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.

 

[Pauln6]

...what does any of this have to do with the fact that an increase of die size by 1 is a +1 bonus on average? i don't care what the chances are of rolling above a 5. that's not relevant. 2d6 and 1d12 aren't relevant either because we're talking about versatile weapons. what's even your point?

my point is that, as a property, the only thing heavy really indicates is that small creatures can't use it effectively (and i guess also that it has certain interactions with features but a number of those also interact with two-handed anyway). i find it boring and lazy and, considering that halfling can get 20 strength and eventually pound down gods with a longsword, kind of arbitrary. hell, honestly, i'd prefer if they gave small creatures lower strength maximums or something, because that'd at least be a bit more interesting.

in other words, i don't really have that much of a problem with restricting what weapons smaller creatures can use effectively...i just think the heavy property is the most boring way to do it.

D&D has always been very abstract. 1e was quite strict in its assumptions. I severely dislike the notion of super-strong halflings because my dial is set to consider them like Tolkien Hobbits, because that's what they were originally designed to be and if I want, that's what I can make them in my game. I agree that the heavy property isn't exactly perfection but I also have no difficulty visualising what that means - a weapon whose centre of gravity is too high to be wielded effectively by a small individual. Clubs and spears can be of varying lengths while being functionally similar.

I think I have more of an issue with 5e armour categories than weapons.

 

[Parmandur]

it's really, really not. in any particular combat it's maybe half of an attack in damage on average, spread out against however many targets you attack in that combat. that's just not very helpful, even for a high level fighter (although for a high level fighter it could admittedly be as much as a full extra attack in damage, but at that point we'd need to compare it to knocking people off cliffs or actually getting an additional attack that ends up being a crit without your bonus action or knocking an entire formation prone or just straight up getting advantage on all your attacks because someone helped you and you the advantage kept getting you hits that turn, and at that point it's REALLY not favourable).

Plus the AC bonus, plus the bonus from the appropriate Fightijg Style (Dualist currently, might change in this who knows)...little tricks like pushing may or may not be helpful, hitting harder and avoiding being hit at the same time is always, always helpful. Plus a Fighter can add on a desired effect if needed, apparently.

 

[CleverNickName]

Genuinely curious: does it depend on the weapon at all? I'm not cool with arrows doing damage on a miss, because a miss means they missed. But if a hammer "missed" due to my plate mail, I can easily see it doing damage anyway.

Not really. Maybe? I'll try to explain.

To my mind, an attack "misses" when it fails to deal damage to the target. Hitting the armor, hitting the wall next to you, glancing off your chainmail, etc., are all just different kinds of misses because they fail to do damage. To the way my brain works, this is why we roll for damage: the attack roll establishes whether or not damage is rolled, and if so, the rolled amount of damage tells us whether it was a devastating blow or just a small scratch.

I can see exceptions being made for things like grenades and shotguns. Even though you missed your intended target, there is a larger area where other, possibly unintentional targets might take damage anyway. But for the most part, I think that a weapon that misses its target can miss for a variety of reasons, and it is the damage roll that determines how "good" the hit was.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Genuinely curious: does it depend on the weapon at all? I'm not cool with arrows doing damage on a miss, because a miss means they missed. But if a hammer "missed" due to my plate mail, I can easily see it doing damage anyway.

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?

 

[Parmandur]

I am really weirdly happy that the different pole arms are given a reason to exist...but befuddled that Longswords, Battleaxes and Warhammers continue to serve no real purpose in being different. Battleaxes and Warhammers should offer a different Mastery trait.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Not really. Maybe? I'll try to explain.

To my mind, an attack "misses" when it fails to deal damage to the target. Hitting the armor, hitting the wall next to you, glancing off your chainmail, etc., are all just different kinds of misses because they fail to do damage. To the way my brain works, this is why we roll for damage: the attack roll establishes whether or not damage is rolled, and if so, the rolled amount of damage tells us whether it was a devastating blow or just a small scratch.

I can see exceptions being made for things like grenades and shotguns. Even though you missed your intended target, there is a larger area where other, possibly unintentional targets might take damage anyway. But for the most part, I think that a weapon that misses its target can miss for a variety of reasons, and it is the damage roll that determines how "good" the hit was.

I just think you're a little hung up on the words "hit", "miss", and "damage". And THAT'S OKAY. I completely understand people who are literal-minded. I'm with you, there.

But there's a LOT of terms in D&D that are named for the thing that best describes what they're doing, not the thing that describes the only thing they're doing. (And even the best part can be argued).

Damage on a miss is simply saying "It's not a miss, exactly."

There's a lot of things in life that are "like X" but "not exactly X" that are named "X".

 

[Incenjucar]

It would be messy, but it would be kind of interesting if DoaM couldn't reduce a target to 0hp.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I agree that the heavy property isn't exactly perfection but I also have no difficulty visualising what that means - a weapon whose centre of gravity is too high to be wielded effectively by a small individual.

the biggest problem with this assumption is greatswords. greatswords (like most swords) have their centre of gravity closer to the hilt with most weapons, so this definition just flat out doesn't fit your interpretation.

also, it's not that i can't visualize the heavy property - again, i just think it's boring.

I think I have more of an issue with 5e armour categories than weapons.

honestly, that's fair.

Plus the AC bonus, plus the bonus from the appropriate Fightijg Style (Dualist currently, might change in this who knows)...

these aren't new, though.

little tricks like pushing may or may not be helpful, hitting harder and avoiding being hit at the same time is always, always helpful.

knocking people prone is always helpful. generating advantage on people is always helpful. doing damage even on a miss is usually helpful. and they're all more interesting then a small bit of extra damage, even if it is combined with an AC bonus and a fighting style.

Plus a Fighter can add on a desired effect if needed, apparently.

we don't actually have any idea how that will work yet, so...we'll see what happens there.

I am really weirdly happy that the different pole arms are given a reason to exist...but befuddled that Longswords, Battleaxes and Warhammers continue to serve no real purpose in being different. Battleaxes and Warhammers should offer a different Mastery trait.

also yeah, battleaxes and warhammers and longswords all getting flex is nonsense to me too.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It would be messy, but it would be kind of interesting if DoaM couldn't reduce a target to 0hp.

Similarly, when 4e first introduced the Warlord, I was surprised to find that they could wake you up from 0. I was absolutely on board with them giving ("healing") HP, but it took me awhile to come around on them stopping you from dying by yelling at you. (Doesn't bother me anymore).

 

[Gradine]