Oh No, Not Another "Infinity-Based" Trick Thread!

[SowZ]

Or almost. I have no idea what to do with this trick other than silly things.

Take the Quiver of Anariel, a quiver with infinite arrows that automatically disappear after one round of being removed. With Quick Draw, and treating the arrows as improvised melee weapons, I figure you could draw a totally arbitrary number of arrows per round since dropping something is a free action. Maybe toss on Tireless so your arms don't poop out.

Possible uses of being surrounded by a pile of nigh-infinite arrows...

1. Make a shield for yourself. Drop enough that they start to pile up around you and offer cover.

2. Fill a chamber end to end with pointy things. Could cause problems.

3. Cause weight capacity problems on a platform or bridge.

4. Fill a pit to the brim with them so someone with thick enough boots and a light enough step can run across.

5. Be on top of a mountain or hill and cause an avalanche of arrows to fall onto and crush enemies closer to the bottom.

6. While falling, drop them below you to create a tall, (yet pointy,) pile to land on.

7. Drop them into a chamber below you until you fill all available space. Keep the arrows coming so the space never refills as old arrows disappear. Suffocate or poke to death anyone inside!

8. Fill a body of water with arrows so quickly that it displaces a large enough amount of water to create a tidal wave.

8. Quench a fire by covering it in tons of wood instantly, suffocating the flame.

10. Drop them on someone below you, smushing them flat.



Anyone come up with more uses or give a reason this wouldn't work?

[Andezzar]

Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.So any DM can say you do not get enough free actions to do that.

[SowZ]

So any DM can say you do not get enough free actions to do that.

The DM can, but there's no actual RAW limit. Some builds or tricks require a dozen or two dozen or three dozen Free Actions to pull off but still follow RAW since an official line was never drawn. That SRD excerpt isn't an official ruling so much as a reminder of Rule Zero so that thought experiments like this one don't see actual play.

[Andezzar]

It is most certainly not RAW that you get an arbitrarily high number or even a number sufficiently high to perform the tricks of Free Actions per turn. It is only RAW that each single Free Action takes nearly no time. It is also RAW (SRD and PHB. 139) that the DM can put a limit on the number of free actions you can perform. This limit need not be based on the time or effort required to perform the Free Actions. It can be anything including the DM's whim.
So this trick is not RAW it entirely depends on the DM, so not much of a trick.

For your convenience the slightly different text from the PHB:
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort, and over the span of the round, their impact is so minor that they are considered free. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, the DM puts reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.
So by RAW the DM sets a limit, but the value of that limit differs from DM to DM.

[SowZ]

It is most certainly not RAW that you get an arbitrarily high number or even a number sufficiently high to perform the tricks of Free Actions per turn. It is only RAW that each single Free Action takes nearly no time. It is also RAW (SRD and PHB. 139) that the DM can put a limit on the number of free actions you can perform. This limit need not be based on the time or effort required to perform the Free Actions. It can be anything including the DM's whim.
So this trick is not RAW it entirely depends on the DM, so not much of a trick.

For your convenience the slightly different text from the PHB:
So by RAW the DM sets a limit, but the value of that limit differs from DM to DM.

You may as well say Pun Pun is not RAW or the common or rail gun doesn't resolve instantly because rule zero exists. You are quoting DMing guidelines, not an official or hard rule. The rulebooks also suggest that the DM keep the game reasonable in general and have blanket statements concerning not allowing stupid/ridiculous stuff.

DMing advice dependent on the particular gamemaster have nothing to do with RAW, but everything to do with RAI. Is a build that uses twenty free actions RAW? How about one that uses thirty? Forty? One hundred? Where is the line? There is none, it is all about DM style and using judgement to determine what makes sense. RAW has no sense of judgement. Hence Pun-Pun/the commoner railgun, (though I don't think it is RAW that such a Railgun creates a black hole. But I digress.)


We are basically looking at an aside that says, "Okay, so the implications of it taking no time at all can get really silly. Make sure you stay on top of that, mmkay?" Which will happen in a real game, to be sure. But not in a silly discussion of stupid tricks.

[Seffbasilisk]

Punpun is based on RAW, he doesn't require infinite free actions.

If you're allowed infinite free actions, you don't even need the quiver. Take commoner 1, and the flaw: Chicken Infested.

With the feat you get from the flaw, take Quick Draw, and draw infinite chickens so that their mass suffocates all life on this planet and their combined mass crushes them into a bio-ooze that either fosters the growth of new life on the planet, or achieves necro-sentience with the death of so many magical creatures in the same combat round.

RAW, it is You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.

OR. If you get one free action per action...that's one for swift, one for standard, one for move, one for free, and one free for free.

Five's not bad, most DM's cap me at eight. One even capped it at Dex modifier.

RAW is like the constitution, the DM are the states. Any power not explicitly granted by the constitution falls to the DM or the general consensus of the gaming group.

[Andezzar]

No, what I'm quoting was not rule zero but the rule that there is a limit and that the limit is set by the DM. The rule does not say the DM can set a limit or not, it says he sets it as he pleases. There is an important difference. The former would be rule zero the latter is an explicit rule with leeway for the DM. That's like the rules for creating custom magic items. We know that we can make them, but we do not know what we need to have to create them without a DM.

