D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Helldritch]

You want to jump off a cliff that should kill anyone but the man with 200hp? Fine, you're dead. Of course you'll get a warning. But if you ignore it, tough luck. You're dead.

What you forget is that hp do not come from nowhere. They are a mix of stamina, combat experience, luck and ..................................................... God's favors. Yep. You want to kill yourself? The gods will not favor you anymore and luck is no longer a factor because you renounced it. Combat experience is no longer relevant as you're not fighting the gravity. In effect, you are renouncing 75% of where your HPs are coming from. You'll be like the average Joe plowing the field. A really tough Joe, but a Joe none the less.

On the other hand, you want to jump off the cliff to avoid the orc horde, to try to catch your friend that fall to cast a feather fall and save you both? The gods will smile on you as usual. You are being heroic and it should be rewarded.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

This is, unfortunately, a red herring that is often brought up. And by that, I mean, "Well, I see your point, but I don't want the DM judging why a player is doing something! Sure, we all might know it's ridiculous, but we can't let a DM determine if a player is doing things for the right reasons- what about player agency?"

Which is why, for the third time, I will use the old saying- even a dog knows the difference between kicked and stepped on. The fundamental precept of most tables is that everyone is working in good faith, but good faith is not something that has some sort of objective rule or standard that we use.

We have human DMs in TTRPGs for a reason; this is not a simple mechanical application of rules. Just as a player has the right and the expectation that the DM will adjudicate fairly and in good faith, so too does the DM have the same right and expectation regarding the players; and, of course, the other players have the same expectations with regard to each other.

Look at the evolution of this concept. First, you have the idea of the "Bag o' rats." Of course, that is such a despised trope by many .... that the player attempting to skirt the rules comes up with a new one. "It's not a bag of rats; it's a ritualized chicken sacrifice! Because, you know, Cthulhu I mean the Great Old Ones demands a chicken sacrifice every day for roleplaying reasons; it makes total sense and it's not something I came up purely for mechanical reasons. I probably read it in The Colour out of Space. "

But if you think about it for even a second, it devolves quickly. Because this interpretation doesn't make sense. First, of course, you'd have to bring, care for, and transport a whole menagerie of chickens with you everywhere you go. But more importantly, it depends on the fact that there is no definition of creature, so you're looking for a loophole. I mean, it's clear from the context of the PHB that a "creature" almost always refers to a monster in a combat situation ("Sometimes, a DM might may out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involced in a scene" "Over the course of their adventures, the characters are confronted by a variety of creatures, objects, and situations" "Sometimes the adventurers and other creatures do their best to kill or capture each other in combat" "Combat, the focus of chapter 9, involves characters and other creatures swinging weapons, casting spells, maneuvering for position, and so on-all in an effort to defeat their opponents" and so on). Look at almost any ability- halflings, dragonborn breath, everything is about creatures. And look at spells- creatures everywhere.

But in fairness, not always! Look at gnomes- they can speak with small beasts and keep "creatures" like moles as their beloved pets. So what we know is that creature is just a general term that they use- even turn undead, after saying it is against undead, then says "A turned creature ..." What, a turned chicken?

But imagine if the DM starts to rules lawyer against you. We already saw sleep used; but that is the generic term used everywhere. So what if the DM demands that everytime we see "creature" that unless it specifies that you get to choose, we have to exhustively catalog the creatures (from bugs on up) in the area. It's not fun, is it? Because we don't want the DM to do that; it's taking rules literalism and making the game less fun for everyone; it's trying to take language that might be unclear and leveraging it.

So if you don't want the DM to behave like a jerk, don't let players do it either. If a player thinks Hex should be "always on," then discuss having that be a class feature with the DM. Don't demand cheesy interpretations.

And it's the same with the falling. Those people that say that these rules somehow "describe" the world; in my opinion, they are wrong. The rules just allow us to play a game. They are not perfect. The world doesn't suddenly change when errata gets released.

I agree that this is really about expectations and communications, and that they should match. But players know when a DM is being a jerk, and DMs (and players) know when a player is is as well.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

and this is contrary to the behaviour we expect from a fair and consistent DM.

You should change the "we" to "I."

 

[jaelis]

So if you don't want the DM to behave like a jerk, don't let players do it either. If a player thinks Hex should be "always on," then discuss having that be a class feature with the DM. Don't demand cheesy interpretations.

I don't think players should be jerks either. But if a player is being a jerk I strongly think the right thing to do is talk to the player, not to introduce some random in-game punishment to the character. Because I can't believe that would ever help the situation.

If Bob the Barbarian wants to jump off the cliff because he's bored with the game, then sure, probably he does want his character to die. If it is because he sees his character as filled with hubris and delusions of immortality, then that's role playing... give the character a flaw to that effect and work with it. If the player knows it will annoy everyone and actually just hates you all, then don't invite him to play next time. There are all kinds of ways to approach the issue, depending on what the issue is.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think players should be jerks either. But if a player is being a jerk I strongly think the right thing to do is talk to the player, not to introduce some random in-game punishment to the character. Because I can't believe that would ever help the situation.

If Bob the Barbarian wants to jump off the cliff because he's bored with the game, then sure, probably he does want his character to die. If it is because he sees his character as filled with hubris and delusions of immortality, then that's role playing... give the character a flaw to that effect and work with it. If the player knows it will annoy everyone and actually just hates you all, then don't invite him to play next time. There are all kinds of ways to approach the issue, depending on what the issue is.

