D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[Emerikol]

I hear all of you who want the wuxia fighter. Another side wants the simple fighter. So why is all this narrative stuff in the warrior. Why can't they just make it a feature of the weapon master and leave the warrior alone. I can ban the weapon master at my table and you can ban the warrior at yours if you like. The problem right now is that they are attaching stuff to the very class designed to appeal to (unsatisified with 4e) old school players.

 

[dmgorgon]

I'm just not sure One Game to Rule Them All is entirely possible, especially at launch or anytime soon after that.

I don't think the game would require a lot of options in the PHB and DMG. Most of the contention between playstyles is related to resting, hit points, and healing. Some people also want alternate casting systems like AEDU and a true Vancian, but I think those are doable and won't take up too much space.

 

[Mistwell]

The idea that it can just be ignored is also false. At the moment, there are no other options for the GWF

There are five total fighter options. Of them, THREE are available to the GWF. Of the three, only one is this kind of rule. The other two are, in my opinion, mechanically superior, and grow in power over the course of the campaign while this option we are debating shrinks in power over the course of the campaign.

You can very easily ignore this ability. If it didn't exist at all, and all you had to choose from was the other two options that work just fine for the great weapon wielder, would you be complaining? Just tell your players that option isn't in your game - simple as that. They have two great options to choose from.

I also haven't seen anyone here arguing that the options should be removed at the expense of those who like it. All we are saying is that we want options for everyone.

You appear to have not read 2/5ths of the options available? Or, are you discounting those two options for some reason?

 

[Mistwell]

Narrative is the right word. It is offending the simulationists as it should. I believe that WOTC has abandoned the simulationists. The only reason we don't see more narrative stuff is that they have a checklist of things people hated from 4e. They still don't understand though why they hated those things and are likely doomed to make the same mistakes when introducing future mechanics.

I am tired of the constant arguing I admit. I have concluded though that WOTC has no one representing me on the dev staff. They are trying to accommodate everyone but they have no one that thinks the same way. If they had even one guy on the staff that way, I'd have hope. They just shoot in the dark and treat every single element as an individual thing with no relationship to any other element. Thus by sheer attrition they will get their narrative game elements. The result will likely be the same as 4e. They will likely have more people that actually like it but the initial burst of people that got fooled isn't going to be there like it was in 4e.

There are at a minimum two well known, highly paid consultants for 5e that are also very well known simulationists (James Edward Raggi IV, and The RPG Pundit). I assure you, there is a very strong simulationist contingent advising the development of 5e. What you're seeing instead is a very few narrativists trying to get a few scraps of their stuff back into the game, not the other way around.

And if you don't believe me and want to see further evidence of that, PM me and I will tell you where you can find more information about that.

 

[dmgorgon]

I still don't understand why each and every element of the game needs to have options for everyone. You either play the game as a whole, remove elements you do not like or houserule them to be acceptable. Why does every single element need to have some kind of clean element for each playstyle?

Every single element doesn't need to have an option for each playstyle. From what I can tell most elements are compatible. The designers only need to focus on the elements that do cause contention.

The designers need to officially recognize and support everyone's play style.

How would you feel if I told you that alignment was going to be mechanically enforced in D&D Next? Would you feel comfortable with a system that enforces a playstyle you don't agree with? Would you not want it to be optional? How would you feel if you were told that you could just remove it and house rule it? We are making the same argument for DoaM.

Lastly, D&D Next invited EVERYONE back to D&D. You don't invite everyone to the dinner table and then serve them food they can't or don't want to eat. Sure, the Halal Christmas Pork might be tasty, but it doesn't appeal to everyone.

 

[herrozerro]

Every single element doesn't need to have an option for each playstyle. From what I can tell most elements are compatible. The designers only need to focus on the elements that do cause contention.

The designers need to officially recognize and support everyone's play style.

How would you feel if I told you that alignment was going to be mechanically enforced in D&D Next? Would you feel comfortable with a system that enforces a playstyle you don't agree with? Would you not want it to be optional? How would you feel if you were told that you could just remove it and house rule it? We are making the same argument for DoaM.

Lastly, D&D Next invited EVERYONE back to D&D. You don't invite everyone to the dinner table and then serve them food they can't or don't want to eat. Sure, the Halal Christmas Pork might be tasty, but it doesn't appeal to everyone.

Well if they took that stance on alignment and the rest of 5e still interested me, I would houserule it.

For your dinner table analogy, unless there are serious allergies, I won't stop serving something just because someone doesn't like it. I may dislike yams, but I don't ask they be removed from thanksgiving dinner just because I don't like them.

This D&D next dinner table shouldn't be a single meal like vegetarian simulationism. It should be more like a buffet or holiday feast, a lot of things for everyone. Some people won't like certain things on the table. But it is there own responsibility for not eating that food.

 

[urLordy]

Lastly, D&D Next invited EVERYONE back to D&D. You don't invite everyone to the dinner table and then serve them food they can't or don't want to eat. Sure, the Halal Christmas Pork might be tasty, but it doesn't appeal to everyone.

It would also be comforting to know what sort of restaurant it is. I totally respect 13th Age because it's honest about its agenda.

 

[Mistwell]

It would also be comforting to know what sort of restaurant it is. I totally respect 13th Age because it's honest about its agenda.

By implication, do you disrespect another game because it's dishonest about its agenda?

 

[dmgorgon]

There are five total fighter options. Of them, THREE are available to the GWF. Of the three, only one is this kind of rule. The other two are, in my opinion, mechanically superior, and grow in power over the course of the campaign while this option we are debating shrinks in power over the course of the campaign.

You can very easily ignore this ability. If it didn't exist at all, and all you had to choose from was the other two options that work just fine for the great weapon wielder, would you be complaining? Just tell your players that option isn't in your game - simple as that. They have two great options to choose from.



You appear to have not read 2/5ths of the options available? Or, are you discounting those two options for some reason?

Apparently you don't understand the difference between a playstyle option and a build option.

If the option didn't exist I would wonder when it would appear in the game. After all, several other editions of D&D have a great weapon fighter option. But yes, I am discounting those options because they are different build options. I'm looking for the GWF build option for my playstyle and I don't see it in the game.

Here is what you're asking me to do.

Player: "I want to make a great weapon fighter"
DM: "ok but don't take the GWF option because it doesn't fit our playstyle"
Player: "What other options are there for a great weapon fighter?"
DM: "Until I create a new GWF option for our playstyle, there are no other mechanics in the game designed for the great weapon fighter, you'll have to just take one of the other options"
Player: "Strange, I thought our playstyle was supported in this edition"
DM: "Not without house rules"
Player: "ok perhaps I'll make something else that is supported"

 

[urLordy]

By implication, do you disrespect another game because it's dishonest about its agenda?

Did I imply that? Can you tell me what you're getting at?