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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I can see why they have floated declaration for paladins as it is limited to once per round. To maximise fighter benefits, limitation such as that would be less of a problem for other classes than the fighter.

Um, are you talking about the smite limits? Because those are for a different set of mechanics, and more related to spellcasting and nova damage.

 

[Chaosmancer]

More that the restrictions and drawbacks have been removed from other (mostly caster) classes. Put them back, says I.

You can say it but A) The Vast Majority of people don't want it and B) WoTC isn't going to do it.

Very, very few people actually have problems with the buffs and power given to casters EXCEPT in the realm that Fighter's haven't been given similar treatment. And again, I have to ask, why is it so hard to buff fighters? Why, if given the choice between "nerf everything in the entire game" or "buff fighters" is the more acceptable solution to nerf everything?

Yeah, giving something like that to any ranged weapon is asking for headaches.

Check the list, already there.

Unless - and this is a key point for many of these abilities - they are made available to pure single-class Fighters* only. The moment you multiclass it's whoop there go those abilities, never to be seen again. Gamist as hell, I admit, but having certain things (for all classes) be available only to single-class characters really serves to chop down on multi-classing shenanigans.

* - and some Fighter-adjacents, as long as the character only has one class.

But that isn't how the game works, you never have a multi-class that says "well, you don't REALLY get to multiclass."

And frankly, instead of creating a precedent that only some classes can actually be multi-classed.... they can just keep doing what they have done for the entire life of 5e and just not let these things stack. It is a perfectly fine solution.

Knocking an enemy prone instead of doing damage can be huge. It pretty much has to spend the next round getting up (if it can), meanwhile you can either keep it prone or whale on it.

If these work as ability-plus-damage then those upthread concerned about the return of spiked-chain foolishness have a valid point.

Wrong, that is your houserule. They have to spend half their movement to get up, and don't trigger any opportunity attacks in the process. So, you knock them prone, they get up and whale on you, you knock them prone again... who wins that fight? The person who can actually deal damage.

Again, you have to know what the actual rules are if you are going to accurately discuss them.

A full-martial party would, I think, be a rather uncommon sight. And, not many of these abilities would stack; slowing being the most obvious one, and if there's a weakening (that is to say, temporary Strength-reducing) ability that would be another.

And a full martial party SHOULDN'T be more rare than an all-caster party. That is another sign that there are serious imbalances in the game. A party of all casters is perfectly viable as is, with no multi-class. An all martial party feels weird and under-powered.

 

[Pauln6]

Um, are you talking about the smite limits? Because those are for a different set of mechanics, and more related to spellcasting and nova damage.

Yes but what I meant is that the once per round declared before you roll limitation there has sound reasoning - to limit the prospects of mega nova damage by choosing to smite after scoring a crit.

Limiting fighter manoeuvres to once per round to limit multiclass cheese has fewer points in its favour. Most multiclass builds max at two attacks per round so limiting manoeuvres to 1/round has a greater impact on fighters with 3 or 4 attacks per round, which is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Is that good for the Fighter? Abilities that seem appropriate for 1st/2nd level are held back to 4th because otherwise someone might take a dip to grab them? You get no significant abilities till 5th level because another class might find them useful? Doesn't seem like it makes the Fighter a more attractive option.

True, but most of what the fighter is desperately missing are actually high-level abilities.

You could handle skill buffs with the superiority system, with die size gated by class level, and that is really the only "low level" abilities fighter's really need. Everything else fits much better into higher tiers.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes but what I meant is that the once per round declared before you roll limitation there has sound reasoning - to limit the prospects of mega nova damage by choosing to smite after scoring a crit.

Limiting fighter manoeuvres to once per round to limit multiclass cheese has fewer points in its favour. Most multiclass builds max at two attacks per round so limiting manoeuvres to 1/round has a greater impact on fighters with 3 or 4 attacks per round, which is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

Okay, I'm still missing what paladin smite rules have to do with this, but I don't actually like those. I am fine with it being once per turn instead of every attack, but I actually want them to additionally be able to use the bonus action smites (and find that, compared to the raw damage of the non-action Divine Smite, the bonus action spells are a little on the weak side) on the same turn as the Divine Smite.

