What's your opinion on the Spear Mastery feat?

[CrackedChair]

I really do have an eye for blades on sticks, but the spear seemed to be a bit underwhelming when I first got into 5e.

It is among the stronger of simple melee weapons, sharing a spot with the quarterstaff, due to a slew of useful effects, such as being able to be thrown, and the versatile function booting damage to a d8. But it's still a simple weapon, meaning it's not all that great to martial weapons.

But with the UA that featured weapon feats, it made me really wish that the feat would be printed. As seen here... https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/UA-Feats-V1.pdf

But what is everyone else's take on this feat? Good? Mediocre? Unneeded?

[Matticusrex]

downgraded pole-arm master.

[ZorroGames]

Most if the other weapon feats seem more useful but it is "semi-okay" in its own way.

[Vaz]

Stuff you should be able to do anyone? Sucks.

Trading +1 to hit and damage, bonuses to specific skills you may want to max anyway, in return for a +1 to hit with a specific weapon and an average +1 to damage with a specific weapon, and the ability to trade your Bonus Action for either +5ft reach on your turn only (suckssssss) or choosing one specific creature (suckkssssss) at least 20ft away that moves within reach (10ft usually) to make a reaction dealing 1d8 damage (suckkssss)

Tbh, all of the weapon specialization feats outside of Fell Handed suck balls.

The +5ft reach on a bonus action should last until the start of your next turn, and you shouldn't need a bonus action AND a feat/asi to make bonus damage. It's also a weapon specialization - I'd make the bonus just be +1 to attack and damage, and still consider increasing damage die size.

You're trading a generic +2 to a stat for the ability to improve a specific weapon - especially when there's no magical spear in the DMG; any weapon is a sword variant, basically. NAH.

[Snowfalcon]

I have a mixed opinion regarding the Spear Master Feat.

As a *feat* I don't think that much of it. It does not offer enough benefit that anyone will spend an ASI to get it with the possible exception of a Home Brew where a magic spear comes their way.

On the one hand, D&D combat is abstract per RAW, and part of the point of taking a martial class is the greater options and increased damage of martial weapons. Gaining the capacity to do "martial level damage" should cost something. So as a way to allow a non-martial classed character advance their ability with one simple weapon to a martial level at a cost makes a certain kind of sense.

I don't foresee fighters, rangers, barbarians or paladins ever taking the feat: a "real" spear can be had and it's called a glaive.

On the other hand, I have some experience of spears and pikes, and they're severely misrepresented in the game. My simplest explanation for why they're underrated and misrepresented is encapsulated in a simple question "Seeing a skunk, possibly rabid, approaching; and having a choice between longsword and spear; which weapon do you want to handle that skunk?" And many will link to the fight scene between Achilles and Hector in the recent movie _Troy_ to make a similar point. (Which can be used to argue things a few ways.) And so "Why should it take a feat for a spear to do what a spear can do?"

In my own campaigns I frequently use that feat as a "bonus feat" or a feature of a background. In one that was based on Norse culture(s), if you were native to the starting region there were limits to race and class, compensated for by certain features and feats. One of them was that a character from there was proficient with a spear no matter what, if they already had proficiency they gained the Spear Master Feat. A little bit of "flavor" that no one used, but it communicated the bit of the culture that required every able adult to attend militia (fyrd) practices.

In the end I think it comes to the factor I started with: D&D combat is abstract.

Coupled with an often overlooked element of the development of the game from the early days when it was more closely tied to wargaming: there are things that appear in print that are not necessarily intended for regular play. Certain combat options, spells, mechanics and more have turned up in different versions over the years. Magic Mouth is a prime example. It didn't come along because it's a useful spell for a character to cast. It's there because it gives the DM a process in the game mechanics for certain effects and experiences. Evaluating RAW and UA strictly by "what is useful to players" isn't the only valid evaluation. Looking at things like "useless spells" and "feats no one will ever take" as "This is a way to communicate mechanics, ideas, methods and more to a DM for their use as things the players can run into." produces a more useful result.

And I would argue from the commentary that is part of that particular UA, that the writers were very much about that. Yes, you can build feats for your campaign. Here's some feats we came up with with our evaluation of what makes a good feat from the design perspective.

That UA is more educational than functional and I doubt that you'll see many of those feats in print elsewhere.

But I still find them useful as ideas for what I can add to my game in other ways. No character will voluntarily take Spear Master. On the other hand that's a fast way to take a group of standard hobgoblins and make them "veterans": give them all that feat and make the encounter with a hobgoblin squad on patrol just a little harder.

Hope that makes sense. Sorry to go on so long.

[CTurbo]

I like it only for the character that is built around having a spear for flavor/rp reasons and only then after their Str is maxed.