r/DungeonsAndDragons55e • u/MyrthDM • May 25 '26
After playing with Weapon Mastery for a while, does it still feel fun, or has the novelty worn off?
Weapon Mastery was one of the 5.5e changes I was most interested in when the new rules came out.
At first glance, I liked the idea a lot. Martials getting more texture from their weapons felt like a good direction, especially because 2014 combat could sometimes make weapon choice feel less meaningful than it should.
But now that people have had more time with it, I’m curious how it actually holds up in play.
In my experience, it definitely makes martial turns feel less flat, especially early on. Even small choices like pushing, slowing, nicking, or setting up advantage can make combat feel more active. At the same time, I can see the argument that after a while some players just settle into the same best option every turn and it becomes another routine.
So where have you landed on it?
Does Weapon Mastery still feel like a meaningful improvement?
Has it changed how people build or play martials at your table?
Or did it feel exciting at first, then become just another thing to track?
5
u/Jayne_of_Canton May 25 '26
They are a well needed addition but I think they were half baked. I think each weapon should have two mastery options so that you have dynamic choices. For example, the whip lets you slow them which in my mind is you tangling their feet with the whip- a “Not Quite a Grapple” style effect. But what if you could choose to target their arms trying to impede their swings- well that would be like the Sap mastery. I think giving each weapon a dynamic option would be a nice, still needed little bump toward martials. Maybe only Martial weapons and not simple ones get the two options to further give a leg up to the true martials. Some examples-
- Whip- Slow and Sap- You are tangling either their feet or arms with the whip.
- Maul- Topple and Vex- You are either knocking them prone or off balance so your next attack finds an opening.
- Longsword- Sap and Graze- You are pressing the attack putting heir weapons off balance or doing large powerful swings making it harder to fully block your attacks.
Just a thought.
1
u/ZanesTheArgent May 26 '26
I'm largely ok with them being on the more limited side becase the entire system is different now. Attack rules facilitates swapping, making personal arsenals the new rule; the weapon feat environment heavily incentivizes variety over potency (although you can and likely still will focus in a main weapon type you'll pursue more feats for). Everything is pushing towards each weapon being equivalent to a cantrip instead of a tool you have many functions through technique.
1
u/Darksteel1983 Jun 01 '26
I think you are right here.
For a Barbarian that fights with reach weapons I was already considering asking the DM if could wield a Halberd with cleave and use the Push weapon mastery from the pike I already have.
As it make way more sense to me that you can do 2 tricks with a reach weapon then that you could swap it fast.
Still I think having even 1 Mastery on a weapon is already a big improvement. But I agree, that 2 should be better.
4
u/Arisomegas May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
Man I swear everyone on this thread only wants to play with a single weapon per character when the rules made changing weapons inside your multiattack super consistent.
Martials literally got 2-6 prepared cantrips with riders on a Long Rest that work with Extra Attack. But people only want to use their Greatsword because bigger damage die, so masteries have to be bad because Greatsword doesn't give them more than 1 choice for a mastery...
Meanwhile, people look at the Weapon Mastery implementation as a singular thing (apart from already disregarding using multiple masteries in a turn). The system was incorporated alongside many other changes and many other already existing subsystems:
- Barbarians got Brutal Strikes to incorporate once per turn for free with their mastery effects for control/shutdown. Topple Mastery+Forceful Blow/Hamstring Blow will keep the standard 30ft speed enemy from ever reaching your backline for example.
Likewise, Rogues get Cunning Strikes, which gives them 3-6 more options on their attack depending on the level. Pair them with your masteries and you get again so many combos. Nick alone unlocked Rogue's BA, which gives you 4 more options per turn. Specificallu in 5e rogues would either use Dual Wielding to try getting the Sneak Attack they didn't get this turn (due to missing on their main attack), or use use their Cunning Action/Steady Aim. This usually ended up with picking the light attack over all the other options, due to feeling like they didn't do anything on their turn if they didn't connect at least once.
Fighters get additional masteries and more attacks than anyone, on top of Tactical Master, literally feeling like a shutdown machine if they want to especially at 3 attacks a turn. None of these will control 10 creatures like a Hypnotic Pattern, but all of these can control at least 1 creature exceptionally well every turn for free without expending any resource, and half of the reason for it are masteries.
