D&D 5E Will the inclusion of the option of DoaM cause you to not buy 5e.

[Lanefan]

Just so we're on the same page, you know nobody is actually arguing this, right?

Er...I would be, if it were the main discussion here and not a tangential sidebar.

If a PC in the game world can do it or be it or have it, so can an NPC. Which is why one needs to use caution when promoting these funky tricks and abilities for PCs - the ability you just spent months arguing for may be what kills your character three sessions in.

Lan-"death by irony"-efan

 

[the Jester]

Why?

If the point of the ability is to mechanically support a certain character achetype for the player of the fighter, why is it necessarily the case that I want NPC warriors to have the same thing?

I think it's worth noting that "How can I learn that spell the bad guy wizard cast at me? -Oh, I can't??" was a HUGE complaint in some 4e games. "How can I learn that sword maneuver?" didn't come up as much, but I can easily see how many players (and some dms) find cleaving npcs' abilities from pcs' just based on the fact that they are, or are not, pcs highly irritating and hard to fit in the in-game fiction.

Huh? It's always going to be the case that some PCs can do things that some monsters cannot (eg no giant rat can cast meteor swarm). And vice versa (eg there's no way in Basic D&D for a fighter to get +2 to hit from a berserker rage).

Right, and that's not what anyone is arguing. The argument is about much more similar cases: that down-to-3-hp-last-stand-guarding-the-bridge scenario mentioned above just doesn't work if the npc bad guys are using the same great weapon fighter rules that the pcs use, especially when the npcs are the trained warriors of some mercenary force who, by all means, ought to be treated as... fighters.

Now, that scenario being off the table- is that a terrible thing? Not always, and not for everyone; but clearly it bugs some people, and equally clearly it speaks against taking a heroic last stand in such a (perfectly cinematic and genre-appropriate!) manner.

I'm not wed to either side of the argument here, but I do think it's worth paying attention to both the fact that some gamers find the pc/npc dichotomy jarring/annoying/immersion-breaking (especially post-3e) and the fact that DoaM does affect what playstyles the game supports.

 

[Obryn]

Er...I would be, if it were the main discussion here and not a tangential sidebar.

If a PC in the game world can do it or be it or have it, so can an NPC. Which is why one needs to use caution when promoting these funky tricks and abilities for PCs - the ability you just spent months arguing for may be what kills your character three sessions in.

Lan-"death by irony"-efan

This is true with or without PC/NPC symmetry, though. But in a general sense, yep - and it'd be fine! Such is unlikely to lead to death, merely unconsciousness, and being in the wrong place for an AoE already works this way.

It might push different tactics, but I don't think that's bad.

 

[pemerton]

The argument is about much more similar cases: that down-to-3-hp-last-stand-guarding-the-bridge scenario mentioned above just doesn't work if the npc bad guys are using the same great weapon fighter rules that the pcs use, especially when the npcs are the trained warriors of some mercenary force who, by all means, ought to be treated as... fighters.

That scenario already doesn't work in any edition of D&D that has auto damage from splashed oil (which would, I think, be AD&D and 3E) or relatively easily available auto-damage from magic.

This takes me back to something which has been discussed at some length earlier in this thread, or one of its many cousins: if the issue with DoaM is that it destroys all these awesome story opportunities, causes boredom at the table, etc, why have we never heard these complaints before about the billion other sources of autodamage in the game?

I actually think it might be an improvement if to clear that down-to-3-hp last-standing guard on the bridge, the bad guys bring up an expert halbedeer or axewielder, rather than a mage or oil-tosser.

 

[Lanefan]

That scenario already doesn't work in any edition of D&D that has auto damage from splashed oil (which would, I think, be AD&D and 3E) or relatively easily available auto-damage from magic.

In 1e you still have to roll to hit, I think, with any thrown item - and that includes vials of oil. If you miss you still have a chance of doing splash damage - assuming the vial in fact breaks. So while the chance of causing damage is pretty good, as far as I know it's not automatic. Also, the damage caused is variable (splashed oil is 1d4 I think, and a direct hit is 2d6) meaning the 2 h.p. guy holding the bridge still has a (less than stellar) chance of surviving a splash; unlike DoaM which - and correct me if I'm wrong - is a static number.

