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.
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.
IMO the issue is a clash of a story-driven cinematic style with a simulationist style. IMO the problem is solved by the DM first coming to terms with what kind of game he wants to run, and then communicating that to the players. If a DM is running a story game and makes decisions on the fly based on what he thinks would be cool in the moment then he can't expect those rulings to hold up to simulationist examination.
Perhaps he needs to explain to players that the rules are a vehicle for telling an interesting story and not a simulation-contract of elements that the PCs can play with independant of the preferences of the DM. Or, he sticks with the simulationist contract and makes up rules for a bag of flour that fall within reasonable parameters (and therefore warriors continue to carry around swords as weapons rather than bags of flour).
Get a boffer sword. Give flour boy a dice bag filled with flour. For realism, have him store that bag inside of a backpack.
Stand within 5 feet of your friend who wants to blind foes with flour.
Have the gaming group shout, "Go!" If he can blind you before you boff the heck out of him, he gets to use flour as an encounter power. If you boff the heck out of him, he has to buy pizza for the next 3 sessions.
__________________ ENworld OAF (Old-school Admirer of 4th edition)
It's too effective and, if it's so clearly overpowered then it's not clever at all. It's blindingly obvious.
Oh, that's an awful pun and you sir, are a bad man.
And Mustrum Ridcully's point about:
Quote:
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.
is spot on. Just because it works once and uses those particular set of rules that the DM comes up with on the fly, does not mean that it is suddenly canon for all time.
And, even the most simulationist headed player will generally be groovy with that. Most players aren't going to be asshats and try to break your game. Explaining that while the idea was fine at the time, the mechanics you pulled out of your butt in the middle of the session after two or three beers, is not set in stone.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Have the gaming group shout, "Go!" If he can blind you before you boff the heck out of him, he gets to use flour as an encounter power. If you boff the heck out of him, he has to buy pizza for the next 3 sessions.
Um. This is a family friendly forum. I wouldn't discuss this stuff here.
I think that if you want to forbid plausible* actions you're missing out on a lot of interesting and creative play.
I think that the stunt/page 42 rules - aka "ask the DM how to resolve this" - goes a long way in making the game world come alive, allowing players to approach the game world as if it were a real thing, respect the fiction, all that. I think using the DM's judgement allows each group to adjust how they play the game in whatever way suits them best.
* - Each group makes its own judgement on what is plausible.
__________________ "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
Am I the only person who finds it a bit odd that throwing something in an opponent's face requires rules for performing stunts and/or the allocation of some sort of finite power resource?
Oh, and Filcher's post is priceless, by the way.
__________________ On weird fantasy: "The Otus/Elmore rule: When adding something new to the campaign, try and imagine how Erol Otus would depict it. If you can, that's far enough...it's a good idea. If you can picture a Larry Elmore version...it's far too mundane and boring, excise immediately." - Kellri, K&K Alehouse
Am I the only person who finds it a bit odd that throwing something in an opponent's face requires rules for performing stunts and/or the allocation of some sort of finite power resource?
Not exactly... Throwing something in somebody's face is just a basic ranged attack dealing damage appropriate to the object thrown, and with a little descriptive flavor text thrown in.
Throwing something with the intent of blinding or otherwise debilitating an enemy in a specific manner is awfully close to treading on the territory of "called shots", and very well should require just a few more rules or resources.
__________________ 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
Get a boffer sword. Give flour boy a dice bag filled with flour. For realism, have him store that bag inside of a backpack.
Stand within 5 feet of your friend who wants to blind foes with flour.
Have the gaming group shout, "Go!" If he can blind you before you boff the heck out of him, he gets to use flour as an encounter power. If you boff the heck out of him, he has to buy pizza for the next 3 sessions.
You sir win the thread
and probably the internets
__________________ An articulate soul trapped in an inarticulate shell
______
I'm running for ENnies Judge!
Throwing something with the intent of blinding or otherwise debilitating an enemy in a specific manner is awfully close to treading on the territory of "called shots", and very well should require just a few more rules or resources.
Does the dungeon master decide how the stunt works, for example, making up the DC (or whatever its called in 4e) for success?
If so, how is that different from other systems?
I'm thinking about other games, where if I was the referee and someone tried this, I would treat it as a attack with an improvised weapon and impose a saving throw to see if the flour (or sand or whatever) actually blinded the target or not. How is this different in 4e?
__________________ On weird fantasy: "The Otus/Elmore rule: When adding something new to the campaign, try and imagine how Erol Otus would depict it. If you can, that's far enough...it's a good idea. If you can picture a Larry Elmore version...it's far too mundane and boring, excise immediately." - Kellri, K&K Alehouse
Generally speaking, the "saving throw" is part of the monster's defenses, so you'd only make the attack roll.
