Uh... since when was this an issue.

[Emirikol]

Impatience has sucked me into many-a-threads. The lack of knowledge and speculation can be fun..to a point.

jh[DND]objective mixer DC[/DND]

 

[Obryn]

Now, you're lecturing me about patience? LOL. I've been saying wait for a week this entire thread, then you come in and say you're going to launch an 11th hour campaign because you've got a direct line to the gods of game design.

LOL, So much LOL.

Thanks for the nice wake up laugh, dude.

You know he was being sarcastic about calling them up, right?

 

[Tovec]

As someone who is dealing with love ones with cancer and tumors, it most certainly is not.

A metaphorical one, of course it is. It's not serious like a real loved one getting sick, obviously not. But the analogy is sound I think.

We could call it a weed if you prefer.

As someone who has had cancer I have no problem with the term tumor to describe something that systematically expands and grows unchecked without intervention.

Weed is a similar term but not one quite as fitting. Without treatment for either they with both spread. But the limits of one is surpassed by the other. So is the level of radioactivity that it seems to raise. If people are willing to leave the game over something like DoaM then I would call that more than a mere annoyance (weed) and probably an aggressive and poisonous aspect to the game. It may be benign and able to be removed without too much difficulty, but then again so can some tumors (like mine was).

Honestly, unless you are going to make stupid comments like others have and say tumors are like D&D you won't offend me. I can already tell I'm not as attached to what I think D&D is as you. Hell, D&D for me barely rates in the top 5 for best RPGs.

It is the first game that got me into TTRPGs. I still enjoy and seek out 3.5 games. I've considered 4e games, despite my misgivings, but only been in one brief game of that ever. I still enjoy Pathfinder as my number one commercial game. And I'm personally designing a OGL game from the d20 license. I guess my point is that of my top 5 RPGS, DnD and its derivatives are 4 of the list. The final slot may go to either Burning Wheel or a WOD game, but I haven't had much experience with either and so they would barely place. So, I certainly do care about the game (I'm not DDNFan I realize) and realize I am more attached than you.

But as to the offending part, that isn't my intent. I find it a virulent and toxic mechanic. I would like to see it completely cut from the game, but can abide it being in an optional module. Since the comparison bothers you so much I'll stick to calling it a weed, though I feel that isn't as accurate of an example.

 

[Tovec]

Feel free to cut out whatever isn't important from your reply, we're getting very long again.
[sblock]

I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I wasn't "espousing the virtues of 4e". I was answering a question about how DoaM worked in 4e, including making the point that I was not (and still am not) aware of any balance problems that it has caused. (Contrast, say, charging, where I understand that there are feat and item combos that do cause balance problems, though I've not seen them first-hand.)

If you don't know at this point then I don't see any reason to rehash it. You can easily go back and see when I first replied and what I first replied to.

But yeah, I never saw him ask about DoaM in 4e or any E for that matter. He asked if it was similar to other things, I pointed out it was not (from my opinion) and why not. You pointed out how DoaM existed in 4e. I think that is fine, but since the only time he mentioned 4e in his post he said that it had been a turn off for his group I question the virtue in talking about 4e mechanics in a 4e outlook about the 4e game without talking about those things in relation to 5e. Now, he obviously had no problem with that and would have even been okay with people telling him of DoaM from savage worlds (I believe it was) so clearly you didn't do a bad thing. This sub-conversation started before we got a reply from him about his opinion. At this point I suggest we drop it.

Nor was I trying to sell 5e. That's WotC's job. I haven't got a horse in the 5e race.

I'm honestly very surprised you haven't got an interest in 5e. But that is irrelevant to what I am saying. I'm not suggesting you try and sell 5e at all. I was suggesting you are selling a 4e mechanic that you presumably would like to see in 5e - that is all.

So you agree with me that DoaM in 4e does not create balance issues. Which is what I asserted in the post you objected to. So what is your objection again?

I have many issues with the power. The biggest is NOT one of balance. Far more significant is that of realism, or simulationism, or versilimilitude or whatever word we are using at present to describe it. Another big one would be that I find it sloppily written and without good backing to exist. Another is that it is too powerful against kobolds But the balance of it compared to other powers the fighter gets isn't really an argument I am making. I find it to be a bad power all around, I don't care how it worked in 4e. As you would say I have no horse in that race.

