The problem is that the poll didn't give an option of I really dislike this and think it is broken but I will still play the new edition.
Not everyone who does not like the feat as it is written now are saying well this a deal breaker for me. I don't like this feat as written and I am not saying that.
It seems that you checked the box saying that "I HATE damage on miss and will only play a D&D next game that excludes such effects" - and I (and perhaps others) had been reading your posts in that light.
If in fact you really meant to check something along the lines of "Bad for believability; also bad for balance" that helps me make sense of what you've beein saying in your recent posts.
Both the numbers and the intensity matter.
It is about how divided the D&D community is. If 30-40 percent of the community really, really, strongly dislikes the mechamic, they could loose a large chunk of potential customers.
Intriguing. So would this be an argument for including 4e-style incombat healing in the game, given that there are a good chunk of 4e players for whom the pacing of combat is pretty important?
I think you can get the core mechanics to 80-90 percent and then build the 70 % or less options on top of that.
But Reaper
is an option. It's a feat associated with a theme. If it causes trouble at a table, that table can agree not to use it. (Just as, at my 4e table, we don't use the Expertise feats.)
The poll doesn't indicate that 67% of the people want. That only rises to some 4-ish% at this point. 64% accept or don't oppose it and that's not really the same as want. The poll's wording doesn't support that inference.
I'm sorry, but that is pretty close to ridiculous. Have a look at those in the 64% camp, call to mind their posting histories, and then ask yourself - are they just
tolerating this feat, or do they like it (or the sort of design approach that it represents)?
The damage may not be high, but the possibility of never missing in melee is pretty big.
I don't think it's that big. I mean, magic missile never missed in AD&D, B/X, 3E and (latter-day) 4e. But it wasn't the only spell used, and it wasn't even the only 1st level spell used (both Sleep and Charm saw use, for example, and Charm has always had a miss chance).
The thing is, both Reaper and at-will magic missile have been extensively tested... in 4e. The assumptions about combat may be different from 5e, but at least in 4th edition neither were remotely unbalanced.
Also, I've seen people say that the other cantrips are unbalanced, but once again, we didn't really experience this when we used them in 4e. Take the 5e Ray of Frost, which even WotC may think is on the overpowered end. You can pretty easily get at-will immobilization in 4e... that also damages. It just isn't that compelling or powerful in practice.
I think immobilise at will can be overly strong in some circumstances, actually. The fighter PC in my game has immobilise on any basic attack, and it makes his oppys and combat challenge attacks at least arguably overpowered.
Part of the balance in 4e is that there are other powers available to the PCs, which give them a reason not to use Magic Missile or Reaping Strike or a basic attack. It seems that D&Dnext will have less of these, in the name of verisimilitude - so Reaper is really more like Hammer Rhythm than any particular 4e power. Hammer Rhythm is generally regarded as pretty good, isn't it? But not overpowered? (I don't follow the optimisation discussions very closesly.)
Keeping in mind that it is far easier to add things in than to strip them out, if auto-damage is removed you're always welcome and able to add it back in.
I don't think these sorts of general claim are very helpful.
For example: it is trivial to strip overnight healing out of 4e. Completely trivial. A stroke of the pen can change that rule. Whereas it is a huge job to strip incombat healing out of 4e - incombat healing is utterly central to the play of the game.
It is very hard to add healing surges into AD&D. I would have to change healing spells, natural healing rules, aspects of class design and balance, etc. On the other hand, it is trivial to add a new weapon into AD&D. Just write up some damage numbers, speed factor and weapon vs armour mods.
It is trivial both to add, and to remove, particular monsters from any edition of D&D, because of the comparative ease of monster design and the existence of long lists of monsters. Magic items less so (eg most versions of D&D will break down if the PCs don't get some magic weapons, given the prevelance of monsters which need magic to hit).
I don't think there is any general rule. But in this case, it strikes me as pretty trivial for those groups who don't like damage on a miss
just to make sure that none of their PCs takes the theme/feat!
