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]

The difference is that many people now play with DNDB and eventually VTTs.

If the variant rules aren't integrated with PC creator software and TT software, a lot of variant rules wont be used. Meaning the only things you can use are simple stuff like dice bumps (flex), extra attacks (cleave), DOAM (graze) or knockdowns (topple)

That was half the reason why 4e died. It wanted companion software that didn't exist and that limited play options and play speed.

Okay, but this is one of the very very few times I'll argue that market forces are in our favor.

Currently a LOT of 3pp creators are working with Roll20 or Foundry or whatever other program there is. If there is a massive demand for a good VTT that allows for you to add in your homebrew content... someone will make it. Because 5e is now Creative Commons, and altering that to One DnD would be a simple set of "houserules" that someone can make and post for free. Just like many steam games have downloadable content that they otherwise can't officially have on Steam.

Yes, there will be some growing pains, but frankly, someone is going to figure this out. And if they don't... then you just have a google doc people reference for the houserules and manually move the pieces or roll the dice.

 

[dave2008]

The difference is that many people now play with DNDB and eventually VTTs.

If the variant rules aren't integrated with PC creator software and TT software, a lot of variant rules wont be used. Meaning the only things you can use are simple stuff like dice bumps (flex), extra attacks (cleave), DOAM (graze) or knockdowns (topple)

That was half the reason why 4e died. It wanted companion software that didn't exist and that limited play options and play speed.

I see that could be an issue. It doesn't concern me personally, but I see it could be a problem for others. I guess I feel like if they (WotC) are fine with not including the things you want, just like the are fine not including the things I want, I am OK with it. I don't need every part of 1D&D to cater to my needs and I don't think that is WotC responsibility either. They have access to a lot more information about their players than I do. I can't say if I think their choices are correct or not without that information. They need to cater to their core market. If they fail to do that I imagine it will eventually hurt and if so, well they deserve what they get.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Balanced multiclassing is not that difficult to implement, WotC just has a habit of front-loading non-casters instead of giving them steady progression, while casters are traditionally backloaded.

Edit: For casters, just about every level has a benefit of note, as well.

in 4e this was handled by giving every class abilities at every level more or less, and multi class was just a feat chain that was like a dash of a class

 

[tetrasodium]

..

I just disagree, for me and my group. We (my group) work on house-rules together, it is not all on me (the DM). Also, the meat of our house-rules are something that most people don't want. We don't have any issue with or need to fill the "foreseeable gaps & self inflicted problems" that you see (most likely). I think that is precisely why it a good idea to let the 3PP handle it. Now. I would have any issue with WotC release supplements that variant and additional rules. However, I don't need WotC to do that, i am perfectly fine with the 3PP market providing those. To me, that is no different than WotC providing them.

That's a nice theory, but 5e fights that kind of collaboration in stark contrast to past editions where players were incentivized to collaborate with the gm by things like rltge system not minimizing or outright removing risk, attrition, magic item needs, sometimes difficult to meet prerequisites, & so on. Now the baseline is already well below the feet of even the most inept negative charop as the earlierentioned longsword & shield barbarian demonstrated. The result of that GiGo baseline math is that collaboration you are advocating for can't begin without some form of nerfs to pc power to ensure the well of good will is poisoned before collaboration can even begin to assess how much space exists to add power.

 

[dave2008]

..
That's a nice theory, but 5e fights that kind of collaboration...

No need for me to go further. I have seen more collaboration in 5e than any previous edition. If your experience is different I can't help you. We are just of far apart in our experiences. That is OK and what makes the game great IMO

 

[Justice and Rule]

in 4e this was handled by giving every class abilities at every level more or less, and multi class was just a feat chain that was like a dash of a class

This is similar to how PF2 does it, where multiclassing, prestige classes, and other potential focuses are "archetypes": groups of feats that the player opts into and can now spend their class feats on.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Bless is great, but so is imposing frightened, and eventually banishing on a hit.

bless is one of the few combat buffs I like being concentration. anything that ups tank abality though needs to be reworked.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

This is similar to how PF2 does it, where multiclassing, prestige classes, and other potential focuses are "archetypes": groups of feats that the player opts into and can now spend their class feats on.

Yup PF2 is almost as much a 4.5 a PF1 was 3.75 but only almost

 

[doctorbadwolf]

bless is one of the few combat buffs I like being concentration. anything that ups tank abality though needs to be reworked.

Yeah bless would be busted without concentration.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'd prefer this as an optional system rather than a change to the core.