>>94485032
Surely by attacking something, it becomes my enemy?

>>94485032
Your post says something but then the picture shows pretty common sense concepts. Did you pick the wrong capture or are you bad at reading?

>>94485032
>don't let players attack helpless creatures
what the fuck
how am i supposed to execute enemies after the Sleep spell?

>>94485032
I have always chuckled about the specific call out of the peasant railgun.

Honestly though, they're reasonable rules. It's mostly just codifying the fact you can, and should, shut down these kinds of exploits as a DM.

>>94485089
first one is peasant railgun
second is ladders and quarterstaves
third is sack of rats
no idea about the last one

>>94485082
I'm pretty sure that's intended to be an injunction against allowing abilities with effects like 'gain 1 temporary hp when you make an attack' or whatever to be used out of combat against a bag of rats to ramp your stats up to silly levels out of combat.

>>94485134
>to ramp your stats up to silly levels out of combat.
well, those're all limited and don't stack (like your temp hp example)
I've had a player with a blood spear that gave him temp HP when he killed stuff and he'd just stab a rat after every combat that ended without him having temp hp, cause that's just smart use of the ability
not amused with the total "no no bad" attitude, there's some wiggle room

>>94485106
>second is ladders and quarterstaves
It's actually wall of iron and fabrication, breaking ladders for quarterstaves doesn't really work for two reasons.
1: Quarterstaves are already free
2: It would be an improvised weapon since the poles are not made for combat, it wouldn't even be considered a club

However the ladder COULD be broken into a 10ft pole

>>94485565
>1: Quarterstaves are already free
Not in 5e, granted the shenanigans mentioned in the OP are largely from 3e.

>>94485032
Except for the third rule, these are excellent tips.

>>94485082
>Don't let players attack [...] helpless creatures
>to activate those rules
The second half of the sentence is pretty important.

>>94485106
>third is sack of rats
Could also be "build your fighter with Str 3, equip a cursed sword −5, attack the ground and miss in order to fly at will."

The best part about this is that rules exploiters will just look at these guidelines and try to find loopholes in them.

>>94485032
>The rules of the game aren't intended to model a realistic economy
That's a bad thing, dumbass.

>>94485632
>attack the ground and miss in order to fly at will.
Is there any actual basis in the rules for such interpretation being more probable than "you slip and flail ineffectively"?

>>94485106
>second is ladders and quarterstaves
>third is sack of rats
Non-D&Dfag here, explain? Since economy is mentioned I assume the second is "buy ladders cheap, disassemble each ladder into 2 quarterstaves, hope the DM will accept a glut of inferior sticks with holes at full price and not count the time spent disassembling each of them"?
What's the sack of rats though?

>>94486112
In 3.0 you used to be able to trigger Great Cleave off of Whirlwind Attack. People would carry around a sack of rats or other trivial creature, dump it right next to an enemy they wanted dead, Whirlwind Attack, and then cleave chain attacks onto them until they were dead.

>>94485032
Anything that smacks of MMO metagaming should be banned out of hand via rule zero. This is in any system, not merely D&D.

>>94486167
No games?

>>94486080
Name a game thet successfully models a realistic economy. I’ll tell you right now it isn’t any edition of D&D.

I mean, if a DM is running the game 2024 WotC intends then the only game they're getting out of me is a fight to the death anyway so it doesn't really matter.

>>94486117
That is hardly the only or most famous application for a sack of rats.

Sack of rats was a thing in 5e with fiendish warlocks anyway

These are pretty good guidelines. #3 is a little iffy, because that's a pretty wide range of abilities that can or can not be triggered during an attack, but I agree with it in spirit. I think new players, especially young players, could really benefit from having this list.

>>94486117
>Rodents not chewing through a sack
It truly is fantasy.

>>94486175
The great cleave trick is literally what the sack of rats is named for.

>>94486258
The sack of rats is named for being a sack that is full of rats
Great cleave and other attack generating tricks were still around long after 3.0 was finished, and it's far from being the one most frequently appearing in people's games

File: nutshell.png (924 KB, 624x603)

924 KB PNG

>>94485032
Optimizing and exploiting are not the same things. Principle 4 is the most important here. Exploits break that one to be able to work.

A good-faith interpretation can lead to a discussion about the legality of casting booming blade with a polearm master AoO if you have the warcaster feat. Thats about exploring rules to optimize.

A bad faith interpretation is when you deliberately abuse the wording of a rule to then get some bullshit physics math on why the peasant railgun spear goes fast, but never touch on why the light speed spear doesn't rip the peasants apart. Everyone knows this was never intended to work this way, and you deliberately ignore all of the very real reasons why it will never ever work.

This distinction between these two things is that optimization is within the realm of "buy-in" to the RPG. You don't ruin the immersion or consistency of the world, you just try to find cool and powerful ways to build a character IN the world. But when you make the peasant rail gun an expect it to work you are deliberately undermining the RPG. It does not add to the experience of the RPG at all, but rather detracts from it.
Now thats fine... you are allowed to like finding glitches and exploits in games. Fire up BG3 and go to town. Open GTA3 and enter your godmode cheats and enjoy. Just don't expect the DM of your RPG, nor the other players, to enjoy it when you try to do it in a game we actually take seriously.


Reality though:
>no real table allows this shit
>ThatGuy has assburger syndrome
>DM says no, TG argues for 30 minutes every other session to get his bs combos off, wasting everyone's time and ruining the atmosphere
>the designers put this passage in so the DM can point to a book to shut TG up in 30 seconds and resume the game before it starts floundering instead of arguing batman vs superman level bullshit hypotheticals for 30 minutes while the rest of the players tune out

>>94486656
You're completely retarded
>A bad faith interpretation is when you deliberately abuse the wording of a rule to then get some bullshit physics math on why the peasant railgun spear goes fast
No? There aren't physics, because rules are physics. It just drops to the ground if you let go of it.
>the designers put this passage in so the DM can point to a book to shut TG up in 30 seconds and resume the game before it starts floundering instead of arguing batman vs superman level bullshit hypotheticals for 30 minutes while the rest of the players tune out
They literally made the bullshit hypotheticals real and canon and a forced part of every game with this shit, so now it's mandatory for every table to have those discussions at all times.

>>94486671
>so now it's mandatory for every table to have those discussions at all times.
I laughed out loud, the idea that someone thinks that every topic touched in the DMG has to be brought up is so bizarre

>>94485032
Isn't this just them taking the burden off themselves to write the rules better?

>>94486671

You are either a troll or a retard. Either way, enjoy getting kicked from your game table arguing this passage somehow says the exact opposite of what it says.

>>94486754
no, it's them trying to make rules for shit you can't make rules for

>>94486757
>>94486691
The passage literally says that real world physics are canon
Enjoy having arguing with fat retards about what sorts of things someone with 18 strength can do for the rest of eternity.

>>94486764
Strength can do anything up to the point it starts infringing on what wizards and rouges can do.

>>94486764
https://www.k5learning.com/reading-comprehension-worksheets

enjoy

>>94486754
it is partly this, but mostly it's "common" sense that too many autists lack.

