Stunting and the Bag of Flour Connundrum

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Just for the heck of it, I will observe that the problem does not appear if one grants common sense a role.

I am upset that I can't spread XP around for this, because to me this is the big issue; it's about whether or not common sense plays a role in the game.

The DM is the gatekeeper of "common sense". He's not a lonely god sitting on high, though, he's down in the dirt with the people playing the game. It is his responsibility to make sure that common sense rules the day, for whatever the group determines "common sense" is.

I think that is one of the great strengths of RPGs - that each group can come up with a system that suits them well.

[Mathew_Freeman]

Originally Posted by delericho

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.

I really like the idea of the "originality bonus". That's a neat way of explaining why it won't work again.

[Pbartender]

Originally Posted by Pbartender

That's not the point. The point is toe A) discourage the silly exploit by enforcing common sense rules...

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Just for the heck of it, I will observe that the problem does not appear if one grants common sense a role.

Echo!



Needless to say, I agree with Ariosto... A lot of game rule problems (not jsut this one, and not just in this edition) dissappear with a small dose of common sense.

Originally Posted by tomBitonti

Hmm, but there is tear gas, and flash bombs.

Originally Posted by Pbartender

...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...

Whaddya know... you're right. Tear gas (Blinding Bombs) and flash bombs (Jolt Flasks) both make appearances in Adventurer's Vault. Similar items were not uncommon in earlier editions.

Anyway...

As already suggested, I think part of the issue here isn't so much that the PCs want to do something cool with what they find, but that original adjudicated effect was too powerful for what it is.

It's not an easy thing to manage on the fly in the middle of a game, but some consideration has to be taken when ruling on the effect of little environmental tricks like this. The trick either needs to be locational (triggering a rockslide in a cave already weakened by an earthquake), situational (shoving an enemy in front of the 6:21 Cross-Town Express just as it passes by), or not much more useful than an At-Will (tossing sand in someone's eyes to inflict a -2 penalty on attack rolls until the end of your next turn).

There are a lot of other ways to make the very minor tricks useful, without making them better than character powers. For example, the type of action the character gets to use is a big one.

If, for example, you rule that flour in the face doesn't deal any damage but inflicts a small penalty to attacks for a round by using a move action, then it will get used occassionally but not constantly. The move action encourages players who don't need to move much to use it when they can. At the same time, it prevents them from using it constantly, because sometimes they will need to move around and any standard At-Will power will be more powerful than what they get out of the flour.

On top of that... It's okay to admit that you got it wrong and tell the players, "Look, I know you want to carry flour packets around to blind people with, but honestly... I made a mistake, and that effect is really too powerful. If you want to use cheap dust packets, that's fine, but I need to change their effect. Otherwise, here's a list of more expensive alchemical items that can blind enemies."

[Ariosto]

I mostly DM the original D&D set and play characters in AD&D, both of which leave much more up to ad hoc rulings. The approach to which I am accustomed is one in which difficult questions tend to get resolved by consensus.

Sure, as a role-player I appreciate the DM's job of keeping hidden factors that should be hidden so that I can enjoy the challenge of discovering them. However, it is often the case that there's no real need to leave the burden of adjudication purely to the DM even on that basis.

D&D is a social activity, and I find that being "on the same page" together is key to smooth going.

[Primitive Screwhead]

Originally Posted by delericho

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.

I love the stunt rules and wish my players would use them ,,, er more. Or at all for that matter. I need to set up the encounters better to have stuntable things around..

But, back on topic, I agree with Delericho. I would rule the throwing flour and or sand thusly:

Standard attack, requires flour/sand in hand
Int vs Ref ranged attack against 1 target
-2 to hit for each interventing square {you have to be close}
Hit: -2 to attacks and defences until the end of the targets turn
Crit: Target is blinded, until the end of the targets turn

This allows the original rulling of blinding the targets to remain valid while giving a valid option for future attempts.

Ninja, of course, use the higher cosing Blinding Bombs because they are better.

IIRC, there was a '101 stunts' thread floating around here somewhere...

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just a quick question...

Did you apply the "Improvised Weapon" modifiers? Or are they proficient in "throwing powders?"

Improvised Weapons

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

The original ruling of letting it work without penalty the first time could be justified (retconned) as getting a surprise bonus...one that would be absent subsequently.

[tomBitonti]

Originally Posted by Pbartender

As already suggested, I think part of the issue here isn't so much that the PCs want to do something cool with what they find, but that original adjudicated effect was too powerful for what it is.

It's not an easy thing to manage on the fly in the middle of a game, but some consideration has to be taken when ruling on the effect of little environmental tricks like this. The trick either needs to be locational (triggering a rockslide in a cave already weakened by an earthquake), situational (shoving an enemy in front of the 6:21 Cross-Town Express just as it passes by), or not much more useful than an At-Will (tossing sand in someone's eyes to inflict a -2 penalty on attack rolls until the end of your next turn).

