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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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. 😂
@@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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
@@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.
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.
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! :)
@@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.
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
"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
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 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.
@@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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
"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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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!
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.
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 👍
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
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
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.
Warcaster is an example of not letting players attack each other to exploit rules. When a player uses it's movement running past your caster, you use warcaster to cast Haste or Cure Wounds etc on them. Warcaster Raw: When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature. Opportunity Attacks: You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
I see! And to answer the other reply below about what's stopping the PC-- hopefully nothing! But like the book is saying here, if a maneuver interferes with the group's fun (including the gm of course), the gm can step in to make adjustments
To be perfectly honest counterpoint: If you want to give up your *one* reaction during a round to wc buff a player as opposed to wc attack an enemy, why shouldn't you. You're giving up the same amount of resources for it and have built your character in such a way to deal with whichever the case is. I'm personally fine with the "I run past my cleric with warcaster to let them cast cure on me" and the cleric doing so - and then probably suddenly having the enemies who just watched someone run past a heal spell start to surround the heal spell character...
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.
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
Haha hey no problem in having fun working out these loopholes. It's just the "I can technically do this therefore you must let me do this" approach that turns into an issue. Happy gaming!
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 nay 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 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.
I don't remember which book this came from (possibly ICON by Massif Press or Flying Circus by Erika Chappel?), but I once came across a line that boiled down to "Does that rule exploit seem like it was something the gamedev intended? If not, it probably wasn't. Don't do it."
Excellent way to summarize this concept! I think in this case D&D realized how far people are reaching for some loopholes so wanted to explain it further in this new DMG.
Oh man, I wish I could send this to a very particular person. I used to play with “that guy” who would take a step beyond optimization - he would power game. Doing stuff like always taking two levels of Paladin for the Smite (so glad that’s done for in 2024), regardless of what his character motivations were. He’d be an awful amalgamation of classes and magic items handpicked to make him actually invincible. He “snorted the dust of a wand of polymorph” to have an “astral compass in his head.” With the DM’s permission. I’m not kidding. Basically nerfed my Ranger to be a glorified archer that entire campaign because I never had the chance to track anything. In the next campaign, I made the DM kill off my character, largely so I would have to play with this guy anymore.
I don’t think the laws of physics, like gravity, should be violated in D&D unless there’s a specific magical rationale and if it advances the story. Nearly all the D&D fantasy worlds are earthlike with mostly similar atmosphere, climates, gravity, minerals, elements etc. Humans exist in all these fantasy worlds. If you want a truly alien world without human life you can play a sci-fi rpg.
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.
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.
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!
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
RE: economic spells "I set up a business where I sell my services casting Fabricate to build keeps/infrastructure/process food etc. Because there is always a need for these things, the demand is high and therefore payout also high"
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"
I find that a decent number of players aren't honest about they want. I'm not saying they are lying necessarily, except maybe to themselves. So a conversation up front doesn't always solve this
I have had players attempt to ready attacks outside of combat like when they are walking down a corridor or preparing to open a door looking to get a free attack before any enemies can strike. I shut that down quickly by pointing out that the Ready action only works in combat after initiative is rolled I have a regular player in my Adventurers League games who likes to min/max the rules but he is considerate enough to ask me in advance if his ideas can work so that I have time to think about it
The cantrip friends was literally the infinite money glitch. You would just make sure that you were always traveling and everyone you met that looked like they might have a bit of money you would cast friends on them and then asked to borrow everything that they've got including any money they had and you would just run away and keep traveling repeating the process as needed
Maybe, I think friends is the one that also lets the target know they were influenced by magic when it ends, so you'd accumulate an angry mob pretty quick!
I had a player try to argue with me that his winged boots could be worn when he was in his wild shape because "Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer." As the wearer is now a bear, it should fit his massive bear feet. I told him no. That was obviously included so that smaller or larger races were locked out of items like boots or clothes that normally wouldn't be useable due to their sizes, but it did NOT mean that the item was made of elastic and would stretch on command. So, I told him the normal "Your equipment doesn't change shape or size to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge into your new form." rules applied and his winged boots would merge into his form.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
The good thing about BG3 is that it can scratch that particular itch really well. If you want to exploit the rules, play that instead of ruining the game for real people.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The problem with putting the DM stuff and the Player stuff into the same book is that you'll end up with a massive (~600 page) book that costs way too much for the average player to consider investing in (~$100). Also, lots of people already consider a 300 pg book to be too intimidating. Adding more pages would just make that worse, even if cost wasn't an issue.
7:00 there have been some features that activate when you roll initiative. That is why someone would want to enter combat temporarily with a party member, hamster, house fly, potted plant, etc.
Yeah and another comment reminded me that things like tabaxi's wild movement speed is I guess technically a combat thing? I don't even know anymore though haha
@@BobWorldBuilder The obvious choice would be Barbarian Rage to get Advantage on a Strength check, I guess. You know, punch Bruce Banner to help him turn into The Hulk.
That railgun hack feels like it can be repurposed into a transportation hack. You get leagues of people. You start combat. You argue by the same logic of the railgun hack except the implication you have accelerated things up to impossible speeds. You have now, in six seconds, transported what you want from town to town. Make sure that you draw out a battle for as long as you need to transport things, then run away or end the enemies when you can. You have now made a black market in transportation.
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.
I believe the thought process behind the commoner railgun is to weaponize fall damage by having your projectile "fall" sideways great distances over the 6-second period. When it gets to the target, it and the object used would then split (X/2)d6 damage, where X is the number of commoners in the line. I'd be more impressed to find someone who can convince 40ish people to risk their lives doing something that seems so silly. Fabricate is a relatively high level spell that lets you make very expensive stuff very quickly. You'd buy the materials as normal, cast Fabricate, and have a suit of plate armor ready to sell for substantial profit. Fiend warlocks regain hit points when foes drop to 0 hit points. One could keep a cage full of rats to slaughter when they'd need a refill.
Hmmm I don't really see the fall sideways since it's landing in each peasants hands, like only falling ~2 feet at a time, but maybe that was something different in a previous edition of the game? Anyway haha, you're certainly right on fabricate and fiend warlocks! I've been seeing those in a few other comments too. I'm not sure if they actually fixed these loopholes too, or just put out this disclaimer...
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.
@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.
Attacking party members: -Hey I still have my second win -Ok I attack you with a rusty fork -AC23, no luck. I activate my second win -I disengage and say ok ok just making sure you are alright Then they all had a short rest. Or -I have one Berserk left. Please slap me every turn while we travel Or -I have 8 hours left on my hunters mark. I attack you, put it on a party mate and move it once you are down but before we use healing word The possibilities are endless and none of them strike me as heroic, in character, or to be encouraged. Almost as bad as a Hunter carrying around a dying but stablized goblin to store the mark.
