One D&D Playtest Review: Weapon Mastery

[@lukesandadordoceu4835]

YES!!! DIFFERENT SHIELDS, PLEASE. We don't exactly need shield/armor maneuvers, but different shields with different AC bonuses, STR requirements and limitations would be awesome. Example: buckler, +1 to AC, can still perform somatic components of spells, low weight heater, +2 to AC, same as current regular shield, medium weight kite or tower, +3 to AC, requires STR 13 (or slows 10ft), heavy weight pavise, +5 to AC, requires STR 15 and 2 hands to hold up, very heavy

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

And maybe make Horses/mounts good... They suck in 5e. Horses can make a Kite Shield much feasible to use since historically, it was used that way. Although, I wouldn't add in -10 ft on Move when your next shield doesn't impose a similar movement restriction.

[@cueball6969]

I like this idea They're all completely different, to the point where you actively think about which you should use

[@Blade_291]

Having used a kite shield in re-enactment, specifically foot combat, it's the same as a heater. Maybe bonus to mounted. The tower shield is +3 on its own, and +5 when used in formation (think Roman scutum) Pavies is +3 while held 3/4 cover when stuck into the ground.

[@lukesandadordoceu4835]

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 the STR requirement for any armor means a -10ft to speed, I was just remembering anyone who needed it. You can still use the shield with lower STR, but you’ll be slow af

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@lukesandadordoceu4835 I see... I thought -10ft to Move was along with the kite shield despite having enough STR for it.

[@gridlock489]

One idea on my mind to improve Flex is giving the choice of Slashing/Bludgeoning/Piercing damage for each attack. It’d make sense for a master fighter to be able to use a long sword in each of these manners. Even if the core dice increase is small, you still get versatility from these… Versatile weapons

[@_fedmar_]

Yea, Just hit them with the pommel 😂

[@MM-lv7iy]

That still feels underpowered though, because the difference between those damage types is minuscule except in the most specific of cases (skeletons being the most obvious). Granted, the feats boosting physical damage types exist, but that would only benefit the fighter with their extra ASIs, leaving the ranger and fighter-adjacent subclasses with little to work with.

[@PandaKnight-FightingDwagon]

Damage type doesn't matter often enough for this to be a worthwhile change

[@ElJefeRules]

@@_fedmar_ Half-sword technique.

[@qkeith5071]

Compatible with 5th Edition Rules. This is new D&D...think I was will just stay with 5th Edition and what games come out from the OG Authors....paying WOTC and Hasbro for a new version of D&D, where does end....well 19 years from now we got 7 Edition D&D...go figure.

[@lukesandadordoceu4835]

I love the different visuals of different martials wielding different weapons and/or shield combinations actually have good difference now

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Sadly... Given the Fighter UA... You'll just have 1, 2, or 3 Weapon Mysteries from Fighter Class and Feat. Compared to Sorcerers or Fighter/Sorc who are much better in every way.

[@andrewdowning6520]

​@Absol StoryofFiction fighters can change one of thoer masteries after a long rest.

[@arkron81]

Regarding Graze, I think one upside of that is that it's actually kinda good against spellcasters. Because even if they use shield to armor themselves up and avoid your attack, you're still dealing damage to them, and still forcing them to make concentration checks if they're concentrating on something. Graze is a good way to consistently force those pesky mages to keep from dropping their concentrations on Banishment, for example.

[@TheMountainLynx]

Since we already saw the direction they were leaning toward for the Rogue in a previous UA, I would imagine Weapon Mastery would end up in one of their combat focused subclasses, like Assassin or Swashbuckler. I could see the same for the War Domain Cleric and Hexblade Warlock.

[@MoutainMannPro]

I feel like all rogues should at least get to have dagger mastery

[@delix]

I could see them getting it for finesse weapons at least

[@Trial88]

I doubt the rogue will get it. They’ve given every class significant buffs, but have only nerfed the rogue.

[@delix]

@@Trial88 I think they’ll be redoing most of the classes a few times over at least before making any of it official. Rogue is likely to get at least another pass

[@Wraith_Shiryu]

​@Korto And you honestly trust WoTc at this point when they stated they don't care about our feedback. It's clear with rogues they don't want them to be good. Just look at ranger and bard in the "Expert" classes. Why would you pick a rogue over them?

[@darkomen1290]

Great video! Very concise and held my attention. Also I agree with the sentiment that for sure the biggest enemy of martials in current 5e is needing fun alternatives to "i run up and swing" every single turn.

[@Still_Me]

8:19 Interesting to see that Warwick has been given the Flex mastery. He does deserve the extra point of damage, but I've always thought that he would be difficult to wield one-handed.

[@abrahamarciga3334]

One dnd just made the heavy crossbow into a 50 caliber rifle

[@PandaKnight-FightingDwagon]

Makes me actually want to use it until I remember that the Handcrossbow is still just better :/

[@seymourfields3613]

Make it STR based so low DEX paladins, barbarians, and fighters can use it as a ranged option

[@gloryrod86]

It's actually sweet

[@fluffydragon1525]

Just made the assassin/gloom stalker build that much more powerful

[@karatekoala4270]

I'm so excited cause I just made a fighter that focuses on the heavy crossbow.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Great video guys, really loved it! I'm playing a playtest barbarian and it's going to be the first time I've actually played flail and shield and it looks like the math is all solid and I'm super excited. Vex is really good but you might be overvaluing it. I've had conversations with mathematians on this one and because you don't get advantage on the first attack, and that attack has a higher chance to miss and not set up vex for the next attack, it really isn't quite as powerful as it initially appears. Flex definitely needs a boost. Finally, pie is superior to cake, sorry.

[@Ramschat]

Vex does carry over to the next turn, and with elvish accuracy, once you've hit a boss, you'd keep hitting. It's only the very first hit they may take a few attacks

[@christophersaczynski4790]

Agreed. Great for boss fights, but for a standard enemy, you're going to be taking them down by the end of the second round, if not sooner, and you will have to set up vex again on a new target.

[@Ox9707]

I haven't thought about it before now... But pie may genuinely superior to cake. I struggle mightily to deny this.

[@christophersaczynski4790]

@Ox9707 but we can all agree, ice cream alone is strictly inferior

[@hsuan2323]

best cake is cheese cake because cheese cake is pie.

[@chrisg8989]

Just off the top of my head for Shield Masteries... Small Shield (Buckler) +1 AC +5ft Speed *Gain Shield Strike* (Riposte-ish) When a creature makes a melee attack against you, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the creature. Medium Shield (Kite/Round) +2 AC *Gain Shield Bash* (Shield Master-ish) If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove/prone a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield. Heavy Shield (Tower) +3 AC -5ft speed *Gain Shield Charge* (Charger-ish) When you use your action to Dash, you can make one melee weapon attack or shove a creature. If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line as part of taking the dash action, you either gain a +5 bonus to the attack’s damage roll (if you chose to make a melee attack and hit) or push the target up to 10 feet away from you (if you chose to shove and you succeed). Thoughts?

[@Kaze_Saikuron]

For small shield it makes no sense to move faster. Why am I moving faster with a shield then without?

[@okayhellohihowyadoin]

Remove the speed gain for the small shield, the reaction attack is great on its own.

