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

[tetrasodium]

Formalizing the idea of Touch AC was one of 3e's better ideas, given that there's always been situations in the game (in all editions) where either you or a foe is only trying to touch som,enoe in order to impart some effect or other.

If 5e took it out IMO that's a step backward.

I'd add (Su) (M) & (Ex) tags on abilities alongside it. Whatever someone thinks about the way those were used for AoOs it was similarly valuable to have those sort of distinctions at times.

 

[Lanefan]

Just because something injures neutral people doesn't mean it's evil - those neutral people (by alignment) might be decidedly non-neutral (by being a partisan) in the conflict the caster in fighting in. And just because it uses the powers of good deities doesn't mean it can't be used to commit evil.

Even if those people were neutral or ambivalent toward the caster beforehand, they sure as hell won't be after they've been fireballed.

 

[James Gasik]

Hating on neutrality isn't a new thing. For example, look at what snobs Paladins used to be (see attachment):

 

[Lanefan]

It depends.

Did they say they want to create a Touch AC for every single PC and monster

For my part, yes

and have it as a resolution step on every single attack roll?

No. It would replace normal AC only when someone or something is launching a touch attack instead of a normal attack.

The resolution process remains exactly the same. You just have to swap out one AC value for another within said process.

 

[Lanefan]

The conversation was on Damage on a miss. DoaM in 5e would be a secondary check to Touch AC.

Not how I'd do it. For me, DoaM simply isn't on the table, thus I don't have to worry about how to implement it.

I want Touch AC in order to help resolve actual touch attacks, that's all.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd add (Su) (M) & (Ex) tags on abilities alongside it. Whatever someone thinks about the way those were used for AoOs it was similarly valuable to have those sort of distinctions at times.

Meh -to each their own on that one - I never really saw the need to pigeonhole abilities to that extent, but if it works for you then full steam ahead!

 

[Minigiant]

For my part, yes

No. It would replace normal AC only when someone or something is launching a touch attack instead of a normal attack.

The resolution process remains exactly the same. You just have to swap out one AC value for another within said process.

But that was not what the discussion was about though. The discussion was on Damage on a Miss from Attacks.

DoaM is the abstraction of an attack that fails to bypass defenses but is so impactful or spread up that some portion of it still wears down defenses. DoaM is targeting AC, missing but hitting Touch AC.

And simply I would hate to add Touch AC in "current 5e" as it would buff Dexterity and nerf Strength further (via nerfing heavy armor). You'd have to redo all the ability scores before I'd think it was good. That's why my house rule only allows DoaM as Strength damage.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But no one wants to bring Touch AC back.

Yep. Count me in on bringing it back as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Not how I'd do it. For me, DoaM simply isn't on the table, thus I don't have to worry about how to implement it.

I want Touch AC in order to help resolve actual touch attacks, that's all.

Touch AC does not work with 5e's armor system. It would boost light armor too much.

It only "worked" in 3e because light armor only matched heavy armor if you had tons of magic boosts to Dexterity.

Touch AC/Reflex Defense would only work if you add the other 2 defenses.

Who wants Touch AC, Stability AC, and Will AC? It only works with all 3.

 

[tetrasodium]

Touch AC does not work with 5e's armor system. It would boost armor too much.

It only "worked" in 3e because light armor only matched heavy armor if you had tons of magic boosts to Dexterity.

Touch AC/Reflex Defense would only work if you add the other 2 defenses.

Who wants Touch AC, Stability AC, and Will AC? It only works with all 3.

armor did not usually factor into touch ac in 3.x when we had touchac, what are you trying to convey when you say it would boost armor?

 

[Maxperson]

DoaM is the abstraction of an attack that fails to bypass defenses but is so impactful or spread up that some portion of it still wears down defenses. DoaM is targeting AC, missing but hitting Touch AC.

I personally don't like damage on a miss

And simply I would hate to add Touch AC in "current 5e" as it would buff Dexterity and nerf Strength further (via nerfing heavy armor). You'd have to redo all the ability scores before I'd think it was good. That's why my house rule only allows DoaM as Strength damage.

Why should armor save you from a paralyzing touch?

 

[Minigiant]

armor did not usually factor into touch ac in 3.x when we had touchac, what are you trying to convey when you say it would boost armor?

I'm saying it doesn't.

Adding Touch AC boosts the already OP DEX and nerfs the already UP STR.

Because DEX would apply to your Touch AC and only drop down 2 points max from light armor. But the drop in heavy armor could be 8-9 due to heavy armor users tended to be STR based.

