Can you cheat at D&D?

[Nilehus]

I watched all five seasons all the way to the end, including the amazing alternate ending.

! -heads off to Google-

... God... Goddammit. Everything is ruined.

I loved that ending so much. Bryan Cranston is so amazing.

[Arkhaic]

As far as I can tell, being an independently thinking hominid is sufficient to qualify as a "problem player" and jedipotter's houserules exist only to ensure that all success and failure is due to his decree rather than any chance, action, or preparation on the part of the players.

Hey, don't be racist. Kobolds can think independently too!


Also, on the thread:
source: http://mochalab.bandcamp.com/album/the-dolls-of-new-albion-a-steampunk-opera
All your intentions take their toll
All you hate enthralls your soul
When you win you sometimes lose
And all you love does not love you

[Threadnaught]

I don't think anyone would say you aren't playing basketball just because your pickup game doesn't include tipoffs or free throws.

Of course, but he isn't playing Basketball as approved by the NBA.


No jedipotter, the NBA aren't going to send enforcers out all over America, because people aren't playing the game according to their rules, nor is there any specific law against it. However, the rules of the NBA aren't mere suggestions as some people would try to claim, they are actual rules that are enforced in official games.
Just as the official NBA rules don't have to be enforced in unofficial Basketball games, RAW does not have to be fully enforced in any given game of D&D. It is just polite to refer to the official rules, as the official rules.

[Amphetryon]

Of course, but he isn't playing Basketball as approved by the NBA.


No jedipotter, the NBA aren't going to send enforcers out all over America, because people aren't playing the game according to their rules, nor is there any specific law against it. However, the rules of the NBA aren't mere suggestions as some people would try to claim, they are actual rules that are enforced in official games.
Just as the official NBA rules don't have to be enforced in unofficial Basketball games, RAW does not have to be fully enforced in any given game of D&D. It is just polite to refer to the official rules, as the official rules.

Not only that, but if you invite folks over for a pick-up game of basketball, the moment you start distributing lacrosse sticks to everyone who showed up and explaining why they all need SCUBA gear, it should not be a surprise to find that those who came for a basketball game are a bit nonplussed. Similarly, going on a basketball forum and complaining about folks who don't use lacrosse sticks in basketball - or calling anyone who dribbles the ball or dunks a 'cheater' - is unlikely to receive a ton of positive feedback.

[Kantolin]

It makes me sad that that was all the reply that Kantolin got.

Me too. Me too...

Not surprised, mind you. Just sad.

Oh well. Hey Jedipotter, are your rules 50/50 success rate for everyone doing everything? If the rogue is afraid of picking locks for fear of orcuses or something, and the bard goes to pick the lock despite being less skilled, is that still a 50/50?

If not, what do you set the DCs at 'picking a lock' at? Mostly, I suppose, at levels 1 and 2, as your combats are still apparently 50% fatal (But at least it sounds like you've... uh, compromised down to 50% per /combat/ rather than 50% per /round/, which is a major reduction in the silly)

Since well, you said A:

I know a lot of players like to keep success at like 90%-100%, so they just about always make it. I find this very boring. If there is just about no chance your character will fail, why even bother rolling or even playing?

This expressly says that people are not allowed to have success rates at 90% - 100%. I will presume you mean except minor things like 'I find a local merchant to buy basic supplies' or trivial stuff that doesn't really need attention/rolling at all (But feel free to correct me!)

But you then said B:

So with something like, say a rope across a huge deep canyon, that needs to be crossed. Now the skillmonkeys will have little problem(if the have climb/use rope)(as not every single thing is balanced for every single character). But the rest have that (close to) 50% failure rate to look at.

That certainly makes it sound like someone (in this case, a skill monkey) who is /really good/ at something can do it with moderate reliability, but the difficulty and interest can come from several other things and not just them constantly failing at what they're 'good' at.

If /B/ is correct then that's actually terrific! I think literally all of the examples you've been given are more in the category of B - in my response to your 'ambushing sleeping orcs' example, I assumed the party succeeded at their half of the tasks! The wizard's spell totally happened, the rogue's sneaking totally happened, there are rules for it!

But then there's still a lot of variance in what happens that doesn't require, "You move silently? No, you move Orcus." or something. I dunno, A_moon said it much more eloquently.

