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

Is the Reaper believable and balanced (i.e. not overpowered)?


pemerton

Legend
Would it be harmful for the game if missed attacks never reduced anyone below 1 hit point?
"Harmful" is a strong word.

It would affect the action economy pretty heavily, though. At the moment, Reaper is a minion-clearer. If it can't kill rats or kobolds on a miss, that is signficiantly reducing the ratio of minions cleared to actions taken.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
"Harmful" is a strong word.

It would affect the action economy pretty heavily, though. At the moment, Reaper is a minion-clearer. If it can't kill rats or kobolds on a miss, that is signficiantly reducing the ratio of minions cleared to actions taken.
To me that's not a problem, as particularly at very low PC level there really should be no such thing as a minion. At 1st level every opponent is - or should be - a threat to your life.

At higher level, once you've picked up some skill, abilities, and decent armour these opponents become more trivial; and you should be able to slowly wade throguh them without much difficulty. It's at very low level where this falls apart...and at higher level where foes that should be significant get minionized - e.g. you meet 8 Ogres, one is a Skirmisher, 2 are Artillery, and 5 are Minions: ridiculous! No Ogre should ever fall over from just one hit from anybody short of a god, unless said hit is a rather spectacular critical.

Lanefan
 

To me that's not a problem, as particularly at very low PC level there really should be no such thing as a minion. At 1st level every opponent is - or should be - a threat to your life.

At level one, the only people you should encounter who are minions don't belong with weapons in their hands. The eight year old boy or eighty year old grandfather picking up a sword and determined to buy time. The kobold militia, not battle trained but clinging on to their spears in a desperate attempt to defend their lair. Or just the unarmoured people with crap weapons and little training.

The exception to this are "morale minions" - thugs, bandits, and raiders who signed up for easy loot. They didn't come to risk their lives and the second someone shows fight or hurts them they're likely to turn tail and flee.

At higher level, once you've picked up some skill, abilities, and decent armour these opponents become more trivial; and you should be able to slowly wade throguh them without much difficulty. It's at very low level where this falls apart...and at higher level where foes that should be significant get minionized - e.g. you meet 8 Ogres, one is a Skirmisher, 2 are Artillery, and 5 are Minions: ridiculous! No Ogre should ever fall over from just one hit from anybody short of a god, unless said hit is a rather spectacular critical.

I can't think of a time I'd ever have one ogre skirmisher, two ogre artillery, and five ogre minions. What I'm much more likely to use alongside ogre minions is either Illithids or Rakshasas. And at level 16 I have few issues with the idea of one-shotting an ogre.
 

pemerton

Legend
No Ogre should ever fall over from just one hit from anybody short of a god, unless said hit is a rather spectacular critical.
Some literary context - in A Wizard of Earthsea, Ged one-shots several young dragons.

Dragon minions!

And didn't David one-shot Goliath? Giant minion!

I've got no problem with upper-paragon ogre minions. The paladin and fighter in my game can stand one-on-one against phalanxes of several dozen hobgoblins. They can certainly one-shot ogres!
 



If a miss always equals not even touching your enemy with your weapon, how do you narrate missing a Giant? How can an adventurer, or even any competent person, miss a Giant?
That's the point, there is no absolute here. A miss does not always equal never touching your target just as it does not always represent ineffectively striking your target. As it currently stands, both possibilities sit uncomfortably together in the definition of "miss". This means that an ability cannot rely on one condition or the other being true and it causes logical/believability issue when one of those illogical possibilities (a miss that does not strike the target yet still kills the target) is uncomfortably included.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: I can imagine that hitting a Giant who is threatening you with a massive weapon is particularly difficult to strike (effectively or ineffectively). I can imagine most of the time is spent dodging the bastard, trying to find an opening where I can strike at the giant but not have the giant strike at me. If one is suicidal enough though, I can imagine that ineffectively striking the giant is pretty easy.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
And didn't David one-shot Goliath? Giant minion!

Anyone portraying Goliath as a minion probably doesn't understand the story. David got a crit that KOed Goliath then went up and administered a coup de grace with Goliath's own sword.
 

That's the point, there is no absolute here. A miss does not always equal never touching your target just as it does not always represent ineffectively striking your target. As it currently stands, both possibilities sit uncomfortably together in the definition of "miss". This means that an ability cannot rely on one condition or the other being true and it causes logical/believability issue when one of those illogical possibilities (a miss that does not strike the target yet still kills the target) is uncomfortably included.

Do you want the game to remain vague on what a miss is so that you'll be free to narrate however you please according to circumstance? Would you prefer the game to have several types of misses and ways to figure out which one happened?

How do you represent an ability where you slowly but surely wear down a foe? Where even blocking it hurts you?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top