D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Fenris-77]

But is it really contrary to the rules?

Yes. Unless it had been agreed to prior. Which it hasn't been in our little ongoing drama.

First off, there's the Massive Damage rules, both the PHB version (if the damage you take takes you down to negative your hit point maximum, your dead, no saving through)

Sure, that's a rule, and if that was the result of the 20d6 max falling damage then it is what it is. On average that'll kill a PC with a 35 HP maximum and will never kill a PC with more than 60 HP. That's not what you were talking about, is it? That's not a precedent that allows you to bring in another rule just because you feel like it.

and the DMG' addition (taking a certain amount of high damage does something permanent, up to instant death).

That's an optional rule. You don't to just kind of start using it mid-game because you feel like it. It would have to established with the table, outside of play.

 

[Mort]

Are you familiar with verisimilitude? It means giving the appearance of reality. Most works of fantasy or science fiction contain fantastical elements as part of the setting requiring the audience to suspend their disbelief in order to enjoy it. That doesn't mean the audience will just accept something without some sort of explanation. I can accept the dead rising to feast upon the flesh of the living in The Walking Dead but if Rick Grimes shrugged of three gunshots to the chest it's going to stretch my ability to suspend disbelief beyond it's breaking point. This will have a negative impact on my ability to enjoy the show. On the flip side there are other genres where a character can take three gunshots to the chest without blinking and I'm fine with those.

As I've said repeatedly, context matters especially with verisimilitude.

We're dealing with D&D here. A genre where a character can literally ask their god to save them - and it might work; heck with a high level cleric it will work.

Yes, let's get real. I've never participated in a game where a player just decided to have their character jump off a cliff knowing it wouldn't do permanent damage just for the lulz. Likewise, I've never had a player character decide to just shoot themselves in the head for some reason.

The problem here, is we're dealing with a sensitive subject and that really muddies the waters. So much so that it's probably best to back off something this sensitive and go with a less sensitive DM fiat situation.

However, if they did, I'd ask them what they were trying to accomplish. Odds are good that there's some underlying problem behind their decision. But if they were hellbent on following through I'd make it clear that they were going to kill their character rules be damned.

Assuming no sensitive issues for the moment. We are in a world where the character could be saved by a random gust of wind from a benign (or maybe not) entity - how is it so hard to imagine a scenario where he survives a big fall?

But again, let's get real. Assuming no sensitive out of game stuff. The DM asks the player - is it your intention to kill your character? If yes, sure, boom dead new character. But this is still really an out of game solution, no arbitrariness or real DM fiat necessary.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I was fully with you until this last bit.

"Guaranteed to kill them..." is a loaded statement. If the action was really guaranteed to result in death, the DM wouldn't have to interfere - the player would die by the rules set forth.

What your really saying is an action the DM believes should kill the player. But this is the DMs personal belief and often a bad metric to base a ruling on. For ex: people often survive very high falls, stabbing themselves, shooting themselves etc., especially in works of fiction and even more so in fantasy.

Can you point me to the rule that covers a character committing suicide? I see rules for combat, but none for suicide.

The rules aren't meant to encompass every possible scenario. That's one of the DMs roles. To smooth over the gaps that the rules don't cover.

For example, the most legendary tpk at my table was when the DM convinced an epic level party to kill themselves with a rusty dagger (that dealt 1d4-1 damage). Our enemy managed to convince us that if we killed ourselves they would resurrect us as incredibly powerful beings. Sense motive indicated they were being truthful. There was a heated debate within the party, but ultimately we each told the DM that our characters killed themselves. Did he ask for attack and damage rolls? No. That would have been incredibly tedious (and quite silly to us). Each character stabbed themselves once and died. Was the DM cheating? Clearly not!

Yeah, it's what the DM believes would kill the character. The NPCs in the world also do what the DM believes they should do. Shall the DMs of the world hang our collective heads in shame because you've revealed that all this time our making decisions for NPCs has been cheating? IMO, no.

I agree with those who say that an action like this is unlikely unless there has been a misunderstanding. And the DM should absolutely make certain that the player comprehends what the repercussions of the action will be.