So I dunno. If what you mean is 'people who are great at something are likely to succeed, the challenge will then come from elsewhere' then that's actually terrific! I'd sure expect a weapon focus fighter whos feats are all in hitting things to be fairly reliably good at hitting things. Sure, once in awhile he fights someone with armour focus for all his weapon focus and a tower shield that's more enchanted than his sword, but it's not /half/ the time he fights someone with armour focus for all his weapon focus and a tower shield that's more enchanted than his sword (or incorporeal with him being denied ghost touch, or...)

But then his ability to hit things that he put a ton of effort into then /presumably/ doesn't suddenly mean 'Welp he can hit it. The campaign is over. The heroes win. You can now kill 30 dragons a round'. No, it means there are troubles because there are - gasp - /two/ enemies! Whuh oh! He can't hit both of them at once since they're not even close enough to cleave! Or the enemy has a lot of hit points or miss chance or something.

If A is correct, now, then B /can't/ be correct, as then the skill monkeys need to have a 50/50 chance of failing or suddenly you can kill 30 dragons a round or something. Which presumably would mean that the rest of the party has a significantly lower - possibly zero, if the DC becomes like 25 - chance of success, and that group is extremely unlikely to get across that cliff at all, and will keep throwing rogues at it until one of the nameless new rogues survives the coin flip.

(Or cast fly, but as that is a spell I presume it's Orcus material).

Finally! Uh... you seem to have forgotten the entire point of Henry and Rick. :P

Rick is a problem player! We all agree!

Rick is /in no way inconvenienced/ by your house rules about summoning!

Henry is not a problem player! We (I believe) agree!

Henry /is rather inconvenienced/ by your house rules about summoning!

You said:

As a player you know casting a summoning spell is risky.

And then also:

The hostile summoning thing is rare: 1% chance per spell level, then a one in three chance that it is hostile. And like I said, clever players plan ahead. So they are ready if a hostile creature shows up. Same with the lost mind in a monster: every character has a non-lethal stop to use.

So... pick one? The latter comment says 'It's okay, it happens very rarely', and the former comment says, "It is risky, and thus stops those horrible cheating optimizers who want to use their class abilities'.

Either way, it's been established that it doesn't stop the Ricks of the world. In fact, one would say that the people here who have trouble with it are not horrible problem players who are out to wreck campaigns.

Now there's other things, like red flags, and how Henry disarming things would make him a horrible roleplayer, and how it helps flavor if you can turn into a tiger and not a leopard or can't cast weak but thematic spells but can use potent ones, but eh.

Edit: In fact, it /helps/ the Ricks of the world! If Rick is a good actor (in real life I mean - if the player is a good actor) then they can kill the party and laugh about it. Ruin other people's fun. Make people never want to play the game again. Laugh at the Henrys as they attempt to summon into a room or turn into a bat and instead are useless or antihelpful.

[Nilehus]

Didn't you hear him when he said that logic has no use in the real world?

[jedipotter]

Rick is /in no way inconvenienced/ by your house rules about summoning!

How does it not effect Rick?

[kellbyb]

How does it not effect Rick?

Because Rick doesn't have to confine himself to one archetype to overshadow the other players. If you neuter summoning like this, all he does is switch to a batman wizard, mailman sorcerer, A-game paladin, shock trooper dungeoncrasher fighter, whirling frenzy lion totem barbarian, or something similar. Henry, on the other hand, gets unnecessarily punished for trying to roleplay something he thought was cool.

[Qwertystop]

How does it not effect Rick?

If what he's trying to do is mess things up, casting a spell that randomly does unintended things means he can do so without it being obvious. Either it summons something useless or harmful (and he can pretend unintended and thus look like he's trying to be helpful while harming the party), or it summons something useful (And he continues to look like he's trying to be helpful). The rule allows him to mess everything up without, at any point, making it clear that that's what he's trying to do.

Normally, someone who's trying to mess up the party might be able to keep it a secret in character, but would not be able to keep it secret out of character.

[FidgetySquirrel]

It's totally cheating that you can consistently pull Orcus out whenever you want. Surely, to make the game more fun, there should be a chance that you pull out a different creature. You try to turn a club into Orcus? Too bad, it turns into Demigorgon! You want to run into Orcus? Too bad, you run into Vecna! You want to get a cup full of Orcus from the tavern? Nope, you get a cup of Tarrasque! Only optimizing cheaters want to consistently get the same Orcus on demand!

Okay, now that's just ridiculous.

You forgot about the fiendish sheep!

[Dimers]

There are rules, they have penalties, the difference between a rule and a suggestion is if it's penalized. And violating the default rules at most D&D tables is penalized in various ways. Typically with social chastisement.

