Personally - I think that's hilarious, because it's not an attack, it's more the DM rolls a D6 and 1 through 5 is how long the character is blinded or impared, and the off-chance a 6 is rolled, it's permanent (until a Healer can be paid or something to heal)
I think a funny solution to this scenario that happens quite frequently would be for the DM to allow for the chance of wind to blow the glass back into the PC's face for damage to himself! LOLing out loud.
Your thoughts?
This dose not work at all in D&D4E unless he has a power that say he can do anything remotely like this.
This would not work in D&D 3.0 or 3.5 unless he has a feat, class or prestige class abillity or special equipment that say he can do something even remotely like this.
It is the exact same thing as saying "I walk up and cut his head off"
No attack roll, no damage roll just saying you do it and assuming that it works and that you win because you said "I Win" first.
It doesn't matter what the player wants to RP, causing the blind condition on a monster or NPC the way he's doing it is very powerful in it's own right. This is an attack and it should follow the attack rules.
This dose not work at all in D&D4E unless he has a power that say he can do anything remotely like this.
Not quite. See pg.42, "Actions the rules don't cover."
But, yes, it is DEFINITELY an attack. Attacks do not need to deal damage to be considered attacks, and as such, the person flinging the debris must make an attack roll.
But anyway, long story short, it's valid. Mechanics need tweaking depending on edition.
Personally - I think that's hilarious, because it's not an attack, it's more the DM rolls a D6 and 1 through 5 is how long the character is blinded or impared, and the off-chance a 6 is rolled, it's permanent (until a Healer can be paid or something to heal)
Definitely bonus points for creativity, but no way as a DM would I let this fly. Way too powerful to be able to blind someone without even rolling an attack.
As LolaBonne and iserith said though, there are several ways you could do this improvisationally and with a result that is not game-breaking.
In 4e, one character I DM for took a feat for Alchemy specifically so he could design weapons like this. A lot of them are already described in the book, but he invented a few new ones that we fit into the existing power curve. In all cases though, those items had a monetary cost appropriate for the effect they had.
Also keep in mind, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a PC has some sort of improvised weapon that has a disproportionate effect, the enemies could have stuff like that too. And personally, I prefer not to get into an arms race like that because as the DM, I will always win. ;)
Great idea, I might have to try this w/one of my characters.
As far as rules go, I don’t see why you can’t do this ((and if we are having true RP you’re chr could)) It just comes down to if a DM is going to “play ball”
Some will just say no (usually the boring ones) but if the DM has a little bit of creativity and fun they would find a way to work around it. (I liked the -2 suggestion that was put out there)
As said though, 3-4e really isn’t strong for this (Sadly) but still it is doable (And I try to do sh!t like this all the time to my DMs dismay) If you have a DM who will let you all do fun things like this, I say milk it for all it’s worth!
I would totally allow this... and I would require an attack versus reflex and I would require a save or dex check to not get cut yourself by the handful of glass... and I would never make it permanent. I might only let it be blind for one turn, or maybe save ends and give it a bonus to the save if I felt it messed up the encounter. I'd also enforce action economy - how many actions does it take to get out the bag, get a dose of glass dust/shards - requires two free hands, next round, free to drop minor to put away, minor to draw weapon/implement...
And most certainly, if he used it all the time, he would be fighting against creatures with temorsence or other blindness mitigating abilities.
The players is certainly being clever, and clever is good and should be encouraged. But he is definitely trying to push the "I win" button. Guess what? You have to work harder than that.
TjD
2 weeks after you figured out it was a bad idea, you would still be picking glass out of the bottom of your backpack.
What a nightmare. The slightest breath of air(from wind or the the thrashing around from people fighting) and suddenly there is glass dust in your hair, in your allies hair and eyes, under your armor, clothes, boots. Your hands now have a thousand tiny glass fragments stuck to them. You and your allies have open wounds from the fight. Now you are trying to clean glass dust out of bleeding wounds.
2 weeks after you figured out it was a bad idea, you would still be picking glass out of the bottom of your backpack.
That's okay, because you'd be killed in first monster-infested dungeon you thought it would be a fun idea to explore. Because the world you're in makes sense, instead of being fun.
What a nightmare. The slightest breath of air(from wind or the the thrashing around from people fighting) and suddenly there is glass dust in your hair, in your allies hair and eyes, under your armor, clothes, boots. Your hands now have a thousand tiny glass fragments stuck to them. You and your allies have open wounds from the fight. Now you are trying to clean glass dust out of bleeding wounds.
2 weeks after you figured out it was a bad idea, you would still be picking glass out of the bottom of your backpack.
That's okay, because you'd be killed in first monster-infested dungeon you thought it would be a fun idea to explore. Because the world you're in makes sense, instead of being fun.
+1
@FamousErik
This is a fantasy role playing game. Not real life.
Instead of dropping hyper realism on players, why not let them think outside the box? I think when DM shoots down ideas like this time and time again they really just want people to spam at-wills or Nova play.
Now this has its’ place for sure, but not all the time; if it was DnD would get very old very quick imo.
That's exactly the point. The glass throwing player is also well past the edge of fantasy fun and well into real world guerilla handbook tactics .
There's a Rogue power called Sand in the Eyes, so this tactic is quite appropriate for D&D.
So if the glass throwing is being allowed, What is the problem with creating real world consequences?
Because it's pretty clear that the intention behind creating those consequences is to burden the idea with heavy disincentives, so that the player will decide not to do it, without the DM having to say no. That amounts to blocking.
Second - I have a feeling my DM will be taking "real world" things more into effect here, like the wind, and potential temporary blindness for the PC throwing the glass and I REALLY liked the idea of, over time, glass getting into the PC's clothing and gear, etc, etc, etc.. That would be fraggin' hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!
Second - I have a feeling my DM will be taking "real world" things more into effect here, like the wind, and potential temporary blindness for the PC throwing the glass and I REALLY liked the idea of, over time, glass getting into the PC's clothing and gear, etc, etc, etc.. That would be fraggin' hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't see why, but ok. Maybe because it's the kind of thing that wouldn't happen in a video game? Maybe?
Second - I have a feeling my DM will be taking "real world" things more into effect here, like the wind, and potential temporary blindness for the PC throwing the glass and I REALLY liked the idea of, over time, glass getting into the PC's clothing and gear, etc, etc, etc.. That would be fraggin' hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't see why, but ok. Maybe because it's the kind of thing that wouldn't happen in a video game? Maybe?
I'm not saying my DM will totally put a stop to the glass throwing activity, but you don't think it'd be funny if over time the character throwing the glass gets glass in his drinking mug and eventually cuts his mouth on the glass?....
I guess I think that's better in the long run than saying: no, you can't throw glass in the eyes of another creature/character.
I'm not saying my DM will totally put a stop to the glass throwing activity, but you don't think it'd be funny if over time the character throwing the glass gets glass in his drinking mug and eventually cuts his mouth on the glass?....
No, that doesn't strike me as funny. Nor would most of the other real-world effects of this tactic.
Spitting lighter fluid at someone and causing a fiery blast is cool. Getting cancer from the chemicals in the lighter fluid is lame.
I guess I think that's better in the long run than saying: no, you can't throw glass in the eyes of another creature/character.
Oh, it is better. It's just that that's not the only way to balance this.
I just figure that if a player is going to deliberately create a situation with real consequences that they should be able understand, then they should have to deal with what they are doing. Otherwise we are just playing a video game.
It is always a concern to get bogged with too much realism. I don't want to play a game where drinking from a stream requires a roll against catching cryptosporidium. But if the characters drink the water 100' downstream from the coal mine waste water pond , then they should have to deal with 'realistic' consequences.
And that is the difference as well: throwing sand is a simple and legit tactic. The player with the glass is trying to get results that are out of balance.
No. The DM adjucates the effects of the attack.
And that is the difference as well: throwing sand is a simple and legit tactic.
There's no actual sand involved, you realize. The power could involve anything, including ground glass. My rogue threw a glass of poisoned wine, a handful of small gears, and even a glob of leftover magical energy.
The player with the glass is trying to get results that are out of balance.
Then balance it, rather than making it an utterly unpleasant tactic to use.
I just figure that if a player is going to deliberately create a situation with real consequences that they should be able understand, then they should have to deal with what they are doing. Otherwise we are just playing a video game.
So, if the player comes up with counter-objections to all of the consequences, the tactic is then balanced?
It is always a concern to get bogged with too much realism. I don't want to play a game where drinking from a stream requires a roll against catching cryptosporidium. But if the characters drink the water 100' downstream from the coal mine waste water pond , then they should have to deal with 'realistic' consequences.
Fine. But realism that's actually intended to block a creative idea is a passive-aggressive and trust-breaking approach.
Simple and reasonably thematic.
It's an attack that causes the target to grant combat advantage until the end of your next turn. Maybe it causes Blinded (save ends) on a critical hit. Simple and reasonably thematic.
See, I like something like that. Combat advantage on a hit, perhaps blinded temporarily on a crit. This could be situationally very useful. The main thing keeping the PC from spamming this attack all the time? Other attacks are usually much better, so if you get a guy who wants to go around flinging powdered glass at every monster he meets, he's passing up the opportunity to do more effective things and the tactic will get old real quick.
Plus, if a PC can come up with new improvised attacks, so can monsters ... so watch out. If your new improvised power becomes a win button then monsters could potentially have a win button too, so let's not go there.
I'd still try to reflavor another existing power to do this though, instead of coming up with a new power.
A 1st level Rogue I knew who wanted to use his Acrobatics to shift around enemies in combat. That was overpowered so I told him you can do that ... but not yet. Wait till you get to level 2 and take Tumble. At level 1 you're just not hot enough to do that. I even offered to advance him the power so he could start using it right away at level 1 but then he wouldn't get another power at level 2. But what he really wanted was something for free ... So I wanted to let him do what he wanted to do but on the other hand I tried to find a way to fit it into a level 1-2 Rogue's capabilities.
Creativity is good but you're not going to get a win button from me. If you can't win without a new shiny win button, you're not as creative as you thought, I guess. ;)
I've often "caught" DMs offering awful, awful choices like this to players trying to be creative.
"The map shows a pile of logs at the top of a hill? Can I unbundle them and push them down on top of the goblin camp?"
Yes, make a hard DC athletics check as a standard action. If you succeed, make a blast 5 attack at 5 vs reflex. Goblins hit will be knocked prone and take 5 damage.
"But I'm an Avenger. I have no strength mod, but my sword should have no problem cutting the ropes involved. And +5? We're level 10, my attack modifier is better than twice that. And 5 damage? I can do 6 times that much..."
Worse yet is on maptools games where the DM has anticipated the creative action, or placed something like a ballista on the map to tempt us, and has already built macros for it...and they're terrible.
I absolutely understand why improvised actions shouldn't be overwhelmingly better than your character's actual powers, or else they will be all you use. But neither should they be always terrible, terrible choices.
They should be balanced somewhere between at-will and encounter power level, to encourage creativity without giving players either an advantage or disadvantage.
Technically, the real-world Ninja used to do this all the time - however, they used a hollowed-out egg to hold it, thereby making it a single-use comnsumable item...
If the guy's going to be narratively pulling ninja eggs out of his pockets on cue, it's either a consumable item or an at-will attack that only has a minor-yet-reasonable effect. D4 damage and either Blind til eont or target grants CA and -2 to hit (save ends) seem appropriate.
Alternately, make it a non-damaging encounter utility that applies a decent effect in a small area.
So that's good, it's not an unlimited supply.
It's not an attack, no damage from it occurs, except it causes irritation in the eyes. That's what he says at least.
In 3.5 it would be treated as a splash weapon, and of course the target would get a reflex save to avoid damage. If you treated it like other weapons of this mundane nature (acid flask ext) and given that he is just grinding upi glass (no real tools to fine grind it) I would choose a lower DC. 10 to 15 to avoid being blinded for 1d4 rounds. The range of course would be in the advacent square so 5 feet.
to sum it up:
5 foot ranged touch attack, reflex 10 to avoid, blinded 1d4 rounds
Would be a balanced, and realistic way to handle it.
Why DC 10? and not autohit? Because the target can blink, and used in combat, is not going to be caught so offguard as to not react.
Placing it in eggshell as a ranged attack would work, but he should be using tools to grind it into a fine powder, realistically you aren't going to pound glass that fine without really working it. But in somethign like an egg shell it could be made into a ranged attack.
4th edition rules I would not be sure of, but I m sure a balanced rule could be mde for it there too
Why no negative consequences? because there is nothing inherently risky in what he is trying to do. Now if the DM had described there ws a really hrd wind blowing directly back at him beforehand, and he was downwind, well maybe that would be a bad time, but I think that would be obvious and the PC would never do it.
A slight turn.
Closed eyes.
A hand to block.
Moving(and remember, people are constantly moving in that square).
Damage Reduction.
Tear ducts.
All these defeat glass dust, and I only took 2 seconds to think. It's a very inexperienced fighter indeed to fall for that kind of thing. Not to mention the guy has to open the pouch and take out the stuff(which is completely obvious).
Plus, making glass dust? That's going to be more threat to the person grinding it up. Crushing it means it will get into the air. That person is going to breath the dust in. And since I see nothing about buying a paper breathing mask in any of the books, he's screwed. Can't even hold his breath, since it hangs in the air for awhile. Don't try to compare it to the sand, either. You know what happens when a pouch of sand stuck in your sleeve leaks? Things get dirty, and your lungs and stomach lining don't get shred to ribbons.
A gust of wind.
A slight turn.
Closed eyes.
A hand to block.
Moving(and remember, people are constantly moving in that square).
Damage Reduction.
Tear ducts.
All these defeat glass dust, and I only took 2 seconds to think. It's a very inexperienced fighter indeed to fall for that kind of thing. Not to mention the guy has to open the pouch and take out the stuff(which is completely obvious).
Plus, making glass dust? That's going to be more threat to the person grinding it up. Crushing it means it will get into the air. That person is going to breath the dust in. And since I see nothing about buying a paper breathing mask in any of the books, he's screwed. Can't even hold his breath, since it hangs in the air for awhile. Don't try to compare it to the sand, either. You know what happens when a pouch of sand stuck in your sleeve leaks? Things get dirty, and your lungs and stomach lining don't get shred to ribbons.