As a _very_ long time DM, the most annoying thing about these "hacks" is that the players always want to act like their character is the first person to ever come up with this idea, and that no enemy could possibly have considered and defended against it, much less come up with it earlier and used it against the party. Examples from history: Scry and fry. Explosive runes book-bomb. Buying ladders to break down and sell as polls. Simulacra abuse. I'd always tell players who want to use these things this: If that is the level of lethality you want in this world, that's fine. But understand this. Your more intelligent and capable enemies are also aware of these things, and as much as possible, they will take preparations to counteract them as well as making use of them against you. If you are comfortable being the subject of a Scry and Fry by the enemy BBEG when you draw his attention, you're more than welcome to use that tactic yourself. If you don't use them as players, I will agree to not use them against you as the DM.
Yep keeping the villains two steps ahead is one way to handle it! I personally prefer the guidance here to just talk to the player, but I know different methods work for different groups
@@BobWorldBuilder Oh, you misunderstand. That is part of the conversation. If the players _really_ want to use those "cheesy" rules interpretations in their game, that's fine, as long as they understand that this means those interpretations are the standard understanding of how the world works. Consequently, enemies will know about them and use them, too. Typically, players instantly become completely uninterested in including those interpretations into the game when they discover the party could be on the receiving end.
Seriously, if you have players F with the rules to make an infinite money glitch, just introduce every high level rogue in your system to the PC's new enterprise...
@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).
reminds me a bit of an episode of the "Harry potter and the methods of rationality" podcast, where they explain how arbitrage works with wizard and muggle money. Maybe a question for both rules lawyers and world builders - with the presence of clerics and a lot of people with access to healing spells - how do you justify having people with diseases/life changing injuries, like losing a finger/arm on the construction site of your bastion, when it just needs a healing word to take care of that. And what happens to a rotten tomato if you bestow greater healing on it? thanks anyways for your great videos and attitude - I enjoy them a lot.
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.
I feel like theres an actual reasonable manner in which the concept of a peasant railgun could work... like introducing an athletics check with an ever-increasing DC for each instance of catching and throwing an object; start the DC at 10 or 15 and increase by 5 for each additional instance, and each time a DC is passed, add an additional damage die. If anyone fails the check, the chain stops there, and the object lands harmlessly. Whoever is at the end of the chain takes a negative bonus of 3x the number of successful checks made when it comes to making the final attack roll.
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
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.
[0:12] I play as a monk with STR 8 and DEX 20. I have a climb speed. I successfully grappled a monster described as a "660 lb, 6 ft 7 in tall gorilla-demon." Since it's classified as a medium creature, I intended to climb while carrying it. Grappling rules are vague and don't specifically address vertical movement. I argued that I could do it as long as the creature wasn’t one size category larger than me. It's bigger, but it's still medium. The DM didn’t allow it. Am I the jerk?
You're not a jerk, and neither is the GM! They gotta make a lot of calls under pressure. But here's what I'd probably have done: since the creature was technically the right size, I'd probably have flavored it that your character is so FAST, that the momentum was still able to move this much bulkier creature
Your DM ruled right. The weight of the creature is more than your carrying capacity with a STR 8 so you can't not only climb but move more than 5 feets while grappling it.
@@mrossknewhy are you being rude? You could convey the exact same information without sounding insulting, and if they're having fun playing a slightly broken character, what's wrong? DND is a game, and games are supposed to be fun. If they're having fun, there's no problem.
I started playing with 1st Edition back in 81' yeah now hold off the grandpa jokes, my point is in the 1st Ed DM's Guide it says (I still have it in storage) "These are not books of rules, these are guidelines. If you want or need to change them it is up the the GM's discretion." That may not be a perfect quote but it IS printed in there. Players doing/trying goofy sh!t is baked into the game. I once played a game where the theme was "Evil Disco" & the Red dragon in his hoard chamber was wearing a Leisure suit, dancing under a mirror ball and singing "Staying Alive" when the group came to kill him. The pile of platform shoes in the corner gathered from past adventurers was meant to be a warning... Just game, don't "GAME"...
I can't quote it either, but I know the passage you're referencing! Also that's wild, I once also wrote a disco adventure (but with undead, not a dragon). Great advice all around.
More generally known as "the Golden Rule," the idea that the rules are just guidelines and the DM/GM/ST has final jurisdiction has been present in just about every (professional) RPG I've ever read. I've heard plenty of silly "rules interpretations" over the years myself, but I have yet to meet a player who seriously wants to do this sort of thing in a game we're playing.
Im so glad ive never played at a table where this stuff goes on. People have spotted this kind of stuff, folks have joked about it, then we just play like normal people. Because its the stupidest kind of cleverness.
To add to the fun money glitches: 3.5 had a spell called "Flesh to Salt" . Instead of petrifying the target it turned it into statue of salt. Cue buying the most cost/size efficient animal, usually some form of cow, having it stand on a tarp then getting a cow's volume in salt afrer a single casting. They would wrap the statue in the tarp, smash it into a powder, split it up into sacs and sell it on the market, as the cow was NOT worth it's volume in salt, it would be a good profit. This was also a way to, uh... remove one's enemies from the picture...
Ive never seen the peasant railgun in real life but id allow it while explaining breaking physics will have consequences as the universe attempt to balance itself. Id fully describe it as reaching impossible speeds, broken physics, tears in reality. "This shouldnt be possible" you all think as you witness in amazement and horror. Then a large explosion is heard and everyone but the first and last in line takes 4d12 force damage, and also the ground under them is on fire DeLorean style. for another 1d8 damage. Anyone who dies explodes like a water balloon filled with blood.... And the final villager rolls to attack with disadvantage as all their friends explode up their back and they throw the spear at the troll for... 1d8 damage. (i rolled a 5) Then miraculously all the dead villagers come back to life AS ONE HORRIFIC BEING. A mass of flesh eyes teeth and anguish
I like the "you did it.. hope you got a followup plan!" Idea but for me? I think it would have to woo me over to it like "my guy instilled all his knowledge on being a fighter into a arcane disk, slot the disk into a golem or magitech drone and bam, fighter helper that knows all your stuff.
