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

[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?