Stunting and the Bag of Flour Connundrum

[Dausuul]

I've been thinking about this lately, and leaning toward an approach where you get X number of "stunt points" (or similar resource) per encounter, probably 1 or 2, maybe more with feats. These represent the character's ability to shape the battlefield; each fight, you have time to set up 1 or 2 stunts so they have a good chance of working. Beyond that, you're depending on desperate luck.

Then set up guidelines for the DM in deciding what a stunt can do. IMO, the idea that stunts should be on par with at-wills is silly. A stunt should work better than an at-will, or why are you bothering to attempt one at all?

BUT, if you don't spend a stunt point on it, you suffer a -5 penalty on the roll (or worse), which puts the stunt below at-wills in effectiveness. So you can carry around a bag of flour if you like, and use it every combat as your one stunt; in that case, you've basically chosen "flour in the face" as an encounter power. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with a PC having a signature trick. But you're probably better off with a more versatile selection of "stunt fodder."

If the stunt is using just stuff you've got with you, I think it should be roughly equivalent to an encounter power. If it uses non-portable and unusual elements of the terrain (e.g., smashing a cask of alchemist's fire and lighting it), or if it carries a substantial risk for the PC (again with guidelines on what happens when you fail), then it could be as good as a daily.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Any "stunt" that works reliably enough to be used on a regular basis becomes a standard combat tactic. Standard combat tactics exist because they work. If they didn't, then they wouldn't become so standard.

Once a given trick is commonplace it will be used by everyone, including the PC's enemies.

One aspect of the blindness bag of tricks that promps so many to use it over and over is the rules regarding the blinded condition. Rules that prohibit being able to attack unless condition X is met is kind of a severe consequence from a bit of dust in the face. I believe such rules to be a bit over-simulationist in an abstract system.

Lets say the blinded condition resulted in a temporary -4 to hit (old Basic D&D rule). Would players still be tripping over themselves lining up to impose this condition fight after fight? We used it from time to time but it didn't become a standard move. If the rules said that blinding someone resulted in pretty much taking someone out of the fight (for a time) then you bet it would be standard procedure.

 

[roguerouge]

Stunts: if you make me or the table laugh or say it's cool, then it's a stunt. If you make me say, "Are you sure you want to do that?" then it's not a stunt, and if you do it, it'll be a wasted action. If the table reacts like it's a normal thing, you make a basic attack and you've aided another.

If I DM'ed 4e, that's how I'd do it, at least.

 

[MadMaligor]

Another way to sidestep as a DM and avoid that kind of situation from becoming commonplace is to inject a bit of realism. Rule that the bag of flour is neccessary, a small handfull will not suffice. Dousing an opponent with a handy bag of flour is one thing. Tossing a small handfull with your sweaty palms from a pouch is another (if they need a demonstration, provide one, its a pretty fun sideshow and will get a few laughs while showing them just how silly it is).

If a PC is still stubborn enough to carry around a sack full of flour, remind him/her how difficult it will be to keep the bag from being punctured or ruptured during combat, heck even walking through a dense forest, or traversing the underdark would become a serious challenge.

*edit* ps...you also might rule that bags of flour carried by a PC can cause the PC problems. When an enemy crits, instead of the extra damage, rule that the weapon ruptured the bag and a swirling cloud of flour blinds the PC.

 

[Doug McCrae]

1e has the same problem with flaming oil.

These players just don't get it. As has been said, they are trying too hard to 'win'. These kind of stunts are supposed to make the game more interesting and more varied. They're supposed to be a reward for creativity. By trying them all the time the players are making them the exact opposite of that - very, very dull.

Consistency is over-rated. With these players I think you need to introduce a rule that stunts will only work once. Per campaign, not per fight.

 

[maddman75]

Stunts are inherently inconsistent. As the Exalted players noted, blinding an opponent with a bag of flour is a cool move done spontaneously. If they carry bags of flour around, it is lame and boring, and therefore doesn't work.

What stunt rules are about is style, and if they're doing this, they don't understand the stunt rules.

 

[Cadfan]

I flat out tell my players that they can't do the same stunt over and over again because that would be lame, but if they want to make something stunt-like into a power, we'll talk.

There's always the option of resolving these things in the metagame.

 

[tomBitonti]

That idea, of having a bag of flour blind an opponent, breaks the basic 4E game mechanics. Any [W] attack could concievably blind someone (by causing a forehead bleed), or could stun someone (by a head blow), and the combat mechanics do not include that level of detail. Having the bag of flour do an extra effect is not appropriate.

To fit within the game mechanics, a bag of flour is an improvised weapon, I would say Ranged, and should do some dice of damage. Or, the bag of flour could impose a one turn -2 penalty. The idea is to map the bag of flour attack to a basic game effect.

As an aside, I don't know about flour, but when I was young I had a handful of sand thrown in my face. I was ncapacitated for several minutes. The pain was increadible. I could still see a little, but not very well.

 

[maddman75]

That idea, of having a bag of flour blind an opponent, breaks the basic 4E game mechanics. Any [W] attack could concievably blind someone (by causing a forehead bleed), or could stun someone (by a head blow), and the combat mechanics do not include that level of detail. Having the bag of flour do an extra effect is not appropriate.

I would let players try to blind or stun their opponents by hitting them with weapons if they describe it in an interesting, fun way.

Style counts.

 

[tomBitonti]

I would let players try to blind or stun their opponents by hitting them with weapons if they describe it in an interesting, fun way.

Style counts.

If that works at your table. Lots of games would not allow that.

Let me ask ... if a player (who has a 6 square movement) asked to "stretch" there move by one extra square, in exchange for a -2 to attacks and defense, would you allow it?

From a different point of view, I would think that pretty much all attacks might include debilitating effects: Stuns, blindness, jarred weapons, being forced off balance, being forced to stumble or fall, knocked out of breath, being kneed in a sensitive spot.

There are all sorts of detailed effects which would normally be possible, and which which normally be what an attack would try to achieve. But, the game rules simply do not include them in the combat model.