D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[FlyingChihuahua]

I don't have any stories about 'getting one over on the DM'. If I don't believe something would work, I don't even try to do it.

If I think something is stupid, I don't have my PC do it. None of my warlocks have ever carried around creatures to hex, because I can't imagine going adventuring with bags of rodents or cages of domesticated fowl. I rarely even give my PCs adventuring packs or tents if I think they start the game living their normal life when they are overtaken by the events that start the adventure, because I think it would be stupid to carry around camping gear when you're not going camping!

so why do you care about this subject so much if you are basically never going to use it.

 

[Oofta]

If the DM responded by changing the laws of the universe to 'punish' me, which of us is the problem here?

I would say the guy that gets upset that the DM makes a ruling that they disagree with is the problem.

There are no "laws of the universe" to change. There are rules in the book. There's a DM. The DM decides how the rules from the book are implemented.

I've had DMs make rulings I disagree with. I quit a game because I got fed up with it and the DM wouldn't change after I calmly explained what my issue was and why. But claiming they're changing the nonexistent laws of the universe? Nah.

 

[Arial Black]

That wasn't me.

My apologies. Mistaken identity.

....Unless I rule that you and Oofta are both aspects of the same gestalt entity, and that if you point out that this ruling is against reason then you are self-evidently a problem gestalt entity who is trying to game the forum rules for your own advantage(s)....!

....Where...where was I? Blacked out for a moment there....!

 

[Arial Black]

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?

As I posted more than once, I would expect the DM to give us his definition of 'creature'...and stick to it.

 

[jaelis]

As I posted more than once, I would expect the DM to give us his definition of 'creature'...and stick to it.

"At our table, CR0 creatures with a max hp of 1 do not count as 'creatures' when targeting spells and other offensive abilities."

 

[Arial Black]

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

The spell works as written. Only creatures with 1 or more hit points reduce the sleep pool, and normal bugs and creepy-crawlies don't have at least 1 hit point.

If any cats or pigeons (or even spiders with 1+ hit points) are in the area, their hit point total would reduce the sleep pool as written.

What I would not do as DM is to spontaneously conjure 40 previously unmentioned 1 hit point creatures just to screw over the player!

Anything unfair or inconsistent with my ruling?

 

[jaelis]

The spell works as written. Only creatures with 1 or more hit points reduce the sleep pool, and normal bugs and creepy-crawlies don't have at least 1 hit point.

If any cats or pigeons (or even spiders with 1+ hit points) are in the area, their hit point total would reduce the sleep pool as written.

What I would not do as DM is to spontaneously conjure 40 previously unmentioned 1 hit point creatures just to screw over the player!

Anything unfair or inconsistent with my ruling?

Well spiders do have 1 hp, they are in the monster manual. So if you've established that there are spiders in the area, you would indeed have them stymie the sleep spell? And I can carry a box of spiders around to protect myself?

 

[jaelis]

I should answer your question: yes it is fair and consistent. I also think it is a bad ruling.

 

[Arial Black]

I've explained it to you multiple times now.

Please explain to me what about it is unfair.

A warning is given and the player is allowed to change their action. That seems quite fair.

Please explain to me what about it is inconsistent.

This applies equally to everyone, including NPCs. Engaging in a suicidal action will kill you. The rules of combat weren't meant to apply to suicidal actions. I see nothing inconsistent about that.

I never said anything about gravity getting its feelings hurt, so kindly do not misconstrue my statements.

I said that HP are made up of several factors. One is the character's survival response (dodging out of the way, etc). Another is supernatural factors such as luck and divine favor. However, as I see it acts of extreme hubris subvert this defense. If you try to kill yourself, the gods aren't going to be moved to intervene. Lastly is toughness, but this is not supernatural and cannot carry you through deadly trauma on its own. HP don't typically represent a force field or ablative dermal reinforcement.

If you try to kill yourself your survival response won't save you (you're performing a suicidal action). The gods/luck won't save you from yourself either. And unless you have some special ability that says otherwise, you're not tough enough to shrug off a 200 foot fall onto rocks, regardless of level.

I am absolutely serious. I have explained my position. I have yet to see much more from you than an implication that you don't like it and mischaracterizations of what I've said.

But I am not suicidal! I am fully intending to survive this jump, just like I would if someone pushed me.

Meanwhile, you insist you are being fair and consistent while pulling rules out of your backside re: Schrodinger's hit points! The gods themselves are offended by my incorrectly-perceived motive, and my hit points stop working!

What page is the 'Gods vary your hit points' rule? What about the 'What mood is gravity in today?' table.

You're being arbitrary as soon as you make that rule up, because it is only possible to apply such a rule by judging, correctly or not, the motives of the player; metagaming.

 

[Arial Black]

so why do you care about this subject so much if you are basically never going to use it.

As I said, more than once, I have and would hex the creature we just caught and are about to cook and eat.