Stupid RAW Tricks

[MaxWilson]

Friends turns creatures hostile. Warcaster lets you cast spells as a reaction on hostile creatures who give you an opening (opportunity attack). Therefore, you can improve your action economy by casting Friends on other PCs so you can Polymorph them into T Rexes with your reaction instead of your action.

No sane DM will ever let this combo work and be required. Try it and you'll wind up with a DM who either rewrites Warcaster to make Friends unnecessary (can Polymorph anyone), or rewrites Warcaster to restrict you from Polymorphing even enemies, or rewrites Friends, or throws a book at you. The RAW are just stupid.

Anyone else got any stupid RAW tricks which shouldn't work they want to vent about? UA centaurs towers, etc.?

[bid]

Friends turns creatures hostile. Warcaster lets you cast spells as a reaction on hostile creatures who give you an opening (opportunity attack). Therefore, you can improve your action economy by casting Friends on other PCs so you can Polymorph them into T Rexes with your reaction instead of your action.
Action: polymorph
OR
Action: friend, reaction polymorph

I don't think the DM will care if you waste your reaction like that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Action: polymorph
OR
Action: friend, reaction polymorph

I don't think the DM will care if you waste your reaction like that.

The problem is the timing. You don't necessarily have to cast Friends during combat, as it's the spell ending that makes them hostile. It's still horribly inefficient.

There's also the caveat as part of Polymorph about a creatures willingness. If a creature is hostile to you, I doubt they'd be considered a willing target.

[MaxWilson]

Action: polymorph
OR
Action: friend, reaction polymorph

I don't think the DM will care if you waste your reaction like that.

Cast out before you go in the dungeon, not during combat--it doesn't make them hostile until it wears off.

Round 1: squishy wizard steps forward, bard turns wizard into Giant Ape with reaction, Giant Ape begins hammering enemy with giant fists, bard gives inspiration and casts Dissonant Whispers to give the ape an opportunity attack.

That's two rounds of casting in one round.

[bid]

Cast out before you go in the dungeon, not during combat--it doesn't make them hostile until it wears off.
Since polymorph lasts 1 hour, you'd need "hostile" to last long enough compared to this. And if they're hostile, why would they stay in the party with you?

So, is perma-hostile the only thing that makes this useful or am I missing something?
As I see it, you recast friend every minute and waste your concentration slot. Is that how you use it?

[MaxWilson]

Since polymorph lasts 1 hour, you'd need "hostile" to last long enough compared to this. And if they're hostile, why would they stay in the party with you?

PCs can do whatever they want, including adventure with other creature they're hostile towards. Remember hostile != violently aggressive. See DMG definition of hostile.

Friends also doesn't say the hostility ever ends, although there's nothing stopping a player from declaring a friendly reconciliation when they want to. (Presumably after the dungeon is over but really whenever the player feels like it.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

See DMG definition of hostile.
Seems like the problem sorts itself out

The adventurers need to succeed on one or more challenging Charisma checks to convince a hostile creature to do anything on their behalf.
Unless you make one or more "challenging Charisma checks" your Polymorph target doesn't count as willing, then they make a wisdom save. If your target claims they are willing, I wouldn't consider them hostile (they don't exactly meet the definition if they would freely submit to a spell on your behalf) so they wouldn't trigger War Caster to begin with.

Taking these shenanigans into account though, I can more clearly see the argument you're trying to make here and I find myself agreeing that there is room for exploitation. It's fairly flimsy from my point of view, but we already know it doesn't take much to open the floodgates.

[Toadkiller]

I would absolutely allow this. Eagerly even.

“As the wizard transforms into a towering carnivore there is a moment of silence... until with a roar it turns towards its enemy... and attacks you.”

That T Rex is totally going to attack the bard. In fact the two divination wizards that you were hiding around the corner just *knew* this was going to happen. Let me see what the portents have told them.

Oh dear, oh dear....

Yes; we usually let the player who is polymorphed play the giant ape or whatever. But that just wouldn’t be fair if it was charmed.

[Keravath]

The thing is ... friends doesn't necessarily work that way.

If you cast friends on a friend/buddy ... they are going to be angry with you. Whether they would attack you or not depends on the character. Whether their anger would extend to actually making attacks and rolling initiative is another question altogether.

I would suggest, that for most parties, casting friends on a party member will not induce them to attack you in a way that might generate opportunity attacks. In addition, if they are sufficiently angry to be hostile and execute an attack, they are less likely to run away and trigger an op attack.

Finally, if they are actually hostile enough to trigger a reaction attack and do run away, and they are polymorphed, then as a DM I would rule that the new T-rex has to deal with their "friend" first since they are adjacent and they are hostile.

Text from Friends .. hostile is NOT equal to making an attack or initiating combat.

"For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn't hostile toward you. When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you. A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM's discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it."

A friend with Friends cast on them is far more likely to get even in other ways I would think.

[bid]

See DMG definition of hostile.
That's the iffy part of the cost and will depend on the table, I understand it's not a sure bet.

But, you know, when someone offers a recipe for disaster I'd like them to spell out the actual cost along with the gain. In this case it's:
- using your concentration to keep casting friend on a party member,
- dropping concentration at the start of the encounter,
- using your reaction to cast whatever spell.
The cost might be peanuts, but it's a plus when one can say it's "only" that.

Of course to be thourough, the iffy parts should be added:
- the target is hostile but still get no Wis save.
It doesn't matter if listing the restrictions makes it usable on few tables, someone else could improve on it.


It seems more constructive to discuss the impact of restrictions and how/when to work around them.

[MaxWilson]

Seems like the problem sorts itself out

Unless you make one or more "challenging Charisma checks" your Polymorph target doesn't count as willing, then they make a wisdom save. If your target claims they are willing, I wouldn't consider them hostile (they don't exactly meet the definition if they would freely submit to a spell on your behalf) so they wouldn't trigger War Caster to begin with.

Just ask the player if they're willing. They'll say yes. Therefore, willing target despite hostility. (In theory they could be willing to get Polymorphed by an enemy lich too, e.g. to deliver a ransom demand or as an alternative to torture.)

Remember I'm not defending this RAW. It's stupid and munchkiny. It shouldn't be legal but it clearly is.


The thing is ... friends doesn't necessarily work that way.

If you cast friends on a friend/buddy ... they are going to be angry with you. Whether they would attack you or not depends on the character. Whether their anger would extend to actually making attacks and rolling initiative is another question altogether.

I would suggest, that for most parties, casting friends on a party member will not induce them to attack you in a way that might generate opportunity attacks. In addition, if they are sufficiently angry to be hostile and execute an attack, they are less likely to run away and trigger an op attack.

