D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Oofta]

Ask a simple question, get threatened with exile? Sounds fun.

Seriously, why are almost all of you anti-bag-o-ratters so insistent on making the matter about squashing the player rather than promoting fun play?



Emphasis mine. Y'all see this? Ya see how the player gets the chance to accept the DM's judgement and get back to having fun, rather than the DM tacking a "And screw you for trying" on the end regardless of how gracefully the player accepted the DM's call? That's called being a competent DM. I'm not even saying you have to accept the "exploit." Saying concentration through things like short rests is difficult would be perfectly fair, as the rules don't define how that works and the flavor fits the mechanics you want to implement. Just be civil, and try to be fair; if you can't do that, that's on you, regardless of how much you disagree with your player's style of play.



All they want is rules unambiguous enough that I don't need to ask the DM a checklist of question on how they are feeling that day to determine if using a spell is a good idea or not. If the rules took a lot of effort to define I would probably put the blame on the player for having unreasonable expectations, BUT IT'S CLEAR YOU LOT CAN'T OFFER TWO SECONDS OF EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION WITHOUT INSULTS. Here, I'll take a stab at it...

"If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends and the target is above CR 0, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature."

TADA! Spell fixed! The DM is happy because they can make CR's such that the "exploit" doesn't work. The player is happy because the rules are consistent and they can make educated guesses at what creatures qualify.

Rule #1: The DM makes the final call on rules.

Just like it says in the DMG

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.​

I don't have to justify my decision to internet rando-person, if a player questions my ruling we'll discuss it. If we can't come to an agreement (this has never, ever happened in decades of DMing) see rule #1.

No yelling in all caps needed, just acceptance that at the end of the day whether I'm DMing or playing the DM is always right.

 

[Phazonfish]

Rule #1: The DM makes the final call on rules.

Just like it says in the DMG

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.​

I don't have to justify my decision to internet rando-person, if a player questions my ruling we'll discuss it. If we can't come to an agreement (this has never, ever happened in decades of DMing) see rule #1.

No yelling in all caps needed, just acceptance that at the end of the day whether I'm DMing or playing the DM is always right.

I think there is some confusion here, as nothing you are saying contradicts what I post. In fact, I was holding up your quote as an example of how a dungeon master SHOULD act. My apologies, as it appears I did a poor job of making it clear that I wasn't replying to you, just using your words.

 

[Jester David]

If I can have a song that was on the radio when I woke up stuck in my head all day no matter how hard I try to get rid of it I’ll accept someone maintaining their focus on a minor spell.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Seriously, why are almost all of you anti-bag-o-ratters so insistent on making the matter about squashing the player rather than promoting fun play?

Because it's not about the Bag o' Rats, is it?

At my table, I would listen to any player suggestion. I encourage players to present ideas, to come up with creative homebrew that we can incorporate, and to collaborate in the game. That is how we work.

And the reason that works is because there is a level of trust. They trust that I am trying to run the game, to the best of my ability, to ensure that everyone has a fun, good, and fair experience within the general framwork of what we collectively agreed would be "our fun" for this campaign. And I trust that they are trying to increase the overall fun of the game, and not looking for cheesy rules exploits.

What makes all of this work is that we don't get bogged down in terrible and stupid arguments over the rules. Because none of us (myself or the players) would tolerate that. So, to put this more simply-

No one at my table, players or DM, would tolerate a "Bag o Rats" player, because that's not us. We've met those types of players, and they are completely disruptive to the games we enjoy, and they end up making the game less enjoyable.

So we don't need it. That doesn't mean that they are bad people, or that they can't find a "Bag o Rat" table. Just not the ones I am involved with.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Here, I'll take a stab at it...

"If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends and the target is above CR 0, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature."

TADA! Spell fixed! The DM is happy because they can make CR's such that the "exploit" doesn't work. The player is happy because the rules are consistent and they can make educated guesses at what creatures qualify.

It's not a bad attempt, but under your rule if the group is attacked by crawling claws (CR 0) the warlock can't hex them, and that seems wrong to me.

I wouldn't kick out a player who tried to game the system this way, but i would have an honest discussion with them about it. This type of trying to one up the DM by twisting the rules isn't good for the game. And frankly, if the player isn't trying to get one over and is acting in good faith, they know they can talk to me. In this case I'd probably just allow the PC to cast Hex without a target, with a caveat that if it becomes a problem we would revisit the issue. Although I doubt it would be a problem.