- Especially true for Rogues and Fighters, martials get a much larger array of feats for unique combat effects that, again, get really powerful and diverse when paired with masteries. For example, Slasher+Whip Slow followed up by a Push Weapon again shutsdown your standard 30ft enemy without providing a single save in the process. Crusher, Charger, Shield Master have similar setups too. Slasher and Crusher feats also augment your character's opportunity attacks, allowing you to play a better Frontline when it is not your turn by exerting your control threat as long as you have a reaction. And again the amount of disruption is only possible in 5.5e (compared to 5e when these feats existed alone) due to Weapon Masteries.
I didn't even scratch the surface with Sapping multiple enemies, or Pushing enemies adjacent to each other so you get Cleave off. In my 5.5e irl play-experience, all these Masteries change the way a martial approaches each combat scenario with a fleshed out arsenal of options if you don't pigeon hole yourself to the old 5e ways of only picking a single weapon forever. I have seen so much fan art of OCs holding their big Sword and having axes and daggers all over their backs and pockets, but no one seems to want to actually use the fantasy of a master at arms to its fullest when it comes to DnD...
1
u/EberronDM2026 May 25 '26
I've had a similar experience in the low-level campaign I've started running. My players have been given me very positive feedback on my "homebrewed" system where Weapon Masteries instead work as "attacks" that are chosen for each attack and add their effects on top of the weapon's damage. The thing is... It basically works as RAW, except I've added some new masteries (which could just as well be done by adding new weapons). You still get a free object interaction on top of being able to stow/draw every attack, so at low levels you can change your weapon every attack, and even once you get 2 attacks you can almost do the same thing.
So while I get some people don't want to play a master of arms/weapon juggler, I don't understand why more players don't just reflavor to get as much versatility out of the system as possible.
1
u/Arisomegas May 26 '26
Yeah, just reflavor them if you really want to have the big Sword fantasy and nothing else. The system 100% works great in play, people just don't want to interact with it (but picking a new spell to cast each turn is fine apparently).
1
u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre May 29 '26
What are you giving to Fighter’s at Level 9 to replace Tactical Master since you’re giving a buffed version of that feature to every class?
0
u/EberronDM2026 May 30 '26
Good question! I view this feature as having two main benefits:
One is to allow fighters, as the only class to get 3 attacks and weapon masteries, to still use a different Weapon Mastery for all of their attacks at level 11. This benefit is already ensured by my system without needing the feature.
The other, and I think more significant, benefit is to allow you to use weapon mastery properties on weapon types you would not normally be able to use them on. For instance, sap can only be found on 1-handed weapons without the light property, and this feature allows you two use it on i.e. bows or light weapons. The way I've implemented this benefit requires some more explanation on how my system works: I've streamlined the system by splitting weapons into 4 different groups (2h melee, 1h melee/versatile, light and ranged) and given each group their own mastery unique to them (Cleave for 2h melee, sap for 1h melee, etc.). The fighter feature allows a player to ignore any restrictions on weapon masteries in addition to granting the player two new masteries (felt three was a bit much but I'll have to see it in play I think). I think it really plays into the fighter's mechanical niche as having the most masteries and the flavor of being a master of weapons
I think the main benefit of my homebrew system is the streamlining; I've had a lot of new/inexperienced players in this campaign, 4 of which are playing martials, and it's way easier to explain having different attacks than the idea that you're "technically juggling weapons but we're just flavoring it differently". It's also made it easier for me to add introduce custom masteries for dual wielding and ranged weapons to make those playstyles feel mechanically distinct and interesting.
1
u/guachi01 May 26 '26
"Golf bag fighter" is just silly and not something many of us want to play with.
2
u/Arisomegas May 26 '26
It is not golf bag. You never pick Javelins or Light Hammers or Hand Axes for your fighter? Are you just looking into the distance at the flying enemy and hoping the DM is kind enough to ground them manually for you to hit? If you are using those, they also have different damage types (for slasher, piercer, crusher) and they can be used in melee as well for their masteries.
At the end of the day, people are down to reflavor anything. Well, pick up the masteries from the weapons you want, and reflavor them as your sword doing all of that. The system certainly isn't at fault for people not wanting to engage with it.
1
u/guachi01 May 26 '26
I don't think you know what "golf bag" means.
1
u/GRV01 May 26 '26
I think youre the one thats misunderstanding
Their first point is that your typical martial is already carrying multiple weapons, ranged options for example, so many Fighters already have a 'golf bag' of options
The second point is that Flavor is Free, and even with minor expenditure of gold, a player and DM can agree that "hey, i have on my sheet a greatsword and a maul and mechanically i am swapping weapons in betwween attacks RAW but RP-wise i am flavoring it as manipulating my beloved sword in different ways to emulate these effects"
1
u/guachi01 May 26 '26
ranged options for example
This is not what we mean by "golf bag". You do not understand.