I have never heard of players attacking one another to exploit timing rules or initiative, but I agree that if it's happening, it's stupid and it's probably getting in the way of the game. The other things I definitely have heard of and they definitely are stupid. I'm sorry the PHB is asking you not to build a peasant railgun

>>94485082
You just fucking kill the helpless creature with a coup-de-grace.
For as much as the game is trying to moralize to you elsewhere in its books, this statement says don't use the combat rules for shit they're not intended to.

>>94486854
people itt mentioned it was more about carrying a bag of rats to get an autohit

>>94485032
>DMG encouraging DMs to prevent players from "exploiting" the rules of D&D?
The problem here is that players who Char-Op don't see it as "exploiting" the rules. They see is as just using the Rules they way they are suppose to work.

From an "character optimizers" point of view. Who probably also just call themselves "players"...
It's like sitting down to play a game of chess with an opponent, everything is fine, then when the player uses a Knight piece to jump over other pieces the Opponent calls them out on it as exploiting to rules. "How dare they use that piece so differently over how each other piece works."
The Char-Oper doesn't understand why the Opponent is getting upset. It's just in the rules. Sounds like their opponents just didn't read the rules. If they knew the rules properly they wouldn't be upset.

Then they try castling...

>>94486042
smite them in game and kill every character they make after the first and only warning.

This is not a DnD problem but a beta cuck GM problem.

>>94485032
The rules might not be physics, but if using them produces nonsense bullshit, that's a problem.
The economic side of the game might not be intended to model a realistic economy, but if they don't resemble something believable with even casual use, that's a problem.
You might not want to run combat for every off-screen encounter, but if using the combat rules for anything outside of PC vs enemies combat doesn't resemble what would believably happen to any degree, that's a problem.
Good faith interpretations can conflict.

And if after you've sacrificed all of that on the altar of fun, the game still isn't fun? You don't get to tell me any of these. Noone gives a shit about bags of rats or peasant railguns or quarterstaff crafting except as thought exercises and fuck you for trying to cover up 'well, the rules don't make sense, the economics don't make sense, the combat doesn't make sense' with 'but FUN and HEROIC ACTION!' Fuck you.

>>94486104
There never is, most of this bullshit involves tactically choosing whether you're using actual rules or troll physics at any given moment

>>94486171
ACKS
>bbbut it's not realistic enough
It does a great job for what you can expect from an RPG.

>>94486945
so you feel that hitting a bag of rats to get an autohit and activating skills is how combo attacks are meant to be used by design?

>>94486990
>And if after you've sacrificed all of that on the altar of fun, the game still isn't fun?
you're sacrificing the option of passing a stone from hand to hand to exploit the simplified distances and action economy to make a rail gun. You're acting as if exploiting the DM's disinterested in simulating an active economy is a cornerstone of the game that must be protected and not some random player's bullshit. Like anon said >>94486982
All of that section is just
>don't let players use the rules to try to force a game you don't care for

>>94487102
>an autohit
Please at least learn what people use bags of rats before before you start with this bullshit

Also yes, farming GCF on civilians is explicitly RAI

>>94486870
5e doesn't have coup-de-grace

>>94486917
I completely forgot about that

>>94485032
Its an issue with wotc specific properties that doesn't reflect on the wider tabletop genre. DnD is made for a specific type of autist and they know that.

Why don't they just play test their rules before publishing? Or even just think for five seconds about the logical consequences of their rules?

>>94485032
>The game rules aren't physics, don't think of them as physics, it's just a game
O.k.
>NOOO YOU CAN'T USE THE GAME RULES TO TRY TO GET RICH THAT'S EXPLOITING THE GAME RULES
So what? It isn't physics, it's just a game.

>>94485134
Then why doesn't it say that?
The rule they wrote says you can't attack helpless creatures to activate abilities. So if I have an ability that always activates when I attack helpless creatures, I can never attack helpless creatures. If this isn't the result they wanted, why did they write that?

>>94485632
Missing an attack doesn't cause you to fly. Where do you see that in the rules?

>>94487480
You should only play videogames

>>94487024
Why is 4chan so obsessed with this piece of shit system

>>94486146
Ok, what are the criteria for smacking of?

>>94487498
o.k. shill.

>>94486656
They's no such thing as an exploit. The rules mean what they say. If you don't want people to play according to the rules you wrote, then you should have written different rules.

No one held a gun to Cook's head and forced him to write "your hit points are set to zero when you start drowning". He put that stupid shit in the book all by himself.

>>94486802
No, it's people assuming that the game is defined by the rules written in the rule book, since that's how games work. Retard.

>>94486870
How do you know what they're intended for?

>>94487522
In the year 2525
If wizards is still alive
they'll cut out all the bonuses and fractions
but being dead still won't block taking actions

>>94487102
What do you mean by "meant to be used'?

Cleave says : If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.

Great Cleave is the same, but without the use limit.

Rats are creatures. Since no other criteria are mentioned, they suffice for the ability.

If they didn't want "is a creature" to be the only criteria, why didn't they write more criteria?

>>94485032
>no safe space rule
>no protect trans spaces rule
Why are they chudmaxxing?

>>94487505
You asked for an answer and we're given one. Cope sneethe and dilate

>>94487505
It's a great game. Blows any of your shitty störygames out of the water. Except maybe Apocalypse World.

>>94487505
Because it's better than anything released in the last 30 years?

>>94487610
Retard.

>>94487522
>the rules mean what they say
>the rules now include a passage directly contradictory to that statement

Its interesting to note that at my current play group of 7 there is one person who does not understand how wrong your statement already was before the 2024 dmg. Guess the fuck what... he is also autistic.

The other 6 people implicitly understand that the rules as written is just an approximation of the rules as intended, and that anything that would be considered retarded in a work of even somewhat serious toned fiction is obviously off-limits. So let's just take the peasant rail gun example... would that be a logical scene in game of thrones, lord of the rings or a Lovecraft novel? No. No it would not. People would be universally baffled by what the fuck the entire writing, editing and production crew was thinking and openly questioning the exact type of drugs they where using.

I don't know how autistic you actually are, but maybe in a way your brain possibly understands on some level: The skyrim horse tilting trick was never ever ever intended to exist. You know it doesn't. But because writing rules for a complex system inevitably causes unforeseen interactions, it exists anyway. It's called a glitch. And when you use a glitch to achieve things above your intended power in a game, that's called an exploit. Rules don't mean what they mean, rules are intended a certain way and basically all the time that intention is actually obvious despite not being explicitly, clearly and unambiguously stated in writing... but because autists like you can't parse any information that isn't explicit they now included the catch-all caveat to make it clear in writing to the autists that they are wrong and should stop.

>>94485032
Great, should have happened ages ago.

>>94487728
>And when you use a glitch to achieve things above your intended power in a game, that's called an exploit
So every discovery and every great achievement in the real world was a glitch/exploit. That's my main issue, I agree with you more than I agree with the other guy, but I think it's very important for the rules to enable and encourage people to take the tools available and apply their cleverness and their problem-solving intelligence. That's way more important than having a balanced game. As written, I think that players are going to get shut down (by novice DMs) for doing things that make in-world sense, and it's just going to encourage 5e players to be even less creative than they already are.