So RAW tells us that there is a limit but we do not know its value until we use that trick with a DM. Thus we do not know if we can perform enough Free actions for those tricks to work. And since we do not know, we cannot tell if the trick would work without consulting a DM.
Other tricks do definitely work without consulting a DM.

[SowZ]

Punpun is based on RAW, he doesn't require infinite free actions.

If you're allowed infinite free actions, you don't even need the quiver. Take commoner 1, and the flaw: Chicken Infested.

With the feat you get from the flaw, take Quick Draw, and draw infinite chickens so that their mass suffocates all life on this planet and their combined mass crushes them into a bio-ooze that either fosters the growth of new life on the planet, or achieves necro-sentience with the death of so many magical creatures in the same combat round.

RAW, it is You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.

OR. If you get one free action per action...that's one for swift, one for standard, one for move, one for free, and one free for free.

Five's not bad, most DM's cap me at eight. One even capped it at Dex modifier.

RAW is like the constitution, the DM are the states. Any power not explicitly granted by the constitution falls to the DM or the general consensus of the gaming group.

It is certainly not RAW that you get one free action per other type of action. That's definitely a house rule. The book isn't even suggesting a hard cap on the number of free actions. (As it shouldn't. A knife thrower with Quick Draw should get as many free actions as attacks.) The RAW is, 'you get free actions until it becomes too silly and the DM needs to say no way,' which is basically the ruling on anything that ever happens in the game because of Rule Zero.

In a purely theoretical discussion, there is no capacity to judge when it reaches a point of 'too silly.' If a trick that requires exactly 27 free actions can be considered RAW, so can this. Chicken infested also accomplishes the same thing, yes. But you would need infinite things to draw out of a container or infinite weapons with the Quick Draw feat to get an arbitrary amount of chickens. So you'd still want something like the quiver.


No, what I'm quoting was not rule zero but the rule that there is a limit and that the limit is set by the DM. The rule does not say the DM can set a limit or not, it says he sets it as he pleases. There is an important difference. The former would be rule zero the latter is an explicit rule with leeway for the DM. That's like the rules for creating custom magic items. We know that we can make them, but we do not know what we need to have to create them without a DM.

So RAW tells us that there is a limit but we do not know its value until we use that trick with a DM. Thus we do not know if we can perform enough Free actions for those tricks to work. And since we do not know, we cannot tell if the trick would work without consulting a DM.
Other tricks do definitely work without consulting a DM.

There is no limit on how many free actions can be done and not a suggestion for that. It isn't about how many, it is about how ludicrous the consequence. It is about what's reasonable, not what exceeds a particular number. Otherwise, they could have just set a maximum.

It is reasonable for a character with dual throwing daggers and lots of haste like abilities to draw 38 daggers as a free action if his build grants him that many attacks with daggers. In the same campaign, it may be unreasonable to take another free action five times in a turn depending on what the implications of that are. This is a judgement call issue and telling the DM to curb silliness. It isn't a hard and fast rule. The limits that may be are contingent on if what you are going to do with the free action is dumb or not. Not if the number of free actions exceeds X amount.

[Legendxp]

I have to agree with SowZ here. It really seems more of a RAI thing then a RAW thing. Though back to the OP, chicken infested seems like it could do almost the exact same things. (Just a little less pointy and a little more fluffy) Is there a specific reason you wanted arrows?

[SowZ]

I have to agree with SowZ here. It really seems more of a RAI thing then a RAW thing. Though back to the OP, chicken infested seems like it could do almost the exact same things. (Just a little less pointy and a little more fluffy) Is there a specific reason you wanted arrows?

Not really. Chickens would be more useful in the situation of making a cushion to land on from a fall or filling a pit to make a bridge.

And yeah, there is no doubt this is not RAI because the rules writers admit their intent. They are basically saying that they realize the consequences of making free actions instantaneous can be absurd, and warning DMs that it is their job to keep it from getting too crazy. It's also a DMs job to tell a player 'no' on a number of perfectly legal tricks, though, just in this case the authors are explicit about their intent. Intent isn't a rule, though.

[Andezzar]

In a purely theoretical discussion, there is no capacity to judge when it reaches a point of 'too silly.'That is the point, you cannot judge that it will work or that it will not work. A game or a theoretical dicussion of the game does not work without a DM or thinking about what a DM will do. The tricks that work rely on the premise that the DM cannot veto the trick without breaking RAW.
The rules clearly say that there is a limit and that the limit is set by the DM.


If a trick that requires exactly 27 free actions can be considered RAW, so can this.Which trick does that? That trick is no more RAW than those in the OP for the same reason as above.


There is no limit on how many free actions can be done and not a suggestion for that.Beg to differ:
However, the DM puts reasonable limits on what you can really do for freeThere is a limit unless the DM does not put one on what you can do for free. To do so however he is required to do by RAW through the indicative mood of the sentence and lack of a modal verb.


