1DND Playtest - Is Two-Weapon Fighting Good?

[Mongobear]

Question in the title.

I read over all of the playtest docs last night, and noticed a pretty big change to TWFing, specifically, that the extra attack is made during the same action as the initial attacks, not a bonus action. Additionally, the Fighting Styles are 1st level Feats for anyone in the Warrior group (Barbarian/Monk/Fighter) and I vbelieve Ranger/Pally gets a feature that lets them count as a Warrior at second level.

Does this ease of access to the Style and action economy saving make it more attractive vs a 2h?

[ZRN]

1. In the very most recent playtest they walked back that change to TWF *except* for certain weapons via the Fighter/Barbarian(/Monk) Weapon Mastery feature. So as of right now, rangers are basically unchanged in TWF, and rogues are actually worse (since they no longer qualify to get the Fighting Style feat).

That said, fighters and barbarians are significantly better off because they CAN use a weapon with the Nick mastery trait so they don't use their bonus action. In addition, weapon mastery gives you cool extra effects (trip, push, advantage on next attack against that enemy) that depend on what weapon you use, so there's an incentive to wield two different weapons to add more variety to the mastery effects you can use. There are even some (trip, push, sap) that aren't available on light weapons so there's some reason to take the Dual Wielder feat and carry, say, a morningstar and a longsword.

[Mongobear]

1. In the very most recent playtest they walked back that change to TWF *except* for certain weapons via the Fighter/Barbarian(/Monk) Weapon Mastery feature. So as of right now, rangers are basically unchanged in TWF, and rogues are actually worse (since they no longer qualify to get the Fighting Style feat).


Le sigh...

This is why we can't have nice things. WotC finally makes a good decision on a rules change, only to backpedal it a few months later.



That said, fighters and barbarians are significantly better off because they CAN use a weapon with the Nick mastery trait so they don't use their bonus action. In addition, weapon mastery gives you cool extra effects (trip, push, advantage on next attack against that enemy) that depend on what weapon you use, so there's an incentive to wield two different weapons to add more variety to the mastery effects you can use. There are even some (trip, push, sap) that aren't available on light weapons so there's some reason to take the Dual Wielder feat and carry, say, a morningstar and a longsword.


I suppose this is nice, I like the aesthetic of a TWF Barbarian, instead of the metabreaker 2h Hulk-Smash style. I am just not a fan of these Mastery traits ruling the application of them. I feel like these Mastery traits couldve just been used as an archetype mechanic for a new line of Class options, instead of the base game mechanics for everyone that wields one of them.

[Skrum]

I am just not a fan of these Mastery traits ruling the application of them. I feel like these Mastery traits couldve just been used as an archetype mechanic for a new line of Class options, instead of the base game mechanics for everyone that wields one of them.

Idk man, I think the masteries are a big step in the right direction. Weapon choices mattering beyond 2H, 1H, or reach is really great to see. I also don't like every single feature and ability being gated behind a particular class/subclass. Like if you want to be good with maces you have to take levels as a Knight Templar; there's already so much of that baked into DnD.

[Mongobear]

Idk man, I think the masteries are a big step in the right direction. Weapon choices mattering beyond 2H, 1H, or reach is really great to see. I also don't like every single feature and ability being gated behind a particular class/subclass. Like if you want to be good with maces you have to take levels as a Knight Templar; there's already so much of that baked into DnD.

I don't disagree that they're interesting, I just dislike them being tied to a core mechanic like TWFing action economy. There was nothing wrong with the original playtest version of it just always being part of the same action, the newest version, making a trait specifically for TWFing is a direct nerf not only to TWFing, but also the weapon mastery traits themselves, since in order to TWF with them, you are required to have at least one Nick weapon at all times.

[Kane0]

Funny enough theyre back to what the broad consensus used to be here, gate the BA > Attack action upgrade to the feat or fighting style. They just made a new feat using the weapon masteries to do it.

So TWF can be really great, especially wth the thrown weapon improvements too. All you need is any source of per-hit damage boost or be a rogue that really benefits from getting a second chance at landing your one big hit.

