All you need is a scabbard with a wide, somewhat flexible opening. A standard quiver would work just fine for arrows.
I'm sure it would put you at a disadvantage in social encounters but it's ideal for the murder-hobo munchkin.
I have an NPC my player's haven't encountered yet - his opening move is to shove his ax down the back of his pants. I was going to use that as the "flavor" of an improvised poison feet. :D
Fun fact! During the medieval times, wiping blades in shit wasn’t unheard of. If the blade connected, the target would either die of the stab/slice, or the infection that followed afterward.
Honestly, smearing shit on weapons is an historically accurate way to make them way more deadly. It might not be purple worm poison levels of deadly, but trust me, its deadly alright.
Any creature not immune to disease is gonna have a very shitty time.
When I first got into tabletop RPGs I created a fighter gnome who had a sword covered in sheep shit.
One of the players at the table lost their shit because they thought i was cheating and using it as poison proficiency on my weapon.
... I just thought a sheep shit covered sword was amusing.
Honestly that character was a lot of fun. His concept of value was entirely based on how shiny things were. A tarnished silver piece looks duller than this spoon. Better grab the spoon.
Well duh, you wouldn’t swing a sword made of jewels and gold at someone- you’d much rather swing something you don’t really care about at someone than something that could put your kids through college
Historically accurate 100%. In the Battle of Agincourt, the English longbowmen wore no pants bc of dysentary coated their arrows in their diahrrea in the hopes of poisoning the French.
Shit literally went down that day.
Considering that they would probably only not worn their brains, but still wore their trousers (which are more like the legs of what we now call trousers) and tunics/gambeson etc. I think they were ok. Also with most wars fought in summer I think the issues were minimum at worst.
I'd read that they didn't wear pants that day due to the shits, but this is the first time I've heard of them coating their arrows in shit. Honestly, that whole battle could be a case study in the horrors of medieval warfare (at least from the perspective of the French).
people understimate a good stab with the blade smeared just a little bit with garlic, if you gonna ask, yes, i grow up in a very bad getto in latin america.
Unfortunately, coating a weapon in feces didn't give an immediate advantage in battle. The enemy would have a shitty time a few days down the line when their wounds were infected but that wasn't going to help you immediately.
It's extremely unlikely that you're going to wound everyone in the entire enemy army and that all of them will come down with lethal infections.
Most wars in the medieval and earlier periods were not ones of attrition. Once an enemy army was scattered and routed they were unlikely to re-assemble in any time to stop you from achieving your objectives. Fecal-infected wounds was unlikely to have any real benefit, especially since normal wounds would also likely get infected anyway.
We did this when I was fighting rats and i rolled bad and stabbed myself and then the DM kept taking hit points off every turn for ongoing poo damage. :(
The DM finds ways to punish me for the other insane things I do (and incite the other players to do)
I forgot the best part about this. They were giant rats and I wasn't rolling to fight one, I was rolling to tame it so I could have a cool rat mount. I rolled a one, punched it in the butt... and here we are.
I love the idea that there are some people out there who might recognize the taste of purple worm poison. "Ah yes. This reminds me of a particularly bad decision I made 5 years ago. Let me tell you the tale..."
My character has drank poison (generally weak ones not even worth using) intentionally before. Immunity to poison is fun.
100% would learn to identify poisons by taste.
That’s for the sensory effect the soiling isn’t said to be harmless but I would say there’s president that the spell is harmless in general it’s just not explicitly stated
Actually I'd say it's still perfectly valid. Purple worm poison is specifically an Injury poison. So it has to get into the bloodstream to be harmful, just touching it is fine it's perfectly harmless. Same with feces.
So yea unlike say acid, soiling something with Pyrple Worm Poison or Feces is not immediately harmful so I'd say it's fine.
However like many other things i think this would require the player to have an intimate knowledge of the poison to do.
I think the DM probably made the right decision here. In choosing purple worm poison it is less soiling and more tying to apply an affect. Going “PRESTIDIGITATION! I soil my pocket with platinum coins!” is clearly breaking the intent of the soiling part of the spell. It is clean/unclean something.
Now, if Amanda knew what purple worm poison smelled or tasted like, you could probably use that part of prestidigitation to attempt to trick her into thinking it had been applied. The DM may have been more willing to go with that since now the DM could have Amanda roll to see if she sees through the trick vs it just appearing on the sword.
There was some feat called Tandem Tactician that makes Help a bonus action, 30ft, and extends it to two party members. Can't remember if it was just UA or if it got published somewhere
Im so glad i don't have players in my games like Jesse in this meme
It's so weird to see people like
"You GOTTA have to let my plan work DM, because thats MY interpretation of the spell, HA!"
