Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)

[small pumpkin man]

Considering the 4e characters at 1st level have been ramped up to be approximately the power of a 3-4th level 3E character, this isn't exactly surprising. I've seen plenty of games (including Dark Sun) that started characters at a higher level to provide the same level of options. So I fail to really see how it's a particular strength of 4E.

If true, it would make most people's first experiance of D&D actually play like D&D's supposed to play. How can this not be a Good Thing?

 

[hong]

Considering the 4e characters at 1st level have been ramped up to be approximately the power of a 3-4th level 3E character, this isn't exactly surprising. I've seen plenty of games (including Dark Sun) that started characters at a higher level to provide the same level of options. So I fail to really see how it's a particular strength of 4E.

By this argument, it can also be claimed that a lot of 3E games never got past 15th level, and so 4E extending the "sweet spot" beyond that is not a strength either. Which is getting into generic food metaphor territory.

 

[lexoanvil]

;/ i would just handle salt as dex vs reflex and the effect gives then -2 to attack rolls untill they save. 1d4 rounds of blindness is just silly. i might consider letting them use it as a minor action provided it wouldn't be more powerful then there current minor actions.

i would be quite tempted to make this a material feat or something mainly that from my limited play testing(not real play tests mind you just the black dragon thing from ddxp) i feel like too many at will powers be a bad thing just for table management, i don't know if its different at higher lvs but i never cared for high lv spell casters in 3ED just because my players take 20 min just to decide the spell they might use and spend 10 more reading its effects.


with my current understanding of the rules i would use this

sand toss (material feat)
req:+1 attack bonus
minor action at will
to use you must have sand,salt, ash, exe and a free hand to perform a buckler will impose a -1 penalty to the roll. the target must also have eyes and they must not be covered.
dex vs reflex
success: the target will have -2 to there attack rolls
fail: negates effect
lasts untill target makes a saving throw or spends a standard action to negate the effect.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Throwing salt, tripping and disarming were daily powers in AD&D and you needed to be a rogue 10+ and select a skill.

If you use the same trick more than once per adventure, enemies get +2 on their saving throw.

If you used the same trick in 3 adventures, you can select the skill to make it an encounter power.

funny

 

[med stud]

I think throwing salt in someone's eyes fall under "Feint" in 3e. You do a trick to catch someone off guard. I wouldn't bother with coming up with saving throws and defenitly not blindness for salt- throwing.

 

[MaelStorm]

Well, Zeborah, I don't know if you ARE AintitCoolNews's Massawyrm, but if not, so did he.

For those who missed the review, Massawyrm commented that during his first 4E playtest, one of his players, who he labeled as his "game designer buddy who got us into the playtest," tried a particular stunt: his rogue ran forward and attempted to kick over a table that two of the bad guys were standing on (sound familiar?) Then said player/designer (let's call him "A.M.") turned to Massawyrm and said "so...how will you handle THAT, DM?" Massawyrm's response: "Hmm, Strength Check vs. their Reflex Defenses." At that, A.M. smiled, because that is, of course, exactly how the game suggests doing it.

For something like the salt in the eyes trick, it sounds to me like a "dirty trick" move. To me, that's more "Wisdom Check vs. their Reflex Defense," since Wisdom seems to me like the relevant attribute for attacks that rely more on cunning and treachery than anything else (like throwing stuff in your opponent's face). But since it's a thrown object, I can see the argument that it ought to be based on Dex. But the point is that there is clearly a default, always on system, for how to resolve attacks of any kind. Mike Mearls certainly hinted as much in the thread about the Bugbear Strangler, and between Massawyrm and Mouseferatu, it's been totally confirmed that said system is in the DMG, even to the point of suggesting roughly how it works mechanically. That's cool.

I imagine that helping DMs decide which attribute to use is discussed at greater length in the DMG. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

As most of the time, I think you're dead on.

 

[neceros]

I think throwing salt in someone's eyes fall under "Feint" in 3e. You do a trick to catch someone off guard. I wouldn't bother with coming up with saving throws and defenitly not blindness for salt- throwing.

Good guess, but I feel feint would be used if you were to pretend to throw salt into your opponents face.

 

[med stud]

Good guess, but I feel feint would be used if you were to pretend to throw salt into your opponents face.

The throwing of salt is the feint from a mechanical perspective. A feint is a move- action that, if successful, removes your opponents Dex-based AC.

Throwing salt in someones face will make that person incapable of mounting an effective defense while at the same time it won't negate that persons armour. I think the mechanical effect of the feint is a close simulation of salt throwing.

 

[Tuft]

Well, Zeborah, I don't know if you ARE AintitCoolNews's Massawyrm, but if not, so did he.

For those who missed the review, Massawyrm commented that during his first 4E playtest, one of his players, who he labeled as his "game designer buddy who got us into the playtest," tried a particular stunt: his rogue ran forward and attempted to kick over a table that two of the bad guys were standing on (sound familiar?) Then said player/designer (let's call him "A.M.") turned to Massawyrm and said "so...how will you handle THAT, DM?" Massawyrm's response: "Hmm, Strength Check vs. their Reflex Defenses." At that, A.M. smiled, because that is, of course, exactly how the game suggests doing it.

The big question with such freeform stunts have always been: What happens when they get close to the defined stunts, who may be restricted in some way: require purchase, have limits on usage, etc. Do you suddenly prohibit that particular freeform stunt because it duplicates something you otherwise have to pay for? In the above example, the table kick is awfully close to doing a Trip, which you (A) have to buy as a power, and (B) is limited to once per encounter.

And what happens when new splatbooks come out with new Powers? Will those further restrict the freeform stunts availabe to you?

 

[VannATLC]

The throwing of salt is the feint from a mechanical perspective. A feint is a move- action that, if successful, removes your opponents Dex-based AC.

Throwing salt in someones face will make that person incapable of mounting an effective defense while at the same time it won't negate that persons armour. I think the mechanical effect of the feint is a close simulation of salt throwing.

I've always ruled it as such.

Under 4e, I would, if the mechanic does not already exist, make it based on a Thievery Check vs Reflex, and then have combat advantage attached to it. Potentially, I would rule it against the perception defense, instead... but probably not. I also think that it is too powerful if you play it as the 3.5 feint.. which is why the 3.5 feint was so damnable hard to pull off, unless you were a bluff monkey, in which case, there was no defense, unless you were a sense motive monkey.

I prefer to make it more open to everybody, while reducing the power that caused it to be heavily restrictive in the first place.

By the same token, I'd rule most disarm/trip tactics to be the same. An action on the aggressors part that lowers the defense capabilities of the creature at the time.

However, I play with a lot of DM Fiat, especially in terms of miscellanous bonuses. I expect descriptions of feints, and the like, from my players. They've mostly learnt that a reasonable and logical attempt will get a bonus. Poorly thought out or described gets a penalty.