Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I Don't Like Damage On A Miss
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5932850" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>I'm aware of what the other poster put up. Again, I don't care about that baggage. I mean this very non-aggressively, in the future, please don't reply to me and my question quoted and then bring baggage from another poster to it when I'm specifically trying to bridge a gap, not work on the trenches both sides are digging. Thank you.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's true, but compromise means listening and adapting. I'd like to see your issues made so that the overwhelming majority accept them. The same goes for the Reaper feat. Just because "you can't please everyone" doesn't mean that you need to stop compromising. Saying "just don't use it" seems like a weak reply, even in a modular game like 5e. No, I'd like as many feats, as many themes, as many classes, etc. available to as many people as possible, please.</p><p></p><p>To that end, I'm looking for compromise. A line has begun to be drawn on the Reaper feat, and I'm curious why it needs to be there. Can it not be tweaked to please more people? Can advantage not be used? What about giving the opponent a save to take less damage? Is there no room for honest compromise, rather than "give some ground here, gain some there." I'm more the meet in the middle guy, not the "I get this, you get that, and we ignore each other when we play." Just my feelings, though. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm looking for multiple perspectives, so I appreciate the reply. It was by far the most responsive of those to reply so far.</p><p></p><p>So you're open to other ideas on how to accomplish this, then?</p><p></p><p>This was my hangup on advantage on the next attack, too.</p><p></p><p>Personally, that's precisely why I like it for the ability. The scaling is so much better. If ability scores are capped at 20, we're looking at 5 automatic damage to enemies every round. The Reaper feat is letting the current Fighter deal 3 damage per round, and look at the ogre HP. It's not really that substantial. What happens when the damage dealt barely increases, but HP skyrockets at high level against really dangerous enemies?</p><p></p><p>(To be fair, we don't know it'll skyrocket, but I don't have a good feeling about it based on how HP looks in the playtest.)</p><p></p><p>Right, but what if you think it's overpowered, underpowered, or it breaks your suspension of disbelief? Personally, the damage on the miss doesn't break mine, but the complete and utter failure to ever not deal meaningful damage (unless against damage reduction) breaks mine. If DR stops it, then it's seemingly physical. If it's seemingly physical damage, then the Slayer never fails to get <em>some</em> sort of noticeable damage in on an opponent, no matter how powerful they are (unless they resist the damage). <em>That's</em> where I start to question the fiction.</p><p></p><p>Simplicity, elegance, and speed of play are important, but if there's a problem, I'd rather spend the last 8 pages brainstorming abilities than rehashing objections and counter-objections. As I said, I'm a meet-in-the-middle kind of guy when it comes to compromise. If we like simplicity and speed of play, lets look for a solution that uses that!</p><p></p><p>Why do you object to "choose before you roll: deal automatic damage equal to your Strength modifier, or attack as normal"? I know that others have problems with it. I do, too. But, I'm trying to start a dialogue, and look for answers. Maybe we can start by picking apart that ability and seeing why you don't like it. The ability seems both simple and fast to me, and doesn't use advantage/disadvantage. It also shows just how relentless he can be if he focuses on it, going for assured damage rather than going for broke. But, as I said, even I don't like the solution. What do you object to about it? As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5932850, member: 6668292"] I'm aware of what the other poster put up. Again, I don't care about that baggage. I mean this very non-aggressively, in the future, please don't reply to me and my question quoted and then bring baggage from another poster to it when I'm specifically trying to bridge a gap, not work on the trenches both sides are digging. Thank you. That's true, but compromise means listening and adapting. I'd like to see your issues made so that the overwhelming majority accept them. The same goes for the Reaper feat. Just because "you can't please everyone" doesn't mean that you need to stop compromising. Saying "just don't use it" seems like a weak reply, even in a modular game like 5e. No, I'd like as many feats, as many themes, as many classes, etc. available to as many people as possible, please. To that end, I'm looking for compromise. A line has begun to be drawn on the Reaper feat, and I'm curious why it needs to be there. Can it not be tweaked to please more people? Can advantage not be used? What about giving the opponent a save to take less damage? Is there no room for honest compromise, rather than "give some ground here, gain some there." I'm more the meet in the middle guy, not the "I get this, you get that, and we ignore each other when we play." Just my feelings, though. As always, play what you like :) I'm looking for multiple perspectives, so I appreciate the reply. It was by far the most responsive of those to reply so far. So you're open to other ideas on how to accomplish this, then? This was my hangup on advantage on the next attack, too. Personally, that's precisely why I like it for the ability. The scaling is so much better. If ability scores are capped at 20, we're looking at 5 automatic damage to enemies every round. The Reaper feat is letting the current Fighter deal 3 damage per round, and look at the ogre HP. It's not really that substantial. What happens when the damage dealt barely increases, but HP skyrockets at high level against really dangerous enemies? (To be fair, we don't know it'll skyrocket, but I don't have a good feeling about it based on how HP looks in the playtest.) Right, but what if you think it's overpowered, underpowered, or it breaks your suspension of disbelief? Personally, the damage on the miss doesn't break mine, but the complete and utter failure to ever not deal meaningful damage (unless against damage reduction) breaks mine. If DR stops it, then it's seemingly physical. If it's seemingly physical damage, then the Slayer never fails to get [I]some[/I] sort of noticeable damage in on an opponent, no matter how powerful they are (unless they resist the damage). [I]That's[/I] where I start to question the fiction. Simplicity, elegance, and speed of play are important, but if there's a problem, I'd rather spend the last 8 pages brainstorming abilities than rehashing objections and counter-objections. As I said, I'm a meet-in-the-middle kind of guy when it comes to compromise. If we like simplicity and speed of play, lets look for a solution that uses that! Why do you object to "choose before you roll: deal automatic damage equal to your Strength modifier, or attack as normal"? I know that others have problems with it. I do, too. But, I'm trying to start a dialogue, and look for answers. Maybe we can start by picking apart that ability and seeing why you don't like it. The ability seems both simple and fast to me, and doesn't use advantage/disadvantage. It also shows just how relentless he can be if he focuses on it, going for assured damage rather than going for broke. But, as I said, even I don't like the solution. What do you object to about it? As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I Don't Like Damage On A Miss
Top