Weapon master change?

[Mjolnirbear]

What do you think of the house rule to have weapon master also grant a fighting style?

Do your thoughts change if there is a free feat at first level houserule?

[JohnDoe]

Too much for one feat

The proficiency alone is a damage boost worth the 2ASI from gaining heavy weapon proficiency over simple weapons.

Fighting styles are often buffs on top of already having full proficiencies --- hence feats such as GWM building on heavy weapons

It's similar to
Heavily Armored --> Heavy Armor Master

If you're giving out a free feat (which is questionable considering that V Humans and Fighters depend on that advantage) you could have them pick up Defensive Duelist, Dual Wielder, Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, etc.

------

You generally don't want to take features that are cornerstones of a class and give them to other classes.

ie you don't want to make action surge a feat, or Martial Arts.

You'd want to look into modifying a class, if that's what you're interested in doing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

What do you think of the house rule to have weapon master also grant a fighting style?

Do your thoughts change if there is a free feat at first level houserule?

Combine weapon master with one of the armored feats.

Give no ASI of this is a free feat but if taken as an ASI... +1 to Str, Dex, or Con could work.

Call it Military Training?

Military Training
Gain the feat Lightly Armored, Moderately Armored, or Heavy Armored in addition to the Weapon Master feat.

Gain +1 Str or Dex.

Special: You must meet the prerequisite to the armored feat you choose. You do not gain the ASI bonus from the feats granted by this feat.

Edit

I don't think fighting style is a cornerstone to the Fighter as so many other classes get fighting style options.

[Mjolnirbear]

Too much for one feat

The proficiency alone is a damage boost worth the 2ASI from gaining heavy weapon proficiency over simple weapons.

Fighting styles are often buffs on top of already having full proficiencies --- hence feats such as GWM building on heavy weapons


You generally don't want to take features that are cornerstones of a class and give them to other classes.

ie you don't want to make action surge a feat, or Martial Arts.


I'm not certain this is true. As Spawn of Morbo said, it's available to three classes, not just one.

Also most classes that don't have the proficiency aren't particularly built to do melee damage.

À sorcerer with GWF and a greatsword proficiency is unlikely to built for strength. If he is, he's also gonna need to build armour, constitution and maybe a bit of Dex. It's a lot of effort to be an inferior gish. It'd be fun but not OP.

And try archery and longbow. He's much more likely to want to use a cantrip which does more damage and has side effects than shoot a single arrow. Even with Sharp Shooter, with one attack his spells are still more effective

Am I missing something?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm not certain this is true. As Spawn of Morbo said, it's available to three classes, not just one.

Also most classes that don't have the proficiency aren't particularly built to do melee damage.

À sorcerer with GWF and a greatsword proficiency is unlikely to built for strength. If he is, he's also gonna need to build armour, constitution and maybe a bit of Dex. It's a lot of effort to be an inferior gish. It'd be fun but not OP.

And try archery and longbow. He's much more likely to want to use a cantrip which does more damage and has side effects than shoot a single arrow. Even with Sharp Shooter, with one attack his spells are still more effective

Am I missing something?

Archery + Sharpshooters being picked up by full casters makes them ridiculously accurate as they will probabaly have access to magic weapon.

If the Bard will go swift quiver + Archery style on top of being a full caster...

I wouldn't do to because it isn't very feat like. Outside of a couple, most feats try to expand what characters can do and not emulate Multiclassing.

I just don't like giving a fighting style as a feat. Seems kinda meh for most PCs that don't have it already (except bard) whereas the amor+wepon combo can at least work for fluff reasons (Personal character or setting specific).

[DanyBallon]

I wouldn't add a fighting style to Weapon Master. Giving out a fighting style would be a feat on its own.

Mixing up Weapon Master + one of the armor feat is too much.

Weapon Master is fine as it is. It's an half-feat for non-martial who wants to get weapons not usually allowed to them.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I wouldn't add a fighting style to Weapon Master. Giving out a fighting style would be a feat on its own.

Mixing up Weapon Master + one of the armor feat is too much.

Weapon Master is fine as it is. It's an half-feat for non-martial who wants to get weapons not usually allowed to them.

Not at all.

Weapon Master is a trash feat and adding it to anything will not make anything OP.

The armor feats are almost trash as AC is not hard to come by in this game.

Trash + Almost Trash does not equal too much.