Opportunity attacks are generated when a hostile creature you can see moves out of your reach. That's it. They don't have to be attacking you. They might just be planning to embarrass you socially.

Of course in real life, hostility has nothing to do with it, which is why it's stupid for Friends and hostility to get involved in this combo. A sane DM absolutely should let you opportunity attack non-hostiles given a reason (e.g. to keep a Barbarian's Rage up, or to break a Polymorph-into-a-toad).

Warcaster is actually stupid by itself, but I didn't want arguments over whether you could declare yourself effectively hostile to another PC just to trigger opportunity attacks, so I threw in this other RAW stupidity to create hostility.

BTW Friends shouldn't automatically create hostility either. That's a roleplaying decision. In a forgiving soul it might only create hurt and feelings of shock and betrayal. In others it might create awe. Automatic hostility, even non-violent hostility, is inappropriate. It should just be automatic awareness of the magic.

[Willie the Duck]

Just ask the player if they're willing. They'll say yes. Therefore, willing target despite hostility. (In theory they could be willing to get Polymorphed by an enemy lich too, e.g. to deliver a ransom demand or as an alternative to torture.)

Remember I'm not defending this RAW. It's stupid and munchkiny. It shouldn't be legal but it clearly is.

Your thread title did establish what we are doing, and that is reveling in the ridiculous.

As to RAW, I am AFB, and only have this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/65491/what-is-the-definition-of-hostile) as reference. Is hostile a state that clearly applies to PCs? Is there actual language on that?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Just ask the player if they're willing. They'll say yes. Therefore, willing target despite hostility. (In theory they could be willing to get Polymorphed by an enemy lich too, e.g. to deliver a ransom demand or as an alternative to torture.)

Remember I'm not defending this RAW. It's stupid and munchkiny. It shouldn't be legal but it clearly is.

The issue is, if we're using the definition of Hostile as our RAW basis then they can't willingly go along with the Polymorph request without being convinced via a charisma check. Submitting to the spell, by all accounts, is a benefit to the caster so being hostile means you will not do that without being convinced. Your example with the Lich follows strictly different rules as the ability to convince a hostile target to do something on your behalf is a player thing. There's also an argument to be made that your repeated use of the friends spell on this target has made them so unagreeable that they can't even be convinced through a charisma check to go along with your plan.

That's the rub with treating your friends as hostile (and why no DM in their right mind should allow this) as soon as you start labeling them with this tag, it takes away small bits of their autonomy in the pursuit of allowing the exploit. It's clear as day in the definition of Hostile that if you are hostile to the party, you will not do things for them without being convinced. Convincing you is a "difficult check" and sometimes you won't do what they ask regardless.

I'm making the assumption that if this happens at your table, both the Polymorpher and Polymorphee are in on it and attempting to be exploitative. If they've approached you with such a hairbrained scheme, I might not feel that bad about sticking to the letter on what it means to be hostile to the party just to show them that these kinds of shenanigans don't stop when it only benefits them.


Your thread title did establish what we are doing, and that is reveling in the ridiculous.

As to RAW, I am AFB, and only have this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/65491/what-is-the-definition-of-hostile) as reference. Is hostile a state that clearly applies to PCs? Is there actual language on that?
It uses the general term "Creature" which players characters do fall under. Nothing specifically to say whether this is meant to apply to player characters, although the text (the way I see it) heavily implies that adventurers (the player characters) are meant to be seperate from the general term of creature in reference to these rules. Implications don't help us here though.

[MaxWilson]

Your thread title did establish what we are doing, and that is reveling in the ridiculous.

As to RAW, I am AFB, and only have this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/65491/what-is-the-definition-of-hostile) as reference. Is hostile a state that clearly applies to PCs? Is there actual language on that?

Only the Friends cantrip explicitly applies. It just says the "creature" becomes "hostile" afterwards. PCs are creatures. I don't know of any other RAW that can declare a PC hostile or non-hostile.


The issue is, if we're using the definition of Hostile as our RAW basis then they can't willingly go along with the Polymorph request without being convinced via a charisma check. Submitting to the spell, by all accounts, is a benefit to the caster so being hostile means you will not do that without being convinced. Your example with the Lich follows strictly different rules as the ability to convince a hostile target to do something on your behalf is a player thing.

They're both player things, and you're assuming that the caster is making a request of the target, which isn't true. In fact the target is benefiting from the caster's spell, so if anything, it is the squishy wizard who would have asked the bard in advance to transform him into a Giant Ape in order to triple his HP so he doesn't die! The bard isn't hostile to the wizard (Friends doesn't make the *caster* hostile) and he's a PC, so he can clearly agree to the request from the now-surly wizard.

[Segev]

I think we're getting awfully hung up on friends, here. I wanted to try to rerail with another stupid trick, but other than the illusionist tricks I have in a by-now rather old thread, I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

[ProsecutorGodot]

They're both player things, and you're assuming that the caster is making a request of the target, which isn't true. In fact the target is benefiting from the caster's spell, so if anything, it is the squishy wizard who would have asked the bard in advance to transform him into a Giant Ape in order to triple his HP so he doesn't die! The bard isn't hostile to the wizard (Friends doesn't make the *caster* hostile) and he's a PC, so he can clearly agree to the request from the now-surly wizard.

The request is "you are the target of my polymorph spell, receive spell willingly Y/N"

If the Wizard is asking favors from the Bard I wouldn't consider them hostile anymore either, referencing the very first line of Hostile:

A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn’t necessarily attack them on sight.

If we're following the letter of RAW here, being hostile means that you can't simply go along with the goals of whoever your ire is drawn towards. If their goal is to Polymorph you, you must resist. If you're asking and submitting to be Polymorphed, you aren't hostile.

[MaxWilson]

If we're following the letter of RAW here, being hostile means that you can't simply go along with the goals of whoever your ire is drawn towards. If their goal is to Polymorph you, you must resist. If you're asking and submitting to be Polymorphed, you aren't hostile.

This is clearly false, see Lich example above.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is clearly false, see Lich example above.

The Bard isn't a Lich, he's your ally who you're having a petty but short lived spat with.

Strictly speaking, the Lich example also fails because being Hostile only affects the adventurers interactions with other creatures, it doesn't force the Lich to make any checks to convince you. Even better, if this is your idea rather than the Lich's then you still have to convince him because he's hostile to you.

[Willie the Duck]

Only the Friends cantrip explicitly applies. It just says the "creature" becomes "hostile" afterwards. PCs are creatures. I don't know of any other RAW that can declare a PC hostile or non-hostile.

