PDA

View Full Version : Dirty Tricks and the Arguements they cause..



Death's Shadow
2008-05-17, 12:35 AM
In my group we have a 6th level Human Rogue, that had come up with a rather clever, in my opinion, trick. About two weeks before a local Count is going to declare war on a few of the neighboring weaker Barons to add to his lands and holdings, the group debates how is best to deal if the noble. The rogue is elected to infiltrate the Count’s Palace and to assassinate him to prevent a bloody war that would kill thousands. The gaming session ends at night and he heads home, now the next gaming session isn’t till next week so he starts thinking of ways to make the assassination work, and low an behold the History Channel is showing a special on the Ninja that day, or more importantly it gives the Rogue an idea.

Next gaming session rolls around and he has his character going around pick up two pounds of fine metal shavings, one pound of rock salt, one pound of ground glass from the town glass blowers, and a large myriad of hot spices as well as a pair of black glass goggles. He then dried out the spices and grinds them into a fine powder and then does the same with the rock salt. Then carefully he mixes them together in small cloth pouches hidden up his sleeves so that he can slip them into his palm without much effort. And he states that he will be wearing goggles while in combat unless otherwise stated before hand.

Fast forwarding to the reasons for the arguement; he gets into a minor battle with a knight of the Count’s that is returning from the kitchen to fetch the Count some wine while he plans his grand war plan. The rogue uses the ‘Dried Devil’s Brew” as he calls it which he states is aimed for the eyes and I have him roll a ranged touch attack an he makes it. I then have the Knight roll a fort save of 16 or be blinded for 1d4 minutes, Knight fails and while he’s panics trying to get the stuff out of his eyes, the Rogue sneaks up behind him and slits his throat(If a blade is ran across your throat with enough pressure I don’t care how much HP you have you’ll bleed out if you can’t heal yourself.). That was no issue, now he attempts it again against a armored Knight and the same thing misses the throat slitting happens. But one of my other players start to raise a stink about it, stating that the helm’s visor would prevent the powder from effecting the Knight.

But the Rogue then argues that the powder against any foe was meant to either blind or irrate the sight of the target to make combat far more difficult. And that the powder won’t be stopped by the visor because the air itself or the Knight’s movement would forces some into the eyes of the Knight. The other player complained stating that the powder would be useless then because it didn’t blind the Knight. The rogue counter this by siting that the slit of the helms narrowed the field of vision so much that any irritate would make seeing out of it much more difficult or then he would at least take a few negatives which I agreed with as a DM. But then the other player stated that the Knight would just have to lift the visor to prevent ‘cloud of powder’ from settling into his eyes, and here’s what gets me, by doing so you would move the cloud closer by giving it somewhere else to go so he would make the matter worse.

I ruled that the only way the trick wouldn’t work are the following 1)the Target is gearing goggles. 2) the Target moves backwards from the cloud. 3) the Knight had closer his eyes and moves through the powder fighting blindly for a turn and moving away from the threat.

So what do you guys think? Is that fair and if not how would you rule on this?

Adumbration
2008-05-17, 12:45 AM
You did remember to make him make several Intelligence checks to come up with the idea and then even more Craft (alchemy) to make it work?:smallwink:

Death's Shadow
2008-05-17, 12:55 AM
I did for the Craft(Alchemy) but I didn't for the Intelligence checks for coming up with the idea. The reason behind that is I thought it would seem like a thief trick that he could have picked up plus he has an intelligence of 18 so it wouldn't take much would it?

An if so how high would you have made it?

Hectonkhyres
2008-05-17, 01:09 AM
Technically that trick should require both a fortitude save (dealing with the crap in your eyes) and a reflex save (getting hit in the eyes with the crap in the first place). I would rule that the visor would give him a rather small bonus to each of his saves but wouldn't provide any sort of immunity. Also, 1d4 minutes seems a little too high for me... try 1d4 rounds with a lingering penalty or two.

Hell, I'm not even sure that I would rule that the powder would cause total blindness as only a small amount is likely to actually get in your eyes. Its basically pepperspray.

huttj509
2008-05-17, 01:10 AM
The int checks I'd agree with. The alchemy check? Nah, what he did was grind up a variety of really nasty irritants (glass, and salt in the microwounds? Ow) into a powder form which he chucked in people's eyes.

Since he's being sent in alone to assassinate a guy, I'd say letting the player make his int check rather than the character is fair, which is what happened when he made the idea connection (unless he's making gunpowder or something).

I agree with the ruling. Basically the rogue is making a called shot for the eyes. For the knight, he's making a called shot for the eyeslit. Now if he's throwing it on the ground, making a cloud (it'd have to be REALLY finely ground, like, flower fine, and not coarse flower, to make a decent cloud at eyelevel), I'd say the visor would give a +2 circumstance bonus (fewer directions for the dust to get to the eyes), but nowhere near immune.

