D&D Finally Calls Out Players Exploiting Rules

[@BobWorldBuilder]

💥 Sponsored by Displate: displate.com/bobworldbuilder - save up to 44% this Black Friday!

[@MeanderingMikesManCave]

I believe the current max discount is 41% instead of 44%.

[@wolfiexii]

The rules are just words on the page - change any of them you want at any time - original foreword simplified.

[@srgarathnor]

in regards to "twitter", just dont interact with that section of existence at all, they will take every opportunity to drag you down we love you!

[@mintymiamice]

Do we know if displate still do AI "art" products? I know when it comes to sponsors, ya gotta secure the bag, but I don't wanna support that kind of thing & I'm not sure if they still do that stuff. Will clicking the link and just closing the tab immediately still support the channel haha

[@MeanderingMikesManCave]

@@mintymiamice, if you stick to licensed IP art (like Marvel or Disney stuff) then you know it isn't AI art. Otherwise, I am not sure.

[@ponchothecactus8592]

Pretty sure the "attacking helpless creatures" rule is to stop the "Barbarian with a bag of rats" strategy, where you kill a rat each round to keep your rage going indefinitely

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Ahhhh, haven't heard of that, but that must be part of it

[@nschoenwald]

Not neccessary anymore, Barbarians can extend their Rage as a bonus action. The "bag of rats" would still be relevant for stuff like the Temp. HP for Fiend Warlocks but it really has no place in any actual game session.

[@SorcerySpeedConcede]

@@BobWorldBuilder I've previously heard of players "making an attack" against themselves or the spellcaster's familiar for a similar effect to keep rage going as per the previous PHB.

[@michaelmayberry7777]

There're others scattered around, like great cleave would give an extra attack per enemy killed so if you flung a bunch of rats on the ground and whirlwind attacked, suddenly you had 4 or 5 more swings against the "nearby" enemy.

[@genericcatgirl]

​@@nschoenwald Honestly though, keeping a bag of small animals to kill for hp feels like a creepy blood ritual a warlock would do.

[@Zedrinbot]

My favorite ruling of the whole peasant railgun is that at the end of it, the final peasant makes the strike and it does 1d6 piercing damage because they readied an attack, and they themselves are not a railgun, no matter how fast the spear was moving beforehand.

[@rickcarson591]

The point with the the peasant railgun is to utterly and completely ignore physics for the bits that are inconvenient for your sequence, and then to suddenly (and loudly) complain that we can't just ignore physics for the bit at the end (momentum -> kinetic energy etc.). I like your (and Bob's) simple solution at the end of the bucket brigade, but the bucket brigade is itself a good counter-example. If the player wants to introduce real world physics then point out that when the real-world physical example of this happens the last bucket of water isn't thrown with the power of a thousand water cannons. Slightly more nuanced would be to counteract the notion that the peasant railgun is building momentum is to realise that *at the end of each peasants' turn the spear is at rest, and thus has zero momentum.* Hence if the argument is that the peasant is accelerating the projectile very quickly, it is important to note that they are also decelerating the projectile just as fast.

[@jonathanvernon7251]

It's still useful for delivering the mail at faster-than-light speed, though. /s

[@digitaljanus]

@@rickcarson591 Thank you for this summary. The peasant railgun always bothered me but I never sat down to articulate exactly why, like you did here.

[@ForeverDegenerate]

I would also argue that if the players want to attempt to bring in Physics to argue how a "Peasant Railgun" would work, I should be allowed to bring in Biology. Assuming acceleration works the way they claim (aka assuming we don't subscribe to the acceleration vs deceleration argument), I argue that there is no physiological way for said "Peasant Railgun" to succeed. You hired a bunch of mortal peasants. You didn't hire a bunch of Speed Force Users or Kryptonians. Your "Peasant Railgun" cannot react or even perceive fast enough to keep accelerating the "projectile." They aren't The Flash or Superman. They can't catch a speeding bullet and your ultimate goal is to create a speeding bullet. The "projectile," very quickly, will reach a speed that your mortal peasants cannot even perceive, let alone react to. Therefore I would narrate that at a very early point in your "Railgun," your "projectile" instantly kills the next 10 peasants, sticking into the 10th one as they fall over dead. Your "Peasant Railgun" has just failed in a streak of blood. Congratulations. You just murdered a bunch of peasants out of sheer stupidity. And the bad guy just stands there and laughs at your sheer stupidity before he murders the survivors and turns his attention to you. I would then argue that if a mortal peasant IS able to perceive and react fast enough to accelerate said "projectile" the speed you want, then they're practically The Flash or Superman which, if that's the case, why do you need more than one? A single Super Peasant IS the "Railgun" at that point. That single Super Peasant can accelerate any "projectile" to the speed of a Railgun Shot on their own.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah I saw another comment that called the peasant railing “selective rules lawyering” and I’m using that phrase forever now

[@kgapaneseschoolgirlb]

5:15 Gonna be honest, one of my favourite campaigns was when my group were fighting goblins and then we complained that the goblins didn’t have that much gold or loot on them, and since my character was a goblin rogue, he conversed this feeling of disappointment to some still alive goblins who also shared this sentiment, as they did not enjoy being poor…This turned into a multi-day side quest to unionise the goblins that led us to the goblin lands and unionise all the goblins against the tyrannical goblin king to get the goblins better working rights and wages. We achieved this goal and celebrated by slaughtering many goblins who now had more gold…We weren’t good people…

[@Death-on1dq]

"I said you'd get more money. I never said that you would get to keep it!"

[@jackbob83]

Dnd equivalent of that Robin hood meme: Robin Hood steals from the rich to give to the poor. Poor person: "Thanks, now I'm rich!" Robin Hood: "You're what?"😠

[@stevenbauer7751]

@@jackbob83 The "Dennis Moore" syndrome.

[@rondomane]

sounds like you could have killed the goblin king and stolen his money and achieved the same thing without the wanton genocidal attack on the goblins. but to each their own i guess.

[@ZeroKitsune]

@@rondomane Wellll maybe, but if you can convince the goblins to fight on your side you do get a personal army to order around and do all the dangerous bits, as long as you can convince them it's good for them...

[@ebirdo5547]

My brother did try to do the infinite money glitch with the creation spell. Our DM, who is a power gamer, went, "hmm... interesting... no," and that was the end of it.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Hahah I can imagine the suspense waiting for their final call. Great to hear a story where no one got upset over this sort of thing! :)

[@interstellardave]

If I was the DM I’d let the player get rich, if the exploit was successful, but it would come at a cost. Just off the top of my head, perhaps the new found wealth is balanced out by nearby towns being drained of theirs and maybe word spreads that it’s the players’ fault. 😂

[@iamfilam2513]

@@mrosskneor he didn’t want to deal with the repercussions of that and wanted to get back to running a game of DnD instead of Economy Similator

[@catans]

@@mrosskne its not a job. its for fun. Dont take everything so seriously

[@TheOffkilter]

@@mrosskne Im getting the idea from your posts that you are in fact "That Guy". You should learn to be a better player and how to be a part of a group activity in a social situation perhaps.

[@Gen-o3j]

Bob, every time there is a feature, where you gain a resource for attacking, killing or knocking a creature out, there is a rat seller becoming an in world billionaire in dnd on blood money and animal cruelty.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Haha yep I've learned about the "bag of rats" today xD

[@Subject_Keter]

I would just make it a Warlock thing and the more squishy they kill, they empower a powerful buff/debuff so it chips at them.

[@Nosmo90]

@@Subject_KeterCan you rephrase that, please? I’m not sure what you’re communicating.

[@teraxe]

Sometimes you gain a resource simply by rolling initiative. So, saying you want to attack your buddy, so you roll initiative is enough. and then you can decide not to attack them.

[@xriban4363]

I played a lizardfolk wizard who had a hat of rats that I would sometimes use cause I imagined that he would believe making the animal sacrifice would empower his spells (it did not). It was however a way to get a small relatively easy to hit creature to use my racial bite attack on for temp hp.

[@Queldonus]

What happens when the peasant railgun is attempted: The GM says “no, that doesn’t work”, everyone has a laugh at the absurdity, and gets back to the game. Anything beyond that is just dumb. But if you have “that guy” attempting it… An object accelerated to the speed of light (or 99%of it) in an atmosphere moves faster than the air can get out of the way. It has enough energy to cause the air it’s compressing in front of it to initiate FUSION OF THE AIR MOLECULES. Small nuke goes off, everyone dies, DM describes “that guy”’s character vaporizing in nuclear fire.

[@BlizzardofOze]

"As soon as the rail-spear starts to pick up speed, the next peasant in line fumbles it. It's moving too fast for him to react."

[@scbafreak]

Roll a DEX saving throw 1000 times to see if they can reach grab the spear as it moves. The DC gets higher as it speeds up. If successful, the last peasant grabs the spear and uses his standard attack action to throw it. He has disadvantage because he has to grab the spear first, instead of just holding it at the ready.

[@bmthehunter]

Firstly: you have hired all these peasants. Roll intelligence to try to explain what it is they are supposed to do. Now roll Charisma to get them to do it. Now watch as it passes from one to the next. About 6 peasants can safely pass the spear to the next peasant in line in one round. You can double that, but they have to pass reflex saves. That's 12/round. And some of them might take lethal wounds. By the time all this gets going the last 300 or so have sorta walked off. There are large gaps in the line.... it's really just a mess. Could I interest you in a wand of fireball instead?

[@thechugg4372]

​@@scbafreaklike literally there are thousands of ways to clear this situation as a DM and it's part of the fun

[@parad0xheart]

You ignite the atmosphere and kill the entire peasant railgun line, as well as yourself, but the spear still does 1d8 damage.

[@fiachhoffman9590]

my favorite "violation of natural laws" involved summoning an egregious amount of seals above a boss's head after years of buildup. The DM was at a loss. He asked the player whose character it had formerly been for help out of the situation; he asked the resident historical-edition expert; he asked the rules lawyer. None could see a way out for him. Eventually he brought the statblock to me. "Noah," I said, "you are a fool. This man has immunity to nonmagical bludgeoning damage."

[@jasonreed7522]

Honestly, anything worth dropping a blue whale onto is probably immune to basic physical damage anyway.

[@paulgibbon5991]

This sort of thing is the problem when you design a combat system and want to let players do cool, unorthodox things. A common complaint is that the cool things have so many hoops to jump through that it's easier to just say "I attack." But if you make the cool thing too good, you encourage players to optimise the fun out the game, and spam the best of the cool things over and over until it becomes anything but cool.

[@donniejefferson9554]

There actually is an easy solution. When a creature falls on another creature, the one being landed on makes a dex save to dodge. I think the dc is like 15 so not too hard to beat at a level where you could pull off something like this, especially for a boss with legendary resistances. Pretty sure this rule was in Tasha's so I wasn't there from the beginning but there has been a standard for a few years now. Dropping heavy things on an enemy is honestly a far more ineffective strategy than it should be.

[@yoshifan2334]

Isn’t fall damage explicitly meant to ignore resistance/immunity (see also: ways to kill a werewolf without silver). Sure it’s not much of a logical step to say that the split fall damage from being fallen on from Xanathar’s isn’t a part of this distinction of fall damage bypassing immunity, but I don’t think it’s an open and shut case either, since it’s splitting the *fall damage* and not halving the victim’s damage and imparting the rest on someone else as bludgeoning.

[@ursadabear2810]

@@yoshifan2334​​⁠correct. That’s exactly why damage immunity specifies damage from non magical *attacks* and not all non magical/unsilvered bludgeoning, slashing and piercing damage. Whether the damage from being impacted by falling seals counts as an attack is up to DM discretion. If you’re going solely by RAW you can argue it works because *technically* no one is attacking. You don’t make an attack roll to drop the seals and the seals themselves aren’t making attack rolls so by 5e’s definition of attack it isn’t one.