However, unless the character actually has some ability conferring super human toughness they don't get to put a plasma cannon to their skull and pull the trigger without dying IMO. It doesn't matter if you have 150 HP and the cannon only does 10d6 damage. I will warn you that the action will result in certain death (or whatever) but if you insist then that is what will happen.

Just like if you walk up to a 10 foot thick stone wall and tell me your character will punch their way through the wall, I will inform you that your bones will break before the stones do (again, this excludes the case where you have an ability that allows you to punch through stone walls). I mean, there's nothing in the rules that punching a stone wall will deal damage to you. So you ought to be able to punch it indefinitely with no penalty, right? I strenuously disagree. If you insist on punching that wall repeatedly, I'll warn you that your bones will break before the stones do. If you persist, you'll break your bones.

If you honestly believe that's cheating then you would be well served staying away from my table. Because that's how we roll.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Can you point me to the rule that covers a character committing suicide? I see rules for combat, but none for suicide.

The rules aren't meant to encompass every possible scenario. That's one of the DMs roles. To smooth over the gaps that the rules don't cover.

For example, the most legendary tpk at my table was when the DM convinced an epic level party to kill themselves with a rusty dagger (that dealt 1d4-1 damage). Our enemy managed to convince us that if we killed ourselves they would resurrect us as incredibly powerful beings. Sense motive indicated they were being truthful. There was a heated debate within the party, but ultimately we each told the DM that our characters killed themselves. Did he ask for attack and damage rolls? No. That would have been incredibly tedious (and quite silly to us). Each character stabbed themselves once and died. Was the DM cheating? Clearly not!

Yeah, it's what the DM believes would kill the character. The NPCs in the world also do what the DM believes they should do. Shall the DMs of the world hang our collective heads in shame because you've revealed that all this time our making decisions for NPCs has been cheating? IMO, no.

I agree with those who say that an action like this is unlikely unless there has been a misunderstanding. And the DM should absolutely make certain that the player comprehends what the repercussions of the action will be.

However, unless the character actually has some ability conferring super human toughness they don't get to put a plasma cannon to their skull and pull the trigger without dying IMO. It doesn't matter if you have 150 HP and the cannon only does 10d6 damage. I will warn you that the action will result in certain death (or whatever) but if you insist then that is what will happen.

Just like if you walk up to a 10 foot thick stone wall and tell me your character will punch their way through the wall, I will inform you that your bones will break before the stones do (again, this excludes the case where you have an ability that allows you to punch through stone walls). I mean, there's nothing in the rules that punching a stone wall will deal damage to you. So you ought to be able to punch it indefinitely with no penalty, right? I strenuously disagree. If you insist on punching that wall repeatedly, I'll warn you that your bones will break before the stones do. If you persist, you'll break your bones.

If you honestly believe that's cheating then you would be well served staying away from my table. Because that's how we roll.

Thank you for saying gooder than I.

 

[Fenris-77]

The rules do cover falling damage. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not even really concerned about this example particularly, I just don't like the sudden inclusion of optional or by-fiat rules and rulings that would kill a character. Obviously there is a ton of nuance missing from our example, things about motivations, expectations, options, conditions, and all manner of things. Under specific circumstances all manner of things might become perfectly reasonable. If there was a legitimate reason to jump off the cliff that would be very different from doing it for lulz, for example. Anyway, my point is very specifically limited to not killing PCs with arbitrary rulings.

 

[Mort]

Can you point me to the rule that covers a character committing suicide? I see rules for combat, but none for suicide.

The rules aren't meant to encompass every possible scenario. That's one of the DMs roles. To smooth over the gaps that the rules don't cover.

We were NOT discussing suicide. You'll note I made a specific mention that character suicide should be treated differently.

We were talking about a situation where the player and DM were not in agreement as to possible outcome.

For example, the most legendary tpk at my table was when the DM convinced an epic level party to kill themselves with a rusty dagger (that dealt 1d4-1 damage). Our enemy managed to convince us that if we killed ourselves they would resurrect us as incredibly powerful beings. Sense motive indicated they were being truthful. There was a heated debate within the party, but ultimately we each told the DM that our characters killed themselves. Did he ask for attack and damage rolls? No. That would have been incredibly tedious (and quite silly to us). Each character stabbed themselves once and died. Was the DM cheating? Clearly not!

