D&D 5E DooM!

[Ichneumon]

The knell has rung, the runes are read, and my verdict's in. If hurting things with an unsuccessful melee strike hurts you, odds are there'll be nothing to worry about when the shelves grow D&D Next books later this year.

Disclaimer: I'm not a WotC insider, private playtester, or a bat hanging over Mike Mearls' cubicle. So I could be wrong, but I'm confident that what I've predicted will come to pass. Why's this? Well, DoaM has a lot of detractors (cue phrase ending in 'Sherlock'), but more importantly, it doesn't really have any champions. There are people who've defended it; who've attempted to show that if you hold it up to the light just-so and squint the right way DoaM makes sense. But there's not a trace of a "We want DoaM!" chant amongst the tributaries of e-ink that have spilled over the topic. There's no real passion for DoaM even amongst its supporters, and that's the issue.

This may be because it's fairly easy to think of alternative GWF mechanics that are more effective and exciting, as a recent thread has shown. If 5e includes a choice between DoaM and something much cooler, everyone will choose Option B even if they think DoaM is OK. Any option in D&D needs to either have its own fan club or be able to hold its own amongst the choices offered. On the evidence I've seen, DoaM won't be able to do either. When you add in that Mearls isn't overly enthusiastic about the mechanic and alternatives have been getting a run in playtests, you can just about rest assured that all melee damage will be tied to successful hits.

 

[pemerton]

There are people who've defended it; who've attempted to show that if you hold it up to the light just-so and squint the right way DoaM makes sense. But there's not a trace of a "We want DoaM!" chant amongst the tributaries of e-ink that have spilled over the topic. There's no real passion for DoaM even amongst its supporters, and that's the issue.

You must have missed my posts. You can find the latest ones in the "My happiness" thread - they're somewhere in the 90s.

 

[Manbearcat]

You must have missed my posts. You can find the latest ones in the "My happiness" thread - they're somewhere in the 90s.

And I've defended the mechanic as perfectly sensible within (a) the mechanics of D&D and (recently in the "what should be in the place of DoaM thread") (b) that I utterly object to its classification of nonsensical with respect to martial exchanges...and actually think that it is probably as good of a process-sim mechanic as D&D has ever had. Virtually all martial exchanges deplete energy, fatigue ablates focus, tweaks may accrue, and the lot of it renders wear and tear unto the combatants, inevitably leading to a higher propensity for failure in follow-up exchanges. DoaM simulates this as well as any mechanic. 13th Age's DoaM mechanics for everything but a 1 probably best represent the phenomena.

There are plenty of people who very much appreciate and enjoy the mechanic. We just aren't inclined to deluge the boards with thread after thread after thread decrying all of the hand-ringing over it. Folks shouldn't mistake abstinence from hysterics for disinterest or dispassion.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

I defend DoaM not because of the mechanic itself, but because I like having more options over having less options.

 

[Ichneumon]

And I've defended the mechanic as perfectly sensible within (a) the mechanics of D&D and (recently in the "what should be in the place of DoaM thread") (b) that I utterly object to its classification of nonsensical with respect to martial exchanges...and actually think that it is probably as good of a process-sim mechanic as D&D has ever had. Virtually all martial exchanges deplete energy, fatigue ablates focus, tweaks may accrue, and the lot of it renders wear and tear unto the combatants, inevitably leading to a higher propensity for failure in follow-up exchanges. DoaM simulates this as well as any mechanic. 13th Age's DoaM mechanics for everything but a 1 probably best represent the phenomena.

There are plenty of people who very much appreciate and enjoy the mechanic. We just aren't inclined to deluge the boards with thread after thread after thread decrying all of the hand-ringing over it. Folks shouldn't mistake abstinence from hysterics for disinterest or dispassion.

Some excellent points there.

 

[Kobold Stew]

This may be because it's fairly easy to think of alternative GWF mechanics that are more effective and exciting, as a recent thread has shown. If 5e includes a choice between DoaM and something much cooler, everyone will choose Option B even if they think DoaM is OK.

It is easy to come up with cool and exciting alternatives. That's not in question. But I feel that's not what the proper point of comparison is: if anything, a "cool" and "exciting" solution is demonstrably not what they will go with. The other fighting styles are bland, simple bonuses that are easily applied without t any tactical decision. The most nuanced of the five options (Protection) is the only one that directly benefits other characters.

The solution for GWF has to be something that it is not an automatic choice so that everyone will choose option B; it has to be a bland generic improvement that makes some sense when a character hits with a two-handed weapon.

 

[Gadget]

Very astute comments here. The mechanic as presented may not be great, but I have no believability problems with the mechanic. People tend to forgot that D&D combat is very abstract, despite the use of such terms as 'healing', 'hit', 'miss', and 'damage'. People tend to unconsciously map each roll of an 'attack' against an opponent's AC to a particular swing of the sword/axe/whatever. I don't think this has ever been the intention, though AD&D was more clear about this with its one minute combat rounds. All a 'hit' or 'miss' means is that a particular combat exchange was more or less successful for the attacker. So a miss does not necessarily map to a whiff, swing-and-a-miss-umpire-calls-a-strike. I think I would have a believability problem if it was possible for a 'miss' (less successful) to be more beneficial to the attacker than a 'hit' (more successful), but since every 'hit' will have at least strength +1 damage, that is not possible.

