-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Poll on the Reaper: is damage on missed melee attack roll believable and balanced?
- Thread starter eamon
- Start date
The problem is that the poll didn't give an option of I really dislike this and think it is broken but I will still play the new edition.
Not everyone who does not like the feat as it is written now are saying well this a deal breaker for me. I don't like this feat as written and I am not saying that.
My understanding is that the game designers are looking for feedback from the actual playtests not polls on different boards. Maybe here at EnWorld the majority like the feat as is. But what if in playtesting the majority don't.
One thing I find very disheartening is that people who dare speak up with a minority opinion are being accused of trying to make everyone play there way or how they are not willing to compromise.
I even see moderators engaging in this kind of behavior and it really bothers me that at this stage we can't even have a discussion on why we don't like something without being accused of judging other people's fun.
I left EnWorld after 4E came out because my enjoyment of the board went out the window. I was happy to see coming back that the board had regained its equilibrium but now it seems we are going back to the nastiness of those days.
Tony Vargas
Legend
In a game with auto-hitting at-will Magic Missiles, damage on a miss is not problem.
I guess it's a little hard on those de-facto minions with 3 or fewer hps, though. Minions: 1 hp but never damaged on a miss would live longer...
I guess it's a little hard on those de-facto minions with 3 or fewer hps, though. Minions: 1 hp but never damaged on a miss would live longer...
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.
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.
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.
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.
An even bigger sigh I think the game designers should listen to what the play testers tell them if the majority like the feat as it is written then they keep it. If they find the majority of the play testers who respond don't like it then they fix it.
I certainly don't think they should base it on a poll on EnWorld because Enworld may be popular but it is not the sum of all gamers. Out of the 25 gamers I know who play regularly and are play testing I am the only one who regularly posts here.
There is always a another side to this did you read my criticism with the feat? Or is your mind made up that there is nothing wrong with it?
I have brought up several issue I see wrong with the feat but instead of those issues being addressed in a discussion instead I find myself having to defend the fact that I have issue with the feat as written at this moment.
Silly me I thought the whole point of a play test was to see if there are issues with the rules and I thought that Enworld was a place where we could discuss these issues like adults. Without personal attacks and being accused of trying to tell people they are playing the game wrong.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I'm confused about the premise of your post. According to the poll, only less than 8% wouldn't buy the game because of this...not 1/3.
The other 20%+ percent who don't like it (whether for balance issues, believability issues, or both) simply want WotC to do a little more work on it...but still like the game overall and are probably in.
According to the above poll, not only is 90% doable, but over 90%+ is achievable, and may already have been achieved. From what I've read in this thread, the fix would most likely not upset or affect the majority that already like it...so what exactly is the problem here?
For such a little thing, and the small amount of extra work it would take to pull in another 20%+...I think it would be a no brainer for WotC to listen and give it a try.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Why? I think this is really nothing but feedback...and feedback is good. Well, good as long as it's listened to. At this point you want feedback to point out areas that people have issues with. It's when people say they don't have any issues at this stage that I'd be worried. That this poll and thread shows it's a small issue, and easily fixed, and that the majority are good to go so far...that sounds like a pretty good thing to me.
Last edited:
The game designers should evaluate the feed back from the play testers and make their decision based on that. They should not base their decisions on discussions on a forum.
I have already said why I don't like it as written and given some options that I think makes it more playable so it is not like it should just disappear. I have never said that.
While I think using sidebars can be great for somethings like how to balance a wizard if you take at wills out or different ways to generate characters I also don't think they should go crazy with it.
If this feat makes it into the game as written and I like the game enough to play it then I will do what I have always done which is houserule it to be more to what I think it should be.
There is a difference between not liking something and thinking something is broken. Since we are play testing I think we should honestly tell the designers why we think something is broken and we should not be told that we are wrong for speaking up.
It has always been the default of DnD that if you don't like something you change it with a houserule. Way back in 1E I played with DMs who were house ruling that you didn't have to roll 3D6 in order. I played with DMs who ruled that a house cat could not kill a wizard that those scratches were temporary damage and non lethal.
As I keep saying we are in the early stages of play testing this is the time to speak up on things you find broken.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Kill on a miss? No thanks. I don't like scaring kobolds to death.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weD0Jt8A5Zg]austin powers dad fun scenes dr evil number two - YouTube[/ame]
Texicles
First Post
I voted balanced/believable, and I touched on this in another thread, but this seems like the place for it, so here goes.
First, when I say that the skill is balanced, I mean that it has the capacity for balance in the retail game. I don't look for precise numerical balance in a playtest, especially not this early on. At this stage, the "balance" I'm looking for is, does class X feel reasonably competitive in terms of their combat role, and do they feel reasonably diversified in their flavor. The emphasis there denotes what is absolutely more important to the devs right now than anything else: how the game feels.
There's plenty of time to haggle over specifics later, but for now, it feels "balanced" (in an early stage playtest way) to me.
