Once, I played at a table where we did an x-mas themed one-off.
Fast-forward to the climax of the session where we face off against an evil santa. As a bard, I had to get very creative.
Me: Describe him for us. Is he wearing the full santa claus getup?
DM: Of course!
Me: Including the red hat and the big 'ol belt-buckle around his big 'ol belly?
DM: Who do you take me for? He’s the spitting image of St. Nick.
Me: Great! I cast heat metal on the belt buckle.
DM: …
DM:
Not D&D-specific, but one party member with Quietus and one with Obtenebration was absolutely nasty in Vampire back in the day. There have been several rulebook revisions since then, so I have to assume those powers either suck or no longer exist now.
If that second opponent was a pirate and uses the eye patch for what it was meant for, it would not make any difference.
Everyone remembers the part in Mythbusters where they proved this is possible. Nobody remembers the part where they found no evidence of it ever happening.
Also, the eye patch trope was originally for sailors in general. Which would make sense if this is what it was used for, since all sailors would need night vision, but that just means it’s even crazier that nobody would bother to write it down.
They used deck prisms to see below decks. That would give you plenty of light during the day, and during the night your eyes are already adjusted to the dark.
Sure but we have also lost things that you’d think someone would write down properly if only for the purpose of manifests or similar things. Like Roman concrete where all the recipes we had failed to note that you needed to use salt water specifically or how I believe it was British naval vessels had three standardized condiments which we know the first two I think it was mayo and ketchup but we don’t know what the third was we think it was probably vinegar due to its common use in recipes at the time but we aren’t certain. It’s often times the most mundane things that are lost, reminds me how in 40k it’s all but stated that the control runes for more ancient tech are probably just our symbols for power on/off or whatnot they just lost the cultural context.
It’s still a huge stretch to go from “this could possibly work, but there’s no evidence that it was ever used besides sailors often being drawn with eyepatches” to “ever single sailor on the ship wore an eyepatch, and everyone forgot why and also depicted most sailors as not having eyepatches for some reason”.
Oh I doubt they all used that but it could’ve been a backup/specialist method dependent on ship or crew member. It wouldve been enough that when combined with actual eye injuries which could’ve been caused by any number of things it got stuck in on a cultural level, it’s like how under shirts got labeled tank tops because enough tankers kept getting too hot in their tanks so they stripped down to their skivvies. Doesn’t take much for memetics to kick in on such things, which when combined with ill records can cause a weird dissident of information.
when combined with actual eye injuries
Doesn’t take much for memetics to kick in
That alone is enough to explain our observations (the trope).
So, to summarize your point, if this happened but not very often, it wouldn’t leave any evidence. We have no evidence, therefore it must have happened, just not very often.
Probably, there may be evidence if you cross referenced a bunch of old journals, possibly medical logs, and maybe familial oral traditions. But yeah without going through largely inane and scattered documents it’s probably one of those self perpetuating memetic things that pops up on occasion because for a short period of time an uptick in sailors with eye patches happened and it got stuck culturally.
The best you could probably do to actually disprove such a thing would be to find where the source was, which would in all likelihood come down to a certain model of ship or a specific cultural tradition. Hell given how commonly shit goes back to Odin it could be a lost form of worship that got wrapped up in with sailor folklore after the viking age.
‘I have you now Blackbeard, I’ve ruined your night vision! YOUR NIGHT VISION!!!’
If the room was bright… yes, it would! Even if only momentarily.
You fool, you gave him darkvision
Phantasmal Force is great. Used it on a Mini-Boss fighting alongside the Big Bad and then described “a giant goose comes crashing through the skylight, with it’s head low it charges you with a furious ‘HONK!’”
The DM played along a little by rolling to randomize what he swung at each round. Everytime he’d swing at the goose to “keep the illusion” I’d describe that he successfully hacked off a head, but now two more sprouted in its place and the honking intensifies.
The best part was the last sliver of damage he took was from the Phantasmal Force. So in his mind he was slain by a hydra goose.