Just keep the ASI in check (as I did with military training) and it makes for at least a 2.5 out of 5 feat. One that giving away for free isn't OP but can be useful.

[DanyBallon]

Not at all.

Weapon Master is a trash feat and adding it to anything will not make anything OP.

The armor feats are almost trash as AC is not hard to come by in this game.

Trash + Almost Trash does not equal too much.

Just keep the ASI in check (as I did with military training) and it makes for at least a 2.5 out of 5 feat. One that giving away for free isn't OP but can be useful.

Those are half feats hence the +1 to ability score, and gaining proficiency with a feature you don't normaly have access is not trash at all. Those feats may be not useful to martial character, but allows a wizard to get armor proficiency, or a cleric to be proficient with a weapon he wouldn't otherwise.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Those are half feats hence the +1 to ability score, and gaining proficiency with a feature you don't normaly have access is not trash at all. Those feats may be not useful to martial character, but allows a wizard to get armor proficiency, or a cleric to be proficient with a weapon he wouldn't otherwise.

It's trash because it doesn't give you anything you need. The difference between a d6 weapon and a d12 weapon in a class that doesn't support weapon attacks is nil. And classes that support weapon attacks gain their best weapons.

Armor? Sorry but AC is one of the easiest things in the game to obtain. Everyone has a way to get decent to good (and sometimes great) AC.

The +1 ASI is the only thing that keeps Armor feats from being trash but even that can't help Weapon Master.

[DanyBallon]

It's trash because it doesn't give you anything you need. The difference between a d6 weapon and a d12 weapon in a class that doesn't support weapon attacks is nil. And classes that support weapon attacks gain their best weapons.

Armor? Sorry but AC is one of the easiest things in the game to obtain. Everyone has a way to get decent to good (and sometimes great) AC.

The +1 ASI is the only thing that keeps Armor feats from being trash but even that can't help Weapon Master.

Not every feat are meant to be a power boost, some take feats for flavor as well. Those feat you believe are trash allow non-martial to get access to better armor and weapons because. They want their character to have them. It's all about options, not power creep.

[Tanarii]

If you're in a game where you can't multiclass, but are allowed feats, the Weapon Master and Armor feats become more interesting.

Not a lot more interesting.

[DanyBallon]

I never pretended that they were fabulous, only that they have usefulness as not every one want to multiclass for reasons.

[krugaan]

I never pretended that they were fabulous, only that they have usefulness as not every one want to multiclass for reasons.

This is the internet. Anything you say will be taken out of context.

[DanyBallon]

This is the internet. Anything you say will be taken out of context.

And it's a D&D forum, anyone assume that if it's not optimized, it's not worth it, I know :smalltongue:

But I hope that someday it'll change, and we will all live in a better world :smallbiggrin:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Not every feat are meant to be a power boost, some take feats for flavor as well. Those feat you believe are trash allow non-martial to get access to better armor and weapons because. They want their character to have them. It's all about options, not power creep.


If you're in a game where you can't multiclass, but are allowed feats, the Weapon Master and Armor feats become more interesting.

Not a lot more interesting.

They don't really give you any options you don't already have. Everyone has the weapons they can support and the AC they can support.

Gaining these without multiclassing is even worse than with multiclassing. With multiclassing at least you can gain the ability to support your new weapons.

[DanyBallon]

They don't really give you any options you don't already have. Everyone has the weapons they can support and the AC they can support.

Gaining these without multiclassing is even worse than with multiclassing. With multiclassing at least you can gain the ability to support your new weapons.

Like I said, multiclassing is not always wanted or allowed. In my game you can't level-dip without any good roleplaying reason to do so. Otherwise multiclassing requieres classes to have no more than one level difference (similar to 2e MC) or you dual classes and can't never go back.

Also if I want to play a life cleric proficient with long sword, because he was a former soldier, and I don't want him to be a fighter, because a soldier =/= not fighter, then Weapon Master is exactly the feat I need.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Like I said, multiclassing is not always wanted or allowed. In my game you can't level-dip without any good roleplaying reason to do so. Otherwise multiclassing requieres classes to have no more than one level difference (similar to 2e MC) or you dual classes and can't never go back.

Also if I want to play a life cleric proficient with long sword, because he was a former soldier, and I don't want him to be a fighter, because a soldier =/= not fighter, then Weapon Master is exactly the feat I need.

