Let's be generous and call them "creative" rules interpretations.

[DRD1812]

There are a couple of examples over here, but for me the archetypal example is the 3.X feat throw anything. As it turns out, that feat does not give you any bonuses to throwing elephants, small houses, or any other objects that happen to be several hundred times your carrying capacity.

What about the rest of you guys? What "creative" rules interpretations have you seen at the table? Did your GM actually allow them?

[Guizonde]

ah, the good ol' "munchkin-style troll". i'm a big fan of that. i argued (and won) that loading up the halfling monk in a catapult could count as a projectile so that he could leap 300ft into combat with impact damage. a catapult projectile is 30kg, so was the halfling. he nearly died from the stunt, but it worked.

usually for me, it involves very liberal interpretations of skills. "handle rope" is my favorite go-to for that. anything from torture, rock climbing, art, traps, mob-control... i've broken one-shots with just 10m of rope, a silver tongue, and the rule of funny.

a common one that pops up now and again here is the pound of flour to screw with invisible enemies. you're a lot less invisible when your steps are seen and you're covered in flour.

finally, it's more spell abuse than anything, but i had a cleric who had dreadlocks. he cast eternal flame on them so that his party could all have a source of light in their pocket. said cleric was about as stealthy as a polka-dot neon pink elephant at a goth party, so having my hair wreathed in flames wasn't too inconvenient (that, and he worshipped pelor, a sun god). my dm hated me for that stunt.

[DRD1812]

ah, the good ol' "munchkin-style troll". i'm a big fan of that. i argued (and won) that loading up the halfling monk in a catapult could count as a projectile so that he could leap 300ft into combat with impact damage.

Glad to see my fellow gamers contributing to the annual averages (see the hover-over text).

I think that "the rule of funny" is an important concept for this sort of thing. Super serious games notwithstanding, we all like to see ridiculous and over the top antics at the gaming table. To that end, I appreciate those GMs that say "I'll allow it, but only once." That way you get your fun moment without upsetting game balance over the long run.

[Quertus]

a common one that pops up now and again here is the pound of flour to screw with invisible enemies. you're a lot less invisible when your steps are seen and you're covered in flour.

finally, it's more spell abuse than anything, but i had a cleric who had dreadlocks. he cast eternal flame on them so that his party could all have a source of light in their pocket. said cleric was about as stealthy as a polka-dot neon pink elephant at a goth party, so having my hair wreathed in flames wasn't too inconvenient (that, and he worshipped pelor, a sun god). my dm hated me for that stunt.

Having done both of these, I'm not seeing how this is torturous abuse of RAW.

Ok, I used rocks, and burnt out ioun stones, but same idea.

[Guizonde]

Having done both of these, I'm not seeing how this is torturous abuse of RAW.

Ok, I used rocks, and burnt out ioun stones, but same idea.

it's less a case of "torturous abuse of raw" and more a case of "complete obliteration of inside the box thinking". since there wasn't a rule to break, i winged it for comedic effect. that, and my dm was of the "psycho-serious-no-fun-allowed" variety, so using the dreadlocks (that he was against from the beginning) to solve a current problem (only my cleric had darkvision and no torches) really ground his gears into a fine powder. believe it or not, those locks stayed in the group's pockets for ages, something like 20+ sessions over 3 years. totally worth casting that spell, had i known the long-term benefits.

plus, nobody ever thinks about using their hair as a practical first solution. the monk's player above pulled the same stunt on me when i dm'd for him. his character hid a screwdriver and a usb stick in his dreadlocks. a friend at the table demonstrated how easy it was to hide things in there (he hid... less legal things in his locks, but what are ya gonna do?).

[GorinichSerpant]

The reason haflings aren't used as projectiles is only because they generally object to it, not because they don't make for decent projectiles.

[Bohandas]

a common one that pops up now and again here is the pound of flour to screw with invisible enemies. you're a lot less invisible when your steps are seen and you're covered in flour.=

I think invisibility in D&D is also supposed to turn anything touched by the subject invisible

[Quertus]

I think invisibility in D&D is also supposed to turn anything touched by the subject invisible

This may depend on the edition, but, IIRC, it doesn't affect anything picked up after the spell is cast.

[Lord Torath]

This may depend on the edition, but, IIRC, it doesn't affect anything picked up after the spell is cast.

Unless the invisible person places it inside an invisible bag/pouch/backpack/pocket/etc. That's how I've always ruled it and had it ruled. And it's pretty hard to brush all the flour off yourself, especially if you're under attack.

On topic, I had a fighter/mage with an owl familiar (2E AD&D). That lets you see as clearly in the dark as you do in full sunlight. Specialize in the longbow, and you can rain death and destruction in the underdark from far outside the limits of your opponents' infravision.

I've also got a Wild Mage character, and I eagerly await the time the DM decides to tempt us with the dreaded Deck of Many Things.

Shadowrun 2E. The Fashion spell lets you change the way your clothes look, but it can't change their defensive properties. You can make your clothes look like heavy armor, but it won't protect you any better. But, if you can make your clothes look like armor, then you can make your armor look like clothes. Change that imposing suit of Arrest-on-sight Full Heavy armor into a slim bodysuit you can wear under your clothes.

[Quertus]

I've also got a Wild Mage character, and I eagerly await the time the DM decides to tempt us with the dreaded Deck of Many Things.

That is what is known as a retirement plan.

[DRD1812]

I think invisibility in D&D is also supposed to turn anything touched by the subject invisible

I gives me some satisfaction that a flour/invisibility argument has spontaneously erupted here on the mage's forum.

[GrayGriffin]

In Valor, you basically build techniques from the ground up based on various "cores." One Core is debuffing the enemy, which involves giving them certain Flaws/Disadvantages. You can make the Stamina cost for a debuff cheaper by also giving the enemy certain advantages. One advantage you can grant involves rearranging all your stats, and it's generally reserved for transformations. However, there is nothing saying you can't use it on a normal buff, and nothing saying you can't use it to make a debuff cheaper. So you can make your attack cheaper and mess up your enemy's techniques at the same time.

This was only theoretical, since I presented it to the developers and was metaphorically swatted with a newspaper.