D&D 5E My powergamer players wants to be a bard.

[Uder]

The Crystal has to weigh 1 lb. If you are wearing 1 lb earrings, good luck to you.

Or necklace/bracelet/pick guard. Really it's up to the DM, not just some guy that wants to win the Forum Game Version of D&D.

 

[Mistwell]

that is where your analogy breaks down...

It was your analogy. I hate analogies in situations where they are unnecessary, like this one. You insisted on it, so I pointed out a way to cheat in that analogy. If you don't like the analogy now, then perhaps we should focus on talking about D&D instead of your stupid analogy.

char op isn't a cheat nore is it insider trafing... it's reading a text book on it and making the trades and doing it well...

I was talking about using loopholes. You are free to talk about something else all you want, but I am still going to focus on use of loopholes.

or like I said neither are loopholes... one is stupid though...

Of course they are both loopholes. They are two of the most well known ones ever in the game. You can't just decide to redefine what is or is not a loophole because it harms your position...deal with the issue at hand. Cleave was never supposed to function that way with a bunch of rats, but as written it did, resulting in an abusive result. That is a loophole.

Pun Pun is another example of a loophole in the rules.

These things really existed, even if you didn't use them, even if you think they are stupid, even if your own DM wouldn't allow them, loopholes existed and were cheats. And that is what we are talking about. If you don't want to talk about those things, nobody is twisting your arm to do so.

please walk me through this with the candle... how are you not stuck playing the character if the DM twists the wish, or just out right says no...

The original version involved you controlling the summoned creature so there wasn't much choice. The actual AD&D order of events were:


1. Use a Candle of Invocation to summon a efreet
2. Use a charge from the Rod of Beguiling to make him your friend (no saving throw)
3. Use your first wish
4. Use your second wish to recharge the Rod
5. Use your third wish to create a Candle of Invocation.
6. Repeat


We were talking about rules as written, and by the rules as written those wishes worked. It was a loophole, it needed to be closed, and you denying it's existence doesn't help your credibility as for over 20 years people have known about it and talked about it and established it repeatedly as a real thing that was indeed a loophole. I don't think anyone realistically thinks "wishes are risky" is a good, rationale check on INFINITE WISHES. The rules as written gave several examples of wishes that would in fact work. Such lists included an increase to an ability score, or level. Those wishes, in the rules as written, were supposed to function fine. So, infinite ability scores for instance would work fine by the rules as written, for this loophole. That's a problem.

 

[Leatherhead]

My powergamer player wants to be a bard. Half-elf bard, specifically. This player has a history of trying to find rules loopholes, and I know he spends a lot of time in the darker corners of the D&D internet looking for exploits: r/dnd and /tg/. These days I avoid CharOp conversations for the sake of my sanity, but I'm curious: what sorts of shenanigans should I be on the lookout for?

Horses.

 

[Mistwell]

I think you're making up rules to win an argument on the internet, which is pretty cool. They need to match the prices and weights in the PHB (probably... ask your DM), and that's about it. Nothing about size.

I am doing my best to compare similar to similar. This is pretty standard logic. Size is one way to determine if X is similar to Y. Given there are no guidelines other than examples, size is one obvious element to compare to determine if something is similar. Portability is another. Need to use a hand to grasp it is another. Weight is another.

If you disagree, then why wouldn't size be one element to compare?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think the wording of the spell focuses is intentional and important. Just like all the mitigations casters had in 1e (components, interruptions, learning %, etc), they are there for a reason. Otherwise you end up with:

"Caster's rule, everyone else sucks."
"Yeah, because you're ignoring or houseruling all of the things to keep them in balance away."

So based on that rules as written, a spell focus must be of substantial size as per the examples, and does not replace components that have a cost associated with them.

 

[rollcrit]

I am thinking he was talking about the 1985 version of Bard's Tale.
View attachment 64287

"She" fellas. "She" was talking about the 1985 version of bards tale. Yes, look at that cover art. That was a great a game. At the time I thought it was so advanced lol. Brings a tear to my eye.

 

[Paraxis]

Even if you are not comfortable with allowing rings and amulets, and I don't see how anyone could argue you couldn't use a crystal amulet since it weights the same as a holy symbol another foci, the character can still carry multiple wands.

Interacting or drawing an item is not an action so if the wizard has a dozen wands on him I don't think having a guy disarm him or stealing them in the middle of combat is a viable tactic compared to just damaging the caster.

Foci are not a balancing thing they are a flavor thing for the most part.

 

[Paraxis]

"She" fellas. "She" was talking about the 1985 version of bards tale. Yes, look at that cover art. That was a great a game. At the time I thought it was so advanced lol. Brings a tear to my eye.

My bad. Should have used the gender neutral "They".