The reason I'm asserting that is because that is how it works for every other martial based attack. No other martial attack that succeeds represents a LACK of wounding, just as no other martial attack that fails to succeed represents a GAIN of wound. So, yes I am ALWAYS saying that the game works that way - EXCEPT this one mechanic for this one class which goes completely counter to that assumed base.

Why would you assume something which you know to be false?

Some spells in AD&D allow a save for half. Others allow a save to negate all damage. When I first started playing I assumed that all spells which allowed a saving throw for damage avoidance did half damage on a miss. Then I learned that for some spells, a saving throw negates all damage. And for other spells, damage is determined by an attack roll rather than a saving throw. Hence I corrected my assumption.

By the way, plenty of martial attacks that succeed represent a LACK of wounding. For instance, a hit with a dagger for 1 hp, against a dragon with 300 hp, represents a LACK of wounding. Whatever exactly has happened to that dragon, it has not been wounded!

We aren't talking about spells in AD&D. Or at least I'm not. I'm taking about 5th edition. In 5th edition combat doesn't work the way you describe. This mechanic in 5e is an aberration. I don't care if it was in 4e, 1e or even 3e. It is a bad mechanic and it doesn't matter its source.

But beyond that, I don't assume what I said to be false. Not in the least. It is an aberration. I said last post - show me another fighter ability that works this way and THAT is a fair comparison. Comparing it to magic isn't. I had a whole car vs baseball bat analogy. However, even with another mechanic (which doesn't exist) it doesn't make this power better just makes it more common but equally as bad.

If I found power attack in 3e to be bad (I do actually, but for different reasons and I use it anyway) then pointing out deadly aim only serves to illustrate another example of a bad mechanic. However WITHOUT something like deadly aim the best we can say is that it is an aberration since there isn't one like deadly aim. Granted it is a bit of a catch 22, but that is because I'm making different arguments dependent on whether or not there are multiple copies of the mechanic in the game.

Simply put: nothing else IN FIFTH EDITION for martial characters works on the principle that you find for this power. In AD&D (or 3e for that matter) the magic system does but I don't find that relevant when discussing a completely different edition of the game.

With all of that said and as emphatic and clear as I can make it - can you go back and re-reply to my last post?

The game contains a SINGLE damage on a miss mechanic, the one we are debating. Yes. You can't then use that single mechanic to say the game works a certain way.

Well I can, and I have. I'll note that only one of us is having trouble making sense of the game as actually presented, including DoaM. The fact that I'm not having any trouble suggests, to me at least, that my understanding of how the game works is the sounder one.

I know you are TRYING. I also know that in any other type of debate that one example is not valid. So, I personally will not accept it. I know you can be quite persuasive if you want to be but this isn't how you do it.

Beyond that, yes I'm having troubles making sense of the game - that makes no sense. Imagine that. All your lack of frustration shows is that you are willing to accept less than I am in respect to game design. I expect clear rules and good ones, you accept whatever they put onto the page because you'll refluff it anyway - I know this because I've read some of your 4e gameplays and they don't work how 4e is written either. Funny.

As I've said, there is no incoherence or inconsistency unless you adopt a premise which the game itself neither asserts nor implies. You're making a rod for your own back.

There IS incoherence in the game. The game says it works a certain way. Then a SINGLE power works a different way. If the game didn't have that power the game would be consistent. If the game DOES have that power then it is suddenly inconsistent.

I have no idea what "You're making a rod for your own back," means.

You could describe it that way for damage on a hit, too. In the real world, people in combat suffer injury from all sorts of things, of which being skewered by their opponents is only one.

I simply suggested the "wrongfooted and falls over, hitting its skull on a rock in the process" as one possible account of how someone might die without actually being touched by a weapon.

I can narrate the hit any way I like. I get that. I can do that with ANY hit in ANY edition of the game. The thing is that doesn't change how the power works. The power works a certain way, is written with specific interpretations. I can work on changing that but I hate having to correct something that is apparently worked on by others and supposed to be throught out. It is like having to paint my own warhammer minis. I HATE that. It is busywork that I have no time or inclination to do. Some people are into that. I get that. It is a level of customization that they love. But it isn't one I ever found fun or fulfilling. Refluffing an attack works the same way with me. With any given attack in 3e I can simply understand what is happening. The fighter wings, if he hits he does damage. If he misses he doesn't. There is no other steps. In 5e there are because I now have to stop. Then try and figure out why he missed yet still did damage. I have to work with and interpret the ambiguity in AC which I've found to leave the hell alone for the sake of a smoother game.

