D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[jaelis]

Sorry, but nowhere in your example does it suggest or imply that the fighter is jumping down the cliff for no reason. In fact, given that he doesn't have time to wait for feather fall, it rather seems that he has some reason to get down the cliff quickly.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's not exactly what some people in this thread have been saying though.

The argument has been that the reason for jumping matters. That if a DM agrees with the players reasons for jumping - the character takes standard falling damage. If not, instant death is the result.

THAT'S what I have a problem with.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the DM should have the character die based on a whim, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

That said, I do think that the reason for jumping matters. There are things that are thematically appropriate IMC and things which aren't. For example, you shouldn't swan dive off a 200' cliff onto rocks.

That's an old school approach. Tomb of Horrors, for example, is filled with situations where if the PC so much as walks in the wrong direction - instant death.

5e has shied away from it. Generally DCs and damage are assigned.

If a standard 5e adventure had a woodchipper, for example, it would likely did a bunch of damage (say 10d6) - with the reasoning that 10d6 would kill any regular joe. But that a high level adventurer could figure out a way through it - damaged but not likely killed.

Based on the fact that high level adventureres are not, in fact, average joes.

I disagree. There is precedent for it in 5e. Look at the sphere of annihilation. While a character who touches it just takes damage, a character who leaps into it (knowingly or not) is simply killed. No save. Just nothing.

If an adventure had a wood chipper then I agree there would be damage for being pushed into it. I disagree that passing through it, however, shouldn't result in instant death. There's a difference between the two. The one indicates that you're fighting it. Maybe your sleeve gets caught for a moment and you think you're going to be pulled in but then, wrenching your wrist, your sleeve tears and you aren't.

If you intentionally thrust your naked hand into the wood chipper while it's running, you're gonna lose the hand. IMO any other result would be ludicrous. YMMV

It's your game, play how you like. Especially as long as you're consistent about it.

Yup, same to you.

I'd argue that high level PCs, ones that can take a hit from a cloud giant or survive an ancient dragon's breath weapon - are much closer to Captain America than Falcon.

But again, that's not really the issue. There's no question that a high level fighter has the HP to survive a 200 foot fall. The issue I have a problem with, is A DM deciding to not apply the falling rules because they don't like the player's reason for having the character jump.

I disagree that high level characters are withstanding direct hits from Cloud Giants. As I see it, if they still have HP that means they changed a direct hit into a narrow miss or the like.

Obviously play however you want, but I don't agree that high level characters are explicitly superhuman. Their skill and luck are certainly exceptional, but I see them as Batman, not Captain America and certainly not some weird ablative version of Superman.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sorry, but nowhere in your example does it suggest or imply that the fighter is jumping down the cliff for no reason. In fact, given that he doesn't have time to wait for feather fall, it rather seems that he has some reason to get down the cliff quickly.

Do you remember how I mentioned that the issue isn't really about the Bag o' Rats, or about the jumping down into a chasm; it's about the type of people who do it, right? It's a fundamental incompatibility. Your comment speaks for itself.

It's about the type of people who aren't trying to communicate, but are instead trying to exploit rules; that refuse to listen to what is said, but instead demand their interpretations; that insist that everything be logically consistent in the way they find correct; that re-state things in order to reach their desired conclusions; and generally prefer engaging in arguments than just playing and having fun.

I will reiterate what I just requoted:

It's the difference between playing your character and playing a game token. It's the difference between understanding the genre determines the game world physics, not the rules. It's the difference between having the genre determine the appropriate set of what you can do (or try to do) while using the rules to operationalize it and having the rules determine what you can and can't do because RAW. They're very different perspectives that are frequently incompatible at the table and even moreso in these messageboards.

 

[Mort]

Dead wrong here. I would not be the one to determine this. The PLAYER WOULD BE THE ONE! There is a big difference between I jump to get the bad guy and I jump because I can. One is heroic, the other one is suicidal.

And I would fully agree with the player. Even encourage him to do it!

Ok so we agree.

Nope. Not what I said and defended all along. You are putting words into my mouth to justify your position. We always said that the player was jumping for no other reason that his character can take it. Not because of anything else. Even after a warning, the player decides to make his character to jump anyway! Either the player wants to push to DM into doing something or he wants to game the system.