It isn't about how many, it is about how ludicrous the consequence. It is about what's reasonable, not what exceeds a particular number. Otherwise, they could have just set a maximum.What reasonable limits are and why they are there is irrelevant, the point is that a limit exists and that we do not know its value. It can be as low as 2 or arbitrarily high. For all the mentioned tricks you will need a certain number of Free Actions. We cannot tell if that number is above or below the limit set by any given DM.


It is reasonable for a character with dual throwing daggers and lots of haste like abilities to draw 38 daggers as a free action if his build grants him that many attacks with daggers.Is it? I find no such rule. Any DM could decide otherwise.


In the same campaign, it may be unreasonable to take another free action five times in a turn depending on what the implications of that are. This is a judgement call issue and telling the DM to curb silliness.Yes it is a judgment call but one that the DM has to make. Without that judgment call the game or theoretical discussion about the game stops. Thus the tricks in the OP can only work with a present DM or thinking about what a DM would decide. Since this decision can be anything it is like Schrödinger's cat. You cannot decide if the trick is allowed unless you run it by a DM.

[Seffbasilisk]

That. All of that logic. I agree with it.


THAT ASIDE, seeing as we are departing from game, and into the theoretical world where the DM says 'Go nuts!' and Invisible Blades can take a 20 on their feinting bluff check...

A spell component pouch. Theoretically infinite, and if you actually draw a component, one hand holds the pouch open, the other 'free action' drops it back in. Couple that with quickdraw and you have infinite chickens in a round.

Alright, now that we have the Chicken-Engine, the next step would be to go into Survivor, which Commoner helps us qualify for. What's the goal of Survivor? Surviving.

Now at fifth level of this, we're looking at DR 5, which should stop the damage from a single chicken.

So Tedd the Chicken Infested wanna-be spell-slinger managed to get lucky and nick a spell component pouch. He then spends a month contemplating exactly how he's going to survive long enough to tap the arcane arts, and following this, sets out.

Defusing encounters by providing hungry beasts an infinite supply of chicken in the twinkling of an eye, he 'defeats' them, and gains experience. Namely, not to hold the chicken when the monster's teeth are longer than his arm.

Still, he perseveres, and after many (not-so) epic quests, one day he finds himself the Master of Surviving, and sets out to proclaim it to the world.

Amidst struggle, turmoil, and trouble (despite bubbling cauldrons) he manages to make it to the peak of the highest mountain in the world, and there lights a simple cooking fire.

To his dismay, when he pulls forth a chicken, the wind snatches it away, and it tumbles down the scree coated slope he had so laboriously ascended.

His moment had come. Narrowing his eyes, and seeking a Zen-like focus within, he readies his hands, and assumes the chicken plucking posture his survival training his taught him. Reaching deep within himself (metaphorically) he finds the courage to do what he has never done. He reaches for the last chicken, and begins the flurry of motion to get to it.

For a moment, it's as if the world stands still, and it does, for nothing else can act on his initiative unless they are aware of him, and frankly, the Gods wanted to see what he was doing as much as anyone else.

The cosmos blinks, and life as Tedd knew it ends.

He opens his eyes to a vast plane of mutilated feathers and torn flesh that roils in unspeakable torment. As far as he can see, the landscape formerly known as chicken stretches, crushed by it's own weight, vainly struggling upward, yet surging in the tides of life inevitably crushing each chicken in it's turn. As his mind reels at the destruction his search had wrought, a scream tears a fresh wound.

The Time of Anything is over. The Era of Endless Possibilities has met it's peace, and it's piece was a hell that not even a fireball's extra-crispy could solve. Devils would delight in the order, but no, it's such a hodge-podge mess even they find no solace, while Demons find a lack of enjoyment in prodding the corpulent mass of flesh.

The Last Chicken Bawks.

[AlltheBooks]

All the silly talk about free actions in a TO thread aside.

Fire building material. Material for PAO. Pointy things for TK users to throw.

Ummm. Lot's of arrows that last 1 rnd hmmm. Only 1st cup of tea I'm pretty slow atm lol.

[Andezzar]

Fire building material. Material for PAO. Pointy things for TK users to throw.That fire won't burn long. There are no rules whether a PAOed arrow will disappear or not.

[Scow2]

I have to agree with SowZ here. It really seems more of a RAI thing then a RAW thing. Though back to the OP, chicken infested seems like it could do almost the exact same things. (Just a little less pointy and a little more fluffy) Is there a specific reason you wanted arrows?
Chicken-infested requires being a Commoner at level 1, robbing you of the biggest HP boost, starting skill points, and class skills. This trick just requires a bit of money.

[Flickerdart]

Couldn't you just do this with a component pouch to fill the world with spiders?

[Scow2]

Intent isn't a rule, though.If intent is written down in a rulebook, it's just as much a rule as everything else. So yes, intent IS a rule if it's stated.

[Andezzar]

Couldn't you just do this with a component pouch to fill the world with spiders?Possibly. AFAIK there is no rule that you can retrieve a component from a component pouch in no time outside of spellcasting. Normally retrieving an item from a container is a move action. The DM decides what the spiders do once they are dropped.

