D&D 5E Open Letter to Mike Mearls from a pro game dev

[Mistwell]

Fighters gain multiple attacks per round, that solves the problem quite nicely. The frequency of them having wholly ineffective rounds is elegantly solved, already.

You didn't understand his argument. He's not arguing "fighters". He already went through the other fighter-types. It's about two-handed fighters, and JUST those. Multiple attacks doesn't address the issue he's raising, since all fighters get those.

 

[Gorgoroth]

*deleted, not worth arguing with a troll*

In my own thread? You must be KIDDING ME. I did not invite you here, go spend your time in other threads instead of post nonsense deflections that have no bearing on this mechanic's 25 bugs.

 

[Minigiant]

Ok, too bad, that's what being an apprentice means : you are not confident and realiably able to consistently do your schtick under duress.

That's a FEATURE of the game, which is mitigated by character level, where at 5th level the fighter will feel quite a bit more powerful due to his extra bonus attack. that's a terrific way to model increased proficiency at fighting, more attacks means less chance of doing nothing, or more chance of dealing damage.

If you start at 100% chance of dealing damage at first level, you've gone and completely negated the apparent increase of reliability of fighter attacks. The first level Gweefer will deal damage on 100% of his attacks, but a 20th level one without it will not. That is totally broken and absurd. If players of low level characters feel like their characters are weak and unreliable, then they will definitely appreciate levelling up more. Not so when you start out at 100% and no where to go from there.

It's munchkin exploit, through and through. No apprentice should be 100% successful on every try, no matter the odds. No matter if he's fighting a terrasque or ancient wyrm, the first level GWeefer penetrates it every time. No matter if he's against a naked kobold or one in plate and shield, he penetrates that armor with 100% certainty, just by declaring that he does so. And it happens. Without fail. Every time.

Well Mike Mearls (or someone big in the design team) thinks it's a bad feature or that it hurts the game as it makes shield guy and bow guy better for damage that damage guy' Since Shield guy and Bow guy both survive.

If you can't figure out a way to make big weapon damage guy not suck from level 1 to 4, then they might change it.

Because in two sessions, I had a greatswordsman contribute nothing to the fight but his sweet bloody flesh slumped against a wall.

 

[Gorgoroth]

You didn't understand his argument. He's not arguing "fighters". He already went through the other fighter-types. It's about two-handed fighters, and JUST those. Multiple attacks doesn't address the issue he's raising.

Fighters being able to miss with their attacks is a feature of this game, actually a cornerstone. You roll to-hit, then if you beat AC, you deal damage, if you do not, you do not deal damage.

This is not a bug to be solved. This is simply the way the game works. When you actually make games for a living, you don't design combat to work one way then give entry-level combatants an exploit backdoor into circumventing a core assumption of how the game works. It's complete incoherent nonsense.

Go try and ship a game when you design it at odds with itself, see how successful it is. If you consider being able to miss with an attack is a bug, you have no business being anywhere near D&D design. Fighters can miss with their attacks, that's a good thing, because they aren't gods and that's not what this game is. At least not at level 1.

By level 5, a guy with a greatsword will have two attacks, which means, if given a 70% average to-hit rate, a 9% chance of not dealing any damage on any given round. But that's not 0%.

This is simply not a bug. Don't assert that it is, because no one ever added this to the game for any reason but to appease munchkins.

 

[Minigiant]

That's a problem with having too few hit points at low level. Something that could also be easily solved with the optional rule of adding constitution score to hp at 1st instead of constitution modifier.

That's how 4e handled it.

Level 1 PCs have 20+ HP and a base accuracy of 55%+ so you get multiple chances to attack before you die. So axe man will most likely do... something... before he dies.

 

[Mistwell]

Fighters being able to miss with their attacks is a feature of this game, actually a cornerstone. You roll to-hit, then if you beat AC, you deal damage, if you do not, you do not deal damage.

You are, again, deflecting and not addressing the issue he raised.

This is not a bug to be solved. This is simply the way the game works.

On that you are wrong. If all types of fighters get "something special" except two-handed fighter, that's a bug that needs to be fixed and not a feature. Otherwise, the mechanics of the game will clearly be discouraging two-handed fighters, and that's a nonsensical thing to do.

When you actually make games for a living,

I do. I've made one more game than you have. And I make one more dollar than you do every year for it. And the games I make are slightly more famous than the games you make. If you want proof, Mearls will have to ask me for proof himself and otherwise you just have to take my word for it. Are we done now?

Go try and ship a game when you design it at odds with itself, see how successful it is.