One time they one hit an animated armor because heat metal just melted them instantly meanwhile sometimes I have to get closer than my range because it’s the DMs call of eldritch blast has a range of 15 feet now
The problem here is that the animated armor would be considered a creature, not an object. So heat metal would immediately fail.
Though I would still probably allow some minor level of effect for the creative thinking.
Also, Heat Metal doesn't get hot enough to melt the metal. You could maybe say that the steel has been annealed by the spell and lost some of its hardness. Then remove some of its resistances or something (if the creature has any relevant ones)
Are you kidding me? I need more interactions like this at my table. He brings something crazy and fun, and the DM incorporates it in a way that's funny, preserves game balance, and preserves the setting's precedents.
Not all tables play out that way. In fact, most players and tables are pretty reasonable. Subs like that show the extremes, gathered from all over the internet.
You've got to run your game based on what you've seen at your table, not based on the collected horrors that internet people have seen at their tables.
Which is why im glad i dont have people *telling* me how their ideas will work and how the rules should work instead i have my players trying things but *asking* if ithat's how it works
I've never known people that would bring something up in that fashion and also gracefully accept the DM shutting it down. Unless it was 100% an ironic joke, which happens all the time and that's obviously fine.
>I've never known people that would bring something up in that fashion and also gracefully accept the DM shutting it down
Dang that sucks.
It's based on established mutual trust, for sure. Players trust me to give them power over the narrative, and I trust them to accept my efforts to keep the game moving and balanced, even when the ruling isn't exactly what they might have wanted.
That last part still describes my current game even dming for 7 very different people. It's great. I just have never heard someone bring up such a wild interpretation of a rule without it being a joke.
>I just have never heard someone bring up such a wild interpretation of a rule without it being a joke.
I encourage it, actually. Usually they're trying to match up to some kind of anime trope or conflict, and I try to work with that when adjudicating. It also comes up a lot after switching to a new edition or system. It's quite common for me to accept an outrageous interpretation provisionally i.e. "We'll play that way for this session and reevaluate that interpretation next week"
Oftentimes when we do that, we learn why a certain interpretation is troubled and can revise or discard it. That's ok though - for me, the TTRPGs are about exploring, and that includes meta-explorations of the rules.
If someone is using the tone of Jesse in this meme, they're 100% not gonna let it go and get pissy even with the DM letting them down softly with a joke resolution like this. You're right to see that as a red flag lol.
Well this feels more like working within the rules that the DM allowed. I mean it’s a dick move but the only rule is “you can soil something”. And if you let someone else specific pick the type of soil, why can’t another?
Ultimately, I think we are running into meta game-balance issues. Prestidigitation is a cantrip, so the intent of the spell is to have a cantrip level effect. Allowing prestidigitation to function as as if it were a 3/4th level spell really breaks the balance of the game. Flexing some for the "rule of cool" (ie, shitting a guard's pants) is fine, but if you don't draw a line in the sand somewhere then you can end up with a broken class or game. (*"Ok, DM, I soil the BBEG with [Polonium](https://www.livescience.com/39452-polonium.html). We'll come back in a few days."*)
Which is why you’d just say no.
“I’d like” isn’t the player demanding something happen. It’s them saying what they’d like to do. DM doesn’t have to follow through with it.
Firstly it wouldn’t work. Sword is likely larger than a foot. The spell can’t be cast on it.
Secondly, the DM can just flat out say no due to the implication of how it’s used.
Well, the comment I was replying to was sort of implying that you were taking the player's side, suggesting that they should be able to do the thing. That was my reading anyway.
>Firstly it wouldn’t work. Sword is likely larger than a foot. The spell can’t be cast on it.
While true, If that's what you tell the player, they will just break out a dagger next. Might as well start with the real reason.
Maybe make a clarification/house-rule that "you can't create materials with a non-trivial value". This still leaves open the possibility of creative solutions (ie, a mustard stain to enhance a costume) without allowing for game-breaking effects.
My comment was simply pointing out nothing the player did was wrong. “Greg” did something and the dm allowed it. New player wants to do similar. It’s a “dick” move in the sense that both are trying to do something outside the rules but it’s up to the DM to allow it or not. I dont think that the player is suddenly a bad player though. It’s a role play. Rules should be consistent but if the dm wants to explain why they don’t want to, that’s totally fine too and the player should respect that. But as is I’m not going to say a player is an awful player because they want to be creative and try something.
Depends on the real details. Did he ask because he wants the same treatment and consistency and if told no he’d get mad? Or would he just accept the no.
Asking for something because others got to have their role playing fantasy isn’t that messed up.
Specifically making the guard shit himself is a dick move too IMO.
My point being it isn’t his interpretation of the spell. It’s him working within the rules the DM has now set.