So we're back around to the original thread content, interesting! Because what you're talking about there? breaking the rules? is actual, dictionary-definition cheating. Yes, as you say it does get punished, by chastisement or removal.

Houserules are also rules, and they override the base rules. Sadly, in jedipotterworld, players can't even know some of them ahead of time, and others are subject to on-the-spot adjudication in a way that leaves them unable to even be known ahead of time. Kinda hard to not break rules you can't deliberately follow, especially when they're in conflict with the rules assumed as default because the DM has advertised his game as "3.X".

But at JediPotter's game the rules are different and there is no penalty for changing them.

(First: a player can reap a penalty by sowing a rule change in jedipotterworld.)

Jedipotter assigns himself no additional penalty when he breaks the written rules of the game, but a penalty already exists, in the form of good gamers walking out and not returning, or good gamers turning into problem gamers as a response to problem DMing.

----------------------------

On a separate note -- why are we still accepting the existence of a Rick? That kind of player would see either zero or one session at the table of most posters here before being told she can go the hell home.

[Thurbane]

I just realized - the whole "need to have body parts" for Summons and Wildshape would give rise to an entire industry. Farms/zoos for all kind of mundane and exotic creatures would start popping up.

And the Regenerate spell would gain a new lease on life.

Might have to hold you up for the poster child here.....

You do understand they are just a way to play a game right? Some guys...human beings...just you you and me...just thought them up one day. Neither them guys or what they wrote down is in any way special.

So why are they called ''rules''.....it's a marketing ploy. No one would buy a ''suggestion book'', but ''rulebook'' sound so offical and important. And millions run out to get the ''must have rules'', and make the company money.

This is a whole new level of "what the"?

I don't think I'd like to play poker with you. I'd get a full house, and you'd say "nuh-uh, round these parts we call that the chicken-gizzard; and it loses to my two threes, or as I call it, the mega-crunch!"

Yes, roleplaying games generally have a lot more room for discarding rules or changing them than a lot of other games; but they are still the (default) rules. Not because those of us who follow them are WotC worshipping fanboys, but because they are the common ground that everyone who plays the same edition uses as a baseline.

Almost every group I've played with uses some kind of houserules. Don't get me wrong, I've used them when I've DM'd. But the majority of what we use is the rules as printed in the book. Not because I think the 3.5 designers were infallible celestial prophets, but because it's the basic framework of the particular game I and my group have chosen to play.

Your weird leaps and assumptions behind other's reasoning quite frankly astounds me...

I'm pretty sure he stopped implying it a long time ago. Why he's even playing a game when he has such clear disdain for the base rules and their designers, I have no idea.

I'm inlcined to agree.

Not only that, I'm sure there are systems out there that lend themselves more to freeform gaming and are less open to systems-mastery "abuse" (or cheating, as Jedipotter deems it).

Note: I don't personally consider systems-mastery abuse. Sure, 3.5 is open to players using RAW to derail a game with characters who can be far more powerful than the designers probably intended, but my group tends to deal with that using a gentleman's agreement between players and DM.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Note: I don't personally consider systems-mastery abuse. Sure, 3.5 is open to players using RAW to derail a game with characters who can be far more powerful than the designers probably intended, but my group tends to deal with that using a gentleman's agreement between players and DM.

jedipotter has that, as well. It's called 'Follow my rules, even the ones you didn't know about, and the ones I arbitrarily changed w/o telling you, lest you stray off the beaten path straight into Orcus.

[Nilehus]

No wonder Orcus is so angry... He's constantly getting summoned by Summon Monster I spells.

And people using Knowledge Checks. And people trying to use Fireball.

[Flickerdart]

jedipotter has that, as well. It's called 'Follow my rules, even the ones you didn't know about, and the ones I arbitrarily changed w/o telling you, lest you stray off the beaten path straight into Orcus.

That's not even the problem. It's perfectly fine to have a different set of rules. I wouldn't have a problem sitting down at a game where I didn't know all the rules, and I would be okay with houserules being put in place to plug holes that become apparent during gameplay.

But that's not what's going on here. Jedipotter has shown numerous times that he actively punishes player agency, and sets different goalposts for different characters. If you're a skilled thief who has worked as a locksmith for years, and have a high chance of opening locks? Instead of gold, that safe you cracked is full of Orcus. But if you're a fighter with all 3s, welcome to 50/50 land, where the world rewrites itself to accommodate your nonsensical survival. It doesn't matter if your stats say that you should barely be able to comprehend what a lock is, just push the magic roleplay button and the gnome beekeeper in your pocket will tell you all about the secret ways of lockpicking.

