Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6461318" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>This isn't a particularly good argument because DoaM is not a class feature, it's a mechanic. It's a mechanic that's typically found in a class feature, yes, but it's not limited to that one mechanic. </p><p>Back in the playtest when DoaM was part of the fighter it was also part of several monsters. Which makes it trickier to avoid because you can't just forgo that class. </p><p></p><p>Saying you can ignore DoaM by ignoring the fighter option that had it is like saying you can currently ignore "reroll 1s" by not taking the current version of the GWF. Which just does not work as rerolling 1s could appear anywhere in the game. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd love to hear an example. </p><p></p><p></p><p>If that were the only factor then it would have an easy fix to give the option any other mechanic with the same effective result: a boost to average damage. Which is what they did for the final book. GWF now have better average damage than other fighter options and their minimum damage on a hit is much higher. They're actually pretty solid. </p><p></p><p>And yet... the discussion continues. Because the discussion isn't about DoaM but the nature of hit points and an edition war based around a common 4e mechanic being sidelined. DoaM is just an excuse. It's a proxy edition war. The Vietnam of edition wars.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's a little more complicated than that because... </p><p>Okay, I tried to write my reply following the metaphor and it's gibberish. So I'm abandoning that and trying again in plainer text. </p><p></p><p>I'm all for people having game elements they like, especially when they're options that can be added or removed. That's cool. I'll support variant rules and options that give people something else they like. (Heck, as I've demonstrated , I'll even spend an hour writing them.) </p><p>And I'm all for the base game not being entirely what I want provided I can also be given options that let me modify the game. That's fair.</p><p> </p><p>However, this works best when the rules and options to be modified are the core rules and not class options. Mostly because it's a single change versus a variable number of changes. It's easy to change how rests work or hit dice recovery works as most of that is class independent. The more you need to read class features, monster powers, feats, and the like the harder it is to implement the change. </p><p></p><p>For example, critical hits. Let's say I don't like the base method of crits in 5e. I want something more like 4e with max damage, so rolling snake eyes doesn't result in a crit that's less than average damage. Seems easy enough: max damage on crits. However, a number of classes have features that modify critical hits. So now I need to go through those options and make a ruling for each. To say nothing of monsters. </p><p></p><p>This is the big difference between a regular RPG and an RPG designed to be modular. </p><p></p><p>As such, including a mechanic in the base rules that is divisive is... problematic at best. Especially one that would have ended up in the Basic Rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6461318, member: 37579"] This isn't a particularly good argument because DoaM is not a class feature, it's a mechanic. It's a mechanic that's typically found in a class feature, yes, but it's not limited to that one mechanic. Back in the playtest when DoaM was part of the fighter it was also part of several monsters. Which makes it trickier to avoid because you can't just forgo that class. Saying you can ignore DoaM by ignoring the fighter option that had it is like saying you can currently ignore "reroll 1s" by not taking the current version of the GWF. Which just does not work as rerolling 1s could appear anywhere in the game. I'd love to hear an example. If that were the only factor then it would have an easy fix to give the option any other mechanic with the same effective result: a boost to average damage. Which is what they did for the final book. GWF now have better average damage than other fighter options and their minimum damage on a hit is much higher. They're actually pretty solid. And yet... the discussion continues. Because the discussion isn't about DoaM but the nature of hit points and an edition war based around a common 4e mechanic being sidelined. DoaM is just an excuse. It's a proxy edition war. The Vietnam of edition wars. It's a little more complicated than that because... Okay, I tried to write my reply following the metaphor and it's gibberish. So I'm abandoning that and trying again in plainer text. I'm all for people having game elements they like, especially when they're options that can be added or removed. That's cool. I'll support variant rules and options that give people something else they like. (Heck, as I've demonstrated , I'll even spend an hour writing them.) And I'm all for the base game not being entirely what I want provided I can also be given options that let me modify the game. That's fair. However, this works best when the rules and options to be modified are the core rules and not class options. Mostly because it's a single change versus a variable number of changes. It's easy to change how rests work or hit dice recovery works as most of that is class independent. The more you need to read class features, monster powers, feats, and the like the harder it is to implement the change. For example, critical hits. Let's say I don't like the base method of crits in 5e. I want something more like 4e with max damage, so rolling snake eyes doesn't result in a crit that's less than average damage. Seems easy enough: max damage on crits. However, a number of classes have features that modify critical hits. So now I need to go through those options and make a ruling for each. To say nothing of monsters. This is the big difference between a regular RPG and an RPG designed to be modular. As such, including a mechanic in the base rules that is divisive is... problematic at best. Especially one that would have ended up in the Basic Rules. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense
Top