I'm wholly in agreement with this.

Thx!

[Rechan]

To respond to a lot of the posts...

The flour circumstance did not happen in my game and it is merely an example.

As I said in the OP, it was an anecdote I picked up here on ENWorld, from a GURPS GM.

The constant replies are missing the forest for the trees. The issue is not the blindness ruling. The issue is a PC using a spur-of-the-moment stunt and turning it into a constant battle tactic which they are not spending resources to use.

[Stormtalon]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

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!)

This -- if they start to abuse it, have them encounter a group of Azers and hope they take the bait....

*edit*

The general idea is that just about every cheesy abusive tactic of this sort normally has some circumstance under which it not only doesn't work but actually makes it backfire. Once is fun, twice is good as they're getting some mileage outta their trick but after the 3rd in a row you find the weakness and show them that it's NOT a one-size-fits-all tactic and they'd better think about mixing things up.

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Rechan

The issue is a PC using a spur-of-the-moment stunt and turning it into a constant battle tactic which they are not spending resources to use.

My personal view is: does it make sense in the game world?

If it does, it should work.

[Hussar]

Put me in the "guys lets talk camp".

Say, for arguments sake, I did make the rule that flour (or sand - actually, there are 3e feats in the Sandstorm book - Sandskimmer? Sand Dancer? - that allow you to do EXACTLY this) that chucking flour in the guys face caused blindness.

Now they want to carry flour bombs.

Yeah, I'm going to put the cards on the table and say, "Look, guys, I know I made that ruling that one time, but, that was my bad. Not to take anything away from you guys, it was a cool idea and all that and I most certainly don't want to scotch that, but, if I let this become a standard attack, it's WAY overpowered. Look, causing blindness is a pretty high powered ability, far beyond your levels and it's a (encounter/daily) for (pick a class). Not something you should be able to do with 15 cp worth of ground grain."

The people I play with would be groovy with that and move on.

[Miphon]

Originally Posted by Rechan

The issue is a PC using a spur-of-the-moment stunt and turning it into a constant battle tactic which they are not spending resources to use.

I think a lot of it comes down to what level of benefit the players think they can obtain from a stunt or non-standard combat tactic. It's hard to adjudicate this in the midst of a game session, but I think that most repeatable stunts should only be as powerful as an at-will power, while stunts that are heavily dependent on environmental factors could provide more benefit as a way of rewarding players for thinking of interesting ways to interact with the combat's setting/terrain.

Despite whatever ruling you might come up with in the middle of the game, hopefully your players are open to you coming back to them afterwards with a more "formalised" ruling on how a particular stunt or tactic works. For repeatable tactics, this gives you an opportunity to research powers or abilities with similar effects so that you can make sure that you're not giving your players too much benefit for something they don't have to spend a feat or power to obtain.

An example from my game is when I decided that the bad guy wanted to get out of combat with the PCs but couldn't do so without drawing 3 attacks of opportunity. I noticed that he had a high Acrobatics skill so I decided that he would try to perform some kind of tumble as part of his move. I didn't want this maneuver to give him the same benefit as the rogue utility power Tumble, so I decided that he would make a Acrobatics check and gain +2 to AC against a PC's opportunity attack if he suceeded against their Reflex defence. The bad guy rolled successfully, but still got hit with one of the OAs and was subsequently taken down before he could flee the combat.

Later on, the party's rogue decided that he wanted to try the same tactic to get into a better position without taking a lot of opportunity attacks and asked if he could try to perform the same stunt he'd seen the NPC use. I allowed him to try and his maneuver was successful, but unfortunately for him, he still got hit with 3 of the 4 opportunity attacks his movement provoked.

After the game was over, I decided I needed to write up a formal version of this stunt and used some of the abilities provided in the skills section of the PHB as a template. In this case, I haven't changed the level of benefit the player receives if the maneuver is successful, but have instead put a restriction on the number of times it can be used per encounter similar to the use of the Bluff skill to feint in combat or to create a diversion to hide. I'm now satisfied that this ability will provide a benefit to the player when he attempts to use it, but that it's not going to be something he will use constantly. Admittedly, his last experience with trying this stunt may discourage him from ever trying this again...

[tomBitonti]

Originally Posted by Rechan

...snip...

The constant replies are missing the forest for the trees. The issue is not the blindness ruling. The issue is a PC using a spur-of-the-moment stunt and turning it into a constant battle tactic which they are not spending resources to use.

I'm finding the idea of at will/encounter/daily as a control over narrative spotlight to resonate strongly. I also like the limitations based on circumstance have a good sense to them. I think a good rule is to match the difficulty of the action or the rareness of circumstance with the power level of the effect. After all, any ability that is powerful and easy to perform should already be in the player's repertoire.

