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

[MechaPilot]

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.

It encourages the trying of new things because there is no perceived punishment for the attempt.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Which edition are we talking about?

5E.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Without looking at the details of his request: he asked if he could cut straps and such inside the armor. The virtual DM (Sacrosanct) allowed as how that would be reasonable if done at a penalty. No HP damage was granted by the DM, but the action was allowed.

You asked if you could do HP damage and also degrade armor. That's a different request at a different level of abstraction, and the answer was "Not as such."

 

[Hussar]

Without looking at the details of his request: he asked if he could cut straps and such inside the armor. The virtual DM (Sacrosanct) allowed as how that would be reasonable if done at a penalty. No HP damage was granted by the DM, but the action was allowed.

You asked if you could do HP damage and also degrade armor. That's a different request at a different level of abstraction, and the answer was "Not as such."

Only if you ignore context. MoutonR was building off of my point.

 

[Celtavian]

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?

So you're arguing a particular DM's actions? Or are you arguing in general? I explained why the DM should have control in general because part of his job is maintaining some semblance of game balance and controlling world options for all players and NPCs. I can't account for how every DM does things, just like you can't account for every player that abuses a rule or acts like an ass. It doesn't make DM moderation a bad thing any more than min-maxing makes player control of character building a bad thing.

There are DMs who do things players don't like. There are players who do things DM don't like. And players that do things other players don't like. In my own group, I have one player that gets annoyed by other players min-maxing or trying to push the limits of the rules to the max or metagames too much. As a DM I have to control some of this, but I also have to allow some of it to appease both players. That's part of my job as a DM.

So you arguing that DM control is a bad thing because you had a bad experience with a DM is like me arguing that that player control of character building is a bad thing because I had to deal with a min-maxer rules lawyer that tried to abuse every option he could find in the book. A bad experience does not make the convention a poor one.

Now as far as my opinion concerning the specific experience you outlined, I don't agree with how that DM handled it. As I outlined above, I do not generally like to make up rules that have a powerful effect like reducing AC on the fly. If you wanted to do something like this, I would want you to tell me in advance. I would probably work on a rule with you or a class capability. I would write it up and seek the group's input. Once I received feedback and polished it a bit, I would implement. You would now have that option as part of your repertoire. That is if I had no analogue to work with.

If I had an analogue like the Dirty Trick Maneuver in 3E. I would build a rule quickly off that maneuver allowing you to slice the buckles of the armor or do some maneuver that compromised his armor. I would have you roll using the Dirty Trick Maneuver to accomplish this.

I'm planning to incorporate the DMG maneuvers into 5E. I may work the ruling off those maneuvers. If you make some kind of contested check, you may be able to provide a limitation on the opponents armor class. No, I would not make you describe how armor works other than in a very general fashion to accomplish this.

That is how I would decide things as a DM. As I've said in the past, I like players using innovative means to achieve victory.

 

[Minigiant]

Really it comes down to the DM and Players matching in styles.

I remember having an old game where my party was facing humaniods with gaze attacks and regenerating heads. The DM let the warlock shoot eldritch blasts at their faces at no penalty with blinding because magic. My fighter dealt no damage on headshots. And the wizard was shot down on the autohit magic missiles to the face as "magic missiles always aim for the soul and they souls are in their chests." The wizard player was so mad, he tried to have his wizard invent "Magic Missile to the Face" and was shot down again as a NPC wizard explained Arcane Targeting Theory and Divination Soul Search Engines.

Its all about the player and DM having similar ideas of the game. My setting has strict rules from magic so a wizard just can't recreate some effects at certain potencies. I also have certain ideas on the penalties and bonuses of weapon attacks and skill check. The DMG provides some guidelines and insights so when I change things, the players have a leg to stand on for arguments and consequences.

Hence my belief that the thing wrong with the fighter is too few subclasses. There should be more and let DMs ban stuff ahead of time so players know.

 

[Eric V]

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.

Some people just have real problems giving some of the narrative control to the players, which is what martial powers in 4e really accomplish. To be sure, even though hundreds of such powers existed, there were still corner cases where one might attempt something that wasn't covered, and you'd be in "Mother, May I?" scenario...only at this point, with so many other fantastic maneuvers available, the likelihood of receiving a "yes" increased. It's just human nature.

