D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Oofta]

I don't believe anyone has made that claim. What was said (by @Arial Black) is

You could argue that calling it abuse of power is more accurate than cheating, but in no way is it claiming that the problem is letting the player interpret the letter of the rules.

There has been a strong undercurrent of "if the DM does not allow X they are a bad DM."

I've made my opinion clear - the DM always has final say. The DM is always right. They do not need to justify their decisions. In some cases that will mean that they are not the DM for me just like I may not be the DM for you or for other people. It's hardly the end of the world.

I'm not going to go back through hundreds of posts to provide specific quotes. Have a good one!

 

[jaelis]

There has been a strong undercurrent of "if the DM does not allow X they are a bad DM."

Well I guess that is why much of this thread has been at cross purposes, because it seems to me that the argument has been "if the DM punishes players for attempting something the DM doesn't like, then they are a bad DM."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well I guess that is why much of this thread has been at cross purposes, because it seems to me that the argument has been "if the DM punishes players for attempting something the DM doesn't like, then they are a bad DM."

If you re-define what people say, despite what has been said, this thread could be about anything!

I'd like to think that it's been about cute puppies frolicking in a field.

 

[Helldritch]

I have the same general feeling as Oofta on this one.

A DM is not cheating. He could be adversarial, but it would be detrimental to his game. Any DM which act this way is going a self defeating path. On the other hand, a DM is there to make rulings. A player might not always appreciate a ruling, but it is the DM's prerogative to rule. This is what is expected from him.

The ultimate protest a player can make is stopping to play with a DM. Other than that, the player should abide by the ruling the DM made.

But as Jaelis said:

Well I guess that is why much of this thread has been at cross purposes, because it seems to me that the argument has been "if the DM punishes players for attempting something the DM doesn't like, then they are a bad DM."

A bad DM is a DM that do not warn the player about a perticuliar rule or ruling. He will not give the chance to make up his mind and change his stance. That would be a bad DM. If the above was done. The DM is doing his job. Maybe not as you like it. But he is doing it and he is fair.

But a bad player will do exactly that. He will do as he damn please and will then say: " Bad DM. The rule says I have 201 HP. I can't die from that fall. NO way. Bad DM!" No, it is the player that is missbehaving. He voluntarily ignored the DM's warning to have his way and then, got frustrated when said DM ruled as he was entitled to do. Again, you may not agree. But you were warned.

 

[Oofta]

Well I guess that is why much of this thread has been at cross purposes, because it seems to me that the argument has been "if the DM punishes players for attempting something the DM doesn't like, then they are a bad DM."

It's not "punishing" a warlock to say that a chicken is not a valid target of a hex spell. It's a ruling.

 

[jaelis]

It's not "punishing" a warlock to say that a chicken is not a valid target of a hex spell. It's a ruling.

Indeed, and no one is accusing a DM for being bad if they say you can't hex a chicken.

The accusation is that a DM is being bad if they accuse the player of being a munchkin for trying to hex a chicken. Or for ruling a character dies when they jump off a cliff when they had been using normal falling rules up til then.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Indeed, and no one is accusing a DM for being bad if they say you can't hex a chicken.

Let's see what people in this thread have said about bad DMs-

"The DM has all the powers you describe. What bad DMs do is remember this power and disregard their responsibilities.

The DM is the arbiter of the rules. It is the duty of the DM to interpret the rules fairly! That means that if the DM rules that chickens are creatures, then they are valid targets for hex. But if the DM rules that chickens are not creatures, then they are not creatures for any rule in the game. They would also need to provide a rule defining 'creature' in a way not before seen in the English language or in this game which even defines animated objects as 'creatures'.

'Schrodinger's chicken' is cheating. The DM's duty is to judge the game fairly. As Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility". DM's who forget that become "Hulk smash puny players", and I'm totally happy to lose such an abusive DM."

To recap-

The 5e PHB use the terms "creature" primarily, but not exclusively, for monsters/NPCs in combat. But it also occasionally uses it in other ways (to refer to the antecedent undead, to refer to small woodland .... um ... critters, and so on).

You are a BAD DM if you don't use the same exact meaning that this player demands.

So, yes, there is this exact accusation.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

By the way, for those Creature Truthers out there- did you know that "creature" is used almost 2,000 times in the PHB?

Combat, by comparison, is used 139 times.

 

[jaelis]

"The DM has all the powers you describe. What bad DMs do is remember this power and disregard their responsibilities.

The DM is the arbiter of the rules. It is the duty of the DM to interpret the rules fairly! That means that if the DM rules that chickens are creatures, then they are valid targets for hex. But if the DM rules that chickens are not creatures, then they are not creatures for any rule in the game. They would also need to provide a rule defining 'creature' in a way not before seen in the English language or in this game which even defines animated objects as 'creatures'.

'Schrodinger's chicken' is cheating. The DM's duty is to judge the game fairly. As Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility". DM's who forget that become "Hulk smash puny players", and I'm totally happy to lose such an abusive DM."

While I think that Arial is off base here about how creatures can be defined, he's still just arguing that you should be consistent. He acknowledges that you are free to rule that chickens are not creatures, and therefore free to rule that you can't hex a chicken. So again: not a claim that you are a bad DM if you don't allow the chicken hex.

At least that's how I'd read it. Maybe he will chime in and correct me, and he does think that a DM disallowing the chicken hex is bad. If so, I think he is wrong.

But that doesn't make your claim right, that a person suggesting the idea is a bad player.

 

[Mort]

It's not "punishing" a warlock to say that a chicken is not a valid target of a hex spell. It's a ruling.

As long as it's a consistent ruling - then it's fine.

I'll give you a real world example of a DM ruling (set of rulings) in what I believe to be (epic) bad faith (this happened to a friend of mine in under Pathfinder, the Legacy of Fire):

My friend is playing a mage. He wants to create some potions of shocking grasp. The DM rules (after the potions are created) that the shocking grasp occurs to the person who drinks the potion. My friend thinks this is a stupid ruling, but accepts it and moves on.

A few sessions later, right before their next session, my friend gets an email from the DM that basically says: I change my mind, the potion should allow you to touch a target and administer shocking grasp - let's play it that way. OK then.

The next session comes: The PCs fight a creature that's essentially a Sarlacc - one big mouth in the ground. Obviously, the original shocking grasp rule would have been perfect against this creature! My friend thinks the sudden rules reversal was convenient and annoying - but whatever, it's the way he was advocating in the first place.

But wait -there's a coda: after the session with the big mouth creature - The DM again emails my friend with - you know, I think my original ruling was correct, I'm going to change it back to the potion of shocking grasp works on the person who ingested it.

Epic bad faith, would you agree? My friend ghosted this campaign shortly thereafter (this ruling was not an isolated incident of the DMs behavior).