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

[Elf Witch]

Yeah, but if your version of "speaking up" is, "Hey, that thing that other people enjoy and that I'm in no way obligated to make use of myself? We should get rid of it because it just doesn't suit my personal preferences," then I'm not sure you should be speaking up about it. It's contrary to the core of D&D Next's design philosophy. If I were on the design team, I'd be far more interested in how general mechanics are perceived, rather than whether certain people decide they're not interested in certain themes.

It's like if someone said, "Man, I hate spontaneous casters, they should be removed from the game!" instead of saying, "Man, I hate spontaneous casters, so I'll play a memorization-based caster instead!"

Again, you don't have to play that kind of character. It's no skin off your back, so on behalf of those who think it's kind of cool, just let us enjoy it and you can play a different character. If you thought a particular character theme was really awesome but a bunch of people got together on the internet and decided to protest it despite the fact that they never have to play that character, how would you feel?

It's wildly different, and I'm not sure why you don't see that. "This is cool, let's make it an option!" is different from, "I don't care that other people don't like it, I don't want it in my D&D!"

Isn't that exactly what you're trying to do here? You don't like something, and you're trying to take it out of the game? Except instead of doing it just for yourself, you're saying that it should be taken out of everyone's game just because it doesn't fit your personal aesthetic. D&D Next is designed to be a big tent. There will be things that you don't like. There will also be things that you like. Use the things that you like, and ignore the things you don't like.

I didn't attack you for having an opinion that I disagree with.

Everyone including you have things that you want or don't want in your DnD. Yes I have an issue with something that always turns a miss into a hit. I also really dislike at will using magic missile. So I will let the game designers know this because those are two things I don't want in my DnD.

I would not mind a reaper style feat that allowed a reroll on a miss or even had a range like if you miss by say four points they take damage.

If they are going to have at wills for wizards then I would like to see those at wills have to roll to hit the same as if they were using a crossbow.

I most certainly should be speaking up on game design issues during a play test. That is the point of an open play test to get different gamers opinions on the rule set.

If someone hates spontaneous casters they should speak up, now is the time to let WOTC know this. The same if they hate vancian magic or hate gnomes.

Giving an honest opinion during play testing gives the designers a pretty good overview about what people like , don't like, what are deal breakers and what are just meh.

And yes it was a personal attack I dare you to go find any post ever where I have said that my way is the only way to play the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

Again, they have stated that At-Will spells are Modular, so you will not be forced to add them unless things change radically.



I am really hoping Feat Chains have gone the way of THACO.

That is what I am hoping because that would be the best way to do them.

I am mixed on getting rid of feat chains. I think some make sense like taking cleave before greater cleave but a lot of them don't need to be there.

 

[Drowbane]

...I am mixed on getting rid of feat chains. I think some make sense like taking cleave before greater cleave but a lot of them don't need to be there.

With as few feats as we get in 3e, I would much rather just have Cleave = Great Cleave. Or perhaps have feats Scale like they do in the Tomes.

 

[Elf Witch]

With as few feats as we get in 3e, I would much rather just have Cleave = Great Cleave. Or perhaps have feats Scale like they do in the Tomes.

I like that to, the same with spells. Like invisibility and greater invisibility are the same spell one is just a lower level version of the other so how it works depends on what level you cast it.

 

[Drowbane]

I like that to, the same with spells. Like invisibility and greater invisibility are the same spell one is just a lower level version of the other so how it works depends on what level you cast it.

Indeed! I am a huge fan of 3.5 psionics and the way a power such as Charm can be augmented to affect more types of creatures until it is Charm Monster (or better). I am not sure how I would do that with Vancian slots... perhaps the spell improves solely based on CL? With a power-point system it at least costs to use a stronger version.

 

[Elf Witch]

Indeed! I am a huge fan of 3.5 psionics and the way a power such as Charm can be augmented to affect more types of creatures until it is Charm Monster (or better). I am not sure how I would do that with Vancian slots... perhaps the spell improves solely based on CL? With a power-point system it at least costs to use a stronger version.

Well one way to do it would be to use spell levels say charm at first level is used on humanoids. When you can cast third level spells you can cast charm as a third level spell and it now effects monsters.

No need for two different spells that do the same thing.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Suggestion that would make it better

Benefit: Whenever you attack and miss your opponent's AC by 1, you can reroll the attack roll. You must accept the result of the second roll, even if it is worse.

Still useful and serving a similar purpose, without all the problems above.

Getting a re-roll on 5% of your weapon attacks at random? I suppose it's better than Diligent, but not by much.

 

[Dark Mistress]

I don't like it at all...it wrecks my willful suspension of disbelief. In my brain, a miss means a failure to deal damage. If a creature takes damage (of any kind, for any reason, however it is defined), it somehow got hit. Therefore, the attack was not a miss. Therefore, my disbelief shatters.

Maybe I'm "doing it wrong." But that's how I'm always going to do it.

This, I voted hated it mostly cause I do. It isn't a deal breaker for me buying the game. But I don't care if the ability is balanced I will never like it. So there was no good voting options for me, hating it was just closest.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Everyone including you have things that you want or don't want in your DnD.

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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You don't have to houserule anything. Just don't take the feat for your character.

Unless you're the type to try and restrict other people's characters based on your personal tastes. Which is not only kind of a dick move, but is also completely antithetical to D&D Next's stated goal of allowing different people to enjoy different playstyles at the same table.

I mean, when they said that was their goal, what did you think would happen? You'd get to play exactly the way you wanted and everyone else would play exactly the way you wanted, too?

There is nothing wrong with gm or group. Restricting character choices if they feel it mucks with their sense of the setting. As a GM i dissallowed many prestige classes, classes from splat books and feats in my 3e campaign.

I dont think their is to get everyone back to the table, but not have one pkayer with a 4e character and one with a 1e character at the table....because i have to admit if my fighter is getting healed by a warlord's words of encouragement, that is going to bother me. If other groups want to allow warlords that is fine. In my game, warlords, themes, HD and 1 night healng will all be houseruled away.