But the limitations of not allowing a Fighter to stack slow effects has NOTHING to do with preventing multi-class cheese or the paladin's nova ability. It has to do with not allowing a character to simply declare victory in every single fight with an easily accessible combo. As mentioned, the Longbow alone already can cause the same effect, it was simply that the Rogue or the Mobile feat was the best way to achieve that complete immunity from enemy action in the same way that just simply having a longbow under these rules would have.

And I imagine most of the fighter mastery abilities will activate on every single attack, it is just specific abilities that will work exactly like similar abilities will work. Because as much as I want the fighter to do cool and epic things, I don't want ANYONE to be able to at-will lockdown a target who then has no chance of escape until their hp hits zero or the PC gets unlucky and misses enough times.

 

[Pauln6]

Okay, I'm still missing what paladin smite rules have to do with this, but I don't actually like those. I am fine with it being once per turn instead of every attack, but I actually want them to additionally be able to use the bonus action smites (and find that, compared to the raw damage of the non-action Divine Smite, the bonus action spells are a little on the weak side) on the same turn as the Divine Smite.

But the limitations of not allowing a Fighter to stack slow effects has NOTHING to do with preventing multi-class cheese or the paladin's nova ability. It has to do with not allowing a character to simply declare victory in every single fight with an easily accessible combo. As mentioned, the Longbow alone already can cause the same effect, it was simply that the Rogue or the Mobile feat was the best way to achieve that complete immunity from enemy action in the same way that just simply having a longbow under these rules would have.

And I imagine most of the fighter mastery abilities will activate on every single attack, it is just specific abilities that will work exactly like similar abilities will work. Because as much as I want the fighter to do cool and epic things, I don't want ANYONE to be able to at-will lockdown a target who then has no chance of escape until their hp hits zero or the PC gets unlucky and misses enough times.

I admit, I can't really assess paladin smite spells because I have only seen them used perhaps twice. Limiting paladin smite crit damage has been more of an issue in our campaign. Also, I can see that limiting paladin actions in the same round might help keep a lid on the 5 minute work day for a class that would be perfectly functional and solid without them.

But I agree on both counts: weapon mastery should be at will but should not stack. If they want to add additional abilities when scoring a crit or something, that might be cool but someone who can't stand up from prone either have their movement reduced to 0 or is incapacitated. I don't see any need to complicate fights with multiple monsters with stuff that needs to be tracked in a fight.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I admit, I can't really assess paladin smite spells because I have only seen them used perhaps twice. Limiting paladin smite crit damage has been more of an issue in our campaign. Also, I can see that limiting paladin actions in the same round might help keep a lid on the 5 minute work day for a class that would be perfectly functional and solid without them.

Well, it is pretty simple. The spell smites always do less damage than non-spell smites, and add a rider effect that in theory makes up for the smaller damage. However, spell-less smites take no action, and spell smites take a bonus action to activate, increasing the cost of using them. In my opinion, that keeps them imbalanced (they have been improved since they can now be activated after the hit, like the spell-less smites) because no action and more damage is better than less damage, action cost, and a saving throw versus an effect.

The crit damage doesn't bother me too much, because the person who never smites unless they crit is just doing normal damage all the time.

The limit does prevent them from burning two spell slots a turn, and can help with the 5-min workday, but sometimes I think it is okay to let people burn multiple resources a turn.

But I agree on both counts: weapon mastery should be at will but should not stack. If they want to add additional abilities when scoring a crit or something, that might be cool but someone who can't stand up from prone either have their movement reduced to 0 or is incapacitated. I don't see any need to complicate fights with multiple monsters with stuff that needs to be tracked in a fight.

Something on a crit would be nice. The reason the crusher feat was awesome was having the at-will utility and the critical awesomeness

 

[Lanefan]

But that isn't how the game works, you never have a multi-class that says "well, you don't REALLY get to multiclass."

And frankly, instead of creating a precedent that only some classes can actually be multi-classed.... they can just keep doing what they have done for the entire life of 5e and just not let these things stack. It is a perfectly fine solution.

Multi-classing into a class - any class - should IMO never provide all the same benefits and features available to a single-class, or at least not as easily or early.

Why?

To discourage dips based on nothing other than optimization, to discourage jack-of-all-trades characters (a group of specialists need to be more of a team than a group where each character can do a bit of everything), and to - very intentionally - make multiclassing just a bit less attractive. (and with all the classes and sub-classes the game has, odds are that pretty much any not-OP character concept already has a class ready-made to suit it)

Wrong, that is your houserule. They have to spend half their movement to get up, and don't trigger any opportunity attacks in the process.

