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

[Dannyalcatraz]

What? How many games have you made and delivered, o wise one?

Dude, unless/until you provide proof you've designed one, apparently as many as you have.

Me too.

So, either provide your bona fides, or abandon the claim that you have special skill within the field of game design and simply defend your assertions on the merit.

Because honestly, even though I agree that DoaM is terrible, all your claims of expertise as a rhetorical tool to support your assertions only paint you in a negative light.

 

[Lokiare]

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.

Well another replacement rule could be that if you miss a target they get disadvantage to attack you on their next turn due to being exhausted, out of breath, or recovering from the near hit.

There are many ways that this can be dealt with that allow all parties to get what they want and not lose verisimilitude.

 

[Hussar]

Fighters should not get an exception to bypass the fighting rules anyway, and besides that, every attack needs a coherent narrative interpretation that fits with the mechanics in a plausible way. If you want a game that doesn't make any sense, just say so. I do, which is why I made this thread

Hrmm. What coherent narrative do you offer for my character missing that is mechanically derived in any edition of DnD?

 

[Ichneumon]

My players aren't smart. Ever since the GWF style became a thing,none of them have made a PC that uses it. I thought they wouldn't miss a chance to inflict DOAM's alleged game busting power upon the milieu, but no. Did make me think though. Where are all the DMs upset about GWFers bossing their campaigns with the help of DOAM? I honestly haven't heard of any. Those monster DOAM threads might harbour some, but I suspect they focus more on the aesthetics of that mechanic.

So if they're not shaping up as the Zillas of the 5e world, are great weapon fighting users actually balanced? Even (gulp) underpowered? I'm kinda on the fence with damage on a miss myself, but I can't see it as some form of horrific universal acid that's gonna eat through campaigns everywhere.

 

[Mistwell]

Well another replacement rule could be that if you miss a target they get disadvantage to attack you on their next turn due to being exhausted, out of breath, or recovering from the near hit.

There are many ways that this can be dealt with that allow all parties to get what they want and not lose verisimilitude.

That's not bad. It's something to track, but not any different than the Hinder action. In fact, that's how I'd phrase it:

Great Weapon Fighter: When you attack a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you hinder the target whether you hit or miss that target. You also deal your normal damage if you hit the target. The weapon must have the two-­handed or versatile property to gain this benefit.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The OP's pretentiousness aside, he makes some very good points. I don't like damage-on-a-miss either and hope it doesn't make it into the final game. That includes the evoker's potent cantrip ability, not just GWF.

 

[Sadras]

The OP's pretentiousness aside, he makes some very good points. I don't like damage-on-a-miss either and hope it doesn't make it into the final game. That includes the evoker's potent cantrip ability, not just GWF.

We have introduced a house rule where continuous use of cantrips in a short period of time (like a few minutes) might lead to the caster experiencing temporary blindness (light spell), temporary deafness, light-headedness, migraines/headaches, temporary loss of use in a limb, temporary memory loss, even fall unconscious...etc
It just plays on the theme that even if the magic is "free" to cast - you as a mortal have a limit on how long you can manipulate the arcane energies before they start affecting you.

Other house rules for spell-casters include:

1. Rituals costing Surges/HD where the cost is Level of the Ritual -1.
Surges/HD are only gain at 1st and every odd number thereafter. So casting more Rituals per day is possible, but you start taking corrupting damage (hp loss) and it starts fatiguing you. Surges/HD in our campaign also have more uses.

2. Casting in Melee: In order to avoid an AoO, the caster has to forego their move action, otherwise they risk being hit.

I love the ease in this edition to incorporate house rules while still taking some of the best ideas from 3e and 4e.

 

[Lanefan]

Greataxman swings his axe. You roll a 3. He does nothing that turn.
Orc swings his axe. He rolls a 17. He rolls a 10+Strength.


Congratulations.
You are dying.
You did nothing except lose your party 1/5th of its resources.

And would you similarly complain if in the next combat the roles (and rolls) were reversed; that the mighty Orc rolled a 3 and accomplished nothing then got 1-shotted by the Greataxeman's 17? If yes, then your point is valid. If no, well...

Lanefan

 

[Plaguescarred]

DoaM was there from very first level for Fighters in the Player's Handbook. The at-will attack? Reaping Strike.

There was also the feat Scimitar Dance. Perhaps WoTC dertermined that these game elements were selected significantly in the Character Builder and was worth puttting in the playtest.

Scimitar Dance
Prerequisites: Str 15, Dex 17
Benefit: If you miss with a melee attack with a
scimitar and you wouldn’t otherwise still deal damage
on the miss, you deal damage to your original target
equal to your Dexterity modifier. This damage receives
no modifiers or other benefits you normally gain on
weapon damage.

IIRC Mike Mearls said on his twiiter that GWF would be given alternative options.

 

[darjr]

[MENTION=6674889]Gorgoroth[/MENTION];

did you claim to have read an article about this topic by Mearls before it was published? Did you claim to have had personal communication with Mike Mearls about this and that he was going to address it in a published article?