I’d make the PC take at least some damage from the gravel munch, even if successful.
Then later when they hit camp or eat a meal. Have them roll for constitution. Failure leads to spitting out a broken tooth and a future visit to the blacksmith to get it pulled.
I misread that as ‘roll for constipation’
I mean… He never said he spat out the gravel. Brings a whole new meaning to pebble dashing the toilet.
“What the hell are you doing in there? Laying cobblestone?”
Wouldn’t a healing spell be a better option?
For healing, absolutely. I just like the idea of having him require a visit to the local blacksmith where he has to explain how he broke his tooth. Purely for the sake of embarrassing him when they eventually ask why he thought it was a good idea.
Save vs death on their next bowel movement
Dude be like “They call it a rest room but I’m fighting for my fucking life in here!”
Naw, unless they abuse it you’re just punishing creativity. The Constitution roll at camp mentioned elsewhere is a good idea.
I don’t think so, it’s possible to be creative without doing something you know is harmful to yourself. It’s punishing doing something stupid (although it might have the benefit of intimidating the opponent since you’re clearly insane.)
Yes, logically you’re right and if you have 10+ hours to think about it you can come up with a better, less harmful answer.
However in the moment, as long as it isn’t abused, you give it to them.
It they keep eating gravel, maybe they get sick, or maybe they become “PC Gravel Eater”, or maybe they accidentally eat some poison, etc
But in the moment, you let them have it. One of the best parts of D&D (or any similar RPG) is that the rules are not written in stone. Rules are a general framework, but are open to interpretation. You want to encourage new, unwritten, discussion.
But gravel? That’s rocks. Ostriches “eat” rocks. Why can’t a Dragonborn or Aarokocra? Or any battle hardened Barbarian or Fighter?
You want your player, generally speaking, to try some weird shit.
There was a conversation I read somewhere that said that the optional Flanking rules were terrible, because it basically forced everyone to just try and get Flanking. Flanking is advantage and that’s almost always the optimal move.
It prevents players from trying to jump across a table and swing on the chandelier, landing on their opponents head. Why risk an acrobatics roll when I could just move 10 ft, maybe 15 ft if you include climbing a table.
No one remembers “getting advantage on that one attack”, everyone remembers, “a backflip and cutting the BBEGs eye”.
In all fairness, picking up the handful of smashed tile and shoveling out into one’s mouth are a compound action that is unlikely to be “free”, but the rule of cool wins in this instance, for sure. Had the Intimidation roll failed however, I would’ve given the opponent advantage on their next attack against the geek as the tile chunks turned their mouth into hot chum.
I would have had them roll for intimidation as well as damage from trying to eat shattered tile. Whether or not the opponent was intimidated has nothing to do with how much harm it may cause.
DM: He wears an iron headband, like a crown.
ME: Under or above his horns?
DM (thinking): Under. Wearing it over his horns would make it to small.
ME: So he cannot lose or remove that headband easily?
DM (suspicious): Nnno?!?!
ME: OK, Heat Metal
Now I’m starting to wonder… Are zippers a thing? Hell, I know piercings are. Thankfully you need to see the object you cast Heat Metal on. Otherwise I would pity the man who got a Prince Albert pierced.
