Author Topic: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?  (Read 268692 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Viletta Vadim

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Metal Genocider, maximum shooto!
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #860 on: September 14, 2009, 02:48:42 AM »
Finds me a single book that says the rules of chemical reactions don't work in a DnDverse
You're forgetting the second commandment of practical character optimization, chief.  The rules don't say you can't grab a stick and spontaneously convert it into a holy avenger.  The rules state what you can do, not what you can't.  Until you can find the page number for a cesium explosion, there are no cesium explosions.

Vinom

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1414
  • Rejoice, Bad things are about to happen!
    • Email
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #861 on: September 14, 2009, 03:18:50 AM »
Finds me a single book that says the rules of chemical reactions don't work in a DnDverse
You're forgetting the second commandment of practical character optimization, chief.  The rules don't say you can't grab a stick and spontaneously convert it into a holy avenger.  The rules state what you can do, not what you can't.  Until you can find the page number for a cesium explosion, there are no cesium explosions.
the rules don't say you can kill cow, and cook random chunks of meat from it and eat that instead of rations...
A player once asked me if there was any way to make a Tarrasque more evil... 3 sessions later he was stoned with D20s as the PC led an exidus out of the path of a Dire Tarrasque of Legendary Wonder.

Quote from:  Sarda the Sage
You're a quick thinker and spiteful, I can respect that. You won't be killed, Bikke

Never trust a smiling laughing chuckling grinning emotionless drunk, you know what Never Trust a DM!

78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature

Pulling off Pun-pun in 26 rounds

N00bs, because all gamers have to start somewhere

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from Science!"

Remember, Mobs are at least as stupid as their dumbest member.

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #862 on: September 14, 2009, 05:22:32 AM »
Having a sodium/lithium/cesium statue actually explode when hit by water depends on whether you allow actual gunpowder and guns/cannons in your game. If the players don't knowingly have access to the same tools then it's cheating. If they do, then you made a trap that they will attempt to test better next time. Hell, with a properly suspicious party that has been screwed over to a similar degree before, testing and paranoia will be old hat.

Also, the moisture in the characters' sweat may cause a reaction in the statue possibly tipping them off before they assplode.

Just remember that when you try to bring too much reality into D&D catgirls die. Without tentacles.
*waves hand* This is not the sig you're looking for...
The freely downloadable and searchable 3.5 SRD I prefer (Web)
Camlen, Enniwey

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #863 on: September 15, 2009, 08:38:23 AM »
Wouldn't the caesium have already exploded from contact with the air?

There's something similar in Tomb of Horrors, with a broken staff of the magi inside an antimagic field. When you take it outside its retributive strike activates. :p Maybe if there's some magical field protecting the statue and the waterfall is antimagic?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 08:40:22 AM by Prime32 »
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

Suzerain

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • is on extended leave
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #864 on: September 15, 2009, 10:57:03 AM »
Well, I know at least sodium coats itself in oxide, which can prevent reactions (though not long-term oxidation). Then again, the statue would look ugly.

If a DM did that to me, I'd roll up a hulking hurler and throw neutron stars at him. And with that, I mean kick him in the balls, and go play with someone else.

Anklebite

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
  • I shall play you the song of my people.
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #865 on: September 15, 2009, 11:11:03 AM »
they used to, but a warblade long since Iron Heart Surge'd it away.  :P
I do not suffer from paranoia; I enjoy every second of it.
Pioneer of the Ultimate Magus + Sublime Chord + Ultimate Magus combo

Viletta Vadim

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Metal Genocider, maximum shooto!
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #866 on: September 15, 2009, 11:43:19 AM »
the rules don't say you can kill cow, and cook random chunks of meat from it and eat that instead of rations...
No, they don't, but the cesium bomb is not like killing a cow for food.  The cesium bomb is pure douchebaggery that has no basis within the rules, and only serves as a chemistry wank in a world where singing "I'm a little tea pot" and throwing bat poo creates fireballs.  This thread is supposed to be about clever, dirty tricks within the rules.  The cesium bomb has no basis within the rules.