__________________ "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
In either 3rd or 4th edition this type of stunt particularly sounds like a situational Bluff check to toss flour/sand into the opponents eyes.
A success would probably grant a penalty to the opponent, but not blind em.
And most likely a full round main action, (4th edition, Standard)
And a Veteran combatant would probably back off until the effect clears.
If PC's carry a belt pouch of powder for this type of endeavor, it would probably work once in combat, fool me once and all.
For other Stunts, they should always be situational, and skill dependent.
And if a particular PC wants to re-use a stunt over and over, sure, it'll work from time to time, but the more famous one gets, others hear, and that trick won't be nearly as effective, as opponents might even be expecting it.
__________________ "Hobbes: Do you think there's a God? Calvin: Well, SOMEBODY'S out to get me." - Bill Watterson -
For other Stunts, they should always be situational, and skill dependent.
And if a particular PC wants to re-use a stunt over and over, sure, it'll work from time to time, but the more famous one gets, others hear, and that trick won't be nearly as effective, as opponents might even be expecting it.
How would you determine if the stunt works this time or not? What in-game (gameworld, fictional, in-character, etc.) factors prompt that decision? How about out-of-game ones?
How much information do you convey to the players? Compare these two at the table:
"That's Bob the Baker of Brindol! Cover your eyes, men!"
vs.
"This guy has heard of your trick, so yeah, he's not blinded even though you hit."
(I have my own answers for these questions but since no one asked me... )
__________________ "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
In 4E, each character has certain powers and each power is usable only with a certain frequency (at will, per encounter or daily).
If any character could choose any level-appropriate power at the time of spending a generic encounter or daily "slot", then one could simply add "stunts" to the menu. However, "building" characters with the personal menu as a limited resource means that letting other characters use powers for which they have not "paid" in that way undermines the value of having different builds. It's a "niche protection" situation in spades.
Does the dungeon master decide how the stunt works, for example, making up the DC (or whatever its called in 4e) for success?
Essentially, yes... But in a slightly different manner by determining the necessary roll versus the appropriate defense of the enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shaman
If so, how is that different from other systems?
At its most basic, it isn't. The details of making it happen vary, and conseqences of a bad ruling can affect different parts of the game, but the underlying process is still the same.
__________________ 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
And, let's not forget here, the initial call isn't really the problem. That the DM allowed a stunt to do something like this is probably a good thing. However, the problem is, because the DM allowed it once, now the player tries to repeat the stunt at will in order to get the maximum benefit he can.
In other words, the DM made a ruling that was probably too powerful, but, since it was a one time thing, it was fine. However, the player is now trying to cheese weasel his way into power by arm twisting the DM into making that ad hoc call a standard table rule.
To me, this is a table issue completely. You deal with it in the same way you deal with all table issues, by talking to the player openly and honestly. If the player insists on his way, despite the fact that you've shown him why its a bad idea, then you have larger issues at your table than this.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
In 4E, each character has certain powers and each power is usable only with a certain frequency (at will, per encounter or daily).
If any character could choose any level-appropriate power at the time of spending a generic encounter or daily "slot", then one could simply add "stunts" to the menu. However, "building" characters with the personal menu as a limited resource means that letting other characters use powers for which they have not "paid" in that way undermines the value of having different builds. It's a "niche protection" situation in spades.
To expand on this:
Fighters have an at-will Power called Tide of Iron. You score a hit vs. AC, you deal damage based on your weapon and push the bad guy back 5 feet. You need a shield to use this power.
Let's say I have a buff (high Str) Paladin who wields a shield. I describe my attack like this: "I bash my shield in his face and force him back."
That sounds a lot like Tide of Iron, eh? There's no good in-game/fictional reason why you can't do it; it's not like it takes more time than an attack, your shield (especially if it's spiked) is probably going to hurt, and yeah. Tide of Iron "stunt". That steps on the Fighter's toes.
Where I part ways (I believe!) with Ariosto is that I think that this sort of thing should be allowed, even encouraged. I personally care more about seeing an emphasis on colour than I do about niche protection and I don't think game balance is affected - or if it is, it's worth it.
(Strictly speaking, it wouldn't be as good as Tide of Iron since you'd be using your shield as an improvised weapon, losing the weapon proficiency bonus to attack and doing only 1d4 damage.)
__________________ "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
Stunts are almost always going to step on someone's toes. Unless the stunt is really outlandish, most stunts that you want to try are going to resemble to some degree some PC's power. Given the huge number of powers there are out there, that's almost a given and, as more classes are created, the chances increase even higher.
So, how do we protect the guy who "paid" for his stunt by taking the power? Well, the rules work out fairly well here. Like Lost Soul says, if I try to Stunt Tide of Iron, I suffer penalties, and do significantly less damage.
Pretty fair trade really.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
