D&D 4E 4e query

[LostSoul]

Light can't target creatures.

Yeah, but it's cool, so I'd say yes and allow it! If you don't think it's cool, then tell the player he's lame and should just go home.

The "Blinding Light" power I wrote is just something for useful adjudication of how I would handle that cantrip in my own game. Other people might let it do more, others less, others not let it work at all; hell, I might rule that in a certain circumstance (fighting in pitch-black) it might do damage as well!

It'd be wise to be careful with this. It'll start with using a cantrip to blind an enemy. Next thing you know, you're rolling perception checks for the Dragon every round because the Ranger Twin-Striked his eyes out in the surprise round and the Warlock is wanting to know if he can Hurl only the head through Hell.

It's nice when it's cool and original, but I'd avoid doing it if it can be used constantly and raises the power of anything significantly.

But, maybe I'm just a jerk.

Agreed; the key thing is that you don't want to allow something that's too powerful - either an attack or damage - with your ruling. Simply making Blinding Light cost a standard action probably does this; it's good in some circumstances, but not as good as a Thunderwave or Cloud of Daggers in others.

If the Ranger wants to cut out the Dragon's eyes so that he can't see anything, tell him it's too much; maybe he can give it the same -2 to attacks (or daze or blind it at higher levels), but he won't deal damage as well. The Warlock can try to hurl only the guy's head through hell, but since that is basically killing him, he'll have to reduce him to 0 hp first!

What I want to eventually do is go through the powers, make a list of general effects that you can do at each level with a standard action.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Of course it's cool. That's why I might allow it one day in one of my games. Though I think the -2 to attacks is plenty good for a Cantrip.


A breakdown of effects by level ranges would be very nice.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Sorry. Please delete.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Blinding Light
At-Will ♦ Arcane
Standard Action Ranged 5
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude
Hit: The target takes a -2 penalty to attacks until the end of your next turn.
Change to the target is dazed until the end of your next turn at level 3.
Change to the target is blinded until the end of your next turn at level 13.
Special: You can use this power multiple times per encounter, but only once on each target.

I like this option as it sets precedence for the players... yes, you can alter how a given power works and tweak it to match your out of the box thinking...but in doing so you create a new power which would have to be taken as part of your selection of abilities.

Personally, I think I would change it to {save ends}, use the normal tier breakdown for the additional effects, and possibly have the effects 'stack'..

meaning at Paragon level this attack would cause '-2 penalty to attacks {save ends} and dazed {save ends}

 

[sturmkraehe]

I agree with the posters that think using the light spell to blind creatures is a bad idea. While I agree with the DMG where it says we should entertain the creativity of the players I think in this particular case it is going beyond that intent. It is taking a utility cantrip and upping the effectiveness of the spell to something around 1st or even 2nd level.

I would consider perhaps using it as a situational modifier if my players were combatting creatures who were not used to seeing light of that intensity. Perhaps giving advantage to the character who is standing where the light is cast, otherwise I would leave it with its power as is. If the characters want to be creative they can find something that will create a blinding effect but I'm certainly not going to hand it to them on a silver platter.

 

[jeffh]

The DMG advises you to say yes to players when they do something that the rules don't cover, using page 42 to adjudicate it.

That applies to things the rules are silent on, not to things they (in this case, via the targeting rules) specifically disallow.

If the OP is looking for a RAW or RAI answer, it's no. If he's looking for a "here's a cool house rule" answer, he's in the wrong forum.

 

[LostSoul]

That applies to things the rules are silent on, not to things they (in this case, via the targeting rules) specifically disallow.

If the OP is looking for a RAW or RAI answer, it's no. If he's looking for a "here's a cool house rule" answer, he's in the wrong forum.

It's only a house rule if you think page 42 is all house rules. I don't think it is.

It's open to interpretation, obviously, but it's right there. You can have your bean-eating level 1 PC fart for 1d6+3 damage with a Con vs. Fort attack, and that's not a house rule. (A house rule would be: if you make your gas attack and your PC has eaten beans in the past day, you get a +1 to your damage roll.)

All I'm saying is that you can say no, you can't use light to blind someone, or you can say yes, you can. Either ruling is RAI and RAW.

 

[LostSoul]

It is taking a utility cantrip and upping the effectiveness of the spell to something around 1st or even 2nd level.

There are a lot of things that you can do with a standard action. You can use a skill to deal damage - the damage is listed on page 42.

This use of Light doesn't take a cantrip and make it into a 1st level at-will or 2nd-level utility; it takes your standard action, with the fictional justification of having a Light spell, and gives a bad guy a -2 to attacks until the end of your next turn on a hit.

You could do the same thing with a torch - would that turn a torch into a 1st or 2nd level power? I think not.

All this depends on the DM's ruling, yeah, but if you want to talk about the effectiveness of that standard action - look at the Paladin power Enfeebling Strike. 1[W] + the -2 to attacks. I think a hit that does the same think, without the damage, is balanced. In some situations it's better than an at-will, in most others it's worse. That sounds good to me.