On a small trek around the wilderness Gar the Great saw a cliff. A deep one at that. "Ho a cliff!" said Gar to himself. "Let's jump of of it. I can take it!" And so ended the life of Gar the not so great.

So the player MUST have a "good reason" for the character jumping - as determined by the DM. Didn't you JUST say that's not what you were arguing?

I suppose your point is "I can take it!" is not a good reason so SPLAT. Where my point is - as long as we're keeping it "in game" Gar really does know how to jump down the cliff without killing himself - so not auto dead. If I think Gar's player is being disruptive or really trying to kill the character - different situation that does not call for an in game solution.

 

[Mort]

I disagree. There is precedent for it in 5e. Look at the sphere of annihilation. While a character who touches it just takes damage, a character who leaps into it (knowingly or not) is simply killed. No save. Just nothing.

Because the designers have decided that there is no point in modelling the HPs when it's so much the character is just dead. Plus it's a legacy item that's been killing characters from way back. Falling damage, on the other hand, is set within the rules to certain parameters.

If an adventure had a wood chipper then I agree there would be damage for being pushed into it. I disagree that passing through it, however, shouldn't result in instant death. There's a difference between the two. The one indicates that you're fighting it. Maybe your sleeve gets caught for a moment and you think you're going to be pulled in but then, wrenching your wrist, your sleeve tears and you aren't.

If you intentionally thrust your naked hand into the wood chipper while it's running, you're gonna lose the hand. IMO any other result would be ludicrous. YMMV

Or maybe a high level character has figured out a way to bypass it so they don't get killed? High level characters are resilient/lucky/fated etc. like that.

But not really the point. If the wood chipper is a death trap - it's a death trap - any character passing through it dies.

I get annoyed at the - only characters who pass through it for the right reason -have a chance to survive.

I disagree that high level characters are withstanding direct hits from Cloud Giants. As I see it, if they still have HP that means they changed a direct hit into a narrow miss or the like.

Ok - but that's more a preference of style, narration etc. How they withstood the hit isn't actually that relevant - they had enough HP, so are not dead.

Obviously play however you want, but I don't agree that high level characters are explicitly superhuman. Their skill and luck are certainly exceptional, but I see them as Batman, not Captain America and certainly not some weird ablative version of Superman.

So you're telling me Batman couldn't survive a 200 foot fall down a cliff - even without his gear? I don't read Batman comics, but I would be surprised if he hasn't done exactly that - on multiple occasions. The point is, high level characters (as batman would be) find a way.

 

[jaelis]

Do you remember how I mentioned that the issue isn't really about the Bag o' Rats, or about the jumping down into a chasm; it's about the type of people who do it, right? It's a fundamental incompatibility. Your comment speaks for itself.

It's about the type of people who aren't trying to communicate, but are instead trying to exploit rules; that refuse to listen to what is said, but instead demand their interpretations; that insist that everything be logically consistent in the way they find correct; that re-state things in order to reach their desired conclusions; and generally prefer engaging in arguments than just playing and having fun.

I will reiterate what I just requoted:

It's the difference between playing your character and playing a game token. It's the difference between understanding the genre determines the game world physics, not the rules. It's the difference between having the genre determine the appropriate set of what you can do (or try to do) while using the rules to operationalize it and having the rules determine what you can and can't do because RAW. They're very different perspectives that are frequently incompatible at the table and even moreso in these messageboards.

Right, and your assumption seems to be that if a player doesn't explicitly explain his motivations any time he does something, then he is playing a game token. At least that is the impression you continue to give; I can't quite believe that is really how you would play.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So you're telling me Batman couldn't survive a 200 foot fall down a cliff - even without his gear? I don't read Batman comics, but I would be surprised if he hasn't done exactly that - on multiple occasions. The point is, high level characters (as batman would be) find a way.

I disagree. As I've stated previously, if Batman fell 200 feet without his gear onto rocks, then yes, I think the reader would expect him to die or at least be seriously injured. Note that if he had some way to slow his fall (he hit a few ledges on the way down, or landed in conveniently placed lake) then being able to walk away from that becomes plausible.