My issue that I'm left with is that you have no problem with it because you'll narrate that the kobold - on the opening round of a fight - tripped and fell over and hit his skull on a rock. The next kobold, for consistency sake, does the same thing. And the one after that. I've got to wonder why these kobolds are so clumsy as to repeatedly fall over and kill themselves. But more importantly I've got to wonder why someone trained in tripping cant replicate this effect. Someone trained in tripping never "wrongfoots" the kobold into death but the fighter with a twohanded weapon does - every turn?

Another possible narration, of course, is that the fighter lops off the kobold's head with a deft swing of the greatsword. You can describe it however you want, changing from moment to moment as the whim takes you!

EXCEPT THAT ISN'T WHAT THE POWER SAYS. If the guy with a 5e equivilent of a vorpal weapon misses and fails to cut off the kobolds head - why does the guy with a random 2H weapon do it.. when he misses?

A fighter who specialises in longsword fighting, and who also specialises in Stealth, can never get the chance to backstab or assassinate that a thief or assassin gets. A pious fighter, who learns all the prayers and rituals of his/her god, can never cast even as many cleric spells as a first level cleric. That sort of thing is an inevitable byproduct of a class-based game where different abilities are rationed out.

If you think it will upset the player of your trip fighter to narrate DoaM (or on a hit) as tripping the kobold over, then narrate it some other way.

I agree. That is the problem with class based games, I'll admit. But I would think that a player who wants to be able to max out their stealth, use a longsword, and backstab people should probably take levels of rogue instead of levels of fighter. I would similarly suggest that a player who wants to ALWAYS be able to deal half damage to a group of kobolds (that kills them) instead play a wizard and get fireball. As for the pious fighter - well that IS a cleric, so...

But all my examples of things other fighters can do are based on the FIGHTER class and based on other specializations. This isn't a tricky concept. If a fighter wants to try and trip a kobold to death they should take tripping - not two handed weapons. If they want to cleave a head from a body.. well that's a type of sword, sorry. This is like one type of wizard getting a spell like power word kill or disintegrate, and ALL the others getting polymorph and nothing but. It is wrong and doesn't follow the consistency of the class/game.

What does this sentence mean? What do you mean to "refluff" after the dice rolls? Refluff what? What do you mean "completely alter the effect after the dice rolls"? Alter what effect? I can read the words, but they're empty. You're not actually describing anything.

As for "narrating after the dice rolls", when do you narrate the effects of an attack roll? Before the dice are rolled? In that case, what do you use the dice for? In my game the dice are used to determine the outcome of action declarations, so until the dice have been rolled and the results of those rolls tabulated the outcome can't be narrated.

I don't think it is really all that important to explain what I meant given that you wrote two paragraphs to my one sentence. Also since I explain what I mean in this post too.

I meant refluff the outcome but keep the mechanics the same. That is my sneeze to kill kobolds since the roll isn't important. The results can be 1s, or even 0s (an impossibility) and the ability still triggers. It reminds me of the stupidly written scout ability in 3.5 that allowed for the scout to ALWAYS have freedom of movement. Bound, gaged, unconscious, poisoned, sick, stuck in a 3'x3' room? Doesn't matter they ALWAYS have freedom of movement. That is equally dumb as an attack that ALWAYS hits/deals damage.

More rigid and inflexible than whom? You - who are insisting that (i) the game should be interepreted on the assumption that it does not contain DoaM and then (ii) complains that, when you do it like this, DoaM is incoherent?

More rigid and inflexible than @DDNFan , who is going to stop playing a game he enjoys if published rules, that he can download for free from the publisher, contain DoaM?

Yes, you are being more rigid and inflexible than me. I have a preference, but I'm willing to often concete half-steps. I haven't seen you take such steps once in any thread I've been in with you. Even in the second wind thread, I asked twice if the replacement rule would be acceptable and got no response. It would work for me. Even with such a replacement I still find second wind stupid, but it becomes more acceptable. But I never see that kind of movement on your side. Perhaps I'm just missing it.

