D&D (2024) 13 Attacks a Round the Most You Can Get?

[James Gasik]

What about tbe 3rd amendment though? Or is that the cheeseburger one?

Every time the (topic I wish wouldn't be discussed) is brought up, it gives me great pain. A hypothetical exercise so ridiculous on it's face that it could never be a thing without a DM wishing it to be so, yet is upheld by many as a "weakness" in an entire rules set that such a thing could be possible, despite the fact it's basically on the same level as a DM breaking out his copy of Primal Order and saying "ok, you're all gods now".

If someone says "sno cone wish machine breaks 3e", I'd accept that, it's in the PHB and doesn't require any strange interpretations of the rules to allow. But something like (that thing)? It's maddening.

 

[CleverNickName]

If someone says "sno cone wish machine breaks 3e", I'd accept that, it's in the PHB and doesn't require any strange interpretations of the rules to allow. But something like (that thing)? It's maddening.

So many of these hypotheticals depend on having a Dungeon Master who is incapable of saying "Stop, that's a rules exploit and I'm not allowing it." It is entirely within the DM's jurisdiction to shut down absurd or game-breaking exploits...players shouldn't be surprised when that happens.

 

[James Gasik]

So many of these hypotheticals depend on having a Dungeon Master who is incapable of saying "Stop, that's a rules exploit and I'm not allowing it." It is entirely within the DM's jurisdiction to shut down absurd or game-breaking exploits...players shouldn't be surprised when that happens.

I just feel that ones you can get to rather quickly (like say, Druid spellcasting+Wild Shape) without strange, arcane readings of the rules should be the things pointed to as problems. Hearing someone say "Hulking Hurler + War Hulk +rules in a splatbook for improvised weapon damage breaks 3.5!!!!!" gives me a migraine.