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

[Maxperson]

I grew up with those monsters. That's how I know they're evil.

I didn't grow up with them having started playing with 1e, but I pretty much never saw them used. They were too indiscriminate for the players to have their good PCs use them. The only times I saw something like Holy Word used were when A) we were fighting something like a group of only Demons/Devils, and B) no non-good/lawful/chaotic PCs were in the area yet.

 

[Minigiant]

Except they just told you they did

It depends.

Did they say they want to create a Touch AC for every single PC and monster and have it as a resolution step on every single attack roll?

Because that's what I'm talking about.

 

[glass]

People provided reasons why DoaM might be a problem, and your response was that you suspect the real reason people don't like it was that it was in 4e.

"Suspected" is an important word there. So is the "some" that you missed out from in front of "people". And even if neither of those things were the case, it still have no illusions that I had the power to "allow" anything, even if I had the desire - which was your original characterisation.

EDIT: Although @billd91 describing 4e as "the hated edition" does rather less to disprove my point than they presumably think it does.

_
glass.

 

[glass]

Yes they would, but Fireball and Flame Strike aren't good aligned like Holy Word is.

Holy Word is not good aligned, it has the good descriptor. They are not the same thing.

For divine casters, that pretty-much just means they cannot cast it if they are evil and that it shuts down certain kinds of regeneration (eg Pit Fiends'). If they are arcane casters, it just means the latter (although TBF I am not aware of Holy Word's being on any arcane spell lists).

_
glass.

 

[Reynard]

It depends.

Did they say they want to create a Touch AC for every single PC and monster and have it as a resolution step on every single attack roll?

Because that's what I'm talking about.

What do you mean? Touch AC was never "a resolution step on every single attack roll". It was there for certain actions that only require contact rather than breaking through the actual armor a target might be wearing. It is trivial to add it to star blocks and including it opens up options.

 

[Minigiant]

What do you mean? Touch AC was never "a resolution step on every single attack roll". It was there for certain actions that only require contact rather than breaking through the actual armor a target might be wearing. It is trivial to add it to star blocks and including it opens up options.

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

 

[Maxperson]

Holy Word is not good aligned, it has the good descriptor. They are not the same thing.

They are.

"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."

Those spells are considered to be good/evil/lawful/chaotic because of those descriptors. That's the only way that they can interact with alignment.

For divine casters, that pretty-much just means they cannot cast it if they are evil and that it shuts down certain kinds of regeneration (eg Pit Fiends'). If they are arcane casters, it just means the latter (although TBF I am not aware of Holy Word's being on any arcane spell lists).

Why can't the evil casters cast it? Because it's considered to be a good aligned spell.

Arguing that the good descriptor doesn't make the spell good, is the same as arguing that the fire descriptor doesn't describe fire spell, or the mind-affecting descriptor doesn't describe a spell that affects the mind. The good descriptor describes a good aligned spell. That's why it's a descriptor. It describes what the spell is.

 

[billd91]

"Suspected" is an important word there. So is the "some" that you missed out from in front of "people". And even if neither of those things were the case, it still have no illusions that I had the power to "allow" anything, even if I had the desire - which was your original characterisation.

EDIT: Although @billd91 describing 4e as "the hated edition" does rather less to disprove my point than they presumably think it does.

_
glass.

You may not have grokked it, but that's a parenthetical in that sentence, emphasized by the use of the dash. You're choosing to read it as literal, but maybe your ability to understand other people's connotations aren't as strong as you think they are...

 

[glass]

You may not have grokked it, but that's a parenthetical in that sentence, emphasized by the use of the dash. You're choosing to read it as literal, but maybe your ability to understand other people's connotations aren't as strong as you think they are...

It's being parenthetical doesn't actually help - it just means you could easily have left it out, but chose not to. Insulting me does not help either. EDIT: Never mind. I really do not want to get sucked into yet more pointless arguments in this thread!

_
glass.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

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 someone in order to impart some effect or other.

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