D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[FlyingChihuahua]

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

No, because that's dumb and actively adversarial DMing, which I hate.

However, just jump off the cliff just because of [reasons] and you will be punished for you dumb actions, much like you would in real life.

 

[jaelis]

No, because that's dumb and actively adversarial DMing, which I hate.

However, just jump off the cliff just because of [reasons] and you will be punished for you dumb actions, much like you would in real life.

Great because this gets at the fundamental problem I have had: I would say that there are plenty of valid reasons a character might jump off a cliff and they shouldn't trigger punishment. You seem to agree, I'm glad.

The only further step I'd argue for is that you ought to ask the player what their reasons are before deciding to exact punishment in any particular case. If you agree, then great, we're on the same page.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Pretty sure literally no one has said that the DM should auto-kill the player without warning them and giving them a chance to change their action. That's simply "gotcha" DMing (which is bad).

 

[Arial Black]

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.

Page 4 of the 5e Monster Manual, under the title 'What Is a Monster', it says:-

"A monster is defined as any creature (emphasis added) that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilised folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters."

Therefore, all monsters are creatures, but not all creatures are monsters (in the same way that all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles).

So what is the difference between creatures that are monsters, and creatures that are not monsters?

Well, since 'creatures that are monsters' are 'creatures that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed', then 'creatures that are not monsters' are 'creatures that cannot be interacted with or fought and potentially killed'.

Since 'creature' is not directly defined, and since 5e proudly uses 'natural language', then without a game definition we must assume that 'creature' has its natural language meaning:-

Dictionary.com: "noun
1 an animal, especially a nonhuman
2 anything created, whether animate or inanmate
3 person, human being
4 an animate being"

I'm confident that a chicken can be interacted with, and potentially fought and killed. I'm confident that a chicken satisfies one or more of the dictionary definitions of the word 'creature'.

The hex spell, like most spells, targets a 'creature'. The player, knowing that by the rules in the MM, by the dictionary definition, and by natural language, knows that a chicken is a creature.

The DM says otherwise. Not because he believes it, or that he can point to a rule which shows otherwise, or could point to a dictionary which shows that chickens cannot be described as a creature, but because the DM doesn't like how the player is using a spell.

Is the player being unreasonable about what 'creature' means, or is it the DM who's being unreasonable.

Note that if the DM insists that chickens are not creatures, then he needs to define what definition of the word 'creature' he is using for 5e. Then, that definition remains the same no matter the intentions or actions of any player or PC.

Oh, chickens aren't creatures? Okay, chickens are immune to fireball. "Each creature in a 20-foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

Shapechange: "You assume the form of a different creature for the duration". If chickens aren't creatures, then you can;t shapechange into one.

Power Word: Kill: "You utter a word of power that compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly". Chickens are immune to PWK.

Why don't chickens rule the multiverse?

Anyway, I hex a puppy. Why? I'm conducting an in game experiment about which creatures are creatures and which aren't.

If the DM says that chickens aren't creatures therefore cannot be hexed, then EITHER he is screwing me over, actually lying to me, OR he has such an esoteric definition of 'creature' that it would change his gameworld into a total farce, with PCs charging into combat in their chicken-suit armour, with fireballs and PWKs bouncing off.

I though the motive for 'ruling' that chickens are not 'creatures' was to avoid absurdity?

 

[Oofta]

Great because this gets at the fundamental problem I have had: I would say that there are plenty of valid reasons a character might jump off a cliff and they shouldn't trigger punishment. You seem to agree, I'm glad.

The only further step I'd argue for is that you ought to ask the player what their reasons are before deciding to exact punishment in any particular case. If you agree, then great, we're on the same page.

Well the last time my PC jumped off a cliff he asked the wizard if they had feather fall ready to cast. When the wizard said yes, the PC grabbed the wizard and jumped off. I should probably mention that my PC didn't trust magic users.

But why phrase this in terms of "punishing"? If the DM doesn't think it's realistic to fall more than 200 feet onto solid rock and survive, that's the DMs call. As long as the DM lets the player know before their PC jumps I don't see an issue.

 

[Mort]

...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.

And my point is - why are you changing the rules of the game world because you think the player "jumped for the wrong reasons" when there are better solutions available?

Namely, what you're describing (a player abusing the system just because they can) is an out of game problem and should be met with an out of game solution (DM having a chat with the player usually) not an in game changing of the rules (note if you changed the rules beforehand then the player isn't abusing the rules, he's breaking them - and that's a different discussion).

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Page 4 of the 5e Monster Manual, under the title 'What Is a Monster', it says:-

"A monster is defined as any creature (emphasis added) that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilised folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters."

Therefore, all monsters are creatures, but not all creatures are monsters (in the same way that all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles).

So what is the difference between creatures that are monsters, and creatures that are not monsters?

Well, since 'creatures that are monsters' are 'creatures that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed', then 'creatures that are not monsters' are 'creatures that cannot be interacted with or fought and potentially killed'.

