Rules debates in the game?

[Davelozzi]

toss buckets of snails to cleave through, or otherwise specifically abuse rules quirks/loopholes?

What would be the benefit of cleaving through a bunch of snails?

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

What would be the benefit of cleaving through a bunch of snails?

It doesn't work anymore under 3.5, but under 3.0, you could dump a bucket of snails around your opponent, and then whirlwind attack. For every snail that you dropped, you could then take your cleave attack on the opponent.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or are most of the lengthy discussions here just for the fun of it?

Not all of them. But a lot of the ones that get into finicky arguments over the placement of a comma, yes, certainly.

Everyone's aware that ultimately, the DM has the option to say "Not in my game". So it could be argued that "What the rules say" isn't especially important to any given game.

Nevertheless, a lot of people want to feel they're "playing by the rules", rather than making stuff up, so a lot of the questions are "What do the rules say?"

Certain questions don't actually have a clear answer, or they have two equally valid but contradictory answers, and that's when it becomes a playground for the lawyers, as we try to find the key paragraph, sentence, phrase, word, or implication that lends more weight to one side or the other.

One of the most useful aspects I've found of this is that it means the really tricky questions are less likely to spring upon us unawares in game.

If, in the middle of a tense combat, someone tries to Disarm a longbow, we've already read the rules, and we know that there's ambiguity as to how it's resolved. We've weighed the arguments on both sides, and we came to a conclusion as to either a/ what the rules say, or b/ what we want to use in game, or both. And a/ and b/ might not be the same thing.

If we haven't examined those rules beforehand, and never realised there was potential for debate, there's always the possibility that when the situation arises in game, the debate will occur at the table. A strong DM might simply make an instinctive ruling on the spot; a confident DM might be happy to inform his players a week later that he's changed his position, and henceforth will use a different interpretation if the situation comes up again. But a DM who isn't quite so strong or confident might be inclined to try and figure out what the book actually says then and there, and that one can go on for some hours.

Now, in game, I would certainly treat the bow as a held object. But when this question came up on the WotC boards recently, after stating "I would certainly treat the bow as a held object", I felt compelled to note that there does exist the alternative interpretation that one takes a -4 since the bow is not a melee weapon, and then makes an opposed attack roll. Since the bow is a ranged weapon, and the rules do not specify "opposed melee attack roll", the bowman is entitled to use his ranged attack bonus.

I don't subscribe to that interpretation, and if the response had simply been "Huh. That's amusing," I wouldn't have said anything more about it.

But the response was "By the rules, it has to be a melee attack roll."

And so I've spent about four pages so far defending an interpretation I would never use myself, because someone cited a rule that doesn't actually exist

If someone pulls out a "broken combo" (that happens to be strictly legal, but silly), the best way to react is "Gosh... you're right. It does say that, doesn't it? That's very clever. And funny. And absolutely not happening in my game."

They'll respond in one of two ways:

1. Happy that their brilliance at piecing together loopholes and disparate rules has been recognised, and happy that you're not going to let them destroy the game with it, or
2. Angry that you, the DM, are "breaking the rules" because you can't handle it.

If they're type 1, problem solved. He's happy, you're happy, game goes on as normal.

If they're type 2, they're probably not the sort of person you want in your game anyway.

I'd never spring a "broken combo" that relies on a tortured (yet legal) combination of rules on a DM in the middle of a game. I'd always bring it to him ahead of time and ask what he thought. If he's happy with it, fine. If he's not happy with it, all he needs to do is say "Not in my game".

By the same token, I expect the DM to let me know about house rules before they come up in game.

"Does a 26 save?"
"Yup. You only take 19 damage."
"What about Evasion?"
"Well, you've already moved this round, so you don't have enough movement left to get outside the radius."
"... but... what?"

That annoys me.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It doesn't work anymore under 3.5, but under 3.0, you could dump a bucket of snails around your opponent, and then whirlwind attack. For every snail that you dropped, you could then take your cleave attack on the opponent.

It still works with a bag of puppies. You dump them out, and as they stand up from prone, you take an AoO with Combat Reflexes, and Great Cleave into the BBEG.

It's only WWA that stopped working

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

My approach to these arguments is slightly different from Hypersmurf's: I'm not so much interested in the letter of the rules as in the spirit of the rules. That is, the rules generally focus on striking a balance between fun and plausibility, with a bias toward fun.

If someone tells me that they're doing the bucket-o-snails trick, my defense against them isn't that on page 319, under "vermin," we clearly see that vermin have a CON score of 12 or lower, and that vermin must breathe, and that the snails in the bag would be suffocating and can hold their breath for no longer than 36 rounds per the suffocation rules on page 184, and therefore are dead when they're thrown out of the bag and per the rule on page 16 must be treated as objects, which are not eligible for whirlwind attacks per the rule on page 288.

