D&D 5E (2014) Hex Shenanigans

[FlyingChihuahua]

So how exactly would you adjudicate a sleep spell in a forest full of spiders?

Well that depends, who's casting it?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Page 4 of the 5e Monster Manual, under the title 'What Is a Monster', it says:-

"A monster is defined as any creature (emphasis added) that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilised folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters."

Therefore, all monsters are creatures, but not all creatures are monsters (in the same way that all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles).

So what is the difference between creatures that are monsters, and creatures that are not monsters?

Well, since 'creatures that are monsters' are 'creatures that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed', then 'creatures that are not monsters' are 'creatures that cannot be interacted with or fought and potentially killed'.

Since 'creature' is not directly defined, and since 5e proudly uses 'natural language', then without a game definition we must assume that 'creature' has its natural language meaning:-

Dictionary.com: "noun
1 an animal, especially a nonhuman
2 anything created, whether animate or inanmate
3 person, human being
4 an animate being"

I'm confident that a chicken can be interacted with, and potentially fought and killed. I'm confident that a chicken satisfies one or more of the dictionary definitions of the word 'creature'.

The hex spell, like most spells, targets a 'creature'. The player, knowing that by the rules in the MM, by the dictionary definition, and by natural language, knows that a chicken is a creature.

The DM says otherwise. Not because he believes it, or that he can point to a rule which shows otherwise, or could point to a dictionary which shows that chickens cannot be described as a creature, but because the DM doesn't like how the player is using a spell.

Is the player being unreasonable about what 'creature' means, or is it the DM who's being unreasonable.

Note that if the DM insists that chickens are not creatures, then he needs to define what definition of the word 'creature' he is using for 5e. Then, that definition remains the same no matter the intentions or actions of any player or PC.

Oh, chickens aren't creatures? Okay, chickens are immune to fireball. "Each creature in a 20-foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

Shapechange: "You assume the form of a different creature for the duration". If chickens aren't creatures, then you can;t shapechange into one.

Power Word: Kill: "You utter a word of power that compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly". Chickens are immune to PWK.

Why don't chickens rule the multiverse?

Anyway, I hex a puppy. Why? I'm conducting an in game experiment about which creatures are creatures and which aren't.

If the DM says that chickens aren't creatures therefore cannot be hexed, then EITHER he is screwing me over, actually lying to me, OR he has such an esoteric definition of 'creature' that it would change his gameworld into a total farce, with PCs charging into combat in their chicken-suit armour, with fireballs and PWKs bouncing off.

I though the motive for 'ruling' that chickens are not 'creatures' was to avoid absurdity?

God forbid that any of my friends who already think D&D is for geeks ever read this post.

 

[Arial Black]

Okay, now you are going full lawyer.

When the DM claims, against reason, that a chicken is not a creature in order to prevent a spell being cast on a valid target.....who is being the rules lawyer?

If the DM gives the force of gravity feelings that the PC hurt in order to arbitrarily kill the PC, who is being the rules lawyer?

What nasty, twisted assumptions is the player making, obviously motivated by hatred of the DM, the other players, and decent, right-thinking people everywhere? Er...that chickens are creatures and that gravity is an impersonal force and that we are playing 5e by the 5e rules....?

What an utter bastard!

 

[Fanaelialae]

You don't see anything unfair or inconsistent about it????

You are saying that if the 200hp PC pushes the 13hp orc off the 200 foot cliff, and then deliberately jumps after the orc while fully intending to survive the drop, that the PC auto-dies because the force of gravity got its feelings hurt???

Are you typing that with a straight face?

I've explained it to you multiple times now.

Please explain to me what about it is unfair.

A warning is given and the player is allowed to change their action. That seems quite fair.

Please explain to me what about it is inconsistent.

This applies equally to everyone, including NPCs. Engaging in a suicidal action will kill you. The rules of combat weren't meant to apply to suicidal actions. I see nothing inconsistent about that.

I never said anything about gravity getting its feelings hurt, so kindly do not misconstrue my statements.

I said that HP are made up of several factors. One is the character's survival response (dodging out of the way, etc). Another is supernatural factors such as luck and divine favor. However, as I see it acts of extreme hubris subvert this defense. If you try to kill yourself, the gods aren't going to be moved to intervene. Lastly is toughness, but this is not supernatural and cannot carry you through deadly trauma on its own. HP don't typically represent a force field or ablative dermal reinforcement.

If you try to kill yourself your survival response won't save you (you're performing a suicidal action). The gods/luck won't save you from yourself either. And unless you have some special ability that says otherwise, you're not tough enough to shrug off a 200 foot fall onto rocks, regardless of level.