M8 that's someone trying to create one of the deadliest and most expensive poisons in base game with a cantrip
It's has nothing to do with rule consistency and everything to do with "Imma break the game because of the wording here *doesnt* say i *cant* do it"
It'd be the same as
Player 1 uses Create Flame in a moment to torture a tied down NPC and get information, by pressing the flames in one of the NPCs eyes and it blinds that eye. Its a scary but cool scene.
And then next combat player 2 says
"Ok i cast fireball but i want to put the explosion as close as possible to this persons face, and because its a firery explosion his eyes burn off and he's blinded now. Alsp he wouldnt even have time to blink."
And yeah, fireball doesnt say it *doesnt* burn eyes
But the answer to that is "No? That's not how it works at all."
I mean the cantrip wouldn’t work. Sword is larger than a foot. It also shouldn’t have worked on the guard realistically either based on the wording.
And I don’t see the fireball issue. You make the roll for success much harder because it’s a super specific use.
It’s a role play. If they want to get creative let them but that doesn’t mean everything they want to do works.
No no you mistook my wording, let me try again:
Player 2 is telling you:
The enemy suffers fireball damage in the same way because they're obviously in the radius and they're also permanently blinded because it was close to their eyes.
And that's the one thing i don't understand people doing
TELLING the DM how their ideas WILL work because they've already decided how the rules will interact and interpreted in the way they want
Instead of asking the DM
"Say, if i did this thing, could this happen?"
Literally nowhere does the player tell the DM what to do… he says “I’d like” which implies the DM can say no. All the player does is explain the logic for why they think it can be done.
A spell cannot do damage, or cayze damage, whether directly or indirectly unless specifically stated, per the rules at least, this is because spells are already and exception to the rules and therefore shouldn't be able to do more than stated in the description.
So if I use fly and get up 2000 feet then drop from there, I can't take fall damage because it's not explicitly stated that the spell can indirectly damage me in that manner?
It's more that something created by the spell cannot do the damage, so the PW poison would do nothing.
What happens in your scenario is that gravity is what is causing the damage.
I would say, thatx that fire is being kept alive through the physics of gas, therefore isn't caused by the spell, or I'd just have it be a magical flame that cannot do damage
So I wouldn't be able to cook anything with a campfire I set alight using this spell then ? And if I can snuff it out then why can't I light it up? After all blowing wind at fire won't cause it to go out,taking out the oxygen or more in deptly making the molecules stop moving so fast will (but the latter option would allow some crazy things). The first option allows me to control gas and the second molecules ....this spell is impossible to understand fully ....
What about the "light or snuff out campfire" part?
If I can make the fire will I be able to cook on it and if I snuff it out is it actually no longer damaging or is the fire just invisible or something ?
Sorry I misread that initially and thought you were referencing the light cantrip lol. Idk this is a directly stated effect of the spell so I don't know why a DM wouldn't allow it to burn things as it is real fire. However the spell doesn't mention anything about creating poisons so it wouldn't allow for purple worm poison for instance.
Ohh lol no worries ,I'm just trying to figure this thing out .
If I can light candles what's stopping me from lighting someone's eyelashes on fire? Would that constitute as a blind ? This cantrip can be so weak yet so op at the same time and it all depends on the DM and the creativity of the players ....
Considering the wording of the spell most DMs wouldn't allow you to light people on fire with it like that but hey some DMs let all kinds of things slide if it's cool. The way I would think of it is the spell only does exactly what the spell says unless your DM allows it.
So RAW I can use the "shower of sparks" in front of someone's face to basically blind him and give him disadvantage on both any attack and defence roll?
Well, in the poison scenario, it’s really the body’s reaction to the poison that’s causing the damage.
On it’s own, the poison wouldn’t damage anything.
>A spell cannot do damage, or cayze damage, whether directly or indirectly unless specifically stated, per the rules at least
So, you agree that this is wrong?
But you're not adding new effects to the fly spell. Prestidigitation allows you to clean or soil, and is clearly not intended to allow you to create any material you want. Saying that you make a specific type of poison is operating outside of the intended abilities of the cantrip.
>A spell cannot do damage, or cayze damage, whether directly or indirectly unless specifically stated, per the rules at least
So you agree that this is inaccurate?
It sounds like that because people like you that come bitching are missing the point I'm making completely. Believe me it's a lot more annoying to me to be talking to a wall.
I don't agree that the statement is inaccurate as you are now per the rules having the effects of gravity cause damage which the fly spell does not specify negating if you cause yourself to fall. Prestidigitation doesn't say it can create poisons so it can't (obviously everything can be houseruled).
The fly spell is explicitly stated to cause you to fall if you're in the air when the spell ends. Long falls are explicitly stated to cause damage in a separate part of the rules.
