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.

 

[Bluenose]

Here's a few weapons from BECM D&D with what you get for having various levels of Mastery with them.

First, the rather nice two-handed sword
Basic, 1 attack, 1d10 damage, no special abilities
Skilled, 2d6+1 damage, stun and deflect(1) - stun forces a saving throw vs death ray to avoid being stunned which means 1/3 movement and no attacks or casting spells, Deflect allows you to attempt a saving throw against an attack against you to negate damage that number of times
Expert, 2d8, stun, Deflect (2)
Master, 1st attack, 3d6+3, 2nd attack, 2d6+3, styn, deflect (2)
Grandmaster, 4d6+6, 3d6+2, stun, deflect (3)


Now the Mace
BS, 1d6
SK, 2d4, -1AC/1 - you improve your AC by 1 against 1 attack each round
EX, 2d4+2, -2AC/2, thrown attack at -/10/20 feet
MS, 2d4+4, -3AC/3, -/10/20 range
GM, 2d4+6, -4Ac/3, 10/20/30 range

And a missile weapon, the Longbow
BS, 1d6, range 70/140/210 feet
SK, 1d8+1, 90/150/220. -1AC/1, delay (make a save or lose initiative next round)
EX, 1d10+2, 110/170/230, -2AC/1, delay
MS 3d6, second attack 1d10+4, 130/180/240, -2AC/2, delay
GM, 4d4+2, 1d10+6, 150/200/250, -2AC/2, delay

There were other effects too, like the Flourish which was basically an AoE demoralise common to all masters. Other weapons had some other SFX attached. Any character could try and get mastery by spending a proficiency slot and getting training, though it wasn't automatic you'd succeed. The reason some entries give a second attack is because in BECMI you normally only got one attack each round. And it was an optional system so I don't know how many groups playing at higher levels (it was introduced in the later sets) used it.

Not sure that the 1D&D weapon master quite holds up so well.

 

[dave2008]

I get your point about power, but for us, the above characters and others are fun and viable.

People sometimes forget that fun is still a very viable option in 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

I will never understand the thought process that goes behind "this game doesn't offer me the chance to utterly ruin my character for play and make myself worthless. It is a terrible game!" Especially since it often comes from people we all know would spot the bad options and avoid them completely.

No one plays DnD to fail. Well, okay, I've met someone who does, but he does it to troll other people he is playing with, not because he thinks that is the point. But other than him, I'm glad the game lends itself to avoiding trap options that will make the player unable to contribute. Those options shouldn't exist.

It's not just that the game is too easy, it;s that the game

1. easy
2. heavily biased to one mentality
3. unbalanced between races (fixed as of TCOE and ODnD)
4. unbalanced between classes
5. built around assumptions of not using aspects 90% of tables use (feats, magic items, MCing)
6. offers little to no advice and modules to alter assumptions

For example the longsword and shield STR/CON barbarian or fighter is probably the weakest PC you can make. It can only deal damage, take damage, and jump. But it still tears the whole MM up. Because it can really deal damage, take damage, and jump. Despite the S&B Str/Con fighter being both iconic and inspired by hundreds of fantasy characters in various media.

But its boring. And this Mastery system does not do anything for it. Because Longsword, Battleaxe, and Warhammer have the exact same Mastery. And that Mastery is redundant as it does something the user would be already very good at. And the Masteries bonus are insignificant.

That's why I say they are making a D&D for noobs and casuals. One for Jim from Accounting and Jane from HR who never played the game can play. But as you see with the surveys for the bard, rogue, and druid, establish fans and vets hate the oversimplification and boring. I prefer D&D not to be the game for noobs. A game for noobs doesn't last 20 years.

 

[dave2008]

Here's a few weapons from BECM D&D with what you get for having various levels of Mastery with them.

First, the rather nice two-handed sword
Basic, 1 attack, 1d10 damage, no special abilities
Skilled, 2d6+1 damage, stun and deflect(1) - stun forces a saving throw vs death ray to avoid being stunned which means 1/3 movement and no attacks or casting spells, Deflect allows you to attempt a saving throw against an attack against you to negate damage that number of times
Expert, 2d8, stun, Deflect (2)
Master, 1st attack, 3d6+3, 2nd attack, 2d6+3, styn, deflect (2)
Grandmaster, 4d6+6, 3d6+2, stun, deflect (3)


Now the Mace
BS, 1d6
SK, 2d4, -1AC/1 - you improve your AC by 1 against 1 attack each round
EX, 2d4+2, -2AC/2, thrown attack at -/10/20 feet
MS, 2d4+4, -3AC/3, -/10/20 range
GM, 2d4+6, -4Ac/3, 10/20/30 range

And a missile weapon, the Longbow
BS, 1d6, range 70/140/210 feet
SK, 1d8+1, 90/150/220. -1AC/1, delay (make a save or lose initiative next round)
EX, 1d10+2, 110/170/230, -2AC/1, delay
MS 3d6, second attack 1d10+4, 130/180/240, -2AC/2, delay
GM, 4d4+2, 1d10+6, 150/200/250, -2AC/2, delay

There were other effects too, like the Flourish which was basically an AoE demoralise common to all masters. Other weapons had some other SFX attached. Any character could try and get mastery by spending a proficiency slot and getting training, though it wasn't automatic you'd succeed. The reason some entries give a second attack is because in BECMI you normally only got one attack each round. And it was an optional system so I don't know how many groups playing at higher levels (it was introduced in the later sets) used it.

