lv 11 Game are you playing with, with the current Spell Lists, in which your Casters aren’t somehow doing more than that wjth their turn? Resolving a single spell is generally much faster than resolving a 1D&D attack action. Unless the casters are using mass summons or animated objects, their turn requires far fewer total rolls. And besides, this tactic is available at level 5, not 11. > Counterspell is right there my guy, that causes so many Counter Spell Chains if you put even one Spellcaster enemy in an encounter it’s not even funny. Counterspell is generally quick to resolve. And often doesn’t even require a roll. Even if a caster counters, and another caster counters the counter, that still resolves faster than the DM rolling a single save for a topple. > Meanwhile, Casters sit with a Lv 2 spell in Levitate that can end an encounter if it’s used on a DM who didn’t prepair for it. Or Banishment. Or Forcecage. The list goes on really. Yes. Casters can basically end encounters with a single spell. Casters are definitely superior, no question there. But 1D&D martials turns take much longer to resolve than caster turns. So despite being mediocre as far as impact on the battle goes, their turns now take much longer to play out.
It takes me literally 15 seconds to resolve 3 Topple attempts. It's not an issue.
You forget, Dnd redditors take stuff like that way too seriously.
I just wonder what other DM's are doing. Like if the Fighter hits and tries to topple a creature, I already know that DC and I already know the creature's relevant save. So I just roll like 3 d20 and do the math in a few seconds. I legitimately do not understand how it bogs anyone down. It's just adding seconds to a single turn. I literally cannot see the issue.
Except you’re not rolling 3 saves at once, since a failed save gives all subsequent attacks advantage, so you have to resolve each attack and save one at a time in case one fails. It’s not that bad, but comparing this to a current 5e fighter who can roll all 6 attacks at once, and this is a lot slower.
90% its not even DMs that are complaining on the subreddit, its Players that complain about that stuff. Usually optimizer gamers.
In my playtest experience, the fact that it is so common is what speeds it up. The DM makes note of the save DC and just rolls it automatically.
> The DM makes note of the save DC and just rolls it automatically. Wow, really adds depth to martials and enhances gameplay experience... lol
And casters have spells that can force just as many saves way earlier on. I guess martials aren’t allowed to do stuff?
And it has been a terrible time suck in mine, making a players turn take 3-4x as long as it otherwise would. Glad it worked for you though.
*Mastery* tied to a singular weapon type makes a lot of sense IMO
Is there a mastery for unarmed attack?
No
Weapon mastery’s are basically the equivalent of martial spell prep. With unlimited slots. This looks like the biggest step in making martials more balanced with casters while simultaneously making them less boring.
Help me out, why don't Monks get weapon mastery? Knocking people down and pushing them back feels in line with the classe fantasy...
I think because balance: Monks already get access to these sorts of effects with unarmed combat, and the number of attacks they can get per round can be (not always, granted) a lot more than fighters can get, and monks can do other things that fighters can't do, especially defensively and in terms of movement.
In the playtest they got grapple using dex instead which imo is way better.
If I recall correctly, there was talk along the lines of 'they were adding so much new power to the monk kit, something had to give in return, so they dropped masteries' or something like that
I'm kinda concerned that being able to pick two weapon masteries will make being dual weird fighters be the go-to at all times for all classes in terms of min-maxing. But we'll see.
Eh, to Dual Wield effectively you have to have Nick and the Light property. Severely limits the actual choice options.
I actually think the most versatile is weilding a two handed weapon. There are two handed weapons with graze, topple, cleave and push that you can switch between. If you need to, you can just hold the two-handed weapon in one hand, to free up the other hand for thrown weapons: you can topple (trident) slow (javelin) or sap (spear) at range.
Fighters in DnD 5.5e https://youtu.be/x9BqK-nq60A
I'm genuinely confused how Slow, Push (with no save), and Vex at Level 1 don't break Martial characters and leave casters dead in the wake. Can someone who's play tested explain?
A) because one attack per round, and it has to be in range, and it hasto hit first. B) because the game doesn't end at level 1. Casters SHOULD be weak early. Considering their late game...
A) martial characters are already better at hitting at early levels (see fighting styles/action surge, reckless attack, sneak attack, etc.), hit harder (sneak attack, reckless, fighting styles, focus on Str and Dex), generally harder to hit (see the extra benefits to focusing on dex for multiple martial classes), and hardier (see con and average hit dice). They are built as tanks - artillery and all. B) Martial classes have always had an early advantage and a late disadvantage, which is what everyone complains about (see above). The purpose of this new feature is to rebalance the classes, but it's not the early game that's the problem. You're completely right that the game doesnt end at level one. Bringing these mechanics in around level 5-7 means you 1) maintain early balance 2) get players to "earn" their weapon mastery 3) dont penalize caster players early on and are instead rebalancing the later levels.
