Tasha's Cauldron of Everything includes some recommendations for building a Battle Master fighter. The introduction to the section says:

Below are recommendations for how you might build a Battle Master to reflect various types of warriors.

Each of these builds contains suggested fighting styles, maneuvers, and feats. Those suggestions are from the Player’s Handbook, except for the ones followed by an asterisk, which indicates an option introduced in this book.

Two of these builds (Duelist and Gladiator) list the Weapon Master feat as a recommended feat. Weapon Master says:

  • Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
  • You gain proficiency with four weapons of your choice. Each one must be a simple or a martial weapon.

The Proficiencies section of the Fighter class says:

Weapons: Simple weapons, martial weapons

Fighters are already proficient in all simple and martial weapons.

Am I missing something here or is the Weapon Master feat a complete waste of an ASI1 for a fighter? Is there some way that taking the Weapon Master feat as a fighter is not entirely redundant?

1Ability Score Improvement

  • \$\begingroup\$ I was going to mention multiclassing, but they get those proficiencies on multiclassing as well \$\endgroup\$ – AncientSwordRage Nov 20 '20 at 18:00

It's useless.

Option 1: If you're taking a feat instead of an Ability Score Improvement (ASI), the ASI is always better than this particular feat. You already have proficiency with all weapons, so 2 attribute points is better than 1.

Option 2: If you pick Variant Human, you take a feat at level one. If the player's desired attribute (STR or DEX) is an odd number, a half-feat like Weapon Master is useful. But there are other half-feats (e.g., Athlete) that will give you more stuff along with the single attribute point, so Weapon Master is also useless.

Option 3: If you start with another class and dip into fighter, you get these proficiencies: Light armor, medium armor, shields, simple weapons, martial weapons. So you're back to option 1, ASI will always be better than the feat.

I can't think of any case the feat is not completely outclassed by something else, for a Fighter.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Took me some time to figure out that ASI stands for Ability Score Improvement. \$\endgroup\$ – Michael Nov 21 '20 at 13:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Michael Sorry, force of habit! \$\endgroup\$ – BlueMoon93 Nov 23 '20 at 15:40

In short...

Yep, complete waste of a feat. There are no core weapons that a Fighter can't use.

Covering the Bases...

There is a precedent in the DMG for having weapons that PCs do not have proficiency for, such as Firearms

It’s up to you to decide whether a character has proficiency with a firearm. Characters in most D&D worlds wouldn’t have such proficiency. During their downtime, characters can use the training rules in the Player’s Handbook to acquire proficiency, assuming that they have enough ammunition to keep the weapons working while mastering their use.

The Pincer Staff used by Kuo-toa and a Fighting Chain used by a Chain Devil are two examples of weapons that exist in the world of D&D, but are not listed as Simple or Martial weapons. But this is firmly in the realm of DM's Call as to whether or not a Player Character would be proficient with such a weapon.

Additionally, it is possible to gain proficiency in Improvised Weapons (which are neither Simple nor Martial) by way of the Tavern Brawler feat


You gain proficiency with four weapons of your choice. Each one must be a simple or a martial weapon.

This line was the subject of errata which added the bolded clause. So you can't use this feat to gain access to 'Exotic' weapons of any sort or Improvised Weapons.

Thus, in all cases, the Weapons Master feat is useless to Fighters. It grants proficiency in Simple or Martial Weapons, and you are already proficient in all Simple and Martial Weapons

  • \$\begingroup\$ RAW, a fighter has proficiency in all weapons. Verisimilitude-wise this is obviously an exaggeration. I think you are correct in pointing to what previous editions called "Exotic" weapons. For a DM that cares as much about setting and culture as mechanics, this makes sense if your DM is restricting access to certain weapons because 'your PC wouldn't know that'. In particular, since one of the suggested builds is 'Gladiator', that hints that the exotic weapons gained would be ones that are sub-optimal in field combat but often used in spectator blood sport; cesti, trident, net, etc. \$\endgroup\$ – Kirt Nov 20 '20 at 18:21
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Unfortunately, the feat specifies that the weapons be simple or martial. If the weapons count as neither, then they can't be selected via the feat, rendering it still useless. \$\endgroup\$ – RevanantBacon Nov 20 '20 at 20:50

The feat is awful for anyone

Weapon Master is an awful feat for any character. It doesn't provide any unique abilities nor significant mechanical buffs. Most characters are proficient in what would be the best weapons for their class anyways, and it is rare for a character to be able to benefit from even two different weapon proficiencies, let alone 4.

So just in general, don't take this feat. If you need proficiency in a weapon you could use effectively, it's probably not simple or martial anyhow (e.g. Firearms), the rest of the time extra proficiencies are something like +1 damage or at best more range on account of longbows/heavy crossbows.

The feat is almost literally useless for a fighter

Fighters (and rangers and paladins etc) are already proficient with all normal weapons. That means the feat does literally nothing for you except increasing your Str or Dex by 1 instead of any stat by 2. For a fighter this feat isn't just bad as in not contributory, it's bad as in does not work.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.