[@barnowl8563]

Not as bad as the peasant rail gum but a similar mechanic . Witch hunters had 12 innocents chained to a wall in a room that was on fire. First round I used a crowbar to free an NPC. Second round, I used it to free another, who turned out to be a barbarian, so I told them to free another NPC on their way out. Then the dm said we had one last turn before the room was engulfed and everyone in it would die. So I shouted to everyone “ready yourselves! When you are freed, free the person next to you, give them the crowbar, and get out of the room!” And in one round, 10 people used 1 crowbar and we all got out. We had an experienced DM who had no problem saying no but he allowed it, probably because: 1) we really wanted to save the civilians, and be heroic 2) he didn’t want to decide how many would die base on how many could use a crowbar in a row 3) it was a one time solution, not something that would bite him in future combats 4) he liked crowbars

[@DD-mp1kl]

a humble rule of cool to save civilians and be hero’s and not some manipulative bs to deal a billion damage or blow up the economy. 10/10

[@givemeshrubs4295]

the infinite hotel math puzzle

[@mrphoenix1704]

4 - valve employee

[@SpaceWhaIe]

>He liked crowbars As a fellow DM who loves when characters take mundane tools AND use them, I would have allowed the same.

[@phonetheory7056]

Half-life ah solution.

[@TheKarishi]

The "peasant railgun" is really funny conceptually because it requires the player (and presumably the DM) to accept RAW for purposes of the ready action, but then REJECT them in favor of some kind of physics-based ad-hoc ruling when it comes time for the spear's damage roll. It's like the player's trying to cause a Skyrim-style physics glitch but in a tabletop game.

[@toolittletoolate]

It's using the "per 10 feet of movement" damage rules. If you fall or are sent flying 10 feet you take X, Every 10 further feet is another X. They're attaching that rule unto the spear and translating the damage onto the thing it's hitting as well as the item that should be taking the damage. But since it's hitting you, you would be assumed to take the damage as well just like any other ammunition. RAW literally cannot function sometimes, anyone are going to have to eventually do some level of homebrew with how they decide to handle interactions. That's was this is, people's interpretation of the rules leading to allowed interactions. I think it's a mischaracterization to act like they're trying to ignore the rules and use them at the same time.

[@PaulGaither]

​@toolittletoolate - I want to: 1. Thank you for saying everything but the last sentence, as I wanted to as well. 2. Reply to the last sentence, which I disagree with. At a macro level, the players doing this are trying to cherry pick what rules they want for their advantage. Ypu probably know/understand this, but I feel it must be said: It is still a game, amd not a real life simulator. Apart from all of the magic, people don't have HP and XP and Levels amd so forth. There are game mechanics and there are rules inspired by real life to explain/ game-ify the world ypu are playing in. Players want the advantage of the abstract game rules "ready action" with real life inspired rules you mentioned while ignoring that the Peasant Rail Gun should also be limited by normal physics as well... because there is no in-game RAW limitation.

[@asgard1913]

@@toolittletoolate it's not falling or being thrown, it is being gently handed from one person to the next. And there's no RAW calculation for projectile damage per bit of distance traveled, or ranged characters would be *a lot* more math-heavy. Ultimately, it travels that distance instantly, and then the final peasant makes an unmodified attack roll with the spear for 1d8 damage max.

[@Gw2Zoke]

@@toolittletoolatethere is a rule for throwing spears and improvised thrown weapons yeah? The moment it leaves anyone’s hands, it’s just another attack

[@Gw2Zoke]

@@asgard1913completely correct, the visual is hilarious! but the rules pretty plainly say what happens a normal attack throw

[@JamesGraham1974]

My "favourite" munchkin was a guy who used to come into the shop. He would read all the campaigns he was in, learn all the "cheat codes" and then play games specifically to "win" them. At the climax of a campaign he had been playing in our shop, he announced to his frazzled DM that he was going to empty the contents of the bag of holding he had been filling with oil over the previous few sessions and light it on fire to kill the dragon that was attacking them. This was based on his understanding that 64 cubic feet meant that it had a maximum capacity of 64 feet x 64 feet x 64 feet (ie 262, 144 cubic feet) and just short circuited the massive battle at the end. It was of course complete nonsense, there was no way he should have been able to get away with buying all that oil, and it would have resulted in the entire local environment being destroyed, but the DM just got bamboozled into letting him do it. He later told me he'd got tired of all these shenanigans and just wanted the campaign over. So "winning" the game only came at the cost of the DM quitting and all the other players losing their weekly game. Well done!

[@mechanussunrise]

That sucks. But sadly, I've seen many GMs give into player pressure/bullying at the expense of the game. And other times I've seen this same twisted logic for ending a game. Hopefully the GM doesn't feel they have to let the player back into their next group at this store

[@TheAciddragon069]

hence why i always change the modules just enough to not allow someone to do that. also as the DM you can say "no" if you find that a player is exploiting meta knowledge

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Excellent cautionary tale! Thank you for sharing!

[@andymeechan3924]

Make it lamp oil... Which only burns on a wick. Or at very high temperature.

[@josephvisnovsky1462]

64 cubic feet bahahaha That's hilarious how that player's terrible math turned into an absolute WMD

[@chrisg8989]

As an optomizer, I always talk to my DM and ask questions about a rule or ruling or strategy I want to use in the game. Never blindside your DM. Thats asking for trouble and isnt fun for anyone.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Excellent policy!

[@shantilus]

Player states ridiculous idea: Narration: "You see a bluish glow and realize something dangerous is happening within The Weave." Narration: What do you do next? Player continues plan. Narration: "You see a strange electrical charge zig-zagging through the nearby trees and it appears to be getting closer." Narration: What do you do next?

[@Alwayz114]

What I hate is when a player asks setup questions without saying what their intention is. Like "Is A true? And is B true? THEN THEREFORE C MUST BE TRUE I DO THAT YOU CANT SAY NO" I've gotten to just cutting off the bs with a "what's your intention here" and the non-problematic players are fine with that

[@thedruski85]

Optimization =/= exploitation. Two very different schools of thought.

[@nickm9102]

@@chrisg8989 generally speaking I agree but I have had DMs that tell me no while telling everyone else at the table Yes and for far more game altering asks so I have found that I am more likely to get a positive response by blindsiding them.

[@IanM-id8or]

In the *original* DMG it states very clearly that the rules are *not* definitive and that the *DM is the final arbiter*. People seem to have forgotten that

[@medicineman152]

This is something I remind munchkins of very regularly, both as DM and player. When the argument starts, I swiftly shut it down.

[@ZeroKitsune]

Pretty sure that's mentioned in every version of the DMG. "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game." is on page 4 in the 5e DMG.

[@TheOffkilter]

Entitled problem players often forget that the GM is supposed to enjoy the game session too. Im glad the DMG outlines these things clearly so the overly fanatical rules lawyering "That guy" type can be shown its official that hes in the wrong.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

100%

[@thomasbecker9676]

Perhaps WotC should just let players play.

[@hmnhntr]

And so many of "that guy" think they're really just a creative player with clever ideas.

[@joanmoriarity8738]

​@@thomasbecker9676Too many players think they're entitled to play in ways that make the game miserable for the rest of the table. WotC can't stop players from playing, and it's not up to them to "let" players play. We the players need to get comfortable with ejecting players who make the game miserable for everyone else. And WotC can encourage us to do so. And they should.

[@AgentMurphy286]

@@thomasbecker9676 What an odd response to curtailing munchkins. Perhaps you should play in a way that lets everyone have fun?

[@Spark_Chaser]

3:24 Matt Colville just dropped a video talking about how the game was being played in the '70s. A lot of it is stuff like this because the original rules set had more exploitable gaps than actual rules. Things like "should players know the rules?" or, "should players roll their own dice?" or my favorite, "what is a turn?" Turns out, the original 1974 D&D game wasn't a rules set, as much as it was a bunch of ideas stapled together to form something that could be laid over an existing rules set.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah that was an awesome video! I might have to get that book he was citing

[@AlbinoAxolotl1993]

Generic systems came to mind reading that. You can change up the rules and balance the fluff and crunch.

[@ryanstewart5727]

Having played 1st Ed, can confirm this is what it was.

[@chickenmcfuggits7985]

@@ryanstewart5727That’s because to us fossils, the rules were “more guidelines than actual rules.”

[@ryanstewart5727]

@@chickenmcfuggits7985 Funny, that's what the 5e DMG says almost verbatim. More people should read that part.

[@byronsmothers8064]

Friend: I had an idea for prestidigitation. Me: go on... Friend: so heating an object is vague about the object size- Me, with a basic understanding of thermodynamics: YOU'RE NOT CREATING A NUKE WITH A CANTRIP.

[@toolittletoolate]

It says WARM and it says up to 1 cubic foot. It's extremely specific.

[@monferno204]

It doesn't say you have to *see* the area a trinket is created in. Enemies' brains, for example, are excellent locations for a pocket watch to suddenly appear. Or a chunk of burning magnesium.

[@VestedUTuber]

I had a much smaller but similarly creative use for prestidigitation. Prestidigitation lets you create a small flame, right? So, you grab a flask of oil and use prestidigitation to create a flame inside the flask. Now, unless your DM is strict and rules that the oil has to be on the ground already before being lit on fire, or tries to rule that prestidigitation can't light things on fire (which goes against the FAQs), you've basically made an incendiary grenade.

[@johnparker8648]

All spells require a clear path to their target. "A Clear Path to the Target To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover. If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction." This is part of the basic rules for targeting spells. So, no, you can not create a trinket inside another creature or create a flame inside a filled flask of anything.

[@VestedUTuber]

@@johnparker8648 "So, no, you can not create a flame inside a filled flask of anything" 1. If the flask is made of clear glass, you can see inside it, invalidating your claim. 2. Even if it's not, or if you rule that the glass is still an obstruction, if the flask has a removable cap (which it WILL), you can remove the cap to access the contents, invalidating your claim. 3. If you somehow rule that, even though the cap is removed, the inside of the flask is _still_ obstructed, well, that's your right as DM, but it's my right to leave the table for multiple reasons, including springing an asinine ruling on your players because you don't like that they came up with a creative combat use for a normally innocuous non-combat spell. I agree with you on the "no creating a trinket inside another creature" ruling, but that's because it's both logical and supported by the rules. And heck, making an incendiary grenade out of an oil flask isn't even something you can't do without prestidigitation anyway, you just need to carry lit tinder for it. Nor is it excessively powerful - burning oil does a flat 5 damage a turn to whatever's standing in the 5ft space it covers, and most creatures aren't just going to keep standing in burning oil for more than a turn.

[@dungineering]

Rules can be physics at the DM's discretion. As an astrophysics graduate student and DM, nothing gave me more joy than to interpret the new Spelljammer rules as describing the physics of the world quite literally (especially the gravity plane of ships). Actions like jumping out of the ships sometimes had different outcomes than the player expected, but I was pretty consistent with my fantasy gravity rulings and everyone seemed to have fun.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Exactly! I think the main message of this passage is that the rules are not infallible (and the GM isn't either), but the GM will occasionally need to add some rationality. And totally, within the context of a fantasy world, "rational" physics (I'd include magic under this umbrella) can still be a ton of fun for everyone :)

[@Billchu13]

Plausibility over realism

[@lorekeeper685]

@@dungineering how does it work with mystra since their is no aether at there

[@erikburzinski8248]

​@@lorekeeper685there is some lore for this in 2e I know the weave has changed since then but it's our only info source that handles that. In the controls helm for the ship there is an orb that is created through consintrating the weave ahead of time and this consintreated weave works to allow the local area to cast spells. The problem is the creation of said orb required a tenth level spell and those are currently impossible.