[@chrisg8989]

@Michael H @Kazekitsune good point. 🤔 I wasn't sure if Reposte was enough. Since you are using a Reaction to do so and losing 1 AC.

[@azraelbokor247]

The charge doesn't make as much sense as the other two. Instead, something like a brace. As a reaction, you plant the shield down and prevent the half damage from a succeeded dex save, and halve the damage of a failed dex save. Maybe it works like the shield spell. You use your reaction to buff your ac. Or grant ac to an adjacent party member. Focusing on the defensive style of fighting, rather than an offensive style.

[@chrisg8989]

@Azrael Bokor I like that idea.

[@Samcapasso]

I'm a big fan of cake and I'm really glad we can finally bring this issue up. I feel like we have totally been ignoring this as a community and we really need to put more focus on cake as an essential element. Thanks Dungeon Dudes for raising awareness! Your bold stance here is really appreciated and I feel like I can finally openly say I like cake 🎂

[@solarslinky7723]

I like the additions they made to make weapons more interesting, but it definitely feels like it could go through a few more iterations to find a balanced and satisfying final product. I like the idea of adding maneuvers to martial characters with the exception of ranger and paladin. I feel that since those classes already get access to half casting that they could have access to spells that can fill the niche that maneuvers offer rather than offering them both spellcasting and maneuvers.

[@TheOneAverageJoe]

they aren't in the warrior group so they shouldn't get it unless a subclass gives it to them in the future

[@Klaital1]

@@TheOneAverageJoe The UA specified that the masteries will be added to some classes in expert and priest groups in a future UA. Paladin and Ranger are the obvious ones for that.

[@TheOneAverageJoe]

@@Klaital1 oh oof I didn't see the ua myself I saw a tldr and last I saw they were warrior exclusive

[@fujin27]

I hope monks get to add these new weapons properties to their fists! It would be cool if they could topple or push with their punches.

[@lostsoulman]

I agree, topple, push very thematic

[@fujin27]

Or like you could cleave with a roundhouse kick and whack 2 mooks in one attack.

[@crownlexicon5225]

Defensive armaments: Tower shield: +3 AC min. Str: 13 Shield: +2 AC Buckler: +1 AC SHIELD MASTERY (5th level): basically, the Shield Master feat, but extend it to ANY dex save, not just ones that only target you Parrying Dagger: +0 AC light/nick Cloak: +0 AC, min. Dex 13. Feint Feint: once on your turn, when you take the attack action, you may make a charisma (deception) check against the target's passive insight. On a success, you gain advantage on the next weapon attack you make against the target. PARRYING DAGGER/CLOAK MASTERY (5th level): parry: while wielding either a parrying dagger or cloak, you gain the benefit of the Defensive Duelist feat ARMOR MASTERIES (3rd level) Light Armor: PBxLR, if you fail a Dexterity saving throw, you may choose to succeed instead Medium Armor: your dex cap for medium armors increases from +2 to +3. Additionally, you have advantage on Dexterity (stealth) checks while wearing medium armor. If the armor normally imposes disadvantage on such checks, the advantage and disadvantage cancel out as normal Heavy Armor: you reduce incoming damage from B/P/S by half your level, rounded down Notes/ ramblings: honestly, I wasn't sure what to do as a Mastery for light armor. That's the best I could come up with, but it feels significantly weaker than the others. I thought about potentially negating damage if you roll under your AC (kind of like a Cleric's Divine Intervention) but that seemed too strong and would slow down gameplay, unless I made it limited number of times, which then felt too weak if based on chance and too strong if on demand. A suggestion for long sword 2 handed: give it feint. Not sure how to buff 1 handed though. But I've seen some tricky plays with longsword with some surprise false edge cuts (usually some form of zwerkhau) Originally, I was going to make the tower Shield be the only one that provided a cover-like bonus to dex saves, but i couldn't think of anything to give the other 2 shields, so I settled on giving them all a buffed version of the current Shield Master. I'd give rogues and bards Buckler and Cloak proficiency (in addition to those who already get Shield proficiency), and I'd probably give them Parrying Dagger proficiency too, but I also kinda want it to be a martial weapon. The Buckler would be cheaper and lighter than a standard Shield, and the tower heavier and more expensive. These are other ways to influence character choice on equipment. Rapier and Cloak was a thing. You could use the Cloak to obfuscate your attacks or to try and trap your opponents blade. It was especially prominent as we transitioned much more heavily into thrusting swords than cutting swords. This version of HAM would allow users to not have to worry about swarms of weaker creatures. As early as level 10, they could fight hordes of goblins without worry as the standard CR 1/4 goblin only deals 5 damage, which would be reduced to 0. In light of the power of HAM, I decided to boost MAM to provide advantage on stealth, like the Armorer Artificer. If you wanted, you could provide disadvantage on the bonus action shove of tower shields and Bucklers, the former being too large and unwieldy, and the latter being too small and light, as ways to further differentiate the shields. I think its an unnecessary complication though. I think providing half the number of dice and choices of maneuvers to all martials would be a cool idea. And don't let the dice scale; keep the dice at d6s. The exception would be the battlemaster subclass. The dice would get added to their pool. Keep the battlemaster subclass as is. They would then have 3x maneuvers and dice compared to others and would be quite versatile. I agree, Vex is too strong. Maybe change it to the Feint I presented? A 1/turn kind of thing?

[@LoboDibujante]

I'd also love if they made the choice between bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage matter somehow.

[@ElJefeRules]

Vulnerability should be more prevalent in the Monster Manual.

[@HeroesBosses]

It used to in 2e - chainmail offered more protection vs. slashing, and less protection vs. bludgeoning. It's a lot to keep track of though.

[@morphingninja]

well, from looking at the weapons list and BY Default: - Bludgeoning weapons are the only weapons which can Sap, but they can't Cleave, Graze, or Vex. - Piercing weapons are the only which Vex, are most of the weapons which Slow and Push, but can't Cleave, Graze or Sap. - Slashing weapons are the only which Cleave and Graze, but can't Vex, Push, or Sap. The only Mastery features which damage types are each fully represented would be: - Flex (has Versatile weapons from each) - Nick (has Light weapons from each) - Slow (mostly dominated by ranged piercing but has representation by Whips, Clubs and the Sling) - Topple (has a "big" representative from each) (so the damage type of the weapon is kind of what put these weapons in a class when they didn't have a property like Light, Versatile, or Heavy) My thoughts: - Bludgeoning gets extra Damage from from STR (regardless of which stat attacking with, example usage: DEX Monk) - Piercing gets bonus to Attack roll from DEX (regardless of which stat attacking with, example usage: STR Fighter) - Slashing gets extra Damage from the opposite stat from which you are attacking with (rewarding a balance of power and precision). Essentially martial rewards for not dumping DEX or STR in a melee build.

[@thelizardwizard69]

I have to say. This document did include some new rulings on drawing and stowing weapons. Which makes it much easier and not clunky. And the fantasy of a character swapping out weapons because of their different pros and cons is pretty intriguing. To me at least. Great video!

[@M_M_ODonnell]

Vex + Nick means I'll be playing a rapier-and-dagger fencing-master rogue/fighter multiclass at some point. Optimal? Possibly not. An excuse to put an enormous feather in a big hat, grow a curly moustache, and go full Musketeer? Definitely.