Not sure that the 1D&D weapon master quite holds up so well.

You can't make a 1-1 comparison because the rest of the games are doing different things. However, what i do like is the idea that the weapon simply does more damage in the hands of those that are more skilled. I think that would be a good addition to 5e. Maybe make it a fighter feature.

 

[dave2008]

That's why I say they are making a D&D for noobs and casuals. One for Jim from Accounting and Jane from HR who never played the game can play. But as you see with the surveys for the bard, rogue, and druid, establish fans and vets hate the oversimplification and boring. I prefer D&D not to be the game for noobs. A game for noobs doesn't last 20 years.

Different people want different things. We have been playing for 30+ years and are neither noobs nor casuals. However, we have two champions in our group and they have a blast with the rest of us. Some people do not find a simple character sheet boring, but liberating. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Minigiant]

Different people want different things. We have been playing for 30+ years and are neither noobs nor casuals. However, we have two champions in our group and they have a blast with the rest of us. Some people do not find a simple character sheet boring, but liberating. Different strokes for different folks.

Oh of course. My point is that D&D has been overly biased to the mentality of traditionalist and neo-traditionalist D&D viewpoints to the detriment of people who like anything else.

How many classes are primary spellcasters: 6
How many classes are secondary spellcasters: 2, 3 if you count artificer
How many classes are primary warriors and not spellcasters at base: 2
How many classes are primary warriors and not spellcasters at base but offer an complex, difficult, or meaningful choices during play: 0

What problem does the the mastery system solve?: Nothing
What issue does the master system address?: Nothing

Different people want different things. But one set of people are feasting. And one set of folks are starving. Not everyone has DM that allows the champion fighter to be interesting or liberating. And the DMG and PHB don't teach players or DM who to make it so.

 

[Erandeni]

What problem does the the mastery system solve?: Nothing

Given that we just know second hand accounts about how mastery work at the most base level and next to nothing how it scales or interact with most of the classes and just tibbits with the rest, it's hard to say what solve or don't solve

What issue does the master system address?: Nothing

I think it's pretty clear that they are adressing the blandness and extreme similitude between weapons and at the same times give warrios some power in other areas that is not single target damage

Will it be enough? problably not
Will it be better? probably
Again it's hard to say with so little context

I found the idea of a fighter switching between different stances to adapt to the situation very evocative and fun, sometimes a mechanic doesn't need to fix something just make a class fun to play

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not just that the game is too easy, it;s that the game

1. easy
2. heavily biased to one mentality
3. unbalanced between races (fixed as of TCOE and ODnD)
4. unbalanced between classes
5. built around assumptions of not using aspects 90% of tables use (feats, magic items, MCing)
6. offers little to no advice and modules to alter assumptions

1) Debatable. I certainly have never felt like it was too easy

2) Sure, but while I want more crafting and stronghold rules to affect the game world beyond violence, I also have long ago found 3pp stuff to cover that. It is a problem, and there should be more solutions in official content for it, But this isn't an insurmountable problem for those of us who are long-time players/DMs

4) Yes, but weirdly point #1 keeps being brought up as a reason not to fix that imbalance. Which is bizarre to me, because again point #1 is debatable at best.

5) Yes, and? Like I said, if you are no longer a new player/DM, you should be aware of those design decisions and adjust appropriately. And if you are a new player/DM, you often don't notice anything.

6) I agree, the DMG should offer more advice on how to adjust things. However, this is again not a reason to avoid fixing point #4.

For example the longsword and shield STR/CON barbarian or fighter is probably the weakest PC you can make. It can only deal damage, take damage, and jump. But it still tears the whole MM up. Because it can really deal damage, take damage, and jump. Despite the S&B Str/Con fighter being both iconic and inspired by hundreds of fantasy characters in various media.

Why is it a problem that a perfectly viable character choice is perfectly viable? Do we want to secretly make it so that one of the most iconic fantasy archetypes of all time is hard countered by a percentage of the monsters in the game? Why? And isn't it rather trivial to take a few spellcaster monsters, and throw up some spells like Hold Person or Wall of Force and shut down the character?

But its boring. And this Mastery system does not do anything for it. Because Longsword, Battleaxe, and Warhammer have the exact same Mastery. And that Mastery is redundant as it does something the user would be already very good at. And the Masteries bonus are insignificant.

I agree, it is a bit boring. So lets make that character BETTER, let's make them LESS boring. And I agree, the flex mastery does seem to be a bit over-used and redundant if you are looking at those three weapons. But does that mean the entire system is worthless? No, it isn't enough by itself, but it is a good step in the right direction.