KellKheraptis

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2668
  • What's the matter? I thought you had me...
    • Email
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #867 on: September 15, 2009, 11:56:37 AM »
the rules don't say you can kill cow, and cook random chunks of meat from it and eat that instead of rations...
No, they don't, but the cesium bomb is not like killing a cow for food.  The cesium bomb is pure douchebaggery that has no basis within the rules, and only serves as a chemistry wank in a world where singing "I'm a little tea pot" and throwing bat poo creates fireballs.  This thread is supposed to be about clever, dirty tricks within the rules.  The cesium bomb has no basis within the rules.

And here I smite thee with the TO bomb : it's all theoretical, therefore whilst questionable, it is not explicitly forbidden, and further is beyond the bounds of practical optimization.  Check some of the shit they do on 339, like making nukes and such from 9th level on.

For the record, douchebaggery is generally reactive, and if I had a DM who was a persistent dick, he'd get some nasty TO bomb, followed by a kick in the teeth and the loss of a player to go with his shiny empty grill.  But then I always was a little hot-headed...:P
BG's Resident Black Hatter
The Mango List Reborn!
My Warmage Trickery (coming soon!)
My PrC Pally Trickery (coming soon!)
The D&D Archive
-Work in progress!

Viletta Vadim

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Metal Genocider, maximum shooto!
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #868 on: September 15, 2009, 12:30:49 PM »
And here I smite thee with the TO bomb : it's all theoretical, therefore whilst questionable, it is not explicitly forbidden, and further is beyond the bounds of practical optimization.  Check some of the shit they do on 339, like making nukes and such from 9th level on.
Except the cesium bomb isn't theoretical optimization, either.  Theoretical optimization is also operating within the rules.  Cesium bombs are not a part of the rules.  It's just a physics wank.

KellKheraptis

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2668
  • What's the matter? I thought you had me...
    • Email
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #869 on: September 15, 2009, 01:10:30 PM »
And here I smite thee with the TO bomb : it's all theoretical, therefore whilst questionable, it is not explicitly forbidden, and further is beyond the bounds of practical optimization.  Check some of the shit they do on 339, like making nukes and such from 9th level on.
Except the cesium bomb isn't theoretical optimization, either.  Theoretical optimization is also operating within the rules.  Cesium bombs are not a part of the rules.  It's just a physics wank.

Refer to my quote you used.  Read it again.  See that part about "not explicitly forbidden?"[/i]  That's the functional part of TO, especially in this context.  There's nothing within the rules saying a Kobold can cast epic spells at level 6, but we've done that a million times over.  Furthermore, if said cesium is available (which BY RAW, is, via Genesis to end all arguments), in an infinite plane (read : any non-demiplane, or all of the known ones) someone will have thought of it, and of those few, a few will have tried, and of those few, a few will have succeeded.  Note that I am in no way condoning integrating physics into an actual game, but outwardly saying "this doesn't work because I say so" is absolute rubbish when magic can create matter out of nothing and change matter at it's basest elements.  It kind of renders the entire question of "can we get our claws on THIS?" a moot point in a TO environment.

-=End Rant=-
BG's Resident Black Hatter
The Mango List Reborn!
My Warmage Trickery (coming soon!)
My PrC Pally Trickery (coming soon!)
The D&D Archive
-Work in progress!

rypta

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
    • Email
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #870 on: September 15, 2009, 03:56:47 PM »
There's nothing within the rules saying a Kobold can cast epic spells at level 6, but we've done that a million times over.
I would say its the exact opposite, and only a literal interpretation of the written rules allow for the epic casting kobold...

