5E Weapon Mastery and Greyhawk’s Regions! (MD 204)

[@LUZ_TAK]

Weapon Masteries seems like the perfect design space for players to optimize the fun out of the game.

[@masteringdungeons]

Except for optimizers! Ha-ha!

[@LUZ_TAK]

On weapon masteries: I was excited about them at first, with my player hat on. Now I"m looking at them as DM and I sort of dread them, topple and sap in particular. Advanced 5e maneuvers are looking better by the minute.

[@masteringdungeons]

Yes, as a player we too enjoy them!

[@HowtoRPG]

Weapon Mastery reminds me of 4e martial power. Thanks for the discussion.

[@masteringdungeons]

Thanks for listening!

[@JocularJunction]

Weapon Mastery is something I wish was used for a magic weapon. Some special effect added if you're proficient with said weapon, but not every weapon.

[@masteringdungeons]

That's actually a potentially cool house rule. The weapon mastery class feature could unlock using magic items with the property, and the magic item has a frequency limit. Oooh.

[@Benz74M]

I think one reason they removed the saves from many monsters' attack that do something extra (e.g. wolf that hits now knocks Prone, no save) is to mitigate all the new weapon masteries that will be slowing the game down with their own mecanics, including extra attacks (cleave, nick) and saves (topple)...

[@masteringdungeons]

Good call!

[@mattlazer902]

You should look at Kobold Press Tales of the Valient and how they handle Weapon Options. I think they do a better job riding that line of giving martial combat more flexibility while keeping things clean and freeflowing.

[@masteringdungeons]

We have taken a brief look at those. We frankly don't find the 2024 options to be significant in time per action, but every bit counts and the emphasis is a tonal shift.

[@mattlazer902]

@@masteringdungeons The tonal shift is what I'm more concerned about as a DM. In that area and in the tactile feel of combat, I still feel ToV has the better of it.

[@gedece]

This was one of the first alarms I heard running into my head when they talked about options for players. in weapons. This was also the reason I decided not to buy the books at all and even reject the offer to get it free.

[@masteringdungeons]

For free? Next time say yes and send it to us! :-)

[@garethhamilton1252]

Thank you for answering my question on the show. I’m looking forward to revisiting this series once I have the map of Greyhawk from the new DMG so I can better visualise the areas/countries you talk about and compare what the 2024 DMG says now to your information from the original gazetteer. I’m guessing the new DMG will say very little given it has to compete for space with all the other DMG stuff. I have similar reservations about the new weapon mastery rules as you mentioned, but I’ll give them a go before deciding if they should be a part of the game I DM. That being said I’m already against the concept of weapon juggling where fighters with multiple attacks can switch from axe, to spear, to sword between each attack just to get the perfect combo of masteries. That might work in a video game but the very idea is so contrary to how fighters would behave I know it will bug me if my players start to do it. Verisimilitude is important in role playing games where is doesn’t matter when playing a video game.

[@masteringdungeons]

Thanks for the question. We will all be really interested to see how Greyhawk shows up in the DMG. Will it have 10 pages? 30? And then what do they do with that limited space given it is an example and should teach how to use a setting? Tough challenge!

[@davec1]

I really enjoy when you focus on a topic like Weapon Masteries and dive in deep! I can’t help but get the impression the design of this new version of 5e has focused way too much on creating features that READ like they will be fun and will generate great ratings in popularity contest surveys, and not nearly enough on creating a good game and a sustainable play experience. As a game designer myself, I am convinced listening to players and their feedback is important, but it doesn’t absolve you from making tough decisions that might not be super popular in the short term, for the benefit of the long-term health of the game. That may sound patronizing towards players, but I think that’s the responsibility of many professionals in many fields. Of course that’s not an easy thing to do while your parent company is hemorrhaging money, doing mass lay-offs and buying media companies, just to sell them at a huge loss a little later… I try to remain optimistic about the new version of 5e and that there will be enough ways to deal with the aspects I find problematic, but it’s not easy because while I love many, many small changes they’re making, the potential issues that are looming large on the horizon are of such a fundamental, hardcoded nature that it might just be more trouble than it’s worth. Perhaps the easier approach will be to keep 5e14 as the chassis and just hand-pick some of the great improvements from 5e24 and add them to that chassis.

[@masteringdungeons]

Agreed. We also think the playtests didn't really involve play. Reading a rule and offering opinions on that is different than having thousands play through the rules.