A DM once attacked our party with wargs in an arctic tundra in the dead of night.
I discovered an offensive use of Create Water.
When you think about it, the body of any living creature is an open container made of animal skin.
That’s been thought of so many times that d&d tells you it doesn’t work inside living things, and has done so for a few versions
Oh yes, I’m aware. I still think it’s funny enough to share with players who haven’t heard it before.
Creative. Could you create water inside of someone? Fill their bladder up?
From the d20srd for d&d 3.5:
Note: Conjuration spells can’t create substances or objects within a creature.
Could you do it within rock and cause explosions?
I think so, but water might just squirt out, freezing conditions though
You fill their lungs up. It was creative the first time, but it’s a very well-known shenanigan at this point. 3.5 had a specific note in Create Water: Conjuration spells can’t create substances or objects within a creature.
Surely “grab tile and eat it” is a standard action, right? Letting that be a free action seems like a weird call by the DM…
It also involves lowering your guard, so should trigger AOps.
Meh, if it’s a one off and not an important fight? Doing it for the sake of a gag I’ve got no problem with. Just don’t want it to be a consistent thing.
What if that’s the core fault of my character? Can only eat tiles so eats it whenever it’s available
That character must make some exquisite mosaic poos.
Eh, +2 on the next hit after you miss, if you do enough damage to only some kinds of floor and if you pass an intimidation check is almost nothing. The problem I have is that it’d get old, so the player has to come up with new material.
Thought: A barbarian subclass that has a version of cutting words, but instead of insults it’s shit like this
Path of the Weird Flex.
Just don’t want it to be a consistent thing.
Easy, make the player deal with the consequences of eating a handful of gravel.
For the next 12 hours, every hour roll a constitution check against 1d4 of gastrointestinal damage.
Loosely, you get a “use object interaction” every turn that isn’t given a lot of emphasis but is in the rules as “other activity on your turn” (pg 190, PHB 2014). It includes something like talking, opening an unlocked door during your movement, picking up something within reach from a table, or unsheathing your sword as part of your attack action. It says it should require an action only if it needs special care or presents an unusual obstacle. I’d agree that grabbing a handful of dust and putting it in your mouth could be a free action.
They used their free object interaction to pick up the tile. They’d need another action to eat it. Though going by that logic, they could just eat it at the beginning of their next turn with the same result.
This is the type of shit I dislike about DnD.
In any system I write and run, you simply get 2 actions per turn. Action types are a complication that add nothing to the game.But then you have to give up one of your attacks to move or do anything else that takes an action. On the other hand, when you have different types of actions, it feels like a waste when you have one you haven’t used but there’s nothing even slightly useful you can do with it.
Pathfinder deals with it by giving you three actions, but the second attack is at a -5 penalty and the third is at -10, so you’re not giving up much by using one of your actions to move. It is a complication, but I think it’s useful. Though I think I’d prefer something a bit lighter on the rules.
But then you have to give up one of your attacks to move or do anything else that takes an action
Yes. That’s generally how it is. If you first have to run to your opponent to hit them, you can’t hit them as often as if you were already there.
If you shoot while moving, you will have a lower effective rate of fire.
But my actual point is: turn-based combat is always an abstraction. I like to abstract it a bit more than DnD does, simply to avoid wasting any game time on arguing about action types.
It honestly just comes down to your DM style. An interaction like this is fun and has no mechanical benefit. If a player then wanted to pick up a potion and drink it as part of a free action, the DM would have to explain this to the players explicitly. But I’ve always been on the side of permissive rulings, because it allows the players to express themselves more freely. It takes more improvisation though.
But it did have a mechanical benefit!
In this instance I wouldn’t have given the intimidation, no. I’d have allowed them to put the debris in their mouth but the npc was distracted by the attack and didn’t see. To intimidate them would take an action, and a success would give them the frightened condition.
If they had two attacks, I’d probably allow eating dirt as a substitute for a second attack.
