Weapon Master feat is .... meh

[BigONotation]

The Weapon Master feat should have been similar to Elemental Adept but for martial characters :

Prerequisite: Proficiency in the weapon of choice
When you gain this feat, choose one of the following damage types: bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing.
Successful hits with the weapon of choice ignore resistance to damage of the chosen type.
In addition, when you roll damage for an attack with the weapon of choice that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2.
If the feat is in addition to the Great Weapon Fighting fighting style, you can treat any 1 or 2 as average damage rounded up (D6 = 4, D8 = 5, D10 = 6, D12 = 7) if the die is not rerolled.
You can select this feat multiple times. Each time you do so, you must choose a different weapon.

What do you think?

[Galen]

I think you're missing one very important detail about Weapon Master. This detail is just one word - that has been omitted and is not even there - makes all the difference. It's an amazing feat.

[Santra]

I think you're missing one very important detail about Weapon Master. This detail is just one word - that has been omitted and is not even there - makes all the difference. It's an amazing feat.

All right I'll bite. Explain your statement to me.

[Galen]

When you read this feat, you probably parsed it as "become proficient in four martial weapons". I did the same at first reading.

Nope. The word "martial" is not there. You can choose any four weapons. Including the ones from the Monster Manual.
Like, oh, I don't know, the Ice Devil Spear, which deals 2d8 piercing+3d6 cold+save or slowed. That's the main use
of the feat. To become proficient in superweapons looted from fallen enemies. Some of them are truly amazing.

[Eslin]

When you read this feat, you probably parsed it as "become proficient in four martial weapons". I did the same at first reading.

Nope. The word "martial" is not there. You can choose any four weapons. Including the ones from the Monster Manual.
Like, oh, I don't know, the Ice Devil Spear, which deals 2d8 piercing+3d6 cold+save or slowed. That's the main use
of the feat. To become proficient in superweapons looted from fallen enemies. Some of them are truly amazing.

This. The only way to gain proficiency is to take this feat or be a blade pact warlock.

[Morukai]

When you read this feat, you probably parsed it as "become proficient in four martial weapons". I did the same at first reading.

Nope. The word "martial" is not there. You can choose any four weapons. Including the ones from the Monster Manual.
Like, oh, I don't know, the Ice Devil Spear, which deals 2d8 piercing+3d6 cold+save or slowed. That's the main use
of the feat. To become proficient in superweapons looted from fallen enemies. Some of them are truly amazing.

I don't think most DMs are going to go for that, as designers have already stated that certain monster weapons aren't meant for PCs (specifically calling out the Large creatures, of which your ice devil is one).

[Ralanr]

When you read this feat, you probably parsed it as "become proficient in four martial weapons". I did the same at first reading.

Nope. The word "martial" is not there. You can choose any four weapons. Including the ones from the Monster Manual.
Like, oh, I don't know, the Ice Devil Spear, which deals 2d8 piercing+3d6 cold+save or slowed. That's the main use
of the feat. To become proficient in superweapons looted from fallen enemies. Some of them are truly amazing.

I checked. He's right, it doesn't say martial. "You can proficiency with four weapons of your choice." along with the stat increase.

Edit: Ninja'd! Though now I feel like looking up some weapons in the MM.

[Shadow]

I don't think most DMs are going to go for that, as designers have already stated that certain monster weapons aren't meant for PCs (specifically calling out the Large creatures, of which your ice devil is one).

This is correct.
Show me the statistics for an Ice Devil's spear.
Hint: You can't because it doesn't have statistics.
The damage listed isn't for the spear that the Ice Devil uses. The damage listed is what the designers decided was balanced for that creature to have as a melee attack.
They have specifically stated that monster weapons were not meant for PCs and that this is the reason they have no wepaon stats.
All the cheese with Pact Weapn and this feat is just that: Cheese.

[Eslin]

I don't think most DMs are going to go for that, as designers have already stated that certain monster weapons aren't meant for PCs (specifically calling out the Large creatures, of which your ice devil is one).

Why not? If you take down an ice devil, grab its spear, spend a feat becoming proficient and figure out a way to become large, why on earth would a DM say 'no you can't do that'?

[Galen]

Show me the statistics for an Ice Devil's spear.Easy peasy. Open your Monster Manual to the Ice Devil page. Look for a sidebar titled Ice Devil Spear (spoiler alert: it has statistics for the spear). 2d8+3d6 cold+slow is explicitly listed as the property of the spear.

[Ralanr]

Why not? If you take down an ice devil, grab its spear, spend a feat becoming proficient and figure out a way to become large, why on earth would a DM say 'no you can't do that'?

*After looking over it* Probably because the abilities of the monster weapons come from the monster and not the weapon. Otherwise it would just do regular spear damage. That's what I got from reading through all the creatures with weapons.

Edit: Ninja!

[Eslin]

*After looking over it* Probably because the abilities of the monster weapons come from the monster and not the weapon. Otherwise it would just do regular spear damage. That's what I got from reading through all the creatures with weapons.

Edit: Ninja!

If the properties of the weapon are monster based, it tells you. A planetar's weapon deals an extra 6d8 radiant damage and in the planetar's statblock it says that they do an extra 6d8 radiant with weapons, so if you looted the sword it'd be an ordinary greatsword for you.

Certain monsters, such as the dao and ice devil, have no such clause.

[Ralanr]

If the properties of the weapon are monster based, it tells you. A planetar's weapon deals an extra 6d8 radiant damage and in the planetar's statblock it says that they do an extra 6d8 radiant with weapons, so if you looted the sword it'd be an ordinary greatsword for you.

Certain monsters, such as the dao and ice devil, have no such clause.

Ok I'll give you that. Looking over it the ice spear is separate.

[Shadow]

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/giant-weapon-for-warlock/
i'd say no, or at the very least the warlock couldn't effectively wield it.
I would say that they could use a maul or a greatsword, but there's no "storm giant greatsword" to choose from in the game.

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/emulate-monster-weapon/
Especially with weapons for Large+ creatures, they aren't meant for PCs

[Galen]

Look, if the PCs defeat some monster on, let's say, level 10, and the party Fighter carries the trophy weapon with him until level 12 and practices with it every day ... honestly, I'd let him take Weapon Master on level 12 and become proficient. Rule of Cool and all.

