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

[GMforPowergamers]

I would like it back

me too.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

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

Well I don't think anyone wants Touch AC the mechanic.

But they want a simple mechanic for the concept.

I would go for "Once per round, if you miss but hit AC 16 you can deal STR damage"

 

[billd91]

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

That largely ignores the historical development of saving throws which were created as the last ditch effort for the PC to save themselves from an effect that would otherwise have been inevitable like an area attack, an enchantment, or venom. Their origin, as a concept, is distinct from AC and attack rolls.
Damage on a miss is problematic because it basically removes the chance of failure for an attack to penetrate a target's AC - and that devalues AC even more than it already is in this edition where hitting is probably the easiest it has ever been. It's, at best, gilding a lily that needs no more enhancement or a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Me. I'm on that train.

 

[Reynard]

Well I don't think anyone wants Touch AC the mechanic.

But they want a simple mechanic for the concept.

I would go for "Once per round, if you miss but hit AC 16 you can deal STR damage"

Except they just told you they did

 

[Maxperson]

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).

Those spells were different than Flamestrike or Fireball. They were built as the "Thou shalt be good or else!" or "Thou shalt be lawful or else!" spells, intended to be used against all but those of the alignment of the spell. What I loved most about the 3e Holy Word type spells was that their effects were cumulative. If the HD of the victim(s) was caster level -10, they were not only killed, but were also deafened, blinded and paralyzed!

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It actually doesn't. It makes him a Gygaxer. From the 1e DMG, page 82.

"Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5% hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points, per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment."

Hit points do not have to be all meat hit points for physical contact to be used for each hit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those spells were different than Flamestrike or Fireball. They were built as the "Thou shalt be good or else!" or "Thou shalt be lawful or else!" spells, intended to be used against all but those of the alignment of the spell. What I loved most about the 3e Holy Word type spells was that their effects were cumulative. If the HD of the victim(s) was caster level -10, they were not only killed, but were also deafened, blinded and paralyzed!

Can someone explain what @Vaalingrade was talking about? They've still got me on ignore, and as we post in all the same threads, it can get confusing.

 

[Maxperson]

Can someone explain what @Vaalingrade was talking about? They've still got me on ignore, and as we post in all the same threads, it can get confusing.

3e Holy Word spells killing neutral people, but still being labeled Good. 5e has that to a more limited degree with the Talismans of Pure Good and Evil hurting neutrals almost as badly as the opposite alignment. @Vaalingrade is saying that those spells are evil for hurting innocent neutral folks. And too an extent I agree with him. I never liked that myself. However, those particular spells are old school fire and brimstone kill the sinner(which neutral people would still be) type spells, so I can see the logic of making it "good" based on that.

 

[billd91]

3e Holy Word spells killing neutral people, but still being labeled Good. 5e has that to a more limited degree with the Talismans of Pure Good and Evil hurting neutrals almost as badly as the opposite alignment. @Vaalingrade is saying that those spells are evil for hurting innocent neutral folks. And too an extent I agree with him. I never liked that myself. However, those particular spells are old school fire and brimstone kill the sinner(which neutral people would still be) type spells, so I can see the logic of making it "good" based on that.

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.