D&D 5E Will the inclusion of the option of DoaM cause you to not buy 5e.

[ForeverSlayer]

There shouldn't be any auto killing at all that doesn't come with a cost. This goes for DoaM and Pew Pew magic.

God I hate Pew Pew magic! Makes me feel like I am somehow playing a video game without there actually being a video game.

 

[Lanefan]

To put it bluntly, the Fighter being able to auto-kill a 3hp enemy is not an issue at all.

Sure it is:

1. So much for the heroic blood-spattered hang-on-at-the-brink-of-death last stand where the guy at 2 h.p. somehow holds on round after round while the tide of battle slowly turns in his favour.

Because remember, folks: the enemy Fighters get to do this too.

2. Unless greatsword-using 1st level characters and opponents all have more h.p. than they really should their battles are going to be very short, and probably won by whoever gets highest (cyclic) initiative instead of by whoever rolls the best.

3. Sure a Wizard type using magic missile can do much the same thing...very few times a day at low level, a bit more frequently at higher level, and at cost of not being able to cast other useful 1st-level spells. A Fighter type can do this *all day* if she likes, and then all night as well.

Lan-"the way I usually roll I should probably be arguing in favour of DoaM, but I still think it's a bad idea"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Make that Wizard a Fighter and literally the same thing happens, except the Wizard can do more miss damage to guarantee the kill, can do it from range, and can also kill any remaining mooks who happen to be standing near the bad guy.

How exactly does a Wizard do miss damage?

If you're thinking of fireball and the like, think again. Fireball is an area-effect spell; if you're in the blast area it's (almost certainly) gonna hurt either more or less depending largely on your luck, and if you're not in the area you're OK and won't get hurt at all.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

remember, folks: the enemy Fighters get to do this too.

Why?

If the point of the ability is to mechanically support a certain character achetype for the player of the fighter, why is it necessarily the case that I want NPC warriors to have the same thing?

Sure a Wizard type using magic missile can do much the same thing...very few times a day at low level, a bit more frequently at higher level, and at cost of not being able to cast other useful 1st-level spells. A Fighter type can do this *all day* if she likes, and then all night as well.

A fighter runs out of hit points.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The (pretty obvious) point is that if autodamage is boring, then it must be boring from the wizard as much as the fighter. Yet I have never heard that particular complaint against Magic Missile or save-for-half in over 30 years of reading people's complaints about D&D.

And in particular, I have never seen [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] make that complaint. Which makes me wonder why having autodamage on fighters is such a big deal, from the excitement point of view.

A completely inappropriate analogy, given that you are referring to spells, which (pre-4e) fighters do not have. It's not a stretch to say that spells are evaluated differently than actions and abilities that are not spells.

I'm pretty sure that a new fighter ability that required him to spend a dose of bat guano every time he made an attack would take the wind out of some people's sails too.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why?

If the point of the ability is to mechanically support a certain character achetype for the player of the fighter, why is it necessarily the case that I want NPC warriors to have the same thing?

Always give a monster an even break. If PCs are special snowflakes with plot immunity then there isn't an actual game taking place-merely a storytelling show. Which is fine and good if that is your goal.
For those that seek gameplay, it is pure bollocks.

 

[pemerton]

If PCs are special snowflakes with plot immunity then there isn't an actual game taking place-merely a storytelling show.

Huh? It's always going to be the case that some PCs can do things that some monsters cannot (eg no giant rat can cast meteor swarm). And vice versa (eg there's no way in Basic D&D for a fighter to get +2 to hit from a berserker rage).

Even if we focus on aspects of build that PCs and NPCs have in common, Moldvay suggests letting players reroll 1s and 2s for starting hit points (page B6) but doesn't extend goblin NPCs the same privilege (page B56).

 

[pemerton]

A completely inappropriate analogy, given that you are referring to spells, which (pre-4e) fighters do not have. It's not a stretch to say that spells are evaluated differently than actions and abilities that are not spells.

Can you explain why autodamage would be boring and anti-climactic when delivered by a weapon, but not when delivered by a spell?

Because that's the position that you appear to be defending.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Can you explain why autodamage would be boring and anti-climactic when delivered by a weapon, but not when delivered by a spell?

Because that's the position that you appear to be defending.

Yes. The weapon strike is ostensibly the product of skill and effort. For most people who have gotten used to the d20 approach, the numerical bonus represents the skill learned over time, and the d20 roll represents the qualities of this particular instance of using it. Collectively, the attack roll represents how good of a job the character did on this particular attack, and is then compared to the AC which represents how hard it was to accomplish anything with the attack, and a success/failure decision is made. Depriving the attack roll of its meaning thus deprives the attack of its meaning.

Conversely, a spell is not the product of the character's skill or effort, but of some external and mysterious force. The excitement of playing a magical character derives from having mastered this force, not from the character's own qualities, so engaging the mechanics that represent the character's relationship with the source of his power (perhaps things like spell lists and slots or saving throws) is sufficient to create the consequential emotional response.

That being said, I would add that playing a spellcaster is arguably not as exciting as playing a warrior, and the people who do the latter are often the ones who gain visceral satisfaction from die rolls, whereas the caster players are more likely to be detached, tactical thinkers who derive satisfaction from having mastered their spell list over time rather than from rolling one lucky crit.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION], I don't see anything in what you say that pertains to particular experiences at the table being boring, climactic or anti-climactic.

You seem to be speculating about the general states of mind that players have playing certain sorts of characters.

If I may speculate along similar lines: if someone is playing a DoaM fighter, then presumably for them the excitement is in having mastered their weapon, and their opponent, to such an extent that their opponent cannot fully escape the PC's implacable weapon play. Hence engaging the relevant mechanic - by declaring an attack - is enough to trigger the emotional response.

But I don't think my speculation - nor yours - has much bearing on [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION]'s claim, which was not about the emotional resonance of playing a PC but was about the collective excitement at dice rolls and outcomes at the gaming table.