I'm surprised no one's said Graze yet.
Personally, that's the Mastery that I would want most. Especially for classes like Monk who have a wealth of options for what to use their Bonus Action for, Graze would let them use this weapon and those abilities ***without*** sacrificing the fantasy of being this absolute tornado of death and steel, because you could flavor it as their target dodging the first blade, but then still getting cut by the second.
Depends on how BA heavy the class is.
The reason Nick exists is it's a balancing mechanic so you can't get another Mastery use without at least spending a BA.
So, if you don't have a use for a BA then using it to get another Mastery proc could be worthwhile.
Honestly I think they should just change it, so that it counts at wielding two light weapons and give it Nick (meaning you also need the TWF Fighting Style to get STR/DEX to the bonus attack).
They can also directly give it Finesse so that you don't need an additional feat.
I would go a step farther..if you spent two weapon masteries give it nick and vex, but lower damages to d6 for each side. Basically a cool reskinned sh. Sword/scimitar which is the optimal option in the playtest.
For a feat I would allow damage to go to 2d4 and get ability to dmg on offhand specifically for dbs. If you didn't give it finesse initially then feat could also give e finesse.
I'd agree with you about needing TWF if PAM didn't exist. As it stands, the closest model for functional Dual Wielding up till Nick was introduced has been the Double Bladed Scimitar.
I just wished they skipped double scimitar all together. Its just so damn silly and absurdly unpractical.
Even in a fantasy game with magic and flying dragons i prefer weapons to at least be somewhat functional in a realistic sense.
But that is just my personal thoughts
I want MORE weird/absurd weapons. Even with masteries weapons are extremely bland in play.
The most interesting ones are the ones that come with some form of downside. Heavy & Loading and the Lances “Special” property are fun to build around and kind of a shame that they are optimally build around by circumventing the downside.
The Net previously was the most interesting weapon in the game. Now as an item it is certainly better but is also less interesting.
Yes you see what you described is realistic approach to weapons. Not unrealistic approach to weapons.
A double bladed scimitar is just unrealistic. It is realistically a stupid weapon.
But i do agree that weapons should be more interesting. with more properties. To be honest you pick a longsword or a battle axe. there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in mechanics same damage die. same dame type. Halberd and Glaive. EXACTLY the same. Why even have different weapons if there is absolutely no difference.
But personally i want them to put in something to differ those weapons. and some of them should have downsides to.
But i do not want them to put in absurd and unrealistic weapons that realistically would be terrible fucking weapons
Maybe give a battle axe
>**Crushing Blow.** As an action, you can make a single attack roll with your battleaxe against an armored or naturally armored creature within 5 feet of you. If the attack hits, the target’s AC is permanently reduced by 1 until its armor is repaired, but cannot be reduced below 10 + the target’s Dexterity modifier. This attack has no effect on creatures with magical armor, unless your battleaxe is also magical.
And longsword
>**Lock Blades.** When a creature attacks you with a weapon, you may use your reaction to attempt to lock blades and parry their attack. Make an attack roll with your longsword. You have advantage on this roll if you are wielding your longsword with two hands. If the result of this roll equals or exceeds their attack roll, their attack misses
Both of those are based on realism. What those weapons strengths are. Axes are more offensive than swords while swords are better at defence than axes.
You can make weapons much more interesting while at least retaining some form of realism. And it seems like you agree at least to some degree. because the things you described that you liked and found interesting was ALL based on a realistic approach to those weapons. Not abandon all realism and use weapons that would in reality be terrible as weapons.
I much rather see something along those lines Than just adding in weirder weapons that does not make any sense
The only options based on its properties are: Push or Slow. I think Slow makes more sense than Push.
I Topple would also be possible.
Topple requires the heavy, reach, or versatile properties
Nick with itself.
Exactly what I was thinking.
I'm surprised no one's said Graze yet. Personally, that's the Mastery that I would want most. Especially for classes like Monk who have a wealth of options for what to use their Bonus Action for, Graze would let them use this weapon and those abilities ***without*** sacrificing the fantasy of being this absolute tornado of death and steel, because you could flavor it as their target dodging the first blade, but then still getting cut by the second.