>>94487115
It's not and you are far too stupid to realize what they're doing. Their intent is not what they say it is and the purpose of it isn't to head off peasant railguns. It's ass covering against legitimate complaints by tarring them with the same brush.

>>94487728
>So let's just take the peasant rail gun example... would that be a logical scene in game of thrones, lord of the rings or a Lovecraft novel? No. No it would not. People would be universally baffled by what the fuck the entire writing, editing and production crew was thinking and openly questioning the exact type of drugs they where using.
Peasant railgun was introduced and now exists purely because of the new rules in OP, though. It was never RAW. The introduction of real world physics to the setting (something which never existed in the rules) and the subjugation of the actual rules to them literally means that it's real in a way in which it never was.

>>94487840
>The introduction of real world physics to the setting
What?

>>94485082
This is more against "bag of rats" style rule exploits

This is what you deserve if you play D&Dogshit.

>>94487845
RAW, there is no momentum. If you daisy chained a bunch of people around the circumference of the world, and had them pass a rock to each other as a free action, the last guy just drops it. It's not a relativistic kill vehicle.

File: Clipboard Image.jpg (14 KB, 448x61)

14 KB JPG

>>94487873
It is now :^

>>94485032
This is extraordinarily reasonable and a good way to crack down on one of the most retarded and anti-social patterns of play, which because of greentext reposting about all of this shit is in no small part /tg/'s fault.

>>94487883
Because it implies that the physics are up to the GM? The physics were always up to the GM. You're dumb.

>>94487549
because rules are already convoluted as they are to also include cases where someone tries to exploit them. DMs are expected to incorporate and remember rules to then do rullings, they're not a computer you exploit and it can't do anything about it nor cares about you doing so. Same with people including impossible feats in their backstory setting themselves as main characters of the world or players demanding I spend my personal time calculating inflation.
As a GM I would tell you you're being retarded and you should play the game as intended, if that means I'm killing your fun you're free to go play with someone else who enjoys your shit. I don't need a section in the DMG to tell me I'm allowed to set the terms of play, but if someone needs to be reminded that they have a spine then it's for the best that they do so.

>>94487883
Even in 3e, the origin of the peasant railgun, the object does not build momentum. They just daisy chain it an arbitrary distance and the last guy drops it, or alternatively makes a ranged attack with a thrown weapon as normal.

The peasant railgun is the retarded powerlevel shit best left for what's left of the autistic faggots from OBS, SDN, and SB in the 00s.

>>94487827
"the rules aren't specific enough" isn't a valid complain, the books are already too long to care as they are.

>>94487776
>So every discovery and every great achievement in the real world was a glitch/exploit.
Well, only if we actually had the rules for RL, had some solid concept of what the creator of those rules intended for them and then misused the wording of the rules (or the vagaries of its translation) to do things not intended to be possible. Unlike Skyrim, we don't actually know what RL is supposed to have been from the vision of its creator, so we cant know if agriculture, splitting the atom or frozen yoghurt is a glitch and thereby an exploit. In contrast, most of us have a pretty clear idea of the intended consequences of the rules of any ttrpg or video game.

As for the possibility that new DMs might use this to be too stringent... yeah that will happen at times for sure. Though in my own play group, my online play group and my old play group most people did a pretty fine job on allowing creativity without going off the rails on either side. Except for one guy in my old play group... I don't wanna be witty about it but that guy is literally autistic and had some quite serious issues with allowing creative play that didn't strictly follow the rules, even if it was innocuous on the power level and immersion dimensions.

I guess some clarification of this passage can be seen in coming editions, but in general I am convinced it will do much, much more good than bad. After all, most rules discussions aren't held with reasonable people about reasonable ideas, but with absolute wankers who deliberately try to find technicalities. Imho, the peasant rail gun and similar stuff is less "creative dnd" and more "destructive thatguyism" anyway.

>>94487883
>they don't describe physics but set interactions for game purposes
>trying to apply real life physic implications to mechanics that are not physics laws
is your reading comprehension really bad or you're just reading whatever the fuck you want and clipping random parts of text?

>>94487674
Nope.

>>94487689
Nope.

>>94487728
How do you know what's intended?

>>94487728
So if the criteria wasn't supposed to be "is a creature", why did they write that? Why communicate poorly, instead of well?

>>94487728
What is the intended power?

>>94487883
That doesn't follow. The rules tell you how much damage a thrown weapon does, and it has nothing to do with velocity.

>>94487913
I know, retard. It was never a thing on charop forums in the first place anyway, it was always bandied around by antioptimization "roleplayers" that refused to roleplay or be immersed in the world.

But it now exists in whatever version OP is from, because apparently real world physics are in and override the rules.

>>94488000
>the rules
Printed rules are now subordinate to real world physics, though

>>94487987
you talk with your GM
>but the rules say...
you're playing with a human being, no a machine following code.
>but that kills my joy!
then play with someone else, no one is forced to acomodate anyone beyond their personal limits.

>>94487911
Why are you defending the developers not communicating what they actually want the rules of the game to be? If the words in the book are not a reliable source of information about the game, why are we using it?

>>94488001
>But it now exists in whatever version OP is from, because apparently real world physics are in and override the rules.
You idiot.

>>94487937
What is the game supposed to be like, and how do you know?

>>94488010
No they're not.

>>94488012
I'm not defending WotC, this type of complain could be done for any system and it stems from a type of player no one wants.

>>94488011
How does the GM know what's intended?

>>94488032
No, it stems from bad rules. Why didn't they write good ones?

>>94487840
I think you are making two mistakes in your interpretation here.

First off, the peasant rail gun and similar exploits have been a thing for ages. People in the real world in the hobby try to exploit regardless of your opinion on whether its RAW or not. These people are, in fact, very disruptive to the flow of the game even regardless of if they get their way or not. They will argue its RAW and the DM will then have the tough job of standing up to what usually amounts to a sociopathic bully.

Second, nobody is introducing real world physics into the game. They literally say that the rules DO NOT introduce ANY sort of physics to exploit into the game, and that it is by DM fiat alone that these things are decided.

Most people can handle having rules as written and rules as intended, and to them this passage is like dust in the wind. But for those people who try to browbeat their DM into allowing them so live out some crazed meme powerfantasy at the expense of the other people at the table, this passage exists so they can't attempt to rules lawyer bully a DM into allowing things.

tldr: this passage is not added for shits and giggles. Its added to address a real world issue that is increasingly plaguing the hobby as normies fattened on youtube shorts dnd "content" enter it and literal autists keep trying to feel in control of life by clinging on to the rule books as if they are holy scripture.

>>94488030
didn't you read the section that doesn't say that? that's evidence

>>94488033
whatever they feel like is what's intended.
If a race or class is banned for them it doesn't mean shit if it's in the books, same with any rule. You can talk it out and see if you adapt, change their mind or move on to a different group.
This is basic shit, you're attempts at socratic dialogue only makes you sound like a retard disconected from real life afraid to make a convincing argument.

>>94488048
What is the point of rules discussions if there are no consistent rules?

Why use the rule book at all?

>>94488001
Can you read? WotC is giving peasant railgun apologists the middle finger.

>>94488038
Because they're not as smart as you and the world is suffering every minute you don't spend writing your own superior rule system.

