a eulogy for doam

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

strider13x

Jul 10, 2014 19:29:10

@Ettin64 : Was damage on a miss replaced with rerolling damage dice, or has it just been moved out of Basic?
@mikemearls : replaced - caused too much confusion (poisoned weapon is a good example)

 

 

 

What is a hit? Does it have to mean to touch, to feel? Oh, effect on a failure, how you moved players, how you touched people. You meant so much to so to many, and to few ever understood how much you could change our lives forever. I will miss how you stirred our souls, oh damage on a miss.

#2

dmgorgon

Jul 10, 2014 19:35:31

This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper

#3

LFK

Jul 10, 2014 19:35:46

PLZ HALP HOW HALF DAMAGE ON FAILD SAVE WORK, IS CONFUSE?!

 

It's such a BS political response from Mearls. It's a super easy issue to clarify with properly written rules. It was canned because it made a minority of players froth at the mouth by violating their sense of "rules = physics."

#4

MechaPilot

Jul 10, 2014 19:39:35

The funny thing is that if the fluff for 4e's reaping strike had been used for the Doam style (assuming that it was it's own style and not bound to GWF) there would be no conflict even in the case of poisons.

 

Oh well, it's not a big deal to me.  I still consider most of fighting styles incredibly boring; only protection actually works for me.  I'll probably homebrew other styles as options for when I play a fighter.

#5

dmgorgon

Jul 10, 2014 19:47:00

LFK wrote:
#6

Polaris

Jul 10, 2014 19:59:19

dmgorgon wrote:
#7

bawylie

Jul 10, 2014 20:00:33

It was a minority that hated it. Per MM, lots of ppl liked it & lots were confused how it interacted with rules like poison. 

 

My guess - only 1 person hated it. 

#8

Rastapopoulos

Jul 10, 2014 20:06:35

dmgorgon wrote:
#9

LFK

Jul 10, 2014 20:41:58

dmgorgon wrote:
#10

Emerikol.

Jul 10, 2014 20:49:44

bawylie wrote:
#11

MechaPilot

Jul 10, 2014 20:52:06

Emerikol. wrote:
#12

seti

Jul 10, 2014 21:03:27

DoaM is not confusing at all, Mr. Mearls. Grognardic Rage killed DoaM, not any form of ruleset obtuseness. It's pretty obvious.

 

Casters get all sorts of DoaM (Spell DoaM is apparently not confusing), weapon users don't. It's 70's style D&D caster combat superiority, plain and simple.

 

All getting rid of it really means is that I'm going to have to make up weapon-based feats/attack options that include it if I want 5e to be more fun for non-caster PC's.

 

It could be worse, though. Melee PC's were way more nerfed in 1e, 2e, and 3e/PF.

#13

FallingIcicle

Jul 10, 2014 21:00:32

I would miss DoaM, but it can't be missed.

#14

Gnarl

Jul 10, 2014 21:02:57

Polaris wrote:
#15

mellored

Jul 10, 2014 21:06:02 		Follow-up attack: if you miss with an attack, you can strike out with an elbow, knee, or fist. Deal 1+your strength modifier to the target.
#16

masterfat78

Jul 10, 2014 21:57:00

With potent cantrip in the game it still exists. Also I think we might see it in the DMG.

#17

FFSAA

Jul 10, 2014 22:21:54

seti wrote:
#18

Lawolf

Jul 10, 2014 22:26:00

Damage on a miss still exists though. Potent Cantrip plus the cleric searing light cantrip. Or blade barrier.

 

Actually, if you don't believe in HP as plot armor, fireball has to deal damage without actually burning you, which is no different than damage on a miss. 

 

The game already has plenty of things that function exactly like damage on a miss, so don't worry. Damage on a miss isn't gone at all. 

#19

FallingIcicle

Jul 10, 2014 22:28:03

seti wrote:
#20

Polaris

Jul 10, 2014 22:30:00

FFSAA wrote:
#21

Polaris

Jul 10, 2014 22:45:55

I haven't really taken part in the DOAM discussion because I can see both sides.  That said, prior editions have had perfectly workable mechanics for DOAM and a mechanic that works for spells shouldn't be excluded for consideration for martial attacks just because the mechanic was first used for a spell.

 

For example, if I were to determine damage from an avalanche, I'd probably call for a Dex [reflex] save, and even if you make it, I'll still hand out half damage (baring evasion or other special circumstances).  That's non-magical.

 

I am not angry that DOAM isn't in 5e.  Like I said, I'm fairly agnostic about it.  What I don't like is the openly bad reasoning that IMHO amounts to pandering and making choices about how to play DND.

 

-Polaris

#22

Zardnaar

Jul 10, 2014 22:47:19

Polaris wrote:
#23

Noon

Jul 10, 2014 22:47:39

Did the Dome already finish?

 

...

 

Sorry, wrong thread...

#24

masterfat78

Jul 10, 2014 22:57:10

I doubt any of the cantrips that PC will eventually use will be room clearing. I have no problem with fire ball doing half damage non a miss. It would be hard to miss with a fireball. But at the same time we allow a martial class too completely dodge it on a saving throw even though he is in the center. Why is it that some people are ok with DOAMs opposite but not DOAM itself.

#25

FFSAA

Jul 10, 2014 23:07:45

Polaris wrote:
#26

kalil

Jul 10, 2014 23:22:23

bawylie wrote:
#27

Miladoon

Jul 10, 2014 23:42:52

bawylie wrote:
#28

Siphersh

Jul 11, 2014 1:14:14

strider13x wrote:
#29

kill_the_wiz_first

Jul 11, 2014 1:20:40

I am the greatest game designer of all time and DoaM is a terrible mechanic.

