D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Arial Black]

I'll note that none of my casters have ever adventured with a bag of rats/cage of chickens or the like. I have hexed breakfast though.

If I was as....PITA as I've been painted, I wouldn't stoop to carrying multiple live creatures. One will do. You can move hex from the target creature in any round after it drops to zero hit points. Killing it would do, but killing is not the trigger, reducing it to zero hit points is the trigger.

The 5e rules for knocking a creature out state that if a creature is reduced to zero hit points by a melee attack then the player can immediately state they are knocking the creature out instead of killing it.

If I didn't care about immersion my PC warlocks would carry around a 1hp puppy and hex then reduce it to zero hit points and choose to knock it out. Every day.

So why don't my warlocks do that? Because immersion does matter to me. But, for me and others, hexing the breakfast the ranger just caught does not break immersion. It's how the universe works for this spell.

As for my alleged munchkinry with my Rog 7/Sor 4/Ftr 3, I was going to start as Rog 9/Sor 1/Ftr 3. The reason I changed to a less 'powerful' mix is because I think she will be more interesting to play with a greater variety of spells and spell levels than it would with an extra ASI, Sneak Attack die and Panache. Playing an interesting yet well-designed PC is more desirable than playing a more powerful but less interesting PC.

 

[MGibster]

In many, many action films the heroes are being pursued by an overwhelming number of foes when they come to a cliff edge. Indiana Jones (or whoever) looks back at the chasing horde, looks at the leading lady, takes her hand and takes the seemingly suicidal leap.

At least in this case there's a narrative reason for Indy to jump. He's not winking at the audience letting us know he's aware of what genre movie he's in and can't be killed.

Player: Indy looks back at the horde, looks at the Girl of the Week, takes her hand and jumps. Indy has 120 hit points and the girl has 90. We should survive unless we are very unlucky, but we will be in bad shape....
MGibster: No. You're both dead. I don't care what the rules say, I don't care that you as a player made a calculated risk or that Indy in-game made a calculated risk of fall versus horde. I rule that you are dead and I'm the DM so there's nothing you can do.
Player:.....Thanks for the fun game....?

I think we need to note a few things. I've already said that I would warn the player if their actions would bring about their death. Omitting that from your example makes me look like a callous jerk and I think that's unfair. Another important thing to note is that the player has a good narrative reason for wanting to jump. He didn't just decide to jump because he didn't want to take the time to walk or something silly like that.

 

[Helldritch]

The parameters include character level and magic items. The player creates their PC within those parameters.

Parameters includes (and not limited to): All the above and races (which are allowed or not) other characters, background, campaign background, type of alignment players want and the type of adventure the DM will make (as should be stated at session 0), and if multiclassing is allowed or not.

If the character level for this campaign is, say, level 5 and the players can choose 1 uncommon magic item (subject to DM approval), then the Staff of the Archmagi is not within those parameters. Nor is 'I'm the finest swordsman in the world' likely to be possible at that level.

Who said anything about level 5? Character creation is at level 1 unless circumstances dictates otherwise and then, we'll put the game on hold, create the new character as mentioned earlier if necessary. Otherwise, one of the NPC (if any) will become the player's new character until such a time the game allows for the inclusion of a new character.

I should stress here, before you assume bad things about me, that our games are very democratic and the examples that I am giving are from a concensus made by both players and DM. It is not an arbitrary thing that I alone decided, it is the decision of 13 persons. We are very story oriented.

Multiclassing in my games is very limited. You would not be able to do the classes you are doing. There are no dips in a class to return to another. Multiclassing is an optional rule that stays under the aproval by the DM (in my games at least). Multiclassing is allowed if circumsances permit and if the story permits it. It is an occasion an opportunity that is presented as the game progresses. It might be the goal of a character once in a while. But wanting something and getting it can be two very different things. You want your rogue to become a great wizard? Fine, but be ready to find opportunities or a wizard ready to spend a few years with you.