>>94488056
If you want consisten rules you shouldn't be playing a game mediated by a dude remembering stuff and deciding on the go. TTRPGs might not be for you, I'm sorry you didn't get gatekept before wasting your time.

>>94488063
Why are you participating in a discussion about rules if you don't believe there are any?

>>94488001
If physics exist in the world, then the peasant railgun doesn't work. There is no way for unaided humans to accelerate a projectile to those speeds.

If physics doesn't exist in the world, the peasant railgun doesn't work, for the reasons detailed in previous posts.

>>94488056
>>94488074
lol, it's this guy again. The existence of gamemasters seems to present some kind of existential horror for him, it obviously goes way beyond TTRPGs.

>>94488074
the socratic method doesn't work when you make up what the other person is saying.
go play elder scrolls

>>94488094
So no answer?

>>94488095
You don't believe the rules in the book define the game, so there's no reason for you to discuss the rules. I'm right and you lose.

>a barrage of inflammatory one-sentence retarded answers separated by mere minute apart

Yep, really struck a nerve lol

>>94488074
>>94488105
why are you interrogating people and calling it a discussion?
do you believe a 4 year old asking why is a debate master?

You haven't won anything because you don't show any point, if you have no stance there is nothing to set as the winner.

>>94488100
The rules exist, and we know that they exist, and we know that they call for the game to be controlled by a gamemaster. The conversation can't go any further unless you're willing to talk about what's going on inside you.

>>94488120
Why can't you explain your position in a consistent way?

>>94488121
So you don't think there are any consistent rules, then.

>>94488042
How many tables have been ruined by YT shorts summarizing 1d4chan articles of good stories that would have absolutely insufferable to be present for?

>>94488105
>You don't believe the rules in the book define the game
This is obviously wrong, but it could be completely right, and your conclusion (there's no reason for you to discuss the rules) would still be completely wrong. I still say that you've spent too much time on chan websites, you've just gotten used to being able to declare yourself the winner, to the point where you expect a TTRPG to work like a chan website.

>>94488042
>they literally say that the rules DO NOT introduce ANY sort of physics to exploit into the game
No, they literally say that the rules DO NOT contridict ANY sort of physics to exploit in the game
>First off, the peasant rail gun and similar exploits have been a thing for ages. People in the real world in the hobby try to exploit regardless of your opinion on whether its RAW or not.
And, heretofore, they've always been defeated by simply showing them they're wrong in the rules. But there are no rules now, so they're right, they just have to mother-may-I whatever bullshit they want into existence.
>These people are, in fact, very disruptive to the flow of the game even regardless of if they get their way or not. They will argue its RAW and the DM will then have the tough job of standing up to what usually amounts to a sociopathic bully.
Correct. But the advantage was that in the past, that person would then go online and post a thread whining about someone using ice knife on them while they're downed and get told they're a retard by everyone here because they don't understand the rules. This change means that there are no rules, it's just whatever bullshit is houseruled on the fly at your table.

>But for those people who try to browbeat their DM into allowing them so live out some crazed meme powerfantasy at the expense of the other people at the table, this passage exists so they CAN attempt to rules lawyer bully a DM into allowing things.
Correct

>>94488062
No, they gave them the explicit go-ahead. The rules gave them the middle finger, and those rules are gone now.
>>94488085
>There is no way for unaided humans to accelerate a projectile to those speeds.
Sure, but there's not nothing but unaided humans in fantasy worlds. The moment anything exceeds the human baseline, including mundane equipment, people will push retarded bullshit, and there are no rules to point to to universally tell them to fuck off from all tables ever now.

>>94488129
because you're talking with different people as they get sick of missdirection questions. State your argument if you want to say it's the winner after everyone got bored with you.

>>94488131
>So you don't think there are any consistent rules, then.
No, there's at least one, which is that the game is mediated by a GM. You can change any other rule and it's stil D&D, but if you change that rule then it becomes something completely different.
But again, even if a game had no consistent rules it would still be worth talking about.
What are you going through here?

>>94488140
No, the conclusion is infallible and leads inevitably from the premises.

>>94488166
>nu-uh
solid argument, really convincing people here, not looking like a toddler at all

>>94488147
Which creature in the monster manual is strong enough to accelerate a ten foot pole to relativistic speed?

>>94488166
Cool, good talk, see you next time.

>>94488151
Not misdirection and my position has been stated clearly from the beginning.

>>94488024
It's intuitive, and the particulars shift from group to group... but the peasant rail gun is definitely NOT part of it for 99% of tables, and that remaining one-in-hundred table should explicitly know what they do.

in some basic approximation using words; You play pretend, as you did when you where a kid, with the idea of experiencing some cool story... but playing pretend always derails big time due to the lack of a shared and agreed frame of reference. Without the shared frame of reference you quickly end up nuh-uh'ing each other about the narrative decisions.

So that shared frame of reference is basically a miniatures war game. But since the war game rules actually fucking suck as a be-all end-all frame of reference (because language is imprecise and the narrative ideas of the players are naturally outside of the scope of any war games rulebook)... there is a referee who controls the rules for the players. This referee accepts his part in the narrative is to play the "victim" of the player's ideas and thus "not win", but to keep the spirit of the shared frame of reference and arbitrate that spirit to the game rulings at the table.

Now, what the exploiters are... is that one fucking kid who pulls out a bazooka when you are playing medieval knights. When you tell him thats not appropriate for the game he says "I didnt agree to any rule that doesnt allow bazookas so boom you are dead". Its also the kid who, when finally agreeing to no bazookas after being told he couldnt play anymore if he kept doing bazookas... will refuse to die when he is hit with a sword because "he has an armor of a million million infinity plus one". Fun ruined, game ends... and the kids who where actually enjoying themselves playing knights stop playing and go inside to play sonic on my brother's sega without the annoying kid. The annoying kid goes home alone telling himself the other kids are "sore losers" because he "won playing pretend".

Thats my approximation, anyway.

>>94488175
Every outsider with at-will teleport, for a start

>>94486042
Good job, you called it.

>>94488158
If it's meditated by the GM it's not consistent. If it's consistent it's not meditated by the GM. No other option, sorry.

>>94486764
You are literally the exact same person that section warns against.

>>94488172
Yeah, it is, and I am. Stay furious.

>>94488172
I'd pay real money to see this kid trying to play in a face-to-face game.

>>94488184
Teleport doesn't impart velocity.

>>94488190
so you don't like ttrpgs
that's fine
go play elder scrolls

>>94488181
Ok, let's say it's intuitive. Then it should be easy for you to explain what the game is supposed to be like. What is it supposed to be like?

>>94488205
does teleport kill momentum?
I don't recall any rule or spell description covering this. I feel I've always seen it rulled on the spot for convenience or comedy.

>>94488209
>then it should be easy for you to explain what the game is supposed to be like.
why are you assuming this? it's a complex chain of decisitions, how could it be easy to explain? A good job interview is also intuitive, but if you had to cover every single possible interaction you'd be writing a book.

I never even read the 4e or 5e DMG, did they clarify immovable rods? Are they immovable relative to the surface of the planet, or do they rip your fingers off and fly into space?

