DoaM produces a remarkable reaction from the gamer collective for an ability that really isn't that powerful. Adding +2 damage to great weapon attacks results in about the same damage output for a 18 STR PC. I think there's something underlying beneath the intensity of the discussion that's more fundamental than whether your great sword does 4 damage guaranteed each round.
D&D has spent most of its history with binary success/failure mechanics which follow a pattern of something/nothing. If you fail at an attack or ability(skill) check, you get nothing. Saves are the other way round, as succeeding often means nothing happens, which is better than failing and getting the bad thing. Of course, making a save can still mean suffering some adverse effect, like half damage. These assumptions have been part of D&D for so long that any attempt to challenge them seems jarring. In a nutshell, where you are on the DoaM debate can be gauged by your reaction to the following statement.
"Failure means you get nothing."
To many people, this seems perfectly sensible if what you're trying to do is swing a large piece of metal at a target. A miss, surely, means that the weapon didn't connect at all or deflected harmlessly off the target's armor/shield. DoaM gives the impression that the great-weapon wielder never misses, and therefore never actually fails.
From another point of view, missing just means that you didn't achieve what you were intending, not that nothing happened at all. A darts player going for a 180 would consider a throw landing outside the triple-20 to be a miss, even if it hit the bullseye. The thrower still gets points, just not what was wished for. This perspective categorises a miss as the attacker's failure to connect fully with the target, while assuming the attacker's skill can still make these partial connections count for something.
Also, some people - and this really helps heat things up - think that the italicised statement above is true, and that this is good. It's a small step from this attitude to claiming that DoaM advocates want to see no outs in baseball and 1 or 2 points for missed three-pointers in basketball. However, DoaM provides one example of a something-result for failure, rather than claiming that all failures must give something. In the end, all it really does is suggest that the "wiff" effect is not necessarily the most logical outcome for every miss on a melee strike. I can sympathise with those who can't stomach the idea of a 'miss hitting', but I also feel that the previous sentence has a point.
D&D has spent most of its history with binary success/failure mechanics which follow a pattern of something/nothing. If you fail at an attack or ability(skill) check, you get nothing. Saves are the other way round, as succeeding often means nothing happens, which is better than failing and getting the bad thing. Of course, making a save can still mean suffering some adverse effect, like half damage. These assumptions have been part of D&D for so long that any attempt to challenge them seems jarring. In a nutshell, where you are on the DoaM debate can be gauged by your reaction to the following statement.
"Failure means you get nothing."
To many people, this seems perfectly sensible if what you're trying to do is swing a large piece of metal at a target. A miss, surely, means that the weapon didn't connect at all or deflected harmlessly off the target's armor/shield. DoaM gives the impression that the great-weapon wielder never misses, and therefore never actually fails.
From another point of view, missing just means that you didn't achieve what you were intending, not that nothing happened at all. A darts player going for a 180 would consider a throw landing outside the triple-20 to be a miss, even if it hit the bullseye. The thrower still gets points, just not what was wished for. This perspective categorises a miss as the attacker's failure to connect fully with the target, while assuming the attacker's skill can still make these partial connections count for something.
Also, some people - and this really helps heat things up - think that the italicised statement above is true, and that this is good. It's a small step from this attitude to claiming that DoaM advocates want to see no outs in baseball and 1 or 2 points for missed three-pointers in basketball. However, DoaM provides one example of a something-result for failure, rather than claiming that all failures must give something. In the end, all it really does is suggest that the "wiff" effect is not necessarily the most logical outcome for every miss on a melee strike. I can sympathise with those who can't stomach the idea of a 'miss hitting', but I also feel that the previous sentence has a point.
