# What were your D&D hacks? **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [March 15, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065 "2015-03-15T21:35:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Unpronounceable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9de0a6/32.png) [@Unpronounceable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unpronounceable)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2015, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/81 "2015-03-19T19:30:45Z")
Fair enough. But it still means that barbarians can’t die from raging, since their Con doesn’t drop to 0. edit: unless they “fixed” their fix to their fix. Which is entirely possible…why have a simple rule that works when you can have a dozen special cases, instead, right? ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2015, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/82 "2015-03-19T20:07:42Z")
> [@Unpronounceable](#): > > Fair enough. But it still means that barbarians can’t die from raging, since their Con doesn’t drop to 0. > > edit: unless they “fixed” their fix to their fix. Which is entirely possible…why have a simple rule that works when you can have a dozen special cases, instead, right? Nothing about D&D 3X is “simple”, so your first choice is not an option. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/83 "2015-03-19T20:50:50Z")
> [@Unpronounceable](#): > > Fair enough. But it still means that barbarians can’t die from raging, since their Con doesn’t drop to 0. I’m not sure about the 3.5 rules (I moved on to _Pathfinder_) but I don’t think barbarians not having a sudden heart attack on rage end is really an issue, in fact I’d say it is in itself a patch. I mean, I realize the whole “warrior gives his all, then drops dead when he’s sure the last threat to his village/group/land is gone” element is a thing in the sagas and heroic tales ; but it still often is kind of silly in practice. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2015, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/84 "2015-03-19T22:30:01Z")
> [@Unpronounceable](#): > > Fair enough. But it still means that barbarians can’t die from raging, since their Con doesn’t drop to 0. I think y’all are misreading this on a fundamental level. The “minimum one hit point per die” refers to **maximum** hit points, not **current** hit points. Otherwise, a nineteenth-level character with 2 hit points left hit by Con damage would regain 17 hit points through the damage, which is a bit silly :). If I have a con of 10 and 50 hit points and 10 hit dice, and I take 9 points of con damage, I would normally lose 50 hit points from my current and maximum hit points, dropping to 0 hit points. However, the “min 1 hp per hd” rule means I would only lose 40 hit points, dropping to a maximum of 10 hp and similarly lowering my current HP to 10. But if I had been dropped by harm to 4 hit points, I’d still be dropped to 10 max HP with 40 points of damage; the drop to -30 hp would make me dead, dead, dead. ---
**Author:** ![Unpronounceable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9de0a6/32.png) [@Unpronounceable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unpronounceable)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/85 "2015-03-19T22:36:24Z")
Right, that’s how it was in 3.0, but apparently not in 3.5…I checked the updated 3.5 SRD, and they did, in fact, get rid of the ‘dying when rage ends’ discussion from the barbarian class. Seems dumb, but there you go. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2015, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/86 "2015-03-19T23:16:50Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think y’all are misreading this on a fundamental level. The “minimum one hit point per die” refers to **maximum** hit points, not **current** hit points. Otherwise, a nineteenth-level character with 2 hit points left hit by Con damage would regain 17 hit points through the damage, which is a bit silly :). Um, no ? It just says Con damage itself can’t possibly drop you below 1HP/level. It doesn’t \*\*up \*\*you to 1HP/Level. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/87 "2015-03-20T00:22:04Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Um, no ? It just says Con damage itself can’t possibly drop you below 1HP/level. It doesn’t \*\*up \*\*you to 1HP/Level. Can’t drop you below that much **max** hp. That’s the difference. Not **current** hp. Check out [this official faq](http://www.adnd3egame.com/documents/mainfaq.pdf) > [@](#): > > When a character takes Constitution damage (such as from a wyvern’s poison) and his Con modifier changes, what happens to his hit points? Does it simply lower his maximum hp, or does it reduce his current hit points too? > A character whose Constitution modifier changes adjusts both his current and full normal (maximum) hit point totals accordingly. Remember that your full normal hit point total can’t be less than 1 per level (since even a Con penalty can’t reduce your Hit Die roll to less than 1). An injured character who takes Constitution damage can be reduced to 0 or fewer hit points. Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/88 "2015-03-20T02:17:38Z")
