It is kind of amusing if you look at this to the extreme example... a fighter so poorly built that he intenionally auto-misses just to do a constant 4 (or whatever) damage every round.
But the reality is it really won't matter. In your own example of super weak 5 hp goblins... if a fighter is going to roll 1dx+5 damage, he will automatically kill the goblin outright with a hit. So, maybe he missed twice and the goblin died from reaper damage. Maybe he missed once, and hit the second time. The net result is exactly the same, a dead goblin.
The fact he missed the first round didn't do enough reaper damage to make a difference in the second round. Either way, the first round was insignificant, and the second one wasn't. All this really means is that combat doesn't suddenly drag out for 15 minutes because the fighter is rolling a string of 7's against a mook goblin. Again, if gobbo #4 out of 20 died in 2 rounds to 2 misses, instead of 3 rounds (because the first 2 missed), is it really going to break the game? Even multipied across a room of 20 goblins... with a full party hacking away... the contribution of the fighter autokilling them on the second round will shorten the overall fight by, what? 2 rounds tops? And those last 2 rounds are going to be 'mop up' with only 2-3 gobbos left anyway.
Let's look at the other extreme... a dragon or something. Again, assume the fighter should be doing 2d8+5 damage, that's 14 a turn average, against something with probably 100-200+ HP's. Sorry, but doing 4 on a miss isn't gonna change that fight significantly either.
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
One of the big complaints with melee classes in general is they do nothing on a miss.
Which edition you are playing doesn't matter... 1st, a miss is a miss. 2nd, a miss is a miss. 3.x - now a high bab gives you multiple chances to miss every round! 4e - some dailies powers have reduced effects on a miss, but most of the time, a miss is a miss.
But in pretty much every edition, casters have had options that still deal damage on a miss (or on the target saving)...
For some, damaging on a miss will lessen their SoD, and that's ok. But from overall feedback from the masses, and the Fighter preview article, it's pretty clear that WotC wants fighters to be top dog in consistant damage in the next edition. Giving a small boost to their overall damage by allowing 2-3 points through on a miss really shouldn't break anybody's game... But like they say about that modular thing, if you don't like it, don't use it...
And if this is really your/the community's biggest complaint about Next, then they are obviously doing something right...
They are doing something right. I like the framework provided. As far as what breaks someones game and can be used to abuse rules that remains to be seen in the long term. We have just found that certain rules invite abuse and need adjustment. I understand wizards goal with the fighter. I understand wizards goal with the mage. But thanks for educating me. I can make what ever house rules I like at my table, that "Back door option" isn't what we are trying to accomplish as playtesters. No offence meant or taken there. Can you contribute to our discussion in some way? How would you deal with this issue other than disbar what is codified in the book as a house rule? Do you think that the suspension of disbelief is important to a fantasy roleplaying game, or is because the book said so a good enough reason to overlook a rule in favor of being just as good or better than others in combat? Do you like the idea of arbitrarily doing damage? Are you concerned that without this option the fighter can't live up to his potential at being a great combatant? Are wizards goals for the fighter being met in accordance to the feeds you have seen? Do they ( fighters) still make that criteria without the reaper function? Do you have any ideas?
It is kind of amusing if you look at this to the extreme example... a fighter so poorly built that he intenionally auto-misses just to do a constant 4 (or whatever) damage every round.
But the reality is it really won't matter. In your own example of super weak 5 hp goblins... if a fighter is going to roll 1dx+5 damage, he will automatically kill the goblin outright with a hit. So, maybe he missed twice and the goblin died from reaper damage. Maybe he missed once, and hit the second time. The net result is exactly the same, a dead goblin.
The fact he missed the first round didn't do enough reaper damage to make a difference in the second round. Either way, the first round was insignificant, and the second one wasn't. All this really means is that combat doesn't suddenly drag out for 15 minutes because the fighter is rolling a string of 7's against a mook goblin. Again, if gobbo #4 out of 20 died in 2 rounds to 2 misses, instead of 3 rounds (because the first 2 missed), is it really going to break the game? Even multipied across a room of 20 goblins... with a full party hacking away... the contribution of the fighter autokilling them on the second round will shorten the overall fight by, what? 2 rounds tops? And those last 2 rounds are going to be 'mop up' with only 2-3 gobbos left anyway.
Let's look at the other extreme... a dragon or something. Again, assume the fighter should be doing 2d8+5 damage, that's 14 a turn average, against something with probably 100-200+ HP's. Sorry, but doing 4 on a miss isn't gonna change that fight significantly either.
The difference in my example is this. He ( the goblin) would still be alive and attacking my fighter after that second miss which may kill me or give advantage or disadvantage. I am more likely to be hit as I am being attacked again by said slain goblin who by the way according to the game mechanics I have never touched. It makes a difference to be sure espesially at first level. And for 100xp per goblin. which equals 1-20th of my level in xp.
I did. Not everyone posting on these forums will have read every playtest article. Not everyone will agree with every rule. But sometimes if you know what the dev's were actually thinking, you won't ask "What where they thinking?".
