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]

Get rid of DOAM with spells and then we can talk.

What spells have DOAM?

Area spells hit everything within that area (well, more pedantically, they hit the area itself and affect anyone unfortunate enough to be there at the time), though the damage might be mitigated by some luck etc. on the part of those hit.*

Are there other damage spells, in particular spells that target individuals rather than areas, that do damage on a miss? If yes, maybe they need repair as well.

* - it occurred to me while typing this that another fix for AoE spells might be to ditch the save, reduce the damage dice a bit, and then roll damage individually for each creature affected; with the variances in damage taken then being reflective of one's luck etc.

 

[Lanefan]

The simple solution then is to not allow snakes to obtain weapon mastery with greatswords and heavy crossbows, the only two weapons on the table that do doam.

Perhaps, but the response was to someone quoting (the 5e PH I think) where it says there's no signs of physical damage (which club-upside-the-head-strongly implies that no physical damage is taken) until one is below half hit points.

That said, a greatsword-wielding snake where the sword is lashed to its tail or something and the snake is big enough to use it seems an idea too good to waste.

 

[Azzy]

It has very little to do with being a noob or an older player. Some players enjoy (and some players need) a simple option. Funny this: We're not all the same.

No, but the post I was replying to framed it as an "intro class". Hence my post.

 

[Azzy]

Very, very much yes. And that class also needs to be playably balanced with the other, more complex, classes.

When first starting out, many players (including me, at the time) gravitate toward the simplest option there is in order to flatten out the learning curve a bit. Failing to provide that "simplest option" raises the entry barrier, IMO by quite a bit

Well, not all new players choose the trajectory that you chose, so it's kind of presumptive that your experience can be mapped out to others.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No, but the post I was replying to framed it as an "intro class". Hence my post.

Ah. Don't mind me. I just get a little salty when it looks like someone thinks that simple classes are for new players or dummies. I ain't either of those, and I love playing basic human fighters. As someone who usually spins plates DMing, it's just comfort food.

I think we agree that not all new players have any need or desire for simple classes. Some do, and some old players have need or desire (desire in my case) for them. Heck, many many players in my experience should ought to play simple classes but choose not to.

At any rate, they're certainly needed in the game! IMO each class should have a simple subclass (and the core class chassis should be pretty darn simple too!)

 

[Azzy]

Calling Hercules and Gilgamesh out as examples of Fighters is the same as calling out Michael Jordan as an example of a basketball player or Tiger Woods as an example of a golfer; in that rather than being typical of their craft they were, in their prime, the absolute pinnacle of it.

You can take that up with the author of the 2e PHB.

I can go shoot hoops every day but I'll still never be MJ. I can bash a ball around a golf course all I like but I'll most certainly never be Tiger Woods.

Well, then you're saying that you'll never be as high a level in the basketball or golf classes as those two.

Same holds true of Falstaffe the Fighter - she might be or become pretty good at combat but she'll still never be Hercules; and telling her she will is poor advertising.

If she reaches sufficiently high enough level as a fighter, she just might be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As an aside, the best thing DC could have done for Superman would have been to have a villain actually kill Lois, Lana, Jimmy, Perry or someone else Clark really cares about, and never bring them back, Gwen Stacy style.

Then we’d believe it was possible for Clark to actually lose hard, and the stakes would be real.

I’d rather we not, thanks.

The best thing they could do is to not use him all the time forever always, and just only tell a story of a given hero when someone has a good idea, but that’ll never happen.

Second best is giving him people to mentor, although I despise that they killed Conner Kent Superboy just to make sure John Kent Superboy would very extra most special.

Like…there is no parallel between John and Clark’s story. There was with Conner. Nothing comes full circle, now, the circle just…ends.

 

[Minigiant]

10. Your Cover
11. Your Trained Skills and Abilities (i.e. things specific to your character that augment any of 2-9)

Online, sure. Not convinced I'd want to do this with real dice at the table, though.

My point is D*D abstracts armor, shield, dodge, parry, luck, hardiness, bloat, and magic all in AC so you never know what causes a miss.

An armored fighter, unarmored monk, and a barbarian with a shield can all have 16 AC.

 

[Incenjucar]

My point is D*D abstracts armor, shield, dodge, parry, luck, hardiness, bloat, and magic all in AC so you never know what causes a miss.

An armored fighter, unarmored monk, and a barbarian with a shield can all have 16 AC.

Indeed. Even with something like the Dex bonus, it could mean completely dodging physical contact, intercepting the attack, redirecting the attack to a harmless location where the impact is easily absorbed, or twisting the attack so that it's harmless (the flat of the sword vs. the edge, etc.).

 

[Minigiant]

Calling Hercules and Gilgamesh out as examples of Fighters is the same as calling out Michael Jordan as an example of a basketball player or Tiger Woods as an example of a golfer; in that rather than being typical of their craft they were, in their prime, the absolute pinnacle of it.

I can go shoot hoops every day but I'll still never be MJ. I can bash a ball around a golf course all I like but I'll most certainly never be Tiger Woods. Same holds true of Falstaffe the Fighter - she might be or become pretty good at combat but she'll still never be Hercules; and telling her she will is poor advertising.

So they are high level then?