(More) Problems with the Reaper Feat

[Argyle King]

To close some of the loopholes, I understand why Reaper would be a melee-only thing. However, I don't like the idea of it being melee-only because that implies that only fighters (and other melee types) can train or have a background which trained them to be brutal when it comes to dealing damage. I kind of the like the idea of a Reaper Sorcerer; his innate mastery of magic was never quite fine tuned with academic learning, so from time to time it bubbles over and gets out of his control; scorching all in the way without mercy.

 

[Boarstorm]

How many of these problems would be solved if Reaper was limited to "an attack that would deal damage"?

 

[LostSoul]

Regarding NPCs with the Reaper feat, it's an unfounded concern at this time since we don't know how NPCs are going to be built, or the advice surrounding them. Still, I can see it being an issue if they allow NPCs access to PC feats - and there are other issues with NPCs not having access to PC feats.

That is a chilling thought. Still, a DM who wants to be a silly goose has plenty of ways to be a silly goose.

It's possible (given certain NPC creation rules) that a DM could write up a customized bandit entry that contains the Slayer feat, then use the standard # Appearing (20-200 is from AD&D, I think) without realizing what he's doing.

 

[Argyle King]

How many of these problems would be solved if Reaper was limited to "an attack that would deal damage"?

A few, but that still doesn't cover cases in which missing actually does more damage than hitting.

 

[Boarstorm]

A few, but that still doesn't cover cases in which missing actually does more damage than hitting.

Such as?

 

[Argyle King]

Such as?

some cantrips come to mind

in some cases, improvised weapons

 

[mach1.9pants]

How many of these problems would be solved if Reaper was limited to "an attack that would deal damage"?

How many of these problems would be solved with common sense, this thread should have the humour tag. "When you miss an attack..." does not imply anything but an attack (It is not miss an attack roll). As DM that means to me a proper attack not a spell and not using a coin etc as they are not attacks.

DMG 5E "The first rule of being a good DM is to remember that the rules are a tool..."

 

[Boarstorm]

some cantrips come to mind

in some cases, improvised weapons

Cantrips... hmm. They all do their dice of damage plus the relevant ability mod, which by definition is going to be greater than just the ability mod.

Except Magic Missile. But Reaper can't work on that anyway since it's A) incapable of missing and B) doesn't have an attack roll so isn't an attack (by my reading, anyhow).

Improvised weapons all do a damage dice+ability mod as well, so the bit about cantrips applies here as well.

 

[CleverNickName]

... if they allow NPCs access to PC feats.

I don't disagree, but some have already expressed that "common sense" is preferable to being told what is and is not "allowed." Some people would think it is perfectly reasonable for NPCs to have access to PC abilities and equipment, and will want rules to support that.

"They shouldn't allow the Reaper feat."
"Don't tell me what is and is not allowed!"
"Well, what happens when NPCs take it?"
"Nothing. NPCs shouldn't be allowed to take feats."
"Don't tell me what is and is not allowed!"
And so on.

Cantrips... hmm. They all do their dice of damage plus the relevant ability mod, which by definition is going to be greater than just the ability mod..

I think he is referring to a hypothetical case of a wizard with 12 Int and 18 Dex. An unlikely build, but still possible for a power-gamer to exploit.

 

[Boarstorm]

[MENTION=50987]CleverNickName[/MENTION]
I'm not sure I see the problem in that case either. Attack spells use their magic ability (How to Play, page 25) and so Reaper would be keyed off that ability, not Dex.