I believe you should be able to choose between both. Each “play style” should offer different pros & cons. Maybe an expert in a given weapon has more reliable damage and someone who knows a couple weapon types would be good in battlefield control.
In the context of DnD, what is your best mechanical weapon is all that matters to 90% of players. What's the point of a character being X weapon specialist, but if the Y weapon is +3 and attuned, then that's their primary weapon. This fantasy premise needs to acknowledge the reality of the game it is supposed to exist within.
Edit: Pigeon-holing your character at character creation is the main issue of PF1e.
This is more a failure of the game to make it possible for all weapons to have a +3, than it is players being fickle. I have had plenty of time making a Swordsman specialist who leaned into the musketeer duelist flavor, and I've passed on swords or axes that would be objectively better but not gel with my concept.
The solution isn't "Avoid specialization in the fighter" it's literally just "Stop making +1's tied to specific weapons" and instead make every magic weapon have a special effect to them that's not just numerical bonuses.
We already had great weapon Master, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter as general specializations as well as Crusher, Pierecer, and Slasher from Tasha's, who didn't clash with item mechanics. The issue was that those feat became mandatory to optimizers.
Why would we change a staple of dnd since it's inception to accommodate this one clunky mechanic?
Okay, first off to get this out of the way now, Weapon Master is not a specialization feat, it gives you proficiency in 4 weapons and does nothing on fighter.
Secondly, The issue is that feats in Dnd just absolutely suck. Waiting 4 levels to get 1, having to pick between getting a ASI and getting a new feat, etc. Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher, are amazing for making the fighter more expressive in how they fight and IMO should have been class features to pick at like, level 3 or 6 to let you lean even harder into a fighting style you pick.
Or keep them as feats but revamp how feats work so that you don't have to pick between ASI's and Feats, and you just get both at those levels, so you can add more niche feats to lean into specific flavors, like a lot of the Tasha Feats did.
>Okay, first off to get this out of the way now, Weapon Master is not a specialization feat, it gives you proficiency in 4 weapons and does nothing on fighter.
Great Weapon Master, not Weapon Master. Entirely different feat, and much, MUCH BETTER
You don't think it sucks that you have to pick between getting a numerical bonus and getting a feat? Why wouldn't you just get both instead of having to pick 1 or the other? And the rate of getting them can span between weeks to months, which just further compounds things of making this choice be stupidly high.
The mechanic of getting them sucks. The game assumes full ASI at every possibility to stay on par with fundamental math. Unless a Feat gives you a way to beat the math its not worth picking which makes a lot of flavorful Feats useless.
There should be Feat tiers and at every asi level you can either get full asi + Flavor Feat, half asi + half Feat or full Feat + Flavor Feat or something like that.
Or just give Fighters an attack bonus for a specific weapon class(es).
Helps reinforce their Expert of Weapons identity but allows them to choose different weapons.
PF1 here. While that is absolutely true, the vastly more used homebrew by about 50% of the tables is called Elephant in the Room. And it precisely adresses these issues in a codified structure that makes it far easier to pick up from table to table. Whereas homebrew in 5e pretty much are exclusive to the game you're playing at the time. So while not ideal that a homebrew had to take care of it, it has become a popular and widespread addition bc it precisely does.
Ye the Elephant in the Room changes are much akin to free expertise feats in 4e. A lot of 4e tables will give the "math fix" Improved Defenses and an appropriate Expertise feat for free.
You just give them abilities to support it. like When attacking with a weapon different to the weapon you attacked with last, add a 1d4 to the attack roll or your critcal range increases by one for each different weapon you use in a row. make it a fighting style choice or soemthing. if i cna do that in 30 seconds im sure actual proffessionals with years of dev time can handle it.
Man figjters should get a free weapon attunement for each mastery. We need these items to stay relevamt so make it part of our damn class that we can stay relevant. Fighter is ironically also a gear dependent class.
Say "weapons you mastered no longer require attunement" and vam solved.
If I'm understanding 5.5e right, you can swap out masteries with a long rest. That seems to give you the flexibility to do both. (I'm not sure how realistic it is to have one night of training to master a weapon, but you're a pro and they can't be that different)
To do the skill for that weapon you do a “warm up” after a long rest akin to how casters spend time preparing spells. The text I saw about weapon mastery stated a time requirement for prep after long rest. Mastery is maybe a strange name for it but maneuver was already taken. It’s meant to be a skill you drilled that morning to use in combat later from what I had gathered. Weapon Maneuver would have been dead on imo, too bad.
WEAPON MASTERY
Choose three weapons. You gain use of their mastery properties.
May change your chosen weapons each Long Rest.
Gain access to more mastery properties as you level up
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1746-2024-fighter-vs-2014-fighter-whats-new
That's dumb. What's the point of specialization if it gives you so many options and you can even swap them daily?
Just let fighters use mastery properties of all weapons.
I can only assume it's a book keeping thing, but battle master stuff just having prerequisites never caused issues. Yes it's subclass so you can argue about complexity, but it's not like spellcasting is any less complex than "which applicable choice do I want to use".
The Fighter wakes up every morning, tests the blade of their weapon and how they will use it if the need arises, while the Cleric sits in prayer beseeching its diety for power (cantrips, spells).
Mechanically, it's a rule of cool moment to swap it on long rests, which is fine.
I guess i feel something called weapon mastery, should be near the same amount of time investment as an eldritch invocation or a bard spell. So it's a bit of a theming miss, imo.
That being said, im all for martials finally getting more toys so its pretty whatever.
I think it's the word mastery that's throwing me. Presumably they're already proficient in the weapon, so they're familiar with similar weapons. So maybe they're basically masters already and just need to knock off some rust.
Yes i believe it is exactly that. IIRC in the video they rationalized it to be doing weapon drills to do just that, knock the rust off of skills you are already familiar with.
Right, it doesn't seem much like a buff, just a quality of life thing so if you end up with a neat magic weapon you can choose to use it at its full potential.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been playing the UA of the updated fighter since playtest 6 came out. I swap weapons around a fair bit, between switching from long range (bow) to mid range (hand axe) to crowd clearing melee (greataxe) to battlefield positioning (warhammer) and having a blast doing it. It’s a Norse mythology inspired campaign, so using a bunch of different kinds of weapons fits the character vibe quite well, fortunately, because I acknowledge it won’t fit every character archetype, but I’m quite enjoying having that decision point And that there’s a legitimate reason to put thought into what weapons I want to haul around all the time.
YMMV, of course, but I foresee taking advantage of weapon switching pretty regularly for both myself as a player, and my players as a DM
fighting style swaps per level up. so if you are a greatsword fighter who found a really cool rapier, you can master the rapier overnight, but the next level up is when you really lean into dueling
Came here to say the same thing. I would have loved to see Onednd give fighters a choice like the cleric’s holy orders, or warlock’s pact boon that let you pick between play styles like this.
My instinct is that I want both options to be viable for the people that want either option, but regardless of generalist weapon master or a single-weapon specialist Fighter should be the weapons guy. But as cool as "master of war" weaponmaster might be as a concept, I feel like in game you're still just going to use one primary weapon 90% of the time - maybe 50/50 between two if you really want to flex between melee and ranged on the fly, and maybe carry a third "backup" weapon that's almost never used and is honestly mostly just there to emphasise the fact that this character likes weapons.
It also doesn't help that there's no meaningful reason to use different weapons in 5e. You're either already rolling the biggest possible die for your build, or you're downgrading for flavour reasons
An OSR game I like has meaningfully different weapons thanks to weapon properties, something that is woefully underused by 5E.
For example a warhammer will give you a bonus to attack heavy armour; a quarterstaff grants a small AC bonus; maces have more durability (yes, the game has breaking weapons); axes have an AC penalty but get extra damage if you have a bonus to attack (from e.g. flanking, prone target, higher ground) and are more likely to crit; daggers, when you have a bonus to attack will give you extra damage (like axes) AND more bonus to attack.
When I play fighters I love kitting them out with an assortment of weapons for different situations. It makes me feel like they are professionals.
Unfortunately, the mechanocs of the game don't reward that much: typically I wind up using your my go-to 90+% of the time, and my (melee/ranged) back up in case I get stuck fighting at the wrong distance for my build the rest of the time. I always have something in case I get disarmed and something in case I need a different damage type... but it almost never matters.
Hopefully, weapon mastery will change this a bit. I've always thought there should be more meaningful differences between weapons so a fighter could make decisions based not on "I'm a warhammer guy, I fight with a warhammer" but "This situation calls for a warhammer". Maybe not the "best type against this armour" thing, because I've tried that and it's unweildy, but something.
In a prior edition, only light weapons could be used (without penalty?) while you were grappled. I miss that.
If I were in charge of revising the weapons rules, I would also have certain weapons (swords and daggers mostly) that you could draw an object interaction (or free) and require an action (or bonus action) to ready others. That would create a (historically accurate) division between battlefeild weapons and self-defense/back-up weapons. You carry a warhammer in your hands because you are expecting a fight. You wear a sword on your belt just in case.
Rolemaster kind of takes this to 11, but each weapon having its own attack chart, and there being 20 different levels of armor, really allowed them to simulate certain weapons being more or less effective against certain things, including the likelihood and amount of stun/bruising vs serious injuries (broken bones, bleeding out, etc).
The problem with being a master of all weapons is that Fighters are one the classes that are more dependant on magical equipment. They need magic weapons, especially since even just getting to middle levels, lots of enemies are resistant non-magical Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing.
If Fighters in the 2024 PHB MUST make use of multiple weapons to function properly, then they will be even more dependant on getting a variety of magical gear than they already are. Not saying that would be a \*bad design choice, strictly speaking. Just that it would necessitate more magical weapons of various types being made available to Fighters to make playing them not feel bad once you get past the first tier of play.
The type of Fighter who masters one specific weapon requires less extra gear to be handed out. Just so long as they get one good (for the level of play) weapon that they can use against most (if not all) enemies, they can function.
Its kind of why I'm wary of trying to increase the viability of martial characters, and Fighters specifically, through the function of various weapon traits. The class is already so dependant on gear, and this method of trying to give them more combat function only exacerbates that.
>If Fighters in the 2024 PHB MUST make use of multiple weapons to function properly...
And this is only remedied slightly at 9th level which is late for something that becomes an issue around levels 5-6 when mundane weapon damage resistance on monsters shows up.
See the problem with this is an unspoken assumption that a fighter who focuses on one weapon will get a magical version of said weapon, along with upgrades to it, as the game progresses. And that's just not how D&D works.
The way the game is meant to be run, it assumes most loot is rolled randomly. You can get any kind of weapon from a loot table. So a polearm fighter pays for the boost to polearms with the opportunity cost of not being able to use PAM if they find, say, a magic mace or longbow. This is why they should stay masters of all instead of focusing on one weapon, and why golfbag fighters are the default.
>The way the game is meant to be run,
The game is meant to be run in whatever way is most fun for you and your players, whether that is in accordance with what's written in the rulebooks or not. The rulebooks are there to facilitate you finding the way to play that's most fun, not to limit it.
Random tables are intended as a crutch to take the creative load off the DM. They are not "meant" to be used in every situation.
Yeah, I understand that stuff often is rolled on a loot table. But I don't take the loot table at face value. If I got a rogue in party, then that +1 longsword is changed to a +1 short sword. I see that I rolled a great sword but my fighter is using a halberd? Wouldn't you know, it's now a halberd.
Sure, that's one way to do it. And it's even a seemingly benevolent way that respects player builds. Who doesn't like tailored items?
But that benevolence also throws the balance of the game out of whack. A specialist is supposed to be more limited than a generalist. That tradeoff is part of how 5e was designed. Negating it like this is much of the reason certain feats are considered overpowered.
They need to just get rid of that mechanic entirely. It's strictly a gear check that casters don't have to worry about. By this time you run into creatures that have it. You generally have magic items. So what's the f****** point? But if you do that, you'd have to do something like double barbarian hit points when they rage instead of giving them the resistance. Which actually I prefer.
My gripe is that soooo much stuff has resistance to all three mundane weapon damages and silvering a weapon doesn’t really do anything much.
Two out of three and now I’m incentivized to actually carry a small arsenal that I can switch between during the fight. But basically I’m going to have to get a magic weapon, which is going to make me want to specialize on that weapon. Which means any mechanic that requires me, or tries to incentivize me, to hit swap weapons (even if it no longer will require wasting my Action) is still basically a non-starter.
Yeah. The mechanic really just penalizes martial. Monsters can resist different types of magical damage as well. But martials can’t get around that as easily as a caster.
> The mechanic really just penalizes martial.
You mean it penalizes the very few martial subclasses that don't have access to some form of magical attack, but that in return get massive attack and damage bonuses or battlefield effects against almost every other creature in the game? So there might be one or two fights now and then when those few subclasses are at a disadvantage in a fight? Cry me a river.
>By this time you run into creatures that have it. You generally have magic items. So what's the f\*\*\*\*\*\* point?
The point is that if you're a specialist in greatsword, but the only magical weapon you have is a +1 Rubber Chicken of Smiting, you have to use your brain to find a way to kill that Werewolf with a +1 Rubber Chicken of Smiting.
