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

[MechaPilot]

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.

It's sort of amusing to me that your explanations are actually more detail-oriented and less abstract than the AC system the game uses. As a DM, I would really only hold a player to the same standard that the AC system uses.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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).
.

Remember what I said above about how I react to people who use that word (and you're defending the use of it)? Witness it in action.

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.

if you were a player and said this to me? I'd probably assess a penalty to hit since you're doing a special maneuver rather than a general attack that looks to take advantage of the first opening (since in AD&D, your attack roll is actually a series of attacks). And if you hit, then I'd assess a penalty to AC as you imagined.

 

[MoutonRustique]

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.

I get what you're saying - and if the shared understanding is there : there's no problem and everything is awesome (... when you're part of a team! hehehe)

From where I'm sitting, things like "I've not thought off" really implies competition - it's an invitation to argue and convince. It's setting a particular view as "correct" and challenging others to change it if they wish for a different outcome.

All this is really just arguing for arguing's sake on my part - I'll let it rest after this.

 

[MechaPilot]

if you were a player and said this to me? I'd probably assess a penalty to hit since you're doing a special maneuver rather than a general attack that looks to take advantage of the first opening (since in AD&D, your attack roll is actually a series of attacks). And if you hit, then I'd assess a penalty to AC as you imagined.

If I were to adjudicate it, I would not apply a penalty to hit; a hit would be a hit, but the extra effect would only be applied if the player hit by five or more. However, reasonable DMs can disagree about how to adjudicate things, and (depending on the degree of the penalty to the to hit roll you would apply) I think your way is also reasonable if a little more strict than my way.

Remember what I said above about how I react to people who use that word (and you're defending the use of it)? Witness it in action.

I am pointing out that there is some real accuracy to the comparison, not advocating that the phrase should be used. As I said, I can see how some find it offensive; generally speaking, I don't believe in offending people.

 

[MoutonRustique]

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.

Bolded part (1) - ideally, yes, this can be true. However, and this is certainly the part I oppose as mother may I? style, is that it very easy can be false. From my experience, it isn't the ideal scenario that is prevalent. Hence, I don't like it.

I understand this can be considered "DM consistency" and it would not be wrong. On the other hand, since so many situations are likely to come up within this framework that keeping it all straight can become a very real challenge (one which is not always met with success) there's a "set yourself up to fail" situation going with the mother may I? approach.

Bolded part (2) - this is the part where it is clear that many talk past each other (I'm including myself here) as we have vastly different base definitions in mind. One of the core precepts of mother may I? is that I don't know before hand. I have to wait until I get the "all clear" to know if what I think is possible.

What you present would be a ruling not rules situation vs a mother may I? situation - from my perspective, of course.

 

[MoutonRustique]

It's sort of amusing to me that your explanations are actually more detail-oriented and less abstract than the AC system the game uses. As a DM, I would really only hold a player to the same standard that the AC system uses.

I was just trying to figure out some options for the situation Sacrosanct was describing - he was asking the player to offer an explanation/description of how attacking the armour w/o unduly hurting the wearer would be possible.

I gave it a shot.

 

[RotGrub]

Side note. I LOVE the fact that [MENTION=6777078]RotGrub[/MENTION] presents a variant on healing that is virtually IDENTICAL to the variants presented for 4e healing, but, apparently were never good enough for 4e play, but, are exactly what is needed to make 5e feel more gritty. The more things change...

I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

 

[RotGrub]

Well, naturally, as a player you are subject to the kind of game the DM wants to run (and that other players in the group want to be part of). That happens regardless of what one's preference is, and it's not restricted to just healing preferences either.

Have you considered asking a DM/group to try an adventure using different healing rates? Or perhaps even running such a game for a group to introduce them to it? You never know, they might like the idea or enjoy the experience enough to make it a consistent rule.

I've looked for 5e games that are using the optional rules in the DMG, but I haven't found them. Now, had 5e included old school healing and resting rules as an option in the PHB I certainly wouldn't have a problem finding a game.

At the moment, I'm stuck DMing 5e and playing 2e.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What you present would be a ruling not rules situation vs a mother may I? situation - from my perspective, of course.

No, actually I'm presenting a "rules not rulings" view. If you want to be able to damage armor instead of enemies, work with your table (including the DM) to create rules for it. If they decide they don't want that kind of stuff in the game, respect that and resume play.

In short, the four alternatives are:

1.) Ad hoc judgment.
2.) Special snowflake powers for certain characters.
3.) Rules for damaging armor.
4.) Let it be and play by RAW.

I agree with you that ad hoc judgments can be grievous, but that doesn't make #2 the only or best option.

 

[Eric V]

It's sort of amusing to me that your explanations are actually more detail-oriented and less abstract than the AC system the game uses. As a DM, I would really only hold a player to the same standard that the AC system uses.

Exactly on point. That's why the 4e power (in this case, Crack the Shell) worked; it used the same abstract standard as the AC system.

Just like HP, AC is a very abstract system (unless you really believe plate armor makes one more agile and dodgy)...applying physics to it is very weird.