D&D (2024) New One D&D Weapons Table Shows 'Mastery' Traits

The weapons table from the upcoming Unearthed Arcana playtest for One D&D has made its way onto the internet via Indestructoboy on Twitter, and reveals some new mechanics. The mastery traits include Nick, Slow, Puncture, Flex, Cleave, Topple, Graze, and Push. These traits are accessible by the warrior classes.

 

[CleverNickName]

That's how most Vidya games work.

Video games typically have low miss chance.

Exactly. I'm not saying it's bad game design, just that it isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We realize that this is a playtest, but when what is offered shows that little seems to of been learned in the last 50 years of Fighter design. That the designers dress +1 damage as something worthwhile or offer up mechanics that are obviously better on other classes in a way so painfully obvious you would have to be brand new to the game think otherwise of course some of us are going to ask is the best you have to put before us, do you place so little value on our time and intelligence.

if +1 damage comes with options to free climb sheer walls without magic, leap 30+ ft, and shake off enchnantment effect while charming people with your silver tongue... that would be great

 

[CleverNickName]

I know I dump on "Damage on a Miss" a lot here (and I always will) but for what it's worth: I really like the idea of Weapon Mastery.

I like the idea of fighters getting to do more than just stand in the same square and do the same thing every round. I like being able to do more than Just Damage every turn...knock swords out of my opponent's hand, splinter their shields, knock them back 10 feet, trade places with them on the battlefield, kick sand in their eyes and blind them for a moment, hamstring them so they can't move as quickly, deprive them of their reactions, keep them from healing...I could go on. I don't even mind wuxia-style, anime pseudo-magical effects straight out of Avatar: the Last Airbender, or DragonBall-Z, or Street Fighter. Fireball-slinging monks? Yes please. There's plenty of room in D&D for historic samurai and feudal knights, and mythological heroes of ancient Greece, and modern anime demon hunters with swords the size of ceiling joists.

Also, I think that keying these abilities to individual weapon types instead of to Feats or specific subclasses (looking at you, Battle Master!) is brilliant. Weapons in 5E are dull, and there's lots of room in there for growth. 3rd Edition had some pretty good ideas--some weapons gave you a bonus to attempt certain actions, for example--but they didn't carry over into 5E. It's a rich area for development, and dovetails nicely with the need for more interesting Fighters and Barbarians.

There's even a historic precedent for it, if you care about that sort of thing. I've used Weapon Mastery rules before, back when they were introduced in the Companion Rules set. They were quite different back then...so was everything else about the game...but I enjoyed them. Fighters and Dwarves really struggled to be interesting on the battlefield under the BECM rules, and the different weapon stunts really helped. (This was back when there were 7 classes in total, and three of them were actually "races." Talk about getting theme-locked!)

Anyway, I'm gonna leave the thread. I just wanted to clear the air, regarding my opinions on Weapon Mastery in general (love it) and "damage on a miss" in particular (hate it).

 

[OB1]

I'm interested to hear what the general feedback on Druid ended up being: recall also that they have a decade of data on how people have rated all the Classes, theybpopl that every year and had a giant one about a year and a half ago that got very detailed. Dollars to donuts evwrybchsnge they're testing the waters with is a response to frustrations they've heard expressed.

Oh absolutely. And from the initial comments from Perkins, it looks like after the early feedback they already know the Druid is going to need a big revision.

I think where they missed on Druid is that they were focused too much on the wants of people who don't play the class instead of those who do (which goes against their stated design philosophy). After all, there has to be some class that is 'least popular', but from all the statistics I've seen, Druid isn't that far behind (the gap between Fighter/Rogue and every other class is the the largest). It would be one thing if only half as many people played Druids as the next least popular class, but that's not the case.