[@Draelos]

A Musketeer without a musket?

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Technically... Fighter (2) + Weapon Mastery Feat (1) = (3) Vex on Nick on Sap + Dual Wielder Feat... Even better. Don't touch Two Weapon Fighting Style unless you want DPR. Just go for another Fighting Style such as (5e) Defence or Unarmed Combat in cases that (OneDnD) you are unarmed when sheathing two weapons (Dual Wielder Feat).

[@M_M_ODonnell]

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 That was the part about "not optimal" (from the munchkin side of things) and more focused on character concept instead.

[@Ruggedtoaster]

Also on the idea changing mastery of different types of weapons, this really brings up a great way to power up your martial characters in 5E is as a GM make magic weapons with properties that your player could use or would help them with their builds

[@10SentenceScience]

It is important to not see Vex as permanent advantage as there are several situations where the advantage isn’t there (your first attack, after you miss, once an opponent is dead). I also think great weapon master and sharpshooter have trained us to overvalue advantage, because we associate it with getting that extra 10 points of damage. I still think vex is good and may need a nerf, I just think we have to be aware that the we all have some inherent biases here conditioned into us by our time playing the current edition.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Vex is nice... But assuming, as a Fighter + Weapon Mastery Feat = 3 Weapon Masteries only... There are better options. Mainly Nick, Push, and Slow... For me. + Dual Wielder Feat... I can Push with a non Light non double handed Weapon then trigger Nick on my Short Sword for Slow in one Attack before Extra Attacks is taken. Battle field control is much better against creatures who are not Dragons and Health Sponges etc.

[@Draelos]

Very good point.

[@lostsoulman]

Truantmonk looked at the numbers. It would be better if all masteries were are good as the best ones.

[@Draelos]

@@lostsoulman Didn't Graze outperform the rest, even Vex, by a good margin in his analysis?

[@lostsoulman]

@@Draelos I don't recall, but vex wasn't too powerful.

[@julienxx5214]

By giving battlemaster manuveurs to all martials you give meaningful options for martials, you bridge gap between martials and casters by creating symmetry between martials and casters! Casters get cantrips at will and resources to spend by casting spells; Martials on the other hand get weapon masteries at will and resources (superiority dices) to spend by using battlemaster maneuvers On top of weapon masteries, give all martials battlemaster maneuvers!!! You can design martials with a possibility to choose or not to access battlemaster maneuvers, very much like the new holy order feat for clerics for whoch you choose heavy armor or thaumaturgy… meaning that you can still design martials which are easy to play and if players want other types of martials which can opt to have more tactical options

[@chrisg8989]

32:10 That is absolutely the Fantasy I want for my DnD. Makes the "Weapon Master" actually make sense. A Master of Many or All weapons. Using them for the advantage they provide. More choice is better.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Sadly... Fighter + Feat... You only have 3 Weapon Masteries at max. Unless I'm wrong but Fighter's don't get more outside of their ability to swap Weapon Masteries even if the effect isn't tied to that specific weapon.

[@chrisg8989]

@Absol StoryofFiction nope, you are mistaken. Level 1-3, you get 3 Weapon Masteries Level 4-9, you get 4 Weapon Masteries Level 10-20, you get 5 Weapon Masteries

[@stevenmathews9355]

I've been saying for a while now that the Battle Master should just be part of the base Fighter class and then any other class or subclass that gets fighting styles or an extra attack (and also the Rogue) should get access to a couple maneuvers that they can pick (ie not just Monks, Paladins, etc. but also giving one or two to like Battle Smiths, Bladsingers, etc.) Either give them some Superiority dice or make the maneuvers act more like cantrips so that more people can use them. Also add a bunch more and then you can make certain requirements for some, like Eldritch Invocations. Like have a "ranged weapons only" or "heavy weapons only" or "simple weapons only" etc. Giving weapons cool things is kind of fun, but martials in general need a bigger buff and giving them more battlefield control or just increased options for things they can do on their turns that have more impact than just "I attack three times". But like they said, that's a whole overhaul for all martials and a bunch of other subclasses and so that's probably not going to happen. But it would be nice to see the martials get more power to try and keep up with the casters that are only getting more powerful.

[@yiklongtay6029]

I also think that masteries as they are are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you make them big and impactful, you need to give them time consuming mechanics like topple making enemies roll at every single attack. The alternative is a passive effect that doesn't contribute to your turn to turn decision making skills like sap Battle maneuvers limit the number of time consuming gimmicks with its resource pool and you need to actively decide when to use them instead of it being a passive.

[@JJV7243]

Gotta say - you brought up a lot of ideas that hadn't crossed my mind. Maintaining the "weapon of choice" fantasy and not having/wanting to switch weapons in combat really does support the concept of maneuvers for martials. Great points.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Coming from devil may cry and dark souls. I like Weapon Swapping instead of using one weapon all the time. But I also prefer if the Weapon Masteries are not tied to specific weapons.

[@LydCal999]

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 dark souls discourages weapon swapping by making you upgrade each weapon individually and making each individual weapon affect your carry weight. the only time i ever put more than one weapon on during a single fight is when i have a misericord in my back pocket for ripostes

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@LydCal999 Nope... Maybe for you but not for me. DS1 to Elden Ring. I'm usually sl400+ by then. Since I rarely PvP. And if I do PvP. I carry every weapon on me to mix it up. It's boring to stick with one weapon. Especially for invasions. And no... Weapon Swapping is a mechanic since Demon Souls. From Soft has made that clear for over 6 games already and in between patch notes of each game.

[@LydCal999]

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 im sorry, SL400 for what??? NG+5? Just because you play these games for a billion years and never stop leveling up doesn’t mean that’s a normal way to play the game lol. most people stop at 125 for the souls games and 150 in elden ring for NG just to keep some semblance of challenge in the game. even in NG+7 I’ve never gone above 200.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@LydCal999 That's a "you" thing. Just like how most DND players will never play at lv15+ campaigns. Sl125 and sl150 is the meta PvP bracket but it's by no means the only one.

[@izunagi9064]

Maybe we need martial invocations? With stat requirements? Id think that be neat

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Invocation Style?... Yes. Stat requirements?... No. If Martials require Stats to use Core Features then every Class is now forced to do the same. It's not an improvement.

[@izunagi9064]

@absolstoryoffiction6615 the only reason i was thinking of stat requirements that would help possible problems that could happen when multiclassing. Others being if you dex is a dump stat and the invocation had to do with being very accurate. Idk was just a thought. Probably better without

[@dinosspanos7409]

This would be a really cool idea

[@cocoblondie759]

That reaction attack from Sentinel when a nearby ally is targeted would be a very good platform to sneak an off-turn Sap in to protect your ally, or a topple/push if the enemy was charging them and used up most of their movement already. Sounds like a fun time for martials who want to protect the party

[@ShakalDraconis]

Favorite cake, simple chocolate cake. And honestly, martial maneuvers was one of the things that made me really like 4th edition, that's basically what you had with martial classes with the powers system. Instead of just repeated "I attack", you were picking between your at wills, if this was the time for one of your encounter or dailies, etc. Every turn you had SOME choice to make that was going to end up impacting things.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

Sooo...Battlemaster?

