One option is to say no, keep that in mind. Also, maybe remind your players that if they can do it, the enemies can, too. Often that kind of thing tamps down on these attempts to invent new ways to create status effects.
But to answer the question, I’d say make it pretty ineffective. There’s ways by RAW to blind people, this option (which costs no resources) should not be better than things that cost a spell slot. So, I’d go with making it an action, and it would use your item interaction, since you have to pick up the sand, or take it out of your pouch or whatever. Then either a to hit roll, or dex save as you point out is good. Seems like it would be improvised, so no proficiency bonus either way, unless they have tavern brawler, which actually feels thematically correct to allow PB. As for how long it lasts, I’d probably go with the end of your next turn. Or the end of the target’s turn. But end of the target’s turn would make it practically useless, so maybe end of your turn.
If you want to keep players from abusing it, you could give advantage on the saving throw if it's used on the same target more than once. After you hit someone with it, it's going to be harder to get it to work on them a second time, after all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This actually sounds like a Feint (distraction) from the Battle Master’s list of Maneuvers. Reduce the benefit and make it harder to accomplish. Sleight of Hand is a solid idea, or Bluff. Make there be a DC of 15 + the target’s Proficiency Bonus. This takes a Bonus Action, and on a success grants Advantage to a single Attack. Cannot be used against the same target for 10 rounds, since they’re far less likely to be taken in.
Don't overcomplicate it, I'd make it a simple contested DEX check. Attacker makes a DEX check, defender makes a DEX check (or saving throw depending on the DM). I'd also be clear that it would be their entire action.
If successful, then the defender is blinded for the round. Though I use a ladder for successes and failures, if the defender fails by more than say 5, it'll add a couple of rounds; if they fail by 10 or more they'll be blinded until they can wash the grit/sand from their eyes.
I would not allow it for the same reason I do not allow a called shot mechanic (e.g. player asked if they could aim at a dragons wing to prevent it from flying) - it could seriously alter the balance of an encounter, without any cost to the players resources.
I could see it being okay as a custom maneuver for a battlemaster, but not as a thing absolutely anyone can do an unlimited number of times. The spell Blindness/Deafness can be a fantastic way to turn the tide of a fight because of how heavily it skews advantage in the user's favour, and it would be terribly boring for your players if they got to cheese their way through a boss fight by constantly blinding it.
An alternative that still lets the players have some control would be not to use the status condition Blinded, because let's be honest, they'd have to be throwing a helluva lot of sand to actually blind something. Just give it disadvantage on its next physical attack roll, so long as the creature doesn't have Blindsight.
You could make it a custom feat? Call it Dirty Fighting or something along those lines. It could give a couple of different maneuvers they can perform a limited number of times (probably equal to PB or something). They would take full action to perform and reset on rest, short or long I don't know which would balance it better.
Now if they want to be able to do those kinds of things they need to skip an ASI for it or be gifted a feat by the DM.
I'd second the comment to keep in mind that you can just say no.
Throwing sand is a fantasy trope. So it is obvious that folks would want to use it. However, sand moves relatively slowly when thrown and disperses as it goes, usually squinting or briefly looking aside would be sufficient to minimize the effect. Most adventurers are trained in combat, even spell casters. It seems to me that tricks like this during combat would be the sort of things that would be covered in their training. This would include watching for the obvious signs of someone reaching for the sand, either from a pouch or the ground, followed by the motion of the hand to throw something towards your face ... plus the attacker needs to hit your face while the defender is actively trying to avoid it.
In my opinion, it generally would not work unless the target is surprised or is not expecting it.
Also, as someone else mentioned, this is very similar to called shots. If someone can throw sand into an opponents eye, what about their dagger? The throwing dagger is likely faster and more accurate than the sand. If the sand can work, why not the dagger?
How about trying to slice the legs of a creature to try to hamstring it and reduce movement?
How about cutting a creature on the head so that the blood interferes with its vision?
How about cutting the sword hand of an opponent so that they can't wield their sword or the grip becomes slippery with blood?
