Advocating out of common situations [Archive] - Wizards Community

Advocating out of common situations [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Omega the Powerfull
12-18-06, 11:37 AM Recently one of my players, playing a human monk during a tavern fight, wanted to jump to the candelabrum and fall over an enemy with a charge.

B) In another situation a player wanted to throw sand in the eyes of an enemy.

I've allowed and created some house rules for those situations but I think they didn't fit very well, and I would like to know how would you advocate such situations.
Salla
12-18-06, 11:55 AM In the chandelier-swinging scenario, there's not much ruling involved ... he's just moving, with an added bit of flair involved with the swing rather than just jumping on the opposition. It's a charge.

The sand-in-the-eyes one is harder. I'd probably say ... make a ranged attack roll at -4 (unless you have Improvised Weapon Proficiency), then the target gets a Reflex save (to represent blocking or closing his eyes swiftly) DC 10+(1/2 attacker's HD)+(Attacker's DEX Mod). If he fails, I figure he's blind for 1-2 rounds and dazzled (the name is bad, but the effect works) for 1-2 rounds after that. It'd take a full-round action unless he was prone or had already palmed the sand, since he has to bend over and scoop it up.
RobbyPants
12-18-06, 12:00 PM For a sand attack, I'd do something similar to what Salla suggested:

Full round action. -4 to hit, unless you have Improvised Weapon Proficiency. Ranged touch attack with a maximum range of 10 feet. Provokes an attack of opportunity. If the attack hits, the defender rolls a Fort save (DC 14). On a failed save, he is blinded for one round. On a successful save he is dazzled for one round.
BW0222
12-18-06, 12:05 PM Omega the Powerfull,

D&D combat is abstracted. Folks are dodging, weaving, feinting, yelling, and moving all the time. Folks don't just stand there for 6 second and then attack like robots. Coming up with some type of 'unique' combat manuver and then saying that gives you some special bonus is beyond the rules.

You can assume that dozens of things happening during combat, but only the actual attacks are resolved. You can assume that folks are kicking chairs at you, weaving behind tables, moving a torch by your face to distract you from the upcoming sword swing, insults yelled, etc. It all makes for a good visualization, but it is already factored into the mechanics.

>Recently one of my players, playing a human monk during a
>tavern fight, wanted to jump to the candelabrum and fall
>over an enemy with a charge.

Charge has a specific meaning in D&D. It is straight line movement.

I'm not sure exactly what he is trying there, but honestly, this is micro-managing combat to a level not intended. If there is a small item in the way, it is assumed that any character uses it their his/her advantage -- the fighter kicks it over as part of his BAB to get a better attack in, the rogue dodges behind it when coming in, etc. On the flip side, the defender is going to use it to her best advantage also.

If the PCs wants to try a jump check to get a +1 height advantage prior to the attack... fine. Needs to clear about 3'. Otherwise, it doesn't allow some type of magical charge, nor provide any specific benefit not allowed within the rules.

>B) In another situation a player wanted to throw sand in the
>eyes of an enemy.

Called shots are not permitted in D&D. You don't want to go there. If you allow throwing sand in someone's eyes... then why not acid? What happens when folks start using this non-sense against PCs? You 10th-level PCs happily permanently blinded by kobolds tossing acid in their eyes.

In the case of sand, look for rules which are close and just use them. For example, this appears to be a feint check. Use that. Standard action (assuming they get sand in their hand), denying your opponent their dexterity for one round unless they succeed in a sense motive vs. your bluff check.
Omega the Powerfull
12-18-06, 12:10 PM BW0222,
I know that the combat rules are abstract, but allowing the players to do something different than rolling a D20 and hit the AC of the enemy adds flavor and fun to the combat.
Omega the Powerfull
12-18-06, 12:48 PM For the others thanks for the help!
;)
risner
12-18-06, 07:30 PM A: No charging from a Jump without the Feat (Leap Attack) that allows that. Jumping from the ceiling like that could be counted as DMG p303 Falling Objects. I would provide the person being hit to make a Reflex for no damage if not flanked or Reflex for half if flanked. DC it around 10+1/2level+Wismodifier sounds good.

B: You sorta gave them a feat "Sand Dancer", Sandstorm p52.
Make an attack and if it hits, Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier) or be blinded for 1 round.
DarknessEternal
12-19-06, 12:08 AM Sand in the eyes is already perfectly represnted in the rules by the feint action.

It accomplishes exatly the same effect.
Omega the Powerfull
12-19-06, 01:15 PM Sand in the eyes is already perfectly represnted in the rules by the feint action.

It accomplishes exatly the same effect.

I disagree. The feint action is more to deceive the oponnent, you fake an attack in one place then attack another.

