D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Mort]

I feel like I'm in the minority here, I love me some Warlock, but the bag of hex chickens thing really rubs my rhubarb the wrong way.

For me, I just don't see the problem.

1. It's kind of thematic - sacrificing a chicken (or whatever) to fuel a power is just the right kind of icky;

2. You still have to expend resources: a 1 hour rest is not nothing and can cost valuable time. If time isn't an issue then then 1 extra slot probably isn't either;

3. The concentration requirement makes it a serious trade-off. While it's up, no spider-climb, invisibility, gaseous form etc. And unlike hunter's mark - out of combat utility is limited to non-existent;

4. Outside the trade-off. Concentration requirement is no joke. It's basically become a running joke in my group how often the ranger loses hunter's mark.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

If you changed the description of hex such that it could be cast without a target, then that's how the spell works in that universe. My PC would respond rationally and do just that, without involving chickens. Because this would be rational.

I've had a bad experience from a bad DM re : broken leg. One of my party was levitating and got the spell dispelled. He fell and took the appropriate damage. The DM then arbitrarily said he got a broken leg.

Now, if the DM did that and let the broken leg heal when those hit points were healed by magic, no problem. But no, he arbitrarily gave a broken leg and then required regenerate (2nd ed) to fix it! It might as well have been 'rocks fall, everyone dies'.

You seem like the kinda person who watches a movie and thinks that someone making a non-robotic decision is a plot hole.

 

[Arial Black]

You seem like the kinda person who watches a movie and thinks that someone making a non-robotic decision is a plot hole.

In that case it was an change to the game without thinking it through.

In universe, things cause damage and then spells were developed to heal that damage.

If the game world was one where taking damage also might result in things like broken legs, then I would expect it to be done fairly (random roll on a table), and I would expect spells would develop to heal those things. At the time, the DM arbitrarily decided the PC broke a leg, with no clue in the campaign that these rules were in play, and no way in the rules of fixing a broken leg!

 

[jaelis]

Hexing the chicken is a very minor case of gaming the system. So minor that I'd be willing to just give them the benefit if they skip gaming the system.

But it sets a precedent, and players who want to game the system love precedents IME. You let a player like that get their crowbar into the seams of your game, and they won't stop until they've pried the entire thing apart, IMO.

As for what makes it gaming the system, it's not easy to define. I know it when I see it. Given that the other players at the table tend to agree, there must be some commonality but it isn't one I can objectively define. I would say it's when you engage with the game world in the same way as you would with a video game, rather than a living world. But that's fairly subjective.

Well, it seems from this thread that what some people see as gaming the system, others see as just playing the game. Being able to explain the basis of your own reaction seems helpful for resolving that kind of dispute.

Bear in mind I pretty much agree with you here on not liking it. But I think I can say why: first, because it is up to the DM to decide if something like a chicken counts as a creature, so if you just assume it works then you're appropriating that decision. Second, I think it is up to the DM to decide whether a longer-than-necessary period of rest counts as multiple rests or not. Again I would be annoyed with a player who didn't feel that was my decision.

Maybe those are the things that bother you, I don't know. But for me, if a player just asked what counted as a target for hex, and how I wanted sequential rests to work, and then abided by my decision, I would have no ill feelings at all.

 

[Arial Black]

Maybe my deeper issue is multi-classing and spell lists. It always felt like a cleric/warlock using warlock slots to cast clerical spells was kind of like throwing diesel into a gasoline powered car.

I could kind of see a wizard casting spells traditionally associate to clerics because they've cracked the code and I have no problem with arcane healing.

I get that there's no easy answer, it's just one of those design decisions of 5E that doesn't sit well.

In addition warlock is quite front-loaded for certain builds.



I have yet to see many other multi-class dips other than warlock. If that ever happens maybe I'll rant about that as well.

I more often multi-class than go single cless. Right now I'm developing a Musketeers-type PC for a 14th level high magic swashbuckling game. I have a clear vision of what my PC is like, and have to find game mechanics to realise that vision. I'm probably going Rog (swashbuckler) 7/Sor (draconic) 4/Ftr (battlemaster) 3. Why? I envision her dragon scales to be like she dipped her forearms in a river of mercury so silver draconic sorcerer is required, I see plenty of parry/riposte and such, so battlemaster is required, then as many swashbuckler levels as I can, relying on booming/green-flame blade, and supplementing swordplay with magic, which is required to be a member of the Avant Guard (the elite regiment I made up, so soldier background).

The Stormwind Fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason; role-playing and optimising are not mutually exclusive.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I more often multi-class than go single cless. Right now I'm developing a Musketeers-type PC for a 14th level high magic swashbuckling game. I have a clear vision of what my PC is like, and have to find game mechanics to realise that vision. I'm probably going Rog (swashbuckler) 7/Sor (draconic) 4/Ftr (battlemaster) 3. Why? I envision her dragon scales to be like she dipped her forearms in a river of mercury so silver draconic sorcerer is required, I see plenty of parry/riposte and such, so battlemaster is required, then as many swashbuckler levels as I can, relying on booming/green-flame blade, and supplementing swordplay with magic, which is required to be a member of the Avant Guard (the elite regiment I made up, so soldier background).

The Stormwind Fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason; role-playing and optimising are not mutually exclusive.

There's also a thing called post-hoc justification, which I feel is what is happening here.

 

[Arial Black]

There's also a thing called post-hoc justification, which I feel is what is happening here.

Then you'd be wrong. The idea came first, not the mechanics.

You see an effective character in terms of game mechanics and assume the player is acting in bad faith. That says more about you than it says about the player.

 

[jaelis]

There's also a thing called post-hoc justification, which I feel is what is happening here.

I'm not sure why one would need to justify making an effective character...

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Then you'd be wrong. The idea came first, not the mechanics.

You see an effective character in terms of game mechanics and assume the player is acting in bad faith. That says more about you than it says about the player.

So I'm the negative person for having negative things happen to me?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I'm not sure why one would need to justify making an effective character...

Because the person who pulls this kinda crap is the kinda person who's a PITA at the table?