D&D 5E (2014) Open Letter to Mike Mearls from a pro game dev

[tuxgeo]

I find solace in the comforting hope (though perhaps "vain hope") that the developers at WotC have already handled this entire issue in their internal version of the game and have glued it down solidly, so this whole thread is months late.

 

[Dausuul]

I find solace in the comforting hope (though perhaps "vain hope") that the developers at WotC have already handled this entire issue in their internal version of the game and have glued it down solidly, so this whole thread is months late.

I rather suspect they saw the forum explosion and said, "Whoa. Didn't expect that. Okay, well, it's one fighter option. Is there any urgent reason to keep it? No? Right then, out it goes."

I mean, we forumgoers all want the other side to admit that we're Right, but the designers just want to make a good game that sells lots of copies. I'm not aware of any great outcry for damage on a miss mechanics. It's not central to the 5E system, doesn't perform any critical function. I doubt they have grand plans that depend on the existence of damage on a miss. Getting rid of this mechanic seems like a no-brainer.

(Of course, this might be wishful thinking on my part. But I really don't see any strong argument in favor of keeping it.)

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, but the idea of damage-on-a-miss doesn't fly with me; I'd houserule it out in a hearbeat.

That said, one thought that occurred to me while reading this is that if d-o-a-m is used it could lead to some rather ridiculous situations in games that are played absolutely by the book (of which I've seen one or two) unless the rule is a lot tighter than shown here.

Silly example number one: I declare my action to be that I swing my 2-handed sword at the guard on the wall. I miss. She takes damage. I'm at the bottom of the wall, she's on top of it, it's 30' high thus she's about 20' out of my reach...

Silly example number two: for whatever reason I can't see what I'm doing but am surrounded by foes, and I don't have blind-fighting ability. I swing my 2-handed sword in hopes of hitting anyone nearby. I miss. Do they all take damage? Does a random one?

As far as feedback goes, if 5e goes anything like all the previous e's the public feedback loop will be endless; that's where errata come from.

Lan-"Mommy, Bobby missed me! It hurts!"-efan

 

[Dausuul]

Silly example number one: I declare my action to be that I swing my 2-handed sword at the guard on the wall. I miss. She takes damage. I'm at the bottom of the wall, she's on top of it, it's 30' high thus she's about 20' out of my reach...

If she's out of your reach, you can't even attempt a melee attack, so Great Weapon Fighting doesn't apply.

Silly example number two: for whatever reason I can't see what I'm doing but am surrounded by foes, and I don't have blind-fighting ability. I swing my 2-handed sword in hopes of hitting anyone nearby. I miss. Do they all take damage? Does a random one?

GWF kicks in when you miss "a target." If you don't have a target, no damage.

 

[MerricB]

I don't think anyone minded 4e having DoaM because it was for specific attacks at limited usage/day.

DoaM was there from very first level for Fighters in the Player's Handbook. The at-will attack? Reaping Strike.

Reaping Strike
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half Strength modifier damage. If you’re wielding a two-handed weapon, you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier.

Yes, DoaM has been there since 4E first came out in 2008. Is there a feat that enables it in 3E?

Cheers!

 

[Minigiant]

Again as GWF's DoaM's purpose was to be a consolation prize for missing when the only benefit of weilding a two handed weapon comes from hiting with it (bows give you range to not get hit, shields give defense), its main flaw is its simplicity.

Basically if you greatax fighter misses 3 times... he did nothing, he is probably now dead or dying, and soon the party of the parrty will too.

I personally have no problem with DoaM at will with a "vaible target" and a "not on a 1" restriction. When I DM, any miss with a roll over 10 is described as bouncing off armor anyway.

But the feedback is feedback. And people like the guy in charge to agree with their feedback.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Not true. I addressed a bunch of them; they range from reasonable to hyperbolic to flat-out wrong. And I'm on the anti-DoaM side! Sometimes the fail is so strong that you have to repudiate it even when you agree with the conclusion. Nor am I the only one--I've seen a couple of other anti-DoaM folks joking that they were going to switch sides because of the OP's post.

If anyone is convinced that killing a foe by missing them with their sword is a good mechanic, good for them. I won't even argue with that, adopting irrational stances because you don't like the messenger is the height of absurdity, but I'm not here to set people's heads straight. If anything, the only use such posts make is to make those people sound petulant and childish, and does not further their bias whatsoever (as IF Mistwell wasn't gaga over Daom the whole time, lol, good one). If my comprehensive list of bugs is too long to read, might I suggest a hobby that doesn't involve copious reading. And if they were not fans of a coherent game narrative to begin with, who cares? I don't. Play what you like, and I'll play what I like. If you switch your opinion based on anything other than logic, you're admitting you weren't beholden to logic in the first place.

Re-posting my response (since it got added in an edit because I prefer not to throw out a bunch of posts in a row):

• The higher level you get, and thus better accuracy, the less the fighter will benefit from his fighting style. As you gain levels, you can expect to fight more foes with high AC, so the benefit remains.

