D&D 5E My happiness or yours.

[Jester David]

I don't understand this at all.

By this logic, it's not optional whether or not a gameworld includes a god of Light, or counts weasels among its fauna.

The ability is on a list of things from which a choice must be made: the exact words are "Choose one of the following options". It can be removed from that list without making any class unbuildable or unplayable. No other aspect of the game depends upon it. (I'm following convention here and ignoring the billion-and-one non-AoE spells that do autodamage.)

I don't like the Expertise feats in 4e. That means my group just doesn't use them. It's as easy as that. I don't need them to be quarantined into some special corner marked "optional". I just tell my players that, when they are choosing feats, they should opt for something else.

DoaM is NOT an option. It's a mechanic that's part of an option. DoaM is like rerolling 1s or treating a roll of 9 or below as a 10. It's principally found in parts of the game that are options but DoaM itself is a mechanic.
And I'd rather not have that mechanic part of the core rules, have it be an assumed part of the game.

And, again, it's only one option now. When they start adding more subclasses, feats, monsters, magic items, and the like it will be this handy useful mechanic that will get used, unless there is a reason not to. Somewhere down the line a freelancer will say "Hey, the bardbarian lacks DoaM. Imma gonna add that to this barbarian build I'm working on." Or the rogue. Or the cleric. Or an orc boss in an adventure. Or the gibbering mouther in a MM.
And no, this is not a slippery slope. It's close, but a slippery slope is a chain of events without a logical or reasonable argument for the chain of events. Saying "game developers like to reuse established and/or elegant mechanics that have been proven and are balanced" is logical. Saying "game designers like to fill holes and include mechanics they personally enjoy" is reasonable. This is not a stretch.
I'm not drifting into some wacky hyperbole and screaming "DOAM WILL BE EVERYWHERE IN 5E LIKE IN 4E." It won't. But if left in it will get harder and harder to remove effectively as there will be more and more options that make use of the mechanic.

But, putting that aside, GWF are as much an "option" as mountain dwarves. They're technically possible to remove but they're a really big part of the genre.
For example, let's say mountain dwarves were given an extra ability but had a -2 Charisma for balance . Sounds fine to me. I like the stat penalties. But other people hate the stat penalties. But that's okay, no one is making them play mountain dwarves. They can just play hill dwarves.
Unless they're really big fans of mountain dwarves. Unless that fits their character concept before they found out about the -2. Or if they want some of the other benefits that come from being a mountain dwarf. Or they're updating a character from an earlier edition into 5e.

It's optional, but it's a really hard option that borders on damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.

Plus, I don't like excluding options for mechanical reasons. I play games with mechanics I like and don't play games with mechanics I don't like. I exclude options all the time, but for story reasons. No orcs in Ravenloft. No gnomes in Dark Sun. No psionics in Dragonlance. And the like. I want the reason to be "it doesn't fit the world" or "it doesn't mesh with the story I want to tell" or "it doesn't work with the genre we're using."

So, just to be clear: it has to be removed, so that those who can't abide it aren't tempted to put it into their games anyway (and then what - post about how it is ruining their fun?).

No, it has to be removed so people don't have to remove greatweapon fighters from the game. AND so the mechanic doesn't become accepted and spread elsewhere in the game.

At 1st level, the typical melee fighter has +4 to hit (+3 stat, +1 prof). The typical AC is, let's say, 13, meaning the to-hit rate is 0.6. Hence the expected damage boost from DoaM is 0.4*STR. As a damage bonus on a hit, that would be +2*STR/3. Just replace DoaM with +2 to damage and your expected output should be about the same.

Advantage on a d12 damage roll also gives average damage of 8 and 35/72, which is just a touch less than +2 to a d12 damage roll. So that is another option.

I've got nothing against adding to the range of options. I just don't see why they need to be reduced.

If it's that simple to replicate the mechanical effects, why fight so hard against DoaM?

If you and your players really like games where you never miss, if DoaM is so essential to your happiness and satisfaction with a game, then maybe, just maybe, a game like D&D where you're expected to miss nearly half the time is not for you.
Or WotC could add a "glancing blow" Rules Modules. Something that adds DoaM to all classes, so your players don't always have to play GWF classes to feel useful every round, giving them much, much more choice and a game they should find much more satisfying.

I'm willing to have DoaM in the game as an optional rule. I'm willing to compromise and not just push away everyone who likes DoaM. I'm willing to fight to have an option included that will make D&D Next even better for them and their playstyle.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

DoaM is NOT an option. It's a mechanic that's part of an option.

You do realize people already meant this. That the GWF subclass was optional. Word quibble.

And, again, it's only one option now.

But, putting that aside, GWF are as much an "option" as mountain dwarves. They're technically possible to remove but they're a really big part of the genre.

