D&D 5E My happiness or yours.

[EnglishLanguage]

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.

The same can be said to you. If you hate DoaM this much, then you can...

1. If you're the Dm, ban it.
2. If you're a player, opt not to take it.
3. If you're a player and another player wants to use it, then oh well, hope the DM bans it. If not, then too bad.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

So, every single Ranged Fighter should work the same way? Every guy who weilds a big sword should fight exactly the same way? You know there've been complaints for a long time about how boring the Fighter is, right?

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.

Just use the Kragle, Lord Business, and your game will be just perfect. You only have to check everything monster and every published adventure if your anal retentive. I'd rather not see the game designed around people's quirks. A +1 bonus on a monster? Leave it in, monsters don't conform to PC rules anyway. DoaM on a monster? Just don't use it, the effect is negligible anyway.

There are alot of mechanics that people don't like. And each of us has to make the choice of living with them or pulling them out. Why should your personal dislikes take precedent over anyone elses? If the design team really is getting what they consider major feedback in dislike of a mechanic, then I hope they do remove it. But a small group of loud voices shouldn't sway their design.

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jester David]

The same can be said to you. If you hate DoaM this much, then you can...

1. If you're the Dm, ban it.
2. If you're a player, opt not to take it.
3. If you're a player and another player wants to use it, then oh well, hope the DM bans it. If not, then too bad.

Siiiigh

It's not an option. It's a rule, a mechanic. Albeit a rule currently found in an option. Rules are tricky to remove but are easier to add. So it's easier to add DoaM, and more satisfying for DoaM fans.

 

[Jester David]

So, every single Ranged Fighter should work the same way? Every guy who wields a big sword should fight exactly the same way? You know there've been complaints for a long time about how boring the Fighter is, right?

Yes.
Excluding race and background and potential feats and rules modules every ranged fighter should play the same. This is irrelevant to the complexity/simple fighter debate as every battlerager in 4e would play roughly the same as well.
Plus, ranged fighters will also get their choice of subclass, so they'll only play the same until 3rd level.
We don't need six tiny variations of ranged fighters. That's rules bloat and leads to power creep where one option is *slightly* better and we still end up with every ranged fighter playing the same.

And yes, I'm aware of the "boring fighter" complaints. Well, as you DoaMers are apt to say: the fighter is an option, if you don't like it don't play it.
I never found the fighter boring. And many, many players don't want to track resources and manage daily powers or decide what to do every round. They need a simple class.
Now, I'm willing to compromise and fully support the more complex subclass(es) for people who want that sort of thing. Or the tactical combat rules module they're working on.

There are alot of mechanics that people don't like. And each of us has to make the choice of living with them or pulling them out. Why should your personal dislikes take precedent over anyone elses? If the design team really is getting what they consider major feedback in dislike of a mechanic, then I hope they do remove it. But a small group of loud voices shouldn't sway their design.

I covered that here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-yours/page8&p=6266622&viewfull=1#post6266622
In short, removing something making people unhappy will seldom make other people as unhappy. And D&D does not have so large a potential audience it can afford to alienate fans. It needs to play it safe and compromise whenever possible.

I'm willing to compromise on DoaM. Are you?

 

[Obryn]

I'm willing to compromise on DoaM. Are you?

In what way?

I mean, I don't think anyone has a problem with having several options.

 

[Jester David]

In what way?

I mean, I don't think anyone has a problem with having several options.

An optional rules module.
So DoaM can be easily added to the game, in an addition designed and playtested by the WotC team. I think I referred to it as the "glancing blow" mechanic, so all classes or characters have a change to deal DoaM universally.

That way tables who really like DoaM have it in the game, and not just tucked away in one option in three classes. And that way people who don't like it can just not use that optional rule.
And because it's an optional rule, the mechanic won't creep into other aspects of the games, but could be applied to monsters if the DM wanted.

 

[Obryn]

An optional rules module.
So DoaM can be easily added to the game, in an addition designed and playtested by the WotC team. I think I referred to it as the "glancing blow" mechanic, so all classes or characters have a change to deal DoaM universally.

That way tables who really like DoaM have it in the game, and not just tucked away in one option in three classes. And that way people who don't like it can just not use that optional rule.
And because it's an optional rule, the mechanic won't creep into other aspects of the games, but could be applied to monsters if the DM wanted.

What's wrong with a modular option to *remove* DoaM? This doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me.