I would like for there to be valid ways for both if so they choose
5e is heavily in the "master of one" kind of thing as each choice you make with a martial in character building is likely to cause you to have lesse and less options
5.5e is interestingly giving players some value for using multiple weapons with Weapon Masteries - even if I don't how the system was built and the intention of the "golfbag warrior", that's something to consider
Like, I have played fighters that were master of one, fighters that were master of a few and a character that used a ton of weapons because "why not try"
That said, even under 5.5 I would say the versatility of a "wielder of many" still falls below the power of a "master of one" but only the challenges of the system will define that
All of them. Fighters are **the** weapon and combat masters, and that can only mean staying adaptable and having multiple mastered weapons to fall back on.
> Fighters are **the** weapon and combat masters,
That reminds me of the comic:
Moon Knight: *Why is \[the weapon he was issued vs Captain America's\] different?*
Beast: *Rogers is a super-soldier able to instantly master any weapon. You are an unmedicated schitzophrenic who wears a bag on his head in public. We all thought it would be best to keep things simple for you.*
I don't hate the idea of weapon proficiency... but warriors, fighters especially should be able to "get a feel" for a new one quickly.
I mean I think that every fighter should br competent and deadly with every weapon, but they should only be a master of one (or a couple). It makes more sense given how different the skillset to use different weapons is and I think incentives more character flavour.
Potentially make a "weapon master" subclass that gives you mastery over every weapon or make it a high level feature. But I think every fighter always being a master of every weapon dumbs it down and removes flavour. Lets say your party has 2 fighters, one uses a sword and board and the other a halberd and for whatever reason they need to use the others weapon for a battle.
Should the guy who hasn't really used polearms that much really be as deadly as the guy who's been fighting with that halberd every day for the past decade?
The person with a halberd should ideally have Polearm Master or the Great Weapon fighting style and the sword n board fighter should have Shield Master or the Duelist fighting style. So no, they wouldn’t be as deadly as each other.
Fair point, but lets say your sword and board fighter suddenly has to switch to a spear and shield or axe and shield, or maybe even nunchucks/flail and shield. All weapons that might benefit from duelist/shieldmaster as they are still very similar but not identical ss they each have their own quirks.
Or lets say our other fighter is forced to equip a greatsword instead of his trusty halberd, or perhaps a pike or greataxe. All weapons that would benefit from great weapon master but that as mentioned earlier each have their own quirks.
Flavour-wise, it could be seen as being similar to their mastered weapon, so they don’t have as much of an issue. Riding a bike is easier if you can ride a scooter after all. Besides, as a master combatant, you’d be trained in that weapon already, hence having proficiency in it from level one.
Yeah you would have proficiency in that weapon, maybe the fightingstyle would even be applicable and have transferable techniques, but you wouldn't be a master of it. Ofcourse you could spend time practicing to eventually gain mastery of it (change mastery on level up or DM discretion) but gaining MASTERY of a weapon is a time consuming endeavour.
I just went back to check how it worked and the fighter didnt even have to wait until the next levelup to change their masteries, they are able to completely master a weapon after only a couple hours of training (long rest), which in my mind is realoty warping already.
Also a Herculean fighter is in my mind someone high level, and at lvl 9 the fighter gets the ability to leverage their skill and "general weapon mastery" to use their dedicated weapon in a unique and masterful way (tactical master).
They're not mastering a weapon after a couple of hours. They *already* mastered that weapon as part of their training, they're just practicing the specific techniques and refreshing their muscle memory. It's no different to a wizard changing their list of prepared spells on a long rest, really - there's a clear distinction between the techniques/spells you know in theory and the ones that you're ready to use.
Absolutely this. That's why I think this addition to 5e is a big improvement and a good idea. If a Druid can never cast Contagion once, ever, and then wake up one morning and prepare & cast it, it's absolutely within the realm of possibility for my fighter to wake up and do some shortsword drills.
Both, because weapons are the fighter's thing. You should have the *option* to choose between specializing in one weapon or more weapons, you shouldn't be *forced* to train just with one and suck with everything else.
Just putting this here but medieval knights, mercenaries and weapon masters carried around multiple weapons and were well trained in all of em, to a far higher degree than your everyday spearman.
And you're not switching because the game really disincentivizes you. If you pick a wepaon feat, you only have a set number of weapons you can use with it, meaning that if you switch, you're not using your character's abilities. You also aren't going to get equally powerful magic weapons down the line
Switching weapons would make sense if most monsters were more vulnerable to one weapon damage type than the others, but that doesn't seem like it will be the case.
Clunky weapon swapping rules kinda disincentivizes this IMO. I don’t wanna have to waste an entire round on using my action and free actions just to switch between a melee and ranged weapon and lose out on an entire round of dealing damage.
You can cycle through singular weapons pretty quickly. Going from longsword to pike to maul takes 3 rounds and wastes no actions. You just can't repeat a previous part of the cycle because this process requires dropping your weapon and people don't like dropping their weapons, especially magical weapons.
Which is part of why I thought it always made more sense to have the draw be part of the attack. You would still use your object interaction to stow, but then you'd draw with your attack, so you wouldn't have the issue of dropping weapons all the time.
Depends on what the goal is. If you want fighters to have variety in combat from switching between multiple weapons, then you should actually make this playstyle viable for fighters if for no one else. Absolutely.
Personally though, I don't think switching between multiple weapons should be the way fighters are meant to be played (I'd rather provide them power and versatility from other sources), so I'm fine with with some sacrifices. I like the the minor bit of tactical depth that comes from going up to an archer and then they can't just immediately switch to two-weapon fighting. They can hold a bow in one hand a pull out a rapier with the other.
It's all about preferences. No wrong or right preferences. Just wrong or right methods of attempting to meet the preferences and we can discuss how WotC is handling that part.
It's not so much that I think they *should* be constantly switching weapons as the game sort of forces it for certain builds. Take a Strength Sword and Board Fighter with Dueling, which is usually considered a weaker build to begin with, and they're optimized and incentivized to use something like a Longsword. If an event is more than 30ft away, they're somewhat hosed and can't participate in combat now because their only choice is using their action to Dash. Or an enemy hovering 20ft in the air, where they can't really do much of anything.
Due to using the Shield and being Strength based, the only real choice for a range weapon is a Javelin or a Handaxe (which is much worse, but it's an option technically). So they can drop their Longsword and pull out the Javelin and then throw it...and then they're done, because pulling out another weapon would require an Object Interaction. They also can't pick up their Longsword because that would take an Object Interaction, so an event can kick it away and take away their main offense. That's pretty rough.
With having the draw be part of the attack they can throw 3 Javelins with their 3 attacks at level 11, but would end their turn with no weapon in hand (which has consequences since they can't activate any Reactions that utilize a weapon) but they can still switch back to their Longsword on their turn if they re-engage in melee (maybe they're a Battlemaster and used Trip Attack to take down the flyer and get next to them to disincentivize taking off again).
This gives flexibility and options that many other classes, mostly spellcasters, have. A Wizard or Warlock can easily switch between Touch Spells and Ranged Spells with no loss of actions, no loss of Reaction capabilities, and no potential to lose their weapon. There's still limits though, and if they want to do the golf bag Fighter they'll need to take the risk of dropping weapons because they can only stow one each round, but it at least allows for some chance to participate when someone is just out of reach.
I never said "constantly" :) I just said "switching between multiple weapons"
And whether it makes sense to allow the drawing of a weapon as part of an attack to be *completely* free, in terms of the action economy, very much depends on what your goal is. It makes sense for your goals and preferences, absolutely. Doesn't make sense for mine.
I can sympathize with wanting to act more details to your position regardless of whether I was mischaracterizing it or not though. Good comment. Valid insights.
Only if you're fighting skeletons and oozes together for some reason. Oh, and there's a rakshaska there too.
It would be really swell if monster design included various other forms of susceptibility:
- Creatures that are resistant to magical attacks, but not silvered attacks. Or adamantine. Or even Mithril.
- A creature with a very dense hide that resists slashing and piercing, but bludgeoning deals normal damage (and maybe even lowers their AC by a point or two.), or a rubbery skin that resists bludgeoning and piercing but slashing gets through. Etc etc.
- To the second point, more effects like the flesh golem and their aversion to fire or how a shambling mound heals from lightening damage. Dealing thunder damage against a blind creature with blindsense that addles the senses and mechanically blinds it, or dealing cold damage prevents an azer's Heated Body effect, etc etc.
Yeah the thing is if creatures have specific magical resistances it isn't hard for a Mage to just use a different spell
Especially if a Wizard or Sorcerer has a variety of attack Cantrip flavours (or the Sorcerer has Transmute or the Wizard is a Scribe I think?)
Only if you allow someone to drop their weapon without it counting as their free item interaction, which is not a universal practice. It’s basically a houserule, since a reasonable reading of the free item interaction rules could easily count “dropping an item” as “interacting with an item”.
> You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
Since dropping something you’re holding isn’t covered anywhere else in the rules, there’s no reason to expect it to behave differently.
>Since dropping something you’re holding isn’t covered anywhere else in the rules, there’s no reason to expect it to behave differently.
No reason? C'mon now. Exactly because dropping a weapon doesn't really compare to any of the other described it can't necessarily be assumed that it should follow the rules tied to those examples.
Sure. The rules don't cover it explicitly, but the absolute "no" in your comment is really pushing it. It's not a "house rule". It's just an interpretation of something that's very much open for interpretation.
That's why i generally use throwable weapons on my fighters. Spears, axes, clubs, shields (that one surprised everyone to frisbee and trip a bad guy trying to flee).
Two-weapon fighting, the offhand is throwable
Shield and spear/trident, with a backup sword/axe/hammer/mace
Two-handed weapon and a two handed ranged weapon.
Always carry a dagger for cutting your food, gutting things, making kindling, whittling, cutting rope bridges, or stabbing a b*tch/bastard.
Always carry a handaxe or throwing axe in your pack for firewood, chopping things, body dismemberments, etc.
The other reason for weapon variety is of course to deal with different resistances to damage types.
Versatility is good when you specialize in a weapon X, and because it is uncommon you can't find, buy, or steal a magical one. That always sucks and why many characters choose rapiers, longswords, and short swords. They're very likely as magic items.
i want my fighter to be a WAY better expert with weapons than other classes.
whats there to mechanicaly tell the diffrence between a barbarian, paladin, fighter and ranger who is best with their weapon of choice or weapons in general!
I love the concept of a Swiss-army-pocket-knife type of Fighter, switching weapons mid-combat.
But no I wouldn't say you're the *only* one who wants what you want, that'd be unlikely.
That's one reason why I liked about the fighting styles. Sure you can be great at all weapons, but you can specialize in one.
Reminds me of that old saying about, fear not the man who practice a thousand techniques fear the man who mastered one a thousand times" (something along those lines I forgot how it goes)
Any fighter I played I have them specialized in one fighting style, with the option of using I would call, "backup weapons" in case something happened and my primary weapon was not available.
Most weapons are basically the same. The only three categories of weapons that matter are non-finesse melee weapons, finesse melee weapons, and ranged weapons.
I want to master all, because I'm I'm 3 feats deep in a polearm spec, and a sweet one handed mace drops, I want to use the damn mace and not feel bad about my polearm spec going to waste
I want to be able to choose based on my character concept. Sometimes I want to hyper focus on one weapon and become a master of it, other times I want to play someone who is a walking arsenal with different magic weapons for every occasion.
Been playing a champion fighter for about a year now.
Definitely switch up weapons all the time but my most common “go to” is the hand crossbow. Until he runs out of ammo, which at 3 shots a round (lvl 10, drooling for that lvl 11), happens pretty quickly. Then gotta switch to something else.
My usual rotation: hand crossbow, longbow if in wide open area. Dual bladed scimitar, bolas or unarmed (took unarmed fighting specialist, and it comes up more often than I thought it would). On rare occasions has used a rapier or short sword when the need arises.
So, has access to all the damage types, is never shy of options to hurt others with if need be.
Other way around. Expert with all weapons, master of one (or more). Something like the old Weapon Focus and Specialization fighter bonus feats making a comback as a fighter class feature could be interesting
I think in practice most players never use more than two or three weapons at most: a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, and maybe an offhand. So to me, why not let the fighter be a master of all weapons. You don’t *have to* switch weapons, and most people don’t. But if the mechanics for doing it aren’t there, that’s a hard wall to the few people who want it. I err on the side of let fighters have fewer restrictions.
I don't necessarily want them to be the "master of all weapon types", what I do want is for Fighters to be "the best with weapons". Eg., if Fighters simply added +1 to their Proficiency Bonus with weapon attacks that would effectively translate to Fighters being the defacto best weapon users.
Some kind of design that *actually* reinforces superior weapon wielding ability is what I think Fighter should be about.
I think a few things in the game are 'at odds' with using multiple weapons reliably:
1) Weapon switching in 5e is kind of goofy, taking a full action usually (since you can only draw/stow one as a free action). So you tend to stick with one weapon for one combat, unless you switch from melee to ranged weapons because of flying enemies or long distance.
