SO. BACK ON TOPIC.
Any more? I'm absolutely astounded by what I've found out already, and it's only been like... 3 things. Though none of them are quite the Kobold that Shall Not Be Named status.
What is a commoner railgun?
In 3.5 at least (I'd have to look up if PF changed this) it's a free action to pass an item to someone adjacent to you. Have commoners stand in a circle passing an item around (usually a chicken in cited examples): As they pass the chicken around, it builds up potentially infinite velocity since you can pass it around as many times as you like within 1 round. Then have a commoner let go of the chicken at the desired exit point, and you have a chicken moving at arbitrary velocity.
...It's not actually a rules exploit though. By the rules, as soon as you have the commoner let go of the chicken it would just fall to the ground harmlessly. You can't just mix up RAW and real-world physics whenever it's convenient for you. It's like saying "By the rules you take no penalties for holding your bladder, even though you need water to live. This means human bladders in D&D-land are indestructible and can hold an infinite amount of mass! I build myself a castle out of human bladders and then..."
On the plus side, RAGELANCEPOUNCE isn't completely rules legal and requires a very specific set of circumstances to even work.
A lot of broken mechanics are so because they're confusing rather than legal, or rely on very small oft-ignored balancing rules. How many synths are broken because the rules are so confusing DMs and honest players alike mess them up?
There was an FAQ that put the onus of free action adjudication on the GM.
It's up to the GM.
http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rul ebook#v5748eaic9r85
Free Actions: How many free actions can I take in a round?
A: Core Rulebook page 181 says,
"Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more fr ee actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
Core Rulebook page 188 says,
"Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn."In other words, the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances.
Update 10/17/13: Specific examples removed.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/03/13
Actually there are rules for this, so it's not really up to the GM what abilities a Simulacrum has anymore then whether or not you can do anything else.[Arches a brow.].
Yes, it really is "up to the GM."
Ultimately, everything is up to the GM, despite many contemporary players' attempt to emasculate the role. He or she can override any rule at will to maintain game balance, advance story, throw out stinky cheese and call out supercilious little snots on their nose-picking munchkinism. In fact, it's his/her duty and responsibility to do just that. The fact that many of them don't have the steel to stomach the often inevitable tantrums and set players firmly back in place just means that cheese manufacture is at an all-time high.
The fact that little Johnny pores over the rulebooks looking for a combination never meant to work in that fashion should at best garner from an amused DM, "Aw, isn't that clever? ... but you're playing with adults now.
"No."
In the few instances I've had of people trying hard to be campaign smashers (in the powering up sense rather than reading the adventure and spoiling it), I usually answer their requests with "Are you sure that you want to go this route? Because while I hate and despise most of these builds, I know about them and I have Google. If you want to go this route, keep in mind that the bad guys get to do it too."
Usually people are less than thrilled to find a GM with a working knowledge of these sort of stuff and be on the receiving end of hundreds of points of damage from falling barbarians and the evil bad guy with infinite wishes. If they insist, it usually makes for a short game and then we can move on to something less broken.
Actually there are rules for this, so it's not really up to the GM what abilities a Simulacrum has anymore then whether or not you can do anything else.[Arches a brow.].
Yes, it really is "up to the GM."
Ultimately, everything is up to the GM, despite many contemporary players' attempt to emasculate the role. He or she can override any rule at will to maintain game balance, advance story, throw out stinky cheese and call out supercilious little snots on their nose-picking munchkinism. In fact, it's his/her duty and responsibility to do just that. The fact that many of them don't have the steel to stomach the often inevitable tantrums and set players firmly back in place just means that cheese manufacture is at an all-time high.
The fact that little Johnny pores over the rulebooks looking for a combination never meant to work in that fashion should at best garner from an amused DM, "Aw, isn't that clever? ... but you're playing with adults now.
"No."
In the few instances I've had of people trying hard to be campaign smashers (in the powering up sense rather than reading the adventure and spoiling it), I usually answer their requests with "Are you sure that you want to go this route? Because while I hate and despise most of these builds, I know about them and I have Google. If you want to go this route, keep in mind that the bad guys get to do it too."
Usually people are less than thrilled to find a GM with a working knowledge of these sort of stuff and be on the receiving end of hundreds of points of damage from falling barbarians and the evil bad guy with infinite wishes. If they insist, it usually makes for a short game and then we can move on to something less broken.
Pretty much this. I've discovered by and large that players only employ cheese when they think they won't be on the receiving end of it. I've thankfully only had to do it a few times, but I must say it's always amusing how entitled and upset many players like this get when that same "i do 40000000 points of damage in a round" cheese gets turned on their character and they die instantly.
Usually once it happens to them once, it ends. If they insist on repeating the process (which has only happened to me once.) I simply ask them to stop coming back because they are being disruptive to the game.
Well, if that's the case, then we're in agreement. Perhaps I responded to a single sentence out of context. If so, I certainly apologize to Anzyr.I think you might be misreading it. I thought the same way at first, but after going back over his post, I do feel like what he was essentially trying to say is that there are in fact rules in place already, and the GM can change them, but by the same nature can change anything, including whether or not you can cast that spell in the first place. I think his primary point was simply that the Snowcone Wishing Machine works through regular rules, but that a GM can change it (and by extension anything else) if they want/need to.I bolded the relevant part of the quote that you apparently missed. Yes, Anzyr said that everything is ultimately up to the GM. He also said that the effects of simulacron aren't any more 'up to the GM' than virtually everything else in the game.Actually there are rules for this, so it's not really up to the GM what abilities a Simulacrum has anymore then whether or not you can do anything else.[Arches a brow.].
Yes, it really is "up to the GM."
Ultimately, everything is up to the GM, despite many contemporary players' attempt to emasculate the role.
That's not how I read that. From what I can discern, he's strongly implying, if not quite directly stating, that the RAW takes priority over the GM. I think that's precisely what "it's not really up to the GM" means.
Perhaps I'm misreading it, but I don't think so.
No problem. I didn't realize it could be interpreted any way other than what FlySkyHigh said, but I guess it wasn't as clear as intended. Basically, Snowcone Wish Machine works under the rules though as stated a GM can use rule 0 (as with anything else) to change that. I only responded since your post seemed to indicate there was some special GM control over Simulacrum, but if you were just referring to rule 0 then we're on the same page.
Though good to see that the free action thing got resolved (or rather shoved back into "we're not going to say" territory).