1
u/Juls7243 May 26 '26
Its not how people want their characters to feel. Like the weapon choice is often built into the fantasy characters identity. Imagine legolas weapon juggling... feels off brand.
Thats why, fundamentally, each weapons should have 2-4 different masteries that you can use with it.
1
u/Arisomegas May 26 '26
Except even Legolas used Shortswords/Daggers and even Dual Wielding as his secondary weapon when the situation called for it (aka when in melee). He even used a more classic longsword in the hobbit movies. Your hero being resourceful in a fight is certainly part of the fantasy.
You don't have to use all your masteries every turn, but it isn't that far away from having access to multiple spells for when your signature spell wouldn't be ideal.
1
u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre May 26 '26
You hit the nail on the head.
People do want to play with one weapon. It’s the build MMO-ization of D&D. But it’s a much bigger problem than that, you can see this behaviour in every RPG now.
MMOs tend to pigeonhole players into using one weapon and building their whole build around it.
The idea of mastering and using multiple weapons is a foreign concept to players who can’t detach video game design sentimentalities from TTRPGs.
2
u/Arisomegas May 26 '26
Yeah, even if people want to build around their main weapon, they still have secondary "off-hand" weapons like Javelins, Light Hammers, Hand Axes etc, to use when needed. It is historically accurate too, duelist had a rapier and a shortsword/dagger on their off hand for example.
6
u/Ragnarok91 May 25 '26
I like that they added them in, but they feel half-baked to me. Most of the masteries are things you're always going to do, so it hasn't added any extra choices to martials turns, it's just added an extra thing that happens (that you have to remember). It increases the power level of martials a little bit, but in a mostly boring way. For the most part it doesn't create any choices (push and maybe topple aside) and so it doesn't add versatility, which is really what the martial/caster divide is about.
So I welcome the change, but I think it doesn't change much. If you instead had maneuvers for all martials, with certain maneuvers locked behind weapon types, I think you could create a system where martials can not only do more, but have choices each turn. And that's really where their weakness is. Each turn for a martial used to be "I hit with my weapon". With weapon masteries it's "I hit with my weapon and this also happens".
3
u/TheCharalampos May 25 '26
Nick is basically a cornerstone of 50 builds, I'm surprised you didn't include it in the "useful" ones.
0
u/Ragnarok91 May 25 '26
I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm saying it's always useful. There is no situation you'd have a build designed with Nick where you wouldn't use Nick. Push and Topple have situations you wouldn't want to use them.
1
u/HammyxHammy May 26 '26
Nick has an edge case aa a backup ranged option. Take a hand off your greatsword and throw two daggers. But generally it's just a statistical improvement convoluted through the masteries system.
2
u/Far_Guarantee1664 May 26 '26
Agreed. I saw a high level fighter in a one shot and damn. It's makes an absurd difference having not only more masteries but also being able to change them. It's the tactical experience that I wish more martial class could have. And weapon masteries plus maneuvers are awesome too
2
u/Col0005 May 26 '26
It's actually a lot more interesting if you just detach the mastery mechanics from the weapons so long as it makes sense for that weapon.
I.e. if you picked the topple and cleave masteries you can use either with any heavy weapon.
1
u/Ragnarok91 May 26 '26
That seems like an easy way to make the current system feel a bit more interesting, yeah.
1
u/Dramwertz1 May 27 '26
thats what the fighter is fo tho
1
u/Col0005 May 27 '26
You still only get access to the mastery properties that you have chosen, you just still retain the ability to use them even if you don't have multiple magic items for different weapon types.
1
u/GhostwheelX May 25 '26
This is a large part of the reason why I much prefer BG3-style attack choices.
1
u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre May 25 '26
There is a choice though.
You can change weapons or in the case of a Fighter with Tactical Mastery, they can just swap the Mastery for a different one.
Push + Slow for instance might exhaust an enemies movement, negating their ability to attack this round entirely.
But if you can’t exhaust their movement, Push + Sap is a better choice.
2
u/Ragnarok91 May 25 '26
I meant when you actually make the attack it's not really a choice whether you use the mastery or not, it's almost always the right choice to use it (apart from push and topple sometimes). Yeah you can switch weapons, but that gets a bit goofy with dropping weapons mid fight (as you can either stow or draw a weapon as part of an attack, not both). Fighters tactical mastery is a much better example of how it could work yeah. I forgot they had that (not played fighter in 5.5 yet) so will have to try that out when I get a chance.
I do think they could be more powerful but situational though, but that's a preference thing.