Can't speak to 3e RAW on this, when I played it we just handled it the same as we did in 1e.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

the 2 h.p. guy holding the bridge still has a (less than stellar) chance of surviving a splash

OK, then I'll make him a 1 hp guy.

When I get home I'll look up the oil rules in my AD&D DMG.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This takes me back to something which has been discussed at some length earlier in this thread, or one of its many cousins: if the issue with DoaM is that it destroys all these awesome story opportunities, causes boredom at the table, etc, why have we never heard these complaints before about the billion other sources of autodamage in the game?

Can you list all the sources of autodamage in AD&D that don't have a resource cost?

 

[billd91]

This is true with or without PC/NPC symmetry, though. But in a general sense, yep - and it'd be fine! Such is unlikely to lead to death, merely unconsciousness, and being in the wrong place for an AoE already works this way.

It might push different tactics, but I don't think that's bad.

The trouble with this is it's not really pushing different tactics at all. It's reinforcing an unfortunate trend in D&D - the cult of the offense. While in 3e and PF there are a few builds that raise the AC to stratospheric levels, most ACs don't really keep up with the offense. That devalues defensive and swashbucklery builds already. With two-handed fighters getting an unlimited damage on a miss, that just devalues them even more when there really should be more done to equalize the playing field if we want to support more varied types of combat styles.

 

[Lanefan]

The trouble with this is it's not really pushing different tactics at all. It's reinforcing an unfortunate trend in D&D - the cult of the offense. While in 3e and PF there are a few builds that raise the AC to stratospheric levels, most ACs don't really keep up with the offense. That devalues defensive and swashbucklery builds already. With two-handed fighters getting an unlimited damage on a miss, that just devalues them even more when there really should be more done to equalize the playing field if we want to support more varied types of combat styles.

In all fairness, [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] this is probably an intentional part of the design this time around. Here's why:

Combat grind.

In my 1e-style games there always seems to come a period where the defenses have outstripped the offenses. As a result melee combat grinds to a relative standstill and it's up to the casters to make the difference. Eventually this tends to fix itself when the martial PCs concentrate more on claiming offensive treasure for themselves rather than defensive, but there's always a few adventures that get pretty grindy until the balance readjusts.

I'm given to understand some of 3e and much of 4e had problems with combat grind. Part of the problem here was that both those systems used much higher h.p. totals both for PCs and for monsters than earlier versions did; yet the base offense didn't really keep up. A longsword, for example, has done d8 base damage (against normal-size foes) since day 1. Fireball has been d6 per level since day 1. To add to the fun using the same examples, 3e (or 2e?) took away d12 damage vs. large for the longsword and capped fireball at 10d6 - meaning the offense is doing *less* damage to creatures that have more h.p. sometimes by a factor of 5.

If h.p. numbers are to remain at about 3e-4e levels I have no problem with juicing up the offense (though DoaM is not the way to do it!). My preference, however, would be to sharply reduce h.p. numbers across the board, and leave the offense mostly alone. In any case I can certainly see why they are trying to design some offense back in.

Lan-"d12 vs. large for the win!"-efan

 

[Uller]

In all fairness, [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]
I'm given to understand some of 3e and much of 4e had problems with combat grind. Part of the problem here was that both those systems used much higher h.p. totals both for PCs and for monsters than earlier versions did;

IMXP, 4e's grind was more of a function of too many options for players to try to maximize damage output on a turn (which could get impressively high) and a lot of healing available to the party. It was designed so that even moderately difficult fights would bring one or two PC's down to near 0 hp only to have them resurge to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Mind you I only played it up to around 8th level so maybe at higher levels offense slowed. 3e...I remeber PCs getting some ACs that were so high I would have larger monster just grab them and try to smash them rather than get through the AC...but that was a long time ago so I can't say I remember the details...