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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes it should.

And it should also be for experienced and more enegaged players.

How can it do both at once, you ask?

Two compatible-with-each-other versions. Let's call them Basic and Advanced, shall we, and set them up such that - should a DM desire - elements and-or subsystems from one can easily be ported into the other in either direction.

TSR made many mistakes back in the day, but having two versions in print at the same time was certainly not one of them.

You may find you run face first into human nature at that point. After all, how many people are going to play "basic" DnD compared to how many are going to say "I'm smart, I can play Advanced Mode"?

Also, two versions in print can be an absolutely terrible idea, compared to one version with a few different ways to scale the difficulty, because two versions is twice as expensive to make (just in terms of printing costs) but you are likely only getting the same amount of profit. So, it could be a really dangerous proposal that I don't think is needed. The core game being best suited for less experienced players is fine, because more expierenced players are also more likely to have rules beyond the core.

 

[Minigiant]

You may find you run face first into human nature at that point. After all, how many people are going to play "basic" DnD compared to how many are going to say "I'm smart, I can play Advanced Mode"?

Also, two versions in print can be an absolutely terrible idea, compared to one version with a few different ways to scale the difficulty, because two versions is twice as expensive to make (just in terms of printing costs) but you are likely only getting the same amount of profit. So, it could be a really dangerous proposal that I don't think is needed. The core game being best suited for less experienced players is fine, because more expierenced players are also more likely to have rules beyond the core.

The best way to do Advanced rules is to design the along side the basic rules then put them in the DMG.

The reason why 5e lacks many advanced rules and is likely pursuing Weapons Mastery is because the majority of the effort in design was focused on very basic rules for beginners and little time was attributed to the DMG.

 

[Lanefan]

You may find you run face first into human nature at that point. After all, how many people are going to play "basic" DnD compared to how many are going to say "I'm smart, I can play Advanced Mode"?

It worked fine for TSR in the 1970s-80s. Many groups never left Basic or 0e or BECMI while many others went with AD&D (1e). Both sold well.

Also, two versions in print can be an absolutely terrible idea, compared to one version with a few different ways to scale the difficulty, because two versions is twice as expensive to make (just in terms of printing costs) but you are likely only getting the same amount of profit. So, it could be a really dangerous proposal that I don't think is needed. The core game being best suited for less experienced players is fine, because more expierenced players are also more likely to have rules beyond the core.

One version that presents different ways of scaling the difficulty is also dangerous, then, in that you're asking almost every buyer - the basic player, the advanced player, all of 'em - to pay for material they don't need or want.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The best way to do Advanced rules is to design the along side the basic rules then put them in the DMG.

The reason why 5e lacks many advanced rules and is likely pursuing Weapons Mastery is because the majority of the effort in design was focused on very basic rules for beginners and little time was attributed to the DMG.

I'll fully agree with the first point. On the second, I'm not sure I'd call the 5e rule set "very basic". Oh sure, it isn't 3.X or Shadowrun levels of complexity, but DnD 5e is still a fairly complex game to learn for people who didn't learn those systems, and certainly more complex than many other TTRPGs I've seen.

But I do think a lack of more advanced/complex modules in the DMG is partially because of the design schedule Perkins was talking about on the most recent video.

 

[Minigiant]

I'll fully agree with the first point. On the second, I'm not sure I'd call the 5e rule set "very basic". Oh sure, it isn't 3.X or Shadowrun levels of complexity, but DnD 5e is still a fairly complex game to learn for people who didn't learn those systems, and certainly more complex than many other TTRPGs I've seen.

But I do think a lack of more advanced/complex modules in the DMG is partially because of the design schedule Perkins was talking about on the most recent video.

5e isn't very basic.

Wepons users are very basic. Casters are complex.
Thee isn't a Complex Warrior or a Simple Spell Caster.

That is because 50% of the D&D Next playtest and most of the design team effort was spent designing the Simple Fighter. So little else had time for design.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It worked fine for TSR in the 1970s-80s. Many groups never left Basic or 0e or BECMI while many others went with AD&D (1e). Both sold well.

"Sold well" or "sold well for an incredibly niche self-published product"? Because, from what I can find in a quick search, the Moldav Basic set was selling around 750,000 copies a year near the height.

Elden Ring is considered a successful game, not earth-shattering outside of the people who like the Souls-style games, but it was successful. With 20 MILLION copies sold in a year. "Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga" sold 3.2 MILLION in their first two-weeks.