[@LiliumPetal]

@@geoffdewitt6845 make it base kit for all fighters then yeah, sure. Still lacks some out of combat utility but much better than what we have.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

@@LiliumPetal Disagree that BM needs to be in the base fighter. I think we need an uncomplicated base so Champion players don't have a bunch of mechanics getting between them and the game. My point was simply that 4e maneuvers have been in 5e this whole time.

[@MaMastoast]

​@@geoffdewitt6845 I dont see why martial base classes should be significantly simpler than casters. Why should I have to pick a caster to have some depth in my class? Its not like the battlemaster is at all complicated.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

@@MaMastoast Fighter only. Second, that only relates to keeping the Champion simple to play. That's an accessibility thing, since some folks don't want a lot of mechanics. Third, I think we can add more options, but I don't think they should add combat options. Martials need to be able hold their own in social and exploration play, too.

[@rheemocturis5624]

I feel like flex is misunderstood. I think it's meant to increase the damage for shield users, rather than meant to compete with 2h weapons or duel-wielding. BUT I do think if this is going to stick around, flex weapons need buffed

[@logancuster8035]

Yes it is. It’s still terrible.

[@jeremybauman2344]

I think it's bad thematically because it gives classes with mastery zero reason to ever use versatile weapons two-handed. It's just saying "you can use a shield now." It doesn't enhance versatile weapons, it basically just removes the versatile property. Versatile weapons should have different benefits whether they're wielded with one or two hands.

[@ElJefeRules]

My Flex fix involves a change to Dueling. Flex: +1 AC one handed, +2 damage two handed Dueling: +2 damage while holding a non-heavy melee weapon and no other weapons Basically giving you a reason to switch between one handed and two handed like you’re in Dark Souls and makes two handing the weapon not completely pointless.

[@rheemocturis5624]

@@ElJefeRules I think this is a step in the right direction. Honestly I think +1 to AC in 1-handed mode and +2 to AC in 2 handed mode would be cool (with mastery) and rename it Parry or something

[@alavantegaming1021]

I never played DnD as a TT. I have been watching a ton of videos since my interest is raising (Probably because of BG3). So thanks for the videos DDs. About the way the classes are being discussed and the roleplaying element of TT i had a mental image that i would like to share. Dont know how good it would play but i think it would solve the limiting aspects of choice while keeping the roleplaying aspect alive aswell as improving the core flavour that each class has. This would be a huge paradigm shift and doubtfully backwards compatible in any way. So this is mostly a mental exercise. I would break the core properties of the classes into 4 aspects (Power, Expertise, Skillcaster, Spellcaster). Power = Raw stats + core resources (Initiative, multi action, bonus actions) Expertise = Skills/Expertises + "Extra Normals" (Ex.: Extra attack, extra movement etc) + tools and weapons proficiencies Skillcaster = Feats + specializations (think context + circunstance when x do z like rangers prefered enemy, terrain or the hunter's horde slayer, the assassins suprise advatage or the swashbucklers isolation advantage, throwing knifes etc) + masteries Spellcaster = Spellslots and magical sources (Spellslots, divinity charges, sorcery points etc.) Ability scores remain as they are but would be mostly static for those that do not invest in Power. This would have to apply to monsters and NPCs to keep balance and is the main reason why i dont think there can be backwards compatability. These rules would be on the book but from the player's perspective they would only see the "normal" class progression in the players manual. All the work of converting/listing these would be on the designer side. These aspects would be the "keepers" of everything a player can do in game (from a mechanical perspective not a RP one). So the same way there are spell lists there would be a power list, a expertise list and a skills list. I am calling the items in the lists as "Boons". The access to the options and boons in the lists would be given by class, subclass and race. Each class at its core would give the player 4 points distributed in these aspects. Each subclass would do the same. The race/subrace would do the same. In total each levelup would give the player 12 levels/points in these aspects. Hypothetical Ex.: A fighter would have 2 points in expertise and 2 points in power. The battle master would have 2 points in Expertise and 2 in skillcaster while the champion would have 1 in expertise and 2 in power and 1 in skillcaster. A human could give 2 in expertise, 1 in skillcaster and 1 in power as well. In this sample at lv3 both would have 36 points in total, both human, both fighters one battlemaster and one champion so the aspect would be Aspects Power, Expertise, SkillCaster, SpellCaster Human, Fighter, BM 3,6,3,0 per level 9,18,9,0 at lv3 Human, Fighter, CH 5,5,2,0 per level 15,15,6,0 at lv 3 I would give access to choices to players in the aspects at every 10 points + something bigger at every 25 points. This way when you receive your options and powerups would be entirely on the players choice and character. I would keep the minor boons available for 3 tiers and the major boons for 2, so the options you have at the 10 points mark would remain an option at 20 points and 30 points, but would no longer be available at 40 points mark. The 25 points major boon options would be available at 50 points but not at 75. In the example above the BM would receive nothing at level 1, a Expertise boon at lv 2 nothing at lv 3 then 3 boons at level 4 (1 power, 1 expertise and 1 skillcaster) while the CH would receive nothing at level 1, 2 boons at lv 2, nothing at 3 and 2 boons at lv 4. The distiction between the minor and major boons would allow for discrepancies in power to be regulated by type (major,minor) and tier. So feats like sharpshooter and greatweapon master could remain as long as they were in a higher tier or only as a major boon. Doing it like this would keep all the pressure off the classes and subclasses to just focus on whatever they want that make them special without having to focus too much on power progression. It would also allow classes to have a stronger core identity. (From a designer perspective. From the players view it would still be with character X at lv Y choose between a,b,c so on so forth) In my mind under this system sorcerers would be spellcasters + power, while bards would be Expertise + spellcaster, warlock would be spellcaster + skillcaster and wizards would be pure spellcasters. For a mental somewhat accurate image: pure power = barbarians pure expertise = rogues pure skillcaster = fighters pure spellcaster = wizards Doing it like this would be a front heavy workload for designers/developers but once the base is made it would be extremely easy to add new monsters, races and classes without powercreeping. (Unless intentional of course). It would probably need a oficial site to generate a character sheet with the options and all but nowadays i dont think it would be much of a problem. There is a lot more that can be said but for now i think it is enough. If you got here thanks for reading and have a nice day.

[@tiagopedrosa6746]

One simple way to fix the problem of repetitive use of the same mastery is to Make the mastery Feat to be Just Like The 7th lvl feature of fighter. In that way you give versatility across the board to all marcial (if they chose so) and then make the lvl 7 feature of fighter to be the lvl 13 one and Make a new feature to lvl 13. Thus you can bring divesity os mastery to all marcials but fighters still are the most specialist in the mastery mechanics

[@jacoboverstreet8553]

So in our game all martials get the full battle master subclass added to their character and half-casters gain half the number of maneuver dice. You’d be amazed at how not overpowered it is while adding a lot of needed versatility to those classes

[@Blastercadre]

DM: Okay Fighter, it's your turn. Fighter: I move 15ft to the nearest enemy, and hit it with my Hotel. DM: ... I'm sorry, your what? Fighter: The WARWICK, my hotel. How much damage is that again? DM: ... @~8:23 in the video. Too funny, I had to mention it!