Not if he free falls 200 feet onto solid rock though. That would be cartoonish, IMO, if he did that and just continued on like nothing happened. I don't run a cartoonish game, regardless of level.

I'm not suggesting that someone who does want to run it that way is wrong. Just that I wouldn't want to play in their game because it rubs me the wrong way.

Note that my players don't abide it either. There were plenty of heated arguments at the table back in the day between guys who wanted a serious game and those who just wanted to screw around, if the DM didn't intervene. Nowadays, we just avoid playing with people who won't take the game seriously. (Note that it's not like we take a somber tone to the game. We make plenty of OOC jokes while we're playing and have lots of fun. But we do expect characters to behave in a non cartoonish manner.)

YMMV

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Right, and your assumption seems to be that if a player doesn't explicitly explain his motivations any time he does something, then he is playing a game token.

No, that's not it at all. I will again recommend that you stop rephrasing and mischaracterizing what people say in order to make your point. It has not worked to date, and it will not work in the future.

This is what you want to be true in order for you to make your point, but it is not what I have said, not is it my assumption. What I have said is actually contained in what I have written. If you do not wish to read what I have written, then I would recommend reading what I have quoted that Billd wrote.

If you do not wish to do that, please look at what you were replying to- I will add the emphasis:

"It's about the type of people who aren't trying to communicate, but are instead trying to exploit rules; that refuse to listen to what is said, but instead demand their interpretations; that insist that everything be logically consistent in the way they find correct; that re-state things in order to reach their desired conclusions; and generally prefer engaging in arguments than just playing and having fun."

 

[Mort]

Do you remember how I mentioned that the issue isn't really about the Bag o' Rats, or about the jumping down into a chasm; it's about the type of people who do it, right? It's a fundamental incompatibility. Your comment speaks for itself.

It's about the type of people who aren't trying to communicate, but are instead trying to exploit rules; that refuse to listen to what is said, but instead demand their interpretations; that insist that everything be logically consistent in the way they find correct; that re-state things in order to reach their desired conclusions; and generally prefer engaging in arguments than just playing and having fun.

What you have described is a disruptive player. Whether because he's deliberately being disruptive or because his idea of "fun" is completely at odds with the rest of the group.

This is not an in game problem and should not be treated as one.

I will reiterate what I just requoted:


It's the difference between playing your character and playing a game token. It's the difference between understanding the genre determines the game world physics, not the rules. It's the difference between having the genre determine the appropriate set of what you can do (or try to do) while using the rules to operationalize it and having the rules determine what you can and can't do because RAW. They're very different perspectives that are frequently incompatible at the table and even moreso in these messageboards.

But why do I care if the player is "treating his character like a token." As long as he's staying within the rules, not being disruptive, and not subtracting from the fun of the table, he should be able to play his character how he likes.

As DM, I have most of the control of the game - especially in D&D - where player narrative control is extremely limited.

I try to not but in on the players controlling their character, and assume, unless shown otherwise that the player is doing so in good faith. So if the player has his PC dive off a cliff I don't assume anything but that they're doing it for the fun of the game (and willing to take the consequences of doing so - which may very well result in death or other negative).

 

[Oofta]

Right, and your assumption seems to be that if a player doesn't explicitly explain his motivations any time he does something, then he is playing a game token. At least that is the impression you continue to give; I can't quite believe that is really how you would play.

Seems to me like people are talking past each other. Which, with this being post 600 some isn't a surprise.

The impression you some people give is that a DM is "bad" if they make a ruling that disagrees with your strict reading of RAW. For example because you the player can point to things that, to you, define all animals as creatures for purposes of spells, you should be able to hex a chicken.

Some of us disagree. If the DM says that you can't hex a chicken that is the rule at the table. If a DM rules that jumping off a 200 ft cliff (with or without qualification) kills your PC it does. Hopefully the DM will let you know before you cast hex or jump off that cliff.

So basically another thread that boils down to "I'm right" vs "No, I'm right".

EDIT: this is a spectrum, not necessarily the opinion of @jaelis