A life cleric with a long sword doesn't give you anything. They may as well pick up a mace or greatclub and say it's a longsword or use the longsword without proficiency bonus. The life cleric can't support the longsword. The feat is not worth a feat even at that point. It is not worth taking at all, mechanically or fluff wise (as you can fluff a mace to be a long sword).

Why is your damage die lower than normal longsword? Because although you was a soldier, you are now a life cleric and your ability has slipped a bit, you can still use the weapon but your ability to follow through is lost, even when you hold it in two hands.

Weapon Master is trash, especially in your scenario.

Any DM that forces a player to take it in order to fill a slight character design is a bad DM.

Of you are that concerned with fluff and for whatever reason will allow feats but not multiclassing, giving a class a free weapon prof, especially a class that can't support that weapon, won't break the game or effect it in the slightest.

Hell, fluff it as you was a soldier and forgot how to use your weapons. You have a longsword but ever since you took up the holy symbol you haven't had the time to practice with your longsword.

Or have the soldier background grant prof with one weapon instead of proficiency in land vehicles.

There are so many other answers to this issue than being a jerk DM and forcing the player to take a trashy feat.

[djreynolds]

What do you think of the house rule to have weapon master also grant a fighting style?

Do your thoughts change if there is a free feat at first level houserule?

Are you allowing multiclassing?

[Zalabim]

There's certainly a handful of classes that may benefit from armor feats like Warlocks(Shields), Bards(Shields or Plate), Clerics (Plate), Rogues (Shields), Rangers (Plate), Wizards (not-robes), and Sorcerers (not-robes or Plate). I only know of FS Sorc that might benefit from Weapon Master. There could be a case for a rogue getting Whip (reach), Longbow (range), and Heavy Crossbow (damage) but I haven't heard of a case where that's been tried. A fighting style would certainly make it more attractive. Better than Savage Attacks, so it should probably replace the +1 stat. (Feats need to be better than Savage Attacks, but still.)

Mainly I just don't like the nature of the feat. It's too passive. It should let you do something you couldn't do before. Just adding in a fighting style makes it better, but it's better in a non-interesting way.

[djreynolds]

There's certainly a handful of classes that may benefit from armor feats like Warlocks(Shields), Bards(Shields or Plate), Clerics (Plate), Rogues (Shields), Rangers (Plate), Wizards (not-robes), and Sorcerers (not-robes or Plate). I only know of FS Sorc that might benefit from Weapon Master. There could be a case for a rogue getting Whip (reach), Longbow (range), and Heavy Crossbow (damage) but I haven't heard of a case where that's been tried. A fighting style would certainly make it more attractive. Better than Savage Attacks, so it should probably replace the +1 stat. (Feats need to be better than Savage Attacks, but still.)

Mainly I just don't like the nature of the feat. It's too passive. It should let you do something you couldn't do before. Just adding in a fighting style makes it better, but it's better in a non-interesting way.

If the OP is allowing feats, than he'll more than likely be using multiclassing, and now weapon master in any form is a waste.

[DanyBallon]

A life cleric with a long sword doesn't give you anything. They may as well pick up a mace or greatclub and say it's a longsword or use the longsword without proficiency bonus. The life cleric can't support the longsword. The feat is not worth a feat even at that point. It is not worth taking at all, mechanically or fluff wise (as you can fluff a mace to be a long sword).

Why is your damage die lower than normal longsword? Because although you was a soldier, you are now a life cleric and your ability has slipped a bit, you can still use the weapon but your ability to follow through is lost, even when you hold it in two hands.

Weapon Master is trash, especially in your scenario.

Any DM that forces a player to take it in order to fill a slight character design is a bad DM.

Of you are that concerned with fluff and for whatever reason will allow feats but not multiclassing, giving a class a free weapon prof, especially a class that can't support that weapon, won't break the game or effect it in the slightest.

Hell, fluff it as you was a soldier and forgot how to use your weapons. You have a longsword but ever since you took up the holy symbol you haven't had the time to practice with your longsword.

Or have the soldier background grant prof with one weapon instead of proficiency in land vehicles.

There are so many other answers to this issue than being a jerk DM and forcing the player to take a trashy feat.

So you're saying that my player and I, because we choosed not to play the way you do (not using most optimized options, restricting MC), are playing it wrong?
I'm sorry to disagree with you, 5e is built around allowing different playstyle, there's no more trap options that will ruined your game if someone take it. There's definatly options less effective, that are more challengeful to play, but nothing that makes you a lame duck.

