General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
How do you make it clear to players they can't just get away with carrying a bag of flour for free blindness attacks? And, we're not talking about just In-game responses - to me, that's passive aggressive (and leads to frustration on both sides of the screen). How do you communicate to the players, and make it clear, without squashing their ambition to use stunts in the first place?
My other method for discouraging this sort of behavior...
"So let me get this straight... You are planning on hauling around several ten to twenty pounds sacks of flour, just so you can throw them at enemies' faces in order to blind them? Why don't you just use Blinding Bombs from Adventurer's Vault or Eyesting Poison from Dragon 373? Unless, of course, you'd rather be known far and wide as the Balmy Baker of Brindol."
__________________ The Pbartender
"I don't believe it. There she goes again! She's tidied up, and I can't find anything! All my tubes and wires and careful notes and antiquated notions..." - Thomas Dolby
My other method for discouraging this sort of behavior...
"So let me get this straight... You are planning on hauling around several ten to twenty pounds sacks of flour, just so you can throw them at enemies' faces in order to blind them? Why don't you just use Blinding Bombs from Adventurer's Vault or Eyesting Poison from Dragon 373? Unless, of course, you'd rather be known far and wide as the Balmy Baker of Brindol."
Is it weird that the idea of being known throughout the land as the Balmy Baker of Brindol actually increases my desire to lug around sacks of flour?
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
My other method for discouraging this sort of behavior...
"So let me get this straight... You are planning on hauling around several ten to twenty pounds sacks of flour, just so you can throw them at enemies' faces in order to blind them? Why don't you just use Blinding Bombs from Adventurer's Vault or Eyesting Poison from Dragon 373? Unless, of course, you'd rather be known far and wide as the Balmy Baker of Brindol."
Maybe, there DM doesn't allow them- I wouldn't.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
How do you make it clear to players they can't just get away with carrying a bag of flour for free blindness attacks?
1) Encumbrance rules, for one.
Yeah, I know that once you get to a certain level, encumbrance rules seldom matter in most frpgs...but it does break the habit.
2) Another way is to give them foes that aren't affected by the non-stunt stunts. Most constructs wouldn't be affected by a faceful of flour or pepper, or what have you. (Aerosolized flour that is exposed to an open flame is another mater entirely...BOOM!)
3) What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Flour them. Heck, flour and hot oil them and call them fried chicken.
4) After many successes with the stunt, they get known for using it. Then, crafty opponents will take countermeasures.
Thief 1: "Oy, mate! You're rollin' big booty tonight! You score? Land a whale?"
Thief 2: *waves to barmaid* "Liquid gold for me & me main man!" *whispering* "Bud, I got the strangest job I've ever gotten. The boss told me a Guild client would pay big clank if I'd just relieve a bunch of fancyboy wanderers of all their flour."
Thief 1: *sitting down hard, nearly missing barstool* "Flour? Flour?"
Thief 2: "Yep- my share of the bounty was 200 heavy ...and I got to keep the white stuff meself- gave it to my ladyfriend for brekkers on the morrow. I loves waffles!"
OTOH, I wouldn't worry about it too much if that turns into the PC's shtick. Warrior-Chief? No...Warrior-Chef!
One thing about the "bag of flour" trick is not so much that it's overpowered, it's that it's silly. I don't think it would really work. Was it a common trick that people who actually fought used? Does Conan (or whoever your "genre star" is) use it?
Tackling someone is not silly. It makes a lot of sense. You should be able to knock someone prone with an attack.
What do you do in that situation - when the action the PC is taking makes perfect sense yet can be "exploited"?
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Like Conan ever entered a kitchen? He was a barbarian, not a baker.
Replace "flour" with "sand" - how often have fighting heroes (in fiction, at least) tossed dirt in each other's eyes for a momentary advantage?
All the time! But it's a very situational thing; they don't carry sand around with them to throw in someone's eyes as a standard combat technique*. It only seems to work if the bad guy is not expecting the sand in the face.
* - unless they are a ninja. But in that case the "sand" or "gas" or whatever comes out of a hidden sleeve pocket or something.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
That's not the point. The point is toe A) discourage the silly exploit by enforcing common sense rules, such as suggesting they will have to lug around 100+ pounds of flour, and 2) reinforce it by presenting an alternative that works similarly, but is more in line with the rules and balance of the game*.
*Blinding Bombs from Adventurer's Vault, for example, force all targets within a burst 1 to treat non-adjacent creatures as having concealment until the end of your next turn. They cost at least 30 gp each, for the lowest level version... They have a less powerful effect than the flour-sack situation, and cost considerably more. Eyesting blinds a single target for a round, and then inflicts a -2 penalty to attacks (save ends), for at least 80 gp a dose. I'm using these two examples mainly as comparisions of similar effects from consumable items.
__________________ The Pbartender
"I don't believe it. There she goes again! She's tidied up, and I can't find anything! All my tubes and wires and careful notes and antiquated notions..." - Thomas Dolby
When I first read the post, I thought..."Ok...so...uh...what's the problem again? Are you upset that the players are being smart and using their brains?".