Aww. It’s such a quirky and funny thought, imagine eating the rubble as an intimidation attempt, like, the guy just missed but is trying to turn it into a “that was intentional, I wanted you to know what I’m going to do to your BRAIN after I cave in your skull!”
This is the kind of stuff that makes a game memorable IMO. As a DM, even if you don’t want to allow it for some reason, just go along with it. Fake a roll and have the opponent yell back “Bahahah I haven’t even hit you yet and you’re already getting ready to start shitting bricks?!”
Reminder that by RAW in 5e (2014 at least) skill checks are a standard action.
This is handwaved 90% of the time (except for Maze in my experience) but still.
Eating dirt could be an object interaction, which I recall is similar to sheathing or unsheathing a weapon and you get one of those free per round.
Reminder that by RAW in 5e (2014 at least) skill checks are a standard action.
This is still true with 2024, and in this specific instance is even more codified in the rules with the addition of the Influence action (basically making any kind of Charisma check to influence another creature)
I’m glad these people are having fun, but I always feel a bit put off when some random group’s homebrew and table rulings are pitched as being typical d&d.
So adjusting the game slightly to suit what the group feels would enhance their experience makes it… not counting as the game somehow?
So my Rimworld isn’t Rimworld anymore because i added some Mods?
I think this is gatekeeping, tbh.
There’s a spectrum of play that runs from strict rules-as-written to complete calvinball. Calvinball can be fun, but it’s not really a transferrable game. It’s very particular to that moment and that group.
Sometimes people post wacky calvinball moments (eg: rolling damage against the floor, a free action to eat tiles, a +2 bonus to hit) as if that’s baseline RAW DND. It is not. Many tables would be like “wtf, that’s not how this game works”. So it can be kind of weird when it’s presented as obvious, as if it’s raw, when it’s just make pretend.
Imagine if the post was “we were playing basketball and I missed the shot, so I got in my car and drove up close so I could jump off the roof and dunk”. Like, wacky story but not how you’re supposed to play the game.
Furthermore, DND specifically is kind of bad at creativity. It’s very precariously balanced, with specific rules in odd places and no rules in others. Compare with, for example, Fate, which has “this thing in the scene works to my advantage” rules built in. DND is almost entirely in the hands of the DM.
Furthermore, DND specifically is kind of bad at creativity. It’s very precariously balanced, with specific rules in odd places and no rules in others. Compare with, for example, Fate, which has “this thing in the scene works to my advantage” rules built in. DND is almost entirely in the hands of the DM.
It was never intended to be a complete, all-encompassing ruleset. It’s a framework that you build on. It’s intentionally open-ended because that allows greater freedom for both the DM and the players. If the rules are too strict then the gameplay is just mechanics with little room for roleplay.
But dnd’s paradox is it is both open ended and rigid. My problem is it’s too open ended in many ways (eg: social conflict), almost completely missing rules in other parts (eg: meta game mechanics, conceding conflicts), and too rigid in others (eg: Eldritch blast targeting rules, unarmed smite and sneak attack). That’s not even going into the bigger problems like the adventuring day or how coarse class+level makes many concepts impractical at best.
On top of that, it is so mega popular many players have no other reference points and don’t realize its assumptions are not universally true. It’s like people who have only ever watched the Lord of the rings movies, and they’re like “of course movies are four hours long and have horses. That’s just how movies are.”
The main things DND 5e does well are popular support, and the very small decision space for players makes it hard to make a character that’s mechanically very weak or very strong. It brings nothing special to the table for roleplaying.
Compare with my go-to example of Fate, which has simple systems to encourage it. CofD, my second favorite, also does.
Basketball is a competitive team sport. Not really a valid comparison.
DND is a team game, and both have agreed upon rules. Not sure I follow your objection
That’s not what he said at all. He pointed out that recommending a game and then listing examples that aren’t actually part of the game’s core rules is a bit weird. It sets an expectation that may lead to disappointment or argument.