How would you deal with this issue other than disbar what is codified in the book as a house rule? Do you think that the suspension of disbelief is important to a fantasy roleplaying game, or is because the book said so a good enough reason to overlook a rule in favor of being just as good or better than others in combat? Do you like the idea of arbitrarily doing damage?
I've been promised a modular game, and haven't seen the other themes. But i HAVE seen that right on the character sheet it clearly states: "for a more old school experience, don't use background and theme". Reaper is a feature of the Slayer theme, so if the rules tell me that themes are optional, how is not using them a houserule?
The concept of "arbitrary damage" doesn't particularly bother me, especially when it is in small amounts. And it's not even all that arbitrary, it's due to an aggressive fighting style - you miss with the main part of your weapon, but hit with your elbow or pummel on the backswing. It's not hard to imagine someone that is attacking you so violently and chaotically that even though you avoid the sharp end of the blade, you still get hit with collaterol damage. Ask any Olympic fencer who they fear more... Their opponent at the olympics, or some random guy with a sword...
And yes, i do realize that (depending on how it scales) at lower levels it will be more significant than at high levels. But i also realize that again, this is just one theme out of probably dozens. Some may be better, and some may be worse, but it's far too early for me to get worked up over something that is currently a max of 4 damage on a miss, especially when compared to 2d6+7 on a hit.
Are you concerned that without this option the fighter can't live up to his potential at being a great combatant?
Totally not concerned. For my next playest i'm going to give the fighter a sword and shield and make him a gaurdian. The cleric of Moradin gets to be the Slayer. This will allow me to test the sterotypical knight, as well as a careless dwarven cleric of moradin.
Do they ( fighters) still make that criteria without the reaper function? Do you have any ideas?
Of course they do. In a recent article it was stated that certain things (feats?) will continually increase the fighter's damage dice. That great axe becomes more deadly in their hands, but not by adding some +3 to the damage, but by increasing the size of their dice. Add that to the fact they are the only class i've seen to get the chance to take 2 swings in one turn... and they seem fine (damagewise) to me. They have other issues, but damage ain't one of them.
The difference in my example is this. He ( the goblin) would still be alive and attacking my fighter after that second miss which may kill me or give advantage or disadvantage. I am more likely to be hit as I am being attacked again by said slain goblin who by the way according to the game mechanics I have never touched. It makes a difference to be sure espesially at first level. And for 100xp per goblin. which equals 1-20th of my level in xp.
I do not agree that his xp value means anything at all. In all liklihood the party is going to win, and his xp will get distributed. The party may also tpk, in which case his XP is a moot point. His individual xp only specifically matters if he is the last goblin standing and your party is running away from him, and while humorous, i don't think i'll ever see it happen. I've already acknowleged that a continual 0-dmg misses means that the goblin lives to swing again. And it may eventually mean another hit against the party. But in very extremely rare situations will missing him more than 2-3 times actually effect the overall "big-picture" outcome of the fight. Again, the only thing that this does is marginally help speed up insignificant combats.
Again, against slightly bigger fight... let's say the big bad is dropped to 10 hp. The Slayer misses and does 4, (6hp remaining). Anyone in the party can theorhetically finish him off with a hit. If the hit does exactly 1-5 damage, the Slayer's bonus miss damage meant nothing, the next hit will kill the thing anyway. If the next hit does exactly 6-9 damage, then yes, the Slayers's damage made the difference on it dying this turn, but it still took the hit to kill it, if another party member was next in init, it likely wouldn't have mattered anyway. If the hit did 10+ damage, then the bonus from Reaper had no effect on the fight. So to me, even the times when it is significant, is really to insgnificant to care about.
It seems to me, that your main concern is managing to deliver the killing blow with a miss? And that's ok. For some people it's a hard pill to swallow. For me, in 30 years of DM'ing every edition, the times when a monster takes a blow, lands within 1-4 hp, and survives long enough to begin its next turn are too few to count...
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
After the playtest this weekend, I don't think either skill (fighter/mage) needs to change. The fighter does exactly what they are supposed to do. The fighter attacks, and holds the line. Some one mentioned, (paraphrasing) "I swing, miss, and the air kills the kobold". How about you swing, hit the leather armor they wear, and the impact caused their death? Or you swing hit the chain armor the elite is using and caused brusing? the details are what matter.
In regards to the mage, there are two ways to approach magic missle. If you are dead set against the current system, then how about the system from Soverign Stone? That is a point based magic system that is quite enjoyable (the problem is getting permission from the owners). The second solution would be make it a house rule.
Again, I don't think either aspect needs changing at this point.
Some one mentioned, (paraphrasing) "I swing, miss, and the air kills the kobold". How about you swing, hit the leather armor they wear, and the impact caused their death? Or you swing hit the chain armor the elite is using and caused brusing? the details are what matter.
In another game I played, (Dark Conspiracy), if you were shot while wearing armor it would deduct damage based off of penetration. However, for each d6 of damage that your armor prevented, you took 1 pt of impact damage.
Your description of the missing, but doing damage fits this model. Let's just hope that when the prodect is released they will include some sort explanation like this.