[@Helldragon789]

You know what needs to happen? They need to take their tail out of between their legs and give martials back the at-will skills they had in 4e. Then you can make a "spell list" for martials so when they release "Pippy pop's sticky notes of some stuff" they can give new stuff to the Arcane, Divine, Nature, AND MARTIAL spellbooks

[@saeedrazavi4428]

I'm so hype for PPSNoSS. Gonna be a great book

[@KnicKnac]

Nah. Leave the watered down weeb BS that started at the end of 3.5 out of the game.

[@aurtosebaelheim5942]

Looking through the 4e at-will fighter powers and I'm surprised how many of the weapon masteries are just lifted from there. Moreover, we already had the bones of it in place with abilities like Reckless Attack and the old Great Weapon Master feat. At the end of the day, the powers were just modifiers you applied to weapon attacks. If the formatting was unified and you could only use one on each attack (ie: no Reckless Attack + Great Weapon Master) then I think it could work pretty well. Going through a few specifics that could translate nicely: Brash Strike: 4e: +2 to hit, +Con to damage (on top of normal attack damage), target has combat advantage to hit you next turn. Conversion: This attack never has disadvantage. +Con to damage (on top of normal attack damage), target has advantage to hit you next turn. Similarly, Sure Strike, the other accurate basic attack could have "this attack never has disadvantage" to differentiate it from Reckless Attack. Maybe throw in "If this attack has advantage, instead, roll 3 times and take the higher result" if it's too weak. Crushing Surge: 4e: If you are trained in Endurance, gain temporary hp equal to your Con mod if you hit. Conversion: Grants temporary hp equal to your Con mod until the start of your next turn. Maybe too strong at low levels and too weak at high levels. Could probably do with some scaling. Footwork Lure: 4e: Shift 1 after making the attack and slide the target into the space you previously occupied. Conversion: Move 5ft. after making the attack and move the target into the space you occupied. None of this movement provokes attacks of opportunity. Grappling Strike: No conversion needed. Requires a free hand and automatically grapples the target until the end of your next turn. Resolute Shield: 4e: Requires a shield. Gain resistance equal to your Con mod to the target's attacks until the end of your next turn. Conversion: Requires a shield. Gain resistance to the target's attacks until the end of your next turn. Now, this is just looking at the fighter, which was (practically speaking) melee-locked in 4e. Ranger offers nothing of note. Its basic attacks were focussed on movement in an edition when you couldn't normally attack mid-move. A 5e Swashbuckler can basically do all the 4e Ranger at-wills. Rogue has a few toys: a low-damage attack that always triggers Sneak Attack; an attack that targets Dex save rather than AC; an attack that breaks grabs. Otherwise it's mostly more mobility, a bootleg Vex and an attack with a free Intimidate. Warlord almost exclusively has conditional damage buffs for allies attacking their target. The main point of interest is an attack that grants the target a free counterattack which then triggers a follow-up attack from one of your allies. None of these feel particularly "weeaboo fighting magic" to me (barring perhaps Crushing Surge, but that feels like Barbarian fighting magic and if you can't accept that you left D&D a long time ago). They all represent a grounded, believable fantasy while still giving martials some toys to play with.

[@evilallensmithee]

Okay hear me out. In my games, I made half feats experts for similar weapons (swords, maces, pole arms, etc) the let you use stances or fighting styles in that group, you pick a style when you roll initiative, and can switch using a bonus action on you turn, including between attacks. The stances are largely inspired by these masteries using the Mastery Prerequisites. So an expert Axeman with a great axe could take on two guys at once and enter “Flame Stance” to use a cleave, then use her/his bonus action to change to “Auroch style” to push the more troublesome of the opponents. It opens the styles to player choice. Has solid logic for including a bunch of options as you are trained in pole arms which are similar and you take advantages of their unique properties. If doesn’t grant proficiency; thus also maintains consistency a fighter’s expertise with swords includes great swords but bard’s does not.

[@CaterF0X]

The fantasy of throwing like 10 weapons into the field in front of you, or picking up the weapons of enemies and using a vast assortment of properties sounds pretty freaking cool. might be a cool way to get to use multiple properties.

[@zacharyshelton4087]

I love the idea of different shields. It would make defensive options much more diverse

[@andrewlewis2123]

Yeah, maybe if all shields always give you +2 AC, but they (re)introduced various shield types. So bucklers let you use a little reaction parry or something, and tower shields let you take cover as a bonus action (or they roll in some of the Shield Master features), and maybe regular shields let you shield bash and/or throw them?

[@iskandarthegreat0487]

I have always been frustrated by the fact that almost all of the weapons feel the same as every other weapon with the same basic properties. I'm loving the direction that these are moving. They may need some refinement but I love this potential 😊

[@dinosspanos7409]

Thank you, Dungeon Dudes, for bringing up shields and masteries. I don’t think it would be too difficult to include masteries for shields, at least not in the aspect where it would have to be a whole different edition. It’s really not that big of a change, but it is one that is certainly needed and I would love to see!

[@zivosthrintolimgren3513]

Maneuvers, hm? Perhaps Wizards should re-examine the Tome of Battle. One of my favorite D&D books ever!👍👍👍

[@DungeonDudes]

Same!

[@zivosthrintolimgren3513]

@@DungeonDudes Additionally, while it has the distinct possibility to be game-breaking or im-balancing on certain classes, I sometimes feel as though certain sub-classes could do well with being baked into a base class as additional features. Examples include Champion for the Fighter, Thief for the Rogue and Hunter for the Ranger.

[@MaMastoast]

@@zivosthrintolimgren3513 I think the obvious choice is the battlemaster for the fighter. Martials need some choice and depth in their base class. I kinda hate that casters are the only ones who get to pick cool powers.

[@andrewlewis2123]

I too love Tome of Battle to the moon and back; the idea of choosing a specific school of fighting, with a clear theme and tailored abilities, has inspired more than a few 5e characters. However, I think it works best as a splatbook, since 1) it basically turned martials into casters, which to me somewhat defeats the purpose of choosing an archetype, and 2) flaming sword attacks and the like may not belong in every campaign. I think the battlemaster is a good preservation of that spirit, but I would also love to see the ToB reintroduced for more high-magic, high-power campaigns.

[@logancuster8035]

Treantmonk has done the math on Vex. It’s good for sure, but not nearly as problematic as you would think intuitively.

[@JrgenHelland00]

What's really weird with the new two-weapon fighting is that you can use the extra attack from the light property while wielding a shield. You just need to use two different weapons that you switch between during your turn.

[@cyancybershock719]

my game plays with the rule of all characters with extra attack getting battle master maneuvers (scaling by that class if multiclassed), and while it should probably be added to rogue too.. it really helps the game so much.

[@brucebrown2241]

I think it would be cool if every level you could pick one weapon per attack you have each round and gain a level of expertise in that weapon. That way you could decide to have a broad level of expertise with a lot of weapons, or superior expertise in one weapon. So someone who has spent their career mastering a whip can use it to devastating effect.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Maybe for weapon types and not for Named Weapons. In short... Swords are in the same category even when Long Sword and Short Swords are two different weapons.