[Psyren]

I don't disagree that they're interesting, I just dislike them being tied to a core mechanic like TWFing action economy. There was nothing wrong with the original playtest version of it just always being part of the same action, the newest version, making a trait specifically for TWFing is a direct nerf not only to TWFing, but also the weapon mastery traits themselves, since in order to TWF with them, you are required to have at least one Nick weapon at all times.

Well the thing is, if you have no better use for your bonus action then Nick isn't actually getting you anything. Like a Barbarian might want to use their bonus action to maintain rage, but if they're attacking they're maintaining it anyway. So they might actually get more mileage out of Sap (to cancel out RA) and Slow/Push (to keep enemies from getting around them or getting out of battlefield control etc) than Nick.

Having said that I agree that Rangers, Rogues, and even Paladins should be allowed to access this system.

[Mongobear]

Well the thing is, if you have no better use for your bonus action then Nick isn't actually getting you anything. Like a Barbarian might want to use their bonus action to maintain rage, but if they're attacking they're maintaining it anyway. So they might actually get more mileage out of Sap (to cancel out RA) and Slow/Push (to keep enemies from getting around them or getting out of battlefield control etc) than Nick.

Having said that I agree that Rangers, Rogues, and even Paladins should be allowed to access this system.

This is what I was talking about, there are at least 5 classes, perhaps more, who could very easily have a new archetype designed for each of them, which focuses specifically on Mastery trait interactions, instead of the current iteration just ham-fisting them all onto the base game mechanics, and only for a small subset of classes.

It kind of irks me that the more specialized/hybrid archetypes like Valor/Swords Bard, War/Tempest Domain, Bladesinger Wiz, etc don't get to use the Mastery traits, despite their fluff explicitly stating they are more martially focused.

[Kane0]

I would have done something to put them in with Fighting Styles myself, those are spread quite a bit and also opens up to getting them via a feat. Then just give the remaining classes/subclasses the ability to pick up the ones that make sense (TWF for Rogue, GWF for Barb, etc).

[ZRN]

This is what I was talking about, there are at least 5 classes, perhaps more, who could very easily have a new archetype designed for each of them, which focuses specifically on Mastery trait interactions, instead of the current iteration just ham-fisting them all onto the base game mechanics, and only for a small subset of classes.

It kind of irks me that the more specialized/hybrid archetypes like Valor/Swords Bard, War/Tempest Domain, Bladesinger Wiz, etc don't get to use the Mastery traits, despite their fluff explicitly stating they are more martially focused.

This is the mindset that keeps fighters bland: any time a new mechanic comes out for fighters or even for "warriors," the community responds with "why can't my wizard who taped a knife to his staff do this too?" and the fun fighter/warrior thing becomes an (almost) everybody thing. Cf: fighting styles.

[Damon_Tor]

1. We need to know if the light weapon "bug" where you can make both attacks with the same hand by drawing a new weapon (via the more liberal weapon draw and/or throwing weapon rules) is intended or not. If you can "light weapon fight" with a shield and that's the intended behavior, then yeah "two weapon fighting" is dead because the new "light weapon fighting" doesn't require it.

But more to the point: yeah it looks pretty okay right now. For a barbarian in particular because his brutal criticals aren't tied to weapon die anymore, so he's even more incentivised to make as many attacks as he possibly can.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is the mindset that keeps fighters bland: any time a new mechanic comes out for fighters or even for "warriors," the community responds with "why can't my wizard who taped a knife to his staff do this too?" and the fun fighter/warrior thing becomes an (almost) everybody thing. Cf: fighting styles.

Exactly. The idea that martial things are easy and should be accessible to everyone (at most a feat away) while caster things are hard and need to be caster only is pernicious. Martials (and specific martials!) should have Unique Cool Things that no one else should be able to do. Period.

Edit: imagine a fighter saying "wizardry's just reading from a book, so I should be able to pick up a looted spellbook and cast any spell in it. At most a feat to say "cast like a wizard"."

[Kane0]

Like Fighters being able to use multiple Weapon Masteries at the same time, and no I don't mean like the substitution they are getting in this UA. Imagine a level 13 Fighter hitting with a cleave + push + topple greatsword, casually batting away foes left and right. Or vex + nick + slow throwing handaxes around. Hell even sap + slow with a flail or morningstar would be fun.