Anyway, like a lot of things, this is a province for DM adjudication, and if I were a player, I'd respect a 'no'.

[Ralanr]

Look, if the PCs defeat some monster on, let's say, level 10, and the party Fighter carries the trophy weapon with him until level 12 and practices with it every day ... honestly, I'd let him take Weapon Master on level 12 and become proficient. Rule of Cool and all.

Anyway, like a lot of things, this is a province for DM adjudication, and if I were a player, I'd respect a 'no'.

Might be pretty damn awkward to use in combat. Depending on how large Ice Devil's are.

[Shadow]

Look, if the PCs defeat some monster on, let's say, level 10, and the party Fighter carries the trophy weapon with him until level 12 and practices with it every day ... honestly, I'd let him take Weapon Master on level 12 and become proficient. Rule of Cool and all.

Anyway, like a lot of things, this is a province for DM adjudication, and if I were a player, I'd respect a 'no'.

And that's fine, but your original post stated "That's the main use of the feat. To become proficient in superweapons looted from fallen enemies." which it absolutely is not and required this DM Fiat clarification.

[Galen]

Thank you for that comment.

[tcrudisi]

And that's fine, but your original post stated "That's the main use of the feat. To become proficient in superweapons looted from fallen enemies." which it absolutely is not and required this DM Fiat clarification.

But by RAW, its allowable. That's what I've just read.

There is a way to become proficient with the spear. There are stats for the spear. It sounds like perfect RAW.

When I DM games, I follow the RAW 100%. I would allow this. I'd look into it first to make sure that the arguments presented above are correct.

It seems to me that it would be DM Fiat to prevent this.

[MadBear]

With DM empowerment in this game, I'd be cautious about using an optional rule (feats) to get the ability to use a weapon that is without a doubt more powerful then anything else a character of the given level could ever come close to hoping to have. Remember, RAW does not rule all in this edition. If a DM allows it cool, but it then makes the weapon more powerful then anything we've come close to seeing so far*

Keep in mind my main point is that I don't see that as the main way it was supposed to be read, as it was available pre-monster manual, and in no way hints that using monster weapons is its purpose. Using cheese is fine if you like it in a game, but calling it apple sauce is just plain silly and is still cheese.

*DM guide may change this fact, or reinforce it.

[BigONotation]

Well I am pretty sure RAI does not intend for monster weapon usage. Let's forget the current silliness and grade the feat (and my proposed replacement) RAI.

[Eslin]

Well I am pretty sure RAI does not intend for monster weapon usage. Let's forget the current silliness and grade the feat (and my proposed replacement) RAI.

RAI, it's useless. No character on earth would want it, any class that needs martial weapons has them, and a one level dip in fighter's a far better proposition if you absolutely need new weapons.

Which is why people take it RAW, and use it to wield better weapons


With DM empowerment in this game, I'd be cautious about using an optional rule (feats) to get the ability to use a weapon that is without a doubt more powerful then anything else a character of the given level could ever come close to hoping to have. Remember, RAW does not rule all in this edition. If a DM allows it cool, but it then makes the weapon more powerful then anything we've come close to seeing so far*

Keep in mind my main point is that I don't see that as the main way it was supposed to be read, as it was available pre-monster manual, and in no way hints that using monster weapons is its purpose. Using cheese is fine if you like it in a game, but calling it apple sauce is just plain silly and is still cheese.

*DM guide may change this fact, or reinforce it.

No-one plays without feats. They're optional to avoid overwhelming new players with choice, but I have yet to see a game in which they're not allowed and there is no good reason why they should not be.

And yes, you're the DM so you can houserule that players can't use weapons looted from monsters. It is not cheese, however - if a player takes down a powerful monster, finds a way to become large and takes a feat to be able to wield the weapon proficiently then houseruling that they can't use it is just punishing players for trying new things.

[BigONotation]

RAI, it's useless. No character on earth would want it, any class that needs martial weapons has them, and a one level dip in fighter's a far better proposition if you absolutely need new weapons.

Which is why people take it RAW, and use it to wield better weapons



No-one plays without feats. They're optional to avoid overwhelming new players with choice, but I have yet to see a game in which they're not allowed and there is no good reason why they should not be.

And yes, you're the DM so you can houserule that players can't use weapons looted from monsters. It is not cheese, however - if a player takes down a powerful monster, finds a way to become large and takes a feat to be able to wield the weapon proficiently then houseruling that they can't use it is just punishing players for trying new things.
If they find a way to get large and are willing to lug around a large weapon for when they are, I say go nuts.
RAI, it needs a rewrite and I want to know if my proposal is reasonable or if it steps too much on the toes of Archery Master, Great Weapon Master, etc.

[Ralanr]

Sorry to ask, but what is RAI?

[BigONotation]

Sorry to ask, but what is RAI?
RAI = Rules as Intended (generally what a reasonable person would assume given all the other information on hand in addition to whatever the text in question is)
RAW = Rules as Written (used to determine all the legally possible interpretations of the rule given the written form. Usually used to attempt to bend the spirit of a text beyond what it was intended for)

[Ralanr]

RAI = Rules as Intended (generally what a reasonable person would assume given all the other information on hand in addition to whatever the text in question is)
RAW = Rules as Written (used to determine all the legally possible interpretations of the rule given the written form. Usually used to attempt to bend the spirit of a text beyond what it was intended for)

Thank you.

[Eslin]

Sorry to ask, but what is RAI?

Rules As Intended (what people think the writers thought they were writing)

Rules As Written (what was actually written)

For instance the grapple feat means that creatures more than one size larger than you can't automatically escape grapples, which isn't a rule that actually exists. So RAW, that aspect of the feat does nothing, and RAI it allows you to grapple foes two sizes or more larger than you.

[Hytheter]

Guys remember that it's only a half feat. If your STR/DEX is uneven and your other attributes are even/not worth boosting, you probably get more out of a new proficiency than using the full attribute boost. Assuming you aren't already proficient in Martial weapons.

So it's not totally useless. There aren't many times you'd want it over anything else, but there might be some.