The DM and players were in agreement as to desired outcome, there it's no issue here, rules or otherwise.

Yeah, it's what the DM believes would kill the character. The NPCs in the world also do what the DM believes they should do. Shall the DMs of the world hang our collective heads in shame because you've revealed that all this time our making decisions for NPCs has been cheating? IMO, no.

And? The DM controls the NPCs their actions etc. You're throwing around the word cheating, not me. As a matter of fact, I expressly agreed a DM can't cheat. Whether it's good DMing is the matter of discussion.

I agree with those who say that an action like this is unlikely unless there has been a misunderstanding. And the DM should absolutely make certain that the player comprehends what the repercussions of the action will be.

Funny, I believe I'm the one that brought that up.

However, unless the character actually has some ability conferring super human toughness they don't get to put a plasma cannon to their skull and pull the trigger without dying IMO. It doesn't matter if you have 150 HP and the cannon only does 10d6 damage. I will warn you that the action will result in certain death (or whatever) but if you insist then that is what will happen.

Let's take suicide out of it. Let's instead say the villian has dominated the PC. the villian forces the PC to plasma bolt himself. The PC has enough HP to survive the blast. Do you rule it's an automatic death?

If you honestly believe that's cheating then you would be well served staying away from my table. Because that's how we roll.

If you're going to respond to my post, don't put words in my mouth. Cheating is a loaded and inaccurate term; one I did not use.

 

[Fanaelialae]

We were NOT discussing suicide. You'll note I made a specific mention that character suicide should be treated differently.

We were talking about a situation where the player and DM were not in agreement as to possible outcome.

If the DM and the player are in disagreement, they can discuss it. Ultimately, however, it is the DMs call.

The DM and players were in agreement as to desired outcome, there it's no issue here, rules or otherwise.

Agreed.

And? The DM controls the NPCs their actions etc. You're throwing around the word cheating, not me. As a matter of fact, I expressly agreed a DM can't cheat. Whether it's good DMing is the matter of discussion.

Actually, no. I'm not the one who brought cheating into the conversation. That was someone else. I thought you were agreeing with them.

Funny, I believe I'm the one that brought that up.

Never said it wasn't you.

Let's take suicide out of it. Let's instead say the villian has dominated the PC. the villian forces the PC to plasma bolt himself. The PC has enough HP to survive the blast. Do you rule it's an automatic death?

I addressed that example earlier, but to reiterate, no it would not be automatic death. The character is almost certainly fighting the mind control with every iota of their being, which is how I would explain it.

If you're going to respond to my post, don't put words in my mouth. Cheating is a loaded and inaccurate term; one I did not use.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was under the impression that you were in agreement with those who did in fact call DM rulings cheating. My apologies for the misunderstanding.


So how about we get back to the heart of the orignal matter, which I don't feel like you actually addressed. You said that you have a problem with the DM ruling that an action automatically kills a PC just because the DM believes it would.

If it's an action that the player has no input in, then I almost completely agree. In most situations the DM should absolutely not do that.

The only case where I can see it being reasonable is if it is something like the character was captured and then executed (I don't think your HP should save you from the guillotine blade decending). Even then, the player should have been given the opportunity to make any reasonable attempts to save their character, such as attempting escape. But I'm not having the guillotine need multiple drops to behead a high level fighter because I consider that extremely silly (and the execution of a PC ought to be a serious affair).

It's different, however, if the action is initiated by the player. In this case I think it is fine provided that the DM makes the player aware of the consequences as appropriate. IMC, if you get knocked off a mountain and fall it gets handled by the rules. But if a player decides to jump off a mountain for the lulz, because he thinks it can't kill him, then I will inform him that it will kill him. The gods are liable to intervene on your behalf if the hero falls off the mountain (arete), but not if he dives off for the lulz like an idiot (hubris).

 

[MGibster]

As I've said repeatedly, context matters especially with verisimilitude.

We're dealing with D&D here. A genre where a character can literally ask their god to save them - and it might work; heck with a high level cleric it will work.

