Uh... since when was this an issue.

[Tovec]

I don't know how to put this gently. But there's times when, indeed, a "fan" is so toxic, dismissing them is the proper response. RPGs and pc/console gaming both tend to let too much slide, imo.

As I've seen repeatedly said by the Mods on this forum, "That is what the Ignore button is for" It isn't an excuse to completely ignore the arguments leveled against something in favour of attacking the man who said them. A person may be toxic, I've had to ban MANY people lately since I find them to be just that. But (for example) I wouldn't ban pemerton just because I disagree with him, I counter his arguments instead of saying that he has no idea what he is talking about. DDNFan may go overboard, absolutely, I agree with that. But his concerns are still valid and are a mirror of what I feel and what many others feel. He is simply continuing the fight that others don't for whatever reason; maybe they've given up hope in seeing change, or tired of fighting the same fight, could even be as simple as no longer seeing those arguments to respond to because they are in the ignore list; who knows. I'm still offended by what Morrus said, though I accept that it could be on my end instead of what he intended to put across. I still feel it attacked DDNFan instead of his expressed opinion. It doesn't matter if he has the power to disband groups, it doesn't. It is a non-factor. The fact he WANTS TO is an issue. Many of us feel the same way. DoaM is an issue and is contested. So by all means ignore the man if you wish, but don't pretend that his arguments weren't made and immediately say that because he made them that they are suddenly not relevant because I assure you they still are. I understand being tired of having the same conversations, that's why I stayed out of it for as long as I did, but when I see the same incorrect stuff being said somewhere in the area of two years later, I have to pipe in and add my two cents. The same goes for attacking the content of someone's character for disagreeing with their opinions, that is just wrong and I can't stay silent.

I have no idea of DDNFan's gender, if they care and wish me to correct the language I'll do so. I wrote it with a definite male gender only for the sake of clarity.

 

[tuxgeo]

Personally (and this is merely my personal reaction, rather than any kind of indication of the quality of the comments in this thread), the one thing that I feel most in need of right now is a lot more coffee (no Decaf, please!), rather than adding an abundance of new people to my ignore list.

I disagree with pemerton a lot; but I'll still give him XP when he makes a particularly good point. (I already have.)
I disagree with paraxis a lot; but I'll still give him XP when he makes a particularly good point. (I already have.)

Regarding the rest, Time Will Tell.

 

[RangerWickett]

The old RPG Talislanta had you roll a d20 against a target number. For an attack, if you succeeded, it was a hit. If you succeeded by 10+, it was a crit and did double damage. If you failed by 1-4 it was a partial success, so you'd do glancing damage (unless the target had armor, I think). And if you failed by 5-9 you had a full failure. (If you failed by 10+ you had a mishap.)

I dunno. If the rule was written as follows, would it work for you?

"When wielding a great weapon, your special training allows you to still cause minor injuries from the sheer force of your weapon's impact, even if you cannot land a proper blow with the weapon's full force. Whenever you make an attack with a great weapon but miss the target's AC but still roll at least a modified 10 or higher, you still score a glancing blow that deals damage equal to your Strength modifier."

 

[DDNFan]

Ouch! Pathfinder's out of the question, then. Well, I guess @DDNFan needs a new plan of action! Anyone know if GURPS features DoaM?

A gunslinger archetype is not the same as a fighter fighting style, and we don't like guns in our D&D games anyway. Certainly not silliness like grit which I've seen banned at multiple tables I've played in over the years because it's too absurd. I can ignore guns in the same exact way that I can ignore the laser gun and plasma rifle sci-fi add on book that just came out which doesn't interest me or anyone I play with.

I'm having a great time playing D&D Next actually. The main question is whether the final rules will be decent or sprinkled with crud. I don't like paying for stuff I consider crummy, I guess that makes me crazy around these parts. Go figure. I don't have unilateral power to tell my friends they can't continue to play this edition if there are things in it that I can't stomach, but if I cancelled my book orders they'd have to play at someone else's place. They are more than welcome to do that, but I host and I organize people to get together and if I start a Pathfinder game I know for sure that's what we would be playing instead, with either the exact same group, same campaign, same DM, or a different DM (possibly myself). I just have friends who are also open minded enough to not demand or even expect others to join a game containing rules they detest. I like the overall system a lot, there are just a few deal breaker things in there and I have a few lines I will not cross. This is one of them. I'll keep my own council as to how to spend my spare time. I rolled my eyes nearly to the back of my head during the last time I tried to tolerate these kinds of rules, and I'm simply not interested in doing that again.

