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.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

People keep saying that the difference between 1h & 2h is only one point of damage. That's an oversimplification that obscures the truth

• 1d10 10% chance of any number 1-10 each roll with a 50% chance of being above 5
• 1d8 12.5 chance of any number 1-8 each roll with a 37.5% chance of being above 5
• 1d12 8.33% chance of any number 1-12 each roll with a 58.33% chance of being above 5
• 2d6 72.22% chance of being above 5
  • 1 impossible
  • 2 2.78% chance on any given roll
  • 3 5.56% chance on any given roll
  • 4 8.33% chance on any given roll
  • 5 11.11% chance on any given roll
  • 6 13.89% chance on any given roll
  • 7 16.67% chance on any given roll
  • 8 13.89% chance on any given roll
  • 9 11.11% chance on any given roll
  • 10 8.33% chance on any given roll
  • 11 5.56% chance on any given roll
  • 12 2.78% chance on any given roll

Even more distorting is the impact of abilities that allow reroll 1s &2s giving a 100% chance of >5 if reroll all 1s &2s. If just reroll 1s /72s but must take the second roll it gets complicated enough that I'm not going to try building it in anydice but it should be well under a 10% chance of ever occurring & some fraction of a single percent to get quadruple 1s &2s needed for a value under 5.

This is a problematic distortion because wotc doesn't do things like 1d6->2d3, 1d8->2d4, or 1d10->1d6+1d4 & similar so what is objectively the best damage value weapon (2d6) is also not beat in max damage by any other weapon.

...what does any of this have to do with the fact that an increase of die size by 1 is a +1 bonus on average? i don't care what the chances are of rolling above a 5. that's not relevant. 2d6 and 1d12 aren't relevant either because we're talking about versatile weapons. what's even your point?

I'm no sure I follow your logic. I can recall when halfling males could have max str17, and females max str14, and also when all their weapon dice were reduced by one size in exchange for greater accuracy and a better AC. The penalties applied to small folk in this edition seem less than any other. The logic is that a longsword is big enough to be a two-handed sword when you are only 3 feet tall.

I think the concept of a Str20 halfling with a two-handed sword is utterly ludicrous and I have real problem with small folk being steered towards equally powerful but less cheesy concepts. Plenty of ways you still lay on the cheese if you still want to.

my point is that, as a property, the only thing heavy really indicates is that small creatures can't use it effectively (and i guess also that it has certain interactions with features but a number of those also interact with two-handed anyway). i find it boring and lazy and, considering that halfling can get 20 strength and eventually pound down gods with a longsword, kind of arbitrary. hell, honestly, i'd prefer if they gave small creatures lower strength maximums or something, because that'd at least be a bit more interesting.

in other words, i don't really have that much of a problem with restricting what weapons smaller creatures can use effectively...i just think the heavy property is the most boring way to do it.

 

[Incenjucar]

A +1 to damage is very close to meaningless unless you are attacking like a dozen times every round. More is always better, but the chances of a +1 taking an enemy out one attack sooner is pretty slim.

 

[Parmandur]

i'd disagree. it's not terrible, but it is underwhelming compared to the other masteries we already know about, especially from a tactical perspective.

But from a sstrategic big picture perspective, I'd still say it's the best: particularly for Fighters who can pile on it, apparently.

 

[Parmandur]

Quite the contrary. The more rolls you make, the closer the difference is going to get to the average, which is +1. On any given roll the difference might be more or less, but over the course of a campaign you’re going to make enough rolls that the overall difference it made is going to approach pretty near the average of +1 damage per hit.

On the one hand, yes, on the other hand that still compounds with getting the AC bonus, too.

 

[tetrasodium]

...what does any of this have to do with the fact that an increase of die size by 1 is a +1 bonus on average? i don't care what the chances are of rolling above a 5. that's not relevant. 2d6 and 1d12 aren't relevant either because we're talking about versatile weapons. what's even your point?

my point is that, as a property, the only thing heavy really indicates is that small creatures can't use it effectively (and i guess also that it has certain interactions with features but a number of those also interact with two-handed anyway). i find it boring and lazy and, considering that halfling can get 20 strength and eventually pound down gods with a longsword, kind of arbitrary. hell, honestly, i'd prefer if they gave small creatures lower strength maximums or something, because that'd at least be a bit more interesting.

in other words, i don't really have that much of a problem with restricting what weapons smaller creatures can use effectively...i just think the heavy property is the most boring way to do it.

It's relevant because damage dice cap at a total of 12+mods. The fact that one weapon meets that 12+mods with 2d6 rather than 1d12 causes the +1 value being thrown around to be pure P-hacking that ignores the median values in play. I used 5 just because it's close to the average of most weapon dice(d8->4.5 d10->5.5 d12->6.5).

 

[W'rkncacnter]

But from a sstrategic big picture perspective, I'd still say it's the best: particularly for Fighters who can pile on it, apparently.

it's really, really not. in any particular combat it's maybe half of an attack in damage on average, spread out against however many targets you attack in that combat. that's just not very helpful, even for a high level fighter (although for a high level fighter it could admittedly be as much as a full extra attack in damage, but at that point we'd need to compare it to knocking people off cliffs or actually getting an additional attack that ends up being a crit without your bonus action or knocking an entire formation prone or just straight up getting advantage on all your attacks because someone helped you and you the advantage kept getting you hits that turn, and at that point it's REALLY not favourable).

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It's relevant because damage dice cap at a total of 12+mods. The fact that one weapon meets that 12+mods with 2d6 rather than 1d12 causes the +1 value being thrown around to be pure P-hacking that ignores the median values in play. I used 5 just because it's close to the average of most weapon dice(d8->4.5 d10->5.5 d12->6.5).

okay, but again - we're not talking about 2d6/1d12 weapons when we're talking about the +1. we're talking about versatile weapons, which all cap at 1d10 when two-handed. so, i'll ask you again - how is that relevant?

 

[CleverNickName]

That's a rather arbitrary line in the sand, especially since hit points

Yeah, I suppose it is. And some people are really excited about DoaM, most are ambivalent about it, so I think I'm the one making more of an issue out of this than it needs to be. So I'm happy to drop the subject.

When all is said and done, everyone will have to decide whether or not to adopt these new rules or stay with the old ones. We will all have different reasons for making that decision; this is one of mine. (shrug) If I don't like the looks of the new product, I am happy to keep playing the old ones; no harm no foul. It won't be the first time I've skipped an edition because I didn't like the direction they went with it. Heck, it won't even be the second time.

 

[Nightfly]

Camillo Agrippa's 1553 treatise show the use of an off hand dagger as some of the techniques illustrated.

To whom it may concern:

I'd back off arguing with someone who links to documents from 1553.

 

[Nightfly]

Hopefully they will reconsider that "damage on a miss" stuff. That's always going to be a hard nope for me.

Genuinely curious: does it depend on the weapon at all? I'm not cool with arrows doing damage on a miss, because a miss means they missed. But if a hammer "missed" due to my plate mail, I can easily see it doing damage anyway.