(More) Problems with the Reaper Feat

[Plane Sailing]

Many of these bugs can be fixed by giving us a better definition of what is and is not considered an attack, and/or restricting the Reaper feat to melee weapon attacks only.

I disagree, except that it might be useful to specify something with the interaction with spells (for 5, 6).

The others would be incredibly simple for any DM to make a sensible ruling on IMO - and I'm pretty sure that D&DN doesn't intend to go down the route of attempting to strictly define legalised rulings about stuff.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

Why is it stupid exactly?

Warder

There is another thread where people are arguing/debating that, so we won't go into it here thanks.

(This applies to JRRN too please)

 

[Blackwarder]

There is another thread where people are arguing/debating that, so we won't go into it here thanks.

(This applies to JRRN too please)

Really? Fai enough than, I'll try to find that other thread.

Warder

 

[CleverNickName]

I disagree, except that it might be useful to specify something with the interaction with spells (for 5, 6).

The others would be incredibly simple for any DM to make a sensible ruling on IMO - and I'm pretty sure that D&DN doesn't intend to go down the route of attempting to strictly define legalised rulings about stuff.

You are right, of course. That is the opposite extreme.

Perhaps I should have said, "what is or is not considered an attack for the purposes of this feat." The wording for the feat is too loose at the moment (and for attacks too, but that's off-topic). This is fine for the playtest level, but it will need to be tightened up before the release date. Right now, there are too many ways to interpret it.

I'm not advocating more rules, necessarily. I'm advocating clarity of rules.

 

[KesselZero]

Here's a question that might ruffle some feathers. What if the Slayer theme were restricted to weapon-using classes, or alternately, Reaper and any other Slayer benefits were restricted to weapon attacks? I'm just putting this out there as a What If; I too like the idea of a Sorceror Slayer. But my immediately impression of Reaper was that it existed to close the power gap between fighters and casters. It's a way of letting the fighter match something like Magic Missile's auto-hit or the wizard's various AoEs, part of WotC stated intent to fix the fighter/wizard disparity. I didn't really think about the fact that as a theme, it could theoretically be taken by any class-- it just seemed like a natural part of the fighter to me.

There is some theoretical precedent for doing this, as Mike Mearls has suggested that a Necromancer theme be restricted to casters, opening the door to (a hopefully limited number of) semi-restricted themes. What about restricting some themes to the martial classes? Would this fix the OP's non-silly loopholes?

 

[CleverNickName]

Would this fix the OP's non-silly loopholes?

I think it would fix all of them, even the silly ones.

I'm still operating under the belief that the designers intended for it to apply to melee weapons only (as a prerequisite for Cleave), so I rule it accordingly. It's practically bug-free that way.

 

[ren1999]

Good observations OP. Your players are just like mine. They are rules lawyers and will exploit everything that is not written in core stone. Two of them are actually lawyers in real life.

The healing potion toss is a little far fetched but..
..a pebble or coin is an attack when it is coupled with something that could appear later in the game like "Magic Stone".

We are supposed to play-test what is written and what is or is not implied without rules.

Your comments should not be dismissed.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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.

Stupid or not, it's also happened at least two times that I remember within my own lifetime and probably countless times in history. The only real advantages a pistol has over a knife are range and ease of use, and pistols are effective self-defense weapons against bears.

Here's a question that might ruffle some feathers. What if the Slayer theme were restricted to weapon-using classes, or alternately, Reaper and any other Slayer benefits were restricted to weapon attacks?

That would make me sad, because I like the idea of Slayer Sorcerers and Slayer Clerics, but it's an amenable compromise-- the flavor of the thing really is best suited to weapon attacks. If pressed, I might even concede to limiting it to melee attacks... but I like the idea of Slayer archers even more than I like Slayer mages.

 

[Gold Roger]

He, these are funny.

My biggest quibble is actually the master hunter slayer. You see, a 1st level slayer character will kill every bunny, hare, duck and other small and tasty animal he can spot within shooting distance.

This obviously doesn't break the game, but I find it's not good for the game world. In short, setting implications unpleasant. (Now go and catch that reference)

I find I can stomach even mediocre issues of game balance, but small things that fundamentally affect the game world? Not so much.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

My biggest quibble is actually the master hunter slayer. You see, a 1st level slayer character will kill every bunny, hare, duck and other small and tasty animal he can spot within shooting distance.

You would make him roll an attack for that? As far as I'm concerned, that's a Survival check. If he fails the Survival check, he can't find something to shoot, and if he can find something to shoot it's an automatic kill.

Because deer have what, four hit dice? Peasants would starve if you had to defeat the deer in mortal combat. Assuming they had the good sense to run before the deer beat them unconscious and bit their throats out.

This obviously doesn't break the game, but I find it's not good for the game world. In short, setting implications unpleasant. (Now go and catch that reference)

Being bad for the game world depends a whole lot on whether or not the Slayer theme is something that even a substantial minority of the population can have. I think the assumption here is that common NPCs don't have levels or feats-- they have ability scores, proficiencies, skills, and 1 HD.