As for those Monster weapons, considering that Small creatures can't wield Greatswords and other weapons that Medium creatures need two hands to wield, I think it follows that medium creatures can't use weapons that Large creatures need two hands to wield.


For instance the grapple feat means that creatures more than one size larger than you can't automatically escape grapples, which isn't a rule that actually exists. So RAW, that aspect of the feat does nothing, and RAI it allows you to grapple foes two sizes or more larger than you.

I don't think that's really RAI. I think it's more akin to a house rule that corrects an oversight. Yes, that rule doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that they actually intended what you've changed it to.

[Eslin]

Guys remember that it's only a half feat. If your STR/DEX is uneven and your other attributes are even/not worth boosting, you probably get more out of a new proficiency than using the full attribute boost. Assuming you aren't already proficient in Martial weapons.

So it's not totally useless. There aren't many times you'd want it over anything else, but there might be some.



I don't think that's really RAI. I think it's more akin to a house rule that corrects an oversight. Yes, that rule doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that they actually intended what you've changed it to.

I haven't changed it to anything. RAW that part of the grappler feat does nothing, RAI it does. It's obvious what they intended it to be, but the book was apparently proof-read by cats.

[Hytheter]

I haven't changed it to anything. RAW that part of the grappler feat does nothing, RAI it does. It's obvious what they intended it to be, but the book was apparently proof-read by cats.

It's not obvious that they intended that all; in fact I think it's more likely that the rule it refers to did exist at some point in development, and that they merely forgot to remove that part of the feat when they removed the rule it refers to.

Your house-rule makes sense, bit it's still just that; a rule you've made up.

[Shadow]

It's not obvious that they intended that all; in fact I think it's more likely that the rule it refers to did exist at some point in development, and that they merely forgot to remove that part of the feat when they removed the rule it refers to.

This is indeed the case.
The playtest rule was changed, but the adjustment to make the feat coincide with the newly changed rule was overlooked. And so it follows that we have one portion of a feat which references a rule which no longer exists.

[Eslin]

It's not obvious that they intended that all; in fact I think it's more likely that the rule it refers to did exist at some point in development, and that they merely forgot to remove that part of the feat when they removed the rule it refers to.

Your house-rule makes sense, bit it's still just that; a rule you've made up.

It's not a house-rule, I haven't changed anything.


This is indeed the case.
The playtest rule was changed, but the adjustment to make the feat coincide with the newly changed rule was overlooked. And so it follows that we have one portion of a feat which references a rule which no longer exists.

Like I said, proof-read by cats.

[Hytheter]

It's not a house-rule, I haven't changed anything.

Yes you have! You've replaced a reference to a rule that doesn't exist with another rule that also doesn't exist. Grappling foes two-sizes larger is not mentioned or implied anywhere in the Grappler feat or in any other rules, so deciding to make it do so is a house rule.

[Eslin]

Yes you have! You've replaced a reference to a rule that doesn't exist with another rule that also doesn't exist. Grappling foes two-sizes larger is not mentioned or implied anywhere in the Grappler feat or in any other rules, so deciding to make it do so is a house rule.

But I haven't decided to make it do anything.

[LTwerewolf]

I haven't changed it to anything. RAW that part of the grappler feat does nothing, RAI it does. It's obvious what they intended it to be, but the book was apparently proof-read by cats.

For what it's worth, most people I've seen post here agree with you about the feat.

[Eslin]

For what it's worth, most people I've seen post here agree with you about the feat.

Well yeah, it's plainly broken and the fix is obvious. Hyetheter just seems to be under the impression that I implemented this fix, which I didn't. Grappling's really good in 5e already, if they want to grapple something huge sized they'll need to figure out a way to get larger.

[Morukai]

...sidebar titled Ice Devil Spear (spoiler alert: it has statistics for the spear). 2d8+3d6 cold+slow is explicitly listed as the property of the spear.

No it isn't.

Looking at the Ice Devil's abilities, it's pretty clear the spear is 2d8, MAYBE plus the slow ability. That's it. Because ALL of the ice devils attacks get the +5 damage bonus (which correspond to its strength bonus) and the 3d6 cold damage bonus.

The spear adds 2d8 to damage that already exists with any ice devil attack, so at most, the spear is 2d8 with maybe the slowing property. And it's a weapon for a large creature, which the designers have already stated aren't intended for PCs to use.

[Ellington]

I would never tell someone how to run their own game, but some replies in this thread are making me bash my head against the table.

If the feat really did allow you to wield stuff such as that ridiculous spear, why would anyone NOT take the feat? The feat as it stands may not be great. Hell, it's even sort of bad, but at least it's only at half cost (you still get +1 stat) and it can help make certain concepts work (rogues with whips, for instance). It's pretty clear what its purpose is and while you may not think it's good I really don't see why you'd need to interpret it in a gamebreaking way.

[MadBear]

It is not cheese, however - if a player takes down a powerful monster, finds a way to become large and takes a feat to be able to wield the weapon proficiently then houseruling that they can't use it is just punishing players for trying new things.

I'd argue that it in fact is both cheese, and unbalancing to the mechanics of the game. If weapons of artifact power give at best a +3 bonus to attack (assuming that +3 is the highest bonus), then a weapon that does more base damage, additional damage, and gets a status effect tagged on to it for the price of a feat is unbalancing to the game.

It's also not a houserule on my part, since there is no support for players stealing/using monster weapons. If you want to houserule it that way, fine, but please don't act like the purpose of Weaponmaster was ever to allow you to become proficient in using a bone devil's weapon.

[MaxWilson]

I'd argue that it in fact is both cheese, and unbalancing to the mechanics of the game. If weapons of artifact power give at best a +3 bonus to attack (assuming that +3 is the highest bonus), then a weapon that does more base damage, additional damage, and gets a status effect tagged on to it for the price of a feat is unbalancing to the game.

It's also not a houserule on my part, since there is no support for players stealing/using monster weapons. If you want to houserule it that way, fine, but please don't act like the purpose of Weaponmaster was ever to allow you to become proficient in using a bone devil's weapon.

