D&D 5E My happiness or yours.

[Obryn]

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.

What? I'm talking about this one class mechanic and giving options for it, so people who don't like it don't need to use it. There's no need for a "removal module."

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.

Barbarian probably should get it, yeah, unless their narrative flavor is mostly about wild swings. Which kinda makes sense, I suppose. Maybe an alternate rage mechanic?

Warpriests, maybe? Since we have multiclassing, I don't think it's a big deal. There should be a cost for picking up the ability.

Assassins lack the forceful aggression, and it's not about accuracy anyway.

I think you're still missing the point. There's not many people arguing who just loooove the whole idea of DoaM and want it everywhere. I like it for this specific case - an aggressive fighting style with heavy weapons.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

I'm glad you used that comparison. It illustrates why I don't believe DoaM is a base assumption of the game. The LG requirement (when included) makes all Paladins LG. I see the argument against that (whether I agree with it or not). DoaM as one choice in the Fighter's repretoire does not make all Fighters use DoaM, therefore not a base assumption. And my suggestion of more than one style per weapon combo means it doesn't have to be a base assumption of two-handed Fighters.

I’m reasoning DoaM being removed won’t make people very unhappy

Your reasoning vs. WotC feedback. Sorry, I'll trust them over any outsider's reasoning. And if they add elements I don't like I'll disallow them in myu games.

Is there a need to get personal?

You are correct, there is not. I meant to refer to designs imagined under the ideas you posited. I meant to disagree with your ideas, not attack you personally. I should have stated that much differently, I apologize.

Barbarian probably should get it, yeah, unless their narrative flavor is mostly about wild swings. Which kinda makes sense, I suppose. Maybe an alternate rage mechanic?

Warpriests, maybe? Since we have multiclassing, I don't think it's a big deal. There should be a cost for picking up the ability.

Assassins lack the forceful aggression, and it's not about accuracy anyway.

I think the phenomenon you are replying to stems from the "Whatever one mundane (non-spellcaster class) can do, everyone should have the opoortunity to do the same." I don't like that concept at all.

 

[Jester David]

I'm glad you used that comparison. It illustrates why I don't believe DoaM is a base assumption of the game. The LG requirement (when included) makes all Paladins LG. I see the argument against that (whether I agree with it or not). DoaM as one choice in the Fighter's repretoire does not make all Fighters use DoaM, therefore not a base assumption. And my suggestion of more than one style per weapon combo means it doesn't have to be a base assumption of two-handed Fighters.

The thing is, it's super easy to ignore the paladin alignment restriction. And it has no mechanical impact at all, being more of a story element. And yet, it was removed and left as an option the DM can add.
Because it's easier to add than take away, and because people who liked alignment restrictions aren't going to get unhappy from their loss even if they really, really like them.

And DoaM is not confined to fighters. There's at least one monster with it. And monsters are a part of everyone's game. If DoaM is kept in the game you can expect even more monsters and NPCs to use it.

 

[Obryn]

people who liked alignment restrictions aren't going to get unhappy from their loss even if they really, really like them.

... have you been reading the Internet lately? It was rather hotly debated, and still is. For all I know, it's going on right now, in that trainwreck alignment thread I'm staying out of.

 

[Jester David]

What? I'm talking about this one class mechanic and giving options for it, so people who don't like it don't need to use it. There's no need for a "removal module."

In the option-lite unfinished playtest there is one mechanic used by three classes, yes. Oh, and the stone giant.
In the finished game it could be much more prevenlant. And it could appear in any number of other places: feats, subclasses, magic items, more monsters, etc.

Barbarian probably should get it, yeah, unless their narrative flavor is mostly about wild swings. Which kinda makes sense, I suppose. Maybe an alternate rage mechanic?

Warpriests, maybe? Since we have multiclassing, I don't think it's a big deal. There should be a cost for picking up the ability.

Assassins lack the forceful aggression, and it's not about accuracy anyway.

I think you're still missing the point. There's not many people arguing who just loooove the whole idea of DoaM and want it everywhere. I like it for this specific case - an aggressive fighting style with heavy weapons.

