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: 6267223" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>Wow... you really don't get it. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>It's a tonne of work. </p><p>Because it's <u><strong>not</strong></u> an <em>option</em>, it's a <em>mechanic</em>. 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 <u>really</u> wanted you could remove d20s as the resolution mechanic the game and replace them with 3d6. But that does not mean d20s are "optional". </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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 <em>have</em> to modify or where the customization options are already done by way of rules modules.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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? </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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! </p><p>Let the anti-DoaM crowd with the fighter battle so you can win the war and get a game you really want to play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6267223, member: 37579"] 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 [U][B]not[/B][/U] an [I]option[/I], it's a [I]mechanic[/I]. 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 [U]really[/U] 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? 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. 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 [I]have[/I] to modify or where the customization options are already done by way of rules modules. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My happiness or yours.
Top