D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?

[Sacrosanct]

My distaste for "mother may I" isn't the "have a discussion with the DM" bit, it's the words use itself. The analogy to a kid asking a parent for permission. It's condescending and belittling of those people who chose to prefer rulings over rules. And it's a huge red flag to me that someone who uses it has no interest in having a discussion on the topic anyway, and therefore there is no point in continuing the conversation. It's like when people use "gun fondler" or "anti-life".

To your point, if a player asked me that in 1e, I'd explain that the way AC and HP work, all of that is already rolled up into the general mechanic. And I'd probably ask how their PC is attacking differently than what a normal attack would be. Because in my mind's eye, I can't see the difference.

"I'm going to hit the plate mail they are wearing as hard as I can, but I don't want to actually do any damage to the person wearing it. I just want to hurt the armor."
"Uh....you're hitting as hard as you can anyway with regular attacks, right? How do you expect to put a massive dent in the armor without hurting the person wearing it?"

If they can come up with a reasonable explanation that I haven't thought of, then I would go from there. No reasonable request should ever be unreasonably denied.

 

[MechaPilot]

My distaste for "mother may I" isn't the "have a discussion with the DM" bit, it's the words use itself. The analogy to a kid asking a parent for permission. It's condescending and belittling of those people who chose to prefer rulings over rules.

I can see how some might find it offensive, but if you look at the actual words and circumstances it is fairly accurate.

The DM is the final authority of the rules: so is a parent to a child.

If you want to do something not covered by the rules, the Player does need to ask the DM if she can do it: just as a child who wants candy or a toy should ask before grabbing them.

The "mother may I" question is also phrased so as to be polite and respectful to the authority being consulted. Players and DMs should treat each other with respect, and parents generally demand respect from their children.

 

[MechaPilot]

To your point, if a player asked me that in 1e, I'd explain that the way AC and HP work, all of that is already rolled up into the general mechanic. And I'd probably ask how their PC is attacking differently than what a normal attack would be. Because in my mind's eye, I can't see the difference.

"I'm going to hit the plate mail they are wearing as hard as I can, but I don't want to actually do any damage to the person wearing it. I just want to hurt the armor."
"Uh....you're hitting as hard as you can anyway with regular attacks, right? How do you expect to put a massive dent in the armor without hurting the person wearing it?"

If they can come up with a reasonable explanation that I haven't thought of, then I would go from there. No unreasonable request should ever be unreasonably denied.

You made a small error. He said he wanted to do damage and cause an AC reduction, not cause the AC reduction without doing damage.

 

[cloa513]

So you didn't do limited communications with your commander so he can give orders out of speaking distance, no stealth, no teamwork training. You didn't know how to keep your head down- how did you live until now- was it luck?

Adventurer fighters have to be roguish- a balance of skills like Delta Force or Seals not like a soldier in regular army who'd have no chance by themselves. And adventurer rogues have to be fighterish.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

One large benefit of having the DM actually come up with rules for armor damage, in the style derogatively called "Mother may I?", is that you wind up in a better end-place: not only do you know that you can damage this enemy's armor, you know what it would take to damage the next enemy's armor, you know what it would take for your buddy Bob the Barbarian to damage armor, you know when it would make sense tactically to target armor, and you know how to prevent the enemy from damaging your armor. (If the answer is, "It can't be prevented and armor-damaging is an extremely strong tactic," it's still better to know that up front.)

You don't get any of this when certain characters get a break-the-rules-but-only-me special-snowflake ability.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can see how some might find it offensive, but if you look at the actual words and circumstances it is fairly accurate.

The DM is the final authority of the rules: so is a parent to a child.

If you want to do something not covered by the rules, the Player does need to ask the DM if she can do it: just as a child who wants candy or a toy should ask before grabbing them.

The "mother may I" question is also phrased so as to be polite and respectful to the authority being consulted. Players and DMs should treat each other with respect, and parents generally demand respect from their children.

D&D is not a parent/child relationship between the DM and players. The fact that you say that with a straight face is...well...baffling. Unless you're literally playing with an adult DM with kids, that phrase is belittling and serves no purpose.

You made a small error. He said he wanted to do damage and cause an AC reduction, not cause the AC reduction without doing damage.

So? That doesn't change the point. Explain how you would attack differently to do more damage to the armor and less to the person wearing it (and that's ignoring how the mechanics are set up anyway) as opposed to a standard attack? Or even doing the same damage to the wearer and do extra to the armor?

 

[MoutonRustique]

[snip]
If they can come up with a reasonable explanation that I haven't thought of, then I would go from there. No unreasonable request should ever be unreasonably denied.

Personally this is the bit that really rankles when playing. This becomes a sort of "outwit the DM" which is always irritating to me - seeing as the education and knowledge levels vary wildly from person to person in the people I know, "talking physics" gets really old, really fast.