False. ACs are static, proficiency bonus goes up in D&D Next. Nice try. A high level NPC wearing plate armor has the exact
same AC as a first level PC with chain + shield, at a cost of 50gp or so. The benefit goes down, by about 50% DPR boost at first level, to around 3-5% at 20th level.

• Thrown versatile weapons such as warhammers, spears and tridents can never miss a prone, invisible target when thrown. This is absurd. GWF only applies in melee.

Great Weapon Fighting
When you miss a target with a melee weapon
that you are wielding with two hands, the target
still takes damage from the weapon. The damage
equals your Strength modifier. The weapon must
have the two-­‐handed or versatile property to
gain this benefit.

Simple Melee Weapons
Spear 1 gp 1d6 piercing 4 lb. Thrown (range 20/60), versatile (1d8)

By Raw you are incorrect. You can argue that spears are only thrown with one hand, sure, but that's not actually what the rules say. A spear is both a versatile melee weapon AND a thrown weapon. Sure, that's a little contrived, but it's legit. It's only one minor bug, which I assume will be corrected.

• All objects being attacked, no matter how small or well guarded, will be automatically destroyed. This has nothing to do with GWF. 5E doesn't have damage reduction for objects, so if you take enough whacks at anything, you'll destroy it no matter what. I would like to see this remedied, but changing GWF won't help. On the other hand, if Gorgoroth means "destroyed in one swing," then s/he's simply wrong; objects have hit points and most of them have more than 5.

There are many iconic moments where it's imperative for a PC to sunder a foe's scepter or some spell reagent, or a staff, or a crystall ball in a wizard's hand, and having your super heavy axe strike it unerringly robs the game of dramatic tension, and removes the agency of the D20. You have said nothing here, other than the solution to GWF is to give crystal balls more HP so as to protect them from this exploit auto-smashing them over the objections of its possessor, who is presumably trying to protect it. Whoops, 100% accuracy strikes again. Unerringly. Like a magic missile, except it's not a daily, and it's not cast by a wizard. It's done at-will by apprentice level fighters.

Pure gargbage. Keep piling on the rationalizations and meager deflections, you are not stating your case, you are just using a transparent ploy to divert attention from the utter ridiculousness of dealing damage on a failed attack.

• No human is so perfect that he can never fail to harm his opponent any time he attacks them. No human is so perfect that s/he can count on being able to survive a hit from a longsword, either. This is irrelevant.

False, many humans have received injuries and not died as a result. And many soldiers over the aeons have survived multiple attacks that landed, including longsword attacks. What I believe you are asserting is the myth that only the very last attack that hit the target was an actual hit, which is patently absurd. One does not die from being exhausted after under a minute of exertion. It is not irrelevant, it is central. Humans are not infallible, and D&D humans are not immortal beings with perfect aim and precognition, so that they can always deal damage on every swing they ever make.

• If used against PCs, they will not appreciate the DM being able to kill them without any input or agency from either D20s or damage dice. Automatic unavoidable damage hits PCs all the time. If you're caught in a fireball and don't have some kind of Evasion-type ability, you take a minimum of 3 damage no matter what. This complaint is just silly.

It's funny that you compare an at-will attack of the mundane fighter class, which is explicitly non-magical, with the effect of a Fireball, and then you call ME silly. Look in the mirror.

• It ignores which weapon you're using, so a longsword used two-handed has the same effect as a greatsword or greataxe. Removing the importance of weapon selection is something feedback rejected. GWF does not "remove the importance of weapon selection." It just means weapon selection doesn't matter to the amount of damage you do when you miss. Hey, you know what? If you don't have GWF, your weapon selection still doesn't affect the amount of damage you do when you miss.

The GWF fighter does not benefit from wielding a greatsword over a branch he picked up, and indeed, when he finds a +3 sword, he actually benefits from his fighting style less. Does not compute. Weapon choice should matter when using your fighting style. Especially one that SPECIFICALLY calls itself, ridiculously, "GREAT weapon fighting style". A broom handle is equal to a +3 holy avenger, from the point of view of a GWeefer. It has negative synergy with +ses to hit, meaning magical weapons cause you to trigger your fighting style's benefit less. I am a pro game dev, and you are not, clearly, but any casual observer would instantly recognize this as a bug if they were being honest with themselves and with others. Which you aren't.

You're rationalizing the irrational.

• It completely negates all defensive fighting styles : AC +1 ? Useless. Granting disadvantage? Useless. Investing into 30 AC, with artifacts, spells, buffs, invisibility, disadvantage? Useless. Bollocks. If your opponent has GWF, you are still better off not being hit (taking only Strength mod damage) than being hit (taking Strength mod plus weapon damage plus other bonus damage).

No, if your opponent has GWF and you have low HP, such as if you are a wizard, or any PC, or any NPC, who is in a fragile state, there is no escape. GWF is a NO SAVING throw instant death spell, granted at-will to level 1 apprentice fighters, and useable every single attack of the entire campaign. It's pure game design garbage and has no business being in Dungeons and Dragons, period.