Furthermore, if said cesium is available (which BY RAW, is, via Genesis to end all arguments)
Again, the exact opposite.
Quote from: SRD

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #871 on: September 15, 2009, 04:06:25 PM »
I agree that if you have to invoke some esoteric rules from real world physics... well, it might still be arguably TO, but it is boring and I am not really interested in it. The basic assumption required is that the laws of physics from the real world apply in a D&D game, and I think it is a very flawed one. There aren't 118 elements in (most) D&D worlds. There are 4 (or 5, if you're in Rokugan). Cesium doesn't exist. Or if it does, it is made of some mixture of Earth, Wind, Water, and Fire, and may not act like you'd expect it to.
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]

Suzerain

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • is on extended leave
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #872 on: September 15, 2009, 04:18:49 PM »
I agree with rypta that TO is exactly exploiting the rules that are actually there.

Using the 3.0 version of genesis to create cesium or somesuch doesn't matter, since, as Phaedrus said amptly, it may not react as you'd expect it to. Physics in d&d may work completely differently. If it were possible to create a portal from there to our world, you could haul over uranium en masse if you wanted to, but it doesn't mean it'll work like uranium does here. Likewise, spellcasters and others won't be able to use their supernatural (as in "unnatural") abilities on our material plane.

Havok4

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • It can only be attributable to human error.
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #873 on: September 15, 2009, 04:24:52 PM »
I agree with rypta that TO is exactly exploiting the rules that are actually there.

Using the 3.0 version of genesis to create cesium or somesuch doesn't matter, since, as Phaedrus said amptly, it may not react as you'd expect it to. Physics in d&d may work completely differently. If it were possible to create a portal from there to our world, you could haul over uranium en masse if you wanted to, but it doesn't mean it'll work like uranium does here. Likewise, spellcasters and others won't be able to use their supernatural (as in "unnatural") abilities on our material plane.

If they did work that would sound like a fun campaign idea.

Viletta Vadim

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Metal Genocider, maximum shooto!
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #874 on: September 15, 2009, 04:25:44 PM »
Refer to my quote you used.  Read it again.  See that part about "not explicitly forbidden?"  That's the functional part of TO, especially in this context.  There's nothing within the rules saying a Kobold can cast epic spells at level 6, but we've done that a million times over.
And here, you refute yourself.  Kobolds are rather explicitly given the ability to cast epic spells at level 6.  There are rules laying out what abilities the kobolds can acquire, and the conditions under which they may acquire them.  These rules set conditions by which kobolds can attain epic level spells, and those conditions can be legally obtained by level 6.  It's not that there aren't rules forbidding level 6 kobolds from getting epic spells (otherwise I could pick up a stick and declare it to be a holy avenger because that course isn't explicitly banned), but that there are indeed rules that explicitly allow it.
Furthermore, if said cesium is available (which BY RAW, is, via Genesis to end all arguments), in an infinite plane (read : any non-demiplane, or all of the known ones) someone will have thought of it, and of those few, a few will have tried, and of those few, a few will have succeeded.
Why would they have succeeded?  There are no rules saying they succeed.  There are no rules saying cesium behaves the same way in D&D that it does in reality.  It's just a physics wank without any actual grounding within the rules.
Note that I am in no way condoning integrating physics into an actual game, but outwardly saying "this doesn't work because I say so" is absolute rubbish when magic can create matter out of nothing and change matter at it's basest elements.
And I'm not saying, "This doesn't work because I say so."  I'm saying, "This has no basis within the rules."  Difference.  And as optimization is within the rules, because the cesium bomb has nothing to do with the rules, the cesium bomb is not optimization in any capacity.

rypta

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
    • Email
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #875 on: September 15, 2009, 04:38:20 PM »
I guess the question is, if you believe that optimization involves using anything that "is not explicitly forbidden," what then are you optimizing?  

As I see it, the whole idea of optimization -- theoretical or otherwise -- is to explore the interactions of the rules as written to create something useful, powerful, unexpected, etc...