The 5e combat system doesn't come with the granularity to resolve any of these suggested actions. I don't really consider throwing sand to be any different that any of these possible actions since they all involve attacking specific body parts in order to obtain a mechanical benefit that is significantly more than the damage dealt in the attack.
Anyway, if I wanted to implement it, I'd require a to hit roll from the person throwing the sand followed by a dex saving throw by the target. If the target is surprised or completely unaware of the attack then they would have disadvantage on the save, if it is a non-combat situation and the target sees the attacker coming but may not expect sand to be thrown then the save would be a straight roll, in combat the target would have advantage on the saving throw.
On a failed save, the sand would cause disadvantage on attack rolls until the end of the target's next turn. It would not cause blindness since the person can still see, and there is no way they would want to completely close their eyes for a round. The disadvantage on to hit is caused by the target scrambling to clear their eyes while still remaining aware of their surroundings while blinking out and wiping away the sand.
1: "Pocket Sand" is an item. It takes 1 action to fill the pocket with sand, or pick up a pie to throw, or whatever other reflavouring, and it gives 1 use.
2: When you make a Disengage action, you can use your Pocket Sand to attempt to blind one creature within 5ft. of you, if it has eyes. Roll contested Dex, if you succeed, then the creature is blinded until the start of your next turn. If the creature is larger than you, they have advantage on the roll.
3: A creature blinded this way can use an action to rub the sand from their eyes, ending the condition.
Throwing sand to try to blind the target could work similarly to disarm. Make an attack roll (with improvised weapon?) vs their athletics/acrobatics, target gets advantage if they're larger than the attacker.
Seems like that may be balanced, the success chances are similar and being blinded isn't any worse than being disarmed and having your weapon stolen
It could be done with a bonus action, or similar stuff, but ultimately it is an attack with the goal of inflicting blindness for one round.
You could also have it not blind, but merely cause disadvantage.
It is important to remember that D&D's combat system is not a blow for blow format. This is not about swing (roll) hit or miss, it is meant to simplify the skilled exchange of tactics and skill (and throwing sand or mud or dirt or cloaks is a tactic) and determine the outcome of that exchange.
As a note, such tactics are common among those who used bartitsu.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Actually, treating Throwing Sand as a weapon is a really good approach.
Similar to the net, in that it doesn't damage, it would be a thrown weapon with a range of 10ft. It would work with several feats which actually work well with the theme.
Actually, treating Throwing Sand as a weapon is a really good approach.
Similar to the net, in that it doesn't damage, it would be a thrown weapon with a range of 10ft. It would work with several feats which actually work well with the theme.
The net is a very good comparison, but 10 ft. seems a bit far for a hand full of sand to be thrown accurately enough to blind someone. To me, it's a thing that's done close n' dirty (pun intended).
Actually, treating Throwing Sand as a weapon is a really good approach.
Similar to the net, in that it doesn't damage, it would be a thrown weapon with a range of 10ft. It would work with several feats which actually work well with the theme.
The net is a very good comparison, but 10 ft. seems a bit far for a hand full of sand to be thrown accurately enough to blind someone. To me, it's a thing that's done close n' dirty (pun intended).
That's fair.
So it's a 5ft. range thrown weapon, when thrown creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw with a DC equal to your "to hit" roll, if it fails it is blinded until the start of your next turn. Creatures without eyes are immune to this, as can be any creature the DM determines to be unsusceptable (EG a creature made of sand).
I would treat it like taking the Dodge action. It takes your action and imposes disadvantage on attacks against you for the next turn, and Rogues/Monks can do it as a bonus action under the right circumstances. That's essentially what they're doing anyways: taking an action that makes them less likely to be hit.
They have to grab the Sand/Cream Tart/whatever (like readying a weapon)
Must be able to reach enemies face (5 ft. reach, under most circumstances that will be up to large creatures)
Let them roll a Melee Attack for an improvised weapon.
Target benefits from 3/4 cover (as the target is eyes only)
blinds until the end of the creatures next turn. (doesn't work on creatures with blindsight, obviously.)
Can't be repeated on the same creature.