Swordguy
2008-05-17, 01:14 AM
I did for the Craft(Alchemy) but I didn't for the Intelligence checks for coming up with the idea. The reason behind that is I thought it would seem like a thief trick that he could have picked up plus he has an intelligence of 18 so it wouldn't take much would it?

An if so how high would you have made it?

For an INT18 PC?! He thinks of it. End of story.

If, for some reason, you need a rationale, explain that it's a completely logical modification to the old "throw dirt in the eyes" trick that has been a part of fighting since FOREVER.

And, as a former jouster, let me assure you that dust can and does go through the oculars of a helm. Not as easily as you might think, since the air inside the visor is largely static except for the cone immediately in front of your mouth (from breathing), but dust can certainly get in there from being kicked up by hooves, much less having a dust-like powder thrown in your face.

It was an EXTREMELY well-thought-out trick that the rogue used. Your trick as a DM will now be to keep him from doing it on every occasion for the rest of the campaign...

Inyssius Tor
2008-05-17, 01:17 AM
Technically that trick should require both a fortitude save (dealing with the crap in your eyes) and a reflex save (getting hit in the eyes with the crap in the first place).
Well, that's what the touch attack is for. Either you have one or the other, but not both, and since the rogue is throwing the powder it seems like he should roll the die. If you were going to roll reflex saves to determine whether people get hit with things, shouldn't they be rolling them all the time? Like, when people swing swords at them?

EDIT: And also, well done Shadow. I can't see any problem with the way you handled the situation, and I can't see any problem with the way your rogue created the situation. You do have a little problem now, what with your rogue possessing dust of blinding and win, but that's not too bad; it's just a bit of an issue.

EDIT EDIT: Ah, ninja'd whilst editing. Not bad, but be aware that total blindness is only a 50% miss chance if you know where your enemy is. If that's better than a -8 in your group, you've got another problem.

Death's Shadow
2008-05-17, 01:21 AM
Thanks for the feedback guys, it will help me in the long run. I am thinking that I am going to limit to once were encounter he can do so. I'll limit the blindness down to a 1d6 rounds, it's going to turn like hell. I mean the guy put glass and metal shavings in the stuff. As for aftereffects, I'll making a -8 to all attack rolls,reflex rolls and anything that would require him the usage of his eyes till he gets help. Plus he would have to make a Heal check of the Rogue's level + Charisma modifier to get the powder out and even then it would require a good deal of water to wash it out.

Swordguy
2008-05-17, 01:25 AM
Thanks for the feedback guys, it will help me in the long run. I am thinking that I am going to limit to once were encounter he can do so. I'll limit the blindness down to a 1d6 rounds, it's going to turn like hell. I mean the guy put glass and metal shavings in the stuff. As for total blindness, I'll making a -8 to all attack rolls,reflex rolls and anything that would require him the usage of his eyes. Plus he would have to make a Heal check of the Rogue's level + Charisma modifier to get the powder out and even then it would require a good deal of water to wash it out.

I'd change the Heal check to something a bit less nasty, and give a specific penalty to the technique if the target is wearing a closed-face helm. The +2 favorable circumstance bonuses seems tailor-made for this situation.

What'll REALLY be funny is when your rogue tries this trick on some guy with Blindfighting. It's like the end of van Damme's Bloodsport.

Death's Shadow
2008-05-17, 01:28 AM
Okay, how about 10+Rogue's Wisdom modifier for the heal check to make it a wee bit less nasty.

An for the Close Faced Helm what would you suggest? I am was thinking total blindness and then they having to make a will save or the sudden lose of sight send them into a panic? Too much or too little?

Hectonkhyres
2008-05-17, 01:44 AM
Well, that's what the touch attack is for. Either you have one or the other, but not both, and since the rogue is throwing the powder it seems like he should roll the die. If you were going to roll reflex saves to determine whether people get hit with things, shouldn't they be rolling them all the time? Like, when people swing swords at them?

Hitting someone with a sword is straightforward. You swing and, if it connects, they take damage. How much depends on where they get hit and yadda yadda. A touch attack is for when you need to hit them but you don't really care where.

But with a fist full of spices and ground glass, you have to get them straight on in the eyes. They can't sidestep, turn their head to the side or look down, the visor can't be at an angle to block things... even blinking at the wrong moment will screw with the effect a bit. Then the fortitude save comes into play.

Swordguy
2008-05-17, 02:07 AM
Okay, how about 10+Rogue's Wisdom modifier for the heal check to make it a wee bit less nasty.

An for the Close Faced Helm what would you suggest? I am was thinking total blindness and then they having to make a will save or the sudden lose of sight send them into a panic? Too much or too little?

Good job on the Heal check.

As for the rest, here's how I'd rule the attack.

The Old "Fling Glass-laced Dirt in Someone's Eyes" Attack
-Make a melee touch attack against the target to deliver the dust (with no non-proficieny penalty due to the nature of the attack). Target must make a Fort Save with a DC equal to the attack roll. Success means that the target has blurred vision, taking a -6 penalty to attack rolls, Reflex Saves, and any other check that would require vision for 1d4 rounds (and may only apply half their Dex modifier to AC, rounded down), then a -2 to the same checks until the eyes are flushed out (Heal check of 10+Rogue's Wisdom modifier). Failure means the target is considered blinded (as per the effect) for 1d4+1 rounds, and then applies the penalties for having successfully made the Fort save consecutively. The target's armor (helm) may block some of the dust, apply the target's AC bonus -4 as an untyped bonus to the Fortitude Save (minimum bonus +0). Goggles add a +4 to the Fortitude save (doesn't stack with this effect from armor). Note that this technique is considered "dirty fighting", and may incur reprecussions from NPCs in kind.
-This technique requires a Craft(Alchemy Test) with a DC of 15 to properly lace the mixture ahead of time and pack it in an appropriate container. This technique can be tried without the Alchemy check, but the target may apply their full Armor Bonus to the initial melee touch attack. Failure on the check means the mixture can still be used, but the target may apply his Armor Bonus as just described. Due to the difficulty to separating glass shards from dirt, this check may not be retried if failed.

Animefunkmaster
2008-05-17, 03:17 AM
Eggshell grenades (Oriental Adventures). 10gp per grenade, it is a bargain and less hassle than making it up yourself.

Mechanics are:
Ranged touch attack (10ft range) or blind.

Swordguy
2008-05-17, 04:04 AM
Eggshell grenades (Oriental Adventures). 10gp per grenade, it is a bargain and less hassle than making it up yourself.

Mechanics are:
Ranged touch attack (10ft range) or blind.

Pfft. What's the fun in THAT?

Not to mention being massively powerful, seeing as how there's no good way to avoid the effect. Blind=dead (especially against a rogue)...and a ranged touch attack is incredibly easy to hit with.

Generic Archer
2008-05-17, 05:24 AM
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable trick to me, although in our group we have a player that would likely make comments along the same lines, but the DM usually just says "rule 0" and leaves it at that

Riffington
2008-05-17, 05:30 AM
I have only one question.
The knight has a visor, which provides protection but not immunity to thrown dust.

So why is it a *touch* attack?

Swordguy
2008-05-17, 05:38 AM
I have only one question.
The knight has a visor, which provides protection but not immunity to thrown dust.

So why is it a *touch* attack?

Because you're not trying to defeat the armor, you're just trying to hit the target. The simple fact that the attack is essentially dust makes armor protection, in general, pointless - it doesn't matter if it's leather or metal or what-have-you. It just matters the size of the oculars (the better the AC, generally the smaller the oculars will be).

Because you aren't having to defeat the armor, it falls under the category of "touch attack" by default.

Ashtar
2008-05-17, 05:39 AM
Your range touch attacks are very nice, but it seems to me you're assuming it will hit the head... If we were in good old AD&D I'd be asking for a called shot to the head (-4 to hit the head).

I would set a fixed DC for the fortitude check. At worst the DC could depend on the alchemy roll.
Say: Normal dirt (no alchemy) DC 10, Prepared Dirt DC 12, Prepared Alchemical mixture DC 14 (cost 10 gold), daemon fire spice made with tanar'i blood and salamander spittle with glass golem shards DC 16 (cost Loads of gold).

Failed fortitude save: Blindness for 1d4+1 rounds, then -2 to attacks for 1 round.
Success in fortitude save: -2 to attacks for 1 round (and that's if you're generous, I would give no effect on a successful fort save).

A helm provides both a bonus to AC on the called shot (+2 small helm, +4 full helm) roll AND a bonus to the fort save DC.

Swordguy
2008-05-17, 05:46 AM
A helm provides both a bonus to AC on the called shot (+2 small helm, +4 full helm) roll AND a bonus to the fort save DC.

All well and good up there...except this bit. Helms are assumed to be "part of the armor", and aren't differentiated as separate pieces. That's why I took their bonus to the Fort save from the armor's general AC.

Really, though, now we're all quibbling over really minor detail. To the OP: the long and short of it is that you handled it fine, and there's about fifty different ways to handle this ad hoc. Talk about it with your group.

(Of course, this all misses the fact that if the knight is wearing a close-faced helm, as you strongly imply, he's also CERTAINLY wearing a gorget - attached to the helm or free-floating to prevent the helm from chafing the neck - meaning that you shouldn't be able to just cut his throat, since there's a bunch of metal encircling said throat. Unless your rogue is strong enough to drag a dagger through solid steel... :smallbiggrin: )

KIDS
2008-05-17, 06:00 AM
You are doing good and I think you should definitely encourage out-of-the-box thinking like this, but in this case it seems houseruling went slightly out of hand. A clever idea shouldn't be an automatic game-winner as in with him slitting everyone's throats. I would let it work the first time and congratulate the clever idea, but require craft (poisonmaking) checks after that and, if the player is willing to go with it, congratulate him on inventing a new type of poison.

Just slightly out of hand incident, I say you remain open to everything and have a lot of goodwill, but just not let it be used to bypass everything so easily.

KillianHawkeye
2008-05-17, 06:41 AM
I think the real problem here is that being Blinded doesn't make you Helpless, and thus the Rogue in question would NOT be able to do a Coup de Grace on the Knight. Sneak Attack is still fair game, since Blinded characters lose their Dex bonus to AC.

Also note that a Coup de Grace takes a full-round action to perform. And remember that the target gets to make a Fortitude save to survive (although with the Rogue's Sneak Attack, it's very difficult).

weenie
2008-05-17, 07:04 AM
I think you handeled the situation in the correct way. Well, almost. An alchemy check should suffice to be able to make such a "poison". Around DC 15 I'd guess. After that a touch ranged attack & fortitude save are more than enough for it not to become a win button. Sure, you are able to blind most of the NPCs, but you still couldn't go around blinding dragons and stealng their stuff. The only problem I see with it is that you let him perform a coup de grace. The knight was blinded, but not helpless. But I think that this was already mentioned.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-17, 08:07 AM
the Rogue sneaks up behind him and slits his throat(If a blade is ran across your throat with enough pressure I don’t care how much HP you have you’ll bleed out if you can’t heal yourself.).

Here's your first problem - that's plain not how D&D combat works, and it is unbalanced and your players should raise a stink about it. If the dude's not helpless, you can make a coup de grace (if he's blind, you can still use sneak attack, though), and you

The throat-slitting isn't an action you can just declare - it's something you attempt, and in this case the rogue should've made an attack as normal. If the damage was enough to put the knight at 0 or below, his throat was successfully slit. If it wasn't, it didn't quite work out as planned - the man's flailing about and would certainly not just submit to a knife across the throat, after all. The knife grazed his struggling arm instead, or something like that. (HP aren't all about injuries - tissue damage, bleeding, shock, or the like.)

So yes, you let a player get away with too effective a maneuver, and your other players are rightfully annoyed.

Also, a visor absolutely would keep most of any dust thrown at the face away from the eyes, but D&D doesn't work on that level of detail - from a rules PoV, it should never matter if someone's wearing a helmet or not. The blinding effect itself is too strong, too - 10-40 rounds of blindness, DC 16, no limits of any kind on use? Of course the rogue is going to do this again and again and again - he'd be stupid not to use such a powerful tactic. A free DC 16 instadeath attack!


Edit: A balanced fix for this dirty trick? The opponent it dazed or stunned for 1 round if they fail a DC 10-12 Ref save. The rogue also has to make a successful ranged touch attack. And it only works on flat-footed opponents, or when preceded by a successful feint...

Riffington
2008-05-17, 09:05 AM
Because you're not trying to defeat the armor, you're just trying to hit the target. The simple fact that the attack is essentially dust makes armor protection, in general, pointless - it doesn't matter if it's leather or metal or what-have-you. It just matters the size of the oculars (the better the AC, generally the smaller the oculars will be).

Because you aren't having to defeat the armor, it falls under the category of "touch attack" by default.

That's like saying that with a knife I'm not trying to defeat the armor, I'm just trying to hit the target. If my dust hits you right in the shield, does me no good. If it hits you right in the visor, it only helps if it happens to make its way into the eye. And as you point out, the better the AC, the smaller the oculars will generally be (just as the better the AC, the smaller the gaps between metal will be for my knife).

So really it should just be a regular ranged attack that ignores "armor without a helmet" (light armor for shorthand).

Death's Shadow
2008-05-17, 10:44 AM
Thanks again guys for the feed back and now to answer some of the comments.

1)Yes I have a good deal of good will towards out of the box thinking in my groups, and its not an automatic victory for the Rogue either. If the target has blind-fighting the trick is useless then. Plus I wouldn't consider this a requiring a Craft(poisoncraft) because it was made rather easily by the Rogue to make but in the future I am going with a Craft(Alchemy) but thank your for the suggestion.

2)To Riffington: First of all thanks for the input, secondly I know that not how D&D combat works, however I was trying the victim was panicked and prone for the reason that he would have no desire to fight an opponent that just blinded him. If someone threw this stuff into your eyes any normal human would start freaking out. And I should have made the particulars clear in the section of the story, he did take a full turn to perform a coup-de-grace.


3)To Swordguy: Thanks for the input and the example of how you would rule on that one. I am going to modifier it only slightly to include an additional Wisdom check to see if the person realizes that rubbing will make them good blind because the making the wounds both large and mirco worse.

4)To Everyone else: Rock on people, thank you a great deal for the input and I am sorry I didn't include in you own special little section. Your advise and comments have been taken into account an have allowed me some time to think on the tactic.

In fact I am probably going to write up the ruling for this tactic and then print it out so I can keep it in my folder just in case he pulls it again and I forget the ruling or I want a villian or a future rogue NPC doing it in the future.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-17, 11:32 AM
Fort Save DC 16 sounds good.
Alchemy check to make the concotion sounds good.
You can either make a Reflex save or a ranged touch attack. Should it give a penalty to the attack roll, since it would be an improvised attack, specially with some sort of hidden weapon.
1d4 minutes is too much. Maybe 1d6 rounds.

And you can "couple de grace" a blind opponent? What kind of rule is that? You should apply the normal rules for blind opponents, maybe add an -2 to attacks for the pain. I think that is what is causing problems with the trick.

Death's Shadow
2008-05-17, 11:50 AM
I was treating him as if he were prone for that session, next time I doubt I'll do something like that again. I'll probably make it to wear he's considered flat-footed with an additional -2 from his AC due to the fact that he would be panicked.

I lessened the time earlier in the thread too man, you must have missed it so no worries. I did go with 1d6 rounds but I also made a few side-effects for the attack too.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-17, 12:34 PM
I was treating him as if he were prone for that session

That doesn't make any sense either - you can't coup de grace a prone character. (And even so, it wasn't a CDG, it was an autodeath.)

Chronos
2008-05-17, 01:21 PM
Things like cutting a blind guy's throat are exactly what Sneak Attack is supposed to represent (or at least, one of the things that Sneak Attack is supposed to represent). These knights were probably far enough below the rogue's level that a single Sneak Attack would kill them, in which case you (or your player) are perfectly free to describe the action as "I cut the guy's throat". But there's still the possibility that it doesn't work, or doesn't work completely, and you're free to come up with descriptions for what happens there, too: "You try to cut his throat, but in his panicked flailing, he manages to knock you away as you're trying to connect." or "You get in a hit on his throat, but he manages to twist his neck around, so you miss the major arteries", or "He practically doesn't have a neck, the muscles are so thick. You manage to hurt him pretty bad, but he's not out of the fight yet."

ColonelFuster
2008-05-17, 01:37 PM
Lanti, I believe we can assume that he was just using the term[I] cou de grace ("death blow/mercy killing"), not the mechanic.

I beleive it would make your rogue uber-happy if you just gave the opponent an effect that mimics the blink spell. He would get sneakies that way, and that way you can price it as a magic item, like a potion. I like it when my players come up with good ideas, especially those based on real life... but this may be going over the top to make them ACTUALLY BLIND against a rogue. Then again, I don't think that's the issue here...

*points to thread title* I think the problem here originated from the bored player. This thread would be in homebrewing if the other player, was content just watching the rogue be a ninja badass.

The simple fact of the matter is, they're not. I myself have a gaming group in which there is an OH MY GODS COULD YOU [I]BE MORE ANNOYING Tiefling Rouge/Ranger/Paladin of Freedom with a Weapon of Legacy Greatsword (SO! ANNOYING!) that really hogs the spotlight. I had to make the cleric a prophecized messiah just to keep her in the game, practicaly, and the barbarian (who I told her, should be an arcanist) is almost refusing outright to play with him. Which is causing some problems because she is my girlfriend.

The point is! Spotlight hogging causes real problems, and if you're making the point to give the rogue a solo adventure, here's some advice for what other players could do.

I. Play HALO. It's what usually happens when one person starts doing something cool without the party... others start playing Guitar hero or something. To prevent that, you can try....

II. PC enemies. Give your other players the stats for that knight, it might turn out different. You might think that a cleric would be happy with hitting the rogue with inflict spells... but if the player that is usually healing has a hold of that enemy, he might just decide that healing the fighter is more important than trying to kill the ninja.

III. Deus Ex Machina. The rogue has been hit with a sneak attack. As the laughter and the irony wear off, make the player roll a fort save against Drow Knockout poison, or a will save against something terrible. Now, the only thing that can save the player is the party, who can show up near-instantly if all the guards have been killed up to this point. After a killing followed by a light salad, the party can abandon their first plan (stealth) and go back to the old standard (kick in the door/bluff).

I hope this helps... there are lots of times when there's just nothing you can do against a rogue's class ability, "Spotlight hog (Su)."

RS14
2008-05-17, 02:21 PM
Also, take a look at the Gorget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorget). Any fully armored knight would most likely be wearing one. Of course, the rogue probably could slip a knife through any gap in the armor (around the neck, for example), but as others have said, that's exactly what sneak attacks are meant to model.

SCPRedMage
2008-05-17, 07:45 PM
Edit: A balanced fix for this dirty trick? The opponent it dazed or stunned for 1 round if they fail a DC 10-12 Ref save. The rogue also has to make a successful ranged touch attack. And it only works on flat-footed opponents, or when preceded by a successful feint...
That is HORRIBLE. A DC 10-12 is INSANELY easy to make, especially against the opponents a rogue is most likely to NEED to use such a tactic, and making it only work against flat-footed opponents means it'll rarely even be able to be USED. I'm sorry, but that makes it not even worth CONSIDERING.

One or the other, but NOT both.

Citizen Joe
2008-05-17, 08:36 PM
1. Why is a knight, that is out of combat, wearing a visored helm? You can't see squat with that on, so unless there is some guy barreling down on you with a lance, you're not going to be wearing it.
2. What is the point of a visor if it doesn't protect your eyes? You can't mix real world physics with the combat simulation of DND. Certain things have certain effects, period.
3. DND has incredibly long craft times for stuff due to it being based on the value of the end product. If the rogue managed to make this stuff as fast as it was needed, then this stuff would be incredibly cheap. So cheap that everyone and their mother would be carrying around what is essentially mace or pepper spray. If everyone is carrying that, then security personel would all have precautions, to wit, goggles. Essentially, you let the rogue create a bunch of single use magic items of blindness, for free, without the appropriate skills or feats. So, ya, I'd be a bit pissed if I were the other guys.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-17, 10:01 PM
That is HORRIBLE. A DC 10-12 is INSANELY easy to make, especially against the opponents a rogue is most likely to NEED to use such a tactic, and making it only work against flat-footed opponents means it'll rarely even be able to be USED. I'm sorry, but that makes it not even worth CONSIDERING.

I'm not sure why it should be even as useful as Feint is - Feint, at least, requires ranks in Bluff.

Oh, wait - that's right. Throwing something at your opponent's eyes is a feint. Problem solved.

Death's Shadow
2008-05-17, 11:05 PM
[QUOTE=ColonelFuster;4334816] Lanti, I believe we can assume that he was just using the [I]term[I] cou de grace ("death blow/mercy killing"), not the mechanic.


That is true and as stated before by someone later in the thread whom realize that the knight that was the original victim was unarmored and instead his master's "secured" castle.

And to answer Citizen Joe: this stuff is not magical. It's ground glass, metal shavings, finely group spices and fine salt. Its more like a fist full of dirt being rubbed into your eyes with a lot of things that will create micro wounds and gashes that will make seeing very very very hard.

And I know what a SNEAK ATTACK is meant to model, believe it or not I have played enough D&D to understand the game and how it works. The Slitting of his victim's throat is simply that something I use in my games, however that is something for my own games and therefore homebrewed so drop it please. I already stated before that when he encountered an armored knight he was only able to blind him.

Sorry if I seem frustrated and all bad day at black rock.

In hindsight I shouldn't have stated that he performed a Coup-De-Grace because that implies that the mechanics of that technique were in play.

Cuddly
2008-05-17, 11:16 PM
So wait, was the rogue making an insta-death attack or wasn't he?

Here are the problems with your ruling/houserules:
The debuff lasts too long. It should be no more than a few rounds, not minutes

Getting an enemy helpless should be a difficult or expensive task, such as UMDing a wand of sleep.

Characters shouldn't get to insta-kill anything that easily. Giving the rogue an insta-kill death attack without a save or him having to roll anything is, generally, OP, given the rest of the D&D mechanic. Giving anyone limitless uses of such an ability is a Bad Idea.

I think making a ranged touch attack to blind the opponent with a DC16 fort save to negate blindness is a perfectly fine rule. The blindness should last 1d4 rounds, and the rogue of course will get all his sneak attacks on that opponent. That is far better than the guy simply laying down very still and shouting "hey mr. rogue, why don't you please come slit my throat?!" That's just silly. Knights were typically pretty badass, trained, at the very least, to withstand some punishment. Throwing pepper in their eyes isn't going to make them helpless. If they are going to fall down (maybe the bumped into something), they shouldn't be considered helpless unless they somehow also tied themselves up or drank a potion of sleep or something. Letting the rogue sneak attack them is enough to represent "drawing the blade across their throat".

Also; if the rogue can't make a full attack against a blind, prone opponent, with sneak attacks and outright kill him, don't you think you're throwing enemies with too many HP at a lone rogue?

Swordguy
2008-05-17, 11:35 PM
Don''t mean to pick on you, but you've got some generally incorrect statements there...


1. Why is a knight, that is out of combat, wearing a visored helm? You can't see squat with that on, so unless there is some guy barreling down on you with a lance, you're not going to be wearing it.


Mostly wrong. Vision out of most visored helms is actually pretty good, considering that the ocular is very close to the eye. Split your fingers, hold them 6" in front of your eyes, and look through them, disregarding everything else that's not through the fingers. Not much, right? That's the popular misconception. In actuallity, move the fingers back about 0.5" to 1" in front of your eyes, and see how much more of the world is visible. Do you lose vision? Absolutely, especially your peripheral vision...but it's not as much as you're thinking.




2. What is the point of a visor if it doesn't protect your eyes? You can't mix real world physics with the combat simulation of DND. Certain things have certain effects, period.

A visor protects your face/eyes from weapon blows. It does NOT protect you well against fine-grained powder flung into the air and spreading about your head. I've run into problems many times with dust in my eyes/contacts from dust kicked up by horses and just floating in the air - to say nothing of somebody actually THROWING the dust at my face.

Good tactics have nothing to do with game balance. Indeed, the purpose of tactics is to make things as unbalanced in your favor as possible. This is a good idea for the rogue, allowing him to fight a much nastier enemy on equal footing. An advantage, by the way, completely negated by the Blindfighting feat.

Death's Shadow
2008-05-17, 11:39 PM
I had wilted it down to a 1d6 duration earlier in the thread.

As for instant death, yes I would say that my house ruling allowed a armed rogue to slitted the throat of an unarmed and blinded knight. Yes Knights were highly trained warriors and I won't have it any other way, but imagine any solider getting a hand full of powders glass, salt, hot spices and metal shavings thrown into their eyes. Their going to be freaking out if they get an eye full and for the most part be 'blinded'. Their are several easy ways around this, Undead sentries, Blind fighting as a feat, Golems.

An it doesn't happen often in my games mind you that this kind of instant death happens. If a monk sneaks up behind an opponent whose has failed his listen and spot, grapples the opponent with his hand covering his mouth then yes I would allow for a strength check to break the man's neck. And if its a rogue that has done the same I would allow him to slit the man's throat. I can in all fairness allow this as a DM, and for the most part the players have been okay with this say for the one that raised the stink on this event.

To be completely honest the guy's a ruler lawyer expect when he benefits from it.

Cuddly
2008-05-17, 11:52 PM
I remain unconvinced that being blinded somehow makes you helpless, as per the game term- I know I'd be swinging my weapon around blindly, not letting that blighter get close to me, while screaming bloody murder for backup. Maybe stagger backwards against a wall, or go for an exit. I've gotten pepper spray in my eyes. It hurts like a bitch, and it's incapacitating. Debilitating. Makes me feel helpless, but not helpless (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless).

Be careful about these sorts of rulings, since you'll soon get a character that specializes in dealing instant deathblows to most opponents.

In a recent campaign, my players were constantly wanting to be able to CdG a grappled opponent, a blind opponent, a prone opponent, etc. Eventually I had to explain to them how absolutely easy a condition those were to inflict on them, how no one in the party could make a spot or listen check worth beans, and that I'd have them all killed by anything with improved grab, decent sneak skills, or a large net. They relented.

Though I do let my players "take ten" on killing stuff that doesn't offer much resistance and the battle is just them wailing on something with a lot of HP.

As for slits vs. no slit in the visor-
You guys are really missing the point. How are you supposed to rub your eyes blind when your head's encased in metal?

Death's Shadow
2008-05-18, 12:19 AM
The rubbing would only make it worse so I added in the side-effects of it, the initial damage is you have salt, bits of metal, glass and hot spices in your eyes so when you blink your creating mirco wounds and gashes which makes things a lot worse.

The reason I stated about the rubbing is if you get something in your eyes the natural reaction is to rub at the eyes till its gone which makes the tactic all the more insidious, I have to give the man is due he came up with a rather nasty version of the trick.

Anterean
2008-05-18, 01:31 AM
I have to give the man is due he came up with a rather nasty version of the trick.

As I understand he didn´t come up with it, he saw it in a televison show, but semantics.

I'm with the with the blinded (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded) =|= helpless (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless) crowd and wouldn´t have allowed a coup de grace myself, but as you already mentioned you are little more lenient in your house ruling of those, and it is your game.


Knights were highly trained warriors and I won't have it any other way, but imagine any solider getting a hand full of powders glass, salt, hot spices and metal shavings thrown into their eyes.

Any knight with a few levels under his (or her) belt will have tried having dust kicked into the eyes doing combat, and while this certainly is a more painful and distracting composition he (she) would have an idea what was happening and how to react.

Swordguy
2008-05-18, 01:32 AM
As for slits vs. no slit in the visor-
You guys are really missing the point. How are you supposed to rub your eyes blind when your head's encased in metal?