Maybe if I had a clue like a cute kitten picture ohh wait..

But that wouldn't make a difference I love kittens a bunch too, so yeah I'll stick with gender neutral language in the future.

And that was an amazing game, one of my best childhood memories was playing that game with my brother. That game and Wasteland, spent so much time on those two games on my Tandy 1000EX.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

It was your analogy. I hate analogies in situations where they are unnecessary, like this one. You insisted on it, so I pointed out a way to cheat in that analogy. If you don't like the analogy now, then perhaps we should focus on talking about D&D instead of your stupid analogy.

great...

I was talking about using loopholes. You are free to talk about something else all you want, but I am still going to focus on use of loopholes.

and again I don't understand your definition of loop hole...

Of course they are both loopholes. They are two of the most well known ones ever in the game. You can't just decide to redefine what is or is not a loophole because it harms your position...deal with the issue at hand. Cleave was never supposed to function that way with a bunch of rats, but as written it did, resulting in an abusive result. That is a loophole

.

how is using the candle to summon something (witch is what it is ment for) then using the summoned creature for it's spell like ability a loop hole? it may be badly balanced and badly written, but if that's a loop hole so is swinging a sword to do damage... IT IS WHAT THE TEXT SAYS TO DO WITH IT...

Pun Pun is another example of a loophole in the rules.

I'm not discussing pun pun it is a whole nother thing that could be a thread on it's own...

These things really existed, even if you didn't use them, even if you think they are stupid,

ok, I never said it wasn't a real thing... just that it was clearly written not hidden and I could not defend it because I have never seen a DM allow it..
l

oopholes existed and were cheats. And that is what we are talking about. If you don't want to talk about those things, nobody is twisting your arm to do so.

loop·hole
ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl/
noun
noun: loophole; plural noun: loopholes

• 1.
  an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
  "they exploited tax loopholes"
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"][TR][TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD][TD]means of evasion, means of avoidance; Morewindow, gap, opening
  "a loophole in the regulations"
  
  
  [/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
  
  
  
  
  
• 2.
  historical
  an arrow slit in a wall.
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"][TR][TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD][TD]means of evasion, means of avoidance; Morewindow, gap, opening
  "a loophole in the regulations"
  
  
  [/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
  
  
  
  

verb
verb: loophole; 3rd person present: loopholes; past tense: loopholed; past participle: loopholed; gerund or present participle: loopholing

• 1.
  make arrow slits in (a wall or building).
  
  
  
  

The original version involved you controlling the summoned creature so there wasn't much choice. The actual AD&D order of events were:

1st I heard of it was 3.5, but I'll read what you have...

1. Use a Candle of Invocation to summon a efreet
2. Use a charge from the Rod of Beguiling to make him your friend (no saving throw)
3. Use your first wish
4. Use your second wish to recharge the Rod
5. Use your third wish to create a Candle of Invocation.
6. Repeat

ok, but 2e wish was completely up to the DM... it was 3e that gave it 'safe uses'
[HI]

We were talking about rules as written, and by the rules as written those wishes worked.

Wish
(Conjuration/Summoning)
Range: Unlimited Components: V
Duration: Special Casting Time: Special
Area of Effect: Special Saving Throw: Special
The wish spell is a more potent version of a limited wish. If it is used to alter reality with respect to damage sustained by a party, to bring a dead creature to life, or to escape from a difficult situation by lifting the spellcaster (and his party) from one place to another, it will not cause the wizard any disability. Other forms of wishes, however, cause the spellcaster to weaken (-3 on Strength) and require 2d4 days of bed rest due to the stresses the wish places upon time, space, and his body. Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of the wish spell is likely to be carried out. Casting a wish spell ages the caster five years.
Discretionary power of the DM is necessary in order to maintain game balance. For example, wishing another creature dead is grossly unfair; the DM might well advance the spellcaster to a future period in which the creature is no longer alive, effectively putting the wishing character out of the campaign.

It was a loophole, it needed to be closed, and you denying it's existence doesn't help your credibility as for over 20 years people have known about it and talked about it and established it repeatedly as a real thing that was indeed a loophole.

so in 1994 (20 years ago) who agreed on this loophole?

don't think anyone realistically thinks "wishes are risky" is a good, rationale check on INFINITE WISHES. The rules as written gave several examples of wishes that would in fact work.

S

not in my phb it doesn't...u

lists included an increase to an ability score, or level. Those wishes, in the rules as written, were supposed to function fine. So, infinite ability scores for instance would work fine by the rules as written, for this loophole. That's a problem.

I never saw anything about wishing for levels or ability scores in 2e, and in 3e not levels... you are making stuff up now...

 

[rollcrit]

dead horse alert. we are beating a dead horse here folks lol. move along , move along, these aren't the droids your looking for.