[@lorekeeper685]

@erikburzinski8248 I mean weave is just FR realm only I mean mystra camgain setting BECMI or whatevers

[@baronvonswankenstein]

Back in the 1980s, Space Gamer magazine had a comic strip called “Murphy’s Rules” that humorously illustrated broken rules and exploits in various games. For example, “In Car Wars, two pedestrians running at full speed into one another stand an equal chance of dying from the impact” and “In AD&D, a fighter above Xth level has sufficient hit points to survive a fall from •any• height.” There have ALWAYS been broken rules that players try to exploit…and there always will be.

[@Subject_Keter]

Unironically people have surivied worst things, i think a buff and fit fighter would have a better chance if sucked half way out of a airplane cockpit as the pilot or any of us would. (Real case BTW)

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Sounds like we need that comic strip back haha, would've been more entertaining than reading a disclaimer

[@crackudile2467]

I mean, being able to survive a fall from any height if you have a certain amount of hit points does actually make some sense. Fall damage only increasing up to a certain point is most likely due to terminal velocity. This would mean that if you fell for long enough, at some point you wouldn’t be falling any faster, and wouldn’t be hitting the ground any harder than you would be from higher up, hence why the damage stops increasing up to a certain point.

[@mechanussunrise]

Based on the number of times someone has survived a fall from a plane, I'd let the player roll a d100. If they get a 00, they survive. Otherwise, they die regardless of HP. If we're going to cite real life that is.

[@RottenRogerDM]

Murphy Rules were great. Remember the % chance of being a liar?.... FYI some monsters had a change of being in their LAIR. But misspelling happens.

[@Crazael]

5:44 A friend of mine had a scheme where you cast a spell to create a wall of steel, then use another spell to turn that all into an equivalent mass of daggers, which you then sell. Repeat for infinite money. Of course, any sensible DM would have a rather obvious solution to that by pointing out that after the first time, the market for steel daggers has completely imploded and they're now basically worthless and the only one who is willing to buy any is the local blacksmith, who will only pay a fraction of their normal cost.

[@jmr5125]

Yeap, that's the example I'm aware of. Technically, you could do something similar with "Create Food & Water," but the profit per day would be quite low. Most of the time, at least... It isn't necessary to convert the wall to daggers, by the way -- the steel itself has value and I'm sure there is a splatbook that has rules for mining / smelting to put a price on refined steel.

[@rileyrichardson8091]

Economic warfare is an option. Purposefully crash an enemy kingdoms economy by flooding the market with their major exports. I was gonna share a story but basically it's pretty boring, and if you do weapons and armor like we did don't be surprised when suddenly all the goblins and bandits you come across are heavily armed and armored with equipment *you* made. 0/10 wouldn't recomend.

[@chrispavey3452]

In 3rd ed there was a fabrication spell and I had a player want to generate metric tonnes of rope. Also using teleport spells to visit various major cities so as to not flood one market.

[@scottlurker991]

“It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule books upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, you campaign next and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be.” Dungeon Master’s Guide (page 230), Gary Gygax

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Great quote!

[@seankramer8525]

Intent is subjective. The rules are objective. You don't seem to realize you're saying "My interpretation of the rules is beyond reproach."

[@AlisSpark]

​@@seankramer8525rules lawyer detected

[@commondognut]

@@AlisSpark”the game is mastered by you and not your players.” That’s definitely not the outlook for modern DnD.

[@TheArborphiliac]

​@@seankramer8525"you tell me what you attempt, I tell you what happens" is what I tell any player I'm DMing. If they don't like it they can go play elsewhere. We can have discussions, I'll consider whatever evidence is presented, but I am the one making the final call, full stop. My interpretation may not be beyond reproach, but my ruling will be.

[@federicoghezzi1261]

6:33 It's the "bags of rats exploit" If you have an ability that lets you do something (example: regain HP/ get advantage on a roll...) every time you kill an enemy it's "optimal" to carry around a bag of easy to slain animals to activate said ability as often as possible. I think people also used it when all the "real" enemies were too far and you needed to attack something in order to keep your barbarian rage active.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Thank you! Yeah just saw another comment about rage, but I suppose it can work for a number of different faetures

[@TheInfamousBertman]

I wonder how the Druids and Rangers in the party feel about that...

[@tyrannostradamus2785]

@@BobWorldBuilder 3rd Edition also did this with the Great Cleave feat. Theoretically allowing you to get an infinite number of attacks in a round so long as you had targets to kill.

[@ExeErdna]

@@TheInfamousBertman The Ranger wanna keep their Hunter's Mark up and Druid honestly wouldn't really care since they would have been the one that sold the barb those rats...

[@Timikator]

I wonder what type of GM would allow such bullshit.

[@lazaruschernik18]

5:00 Every Rules Lawyer reads the DM Guide specifically to know it better than their DM for exploitation purposes. Any player only reading the PH is already respecting the DM. And those who read both but dont exploit wont be offended by this section.

[@半蔵-x5h]

The economy thing is actually fun imo. I have had players try it and turns out there isn't just infinite gold in a small village. Also at some point the price of the item you are abusing plummets just like a real economy, and they just made a boat load of enemies.

[@kbsutton3]

Perfect answer to it

[@DemonaeTV]

Rules lawyer player: we rail gun a spear into the dragon! Rules lawyer DM: great, roll for a hit, the spear does 1d6 damage.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Bingo

[@sigmata0]

Aren't they forgetting why the speed of light is a barrier in the first place? If you actually were able to make something made of baryon matter hit that threshold, its mass would become infinite. So don't you get an instant gravitational singularity, a black hole? If it were moving you'd get infinite momentum as well? Given we don't think that's possible in the real world it could even break space-time itself i.e. tear the fabric of field in which matter and energy reside. I'm pretty sure it won't just be the target of such an attack that suffers the consequences of that kind of event. It will destroy or tear apart everything in the area and may well continue to tear it indefinitely. This is a physics breaking event. The other thing is, what happens if you over shoot the speed of light? Theoretically you start to get some very strange behaviour with faster than light matter. Things that can go backwards in time for instance. All in all, they won't just destroy a dragon, they'll destroy reality itself. Given that kind of possibility I would assume the relevant deities would get involved, and be none too pleased at the adventures who set that in motion. Not least of which to intervene in the physics involved in the ready action, and simply turn the spear into light, or some other kind of boson based energy. So it does nothing but shine a light on the dragon for example. I can imagine the deities then sitting back and eating popcorn as they watch the dragon, now divinely imbued with extraordinary amounts of luck, tear the party a new one.

[@Oddmanoutre]

@@sigmata0 That almost makes the peasant railgun sound like a logical defense against rocks fall, everybody dies. Namely, the DM is not the only person at the table with the agency to destroy the game. This balance of terror, as it were, could serve to remind players and game masters alike that role-playing is a cooperative exercise where having fun is not only a kind of victory, but the intended victory for all.

[@0xPRIMEgs]

​@@sigmata0This post needs more upvotes lol

[@tempusavatar]

​@@sigmata0this sounds like a good basis for a plot for a villain; make a peasant-particle-accelerator, slam 2 objects together, create a black hole to another reality, destroy the world

[@julianvaughan-jackson3980]

Not an exploit per se, but a fun time I had real world physics used on me in a campaign was when I decided to use waterwalking... while at the bottom of the sea. DM asked what I wanted to happen. I said 'It seems like the spell keeps you on top of the water, so I hoped I'd just float up and not need to swim' He nodded, and I proceeded to basically fall upwards at the same acceleration as on earth, which lead to me shooting out of the water at speed, having a round or three to contemplate life, wildshape into a dolphin, have a Free Willy moment with the crew as I crested the ship, and then promptly smack into the ocean like a bird to a pane of glass. Good times.

[@Kazemahou]

In the game I ran, back in 1978 - the (very!) early days of D&D - I had a player whose character had just learned 'Tensor's Floating Disk'. A simple spell that could levitate a small amount wherever the caster's mind told it to go. My player wanted to know what the speed of the floating energy disk was - how fast could it move something placed on/into it. I searched carefully, and there was absolutely no text about this issue beyond stating the disk and its contents could be moved at 'the speed of thought'. Long story short, the player put a single gold piece on the disk, aimed it at one of my campaign planet's moons, and sent the disk out 'at the speed of light'. The shockwave nearly killed every player on the ground, ionized the air, did radiation damage due to Cherenkov effects, and took a large visible chunk out of the disk of the moon in the sky - a feature I wrote into my custom campaign books, and kept as a permanent part of my world. The very early days of D&D, in the SF Bay Area were wild and wonderful, and far from min-maxing for personal benefit, players - more often than naught - were eager to exploit the rules of the game purely for hilarious and fantastical effect. They were Munchkins, certainly, but highly comedic ones - the thrill of playing with fake laws of physics was still brand new, and the goal was less power in the game than showing off how clever, knowledgeable and absurd one could be, to the uproarious delight of the entire table.

[@BudewFan_]

I like to imagine your world used to have a lot more moons before tensor’s floating disk got created

[@Parasiteve]

i think all in all the game is about having fun so the rules were left kind of open ended for players to determine.

[@laerbear6760]

What's funny about this is that there's absolutely no way the character could have foreseen the consequences of accelerating something to relativistic speeds. It would be like tossing a coin into a magic well and accidentally creating a black hole. Completely inconceivable.

[@Demphure]

Kind of surprised the DM didn’t say the gold melts exiting the atmosphere

[@michaelbarnard8529]

In my group, there was the myth of samurai warp drive: a line of helpless peasants which a samurai would consecutively supreme cleave down for unlimited movement. It stood for our example of absurd rule interpretation.

[@thegerm144]

There was one time when I was playing a Wizard that I was swallowed by a Purple Worm as it was descending into the ground. On my next turn, I had the idea of summoning a wall of force below my feet, 10 feet by 10 feet while inside of the Purple Worm. I explained to my Dungeon Master that I was hoping to use this as a way to push the Worm's body to the other side of the wall where I wasn't, there by expelling myself out of the Worm's mouth and trapping it inside of it's tunnel that it was creating. It was late into the session, we were over the scheduled time by about 15 minutes, so to wrap things up, my DM said that instead of pushing the Worm my Wall of Force instead cut it in half. It was a cool moment, and a lesson that showed me that the rules of D&D should be followed but ultimately are there as a guideline for most game play but there are times when you can go outside the rules for a bit of extra fun.

[@VirtuousWanderer]

So basically instead of WoF having selective targeting missing the worm but catching you, the DM ruled that WoF just killed the worm. A fun and convenient ruling but one that *could* have been exploited but assuming you and the others at the table aren't douches you didn't bother trying to WoF every subsequent enemy in half?

[@Gyrocoptor]

What is never mentioned about the peasant railgun is that even if the item is accelerated to light speed, the item being thrown will use the default thrown range and damage rules and not actually do the ridiculous amounts of damage being suggested. You'd have to selectively ignore game rules and laws of physics in order for it to work.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Bingo haha, and every game kinda has to use both rules and physics, just have to use them sensibly!

[@lorddestrustor8828]

The peasant railgun is basically hypocrisy in rules-lawyering form. You have to ignore real-world physics in favor of pure game mechanics for the acceleration to happen, but then completely disregard game rules in favor of real-world physics for it to deal the infinity-billion damage it wants to deal.

[@kaynadinstilleverge3843]

Right. And if you want to argue that real physics should be used, then I hope the players enjoy their deaths because an object with mass hitting anything at near light speed will cause an impact so destructive that the whole planet would be blown to dust, players included.

[@Billchu13]

Describe a big boom then roll d6

[@randus7053]

Coolest way for railgun to work without breaking the game: Turns out every peasant has a spear except the front one all simultaneously pass spears in a very ordered formation like manner. The front spearman throws his spear for normal damage.