“I love Rimworld, it’s got so many Big Naturals in it” would be, I presume, misleading *
* I’ve never played Rimworld but I assume it has Big Naturals mods like everything else
I have also never played Rimworld but curiosity got the better of me and against my better judgment I checked to see if you were correct.
You were.
No. These people are welcome to play however they want. They’re having a good time and that’s great for them.
Pitching this as “d&d is great” when the entire story hinges on multiple table specific rulings makes this both less relatable for players of d&d used to a different tone of play and can set unrealistic expectations for new players who might join a game that plays very differently.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t play like this, or that this isn’t d&d. It’s just a very specific scenario that is quite likely to be non-representative of many games.
I’d say this is more of a “RPGs are great” moment than anything else. Any table could have stories like this with any system. It’s only a d&d story in particular because that’s the most popular system. Any system can be house-ruled to do whatever, and that’s the joy of pen and paper games as opposed to board games or video games, where the rules are more difficult to change.
Yes, completely agreed.
There are also systems much better at this than D&D, which makes calling it out as being the “great” thing here even more out of place.
If you want crunchier rules that have these kind of flavourful interactions you could play PF2e, which literally lets you roll intimidate to debuff your opponent and you have to actions available to do so after swinging your weapon. If you want something looser and more freeform that encourages improvisation maybe take a look at Legend in the Mist or something.
That’s kind of my point though. It’s still d&d, even with house rules. So it’s perfectly fine (imho) to say d&d is great.
If it’s less relatable to you because of that then… don’t relate to it. I enjoy reading about other peoples fun sometimes and couldn’t give two fucks about the ruleset they use. But hey, different strokes and all that.
Expectations for new players will most likely be “oh, this sounds like fun” more than “i want to do this super specific thing too and will be heartbroken if i find out it was all a big lie”.
About representation i must say that most tables o played at had some house rules.
D&D is great because it allows for creative freedom and doesn’t require that everything be explicitly permitted in the written rules. It is always the DM’s prerogative to set a DC for any action and make the player roll for it, then roleplay the outcome, which is a lot more fun than just saying “no, you can’t do that because it’s not described in the rule book”.
This isn’t “homebrew”, it’s the right way to play.
D&D is great because it allows for creative freedom
This is not something unique to dnd! In fact, DND is not even especially good at this!
It’s like people are saying “mayonnaise is great because you can add it to any meal”, which is technically true, but meanwhile salt is right there being ignored on the shelf.
It’s like people are saying “mayonnaise is great because you can add it to any meal”, which is technically true, but meanwhile salt is right there being ignored on the shelf.
I think you’re misinterpreting this discussion.
This is not something unique to dnd! In fact, DND is not even especially good at this!
Of course creativity and flexibility are not exclusive to D&D. This discussion is not about D&D vs. other RPG systems, it’s about the explicit permissiveness of D&D. Basically, some people consider the rules to be permissive (e.g. everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed) whereas others consider the rules to be restrictive (everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden).
My point is that the permissive interpretation is better for gameplay, and I think that argument would apply to any gaming system in general.
This whole conversation is at least using the words “DND” even if one could argue they’re not actually talking about DND specifically. Thus, I was making the point that if you do want a system that rewards creative players DND is not a good one.
What system are you thinking of that stands in contrast to dnd’s “explicit permissiveness”?
I’m not even sure what you mean by the “permissive interpretation”. Is that the Calvinball mode? Games can definitely go badly when it turns into an inconsistent, unpredictable mess. Games have rules so we don’t argue like children on the playground going “I hit you. No you didn’t. Yes I did. I have a force field. Well I have an anti force field laser…”
I’d go so far as to say it’s not just the DM’s prerogative to set DCs for actions the players want to take but literally part of their job as specifically outlined in the core rules on ability checks.
The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that’s in question.
The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that’s in question.
OK, which part is?
Since you asked:
- Rolling damage against the floor on a miss
- The intimidate check granting a +2 to hit as a free action
- Using Mage Hand to manipulate items that are worn/held by a creature
The damage against the floor is a minor thing, and smashing up the place as a consequence of fighting there is a reasonable bit of extra flavour. I’m not against it.
