Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 4833737" data-attributes="member: 58197">Probably. Why not? You can stretch your movement two squares for a -5 to attacks and granting combat advantage. -2 and CA in exchange for 1 square seems not unreasonable.As far as the bags of flour go, I'm very uncomfortable with using "You can't do this any more because it isn't cool and exciting" as a justification. In the absence of a suitable stunt system to handle these things, I'd be more likely to go with:"Okay, guys, the thing where you blinded the guy with the flour was a quick and dirty solution to a one-off stunt. If you want to keep throwing bags of flour, I'm going to have to sit down and work out a set of well-considered rules for it. I'll warn you now that flour-throwing under such rules won't work nearly as well. Given that, are you sufficiently wed to your Flinging Baker Kung Fu that I should take the time to hash out those rules? Or shall we just drop the flour business and move on?"In other words, stunt mechanics should by default be considered non-binding and non-precedent-setting.</blockquote>