[FidgetySquirrel]

No wonder Orcus is so angry... He's constantly getting summoned by Summon Monster I spells.

Well, it's only a 1% chance. Oddly enough, that means that if 100 people cast Summon Monster I at the same time, which is FAR from improbable, Orcus is probably showing up somewhere, maybe even 2 places at once! But it's cool, hecandotwothingsatonce.

That's not even the problem. It's perfectly fine to have a different set of rules. I wouldn't have a problem sitting down at a game where I didn't know all the rules, and I would be okay with houserules being put in place to plug holes that become apparent during gameplay.

But that's not what's going on here. Jedipotter has shown numerous times that he actively punishes player agency, and sets different goalposts for different characters. If you're a skilled thief who has worked as a locksmith for years, and have a high chance of opening locks? Instead of gold, that safe you cracked is full of Orcus. But if you're a fighter with all 3s, welcome to 50/50 land, where the world rewrites itself to accommodate your nonsensical survival. It doesn't matter if your stats say that you should barely be able to comprehend what a lock is, just push the magic roleplay button and the gnome beekeeper in your pocket will tell you all about the secret ways of lockpicking.

Sorry, I thought this thread had reached the point where 'There is no player agency' was actually considered one of his houserules. I didn't mean to say houserules are bad, after all, I use them!

[Somensjev]

Well, it's only a 1% chance. Oddly enough, that means that if 100 people cast Summon Monster I at the same time, which is FAR from improbable, Orcus is probably showing up somewhere, maybe even 2 places at once! But it's cool, hecandotwothingsatonce.

one person gets orcus, the other gets tenebrous because why not?

[eggynack]

That's not even the problem. It's perfectly fine to have a different set of rules. I wouldn't have a problem sitting down at a game where I didn't know all the rules, and I would be okay with houserules being put in place to plug holes that become apparent during gameplay.

But that's not what's going on here. Jedipotter has shown numerous times that he actively punishes player agency, and sets different goalposts for different characters. If you're a skilled thief who has worked as a locksmith for years, and have a high chance of opening locks? Instead of gold, that safe you cracked is full of Orcus. But if you're a fighter with all 3s, welcome to 50/50 land, where the world rewrites itself to accommodate your nonsensical survival. It doesn't matter if your stats say that you should barely be able to comprehend what a lock is, just push the magic roleplay button and the gnome beekeeper in your pocket will tell you all about the secret ways of lockpicking.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy. Honestly, I'm starting to shift towards the theory that Jedipotter is just really really bad at communicating his ideas, which makes them sound worse than they are. I'm not much of a fan of the stuff that we can identify as almost certainly true, but I get the feeling that I wouldn't be so adamant about it had he the possession of high level rhetorical skills. As is so often the case, it's only really ever half what you actually say, and half the way you say it.

[Kantolin]

Sure! Let's take a trip down memory lane and see what it's supposed to do.

This is arule that stops a lot of magic use and abuse. No summoner would risk ''spamming the battle feild with monsters''. Summoners don't dominate battles with summoned armies, with out cost and risk.

Goal: Stop abuse of magic. A 1% chance or a solveable will save is not a discouragement, so it doesn't do that.

My house rules fix a lot of problems. For example, some people that would be problem spellcasters take one look at the house rules and say ''no way'', so they be a fighter. And everyone has fun.

Goal: Stop problem spellcasters. It doesn't do that.

A good example would be: The Optimizing Showboat Jerk. Lets call him Kyle. He is playing to over shadow and put down the other players by proving he is ''better'' and ''smarter'' with his build. So when Joe the fighter goes to open a stuck door, Kyle leaps in and polymorphs into a giant to do it better and faster. When the group comes to a fight encounter, he spam summons an army and takes out the encounter himself. My polymorph and summoning rules stop Kyle.

Goal: Stop jerk players. It doesn't do that.

It's not that ''expecting the rules to do what some short sighted writer foolishly put in a book meant for them to do'', It's the use of the rules. The summoning and calling rules let you summon anything and command them, and the lazy fool who wrote that did not see a problem. So in a normal game, you can summon anything and have it use it's abilities. You call it cheese, or candy or whatever else makes you feel better, but in the end, it's cheating. It's using an exploit.