I'm pretty sure though that there are non-costly components that are not creatures that could be used with that trick.

[SowZ]

That is the point, you cannot judge that it will work or that it will not work. A game or a theoretical dicussion of the game does not work without a DM or thinking about what a DM will do. The tricks that work rely on the premise that the DM cannot veto the trick without breaking RAW.
The rules clearly say that there is a limit and that the limit is set by the DM.

Which trick does that? That trick is no more RAW than those in the OP for the same reason as above.

Beg to differ:There is a limit unless the DM does not put one on what you can do for free. To do so however he is required to do by RAW through the indicative mood of the sentence and lack of a modal verb.

What reasonable limits are and why they are there is irrelevant, the point is that a limit exists and that we do not know its value. It can be as low as 2 or arbitrarily high. For all the mentioned tricks you will need a certain number of Free Actions. We cannot tell if that number is above or below the limit set by any given DM.

Is it? I find no such rule. Any DM could decide otherwise.

Yes it is a judgment call but one that the DM has to make. Without that judgment call the game or theoretical discussion about the game stops. Thus the tricks in the OP can only work with a present DM or thinking about what a DM would decide. Since this decision can be anything it is like Schrödinger's cat. You cannot decide if the trick is allowed unless you run it by a DM.

Alright. Then any throwing build, any build at all that requires more than one free action, isn't RAW. A build where you throw three spears a round? Not RAW. Drawing two weapons in one round cause you are a TWFer? Not RAW. There is no definition of what is 'reasonable' so it is not applicable.


If intent is written down in a rulebook, it's just as much a rule as everything else. So yes, intent IS a rule if it's stated.

And rule zero is a rule, too. So yeah, a limit on, "Don't be stupid and unreasonable with free actions." is every bit as applicable as rule zero in a purely TO discussion. Saying, "It requires judgement, therefore it isn't RAW," is silly for two reasons. One, the DM exists to arbiter and judge on all events. So you are just inadvertently attacking the idea of RAW. Two, this means no use of more than one free action can ever be used in any build ever without it ceasing to be RAW or TO. 'A limit can be set.' That limit is clearly not zero, but anything other than that requires judgement and therefore disqualifies anything from RAW.

I highly doubt you'd tell a TWF crossbow build that requires him to shoot two crossbows, drop them, draw and shoot two more, that the build isn't RAW. But that is 4 Free Actions.

In fact, your interpretation of the rules means that, RAW, I can only drop one thing a round. If I have seventeen marbles in my hands and upturn my hand, only one falls out because the rules clearly state a free action is dropping 'an' item. At the very least, you definitely couldn't upturn both hands. Because, from a RAW perspective with a totally judgement free DM, there is no difference between 2 free actions and 2,000. Which is the point, which is why the game says, "Be reasonable."

"Be reasonable," is specific to each game, though, so we aren't limited to it in a TO discussion. Even it is more specific and says, "Be reasonable about how many free actions you take." It's as irrelevant as the more generic Rule Zero in TO.


That. All of that logic. I agree with it.


THAT ASIDE, seeing as we are departing from game, and into the theoretical world where the DM says 'Go nuts!' and Invisible Blades can take a 20 on their feinting bluff check...

A spell component pouch. Theoretically infinite, and if you actually draw a component, one hand holds the pouch open, the other 'free action' drops it back in. Couple that with quickdraw and you have infinite chickens in a round.

Alright, now that we have the Chicken-Engine, the next step would be to go into Survivor, which Commoner helps us qualify for. What's the goal of Survivor? Surviving.

Now at fifth level of this, we're looking at DR 5, which should stop the damage from a single chicken.

So Tedd the Chicken Infested wanna-be spell-slinger managed to get lucky and nick a spell component pouch. He then spends a month contemplating exactly how he's going to survive long enough to tap the arcane arts, and following this, sets out.

Defusing encounters by providing hungry beasts an infinite supply of chicken in the twinkling of an eye, he 'defeats' them, and gains experience. Namely, not to hold the chicken when the monster's teeth are longer than his arm.

Still, he perseveres, and after many (not-so) epic quests, one day he finds himself the Master of Surviving, and sets out to proclaim it to the world.

Amidst struggle, turmoil, and trouble (despite bubbling cauldrons) he manages to make it to the peak of the highest mountain in the world, and there lights a simple cooking fire.

To his dismay, when he pulls forth a chicken, the wind snatches it away, and it tumbles down the scree coated slope he had so laboriously ascended.

His moment had come. Narrowing his eyes, and seeking a Zen-like focus within, he readies his hands, and assumes the chicken plucking posture his survival training his taught him. Reaching deep within himself (metaphorically) he finds the courage to do what he has never done. He reaches for the last chicken, and begins the flurry of motion to get to it.

For a moment, it's as if the world stands still, and it does, for nothing else can act on his initiative unless they are aware of him, and frankly, the Gods wanted to see what he was doing as much as anyone else.

The cosmos blinks, and life as Tedd knew it ends.