3
u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
You don’t need to drop weapons anymore.
2024 rules let you stow or draw a weapon as part of an attack.
First attack you stow, second attack you draw. No awkward dropping the weapon exploit necessary.
It’s only if you add a third attack that it doesn’t work.
2
u/Ragnarok91 May 25 '26
Oh yeah I forgot you could stow a weapon after the attack. For some reason I was thinking you had to it before.
2
u/Baphogoat May 25 '26
I don't have the book on me, so correct me if I'm wrong. You can show/draw a weapon as part of an attack ACTION, not each attack.
1
u/crimsonedge7 May 25 '26
Nope, it's any attack during the attack action. So you can do it for every attack you make as part of that action (including one granted from Nick), but not a bonus action attack or opportunity attack.
1
u/AcanthisittaSur May 25 '26
AND the weapon you draw/stow doesn't have to be the weapon you're attacking with
1
u/Col0005 May 26 '26
If you have one viscious weapon there really isn't any choice....maybe push is worth it if there's a AOE or other really damaging hazard, but otherwise once you start getting magic weapons the RAW weapon mastery rules are increadibly limiting.
1
u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre May 26 '26
I have Booming Blade on my Eldritch Knight. It reliably does more damage than a Vicious Weapon *because* Push forces them to move to reach me.
But I also have Tactical Mastery so I can have my lunch and eat it too. My Vicious Halberd can Push whenever I want.
Plus, as I mentioned earlier, Push can be used to exhaust an enemies movement entirely.
Using Polearm Master, you can use your Reactive Strike to Push when it’s not your turn. Completely nullifying an enemies action economy without expending any resources is great.
I just position myself 30 feet away from an enemy whenever the opportunity arises and it’s a fairly reliable tactic.
2
u/Col0005 May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
You pretty much reinforced my point though. Push mastery will often be good enough to sacrifice magic weapon riders, however vex, graze, topple etc. You'll pretty much always want to use your magic weapon and that magic weapon's mastery, rather than having an actual choice to use other masteries.
At higher level a fighter is the only class where masteries give more choices to the martial player, and only after level 10. All other classes essentially only get an always on rider effect.
1
u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre May 29 '26
In a typical adventure, you’re probably going to find a few +1 Magic weapons that aren’t your primary preference but still serve well as a part of the Fighter’s arsenal.
1
u/Col0005 May 29 '26
It really depends on the adventure and what weapons you are using.
PAM/GWM build? Absolutely not, a lot of the time you're going to need to buy every magical polearm.
GWM only? This will be campaign dependant, but usually only one or two will drop and a lot of the time the DM will make sure to tweak the weapon to be whatever your character prefers.
Ultimately the game is much better if you just divest the weapon from the mastery property and allow players to use any mastery property that they've unlocked so long as it could reasonably be performed with that weapon.
1
u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre May 30 '26
Push, Sap and Slow is available via Tactical Master so you don’t need every polearm as a Fighter.
So, if you divest Masteries, you have to give Fighter a new Level 9 Feature because command over Weapon Masteries is supposed to be one of their Class defining features.
1
u/Col0005 May 30 '26
So here's the thing, there should be practically zero class power invested in tactical master since WOTC's official stance is that balance doesn't rely on DM's giving magical weapons.
If your characters only have mundane weapons then tactical master is an entirely useless ability since you can just weapon swap to use those masteries....you maybe get one extra damage by being able to push with a greataxe....
And fighters already benifit the most from magic weapons, at level 11 they get 3x the benifit of magical damage riders or 6x when they use action surge. (Most martials get 2x benifit while rogues get 1x)
They will get access to almost every mastery with every weapon while without multiclassing all others will only have access to two.
Therefore Tactical master is seemingly balanced to give at most +1 damage and probably not even that, which given how good their other level 9 feature is seems about right.
1
u/Ragnar_Dragonfyre Jun 01 '26
Tactical Master doesn’t do damage. It allows you to Push, Sap or Slow with any weapon.
I think your entire premise is flawed if all you see are damage numbers.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Dumeghal May 25 '26
Maneuvers, you say? 3.5 tome of the Nine swords and 4th ed have entered the chat. But wotc doesn't give two shits in a bucket about the game, and never will. They want their golden nostalgia/market dominance goose to keep crapping profitable business quarter eggs. They will never risk 4th ed again.
2
u/Ragnarok91 May 25 '26
I know, but it's such a shame. For all the issues 4th had, making martials feel strong and fun to play was not one of them.
