Jester David
Hero
DoaM is NOT an option. It's a mechanic that's part of an option. DoaM is like rerolling 1s or treating a roll of 9 or below as a 10. It's principally found in parts of the game that are options but DoaM itself is a mechanic.I don't understand this at all.
By this logic, it's not optional whether or not a gameworld includes a god of Light, or counts weasels among its fauna.
The ability is on a list of things from which a choice must be made: the exact words are "Choose one of the following options". It can be removed from that list without making any class unbuildable or unplayable. No other aspect of the game depends upon it. (I'm following convention here and ignoring the billion-and-one non-AoE spells that do autodamage.)
I don't like the Expertise feats in 4e. That means my group just doesn't use them. It's as easy as that. I don't need them to be quarantined into some special corner marked "optional". I just tell my players that, when they are choosing feats, they should opt for something else.
And I'd rather not have that mechanic part of the core rules, have it be an assumed part of the game.
And, again, it's only one option now. When they start adding more subclasses, feats, monsters, magic items, and the like it will be this handy useful mechanic that will get used, unless there is a reason not to. Somewhere down the line a freelancer will say "Hey, the bardbarian lacks DoaM. Imma gonna add that to this barbarian build I'm working on." Or the rogue. Or the cleric. Or an orc boss in an adventure. Or the gibbering mouther in a MM.
And no, this is not a slippery slope. It's close, but a slippery slope is a chain of events without a logical or reasonable argument for the chain of events. Saying "game developers like to reuse established and/or elegant mechanics that have been proven and are balanced" is logical. Saying "game designers like to fill holes and include mechanics they personally enjoy" is reasonable. This is not a stretch.
I'm not drifting into some wacky hyperbole and screaming "DOAM WILL BE EVERYWHERE IN 5E LIKE IN 4E." It won't. But if left in it will get harder and harder to remove effectively as there will be more and more options that make use of the mechanic.
But, putting that aside, GWF are as much an "option" as mountain dwarves. They're technically possible to remove but they're a really big part of the genre.
For example, let's say mountain dwarves were given an extra ability but had a -2 Charisma for balance . Sounds fine to me. I like the stat penalties. But other people hate the stat penalties. But that's okay, no one is making them play mountain dwarves. They can just play hill dwarves.
Unless they're really big fans of mountain dwarves. Unless that fits their character concept before they found out about the -2. Or if they want some of the other benefits that come from being a mountain dwarf. Or they're updating a character from an earlier edition into 5e.
It's optional, but it's a really hard option that borders on damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.
Plus, I don't like excluding options for mechanical reasons. I play games with mechanics I like and don't play games with mechanics I don't like. I exclude options all the time, but for story reasons. No orcs in Ravenloft. No gnomes in Dark Sun. No psionics in Dragonlance. And the like. I want the reason to be "it doesn't fit the world" or "it doesn't mesh with the story I want to tell" or "it doesn't work with the genre we're using."
No, it has to be removed so people don't have to remove greatweapon fighters from the game. AND so the mechanic doesn't become accepted and spread elsewhere in the game.So, just to be clear: it has to be removed, so that those who can't abide it aren't tempted to put it into their games anyway (and then what - post about how it is ruining their fun?).
If it's that simple to replicate the mechanical effects, why fight so hard against DoaM?At 1st level, the typical melee fighter has +4 to hit (+3 stat, +1 prof). The typical AC is, let's say, 13, meaning the to-hit rate is 0.6. Hence the expected damage boost from DoaM is 0.4*STR. As a damage bonus on a hit, that would be +2*STR/3. Just replace DoaM with +2 to damage and your expected output should be about the same.
Advantage on a d12 damage roll also gives average damage of 8 and 35/72, which is just a touch less than +2 to a d12 damage roll. So that is another option.
I've got nothing against adding to the range of options. I just don't see why they need to be reduced.
If you and your players really like games where you never miss, if DoaM is so essential to your happiness and satisfaction with a game, then maybe, just maybe, a game like D&D where you're expected to miss nearly half the time is not for you.
Or WotC could add a "glancing blow" Rules Modules. Something that adds DoaM to all classes, so your players don't always have to play GWF classes to feel useful every round, giving them much, much more choice and a game they should find much more satisfying.
I'm willing to have DoaM in the game as an optional rule. I'm willing to compromise and not just push away everyone who likes DoaM. I'm willing to fight to have an option included that will make D&D Next even better for them and their playstyle.