Well we better find out if and how creatures can be hostile, and whether the definition of the term precludes PCs (them being creatures or not). The stack exchange article I referenced states that there is language on DMG 244 that it doesn't spell out. It also lists a brief piece from PHB 185 thusly: "In general terms, an NPC’s attitude toward you is described as friendly, indifferent, or hostile. Friendly NPCs are predisposed to help you, and hostile ones are inclined to get in your way." That, at the very least, is NPC-facing and can cause some RAW issues, depending on the actual text. I'm hoping the DMG information clears it up.

Purely from what you have provided, if hostile is merely a flag or tag, one you gain by being a creature and subject to a Friends spell and is checked when you provoke an OA against someone with War Casters, then this case could hold up. I am merely checking on what the book says about the hostile status, and whether it can apply to PCs.

[Damon_Tor]

Anyone else got any stupid RAW tricks which shouldn't work they want to vent about? UA centaurs towers, etc.?

I've posted a few:

Rowboats are the best melee weapon in the game. 4d10 damage, no action needed to attack. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600977-The-most-powerful-melee-weapon-in-D-amp-D-5e-is-The-Rowboat)
Monk weapons can be used with str to attack and dex to damage. Potentially useful for Barbarian Monks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?587657-An-interesting-difference-between-finesse-and-martial-arts-Uses)
As long as another rules element would prevent you from casting a spell, you can concentrate on spells while in rage. Warning: this one made people very angry (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?574580-Odd-Rules-Interaction-Rage-does-not-always-prevent-you-from-conentrating-on-spells)
It could be possible to use clone to become "native" to a demiplane, allowing you to use banishment for easy travel back to said demiplane. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?570869-Clone-Questions-Banishment-and-Demiplane-Polymorph-and-more)

[patchyman]

They're both player things, and you're assuming that the caster is making a request of the target, which isn't true. In fact the target is benefiting from the caster's spell, so if anything, it is the squishy wizard who would have asked the bard in advance to transform him into a Giant Ape in order to triple his HP so he doesn't die! The bard isn't hostile to the wizard (Friends doesn't make the *caster* hostile) and he's a PC, so he can clearly agree to the request from the now-surly wizard.

The polymorphed creature gets the mental stats of the creature it is polymorphed into. Seems pretty clear to me what Giant Apes and T-rexes do to creatures to which they are hostile.

[Mr Adventurer]

I think we're getting awfully hung up on friends, here. I wanted to try to rerail with another stupid trick, but other than the illusionist tricks I have in a by-now rather old thread, I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

Hello, yes, would you mind linking your thread please? :)

[AHF]

Seems like something pretty big is being overlooked here. A lot of people are posting about hostility not necessarily being violent, etc. That is all generally true and could well be the right resolution based on the specific scenario.

But you just polymorphed your friend into a T-Rex. Your friend now has a 2 intelligence because he assumes the mental stats of the T-Rex. My assumption as a DM is that a T-Rex typically solves its conflicts by biting the source of the hostility until it no longer moves. How do you think a 2 INT T-Rex is going to react to something that has magically triggered hostility in such a mentally limited creature?

[HappyDaze]

How do you think a 2 INT T-Rex is going to react to something that has magically triggered hostility in such a mentally limited creature?

By making rude gestures with its tiny arms?

[MaxWilson]

Seems like something pretty big is being overlooked here. A lot of people are posting about hostility not necessarily being violent, etc. That is all generally true and could well be the right resolution based on the specific scenario.

But you just polymorphed your friend into a T-Rex. Your friend now has a 2 intelligence because he assumes the mental stats of the T-Rex. My assumption as a DM is that a T-Rex typically solves its conflicts by biting the source of the hostility until it no longer moves. How do you think a 2 INT T-Rex is going to react to something that has magically triggered hostility in such a mentally limited creature?

It's not being overlooked, it's being dismissed every time people mention it because that's not how Polymorph works in 5E. The T-Rex or Giant Ape doesn't become an NPC. It still does what the player decides for it to do.

If you want Polymorph to turn you into an NPC, play AD&D.

[Rukelnikov]

IMO it doesn't work because the assumption of "ask the player if its willing" is being overwritten by Friends.

Enchantments take away free will, its what they do, if an enchantment makes you magically hostile, you do not get to decide whether you are willing or not.

[redwizard007]

It's not being overlooked, it's being dismissed every time people mention it because that's not how Polymorph works in 5E. The T-Rex or Giant Ape doesn't become an NPC. It still does what the player decides for it to do.

If you want Polymorph to turn you into an NPC, play AD&D.

Gotta back him on this one.

Polymorphed creatures retain their own alignment (worthless, but ok,) and personality. Just reducing their Int to 2 doesn't mean they immediately rampage violently.

[patchyman]

It's not being overlooked, it's being dismissed every time people mention it because that's not how Polymorph works in 5E. The T-Rex or Giant Ape doesn't become an NPC. It still does what the player decides for it to do.

The player still has to act in a manner consistent with the polymorphed form. If a player acts much more intelligent than their current form, the DM can rule accordingly, and the party member the polymorphed character is hostile to may get smashed.

[MaxWilson]

The player still has to act in a manner consistent with the polymorphed form. If a player acts much more intelligent than their current form, the DM can rule accordingly, and the party member the polymorphed character is hostile to may get smashed.

You're a giant ape surrounded by ogres who want to kill you and a bard who recently annoyed you. You decide to attack the ogres. The DM seizes control of your character and decrees that you actually attack the bard. You're... okay with this, even in the context of 5E? Wow. I am astonished.

[redwizard007]

The player still has to act in a manner consistent with the polymorphed form. If a player acts much more intelligent than their current form, the DM can rule accordingly, and the party member the polymorphed character is hostile to may get smashed.

I haven't seen anything in the spell to support your first sentence. Maintaining the targets personality is mentioned for a reason.

Sure, complex plans are out the window, but targeting hostiles vs non-hostiles is a pretty basic behavior that we see in the animal kingdom.

[Segev]

I haven't seen anything in the spell to support your first sentence. Maintaining the targets personality is mentioned for a reason.

Sure, complex plans are out the window, but targeting hostiles vs non-hostiles is a pretty basic behavior that we see in the animal kingdom.

To be fair, we specifically just said that the friends spell was used to make the target of polymorph hostile to the caster. So "hostiles vs. non-hostiles" may be...muddier than desired.

[MaxWilson]

To be fair, we specifically just said that the friends spell was used to make the target of polymorph hostile to the caster. So "hostiles vs. non-hostiles" may be...muddier than desired.

