←back to thread

Peasant Railgun

(knightsdigest.com)
280 points cainxinth | 8 comments | 03 Jul 25 14:05 UTC | HN request time: 1.172s | source | bottom
Show context
disillusionist ◴[03 Jul 25 15:19 UTC] No.44455949[source]▶
I personally adore the Peasant Railgun and other such silly tropes generated by player creativity! Lateral problem solving can be one of the most fun parts of the DnD experience. However, these shenanigans often rely on overly convoluted or twisted ways of interpreting the rules that often don't pass muster of RAW (Rules As Written) and certainly not RAI (Rules As Intended) -- despite vociferous arguments by motivated players. Any DM who carefully scrutinizes these claims can usually find the seams where the joke unravels. The DnD authors also support DMs here when they say that DnD rules should not be interpreted as purely from a simulationist standpoint (whether physics, economy, or other) but exist to help the DM orchestrate and arbitrate combat and interactions.

In the case of the Peasant Railgun, here are a few threads that I would pull on: * The rules do not say that passed items retain their velocity when passed from creature to creature. The object would have the same velocity on the final "pass" as it did on the first one. * Throwing or firing a projectile does not count as it "falling". If an archer fires an arrow 100ft, the arrow does not gain 100ft of "falling damage".

Of course, if a DM does want to encourage and enable zany shenanigans then all the power to them!

replies(9): >>44456591 #>>44456650 #>>44456789 #>>44457793 #>>44457867 #>>44460188 #>>44460485 #>>44461138 #>>44465257 #
1. fishtoaster ◴[03 Jul 25 18:17 UTC] No.44457793[source]▶
My take has always been:

1. D&D mechanics, like all games, are a simplification of the real world using primitives like "firing a bow" and "passing an item" and "downing a potion"

2. The real world is fractaly deep and uses primitives like "plank length" and "quark spin"

3. Therefore there will always be places where the real world and the simplification don't line up. Finding those gaps might be a fun meme, but it's not an exploit. We play with the simplification's primitives, not the real-world physics'.

replies(2): >>44458401 #>>44458431 #
2. pavel_lishin ◴[03 Jul 25 19:29 UTC] No.44458401[source]▶
> primitives like "plank length" and "quark spin"

I'm going to be that guy - because I love being that guy, and I won't apologize for it - and point out that we're not even sure if those are primitives!

replies(1): >>44459012 #
3. ekidd ◴[03 Jul 25 19:33 UTC] No.44458431[source]▶
My approach is that there is a tension between three things:

1. The "combat simulator" built into the rules. I run this according to the spirit of the rules, so that players' investments in classes and feats pays off as expected. Otherwise my players feel cheated.

2. The simulation of the world. This is important because it makes the world feel real and believable (and because as DM, I get many of my plot ideas by "simulating" consequences).

3. The story. The campaign should ideally tell a story. Sometimes this means involving what I think of as "the Rule of Cool (But It's Only Cool the First Time)."

The "peasant railgun", unfortunately, fails all three tests. It isn't really part of the intended combat rules. It doesn't make sense when simulating the world. And it probably doesn't fit into the campaign's narrative because it's too weird.

On the other hand, if a player proposes something really cool that fits into the logic of the world, and that also fits into the story, then I'll look for ways to make it happen.

Let's say the PCs find 200 peasant archers, and set them up on a high hill, and have them all rain down arrows on a single target. That seems like it ought to work, plus it's a great story about bringing the villagers together to save the day. So in this case, I'll happily handwave a bunch of rules, and declare "rain of arrows" to be a stupidly powerful AoE.

But different tables like different things, so this isn't one-size-fits-all advice!

replies(1): >>44460112 #
4. fishtoaster ◴[03 Jul 25 20:43 UTC] No.44459012[source]▶
Haha, yeah, I, I was considering putting some disclaimers around those. "What actually are the true, base-level primitives of physics?" has been an ongoing project for centuries. :)
replies(1): >>44463842 #
5. bee_rider ◴[03 Jul 25 23:58 UTC] No.44460112[source]▶
Enough peasants should be devastating, right? Get a couple thousand and at least some will crit per round. Rolling it might be hard. Against a sufficiently armored enemy, might make more sense to just do “expected number of crits per round” or something…
replies(1): >>44461759 #
6. fc417fc802 ◴[04 Jul 25 06:43 UTC] No.44461759{3}[source]▶
To me this is one of the better things about combat in Dwarf Fortress and one of my least favorite things about most rule sets. It doesn't matter how "high level" you are; outside of specific edge cases a ridiculous number of opponents all landing hits simultaneously ought to do anyone in. Unfortunately most rule sets seem to stop at "lol high AC" with little to no nuance.
replies(1): >>44464828 #
7. bdsa ◴[04 Jul 25 12:12 UTC] No.44463842{3}[source]▶
I'm going to be that that guy and say "plank length" is probably constant for a given plank. Planck length, on the other hand... :)
8. packetlost ◴[04 Jul 25 14:22 UTC] No.44464828{4}[source]▶
Considering a crit always hits in a lot of systems, I don't see how a swarm of weak enemies couldn't overwhelm high level players given enough numbers.