I'll also agree that DDNFan is being rigid too. Quitting over a single mechanic in a game that he seems to enjoy seems harsh. I'll call him out on that. I also think that he is expecting too much - transparency from a company mere months before a game is released? I am saying NOW as I've always said: I'm waiting for the game to come out before I judge. I can't judge it any other way. I know I have things I dislike. I can be convinced to play with them anyway if the game is good enough. But I do know that certain things bug me right from the get go and HP is at the top of my list. Without adequate rules to vary them up I probably won't be able to enjoy the game. This applies to HP or rather AC in ways that I find very ugly.

As to the fact that the fighter with DoaM is able to kill every kobold that s/he engages in combat, I regard that as on a par with the fact that a mage with fireball is able to kill every kobold that s/he catches in the blast of a Burning Hands spell. Namely, it shows that some creatures in D&D die easily when confronted by competent opponents.

NO IT IS NOT. FALSE CLAIM. PERIOD. FULL STOP. YOU ARE WRONG.

Is this an example of flexibility and a lack of rigidity? I'll take notes!

I can be flexible. Everything I say isn't necessarily flexible. I don't know why you would expect anything else from anybody. When you are wrong I'll call you out as wrong. But I can be made to change - you've convinced me once or twice over the years. I don't think healing surges as a limiting factor are bad, I find the idea of non-magical healing silly but the limits I find a great idea.

That doesn't excuse you being wrong and using the same wrong arguments over and over. I've explained why the argument is wrong in this thread and in others. Using it repeatedly doesn't make it right.

Nor can a fighter with DoaM. At 1st level, for instance, that fighter has 1 attack per round, and hence can at most kill one opponent in that round.

Right, but he has one attack per round EVERY round. The wizard gets HOW MANY spells per day? That is the beautiful thing about having a machette - they don't run out of bullets. But the second the machette becomes equally strong to the bullets you have an issue.

(Cookie to anyone who understands the Wanted reference.)

In the last version of the playtest there are no "concentration check" rules for casting Burning Hands (or Fireball). Both are single action spells.

You caught me, I was using my knowledge of 3e to supplement my 5e knowledge. I've had far more experience with one over the other. No concentration checks. Okay that ONE item in a list of all the others is out.

Saving for half damage won't help a kobold against a spell that does more than double its hp.

Saving for half certainly helps when it triggers things like evasion. That won't help the first level kobold. But it will help the second level one with evasion. It will help the kobold who is near to a corner who will get the effect of evasion since he is at a corner. That DOES help a first level kobold.

Also, for both magic and for this power, this doesn't apply to JUST first level characters. It is harshest to them, but it kills the dragon too and is just as silly. In fact, against the (red) dragon a fireball may not be useful at all, where the fighter power still works fine. Sounds like another (possibly unintentional) win in the fighter power column.

(Again, granted, these are from a 3e view because at the moment a lot of these don't exist in 5e. I expect many of them to show up, but many don't exist yet.)

Kobolds have no class features (whereas most monsters have a "class feature" that prevents them dying automatically to a GWF attack, namely, more than 5 hp).

Terrain and line of sight concerns are more severe for the fighter, who must actually close into melee in order to deploy his/her great weapon attack.

Already covered this last point, second level kobolds would (in 3e, who knows where class features end up in 5e). Otherwise "HP" aren't a class feature. Nor can having 5 hp save someone from this ability. Having 5 means that the creature will die in TWO rounds of the fighter whiffing on an attack, MUUUCH better. [/sarcasm]

And I raise terrain becaus that is how kobolds (or anyone) gains evasion in 3e. It is a little seldom used but it is a great effect for those who remember. A rogue gets evasion in the middle of the room. Everyone else gets it behind a table.

STILL not relevent however since we are talking about fireball which is NOT the same as this power, but I felt I should clarify.

First, I think it's probably good for the game if fighters are good at fighting hordes of monsters. It fits with the whole Conan/Aragorn vibe.

Second, fighters in D&Dnext don't cast spells and don't get to kill "hordes" of targets with a single action - they peak at 4 attacks plus action surge - so a 20th level fighter can, in a single round, lay waste to 8 kobolds, which is probably about the same number a 1st level mage can kill with Burning Hands.

