D&D 5E DAOM IS DEAD DEAD DEAD!!!!

[Particle_Man]

Did the Evoker get damaged by a miss(ing rule)?

I wonder if a casualty of this battle to remove DoaM is the evoker wizard in basic:

The Evocation tradition allows a 6th level evoker to require victims of their evocation cantrips to take half damage even on a failed saving throw, when they would normally take none.

On the first pass my question was "well how does that interact with the 7th level rogue evasion bonus that allows you to take no damage on a successful dex saving throw?"

In my head I resolved that like a tie for skill challenges you pretend both abilities don't exist and see what the status quo would be.

But on the second pass my question was "so where are the wizard evocation cantrips that require a saving throw for either less or no damage anyhow?". The ones they list seem to be all "make a ranged attack - if you hit the target takes damage".

I assume (if I haven't missed the cantrip) that there will be such a cantrip in the player's handbook when it comes out.

OTOH, I could modify the evoker power in the basic pdf to say "even if you miss with an evocation cantrip, the target still takes half damage (but no other effect)" just to give the Basic rules evoker something to use that ability on. And this would not interact with the rogue's evasion power, since that affects saving throws.

So am I just missing something?

 

[Jester David]

Cool.
But I'm also waiting until I see the Stone Giant.

 

[MechaPilot]

With Mike Mearls stating that the Basic D&D rules are taken directly from Player's Handbook for 5th edition, it is quite clear that damage on a miss won't be making a surprise re-appearance as a fighting style. Possibly in a feat and if so, it's not a big deal.

Feats are optional. . .

You do understand that every individual fighting style is optional right? I mean, I get people saying "I don't want DoaM on the fighting style that I prefer," but there's really no reason for it to not be available as a choice of fighting style. This is especially true if the fluff they were to use for it would be the same as 4e's reaping strike. Using the fluff of reaping strike even fixes the potential interaction issue that Mearls mentioned on Twitter.

 

[MechaPilot]

My happiness is important to me.

I have no doubt that you couldn't care less, because if you were being honest, you could use the cancer card to silence anyone on this website talking about D&D.

It's not important! Go out and cure cancer!! If you don't do that you're wasting your life!

Setting the cancer part aside, Holy does have a point. It's one thing to be happy that DoaM is removed from your preferred fighting style, but to celebrate it not even being an option anymore is going a bit far. There are plenty of things that I dislike, but I can't recall a single thing that I've ever advocated should be removed entirely instead of being available for those who want to use it.

 

[evileeyore]

You do understand that every individual fighting style is optional right?

It's pretty obvious by now that he doesn't.

 

[jadrax]

Here, I made you an "Old School" Fighter with abilities closer to what he had in in Basic and AD&D...

View attachment 62565

Looks a bit overpowered. I think most of those abilities should be the domain of magic rather than what mundane people do, or it will shatter my suspension of disbelief...

 

[FireLance]

Looks a bit overpowered. I think most of those abilities should be the domain of magic rather than what mundane people do, or it will shatter my suspension of disbelief...

The ability score improvements at 6th and 14th level are particularly egregious. The cleric and the wizard only get ability score improvements at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th level. A fighter could, in theory, put all his ability score improvements into Wisdom or Intelligence, and end up increasing Wisdom or Intelligence more than a cleric or a wizard. It makes no sense that mere fighting should allow you to gain more Wisdom than a cleric or more Intelligence than a wizard in the long run. It is a completely unrealistic rule.

 

[andreww]

Here's hoping it appears in one of the remaining fighter archetypes.

 

[fanboy2000]

Funny you mention magic, because Potent Cantrip is now at level 6 (was wondering where it went to in the starter wizard character sheet), but it appears to have no effect.

It basically says you deal 1/2 damage on a successful save (which is not the same thing as a miss, and people should finally realize that now, because without an attack roll, there is no aiming involved and therefore no chance to miss anyway), and there are three damage cantrips, none of which require a saving throw.

Until an errata comes in, this class feature does nothing in Basic D&D. I was going to say you could MC to get Sacred Flame if that possibly still triggers a saving throw instead of requires a hit, but there are no MC rules in Basic so it's moot.

You may may want to look at the Cleric spell Sacred Flame on page 100 of the Basic Rules:

Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 radiant damage.

This suggests to me that the 5e PHB may have similar wizard spells.

Side note: why don't spell descriptions say what class they are for?

 

[DamageOnAHit]

Here's hoping it appears in one of the remaining fighter archetypes.

Not going to happen, I've seen the battle master leaks as well as the eldritch knight and it doesn't exist. Those pages are up on RPG.Net on an image sharing site. Mike Mearls tweeted that damage on a miss was quote "replaced" because of narration confusion caused with poison damage. It has zero percent chance to show up in a subclass, or probably anywhere else for that very reason. It's not like that confusion wouldn't exist if damage on a miss were part of another fighting style or a feat or a class feature.In one month time, when the player's comes out and damage on a miss is gone, I hope the moderators will shut this subforum permanently and declare a clear victor, and declare this topic off side and closed.Temporary hit points are described in the rules in comparison to real hit points, where Temp HP are not injuries. This implies that real injuries are the domain of HP loss. It's even written in the final, Basic D&D rules under how to describe the effects of damage. At 50% or below HP loss is equivalent to real wounds. One can argue until they are blue in the face but those rules are not changing now, they have been copied verbatim from the PHB.This debate is over. HP includes wounds in its DNA. If it didn't, they wouldn't have had to even specify that miss damage could not deliver poison into the blood stream. The fact that it must only do so on a hit means that game hits are identical to player hits, they are one and the same and there is no such thing as a "near miss". If you read the rules on what happens when you roll an attack roll, a hit has a definition which is a story one, not a meta game one, which is one of the main arguments of the pro-DaoM crowd and has been proven to be false for 5th edition D&D.To respond to another poster here, Second Wind is simply not compatible with 5 minute short rests, and that is the principle way they intend to make 5th edition compatible with 4th edition play style preference, and there is just no way they are going to have two versions of Second Wind. The same reason why Arcane Recovery is regained after a short rest whilst maintaining an independent per day limit, is the reason why Second Wind will inevitably get one.I hope everyone enjoys their game preferences, but you cannot argue with the definition of HP which is at the core of the game. At half HP or below, injuries are present and there is simply no space for damage on a miss in such a game.