D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[jasper]

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.

No I don't. You are a problem player who likes to argue. Good bye

 

[Oofta]

Either the DM is allowed to make rulings which may include minor modifications when the written rules are not clear or they must accept every interpretation provided by a player looking for a way to bend the rules.

I choose the former. Even if it means a justification of "Because I don't allow silly in my game or bag-o-rats exploits." The latter leads to things like the commoner railgun. I'm not going to release a book of houserule errata to change the wording to "enemy creature" because my ruling is that it's implied.

Well, unless it's this chicken of course.

 

[Arial Black]

'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.

What prevents it working on chickens? "Because I don't like it" isn't a coherent rule.

What is it about obeying the spell description that you find 'jerkish'?

I find DMs who rule inconsistently and unfairly 'jerks'. If you want to change the spell description in a way that can be followed even if they don't have access to your current mood, then I'll follow the rules in that new description, and doing so does not equal 'jerk' if I use it in a way you don't like.

 

[Arial Black]

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

You won't need to boot me from the game. As soon as you went 'Schrodingers chicken" I would walk to a table run by an adult.

 

[Arial Black]

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

Not following their own rule is still cheating.

DMs are players, as mentioned on page 5 of the PHB.

 

[Arial Black]

No I don't. You are a problem player who likes to argue. Good bye

You are a problem DM who abuses his power and denies his responsibilities. Goodbye.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The DM has all the powers you describe. What bad DMs do is remember this power and disregard their responsibilities.

The DM is the arbiter of the rules. It is the duty of the DM to interpret the rules fairly! That means that if the DM rules that chickens are creatures, then they are valid targets for hex. But if the DM rules that chickens are not creatures, then they are not creatures for any rule in the game. They would also need to provide a rule defining 'creature' in a way not before seen in the English language or in this game which even defines animated objects as 'creatures'.

'Schrodinger's chicken' is cheating. The DM's duty is to judge the game fairly. As Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility". DM's who forget that become "Hulk smash puny players", and I'm totally happy to lose such an abusive DM.

You don’t see the irony in this, do you?

You started by trying to make a hyper-technical rules argument that you think should be correct, rubbishing those who disagree with you because they point out it’s silly and against the spirit of the game.

When someone tells you what the rules actually are, you complain about how unfair it is.

Play as you wish; but do not expect hyper-technical rules abuse to gain advantage to not get called out for what it is, sophistry notwithstanding.

Even a dog knows the difference between being stepped on and kicked.

 

[Flamestrike]

You won't need to boot me from the game. As soon as you went 'Schrodingers chicken" I would walk to a table run by an adult.

Excellent. We can keep having fun without an argumentative gamist who hilariously accuses the DM of 'cheating' in our midst, and you can bounce from table to table until you find a useless inexperienced and crappy DM and a game that is OK with bags-o-rats (in whatever cringeworthy form of game that looks like).

You do you and all, but I know who is getting the better end of the deal there.

You've picked a weird hill to die on here brother.

 

[Arial Black]

Either the DM is allowed to make rulings which may include minor modifications when the written rules are not clear or they must accept every interpretation provided by a player looking for a way to bend the rules.

I choose the former. Even if it means a justification of "Because I don't allow silly in my game or bag-o-rats exploits." The latter leads to things like the commoner railgun. I'm not going to release a book of houserule errata to change the wording to "enemy creature" because my ruling is that it's implied.

Well, unless it's this chicken of course.
View attachment 121758

False equivalence.

The commoner railgun does not merely 'follow the rules'. The commoner railgun fails because 'following the rules' results in the last commoner in the line receiving the object. Any thoughts on the object's imagined velocity are NOT 'rules', therefore the DM just has to follow the rules and the object ends up in the hands of the last commoner. Even that is ignoring the fact that the DM is already allowed to set a limit on the number of Free Actions allowed in the round, and that is built into the Free Action rule itself, no 'rule zero' needed. This was 3e, remember?

Pun-Pun is the same. Sure, plenty of rules ARE being followed, but the whole thing relies on Divine Ranks stacking to make Pun-Pun so powerful. But Divine Ranks don't stack. The DM doesn't need to rule inconsistently in order to show that Pun-Pun doesn't happen.

Those exploits rely on more than just following rules, they rely on assumptions beyond the rules.

But there is no such thing going on here. Chickens really are 'creatures'. They really ARE a valid target for hex. There are no assumptions beyond this; no real-life velocity calculations, no invalid stacking, no assumptions outside the strict parameters of the spell.

It's not an 'exploit', it's just that some people don't like it! That's not a rules problem, that's a 'you' problem.

 

[Arial Black]

You don’t see the irony in this, do you?

You started by trying to make a hyper-technical rules argument that you think should be correct, rubbishing those who disagree with you because they point out it’s silly and against the spirit of the game.

When someone tells you what the rules actually are, you complain about how unfair it is.

Play as you wish; but do not expect hyper-technical rules abuse to gain advantage to not get called out for what it is, sophistry notwithstanding.

Even a dog knows the difference between being stepped on and kicked.

Really? If 'a creature you can see within range' is 'hyper-technical', if a chicken being a 'creature' is 'hyper-technical', then so is every single spell that requires a target!