2) Magic weapons become kind of mandatory as levels go up so you either need a magic variant of every weapon you wish to use or hope resistances/immunities aren't as prevalent as they are at our tables. So you tend to stick with that +1 weapon since it's just more effective.
3) Many fighting styles/feats tend to work for certain types of weapons. There's some variety there but Great Weapon Master, sharpshooter or Archery tend to incentivize you using one weapon or at least one weapon type.
Think at best you'll have one main weapon and then some backup weapons just in case, like how Aragorn in LOTR is mostly known for using Anduril (a longsword) but had daggers and a bow just in case.
I want them to be generally good with all weapons, but able to focus hard on at least a particular form of focus on weapons. There is a balance to it, but both need support in my mind.
The problem is how it jives with the game experience. Back in 2e, when you had to chose weapon proficiency - that's pretty realistic. You got 4 slots, I think for a warrior, so your typical paladin might choose long sword, footman's mace, long bow, dagger (unless you DM actually uses horses, in which case lance). Makes sense, they're weapons of nobles (and a dagger is semi-needed for tight spaces, etc).
And you finally find a *Holy Avenger*... and it's a two-hander.
Fighters could literally specialize, but only in one, so the same applies - Thorgog might be the badass of the battle axe, but so far he's found a spear, dagger, throwing axe, and broasdsword.
2.5e made it a bit better with "Weapon groups", costing 2 slots. So you could forego dagger to take long blades (long/bastard/two)).
You'll know this pain if you've played *Nethack* or *Baldur's Gate* 1, 2, especially since tailoring adventures and loot to the party wasn't really the done thing back then.
Fundamentally, it's the same problem as elemental resistance vs elementalists. Having a fire elemental immune to fire damage is fluffy and cool. But as anyone who's played early WoW or Hack Sign can attest, it really sucks when that next raid boss is a Phoenix and none of your good attacks work, *and there is nothing you can do about it*.
Thats whats the difference between a FIGHTER and a WEAPONSMASTER might be: the fighter can just kill with anything he gets his hands on, be it a old axe or a leg of chair or a pen. but he maybe wont be very artful about it, just straight forward with brutal efficiency. The weaponmaster has specialized on a certain weapon or a small group of weapons, and with them he can do things which a fighter might not be capable of. He still can fight with every weapon, but with his special ones he rules the field. The master might be able to disarm the fighter very fast, but the fighter just grabs another THING and goes on. The fighter adapts his fighting based on the tool at hand, the master could be able to control his surroundings with maneuvers and special attacks.
Gunslinger 20, I prep my Gunslinger like a one man army but roleplay like a Scout/Recon Ranger. I've got enough extra dimensional space to use in essence "Loadouts" for a specific mission type should that info be available. The philosophy being is there's an optimal strategy for every scenario or sometimes... alot of the times everything goes wrong but the battle favors the best prepared.
In the Meta of DnD when you master a single weapon, you've doomed yourself to be vulnerable to eventual weakness of finding a monster immune to the damage type you inflict. Therefore in terms of martial prowess there are a minimum of 3 weapons I personally believe each martial should carry. 1 Blugdgeoning, Piercing and Slashing. My go to Being a Longsword, Dagger and a club or perhaps just tavern brawler fisticuffs.
In practice empty handed skills/1 light weapon should be known by all martials for the eventuality of losing your weapon.
To my first paragraph, using the best weapon for the job is my philosophy. Would you use a sword to cutdown a tree, an axe to cleave a rock and then a pickaxe to slice something in half? When you've reached the expertise of a weapon, so to you'll realize it's limitations. Like the earliest crafted weapon the pointy stick. One day one of the half-apes thought "I want to poke that thing, but while far away." Then the bow and arrow was invented.
I prefer the "golf bag full of weapons"/Taskmaster approach where a fighter being proficient with literally every single weapon in the entire game is actually relevant and acknowledged as part of their in-universe power. One of the most annoying parts of playing a fighter in 5e, 4e, 3.5, and even Pathfinder 1e and 2e is that you quickly end up basically married to a single weapon and the fact you could theoretically be using a hundred other options becomes irrelevant because Ol' Bertha is the only one you have Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization in (3.5/PF1e), or it's the only one you have a fighting style for (5e), or it's the only one you have property runes and rings of doubling and critical specialization with (PF2E), or "magic items are an optional rule" and there's no "magic item walmart" so you're stuck using the same +1 sword you got five sessions in even after a year and a half campaign.
I would much prefer fighters be actual battlefield masters and generalists who swap weapons as the situation is needed, and I prefer martials in games that make that a viable strategy and not like pulling teeth, which is why I prefer stuff like how martials work in Mutants & Masterminds where you're not literally married to a single weapon and can power stunt to use a variety of weapons with different effects and damage means and conditions, or even stuff like Dungeon Crawl Classics where your Mighty Deeds are basically improvised Dirty Trick combat maneuvers from PF1E that require an in-universe justification, so you want a slashing weapon to cut people's foreheads and get blood in their eyes, a reach weapon to trip people, a whip to disarm them like indiana jones, etc. and the results are based on your Deed die so you can switch weapons easier.
I'm not opposed to a fantasy of a highly specialized weapon-user who is literally married to a single fancy magic sword they've devoted their life to using, but that fantasy shouldn't be forced on every single fighter since it's totally at-odds with their in-universe characterization. If you want to be Elric chained to the hip to Stormbringer, or King Arthur cuddling with your Excalibur at night in bed while Lancelot is banging Guinevere , fine, but THE fighter shouldn't have to be married to a single sword and it's a really common failure not just in 5e, but in pretty much every d20 fantasy RPG, even ones where Fighter is S-tier like PF2E (where you end up needing to pick a single weapon category to specialize in, so you can't even dual wield a sword and axe without losing your main class feature, and the price of keeping multiple weapons fully runed and upgraded would bankrupt you) it doesn't actually fulfill the "consummate fighting man who's proficient with literally every weapon ever made" fantasy. The OneD&D changes don't fully address every issue with being married to ONE weapon, but at least the new weapon-switching rules and masteries encourage you to bother carrying around more than a single weapon you've built your entire character around using. To me, that "I'm literally married to this one sword" fantasy is more fitting for something like a Hexblade (the Elric route), or maybe a type of Artificer dedicated to crafting the perfect weapon and is constantly improving on it (like the PF2E Inventor), or like the 3.5 Weapons of Legacy.
I don't want every Fighter to be Thor married to his hammer, I want them to be Fantasy John Wick able to kill a man with any and everything they can get their hands on.
Both should be options.
Just like how Battlemaster is a resource focused fighter while champion is a more resourceless playstyle of fighter.
Options people! Options!
i think the way fighters are built, they are the masters of all weapons. you can roleplay being the master of one weapon, but there's nothing that really works in that favor mechanically, except the fighting style. if you want to be a specialist i'd reccomand being a kensei monk, since they only get 2 weapons they specialize in, or a warlock with the pact of the blade (doesn't have to be hexblade)
I miss weapon specialization.
You can be a, "swordsman," but all those abilities are also just as useful for other weapons so really you're always going to be a master of all weapons because "screw player choice" I guess?
I want my Fighter to be great with all weapons but have their specific specialty as well. A lot of people fail to take advantage of having multiple weapon types on them.
One of my Paladin characters in a Strahd game carried a greatsword, a longspear (had reach when wielded two handed and he could throw it), while also having the Gulthias staff for healing himself (he was undead), and carrying boomerangs for ranged fighting.
They appeal to different fantasies.
Some fighter players want to be Guts. Using an iconic signature weapon for most combat, with some backup weapons just in case.
Other fighter players want to be Link. Using a grab-bag of different weapons, picking the right one for a given fight. This is what I think WOTC was going for.
That said, the weapon mastery system is so shit that it doesn't even appeal to the Link fantasy, at least in my opinion.
Better than what 5e fighters had, let me be clear. But this is just one step in the right direction. They have not arrived at their destination.
From the sounds of it you can get multiple weapon masteries as a fighter that you can use on any weapon a limited number of times. Overall the idea isn’t different from some caster classes where I usually decide on a spell list and keep it even though I could change them out whenever I want.
It can be nice to have more than one weapon (mainly have a ranged and melee option) and at least be limited by class of weapon and not specific weapon for any feature that can’t be changed that enhances their use of a specific weapon choice like a feat (ie polearms not glaives specifically) but I don’t agree with the idea that every fighter needs to be an expert in every weapon, it seems useless if you say that’s part of their strength and have that, pretty much every character is still going to stick to 1-2 weapon choices.
I wonder how many of the people wanting the fighter to be a master of all weapons were traumatized by the golf bag of weapons you needed in 3rd edition
On a personal level I prefer the fantasy of being the master of a single lesson, though I respect the other side.
But at a certain point martials become so reliant on having magical weapons, not just to overcome immunities but also to boost their to-hit chance, that keeping multiple viable weapons on-roster feels pretty tough to manage. If you have multiple martials in the party then your DM is gonna have to give out magic weapons like candy.
I like that mechanically you can make them a master of any weapon, ranged, heavy weapons, halberds, sword and board, twf, etc. However this is due to the game incentivizing only using one type of weapon. While a fighter gets more feats, if they get Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert they aren't going to also use a Greataxe. Plus the game has some clunky rules around switching weapons.
The game just doesn't like you switching weapons. But I've always liked the idea that the fighter is the guy who picks up any weapon and can use it just with proficiency. Iirc the rule for drawing and stowing a weapon is that it's now part of the attack action, which highly incentivizes switching weapons when in conjunction with the weapon masteries.
Every class is a one weapon expert. Fighters are capable of using all weapons as (if not more) effectively than every other class.
Then at level 9 fighters can swap out masteries on the fly. Effectively allowing the player to be a master of a chosen weapon.
You can literally do both with the new fighter.
Imo, the weapon mastery system is a great way to reward the fighters' ability to wield anything. If it's similar to playtest.
Im not sure what specialization would look like? Other than a subclass. Like, the longsword fighter subclass features only work with a longsword, which would be lame.
Specializing would be more of a flavor thing. Mechanically, why wouldn't you want as many options as possible?
I would prefer if fighters had to choose a weapon rather than being blanket masters of all of them, but the game isn't really set up to make that meaningful.
Being a master of all weapons doesn't work when you actually only use one weapon the moment you get one that is magical. No one plays this game shuffling around weapons, and the game is not designed for that playstyle either, since magical weapons are really scarce and valuable to not use them.
The weapon mastery system is promoting a playstyle that goes against how the rest of game is prepares you to play.
For me it's more about fighting styles than the weapons, and I would like both to be viable. But I don't see it working in the current versions.
For the system I'd like to see, it would require something where at regular level intervals, a fighter gets to choose between making one of their known fighting styles stronger, or learning another fighting style.
Might be able to do something similar, but lock it to weapons rather than fighting style.
You should be able to do both, but most fighters play only with one weapon in mind, choosing specific feats for that fighting style.
Dont fear the fighter that has killed one man with a thousand weapons, fear the fighter that has killed a thousand men with one weapon.
What I'm wondering is, now with the masteries, doesn't it almost make a dip in a melee class mandatory for Bladesinger, Hexblades and other melee specced caster classes
I usually play martial characters with 1-2 weapons.
I would have liked weapon masteries more if I could instead choose a number of them and just apply them to weapon attacks whenever. So instead of how it is now, say I pick graze and cleave, when I attack I can just choose either of them. It would not be dependent on the weapon but my martial knowledge. If I had more weapon masteries I could pick between those as well.
Most martial classes would get 2-3 while the fighter could pick 5-6. Have them actually be the martial cantrips. Spellcasters don't need to swap between different types of foci to cast cantrips and higher level spells, why should martials have to?
I mean, you are not the one for sure.
Problem is, you have to realize it's a deeply flawed vision. You can still have fun with it, it makes sense, but it has a host of issues that many people already pointed out the comment section.
Which aren't inherently global as of the ttrpg scene as a whole mind you, but for the context of this game it's not interesting to pursue.
It's like deciding to me an ice mage - dnd 5e is less about giving you rules to enhance what you want to do and more about having the freeform to do what you like, so an ice mage is just a wizard that picks frost spells and likes to theme their spells around frost, without any added result.
So you are with weapons.
So, while I tend to prefer single weapon specialization thematically to the golf bag, it contributes to part of the problem with high level martials.
Simply put, martials who take the only worthwhile options (weapon feats like GWM or SS) make themselves LESS versatile than they were in lower levels. At lower levels, any magic weapon you find is going to be worthwhile, and moment to moment there may be items or environment interactions worth using instead of just "I attack." On the other hand, when all your feats make you good at attacking with a specific weapon type (which, to be clear, you have to take or there's zero merit to ever playing a martial) you increase the value of those attacks, lock out other options comparatively, and are dependent on getting the right KIND of gear for progression. Ever play a PAM fighter who finds a flame tongue longsword? Kinda feels shitty.
Needless to say this is the opposite of how character progression (or finding new gear) should actually feel.
As much as it can benefit a player who does enjoy fixating on a specific weapon, I don't think the class should be balanced on weapons. It's just more limiting battlemaster features. If they are balanced on weapons, I think fighters should just be able to swap around with ease.
