Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ichneumon" data-source="post: 6267291" data-attributes="member: 98772">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.</blockquote>

Verification