I prefer to blame reddit lol, but yeah, these exploits have made their way to TH-cam as well. Fortunately it seems like the creators, like the ones I mentioned, are clear that it's just goofing are with loopholes and not something to actually push for in a game :)
@@BobWorldBuilder for sure, but its more so the fact that most of what ive seen from the new dmg are the designers spending ink to respond to bad-faith mechanical nonsense, and not what they've actually innovated (if anything). Youve read the book - how much of it feels like "gotcha"?
It basically doubled down on 2014's "I dont know, who cares, aak the dm" that was already a bad take to have on an OFFICIAL RULE BOOK. It's like if Monopoly had one rule book saying "idk figure it out yourself" and when the rules are finally updated it now says "we dont care, but if you abuse the non-rules we set you're the problem and not us".
I was in a group where the mage used the spell Flesh to Salt on enemies, then we sold the salt for insane amounts of money. Its because salt per pound is/was worth a ton of gold. But all this did was make exploration cheaper for the kingdoms we were in (Preserving food led to colonial expansion) and the price of salt came down as mages scryed on us and stole our secret. We made a decent chunk of gold, enough to afford an airship of our own, and eventually to pay an NPC crew, but never amounts of money more than adventuring and crafting/selling magic items from the ruins we raided.
Not an ill meaning player, but a player that used basic science, a 20 Intelligence, and knowledge of Alchemists Tools to make, I kid you not, Pencils. He used dirt (carbon) and scrap wood to make pencils and sold erasers separately. The spell used to create this Pencil Empire? Fabricate. I've got no clue how to properly balance this spell, and have just kinda accepted that it can do this. If it isn't Pencils, it's Plate Armor. I'm sure Forge Domain Cleric's Channel Divinity also has some sort of exploit due to its similar function. For people who may say "why did you let him make carbon/graphite out of dirt?" Because he just as easily could have made a lot of charcoal from the same scrapwood he was already gathering, and it was the very end of the campaign. I was fine with it at that point. But for people planning on playing beyond level 9 or 10- be wary of Fabricate.
Low key if the character has TWENTY intelligence, they are demi-god level genius and should probably be able to wreck an economy if they want. If anything, this becomes an alignment problem. They could be inventing pasteurization or curing diseases! lol
@BobWorldBuilder They DID use the money they made from that endeavor to eventually build a School System with free education in their hometown funnily enough. Couldn't be happier with their decision!
You have entered the 1E Hallway. You were warned. Rule Hack back in 1E. Hallucinatory Terrain. To sum up, You needed to disbelieve actively to get a saving throw. Druid Casted Terrain of oak. Kingdom cut down the oak trees, made ships. Started a whole navy. As the ships launched, Druid dropped the spell.
I am glad for this, I see arguments all the time like: people be like in the real work you could hold 2 things on one hand or whatever while the rules specifically say you need a free hand to do X thing
Nothing crushes a session like the min-maxing power gamer running around in combat destroying everything in one shot while everyone else at the table stacks their dice.
Yeah I'd go so far as to say that's a combo of: one character who can handle it all themselves, and one player whose turn takes much longer than everyone else. The second part can happen in a lot of cases. The first part is when that player with an OP character needs to recognize if they're sucking up all the fun, and if they can't see it, another player has to let them know, or they'll keep doing it. And hopefully they understand!
The important part for a GM to remember is the "min-" part. 5e is actually pretty good at giving GMs plenty of tools to target a character's weaknesses, and characters always have weaknesses. Force them to make saves in combat based on their weaker saving throws and shut them down for a few turns. And it's always fun to have your huge Fighter cower in fear while their friends take care of the combat.
@@mrosskne why are you watching a DND video if you hate DND? You spam every reply chain that they should just stop playing dnd, but do you actually think people in this comment section will listen to you? Do you think you're actually doing a service to people by spreading "DND sucks lol" to every comment?
I've never had any economy problems no matter how rich my characters get. I just come up with more stuff for them to buy: sailing ships, paid crew, cursed magic swords, cursed magic armour, difficult to care for magical creatures with a dark past, wilderness waterfront property, huge doweries to marry a princess with a mysterious past, etc.
There's a couple of comments about the "barbarian with a bag of rats" trick, but the first time I played a warlock I did some reading and discovered the "warlock with a bag of rats" trick, which allows you to transfer Hex or Hexblade's Curse to a rat when you were done with one combat, and then at the beginning of the next you could kill the rat and transfer it again to the new bad guys. Told my DM about it. He just laughed.
Spells like Fabricate and Creation are what is being referenced when they mention spells breaking the economy. I have in the past, used spells like Fabricate to explain why certain forts and cities can spring up in desolated areas or why towns can recover so quickly. Or, explain why the extra dimensional tavern that my players visit sometimes has supplies and such, which did come up more than once.
You missed a critical component of the Peasant Railgun: Each peasant is continually crafting quarterstaves. This takes zero time and requires zero materials, because crafting was based on the cost of the item and quarterstaves were free in 3rd edition. These were then getting instantly passed to the next peasant in line with a free action. So it wasn't actually a single spear being accelerated, it was an infinite amount of quarterstaves appearing instantaneously out of thin air and then getting accelerated. So, uh, yeah.
In one of the older editions, the monk flying kick is stated "can do a flying kick on any enemy that is in visible range. " As written that means you can have a monk flying around. XD
Fabricate is the traditional "exploit the economy" spell in my experience. It's accessible at level 7, and allows a Wizard with Smith Tools proficiency to turn scrap metal into suits of Plate Armor with a snap of their fingers. They could also reasonably argue Fabricating art by making stone or wood sculptures to sell to nobles, but that's more of a niche market. Everybody loves armor in a world overrun by wild monsters
"Infinite wealth using combinations of spells" to me immediately brings to mind the Coffeelock build which is intended to generate infinite spell slots by taking advantage of interactions between warlock and sorcerer.
A few years ago, I ran a 1-Shot on Roll20, and the first combat was against some Giant Spiders. A player moved between two of the Spiders, and declared that he was going to Grapple both of them at the same time. Naturally, I said that was ridiculous. He argued, "The rules state that you can grapple a creature one size larger than you, and that you only need one free hand to do it. So I will use one hand for each of the Giant Spiders." I still said No, and we continued on. He kept trying to do crazy things. In the final battle against a horde of smaller creatures (maybe Goblins), he was grappling one of them, and slamming it into a wall over and over for a few rounds. The other players were getting frustrated with him, saying "will you please stop screwing around with that thing and help us out." I guess some players just have a different definition of "fun".
The peasant railgun is so annoying too. It only works if you combine D&D physics and real world physics in a very specific way. Only using real world physics the spear will take like a week to get to its destination... where a peasant that isn't proficient can attack for 1d6. Only using D&D physics the spear gets to its destination instantly... where a peasant that isn't proficient can attack for 1d6.