You're complaining about certain feats that aren't useful to the optimized game you play, but you fail to realized that they aren't designed your kind of game, but can be of use for different playstyle.

There's no BadWrongFun type of game, you might not like the way we play, and I think I wouldn't like playing at your table, but as long as we are all having fun at our respective table, the game achieved its goal.

In the end, all I said it's that WM and the Armor feat are well balanced in 5e frame. They are definatly on the weaker side of the bell curve as GWM and SS are on the stronger side, but getting rid of them to replace them with stronger feat will only lead to power creep. If you don't like these weaker feat nothing forces you to take them, after all, no character have enough ASI to end up having to take WM because he had no choice but to. But for the like of my player and I, those feats are useful and we'd like them to stay.

[Cybren]

I think putting a fighting style on weapon master in place of the stat bonus could be cool. If it's still too weak the stat bonus could even come back

[Mjolnirbear]

I pretty much assume multiclass is a go. I have no reason to ban it. It allows variety.

To be honest I'm more concerned about a martial character getting two styles than a caster getting one. The fighter would have to use a feat to do it and half the feat is useless to him but on the other hand only the champion gets two fighting styles naturally.

But such a feat would permit a paladin to take two weapon fighting or a ranger take protection . Our the sorcerer to say he started as a fighter before his power manifested or a aspic to saw he was an archer before he decided to make a deal with the devil. There are other ways that can do this but I generally think adding choice is better

[DanyBallon]

Just create a new feat that gives a fighting style, it will be powerful enough on it's own.

And as you've said, a martial character taking this feat will step on the toes of the Champion, and worst they will get their second fighting style before the Champion gets his.

Maybe add a line that you can't take this feat if you already have a fighting style, but with such a ruling, Paladin won't get access to TWF, nor Ranger to Protection...

WotC tried to stay away from giving classes abilties as a feat for a reason, and when they did (Martial Adept, Ritual Casting, Magic Initiate...) the feat offer a tone down and limited ability. It would be hard to tone down further the fighting style, this just left with limiting them in some way...

[Cybren]

Just create a new feat that gives a fighting style, it will be powerful enough on it's own.

And as you've said, a martial character taking this feat will step on the toes of the Champion, and worst they will get their second fighting style before the Champion gets his.

Maybe add a line that you can't take this feat if you already have a fighting style, but with such a ruling, Paladin won't get access to TWF, nor Ranger to Protection...

WotC tried to stay away from giving classes abilties as a feat for a reason, and when they did (Martial Adept, Ritual Casting, Magic Initiate...) the feat offer a tone down and limited ability. It would be hard to tone down further the fighting style, this just left with limiting them in some way...

Fighting styles aren't core class mechanics, and you can already gain multiple via multiclassing. If anything "fighting style + a few weapon proficiencies" IS a toned down version of "fighting style + all martial weapon proficiencies"

[DanyBallon]

Fighting styles aren't core class mechanics, and you can already gain multiple via multiclassing. If anything "fighting style + a few weapon proficiencies" IS a toned down version of "fighting style + all martial weapon proficiencies"

Multiclassing requires an ability score prerequisite, push back your next ASI, you don't get capstone ability. While the feat cost you only an ASI.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You're complaining about certain feats that aren't useful to the optimized game you play, but you fail to realized that they aren't designed your kind of game, but can be of use for different playstyle.


Wrong.

I'm saying that there is never a good reason to take the feat. In an optimized game, in an unoptimised game, or even at random. There is never a good time to take the feat.

Of you are a DM that forces a player to take a feat that will never help them, then you are being a bad DM.

Adding this feat for free is also a joke. It gives players nothing you could just give them for free (weapon prof side of things).

There is absolutely no situation this feat is worth a feat slot, be it for fluff or for mechanics.

All classes gain abilities to support certain weapons so there is no mechanical reasons.

As a DM, instead of forcing a trash feat, you can just give the player a weapon proficiency of their backstory calls for it. Especially to a class that can't really support weapon use.

Or, if it's really that important the player can use the weapon without proficiency. They won't be all that worse off. There are many was to role play this. It isn't all about mechanically being good at something.

Weapon Master is a trash feat no matter how you look at it. No multiclassing makes it worse as you can't pick up the abilities to help you use the weapon in any meaningful way that you wouldn't get by just swinging a non-proficient weapon around.