I think this has gotten beat to death; but once again I think that’s too much realism in a setting which is obviously fantasy based. Centauri put it best, if the DM makes it so hard for a player to try an idea, they are effectively not allowing the action. It seems a good deal of people only want the players to be able to do their recorded at-wills/encounters/daily ect. & want nothing in terms of “thinking” outside the box.
Sad.
I think there should be some expectation that the player makes some effort to make his idea work and look for a balanced effect. How about a pepper bomb, it would be more effective then glass since it has a chemical effect, and a balanced cost. Sure glass ground up is cheap, but not as effective and a limit of one shot/mug is an artificial limit considering glassware being cheap to free. Here i think the player is expecting too much.
Toss in the eyes with a small but reasonable chance of a blinding effect for 1 or 2 rounds should be what he is execting, if he wants better then the player shoudl work for it, like the pepper bomb I suggested, just a little more colaberation on the player's part is needed here.
A gust of wind.
A slight turn.
Closed eyes.
A hand to block.
Moving(and remember, people are constantly moving in that square).
Damage Reduction.
Tear ducts.
All these defeat glass dust, and I only took 2 seconds to think. It's a very inexperienced fighter indeed to fall for that kind of thing. Not to mention the guy has to open the pouch and take out the stuff(which is completely obvious).
Plus, making glass dust? That's going to be more threat to the person grinding it up. Crushing it means it will get into the air. That person is going to breath the dust in. And since I see nothing about buying a paper breathing mask in any of the books, he's screwed. Can't even hold his breath, since it hangs in the air for awhile. Don't try to compare it to the sand, either. You know what happens when a pouch of sand stuck in your sleeve leaks? Things get dirty, and your lungs and stomach lining don't get shred to ribbons.
I think this has gotten beat to death; but once again I think that’s too much realism in a setting which is obviously fantasy based. Centauri put it best, if the DM makes it so hard for a player to try an idea, they are effectively not allowing the action. It seems a good deal of people only want the players to be able to do their recorded at-wills/encounters/daily ect. & want nothing in terms of “thinking” outside the box.Sad.
Definitely. If a DM thinks that what a player is doing is too much benefit for too little risk, they should talk to the player, rather than trying to passively give the player disincentives.
The "Sand in the Eyes" power shows one possible way to balance this, as do other powers, and items. If you're resorting to realism, check to make sure you're not just trying to block the idea completely.
It's a vicious cycle, that whole realism-in-a-fantasy-game thing. It's just blocking by any other name. Better to say, "Yes, and here's the mechanic to govern that, balanced against other mechanics of similar power."
As for the question of validity, I don't suggest that it shouldn't be valid, what I am saying is should it be as effective, or better then, as something that others may have invested to get, such as an encounter power? which is an important consideration. Also the power sugests this is less about the material and more about the timing and method used to fling it in their eyes.
I would guage this with how the other players responded to the idea, and as we see here, its another player is the one posting on the board about it, so comparible investment and payoff is important to the players here. The DM should take all the factors in consideration to keep balance within the group.
Well it can mean anything iserith. It could mean as compared to someone who took a power like "Sand in the Eyes" It could also mean the difference between just pounding a bag with a mug in it against the wall and buying a proper pestle and mortar to grind it nice and fine. or howabout a handful of ground up cayenne pepper, or as has been suggested, filling it in an eggshell for a ranged attack.
Just trying to understand here: If I say I smash up some mugs and throw them in a bag, that's one level of investment. If I say I use a mortar and pestle, that's more investment? A dash of cayenne makes it even more investment that that? How does that translate into mechanics? Does the bag o' glass dust and chunks get less of an attack bonus than the mortar and pestle method?
As for the question of validity, I don't suggest that it shouldn't be valid, what I am saying is should it be as effective, or better then, as something that others may have invested to get, such as an encounter power? which is an important consideration. Also the power sugests this is less about the material and more about the timing and method used to fling it in their eyes.
Here I agree because this is less about simulation and more about game balance. To do this, the DM might do well to understand the difference between an action, a skill, and a power, and how they relate to each other, too. (Most players could do with understanding this better, too, so that they don't feel so locked into using only powers when they act. But that's another thread, heh.)
Just trying to understand here: If I say I smash up some mugs and throw them in a bag, that's one level of investment. If I say I use a mortar and pestle, that's more investment? A dash of cayenne makes it even more investment that that? How does that translate into mechanics? Does the bag o' glass dust and chunks get less of an attack bonus than the mortar and pestle method?
I would think that the fine dust, or pepper or other materials would be more effective, yes, that will translate in the mechanics of what they are doing, depending on the system used. No different then how a magical sword is better then a non magical sword, which is better then a pointy stick. it also encourages their creativity because it says that they can go further on that line of thinking, there is a tendency to be soured to new ideas because of expereinces with unbalanced exploits.
It goes with my general philosophy letting the players make it happen, they just have to come up with how to do it and then rewarding the effort they put into it.
Here I agree because this is less about simulation and more about game balance. To do this, the DM might do well to understand the difference between an action, a skill, and a power, and how they relate to each other, too. (Most players could do with understanding this better, too, so that they don't feel so locked into using only powers when they act. But that's another thread, heh.)
Part of the benifit and I think the logical conclusion of this, is asking what if someone with the power used the glass-dust? And that would be a good way for the DM to think about how to balance it.
1. Throwing glass shards on combatant's face actively engaged, always blinds him.
2. Sometimes blinds him.
3. Never blinds him.
Always or never probably isn't the answer. Sometimes Probably fits. Then just need to fit mechanics for the sometimes. Standard action touch atK vs Ref. Hit: blinded 1-4 rounds. Save ends.
4e term, basic range 1 atk vs ref. Hit: blind 1-4 rounds. Save ends. Opportunity atk plays.
Wonder which is the most accurate statement.
1. Throwing glass shards on combatant's face actively engaged, always blinds him.
2. Sometimes blinds him.
3. Never blinds him.
Always or never probably isn't the answer. Sometimes Probably fits. Then just need to fit mechanics for the sometimes. Standard action touch atK vs Ref. Hit: blinded 1-4 rounds. Save ends.
I also wonder whether it's accurate to model the effect of glass shards in the eye as "blind," rather than some other condition, such as a penalty to attack, damage, or defenses.
Wonder which is the most accurate statement.
1. Throwing glass shards on combatant's face actively engaged, always blinds him.
2. Sometimes blinds him.
3. Never blinds him.
Always or never probably isn't the answer. Sometimes Probably fits. Then just need to fit mechanics for the sometimes. Standard action touch atK vs Ref. Hit: blinded 1-4 rounds. Save ends.
I also wonder whether it's accurate to model the effect of glass shards in the eye as "blind," rather than some other condition, such as a penalty to attack, damage, or defenses.
Agree! Perhapsndazed effect. Blind is such a big effect.
Wonder which is the most accurate statement.
1. Throwing glass shards on combatant's face actively engaged, always blinds him.
2. Sometimes blinds him.
3. Never blinds him.
Always or never probably isn't the answer. Sometimes Probably fits. Then just need to fit mechanics for the sometimes. Standard action touch atK vs Ref. Hit: blinded 1-4 rounds. Save ends.
I also wonder whether it's accurate to model the effect of glass shards in the eye as "blind," rather than some other condition, such as a penalty to attack, damage, or defenses.
Agree! Perhapsndazed effect. Blind is such a big effect.
I think I'll describe all of my character's attacks as involving ground glass. It's all-purpose.
In 4e, it might look like this:
Chuck's Bag o' Glass
Next to that comely wench with the lip sore, this was the best money Chuck had ever spent at that inn - a burlap sack and a bunch of broken bottles and tankards. If only he could afford cayenne pepper, too. Then he'd really have something.
Standard Action
Requirement: You must be holding one of Chuck's bags o' glass.
Check: Athletics check (moderate DC) to throw the bag into or near someone's face.
Success: The glass dust showers the target.
Target: One creature within 5 squares
Attack: Level + 3 vs. Fortitude
Hit: The target is blinded until the end of its next turn.
Special: If the Athletics check is failed, you or a nearby ally is blinded until the end of his or her next turn.
Unless the player said his character was using a mortar and pestle, in which case, it would probably blind the target and everyone in the immediate area permanently as well as their future progeny for at least the next three generations.
What if they use their MAGE HAND to throw the stuff? Should make it a lot safer for the PC to have their mage hand scop some out of a pouch (minor) move it a few squares (move) then toss it into enemy eyes (S.action)
Yep. Replace "Athletics" with "Arcana" above and that'd work just fine.
What if they use their MAGE HAND to throw the stuff? Should make it a lot safer for the PC to have their mage hand scop some out of a pouch (minor) move it a few squares (move) then toss it into enemy eyes (S.action)
Now this is what I would definitely want to allow to a degree, but the damn rules get in the way. Magehand specifically can't be used to Attack anything, for instance wield a sword, bonk someone's head. As much as I like to twick the rules to fit table play, this one though I would be cautious. Anytime you allow magehand to "attack", players will want to use it all the time with different tools. So we kept it as what it was intended.. to hold, carry, pick stuff up. We do allow "pick pocket" with it though hehe. Thought how it was used in Book of Darkvile to snatch the medallion off bbeg's neck was cool.
What if they use their MAGE HAND to throw the stuff? Should make it a lot safer for the PC to have their mage hand scop some out of a pouch (minor) move it a few squares (move) then toss it into enemy eyes (S.action)
Now this is what I would definitely want to allow to a degree, but the damn rules get in the way. Magehand specifically can't be used to Attack anything, for instance wield a sword, bonk someone's head. As much as I like to twick the rules to fit table play, this one though I would be cautious. Anytime you allow magehand to "attack", players will want to use it all the time with different tools. So we kept it as what it was intended.. to hold, carry, pick stuff up. We do allow "pick pocket" with it though hehe. Thought how it was used in Book of Darkvile to snatch the medallion off bbeg's neck was cool.
The inability of cantrips to make attacks was put in as a nod to long-suffering DMs who longed to say no to crazy magic use, but didn't have backing from the rules. Now, the rules are tightly locked down: can't attack with cantrips; don't get a monster's attacks and defenses when shapeshifting; durations are very short. But now, the DM is in the position to magnanimously say "Yes, and..." to things, instead of wanting to say "No."
There's also reflavoring. I attack with my Mage Hand all the time. It hits automatically out to 20 squares and it does 2+Int modifier force damage.
4e term, basic range 1 atk vs ref. Hit: blind 1-4 rounds. Save ends. Opportunity atk plays.
4e doesn't do random durations, and save ends is far too powerful for anything at-will.
Now this is what I would definitely want to allow to a degree, but the damn rules get in the way. Magehand specifically can't be used to Attack anything, for instance wield a sword, bonk someone's head. As much as I like to twick the rules to fit table play, this one though I would be cautious. Anytime you allow magehand to "attack", players will want to use it all the time with different tools. So we kept it as what it was intended.. to hold, carry, pick stuff up. We do allow "pick pocket" with it though hehe. Thought how it was used in Book of Darkvile to snatch the medallion off bbeg's neck was cool.
If you do it the way I showed above, the mage hand is not actually making an attack. It's simply delivering a pouch of material to a given location and dumping it out. The mage hand's action is resolved when the Arcana check is made - it either did or did not dump the glass dust where it's supposed to go. The attack roll that follows is whether the creature is affected or not.
Also, what Centauri said.
In 4e, it might look like this:
Chuck's Bag o' Glass
Next to that comely wench with the lip sore, this was the best money Chuck had ever spent at that inn - a burlap sack and a bunch of broken bottles and tankards. If only he could afford cayenne pepper, too. Then he'd really have something.
Standard Action
Requirement: You must be holding one of Chuck's bags o' glass.
Check: Athletics check (moderate DC) to throw the bag into or near someone's face.
Success: The glass dust showers the target.
Target: One creature within 5 squares
Attack: Level + 3 vs. Fortitude
Hit: The target is blinded until the end of its next turn.
Special: If the Athletics check is failed, you or a nearby ally is blinded until the end of his or her next turn.
Unless the player said his character was using a mortar and pestle, in which case, it would probably blind the target and everyone in the immediate area permanently as well as their future progeny for at least the next three generations.
Best........ Response........ Ever........... "If only he could afford cayenne pepper"..... LOL
If you do it the way I showed above, the mage hand is not actually making an attack. It's simply delivering a pouch of material to a given location and dumping it out. The mage hand's action is resolved when the Arcana check is made - it either did or did not dump the glass dust where it's supposed to go. The attack roll that follows is whether the creature is affected or not.
Also, what Centauri said.
That really is playing a word game, calling attacking "simply delivering a pouch of material to a given location and dumping it out" is just confounding it with so much jargon. It should be considered an attack.
If you do it the way I showed above, the mage hand is not actually making an attack. It's simply delivering a pouch of material to a given location and dumping it out. The mage hand's action is resolved when the Arcana check is made - it either did or did not dump the glass dust where it's supposed to go. The attack roll that follows is whether the creature is affected or not.
Also, what Centauri said.
That really is playing a word game, calling attacking "simply delivering a pouch of material to a given location and dumping it out" is just confounding it with so much jargon. It should be considered an attack.
I disagree, your burning two minor actions to move and toss.
What would you say if a player did this, that the glass shards just disappear because it is an attack and attacks can’t come from mage hand?
What If my mage hand is holding a big chunk of ice over a doorway and drops it when a fire monster comes in? Does this also not do anything? What If I use my Mage Hand to drop a burning log into someone’s tent?
RAW vs. RAI I suppose; the way I understand it is that Mage Hand set up circumstances for damage just not be the source of damage. I really think it’s coming down to what I said earlier.
Some people only want characters to be able to do things they have power blocks for, and nothing “outside the box”
ALSO a note about the OP; if you where Dragonborn wouldn’t your scale skin be resistant to glass shards; even better yet what if you where a Warfordged trying to do this.
That really is playing a word game, calling attacking "simply delivering a pouch of material to a given location and dumping it out" is just confounding it with so much jargon. It should be considered an attack.
Actually, it's not. Chuck's Bag o' Glass is modeled after terrain powers in 4e. It's perfectly valid and is in line with the rules for Mage Hand in 4e.
Should I instead tell the player that his creative solution doesn't work? Why would it even cross my mind to tell the player "No?" My answer will always be "Yes, and here's how we see if it works..."