But remember that the bard isn't hostile to the Giant Ape, even though the Giant Ape is hostile to the bard. Friends only creates one-way hostility. redwizard007's characterization of the bard as a "non-hostile" is correct.

Furthermore, the ogres are actively trying to kill the Giant Ape whereas the bard is not. And most importantly, the player declares an intention to attack the ogres.

Under these circumstances, a DM who decides to take control of the PC to make it attack the bard is not being reasonable. Such DMs can be expected to do other unreasonable things.

[micahaphone]

So once the ogres are dealt with the giant ape will pivot in place and smack the bard?

I guess dropping concentration is a free action, so the bard player just has to say something the instant the last ogre drops to 0.


What if the last enemy decides to retreat, leaving the giant ape (who is hostile to the bard) next to a bard? Can the player choose to chase down the last enemy, even though they're no longer attacking you?

I definitely think that Friends and/or the hostile condition wasn't meant to be applied to PCs, but if we're focusing on "Stupid RAW Tricks", we need to determine when the hostile condition matters for a PC.

[Rukelnikov]

I haven't seen anything in the spell to support your first sentence. Maintaining the targets personality is mentioned for a reason.

Sure, complex plans are out the window, but targeting hostiles vs non-hostiles is a pretty basic behavior that we see in the animal kingdom.

Exactly, and the argument that sparked this is that the party member is now being considered hostile.

[MaxWilson]

Exactly, and the argument that sparked this is that the party member is now being considered hostile.

That's backwards: the wizard is now hostile, and now he's a Giant Ape or a T-Rex. The bard isn't hostile. Why would the Giant Ape attack a non-hostile when violent hostiles are nearby, especially if the player says not to? It's definitely not RAW for the DM to take control of your PC when Polymorphed. If you're going to overrule RAW, why not overrule RAW at the point where it matters and prevent the Warcaster trick from even working?

Otherwise you still wind up with ridiculous nonsense like reaction-cast Greater Invisibility/Cure Wounds/Haste instead of Polymorph.

[redwizard007]

Segev&
Exactly, and the argument that sparked this is that the party member is now being considered hostile.

Touche.

I guess that if we are going to concede that the PCs would be hostile (which I don't agree with,) then it would indeed make sense for said Trex to violently end said hostility in a most direct manner. One can not be both hostile and non-hostile at the same time.

[Yakmala]

Anyone else got any stupid RAW tricks which shouldn't work they want to vent about? UA centaurs towers, etc.?

Cheesing your way around Mirror Image...

A: The spell description for Mirror Image states that a creature is unaffected by the spell if they can't see.

B: Being blind gives you disadvantage on an attack roll.

C: Having advantage cancels out disadvantage.

So...

1: Find a way to gain advantage on the mirrored target. This could be a familiar, a cunning action hide, reckless attack, etc.
2: Approach or take aim.
3: Close your eyes.

You are now blind, so Mirror Image does not affect you. Because you already gave yourself advantage, the disadvantage of being blind is cancelled out and you attack normally.

I can absolutely see the argument for not allowing a character to make themselves voluntarily blind by closing their eyes, but by RAW, the rules for blindness do not distinguish how you stopped being able to see or how long that condition needs to last.

[AHF]

I see people metagaming to avoid attacking the bard when I read this thread. Ie not truly rollplaying what it means for a 2 INT version of their character to be hostile. There could be scenarios where that TRex/character would attack the enemies even if hostile but many more where he might not. If the TRex isn’t being targeted by the enemies then the only person who has directly pissed him off is the bard (who is going to likely be closer to him than other hostile in many scenarios since the bard is 5’ away). While he retains his normal personality, that is magically affected or modified by the hostility from the friends cantrip in much the same way that he would be if under the effect of a charm spell (basically reversed). This is especially true if the wizard or other subject of this is naturally aggressive or a “nuke them from orbit” type. Which is not unusual in PCs.

I’m not saying that every case would involve attacking the bard at all. Just that it seems a natural result of non-metagaming for many cases.

[Segev]

I see people metagaming to avoid attacking the bard when I read this thread. Ie not truly rollplaying what it means for a 2 INT version of their character to be hostile. There could be scenarios where that TRex/character would attack the enemies even if hostile but many more where he might not. If the TRex isn’t being targeted by the enemies then the only person who has directly pissed him off is the bard (who is going to likely be closer to him than other hostile in many scenarios since the bard is 5’ away). While he retains his normal personality, that is magically affected or modified by the hostility from the friends cantrip in much the same way that he would be if under the effect of a charm spell (basically reversed). This is especially true if the wizard or other subject of this is naturally aggressive or a “nuke them from orbit” type. Which is not unusual in PCs.

I’m not saying that every case would involve attacking the bard at all. Just that it seems a natural result of non-metagaming for many cases.

Y'know, if we really wanna game the system, nothing says that the creature has to be hostile TO YOU for you to trigger your anti-hostility spellcasting. He could just be hostile to your enemies. :P

[MaxWilson]

Other stupid but legal applications of this Friends + Warcaster Trick that do not involve Polymorph include:

Haste as a reaction
Cure Wounds as a reaction
Fly as a reaction
Levitate as a reaction
Stoneskin as a reaction


Y'know, if we really wanna game the system, nothing says that the creature has to be hostile TO YOU for you to trigger your anti-hostility spellcasting. He could just be hostile to your enemies. :P

That's munchkiny, though, not RAW. In order to count as a stupid RAW trick, it has to be something the designer of the game would be expected to agree was legal by the rules they wrote, not by twisting the words they wrote.

[Toadkiller]

You're a giant ape surrounded by ogres who want to kill you and a bard who recently annoyed you. You decide to attack the ogres. The DM seizes control of your character and decrees that you actually attack the bard. You're... okay with this, even in the context of 5E? Wow. I am astonished.

Absolutely- if the player is being enough of an ass to try this kind of nonsense. But of course once they bite the bard they will likely lose concentration and the wizard will transform back. So in the end they will just lose a turn and some hit points. I would even be willing to go easy on the the hp loss.

But what we would actually allow in our games isn’t really the point of finding these silly rule loopholes.

There is also the whole thing of carrying mice around to kill for the fiend warlock temp hp thing.

[NaughtyTiger]

Did I miss the part were the Wizard passes the save and polymorph fails?
If the wizard is hostile to the bard's plan and must oppose his goals, then she shouldn't be considered willing.

[MaxWilson]

Did I miss the part were the Wizard passes the save and polymorph fails?
If the wizard is hostile to the bard's plan and must oppose his goals, then she shouldn't be considered willing.