He opens his eyes to a vast plane of mutilated feathers and torn flesh that roils in unspeakable torment. As far as he can see, the landscape formerly known as chicken stretches, crushed by it's own weight, vainly struggling upward, yet surging in the tides of life inevitably crushing each chicken in it's turn. As his mind reels at the destruction his search had wrought, a scream tears a fresh wound.

The Time of Anything is over. The Era of Endless Possibilities has met it's peace, and it's piece was a hell that not even a fireball's extra-crispy could solve. Devils would delight in the order, but no, it's such a hodge-podge mess even they find no solace, while Demons find a lack of enjoyment in prodding the corpulent mass of flesh.

The Last Chicken Bawks.

Love this image.


All the silly talk about free actions in a TO thread aside.

Fire building material. Material for PAO. Pointy things for TK users to throw.

Ummm. Lot's of arrows that last 1 rnd hmmm. Only 1st cup of tea I'm pretty slow atm lol.

You could presumably keep a steady flow of an arbitrary number of arrows feeding the fire at all times, though, as long as you didn't smother it. If you were good enough at judging how much wood the fire needed, you could make a decent one. (But no more than 15 feet in diameter since you can't throw the arrows, only drop them within one square.)


Couldn't you just do this with a component pouch to fill the world with spiders?

If you can pull an arbitrary number of spiders out and you consider a spider an improvised weapon, absolutely.


If intent is written down in a rulebook, it's just as much a rule as everything else. So yes, intent IS a rule if it's stated.

Okay, sure, but so is Rule Zero. The rule is vague and if we can't use an arbitrary number of Free Actions in TO, we can never use more than one as previously argued. So I say it is irrelevant.

[Andezzar]

Alright. Then any throwing build, any build at all that requires more than one free action, isn't RAW. A build where you throw three spears a round? Not RAW.Yes, they are:
A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).


Drawing two weapons in one round cause you are a TWFer? Not RAW.That is RAW too because tof the following rule:
If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (page 102), you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
Drawing more than 4 weapons for multi-weapon fighting however is not RAW and requires DM permission.


There is no definition of what is 'reasonable' so it is not applicable.No, you cannot draw that conclusion.
You cannot simply ignore the rule that a limit has to be set by the DM. That is RAW. That the DM has leeway how high to set that limit is a problem for a theoretical discussion, because we cannot determine if the theoretical DM would set the limit high enough. As such we must assume the worst case scenario, which is 2 Free Actions.
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.
Any more are not guaranteed and cannot be depended on in a theoretical discussion.

[Vamphyr]

@Andezzar

The OP is clearly looking for some fun tricks with Technical Optimization. The whole point of that is based off of the rules as written and the idea that there is no DM there to say "Hey... wait a second..."

It's pretty counter productive to the thread to keep saying "A DM wouldn't allow that" to every post.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's what the OP is looking for.

Back on topic:

I love the idea of the Infinite Spider Spell Pouch.

1. Rent a room at the local inn.
2. Fill it with spiders.
3. Tell the inn keeper that you left a tip in your room.
4. Rob the place while the inn keeper is dealing with thousands of spiders.

[Andezzar]

@Andezzar

The OP is clearly looking for some fun tricks with Technical Optimization. The whole point of that is based off of the rules as written and the idea that there is no DM there to say "Hey... wait a second..."

It's pretty counter productive to the thread to keep saying "A DM wouldn't allow that" to every post.You misunderstand me. The point is not that a DM wouldn't not allow it, but that the DM has to make the choice whether to allow it or not. TO works because the RAW is iron clad and the DM does not have a choice except deciding something that goes against the RAW or using rule zero. The rules for free actions clearly state the a limit is set by the DM, we just don't know its value for any given DM. As such we must use the lowest possible one which is two free actions.


I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's what the OP is looking for.He said otherwise though:
Anyone come up with more uses or give a reason this wouldn't work?

[Vamphyr]

Missed that last bit in the first post. I stand corrected! :smallbiggrin:

[Oko and Qailee]

If I may chime in.

Technically, the limitations on free actions is not rule 0, it is RAW. Let me elaborate.

Rule 0 is the power of the DM to essentially go above the rules, changing or creating any new ones as he/she sees fit. A real life equivalent of rule 0 would be someone saying suddenly "There is a speed limit here, and it's 35mph, despite what any law says or doesn't say."

This is not what is happening here. Here, the law (RAW) is already saying "there is a speed limit here, and X person is appointed to decide the exact value." The law (RAW) is already there, it's just vague. But it is technically not rule 0.

The difference between these two things from your perspective as the player is the following:
-If it were an invocation of rule 0, you technically have no idea your build will/will not work until after the DM tells you. However, in this case, the rules explicitly say, it your build will not work, just that when it ceases working is up to the only judge present, the DM.

[SowZ]

Yes, they are:

That is RAW too because tof the following rule:
Drawing more than 4 weapons for multi-weapon fighting however is not RAW and requires DM permission.

No, you cannot draw that conclusion.
You cannot simply ignore the rule that a limit has to be set by the DM. That is RAW. That the DM has leeway how high to set that limit is a problem for a theoretical discussion, because we cannot determine if the theoretical DM would set the limit high enough. As such we must assume the worst case scenario, which is 2 Free Actions.
Any more are not guaranteed and cannot be depended on in a theoretical discussion.