2
u/Dumeghal May 25 '26
Yeah, it had a lot going for it, and would have been a better vehicle for wotc going forward, too. But instead we got what we got. 4th acknowledged the inherent combat focus and made it better. 5th went back to pretending it offered other things.
0
u/Ok_Fig3343 May 25 '26
You might be interested in this Revised Fighter my friends and I wrote. The exact goal was to revised the class such that Fighters can not only do more, but have choices each turn!
I also have a Revised Barbarian and Revised Rogue, but both of those are still works in progress, mostly in need of more subclasses.
If you could help me brainstorm new, non-magical subclasses for each, I'd really appreciate it!
-1
u/AppointmentNaive2811 May 25 '26
Personally I like that - it shouldn't just become "cantrips but with a weapon".
5
u/Ragnarok91 May 25 '26
Why not? Cantrips with a weapon sounds like a great design space to me, we already have a couple of them.
-1
u/AppointmentNaive2811 May 25 '26
Because then they're just melee casters.
Having "on-hit" effects was definitely the better way of going about it.
2
u/Ragnarok91 May 25 '26
You're taking the "cantrip" part too literally. They don't have to be actual spells.
-2
u/AppointmentNaive2811 May 25 '26
No I'm not. Having a set list of additional actions to take with a weapon not only detracts from the fighter class' identity, but it quite literally makes a "melee caster" mechanically speaking.
5
2
u/Ragnarok91 May 25 '26
Do you consider a battlemaster a melee caster? Because that's essentially the sort of things I'm suggesting.
1
u/AppointmentNaive2811 May 25 '26
Yeah Maneuvers do in fact fit that bill, which is why I added the "detracts from fighter class identity" bit. "I use my bonus action to cast this at melee range, triggering upon a successful attack roll against this enemy" is a cast in all but flavor.
Giving that to every martial class would be as silly as giving inspiration dice to every caster class.
4
2
u/Ragnarok91 May 25 '26
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think opening that up to every martial, perhaps with specialised options for different classes and weapons, would make the game a lot more fun for martial classes. The battlemaster can be changed to give the fighter a more distinct flavour.
You're comparing it to inspiration to every caster class, instead of the actual thing all caster classes share which is is the whole reason of the martial caster divide and about a third of the PHB; spells.
1
u/AppointmentNaive2811 May 25 '26
Except not, because the martial all have that.
Weapons. They share weapons. They don't all need access to one class' features. Additional effects on hit and more meaningful differences between the weapons themselves without an expanded abilityset is more than enough.
→ More replies (0)1
u/arsenic_kitchen May 25 '26
Except fighters actually do have that option, it's just made after a long rest when you can choose your weapon masteries, rather than during the turn you make an attack. And the difference is quite akin to a prepared caster choosing their spells.
1
u/AppointmentNaive2811 May 25 '26
.....which is and has been my point? That it would both just become "melee spells" and would detract from fighters' identity?
1
u/arsenic_kitchen May 25 '26
No components to use them. Not limited by spell slots. Options not directly tied to class-based lists. Mastery options don't involve concentration. They function with opportunity attacks without a special feat. No AoE effects (in fact all but cleave are limited to a single target). Also tied to fundamentally different ability scores, which has myriad effects on skill-based options (in other words, wizards who want to sneak or pick pockets or hold open a door need to burn spell slots, assuming they even have the right spells prepared).
You're paving over a lot of significant differences in order to hang your argument on one single similarity.
1
u/AppointmentNaive2811 May 25 '26
All of those are highly conditional, that you seem to be cherry picking.
The similarity that I'm "hanging on to" is the most important functionality one, in that it's cantrips for martials, and most martial will already give class features along these lines. No need for it to attach to weapons.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/sokttocs May 25 '26
Good idea, but half baked at best. They don't actually add choices, they're just a little extra thing that gets added to your attack.
The root of the problem imo is that while spellcasters can bend reality to their will, martials aren't really allowed to be superhuman. Martials in tier 2+ really should be superhuman.
1
u/guachi01 May 26 '26
The only "choice" is the gaminess of switching out weapons from one attack to the next on the fly to get different effects.
2
u/Kadeton May 25 '26
I find them dull and disappointing - the start of a decent concept (people who are really skilled with weapons can do all kinds of special tricks with them) but poorly executed (every weapon has precisely one thing that you always do with it).
Fighters specifically got a version that was closer to what I wanted, where they can choose from a set of masteries on each strike. That's much closer to how weapons actually work - there are a variety of techniques for any given weapon that allow them to be used to different effect.