Yes, you missed the part where we already discussed that.

[Willie the Duck]

You are now blind, so Mirror Image does not affect you. Because you already gave yourself advantage, the disadvantage of being blind is cancelled out and you attack normally.

I can absolutely see the argument for not allowing a character to make themselves voluntarily blind by closing their eyes, but by RAW, the rules for blindness do not distinguish how you stopped being able to see or how long that condition needs to last.

If we're doing stupid RAW tricks, I'm going to ask -- is there a rule structure for closing your eyes? I mean, of course as a DM I would rule that it is something a character could do, but relying on DM goodwill interpretation kind of goes against the spirit of the challenge.

[micahaphone]

If we're doing stupid RAW tricks, I'm going to ask -- is there a rule structure for closing your eyes? I mean, of course as a DM I would rule that it is something a character could do, but relying on DM goodwill interpretation kind of goes against the spirit of the challenge.

Creatures with petrifying gaze effects like the Medusa and Basilisk have stipulations in their stat blocks that say


Unless surprised, a creature can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If the creature does so, it can't see the medusa until the start of its next turn, when it can avert its eyes again. If the creature looks at the medusa in the meantime, it must immediately make the save.

I'm surprised that this isn't clarified in the stat block, but I remember in Out of the Abyss the DM's notes remind you that when you're averting your eyes you have disadvantage to hit, and the monster has advantage to hit. Effectively the blinded condition. So if looking away is the same effect as being blinded, I'd imagine closing your eyes to be the same.


I like that OotA gives you another option in the room ahead of the medusa's lair - dark crystals that you can hold to your eyes with one hand. You can look and attack normally, and make the petrification save at advantage.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm surprised that this isn't clarified in the stat block, but I remember in Out of the Abyss the DM's notes remind you that when you're averting your eyes you have disadvantage to hit, and the monster has advantage to hit. Effectively the blinded condition. So if looking away is the same effect as being blinded, I'd imagine closing your eyes to be the same.

My point is, once you start going down the road of 'I'd imagine (that)...' or one thing being 'effectively the blinded condition' (without it actually being noted as the blinded condition) you are calling upon DM's arbitration to support what is, by the premise of the thread, merely something you are trying to do because it is supposedly RAW, and the results are notable or surprising in some way. What you've mentioned is all stuff that I'd consider if I were a DM and one of my player's asked if they could close their eyes to defeat Mirror Image (and useful contributions that that discussion), it just doesn't seem to me that that is what we are attempting to accomplish.

[Mr Adventurer]

I like that OotA gives you another option in the room ahead of the medusa's lair - dark crystals that you can hold to your eyes with one hand. You can look and attack normally, and make the petrification save at advantage.

Shouldn't even give Advantage!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLZoLJLVAAAmvIz.jpg

[patchyman]

But remember that the bard isn't hostile to the Giant Ape, even though the Giant Ape is hostile to the bard. Friends only creates one-way hostility. redwizard007's characterization of the bard as a "non-hostile" is correct.

Furthermore, the ogres are actively trying to kill the Giant Ape whereas the bard is not. And most importantly, the player declares an intention to attack the ogres.

Under these circumstances, a DM who decides to take control of the PC to make it attack the bard is not being reasonable. Such DMs can be expected to do other unreasonable things.

If the Giant Ape is hostile to the bard, it considers the bard his enemy, regardless of whether the bard is actually his enemy. This exploit is predicated on the target of the spell being hostile to the caster, likely means the recipient of the spell is not a willing target, and definitely means you shouldn’t assume the target won’t attack you.

To flip this on you, a PC who meta games and ignores limitations on his character is not a reasonable player, and can be expected to do other unreasonable things.

Generalizing is fun!

[micahaphone]

Shouldn't even give Advantage!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLZoLJLVAAAmvIz.jpg

Clearly from this example we can learn that the crystals in OotA are polarized, and that cat grabbed non-polarizing sunglasses

[patchyman]

Absolutely- if the player is being enough of an ass to try this kind of nonsense. But of course once they bite the bard they will likely lose concentration and the wizard will transform back. So in the end they will just lose a turn and some hit points. I would even be willing to go easy on the the hp loss.

But what we would actually allow in our games isn’t really the point of finding these silly rule loopholes.

There is also the whole thing of carrying mice around to kill for the fiend warlock temp hp thing.

The wizard could also attack the bard without any DM prompting. I would definitely award inspiration for that.

[Garresh]

Absolutely- if the player is being enough of an ass to try this kind of nonsense. But of course once they bite the bard they will likely lose concentration and the wizard will transform back. So in the end they will just lose a turn and some hit points. I would even be willing to go easy on the the hp loss.

But what we would actually allow in our games isn’t really the point of finding these silly rule loopholes.

There is also the whole thing of carrying mice around to kill for the fiend warlock temp hp thing.

I'd actually allow the mice thing. It's delightfully evil and while gamey, it also can be justified in both lore and roleplay. Besides, the the ability isn't super OP or anything. The friends bit I'd just ban outright because narrative and balance are more important than RAW. It's still really funny though.

My rule on munchkinry is basically asking does it ruin immersion or balance. Boat-trousers melee weapon breaks both. Coffee lock breaks balance, but makes for an interesting narrative imho. Friends Warcaster breaks both. Bag of mice life drain gets a pass on both counts.

[MaxWilson]

Creatures with petrifying gaze effects like the Medusa and Basilisk have stipulations in their stat blocks that say

I'm surprised that this isn't clarified in the stat block, but I remember in Out of the Abyss the DM's notes remind you that when you're averting your eyes you have disadvantage to hit, and the monster has advantage to hit. Effectively the blinded condition. So if looking away is the same effect as being blinded, I'd imagine closing your eyes to be the same.

This is one of the things that makes Disguise Self such a great spell against intelligent enemies: if they think you're a Medusa, hopefully they'll avert their eyes instead of risking stoning, which means they'll be effectively blind (disadvantage to them, advantage to you) and that they'll never make the saving throw, so they'll never figure out that you're not really a Medusa. Effectively you're using a first-level 1-hour no-concentration Disguise Self spell to get the same advantages as 4th level 1-minute concentration-based Greater Invisibility.

Theoretically you could do it with no spells at all, only a Disguise Kit.

[TheUser]

Both of my stupid RAW tricks involve Wizards.

Haven't read the whole thread, I apologize if these have been covered already.

