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

[Emerikol]

Any time it's brought up on the Wizard forums, it seems like many more people are for it than against it. However, I'm willing to admit I don't frequent those boards nearly as much as I do reddit and ENWorld.

It's an ongoing open war over there and tons of people hate it. Pretty much every thread has been hijacked at one time or another over this issue.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I haven't heard a peep of this "issue" outside ENWorld which itself is a pretty strong echo-chamber. I haven't seen anything about this on, for example, Reddit, the WotC forums, Google+, or rpg.net. No one in my group, who keep up with Next, has mentioned it. So, really, it isn't an issue at all outside of ENWorld. And even in this poll, its split half and half, where self selection is going to draw in people who are unhappy with the rule.

Have you heard anything about any other aspect of 5e outside of ENW?

As far as I know, WotC and its current products haven't been relevant in the rpg community for quite a while, outside of certain specialized (mostly online) venues. When we're talking 5e, we're talking about an effort to revitalize the D&D brand. It's of course unlikely that squabbles over one silly fighter ability have a noticeable effect on that level, but the fact that WotC's game design hasn't gotten beyond that stuff is telling.

 

[Mistwell]

I've had this concern for a long time now and I'm almost finished with WotC. They created all these divisions and now they are trying to fix them, albeit half halfheartedly IMO.

You only have to look at the resumes of the dev team to know what kind of game we are going to get. I could be wrong, but all the designers who had a part in 2e like Steve Winter and Zeb are gone. At this point, the playtest is largely a marketing ploy and an attempt to keep the forums buzzing with strife.

That sounds like a baseless conspiracy theory to me.

 

[Mistwell]

IMO, the current mechanic for GWF doesn't even represent the fighting style correctly, but that's another issue. I view it as a cheap call out to all the gamist / narrative players and nothing more. I also don't see how any of the other mechanics come close to representing the GWF style either.

I guess you are used of the mechanic-first narrative-second approach to gaming. It might be ok for you to reflavour another mechanic, but that doesn't work for my playstyle. I expect the mechanic to support the narrative, not the other way around.

I didn't reflavor anything. None of the five options currently listed have any flavor described. They all leave it to the player and/or DM to describe the flavor, and so I just proposed one you could use. I am not "used of the mechanic-first narrative-second approach to gaming", I am simply responding to your objection and pointing out that you still have two of the three options available to you that are perfectly acceptable for the great weapon fighter in your party. I'll ask again - why does the great weapon fighting style require, in your mind, mechanics which are offensive in nature? Why can't they be defensive in nature, like they currently have with Protection and Defense?

I mean, the great weapon fighter is actually lucky - the archer has a choice of only two right now (archery, and defense), they cannot even choose from a pool of three options like the great weapon fighter can choose from (since they are neither wielding a melee weapon nor wearing a shield, so they cannot gain access to Protection).

 

[Mistwell]

Have you heard anything about any other aspect of 5e outside of ENW?

As far as I know, WotC and its current products haven't been relevant in the rpg community for quite a while, outside of certain specialized (mostly online) venues. When we're talking 5e, we're talking about an effort to revitalize the D&D brand. It's of course unlikely that squabbles over one silly fighter ability have a noticeable effect on that level, but the fact that WotC's game design hasn't gotten beyond that stuff is telling.

Yes, I have seen 5e discussed in many many places. And we don't have to guess about that - Morrus built a tool that monitors hundreds of sources and it shows 5e was the most talked about RPG last time I saw him post about the tool's results - more talked about that even Pathfinder.

 

[dmgorgon]

I didn't reflavor anything. None of the five options currently listed have any flavor described. They all leave it to the player and/or DM to describe the flavor, and so I just proposed one you could use. I am not "used of the mechanic-first narrative-second approach to gaming", I am simply responding to your objection and pointing out that you still have two of the three options available to you that are perfectly acceptable for the great weapon fighter in your party. I'll ask again - why does the great weapon fighting style require, in your mind, mechanics which are offensive in nature? Why can't they be defensive in nature, like they currently have with Protection and Defense?

I mean, the great weapon fighter is actually lucky - the archer has a choice of only two right now (archery, and defense), they cannot even choose from a pool of three options like the great weapon fighter can choose from (since they are neither wielding a melee weapon nor wearing a shield, so they cannot gain access to Protection).

