D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Fanaelialae]

Factually correct. There are falling rules, and changing those on the fly specifically to kill a character because you think 'it should' falls outside what I consider a reasonable use of DM fiat.

Then use the RAW for characters who intentionally head dive onto rocks in your campaign.

As far as I'm concerned, it is a perfectly reasonable use of a DM ruling for maintaining campaign verisimilitude and immersion.

Additionally, I don't change the rules on the fly to kill characters. I tell the player what will happen and allow them to take a different action if desired. If the character dies, they have chosen for the character to die, as I have been explicit regarding the outcome.

 

[Fenris-77]

Then use the RAW for characters who intentionally head dive onto rocks in your campaign.

At no point was this the example I was using. I have consistently just been addressing changing the rules mid-stream without warning or discussion. See my post in response to your above.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This would be fine with me btw. This example is a little more nuanced than where we started out though. If you warn them and they do it anyway, that's very different than just changing the rule about consequences. Just curious, would you do the same thing if there were great and compelling narrative reasons for jumping, rather than hubris?

I've been saying since the start that I would warn them. Others have too. I even said that I would warn them all the way back when we were still primarily debating the hex chicken. It's been a long thread though, so perfectly understandable if you missed the instances where we stated it.

I wouldn't do it if they had better reasons than mere hubris. If they jump off the cliff because they think they're more likely to survive the fall than the orc horde at their backs, HP apply. If they jump off to catch someone who's falling, hoping the wizard will cast feather fall on them in time (or whatever), HP apply.

 

[Fanaelialae]

At no point was this the example I was using. I have consistently just been addressing changing the rules mid-stream without warning or discussion. See my post in response to your above.

We posted virtually at the same time. I hadn't seen your response when I posted.

 

[Fenris-77]

I've been saying since the start that I would warn them. Others have too. I even said that I would warn them all the way back when we were still primarily debating the hex chicken. It's been a long thread though, so perfectly understandable if you missed the instances where we stated it.

I wouldn't do it if they had better reasons than mere hubris. If they jump off the cliff because they think they're more likely to survive the fall than the orc horde at their backs, HP apply. If they jump off to catch someone who's falling, hoping the wizard will cast feather fall on them in time (or whatever), HP apply.

Yeah, there's been a lot of verbiage, and I think the issue of warnings, and the precise nature of your example, may have been lost in the shuffle. It's also very possible that I wasn't clear enough in some of my replies for the differences there to be obvious. I feel like we should have been able to stake out this common ground pages ago. Ah well, we're here now. Cool.

 

[billd91]

It's becoming clear to me that part of this debate touches on two fundamental things:
1) What hit points are.
2) What the rules do.

For the first one, the idea of killing one's self with a rusty dagger or putting a plasma cannon to your head and pulling the trigger shouldn't be handled by ablating hit points as you would in a combat or anywhere else the outcome should be uncertain because the PC is doing what they can to survive. Under normal circumstances, they're trying to survive and the dagger strike, plasma cannon shot, or falling damage is a stroke of luck that does a measured amount of damage that the character, due to their game defensive power "hit points", may survive. But there are, reasonably, times in which they shouldn't apply - such as the aforementioned suicide attempts as well as ridiculously deadly things like putting a head in a guillotine.

For the second one, there are times when having rules that putting your neck in a guillotine and dropping the blade is fatal shouldn't be necessary. This is outside the rules of the game because it's unreasonable for the rules to even attempt to be this complete in simulating a reality. The rules exist to operationalize the actions a PC may take in the game that fit within the genre being simulated and serve as a guideline for how to resolve the action when the end result is in question - not define the whole of the setting's physics or possibilities. I think it's entirely reasonable for a PC throwing themselves off a cliff for neither necessity nor through the fickle whims of fortune to fall into the category of something outside the expected bounds of most genres - and thus not necessarily subject to the falling rules. It may be appropriate in a superhero game where notoriously invulnerable PCs are known for landing hard and, often, intentionally as part of a necessary and calculated act (notable examples include Thing, She-Hulk, Wonder Man, and Colossus), but those are somewhat loaded examples as those characters have high degrees of superpowered invulnerability.

 

[Mort]

It's becoming clear to me that part of this debate touches on two fundamental things:
1) What hit points are.
2) What the rules do.

For the first one, the idea of killing one's self with a rusty dagger or putting a plasma cannon to your head and pulling the trigger shouldn't be handled by ablating hit points as you would in a combat or anywhere else the outcome should be uncertain because the PC is doing what they can to survive. Under normal circumstances, they're trying to survive and the dagger strike, plasma cannon shot, or falling damage is a stroke of luck that does a measured amount of damage that the character, due to their game defensive power "hit points", may survive. But there are, reasonably, times in which they shouldn't apply - such as the aforementioned suicide attempts as well as ridiculously deadly things like putting a head in a guillotine.

