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

[Viktyr Gehrig]

yea the whole "You are a glorfied town guard, and I get to rewrite reailty" is not the part of classic D&D I want back... My fighter is just as Awsome as your wizard

See, and this is what is killing me in this converation, because that's not what classic D&D was like at all. Third Edition is not 'classic'. In AD&D, the mid-level Fighter could always beat the mid-level Wizard in a fight, and the high-level Fighter stood a chance against a high-level Wizard unless the Wizard had time to prepare. In AD&D, if a high-level Fighter got into melee range with the Wizard at all the fight was over. Two attacks at full BAB each round, with movement, either of which would prevent the Wizard from casting a spell.

Not to mention, of course, that the Fighter had better saving throws than anyone but the Paladin and the save DCs didn't scale by spell level-- so most of the 'save or lose' spells the Wizard could hit him with would have whiffed.

In AD&D, a third level Fighter having a 100% chance to kill one Kobold per round wasn't surprising, because if he started adjacent to that many Kobolds, he had better-than-average odds of killing all three of them.

Third Edition wasn't the 'last' edition in which Fighters sucked, it was the only edition in which Fighters sucked.

Yes, but spending your entire turn to kill a single kobold isn't helpful at all, regardless if it's a 65% chance or a 100% chance. The thing about weak opponents is that they're strong in numbers. If the point is to make him better at fighting weak opponents, why not something that deals damage (even a small amount) to more than one target? How about giving the fighter free attacks (like one per fighter level) against enemies below a certain max hp threshold? Both of those not only have precedent in D&D, but I feel are much better designed game pieces.

I really wish Fighters had multiple 'combat maneuvers' as at-will powers that replaced his basic attack, like the 4e Fighter did. I don't like Encounters and Dailies for Fighters (though Surge is cool) but I liked the 'combat options' in Classic D&D. The Fighter should get to choose extra maneuvers and stances as he gains in experience.

 

[Obryn]

See, and this is what is killing me in this converation, because that's not what classic D&D was like at all. Third Edition is not 'classic'. In AD&D, the mid-level Fighter could always beat the mid-level Wizard in a fight, and the high-level Fighter stood a chance against a high-level Wizard unless the Wizard had time to prepare. In AD&D, if a high-level Fighter got into melee range with the Wizard at all the fight was over. Two attacks at full BAB each round, with movement, either of which would prevent the Wizard from casting a spell.

When I saddled up to run a 1e campaign a few years back and refamiliarized myself with the rules I thought I knew in my youth, I was actually struck by how much thought was apparently given to balance in the rule-set - particularly of the swords vs. sorcery variety. Granted, some was a bit weird - like demihuman level limits - but the game functions very, very well as written. (Apropos of nothing, the most strikingly awesome thing about 1e that I'd always pooh-pooh'd was the GP-for-XP reward system. It's honestly brilliant, and I hope there's options for it in 5e. It's as non-simulationist as they come, but it completely changes the playstyle in a way that's unique to 1e. Forking this discussion...)

-O

 

[Drowbane]

Here is the thing though, 10 rounds imo is already entirely too long. Sure in the long run its more hp but how does that make any difference? If the thing is still standing after 10 rounds the fighter deserves to kill it with auto damade for standing up to it so long.

If the Fighter is still standing after 10 rounds the thing deserves to kill him with auto damade for standing up to it so long.

Does this still sound palatable reversed? If its good for the Goose...

See, and this is what is killing me in this converation, because that's not what classic D&D was like at all. Third Edition is not 'classic'. In AD&D, the mid-level Fighter could always beat the mid-level Wizard in a fight, and the high-level Fighter stood a chance against a high-level Wizard unless the Wizard had time to prepare. In AD&D, if a high-level Fighter got into melee range with the Wizard at all the fight was over. Two attacks at full BAB each round, with movement, either of which would prevent the Wizard from casting a spell.

Not to mention, of course, that the Fighter had better saving throws than anyone but the Paladin and the save DCs didn't scale by spell level-- so most of the 'save or lose' spells the Wizard could hit him with would have whiffed...

Actually, Fi vs Wiz in AD&D (really any edition) was 100% "who wins initiative". Wizards could stay invis all day as long as they didn't attack anything, so if the Wiz is hunting the fighter the fighter best roll good on saves. I will have to consult my 2ePHB, but I am pretty sure that Wizards had awesome saves vs Spells and Fighters were good against most other things. Maybe I have it backwards, been awhile.

This whole "3e Fighters SUCKS" thing is something I really only see on the internet, and seemed to have started around 2007. In my current 3.5 game we have... (2) Dwarf Clerics, (2) 1/2 Orc Fighters, (1) Dwarf Rogue, (1) Aasimar Sorc.