Note that you don't have to be proficient in weapons in order to use them. If you have a +3 proficiency bonus and the weapon is itself +3 (plus extra damage and status effects), then you might as well use it even without proficiency.


No it isn't.

Looking at the Ice Devil's abilities, it's pretty clear the spear is 2d8, MAYBE plus the slow ability. That's it. Because ALL of the ice devils attacks get the +5 damage bonus (which correspond to its strength bonus) and the 3d6 cold damage bonus.

The spear adds 2d8 to damage that already exists with any ice devil attack, so at most, the spear is 2d8 with maybe the slowing property. And it's a weapon for a large creature, which the designers have already stated aren't intended for PCs to use.

Agree with this. There are no statistics listed for the spear, only for the Ice Devil's attack when using the spear.

[Shadow]

Agree with this. There are no statistics listed for the spear, only for the Ice Devil's attack when using the spear.

Precisely.

This is correct.
Show me the statistics for an Ice Devil's spear.
Hint: You can't because it doesn't have statistics.
The damage listed isn't for the spear that the Ice Devil uses. The damage listed is what the designers decided was balanced for that creature to have as a melee attack.
They have specifically stated that monster weapons were not meant for PCs and that this is the reason they have no wepaon stats.
All the cheese with Pact Weapn and this feat is just that: Cheese.


http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/giant-weapon-for-warlock/
i'd say no, or at the very least the warlock couldn't effectively wield it.
I would say that they could use a maul or a greatsword, but there's no "storm giant greatsword" to choose from in the game.

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/emulate-monster-weapon/
Especially with weapons for Large+ creatures, they aren't meant for PCs

There is no such thing as an "Ice Devil Spear."
There are Ice Devils, and those Ice Devils use spears, but the spear isn't the important part.

[LTwerewolf]

I'd argue that it in fact is both cheese, and unbalancing to the mechanics of the game. If weapons of artifact power give at best a +3 bonus to attack (assuming that +3 is the highest bonus), then a weapon that does more base damage, additional damage, and gets a status effect tagged on to it for the price of a feat is unbalancing to the game.

It's also not a houserule on my part, since there is no support for players stealing/using monster weapons. If you want to houserule it that way, fine, but please don't act like the purpose of Weaponmaster was ever to allow you to become proficient in using a bone devil's weapon.

So you need a rule to pick up something and use it?

[MaxWilson]

Precisely.

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread so didn't see your post, or I could have saved my breath. :)

[Renzlir]

One thing that is overlooked. The spear would return to the Hells with the body of the devil. I guess if you wanted to go to Cania, kill an Ice Devil, and return with its spear you could. But, by the level required to do that I image there would be better, more reasonable, and less dangerous options available.

Back to the feat however. Yes, the Weapon Master feat needs to be reworked into something better. As it stands it is a very lackluster feat. They tried a rework with UA feats, they aren't bad, but not worth spending a feat on them. You're best bet is have your DM come up with something, or you come up with something with their approval.

[Beelzebubba]

Don't bother engaging, if the power gaming munchkins want to munchkin, there's no stopping them.

Past a certain point, all you can do is laugh and say 'not at my table' and then (eventually) boot them for twisting every rule they can into ultimate bad-ass power fantasy at every opportunity.

It's a stage. We've all done it to some degree. It'll pass.

They'll eventually tire of it. The game will be fine.

[Ketiara]

Don't bother engaging, if the power gaming munchkins want to munchkin, there's no stopping them.

Past a certain point, all you can do is laugh and say 'not at my table' and then (eventually) boot them for twisting every rule they can into ultimate bad-ass power fantasy at every opportunity.

It's a stage. We've all done it to some degree. It'll pass.

They'll eventually tire of it. The game will be fine.

I was a planar shepherd during my munchkin stage :D

[Stan]

I'm kinda hesitant to re-introduce them but it would be nice if there were some exotic weapons that had fancy effects. Stuff like damage increased by a die size is useful but boring. Then, the only way to get access to these weapons would be this feat or the gladiator background.

I think Ninja Prawn has a list of exotic weapons in their sig. There's also Pathfinder's weapon list for inspiration.

Without this, yea, it's a weak feat.

[Lance Tankmen]

I don't allow muti-classing at my table(different discussion) so if someone wanted to be a wizard or sorcerer with skill to use a weapon then they'd grab that feat. I'd also say they don't have to pick the four instantly. Which would mean if a +1 weapon drops no one wants the wizard/sorcerer could claim it easier.

[Stan]

I don't allow muti-classing at my table(different discussion) so if someone wanted to be a wizard or sorcerer with skill to use a weapon then they'd grab that feat. I'd also say they don't have to pick the four instantly. Which would mean if a +1 weapon drops no one wants the wizard/sorcerer could claim it easier.

Within that framework, the feat makes sense.
Lack of multiclassing would also make racial weapons a bit more useful.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I was thinking it might be cooler if it gave you proficiency in a single weapon and an accompanying fighting style when using it. So you pick a ranged weapon, you get the +2 attack. One-handed weapon, dueling unless it's light in which case you can pick two-weapon fighting. Any melee two-hander, you get great weapon fighting.

Rogues would consider it a no-brainer and it's the nearest thing I can see to this version being broken, specifically if they pick a longbow or heavy crossbow. Then again, they were only ever a one level dip into fighter off from doing that anyway. Maybe making it a half-feat tax instead is more elegant.

[Pex]

RAI = Rules as Intended (generally what a reasonable person would assume given all the other information on hand in addition to whatever the text in question is)
RAW = Rules as Written (used to determine all the legally possible interpretations of the rule given the written form. Usually used to attempt to bend the spirit of a text beyond what it was intended for)

RAI = Rules as Intended (generally what a person feels the rules should be to reflect what he wants the ability to do)
RAW = Rules as Written (what the text actually says regardless of what a player wants it to mean)

Negative bias works both ways.

[CursedRhubarb]

Might be pretty damn awkward to use in combat. Depending on how large Ice Devil's are.

No more than walking around with a 10' pole

I'm actually considering this feat for my rogue. Would boost Dex to 20 and can grab Scimitar, whip, blowgun, and longbow proficiency so I get more ranged options and all the finesse weapons without delaying progression, or giving up, on any of the rogue goodies.