I would mostly agree with this, except instead of 3/4 cover, just make it at disadvantage on attack roll, the attack is an improvised ranged weapon attack (range of 5 feet). Also, unless the creature making the attack is Thief Rogue or Battlemaster Fighter, it takes the entire action. No blinding someone with one attack and using second attack to immediately skewer/club them. That communicates to the player that this type of tactic will only be situationally useful unless they build for it, otherwise it's too accessible and too cheap.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was originally thinking maybe the target would make a con save, dc 8 + dex mod? Or would a sleight of hand check work?
Then would they be blinded till the start of their next turn or end of their next turn.
Any advice would help a ton
One option is to say no, keep that in mind. Also, maybe remind your players that if they can do it, the enemies can, too. Often that kind of thing tamps down on these attempts to invent new ways to create status effects.
But to answer the question, I’d say make it pretty ineffective. There’s ways by RAW to blind people, this option (which costs no resources) should not be better than things that cost a spell slot. So, I’d go with making it an action, and it would use your item interaction, since you have to pick up the sand, or take it out of your pouch or whatever. Then either a to hit roll, or dex save as you point out is good. Seems like it would be improvised, so no proficiency bonus either way, unless they have tavern brawler, which actually feels thematically correct to allow PB.
As for how long it lasts, I’d probably go with the end of your next turn. Or the end of the target’s turn. But end of the target’s turn would make it practically useless, so maybe end of your turn.
If you want to keep players from abusing it, you could give advantage on the saving throw if it's used on the same target more than once. After you hit someone with it, it's going to be harder to get it to work on them a second time, after all.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Personally it would depend on the enemy, I would allow it on a Dex save and if it was human.
This actually sounds like a Feint (distraction) from the Battle Master’s list of Maneuvers. Reduce the benefit and make it harder to accomplish. Sleight of Hand is a solid idea, or Bluff. Make there be a DC of 15 + the target’s Proficiency Bonus. This takes a Bonus Action, and on a success grants Advantage to a single Attack. Cannot be used against the same target for 10 rounds, since they’re far less likely to be taken in.
Don't overcomplicate it, I'd make it a simple contested DEX check. Attacker makes a DEX check, defender makes a DEX check (or saving throw depending on the DM). I'd also be clear that it would be their entire action.
If successful, then the defender is blinded for the round. Though I use a ladder for successes and failures, if the defender fails by more than say 5, it'll add a couple of rounds; if they fail by 10 or more they'll be blinded until they can wash the grit/sand from their eyes.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I would not allow it for the same reason I do not allow a called shot mechanic (e.g. player asked if they could aim at a dragons wing to prevent it from flying) - it could seriously alter the balance of an encounter, without any cost to the players resources.
I could see it being okay as a custom maneuver for a battlemaster, but not as a thing absolutely anyone can do an unlimited number of times. The spell Blindness/Deafness can be a fantastic way to turn the tide of a fight because of how heavily it skews advantage in the user's favour, and it would be terribly boring for your players if they got to cheese their way through a boss fight by constantly blinding it.
An alternative that still lets the players have some control would be not to use the status condition Blinded, because let's be honest, they'd have to be throwing a helluva lot of sand to actually blind something. Just give it disadvantage on its next physical attack roll, so long as the creature doesn't have Blindsight.
I'd rule that they used the Help Action in combat.
I was thinking this exact thing too.
You could make it a custom feat? Call it Dirty Fighting or something along those lines. It could give a couple of different maneuvers they can perform a limited number of times (probably equal to PB or something). They would take full action to perform and reset on rest, short or long I don't know which would balance it better.
Now if they want to be able to do those kinds of things they need to skip an ASI for it or be gifted a feat by the DM.
I'd second the comment to keep in mind that you can just say no.
Throwing sand is a fantasy trope. So it is obvious that folks would want to use it. However, sand moves relatively slowly when thrown and disperses as it goes, usually squinting or briefly looking aside would be sufficient to minimize the effect. Most adventurers are trained in combat, even spell casters. It seems to me that tricks like this during combat would be the sort of things that would be covered in their training. This would include watching for the obvious signs of someone reaching for the sand, either from a pouch or the ground, followed by the motion of the hand to throw something towards your face ... plus the attacker needs to hit your face while the defender is actively trying to avoid it.
