Stunting and the Bag of Flour Connundrum

[The Shaman]

Throwing something with the intent of blinding or otherwise debilitating an enemy in a specific manner is awfully close to treading on the territory of "called shots", and very well should require just a few more rules or resources.

Does the dungeon master decide how the stunt works, for example, making up the DC (or whatever its called in 4e) for success?

If so, how is that different from other systems?

I'm thinking about other games, where if I was the referee and someone tried this, I would treat it as a attack with an improvised weapon and impose a saving throw to see if the flour (or sand or whatever) actually blinded the target or not. How is this different in 4e?

 

[LostSoul]

How is this different in 4e?

Generally speaking, the "saving throw" is part of the monster's defenses, so you'd only make the attack roll.

 

[CAFRedblade]

In either 3rd or 4th edition this type of stunt particularly sounds like a situational Bluff check to toss flour/sand into the opponents eyes.
A success would probably grant a penalty to the opponent, but not blind em.
And most likely a full round main action, (4th edition, Standard)

And a Veteran combatant would probably back off until the effect clears.

If PC's carry a belt pouch of powder for this type of endeavor, it would probably work once in combat, fool me once and all.

For other Stunts, they should always be situational, and skill dependent.
And if a particular PC wants to re-use a stunt over and over, sure, it'll work from time to time, but the more famous one gets, others hear, and that trick won't be nearly as effective, as opponents might even be expecting it.

 

[LostSoul]

For other Stunts, they should always be situational, and skill dependent.
And if a particular PC wants to re-use a stunt over and over, sure, it'll work from time to time, but the more famous one gets, others hear, and that trick won't be nearly as effective, as opponents might even be expecting it.

How would you determine if the stunt works this time or not? What in-game (gameworld, fictional, in-character, etc.) factors prompt that decision? How about out-of-game ones?

How much information do you convey to the players? Compare these two at the table:
"That's Bob the Baker of Brindol! Cover your eyes, men!"
vs.
"This guy has heard of your trick, so yeah, he's not blinded even though you hit."

(I have my own answers for these questions but since no one asked me... )

 

[Rechan]

How would you determine if the stunt works this time or not?

Say "It was a one time stunt. You can't do it any more" and be done with it.

 

[Ariosto]

How is this different in 4e?

In 4E, each character has certain powers and each power is usable only with a certain frequency (at will, per encounter or daily).

If any character could choose any level-appropriate power at the time of spending a generic encounter or daily "slot", then one could simply add "stunts" to the menu. However, "building" characters with the personal menu as a limited resource means that letting other characters use powers for which they have not "paid" in that way undermines the value of having different builds. It's a "niche protection" situation in spades.

 

[Pbartender]

Does the dungeon master decide how the stunt works, for example, making up the DC (or whatever its called in 4e) for success?

Essentially, yes... But in a slightly different manner by determining the necessary roll versus the appropriate defense of the enemy.

If so, how is that different from other systems?

At its most basic, it isn't. The details of making it happen vary, and conseqences of a bad ruling can affect different parts of the game, but the underlying process is still the same.

 

[Hussar]

And, let's not forget here, the initial call isn't really the problem. That the DM allowed a stunt to do something like this is probably a good thing. However, the problem is, because the DM allowed it once, now the player tries to repeat the stunt at will in order to get the maximum benefit he can.

In other words, the DM made a ruling that was probably too powerful, but, since it was a one time thing, it was fine. However, the player is now trying to cheese weasel his way into power by arm twisting the DM into making that ad hoc call a standard table rule.

To me, this is a table issue completely. You deal with it in the same way you deal with all table issues, by talking to the player openly and honestly. If the player insists on his way, despite the fact that you've shown him why its a bad idea, then you have larger issues at your table than this.

 

[LostSoul]

In 4E, each character has certain powers and each power is usable only with a certain frequency (at will, per encounter or daily).

If any character could choose any level-appropriate power at the time of spending a generic encounter or daily "slot", then one could simply add "stunts" to the menu. However, "building" characters with the personal menu as a limited resource means that letting other characters use powers for which they have not "paid" in that way undermines the value of having different builds. It's a "niche protection" situation in spades.

To expand on this:

Fighters have an at-will Power called Tide of Iron. You score a hit vs. AC, you deal damage based on your weapon and push the bad guy back 5 feet. You need a shield to use this power.

Let's say I have a buff (high Str) Paladin who wields a shield. I describe my attack like this: "I bash my shield in his face and force him back."

That sounds a lot like Tide of Iron, eh? There's no good in-game/fictional reason why you can't do it; it's not like it takes more time than an attack, your shield (especially if it's spiked) is probably going to hurt, and yeah. Tide of Iron "stunt". That steps on the Fighter's toes.

Where I part ways (I believe!) with Ariosto is that I think that this sort of thing should be allowed, even encouraged. I personally care more about seeing an emphasis on colour than I do about niche protection and I don't think game balance is affected - or if it is, it's worth it.

(Strictly speaking, it wouldn't be as good as Tide of Iron since you'd be using your shield as an improvised weapon, losing the weapon proficiency bonus to attack and doing only 1d4 damage.)

 

[Hussar]

I'm with Lost Soul with this.

Stunts are almost always going to step on someone's toes. Unless the stunt is really outlandish, most stunts that you want to try are going to resemble to some degree some PC's power. Given the huge number of powers there are out there, that's almost a given and, as more classes are created, the chances increase even higher.

So, how do we protect the guy who "paid" for his stunt by taking the power? Well, the rules work out fairly well here. Like Lost Soul says, if I try to Stunt Tide of Iron, I suffer penalties, and do significantly less damage.

Pretty fair trade really.