Third Edition wasn't the 'last' edition in which Fighters sucked, it was the only edition in which Fighters sucked..

Fighter 20 sucked, sure. But *nobody* I have played with in the past 12 years has had any interest in sticking with Fighter past 4th level, most dropped out of it to Multi at 2nd. And Fighter 2 / Bbn 1 / Rgr 2 / PrC X / PrC Y / PRC N was a BAD MOFO who could charge and clear a room with a full attack. Was the Wizard capable of being more interesting? Sure, he had a TON of options at his disposal. But 3e Fighters only sucked if the player running them didn't know what he was doing (it happens, I'm sure).

One of my earliest 3e characters soloed an Ogre (CR 3) at level 3... when the party caught up to him (he went off to scout ) he was at 3hp and was surrounded by dead goblins and the party got to seen him full attack the orge for the kill. IIRC, he was a Halfling barbarian 1 / fighter 1 / rogue 1. TWF + Rage + Cleave. I'd hit and kill a Goblin (my favored enemy) and cleave on the Ogre for free damage.

Multiclassing in 3e was largely the domain of the "mundanes". The Casters didn't multi between themselves (except for noob players), and usually did something like Wiz 5 / Cool PrC 10 / Less Cool PrC 5 to 20. Where as the non-casters gained greatly for mixing it up.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I really wish Fighters had multiple 'combat maneuvers' as at-will powers that replaced his basic attack, like the 4e Fighter did. I don't like Encounters and Dailies for Fighters (though Surge is cool) but I liked the 'combat options' in Classic D&D. The Fighter should get to choose extra maneuvers and stances as he gains in experience.

That is a thing in D&DN. It's optional though, and the pre-gen purposely didn't choose those options.

 

[Drowbane]

...I really wish Fighters had multiple 'combat maneuvers' as at-will powers that replaced his basic attack, like the 4e Fighter did. I don't like Encounters and Dailies for Fighters (though Surge is cool) but I liked the 'combat options' in Classic D&D. The Fighter should get to choose extra maneuvers and stances as he gains in experience.

Tome of Battle is one of my favorite 3.5 books. When 4e was barely announced I had hopes for a system that used ToB Maneuvers for fighters and something like 3.5 Psionics for casters. What we got was... [redacted]

Ahem, if 5e maneuvers are anything like 3.5 ToB maneuvers, I am all for them. If they are less interesting... pass.

 

[Elf Witch]

It seems that you checked the box saying that "I HATE damage on miss and will only play a D&D next game that excludes such effects" - and I (and perhaps others) had been reading your posts in that light.

If in fact you really meant to check something along the lines of "Bad for believability; also bad for balance" that helps me make sense of what you've beein saying in your recent posts.

I[/I]!

It looks like I did click the wrong box. I meant to click the one above it.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Ahem, if 5e maneuvers are anything like 3.5 ToB maneuvers, I am all for them. If they are less interesting... pass.

I don't want anything quite like that. It's cool stuff in 3.X and 4, but Next looks like it's got a different vibe entirely.

But I'd like a thing where a Fighter can have a Reckless Stance (gains advantage to melee attacks, grants advantage to enemies) or a Guarded Stance (takes disadvantage on his attacks to give disadvantage to enemies) in addition to Balanced Stance. (Which everyone else is all the time.) I'm sure there are other stances that would work in the context of Next.

And then, Fighter can have his at-will maneuvers, which are Fighter class features that he can use in place of his basic attacks. Other fightery types get the same attack bonuses and HD as the Fighter, but only the Fighter gets his maneuvers.

 

[Leatherhead]

It works if HP is seen as "Not Quite Dead Points," The justification would simply be "The attack is so brutal, it takes special effort to dodge, deflect, or block it, this extra effort causes strain on your HP"

And any kill from such damage, is a heart attack or something.

I will say that auto-damage on players implies that creatures could have auto-damage. And that makes in-combat healing more likely to be required, which is something I am against.

 

[chaochou]

The narration of hit point loss is context-dependent.

I don't see a problem here.

 

[keterys]

I'd like to see most 'miss' effects (included succeeding at saves and taking half damage) not killing stuff. That includes Reaper, but really does apply to just about everything. And... if it's kept for just about everything, I'm fine with it sticking for Reaper. It's certainly not unbalanced.

I would suggest moving it to 3rd and swapping Cleave into 1st, though - that way it lets you slide past the initial hump where it autokills many of your enemies (rats, kobolds), and seems a little less exceptional than having a 1st level character do it.