[@brucecurtis9368]

Not sure what you're talking about with the Sap property. Many, many monsters either have multiattack or an alternate attack form that requires a save. I do agree that Sap does not make sense for the longsword. They should have kept the Flex option and allowed it for 2H use (1d12) as well. It's a little weak, but it's a consistent damage boost on every hit.

[@masteringdungeons]

We don't know what we're talking about either! (Thank you)

[@NateFinch]

Sure, but there are a lot of monsters that *do* have just one big attack, and it is a big deal for that to get disadvantage..... But also usually those attacks have a huge to hit bonus, so they are likely to hit anyway. I also think that WotC is moving away from monsters with just one big attack, because it's just kind of boring. I expect we'll see a lot more monsters with multiple different things that can do on their turn, which will reduce the impact of sap.

[@WalkOnNick]

I had a lengthy session with two combats using the new rules. I had plenty of reservations apriori about weapon masteries but was willing to give the system a chance. I mostly like it. It definitely adds complexity especially for the Dual Wielding lvl 14 Fighter that has 5 Attacks and optimally wants to use a different weapon mastery every time. RAW the weapon switching rules are needlessly complicated so I already simplified those. I heard a lot of talk about Topple which was supposedly terrible because the saving throw would slow the game down a ton. That has not happened at all because I (the DM) do the saving throw while the player is calculating damage. I'm way faster than the player and it's just a binary outcome prone or not. So there's actually zero delay because of it. I don't like Sap either but mainly because it's another thing that the DM has to track or else you are going to get into this back and forth where the players remember later that the monster should have had disadvantage and so on. Tracking which of the monsters has sap is not easy so it's definitely my least favorite mastery. I already have enough on my plate without it.

[@masteringdungeons]

Really cool to hear your play reports! Thanks for sharing this!

[@oscargarciahinde4247]

I worry that this new version of dnd will just end up creating even more headaches for GMs when designing combat encounters. I also worry that things will slow down even more. We'll see what the new monsters are like.

[@masteringdungeons]

We can't wait to see the monsters and the revised encounter guidelines!

[@falconnm]

12:35 Shawn "as soon as you give people an extra attack roll you're opening up a lot". Yes but as you covered before effectively for a lot of builds Nick is freeing up a bonus and "when you tinker with action economy you're opening up a lot" 😂

[@masteringdungeons]

A lot of a lots and soon enough, you have a lot!

[@TonyRobetson]

i like that you guys started with what you thought the design goal was. i think another angle to it was to add options that weren't spellcasting. pali's, rangers, and various subclasses usually get these options by being spell casters. kind of reinforces the claim of the martial-caster divide if the only way to bring martials to parity is to give them spells id say the big rise of 5e wasnt because it was simpler, though that helped, but because boardgames had a huge boom and other non-tech hobbies had a huge increase as well. on top of that nerd culture as a whole became mainstream. think too much weight is put on 5e's design for it's popularity compared to other factors. like imagine if critical role stuck with pathfinder instead of switching to 5e?

[@masteringdungeons]

The explosion in 5E growth came before the pandemic. It was different in year one and then just incredible in year three. The pandemic just then took off for the entire hobby. We still find that 5E's design was critical, as well as the big storyline release marketing (every year focused on a clear concept such as Dragons/Tiamat).

[@TonyRobetson]

@@masteringdungeons i am talking about before the pandemic. nerd culture and boardgames started getting huge in the early 2010's, if not earlier. things like game of thrones and comic movies were getting massive. youtube and streaming were starting to get big. dnd intentionally or not started a new edition at this time. so it was accessible, less books, had brand recognition and market share, and marketing from actual plays. then stranger things comes out. design and book marketing did help a lot but dont think it compares to good timing and the fresh start a new edition gives

[@kurtoogle4576]

With testing the Push Weapon Mastery, my players (with heavy crossbows) immediately did 2 things. 1. They all targeted a specific opponent and pushed them all the way back across the battlefield (and they cackled). 2. They all targeted a single ally to boost that character's speed (and they cackled). Things like this are fun, but can make play feel different.

[@masteringdungeons]

Absolutely! Such a different feel to have that kind of play!

[@timothygutierrez]

Is weapon mastery an improvement in the 5e rule set? Send this video to a friend to get their opinion as well.

[@masteringdungeons]

We really need to see a lot of tables in play, with both hardcore and new players, to have a firm sense.

[@twohandedaxe1212]

Maybe house-rule that in order to use a weapon mastery effect you must role 15 (18?) or higher.