I really thought the peasant rail gun was just a funny thought experiment based on the fact that technically by RAW any object can move an inifinite amount of space if you have enough people standing 5 feet apart in a straight line. I didn't think anyone actually tried to use it in game
Back in my younger days playing 3rd edition (Back in 2001-2002), I found a third party sourcebook called Sword and Sorcery: Creature Collection 2. Inside it was a monster called a Tempus Twin, where the whole schtick was that a future version of it would jump back in time at the start of the round, and the younger version would jump back in time at the end. I was able to reason with my DM at the time to let me play one as a PC (I convinced him by giving it a hefty Level Adjustment using the Savage Species rules, as we were playing a high level campaign), and promptly used the time travel ability to justify passing wealth between past and future versions in such a way that the cascade of backwards time travel would allow for exponential wealth to accrue, which to my absolute surprise he admitted was valid, and so I could buy whatever I wanted. That game never went ahead, but I do occasionally chuckle at the thought of it. As a pretty much forever DM these days, my own exploits as a player trained me to spot other players' shenanigans and smack 'em down.
I was sure that peasant railgun was a joke in the first place. "I cast [any non-combat spell] inside the enemy's body and they die instantly because of the damage to internal organs" though... I haven't seen it at the actual table, but apparently, it happens a lot. Also, if the goal is to trigger the initiative, you can use The Bag of Rats (c) or even attack a brick wall. It's another question that the DM is fully in the right for saying "OK, you killed some rats; I suggest you go wash your hands" (yes, they have attacks, but since the level 3 or so, considering a single rat non-threat sounds reasonable) or "OK, you are hitting the wall with a dagger and look like an idiot" without rolling initiative
For another fun rules exploit of old in a similar vein to the peasant rail gun, I would offer up horse fast travel. Under the 3.5 rules, mounting or dismounting a horse could be done with a free action provided the PC could make a DC 20 ride check. Since free actions were uncapped in a round you could line up an arbitrarily large number of horses and ‘fast travel’ by mounting the first horse as a free action, dismounting the horse on the other side as a free action, mounting the next horse in line as a free action, etc. All that was needed for this (aside from the DM not telling you no) was the ability to never fail a DC 20 ride check but that wasn’t that difficult in 3.5.
The only rules lawyer thing my group always joked about was “An unconscious character is always willing.” This was a 3.5 rule for healing a downed ally, because healing caused a saving throw if you weren’t “willing” to accept the spell.
Good. It’s especially frustrating when people try stuff like the peasant railgun, saying “oh well the rules say you can move an object” and then suddenly stop being rules literalist and talk about real world physics in determining damage.
2:00 the logic behind the peasant railgun is the same as a bunch of other physics hacks. They're using the rules as written to simulate real world physics, so something accelerated to super sonic speeds would do a lot more damage than just thrusting with a spear. I know a real old version of this is the Tenser's floating disk theory. It was based on an old edition where the disk was always perpendicular to the wizard. the wizard casts the spell, another wizard stands on the disk and casts the spell, etc. Then the first one falls on their face and launches all the rest, until the last one goes into orbit.
💥 Sponsored by Displate: displate.com/bobworldbuilder - save up to 44% this Black Friday!
I believe the current max discount is 41% instead of 44%.
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
Ahhhh, haven't heard of that, but that must be part of it
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.
@@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.
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.
@@nschoenwald Honestly though, keeping a bag of small animals to kill for hp feels like a creepy blood ritual a warlock would do.
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.
Excellent policy!
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?
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
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.
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! :)
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. 😂
@@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
@@mrosskne its not a job. its for fun. Dont take everything so seriously
@@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.
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!
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
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
Excellent cautionary tale! Thank you for sharing!
Make it lamp oil... Which only burns on a wick.
Or at very high temperature.
64 cubic feet bahahaha
That's hilarious how that player's terrible math turned into an absolute WMD
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.
Haha yep I've learned about the "bag of rats" today xD
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.
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.
100%
Perhaps WotC should just let players play.
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.
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 :)
Plausibility over realism
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.
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)
Sounds like we need that comic strip back haha, would've been more entertaining than reading a disclaimer
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.
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.
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.
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.
You monster, Baron!
I’ve always seen it ruled as an “improvised weapon” I don’t think it ever worked in the rules
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.
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".
@@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.
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.
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! :)
@@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.
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
"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
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.
Thank you! Yeah just saw another comment about rage, but I suppose it can work for a number of different faetures
I wonder how the Druids and Rangers in the party feel about that...
@@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.
@@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...
I wonder what type of GM would allow such bullshit.
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.
Bingo haha, and every game kinda has to use both rules and physics, just have to use them sensibly!
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.
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.
Describe a big boom then roll d6
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.
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?
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!
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.
@@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.
"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.
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
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.
"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.
Pratchett did it earlier.
@zimriel yeah the idea isn't particularly original, but Skerples writes D&D supplements.
Oh yeah I bet it could lead to an interesting situation for the game world!
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.
Yeah it seems like any mind control spells are just asking to be twisted
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.
For sure! Hoping I didn't conflate those ideas. And wow, can't believe I forgot about the tabaxi
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.
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
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.
@@mrossknename a game without a single exploit
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.
@@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.
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.
Tactical nuke, got it lol
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!
@@1Kapuchu100until you're dealing with an artificer that can make one or both (can't remember) for free
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.
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 👍
The Skyrim strategy.
Or sand into hourglasses, which are made of sand and glass.
Yea, it's that combo that let's player create a 5x5 cube of metal, then fabricate it into daggers and sell them.
Thus devaluing the cost of daggers to the point that no one would pay that price for them.
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
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
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.
Warcaster is an example of not letting players attack each other to exploit rules. When a player uses it's movement running past your caster, you use warcaster to cast Haste or Cure Wounds etc on them.
Warcaster Raw: When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
Opportunity Attacks: You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
I see! And to answer the other reply below about what's stopping the PC-- hopefully nothing! But like the book is saying here, if a maneuver interferes with the group's fun (including the gm of course), the gm can step in to make adjustments
To be perfectly honest counterpoint: If you want to give up your *one* reaction during a round to wc buff a player as opposed to wc attack an enemy, why shouldn't you. You're giving up the same amount of resources for it and have built your character in such a way to deal with whichever the case is. I'm personally fine with the "I run past my cleric with warcaster to let them cast cure on me" and the cleric doing so - and then probably suddenly having the enemies who just watched someone run past a heal spell start to surround the heal spell character...
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.
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
I feel personally called out!
