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.

 

[Lanefan]

There could be an entire discussion on how we change the multi-classing rules, but again, I see that as an entirely separate conversation than buffing warriors.

It is, and then again isn't, a separate conversation; in that when considering changes to any class one can't just look at the single class in isolation but must also consider the effects of those changes when someone multiclasses into (or out of) the class you're changing.

And since I have yet to meet a single person who has problems with warriors multi-classing to get spellcaster abilities, I don't see much of an issue with the inverse.

I don't care to make rules specifically to prevent someone from doing something just because you might consider them doing it for the "wrong reason"

The only viable way to prevent - or at least tamp down to a dull roar - exploits and munchkin-ism is to bake in rules that prevent those combos from occurring.

I see nothing wrong with making jack-of-all-trade characters, nor would I care to make rules to prevent a character archetype because of your ideal party composition doesn't include it.

Here it depends on one's design focus and agenda. Are (the hypothetical) we designing to specifically encourage group or party play, or are we designing for solo play (as in, one player, one character, and a DM)?

This is a big divide; in that characters designed for group play can be specialists with clear strengths and baked-in weaknesses while characters designed to work well in solo play need to be able to more or less do everything.

Thus, characters designed for solo-play are likely to overall out-power characters of the same level designed for group play, meaning we either can't design for both at once or, if we do, there has to be some restriction on the solo-play characters if-when used in group play. My own answer here is to not even try to design for solo play and instead focus on group play.

However, players also come to recognize the bit I highlighted; and realize it's in their better interests to try to build those do-it-all characters. Here, the game either needs to push back at the design level or somewhat sacrifice its group-play design paradigm; as if one character can do it all then what's the point of the group?

Ah, that was unclear.

I could see making that an option, but some of the masteries wouldn't have the ability to deal zero damage, due to their nature. I think something like that would be better fit for a feat, otherwise balancing the masteries would be incredibly difficult.

Balancing them (against each other) is going to be difficult anyway. And yes, some would be damage-plus (e.g. full damage plus pushback), some would be damage-or (e.g. my knock-prone idea), and some could even be part-damage-plus (e.g. half-damage plus disarm).

Pretty common considering over half of all classes (9 out of 13) are casters or half casters. The thing is, everyone thinks you need a fighter or a barbarian to tank, or a rogue to deal with traps, but you don't. It is an issue of perception.

For people who want to build a "balanced" party, going Bard, Paladin, Wizard, Cleric is incredibly powerful with no obvious downsides. But going Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, Rogue leaves clear and obvious holes in the group that need to be filled. Both should be equally viable, but they actually aren't.

I get this, and while there's some low-hanging fruit there it's not an easy fix overall.

First off, from their initial knight-with-extras roots Paladins have gone much too far towards being casters. As other caster classes have emerged, I'd have pushed Paladins more toward the knight side; even more so as there's no specific knight or cavalier class any more and that's a pretty major archetype.

Bards as currently designed are superfluous; yet again the whole class needs rebuilding from the ground up. It shouldn't be able to replace a Rogue's role in a party. And both Bards and Wizards have become too resilient and Wizards have become, dare I say, too good at combat - their once-weaknesses have been filled in with no corresponding drawback added.

Monks, however, could do with a bit more to them; they're the obvious on-ramp for a bespoke psionics system but for some reason WotC don't seem to want to go there.

Ideally, your Bard-Pally-Wizard-Cleric party should find itself really lacking in the stealth/sneak/scouting department; but beyond that it's viable.

That all said, yes, in any edition a Fighter-Monk-Barbarian-Rogue party would be seen as having holes in its lineup. Throw in a healer of any type, though, and it's quite viable.

There was a very informative set of videos from the Dungeon Dudes that highlighted this for me. They break roles in the party into seven categories. They then ranked every class in how they handled each category. To summarize?

Fighter and Barbarian were ranked the lowest possible in 5 of the 7 categories. The only things they were good at were Taking and dealing damage. But most other classes were better than them in those five categories. They weren't alone in some of those rankings, Rangers make terrible negotiators, Rogues are bad at support But most classes had four categories they were one of the BEST in, the few that didn't (Cleric, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock) were solid mid choices for multiple roles. The exception being the Monk which fit poorly into most roles.

I know you are old school, but even you have to admit that if given a choice between someone who can guarantee a success in something or someone who has to bend and twist and hope to be passable in it, the better choice is the guarantee. And what we have seen is that the three Warrior classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk) are the ones that are the least flexible and the least able to fill roles outside of "damage". And they aren't the undisputed best at those roles.

Part of that, I think, comes from the emergence of "social mechanics". Time was, you could for example viably play any character with half-decent Cha - even a Ranger - as a negotiator, thus giving it more to do than just bash things or sneak around. Not so much, now.

And this gets back to my point about characters who can do a bit of everything. Ideally each class has something it's the best at (or at least very good at) and has something it's the worst at (or very bad, anyway). Rangers should, for example, be the best at outdoors exploration while Rogues are the best at indoor exploration. Druids should be the best class to have when outdoors and the worst to have underground. And so on.