Also, what's wrong with the swordy guys - who are specifically trained to be awesome at weapons - having special tricks that not everyone can do? This takes something unique away from martials (specifically those who specialize in heavy, aggressive fighting styles) and gives it to everyone. Even those for whom it's less thematically or narratively appropriate.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I covered that here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-yours/page8&p=6266622&viewfull=1#post6266622
In short, removing something making people unhappy will seldom make other people as unhappy. And D&D does not have so large a potential audience it can afford to alienate fans. It needs to play it safe and compromise whenever possible.

I'm willing to compromise on DoaM. Are you?

Wow. So, your "compromise" is to remove anything that makes people unhappy. Well then lets remove levels, alignment, classes, skills, feats, alot of spells, should I go on?

Do you assume DoaM wouldn't make people unhappy if removed because of an ENWorld poll and your own personal experience? I would rather assume that if it is left in the game it is because actual feedback has shown that people would be unhappy without that option available.


And as for 1 style for Ranged Fighters, I'd hate to see you design Monks! I mean they all pretty much use their body to attack, so just one style, right? Oh, some use weapons, so they can have the same handful of choices as the Fighter.

I'd rather see styles not tied to weapon configuration at all, instead a more flavorful style that speaks to the tactics they use and not limited by weapon of choice. Then DoaM would be truly avoidable for anyone because it wouldn't have a chance of being the "only" style you can take.

 

[Jester David]

What's wrong with a modular option to *remove* DoaM? This doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me.

It’s a compromise because rather than removing entirely and DoaM fans having to personally house rule it into the game the rules are there in a physical book, and have been designed by professionals who make their living designing rules.

How is your compromise in any way different from not compromising?

Removing is harder than adding. And removing isn’t so much a module as the DM having to go through the book and delete content.
How would a removal module work? A big list of options that include the unwanted mechanic and a list of alternates? That sounds like a huge space hog. And it would only be relevant for a single release. And it’s really designing two different versions of the game at the same time. And that really sounds like option bloat.

Also, what's wrong with the swordy guys - who are specifically trained to be awesome at weapons - having special tricks that not everyone can do? This takes something unique away from martials (specifically those who specialize in heavy, aggressive fighting styles) and gives it to everyone. Even those for whom it's less thematically or narratively appropriate.

Why should the paladin and ranger be able to deal damage on a miss and not the barbarian or warrior priest? Why should an assassin be any less reliable with their weaponry?

If DoaM is part of an optional rule the DM can decide to exclude non-martial classes, all monsters or just non-boss monsters, or everyone but the fighter. They can CHOOSE, which is the whole point.

 

[Jester David]

Wow. So, your "compromise" is to remove anything that makes people unhappy. Well then lets remove levels, alignment, classes, skills, feats, alot of spells, should I go on?

Feats are optional, and skills are likely to be optional too. And we’re very likely to see some optional alignment modules.
And none of those are so disruptive that ENWorld needs to ghettoize the discussion to save the rest of the forum. DoaM spawns argument after argument. So, yes, my compromise is to remove it from being a base assumption of the game, just like paladins being required to be Lawful Good.

Do you assume DoaM wouldn't make people unhappy if removed because of an ENWorld poll and your own personal experience? I would rather assume that if it is left in the game it is because actual feedback has shown that people would be unhappy without that option available.

Because happiness is not a binary state. You are not just happy or unhappy. You might not care for something or have no strong feelings, but that’s not the same as unhappiness.

I’m reasoning DoaM being removed won’t make people very unhappy because when it was removed from the classes and made into a feat there was no fuss. The fact it only exists as an option for a small, tiny fraction of the classes is not an issue. If DoaM were essential to people’s happiness they’d want more! Barbarian players would want it. Monk players would ask for it. Valour bards would wonder where their DoaM is.

And as for 1 style for Ranged Fighters, I'd hate to see you design Monks! I mean they all pretty much use their body to attack, so just one style, right? Oh, some use weapons, so they can have the same handful of choices as the Fighter.

Is there a need to get personal?

Fighters (and monks) should get lots of different styles. But each combination should only get one. So there might eventually be a sword + board style or a one-handed weapon style or even a blunt weapon style. But we do not need three sword styles, four archery styles, or a longsword style that is completely different from a scimitar style.

I'd rather see styles not tied to weapon configuration at all, instead a more flavorful style that speaks to the tactics they use and not limited by weapon of choice. Then DoaM would be truly avoidable for anyone because it wouldn't have a chance of being the "only" style you can take.

That works but is a little hard for new people to grasp.
It’s easier to build a two-weapon fighter if the ability for two-weapon fighters is spelt out in the name of the power. Now, some could be a little broader and have larger appeal. I agree. But the names should suggest an optimal, intended use rather than rely on system mastery and creating trap options that sound cool but might not work with your build.