(More) Problems with the Reaper Feat

[GMforPowergamers]

Relax...nobody is calling for a ban on the Reaper feat just yet. One of the things we are supposed to do in a playtest is try to find exploits and bugs, so that the developers know how to address them. We should keep an open mind here.

Thanks for the input. Like I said earlier, I am sure the designers will fix these bugs as the development moves forward. I have every confidence that the end result will be fun and balanced.
..

Sorry...
I jumped in looking for a fight.

This seams to have the same build up as an edition war, and I am jumping at. Shadows

So again sorry

 

[Fifth Element]

Most of these are of the "don't be silly" variety (and a couple rely purely on assumptions), which we do not need hardcoded into the rules. Hardcoding this type of thing into the rules leads to rules bloat, and the basic game is supposed to be relatively simple (compared to 3E or 4E, say). We do not need rules text to tell us that throwing a coin at someone is not an attack. Just a couple of lines of advice to the DM would suffice.

For Crusader's Strike, the problem is in the spell description, not with the Reaper feat. The spell says your "attacks made" with the weapon deal additional damage. If you're going to argue that this applies to Reaper damage, you would also argue it applies on any miss (dealing just the additional damage), because the spell description does not specify you need to hit with your attack, just that you make an attack.

Similar clarification would be required for Spiritual Hammer.

 

[CleverNickName]

Sorry...
I jumped in looking for a fight.

This seams to have the same build up as an edition war, and I am jumping at. Shadows

So again sorry

No worries. Patience is starting to wear a little thin on both sides of the edition war battlefield, I think.

I was probably a little too aggressive in my request to keep the thread on-topic...sorry if it put you on the offensive. (And by "request," I mean "sarcastic placation.") I just didn't want this thread to decompose into yet another debate on the nature of hit points.

 

[Mallus]

1. Punching your opponent in the face deals nonlethal damage* if you hit, but lethal if you miss. This assumes the rules for unarmed combat are unchanged in 5E.

I think this is a bug, but I kinda like it. The fighter trained in especially brutal techniques tries to pull their punch but screws up, unintentionally dealing a life-threatening head iinjury.

2. The Ray of Frost spell does more damage on a miss than it does on a hit.

Good catch.

3. Tossing a healing potion to your buddy does no damage on a hit, but damages them on a miss (since it requires an attack roll).

Willfully bad reading.

4. Throwing a pebble or a coin at a target deals no damage if you hit, but damages the target if you miss.

Bag 'o Rats territory here.

 

[CleverNickName]

Most of these are of the "don't be silly" variety (and a couple rely purely on assumptions), which we do not need hardcoded into the rules. Hardcoding this type of thing into the rules leads to rules bloat, and the basic game is supposed to be relatively simple (compared to 3E or 4E, say). We do not need rules text to tell us that throwing a coin at someone is not an attack. Just a couple of lines of advice to the DM would suffice.

Absolutely...we need clarification on a few things, but we don't necessarily need rules. When I'm actually playing the game, I would probably use something besides an attack roll to toss someone a potion (Dexterity check for the target to catch it?), and throwing a rock (or even a brick) should not be considered an attack except under strange circumstances. But these are just judgment calls at this point. The finished rules need to clarify what is and is not "an attack."

Punching someone? Maybe. Lethal damage and non-lethal damage seem to be getting rolled together into the same thing, now that hit points Aren't Just for Damage Anymore^TM. What does that do for unarmed strikes, and for slayers who fight bare-handed?

I think the easiest way to remove these bugs would be to just clarify the Reaper feat. From reading the flavor text and looking at the character sheet, I get the impression that the Reaper feat was intended to apply only to weapon attacks...possibly only melee weapons, at that. But without further clarification, all sorts of problems come up. It's easy to fix, with just two sentences.

Willfully bad reading.

In the industry, we call it "button-mashing."

 

[Doug McCrae]

Do rulesets as open ended as rpgs need to close all their loopholes?

Was bag of rats a real problem in real games, or was it just an internet thing?

 

[Fifth Element]

I think the easiest way to remove these bugs would be to just clarify the Reaper feat. From reading the flavor text and looking at the character sheet, I get the impression that the Reaper feat was intended to apply only to weapon attacks...possibly only melee weapons, at that. But without further clarification, all sorts of problems come up. It's easy to fix.

Of course, since we don't actually have the rules text for the feat, just a quick summary on the character sheet, we can't really say if the problem is with the feat.

And anyway, you'd still have the Crusader's Strike problem that it deals additional damage on an attack, not on a hit.

 

[Remathilis]

Do rulesets as open ended as rpgs need to close all their loopholes?

Was bag of rats a real problem in real games, or was it just an internet thing?

1.) Somewhat. Reaper interacting with spells (which the designers probably didn't intend to happen) can be nipped with one word added to the feat "melee" or "weapon." The rest are just judgement calls a reasonable DM can (and should) deal with quickly. I still think there is places where the rules need clairity and renfinement; this may just need a nip/tuck.

2.) AFAIK: it was an internet thing like Pun Pun. I welcome the correction.

 

[Mallus]

Do rulesets as open ended as rpgs need to close all their loopholes?

I know the answer to this one! No.

Was bag of rats a real problem in real games, or was it just an internet thing?

I don't know. Sometimes I believe all the fiercely stupid debates around here are Internet-only theorywank. Other times I believe they're real issues at somebody's table.

I think it depends on the dopamine levels in my brain at the time.

 

[Fifth Element]

Do rulesets as open ended as rpgs need to close all their loopholes?

Was bag of rats a real problem in real games, or was it just an internet thing?

This is what I was referring to. We don't need to close all rules loopholes. The rules-lawyers/power-gamers/cheaters/whatever-you-want-to-call-them will always find something, especially the ones theorizing on the internet rather than actually playing with a real live DM.