[@masteringdungeons]

Interesting! If you try it, let us know!

[@alanleckert1]

My problem is that players will not remember the rules for their weapon mastery, so unless it is somehow at the ready, it will take time to (1) remember they can use it (2) look it up and read only some of it out loud (3) ask the DM if it still applies (4) roll more dice as necessary (5) get confused about whether they can use something more than once per turn (start back at 1)

[@masteringdungeons]

That can absolutely happen. It becomes a thing you need to look up until everyone learns it, and that really slows up the game.

[@NateFinch]

I really think this will only happen for the very first fight. Most people fight with the same weapon every single fight. That weapon has a single mastery. Yes, maybe sometimes you'll forget to do it entirely but most of the time it just becomes part of the weapon's effect. "8 damage and disadvantage on its next attack". "5 damage and DC 12 con save or it's prone" Using a property is not a big deal because for anyone who doesn't want to get highly tactical, they'll just do the same thing every round. For someone who does want to get tactical, though, it's a huge boon. I can't tell you how often my paladin just goes "swing sword, do damage, next!". You say martials have all these abilities but they really don't. Most are super limited. Fighters get action surge once a day and second wind once a short rest (or whatever). The rest of the time.... Nothing. Weapon masteries are awesome because finally the martial classes get to be tactical, too. You don't *have* to be a spellcaster to do something other than report a damage number on your turn. My main concern about the masteries is keeping track of them. You mentioned this with topple but that seems like the easiest one to remember? If you have a battle mat, you literally just tip over the mini. Yeah, if it's theater of the mind, it's harder, but that's the exception these days. Stuff like disadvantage on next attack is more annoying. It's invisiblr but since it's short term, you probably don't want to bother with a status marker. Same with sapped.... Just gotta remember who has -10 movement. The nice thing about vex is that the DM doesn't have to remember. The player does. Topple is going to be annoying with all the saves. I wish they'd changed it somehow. Like maybe make it automatic but only once a turn? Or something.

[@silentverdict]

If you think your table would be worse off with weapon masteries, I'd argue that the only thing separating it from an optional feature is the tag "optional". From what I've seen, they're way less baked in than other features. For most classes like Barbarian, they're a single line adding the masteries, easy to ignore. Even for Fighter, which has a few times they interact with weapon masteries, even if you just took all those out, they still have more/better features as a class than their 2014 version. Personally, I like weapon masteries so far and think they add some needed oomph to martials, but I think if you told your table of newbies "just ignore where it talks about weapon masteries"...that's about all it would take, everything else just works the same. Even Two weapon fighting then goes back to normal, you get either 1 normal attack plus 1 bonus attack for light weapons, or 1 attack plus 2 bonus attacks if you have the extra feat, no weird nick interactions to sort through. So, I'd argue they are optional in all but name, if you're that concerned. My 2c!

[@masteringdungeons]

For sure. But we think the game could have added a level 0, or made level 1 simpler, and then you just invite expert players to start at the higher of those levels. Now you have an easy on-ramp and a more complex option. Or, find a substitue and truly make it optional (because mechanically they carry weight and thus are part of the balance between classes).

[@fortunatus1]

The Longsword may be slashing in D&D but in real life, the pommel, the flat of the blade, and the crossguard were all used as weapons. IMO that is the historical flavor that Sap brings to the Longsword. You guys are right that Nick interacting with Dual Wielder to give 2 additional attacks is a problem. With Two Weapon Fighting style (adding the ability score modifier), it is mathematically superior to the other two weapon fighting options provided by Dual Wielder. Those options being: (1) finesse-based weapons such as Short Sword and Rapier; or (2) Strength based dual wielding with Longsword and Shortsword or Hand Axe and battle Axe or Light Hammer and Warhammer, etc. Nick + Dual Wielder should not be interpreted to work in this way.

[@masteringdungeons]

And we both love this kind of analysis and worry that it isn't where the majority of the audience, particularly new audiences, are coming from. Ideally we could do both: please the tactically minded (including Teos) and also make the game's rules recede to the background so creative play emerges.

[@LaneyPlatt]

If a group of players conspires to abuse a feature and make the game no fun, that’s not a failure of the feature.

[@masteringdungeons]

It's a hard line to dance around, design-wise. All of 3E was built on the fun of build optimization found in collectible card games. That was (and is) fun for many of us. But it also necessarily means there will be unforseen optimal choices that are too strong, both in CCGs and RPGs.

