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

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Magic... Missile... is... MAGIC. Will we have to make accuracy checks to see if we hit with charm person? Probably not, and for good reason.


I'm not really quite sure why some people are having difficulty grasping the difference between a magical effect, you know, like actual universe bending magic... and a guy swinging an axe.

Becuse I find a few flaws in your example, yes your Mage bends reality to his/her whim, but I am playing a fighter...no just a guy swinging an axe. I may be playing a Swordswoman who already spend 10+ years training with the best swordsman on the planet, and her blade dances, and she almost always strikes true, and even when she doesn't she ALWAY gets a bit of a scratch.

Or maybe I am a genius who has already played this battle out in my head 1000 times, and I know what is going to happen before it does, and my axe,hammer,bow always draws a little blood.

 

[Redbadge]

I've been saying it all along, in various different discussions; usually in terms of making [feature x] an optional module or, less formally, a sidebar suggestion for a tack-on.

What's annoying is that the playtest (at this stage) should be all core, the whole core, and nothing but the core. No options or modules included. And if this is in fact the case then to strip this stuff out you're messing with the core, which can have unexpected knock-on effects.

Victory should not default to anyone.

If the PCs (via the players) realize they're going to win they'll keep plugging away because it's a sure thing. If, on the other hand, they realize neither side is capable of physically beating the other then perhaps they'll have to think of different ways of resolving things - diplomacy, bribery, stealth, retreat, negotiation, trickery are a few that leap to mind - instead of brute force. Benefits all round.

Lanefan

Your last paragraph is a pretty decent response actually. Kudos.

However, with regards to including rules/ignoring rules, I think I probably have seen your opinion on this before. I guess I just misinterpreted it.

For example, right now, there are no defined rules for grappling. It's basically DM fiat based on the simple core system and the DM document encouragement. If I wanted something more for grappling, I would have to make it up myself. Now if WotC had already created the grappling rules, I could choose to use them, and you could ignore them. I'm thinking you agree that is pretty easy on both of us even if WotC does have rules for grappling, but it is harder for me if they don't.

I think your thoughts on autodamage might be better phrased if you say that "this rule can be present; it just should not be assumed as part of the default math/system."

In this case, removing is easier (I think), because you can just not play with Backgrounds and/or Themes (as specifically stated in the playtest), assuming that the math/system still holds up (which I imagine it does).

 

[YRUSirius]

Repost from another thread:



I propose a new Reaper feat to all those who hate automatic damage for melee combatants (hey, wizards always were able to get some kind of automatic damage!):

Reaper: You gain advantage on attack rolls against creatures with 5 or less hit points.

I think this feat might do something akin to the Reaper feat we have now. Against low hp minion monsters like kobolds and goblins the slayer will have a very high chance to hit and deal damage (and effectively auto-kill a kobold while emulating the minion slaying of fighters of older editions). Additionally a party could theoretically wear down a high hp monster down to 5 hp and the slayer could land his iconic finishing blow with a bloody roar. "Slayer, you get advantage on your attack against this seriously bloodied orc chieftain who's been pestering you for the last 5 rounds..." - "Yiiihaaaaaaahhhh!"

Maybe adjust the hit point value up if 5 hp seems too low.

-YRUSirius

 

[GX.Sigma]

Repost from another thread:



I propose a new Reaper feat to all those who hate automatic damage for melee combatants (hey, wizards always were able to get some kind of automatic damage!):

Reaper: You gain advantage on attack rolls against creatures with 5 or less hit points.

I think this feat might do something akin to the Reaper feat we have now. Against low hp minion monsters like kobolds and goblins the slayer will have a very high chance to hit and deal damage (and effectively auto-kill a kobold while emulating the minion slaying of fighters of older editions). Additionally a party could theoretically wear down a high hp monster down to 5 hp and the slayer could land his iconic finishing blow with a bloody roar. "Slayer, you get advantage on your attack against this seriously bloodied orc chieftain who's been pestering you for the last 5 rounds..." - "Yiiihaaaaaaahhhh!"

Maybe adjust the hit point value up if 5 hp seems too low.

-YRUSirius

Then the DM would be obligated to reveal the monster's current HP total? If I were a spellcaster, I'd take Reaper and a crossbow just so I'd know if monsters were below my spells' HP thresholds.

