D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Oofta]

These are two different things, and I agree with exactly one of them. Making one's table an unfun place to be isn't right, even when the DM does it.

The DM is right even when they're wrong.

Okay, a bit of an exaggeration. But being wrong in and of itself neither makes them a good nor a bad DM. It may be the hallmark of a bad DM. It may be a DM that comes up with such awesome and enjoyable stuff that nobody cares.

Varies by DM and target audience of course. All DMs make mistakes and bad rulings now and then.

 

[Arial Black]

But players know when a DM is being a jerk, and DMs (and players) know when a player is is as well.

All too often the DM thinks the player is being a jerk AND the player thinks the DM is being a jerk, both at the same time.

 

[Arial Black]

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

Are you suggesting that I am the only player who expects a referee to be fair, consistent and impartial? Or that this expectation is rare?

Or are you suggesting that this expectation is simply wrong, and that 'we' (players) should expect DMs to be unfair, inconsistent and arbitrary?

 

[Arial Black]

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.

Just like when you read 'Pal/War 14' as 'See, dipping 2 levels of warlock again!', you are seeing 'I assume you use the falling rules from the PHB' as 'See! He's making Pun-Pun again!'

 

[billd91]

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

I'm not sure I have enough information to agree. Did the GM do it just to protect the sarlacc-like monster or was he really rethinking how the potion was supposed to work? At least he made contact before the issue became relevant rather than doing so once the encounter had started and the player was going to rely on the initial call.
The GM made a very bad call at the outset. Who in their right mind would craft a shocking grasp potion in order for the drinker to be shocked?!? Nobody. That's ridiculous. What are you going to do? Trick the monsters you're fighting into drinking it? Clearly, the player wasn't thinking it was going to do that when he brought up the idea in the first place.
Compounding the problem by vacillating on the decision was bad, but not necessarily in bad faith, particularly not if protecting the sarlacc didn't figure into his decision. And right now, it's hard to tell.

 

[Arial Black]

You're excluding a very significant detail.

Under normal circumstances Cpt Brilliant would be sure to get the recommendation. I doubt there's anyone in this thread who would disagree.

This would be a case of the characters both falling off the same cliff. The high HP character would be likelier to survive.

However, in this particular scenario Cpt Brilliant commits a grievous act of HUBRIS. He goes to his teacher and tells him what a joke of a teacher he is and that the teacher should be thanking Cpt Brilliant for being his student. Guess who the teacher is going to recommend for Harvard? Cpt Brilliant sank his own ship.

In this case, the low hp character falls off a cliff, but the high hp character decides to do a swan dive off the cliff onto the rocks below to show up the low hp character. The low HP character is doing his utmost to survive, and the gods/luck may also intercede on his behalf. The high hp character is not doing anything to try to survive (as swan diving is a poor survival strategy when falling onto rocks) and has forsaken the favor of the gods/luck by acting out of hubris, (wrongly) certain that he can force their hand. At that point, IMO, the high HP character is as good as dead while the low HP character has a chance to survive.

I see nothing unfair or inconsistent about it. The DM should certainly warn the high hp player of the consequences so that they can reconsider, but that's an issue of gotcha DMing which isn't pertinent. It's not inconsistent, since if the low HP character swan dives off the cliff, his death is similarly assured.

You don't see anything unfair or inconsistent about it????

You are saying that if the 200hp PC pushes the 13hp orc off the 200 foot cliff, and then deliberately jumps after the orc while fully intending to survive the drop, that the PC auto-dies because the force of gravity got its feelings hurt???

Are you typing that with a straight face?

 

[Mort]

I'm not sure I have enough information to agree. Did the GM do it just to protect the sarlacc-like monster or was he really rethinking how the potion was supposed to work? At least he made contact before the issue became relevant rather than doing so once the encounter had started and the player was going to rely on the initial call.
The GM made a very bad call at the outset. Who in their right mind would craft a shocking grasp potion in order for the drinker to be shocked?!? Nobody. That's ridiculous. What are you going to do? Trick the monsters you're fighting into drinking it? Clearly, the player wasn't thinking it was going to do that when he brought up the idea in the first place.
Compounding the problem by vacillating on the decision was bad, but not necessarily in bad faith, particularly not if protecting the sarlacc didn't figure into his decision. And right now, it's hard to tell.

I'm sorry, but as stated - DM emailed the player shortly before the session with the sarlacc to reverse his ruling. Then after the session, he reversed it right back. If you don't think that's enough evidence of bad faith, I'm not sure where to go with that (Is the DM supposed to do an evil laugh in the players face)!

The point is - this is a RL example of a DM making arbitrary rulings that add to the lack of fun of the game - this is bad DMing and bad practice!

 

[Mort]

double post!

 

[Arial Black]

DM: "Oh ok, you only take 200 hp of damage from your 20,000 foot fall over the Cliffs of Doom. Then just as you look up from your prone position, the last thing you see is a thousand tons of rock from the cliff face fall on you. You are pinned until you can make a DC 200 Strength check. Oh, and remember our house rule, you can not make a new character until your existing character actually dies. See you next week."

Ha! No, you won't see me next week.

Here you are bragging about abusing your position as DM to punish a player for following the rules of the game.

 

[Mort]

You don't see anything unfair or inconsistent about it????

You are saying that if the 200hp PC pushes the 13hp orc off the 200 foot cliff, and then deliberately jumps after the orc while fully intending to survive the drop, that the PC auto-dies because the force of gravity got its feelings hurt???

Are you typing that with a straight face?

Keep in mind we've had posters in this thread state that when someone jumps off a cliff the gods judge their intent and if they find it "for the wrong reasons" they ensure the jumper plummets to their death!

Which in a fantasy setting sure could be a thing - but wow.