I still have difficulty with certain effects that stray outside the boundaries of the game mechanics. For example, any attack to a specific body location seems out of bounds, at least within the skirmish part of the game. Anything much beyond the skirmish mechanics might have to turn into a narrative effect, and would have to be subject to the GM's approval and within the bounds of what the player's and the GM see as fitting their game.

I also am seeing that players are not very well coached about thinking in terms of their environment, and what they can do within that environment.

Let me modify the example: Not only is there a sack of flour in the kitchen, there is a hot oven and a shelf full of pans and another with knives. A player could try to push a monster onto the oven, or could try to upend either of the shelves on their opponent.

The question is, do players ever get that level of detail, or, do they stay within the bounds of the battle grid and the limited terrain that the battle grid presents. (In effect, is their view of the battle grid the same as what you would see if you had an online gaming grid: rather limited.) Players who see a limited amount of detail might never have an opportunity to think of clever tricks or stunts, and, even if the detail is there, they might not think to use it, or the GM might downplay the effects, giving them weak results, which would discourage their use.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Pbartender

"Never forget... If you can do it, so can the monsters. Don't overdo it."

Let some of the monsters pull the same style of tricks, if the players take it too far.

Not really pertaining to the OP, but my monsters stunt all the time. It's a great way to keep combat alive and fluid.

As for the OP - I guess it can be a problem, but only if the DM makes the stunt too good.

I mean, in the example of the flour, it would be a stat vs defense attack, with no implement bonuses. Meaning at higher level, you would easily be 3-4 behind on the to-hit scale, making it hard to complete. Also, tossing a handful of flour could be considered a ranged attack of 1, thus provoking OA's. It should also take up a minor action (grab a fistful of flour in bag) as well as a standard action.

Basically, my point is, if you make decent judgement and sound rules for the stuff that they attempt, you shouldn't run into this kind of problem.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Jack99

Basically, my point is, if you make decent judgement and sound rules for the stuff that they attempt, you shouldn't run into this kind of problem.

That seems to be asking a little much, though. I think when stunting, a DM should not be required to think long about how to rule it. I think it ruins the flow of the game.

The better thing would be to make it clear to everyone that stunts are not reliable. A DMs ruling do not set the "physics" of the game world. Stunts work they way they seem appropriate at the moment they are used.

Your first use of a bag of flour fighting in a kitchen is nothing but a Dex vs Ref attack and blinds the target.
When you use it while you are carrying around bags of flours, it doesn't work that way. It might become a Ranged 1 Dex vs Ref attack, and you need a minor action to draw the flour, and it would only cause a -2 penalty to attacks. Or it doesn't work at all.

Everyone should know: Stunts are there to be cool, to be fun. They are not there to cheat. And if you keep that in mind, and try to be cool and fun, the DM will appreciate that and make your stunt an effective thing to do. If you try to cheat, the stunt will not be an effective thing to do.

[xortam]

Don't know if anyone has suggested it but what if a dungeon door slams creating a gust that blows the flour back at the PC and blinds them. Even worse bag of floor splits open in PCs hand - close burst three and blinds the whole party. Might make them think twice about it in the future...

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by pming

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.

Yes there is. It's boring.

Originally Posted by pming

If players come up with clever and effective plans and tactics...GREAT!

It's too effective and, if it's so clearly overpowered then it's not clever at all. It's blindingly obvious.

[Rel]

So, just to reiterate my earlier advice, this is why I've created a sort of "tiered" stunt system. And it has more or less solved any potential problems like this.

The PC's may always avail themselves of p42 style stunts, which can have difficulties and outcomes based roughly on the DC's and damages listed there. For something that is repeatable then I'll have the effects be fairly small to remove temptation to spam that tactic.

But for "Power Stunts" I require them spending an Action Point + Healing Surge. Here is where I let them bring the awesome, cinematic stuff because I needn't worry about establishing a bad precedent as much. These tricks are not nearly as repeatable because they need to expend a very limited resource in order to pull them off.

In the instance of the blinding flour, if they want to carry around a sack of flour and try to blind one bad guy by spending an Action Point + Healing Surge every few fights, I guess that's fine. But I don't have to worry about them doing it every round because they don't have an Action Point every round.

[webrunner]

"As you round the corner into the open cavern, you see a group of goblins discussing the relic they just unearthed. There is advanced magical machinery around, presumably for excavating."

"I ready my bag of flour"

"They hear you rustling in your pack and the four goblins all wearing work goggles turn around..."

[tomBitonti]

Originally Posted by webrunner

"As you round the corner into the open cavern, you see a group of goblins discussing the relic they just unearthed. There is advanced magical machinery around, presumably for excavating."

"I ready my bag of flour"

"They hear you rustling in your pack and the four goblins all wearing work goggles turn around..."

Hehe ...

While behind the four goblins, the boss goblin pulls out an odd mechanical device that looks like four blades on a stick. The blades start to spin ...