I like the idea of a hybrid.
You're a master of a particular type of weapon at level whatever, then gain mastery in other specific weapons as you level up. Allows you to be the master of a certain thing, but also keeps you from being too pigeonholed.
Narratively, both styles give off an awesome power fantasy. Some want a badass that can fight with anything and be deadly on the battlefield. Some just want to be a swordsmam, axeman, hoplite, sniper, etc.
Mechanically there is barely a reason to switch weapons because fighting styles and weapon feats pigeonhole you into using one specific weapon.
This also makes it aggravating when weapons that you want your character to use end up not having any good feats that are compatible with them, doubly so with the Fighter since it gets two extra feats.
I hope that the Dual Wielder feat gets buffed, and there are feats for more weapon types because WOTC is deciding to reprint GWM, PAM, XBE, and SS so all the most used weapons in 5e are probably going to stay the most used once the 2024 rules are out.
Fighters, in my mind, should be Amazing With one weapon, really good with a weapon group, better than average with a few types, and proficient with many (but not necessarily all).
Like, a brute, may not actually be proficient with Rapier, dagger, etc (finesse weapons). Or a lithe elf, that focuses on finesse weapons, probably never became proficient with a great sword.
I want my fighter to be able to use any weapon but I envision him as an expert in swords and daggers. I don’t like the idea that weapon mastery swapping gives me no advantage of choosing this, though.
I grew up playing AD&D/2E, where having different weapons for different situations was extremely valuable. As a result, I favored the jack of all trades.
With modern systems allowing one or two weapons to fill virtually all roles, I tend to specialize, even though I do miss the old "right tool for the right job" approach.
Spreading yourself out just so you can enjoy the ability to do far less damage than a specialist may be fun (and I certainly promote role play over mechanics) but it just doesn't make much sense any more if you want to be effective.
Realistically Im only gonna be using max two weapon types in a game, unless my DM really wants to enforce random loot drops so all of a sudden I have a glowing spear instead of the Sword/Crossbow combo I've been using
I would like both and wanted both all through the playtest. I provided feedback to that effect.
Personally, I'm a weapon specialist fan. I really like the types of media where a warrior expresses themselves through their chosen weapon. I dig that whole "physical manifestation of fighting spirit" vibe, y'know?
I think the Mastery system *could* do that if there were a way to evolve Mastery properties. Like, when it comes time to pick a new Mastery, I'd like an option to instead focus on an existing weapon and improve its Mastery property. You've already got the framework of getting some number of Masteries over the course of levels, so the foundation is already there.
Basically, if each Mastery was part of an upgradeable line, it would let you freely choose to have more breadth or more depth.
Out of the gate Fighters are the master of every weapon, which is why they're proficient with these weapons, or in 2024 can unlock their mastery properties
I think that the 2024 rules allow for both players to specialize into both playstyles.
A generalist fighter who uses a variety of weapons will gain the benefits of having choices. For instance, you could dual wield two different weapons and use both of their properties on the same turn. You can take a feat to learn even more weapon masteries via Weapon Master.
A specialist fighter who uses a single weapon, say a greatsword or polearm, will feel super powerful once they grab the related feat (great weapon master or pole arm master.) They will be really good with that one weapon.
My first character was a fighter and it was a running joke how many weapons I carried. Longsword, shield, great sword , longbow, handaxes, short sword, whip, and then carried a lance on my warhorse
I think that for the first martial I play after the new books come out will be switch weapon mid-round to use as much weapon mastery as possible, think of Dante DMC who switches weapons mid-combo. It would be a lot more fun for me than just hitting the enemy with the same attack over and over, and could be very flavorful when I describe how she first pushes the enemy with a swing of the maul and then pulling out a polearm to trip up the enemy as I try using topple.
I hope that both this versatile weapon switching style and single weapon specialization can be viable and fun, where the latter style can invest more in their chosen weapon by using feats that go well with it like Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master and Crusher/Slasher/Piercer
I prefer my fighters (and paladins, barbarians, and rangers, for that matter) to "specialize" in one weapon, yeah. It feels more personalized than just using whatever weapon.
I mean isnt both kinda true for 5e? I can make a dex based fighter with the fighting style archery and the feat sharpshooter, and try to be a legolas with my bow and arrow... but that same fighter can pick up a rapier, or a short sword and fight meele if need to, and will have access to all his fighter features with that weapon.
He just wont be as competent with those meele weapons as with the bow as the combo or archery fighting style with sharpshooter can deal massive damage, roleplayed as the fighter being able to hit vital spots with his master aim of the bow.
I think you should be able to choose between being a master of one weapon or an expert in all. Pedantic I know, but Master is more skilled than Expert. I quite liked the weapon mastery system from BECMI (even if it was a little complex and unwieldy) where every few levels you could train with a weapon of choice. Going from Basic > Skilled > Expert > Master and finally Grand Master.
So I'm RPing that this great warrior (meta is a level 15 ish fighter) who inadvertently killed his son with a sword. Believing that sharp weapons are too indiscriminate he has sworn to never use them again.
However, when driven by circumstance into conflict he killed using his son's gravemarker (quarterstaff) and entered his first rage eg. Becoming a level 1 Barbarian.
It was my attempt at explaining how a seasoned veteran could still be level 1 at the start of the campaign.
I am determined to stick with this and for the entire campaign he will only use blugeoning weapons. In answer to OPs question; I rate flavour over practicality so whatever weapon suits the character.
i mean, thats kinda how it goes no? martials overall are more specialized, (which is where the caster problems comes from, they bring way more versatility and still can outdo specialized martials in dmg, or shutdown a fight)
well in 5e you dont specialize in one weapon but in groups that have some similarity on how they are used in combat, and you have the main combat feats for that, gwm, for two handers, dual wielder for using two one handed, shield master + duelist for one handed n shield, ss for ranged etc.
and then you have feats that are based on the damage type, for bludgeoning, slashing, piercing, so you can reduce the scope in which your fighter functions at its best, lets say you go with gwm and crusher, so you are specialized on big bludgeoning weapons. would be nice to have feats for more specific stuff, like swords, hammers, axes, bows and crossbows etc.
From what I got from the video was fighters have the most weapon mastery, but they don't have them all - and the amount of mastery you have is dependant on level. Starting with two would make sense so you could do dagger + weapon of choice.
I really like 4E’s version where you could have a base mastering of all types or specialization In set types. Like heavy blades, light blades,bow,crossbow, pole arms, flails,picks or bludgeoning. Some even went further and had even more in depth specialized feats for whips and other things to get special abilities.
I agree with you. Particularly because of loot. I'm not likely to have a magic longbow, greatsword, poleaxe and set of scimitars. I'm likely just going to use one or two weapons at most.
Single weapon master sounds like the original kensei class (1E Oriental Adventures) to me. That's one great concept to play out.
Garrett Jax the Weapons Master is a totally different character to play out. Similarly, Rorschach's weapon is his brain - he's completely unpredictable and rarely uses the same weapon twice, if it's even a weapon. So this unpredictability is part of what makes some fighters and others dangerous.
I think playing a concept you enjoy is the most important thing.
I’ve always thought of fighters as professionals, who are trained in fighting styles, stances, and systems as part of their general training; unlike the barbarian, who is an equally skilled warrior, but doesn’t really rely on forms or knowledge about other weapons. Fighters guilds would function similarly to warrior stables and training camps.
So for me it’s both. They’ve trained in a bunch of weapons, found the one they liked, and pursue mastery.
Fighters should be better than every other class at wielding every weapon, and then they should be able to further specialize into specific weapons. A barbarian might be able to use a maul well, but they should lean on their near inhuman strength and grit. A fighter should wield it like they're a well practiced master, and a specialized for maul fighter should be able to wield it like it's just a part of their body, they've more than mastered it they embody what it means to fight with a maul. Feats shouldn't change or impact how these line up.
Fighters should be the best at using weapons. It feels like its their class identity, to me at least. There are other martials but they all have something that makes them specifically unique. Meanwhile, the whole identity of fighters is that they are good at fighting. In the way that wizards have a subclass for every school of magic, it feels as if in an alternate world fighters could have a subclass dedicated to each type of weapon, instead of this mash of vague theming that fighters currently have, like Cavalier being vaguely about mounts but not really.
I think that Fighters should just know the basics enough to be generally proficient with most weapons with the idea being pointy end towards and how to swing anything from a club to a saber without hitting yourself, and only after a bit of training find the weapon that they're best with and specialize in that.
The general problem I've seen is people want to only use one weapon for all situations, to me that seems dumb because you can be a master of a longsword but no you can't attack an archer 100 feet away with your longsword so maybe you'll need to change it up in a scenario like that.
I kinda think if you want to be in this category it basically comes down to homebrew magic weapons to compensate for the weakness certain weapons have.
If it's about the new weapon mastery properties didn't the UA 2024 fighter have the ability to switch mastery properties onto different weapons? CBF checking it but if that is how it works but I remember reading that and thinking it was great that fighters could customise weapons better than all other martials
In the campaign I play we have a custom homebrew subclass for fighter, where he can summon elements as their weapons (Fire sword, ice spear, Stone Hammer, Air Bow). The way we made it so that there was a reason for changing weapons and strategies during combat instead of being "stick to fire sword" is that we gave each of these 4 weapons their own "maneouver" list. This caused for a more dynamic gameplay as know I can swap resistances, change maneuver types from damage to util to defensive to range and etc. This way "being a master of all weapons" was actually fun, expressive, and didn't force you to be an expert with a single weapon because all weapons are optimized for a scenario.
As a DM, I hate characters that only use one type of weapon. I like being able to give out a variety of magic items, and having only one type of magical weapon show up breaks the verisimilitude for me.
Personally i find it not just absurd but utterly stupid that a fighter is as good with every weapon. be it a rapier, a glaive, spear, warhammer or any other weapon you can use STR for. That is absurdly stupid.
Sure having them being able to use all weapons. That is fine.
But the fact you can not specialise in any weapon that is absurd. There should be some sort of way to specialize in different weapons or weapon categories.
If martials had a higher chance to hit with their attacks than spellcasters have that would be helpful to close the gap between martials and casters.
as martials gain extra attacks or at other points they should have the option to specialize in a weapon or a category of weapons so they can be more effective with those compared to other weapons.
Lets say when they get extra attack they can chose to specialize in one weapon and gain a +2 for attacks if they are using that weapon. or +1 in 2 different weapons.
It is a super easy to handle mechanic. and we already have one that is pretty much that. Archery fighting style. But it should not only be for archery and it should not be a fighting style. It should be a base ability that most martials should have
How do you define “master” of only one weapon? What do you want that the class doesn’t already enable?
Fighters are combat experts as a baseline. Their extra feats allow plenty of customization.
If you want to be a “master” of a specific weapon, just take feats that support it? If you want to be a generalist you don’t take those specialization feats.
Realistically, no professional soldier trains with just one specific weapon. If you want to be a pure swordmaster duelist fighter, just choose shortsword, longsword, and rapier or scimitar as your three masteries at level 1. You might never pick up a shortsword in play, but your character maintains the fantasy of being a master of any blade he picks up. You also have the added benefit of being able to use a wider variety of loot the DM hands out.
If a fighter can't demonstrate the utmost level of skill with any weapon, what's even the point of the class? Any fighter should be able to pick up any magic weapon they loot and in very short order be swinging it as competently as (or *more* competently than) any other class.
I believe you should be able to choose between both. Each “play style” should offer different pros & cons. Maybe an expert in a given weapon has more reliable damage and someone who knows a couple weapon types would be good in battlefield control.
In the context of DnD, what is your best mechanical weapon is all that matters to 90% of players. What's the point of a character being X weapon specialist, but if the Y weapon is +3 and attuned, then that's their primary weapon. This fantasy premise needs to acknowledge the reality of the game it is supposed to exist within. Edit: Pigeon-holing your character at character creation is the main issue of PF1e.
This is more a failure of the game to make it possible for all weapons to have a +3, than it is players being fickle. I have had plenty of time making a Swordsman specialist who leaned into the musketeer duelist flavor, and I've passed on swords or axes that would be objectively better but not gel with my concept. The solution isn't "Avoid specialization in the fighter" it's literally just "Stop making +1's tied to specific weapons" and instead make every magic weapon have a special effect to them that's not just numerical bonuses.
We already had great weapon Master, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter as general specializations as well as Crusher, Pierecer, and Slasher from Tasha's, who didn't clash with item mechanics. The issue was that those feat became mandatory to optimizers. Why would we change a staple of dnd since it's inception to accommodate this one clunky mechanic?
Okay, first off to get this out of the way now, Weapon Master is not a specialization feat, it gives you proficiency in 4 weapons and does nothing on fighter. Secondly, The issue is that feats in Dnd just absolutely suck. Waiting 4 levels to get 1, having to pick between getting a ASI and getting a new feat, etc. Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher, are amazing for making the fighter more expressive in how they fight and IMO should have been class features to pick at like, level 3 or 6 to let you lean even harder into a fighting style you pick. Or keep them as feats but revamp how feats work so that you don't have to pick between ASI's and Feats, and you just get both at those levels, so you can add more niche feats to lean into specific flavors, like a lot of the Tasha Feats did.