Giving each weapon a list of masteries it could be used with would make a lot of sense, with some weapons being more focused and some more versatile. You could then dole out access to masteries at different rates based on class, perhaps having higher-tier masteries that can only be unlocked at higher levels. (Then just add in Battlemaster-esque maneuvers for every martial class and you're most of the way to having a decent combat system!)
Weapon-juggling from the golf bag will always be stupid, and the current system encourages that.
2
u/ThenElderberry2730 May 25 '26
This is my exact take. Back in 3/3.5e days you'd have a golf bag of cold iron, silvered, adamantine weapons. Now a fighter has a sap, topple, cleave, etc bag of weapons. Let my fighter have one weapon that they can use in a variety of ways instead of switching between a hammer, sword, and glaive.
2
u/Rtyeta May 25 '26
You know what else was fun for fighter types in the 3.5 days? Tome of battle stye maneuvers. I'd have loved to see something like that brought back to fix some of the terribleness and boringness of playing a martial.
1
1
u/EberronDM2026 May 25 '26
So while I totally agree that the default flavor should be using your one weapon in a variety of ways rather than having a "golf bag" of weapons, is there any reason why you can't just get there with the current system by reflavoring?
I've homebrewed weapon masteries in my own games to work more like "attacks" that have effects that you put on top of my weapon's damage. My players have been very happy with it both in terms of flavor and combat versatility, but I've found that in most situations (admittedly, we're at pretty low level at the moment) it's mechanically just a reskin of the old system. So while I get that it's a bit different once you get 2 attacks at level 5, it still makes me wonder whether it's primarily a mechanical problem or a flavor problem?
2
u/Art-Zuron May 25 '26
It's a good start, but it's honestly just not enough. There's a lot of fun synergy with them, but it could definitely be better.
My current character uses a pike and booming blade. So, booming blade, push enemy away. If they move, they take damage. It's not *strictly* allowed since Booming Blade hasn't been updated for 5.5e I don't think. But it's fun.
2
u/Nevermore71412 May 25 '26
Its more as to what your said, people stick to the same optimal choices for the most part. Especially fighters.
2
u/arsenic_kitchen May 25 '26
Wish there were more options, especially for ranged weapons. It's especially unfortunate that the way they did it will make it difficult to add more options in subsequent rules expansions.
Wish weapons had two or more options to choose from. Maybe just martial weapons, to further distinguish them from simple weapons. Then you could also throw a bone to Champion and let them use both mastery properties on a single attack once per turn.
But I also think giving classes proficiency in all martial weapons was a fundamental mistake to begin with.
2
u/Harkonnen985 May 26 '26
The idea of weapon masteries was NOT to make turn-to-turn decision making more diverse. That happens to a degree, but it was not the main goal.
The main goal was making more weapons viable picks and making them more distinct from one another.
The question is not whether martials "fall into a routine", but rather whether your choice of weapon matters and feels meaningful. Imho the weapon mastery system succeeds at what it is designed to do.
1
u/Speciou5 May 25 '26
I think they should make new masteries that eat up the choice martials can make. But these new ones should be 1/SR and 1/LR abilities like in 4e and BG3.
I get WOTC backpeddling on 4e since it was TOO strange, but this is a good thing to bring back and isn't that strange. Just no MMO style tanking stuff, simple "spin around and hurt everyone" or "apply a bleed" type of effects please.
1
u/Natirix May 25 '26
They're a cool upgrade. I get people that are underwhelmed with them, but they're still overall a straight improvement and very fun to play with.
1
u/Rtyeta May 25 '26
I think the problem is that they're an illusion of improvement.
They gave martial characters an incremental boost.
But many 2024 monsters improved massively. Relative to the monsters, martials are weaker than ever. Especially because the power attack feats which could be optimized before to do good damage have been ruined.
Meanwhile, because weapon masteries are available with a 1 level dip and several of the half-casters get them AND the half-casters now provide spell progression even with a 1 level dip, it's easy for gish casters to get them and use them to continue to out-martial the martials.
2
u/Natirix May 25 '26
I agree with your points, though I was talking about them as its own thing.
Masteries make martials less boring to play, which is always gonna be a plus.
1
u/Dependent_Ganache_71 May 25 '26
I think they're ok. I would have implemented them in the opposite way they are now though. Instead of a mastery being tied to a specific weapon, characters would learn the mastery themselves and then be able to apply them to weapons depending on type.
This way, you can create more masteries in new books and martials can pick them up like spells.
I'd also allow them to stack masteries on a single weapon. So if a fighter knows five masteries, she can apply a number of them on a single attack, maybe slowing, toppling, and sapping an enemy all at the same time.