[@bennelson638]

The SW5E by Delta Force, famously used in Starstruck Odyssey, is a huge inspiration for me in this regard. So many different kinds of weapons, each with their own properties that make them feel so distinct. The fighter and scholar each have maneuvers baked in to the core class, not just as a subclass. AND all classes have customization options along the lines of warlock invocations to really give them dynamic combat with out of combat utility. Truly my favorite version of 5E

[@MageLeaderInc]

The idea of someone carrying a large bag of weapons actually sounds awesome to me only because Terry Brooks has a character in one of his books named Jax who is a weapons master. That's literally what he does, is carry a bag full of different weapons and he fights people around the world using any weapon or multiple weapons, looking for someone that can actually defeat him.

[@joeleek9976]

I like that Garrett Jax had a favorite stick in his bag of weapons that he would fight with.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

I just think of Devil May Cry and that's more exciting to me than sticking with the Long Sword all the time.

[@Chaosmancer7]

Fair, but I'm also in the opposite camp, where it would be amazing to have a fighter use a glaive, and be so good with that weapon they can use it in six different ways. Because, right now, every attack feels the same, but if you watch a fight sequence, every attack is different

[@SleepyGolem]

I know it's not exactly the same. But i came across something on drivethrurpg recently. It gives martials different maneuvers unlocking at certain levels. It doesn't really give a new property to weapons. But the fighters skills change depending on the weapon on hand which i thought was pretty interesting. It's not perfect, but it's a good jumping off point to homebrew something at the table which is what I'm doing at my table

[@AgentMONST3R]

I love to see Halberds have an ability to allow you to choose which damage type you're doing since it is a combination of an Axe (slashing), Spear (piercing) and a Hammer (bludgeoning).

[@deathtoexistance]

Halberds don't have a hammer, there are other polearms that have a hammer side like the bec de corbin. Halberds are a spear and axe combo with either a spike or hook on the other side for dealing with mounts or disarming people. In any case your argument only matters if different physical damage types have any difference to monster statblocks, which we have yet to see. If physical damage type matters more to revised monsters I'd agree, though it would likely make other weapons feel worse.

[@AgentMONST3R]

@@deathtoexistance it probably depends on the Halbert, I seen some with male side instead of a spike.

[@deathtoexistance]

@@AgentMONST3R I believe they'd be a differently named polearm in that case, there are a lot more polearm names than what 5e has listed so. Either way it's not a major difference, I'm splitting hairs here.

[@mentlegens7020]

Bit late but if i recal its called poleaxe that has hammer, spike and axe if thats what u mean

[@chessenta3479]

The cake part earned an instant like. :p I really liked this video. Enjoyed the commentary and the banter!

[@brandonm9378]

I feel like weapon proficiency should let you use the current mastery mechanics and weapon mastery should let you swap them for other available abilities. Then fighter should gain two abilities on a weapon at once at level 7 instead of 13. 13th level is way too late for that feature. I also saw someone say instead of battlemaster being rolled into fighter like some people want, champion features should be rolled into the base fighter. I feel like that is a good idea honestly to make them a true weapon master and more heroic. I think rolling berserker into the base barbarian would be a good change too. All barbarians should be scary and be able to deal big damage attacks and that would help.

[@Bigswordenergy-b7u]

I personally I'm in love with the idea that different weapons can do different things. And I don't want every character to hav access to all the options regardless of their weapon choice. In fact the change that I want to happen is for weapons to specialize further and give you more options that few other weapons have access to I'm imagining where each has three special proprietys that you can unlock and they can in the options they have access it's just different where in the three levels they're gonna get it

[@ElJefeRules]

It would be interesting if we got leveled maneuvers, allowing us to unlock powerful moves at high levels like in Dragon’s Dogma.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Maybe... Because that's not going happen on Classes given the recent Warrior UA.

[@mikecarson7769]

i am hopeful for a revised text of the rules, presented as cake recipes. ideally ,a revision will include better balance of the ingredients and clarifications about how the ingredients work together with the weapons mastery options, light weapons property, two-weapon fighting, push attack, etc

[@Solid_Sayori]

Fighter: "I get to push someone 10 ft.?! Wow that's so cool!" Wizard: "I get to turn you into a frog with polymorph and not have to concentrate."

[@tomytomy]

Are you referencing "modify spell" regarding polymorph? My understanding is it still takes up your concentration, just that the concentration can't be broken (which is also very good of course)

[@techbeef]

Casters need to be nerfed more

[@jonp8015]

DM skill issue. Or you don't play *and* have poor reading comprehension.

[@Solid_Sayori]

@@jonp8015 My dude, you missed the point.

[@okayhellohihowyadoin]

​@@jonp8015 DM.. Skill issue? Are we blaming DMs for the martial / caster divide now?

[@TheLogicMouse]

One of the biggest complaints my hubby has about 5e as compared to earlier editions is that fighters and other primarily martial characters don't have a higher chance to hit than others. If the fighter's str is equal to the rogue's dex or the wizards int, then their chance of successfully striking a particular target is exactly the same, and he doesn't feel like that's reasonable. Maybe that's something that WotC could bring back to the game?

[@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj]

U guys forgot u need the feat that unlocks at level 4 so rangers and rogues could use nick. The feat needs to be a level 1 feat that gives u proficiency in 1 weapon and unlock its mastery.

[@spikehammer3112]

It is most likely that dipping 1 level in fighter for 3 masteries and everything else that it gives you will always be better than taking the feat.

[@Draelos]

We don't know that yet. The playtest mentions classes previously released will get access to weapon masteries.

[@CivilWarMan]

Haven't finished watching the video, but just want to chime in that I think Trident is one of the best weapons in this update. Definitely the most improved. It does better damage than 5E, making it the piercing equivalent on the Longsword/Battleaxe/Warhammer class of Versatile weapons. Speaking of which, it's Versatile, but doesn't have Flex. Like Battleaxe, it has Topple, but unlike Battleaxe, it's also a Thrown weapon. The reason this makes Trident so good is the changes to Warlock, particularly Pact of the Blade. Whether it's a straight Bladelock or a multiclass Bladelock (though Paladin and Ranger are best equipped to take advantage of this), the Pact Weapon ability on a thrown weapon gives it the Returning property. So in one of these Warlock builds, you can use your attacks to throw the Trident at the enemy, and if Topple knocks them prone, you can close the gap, wield the Trident in two hands to get the Versatile die, and attack with Advantage. If Conquest Paladin makes it to the new version mostly unchanged, it's also a good weapon for knocking a Frightened target prone and having them stuck on the ground with no movement.

[@patrickhebert8918]

I Like the Idea of the Martial combatant having martial power like mage have spells

[@barcster2003]

Some weapon masteries are defintely great.

[@nyahtonks3914]

i love black forest cake. well rounded, different flavors and textures, just very good. thank you for coming to my ted talk

[@thomasjdurfee]

Graze sounds like a fun way to grief the mage. Wouldn't it give you guarantied ongoing concentration checks, bypassing Shield?

[@lostsoulman]

I think graze is good. 20str. 3 attacks per round. Minimum 15 dmg (pre resistance)

[@ytchanviewer5389]

@Kelly and Monty (and all who'll read this) : I am also in favour of "every martial character should get battlemaster maneuvers". I think that Level Up : Advanced 5E (A5E) does that. But as you said, if WotC did it, while they could keep 5E compatibility (A5E is 5E-compatible), they might feel it would look/feel too much like a 6E. I personally don't think it would. But PR-wise, they might be quite keen on not straying too far from current 5E. I don't know.

