D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Oofta]

Ah snap, you know what the right way to do this is, to suppose the warlock has a bag of tricks that he uses every morning. If he gets a weenie animal like a bat or rat, he sacrifices it to activate his hex.

That gets around the chicken-hauling nonsense or the hunting breakfast dodge, and it makes nice use of an offbeat magic item.

I might allow that if I can make my a custom hat bag of tricks that may not always work as expected.

 

[Arial Black]

Ah, so some spiders are creatures but some aren't? I'm fine with that. And I'll raise you some chickens are creatures and some aren't.

Also, to my knowledge there's no lower limit on the size of a tiny creature. Sea horses are listed as tiny, and they are much smaller than a cat.

I'll just remind you what I already said: ALL spiders are 'creatures', but only the ones you can fight and possibly kill and that have stats (and hit points) counts as 'monsters'.

This is not me 'ruling' this. This is from the 5e Monster Manual.

 

[Helldritch]

I'll just remind you what I already said: ALL spiders are 'creatures', but only the ones you can fight and possibly kill and that have stats (and hit points) counts as 'monsters'.

This is not me 'ruling' this. This is from the 5e Monster Manual.

Specific beats general.
So suicide jumps is auto death. Specific beats general.
Hex can't be used on chicken or bag of rats or whatever looks like it. Specific beats general.
The spiders that do not attack you are not creatures. Otherwise they are. Specific beats general.

Anything else?

 

[Oofta]

I'll just remind you what I already said: ALL spiders are 'creatures', but only the ones you can fight and possibly kill and that have stats (and hit points) counts as 'monsters'.

This is not me 'ruling' this. This is from the 5e Monster Manual.

Really? Because my MM doesn't say that. There's an entry for spiders, it's up to the DM to decide if all spiders qualify as the MM version of the spider.

It's silent on what qualifies as a creature for purposes of spells. It's also not relevant because the DM can decide that your common house spider (or a chicken) does not qualify as a valid target.

But again, just because you can find some text in a book that kind-of-sort-of supports you position doesn't give you any authority to determine for a DM what their ruling is.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

You are way too emotionally attached to your stance on this. Hope you are having fun because you totally missed the intended humor in my post.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The original cleave bag of rats was indeed an obvious exploit; its hard to imagine anyone seeing it otherwise.

True, but it was also technically completely within the rules of the game, based on already established rules for creatures and the feats that the character had chosen.
A DM ruling that the bag of rats trick wouldn't work "would be changing the way the world works", "applying different rules based on the motives of the character" and similar criticisms that we have seen already levelled against such a hypothetical DM in this thread.

I think that the majority of people in the thread would agree that this hypothetical situation is an exploit, and that it is part of the duties of the DM to rein in that sort of thing before it disrupts the game too much.
So they have to make a ruling that changes existing rules mid-campaign, and which applies based upon the motives of the player.

Where each DM draws that line between "legitimate application of the rules" and "immersion-shattering exploit" is going to vary.

When a character throws themselves off a cliff, DMs are going to make a judgement call. Some DMs are going to check if the character does anything to mitigate the fall, like trying to catch themselves or aiming for a soft-looking rock. If they don't, the DM might rule that HP damage is not the best reflection of that situation. The concept that HP can represent luck, divine favour, and survival instincts has long been part of D&D, making this a perfectly legitimate ruling by the DM.

Other DMs might just apply the standard falling rules irrespective of the intentions of the character and simply apply the standard number of d6 in HP damage, possibly modified by the surface that they are falling onto. - This is also a perfectly legitimate ruling by the DM.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree you've been clear that you'd warn a player about any consequences, noted and appreciated.

But what is your ruling in the situation that's been suggested: you push a 200-hp enemy off the cliff, and then jump down after to finish it off. Both parties take 20d6? Enemy takes 20d6 and you get a suicide warning? The enemy automatically dies?

Based on the details provided, both would take the damage. The character is jumping off the cliff to chase an enemy. It's not necessarily a smart move, but it isn't necessarily suicidal (from a heroic standpoint).

Generally, the way we handle this in my group is that we have the character jump on the monster. Not only does this deal additional damage to the monster, but it also justifies how the character's fall is broken. It's obviously not realistic, but it gives just enough of an excuse to maintain verisimilitude.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Let me get this straight. You think that a character (without super toughness) should be able to dive 200 feet head first onto rocks and survive? That doesn't strike you as remotely implausible? Or outright impossible?

The DM is allowed to override the rules and create new rules. That's literally in the rules! There is nothing wrong with a DM overriding the rules or making rulings for situations that the rules don't cover. (Obviously, the DM can abuse that authority, but I don't agree that's the case here.)

It is my belief that the rules don't cover suicidal actions. Saying that the HP rules don't apply to suicidal actions isn't unfair or arbitrary. By your reasoning a DM who states you will break your hands before punching through a 10 foot thick stone wall is being unfair and arbitrary, as is the DM exercising their authority to make rulings in any capacity. Frankly, I think that stance isn't logical, since that authority is granted by the rules themselves.

Yup, sometimes a DM has to make a ruling based on metagame factors. Is this player trying to abuse the rules or simply do something cool? That's definitely something I factor into my rulings. I disagree that it is arbitrary. It is taking into account the fun. Abuses wreck the fun by throwing the game out of whack. Cool things enhance the fun. A good DM looks out for the good of the game rather than allowing one player to selfishly derail everyone else's fun. YMMV

 

[Arial Black]

Specific beats general.
So suicide jumps is auto death. Specific beats general.
Hex can't be used on chicken or bag of rats or whatever looks like it. Specific beats general.
The spiders that do not attack you are not creatures. Otherwise they are. Specific beats general.

Anything else?

None of that makes sense in the context of this thread.

No-one is trying to kill themselves. Asking the player who is about to jump "Are you trying to kill yourself?", they answer "No, I'm trying to take as little damage on the way down as possible", and you responding "Okay, you obviously are trying to kill yourself, so..." is a jerk move.

There IS a specific; hex works like it says it works. There is NO specific that says it doesn't work on chickens or rats.

According to the rules, the spiders that DO attack you ARE monsters, and all monsters ARE creatures. The ones that don't attack you (such that they don't even get a stat block) ARE creatures but are NOT monsters.

These are the specifics.

 

[Arial Black]

Really? Because my MM doesn't say that. There's an entry for spiders, it's up to the DM to decide if all spiders qualify as the MM version of the spider.

Completely agree that the DM decides if any spiders present are the ones in the MM (if they are then they are, by the rules, both monsters AND creatures).

The ones that don't pose a threat and therefore don't get stats are not monsters, but the natural language of the word 'creature' applies to those spiders.

The 5e ruleset doesn't feel the need to explain what the word 'creature' means because it assumes that the readers a.) understand the English language and b.) are being honest. Pulling some tortured version of a definition out of your ass just to screw players is being a jerk; certainly not being impartial or fair or consistent.

But again, just because you can find some text in a book that kind-of-sort-of supports you position doesn't give you any authority to determine for a DM what their ruling is.

Sure, I have no power to prevent DMs being jerks. That doesn't stop jerkish behaviour being jerkish behaviour.