Also can be used to get proficiency in something you use as an improvised weapon without going for Tavern Brawler. So you get be proficient in Improvised Weapon: frying pan or go for others like 10' pole, table, rock, or the classic gnome.

[PhoenixPhyre]

RAI = Rules as Intended (generally what a person feels the rules should be to reflect what he wants the ability to do)
RAW = Rules as Written (what the text actually says regardless of what a player wants it to mean)

Negative bias works both ways.

Note: Most of the following is a rant, not entirely directed at you, Pex. It's just one of my "fight me" topics.

Except that definition doesn't fit how it's actually used. RAW is a meaningless nothingness. Every text is interpreted. There is no special "RAW goggles" that give one the ability to read what it "actually says" separate from the rest of it, which includes intent. To say otherwise is to be howlingly ignorant of basic principles of textual analysis since forever.

Essentially, there are a few types of texts:

1) The totally obvious ones. These only have a single plausible interpretation that is not a problem in play. Examples: What's the hit die of a single-classed fighter?
2) The ambiguous ones. These have multiple (2+) plausible interpretations. Each table must judge for themselves which interpretation to play with.
3) The nonsense ones. These have exactly 0 plausible interpretations.
4) The unplayable ones. These ones are like 1, but the only plausible interpretation is nonsense. Imagine a rule (for a different game) that said that the game cannot end unless someone repeats all digits of pi from memory. This is unplayable--the end condition is impossible.

RAW, as it's used here, is an attempt to persuade people to choose the speaker's preferred interpretation in case 2. So is RAI. Both are fundamentally no more than "I like this argument" or "I find this argument persuasive." In 5e, there are very few of type 3 or 4. There are many of types 1 and 2, by design. Remember, "rulings, not rules." The text is silent about many things necessary to run games (or at least incomplete). Claiming to play 100% by RAW (for the one who did) is the same as playing 100% however you feel like. Both are interpretations of the rules, not the rules themselves.

[Easy_Lee]

Let's not forget that back in 3.5e, you could do locate city bomb, reach speeds of hundreds of miles per round, and become a literal god at level 1 if you really knew the RAW. That didn't mean any DM would let you do it.

When talking about something that would obviously be imbalanced, such as a weapon master fighter wielding an ice devil spear, ask yourself whether you know any DMs that would let you do it. RAW is and has always been less important than DM fiat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Let's not forget that back in 3.5e, you could do locate city bomb, reach speeds of hundreds of miles per round, and become a literal god at level 1 if you really knew the RAW. That didn't mean any DM would let you do it.

When talking about something that would obviously be imbalanced, such as a weapon master fighter wielding an ice devil spear, ask yourself whether you know any DMs that would let you do it. RAW is and has always been less important than DM fiat.

It's not even fiat. It's the DM's job (in part) to decide what to allow. This is explained clearly on page 6 of the PHB:




The DM describes the environment.
The players describe what they want to do.
The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.



One possible result is "Nothing happens--what you're trying to do doesn't work at all." The text of this section leaves little room for "the rules (according to some people on a random forum) say X, so you have to do X." Claims of RAW are often attempts by munchkins to pull one over on the DM, wielding the rules as a weapon.

If you don't accept or trust a DMs rulings (of which there are endless numbers as the "rules" are insufficient to run a game, and this is by design), DON'T PLAY WITH THEM. The "rules" have no compulsive power. They're just words on paper, interpreted by fallible people with agendas (which, like opinions, are omnipresent).

[McNinja]

Enlarge/reduce just got a lot more useful.

[Easy_Lee]

You know the thing is that I could imagine a campaign where a fighter might need a super-weapon to compete. If you're in the late teens and have a sorclock, open-hand monk, and wizard in the party, a fighter might start to feel a little under-powered. In that case, the DM might opt to hand him a super-weapon.

But if you're trying to sneak ice devil spears by the DM just because of weapon master...well, good luck. Bear in mind that the DM controls your access to everything, even basic things like clothing and food if he really wants. And I have yet to find a build or playstyle immune to a vengeful DM.

Back on the OP's point, weapon master as a feat is not that bad. A rogue with an odd Dexterity score might take the feat to pick up a whip, for instance. The real issues with the feat are:

Weak compared to the popular feats like PM and crossbow expert
Few classes need it, since the martials have access to all (player) weapons
Even pseudo-martials, like monks and gishes, either gain proficiency with the weapons they use or can only use certain kinds of weapons with their features (monk, bladesinger, bladelock)

That's really it as best I can tell. So I don't know that its a bad feat, just a generally unnecessary one.

[Pex]

Accepted not a rant towards me, but I'd like to respond anyway.


It's not even fiat. It's the DM's job (in part) to decide what to allow. This is explained clearly on page 6 of the PHB:



One possible result is "Nothing happens--what you're trying to do doesn't work at all." The text of this section leaves little room for "the rules (according to some people on a random forum) say X, so you have to do X." Claims of RAW are often attempts by munchkins to pull one over on the DM, wielding the rules as a weapon.

If you don't accept or trust a DMs rulings (of which there are endless numbers as the "rules" are insufficient to run a game, and this is by design), DON'T PLAY WITH THEM. The "rules" have no compulsive power. They're just words on paper, interpreted by fallible people with agendas (which, like opinions, are omnipresent).

People tend to use a different word than "omnipresent". Everyone has one.

I agree with your point about trusting the DM but given my personal bias as expressed in other threads, if 3E has too much RAW I would say 5E has not enough. Accepting I trust the DMs I play with and agree their rulings are "reasonable", it still is annoying that 5E RAW in several cases are not clear enough such that there exists discrepancies among the many DM rulings. Having to play by effective different rules depending on who is DM that day adds in a complication that didn't have to exist but 5E chose to implement by design. I still play 5E, so it's not a deal breaker for me, but that lack of consistency has trip up players including myself. It's not just about the skill system that I like to rant about. It's the common other stuff as well - Does Great Weapon Style work on smites? Can a wizard's familiar use the Help Action for someone's attack to give Advantage. Who chooses the creatures summoned by a spell? Sage Advice can give the answers they want, but it's not their campaigns. It was upsetting to me that every game I did not play a wizard the familiar Helped to give Advantage, but the first time I play the wizard that happened to be the game I find a DM who ruled otherwise, ruining my fun to get in on that action. (Not a rant against the DM.)

