D&D 5E Poll on the Reaper: is damage on missed melee attack roll believable and balanced?

[Redbadge]

The game designers should evaluate the feed back from the play testers and make their decision based on that. They should not base their decisions on discussions on a forum.

I have already said why I don't like it as written and given some options that I think makes it more playable so it is not like it should just disappear. I have never said that.

While I think using sidebars can be great for somethings like how to balance a wizard if you take at wills out or different ways to generate characters I also don't think they should go crazy with it.

If this feat makes it into the game as written and I like the game enough to play it then I will do what I have always done which is houserule it to be more to what I think it should be.

There is a difference between not liking something and thinking something is broken. Since we are play testing I think we should honestly tell the designers why we think something is broken and we should not be told that we are wrong for speaking up.

It has always been the default of DnD that if you don't like something you change it with a houserule. Way back in 1E I played with DMs who were house ruling that you didn't have to roll 3D6 in order. I played with DMs who ruled that a house cat could not kill a wizard that those scratches were temporary damage and non lethal.

As I keep saying we are in the early stages of play testing this is the time to speak up on things you find broken.

Very good points, and I'm pleased that you addressed my questions.

Personally, I didn't find the autodamage/damage on a miss broken when it was present in 4e. Certainly it does change the assumptions about combat, etc., which many people may not care for (and I recognize the feel and preferences they've expressed about this). However, my players find Reaper and Magic Missile fun and exciting, and it speeds up the pace of combat enough that we would be pleased if something similar was present in 5e.

 

[Redbadge]

I voted balanced/believable, and I touched on this in another thread, but this seems like the place for it, so here goes.


First, when I say that the skill is balanced, I mean that it has the capacity for balance in the retail game. I don't look for precise numerical balance in a playtest, especially not this early on. At this stage, the "balance" I'm looking for is, does class X feel reasonably competitive in terms of their combat role, and do they feel reasonably diversified in their flavor. The emphasis there denotes what is absolutely more important to the devs right now than anything else: how the game feels.

There's plenty of time to haggle over specifics later, but for now, it feels "balanced" (in an early stage playtest way) to me.


Second, there's the believability aspect. If you are dogmatic in your belief that failing to achieve a sufficient number (through roll+mod) to hit AC means you miss, unfailingly and unequivocally, then stop reading because no one in the community will change your mind. And that's ok. However, if you're on the fence, or are open to varying interpretations of what is or is not in this roleplaying game, read on!

First, remember that, in theory, we're discussing the abilities of a capable, professional fighter. Whether he got his skills through military service, a career as a street brawler, a prestigious academy or is just a drunken loudmouth that had to learn to defend himself through many a bar fight, is irrelevant. However you want to flavor it, the fighter class knows how to fight.

Believability can then, in my opinion, be explained, regardless of the "school of hit point philosophy" you're in.

If you believe HP represents a nebulous amalgam of health, morale, etc., then hit-on-miss can be justified as the feat suggests. Near misses (apt to come from the attacks of the aforementioned skilled fighter) giving the fighter's opponent the "willies," shaking his courage and will to fight. If this "near miss" is how you interpret it, then in the event that a "killing blow" from this "near miss" could mean that the foe knows he's bested and crumbles to the ground, not dead, but dying from all the other wounds he's sustained and too disheartened to fight on. Such an event actually lends itself to some nice opportunities for interaction if the DM/group want it.

If you're in the other camp, and feel that HP should be purely a quantity of physical harm one can sustain before shuffling off this mortal coil, then ignore the "near miss" wording and consider again the skilled fighter described above. When you watch a skilled fighter fight (be it modern combatives, asian martial arts, or historically accurate medieval swordsmanship), you don't see a lot of misses, some but not many. You see lots of blocks and glancing blows though. Think of the fighter's "miss" as more of the latter. Eventually, the "boo-boos" from all of the blocked and glancing attacks add up. Sure, an attack may not have found its way through armor to deliver a truly punishing blow, but if you've ever been hit with a sturdy object while wearing armor or padding, you know that it's not like you don't feel it. Obviously this justification also extends to the above interpretation of HP as well.

TL;DR If you're looking for a reason not to like 5e, Reaper is as good as any I suppose. If you're looking for balance, don't look too hard yet. If you're looking for believable, consider the skilled fighter.

Of course, Reaper is not tied to the fighter, but rather the Theme. You can also have spellcasters and archers damaging on a miss, for example. It's not something that bothers me, but it is something to think about.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

First I started the 2/3rd thing Becuse I figured the second option was "fine as is" and the first option was "it better be in there" so grouping them felt right to me.