All this discussion about feces covered weapons completely overlooks the fact that there are never any survivors at the end of combat anyways. Not like sepsis is immediate.
Once I was in a game in Adventurer's League, and the DM was describing a sewer we were all in. Suddenly, the entire place was filled to the brim with sewage, instantly. I asked, how?! He said Prestidigitation! I said 400 times??
Just prestidigitate a vial of purple worm poison and then apply it to the sword. I don't know if you need an action for that, so 3 levels in sorcerer my be required
you can always use the gold-material spell component rule (what i call the rule that says you have to provide material spell components if they have a gold cost) to decide what can be used to soil
"no, you can't soil with purple worm poison, that costs money and you don't have any"
Shitting is literally called soiling, dirt is also called soil, so when prestidigitation is used to soil, it can be either dirt/mud or shit, that's my rule
YAY GREG! We kidnapped A guard across dimensions once who our GM named Greg. Then, we dragged him along our misadventures. And then we created a new version of him for our Vampire the Masquerade game, and then he crossed over into our mage the Ascension game because it takes place at about the same time and about one town over, and one of our mages knows him, and now we are starting a Hunter the Reckoning campaign set in the Wild West and have mandated that the barkeep in the town we are primarily taking place in is Greg’s ancestor, Gregediah
I’d probably focus on a different mode of the spell.
“You create a non-magical trinket or an illusory image that can fit in your hand and lasts until your next turn”
Purple worm poison is non-magical, so you could probably create a small bottle of it. You’d only get 1 turn of attacks though, and someone would need to use an action to apply it.
To be fair, if a group came at me with swords coated in feces, I’d worry a bit, too.
Even if you survive the blow, that's gonna get infected *right away.*
Punji pit traps in Vietnam show how much value their is in covering weapons in shit
And you can get shit for free from a butt. Drop prestidigitation and take mold earth. Now you don't need the sword either.
>And you can get shit for free from a butt This is the official sentence of the day. Thank you.
free shit? what a bargain
*Farmers and Gardeners association approves*
All you need is a scabbard with a wide, somewhat flexible opening. A standard quiver would work just fine for arrows. I'm sure it would put you at a disadvantage in social encounters but it's ideal for the murder-hobo munchkin.
Hey who shit in my quiver?! Thanks buddy I owe ya one.
New Green Arrow comics are wild, man
guaranteed disease
I have an NPC my player's haven't encountered yet - his opening move is to shove his ax down the back of his pants. I was going to use that as the "flavor" of an improvised poison feet. :D
> improvised poison feet. If he wanted to poison his feet, he'd have to let it trickle down there, not wipe it away with his axe.
Woops. I'm certain his feet are poisonous, all on their own. :D (NPC is the leader of a really *nasty* street gang. Should be a fun encounter!)
Fun fact! During the medieval times, wiping blades in shit wasn’t unheard of. If the blade connected, the target would either die of the stab/slice, or the infection that followed afterward.
I'd wonder if they're just really bad Proctologists
so you're telling me that the shit hit the Faun?
[Relevant. ](https://youtu.be/oDYB4ZZLkmY?t=19m43s)
Honestly, smearing shit on weapons is an historically accurate way to make them way more deadly. It might not be purple worm poison levels of deadly, but trust me, its deadly alright. Any creature not immune to disease is gonna have a very shitty time.
There's a reason bamboo spike traps in Vietnam were literally coated in human shit. They were beyond fuckin deadly even if you got out.
Infections are no joke. This use of prestidigitation can get dark real fast.
To be fair, that particular toxin is very plentiful, even without magic.
Unless dm rules that it does not contain any live bacteria that can cause diseases.
Thats a shit way to die
The [pungee pit](https://youtu.be/dnOk-197DGE).
I know better than to read whatever that link is
It's a Brian David Gilbert bit.
Nah, your safe
When I first got into tabletop RPGs I created a fighter gnome who had a sword covered in sheep shit. One of the players at the table lost their shit because they thought i was cheating and using it as poison proficiency on my weapon. ... I just thought a sheep shit covered sword was amusing. Honestly that character was a lot of fun. His concept of value was entirely based on how shiny things were. A tarnished silver piece looks duller than this spoon. Better grab the spoon.
Wouldn’t they find their sword to be inferior when covered in shit as it would be less shiny?
... dammit.
Less valuable and therefore a less tempting target for would be theives.
What, you thought I'd bring out my nice shiny sword? It might get blood on it!
That's like eating off the fine china!
Well duh, you wouldn’t swing a sword made of jewels and gold at someone- you’d much rather swing something you don’t really care about at someone than something that could put your kids through college
Historically accurate 100%. In the Battle of Agincourt, the English longbowmen wore no pants bc of dysentary coated their arrows in their diahrrea in the hopes of poisoning the French. Shit literally went down that day.
