Throwing Sand in Someone's Eyes

[JoeJ]

Rather than derail the other thread where this came up, I'll ask here: what would be a reasonable ruling for a character trying to throw sand in an enemy's eyes to blind them? Maybe a contest of Dexterity to hit, and then if it does the victim has to make a Constitution save or be blinded for one round? Since this is something that can be done every round, it should be less powerful than the 2nd level spell Blindness, and unless this is a world where soldiers routinely carry bags of sand instead of swords, it should usually be less effective than just stabbing your enemy.

[Finieous]

Like a grapple or shove, maybe action/attack to attempt. Dexterity check (Sleight of Hand) vs. (Wisdom) Insight. If the check is successful, disadvantage on next attack and Con save DC 12 or blind for one round. Something like that...

[Hudsonian]

My Proposal:
Single Attack Alternative (i.e. Grapple)
Contested Dex check. (Opponent uses Dex save, but attacker is not proficient with sand)
On a success the opponent is blind until it uses an action to wipe it's eyes clear
on a failure, nothing.
If the opponent chooses it may use it's reaction to close it's eyes briefly, granting the next weapon attack role advantage.

[Tanarii]

Throwing sand it someone's eyes: Dex vs AC Improvised Attack, grants Advantage on the next attack roll before their next turn.

Edit: Actually, throwing sand in someone's eyes already exists. It's called the Help action.

[Hudsonian]

But I would say that this sort of advantage manufacture should not enable Sneak Attack.

[Icewraith]

Generally you should only have one attack roll or save per action. The target must be adjacent to the attacker- I'd say a dex save vs the attacker's STR or DEX, whichever is better (attacker may add their proficiency to the save DC if they are a rogue or monk class; proficient in all martial weapons; have the sleight of hand skill proficiency; or the criminal, charlatan, or street urchin backgrounds). The target is blinded (save ends) but they may automatically end the condition as part of their standard action, replacing an attack roll. This only works once per combat. Opponents who have seen the character use this trick before may be granted advantage on the save at the DM's discretion.

This kind of attack can also be performed with a specially prepared bag or hollowed-out eggshell containing flour or an irritant, in which case the range increases to ten feet. Monks can use their deflect and reflect arrows abilities against such attacks.

[CantigThimble]

I don't really like the idea of adding in a random blinding mechanic with associated saves as a part of the base combat rules. They're really streamlined and I would prefer to keep them that way. I'd adjust the help action so that while adjacent to someone you can give them disadvantage on their next attack roll or advantage on the next attack roll against them, whichever comes first.

[JoeJ]

Throwing sand it someone's eyes: Dex vs AC Improvised Attack, grants Advantage on the next attack roll before their next turn.

Edit: Actually, throwing sand in someone's eyes already exists. It's called the Help action.

Both of those would make the tactic nearly useless if you don't have an ally, though. When I've seen it done in movies or on TV (my default standard for the action/adventure genre), throwing sand usually occurs in one on one fights.

[Shining Wrath]

Attack roll with advantage to hit their face with some of the sand (it's going to spread out) and even an eye slit is going to get some sand thru it.
Opposed by Dexterity check as target tries to close their eyes.
Result is one round of blindness if it succeeds.

If you try it a second time the attack roll is made without advantage and the Dexterity check is made with advantage as you no longer have surprise.

[MrStabby]

Use it like a net? Or at least similar to.

It is a ranged attack with a range of 5 ft (so disadvantage) which on success has an advantage/disadvantage effect on melee attacks from the target (ok its from reduced vision not restraint).

Allow an "attack" to shake the head to dislodge the sand (like an attack on the net will likely destroy it).

This should be a pretty equivalent use of an action to throwing a net - in some slight ways better, in others worse.


For proficiency treat it as an improvised weapon if you need to. All in all it is probably weak a lot of the time (unless you allow summoned Skeletons or similar to do it) but if it is just an option to keep in the back pocket for some specific fights its pretty cool.

