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.

 

[Incenjucar]

I don't know what to say to this. If you're letting other people (or worse, the rules) "limit your fantasy," I'm not sure there's a fix for that.

Homebrewing is going to be a much better argument after they stop printing spells.

 

[CleverNickName]

They won't stop reprinting spells, but I wager they will refluff them.

Take "Slow," for example. We have no idea what it looks like, and won't until the UA is sent to us, but we know that it obviously slows the opponent. So what if the Slow Mastery looks like this?

Slow: Make a weapon attack against the target. On a hit, it takes damage as normal, and its speed is reduced by 10 feet until the start of your next turn.​

That's just the ray of frost cantrip after I reflavored it to sound less "magical":

A frigid beam of blue-white light streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell weapon attack against the target. On a hit, it takes 1d8 cold damage as normal, and its speed is reduced by 10 feet until the start of your next turn. The spell’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (2d8), 11th level (3d8), and 17th level (4d8).​

I can imagine several of these Mastery features being reflavored cantrips. Lose your reaction per shocking grasp. Take ongoing damage per acid splash. Can't recover hit points per chill touch. Hit adjacent foes per green flame blade. Etc., etc., etc...

 

[tetrasodium]

Oh. I get you.

I’ve seen people double down on a 4e style of play where they barely do anything outside of combat. Entire sessions almost nothing but combat. Maps
Minis and terrain.

I’ve seen people play it with very rare combats, sitting in the living room floor, what combat there ever was was totm and over in a few moments.

And a lot in between.

I’ve run it like either, sometimes in the same session.

Also I’ve seen a lot of hacks and other innovations brought in from other games. Which I think the intentional voids in 5e help facilitate.

I don't think that's an example of being different things for different people so much as different quantities of the same things from session to session. Even if you want to add back in areas that were cut back or outright removed that were important to someone's different thing of preference, you really can't because the system is designed against it in too many ways with any PC being almost guaranteed to be well above the curve. Cutesy inclusions that return a thing in name only like class abilities that reduce crafting costs by a set percentage without crafting solid rules the GM needs to build/finish or a class ability to have what is effectively a single soulbound scroll only serve to highlight the fact that much of what was cut can not be rebuilt like when it existed & could be handwaved or whatever.

 

[Minigiant]

There will be features for new players, and for those players that are new DMs.

Two things that will take up a lot more real estate the books is a substantial “How to play” section in the PHB before anything else. The DMG will have an adventure template or chassis (I forget) with commentary on how to flesh it out and how to branch away from it.

Ultimately that was the "issue" with 5e. It was made to be easy for beginners to learn. However they left out a ton of crucial DM advice and info in the DMG and didn't provide either the complex warrior or simple mage nor the info to create them yourself as a DM. 5E hinged on the expectation that veteran 3e, 2e, and 1e DM would come over to 5e en mass and concert all their modules so by the time 5e player got experienced, there would be "advanced 5e" for them.

That didn't happen. Many didn't convert. And advanced, narrative, simulation, or simplifed 5e didn't come until late.

The question is whether OneD&D will use the same publishing style. And it sorta look like it will so far with Masteries and the playtest Rogue.

 

[darjr]

How about something like:

When making an attack, while wielding a weapon with this property, I can cause minor damage to a target within reach of that weapon.

Maybe that damage is related to the weapon. Maybe I can do it “proficiency” number of times or whatever the tier is number of times.

 

[CleverNickName]

How about something like:

When making an attack, while wielding a weapon with this property, I can cause minor damage to a target within reach of that weapon.

Maybe that damage is related to the weapon. Maybe I can do it “proficiency” number of times or whatever the tier is number of times.

Sounds like a re-flavored magic missile spell. 1d4+1 damage, can't miss.

 

[darjr]

Sounds like a re-flavored magic missile spell. 1d4+1 damage, can't miss.

Yea.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's what my current homebrew for weapons are.

Weapons are grouped. A character can get a Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization.

Weapon Specialization is the simple option. Specializations give +X to damage rolls with the weapon.
Weapon Focus are the complex option. Foci give access to an exotic focus attack.

For example,

Axe Specialization gives you a damage bonus to you attacks with handaxes, battleaxes, greataxes, or halberds equal to your proficiency
Axe Focus lets you ignore Dodge and Disengage with with handaxes, battleaxes, greataxes, or halberds.

Flail Specialization gives you a damage bonus to you attacks with flails and whips equal to your proficiency
Flail Focus lets you forgo an attack to give your next attack a bonus to attack and damage rolls equal to your Dexterity modifier. Stackable up to prof times.

My cousin's fighter walks around the dungeon spinning his +1 flail for a first turn +9 alpha strike then swaps to his other weapons.

 

[OB1]

Some late replies, but as a former hater of DoaM who has since warmed to it, I thought I'd chip in.

But this is what rolling a 1 on your damage roll is supposed to emulate, right? The damage roll determines the amount of damage.

So a miss means you roll 0 on your weapon damage, but you still add your STR/DEX mod because of the effort it took to avoid damage from a master of the weapon with the natural Str or Dex to back it up.

The trouble is, my brain keeps defaulting to "why bother with the attack roll at all" if the target is going to take damage no matter what. How is this different from automatically rolling damage every round and letting a roll of 1 be that "graze" result?

I wouldn't mind the damage you do to be reduced by the amount you missed by. So if you have a +5 STR and miss by 4, you only do 1 point of damage. And if you miss by 1, you do 4 points. A Nat1 should also always do no damage. This reads 'graze' to me.

I really wonder just how much of a motive this is for Wizards of the Coast. Just from looking at sales numbers alone, it doesn't really make sense. More people are playing D&D now than ever before, and 5th Edition is the best-selling edition to date. New players are already adopting 5E, in droves...why would they mess with that?

It's gotta be something else, but I don't know what it could be.

Honestly, so far the UA has existed in a weird in-between space for me. It's way more than just consolidating the Everything class/race errata into a convenient book for new players to start from, but far less than a full scale revision of the game. The only playtest packet that really wowed me was the first one, as I thought the new backgrounds & species are a way better way to create a character than the 2014 rules. Since then, it's been hit and miss, but mostly just different. Maybe once all the classes are revealed, it will start to make sense what they are trying to accomplish. My guess is that they're trying to make starting the game at level 1 much easier, while giving it more depth past level 3.

What I worry about is that they are overfocused on 'fixing' balance issues that only exist on a white board, or trying to raise the overall popularity of classes that are adored by the people who actually play them (druid).

 

[Parmandur]

Honestly, so far the UA has existed in a weird in-between space for me. It's way more than just consolidating the Everything class/race errata into a convenient book for new players to start from, but far less than a full scale revision of the game. The only playtest packet that really wowed me was the first one, as I thought the new backgrounds & species are a way better way to create a character than the 2014 rules. Since then, it's been hit and miss, but mostly just different. Maybe once all the classes are revealed, it will start to make sense what they are trying to accomplish. My guess is that they're trying to make starting the game at level 1 much easier, while giving it more depth past level 3.

What I worry about is that they are overfocused on 'fixing' balance issues that only exist on a white board, or trying to raise the overall popularity of classes that are adored by the people who actually play them (druid).

Another thing to consider is that initial playtests are going to intentionally push the envelope so that they can test where people are open or close dto change, so they can walk stuff back. We can already see that with the rules glossary.