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 have no issue with multiclassing, but I feel it should not be super common, especially with 5E's style. 4E had a mechanism where you grabbed a few things but stayed single class, and while imperfect I like how that worked a lot more.

 

[Pauln6]

A lot of people don't multiclass to optimise but to create a character concept that is playable. It's easier to fix corner case broken combos than to try and find a mythical perfect combination that is going to satisfy everyone. There has never been a system that satisfied everyone and there never will be.

 

[Minigiant]

I feel multiclassing became a "core rule" at most tables because

• The lack of new official classes except artificer
• The low amount of power growth of non-full casters past level 5

 

[Erandeni]

I wonder how barbarian and monk will interact with these Masteries

I could see barbarian getting something similar to the old GWM, like an exclusive mastery which only they can use with heavy weapons, maybe -d4/+d8 at lower levels and -d6/+d12 at high level

Monk maybe have mastery with unarmed strikes? and open hand could then add another mastery on top to push/knock down. Not very original, but don't have a lot of ideas

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

These being “mastery effects” instead of just normal weapon properties makes me think these won’t just be always-on effects of the weapon. I’m guessing warrior classes will get access to some number of “weapon masteries” for free, and everyone else will have to acquire them through feats or some such.

I believe they said the warriors can all use the mastery traits and the fighter can use two on the same weapon or something like that

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I feel multiclassing became a "core rule" at most tables because

• The lack of new official classes except artificer
• The low amount of power growth of non-full casters past level 5

But those things have been that from the begging and it hasn’t pushed our group to multi class. Not the my, or your, experience means anything

 

[Minigiant]

But those things have been that from the begging and it hasn’t pushed our group to multi class. Not the my, or your, experience means anything

That's because Multiclassing is a trap option. It's obviously weakening yourself to do it early.

A warrior type wants Extra Attack as fast as possible. Same with casters and 3rd level spells. So you won't do it before level 5. Then suclasses tend to get their 2nd feature level 6 or 7.


So unless your build needs to multiclass as you dislike the core of the class, most people won't multiclass unless right before the campaign ends.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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)

There could be an entire discussion on how we change the multi-classing rules, but again, I see that as an entirely separate conversation than buffing warriors. And since I have yet to meet a single person who has problems with warriors multi-classing to get spellcaster abilities, I don't see much of an issue with the inverse.

I don't care to make rules specifically to prevent someone from doing something just because you might consider them doing it for the "wrong reason"

I see nothing wrong with making jack-of-all-trade characters, nor would I care to make rules to prevent a character archetype because of your ideal party composition doesn't include it.

And while I don't like multi-classing, I don't want to make it lesser for people who do.

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.

Ah, that was unclear.

I could see making that an option, but some of the masteries wouldn't have the ability to deal zero damage, due to their nature. I think something like that would be better fit for a feat, otherwise balancing the masteries would be incredibly difficult.

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

Pretty common considering over half of all classes (9 out of 13) are casters or half casters. The thing is, everyone thinks you need a fighter or a barbarian to tank, or a rogue to deal with traps, but you don't. It is an issue of perception.

For people who want to build a "balanced" party, going Bard, Paladin, Wizard, Cleric is incredibly powerful with no obvious downsides. But going Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, Rogue leaves clear and obvious holes in the group that need to be filled. Both should be equally viable, but they actually aren't.

There was a very informative set of videos from the Dungeon Dudes that highlighted this for me. They break roles in the party into seven categories. They then ranked every class in how they handled each category. To summarize?

Fighter and Barbarian were ranked the lowest possible in 5 of the 7 categories. The only things they were good at were Taking and dealing damage. But most other classes were better than them in those five categories. They weren't alone in some of those rankings, Rangers make terrible negotiators, Rogues are bad at support But most classes had four categories they were one of the BEST in, the few that didn't (Cleric, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock) were solid mid choices for multiple roles. The exception being the Monk which fit poorly into most roles.

I know you are old school, but even you have to admit that if given a choice between someone who can guarantee a success in something or someone who has to bend and twist and hope to be passable in it, the better choice is the guarantee. And what we have seen is that the three Warrior classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk) are the ones that are the least flexible and the least able to fill roles outside of "damage". And they aren't the undisputed best at those roles.

 

[Charlaquin]

I believe they said the warriors can all use the mastery traits and the fighter can use two on the same weapon or something like that

What I’ve been hearing is that warriors will be able to pick one weapon and be able to use its mastery effect. Fighters (and only Fighters) might have some ability to swap out their choice for another, and at a higher level can choose a second mastery to apply to their chosen weapon.

 

[Remathilis]

That's because Multiclassing is a trap option. It's obviously weakening yourself to do it early.

A warrior type wants Extra Attack as fast as possible. Same with casters and 3rd level spells. So you won't do it before level 5. Then suclasses tend to get their 2nd feature level 6 or 7.


So unless your build needs to multiclass as you dislike the core of the class, most people won't multiclass unless right before the campaign ends.

Not always the case. A few builds that opt for dipping want that dip early (2nd level) and then returning to your base class ASAP. A few examples of dip early are hexadins and coffeelocks. You want your combo ASAP and it's usually worth waiting a level or two for your level 5 goodies.