Possibilities are endless
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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 the 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.
-
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.
Just don’t want it to be a consistent thing.
Easy, make the player deal with the consequences of eating a handful of gravel.
-
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
-
I didn’t know familiars had laser sight on their cloaca
Only with the proper feats
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
I didn’t know familiars had laser sight on their cloaca
I don’t think oblex spawns normally are traditionally given guns either, but that didn’t stop me. Wish we could finish that campaign.
-
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.
Basketball is a competitive team sport. Not really a valid comparison.
-
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.
-
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.
-
When you think about it, the body of any living creature is an open container made of animal skin.
Creative. Could you create water inside of someone? Fill their bladder up?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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.
-
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)