I think it's fine to let you unlock one mastery with a fighting style or feat (and no weapons have a particular mastery tied to them), but martials in general just learn all masteries by default and the real warriors get to combine them. Much like a feat can be used to get Magic Initiate or Ritual Casting but not just give you the whole shebang.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Like Fighters being able to use multiple Weapon Masteries at the same time, and no I don't mean like the substitution they are getting in this UA. Imagine a level 13 Fighter hitting with a cleave + push + topple greatsword, casually batting away foes left and right. Or vex + nick + slow throwing handaxes around. Hell even sap + slow with a flail or morningstar would be fun.

I think it's fine to let you unlock one mastery with a fighting style or feat (and no weapons have a particular mastery tied to them), but martials in general just learn all masteries by default and the real warriors get to combine them. Much like a feat can be used to get Magic Initiate or Ritual Casting but not just give you the whole shebang.

I'd go a step further and (in addition to that sort of thing) bake in the "big combat feats" with some modifications straight into the classes. Barbarians Power Attacking + cleave with any weapon? Sure. Fighters getting to effortlessly switch between a longbow and a greatsword, getting GWM with one and SS with the other, for free? Yup. Etc. Throw rogues and rangers a bone and let them have some things (probably CBE + TWF for rogues, SS + TWF for rangers), but everyone else? Has to take a feat to get one of them.

[Gignere]

This is what I was talking about, there are at least 5 classes, perhaps more, who could very easily have a new archetype designed for each of them, which focuses specifically on Mastery trait interactions, instead of the current iteration just ham-fisting them all onto the base game mechanics, and only for a small subset of classes.

It kind of irks me that the more specialized/hybrid archetypes like Valor/Swords Bard, War/Tempest Domain, Bladesinger Wiz, etc don't get to use the Mastery traits, despite their fluff explicitly stating they are more martially focused.

They can all get access via a feat, I’m already thinking how I can modify my current Bladesinger build by fitting in the weapon mastery feat.

[Xihirli]

Having said that I agree that Rangers, Rogues, and even Paladins should be allowed to access this system.

Maybe each subclass of Rogue can give a different weapon mastery? Since Thief Rogues get basically nothing in the UA they can get Nick, since you know Arcane Tricksters won't get a nerf, maybe they get a worse one?

[GooeyChewie]

Assuming no substantial change in the rules, I think a Rogue who wants to go two-weapon fighting should start with one level of Fighter. That one-level start gets you the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, as well as mastery on two weapon types. Choose Shortsword with Vex and Scimitar with Nick for your off-hand. That way if you hit on the first attack, your second will be at advantage and can grant Sneak Attack if you had no other way to get it. Then once you level up enough to get a feat you can take Dual Wielder and you can swap the Shortsword for a Rapier. (I would say take Dual Wielder as your background feat, but it requires 4th level.)

[Mongobear]

Assuming no substantial change in the rules, I think a Rogue who wants to go two-weapon fighting should start with one level of Fighter. That one-level start gets you the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, as well as mastery on two weapon types. Choose Shortsword with Vex and Scimitar with Nick for your off-hand. That way if you hit on the first attack, your second will be at advantage and can grant Sneak Attack if you had no other way to get it. Then once you level up enough to get a feat you can take Dual Wielder and you can swap the Shortsword for a Rapier. (I would say take Dual Wielder as your background feat, but it requires 4th level.)

I think I mentioned something about this earlier or in another similar thread.

The Mastery Traits are all but forcing a Fighter dip onto a LOT of Martial builds solely to access them. It's the new Warlock 2 dip for 1DND.

[Theodoxus]

Maybe each subclass of Rogue can give a different weapon mastery? Since Thief Rogues get basically nothing in the UA they can get Nick, since you know Arcane Tricksters won't get a nerf, maybe they get a worse one?

Give ATs Flex - lol. Cast moar spells, sucka!

[Rukelnikov]

I think I mentioned something about this earlier or in another similar thread.

The Mastery Traits are all but forcing a Fighter dip onto a LOT of Martial builds solely to access them. It's the new Warlock 2 dip for 1DND.