1. The Squasher Level 9 Illusionist Wizard:
-Cast the Creation Spell and make a piece of vegetable matter (my preference is a banana peel). It will now last for 24 hours.
-Place the vegetable matter on top of or drop over top of a restrained/stunned/paralyzed or otherwise incapacitated creature.
-Use your action for Malleable Illusions and turn the vegetable matter into a 5x5x5ft cube of solid stone.

Congratulations! You have just squashed a creature under 24 tonnes of weight. If you drop the creation from high enough up I am certain you could do catastrophic damage to even larger creatures.


2. The 375+ HP Necromancer.
This one is a level 17 wizard (when the whole game unravels anyway) but it's definitely my fave.

Cast Shapechange. Turn your Necromancer into a Dragon Turtle.

Because you have retained the "Inured to Undeath" feature throughout the entire process (Shapechange makes you retain class features in your new form) your maximum HP cannot be reduced at any point. Replacing your stat block still counts as a max HP reduction. You now have the maximum HP of a Dragon Turtle (341) even after you revert back.

The next day cast wish for a level 8 Aid spell and raise your hp by another 35.

By level 20 (when you can turn into an Ogremoch) your new max HP after casting level 8 Aid is 561.

For real shenanigans turn into a Red Shadow Dragon and murder a camp of evil humanoids with your breath weapon for a shadow army to complement your arsenal.

[Erys]

2. The 375+ HP Necromancer.
This one is a level 17 wizard (when the whole game unravels anyway) but it's definitely my fave.

Cast Shapechange. Turn your Necromancer into a Dragon Turtle.

Because you have retained the "Inured to Undeath" feature throughout the entire process (Shapechange makes you retain class features in your new form) your maximum HP cannot be reduced at any point. Replacing your stat block still counts as a max HP reduction. You now have the maximum HP of a Dragon Turtle (341) even after you revert back.

The next day cast wish for a level 8 Aid spell and raise your hp by another 35.

By level 20 (when you can turn into an Ogremoch) your new max HP after casting level 8 Aid is 561.

For real shenanigans turn into a Red Shadow Dragon and murder a camp of evil humanoids with your breath weapon for a shadow army to complement your arsenal.

An interesting idea...

I don't think 'replacing your hitpoints' with a new form (via Wildshape or Shapechange) is the same as your hitpoints 'being reduced'.

But creative regardless.

[Segev]

An interesting idea...

I don't think 'replacing your hitpoints' with a new form (via Wildshape or Shapechange) is the same as your hitpoints 'being reduced'.

But creative regardless.

Doubly so since the form's hp reaching 0 doesn't kill you; it just ends the spell and restores your stats. Including your hp from before you cast the spell.

[MaxWilson]

Doubly so since the form's hp reaching 0 doesn't kill you; it just ends the spell and restores your stats. Including your hp from before you cast the spell.

You argue cogently, sir!

[Damon_Tor]

Doubly so since the form's hp reaching 0 doesn't kill you; it just ends the spell and restores your stats. Including your hp from before you cast the spell.

This made me remember another fun trick:

1. Be a level 18 Samurai, level 2 Moon Druid
2. Take your turn like normal, make a bunch of attacks and stuff
3. As your bonus action, Wild Shape into a 1 HP bird of some sort
4. Fly 10 feet into the air then fall, taking 1d6 fall damage
5. This reduces you to 0 hitpoints, revoking your Wild Shape and reverting you to your humanoid form, but also triggering your Strength Before Death feature
6. Take a second turn immediately after the first

[CheddarChampion]

Dumb questions:
1. Can you make an AoO against an ally (no friends spell involved) in the same conditions you could against an enemy?
2. Can you make a warcaster reaction spell against an ally (no friends spell involved)?

[MaxWilson]

Dumb questions:
1. Can you make an AoO against an ally (no friends spell involved) in the same conditions you could against an enemy?
2. Can you make a warcaster reaction spell against an ally (no friends spell involved)?

By RAW, no to both. There is no good reason for that, so a sane DM would say yes to the first, and to the second he would either say yes or "let's rewrite Warcaster".

[CheddarChampion]

By RAW, no to both. There is no good reason for that, so a sane DM would say yes to the first, and to the second he would either say yes or "let's rewrite Warcaster".

Muchas Gracias.
I think that's a good way to handle it, by the way.

[Yunru]

A level 7 Sorcerer creates a 5th level spell slot, then levels up, learning a 5th level spell a level early.

[CheddarChampion]

A level 7 Sorcerer creates a 5th level spell slot, then levels up, learning a 5th level spell a level early.

Don't you need 9 sorcery points to make a 5th level spell?
The max you can hold at 7th level is 7.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Don't you need 9 sorcery points to make a 5th level spell?
The max you can hold at 7th level is 7.

It's 7 to create a 5th level slot. From 1st to 5th level the costs are 2,3,5,6,7. The extra cost of creating a spell slot isn't that extreme.

[CheddarChampion]

It's 7 to create a 5th level slot. From 1st to 5th level the costs are 2,3,5,6,7. The extra cost of creating a spell slot isn't that extreme.

I stand corrected!

[MaxWilson]

A level 7 Sorcerer creates a 5th level spell slot, then levels up, learning a 5th level spell a level early.

Heh. Interesting find. I suppose the reverse could happen too if you're out of high-level slots when you gain enough XP to level up, since 5E doesn't define how long leveling up takes or when it occurs, leaving one with the impression that it might be video-game instantaneous after a fight.

[Warlush]

Level 20 wizard.
Wish a Simulacrum of yourself.
True polymorph your Simulacrum into something cool.
Repeat.
Have an army of insanely powerful allies.

[Dork_Forge]

Level 20 wizard.
Wish a Simulacrum of yourself.
True polymorph your Simulacrum into something cool.
Repeat.
Have an army of insanely powerful allies.

What about the RAW of that would stop the Simulacrum just disappearing when you recast it?

[ProsecutorGodot]

What about the RAW of that would stop the Simulacrum just disappearing when you recast it?

When you cast Simulacrum using Wish you aren't casting Simulacrum so by RAW your previous duplicates don't disappear. Wish duplicates the effects of a spell, it doesn't count as casting that spell.

[Yunru]

Technically you could argue they'd all disappear if you ever cast simulacrum normally?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Technically you could argue they'd all disappear if you ever cast simulacrum normally?

I would rule so (this is an effect of Simulacrum, which Wish duplicates) but if you've already started abusing the Wish casting variant I don't see why you would ever cast the normal spell again.

There is an argument to be made against this though, where your simulacrum aren't created via "this spell" (Simulacrum) and as such wouldn't disappear if you cast it again. I believe this is more in line with RAW because it's the exact poor wording that allows you to wish for multiple simulacrum in the first place.