[@balanceseeker]

I had a player just last night (not D&D but still) arguing about the rules as he first read them on his character, an ability to have the perfect set of weapons for his chosen foes that would do extra damage to that foe. He thought that RAW, he should have weapons for every enemy in existence. I pointed out that it was not balanced, not in keeping with the concept, and that he would then be carrying around about a million different weapons on hand and thus could not move. Took all of about four minutes and he was like, "Yeah, you're right. That's absurd. Cool. We will go with your ruling." Seriously, talking to your players works. Don't let that guy ruin the story you are putting together.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Glad it worked out! :)

[@balanceseeker]

​@@mrosskne As I stated in the post, I'm not running D&D. In this case, it is Monster of the Week, but it doesn't matter. It was a poor reading of a character's abilities (in this case The Wronged's Specialty Weapons) that led to that interpretation on the part of the player. One short discussion and he admitted he was wrong about that reading. It didn't make sense. That being sense, there are plenty of things that even if you are not trying too hard to misread will lead to insane combos of things in D&D -- one of the many reasons I am preferring rules light systems for RPGing these days, which relies less on the system and more on the story to drive everything.

[@jackbob83]

My rules for PvP are simple: PvP is allowed if and only if all players involved agree to it. If a character reaches 0 HP during PvP, they will not make any death saves and instantly stabilize. The "no death saves" rule is void when in combat with a creature other than a player or in a dungeon. This is to keep players from downing each other to avoid the risk of failing death saves.

[@Strail_R]

the issue i always had with the peasant railgun is that it wants to go RAW... until you roll the damage of the item hurled. it's the selective rule lawyering that's most toxic. eventually the most important thing is everyone at the table having fun. if the gm is having fun with players bending the rules as much as they can then it's all k imho

[@BobWorldBuilder]

"Selective Rules Lawyering" is such a great term for this stuff haha, bc yeah it usually involves ignoring some otherwise very clear rule of the game :P

[@nathanlamberth7631]

That’s what I was thinking. That spear might be going twice the speed of light, but when the spear gets thrown it’ll only do the damage of a spear.

[@brianiverson9384]

It sounds like a way to attempt to use falling damage rules to your advantage, in which case it doesnt work like that

[@henryeccleston7381]

The peasant rail gun was generally not deployed until after the DM had made a ruling where physics affected the things involved, like “okay, but the villain's spear was coming from above so it would be going faster than usual so it breaks your shield” kind of thing, as they set the precedent that velocity and gravity matter, meaning a stone accelerated about a mile in six seconds can be released at the end of the line to fire off at rail gun speeds. When they tried to bring it in before that sort of precedent was set, the DM could just demand consistency and render it harmless.

[@jobobminer8843]

The number of times my players have come to me saying "hey, we found an exploit and we're going to use it" only for me to go "there's no way it works like that" (it did not, in fact, work like that)

[@DungeonMasterpiece]

The rail gun thing always blew my mind. It just means that I could have a bunch of kobalds line up behind an ogre who grapples and ready actions a PC and slams them at light speed into a mountain. Two can play that game. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

You monster, Baron!

[@dilthurber6041]

I’ve always seen it ruled as an “improvised weapon” I don’t think it ever worked in the rules

[@LordOz3]

Yeah, my players never try cheese grater builds or having the monk grab the cleric with spirit shroud and run all over the battlefield because they know whatever I allow them to do, the bad guys can do as well.

[@sitnamkrad]

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the game. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander? Ok, then if it's good for the gander, it's good for the goose. Give all your players the ability to do the things that a GM can do. Nobody would ever think that's a good idea. Players and NPCs are not the same and should not be treated as such. How often do you make your NPCs worry about taking rests for example? Have your players ever encountered a spell caster that already spent all their spell slots when combat starts? I think it's great that the DMG acknowledges that there are players who absolutely love finding loopholes in the rules. These kind of silly things are often what makes a game or moment stand out. But the purpose is still to have fun. Just because the players are having fun finding these loopholes doesn't mean they find it fun having it used against them. Especially since players only have their one character that will likely have something terrible happen to them. While the GM can have technically infinite NPCs, and has the power to disallow something if it gets out of hand. If what's good for the goose is good for the gander, then give your players the power to say "I won't allow that".

[@TeleportRush]

@@dilthurber6041 Yea the peasant railgun always 'worked' on assuming real world physics didn't exist while passing items but did exist after passing the item suddenly in a way that's trying to have it both ways and never pans out in practice in any system I've ever seen it proposed in.

[@CarbonKnights]

I think putting the rule for "that guy" in the DM's Guide is okay, as "that guy" is absolutely looking through every book for any kind of exploits they can find.

[@johnschwartz1641]

"Upending the economy with magic" is basically the entire point of Magical Industrial Revolution by Skerples. It features a city resembling a magical Victorian London, with eight potential calamities from abusing magic on an industrial scale.

[@zimriel]

Pratchett did it earlier.

[@johnschwartz1641]

@zimriel yeah the idea isn't particularly original, but Skerples writes D&D supplements.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Oh yeah I bet it could lead to an interesting situation for the game world!

[@darksavior1187]

Eberron's economy and the great houses do this as well.

[@jamesmartin8005]

Actually its far far simpler. it involves buying 75lbs of iron ore for dirt cheap and using 'Fabricate' to make Plate armor at a fraction of the price and resell for 1000+ gold profit per suit of armor. this can used for any high value item that is made form cheap raw materials.

[@IanHines-jc5wp]

The peasant railgun trick always relied on conflating rules & physics - the thrown spear at the end will by RAW still only do 1d6+Str damage, but most DMs will homebrew that extremely fast objects will do extra damage because it makes sense for them to do that. It also takes people forgetting to apply the same physics principle to the question of "how are the peasants accelerating the spear?" Exploiting the economy of spells is usually just abusing Fabricate, to my understanding. Getting the tool proficiencies to turn (eg) a pile of gold into a pile of fancy jewelry connected by tiny golden threads is fairly easy. As for attacking other players - there's some class features that activate in combat, my guess is something to do with rage?

[@BobWorldBuilder]

So true about the rules+physics combo. Choose one! haha, or really, use both but be sensible. You're definitely on point about fabricate, just saw that in another comment where they had some other "interesting" ideas, and apparently one of the main combat-necessary features is getting tabaxis to move at insane speeds. Thanks for commenting!

[@blakenelson4158]

the explit that would work raw is the peasant communication system. instead of a spear its a message to another kingdom. yes an exploit but i think it would fit under raw.

[@IanHines-jc5wp]

@@blakenelson4158 I mean, sure, but at that point it's probably cheaper and definitely a whole lot easier to just (hire someone to) cast Sending.

[@nullpoint3346]

Bypassing labor costs by using the fabricate spell is as close to the official use of the spell as you can get, you're not creating wealth anymore than any other dude forging would, you're just doing it in ten minutes instead of years.

[@JD-qq8fz]

"...Cool idea! Now they roll with advantage."

[@lancourt]

I have a rule i call the 'technically' rule. If a player tries to explain a plan to me and has to use the word 'technically' I assume its BS. "Technically the spell doesn't blah blah..." NO

[@skyethemin4922]

Ok but some technically's are funny as hell. One of my favorite ones is one im gonna be doing for my next character (a wrestler barbarian dwarf), and goes as follows: "Technically charger doesnt specify the direction you have to run towards in a straight line to activate it so plunging 10 ft down from the top ropes would be a valid way to use it". Its unoptimal and totally to my own detriment (partly because charger is ass) but its also funny so i doubt anyone would think of banning it. It also kinda illustrates the problem with dnd being that the rules are so broad and, frankly, badly written and balanced, that it really bogs down the DM experience when you have to think, on the fly, if the random thing your player wants to do would be an affront to god and you should ban it, or if you should allow it. This new set of principles just amps that issue to 11. Then again the player does have a responsibility to not blindside the DM with bullshit mid-game, so for sketchy combos they should consult them beforehand.

[@Tokahfang]

Our gang's deal, going back to the late 90's, was simple: lots of things could be broken or unfun in D&D, but the DM won't open that can of worms first. Once the players introduce the tactic, the DM plays a million more characters with the same capacities than the players control.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

If it works, it works! Personally I feel like a tit for tat approach is more likely to lead to an arms race of optimization, but again, if that's fun for the group, so be it! :)

[@Tokahfang]

@@BobWorldBuilder It doesn't play out like that at all! More like: finding a consensus level for the kinds of experiences people want to have. If we're playing an edition in which being attacked in your sleep is really broken, the players get to decide if they want to trip that line for a quick encounter win now at the cost of having to be extremely detailed about their own resting arrangements in the future. If they decide not to, the DM isn't going to pull that card unless they go to war with an assasin's guild or something else extremely specific. It kind of routes around weaknesses in systems as they relate to the game being enjoyable for us. And instead of the DM just approving or disapproving a character built under kind of janky rules (like 2.5's point system, for instance), the DM can conditionally approve something that COULD maybe fit in the world but is questionable and have the player run it by the party instead. They will have a chat about if they'd find facing that on the other side of the mat so annoying/agency wrecking that they don't want to introduce it all. (Similarly with spells from very non-core books, etc. If it feels overpowered when you cast it once, maybe not worth having it cast at you more than once if you piss off a group of enemy casters!) If anything, it is kind of the opposite of an arms race, more like a disarmament treaty.

[@justinsinke2088]

I think "turnabout is fair play" can be a useful deterrent if brought up as a warning (or threat) when the players state their intentions of shenanigans. The clear return of "are you prepared and okay with what you're doing now being potentially done to you later" I think is usually enough to get all but the most a-hole players second guessing themselves. Essentially, the rules apply to everyone, for and against. Heck, as a player myself I try to interpret rules that way, because interpreting rules only by what's most beneficial to the player runs the risk of running into the "original position fallacy", the belief that a decision is good because you assume you'll be the one benefiting from it.

[@malpanda1974]

​@Tokahfang my GMing mentor used to call it "Mutually Assured Munchkinism"

[@davidbeppler3032]

Had a player who named his Tiefling Character "The Prince of Darkness". He used a rules exploit to see through deeper darkness. So he would roll into battle and make his enemies blind. Then slaughter them. All fun and games until an enemy did the same trick to the party years later after that character was no longer being played. The other players dirty looks were great fun. They ran. The players out numbered the enemy, out leveled him, and should have just won easily. Nope. This simple trick Players don't want you to know! Click to find out how!

[@tommydude6735]

The Black Hole Arrow - an engineer came up with a feasible design for an arrow or crossbow head that would essentially put a portable hole into a bag of holding, thus tearing a rift in reality at the target location. Pun-Pun only really worked in 3.5, but I remember the tale.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Tactical nuke, got it lol

[@1Kapuchu100]

Or "Arrowhead of Total Destruction" as it was also known as. Personally one of the few I would allow were I a DM, even if only because it costs a Bag of Holding and a Portable Hole, which is (at the lowest end) about 1000gp worth, or over 5000 at the highest (if we go by the "price guidelines" in the dmg). They are throwing a huge amount of money at a single attack, and while it does all but guarantee the removal of a particular threat, it doesn't kill them. Just sends them to the Astral Sea. And there are multiple ways of getting back from there!

[@Suryp]

​@@1Kapuchu100until you're dealing with an artificer that can make one or both (can't remember) for free

[@lorekeeper685]

​@@Suryp artificer in 3.5e can make any items that are not artifacts or so

[@scottbrewer474]

Knew I'd find this one in here!~

[@taigenraine]

Reminds me when my DM did a 'your character is you transported to a d&d world' and I ran an experiment to figure it out by holding a sprint race and seeing if all the differences in speed are in 5 foot increments.

[@Triceratopping]

Re; using spells to exploit wealth, iirc the "hack" (at least in 3.5 edition) was casting Wall of Iron, and then using Fabricate to turn the wall into a bunch of daggers/swords/ingots/whatever, which would then be sold. Repeat ad nauseum.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

I see... my best guess was that there must have been a way to transmute things into gold. But that would be too simple. Probably just new ways in 5e to do something like what you're saying 👍

[@_zurr]

The Skyrim strategy.

