D&D 5E Poll on the Reaper: is damage on missed melee attack roll believable and balanced?

[billd91]

Well I gave a suggestion upthread about how it might be done by tweaking the dying rules: there could be an optional rule that any killing strike requires a successful attack roll to be made - so Reaper couldn't kill, Magic Missile would require an attack roll to be made in this one special case, etc. A variant on this would be to allow a saving throw against any auto-damage that would kill.

I think this is a workable foundation.

I don't think it is. It strikes me as too fiddly. It also puts us in the position of damage that's not really damage, magic missiles or damaging attacks that behave in one way under certain circumstances but differently in others.

 

[Mallus]

The biggest threat to the hobby is its fans.

Exactly .

The biggest threat to the hobby (D&D) is a game company that won't listen to it's fans.

You may have noticed "the fans" frequently want different, let's go so far as to say mutually incompatible, things out of D&D. Now the real question is: can "the fans" compromise, or are "they" an inherently fractious, squabble-prone lot who want 5e to contain nothing but exactly what each of them wants?

I have faith in our part of the gaming community. Despite the Internet .

 

[billd91]

and for every person who feels that way ther are
2 that feel differently so how do we compramise?

The more I think about it, the more I think there are balance problems as well as believability. The damage may not be high, but the possibility of never missing in melee is pretty big. How good will other choices have to be to prevent this ability, as it is written now, from dominating other fighter choices? Or if the miss damage never gets better, how will the feat avoid being eclipsed by other ones designed to balance against it at 1st level? And if that is the case, then there may be no suitable compromise other than some element of redesign.

 

[Redbadge]

But you realize that is insane right... I bet we can't get any mechanic to 91%.

You have to at some point let something go in compramise, and no one is giving...

And if more then 2/3 want something and the less then 1/3 can hold that hostage.

I agree. Nearly every single thread is about "X shouldn't be in D&D" or "I really dislike this and it should be changed", from all flavor of gamers (i.e. there is just as much vitriol about Vancian casting as there is fighter daily mechanics).

If each of these gamers had their way, the compromise would look like "OK, I agree to no full healing overnight as long as you agree to no save-or-die mechanics." In the end, the 5th edition rules would be a bunch of blank pages.

I think we would make a stronger community and better edition if we agreed to mutually tolerate those things we do not like, but many others do. For example, instead of getting rid of both Vancian casting and fighter daily mechanics, let's hope they include both. Let's hope that both gritty healing and cinematic healing are presented as default, core options. And auto-damage/damage on a miss is popular enough that I think we'd all want it to present for those that enjoy it. (I like it because it speeds up play and my players have fun with it.)

 

[Redbadge]

The more I think about it, the more I think there are balance problems as well as believability. The damage may not be high, but the possibility of never missing in melee is pretty big. How good will other choices have to be to prevent this ability, as it is written now, from dominating other fighter choices? Or if the miss damage never gets better, how will the feat avoid being eclipsed by other ones designed to balance against it at 1st level? And if that is the case, then there may be no suitable compromise other than some element of redesign.

The thing is, both Reaper and at-will magic missile have been extensively tested... in 4e. The assumptions about combat may be different from 5e, but at least in 4th edition neither were remotely unbalanced.

Also, I've seen people say that the other cantrips are unbalanced, but once again, we didn't really experience this when we used them in 4e. Take the 5e Ray of Frost, which even WotC may think is on the overpowered end. You can pretty easily get at-will immobilization in 4e... that also damages. It just isn't that compelling or powerful in practice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But you realize that is insane right... I bet we can't get any mechanic to 91%.

You have to at some point let something go in compramise, and no one is giving...

And if more then 2/3 want something and the less then 1/3 can hold that hostage.

I think you can get the core mechanics to 80-90 percent and then build the 70 % or less options on top of that. The end result is much the same. This do damage on a miss mechanic would still be in there, but it would be tagged "(optional)". My point is people are so bitterly divided on these sorts of things, they have to look closely at the numbers and the intensi behind them. If it turns out the 30-40 percent who dont like it are not that intense in theor feeling that is different. Like I said in my own case it isn't a dealbreaker unless it is part of a larger pattern of similar rules. It isn't aout one group holding the system hostage it is about them providing a solid core everyone can agree on for the most part. Otherwise they will be back to where they were a year ago (or worse).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Very true, but I've come to the conclusion that all fun mechanics break down at some point so I'll choose fun since I'm already playing a game, with giant, flying, fire-breathing lizards, wizards, gods giving their priests special powers and characters not regularly getting offed by infection, plague and dysentery.