 

[Emerikol]

Very astute comments here. The mechanic as presented may not be great, but I have no believability problems with the mechanic. People tend to forgot that D&D combat is very abstract, despite the use of such terms as 'healing', 'hit', 'miss', and 'damage'. People tend to unconsciously map each roll of an 'attack' against an opponent's AC to a particular swing of the sword/axe/whatever. I don't think this has ever been the intention, though AD&D was more clear about this with its one minute combat rounds. All a 'hit' or 'miss' means is that a particular combat exchange was more or less successful for the attacker. So a miss does not necessarily map to a whiff, swing-and-a-miss-umpire-calls-a-strike. I think I would have a believability problem if it was possible for a 'miss' (less successful) to be more beneficial to the attacker than a 'hit' (more successful), but since every 'hit' will have at least strength +1 damage, that is not possible.

A lot of us still mapped it to a single swing. We just viewed the rest of the activity as setting up that swing. So you roll the d20 for the moment when it really counts.


To Others:
I find it interesting and informative that even people who could care less about a mechanic still take joy in griefing those that hate it. If you don't care why would you fight for it just because when so many dislike it. Do you want this game to succeed?

 

[Umbran]

To Others:
I find it interesting and informative that even people who could care less about a mechanic still take joy in griefing those that hate it. If you don't care why would you fight for it just because when so many dislike it. Do you want this game to succeed?

I take no joy in giving grief.

Note that in the same metaphorical breath, you are saying you know what's in people's minds (joy), while stating you don't know what's in people's minds (why they argue). That's inconsistent. Either you are a telepath, or you're not, right?

I understand that meeting resistance can cause one to dig in, and start thinking bad things about the opposition. But, you have to discard the preconceived notion if you are to learn.


Two things:

1) The "so many dislike it" is anecdote, not data. I only see a relatively small number of people from a self-selected population on forums speaking out against it, which doesn't strike me as a valid sample. My recollection is that WotC said it tested well - given what I know of the data-taking procedure, I will take their assertion over yours. Sorry. I know this may make you feel like you are being dismissed, but that's not personal. It is merely knowledge of statistics.

2) If one mechanic on one option for one class will make the game fail, then, as the thread title says, we are Doomed. If your implication is correct, then the gaming community has become so darned picky and entitled that no design from any publisher can hope to please us. Thus, I argue for being reasonable about it. I argue against making Perfect the enemy of Good.

 

[Emerikol]

I take no joy in giving grief.

Note that in the same metaphorical breath, you are saying you know what's in people's minds (joy), while stating you don't know what's in people's minds (why they argue). That's inconsistent. Either you are a telepath, or you're not, right?

I understand that meeting resistance can cause one to dig in, and start thinking bad things about the opposition. But, you have to discard the preconceived notion if you are to learn.

When someone says - they don't care that much - and yet they fight to the death to keep the mechanic in because they don't want the "haters" or whoever to win out, then my point applies. Such posts exist. So no telepathy is required if I take them at their word. Perhaps I am including statements made over at WOTC boards as well.

Two things:

1) The "so many dislike it" is anecdote, not data. I only see a relatively small number of people from a self-selected population on forums speaking out against it, which doesn't strike me as a valid sample. My recollection is that WotC said it tested well - given what I know of the data-taking procedure, I will take their assertion over yours. Sorry. I know this may make you feel like you are being dismissed, but that's not personal. It is merely knowledge of statistics.

I don't remember a single question about DoaM in general. I wish they would put it on a survey just like so many surveys here. This whole battle over healing, simulation, etc.. etc... is important and DoaM is right there in the mix. When half the playerbase went to Pathfinder, that should be a clue.

2) If one mechanic on one option for one class will make the game fail, then, as the thread title says, we are Doomed. If your implication is correct, then the gaming community has become so darned picky and entitled that no design from any publisher can hope to please us. Thus, I argue for being reasonable about it. I argue against making Perfect the enemy of Good.

I think a lot of people fear the spread of this design philosophy. I've said on multiple occasions as written I will just ban it. Even if DoaM stays in the game because the devs fear a counter backlash for removing it, I seriously doubt they are going to add a bunch more mechanics of that type. Let's hope anyway. I think they'd undo DoaM if they had a time machine. On the pro side it's a poor mechanic. On the anti-side it's hated.

Some days I wish the devs would just come out, give the traditionalists the finger and that be it. We could just realize that D&D will never again be the D&D we remember even in playstyle and just seek other alternatives. I think if the traditionalists could let go completely then D&D probably would fall to a 3rd or 4th in the sales lists and other games would rise to the top. Not just Pathfinder either but perhaps a good solid 1e/2e style game.

Practically I've suggested WOTC should do that by supporting three different games. Kind of the breakfast cereal approach. For now they still strive for one edition to unite them all and I hope they can do it.