Its the same reaction when I see most instances of "out-of-the-box thinking" with spells or "original" use and such... ugh... like spiders on my back (the big hairy kind that walk slowly making sure you feel them being all creepy and crawly).

As something completely OT, I get the same reaction when I see "originality" in correction guidelines (I'm a high school level teacher) - I HATE that. HATE. IT. What is it supposed to mean? Original for whom? The student? Of course it is! She/He composed it! (If not, it falls under plagiarism - which is something completely different.) The teacher? How stupid is that? It makes the test harder and harder as the teacher gains experience (since he sees so many copies, it gets harder and harder to be "original"). Ugh! SO. STUPID. [/rant] [/pant]

Back on topic : While the distaste for the words is very understandable - and, of course, it has been used to belittle and has thus become an insult for many (were it meant as an insult initially is of little relevance in this regard), it is the accepted phrasing/phrase/code for this kind of situation. As such, and with all respect, it may be something you have to bear. Sort of like my enduring all the RPG manuals spell honour "honor" and armour "armor" (but I do acknowledge that yours is the heavier cross )

I'd also argue that the "ruling not rules" phrase doesn't convey the same concepts - they are analogue in many respects, but not equivalent. Each has its place.

As an attempt at explanation:
- Ruling not rules refers more to a state of game where some situations (ideally, IMO, corner cases) are left for each table to define.
- Mother may I? usually has an element of "recurrence" or "frequency" to it - it is a situation where the "permission" must be asked for success.

Let's say, the stealth rules don't explain clearly what are the requirements to hide but give broad guidelines about appropriate situations. This is more of a ruling not rules issue as once the typical conditions are met, the question the player will ask is more along the lines of "are the conditions acceptable to try and hide?" Since the fiction is usually fairly vague and most probably a bit different for each person at the table, this is quite reasonable and expected. It depends upon what people imagine the situation to be - and the DM is usually considered final arbiter of this.

On the flip side, if you get stealth guidelines that are very vague and such things as armour (yes! there is a "u" in there you hellion-damned yankee!) are not mentioned, etc. And players have to ask "permission" to attempt to have a real chance at stealth or try and use "physics" (such as "I pad the plates of my armour with cloth") to get a better chance at success, then this becomes a mother may I?.

One is where there is room for tables to set their preferences, the other entails trying to manipulate the DM into favorable rulings.

Others will probably explain it better, but that's my attempt for now.



Also, just so it is crystal clear, if your group is having fun, please go on as you were! Your style is as valid as mine.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Personally this is the bit that really rankles when playing. This becomes a sort of "outwit the DM" which is always irritating to me - seeing as the education and knowledge levels vary wildly from person to person in the people I know, "talking physics" gets really old, really fast.)

Nah, it has nothing to do with trying to outwit the DM. It's just like I said. Sometimes I don't think of everything, so I'll listen to the player's side and see if they thought of something that I totally forgot about. No reasonable request should be unreasonably denied.

I.e., it doesn't have to be a competition. We're all there to have fun, and not try to outdo each other. Act like adults and everything will be fine. In fact, if you view the game as a competition, I think you're just asking for problems.

 

[MechaPilot]

D&D is not a parent/child relationship between the DM and players. The fact that you say that with a straight face is...well...baffling. Unless you're literally playing with an adult DM with kids, that phrase is belittling and serves no purpose.

D&D is a relationship that involves one having the final authority of the rules the other must abide by, and that is very much like a parent and child relationship. The primary difference is that a player doesn't have to remain at a DM's game, while a child cannot simply leave its parent. However, if you leave the DM's table you're not playing D&D that night (unless you can find another game to play in at the last minute).

So? That doesn't change the point. Explain how you would attack differently to do more damage to the armor and less to the person wearing it (and that's ignoring how the mechanics are set up anyway) as opposed to a standard attack? Or even doing the same damage to the wearer and do extra to the armor?

How would I do it? By doing it, of course. You want a better explanation then you'll have to be less abstract about the situation. What armor is it? What are ALL of its weak points? What weapon am I using? Etc.

 

[MoutonRustique]

So? That doesn't change the point. Explain how you would attack differently to do more damage to the armor and less to the person wearing it (and that's ignoring how the mechanics are set up anyway) as opposed to a standard attack? Or even doing the same damage to the wearer and do extra to the armor?

If you're looking for an attack description in terms of fiction : I get inside the guard and shoulder shove it to gain time to attack the side stripes and buckles holding the breastplate together. Its arms having gone up and out a bit from the shove, the right (their left) side will be exposed.

After an initial downward swing on the straps/buckles, I can probably reverse grip and use the counter twist to "grab" the edged of the breastplate with the sword's guard which will give me great leverage to really bend those edges or get in some excellent sawing at the remaining straps and buckles.

... or something.

If a more "general" idea is required : "I hit the shoulder-pads with a exterior-going swing" or "I time my attack to strike from the side and then stab going in through the side but angled so I won't really hurt the foe - but the armour will get a decent rent in it."

... or something else? I don't know.