I sit corrected, albeit without underwear. I stand by my assessment that the real hack in his hack is “land Harm on a dude”. I don’t think you really \*need \*any whizbang magic item after that to kill a guy :). ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/89 "2015-03-20T09:52:57Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > One approach (besides avoiding playing with the type of people who try to rules-lawyer through “loopholes”) is to just not give players game-mechanic information. Let them know what the _characters_ know about opponents, spells, so on. This makes more work for the GM, of course, but it means you can welcome people who are, say, fans of genre stories but not dicehead gamers. Thank you. I always did think that players who based their actions too much on game mechanics took the role playing right out of an rpg. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/90 "2015-03-20T10:47:44Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Thank you. I always did think that players who based their actions too much on game mechanics took the role playing right out of an rpg. Why would they create all these complex rules if not for you to strategize on how to use them? If you want an RP heavy game, make the rules simple. OR if you’re so trusting of the GM, just let them make it up as they go and don’t worry about even having rules. It seems to me that these games with complex rulesets are designed to be run as strategy games, and that pure RP-ers are just playing the wrong game. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/91 "2015-03-20T12:11:43Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > It seems to me that these games with complex rulesets are designed to be run as strategy games, and that pure RP-ers are just playing the wrong game. Well, you’re wrong. There are better strategy games starting with chess, working through the various hex-map war games, and finally coming down to the great dufus of strategy games: Risk. If you want to play a strategy game, play one of them. D&D and the other RPG’s are supposed to tell a story and/or simulate a world where magic and monsters are real. Rules lawyering and rules hacking does nothing but break immersion. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/92 "2015-03-20T12:45:04Z")
I think both approaches are fine. You can play D&D as a strategy game with minimal roleplaying, or you can play it heavy on the roleplay and tossing the cumbersome table-based gameplay. Honestly, I’m with \*\*BigT \*\*there - games with complex and rules-lawyering-friendly rulesets (and even more so D&D 3.5/Pathfinder where a lot of the rules involve 5-foot grid maps and minis, positioning that matters and so on ; as well as a very involved character-building process) are meant, or at least lend themselves very easily to be more about the door-monster-treasure. Which is fine - that’s one kind of fun. It’s not everyone’s cuppa, but what is ? Conversely, a game like Vampire or Star Wars 2nd Ed. with their absolute rubbish and fuzzy combat rules lend themselves more to character-based, improv theatre play. Both characteristics tend to be reflected in their respective modules, too - Pathfinder modules have a \*\*very \*\*heavy monster-and-dungeons component (while still offering a smattering of social setpieces and options for DMs who want to push that aspect of the game further), while Vampire scenarios used to be more “here are the NPCs involved, here’s what each of them is trying to do and a general idea of how they’re planning on doing it, improvise from there” (I would add that the two best roleplaying sessions I took part in my life involved games with no rules whatsoever) ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/93 "2015-03-20T12:56:15Z")
> [@Frodo](#): > > The first thing most RPG rulebooks say is that the rules are only guidelines (like POTC’s pirate code), they are there to help, not to hinder gameplay, the DM has absolute authority to alter, bend, ignore or do anything he wants with them. > > You are not playing chess, you are trying to create a story, If the DM’s setting is harmed by your clever hack, it’s his duty to tell you you can’t do that. > > Now a DM that abuses this power will rightly be deprived of players, if at all possible he should tell them beforehand what he will not allow, but sometimes that is not possible. He should also try to accommodate the player’s wishes and commend him for his/her ingenuity, may be see if he can allow something like the hack the player invented that is less setting/game/dignity destroying but it still rewards the player. > > But in the end there is a difference between RPG games and other tabletop games, in a normal game, you win by looking at the rules and using them to your benefit, a “hack” is something good. In an RPG game you cannot “win”, you win by having fun and creating great stories, if your hack compromises that it’s the DM’s duty to disallow it. Then why are you reading/posting in this thread? That’s what I don’t get. Just to come in and say “Hacks are bad, GMs should stop them!” Isn’t that basically just threadshitting in a more polite form? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/94 "2015-03-20T13:00:10Z")
> [@Unpronounceable](#): > > Amusingly, the SRD correction means _vampires, wraiths, etc. don’t work_ Because they kill by Con drain. If Con drain can’t drop hp to 0, then vampires can’t exist. WOTC was never any good at fixing logical flaws in their rules. > > The real problem with that “hack” is combining a weapon’s touch attack with a spell’s touch attack, on a single player’s single action. Now _that’s_ a no-no\*. > \*with the possible exception of splatbook prestige classes, which, again, are the DM’s responsibility to approve beforehand. No, it does require two standard actions. As stated in my original example, there was a surprise round and a winning initiative roll involved. Or in 3.0, the original version of Haste could give you a second standard action in a round. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/95 "2015-03-20T13:02:04Z")