Now, I'm all for the stated design goals of making onboarding new players easier, and I do think a lot of the revisions we've seen so far accomplish that in a smart way. I doubt I'll ever start a campaign as a DM at lower than 3rd level, so I'm all for the changes they're making to early levels (race/background, standardization of subclass, class groupings, etc), but where my concern lies is in the rest of the game. Let classes get a little more complex, unbalanced, and unique once you're into Tier II. Weapon Mastery is a great example of that (to bring this back on thread), as even though we don't know exactly how the system will work, I'm betting it will come online around level 5 (maybe 3).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think where they missed on Druid is that they were focused too much on the wants of people who don't play the class instead of those who do (which goes against their stated design philosophy).

I have no real skin in the game with druid... I think it's fine as is and fine in the change, I think both could be improved... but as a concept I take exception to this.

IF I have a 100 sample size and 10 classes if things work perfect you should see aboout 10 people playing each class... if you see 2 classes have 25 people play each and 1 class only has 2 people play it... maybe listening to what the 50 peopple playing those 2 classes have to say can help improve all the classes

edit: the why matters too... is it fluff, is it complexity, is it a mechanic, is it power... or is it all of them

 

[OB1]

IF I have a 100 sample size and 10 classes if things work perfect you should see aboout 10 people playing each class... if you see 2 classes have 25 people play each and 1 class only has 2 people play it... maybe listening to what the 50 peopple playing those 2 classes have to say can help improve all the classes

If that were the case, I'd agree, but based on DDB data, the skew is more like 13 Fighter, 11 Rogue, 6-8 everything else. I think it's fine if certain classes are slightly more popular and if every player doesn't want to play every class. It's more important (to me) that the range of classes appeal to a wide range of players and that all players have 3-4 options that strongly appeal to them.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If that were the case, I'd agree, but based on DDB data, the skew is more like 13 Fighter, 11 Rogue, 6-8 everything else. I think it's fine if certain classes are slightly more popular and if every player doesn't want to play every class. It's more important (to me) that the range of classes appeal to a wide range of players and that all players have 3-4 options that strongly appeal to them.

where I agree not every player should need to or want to play every class, if 1 class is the worst and least played maybe we should hike it up a bit

 

[OB1]

where I agree not every player should need to or want to play every class, if 1 class is the worst and least played maybe we should hike it up a bit

Some class has to be the least played.

The question is, by changing the class to appeal to other people, will it stop appealing to people who like it, resulting in it's popularity diminishing. That's why it's important to focus on what those people who play the class like about it.

The weapon mastery changes, for example, seem to be a good fit for people who like playing fighters (like I do). It gives them a little something special to do on their turn outside of straight weapon damage (and likely an extension of what's popular about the Battle Master to all fighter subclasses). Those are tweaks to an already popular class to make it more interesting for the players of the class. It might cause some people who don't play fighters to try one now, but that's an additional benefit, not the main goal IMO.

 

[Amrûnril]

If that were the case, I'd agree, but based on DDB data, the skew is more like 13 Fighter, 11 Rogue, 6-8 everything else. I think it's fine if certain classes are slightly more popular and if every player doesn't want to play every class. It's more important (to me) that the range of classes appeal to a wide range of players and that all players have 3-4 options that strongly appeal to them.

It's also important to consider that some classes, like the Fighter, are designed to emulate broad archetypes, while others, like the Warlock, are designed to emulate more specific ones.

If we want to look for classes that need to be improved, we shouldn't focus on classes that are underrepresented in absolute player count. We should look for classes that are underrepresented relative to player interest in the archetypes they represent.

 

[OB1]

It's also important to consider that some classes, like the Fighter, are designed to emulate broad archetypes, while others, like the Warlock, are designed to emulate more specific ones.

If we want to look for classes that need to be improved, we shouldn't focus on classes that are underrepresented in absolute player count. We should look for classes that are underrepresented relative to player interest in the archetypes they represent.

Spot on. I think Sorcerer is a prime candidate for this treatment, and I'm excited about the tease they gave us about how it's changing in the new UA. And to that point, the 2014 Druid caters to a wide assortment of archetypes (especially with the Everything subclass additions, though the PHB provides a decent range), whereas the playtest seemed to narrow and double down on shapeshifting.