A free action that grants a skill check to get +2 to hit on your next attack as a reward for missing is wildly disproportionate. There are feats worse than that. If this is a thing people can do why would literally everyone playing not be constantly chewing up the floor in every encounter?
Broadly speaking objects that are worn or held are exempted from automatic manipulation by spells and effects, though this is usually called out in the description of the effect. Telekinesis, which is much stronger than Mage Hand, is one such spell which grants the wearer a save. Then you have things like Catapult, Daylight, or Fireball’s ignition effect, from which held or carried items are flatly immune. Personally I’d consider that grounds to extend that same restriction to Mage Hand.
A free action that grants a skill check to get +2 to hit on your next attack as a reward for missing is wildly disproportionate. There are feats worse than that. If this is a thing people can do why would literally everyone playing not be constantly chewing up the floor in every encounter?
Ok, yes I can see the potential problems but I think they’re easy to handle by just carrying out the action to its logical outcome - which is that the player just ate a handful of gravel. Now if they’re a dwarf maybe that’s not an issue, but also a dwarf eating gravel might not be any more intimidating than a human eating popcorn. On the other hand if they’re an elf or a human or something, well even if they pass a constitution save to not immediately start puking, they’re getting broken teeth, a mouthful of rock dust, and future digestion problems.
Sure, they can take an action that is technically possible within the game world, but actions have consequences. The gravel didn’t just disappear because they succeeded on the intimidation roll.
Broadly speaking objects that are worn or held are exempted from automatic manipulation by spells and effects, though this is usually called out in the description of the effect.
I agree this one’s more of a stretch, I’d say specifically because Mage Hand Legerdemain has specific rules about worn/carried objects that can be manipulated, which implies that anything not defined there cannot be manipulated.
I wouldn’t call those homebrew. They don’t have new rules that are consistently followed. It’s more just allowing Rule of Cool. I really hope typical D&D allows the occasional shenanigan.
Every table uses some form of house rule though. The description won’t be your exact D&D experience but it IS a typical one.
Much of the creativity that becomes canonized was someone’s house rules first. Zines and meet ups allowed for players and dm’s to exchange stories and rules that made their game fun to play. The game co-evolved with active community engagement and feedback.
It was an important time for its development.
Crits on anything that are not attacks are what bither me most. “Natural 20!” “Ok what’s the total?”
I always see rolling a 20 or a 1 as an opportunity for rediculousness to ensue and the modifiers help decide what kind of rediculousness. Skilled swordsman rolls a 1? They have a hilarious fumble meanwhile someone who’s never picked up a sword might be stabbing themselves with disadvantage (because the goal isn’t to kill the player but to let the dice add flavor. Also accidentally stabbing yourself would probably do less damage than intentionally stabbing someone)
Person who’s never picked up a sword rolls a 20? Guess they’re now demonstrating awe-inspiring sword skill that they will never be able to match
Personally I rather dislike “5% of every attempt will be wacky”, especially when multiplied by “higher level people are making more attempts, and thus are having more wackiness”.
The fighter who makes three attacks a round is going to have three times as many “hilarious fumbles” compared to the lower level fighter only making one.
This is part of why I prefer dice pools over a flat single die system.
I had my familiar transform into a bird to shit in an assassins mouth to interrupt a spell without causing a diplomatic incident at a wedding.
I didn’t know familiars had laser sight on their cloaca
Only with the proper feats
And you just know it was 3.5e. Damn thousand splatbooks and their feats.
I don’t think oblex spawns normally are traditionally given guns either, but that didn’t stop me. Wish we could finish that campaign.
Whenever the DM gives me enough money at character creation, I buy two immovable rods so that I can fly by way of magical monkey bars.
Now that is a high stakes strength check.
Another metbod uses Boots of Levitation and a single Immovable Rod so you basically have an invisible pump rail cart.
Ah… the ol’ switch’over’to’cover’roo
