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

[Dannager]

Heh. It doesn't have to be "defensible," Dannager...

We're in a playtest. It needs to be defensible. Until you get to the point where the sheer number of people saying, "It doesn't matter why we don't like it, we just do, and you'd better change it or else!" is enough to justify changing the game, your preferences need to be defensible.

 

[Drowbane]

The word "miss" here is a mechanical term, not a flavor term. It refers to the result of an attack roll that does not meet or exceed the target's AC. It means pretty much nothing, flavor-wise. "Miss" hasn't necessarily meant actually missing the target completely in forever. For multiple editions, "miss" has meant: scrapes, dodges, glancing blows, lucky turns, temporary distractions, and any number of other things.

Hell, even under the strictest rules-marrying-mechanics perspective, the word "miss" has never meant that the attack actually missed the target. More often than not, the target's armor bonus to AC caused the attack to "miss", because the attack actually connected with the target (in other words, the target was hit) but the attack did not get past the armor.



Because you say so and because that's how it's always been in your mind. Those are your reasons.

Miss has equaled no damage since 1974. WotC is bold to try to change that for no good reason. If this was another RPG altogether this ability probably wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. But this is D&D, it is an old product that has undergone many changes, and yet despite all those changes a Miss has always been a miss. Now... its a glancing blow (for one subset of one class only?).

 

[Dannager]

Yep. That about sums it up. And the kicker is, this is no more or less correct than any other reasoning out there.

I reject the notion that all preferences are equally valid when it comes to deciding how to make a product designed for a large number of people.

 

[Dannager]

Miss has equaled no damage since 1974.

So? I've been playing D&D for nearly as long as you, but I don't care how it's been in the past. I'm focused on how the game will be in the future.

WotC is bold to try to change that for no good reason.

"It makes for interesting and dynamic gameplay," is a good reason.

If this was another RPG altogether this ability probably wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. But this is D&D, it is an old product that has undergone many changes, and yet despite all those changes a Miss has always been a miss. Now... its a glancing blow (for one subset of one class only?).

Yep. Welcome to the wide world of things that can change over the course of 30 years!

 

[herrozerro]

This happening at the end of a dramatic combat, where the slayer after three misses against the death knight, that scourge on the land for centuries, ends up getting himself killed in the way of a slapstick scene? No place.

I think it's your own choice that makes is slapstick. I would choose to see it rather:

"Grorignak the Slayer Attacks the Scourge of the land each attack narrowly missing but driving the Deathknight back into a further precarious position as the attacks of the rest of the party seek him out.

The deathknight leaps back once again as Grorignak the Slayer's blade sweeps in its arc. 'You'll have to do better then that Grorignak the weak!" He taunts laughing for a moment before seeing Grorignak just grinning ear to ear. He looks down as he sees himself impaled upon the spiky symbol of the lord of spikes, his diety. He looks back to Grorignak the Slayer, suddenly realizing that the fighter before him had used his massive greatsword to manuve him into making this fatal mistake.

Grorignak the Slayer winds up for one final blow.... etc"

you see slapstick but thats a failure of your own narrative.

 

[Drowbane]

I consider it a boring feature, not an innovation. YMMV.

you see slapstick but thats a failure of your own narrative.

And in your narrative the Death Knight dies due to his own incompetence. Yay for heroic PCs!

 

[Blood & Bones]

I voted No to both Believability and Balance.... Actually, I voted incorrectly. It's just believability I have a problem with; balance is fine.

While I understand the arguments about hit points as an abstraction, I have to ask, is that how you really think of it when you're playing? When I'm playing, I think a hit is a hit and a miss is a miss, and if you hit, you damage, and if you miss, you fail to damage. I see hit points as flesh and blood - even if we're just talking scratches.

My point is that whether hit points as an abstraction of luck, endurance, and skill does not matter; what matters is how people really think and play the game.

 

[CleverNickName]

We're in a playtest. It needs to be defensible. Until you get to the point where the sheer number of people saying, "It doesn't matter why we don't like it, we just do, and you'd better change it or else!" is enough to justify changing the game, your preferences need to be defensible.

I agree. What I am trying to say is that we are already at that point.

4E and Pathfinder have already pushed us to the point where differences in play style actually *are* deal-breakers for a lot of gamers (and potential buyers). They have already tried the "changing the way you think about D&D" design approach. I hope they try a more inclusive approach this time around.

 

[herrozerro]

I voted No to both Believability and Balance.... Actually, I voted incorrectly. It's just believability I have a problem with; balance is fine.

While I understand the arguments about hit points as an abstraction, I have to ask, is that how you really think of it when you're playing? When I'm playing, I think a hit is a hit and a miss is a miss, and if you hit, you damage, and if you miss, you fail to damage. I see hit points as flesh and blood - even if we're just talking scratches.

My point is that whether hit points as an abstraction of luck, endurance, and skill does not matter; what matters is how people really think and play the game.

IME, it varies from player to player. and the abstraction gives each player the option to do it as they please.

in the same game we had a barbarian who took the very literal flesh and blood path and a player who chose to play a sorcerer child who never took a "hit" ever (except the ones that actually took her down), playing it as luck and divine fortune.

 

[El Mahdi]

HP is common sense?

Using a mechanic that can represent: Physical, Luck or other mystical durability and your saying that someone who misses physically cant damage the other three?

maybe it was a miss because that character used up some of his luck or mystical defenses dodging the fury of the slayer.

Eh, I think we are gonig to have to agree to disagree. I think it makes sense, and you dont. I dont know how else to argue, your just cemented in your ways.

First of all, you don't know what my "ways" are to know if I'm cemented in them or not. Second, there's no reason to be rude about this. (And Yes, it is rude. You could have just as easily said "we" are cemented in "our" ways, but chose not to.) Third, you are comparing one small powerish concept to a much larger concept (the very nature of Hit Points), which is not a valid comparison for the argument you're making.

Hit Points are a much, much, much larger concept than that Reaper ability is. Hit Points are an abstract quantification on purpose, and are always explained right up front in that manner in every edition. There really isn't any way to make Hit Points themselves any less abstract. One can add on other systems, and I do (like Vitality or Condition Tracks), but that definitely is not for everybody. Hit Points are as good as they can get on their own.

However, the Reaper ability we are talking about is not as good as it can be. There's been people in this very thread who have shown how a simple changing of the text can make it work. However, that should be the designers job, not the DM's. And the designers in this case have not done the job to completion. This is feedback that they need to listen to for the reasons listed in this thread.

If it makes sense to you, that's fine. I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm simply explaining why it doesn't make sense to me, as feedback that I hope the designers pay attention to. And you're not going to change my opinion, though it certainly seems to me as if you're trying to.

What does matter is this: If it makes sense to you now in it's current form, it will likely also make sense to you if the fluff is tweaked a bit to make sense for the rest of us (tweaked as others have given examples of in this thread). If that's not the case, that you'd also find it makes sense with the tweaks recommended in this thread, then I stand corrected. But if it does still make sense to you, and the designers decide that the fact that it doesn't make sense to others is not important enough to address, then that's a significant problem in the likely outcome of 5E. However, I don't think the designers of 5E will make that mistake...or at least I'm choosing to be optimistic that this feedback will be addressed.