A genre where a person might die from a dagger strike, poison, exposure to the elements, or disease.

Assuming no sensitive issues for the moment. We are in a world where the character could be saved by a random gust of wind from a benign (or maybe not) entity - how is it so hard to imagine a scenario where he survives a big fall?

We're talking about a specific example so imagining some other situation where the character might survive a big fall is changing the goal post. And you know, really, we've been so focused on the fall but that's not really the problem here. The problem is the player treating their character like a chess piece, knowing the rules say they won't die or suffer any permanent harm, and jumping off the cliff for the lulz rather than any narrative reason. That's my main problem. We kind of got sidetracked with the jumping issue.

But again, let's get real. Assuming no sensitive out of game stuff. The DM asks the player - is it your intention to kill your character? If yes, sure, boom dead new character. But this is still really an out of game solution, no arbitrariness or real DM fiat necessary.

Why is it okay for the DM to ignore the rules in this case? Isn't that cheating?

 

[Mort]

So how about we get back to the heart of the orignal matter, which I don't feel like you actually addressed. You said that you have a problem with the DM ruling that an action automatically kills a PC just because the DM believes it would.

Yes.

Though looking back at the posts and the actual arguments, I don't think this is actually a rules dispute. Both sides are aware what the rules say and what the RAW result would be. The dispute is more a question of is this a good call by the DM.

If it's an action that the player has no input in, then I almost completely agree. In most situations the DM should absolutely not do that..

Agreed.

The only case where I can see it being reasonable is if it is something like the character was captured and then executed (I don't think your HP should save you from the guillotine blade decending). Even then, the player should have been given the opportunity to make any reasonable attempts to save their character, such as attempting escape. But I'm not having the guillotine need multiple drops to behead a high level fighter because I consider that extremely silly (and the execution of a PC ought to be a serious affair).

This seems more like a thematic/stylistic question than anything else. It should be the rare scenario where the DM narrates a character being captured then executed with no input from thr player or the other players. I can't really envision such a scenario being fun - and if it's not fun - why is it happening?

Again, I don't actually think there is disagreement here.

It's different, however, if the action is initiated by the player. In this case I think it is fine provided that the DM makes the player aware of the consequences as appropriate. IMC, if you get knocked off a mountain and fall it gets handled by the rules. But if a player decides to jump off a mountain for the lulz, because he thinks it can't kill him, then I will inform him that it will kill him. The gods are liable to intervene on your behalf if the hero falls off the mountain (arete), but not if he dives off for the lulz like an idiot (hubris).

As above, this seems less a rules dispute and more a player and DM having different expectations of the campaign/scenario.

Now I'm never a fan of the player getting into some kind of pissing contest with the DM - that's just stupid and bound to end badly. But it's the DMs job to address the situation with the player. Maybe the player has always been in campaigns where doing stuff like this "for the lulz" is just how things were done?

Again, not really a rules dispute; much more a player/DM communication issue.

 

[Mort]

A genre where a person might die from a dagger strike, poison, exposure to the elements, or disease.

There are rules for all of those. You're not talking about rules, you're taking about a situation where the DM chooses to ignore the rules because he doesn't like the result.

In fact, as I just stated in a prior post, this isn't a rules dispute/discussion. It's a player vs. DM expectation discussion.

We're talking about a specific example so imagining some other situation where the character might survive a big fall is changing the goal post. And you know, really, we've been so focused on the fall but that's not really the problem here. The problem is the player treating their character like a chess piece, knowing the rules say they won't die or suffer any permanent harm, and jumping off the cliff for the lulz rather than any narrative reason. That's my main problem. We kind of got sidetracked with the jumping issue.

Again, this isn't a rules issue.

It's a player/DM communication issue. The player and DM need to be on the same page as you expectations. A player who acts against DM expectations WHEN HE KNOWS what they are is not being a good player. A DM who punishes a player for violating his expectations WITHOUT FIRST TELLING THEM WHAT THEY ARE us being a bad DM.

Why is it okay for the DM to ignore the rules in this case? Isn't that cheating?

Yet again, DMs can't cheat. But they cam act in a way that's not good for the game.