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

[Lanefan]

If DoaM is included in some form as a clearly-stated add-on option either at launch or later then I'm cool with it, as I can in theory safely ignore it and move on. I'll be less happy if it's baked in to the core, or if 5e adventures are designed around its use or presence.

Which raises perhaps a bigger question: with 5e being as option-based as it seems, are adventure designers-writers supposed to just design to the base game (and if so will the add-on options break the adventure), or ???

Lanefan

 

[Li Shenron]

It is one mechanic out of, what, hundreds? I'm not worried about it one way or another.

The bigger picture is what really matters. But we also need to keep in mind that for many, it's not one mechanic out of hundred but it's already 20ish mechanics out of hundred.

For me DoaM is only mildly offensive, so I can say it won't individually affect my decision of playing 5e. I can say the same about the total absence of traditional vancian casters, about genetically superior humans, about the megafeats, about saving throws being too much Dex-Con-Wis instead of more evenly spread, about subclasses not getting the same treatment for all classes, about too gross skills list, about a bunch of specific feats and spells and class features... None of these is remotely enough to keep me away from an edition, but the decrease the positive feeling about it.

I'm still fairly sure I'll be buying and liking the new edition, because it will clearly improve our games compared to 3e. However my main motivation for the switch is that 3e is too cumbersome. More things I dislike about 5e means more work I have to do* to adjust it to my tastes, which means the 5e advantage over 3e gets slimmer.

*removing character options itself is not really work... explaining each time to players what is banned/changed from the books and why, forcing changes to characters already made, handling possibly unwanted consequences (not in this DoaM case), etc. is the real work

 

[Falling Icicle]

While I dislike DoaM, it's not a deal breaker for me.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

It won't stop me buying to core rules however it is one in the negative column and too many of those would stop me playing the game with the end result being me not buying more of the same product line.

 

[adamc]

I just pretend that DOAM is not really a miss, but just their way of saying that this attack never actually misses but sometimes only inflicts a glancing blow for less damage. And there I can have my cake and eat it too, with no loss to story realism, and I can retain my happiness. Yeah, instead of calling it a miss, I wish they would have just described it this way, "This attack can never miss. A miss represents a glancing blow and still does damage."

Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. If you don't think DOAM makes sense, you just represent the mechanic's explanation differently and move on. How can this be the giant sticking point?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

If DoaM is included in some form as a clearly-stated add-on option either at launch or later then I'm cool with it, as I can in theory safely ignore it and move on. I'll be less happy if it's baked in to the core, or if 5e adventures are designed around its use or presence.

Which raises perhaps a bigger question: with 5e being as option-based as it seems, are adventure designers-writers supposed to just design to the base game (and if so will the add-on options break the adventure), or ???

Lanefan

This!

Keep it as an isolated option then I am fine. Integrate it into the core and I won't be playing it.

 

[Uller]

This!

Keep it as an isolated option then I am fine. Integrate it into the core and I won't be playing it.

So...if they changed a dragon's breath to be an attack rather than a saving throw but leave in half damage, you won't play?

Please explain how a saving throw and an attack roll are different? One is just the defender making a roll modfied by his level/ability score against a target number modified by the attacker's level/ability scores and the other is the attacker making a modified roll against a target number modified by the defender....two sides of the same coin. A "missed" attack is the same as a "succeeded" save. Damage on a Miss has been a part of D&D from the beginning.

It just seems such a small thing to decide to not play the game over...

 

[Dominar Rygel XVI]

So...if they changed a dragon's breath to be an attack rather than a saving throw but leave in half damage, you won't play?

Please explain how a saving throw and an attack roll are different? One is just the defender making a roll modfied by his level/ability score against a target number modified by the attacker's level/ability scores and the other is the attacker making a modified roll against a target number modified by the defender....two sides of the same coin. A "missed" attack is the same as a "succeeded" save. Damage on a Miss has been a part of D&D from the beginning.

It just seems such a small thing to decide to not play the game over...

First off, saying damage on a miss has been there since the beginning has nothing to do with the damage on a miss most people are talking about.

Secondly, if you have to ask the difference between a saving throw and an attack roll then there is a fundamental problem.

 

[Uller]

First off, saying damage on a miss has been there since the beginning has nothing to do with the damage on a miss most people are talking about.

I get that. I have said elsewhere and should have reiterated here that I have no problem with DoaM in principle as long as it is limited to attacks that are only useful in very narrow circumstances or limited in some other way (and in fact it should be expanded to saying that a missed attack or a succeeded save never reduces the target to less than 1 hp)

Secondly, if you have to ask the difference between a saving throw and an attack roll then there is a fundamental problem.

Save the condescension. They are mechanically the same. Saves seem to be reserved for attacks that don't do HP damage or armor provides no protection. But a poison, a breath weapon, a melf's acid arrow or charm spell are all essentially attacks (one character or environmental element trying to impose some condition or damage on another character). Some of these deal damage on a successful save. It would be very easy to resolve melee and ranged attacks with the defender rolling a save or even an opposed roll (in fact I've played games where the DM had players roll "saves" for attacks on their PCs to keep them involved even when it wasn't their turn)

I've played this game for as long as you have, I assure you, and the number of times someone (DM or player) at my table has chosen to use a guaranteed damaging attack such as Burning Hands to finish off a wounded foe are numerous and cover all editions. It's part of the game but should be kept limited

 

[Ashkelon]

This!

Keep it as an isolated option then I am fine. Integrate it into the core and I won't be playing it.

So you are fine with damage on a miss as it is currently imemented. It is an isolated option available only to fighters, paladins, and rangers. Those classes have 4 other options to choose from if they so desire.