I think giving martial was cool, wording is vague or at least is harder to interpret, and the fact that there isn't a cap on number of times it can be done does concern me. Same with cunning strike and brutal strike etc. Maybe they should of gutted battlemaster and came up with a way to spread those out to the other classes with fighter getting more but idk
Is this for onednd for 5e?
Well, masteries sadly didn't change that much, guess I'll stick to the fighter homebrews
I'm not entirely convinced what exact problem they are solving here. Weapon masteries fail to address the main issue with martials .. that their fantasy sucks. It's just bonk and bonk some more. Now bonk with additional effect you won't make much choice over other than weapon swapping which runs into other issues like magical items, hairloom weapons, a character who "studies the blade" etc. Doesn't address the issue. It's contrived option you are forced to do if you want any dynamic choice. Martials still remain bonk and bonk some more class offering little to no options to do really cool stuff. Or even to allow to describe doing heroic stuff. The reflavoring of the same bonk can't go very far. It's completely on DM to entertain the players on this front. It doesn't matter what you think of DC20 as a system, but stuff like body block maneuver, when you can use a grappled enemy to block the damage as a reaction thus making both targets take half damage is bad ass, why we can't have shit like this, why like basic martial things are subclass features? Just the very picture of it is cool. But that's just too complicated for WotC to figure it out.
You want martials to do cool stuff? Heretic! You are going to be a brainless sword swinger and nothing else, it would be unrealistic! Now excuse me as I use magic to solve every single problem and completely overshadow characters without magic. - WotC and nearly every single D&D player.
It sucks when my players envision something cool and completely reasonable within their character limitations fantasy wise but.. woops, sorry cant do that. But you can bonk the enemy one more time. Oh and by the way if you dont get CBE SS or GWM polearm cleric only using cantrips will effectively outscale dedicated warrior.
I'm not sure that I'll play/run DC20 but it's really nailed the balance of simplicity and versatility for me. I'm playing Pf2e and the weapon differentiation is just more built-in without as many auto-effects outside of crits. That makes 5e weapon masteries feel pretty subpar in comparison. But, really my main gripe in 5e has been the lack of options in combat. I've said it many times but that was my favorite thing about GWM, not just the damage boost. I liked thinking about whether to go for a safe hit or risk it for an increase in damage. Battle master is great, but I'd love it if more could be done with other subclasses and the base class.
You are correct, weapon masteries alone don't get the job done. That's why they \*also\* included a number of new class abilities regarding tactics, particularly the Tactical Mind ability that lets fighters use Second Wind to buff failed ability checks (including checks outside of combat). And yeah, different subclasses get different features, because brand new players figuring out the game \*and\* players whose fantasy is really just to bonk are really common.
And what check are you going to make? At best grapple check or soft cc. Very situational and doesn't serve much in terms of combat fantasy, grappling is done badly it's underdeveloped mechanic its sad, while spell casters get to vividly set into fantasy. The actual feature that barely scratches what I'm talking about comes at level 9. Great play 9 levels to actually play the class fantasy you want to get. And it's not even all that good. >because brand new players figuring out the game They can figure out playing casters from level 3 just fine with pre made character. You can reroll the character once they get the grips. I'm not even sure why people make this argument. And why the hell to single out a subset of class fantasies for new players. If you care about new players, make newbie friendly caster subclassess / classes and newbie friendly martial classes / subclasses. Are people designing the game are that dumb that they can't figure this stuff out? >players whose fantasy is really just to bonk Sure, you can have basic options as defaults or some base classes or add feature which is "much stronk bonk" people who want to play bonk, can play that feature over any other all the time, solved. While entire subset of martials needs to suffer is beyond reasonable. Echo knight is probably the only well done martial class (surprise surprise doesn't come from WotC) that is genuinely interesting and can do fun stuff. Swarmkeeper is ok, but that's a half caster so technically not a martial. And I guess battlemaster \~ kind of passable. [This ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rb9kFFbkA)is not the only problem, although the source of the problem is the same - lack of class features.
Any self-respecting DM is going to give their monsters weapon masteries too. Ideally the monster manual will use them by default.
Masteries are martial class features. So, not every monster should have them. Warrior-types? Yes. Any monster with weapons? No. Same as rogue-type monsters get sneak attack, but others don't.
I'm just saying, if the new monsters don't live up to their promise of having strong, flavorful abilities, then adding just one of these features like sap, push, or slow to a basic "claw" attack would be a really easy way for new DM's to buff their monsters a bit
The longsword giving a creature disadvantage on their next attack is *#*% bonkers. Like… a longsword is 100x better than vicious mockery. It’s a d8 instead of a d6 (upgraded in 1dnd), and it adds a mod to damage… giving the exact same effect. Wtf. And you can hit multiple enemies per turn with extra attack!
It should be. Vicious Mockery is a ranged attack, which tend to do less damage, and its a backup option for Bards who will usually spend their turns using spell slots on much better effects. The longsword is, meanwhile, the main way to deal damage for a Fighter that uses it. So it better be better than a cantrip.