Actually, it's not. Chuck's Bag o' Glass is modeled after terrain powers in 4e. It's perfectly valid and is in line with the rules for Mage Hand in 4e.
Should I instead tell the player that his creative solution doesn't work? Why would it even cross my mind to tell the player "No?" My answer will always be "Yes, and here's how we see if it works..."
I won't debate working to make something happen, although saying no is sometimes valid. But in the first part of this the player is tossing the glass dust in the opponents eyes, which is an attack. No you are mage handing it to attack the location. That being the case, the dirrect attack on the eyes will and should be more effective then an terain effect.
You only need to ask what the difference between a handful of glass dust thrown directly in your face and a handful tossed in the air above you would be, they are functionally two different approaches, imo.
Minor Action:
The hand picks up or manipulates an object weighing 20 pounds or less. It can hold only one object at a time.
Move Action: The hand moves up to 5 squares in any direction, carrying the object it holds.
Free Action: The hand drops the object it is holding.
So Chuck should learn Mage Hand, assuming Chuck doesn't have a pile of powers that are better than throwing dust in people's eyes.
Except in the absence of having an attack role, Mage hand is sort or limited to simply dropping the bag of dust in the spot, which again, is dramatically different then a direct attack to toss it in the opponent's eye. Not saying it can't be done, I am saying it is functionally different and shouldn't have the same effectiveness.
It's only different because you say it's different. I throw it in his eyes or I use magic to dump it on his head. What's the difference? And even if there is a difference, is it worth caring about?
Sounds like "realism" talking again rather than a balanced mechanic that can be easily used and reskinned.
In this case an attack to throw the glass in the opponents eyes and dropping it in the area are two functionally different things.
I suppose the same reason as why Mage Hand can't grab a dagger and attack someone with it. It lacks an attack roll and simply dropping the knife on someone's head is not as effective as stabbing them or throwning the knife with an attack. You could apply it to a good deal of actions that would normally be disallowed.
In this case an attack to throw the glass in the opponents eyes and dropping it in the area are two functionally different things.
So what would it do in your opinion? If you drop the shards of glass on an enemy and you think it shouldn't be an attack; what happens? Does the glass just fall over the enemy but nothing happens after that?
The same here, I think a direct attack should be more effective then simply dropping the dust above them with Mage Hand. If the dust to the face is a direct attack, then delivering it with Mage Hand would also be considered a direct attack, if Mage Hand can't be used to make a direct attack, then the effect of the delivery (dump over head) should be treated differently.
In any event, the point I'm trying to get across is that these things are balanced against existing mechanics, not against an attempted simulation of reality.
In any event, the point I'm trying to get across is that these things are balanced against existing mechanics, not against an attempted simulation of reality.
Right. I imagine that a primary reason Mage Hand was locked down (along with the other cantrips and polymorph) is that the designers couldn't see a way to balance it otherwise. But, if a DM can see a way to balance it (perhaps through conversation with the players), there's no reason not to allow something. Realism is only a constraint, rather than an inherently positive trait.
You're comparing apples and oranges, or in this case, terrain powers (or improvised actions) and attack powers. In a 4e context, those things are adjudicated differently. Depending on the mechanics involved, that terrain power may be more or less efficacious than, say, a ranged basic attack.
In any event, the point I'm trying to get across is that these things are balanced against existing mechanics, not against an attempted simulation of reality.
It may be more effective, it may be less effective, but my point is that they will be different and should be mechanically different. I know you use the "Yes and...." approach, but the question of how and what still comes up. The orininal idea is a direct, point blank attack, to toss a small smount of glass shards in someones eye. The Mage hand to just drop it over their head really doesn't lead to the same expectation, and so should be handled differently as it is not the same as a direct attack.
It is the same as with the dagger, if i used Mage Hand to drop a dagger on someone, how would you handle that as opposed to someone who made a dirrect attack with the dagger?
The orininal idea is a direct, point blank attack, to toss a small smount of glass shards in someones eye. The Mage hand to just drop it over their head really doesn't lead to the same expectation, and so should be handled differently as it is not the same as a direct attack.
Here's where you're going wrong. Neither is a direct attack. It's a skill check followed by an attack on par with a terrain power in 4e.
It is the same as with the dagger, if i used Mage Hand to drop a dagger on someone, how would you handle that as opposed to someone who made a dirrect attack with the dagger?
I would handle it by asking the player what he hopes to accomplish by doing it in this manner and build a balanced mechanic around that.
I would handle it by asking the player what he hopes to accomplish by doing it in this manner and build a balanced mechanic around that.
What if it becomes evident that the player wants to wield a very powerful in-game effect in return for having thought "outside the box"?
(I feel like this is is what the appeals to the rules and to realism are trying to avoid. The answer, of course, is to talk to the player and explain the intent of the game, and the reason why effects like that are not already part of the game. If the player understands and agrees with that, they'll probably back off. If they don't, then the in-game, rules-and-reality based arguments also wouldn't convince them, and it's time to part ways, play a different game, or just work around what the player is trying to do, in order to continue providing an interesting game.)
What if it becomes evident that the player wants to wield a very powerful in-game effect in return for having thought "outside the box"?
(I feel like this is is what the appeals to the rules and to realism are trying to avoid. The answer, of course, is to talk to the player and explain the intent of the game, and the reason why effects like that are not already part of the game. If the player understands and agrees with that, they'll probably back off. If they don't, then the in-game, rules-and-reality based arguments also wouldn't convince them, and it's time to part ways, play a different game, or just work around what the player is trying to do, in order to continue providing an interesting game.)
Right. It should be noted that in the "Yes, and..." way of doing things, part of what that means is "Yes, I agree with the game rules (as written or as previously agreed), and..." Then anything they come up with can simply be adjudicated fairly with the rules as appropriate to level or the like.
Here's where you're going wrong. Neither is a direct attack. It's a skill check followed by an attack on par with a terrain power in 4e.
Well we will just have to disagree on how we would put it into the game, note I am not suggesting that it not be allowed, I would just treat it differently. A dirrect shot to the eye should be more effective then dropping it on their head, there is no reason why they can't be treated seperately. I would make it easier to hit with magehand, but a reduced effect, which is just making it a trade-off.
I would handle it by asking the player what he hopes to accomplish by doing it in this manner and build a balanced mechanic around that.
His intent is of course to stab the target with the knife, I am pretty sure the answer I would get would be laced with suprise and/or sarcasm, lol. Yes I would make it work to, but it would be less effective, far less effective, then an attack with the knife.
You can say "yes and...." but what if I cover myself in honey and then roll around on some feathers, and then jump off a 500 foot cliff to fly? Do you "yes and, here is a working mechanic by which you don't plumet to your death" Now that is somewhat an extreme example, but what we have here is the orrignial player cameup with an idea, which was reasonable (if the effect wasn't) and the DM said "yes and...." and it ended here with another player because that was broken. So asking How and being reasonably realistic seems to be an important factor as well.
To look at it this way, the Player has asked for what is essentially another encounter power, you give it to them, they think of a way to improve it with Mage Hand, you give it to them, what's next, a bucket of glass to make an area effect blind attack power? Bellows to make a Glass dust blower? At what point does the DM stop saying "yes and...." And start asking "How will you make this work? What would happen?"
It stiffles creativity if they don't have to think imo
ALSO a note about the OP; if you where Dragonborn wouldn’t your scale skin be resistant to glass shards; even better yet what if you where a Warfordged trying to do this.
Shifter is the race of the character in my game who is doing this. Good thought though, if Dragonborn, the scales would probably keep out the shards from causing damage to the PC's hand...
I just hope the PC doesn't dump the glass on my PC's head because I started this thread!!!!! LOLing out loud.
At what point does the DM stop hiding behind rules and realism and start saying "How can we make this fun?"
When they first sit around and draw up their characters?
There is a huge gap between hiding behind rules and realism and just allowing any and all things to happen. You have to walk the line between allowing and encouraging creativity and fun ideas and what was happening in the orriginal post, the point where ignoring rules and realism starts making the game unfun. Striking a balance between the two is important.
I get it, that the DM is the rule-keeper, but I also get that they're the fun-enforcers too, so keeping a balance of fun game play for the PC's and sticking to the rules that are 4th edition is what it's all about.
Fun, yes. Sticking to the rules over "Yes, and...," no.
A dirrect shot to the eye should be more effective then dropping it on their head
I don't see any reason to make that distinction other than the pursuit of simulation of realism to no particularly good effect.
His intent is of course to stab the target with the knife, I am pretty sure the answer I would get would be laced with suprise and/or sarcasm, lol. Yes I would make it work to, but it would be less effective, far less effective, then an attack with the knife.
That may not be his intent at all. Perhaps he just wants to distract the guy. Or freak him out. Or cut an amulet off his neck. You really need to ascertain the ultimate goal before you can determine a fair mechanic to see how that attempt at attaining the goal plays out. Focusing on the real-world physics of how a bag of dust works when thrown vs. dumped seems like a big waste of time and loses the point.
You can say "yes and...." but what if I cover myself in honey and then roll around on some feathers, and then jump off a 500 foot cliff to fly?
In your view, I guess that depends on what kind of feathers you use and what time of year the honey was harvested. Also, how many times you rolled around before jumping.
Do you notice how in every thread you find yourself saying, "I know that's kind of extreme but..." How about we stick to good examples instead of extreme ones?
To look at it this way, the Player has asked for what is essentially another encounter power, you give it to them, they think of a way to improve it with Mage Hand, you give it to them, what's next, a bucket of glass to make an area effect blind attack power? Bellows to make a Glass dust blower? At what point does the DM stop saying "yes and...." And start asking "How will you make this work? What would happen?"
An encounter power is just a specific action that a character can take at a given interval with 100% success (regardless of hitting or missing which is a separate issue). Just because I have a power called Tumble that lets me shift X squares once per encounter doesn't mean I can't tumble after I use it. I just have to make a skill check now to pull it off.
Mage Hand has not improved upon this terrain power. It's the same rolls, same risk. If anything, Mage Hand is weaker because it potentially has greater action cost for the same effect.
At what point does the DM stop hiding behind rules and realism and start saying "How can we make this fun?"
When they first sit around and draw up their characters?
There is a huge gap between hiding behind rules and realism and just allowing any and all things to happen. You have to walk the line between allowing and encouraging creativity and fun ideas and what was happening in the orriginal post, the point where ignoring rules and realism starts making the game unfun. Striking a balance between the two is important.
All things though should at least be allowed to be attempted
Having a DM outright say “Nope, you don’t have a power for that” Is crapy DMing, as well as saying “Yup you can but It will be so hard you mise well not waste your time” Is crapy as well.
Easiest way for a DM to stomp on creativity in a party is to outright deny attempts at actions.
A DM should allow anything that the character could actually do with their two hands and brain; IMO it’s part of the DMs job to make up a roll and effect for the action, not to deny the action outright (NOTE I’m not saying give the player a kill-switch but give them something for the effort of thinking outside the box), m. I guess that to TotM for 4e but that’s how I think proper DnD is played.
Easiest way for a DM to stomp on creativity in a party is to outright deny attempts at actions.
To be fair, I don't think anyone is saying that. But realism is often used to make creative and potentially troublesome actions very unappealing. All I want is for DMs who do that to own up to what they're doing.
Edit: I can understand why the extreme examples come about. It's out of concern that if the rules are loosened there's no end to what could come about. This is exactly why the rules about cantrips, etc. were tightened. It's a valid concern, but couching it in terms of reality is not an honest approach. If a DM can't see how to handle something the player wants to try, the DM has to talk to the players. Scary, I know, but that's what it ultimately takes. Blocking with realism only delays the conversation that has to come.
as well as saying “Yup you can but It will be so hard you mise well not waste your time” Is crapy as well.
Would you set up a situation where PCs waste their time or resources attempting actions that would clearly be impossible without even warning them that it's clearly impossible? If so, that's the definition of a "Gotcha DM." Or is nothing impossible when you DM? Do you think it's a good idea to warn them if something isn't impossible but has a very small chance of success?
When I DM, some things are clearly impossible. I also assume that the PCs aren't too stupid to realize this and unless their Wisdom is below average, they will always have a general idea of how difficult a task is for them. So you'll hear things from me like "Your common sense tells you that this would be too difficult for you. In other words, you have no chance/little chance of success. Still wanna try?"
As a DM, I don't pull gotchas.
There's already an item for this: Eyesting (from Dragon)www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...
But you can't get that for free by smashing up bottles! All these cool items are squelching my creativity to mash the win button! ;)
And don't forget, Chuck had to spend the last of his money to buy those bottles and such. He couldn't even afford cayenne pepper and the mortar and pestle is on layaway.
As a DM, I don't pull gotchas.
Tbh, pretty much anything that could be done, can be done at my table.
Now obviously this doesn’t mean I will let players jump mountains or blow over entire keeps with a single mighty breath; but if a player tells me “Hey I have an idea…” and if that idea has even the slightest possibility of working then as a DM I don’t see a reason why it shouldn’t be allowed.
I understand the “gotcha” fear but I assure you that’s not what I mean. If a player where to suggest something that could be done but would have blatantly obvious consequences I point that out, but tbh most players (at least those I'v had) are not asking for those sort things, most want to do stuff like the whole throwing glass idea and not wanting to punch holes in castle walls or drink acid and spit it at people.
So Yes, I’ll admit I would tell players that an action they could try wouldn’t be worth it, BUT I try to make the absolute last option, If I can think of a plausible reason it should work (usually only need 1) and a way to not break the game (easy to do almost always) then I tell them to go for it.
A side note as well; I play a lot of my games more TotM than others; so there is always ample room for things like this, and I encourage it at the table.
most want to do stuff like the whole throwing glass idea and not wanting to punch holes in castle walls or drink acid and spit it at people.
Those who are seeking to do things like that are just yanking the DM's chain anyway. Such a request is deserving of an out-of-game conversation to determine that player's intent rather than an in-game block of the idea. The player might just make a convincing case or the DM may have forgotten a detail that came up previously that would allow the thing to be attempted.
The problematic issue is when the DM sees just about anything out-of-the-box as yanking his or her chain probably because he's got a plot or world to protect. I don't see how throwing dust in the eyes of enemies is anything but perfectly reasonable. Block it, and (as was pointed out) the character can turn around and buy eyesting which costs a piddly 40 gp (at 4th-level), has no skill check to pull off, a longer-lasting effect, and has an aftereffect with save ends. In light of this, my terrain power must look pretty appetizing to the reluctant DM now, huh?