 

[Fenris-77]

Different tables have different ideas about MC: how much, how often, how many etc. I don't think it friendly to judge people who play differently though. Going into three classes to get the build you want isn't munchkin-y, or bad, or more or less optional, or whatever. It's just another way to use the rules to realize a character concept. It doesn't need to be clothed in in-game narrative to be 'ok' but it's also fine done that way. Gamist character optimization can happen under most any set of build rules, and even that isn't bad thing either unless it flies in the face of the table conventions, or is engaged in for shady reason (like dominating a table full of newbs, for example).

 

[Oofta]

In many, many action films the heroes are being pursued by an overwhelming number of foes when they come to a cliff edge. Indiana Jones (or whoever) looks back at the chasing horde, looks at the leading lady, takes her hand and takes the seemingly suicidal leap.

Of course, Indy is experienced and lucky and the Big Damn Hero. Of course they survive. They have the hit points, obviously. : )

Player: Indy looks back at the horde, looks at the Girl of the Week, takes her hand and jumps. Indy has 120 hit points and the girl has 90. We should survive unless we are very unlucky, but we will be in bad shape....
MGibster: No. You're both dead. I don't care what the rules say, I don't care that you as a player made a calculated risk or that Indy in-game made a calculated risk of fall versus horde. I rule that you are dead and I'm the DM so there's nothing you can do.
Player:.....Thanks for the fun game....?

Except that they're jumping into water or sliding down the mountain's snow in a makeshift bobsled or jumping into a mine cart or doing some ridiculously acrobatic leaps off a crumbling building. The aren't jumping off the edge of the Grand Canyon to the bare rock below. At least not in any movie that I can think of.

There's always some barely plausible reason for survival, not just a suicidal jump onto the rocks below.

 

[jaelis]

Except that they're jumping into water or sliding down the mountain's snow in a makeshift bobsled or jumping into a mine cart or doing some ridiculously acrobatic leaps off a crumbling building. The aren't jumping off the edge of the Grand Canyon to the bare rock below. At least not in any movie that I can think of.

There's always some barely plausible reason for survival, not just a suicidal jump onto the rocks below.

So would you say that the falling rules should be more lethal overall?

 

[Helldritch]

Different tables have different ideas about MC: how much, how often, how many etc. I don't think it friendly to judge people who play differently though. Going into three classes to get the build you want isn't munchkin-y, or bad, or more or less optional, or whatever. It's just another way to use the rules to realize a character concept. It doesn't need to be clothed in in-game narrative to be 'ok' but it's also fine done that way. Gamist character optimization can happen under most any set of build rules, and even that isn't bad thing either unless it flies in the face of the table conventions, or is engaged in for shady reason (like dominating a table full of newbs, for example).

IME, most of the multiclassing happen when a character is made higher than level 1. Starting at level 6 or 7 or 10 (pure rhetorical examples) screams for:"MULITCLASS THIS CHARACTER!" Multiclassing as you are leveling along the adventure is a question losing something to gain another and it is a calculated risk.

For example: Multiclassing your fighter right before getting your extra attack feature is feasible. But the cost can be high and you might often miss that second attack during the level or levels you will not have it. Samething for just about any class. Multiclassing as you are leveling have a high cost in power and you have to make sure that the versatility you gain is worth it and will not be detrimental to the group or even yourself.

 

[Fenris-77]

There is still an opportunity cost of MCing a character created at higher level as you're still delaying the acquisition of higher level abilities. Personally, I don't have any problems with either, at least in general. I would probably counsel against, an possibly disallow some game-y MC shenanigans for a higher level build, but its a pretty short list. YMMV, naturally.

 

[Oofta]

So would you say that the falling rules should be more lethal overall?

It's never come up because I make it clear from session 0 on that I don't allow silliness. That would include jumping of a cliff because you can.

 

[jaelis]

It's never come up because I make it clear from session 0 on that I don't allow silliness. That would include jumping of a cliff because you can.

So what if you are pushed off a cliff?