Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vaprak001" data-source="post: 6281729" data-attributes="member: 6775623">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!?</blockquote>

Verification