 

[Minigiant]

Not always the case. A few builds that opt for dipping want that dip early (2nd level) and then returning to your base class ASAP. A few examples of dip early are hexadins and coffeelocks. You want your combo ASAP and it's usually worth waiting a level or two for your level 5 goodies.

That was my point. Only a few builds benefit from early multiclassing. Usually warlock.

I wonder how barbarian and monk will interact with these Masteries

I could see barbarian getting something similar to the old GWM, like an exclusive mastery which only they can use with heavy weapons, maybe -d4/+d8 at lower levels and -d6/+d12 at high level

Monk maybe have mastery with unarmed strikes? and open hand could then add another mastery on top to push/knock down. Not very original, but don't have a lot of ideas

If high crit (brutal critical) was a mastery, I could see every barbarian getting high crit (brutal critical) with all weapons.

Brutal Critical​

Beginning at 4th level, all the weapon you hae mastery in gains the High Crit mastery as well. You can roll one additional weapon damage die when determining the extra damage for a critical hit with a melee or ranged attack.

This increases to two additional dice at 6th level, three additional dice at 13th level,and 4 additional dice at 17th level.

 

[Remathilis]

That was my point. Only a few builds benefit from early multiclassing. Usually warlock.

This to me is a bug in the warlock's design and not a feature, but most of the community has embraced cheesy warlock builds. So

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Well, it is pretty simple. The spell smites always do less damage than non-spell smites, and add a rider effect that in theory makes up for the smaller damage. However, spell-less smites take no action, and spell smites take a bonus action to activate, increasing the cost of using them. In my opinion, that keeps them imbalanced (they have been improved since they can now be activated after the hit, like the spell-less smites) because no action and more damage is better than less damage, action cost, and a saving throw versus an effect.

The 5e smite spells also requre concentration, which is what really moves them into the "trap choice" category. Except in weird edge cases where the smite spell rider can decide a fight, a paladin is much better off trying to concentrate on something like Bless or Shield of Faith, and just using standard divine smites for damage.

The 1D&D smite spells are a big improvement, I can actually see them being a worthwhile addon to the paladin's toolbox.

 

[Minigiant]

This to me is a bug in the warlock's design and not a feature, but most of the community has embraced cheesy warlock builds. So

The Warlock cheese acceptance displays that D&D 5e is loooooong overdo a magically boosted superhuman warrior class and a AED caster.

But tha'ts another topic.

The topic of today is why longswords are still boring.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

What I’ve been hearing is that warriors will be able to pick one weapon and be able to use its mastery effect. Fighters (and only Fighters) might have some ability to swap out their choice for another, and at a higher level can choose a second mastery to apply to their chosen weapon.

Yes, that sounds correct.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is, and then again isn't, a separate conversation; in that when considering changes to any class one can't just look at the single class in isolation but must also consider the effects of those changes when someone multiclasses into (or out of) the class you're changing.

No, it really doesn't.

No one was discussing the One DnD druid and asking how changing wildshape would cause problems with multi-classing. No one was talking about the Paladin and how their smite changes would cause problems with multi-classing. No one discusses the wizard in the context of multi-classing.

So when discussing Fighters, Barbarians and Monks, we don't need to discuss how they might cause problems with mutli-classing and hold off on improving those classes until after we've fixed multiclassing.

The only viable way to prevent - or at least tamp down to a dull roar - exploits and munchkin-ism is to bake in rules that prevent those combos from occurring.

You can't prevent exploits, because exploits are the point of the rules of the game. Unless you think that combining feats and class features is something that needs to be prevented.

This isn't a big deal, it has never been a very big deal, and it isn't worth leaving warriors to languish just to make yourself feel better that someone isn't playing the game wrong.

Here it depends on one's design focus and agenda. Are (the hypothetical) we designing to specifically encourage group or party play, or are we designing for solo play (as in, one player, one character, and a DM)?

This is a big divide; in that characters designed for group play can be specialists with clear strengths and baked-in weaknesses while characters designed to work well in solo play need to be able to more or less do everything.

Thus, characters designed for solo-play are likely to overall out-power characters of the same level designed for group play, meaning we either can't design for both at once or, if we do, there has to be some restriction on the solo-play characters if-when used in group play. My own answer here is to not even try to design for solo play and instead focus on group play.

However, players also come to recognize the bit I highlighted; and realize it's in their better interests to try to build those do-it-all characters. Here, the game either needs to push back at the design level or somewhat sacrifice its group-play design paradigm; as if one character can do it all then what's the point of the group?

Let us consider the artificer.

Can the artificer tank? Yes
Can the Artificer deal good weapon damage? Yes
Can the artificer heal? Yes
Can the artifcer stealth, explore, and deal with traps? Yes
Can the artificer use spells to control the battlefield? Yes
Cant he artificer use spells for utility? Yes

So, here we have a jack of all trades. All ready in the game. So what's the point of a group game with a group of players, if the artificer can already do everything?

Whatever answer you come up with, it probably applies to being able to multi-class a rogue and ranger, or a fighter and a druid.