I don't think so, Paladin and Ranger are likely gonna get weapon proficiencies masteries, not as many as the fighter, and thats good, but a couple, if you want mastery in every weapon though, yeah you are gonna have to dip most martial classes.

[Mongobear]

I don't think so, Paladin and Ranger are likely gonna get weapon proficiencies masteries, not as many as the fighter, and thats good, but a couple, if you want mastery in every weapon though, yeah you are gonna have to dip most martial classes.

That's kind of my problem with the whole thing. Instead of having a cool subset of rules that anyone can use, they've purposefully designed a new rules category that really only one class can really benefit from, with a few splashy ways for a very minor other subset to utilize. This could have just been a new Fighter Martial Archetype, even a mechanical change to Battle Master, with the effect of the Superiority Dice changing slightly based on the weapon(s) you have equipped.

[Rukelnikov]

That's kind of my problem with the whole thing. Instead of having a cool subset of rules that anyone can use, they've purposefully designed a new rules category that really only one class can really benefit from, with a few splashy ways for a very minor other subset to utilize. This could have just been a new Fighter Martial Archetype, even a mechanical change to Battle Master, with the effect of the Superiority Dice changing slightly based on the weapon(s) you have equipped.

But every martial will likely be able to use it, the barbarian gets masteries, I expect the Paladin and Ranger to get masteries too, rogue's I'm not sure, maybe some subs, maybe they get 1, the mastery system is very reminiscent of 2e's weapon proficiencies tbh, so going with that as a guideline, fighters will get more than everyone else, and save for maybe full casters, everyone will get at least some masteries.

[Gignere]

But every martial will likely be able to use it, the barbarian gets masteries, I expect the Paladin and Ranger to get masteries too, rogue's I'm not sure, maybe some subs, maybe they get 1, the mastery system is very reminiscent of 2e's weapon proficiencies tbh, so going with that as a guideline, fighters will get more than everyone else, and save for maybe full casters, everyone will get at least some masteries.

I am against the idea that paladins and rangers should be getting mastery. Hell any class that gets casting in the base class really have no business touching weapon masteries. They can get it by using an ASI. Not baked into the class. This should be the 3.X fighters weapon specialization, although weapon spec was too crappy.

[Rukelnikov]

I am against the idea that paladins and rangers should be getting mastery. Hell any class that gets casting in the base class really have no business touching weapon masteries. They can get it by using an ASI. Not baked into the class. This should be the 3.X fighters weapon specialization, although weapon spec was too crappy.

That would be ok as well I think, but thematically Rangers and Paladins should be better weapon users than Rogue's, so I'd find it a bit jarring that Rogues getting weapon masteries but Paladin and Ranger not getting them. It would however be interesting since it is another avenue for martial combat being split, some people get extra attack, some people get Fighting styles, some people get masteries, but only fighters get all those, and they are better at those than the rest.

[Gignere]

That would be ok as well I think, but thematically Rangers and Paladins should be better weapon users than Rogue's, so I'd find it a bit jarring that Rogues getting weapon masteries but Paladin and Ranger not getting them. It would however be interesting since it is another avenue for martial combat being split, some people get extra attack, some people get Fighting styles, some people get masteries, but only fighters get all those, and they are better at those than the rest.

Why? I see paladins and rangers mixing magic with fighting much more so than rogues outside of arcane tricksters. In a word with smite spells and hunters mark there is no need to focus on mundane fighting styles.

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem is that everything martials get as a part of their identity is one note, limited, and usually a binary. Armor and weapon proficiencies, Extra Attack, Fighting Styles, and now Weapon Masteries. Either you have these things or you don't. And because they don't level, it's easy to achieve them with just a level dip, a feat, or your own subclass level.

To crib what spellcasters get, you need levels and levels of investment. But because what martials get is so limited in scope, it's nothing to nab it and then it's just on forever.

Really lame design in my opinion. The game needs a better combat and weapon system for martials. This "the feature is exclusive to warriors, but you can grab it with a feat, and here's a free feat at level 1" stuff is for the birds.

[Rukelnikov]

Why? I see paladins and rangers mixing magic with fighting much more so than rogues outside of arcane tricksters. In a word with smite spells and hunters mark there is no need to focus on mundane fighting styles.

