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.
And to be completely honest, I often saw similar problems in 3E and 3.5E...
Why should I bother taking Spring Attack, for example, if my DM will let me do the same thing with the Tumble skill? Of course, then the problem was more pronounced after many of splat books came out with feats and class features that granted special attacks.
__________________ 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
Okay, I think I get it now - correct me if I'm wrong . . .
Anyone can pick up a handful of flour or sand or confetti and throw it in an opponent's eyes, and this would be called a stunt. However, the at-will power "Tide of Particulate Matter" is the same thing, but works more consistently and has a greater effect.
And the trick is to avoid having anyone who can grab a handful of whatever step on the niche of the character with "ToPM."
Am I close?
__________________ 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
There's nothing that explicitly states a stunt can't be as effective as a class power, but they're presented as exploitable situations which, by definition a character can't carry around in their pocket, so it seems reasonable that any stunt the player has complete control over, like the flour packet, would be less effective than a standard stunt (as per the cherished/dreaded page 42 of the DMG).
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Well, really, all that page 42 is some guidelines (errata'd very early on) about how to adjudicate "actions that the rules don't cover". That's the title of the section.
I'll quote some bits:
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it's your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.
That's the basic idea behind "stunting", though many in the community think that you can't/shouldn't be able to try anything you can imagine.
It talks about using a +/- 2 or granting Combat Advantage to cover many situations.
It talks about casting the action as a check; that is, you make an attack roll against a defense or a skill check against a set DC based on ... something. (There's a table of DCs that was errata'd pretty heavily, and it's unclear if you select the DC based on the PC's level or the opposition's level. I think the text leans pretty heavily towards the PC's level, but I think that's lame so I use the monster/trap/hazard/threat's level.)
Based on success, something happens. It doesn't talk about Conditions like Stunned, Blinded, Dazed, Weakened, etc.; it does have a very handy chart for damage separated into 6 categories (low-med-high for "normal" and "limited"). It says to use the limited damage expressions (higher values) for things that can only happen once, and the normal damage expressions for things that can happen all the time. edit: Damage is also based on PC level.
No mention of niche protection or grounding something in what's happening in the game world at the time, but it does have an example that "makes sense": someone wants to swing from a chandelier and kick an ogre into a flaming brazier, so they make an Acrobatics check to grab the chandelier and swing, then an attack roll to push the ogre 1 square and into the fire.
__________________ "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
Last edited by LostSoul; 24th June 2009 at 09:23 PM..
There's nothing that explicitly states a stunt can't be as effective as a class power, but they're presented as exploitable situations which, by definition a character can't carry around in their pocket, so it seems reasonable that any stunt the player has complete control over, like the flour packet, would be less effective than a standard stunt (as per the cherished/dreaded page 42 of the DMG).
Got it.
Please pardon the interruption, and carry on.
__________________ 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
__________________ Everything about RPGs is subjective, so everything I say about them is I my opinion and not hard facts
Having a backstory is good. Using this backstory in game is better. And for that you need background skills.
4E, the game where you play HSMFOS
Heroic
Only good, or at least unaligned adventurers are supported and no monster you can fight is good aligned.
Super-
The PCs become masters in any skill automatically and it is impossible for them to be bad at a mundane task
Mutants
Compared to NPCs of the same strength, PCs poses a ungodly amount of HP and can withstand huge mountains of punishment. That or they can spontaneously regenerate wounds.
From Outer Space
Yet despite no matter how powerful the PCs become, they can never do anything special what the "natives" (=NPCs) can do like animating a skeleton.
Yeah, that makes sense. Those items exist in 4E (Blinding Bombs), so there's no need for a DM ruling on something the rules don't cover.
__________________ "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
I know that, and my omission of their exception was entirely sloppiness on my part.
OTOH, they also trained with them, and took special measures to ensure their blinding powders delivery systems were constructed to work consistently when desired, at the target desired...and not to break before use.
IOW, in D&D, it would be a kind of regular or alchemical weapon that they should have to buy & train with to have any consistency with them (thus, avoiding a NP and/or Improvised weapon penalty).
IOW, in D&D, it would be a kind of regular or alchemical weapon that they should have to buy & train with to have any consistency with them (thus, avoiding a NP and/or Improvised weapon penalty).
...or a Rogue Encounter or Daily power.
Blinding Barrage... Sand in the Eyes...
__________________ 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
If it's something the player wants to repeat at-will, the effectiveness should be such that the player would be unwilling to replace either of their at-will powers with the trick. (A decent way to do this is to take the effect of an at-will power and remove the damage - c.f. Bull Rush maneuver vs. Tide of Iron.)
Faceful of Flour, at-will, is just Vicious Mockery minus the damage.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
