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.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Giving martials a way to add effects also opens up compound effects.

I think you have a point about compound effects and the Weapon Mastery designs we've seen. Some people say that the benefits we've seen so far are too small, but as you get more and more attacks, couldn't they add up and compound their effectiveness?

While a Ray of Frost cantrip will reduce the speed if 1 target for the cost of one action, a warrior with multiple attacks in an action might be able to dish out way more control effects.

 

[tetrasodium]

I feel the mechanical benefits of rider control effects on top of base damage do have objective value. Now those who only care about the largest damage numbers may not feel the same. And that's ok. They can specialize into damage all they want! Just like I can broaden my options in how I affect the battlefield beyond damage. We both win!

Except there's the problem pointed out in post740. It doesn't matter how cool or maybe useful a thing is if it requires the GM to assist you in making it work. With 5e so heavily stacked to ensure that almost anything shy of self destructive flailing no matter how brainless is almost guaranteed to claim victory it's hard to justify providing that too often as a GM. Dead doesn't require any GM assistance. Combat is already so mindless with tactical elements striped back to the point of boredom even without deliberately throwing a fight.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not everyone values "dead is the only condition that matters." There are other ways to impact the story beyond DPR. This isn't an MMO where the only thing that matters is killing it faster because there is no narrative consequence to how you did it. There is a story happening in the battlefield that can impact the story after it is over.

You seem to have a lot of aggression for a point I was not making.

To rehash the conversation, in case you have people who were part of it blocked, @Eubani claimed that "If monsters were designed better and not just bags of hp, then Fighters (any class actually) could afford to surrender some damage for control when the situation suited." Further stating that, as they saw the game, that is currently a losing proposition because it just makes the fight take longer.

@billd91 and then myself pushed back, asking for examples of this "better monster design" and how giving the monsters better abilities would change the fact that dead is the best condition. I never stated it was the only condition that matters, there are other conditions that matter. Paralyzed is amazing. Poisoned can be very strong.

This isn't about "the only way to impact the story is MURDER!!" it is a challenge tp this idea that the reason fighter's can't have interesting abilities is because of monster design.

But beyond that... what do you mean there is a story on the battlefield? Are you trying to suggest that because I value winning a fight by making my enemies unable to continue fighting there are no narrative consequences to the fights? If there weren't consequences.... why would I care about winning? And what you wrote below makes no sense with this context.

Some people want to have fun along the way. Some want to be able to control the battlefield on top of the damage they would deal. Some people want to kick the enemy off the cliff with a push, or grapple them or knock them off balance to slow their escape to get reinforcements, or embarrass the BBEG by knocking them on their butt, or disarming them, which can have a narrative impact. Some want to kill 2 goblins with 1 swing. Some want the reliability to deal DOAM because they are that good at wearing down their opponent. That can be terrifying narratively as long as the DM buys into it and lets the warrior have that level of impact on the story with their combat styles.

I would love to have fun while winning. But to do that... I need to win the fight. Losing the fight is generally not fun. Losing the fight consistently is bad.

We want fighter's to control the battlefield? GREAT! But here's the thing, pushing and enemy 5 ft, while cool, is fairly meaningless in terms of "battlefield control". What does real battlefield control look like? Slowing every single enemy in a 40 ft diameter sphere. Creating zones that damage the enemy for entering them. Reshaping the battlefield. These are control effects, so if we want fighter's to have legitimate control options, they need these.

Grappling? Before the One DnD changes grappling was utterly pointless. Because all it did was take a melee enemy and prevent them from moving, usually at hefty cost to you. Now there is some use in it, because it prevents the enemy from as easily hurting your allies, but you have to take some significant trade-offs for that effect. Enough trade-offs to make it a serious question of if it is worth it.

Kicking an enemy off a cliff is always fun... but not every fight takes place on a cliffside. A fight in the town square, or in the common room of an inn doesn't give you any value for that. Not every fight has enemies running to get reinforcements, or even running in general. Slowing an enemy who isn't moving is pointless. You haven't accomplished anything. This is generally my problem with Slasher, it simply usually doesn't mean anything to slow a melee enemy who is next to you, because they aren't moving, they are attacking you.

