(More) Problems with the Reaper Feat

[CleverNickName]

[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.

Indeed. I'm just curious about the "seldom" and "almost" wording in that paragraph. That implies that this might not always be the case.

Personally, I prefer Str or Dex to modify the attack rolls, and Int or Wis to modify the damage. But I'm cool either way. It's an interesting twist on the mechanics.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

While I see the advantage of beeing pedantic now, I don´t want every feat being rewritten in non abusable language. Lets be honest, there is always a gamer finding some loophole.

Instead the rules should empower the DM, to make rulings that rely on common sense. Like: If a feat has a silly effect (like some attack doing more damage on a miss than on a hit), you may disallow the use of the feat in that case.

That is what I want to see. Not "legal language" feats and spells, just to make sure noone can find loopholes. Usually you not only close loopholes, but also clever and creative use of abilities.

Remember the bag of veteran armors? The bag of rats. 4e had a clause that allowed DMs to rule such things out. But it was more and more replaced by rules updates, instead of general guidelines how to handle such rule abuses.

e.g.: Veteran armor and other magic items with abusable daily powers, could have all been shut down by refering to the bag of rats guideline:
i.e. a bag of veteran armors is the same abuse as a bag of rats, just with another name. And if PCs are trying to abuse the hell out of it, just rule, that this daily power only works once for each PC...

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't want every feat being rewritten in non abusable language. Lets be honest, there is always a gamer finding some loophole.

Instead the rules should empower the DM, to make rulings that rely on common sense.

Personally, I would like to see them do both. Clear, well-thought rules + empowered DMs = fun for everyone.

 

[billd91]

1, 3, and 4 are just silly. It blows my mind that anyone would even consider applying the feat in the ways described. Come on, guys.

Welcome to ENWorld. You must be new here or at least rarely frequented the rule forums where people would sometimes debate this sort of thing and the difference between RAW and RAI.

I don't think RPGs need to close all loopholes. Yet there are players out there who will try to exploit them. And if the DM doesn't exert enough of his authority, or is unable to do so because of some society play campaign, they can be problems.

 

[CleverNickName]

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

Nearly all of them, actually...the exceptions being the stacking damage to spells (#5 and #6 of my list.) Some gamers will want Spell-Slayers, so if they want the Slayer feat to apply to magical attacks, they should word these spells a little more carefully to prevent abuse.

But yes. Adding a few more qualifiers to the Reaper feat would go a long way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But I want spells to be "abused"

I want spells worded open ended. I want skills open ended.

I however don´t want slayer doing damage on a miss with things that usually don´t damage. So a little clarification is good. And I appreciate early critics.

And I could imagine some easy fixes with the reaper feat:

If you attack a target, you still deal damage on a miss. It is equal to the attribute modifier of the stat used to attack, and of the same damage type.

IMHO "still" already implies that you had to do damage to begin with. Also you could assume that it remains the same damage type. My idea is defining the damage it deals better: there is already a line that says how much damage it is, just explicitely state, it is the same kind of damage... so no damage type, no damage.

Still slightly ambiguous if you try to find a loophole very hard, but 99% of abuse would be shut down, as "still" is easier to ignore as concrete definition of the damage.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Add to the Reaper feat the phrase 'of the same type as the original attack would deal.' Thus if the original attack would not deal damage...

And then, amend Crusader's Strike to say that it only grants bonus damage on a hit.

Spiritual Hammer should deal Reaper damage, in my opinion. Reaper Cleric with Spiritual Hammer and Radiant Lance = Avenger.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Relax...nobody is calling for a ban on the Reaper feat just yet.

I am. I don't care how balanced it is. It's stupid. Stupid rules need to go.

 

[Blackwarder]

I am. I don't care how balanced it is. It's stupid. Stupid rules need to go.

Why is it stupid exactly?

Warder

 

[Mallus]

I am. I don't care how balanced it is. It's stupid.

So is a man armed with a knife winning a fight with an adult grizzly bear. Which can happen in every version of D&D I'm aware of.

If you're wondering how he hits on a miss
And other melee facts
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a game"
I should really just relax