D&D 5E Open Letter to Mike Mearls from a pro game dev

[herrozerro]

So first level fighters should have a specific rule that allows them to override the default rules for fighting?

The rule for how to interpret HP is activated SPECIFICALLY when a foe's HP level changes, including the express directive that any attack which reduces that foe to 0 HP was a DIRECT STRIKE. The specific rule overrides the general one, but which is which? They are at odds with one another. Are you saying HP mean something different for fighter attacks than other fighter's attacks? That's kind of odd.

Besides, at 0 HP, you cannot ignore the definition of Hp even if you wanted to, it's the only rule that states that the foe is killed or rendered unconscious, if you ignore that your GWeefer can just keep attacking forever and the foe never drops, his HP keep descending into the negatives.

You clearly haven't thought this through. Get back to me when someone is willing to pay you for your game design skills, instead of attacking mine, or using canards like that rule of thumb which you don't understand.

Actually it is you who needs to rethink the whole process.

The general rules of combat are roll attack, if you hit roll damage. These rules are the general rules that apply for everyone. The specific rule is that a character with GWF also applies some damage when he or she misses.

General rules are rules that the base game assumes, specific rules can alter those baseline assumptions. Take evasion for example, saves in general for a lot of damaging effects deal half damage, a character with evasion instead overrides those general rules and instead takes no damage. Is this a rules contradiction? The spell says that a target missed takes half damage, but the character says he takes no damage. It's easy enough to solve because DD is an exception based game.

Your claims that rules contradictions should be removed from the game holds no merit, otherwise a good portion of the game should be thrown out as well.

 

[Minigiant]

I rejoiced when they removed it when it was called Reaper originally (a clear copy-paste job from Reaping Strike, once again), then the entire rest of the playtests they didn't have it, because they wanted feedback on other stuff.

So they just muted the obvious mounting criticism for it and kept people from abandoning the playtests who otherwise would have had they kept it, then re-introduced it right at the end.

It's quite fishy that they didn't keep it in. And it's not like anyone ever said, "you know what's missing from this game? Fighters with 100% accuracy on every attack at level 1"

DOAM was in several playtests in the form of "roll an expertise die when you miss and deal damage equal to the result". It practically never left the playtest at all.


Do you know why?

Because Mike Mearls thinks having a PC focused around swinging a weapon having only one chance to deal damage and having no other benefit is bad for the game.

It is very clear for his articles, tweets, and interviews. Big axe guy rolling once and doing nothing is bad. Archer man at least has range. Shield dude has SHIELD and AC bonus.

So barbarians get advantage and other warrior get chip damage as pity.

If you want to get rid of DOAM, you have to solve that problem.

 

[Lokiare]

From a narrative stance, I have no problem with damage on a miss. From a game mechanics perspective I do have a problem with an at-will damage on a miss. This was avoided in 4E because minions couldn't be killed on a miss no matter how much damage you dealt. In 5E most low level monsters are basically minions so this Fighter feature is basically an auto minion killer. Something that is usually reserved for limited use powers for a caster.

 

[Gorgoroth]

DOAM was in several playtests in the form of "roll an expertise die when you miss and deal damage equal to the result". It practically never left the playtest at all.


Do you know why?

Because Mike Mearls thinks having a PC focused around swinging a weapon having only one chance to deal damage and having no other benefit is bad for the game.

It is very clear for his articles, tweets, and interviews. Big axe guy rolling once and doing nothing is bad. Archer man at least has range. Shield dude has SHIELD and AC bonus.

So barbarians get advantage and other warrior get chip damage as pity.

If you want to get rid of DOAM, you have to solve that problem.

Fighters gain multiple attacks per round, that solves the problem quite nicely. The frequency of them having wholly ineffective rounds is elegantly solved, already.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Actually it is you who needs to rethink the whole process.

The general rules of combat are roll attack, if you hit roll damage. These rules are the general rules that apply for everyone. The specific rule is that a character with GWF also applies some damage when he or she misses.