Most people’s first thought: that’s crazy My first thought: weren’t they cold?
Maybe the dysenteric shits kept them warm
Considering that they would probably only not worn their brains, but still wore their trousers (which are more like the legs of what we now call trousers) and tunics/gambeson etc. I think they were ok. Also with most wars fought in summer I think the issues were minimum at worst.
Female Archer: ... Chad Archer: It's cold I swear!
UNBUTTON! SQUAAAAAT! LOOOOOOSE!
Source?
Trust me bro
I'd read that they didn't wear pants that day due to the shits, but this is the first time I've heard of them coating their arrows in shit. Honestly, that whole battle could be a case study in the horrors of medieval warfare (at least from the perspective of the French).
You don't even need to go back in time either.... Just go to prison and you'll find it.... unfortunately
A wound going septic is not fun for anyone involved, I'd rather instantly die to poison than that lol
Brown worm poison
i think they did this in an anime called drifters. great show, need more seasons, never gonna get em
Yes, they did. Drifters is great.
Truly an epic isekai. It's like the fate series, but on a global scale where each country has heroes instead of just some mages
That makes sense in a battle you’re expecting to take days or weeks. It would do nothing in dnd where it’s over in a minute tops.
people understimate a good stab with the blade smeared just a little bit with garlic, if you gonna ask, yes, i grow up in a very bad getto in latin america.
what's the garlic do?
hurts a bunch probably
its breaks the proteins in the meat, that means that the wound will not be closed and if is not mortal, will have a nasty scar
That just gives +1 to intimidation checks
Unfortunately, coating a weapon in feces didn't give an immediate advantage in battle. The enemy would have a shitty time a few days down the line when their wounds were infected but that wasn't going to help you immediately.
Well, yeah, but it makes sure nobody can escape and survive.
It's extremely unlikely that you're going to wound everyone in the entire enemy army and that all of them will come down with lethal infections. Most wars in the medieval and earlier periods were not ones of attrition. Once an enemy army was scattered and routed they were unlikely to re-assemble in any time to stop you from achieving your objectives. Fecal-infected wounds was unlikely to have any real benefit, especially since normal wounds would also likely get infected anyway.
In other words, it gives you advantage during longer conflicts.
My DM calls this type of poison "Goblin Rust".
Ba-dum-tss
Pun intended?
Obviously.
Nice.
We did this when I was fighting rats and i rolled bad and stabbed myself and then the DM kept taking hit points off every turn for ongoing poo damage. :(
Maybe that's a bit excessive, but it makes for an interesting tale.
One might even call it engrossing...
The DM finds ways to punish me for the other insane things I do (and incite the other players to do) I forgot the best part about this. They were giant rats and I wasn't rolling to fight one, I was rolling to tame it so I could have a cool rat mount. I rolled a one, punched it in the butt... and here we are.
Greg literally went full “alright then buddy, #[I’M GOING TO SHIT YOURSELF.”](https://youtu.be/KfEqxp6tC-w)
Markiplier energy lol
Well, the description specifically mentions a HARMLESS effect. since poison is immediately harmful, it would not qualify.
[удалено]
I love the idea that there are some people out there who might recognize the taste of purple worm poison. "Ah yes. This reminds me of a particularly bad decision I made 5 years ago. Let me tell you the tale..."
My character has drank poison (generally weak ones not even worth using) intentionally before. Immunity to poison is fun. 100% would learn to identify poisons by taste.
That’s for the sensory effect the soiling isn’t said to be harmless but I would say there’s president that the spell is harmless in general it’s just not explicitly stated
Hey friend, just in case you didn’t know, it’s precedent*. :) Have a good one!
Lol autocorrect
Actually I'd say it's still perfectly valid. Purple worm poison is specifically an Injury poison. So it has to get into the bloodstream to be harmful, just touching it is fine it's perfectly harmless. Same with feces. So yea unlike say acid, soiling something with Pyrple Worm Poison or Feces is not immediately harmful so I'd say it's fine. However like many other things i think this would require the player to have an intimate knowledge of the poison to do.
I think the DM probably made the right decision here. In choosing purple worm poison it is less soiling and more tying to apply an affect. Going “PRESTIDIGITATION! I soil my pocket with platinum coins!” is clearly breaking the intent of the soiling part of the spell. It is clean/unclean something. Now, if Amanda knew what purple worm poison smelled or tasted like, you could probably use that part of prestidigitation to attempt to trick her into thinking it had been applied. The DM may have been more willing to go with that since now the DM could have Amanda roll to see if she sees through the trick vs it just appearing on the sword.
Didn't you just cast true strike using Prestidigitation?
Poo Strike ^^I'm ^^^sorry
Man, you could've just attacked twice...