[@Harlizarrd]

Or sand into hourglasses, which are made of sand and glass.

[@dragonicstarblade2049]

Yea, it's that combo that let's player create a 5x5 cube of metal, then fabricate it into daggers and sell them.

[@johnfarrell3958]

Thus devaluing the cost of daggers to the point that no one would pay that price for them.

[@ProtonCannon]

Respecting the DM? WHAAAAT? Imagine that... how would have thought of thaaat? It's almost as if the DM is supposed to be a human being instead of your free entertainment dispenser machine.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Good thing D&D invented in respect in this new rules update lol

[@roberthill5805]

Peasant railgun basically argues that the spear/rock travelling that distance over such a short time should override its 1d6+strmod damage. It is funny, but it was originally the peasant rail road, where you could make things instantly travel over long distances. It came from the wargame side of d&d where you could use long lines of peasants to pass notes between commanders. So the argument was actually meant to stop this, as a note traveling at such speed would kill the resulting commander.

[@michaelanderson2166]

I let them generate infinite wealth, then have the tax man come. He’s an infinite level demi-god.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Nooooooooooooooooooo

[@lorekeeper685]

@@michaelanderson2166 There is deities that take tithe tbh its fair Their levels conflate tho 40-60

[@williamfalls]

Exploit Player: "Who's that?" Big person in a suit: "Quite the pile of gold you got there. The name's Igorian Rylan Sypher. Otherwise known as The IRS."

[@Death-on1dq]

@williamfalls I summon Donald, the IRS's biggest fear!

[@Oddmanoutre]

I would have guessed an Inevitable, specifically the Inevitable of Riches Sundering, or I.R.S. But ademigod or even a titan would work here.

[@ProtonCannon]

Also remember Create Water? When THAT GUY was like _"HHOHOHO! I cast Create Water on the enemy's head creating 3 gallons of water inside their skull and the pressure of the water makes their head explode instantly killing them. Thus I just instantly killed the BBEG with a level 0 spell. I continue to remain the undisputed TACTICAL GENIUS!"_ Ugh... the memories of (thankfully) forgotten times.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Haha same classic argument for breaking the rules of Avatar The Last Airbender's water-bending. Like yeah bloodbending became a thing... but now I'm getting way off topic lol

[@lorekeeper685]

3.5e fixed this by 1. Conjurations can't be cast inside containers 2. It needs to have solid ground for target

[@ProtonCannon]

@@lorekeeper685 Thank you captain obvious! We all know this for around 20 years now.

[@lorekeeper685]

@@ProtonCannon I feel like it must be in The 5e DMG Which no one read so no one can confirm it

[@rickcarson591]

The variant I heard (in real life) was someone sooking because their paladin wasn't allowed to create spheres of water around people's heads so that they'd drown. And I'm just smiling and nodding and thinking "why (TF) would they drown? The water would just immediately fall to the ground". It's interesting to note how variations of this theme always skew 'reality' (or the interpretation thereof) in favour of the exploiter. E.g. the infinitely tiresome 'why doesn't Ant-man just become tiny, fly in Thanos' nose/ear and then become large again, thus exploding his head!!!!' .... and that begs the question why that doesn't just instantly crush (and kill) Ant-man. Like for some reason the physics of pressure only apply one way? No no no.

[@TimesChu]

I think it's important to apply this respect in reverse too. I've had a DM attempt to argue that chemistry doesn't exist... which they should have decided prior to greenlighting a PC who was explicitly biochemist.

[@RobCorra]

I am an old school DM, as in starting in 1980 (not 80's, but 80). I ran open games at youth centers, game stores, and military barracks. I NEVER had a problem. My "good faith" interpretation was the rule. Period. That said, I also realized I was there to facilitate everyone's fun, including my own. And I was open to listen to ideas, but had the final say. Our games never had a spot for "bending the rules" and noone ever tried. I also explained our games "feel" to new comers and helped them create their characters. Noone showed up at the game with their own pre-made character. This means we spent a good amount of time talking about the game and their expectations before they joined. Maybe simple communications is the key and a solid putting down your foot for problem people or even removing them if necessary.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Great insight! Simple and effective.

[@TheSnowLeopard]

Exactly.

[@dragonbretheren]

I think the big problem isn't communication. It's actually the opposite in a twisted way. In 1980, you didn't have the internet to allow the instantaneous transmission of the worst ideas from around the world to taint your players' conception of what the game is or how it's intended to be played. Back then, your ground rules laid out before the session were gospel. Nowadays, you have Reddit and KZbin channels dedicated to finding the most unintended edge cases within the RAW and new players come to their first tables having watched a TikTok on "the theoretical max AC build that will make your DM cry" and thinking that's what's expected of them.

[@RobCorra]

@@dragonbretheren Yes. Lots changed. Even the amount of damage the player expects to deal each round in combat. Seems like it needs to be a video game for damage, and a loss of the grit of the old play style. I still think focusing on my communications with the player, keeps them from getting "silly ideas." And the DM's word is still gospel. And I have never been one to tolerate a player ruining the fun of others, including my own fun. My table never really fits those that want to maximize, and is more geared to the story. We will see how things continue. As long as everyone is having fun.... it is all good. :D Thanks for your input. It is good food for thought.

[@Aldenfenris]

Had an amazing gm that was like that, he played for fun, helped each of the new players make whatever they wanted, allowed us to search obscure online sources, and if we wouldn't find something exactly would even spend time with us figuring how to stat and make rules for stuff. He also was clear on his rulings. If you would convince him on something? Cool, otherwise, tough luck. I miss that group so much

[@johnc7389]

About 60% of this stuff stops being a problem if you actually track how long stuff took. The other 40% doesn't even apply in a system before they tried to itemize, or sub-divide the actions of a turn. At the risk of defaulting to full-grognard, TSR D&D and Gygax himself were vehement about how important it was for the DM to keep track of how long stuff was taking, and had rules for adding five minutes here, or an hour there, if the Players wanted to do any of the usual rules-breaky stuff they often get up to; since so much of it comes down to taking a sequence of actions, repeat actions, compounded actions, etc. Even full-moves were broken down into moving some % of your distance this action-phase, and then the rest of it during the next, because, and I'm paraphrasing, but it literally had a line that's like, "Your character doesn't teleport from Point A to Point B, they start moving now, and get there in a little bit."

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yep famously saying that YOU CANNOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN... if strict time records are not kept(?) paraphrasing of course.

[@swordsnstones]

@@BobWorldBuilder disagree but hey what do i know

[@krinkrin5982]

@@BobWorldBuilder Though I am pretty sure this quote referred to keeping a calendar for the explicit purpose of coordinating different player groups in the same world, it also works to answer questions like 'how long were we in the dungeon?' or 'how much food do we use up going there?', and even 'how much time do we have until the ork horde reaches us?'. Basically, it lets you accurately give the time of day and the date in-game, and introduce things like festivals, and time pressure, without having to just wing it.

[@johnc7389]

@@BobWorldBuilder That how I remember it; without searching.

[@jasonreed7522]

​@@krinkrin5982 it is definitely alot more work to track things on a calendar including random festivals and seasons, not to mention having actual weather. But it also clearly has the potential to elevate a campaign. And some mechanics directly interact with these "flavor" elements, like how call lightning can take over a naturally occuring thunderstorm to do an extra d10 of damage per hit, and presumably extend its range to everywhere under the storm and not just under the cloud you placed.

[@SáreOfAlaska]

Its amazing how much effort goes into clarifying: "The DM is always right". Just disallow that shit. Problem. Solved. Let the munchkins find another game. That said, there is a type of player who is primarily interested in testing the integrity of the game. Usually they confine themselves to video games, but when they make the move to tabletop, it becomes a real problem. This is because D&D relies on social interactions.

[@jplays338]

Is this comment someone being a grognard over video games ruining their tabletop, or just a very abrasive take about disallowing problem players from being in your game? Call it.

[@randyfant2588]

I was in a 3.5 game, and the Wizard and Sorcerer found a remote plateau. They built a Wizards College on it. I was playing a noble and built a small castle (only 3 stories + a basement that connected to the WC through a tunnel) and became the "Mayor". We established a new village. I had a fountain variant of the Decanter of Endless Water with clean water pouring down a stream out the front of my castle through the village and off the side of the plateau. We were using our acquired wealth and abilities to change the world (some)... but... the Wizard and Sorcerer were planning to cut the top of the plateau off and cast permanent levitate spells on it. They had come up with a way to control it (I think some was borrowed from Spell Jammer but not sure). They were even planning to make stave weapons (like in Spell Jammer) to mount in weapons emplacements on the sides and bottom of the floating city, basically giving us a giant flying warship as a base. This is when the DM stepped in and gave their characters a "premonition" You can do that, but... such a threat to the balance of power in the world WILL gain the attention of some if not all the gods who probably won't like it... soooo... we had a city on top of a plateau for a stationary base.

[@polomarco7053]

i need even more information on this.

[@polomarco7053]

@@DB-pn3yb isn't it that in "1487 cv" (don't know in english sorry) the Netheril attack Myth Drannor by putting "Pénombre" above their city then it get damaged during the battle & crash on it destroying both nation?

[@randyfant2588]

​@@polomarco7053 Sorry, I was just the mayor - no personal magic, and my henchman was a priestess with device magic so I wasn't in on the planning. My wizard friend died the summer before Covid, from diabetes related operation. As I recall, we just watched Avengers: Infinity War together and were planning to see Avengers: Endgame come out the next week together, but he disappeared, and when I went to see him I was told he didn't return from the hospital. Only guy I knew who would only play a single class human Wizard.

[@randyfant2588]

@@polomarco7053 IDK - when did that come out - this was back in 01-04

[@randyfant2588]

@@DB-pn3yb they weren't my players, I was the Mayor/Noble in the group.

[@jaceg810]

There is optimizing (picking subclasses that synergize together, doing maths to see what kind of character would have a good damage output or which fighting style is better, etc.) And there is rules Exploitation (where you argue that, since you can pick the item for the old genie subclass, and it was not specified as nonmagical, id like a ring of 3 whishes) They are innately very different things, one aims to achieve the most possible within the rules, while the other aims to subvert them. That combat rules thing is specifically because some rules recharge when initiative is rolled. Besides that, the most common argument I hear for randomly initiating initiative is the silly fast monk tabaxi. Simply put, normal travel speeds apply when out of combat, but when in combat, they can travel close to a mile in 6 seconds. However, because they need to be in combat to do it, they kinda need to start punching something every now and then. Simply put, ifs less about punching innocents, and more about on demand "activating" combat rules.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

For sure! Hoping I didn't conflate those ideas. And wow, can't believe I forgot about the tabaxi

[@Quandry1]

That's where you start introducing things like perception checks, and surprise round rules for the one targeted. A sucker punch often goes off before the Initative actually happens because it's not noticed or the opponent is surprised. So then you get into a proper round of combat with a target capable of either fighting back or forcing you to potentially miss. and yes. there is a great deal of people that try to exploit grey area's to their utmost just because somethign isn't explicitly stated. Even if the actual outcome should be rather obvious. they try so hard to "win" like claiming they should be able to make diamonds from Carbon as a raw material because we as modern humans have figured that out, even if the fantasy settings are mostly modeled after time periods that haven't.

[@Hurricayne92]

I would give them that ring but make it like the monkeys paw.

[@jaceg810]

@@Hurricayne92 Only for them to show up with a fully worked out "contract" stipulations and all, to recite as their wish

[@Quandry1]

@@Hurricayne92 So the Wish Spell if it's not doing very basic things. People forget that wishes that don't follow a few kind of pre-made possibilities are all twistable and DM's are encouraged to twist them. Deck of Many Things has an infamous reputation. But the Wish spell is far more dangerous most of the time. there is a reason that it's 9th level and you stand a good chance of forgetting it and never being able to relearn it ever again.

