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

[Gorgoroth]

Do you even listen to yourself? Throwing a trident with two hands and arguing that it counts for a melee feat because it's listed as a melee weapon?

Good luck with your petition, sir.

That's a RAW issue, one which was actually mentioned on this very message board, which I added to my list of bugs because it's legit.

No, my open letter is not focused on that, but rather the two dozen bugs as a combined whole, including the 0th one, where you can kill a foe via a miss (or multiple misses, with no hits at all) which was to be described as a "direct strike" by the rules.

Simple, plain, direct contradiction. An attack cannot kill a foe via a miss, it's in the rules already.

GWF is a contradiction. It cannot be. It's logically impossible. Game rules should be consistent with each other, and make sense.

That's all I'm asking for. Any professional should be ashamed at trying to publish a set of game rules with such a black and white contradiction in it, especially after hundreds of people have reported myriad narrative and gameplay bugs it has.

 

[Obryn]

The opinions about game rules by pro game developers should be taken more seriously. That's what expertise means.

When people start paying you six figures for your game dev skills, call me.

No, an expert in a topic should have more insight and ability to communicate and argue their point effectively, both of which are lacking in your "open letter." You don't get to point to a big "game expert" badge to make your point for you or render your arguments immune from critics. Especially when, let's not forget, it's actual experienced, respected, and not-anonymous TTRPG designers who've made the rules you're arguing against in the first place.

But if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't argue crazy, so...

 

[Deset Gled]

I've made all types of games, including RPGs. Table-top RPGs, no

Oh, I see. You may want to consider editing your original post and thread title. They imply something vastly different.

Solving game design issues in D&D is actually rather trivial for someone in my profession. I solve much harder bugs all day, every day, 12 hours a day, for years at a time, and ship games played by thousands of times more players than each iteration of D&D ever has.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Ignore list longer.

Thread much shorter.

That's the only way to handle these situations.

Plug your ears, and while you're doing that you'll miss out on the realization that talking about these bugs for months has resulted in MM and his team arguing amongst themselves, and an iminent L&L article to be published.

If these points didn't resonate with them (as they should, to anyone with a desire for narrative consistency), it would have been a done deal.

I predict damage on a miss will be gone, or at least siphoned off in a strictly optional sidebar and not baked into 3 core PHB class builds available to all players, and not assumed to be optional at the player level. Optional rules are a different beast entirely than a PC build option which you can assume to see and most any random D&D table, including Encounters and so on. That's forcing this nonsense playstyle on the rest of us who hate it, and that's exclusive. Inclusive is putting it in a sidebar, but keeping it out of the default stock.

Optional rules are off by default, GWF is on. This is the problem. And once they realize why it shouldn't be a core option that's on by default (because it's actually nonsense through and through), the same exact rationale will undoubtedly by used to remove it entirely.

Why kill trees? Why waste page space for game design garbage? Any game design 101 graduate would know : remove contradictions in the rules as you are made aware of them, with each passing iteration of those rules, and as a result of feedback.

Pros like me are simply more acutely ashamed of them, especially coming from a guy like MM, who otherwise has very good D&D instincts. I suspect it's other members on his team pushing for this, and he's not a fan himself. He is, however, the boss, which is precisely why I'm appealing to him, because if the boss can't put his foot down and do the right thing, then no one can. And that's when I walk, because I'm not paying a dime of my six figure salary for a piece of crud with a black and white contradiction after I've reported it.

 

[Gorgoroth]

No, an expert in a topic should have more insight and ability to communicate and argue their point effectively, both of which are lacking in your "open letter." You don't get to point to a big "game expert" badge to make your point for you or render your arguments immune from critics. Especially when, let's not forget, it's actual experienced, respected, and not-anonymous TTRPG designers who've made the rules you're arguing against in the first place.

But if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't argue crazy, so...

Those same guys asked for public feedback, and they are humans, we all make mistakes. This is one of them.

1st level fighters never missing with any attack they ever do is not a rule that belongs in D&D.

Apprentices don't have 100% chance of success. GWF = 100% chance of successful attack, which deals damage and either brings a foe closer to death, or kills them. That means there is no unsuccessful attack, ever. That means hits and misses are identical narratively, meaning you've reduced the game to a bunch of bean counting, and removed the agency of the dice in determining the narrative.

Call me crazy all you like, but I am handsomely paid for my version of "crazy", and I will not apologize for that.