And don't forget, Chuck had to spend the last of his money to buy those bottles and such. He couldn't even afford cayenne pepper and the mortar and pestle is on layaway.
So you will say "yes and....." for any poorly conceived idea, but seem pretty intolorant for any suggestion that the player makes any effort on his part to make the idea work or improve upon it. The idea of collaberation is that it both parties work together.
IMO, your chuck's bag of broken glass is too much. Blinded for 4 rounds? That's way too much. I'd make it maybe -1 to melee and ranged attacks and -5 to perception checks for 1 round. and that is all it should get. If they were to do some effort with tools to grind it proper, then I would make it -2 melee and ranged. If they wanted some reactant, such as cayenne pepper (a common, easy to obtain ingredient) then I would consider a harsh debuff, maybe even blinded for a round or 2. Better yet they could follow that link about Eyesting. Why? because I don't think a handful of broken glass is going to be as effective as a can of mace.
You can call it blocking, I call it a fair consideration, no penalty (there is no reason why this shoudl be risky) it's a minor debuff, that's fair. I beleive in rewarding the players for the effort they put into making their ideas work, there is no limit to what they can do if they put the effort in to make it work.
This is no different with how anythign else in the game works, they put in the effort to achieve that goal. The idea (tossing something into the opponents eyes) has merit, how effective it is depends on how much effort they put into making it work.
Reflex save vs. a DC equal to the attack roll sounds good.
I wouldn't make the damage permanent, though... unless the blindness can be cured by an easy heal check or by any heal spell.
I'd likely go with a fort save for half effect if it hits. If they fail the fort save, they are blinded enough to give a 50% miss chance until they make an attempt to get the glass out.. DC 10 heal check. If they make the save, everything is blurry and they get a 20% miss chance.
It's a cool and nasty little trick, regardless of how you handle it. After a while, NPC's are going to see how cool and nasty it is and the glassmaker is going to be rich.
So you will say "yes and....." for any poorly conceived idea, but seem pretty intolorant for any suggestion that the player makes any effort on his part to make the idea work or improve upon it. The idea of collaberation is that it both parties work together.
Yes, and here's the thing: Ideas are ideas. "Poorly conceived" is your bias. I'm not biased toward players' ideas. The goal is the same regardless of effort put forth in the narrative: Blind an enemy for a time. The mechanics play out the same.
IMO, your chuck's bag of broken glass is too much. Blinded for 4 rounds? That's way too much. I'd make it maybe -1 to melee and ranged attacks and -5 to perception checks for 1 round. and that is all it should get. If they were to do some effort with tools to grind it proper, then I would make it -2 melee and ranged. If they wanted some reactant, such as cayenne pepper (a common, easy to obtain ingredient) then I would consider a harsh debuff, maybe even blinded for a round or 2. Better yet they could follow that link about Eyesting. Why? because I don't think a handful of broken glass is going to be as effective as a can of mace.
For one, I don't know how you read my terrain power as being blind for 4 rounds. It doesn't say anything of the sort. I'd add that there's very little point to the level of simulation you suggest in my opinion.
You can call it blocking, I call it a fair consideration, no penalty (there is no reason why this shoudl be risky) it's a minor debuff, that's fair. I beleive in rewarding the players for the effort they put into making their ideas work, there is no limit to what they can do if they put the effort in to make it work.
This is no different with how anythign else in the game works, they put in the effort to achieve that goal. The idea (tossing something into the opponents eyes) has merit, how effective it is depends on how much effort they put into making it work.
Here's how I read you:
Player: I smash up a bunch of glass bottles in a sack and throw the glass dust in people's eyes to blind them.
You: That's a poorly conceived idea.
Player: What if I throw a dash of cayenne pepper in there?
You: Brilliant.
Here's how I read you:
Player: I smash up a bunch of glass bottles in a sack and throw the glass dust in people's eyes to blind them.
You: That's a poorly conceived idea.
Player: What if I throw a dash of cayenne pepper in there?
You: Brilliant.
Or does the DM say, "If you did it with a mortar and pestle, and added cayenne pepper, it would work," and let the player say "Ok, sounds good, I do that"?
Or does the DM say, "If you did it with a mortar and pestle, and added cayenne pepper, it would work," and let the player say "Ok, sounds good, I do that"?
Sure. My guess is that will then cue the shopping scene where the character haggles over the price of cayenne pepper with a gruff dwarf spice merchant while the rest of the players desperately wonder why a bag of just glass dust wouldn't be sufficient to the task.
as well as saying “Yup you can but It will be so hard you mise well not waste your time” Is crapy as well.
Would you set up a situation where PCs waste their time or resources attempting actions that would clearly be impossible without even warning them that it's clearly impossible? If so, that's the definition of a "Gotcha DM." Or is nothing impossible when you DM? Do you think it's a good idea to warn them if something isn't impossible but has a very small chance of success?
When I DM, some things are clearly impossible. I also assume that the PCs aren't too stupid to realize this and unless their Wisdom is below average, they will always have a general idea of how difficult a task is for them. So you'll hear things from me like "Your common sense tells you that this would be too difficult for you. In other words, you have no chance/little chance of success. Still wanna try?"
As a DM, I don't pull gotchas.
I don't think it's crappy if I tell the DM I'm going to try something difficult and he says "It's going to be difficult." Or if I try to have my character squeeze through a tiny hole and he says "Impossible. His head's too big".
I'll either get creative and come up with a better idea, or add to the idea to make it possible.
Okay. The window is too small. What if I use the door?
Or... hmm.. what if I shave my beard, smear my head in oil and cut off my ears? (Just kidding)
If it's merely difficult and not impossible, I may just try it anyway, especially if he character I'm playing would think that the risk is worth the reward.
So you will say "yes and....." for any poorly conceived idea, but seem pretty intolorant for any suggestion that the player makes any effort on his part to make the idea work or improve upon it. The idea of collaberation is that it both parties work together.
Yes, and here's the thing: Ideas are ideas. "Poorly conceived" is your bias. I'm not biased toward players' ideas. The goal is the same regardless of effort put forth in the narrative: Blind an enemy for a time. The mechanics play out the same.IMO, your chuck's bag of broken glass is too much. Blinded for 4 rounds? That's way too much. I'd make it maybe -1 to melee and ranged attacks and -5 to perception checks for 1 round. and that is all it should get. If they were to do some effort with tools to grind it proper, then I would make it -2 melee and ranged. If they wanted some reactant, such as cayenne pepper (a common, easy to obtain ingredient) then I would consider a harsh debuff, maybe even blinded for a round or 2. Better yet they could follow that link about Eyesting. Why? because I don't think a handful of broken glass is going to be as effective as a can of mace.
For one, I don't know how you read my terrain power as being blind for 4 rounds. It doesn't say anything of the sort. I'd add that there's very little point to the level of simulation you suggest in my opinion.You can call it blocking, I call it a fair consideration, no penalty (there is no reason why this shoudl be risky) it's a minor debuff, that's fair. I beleive in rewarding the players for the effort they put into making their ideas work, there is no limit to what they can do if they put the effort in to make it work.
This is no different with how anythign else in the game works, they put in the effort to achieve that goal. The idea (tossing something into the opponents eyes) has merit, how effective it is depends on how much effort they put into making it work.
Here's how I read you:
Player: I smash up a bunch of glass bottles in a sack and throw the glass dust in people's eyes to blind them.
You: That's a poorly conceived idea.
Player: What if I throw a dash of cayenne pepper in there?
You: Brilliant.
You do have biases, though. I've put forth (and other people have put forth) several examples in the past that you have labelled as 'extreme' as if they either are likely to never happen, or if they do happen the player is 'yanking the DM's chain' for one reason or another.
What we're saying here is more like this:
Player: I smash up a bunch of glass bottles in a sack and throw the glass dust in people's eyes to blind them.
DM: Cool move, but it's a make-shift weapon. I'll give them a DC15 fort save... if you hit.
Player: What if I throw a dash of cayenne pepper or something like that in there? And find some way to grind the glass into really fine pieces?
DM: I'll increase the DC of the fort save and make it an area attack. 5 foot burst sound good?
Player: Brilliant!
You do have biases, though. I've put forth (and other people have put forth) several examples in the past that you have labelled as 'extreme' as if they either are likely to never happen, or if they do happen the player is 'yanking the DM's chain' for one reason or another.
Not only are those extreme examples self-evident (rolling in honey and feathers and jumping off a cliff?), but they are often labelled as extreme even by the person citing them.
What we're saying here is more like this:
Player: I smash up a bunch of glass bottles in a sack and throw the glass dust in people's eyes to blind them.
DM: Cool move, but it's a make-shift weapon. I'll give them a DC15 fort save... if you hit.
Player: What if I throw a dash of cayenne pepper or something like that in there? And find some way to grind the glass into really fine pieces?
DM: I'll increase the DC of the fort save and make it an area attack. 5 foot burst sound good?
Player: Brilliant!
If that works for you, go for it. What it sounds like more often is "That's not realistic, so no" or "That's not realistic, so here's a mechanic so lacking that you'd be foolish not to do something else instead."
I'm the DM in this entire scenario and Omegasupreme651 - who started this thread - is in our D&D group.
I really like all the responses and information concerning this. It was my first time DMing in 15 years when one of our guys did this so I wasn't exactly sure how to proceed with it. After reading all the responses on here, I will definately implement an attack roll vs. reflex and have the person do a save/dexterity check to see if he gets cut as well.
The information on here is great and I look forward to learning more!!!
~ My name is wasowicz and I approve this message ~
Here's how I read you:
Player: I smash up a bunch of glass bottles in a sack and throw the glass dust in people's eyes to blind them.
You: That's a poorly conceived idea.
Player: What if I throw a dash of cayenne pepper in there?
You: Brilliant.
No, and that isn't what I said, nor could possibly be taken as meaning when I say "The idea (tossing something into the opponents eyes) has merit," so it is quite a leap on your part to reach "the poorly conceived idea" There is a difference, I think the overall idea is a good one, I think that the methodology in implimenting said idea however is not very creative. Broken glass in a sack is a crudely improvised way of doing this and the and the returns for it should match the effort put into it's implimentation.
Player: I smash up a bunch of glass bottles in a sack and throw the glass dust in people's eyes to blind them.
DM: Hmmmm, sure, I will give them a DC 15 save with a -1 melee and ranged attack for their turn.
Player: What? That's not worth it.
DM: Well it is just broken glass in a sack.
Player: Yes, well I will give it more thought, perhaps if I ground it better into a fine dust, some sort of grinder or tool, I'll ask the glass blower if there is one in this town
DM: That would definately improve it, there is a glass blower, mostly does work for the city mages, he uses a small mortar and pestle, oh and you can buy the raw materials from him too, alot cheaper then buying glasses.
Player: Excelent, hey what if I added some Cayenne pepper to it as well?
DM: If it is in the book you can buy it, actually i think Cayenne peper was used in warfare historically. anyways a 1lb bag of uncommon spices is only 5 copper, what would you say to -2 attacks and -10 perception, DC 15 save if your attack hits.
Player: I dunno, still seems weak.
DM: Well it won't be as good as Blinded, you understand, and don't underestimate that -10 to perception either. If I give them a save each round for 4 rounds does that sound workable
Player: Only one way to find out, lets try it in a fight..
What I find perhaps more suprising is that you talk of collaberation and then openly mock any suggestion of actually collaberating as a two way exchange, perhaps you think it means "hand them everything on a silver platter" and not "two or more parties mutually working together to achieve a goal" And since this is the What's a Player to Do? section, I aimed some of my advice on how the player could make an idea like this work. Metal Filings, Sand and Cayenne Pepper were used in this manner centuries ago, so it fits the setting rather well.
Players come up with brilliant ideas, sometimes so good that the DM has to call for a short break while he rewrites some material. They often do alot of work to make those ideas work, dedicating their character build and gear to do so. But they also come up with ideas that are not so good, and some that are just plain terrible ideas. The question I would throw back is do you reward bad ideas the same as you do good ideas equally? And if so are you encouraging creativity or stifling it? Why shouldn't the DM reward effort, creativity and a player who's character puts in the effort to make the idea work?
I don't know what you are doing, but in my experience, not just playing the game but in life in general, raising kids, running a business, always saying "yes and...." as you describe breeds weakness and stifles creativity. Or as the fraud Edison said once said, 'I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work'
Not every idea is a good one, not every idea will work, and mindlessly encouraging and rewarding bad ideas does not encourage creative thinking, it encourages lazy thinking, and some ideas need some effort to make work. This idea is not a bad one, I like it, but it is being poorly executed by the player. A DM should not pander to the player and reward poorly executed ideas, but neither should he block the player from putting in the effort to make that idea work. And that is where the game gets creative, and where collaberation happens, in making the idea work.
And you may think the example of feathers and honey to jump off the cliff is extreme and a player acting out, but flip back to the first post. The player expectation that breaking up mugs and tossing them into peoples faces to blind them in combat, no roll to hit, is pretty extreme, they are pretty close to the same level of thinking. Expecting extremely excelent results from poorly executed ideas with absolute minimal effort to make them work. You aren't rewarding creativity by encouraging that, you are in fact stifling it.
What I find perhaps more suprising is that you talk of collaberation and then openly mock any suggestion of actually collaberating as a two way exchange, perhaps you think it means "hand them everything on a silver platter" and not "two or more parties mutually working together to achieve a goal" And since this is the What's a Player to Do? section, I aimed some of my advice on how the player could make an idea like this work. Metal Filings, Sand and Cayenne Pepper were used in this manner centuries ago, so it fits the setting rather well.
I'm all for collaboration. What I'm not for is what appears to me as having players jump through arbitrary hoops to get what they want. We can have the same level of engaging collaboration without the player guessing at what's going to please the DM's abitrary sense of realism and get them a greater mechanical advantage. That's lobbying and "DM May I?" stuff that I left behind a long time ago.
The question I would throw back is do you reward bad ideas the same as you do good ideas equally? And if so are you encouraging creativity or stifling it? Why shouldn't the DM reward effort, creativity and a player who's character puts in the effort to make the idea work?
I make no judgment as to good ideas or bad ideas. They're just ideas. Effort, creativity, and all that are rewards unto themselves. The mechanics are just the mechanics.