Never actually tried these “exploits” but this is how my brain works.
Haha hey no problem in having fun working out these loopholes. It's just the "I can technically do this therefore you must let me do this" approach that turns into an issue. Happy gaming!
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 nay 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."
Yep famously saying that YOU CANNOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN... if strict time records are not kept(?) paraphrasing of course.
@@BobWorldBuilder disagree but hey what do i know
@@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.
I don't remember which book this came from (possibly ICON by Massif Press or Flying Circus by Erika Chappel?), but I once came across a line that boiled down to "Does that rule exploit seem like it was something the gamedev intended? If not, it probably wasn't. Don't do it."
Excellent way to summarize this concept! I think in this case D&D realized how far people are reaching for some loopholes so wanted to explain it further in this new DMG.
Oh man, I wish I could send this to a very particular person. I used to play with “that guy” who would take a step beyond optimization - he would power game. Doing stuff like always taking two levels of Paladin for the Smite (so glad that’s done for in 2024), regardless of what his character motivations were. He’d be an awful amalgamation of classes and magic items handpicked to make him actually invincible. He “snorted the dust of a wand of polymorph” to have an “astral compass in his head.” With the DM’s permission. I’m not kidding. Basically nerfed my Ranger to be a glorified archer that entire campaign because I never had the chance to track anything. In the next campaign, I made the DM kill off my character, largely so I would have to play with this guy anymore.
I don’t think the laws of physics, like gravity, should be violated in D&D unless there’s a specific magical rationale and if it advances the story. Nearly all the D&D fantasy worlds are earthlike with mostly similar atmosphere, climates, gravity, minerals, elements etc. Humans exist in all these fantasy worlds. If you want a truly alien world without human life you can play a sci-fi rpg.
Yeah physics should only go as far as is reasonable in a magical world when you're playing in a magical world
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.
Oh gosh, perfect example of how different groups have fun in different ways! Glad you're still playing!
The last time I saw someone cry in D&D, he was the 25 year old DM 🤣
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.
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!
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
RE: economic spells "I set up a business where I sell my services casting Fabricate to build keeps/infrastructure/process food etc. Because there is always a need for these things, the demand is high and therefore payout also high"
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"
And it would be a sick callback to the 1e DMG if they included a short section in all caps haha
I find that a decent number of players aren't honest about they want. I'm not saying they are lying necessarily, except maybe to themselves. So a conversation up front doesn't always solve this
I have had players attempt to ready attacks outside of combat like when they are walking down a corridor or preparing to open a door looking to get a free attack before any enemies can strike. I shut that down quickly by pointing out that the Ready action only works in combat after initiative is rolled
I have a regular player in my Adventurers League games who likes to min/max the rules but he is considerate enough to ask me in advance if his ideas can work so that I have time to think about it
I already said this on a previous comment, but yeah, the sheer amount of confusion about how "surprise" works is... surprising :P
Rules lawyer player: we rail gun a spear into the dragon!
Rules lawyer DM: great, roll for a hit, the spear does 1d6 damage.
Bingo
The cantrip friends was literally the infinite money glitch. You would just make sure that you were always traveling and everyone you met that looked like they might have a bit of money you would cast friends on them and then asked to borrow everything that they've got including any money they had and you would just run away and keep traveling repeating the process as needed
Maybe, I think friends is the one that also lets the target know they were influenced by magic when it ends, so you'd accumulate an angry mob pretty quick!
I had a player try to argue with me that his winged boots could be worn when he was in his wild shape because "Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer." As the wearer is now a bear, it should fit his massive bear feet. I told him no. That was obviously included so that smaller or larger races were locked out of items like boots or clothes that normally wouldn't be useable due to their sizes, but it did NOT mean that the item was made of elastic and would stretch on command. So, I told him the normal "Your equipment doesn't change shape or size to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge into your new form." rules applied and his winged boots would merge into his form.
Yeah I couldn't recall the exact rule but I do feel like wildshape already accoutns for what happens to clothing.
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.
Good thing D&D invented in respect in this new rules update lol
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
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!
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.
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.
100%
@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
Bob's former videos testing D&D physics are required watching
Exactly! haha
That countdown went to 0 the exact moment my toast popped out and I got really scared
I did that on purpose
The good thing about BG3 is that it can scratch that particular itch really well. If you want to exploit the rules, play that instead of ruining the game for real people.
True haha, a good way to keep all the exploits to yourself, enjoying the loopholes in all their glory, but not stepping on a whole party's toes.
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.
Glad it worked out! :)
@@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.
I think the only in combat rules applies to people saying they'll just attack the ground until they roll a nat 1 to gain inspiration
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.
Yep it really involves a weird mishmash of physics and rules, when all we need is a SENSIBLE mishmash of physics and rules
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.
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
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
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.
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
@@BobWorldBuilder why would you make a spell useless? if you dislike it that much just dont offer it...
The problem with putting the DM stuff and the Player stuff into the same book is that you'll end up with a massive (~600 page) book that costs way too much for the average player to consider investing in (~$100). Also, lots of people already consider a 300 pg book to be too intimidating. Adding more pages would just make that worse, even if cost wasn't an issue.
Yeah one book would not work if the player rules are 300+ pages, so it only works with my other preference for lighter player rules too haha
7:00 there have been some features that activate when you roll initiative. That is why someone would want to enter combat temporarily with a party member, hamster, house fly, potted plant, etc.
Yeah and another comment reminded me that things like tabaxi's wild movement speed is I guess technically a combat thing? I don't even know anymore though haha
@@BobWorldBuilder The obvious choice would be Barbarian Rage to get Advantage on a Strength check, I guess. You know, punch Bruce Banner to help him turn into The Hulk.
That railgun hack feels like it can be repurposed into a transportation hack. You get leagues of people. You start combat. You argue by the same logic of the railgun hack except the implication you have accelerated things up to impossible speeds. You have now, in six seconds, transported what you want from town to town. Make sure that you draw out a battle for as long as you need to transport things, then run away or end the enemies when you can. You have now made a black market in transportation.
Make a messenger service and call it "the peasant internet" lol
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.
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
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
Haha, ahhh the secretly OP character :) Sounds like a fun way to make it more interesting for the story as well
Win? Win what?
@@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.
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
Oh crap you're right
I believe the thought process behind the commoner railgun is to weaponize fall damage by having your projectile "fall" sideways great distances over the 6-second period. When it gets to the target, it and the object used would then split (X/2)d6 damage, where X is the number of commoners in the line. I'd be more impressed to find someone who can convince 40ish people to risk their lives doing something that seems so silly.
