D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

There's really no need for house rules to deal with bag o' rats shenanigans. Just look sternly at the offending player and say something like "That's a bag o'rats exploit. Those aren't cool, don't do it".

 

[Arial Black]

I would simply rule that a chicken doesn't qualify as a creature here.

Here's a better example of the same idea: Necromancer wizard is in a fight that's not going well. The setting is a gothic castle with spider webs etc. The wizard casts circle of death on the bad guys, knowing they have too many hp left for it to kill them. But he makes sure plenty of the spider webs are in the area of effect and claims he can benefit from Grim Harvest for killing the spiders, thus healing 18 hp. I'd say no: the spiders don't count as creatures, at least not for this purpose.

If you feel that just the player being clever and you're happy to reward him for it, that's cool with me. But I don't feel any obligation to follow suit.

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 duration of the player trying to target it with this spell!

This is cheating!

As for the spider example, the same applies; spiders either are or are not creatures, independent of who is targeting them with what. Moreover, the whole premise of the Dark Sun world is that casters were killing plant and animal life to power their spells, which after a thousand years had left large swathes of the world lifeless. Your necromancer likely is okay with his decision, and if you aren't there are in-game responses that don't require you to cheat.

 

[Flamestrike]

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 duration of the player trying to target it with this spell!

This is cheating!

As for the spider example, the same applies; spiders either are or are not creatures, independent of who is targeting them with what. Moreover, the whole premise of the Dark Sun world is that casters were killing plant and animal life to power their spells, which after a thousand years had left large swathes of the world lifeless. Your necromancer likely is okay with his decision, and if you aren't there are in-game responses that don't require you to cheat.

DMs cant cheat. They're not playing the game; the players are.

DM's adjudicate, entertain, teach the game, work with the players to create a story and maximise fun, ensure game balance and a ton of other things. They're expressly allowed to ignore, invent or alter any rule at any time they feel like in the spirit of the game.

 

[Arial Black]

Yes.

All rules come with a "caveat." Or, as I put it, it's a game, with a referee.

And the game has a very basic rule, which is that the referee both has the final interpretation of all rules, and also can modify, add, or discard rules as necessary in order to make the game better for the participants.

This is stated succinctly in the 5e DMG as such:
"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them." "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

In fact, one of the three sections in the DMG is devoted solely to changing the rules. So in a certain sense, every rule has the caveat that it can be changed. That's the nature of D&D.

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 targets for hex. But if the DM rules that chickens are not creatures, then they are not creatures for any rule in the game. They would also need to provide a rule defining 'creature' in a way not before seen in the English language or in this game which even defines animated objects as 'creatures'.

'Schrodinger's chicken' is cheating. The DM's duty is to judge the game fairly. As Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility". DM's who forget that become "Hulk smash puny players", and I'm totally happy to lose such an abusive DM.

 

[Flamestrike]

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 targets for hex. But if the DM rules that chickens are not creatures, then they are not creatures for any rule in the game. They would also need to provide a rule defining 'creature' in a way not before seen in the English language or in this game which even defines animated objects as 'creatures'.

'Schrodinger's chicken' is cheating. The DM's duty is to judge the game fairly. As Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility". DM's who forget that become "Hulk smash puny players", and I'm totally happy to lose such an abusive DM.

Yeah, nah.

 

[Arial Black]

As a DM my job is to fix poorly written rules. If you suggest the bag of rats solution, I would say nay. Now back then when I was a problem dm, I would just use your tactic against you. AKA what is good tactics for the pc are excellence tactics for the monsters. Now days, I would say you are trying to be cheesy and not allow it.

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'.

 

[Arial Black]

There is most definitely room for silly in my games. If my player would Hex a chicken, the player would probably have to make a roll of some kind. I'd probably have to improvise, and go for an animal handling check to see if they can prevent the chicken from killing itself. Hex is a powerful curse for such a puny animal.

Or maybe I'd give the chicken some necrotic false life, and allow some tentacles to grow and attack.

Meanwhile in my actual games, the Warlock can just move the Hex to another enemy, and does not need a pet to "store" the hex.

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 to read the mind of JC, or the DM. It works how it says it works!

So what is this rule that defines when these new rolls re: being allowed to target on otherwise valid target? When do they apply? These parameters have to be usable even if you aren't there to tell them how you feel today.

 

[Arial Black]

There's really no need for house rules to deal with bag o' rats shenanigans. Just look sternly at the offending player and say something like "That's a bag o'rats exploit. Those aren't cool, don't do it".

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.

Change the rules all you want, but whatever rules you end up with must apply consistently, without relying on your whim.

If you alter how rules work based on your value judgement of how they are being used, then your are not playing a game, you are playing 'Mother May I...", with players who are following the rules still not knowing whether or not they work as written from moment to moment. Gravity somehow works better for players who bring the DM snacks, fire doesn't burn chickens for players who are shagging the DM's sister, whether or not a particular thing counts as a 'creature' changes from moment to moment depending on the DM's whim in a way that cannot be predicted.

What an awful, awful experience.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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 duration of the player trying to target it with this spell!

This is cheating!

As for the spider example, the same applies; spiders either are or are not creatures, independent of who is targeting them with what. Moreover, the whole premise of the Dark Sun world is that casters were killing plant and animal life to power their spells, which after a thousand years had left large swathes of the world lifeless. Your necromancer likely is okay with his decision, and if you aren't there are in-game responses that don't require you to cheat.

I disagree.

Making rulings is well within the purview of the DM's role and is not cheating. I don't need to rewrite a rule in ironclad language to run the game. The game is Dungeons and Dragons, not Lawyers and Legalities.

If you want to know if something will work the way you think it will in my game, by all means feel free to ask. I give any questions made in good faith fair consideration. However, I look dimly upon players who seek to twist the rules and the game into an absurdist parody for their own benefit (usually to the detriment of everyone else's experience).

 

[Arial Black]

DMs cant cheat. They're not playing the game; the players are.

DM's adjudicate, entertain, teach the game, work with the players to create a story and maximise fun, ensure game balance and a ton of other things. They're expressly allowed to ignore, invent or alter any rule at any time they feel like in the spirit of the game.

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 vary depending on whether or not you believe your players are using your ruling to their advantage.

If you rule inconsistently, you have failed as a DM.

You say that one of the things the DM does is to teach the game. I agree. A player asks, "Is a chicken a 'creature'?" Your answer could be 'yes' or 'no'. I cannot be, 'It depends on whether or not I like what you're doing'!