[@LaneyPlatt]

@@masteringdungeons I agree, but the example of an entire party conspiring to all *Topple everything, is just a bad faith approach, and shouldn’t be an indictment of the system itself or Weapon Mastery. With intent, every system can be abused.

[@jackdubois1512]

"Given the opportunity, the players will optimise the fun out of the game" It doesn't have to be bad faith, if the game makes it easy to do so, its natural for players to end up in that situation. That leaves too much up to the dm in my opinion and thats a failure of the game

[@jackdubois1512]

Another way of saying "the entire party conspires to topple everything" is "everyone worked together as a team to succeed" its the intended approach to the game

[@sgmediting]

@@jackdubois1512 And that's why when I say this, it is more as a warning to game designers as it is to players.

[@davidfarnham5623]

They had a mastery in the play test called flex that seemed tailor made to new players that just upped the damage dice a smidge. But because it wasn't as good as the others, the community hated it and gave it really low scores. So there's probably a handful of things around that play test feedback skewed on since new players aren't invested enough to fill out surveys

[@falconnm]

So flex was bad, not as good as the other masteries. Saying that bad options should remain cause new players might select them is odd.

[@davidfarnham5623]

@@falconnm it could have been adjusted to be better but still simple for sure. But I've played with a lot of new players and they almost never care about optimization or doing optimal damage. In fact that aspect is usually invisible to them for awhile. So I am actually sad that there isn't a super easy to explain mastery that I could offer as an option to new players if they seemed overwhelmed.

[@brucecurtis9368]

@@falconnm They should have just boosted flex to give 1d12 for 2H use. That would have made more sense than sap.

[@masteringdungeons]

We had forgotten about Flex!

[@Flyonaweb]

During the play test I loved them but gave these spam warning. Make play longer, and the DM going to enjoy this? More players thinking about their turn on there turn.

[@masteringdungeons]

Absolutely!

[@rasmuspetersen2480]

Hot take: All martials can go through all weapon masteries, in less time than 1 caster can decide on which spell to cast next

[@masteringdungeons]

Except warlocks!

[@badmojo0777]

if, AFTER gameplay the wepon masteries are problematic, i might have a simple solition.. want to use your wepaon mastery? cOOL! half damage.. trading raw damage for tactical benefits? tactical equals CHOICE :D

[@masteringdungeons]

We keep thinking of options. Like, maybe only on even rolls of the d20, or if you roll a 15 or higher on the d20. Lots of options.

[@CitanulsPumpkin]

21:00 The one rule. ABP. Always be proning. XP is for Proners. As for Ket... it takes a very specific kind of person to enjoy role playing "Religious Fundamentalist Settler Colonislism" for a long-running campaign. Unfortunately, that kind of person isn't fun to spend any amount of time with.

[@masteringdungeons]

Ha-ha! ABP made us laugh. Agreed on Ket! It is a rare individual who can make it fun for all.

[@bobkingofseagulls9884]

You mention complicating play as a major potential concern for weapon mastery. Personally, I believe that weapon mastery can actually improve ease of play and make things move inviting for new players. I will say, none of these options seem more complicated than cantrips to me, which players can already do every round. When players come into ttrpgs for the first time, in my experience at least, the freedom can be the most daunting aspect. Martial characters especially have this problem as people playing spellcasters anecdotally are able to better experiment with roleplay through 'well its magic'. To me, weapon masteries provide a clear 'permission' from the game to say "hey, player with a big hammer, you can totally push this enemy back with your awesome attack". In this way, I think weapon masteries are effective training wheels for inventive combat and roleplay, while also providing a clear mechanical floor for what a martial can do. Is this an issue you've encountered with new players struggling to get into combat? And have you found providing mechanical permission to be a good way to get them into the groove of doing things of their own initiative eventually?

[@masteringdungeons]

In general, the absence of rules opens up play (in our experience). 4E had creative powers (pushing, sliding, setting on fire, etc.) but folks were so focused on the tactical nature that they forgot to be inventive, creative, or roleplay. A benefit of "I hit it with my sword" is that the player has headspace to think of options... "but... can I climb that rock to jump down on the enemy?"

[@bobkingofseagulls9884]

@@masteringdungeons different experiences I suppose. When introducing people new to rp I’ve found that these types of clear mechanics serve as training wheels for the more creative “can I jump off that rock” gameplay.

[@DMGregAdventure]

The extra dice rolls and finicky stuff to keep track of is what is worrying.

[@masteringdungeons]

Time to buy more dice!

