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

[El Mahdi]

It's even simpler than that. didnt anybody read the reaper feat description???

"Your aggressive attack style makes all of your attacks close calls.?

What is so hard about that to believe?

It's simple: a "close call" is not a "hit", it's a "miss"...and "misses" do not cause damage.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you realize just how often people who had a problem with this in 4E were told the same thing...?

It didn't wash then, and it doesn't wash now. It's not an extreme thing to want both the mechanics and fluff to make sense from the start, without having to do the designers jobs for them...

This is one of the things that was a major complaint about 4E, and a major point of division. It's a significant mistake to do this again with 5E, to any extent.

This is the key point. As much as people might disagree with these critiques of mechanic, and as much as they feel offering a reskin solution should fix any concerns, 4e demonstrated folks will walk over this kind of stuff.

 

[herrozerro]

It's simple: a "close call" is not a "hit", it's a "miss"...and "misses" do not cause damage.

Citation?

 

[CleverNickName]

It's simple: a "close call" is not a "hit", it's a "miss"...and "misses" do not cause damage.

Citation?

Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Pg. 3: "Your fighter starts with 8 hp (hit points) and still has all 8, since the goblin never hit you. He may have hit your armor or shield, but never got through your protection, so these attacks are still called "misses" -- they didn't actually damage your character." (Moldvay 1986 Basic Set)

 

[Reef]

It's a miss on the main attack. But the Slayer is just so good at fighting, they can at least salvage a little damage. And face it, the amount of damage is tiny (compared to what they can do with an actual hit). This probably would be getting a lot less complaints if people weren't fighting 2hp kobolds.

I have no problem with believability...it's all how you frame it. The book series I'm reading now has a protagonist who is supposedly a fantastically gifted swords-woman. During descriptions of her fights, it's not uncommon for her to have a swing parried, but then follow it up immediately with a headbutt, fist to the gut, kick to the groin, or simply grabbing the opponent and swinging him into something heavy. Stabbing with her blade is much better, but she's good enough to follow up on even a miss. Using that frame of reference, I have no problem with Reaper.

 

[El Mahdi]

Then the question that deserves to be asked (and I'm sure the designers of the game are asking it of themselves constantly) is: Should the rejection of core principles of abstraction - principles that have a defensible gameplay raison d'etre, as well as long-standing tenure in D&D's history - by a segment of the fan-base influence the developers of the game to reject those principles as well? In other words, to what extent do the game's designers allow those with particularly fragile suspension of disbelief to cull otherwise-solid elements of the game from the final product?

No. The questions (plural on purpose) that the designers should be asking themeselves with every idea and mechanic they come up with is:

1. Is it simple enough for easy resolution?
2. Does it work effectively with the rest of the games rules?
3. Does it best accomplish the result one is lookig for?
4. Do the mechanics *"make sense"?
5. Does the fluff *"make sense"?
6. Are the mechanics and fluff consistent with eachother?

*"make sense" in accordance with our only common shared experience - Real Life.

If the answer to any of those questions are "No", then one's job as designer is not done. It's only done when all questions can be answered "Yes".




P.S. (added) [MENTION=73683]Dannager[/MENTION] - I've recieved notification that you've quoted me a few times in later posts. However, I am unable to read those posts as you're on my ignore list. I only responded to the above because I saw it quoted in someone else's post, and I felt it was important to address. I'm mentioning this because I don't want my lack of response to your quoting me to be seen as rudeness or tacit approval.

 

[El Mahdi]

Citation?

Common Sense

 

[Dannager]

Do you realize just how often people who had a problem with this in 4E were told the same thing...?

Yes.

It didn't wash then, and it doesn't wash now.

That's sort of my point.

It's not an extreme thing to want both the mechanics and fluff to make sense from the start, without having to do the designers jobs for them...

Which is a loaded way of presenting the issue. The mechanics and fluff both make sense from the start, and there's no need to "do the designers' jobs for them".

This is one of the things that was a major complaint about 4E, and a major point of division. It's a significant mistake to do this again with 5E, to any extent.

Not really. D&D will be fine without people who can't get past the idea that rolling under the target's AC might occasionally deal damage if your character is built a certain way. I mean, that's what this boils down to - people who just can't get past the concept that if you roll a plastic piece and the number on the top doesn't quite beat the number on a piece of paper, another number on that piece of paper might go down anyway.

I'd rather have a game that didn't hamstring itself for the sake of trying not to step on someone's particularly-thin eggshells.

 

[herrozerro]

Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Pg. 3: "Your fighter starts with 8 hp (hit points) and still has all 8, since the goblin never hit you. He may have hit your armor or shield, but never got through your protection, so these attacks are still called "misses" -- they didn't actually damage your character."

I was actually thinking more relevantly: How To play Document pg. 12:

"Your hit points represent a combination of several factors. They include your physical durability and overall health, your speed and agility to avoid harm. They also account for luck, divine favor and other mystic factors.
In short, hit points are an abstraction. While you are at or above half your hit points, you show no signs of injury. At less than half your hit points, you have acquired a few cuts or bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points or fewer strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simple knocks you unconscious."

Emphasis mine. In short according to this document, which might i remind you all goes with this game we are play testing. HP is an abstraction, a PC might never be actually hit until that 0 of fewer blow. Relying on luck alone or perhaps divine fortune keeps all attacks from hitting a character until the god's fortune runs out.

 

[Dannager]

No. The questions (plural on purpose) that the designers should be asking themeselves with every idea and mechanic they come up with is:

Oh good! Time to analyze!

1. Is it simple enough for easy resolution?
2. Does it work effectively with the rest of the games rules?
3. Does it best accomplish the result one is lookig for?
4. Do the mechanics *"make sense"?
5. Does the fluff *"make sense"?
6. Are the mechanics and fluff consistent with eachother?

*"make sense" in accordance with our only common shared experience - Real Life.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.

Hooray!

If the answer to any of those questions are "No", then one's job as designer is not done. It's only done when all questions can be answered "Yes".

There are plenty of game elements from your D&D edition of choice that break more than one of the standards you outlined above.

Also, the idea that every game element has to match the experiences of our real life is ridiculous and it's a little weird that you'd even trot that out. This is a game of magical elves and glowing swords.