Second, there's the believability aspect. If you are dogmatic in your belief that failing to achieve a sufficient number (through roll+mod) to hit AC means you miss, unfailingly and unequivocally, then stop reading because no one in the community will change your mind. And that's ok. However, if you're on the fence, or are open to varying interpretations of what is or is not in this roleplaying game, read on!
First, remember that, in theory, we're discussing the abilities of a capable, professional fighter. Whether he got his skills through military service, a career as a street brawler, a prestigious academy or is just a drunken loudmouth that had to learn to defend himself through many a bar fight, is irrelevant. However you want to flavor it, the fighter class knows how to fight.
Believability can then, in my opinion, be explained, regardless of the "school of hit point philosophy" you're in.
If you believe HP represents a nebulous amalgam of health, morale, etc., then hit-on-miss can be justified as the feat suggests. Near misses (apt to come from the attacks of the aforementioned skilled fighter) giving the fighter's opponent the "willies," shaking his courage and will to fight. If this "near miss" is how you interpret it, then in the event that a "killing blow" from this "near miss" could mean that the foe knows he's bested and crumbles to the ground, not dead, but dying from all the other wounds he's sustained and too disheartened to fight on. Such an event actually lends itself to some nice opportunities for interaction if the DM/group want it.
If you're in the other camp, and feel that HP should be purely a quantity of physical harm one can sustain before shuffling off this mortal coil, then ignore the "near miss" wording and consider again the skilled fighter described above. When you watch a skilled fighter fight (be it modern combatives, asian martial arts, or historically accurate medieval swordsmanship), you don't see a lot of misses, some but not many. You see lots of blocks and glancing blows though. Think of the fighter's "miss" as more of the latter. Eventually, the "boo-boos" from all of the blocked and glancing attacks add up. Sure, an attack may not have found its way through armor to deliver a truly punishing blow, but if you've ever been hit with a sturdy object while wearing armor or padding, you know that it's not like you don't feel it. Obviously this justification also extends to the above interpretation of HP as well.
TL;DR If you're looking for a reason not to like 5e, Reaper is as good as any I suppose. If you're looking for balance, don't look too hard yet. If you're looking for believable, consider the skilled fighter.
First, when I say that the skill is balanced, I mean that it has the capacity for balance in the retail game. I don't look for precise numerical balance in a playtest, especially not this early on. At this stage, the "balance" I'm looking for is, does class X feel reasonably competitive in terms of their combat role, and do they feel reasonably diversified in their flavor. The emphasis there denotes what is absolutely more important to the devs right now than anything else: how the game feels.
There's plenty of time to haggle over specifics later, but for now, it feels "balanced" (in an early stage playtest way) to me.
Second, there's the believability aspect. If you are dogmatic in your belief that failing to achieve a sufficient number (through roll+mod) to hit AC means you miss, unfailingly and unequivocally, then stop reading because no one in the community will change your mind. And that's ok. However, if you're on the fence, or are open to varying interpretations of what is or is not in this roleplaying game, read on!
First, remember that, in theory, we're discussing the abilities of a capable, professional fighter. Whether he got his skills through military service, a career as a street brawler, a prestigious academy or is just a drunken loudmouth that had to learn to defend himself through many a bar fight, is irrelevant. However you want to flavor it, the fighter class knows how to fight.
Believability can then, in my opinion, be explained, regardless of the "school of hit point philosophy" you're in.
If you believe HP represents a nebulous amalgam of health, morale, etc., then hit-on-miss can be justified as the feat suggests. Near misses (apt to come from the attacks of the aforementioned skilled fighter) giving the fighter's opponent the "willies," shaking his courage and will to fight. If this "near miss" is how you interpret it, then in the event that a "killing blow" from this "near miss" could mean that the foe knows he's bested and crumbles to the ground, not dead, but dying from all the other wounds he's sustained and too disheartened to fight on. Such an event actually lends itself to some nice opportunities for interaction if the DM/group want it.
If you're in the other camp, and feel that HP should be purely a quantity of physical harm one can sustain before shuffling off this mortal coil, then ignore the "near miss" wording and consider again the skilled fighter described above. When you watch a skilled fighter fight (be it modern combatives, asian martial arts, or historically accurate medieval swordsmanship), you don't see a lot of misses, some but not many. You see lots of blocks and glancing blows though. Think of the fighter's "miss" as more of the latter. Eventually, the "boo-boos" from all of the blocked and glancing attacks add up. Sure, an attack may not have found its way through armor to deliver a truly punishing blow, but if you've ever been hit with a sturdy object while wearing armor or padding, you know that it's not like you don't feel it. Obviously this justification also extends to the above interpretation of HP as well.
TL;DR If you're looking for a reason not to like 5e, Reaper is as good as any I suppose. If you're looking for balance, don't look too hard yet. If you're looking for believable, consider the skilled fighter.