Protection is not a replacement for GWF. GWF requires mechanics that fit the narrative of great weapon fighting (at least for my playstyle anyway). Protection is not a mechanic that has anything to do with GWF. You're asking me to relfavour those options for GWF, but I'm telling you that in my playstyle I don't "reflavour".

IMO, we need build options for each kind of fighter. Weapon and Shield Style, Two Weapon Style, Two Handed Style, etc... Each build option should be available to each playstyle. If the system is going to call something "Great weapon fighting" then it should make the option playstyle neutral or provide alternatives for GWF.

IMO, GWF has been hijacked for one playstyle in particular and the designers have excluded my playstyle from that option.

 

[dmgorgon]

It's an ongoing open war over there and tons of people hate it. Pretty much every thread has been hijacked at one time or another over this issue.

There are still many open threads that are being hijacked as we speak.....

 

[ThirdWizard]

Have you heard anything about any other aspect of 5e outside of ENW?

As far as I know, WotC and its current products haven't been relevant in the rpg community for quite a while, outside of certain specialized (mostly online) venues. When we're talking 5e, we're talking about an effort to revitalize the D&D brand. It's of course unlikely that squabbles over one silly fighter ability have a noticeable effect on that level, but the fact that WotC's game design hasn't gotten beyond that stuff is telling.

Yeah, most posting on Next dried up around October. With nothing new to talk about, most venues have moved onto talk about other things. ENWorld has the fastest moving forums for discussing Next. /r/DnD still has a decent number of posts on Next, though, at multiple per day, which is pretty good for a non-Next based forum (r/DnDNext, by contrast is all but dead, and r/RPG doesn't mention it any more). Google+ has lots of people talking about D&D Next. But, most of the discussion there is about actually playing the game, less about critique. That's normal, though, for the Google+ community, where most of the discussion about rpgs revolves around actual play and less theory. But, its a great place to stay in touch with actual play experiences, which I prefer to theorizing about actual play.

 

[pemerton]

I asked that several times and never got a substantive answer.

I take it that my answer in the post immediately above yours does not count as a "substantive" one.

Given parallels I can see between Next and 13th Age

Are you able to elaborate on those parallels?

I guess you are used of the mechanic-first narrative-second approach to gaming.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, because I'm not 100% sure what the alternative is. Eg in no version of D&D can I narrate "I chop the orc's head off" until after the mechanical process of rolling an attack, rolling damage if the attack hits, and then subtracting hit points from the orc, has been completed.

 

[Mistwell]

Protection is not a replacement for GWF.

I didn't say it was. I said it was one of three options for someone wielding one weapon in two hands.

GWF requires mechanics that fit the narrative of great weapon fighting (at least for my playstyle anyway). Protection is not a mechanic that has anything to do with GWF. You're asking me to relfavour those options for GWF, but I'm telling you that in my playstyle I don't "reflavour".

In my opinion, you are confusing the title of the option, with the mechanics of the option. There is nothing inherent to the narrative of fighting with one weapon in two hands that connects to being more effective at offensive combat as opposed to defensive combat. Protection has exactly as much to do with fighting with one weapon in two hands, as does dealing damage on a miss, or dealing more damage on a hit. Neither option has narrative flavor built into it - they both come with no flavor listed, and you add whatever flavor you want to the option. There is flavor available for you to add to Protection and Defense that narrates it to fighting with one weapon in two hands. You've rejected that flavor, but not offered any reason why fighting with one weapon in two hands must be connected to offense rather than defense, or what the flavor for offense would even look like.

IMO, we need build options for each kind of fighter. Weapon and Shield Style, Two Weapon Style, Two Handed Style, etc... Each build option should be available to each playstyle. If the system is going to call something "Great weapon fighting" then it should make the option playstyle neutral or provide alternatives for GWF.

Again, why is it an offensive thing in your mind? You've gotta justify that narrative connection to make the argument you're making. Otherwise, the playstyle IS being represented just fine.

IMO, GWF has been hijacked for one playstyle in particular and the designers have excluded my playstyle from that option.

I don't think using terms like "hijacked" is helpful for this sort of debate. Nor have you shown they've excluded a playstyle, until you can show why that playstyle must be about an offensive rather than defensive option.