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

[James Gasik]

Not to touch upon the eternal alignment debate, but it's because of D&D's history with "cosmic Good" as a universal force, akin to gravity, vs. what you might call "moral Good".

The D&D multiverse says "this is a Good act". You can't argue with it, just like you can't change the weather by yelling at clouds. It just is that way. Our concept of morality, bound by our feeble mortal brains, can't comprehend ultimate Good.

I feel like we had this discussion back in the Animate Dead thread a few months back. Historically, D&D Good has very little to do with real-world Good, and the rules have never changed to reflect that, at best, you get The Book of Exalted Deeds which tries to justify the way the game rules function.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

They have fireball, and Dominates person and all sort of monstrous things they can do to people. But the gun Good puts in their hand should be... at least a little less evil.

I'm just so tired of Big G Goo being little e evil.

 

[Maxperson]

They have fireball, and Dominates person and all sort of monstrous things they can do to people. But the gun Good puts in their hand should be... at least a little less evil.

What gun? Fireball? Fireball isn't good or evil. It's just a tool that can be used or misused.

 

[glass]

Mechanically, yes. Conceptually, no.

Conceptually, both represent and attack that was somewhat successful EDIT: at wearing down the enemy but not as successful as it could have been.

Save-for-half-damage still means the spell hit you, though; and that's the difference here.

"Hit" is undefined for save spells (escept attack-roll spells which also have a save, like disintergate). "Hit" for weapon attacks is an abstract mechanical construct, just like AC and hit points are. Weapon attacks that mechanically "hit you" do not necesarily physically makes contact, and similarly, weapon attacks that "miss you" do not necesarily fail to make contact. Also, see above.

EDIT: If this is leading up to iteration #2798879 of the stupid naughty-word "meat point" argument, please count me out.

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

Depends on how you define "bad". There is a (hopefully small, but loud) subset of the playerbase for whom getting theirs is not ebough - it is important to them that other people do not get theirs, even in ways that do not negatively impact them at all. The DDN playtest appears to pay those people a lot more attention that they should have done (which is to say, "more than none").

I'm just so tired of Big G Good being little e evil.

Which is fine, but stop picking such terrible examples of that when there are plenty of really good ones right there!

What gun? Fireball? Fireball isn't good or evil. It's just a tool that can be used or misused.

The "gun" Vaalingrade is refering to is Holy Word (or Divine Smite). Although if even the possibility of colateral damage is "little e evil" then no good deity should grant Flamestrike either (or the aforementioned Fireball - via the Fire domain in 3e for example).

_
glass.

 

[Lanefan]

"Hit" is undefined for save spells (escept attack-roll spells which also have a save, like disintergate).

In this case, "hit" means you were caught in the spell's area of effect. (for the record, I've never bought into evasion-like effects that allow you to escape all damage in those situations; I merely put up with them because I'm expected to)

"Hit" for weapon attacks is an abstract mechanical construct, just like AC and hit points are. Weapon attacks that mechanically "hit you" do not necesarily physically makes contact, and similarly, weapon attacks that "miss you" do not necesarily fail to make contact. Also, see above.

I disagree. If you're hit by a weapon mechanically, that means in the fiction it makes physical contact with you in a significant enough manner to reduce your endurance by a bit (or a lot, depending). If you're missed by a weapon mechanically, that means in the fiction either it did in fact miss you completely or that any physical contact it made turned out to be irrelevant.

Now of course one can abstract hits and misses further than this if one wants, but why bother? It's way easier to conceive, narrate, and understand if you just say a hit's a hit and a miss is a miss and have done with it.

 

[glass]

I disagree.

Which makes you a meat-pointer, and I have already said I am not interested in getting into that argument again. In the interests of my own sanity (and avoiding redtext), I am going to block you for a few days so I am not tempted to get sucked in.

_
glass.

 

[Minigiant]

Ok, but why is save for half damage acceptable and damage on a miss isn't?

Because many people describe misses as whiffs.

Even though Armor and hard skin increases AC so a misses might still cause contact. But no one wants to bring Touch AC back.

 

[Reynard]

Because many people describe misses as whiffs.

Even though Armor and hard skin increases AC so a misses might still cause contact. But no one wants to bring Touch AC back.

Emphasis mine.

I bet there are a lot of people that would like to reintroduce some granular tactical detail to D&D combat, including being able to differentiate between a touch and a full solid hit.

 

[glass]

But no one wants to bring Touch AC back.

I might, kinda. Except I would prefer to call it "Reflex Defence".

 

[tetrasodium]

Because many people describe misses as whiffs.

Even though Armor and hard skin increases AC so a misses might still cause contact. But no one wants to bring Touch AC back.

I would like it back