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

[herrozerro]

This, I voted hated it mostly cause I do. It isn't a deal breaker for me buying the game. But I don't care if the ability is balanced I will never like it. So there was no good voting options for me, hating it was just closest.

I think Attitudes like this are never going to be happy with next, as it's a game toted to be a modular play what you want to play kind of game.

I honestly dont understand how something like this small effect can ruin a game for someone.

 

[Lwaxy]

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

It sure does look like it though. Either that, or you are trying to heat the discussion up by baiting those of a different view.

If you cannot participate without more or less veiled insults and turning around what others trying to express, then please step away from the discussion. Otherwise we'll make you step away. This, of course, goes for everyone. Last warning.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

Uff! Gods no. Then we'll be comparing Reaper to each and every other Theme/feat and about 3 months after release people will be calling for it to be upped or somehow deprecated because either "Reaper is a noob trap option" or "Reaper is far better than any other theme/feat".

If there's one thing this edition needs to avoid as much as possible in the core, mechanically, its the collection of small static bonuses as a form of character advancement. Blech.

I'd rather just ditch feats/themes entirely at that point.

 

[slobo777]

With a simple core set of rules, designers adding powers and effects for combat (which is heavily codified) have very little to play with.

The game would be very boring (and maths based) if all background and theme benefits resolved to +- to hit and damage.

Whether or not they should mess with what a hit or miss means is I guess up for debate here. But we have to allow for a few more things than bonuses and advantage/disadvantage if we want a game with some variety.

 

[eamon]

Uff! Gods no. Then we'll be comparing Reaper to each and every other Theme/feat and about 3 months after release people will be calling for it to be upped or somehow deprecated because either "Reaper is a noob trap option" or "Reaper is far better than any other theme/feat".

If there's one thing this edition needs to avoid as much as possible in the core, mechanically, its the collection of small static bonuses as a form of character advancement.

Actually, I like the availability of feats that add no new mechanics (i.e. only improve existing options, which generally means small static bonuses). These are really important to include to allow simple characters for players that don't want a tactically complex character with thousands of options.

The problem you're referring to is particularly serious when these bonuses become powerful. So, for instance 4e's heroic tier weapon focus is just fine; it's virtually never optimal from a powergaming perspective, but it is a simple options with no new rules.

And the powergaming discussion you're portraying as negative does have one advantage: it ensures that there's a solid baseline for how powerful a feat is. It's a reality check to ensure game balance is OK.

So while I agree with the aim - avoid lots of small static bonuses as a form of character advancement - I think the best way to do that is not to remove all small static bonuses, but to have a limited set of them, and to ensure they're not overpowered. So that would mean no racial "special case" slightly better small static bonuses, no must-have feats assumed by the game math, and no duplication (i.e. two feats adding to the same game score). If there's no duplication, there's not going to be the optimization searching game of finding the best and most stackable way of improving a particular score - there will simply be a fallback choice, if you're not interested in more dynamic or more interested feats but don't want to cause imbalance.

Also, realize that lots of feats are very close to "small static bonuses" in effect - for example the healer's feat in the playtest. For that matter Skill focus, toughness... lot's of traditional D&D feats are basically just "small static bonuses".

 

[Mallus]

It's breaking the tenuous assumptions of how D&D combat works (that if you beat the AC, you hit and if you don't, you don't), but in a very obtuse way.

Not to pick, but that isn't the working assumption in D&D combat. If you miss your to-hit roll, you've failed to do meaningful damage to the target. It says nothing about whether the blow landed -- which is why 3e/Pathfinder makes a distinction between AC and Touch AC, and earlier D&D had case-specific rules like metal armor not counting vs. spells like Shocking Grasp.

Now arguing that auto-damage on a missed attack roll can't kill an opponent is a different story. I can see that -- it's exhaustion, bruising, etc. In fact, I might use a house rule like that if a) the Reaper ability stays in and b) I actually get a chance to run 5e !

 

[Scribble]

Personally I don't think the issue is whether it's believable, or realistic, or whatever... It's that there is a rule at all.

What I mean is that now with the rule attached it kind of forces you to believe at least a bit that HPs are not = to physical wounds wheras before it didn't really matter HOW you thought about them. They just were devoid of all official meaning aside from 0 = dead (or almost dead depending on edition).

Before you could describe an attack as a vicious wound, or a glancing blow, or a complete miss and it had no effect other then on your imagination. Now you have to at least think a little bit about it if you want it to make sense in your imagination.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well one way to do it would be to use spell levels say charm at first level is used on humanoids. When you can cast third level spells you can cast charm as a third level spell and it now effects monsters.

That would make a great deal of sense.

Sure.

The question is: can you live with other people getting what they want, even if you don't want it.

Indeed. I have never liked psionics in D&D. Thematically, I just don't like it mixing with medieval-ish fantasy. And when I DM, I don't include psionics in my worlds (although I would consider it if a player was set on it). But I have absolutely no problem with psionics being in the rules, even the core rules, because I can just not use them if I don't like them, and I realize a lot of people like it. I fully expect there are parts of any edition of D&D that will not conform to my tastes, and I think it's an unreasonable expecation for that not to be the case.

 

[Fifth Element]

What I mean is that now with the rule attached it kind of forces you to believe at least a bit that HPs are not = to physical wounds wheras before it didn't really matter HOW you thought about them. They just were devoid of all official meaning aside from 0 = dead (or almost dead depending on edition).

I don't think that's accurate. Natural healing rates (ie, rules) in previous editions certainly implied a particular interpretation, and second wind in 4E (a rule) also implied a certain interpretation (as did its fast recovery of HP).

 

[Lwaxy]

Dannager has been booted from this discussion.