D&D 5E What rule(s) is 5e missing?

[James Gasik]

Ok, but why is save for half damage acceptable and damage on a miss isn't? The mechanics are almost entirely the same, save the attacker makes an attack against AC (which can include Dexterity) or the defender makes a Dexterity check against the spell save DC...but one does half damage if it "fails" and the other does not.

Further, you need a special ability (Evasion) to take absolutely no damage from Fireball, but it's the default for attacks vs. AC.

If you say "well your armor absorbs all the damage", then armor seems a bit good in that it adds to the "DC" of attacks by it's very presence, and also grants this "evasion" effect.

And since hit points are only partly damage (and in fact, include, according to Gary Gygax, "the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage- as indicated by Constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in areas such as skill in combat and similar life or death situations, the sixth sense which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection"), the fact that you take no damage on a missed attack roll and half damage on a successful Dexterity save seems suspect.

The only reason "damage on a miss" is unacceptable is that it's different. If hit points are an abstraction, and involve doing things like dodging out of the way of attacks (which Dexterity already accounts for with AC), then losing hit points just from stress and fatigue whether you take a solid blow or not, shouldn't be any more or less of an abstraction.

I mean, you may not like the idea, but there's really no logic against allowing some weapon attacks to function in this manner. The only thing standing in it's way is tradition.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Ok, but why is save for half damage acceptable and damage on a miss isn't? The mechanics are almost entirely the same, save the attacker makes an attack against AC (which can include Dexterity) or the defender makes a Dexterity check against the spell save DC...but one does half damage if it "fails" and the other does not.

Further, you need a special ability (Evasion) to take absolutely no damage from Fireball, but it's the default for attacks vs. AC.

If you say "well your armor absorbs all the damage", then armor seems a bit good in that it adds to the "DC" of attacks by it's very presence, and also grants this "evasion" effect.

And since hit points are only partly damage (and in fact, include, according to Gary Gygax, "the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage- as indicated by Constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in areas such as skill in combat and similar life or death situations, the sixth sense which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection"), the fact that you take no damage on a missed attack roll and half damage on a successful Dexterity save seems suspect.

The only reason "damage on a miss" is unacceptable is that it's different. If hit points are an abstraction, and involve doing things like dodging out of the way of attacks (which Dexterity already accounts for with AC), then losing hit points just from stress and fatigue whether you take a solid blow or not, shouldn't be any more or less of an abstraction.

I mean, you may not like the idea, but there's really no logic against allowing some weapon attacks to function in this manner. The only thing standing in it's way is tradition.

It's an interesting argument, but let's add a few details:

First, let's be sure to point out that not every Dex Save spell does half damage on a successful save. Some do none at all on a successful save.

Second, there's a rule you could institute at your table to do damage on a near miss, if you like: Success at a Cost (DMG p 242). So, yeah, damage on a miss actually is acceptable via this rule.

Third, spells very often just work differently than weapon attacks.

Fourth, logic in D&D: Sometimes it is there, sometimes it is not.

 

[Maxperson]

I just looked it up on d20srd, and you are correct, it is just a monsters spell to cast like Fireball or Dominate Person and certainly not Good on any level except the tag to indicate it is from the Good Domain. I'm trying to find the spell I'm remembering that explicitly marks out that it does less damage to Neutrals because Good in D&D is just gang colors.

You're probably remembering 3e. For 5e look at the Talisman of Ultimate Evil or Pure Good. Neutral takes slightly less damage than the good/evil alignments.

 

[Maxperson]

But that's okay because Fireball, also a notable Good Spell For Good People To Use also grievously wounds innocent bystanders.

Which is why GOOD people don't cast it on bystanders. They use it responsibly.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ok, but why is save for half damage acceptable and damage on a miss isn't? The mechanics are almost entirely the same, save the attacker makes an attack against AC (which can include Dexterity) or the defender makes a Dexterity check against the spell save DC...but one does half damage if it "fails" and the other does not.