[Kane0]

Replaces an attack
Targets single creature within 5' of you
Target makes Dex save (DC 8 + prof or dex) or be blinded until the end of its next turn

[Thrudd]

Blinded is too severe a status for this. I would say, make an unmodified d20 roll with disadvantage (it uses your action). If you hit the target's AC, they have disadvantage on their next attack. Of course, only possible where there is sand or another large source of some fine, loose dirt, like a pile of earth from a freshly dug grave, freshly turned/plowed farm soil, etc. Not possible just at any random place.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Rather than derail the other thread where this came up, I'll ask here: what would be a reasonable ruling for a character trying to throw sand in an enemy's eyes to blind them? Maybe a contest of Dexterity to hit, and then if it does the victim has to make a Constitution save or be blinded for one round? Since this is something that can be done every round, it should be less powerful than the 2nd level spell Blindness, and unless this is a world where soldiers routinely carry bags of sand instead of swords, it should usually be less effective than just stabbing your enemy.

Sand-Attack
Item: Sand in your hand

Action: Replaces an attack when you use the attack action.

Effect: Target gains a Dexterity saving throw. On a failure the target is blind until the start of your next turn. Any target that fails their save my use a bonus action or action to remove the blinded condition by wiping their eyes.

Special: This only works once per battle as your movements become telegraphed when you try again.

[Icewraith]

Considering this is a thing that normally happens in one-on-one fights.. it's often seen as a desperation move used against a dangerous arena fighter, which would be trading an attack of yours for an attack of theirs, when they may have more attacks than you. If the target doesn't have a free hand, they probably need to use their whole standard to clear their eyes. If they have a free hand (that isn't covered in contact poison or something) they can use a melee attack if they have more than one.

I'd also say that the target probably has disadvantage on the save if it's grappling the sand thrower.

...Really, sand-in-the-face is just a subset of what is basically a one-trick combat "blinding maneuver". Similar to using a shove to inflict the prone condition or move someone, it's a way to inflict a debuff without dealing damage. If there's not a ready supply of sand, you can use acid, salt, or even spit if you're really desperate. It really only has a couple classic uses:

1- Escape from a superior combatant, especially during a grapple.

2- Temporarily disable an opponent to land a decisive blow. A rogue in particular that uses a standard action attack to blind an opponent in single combat can still use an off-hand weapon to try and land a sneak attack before the opponent recovers.

[Christian]

A lot of good ideas up above. I'd also ask how the sand got into the character's hand for him to throw. If the opponent knows you have it, he'll have a good idea what's coming and the attempt fails automatically. (Blinking happens really fast, and sand in your face isn't going to faze you unless some actually gets into your eye.) When you see this in action scenes, the character has subtly swept some up without the opponent noticing; under most circumstances, I'd ask for a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check opposed by a Wisdom (Perception) check from the target in order to set this move up without it being noticed.

[joaber]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nqdrWGcoP5w/VK9Pj3ONTuI/AAAAAAAAXVM/T41zOQtGNAE/s1600/bloodsport_dux_blinded.png

[Tanarii]

Both of those would make the tactic nearly useless if you don't have an ally, though. When I've seen it done in movies or on TV (my default standard for the action/adventure genre), throwing sand usually occurs in one on one fights.Advantage on the next attack before their next turn is fine for solo characters with Extra Attack.

I also like Dex vs AC, disadvantage on the next attack they make. A short range & weak Viscous Mockery, but only uses up one attack of multiple attacks. Could be well worth it in an arena fight if you've got Extra Attack, especially if they don't.

[SharkForce]

just describe it as part of a regular attack to justify how you try to make the attack actually hit. anything else penalizes the action to the point where you should never try it; it cannot plausibly grant anything better than a moment of advantage, which means that mechanically, if you had just attacked twice instead of giving up an action or attack you would have rolled just as many dice, but you'd have the chance to hit twice instead of once. if you put a save on it in addition to that, you make it even worse. even if it grants a rogue the opportunity to sneak attack from this ability, they could have used an attack to knock the enemy prone or used a bonus action to hide, since rogues don't inherently get two attacks per round anyways.

so, just roll it into a regular attack. it's no different from trying to feint, or trying to get your attack past their defenses in any number of other ways apart from being a dirty trick rather than something more "honourable"

