D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[jaelis]

Cheating means breaking a rule. Could you point me to the rule that says all chickens have the same status regarding creaturehood? I must have missed it.

 

[Arial Black]

Yeah, nah.

'Nah'? 'NAH'?

So your position is that DM's don't have a responsibility to be fair and consistent? Who would want to play with a cheat?

Page 5 of the 5e PHB, in the introduction, it says that "One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master". The DM is also playing D&D. Part of the role is to be the referee.

Referees are expected to judge whatever game they are refereeing in a consistent and fair manner, and in most sports would be struck off for doing otherwise. This is why bad DMs lose players.

To be 'out', does some of the ball need to be over the line, or does all of the ball need to be over the line? If it is not already in the rules, the referee can say 'some' or 'all', and apply that interpretation consistently. But if he says 'all' for his mate and 'some' for the opponent, then the referee is cheating and will lose his job.

And so he should, because such cheating is low-down, dirty, despicable, detestable, execrable, and in all other ways vile, and he shouldn't be given the responsibility of referee.

 

[jasper]

Right. If the DM thinks that hex is poorly written, they can rewrite the spell description. Hex would then work according to that revised description.

What would be your revised wording?

Remember that following the rules is not a 'shenanigan'.

DM to player, my ruling is the bag of rat tricks will not work. Period. Here is the rewriting. Don't like my ruling hit the door.
Edit to add.
I just read the rest of your statements up to this point. I have gamed with players like you. You either try to dazzle me with your logic, walls of text etc. You will not give up after a ruling. So you are a problem player and not welcome at my table.

 

[Oofta]

Why?

Hex and Hunters mark are staples for their classes, core to their offensive ability keeping pace with other classes, and have a concentration duration of up to 24 hours.

The expectation is it is supposed to last all adventuring day long at that point. Heck that's probably also the case when the duration is 8 hours, but 24 is just making sure I guess.

If Im capable of casting 5th level slots, and have learnt and then cast a spell that lets me concentrate on Hex all day long using a 5th level slot, I would be pretty bummed for a DM to rule that I need to make constant Con saves just to maintain it.

Otherwise you're just nixing Warlocks by forcing them to spam multiple of their precious few slots on recasting Hex all day long (plus making Resilient [Con] a feat tax for that class).

From the PHB

The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you're on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.​

 

[Flamestrike]

If you rule inconsistently, you have failed as a DM.

'Stop being a jerk' isnt an inconsistent ruling for some players sadly.

Neither is 'Hex doesnt work on chickens, stop being a gamist flognard, and if you try anything even remotely like that again I'll boot you from the table'

Seems like a perfectly consistent ruling in fact.

 

[Arial Black]

I disagree.

Making rulings is well within the purview of the DM's role and is not cheating. I don't need to rewrite a rule in ironclad language to run the game. The game is Dungeons and Dragons, not Lawyers and Legalities.

If you want to know if something will work the way you think it will in my game, by all means feel free to ask. I give any questions made in good faith fair consideration. However, I look dimly upon players who seek to twist the rules and the game into an absurdist parody for their own benefit (usually to the detriment of everyone else's experience).

I'm free to ask? Great! Are chickens 'creatures'?

Targeting creatures is not an 'absurdist parody', even if the creature is a chicken. Especially in a game where an animated broom is a 'creature'.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm free to ask? Great! Are chickens 'creatures'?

Me (as DM): 'Not for the purposes of this spell they dont. Try me again, and I'll boot you from the game'

 

[Arial Black]

Cheating means breaking a rule. Could you point me to the rule that says all chickens have the same status regarding creaturehood? I must have missed it.

If you have already ruled that chickens ARE creatures, then you are breaking your own rule if you say that it stops being a creature every time I try to target it.

Breaking your own rule is still cheating.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you have already ruled that chickens ARE creatures, then you are breaking your own rule if you say that it stops being a creature every time I try to target it.

Breaking your own rule is still cheating.

DMs cant cheat. They're not playing, and are allowed to change any rule at will, so they cant cheat.

 

[Arial Black]

DM to player, my ruling is the bag of rat tricks will not work. Period. Here is the rewriting. Don't like my ruling hit the door.
Edit to add.
I just read the rest of your statements up to this point. I have gamed with players like you. You either try to dazzle me with your logic, walls of text etc. You will not give up after a ruling. So you are a problem player and not welcome at my table.

You need to define 'bag of rats'. Whatever you define as such must be independent of your whim that day.

By itself your wording is incomprehensible, because we both know that your ruling applies to more than just a bag holding more than one actual rat. So if it isn't meant literally, it's useless as a rule because we have no way of knowing what YOU will rule on any particular day.

Oh, and you have played with players like me before? Players who follow the rules? Players who expect the DM to make fair and consistent rulings?

Yeah, you would not be welcome at my table.