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

[Eric V]

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.

Why is 2 bad, again?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why is 2 bad, again?

I didn't say it was bad. For why #3 is better, see post #185.

 

[Eric V]

I didn't say it was bad. For why #3 is better, see post #185.

I guess, with a system where the 4e power exists, the answer to: 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 when it would make sense tactically to target armor" is "whenever I use Crack the Shell." It just puts the narrative power in the player's hands. I kind of liked that sort of sharing of narrative duties myself (I seem to be in the minority when I say D&D is about shared storytelling), but YMMV.

Good gaming!

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

.

And I would think your way is way too lenient, because there's no risk for the trade off. That is, the player might as well always say they're going to try to ruin the armor on every turn, because if they happen to get 5 or better, it works, and if they don't, it's the same as every other attack. And with the way AD&D works, an attack action encompasses many attacks that fall under one roll. So any time you're doing a called shot (which is what I would consider that as), a penalty would be assessed because you're no longer just taking the best opportunity of all those attacks to get any sort of hit in (represented by the attack roll), but are specifically aiming at a particular area.

 

[Lucas Yew]

To the OP:

Hard coded class features that help with the non-combat "pillars" of adventure. The Battlemaster's 7th level feature, while quite shaky, is a good start for inspirations, or so I believe.

 

[MechaPilot]

And with the way AD&D works, an attack action encompasses many attacks that fall under one roll.

I consider it to work that way in all editions. The one roll = one swing concept is very boring to me. I prefer to think of combat as being more fluid and active than that. I also think that not adhering to the one roll = one swing concept enables a greater range of combat description, and I think that's generally a good thing.

 

[MechaPilot]

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.

I'm not sure that's accurate. I've seen optional sidebars and optional rules in a lot of games, and often in D&D. I don't recall seeing many of them being used. I recall AD&D 2e's modifiers to hit armors by weapon type table, 3e's opposed save and to-hit rolls, and several other options in the core books that I have never seen in use.

 

[MechaPilot]

And I would think your way is way too lenient, because there's no risk for the trade off.

I choose to be lenient because I like to encourage players to try different things. I've found when I say "sure, but you get a penalty," players tend to back off. However, when I say "yes, but you can only do X if you beat the target number by 5+" I've found that players are more willing to try things.

Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I play the monsters as outside of the box thinkers as well.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Bingo. And that's why the idea that "Freeform games have infinite freedom" is a load of baloney. I have to convince you that my request in reasonable. In other words, every action has to go through two filters - what I, the player, think is reasonable, then narrowed down further, by what the DM thinks is reasonable. IOW, in your game I cannot do what every single 5th level fighter CAN do in 4e. (presuming, of course, they have the power)

Thus, we're back to Mother May I. By the way, it's not a kid asking a parent anything. Mother May I is a children's game. And, yup, its condescending, and it should be, because of the very disingenuous tact that those who claim freeform as a superior play style because you "can do anything". Which is flat out not true. Your own words prove that it's not true. I can only do what I can convince you is reasonable for my character to do. Note, I can think it's reasonable, but, that doesn't actually matter. The only opinion at the table that matters is the DM's. And, that's problematic for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Obryn]

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.

Okay, for starters, every RPG requires collaboration between players and DMs, and there will always be this sort of interplay when players think up something outside the rules. This is good, because otherwise the rules would be unwieldy. It's a normal part of gameplay.

Where it runs into problems is when there's a disagreement over that "reasonable" part. Your player most likely thinks it's totally reasonable to hack off some armor. If you don't, well, you win that argument. Permission denied. And you're left with some players who basically need to ask that permission for anything beyond simple attacks (which you tell this hypothetical player to stick to in your example) while others are making declarative statements about what's happening left and right.

This is why I advocate for more fiat abilities for everyone. If Presto can say, "I teleport" then what's so wrong with Hank saying, "I shoot him in the eyes to blind him" without handing out ludicrous penalties to the attempt?