Quote:
Originally Posted by tomBitonti  If that works at your table. Lots of games would not allow that.
Let me ask ... if a player (who has a 6 square movement) asked to "stretch" there move by one extra square, in exchange for a -2 to attacks and defense, would you allow it? |
Probably. Why not? You can stretch your movement two squares for a -5 to attacks and granting combat advantage. -2 and CA in exchange for 1 square seems not unreasonable.
As far as the bags of flour go, I'm very uncomfortable with using "You can't do this any more because it isn't cool and exciting" as a justification. In the absence of a suitable stunt system to handle these things, I'd be more likely to go with:
"Okay, guys, the thing where you blinded the guy with the flour was a quick and dirty solution to a one-off stunt. If you want to keep throwing bags of flour, I'm going to have to sit down and work out a set of well-considered rules for it. I'll warn you now that flour-throwing under such rules won't work nearly as well. Given that, are you sufficiently wed to your Flinging Baker Kung Fu that I should take the time to hash out those rules? Or shall we just drop the flour business and move on?"
In other words, stunt mechanics should by default be considered non-binding and non-precedent-setting.
And yet another word from our sponsors