I think you are radically exaggerating the actual effects of DoaM.

Yes. I also think it is important for fighters to be good at fighting. I disagree when I see them performing magic in order to achieve it. I don't recall Aragorn ever swinging and failing to land a blow and yet still killing the goblin. Though maybe that is in the 8th release of the extended scenes.

I say that they are casting spells because spells is the only example you have given me of similar abilities.

Me: No one else can do X.
You: Wizards.
Me: Okay then X is a spell.
You: No it isn't.
Me: ???

You imputed to me something that I didn't say.

OK, so you in fact admit that you attributed to me something I didn't say, but you won't withdraw the attribution. Can you explain why not?

I am clearly saying now for the THIRD time that I added a sneeze being required. It was a bit of reflavouring. If you can reflavour the power to be causing the kobold to trip and die, then I can do the same to have the fighter sneeze. In either example, regardless of the results on the dice, the fighter manages to kill the kobold in the first round of combat without actually managing to hit. I say hit because it is called "hit and miss" for the success of an attack vs. AC and also because that is what every other character who attacks does. They hit and deal damage, or they miss and do not. Only the fighter with this ability is different. So refluffed they could sneeze with a twohanded sneeze weapon and cause the kobold to trip and spontaneously hemmerage blood and die.. all from a missed attack roll. I'm altering NONE of the mechanics only the fluff surrounding the power.

So, since I am specifically, emphatically, clearly saying that I am saying this sneeze can do this.. I will not retract something I didn't say you did.

However for placation sake "pemerton never said a fighter could sneeze and kill a kobold" I never said you did, but I'll certainly reiterate that fact. You have repeatedly said that it can be narrated as a kobold being tripped and smashing his head on a rock - or do you deny that and wish for a retraction?

Well, Tovec, as it happens, in your game you have refluffed all longswords to sneezes, and all plate armour to ballet tutus! So your game is competely ridiculous - people die when hit by sneezes, but wearing ballet tutus helps protect them from sneezes (and from maces, too). What a stupid set of mechanics you use!

I don't honestly refluff ANY attacks, pretty much ever. Though if I did refluff them I may as well refluff them as sneezes since the aspect of collision and damage don't seem to matter as far as the resolution of the spell. Just like the bad example of being trapped in a 3'x3' room doesn't matter to the freedom of movement scout. It is window dressing that clearly doesn't matter. The mechanic matters. It is the mechanic that doesn't make sense as written. If I have to do WotC's job for them and redo the power then something has gone wrong.
[/sblock]

 

[Tovec]

You may have me on ignore so I'm not sure if you'll get this. However, I'll give it a go. I'm pretty sure in this same post you said that DoaM wasn't a balance concern. It appears that the above is either (a) a complaint about balance or (b) a complaint about the Fighter having horde AoE ability which infringes on MUs.

I have to wonder if yourself and @DDNFan ever experienced the AD&D Fighter or perhaps you both started playing D&D with the 3e Fighter (which was brutally underpowered in every way possible when compared to AD&D Fighters)? The 1e (Weapon Spec + Fighting the Unskilled) and 2e Fighter's (Weapon Spec + WP + Heroic Fray) were absolute terrors against hordes of kobolds and the like (1 HD creatures). 1e Fighters would get an extra attack per level (so a 4th level Fighter was getting 4 attacks/round + their advanced attack rate due to weapon spec!) and 2e Fighters were doubling their main hand attack rate + 1 extra attack! They were absolute meat grinders against hordes and this was at-will! A 4th level 3e Fighter with full investment into the Cleave line can potentially pull this off but they have to hit a much higher AC target number than their AD&D predecessors did.

4e Fighters using Reaping Strike (At-Will DoaM - which did nothing against Minions) couldn't dream of touching AD&D Fighter's horde AoE. They have different tools to dominate the battlefield and can control/kill hordes in different ways and be implacable, nigh-indestructible choke points in and of themselves, but they can't chainsaw hordes due to DoaM. The same holds true for 5e Fighters with Great Weapon Spec (DoaM). A 5th level, 5e Fighter with DoaM and spending his 1/encounter AS can kill 3 minions in a round. Compare that to 1e or 2e where Fighters are hitting those mooks 85 % of the time and laying wastes to masses (5 - 6) of them every single round due to the advanced rate of attack. 5e Fighters can't dream of touching the kind of AoE beatdown against a horde of canon fodder that AD&D Fighters could, DoaM or no DoaM.