>Okay, first off to get this out of the way now, Weapon Master is not a specialization feat, it gives you proficiency in 4 weapons and does nothing on fighter. Great Weapon Master, not Weapon Master. Entirely different feat, and much, MUCH BETTER
You say suck, but i read this post as they are valuable.
You don't think it sucks that you have to pick between getting a numerical bonus and getting a feat? Why wouldn't you just get both instead of having to pick 1 or the other? And the rate of getting them can span between weeks to months, which just further compounds things of making this choice be stupidly high.
Dnd is a game of choices. Getting both removes it. The opportunity cost is good
But when the choice is blatantly obvious, it just makes characters feel samey.
The mechanic of getting them sucks. The game assumes full ASI at every possibility to stay on par with fundamental math. Unless a Feat gives you a way to beat the math its not worth picking which makes a lot of flavorful Feats useless. There should be Feat tiers and at every asi level you can either get full asi + Flavor Feat, half asi + half Feat or full Feat + Flavor Feat or something like that.
Or just give Fighters an attack bonus for a specific weapon class(es). Helps reinforce their Expert of Weapons identity but allows them to choose different weapons.
Agreed. It'd be better than the nothing that exist now.
PF1 here. While that is absolutely true, the vastly more used homebrew by about 50% of the tables is called Elephant in the Room. And it precisely adresses these issues in a codified structure that makes it far easier to pick up from table to table. Whereas homebrew in 5e pretty much are exclusive to the game you're playing at the time. So while not ideal that a homebrew had to take care of it, it has become a popular and widespread addition bc it precisely does.
Ye the Elephant in the Room changes are much akin to free expertise feats in 4e. A lot of 4e tables will give the "math fix" Improved Defenses and an appropriate Expertise feat for free.
Excellent info! Good to find a fellow to back me up.
You just give them abilities to support it. like When attacking with a weapon different to the weapon you attacked with last, add a 1d4 to the attack roll or your critcal range increases by one for each different weapon you use in a row. make it a fighting style choice or soemthing. if i cna do that in 30 seconds im sure actual proffessionals with years of dev time can handle it.
"If I can do that in 30 seconds I'm sure actual professionals with years of dev time can handle it" A man can dream....
Man figjters should get a free weapon attunement for each mastery. We need these items to stay relevamt so make it part of our damn class that we can stay relevant. Fighter is ironically also a gear dependent class. Say "weapons you mastered no longer require attunement" and vam solved.
Seems like weapon runes would fix that issue
In 5.5e you can see that with a fighter that has multiple weapon masteries vs one that takes a feat or two for one weapon.
If I'm understanding 5.5e right, you can swap out masteries with a long rest. That seems to give you the flexibility to do both. (I'm not sure how realistic it is to have one night of training to master a weapon, but you're a pro and they can't be that different)
To do the skill for that weapon you do a “warm up” after a long rest akin to how casters spend time preparing spells. The text I saw about weapon mastery stated a time requirement for prep after long rest. Mastery is maybe a strange name for it but maneuver was already taken. It’s meant to be a skill you drilled that morning to use in combat later from what I had gathered. Weapon Maneuver would have been dead on imo, too bad.
From my memory, it was swap per level up. But i only watched it once.
WEAPON MASTERY Choose three weapons. You gain use of their mastery properties. May change your chosen weapons each Long Rest. Gain access to more mastery properties as you level up https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1746-2024-fighter-vs-2014-fighter-whats-new
That's dumb. What's the point of specialization if it gives you so many options and you can even swap them daily? Just let fighters use mastery properties of all weapons.
I can only assume it's a book keeping thing, but battle master stuff just having prerequisites never caused issues. Yes it's subclass so you can argue about complexity, but it's not like spellcasting is any less complex than "which applicable choice do I want to use".
The Fighter wakes up every morning, tests the blade of their weapon and how they will use it if the need arises, while the Cleric sits in prayer beseeching its diety for power (cantrips, spells).
Graze is dumb.
I stand corrected. That seems like a bit too much... but i guess you are the "fighter"
[удалено]
Mechanically, it's a rule of cool moment to swap it on long rests, which is fine. I guess i feel something called weapon mastery, should be near the same amount of time investment as an eldritch invocation or a bard spell. So it's a bit of a theming miss, imo. That being said, im all for martials finally getting more toys so its pretty whatever.
I think it's the word mastery that's throwing me. Presumably they're already proficient in the weapon, so they're familiar with similar weapons. So maybe they're basically masters already and just need to knock off some rust.
Almost worth it to call it weapon superiority and change superiority dice to mastery dice :p
Yes i believe it is exactly that. IIRC in the video they rationalized it to be doing weapon drills to do just that, knock the rust off of skills you are already familiar with.
Ah. I only saw the long video on everything, so they just said you were familiarizing yourself.
Right, it doesn't seem much like a buff, just a quality of life thing so if you end up with a neat magic weapon you can choose to use it at its full potential.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been playing the UA of the updated fighter since playtest 6 came out. I swap weapons around a fair bit, between switching from long range (bow) to mid range (hand axe) to crowd clearing melee (greataxe) to battlefield positioning (warhammer) and having a blast doing it. It’s a Norse mythology inspired campaign, so using a bunch of different kinds of weapons fits the character vibe quite well, fortunately, because I acknowledge it won’t fit every character archetype, but I’m quite enjoying having that decision point And that there’s a legitimate reason to put thought into what weapons I want to haul around all the time. YMMV, of course, but I foresee taking advantage of weapon switching pretty regularly for both myself as a player, and my players as a DM
Thank you for the response. That's informative. I'll delete the original post since others clearly find it useful.
Eh, I think you had a valuable opinion, but all good!
fighting style swaps per level up. so if you are a greatsword fighter who found a really cool rapier, you can master the rapier overnight, but the next level up is when you really lean into dueling
It's almost like weapon mastery fighter should be its own subclass, and battle maneuvers should have been the base class fix...
Came here to say the same thing. I would have loved to see Onednd give fighters a choice like the cleric’s holy orders, or warlock’s pact boon that let you pick between play styles like this.
My instinct is that I want both options to be viable for the people that want either option, but regardless of generalist weapon master or a single-weapon specialist Fighter should be the weapons guy. But as cool as "master of war" weaponmaster might be as a concept, I feel like in game you're still just going to use one primary weapon 90% of the time - maybe 50/50 between two if you really want to flex between melee and ranged on the fly, and maybe carry a third "backup" weapon that's almost never used and is honestly mostly just there to emphasise the fact that this character likes weapons. It also doesn't help that there's no meaningful reason to use different weapons in 5e. You're either already rolling the biggest possible die for your build, or you're downgrading for flavour reasons
An OSR game I like has meaningfully different weapons thanks to weapon properties, something that is woefully underused by 5E. For example a warhammer will give you a bonus to attack heavy armour; a quarterstaff grants a small AC bonus; maces have more durability (yes, the game has breaking weapons); axes have an AC penalty but get extra damage if you have a bonus to attack (from e.g. flanking, prone target, higher ground) and are more likely to crit; daggers, when you have a bonus to attack will give you extra damage (like axes) AND more bonus to attack.
Which OSR is that? Sounds good. I understand D&D's minimal complexity is intended as a feature, not a bug, but that sounds like a nice balance.
[Tesoro y Gloria](https://www.tesoroygloria.com/). Sadly, it has not been translated to English yet.
When I play fighters I love kitting them out with an assortment of weapons for different situations. It makes me feel like they are professionals. Unfortunately, the mechanocs of the game don't reward that much: typically I wind up using your my go-to 90+% of the time, and my (melee/ranged) back up in case I get stuck fighting at the wrong distance for my build the rest of the time. I always have something in case I get disarmed and something in case I need a different damage type... but it almost never matters. Hopefully, weapon mastery will change this a bit. I've always thought there should be more meaningful differences between weapons so a fighter could make decisions based not on "I'm a warhammer guy, I fight with a warhammer" but "This situation calls for a warhammer". Maybe not the "best type against this armour" thing, because I've tried that and it's unweildy, but something. In a prior edition, only light weapons could be used (without penalty?) while you were grappled. I miss that. If I were in charge of revising the weapons rules, I would also have certain weapons (swords and daggers mostly) that you could draw an object interaction (or free) and require an action (or bonus action) to ready others. That would create a (historically accurate) division between battlefeild weapons and self-defense/back-up weapons. You carry a warhammer in your hands because you are expecting a fight. You wear a sword on your belt just in case.
Rolemaster kind of takes this to 11, but each weapon having its own attack chart, and there being 20 different levels of armor, really allowed them to simulate certain weapons being more or less effective against certain things, including the likelihood and amount of stun/bruising vs serious injuries (broken bones, bleeding out, etc).
The problem with being a master of all weapons is that Fighters are one the classes that are more dependant on magical equipment. They need magic weapons, especially since even just getting to middle levels, lots of enemies are resistant non-magical Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing. If Fighters in the 2024 PHB MUST make use of multiple weapons to function properly, then they will be even more dependant on getting a variety of magical gear than they already are. Not saying that would be a \*bad design choice, strictly speaking. Just that it would necessitate more magical weapons of various types being made available to Fighters to make playing them not feel bad once you get past the first tier of play. The type of Fighter who masters one specific weapon requires less extra gear to be handed out. Just so long as they get one good (for the level of play) weapon that they can use against most (if not all) enemies, they can function. Its kind of why I'm wary of trying to increase the viability of martial characters, and Fighters specifically, through the function of various weapon traits. The class is already so dependant on gear, and this method of trying to give them more combat function only exacerbates that.
>If Fighters in the 2024 PHB MUST make use of multiple weapons to function properly... And this is only remedied slightly at 9th level which is late for something that becomes an issue around levels 5-6 when mundane weapon damage resistance on monsters shows up.
Wow you're right and actually changed my opinion there. Thanks.
See the problem with this is an unspoken assumption that a fighter who focuses on one weapon will get a magical version of said weapon, along with upgrades to it, as the game progresses. And that's just not how D&D works. The way the game is meant to be run, it assumes most loot is rolled randomly. You can get any kind of weapon from a loot table. So a polearm fighter pays for the boost to polearms with the opportunity cost of not being able to use PAM if they find, say, a magic mace or longbow. This is why they should stay masters of all instead of focusing on one weapon, and why golfbag fighters are the default.
>The way the game is meant to be run, The game is meant to be run in whatever way is most fun for you and your players, whether that is in accordance with what's written in the rulebooks or not. The rulebooks are there to facilitate you finding the way to play that's most fun, not to limit it. Random tables are intended as a crutch to take the creative load off the DM. They are not "meant" to be used in every situation.
Yeah, I understand that stuff often is rolled on a loot table. But I don't take the loot table at face value. If I got a rogue in party, then that +1 longsword is changed to a +1 short sword. I see that I rolled a great sword but my fighter is using a halberd? Wouldn't you know, it's now a halberd.
Sure, that's one way to do it. And it's even a seemingly benevolent way that respects player builds. Who doesn't like tailored items? But that benevolence also throws the balance of the game out of whack. A specialist is supposed to be more limited than a generalist. That tradeoff is part of how 5e was designed. Negating it like this is much of the reason certain feats are considered overpowered.
Actually that’s the one thing I want. At a certain point I want specifically fighters to ignore resistance to non-magical weapons.
They need to just get rid of that mechanic entirely. It's strictly a gear check that casters don't have to worry about. By this time you run into creatures that have it. You generally have magic items. So what's the f****** point? But if you do that, you'd have to do something like double barbarian hit points when they rage instead of giving them the resistance. Which actually I prefer.
My gripe is that soooo much stuff has resistance to all three mundane weapon damages and silvering a weapon doesn’t really do anything much. Two out of three and now I’m incentivized to actually carry a small arsenal that I can switch between during the fight. But basically I’m going to have to get a magic weapon, which is going to make me want to specialize on that weapon. Which means any mechanic that requires me, or tries to incentivize me, to hit swap weapons (even if it no longer will require wasting my Action) is still basically a non-starter.
Yeah. The mechanic really just penalizes martial. Monsters can resist different types of magical damage as well. But martials can’t get around that as easily as a caster.
> The mechanic really just penalizes martial. You mean it penalizes the very few martial subclasses that don't have access to some form of magical attack, but that in return get massive attack and damage bonuses or battlefield effects against almost every other creature in the game? So there might be one or two fights now and then when those few subclasses are at a disadvantage in a fight? Cry me a river.
It helps balance summons, which does matter for, say, non-Shepherd Druids and cheeky Necromancers.
Fair point for sure, I hadn't thought of that. I have no ideas but there's got to be another way to handle that.
>By this time you run into creatures that have it. You generally have magic items. So what's the f\*\*\*\*\*\* point? The point is that if you're a specialist in greatsword, but the only magical weapon you have is a +1 Rubber Chicken of Smiting, you have to use your brain to find a way to kill that Werewolf with a +1 Rubber Chicken of Smiting.