Well, because of theme? Classes are intended to represent archetypes, a Paladin class that is not good at using weapons is not emulating a paladin archetype, its emulating something much closer to a cleric archetype, similar for Ranger. The classes, at least in theory, attempt to emulate certain common medieval fantasy character archetypes.


The problem is that everything martials get as a part of their identity is one note, limited, and usually a binary. Armor and weapon proficiencies, Extra Attack, Fighting Styles, and now Weapon Masteries. Either you have these things or you don't. And because they don't level, it's easy to achieve them with just a level dip, a feat, or your own subclass level.

To crib what spellcasters get, you need levels and levels of investment. But because what martials get is so limited in scope, it's nothing to nab it and then it's just on forever.

Really lame design in my opinion. The game needs a better combat and weapon system for martials. This "the feature is exclusive to warriors, but you can grab it with a feat, and here's a free feat at level 1" stuff is for the birds.

I agree, it would be much more interesting if the mastery system grew with level, letting you put like triple mastery in Greatswords for greater effect or something like that.

EDIT: Well, thinking a bit more about it, no I wouldn't like greater mastery like that, becuase it would go back to incentivizing I'm only good with a single weapon characters, maybe if masteries themselves were improved, so you could still spread your masteries over different weapon types, but the benefit granted by the mastery increased via class features locked behin T2+ combatant classes.

[Mongobear]

I agree, it would be much more interesting if the mastery system grew with level, letting you put like triple mastery in Greatswords for greater effect or something like that.

Or if these "Masteries" were just the newest on-theme rules expansion for a new book, like all the Dragon stuff in Fizban's. It could effectively be 5e/1DND's equivalent to the Tome of Battle, with new archtype options for the 5-6 classes who realiztically would have a "weapon master" sub-class, and they are all explicitly based around new rules/methods to use these keywords.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is that everything martials get as a part of their identity is one note, limited, and usually a binary. Armor and weapon proficiencies, Extra Attack, Fighting Styles, and now Weapon Masteries. Either you have these things or you don't. And because they don't level, it's easy to achieve them with just a level dip, a feat, or your own subclass level.

To crib what spellcasters get, you need levels and levels of investment. But because what martials get is so limited in scope, it's nothing to nab it and then it's just on forever.

Really lame design in my opinion. The game needs a better combat and weapon system for martials. This "the feature is exclusive to warriors, but you can grab it with a feat, and here's a free feat at level 1" stuff is for the birds.

Yeah. And that's the root of the dip issue--it's all binary. Got it or not. And so...boring.

[Rukelnikov]

Or if these "Masteries" were just the newest on-theme rules expansion for a new book, like all the Dragon stuff in Fizban's. It could effectively be 5e/1DND's equivalent to the Tome of Battle, with new archtype options for the 5-6 classes who realiztically would have a "weapon master" sub-class, and they are all explicitly based around new rules/methods to use these keywords.

Sure, but at thispoint, I'd be more interested in it being baked in the new PHB, and then having expansions.

[GooeyChewie]

Well, because of theme? Classes are intended to represent archetypes, a Paladin class that is not good at using weapons is not emulating a paladin archetype, its emulating something much closer to a cleric archetype, similar for Ranger. The classes, at least in theory, attempt to emulate certain common medieval fantasy character archetypes.

100% agree. If I got to make the decision, I'd probably swap Paladin to the Warrior group and Monk to the Priest group. Paladins already focus on martial weapons and get a Fighting Style, so moving them to the class group that gets Weapon Mastery would allow them to take greater advantage of those features. Monks, unless they get changed for the new stuff, get a much narrower selection of weapons and often use unarmed strikes, so I think a class group that could give them "Channel Spirit" would make a lot more sense than a class group that has a bunch of weapon-based bonuses.

[Gignere]

100% agree. If I got to make the decision, I'd probably swap Paladin to the Warrior group and Monk to the Priest group. Paladins already focus on martial weapons and get a Fighting Style, so moving them to the class group that gets Weapon Mastery would allow them to take greater advantage of those features. Monks, unless they get changed for the new stuff, get a much narrower selection of weapons and often use unarmed strikes, so I think a class group that could give them "Channel Spirit" would make a lot more sense than a class group that has a bunch of weapon-based bonuses.

I just don’t think you can balance spell casting with the thing that’s going to make fighters narrow the differences between them and casters. You’ll just make paladins way OP.

Especially since paladins now have access to the full divine list. Sprit guardians + smite spells + mastery would be no joke.

[GooeyChewie]

I just don’t think you can balance spell casting with the thing that’s going to make fighters narrow the differences between them and casters. You’ll just make paladins way OP.

Especially since paladins now have access to the full divine list. Sprit guardians + smite spells + mastery would be no joke.

Granted, there would be some balancing to do. But I think it could be reasonably done. The only addition it would make to Paladins would be a single weapon mastery; surely something else could be toned down to make up for that change. Perhaps Paladins shouldn't have access to the entire Divine list. Not only would they be easier to balance without Spirit Guardians, but to Rukelnikov's point it does make them closer to a cleric archetype rather than a paladin one.

Of course, it's all just a bit of wishful thinking on my part. I have no influence on the design beyond my playtest feedback, so I doubt the switch will happen.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Exactly. The idea that martial things are easy and should be accessible to everyone (at most a feat away) while caster things are hard and need to be caster only is pernicious. Martials (and specific martials!) should have Unique Cool Things that no one else should be able to do. Period.

Edit: imagine a fighter saying "wizardry's just reading from a book, so I should be able to pick up a looted spellbook and cast any spell in it. At most a feat to say "cast like a wizard"."

Late response here, but the person you quoted didn't say anything should be easy and accessible to everyone. I do think The specific Martial casters could benefit from access to a very small subset. Bladesinger access to Whip, Rapier, Short Sword. The Melee Bards getting Rapier, Scimitar, Shortsword, Tempest Cleric Warhammer, that type of thing.

For your edit. Pretty sure non casters can take Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster. Which gives quite a bit of magical access but not all.

In a similar note, a Caster can access fighting styles, but not Action Surge, Indomitable, Second Wind, Enhanced Extra Attack or any of the subclass features.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Late response here, but the person you quoted didn't say anything should be easy and accessible to everyone. I do think The specific Martial casters could benefit from access to a very small subset. Bladesinger access to Whip, Rapier, Short Sword. The Melee Bards getting Rapier, Scimitar, Shortsword, Tempest Cleric Warhammer, that type of thing.

For your edit. Pretty sure non casters can take Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster. Which gives quite a bit of magical access but not all.

In a similar note, a Caster can access fighting styles, but not Action Surge, Indomitable, Second Wind, Enhanced Extra Attack or any of the subclass features.

The thing is, what was stated and what I was responding to was that these should be properties of the weapons, not class feature-gated at all.

So yes, there are at least some number of people who want them to be totally free to anyone who can use a weapon.

[Hurrashane]

I'd be fine with some rogues getting weapon masteries, well one rogue anyway; The swashbuckler. Same as I'd be fine with a swords/valor bard (though I think Swords and Valor should be combined) getting to play with masteries. They're experts that are dipping into warrior class schtick after all.

But I'd also be fine with it remaining a warrior only unless you grab a feat. But I also wouldn't mind more classes schtick being feats that folk can grab. That'd help reduce multiclass dipping if you could just grab a feature you wanted as a feat.

[Theodoxus]

I don't see why the masteries couldn't get added qualities based on martial level.

Say, 5, 9, 13, and 17th levels, so a bit like Bo9S initiator levels. Just like a Fighter could grab Magic initiate to get a smidge of Wizard power, but never get higher abilities without actually taking Wizard levels (or a slower learning curve via EK), a Wizard could grab Weapon Mastery to get a smidge of martial power, but never get higher abilities without actually taking Fighter levels (I'd be ok with a slower learning curve via bladesinger, but I'd want the archetype to exchange some caster power for the added martial power).

I think going a level improvement route would curtail some of the desire to allow masteries to stack on a single attack. Heck, to make the list a little easier to generate, some of the higher level options might be thematic mixing of two masteries into one.

[ZRN]

Late response here, but the person you quoted didn't say anything should be easy and accessible to everyone. I do think The specific Martial casters could benefit from access to a very small subset. Bladesinger access to Whip, Rapier, Short Sword. The Melee Bards getting Rapier, Scimitar, Shortsword, Tempest Cleric Warhammer, that type of thing.