Theoretical doesn't mean imaginary, it just represents the extent to which you abuse the rules as written.  Practical optimization is something you could conceivably use in a game.  TO stuff is game-breaking, or game-ending, but it still operates within the limits of the rules.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 04:42:49 PM by rypta »

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #876 on: September 15, 2009, 05:53:15 PM »
I'm gonna have to say the cesium thing is about as applicable as saying Chuck doesn't work because it's physically impossible for something to reach lightspeed (which he did before they errata'd Footsteps of the Divine). TO isn't just doing something that isn't expressly forbidden. It's not TO to declare that your character heals to full HP upon dying because nobody ever says that characters don't do that. TO is taking actual rules that we're given and using them to create something so mind-bogglingly powerful or utterly contradictory to common sense or both that you just have to step back and say, "As amazing as this is, I wouldn't allow it in my game." The only "it's not expressly forbidden" thinking that ever enters into it is when they GIVE you an option through the rules and don't point out specific cases of using that option that shouldn't be allowed. For instance, using a Shaedling to create the Ruby Rod of Asmodeus, or using a spell component pouch to do the same thing, THAT'S TO because they give you the option to generate whatever the hell you want, and don't clarify it.

It's for that reason, for instance, that latter stages of the Hulking Hurler that relied on neutronium, IIRC, don't actually qualify as TO in my opinion, as humorous as they were. The Arseplomancer is the other major example of a grey area where you're simultaneously exploiting the rules you ARE given, and then having to fill in the blank space with assumptions, and I happen to think it just barely qualifies (since the rules seem to be designed for openings in objects, not creatures).
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Negative Zero

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1532
    • Email
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #877 on: September 15, 2009, 06:17:37 PM »
Another point is that this argument shoots down the 'commoner railgun' trick. That is, have several thousand commoners stand in a line and ready an action to pass a log to the commoner to their left. Hand a log to the guy on the far right, and within six seconds, the log travels several miles, so when the last guy lets go, it flies off at thousands of miles per hour. The problem, however, is that, by the rules, the log will just fall on the ground when the last commoner lets go of it, because the rules don't say that the log has inertia of any sort.

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #878 on: September 15, 2009, 06:47:23 PM »
Another point is that this argument shoots down the 'commoner railgun' trick. That is, have several thousand commoners stand in a line and ready an action to pass a log to the commoner to their left. Hand a log to the guy on the far right, and within six seconds, the log travels several miles, so when the last guy lets go, it flies off at thousands of miles per hour. The problem, however, is that, by the rules, the log will just fall on the ground when the last commoner lets go of it, because the rules don't say that the log has inertia of any sort.
:lmao Hilarious, but true.
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Do we have a dirty trick handbook?
« Reply #879 on: September 15, 2009, 08:13:25 PM »
I'm gonna have to say the cesium thing is about as applicable as saying Chuck doesn't work because it's physically impossible for something to reach lightspeed (which he did before they errata'd Footsteps of the Divine). TO isn't just doing something that isn't expressly forbidden. It's not TO to declare that your character heals to full HP upon dying because nobody ever says that characters don't do that. TO is taking actual rules that we're given and using them to create something so mind-bogglingly powerful or utterly contradictory to common sense or both that you just have to step back and say, "As amazing as this is, I wouldn't allow it in my game." The only "it's not expressly forbidden" thinking that ever enters into it is when they GIVE you an option through the rules and don't point out specific cases of using that option that shouldn't be allowed. For instance, using a Shaedling to create the Ruby Rod of Asmodeus, or using a spell component pouch to do the same thing, THAT'S TO because they give you the option to generate whatever the hell you want, and don't clarify it.

It's for that reason, for instance, that latter stages of the Hulking Hurler that relied on neutronium, IIRC, don't actually qualify as TO in my opinion, as humorous as they were. The Arseplomancer is the other major example of a grey area where you're simultaneously exploiting the rules you ARE given, and then having to fill in the blank space with assumptions, and I happen to think it just barely qualifies (since the rules seem to be designed for openings in objects, not creatures).
Bauglir, you summed up my feelings on the discussion exactly. Have an internet.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!