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

[Sacrosanct]

You do realize that the precedent I'm talking about isn't just AD&D, right? I even specifically called out power attack, which is in several editions.

You can play how you want, but don't tell me that I'm being too strict when you're breaking the core math of the game to get the style you want. And yes, when you allow extra effect opportunities in every attack (because if have no risk of a negative thing for failure, I WILL do it on every attack), you are breaking the core math because you're increasing the overall average damage output not an insignificant amount. In fact, with bounded accuracy of 5e, you've just turned the whole thing on it's head, since the to hit roll attrition has been replace by HP attrition. Monsters are easier to hit in 5e than in previous editions, so beating by 5 or more isn't that hard.

 

[MechaPilot]

You do realize that the precedent I'm talking about isn't just AD&D, right? I even specifically called out power attack, which is in several editions.

You can play how you want, but don't tell me that I'm being too strict when you're breaking the core math of the game to get the style you want. And yes, when you allow extra effect opportunities in every attack (because if have no risk of a negative thing for failure, I WILL do it on every attack), you are breaking the core math because you're increasing the overall average damage output not an insignificant amount. In fact, with bounded accuracy of 5e, you've just turned the whole thing on it's head, since the to hit roll attrition has been replace by HP attrition. Monsters are easier to hit in 5e than in previous editions, so beating by 5 or more isn't that hard.

I never said you are being too strict. I said you are being more strict than I am. I think you read a slight into a sentence where there was none. If you recall correctly, I also said your version sounded fair and that reasonable DMs can disagree on how to adjudicate things.

Also, the hit by 5+ roughly equates to hitting with disadvantage (which is a penalty). The only difference is that I choose to apply that penalty just to the rider and not to the normal damage. That way a player isn't forced to ask herself "do I want to try doing this cool thing and have a much greater risk of doing nothing at all, or do I want to continue just making attacks and whittling down those HPs?"

 

[Obryn]

You can play how you want, but don't tell me that I'm being too strict when you're breaking the core math of the game to get the style you want. And yes, when you allow extra effect opportunities in every attack (because if have no risk of a negative thing for failure, I WILL do it on every attack), you are breaking the core math because you're increasing the overall average damage output not an insignificant amount. In fact, with bounded accuracy of 5e, you've just turned the whole thing on it's head, since the to hit roll attrition has been replace by HP attrition.

This is precisely the argument in favor of use-limited abilities. First, it completely avoids ruining the game's core math. Second, it can be much more easily balanced against standard attacks. And third, of course, the higher tier debuffs (blind, stun, sicken, etc.) can't be easily balanced on an at-will basis, so limiting their use opens up abilities that shouldn't logically be out of reach of weapon-users.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

Explain to me how martial feats in 3E did not do the same thing? Or martial maneuvers like grappling, sundering, disarming, dirty trick, repositioning, and the like. Explain the difference.

You are making utterly unsubstantiated claims.

The only difference between 4E and 3E is caster balance, not the ability of the player to take control of the narrative. 3E martials could kick the living hell out of 4E martials. But 4E players were willing to give up the immense power of martials in 3E to get rid of the even more immense power of casters. That's the only difference. 3E martials did all kinds of crazy stuff in the game. Their damage was utterly unreal.

Do you really want to start comparing what 3E martials could do compared to 4E martials in terms damage and capabilities? You'll find out real quick the only thing a 4E martial gained was a few alternative abilities, but not any more narrative power.

 

[Bluenose]

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..

What do you consider a "normal attack" to be? If you want people to explain how their manoeuvre differs from what's normal, you should have a good grasp of what normal is.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What do you consider a "normal attack" to be? If you want people to explain how their manoeuvre differs from what's normal, you should have a good grasp of what normal is.

A normal attack is trying to do the most damage as possible. There's no "gotcha" or deeper meaning here. Since you have to go through the armor to get to the wearer, if you're trying to hurt the wearer as much as possible, it can safely be assumed that the armor will also be affected. D&D doesn't have armor points like other systems, because it's already rolled up into the AC/HP dynamic.

So if someone says, "I want to do the same damage potential, but also sunder the armor", they need to explain how they are going to do that, because it's assumed that they are hitting as hard as they can already on a regular attack.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

Sundering the enemies' armor is all fun and games, until the monsters start doing it to the PCs. That would of course solve any problems one might have, with finding stuff for the PCs to spend their loot on

 

[MechaPilot]

Sundering the enemies' armor is all fun and games, until the monsters start doing it to the PCs. That would of course solve any problems one might have, with finding stuff for the PCs to spend their loot on

When it comes to improvising and adding additional effects, I've always taken the position that what's good for the PCs is good for the monsters.

In 4e, I recall a fight where a kobold slid under the legs of one PC to end up behind her so that she would be flanked by one of its allies who moved in to attack her (granting it the benefits of extra damage and bonus to hit from it's MM entry abilities).

 

[Bluenose]

A normal attack is trying to do the most damage as possible. There's no "gotcha" or deeper meaning here. Since you have to go through the armor to get to the wearer, if you're trying to hurt the wearer as much as possible, it can safely be assumed that the armor will also be affected. D&D doesn't have armor points like other systems, because it's already rolled up into the AC/HP dynamic.

So if someone says, "I want to do the same damage potential, but also sunder the armor", they need to explain how they are going to do that, because it's assumed that they are hitting as hard as they can already on a regular attack.

Well, the D&D version is remove as many hit points as possible. How this relates to reality is hard to determine. But, if you aren't going to explain how then I imagine that should mean a penalty needs to be applied to your attempt; or we can assume that the character, a Fighter perhaps, knows how to do things you don't know how to do and similarly assume that players wanting to achieve something different also have characters that know how to do what the player can ask for but not describe how they're achieving it.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], announce you're smashing the shield to reduce the AC and there's a decent chance you'll break the arm beyond. I've done it in re-enactment combat with a blunt axe. But that's solid HP damage and an AC reduction.

 

[Eric V]

Explain to me how martial feats in 3E did not do the same thing? Or martial maneuvers like grappling, sundering, disarming, dirty trick, repositioning, and the like. Explain the difference.

I am not your clerk. Go borrow a 4e PHB, Martial Power, whatever, and take note of the powers that do things beyond feats. There, done.

You are making utterly unsubstantiated claims.

Speaking of...

The only difference between 4E and 3E is caster balance, not the ability of the player to take control of the narrative.

Unsubstantiated Claim.

3E martials could kick the living hell out of 4E martials.

Unsubstantiated Claim.

But 4E players were willing to give up the immense power of martials in 3E to get rid of the even more immense power of casters.

Unsubstantiated Claim.

For damage to be "unreal," it has to be understood in the context and math of the game. Did a 3e fighter remove a greater % of an enemy's hp in 1 round than a 4e ranger? (Both are basically strikers in their own games).

Do you really want to start comparing what 3E martials could do compared to 4E martials in terms damage and capabilities? You'll find out real quick the only thing a 4E martial gained was a few alternative abilities, but not any more narrative power.

I don't think you understand what I mean by "narrative power." I don't think you want to, either.