I think i'd be less opposed to alternate abilities that you could take instead, rather then "Lets replace it completely from the game".
but now that i've got it in my head, i think of a slayer as always doing damage he is that ferocious in his attacks.
Well, as a feat, it can be swapped out. I think people just dislike the idea of the feat being core, because many people use the core as the base assumption of how the game is played. Most of the time, all of the core PHB is allowed. I think it'll take some adjustment to break that assumption for most groups. Would you be willing to have another mechanic represent just how ferocious the Slayer is? Like, he can either make his attack roll and chance missing, or he can automatically hit, dealing Strength modifier in damage?
I think the key point in its favour to me is its simplicity and the fact it means a character can have a minor effect regardless of their opponent's AC. A Slayer is always bringing some minor damage to the table, (about the same as Magic Missile, the old traditional AC bypass spell). The fact that you can use it to carve through Kobolds is just gravy.
Right, but are there not other ways to represent that? What if, as I proposed above, the Slayer has the choice of a normal attack for a lot of damage (but potentially a miss), or automatically deal Strength modifier in damage? Would that be acceptable?
I think at this point, the trenches have been dug, and that's pretty much that.
I have absolutely no narrative/versimilitude reason for disliking the mechanic, and I have basically zero patience for an attitude of "wizards get cool stuff because MAGIC."
This is bringing other baggage to my question. I don't care how little patience you have. I'm working to bridge a gap, not work on the intolerance of either group. Instead of changing someone's mind, I'm wondering
why the mechanic can't be changed to something else.
And I think it's pretty good at low levels - Slayers should be able to mow through kobolds.
With that said, it's basically the most boring way to mow through lesser opponents imaginable. This seems to be borne out in playtest reports; if a slayer doesn't even need to roll a die, it's kinda boring, no? Regardless of how thematic it is?
Like I said earlier, getting automatic advantage against enemies below a certain HP threshold (looking at max hp here, not current) would work for me. Set it fairly high though - 5 hp per level or something like that. Along with Cleave, this would work for me and probably cause fewer problems for folks who are dead-set against "miss damage."
I think the "enemy gets disadvantage when you miss them" sounds nice, but the more I think about it, the more I think Slayers might want to miss if that's the benefit; think of the party nova possibilities.
-O
Good point. So you're fine with the mechanic potentially changing (which you've indicated earlier in this thread, too). That's good. If there's no really good mechanical reason for keeping it, and it's upsetting a not insignificant portion of the playtest (even if they're not the majority), I see no reason not to reflect the Reaper ability via another method. I think the advantage based on HP threshold would draw a lot smaller outcry, and would support changing it to that (even if I dislike HP thresholds). Thanks for the reply.
It's part of a theme, right?
So it can be theoretically swapped out for something that the people with problems with it would be happy with.
It's the promise of the modular nature of 5e: You don't HAVE to use any bit or fob.
I realize this, but it goes back to what I said above in this post. I think people just dislike the idea of the feat being core, because many people use the core as the base assumption of how the game is played. Most of the time, all of the core PHB is allowed. I think it'll take some adjustment to break that assumption for most groups.
As a feat in a theme, it can be swapped out. And that's good. That's modular. People just need to get away from the assumption of "because it's in the PHB, you can use it without asking" like the standard assumption seems to be. Now, there's always been DM changes. "We're playing a low magic campaign, so
X rules are in effect" or "no gnomes in this campaign" or something. So, it won't be too hard to adjust, I suspect. But the core assumption is what I think bugs people at this stage.
We'll see if that changes, but in the meantime, I see no reason not to have a mechanic that makes everyone happy. Right now, it's upsetting to people who don't like the narrative it'll create in their games. To others, it's fine. Then others don't mind the narrative it creates, but find it boring. Others think it's good at low levels, but potentially really bad a high levels as HP scales. The nice thing about advantage is that it'll always be useful, no matter the level you're at. It scales with you, and the damage you deal. It's one reason I support using advantage over small automatic damage on a miss.
Oh, there are lots of ways to go about it...
An auto-damage aura against lower level/lower HP or HD enemies that can be activated when a fighter wields a two-handed weapon could work too.
Actually something like the 1e fighter rules about higher level fighters auto-killing low HD enemies could also work.
I think people would be more in favor of automatic damage without a roll then automatic damage on a miss, honestly. They seem to get hung up on "a miss is a miss" somewhat understandably. I know some people don't like the "the guy can never miss" feel of it, so automatic damage without rolling an attack would bug that group of people, too.
Again, I like some sort of advantage mechanic, personally, since it scales to all levels. Maybe the feat could give you an attack against everyone, like Whirlwind Attack? Or, if you're fighting 3 or more enemies, you have advantage? I don't know. I was just trying to figure out why people seem so attached to this mechanic when trying to reflect the Slayer's ferociousness, and why a different mechanic that more people liked couldn't express that fiction. Thanks for the reply, though.
I like the way it works now and I don't want it replaced. There is also the principle of the matter that if we remove every mechanic that a vocal minority dislikes-- for reasons that have nothing to do with game balance and very little to do with verisimilitude-- we won't have a game left to play.
I don't think anyone is saying that you have to allow it in your home games, but those of us that like this mechanic-- and I love it-- don't want it to be removed from the rulebooks because of the handful of (mostly) 3.X fans that are opposed to Fighter having nice things.
Again, stop bringing baggage to my question, please. I'm not drawing a line in the sand, or asking people to change their mind about how they feel. I'm asking what makes it so good that it shouldn't be replaced with something else. And you didn't answer that. Did you have an answer in mind as to why another mechanic wouldn't be good enough, as long as it still gave the Slayer that ferocious and vicious feeling?
It's lame when you're fighting kobolds because you're going to kill them automatically and you're only ever going to miss them rarely. Slayers also get cleave, which is much more useful against vermin.
Reaper is a cool power when you're fighting a boss with high AC and you're the one constantly chipping away at him while everyone else is only hitting him half the time. Let the other Fighters protect the weak and carry everyone else's gear for them. You are the Slayer, and your job is to make things dead.
Again, why can't another ability represent this? What makes automatic damage on a miss better than any other mechanic? What makes you want to keep automatic damage on a miss rather than any other mechanic that people will accept? It's obviously an issue to some people (we're 18 pages into a thread about it).
Would you be against the idea of the Slayer making them make a saving throw for less damage? Would that work for you? What about advantage when someone is below an HP threshold? What about getting to choose between dealing automatic damage or making a normal attack? Why is it that nothing else is acceptable (without bringing baggage into the answer again)?
. Obviously there's still disagreement about the balance and believability aspects, but this is why I think it's the right mechanic for the job - assuming you believe the niche is worth filling at all (i.e., that it's not overpowered or breaks suspension of disbelief).