Goal: Stop people from exploiting summons. A 1% per spell level doesn't do that (of special interest that I didn't notice before: Jedipotter specifically calls out 'Summoning /and calling/', and summarily is aware of the difference and in fact specifically calling out Summon Monster/Nature'sAlly.

Well, take the polymorph/wild shape rule that ''you need a part of the creature''. Enter Rick. He has his list of creatures sorted by each thing. He can't wait to change shape into the ''perfect'' creature for each encounter or problem. Rick is an Gadget Loner type problem player. He can't ''just sit there'' for even a minute. If something happens in the game he must not only do something, but he must solve it. He ignores the group, the game to him is his character fixing and solving every problem. As his forms can often fix any problem faster, easier and better then the other characters, the group lets him do so. They might think it's ''great'' to fix and solve everything with ease or maybe they just don't want to hear Rick whine. Worse is Chuck with the fighter who almost never gets to attack as Rick's creature slaughters everything in a round or two and Henry's bard, who never gets to even use a skill as Ricks creatures always have higher ones. My house rules stop Rick cold.

Goal: Solve RIck (this is where Rick came from, I believe). It doesn't do that.

Only Problem Players have a problem with risk. Other Players are fine with risk. Something 'bad' might happen during the game. Other Players are fine with that and can accept it. The Problem Players can't accept faliure.

Goal: Problem players do not like risk, while nonproblem players like risk, so these rules help stop problem players. It has been proven that, contrary to this, it discourages /good/ players who don't want to maim their friends.

We also have several examples of the rules discouraging good players from wanting to summon. Thus the actual goal seems to be to make it easier for bad players to mess with people, and harder on good players who don't want to maim their friends.

And in fact, the following example suggests that this is actually Jedipotter's actual goal:

Okay, let me explain what is wrong with this.

I am a team player. I do my best to make whatever character the party needs, not cause conflict, not outshine others, ETC. Part of being a team player is factoring in risks I'm presenting to the party. With your rule, because it's at your whim, I technically have a 1-9% chance of summoning Orcus and causing a TPK. As a team player, I am not okay with that and will choose something else.

I'd say my house rule worked if it got you to not be a summoner or use summoning spells.

Stated: The house rule worked, it got you (You being MysticMuse, who was stating 'I am a team player') to avoid summoning. Or to reiterate, the house rule discourages good players from being summoners while encouraging bad players to do so. Thus the goal of:

My house rules stop showboaters, and all the other problem players cold. The good players still play the archetypes. Sally, who is not a problem player, has no problem with the conjuration/summoning house rules. She will even incorporate it into her character and always talk about the dangers of her magic use.

Doesn't work - the house rule isn't stopping the showboater (it's encouraging the showboater!), it's not stopping all the other problem players cold, it doesn't encourage good players to play the archetypes (unless 'good player' and 'kill friends' is a thing?).

Now, Jedipotter didn't comment on disarming people apparently making otherwise great roleplayers terrible roleplayers, didn't comment about my question about success rates and being skilled, nor wanting your own sense of agency being a red flag, have you actually picked a stance on summoning spells (I presume taht the earlier comments were lies/incorrect, and you really meant it was rare and not risky? That seems to be your stance now).

Nor have you commented about how not blocking fireball leads to 'can kill 3 dragons a turn', but that's less focal.

...or did you mean you haven't been reading any of the posts about the negative effects of this on good players? There are a ton in my post here . Perhaps you overlooked them?

There are also several above here: Here's one by KellyB, here's one by Qwertystop.

Really there are kind of a lot of examples, so I'm not sure how they're all being missed. Especially given you were the one commenting about being misrepresented and the like. Oh well though - hopefully those reminders help.

[FidgetySquirrel]

one person gets orcus, the other gets tenebrous because why not?

BAH GAWD! I get it! This is why sometimes it's something weird, like a sheep. Because Orcus' was busy!
Dealing with some other LV 1 Druid who had the audacity to think summoning a wolf should actually, ya know, summon a wolf.

[Nilehus]

BAH GAWD! I get it! This is why sometimes it's something weird, like a sheep. Because Orcus' was busy!
Dealing with some other LV 1 Druid who had the audacity to think summoning a wolf should actually, ya know, summon a wolf.

If my DM played that as a joke encounter, I think that'd be my favorite campaign ever.

Orcus puffing in, wiping an overly difficult encounter, then puffing out again right as he's about to completely ruin a level 5 fighter's day.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, it's pretty crazy. Honestly, I'm starting to shift towards the theory that Jedipotter is just really really bad at communicating his ideas, which makes them sound worse than they are. I'm not much of a fan of the stuff that we can identify as almost certainly true, but I get the feeling that I wouldn't be so adamant about it had he the possession of high level rhetorical skills. As is so often the case, it's only really ever half what you actually say, and half the way you say it.