[@ThatoneGuy-zd4rl]

Also - when they are talking about maneuvers for martial - it’s like the devs have amnesia. They did do that in past editions - combat maneuvers were a thing that martial characters could do and choose from - originally published in a dragon magazine if anyone remembers those. Not sure why they feel like they can’t take from correct things they did in the past.

[@Vinceras]

I also feel like standardizing damage on like for like weapons would be beneficial...like you said, why pick up any other light/finesse weapon when you could just pick up Rapier and get the higher damage? Personally, I wish they would just do generalized weapon that can be flavored how you wish like "Light bladed weapon = 1d6".

[@jones1171]

My idea goes something like this. Anyone who uses a weapon can use a battle master maneuver without the damage benefit. Let every Marshall class pick a battle master maneuver every three levels until level 12. That would be 3,6,9, and 12. When they pick that battle master maneuver they get the extra 1D6 damage. That dice increases at the same rate of battle master does now. Please feel free to pick this idea apart. I would love to develop it to be even better. My players love this.

[@russelldavis1359]

Flex should be changed to +1 AC

[@tomytomy]

I am really looking forward towards the revised version of the monk class. It's thematically among my favourites and the fact that they're so weak mechanically really sucks right now! Hopefully they give them some heavy buffs to compete with at least other martials 😅

[@Sylvous765]

I dm every Sunday and gave my martials superiority die that scale with the martial level starting at 2nd level and basically follows PB number of dice (never upgrades from a d6). Felt very strong early, now at level 10 it just helps bridge the gap between them and the sorcerer/wizard. Plus it is ultra thematic having the barbarian just knock enemies around with pushing attack.

[@blackguardunlimeted]

They basically need to bring back the 'Tome of Battle' from 3.5, tune it for 5e !

[@tarlendo]

Its like they are adding just a few pieces of ToB every now and then... battlemaster some maneuvers... weapon mastery some other maneuvers... they should just update the whole book to one dnd

[@KnicKnac]

HELL NO! We don't need Weeabo Fighting Magic. Such a garbage book.

[@kurtoogle4576]

Great discussion & it is much appreciated! So I finished this video, and my kid pops in... "Soooo... Cake?? Cake? Chocolate cake?" And then we made brownies. Thanks for the idea, Monty "Nick" Martin! :)

[@vrahnkeneisenbach9148]

Homebrew idea: in your dnd world, there are various npcs which, if you befriend through quests or whatnot, will offer you special training for gold and time. This training can give your characters maneuvers, or extra proficiency.

[@jleewatts4318]

I like this idea very much. Makes weapon choice meaningful and flavorful. And, yes, this is moving more to 6e vs 5.5e.

[@karkajouautomaton4882]

First to feed the algorithm!

[@kelb76]

the algorithm must be fed

[@TheHornedKing]

Nice! Finally there is actually some proper meat to weapon choice.

[@dungeondr]

JC: Let them eat ice cream. Dungeon Dudes: Revolution it is.

[@LokangoFreewar15]

40:36 I once proposed in DnD beyond the heavy door-sized shield used by the Roman Empire that granted a conditional Evasion and conditional 3/4 cover to you and the person behind you, and if you stacked together with more people that had this shield you could make a wall of shields that protected everybody behind them from Ranged attacks and granted Evasion to them My idea was to put it a 13 str requirement that stacks with heavy armor strength requirement to bring alive the sword and board fantasy in a way that isn't with dex

[@ATMOSK1234]

Most of the masteries are pretty good. Vex, nick, cleave and graze all are great damage options for a variety of builds. Topple, slow and push are great for controlling positioning/limiting movement. The only bad ones in my view are flex and sap.

[@Awoken0]

Sap is very good early levels, not so much once multiattack is frequent.

[@sloubser01]

Glad you guys realized that asking for more, would perhaps be too much . I mean we already I get so much more flexibility than we have. I understand your point on getting balanced options buy making it all equally strong, but right now I am happy

[@marcuslobo5765]

I like these masteries. One way to solve your issues could be to subdivide the masteries into passive and active, stuff like graze, nick, vex etc. as passive which can be balanced and distributed to applicable weapons while active masteries like slow, etc. Can be applied to any weapon with specific weapoms offering advantage on throws for the specific manoeuvres

[@RobKinneySouthpaw]

Just spitballing here, but here are some masteries for different shields. Each would at base give +2 AC as normal. *Boss-held (buckler, viking shield) property: you can draw or stow it as if it were a weapon. Mastery: You can attack with it as a bonus action d4 buckler d6 round shield. If you hit they have disadvantage on their next attack. *Strapped (kite shield, capt america style) Property: advantage against being disarmed. Mastery: you count as having a free hand for any feature or activity that would require it. As a reaction, you can double this shield's bonus against one attack (or maybe until start of next turn). *Tower shield* Property Requires STR 15. Provides 3/4 Cover. Mastery: you can apply the shield's bonus to STR, Dex, and CON saves. As an bonus action, you can give yourself total cover from one designated enemy or effect until the start of your next turn.

[@harvtehmarv]

You guys echoed my thoughts exactly. It feels so one trick for my battleaxe to trip and if I wanna do something different I have to use a lance. No bud my fantasy begins and ends with this axe I don't wanna have to depart from it to get the most out of my class. The answer is right there in front of them. They just need to pull the trigger

[@chrisvossler8795]

I actually just started working on a list of homebrewed shields for my Forge Cleric to be able to craft: Tower shield (+3 instead of +2), Aspis Shield (reaction to add PB to the AC of an ally within 5 ft), Targe Shield (bonus action shove that deals piercing damage), Buckler (+1 instead of +2 but usable by rogues, with reaction to add PB to AC for all attacks by a single enemy for the round), Bracer (+1 instead of +2 but usable with a two-handed weapon). Making that an actual part of the rules would be amazing.

[@hamsmcham3238]

My favorite rogue has always been the swashbuckler because it's so easy to get advantage when using a rapier... Now just taking the feat and choosing a different subclass that I normally wouldn't use sounds so much fun!

[@myki3angelo]

Well said! I am really hoping to live out my flail vision - especially if I can wield it with a longsword like the Witch King of Angmar. I feel we are going in the right direction, but not quite there yet

[@Balcamion79]

Flex allows sword and board/dualist play, so you potentially get the extra 2 damage from the fighting style as well as the additional 2 to your ac from a shield, which you sacrifice for the bigger damage die otherwise.

[@Beastmann3d]

Push lets you move a target 10ft away from you with no save and no direction specified. This means if you are using a Pike you can Push the enemy 10 ft up and then extra attack to push it another 10ft up. After your attack the target falls at your feet taking 2d6 and falling prone no save. Pretty sure this rolls slow, topple, cleave, and vex all in one mastery and it does it better. It also covers the sap mastery until the target stands up.

[@Beastmann3d]

As a fighter you push a target 10ft vertically then switch to a Longbow as a free action using the rest of your attacks to push the target 10ft higher per hit.

[@matthewschwoebel8247]

Flex should let you do 2H damage AND let you shield bash with a bonus action (1d4 B + STR) if wielding a shield or similar wording. Then it would live up to sword and board.

[@RLKmedic0315]

And that bonus applies to each and every attack you make. Cleave is very situational.

