Search results

So you and I, at least, agree that: (1) It is not problematic for a DM to prohibit hexing chickens (2) A player who won't accept a DM's ruling about hexing chickens is problematic We don't really need to argue about either of those points. But you seem to make an unjustified leap that (3) Any...

Maybe I am being unreasonably charitable; obviously I can't say what AB was thinking. But in response to you said How should I interpret that as other than, "it is fine to punish players for attempting something the DM doesn't like"? I hope that I, at least, was very clear that you have every...

While I think that Arial is off base here about how creatures can be defined, he's still just arguing that you should be consistent. He acknowledges that you are free to rule that chickens are not creatures, and therefore free to rule that you can't hex a chicken. So again: not a claim that you...

Indeed, and no one is accusing a DM for being bad if they say you can't hex a chicken. The accusation is that a DM is being bad if they accuse the player of being a munchkin for trying to hex a chicken. Or for ruling a character dies when they jump off a cliff when they had been using normal...

Well I guess that is why much of this thread has been at cross purposes, because it seems to me that the argument has been "if the DM punishes players for attempting something the DM doesn't like, then they are a bad DM."

I don't believe anyone has made that claim. What was said (by @Arial Black) is You could argue that calling it abuse of power is more accurate than cheating, but in no way is it claiming that the problem is letting the player interpret the letter of the rules.

Well if that is your position that's your position. I hope that you play with old friends who all understand each other well and have lots of fun together.

A necromancer wizard has the Undead Thralls ability, which adds the wizard's proficiency bonus to their undead's damage rolls.

But who is claiming that the players are arbiters of the rules? At best I've seen the claim that the DM should arbitrate their own rules consistently. But mostly the argument is that DMs should not punish players for assuming that they will enforce their own rules consistently.

Well I don't interpret anyone in the thread as saying that, so you might be projecting your own concerns or experience. Can you see the assumption that you are making here? Yes, you might just have an a-hole player. And if you do, stop playing with them, kill their character or not. But nothing...

I don't think players should be jerks either. But if a player is being a jerk I strongly think the right thing to do is talk to the player, not to introduce some random in-game punishment to the character. Because I can't believe that would ever help the situation. If Bob the Barbarian wants to...

Hmm, I don't know if it helps, but if the player of a level 20 barbarian told me his character wanted to kill himself by jumping off a cliff, I would probably just say, ok you die. Seems pretty dark and I'm not sure how that would ever come up, but I'm willing to give characters agency to commit...

See, I really don't mind if you want to play that falling off a cliff kills you. But it is aggravating that you keep saying I'm looney or a munchkin or a troll for imagining that there are situations where I would want to jump off a cliff.

Arial's way of thinking makes the most sense to me, but I too am happy to play by whatever table rules the DM likes. But I'm put off by the idea of attaching some kind of moral significance to your table rules and claiming that people who play differently are bad, which some folks here seem to...

Trolls do it for the lulz.

Yes, and as a bonus action it made the subclass. (Though as very much a one trick pony.) My own fix is to reduce all the ki costs by 1, so that you can actually use the abilities without feeling so much like you are impacting your primary role. But it's not a fantastic fix, lots of people have...

But kensei gets a good ranged option without giving up any melee capability. And don't underestimate using Step of the Wind with sun soul to get into range. But sure, 5E can cast hold person. At 6th-level, and they sacrifice half their potential stunning blows to do it. And if you picked that...

Yes, of the PHB subclasses, the 4E monk is the only one with ranged capability. However, their ranged capability is still quite weak compared to that of other classes, like an archer fighter or an actual spell caster. So I think its a situation where the subclass gives up some effectiveness in...

So what if you are pushed off a cliff?

So would you say that the falling rules should be more lethal overall?