All the games I ship, which is one more than what you ship, are perfect. They are even more perfect than the games you ship. I'm that awesome. But you just have to take my word for it, because I don't care if you believe me only Mearls matters, even though I will mention it frequently in a thread I know Mearls is not reading on a website Mearls hasn't logged into for a year. Because I have the power to communicate on a miss.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Well Mike Mearls (or someone big in the design team) thinks it's a bad feature or that it hurts the game as it makes shield guy and bow guy better for damage that damage guy' Since Shield guy and Bow guy both survive.

If you can't figure out a way to make big weapon damage guy not suck from level 1 to 4, then they might change it.

Because in two sessions, I had a greatswordsman contribute nothing to the fight but his sweet bloody flesh slumped against a wall.

The great sword wielder does not need to have as reliable damage as a dual wielder to be competitive. If he dies, that's great, that means the game is working. Low level PCs should be fragile and possibly die. If you give up defense to go all out offense, you should expect that it would negatively impact survivability. That way, a good defense is a good defense, meaning, one does not need system mastery to realize, unlike in 4th edition, that raw DPR is not the be-all, end-all of everything, and if you want to survive you should put some thought into defense. Maybe use a longsword and shield, and drop the shield when you're fighting less enemies, or ones with lesser fighting ability. This introduces tactics that makes the game interesting. PCs should not be guaranteed to win, and if they drop, they should have their party there to help them back on their feet.

What you described is the game working as intended. Low level characters shouldn't suck, but they shouldn't be particularly good either. And a first level fighter with a great weapon is still a menace.

 

[Lokiare]

That's how 4e handled it.

Level 1 PCs have 20+ HP and a base accuracy of 55%+ so you get multiple chances to attack before you die. So axe man will most likely do... something... before he dies.

If I had my way your initiative would be affected by your armor and weapon choices. Then I'd have two handed weapons deal nice damage like 2d6 and 1d12 and 1d10+2. Also you should be able to add your Strength modifier + 1/2 or x2 so that you might miss 3/4 of the time, but when you hit you kill whatever you hit. So 2d6+10 damage per attack (average 17).

So you might go last in a round but you would definitely be feared. While someone with just a sword and leather armor would most likely go first and deal much less damage.

Someone in chain with a sword and shield would go in the middle and deal average damage. Someone in plate and wielding a great sword would probably go last, but deal lots of damage.

It would be a trade off.

 

[Lokiare]

The great sword wielder does not need to have as reliable damage as a dual wielder to be competitive. If he dies, that's great, that means the game is working. Low level PCs should be fragile and possibly die. If you give up defense to go all out offense, you should expect that it would negatively impact survivability. That way, a good defense is a good defense, meaning, one does not need system mastery to realize, unlike in 4th edition, that raw DPR is not the be-all, end-all of everything, and if you want to survive you should put some thought into defense. Maybe use a longsword and shield, and drop the shield when you're fighting less enemies, or ones with lesser fighting ability. This introduces tactics that makes the game interesting. PCs should not be guaranteed to win, and if they drop, they should have their party there to help them back on their feet.

What you described is the game working as intended. Low level characters shouldn't suck, but they shouldn't be particularly good either. And a first level fighter with a great weapon is still a menace.

I agree with most of what you said if you enjoy that kind of game, however you are incorrect on one point. DPR doesn't mean as much in 4E as you make it out to. If you have control or healing or a temp hp generator it doesn't matter what your DPR looks like you are still likely to win.

 

[Minigiant]

The great sword wielder does not need to have as reliable damage as a dual wielder to be competitive. If he dies, that's great, that means the game is working. Low level PCs should be fragile and possibly die. If you give up defense to go all out offense, you should expect that it would negatively impact survivability. That way, a good defense is a good defense, meaning, one does not need system mastery to realize, unlike in 4th edition, that raw DPR is not the be-all, end-all of everything, and if you want to survive you should put some thought into defense. Maybe use a longsword and shield, and drop the shield when you're fighting less enemies, or ones with lesser fighting ability. This introduces tactics that makes the game interesting. PCs should not be guaranteed to win, and if they drop, they should have their party there to help them back on their feet.

What you described is the game working as intended. Low level characters shouldn't suck, but they shouldn't be particularly good either. And a first level fighter with a great weapon is still a menace.

Well the designers says it's a problem.
And most D&D fans would agree that having iconic weapons useless until level 5 is a problem.

A GW warrior who rolls a 3 on one turn and a 7 on another and does nothing is bad according to the game designers.

A classic and iconic fighting style being inferior to all others until you reach level 5 (and didn't multiclass) is bad to them and many others.

Solve the problem. You cannot convince anyone it doesn't exist.