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.

 

[Incenjucar]

Balanced multiclassing is not that difficult to implement, WotC just has a habit of front-loading non-casters instead of giving them steady progression, while casters are traditionally backloaded.

Edit: For casters, just about every level has a benefit of note, as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Given that in every survey anywhere Fighter remains the most-played class, how commonly-seen in the wild are all-caster parties?

The fighter is the most popular class because its only shares the nonmagical weapon user archetype with 1 class. And the fighter has the most inspirations in fantasy media to drawn from.

Whereas every other class shares their core archetype with at least 2 or more classes and has an decreasingly smaller list of inspirations.

A WOTC fighter could be poorly designed and be still popular.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

With the way multiclassing is currently written, any buff to the Fighter class would also be a buff to Wizards, Sorcerers, pretty much any class... and the earlier these buffs become available, the worse it will spread. Part of the trouble with adding power to the game is keeping it from creeping into areas where it isn't needed.

I'm not saying they don't need to buff the Fighter; I'm saying they need to make sure those buffs stay with the Fighter.

Does it really matter that a wizard can grab defensive FS, armor prof, and second wind with a one level fighter dip?

 

[WanderingMystic]

Does it really matter that a wizard can grab defensive FS, armor prof, and second wind with a one level fighter dip?

In my opinion not only does it not matter but I don't know wizard would really want to make that type of a sacrifice losing out of the level of casting is a big deal for a caster especially for a wizard.

 

[Incenjucar]

I consider it a design error if there's ever a level for a class that you don't mind losing. Multiclassing should always be an agonizing decision between the classes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my opinion not only does it not matter but I don't know wizard would really want to make that type of a sacrifice losing out of the level of casting is a big deal for a caster especially for a wizard.

Oh I agree, I was trying to illustrate that giving the fighter good features early and often isn’t going to break the game.

If a class can dip without any threat of FOMO due to delay or missing out on juicy in-class features, that class needs adjusted.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I consider it a design error if there's ever a level for a class that you don't mind losing. Multiclassing should always be an agonizing decision between the classes.

Well, meaningful, at least. I like multiclassing so I’m cool with half and half builds being not super painful.

But it should always be a trade off.

I actually wish it was less painful in some cases. Like, extra attack makes martial multiclassing super weird, and there is no equivalent to the softening of MC woes for casters by using the MC spell slot by level table.

I wonder again, after years of not thinking about it, if true multi-class feat (with 2-3 per class) wouldn’t be a boon for the game. Especially if those same feats could also be useful on a single-class member of the class it’s a mc solution for.

Eg, 3 feats that give you a little bit of low, mid-low, and middle, level rogue features, but does so in a way that also benefits a rogue character that takes the feat.

Spellcasting feat chains to get spells above 2nd level from another class, would also be good. An Extra Attack feat wouldn’t benefit martials, only kinda-gishes that aren’t gonna get it in thier normal progression, but…I wouldn’t hate seeing that.

 

[CleverNickName]

Does it really matter that a wizard can grab defensive FS, armor prof, and second wind with a one level fighter dip?

I'm sure it matters to some people, that topic comes up a lot on these boards.

Personally, I feel like my characters play better without multiclassing. But I'm just one moogle.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm sure it matters to some people, that topic comes up a lot on these boards.

Personally, I feel like my characters play better without multiclassing. But I'm just one moogle.

Yeah absolutely, at least for many levels. My rogue/wizard was kinda painful for like 4 levels. I really had to strategize to get the most out of him, and I was dying to get to rogue 5. Absorb Elements only goes so far.

In fact, if not for a custom feat that lets me treat my rogue levels as if they were arcane trickster rather than swashbuckler, and let’s me learn wizard spells of any level for which I have spell slots (up to 5th level spells, which I don’t think I’ll ever get anyway), I would probably rebuild the guy as a forge adept artificer or an arcane trickster with ritual caster or something.

 

[Remathilis]

I consider it a design error if there's ever a level for a class that you don't mind losing. Multiclassing should always be an agonizing decision between the classes.

In a conversation that will sound eerily familiar, I'm going to agree. I'm not a fan of mix and match systems (class and race) because it encourages optimization and hybridization. I much prefer subclasses (like EK, AT, divine soul or scout) to multi-classing.