I don't know what you are doing, but in my experience, not just playing the game but in life in general, raising kids, running a business, always saying "yes and...." as you describe breeds weakness and stifles creativity. Or as the fraud Edison said once said, 'I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work'
I'm not sure how raising kids, running a business, or whatever applies here. We're playing and discussing a game that takes place in a fantasy world. Leave that reality at the door.
Not every idea is a good one, not every idea will work, and mindlessly encouraging and rewarding bad ideas does not encourage creative thinking, it encourages lazy thinking, and some ideas need some effort to make work. This idea is not a bad one, I like it, but it is being poorly executed by the player. A DM should not pander to the player and reward poorly executed ideas, but neither should he block the player from putting in the effort to make that idea work. And that is where the game gets creative, and where collaberation happens, in making the idea work.
I don't think it's the province of the DM to decide whether an idea is good or not. It's just an idea, where mechanics may be required to adjudicate the success or failure of the goal (balanced against level-appropriate mechanics), and the dice determine the outcome. "Good ideas" are rewards onto themselves. So are "bad ideas" that by luck or circumstance, actually work. That's not for the DM to decide in my view. The players can decide if those ideas are good or bad and the dice can decide if those good or bad ideas actually work.
And you may think the example of feathers and honey to jump off the cliff is extreme and a player acting out, but flip back to the first post. The player expectation that breaking up mugs and tossing them into peoples faces to blind them in combat, no roll to hit, is pretty extreme, they are pretty close to the same level of thinking. Expecting extremely excelent results from poorly executed ideas with absolute minimal effort to make them work. You aren't rewarding creativity by encouraging that, you are in fact stifling it.
I submit that the reason the mechanic appears somewhat unbalanced was a concern about realism in the first place. Except that sense of arbitrariness favored the player rather than the DM.
I'm all for collaboration. What I'm not for is what appears to me as having players jump through arbitrary hoops to get what they want. We can have the same level of engaging collaboration without the player guessing at what's going to please the DM's abitrary sense of realism and get them a greater mechanical advantage. That's lobbying and "DM May I?" stuff that I left behind a long time ago.
How is a player supposed to know what changes to the idea will meet the DM's standard for making it a "good" idea that "deserves" to be rewarded by making it work? Not all ideas have historical precedent (which DMs are known to misunderstand and misrepresent anyway). What if the player wants to make a spell or other non-real effect work in a new way?
If the DM has some standard for realism, it's foolish to keep that from the player. If a DM doesn't like how an idea is presented, the DM should tell the player what the player needs to do to make the idea work. Anything else is hoping that the player will give up on the idea.
It seems as though a "good" idea is one that the DM doesn't feel right objecting to further. It has met the DM's threshhold for discussion and argument and even though it would be trivial for the DM to continue blocking it, they just feel as though it has become bad form. Some DMs never feel this and will block forever. Other DMs feel that any blocking is bad form and that the group should accept and refine ideas, rather than discouraging them for any reason. Accepting and refining ideas does encourage creative thinking. Blocking them just encourages random hoop-jumping and failure mitigation.
How is a player supposed to know what changes to the idea will meet the DM's standard for making it a "good" idea that "deserves" to be rewarded by making it work?
He keeps guessing until he gets it right, I guess. "Gets it right" being defined as jumping through the hoops the DM wants to "allow" the player to attain his goal, whatever that may be.
If the DM has some standard for realism, it's foolish to keep that from the player. If a DM doesn't like how an idea is presented, the DM should tell the player what the player needs to do to make the idea work. Anything else is hoping that the player will give up on the idea.
Definitely.
It seems as though a "good" idea is one that the DM doesn't feel right objecting to further. It has met the DM's threshhold for discussion and argument and even though it would be trivial for the DM to continue blocking it, they just feel as though it has become bad form. Some DMs never feel this and will block forever. Other DMs feel that any blocking is bad form and that the group should accept and refine ideas, rather than discouraging them for any reason. Accepting and refining ideas does encourage creative thinking. Blocking them just encourages random hoop-jumping and failure mitigation.
Agree, completely. And a hearty "Amen" to the part I bolded.
I'm all for collaboration. What I'm not for is what appears to me as having players jump through arbitrary hoops to get what they want. We can have the same level of engaging collaboration without the player guessing at what's going to please the DM's abitrary sense of realism and get them a greater mechanical advantage. That's lobbying and "DM May I?" stuff that I left behind a long time ago.
Who said arbitary hoops, The player has an idea, the DM fits in the game with a fair ruling, using whatever mechanical system best fits. Everything is the DM's "abitrary sense of realism" which can and does vary from DM to DM. My suggestion is a fair ruling based on the crudeness or effort put into it's execution, -1 attack for 1or 2 rounds on a DC 15, with a successful hit is a fair result imo.
And while a DM shouldn't be a stickler at realism, (cause you know Dragons and Magic) it is still a consideration when maitaining the suspended disbelief of the world the game is in. I am also strongly advocating rewarding the effort that Players put into implimenting their ideas.
Now if I was this player, I would use a mix of sand, metal filings and Cayenne pepper. As the sand/metal filings can be thrown more effectively and the chemical reagent in the pepper will combine to make it far more effective. And for a delivery system, i will hollow out egg shells and fill them with this. This is easier to aim, has a range and easier to handle with no risk of covering myself while using it.
Now I put in that effort, and the player beside me tossed a couple of mugs into a sack and whacks it against the wall, grabs a handful and tosses it at his target.
Do we both get the same results? Is so my response as a player is going to be rather negative. Why would you block my creative ideas?
Or because you've given hims such astonishingly good results despite his complete lack of effort, are you going to give me far better results? You are just settign the game up for escalation of power problems.
I make no judgment as to good ideas or bad ideas. They're just ideas. Effort, creativity, and all that are rewards unto themselves. The mechanics are just the mechanics.
I agree, the mechanics are just the mechanics, it is up to the player to decide then if it is a good idea based on the mechanics that result from it. So um yes, I will use a herring instead of a greatsword. What it does no damage? I thought there was no bad ideas? Sorry I should say that not all things have the same mechanical return.
If the idea is a reward unto itself, then it won't matter to the player if it doesn't work mechanically. The problem with this thinking is that the purpose of the idea was to get a mechanical result, there is an expectation, a well justified expectation from the players that ideas and effort pay pff with mechanical results. So there is objectively workable ideas and ideas with little to no payoff mechanically, and even, god forbid, bad ideas that they really shouldn't do.
As long as the DM's goal is to be fair and to reward a player for the effort put into making an idea work.
And you will notice that not everything that is in the game, mechanicswise, is a good idea, a rusty dagger isn't as effective as a magic greatsword.. So the mechanics are the mechanics, it is up to the player to decide from there.
I'm not sure how raising kids, running a business, or whatever applies here. We're playing and discussing a game that takes place in a fantasy world. Leave that reality at the door.
Basic life skills apply to any social setting, even a social game like D&D. And when we talk about developing and encouraging creativity, open communication and basic problem solving skills. I think D&D is an excelent tool for developing such creative skills. Now if you are saying that basic life skills should be left at the door, I understand what you mean about having to take players aside when you have issues with their behaviour.
If my child were to bring me a picture that they scribbled, should I always say "OMG it is so wonderful, I will hang it on the fridge for all to see" or should I sometimes say "your gettign older now, it's time you started colouring in the lines and not just scribbling" One breeds a narsasistic child who drops out of highschool and the other leads to a child that goes on to college and a career.
To put this in perspective to the game, because we don't ussually play with children, are you encouraging creativity by just saying "yes and...." to pander to any idea without consideration to the actual effort, skill, or creativity behind it?
As a Player, I don't like how it was implimented by the original post, the player posting it didn't seem particularly impressed either. So I think, case in point.
I don't think it's the province of the DM to decide whether an idea is good or not. It's just an idea, where mechanics may be required to adjudicate the success or failure of the goal (balanced against level-appropriate mechanics), and the dice determine the outcome. "Good ideas" are rewards onto themselves. So are "bad ideas" that by luck or circumstance, actually work. That's not for the DM to decide in my view. The players can decide if those ideas are good or bad and the dice can decide if those good or bad ideas actually work.
But it is up to the DM to adjucate what mechanics are used to impliment the idea. In this he should make a fair ruling, with consideration to the effort and skill in which the idea is implimented. The the player can decide if the idea is good or bad, based on those mechanics, or if it can be improved upon.
The effectiveness should be based on the effort, skill, or crudeness and lack of effort, put into making the idea work. There also rests on the player a certain responsibility to make his idea work. But again, you seem to dislike my suggestion that some ideas are better then others when I say there are ways for this player to improve upon it.
I submit that the reason the mechanic appears somewhat unbalanced was a concern about realism in the first place. Except that sense of arbitrariness favored the player rather than the DM.
The DM should never be arbitrary in his rulings, a Fair ruling considers trying to make the player's idea work. realism is not as important as consistancy, but it is something to consider when it comes to keeping the suspension of disbelief up. And again, there is some expectation that the player makes an effort to make an idea work.
Just because the DM says to a player that gluing feathers to his arms and jumping is a bad idea, it does not mean that the player cannot build an aparatis for gliding, parachuting or even flying (because hey it is a fantasy game) Just that the player has to make it work. If you chalenge your players you will be pleasantly suprized at what they can do.
One answer to how a player knows what the DM's standard is could be that the DM explains it up front. But even if a DM does that, if there are any hoops players are still going to tend to feel more comfortable just going by the rules and what is on their sheets, those things that they don't have to ask permission for.
A reply to that is why will a character feel comfortable in coming up with creative ideas and putting the effort into making them work if they aren't rewarded any differently then any other idea, however the difference in effort or merit or sensibility?
If two seperate players at youe game come up with an idea of blinding their opponents like this, and player 1 smashes a glass mug in a bag to toss in their eyes and player 2 takes the effort to grind the glass or use sand and metal shavings and cayenne peppers or some other reactant materials in a delivery system (such as hollowed out eggs) will they both get the exact same results?
Are you going to reward the one for what you call "jumping through hoops" or what others would call Creativity, hard work, effort and cleverness, or will you block his ideas and give him the same results?
The truth of it is that you will hopefully evaluate their effort and creativity fairly and give them a mechaical effect that matches that.
And again, there is talk about Collaberating, which seems to you to be rather one sided, as you call any DM input "having to jump through hoops" rather then working together.
How is a player supposed to know what changes to the idea will meet the DM's standard for making it a "good" idea that "deserves" to be rewarded by making it work?
He keeps guessing until he gets it right, I guess. "Gets it right" being defined as jumping through the hoops the DM wants to "allow" the player to attain his goal, whatever that may be.If the DM has some standard for realism, it's foolish to keep that from the player. If a DM doesn't like how an idea is presented, the DM should tell the player what the player needs to do to make the idea work. Anything else is hoping that the player will give up on the idea.
Definitely.It seems as though a "good" idea is one that the DM doesn't feel right objecting to further. It has met the DM's threshhold for discussion and argument and even though it would be trivial for the DM to continue blocking it, they just feel as though it has become bad form. Some DMs never feel this and will block forever. Other DMs feel that any blocking is bad form and that the group should accept and refine ideas, rather than discouraging them for any reason. Accepting and refining ideas does encourage creative thinking. Blocking them just encourages random hoop-jumping and failure mitigation.
Agree, completely. And a hearty "Amen" to the part I bolded.
If a player uses a pillow as a battering ram, it isn't as effective as using a log.
The same (theoretically) common sense can be applied to this situation.
- Big fat chunks of glass on top of the head = minimum effect, if any at all.
- Well-ground slivers of glass combined with Naga-bih Jah pepper in the eye (which is 10x as hot as cayenne, according to the Scoville scale) = much better effect.
If a player can't understand an explanation for why a pillow isn't particularly effective as a batterning ram, but a wooden log is or how getting finely ground glass and hot pepper in an enemy's eye might have a better chance of affecting his vision than big chunks of glass, this game is likely beyond the scope of their mental acumen. That the player was able to come up with the idea indicates that this is not the case. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume they have the mental acumen to understand such things as pillow (soft) vs. log (hard) and chunks of glass in the ear (not effective blinding strategy) vs. slivered glass/hot pepper combination in the eye (more effective blinding strategy).
If a player suggests that applying such common sense is some sort of confining hoop or idea blockage, the player is simply being a jerk. No in-game OR out-of-game solution will likely change that. The base-line standard for most worlds is that unless there is a reason for exception (magic, supernatural ability, things working differently on a particular plane, etc) that things work within reasonable approximation of the way they work in the real world , requiring no further explanation or back story to establish fiction is... I suspect... using common sense. I'm advocating using common sense.
Who said arbitary hoops, The player has an idea, the DM fits in the game with a fair ruling, using whatever mechanical system best fits. Everything is the DM's "abitrary sense of realism" which can and does vary from DM to DM. My suggestion is a fair ruling based on the crudeness or effort put into it's execution, -1 attack for 1or 2 rounds on a DC 15, with a successful hit is a fair result imo.
Your value judgment as to the "crudeness" of the effort is what's at issue here. It's much simpler and less arbitary to ask, "What is your goal with that, Mr. Player?" When he says, "To throw it into people's eyes and blind them," then you can translate that into a fair mechanic based upon level, regardless of how much cayenne pepper he uses.
Now if I was this player, I would use a mix of sand, metal filings and Cayenne pepper. As the sand/metal filings can be thrown more effectively and the chemical reagent in the pepper will combine to make it far more effective. And for a delivery system, i will hollow out egg shells and fill them with this. This is easier to aim, has a range and easier to handle with no risk of covering myself while using it.
Now I put in that effort, and the player beside me tossed a couple of mugs into a sack and whacks it against the wall, grabs a handful and tosses it at his target.
Do we both get the same results? Is so my response as a player is going to be rather negative. Why would you block my creative ideas?
Or because you've given hims such astonishingly good results despite his complete lack of effort, are you going to give me far better results? You are just settign the game up for escalation of power problems.
Yes, same result. Because I'm judging the effort by the mechanics that apply to the stated goal, not whatever I think is a good idea or a better idea. That's not blocking, by the way. You use "blocking" the same way you use "Yes, and...", which is to say, with a willful ignorance of what those things actually mean.
There is no escalation of power. The mechanic is the same whether you use cayenne pepper or not. The player that suggested using cayenne pepper simply gets the benefit of being clever in his fiction.