Exactly.

And if the issue is, as we keep seeing, that a player believes that their interpretation of the rule (which is to favor their character) must be accepted by the table over what the other players and the DM want in their game, then that's the issue.

And everything here (What if it's really just a RP issue? C'mon, man, it's just a chicken sacirifce to Cthlhu! It's just Bob the Barbarian being full of hubris! I'm not a rules lawyer who is demanding that I get my way and coming up with increasingly bizarre explanations, I am really just a misunderstood storyteller) is just noise.

Players who enjoy rules exploits do best with other players who enjoy rules exploits and DMs who allow it; on the other hand, they tend to get little traction convincing people otherwise on the internet, and even less traction in real life. Or, at least, at my table.

 

[jaelis]

And if the issue is, as we keep seeing, that a player believes that their interpretation of the rule (which is to favor their character) must be accepted by the table over what the other players and the DM want in their game, then that's the issue.

Well I don't interpret anyone in the thread as saying that, so you might be projecting your own concerns or experience.

And everything here (What if it's really just a RP issue? C'mon, man, it's just a chicken sacirifce to Cthlhu! It's just Bob the Barbarian being full of hubris! I'm not a rules lawyer who is demanding that I get my way and coming up with increasingly bizarre explanations, I am really just a misunderstood storyteller) is just noise.

Can you see the assumption that you are making here? Yes, you might just have an a-hole player. And if you do, stop playing with them, kill their character or not. But nothing in the actual scenarios that we are discussing requires that the player is an a-hole. I think the main objection we're making is to your assumption that they are.

Players who enjoy rules exploits do best with other players who enjoy rules exploits and DMs who allow it; on the other hand, they tend to get little traction convincing people otherwise on the internet, and even less traction in real life. Or, at least, at my table.

The original cleave bag of rats was indeed an obvious exploit; its hard to imagine anyone seeing it otherwise. That seems like the basis for what you are saying.

The chicken hex thing is much less clear. I get that you see it as an exploit, and if you want to ban it at your table I totally support you. And if a player argues and fusses at you about it, then sure, they are being a problem. But you seem pretty explicitly to assume the player is already problem for merely suggesting the idea in the first place. And that is uncalled for.

 

[Oofta]

Well I don't interpret anyone in the thread as saying that, so you might be projecting your own concerns or experience.


Can you see the assumption that you are making here? Yes, you might just have an a-hole player. And if you do, stop playing with them, kill their character or not. But nothing in the actual scenarios that we are discussing requires that the player is an a-hole. I think the main objection we're making is to your assumption that they are.

The original cleave bag of rats was indeed an obvious exploit; its hard to imagine anyone seeing it otherwise. That seems like the basis for what you are saying.

The chicken hex thing is much less clear. I get that you see it as an exploit, and if you want to ban it at your table I totally support you. And if a player argues and fusses at you about it, then sure, they are being a problem. But you seem pretty explicitly to assume the player is already problem for merely suggesting the idea in the first place. And that is uncalled for.

But there is a difference between a player asking for clarification (in my game a chicken is not a "creature" for purposes of spells and the like) and believing that the player is the arbiter of the rules.

But they should already know that when I DM because there are times when I don't follow the strict letter of the rules, it's something I discuss in the session 0. I do my best to be consistent, I don't do "gotchas" and I'll always try to work with the player to give them the result they're expecting.

The most common time this comes up* is with stealth. Then I'll explain the scenario, why they can or cannot be hidden from an opponent and make some suggestions.

*I've never had anyone purposely jump off cliffs, I generally don't put in deadly falls and no one has ever tried to get an extra spell from breakfast.

 

[jaelis]

But there is a difference between a player asking for clarification (in my game a chicken is not a "creature" for purposes of spells and the like) and believing that the player is the arbiter of the rules.

But who is claiming that the players are arbiters of the rules? At best I've seen the claim that the DM should arbitrate their own rules consistently. But mostly the argument is that DMs should not punish players for assuming that they will enforce their own rules consistently.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But who is claiming that the players are arbiters of the rules? At best I've seen the claim that the DM should enforce their own rules consistently. But mostly the argument is that DMs should not punish players for assuming that they will enforce their own rules consistently.

Again, look at the verbiage that you keep using (and that others insist on).

DMs "punish" players.

DM "ruling by fiat."

DMs should never be allowed to judge why a player is doing something.


Yes, DMs can be jerks. We've all seen it. But in this verbiage, and in this finger pointing by some, I fail to see the acknowledgement that when you point a finger at DMs, you have four fingers pointed back at you.

It's not about the Bag o' Rats. It's about the types of players who bring in the Bag o' Rats (or Pun Pun, or whatever). That works at some tables. That's fine. But these are the same people that insist that when thir methods aren't accepted by other DMs and Players it's all the fault of mean ol' DMs.

Communication is two-way street. I am unswayed by your comments.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But you seem pretty explicitly to assume the player is already problem for merely suggesting the idea in the first place. And that is uncalled for.

Well, I called it. That player is a problem at my table.

I am sure that player is not a problem at other tables. And that's good, because vive la différence.