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

[Umbran]

Umbran, the latter was your quote from the other thread that was cancelled.

Yes, but that thread was closed for a reason. If we drag topics from there to here, and continue them, that does not help end the arguments that closed the first one.

 

[Mistwell]

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

You think "Great Weapon Fighters are more defensive in nature, because the size of their weapon and great sweep of their swing parries blows more effectively than others" is not an acceptable playstyle?

Why does a Great Weapon Fighter have to be offensive in nature, to represent the playstyle?

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"

Well, if you wanted to make it harder on your player and your game, you could phrase it that way. Or, you can just say what I said above, that Great Weapon Fighters are much better at defense than others, and they can either increase their AC, or else impose disadvantage on one attack per round against themselves of even an ally next to them, due to their great skill with the larger weapon.

 

[dmgorgon]

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.

Yes, I totally agree that it should be a buffet, but that's not what we are getting. We are getting a big stew of everything. You have to pick-out the things you don't like even if those things permeate the entire dish. Allergies, the slaughter of animals, heathen blessings, forbidden animal products, non-kosher salt, are all big problems for those that care.

 

[Mistwell]

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

Yes, you said "I totally respect 13th Age because it's honest about its agenda." If you're not implying something else is dishonest about its agenda and therefore earns your disrespect, then I am failing to see why you made the comment in the first place. What was your point about this topic, if not to imply another edition we are discussing isn't that? Seems like it would have been a pretty random off-topic comment if there was not some implied context about what we're discussing.

 

[urLordy]

Yes, you said "I totally respect 13th Age because it's honest about its agenda." If you're not implying something else is dishonest about its agenda and therefore earns your disrespect, then I am failing to see why you made the comment in the first place. What was your point about this topic, if not to imply another edition we are discussing isn't that? Seems like it would have been a pretty random off-topic comment if there was not some implied context about what we're discussing.

Thank you for the clarification. Then my point is at the meta level. It could be helpful if D&D could be honest about its agenda as it would offer a framework for disputes like this about the characteristics of rules in core D&D Next. Admittedly, 13th Age (only appealing to a certain market) has the luxury that D&D doesn't (trying to capture the larger market).

For example: Rodney's Q&A re: what's happening in the game world on a damage on a miss, where he describes the heavy weapon bruising the opponent -- that explanation is flawed and incohesive for sim playstyle (presuming the questions about believability) and too limiting and incomplete for narrativists (presumably because few people are regurgitating that piece of narrative) -- which to me, is symptomatic of D&D's fuzzy agenda, and look at the repercussions of that. This is not about "right or wrong" -- it is an observation.

 

[herrozerro]

Yes, I totally agree that it should be a buffet, but that's not what we are getting. We are getting a big stew of everything. You have to pick-out the things you don't like even if those things permeate the entire dish. Allergies, the slaughter of animals, heathen blessings, forbidden animal products, non-kosher salt, are all big problems for those that care.

For a game that is supposedly going to be modular, I guess the question is: Should the core game be some kind of sanitized vegetarian meal? Or should the core rather be a little stew? Personally I think the core should be a little bit of a stew. Otherwise you are basically saying that one group needs to spend more money period in order to play the game they want.

I think the core game should have a little bit for everyone and then everyone should have to get their modules to make it exactly what they want.

 

[Umbran]

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

I will say it again, now even larger, because normal sized text seems to not have gotten the idea across:

DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL

Your entire post would have been much better without the personal comment. In general, it is usually a bad idea to try to tell people what is in their heads - this is addressing the person of the poster, rather than the content of their post.

Really, folks, this isn't difficult. It is simple editing. Before you click "post reply" double check and see if you're making commentary about the person behind the post - if you are, delete it.

 

[dmgorgon]

You think "Great Weapon Fighters are more defensive in nature, because the size of their weapon and great sweep of their swing parries blows more effectively than others" is not an acceptable playstyle?

Why does a Great Weapon Fighter have to be offensive in nature, to represent the playstyle?




Well, if you wanted to make it harder on your player and your game, you could phrase it that way. Or, you can just say what I said above, that Great Weapon Fighters are much better at defense than others, and they can either increase their AC, or else impose disadvantage on one attack per round against themselves of even an ally next to them, due to their great skill with the larger weapon.

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.

 

[dmgorgon]

For a game that is supposedly going to be modular, I guess the question is: Should the core game be some kind of sanitized vegetarian meal? Or should the core rather be a little stew? Personally I think the core should be a little bit of a stew. Otherwise you are basically saying that one group needs to spend more money period in order to play the game they want.

I think the core game should have a little bit for everyone and then everyone should have to get their modules to make it exactly what they want.

The core game should be a light buffet style meal with just enough options for everyone. It's not that difficult at all. A few extra pages of Ink is all that's needed. Now, I do understand that some people can't eat at the same table with heathens...but that might be going too far.

 

[dmgorgon]

Your entire post would have been much better without the personal comment. In general, it is usually a bad idea to try to tell people what is in their heads - this is addressing the person of the poster, rather than the content of their post.

Very well. I'll retract that statement as my opinion and not an apparent fact regarding the poster.