I suppose you can play an RPG as it was Risk, to each his own, but if I am the DM it won’t fly. Since I play with some of the same players since 1996 they know what to expect, and the new players are mostly people with no previous RPG experience so they are molded in our way :). I’ll remember this thread if an RPG veteran from another group comes to play with us I’ll tell him that we are not a “Machaco-y-me-llevo-el-tesoro” (smash and grab the loot) kinda group. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/96 "2015-03-20T13:02:53Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Honestly, this is not the most efficient or reliable way to do this attack. Far better is harm+cause light wounds (or cause medium wounds if you’re worried about just dropping an opponent unconscious). > > Advantages of using the spell: > -Cause medium wounds at 10th level or above (you must be 11th level to cast harm) does a minimum of 5 points of damage (1d8+10, save for half), enough to drop the enemy unconscious even if they save. The rapier of puncturing does a minimum of 0 points of damage (1 point of con damage vs. an opponent with an odd con score). > -Cause medium wonds is a far, far cheaper resource: even if you cast it from a scroll, we’re talking about 150 gp, compared to the rapier’s mult-K cost. > -Cause medium wounds has an unambiguous effect as part of this combo. The rapier’s effect is gonna lead to raised eyebrows. > > That said, from my reading, the rapier combination would work in any 3.x game, including Pathfinder. When I think more about it, it’s really not that bad: once harm is cast, there are innumerable ways to do the last few points of damage. A friend casting magic missile, a fireball, anyone who can land an attack, etc. Harm is very close to a Kill The Bad Guy spell, and it’s supposed to be used in combinations like this. Well, Harm got nerfed in later rulesets. It no longer reduces you to 1d4 HP, it does a substantial amount of damage. And really, that was the correct fix for this loophole - “I am a mighty monster with 2,000 HP!” “Harm.” “Well, shit.” And if you were running 3.0 and wanted to houserule so your players didn’t try to use this loophole, fixing Harm is the correct way to do it, preferably before your players gain access to the spell. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/97 "2015-03-20T13:07:35Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Then why are you reading/posting in this thread? That’s what I don’t get. Just to come in and say “Hacks are bad, GMs should stop them!” Isn’t that basically just threadshitting in a more polite form? It wasn’t my intention to threadshit, I see how it can interpreted that way I’m sorry. I came to say just that “Hacks (most of them at least) are bad, GMs should stop them.” and got sucked in the discussion about the right of the GM to stop them. That said I’ll leave the thread and leave you to the discussion of interesting ways of hacking. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/98 "2015-03-20T13:07:59Z")
> [@Unpronounceable](#): > > Amusingly, the SRD correction means _vampires, wraiths, etc. don’t work_ Because they kill by Con drain. If Con drain can’t drop hp to 0, then vampires can’t exist. WOTC was never any good at fixing logical flaws in their rules. > > The real problem with that “hack” is combining a weapon’s touch attack with a spell’s touch attack, on a single player’s single action. Now _that’s_ a no-no\*. > \*with the possible exception of splatbook prestige classes, which, again, are the DM’s responsibility to approve beforehand. My reading of the 3.5SRD is different than most here. It says your hit point “score” can’t be reduced to less than 1 per hit die by Con damage - I think that’s your maximum hit points, not your current hit points. It’s essentially a re-statement of the rule listed with the Con ability score that says no matter how low your Con is, you still get at least one point per hit die. And I think that makes sense. If you get a high level opponent down to single digit HP, you ought to be able to finish them off with a rapier of puncturing. But since 3.5 fixes the Harm problem, you’ll just have to find a more creative way to do that. ETA : I see Left Hand and the official FAQ agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/99 "2015-03-20T13:13:38Z")
> [@Frodo](#): > > It wasn’t my intention to threadshit, I see how it can interpreted that way I’m sorry. > I came to say just that “Hacks (most of them at least) are bad, GMs should stop them.” and got sucked in the discussion about the right of the GM to stop them. > That said I’ll leave the thread and leave you to the discussion of interesting ways of hacking. Fair enough. And I’m not disputing the Rule Zero Theorem. But people do make decisions based on the rules as written, so if you suddenly change those rules, you have to let them retroactively change those decisions. Or, alternately, let it work the first time, and then work with the player to find an alternative. Personally, I prefer the Rule Zero Corollary : Anything the players can abuse, the NPCs can abuse better. Or : “That’s a great trick! Now everyone’s going to use that!” ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2015, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065/100 "2015-03-20T13:36:15Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Personally, I prefer the Rule Zero Corollary : Anything the players can abuse, the NPCs can abuse better. Or : “That’s a great trick! Now everyone’s going to use that!” That’s why I said above that you shouldn’t do such things and then raise a fuss when the DM overrules it, because he can pull the same tricks and you won’t appreciate it. And as this thread proves, all you end up doing is turning your fun game into one long argument that pisses everyone off. So it really comes down to “The person who is trying this crap and then arguing it with the DM is the ASSHOLE who is wrecking the game.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-your-d-d-hacks/715065.md?page=6)