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: 6267694" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>Feats are optional, and skills are likely to be optional too. And we’re very likely to see some optional alignment modules. </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Is there a need to get personal?</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That works but is a little hard for new people to grasp. </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6267694, member: 37579"] 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. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My happiness or yours.
Top