It's not about hexing the chicken per se. It's that a player trying to game the system is not good for the game. It might work in a CRPG (although IMO you're liable to ruin your own fun in the long run), but not in table top. The DM can change and create rules. The only way to "beat" a DM using rules lawyering is if the DM chooses to be a gentleman/ gentlewoman and not stomp on the player. It a losing proposition and a foolish one at that IMO, because I've only ever seen it result in everyone's fun being ruined.

 

[Oofta]

I think there is some confusion here, as nothing you are saying contradicts what I post. In fact, I was holding up your quote as an example of how a dungeon master SHOULD act.

The thing is I don't have to change the wording of anything. I just say "I don't allow a bag of rats exploit in my games." I don't need to rewrite the rule, I don't need to have a book of house rule errata.

Same way I don't have every squirrel, bird and bug fall asleep in the 20 ft radius of a sleep spell before it affects the goblins the wizard was targeting. I mean, go out with a blacklight some night in a forest. There are a lot of creepy crawlies around, all with the minimum number of HP of 1.

 

[Arial Black]

All they want is rules unambiguous enough that I don't need to ask the DM a checklist of question on how they are feeling that day to determine if using a spell is a good idea or not.

Here, I'll take a stab at it...

"If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends and the target is above CR 0, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature."

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 that so difficult? This is good DMing, fair and consistent and clear. All you bad DMs who think the best response is to threaten players who do things that they cannot know beforehand what does or does not count as 'shenanigans' should hand in their DM credentials and hang their heads in shame.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Was that so difficult?

Yes, as already pointed out, the rule doesn't work for all cases.

No rule will.

And the problem, which is .... you, would remain. And pretty soon, you'll be peddling some other nonsense.

So us "bad DMs" will just have to shamefully not have terrible players at the table.

Real pity, that. I'm already sad thinking of all the pointless arguments I won't be having. And all the playing I will be doing instead.

 

[Phazonfish]

No one at my table, players or DM, would tolerate a "Bag o Rats" player, because that's not us. We've met those types of players, and they are completely disruptive to the games we enjoy, and they end up making the game less enjoyable.

So we don't need it. That doesn't mean that they are bad people, or that they can't find a "Bag o Rat" table. Just not the ones I am involved with.

Absolutely! In my opinion, you're doing it right!

It's not a bad attempt, but under your rule if the group is attacked by crawling claws (CR 0) the warlock can't hex them, and that seems wrong to me.

As someone who loves rules I would absolutely love to think about it a bit and come up with something that eliminates this corner case; something comprehensive would be nice, I just wanted to demonstrate how little work a patch that solves the core issue would take.

I wouldn't kick out a player who tried to game the system this way, but i would have an honest discussion with them about it. This type of trying to one up the DM by twisting the rules isn't good for the game. And frankly, if the player isn't trying to get one over and is acting in good faith, they know they can talk to me. In this case I'd probably just allow the PC to cast Hex without a target, with a caveat that if it becomes a problem we would revisit the issue. Although I doubt it would be a problem.

This. Thank you for acknowledging the players that might do this in good faith. I understand most of the people here advocating against bags of rats are probably doing so because they have had the type of player that is trying to one-up the DM. I acknowledge that kicking such players was almost certainly the correct decision. All I ask is that we try to avoid lumping the arguers and the pushing-the-rules-to-the-limit-but-also-respecting-DMs-above-rules players in together.

I don't have to justify my decision to internet rando-person,

The thing is I don't have to change the wording of anything. [...] I don't need to rewrite the rule, I don't need to have a book of house rule errata.

I don't recall ever asking you to do any of that. If you have a group that all catch your meaning well enough and you are all having fun, that's fine. In fact, that's better than fine, it's great. My words are directed at those implying that players that wouldn't fit in with such a group are necessarily bad and disrespectful. And even those making such implications aren't speaking entirely baselessly, I just think they are jumping the gun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the only issue is concentration then the chicken is not relevant.

I've ruled that you can't always hold concentration for a long time - I may start asking for concentration checks at a certain point. It's one thing to concentrate on something for a minute or two another to concentrate for an hour depending on the situation.

Do you find that full casters overshadow the other characters without houserules like that?