If you are, Morrus, that's fine by me. If you play games with rules you hate in them, be my guest. I'll go back to Pathfinder and ignore the bad stuff. I already own the Pathfinder books and am familiar with it both as a player and as a DM, and so are all the other gamers I play with. They all loved Pathfinder and hated 4th, and I don't ever remember any of us arguing over immersion breaking things that didn't make any sense to us as we did during our 4e games. Just not interested in doing that again, and certainly not paying Wizards again after claiming "one size does not fit all" then handing me a pair of children's pants and saying "don't like it? too bad for you".

No, too bad for them. If I pulled out of this game after Basic D&D, Wizards would certainly lose several complete sets of book orders. I don't relish the notion of that, but if I have to houserule the game just to play it, and we're set on playing it in the end, at best we might play it with PDFs but I'm certainly not paying for the books myself. I'm tired of buying half-baked products that are shoved out the door.

 

[DDNFan]

The old RPG Talislanta had you roll a d20 against a target number. For an attack, if you succeeded, it was a hit. If you succeeded by 10+, it was a crit and did double damage. If you failed by 1-4 it was a partial success, so you'd do glancing damage (unless the target had armor, I think). And if you failed by 5-9 you had a full failure. (If you failed by 10+ you had a mishap.)

I dunno. If the rule was written as follows, would it work for you?

"When wielding a great weapon, your special training allows you to still cause minor injuries from the sheer force of your weapon's impact, even if you cannot land a proper blow with the weapon's full force. Whenever you make an attack with a great weapon but miss the target's AC but still roll at least a modified 10 or higher, you still score a glancing blow that deals damage equal to your Strength modifier."

Yes I'd accept that, but then I'd have to wonder who was designing the game in such a curious way. First they create Temp HP for Barbarians which is supposed to account for their rage adrenalin rush protecting them temporarily but they could still die as they succumb to their real wounds (real HP), then they keep that for 5th edition but at the 11th hour, instead of re-using that new stat for second wind as they were doing in the last playtest, turned HP into stamina while making Temp HP also mean stamina, or something. Who knows. It's kind of a confused mess, I'm tired, I don't really care to argue about it but I think the designers of this edition have made some serious logical blunders and are over-confident in their skills that they think everyone will accept their digressions. Either they should have kept Temp HP as stamina, or gotten rid of it and just released the game as D&D 4.75 because when there is no coherent vision of what HP means, you have a game that allows fighters to have preternatural accuracy and lay on hands-like abilities.

Second Wind only differs in target: and amount of HP restored, otherwise it is effectively the same as lay on hands. Damage on a miss effectively means that every attack is a hit. It means no attack can be a failure. Either way it is totally illogical (only deities cannot fail. Even then), and I will not pay for it.

We'll see in a week or so, then I'll be making some decisions about the new edition, and quite possibly what I do on sunday evenings for the next several years. I'd rather play an MMO or piano or go to the gym more often or take my girlfriend out for ice cream instead of having to ram my head into a wall because I would be playing a game with such ridiculous rules in it. Just can't do it.

 

[DDNFan]

As I've seen repeatedly said by the Mods on this forum, "That is what the Ignore button is for" It isn't an excuse to completely ignore the arguments leveled against something in favour of attacking the man who said them. A person may be toxic, I've had to ban MANY people lately since I find them to be just that. But (for example) I wouldn't ban pemerton just because I disagree with him, I counter his arguments instead of saying that he has no idea what he is talking about. DDNFan may go overboard, absolutely, I agree with that. But his concerns are still valid and are a mirror of what I feel and what many others feel. He is simply continuing the fight that others don't for whatever reason; maybe they've given up hope in seeing change, or tired of fighting the same fight, could even be as simple as no longer seeing those arguments to respond to because they are in the ignore list; who knows. I'm still offended by what Morrus said, though I accept that it could be on my end instead of what he intended to put across. I still feel it attacked DDNFan instead of his expressed opinion. It doesn't matter if he has the power to disband groups, it doesn't. It is a non-factor. The fact he WANTS TO is an issue. Many of us feel the same way. DoaM is an issue and is contested. So by all means ignore the man if you wish, but don't pretend that his arguments weren't made and immediately say that because he made them that they are suddenly not relevant because I assure you they still are. I understand being tired of having the same conversations, that's why I stayed out of it for as long as I did, but when I see the same incorrect stuff being said somewhere in the area of two years later, I have to pipe in and add my two cents. The same goes for attacking the content of someone's character for disagreeing with their opinions, that is just wrong and I can't stay silent.