[@valentinrafael9201]

*Don’t let players get away with being jerks to the other players using the excuse, “that’s what my character would do.”* WOOOOO. Let’s GOOO

[@Serutans]

Peasant railgun by this point is a meme, but I've seen people advocating for breaking essentially the same principle in situations, for example, where someone has a magic sword that is especially effective against some enemy - to then attack with that sword, and pass it on to the next party member in initiative, so everyone in the party can attack with it every round. Abusing the abstraction of taking turns in order, when what happens in narrative is essentially the sword being in everyone's hands simultaniously.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Oh gosh, yeah my group tends to ignore all rules for picking up, passing items, etc. in favor of whatever feels sensible for the action. Passing a sword would be ridiculous xD

[@Camo1177]

I feel like I would allow that, but throwing the sword would require a bonus action and an ability check, catching the sword would require a reaction and a seperate ability check, and if either of those checks failed someone would have to spend their whole turn pulling the sword out of the ground. Also the bad guy would definitely have some ways to stop the constantly flying sword. If they want to make an overly coordinated play, they need to be prepared for all the different ways that play can fail.

[@josiahws5]

​@@mrossknename a game without a single exploit

[@masqueradewat]

That just makes me think of one of the fight scenes...I think it was the 2nd or 3rd pirates of the caribbean movie. Where 3 people are fighting a bunch of others, but only have like 2 swords between them. So just constantly calling out "Sword!" and tossing it to each other by the handle.

[@Serutans]

@@Camo1177 Well, there is no reason to throw anything as you can just pass the sword around. Mechanically there really is no reason to ask for any checks to just hold out and item for one person and another to take it. It's pretty much covered by Item Interaction. The issue is that all turns happen in one 6 second round. So within the narrative you take 6 seconds to attack with a sword, then pass it to a friend, who take THE SAME 6 seconds in time to attack with the same sword. Unless your sword has some tempral properties, it makes no sense.

[@Elemenopi23]

"Combat Is for Enemies" and "Don't let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules." - is in large part a response to the debate around using Warcaster to invoke "attack of opportunity" rules to buff or heal your party members as they leave your range. Party member leaves your range and you "attack" them with a spell, per warcaster, which can be any spell that only targets that creature.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Thanks for the heads up! Part of me is thinking it would have been more useful if they actually cited these rules, so GMs know exactly what to look out for, rather than just describing the negative effects

[@ExeErdna]

Also it's their to keep the Barb's Rage going. Hit them with your fist or something very low grade that's manageable they're raging the whole time.

[@thefourthcrow5627]

I cannot fathom the DM who would be posed that scenario and just reply "You don't threaten your allies"

[@mekkor0101]

I really love that synergy tho. Sure it's strong, but it in the end promotes team-play and strategy. I also know that in essence, you'd then get to cast two spells in a round. But I reiterate - still really cool!

[@marcussawyer4751]

@@BobWorldBuilder It is a jab at the new warcaster: it allows you to cast a spell on a target that triggers an AO, and they specifically removed the wording that relegated Warcaster and attacks of opportunity to being used against enemies(i honestly do not understand how they remove that part and later in the same breath, add "nope, combat is just for enemies")... also, sparring can be used as a very effective moment to build character dynamics, rivalries, friendships and trust between characters that have not been working together for too long.

[@klonvomhaus]

What I hate about the Peasant Railgun is that speed never factored into the throwing capability of an NPC. They could pass the spear to anyone, and the last person could even be a young dragon flinging it with proficiency and 20 strength, and it would still be a ranged weapon attack at strength 20, traveling at the same 40feet per 6s that is described in the weapons' capabilities. It would arrive there very fast, and then it wouldn't do shit once it reaches the hands of the last person. Because that's RAW. It never worked, guys, because we use EITHER physics, in which case the spear never leaves the hands of the 6th person, or we use the rules, which clearly state how a spear throw interacts with the enemy. Also, if you do do Physics, because you're an adventurous DM and love whacky hijinks, remember that after 10 or so peasants, the spear starts to emit heat enough to burst peasants into flame, and the railgun would melt itself along the way.

[@davidjennings2179]

If your table needs these as written rules, there are bigger issues I think.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah I think this advice is mainly for people playing with kids or for adolescents/adults who learned the game exclusively from reddit :P

[@davidjennings2179]

@BobWorldBuilder My only point of reference for kids is my nephews and the crazy plans they come up with have no rules to back them up except the rule of cool (which i roll with a lot of the time).

[@DrPluton]

I think my favorite old exploit story was from the AD&D Living Greyhawk Campaign. Players would play in the same world, write down their exploits, and mail them in for world continuity. Some jerk reached a very high level of magic user and invented a “Nuke” spell that could destroy entire cities. He wrote in and claimed to have used the spell on most major cities. Not only was he banned from Living Greyhawk, his character was killed trying to invent such a spell, and all of his spell books were also destroyed.

[@Ravenholm337]

It's astounding how much it NEEDS to be said that the person who is WRONG is the one that needs to be told to change their behavior.

[@mrlicopoli]

This is how you squelch anyone taking advantage of rules. I think it was 1982, i was 10 yrs old and we had crazy overpowered stuff. My buddy had a golden arm with nuclear missiles for crying out loud! My older brothers asked us to play with them. We were in awe...the privilege to play with these guys was an honor and of course we jumped at the invitation. They killed us all, ending the game by saying "dont cheat in d&d". I think my one friend started crying.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Oh gosh, perfect example of how different groups have fun in different ways! Glad you're still playing!

[@josephvisnovsky1462]

The last time I saw someone cry in D&D, he was the 25 year old DM 🤣

[@rooknado]

@@josephvisnovsky1462Are you serious?! That must have been a weird dsy

[@josephvisnovsky1462]

@@rooknado it was our final game because the teary-eyed GM performed a TPK. The players never returned.

[@johncox3541]

That's the thing about the peasant rail gun, they want it both ways. Use a strict interpretation of raw that allows us to ready action a bunch of people in a row. But then use a logical interpretation of that system to say that an object moving that fast should do extra damage. Of course it shouldn't do damage to the peasants who are passing it along at lightning speed, even though that would definitely strip the flesh from their hands... Peasant railgun doesn't work if you have a consistent ruling style at any table.

[@iantaakalla8180]

You know what would be funny? A BBEG whose goal is to gather a bunch of people loyal to them and then end the world with the peasant railgun. For good measure, the peasant have clothing on their hands that gives heat immunity so they really can pass the spear that quickly, but would be incinerated with heat when the spear gets to the point.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

100%

[@mechanussunrise]

​@iantaakalla8180 it'd be a funny for a fourth wall breaking wizard to try to trick players into joining a peasant railgun but then it wipes the party

[@someguy1ification]

​​@@iantaakalla8180"I am reminded of the tale of Overtyrant Pow-Ga the Kin-Muncher. As he laid siege to the castle of Rulegard, he had his supply trains form a single file line going all the way to his strongholds. He directed his legions of porters to ferry a spear from one end of the continent to the other, reaching its destination in the blink of an eye. He ordered this marvel be used as a weapon of war, that his porters use this movement to send the spear through the castle gates. When it reached the end of the train and was hurled, the spear--predicably--bounced off. Seriously, what did he expect to accomplish by having a peasant hurl a single javelin at a fortified door? (Edit: the long line of peasants was then torn apart by archers at multiple points along its length. The expenses and casualties marked the beginning of the end for The Kin-Muncher) Many years later, sages of Rulegard attempted to use this rapid transportation method for other things. They found that actually deploying the legions of mail-porters took longer than actually delivering the items by one guy on a horse. And they found that keeping them in position, waiting for something to need shipment was (a) cost-prohibitive, (b) extremely disruptive to travel and everything else, and (c) got a lot of peasants eaten by wolves in the wilderness between cities. They gave the plan up because it was stupid. The end."

[@TheOmegalino]

My favorite part of Peasant Rail Gun is that it simultaneously requires that someone understand how physics works, not understand how physics works, understand the rules, and not understand the rules.

[@arellajardin8188]

No more Fiend Warlocks killing rats and bugs to top off their temporary hit points before battle.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Okay so I just learned about bag of rats from these comments, and yeah, that sounds silly. But bag of bugs? A little bug snack? Now that might just be crazy enough to work... But nah, whatever the GROUP (including the GM) thinks is fun and fair.

[@arellajardin8188]

@BobWorldBuilder Ha! Now that you've said "bug snack," I wish I'd thought of that. Fiendlock carrying around a jar of spiders and literally eating one for a hp boost.

[@AMRosa10]

@@BobWorldBuilder How metal would it be though for a Fiend Warlock to bite the head of a rat, a la Ozzy Osbourne, and taunt the enemy "You're next, M-----F-----!!!" Seems appropriately themed.

[@DinoRubble]

As someone who loves playing warlocks, I’m almost ashamed/proud it never occurred to me to do this. :-)

[@ahather]

I think the discussion around attacking other players or helpless creatures to trigger combat is basically a "not all violence needs to use the combat mechanics" thing, combat mechanics are tools for fun action scenes, not a scientific modelling of violence in the dnd world hard agree on not liking splitting player and GM rules, and honestly, it seems fairly uncommon outside of dnd and dnd-alikes, a video on the subject would be much appreciated

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Ahh great point. And I agree. Like if a snouty noble NPC gets slapped by a PC, we don't have to roll initiative for that lol, etc. And it's so true that D&D kinda started the paradigm of turning the game master into this mysterious, borderline intimidating role. Don't get me wrong, running games takes more effort than playing, but having all the rules in one book would show more players that they can do it too!

[@kregorovillupo3625]

If I wanted to lawyer it, I would say a subdued rat that you take out of a bag just to be killed doesn't count as "enemy", as if you take the same rat and kiss it doesn't count as "friend".

[@drgandd]

Obviously, the question of whether you can more or less infinitely accelerate an object by passing it among hundreds or thousands of peasants is like a whole big problem...but what gave these players the idea that they could find, recruit, instruct, and successfully lead all those peasants? Like, it's a great goof and all, but there are more holes in the plan than I think we usually talk about.

[@simethigsomethingidfk]

Honestly this entire situation is literally something that should be printed in max size bold font across the first 100 pages of the DMG. "ASK YOUR PLAYERS WHAT THE HELL THEY WANT OUT OF THE GAME. NO REALLY ASK THEM RIGHT NOW WHY DND INTERESTS THEM AND WHY THEY WANT TO PLAY. NO NO ACTUALLY DO IT, THERE IS NO EXCUSE JUST DO IT IMMEDIATLY"

[@BobWorldBuilder]

And it would be a sick callback to the 1e DMG if they included a short section in all caps haha

[@mechanussunrise]

I find that a decent number of players aren't honest about what they want. I'm not saying they are lying necessarily, except maybe to themselves. So a conversation up front doesn't always solve this

[@Xephon_Ayato]

Tbf a new group of players may not realize oh oh wait this could be a thing till 6 sessions and a decent understanding later

[@davidbeppler3032]

Why? As a GM I just do 2 things. Really easy. Economy and ecology. That is all. The players do everything else. They want to explore? Ok. They want to kill everyone in town? Ok. They want to take over the kingdom? Ok. They want to be farmers? Ok. I don't care. They can do whatever they want. I just tell them what happens. Easy.

[@simethigsomethingidfk]

@davidbeppler3032 Because different people have different expectations and that's when problems happen. So discussing it with everyone helps to prevent issues. It's rarely a problem group, it usually is a problem player or two and by just talking about it, that almost always fixes the problem.

[@al8188]

5:05 predicated on the assumption that players read the PHB and not just the sections of whatever supplements that have the subclass they want

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Oh crap you're right

[@jaimerivera2382]

This is why, when teaching new players to play any TTRPG, I always bring up that the rules are an abstraction - an attempt to simulate reality in a way that makes the story possible. So, no, the peasant railgun would never work, because in reality it wouldn't work, regardless of what the rules say. Likewise, my ruling would be that you get some sort of luck roll if you roll from too far a height - and you might just die, regardless of what your HP is. In addition, if this rogue sneaks up on a guard outside of combat and wants to kill him - there's no roll to hit or roll for damage. The guard is just dead. As a DM, it's our job to know when to use the rules and when to shove them aside for the story to make sense.

[@nobodyinparticular5639]

I’ve done the “Peasant Railgun” in Pathfinder, and this was because our GM, a guy who had a desire to “Lay down the law,” and one player, a very notorious power gamer, were in the middle of a gigantic wang measuring contest. The GM decided that he was sick of the power gamer imitating a blender in every combat we got into and thus sicked a Trasque. Because the rest of the five players, including myself, committed the grievous sin of existing in his presence, everyone got caught in the blast. As a method of survival, I used the peasant railgun in the hopes that we could avoid getting TPKe. It worked, but the DM decided that the spear's speed was so high that it tore a rip in the planes. We didn't play much after that, and probably it was for the better.

[@aidan-h3p]

Climb into a bag of holding until just your head is sticking out, then lift yourself with mage hand for unlimited flight. Classic tomfoolery.

[@sroper90]

I remember reading about the Arrow of Total Destruction - It uses an engineered arrow that has two bags of holding that attempt to go into each other when the arrow hits, which RAW explode for big damage. A very expensive trick!

[@draydenwiggins8640]

It would create a portal to the astral plane. No damage, but whatever you hit isn't a problem anymore

[@sharkjumpingwalrus6744]

Pretty sure the peasant rail gun ignores how the "interact with object" action works. Not to mention that passing an object and grabbing an object are separate interactions that would make the passing of the spear take several turns due to the fact that a peasant who used their held action to get the spear from the first peasant would not be able to pass the spear to the next peasant preventing the held action of taking the spear from the peasant above them from going off. Now if you were to train these peasants in the ways of wizarding and have them all use a telekinetic spell to grab the same Spear and hold their action to "throw" the spear at the same time as the other wizards at a specific target you can make the argument for a "Wizard Rail gun".

[@fnunez]

I would just say this is something the peasants have never done before, so each needs to do a dex check with difficulty starting at 5 and going up by 1 the faster the spear is travelling along the line. A failed check means they fumble the pass and the spear drops on the ground. Let's see how many 20s they can roll :D

[@dallassegno]

Way too much effort guys

[@anzaia2164]

I feel like the Peasant Rail Gun idea can only be realistically applied as a Peasant Bucket Line, where you want a weapon to travel out of range in a large arena. Or throw it at the enemy yourself, and have the peasants get it back to you in the same turn? Idk these also don't make _much_ sense

[@amandaoh2025]

See that? I could allow? It would work ONCE. Destroy everything around it. Be all very "a great a terrible work was done here, by desperate, inexperienced hands" etc? But like? Enough magic users working TOGETHER? SHOULD bend reality a little

[@velinion1]

Had players once discuss a get rich scene involving a magic bag that let you draw a random creature once per day. There was a 1/8th chance of a giant elk, and the item recharged, so they should conceavably be able to slaughter one huge meat animal every 8 days on average. Plus there'd be meat from the other creatures too. They didn't, because I asked them if they wanted a game about adventuring or "meat economy simulator" and... They realized it sounded pretty borring. Did become a recurring joke for a bit though "Well, if we don't save the kingdom, there's still the butchers shop to fall back on" kinda thing.

[@stevdor6146]

This, but with farming and a cleric to bless the land for bountiful harvests

[@bloodyidit4506]

If someone's exploiting rules like it's a series of game rules, simply don't allow them to. If they persist tell them they'll be kicked out of the group for being a menace. In your games establish a vauge reasonability, that stats are ultimately just tools, and things still work in some realistic manner. If a group of people can't make a peasent railgun in real life, it won't happen in your game. If magic is involved, invoke economy. If someone's trying to throw 4000 barrels or some shit, make them roll an impossible strength check at disadvantage or just say no.

[@jonsturgill6508]

RE: the infinite money glitch, the Fool's Gold spell literally creates gold coins that last for hours. There's chance the coins revert to original form when struck by iron, but spells like Charm and Friend, or just good 'ol Charisma, could prevent someone from checking the coins.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Ahh, never heard of that spell! Sounds fun but I'd probably make it only last like 1 minute, so the PCs really need to high tail it out of there haha

[@DellikkilleD]

@@BobWorldBuilder why would you make a spell useless? if you dislike it that much just dont offer it...

[@RabblesTheBinx]

​@@DellikkilleD hey, if you have a full minute to make yourself scarce and don't do so, that's on you.

[@Quandry1]

@@DellikkilleD The spell is actually useless anyway. People just like to pretend it's not. it's 4th level, only does 150 copper coins or a 1lb item made out of copper, brass, or bronze. upcasting it only gets rid of the iron issue. which is a 1/4 chance. And it's 8 hours at best. 150 gold by the time you are that level doesn't mean a lot. You are 7th level by the time you are casting spells of that level, and it's jsut an illusion spell so there are various things that will see through it regardless. then having to back it up with Charm or good Charisma rolls and what not to try and make it functional on top of that? This is the epitome of desperation or a waste of time if you are using it. Turning it to 1 minute only has one significant difference. you can't mess around once you cast it to do what you are going to do with it like you can with the initial 8 hour time limit on it, which only makes it more convenient to cast. Oh and i almost forgot. it's a homebrew spell, So there is no saying it even exists in any particular DM's world and if it does that it functions this way. this is just how it is written in general for people to consider to homebrew into their own campaign. making it even more useless because many DM's don't want to bother messing with homebrew spells.

[@DellikkilleD]

@@RabblesTheBinx nerfing an already nearly useless spell is a sign of a piss poor GM.

[@tj-oh8oy]

A player at a table I was playing at use the spell "Fabricate" to create fine glass items over and over and over again during a long-term downtime. He really wanted to do this and worked with the DM to construct a small glass-making empire that generated effectively unlimited wealth for him. That same player also purchased dozens of "Robe of Useful Items" because he determined that he could use it to generate infinite wealth so long as he could continue purchasing more robes.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

The glass making empire sounds neat, but I am left wondering who’s able to supply all these magical robes? lol

[@MarkLeBay]

I like to assume that anything the party can do, there is at least a few other people in the world already doing it.

[@davidbeppler3032]

​@@MarkLeBay Using that logic the Chevy Bolt should sell 1.23 million a year like the Tesla Model Y.

[@MarkLeBay]

@@davidbeppler3032 I don’t think the complexity of the “fabricate” exploit is equivalent to the engineering and design innovation required to make and market the Tesla Model Y - not to mention the IP legal structures to protect against GM copying Tesla battery innovations. Many people in the world have access to “fabricate” and would have already discovered your hack for effortlessly creating fine glass or would learn the trick after seeing you making money from it. Far from being an unlimited wealth making machine, the market would soon be flooded with fine glass and so there would be little money to be made from it.

[@davidbeppler3032]

@@MarkLeBay As GM I just outlaw fabricate. Period. I also nerf the hell out of teleport for similar reasons.

[@raginasiangaming910]

I've had a player try to use the peasant railgun before. He got run out of the town because the locals decided he was a crazy lunatic. He tried again and lost the spear since there is no way an ordinary peasant could catch a sharp object being handed to him at such a blazing speed. Players (and some DM's) forget that the DM makes the world. I generally penalize the crap out of anyone trying to metagame. I tell everyone at session zero that it's a roleplaying game...not a math problem. If you want to min-max and exploit go play videogames.

[@anakomaru]

Please note: DnD rules are guidelines, but those guidelines must be followed consistently.

[@jamricsloe]

The trick to making an accepted OP character is to not brag about what he can do. You just play and WIN without the advertising

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Haha, ahhh the secretly OP character :) Sounds like a fun way to make it more interesting for the story as well

[@TheInfamousBertman]

Win? Win what?

[@TheInfamousBertman]

@@mrosskne That's one style of game, to be sure. I play video games for that kind of winning. I play TTRPGs for other reasons. To each their own.

[@juliamedina3322]

Ew. If you feel the need to hide that in order to get away with it, then it's obvious that your group won't like it. Maybe play a character that your group actually likes to play with?

[@TNH91]

@@juliamedina3322 There's a difference between hiding something and not advertising/bragging about it.

[@Ramonatho]

Its weird seeing an RPG telling its players not to have fun the way they like to. If you're trying the Peasant Railgun, it should be because you're playing with a group of people who would find it funny, not because you're trying to piss off your close friends.

[@HeathenHammer8]

I think it was in D&D 3.5, and my favorite was the infinite chicken glitch. If I remember correctly, chickens at some point became a material spell component and any spell component that was under 1gp in cost would be considered always available in your spell components pouch. The intention was generous by the designers to save time instead of meticulous, annoying bookkeeping of how much bat guano one would need per fireball cast, as an example. Chickens are worth a few copper, so by that rule you have infinite chickens in your spell component pouch. Furthermore, it was considered a free action to bring out a spell component from your spell component pouch (again, for the casters sanity)... This made it so someone could bring out infinite chickens instantly, game over, check mate, the known universe is now only chickens. My DM, bless him, allowed it for like two minutes, just long enough for all the other players to start freaking out. Then of course he said, "hilarious, but no", and we continued the campaign. The main takeaway here is when you find an exploit - have fun with it - but close that loophole after a good laugh. Don't be an anti-social ass and expect everyone to cater to you pressing the figurative "I win" button.

[@justinrobert82]

Phantasmal Force was always the big one for us. "You are in coffin filled with water." Blind, deaf, prone, drowning, dead. Swing it right and its 25-spells-in-one. The rules as written not only allow the spell to be used this way but even seem to encourage it, giving numerous devious examples of how it might be implemented. Somewhat adjacently, the rules around Suggestion are also often tough to navigate. Sure, the target can't do anything "obviously harmful" to itself but having your enemy bake bread for 8 hours certainly gives you the upper hand. Compare it to a fourth level spell like Banishment that sends a creature away for 1 minute and the lack of balance shows pretty swiftly.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah it seems like any mind control spells are just asking to be twisted

[@lorekeeper685]

Illusions are crazy Or mind affecting spells since like protection from good stops it?

[@robertoreilly6660]

@@BobWorldBuilder My divination wizard can mostly end any encounter before it even starts. I just suggest the leader to lead his allies to another town, and use a portent die on the save. Knowing that I can do that, why would I? Not much fun. More fun? Toss me your magic items! And it is on!

[@davidbeppler3032]

@@lorekeeper685 Illusion spells work 100% of the time. Unless the target has a reason to disbelieve the illusion. That is OP and nobody uses illusions. lmao That is right kiddies, you do not get a chance to even notice an illusion, no roll, no save. They work 100% of the time.

[@lorekeeper685]

@@davidbeppler3032 ohh yes Illusions ard insane people just don't know what they can do They are only balanced cause immunity to mind effecting is easy to get but no ones does that

[@elderliddle2733]

There’s an easy way to punish exploitation. For the money duplication, all you have to do is when they try to buy something, the vendor calls the guards for counterfeit. When the magic user sees the money, present a flaw that had been previously overlooked. They won’t try that again any time soon.

[@outcastedOpal]

I've always argued that peasant railgun was wrong. You can't Ignore physics in favour of the rules only half the time. Either you abuse the rules and pass a dagger like hot potato, and you only deal d4 damage. or you follow physics, in which case the dagger will never get to the speed of light or whatever. you cant pick and choose when you do or don't want to follow IRL physics. also DMs exist, they'll just say no.

[@hqueso]

"My rage is about to end since I didn't take any damage or attack. Hank, throw a rock at me!"