>>94488205
Then it definitely works, all you need is a source of gravity and a vacuum (which outsiders are immune to, conveniently enough)

>>94488214
>any rule
There is no such thing as momentum in the first place

>>94488234
Doesn't the sun revolve around the earth in the default setting?

>>94488206
Concession accepted.

>>94487549
That bag-of-rats is why 4e says incidental animals are treated as objects.

>>94488038
Because no rules system that inherently requires human mediation and subjective judgement can be computer-code perfect. And if it were nobody would use those rules for a TTRPG because the sum total of all possibilities within the system would be as defined as in Chess, making those rules antithetical to the purpose of a TTRPG.

This is also why no legislation will ever perfect.

>>94488234
Planetary orbits are not simulated in the rules, so it's not relevant.

>>94488214
If it conserves momentum, then whatever speed you have is the same speed as when you exit. Bear in mind, falling doesn't actually give you a velocity in the rules. When you have the falling property, you move a certain number of feet based on how many rounds you've been falling. If you throw an object while falling, it uses the usual range increment and deals its standard damage, no matter what. Creatures and objects don't have memory in d&d, only states.

>>94488231
If it's not easy to explain, it's not intuitive.

>>94488301
Those are the rules, which aren't relevant anymore as per OP

>>94488147
> No, they literally say that the rules DO NOT contridict ANY sort of physics to exploit in the game
reading comprehension is a thing.

>And, heretofore, they've always been defeated by simply showing them they're wrong in the rules. But there are no rules now, so they're right, they just have to mother-may-I whatever bullshit they want into existence.

What page do you refer to when telling autists the PRG does not work? Might be good to tell you that I dont consider the LACK of a rule, to be evidence that the contrary rule is true.

>>94488234
Immovable rods would not exist in-universe if they were immovable relative to the entire cosmos because it'd be impossible to ever create a working prototype without instantly losing it.

>>94488234
The way I solved it for my games is that an immovable rod is stationary with respect to whatever it is in contact with when activated. That could be the ground, a structure, a creature, anything solid. If it is not in contact with anything, then it fails to activate. If it is in contact with two or more separate objects, those objects are considered attached while the rod is active. To separate them requires either deactivating the rod or exceeding whatever sort of check is given for it in the rules. If the rod is ever separated from any of the surfaces it was fixed to when it was activated, it deactivates.

File: file.png (26 KB, 897x258)

26 KB PNG

>>94488234
4e basically doesn't bother with simulationism at all. This is the equivalent.

>>94488231
yeah, im not going to give you that assumption since its bullshit. Intuitive things are notoriously difficult if not impossible to clearly explain. Thats why they remain intuitive rather than explicitly worded.

But I guess you are one of those autists that do not have an intuition, and thus cannot comprehend the notion of KNOWING without being able to directly word it.

Also, I already gave an approximation that you choose to ignore.

>>94488294
That's weird, because in reality, there are in fact tabletop games with no exploits that actually function as the designers intended.

>>94488324
Are relevant, you mean.

>>94488235
>There is no such thing as momentum in the first place
you know I meant inertia, don't be an ass

>>94488332
>What page do you refer to when telling autists the PRG does not work?
you ask them to behave, autists have usually been shamed enough in life to understand that they are losing other people.
If it doesn't work you tell them that they are a bad match for the group and that you'll call them when you start a new group that you'll never start.

>>94488332
But there are rules. Did you not read the post?

>>94488373
So why would I believe you when you say you know what the game is supposed to be like if you can't even define what that means?

>>94488392
>you know I meant inertia, don't be an ass
You know I meant irl physics in general, don't be a retard

File: 1716381233891811.png (164 KB, 554x439)

164 KB PNG

The term "ally" is used throughout the rulebooks.
Where is "ally" defined exactly?

the fuck does this have to do with optimization anyway?

>>94488332
The page that details damage for thrown weapons and objects.

>>94488373
did you link the wrong post? we agree on this. Intuitive things are hard to explain in detail because they are complex chains of small choices that aren't premeditated.

>>94488419
So you don't know what the game is supposed to be like, then.

>>94488411
no, I don't know what you mean.
I did ask about teleporting so physics aren't 100% realistic in this scenario.

>>94488413
It's not unusual for them to rely on unintended rule interactions

>>94488324
The rules remain as relevant as ever. Your bad-faith interpretation of them however, does not remain relevant as the DM now has a page in the book to point to in order to shut you the fuck up.

That is the only change. You can no longer rules-lawyer your way into bullshit victory to compensate for your lack of actual skill at the game despite the skill required to be successful at 5e being effectively zero.

Please consider yourself gatekept and return to video games. But remember not to play video games online, as other people do not wish to interact with you.

>>94488436
How do you know what's intended?

>>94488440
How do I know your interpretation isn't bad faith?

>>94488447
How do YOU know that it is?

File: image(1).png (1.55 MB, 1050x1038)

1.55 MB PNG

>>94487776
>So every discovery and every great achievement in the real world was a glitch/exploit.
At my table there's a limit how much you can fuck around until GM drops 100 megatons of rocks and lightining bolts at your head. If you want to play an optimized and min/maxed character then you should be able to handle 30 goblins placing their shanks in your shins on their turn as they piledrive you one after another.

>>94488458
Only by reading the words written in the book.

>>94488419
Yeah, meant to link to the other guy who doesn't know what an intuition is.

>>94488428
We do, because it is entirely possible to know things without being able to state them fully, explicitly, completely and perfectly in writing using the english language.

If you are waiting for us to do so. Stop. We already told you its intuitive, and people who have an intuition and some form of functional emotional intelligence will be able to agree on the general concept without needing that explicit perfect written out wording. The only thing we are currently able to teach you is that you seem to lack an intuition, a concept of what an intuition means to others and a good deal of emotional intelligence. I recommend seeking professional help.

>>94488466
What's the limit?

>>94488472
How do you know you agree if you can't define what it is you're agreeing on?

>>94488473
its intuitive, you'll feel it coming if you are capable of empathy

>>94488467
you can't read intention, you retard

>>94488473
obviously you intuit it or die
pretty normal for non autists

>>94488481
How can you be certain everyone at the table has the same idea of what the limit is?

>>94488485
How do you communicate your intent to someone else through a rule book without using words?

>>94488479
you either see it in action or you get the feel
different tables have different terms and conditions
is this your first time with ttrpgs?

>>94488497
What do you mean by "get the feel"? If I want to get the feel, what do I do first?

>>94488496
with context cues
I though you're sea lioning but now I'm getting the feeling that you're actually curious about basic human interactions

>>94488505
feeling is an action in itself
it's like saying
>If I want to see, what do I do first?

>>94488479
thats intuition. You FEEL it on the inside. And there will be fuzzy bits around the edges where you actually dont agree, but you can clarify those as they come up. Assuming the other person isnt absolutely autistic they will need little more than a nudge to set their course right. Only autists need a detailed road map with exact measurements for every single stretch of road ahead of time to prevent them from taking a left into a hedgerow 100 feet before the intersection because the directions said "a mile" but its actually "a mile and 100 feet"... and if you need that level of exact babying to function socially, I recommend not joining a game that consists mostly of social interaction with other human beings.

Truly... you just do not seem to have the capacity to understand. You keep hammering this point, but you have nothing. The rest of us function like this, and the game was not made for your way of existing. RIP to you mate.