And, again, it's only one option now. There may just as well be multiple paths for a "Great Weapon Fighter" (Guy With Big Sword) to chose from that do not contain DOAM.

So, I think many people would agree that it would be good to provide more options, even within combinations of fighting styles. I hopre there are, otherwise it starts to limit martial classes like the Fighter. But just asking that they should take away an option you don't like in favor of the one you do is lousy.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think my happiness can be affected by a single little game mechanic. Even one I'm not fond of.

I'm not sure if the entire game being horrible can ruin my happiness ultimately. I might be unhappy with the direction that WOTC took for D&D but I'd then go on and be happy doing something different.

 

[pemerton]

When they start adding more subclasses, feats, monsters, magic items, and the like it will be this handy useful mechanic that will get used

Yes. But those will be optional. If you don't like DoaM, you don't use them. That's what "options" and "modules" mean, isn't it?

I don't like excluding options for mechanical reasons.

In a modular game I think you are going to have to do that. It will have mechanical options, and you will have to choose which ones you like and which ones you don't. How else is a modular game going to work?

Somewhere down the line a freelancer will say "Hey, the bardbarian lacks DoaM. Imma gonna add that to this barbarian build I'm working on."

OK, so if you don't like DoaM you don't play that build. Pretty straightforward.

it has to be removed so people don't have to remove greatweapon fighters from the game.

"Greatweapon fighter" doesn't have any meaning, in D&Dnext, other than "Fighter who does DoaM when attacking in melee with a two-handed weapon". If you don't wan't DoaM, you don't want that sort of GWF. But nothing is stopping you playing a fighter who wields a two-handed weapon. You can still take the defence or the protection ability, and I've already sketched out two further bonus damage options which are comparable in expected damage output to a DoaM fighter: +2 to damage, or advantage on damage rolls. You might take either of those, and I'd be surprised if the designers don't include something along those sorts of lines in the published game.

 

[pemerton]

If it's that simple to replicate the mechanical effects, why fight so hard against DoaM?

You are the one who said that DoaM is about DPS - and I worked out a couple of options that deliver the same DPS.

I personally don't think that DoaM is primarily about DPS. [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] is right: it's about performance.

If you and your players really like games where you never miss, if DoaM is so essential to your happiness and satisfaction with a game, then maybe, just maybe, a game like D&D where you're expected to miss nearly half the time is not for you.

Given that DoaM options are ubiquitous to the version of D&D that I have been playing for the past 5 years, maybe it's you who need to get with the times!

See how that works both ways?

 

[pemerton]

If we're giving advantage on damage, for a 2d6 weapon we want to give advantage on each of the dice: average damage from a d6 with advantage is just short of 4.5, so 2 adv d6 will be just short of 9 - which is the same approx +2 damage.

 

[Jester David]

Yes. But those will be optional. If you don't like DoaM, you don't use them. That's what "options" and "modules" mean, isn't it?

Wow... you really don't get it.

Let's look at the Archery Fighting Style as an example. It grants +1 to attack with those weapons. Now say I hate that mechanic. I *really* hate +1 to attack for various ineffable reasons.
I know, it's not a perfect analogy because it's simple and bland. But work with me here. Pretend a +1 bonus killed my mother and raped my father or something.

So I really hate Archery Style. Easy to remove, even if it nerfs fighter archers who now get no real bonus compared to other fighters. (I might as well have banned fighters from picking up bows for all the interest players will show in that type of character.) But banning that option doesn't make every other +1 bonus magically vanish from the game. I have to go through the book and hunt down those other options. Some will be easier to remove than others. And at any time WotC can release new content with even more options that need to be vetted for +1s.
It's a tonne of work.
Because it's not an option, it's a mechanic. It's an element of the game like rolling a d20 and adding a modifier, or spending an action, or rolling twice on advantage. Yes, if you really wanted you could remove d20s as the resolution mechanic the game and replace them with 3d6. But that does not mean d20s are "optional".

If DoaM stays it becomes part of the game. As much an inherent part of the mechanics as rolling that d20. If you don't like the swingyness of a 1-in-20 chance of any outcome you probably won't liked a d20 game. And if you don't like how DoaM affects the narrative, especially on at-will attacks, then you might not like 5e.

And people not liking the game is bad. There's not so many gamers that D&D can just toss some to the curb willy nilly. It's already going to be hard for 5e to succeed with all the bad blood and Hasbro's expectations and Paizo's competition. Do we need to add another handicap?

In a modular game I think you are going to have to do that. It will have mechanical options, and you will have to choose which ones you like and which ones you don't. How else is a modular game going to work?

I'd prefer options that added content to the game rather than completely revised the game. While there should be some content revision, this should be done carefully. Yes, the game should be designed to be hackable into whatever you want. But that should be optional, something you choose to do to customize the core, not to make the base game playable and non-offensive.