I agree, the mechanics are just the mechanics, it is up to the player to decide then if it is a good idea based on the mechanics that result from it. So um yes, I will use a herring instead of a greatsword. What it does no damage? I thought there was no bad ideas? Sorry I should say that not all things have the same mechanical return.
I guess you'd probably be disgruntled at how effective the fighter is in one of my games. He uses a 2x4 shoring timber named Delilah as a weapon. It's just as effective as a greatsword in his hands. A bard in a different game used frying pan that was as effective as a scimitar.
If the idea is a reward unto itself, then it won't matter to the player if it doesn't work mechanically. The problem with this thinking is that the purpose of the idea was to get a mechanical result, there is an expectation, a well justified expectation from the players that ideas and effort pay pff with mechanical results. So there is objectively workable ideas and ideas with little to no payoff mechanically, and even, god forbid, bad ideas that they really shouldn't do.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding what I said here. What I'm saying is that one idea is not better than the other. The goal of both is to blind an opponent and that mechanic will be whatever it will be based on what is appropriate at that level. That one player had a cooler way of implementing it than the other is its own reward.
And you will notice that not everything that is in the game, mechanicswise, is a good idea, a rusty dagger isn't as effective as a magic greatsword.. So the mechanics are the mechanics, it is up to the player to decide from there.
Sounds like twisted justification to disincentivize things by offering undesirable mechanics for player ideas you think are bad for whatever reasons you have.
If my child were to bring me a picture that they scribbled, should I always say "OMG it is so wonderful, I will hang it on the fridge for all to see" or should I sometimes say "your gettign older now, it's time you started colouring in the lines and not just scribbling" One breeds a narsasistic child who drops out of highschool and the other leads to a child that goes on to college and a career.
You often refer to players as children in your posts, or as those who need a bloody nose to learn their lessons. That's pretty telling.
As a Player, I don't like how it was implimented by the original post, the player posting it didn't seem particularly impressed either. So I think, case in point.
And in my view, that call was probably based more in an argument for the efficacy of the action based upon realistic concerns rather than a concern about balanced mechanics.
But it is up to the DM to adjucate what mechanics are used to impliment the idea. In this he should make a fair ruling, with consideration to the effort and skill in which the idea is implimented. The the player can decide if the idea is good or bad, based on those mechanics, or if it can be improved upon.
The effectiveness should be based on the effort, skill, or crudeness and lack of effort, put into making the idea work. There also rests on the player a certain responsibility to make his idea work. But again, you seem to dislike my suggestion that some ideas are better then others when I say there are ways for this player to improve upon it.
My take is to analyze the goal of the effort to gauge the mechanics that apply, not the fiction of the effort itself.
If a player suggests that applying such common sense is some sort of confining hoop or idea blockage, the player is simply being a jerk.
I think we're making progress. You made up another extreme example and then finally concluded that the player is just yanking the DM's chain. All by yourself! It is worthy of an out-of-game conversation to determine intent.
If a player suggests that applying such common sense is some sort of confining hoop or idea blockage, the player is simply being a jerk.
I think we're making progress. You made up another extreme example and then finally concluded that the player is just yanking the DM's chain. All by yourself! It is worthy of an out-of-game conversation to determine intent.
"There is no escalation of power. The mechanic is the same whether you use cayenne pepper or not. The player that suggested using cayenne pepper simply gets the benefit of being clever in his fiction."
The escalation of power here is stopped at the point in which the intended effect (blindness) happens. If the crudely broken glass only causes blurred vision and some more potent combination eventually leads to actual blindness, the only power escalation possible is an increase in the DC to avoid the effect. Once it reaches the point that only a natural 20 will prevent the blindness, any additional effort to make it more potent becomes redundant.
I don't have a problem with the escalation of power that may happen, because at some point the player will either be satisfied or is getting his jollies by his efforts to make a more powerful pepper spray. I will likely help the player by creating adventures where ever more powerful peppers may be found... "the Efreeti's gardens in the brass cities of K'zarresh are said to hold a pepper so hot that the efreeti's serve it to their Salamander warriors to make them more fierce".
That wasn't the conclusion... the conclusion I came to was the player claiming everything is blocking him is the one yanking the DMs chain when he claims to not understand why the DM would give him a better chance of success if he did something with a better chance of success. Or claiming that by giving him a better chance of success when the player does something with a better chance of success is making him hump through hoops.
Actually, the extreme example of the pillow is no more extreme than your example of the cayenne pepper. The SIMILARUTY of the two examples (both requiring a very elementary level of common sense to understand why each example has a different level of effectiveness) are why I came up with the example.
Telling a player that "your good idea is its own reward" only goes so far. THAT is blocking, if I've ever seen it. His idea of adding the pepper was to make it more effective in some way. It is reasonable (and not jerking someone's chain) to think that a more effective weapon be (watch this part) more effective. The player's idea to make it more effective is the block, in other words.
EDIT: SIMILARITY
The escalation of power here is stopped at the point in which the intended effect (blindness) happens. If the crudely broken glass only causes blurred vision and some more potent combination eventually leads to actual blindness, the only power escalation possible is an increase in the DC to avoid the effect. Once it reaches the point that only a natural 20 will prevent the blindness, any additional effort to make it more potent becomes redundant.
If someone agrees to a rules system, then they agree to the adjudication of that rules system to the appropriate power level at a given point in the game. You don't need to go through all of what you describe. Ascertain goal -> Adjudicate Appropriate Mechanic by Level -> Ask for Buy-In -> Play On.
That wasn't the conclusion... the conclusion I came to was the player claiming everything is blocking him is the one yanking the DMs chain when he claims to not understand why the DM would give him a better chance of success if he did something with a better chance of success. Or claiming that by giving him a better chance of success when the player does something with a better chance of success is making him hump through hoops.
"I want to batter down the door." There's a mechanic for that already - a Strength check against a set DC. There is no blocking here. The player agreed to that mechanic when they agreed to play the game.
Telling a player that "your good idea is its own reward" only goes so far. THAT is blocking, if I've ever seen it. His idea of adding the pepper was to make it more effective in some way. It is reasonable (and not jerking someone's chain) to think that a more effective weapon be (watch this part) more effective. The player's idea to make it more effective is the block, in other words.
You don't appear to know what blocking means, so I'd suggest not using it to make your case. Come at it from another angle.
I'd add that (in a previous thread), you admitted to lowering mechanical difficulty or handwaving success for "good plans" or raising difficulty for "bad plans." For some perspective on my viewpoint, I don't do this. There are mechanics and DCs (by level) involved for any given action where success and failure are interesting. I don't pre-judge plans. I ask for the goal, apply mechanics to their stated actions as appropriate to the rules, and we see what happens. I don't have bias in this regard. I don't think it's good for a DM to pre-judge ideas and adjust mechanics to fit that.
Yes, same result. Because I'm judging the effort by the mechanics that apply to the stated goal, not whatever I think is a good idea or a better idea. That's not blocking, by the way. You use "blocking" the same way you use "Yes, and...", which is to say, with a willful ignorance of what those things actually mean.
OK, you play it as "everyone wins" and don't reward creativity or effort, and the player's choices have no impact on the game.
Music industry does this too, it's called digital loudness, it tricks the brain in being able to hear the music over anything else, but it effectively errods the actual quality, does damage to the ears and is why it is hard to find good copies of classic titles because it destroys the range at the same time.
There is no escalation of power. The mechanic is the same whether you use cayenne pepper or not. The player that suggested using cayenne pepper simply gets the benefit of being clever in his fiction.
The player went through the extra effort and expense to make the idea work better and deserves a mechanical benifit for his effort, just as someone who enchants a sword to get an improved magic weapon gets a mechanical benifit from his choice and not just a cool looking glowing effect, but the same stats as a rusty dagger.
I suppose the real difference is that i don't impose a cap on my player's creativity.
I guess you'd probably be disgruntled at how effective the fighter is in one of my games. He uses a 2x4 shoring timber named Delilah as a weapon. It's just as effective as a greatsword in his hands. A bard in a different game used frying pan that was as effective as a scimitar.
I had an Ogre Barbarian named Peaches (not to his face though) who used a peach tree as a giant club and who's battlecry was "DON'T CALL ME PEACHES!!!!" The real difference is that it was just a Greatclub. His tragic, horrid and gruesome (though hilarious) death as a result of some really bad ideas, is another story. Or my Vampire character in another game who went into a fight armed with a banana and a paperclip (in my defense I was only joking with the other player but forgot my gun)
His later tragic, horrid and gruesome (though hilarious) death as a result of some really bad ideas, is another story as well.
What would have been cool and impressive however is if that Frying Pan was just a frying pan, rather then a scimitar with a fluff description. Want to talk about creativity being it's own reward then ante up
Perhaps you're misunderstanding what I said here. What I'm saying is that one idea is not better than the other. The goal of both is to blind an opponent and that mechanic will be whatever it will be based on what is appropriate at that level. That one player had a cooler way of implementing it than the other is its own reward.
Ahh, except one had additional ideas and efforts which you won't aknowledge. -yawn- boring, you have an arbitary cap on success and failure and there is no deviating from it. how is the saying? like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cool, will be spat out. It's mediocre at best, the players can't fail, but neither can they really shine.
Sounds like twisted justification to disincentivize things by offering undesirable mechanics for player ideas you think are bad for whatever reasons you have.
No, as a player i want my choices to matter, to really matter. I am not in favour of being kicked in the teeth or in kicking others in the teeth, but I have to ask why are you so reluctant to disincentivize anything but mediocracy?
You often refer to players as children in your posts, or as those who need a bloody nose to learn their lessons. That's pretty telling.
As I stated after this example that we don't play with children, I am clearly advocating not treating our players like children. But the example I used is a basic life lesson that applies to small children and adults alike, effort and hardwork and creativity should be rewarded. It is something we, as adults, learnt as children.
My take is to analyze the goal of the effort to gauge the mechanics that apply, not the fiction of the effort itself.
Part of the mechanics that should apply is the "fiction of the effort" I understand your intent to try and make the player's ideas work as best as they can, but it should not be at the cost of artifically capping creativity, you are simply dumbing the game down. Or I should say you are advocating dumbing it down, how your groups actually work may be different then this hypothetical. Which may be fine in your groups, but in my experience lacks substance, and I know my players wouldn't be pleased.
I can understand your intent, but what you have is the DM making it happen, rather then the Player making it happen, and I beleive that is overall an unsatisfactory method. As a Player I want to be the one who makes it happen, to have my choices make it happen, and not simply have it carted to me in a silver platter.
] If someone agrees to a rules system, then they agree to the adjudication of that rules system to the appropriate power level at a given point in the game. You don't need to go through all of what you describe.
You missed the part of: Ascertain goal -> Let Player make Choice -> Adjudicate Appropriate Mechanic by Level -> Ask for Buy-In -> Play On
Play what? at this point it is just a choose your own adventure novel with nothing but good choices. To go left and Win turn to page 45, or go right to win turn to page 182, or go straight and win go to page 9, or stay here and win, don't bother turning the page.
"I want to batter down the door." There's a mechanic for that already - a Strength check against a set DC. There is no blocking here. The player agreed to that mechanic when they agreed to play the game.
Ahhh, gotcha, there is no real choice at all. It doesn't matter if the player comes up with a good idea, such as a battering ram, that is all just fluff? A battering ram won't do anything at all. But you tell your player it is a good idea, and nothing else changes? I am not following you as to why you wouldn't give the player a bonus for using a battering ram, and this is probably why your player would be using a pillow, frustration that his creativity is ignored.
My a log would give a bonus, a proper battering ram with nadles and a metal cap? I can't argue with that working even better.
OK, you play it as "everyone wins" and don't reward creativity or effort, and the player's choices have no impact on the game.
Music industry does this too, it's called digital loudness, it tricks the brain in being able to hear the music over anything else, but it effectively errods the actual quality, does damage to the ears and is why it is hard to find good copies of classic titles because it destroys the range at the same time.
I'll be discontinuing the conversation with you after this post. You're casting aspersions and insults where none are called for. At the very best, you're simply ignorant of what I'm trying to say. Because if you had even one iota of understanding (or willingness to understand) my point of view, you'd say that I don't play the game in that way at all.
The player went through the extra effort and expense to make the idea work better and deserves a mechanical benifit for his effort, just as someone who enchants a sword to get an improved magic weapon gets a mechanical benifit from his choice and not just a cool looking glowing effect, but the same stats as a rusty dagger.
You're talking about mechanics that already exist versus mechanics that a DM has to create in line with other mechanics to facilitate the player's creative idea. Maybe that's another reason you understand what I'm talking about.
What would have been cool and impressive however is if that Frying Pan was just a frying pan, rather then a scimitar with a fluff description. Want to talk about creativity being it's own reward then ante up
It was a frying pan. It was as effective as a scimitar in the hands of that character, in line with level-appropriate mechanics.
Ahh, except one had additional ideas and efforts which you won't aknowledge. -yawn- boring, you have an arbitary cap on success and failure and there is no deviating from it. how is the saying? like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cool, will be spat out. It's mediocre at best, the players can't fail, but neither can they really shine.
Wrong, again. All ideas are acknowledged in our game.
No, as a player i want my choices to matter, to really matter. I am not in favour of being kicked in the teeth or in kicking others in the teeth, but I have to ask why are you so reluctant to disincentivize anything but mediocracy?
Disingenuous question.
Part of the mechanics that should apply is the "fiction of the effort" I understand your intent to try and make the player's ideas work as best as they can, but it should not be at the cost of artifically capping creativity, you are simply dumbing the game down. Or I should say you are advocating dumbing it down, how your groups actually work may be different then this hypothetical. Which may be fine in your groups, but in my experience lacks substance, and I know my players wouldn't be pleased.
There's no dumbing down of anything. The bag of glass or the bag of glass with cayenne pepper both have the same goal - blind enemies. Done. You seem to want to simulate every little ingredient with a mechanic. I see no good reason for this and any additional creativity on the part of the Mr. Cayenne is a reward in and of itself.
I can understand your intent, but what you have is the DM making it happen, rather then the Player making it happen, and I beleive that is overall an unsatisfactory method. As a Player I want to be the one who makes it happen, to have my choices make it happen, and not simply have it carted to me in a silver platter.
You got your bag of glass to blind people. Your choice mattered. What else do you want?