The only reason to take weapon master would be if they ever released some exotic weapons and you are a weapon based class.

Khopesh
One Handed
Heavy
Slashing

Now this would be worth taking the feat for as you could be a dueling fighter with the GWM feat. But until that day comes...

Weapon Master is a trash feat mechanically and fluff wise because in both instances it is worthless and a waste of an ASI.

[djreynolds]

There are two races that give out martial weapon proficiencies, dwarf and elf. And you can multiclass. If you want to take weapon master, say as a rogue or wizard because you do not want to sacrifice your spells or sneak attack, then take weapon master as it is or select the races above, or multiclass.

But changing the feat to be more powerful by granting it a fighting style is in itself power-gaming as much as selecting fighter at first level, then continuing as a wizard.

My first go through the game was plain, no feats and no multiclass, and it was great. As challenging and fun as with feats and multiclassing. Certain feats like moderately armored and weapon master really shine in a game with feats but no multiclassing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

There are two races that give out martial weapon proficiencies, dwarf and elf. And you can multiclass. If you want to take weapon master, say as a rogue or wizard because you do not want to sacrifice your spells or sneak attack, then take weapon master as it is or select the races above, or multiclass.

But changing the feat to be more powerful by granting it a fighting style is in itself power-gaming as much as selecting fighter at first level, then continuing as a wizard.

My first go through the game was plain, no feats and no multiclass, and it was great. As challenging and fun as with feats and multiclassing. Certain feats like moderately armored and weapon master really shine in a game with feats but no multiclassing.

Weapon Master is worse when you can't multiclass. You might as well use the weapon without proficiency for as well as your character will use it. And that's the point of taking a weapon, is to be able to use it well, but this feat doesn't do that. This feat gives you a weapon that, if you aren't already proficient, won't have the abilities needed to show that you can use it.

You might as well just carry it around and use it with no proficiency.

[djreynolds]

Weapon Master is worse when you can't multiclass. You might as well use the weapon without proficiency for as well as your character will use it. And that's the point of taking a weapon, is to be able to use it well, but this feat doesn't do that. This feat gives you a weapon that, if you aren't already proficient, won't have the abilities needed to show that you can use it.

You might as well just carry it around and use it with no proficiency.

Quarterstaffs are very potent now as well, but another forum member had mentioned using a net as a rogue and that seemed pretty cool. We haven't seen a lot magic items, but I could see a wizard wanting to wield a sword of defense or something.

[Zalabim]

I already know there's someone playing a Variant Human Favored Soul Sorcerer using Weapon Master at level 1 for the stat and Greatsword proficiency, since FS get some armor, and extra attack, but only simple weapons. A rogue might want Whip, Longbow, Heavy Crossbow, and Net proficiency. You know what, this seems familiar.


I only know of FS Sorc that might benefit from Weapon Master. There could be a case for a rogue getting Whip (reach), Longbow (range), and Heavy Crossbow (damage) but I haven't heard of a case where that's been tried.

In case you're confused, the Net would be optimally used with the extra Attack action granted by Haste to provide advantage through Restraining.

[djreynolds]

A net a could be an effective weapon, I haven't really seen it in action, but the mention of a rogue using it sounds cool. You could probably do something with rogue multiclass.

[DanyBallon]

Wrong.

I'm saying that there is never a good reason to take the feat. In an optimized game, in an unoptimised game, or even at random. There is never a good time to take the feat.

Of you are a DM that forces a player to take a feat that will never help them, then you are being a bad DM.

Adding this feat for free is also a joke. It gives players nothing you could just give them for free (weapon prof side of things).

There is absolutely no situation this feat is worth a feat slot, be it for fluff or for mechanics.

All classes gain abilities to support certain weapons so there is no mechanical reasons.

As a DM, instead of forcing a trash feat, you can just give the player a weapon proficiency of their backstory calls for it. Especially to a class that can't really support weapon use.

Or, if it's really that important the player can use the weapon without proficiency. They won't be all that worse off. There are many was to role play this. It isn't all about mechanically being good at something.

Weapon Master is a trash feat no matter how you look at it. No multiclassing makes it worse as you can't pick up the abilities to help you use the weapon in any meaningful way that you wouldn't get by just swinging a non-proficient weapon around.

The only reason to take weapon master would be if they ever released some exotic weapons and you are a weapon based class.