OK, so if you don't like DoaM you don't play that build. Pretty straightforward.

"Greatweapon fighter" doesn't have any meaning, in D&Dnext, other than "Fighter who does DoaM when attacking in melee with a two-handed weapon". If you don't wan't DoaM, you don't want that sort of GWF. But nothing is stopping you playing a fighter who wields a two-handed weapon. You can still take the defence or the protection ability, and I've already sketched out two further bonus damage options which are comparable in expected damage output to a DoaM fighter: +2 to damage, or advantage on damage rolls. You might take either of those, and I'd be surprised if the designers don't include something along those sorts of lines in the published game.

Yes, you can take defence or protection when being a GWF and still get a benefit. Neither of those benefit DPS. And yes, I can house rule a revision for DoaM in this case, but I'm not going to hunt through every book changing every potential instance for the entire lifespan of the edition.
I want to modify games to make them better, not just to make them playable. I want to design additive content not revisionary content. I can already modify Pathfinder to make it more appealing; if I'm going to have to rewrite the PHB I might as well stick with a game where I've already put in that work and I already own the books. The appeal of 5e is having a balanced playable game I don't have to modify or where the customization options are already done by way of rules modules.

Given that DoaM options are ubiquitous to the version of D&D that I have been playing for the past 5 years, maybe it's you who need to get with the times!

See how that works both ways?

You mean that version of D&D I chose to stop buying and prefer not to play and run? That version uniformly rejected by my group?
I didn't much like DoaM there either, but there was so much else I didn't like it was like complaining about the rain in a hurricane.
If WotC wants to repeat 4e they're welcome to do so. Maybe it will do better this time. But, maybe it will do worse since all the people who like a 4e style game already have a 4e style game.

And just because an idea is new does not make it better. It just means it's newer. Really, modern game design seems to be moving away from 4e style games anyway in favour of storytelling, narrative control, and abstraction. 4e is a weird anomaly in terms of modern Tabletop RPG game design, drawing more inspiration from miniature wargames, card games, board games, and video games than TT-RPGs. 4e may be current but it doesn't feel representational.

But this really ignores my point. If you've got such a hard-on for DoaM why wouldn't you like it added to every character? Why shouldn't barbarians or war domain clerics or rogues have a chance to join in the fun. Isn't having it as a full Rules Module and not just one class feature an improvement? Is it really worth fighting over a small amount of DoaM when you could have it all!
Let the anti-DoaM crowd with the fighter battle so you can win the war and get a game you really want to play.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

It's a mechanic found in optional options that you have the option of selecting from a number of other options with also having the option to not take the DoaM option.

I'm not sure what part of that is difficult.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So I really hate Archery Style. Easy to remove, even if it nerfs fighter archers who now get no real bonus compared to other fighters. (I might as well have banned fighters from picking up bows for all the interest players will show in that type of character.)

You are assuming that there are NO other Archery paths. That's a HUGE assumption. If there is only one in the final game, I surely won't be happy with that design choice.

But banning that option doesn't make every other +1 bonus magically vanish from the game. I have to go through the book and hunt down those other options. Some will be easier to remove than others. And at any time WotC can release new content with even more options that need to be vetted for +1s.
It's a tonne of work.

BS. You tell your players "Any option that gives a flat +1 bonus to hit is not valid in my game." Just like others can tell their players "Any option that gives damage on a miss is not valid in my game." That's a sentence worth of work for the DM, and a player only need keep it in mind for options he's interested in, not the entire game.

 

[Jester David]

You are assuming that there are NO other Archery paths. That's a HUGE assumption. If there is only one in the final game, I surely won't be happy with that design choice.

We really don't need a half-dozen different variants on every weapon. Or even two. That's just bloat.
WotC should just do the big weapon groups and a few other roles and move onto other mechanics.

BS. You tell your players "Any option that gives a flat +1 bonus to hit is not valid in my game." Just like others can tell their players "Any option that gives damage on a miss is not valid in my game." That's a sentence worth of work for the DM, and a player only need keep it in mind for options he's interested in, not the entire game.

Which is easy if the mechanic is rare, but if it becomes more common or widespread it gets harder.
And it's problematic to say "no" to flavourful and appropriate class options that fit the game and the world solely because they're narratively disruptive.

And then the DM needs to read every monster to make sure they don't use the +1 bonus mechanic. And every published adventure needs to be vetted and checked before running, both for monsters and awarded treasure to make sure none of them use the bonus.
It's an endless struggle to make a rule system conform to your game. I don't need that.

But, yes, it is possible to remove those options.
But it's also possible to add them. If you like DoaM so much, you can add it to your game. There's nothing stopping you. And it's not limited to a few classes.