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

just describe it as part of a regular attack to justify how you try to make the attack actually hit. anything else penalizes the action to the point where you should never try it; it cannot plausibly grant anything better than a moment of advantage, which means that mechanically, if you had just attacked twice instead of giving up an action or attack you would have rolled just as many dice, but you'd have the chance to hit twice instead of once. if you put a save on it in addition to that, you make it even worse. even if it grants a rogue the opportunity to sneak attack from this ability, they could have used an attack to knock the enemy prone or used a bonus action to hide, since rogues don't inherently get two attacks per round anyways.

so, just roll it into a regular attack. it's no different from trying to feint, or trying to get your attack past their defenses in any number of other ways apart from being a dirty trick rather than something more "honourable"Agreed. Implementing explicit general mechanics for different attack styles, with fiddly/fleeting advantages and disadvantages, is the realm of 3.5/PF. In other words, what you're looking for is PF's Dirty Trick mechanic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Dirty-Trick), and it doesn't really port well to this edition for a reason.

[JoeJ]

just describe it as part of a regular attack to justify how you try to make the attack actually hit. anything else penalizes the action to the point where you should never try it; it cannot plausibly grant anything better than a moment of advantage, which means that mechanically, if you had just attacked twice instead of giving up an action or attack you would have rolled just as many dice, but you'd have the chance to hit twice instead of once. if you put a save on it in addition to that, you make it even worse. even if it grants a rogue the opportunity to sneak attack from this ability, they could have used an attack to knock the enemy prone or used a bonus action to hide, since rogues don't inherently get two attacks per round anyways.

so, just roll it into a regular attack. it's no different from trying to feint, or trying to get your attack past their defenses in any number of other ways apart from being a dirty trick rather than something more "honourable"

Yeah, advantage on one attack is too small a benefit to be worth giving up an attack. A round of blindness, however, gives you advantage on all attacks for that round, and they have disadvantage to attack you. That might be worth doing sometimes, even if it takes your entire action.

I like the suggestions about it only working once, and making it Sleight of Hand to grab the dirt without being noticed. In fact, secretly grabbing a handful of dirt might be all almost impossible unless you're prone.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah, advantage on one attack is too small a benefit to be worth giving up an attack. A round of blindness, however, gives you advantage on all attacks for that round, and they have disadvantage to attack you. That might be worth doing sometimes, even if it takes your entire action.

I like the suggestions about it only working once, and making it Sleight of Hand to grab the dirt without being noticed. In fact, secretly grabbing a handful of dirt might be all almost impossible unless you're prone.

Am I the only one that has pocket sand?


http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pocket_sand_king_of_the_hill.gif

[JoeJ]

Am I the only one that has pocket sand?


http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pocket_sand_king_of_the_hill.gif



Yes, you are.

[rollingForInit]

I don't think throwing sand in someone's eye should generally be preferable to attacking. It should be worse than swinging your weapon at them to cause damage. It shouldn't completely blind the target, but rather just given them disadvantage on their next attack, or something like that. Either that, or give the next attack against them advantage. Not sure which would be best, but ... the target shouldn't be completely blinded. Too powerful.

A move like that should be used when attacking isn't great. Perhaps when you've been disarmed, or when you're prone and have disadvantage on attack rolls.

[Angelmaker]

Rather than derail the other thread where this came up, I'll ask here: what would be a reasonable ruling for a character trying to throw sand in an enemy's eyes to blind them? Maybe a contest of Dexterity to hit, and then if it does the victim has to make a Constitution save or be blinded for one round? Since this is something that can be done every round, it should be less powerful than the 2nd level spell Blindness, and unless this is a world where soldiers routinely carry bags of sand instead of swords, it should usually be less effective than just stabbing your enemy.
Had a rogue do this in a duel in our eberron pirate campaign.
My ruling on the fly: succed on a stealth vs. Perception/insight check to be allowed to do it in the first place. Only possible on the first round of combat. Enemy makes a con save on attack and at the end on every turn against the rogues save dc ( 8 + prof + dex ) or is blinded (disadvantage on attacks and advantage on enemy attacks ).