The crossbow thing still isn't legal though, because by your logic you can never drop more than one thing a round. You literally can't drop two items by your definition of RAW.


If I may chime in.

Technically, the limitations on free actions is not rule 0, it is RAW. Let me elaborate.

Rule 0 is the power of the DM to essentially go above the rules, changing or creating any new ones as he/she sees fit. A real life equivalent of rule 0 would be someone saying suddenly "There is a speed limit here, and it's 35mph, despite what any law says or doesn't say."

This is not what is happening here. Here, the law (RAW) is already saying "there is a speed limit here, and X person is appointed to decide the exact value." The law (RAW) is already there, it's just vague. But it is technically not rule 0.

The difference between these two things from your perspective as the player is the following:
-If it were an invocation of rule 0, you technically have no idea your build will/will not work until after the DM tells you. However, in this case, the rules explicitly say, it your build will not work, just that when it ceases working is up to the only judge present, the DM.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either it isn't RAW to drop both weapons you are holding in a round, or the limit is arbitrarily high in TO. You get one or the other, you can't have both.

[Scow2]

"What's reasonable" doesn't only take how many free actions you're trying to put in, but also what that free action is.

[SowZ]

"What's reasonable" doesn't only take how many free actions you're trying to put in, but also what that free action is.

Only in RAI and in actual play. If you can't perform this trick, you can't drop multiple objects, either. Reasonable is a purely subjective term.

[Andezzar]

The crossbow thing still isn't legal though, because by your logic you can never drop more than one thing a round. You literally can't drop two items by your definition of RAW.Yes you can. You drop one item with the one guaranteed Free Action, and another with the other guaranteed Free Action. Crossbows however are not thrown weapons so you do not benefit from the rules for thrown weapons. You cannot draw two crossbows with the same Free Action because they are neither light nor one-handed weapons and thus cannot attack as often as you would be able to with melee weapons and your TWF feats. That is what quick loading is for.


You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either it isn't RAW to drop both weapons you are holding in a round, or the limit us arbitrarily high in TO. You get one or the other, you can't have both.That is exactly what the rules instruct us to do. We know there is a limit, we do not know its exact value. It is somewhere between 2 and an arbitrarily high number. At no point can we assume that it is higher than 2 for TO purposes.

[SowZ]

Yes you can. You drop one item with the one guaranteed Free Action, and another with the other guaranteed Free Action. Crossbows however are not thrown weapons so you do not benefit from the rules for thrown weapons. You cannot draw two crossbows with the same Free Action because they are neither light nor one-handed weapons and thus cannot attack as often as you would be able to with melee weapons and your TWF feats. That is what quick loading is for.

That is exactly what the rules instruct us to do. We know there is a limit, we do not know its exact value. It is somewhere between 2 and an arbitrarily high number. At no point can we assume that it is higher than 2 for TO purposes.

How does one or more guarantee two? You get one or more depending on if it is 'reasonable.' If the DM decides that the two is unreasonable, the DM can say you only get the one instead of the two.

[Andezzar]

How does one or more guarantee two? You get one or more depending on if it is 'reasonable.' If the DM decides that the two is unreasonable, the DM can say you only get the one instead of the two.You get one or more Free actions that is RAW. Secondly it is RAW that the DM sets a limit based on what he deems reasonable. Only if he allows at least two Free Actions can both conditions be satisfied.

[Legendxp]

Your limit Andezazar, is theoretical and not exactly defined in game terms. Therfore you cannot mechanically apply it. I'm not saying a limit doesn't exist, just that you cannot prove that "a certain number" is above it. Look at any other science theory, we're pretty sure it exists, but it is still theoretical (that's why its called a theory).

Here's another example;

1). Is 1 free action above the limit?
2). Are 2 free actions above the limit?
3). Are 5 free actions above the limit?
4). Are 1,000,000,000 free actions above the limit? (Probably, but we have no way of knowing)

We're not asking whether or not a DM would allow this, they most obviously would not.

[SowZ]

Your limit Andezazar, is theoretical and not exactly defined in game terms. Therfore you cannot mechanically apply it. I'm not saying a limit doesn't exist, just that you cannot prove that "a certain number" is above it. Look at any other science theory, we're pretty sure it exists, but it is still theoretical (that's why its called a theory).

Here's another example;

1). Is 1 free action above the limit?
2). Are 2 free actions above the limit?
3). Are 5 free actions above the limit?
4). Are 1,000,000,000 free actions above the limit? (Probably, but we have no way of knowing)

We're not asking whether or not a DM would allow this, they most obviously would not.

Yeah, I think the only thing you can definitively prove isn't over the limit is one. Beyond that, we are in the realm of DM fiat. Which should be ignored for TO.

[Andezzar]

Your limit Andezazar, is theoretical and not exactly defined in game terms. Therfore you cannot mechanically apply it. I'm not saying a limit doesn't exist, just that you cannot prove that "a certain number" is above it. Look at any other science theory, we're pretty sure it exists, but it is still theoretical (that's why its called a theory).That is exactly my point, you cannot tell if a number is above or below the limit. As such you cannot tell if the trick works, because for the trick to work you need a limit above the number of Free Actions required for performing the trick. Since you do not know, you cannot say that the trick works. For TO purposes you need positive confirmation that something works.


