D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Snarf Zagyg]

While I think that Arial is off base here about how creatures can be defined, he's still just arguing that you should be consistent. He acknowledges that you are free to rule that chickens are not creatures, and therefore free to rule that you can't hex a chicken. So again: not a claim that you are a bad DM if you don't allow the chicken hex.

At least that's how I'd read it. Maybe he will chime in and correct me, and he does think that a DM disallowing the chicken hex is bad. If so, I think he is wrong.

But that doesn't make your claim right, that a person suggesting the idea is a bad player.

It is interesting that you are amazingly charitable to those you fundamentally agree with, and yet cannot seem to see the innumerable posts that others seem to take issue with.

I mean, either all the other people here are absolutely crazy and just misinterpreted the many, many posts in this thread, or perhaps there is a tone that you don't wish to see.

Either/or. I would refrain from making comments similar to "no one in this thread has said or implied X" when, at the very least, it takes a whole lot of 'splaining to avoid the obvious quotes.

Anyway, I think you miss the point re: the terrible player. It's not that he demanding "Good Faith" or "Consistency" from the DM.

Instead, he is trying to leverage areas in the rules to his own benefit, and looking at the rules not in a holistic fashion, or for the good of other players or the game, but instead attempting to contort them to his own benefit.

Look at the example you just use to support that poster. Now, if you want, you can go through and make a specific ruling as to what each and every example of "creature" in the PHB exactly means (there are 1,908 of them). After that, you can do "it".

Because there aren't defined keywords, like "Attack Action." What you keep overlooking is a player that is using sophistry to demand a foolish consistency is just being a jerk. A DM who is consistent in their ruling (a chicken or rat does not activate hex, for example) is consistent. That's called A RULING. And a consistent one at that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Epic bad faith, would you agree? My friend ghosted this campaign shortly thereafter (this ruling was not an isolated incident of the DMs behavior).

That's terrible DMing.

None of the people giving pushback to the Bag o' Rats / Chicken Sacrifice / Bob the Barbarian Express Elevator ideas are saying that there aren't bad, terrible, and jerky DMs.

If you play for any length of time, you'll meet them.

But if you play any length of time, you'll also meet more than enough jerky players. And the terrible Rule Lawyers (originally called Barracks Lawyers) were referred to in the early pages of The Strategic Review and Dragon Magazine.

Short version- bad people gonna bad.

 

[jaelis]

It is interesting that you are amazingly charitable to those you fundamentally agree with, and yet cannot seem to see the innumerable posts that others seem to take issue with.

I mean, either all the other people here are absolutely crazy and just misinterpreted the many, many posts in this thread, or perhaps there is a tone that you don't wish to see.

Either/or. I would refrain from making comments similar to "no one in this thread has said or implied X" when, at the very least, it takes a whole lot of 'splaining to avoid the obvious quotes.

Anyway, I think you miss the point re: the terrible player. It's not that he demanding "Good Faith" or "Consistency" from the DM.

Instead, he is trying to leverage areas in the rules to his own benefit, and looking at the rules not in a holistic fashion, or for the good of other players or the game, but instead attempting to contort them to his own benefit.

Maybe I am being unreasonably charitable; obviously I can't say what AB was thinking. But in response to

The chicken hex thing is much less clear. I get that you see it as an exploit, and if you want to ban it at your table I totally support you. And if a player argues and fusses at you about it, then sure, they are being a problem. But you seem pretty explicitly to assume the player is already problem for merely suggesting the idea in the first place. And that is uncalled for.

you said

Well, I called it. That player is a problem at my table.

How should I interpret that as other than, "it is fine to punish players for attempting something the DM doesn't like"? I hope that I, at least, was very clear that you have every right to rule as you see best.

 

[LordEntrails]

But a bad player will do exactly that. He will do as he damn please and will then say: " Bad DM. The rule says I have 201 HP. I can't die from that fall. NO way. Bad DM!" No, it is the player that is missbehaving. He voluntarily ignored the DM's warning to have his way and then, got frustrated when said DM ruled as he was entitled to do. Again, you may not agree. But you were warned.

DM: "Oh ok, you only take 200 hp of damage from your 20,000 foot fall over the Cliffs of Doom. Then just as you look up from your prone position, the last thing you see is a thousand tons of rock from the cliff face fall on you. You are pinned until you can make a DC 200 Strength check. Oh, and remember our house rule, you can not make a new character until your existing character actually dies. See you next week."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

How should I interpret that

You should interpret that consistently with my many posts in this thread.

Here-

D&D 5E - Hex Shenanigans

This only works if it's a mutually agreed upon change/restriction/whatever. A lot of dm's will unilaterally impose oddball restrictions on warlock players and then be surprised when the players aren't totally onboard with arbitrary restrictions that only they (none of the other players) have to...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - Hex Shenanigans

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...

www.enworld.org

And I will quote what I said again:

"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."

That is how you should interpret it. The types of players that make these arguments do not stop with the Bag o' Rats. And I do not find it fun to spend my game time engaging in pointless arguments.

Because that is what the internet is for.

 

[jaelis]

So you and I, at least, agree that:
(1) It is not problematic for a DM to prohibit hexing chickens
(2) A player who won't accept a DM's ruling about hexing chickens is problematic

We don't really need to argue about either of those points. But you seem to make an unjustified leap that
(3) Any player who wants to hex a chicken will refuse to accept the DM's ruling against it

If you don't actually think that, then good, I've just misunderstood. If you do think that, then you're being illogical and I'll argue about it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So you and I, at least, agree that:
(1) It is not problematic for a DM to prohibit hexing chickens
(2) A player who won't accept a DM's ruling about hexing chickens is problematic

We don't really need to argue about either of those points. But you seem to make an unjustified leap that
(3) Any player who wants to hex a chicken will refuse to accept the DM's ruling against it

If you don't actually think that, then good, I've just misunderstood. If you do think that, then you're being illogical and I'll argue about it.

So, I've already mentioned Barracks Lawyers and Rules Lawyers.

What is the forum equivalent?

 

[Phazonfish]

the DM always has final say. The DM is always right.

These are two different things, and I agree with exactly one of them. Making one's table an unfun place to be isn't right, even when the DM does it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

These are two different things, and I agree with exactly one of them. Making one's table an unfun place to be isn't right, even when the DM does it.

I think he meant it in the sense of that famous quote about ... I think it was either the Pope or the Supreme Court, that there are not final because they are infallible, but infallible because they are final.

Not "right" in the sense of morally right, but "right" in the sense of the ruling is correct, because they get to decide.

 

[Phazonfish]

I think he meant it in the sense of that famous quote about ... I think it was either the Pope or the Supreme Court, that there are not final because they are infallible, but infallible because they are final.

Not "right" in the sense of morally right, but "right" in the sense of the ruling is correct, because they get to decide.

That's fair, I just wanted to clarify, because if the quote gets repeated enough without context, it may give people the wrong idea.