>>94488511
So when you read a rulebook, you have to interpret invisible imaginary ideas that don't exist? Why would a developer design their book this way, instead of just writing down how they want the game to work? Don't they get paid by the word anyway?

>>94488537
No, if the GM knows where the limit is, he can explain it in words. If he can't, then there isn't a limit.

>>94488412
Ally is definied in the PHB (pg 304) originally, though additional comment on when you can and can not consider a creature an ally are introduced in other books.

>>94488440
Here's your (you)

>>94488544
autists are a minority so you don't need to pander to them. Context cues do exist and are evident to most people, you're just a blind person demanding that someone logically explains how to see.

>>94488590
No, there are plenty of RPG rulesets that actually explain how the game is played correctly, without any reliance at all on mystical revelations to divine the ineffable will of the game designer.

>>94488544
>So when you read a rulebook, you have to interpret invisible imaginary ideas that don't exist?
Yes, except the ideas do exist but they are not or not always explicit and conscious.

>Why would a developer design their book this way, instead of just writing down how they want the game to work?
Language is imperfect. Man is imperfect. But gladly, when you approximate something in imperfect words to people who contain conscious and unconscious presuppositions shared with between writer and reader, you can come close enough to perfected understanding in the readers that only a handful of people will attempt peasant rail guns and bag-o-rats. Sadly, the hobby draws people incapable of this understanding in greater numbers than they exist in the general population, and thus this passage was added to provide the DM a page to point to when telling these incapables to shut up, sit down and stop seething about their peasant rail gun... of course in the hope that the fact that its written in the book is finally enough to convince you of this fact that the rest of us already intuitively presupposed.

>>94487387
Coup-de-grace is a concept outside of game rules, and you don't need to have rules to coup-de-grace.

>>94487533
By actually reading the fucking books. Intent is clear as fucking day on nearly every page.

>>94488615
So why are there some RPG systems that don't have this problem?

>>94488620
How do you know what the intent is, if it differs from what is written in the book?

>>94488451
none of my shenanigans prompt the game designers to include a passage telling me to stop

>>94488620
False. If it's not in the rules, it doesn't exist.

>>94488622
They are likely either more restrictive or simplistic, or they do suffer from the same issues at some level but you arent intelligent enough to spot the issues.

>>94488633
How do the developers know which interpretations are bad faith?

>>94485032
As others have said, this seems like the writers knowing they underdelivered on the rules, but are excusing themselves by making a blanket statement demanding you to treat the rules as if they were written by smarter people than they actually are. The danger in such rules is that the fourth rule, while understandable from a human perspective, is not understandable from an autist perspective. What is 'good faith' and 'bad faith' in an RPG are pretty damn subjective, and just declaring that rules are only to be interpreted in ways that they've approved is a catch-22; if the rules were perfectly clear in intent, we would need to publish shit like this. I, and certainly others in this thread, have seen drooling moron-tier rules in one game or another, made a good faith interpretation, only to find out that the writer-certified method is the moronic literal take.

Stop feeding the troll, you absolute morons.

>>94488643
Each of these assertions is false.

>>94488653
The only source of knowledge about a person's intent is the words they use to communicate.

Whatever you think the rules in the book say, is what you think the intent is, by definition.

Drowning
Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. See also: Swim skill description.

When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.

It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain.

-

So, if you have -9 hit points and start drowning, you gain hit points until you reach zero, then start dying.

If the developers didn't want you to gain hit points by starting to drown when you have negative hit points, why didn't they write that?

How do you know this isn't what they intended?

>>94488679
They wrote what they intended, same as why dying characters can't take actions but dead ones can

>>94488652
But you play around those rules once you notice them. It's also the case that some systems are 80% good 20% bad/not for you and you course correct.
I feel that this is an issue for people who only play D&D and want it to be an everything system, but that will fuck you up sooner or later.

>>94485032
It's bullshit.

>>94488679
>So, if you have -9 hit points
you don't have negative hitpoints in 5e
If you reach zero you can't take actions or saves.

>>94488473
Let's say hypothetically that you asked me this question. You asked me: "what's the limit" and you are genuinly wanting to know what's the limit. Now when I tell you with an example that the limit can't be measured as the level of annoyment can fluctuate and stack on top of each other. Meaning if you ask once and aren't satisfied with the answer then you should just accept it as an answer for your question. Now if you keep pestering me with the same question presented in different manner, like "what do you mean?" or "can you elaborate?" then you've earned yourself another stackable point to the "fuck around and find out" -chart. I'm now expecting that you are a dunce and you aren't going to "get it" if I explain it third time meaning the chart will get a third point. Meaning if you feel annoyed expect the other speaker feeling that same anger tenfold. Now think how many minutes would it take you to calm down and multiple that by 100. There's your answer. That's how many rocks you would receive on to your head.

>>94488706
He's obviously not referring to 5e, jackass

>>94488707
So there isn't a limit, then.

Let's take another example from Pathfinder : Prone Shooter says that it removes the penalty for shooting a crossbow while prone. There is no penalty for shooting a crossbow while prone. So why did they print this feat?

>>94488719
What do you mean? I didn't tell you what my limit was so you don't know if there's a limit or not? Would you like to know?

Monkey Lunge says : As a standard action, you can use the Lunge feat to increase the reach of your melee attacks by 5 feet until the end of your turn, without suffering a penalty to your AC. You cannot use this feat if you carry a medium or heavy load.

Since you've taken a standard action to use monkey lunge, you can't attack this turn. The benefit of the feat ends when your turn does, so you can never gain the benefit of this feat. Why did they print this feat?

>>94488731
You admitted it can't be measured; therefore, it doesn't exist. If it exists, it can be measured. QED.

>>94488707
>I'm not gonna explain and I'm annoyed you're not getting it
Are you woman by any chance?

>>94488707
Why would you be annoyed by your own refusal to explain something? The problem lies entirely by you, and can be solved only by you.

>>94488743
No. I only stated a hypothetical statement which isn't an answer so I'm asking you again. Would you like to know what that limit is? :)

>>94488762
No, you weren't being hypothetical. Nice try though.

>>94488771
How do you know that? How you can be so certain that it wasn't a hypothetical?

>>94485565
>However the ladder COULD be broken into a 10ft pole
That's probably the one I was thinking about.
>1: Quarterstaves are already free
Wasn't there another loophole where you could craft infinite quarterstaves because their material cost is zero means they can be pulled out of thin air?

>>94488817
That's not really a loophole, it's just true
Clubs and QS are free

>>94488783
;)

>>94488750
A limit exists.

This is proved by the fact that it is occasionally reached, evidenced by the consequences that follow it.

The limit is not actively measured in any value, and its position can fluctuate according to an undefined set of variables.

As functioning humans, we do not have to make this limit explicit at all. The person who owns the limit doesn't have to make it explicit, nor is he beholden to produce to others or even know himself what exact parameters must be met to exceed the limit.

People around the holder of the limit generally use a combination of many factors (including but not limited to conscious and unconscious body language, tone of voice, actions in game and out of game, complex sets of presuppositions based on cultural norms and personal experience, complex processes of conscious and unconscious mapping of the experience of the holder of the limit on the self, and cues from other people present in the situation), to assess with varying accuracy how close they are to reaching the limit. A person can then use this assessment of varying accuracy to inform their actions going forward.

