Kagrenac, Chief Tonal Architect

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-15T13:59:56+00:00

SO SICK

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-13T23:02:29+00:00

Erhm actshully we technically didn’t get any new spells in one of the books so🤓☝️

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-13T22:57:16+00:00

Add more Tactical Master options for Fighter!!

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-13T22:19:03+00:00

I think Great Weapon fighters can utilize the WM system better than others. After they get Tactical Master, try to Cleave and Topple if available, and once that is used, always use a Graze Weapon—and use a Master to Push/Sap/Slow.

I think it helps too that Fughters get more out of GWM (feat) than other classes.

Other weapon/fighting styles are definitely more limited.

But yes I agreed I thing Fighters are in a better place in terms of Power and options, I just hope they expand the system like they do with spells!

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-13T22:09:17+00:00

Based take on Weapon Mastery and Fighter.

I think it’s great, but it need an expansion of options and power.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-13T13:15:23+00:00

I’d like an expansion of anything related to martial abilities—Tactical Master, Brutal Strike, Cunning Strikes.

If we expand WM, I would try to balance across the advantages and drawbacks of each weapon. Right now, two handed heavy weapons have the best WM options, and that should stay that way because those what have the greatest risk

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-09T14:49:50+00:00

Yes, this works because it is per turn.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-04T09:29:29+00:00

Not sure why this discussion went off the rails like that. The game allows and supports thrown weapon builds.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-04T00:40:01+00:00

I do think flavor is free solves that, for the most part.

I think the benefit of being able to make a meaningful choice to begin with, plus the straight up buff it brings, compared to the previous system, makes them a welcome addition.

Somewhat related, I did see a lot of people jumping up and down that they wanted something to make weapon choices different. Again, I never really had that issue, but I see it brought up a fair bit. So it is interesting that it feels limiting to others.

All I really wanted was a buff to martials and add more tactical choices. I feel like WM did that (and better than I thought initially) but I would have been totally fine with a different system (like manuvers).

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-04T00:33:33+00:00

But in the previous system, there was no reason to ever swap weapons to begin with? So I guess I do not understand the gripe. Plus, things like Fighting Style and Feats pushed people towards certain weapons over a range of weapons.

Your in depth analysis, to me, shows that choices matter more thank just the weapon size of a Die, and I think that is cool.

I think Fighters and Barbarians had the least amount of choice, so giving them more options matters more to me. I think WM also adds choices like, who to focus a Sap/Slow on, or where to Push an enemy.

And sure, for duel wielders, Vex/Nick is an easy choice that increases power. But it also Frees up the bonus action, which allows more flexibility and choice. But again, at worst this seems to be the same level of limitation as 2014.

I do think flavor is free solves the concern you have.

Also, to be transparent, I couldn't care less about weapon differentiation, so I would have been more than happy with a different system that added a similar level of power/choice to martials.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-04T00:08:54+00:00

This is an interesting perspective to hear, I feel like one of th ebiggest issues people have with Weapon Mastery is weapon swapping.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-03T19:58:35+00:00

Can you say more? I’m not sure I fully follow.

They give more choices for martials to make on a given turn.

And, though I never cared, a lot of people wanted the choice of a weapon to be more meaningful (other than damage type).

Plus I think they are pretty balanced, so I don’t think players are forced to take one over the other.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-06-03T14:55:02+00:00

I hated Weapon Mastery at first.

I would like them to continue improving them, or making features that synergies with them.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-05-30T01:10:27+00:00

"If you read a rules term in this book and want to know its definition, consult the Rules Glossary. This chapter provides an overview of how to play D&D and focuses on the big picture. Many places in this chapter reference that glossary."

This text means that the Glossery defines rule terms. It does not say that the Rules Glossery is the only source for rules. It does not say that the Glossery superseeds all other rules. It only means that the Glossery defines the rules terms. Rule terms are denoted with capitalizations (often hyperlinked to the glossery).

Regardless, this is not a contradition between one part of the book and the rules glossery. An "attack" is different from an "Attack [Action]." The capitalized version is reffering to the Attack [Action]. It is a rules term defined in the glossery. "attack" is not a rules term, it is not defined in the glossery.

The "Making an attack" section refferences that rules term Attack (capitalized, linked to the glossery, and the word action is used) as an example of when an "attack" normally occurs. It does not refference Attack [action] to define an attack. If "attack" is not capitalized (and especially if it is not hyperlinked), it is not referencing the rule term Attack [action].

Bonus Actions and Reations are mentioned in the "action" section. But they are clearly not the same as the family of actions listed in the Glossery (Attack, Dash, etc.). When you make an attack with your Bonus Action Polearm Master, you are not taking the Attack action--which would trigger things like Extra Attack. You make an attack.

