Creative. Could you create water inside of someone? Fill their bladder up?

Much of the creativity that becomes canonized was someone's house rules first. Zines and meet ups allowed for players and dm's to exchange stories and rules that made their game fun to play. The game co-evolved with active community engagement and feedback. It was an important time for its development.

I wouldn't call those homebrew. They don't have new rules that are consistently followed. It's more just allowing Rule of Cool. I really hope typical D&D allows the occasional shenanigan.

You fill their lungs up. It was creative the first time, but it's a very well-known shenanigan at this point. 3.5 had a specific note in Create Water: Conjuration spells can’t create substances or objects within a creature.

Everyone remembers the part in Mythbusters where they proved this is possible. Nobody remembers the part where they found no evidence of it ever happening. Also, the eye patch trope was originally for sailors in general. Which would make sense if this is what it was used for, since all sailors would need night vision, but that just means it's even crazier that nobody would bother to write it down. They used deck prisms to see below decks. That would give you plenty of light during the day, and during the night your eyes are already adjusted to the dark.

Whenever the DM gives me enough money at character creation, I buy two immovable rods so that I can fly by way of magical monkey bars.

They used their free object interaction to pick up the tile. They'd need another action to eat it. Though going by that logic, they could just eat it at the beginning of their next turn with the same result.

> Reminder that by RAW in 5e (2014 at least) skill checks are a standard action. This is still true with 2024, and in this specific instance is even more codified in the rules with the addition of the Influence action (basically making any kind of Charisma check to influence another creature)

DND is a team game, and both have agreed upon rules. Not sure I follow your objection

But dnd's paradox is it is both open ended and rigid. My problem is it's too open ended in many ways (eg: social conflict), almost completely missing rules in other parts (eg: meta game mechanics, conceding conflicts), and too rigid in others (eg: Eldritch blast targeting rules, unarmed smite and sneak attack). That's not even going into the bigger problems like the adventuring day or how coarse class+level makes many concepts impractical at best. On top of that, it is so mega popular many players have no other reference points and don't realize its assumptions are not universally true. It's like people who have only ever watched the Lord of the rings movies, and they're like "of course movies are four hours long and have horses. That's just how movies are." The main things DND 5e does well are popular support, and the very small decision space for players makes it hard to make a character that's mechanically very weak or very strong. It brings nothing special to the table for roleplaying. Compare with my go-to example of Fate, which has simple systems to encourage it. CofD, my second favorite, also does.

It honestly just comes down to how much the DM wants to police the players. An interaction like this is fun and has no mechanical benefit. If a player then wanted to pick up a potion and drink it as part of a free action, the DM would have to explain this to the players explicitly. But I've always been on the side of permissive rulings, because it allows the players to express themselves more freely. It takes more improvisation though.

Now that is a high stakes strength check.

Another metbod uses Boots of Levitation and a single Immovable Rod so you basically have an invisible pump rail cart.

> A free action that grants a skill check to get +2 to hit on your next attack as a reward for missing is wildly disproportionate. There are feats worse than that. If this is a thing people can do why would literally everyone playing not be constantly chewing up the floor in every encounter? Ok, yes I can see the potential problems but I think they're easy to handle by just carrying out the action to its logical outcome - which is that the player just ate a handful of gravel. Now if they're a dwarf maybe that's not an issue, but also a dwarf eating gravel might not be any more intimidating than a human eating popcorn. On the other hand if they're an elf or a human or something, well even if they pass a constitution save to not immediately start puking, they're getting broken teeth, a mouthful of rock dust, and future digestion problems. Sure, they can take an action that is technically possible within the game world, but actions have consequences. The gravel didn't just disappear because they succeeded on the intimidation roll. > Broadly speaking objects that are worn or held are exempted from automatic manipulation by spells and effects, though this is usually called out in the description of the effect. I agree this one's more of a stretch, I'd say specifically because [Mage Hand Legerdemain](http://dndroll.wikidot.com/rogue:arcane-trickster) has specific rules about worn/carried objects that *can* be manipulated, which implies that anything not defined there cannot be manipulated.

But it did have a mechanical benefit!

In this instance I wouldn't have given the intimidation, no

> D&D is great because it allows for creative freedom This is not something unique to dnd! In fact, DND is not even especially good at this! It's like people are saying "mayonnaise is great because you can add it to any meal", which is technically true, but meanwhile *salt* is right there being ignored on the shelf.

I have also never played RImworld but curiosity got the better of me and against my better judgment I checked to see if you were correct. You were.

For the next 12 hours, every hour roll a constitution check against 1d4 of gastrointestinal damage.

And you just know it was 3.5e. Damn thousand splatbooks and their feats.