Search results

Exactly!

What about it wouldn't work? Yes, changing the spell description.....changes the spell. In this case, although hex could be cast on a CR0 creature, it could not be moved from a CR0 creature. Yes, this is a change, but if the spell had always had this description, no-one would have batted an...

Brilliant! Whether I personally like this rewrite or not, it provides a coherent spell description that can be followed without the user having to phone the author of the spell to determine how it works that day, and that would work without regard to anyone liking how it is being used. Was...

So expecting the DM to rule fairly and consistently is 'a weird hill to die on'? Why would I want to play with a DM who rules unfairly and inconsistently?

Really? If 'a creature you can see within range' is 'hyper-technical', if a chicken being a 'creature' is 'hyper-technical', then so is every single spell that requires a target!

False equivalence. The commoner railgun does not merely 'follow the rules'. The commoner railgun fails because 'following the rules' results in the last commoner in the line receiving the object. Any thoughts on the object's imagined velocity are NOT 'rules', therefore the DM just has to follow...

You are a problem DM who abuses his power and denies his responsibilities. Goodbye.

Not following their own rule is still cheating. DMs are players, as mentioned on page 5 of the PHB.

You won't need to boot me from the game. As soon as you went 'Schrodingers chicken" I would walk to a table run by an adult.

What prevents it working on chickens? "Because I don't like it" isn't a coherent rule. What is it about obeying the spell description that you find 'jerkish'? I find DMs who rule inconsistently and unfairly 'jerks'. If you want to change the spell description in a way that can be followed even...

You need to define 'bag of rats'. Whatever you define as such must be independent of your whim that day. By itself your wording is incomprehensible, because we both know that your ruling applies to more than just a bag holding more than one actual rat. So if it isn't meant literally, it's...

If you have already ruled that chickens ARE creatures, then you are breaking your own rule if you say that it stops being a creature every time I try to target it. Breaking your own rule is still cheating.

I'm free to ask? Great! Are chickens 'creatures'? Targeting creatures is not an 'absurdist parody', even if the creature is a chicken. Especially in a game where an animated broom is a 'creature'.

'Nah'? 'NAH'? So your position is that DM's don't have a responsibility to be fair and consistent? Who would want to play with a cheat? Page 5 of the 5e PHB, in the introduction, it says that "One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master". The DM is also playing D&D. Part of...

The 'spirit of the game' includes interpreting the rules fairly and consistently. If the DM doesn't do that then they are by definition a bad DM. Answer the question: is a chicken a 'creature'. Without knowing what you choose, whatever you choose is your ruling throughout the game! It doesn't...

This is the problem right here. There is no objective test for 'shenanigans'. The laws of physics/magic work consistently, no matter how thinking agents are using them. Fire burns. It doesn't stop burning just because a thinking agent is taking advantage of that fact in order to cook chickens...

Okay, so you are creating a new rule. Fine. Write the rule down so that it can be understood and followed by anyone who reads it even if you are not there! After all, does any spell have a description that says something like, "It works like JC thinks it works". It has to work without needing...

Right. If the DM thinks that hex is poorly written, they can rewrite the spell description. Hex would then work according to that revised description. What would be your revised wording? Remember that following the rules is not a 'shenanigan'.

The DM has all the powers you describe. What bad DMs do is remember this power and disregard their responsibilities. The DM is the arbiter of the rules. It is the duty of the DM to interpret the rules fairly! That means that if the DM rules that chickens are creatures, then they are valid...

This is what we call....cheating. A chicken either is or is not a creature. It is, by the way, but whether it is or isn't then it always is or isn't. It cannot be that a chicken is a creature unless you cast a spell on it that the DM doesn't want, whereupon it ceases to be a creature for the...