#30

OrwellianHaggis

Jul 11, 2014 1:24:16

I liked DOAM, and so did my group. We'll house-rule it in.

#31

edwin_su

Jul 11, 2014 1:52:52

Emerikol. wrote:
#32

edwin_su

Jul 11, 2014 2:14:56

Siphersh wrote:
#33

Siphersh

Jul 11, 2014 3:34:59

edwin_su wrote:
(Reply to #10)

frothsof

Emerikol. wrote:
#35

Shasarak

Jul 11, 2014 4:11:09

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
(Reply to #17)

seti

FFSAA wrote:
#37

mellored

Jul 11, 2014 5:42:57

edwin_su wrote:
#38

Emerikol.

Jul 11, 2014 6:06:05

edwin_su wrote:
#39

SilentSin

Jul 11, 2014 6:14:19

Polaris wrote:
#40

Emerikol.

Jul 11, 2014 6:25:44

Most people who dislike DoaM are okay with non-magical area of effect powers.   I also have my reservations about magic attack spells that are avoided by dexterity doing half damage.  If I fire a flaming bolt at you, and you dodge out of the way then you shouldn't get half damage.   The only reason anyone might accept it is that with magic you can claim the bolt changes course and seeks you out and does at least some damage because it is magic.  I don't personally favor that interpretation but it is at least a plausible one.   Whereas a normal arrow or sword not ever being able to miss is not plausible.   

 

 

(Reply to #36)

SilentSin

seti wrote:
#42

mellored

Jul 11, 2014 6:33:13

IMO, if you make a dex save to avoid an explosion, you should not still be standing in the explosion area when it's done.

#43

Emerikol.

Jul 11, 2014 6:36:39

mellored wrote:
#44

Zappy

Jul 11, 2014 6:44:35

Shasarak wrote:
#45

strider13x

Jul 11, 2014 6:49:50

Siphersh wrote:
#46

strider13x

Jul 11, 2014 6:52:17

Zappy wrote:
#47

strider13x

Jul 11, 2014 6:54:57

SilentSin wrote:
#48

mellored

Jul 11, 2014 6:55:56

strider13x wrote:
#49

strider13x

Jul 11, 2014 7:30:02

mellored wrote:
(Reply to #47)

SilentSin

strider13x wrote:
#51

SwampDog

Jul 11, 2014 7:34:34

One common misconception I see in D&D games is with the use of the term "miss".

A miss does not have to mean "hit nothing but air".  It can mean that the blow was deflected by a shield, or that you hit, but did no damage because the attack bounced/skittered off of armor or carapace. 

In this light, it's easy to understand how damage on a miss is possible.  

#52

mellored

Jul 11, 2014 7:36:48

strider13x wrote:
#53

Lawolf

Jul 11, 2014 7:37:20

4e never had rules issues with damage on a miss + extra damage or poison. I guess that is because 4e had much clearer language used for the rules overall. 5e rules in general seem to be much more confusing overall. 

 

P.S. Nobody yet has addressed the fact that potent cantrip gives non-AoE spells damage on a miss. So DoaM isn't removed from the game, it just only exists for a few classes

#54

Gnarl

Jul 11, 2014 7:38:47

Emerikol. wrote:
#55

Gnarl

Jul 11, 2014 7:50:30

Lawolf wrote:
#56

Eerongal

Jul 11, 2014 7:51:43

Personally, I'm indifferent to DoaM, but I am glad it's gone so we can hopefully stop hearing people argue about it (possibly wishful thinking?)

 

I do hope they bring it back as a feat/manuever/whatever later on for people who want it, though.

#57

mellored

Jul 11, 2014 7:58:53

Lawolf wrote:
#58

bawylie

Jul 11, 2014 8:00:44

NMU arguments against DoaM are pointless - they don't convince anyone who wasn't already convinced. 

 

"A sword swing is different than an explosion!" So what? This wasnt about physics; it's about fairness, agency, effect. 

#59

Alex_

Jul 11, 2014 8:31:36

FallingIcicle wrote:
#60

strider13x

Jul 11, 2014 8:47:35

Eerongal wrote:
#61

Lawolf

Jul 11, 2014 8:45:02

You can only lies plot armor when something directly threatens your life. As such, you don't lose plot armor from carrying heavy stuff but you can lose plot armor from being "missed" by an attack. 

#62

EnglishLanguage

Jul 11, 2014 8:45:33

Alex_ wrote:
#63

EnglishLanguage

Jul 11, 2014 8:47:50

dmgorgon wrote:
#64

Polaris

Jul 11, 2014 8:53:31

All the 'issues' Mearls alluded to with DOAM could be avoided by simply designating "On a hit..." vs "When you do damage..." and be absolutely consistant about it.  I know he knows this because 4e handled the issue successfully (eventually but it did) just this way.  That's why I am as harsh about his reasoning as I am.  It's a cop out and worse I consider it pandering to a noisy but favored minority.

 

-Polaris

#65

Lawolf

Jul 11, 2014 9:01:07

EnglishLanguage wrote:
#66

frbelanger

Jul 11, 2014 9:11:14

We are seeing in this  thread  an animated dead spell cast on DOAM.

Obviously it is an evil act!

#67

AH_schulerta

Jul 11, 2014 9:20:51

My favorite part of the early playtest was the pre-gen Dwarf Fighter in the first packet. Rolling through Kobolds in KotB like they were bowling pins was a lot of fun. Didn't give two ***** about realism at that point. 

#68

Dragonette

Jul 11, 2014 9:39:39

Hi guys,

 

I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread. It's not really on topic since there is no DoaM now, and there's really no need to taunt the people who wanted DoaM and didn't get it.

 

Thanks,

 

Monica