[Waterdeep Merch]

Accepted not a rant towards me, but I'd like to respond anyway.



People tend to use a different word than "omnipresent". Everyone has one.

I agree with your point about trusting the DM but given my personal bias as expressed in other threads, if 3E has too much RAW I would say 5E has not enough. Accepting I trust the DMs I play with and agree their rulings are "reasonable", it still is annoying that 5E RAW in several cases are not clear enough such that there exists discrepancies among the many DM rulings. Having to play by effective different rules depending on who is DM that day adds in a complication that didn't have to exist but 5E chose to implement by design. I still play 5E, so it's not a deal breaker for me, but that lack of consistency has trip up players including myself. It's not just about the skill system that I like to rant about. It's the common other stuff as well - Does Great Weapon Style work on smites? Can a wizard's familiar use the Help Action for someone's attack to give Advantage. Who chooses the creatures summoned by a spell? Sage Advice can give the answers they want, but it's not their campaigns. It was upsetting to me that every game I did not play a wizard the familiar Helped to give Advantage, but the first time I play the wizard that happened to be the game I find a DM who ruled otherwise, ruining my fun to get in on that action. (Not a rant against the DM.)
For the sake of players looking for new DM's, it might be helpful to come up with a language to identify similar rules styles. I've been increasingly noticing that the GitP forums here have a particular stylistic viewpoint on the rules all its own that has discrepancies with EN World, for example. While I'd always encourage individuality and personal choice when it comes to DMing, identifying basic schools of thought and owning them could really help new players find the DM's that are right for them.

[Easy_Lee]

For the sake of players looking for new DM's, it might be helpful to come up with a language to identify similar rules styles. I've been increasingly noticing that the GitP forums here have a particular stylistic viewpoint on the rules all its own that has discrepancies with EN World, for example. While I'd always encourage individuality and personal choice when it comes to DMing, identifying basic schools of thought and owning them could really help new players find the DM's that are right for them.

Off-topic, but...this has been my biggest source of annoyance with 5e. Rulings Over RulesTM means DM styles vary wildly. And there's no way (that I know of) to predict a DM's style before sitting down at the table.

If you're determined, you might go from group to group, store to store, seeking out the perfect DM for you. But casual players might stumble on one DM they don't like and lose interest in the game entirely. Yes, this could happen with previous editions of D&D. But 5e's focus on DM fiat means that every DM has some significant differences. What works at one table, such as familiars Helping with attacks, often doesn't at another. And it has nothing to do with RAW and everything to do with rulings.

WotC seems to be aware of this. They strongly encourage AL DMs to stick to Sage rulings, providing some consistency between AL tables. But we really need a way for players to learn something about DMs before sitting down. A short DM bio for AL DMs, including how many years they've been playing and a brief description of their style, would be a great start.

The biggest problem is that only WotC can fix this right now. They're the only ones with the exposure to do so.

[qube]

*cough*

WTF is wrong with you people ... ice devil spear? Forget such nonsense!

Lets look at some maths will we?

Savage attacker
it's useless half of the times, since you roll above average half the times, and thus not use it
If you use it only when you roll below average (as you mathemetically should), the average damage you use it on

1d12 -> (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 21/6 = 3.5
-> differs 3 points of the average of a 1d12, however,
-> it's only useful 6/12 times (half the time, you roll less then average), this is a 1.5 damage bonus (once per round, supposing you hit)

2d6 -> (1*2 + 2*3 + 3*4 + 4*5 + 5*6)/15 = 70/15
-> differs only 2.33 points of the average of 2d6, however,
-> it's only useful 15/36 times so,this is a 0.97222 damage bonus (once per round, supposing you hit)


+2 on your attack stat? that's 'only' +1 attack +1 damage (str/dex skills, possibly AC, init, ...)

Weapon Master?
as the difference between simple & martial usually is one die, that means +1 damage bonus, on every attack per round (unlike savage attacker)
together with the +1 str/dex, that comes down to
+1.5 damage on every attack per round, plus 0.5 attack, and extras (str/dex skills, possibly AC, init, ...)
in games where the DM doesn't tailer his loot to the party, it allows you to become proficient with that great magic weapon yall found but are unable to use it


.... Weapon Master isn't meh - it's balanced.
Not every feat needs to give you the ability to spit in Lolths face and get away with it.

@Easy_Lee a melee cleric build also has uses of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with your point about trusting the DM but given my personal bias as expressed in other threads, if 3E has too much RAW I would say 5E has not enough. Accepting I trust the DMs I play with and agree their rulings are "reasonable", it still is annoying that 5E RAW in several cases are not clear enough such that there exists discrepancies among the many DM rulings. Having to play by effective different rules depending on who is DM that day adds in a complication that didn't have to exist but 5E chose to implement by design. I still play 5E, so it's not a deal breaker for me, but that lack of consistency has trip up players including myself. It's not just about the skill system that I like to rant about. It's the common other stuff as well - Does Great Weapon Style work on smites? Can a wizard's familiar use the Help Action for someone's attack to give Advantage. Who chooses the creatures summoned by a spell? Sage Advice can give the answers they want, but it's not their campaigns. It was upsetting to me that every game I did not play a wizard the familiar Helped to give Advantage, but the first time I play the wizard that happened to be the game I find a DM who ruled otherwise, ruining my fun to get in on that action. (Not a rant against the DM.)


For the sake of players looking for new DM's, it might be helpful to come up with a language to identify similar rules styles. I've been increasingly noticing that the GitP forums here have a particular stylistic viewpoint on the rules all its own that has discrepancies with EN World, for example. While I'd always encourage individuality and personal choice when it comes to DMing, identifying basic schools of thought and owning them could really help new players find the DM's that are right for them.


Off-topic, but...this has been my biggest source of annoyance with 5e. Rulings Over RulesTM means DM styles vary wildly. And there's no way (that I know of) to predict a DM's style before sitting down at the table.