Here's another example;

1). Is 1 free action above the limit?
2). Are 2 free actions above the limit?
3). Are 5 free actions above the limit?
4). Are 1,000,000,000 free actions above the limit? (Probably, but we have no way of knowing)All you can say is that one and two Free Actions are not above the limit.


We're not asking whether or not a DM would allow this, they most obviously would not.I never argued on that level.

[SowZ]

That is exactly my point, you cannot tell if a number is above or below the limit. As such you cannot tell if the trick works, because for the trick to work you need a limit above the number of Free Actions required for performing the trick. Since you do not know, you cannot say that the trick works. For TO purposes you need positive confirmation that something works.

All you can say is that one and two Free Actions are not above the limit.

I never argued on that level.

No, only one is definitely not above the limit. It is one or more depending on how reasonable it is. If the way the two are used is determined to be unreasonable, the DM can instead limit you to one. Remember, it isn't necessarily the number of free actions but how they are being used.

If you are right, shouting "Get down!" and dropping your crossbow while falling prone is not a RAW legal action. But really, that would make just dropping prone and shouting "Get down!" a non RAW legal action.

[Andezzar]

For the last time, only by allowing two Free actions can both conditions (one or more Free Actions; Limit set by the DM) be satisfied. Setting the limit to 1 would violate the rule that the player gets one or more Free Actions.

[Zweisteine]

There is a name for the main argument you are making, at least as it applies to this situation: The Oberoni Fallacy (aka the Rule 0 fallacy).

It goes something like this:
"Rule 0" is not a reason for something to not work.


If the RAW said "the DM may limit the number of free actions per turn," the DM may do so. In theoretical optimization, however, assume that the DM does not.

If the rules say "the DM sets the limit," implying that the DM has to do so, then they will do so in practice. However, in theoretical optimization, there is no DM. If there is no DM, nobody sets the limit, allowing neat tricks like this to work.

Perhaps even better: in theoretical optimization, the optimizer is the DM. They set the limits themself.


So the logic that provides a counterargument to the Oberoni Fallacy is this:

In theoretical optimization, or in any setting outside of actual play, assume that there is no DM to make rulings. If the rules require that a DM make some decision, or if the rules are unclear, assume that the optimizer is the DM, and may make any such choices themself.

Except in special cases, such as the exploitation of loopholes in the rules, assume common sense applies. For example, unless you are discussing the fact that making a club takes no time and material, assume that you may not instantaneously create infinite clubs from nothing.

[limejuicepowder]

For the last time, only by allowing two Free actions can both conditions (one or more Free Actions; Limit set by the DM) be satisfied. Setting the limit to 1 would violate the rule that the player gets one or more Free Actions.

This is false. "X value or more" is the same as "greater than or equal to." 1 is greater than or equal to 1, there for 1 is the lowest number of free actions guaranteed by RAW (following your line of thinking).

[Andezzar]

This is false. "X value or more" is the same as "greater than or equal to." 1 is greater than or equal to 1, there for 1 is the lowest number of free actions guaranteed by RAW (following your line of thinking).Acknowledged. This does not change anything about whether the trick works though.


If the RAW said "the DM may limit the number of free actions per turn," the DM may do so. In theoretical optimization, however, assume that the DM does not.I agree.


If the rules say "the DM sets the limit," implying that the DM has to do so, then they will do so in practice.I agree.

However, in theoretical optimization, there is no DM. If there is no DM, nobody sets the limit, allowing neat tricks like this to work.I don't know this as a SOP for Theoretical Optimization. IMHO for TO the optimizer must observe any and all limits that exist. If the DM has a choice, assume the least favorable.


In theoretical optimization, or in any setting outside of actual play, assume that there is no DM to make rulings. If the rules require that a DM make some decision, or if the rules are unclear, assume that the optimizer is the DM, and may make any such choices themself.This is totally impractical. For example this would mean that for TO purposes, any custom magic item can be created for free (because their price is decided by the DM).


Except in special cases, such as the exploitation of loopholes in the rules, assume common sense applies. For example, unless you are discussing the fact that making a club takes no time and material, assume that you may not instantaneously create infinite clubs from nothing.The problem is, we are discussion such an exploitation.

[limejuicepowder]

If the DM has a choice, assume the least favorable.


Wouldn't this make any type of TO impossible? The DM has a choice over everything; assuming least favorable means no character can be created.

[Andezzar]

Wouldn't this make any type of TO impossible? The DM has a choice over everything; assuming least favorable means no character can be created.This however would be using rule zero. There are rules for playing the game. If you do not use them, you are not playing the game or discussing a character within those rules.

[limejuicepowder]

This however would be using rule zero. There are rules for playing the game. If you do not use them, you are not playing the game or discussing a character within those rules.

