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.

 

[Eubani]

Double post

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another thing to consider is that initial playtests are going to intentionally push the envelope so that they can test where people are open or close to change, so they can walk stuff back. We can already see that with the rules glossary.

DING DING DING DING!

How people completely continually miss this is beyond me. People still react to playtest packets as though they're looking at final rules product and waste so much gosh-darned time railing against it and pulling their hair out.

And then of course several of those people will eventually respond when asked if they filled out the survey with "Well, I know WotC already made up their mind about everything, so I didn't bother." Heh. Yeah, great. They're willing to spend 2 months writing post after post after post day after day after day here on EN World railing against things in the playtest packet and going over all the ways that what appeared was complete and utter crap... but when given the opportunity to actually say it in a forum where their responses could actually be acted upon, they say "Nah... thanks, but no thanks." Those people are just so silly.

 

[OB1]

Another thing to consider is that initial playtests are going to intentionally push the envelope so that they can test where people are open or close dto change, so they can walk stuff back. We can already see that with the rules glossary.

This is a really good observation, and I certainly think some of the playtest is designed to do just that. Weapon Mastery is a great example, testing both the concept in general and pushing certain 'controversial' ideas like DaoM, that can easily be dropped or swapped for something else.

The danger with pushing the envelope in a public playtest is that when you do that with the structure of an entire class (like Druid) with multiple envelope pushing changes, it can start to feel like the designers don't 'get' what players like about the class. I know nothing's final, but with likely only 2 looks at each class before 2024, if something feels way off in the initial look, they only have one more chance to get feedback to bring it in line.

 

[Eubani]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

This is a really good observation, and I certainly think some of the playtest is designed to do just that. Weapon Mastery is a great example, testing both the concept in general and pushing certain 'controversial' ideas like DaoM, that can easily be dropped or swapped for something else.

The danger with pushing the envelope in a public playtest is that when you do that with the structure of an entire class (like Druid) with multiple envelope pushing changes, it can start to feel like the designers don't 'get' what players like about the class. I know nothing's final, but with likely only 2 looks at each class before 2024, if something feels way off in the initial look, they only have one more chance to get feedback to bring it in line.

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.

 

[CleverNickName]

The thing about DOAM is it is just short hand for another attack.

"When you miss with this weapon, deal X damage"
vs
"When you miss with this weapon, make another attack, if this attack hits deal X+Y damage."

And if you say that is too many attacks, well that's the point.

And this reveals the other issue. Nothing short of another attack or attack equivalent is worth bothering caring about. It's the old Control spell vs Damage spell conundrum. Control spells that don't lock down or heavily debuff are not worth using over damage and vice versa. There is a level of "power" that players and DMs quickly notice.

Close. It's more akin to skipping the attack roll every round and just rolling damage.

"You miss with this weapon, deal minimum damage."
vs
"You hit with this weapon, deal average damage."
vs
"You score a crit, deal super duper damage."

No matter what, the player knows that they are always going to be dealing damage...so why not let them skip the attack roll altogether and go right to the damage roll instead? Let the damage roll of 1 be the minimum "miss" result, and let the maximum be the "critical hit" that deals super duper damage. "I rolled a 12! I get to add more dice!" or whatever.

"But that's unsatisfying," some folks might say. "There's no risk, it would be dull, etc." And that's the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Reef]

Close. It's more akin to skipping the attack roll every round and just rolling damage.

"You miss with this weapon, deal minimum damage."
vs
"You hit with this weapon, deal average damage."
vs
"You score a crit, deal super duper damage."

No matter what, the player knows that they are always going to be dealing damage...so why not let them skip the attack roll altogether and go right to the damage roll instead? Let the damage roll of 1 be the minimum "miss" result, and let the maximum be the "critical hit" that deals super duper damage. "I rolled a 12! I get to add more dice!" or whatever.

"But that's unsatisfying," some folks might say. "There's no risk, it would be dull, etc." And that's the point I'm trying to make.

You’re making it sound like this is an across-the-board change. It’s currently two weapons (I think…haven’t counted lately), and limited to a small subsection of the classes. I don’t think it’s going to cause the sort of huge ripples you are picturing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Close. It's more akin to skipping the attack roll every round and just rolling damage.

"You miss with this weapon, deal minimum damage."
vs
"You hit with this weapon, deal average damage."
vs
"You score a crit, deal super duper damage."

No matter what, the player knows that they are always going to be dealing damage...so why not let them skip the attack roll altogether and go right to the damage roll instead? Let the damage roll of 1 be the minimum "miss" result, and let the maximum be the "critical hit" that deals super duper damage. "I rolled a 12! I get to add more dice!" or whatever.

"But that's unsatisfying," some folks might say. "There's no risk, it would be dull, etc." And that's the point I'm trying to make.

I mean that's literally not how it works.

You do a little damage on a miss and can't crit and you do normal damage on a hit plus any riders you might have on that attack -- which fighters would have in a fair and just world.

The roll damage and trigger on max damage thing is actually unbalanced in the opposite way you're trying to illustrate because the lower the damage die the higher the crit chance. Daggers are now the best weapons in the game. As simple as it is, the game is more complex than a poor reductionist argument can encompass.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Rogue goes first roles a 15, ah a miss, he parried you stab at the last second. The Druid swing and rolls a 16, also a miss as he blocked it with his shield. So the players are paying attention and getting an idea of the number need to hit and do roll damage. Fighter comes up rolls a 14 and i get to say…you grazed him with your greatsword or crossbow bolt and you do 3 damage. In my minds eye, I see the rogue and Druid player looking and wondering…

THere is a scene in order of the stick when the ranger is fighting 2 rogues at the same time that have been dominating the caster and teh rogue... and they complain how much harder he is to hit and how he is doing so much better... and he says something to the effect of "Funny, it's almost like I'm a trained warrior and you two are glorified pick pockets"

 

[Minigiant]

Close. It's more akin to skipping the attack roll every round and just rolling damage.

"You miss with this weapon, deal minimum damage."
vs
"You hit with this weapon, deal average damage."
vs
"You score a crit, deal super duper damage."

No matter what, the player knows that they are always going to be dealing damage...so why not let them skip the attack roll altogether and go right to the damage roll instead? Let the damage roll of 1 be the minimum "miss" result, and let the maximum be the "critical hit" that deals super duper damage. "I rolled a 12! I get to add more dice!" or whatever.

"But that's unsatisfying," some folks might say. "There's no risk, it would be dull, etc." And that's the point I'm trying to make.

That's how most Vidya games work.

Video games typically have low miss chance.