Sorry Manbearcat, I didn't see this reply until after I wrote the one to Crothian or else I would have added this in there. You certainly aren't blocked. I reserve that for those who are flagrantly wrong and unabashedly antagonistic. It is probable that if I wasn't on DDNFan's side that he would be on my ignore list by now, given his extreme views. But disagreeing with me doesn't get you on my ignore list - or again I would have to say that pemerton goes there FAR earlier.

As for your post: Yes I did start with 3e. I realize that 3e fighters are underpowered compared to wizards. I also recognize that problem almost certainly lies with the wizard, less so with the fighter (they could still be better but wizards can do TOO many things is the real issue). I haven't had a chance to look at AD&D. The books are too rare/expensive. I find the math hard to adjust to after 3e. I've been in a brief 4e game. Watched/listened to MANY games of many other systems than just 3e. I'm trying to get up to date on everything the Strand Gamers have podcasted. I really enjoy WOD but I find it lacks certain things. Burning Wheel seemed really simple, sturdy and well built. And so on. So, while I personally have very limited experience I know a lot more than I have played.

By all accounts I think that it is possible that AD&D might be the best edition of the set. I really wish I had the chance to play it. But I also think it is rife with math problems too which for me may make it unplayable. I see that as a frequent concern from many who have upgraded from AD&D to later Eds.

With that said, I'm all for fighters being good at fighting. I want them to have nice things. I just don't want those things for them to have to be magical. I've built my system predicated on that premise and it is playtesting very well so I know it can be done.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me. Certainly every edition works differently. I'm not saying 5e should work a certain way simply because 3e did. I'm saying that 5e already seems to work a certain way and I would like it if the entire game worked that way, instead of one particular ability being the exception that ruins the batch.

On the issue of balance: I recall someone doing a pure numbers crunch and them saying that it isn't unbalanced compared to the other abilities the fighter can take. Actually if I recall correctly it is the weakest or one of the weakest of the set (a real question of why people WANT it then, but whatever). My concern is partially of balance but that isn't the biggest one I have. I have many larger concerns and I've covered them at length. Certainly there is a measure of it it being unbalanced, or stupid, or broken as a general rule; but my main concern doesn't stem from there so much as it is a side effect of being poorly written.

I hope I've covered all posts from last night. My mind is melting. I had to take multiple breaks during my previous reply and so I think I'm done for the night. Please let me know if I failed to recognize and address your central point but I am simply checked out at the moment. It is times like these that I miss the old fluff threads on the WotC forum before/around the start of 4e that had a rule of nothing but "fluff this piece." Wow. I'm getting off-topic. Mind melting. I'm giving up now, I'll check the replies tomorrow.

 

[Crothian]

I find it a virulent and toxic mechanic. I would like to see it completely cut from the game, but can abide it being in an optional module. Since the comparison bothers you so much I'll stick to calling it a weed, though I feel that isn't as accurate of an example.

I just don't see it as a toxic mechanic. It will up the average damage a fighter does by a few points a round. Does it have a carry over effect on other rules? Does DoaM in the game somehow change the way something else works? Are there unintended consequences that people have seen happen in their game?

To me the second wind rule looks like it will have a much greater impact on the way the game plays. A fighter able to heal himself without a cleric or potions is a huge game changer.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sorry Manbearcat, I didn't see this reply until after I wrote the one to Crothian or else I would have added this in there.

No worries. Thank you for the apology but its not needed.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me.

I thought I divined from parts of your post that you felt that there was some niche infringement on the Wizard with the 5e Fighter Great Weapon Spec and its DoaM; specifically AoE versus canon fodder or hordes of mooks. I know you share aesthetic issues about DoaM with some other posters and we've all posted our brains out on that topic so I didn't much care to. I just wanted to address what I perceived was that umbrage at the potential Wizard niche infringement of Fighter's with DoaM. Nothing more. But you don't seem to be representing that opinion in your response so perhaps I was incorrect and/or missed some context for the statements that led me to my post.

