Stunting and the Bag of Flour Connundrum

[Ariosto]

Paul Ming's remarks are how I would be inclined to view it as well, but I recognize that this is utterly contrary to the aesthetics that led to the problem in the first place.

If your rule is, "You can do it if you entertain the DM," then simple honesty strikes me as the best course. "No, you can't do that, because it's boring." How to square the rule with the investment in powers that is so central to 4E is not something I care to consider.

Just for the heck of it, I will observe that the problem does not appear if one grants common sense a role. There are reasons stuff-in-the-eyes (and other) stratagems are not the bread and butter of fighters in the real world. In this case, an instinctive blink can foil the trick. If one suspects what's coming, then one can dodge, avert one's gaze, or cover or close one's eyes for the necessary moment. When it works, it's not because it's "cool" but because one has arranged for the necessary element of surprise -- and got lucky.

 

[Mallus]

Paul Ming's remarks are how I would be inclined to view it as well, but I recognize that this is utterly contrary to the aesthetics that led to the problem in the first place.

What aesthetic? You mean the recognition that some people want D&D to simulate action movies, and not actual real-world combat? For instance, people like the guy who persuaded Gary Gygax into making a character class based on kung-fu movies/TV series?

If your rule is, "You can do it if you entertain the DM," then simple honesty strikes me as the best course. "No, you can't do that, because it's boring."

That's part of the rule. You're leaving out 'and entertain your fellow players'. But you're right, being honest is better than reaching for in-game justifications.

How to square the rule with the investment in powers that is so central to 4E is not something I care to consider.

What do you mean by this?

There are reasons stuff-in-the-eyes (and other) stratagems are not the bread and butter of fighters in the real world.

What do real world fighters have to do with this?

Real world fighters tend to use weapons very differently than D&D characters, reflecting all manner of real-world considerations that aren't addressed by the various D&D combat system(s).

D&D characters can duel with weapons meant to be used in formation to unseat armored horseman, and the rules have little to say about the efficacy of this.

 

[TheWyrd]

When something gets used a lot, it moves from being a stunt to a manuever. At that point it is probably best to write it up as a power and let them add it to their character sheet.

 

[tomBitonti]

I can speak from experience that having fine sand thrown in one's face (and in one's eyes) is quite painful and quite blinding.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nobody doubts that...

But OTOH, I don't know of any special forces groups that carry sand (or flour) in their standard equipment packs.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hmm, but there is tear gas, and flash bombs.

I'd think too that if you can toss sand accurately in someone's face, you can probably do other worse harm.

I would imagine, too, that blinding attacks are considered "against the laws of war". I personally find the idea of a deliberate blinding attack (for example, if the sand was a caustic agent) to be entirely repugnant.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmm, but there is tear gas, and flash bombs.

But the FRPG analogs for those items are molotovs and various alchemical or magical items, not packets of sand or bags of flour.

 

[AllisterH]

Hasn't this aspect of D&D always been a problem?

What would you do in 2e when a player tried the same thing?

 

[tomBitonti]

I think that goes to the point that having a bag of flour be a blinding attack is too strong. I thought one basic idea for adjucating effects was to measure the effect against what else the player can do with the same resources. This is used a lot for deciding on spell effects, if you allow players to research new spells, where a new spell cannot be more effective than a spell of a higher level. I'm thinking this is at the heart of the original problem. And, why there would be a problem with players trying the same stunt over again: The effect is too powerful.

If I can modify the result, how would you rule if a player shoveled hot coals in the face of an NPC monster, or, to a similar effect, tossed hot oil from a skillet or a simple pot of boiling water?

 

[delericho]

"Let's say your PCs are in a kitchen when a fight breaks out. So, they're fighting, and someone gets the idea to pick up an open bag of flourr and sling it into someone's face. The GM, on the spot, rules that the target is blinded by the flower. Now, the PCs carry around pouches filled with flour where every they go, throwing it in the face of their target and blinding them. Because the GM made the ruling once, then for the sake of consistency, the rule should always be the same. Now the GM has handed the players a "Blind a guy" attack without having to spend points/a feat/a spell/whatever resource PCs use."

How do you make it clear to players they can't just get away with carrying a bag of flour for free blindness attacks?

1) Don't give an automatic blindness attack. Require some sort of roll for it.

2) Give a hefty 'originality bonus' to the roll, which makes it likely to succeed the first time, but unlikely thereafter.

You justify this by laying it out to your players: stunt rules are about entertaining game-play, not realistic simulation. Therefore, you get the bonus for doing things that are entertaining.