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.

 

[SkidAce]

Thus, if you're made prone three times in one round, thats three rounds before you can even think about getting to your feet; three rounds during which the foes can tack on more prone-bestowing abilities that could, in the end, see you spend the rest of your (probably now very short) life lying on the ground.

This sounds like something my evil anti-paladin npc would do...

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

But as the 3.5 Spike Chain user showed, I don't want knock down spamming to be optimal due to a player being able to knock down and deal full damage every turn.

I played in a 3.5 game that had a guy 'prove' how bad that weapon was by designing 'hook swords' that were spiked chains by any other name... they were a match set that you could hook 1 in another to have reach or attack with the two they gave a bonus to trip and disarm and deal 1d6 damage instead of 2d4 and still the whole grew called them broken and over powered...

 

[Chaosmancer]

With the way multiclassing is currently written, any buff to the Fighter class would also be a buff to Wizards, Sorcerers, pretty much any class... and the earlier these buffs become available, the worse it will spread. Part of the trouble with adding power to the game is keeping it from creeping into areas where it isn't needed.

I'm not saying they don't need to buff the Fighter; I'm saying they need to make sure those buffs stay with the Fighter.

Start the buffs around level 5. At level 5, it doesn't matter about multiclassing, because to get the Fighter's "power" they would then need to give up 9th or 8th level spells. Even pushing it to level 3, multi-classing becomes a major investment by that point.

And besides, turn about is fair play, mage power can go and be taken by warriors who multi-class to mages

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

No, stop blaming gm's for system failings . 5e is designed to trivialize that by stripping away the subsystems needed for it to matter in the name of streamlining & simplicity.

Thanks for calling out that perspective. I misspoke. I agree that weapon-based combat is not deeply dynamic. I agree that encounter design can be better at advising how the DM can offer better dynamism.

Currently, the game relies on the DM to introduce dynamic options, and not all DMs do (I've been that DM at times who has had to focus on the narrative over the fiddly bits). I think it is because the rules aren't good at advising how to use the options they do offer, and those options can be more robust. I think they can be better tools. That is why I say I would like well designed player dynamics alongside better-designed DM options. Applied together, they have the chance of creating more dynamic encounters if people want to opt into it. (Some people don't like the fiddly bits and prefer describing things with more theater of the mind, and that is ok too. But both styles should be supported.)

 

[CleverNickName]

And besides, turn about is fair play, mage power can go and be taken by warriors who multi-class to mages

I don't think anyone is talking about the spellcasting classes being made more powerful, but I haven't read the entire thread.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Clerics and Wizards need to be made even stronger than they already are. Unfortunately, I know that as soon as we see the weapon mastery options for staffs and warhammers and daggers, my players are going to start looking for ways to bolt them onto their favorite caster. I hope that Wizards of the Coast makes it very, very difficult for them to do so.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think anyone is talking about the spellcasting classes being made more powerful, but I haven't read the entire thread.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Clerics and Wizards need to be made even stronger than they already are. Unfortunately, I know that as soon as we see the weapon mastery options for staffs and warhammers and daggers, my players are going to start looking for ways to bolt them onto their favorite caster. I hope that Wizards of the Coast makes it very, very difficult for them to do so.

You don't need to make spellcasting classes more powerful for what I said to apply. Spellcasters ARE more powerful than martials currently. So martials can multi-class into casters. Just like Casters can multi-class into martials.

IF your point is that we can never make martials stronger, because then it will be actually appealing to multi-class into them.... well, frankly, I heavily disagree. The reason people mix paladin and warlock or paladin and sorcerer is because of the synergized power, but there is a cost-benefit people analyze. How many levels of X before I lose the benefits I want from Y. Right now, two levels of fighter is considered a good multi-class because you don't GET anything worth having after level 2. But if fighters got excellent and desirable abilities at levels 5, 8, 11, 15 whatever, then just like wizards, there would be an analysis of what the best combination of abilities is. There would be people who say "it isn't worth it for my character to lose those fighter abilities" just like people say it isn't worth it to lose access to 6th level spells.

As for how easy it is to get Weapon Masteries. Probably the Weapon Master feat. That'd be the simplest way of doing it.

 

[CleverNickName]

IF your point is that we can never make martials stronger, because then it will be actually appealing to multi-class into them.... well, frankly, I heavily disagree.

I'll stop ya right there: that is not my point at all.

My point is that they need to improve multiclassing. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; I'm posting from my phone at the moment and brevity sometimes gets the best of me.

 

[Pauln6]

With the way multiclassing is currently written, any buff to the Fighter class would also be a buff to Wizards, Sorcerers, pretty much any class... and the earlier these buffs become available, the worse it will spread. Part of the trouble with adding power to the game is keeping it from creeping into areas where it isn't needed.

I'm not saying they don't need to buff the Fighter; I'm saying they need to make sure those buffs stay with the Fighter.

They could mitigate this by limiting action surge to a particular list of actions that exclude casting spells. That way non-martial multiclass characters take a slight debuff despite the new buffs.

 

[Lanefan]

The issue with that is that study after study, practical example after practical example, shows that people don't like balance to be enforced with nerfs.

If it were a single poorly designed item, or a single OP monster, that would be different, people can accept that. But we are talking about fundamentally rewriting the game. To nerf the majority of classes. All so we don't have to buff fighters.

Why? Why not just buff fighters?

Two words: power creep.

Actually, I don't think it is poor design. If it stacked, then every single Warlock would be able to reduce any enemy to 0 movement, from 600 ft away. Every single warlock getting an at-will ability to win any fight. That is far too broken.

OK, fair enough: just have the martial "slowing" ability be able to stack, and only with itself. So, if you want to slow someone twice you have to hit them twice, even if the target has already been slowed by something else. Anything else can only slow them once, no matter what.

And that doesn't make you more prone, just prone for longer, and that sort of dynamic track would be a pain in the neck to track, for no real benefit. Because if you can knock someone prone multiple times a round, you can just knock them prone once per round. Or you could grapple them to give them a movement speed of zero, which prevents them from getting back up.

Tracking things like that isn't nearly as hard as some make it out to be; and for those as use 'em, in a VTT it's utterly trivial.

I should probably note here, as others have brought it up in other posts, that I really hope that a) these mastery abilities are mostly instead of damage rather than in addition to it and then b) you have to declare your intent (e.g. "I'm attacking to trip") before rolling to hit. Otherwise yes, I can see the "spiked chain" problem returning in a hurry.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Two words: power creep.

When you were here before
Couldn't look you in the eye
My fighter was pathetic
The lack of skills made me cry
Your wizard could cast spells
I saw the fireballs hurled

Wish my PC was special
A fighter so effin' special

So I'll power creep
I'll be the hero
Make all those monsters disappear
Old martials don't belong here

I don't care if the game is worse
I wanna have control
I want the best attack
I want to have the best rolls
I want you to notice
When my fighter's not around

Wish my PC was special
A fighter so effin' special

So I'll power creep
I'll be the hero
Make all those monsters disappear
Old martials don't belong here .....