[@DMGregAdventure]

@@masteringdungeons It’s ok at say 5th level but..haha..getting worried at say level 11 with 6 attacks with action surge putting enemies prone-in addition to another melee fighter doing the same…

[@treymclemore3418]

With regards to weapon mastery, it seems like BG3 already solved this issue? I liked how every weapon gave you an extra ability that only that type of weapon could do, granted it was tied to short rests so that prevents the spamming problem but it also felt too infrequent. I could see an errata or house rule you can use weapon mastery a number of times equal to proficiency bonus per short rest.

[@masteringdungeons]

Shawn had mentioned that idea of a recharge rate. That would make them less impactful on time and balance.

[@luckwhisker]

Questioning whether there's a need for more tactical play in 5e seems crazy to me. It seems perfectly obvious that it does. The problem is that weapon mastery properties feel bolted on and just aren't that interesting. For weapon differentiation to feel genuinely more tactical would require a more fundamental redesign of the melee combat system - which we all know WotC wasn't going to do for this "pseudo" edition. But to ask, as Shawn does, "did we need it?" Yes, very much so. Especially in an era where "story games" are siphoning off ever more of their players (a trend which will likely continue with the release of Daggerheart/Draw Steel/etc), it's important for WotC to shore up its identity as a genuinely tactically focused system. The BG3 experience and the work with Larian exposed just how poorly designed 5e's tactics are. However, 5.24 does not go nearly far enough to address those gaps.

[@masteringdungeons]

Interesting! We see Daggerheart and Draw Steel as very tactical games, even if they also push story. But it isn't clear to us that players are being lost to that, and that if they are, it's a problem. Wizards, to succeed with D&D as part of Hasbro, needs to constantly bring in new players. It can't be just about retention. It has to be about growth and attracting a wide variety of players. Games like Draw Steel can be far more focused for their audience.

[@luckwhisker]

@@masteringdungeons As evidence for 5e's lack of tactical play, I would cite especially the same-i-ness of their monster design, which tend to be differentiated primarily by being just bigger or smaller bags of hit points. Damage types and monster resistances, for example, are incredibly poorly managed and balanced - and there are far too few damage vulnerabilities in the monster pool - which results in players largely ignoring damage type except for the magical/not-magical weapon divide. When 5e made the move to bounded accuracy, they also committed to watering down CR to a mostly a question of hit points. For their part, DH and DS show few signs of caring about tactical play and seem mostly focused on making play feel "faster" and "more exciting", "more heroic" (ie overpowered). In other words, D&D's competitors are focused on being more 5e than 5e - which is to say more accessible, simplified, cinematic, fast, etc. This leaves "storytelling" as the primary appeal of these games, because the end result will, imo, not be to make the combat in these games more fun but simply more irrelevant and watered down. You might as well, then, be Blades in the Dark, where combat is barely tactical at all. In other words PbtA games already do a better job of what this design direction is trying to do. Telling a good fast story where the rules mostly exist to support the fiction, "surviving" is a foregone conclusion in the short term and - in the case of Blades - impossible in the longer term. And therefore not really a question of how, or whether, players make good tactical choices at all. From my POV, that's simply NOT D&D. When players stop fearing death altogether in individual encounters, stop feeling the need to master the rules to survive, it may have broad appeal (though that's actually more doubtful than most people seem to think), but it's not D&D anymore. And we're almost there already.

[@luckwhisker]

Also, for concrete evidence of this trend, check out ICv2's article from April 12th, 2024, "'D&D Declines; Other Brands Grow". Of course, it doesn't call out PbtA specifically, but it hints that the number of titles benefitting from D&D's mis-steps in 2023 is broad. We also have the leaked info from insiders (as reported by Professor DM) about D&D's decline. From the article: "“If you look, there’s a lot of other RPGs that are coming in that are performing well,” a distributor said, noting Cyberpunk RED as a title that had grown. “We bought what we thought was a three-month supply for December, and poof! Gone!” Licensed titles, and titles based on various forms of the D&D play engine got a lot of the benefit. “We were very happy to have alternates for folks that didn’t want D&D but want to step into something that they’re already familiar with,” Ryan Boyle of 12-store Florida chain Coliseum of Comics noted. The broadening out goes beyond the top titles. “The number of roleplaying games that are selling at the level just below these guys [in the Top 10] is astounding,” a distributor told ICv2. “That started when WotC did their stuff, and it doesn’t seem to have slowed down at all. Not fewer players, they’re just not playing D&D; They were with D&D, and they moved on.”