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

[Herremann the Wise]

Well I gave a suggestion upthread about how it might be done by tweaking the dying rules: 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.

I think this is a workable foundation.

Probably this rule wouldn't be satisfactory either, though, because it would get in the way of magic missile and fireball auto-kills, whereas autokills are exactly what many people want out of those spells (especially fireball).

Does fireball miss though? If a fireball is exploding in my character's area (as against not in my character's area), it is certainly not by any definition missing.

Which then, once again, raises the question "does magic always get to be better because it's magic?" I mean, just as you express incredulity at the Reaper guy never missing, I could express incredulity that of all the hundreds of koblod warriors that have been fireballed over the years, almost none have survived (in classic D&D kobold max hp 4, a fireball of 7 or greater damage will autokill (I'm assuming a round up of 3.5 to 4), odds of 6 hp on a 6D fireball are 1 in 46656, and odds of a kobold saving are, I think, 1 in 5 (17+ on d20 required), meaning that fewer than 5 in a million kobolds have ever survived a fireball from a wand of fireballs).

The main problem here is that a wizard can aim their fireball perfectly to carefully encompass as many opponents as possible. Particularly in 3e, this automatically perfect aiming from a perfectly cast spell does not make much sense. I would far prefer a skill-based caster roll be required for such spells. Spells should not always be perfectly cast and neither should their aiming be always perfect. Magic should still be magical but like the reaper ability, it should not always be an absolute in terms of design for the sake of simplicity.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mort]

Hence my view that perhaps an inclusive design, with the appropriate options, is possible - but it strikes me as pretty tricky, because so many apparently conflicting preferences are in play (of which "gritty martial but gonzo magic" is only the most obvious).

This is exactly were a layered modular approach can be extremely useful.

 

[Elf Witch]

There's been vocal discussion on the matter, but mostly by a few parties that care either way. So how does the en-world population at large feel about missed melee(!) attack rolls resulting in damage?

To be clear: I'm talking about abilities like the Reaper on the playtest fighter which does 3 damage on a miss (and a hit would deal 2d6+7 or between 9 and 19 damage). I'm not talking about ranged attacks or even one handed weapon attacks to avoid getting lost in hypotheticals: just the Reaper as it is now.

I don't like it I know hit points are abstract but a miss should be a miss and a hit should be a hit. It is simpler and cleaner that way.

I played 3E with a DM who handled things differently and it worked nicely. Armor was a damage reduction and dex was how you avoid getting hit.

So someone in plate armor got hit a lot but you had to roll over their ac to actually make them take damage. Somebody in light armor got hit less but usually took more damage.

I found that believable.

This thing with the reaper does not make sense to me why can't anyone do it. I am a strong wizard and I hit someone with my axe just as hard as a fighter how come they are not taking my strength damage.

I don't like class features like this because they strain my believability.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't like class features like this because they strain my believability.

It's a feat. Worse comes to worst you can just not use it.

This thing with the reaper does not make sense to me why can't anyone do it. I am a strong wizard and I hit someone with my axe just as hard as a fighter how come they are not taking my strength damage.

Anyone who takes the slayer theme can do it. Themes are not restricted by class.

 

[jadrax]

This thing with the reaper does not make sense to me why can't anyone do it. I am a strong wizard and I hit someone with my axe just as hard as a fighter how come they are not taking my strength damage.

I don't like class features like this because they strain my believability.

It's not a class feature, anyone can take it.

 

[Elf Witch]

It's a feat. Worse comes to worst you can just not use it.

That seems to be the answer now for anything someone does not like. Just don't use it but there comes a point that you have to question why you are playing something that you are having to house rule the dickens out of.

 

[Elf Witch]

It's not a class feature, anyone can take it.

I have not had a chance to look over the play test materials been very busy moving.

As a feat that is open to any class I could stomach it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That seems to be the answer now for anything someone does not like. Just don't use it but there comes a point that you have to question why you are playing something that you are having to house rule the dickens out of.

During 4e the standard answers to "I dont like X" were:

Don't use it

Or

Just do X, Y and Z. Bam. Done.

Neither of these satisfied most people and they lost alot of players. People are not going to get everything they want, but I think attempts by the designers to explain away beievability issues, attempts by the fans to pressure people to adopt the edition despite mechanics they dont like, will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Lanefan]

The main problem here is that a wizard can aim their fireball perfectly to carefully encompass as many opponents as possible. Particularly in 3e, this automatically perfect aiming from a perfectly cast spell does not make much sense. I would far prefer a skill-based caster roll be required for such spells. Spells should not always be perfectly cast and neither should their aiming be always perfect.

Hear hear!

I've made 'em roll to aim area-effect spells for many years now. That said, everyone in the area takes damage even if they save (corner case exception: Monks with Evasion take none on a made save)

As for the original question: the ONLY time a miss on a melee swing should ever do damage is on a fumble, with said damage potentially going into yourself, a friend, the wall, your weapon, etc.

Lan-"and this is how you balance Wizards, the party kill them after they 'miss' a few too many times with their fireballs"-efan

 

[CleverNickName]

During 4e the standard answers to "I dont like X" were:

Don't use it

Or

Just do X, Y and Z. Bam. Done.

Neither of these satisfied most people and they lost alot of players. People are not going to get everything they want, but I think attempts by the designers to explain away beievability issues, attempts by the fans to pressure people to adopt the edition despite mechanics they dont like, will fall on deaf ears.

Yep. The biggest threat to the hobby is its fans.