Fabricate is a relatively high level spell that lets you make very expensive stuff very quickly. You'd buy the materials as normal, cast Fabricate, and have a suit of plate armor ready to sell for substantial profit.
Fiend warlocks regain hit points when foes drop to 0 hit points. One could keep a cage full of rats to slaughter when they'd need a refill.
Hmmm I don't really see the fall sideways since it's landing in each peasants hands, like only falling ~2 feet at a time, but maybe that was something different in a previous edition of the game? Anyway haha, you're certainly right on fabricate and fiend warlocks! I've been seeing those in a few other comments too. I'm not sure if they actually fixed these loopholes too, or just put out this disclaimer...
No more Fiend Warlocks killing rats and bugs to top off their temporary hit points before battle.
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.
@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.
Attacking party members:
-Hey I still have my second win
-Ok I attack you with a rusty fork
-AC23, no luck. I activate my second win
-I disengage and say ok ok just making sure you are alright
Then they all had a short rest.
Or -I have one Berserk left. Please slap me every turn while we travel
Or -I have 8 hours left on my hunters mark. I attack you, put it on a party mate and move it once you are down but before we use healing word
The possibilities are endless and none of them strike me as heroic, in character, or to be encouraged. Almost as bad as a Hunter carrying around a dying but stablized goblin to store the mark.
As a _very_ long time DM, the most annoying thing about these "hacks" is that the players always want to act like their character is the first person to ever come up with this idea, and that no enemy could possibly have considered and defended against it, much less come up with it earlier and used it against the party.
Examples from history:
Scry and fry.
Explosive runes book-bomb.
Buying ladders to break down and sell as polls.
Simulacra abuse.
I'd always tell players who want to use these things this: If that is the level of lethality you want in this world, that's fine. But understand this. Your more intelligent and capable enemies are also aware of these things, and as much as possible, they will take preparations to counteract them as well as making use of them against you. If you are comfortable being the subject of a Scry and Fry by the enemy BBEG when you draw his attention, you're more than welcome to use that tactic yourself. If you don't use them as players, I will agree to not use them against you as the DM.
Yep keeping the villains two steps ahead is one way to handle it! I personally prefer the guidance here to just talk to the player, but I know different methods work for different groups
@@BobWorldBuilder Oh, you misunderstand.
That is part of the conversation. If the players _really_ want to use those "cheesy" rules interpretations in their game, that's fine, as long as they understand that this means those interpretations are the standard understanding of how the world works. Consequently, enemies will know about them and use them, too.
Typically, players instantly become completely uninterested in including those interpretations into the game when they discover the party could be on the receiving end.
@@saldiven2009 No, Typically THAT GUY will cry foul the moment you use his "NEW I WIN" button against him.
I let them generate infinite wealth, then have the tax man come. He’s an infinite level demi-god.
Nooooooooooooooooooo
Seriously, if you have players F with the rules to make an infinite money glitch, just introduce every high level rogue in your system to the PC's new enterprise...
One specific player needs to read that last one for real
If your table needs these as written rules, there are bigger issues I think.
Yeah I think this advice is mainly for people playing with kids or for adolescents/adults who learned the game exclusively from reddit :P
@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).
reminds me a bit of an episode of the "Harry potter and the methods of rationality" podcast, where they explain how arbitrage works with wizard and muggle money.
Maybe a question for both rules lawyers and world builders - with the presence of clerics and a lot of people with access to healing spells - how do you justify having people with diseases/life changing injuries, like losing a finger/arm on the construction site of your bastion, when it just needs a healing word to take care of that.
And what happens to a rotten tomato if you bestow greater healing on it?
thanks anyways for your great videos and attitude - I enjoy them a lot.
Excellent question! Yeah the fact that all clerics are not just doctors is a little goofy
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.
There's so much confusion about how surprise works that this doesn't... well, surprise me lol
I feel like theres an actual reasonable manner in which the concept of a peasant railgun could work... like introducing an athletics check with an ever-increasing DC for each instance of catching and throwing an object; start the DC at 10 or 15 and increase by 5 for each additional instance, and each time a DC is passed, add an additional damage die. If anyone fails the check, the chain stops there, and the object lands harmlessly. Whoever is at the end of the chain takes a negative bonus of 3x the number of successful checks made when it comes to making the final attack roll.
If I've learned anything from all this, there's a lot of room for loopholes, so you're probably right haha
"My rage is about to end since I didn't take any damage or attack. Hank, throw a rock at me!"
That just good teamwork, you try that with any other barb abd they will be claiminf your ears.
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
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.
Oh the weather must be really bad if Bob is actually indoors for this one 😀
Haha I think it was a nice day, but I've been behind schedule and not having enough time for the hikes unfortunately
[0:12] I play as a monk with STR 8 and DEX 20. I have a climb speed. I successfully grappled a monster described as a "660 lb, 6 ft 7 in tall gorilla-demon." Since it's classified as a medium creature, I intended to climb while carrying it. Grappling rules are vague and don't specifically address vertical movement. I argued that I could do it as long as the creature wasn’t one size category larger than me. It's bigger, but it's still medium. The DM didn’t allow it.
Am I the jerk?
You're not a jerk, and neither is the GM! They gotta make a lot of calls under pressure. But here's what I'd probably have done: since the creature was technically the right size, I'd probably have flavored it that your character is so FAST, that the momentum was still able to move this much bulkier creature
As a GM, I would have asked how you intend to climb while grappling a frankly furious gorilla.
Strength 8 has a maximum carry of maybe 200 pounds. A Nat 20 Strength check fails.
Your DM ruled right. The weight of the creature is more than your carrying capacity with a STR 8 so you can't not only climb but move more than 5 feets while grappling it.
@@mrossknewhy are you being rude? You could convey the exact same information without sounding insulting, and if they're having fun playing a slightly broken character, what's wrong? DND is a game, and games are supposed to be fun. If they're having fun, there's no problem.
I started playing with 1st Edition back in 81' yeah now hold off the grandpa jokes, my point is in the 1st Ed DM's Guide it says (I still have it in storage) "These are not books of rules, these are guidelines. If you want or need to change them it is up the the GM's discretion."
That may not be a perfect quote but it IS printed in there. Players doing/trying goofy sh!t is baked into the game. I once played a game where the theme was "Evil Disco" & the Red dragon in his hoard chamber was wearing a Leisure suit, dancing under a mirror ball and singing "Staying Alive" when the group came to kill him. The pile of platform shoes in the corner gathered from past adventurers was meant to be a warning...
Just game, don't "GAME"...
