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

[herrozerro]

Use the "cinematic" euphimism instead then if you prefer. My primary point is that the core rules should not have any polarising style of play whether it's your cinematic play style or my grittier play style embedded in the core rules. The core rules should be such that an advanced rule module can satisfy and support both our styles of play (neither of which are doing it wrong).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

the issue is, I dont believe it's possible to have some kind of neutral core rules. In either way, from what I thought I heard that modules are going to be included in the core rule book. so its not like these things are not going to be in the core rule book.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, this is what happens when designers write flavour text for abilities that (i) is not intended to be part of their resolution, but (ii) does not correspond with the mechanics given.

Yes. I absolutely agree. So the designers can either dispense with narrative and make an abstract board game, or they can write better narrative.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

But dannager, not everyon wants to play this way...whether it can be done or not. This came up again over the martial powers debates. The problem with these sorts of mechanics is they force people to accept your approach. If it works for you, great, but surely you can accept not everone is going to want the same thngs you want.

 

[Drowbane]

oops

 

[Drowbane]

oops again

Sorry bout the triple post (from a guy who hates double posts no less!!) I blame the lag!

 

[Drowbane]

Huh? Does 4e not count?

Since you asked, no not to me it doesn't. 1/2 damage on a miss was one of those things about 4e I disliked.

If 5e is just 4e+ then I am not likely to purchase it. Sadly, WotC already split the players. I do not see how they can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

 

[herrozerro]

Since you asked, no not to me it doesn't. 1/2 damage on a miss was one of those things about 4e I thought was... (dare I say it again?) Silly.

If 5e is just 4e+ then I am not likely to purchase it. Sadly, WotC already split the players. I do not see how they can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

How is save for half damage not half damage on a miss?

I mean I can see how a save is to get out of something already effecting you, IE: A fireball is kinda hard to dodge. But so is the full fury of a rage strike from a barbarian. I dont see how you still taking damage from a fireball and taking damage from the barbarian is different... except MAGIC....

 

[pemerton]

Use the "cinematic" euphimism instead then if you prefer. My primary point is that the core rules should not have any polarising style of play whether it's your cinematic play style or my grittier play style embedded in the core rules.

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.

While what Herremann says is true, I think jadrax also makes an important point.

There is a tendency in many of these discussions to assume that, if the rules are written to default to process simulation (so, for example, Reaper can't kill, or a Warlord's inspiration gives temporary hp rather than hp recovery, etc) then both sides will be satisfied. As if those who approach D&D (and especially 4e) from the non-process-simulation angle do so accidentally, or without commitment to what they're doing.

I think that such an assumption is contentious, and (from WotC's point of view) risky. It may be that many 4e players like the ambivalence in an ability like Reaper, which allows it to be narrated sometimes as a bruise delivered through armour, sometimes as a vicous stroke that causes the opponent to tire in avoiding it, sometimes as a deft manoeuvre that causes the defender to self-impale on the altar of spikes.

One possible solution is to offer up a range of themes, some whose abilities are clear process simulation, some not. Another is to put forward an alternative "death rule" - there could be an optional rule that any killing strike requires a successful attack roll to be made - so Reaper couldn't kill, Magic Missile would require an attack roll to be made in this one special case, etc. A variant on this would be to allow a saving throw against any auto-damage that would kill.

Anyway, I think tackling the issue at the source might be a better way to proceed than mucking around with individual abilities, pushing them towards or away from process simulation.

 

[Gold Roger]

no, he is choosing to see something that is not implied. The Slayer is so ferocious in his attacks that even his misses damage your physical/Luck/Mystical defenses.

I don't know how you get slapstick out of that unless you choose to see it that way.

Please look back a the post you quoted, as there I was answering someone who was advocating a particular narrative form as the reason I should accept the slayer ability. I called it slapstick, because, in our example combat, his suggestions where slapstick for me.

As you brought it up, can I narrate the reaper ability?

Yes. To take our slayer fighter vs deathknight example, I'd do so after his second miss (as I noted the fighter misses three time in a row, the last hit killing the deathknight):

"(fighter-attack roll-miss)As you swing you already know you still didn't smite the deathknight, the powerfull swing once again going wide. But you've almost got him, his dark power is fading and his ghostly eyes are dimming, if you can just weather his next assault, it is over, you both know.

He comes at you again (deathknight-attack roll-miss), charging forward with a terrible stab, but it's not enough to take you down. You sidestep the attack and (fighter-attack roll-miss-3 damage take deathknight to zero), even though you can't muster a proper attack, his weakened state allowed you to position your blade such, that he went streight into it on his charge"

Yes, the ability can be explained and narrated, but it is jarring, because it really needs to be narrated on a case-by-case basis, it needs to be justified in the narrative, over and over again, far behind other, more consistent abilities. And thus I take issues with it.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

No, it doesn't. If your attacker is so skilled that he leaves you with no options except to a) be sliced in twain, or b) to slam yourself into a wall to avoid the blade, a proficient defender does the latter. Let's please not act like our narrative is in manacles. It's like some of you are being purposefully uncreative as though that will help you drive your point home.

But you described the situation as a complete miss. I would find such consistently competent "missing" unbelievable. You have to remember that this is what the abstraction of hit points is supposed to represent and take on. To have it bleeding out into the "missing" attack category fails to make much sense to me on an ongoing and consistency-wise basis. If an attack is competent enough to deal hit point damage to a defender, it should not be described as a "miss". It translates to "this reaper guy always deals damage", which completely tramples over my believability meter as no one should absolutely always hit. Your mileage obviously varies.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise