Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;379604OK - cool. 'Requires two turns' is probably a decent attempt as far as a patch for balancing that goes -in all likelihood, this means you're charging a PC an action point to do something from another classes' power framework.

Wrong thread, perhaps?

Quote from: Doom;379605Wrong thread, perhaps?

No; he's replying to Peregrin's last post, on the previous page.

Yes that. Pardon me, have edited.
Please carry on...

Quote from: Peregrin;379592I don't see it being anymore annoying than a wizard in an old edition trying to hit things with a longsword at a penalty.

In what way?  

It wasn't just a penalty, it was a significant penalty.  It was -5 to hit.  In addition, the damage was likely to be extremely low, and the odds of the Magic-User getting skewered for their troubles was extremely high.  Taking all that into consideration, there is no way a Magic-User flailing around with a longsword can even be remotely considered to be infringing on the Fighter's niche.  But you could still attempt it.

Conversely, 4e Rangers have an at-will power named Twin Strike.  One of the requirements is to be wielding two melee weapons.  If you allow another class to make an attack with their off-hand weapon in the same round as their main weapon, you have not only infringed on the Ranger's power, you have effectively negated it as a power.  Allowing one attack from each in successive rounds makes it pointless to have an off-hand weapon; it's all penalty with no offset.

So, either everyone can do it, and the Ranger class loses a power, or no one can (would) do it, and it is nothing like a Magic-User with a longsword in older editions.

QuoteAs for grabbing the staff, I'd probably have the player make a check/attack against the wizard's dex save, or maybe use the grapple rules.  Grabbing/wresting the staff and then slamming him back would probably constitute two full actions, regardless of edition, so I'd just have the actions take place on different turns.

Regardless, you have negated a power that Fighters possess as a class.  If anyone can grapple a weapon away after dealing damage, there is no point in allowing or requiring Fighters to have a power that does specifically that.  Similarly, Spinning Sweep is negated if anyone can trip an opponent, as is Beat them to the Ground.  Sand in the Eyes is no longer a 'power' if anyone can throw dirt in an opponent's face.  Arcing Smite mimics the Ranger's Twin Strike(except AS marks), and is similarly negated.

In a very real, rules specific way, powers are compartments that detail what actions a character/class is permitted.  Earlier editions provided structure for what a character/class was particularly good at, but denied almost no attempts at any physical actions.  Spells, of course, are a separate issue, as are Thief skills, and certain other specialized abilities, like the Monk's open handed damage.  Those are all in place for niche protection.

Quote from: Thanlis;379585It's a common enough misconception so that I'm willing to put some of the blame for it on WotC -- I mean, they did write the books. Page 42 should have been in the PHB, big time.

That's probably fair - presentation does make a difference sometimes.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;379589Isn't that problem with powers not what's written on your power card, but what's written on everyone else's cards? If the Ranger gets two-weapon fighting as their 'power', there's some grounds for them to be annoyed when the rogue fighting the mummy wants to try to hit it with the torch in their offhand.

You do need to bear in mind the structure of the rules when adjudicating things not specifically covered by them, to be sure. The rules do establish player expectations of how their characters interact in the world, so going too far beyond them is not a good idea. But this is true of any edition, as you point out.

If the rogue wants to attack the mummy with his torch, great! Call it a standard action, maybe Dex versus Reflex and refer to DMG page 42 for an appropriate damage amount. Or maybe knock the damage down some but add ongoing 5 fire (save ends) for flavour. There's no reason why the rogue should expect to get his normal attack and the torch in the same round.

Quote from: StormBringer;379630So, either everyone can do it, and the Ranger class loses a power, or no one can (would) do it, and it is nothing like a Magic-User with a longsword in older editions.

Considering that attack rolls have always been abstractions (at least, according to the books), it shouldn't be much of a problem. There's nothing that says one swing = one roll. There's no reason not to allow a melee basic attack with your off-hand weapon, just apply an ad hoc penalty to both attack rolls. Or rule that both attacks will have to be basic attacks, thereby losing any additional effects you get from an at-will. There's many ways to do it without violating other characters' niches.

Quote from: StormBringer;379630Similarly, Spinning Sweep is negated if anyone can trip an opponent, as is Beat them to the Ground.  Sand in the Eyes is no longer a 'power' if anyone can throw dirt in an opponent's face.

One thing you're missing is that powers allow characters to do it whenever they want to, whereas an improvised action is subject to DM fiat. Another thing you're missing is that powers tend to be DAMAGE + EFFECT. If you allow an improvised trip, say, without allowing any damage on it, that does nothing to invalidate any powers.

So yes, obviously you have to consider the rules when adjudicating actions not specifically covered by the rules. That seems self-evident to me.

Quote from: StormBringer;379630Those are all in place for niche protection.