I can't quote it either, but I know the passage you're referencing! Also that's wild, I once also wrote a disco adventure (but with undead, not a dragon). Great advice all around.
More generally known as "the Golden Rule," the idea that the rules are just guidelines and the DM/GM/ST has final jurisdiction has been present in just about every (professional) RPG I've ever read. I've heard plenty of silly "rules interpretations" over the years myself, but I have yet to meet a player who seriously wants to do this sort of thing in a game we're playing.
Im so glad ive never played at a table where this stuff goes on. People have spotted this kind of stuff, folks have joked about it, then we just play like normal people. Because its the stupidest kind of cleverness.
Yeah, I think most people just play it for laughs-- aka for fun, as it should be :)
Anything with an immovable rod.
Best magic item 😎
To add to the fun money glitches: 3.5 had a spell called "Flesh to Salt" . Instead of petrifying the target it turned it into statue of salt. Cue buying the most cost/size efficient animal, usually some form of cow, having it stand on a tarp then getting a cow's volume in salt afrer a single casting.
They would wrap the statue in the tarp, smash it into a powder, split it up into sacs and sell it on the market, as the cow was NOT worth it's volume in salt, it would be a good profit.
This was also a way to, uh... remove one's enemies from the picture...
Ive never seen the peasant railgun in real life but id allow it while explaining breaking physics will have consequences as the universe attempt to balance itself.
Id fully describe it as reaching impossible speeds, broken physics, tears in reality. "This shouldnt be possible" you all think as you witness in amazement and horror. Then a large explosion is heard and everyone but the first and last in line takes 4d12 force damage, and also the ground under them is on fire DeLorean style. for another 1d8 damage. Anyone who dies explodes like a water balloon filled with blood....
And the final villager rolls to attack with disadvantage as all their friends explode up their back and they throw the spear at the troll for... 1d8 damage. (i rolled a 5)
Then miraculously all the dead villagers come back to life AS ONE HORRIFIC BEING. A mass of flesh eyes teeth and anguish
I like the "you did it.. hope you got a followup plan!" Idea but for me?
I think it would have to woo me over to it like "my guy instilled all his knowledge on being a fighter into a arcane disk, slot the disk into a golem or magitech drone and bam, fighter helper that knows all your stuff.
@@Subject_Keter You have confused me
it feels like the dmg is just...the writers compiling the footnotes from the last 10 years of youtube.
I prefer to blame reddit lol, but yeah, these exploits have made their way to TH-cam as well. Fortunately it seems like the creators, like the ones I mentioned, are clear that it's just goofing are with loopholes and not something to actually push for in a game :)
@@BobWorldBuilder for sure, but its more so the fact that most of what ive seen from the new dmg are the designers spending ink to respond to bad-faith mechanical nonsense, and not what they've actually innovated (if anything). Youve read the book - how much of it feels like "gotcha"?
It basically doubled down on 2014's "I dont know, who cares, aak the dm" that was already a bad take to have on an OFFICIAL RULE BOOK.
It's like if Monopoly had one rule book saying "idk figure it out yourself" and when the rules are finally updated it now says "we dont care, but if you abuse the non-rules we set you're the problem and not us".
@@mrosskne i agree
@@albertonishiyama1980I mean, ttrpgs aren't monopoly. In a TTRPG, the rules are tools more than they are THE RULES.
I was in a group where the mage used the spell Flesh to Salt on enemies, then we sold the salt for insane amounts of money. Its because salt per pound is/was worth a ton of gold. But all this did was make exploration cheaper for the kingdoms we were in (Preserving food led to colonial expansion) and the price of salt came down as mages scryed on us and stole our secret. We made a decent chunk of gold, enough to afford an airship of our own, and eventually to pay an NPC crew, but never amounts of money more than adventuring and crafting/selling magic items from the ruins we raided.
Not an ill meaning player, but a player that used basic science, a 20 Intelligence, and knowledge of Alchemists Tools to make, I kid you not, Pencils.
He used dirt (carbon) and scrap wood to make pencils and sold erasers separately. The spell used to create this Pencil Empire? Fabricate.
I've got no clue how to properly balance this spell, and have just kinda accepted that it can do this. If it isn't Pencils, it's Plate Armor. I'm sure Forge Domain Cleric's Channel Divinity also has some sort of exploit due to its similar function.
For people who may say "why did you let him make carbon/graphite out of dirt?" Because he just as easily could have made a lot of charcoal from the same scrapwood he was already gathering, and it was the very end of the campaign. I was fine with it at that point. But for people planning on playing beyond level 9 or 10- be wary of Fabricate.
Low key if the character has TWENTY intelligence, they are demi-god level genius and should probably be able to wreck an economy if they want. If anything, this becomes an alignment problem. They could be inventing pasteurization or curing diseases! lol
@BobWorldBuilder They DID use the money they made from that endeavor to eventually build a School System with free education in their hometown funnily enough. Couldn't be happier with their decision!
You have entered the 1E Hallway. You were warned.
Rule Hack back in 1E. Hallucinatory Terrain. To sum up, You needed to disbelieve actively to get a saving throw. Druid Casted Terrain of oak. Kingdom cut down the oak trees, made ships. Started a whole navy. As the ships launched, Druid dropped the spell.
Hey, that's me! The pencil empire will never die. (And hey, I was working on bringing education to the continent, not just Kirian!)
I am glad for this, I see arguments all the time like: people be like in the real work you could hold 2 things on one hand or whatever while the rules specifically say you need a free hand to do X thing
Nothing crushes a session like the min-maxing power gamer running around in combat destroying everything in one shot while everyone else at the table stacks their dice.
Yeah I'd go so far as to say that's a combo of: one character who can handle it all themselves, and one player whose turn takes much longer than everyone else. The second part can happen in a lot of cases. The first part is when that player with an OP character needs to recognize if they're sucking up all the fun, and if they can't see it, another player has to let them know, or they'll keep doing it. And hopefully they understand!
The important part for a GM to remember is the "min-" part. 5e is actually pretty good at giving GMs plenty of tools to target a character's weaknesses, and characters always have weaknesses. Force them to make saves in combat based on their weaker saving throws and shut them down for a few turns. And it's always fun to have your huge Fighter cower in fear while their friends take care of the combat.
@@mrosskne why are you watching a DND video if you hate DND? You spam every reply chain that they should just stop playing dnd, but do you actually think people in this comment section will listen to you? Do you think you're actually doing a service to people by spreading "DND sucks lol" to every comment?
That sounds like a GM problem.