Here, it's limited by whomever has the least stretchy imagination: Either the player doesn't think of it, or the DM can't see it work in her head and so therefore says "no."

Even when the negotiation happens, all of a sudden the player playing the martial character has to invoke all sorts of real-world physics, armour and battle knowledge to pull something off...in response to that most abstract of systems: Armour Class.* Meanwhile, casters just say "because magic."

Can you imagine putting casters to that same burden? "Sorry, the opponent wasn't grounded, so your lightning bolt spell does no damage to it."

*I'm kidding, Hit Points is waaaay more abstract.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It encourages the trying of new things because there is no perceived punishment for the attempt.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree then, because if you allow PCs to do above and beyond effects without any risk of a drawback, that's all you're going to get. I said this earlier, if I'm a player in your campaign, why wouldn't I declare I'm trying to sunder the armor in every attack? Can you answer that? By the logic you're using, if I as a player say, "I'm going to decapitate my opponent" and you decide that that will happen if I hit well enough while at the same time doing the same normal damage if I don't hit well enough, then I'm going to say I try it every time. Then you end up with a lot of decapitated heads and more then likely end up breaking the game because all the rest of the party will follow suit as well.

Not only that, but there's a well established precedent about risking a penalty for an above and beyond effect. Called shot rules in AD&D. Power attack in almost every other edition (take a penalty for extra damage).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Only if you ignore context. MoutonR was building off of my point.

And you're totally missing mine. I said that I fully admit that there are things I may be forgetting, that's why I ask for explanations. In your example, you didn't give me a reason, you just said "I want to do this." Well, my fighter would love to cut everyone's head off in a single blow, but that's not going to happen either. If you want something to happen above and beyond what is in the game, you need to at least give me a reason or explanation. In your case, you said you wanted to damage armor AND do the same amount of hit points, so I asked you, "How would you do an attack differently than a normal attack?" I.e., on a normal attack, you're hitting as hard as you can anyway to both armor and wearer, and that's already rolled up into the rules.

Mouton gave me an answer, but his scenario was different, because he's targeting the armor instead of the person, so I ruled that you could try that, but at a penalty and damage to the wearer would be reduced (as the weapon is trying to damage the armor straps rather than penetrate the person as much as possible).

 

[MechaPilot]

I guess we're just going to have to disagree then, because if you allow PCs to do above and beyond effects without any risk of a drawback, that's all you're going to get.

You do realize that you're not actually disagreeing with me in that sentence, don't you? I mean, sure we disagree on the what method of adjudication we prefer, but you are not disagreeing with my assertion that a lack of a perceived punishment encourages attempting things beyond ordinary attacks.

I said this earlier, if I'm a player in your campaign, why wouldn't I declare I'm trying to sunder the armor in every attack? Can you answer that?

Because you might want to try other additional effects instead of sundering the armor. As an example, in my last game session, I was running a party through LMoP. They got to the first Redbrands encounter in town, and one of the players asked if he could kick the Redbrand in the head and knock him to the ground. I told him he could make a normal unarmed attack, and if he beat the AC by 5 or more the Redbrand would drop to the ground as if tripped/shoved. He succeeded in the attempt, and it encouraged another player to also attempt an unarmed strike with an additional effect (although he failed on the additional effect part).

Also, not every foe wears armor, so that's something to be aware of.

By the logic you're using, if I as a player say, "I'm going to decapitate my opponent" and you decide that that will happen if I hit well enough while at the same time doing the same normal damage if I don't hit well enough, then I'm going to say I try it every time. Then you end up with a lot of decapitated heads and more then likely end up breaking the game because all the rest of the party will follow suit as well.

I allow decapitation attempts using the hit by 5 or better ruling, but there are other conditions (an HP threshold) and the target is allowed a save of sorts (the roll has to beat the target's Con score +5).

I also allow one-hit K.O.s if you sneak up on a creature. I've seen too many instances of a PC trying to just bonk a goblin or orc on the head to K.O. it from stealth degenerate into rounds of combat instead.

Not only that, but there's a well established precedent about risking a penalty for an above and beyond effect. Called shot rules in AD&D. Power attack in almost every other edition (take a penalty for extra damage).

Precedent? This isn't a court of law. AD&D rules mean precisely nothing for any edition other than AD&D. To put it into a legal frame of reference, AD&D rules are like the decisions of non-superior courts: they can inform/persuade you, but they are not binding in any fashion.