There's then a third argument I can see where duplicating the effects of this line:

If you cast this spell again, any duplicate you created with this spell is instantly destroyed.
Makes the properties apply to Wish rather than Simulacrum. Seems like a large stretch but it would avoid the abuse altogether.

[TheUser]

Oh! I forgot! You can also use Illusory Reality to make -REAL- components for your spells that would otherwise cost money!

What's that? You want to cast Invulnerability but don't want to fork out 500 gp per cast?
No problem. Make an illusion of the small piece of adamantine, make the illusion real and then blamo. Free Spell!
It's real for a minute as a bonus action, and if you use level 6+ slots to make permanent illusions you can have them readily accessible at a moment's notice!

[Crgaston]

A 3rd level Thief with the Healer feat and 300gp worth of Healer's Kits can heal 600 1hd creatures for 6-11 hp EACH (average 5,400 hp altogether) over a 1 hour short rest. And the more HD they have, the better it gets.

But for keeping an actual army on their feet?

Edit:I actually don't see why they couldn't use both their action and bonus action to use Healer's Kits. So 1,200 creatures.

_____________________________________

With 2 levels of Bard, you get Song of Rest, which states that anyone who can hear you singing and who uses a hd to recover hp gains an additional 1d6 hp.

Since you're using your bonus action (with 3 levels of Thief) for the Healer's Kt shenanigans, that means you can use your move action to go 30', and let's assume Song of Rest occupies your action.

Given a very conservative 30' radius to include creatures who can hear you, you can affect 43,344 creatures over the course of a 1 hour short rest, just from Song of Rest.

You can be a Wood Elf and use the Longstrider spell, which would let you affect 64,944 creatures in an hour.

So for creatures with a d8 hd, that is potentially 2-14 healing for the 64,944 allies, or up to ~909,000 hp (average ~520,000) healed in a short rest.

And I'm just doing the math in real time... holy crap, this absolutely dwarfs even the Healer feat.

This. This is a stupid RAW trick. Screw you, Life Clerics.


Every army needs a L2 Wood Elf Bard.

[vexedart]

Shapechange into purple worm.
Milk poison into jar with hundreds of sewing needles.
Animate objects now do 1d4+4+12d6 each.
Bonus point if you can get advantage through fog or otherwise. Also, the weapons have blindsense.

[MaxWilson]

Shapechange into purple worm.
Milk poison into jar with hundreds of sewing needles.
Animate objects now do 1d4+4+12d6 each.
Bonus point if you can get advantage through fog or otherwise. Also, the weapons have blindsense.

Ooooo, nice one. Technically I believe it wouldn't work by RAW since poison isn't mentioned in Animate Objects, but it would work in actual play.

[Chugger]

I love the creative posts in this thread, but my eyes started to bleed from the bickering over rules-nuances - which was never the point of this threat - but anyway, I saw a reference to a "mice trick", and I can't find what the "mice trick" is. Can someone who's eyes are tougher than mine pls tell me? Thx!

[Willie the Duck]

I love the creative posts in this thread, but my eyes started to bleed from the bickering over rules-nuances - which was never the point of this threat - but anyway, I saw a reference to a "mice trick", and I can't find what the "mice trick" is. Can someone who's eyes are tougher than mine pls tell me? Thx!

I assume it is casting Hex on yourself with a mouse or other harmless creature as the initial target of your +1d6, then killing the mouse. The spell states, "If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature," without specifying when subsequent to killing the initial creature you have to select a new target.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I assume it is casting Hex on yourself with a mouse or other harmless creature as the initial target of your +1d6, then killing the mouse. The spell states, "If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature," without specifying when subsequent to killing the initial creature you have to select a new target.

Order of operations goes like this:
-Hex Mouse
-Kill Mouse
-Short Rest
-Hex is up and you have regained that spent spell slot.

There isn't really a trick involved here (trick implies that something unintentional or "technically true" by the rules is happening, see Simulacrum v Wish) other than what could be perceived as an abuse of resting, the DM could shut that part down pretty easily.

"A subsequent turn of yours" is pretty simply "on another turn that happens after this one". Any time after for as long as the spell remains is the specified timing.

[Willie the Duck]

There isn't really a trick involved here (trick implies that something unintentional or "technically true" by the rules is happening, see Simulacrum v Wish) other than what could be perceived as an abuse of resting, the DM could shut that part down pretty easily.

I don't think any technical definition of trick is really pertinent, so it's going to be entirely subjective. Casting something as a warlock that lasts for the rest of the day, and then short resting before any actual action has taken place is definitely the gamist mechanism quite a few people have complained about. That hex qualifies against a creature that never constituted a threat in the first place sometimes bothers people as well. Personally none of this even rises to the level of 'PAM+one-handed quarterstaff+shield' on my eyebrow-raise-o-meter, much less Simulacrum+Wish.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think any technical definition of trick is really pertinent, so it's going to be entirely subjective. Casting something as a warlock that lasts for the rest of the day, and then short resting before any actual action has taken place is definitely the gamist mechanism quite a few people have complained about. That hex qualifies against a creature that never constituted a threat in the first place sometimes bothers people as well. Personally none of this even rises to the level of 'PAM+one-handed quarterstaff+shield' on my eyebrow-raise-o-meter, much less Simulacrum+Wish.

It's only gamist if it makes no sense in-character. Getting to reroll dice is gamist. Murdering small animals and then resting to regain your strength is potentially evil and potentially cheesy, but not gamist.

[Willie the Duck]

It's only gamist if it makes no sense in-character. Getting to reroll dice is gamist. Murdering small animals and then resting to regain your strength is potentially evil and potentially cheesy, but not gamist.

I was referring to, as ProsecutorGodot put it, 'abuse of resting.'

[CheddarChampion]

Riding a horse? The horse has normal movement.
Riding a horse and grab it with grapple? The horse has 0 movement.

Could be useful if your mount is affected by the spell "Fear?"

[Segev]

Riding a horse? The horse has normal movement.
Riding a horse and grab it with grapple? The horse has 0 movement.

Could be useful if your mount is affected by the spell "Fear?"
Well, if you want to turn a debuff on your horse into eating your actions, I suppose.

[MaxWilson]

Riding a horse? The horse has normal movement.
Riding a horse and grab it with grapple? The horse has 0 movement.

Could be useful if your mount is affected by the spell "Fear?"