Rubbing doesn't matter. You still can't see with dust in your eyes. In this case, rubbing makes it worse, but it starts with that Fort Save vs. Blindness...

lin_fusan
2008-05-18, 01:46 AM
I'm away from my rulebooks, but wouldn't this trick treated like a non-magical Glitterdust? Kinda like the Tanglefoot Bag is like an Entangle spell? So it could be priced and ruled in a similar manner?

Citizen Joe
2008-05-18, 07:28 AM
Do you lose vision? Absolutely, especially your peripheral vision...but it's not as much as you're thinking.

This is exactly the vision that is important outside of combat. If you're guarding (which I presume the knight was doing) then you need that peripheral vision because your opponent may not be directly in front of you.

Swordguy
2008-05-18, 10:18 AM
This is exactly the vision that is important outside of combat. If you're guarding (which I presume the knight was doing) then you need that peripheral vision because your opponent may not be directly in front of you.

Right - and which other face-concealing helmet style is appropriate for medieval guardsmen? Resident Evil-style motorcycle helmets? Stormtrooper helmets? Sometimes, it's about panache and playing to tropes, not about whats effective.

Further, the alternative is no visor, which makes the guy's situation even worse, since there's not a big hunk of metal to stop even more of the dust from getting in the guy's eyes...

Citizen Joe
2008-05-18, 10:24 AM
I'm saying the whole argument could have been avoided by the knight NOT wearing a helmet because a helmet would have been situationally inappropriate.

The ability to make the mace is a whole other argument.

I guess what I'm saying is that everyone in the situation was wrong and broke the cardinal rule of the game in which everyone is supposed to have fun.

Death's Shadow
2008-05-18, 10:35 AM
No Joe only one person in the group was unhappy with it and it was the person that wasn't benefiting from it. And your correct when you say that the event that the original usage happened in was on an unarmored off-duty knight.

And what is wrong with a Rogue improving on a preexisting trick that is throwing a fist full of dirt into someone's eyes?

ashmanonar
2008-05-18, 11:11 AM
3. DND has incredibly long craft times for stuff due to it being based on the value of the end product. If the rogue managed to make this stuff as fast as it was needed, then this stuff would be incredibly cheap. So cheap that everyone and their mother would be carrying around what is essentially mace or pepper spray. If everyone is carrying that, then security personel would all have precautions, to wit, goggles. Essentially, you let the rogue create a bunch of single use magic items of blindness, for free, without the appropriate skills or feats. So, ya, I'd be a bit pissed if I were the other guys.

Because the DND system for crafting is INCREDIBLY broken. Requiring skill points to do something, that is in the majority of cases character fluff, is ludicrous.

The Rogue thought up something pretty crafty, and well-thought-out, and they were rewarded. It sounds like something they would have learned in their rogue training, anyways. It sounds like the OP gave the targets sufficient chances (fort, touch attacks, etc.)

holywhippet
2008-05-18, 05:17 PM
I'd accept that the first knight might be caught flat footed against this tactic - he wasn't expecting it and thus at best might get a fortitude save. The second knight though has seen the trick being used and will be on his guard. The rogue has to swing his arms back then forward in order to throw more of his powder. The knight will be able to see this and react. If he has a shield he could raise it to deflect the powder. He could just turn his head and close his eyes. He could raise his arm to protect his eyes.

I'd be offering a fairly low DC reflex save for anyone who has seen this trick used.

Griffin131
2008-05-18, 05:35 PM
I'd accept that the first knight might be caught flat footed against this tactic - he wasn't expecting it and thus at best might get a fortitude save. The second knight though has seen the trick being used and will be on his guard. The rogue has to swing his arms back then forward in order to throw more of his powder. The knight will be able to see this and react. If he has a shield he could raise it to deflect the powder. He could just turn his head and close his eyes. He could raise his arm to protect his eyes.

I'd be offering a fairly low DC reflex save for anyone who has seen this trick used.
You're assuming that the rogue encountered multiple knights at the same time. If Knight B never saw the fight with Knight A, he'd have absolutely no idea what was happening.

Cuddly
2008-05-18, 05:50 PM
I'd accept that the first knight might be caught flat footed against this tactic - he wasn't expecting it and thus at best might get a fortitude save. The second knight though has seen the trick being used and will be on his guard. The rogue has to swing his arms back then forward in order to throw more of his powder. The knight will be able to see this and react. If he has a shield he could raise it to deflect the powder. He could just turn his head and close his eyes. He could raise his arm to protect his eyes.

I'd be offering a fairly low DC reflex save for anyone who has seen this trick used.

The rogue did have to make a ranged touch attack; presumably against a non-flatfooted opponent, that was precisely what was happening.