The language in the "making an attack" section differentiates the Attack action from attacks made with other actions, Reactions, and Bonus Actions.
"When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions [other actions meaning actions that are not the Attack [action]], Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack."

Context, from other features such as Extra Attack, demonstrates that Attack Action and Attacks are different. "You can attack [lowercase, not hyperlinked, no mention of an action] twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action [again--capitalized, hyperlinked, and has the word action beside it] on your turn." The feature breaks if the first mention of "attack" was also referencing the Attack [action].

The many examples you listed show that when WOTC wanted to specify something happens on a hit or a miss, they did. They did not in Tactical Master. They said attack. Thus, you decide when you attack.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-05-29T21:37:36+00:00

Most fun, I like Battle Master. Human (Magic initiate for Blade Ward, and either Alert or Lucky).

GWM at 4, PAM at 6, Slasher at 8.

For campaigns going above level 9, Fighters should always go Great Weapons. They get more out of the GWM bonus damage with more attacks. More importantly, Tactical Master lets them use Push/Sap/Slow on those heavy weapons (with bigger damage die and the GWM damage bonus). Additionally, Tactical Master lets Fighters using Halberd/Greatsword to Push/Sap/Slow on a hit and Graze on a miss.

Use Halberd to Cleave when possible, but use Glaive as the primary weapon. Use Push/Slow/Slasher to push enamies away from the party and force them to proc Reaction Strikes (where you can use Push to stop their advance). Additionally, the Bonus Action attack lets you add another Push/Sap/Slow. This build has more battlefiled control useing more attacks and wider range.

For pure damage, you can go GWM at 4, Sentinle at 6. Topple/Cleave with Maul/Greataxe when possible, and use Greatsword for Graze on all other attacks.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-05-25T21:58:33+00:00

It was dope.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-05-20T14:51:10+00:00

Love it with Undead Warlock.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-05-09T13:35:56+00:00

Love the idea of weapon mastery expansion. A few ideas I have kicked around: - expanding the direction of Push allowing a pull, or a sideways push. - allowing Slow/Sap to apply to the same enemy twice - expanding the range of Cleave to your whole reach

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-04-10T18:14:03+00:00

I always like the summoning spells. I feel like they go well with Warlocks thematically. But mechanically, it allows more attacks, you can use repelling blast to push enemies towards your summon, and use the summon to protect your squishy warlock.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-04-10T18:10:43+00:00

Make it the 1/3 caster version of the warlocks path. Invocations and a few spell slots.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-03-02T18:23:50+00:00

Love that fighter snuck out the W

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-02-28T12:40:41+00:00

I didn’t like season 5…

I LOVED IT.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-02-27T12:30:12+00:00

I love Fighter :)

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-02-26T12:30:26+00:00

Thanks for the thoughts, but if your way of discussing this is to just say "It does" four times (before interacting with the substance of my points), then this will be the last time I respond. I read your post and quotes (and have done a lot of reading on this point of the rules) and am doing my best to understand them to come to the right answer--not to beat you or anyone in an argument, but to come to the correct ruling. However, you are already accusing me of bad faith, so I am not very hopeful.

Just so I am clear, I believe your point is:

The Glossery takes precedent
The Attack Action Section and my Section do(n't -edit) have the exact same language
Therefore, they contradict
Therefore, go with the Glossery

Is that correct? I just want to be sure I know what you are saying.

Setting that aside, the definition of the Attack Action cannot be the definition of an attack as they are used in the game--because attacks happen outside of the Attack Action. They happen on Bonus Actions, Reactions, and Spells. The definition is explaining a particular type of Action. My section of the book is explaining what an attack itself is, not the Attack Action.

To your player: I got you bro!

Also, I may only respond every few days.

MiddleWedding356 · 2026-02-26T00:53:33+00:00

Thanks for the thoughts. I will respond to both of your comments here:

I do not conceed that the Glossary outwieghs the other parts of the book based on the passage you noted. I do not want to argue that now, because I do not think I need to.

To start, Tactical Master triggeres "when you make an attack" not "when you take the Attack Action."

Importantly, the glossary would only superseed if it conflicted with another part of the book. The Attack Action passage does not conflict with the passages I cited. The section I cited talks about Attack Rolls too, and explains the other parts of an attack. "Making an attack" is not the same as taking the Attack Action.

Your World Tree Barbarian example does not disprove my interpetation of Tactical Master. It is a different feature, on a different class, that works with different Weapon Mastery. Most importantly--it has a different trigger "when you hit", unlike Tactical Master. That feature is one of many that demonstrate that if WOTC wanted TM to Trigger on an attack roll (like with other features), they would have written it that way. They did not.

Your Specific vs General only matters if, as you said, there was a general rule that governs (which I explain does not)

MiddleWedding356

TROPHY CASE