So Sir Heavy in plate has AC 18 & Touch AC 11. Lord Light in studded leather has AC 17 and touch AC 15.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm saying it doesn't.

Adding Touch AC boosts the already OP DEX and nerfs the already UP STR.

Because DEX would apply to your Touch AC and only drop down 2 points max from light armor. But the drop in heavy armor could be 8-9 due to heavy armor users tended to be STR based.

So Sir Heavy in plate has AC 18 & Touch AC 11. Lord Light in studded leather has AC 17 and touch AC 15.

Not having touchac also means that I can't do things like give out splint or plate that boosts touchac that fits within bounded accuracy instead of +N splint or plate that overmatches the rather flat math within bounded accuracy though.

 

[Minigiant]

Not having touchac also means that I can't do things like give out splint or plate that boosts touchac that fits within bounded accuracy instead of +N splint or plate that overmatches the rather flat math within bounded accuracy though.

That's my point. You cant do Touch AC without replacing and redoing 5e's AC or you break the game past the limit.

It's not simply a missing rule, Touch AC is a straight up variant modular option.

 

[DND_Reborn]

One thing about Touch AC... If "touch" means actually making contact with the wearer of the armor, plate armor would still have a high Touch AC since you are probably just touching the metal of the armor, and not making contact with the wearer beneath it...

So, although I am fine if the former Touch AC was brought back, I do find normal AC to work as well anyway since to me "touch" means contact with the person, not their armor or clothes... You have to make contact with the skin of the target.

But YMMV, of course.

 

[Oofta]

Touch AC does not work with 5e's armor system. It would boost armor too much.

It only "worked" in 3e because light armor only matched heavy armor if you had tons of magic boosts to Dexterity.

Touch AC/Reflex Defense would only work if you add the other 2 defenses.

Who wants Touch AC, Stability AC, and Will AC? It only works with all 3.

I think your first sentence is incorrect and not what you're trying to say.

Personally I don't like touch attacks because it negates any armor while dex based PCs are fine. I was also going back over the 3.x rules and ... yeah. I forgot how finicky they could be at times.

Spoiler: Touch Attacks

Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

 

[Minigiant]

I think your first sentence is incorrect and not what you're trying to say.

Somehow the word "light" was removed before "armor".

Typing via phone is annoying sometimes.

Personally I don't like touch attacks because it negates any armor while dex based PCs are fine. I was also going back over the 3.x rules and ... yeah. I forgot how finicky they could be at times.

That's more or less I was saying.

Touch AC nerfs non-Dex PCs too much in 5e simplified armor system. Touch AC is missing but it would cause more problems if added without a rework.

 

[Umbran]

... but maybe your ability to understand ....

Mod Note:
Maybe you are not the one who should be rating ability to engage in interpersonal interactions.

Next time, resist the urge to make snide personal jabs. This one just earned you a trip out of the discussion.

 

[Oofta]

Somehow the word "light" was removed before "armor".

Typing via phone is annoying sometimes.

That's more or less I was saying.

Touch AC nerfs non-Dex PCs too much in 5e simplified armor system. Touch AC is missing but it would cause more problems if added without a rework.

Yeah, occasionally I type something on my phone and it just puts in a random word.

In any case, I just justify all attacks being against AC as being that the attacker has to touch relatively exposed area. Touching that fighter's shield isn't enough. Mostly though it's about balance.

I don't think there's a good answer because heavy armor should be far better than no or light armor unless you're inhumanly dextrous (over 20), but that doesn't fit common modern fantasy tropes.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, occasionally I type something on my phone and it just puts in a random word.

In any case, I just justify all attacks being against AC as being that the attacker has to touch relatively exposed area. Touching that fighter's shield isn't enough. Mostly though it's about balance.

I don't think there's a good answer because heavy armor should be far better than no or light armor unless you're inhumanly dextrous (over 20), but that doesn't fit common modern fantasy tropes.

The issue is the Sacred Cow of "Plate armor is AC* 17-19". It's too low. A adventuring suit of Plate Armor should be AC 20.

If you go the bounded accuracy route, even the weakest monster monster has a 14 in their attack score and proficiency in their weapon. That still lets them hit a 20 with a high roll. And considering that 5e doesnt give you the best armor at level 1, it's not even that bad.

If normal armor went from 11 to 20, we'd have just that much more room for missing rules like Touch AC, Partial Armor, Banded armor, Brigandine, and Multiple Shield types.

Cross fingers for 6e.