Throwing sand in the eyes is more like to blind or daze an oponnent, probably I would rule that to be able to throw sand in the eyes of somebody you would need to win a bluff check opossed by the enemy's sense motive.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Omega the Powerfull 12-18-06, 11:37 AM	Recently one of my players, playing a human monk during a tavern fight, wanted to jump to the candelabrum and fall over an enemy with a charge. B) In another situation a player wanted to throw sand in the eyes of an enemy. I've allowed and created some house rules for those situations but I think they didn't fit very well, and I would like to know how would you advocate such situations.
Salla 12-18-06, 11:55 AM	In the chandelier-swinging scenario, there's not much ruling involved ... he's just moving, with an added bit of flair involved with the swing rather than just jumping on the opposition. It's a charge. The sand-in-the-eyes one is harder. I'd probably say ... make a ranged attack roll at -4 (unless you have Improvised Weapon Proficiency), then the target gets a Reflex save (to represent blocking or closing his eyes swiftly) DC 10+(1/2 attacker's HD)+(Attacker's DEX Mod). If he fails, I figure he's blind for 1-2 rounds and dazzled (the name is bad, but the effect works) for 1-2 rounds after that. It'd take a full-round action unless he was prone or had already palmed the sand, since he has to bend over and scoop it up.
RobbyPants 12-18-06, 12:00 PM	For a sand attack, I'd do something similar to what Salla suggested: Full round action. -4 to hit, unless you have Improvised Weapon Proficiency. Ranged touch attack with a maximum range of 10 feet. Provokes an attack of opportunity. If the attack hits, the defender rolls a Fort save (DC 14). On a failed save, he is blinded for one round. On a successful save he is dazzled for one round.
BW0222 12-18-06, 12:05 PM	Omega the Powerfull, D&D combat is abstracted. Folks are dodging, weaving, feinting, yelling, and moving all the time. Folks don't just stand there for 6 second and then attack like robots. Coming up with some type of 'unique' combat manuver and then saying that gives you some special bonus is beyond the rules. You can assume that dozens of things happening during combat, but only the actual attacks are resolved. You can assume that folks are kicking chairs at you, weaving behind tables, moving a torch by your face to distract you from the upcoming sword swing, insults yelled, etc. It all makes for a good visualization, but it is already factored into the mechanics. >Recently one of my players, playing a human monk during a >tavern fight, wanted to jump to the candelabrum and fall >over an enemy with a charge. Charge has a specific meaning in D&D. It is straight line movement. I'm not sure exactly what he is trying there, but honestly, this is micro-managing combat to a level not intended. If there is a small item in the way, it is assumed that any character uses it their his/her advantage -- the fighter kicks it over as part of his BAB to get a better attack in, the rogue dodges behind it when coming in, etc. On the flip side, the defender is going to use it to her best advantage also. If the PCs wants to try a jump check to get a +1 height advantage prior to the attack... fine. Needs to clear about 3'. Otherwise, it doesn't allow some type of magical charge, nor provide any specific benefit not allowed within the rules. >B) In another situation a player wanted to throw sand in the >eyes of an enemy. Called shots are not permitted in D&D. You don't want to go there. If you allow throwing sand in someone's eyes... then why not acid? What happens when folks start using this non-sense against PCs? You 10th-level PCs happily permanently blinded by kobolds tossing acid in their eyes. In the case of sand, look for rules which are close and just use them. For example, this appears to be a feint check. Use that. Standard action (assuming they get sand in their hand), denying your opponent their dexterity for one round unless they succeed in a sense motive vs. your bluff check.
Omega the Powerfull 12-18-06, 12:10 PM	BW0222, I know that the combat rules are abstract, but allowing the players to do something different than rolling a D20 and hit the AC of the enemy adds flavor and fun to the combat.
Omega the Powerfull 12-18-06, 12:48 PM	For the others thanks for the help! ;)
risner 12-18-06, 07:30 PM	A: No charging from a Jump without the Feat (Leap Attack) that allows that. Jumping from the ceiling like that could be counted as DMG p303 Falling Objects. I would provide the person being hit to make a Reflex for no damage if not flanked or Reflex for half if flanked. DC it around 10+1/2level+Wismodifier sounds good. B: You sorta gave them a feat "Sand Dancer", Sandstorm p52. Make an attack and if it hits, Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier) or be blinded for 1 round.
DarknessEternal 12-19-06, 12:08 AM	Sand in the eyes is already perfectly represnted in the rules by the feint action. It accomplishes exatly the same effect.
Omega the Powerfull 12-19-06, 01:15 PM	Sand in the eyes is already perfectly represnted in the rules by the feint action. It accomplishes exatly the same effect. I disagree. The feint action is more to deceive the oponnent, you fake an attack in one place then attack another. Throwing sand in the eyes is more like to blind or daze an oponnent, probably I would rule that to be able to throw sand in the eyes of somebody you would need to win a bluff check opossed by the enemy's sense motive.