General rules are rules that the base game assumes, specific rules can alter those baseline assumptions. Take evasion for example, saves in general for a lot of damaging effects deal half damage, a character with evasion instead overrides those general rules and instead takes no damage. Is this a rules contradiction? The spell says that a target missed takes half damage, but the character says he takes no damage. It's easy enough to solve because DD is an exception based game.

Your claims that rules contradictions should be removed from the game holds no merit, otherwise a good portion of the game should be thrown out as well.

What? How many games have you made and delivered, o wise one?

Games have rules. Those rules have to be internally consistent, and where inconsistencies are discovered, they get corrected over various ...wait for it.....wait for it....editions of those game rules. Arguing for game rules to make less sense as time goes on, because, hey, why bother, let's just give up, shows that it is you who has absolutely no clue about shipping a solid product.

Don't talk to me about exception-based games, as if you've ever created one. Fighters should not get an exception to bypass the fighting rules anyway, and besides that, every attack needs a coherent narrative interpretation that fits with the mechanics in a plausible way. If you want a game that doesn't make any sense, just say so. I do, which is why I made this thread.

It's quite clear that GWF is on the ropes, and it's about to go down, and most of the "refutations" here are sad attempts to throw one last flailing haymaker before totally collapsing in a pool of drool on the ground. GWF is about to die.

 

[Minigiant]

Fighters gain multiple attacks per round, that solves the problem quite nicely. The frequency of them having wholly ineffective rounds is elegantly solved, already.

They don't get them until level 5.

Greataxman swings his axe. You roll a 3. He does nothing that turn.
Orc swings his axe. He rolls a 17. He rolls a 10+Strength.


Congratulations.
You are dying.
You did nothing except lose your party 1/5th of its resources.

 

[herrozerro]

*deleted, not worth arguing with a troll*

 

[Gorgoroth]

They don't get them until level 5.

Greataxman swings his axe. You roll a 3. He does nothing that turn.
Orc swings his axe. He rolls a 17. He rolls a 10+Strength.


Congratulations.
You are dying.
You did nothing except lose your party 1/5th of its resources.

Ok, too bad, that's what being an apprentice means : you are not confident and realiably able to consistently do your schtick under duress.

That's a FEATURE of the game, which is mitigated by character level, where at 5th level the fighter will feel quite a bit more powerful due to his extra bonus attack. that's a terrific way to model increased proficiency at fighting, more attacks means less chance of doing nothing, or more chance of dealing damage.

If you start at 100% chance of dealing damage at first level, you've gone and completely negated the apparent increase of reliability of fighter attacks. The first level Gweefer will deal damage on 100% of his attacks, but a 20th level one without it will not. That is totally broken and absurd. If players of low level characters feel like their characters are weak and unreliable, then they will definitely appreciate levelling up more. Not so when you start out at 100% and no where to go from there.

It's munchkin exploit, through and through. No apprentice should be 100% successful on every try, no matter the odds. No matter if he's fighting a terrasque or ancient wyrm, the first level GWeefer penetrates it every time. No matter if he's against a naked kobold or one in plate and shield, he penetrates that armor with 100% certainty, just by declaring that he does so. And it happens. Without fail. Every time.

 

[Lokiare]

They don't get them until level 5.

Greataxman swings his axe. You roll a 3. He does nothing that turn.
Orc swings his axe. He rolls a 17. He rolls a 10+Strength.


Congratulations.
You are dying.
You did nothing except lose your party 1/5th of its resources.

That's a problem with having too few hit points at low level. Something that could also be easily solved with the optional rule of adding constitution score to hp at 1st instead of constitution modifier.

 

[Gorgoroth]

So no actual response? Just attacks?

What? I did respond to you : you have no point. D&D combat needs to ALWAYS take into account what HP means. You cannot ignore that 0 HP means a direct strike or a wound occurred, when one fighter does it but not when another does. That's what CONSISTENT rules are.