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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Interestingly there's a mini-series on a YouTube channel going on right now where they're building oversized anime-style weapons and applying Ren Faire combat skills to them, and one of the big findings is that it was borderline impossible to avoid getting hit by the weapons even with a shield.

I mean, I think we already knew this from polearms and stuff, didn't we? With really large weapons, you kind of have to "wrestle" - i.e. get a grip on the weapon somehow (doable even with swords if you have armoured gloves).

D&D has possibly the least realistic melee combat of any RPG though lol.

 

[Lanefan]

Would it work for you if the property didn't allow for the (what will very likely be ability modifier) damage to be done on a one? "You miss, but do not roll a 1 on the d20." - type language?

Hmmm - I'd already kinda baked this in to my assumptions, given that in 5e a 1 always misses.

The idea of missing by less than 5 (or rolling a nat. 1) might be on to something. That said, I'd rather see the reduced damage happen if you roll within +/-2 of the AC (nat. 20 over-rides and always does full), such that you've got that same 5-pip range while otherwise cancelling out. (and I'd then turn around and make this universal for all weapons rather than just an ability of a few)

Don't get me wrong - I like the general direction they're going with weapon abilities here, it's just that this one really sticks in my craw. Well, this one and Finesse, which has always stuck in my craw.

They do need to - and have room to -get more creative with weapon damage dice, though. Start using odd numbers and double (or triple) dice e.g. 3d4 for a Dwarven 2-handed axe, or a d9+1 for flamberge (or 2d5, which gives the same range on a bell curve). This is trivially easy to implement now, as online rollers can handle "dice" of any size and at-table players can figure it out pretty fast (e.g. a d9 is a d10, reroll 1s).

 

[Incenjucar]

I mean, I think we already knew this from polearms and stuff, didn't we? With really large weapons, you kind of have to "wrestle" - i.e. get a grip on the weapon somehow (doable even with swords if you have armoured gloves).

D&D has possibly the least realistic melee combat of any RPG though lol.

Yeah. The disconnect between D&D and actual combat is kind of hilarious.

 

[JohnSnow]

But D&D has never taken that attitude.

This is most notably demonstrated with spells, many of which simply cannot fail.

IMO, the fix to that is to institute a failure mechanism for spells, because powerful, reliable magic causes all kinds of problems to which they've been trying to cobble together a solution for nearly 50 years.

Reliable magic (even if occasional) leads inevitably to Eberron or something even more high-magic. It can have no other outcome. Being able to consistently break natural laws is simply too powerful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Because within minutes there'll be people (an I'd likely be one of 'em) saying that because damage was done it counts as a hit. Far better to clarify up front and head off those arguments.

Why should people say that?
Ah reading comprehension!

 

[Lanefan]

IF it's 1d8+STR MOD, and you just deal STR MOD, you've grazed even lighter than a 1 on the die. Even closer to a miss!

Ah - I'm forgetting that a house rule we brought in many years ago that we call "minimals" is in fact a house rule.

For us it makes no sense that someone with, say, a +3 weapon and +5 from strength either does 9 or more points damage on a swing or does nothing. So, to fill in that gap a bit we have it that if you roll minimum damage you then roll a die of that size to determine what you actually did. Here, as 1+3+5=9 it'd be a d9.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

IMO, the fix to that is to institute a failure mechanism for spells, because powerful, reliable magic causes all kinds of problems to which they've been trying to cobble together a solution for nearly 50 years.

Reliable magic (even if occasional) leads inevitably to Eberron or something even more high-magic. It can have no other outcome.

I 100% agree and I think it's not an uncommon opinion, but I also don't think it will happen any time whilst WotC is in charge of D&D (even though they came close to it with 4E, they still never made it happen for the out-of-combat spells).

 

[JohnSnow]

I'll add that you can have spells that replicate the effects of mundane items be mostly reliable (about as much as making an attack roll). For balance purposes, it doesn't matter if they miss or fizzle.

There's nothing game or setting-breaking about what is essentially a magical arrow, or the ability to light a torch with magic...provided there is some relatively simple mechanism by which access can be taken away; via binding their hands, gagging them, stripping them of their spell component pouch or staff, or whatever.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Ah - I'm forgetting that a house rule we brought in many years ago that we call "minimals" is in fact a house rule.

For us it makes no sense that someone with, say, a +3 weapon and +5 from strength either does 9 or more points damage on a swing or does nothing. So, to fill in that gap a bit we have it that if you roll minimum damage you then roll a die of that size to determine what you actually did. Here, as 1+3+5=9 it'd be a d9.

How do you roll a d9?

Also: It becomes ever clearer why you might get stuck on words like "miss" having concrete meaning when you've developed your own way to build-in other gradients of lesser-hits.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

No argument here. The question I'm asking myself is, which problem(s) are the devs trying to fix by giving hammers the ability to remove hit points on a missed attack roll?

They are trying to make weapons have differences...so that it makes weapon choice meaningful in the ruleset (versus just in the narrative).