Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5933364" data-attributes="member: 6668292">It represents a more measured, cerebral approach. That doesn't comment one way or the other on ferociousness.Can you explain to me how it's inferior on every conceptual level? I'm not even sure how that's possible.Can you explain why this interpretation is correct, but the person that I replied to is wrong?Which, again, isn't actually all that much damage. At 3 damage per hit, it takes 5 misses (15 damage) to hit just about the Slayer's average hit (14 damage, I believe). That's actually not that great. I'd rather have something more useful that represents the fiction of the relentless ferocity of the Slayer.This is just your subjective opinion. In the "Poll on the Reaper" thread, the people that dislike the feat have hovered between 30-40%. That's not an insignificant portion of people that seem to think the mechanic is not "good" or "interesting" and I'm looking for something that might satisfy closer to 88-90% of people.Well, where it loses me is in the uber-competence of the Slayer. As I said earlier: 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 some sort of noticeable damage in on an opponent, no matter how powerful they are (unless they resist the damage). That's where I start to question the fiction.We're getting back into baggage territory. I don't play 3.X. It had too many issues for me. It was fun for a while, too. I got a lot of really memorable play out of it. But, what I'm discussing does not have to do with 3.X, nor does it have to do with "but magic is better!" or the like. Please, again, leave the baggage out, or if you can't, let me know so I know to reply to others.We're back to subjective views of "good" and the like again. If we're going to take rules, what if we aimed to take rules that 88-90% of people liked? This is less baggage than the previous mention, because there's a notable difference in delivery method: attack vs. saving throw. I bet people would be more likely to accept some guaranteed damage from the Slayer if it was a save.Can you go more into this, because I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying that the Reaper feat is best for squishy creatures, but you explicitly said that the Reaper feat wasn't designed for that, but "Reaper is for raising your odds of dealing some damage to the Dark Priest from 40% to 100%". I'm not sure what you think the feat is for as of this point.Again, so Reaper is not for smaller squishy creatures then? If so, why not give the Slayer advantage? It'd really help against the bigger creatures (much more so than a small amount of miss damage does).I'm actually not sure that you're in serious trouble. Put the Fighter against 3 kobolds or 3 goblins and see how much trouble he's in. But, honestly, I do like the executioner take more.The problem is that it's not "good" when it comes to having overwhelming support. When 30-40% of people don't like it as it stands now, that's not "good" when it comes to believeability. You may disagree, and that's fine. Like I said, I can understand the "miss" damage, but it's the uber-competence that gets me in the long run. I just don't accept that.I get why you like it. Thanks for replying to me. But surely you can help come up with something that 88-90% of people would like that would seem ferocious and relentless? 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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification