Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My happiness or yours.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6266946" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>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. </p><p>And I'd rather not have that mechanic part of the core rules, have it be an assumed part of the game. </p><p></p><p>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 <em>will</em> 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. </p><p>And no, this is not a slippery slope. It's close, but a slippery slope is a chain of events <u>without</u> 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. </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>It's optional, but it's a really hard option that borders on damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. </p><p></p><p>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 <em>Ravenloft</em>. No gnomes in <em>Dark Sun.</em> No psionics in <em>Dragonlance</em>. 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." </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>If it's that simple to replicate the mechanical effects, why fight so hard against DoaM?</p><p></p><p>If you and your players <u>really</u> 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. </p><p><strong>Or</strong> WotC could add a "glancing blow" Rules Modules. Something that adds DoaM to <u>all</u> 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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6266946, member: 37579"] 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 [I]will[/I] 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 [U]without[/U] 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 [I]Ravenloft[/I]. No gnomes in [I]Dark Sun.[/I] No psionics in [I]Dragonlance[/I]. 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." 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. If it's that simple to replicate the mechanical effects, why fight so hard against DoaM? If you and your players [U]really[/U] 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. [B]Or[/B] WotC could add a "glancing blow" Rules Modules. Something that adds DoaM to [U]all[/U] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My happiness or yours.
Top