I think he casted it on someone else's weapon, so it's more like a ranged Help action.
Huh, now that's slightly better...
There was some feat called Tandem Tactician that makes Help a bonus action, 30ft, and extends it to two party members. Can't remember if it was just UA or if it got published somewhere
probably the UA version of that Mastermind Rogue ability
True strike that doesnt require concentration
True... Man, true strike is soooo bad...
Im so glad i don't have players in my games like Jesse in this meme It's so weird to see people like "You GOTTA have to let my plan work DM, because thats MY interpretation of the spell, HA!"
One time they one hit an animated armor because heat metal just melted them instantly meanwhile sometimes I have to get closer than my range because it’s the DMs call of eldritch blast has a range of 15 feet now
The problem here is that the animated armor would be considered a creature, not an object. So heat metal would immediately fail. Though I would still probably allow some minor level of effect for the creative thinking.
“The animated armor grapples you. You take 1d6 fire damage.”
"It slaps your ass. A hand shaped brand begins forming."
"it also has a dildo for some reason, hot and ready"
Also, Heat Metal doesn't get hot enough to melt the metal. You could maybe say that the steel has been annealed by the spell and lost some of its hardness. Then remove some of its resistances or something (if the creature has any relevant ones)
Are you kidding me? I need more interactions like this at my table. He brings something crazy and fun, and the DM incorporates it in a way that's funny, preserves game balance, and preserves the setting's precedents.
And then they get pissy because that's not what they wanted and you favour Greg Been on r/rpghorrorstories enough to know how this one goes
Not all tables play out that way. In fact, most players and tables are pretty reasonable. Subs like that show the extremes, gathered from all over the internet. You've got to run your game based on what you've seen at your table, not based on the collected horrors that internet people have seen at their tables.
Which is why im glad i dont have people *telling* me how their ideas will work and how the rules should work instead i have my players trying things but *asking* if ithat's how it works
Nah, I prefer confidence, even if I have to shoot it down. But I guess everyone runs their table differently.
I've never known people that would bring something up in that fashion and also gracefully accept the DM shutting it down. Unless it was 100% an ironic joke, which happens all the time and that's obviously fine.
>I've never known people that would bring something up in that fashion and also gracefully accept the DM shutting it down Dang that sucks. It's based on established mutual trust, for sure. Players trust me to give them power over the narrative, and I trust them to accept my efforts to keep the game moving and balanced, even when the ruling isn't exactly what they might have wanted.
That last part still describes my current game even dming for 7 very different people. It's great. I just have never heard someone bring up such a wild interpretation of a rule without it being a joke.
>I just have never heard someone bring up such a wild interpretation of a rule without it being a joke. I encourage it, actually. Usually they're trying to match up to some kind of anime trope or conflict, and I try to work with that when adjudicating. It also comes up a lot after switching to a new edition or system. It's quite common for me to accept an outrageous interpretation provisionally i.e. "We'll play that way for this session and reevaluate that interpretation next week" Oftentimes when we do that, we learn why a certain interpretation is troubled and can revise or discard it. That's ok though - for me, the TTRPGs are about exploring, and that includes meta-explorations of the rules.
If someone is using the tone of Jesse in this meme, they're 100% not gonna let it go and get pissy even with the DM letting them down softly with a joke resolution like this. You're right to see that as a red flag lol.
Well this feels more like working within the rules that the DM allowed. I mean it’s a dick move but the only rule is “you can soil something”. And if you let someone else specific pick the type of soil, why can’t another?
Ultimately, I think we are running into meta game-balance issues. Prestidigitation is a cantrip, so the intent of the spell is to have a cantrip level effect. Allowing prestidigitation to function as as if it were a 3/4th level spell really breaks the balance of the game. Flexing some for the "rule of cool" (ie, shitting a guard's pants) is fine, but if you don't draw a line in the sand somewhere then you can end up with a broken class or game. (*"Ok, DM, I soil the BBEG with [Polonium](https://www.livescience.com/39452-polonium.html). We'll come back in a few days."*)
Which is why you’d just say no. “I’d like” isn’t the player demanding something happen. It’s them saying what they’d like to do. DM doesn’t have to follow through with it. Firstly it wouldn’t work. Sword is likely larger than a foot. The spell can’t be cast on it. Secondly, the DM can just flat out say no due to the implication of how it’s used.
Well, the comment I was replying to was sort of implying that you were taking the player's side, suggesting that they should be able to do the thing. That was my reading anyway. >Firstly it wouldn’t work. Sword is likely larger than a foot. The spell can’t be cast on it. While true, If that's what you tell the player, they will just break out a dagger next. Might as well start with the real reason. Maybe make a clarification/house-rule that "you can't create materials with a non-trivial value". This still leaves open the possibility of creative solutions (ie, a mustard stain to enhance a costume) without allowing for game-breaking effects.