I am absolutely serious. I have explained my position. I have yet to see much more from you than an implication that you don't like it and mischaracterizations of what I've said.

 

[Oofta]

That's how @FlyingChihuahua phrased it, I was just sticking with their language.

I would have a little trouble if I push a monster off the cliff and it takes 20d6 damage, then I say I want to jump down after it and the DM warns me that I'll die if I do. Not as much as if they didn't warn me, certainly, but still it would be frustrating.

So let's say someone makes an evil clone of the PC. They have same abilities and so on. If the DM says the evil clone and the PC automatically die if they fall 200 feet so be it. If he says the evil clone takes 20 d6 damage and the PC dies automatically personally I would disagree.

But again, I think pretty much everybody agrees that if you aren't following RAW on this you should let the player know.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

When the DM claims, against reason, that a chicken is not a creature in order to prevent a spell being cast on a valid target.....who is being the rules lawyer?

If the DM gives the force of gravity feelings that the PC hurt in order to arbitrarily kill the PC, who is being the rules lawyer?

What nasty, twisted assumptions is the player making, obviously motivated by hatred of the DM, the other players, and decent, right-thinking people everywhere? Er...that chickens are creatures and that gravity is an impersonal force and that we are playing 5e by the 5e rules....?

What an utter bastard!

So I can pencil you in for "Sleep affects insects and microbes"?

By your rules, the invisible microbes and germs in the world "are" creatures.

Oh, and to be fair, they should all get saves, after all every other creature gets saving throws in response to negative spell affects, so they should should have them too, even if it is impossible for them to succeed, because the minimum stat mod in 5e is -5, and you could easily make those saves on a good roll, right?

 

[Oofta]

When the DM claims, against reason, that a chicken is not a creature in order to prevent a spell being cast on a valid target.....who is being the rules lawyer?

This is the kind of posting that leads to claims of munchkins, exploits and twisting the rules. It gives power gamers a bad name.

Don't like the DM's ruling? If you can discuss it in a civil fashion (preferably out of game time) then do so. But you also need to accept that the DMs makes the final decision and it does not matter if you agree with the ruling or not.

I'd quote the DM to you but that doesn't seem to have any impact.

Have a good one!

 

[jaelis]

If you try to kill yourself your survival response won't save you (you're performing a suicidal action). The gods/luck won't save you from yourself either. And unless you have some special ability that says otherwise, you're not tough enough to shrug off a 200 foot fall onto rocks, regardless of level.

I agree you've been clear that you'd warn a player about any consequences, noted and appreciated.

But what is your ruling in the situation that's been suggested: you push a 200-hp enemy off the cliff, and then jump down after to finish it off. Both parties take 20d6? Enemy takes 20d6 and you get a suicide warning? The enemy automatically dies?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I agree you've been clear that you'd warn a player about any consequences, noted and appreciated.

But what is your ruling in the situation that's been suggested: you push a 200-hp enemy off the cliff, and then jump down after to finish it off. Both parties take 20d6? Enemy takes 20d6 and you get a suicide warning? The enemy automatically dies?

well clearly you have a midair Dragon Ball Z fight on the way down.

 

[Arial Black]

I, personally, can't wait for a tale from you about getting one over on the DM and you completely miss the hypocrisy.

Unless, of course, the DM is on a different team from you...?

I don't have any stories about 'getting one over on the DM'. If I don't believe something would work, I don't even try to do it.

If I think something is stupid, I don't have my PC do it. None of my warlocks have ever carried around creatures to hex, because I can't imagine going adventuring with bags of rodents or cages of domesticated fowl. I rarely even give my PCs adventuring packs or tents if I think they start the game living their normal life when they are overtaken by the events that start the adventure, because I think it would be stupid to carry around camping gear when you're not going camping!

But, if 'breakfast' needs to be killed then I might as well hex it first, if I don't think there will be combat within the next hour. Not because of made-up rituals, but because it is the sensible use of my ability to regain slots after an hour's rest. That's why I cast aid (if my warlock has it) before breakfast too.

I don't have my PCs jump of cliffs for the lulz, because I think that would be stupid; I have no motive for doing so. It's all cost without a benefit. But if I did have my PC jump off a cliff, a.) they would have some in-game motive (even if other people wouldn't make the same decision), and b.) I would fully expect the world to work (and the falling rules to work) as they always do.

If the DM responded by changing the laws of the universe to 'punish' me, which of us is the problem here?