D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Snarf Zagyg]

I can't say that I understand this. If the rules don't define the imaginary world, what does?

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Jaelis,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


I never thought I'd have to explicate this, but of course the rules cannot fully define the imaginary world. After all, we don't have rules that fully define our own world that we live in, and even attempting to put such "rules" down would require as many reams of paper as there are atoms in the universe.

So it would seem hubris to say that there are rules that define this imaginary world, right? After all, what rules in the 5e define what a shopkeeper in a town 40 leauges away is doing when you're in a dungeon? What rules define the chance of an NPC that you've never met dying during childbirth?

What rules define the tactics that the monsters are going to use on you?

If a fighter knows he can survive jumping down a cliff, why wouldn't he?

Because, assuming that this in some way resembles our own world, the fighter doesn't know that. Instead, we use a "game mechanic" called hit points to include "luck" and other intangibles, so that if our superheroic fighter accidentally falls 200', we can come up with a fictional reason for the survival.

But again, these game rules aren't reality, nor can they be. Nor can they "model" or "simulate" a world. So demanding that they exist, and then demanding that the world follows these game rules, and then saying that this is the essence of the world and how it operates ... well, that's crazy!

To me, at least. YMMV. Play as you want! Jump down those chasms.

 

[TwoSix]

I can't say that I understand this. If the rules don't define the imaginary world, what does?

A shared conception and understanding of how fantasy tropes in imaginary settings work. If there's conflict, negotiate.

 

[jaelis]

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Jaelis,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


I never thought I'd have to explicate this, but of course the rules cannot fully define the imaginary world. After all, we don't have rules that fully define our own world that we live in, and even attempting to put such "rules" down would require as many reams of paper as there are atoms in the universe.

So it would seem hubris to say that there are rules that define this imaginary world, right? After all, what rules in the 5e define what a shopkeeper in a town 40 leauges away is doing when you're in a dungeon? What rules define the chance of an NPC that you've never met dying during childbirth?

What rules define the tactics that the monsters are going to use on you?

I did not mean to imply that the game rules define the world in a complete sense, like we have the rules and that is it. I of course agree that there are many facets of the world that go beyond the rules. But I would expect that the rules (as agreed on at your table) do constrain the imaginary world. Wizards actually can cast fireball, dragons really can breath acid, and people who make pacts with supernatural entities really do get powers that can be renewed by relaxing for an hour. And I would expect characters in that world to be aware of these things and act accordingly.

Because, assuming that this in some way resembles our own world, the fighter doesn't know that. Instead, we use a "game mechanic" called hit points to include "luck" and other intangibles, so that if our superheroic fighter accidentally falls 200', we can come up with a fictional reason for the survival.

I don't think you need hit points etc as an in-game concept in order for a tough fighter to know that he can survive a 200 foot fall. That's just how tough (or lucky, or whatever) he is; that's a bona fide superpower just as much as force precognition.

I mean if the basic problem is that you don't think a 20th level fighter should necessarily be able to survive a 200 foot fall, then address that, say that when people fall a long way they have to make a special roll to avoid death. Even make that rule on the fly if it suits you. But don't call a player a munchkin because he assumes that his character, who by the rules can survive jumping off a cliff, would indeed survive jumping off a cliff.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think you need hit points etc as an in-game concept in order for a tough fighter to know that he can survive a 200 foot fall. That's just how tough (or lucky, or whatever) he is; that's a bona fide superpower just as much as force precognition.

I mean if the basic problem is that you don't think a 20th level fighter should necessarily be able to survive a 200 foot fall, then address that, say that when people fall a long way they have to make a special roll to avoid death. Even make that rule on the fly if it suits you. But don't call a player a munchkin because he assumes that his character, who by the rules can survive jumping off a cliff, would indeed survive jumping off a cliff.

The problem isn't that a high level character can survive a fall. The problem is players abusing the system by throwing their character off a mountain because their too lazy to walk. The one doesn't correspond to the other.

I actually had this happen in a game. The player literally had the character throw himself off a mountain to get to the bottom. The only thing that made it even marginally acceptable was that he was playing a troll and, short of rolling through a campfire, legitimately knew the fall couldn't kill him. But it was still an absurd action that he never lived down. It irritated everyone at the table because it broke immersion.

I don't care that a fall can't kill a troll, they still feel pain. If we had a rule that for every 10 points of damage their character takes the player gets punched, he never would have taken such an action. If the player had to hold a 5 lb lead ball over their head to maintain concentration on hex, they'd never do the chicken hex. They only do those things because they treat the character like a paper doll rather than a living person.

 

[billd91]

I don't care that a fall can't kill a troll, they still feel pain. If we had a rule that for every 10 points of damage their character takes the player gets punched, he never would have taken such an action.

I think I might actually accept that kind of behavior from a troll - they are pretty weird and special in the fairly radical way they regenerate. They're like the Wolverine of the fantasy monster set and he does stuff that would be utterly insane for anyone who doesn't heal like he does. Of course, it makes us wonder about his psychology and mental health, but that seems fitting for trolls too.

It would also make trolls really menacing as shock troops since, barring things like fire and acid, they don't have to be afraid of nuthin'. Pain's temporary - glory lives forever.

 

[jaelis]

The problem isn't that a high level character can survive a fall. The problem is players abusing the system by throwing their character off a mountain because their too lazy to walk. The one doesn't correspond to the other.

Sure I agree with this. But there's quite a difference between "I just jump down the cliff for the lulz, even though there is a path right here" and "I jump down the cliff because that's the only way to get to the bottom fast enough to save the princess."

It sounds like you're saying there is that you don't think a player should act of of character; it would indeed be out of character to suffer the pain of falling of a cliff for no reason, even if you know you'll survive it.