That's why I say they are making a D&D for noobs and casuals. One for Jim from Accounting and Jane from HR who never played the game can play. But as you see with the surveys for the bard, rogue, and druid, establish fans and vets hate the oversimplification and boring. I prefer D&D not to be the game for noobs. A game for noobs doesn't last 20 years.

You are wrong. A game made for noobs is EXACTLY what the Core Rulebooks should present as the baseline. One of the biggest game franchises world wide is Pokemon. Pokemon is trivially easy to beat as a baseline game, it is made for 10 year olds. That's why the community develops ways for masters of the game to make it more challenging. Nuzlocke challenges are a thing because Pokemon is "too easy", but it didn't become a massive franchise because the base games are designed for expert level play. Because a game that only caters to those that understand the game dies, or becomes incredibly niche.

Now, as a counter to this, YES, they need to give better advice on how to adjust the difficulty of the system. 100% that should happen. But the base game with the base assumptions should absolutely be made so that a group of 13 year olds can get the books as a christmas present and start playing the game.

 

[Minigiant]

1) Debatable. I certainly have never felt like it was too easy

2) Sure, but while I want more crafting and stronghold rules to affect the game world beyond violence, I also have long ago found 3pp stuff to cover that. It is a problem, and there should be more solutions in official content for it, But this isn't an insurmountable problem for those of us who are long-time players/DMs

4) Yes, but weirdly point #1 keeps being brought up as a reason not to fix that imbalance. Which is bizarre to me, because again point #1 is debatable at best.

5) Yes, and? Like I said, if you are no longer a new player/DM, you should be aware of those design decisions and adjust appropriately. And if you are a new player/DM, you often don't notice anything.

6) I agree, the DMG should offer more advice on how to adjust things. However, this is again not a reason to avoid fixing point #4.



Why is it a problem that a perfectly viable character choice is perfectly viable? Do we want to secretly make it so that one of the most iconic fantasy archetypes of all time is hard countered by a percentage of the monsters in the game? Why? And isn't it rather trivial to take a few spellcaster monsters, and throw up some spells like Hold Person or Wall of Force and shut down the character?



I agree, it is a bit boring. So lets make that character BETTER, let's make them LESS boring. And I agree, the flex mastery does seem to be a bit over-used and redundant if you are looking at those three weapons. But does that mean the entire system is worthless? No, it isn't enough by itself, but it is a good step in the right direction.



You are wrong. A game made for noobs is EXACTLY what the Core Rulebooks should present as the baseline. One of the biggest game franchises world wide is Pokemon. Pokemon is trivially easy to beat as a baseline game, it is made for 10 year olds. That's why the community develops ways for masters of the game to make it more challenging. Nuzlocke challenges are a thing because Pokemon is "too easy", but it didn't become a massive franchise because the base games are designed for expert level play. Because a game that only caters to those that understand the game dies, or becomes incredibly niche.

Now, as a counter to this, YES, they need to give better advice on how to adjust the difficulty of the system. 100% that should happen. But the base game with the base assumptions should absolutely be made so that a group of 13 year olds can get the books as a christmas present and start playing the game.

I not saying that D&D can't be a game for new and casual players. I'm staying that official D&D shouldn't only be for new and casual players.

ESPECIALLY if WOTC gets mad that veteran players give their money to 3pp for advanced and alternative content they refuse to publish.

 

[dave2008]

Oh of course. My point is that D&D has been overly biased to the mentality of traditionalist and neo-traditionalist D&D viewpoints to the detriment of people who like anything else.

How many classes are primary spellcasters: 6
How many classes are secondary spellcasters: 2, 3 if you count artificer
How many classes are primary warriors and not spellcasters at base: 2
How many classes are primary warriors and not spellcasters at base but offer an complex, difficult, or meaningful choices during play: 0

What problem does the the mastery system solve?: Nothing
What issue does the master system address?: Nothing

Different people want different things. But one set of people are feasting. And one set of folks are starving. Not everyone has DM that allows the champion fighter to be interesting or liberating. And the DMG and PHB don't teach players or DM who to make it so.

D&D isn't the game for everyone and that is OK. It seems to be doing fine. I get that you don't like it, but it seems a lot, and I mean a lot, of people do.

Personally, the D&D 5e we play is different from what most people play. We have a page of house rules that we use to make the game fit our play style a bit more. And honestly, we have had more fun playing this version of D&D than any other, and we continue to have a blast. Our 2nd favorite edition is 4e, so I wouldn't necessarily call us traditionalist, but who knows - I am not the one making up those groups!

I don't personally want 5e to change much if at all, so I am happy with what I have seen for 2024. I like the idea of small incremental modifications every 5-10 years. Keep D&D at thing, and then let other games fill the other roles.

I mean there are lots of other D&D games out there that may fit you better (like PF2e), so why not enjoy those and let those who enjoy 5e enjoy it?