D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[jasper]

have you read my avatar Arial Black? You griped, argued, demand, whined, etc until you got a dm to knuckle under to your demands, whines, pleas. I had plenty of players like you since 1980. I got tired of them in 2000. Now my short hand is 'My ruling" Or "You cheesing the game no". And if you don't accept my ruling, you no longer welcome at my table. And considering how you have acted in the thread, you would no longer be welcome to taco Tuesday, Bad Movie Friday, or mail making Sunday. Because you are coming off as a toxic person. Aka bad player.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I don’t understand how sacrificing a chicken in order to cast Hex early in the day and concentrate on it all day could be concidered “shenanigans”.

 

[Oofta]

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

It's not a house rule. From the PHB: "The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you're on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell."

I've been DMing 5E since it was released and It's probably happened, I dunno, twice?

 

[Phazonfish]

I don’t understand how sacrificing a chicken in order to cast Hex early in the day and concentrate on it all day could be concidered “shenanigans”.

I think it's a pretty murky issue and could go either way. The pro-chicken side is playing entirely within the rules, creating a flavorful theme for themselves (can you imagine having to herd chickens as you adventure and travel?), and the benefit is rather small (when you have start a day with two 4th level slots and nothing else, I would excuse you for not wanting to have to make the choice between squandering one of them on a 1st level spell or else go without an effect that is central to your entire class). The anti-chicken side sees weirdly specific mechanical interactions being used to have more resources than normal and how concentration works over long spans of time is ill-defined.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

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 eyelid.

This solution (assuming that you think a 'solution' is required; I don't because I don't see a problem) works independently of the DM's mood; as it damn well should!

If your 'solution' to the non-existent problem of casting the spell exactly as written is "the laws of the universe might stop working, just because I don't like how you're taking advantage of them", then that is such a poor decision that you shouldn't have DMing responsibilities.

Player: I disintegrate the floor so that I and all the mooks fall 100 feet, but I cast feather fall on myself before I hit the ground.
DM: Gravity fails to act on the mooks, because that is an exploit! A clear 'bag of rats' situation, shenanigans! You are exploiting how gravity works in order to damage those mooks!

Is that DM response admirable?

Now try this:-

Player: I cast hex 'on a creature that I can see within range'. I choose....that puppy.
DM: Hex fails to act on the puppy, because that's an exploit! A clear 'bag of rats' situation, shenanigans! You are exploiting how that spell works in order to cast that spell!
Other Player: I cast hex on the puppy's dad!
DM: No problem! That's exactly how the spell works!
Player: WTF?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

then that is such a poor decision that you shouldn't have DMing responsibilities.

As has been stated to you, it would appear that there are numerous DMs out there that will unfortunately have to abdicate their DM responsibilities when you show up.

In my experience, the players would also abdicate with the DM.

I trust you have good luck finding tables that are more receptive to your charming communication style.

 

[Arial Black]

I don’t understand how sacrificing a chicken in order to cast Hex early in the day and concentrate on it all day could be concidered “shenanigans”.

Exactly!

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

It's tricky.

The first thing that came to mind was hexing a hostile target. That works for most cases. But what if the players sees a rival musician playing in town and wants to give him disadvantage on his performance? The musician isn't hostile but that seems like an application that ought to be viable.

My next idea was to say it doesn't work on a harmless target. The rival musician is a rival, so arguably not quite harmless. But what if you aggravate the chicken until it bites/scratches you? At that point it's arguably caused you some harm, and can't be construed as harmless. So back to square one.

I doubt there is a blanket rule that can handle all possible scenarios without being somewhat vague and open to subjective interpretation. A rule that says don't try to game the system works perfectly, but is going to be subjective to what the DM considers gaming the system.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting you don't try. The process of seeking a solution can be both enjoyable and illuminating. I'm simply postulating that a perfect answer may not be possible.

 

[Phazonfish]

@Fanaelialae

Given that most exploitable targets appear to be small animals, how about this?

"If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends and the target is not a beast with a CR of 0, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature."

 

[jmartkdr2]

It's tricky.

The first thing that came to mind was hexing a hostile target. That works for most cases. But what if the players sees a rival musician playing in town and wants to give him disadvantage on his performance? The musician isn't hostile but that seems like an application that ought to be viable.

My next idea was to say it doesn't work on a harmless target. The rival musician is a rival, so arguably not quite harmless. But what if you aggravate the chicken until it bites/scratches you? At that point it's arguably caused you some harm, and can't be construed as harmless. So back to square one.

I doubt there is a blanket rule that can handle all possible scenarios without being somewhat vague and open to subjective interpretation. A rule that says don't try to game the system works perfectly, but is going to be subjective to what the DM considers gaming the system.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting you don't try. The process of seeking a solution can be both enjoyable and illuminating. I'm simply postulating that a perfect answer may not be possible.

I think you can't fix this via rules, because the problem isn't a problem with the rules. As of yet, no one has argued that the exploit is "too powerful" or "broken" or anything like that: they find it munchkiny.

And munchkinry isn't about the rules, really: munchkinry is about trying to dominate the table and one-up other players, rather than working cooperatively with the group. The munchkin tries to do this via rules exploits, but that isn't the rules' fault (anymore than a diva player makes roleplaying bad) The exploit very much is something a munchkin would do, but it doesn't prove that someone's a munchkin anymore than using a rapier as a ex-fighter proves you're a powergamer - you could just be a big Errol Flynn fan. Maybe your warlock thinks the patron likes it when you kill chickens because they're a bug-fiend.

So you're left looking into the player's motivation for hexing the chicken, which cannot be gleaned form reading spell descriptions or debating the meaning of 'creature' as a game term.

The bag of rats isn't bad in and of itself - it's a red flag for a certain type of gamer that we generally don't want in a game of DnD.