That is certainly fine, and all mechmics break down eventually, but some mechamics break down more than others. If this mechanic creates believablity that arise enough for folks to notice it will be a problem. Even people who like it now on the grounds it is believable may change their mind after seeing it in action over the course of a campaign. I do understand believability isnt as critical to everyone, but for some of us if we are going to accept the dragons, wizards and gods, the non magical elements need to adhere somewhat to reality. This was a big source of the division over 4e and it would be ashame to repeat the same mistake.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think you can get the core mechanics to 80-90 percent

We can't get 90 % on anything is my bet... What color is the sky MIGHT get 70% to say blue... My point is people are so bitterly divided on everything that no one is being reasonable anymore

 

[Deadboy]

We can't get 90 % on anything is my bet... What color is the sky MIGHT get 70% to say blue... My point is people are so bitterly divided on everything that no one is being reasonable anymore

Yup, I think very few mechanics would stand up to a 90 percent test. Compromise has to land somewhere and at certain points the designers have to make a choice that won't please everyone. Two-thirds in favor of a mechanic is a clear majority and it's not right if a vocal one-third can hold the mechanic hostage. Especially for something as minor as a feat which is easily house ruled away.

For those opposing the Reaper feat and want it excised entirely from the game just because you don't like it even though the majority disagrees with you, what would you be thinking if the tables were turned? What if one third of people hate Vancian casting, should it be excised to make people happy? Should fighter dailies go in if one third of people want them? Should 4e healing surges go in if one third want them? At what point does a choice get made? And if we're holding everything up to a 90 percent approval rating, how much would actually make it into the game? I'd bet very little.

Seriously, as deal breakers go, a single feat is incredibly minor. If your thrrshold for rejecting the game is so low, I don't know how WotC can please you other than to clone your edition of choice.

 

[Ratskinner]

And the powergaming discussion you're portraying as negative does have one advantage: it ensures that there's a solid baseline for how powerful a feat is. It's a reality check to ensure game balance is OK.

I don't believe in game balance. I haven't seen a good enough definition that doesn't seem to mean "what I like " or "numerically equivalent in combat". I used to believe in it, but after thinking about it for years I've come to the conclusion that the idea is an illusion. With regard to the problems people usually seem to be referring to as "imbalance", sure, they can be addressed. However, its not that balance is to be sought, so much as gross distortion of the game is to be avoided, if that makes any sense.

So while I agree with the aim - avoid lots of small static bonuses as a form of character advancement - I think the best way to do that is not to remove all small static bonuses, but to have a limited set of them, and to ensure they're not overpowered. So that would mean no racial "special case" slightly better small static bonuses, no must-have feats assumed by the game math, and no duplication (i.e. two feats adding to the same game score). If there's no duplication, there's not going to be the optimization searching game of finding the best and most stackable way of improving a particular score - there will simply be a fallback choice, if you're not interested in more dynamic or more interested feats but don't want to cause imbalance.

Seems to me like that's a suitable idea for a character or game which drops themes/feats, but still doesn't like that "Old School Feel". Honestly, I'm not sure how many players who don't want to pick among more complicated feats, are going to want to sit down and sort out the "simple" ones from the list. I would be kinda like that "4e without magic" rule, just add +X every so many levels to make up for its absence.

Also, realize that lots of feats are very close to "small static bonuses" in effect - for example the healer's feat in the playtest. For that matter Skill focus, toughness... lot's of traditional D&D feats are basically just "small static bonuses".

huh? Do you mean the "Herbalism" or "Healer's Touch" feat? Neither one impresses me that way. To me, Skill Focus, Toughness (not as much), Weapon Specialization, etc. the "small static bonuses" themselves, smack right into the whole "Bounded Accuracy" thing, which I vastly prefer. Personally, I don't care whether they are "traditional" or not. If they don't fit well, chuck 'em. Feats are not such a fundamental part of D&D that they absolutely need to be there in a form similar to how they started. I'd much rather see them as bigger or more interesting parts of the character than "+1 to X".

 

[Lanefan]

The standings in this poll at the moment make me a sad panda.

Lan-"taking a long hard look at DCCRPG"-efan

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Seriously, as deal breakers go, a single feat is incredibly minor. If your thrrshold for rejecting the game is so low, I don't know how WotC can please you other than to clone your edition of choice.

I wish xp was on

 

[LostSoul]

I think the high abstraction of D&D combat can allow one to say a miss is not a "miss" and a hit is not a "hit".

So. What if you look at the choices the player is making?

I can see Reaper setting up some interesting choices: I know I can kill this guy for sure, but I'd rather kill that guy instead; what move is better? (I'm not sure if this is a choice or a calculation though; maybe all actions in combat are calculations? I don't know.)

Anyway. I think that, since the player can be 100% sure that his attack, a lot of people assume (or want to assume) that the character can make the same call. I think a lot of those people find that it breaks their suspension of disbelief that, in the middle of a chaotic combat, the character can be 100% sure that he'll land a telling blow.

I think that's a valid criticism of the Reaper mechanic. Maybe the easiest solution to that is to say that a roll of a "natural 1" on the d20 attack check never deals any damage? (Pretty sure I've seen that suggested before.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The standings in this poll at the moment make me a sad panda.

Lan-"taking a long hard look at DCCRPG"-efan

8% of people would walk over this and 67% want it in the game...
And some of the 8% think it is more important then the 2/3 majority Becuse it fights harder and
Will take there toys and go home of they do not get there way

 

[I'm A Banana]

The standings in this poll at the moment make me a sad panda.