For the second one, there are times when having rules that putting your neck in a guillotine and dropping the blade is fatal shouldn't be necessary. This is outside the rules of the game because it's unreasonable for the rules to even attempt to be this complete in simulating a reality. The rules exist to operationalize the actions a PC may take in the game that fit within the genre being simulated and serve as a guideline for how to resolve the action when the end result is in question - not define the whole of the setting's physics or possibilities. I think it's entirely reasonable for a PC throwing themselves off a cliff for neither necessity nor through the fickle whims of fortune to fall into the category of something outside the expected bounds of most genres - and thus not necessarily subject to the falling rules. It may be appropriate in a superhero game where notoriously invulnerable PCs are known for landing hard and, often, intentionally as part of a necessary and calculated act (notable examples include Thing, She-Hulk, Wonder Man, and Colossus), but those are somewhat loaded examples as those characters have high degrees of superpowered invulnerability.

My issue is with the jumping off a cliff scenario. I don't like the whole the DM determines if the PC jumped "for the right reasons," and if he doesn't think so - auto dead.

If the DM doesn't like the falling rules - ok, make them more lethal.

If the DM doesn't like the player's behavior (feels, probably justifiably, that's it's disruptive or irritating) - ok talk to the player about the behavior and resolve it.

But to have to adjudicate if the PC jumped "for the right reasons," just seems unnecessary when the rules have a clear outcome.

Note, the DM can do what he likes, I (IMO) don't think, in this case, they should - I think there are better resolution mechanisms here.

 

[Arial Black]

Let's say that there are some occasions where the DM sets the rules to one side and rules by fiat that the PC dies.

"Rocks fall, everyone dies" is a famous example of a DM acting UN-fairly. If the DM is ruling by fiat and deliberately ignoring already existing rules, this is an occasion where he will be judged by his players as to whether he is being fair or not.

Guillotines don't kill by reducing hit points. No damage is rolled. They kill by removing your head. Therefore, if one removes your head and the DM rules that you are dead, is he being fair?

Most of us you say yes, that's fair. But what if you are a creature which in game does not die if its head is removed, like an elemental or a golem? What if the DM ruled by fiat that you died anyway? Would that be fair?

Dragons, the most ancient and powerful dragons, are very dangerous. Let's face it, a gargantuan magical genius with all the dragon stuff, both in concept an in game terms, should easily kill a mere human. Let's say your 1st level fighter charges the dragon. Yeah, the DM could use the already existing rules, but what if the DM rules by fiat that you die. You might think that it's fair enough. But what if your epic barbarian with his Boots of Flying, Dragon-Slaying weapon, Armour of Immunity to Dragon Breath and the epic Magic Resistance ability? Would it be fair if the DM decided by fiat that your barbarian was dead without bothering with the rules?

I think that fewer of us would think that was fair. Further, I think that most of us, thinking of a spectrum of PCs fighting this dragon, from 1st level to epic, would believe that it is more fair to decide by fiat that the PC dies the further the PC is toward the 1st level end of this spectrum, and less fair to arbitrarily decide that higher level PCs die by DM fiat.

That seems reasonable. The less likely the PC to survive, the more likely to decide by fiat that they die, and the more likely they are to survive by the game rules, the less fair it would be to kill them by fiat.

Now look at the falling rules, and a fall of over 200 feet. We know that the rules say that this does 20d6 damage, and we know it's much more likely to kill a 21hp PC than a 119hp PC.

But the DM could rule by fiat. The lower level ones would be more likely to die, right? Just like the dragon example.

But the impression I get from this thread is that there are those who would be happy to use the rules instead of fiat versus the 21hp PC, the ones for whom we could forgive death by fiat, and eager to rule death by fiat for those who they know the rules mean that the PC is overwhelmingly likely to survive!

This is on its face unfair. The DM isn't taking a shortcut to the same conclusion as the rules, he is ruling opposite the conclusion that the rules indicate!

Two pupils are taking a hard exam. The pass mark is 80%. Thicky McShort-Plank is unlikely to pass, while Captain Brilliant is likely to pass with flying colours.

Instead of having them actually take the exam, the teacher, Mr. D. Master, has the power to choose one boy to go straight to Harvard and the other to Burger-Flipping school. Most of us would think the fair decision is that Captain Brilliant goes to Harvard.

But I'm arguing in this thread against those who would send Thicky McShort-Plank. Deciding that a PC most likely to survive taking 20d6 falling damage is the one that more deserves death by fiat is not fair or consistent, and this is contrary to the behaviour we expect from a fair and consistent DM.

 

[jasper]

....Guillotines don't kill by reducing hit points. No damage is rolled. They kill by removing your head. Therefore, if one removes your head and the DM rules that you are dead, is he being fair?....
Show me the rule my pc needs a head to adventure!

 

[jaelis]

Hmm, I don't know if it helps, but if the player of a level 20 barbarian told me his character wanted to kill himself by jumping off a cliff, I would probably just say, ok you die. Seems pretty dark and I'm not sure how that would ever come up, but I'm willing to give characters agency to commit suicide if they want.

I think some people see the barbarian jumping off the cliff to get to the bottom faster as equivalent to suicide, which therefore justifies instant death. But I think the player intention is really critical here. And you can determine intention, just ask, are you trying to survive the jump or not? If they are then the character's toughness luck and skill come into play, and I think you should use the regular rules, just like if they were pushed off the cliff. If they are not trying to survive then sure, they willingly plummet to death.