Along similar lines: the fact that multiple people can ride the same Mount on their turn probably qualifies as a stupid RAW trick. By RAW, if I have six Phantom Steeds set up at 200' intervals, I can use Expeditious Retreat to ride each of them 200' (100' x 2 for Dash) for a total of 1200', and then somebody else can ride those same six steeds 200' each on their turn, and so on. Not only can I wind up travelling a quarter of a mile in only a tenth of a minute, but the steeds themselves could individually travel arbitrarily far, even dozens of miles in six seconds if there were enough riders.

It's RAW and it's stupid.

[Justin Sane]

Along similar lines: the fact that multiple people can ride the same Mount on their turn probably qualifies as a stupid RAW trick. By RAW, if I have six Phantom Steeds set up at 200' intervals, I can use Expeditious Retreat to ride each of them 200' (100' x 2 for Dash) for a total of 1200', and then somebody else can ride those same six steeds 200' each on their turn, and so on. Not only can I wind up travelling a quarter of a mile in only a tenth of a minute, but the steeds themselves could individually travel arbitrarily far, even dozens of miles in six seconds if there were enough riders.

It's RAW and it's stupid.Can you break that down for me? How are you getting around the whole "takes half your movement to mount/dismount" thing?

Edit: "Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed." PHB, 198. The "once" bit is particularly troubling.

[MaxWilson]

Can you break that down for me? How are you getting around the whole "takes half your movement to mount/dismount" thing?

Edit: "Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed." PHB, 198. The "once" bit is particularly troubling.

Hmmm, has that "once" always been there or is that new or is it a mistaken quote from a web source? Sometimes they misquote... [checks Basic Rules] Looks like you're right, the trick I proposed is illegal. Good catch!

[micahaphone]

I have a delightfully ridiculous trick. The Cantrip "Friends" has a range of self, and specifies


For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn’t hostile toward you. When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you. A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM’s discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it.

There is no range or targeting limitation on that first sentence. You don't even need to know them.

The king of a faraway kingdom.
The nearest person named Thomas.
The leader of the thieves' guild.
The second nearest person named Thomas.
Grazzt.
The third nearest person named Thomas.
Mephistopheles.
Dogs, rats, alligators outside of the city.

It's an unlimited range aggro. Use it to cause wrinkles in diplomacy, stage scenes as a distraction, get someone to come out of hiding, get someone/something big to notice you. The possibilities (and range) are endless.

[MaxWilson]

I have a delightfully ridiculous trick. The Cantrip "Friends" has a range of self, and specifies

There is no range or targeting limitation on that first sentence. You don't even need to know them.

The king of a faraway kingdom.
The nearest person named Thomas.
The leader of the thieves' guild.
The second nearest person named Thomas.
Grazzt.
The third nearest person named Thomas.
Mephistopheles.
Dogs, rats, alligators outside of the city.

It's an unlimited range aggro. Use it to cause wrinkles in diplomacy, stage scenes as a distraction, get someone to come out of hiding, get someone/something big to notice you. The possibilities (and range) are endless.

Oh wow. This begins to remind me of nonsense like "the set of all sets which do not contain themselves."

What happens if you choose "the nearest person who will not be hostile towards me a minute from now?" Does the universe cease to exist?

That is indeed a ridiculous RAW trick.

[CheddarChampion]

What happens if you choose "the nearest person who will not be hostile towards me a minute from now?" Does the universe cease to exist?

Maybe it'll target someone immune to charm or who cannot feel hostility?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I love this thread.

[MaxWilson]

Maybe it'll target someone immune to charm or who cannot feel hostility?

Friends doesn't rely on the Charmed condition. (Hmmm, does that make it actually useful? Naw...)

If they cannot feel hostility, then that still violates the RAW and the universe ends in paradox.

[Skylivedk]

Along similar lines: the fact that multiple people can ride the same Mount on their turn probably qualifies as a stupid RAW trick. By RAW, if I have six Phantom Steeds set up at 200' intervals, I can use Expeditious Retreat to ride each of them 200' (100' x 2 for Dash) for a total of 1200', and then somebody else can ride those same six steeds 200' each on their turn, and so on. Not only can I wind up travelling a quarter of a mile in only a tenth of a minute, but the steeds themselves could individually travel arbitrarily far, even dozens of miles in six seconds if there were enough riders.

It's RAW and it's stupid.

Attach cart/carriage, avoid the mount conundrum and break the speed of light at the annual gathering of level 5 Wizards. You probably need familiars to help hook/unhook you unto the next steed in line, but I'm not sure that's a downside.


Friends doesn't rely on the Charmed condition. (Hmmm, does that make it actually useful? Naw...)

If they cannot feel hostility, then that still violates the RAW and the universe ends in paradox.

This is how Snarls are born.

[AdAstra]

Along similar lines: the fact that multiple people can ride the same Mount on their turn probably qualifies as a stupid RAW trick. By RAW, if I have six Phantom Steeds set up at 200' intervals, I can use Expeditious Retreat to ride each of them 200' (100' x 2 for Dash) for a total of 1200', and then somebody else can ride those same six steeds 200' each on their turn, and so on. Not only can I wind up travelling a quarter of a mile in only a tenth of a minute, but the steeds themselves could individually travel arbitrarily far, even dozens of miles in six seconds if there were enough riders.

It's RAW and it's stupid.

I don't think this one works. By RAW, the only thing that happens when a mount is controlled is that its initiative changes to the rider's. Whether changing initiative would actually give the mount another turn isn't covered by the rules at all.

There is, however, text from "The Order of Combat" that states:

"A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."

Also, from "Initiative":

"Initiative determines the order of turns during combat"

That would at least heavily imply that unless a feature specifically states otherwise, you can't take more than one turn in a round, regardless of initiative. Initiative exists as a mechanic to dictate the order of turns, but doesn't seem to be the thing that actually gives you your turn.

[Yunru]

I'm pretty sure spells need line of effect? Still not a massive limitation even if so.

[MaxWilson]

I'm pretty sure spells need line of effect? Still not a massive limitation even if so.

They need a line of effect to the target, but spells with Range: self always have that, which is why you can cast Clairvoyance/Scrying/Teleportation Circle/Dimension Door and still effect things far away. Upthread pointed out that Friends is one such spell, surprisingly, so there is no range limit and apparently no line of sight requirement.

(Yes, yes, 5E is kind of schrizophrenic in how it uses the word "target".)

Edit: apparently Clairvoyance is "Range: 1 mile" instead, which means that by RAW most things you'd actually like to do with it are in fact illegal, since the spell says nothing explicit about getting to bypass total cover. Reasonable DMs will scoff and ignore this technicality because it would make the spell almost pointless.