D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[MGibster]

I think there's no question that Warlocks can use the chicken (or bag of rats) to squeeze an extra spell slot out of the day, assuming they have the luxury of a taking an extra short rest at the beginning of the day, not to mention a convenient sacrifice chicken/rat/minion.

I generally appreciate it when players are clever and come up with new and unexpected uses for spells. However, I would not allow this even though it's possible as the rules are written as I consider it an exploit going against the spirit of the rules. I'm fine with the the spell being cast in a legitimate situation and following that up with a short rest while maintaining Hex. I'm not fine with a ridiculous exploit. It might not be a big deal but the types of players who attempt these kinds of exploits are trying.

 

[Weiley31]

You guys AREN'T answering the important question: What happens when it turns out that Pojo the Chicken is revealed to be a level 20 Chicken Warlock Hexblade Patron looking to cast Hex as well????

 

[MGibster]

You guys AREN'T answering the important question: What happens when it turns out that Pojo the Chicken is revealed to be a level 20 Chicken Warlock Hexblade Patron looking to cast Hex as well????

In that case, we have the Chicken Attack song.

 

[abirdcall]

I generally appreciate it when players are clever and come up with new and unexpected uses for spells. However, I would not allow this even though it's possible as the rules are written as I consider it an exploit going against the spirit of the rules. I'm fine with the the spell being cast in a legitimate situation and following that up with a short rest while maintaining Hex. I'm not fine with a ridiculous exploit. It might not be a big deal but the types of players who attempt these kinds of exploits are trying.

Yeah, this sort of thing is a huge red flag to me.

It's not even the game effect, it's whether I want to actually play with such a person. That just doesn't sound like a fun way to approach the game.

However, if a player said, hey can we change Hex so I can cast it without a target if I have a spell slot open before we rest I wouldn't care and would just say yes. Because, whatever, why not.

 

[NotAYakk]

Taking inspiration from game mechanics and getting a pretty cool story from it is the other hand here.

The warlock is sacrificing a small animal to their patron each morning in an hour long ritual in exchange for a bit more power.

That is the kind of emergent thing and observation I'd love to play with.

 

[Arial Black]

There is an irrational, knee-jerk reaction to the phrase: "Bag of Rats".

In reality, the laws of physics work how they work. What you or I think about those laws can not change how they actually work.

In our D&D fantasy worlds, spells work how they work. Spells do exactly what it says on the tin what their description says they do. The opinions of how the creatures in the game think spells should work have no bearing on how they actually work.

Similarly, the opinions of the players of the game do not alter how spells work in the game....on a whim. A DM/player may make houserules, but that effectively changes the spell description,sure, but it cannot be that a player's/DM's opinion on a creature's motive for casting a spell changes the spell description, i.e. change how it actually works.

The hex spell works how it works. If you change the spell description as a houserule, then it works how its revised description says it works.

But it cannot be that the spell works as it says it does....unless the DM doesn't like your motives for casting it on that particular valid target because they don't like your perceived motive.

Player: I push over this crumbling wall onto the bad guy so that the falling bricks kill him.
DM: Great idea! The bad guy takes....rolls... 15 damage and dies.

Player: I push over this other crumbling wall onto the cute but helpless puppy, just like I did before with the bad guy.
DM: No. Bricks don't work that way. I don't like your motives so the laws of physics stop working. Bag of Rats.

It's well known that using spells according to the rules is an 'exploit'.

Bollocks.

Usually, while camping, I go to sleep at night, wake up in the morning, and then cook breakfast. If my party had live chickens with us for the purpose of us eating fresh food instead of food that goes off, then I kill a chicken and cook it each morning, and use the meat for breakfast and to prepare cold sandwiches for short rests throughout the day, along with other food.

If I'm the warlock, what's stopping me hexing the chicken the moment before I kill it? What law of physics or magic prevents the spell from working in a manner consistent with the spell description?

The meta-"DM doesn't like it" law? Ah, so the value judgements of the players of the game can actually change the laws of physics/magic in the game world? Right, I don't like the motives of the BBEG, therefore his disintegrate doesn't work on me! See? It clearly states on my character sheet that I am as cute as a puppy!

Do you play chess? I'm firmly of the opinion that your queen's motives for checkmating my king is an 'exploit'! Therefore you did not checkmate me.

 

[jaelis]

If I'm the warlock, what's stopping me hexing the chicken the moment before I kill it? What law of physics or magic prevents the spell from working in a manner consistent with the spell description?

It comes down to some vagueness in the rules about what constitutes a creature. Could you cast hex on an ant? On an amoeba? On a flower? On an imaginary friend? At some point the DM needs to put a cutoff on what constitutes a creature and what doesn't. That cutoff might reasonably depend on the ability in question. And you can make a fair case that a chicken should be included. But I don't think you can claim that it is cut and dried in the rules.

 

[NotAYakk]

Arial, an issue is that D&D often isn't written with bag of rats in mind.

Imagine a "Bloody Cleave" ability. "When you reduce a creature to 0 HP, you can make an attack on all creatures within reach of your weapon". Without "bag of rats" that is a flavourful ability. With bag of rats, you open up a bag of rats, kill one, cleave, kill the other 50, then make 50 attacks on the dragon in melee range.

"Bag of Rats" refers to game mechanics that break down when you use them "as physics". And it is the job of the DM to, among other things, deal with situations where the game mechanics breaks down.

"Commoner railgun" is another case, Pun Pun, or various other Tippiverse-esque techniques.

In my opinion, the DM should sit back and ensure that the situation causes damage to the game before changing the rules on the fly to make it not work.

And yes, if the DM doesn't like it, it doesn't work. That isn't a meta rule, that is Rule 0.

 

[jasper]

I think there's a fair bit of support in literature for Warlocks and Witches and other dark magicians sacrificing chickens to strengthen their magic.

LIES LIES LIES These lies were started by a certain colonel who stole the secret recipe. Spell casters just love fried chicken.

 

[jgsugden]

There is an irrational, knee-jerk reaction to the phrase: "Bag of Rats".

In reality, the laws of physics work how they work. What you or I think about those laws can not change how they actually work.

In our D&D fantasy worlds, spells work how they work. Spells do exactly what it says on the tin what their description says they do. The opinions of how the creatures in the game think spells should work have no bearing on how they actually work.
...

A warlock is granted their magic through a pact - an agreement. The power granted to them is a product of that agreement. The terms of that agreement will dictate how the spells can be used, how they can be cast, etc... The agreement may grant a warlock broad powers, or it may be restrictive. Those are decisions for the player and the DM to make together at the time the character decides to play a warlock.

However, most powers granting these spells will not turn a blind eye to a warlock to which they have granted power - and if they disapprove of how the spells are being used, may have something to say about it.

Most of the patrons in my campaign worlds are lawful beings. That is why they use pacts. They hold their warlocks to the letter of their deal and include in their pacts provisions that allow them to take away all the power they granted if the spellcaster abuses the power.

If a warlock of Asmodeus was considering whether to pull such a trick as this, they would best be served to check the fine print.