 

[Tovec]

I just don't see it as a toxic mechanic. It will up the average damage a fighter does by a few points a round. Does it have a carry over effect on other rules? Does DoaM in the game somehow change the way something else works? Are there unintended consequences that people have seen happen in their game?

To me the second wind rule looks like it will have a much greater impact on the way the game plays. A fighter able to heal himself without a cleric or potions is a huge game changer.

The toxicity isn't the mechanic itself. It is the way the mechanic is viewed. Sorry if that is unclear that is the nature of having to refer to DoaM in such a way. I'm not saying that DoaM is bad because it is unbalanced. It is bad because of the many considerations that weren't put into the mechanic. It doesn't interact with the game-world well. It doesn't (to me) have a consistent and good explanation of how it works. I don't care if it is the WEAKEST choice in the game, it bugs me all the same. It is toxic because it makes people not want to play the game. It is a weed because this poorly thought out idea might spread to other areas and be equally poorly thought out in their interactions and for how they work.

Second wind has its own problems but there is a basis in the name for something that can happen. I have separate issues with it but that doesn't make DoaM a failed issue. Most of the problems I have with 5e stem from a poor definition of HP and AC. DoaM not only revels in the grey area it points at it and makes everyone stare. I find that distasteful because it is something I try NOT to think about it and this game exploits it. I can't even think of an example of something that would be similar to this and I usually have an example for everything. DoaM just bugs me. Second wind only interacts with HP, so it bugs me less in that way I think. Non-magical healing is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I thought I divined from parts of your post that you felt that there was some niche infringement on the Wizard with the 5e Fighter Great Weapon Spec and its DoaM; specifically AoE versus canon fodder or hordes of mooks. I know you share aesthetic issues about DoaM with some other posters and we've all posted our brains out on that topic so I didn't much care to. I just wanted to address what I perceived was that umbrage at the potential Wizard niche infringement of Fighter's with DoaM. Nothing more. But you don't seem to be representing that opinion in your response so perhaps I was incorrect and/or missed some context for the statements that led me to my post.

I can understand from a lot of these threads that the feeling of niche protection or more specifically 'fighters can't have nice things' does come up a lot. I reiterate that I want them to have nice things, I just don't want those things to be magical. I am no more happy with wizards being able to heal and I feel there should be a clearer marking off of territory there. (Maybe giving clerics the debuffing, limiting wizards to controlling and explosions.) This goes beyond role. I can easily accept fighters being able to crowd control, except when Come and Get It tactics are employed. It is when the abilities displayed are not representative of the class I was promised. Warlocks make pacts to get more power? Cool. Warlocks can now suddenly rage out and turn into the Hulk. Why? Isn't that the barbarian schtick?

I don't want the fighter's job to be carrying around the wizard's spellbooks or even for them to be solely good at one thing. I love highly customizable fighters. But I don't think this mechanic is very good or the way to go. I'm not even opposed to making/supernatural some fighters magical - a la paladin, ranger, monk? - in order to get new tricks accomplished. Even in those cases, while I expect a paladin to be great at combating evil, I expect the fighter to be the king of combat. Hell, give them back the Lordly title, lands, and servants. I'm all for that too. As I see it there are plenty of things that can be done with non-magical means in the non-magical fighter and I would like to see them explore that, over a mechanic that can never fail to miss.

 

[Bluenose]

As I see it there are plenty of things that can be done with non-magical means in the non-magical fighter and I would like to see them explore that, over a mechanic that can never fail to miss.

Let's start making a list of those things, perhaps.

Bleeding wounds. I slash you with an axe, you should probably be bleeding afterwards - taking cotninuing damage until treated (or it stops naturally?)

Damage to limbs. Damage/Cripple an arm, a leg or a wing - affecting "weapon" use or movement abilities.

Blinding, or at least damage around the eye. Someone affected by this should have reduced AC, and should have their ability with missile weapons affected, perhaps melee ones too. Do it twice, and they're more seriously affected.

Daze/Stun. Why should people with sharp things have all the fun. A mace blow to the head should do something - though I wouldn't want it to stop all actions, perhaps just force the target to spend a round on defence.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] - there you go again with your outrageous suggestions that there are non-magical ways for people to become dazed, blinded, crippled or maimed in warfare. Where's the verisimilitude in that!