DnD isn't in the TSR era anymore, they are backed by a major corporation, and they need to be doing numbers. Making a product that sells less than a million copies these days? Not a good look. And splitting those sales between two products is not a great plan.

One version that presents different ways of scaling the difficulty is also dangerous, then, in that you're asking almost every buyer - the basic player, the advanced player, all of 'em - to pay for material they don't need or want.

No advanced player can play without the basic rules. So, they are paying for material they need. And the basic players might end up not wanting the advanced rules, but that doesn't mean they won't eventually want the advanced rules, or won't want to sprinkle some of them in over time.

I have a game I play rather consistently that has somewhere in the neighborhood of six difficulty settings. That is value to me even if I don't always play the highest settings (I mostly haven't) because I COULD play them if the lower settings feel a little too easy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

5e isn't very basic.

Wepons users are very basic. Casters are complex.
Thee isn't a Complex Warrior or a Simple Spell Caster.

Again, "very basic" or "very basic for Dungeons and Dragons"? I have a supers game I play were 1) Movement is not a thing that matters 2) Positioning is not a thing that matters 3) Range is not a thing that really matters 4) There is no roll to hit 5) There are no defense rolls (except in specific circumstances) 6) There are not multiple types of rolls (no AC vs Saving Throws vs Skill rolls), ect ect

Is that a very very basic weapon user I make under that system? And there are likely even simpler systems than THAT. Do we have very very very very basic weapon users in those systems?

I'm not saying you are wrong that most weapon users have fewer options than spell casters, or that memorizing the different rule chunks of spellcaster's spells isn't a degree of complexity, but I really think we need to keep in mind that "basic" for DnD is still quite complex as far as games go. And that does lead to a bit of disconnect when talking to new players and saying "this is super easy and basic" then handing them a packet of rules to remember and go over. A smaller packet than another player, but still a packet.

That is because 50% of the D&D Next playtest and most of the design team effort was spent designing the Simple Fighter. So little else had time for design.

Do you have any evidence that 50% of the playtest was spent on the simple fighter? Because I remember that very differently than your randomly uncited numbers.

 

[Lanefan]

"Sold well" or "sold well for an incredibly niche self-published product"? Because, from what I can find in a quick search, the Moldav Basic set was selling around 750,000 copies a year near the height.

Elden Ring is considered a successful game, not earth-shattering outside of the people who like the Souls-style games, but it was successful. With 20 MILLION copies sold in a year. "Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga" sold 3.2 MILLION in their first two-weeks.

You're comparing apples and motorboats here.

The two examples you give are both very recent, i.e. within the last four years at most. The RPG market and overall uptake over the period 2019-present is stupendously larger - as in almost not even comparable - than the market was even during the fad days of the early 1980s.

DnD isn't in the TSR era anymore, they are backed by a major corporation, and they need to be doing numbers. Making a product that sells less than a million copies these days? Not a good look. And splitting those sales between two products is not a great plan.

They'd do bigger total numbers with a dual-track game than with a single-track game.

 

[Minigiant]

Do you have any evidence that 50% of the playtest was spent on the simple fighter? Because I remember that very differently than your randomly uncited numbers

During the playtest, almost every pactedt had a completely revamped fighter which revamped a significant part of the playtest rules each time.

Other classes jand race and almost EVERY monster just got one pass and if not overly negative responded did not receive a second look.

Thats how the weak ranger and monk got printed and the boring sorcerer was approved.

The DNDB designers were spending most of their time one the PHB and most of that on the Fighter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're comparing apples and motorboats here.

The two examples you give are both very recent, i.e. within the last four years at most. The RPG market and overall uptake over the period 2019-present is stupendously larger - as in almost not even comparable - than the market was even during the fad days of the early 1980s.

Right, the market is completely different. Almost not even comparable to what it was back then. So why would the market strategies of then work now? The game market has grown a lot, but it has also fragmented a lot. DnD is the big gorilla in the room, but back then it had far far fewer competitors than it does now.

There haven't been two versions of DnD in print at the same time like the basic and advanced sets were since the modern era. And I doubt that is because the company was too stupid to think of the idea. It would be a massive risk, for little if any benefit, and likely a loss.

They'd do bigger total numbers with a dual-track game than with a single-track game.

Why? What market research says that is true? Why would splitting their fanbase give them more total sales?

Better yet, is there ANY modern RPG, not published by a small indie title, that has a "basic" and an "advanced" version in print at the same time? Has anyone done this other than TSR back in the day?