Basically, you fucking feel it. Something we in the general human population can do, but your AI ass has a lot of trouble with apparently.

>>94488873
Swing and a miss.

>>94488883
Amazing argument

A limit isn't a feeling and you're wrong, stay furious :)

>>94489005
Try a reading comprehension course, and you're wrong. Stay autistic :)

No limit, stay furious :)

>>94489005
Anon, what RPGs do you play? Surely you can share a simple story of a game you have played?

>>94488234
Official explanation is depends on setting, Forgotten realms lore is they are immovable relative to the nearest and strongest gravitational force. Activating on a planet locks its position to the planet, if you activate it freefloating in open space it would be locked to you.

>>94489044
the limit is set by the dm, stay retarded.

you will do what you are told to, if not. There is the door.

>>94488638
You don't actually hold that opinion.

>>94488629
>if it differs
It doesn't in this specific context, which is the only one I am speaking in.

>>94489360
Yeah I do retard

>>94489360
Nope, the context of the discussion is those cases where intent differs from the rules, stay mad and bad

>>94489366
>>94489374
>Exactly one minute between posts
You're pathetic and wrong.

>>94485032
The fact that faggots need to be told this speaks volumes about the levels of brainrot D&D has inflicted over the last 20 years.

>>94488743
>I have never felt love
why would you chose to tell people this?

No limit, stay furious :)

>>94489626
there is the limit of the door, which you are not allowed to cross because no one wans to play with you.

No limit, stay furious?

>>94485477
That's an exploit. It's only meant to work on dangerous enemies, not the hamster in your dungeon wallet.

>>94485032
Those are much tamer than your post lead me to believe and those examples refer to actual exploits, not optimization. Why would you come onto the internet and try to mislead me, Anon?

>people who see the rules of a roleplaying system like some sort of game to be minmaxxed are retarded
What else is new?
If anyone tries to sack-of-rats at your table and you didn't immediately look them dead in the eye and go "You and I both know that's not what a fucking cleave is retard" then I'm sorry but you have brain damage.
The rules of the game exist to try and emulate real, physical actions (fantasy aside). A cleave is something like swinging your sword through three retards at once, not wailing on a bag of rats and then the dragon next to the sack falls over dead.

>read thread
>constant whining about 'autists', on 4chan, on /tg/ of all boards
You faggots need a reality check, fucking tourists.

>>94485032
>or helpless creatures
Ridiculous. Sack of rats won't work, but if they're want to use Farmer John the innocent peasant as a target, I will definitely allow that.

> guidelines say "don't be retarded"
> entire thread arguing over what the definition of is, is.
The more things change...

>>94485032
It's ultimately up to the DM whether to allow this chicanery or not, always was, I gather these were added because too many DMs lack people skills and won't talk to their players or set boundaries. I do exploits sometimes, but only when the table is in agreement, it never gets unbalanced because the DM will escalate by having the NPCs use the same exploits, it also pisses off lawful planars when it happens.

>>94487776
>So every discovery and every great achievement in the real world was a glitch/exploit
No, retard, see OP's #1 AGAIN. The rules are not physics. You're describing physics. Immediately you are wrong.

>>94491829
The rules are physics though
That's just a new rule forcing in a bunch of never-stated-anywhere retarded rules

>>94491835
>The rules are physics though
Not always, for example the peasant railgun doesn't work because it's using the raw rules to accelerate an object to the speed of light, then ignoring the raw rules so it maintains its momentum when the guy at the end of the line throws it.

>>94491835
>>94491829
yeah, the rules ARE physics. If the book says otherwise, it's just flat wrong.
Like health- it's obviously not luck, that is accounted for by ac. No, it's straight meat points, and every mechanic in the game reinforces this. Every edition has immersion in burning liquid rules, and they all do damage instead of instant death.

>>94485032
It's based

>>94486146
This

>>94487522
You have autism

>>94491840
You've described the rules twice, being the physics both times. Peasant railgun does not work per RAW (outside of the original thought experiment, which is just about moving the object, and not some redditors tirade about real world physics), and this is the case in the world because the rules are physics.
>then ignoring the raw rules
Yes, if you ignore the rules (=physics) you get nonsense outcomes that don't follow the rules (=physics).

>>94491835
>The rules are physics though
No, they're a practical stand in for going out in a field and tossing spears around yourself. Fucking sperg.

>>94487728
You're obviously 100% correct, and I wanted to blow in and let you know that the autists swarming your post like ants are mentally disabled. They're being purposefully obtuse because they've been blown out hard. Their arguments are clearly retarded.
These concepts are self-evident and I'm shocked that it needed to be spelled out for these stupid fucks in the first place. I'm even more shocked that they're whining about it, because if you asked me yesterday if entitled, retarded people like that actually existed, I would have said "Of course not."

>>94492374
This is some desperate projection lmao

>>94492384
It's really not, dude.
Peasant railgun is funny, but it's obviously funny as a joke. Seriously getting pissed off that a self-respecting DM obviously shouldn't let you do it in the game because it's clearly an exploit is an absolute lunatic standpoint.
Even arguing with you is psychotic, it's so outside the bounds of common sense that it's actually ridiculous. There's a good reason people are treating you like you have down syndrome.

>>94492393
You're the one claiming to want accelerate things to the speed of light and have that have ingame effects, though?
The peasant railgun doesn't work by RAW. This is the position you are arguing should be disregarded, because you are sad you were told that the peasant railgun doesn't work. This is your position. You are projecting this sadness onto others, but it is purely your own.
>Seriously getting pissed off that a self-respecting DM obviously shouldn't let you do it in the game
This is literally the thing that you are doing. You have gone 100% into unironic projection without a shred of self awareness.

>>94492429
I want you to reread my posts, but this time, use your brain. Take it slow and employ context clues.

>>94492484
You literally haven't read a single post in this thread lmao
Every single thing that I said was true and you'd be well aware of this if you'd read any of the post

File: 1629379982591.png (119 KB, 1000x338)

119 KB PNG

>>94485032
Feels patronizing. These things were discussed for shit and giggles, i never met anyone irl that ever attempted to pull a PunPun or an Arseplomancer at a table, if anything smells as a failsafe measure for not playtesting new rules and avoid potential criticism (and the mass of terminally Hasbrocucks hanging around here will fall for it).

>>94492495
This isn't an insult or me arguing with you, I'm being 100% genuine.
Try. Again.
Because you are completely backwards and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. It's absurd.

>>94492541
You literally haven't read a single post in this thread lmao
Every single thing that I said was true and you'd be well aware of this if you'd read any of the post

>>94492495
Are you the guy who thinks that DM = no consistent rules = no point in discussing the rules? Because you're definitely accusing other people of saying shit that you just made up on the spot, which is what that other guy does.

>>94492576
No.
>Because you're definitely accusing other people of saying shit that you just made up on the spot
I have not.
You should try reading the thread

File: Untitled.png (26 KB, 178x193)

26 KB PNG

:|

>>94488817
Anon I don't know how to tell you this but if you go into the woods you basically can pull quarter staves and clubs out of thin air

>>94488383
Look here you disingenuous sneaky bitch, I know exactly why you used "tabletop" instead of "roleplaying" there. Go suck an asshole.