How then is it out of character for a warlock to activate his curse by killing a chicken? He even provides a quite plausible in-game explanation in terms of making a sacrifice to his patron. Being up front that the the reason for the sacrifice is to activate his curse, not some abstract demand from the patron.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The problem isn't that a high level character can survive a fall. The problem is players abusing the system by throwing their character off a mountain because their too lazy to walk. The one doesn't correspond to the other.

I actually had this happen in a game. The player literally had the character throw himself off a mountain to get to the bottom. The only thing that made it even marginally acceptable was that he was playing a troll and, short of rolling through a campfire, legitimately knew the fall couldn't kill him. But it was still an absurd action that he never lived down. It irritated everyone at the table because it broke immersion.

I don't care that a fall can't kill a troll, they still feel pain. If we had a rule that for every 10 points of damage their character takes the player gets punched, he never would have taken such an action. If the player had to hold a 5 lb lead ball over their head to maintain concentration on hex, they'd never do the chicken hex. They only do those things because they treat the character like a paper doll rather than a living person.

There's a lot of assuming a player's intent here, though - which you point out, but the converse is also true: if it makes sense for the character to jump down and eat the harm form falling because they know they can survive, (and they have a reason to be in such a hurry) then it makes sense for them to do that.

Which is probably why this thread is such a crazy one: we're all remembering the last time someone tried something like [latest example] and assuming the example is similar to that instance, including the same player intent. But the last time I saw it and the last time you saw it are likely to be significantly different cases.

No individual in-game action is munchkiny inside the game itself. "Munchkin" is a metagame concept, characterized by the (anti-other-player) intent of the player taking the action.

 

[Mort]

The problem isn't that a high level character can survive a fall. The problem is players abusing the system by throwing their character off a mountain because their too lazy to walk. The one doesn't correspond to the other.

I actually had this happen in a game. The player literally had the character throw himself off a mountain to get to the bottom. The only thing that made it even marginally acceptable was that he was playing a troll and, short of rolling through a campfire, legitimately knew the fall couldn't kill him. But it was still an absurd action that he never lived down. It irritated everyone at the table because it broke immersion.

I don't care that a fall can't kill a troll, they still feel pain. If we had a rule that for every 10 points of damage their character takes the player gets punched, he never would have taken such an action. If the player had to hold a 5 lb lead ball over their head to maintain concentration on hex, they'd never do the chicken hex. They only do those things because they treat the character like a paper doll rather than a living person.

Logical consequences of an action:

The Fighter tosses himself off a cliff "just because he can.." or because he's to lazy to walk - well That could be a problem when he faces the next encounter 60+ HPs down! He's just wasted seriously valuable resources (HPs, healing magic or the time to heal those HPs) for a seriously stupid reason and will now either get a Darwin award or a serious lecture from the rest of the group.

If he does this during downtime, or when it otherwise doesn't matter, well it's a pretty odd way to get your jollies, but you do you.

 

[billd91]

How then is it out of character for a warlock to activate his curse by killing a chicken? He even provides a quite plausible in-game explanation in terms of making a sacrifice to his patron. Being up front that the the reason for the sacrifice is to activate his curse, not some abstract demand from the patron.

It may not be a terrible idea for some patrons, but does that work for every patron? Does it make sense for a fey patron? Is a great old one who is probably not even consciously aware of your existence going to care about the sacrifice of something as insignificant as a chicken? I mean if you're going to make this a role playing point, what's to stop a DM from really interrogating it as to whether it's appropriate for the patron?

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think I might actually accept that kind of behavior from a troll - they are pretty weird and special in the fairly radical way they regenerate. They're like the Wolverine of the fantasy monster set and he does stuff that would be utterly insane for anyone who doesn't heal like he does. Of course, it makes us wonder about his psychology and mental health, but that seems fitting for trolls too.

It would also make trolls really menacing as shock troops since, barring things like fire and acid, they don't have to be afraid of nuthin'. Pain's temporary - glory lives forever.

If there's an issue where Wolverine threw himself into a grain thresher just for funsies, I missed that one. Pretty sure Wolverine wouldn't throw himself down a mountain just because he was too lazy to walk.

Sure I agree with this. But there's quite a difference between "I just jump down the cliff for the lulz, even though there is a path right here" and "I jump down the cliff because that's the only way to get to the bottom fast enough to save the princess."

It sounds like you're saying there is that you don't think a player should act of of character; it would indeed be out of character to suffer the pain of falling of a cliff for no reason, even if you know you'll survive it.

How then is it out of character for a warlock to activate his curse by killing a chicken? He even provides a quite plausible in-game explanation in terms of making a sacrifice to his patron. Being up front that the the reason for the sacrifice is to activate his curse, not some abstract demand from the patron.

As I've explained before, I don't think it's realistic at all. It's like carrying a gun around all day in your hand, despite that you have a quick draw holster, on the off chance that you might be attacked. And you do this every day.

There's a lot of assuming a player's intent here, though - which you point out, but the converse is also true: if it makes sense for the character to jump down and eat the harm form falling because they know they can survive, (and they have a reason to be in such a hurry) then it makes sense for them to do that.

Which is probably why this thread is such a crazy one: we're all remembering the last time someone tried something like [latest example] and assuming the example is similar to that instance, including the same player intent. But the last time I saw it and the last time you saw it are likely to be significantly different cases.

No individual in-game action is munchkiny inside the game itself. "Munchkin" is a metagame concept, characterized by the (anti-other-player) intent of the player taking the action.

It's like art. Not everyone will agree on what art is, but you know it when you see it.

That said, I disagree that a high level fighter knows he can survive a long fall. He knows he's tough and lucky, but I strongly disagree that he knows the fall can't kill him. The player knows, but that's not the same thing.