For your edit. Pretty sure non casters can take Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster. Which gives quite a bit of magical access but not all.

In a similar note, a Caster can access fighting styles, but not Action Surge, Indomitable, Second Wind, Enhanced Extra Attack or any of the subclass features.

This playtest gives casters (specific Martial casters or otherwise) that access to masteries through a feat, making it a pretty exact parallel to Magic Initiate or Skilled Expert.

[Kane0]

Id have set it up like a progression. People have already drawn the comparison to 2es specialty but you also have 3e’s weapon focus and specialization. In 5e we have expertise and reliable talent, so we could have weapon proficiency > weapon expertise > weapon mastery

[Mongobear]

I don't see why the masteries couldn't get added qualities based on martial level.

Say, 5, 9, 13, and 17th levels, so a bit like Bo9S initiator levels. Just like a Fighter could grab Magic initiate to get a smidge of Wizard power, but never get higher abilities without actually taking Wizard levels (or a slower learning curve via EK), a Wizard could grab Weapon Mastery to get a smidge of martial power, but never get higher abilities without actually taking Fighter levels (I'd be ok with a slower learning curve via bladesinger, but I'd want the archetype to exchange some caster power for the added martial power).

I think going a level improvement route would curtail some of the desire to allow masteries to stack on a single attack. Heck, to make the list a little easier to generate, some of the higher level options might be thematic mixing of two masteries into one.

They would likely just be mechanically identical to Cantrips, since something like that already exists.

Each Mastery trait allows you do do a thing, and at each level breakpoint, that thing either becomes more powerful, or harder to resist.

This is kind of turning into 4e class buttons tbh, like instead of the old school generic weapon attacks, every class using them will be going up and "I use Scimitar Flash Strike!" and im not sure this is a healthy direction, considering the wider playerbase's opinions on 4e.

[Hurrashane]

You know, I only just now remembered that Baldur's gate 3 essentially has weapon masteries. You can't swap them out (at least last time I played) but each weapon had a special weapon ability, though those were only 1/SR iirc.

[Rukelnikov]

Id have set it up like a progression. People have already drawn the comparison to 2es specialty but you also have 3e’s weapon focus and specialization. In 5e we have expertise and reliable talent, so we could have weapon proficiency > weapon expertise > weapon mastery

Or, or, we could have weapon proficiency > weapon specialization > weapon mastery :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or, or, we could have weapon proficiency > weapon specialization > weapon mastery :smalltongue:

I actually put together a proof of concept based around this exact thing. Sort of. Way too over-complex though.

[Rukelnikov]

I actually put together a proof of concept based around this exact thing. Sort of. Way too over-complex though.

I rememebr you suggested a couple of the Masteries that ended up appearing, like Graze and Cleave, is that the proof of concept you mean?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I rememebr you suggested a couple of the Masteries that ended up appearing, like Graze and Cleave, is that the proof of concept you mean?

That was the drastically slimmed down version. But yeah. I did suggest some of them. Not that it's any great credit, because they're transparently 4e weapon group feats. And I'd never make them the big central thing for the Warrior group--they're too....boring. Nice small effect, but yeah.

The original (well, v2, since v1 was even more bloated and awkward) was Talents (Google Doc) (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10_-Jh32QinqyekT3qPcI68KSqk0mG7yMdvVxtAQ2tms/edit?usp=sharing).

[Kane0]

Oh yeah, 4e weapon traits. I remember when Brutal was a weapon thing and not a racial/class thing.

[Rukelnikov]

That was the drastically slimmed down version. But yeah. I did suggest some of them. Not that it's any great credit, because they're transparently 4e weapon group feats. And I'd never make them the big central thing for the Warrior group--they're too....boring. Nice small effect, but yeah.

The original (well, v2, since v1 was even more bloated and awkward) was Talents (Google Doc) (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10_-Jh32QinqyekT3qPcI68KSqk0mG7yMdvVxtAQ2tms/edit?usp=sharing).

I remembering seeing this already a while ago, IIRC when I suggested weapons should have special moves in addition to the generic attack action. I hope they indeed turn masteries into a feature that scales in some way.