So people like DoaM enough to irritate a section of the audience to keep it in the game, but don't want it everywhere and are happy with it not having an impact table because no one is playing a class that gets it?
That leads to a weird situation where the pro-DoaM players have a barbarian and monk as DPS and the fighter is protection and DoaM might as well have been removed for all the impact on their game.

I'm refering to the people who countered my argument (that the absence of a something does not make someone unappy but the presence does) with the counter argument that DoaM not only makes them happy but is required for their happiness and its absence will make them unhappy. So, my comprimise with them was expanding DoaM to all classes thus ensuring their happiness.

And this particular expression of DoaM is expressed as forceful aggression. A barbarian's rage can grant advantage, but so does many other things. Doam could also be applied to deady accruacy (rogue) or a rapid series of quick strikes (monk). And, if left in the game, it very likely will.

If it's just an aggressive fighting style, then there are lots of examples of equally valid mechanics that can replace DoaM that don't result in flame wars.

 

[Jester David]

... have you been reading the Internet lately? It was rather hotly debated, and still is. For all I know, it's going on right now, in that trainwreck alignment thread I'm staying out of.

Right, and WotC decided the best way to handle that situation was to keep that element out of the game and let people opt into it.
So alignment detection spells and related effects are optional and non-core. LG paladins are a DM choice.

They probably would have made alignment optional altogether if it wasn't such an iconic part of the game (i.e. one recognised even by non-gamers, something that has become part of the culture).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That leads to a weird situation where the pro-DoaM players.

We're not "Pro-DoaM", we're Pro-Choice.

I'm refering to the people who countered my argument (that the absence of a something does not make someone unappy but the presence does) with the counter argument that DoaM not only makes them happy but is required for their happiness and its absence will make them unhappy. So, my comprimise with them was expanding DoaM to all classes thus ensuring their happiness.

To be clear, I personally won't be unhappy if DoaM is removed. I just said that I trust WotC's feedback way more than the gnashing of teeth, even if it did get it's own sub-forum.

And this particular expression of DoaM is expressed as forceful aggression. A barbarian's rage can grant advantage, but so does many other things. Doam could also be applied to deady accruacy (rogue) or a rapid series of quick strikes (monk). And, if left in the game, it very likely will.

I think you're placing an inflated level of importance on the mechanic. It is not inevitable that the use of this would become widespread.

If it's just an aggressive fighting style, then there are lots of examples of equally valid mechanics that can replace DoaM that don't result in flame wars.

There's another way to avoid flame wars. Don't start them over mechanics you don't like.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

It's not an option.

It's one option of 5. That already makes it an option.

 

[Obryn]

In the option-lite unfinished playtest there is one mechanic used by three classes, yes. Oh, and the stone giant.
In the finished game it could be much more prevenlant. And it could appear in any number of other places: feats, subclasses, magic items, more monsters, etc.

Let's say it shows up as a magic item property. What then?

So people like DoaM enough to irritate a section of the audience to keep it in the game, but don't want it everywhere and are happy with it not having an impact table because no one is playing a class that gets it?
That leads to a weird situation where the pro-DoaM players have a barbarian and monk as DPS and the fighter is protection and DoaM might as well have been removed for all the impact on their game.

I'm refering to the people who countered my argument (that the absence of a something does not make someone unappy but the presence does) with the counter argument that DoaM not only makes them happy but is required for their happiness and its absence will make them unhappy. So, my comprimise with them was expanding DoaM to all classes thus ensuring their happiness.

And this particular expression of DoaM is expressed as forceful aggression. A barbarian's rage can grant advantage, but so does many other things. Doam could also be applied to deady accruacy (rogue) or a rapid series of quick strikes (monk). And, if left in the game, it very likely will.

If it's just an aggressive fighting style, then there are lots of examples of equally valid mechanics that can replace DoaM that don't result in flame wars.

There are, indeed, other viable mechanics. It's just that this one is fine, too.

I don't think these "flame wars" are worthy of consideration, except as a shining example of how damaged and dysfunctional the D&D community is, that something so piddling and minor is suddenly a hill worth dying on. I think it's become a symbol, now, and the mechanic itself is just a proxy for the gaming community's issues.

 

[Jester David]

It's one option of 5. That already makes it an option.

I've explained how it isn't an option but a machining included in an option at length. If you're not actually going to read what I'm saying and just repeat the same thing over and over again them this isn't a discussion.