Anyway, it doesn't solve what I feel is the biggest problem with the feat, which is that it sucks at what it's seemingly supposed to do (easily killing weak enemies).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or maybe I am a genius who has already played this battle out in my head 1000 times, and I know what is going to happen before it does, and my axe,hammer,bow always draws a little blood.

ok, since my hawkeye/Capt refrence fell flat, I will totaly call that midnighter...

 

[YRUSirius]

Then the DM would be obligated to reveal the monster's current HP total? If I were a spellcaster, I'd take Reaper and a crossbow just so I'd know if monsters were below my spells' HP thresholds.

Hm, good point. But after a few sessions every wizard would intuitively know what kind of monsters get affected by his hp threshold spells anyways (kobold and goblins yes - orcs no). No reaper feat needed.

And if a wizard with my reaper feat uses an action to shoot to see if he get's advantage (the dm only has to call out that the slayer gets advantage, not the total hitpoints everytime), this would be his opportunity cost for that action? That, and the reaper feat? He could have used a big damage spell this round instead.

Anyway, it doesn't solve what I feel is the biggest problem with the feat, which is that it sucks at what it's seemingly supposed to do (easily killing weak enemies).

Honestly, I don't get this part. My feat would help a slayer with killing weak (or weakened) enemies. Advantage on an attack is a big thing. Near auto-hit and kill against low AC monsters.

-YRUSirius

 

[dd.stevenson]

Here's a question for the playtesters. Is the automatic damage mechanic fun?

TBH it doesn't sound fun, but I can't knock it till I've tried it.

 

[Obryn]

Keeping in mind that it is far easier to add things in than to strip them out, if auto-damage is removed you're always welcome and able to add it back in.

Erm... How is that? I think you have it backwards. All it takes to take something out is a pencil drawing a single line. Especially if the game's as modular as it seems.

Magic... Missile... is... MAGIC. Will we have to make accuracy checks to see if we hit with charm person? Probably not, and for good reason.

I'm not really quite sure why some people are having difficulty grasping the difference between a magical effect, you know, like actual universe bending magic... and a guy swinging an axe.

Because the guy with the magic and the guy with the axe should both be awesome? "Just a guy swinging an axe" is basically the #1 thing I want to avoid. Try "guy swinging an axe who's incredibly good at it." Fighters shouldn't get the short end of the stick just because MAGIC.

-O

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Repost from another thread:



I propose a new Reaper feat to all those who hate automatic damage for melee combatants (hey, wizards always were able to get some kind of automatic damage!):

Reaper: You gain advantage on attack rolls against creatures with 5 or less hit points.

I think this feat might do something akin to the Reaper feat we have now. Against low hp minion monsters like kobolds and goblins the slayer will have a very high chance to hit and deal damage (and effectively auto-kill a kobold while emulating the minion slaying of fighters of older editions). Additionally a party could theoretically wear down a high hp monster down to 5 hp and the slayer could land his iconic finishing blow with a bloody roar. "Slayer, you get advantage on your attack against this seriously bloodied orc chieftain who's been pestering you for the last 5 rounds..." - "Yiiihaaaaaaahhhh!"

Maybe adjust the hit point value up if 5 hp seems too low.

-YRUSirius

ok, so that sounds a bit much. I would never take that feat or theme, on the other hand I love the slayer theme so far.

Infact I will go so far as to say I will be VERY upset with that rework. It in no way helps me widdle down the dragon, and by the time it matters who cares...

8 rounds of fighting... it has 5hp left...if I miss the next guy got it...who cares.

 

[Obryn]

Here's a question for the playtesters. Is the automatic damage mechanic fun?

TBH it doesn't sound fun, but I can't knock it till I've tried it.

Umm... Depends. The Fighter certainly didn't MIND killing a kobold every round.

Here's the thing... It effectively models how even a low-level highly-aggressive heavy-duty Warrior can smash Kobolds without breaking a sweat. They don't stand a chance, one-on-one. It's a way to dominate weak foes, which I think is thematically excellent. (As a note - he died to kobolds, so it's far from a game-winner.)

For foes with more than 2hp it largely didn't much matter. If they were weak, the next blow would have killed them anway. If they were strong, it was a pinprick.

Yeah, it's kind of a dull mechanic, but I still don't understand this tempest-in-a-teapot. I think it needs to be restricted to melee-only though; he threw his crossbow at a kobold and it killed it automatically.

-O