In my opinion, it generally would not work unless the target is surprised or is not expecting it.
Also, as someone else mentioned, this is very similar to called shots. If someone can throw sand into an opponents eye, what about their dagger? The throwing dagger is likely faster and more accurate than the sand. If the sand can work, why not the dagger?
How about trying to slice the legs of a creature to try to hamstring it and reduce movement?
How about cutting a creature on the head so that the blood interferes with its vision?
How about cutting the sword hand of an opponent so that they can't wield their sword or the grip becomes slippery with blood?
The 5e combat system doesn't come with the granularity to resolve any of these suggested actions. I don't really consider throwing sand to be any different that any of these possible actions since they all involve attacking specific body parts in order to obtain a mechanical benefit that is significantly more than the damage dealt in the attack.
Anyway, if I wanted to implement it, I'd require a to hit roll from the person throwing the sand followed by a dex saving throw by the target. If the target is surprised or completely unaware of the attack then they would have disadvantage on the save, if it is a non-combat situation and the target sees the attacker coming but may not expect sand to be thrown then the save would be a straight roll, in combat the target would have advantage on the saving throw.
On a failed save, the sand would cause disadvantage on attack rolls until the end of the target's next turn. It would not cause blindness since the person can still see, and there is no way they would want to completely close their eyes for a round. The disadvantage on to hit is caused by the target scrambling to clear their eyes while still remaining aware of their surroundings while blinking out and wiping away the sand.
I would probably go for:
1: "Pocket Sand" is an item. It takes 1 action to fill the pocket with sand, or pick up a pie to throw, or whatever other reflavouring, and it gives 1 use.
2: When you make a Disengage action, you can use your Pocket Sand to attempt to blind one creature within 5ft. of you, if it has eyes. Roll contested Dex, if you succeed, then the creature is blinded until the start of your next turn. If the creature is larger than you, they have advantage on the roll.
3: A creature blinded this way can use an action to rub the sand from their eyes, ending the condition.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Throwing sand to try to blind the target could work similarly to disarm. Make an attack roll (with improvised weapon?) vs their athletics/acrobatics, target gets advantage if they're larger than the attacker.
Seems like that may be balanced, the success chances are similar and being blinded isn't any worse than being disarmed and having your weapon stolen
It is an attack.
It could be done with a bonus action, or similar stuff, but ultimately it is an attack with the goal of inflicting blindness for one round.
You could also have it not blind, but merely cause disadvantage.
It is important to remember that D&D's combat system is not a blow for blow format. This is not about swing (roll) hit or miss, it is meant to simplify the skilled exchange of tactics and skill (and throwing sand or mud or dirt or cloaks is a tactic) and determine the outcome of that exchange.
As a note, such tactics are common among those who used bartitsu.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Actually, treating Throwing Sand as a weapon is a really good approach.
Similar to the net, in that it doesn't damage, it would be a thrown weapon with a range of 10ft. It would work with several feats which actually work well with the theme.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
The net is a very good comparison, but 10 ft. seems a bit far for a hand full of sand to be thrown accurately enough to blind someone. To me, it's a thing that's done close n' dirty (pun intended).
That's fair.
So it's a 5ft. range thrown weapon, when thrown creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw with a DC equal to your "to hit" roll, if it fails it is blinded until the start of your next turn. Creatures without eyes are immune to this, as can be any creature the DM determines to be unsusceptable (EG a creature made of sand).
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I would treat it like taking the Dodge action. It takes your action and imposes disadvantage on attacks against you for the next turn, and Rogues/Monks can do it as a bonus action under the right circumstances. That's essentially what they're doing anyways: taking an action that makes them less likely to be hit.
I would mostly agree with this, except instead of 3/4 cover, just make it at disadvantage on attack roll, the attack is an improvised ranged weapon attack (range of 5 feet). Also, unless the creature making the attack is Thief Rogue or Battlemaster Fighter, it takes the entire action. No blinding someone with one attack and using second attack to immediately skewer/club them. That communicates to the player that this type of tactic will only be situationally useful unless they build for it, otherwise it's too accessible and too cheap.