Since 'creature' is not directly defined, and since 5e proudly uses 'natural language', then without a game definition we must assume that 'creature' has its natural language meaning:-

Dictionary.com: "noun
1 an animal, especially a nonhuman
2 anything created, whether animate or inanmate
3 person, human being
4 an animate being"

I'm confident that a chicken can be interacted with, and potentially fought and killed. I'm confident that a chicken satisfies one or more of the dictionary definitions of the word 'creature'.

The hex spell, like most spells, targets a 'creature'. The player, knowing that by the rules in the MM, by the dictionary definition, and by natural language, knows that a chicken is a creature.

The DM says otherwise. Not because he believes it, or that he can point to a rule which shows otherwise, or could point to a dictionary which shows that chickens cannot be described as a creature, but because the DM doesn't like how the player is using a spell.

Is the player being unreasonable about what 'creature' means, or is it the DM who's being unreasonable.

Note that if the DM insists that chickens are not creatures, then he needs to define what definition of the word 'creature' he is using for 5e. Then, that definition remains the same no matter the intentions or actions of any player or PC.

Oh, chickens aren't creatures? Okay, chickens are immune to fireball. "Each creature in a 20-foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

Shapechange: "You assume the form of a different creature for the duration". If chickens aren't creatures, then you can;t shapechange into one.

Power Word: Kill: "You utter a word of power that compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly". Chickens are immune to PWK.

Why don't chickens rule the multiverse?

Anyway, I hex a puppy. Why? I'm conducting an in game experiment about which creatures are creatures and which aren't.

If the DM says that chickens aren't creatures therefore cannot be hexed, then EITHER he is screwing me over, actually lying to me, OR he has such an esoteric definition of 'creature' that it would change his gameworld into a total farce, with PCs charging into combat in their chicken-suit armour, with fireballs and PWKs bouncing off.

I though the motive for 'ruling' that chickens are not 'creatures' was to avoid absurdity?

Okay, now you are going full lawyer.

 

[jaelis]

But why phrase this in terms of "punishing"? If the DM doesn't think it's realistic to fall more than 200 feet onto solid rock and survive, that's the DMs call. As long as the DM lets the player know before their PC jumps I don't see an issue.

That's how @FlyingChihuahua phrased it, I was just sticking with their language.

I would have a little trouble if I push a monster off the cliff and it takes 20d6 damage, then I say I want to jump down after it and the DM warns me that I'll die if I do. Not as much as if they didn't warn me, certainly, but still it would be frustrating.

 

[Oofta]

Page 4 of the 5e Monster Manual, under the title 'What Is a Monster', it says:-

"A monster is defined as any creature (emphasis added) that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilised folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters."

Therefore, all monsters are creatures, but not all creatures are monsters (in the same way that all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles).

So what is the difference between creatures that are monsters, and creatures that are not monsters?

Well, since 'creatures that are monsters' are 'creatures that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed', then 'creatures that are not monsters' are 'creatures that cannot be interacted with or fought and potentially killed'.

Since 'creature' is not directly defined, and since 5e proudly uses 'natural language', then without a game definition we must assume that 'creature' has its natural language meaning:-

Dictionary.com: "noun
1 an animal, especially a nonhuman
2 anything created, whether animate or inanmate
3 person, human being
4 an animate being"

I'm confident that a chicken can be interacted with, and potentially fought and killed. I'm confident that a chicken satisfies one or more of the dictionary definitions of the word 'creature'.

The hex spell, like most spells, targets a 'creature'. The player, knowing that by the rules in the MM, by the dictionary definition, and by natural language, knows that a chicken is a creature.

The DM says otherwise. Not because he believes it, or that he can point to a rule which shows otherwise, or could point to a dictionary which shows that chickens cannot be described as a creature, but because the DM doesn't like how the player is using a spell.

Is the player being unreasonable about what 'creature' means, or is it the DM who's being unreasonable.

Note that if the DM insists that chickens are not creatures, then he needs to define what definition of the word 'creature' he is using for 5e. Then, that definition remains the same no matter the intentions or actions of any player or PC.

Oh, chickens aren't creatures? Okay, chickens are immune to fireball. "Each creature in a 20-foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

Shapechange: "You assume the form of a different creature for the duration". If chickens aren't creatures, then you can;t shapechange into one.

Power Word: Kill: "You utter a word of power that compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly". Chickens are immune to PWK.

Why don't chickens rule the multiverse?

Anyway, I hex a puppy. Why? I'm conducting an in game experiment about which creatures are creatures and which aren't.

If the DM says that chickens aren't creatures therefore cannot be hexed, then EITHER he is screwing me over, actually lying to me, OR he has such an esoteric definition of 'creature' that it would change his gameworld into a total farce, with PCs charging into combat in their chicken-suit armour, with fireballs and PWKs bouncing off.

I though the motive for 'ruling' that chickens are not 'creatures' was to avoid absurdity?

So what you're saying is that even if a DM said that you cannot use a chicken for hex you would then look up every rule that you can and argue about it? Never accept their ruling?

 

[jaelis]

Page 4 of the 5e Monster Manual, under the title 'What Is a Monster', it says:-

"A monster is defined as any creature (emphasis added) that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilised folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters."

So how exactly would you adjudicate a sleep spell in a forest full of spiders?