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

[Dragonblade]

Roll Dexterity vs. Reflex. If you succeed the opponent drops 1d6 numbers in the initiative order - or loses his minor action for the round or something.

This (above) is a MUCH better rule the than this (below):

Make a touch attack; if he fails a DC 15 fort save, he is blinded for 1d4 rounds.

The 4e version is easy to apply and when it hits is not so uber that PCs will be doing this all the time. Its also 1 single die roll and scales reasonably well with level.

The 3e version is a touch attack, meaning unless the guy has Dex out the wazoo, its guaranteed to hit. Fort 15 is going to have a pretty high failure rate at low level, but a pretty low one at high levels. When it does take effect, the opponent is pretty much crippled for anywhere from 1 round to 4 rounds.

Not insignificant considering that being blind effectively gives everyone invisibility against you. With 3e's one monster vs. the party ideal, this monster is effectively taken out of the fight and will likely die before recovering. This tactic is sufficiently uber that I foresee the PCs carrying a bag of sand/salt around in order to use this tactic A LOT. And it also requires 3 different die rolls!

In both of these example cases, we have the equivalent of two "on-the-fly" rulings by DMs. One for 3e and one for 4e. It is clear that the 4e ruling is more intuitive. Requires only one die roll vs. three, and is not so uber that PCs will attempt something like this all the time.

On all counts, the 4e method is easier, faster, and just downright better, IMO.

 

[Cadfan]

Actually, Lizard's version is incredibly abusable. At low levels, you've just turned thrown salt into an uber weapon, while making thrown salt worthless at high levels. The monk who wants to throw salt risks being annoyed at low levels when everyone copies him, and angry when his cool trademark ability starts to suck as he advances.

The basic problem remains. A martial ability in 3e generally has to be usable at will. That means it can never be better than a standard attack.* If its worse than a standard attack, it will get used almost never. If its better than a standard attack, it will be spammed. 4e provides a framework in which you CAN create martial abilities that exceed the baseline power level and still retain balance. And it fixes the scaling issue by making the strength of the attack more often dependent on the attacker.

*Technically you can make abilities which are better than regular attacks if they are situational or entail a cost, such as expensive ammunition. Good luck with that.

 

[catsclaw]

Oh, how I wish 3x had something like that!

Yeah, I've got to say the argument that you can wing it easier in 4e than 3.5 is kind of weak. I've never been at a loss for coming up with a random mechanic when I needed one.

The problem is that the mechanics which seem to make sense break down in strange ways--you can require a touch attack to hit, but then it ends up being overpowered at higher levels because touch AC doesn't scale the way normal AC does. Automatic blindness for 1d4 rounds? Way overpowered. Change it to a saving throw? Now it's overpowered at low levels and useless at high levels.

The natural "wing it" in 4e--attack against Reflex defense--actually does scale. More powerful monsters have higher reflex defense than lower monsters, and your to hit scales roughly commensurate with that, so you always have roughly the same chance to succeed (with fast monsters being harder to hit and bulky monsters being easier). The result of a hit would be "blind, save ends" so the effect lasts a round or two, not much shorter than 1d4, and monsters that are especially resilient (like Hobgoblins) can shrug it off early. It all kind of fits together, whereas in 3.5 it all kind of doesn't.

 

[Wolfspider]

On all counts, the 4e method is easier, faster, and just downright better, IMO.

What about this rule?

Throw Debris
Effect: Inflict Penalty (–3 to AC)
Drawback: Full-Round Action
Total attack roll penalty: –5

You grasp a fistful of dirt, sand, or some your opponent’s face. While he coughs take advantage of the distraction.

 

[Dragonblade]

What about this rule?

Not bad. Better than the other version. I presume this is from the Book of Iron Might? Which is basically an early Mearlsification of 3.5, ultimately leading to 4e.

I'm not saying 3.5 can't do what 4e can. I just feel that 4e can do it more intuitively and easier. YMMV, of course.

 

[Cadfan]

It needs a duration. I can't tell whether its good or bad without a duration.

If its "one round" then it sucks. Sorry, Mearls. But it does. It fails the basic test- does it do what you want it to do? What you want is to recreate cinematic moments where someone grabs sand or something and throws it in his opponent's face, then attacks while his opponent can't see. But this is a full round action, meaning that you can't attack again until next turn. So you can never personally benefit from this ability. Its works in helping your team, but it fails in recreating the movie moments I assume motivate the entire desire to throw sand or salt.

If it has a duration, I'd have to know how long it was.

 

[Cadfan]

Hehheh, and of course, to truly 3.5-ize it, you need to add one more thing.

Improved Throw Debris
Prereq: An ability score with an odd number.
Effect: Throwing debris is now a standard attack, meaning that it can be used as part of a full attack action, or during an attack of opportunity. You no longer suffer the -5 penalty to your attack roll, and the armor class penalty inflicted by Throw Debris now lasts 1d3+Wisdom Modifier years.

 

[Stormtalon]

I think I'd go with throwing sand/salt have an effect something like (cheesy name intented):

True Grit
With a quick scoop from the ground, you throw dirt in an opponent's eyes.
Encounter, Martial, Range 1
Dex vs Ref.
Hit: You and all allies have combat advantage against your target & the target has a -2 to all attacks. Save ends.
Miss: You and all allies have combat advantage against your target for 1 round.

Edit: that's how I'd stat it out as an actual power, if I were so inclined. Still, that's how I'd rule it as an ad-hoc sorta thing, just written out for convenience. In fact, I might end up making "power write-ups" for off-the cuff things my players pull, and have them handy for future reference.

 

[Zaruthustran]

And yet, people don't have a problem when you praise a game before it comes out. Why is the same not true? Hypocracy I tell you! Hypocracy!

I don't have a problem with someone praising or condemning the game after they've seen the full rules.

The playtesters have seen the full rules, and they've praised the game. This guy hasn't seen the full rules, and he's condemned the game.

One of those things is not like the other, and I'm not talking about the praise/condemn axis. I'm talking about the ignorant rant/informed opinion axis.

 

[Lizard]

Actually, Lizard's version is incredibly abusable. At low levels, you've just turned thrown salt into an uber weapon, while making thrown salt worthless at high levels. The monk who wants to throw salt risks being annoyed at low levels when everyone copies him, and angry when his cool trademark ability starts to suck as he advances.

Or I could say that an ability equally effective at all levels is bland and fails to distinguish high- and low- level play. Throwing debris is a street-level move; you don't do it to an elder wyrm. Perhaps my ad-hoc ruling is overpowered for low level play, but that's why it's ad-hoc...and we don't know how the alternative 4e ruling actually works in play because, well, no one's seen the full rules in context.

I'd WANT the ability to be useless, or nearly so, at anything over mid level, hence my original low fixed Fort save.