Second there is a real heat building here, on wotc board, at my local comic shop, at my flgs, and even at my tables... Everyone thinks Wotc has to make a game we can all play, but so far I am not sure they can.
My old 3e group is currently fractioned between 2 editions, a retroclone and a compley diffrent game. Some will never touch 4e some will never touch 3e again some (including me) wont play pathfinder.
How can this edition bridge that gap?

3rd X is my deal breaker, do it my way or I walk is missing the point of playtest.

4th No one thinks this poll is ever inclusive, but what it is, is the data we have to work with.

5th no one should ever be told that they don't count just Becuse they are in the minority

6th people in said minority though need to be willing to give alittle... It is not a strong position to be in, so maybe a little bit of slack to the rest of us

 

[Texicles]

Reaper is not tied to the fighter, but rather the Theme

That is a valid point, and it may be that this theme (or all themes in general) are open to all classes. Obviously we're still in the dark on character creation specifics at this point, so it's hard to say for sure.

It is my suspicion, however, that themes will be at least somewhat limited in scope. The flavor text on the Slayer theme itself would suggest having at least a melee-specific scope. I could be totally wrong though

 

[Lanefan]

If you're saying that D&D should always exclude that, then you ARE advocating for it to be taken away from others. If you get your way, the people who disagree with you cannot get theirs, and their fun is trod upon.

Keeping in mind that it is far easier to add things in than to strip them out, if auto-damage is removed you're always welcome and able to add it back in.

If you think that D&D should always exclude these effects, then you are saying that my D&D game should never include these effects.

If you are saying you don't like this particular feat, then fine, but you always have the right not to use it. It's existence shouldn't bother you, since you don't have to use it in your game.

I would not say your D&D should never include these effects.

What I don't want is core D&D to be designed on the assumptions - both mathematical and flavourful - of the presence of these effects.

Even in the playtest, no matter what the dice do the party is guaranteed to eventually whittle the enemy down...but the enemy have no such effects on the party, leading to the unlikely-but-still-ludicrous situation that if neither side ever rolled a successful hit the party would always win every combat.

Lanefan

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not to pick, but that isn't the working assumption in D&D combat. If you miss your to-hit roll, you've failed to do meaningful damage to the target. It says nothing about whether the blow landed -- which is why 3e/Pathfinder makes a distinction between AC and Touch AC, and earlier D&D had case-specific rules like metal armor not counting vs. spells like Shocking Grasp.

A hit, at least in the 3.X paradigm, is any blow that overcomes the opponent's defenses and deals damage. Messing with that is the mind-bending part.

 

[dervish]

I have no problem with neither the believability nor the balance of the feature. I do however have a slight problem with the book-keeping associated with writing down monster hp by tiny amounts. Especially when dealing with area-affecting effects.

The Reaper feat is interesting in that it's based on Strength and doesn't scale. Thus the minute amount of damage will become decreasingly relevant as total hit points and damage increases.

Still, balanced and believable, sure.

 

[Redbadge]

Keeping in mind that it is far easier to add things in than to strip them out, if auto-damage is removed you're always welcome and able to add it back in.

How?

Also, any time I see this discussion of include/not include come up, people have said that it is easier to remove/ignore a rule than make up one from scratch. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim the opposite (from any side).

Also, for those battles where no one ever hits, I do want some mechanic that guarantees a timely resolution. One side had to win in these cases or we'd be there all night, and I would want it to default to the players (as do they). I can respect that some would want it to default to the monsters, but I can't imagine anyone wanting it take literally forever.

 

[Empath Negative]

Magic... Missile... is... MAGIC. Will we have to make accuracy checks to see if we hit with charm person? Probably not, and for good reason.


I'm not really quite sure why some people are having difficulty grasping the difference between a magical effect, you know, like actual universe bending magic... and a guy swinging an axe.

 

[Lanefan]

Also, any time I see this discussion of include/not include come up, people have said that it is easier to remove/ignore a rule than make up one from scratch. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim the opposite (from any side).

I've been saying it all along, in various different discussions; usually in terms of making [feature x] an optional module or, less formally, a sidebar suggestion for a tack-on.

What's annoying is that the playtest (at this stage) should be all core, the whole core, and nothing but the core. No options or modules included. And if this is in fact the case then to strip this stuff out you're messing with the core, which can have unexpected knock-on effects.

lso, for those battles where no one ever hits, I do want some mechanic that guarantees a timely resolution. One side had to win in these cases or we'd be there all night, and I would want it to default to the players (as do they). I can respect that some would want it to default to the monsters, but I can't imagine anyone wanting it take literally forever.

Victory should not default to anyone.

If the PCs (via the players) realize they're going to win they'll keep plugging away because it's a sure thing. If, on the other hand, they realize neither side is capable of physically beating the other then perhaps they'll have to think of different ways of resolving things - diplomacy, bribery, stealth, retreat, negotiation, trickery are a few that leap to mind - instead of brute force. Benefits all round.

Lanefan