• There is no point in rolling to-hit or damage when a fighter attacks a foe he knows has less than his GWF damage. This can be
  20, or it could be 50, 60 per round. Insta-kill terminators, here we come! This is just completely off the rails. The highest Strength score a PC can ever have in 5E is 29, and that's using an artifact! The absolute highest you could ever possibly deal with GWF is 36 per round, and that's at 20th level. Without the artifact, it's 20. 50-60 is flat impossible. If you're going to say stuff like this, I don't see how you can expect anyone to take you seriously.

Mearls tweeted about how he couldn't imagine how damage buffs were actually narratable when misses occurred, not that they wouldn't stack. And in fact, you can stack several final packet damage buffs (6, I believe), and with a polearm and 5 attacks, you can easily kill most enemies in the game at-will even if you have disadvantage, and they have 25 AC. It's utterly ridiculously broken overpowered vs high AC low HP opponents, which are many. HP and AC are independent stats, and many monsters have a high value in one but not the other, and in fact every single monster will spend at least one or two rounds in the HP range of "player fiat, I say it dies and it is now dead, no D20 roll or damage roll required".

A 20th level fighter would have 50 HP minimum guaranteed autodamage per round in D&D Next, against the most insurmountable foe imaginable with disadvantage. But a 1st level fighter, with GWF, as a 30 times better chance of killing a 25 AC opponent with disadvantage than a 10th level fighter without GWF. Go ahead, do the math. I have.

That's broken.

 

[Gorgoroth]

DoaM was there from very first level for Fighters in the Player's Handbook. The at-will attack? Reaping Strike.

Reaping Strike
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half Strength modifier damage. If you’re wielding a two-handed weapon, you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier.

Yes, DoaM has been there since 4E first came out in 2008. Is there a feat that enables it in 3E?

Cheers!

You can clearly see that GWF is a direct copy-paste job from one of the most ridiculously un-narratable at-wills in 4th edition, and it wasn't specifically about two-handed weapons, great weapons, or anything. You could do it with a dagger.

That's one of my bugs. Fighting styles should be iconic and pertinent in terms of how one would expect this type of weapon to behave.

A cleave mechanic would be suitable.
Damage advantage would be suitable.

A 15 lbs axe never missing an invisible flying tiny pixie or mosquito monster hovering around you is not suitable.

It's pure nonsense.

Cheers!

 

[Gorgoroth]

I find solace in the comforting hope (though perhaps "vain hope") that the developers at WotC have already handled this entire issue in their internal version of the game and have glued it down solidly, so this whole thread is months late.

They are still doing intensive internal testing and major revisions right now. GWF will probably be on the chopping block, due to the various bugs I've mentioned which would definitely come up in focused playtests.

"Wait a minute, at first level I'm benefitting from killing kobolds on each attack, but at tenth level, it's hardly doing anything? That sucks. Compared to Protector or Defensive, it's garbage. Fighting styles should remain equally useful as you gain levels, not go from 50% DPR benefit to 3%"

"Wait a minute, that dragon was about to recharge its breath weapon, but here comes the cheesy Gweefer again, chuckles and says " I kill it" without so much as a dice roll. That's cheesy munchkin silliness and removes dramatic tension from the game"

"Wait a minute, my fighter tried using his Protector reaction to protect my wizard, but the Ogre warrior killed me anyway, and the DM didn't even have to roll a single D20 because the outcome was pre-ordained. It's Deus Ex Machina, no such ability should be in the hands of a player character"

 

[Gorgoroth]

Hint: waving around credentials don't make or break arguments. The actual merits of the argument does that.

And your argument may or may not have merit, but your focus on "establishing" yourself as someone to take seriously, as someone more elite than the plebes that otherwise post here, or whatever--in spite of the fact that this open letter is the only way you have to "reach out" to Mearls--has considerably hobbled your ability to get the merits of your argument listened to.

I could care less whether anyone here believes what I wrote about myself, I don't need to prove it to you. In my open letter, I told Mike I would tell him if HE asked me, and HE'S the only person here who I am interested in convincing.

The reason I posted this now is because he's writing an L&L article on it and I want all the bugs to be clear in his mind. I've read what he's written, and we think very similarly, I think he's one of the people who thinks it's cheesy and its his subordinates pushing the mechanic. In several recent articles he mentioned how mechanics should have a consistent interpretation between the character and the player, resulting in a similar thought process.

You can have no more of an eye-popping contradiction than rolling a 2 and killing the 25 AC dragon with disadvantage. There is no clearer contradiction than an event which it both itself (a hit), and its opposite ( a miss), at the same time. That's called a paradox, and a broken rule like that doesn't belong in the game, especially since it's an at-will for 3 core PHB classes, including the most popular class, the fighter, with the most popular archetype, "guy with a big sword".

The apprentice level warrior with GWF would laugh at the 20th level master without it, saying "I can damage my target with my sword unerringly, even blindfolded. Can you?"