My idea for the weapon mastery bit would keep them down for a full round at cost of doing any damage, i.e a change to how it works otherwise.

And a full martial party SHOULDN'T be more rare than an all-caster party. That is another sign that there are serious imbalances in the game. A party of all casters is perfectly viable as is, with no multi-class. An all martial party feels weird and under-powered.

Given that in every survey anywhere Fighter remains the most-played class, how commonly-seen in the wild are all-caster parties?

 

[CleverNickName]

Multi-classing into a class - any class - should IMO never provide all the same benefits and features available to a single-class, or at least not as easily or early.

Why?

To discourage dips based on nothing other than optimization, to discourage jack-of-all-trades characters (a group of specialists need to be more of a team than a group where each character can do a bit of everything), and to - very intentionally - make multiclassing just a bit less attractive. (and with all the classes and sub-classes the game has, odds are that pretty much any not-OP character concept already has a class ready-made to suit it)

I read that last paragraph in Conan the Barbarian's voice.

"Conan, what is best in Multiclassing?"
"To discourage dips based on nothing other than optimization. To discourage jack-of-all-trades characters..."

Seriously though, I agree. The only time anyone ever multiclasses their character, it's so that they can bypass a built-in restriction of their base class, or to compound an already powerful feature of their base class. But what other choice do players have? If you want to give your Fighter a little bit of magic, you have options...you can multiclass, sure, but you could also choose the Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster feat, go with the Eldritch Knight subclass, and/or dip a few levels of Warlock or whatever. But if you wanted to go the opposite direction and give your Wizard melee combat ability, you pretty much have to multiclass (or, more painfully, take multiple feats).

Personally, I would rather get rid of classes altogether. If we no longer care enough about niche protection to avoid cherry-picking and optimization, then let's bit the bullet and just get rid of classes. Replace them with feat trees or something, and be done with the whole mess. But that's a profoundly unpopular opinion 'round here.

 

[Lanefan]

I read that last paragraph in Conan the Barbarian's voice.

"Conan, what is best in Multiclassing?"
"To discourage dips based on nothing other than optimization. To discourage jack-of-all-trades characters..."

Seriously though, I agree. The only time anyone ever multiclasses their character, it's so that they can bypass a built-in restriction of their base class, or to compound an already powerful feature of their base class. But what other choice do players have? If you want to give your Fighter a little bit of magic, you have options...you can multiclass, sure, but you could also choose the Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster feat, go with the Eldritch Knight subclass, and/or dip a few levels of Warlock or whatever. But if you wanted to go the opposite direction and give your Wizard melee combat ability, you pretty much have to multiclass (or, more painfully, take multiple feats).

I guess my point is that the lines should be a bit harder; e.g. if you want to be a Wizard then one thing you simply have to abandon is any thought of being much use in melee. Same goes the other way: if you're a Fighter then you're abandoning any thought of casting spells (though there's wiggle room there via magic items).

Personally, I would rather get rid of classes altogether. If we no longer care enough about niche protection to avoid cherry-picking and optimization, then let's bit the bullet and just get rid of classes. Replace them with feat trees or something, and be done with the whole mess. But that's a profoundly unpopular opinion 'round here.

I kinda go the other way: I'd like to see niches be both more relevant and more rigidly enforced. Your class is what it is, and there's only so much fine-tuning you can do to the mechanics. (IMO this is where 0e and 1e had it vaguely right in principle, though the in-practice execution was rather iffy). And if some non-OP archetypes* aren't covered, design new full classes to suit.

There's always going to be tradeoffs along the lines of "If you want to do X then you can't do Y"; and I've neither patience nor time any more for those who say "But I want my character to be able to do X, Y, and Z as well!". No. You do X, and rely on others in your party to do Y and Z and A etc.

EDIT to add: thinking about it, there's one place where a do-it-all character does make sense, and that's single-player games. I can see room for an "optional" class designed just for this purpose and banned from normal play.

* - this doesn't include Combat Wizards, which are IME almost always (intentionally) overpowered. This might be one archetype we eventually have to concede the game as written and balanced just can't support very well.