I have no idea of DDNFan's gender, if they care and wish me to correct the language I'll do so. I wrote it with a definite male gender only for the sake of clarity.

Thanks for saying this Tovec, it's appreciated. The owner of this website can insult me all he wants, it is like water off a duck's back and I care not one iota. Why would I? Doesn't make me wrong or my opinions invalid.

I actually am a fan of D&D Next, I play it every week. In fact, I played it tonight. But that doesn't mean there aren't some crusty stains in it, stuff like Tactical Warrior which neither I nor my current DM would allow in our games in a million years. It's one thing to put problematic mechanics in a feat somewhere, but it's another to give not one but two very highly controversial abilities to the Basic D&D, simplest fighter you can think of.

Second Wind is strike 1, but it's not so bad since it's once in a while. But Daom is an at will ability, and I'm not willing to sit through that all the freaking time, should someone at our tables chose it. I'd ask them if they could pick something else, but why would I do that when I can just play a different game where fighters and rangers and paladins can miss? I suspect that Rodney Thompson and others at Wizards are probably planning more such nonsensical rules to add in for subsequent books, and then it's a never ending game of whack a mole. That's not the reason I want to play D&D. I want a game rule that, at least in the Basic game if not in the full PHB, contains only things that I would consider a reasonable facsimile of the D&D I grew up with.

Fighters with greatswords never failing any attack, ever, disqualifies 5th edition from that status, singlehandedly and irredeemably.

 

[evileeyore]

Ouch! Pathfinder's out of the question, then. Well, I guess [MENTION=6776483]DDNFan[/MENTION] needs a new plan of action! Anyone know if GURPS features DoaM?

Dang nab it Morrus! You hath stirred me from my couple years long slumber with the mention of GURPS!


But yeah, Damage on a Miss could be in GURPS. Wouldn't exactly be outa place, but as DDNFan says, it's an option so he can safely ignore it. I mean he already has modified the 5th ed proto-rules so ignoring it in Pathfinder or GURPS would be pretty simple neh?

 

[DDNFan]

Dang nab it Morrus! You hath stirred me from my couple years long slumber with the mention of GURPS!


But yeah, Damage on a Miss could be in GURPS. Wouldn't exactly be outa place, but as DDNFan says, it's an option so he can safely ignore it. I mean he already has modified the 5th ed proto-rules so ignoring it in Pathfinder or GURPS would be pretty simple neh?

Pretty simple doesn't mean worth doing or worth paying for.

My Pathfinder books don't have it (at least not for the default classes), and they are sitting right over there on my bookshelf, waiting for a fresh chance to pick up the ball that Wizards dropped.

Gunslinger would already be banned wholesale, and is in a later power option book anyway. Big difference between a "grit" using exploit of a class we'd never play, and a core fighter class option in the Basic D&D game. Huge difference.

 

[evileeyore]

Way to attack the content of his character instead of the argument he is making.

Well... there's nothing else to comment on since DDNFan isn't making an argument. He's saying "I like playing D&D 5e, but if they add this one thing BLARGALALALALAL!"

Manbearcat made an argument. Croathian is making discussion. You are making arguments. DDNFan is stating a decision. Morrus is being sarcastic and I'm just making small talks.

See?

I'm having a great time playing D&D Next actually.

Then why not just continue?

I'm not saying "buy 5e", psssh. I haven't purchase any D&D products since the Moldvay BECMI sets oh so long ago (has it really been 30 years?). I'm just saying play the game you want to play.

 

[Tovec]

Well... there's nothing else to comment on since DDNFan isn't making an argument. He's saying "I like playing D&D 5e, but if they add this one thing BLARGALALALALAL!"

Well, no he isn't but that is beside the point. As far as I knew people were supposed to be against attacks of character is my point regardless of what DDNFan's comment was.

Manbearcat made an argument. Croathian is making discussion. You are making arguments. DDNFan is stating a decision. Morrus is being sarcastic and I'm just making small talks.

And if it is sarcasm (big IF) then that is fine. Possibly the spirit that was intended. However sarcasm is a matter of tone and tone is hard to tell in text form, especially on the internet (I think I've also heard the Mods say this). Beyond that, sarcasm is a form of denigration for the sake of humour. Equally hard to transfer through the internet. My point is that he should either be clear it is sarcasm, or maybe not be sarcastic in the first place since sarcasm is still meant to insult people, just in a clever way. Savvy?

------
Also, [MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION] I'll do a proper response to your question tomorrow. It is 2 am here and too late for me to get into these arguments again. Short version: it is better but I still have problems with it. Problems I'll elaborate on tomorrow.