[@richardchisenhall387]

Just a thought for a different longsword mastery, call it true versatility and it allows you to choose which damage type your longsword will do (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) allowing it to be used with multiple feats and exploit more damage type vulnerabilities

[@Ox9707]

It'll also be interesting seeing enemies and bosses with masteries as well.

[@kennyshack2006]

Crossbow with push is the Wookie Bowcaster from Star Wars! "I like this thing!" Han Solo

[@taigenraine]

So, between fighter, mastery, and the rule in this packet that lets you either draw or sheath a weapon as part of every attack you take, this is possible for a fighter with 3 extra attacks. Fighter starts by drawing a glaive because he has polearm master. He attacks with it, and attacks with it again with his bonus action using the butt. As part of that bonus attack he sheaths the polearm. As part of his first extra attack, he draws a scimitar and attacks using vex to get advantage on his next attack if he hits. Since he attacked with a light weapon, he can now make an attack with a different light weapon, and if that weapon has nick it doesn't use a bonus action, so he draws another scimitar with that attack (fighter can assign both nick and vex to scimitars at the same time). With his second extra attack he attacks with a scimitar again and sheaths the off-hand scimitar. With his 3rd extra attack he attacks again with the scimitar and draws a shield. 6 attacks on one turn and end up with a shield. Next round, first attack with scimitar, sheath shield. Draw another scimitar and nick with it. First extra attack with scimitar and sheath off-hand scimitar. Second extra attack with scimitar and sheath it. 3rd extra attack draw glaive. Bonus attack with butt of polearm. 6 more attacks. Repeat ad nauseum. That is 6 attacks a round every round, 2 with graze, 3 with vex, 1 with nick. Every other round also get the benefit of a shield. Also note that nick is part of attack, so it also gets to be used with action surge. So an action surge round would be the whole chain minus the last bonus action attack... so that is 11 attacks on an action surge. Since fighters eventually get 2 action surges per rest, that is 22 attacks on the first 2 rounds of combat. You can double dip the extra attack with nick and polearm master as soon as you get an extra attack. Start with polearm, bonus with polearm (sheath polearm), draw shortsword and attack, draw scimitar and nick; next round attack with shortsword and sheath, nick with scimitar and sheath, draw polearm and attack, bonus with polearm. 4 attacks at 5th level for fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, and any other class that gets an extra attack and can use heavy weapons.

[@pascalgagnon5423]

The idea is great to make us think about the weapon we want. My paladin has warhammer and shield, but I could switch to mace or flail just to get the sap, if it remains weapon locked. I would also love that shields get mastery.

[@eduardodecarvalhoguerra8852]

Push weapon property + charger + crusher + battle master pushing attack = 1 hit pushing the enemy around 30ft away

[@andreasaslaksen4430]

So here are my main things that I'd love to hear the thoughts from the pros, 2 interactions: Level dip multiclassing for the other classes, and interactiosn with magic items. E.g. I feel like longswords are possibly the most common magic weapon, and for that reason may have been given the lightest buff? Feel for many campaigns choice is weapon is largely based on what DM gives out, but feel they are being viewed in a vacuum.

[@snazzyfeathers]

I think Wotc is on the right track here with making weapons feel more unique, but its clear that they need to rework some of it before release. As a side note, I think Graze is being overlooked by Vex. If you're playing a martial and pinned up against a spellcaster that has access to spells like shield and mirror image your advantage with Vex wouldn't work as well because you need to land a hit first for advantage. While as with Graze, even if you miss you'd still be dealing damage to them (which, if you're fighting a caster is huge because they may need to make a concentration check vs every bit of damage you do).

[@otisvo3663]

D&D 3.5 had some of this stuff and it makes combat slower. The beauty of 5e has been the speed in which you can get through a fight. I do like all of this, but be ready to have session long fights. I like most cake just not with nuts...

[@DungeonDudes]

That's a valid criticism, but I'd say combat in 3.5e was slow due to a large number of conditional modifiers necessitating multiple dice rolls and situational math for combatants who were making multiple attacks per turn, alongside extremely complex spell effects which were hard to adjudicate at the table. I get where you're coming from, but there's still a little headroom in 5e to allow characters to performing actions which are interesting and exciting.

[@mishiara5499]

To me what is most excioting about this, even as a player not a dm, is the enemy "minion"-like swarm encounters where they have these different weapons and properties - feels like it will make the encounters so much more dynamic even when enemy does not have spell casters.

[@delix]

Elf dex fighter with elven accuracy, a longbow with vex and either push or topple that uses a whip with vex and topple as a backup seems pretty strong. Especially for kiting enemies. Or heavy crossbow if you want a higher dice at the cost of taking crossbow expert. Martial eldritch blast pretty much. Or super advantage if you prefer that.

[@albiegato]

I agree, Martials should have some counterpart to spellcasting. My suggestion would be to expand Weapon Masteries and that would be the 'cantrips' available to all martial classes (Warriors + Ranger, Paladin, Rogue). And also have masteries be an extension of weapon proficiencies. Something like: - Weapon Proficiencies: simple weapons, martial weapons - Weapon Mastery: choose 3 weapons you are proficient in Then when a character has mastered a weapon, all of it's mastery options are available for them to use once per attack, not just one of the masteries at a time (that was so cheap of the designers to give). Then Maneuvers would be the Warrior class group feature (which is like their spellcasting). So the superiority die would be their spell slots and levels, while the Maneuvers would be the spells themselves.

[@bobswag710]

Great video overall lads, although I disagree 32:44. I think switching weapons and needing to manage your “load out” and availability each turn gives some much needed combat strategies to martial classes. If I wizard needs to pick between which one of seven spells to cast, it’s not to much to ask which one of 4 weapons the fighter wants to use.

[@DungeonDudes]

This is a fun concept -- for those who like it. We think it should be a cool build option, but there are many players who enjoy the fantasy of their character being a specialist who has a "signature weapon". Ideally, both these styles would be well-supported and viable.

[@bobswag710]

@@DungeonDudes I agree with that, and the solution the OneDND proposed to that delema is the fighter which allows a person to apply more than one weapon mastery to a single weapon, thus allowing you to have that “desired singular specialization” I by no means am under the guise that this is a perfect system, but I do believe the need is recognized and address is some capacity in the document.

[@Tusitala1967]

Flex should increase the die size of two handed use as well. It's too weak as written. That way a great weapon fighter using a Great Axe won't feel bad when he finds that magic longsword, because he can keep his base damage die consistent. Graze should add the magical bonus of the weapon. Polearm Master should possibly include the option of using two different weapon masteries on a single weapon. Fantastic analysis as always, Dudes.

[@barcster2003]

Flex defintely needs something.

[@ryadinstormblessed8308]

Push + Vortex Warp is now a fun combo! Quickened Spell on Vortex Warp so it's only a Bonus Action, send the creature onto the window ledge or a tree branch or something (the spell only says onto a surface that can support them) then Heavy Crossbow to not only hit them for damage but also knock them out the window to the ground for more damage, and to place them a long way away from the fight.

[@therealbaddie6959]

I think war domain cleric should give weapon mastery, I think that’d be an easy and awesome feature for them!

[@barcster2003]

I defintely want an option for weapon mastery on cleric.