My ruling is based on the fact that it's dorky and uncinematic, and no.

I use similar reasoning for some other stuff, such as when a player wanted to use a portable hole, fill it to the brim with granite rocks, and use them as the target of animate object to create an ultrapowerful "summoned" creature in battles. Although there were plausibly rules-arguments against it, I told him that it was a cheesy use of the spell, uncinematic, and wasn't gonna cut it.

But the forum here is useful to me for finding balance, for understanding why a strange-looking rule might actually be fun in play, or for learning how people have handled a strange situation before. It's also helpful to me to learn what my players might be expecting from their readings of the rules: if it turns out that you actually CAN dual-wield thrown daggers according to a single sentence on page 87, I wanna know about it before i make a spot-decision that you need the rapid-shot feat to pull that off.

But I've not got any interest in complex arguments based on whether there's an asterisked comment on page 88 that does not include the word "weapon," implying that the text of the attack maneuver on page 125 is not made with a weapon, which coupled with a monster's description on page 216 means the monster should not be considered armed.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's also helpful to me to learn what my players might be expecting from their readings of the rules: if it turns out that you actually CAN dual-wield thrown daggers according to a single sentence on page 87, I wanna know about it before i make a spot-decision that you need the rapid-shot feat to pull that off.

p160

But I've not got any interest in complex arguments based on whether there's an asterisked comment on page 88 that does not include the word "weapon," implying that the text of the attack maneuver on page 125 is not made with a weapon, which coupled with a monster's description on page 216 means the monster should not be considered armed.

Those are the best kind!

-Hyp.

 

[Ranger REG]

Do players actually pull stunts like having their characters close their eyes in combat, toss buckets of snails to cleave through, or otherwise specifically abuse rules quirks/loopholes?

Do DMs actually allow these stunts merely because it is technically legal within the rules?

Or are most of the lengthy discussions here just for the fun of it?

That's what DM is for. Not everything will be covered by the stated rules. DM must be able to make reasonable judgments on the fly. If they want to close their eyes in combat, treat them as blinded. If they want to toss a bucket of snail to distract or clear a path (sorry, but "cleave" have a game definition in D&D), reward them by penalizing their opponents with a circumstance penalty.

 

[UltimaGabe]

For example, a mid level barbarian does not lose xdex bonus against invisible attackers... but flanking still earns sneak damage... but if the faq/sage rule that you dont get flanked by invisible guys... then a barbarian stuck between two rogues can close his eyes and negate their sneak ability.

Actually, a mid-level Barbarian cannot be flanked to begin with.

As for the "closing your eyes" issue, I'd like to point out that you don't lose your Dexterity bonus from being flanked- it's a special condition in which Rogues can add their sneak attack damage. Flanking isn't an issue of whether or not you can use your Dex bonus, it's an issue of whether or not there's a person on either side of you. And, whether your eyes are open or not, someone on either side of you will still be there.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, a mid-level Barbarian cannot be flanked to begin with.

He can if the Rogues flanking him are Roguey enough.

As for the "closing your eyes" issue, I'd like to point out that you don't lose your Dexterity bonus from being flanked- it's a special condition in which Rogues can add their sneak attack damage. Flanking isn't an issue of whether or not you can use your Dex bonus, it's an issue of whether or not there's a person on either side of you. And, whether your eyes are open or not, someone on either side of you will still be there.

Right. But according the the Rules of the Game article that the Sage just wrote (as distinct from the actual "rules of the game"), you can only grant a flanking bonus to an ally if your opponent can see you.

In 3E, it was pretty unambiguous, once you implemented this rule: A Barbarian-10 can be flanked by two Rogue-14s. But if he closes his eyes, then a/ they cannot flank him (since neither of them have an ally he can see), and b/ he retains his Dex bonus (due to Uncanny Dodge, since all attackers are considered invisible while he's blind, and this application of Uncanny Dodge doesn't take the attacker's Rogue level into account).

In 3.5, it's not absolutely clear... because it's no longer certain that Uncanny Dodge allows you to retain your Dex bonus while blind. Your attackers are no longer considered invisible... and it's invisible attackers that uncanny Dodge protects against. Rather, you lose your Dex bonus because you're blind, and Uncanny Dodge says nothing about that.

-Hyp.

 

[Pax]

It still works with a bag of puppies. You dump them out, and as they stand up from prone, you take an AoO with Combat Reflexes, and Great Cleave into the BBEG.

It's only WWA that stopped working

-Hyp.

Hmm, well, at least you can't fit the same number of puppies into a bag, as thenumber of snails you could put into a bucket, and maintain the same overall weight/encumbrance. That, and puppies make noise (harder to sneak around with bagsful of the things), tend to make stinky messes (even harder to sneak around), and require a lot more food than snails do ...