Then I reread it and read some other posts. IIRC, there was a statement of "So I ruled on the spot that the opponent was blinded". If that is literally what you did, *that* was your mistake, not letting them try it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with players wanting to carry a large belt pouch full of flour in hopes of using it to blind their opponent. However, it shouldn't be automatic. Have a simple to hit roll need to be made, and the target gets a save to resist/avoid it. Don't forget, if a PC is trying this, they have to have *at least* one hand (likely two; they have to open the pouch, remember?). This would be "dangerous", to say the least, in combat.
If players come up with clever and effective plans and tactics...GREAT! *That* is one of the points of the game. And, IMHO, that point trumps rules crap *any* day of the week.
Bottom line: always let your players try reasonable things if they want to. It's NOT the DM's job to say "No" just because he doesn't like something the players are doing...the DM's job is to remain neutral and say "Ok, here's what you have to roll/do...[stuff]...do you still want to try it?". Sure, sometimes there are "No" moments (ex; a fighter decides he wants to unfurl the scroll of Fireball and read it...), but, as I said, "reasonable things" should always be given a chance.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Last edited by pming; 20th June 2009 at 05:18 AM..
Paul Ming's remarks are how I would be inclined to view it as well, but I recognize that this is utterly contrary to the aesthetics that led to the problem in the first place.
If your rule is, "You can do it if you entertain the DM," then simple honesty strikes me as the best course. "No, you can't do that, because it's boring." How to square the rule with the investment in powers that is so central to 4E is not something I care to consider.
Just for the heck of it, I will observe that the problem does not appear if one grants common sense a role. There are reasons stuff-in-the-eyes (and other) stratagems are not the bread and butter of fighters in the real world. In this case, an instinctive blink can foil the trick. If one suspects what's coming, then one can dodge, avert one's gaze, or cover or close one's eyes for the necessary moment. When it works, it's not because it's "cool" but because one has arranged for the necessary element of surprise -- and got lucky.
Paul Ming's remarks are how I would be inclined to view it as well, but I recognize that this is utterly contrary to the aesthetics that led to the problem in the first place.
What aesthetic? You mean the recognition that some people want D&D to simulate action movies, and not actual real-world combat? For instance, people like the guy who persuaded Gary Gygax into making a character class based on kung-fu movies/TV series?
Quote:
If your rule is, "You can do it if you entertain the DM," then simple honesty strikes me as the best course. "No, you can't do that, because it's boring."
That's part of the rule. You're leaving out 'and entertain your fellow players'. But you're right, being honest is better than reaching for in-game justifications.
Quote:
How to square the rule with the investment in powers that is so central to 4E is not something I care to consider.
What do you mean by this?
Quote:
There are reasons stuff-in-the-eyes (and other) stratagems are not the bread and butter of fighters in the real world.
What do real world fighters have to do with this?
Real world fighters tend to use weapons very differently than D&D characters, reflecting all manner of real-world considerations that aren't addressed by the various D&D combat system(s).
D&D characters can duel with weapons meant to be used in formation to unseat armored horseman, and the rules have little to say about the efficacy of this.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
When something gets used a lot, it moves from being a stunt to a manuever. At that point it is probably best to write it up as a power and let them add it to their character sheet.
I'd think too that if you can toss sand accurately in someone's face, you can probably do other worse harm.
I would imagine, too, that blinding attacks are considered "against the laws of war". I personally find the idea of a deliberate blinding attack (for example, if the sand was a caustic agent) to be entirely repugnant.
I think that goes to the point that having a bag of flour be a blinding attack is too strong. I thought one basic idea for adjucating effects was to measure the effect against what else the player can do with the same resources. This is used a lot for deciding on spell effects, if you allow players to research new spells, where a new spell cannot be more effective than a spell of a higher level. I'm thinking this is at the heart of the original problem. And, why there would be a problem with players trying the same stunt over again: The effect is too powerful.
If I can modify the result, how would you rule if a player shoveled hot coals in the face of an NPC monster, or, to a similar effect, tossed hot oil from a skillet or a simple pot of boiling water?
"Let's say your PCs are in a kitchen when a fight breaks out. So, they're fighting, and someone gets the idea to pick up an open bag of flourr and sling it into someone's face. The GM, on the spot, rules that the target is blinded by the flower. Now, the PCs carry around pouches filled with flour where every they go, throwing it in the face of their target and blinding them. Because the GM made the ruling once, then for the sake of consistency, the rule should always be the same. Now the GM has handed the players a "Blind a guy" attack without having to spend points/a feat/a spell/whatever resource PCs use."
How do you make it clear to players they can't just get away with carrying a bag of flour for free blindness attacks?
1) Don't give an automatic blindness attack. Require some sort of roll for it.
2) Give a hefty 'originality bonus' to the roll, which makes it likely to succeed the first time, but unlikely thereafter.
You justify this by laying it out to your players: stunt rules are about entertaining game-play, not realistic simulation. Therefore, you get the bonus for doing things that are entertaining.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