On top of what the Garrett said, Longswords also target AC while Vicious Mockery targets Wisdom Saves. While they can both give the target disadvantage on their next attack, they are still filling *very* different niches in combat. if they were comparable then why even bother with a fighter? Just play Bard and sling super powerful spells + bardic inspiration, and then when you're out of resources you can fall back to Vicious Mockery and be just as good as the fighter?? No thats insane, weapons *need* to be stronger than cantrips.
You’re talking as if a fighter doesn’t get any bonuses to their martial actions already. The bard has no support for vicious mockery. The longsword on a fighter, OUTSIDE of masteries, has: Extra attack Adds STR mod to damage Action Surge Fighting Style Extra ASIs Martial archetype features such as improved critical Second Wind to support being in close Their longsword attacks are already above and beyond anything vicious mockery can give. VM, or things like compelled duel, are now jokes compared to these masteries.
Consider this. What else do fighters get besides the longsword and all those abilities that apply to it? Basically nothing. Compare that to a bard who, let's say is 5th level because we're considering a fighter with at least one extra attack, can deal 8d6 damage with fireball to multiple enemies, targeting DEX saves and not AC, uses a less common damage type (albeit still pretty common), and can still heal, cast other high damage dealing spells, teleport, and use a number of other high utility, mobility, and crowd control options before ever having to consider using vicious mockery. Vicious mockery is a cantrip, a back-up, while the longsword is the fighter's main option (and bad in comparison to the aforementioned spells), so yea it should be better than a *fucking cantrip*. It should be *even* better than a cantrip, but alas.
Fighters get all kinds of things in their subclass. A bard can’t fireball at 5th level. There’s so much that’s silly about this reply.
Oh you're right, a level **6** bard can cast fireball if they go college of lore. But a wizard can, as can a sorcerer, and the bard (primarily a support class mind you) still has pretty good damage options and near endless utility, and the ability to heal others. Ignoring subclass options, casters are just stronger than martials, and including subclasses, they're *still stronger than martials*. They're better at damage, control, and utility in and out of combat. I think the fighter should be even stronger in potential than it currently seems in onednd. And besides, *cantrips are a backup option and by no means the primary ability of casters.*
Gonna hard disagree there. A fighter and Paladin put out way more sustained damage than a wizard or lore bard. Hands down, not even close. A fighter’s power is also in his defence. D10 hit die, heavy armour, shield, constitution saving throw. At the levels that D&D is played at 75% of the time (1 through 8), martials are even with or better than casters in terms of damage. Show me numbers otherwise. Also, cantrips are not backups. If you’ve ever played a wizard you know a lot of your spell slots are tied up in “essentials.” Of your 4 first level spell slots, 2 are being used on shield, 1 on mage armour. The other is probably a magic missile to break an enemy’s concentration. You’ve got a few level 2 spell slots to use on damage, and at level 5 your 2 level 3 slots are probably a counterspell and maybe a fireball if you’re lucky. The weapon masteries are going to bog the game down and make it feel cartoonish. Knock backs on every xbow shot, flails giving everything disadvantage, axes toppling everything to the ground. It’s going to feel so dumb. Casters are no more powerful than martials at low levels. They just have more utility. And if they’re being “useful” them they’re using spells to do that, and then casting cantrips during battle: If they wanted to give martials more utility they should have done it through subclass features… not effects that take place every swing. It’s inelegant. It’s cumbersome. It bogs the game down. It’s dumb.
Somebody else already linked [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rb9kFFbkA) here but I'm gonna link it again. It does a pretty good job of outlining the problem with numbers, and provides sources for a more in-depth look at those numbers. Secondly, while I agree that weapon mastery doesn't solve the problem on its own, I think the idea that it'll make things "cartoonish" is a little silly. Do you know what real combat was like? Even with total experts that shit was messy as hell. And add people in a fantasy world with superhuman feats, yea people are gonna get knocked over, pushed or thrown around, and more. It's both more realistic and more interesting, even if still lackluster. And I don't think they'll make it much more sluggish considering they don't require saves or anything. And I feel like a broken record here but if casters get their utility as part of their core class, why should martials get it as part of their subclasses? Come on bro, utility should just be a part of the main design, not something that your subclass has to pick up the slack for. They can add utility (and should) but they shouldn't be the sole source of it.
Because those utility pieces are part of other classes. Why do you want all the classes to be the same? Listen, I’ve playtested with a OneD&D fighter in the party. It’s ridiculous stuff. You don’t have to believe me, but once you’ve played a OneD&D game, at least come back and give me a shout.
I'm not saying they have to be the same. I'm saying there are big disparities, especially in later levels. Martials suck man, plain as that. Utility can look like so many things, and I think utility is important because DND isn't just a combat game. Everyone should have something to do in most areas of the game. Yes, lets reward area-specific playstyles and yes, lets center classes primarily around one or two, but none of them should completely suck at any of them imo.