And this matters, much like it matters that you are adding "terrifying" to cleaves and DOAM, because you are now making this a matter of DM buy-in. You need the DM to give these character's weight and effect on the battlefield. And the moment you do, you actually have a problem. "Oh, the goblins are terrified you killed two of them in a single swing." two fights later "Oh, um, hmm, yeah Wizard I know you just roasted four goblins in a single action, but... yeah no, you are right, that would be terrifying."

Once it becomes a matter of DM Fiat, then it is table specific and that causes a host of potential issues if you are relying on that to bolster mechanical design.

And all this wraps back around. It has to be worth it. If you are so confident in a fight that you are willing to take a turn to embarrass my BBEG instead of fighting them, then I made a poor BBEG. They are supposed to be the most desperate fight, not the fight where you shove them in a locker and steal their lunch money first. Knocking them prone has to be worth the cost of taking the action. One way of doing this that I like is making the cost low. If knocking an enemy prone 1/turn is free, then we are talking about a cool ability. If it costs you your damage for the turn... it had better be worth it, perhaps because you have an all-melee party who doesn't have ranged attackers that prone will negatively impact. And if it costs your full action? Then it frankly isn't worth it for a melee character to do that. Because styling on the enemy but losing the fight is just stupid.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think you have a point about compound effects and the Weapon Mastery designs we've seen. Some people say that the benefits we've seen so far are too small, but as you get more and more attacks, couldn't they add up and compound their effectiveness?

While a Ray of Frost cantrip will reduce the speed if 1 target for the cost of one action, a warrior with multiple attacks in an action might be able to dish out way more control effects.

This would depend on phrasing. Currently, pushing is compounded. But if you have something like Lance of Lethargy, you can't reduce an enemies speed more than once. And an enemy whose speed has been reduced by one effect, can't have their speed reduced by a second effect, unless the reduction is larger.

They have actually built the game so that three people attacking with Ray of Frost can't lock an enemy in place. Which is probably good design, but it also limits the ability to do the same with these sort of abilities.

And some things simply can't compound. You can't get more prone.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My table and the last few tables I've been at have used shove as a replacement of any melee attack that I forgot is it an action by default.

And that’s a good way to go, but even then there is a huge difference between “instead of an attack” and “in addition to an attack”.

In addition to an attack is very good. Like good enough they’ll want to rework shield master feat if they keep it, because knocking someone down first attack (giving up nothing) and making the others with advantage is very good.

 

[Incenjucar]

"More prone" is actually quite possible with a big enough hammer if you strike with enough force that it creates a 5' deep pit they have to crawl out of. On the less anime side, you can add any next steps you want, like bonus damage, bleeding, inability to get up, etc.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You seem to have a lot of aggression for a point I was not making.

To rehash the conversation, in case you have people who were part of it blocked, @Eubani claimed that "If monsters were designed better and not just bags of hp, then Fighters (any class actually) could afford to surrender some damage for control when the situation suited." Further stating that, as they saw the game, that is currently a losing proposition because it just makes the fight take longer.

Which is why we need to kill the work day model of adventuring so one big, long fight that is fun becomes the norm instead of a lot of little boring fights.

 

[CleverNickName]

Which is why we need to kill the work day model of adventuring so one big, long fight that is fun becomes the norm instead of a lot of little boring fights.

Just once, I'd like to see a fun adventure that didn't have any fighting at all.

 

[Incenjucar]

Just once, I'd like to see a fun adventure that didn't have any fighting at all.

The game is pretty centered around combat. A "Telltale"-style game using the lore but a more non-combat-oriented system would probably work better for that so combat-oriented characters don't get stuck sitting on their hands every session.

Easy enough to have non-violent resolution to encounters and scenarios though.

 

[CleverNickName]

The game is pretty centered around combat. A "Telltale"-style game using the lore but a more non-combat-oriented system would probably work better for that so combat-oriented characters don't get stuck sitting on their hands every session.

Easy enough to have non-violent resolution to encounters and scenarios though.

Yeah, I know. I don't want to fundamentally change the game or anything. I just want someone to create one adventure that didn't have any combat in it at all, and still managed to be fun. Just one.

For all the talk about the "three pillars" of gameplay, it can sure feel like it's all combat, all the time.