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

[Elf Witch]

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.

Exactly. Nobody ever gets exactly what they want. I play and enjoy 3E yet there are things I have done to make it more to my liking. I don't have an issue with doing that as long as I am not having to do it for everything.

It kind of irks me when we are in the play test stages and having discussions about things to be told well you don't have to use it.

At this stage we should be talking about what we like and don't like. Later when the game is in print we can have discussions on how to deal with the stuff we don't like.

 

[Dannager]

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.

You don't have to houserule anything. Just don't take the feat for your character.

Unless you're the type to try and restrict other people's characters based on your personal tastes. Which is not only kind of a dick move, but is also completely antithetical to D&D Next's stated goal of allowing different people to enjoy different playstyles at the same table.

I mean, when they said that was their goal, what did you think would happen? You'd get to play exactly the way you wanted and everyone else would play exactly the way you wanted, too?

 

[Elf Witch]

You don't have to houserule anything. Just don't take the feat for your character.

Unless you're the type to try and restrict other people's characters based on your personal tastes. Which is not only kind of a dick move, but is also completely antithetical to D&D Next's stated goal of allowing different people to enjoy different playstyles at the same table.

I mean, when they said that was their goal, what did you think would happen? You'd get to play exactly the way you wanted and everyone else would play exactly the way you wanted, too?

Wow you are kind of being a dick here. The whole purpose of an open play test is to find out what people like or don't like. As I said earlier now is the time to speak up about it.

I am not crazy about the idea of being able to turn every miss to a hit I see I am not the only one. So I will speak up and say I hope they don't put this in the game.

That is no different than someone saying I love this and hope they do put it in.

Why is the answer always if you don't like something take it out? How about the flip side of the coin you if you like something add it in.

I really think it is very rude to attack someone for daring to have an opinion you don't agree with that is kind of a dick move.

 

[I'm A Banana]

STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

If you cannot refrain from ascribing motives and/or name calling, I suggest you refrain from posting in this thread. And if you can't do that voluntarily, I can certainly help.

 

[Janaxstrus]

The issue I have with this is the killing blows, not the damage itself.

The feat is balanced, but not believable to me WHEN used as the killing blow on a creature.

Hitpoints, AS WRITTEN:

An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points or fewer strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma or it simply knocks you unconscious

So...you missed the kobold, but STILL managed a bleeding injury or some other trauma? Every time? Really? How did you "strike him directly" but still miss?

Tonight in our first playtest, the Ogre got dropped by a miss. It was less than satisfying.

 

[jadrax]

Why is the answer always if you don't like something take it out? How about the flip side of the coin you if you like something add it in.

At this point, Feats and Themes are explicitly optional rules in their entirety. So really, it is more a case of 'if you like something add it in'.

 

[Elf Witch]

At this point, Feats and Themes are explicitly optional rules in their entirety. So really, it is more a case of 'if you like something add it in'.

So they say and I hope the game does keep to its modular design.

Here is the thing if the only option for wizards is at will spells and I don't like them then I have to do the major work of changing the wizard I can't just pull them out with out doing some more work because they are designed to be balanced with the at wills.

This reaper feat if it is a stand alone feat then it will be very easy to take it out of the game but if its part of a feat chain then it gets more complex.

But this really is not the point right now. We are being asked to play test the rules and discuss what we like and don't like.

Everyone should have the freedom to say how they feel without being personally attacked for their opinion or being told well just take it out.

I don't expect that I will get everything my way in the new edition. My hope is that I get a game that I can enjoy without having to do a lot of house ruling. But if I don't well then I keep playing what I have been playing.

 

[Dannager]

Wow you are kind of being a dick here. The whole purpose of an open play test is to find out what people like or don't like. As I said earlier now is the time to speak up about it.

Yeah, but if your version of "speaking up" is, "Hey, that thing that other people enjoy and that I'm in no way obligated to make use of myself? We should get rid of it because it just doesn't suit my personal preferences," then I'm not sure you should be speaking up about it. It's contrary to the core of D&D Next's design philosophy. If I were on the design team, I'd be far more interested in how general mechanics are perceived, rather than whether certain people decide they're not interested in certain themes.

It's like if someone said, "Man, I hate spontaneous casters, they should be removed from the game!" instead of saying, "Man, I hate spontaneous casters, so I'll play a memorization-based caster instead!"

I am not crazy about the idea of being able to turn every miss to a hit I see I am not the only one. So I will speak up and say I hope they don't put this in the game.

Again, you don't have to play that kind of character. It's no skin off your back, so on behalf of those who think it's kind of cool, just let us enjoy it and you can play a different character. If you thought a particular character theme was really awesome but a bunch of people got together on the internet and decided to protest it despite the fact that they never have to play that character, how would you feel?

That is no different than someone saying I love this and hope they do put it in.

It's wildly different, and I'm not sure why you don't see that. "This is cool, let's make it an option!" is different from, "I don't care that other people don't like it, I don't want it in my D&D!"

Why is the answer always if you don't like something take it out? How about the flip side of the coin you if you like something add it in.

Isn't that exactly what you're trying to do here? You don't like something, and you're trying to take it out of the game? Except instead of doing it just for yourself, you're saying that it should be taken out of everyone's game just because it doesn't fit your personal aesthetic. D&D Next is designed to be a big tent. There will be things that you don't like. There will also be things that you like. Use the things that you like, and ignore the things you don't like.

I really think it is very rude to attack someone for daring to have an opinion you don't agree with that is kind of a dick move.

I didn't attack you for having an opinion that I disagree with.

 

[underfoot007ct]

No option for 'It should be melee only.'

I agree with melee only. Make a lot of sense to me.

 

[jadrax]

Here is the thing if the only option for wizards is at will spells and I don't like them then I have to do the major work of changing the wizard I can't just pull them out with out doing some more work because they are designed to be balanced with the at wills.

Again, they have stated that At-Will spells are Modular, so you will not be forced to add them unless things change radically.

This reaper feat if it is a stand alone feat then it will be very easy to take it out of the game but if its part of a feat chain then it gets more complex.

I am really hoping Feat Chains have gone the way of THACO.