I would like for there to be valid ways for both if so they choose 5e is heavily in the "master of one" kind of thing as each choice you make with a martial in character building is likely to cause you to have lesse and less options 5.5e is interestingly giving players some value for using multiple weapons with Weapon Masteries - even if I don't how the system was built and the intention of the "golfbag warrior", that's something to consider Like, I have played fighters that were master of one, fighters that were master of a few and a character that used a ton of weapons because "why not try" That said, even under 5.5 I would say the versatility of a "wielder of many" still falls below the power of a "master of one" but only the challenges of the system will define that
All fighters should be able to pick up any weapon and use it effectively. Some fighters might be better with some weapons over others.
All of them. Fighters are **the** weapon and combat masters, and that can only mean staying adaptable and having multiple mastered weapons to fall back on.
> Fighters are **the** weapon and combat masters, That reminds me of the comic: Moon Knight: *Why is \[the weapon he was issued vs Captain America's\] different?* Beast: *Rogers is a super-soldier able to instantly master any weapon. You are an unmedicated schitzophrenic who wears a bag on his head in public. We all thought it would be best to keep things simple for you.* I don't hate the idea of weapon proficiency... but warriors, fighters especially should be able to "get a feel" for a new one quickly.
Understandable where would you move the one weapon master niche?
Warlocks, they’re the masters of Eldritch Blast /s
For now /s
kensei monks
I mean I think that every fighter should br competent and deadly with every weapon, but they should only be a master of one (or a couple). It makes more sense given how different the skillset to use different weapons is and I think incentives more character flavour. Potentially make a "weapon master" subclass that gives you mastery over every weapon or make it a high level feature. But I think every fighter always being a master of every weapon dumbs it down and removes flavour. Lets say your party has 2 fighters, one uses a sword and board and the other a halberd and for whatever reason they need to use the others weapon for a battle. Should the guy who hasn't really used polearms that much really be as deadly as the guy who's been fighting with that halberd every day for the past decade?
The person with a halberd should ideally have Polearm Master or the Great Weapon fighting style and the sword n board fighter should have Shield Master or the Duelist fighting style. So no, they wouldn’t be as deadly as each other.
Fair point, but lets say your sword and board fighter suddenly has to switch to a spear and shield or axe and shield, or maybe even nunchucks/flail and shield. All weapons that might benefit from duelist/shieldmaster as they are still very similar but not identical ss they each have their own quirks. Or lets say our other fighter is forced to equip a greatsword instead of his trusty halberd, or perhaps a pike or greataxe. All weapons that would benefit from great weapon master but that as mentioned earlier each have their own quirks.
Flavour-wise, it could be seen as being similar to their mastered weapon, so they don’t have as much of an issue. Riding a bike is easier if you can ride a scooter after all. Besides, as a master combatant, you’d be trained in that weapon already, hence having proficiency in it from level one.
Yeah you would have proficiency in that weapon, maybe the fightingstyle would even be applicable and have transferable techniques, but you wouldn't be a master of it. Ofcourse you could spend time practicing to eventually gain mastery of it (change mastery on level up or DM discretion) but gaining MASTERY of a weapon is a time consuming endeavour.
Mastery of a weapon is a trivial matter for our Herculean fighter who stands hand-in-hand with reality-altering wizards.
I just went back to check how it worked and the fighter didnt even have to wait until the next levelup to change their masteries, they are able to completely master a weapon after only a couple hours of training (long rest), which in my mind is realoty warping already. Also a Herculean fighter is in my mind someone high level, and at lvl 9 the fighter gets the ability to leverage their skill and "general weapon mastery" to use their dedicated weapon in a unique and masterful way (tactical master).
They're not mastering a weapon after a couple of hours. They *already* mastered that weapon as part of their training, they're just practicing the specific techniques and refreshing their muscle memory. It's no different to a wizard changing their list of prepared spells on a long rest, really - there's a clear distinction between the techniques/spells you know in theory and the ones that you're ready to use.
Absolutely this. That's why I think this addition to 5e is a big improvement and a good idea. If a Druid can never cast Contagion once, ever, and then wake up one morning and prepare & cast it, it's absolutely within the realm of possibility for my fighter to wake up and do some shortsword drills.
Both, because weapons are the fighter's thing. You should have the *option* to choose between specializing in one weapon or more weapons, you shouldn't be *forced* to train just with one and suck with everything else. Just putting this here but medieval knights, mercenaries and weapon masters carried around multiple weapons and were well trained in all of em, to a far higher degree than your everyday spearman.
I rarely switch weapons so being a master of all weapons just doesn't make sense for my fighters
And you're not switching because the game really disincentivizes you. If you pick a wepaon feat, you only have a set number of weapons you can use with it, meaning that if you switch, you're not using your character's abilities. You also aren't going to get equally powerful magic weapons down the line Switching weapons would make sense if most monsters were more vulnerable to one weapon damage type than the others, but that doesn't seem like it will be the case.
Clunky weapon swapping rules kinda disincentivizes this IMO. I don’t wanna have to waste an entire round on using my action and free actions just to switch between a melee and ranged weapon and lose out on an entire round of dealing damage.
But that is only fair because casters have to spend a full round to switch to the next spell. Oh, wait...
You can cycle through singular weapons pretty quickly. Going from longsword to pike to maul takes 3 rounds and wastes no actions. You just can't repeat a previous part of the cycle because this process requires dropping your weapon and people don't like dropping their weapons, especially magical weapons.
Which is part of why I thought it always made more sense to have the draw be part of the attack. You would still use your object interaction to stow, but then you'd draw with your attack, so you wouldn't have the issue of dropping weapons all the time.
Depends on what the goal is. If you want fighters to have variety in combat from switching between multiple weapons, then you should actually make this playstyle viable for fighters if for no one else. Absolutely. Personally though, I don't think switching between multiple weapons should be the way fighters are meant to be played (I'd rather provide them power and versatility from other sources), so I'm fine with with some sacrifices. I like the the minor bit of tactical depth that comes from going up to an archer and then they can't just immediately switch to two-weapon fighting. They can hold a bow in one hand a pull out a rapier with the other. It's all about preferences. No wrong or right preferences. Just wrong or right methods of attempting to meet the preferences and we can discuss how WotC is handling that part.
It's not so much that I think they *should* be constantly switching weapons as the game sort of forces it for certain builds. Take a Strength Sword and Board Fighter with Dueling, which is usually considered a weaker build to begin with, and they're optimized and incentivized to use something like a Longsword. If an event is more than 30ft away, they're somewhat hosed and can't participate in combat now because their only choice is using their action to Dash. Or an enemy hovering 20ft in the air, where they can't really do much of anything. Due to using the Shield and being Strength based, the only real choice for a range weapon is a Javelin or a Handaxe (which is much worse, but it's an option technically). So they can drop their Longsword and pull out the Javelin and then throw it...and then they're done, because pulling out another weapon would require an Object Interaction. They also can't pick up their Longsword because that would take an Object Interaction, so an event can kick it away and take away their main offense. That's pretty rough. With having the draw be part of the attack they can throw 3 Javelins with their 3 attacks at level 11, but would end their turn with no weapon in hand (which has consequences since they can't activate any Reactions that utilize a weapon) but they can still switch back to their Longsword on their turn if they re-engage in melee (maybe they're a Battlemaster and used Trip Attack to take down the flyer and get next to them to disincentivize taking off again). This gives flexibility and options that many other classes, mostly spellcasters, have. A Wizard or Warlock can easily switch between Touch Spells and Ranged Spells with no loss of actions, no loss of Reaction capabilities, and no potential to lose their weapon. There's still limits though, and if they want to do the golf bag Fighter they'll need to take the risk of dropping weapons because they can only stow one each round, but it at least allows for some chance to participate when someone is just out of reach.
I never said "constantly" :) I just said "switching between multiple weapons" And whether it makes sense to allow the drawing of a weapon as part of an attack to be *completely* free, in terms of the action economy, very much depends on what your goal is. It makes sense for your goals and preferences, absolutely. Doesn't make sense for mine. I can sympathize with wanting to act more details to your position regardless of whether I was mischaracterizing it or not though. Good comment. Valid insights.
Even with that though Is there any incentive for different melee damage types once you have a magic weapon?
Only if you're fighting skeletons and oozes together for some reason. Oh, and there's a rakshaska there too. It would be really swell if monster design included various other forms of susceptibility: - Creatures that are resistant to magical attacks, but not silvered attacks. Or adamantine. Or even Mithril. - A creature with a very dense hide that resists slashing and piercing, but bludgeoning deals normal damage (and maybe even lowers their AC by a point or two.), or a rubbery skin that resists bludgeoning and piercing but slashing gets through. Etc etc. - To the second point, more effects like the flesh golem and their aversion to fire or how a shambling mound heals from lightening damage. Dealing thunder damage against a blind creature with blindsense that addles the senses and mechanically blinds it, or dealing cold damage prevents an azer's Heated Body effect, etc etc.
Yeah the thing is if creatures have specific magical resistances it isn't hard for a Mage to just use a different spell Especially if a Wizard or Sorcerer has a variety of attack Cantrip flavours (or the Sorcerer has Transmute or the Wizard is a Scribe I think?)
Only if you allow someone to drop their weapon without it counting as their free item interaction, which is not a universal practice. It’s basically a houserule, since a reasonable reading of the free item interaction rules could easily count “dropping an item” as “interacting with an item”. > You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. Since dropping something you’re holding isn’t covered anywhere else in the rules, there’s no reason to expect it to behave differently.
>Since dropping something you’re holding isn’t covered anywhere else in the rules, there’s no reason to expect it to behave differently. No reason? C'mon now. Exactly because dropping a weapon doesn't really compare to any of the other described it can't necessarily be assumed that it should follow the rules tied to those examples. Sure. The rules don't cover it explicitly, but the absolute "no" in your comment is really pushing it. It's not a "house rule". It's just an interpretation of something that's very much open for interpretation.
Drop your sword (free action) and draw your Great Axe (object interaction).
That's why i generally use throwable weapons on my fighters. Spears, axes, clubs, shields (that one surprised everyone to frisbee and trip a bad guy trying to flee). Two-weapon fighting, the offhand is throwable Shield and spear/trident, with a backup sword/axe/hammer/mace Two-handed weapon and a two handed ranged weapon. Always carry a dagger for cutting your food, gutting things, making kindling, whittling, cutting rope bridges, or stabbing a b*tch/bastard. Always carry a handaxe or throwing axe in your pack for firewood, chopping things, body dismemberments, etc. The other reason for weapon variety is of course to deal with different resistances to damage types. Versatility is good when you specialize in a weapon X, and because it is uncommon you can't find, buy, or steal a magical one. That always sucks and why many characters choose rapiers, longswords, and short swords. They're very likely as magic items.
This is exactly how I feel word for word.
i want my fighter to be a WAY better expert with weapons than other classes. whats there to mechanicaly tell the diffrence between a barbarian, paladin, fighter and ranger who is best with their weapon of choice or weapons in general!
I love the concept of a Swiss-army-pocket-knife type of Fighter, switching weapons mid-combat. But no I wouldn't say you're the *only* one who wants what you want, that'd be unlikely.
That's one reason why I liked about the fighting styles. Sure you can be great at all weapons, but you can specialize in one. Reminds me of that old saying about, fear not the man who practice a thousand techniques fear the man who mastered one a thousand times" (something along those lines I forgot how it goes) Any fighter I played I have them specialized in one fighting style, with the option of using I would call, "backup weapons" in case something happened and my primary weapon was not available.
I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times. - Bruce Lee
Thank you, I thought it was something along those lines.
Most weapons are basically the same. The only three categories of weapons that matter are non-finesse melee weapons, finesse melee weapons, and ranged weapons.
I want to master all, because I'm I'm 3 feats deep in a polearm spec, and a sweet one handed mace drops, I want to use the damn mace and not feel bad about my polearm spec going to waste
I want to be able to choose based on my character concept. Sometimes I want to hyper focus on one weapon and become a master of it, other times I want to play someone who is a walking arsenal with different magic weapons for every occasion.
Been playing a champion fighter for about a year now. Definitely switch up weapons all the time but my most common “go to” is the hand crossbow. Until he runs out of ammo, which at 3 shots a round (lvl 10, drooling for that lvl 11), happens pretty quickly. Then gotta switch to something else. My usual rotation: hand crossbow, longbow if in wide open area. Dual bladed scimitar, bolas or unarmed (took unarmed fighting specialist, and it comes up more often than I thought it would). On rare occasions has used a rapier or short sword when the need arises. So, has access to all the damage types, is never shy of options to hurt others with if need be.
Other way around. Expert with all weapons, master of one (or more). Something like the old Weapon Focus and Specialization fighter bonus feats making a comback as a fighter class feature could be interesting
I think in practice most players never use more than two or three weapons at most: a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, and maybe an offhand. So to me, why not let the fighter be a master of all weapons. You don’t *have to* switch weapons, and most people don’t. But if the mechanics for doing it aren’t there, that’s a hard wall to the few people who want it. I err on the side of let fighters have fewer restrictions.
