(More) Problems with the Reaper Feat

[CleverNickName]

I've been playtesting the butt-thunder out of this feat, trying to find as many possible exploits and game-breaking combinations that I can. So far, these are the big ones that I've uncovered. I'm sure there will be more as we learn more about the other feats, spells, and weapons...but these are the ones that really need to be addressed as the design process moves forward.

1. Punching your opponent in the face deals nonlethal damage* if you hit, but lethal if you miss. This assumes the rules for unarmed combat are unchanged in 5E.

2. The Ray of Frost spell does more damage on a miss than it does on a hit.

3. Tossing a healing potion to your buddy does no damage on a hit, but damages them on a miss (since it requires an attack roll). This assumes the rules for throwing an object to a companion have not changed.

4. Throwing a pebble or a coin at a target deals no damage if you hit, but damages the target if you miss. (Clarification: "any object can serve as a weapon," and the DM determiines the damage type based on the object used. [pg. 18] For tiny objects, this damage would probably be zero...meaning the Reaper feat deals more damage on a miss than a hit.)

5. Crusader's Strike, as it is written, stacks with the Reaper feat since it does not indicate the attack must hit its target to get bonus damage.

6. Spiritual Hammer, as it is written, stacks with the Reaper feat since it always requires the character to make an attack with it.

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 really don't want to get into yet another debate on what is/is not "damage" these days. It doesn't matter. So every time you read this word, just mentally substitute the phrase "damage, or whatever you want to call the effect that makes the DM subtract hit points from the target." Mkay?

**This too.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

so in a unfinished quick play ruleset you found loop holes...


Well that does it, that feat must go... Imean it isn't like we have a living breathing thinking person running the game that stops this

 

[Grazzt]

I've been playtesting the butt-thunder out of this feat, trying to find as many possible exploits and game-breaking combinations that I can. So far, these are the big ones that I've uncovered. I'm sure there will be more as we learn more about the other feats, spells, and weapons...but these are the ones that really need to be addressed as the design process moves forward.

1. Punching your opponent in the face deals nonlethal damage* if you hit, but lethal if you miss. This assumes the rules for unarmed combat are unchanged in 5E.

As DM I'd just say the damage on a miss is nonlethal as well. Easy enough.

2. The Ray of Frost spell does more damage on a miss than it does on a hit.

Got me on that one

3. Tossing a healing potion to your buddy does no damage on a hit, but damages them on a miss (since it requires an attack roll). This assumes the rules for throwing an object to a companion have not changed.

As DM, I'd say no, it doesn't. First, you're not attacking. Second, it's just silly. So no.

4. Throwing a pebble or a coin at a target deals no damage if you hit, but damages the target if you miss.

Again. As DM, I rule no.

5. Crusader's Strike, as it is written, stacks with the Reaper feat since it does not indicate the attack must hit its target to get bonus damage.

6. Spiritual Hammer, as it is written, stacks with the Reaper feat since it always requires the character to make an attack with it.

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.

Got me on these.
-----

*I really don't want to get into yet another debate on what is/is not "damage" these days. It doesn't matter. So every time you read this word, just mentally substitute the phrase "damage, or whatever you want to call the effect that makes the DM subtract hit points from the target." Mkay?

**This too.

No damage debate. Just how I'd rule some of the situations you mentioned above. Don't think any of my players would object. And if they did, that's that huge bags of dice are for. First, roll to put fear in them. Second, to throw at them.

 

[the Jester]

My initial response was, "Good lord. Really? You're being this nitpicky about a playtest feat?" But on reflection, picking out these potential abuses is what playtesting is for.

To me these all speak to the idea of the dm making rulings rather than pouring over the books for specific rules that address such things.

 

[CleverNickName]

so in a unfinished quick play ruleset you found loop holes...

Well that does it, that feat must go... Imean it isn't like we have a living breathing thinking person running the game that stops this

Relax...nobody is calling for a ban on the Reaper feat just yet. One of the things we are supposed to do in a playtest is try to find exploits and bugs, so that the developers know how to address them. We should keep an open mind here.

No damage debate. Just how I'd rule some of the situations you mentioned above. Don't think any of my players would object. And if they did, that's that huge bags of dice are for. First, roll to put fear in them. Second, to throw at them.

Thanks for the input. Like I said earlier, I am sure the designers will fix these bugs as the development moves forward. I have every confidence that the end result will be fun and balanced.