>>94485082
"Don't attack helpless creatures to activate abilities" means you can't carry around a bag of rats or tied up prisoners and just execute them whenever you want a buff that triggers on kill/hit. Not as common as it used to be, in 3.5 there were tons of effects that encouraged Aztec ritual sacrifice as a regular part of gameplay, or shit like purposefully dumping a bunch of cannon fodder next to the boss so you can kill them all and trigger a million cascading effects off it.

That sort of cheese is fun in Diablo or Path of Exile (there's entire builds that literally revolve around Bag of Rats interactions like with the Flask that spawns some worm critters when you drink it) but are usually inappropriate in a TTRPG. Druid summons a dozen tiny creatures adjacent to the Barbarian, raging buffed power attacking Barbarian immediately Great Cleaves through all of them with Improved Cleaving Finish and now gets 12 ma accuracy attack bonus attacks against anyone in reach (and getting 20+ feet of reach is not hard) and one turns them into chunky salsa. Encounter over.

>>94485032
OH NONONONONO TRANNIES OF THE COAST GOING AFTER MINMAXXERS

>>94499230
There are also roleplaying games with no exploits that function as the designer intended. But that's because the designers intended for them to be storytelling tools with no real tactical element, which just supports your point about how not TTRPG could be perfectly computer-coded (and that in turn was just a way of saying that good TTRPGs can't be perfectly codified, the discussion isn't actually about computer games).

At the end of the day I agree with the other guy's sentiment, the fact that Cleave can be broken with a bag of rats means that it was a bad idea. The correct answer isnt' to say that PCs are locked out of their combat mechanics unless there's a real enemy nearby, the correct answer is to rewrite cleave, so that it can be used to cleave through underbrush or spider webs or vegetables and still make sense. But then, what I'm describing is a journey, and the destination isn't actually reachable, and it's absurd to try to draw a binary between "good rules" that can't be abused and "bad rules" that can.

File: ironic.jpg (132 KB, 800x450)

132 KB JPG

>>94485032
>entire thread is minmaxers seething and combing through the exact wording looking for loopholes

>>94492512
Yeah, this is clearly putting in something to point to when they're called out on shit mechanics so they can pretend there's no problem, not an attempt to stop peasant railguns.

File: RAY-ven-loft.png (74 KB, 364x168)

74 KB PNG

>>94492512
This is a company that thinks you need a guide on how to pronounce "Ravenloft," I don't think they're qualified to talk about good faith.

>>94501036
>an attempt to stop peasant railguns.
These rules will be the first time that peasant railguns have ever existed, so it's clearly not an attempt to stop them.

>>94501036
I think you're partially right. But I also think there's an element of taste, because a lot of people would genuinely prefer a system presented more simply even if it has more exploits, vs a system that's been reworded and cloaked in technical language in order to avoid exploits. You get diminishing returns on the second approach because as you try to get more legalistic you accidentally create more exploits, and the fact that you're actively trying to be technical just lends legitimacy to those exploits.

>>94501056
I don't suspect that anyone can get you to stop saying that, but it isn't true in any sense, every edition of D&D has had a similar line telling DMs to ignore the rules if it makes in-world sense.

>>94501046
People have been asking for pronunciation guides for decades. They're giving the people who actually talk to them what they claim to want.

>>94501046
You do realize that English has a shitload of accents and dialects? And ESLs are a thing?
This post is a fascinating display of /tg/'s asinine obsession with shitting on system devs for the most retarded reasons instead of anything legitimately worthy of criticism.

>>94501109
>>94506520
>People have been asking for pronunciation guides for decades.
For names, yes, or for invented words. "Raven" and "loft" are both regular-ass English words. Oxford and Webster both spell them the same and pronounce them the same.

>>94488132
I'm so sick of the one channel I keep getting recommended that can be boiled down to "I am loud and D&D has a bad rules interaction". I finally removed the faggot from my recommends but if that's the kind of tabletop content kids are engaging with these days I'm not remotely shocked that a lot of modern players can also be boiled down to "I am loud and D&D has a bad rules interaction". While a portion of blame lies with WotC for making such easily exploited rules in the first place, it's just insufferable.

>>94488010
And real world physics says that fifty dudes standing in a line cannot accelerate a rod up to relativistic levels and additionally survive the experience. Peasant railgun requires selectively bouncing between both real physics and game rules for the most absurd possible result.
Either it's a regular thrown weapon attack or they cant get the system to work at all because passing a stick fifty times wont take place within a six second round

>>94488333
Would be funny though

dear WotC,

if snowman casting wish bad, why snowman can still cast wish?

>>94506987
>youtube
>channel
>recommended
Stupid games, stupid prizes.

>>94485032
This strikes me as a nothingburger desu. The most likely scenario is that players who want to exploit the rules will continue to do so, DMs who don't have the spine to say no will continue to let them, and absolutely nobody is going to change how they think because of one sidebar, assuming they even bother to read it.

>>94506557
You underestimate how much the dedicated D&D fanbase wants to be spoonfed.

>>94499230
No, I'm referring tabletop roleplaying games. Nice try though.

>>94492576
If any participant can change the rules at any time, then there are no consistent rules, yeah. This is indisputable.

>>94491880
Concession accepted.

>>94491845
Nope.

>>94490612
Ok, define dangerous rigorously.

>>94513975
You're using "consistent" to mean "non-arbitrary", and that's fine, it just doesn't carry you as far as you want it to. Tabletop roleplaying games are necessarily arbitrary. You don't have to like it.

>>94490612
>>94513989
I don't think that's hard, a dangerous enemy is an enemy that might theoretically deplete some of your resources on purpose, a rat which you bought at the armour shoppe and which flees from your grasp at maximum speed is not a dangerous enemy. But it also sidesteps the real question. If there were a "Bag of Dangerous Enemy Goblins with +3 Shanks", there would still be a point in a barbarian's career where it was worth using it just to generate free attacks from Great Cleave.

'the DM says no' should be good enough, but its fine to have it explicitly stated in the book

As a rule of thumb, if your games consist of the players trying to pull a fast one on the DM on a regular basis, you probably should start looking for a different table

>>94515760
No, I'm using it to mean consistent. If the rules at your table are different from the rules at my table, and we're playing the same game, then the rules aren't consistent. Don't reply to me until you've picked up a dictionary.

>>94515768
How do you know if an enemy might theoretically deplete your resources?

>>94518254
The DM decides

>>94488743
Hey, genius, here's two things that exist that can't be measured:
Hope
Potential
You've got neither.

>>94515827
Sorry your players understand the rules better than you do.

>>94518380
Wrong answer.

>>94521959
lol assblasted

>>94485032
If the rules are bad at representing how the game is meant to be played, then they need to be improved. I am not paying to edit your product line for you.

>>94485032
But the rules aren't at all simulationist?
A learned man can block bullets with his hands, a dragon would be bested in a test of strength by like 3 peasants one after the other, a level 1 spell can perpetually feed 30 people
How are we supposed to guess when the system is being retarded on purpose?

>>94513964
>lying because you;re a cuckold