If you're determined, you might go from group to group, store to store, seeking out the perfect DM for you. But casual players might stumble on one DM they don't like and lose interest in the game entirely. Yes, this could happen with previous editions of D&D. But 5e's focus on DM fiat means that every DM has some significant differences. What works at one table, such as familiars Helping with attacks, often doesn't at another. And it has nothing to do with RAW and everything to do with rulings.

WotC seems to be aware of this. They strongly encourage AL DMs to stick to Sage rulings, providing some consistency between AL tables. But we really need a way for players to learn something about DMs before sitting down. A short DM bio for AL DMs, including how many years they've been playing and a brief description of their style, would be a great start.

The biggest problem is that only WotC can fix this right now. They're the only ones with the exposure to do so.

The common theme here (for me at least) is that you're trying to fix a problem with a tool that doesn't work. Rulings over rules is a concession to reality. No force on earth can compel a DM to stick to "RAW." No amount of talking on forums like this will change the masses of DMs who don't read the forums. All of this is stuff session 0 is supposed to solve. Open, direct communication. Not guesses, not rules. Oh, and flexibility in your own play style =)

Having said that, I would like to see a shorthand developed for certain sets of rulings. "We're using the XXXXX variation" to communicate that familiars will be able to help on attacks, etc. It might be a good thread topic to try to find what the common differences are.

[Easy_Lee]

The common theme here (for me at least) is that you're trying to fix a problem with a tool that doesn't work. Rulings over rules is a concession to reality. No force on earth can compel a DM to stick to "RAW." No amount of talking on forums like this will change the masses of DMs who don't read the forums. All of this is stuff session 0 is supposed to solve. Open, direct communication. Not guesses, not rules. Oh, and flexibility in your own play style =)

The issue isn't that rule 0 exists. Everyone likes rule 0 and no one wants it to go away. But you must have noticed how much more impact rule 0 has in this edition than in 3.5e or, from what I hear, 4e. That's what we're talking about. I, and several others, think 5e is off-balance in this regard. D&D requires a balance between DM fiat and player choice. 5e has too much DM fiat and not enough player choice.


Having said that, I would like to see a shorthand developed for certain sets of rulings. "We're using the XXXXX variation" to communicate that familiars will be able to help on attacks, etc. It might be a good thread topic to try to find what the common differences are.

And yes, this is the kind of thing that I think would help. Conceiving of such a system in 5e is difficult due to the sheer number of rulings (just check out Sage Advice). But I do think we could at least come up with a set of styles that DMs could identify with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The issue isn't that rule 0 exists. Everyone likes rule 0 and no one wants it to go away. But you must have noticed how much more impact rule 0 has in this edition than in 3.5e or, from what I hear, 4e. That's what we're talking about. I, and several others, think 5e is off-balance in this regard. D&D requires a balance between DM fiat and player choice. 5e has too much DM fiat and not enough player choice.


I'm not even talking about rule 0 here. The rules (of any TTRPG, not only 5e) are incomplete. DM adjudication is necessary. My guess is that even in 3.5e or 4e there was a lot of variation from table to table as to what was allowed. That's why I said that rulings over rules was a concession to reality. It's how the game has always been played, from the beginning. Designing around that makes for a better game than trying to codify everything and creating WTF interactions. Honestly, I've played at a variety of tables and was completely ok with the level of variation. I left one table because I didn't like the world that they played in, but that's something else. As long as the variations are clearly identified up front.

As to new players, I find (and I play with lots of new players) that they care much less about rules than most. There are those who try to treat it as a video game where everything has to have a specific rule for it and those that break out and try things. Most of them haven't played at enough tables to see the variation, much less worry about it. I find that those who really worry are those who try to have well-defined up-front concepts with clearly defined progression. It's why I prefer to go in pretty blind and let things shake out as they come. That's my taste, however.

I still don't think that adding more rules and tables would help anything. The bad DMs will just ignore them. The LG DMs will feel bound by them and thus limited in their creativity (which hurts the game for those who like flexibility). The CG DMs will use them as advisories only, so the variation will remain.



And yes, this is the kind of thing that I think would help. Conceiving of such a system in 5e is difficult due to the sheer number of rulings (just check out Sage Advice). But I do think we could at least come up with a set of styles that DMs could identify with.

Most rulings are pretty common though (only varying in the exact details). Styles might work, if they're specific and defined enough.

[xanderh]

It's not a house-rule, I haven't changed anything.



Like I said, proof-read by cats.

In the second printing and onwards, that line was simply removed. I know, because I have a second printing PHB. The rule that you play with is neither RAW nor RAI, as the RAI is for that part of the feat to simply not exist.

[Easy_Lee]

Phoenix, you're dodging my argument. In short, you keep saying that variations between tables exist. Yes, they do. No one is saying they don't. 5e has far more of those variations. Part of it is the focus on rulings over rules.

Another part of it is the way mechanics are written specifically, rather than with general mechanics. Some abilities say reach, others 5'. Some abilities say opportunity attack, others use your reaction to make an attack. Some abilities require you to use the attack action, others only require you to have made an attack. Some abilities are once per round, others once per turn. All of it is designed to ensure that abilities are exactly as powerful as WotC intends. And as best I can tell, they've made a deliberate effort to try to prevent unintended ability interactions.

These design decisions have decreased player choice and complexified the game. Both of those shift the balance between DMs and players toward the DM. Just look at the RAW thread. There isn't a single DM out there who would come up with the RAW answer, let alone the RAI answer, to every question. It's nothing like 3.5e, where the mechanics were generally well-understood, just broken as hell. 5e's mechanics aren't well-understood, not because there aren't enough rules, but because there are too many. As has been shown time and again, every ability in 5e must be interpreted on its own. That's why there's so much DM fiat.

But I'm getting off-topic here. This aside really has nothing to do with weapon master. We're diving into like three more threads' worth of discussion.

[Theodoxus]

I was going to comment on the guy who said everyone plays with feats - and that's simply not true... but then I saw it was from 2014... you guys are going on rants over posts that are 3 years old - heck, the originators of said posts have probably changed their own position on the topics...