Not sure if it was the best way to do it, but i felt it is more about the surprise element (stealth) than about the attack and i am pretty sure, allowing it every round in combat would be just silly.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yes, you are.

Then apparently, you don't know how to life very well.

Pocket sand is the ultimate first line of defense.

[Tanarii]

I don't think throwing sand in someone's eye should generally be preferable to attacking. It should be worse than swinging your weapon at them to cause damage. It shouldn't completely blind the target, but rather just given them disadvantage on their next attack, or something like that. Either that, or give the next attack against them advantage. Not sure which would be best, but ... the target shouldn't be completely blinded. Too powerful.

A move like that should be used when attacking isn't great. Perhaps when you've been disarmed, or when you're prone and have disadvantage on attack rolls.Agreed. It's balanced if it's worse than a proficient attack, but *potentially* better than an unarmed attack or prone attack or just getting chopped to pieces (if used defensively). Otherwise it should just be fluff as part of a normal attack hitting, or defense against a missed attack.

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't really like the idea of adding in a random blinding mechanic with associated saves as a part of the base combat rules. They're really streamlined and I would prefer to keep them that way. I'd adjust the help action so that while adjacent to someone you can give them disadvantage on their next attack roll or advantage on the next attack roll against them, whichever comes first.

Well, it's technically already part of the base rules, an ad hoc Improvised Action substituting for a melee attack.

Pocket Sand in the picture!: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AHandfulForAnEye

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Well, it's technically already part of the base rules, an ad hoc Improvised Action substituting for a melee attack.

Pocket Sand in the picture!: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AHandfulForAnEye

Yay someone else that gets it!

[INDYSTAR188]

Yes, you are.

No he/she is not! Sha sha sha!

On topic though, I would hesitate to add any extra mechanics to the game. I like to reward creativity tho so I would go for a minor benefit. Disadvantage on their attack/advantage to hit them.

[JoeJ]

No he/she is not! Sha sha sha!

Sorry, my response should have been in blue.


On topic though, I would hesitate to add any extra mechanics to the game. I like to reward creativity tho so I would go for a minor benefit. Disadvantage on their attack/advantage to hit them.

Yeah, I'm not really thinking about a formal house rule, here. I just think it's good to hear different ideas that I can remember if it ever comes up and I have to make a ruling.

[Corran]

Oout of the top of my head, make a ranged attack (dex) with an improvised weapon (sand), so no proficiency in the attack bonus unless tavern brawler. The attack's range is 5/15 (or 5/10), meaning that you always make this attack with disadvantage (if you think that;s too harsh you could probably change the range to short range to 10, and let the lack of proficiency hurt the attack roll, instaed of both lack of proficiency and disadvantage). If the attacks hits, the enemy makes a con save against a fixed DC (I would say 10). Good luck.
Now, this is very difficult to pull off, so it would discourage players from pulling off sand shenanigans. However, if in the spur of the moment a player decided to do that, I would probably set some more favourable rules just to reward his originality. And then I would stick with sth more rigid (like what I described above) for every time thereafter.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I'm not really thinking about a formal house rule, here. I just think it's good to hear different ideas that I can remember if it ever comes up and I have to make a ruling.I think your best bet is to divide it into two parts: method of resolution, and outcome.

First thing I'd do is see if a DMG battle maneuver already applies, if not decide:
1) attack roll vs AC, Save vs DC, or opposed Ability Check.
2) advantage/disadvantage for some duration, or the blinded status condition for some duration, of an affect taken from the BM maneuvers of the DMG maneuvers.

Mostly though, keep it simple and fast and the combat flowing and exciting. ;)

[Zalabim]

It could also be attack roll vs ability check (Disarming), or maybe attack roll vs saving throw, or ability check vs saving throw. Any combination really. Basically, you'd be picking the roll and defense based on who should be able to perform it and who it shouldn't work as well against. Probably influenced by who's trying the trick and how.

If the material is actually harmful/irritating, it could be statted as an alternate Net pretty easily. Restrained might be a more severe condition than Blind.