Adjudicate
- the Buy-in for our players has already happened when they sat at the table. They expect good ideas to have a better chance of success and for effort to be rewarded. They buy in to the concept that the DM should use common sense and good judgment. If he consistently makes bad calls, trust me, they'll find something else to do.
I STATED... The player's idea to make it more effective is the block, in other words.
What I SHOULD HAVE stated was "The player's idea to make it more effective is BEING BLOCKED" (...by the dungeonmaster arbitrarily ruling that all ideas are equally good, means that any idea intended to increase something's effectiveness is being blocked because it doesn't help. My definition of 'blocking' is that an idea is being blocked, just to clarify my intent.
--
In the door situation, you merely evaded the point, which was that a pillow used as a battering ram is notably less effective than a log and as such, like the crudely crushed glass will be less effective than the more effective item. Also, the types of situations we are describing don't always have a rule and require (hold your breath) common sense to be applied. In 3.5 you can buy a portable battering ram. It gives a +2 bonus to the strength check, if I recall. You can also buy a sack of flour, which might work as an effective pillow, but probably won't make a very effective battering ram.
You state: . "I don't pre-judge plans. I ask for the goal, apply mechanics to their stated actions as appropriate to the rules, and we see what happens. I don't have bias in this regard. I don't think it's good for a DM to pre-judge ideas and adjust mechanics to fit that. "
- You're doing exactly what we are doing. You are applying mechanics to the rules (and it requires common sense to determine what those mechanics are, particularly when the action does not have an implicit rule. I don't remember any glass to the eye rule, although there is certainly a rule for blindness. But a DM might judge that the blindness is temporary or permanent, avoidable by fort save, avoidable by reflex save, grant circumstance bonuses, (such as a bonus to someone decked out in desert gear) or anything in between. The mechanics you choose to apply and how you apply them come down to a judgment call, in this particular case of the glass shards (and many others as well).
You judge that the attempt was sufficient to give a good chance of success and that adding hot pepper isn't going to help much, because the glass shards were sufficient to accomplish what the player wanted to happen (or have a level-based chance to work and the cayenne pepper won't boost that chance). Whereas I judge that the glass shards were a little on the makeshift side and (using existing rules as a guide) shouldn't be quite as powerful as a symbol of blindness, but should have a chance for some sort of effect.
I don't present any hoops; if the player wants to add the hot pepper, he's free to do so. I'm probably not going to suggest it... he's jumping where he wants to jump. If he comes up with such an idea..... his efforts will be rewarded with a more effective blinding weapon AND he gets to be happy with his 'own reward' of having come up with it.
Unless 4e is different in this regard (I cease to be amazed), the rules are flexible enough to allow for imaginative ideas for which no explicit rule exists by giving guidelines for making a call... a call that requires the DM to use his best judgment. 1st edition had a suggestion to give a percentage chance for something to work, how high a percent? DM Call. 2nd edition boiled it down to a stat check; how hard the check was came down to DM call. 3rd edition changed the rhetoric to Difficulty Class and hinted at +2 circumstance bonuses to be applied at the DM's discretion. If you are applying mechanics, you're making a judgment call... unless everything in your world is the same DC.
Unless 4e is different in this regard, the rules generally point to the idea that doing actions that improve your chance of success... improve your chance of success.
Also missed...
Adjudicate
- the Buy-in for our players has already happened when they sat at the table. They expect good ideas to have a better chance of success and for effort to be rewarded. They buy in to the concept that the DM should use common sense and good judgment. If he consistently makes bad calls, trust me, they'll find something else to do.
If you've got buy-in for whatever process you use, then keep on keeping on. It doesn't really matter if I see no point to the level of simulation you guys use.
Unless 4e is different in this regard (I cease to be amazed), the rules are flexible enough to allow for imaginative ideas for which no explicit rule exists by giving guidelines for making a call... a call that requires the DM to use his best judgment. 1st edition had a suggestion to give a percentage chance for something to work, how high a percent? DM Call. 2nd edition boiled it down to a stat check; how hard the check was came down to DM call. 3rd edition changed the rhetoric to Difficulty Class and hinted at +2 circumstance bonuses to be applied at the DM's discretion. If you are applying mechanics, you're making a judgment call... unless everything in your world is the same DC.
Unless 4e is different in this regard, the rules generally point to the idea that doing actions that improve your chance of success... improve your chance of success.
Rules for improvised actions are covered well in 4e. My choice is to roll against static DCs by level and let the rolls determine whether something works or not. Sometimes "good" plans fail; sometimes "bad" plans work. I suppose you could call that "realistic," couldn't you?
I'll be discontinuing the conversation with you after this post. You're casting aspersions and insults where none are called for. At the very best, you're simply ignorant of what I'm trying to say. Because if you had even one iota of understanding (or willingness to understand) my point of view, you'd say that I don't play the game in that way at all.
Sorry if you view my honest assessment as an insult, but you are stating basicaly that whatever the player does will have the same result regardless of the amount of effort or creativity put into it. It doesn't matter if he is tossing crude chucks of glass, popcorn or puts some effort and expense to actually be creative. That is my truthful response. I hope you understand that my intent isn't to insult.
You're talking about mechanics that already exist versus mechanics that a DM has to create in line with other mechanics to facilitate the player's creative idea. Maybe that's another reason you understand what I'm talking about.
And the best way to adapt new mechanics is to look at existing systems, Rusty Dagger -> Dagger -> Magic Dagger there are costs and effort in all three and the result varry accordingly
It was a frying pan. It was as effective as a scimitar in the hands of that character, in line with level-appropriate mechanics.
A scimitar is a balanced weapon, slashing I do beleive, a Frying Pan is an improvized weapon, akin to a club or mace, but not balanced for use as a weapon, norreally made of materials that would last. I think it is a cool idea.
My question is How? How did the character make a frying pan as effective as a scimitar. Was it a specially crafted Frying pan, balanced and enforced? A character build that supported it? Magically enchanted frying pan?
Or just level-appropriate mechanics that are fluffed to be a frying pan. Just a character with a scimitar that was flavoured as a frying pan? Hey I am fine with that, wouldn't stop a player from doing it.
Just wouldn't bne as cool as using an actual frying pan is all
Wrong, again. All ideas are acknowledged in our game.
Then I am sorry for misreading your earlier posts.
So mechanically, how is the crude broken glass vs tooled glass/cayenne pepper different?
Disingenuous question
Valid question, Disingenious answer. You won't block poor or bad ideas and poor effort, but on the same token neither do you reward great ideas and hard work and effort. No matter how poor the idea and how little effort they put into it, they will get the same results as someone who comes up with an aexcelent idea, and puts in the effort to make it work.
So yes, how come you will only allow mediocracy?
There's no dumbing down of anything. The bag of glass or the bag of glass with cayenne pepper both have the same goal - blind enemies. Done. You seem to want to simulate every little ingredient with a mechanic. I see no good reason for this and any additional creativity on the part of the Mr. Cayenne is a reward in and of itself.
There is a massive difference between the two examples, one is crude, effortless and naive, the other is well though out, and requires ingenuity, effort and expense on the player's part, it's not a small ingredient. As a Dm I wouldn't do this to my players because I know they would react the same way as I would.
You got your bag of glass to blind people. Your choice mattered. What else do you want?
Creativity on the part of the DM, I want my choices to matter BECAUSE I made the right choices and not because it is handed on a silver platter. I want to be able to do something cool, not someting that is lame and mediocre. i don't want to fail, noone wants to fail, but they do want to advert failure. Not just a series of mediocre success no matter how sad and lame the idea is. players in most games want to be challenged, they want to win those challenges of course, but they want to win because they are better, not because the DM carried them.
Understand this, if the results are the same, then the choice didn't really matter at all. All the player is going to do is toss glass around until he is bored of being lame.
Same with the player acting out by using a pillow as a battering ram. Why bother being creative and building a ram? He's going to get the same result anyways, he's using a pillow to mock the DM for not giving anything for the battering ram.
Sorry, I'd rather fail spectacularly then be mediocre.
- A little TOO realistic.
But in a game, how do we determine whether they fail or succeed? We're not advocating auto-success or auto-fail, at any rate...only improved odds. At some point, yes... blind is blind is blind. Some level of detail adds to the game, but at some point nitpicking detracts from the game. But in between is the 'sweet spot', it may be different for different players, but I submit that SOME level of detail will generally be appreciated (especially if it allows good ideas to have comparatively better chance to succeed as a bad one).
I think a lot of players, myself included, prefer the concept of increasing our odds of success with the choices we make for our characters.
- Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. - Mark Twain
Why bother being creative and building a ram?
I see nothing creative about building a battering ram to knock down a door, this is what they are made for.
Seems like a silly discussion. If the player's intent is to create a bag of glass that will blind someone then they obviously will not fill it with large chunks of glass, they will take the time to break or grind it down. So, yes, the ground glass will have a better mechanic then the large glass - the difference? The ground glass actually has a chance to function as desired.
PC "I want to make a bag full of glass that can be used to blind someone"
DM "Great idea, make a nature/thievery (or whatever) DC XX to create an effective bag, and lets figure out the mechanics"
Add pepper? I dont see any real need to change the mechanics as compared to the original, but you might be inclined to give a -2 to the save (if it is a save ends blind).
But do you keep making it better if more and more is added? And where do you stop? There is a line somewhere that could signal when the player is looking for a creative idea to have fun with or if they are looking to game the system. In this case it might be a good idea to keep the mechanics simplified, Or make it a lower difficulty to create the bag, but keep the same mechanics.
Personally, if I had ground glass in my eye, I dont think adding pepper is going to make it any worse other than added discomfort, it is the glass doing the real damage.
"Yes, but..." or "No" make the game and story into what the DM thinks they should be.
But in between is the 'sweet spot', it may be different for different players, but I submit that SOME level of detail will generally be appreciated (especially if it allows good ideas to have comparatively better chance to succeed as a bad one).
I feel this statement presupposes that the other side of the argument is that there is no level of detail. I don't find that to be the case at all. I simply get that detail in other ways that do not require mechanical incentive.
I think a lot of players, myself included, prefer the concept of increasing our odds of success with the choices we make for our characters.
Sure, so do I. There are usually established mechanics for that, too, so that the DM doesn't have to be arbitrary about how he adjudicates, colored by whatever bias he has toward an idea from a player.
Centauri's "Yes, but..." or "No" statement is a good way of understanding the differences between the approaches.
Just be honest with yourself about whether you're blocking an idea because you don't like it, or setting up challenge to encourage improvement. If you feel relief when a player abandons an idea, or when the idea doesn't work, then you're blocking. Try not to do that.
What if we feel relief because it was a genuinely dumb idea? And were being quite entertained by the character and would hate to see a dumb idea end it all... so we were glad to see the player abandon the idea and instead do the COOLEST THING EVER?
Yeah-yeah-yeah.. no dumb ideas and all that crud. Poppycock.
I don't generally feel relief when an idea doesn't work... if there was no chance at all that it would work, I would just set the DC to impossible. If the player actually thought it would work, he'd have at least a half-baked reason for why it works.
Hell.. even the dumb pillow battering ram... maybe he wanted to run at the door full-out and hoped having the pillow would give him a psychological advantage because running at a closed door sounds painful and his character concept is a foppish bard, not a barbarian... hence the velvet pillow instead of a coil of rough scratchy hemp rope. Sure... how does a +1 morale bonus to your check sound? Not much, but better than nothing.
"Yes, and..." makes the game and story into what the group thinks they should be.
"Yes, but..." or "No" make the game and story into what the DM thinks they should be.
Fine.
Yes, and it was a dumb idea, therefore it didn't work well at all.
Yes, and that was a better idea, therefore it has a decent chance to work.
Yes, and that was a great idea, therefore it has a good chance to work.
Yes, and that was a brilliant idea, therefore it succeeds... with flying colors.
And if the DM is brilliant and can pull it off so that everyone is happy and the game and story are as the group thinks they should be? How does he do that?
He says, "Yes, and..." when appropriate. "Yes, but..." when appropriate. And "No", when appropriate.
Such as - Curry!!!!!!
Can you imagine? First it stings to the high heavens and then it stains the character's eyes yellow!!!!! LOLing out loud
Perhaps have a different saying when using each flavoured option?....
For the curry, perhaps - " I've been working on a new recipe......... curry to the eyes"!!!!!!
Yeah.... not too creative... Anyone else have any good ideas for some flavoured glass to the eyes options and sayings to go with them?
Don't devote time and effort into thinking of reasons why something shouldn't stand a good chance of working. If you're going to spend that time and effort, spend it looking for reasons why something can and does work. Justify, don't block.
I am recomending the same, to me, a -1 attack and -5 perception for 1 round is a decent effect, and I would be ignoring the overall crudeness of his execution. Is it the greatest? perhaps not, but it is balanced and matches the effort, a minor debuff for a minor action. Could it be better? Yes the Player has complete control and can put the effort into improving it. It's not requiring much and any extra effort by the player will be rewarded. Also unlike others, some who suggest far too much of an effect for what it is, I am against any drawbacks to trying the idea, there is no "it blows back in your eyes" tagged to "balance" it. That's what will change this from a good idea to a bad idea.
Why bother being creative and building a ram?
I see nothing creative about building a battering ram to knock down a door, this is what they are made for. Seems like a silly discussion.
There is nothing really creative, because it is what they are for. The point of mentioning that is refuting the idea that the battering ram shouldn't give an additional bonus to knocking in a door, because there is an existing way of doing that already and it doesn't need improving on.
As in building a battering ram and carrying it around while adventuring is it's own reward, it won't give any bonuses to breaking down a door. I hope you can see the problem with such a statement.
Add pepper? I dont see any real need to change the mechanics as compared to the original, but you might be inclined to give a -2 to the save (if it is a save ends blind). But do you keep making it better if more and more is added? And where do you stop? There is a line somewhere that could signal when the player is looking for a creative idea to have fun with or if they are looking to game the system. In this case it might be a good idea to keep the mechanics simplified, Or make it a lower difficulty to create the bag, but keep the same mechanics. Personally, if I had ground glass in my eye, I dont think adding pepper is going to make it any worse other than added discomfort, it is the glass doing the real damage.