I'll admit I was using bit of an absurd argument - look what happens when it's drawn to its extreme! But the point remains: The DM does, by RAW, have the ability to veto anything he wants. It's something akin to selective/hypocritical interpretation to say that the theoretical DM is extremely permissive when it comes to sources, but extremely restrictive when it comes to free actions.

The point of TO is "look what I can do when the (theoretical) DM is permissive as possible, but I'm still following the letter of the rules."

[TuggyNE]

For whatever reason, I'm finding the argufying about how many free actions you can get in a round to be extremely annoying here, and since I normally have a high tolerance for pointless nitpicking I suspect I'm not the only one. Can we please move on to discussing the actual trick itself, or just accept "hey cool, there's a weird little thing you can do with the rules as written, how wacky" and let it go?

[Andezzar]

As you wish TuggyNE.


1. Make a shield for yourself. Drop enough that they start to pile up around you and offer cover.That requires to be able to drop them with enough accuracy to form a pile and that the arrows do not roll away. When you drop an item you cannot specify its position more precisely than the square in which it lands.


2. Fill a chamber end to end with pointy things. Could cause problems.Works, if you have a way of preventing the arrows from rolling out of the chamber.


3. Cause weight capacity problems on a platform or bridge.Same problem as 1 but to a lesser extent.


4. Fill a pit to the brim with them so someone with thick enough boots and a light enough step can run across.Works.


5. Be on top of a mountain or hill and cause an avalanche of arrows to fall onto and crush enemies closer to the bottom.That requires the arrows not to be stacked stably.


6. While falling, drop them below you to create a tall, (yet pointy,) pile to land on.With an arbitrary number of Free Actions that should work, if you fall long enough to get Free Actions.


7. Drop them into a chamber below you until you fill all available space. Keep the arrows coming so the space never refills as old arrows disappear. Suffocate or poke to death anyone inside!Requires DM fiat that the arrows can be packed tightly enough not to let air in. Falling objects do not do gamage if they weigh less than 1 lb.


8. Fill a body of water with arrows so quickly that it displaces a large enough amount of water to create a tidal wave.Maybe


8. Quench a fire by covering it in tons of wood instantly, suffocating the flame.AFAIK there are no rules for extinguishing a fire by suffocation. So DM fiat is required.


10. Drop them on someone below you, smushing them flat.Falling objects weighing less than 1 lb do not do damage.

[SowZ]

As you wish TuggyNE.

That requires to be able to drop them with enough accuracy to form a pile and that the arrows do not roll away. When you drop an item you cannot specify its position more precisely than the square in which it lands.

Works, if you have a way of preventing the arrows from rolling out of the chamber.

Same problem as 1 but to a lesser extent.

Works.

That requires the arrows not to be stacked stably.

With an arbitrary number of Free Actions that should work, if you fall long enough to get Free Actions.

Requires DM fiat that the arrows can be packed tightly enough not to let air in. Falling objects do not do gamage if they weigh less than 1 lb.

Maybe

AFAIK there are no rules for extinguishing a fire by suffocation. So DM fiat is required.

Falling objects weighing less than 1 lb do not do damage.

Huh, okay, cool. So dropping a mountain of seventeen tons of gold coins on someone does no damage, huh? Bizarre. But in this universe, clearly logic has no place, so yes, 10 wouldn't work.

[limejuicepowder]

Huh, okay, cool. So dropping a mountain of seventeen tons of gold coins on someone does no damage, huh? Bizarre. But in this universe, clearly logic has no place, so yes, 10 wouldn't work.

That's actually fairly realistic I would think. If a mountain of small object falls on someone, they aren't going to be immediately crushed - but they will be crushed, more slowly, after that as the collective weight settles.

In DnD, I would think that crushing damage would apply, but not falling object damage. It also means that someone with freedom of movement could escape it.

[Andezzar]

That's actually fairly realistic I would think. If a mountain of small object falls on someone, they aren't going to be immediately crushed - but they will be crushed, more slowly, after that as the collective weight settles. Are there any rules for that?

[limejuicepowder]

Are there any rules for that?

Bring crushed....? Well not explicitly. But the rules for avalanches (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#avalanchesCr7) seem pretty applicable: an cascade of small, light items is basically what an avalanche is.

[SowZ]

That's actually fairly realistic I would think. If a mountain of small object falls on someone, they aren't going to be immediately crushed - but they will be crushed, more slowly, after that as the collective weight settles.

In DnD, I would think that crushing damage would apply, but not falling object damage. It also means that someone with freedom of movement could escape it.

And you'd have to be very close above them to argue that the weight settles within six seconds. It's also kind of silly that a one pound object can't hurt a half ounce insect, but this whole premise is incredible silly.

[Brookshw]

Huh, okay, cool. So dropping a mountain of seventeen tons of gold coins on someone does no damage, huh? Bizarre. But in this universe, clearly logic has no place, so yes, 10 wouldn't work.

Did looney toons teach you nothing? Falling objects are meaningless!

[Andezzar]

Bring crushed....? Well not explicitly. But the rules for avalanches (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#avalanchesCr7) seem pretty applicable: an cascade of small, light items is basically what an avalanche is.So all items in an avalanche weigh less than a pound? I highly doubt that.