I started playing D&D in the 80's. I've played D&D, 1e, 2e, and 3.xe (and many other RPGs). I also played Magic since it came out (except for a few years around the change of the millennium. I say this so you know a bit of my experience, not because I care about editions.
Some one mentioned, (paraphrasing) "I swing, miss, and the air kills the kobold". How about you swing, hit the leather armor they wear, and the impact caused their death? Or you swing hit the chain armor the elite is using and caused brusing? the details are what matter.
In another game I played, (Dark Conspiracy), if you were shot while wearing armor it would deduct damage based off of penetration. However, for each d6 of damage that your armor prevented, you took 1 pt of impact damage.
Your description of the missing, but doing damage fits this model. Let's just hope that when the prodect is released they will include some sort explanation like this.
Let me explain if I may. I am for a close call rule and the reaper benefit but believe that the rule should give a target number to be in effect rather than just be anything I roll does this x amount of damage because have the reaper function. I.E. a clean miss is just that, a miss. So if I am close enough to hit that leather armor in your example then yes it happens but if I am rolling 2's and am majorly "whiffing" i.e. can't hit the side of a barn nothing happens. I see no reason to do set auto damage based on background choice. Has anyone considered whether the monsters will have this function as well as the characters, leveling the playing feild in all respects? If the tables were turned would you be happy just taking a set amount of auto damage each round making your a.c. absolutely worthless. Eating your h.p. total in two rounds and sending you to the character graveyard without ever taking a real hit or even scratching your a.c.? let alone the goblins being able to hit you on your sheild? It is an unbalanced rule and you have yet to sway me with the "I'm comfortable with the way things are" posts. Don't get me wrong folks. I like the idea I just think it needs refinement to make it valid. If you disagree with me that is alright. I respect you despite our differences of opinion. This is the last I will write to this subject for I have stated the why of my p.o.v. and have yet to have anyone explain how a roll that hits ac.7 or so even should strike the armor of the goblin who is a.c. 14.
Some one mentioned, (paraphrasing) "I swing, miss, and the air kills the kobold". How about you swing, hit the leather armor they wear, and the impact caused their death? Or you swing hit the chain armor the elite is using and caused brusing? the details are what matter.
In another game I played, (Dark Conspiracy), if you were shot while wearing armor it would deduct damage based off of penetration. However, for each d6 of damage that your armor prevented, you took 1 pt of impact damage.
Your description of the missing, but doing damage fits this model. Let's just hope that when the prodect is released they will include some sort explanation like this.
Let me explain if I may. I am for a close call rule and the reaper benefit but believe that the rule should give a target number to be in effect rather than just be anything I roll does this x amount of damage because have the reaper function. I.E. a clean miss is just that, a miss. So if I am close enough to hit that leather armor in your example then yes it happens but if I am rolling 2's and am majorly "whiffing" i.e. can't hit the side of a barn nothing happens. I see no reason to do set auto damage based on background choice. Has anyone considered whether the monsters will have this function as well as the characters, leveling the playing feild in all respects? If the tables were turned would you be happy just taking a set amount of auto damage each round making your a.c. absolutely worthless. Eating your h.p. total in two rounds and sending you to the character graveyard without ever taking a real hit or even scratching your a.c.? let alone the goblins being able to hit you on your sheild? It is an unbalanced rule and you have yet to sway me with the "I'm comfortable with the way things are" posts. Don't get me wrong folks. I like the idea I just think it needs refinement to make it valid. If you disagree with me that is alright. I respect you despite our differences of opinion. This is the last I will write to this subject for I have stated the why of my p.o.v. and have yet to have anyone explain how a roll that hits ac.7 or so even should strike the armor of the goblin who is a.c. 14.
I can see your point. The way the system is currently written, kobolds are killed instantly on a miss due to reaper(2 hp) and the goblin dies on round 2 with 2 misses(5 hp) the reaper ability should just be dropped IMO but what do I know I've only played/DM'd for 28 years
Fair enough. Now have fun play testing the 3.5 based ruleset which is very unlike 4th edition, I will let you pretend it is all just in my head.
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. I've played 1e through 4e (and enjoyed all of them). To me, this playtest (as much as we can judge it at this very very early stage) has more a feel of the pre-3.0 editions. Though, to be sure there are recognisable elements of 3.x and 4 in there.
But, that's kinda like two bald men arguing over a comb...pointless.
TBO I want nothing to do with 3.0 or 4E this 5E needs to go back to it's roots to be successful. Pathfinder has fixed all the 3.5 mistakes but I long for a more traditional game.
Did you dislike the feats from 3rd edition and 3.5? Did they change the dynamic of the game negatively in your experience? If you prefer pre. 3rd edition, do the backgrounds which resemble 2nd edition kits appeal to you? I kind of like that myself. Do you like the advantage/ disadvantage system that has been introduced? I find that has appeal and is a novel new idea. Oh by the way I hope I understood your point of view concerning prior editions of the game and pre WOTC game balance that TSR had. Didn't mean to speak for you this morning but you had been quiet for a long time. Correct me if I was off base there. What other traditional concepts do you want?