There are several reasons for making it have different effects, one it scales, and secondly the better one has an actual cost in coin and effort that should be rewarded if the player wants to put in that effort. Also, since you are suggesting making a roll to create the item, then proper tools (cheap tools) should give a bonus to that roll, if a PC grabs an appropriate tool to do a task, I don't see why it wouldn't give hiom a bonus in doing that task.
As for the difference in materials used to do it. Glass powder is light and doesn't go far, Sand/metal shavings are denser and thus better suited. It is fair to treat the glass ground in the manner described as improvised. The suggestion of using the pepper? This tactic is easy to block, I only need to blink, and in fact my reflexes will do this automatically, I also have eyelashes that help block from this very thing. In short humans are specifically designed to protect our eyes. The idea of the cayenne pepper is that it is a reactant, it will sting on the edges even if I managed to shut my eyes in time, the powder will stay in the eyelashes and around the edges of the eyes and continue to react, nostrils and mouth will also burn.
If you were to put this on a scale, the pepper would be 100 times as effective. If you noticed my suggestion earlier you will see I went from -1 attack, -5 perception for 1 round with the first to -2 attack -10 perception up to 4 rounds with a chemical reagent.
It also sets it up to scale believably into higher levels. Where better materials can be found (and the player can afford them)
So, it just occurred to me...... what if the PC wants to mix it up a little and have a few different types of flavours of this glass dust?....
Such as - Curry!!!!!!
Can you imagine? First it stings to the high heavens and then it stains the character's eyes yellow!!!!! LOLing out loud
Perhaps have a different saying when using each flavoured option?....
For the curry, perhaps - " I've been working on a new recipe......... curry to the eyes"!!!!!!
Yeah.... not too creative... Anyone else have any good ideas for some flavoured glass to the eyes options and sayings to go with them?
Curry has a strong odor. If he flees, creatures with scent get a +2 to their chance to track. How's that?
So, it just occurred to me...... what if the PC wants to mix it up a little and have a few different types of flavours of this glass dust?....
Such as - Curry!!!!!!
Can you imagine? First it stings to the high heavens and then it stains the character's eyes yellow!!!!! LOLing out loud
Perhaps have a different saying when using each flavoured option?....
For the curry, perhaps - " I've been working on a new recipe......... curry to the eyes"!!!!!!
Yeah.... not too creative... Anyone else have any good ideas for some flavoured glass to the eyes options and sayings to go with them?
Bay and basil, sage advice, don't mess with me... I've pepper spice!
Glass and shavings, silt and dill, if the sand don't get ya... the spices will!
I can’t believe this thread is still alive; the DM of the game of the OP has already stated how he is handling the issue. Once again another issue that doesn’t (and by the very nature of DnD CANT) have one answer.
Bay and basil, sage advice, don't mess with me... I've pepper spice!
Glass and shavings, silt and dill, if the sand don't get ya... the spices will!
Now i have an idea for a group of trolls that do this to the players, while talking about pre-seasoning and marianating them for eating later.
Or Order of the Sticks, BBQ sauce trap just before the pit of monsters trap.
I can’t believe this thread is still alive; the DM of the game of the OP has already stated how he is handling the issue. Once again another issue that doesn’t (and by the very nature of DnD CANT) have one answer.
Dood..... You just posted, keeping it alive.... Yeah, I started it, but it's been a good thread, and the most recent posts w/ catch phrases are pretty classic from Sir_Joseph_the-Crowe.
What witty and humerous quotes would you suggest my friend?
)I do think the player could invest in some cool raybands or a ski-mask to protect him from glass shards. Hell if we are going down this road why not dip the glass in penut butter and hope the monsters are allergic.
Perhaps putting on a pair of oven mitts before tossing the glass salad?.......
I can’t believe this thread is still alive; the DM of the game of the OP has already stated how he is handling the issue. Once again another issue that doesn’t (and by the very nature of DnD CANT) have one answer.
Dood..... You just posted, keeping it alive.... Yeah, I started it, but it's been a good thread, and the most recent posts w/ catch phrases are pretty classic from Sir_Joseph_the-Crowe.
What witty and humerous quotes would you suggest my friend?
I grew up on Muhammad Ali. I dedicate my bad poetry to him.
Necessity is the mother of invention, with so many viable choices already in place there is no real need for this creativity, and thus less of it happens. Also such creative ideas pale in comparison with equal or greater powers already existing. When a character's only option is to swing a sword, then any clever idea, however small, is a huge payoff in comparison to the little to nothing the character has. However when one already has plenty of really cool powers, these payoffs suddenly seem insignificant in comparison.
That doesn't mean that creativity is no longer there, it is just focused in a different direction.
Ideas like this are rarely thought up nowadays.
This is definitely not the case at our table, even with players who aren't my regulars. I attribute this to never requiring players to jump through my arbitrary hoops to get an effect that is as useful or powerful in context as choosing a power card on their character sheet. I never block ideas and encourage the players to consider the whole scene and what a good solution would be first, then look at their feats, powers, skills, etc. to see if they can make it work. If there's nothing there, I will create a mechanic on the fly that is level-appropriate, get buy-in, and then the player can give it a shot.
Ideas like this are rarely thought up nowadays.
And part of this is because they're too dependent on DM say-so to make them effective. People look at their sheets, rather than trying to imagine things, because their sheets are a list of things they can try, and bonuses they can have, that don't rely on the DM's say so. I tend to agree that it's more fun when players come up with cool ideas, but they won't do it, and will stop doing it, if they can expect the DM to judge that their idea is too lame to work worth spit.
I honestly question if my 4e party loses IQ when they play 4e. Their arguments are lazy and bias towards pathfinder, but that is a different topic entirely.
I don't see smart ideas like this in many 4e games. They can still be used, but maybe everyone just counts on their powers to do anything in 4e. I think that's inexcusable. 4e, or any game rules, should not limit player role playing ingenuity, wether it's the rules or the players doing it to themselves.
Sorry if I went off on a tangent, I tend to do that sometimes.
Hmm. Well I've noticed this at my table and at other tables I've been at, and I'm NOT saying it never happens, just not as much. It may be from 3.x's feats or 4e's powers. I have noticed that my table currently, at my group's 4e game that I run, my players seem to dumb down, but are the opposite while playing Pathfinder. It can't be that it's 4e's fault. They claim that 4e restricts roleplay, and I argue it does not. A player can use an encounter power that causes the blind condition, sure, but what happens after that encounter or daily power is gone? Then they start to use At-Wills. Maybe it's just my party, but they don't think of things like forgoing their attack power to throw glass dust in someone's face.
I honestly question if my 4e party loses IQ when they play 4e. Their arguments are lazy and bias towards pathfinder, but that is a different topic entirely.
I don't see smart ideas like this in many 4e games. They can still be used, but maybe everyone just counts on their powers to do anything in 4e. I think that's inexcusable. 4e, or any game rules, should not limit player role playing ingenuity, wether it's the rules or the players doing it to themselves.
Sorry if I went off on a tangent, I tend to do that sometimes.
Based on what I see with Pathfinder groups, they seem to be required by the rules to bash 4e at least once per session, so this doesn't surprise me. This is what I see anecdotally, anyway, and was backed up by others on Twitter who notice the same. I get to DM for a lot of pick-up groups and the Pathfinder players all (and I'm not exaggerating when I say "all") go, "Wow, this is 4e? Why does everyone bash it?" Why indeed.
I don't see smart ideas like this in many 4e games. They can still be used, but maybe everyone just counts on their powers to do anything in 4e. I think that's inexcusable. 4e, or any game rules, should not limit player role playing ingenuity, wether it's the rules or the players doing it to themselves.
This exemplifies what I'm saying. There's no asking or negotiating involved in using a power. One never has to worry that the DM will judge a power too powerful, or give it an unappealing downside in order to make it "realistic." A power just works.
There's also the fact that it's not necessary to get creative because everyone has pretty decent ability. It used to be that wizards would try to use light to blind targets, or Mage Hand to throw things, but they had to do this because they only had two useful spells. Or, later, fighters had to come up with clever things because they couldn't keep up with the spellcasters. Now everyone is pretty equally powerful, and necessity isn't around to be the mother of invention anymore. It's unfortunate in a way, but it's a sign that the game is finally working out of the box, instead of through ad hoc invention and rulings.
That said, my players are still creative. Last session, a player asked if he could use the icy difficult terrain effect from his power to negate the crawly difficult terrain effect from an enemy power. I said "Yes, and..." to that. It was not something that would have occurred to me, but the party was in a tight spot and needed to get creative.
I honestly question if my 4e party loses IQ when they play 4e. Their arguments are lazy and bias towards pathfinder, but that is a different topic entirely.
Like I say, some the creativity in the older systems was to shore up the system's weaknesses, players were creative due to a lack of tools or to compensate for the inbalances and flaws in the system, the new tools address these issues, so there is less need to be creative. Those tools all address the issues that the players used to have to be creative to do. Not a bad thing overall it just changes the focus of the creativity.
I think there is also a different mindset today, which is why many "old school" gamers see such a difference in "creativity" among new gamers, they blame alot of it on the system when it is really the players. No different then kids looking at the old video games I used to play and commenting on how lousy the graphics and interface were, they sort of have a point.
As an example, in 3.5 (which my groups tend to prefer) Spells and metamagic feats. The DMG gives good outlines on how casters can design and research new spells, but the game gives them a whack of meta-magic feats. Those feats esentially strip away any need to design unique spells. ie If a player wanted an improved Fireball spell, They use the Maximize Spell Feat on it, if they want a Cone of Fire the use the Sculpt Spell feat, or use Energy Admixture to make an Acid Ball instead of a Fireball. These feats are great, no denying that, but they do away with any need to create new spells.
Probably helps players think up crushed glass to throw in other characters' eyes....
I'm playing w/ a guy now who, upon reaching a local town, goes and purchases glass cups/mugs/whatever, puts them in a pouch or bag and smashes them to a gritty sand-like texture. Then he throws it into the eyes of monsters or NPC's that he needs to defeat.
Personally - I think that's hilarious, because it's not an attack, it's more the DM rolls a D6 and 1 through 5 is how long the character is blinded or impared, and the off-chance a 6 is rolled, it's permanent (until a Healer can be paid or something to heal)
I think a funny solution to this scenario that happens quite frequently would be for the DM to allow for the chance of wind to blow the glass back into the PC's face for damage to himself! LOLing out loud.
Your thoughts?
I think, were I to be the DM of this, I would probably adjudicate this as a 'assist another' type action, allowing the character to spend their standard action, to give the next character a bonus of +2 to hit (as the critter blinks the stuff out of its eyes, it is briefly easier to hit).
I would also suggest to the player that he should be on the look out for an encounter power that can cause blindness or at the least some sort of penalty, I am sure the rogue class has something, if he would like to produce a stronger effect.
While I am all for player creativity in fluffing up their attacks, I guess I am something of a stickler for then representing that fluff through mechanics, in the vague hope that the end result remains balanced.
Talk with your players though. And if they all agree they want this to be something possible with a real effect beyond what the 'balanced' result would be, agree to have a trial of the new rule for the next few sessions then a final vote.
Then have at least one fight with semi-intelligent or smarter enemies (kobolds are ideal) and have the kobolds all go to town with the trick on the players. If the players develop a counter (I dunno, maybe helmets with glass panels over the eyes) then say - OK, lets trial adding that to the game - and again have the monsters use the same trick too.
The point is, if it is a logical, real world plausible trick that anyone could do, then the monsters can do it too. So let the players experience the effect this has on their game, then ask them if they'd prefer to stick to the rules. Maybe they wouldnt, in which case I'd suggest going back to 1st ed DnD. 4th ed is first and formost a game system, with boundaries in place, to produce a hopefully entertaining game, it doesnt try to be an accurate real life simulation.
I think, were I to be the DM of this, I would probably adjudicate this as a 'assist another' type action, allowing the character to spend their standard action, to give the next character a bonus of +2 to hit (as the critter blinks the stuff out of its eyes, it is briefly easier to hit).
Yes, that's a pretty cool way to flavor Aid Another. That would certainly be a way to do it, if the players were amenable.
I would also suggest to the player that he should be on the look out for an encounter power that can cause blindness or at the least some sort of penalty, I am sure the rogue class has something, if he would like to produce a stronger effect.
Sand in the Eyes blinds on a hit. So does Blinding Barrage, for that matter.
While I am all for player creativity in fluffing up their attacks, I guess I am something of a stickler for then representing that fluff through mechanics, in the vague hope that the end result remains balanced.
Same here, but too often the mechanics that might make sense tend to discourage a cool idea. That's when reflavoring comes to the rescue.
Talk with your players though. And if they all agree they want this to be something possible with a real effect beyond what the 'balanced' result would be, agree to have a trial of the new rule for the next few sessions then a final vote.
Definitely.
Then have at least one fight with semi-intelligent or smarter enemies (kobolds are ideal) and have the kobolds all go to town with the trick on the players. If the players develop a counter (I dunno, maybe helmets with glass panels over the eyes) then say - OK, lets trial adding that to the game - and again have the monsters use the same trick too.
The point is, if it is a logical, real world plausible trick that anyone could do, then the monsters can do it too. So let the players experience the effect this has on their game, then ask them if they'd prefer to stick to the rules. Maybe they wouldnt, in which case I'd suggest going back to 1st ed DnD. 4th ed is first and formost a game system, with boundaries in place, to produce a hopefully entertaining game, it doesnt try to be an accurate real life simulation.
This is where I tend to disagree. It's not necessary for monsters to have the same abilities as PCs, or use them even if they do. It's very easy to see "If you use it, they'll use it too," as a way of dissuading players from trying things, as a threat toward anyone who hopes to get more powerful.
It's the DM's job to keep the game interesting, and if a player's idea defuses every encounter, things aren't going to be interesting. Better than allowing something coupled with a strong, implicit, disincentive, either allow it as the players want it or, if you can't see how to allow it as the players want it, be open about that fact and discuss it openly. "I think it's a cool, plausible idea, but I'm worried about keeping the game interesting if you can do this to every monster. What do you suggest?"
This sort of thing is why 4th Edition features limited use powers. It lets the players do lots of cool things (like blinding enemies) but instead of being open ended and allowing players simply to use the best single tactic over and over again, it makes the game more like a movie or book in which, for some reason, the character's cool move only comes out every now and then. I guess DMs of older versions had ways to bring this about without the rules, but I never got the hang of that, and many other DMs didn't.