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

[nogray]

Flavor/Rules tweak

While I voted that it is okay in mechanics and flavor, I would not be opposed to (and would, in fact, be in favor of) a mechanical tweak. Flavor can be adjusted, too, to match any of the better examples I've seen upthread and in the other threads on the topic.

I'd like to add at least two, perhaps three, exceptions to the Reaper rule. The feat benefit would read (with my tweaks in italics):

"Benefit: Unless you roll a natural 1 on the attack roll, when you miss with a melee attack, you still deal damage ... the attack unless the damage would be sufficient to reduce the opponent's hit points to zero or less."

That would provide for (a) no killing on a miss, and (b) still a 1-in-20 chance to actually completely miss the opponent.

How does that sound?

---edit to add---

I was thinking this should be a melee ability. That is the "perhaps" part of the statement, though. I am really not so sure that Reaper should be melee only or if it should also be available to missile combatants.

 

[herrozerro]

Fine for an advanced wahoo module for those like you who love this sort of stuff and for those who it does not bother, but please not in the core rules where it is defining such play for everyone.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I like how my style of play is wahoo, but staunch adherence to some make believe standard of realism is gold.

 

[El Mahdi]

That can't be it, because the feat comes from a theme, and themes are not tied to class. If they were trying to pump up the fighter's damage, presumably they'd do something with the fighter class rather than a theme that any class can take.

Good point. I hadn't though of that, but you're right.

Seasons don't fear the Reaper, why should we?

You may be right, but there's no way I'm taking your hand. I think you're just trying to lull us into a false sense of security...

 

[El Mahdi]

I like how my style of play is wahoo, but staunch adherence to some make believe standard of realism is gold.

That's not what's being said there. What's gold is people on both sides of this being satisfied.

 

[CleverNickName]

How does that sound?

It's a lot better than the playtest version, that's for sure. But it's a little bit too fiddly for my tastes. Personally, I would like to see it rewritten like this:

Reaper
You are really good at killing or whatever.
Benefit: you gain a +1 bonus on melee damage rolls.

This fits nicely with a wider variety of play styles, and it sets the fighter Slayer up for his Cleave ability at later levels.

 

[Dannager]

I consider it a boring feature, not an innovation. YMMV.



And in your narrative the Death Knight dies due to his own incompetence. Yay for heroic PCs!

It's his narrative, he can do whatever he wants with it. As can you. Blaming a trivial system mechanic for screwing with a narrative you have absolute control over is the weakest thing I've ever heard.

 

[herrozerro]

It's a lot better than the playtest version, that's for sure. But it's a little bit too fiddly for my tastes. Personally, I would like to see it rewritten like this:

Reaper
You are really good at killing or whatever.
Benefit: you gain a +1 bonus on melee damage rolls.

This fits nicely with a wider variety of play styles, and it sets the fighter up for his Cleave ability at later levels.

Considering it's not a theme limited to the fighter why does it need to be seen in the fighter scops only?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

So an attack that misses but causes an enemy to dodge out of the way in a foolhardy manner, accidentally cracking his skull on a table/knocking himself unconscious on a door/impaling himself on a spike/tumbling off a cliff/stabbing himself with his own dagger, etc., despite being perfectly plausible, a staple of fantasy fight scenes, and obedient to the rules structure, is completely unacceptable in your mind and has no place in D&D?

Really?

My main problem here is it presumes incompetence on the part of the defender when such incompetence is not a given.

You could choose to describe some of these attacks as incompetence on the part of the defender. But you can also describe it as competence on the part of the attacker. And hey, you can mix and match as desired, you're not tied to one narrative description that must be used in every case.

If you follow the context, I was following Dannager's examples when an attacker completely misses but through the defender's incompetence, they still cop potentially deadly damage. The example presumes that the attacker has completely failed to strike the target, and so you can't then spin this around back to competence on behalf of the attacker. On other situations where you have the confusing mess of AC and hps, where armor absorbs the blow, no problems at all giving out some damage; but not every single time the attacker genuinely misses.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannager]

While I understand the arguments about hit points as an abstraction, I have to ask, is that how you really think of it when you're playing?

Yes.

And, more importantly, the way you think about the game will change to match the way it works. If you play in a system where damage is dealt on a miss occasionally for long enough, it will make sense in your head, too.

 

[jadrax]

It looks like about 40% of the people polled don't like it. So it is safe to assume that about 40% of the gamer base is somewhat less likely to purchase a product that includes it. For the sake of the D&D Next project, I hope WotC doesn't decide to ignore 40% of their customer base. They've already seen the result of that experiment.

It looks like about 60% of the people polled like it. So it is safe to assume that about 60% of the gamer base is somewhat less likely to purchase a product that fails to include it. For the sake of the D&D Next project, I hope WotC doesn't decide to ignore 60% of their customer base. They've already seen the result of that experiment.