Balancing them (against each other) is going to be difficult anyway. And yes, some would be damage-plus (e.g. full damage plus pushback), some would be damage-or (e.g. my knock-prone idea), and some could even be part-damage-plus (e.g. half-damage plus disarm).

The thing is though, I don't like your idea being purely damage-or, because a pure damage-or is going to only be situationally useful. Meanwhile damage-plus will ALWAYS be useful.

I talked about this before, but Prone isn't always useful. I play a barbarian in a game right now whose teammates are all ranged characters. Knocking an enemy prone is the single worse thing I could do to help my allies. "Well then don't take that ability" is all well and good to say as a response, but we all know having an ability that is situationally useful makes it less powerful than an ability that is ALWAYS useful.

I get this, and while there's some low-hanging fruit there it's not an easy fix overall.

First off, from their initial knight-with-extras roots Paladins have gone much too far towards being casters. As other caster classes have emerged, I'd have pushed Paladins more toward the knight side; even more so as there's no specific knight or cavalier class any more and that's a pretty major archetype.

And yet, the vast majority of people have no problem with the paladin design, and actually one of the bigger complaints about paladins is they don't use their spellcasting enough.

Bards as currently designed are superfluous; yet again the whole class needs rebuilding from the ground up. It shouldn't be able to replace a Rogue's role in a party. And both Bards and Wizards have become too resilient and Wizards have become, dare I say, too good at combat - their once-weaknesses have been filled in with no corresponding drawback added.

Monks, however, could do with a bit more to them; they're the obvious on-ramp for a bespoke psionics system but for some reason WotC don't seem to want to go there.

So, your solution to the problem shown of caster design being such that an all-caster party is viable... is to nerf them. Even though none of those classes are largely seen as being OP.

Ideally, your Bard-Pally-Wizard-Cleric party should find itself really lacking in the stealth/sneak/scouting department; but beyond that it's viable.

Sounds like someone has never heard of invisibility, find familiar, or dozens of other spells that can handle stealth and scouting.

That all said, yes, in any edition a Fighter-Monk-Barbarian-Rogue party would be seen as having holes in its lineup. Throw in a healer of any type, though, and it's quite viable.

So, add a spellcaster and an all warrior, non-caster party becomes viable. Why, that's brilliant! Who would have thought that the best way to make a party full of non-casters viable is just to add a caster to their line-up.

Part of that, I think, comes from the emergence of "social mechanics". Time was, you could for example viably play any character with half-decent Cha - even a Ranger - as a negotiator, thus giving it more to do than just bash things or sneak around. Not so much, now.

And this gets back to my point about characters who can do a bit of everything. Ideally each class has something it's the best at (or at least very good at) and has something it's the worst at (or very bad, anyway). Rangers should, for example, be the best at outdoors exploration while Rogues are the best at indoor exploration. Druids should be the best class to have when outdoors and the worst to have underground. And so on.

And yet "social mechanics" have been a thing for 23 years or more. Probably more. And people generally like them.

So, maybe, just maybe, instead of nerfing other classes to no longer be solid mid-tier choices for the majority of roles... we could buff pure martial characters to be solid mid-tier choices for more roles?

Again, you are fighting so hard to nerf instead of buff, because you think that you are fighting power creep, but you aren't. What you are fighting is to keep pure martial characters out in the cold, because as I already demonstrated, they aren't actually needed in a solidly built party. But they are popular, people like the fantasy of them, so why not let them be slightly better at things they currently cannot meaningfully contribute to?

Even if we want to continue having Warriors be useless in social situations and exploration situations, and only be good at combat, we can STILL improve that so that they are actually the best combat class by giving them solid battlefield control abilities. Because right now, they can't, battlefield control is essentially solely the realm of casters, except for a single feat combo (sentinel+PAM)

 

[Chaosmancer]

The 5e smite spells also requre concentration, which is what really moves them into the "trap choice" category. Except in weird edge cases where the smite spell rider can decide a fight, a paladin is much better off trying to concentrate on something like Bless or Shield of Faith, and just using standard divine smites for damage.

The 1D&D smite spells are a big improvement, I can actually see them being a worthwhile addon to the paladin's toolbox.

Yeah, I was talking about the One D&D smites, the 5e smites are all pretty much not worth it

 

[Gorck]

I’ve pretty much banned multiclassing at my table. Not because I’ve expressly forbidden it, but because I’m playing with a couple 11 year olds who are new to the game and don’t know it’s an option. So I’m simply not going to tell them.

I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything, but I’ve never ever ever seen an OP build that used just one class. Every “broken” build always involves multiclassing, so the only way to stop them is to forbid multiclassing.

 

[Parmandur]

I’ve pretty much banned multiclassing at my table. Not because I’ve expressly forbidden it, but because I’m playing with a couple 11 year olds who are new to the game and don’t know it’s an option. So I’m simply not going to tell them.

I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything, but I’ve never even ever seen an OP build that used just one class. Every “broken” build always involves multiclassing, so the only way to stop them is to forbid multiclassing.

And to add to that is that most multiclassing is suboptimal, shooting yourself in the foot. Best avoided.