D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Arial Black]

have you read my avatar Arial Black? You griped, argued, demand, whined, etc until you got a dm to knuckle under to your demands, whines, pleas. I had plenty of players like you since 1980. I got tired of them in 2000. Now my short hand is 'My ruling" Or "You cheesing the game no". And if you don't accept my ruling, you no longer welcome at my table. And considering how you have acted in the thread, you would no longer be welcome to taco Tuesday, Bad Movie Friday, or mail making Sunday. Because you are coming off as a toxic person. Aka bad player.

You've had some bad player experiences. So have I. I've had some bad DM experiences. Perhaps you have too.

It is the nature of the Internet that extreme sides are taken and held to, when in all probability in real life we would have no problem with each other, even at the table.

My action is, "I cast hex on X", where 'X' is a creature. I expect the spell to work as written. I fail to see how this is "griping, arguing, demanding, or whining".

If the DM replies that the spell doesn't work as written because he doesn't like my choice of target or what he suspects I might do later, and has the laws of the universe change because it somehow knows what I want and doesn't approve? Yeah, it's a bad DM, not a bad player.

Phazonfish's response was at least adult, coherent, and fair. If they told me about the rewritten spell in advance, I could have no criticism of their DMing, even if I preferred the old spell description, and I wouldn't gripe, argue, demand or whine.

 

[NotAYakk]

Your choice of behavior isn't the fault of "the nature of the internet". It is how you are choosing to act on the internet.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What about it wouldn't work?

Yes, changing the spell description.....changes the spell. In this case, although hex could be cast on a CR0 creature, it could not be moved from a CR0 creature.

Yes, this is a change, but if the spell had always had this description, no-one would have batted an eyelid.

This solution (assuming that you think a 'solution' is required; I don't because I don't see a problem) works independently of the DM's mood; as it damn well should!

If your 'solution' to the non-existent problem of casting the spell exactly as written is "the laws of the universe might stop working, just because I don't like how you're taking advantage of them", then that is such a poor decision that you shouldn't have DMing responsibilities.

Player: I disintegrate the floor so that I and all the mooks fall 100 feet, but I cast feather fall on myself before I hit the ground.
DM: Gravity fails to act on the mooks, because that is an exploit! A clear 'bag of rats' situation, shenanigans! You are exploiting how gravity works in order to damage those mooks!

Is that DM response admirable?

Now try this:-

Player: I cast hex 'on a creature that I can see within range'. I choose....that puppy.
DM: Hex fails to act on the puppy, because that's an exploit! A clear 'bag of rats' situation, shenanigans! You are exploiting how that spell works in order to cast that spell!
Other Player: I cast hex on the puppy's dad!
DM: No problem! That's exactly how the spell works!
Player: WTF?

Disintegrating the floor is not gaming the system.

Trying to dictate to the DM how far the monks fall is overstepping as a player.

The DM determines what happens when the floor gets disintegrated. Maybe the ground was solid and they only fall 10' (I think it's a 10' cube, might be mistaken though). Maybe it was a bottomless pit and everyone plummets for eternity. Maybe the minions were wearing their anti-gravity belts or were ghosts and they don't fall.

I won't tell you that you can't hex a chicken, but I will ask you not to. As I stated earlier, I'd probably even be willing to let a player cast hex without a target, unless they're a jerk about it (I freely admit I'm only human).

What I don't want to see IMC is gaming the system like it's some kind of video game that you're trying to find loopholes in. That sort of thing ruins everyone's fun and devolves the game into absurdity.

 

[Arial Black]

Your choice of behavior isn't the fault of "the nature of the internet". It is how you are choosing to act on the internet.

Sure, and both sides are acting equally. Have you not noticed the amount of DMs here who assume that I am a bad, disruptive munchkin based merely on my choice of target, and would kick me out of their games on that basis? As much as I'd walk out of their's for being blatantly inconsistent and deliberately unfair?

In real life I suspect we would all be more relaxed.

 

[Arial Black]

Disintegrating the floor is not gaming the system.

Trying to dictate to the DM how far the monks fall is overstepping as a player.

The DM determines what happens when the floor gets disintegrated. Maybe the ground was solid and they only fall 10' (I think it's a 10' cube, might be mistaken though). Maybe it was a bottomless pit and everyone plummets for eternity. Maybe the minions were wearing their anti-gravity belts or were ghosts and they don't fall.

I won't tell you that you can't hex a chicken, but I will ask you not to. As I stated earlier, I'd probably even be willing to let a player cast hex without a target, unless they're a jerk about it (I freely admit I'm only human).

What I don't want to see IMC is gaming the system like it's some kind of video game that you're trying to find loopholes in. That sort of thing ruins everyone's fun and devolves the game into absurdity.

I think the crux of the problem is that we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes 'obeying the rules of the game' and what constitutes 'gaming the system'.

How can we objectively determine which is which? Is it even possible?

 

[Fanaelialae]

@Fanaelialae

Given that most exploitable targets appear to be small animals, how about this?

"If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends and the target is not a beast with a CR of 0, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature."

So now the PC stoops to using a bag of crawling claws (possibly created by them) or baby kobolds or any other CR 0 non-beast. Or even a familiar (since those are celestial, Fey, or fiend).

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think the crux of the problem is that we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes 'obeying the rules of the game' and what constitutes 'gaming the system'.

How can we objectively determine which is which? Is it even possible?

You can't objectively determine it. It's like art. Not everyone will agree on what is and isn't art, but overall you know it when you see it.

Different groups will have different thresholds for what constitutes gaming the system. Some groups will say no to hexing the chicken. Some will be okay with it as long as you RP it (sacrificing the chicken to your patron). Some will be fine with it.

Unlike a CRPG where the rules are hard coded, TTRPGS rely on a DM. That makes TTRPGS a dialogue between the DM and players. You can have guidelines in a dialogue, but objective rules are much trickier. For example, a common table rule (even if it is unspoken) is to act in good faith. How do you objectively define what is and isn't an act of good faith? I would say that it is impossible in the grand scheme.

 

[Phazonfish]

So now the PC stoops to using a bag of crawling claws (possibly created by them) or baby kobolds or any other CR 0 non-beast. Or even a familiar (since those are celestial, Fey, or fiend).

I would imagine if the DM allows crawling claw husbandry they are probably lenient enough that this isn't an issue. Herding Kobolds until breeding age sounds too slow and raises the issue of a revolt. Familiars up the gold cost by a factor of 500 (and also requires Pact of the Chain or other such investment).

In retrospect, I am probably not fit to be writing this rule, as I am lenient enough to just allow the bag of chickens in the first place.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Herding Kobolds

....sounds like the nerdcore offshoot of Throwing Muses.

 

[jaelis]

@Fanaelialae

Given that most exploitable targets appear to be small animals, how about this?

"If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends and the target is not a beast with a CR of 0, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature."

Could just specify that the max hp of the target must be greater than 1.