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

[Hussar]

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.

Only problem is, no we don't. I wasn't allowed to make this attack.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny though. I asked for an attack that would deal damage and reduce AC, but, because I don't know the first thing about armour, I got refused.

However, [MENTION=22362]MoutonRustique[/MENTION] attempts the exact same action, but because he, the player, not the character mind you, he's entirely leveraging his real world knowledge of armour, actually gets to attempt the attack, either at a penalty or with a caveat of needing a higher hit roll.

Now do you see what I'm talking about when it comes to consistency? If MoutonRustique and I were playing at the same table, I think I'd have every right to be a bit pissed off here. We are doing identical actions. There is zero difference in what we are attempting, but, because he knows more about armour than I do, he gets to try, while I get left in the dust. Or, reverse it. I make the attempt first, get denied, and then MoutonRustique cannot even make the attempt because it's already been shot down by the DM.

This is why I prefer the #2 option listed above. Not for all things. Of course there's always going to be stuff not covered. That's great. Fantastic. But, having some hard coded rules in there for actions means that I'm not entirely at the mercy of the DM whom I have to "convince" that what I'm attempting is reasonable. I mean, @ Sacrosanct has flat out said that it is reasonable since he would allow MoutonRustique to make the attempt. But, I get denied the attempt. Why? Because it wasn't reasonable when I asked for exactly the same action?

-----

OT [MENTION=6777078]RotGrub[/MENTION] weren'T you the one in this thread talking about making changes to the healing rates in 5e?

 

[Celtavian]

[MENTION=26510] Sacrosanct[/MENTION] - you mention not accepting the criticism of "Mother May I" of earlier edition systems. Let me ask you a question. If I was playing a fighter and attacking an opponent in plate mail and I said, "I want to damage him in such a way that I do regular damage and damage his armour, reducing his AC by 2 for the rest of the fight" would you accept that? I'm thinking, and certainly my experience has been, that that would not fly at any 1e or 2e table. At a 3e table, it would be problematic since Sunder only applies to held weapons/shields. I suppose I could try to sunder a shield, but, then I'm not doing damage, and it only works on something that is carrying a shield. It's not what I'm trying to do. AFAIK, there aren't 3e rules for this.

In 4e, that's a simple 5th level Fighter Daily - Crack the Shell. Easy, peasy, over and done.

That's where the idea of Mother May I comes in. When the player has to negotiate with the DM to create effects and is entirely dependent on DM Fiat in order to actually perform the action. If the DM doesn't feel that it's appropriate (I slam my mace into the side of his plate mail, denting it and making it hard to move- deal weapon damage and -2 AC for the rest of the fight) then the player cannot attempt that action. And, in play, I find that most DM's are much more likely to say no than yes to players attempting things like this.

Do you think that my example would fly at most tables? That lacking a specific power structure like 4e, I could tell the DM that I was slamming my mace into the baddies' breast plate and denting it so that he takes a -2 AC penalty for the rest of the fight would fly?

Wow. "Mother may I?" Is that the pejorative for DM control? The DM has final say rule has been in place...I don't know...since the beginning of the game. The same DM moderation that is there for any action not provided within the game rules text in any edition. That's a strange way to look at DM moderation. Just further shows how thankless DMing is. So many players want to do whatever they feel like doing while some other guy acts as their human AI running the game without impeding them in any fashion with his opinion or imagination.

If the DM says no, there's a good reason for it isn't there?

There's a solution in 5E as well called a feat. Crack the Shell Feat: Make a hit roll with Disadvantage, you hit the target lowering his AC by 2 and halving his move until the end of his next turn. There's also the possibility of a maneuver with a superiority dice being written up that works like above. Or even incorporating a general maneuver if you so wish.

Expecting the DM to allow it on the fly might make some DMs uncomfortable. Some might allow it if they can create rules on the fly. Some would prefer to work on that between sessions and provide a rule after thinking on the matter some how to best to implement such a thing whether they want to make it a feat you can learn or a new Battlemaster Maneuver or allow it as a general maneuver. I don't see why this needs to be viewed in a negative fashion in any edition of D&D. Working with a DM to accomplish something as a character that satisfies both the character and DM is part of the game. The DM needs to ensure he isn't creating something too easy and unbalanced for use within a group whereas the player is only concerned with his own character and doesn't care how it affects the balance of the game or the ability of the group to trivialize encounters.

Players complaining that the DM has final say is a selfish attitude given how many concerns the DM has to deal with before allowing a new rule. Once he allows, the player will expect him to allow it every time won't he? So it is in his purview to take the time to look at its overall effect on the game and construct a rule that works not only for the player, but for any player that wants to do it.