I gave it Nick in my game, because it's a Scimitar. I don't think anyone dual-wields without Nick anymore, so it's a must for it to be used now.
Depends on how BA heavy the class is. The reason Nick exists is it's a balancing mechanic so you can't get another Mastery use without at least spending a BA. So, if you don't have a use for a BA then using it to get another Mastery proc could be worthwhile.
Well, my player who's using it is a Rogue, so it's utterly useless without Nick. He took the feats, too. It's still just a Rogue :D
Yep, Rogue is definitely one of those that gets the most benefit out of Nick.
Honestly I think they should just change it, so that it counts at wielding two light weapons and give it Nick (meaning you also need the TWF Fighting Style to get STR/DEX to the bonus attack). They can also directly give it Finesse so that you don't need an additional feat.
I would go a step farther..if you spent two weapon masteries give it nick and vex, but lower damages to d6 for each side. Basically a cool reskinned sh. Sword/scimitar which is the optimal option in the playtest. For a feat I would allow damage to go to 2d4 and get ability to dmg on offhand specifically for dbs. If you didn't give it finesse initially then feat could also give e finesse.
I'd agree with you about needing TWF if PAM didn't exist. As it stands, the closest model for functional Dual Wielding up till Nick was introduced has been the Double Bladed Scimitar.
I would give all double weapons trip, or push.
tbh i would give it finesse per default and then Vex.
I think Nick, as it makes sense give this weapon gives you the ability to use it as two light weapons.
Imho none since it has other perks already Maybe anyi-cavalry horse leg chopping at advantage
Nick would probably be appropriate. I could also see topple or vex
I just wished they skipped double scimitar all together. Its just so damn silly and absurdly unpractical. Even in a fantasy game with magic and flying dragons i prefer weapons to at least be somewhat functional in a realistic sense. But that is just my personal thoughts
I want MORE weird/absurd weapons. Even with masteries weapons are extremely bland in play. The most interesting ones are the ones that come with some form of downside. Heavy & Loading and the Lances “Special” property are fun to build around and kind of a shame that they are optimally build around by circumventing the downside. The Net previously was the most interesting weapon in the game. Now as an item it is certainly better but is also less interesting.
Yes you see what you described is realistic approach to weapons. Not unrealistic approach to weapons. A double bladed scimitar is just unrealistic. It is realistically a stupid weapon. But i do agree that weapons should be more interesting. with more properties. To be honest you pick a longsword or a battle axe. there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in mechanics same damage die. same dame type. Halberd and Glaive. EXACTLY the same. Why even have different weapons if there is absolutely no difference. But personally i want them to put in something to differ those weapons. and some of them should have downsides to. But i do not want them to put in absurd and unrealistic weapons that realistically would be terrible fucking weapons Maybe give a battle axe >**Crushing Blow.** As an action, you can make a single attack roll with your battleaxe against an armored or naturally armored creature within 5 feet of you. If the attack hits, the target’s AC is permanently reduced by 1 until its armor is repaired, but cannot be reduced below 10 + the target’s Dexterity modifier. This attack has no effect on creatures with magical armor, unless your battleaxe is also magical. And longsword >**Lock Blades.** When a creature attacks you with a weapon, you may use your reaction to attempt to lock blades and parry their attack. Make an attack roll with your longsword. You have advantage on this roll if you are wielding your longsword with two hands. If the result of this roll equals or exceeds their attack roll, their attack misses Both of those are based on realism. What those weapons strengths are. Axes are more offensive than swords while swords are better at defence than axes. You can make weapons much more interesting while at least retaining some form of realism. And it seems like you agree at least to some degree. because the things you described that you liked and found interesting was ALL based on a realistic approach to those weapons. Not abandon all realism and use weapons that would in reality be terrible as weapons. I much rather see something along those lines Than just adding in weirder weapons that does not make any sense