D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[FlyingChihuahua]

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.

I, personally, can't wait for a tale from you about getting one over on the DM and you completely miss the hypocrisy.

Unless, of course, the DM is on a different team from you...?

 

[Oofta]

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?

If a DM rules that a chicken is not a legitimate target of a hex are they fair consistent and impartial? Even if you disagree with the ruling?

Because that's what it all seems to come back to. A DM who rules that a chicken is not a creature for purposes of spells or other abilities is being 100% consistent. You disagree so you accuse them of being unfair, inconsistent and arbitrary.

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!'

Nah, that was me. I misread and apologized.

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?

No, it's a ruling. Maybe a house ruling overriding the rules because the DM decided that at a certain point you should not be able to survive a fall. As long as the DM is consistent, I don't don't see an issue. If the PC shoves a 200 HP monster off the cliff and jumps after it and the DM then rolls damage for the monster but says the PC automatically dies then they are being unfair. Both automatically die? It's a fair ruling whether or not you (or I) agree with it.

 

[Mort]

No, it's a ruling. Maybe a house ruling overriding the rules because the DM decided that at a certain point you should not be able to survive a fall. As long as the DM is consistent, I don't don't see an issue. If the PC shoves a 200 HP monster off the cliff and jumps after it and the DM then rolls damage for the monster but says the PC automatically dies then they are being unfair. Both automatically die? It's a fair ruling whether or not you (or I) agree with it.

Since the default falling rules are clear, It's only a fair ruling if the player knew the character was going to die. If the DM didn't advertise that fact until after the character jumped, it's anything but fair.

 

[jaelis]

If the PC shoves a 200 HP monster off the cliff and jumps after it and the DM then rolls damage for the monster but says the PC automatically dies then they are being unfair.

If I understand correctly, this is exactly how some people are saying they would rule.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

If I understand correctly, this is exactly how some people are saying they would rule.

You're more than likely wrong, but I doubt you're gonna change your mind.

 

[Oofta]

If I understand correctly, this is exactly how some people are saying they would rule.

I haven't seen that.

On a side note, I don't like the falling rules. Most people will reach terminal velocity at 1,500 feet, not 200.

But let's see ... 200 feet? Jump from a building over 10 stories tall? I dunno. If jumping on to rocks I honestly don't see surviving as being better than 1 in a million.

On the other hand, it's just an over-simplification. You should probably do 1d6 for the first N feet and then 1d8s and on up. So 1d6 for first 30, 1d8 for next 30, 1d10 next and so on.

Doesn't come up often enough for me to care.

 

[Mort]

I, personally, can't wait for a tale from you about getting one over on the DM and you completely miss the hypocrisy.

Unless, of course, the DM is on a different team from you...?

I'm not the poster this was directed to - but I really don't understand it.

If as a player OR DM your goal is to "get one over" on the "other side," your playing the wrong game! If as the DM you see players constantly trying to get one over on you and react accordingly - you either have horrible players or are overly paranoid as a DM.

The DM should never be in competition with the players.

If I wanted a competitive game I'd play (and do) Poker or Magic.

 

[jaelis]

You're more than likely wrong, but I doubt you're gonna change your mind.

Actually I would eagerly change my mind. Are you saying then that you personally would not rule that way?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Just like when you read 'Pal/War 14' as 'See, dipping 2 levels of warlock again!',

That wasn't me.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

I don't think that's what they are really getting at.

But without sidetracking this into yet another, "Hit Points: Where's the Beef?" debate, I think most (not all) people think that hit points are a D&D game convention to all the zero-to-hero feeling, and provide plot armor for the characters and creatures monsters in the game.

So you can argue or debate about the level of abstraction (or even go for the "it's meat, all the way down!" theory if you want, I guess?), but at the core, it simply bothers people that this game mechanism which is just there to be fun and allow for cool combats is being exploited; so, to the extent it represent "luck" or "the god's favor" or just "plot armor," then deliberately hurling yourself down a chasm because you can't be bothered to climb it .... is when the plot armor, aka hit points, runs out.