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.

 

[Parmandur]

I don’t think the’ll be bad by any means, I just think they’re probably the least optimal weapon mastery, at least from what we know of them so far. That’s fine, especially since it’s also the simplest option; it’s good to have a straightforward damage boost people can go for if they don’t want to mess around with trips and slows and other such stuff. Same reason we have both the Battlemaster and the champion. But I got the impression you were saying it seems like one of the strongest and I think objectively it’s actually one of the weakest, if not the weakest.

I think it's hard to say that based on what we know so far, particularly with how Fighters can add effects. But Flex I expect will hold it's own.

 

[tetrasodium]

The target has 12 hit points (after factoring in str etc).

11 damage doesn't cut it, so you'll need to make another attack for 1+ damage next round, for which it doesn't matter what you hit with.

Lies damned lies and statistics is a famous quote for a reason. The very tenuous scenario you cite is deep into P-hacking in that it ignores how 1d12 is equally likely to roll any value between 1 & 12 while 2d6 will reliably skew towards the middle with reroll 1s &2s jacking the average up quite a bit. The omission that is critical to your example is the odds of rollinglow on the prior rounds that eventually resulted in the target having only 12 hp. Also with only 12 hp, strength mod means the attacker only needs to roll a 7 or better, which is... almost guaranteed in ways not present with 1d12

 

[Lanefan]

That's a rather arbitrary line in the sand, especially since hit points have never been exclusively meat points.

Personally, I have no problem with a missed attack still managing to wear down an opponent (as long as it wasn't gratuitous).

If a missed attack wears down an opponent, and a hit attack wears down an opponent, then why bother rolling to hit?

5e is already more generous than other editions with how often attacks tend to hit/succeed, no need to make it even more so.

 

[Lanefan]

People really still hating on damage on a miss but have no problem with half damage on a successful save. What a world.

These things are not the same. On a half-damage save you're still "hit" by the effect; if you weren't, you'd take no damage at all.

A more parallel mechanic would be one where every time you got hit in melee you got to save to halve the damage dealt.

 

[Zaukrie]

If a missed attack wears down an opponent, and a hit attack wears down an opponent, then why bother rolling to hit?

5e is already more generous than other editions with how often attacks tend to hit/succeed, no need to make it even more so.

Because one did one or two damage and the other can do serious numbers. I don't understand this stance at all.

 

[tetrasodium]

If a missed attack wears down an opponent, and a hit attack wears down an opponent, then why bother rolling to hit?

5e is already more generous than other editions with how often attacks tend to hit/succeed, no need to make it even more so.

Depend on how much it wears them down. Lets say for discussion that a greatsword does 2d6+str(5) on a hit but on a miss deals graze damage of str(5) or 3+nothing. You obviously want to hit but even a miss does something useful that adds up

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, though a "grazing" arrow would still be a "miss" and possibly do damage. Think about it: What if the fletching scratched your cheek as the arrow otherwise flew past your face? I wouldn't call that a "hit" but it could do a little damage, could it not?

Why would you narrate that if it was a miss? I'd save that narration and use it for a hit where only 1 point of damage was rolled.

 

[Incenjucar]

Lies damned lies and statistics is a famous quote for a reason. The very tenuous scenario you cite is deep into P-hacking in that it ignores how 1d12 is equally likely to roll any value between 1 & 12 while 2d6 will reliably skew towards the middle with reroll 1s &2s jacking the average up quite a bit. The omission that is critical to your example is the odds of rollinglow on the prior rounds that eventually resulted in the target having only 12 hp. Also with only 12 hp, strength mod means the attacker only needs to roll a 7 or better, which is... almost guaranteed in ways not present with 1d12

I suppose my parenthetical wasn't clear.

In the advent that a maximum roll and only a maximum roll changes the outcome, such as when rolling 11 damage on damage roll does not kill the target, but rolling 12 does, WITH everything else factored in, that 12 is more likely to come from the 1d12 than the 2d6. Similarly, in that scenario, a 3d4 is even worse, a 4d3 is atrocious, and a 6d2 is a farce.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Why would you narrate that if it was a miss? I'd save that narration and use it for a hit where only 1 point of damage was rolled.

Why not both/either? There's a lot of ways to mechanically represent the same fiction. IF damage on a miss is a mechanical feature, THEN you use descriptions like that. Simple. You can use anything you can imagine for any part of the game that makes sense to you and your table. So: Why NOT?

 

[Lanefan]

Because one did one or two damage and the other can do serious numbers. I don't understand this stance at all.

Stance comes from the idea of a miss being just that: a flat-out miss. To wit, an attack or shot that accomplishes nothing useful toward ending the combat.

When is a miss not a miss? When it does something useful.

It's the same flawed and IMO very poor logic that lurks behind the concept of "fail forward", where the intent is to turn what should be a flat-out failure into some sort of mitigated success. From where I stand, you can't have a mitigated success without first achieving the success threshold. Same goes for damage in combat: you can't do it until you achieve the "hit" threshold.

Thus, if you want there to be a range where damage dealt is minimal because the hit is marginal (an idea I can get behind in principle), that range should be the first few die pips above the to-hit threshold. So, if the AC is 15 you'd miss outright on 14 or less, do but 1-2 points damage on, say, 15-17, and normal damage on rolls above that.