[@Subject_Keter]

That just good teamwork, you try that with any other barb abd they will be claiminf your ears.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Hmm having just learned about the "bag of rats" also used for this purpose, at least this seems reasonable haha, like if the barbarian is willing to accept the damage of the attack, at least there's a consequence? That's my initial take on it anyway

[@Tintelinus]

I really dont feel that one is too bad. I mean in combat it would still mean another player taking an action and in universe it seems a lot more reasonable than the "Bag of Rats" thing.

[@ilmari1452]

Fortunately this one is no lo ger needed - they have quite reasonably added a rule now that Barbarians can preserve their rage with a bonus action (up to 10 minutes) Great for using it out of battle, now

[@M0rchaint]

"Good Faith Interpretation" is the ultimate answer. The "infinite exposition" is sometimes allowed because it's great and fun for the group. Otherwise reasonable time limitations should always apply. The railgun relies on triggered actions chaining instantly. But a ladder being passed would not occur instantly. Good faith interpretation would limit one pass of the ladder per round. We ARE applying physics in the rules - we just aren't applying them rigorously. We give slack for excitement not exploitation.

[@robrib2682]

the railgun was never about damaging things from where I heard it. It was for communication to and from towns to nearby locations. its main drawback was it was a send a letter and wait for another sent back system to keep it from "jamming" or you set up another one to send mail back Edit: as for the spells thing, someone did the math on a spell that lets you summon a 5x5x5 block of smelted iron and found if you permanency it in 3.5 it costs less money then you get from the now smeltable and sellable iron, it was an infinite money generator for the wizard.

[@donnhussey568]

The problem is that sometimes players get "stuck" on stupid shit. Sometimes you have a really easy combat lined up, and they spend 45 minutes of session time prepping for it. Sometimes they need to send a message to the next town over as quickly as possible, and instead of doing normal things they do dumb shit like this. What you do as a GM in those circumstances is to short circuit them: The simple combat monsters just attack. No more talking, and the players wasted their planning time. The players find a wizard who needs help who knows the Message spell, and has a buddy in the town that they need to send a message to. He will work for free if the party helps him do something very simple. Cranium rats exist. Whatever.

[@myleft9397]

Bob's former videos testing D&D physics are required watching

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Exactly! haha

[@williampadgett9423]

The line "give your players a little exploitation as a treat" is a TRAP. Do not do this. D&D parties are the definition of "give them an inch, they take a mile". Do not open the "exploit" door unless you're ready for constantly being asked "it doesnt say i can, but can i use my spell like this?"

[@justinfrank1882]

7:00 warcaster lets you replace an opportunity attack with a single target spell with a cast time of 1 action. eg you attack another player but replace it with a healing spell, haste, fly, invisibility, ect ect.

[@salempistorius7395]

While I wouldn’t call it an “infinite money exploitation”, I once had two players, a druid and a bard, try to sell the the silk from a giant spider wildshape after casting Distort Value from Acquisitions Inc. on it. And this wasn’t even for a plot point or anything, they just had some downtime at a town and asked “Is there a silk and textiles shop in town?” I allowed it since I thought it was creative but let the players know that that kind of gameplay was against the spirit of my table and I likely wouldn’t allow it again. Besides, an extra 50 gold was chump change for them.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Also, if it's a wildshape, I feel like that "spider" silk is gross and weird lol, like wildshaping into a cow and selling milk bleh xD

[@theendblock102]

This is the kind of way I deal with something like this. I will let you do a lot of kinda power-gaming exploit-y stuff one time if it's cool and fun because I want to reward creativity, but above table, you're not doing that again unless it would be more cool and fun than the first time. I'm just gonna say no if you try to do it again.

[@kuhndj67]

I think the value of putting it into the DM guide is to empower DM's by telling them "Hey man... YOU are the judge/jury/executioner in your game, act like it". I prefer the "Witcher cheat" method of dealing with players who for instance... attack innocent cows. (spawn a cow god to lay an almighty smackdown on em). In our games we never needed to be told that arguing with the DM was a losing proposition, no matter what the rules say - the DM WILL ruin your day if you get too uppity.

[@SavageGreywolf]

Iirc despite its name the "peasant railgun" was supposed to facilitate FTL communication/delivery, not damage I think the 'players attack each other to activate effects' is generally how the things usually described in the optimizer space as 'bag of rats' would actually play out, since DMs generally won't let characters easily get an actual bag of rats

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah bag of rats keeps coming up in the comments lol, but I do think the OG peasant railgun was about doing ridiculous damage. However, it would be a goofy way to invent "email" in a fantasy setting lol

[@Trokkin]

Funny thing is nuclear railgun damage relies on switching off the RAW to a real physics interpretation. RAW the spear can only be thrown for 1d6 + STR damage, no matter how many peasants were in the line. And it will probably miss, since peasants are not proficient weapons.

[@ebolachanislove6072]

the "bag of rats" term originated from discussion of the 3rd ed Soul Eater prestige class that gave you stat bonuses for killing creatures that lasted between 1-24 hours depending on the feature.

[@Dread-Gazebo]

Speaking from BECMI through present experience, yes, people have always tried to rules lawyer things to their advantage. It was frowned upon in 2E and BECMI and was also a lot less prevalent (in my experience) until 3.5E, which is when I started having issues with players trying to get away with ridiculous X-Men shenanigans.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah it seems, from yours and others in the comments experience, that this has waxed and waned over time. Guess we were due for D&D to address it again!

[@mechanussunrise]

3/3.5 codified so many more player options (feats, prestige classes, etc) and tried to write rules text like a Magic card so it sort of primed some players to see the game in this sort of "rules-as-written"/combo hunting way more than previous editions

[@SurmaSampo]

My Dm'ing experience is that the DMs who complain about rules lawyering didn't bother to learn the rules and their games trend towards incoherence. Every time I have seen a DM throw a toddler like tantrum it is because they were upset at either being shown they didn't understand the rules or that the players expected consistency in the application of the rules. I have never been upset by a rules lawyer, only by poorly designed rules and they get fixed in an open and transparent way at my table. I am there to create an engaging and challenging fun experience, not to have power over my friends. The rules provide a shared framework for the game to be played within. Without that it just becomes a game of socially engineering the DM.

[@mechanussunrise]

@@SurmaSampo are you usually the DM or a player?

[@SurmaSampo]

@mechanussunrise Mostly the DM for the last 20 years and mostly the player for the 20 years before that. Also my preference is to run systems with comprehensive rule sets based on a single core system like Hero System, Interlock and Open D6, but I also have run a lot of DnD, Dragon Warriors, Star Wars and Shadowrun. I have dabbled in game design and have built a system but I don't really have the time to finish it into a published game. As a DM I care about engagement and challenge based on player agency so I usually swap out the standard XP system that focusses on those things and ensures I deliver a better game experience.

[@JFarenci]

The cure to being that guy deciding to play the healer/support. People often shy from the role, give it to a min-maxer and get them to try and max out their options. Min maxers are going to min max, put that energy to use for good.

[@Serutans]

On the topic of "turning on combat" - I've seen in online a bit and had it an issue in person once. I explained to a player that Ready Action is for use in combat, and that outside of combat your intention is enough, but as far as ambushing someone, that's what the Surprise rules are for (aka Stealth vs Perception will decide if you can get off some extra attacks, not declaring that you Ready Action to shoot them, and definitely not both). That player then wanted to punch another ally to start combat and then use Ready Action on unsuspecting enemies coming around the corner.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

There's so much confusion about how surprise works that this doesn't... well, surprise me lol

[@SurmaSampo]

This is because the surprise rule in DnD has always been broken. If you know the person around the corner doesn't know you are there then they have already failed to detect the ambush. The problem is that combat is so discrete from non combat in ways that defy rationality. Spell targeting is even worse with area effect elemental damage spells that don't damage objects or elemental spell attacks that can only target creatures. All to segregate combat from the rest of the game (well really because they didn't spend any effort on anything not combat).

[@Serutans]

@@SurmaSampo Nah the surprise rules work well, it's just another case of people thinking they should get more advantage and success than they should for their decisions. Whether or not they didn't notice you to react properly being resolved by a Stealth against Perception is perfectly fine. Especially because usually it's the PCs being ambushed by monsters, so making the rules more punishing is not going to be more fun. And it's good that spells are pretty simple. One of the main things that drag combat pacing are players who think their "creative" solutions should be incredibly effective, when usually it's worth nothing more than flavor. Just do your action and end your turn please, there are other people at the table.

[@SurmaSampo]

@Serutans Pacing is a false economy and tactical planning and execution are what make combat fun. Lol, random determination of every action is the essence of unfun. It makes all decisions meaningless.

[@PikachuLittle]

⁠@@Serutansa valid school of thought. One I mostly disagree with, but still valid. Sure pacing is important, but so is being able to get creative with things. If I wanted combat to be entirely “point at thing, roll dice, roll damage, repeat until number goes to 0” I’d just play a video game. Being able to do crazy things like opening a Gate to the bottom of the first layer of Heaven to create a Holy Water Cannon or using Major Image to convince people that you just summoned a Pit Fiend are things you really can’t do in most video games. However I do agree that keeping the game going is also important, and taking too long debating about how something should work can get annoying after a while. So I guess the only real option is to accept that different people enjoy different things and sometimes you have to compromise, while other times the differences are irreconcilable

[@demonicbunny3po]

My group did do the cheese grater. Spell to make difficult terrain that does damage if you pass through it, then force the enemy to move back and forth in it. The only reason we managed to do it was because the enemy was a boss in a room that we could prepare against. So we hatched a plan, implemented it, and executed it beautifully.

[@crowbar_the_skull]

Here are my rules as a DM... 1. There are no rules, only guidelines. This is not a video game. 2. The DM is in control. He or she must guide and reign in the players when necessary. If a player insists on having an issue that simply must be addressed, then the DMs word is final. 3. The players must play in good faith. No cheating, no meta gaming, no rerolling, no fudging, no lying, and most importantly, no attitude. 4. If the game stops being fun, it's over. Fair and simple.

[@BouncingTribbles]

The peasant rail cannon was always a no go for me. So many ways to nip that one in the bud. What's sad is that the fact this is even a problem, that tells me there are a lot of people out there who don't know how to say no. or can't take a no when it's given to them.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yep it really involves a weird mishmash of physics and rules, when all we need is a SENSIBLE mishmash of physics and rules

[@addlemm44]

If the DM is happy to allow the rail gun, fine, the story can continue however they want and are happy to do so. The sad part only occurs if the DM is too weak to make himself and the players happy.

[@camerakid76]

Old school here. I always thought of the DMG as being for the DMs eyes only as it had things that spoil the magic for the players. Definitely an oversight that this is not in the PHB.

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Yeah there are certainly good points for keeping them separate. My main point (assuming the players rules aren't already 300+ pages) is that by combining all the rules in one book, more players will see the "GM rules" and understand that running games isn't as hard as they may think, and it could inspire more players to also game master once in a while

[@mechanussunrise]

The cynical voice in my head says its because Wizards doesn't want to be the one to tell players, "no" so they'd rather the DM do it

[@SurmaSampo]

That was long ago. WOTC has been putting rules the players actually need in the DMG for decades now. In fact, even 2e had a few things the players needed in the DMG. They really want as many people to buy as many of the books as possible.

[@ebolachanislove6072]

@@SurmaSampo The way i've always seen it is that the phb is just to get you to the point where you hopefully should be able to answer most questions about your own character and their actions, dmg is for most of the stuff beyond that.

[@SurmaSampo]

@@ebolachanislove6072 I understand that but the argument I was replying to is that players shouldn't read the DMG when there is information that players need to know to be able to answer some questions e.g. how do you play an artificer without the DMG? Let's put this into the greater context of RPGs in general. DnD is almost unique into dividing player and GM information into separate and supposedly dedicated books. They could actually make these functionally dedicated but that would mean fewer book sales.

[@newdrug1880]

As a lawyer this is honestly something modern day capitalism and law interpretations need.