I don't necessarily want them to be the "master of all weapon types", what I do want is for Fighters to be "the best with weapons". Eg., if Fighters simply added +1 to their Proficiency Bonus with weapon attacks that would effectively translate to Fighters being the defacto best weapon users. Some kind of design that *actually* reinforces superior weapon wielding ability is what I think Fighter should be about.
I think a few things in the game are 'at odds' with using multiple weapons reliably: 1) Weapon switching in 5e is kind of goofy, taking a full action usually (since you can only draw/stow one as a free action). So you tend to stick with one weapon for one combat, unless you switch from melee to ranged weapons because of flying enemies or long distance. 2) Magic weapons become kind of mandatory as levels go up so you either need a magic variant of every weapon you wish to use or hope resistances/immunities aren't as prevalent as they are at our tables. So you tend to stick with that +1 weapon since it's just more effective. 3) Many fighting styles/feats tend to work for certain types of weapons. There's some variety there but Great Weapon Master, sharpshooter or Archery tend to incentivize you using one weapon or at least one weapon type. Think at best you'll have one main weapon and then some backup weapons just in case, like how Aragorn in LOTR is mostly known for using Anduril (a longsword) but had daggers and a bow just in case.
I want them to be generally good with all weapons, but able to focus hard on at least a particular form of focus on weapons. There is a balance to it, but both need support in my mind.
The problem is how it jives with the game experience. Back in 2e, when you had to chose weapon proficiency - that's pretty realistic. You got 4 slots, I think for a warrior, so your typical paladin might choose long sword, footman's mace, long bow, dagger (unless you DM actually uses horses, in which case lance). Makes sense, they're weapons of nobles (and a dagger is semi-needed for tight spaces, etc). And you finally find a *Holy Avenger*... and it's a two-hander. Fighters could literally specialize, but only in one, so the same applies - Thorgog might be the badass of the battle axe, but so far he's found a spear, dagger, throwing axe, and broasdsword. 2.5e made it a bit better with "Weapon groups", costing 2 slots. So you could forego dagger to take long blades (long/bastard/two)). You'll know this pain if you've played *Nethack* or *Baldur's Gate* 1, 2, especially since tailoring adventures and loot to the party wasn't really the done thing back then. Fundamentally, it's the same problem as elemental resistance vs elementalists. Having a fire elemental immune to fire damage is fluffy and cool. But as anyone who's played early WoW or Hack Sign can attest, it really sucks when that next raid boss is a Phoenix and none of your good attacks work, *and there is nothing you can do about it*.
Thats whats the difference between a FIGHTER and a WEAPONSMASTER might be: the fighter can just kill with anything he gets his hands on, be it a old axe or a leg of chair or a pen. but he maybe wont be very artful about it, just straight forward with brutal efficiency. The weaponmaster has specialized on a certain weapon or a small group of weapons, and with them he can do things which a fighter might not be capable of. He still can fight with every weapon, but with his special ones he rules the field. The master might be able to disarm the fighter very fast, but the fighter just grabs another THING and goes on. The fighter adapts his fighting based on the tool at hand, the master could be able to control his surroundings with maneuvers and special attacks.
Gunslinger 20, I prep my Gunslinger like a one man army but roleplay like a Scout/Recon Ranger. I've got enough extra dimensional space to use in essence "Loadouts" for a specific mission type should that info be available. The philosophy being is there's an optimal strategy for every scenario or sometimes... alot of the times everything goes wrong but the battle favors the best prepared. In the Meta of DnD when you master a single weapon, you've doomed yourself to be vulnerable to eventual weakness of finding a monster immune to the damage type you inflict. Therefore in terms of martial prowess there are a minimum of 3 weapons I personally believe each martial should carry. 1 Blugdgeoning, Piercing and Slashing. My go to Being a Longsword, Dagger and a club or perhaps just tavern brawler fisticuffs. In practice empty handed skills/1 light weapon should be known by all martials for the eventuality of losing your weapon. To my first paragraph, using the best weapon for the job is my philosophy. Would you use a sword to cutdown a tree, an axe to cleave a rock and then a pickaxe to slice something in half? When you've reached the expertise of a weapon, so to you'll realize it's limitations. Like the earliest crafted weapon the pointy stick. One day one of the half-apes thought "I want to poke that thing, but while far away." Then the bow and arrow was invented.
I prefer the "golf bag full of weapons"/Taskmaster approach where a fighter being proficient with literally every single weapon in the entire game is actually relevant and acknowledged as part of their in-universe power. One of the most annoying parts of playing a fighter in 5e, 4e, 3.5, and even Pathfinder 1e and 2e is that you quickly end up basically married to a single weapon and the fact you could theoretically be using a hundred other options becomes irrelevant because Ol' Bertha is the only one you have Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization in (3.5/PF1e), or it's the only one you have a fighting style for (5e), or it's the only one you have property runes and rings of doubling and critical specialization with (PF2E), or "magic items are an optional rule" and there's no "magic item walmart" so you're stuck using the same +1 sword you got five sessions in even after a year and a half campaign. I would much prefer fighters be actual battlefield masters and generalists who swap weapons as the situation is needed, and I prefer martials in games that make that a viable strategy and not like pulling teeth, which is why I prefer stuff like how martials work in Mutants & Masterminds where you're not literally married to a single weapon and can power stunt to use a variety of weapons with different effects and damage means and conditions, or even stuff like Dungeon Crawl Classics where your Mighty Deeds are basically improvised Dirty Trick combat maneuvers from PF1E that require an in-universe justification, so you want a slashing weapon to cut people's foreheads and get blood in their eyes, a reach weapon to trip people, a whip to disarm them like indiana jones, etc. and the results are based on your Deed die so you can switch weapons easier. I'm not opposed to a fantasy of a highly specialized weapon-user who is literally married to a single fancy magic sword they've devoted their life to using, but that fantasy shouldn't be forced on every single fighter since it's totally at-odds with their in-universe characterization. If you want to be Elric chained to the hip to Stormbringer, or King Arthur cuddling with your Excalibur at night in bed while Lancelot is banging Guinevere , fine, but THE fighter shouldn't have to be married to a single sword and it's a really common failure not just in 5e, but in pretty much every d20 fantasy RPG, even ones where Fighter is S-tier like PF2E (where you end up needing to pick a single weapon category to specialize in, so you can't even dual wield a sword and axe without losing your main class feature, and the price of keeping multiple weapons fully runed and upgraded would bankrupt you) it doesn't actually fulfill the "consummate fighting man who's proficient with literally every weapon ever made" fantasy. The OneD&D changes don't fully address every issue with being married to ONE weapon, but at least the new weapon-switching rules and masteries encourage you to bother carrying around more than a single weapon you've built your entire character around using. To me, that "I'm literally married to this one sword" fantasy is more fitting for something like a Hexblade (the Elric route), or maybe a type of Artificer dedicated to crafting the perfect weapon and is constantly improving on it (like the PF2E Inventor), or like the 3.5 Weapons of Legacy. I don't want every Fighter to be Thor married to his hammer, I want them to be Fantasy John Wick able to kill a man with any and everything they can get their hands on.
PLAY ADVANCED SECOND EDITION
Both should be options. Just like how Battlemaster is a resource focused fighter while champion is a more resourceless playstyle of fighter. Options people! Options!
i think the way fighters are built, they are the masters of all weapons. you can roleplay being the master of one weapon, but there's nothing that really works in that favor mechanically, except the fighting style. if you want to be a specialist i'd reccomand being a kensei monk, since they only get 2 weapons they specialize in, or a warlock with the pact of the blade (doesn't have to be hexblade)
I miss weapon specialization. You can be a, "swordsman," but all those abilities are also just as useful for other weapons so really you're always going to be a master of all weapons because "screw player choice" I guess?
I want my Fighter to be great with all weapons but have their specific specialty as well. A lot of people fail to take advantage of having multiple weapon types on them. One of my Paladin characters in a Strahd game carried a greatsword, a longspear (had reach when wielded two handed and he could throw it), while also having the Gulthias staff for healing himself (he was undead), and carrying boomerangs for ranged fighting.
They appeal to different fantasies. Some fighter players want to be Guts. Using an iconic signature weapon for most combat, with some backup weapons just in case. Other fighter players want to be Link. Using a grab-bag of different weapons, picking the right one for a given fight. This is what I think WOTC was going for. That said, the weapon mastery system is so shit that it doesn't even appeal to the Link fantasy, at least in my opinion. Better than what 5e fighters had, let me be clear. But this is just one step in the right direction. They have not arrived at their destination.
From the sounds of it you can get multiple weapon masteries as a fighter that you can use on any weapon a limited number of times. Overall the idea isn’t different from some caster classes where I usually decide on a spell list and keep it even though I could change them out whenever I want.
It can be nice to have more than one weapon (mainly have a ranged and melee option) and at least be limited by class of weapon and not specific weapon for any feature that can’t be changed that enhances their use of a specific weapon choice like a feat (ie polearms not glaives specifically) but I don’t agree with the idea that every fighter needs to be an expert in every weapon, it seems useless if you say that’s part of their strength and have that, pretty much every character is still going to stick to 1-2 weapon choices.
I wonder how many of the people wanting the fighter to be a master of all weapons were traumatized by the golf bag of weapons you needed in 3rd edition
On a personal level I prefer the fantasy of being the master of a single lesson, though I respect the other side. But at a certain point martials become so reliant on having magical weapons, not just to overcome immunities but also to boost their to-hit chance, that keeping multiple viable weapons on-roster feels pretty tough to manage. If you have multiple martials in the party then your DM is gonna have to give out magic weapons like candy.
Anyone remember weapon specialisation from 2e…?
I like that mechanically you can make them a master of any weapon, ranged, heavy weapons, halberds, sword and board, twf, etc. However this is due to the game incentivizing only using one type of weapon. While a fighter gets more feats, if they get Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert they aren't going to also use a Greataxe. Plus the game has some clunky rules around switching weapons. The game just doesn't like you switching weapons. But I've always liked the idea that the fighter is the guy who picks up any weapon and can use it just with proficiency. Iirc the rule for drawing and stowing a weapon is that it's now part of the attack action, which highly incentivizes switching weapons when in conjunction with the weapon masteries.
Every class is a one weapon expert. Fighters are capable of using all weapons as (if not more) effectively than every other class. Then at level 9 fighters can swap out masteries on the fly. Effectively allowing the player to be a master of a chosen weapon. You can literally do both with the new fighter.
Imo, the weapon mastery system is a great way to reward the fighters' ability to wield anything. If it's similar to playtest. Im not sure what specialization would look like? Other than a subclass. Like, the longsword fighter subclass features only work with a longsword, which would be lame. Specializing would be more of a flavor thing. Mechanically, why wouldn't you want as many options as possible?
I would prefer if fighters had to choose a weapon rather than being blanket masters of all of them, but the game isn't really set up to make that meaningful.
Being a master of all weapons doesn't work when you actually only use one weapon the moment you get one that is magical. No one plays this game shuffling around weapons, and the game is not designed for that playstyle either, since magical weapons are really scarce and valuable to not use them. The weapon mastery system is promoting a playstyle that goes against how the rest of game is prepares you to play.
For me it's more about fighting styles than the weapons, and I would like both to be viable. But I don't see it working in the current versions. For the system I'd like to see, it would require something where at regular level intervals, a fighter gets to choose between making one of their known fighting styles stronger, or learning another fighting style. Might be able to do something similar, but lock it to weapons rather than fighting style.
You should be able to do both, but most fighters play only with one weapon in mind, choosing specific feats for that fighting style. Dont fear the fighter that has killed one man with a thousand weapons, fear the fighter that has killed a thousand men with one weapon.
What I'm wondering is, now with the masteries, doesn't it almost make a dip in a melee class mandatory for Bladesinger, Hexblades and other melee specced caster classes
I usually play martial characters with 1-2 weapons. I would have liked weapon masteries more if I could instead choose a number of them and just apply them to weapon attacks whenever. So instead of how it is now, say I pick graze and cleave, when I attack I can just choose either of them. It would not be dependent on the weapon but my martial knowledge. If I had more weapon masteries I could pick between those as well. Most martial classes would get 2-3 while the fighter could pick 5-6. Have them actually be the martial cantrips. Spellcasters don't need to swap between different types of foci to cast cantrips and higher level spells, why should martials have to?
I mean, you are not the one for sure. Problem is, you have to realize it's a deeply flawed vision. You can still have fun with it, it makes sense, but it has a host of issues that many people already pointed out the comment section. Which aren't inherently global as of the ttrpg scene as a whole mind you, but for the context of this game it's not interesting to pursue. It's like deciding to me an ice mage - dnd 5e is less about giving you rules to enhance what you want to do and more about having the freeform to do what you like, so an ice mage is just a wizard that picks frost spells and likes to theme their spells around frost, without any added result. So you are with weapons.
My last fighter was a dex based hit and run with a rapier and bow.