Khopesh
One Handed
Heavy
Slashing

Now this would be worth taking the feat for as you could be a dueling fighter with the GWM feat. But until that day comes...

Weapon Master is a trash feat mechanically and fluff wise because in both instances it is worthless and a waste of an ASI.

Again, part of your argumentation is based that people that do not play the way you do are doing it wrong. The main goal in playing D&D is to have fun, if players have fun using feats that you don't consider are worth taking, the goal of the game is still reached. There's no good or bad way to play D&D, but there sure are bad players (and bad DMs) that can't accept others can have fun playing differently than what they are used to.

[djreynolds]

For players who do not want to multiclass, the feats are fine such as moderately armored and weapon master. You never know what magic weapon you will come across, so maybe a human wizard wants this particular war hammer, or a life cleric who is stuck with simple weapons but does not want to lose spell casting progress. These feats are for particular builds, and should be as is.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

For players who do not want to multiclass, the feats are fine such as moderately armored and weapon master. You never know what magic weapon you will come across, so maybe a human wizard wants this particular war hammer, or a life cleric who is stuck with simple weapons but does not want to lose spell casting progress. These feats are for particular builds, and should be as is.

There are so many other options to this issue than forcing players to take a trash feat. As a DM it is your job to make adjustments so the game is fun for players. Forcing a trash feat on a player is being a bad DM.

Part of this is due to mechanics because this is a mechanic driven game.

If the player wants the fluff but doesn't care about the mechanics then the player can just use the weapon with proficiency.

I never said people can't have fun by taking it, I'm saying that weapon master is absolute trash. And any DM that forces a player to take this feat to gain a weapon proficiency is being a lazy/bad DM.

Perhaps when exotic weapons come out the feat will get better, but until then it's trash.

Weapon proficiency is such a minor part of the game, just give that wizard proficiency in longswords. It won't hurt the game (balance wise/mevhanically) because the wizard can't really use the sword for anything than waving it around (outside of high optimization).

Have the PC use the item for a few sessions and then give them proficiency in it, IF they have been using it. If they just been carrying it around then they havnt been training to use it and they don't gain the prof.

[SharkForce]

There are so many other options to this issue than forcing players to take a trash feat. As a DM it is your job to make adjustments so the game is fun for players. Forcing a trash feat on a player is being a bad DM.

Part of this is due to mechanics because this is a mechanic driven game.

If the player wants the fluff but doesn't care about the mechanics then the player can just use the weapon with proficiency.

I never said people can't have fun by taking it, I'm saying that weapon master is absolute trash. And any DM that forces a player to take this feat to gain a weapon proficiency is being a lazy/bad DM.

Perhaps when exotic weapons come out the feat will get better, but until then it's trash.

Weapon proficiency is such a minor part of the game, just give that wizard proficiency in longswords. It won't hurt the game (balance wise/mevhanically) because the wizard can't really use the sword for anything than waving it around (outside of high optimization).

Have the PC use the item for a few sessions and then give them proficiency in it, IF they have been using it. If they just been carrying it around then they havnt been training to use it and they don't gain the prof.

or, to phrase it differently (since some people apparently have a hard time getting this concept):

for the love of all that is holy, don't punish your players by making them mechanically weaker when they want to do something for flavor reasons. if it's going to make them more effective, then by all means make it cost something, but flavor should not cost you power unless it also gains you power.

(and, on a side note, I consider moderately armoured to be a perfectly valid feat if you already have light armour proficiency because it gives you shield proficiency, which is *not* something readily available by other means. the others are indeed not particularly great).

[djreynolds]

I agree with just letting them have the weapon master feat as is or just letting the paladin train you in your downtime how to use a maul or trident, but do not change the feat, nor "improve" it by giving out a fighting style or a +1 to an ASI along with it. Feats are tricky enough as it is and improving them can be a bigger benefit then you think.

That +1 in dex, could mean his 13 is now a 14, and his dex save, and AC, and initiative goes up. Its not a big deal, but it is to other players who may have paid 2 points during creation to have that 14. +1 in strength, same thing, carry more weight, better strength checks, etc.

The OP can do as he wishes, and for that particular session its fine. But in the AL, there's a big difference between a 13 and 14 in an ability score, and people arrange stats with this in mind. I'll put my wisdom at 13 and get resilient wisdom feat later on to make it a 14. I know a few player willing to wipe out villages for +2 sword when they have a +1 sword already. Pluses and minuses are big in D&D.

