Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7836562" data-attributes="member: 4937">I suppose.&nbsp; Ranged trip attacks would be incredibly useful.&nbsp; So much so I'm surprised bolo's aren't more of a thing.Historically speaking, there are at least some attempts to weaponize dust as a tool for distracting and debilitating opponents. And certainly from the perspective of genera emulating where we are going for verisimilitude and not realism, &quot;sand in the eyes&quot; is a common trope that you can expect players to want to duplicate in play.Certainly in the movies they do it all the time, although at times you'll see the good guys do it as well - I'm pretty sure I've seen Kirk do it in an episode of Star Trek.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't have a bad guy whose shtick is &quot;dirty fighter&quot;.No.Yes.You should read my link on resolving stunts included in an earlier post. While the discussion is centered on my house rules (it's part of the text that is intended to become my version of the DMG), the sort of worries you have here are expressedly covered.I'm most familiar with 3.Xe and its variants (like Pathfinder). I'm completely comfortable generating rulings that manage to say &quot;Yes&quot; without making them go-to tricks in those systems, and if I had any 5e system mastery I'm sure I could come up with comparable rulings in that system.In this case, the real get out of jail clause for me is that I can set the DC of that reflex save to whatever I feel is reasonable in the circumstance.&nbsp;&nbsp; And as I said, I'd use a circumstance bonus to adjust down the chance of success if this was tried repeatedly.&nbsp; While this sort of tactic is great for PC vs. mook, I'm completely OK with the PC's dominating mooks like protagonists in movies.&nbsp;&nbsp; It would not be terribly effective for PC versus truly threatening bad guys or peer level foes, who would simply just be likely to make their saving throw.&nbsp;&nbsp; But at worst, it isn't any worse to make a ruling like this than having a PC throwing minor debuffing spells at a target.&nbsp;&nbsp; I mean, this is much less threatening to derail the game as not rewriting the 3.5e 'Glitterdust' spell and if you are still using that spell RAW, you really can have no complaints against my house rules here which are less broken than the RAW.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7836562, member: 4937"] I suppose. Ranged trip attacks would be incredibly useful. So much so I'm surprised bolo's aren't more of a thing. Historically speaking, there are at least some attempts to weaponize dust as a tool for distracting and debilitating opponents. And certainly from the perspective of genera emulating where we are going for verisimilitude and not realism, "sand in the eyes" is a common trope that you can expect players to want to duplicate in play. Certainly in the movies they do it all the time, although at times you'll see the good guys do it as well - I'm pretty sure I've seen Kirk do it in an episode of Star Trek. There is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't have a bad guy whose shtick is "dirty fighter". No. Yes. You should read my link on resolving stunts included in an earlier post. While the discussion is centered on my house rules (it's part of the text that is intended to become my version of the DMG), the sort of worries you have here are expressedly covered. I'm most familiar with 3.Xe and its variants (like Pathfinder). I'm completely comfortable generating rulings that manage to say "Yes" without making them go-to tricks in those systems, and if I had any 5e system mastery I'm sure I could come up with comparable rulings in that system. In this case, the real get out of jail clause for me is that I can set the DC of that reflex save to whatever I feel is reasonable in the circumstance. And as I said, I'd use a circumstance bonus to adjust down the chance of success if this was tried repeatedly. While this sort of tactic is great for PC vs. mook, I'm completely OK with the PC's dominating mooks like protagonists in movies. It would not be terribly effective for PC versus truly threatening bad guys or peer level foes, who would simply just be likely to make their saving throw. But at worst, it isn't any worse to make a ruling like this than having a PC throwing minor debuffing spells at a target. I mean, this is much less threatening to derail the game as not rewriting the 3.5e 'Glitterdust' spell and if you are still using that spell RAW, you really can have no complaints against my house rules here which are less broken than the RAW. [/QUOTE]

Verification