Further, you need a special ability (Evasion) to take absolutely no damage from Fireball, but it's the default for attacks vs. AC.

If you say "well your armor absorbs all the damage", then armor seems a bit good in that it adds to the "DC" of attacks by it's very presence, and also grants this "evasion" effect.

And since hit points are only partly damage (and in fact, include, according to Gary Gygax, "the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage- as indicated by Constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in areas such as skill in combat and similar life or death situations, the sixth sense which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection"), the fact that you take no damage on a missed attack roll and half damage on a successful Dexterity save seems suspect.

The only reason "damage on a miss" is unacceptable is that it's different. If hit points are an abstraction, and involve doing things like dodging out of the way of attacks (which Dexterity already accounts for with AC), then losing hit points just from stress and fatigue whether you take a solid blow or not, shouldn't be any more or less of an abstraction.

I mean, you may not like the idea, but there's really no logic against allowing some weapon attacks to function in this manner. The only thing standing in it's way is tradition.

The mechanics are extremely different & have very little in common when taken as a whole rather than looking at one particular subcomponent absent everything tied to it.

Most spells are all or nothing & consume a spell slot either way when cast. Weapon attacks are frequently things where an attacker has multiple attacks & rarely do they consume anything when made. Even classes without multiattack like rogue will still often enjoy multiple attacks through dual wielding. In the case of ranged weapon attacks that consume ammunition the ammunition is far from a limiting factor like spell slots are.

Weapons can be changed out on a whim & given the overly generous carrying capacities of 5e there really is not even a meaningful limit to carrying extra weapons just in case. Thanks to 5e's overly simplified weapons there's rarely any meaningful difference between two weapons beyond "can I use this effectively with my build" while spells tend to be dramatically different from spell to spell. Spells known/prepared by contrast can generally only be changed out during long rests rests/leveling up depending on class & the number of known/prepared spells are strictly limited in ways that are easy for a caster to feel constrained.

 

[James Gasik]

It's an interesting argument, but let's add a few details:

First, let's be sure to point out that not every Dex Save spell does half damage on a successful save. Some do none at all on a successful save.

Second, there's a rule you could institute at your table to do damage on a near miss, if you like: Success at a Cost (DMG p 242). So, yeah, damage on a miss actually is acceptable via this rule.

Third, spells very often just work differently than weapon attacks.

Fourth, logic in D&D: Sometimes it is there, sometimes it is not.

Well only a few attacks in 4e did damage on a miss either; I would limit it to a special ability, feat or some kind of stance if it was adopted.

I'm merely commenting that the dislike levied against the mechanic since the D&D Next playtest was generally very strong by some loud voices, and the idea of including it was vehemently decried by others, without any real examination of how it could be useful.

Most arguments come down to "it doesn't make sense", which, again, I find interesting because hit points and armor class don't make a ton of sense either, to many players.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What does that have to do with it? I was under the impression you were speaking broadly of travel in play, not what the rules said.

I

Which is why GOOD people don't cast it on bystanders. They use it responsibly.

'd think the Good powers that be would provide powers that aren't so indiscriminate that it requires responsibility.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well only a few attacks in 4e did damage on a miss either; I would limit it to a special ability, feat or some kind of stance if it was adopted.

I'm merely commenting that the dislike levied against the mechanic since the D&D Next playtest was generally very strong by some loud voices, and the idea of including it was vehemently decried by others, without any real examination of how it could be useful.

Most arguments come down to "it doesn't make sense", which, again, I find interesting because hit points and armor class don't make a ton of sense either, to many players.

Basically, we need better vetting of playtesters.

 

[James Gasik]

Basically, we need better vetting of playtesters.

They want to appeal to a broad playerbase, they need a broad cross-section of playtesters. Good, bad, and indifferent, right?

 

[Maxperson]

I

'd think the Good powers that be would provide powers that aren't so indiscriminate that it requires responsibility.

Why? People need to have choice or it can't be good. If your only options are good, then it's not you.