[Logosloki]

I think the best thing to do to weapon master is to excise it. Even its potential reason for existence (as an "in" if they decide to add in an exotic weapons category) is completely stupid. Unless that exotic weapon class is screeds ahead of all simple and martial weapons the pay off of one feat is still not worth it and comes with the extra baggage that some games will not have feats anyway.

Even if I had some sort of roleplay god weapon I wouldn't make it a feat to control it, that is what attunements and prerequisites for magical items are for.

If a player has a concept that requires one weapon that they aren't proficient in, just allow them to be proficient in it. For free. Unless they have some sort of role play reason for not being proficient in it, in which case, hurrah, you don't have to do anything because the rules already support that.

Onto topic. I already think that anyone with a fighting style block should know the entire block but can only have one active at a time. However, burning a feat and getting a fighting style and 1/2 an ASI in return is still a poor choice of feat. It would be better to get a feat that enhances the choices you are making already (sharpshooter, polearm master, great weapon master, etc).

If I were to do anything to weapon master (rather than undo it from the collective conciousness of everyone) I would probably retool it towards and "RP" feat rather than a combat one.

Something like "Choose a weapon property. 1) you are proficient in any weapon and improvised weapon with this property. 2) You gain a special ritual which is like the spell identify. This ritual can only be used on weapons that have the weapon property you have chosen. 3) You know the approximate worth of a weapon with the chosen weapon property."

Probably needs more proof reading and clarificationing.

[Strill]

Not every feat are meant to be a power boost, some take feats for flavor as well.
If that's the case, then screw whoever designed it. Feats designed purely for "flavor" with no practical use have no place being feats. Make them background features or something.

[djreynolds]

If I were to do anything to weapon master (rather than undo it from the collective conciousness of everyone) I would probably retool it towards and "RP" feat rather than a combat one.

Something like "Choose a weapon property. 1) you are proficient in any weapon and improvised weapon with this property. 2) You gain a special ritual which is like the spell identify. This ritual can only be used on weapons that have the weapon property you have chosen. 3) You know the approximate worth of a weapon with the chosen weapon property."




That is very cool idea, or an arcane focus or holy symbol as the weapon, etc. Something useful to a caster selecting the weapon.

[DanyBallon]

If that's the case, then screw whoever designed it. Feats designed purely for "flavor" with no practical use have no place being feats. Make them background features or something.

Feats are created to allow your character do things that are not normally, available to them, GWM allows to "Power attack", PAM to increase your reach, Observant to be proficient with in an other ability saving throw, Weapon master to be proficient with weapons not allowed to your class, etc.

By giving some feat for free you're throwing away the balance of feats. If a wizards wants to be proficient in light armor because it fits its character background, he has to spend a feat on it, the same goes for a fighter who wants to know some spells (Magic Initiate, or Ritual Caster), or for a ranger who's background makes him one of the best archer (Sharpshooter).

If you allow a feat for free because you believe it's trash, then you'll end up having hard time saying no when an other player will ask you for a free feat. It would be unfair to allow one player access to something its character shouldn't but saying no to another, after all it fits both character background...

Just imagine playing a fighter and having to spend your ASI to get GWM, PAM and any other feat you need, while the guy sitting next to you, got proficiency with greatsword, and heavy armor for free, and is now picking up the same feat as you are with ASI, and on top still have full access to his spells, would you think it's fair? Now if the same wizard spent feats or multiclassed to get access to weapons and armors not allowed to wizards, then he paid a great cost to be able to do the same as you do.

[JohnDoe]

The feats are already balanced. If you can't figure out how they are balanced, don't modify them.

If you want a rapier, fluff a simple weapon to be a rapier. Use a d6 spear. Use a dagger. If you think it makes no difference then I don't see why you're hung up with avoiding simple weapons and ignoring fighting styles.

Martial weapons exist for a reason. Fighting Styles exist for a reason. They're not just 'fluff'

[Cybren]

The feats are already balanced. If you can't figure out how they are balanced, don't modify them.

If you want a rapier, fluff a simple weapon to be a rapier. Use a d6 spear.

Martial weapons exist for a reason. Fighting Styles exist for a reason. They're not just 'fluff'

Weapons exist for a reason. They're not just "fluff"

[JohnDoe]

Weapons exist for a reason. They're not just "fluff"

Yes, and some are much better than others...