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.

 

[billd91]

I see no reason those characters shouldn’t be able to wear an opponent down on an unsuccessful attack.

Except for the idea that wearing your opponent down, as opposed to failing to do so, is normally a mark of being successful, not being unsuccessful.

 

[billd91]

It is not just about Damage on a miss, it is about the resistance put forward when Fighters get improvements.

Any improvements, or just ones that people don’t like or feel don‘t fit? Or are you just being hyperbolic?

 

[SkidAce]

Grogs and members of the SSS* have spent the last 50 years making sure Fighters cannot have nice thing. This time given their diminishing numbers and the reduced pull they have it looks like hopefully they will just have to take this lump. During the D&DNext playtest they threatened to walk if Fighters got DoaM and due to the designers only looking back, they folded like wet cardboard. This time around the designers seem to be more forward looking and the audience is getting ever younger, meaning grognards are getting a diminishing voice.

* Society for Spellcasting Supremacy

Grognard is not a pejorative....see sig.

 

[SkidAce]

Be careful painting all the opposition with a single brush. I would love to see Fighters get improvements. But the swordsman in me (and yes, I actually train in and teach the subject) can't get on board with "damage on a miss." For me, there is no reason to have damage on a miss. I would, however, be totally okay with "carry-through damage" (where one attack levels 10 guys) or characters who get so strong/skilled with their weapons that they can produce shockwaves of force, or whatever.

Other people may have different objections for different reasons, but that's mine. I have thematic problems with some of high-level D&D, but Fighters who could pull off feats like Beowulf, Cu Chulainn or any one of a number of Greek Demigods is not one of them.

Agreed.

 

[billd91]

The bolded element in my opinion. Many cannot image mundane characters doing stuff they cannot imagine doing themselves, magic gets a free pass. I also suspect a lack of familiarity with the kind of myths where heroes level mountains with a sword stroke or throw chunks of real estate at their enemies the size of major lakes.

Oh, I don’t think people aren’t familiar with legendary heroes leveling mountains with a sword stroke. It’s just that’s not necessarily the fantasy we want to play for our D&D. It’s a bit more satisfying playing the Aragorns, Boromirs, Gimlis, and Odysseuss than Hercules. It’s why everyone roots for Batman when he fights with Superman. He’s cooler, far more skilled (to the point of modestly superhuman), but he’s WAY more relatable than someone born extremely superior because his old man is a god or he‘s basically got the power of one himself.

 

[Remathilis]

Not really the same logic. The hammer isn’t an area filled with flames.

Logic also says that you shouldn't be able to dodge a 40 foot diameter sphere of fire while standing in a 30 ft square room and take no damage while remaining in the same 5 ft square you started in, but once monks and rogues get to 7th level, logic has taken a permanent holiday.

 

[billd91]

Logic also says that you shouldn't be able to dodge a 40 foot diameter sphere of fire while standing in a 30 ft square room and take no damage while remaining in the same 5 ft square you started in, but once monks and rogues get to 7th level, logic has taken a permanent holiday.

Then why spend any effort getting worked up about a target escaping any damage from a high level fighter with a greatsword?

 

[Remathilis]

Then why spend any effort getting worked up about a target escaping any damage from a high level fighter with a greatsword?

Why get worked up about the high level fighter wearing you down even when you're avoiding his blows?

D&D combat is abstract to the point of illogic. This ain't gonna break no one's brain.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except for the idea that wearing your opponent down, as opposed to failing to do so, is normally a mark of being successful, not being unsuccessful.

Nah, succeeding in your goal is the mark of being successful. If you’re going for an injury or kill and all you manage to do is wear your opponent down, you were unsuccessful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Be careful painting all the opposition with a single brush. I would love to see Fighters get improvements. But the swordsman in me (and yes, I actually train in and teach the subject) can't get on board with "damage on a miss." For me, there is no reason to have damage on a miss. I would, however, be totally okay with "carry-through damage" (where one attack levels 10 guys) or characters who get so strong/skilled with their weapons that they can produce shockwaves of force, or whatever.

Other people may have different objections for different reasons, but that's mine. I have thematic problems with some of high-level D&D, but Fighters who could pull off feats like Beowulf, Cu Chulainn or any one of a number of Greek Demigods is not one of them.

The way you described hits in a different post (HP reducing heavy wounds to scratches) in my opinion is totally consistent woth Damage on a Miss.

If a hit is not really a solid hit, why should a miss not be enough to whittle down some HP?

What I could really get on board with would be that a miss can never reduce some creature below 1 HP.