I've never had any economy problems no matter how rich my characters get. I just come up with more stuff for them to buy: sailing ships, paid crew, cursed magic swords, cursed magic armour, difficult to care for magical creatures with a dark past, wilderness waterfront property, huge doweries to marry a princess with a mysterious past, etc.
There's a couple of comments about the "barbarian with a bag of rats" trick, but the first time I played a warlock I did some reading and discovered the "warlock with a bag of rats" trick, which allows you to transfer Hex or Hexblade's Curse to a rat when you were done with one combat, and then at the beginning of the next you could kill the rat and transfer it again to the new bad guys.
Told my DM about it. He just laughed.
Spells like Fabricate and Creation are what is being referenced when they mention spells breaking the economy. I have in the past, used spells like Fabricate to explain why certain forts and cities can spring up in desolated areas or why towns can recover so quickly. Or, explain why the extra dimensional tavern that my players visit sometimes has supplies and such, which did come up more than once.
how to make money: Plant Growth (Hemp) + Fabricate = textiles.
You missed a critical component of the Peasant Railgun: Each peasant is continually crafting quarterstaves. This takes zero time and requires zero materials, because crafting was based on the cost of the item and quarterstaves were free in 3rd edition. These were then getting instantly passed to the next peasant in line with a free action. So it wasn't actually a single spear being accelerated, it was an infinite amount of quarterstaves appearing instantaneously out of thin air and then getting accelerated.
So, uh, yeah.
In one of the older editions, the monk flying kick is stated "can do a flying kick on any enemy that is in visible range. " As written that means you can have a monk flying around. XD
Fabricate is the traditional "exploit the economy" spell in my experience. It's accessible at level 7, and allows a Wizard with Smith Tools proficiency to turn scrap metal into suits of Plate Armor with a snap of their fingers.
They could also reasonably argue Fabricating art by making stone or wood sculptures to sell to nobles, but that's more of a niche market. Everybody loves armor in a world overrun by wild monsters
An entire WotC D&D branded book abouy saying "No." still would not help a generation of players absofuckinglutely TERRIFIED of social conflict.
"Infinite wealth using combinations of spells" to me immediately brings to mind the Coffeelock build which is intended to generate infinite spell slots by taking advantage of interactions between warlock and sorcerer.
A few years ago, I ran a 1-Shot on Roll20, and the first combat was against some Giant Spiders. A player moved between two of the Spiders, and declared that he was going to Grapple both of them at the same time. Naturally, I said that was ridiculous. He argued, "The rules state that you can grapple a creature one size larger than you, and that you only need one free hand to do it. So I will use one hand for each of the Giant Spiders." I still said No, and we continued on.
He kept trying to do crazy things. In the final battle against a horde of smaller creatures (maybe Goblins), he was grappling one of them, and slamming it into a wall over and over for a few rounds. The other players were getting frustrated with him, saying "will you please stop screwing around with that thing and help us out."
I guess some players just have a different definition of "fun".
I friggin' love this book
It's certainly a step up
The peasant railgun is so annoying too. It only works if you combine D&D physics and real world physics in a very specific way.
Only using real world physics the spear will take like a week to get to its destination... where a peasant that isn't proficient can attack for 1d6.
Only using D&D physics the spear gets to its destination instantly... where a peasant that isn't proficient can attack for 1d6.
I really thought the peasant rail gun was just a funny thought experiment based on the fact that technically by RAW any object can move an inifinite amount of space if you have enough people standing 5 feet apart in a straight line. I didn't think anyone actually tried to use it in game
Back in my younger days playing 3rd edition (Back in 2001-2002), I found a third party sourcebook called Sword and Sorcery: Creature Collection 2. Inside it was a monster called a Tempus Twin, where the whole schtick was that a future version of it would jump back in time at the start of the round, and the younger version would jump back in time at the end. I was able to reason with my DM at the time to let me play one as a PC (I convinced him by giving it a hefty Level Adjustment using the Savage Species rules, as we were playing a high level campaign), and promptly used the time travel ability to justify passing wealth between past and future versions in such a way that the cascade of backwards time travel would allow for exponential wealth to accrue, which to my absolute surprise he admitted was valid, and so I could buy whatever I wanted. That game never went ahead, but I do occasionally chuckle at the thought of it. As a pretty much forever DM these days, my own exploits as a player trained me to spot other players' shenanigans and smack 'em down.
I was sure that peasant railgun was a joke in the first place. "I cast [any non-combat spell] inside the enemy's body and they die instantly because of the damage to internal organs" though... I haven't seen it at the actual table, but apparently, it happens a lot.
Also, if the goal is to trigger the initiative, you can use The Bag of Rats (c) or even attack a brick wall. It's another question that the DM is fully in the right for saying "OK, you killed some rats; I suggest you go wash your hands" (yes, they have attacks, but since the level 3 or so, considering a single rat non-threat sounds reasonable) or "OK, you are hitting the wall with a dagger and look like an idiot" without rolling initiative
For another fun rules exploit of old in a similar vein to the peasant rail gun, I would offer up horse fast travel. Under the 3.5 rules, mounting or dismounting a horse could be done with a free action provided the PC could make a DC 20 ride check. Since free actions were uncapped in a round you could line up an arbitrarily large number of horses and ‘fast travel’ by mounting the first horse as a free action, dismounting the horse on the other side as a free action, mounting the next horse in line as a free action, etc. All that was needed for this (aside from the DM not telling you no) was the ability to never fail a DC 20 ride check but that wasn’t that difficult in 3.5.
The only rules lawyer thing my group always joked about was “An unconscious character is always willing.” This was a 3.5 rule for healing a downed ally, because healing caused a saving throw if you weren’t “willing” to accept the spell.
I would say the exact *opposite* is true as a general statement, but I see it for healing
@ yea, we never actually argued about it, but it was one of “those” questions that we laughed about
Good. It’s especially frustrating when people try stuff like the peasant railgun, saying “oh well the rules say you can move an object” and then suddenly stop being rules literalist and talk about real world physics in determining damage.
2:00 the logic behind the peasant railgun is the same as a bunch of other physics hacks. They're using the rules as written to simulate real world physics, so something accelerated to super sonic speeds would do a lot more damage than just thrusting with a spear. I know a real old version of this is the Tenser's floating disk theory. It was based on an old edition where the disk was always perpendicular to the wizard. the wizard casts the spell, another wizard stands on the disk and casts the spell, etc. Then the first one falls on their face and launches all the rest, until the last one goes into orbit.
I appreciate them calling out the no PvP thing because I’ve dealt with that as a player so I wasn’t in a position to object to it
I've never heard of this peasant railgun, but it would be welcome at my table.