Given that he's directly contradicted himself several times, I don't think it's a problem of rhetoric at all.

[eggynack]

Given that he's directly contradicted himself several times, I don't think it's a problem of rhetoric at all.

I'd considered that aspect of things, but it's vaguely possible that it just comes across that way because poor communication. In any case, even if rhetoric wouldn't account for that odd element, it might account for some other stuff. I mean, I can directly point to places where he said something in a way that made it sound horrible, and then later said it in a somewhat different way that was less terrible. Honestly, I've still got nothing on the contradictory stuff. It's been completely unexplained.

[137beth]

I'm just imagining constructing automatically-reseting traps of SMI. Every 100 rounds on average (10 minutes), it summons another Orcus

[Jeff the Green]

I'd considered that aspect of things, but it's vaguely possible that it just comes across that way because poor communication. In any case, even if rhetoric wouldn't account for that odd element, it might account for some other stuff. I mean, I can directly point to places where he said something in a way that made it sound horrible, and then later said it in a somewhat different way that was less terrible. Honestly, I've still got nothing on the contradictory stuff. It's been completely unexplained.

I tend to agree with this. Mostly because I try to adhere to the principle of charity and with some of his explanations the more charitable interpretations become plausible.

I still think I'd never want to play with him since I very much dislike DM meddling when it's not necessary (regardless of which side of the screen I'm on). Magic mishaps I'm fine with if they're done well and integrated into fluff, but I find it infinitely preferable for there to be a table to roll on. And some of the things he's said are bizarre (e.g. his opinions on logic). But I no longer feel the need to take his players to a shelter and get them therapy for Stockhom syndrome.

[FidgetySquirrel]

I'd considered that aspect of things, but it's vaguely possible that it just comes across that way because poor communication. In any case, even if rhetoric wouldn't account for that odd element, it might account for some other stuff. I mean, I can directly point to places where he said something in a way that made it sound horrible, and then later said it in a somewhat different way that was less terrible. Honestly, I've still got nothing on the contradictory stuff. It's been completely unexplained.

It's like a bizarre combination of poor communication, blatant inconsistencies, and logical fallacies, with the occasional weird bit of reasonableness that gets lost in the shuffle.

[Flickerdart]

But I no longer feel the need to take his players to a shelter and get them therapy for Stockhom syndrome.

If there's one thing jedipotter has managed to keep consistent in his story, it's that people regularly leave his games. So I wouldn't be worried on that account.

[FidgetySquirrel]

And some of the things he's said are bizarre (e.g. his opinions on logic).

Well, if you happen to subscribe to the tragic miscommunication theory of this thread, I guess perhaps jedipotter got the wrong idea from the multitude of posts about how DnD=/=logic on the forum. Probably not.

[A_Moon]

On a separate note -- why are we still accepting the existence of a Rick? That kind of player would see either zero or one session at the table of most posters here before being told she can go the hell home.

Because that isn't how Jedipotter rolls. He doesn't ask a player to leave*, or to change their play-style, he just designs his house-rules as passive-aggressively as he can in order to make them leave of their own accord. The point being made is that his rules don't actually work on a player like Rick, they only annoy actually good players who a good DM would want to encourage.

*Unless they have the gall to try and collect spell-components, apparently.

This expressly says that people are not allowed to have success rates at 90% - 100%. I will presume you mean except minor things like 'I find a local merchant to buy basic supplies' or trivial stuff that doesn't really need attention/rolling at all (But feel free to correct me!)

I assume this would be allowable, as long as you don't want to use anything you buy to "invalidate any challenge in the game", because as per Jedipotter's definition in the first-post, that would be "cheating". You want rope? In my games, when you want to get down a wall, you take fall damage, little optimizer.

Otherwise I suspect you'll end up buying several inventory's worth of Orcus. From Orcus. And the shop you just walked into was also Orcus.

[Flickerdart]

Otherwise I suspect you'll end up buying several inventory's worth of Orcus. From Orcus. And the shop you just walked into was also Orcus.

If Orcus was a nesting doll, that would certainly make the whole thing work smoother. When you cast a level 1 summoning spell, you summon the little Orcus from the middle, but when you cast Gate, you get the really big Orcus that holds all the small Orcuses.