Search results

Do you think that if it wasn't for the existence of the hex spell that the party would stop hunting for food? Our parties have been hunting breakfast since before AD&D needed to be referred to as 'first edition'.

What part is outside the rules? We hunt in order to make our rations go further. Rabbits, mainly. Whether we catch one depends on the Survival skill check. We don't play it out in greater detail, any more than we roll initiative before shaving or define 'toilet order' like we do 'marching order'.

Some spiders are big enough that they do have 1 or more hit points. Such creatures are 'tiny' in game terms, about the size of a cat. Carry a box of them just like you would (or wouldn't) carry a bag of rats or a cage of chickens. There are many much smaller spiders that don't have game stats...

At least it is a serious attempt at a coherent definition, in pleasant contrast to "however I feel at the time". Shame about alarm being less effective under that ruling. Also, how is it that these 1hp creatures do not 'count' as creatures when targeting spells and other offensive abilities...

Non laws of the universe? So gravity, light, mass, everything, is entirely random? No human could have evolved or survive such an environment.

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

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...

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...

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

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...

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...

When the DM claims, against reason, that a chicken is not a creature in order to prevent a spell being cast on a valid target.....who is being the rules lawyer? If the DM gives the force of gravity feelings that the PC hurt in order to arbitrarily kill the PC, who is being the rules lawyer...

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...

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 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...

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!'

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?

All too often the DM thinks the player is being a jerk AND the player thinks the DM is being a jerk, both at the same time.

Let's say that there are some occasions where the DM sets the rules to one side and rules by fiat that the PC dies. "Rocks fall, everyone dies" is a famous example of a DM acting UN-fairly. If the DM is ruling by fiat and deliberately ignoring already existing rules, this is an occasion where...

First of all, none of that refutes what I said. You really are having the laws of the universe change how they work based on what they want. All you are doing is saying that you don't care if the player doesn't like it, you feel you are justified. The thing is, sticking your head into a...