If they had two attacks, I’d probably allow eating dirt as a substitute for a second attack.

Ah… the ol’ switch’over’to’cover’roo

That character must make some exquisite mosaic poos.

If that second opponent was a pirate and uses the eye patch for what it was meant for, it would not make any difference.

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.

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.

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?!”

You fool, you gave him darkvision

‘I have you now Blackbeard, I’ve ruined your night vision! YOUR NIGHT VISION!!!’

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

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.

Crits on anything that are not attacks are what bither me most. “Natural 20!” “Ok what’s the total?”

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.