So, even if you are correct in your assertion (and I don't think that you are), could you not say that such things are in place for niche protection as well? Earlier editions protected niches, so why can 4E not do the same? If two-weapon fighting is the ranger's niche (bad example, of course, because there are two-weapon fighter powers as well), why not protect it?

Quote from: Fifth Element;379647One thing you're missing is that powers allow characters to do it whenever they want to, whereas an improvised action is subject to DM fiat. Another thing you're missing is that powers tend to be DAMAGE + EFFECT. If you allow an improvised trip, say, without allowing any damage on it, that does nothing to invalidate any powers.

That isn't the point, though, is it?  If you simply pick up a handful of sand, it isn't unreasonable to argue that your character can make their attack and throw the sand in the same round.  It's not exactly rocket surgery, as throwing sand would be what, a minor action perhaps?  Surely something you don't need seven levels of Rogue training to accomplish?  So powers are inherently defining what you are allowed to do.

Make throwing the sand a separate attack roll, say Dex Vs Reflexes?  Fine, but that does nothing to address the situation.  Why would a Rogue waste a power selection on something they would have a reasonable chance of accomplishing without it?  Why would a Rogue waste a power selection on something that anyone has a reasonable chance of accomplishing regardless of class?

QuoteSo yes, obviously you have to consider the rules when adjudicating actions not specifically covered by the rules. That seems self-evident to me.

The rules are not adjudicating actions, they are defining and limiting them to precisely what is in the book, and nothing more.  And only in very exacting situations for very specific classes.  In other words, your statement here is ingenuous at best, and likely intentionally misleading.

QuoteSo, even if you are correct in your assertion (and I don't think that you are), could you not say that such things are in place for niche protection as well? Earlier editions protected niches, so why can 4E not do the same? If two-weapon fighting is the ranger's niche (bad example, of course, because there are two-weapon fighter powers as well), why not protect it?

Now we get to the heart of it.  Is throwing sand a niche for Rogues?  Does that define what a Rogue does specifically?  Does a magical bolt that performs essentially like a crossbow bolt or regular arrow define the Wizard to the exclusion of other classes?  Is the Paladin's niche best protected by One Heart, One Mind?

In other words, if that is what passes for niche protection, it sucks.  I'm not going to make a list, but there are several several powers in each class description that would be most accurately described as 'mundane', and several others that are pretty randomly inserted that seem to step on another class' bailywick.  Shouldn't the Warlord have the One Heart, One Mind power?  Who is supposed to be the unifying leader, the Paladin or the Warlord?

Then again, this discussion isn't about niche protection.  It's about some fairly routine physical actions that could reasonably be performed by just about anyone, and designing them as 'powers' that can only be used once per encounter or per day by certain classes.  Powers that are negated if anyone else is allowed to attempt them in a mundane fashion, with or without a penalty.  A first edition Magic User is no threat to anyone but themself if they pick up a longsword, and even if they decided to, there is no way that could be considered impinging on the Fighter's niche.  It certainly doesn't negate the Fighter's choice of a longsword proficiency.

As niche protection, they are random and overarching.  As definitional guides for character classes, they border on downright silly.  But in no way are they anything like a Magic-User wielding a longsword at a penalty.

Sincere question: why would throwing sand be a minor action? Sounds like a standard to me. You're taking an object which you hold in your hand, and you're trying to hit a relatively small target. Every other time you throw an object from your hand in a hostile manner, it's a standard action. What's different about sand?

Quote from: Thanlis;379703Sincere question: why would throwing sand be a minor action? Sounds like a standard to me. You're taking an object which you hold in your hand, and you're trying to hit a relatively small target. Every other time you throw an object from your hand in a hostile manner, it's a standard action. What's different about sand?

It's a standard action, except when it isn't, of course. There are numerous minor action powers that hit for damage, you can even find a few monsters that have such attack (cf Human Gladiator).

On the other hand, throwing sand, presumably, isn't even hitting for damage. Since no damage is involved, it might be less than a standard action.

In 4e, throwing sand might well be just as magical as firing a crossbow bolt or firing off a Magic Missile in general. Or might not.

I would probably rule sand-throwing as a standard action, make it bluff or acrobatics vs insight, leaves the victim dazed (presenting combat advantage, but not negating the possibility of an enraged charge from the victim) until end of the sand-throwers next round.

This allows the sand thrower the chance for a follow-up attack, or he could run.  

And of course, not just the rogue could do this. Anyone could attempt it. Hey thanks for the great example of improvisation in 4e!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379705I would probably rule sand-throwing as a standard action, make it bluff or acrobatics vs insight, leaves the victim dazed (presenting combat advantage, but not negating the possibility of an enraged charge from the victim) until end of the sand-throwers next round.

This allows the sand thrower the chance for a follow-up attack, or he could run.  

And of course, not just the rogue could do this. Anyone could attempt it. Hey thanks for the great example of improvisation in 4e!