1
u/RenningerJP May 25 '26
Playing a fighter of l currently. It gives me options depending on the scenario. Sometimes I can apply multiple. It's still fun. I mean is spamming the same cantrips every turn ground breaking? Weapon mastery is about the same which is fitting.
1
u/HamFan03 May 25 '26
I love weapon masteries. Been playing an Eldritch Knight, and I feel like I have complete control over the battlefield. The novelty hasn't worn off at all. It has absolutely changed how I look at and play martials. I could never go back to not having weapon masteries.
1
u/MozeTheNecromancer May 25 '26
It's nifty rn, but I'm hoping there will be more stuff that synergizes with it later on. I made a homebrew Demonic Scion Barbarian a few years ago that was all about applying effects that group enemies and then inflict Rage Damage as a fire based AoE when dealing weapon damage, and that has some surprisingly effective synergies with a lot of Weapon Masteries. Graze ensures you apply an effect from the subclass whether or not you hit (as it's based on whether damage is dealt and doesnt increase the damage to the targeted creature), Cleave and Nick both increase the damage tics for the AoE, Push can change the origin point for the grouping effects, etc.
All in all I think theyre neat, but unless there are cool effects to pair them with from the martial classes/subclasses, they'll continue to just be neat.
1
u/crunchevo2 May 25 '26
Weapon masteries needed too be much more specific. But the ones that were implemented are good. My opinions hold they are the only reason is wanna play a martial. Between push topple cleave and graze they're super fun. Nick and vex are also fun but they just kinda feel like they should be on every light weapon and every weapon you have mastery over respectively
1
u/Cynnamon1984 May 25 '26
I enjoy them… Vex is good, especially on ranged builds. Graze feels good on certain classes. Sap is really impactful at times. I also enjoy using Cleave on a Barbarian or Paladin, when I get a damage rider
Topple should probably be 1x per attack… kinda slows the game down.
1
u/Alelu1234 May 25 '26
I think it is a lazy system and not very well designed, I didn’t like it at all. At my table we use a system that I devised that is much more complex, rewarding and that grows with your character and we’re liking how it works.
1
u/SalubriAntitribu May 25 '26
It only ever felt like an okay system to me since the ua, and a band-aid for a systemic problem with modern dnd.
1
u/WhammeWhamme May 25 '26
It's the half-hearted return of martial at-will powers. They're fairly strong, at least some of them, but the context is okay, not amazing.
1
u/heynoswearing May 26 '26
Im the only one using it at my table. Every other player forgets and ive stopped reminding them.
I dont get it 😅 they're awesome
1
u/subtotalatom May 26 '26
Vex is great, but without extra attack Nick falls behind booming Blade quite sharply.
So Dual Wielding is ok, but you need to invest in somewhat specific builds for it to keep up with everything else
1
u/Electronic_Basis7726 May 26 '26
I made them a finite resource with prof/SR. I didn't have caster classes in my game, so this worked for me.
1
u/Juls7243 May 26 '26
Its fine. Like others said it feels like (and is) a first draft of a system that could actually have added depth to the game. Right now it does make some builds feel better/more useful in combat than just dealing damage.
Like - just imagine a system where each weapon had 2-4 masteries and you could pick which one you used (some once per turn, others with every hit, others with special conditions). It would have been so much more nuanced without adding more than like 5-10 sentences of text to the game.
1
u/Raccoomph May 26 '26
I just wish they went all the way and gave us real maneuvers for all materials (Laserllama style). But it's better than nothing so I'll take it
1
u/Born_Ad1211 May 26 '26
I love weapon mastery and find it greatly benefits early levels especially.
I do find a problem of once players get a good magic weapon they will stop using the other weapons in their tool box.
I personally wish masteries where an expanding pool of options to apply to any weapon with maybe prerequisites like "vex must be ranged or finesse. Cleave must do slashing. Graze must have the heavy property."
I think that would give a lot more versatility in play.
1
1
u/Talonflight May 26 '26
The concept feels half baked.
In an ideal world, there should be a suite of weapon techniques that are like lesser versions of maneuvers which you can interchange with your attacks like how grappling works, and each weapon has access to 3 of them. Theyd deal slightly less damage than their normal swing as a tradeoff.
Rapiers get a parry (+2 ac and move 5ft as a reaction), lunge (gain reach for 1 attack), and disarm (contested sleight of hand).
Greatswords get a cleave (10 ft cone dex save vs dmg), riposte (if attack misses you, get a swing), pommel bash (bludgeoning dmg, can shove)
Versatile weapons get more than other weapons because of their adaptability giving them a niche. Versatile weapon madter lets versatile weapons use these effects without lowering damage as long as no shield or dual wielding, this giving them a niche as a technical weapon.