Don't let the apparently zero-sum game dishearten you too much. You can have Reaper in the game without necessarily having it in your games.

The only people who should be sad pandas are those who can't live with other people getting their badwrongfun in their precious D&D. But those folks are doomed to be disappointed over and over again as other people continue to have fun without their approval.

 

[billd91]

8% of people would walk over this and 67% want it in the game...
And some of the 8% think it is more important then the 2/3 majority Becuse it fights harder and
Will take there toys and go home of they do not get there way

The poll doesn't indicate that 67% of the people want. That only rises to some 4-ish% at this point. 64% accept or don't oppose it and that's not really the same as want. The poll's wording doesn't support that inference.

 

[Redbadge]

The poll doesn't indicate that 67% of the people want. That only rises to some 4-ish% at this point. 64% accept or don't oppose it and that's not really the same as want. The poll's wording doesn't support that inference.

I inferred that those people probably want it in the game, just that they wouldn't abandon it over it.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sure.

The question is: can you live with other people getting what they want, even if you don't want it.

Say I don't like tulips. When I plant my garden, I have a variety of flowers to choose from, so I don't pick tulips, and that's fine, since I don't like them, and there's no law telling me that my front lawn MUST have tulips.

Now, some other people in my town like tulips quite a bit.

But I'm here advocating to the government about how tulips should be illegal, because I don't like them.

Don't like tulips? Awesome. Don't get tulips.

Want to take away someone else's tulips? Not awesome. Some people like them, and making everyone to act the way you want them to act is not cool. It's going to make people defensive and hostile, because you are dictating how they must play, and you're not even at their table.

This is a big game, with a grand diversity of playstyles, and for DnD to only choose one to enshrine in the official rules is only a detriment to the polyamorous polyhedrons in front of us, which can be used for so many different things, to the delight of so many different people.

A big sigh here why is it if you don't like something it suddenly becomes about taking it away from other people?

There are things I really like that I don't see getting in the new system. We are not going to get everything we want.

At this point in the development people need to speak up about things they find unacceptable.

There are a lot of reasons I don't like a feat like this. One reason is I think it is over powered you roll a 1 and still do damage on someone with a high AC even though you missed the AC by quite a bit.

I think it can impact on other concepts say I want to play a high dex swashbuckler type character who is built not to be hit easily. With this feat it doesn't matter how high my dex is how good I am at dodging I will always be hit by the person simply because they have a feat that allows them to never miss. Why does their feat and high strength top my feat and high dex?

I don't think the idea of the feat is bad with a few changes like you hit with in a certain range of their AC you do strength damage.

I don't care what you plant in your garden because I don't live in your garden.

I do care the direction the new edition is going because I would like to play a current edition. So I will speak up on things I think are broken.

That is more an issue than simply not liking something. I really feel the feat as is broken.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A big sigh here why is it if you don't like something it suddenly becomes about taking it away from other people?

If you're saying that D&D should always exclude that, then you ARE advocating for it to be taken away from others. If you get your way, the people who disagree with you cannot get theirs, and their fun is trod upon.

At this point in the development people need to speak up about things they find unacceptable.

I agree, but if what you find unacceptable is that someone, somewhere, might potentially be playing their own game, in a way that you disapprove of, then that becomes, IMO, unreasonable.

Your right to swing your arm around ends at the tip of my nose, so to speak.

I don't care what you plant in your garden because I don't live in your garden.

If you think that D&D should always exclude these effects, then you are saying that my D&D game should never include these effects.

If you are saying you don't like this particular feat, then fine, but you always have the right not to use it. It's existence shouldn't bother you, since you don't have to use it in your game.

I do care the direction the new edition is going because I would like to play a current edition. So I will speak up on things I think are broken.

That is more an issue than simply not liking something. I really feel the feat as is broken.

Is its "brokennness" something that you can hold a conversation about and be convinced, or is it something you have already made up your mind about and don't see your opinion changing? Is this an objective mechanical argument, or a subjective emotional argument? If it's the former, we can have a constructive conversation about where we disagree. If it's the latter, then surely you see how other people might not agree with your opinion, and should be able to enjoy the game how they want, including this effect.

 

[Redbadge]

A big sigh here why is it if you don't like something it suddenly becomes about taking it away from other people?

Well, certainly, I think it makes sense to talk about the believability, balance, and fun of these types of abilities, because these discussions are often very constructive.

But I believe the question is, if you find that the rule is unbelievable/broken/simply not fun (but others disagree with you), what would you have the designers do with the rule?

Should it be removed from the game completely and never be spoken of again?

Should it be placed in an optional module/supplement/side bar?

Should it be presented as default for your average player/new players, but with a sidebar describing how to change/circumvent/replace it?

Should it be the default rule with the expectation that those who do not like it will simply houserule it?

When people present their likes/dislikes, it's hard to tell which of these positions they're taking without expressing it explicitly.

Curiously, which position are you taking, BTW?