If your point is that anonymous people cannot have their credentials validated, that's besides the point, I told him if he cared to find out, I would tell him who I was. He probably won't though, because the clear contradiction in the rules cannot stand, and no self-respecting game designer would allow themselves to publish a set of rules with such a glaring contradiction which makes itself manifest from the round-by-round actions of three core classes of the game.

GWF makes rolling a 1 on a D20 give you 1-5 damage, but rolling a 15 gives you potentially only one more HP. So, what's the difference between 3 HP and 3 + 1 (out of 1d12) ? Not much.

But there's a HUGE difference narratively between 4 HP and 0 HP, especially since the GWF guy can deal his str mod damage to a top AC foe with disadvantage on every attack using a stick. So the W of the weapon has no impact in the game, a greatsword is no better at your "great weapon fighting style" than any old broom handle. It's terrifying they are actually considering shipping the game with this.

 

[Lokiare]

"The determined kobold lifted its sword to block the blow of the great axe coming for its head. the axe slammed into the blade with enough force to drive the it into the kobolfs skull insyantly."

"The lizard folk warrior warded off blow after blow coming from the great sword weilding knight. Each one requiring more and more effort to block in time until the lizard folk warrior was unable to meet a blow. The knight slammed his sword between the lixards ribs killing him."

any questions?
hint:read the definition of hit points a few more times...

 

[thewok]

I don't mind damage on a miss on principle. I just think it should be saved for special things that can't be done all the time. It should be the consolation prize when you gamble some resources on something and whiff. "You didn't get your full 2d10+Str mod damage, so you get to do Str mod damage instead. Of course, now you can't do what you just did for another X amount of time."

I'd like GWF to have something different as its benefit. What that should be, though, I have no idea.

 

[Obryn]

I sincerely hope there is a modular option because maybe then there will be less of this inane argument and fewer terrible posts like this "open letter" crapping up forums left and right.

 

[Raith5]

"The determined kobold lifted its sword to block the blow of the great axe coming for its head. the axe slammed into the blade with enough force to drive the it into the kobolfs skull insyantly."

"The lizard folk warrior warded off blow after blow coming from the great sword weilding knight. Each one requiring more and more effort to block in time until the lizard folk warrior was unable to meet a blow. The knight slammed his sword between the lixards ribs killing him."

any questions?
hint:read the definition of hit points a few more times...

Yep this topic has been done to death (pardon the pun) here an elsewhere. Underpinning the issue is the question of what hit points mean. The DDN (like the preceding editions) clearly state that hp are more than meat (page 22 How to play section of the last playtest).

 

[Gorgoroth]

I don't mind damage on a miss on principle. I just think it should be saved for special things that can't be done all the time. It should be the consolation prize when you gamble some resources on something and whiff. "You didn't get your full 2d10+Str mod damage, so you get to do Str mod damage instead. Of course, now you can't do what you just did for another X amount of time."

I'd like GWF to have something different as its benefit. What that should be, though, I have no idea.

Virtually any number of replacements would work far better than this and scale up with level instead of down (quadratically).

A fighter starts with 1 attack, and ends up with 4 (or 5, with TWF and a polearm).

As he levels, his to-hit goes up from +4 or so, to +13, however, enemy ACs have stayed hittable (bounded accuracy ensures this).

So as he gains proficiency, the chance of him missing goes down with every attack, meaning the benefit he gains from missing goes down. But on top of that, he gains more attacks as he levels. That's quadratically negative scaling benefit by level.

Fighting styles should build on these things to be coherent with the rest of the design rules:
a) hitting more often
b) hitting harder
c) doing something on a hit
d) avoiding getting hit

All the other fighting styles do this. GWF doesn't. GWF is a reward for failure. As you gain proficiency in fighting, you become less proficient in GWF, as a total proportion of your output. This is in average DPR gains. You go from a 30-50% DPR benefit at level 1 to about 3-5% at level 20. That's a clear bug. It doesn't take someone with ten years experience or an incredible CV to recognize that, yet many people don't. Those are not the people who need convincing, it's Mike Mearls. He's the only one who can make D&D make sense again.

The best stand-ins for this have been mentioned many times:
1) Cleave on a crit or a kill
2) +2 to damage
3) Damage advantage (benefits higher W weapons more, which is great)
4) Brutal 2

Any of those things also build upon hitting, or hitting harder, or hitting more often. That's a mechanic which plays well with the other combat rules. One which is modulated by advantage or disadvantage, or buffs, or penalties. GWF is totally backwards in every possible way. It's bizarro world game design, straight out of the already-rejected-by-market-forces dustbin.