And I have a set of dice forged from solid copper that I keep handy for rules disputes.

My initial response was, "Good lord. Really? You're being this nitpicky about a playtest feat?" But on reflection, picking out these potential abuses is what playtesting is for.

Yep. Remember the "bag of rats" bug in 3rd Edition? My players can get pretty creative when it comes to finding exploits. 3E did a lot of things right, but it pretty much relegated the DM to the role of Rules Referee, instead of just letting him be the storyteller.

I'm moving on to at-will spells next. I want to test the theory of whether or not a character can actually carve an entirely new Cave of Chaos by spamming the Radiant Lance spell for a week...

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. Punching your opponent in the face deals nonlethal damage* if you hit, but lethal if you miss. This assumes the rules for unarmed combat are unchanged in 5E.

Any melee attack can deal nonlethal damage at the attacker's option, so that's not true.

3. Tossing a healing potion to your buddy does no damage on a hit, but damages them on a miss (since it requires an attack roll). This assumes the rules for throwing an object to a companion have not changed.

Tossing a healing potion to your buddy does no damage, period. It's not an attack.

. Throwing a pebble or a coin at a target deals no damage if you hit, but damages the target if you miss.

Throwing a pebble or a coin at a target does no damage, period. It's not an attack.

I mean, I get that you are being hypercritically pedantic to make a point, but (a) we are supposed to test the rules in front of us, not the hypothetical application of those rules to other situations; (b) it's not like there's not three threads about how much Reaper sucks or doesn't already; (c) the game explicitly states that the rules are not binding in every situation, merely when the DM wants them to be; (d) it's only a playtest; and (e) your argument, resting as it does on misinterpretations and rejiggering, is largely unpersuasive.

It does point out that perhaps Reaper should be designed to take into account spells, and/or should not apply to spells, though.

 

[Dragoslav]

My initial response was, "Good lord. Really? You're being this nitpicky about a playtest feat?" But on reflection, picking out these potential abuses is what playtesting is for.

Exactly. If it can be abused in the playtest, then it can be abused after release, so it's important to find potential exploits early, especially those caused by ambiguous wording.

Some of the examples are pretty much "common sense" things (throwing a pebble, etc.) but whether the Reaper feat applies to spells is a great thing to point out.

 

[HeinorNY]

Common sense is also a rule in RPGs.

 

[Dausuul]

2, 5, and 6 are possible issues, definitely worth investigating.

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.

 

[CleverNickName]

Any melee attack can deal nonlethal damage at the attacker's option, so that's not true.

Tossing a healing potion to your buddy does no damage, period. It's not an attack.

Throwing a pebble or a coin at a target does no damage, period. It's not an attack.

I think you and I agree on this: the definition of what is and is not an attack will become more and more important as the game design moves forward, especially since there are going to be feats that trigger when an attack is made.

I mean, I get that you are being hypercritically pedantic to make a point, but (a) we are supposed to test the rules in front of us, not the hypothetical application of those rules to other situations; (b) it's not like there's not three threads about how much Reaper sucks or doesn't already; (c) the game explicitly states that the rules are not binding in every situation, merely when the DM wants them to be; (d) it's only a playtest; and (e) your argument, resting as it does on misinterpretations and rejiggering, is largely unpersuasive.

That is a good assumption...but it is still an assumption (it was not explicitly stated in the playtesting instructions.) And I'm not really trying to be persuasive...people have pretty much already decided whether or not they like the Reaper feat. I just want to make sure that the version of the Reaper that gets into the rules is more or less bug-free.

First, we haven't been given any rules yet. What we have been given is a set of instructions, five characters, and an adventure module. We are instructed to playtest the mechanics we were given, and to make judgment calls where problems are found. We don't know what the rules look like because they haven't been written yet...so in absence of rules, I am defaulting to my current rules set to resolve issues. Using judgment is best, of course, but it isn't scientific since it varies from tester to tester.

I was a video game playtester for a while back in the 90's. The job was pretty simple: mash buttons until I break the game, then write it up. That's what I'm doing here. I'm not playing the game; I'm playtesting it. I'm mashing buttons until I break it.

It does point out that perhaps Reaper should be designed to take into account spells, and/or should not apply to spells, though.

I'd add ranged attacks to that as well. If they restrict Reaper to just melee weapon attacks, it squashes every single one of these bugs.