4E's power structure was no better at this than feats in 3E or the various power constructs in 5E for accomplishing the same. It can be done. It doesn't need to remain "Mother May I?" It should be hashed out during a period where the DM has time to reflect on its effect on the game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

I have a hard time seeing how that encourages trying new things. there is no drawback, so the SAME thing would happen every turn, not new things. You might as well make it a houserule that any attack that hits by greater than 5 also reduces AC, because that's what's going to happen. If there is no drawback, why wouldn't I say with every attack, "I try to sunder." The called shot rule in AD&D seems set up for this exact type of scenario.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

This would be a good analogy if Presto could actually teleport by player fiat. He can't--he needs to play "Mother May I?" in advance by learning the Teleport spell and preparing it. If Hank wants to blind enemies he can work out rules with the DM in advance in exactly the same way, assuming that everyone else at the table is cool with that change to the rules. (No, that's not different from Teleport. If the other players don't like Teleport being in the game it will have been banned.) He can pay either in character resources ("feats" and powers) or in runtime penalties and added complexity (called shots). The former is the 3E/4E way, the latter is the AD&D 2nd edition way.

GURPS BTW does both: anyone can attempt special maneuvers at a large penalty, but you can also buy off the penalty with specific training, which makes perfect sense.

 

[Hussar]

If the DM says no, there's a good reason for it isn't there?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...y-wrong-with-the-fighter/page22#ixzz3f5GoffCL

Really? What's the good reason here? After all, Sacrosanct said yes to the exact same action he said no to me, simply because the player was better at convincing him. Note, the reason he said no to me wasn't that it was overpowered or I was trying to get something for nothing. I wasn't acting in bad faith. Yet, two different players get two different answers for the same action

So, what's the good reason here?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Really? What's the good reason here? After all, Sacrosanct said yes to the exact same action he said no to me, simply because the player was better at convincing him.

That wasn't the same action.

 

[Hussar]

This would be a good analogy if Presto could actually teleport by player fiat. He can't--he needs to play "Mother May I?" in advance by learning the Teleport spell and preparing it. If Hank wants to blind enemies he can work out rules with the DM in advance in exactly the same way, assuming that everyone else at the table is cool with that change to the rules. (No, that's not different from Teleport. If the other players don't like Teleport being in the game it will have been banned.) He can pay either in character resources ("feats" and powers) or in runtime penalties and added complexity (called shots). The former is the 3E/4E way, the latter is the AD&D 2nd edition way.

Which edition are we talking about? Because, in 3rd edition, there is absolutely no mother may I involved. When I gain a level, I can choose teleport as one of my two granted spells automatically and I do not need to ask the DM anything. In 2e, if I'm playing a specialist wizard, I may be able to choose teleport automatically.

4e, teleport is a ritual, so, it is actually subject to availability. Same as 1e.

Not sure how we've moved from a -2 AC penalty to blinding, but, sure. I'd say this is a pretty poor example, because, AFAIK, there is no mundane way to blind someone. Called shots was an optional rule from Complete Fighter and wasn't part of 2e core. It certainly wasn't part of 1e at all. And, as I recall, blinding attacks were virtually impossible in 2e. IIRC, you actually had to hit two called shots to the eyes. Or something similarly ridiculous.

 

[Hussar]

That wasn't the same action.

How so? I asked if I could attack the armoured opponent in such a way to deal damage and deal a 2 point AC penalty. MoustonR asked for the identical action, only he detailed it further by leveraging his knowledge of armour. The end result was exactly identical.

 

[Obryn]

(No, that's not different from Teleport. If the other players don't like Teleport being in the game it will have been banned.)

No; the difference is between default-allow and default-deny. The general availability of Teleport, barring some specific setting considerations, is "Yes." And even if Teleport is specifically out, any number of other fiat spells are in the PHB. Again, by default.

You can see it above; there's a huge gap between Presto, who might have certain options banned through DM intervention; and Hank, who needs to construct specific rules with the DM.

("Called shot" gates are problematic, too, IMO, at least in D&D. They introduce such a large element of risk that it's often better not to try them at all at lower levels. And at higher levels, that same penalty could be irrelevant, turning 'called shots' into just a standard action. So Hank shoots at the bad guys' eyes every single shot because he almost can't miss anyway. Not that use-limiting is perfect, mind you, but it has the advantage of making trick shots possible at low levels while keeping high level characters from spamming them.)