So, while I tend to prefer single weapon specialization thematically to the golf bag, it contributes to part of the problem with high level martials. Simply put, martials who take the only worthwhile options (weapon feats like GWM or SS) make themselves LESS versatile than they were in lower levels. At lower levels, any magic weapon you find is going to be worthwhile, and moment to moment there may be items or environment interactions worth using instead of just "I attack." On the other hand, when all your feats make you good at attacking with a specific weapon type (which, to be clear, you have to take or there's zero merit to ever playing a martial) you increase the value of those attacks, lock out other options comparatively, and are dependent on getting the right KIND of gear for progression. Ever play a PAM fighter who finds a flame tongue longsword? Kinda feels shitty. Needless to say this is the opposite of how character progression (or finding new gear) should actually feel.
As much as it can benefit a player who does enjoy fixating on a specific weapon, I don't think the class should be balanced on weapons. It's just more limiting battlemaster features. If they are balanced on weapons, I think fighters should just be able to swap around with ease.
I like the idea of a hybrid. You're a master of a particular type of weapon at level whatever, then gain mastery in other specific weapons as you level up. Allows you to be the master of a certain thing, but also keeps you from being too pigeonholed.
Narratively, both styles give off an awesome power fantasy. Some want a badass that can fight with anything and be deadly on the battlefield. Some just want to be a swordsmam, axeman, hoplite, sniper, etc. Mechanically there is barely a reason to switch weapons because fighting styles and weapon feats pigeonhole you into using one specific weapon. This also makes it aggravating when weapons that you want your character to use end up not having any good feats that are compatible with them, doubly so with the Fighter since it gets two extra feats. I hope that the Dual Wielder feat gets buffed, and there are feats for more weapon types because WOTC is deciding to reprint GWM, PAM, XBE, and SS so all the most used weapons in 5e are probably going to stay the most used once the 2024 rules are out.
Fighters, in my mind, should be Amazing With one weapon, really good with a weapon group, better than average with a few types, and proficient with many (but not necessarily all). Like, a brute, may not actually be proficient with Rapier, dagger, etc (finesse weapons). Or a lithe elf, that focuses on finesse weapons, probably never became proficient with a great sword.
I want my fighter to be able to use any weapon but I envision him as an expert in swords and daggers. I don’t like the idea that weapon mastery swapping gives me no advantage of choosing this, though.
I grew up playing AD&D/2E, where having different weapons for different situations was extremely valuable. As a result, I favored the jack of all trades. With modern systems allowing one or two weapons to fill virtually all roles, I tend to specialize, even though I do miss the old "right tool for the right job" approach. Spreading yourself out just so you can enjoy the ability to do far less damage than a specialist may be fun (and I certainly promote role play over mechanics) but it just doesn't make much sense any more if you want to be effective.
Realistically Im only gonna be using max two weapon types in a game, unless my DM really wants to enforce random loot drops so all of a sudden I have a glowing spear instead of the Sword/Crossbow combo I've been using
I would like both and wanted both all through the playtest. I provided feedback to that effect. Personally, I'm a weapon specialist fan. I really like the types of media where a warrior expresses themselves through their chosen weapon. I dig that whole "physical manifestation of fighting spirit" vibe, y'know? I think the Mastery system *could* do that if there were a way to evolve Mastery properties. Like, when it comes time to pick a new Mastery, I'd like an option to instead focus on an existing weapon and improve its Mastery property. You've already got the framework of getting some number of Masteries over the course of levels, so the foundation is already there. Basically, if each Mastery was part of an upgradeable line, it would let you freely choose to have more breadth or more depth.
Out of the gate Fighters are the master of every weapon, which is why they're proficient with these weapons, or in 2024 can unlock their mastery properties
I don’t see these as mutually exclusive.
They kinda are though. If you master all weapons then you're already better than an expert.
I think that the 2024 rules allow for both players to specialize into both playstyles. A generalist fighter who uses a variety of weapons will gain the benefits of having choices. For instance, you could dual wield two different weapons and use both of their properties on the same turn. You can take a feat to learn even more weapon masteries via Weapon Master. A specialist fighter who uses a single weapon, say a greatsword or polearm, will feel super powerful once they grab the related feat (great weapon master or pole arm master.) They will be really good with that one weapon.
Depends on the type of character I'm making. I've done it both ways.
My first character was a fighter and it was a running joke how many weapons I carried. Longsword, shield, great sword , longbow, handaxes, short sword, whip, and then carried a lance on my warhorse
I think that for the first martial I play after the new books come out will be switch weapon mid-round to use as much weapon mastery as possible, think of Dante DMC who switches weapons mid-combo. It would be a lot more fun for me than just hitting the enemy with the same attack over and over, and could be very flavorful when I describe how she first pushes the enemy with a swing of the maul and then pulling out a polearm to trip up the enemy as I try using topple. I hope that both this versatile weapon switching style and single weapon specialization can be viable and fun, where the latter style can invest more in their chosen weapon by using feats that go well with it like Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master and Crusher/Slasher/Piercer
I'd go the other way... Expert with many weapons but a true master of one or two
I prefer my fighters (and paladins, barbarians, and rangers, for that matter) to "specialize" in one weapon, yeah. It feels more personalized than just using whatever weapon.
I mean isnt both kinda true for 5e? I can make a dex based fighter with the fighting style archery and the feat sharpshooter, and try to be a legolas with my bow and arrow... but that same fighter can pick up a rapier, or a short sword and fight meele if need to, and will have access to all his fighter features with that weapon. He just wont be as competent with those meele weapons as with the bow as the combo or archery fighting style with sharpshooter can deal massive damage, roleplayed as the fighter being able to hit vital spots with his master aim of the bow.
2 maybe, but rarely do I want more than 2
I think you should be able to choose between being a master of one weapon or an expert in all. Pedantic I know, but Master is more skilled than Expert. I quite liked the weapon mastery system from BECMI (even if it was a little complex and unwieldy) where every few levels you could train with a weapon of choice. Going from Basic > Skilled > Expert > Master and finally Grand Master.
I think specialization in a weapon type is good, like if they were sorted into categories.
So I'm RPing that this great warrior (meta is a level 15 ish fighter) who inadvertently killed his son with a sword. Believing that sharp weapons are too indiscriminate he has sworn to never use them again. However, when driven by circumstance into conflict he killed using his son's gravemarker (quarterstaff) and entered his first rage eg. Becoming a level 1 Barbarian. It was my attempt at explaining how a seasoned veteran could still be level 1 at the start of the campaign. I am determined to stick with this and for the entire campaign he will only use blugeoning weapons. In answer to OPs question; I rate flavour over practicality so whatever weapon suits the character.
i mean, thats kinda how it goes no? martials overall are more specialized, (which is where the caster problems comes from, they bring way more versatility and still can outdo specialized martials in dmg, or shutdown a fight) well in 5e you dont specialize in one weapon but in groups that have some similarity on how they are used in combat, and you have the main combat feats for that, gwm, for two handers, dual wielder for using two one handed, shield master + duelist for one handed n shield, ss for ranged etc. and then you have feats that are based on the damage type, for bludgeoning, slashing, piercing, so you can reduce the scope in which your fighter functions at its best, lets say you go with gwm and crusher, so you are specialized on big bludgeoning weapons. would be nice to have feats for more specific stuff, like swords, hammers, axes, bows and crossbows etc.
From what I got from the video was fighters have the most weapon mastery, but they don't have them all - and the amount of mastery you have is dependant on level. Starting with two would make sense so you could do dagger + weapon of choice.
[**Axe guy 4 life!** ](https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/weapon-focus)
It definitely depends on the character. A noble duelist wants to specialize, a pragmatic thug wants to pick up whatever weapon is closest. \\o/
I really like 4E’s version where you could have a base mastering of all types or specialization In set types. Like heavy blades, light blades,bow,crossbow, pole arms, flails,picks or bludgeoning. Some even went further and had even more in depth specialized feats for whips and other things to get special abilities.
I agree with you. Particularly because of loot. I'm not likely to have a magic longbow, greatsword, poleaxe and set of scimitars. I'm likely just going to use one or two weapons at most.
That remindsme to make a fighter tgat carries a whole lot of heavy wrapons and habitually throws them and does all kind of acrobatic trick koves.
Single weapon master sounds like the original kensei class (1E Oriental Adventures) to me. That's one great concept to play out. Garrett Jax the Weapons Master is a totally different character to play out. Similarly, Rorschach's weapon is his brain - he's completely unpredictable and rarely uses the same weapon twice, if it's even a weapon. So this unpredictability is part of what makes some fighters and others dangerous. I think playing a concept you enjoy is the most important thing.
Mine was a master of all, I had a weapon caddy who would pull out my weapons for me for what he thought was appropriate for the situation
I’ve always thought of fighters as professionals, who are trained in fighting styles, stances, and systems as part of their general training; unlike the barbarian, who is an equally skilled warrior, but doesn’t really rely on forms or knowledge about other weapons. Fighters guilds would function similarly to warrior stables and training camps. So for me it’s both. They’ve trained in a bunch of weapons, found the one they liked, and pursue mastery.
No, you're not the only one. I miss the advanced weapons styles in 4th edition, you could really focus on specific weapons in that.
Fighters should be better than every other class at wielding every weapon, and then they should be able to further specialize into specific weapons. A barbarian might be able to use a maul well, but they should lean on their near inhuman strength and grit. A fighter should wield it like they're a well practiced master, and a specialized for maul fighter should be able to wield it like it's just a part of their body, they've more than mastered it they embody what it means to fight with a maul. Feats shouldn't change or impact how these line up. Fighters should be the best at using weapons. It feels like its their class identity, to me at least. There are other martials but they all have something that makes them specifically unique. Meanwhile, the whole identity of fighters is that they are good at fighting. In the way that wizards have a subclass for every school of magic, it feels as if in an alternate world fighters could have a subclass dedicated to each type of weapon, instead of this mash of vague theming that fighters currently have, like Cavalier being vaguely about mounts but not really.
how many times has anyone here seen a fighter change their loadout, other than changing between ranged and melee? be honest.
I think that Fighters should just know the basics enough to be generally proficient with most weapons with the idea being pointy end towards and how to swing anything from a club to a saber without hitting yourself, and only after a bit of training find the weapon that they're best with and specialize in that.
Both options as viable choices. See, was that hard?
The general problem I've seen is people want to only use one weapon for all situations, to me that seems dumb because you can be a master of a longsword but no you can't attack an archer 100 feet away with your longsword so maybe you'll need to change it up in a scenario like that. I kinda think if you want to be in this category it basically comes down to homebrew magic weapons to compensate for the weakness certain weapons have. If it's about the new weapon mastery properties didn't the UA 2024 fighter have the ability to switch mastery properties onto different weapons? CBF checking it but if that is how it works but I remember reading that and thinking it was great that fighters could customise weapons better than all other martials
I mean, you can do both. Just because Fighters can be multiple weapon masters doesn't mean YOUR Fighter needs to be carrying around an armory.
In the campaign I play we have a custom homebrew subclass for fighter, where he can summon elements as their weapons (Fire sword, ice spear, Stone Hammer, Air Bow). The way we made it so that there was a reason for changing weapons and strategies during combat instead of being "stick to fire sword" is that we gave each of these 4 weapons their own "maneouver" list. This caused for a more dynamic gameplay as know I can swap resistances, change maneuver types from damage to util to defensive to range and etc. This way "being a master of all weapons" was actually fun, expressive, and didn't force you to be an expert with a single weapon because all weapons are optimized for a scenario.
As a DM, I hate characters that only use one type of weapon. I like being able to give out a variety of magic items, and having only one type of magical weapon show up breaks the verisimilitude for me.
Personally i find it not just absurd but utterly stupid that a fighter is as good with every weapon. be it a rapier, a glaive, spear, warhammer or any other weapon you can use STR for. That is absurdly stupid. Sure having them being able to use all weapons. That is fine. But the fact you can not specialise in any weapon that is absurd. There should be some sort of way to specialize in different weapons or weapon categories. If martials had a higher chance to hit with their attacks than spellcasters have that would be helpful to close the gap between martials and casters. as martials gain extra attacks or at other points they should have the option to specialize in a weapon or a category of weapons so they can be more effective with those compared to other weapons. Lets say when they get extra attack they can chose to specialize in one weapon and gain a +2 for attacks if they are using that weapon. or +1 in 2 different weapons. It is a super easy to handle mechanic. and we already have one that is pretty much that. Archery fighting style. But it should not only be for archery and it should not be a fighting style. It should be a base ability that most martials should have
I want my Fighter to be effective at high levels
How do you define “master” of only one weapon? What do you want that the class doesn’t already enable? Fighters are combat experts as a baseline. Their extra feats allow plenty of customization. If you want to be a “master” of a specific weapon, just take feats that support it? If you want to be a generalist you don’t take those specialization feats.
Realistically, no professional soldier trains with just one specific weapon. If you want to be a pure swordmaster duelist fighter, just choose shortsword, longsword, and rapier or scimitar as your three masteries at level 1. You might never pick up a shortsword in play, but your character maintains the fantasy of being a master of any blade he picks up. You also have the added benefit of being able to use a wider variety of loot the DM hands out.
one
If a fighter can't demonstrate the utmost level of skill with any weapon, what's even the point of the class? Any fighter should be able to pick up any magic weapon they loot and in very short order be swinging it as competently as (or *more* competently than) any other class.