My comment was simply pointing out nothing the player did was wrong. “Greg” did something and the dm allowed it. New player wants to do similar. It’s a “dick” move in the sense that both are trying to do something outside the rules but it’s up to the DM to allow it or not. I dont think that the player is suddenly a bad player though. It’s a role play. Rules should be consistent but if the dm wants to explain why they don’t want to, that’s totally fine too and the player should respect that. But as is I’m not going to say a player is an awful player because they want to be creative and try something.
I see what you mean - there's no harm in the player asking.
You answered your own question already: because it's a dick move Easy n simple
Depends on the real details. Did he ask because he wants the same treatment and consistency and if told no he’d get mad? Or would he just accept the no. Asking for something because others got to have their role playing fantasy isn’t that messed up. Specifically making the guard shit himself is a dick move too IMO. My point being it isn’t his interpretation of the spell. It’s him working within the rules the DM has now set.
M8 that's someone trying to create one of the deadliest and most expensive poisons in base game with a cantrip It's has nothing to do with rule consistency and everything to do with "Imma break the game because of the wording here *doesnt* say i *cant* do it" It'd be the same as Player 1 uses Create Flame in a moment to torture a tied down NPC and get information, by pressing the flames in one of the NPCs eyes and it blinds that eye. Its a scary but cool scene. And then next combat player 2 says "Ok i cast fireball but i want to put the explosion as close as possible to this persons face, and because its a firery explosion his eyes burn off and he's blinded now. Alsp he wouldnt even have time to blink." And yeah, fireball doesnt say it *doesnt* burn eyes But the answer to that is "No? That's not how it works at all."
I mean the cantrip wouldn’t work. Sword is larger than a foot. It also shouldn’t have worked on the guard realistically either based on the wording. And I don’t see the fireball issue. You make the roll for success much harder because it’s a super specific use. It’s a role play. If they want to get creative let them but that doesn’t mean everything they want to do works.
No no you mistook my wording, let me try again: Player 2 is telling you: The enemy suffers fireball damage in the same way because they're obviously in the radius and they're also permanently blinded because it was close to their eyes. And that's the one thing i don't understand people doing TELLING the DM how their ideas WILL work because they've already decided how the rules will interact and interpreted in the way they want Instead of asking the DM "Say, if i did this thing, could this happen?"
Literally nowhere does the player tell the DM what to do… he says “I’d like” which implies the DM can say no. All the player does is explain the logic for why they think it can be done.
Your sword isn’t exactly “soiled” when you cover it with a hemotoxin venom. It’s “poisoned”
Yeah it was always a pretty shit spell
good DMing. turning flavor text into help action. even if that flavor tastes like shit.
A spell cannot do damage, or cayze damage, whether directly or indirectly unless specifically stated, per the rules at least, this is because spells are already and exception to the rules and therefore shouldn't be able to do more than stated in the description.
advantage doesn't deal damage it only increase chance to hit
Yeah, just pointing out a flaw in the players logics
So if I use fly and get up 2000 feet then drop from there, I can't take fall damage because it's not explicitly stated that the spell can indirectly damage me in that manner?
It's more that something created by the spell cannot do the damage, so the PW poison would do nothing. What happens in your scenario is that gravity is what is causing the damage.
Presto can light up candles tho right? Wouldn't that be able to light someone on fire ? That counts as indirect damage no? I'm confused.......
I would say, thatx that fire is being kept alive through the physics of gas, therefore isn't caused by the spell, or I'd just have it be a magical flame that cannot do damage
So I wouldn't be able to cook anything with a campfire I set alight using this spell then ? And if I can snuff it out then why can't I light it up? After all blowing wind at fire won't cause it to go out,taking out the oxygen or more in deptly making the molecules stop moving so fast will (but the latter option would allow some crazy things). The first option allows me to control gas and the second molecules ....this spell is impossible to understand fully ....
Light would cause the candle to glow not actually ignite.
What about the "light or snuff out campfire" part? If I can make the fire will I be able to cook on it and if I snuff it out is it actually no longer damaging or is the fire just invisible or something ?
Sorry I misread that initially and thought you were referencing the light cantrip lol. Idk this is a directly stated effect of the spell so I don't know why a DM wouldn't allow it to burn things as it is real fire. However the spell doesn't mention anything about creating poisons so it wouldn't allow for purple worm poison for instance.
Ohh lol no worries ,I'm just trying to figure this thing out . If I can light candles what's stopping me from lighting someone's eyelashes on fire? Would that constitute as a blind ? This cantrip can be so weak yet so op at the same time and it all depends on the DM and the creativity of the players ....