Indeed, now I know what to do with minions, or any monster I want for that matter.

Quote from: Thanlis;379703Sincere question: why would throwing sand be a minor action? Sounds like a standard to me. You're taking an object which you hold in your hand, and you're trying to hit a relatively small target. Every other time you throw an object from your hand in a hostile manner, it's a standard action. What's different about sand?

Quote from: Doom;379704It's a standard action, except when it isn't, of course. There are numerous minor action powers that hit for damage, you can even find a few monsters that have such attack (cf Human Gladiator).

On the other hand, throwing sand, presumably, isn't even hitting for damage. Since no damage is involved, it might be less than a standard action.

In 4e, throwing sand might well be just as magical as firing a crossbow bolt or firing off a Magic Missile in general. Or might not.

Pretty much what Doom is saying.  It's not damaging, although it is contributing to combat.  No particular reason for it to be minor, but if you assume it is a standard action, that is somewhat adding to the strength of a power, allowing two standard actions for the price of one.  Granted, it is a very specific action, but what do you do when the players start taking advantage of that?  "Well, it's not sand, it's a flask of oil, but that should blind them too, right?  I mean, the effect is just blinding, it doesn't matter what I throw, does it?"  Likely to come up?  Probably not.  But if you consider something like throwing sand to be a standard action, it does open the possibility, where calling it a minor action would keep it firmly in the players' minds that you are throwing sand, and anything else would constitute an actual attack, hence, a standard action.

And while you may not even intend to address this part of the discussion, I am still curious as to your opinion:  would you consider throwing sand a niche of the Rogue (at seventh level) that needs to be protected somehow?  No intent to draw you into this part if you don't want, just honestly curious what your thoughts are.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379705And of course, not just the rogue could do this. Anyone could attempt it. Hey thanks for the great example of improvisation in 4e!

Except this 'improvisation' negates a listed power of the Rogue, a mid-level(ish) one at that.

Hey, thanks for the great example of internally inconsistent contradictions in 4e!

Quote from: StormBringer;379710And while you may not even intend to address this part of the discussion, I am still curious as to your opinion:  would you consider throwing sand a niche of the Rogue (at seventh level) that needs to be protected somehow?  No intent to draw you into this part if you don't want, just honestly curious what your thoughts are.

While you're pretty much correct, if a class can do it, it *can't* be something everyone else can do as well, the level 7 power is a damaging attack, unlike the non-damaging power I was imagining.

It does, however, set the precedent, so if anyone can do it (much like a wizard picking up a long sword), it needs to be under conditions so desperate and restrictions so limited that nobody in their right mind would do so. You can't even make it a minor action, since then it could theoretically be better than the Rogue special power (two attacks with a minor, even at a penalty, can easily be better than the one standard).

So, using what we know as a precedent for what throwing sand does, here's about the best you can do:

Something along the lines of

Chuckin' Some Sand (Any Class, Attack 1):

Standard Action

Attack: Dexterity - 8 versus Reflex,
Hit: Dexterity modifier damage, target is blinded (save ends, save at +4), and effect ends at the beginning of your next turn.

I'm using 'wizard with a longsword' as inspiration, since, by comparison, a low level wizard (of D&D) might be able to use a sword to outfight a goblin, maybe, if he got lucky, but a high level wizard would have no real chance to use a sword against a similarly levelled monster.

Similarly, this 'anyone can do it' version for 4e is iffy against low level monsters, and sheer desperation to try against anything past that. I don't feel rogues of 4e would feel 'cheated' by everyone having this ability, any more than fighters of D&D feeling cheated by wizards theoretically picking up swords.

Of course, compare what we need to do here to accomplish this simple thing, as compared to in D&D (wizards get a -5 to hit. Done.).

But, to answer your question briefly: yeah, it needs to be protected.

Quote from: StormBringer;379710And while you may not even intend to address this part of the discussion, I am still curious as to your opinion:  would you consider throwing sand a niche of the Rogue (at seventh level) that needs to be protected somehow?  No intent to draw you into this part if you don't want, just honestly curious what your thoughts are.

Oh, no, that's cool. I would not consider throwing sand a niche; I would consider doing damage and placing an effect on a target simultaneous to be more than one could reasonably accomplish with a stunt. So it's more of a general principle than a specific thing in my book.

Quote from: Thanlis;379716Oh, no, that's cool. I would not consider throwing sand a niche; I would consider doing damage and placing an effect on a target simultaneous to be more than one could reasonably accomplish with a stunt. So it's more of a general principle than a specific thing in my book.

Ok, so it's the combination of damage and effect that makes it a power.  I can grok that.  At your table, then, attacking one round and throwing sand the next is enough of a separation to keep it from infringing on the Rogue's power, or at least puts it outside the realm of 'stunt'.  I dig it.