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

[pemerton]

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

Burning oil, once the characters in question have access to treasure in the 1000s of gps.

I would also say magic missile and/or AoE spells, once a caster has reached name level.

In other words, a notional resource cost isn't necessarily a meaningful resource cost.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Burning oil, once the characters in question have access to treasure in the 1000s of gps.

I would also say magic missile and/or AoE spells, once a caster has reached name level.

In other words, a notional resource cost isn't necessarily a meaningful resource cost.

It isn't always about the money. Yes you are rich adventurer with oodles of gold to spend and able to buy whatever mundane equipment you wish. Life is just a bowl of cherries.

Now, back in the dungeon, your privileged adventurer is in possession of 15 pots of the finest greek fire because well, you could afford them.

Man it sucks when that fireball lands right next to you.

Having the opportunity via resources and actually doing a particular thing are quite different. It is the same for a higher level caster that loads out with all magic missiles. It was a choice and by making it, there are other choices that are not available in the moment.

The cost of some resources are better measured in opportunity rather than gold.

 

[billd91]

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

Combat grind was a problem with 4e, true, but 3e is more often referred to as the "rocket tag" edition because combats were actually so short in rounds because of the amount of damage flying around. The issue of grind in 3e is usually attributed to the complexity of options and having to roll lots of dice for lots of attacks. Offensive power generally does outstrip defense in 3e.

And, truthfully, the ability to hit in 1e/2e typically outstripped the defenses there too. The advancement for fighters is pretty much the same from 2e to 3e as far as the basic attack value (THAC0 or BAB) goes but in 3e there's no theoretical limit to AC while in 1e/2e, the ACs are generally confined to a 21 number range. So it's not exactly like D&D hasn't trended toward the cult of offense just as a new thing - but since 3e, there have been so many options to exploit to offer even more offensive power that I see the trend accelerating rather than slowing. And damage on a miss just feeds that.

 

[CleverNickName]

Damage on a miss was one of the three design elements that turned me off of the new edition completely. The possibility of still being able to inflict damage on a failed attack roll broke my imagination so much that it made the game feel silly.

Yes, I've heard plenty of arguments about how it shouldn't.

No, they didn't change my mind.

But it is unfair to say that DoaM alone caused me to hate the game. Around the same time that "damage on a miss" was introduced, they also put "at-will magic" and the "healing dice" mechanics into the playtest. All three of these hitting my brain at once pretty much scoured away any interest in the new edition.

So I will not be buying the new edition, but "damage on a miss" is only 33% of the reason.

Most people seem to really like these elements in their game (or are at least willing to give them a try), so perhaps the problem is with me and my own gaming habits. And that's fine.

 

[Vaprak001]

Re:

Ok, here goes my first post. I know there are many less contentious issues I could have cut my teeth on, but still please be gentle...

Thanks to the eloquent arguments for DoaM on this forum at least now I understand what it is. When I was first introduced to the concept it made my blood instantly boil - but now my reaction is what the heck is all the fuss about!? Admittedly, whoever came up with the term DoaM deserves to give us all an apology but it's inclusion wouldn't stop me buying the books. I'd simply remove it from my campaign - this assuming the DnD powers that be wouldn't be so self-destructive to imbed such an emotive rule in a way it couldn't just be ignored. Saying that, the way they torpedo'd the Forgotten Realms for 4e I suppose anything is possible!

In fact a variation on DoaM even existed as far back as 1e. Back then the PHB had a 'to-hit' adjustment that discriminated between the weapon that was being used and the armour type is was being used against. For example a 3' wooden Jo-stick was -8 to hit versus an opponent clad in platemail and shield yet a Heavy war lance was +3 against the same opponent. This made perfect 'real-world' sense in that the Jo-stick wielder could damage someone in platemail and shield but it would need a pretty good shot to do so!

So a fairly sensible rule then you say, yet I have yet to use it in 35 years of playing and DM'ing! Ok, I was 7 when I first started so none of my group understood what the rule actually meant at the time but since I have never felt that the game needed it.

I think DnD Next would be all the better for having these 'realism' rules just as long as they're optional for those that want them - surely that's just good commercial sense!?

 

[evileeyore]

At this point I feel safe saying that failure to include DoaM will cause me to not buy 5e.