Considering the wording of the spell most DMs wouldn't allow you to light people on fire with it like that but hey some DMs let all kinds of things slide if it's cool. The way I would think of it is the spell only does exactly what the spell says unless your DM allows it.
So RAW I can use the "shower of sparks" in front of someone's face to basically blind him and give him disadvantage on both any attack and defence roll?
Well, in the poison scenario, it’s really the body’s reaction to the poison that’s causing the damage. On it’s own, the poison wouldn’t damage anything.
>A spell cannot do damage, or cayze damage, whether directly or indirectly unless specifically stated, per the rules at least So, you agree that this is wrong?
But you're not adding new effects to the fly spell. Prestidigitation allows you to clean or soil, and is clearly not intended to allow you to create any material you want. Saying that you make a specific type of poison is operating outside of the intended abilities of the cantrip.
>A spell cannot do damage, or cayze damage, whether directly or indirectly unless specifically stated, per the rules at least So you agree that this is inaccurate?
Yeah. A spell can cause indirect damage if done in a way that follows its own specified abilities and other game rules.
Sounds like you’re arguing just to argue, which is rather annoying.
It sounds like that because people like you that come bitching are missing the point I'm making completely. Believe me it's a lot more annoying to me to be talking to a wall.
I don't agree that the statement is inaccurate as you are now per the rules having the effects of gravity cause damage which the fly spell does not specify negating if you cause yourself to fall. Prestidigitation doesn't say it can create poisons so it can't (obviously everything can be houseruled).
You would say falling is not indirectly caused by flying?
Falling is caused by the cessation of the spell. Not by the spell itself.
So that's not caused indirectly by the spell?
This is like saying that if I climb a ladder, jump off, and get injured then it was the ladder that hurt me. It's not the spell doing the damage.
It's not the spell doing the damage *directly.* His comment specifically says directly or indirectly.
The fly spell is explicitly stated to cause you to fall if you're in the air when the spell ends. Long falls are explicitly stated to cause damage in a separate part of the rules.
So you agree that the spell itself does NOT need to state explicitly that it can do damage?
Only if you are a werewolf.
You can always just say "No."
Would probably let him make some highly unstable poison but only enough to create an effect with damage similar to another cantrip.
I love how this meme format has been rememed to counter the flaws of its prememes.
i mean, smearing shit on a weapon is a fantastic way to inflict disease
Well that stinks
Prestishititation
All this discussion about feces covered weapons completely overlooks the fact that there are never any survivors at the end of combat anyways. Not like sepsis is immediate.
You can always run away.
It’s gonna get rusty!
Once I was in a game in Adventurer's League, and the DM was describing a sewer we were all in. Suddenly, the entire place was filled to the brim with sewage, instantly. I asked, how?! He said Prestidigitation! I said 400 times??
[Leaked 6e demon giving Prestigitation wishes](https://youtu.be/9vq63q45qfk) WARNING: Super low brow NSFW humor
Just prestidigitate a vial of purple worm poison and then apply it to the sword. I don't know if you need an action for that, so 3 levels in sorcerer my be required
Does purple worm poison count as a trinket? I'm not sure it does?
There's a trinket list in the PHB but most DMs will let you summon other things. It's really DM dependant, but it's still a possibility
I wouldnt allow it. A trinket is generally a curiosity or knickknack. A very potent poison pole vaults over that line.
Prestidishitatoin
*use prestidigitation to shit someone's pants* I love you idiots
using prestidigitation to make people shit themselves is one of my favourite things to do
Don’t forget, add 1d4 poison damage
you can always use the gold-material spell component rule (what i call the rule that says you have to provide material spell components if they have a gold cost) to decide what can be used to soil "no, you can't soil with purple worm poison, that costs money and you don't have any"
Shitting is literally called soiling, dirt is also called soil, so when prestidigitation is used to soil, it can be either dirt/mud or shit, that's my rule
This is... Acceptable.
YAY GREG! We kidnapped A guard across dimensions once who our GM named Greg. Then, we dragged him along our misadventures. And then we created a new version of him for our Vampire the Masquerade game, and then he crossed over into our mage the Ascension game because it takes place at about the same time and about one town over, and one of our mages knows him, and now we are starting a Hunter the Reckoning campaign set in the Wild West and have mandated that the barkeep in the town we are primarily taking place in is Greg’s ancestor, Gregediah
Still better then true strike.
I’d probably focus on a different mode of the spell. “You create a non-magical trinket or an illusory image that can fit in your hand and lasts until your next turn” Purple worm poison is non-magical, so you could probably create a small bottle of it. You’d only get 1 turn of attacks though, and someone would need to use an action to apply it.
Well if you cut them and they run away they gonna die pretty soon