I do agree with Easy_Lee though - it would be nice if DMs were a bit more open in "Session 0" of their intentions, play style and player expectations. I've bailed on games after a couple of weeks after seeing how the DM ran their games - things that would have become clear had they simply said "I know more about your character than you do. If you MC to 3 classes, you'll feel underpowered and will quit, so don't." Sigh.

[Pex]

The common theme here (for me at least) is that you're trying to fix a problem with a tool that doesn't work. Rulings over rules is a concession to reality. No force on earth can compel a DM to stick to "RAW." No amount of talking on forums like this will change the masses of DMs who don't read the forums. All of this is stuff session 0 is supposed to solve. Open, direct communication. Not guesses, not rules. Oh, and flexibility in your own play style =)

Having said that, I would like to see a shorthand developed for certain sets of rulings. "We're using the XXXXX variation" to communicate that familiars will be able to help on attacks, etc. It might be a good thread topic to try to find what the common differences are.

House rules are one thing. They've existed for a long time and will continue to do so. They are things the DM presents up front, hopefully. Those who don't get derided as bad DMs. However, when it comes to the basic assumptions of fundamentally how to play the game, I shouldn't have to ask each DM "What rules are we using this time?" "How does my class work this game?" I should not be treating each game as if I'm a new player who never played before.

[Cybren]

Off-topic, but...this has been my biggest source of annoyance with 5e. Rulings Over RulesTM means DM styles vary wildly. And there's no way (that I know of) to predict a DM's style before sitting down at the table.

If you're determined, you might go from group to group, store to store, seeking out the perfect DM for you. But casual players might stumble on one DM they don't like and lose interest in the game entirely. Yes, this could happen with previous editions of D&D. But 5e's focus on DM fiat means that every DM has some significant differences. What works at one table, such as familiars Helping with attacks, often doesn't at another. And it has nothing to do with RAW and everything to do with rulings.

WotC seems to be aware of this. They strongly encourage AL DMs to stick to Sage rulings, providing some consistency between AL tables. But we really need a way for players to learn something about DMs before sitting down. A short DM bio for AL DMs, including how many years they've been playing and a brief description of their style, would be a great start.

The biggest problem is that only WotC can fix this right now. They're the only ones with the exposure to do so.
Or you can presume a DM is acting in good faith and likewise return the favor, and if you discover that the game isn't fun for you, don't harbor any grudges and move on???

[Waterdeep Merch]

House rules are one thing. They've existed for a long time and will continue to do so. They are things the DM presents up front, hopefully. Those who don't get derided as bad DMs. However, when it comes to the basic assumptions of fundamentally how to play the game, I shouldn't have to ask each DM "What rules are we using this time?" "How does my class work this game?" I should not be treating each game as if I'm a new player who never played before.
We're all huge nerds here. Maybe we could invent awesome ascetic order-sounding names for different schools of D&D thought.

My sect is now yevvaiosism, those who like high concept games. We empower weaker options and rarely depower existing rules. Sage Advice is given a high priority in what is allowed in our games, and we only disagree with them when necessary for a particular style of game. Our views on familiars and magic steeds is that they may use the Help action and can act independently as separate characters. We do not ascribe that monster weapons are a separate classification of weapons, and count large-sized weapons the same way small sized creatures treat heavy weapons. We do not allow simulacrum to be cast onto simulacrums. We do not use DMG rarity and instead prefer Saidoro's Sane Magic Item Prices guide when determining how magic items work, when they are used. Variants from any book are expressly allowed unless a high concept game requires otherwise, and such things will be made clear from the outset.

Yevvaiosist games lean towards either monty haul-style high powered games or high concept games with heavily tweaked rules. Homebrew is common, but never homebrew that invalidates legal builds, unless said legal build is game breaking in nature (simulacrum cheese). We prefer options and clever play to statistical advantages. High difficulty is preferred, and we do not blink in the face of killing player characters.

Our holy day is the second Tuesday of October. Our rituals include the Lengthy Backstory, the High Risk and High Reward, and the Slow Clap.

[Easy_Lee]

Or you can presume a DM is acting in good faith and likewise return the favor, and if you discover that the game isn't fun for you, don't harbor any grudges and move on???

Wow. What is is with the playground and extremes lately? You say you don't like a particular thing, and people assume you hate everything having to do with it and automatically take up arms against you.

Nobody here, myself included, is saying that DMs are terrible. No one is trying to rebel against DMs. No one is acting childish. I don't think you're acting childish either, for the record. Maybe you've had bad experiences with players making games all about themselves, and so your automatic response is to side against players who complain. I'm unsure. But rest assured, I'm not calling out DMs here, especially given that I've DM'd myself.

I've already stated my arguments, and encourage you to take a second look. I'm not saying that DMs are bad people, or that they shouldn't run games. I'm saying that WotC's design decisions with 5e have reduced player agency - given players less control over their own characters. And I think this is caused by the combination of 1. rulings over rules and 2. 5e's lack of a small number of general rules in favor of a large number of specific ones.

[Cybren]

Right but my argument is that you don't need some arbitrary impossible metric to judge DM compatibility, you just need to play the game with the expectation that the DM is as invested in having a fun game as anyone else, and if the game isn't fun, either because the DM isn't invested in everyones mutual fun, or their game just isn't for you, that's not a problem. That's not a function of their design or anything else. That's just a sign you should't play that game.

[Easy_Lee]

Right but my argument is that you don't need some arbitrary impossible metric to judge DM compatibility, you just need to play the game with the expectation that the DM is as invested in having a fun game as anyone else, and if the game isn't fun, either because the DM isn't invested in everyones mutual fun, or their game just isn't for you, that's not a problem. That's not a function of their design or anything else. That's just a sign you should't play that game.

If we're getting technical, we didn't need any of the editions of D&D past AD&D. AD&D worked, so why upgrade? Because it's always possible to make things better.

Some people can get along with any DM. Other people can only get along with some DMs. Are those other people bad just because they aren't as sociable? If we can come up with a system that at least helps people find a better DM for them, then I think that's a good thing.

This is not mutually exclusive with giving a DM the benefit of the doubt, having the expectation of good faith.

But again, I think this is a topic for another thread.

[Matrix_Walker]

I agree it's kind of "meh".

It's also not terrible...