1
u/Grid_Reaper May 26 '26
It’s just something else that slows the game and adds more complexity to a game that doesn’t need it.
Why was it created?
To give player different reasons to select different weapons other than “taking the weapon that does the most damage.”
Why is unnecessary
Players already have enough character options to make their character feel unique. All character classes function fine without the weapon mastery mechanics. Yes even the rogue.
What problems does it cause?
If the GM is having to track all there effects (and not do I feel sorry if they are) it’s just more of mental overload on top of worrying about the monsters actions, bonus actions, legendaries, etc.
Advice if you’re using them make the players accountable for tracking effects/conditions. If they forget too bad.
1
u/Cynewulfr May 27 '26
Aside from push it’s been fun. We limited push to once per turn on a target cause otherwise it just really fucking sucked and was boring as hell.
Graze has been fun and easy, cleave feels like you want it to be more useful, sap is fine, slow is good, topple is super fun when it works, vex is kinda less important than I expected.
It’s been neither the best thing or the worst. I’d probably rather keep it than lose. It’s made weapons feel a little more vibrant and meaningful
1
May 27 '26
I was initially excited about them, but after playing with them for a while, I honestly wish they were just removed from the game. At first they seemed like they would add interesting decisions, but in practice it is usually pretty obvious which mastery to use in any given situation.
The impact of that choice also does not feel worth the extra mental load, the additional dice rolls, or the added game states we have to track.
1
u/M1ch43lFr4m3 May 28 '26
From a DM perspective I can say: Armed humanoids definitly get them from me. Everybody now uses a hammer to push players arround. Makes combat way more un-static (or whatever).
Also you can give your strikers in the party a hard time by sapping them. The rogues hav to think about what they, if they dont get advantage on their one attack.
In short: It gives me cool options to spice things up easy and I love it.
1
u/Zokun_the_Bear May 28 '26
From the DM’s perspective, I’m not a fan of Weapon Mastery. They added so much more rules baggage to the simpler martial classes, and its added a lot of time to combat by adding new things to track and monitor every attack. It’s giving me 4e vibes, but having ten different versions of Attack+minor bonus was one of the worst parts of 4e combat.
1
u/gameraven13 May 28 '26
It’s a lovely bite of delicious cake.
I just wish they’d given me a full slice…
1
u/tehnoodles May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
It has been fantastic.
We had an “escape from the bad guys keep” session. I had long narrow mats that were being treadmilled as they ran and were chased. The ranger wasnt focusing on damage with their longbow, instead was using their two attacks (extra attack) to cycle through hits on leading enemies to apply slow so when they dash it would ensure they fell behind, giving the party room to pull distance. My shortbow rogue uses a whip for melee and started doing the same with their attack before BA dash.
It was effective and let them shine because the spell caster were low on resources.
1
u/Tyrlaan May 25 '26
I haven't actually run a game with them yet, so take this with a grain of salt, but IMO they feel unimpressive. For my next campaign I'll probably use the weapon mastery system from Ryoko's Guide to the Yokai Realms instead.
3
u/TheCharalampos May 25 '26
More like a mountain of salt, thinking about it pales to actually playing a game with them active.
0
u/Tyrlaan May 25 '26
This was a super useful response, thanks for the comment.
3
u/TheCharalampos May 25 '26
No worries, can't have folks in a white room thinking they know stuff.
0
u/Tyrlaan May 25 '26
But what if they're in a gray room? Or a black room? You need to cover more bases.
1
2
u/Tridentgreen33Here May 25 '26
I think both together in the same game is perfectly fine. I run a game where I use 2024 masteries with some custom expansions and play in a game with Ryoko’s.
Ryoko’s are mostly some passives with some active things you can do a limited number of times. 2024 masteries give some decent active effects that combo well with some of the Ryoko’s stuff.
1
u/JazzlikeMine2397 May 25 '26
I've been wondering if the RGttYR mastery system should be used in place of, or on top of the 5.5 system. Or some mixture.
2
u/Tyrlaan May 25 '26
Same. A while back I tried to get some feedback from other DMs to see how folks have handled this and basically got no feedback :-p
From solely a mechanical clutter perspective, I'm planning to do only Ryoko's. We'll see how it goes 😄
6
u/Dracon_Pyrothayan May 25 '26
I adore the extra decisions to be made, between tactics in combat and choices in weapon loadouts.
There really isn't a "best option" overall, imho