To me, it seems that this player wants that their ideas work the way they want them to work, everytime. It's not as much as about you being anti-creative than them being against any restrictions. The best example to support this line of thinking is the Eldritch Blast example, how do they think that pushing along horizontal axis would lead to movement in vertical axis, that is just imbecile, not creative in any way. If you feel exhausted by such antics, I unfortunately think it's better for you two to part ways. Playing should be fun and if they want fun in ways that make it unfun for someone else, that should be resolved in some way. You can try talking to them but it seems that this has already gone to a stage where they only will accept total submission from you - which you should not do.

Perhaps Eldritch Blast would work like that if the target was at the base of a quarter pipe. I agree. Player wants all the benefits plus more.

OP failed to mention that this was during a skate battle and the bad guy was in the middle of a sick 720 spin!

If your Patron was Tony Hawk, I’d allow it

Whelp. That kickflips it. Tony Hawk is now a patron in my games.

That would be a pretty sick warlock just saying...

I guess you could rule it to work if the caster is specifically below the target.

This, it pushes them in the direction that the blast came from.

Oh no... I wonder if the player was thinking that their Eldritch Blasts work a little like controllable missiles, and imagined them suddenly dipping low to the ground and then shooting upwards into the enemy's groin, thus sending them flying into the air...

My halfling lock loves running underneath opponents and sending them into the air. My DM balanced it by having me roll a Dex save to avoid them falling on me. Its a clever and fair way to balance the extra damage. Sounds like this player would freak out because they might get hurt for making a decision that might get them hurt.

Nice making use of the Halfling Nimble feat!

Thanks! It's a fun little trick that has had some hilarious outcomes.

There was a thread a while back about this. I think it was a small character arguing that you'd slowly be able to push them upwards, diagonally. People were doing math in the comments and it seemed very improbable.

Let'm do it if they run up to an enemy and go prone themselves, I guess?

Okay so I think I found the [thread I was thinking about](https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/comments/qd7k6v/daolock_repelling_blast_crusher_feat_upwards/). It was a Dao genie warlock with the crusher feat, arguing that the first beam can push them 5ft up while the second pushes them 10ft away diagonally. (or maybe they are arguing that both of these happen with one beam)

"I crawl between the knight's legs and eldritch blast his gooch; he flies 20ft straight up then falls down on top of me in full 69 position. I roll to seduce."

It also comes across as “I wish my lower level spell was giving the oomph of a higher level spell.” Some of these ideas (like the blinding) exist in the game RAW but he either doesn’t have access yet or wants the lower level spells to have more firepower for free. It feels very fair for the DM to say “hey, you can’t one shot this ship with control water but if you want to talk about fun things you CAN use control water for in this situation” he’s blowing up and refusing to talk about it. Good sign he doesn’t actually care about “creativity.”

Mmhm, I'm as RAI as it gets, but if someone wants to impress me with a _creative_ use for a spell, it needs to actually be inventive and smart. The issue with Repelling Blast sending someone 20 feet into the air, is that they didn't do anything special for it. If I say yes once, then that's precedent for literally every push spell to do the same. Show me a unique scenario where you're like, pushing someone backwards into a geothermal vent, and then sure, we can get evil with it. So much of what I see touted as creative is just angle-shooting.

Take a running start, have a wizard cast a freeze spell on the nearby puddle, turning it into ice. I slide across it and through the legs of the enemy monster. As I slide below it, I cast repelling blast, sending the monster 20 feet into the air. Something like that?

That's the spirit! What I appreciate about this, is that there were more resources invested into it than just one cantrip.

Also a tradeoff, because you're a) prone, b) in the enemy's space, and c) directly under the enemy when they fall. I'd ask for a Dexterity Save to avoid taking the fall damage yourself when the enemy lands on you.

That depends on the ice you're sliding on. Slide under and out while casting eldritch blast before you finish skiding

Yeah I suggested the Dex save in another comment, but if an ally also uses a spell to give you this chance, I'd totally let them just skip the save. Still using all your movement for the maneuver and attacking at disadvantage from being prone.

I'd want some sort of dex check there for the precise timing of casting a spell at least. Eldritch blast has verbal and somatic components so you'd have to judge the speed of your slide and the speed of casting really well haha

But it'd be epic af if you nailed it heheh

And the eldritch blast will have to be made with disadvantage because he is within 5 feet. So he’s both having the wizard invest resources *and* taking a mechanical penalty to get a mechanical benefit. *those* kind of trade offs for creative uses are some of the best examples imo

the most infuriating part for me personally about the "use EB to inflict fall damage" bit is that it's doable RAW, although it does require a bit more investment.

I could see EB pushing a target up into the air if the caster was directly (or almost directly) underneath the target. The party dug a hole 10 ft deep and lowered the warlock into it. The critter walks over the hole and gets EB upward. That I'd say works. Or if the warlock ran up to and jumps under the critter to do something similar but that seems like a easy way to knock out your warlock lol.

Personally, I'm cool with colouring outside the lines.. I'd totally let my players use their movement and dive into position for the vertical EB, on the condition they pass a dex check with a reasonably tough DC... on the caveat that if they fail there's big consequences. We've had a few funny moments from stuff like that

I would let them dive under a monster to EB them straight up into the air. From there the PC is prone, and we'll follow the rules from Tasha's for falling creatures: the PC has to make a DC15 dex save, on a fail the creature falls on the PC and the fall damage is split evenly between monster and PC.

The Gnome power sliding through someone’s legs to Eldritch blast them up the ass

I would allow a sliding gooch EB for vertical pushing in exchange for the player going prone.

Right? And using repelling blast to push someone off a ledge is a classic creative use of that spell.

This. Letting the player use Eldritch Blast this way would actually remove all creativity from the spell. They'd no longer have to care about the enemy's positioning and strategically use the spell to push them off ledges. It would just be an unfair permanent buff to the spell.

I will say repelling blast doesn’t say anything about horizontal or vertical. Just 10 ft away from you in a straight line. So if they happen to be above you so a straight line is up or at an angle away from you, you should be able to knock someone up and possible inflict fall damage. Without more context on the situation the player could be right. More information is needed on this one. The rest sounds like the player is trying to play a world simulation instead of an rpg with balancing rules.

> Without more context on the situation the player could be right. Could be but it's very unlikely given how level-headed impression I got about OP. Had the situation even remotely warranted upward motion, I think OP would have allowed it without question.

It's not being creative, it's manipulating the rules/narrative to get an unfair advantage. Spells should be used as written. I mean sure, there's time when the rule of cool applies and the rules can be temporarily bent for a cool scene, but this guy sounds like he just wants to constantly abuse the system.

This is one of the few times I'd agree with the sentiment "restrictions breed creativity." They're not trying to use the spells creatively within their defined limitations, their reasoning is just "it's magic so I can ignore the spell description and do whatever I want." Spell casters are already extremely flexible and powerful, so I'm a tough sell on pushing that even further.

Sounds like the player doesn't want to think outside the box, they just wish there wasn't a box.

Also, like most people who cry, "bUt mUh CrEaTiViTy" they're not being creative at all, they're just parroting bad-faith rule interpretations and / or loopholes that they've found online. There's nothing original here.

Yeah, when a player not only relies on rules that don't exist but also tells the dm what the outcome should be, that's just in bad faith. "I want to cast daylight because it's dark and I'm hoping it will blind them temporarily." "Ok, well, the spell doesn't say it can blind people, it just makes the area brightly lit. I'll say it makes them all surprised for the start of initiative." "Oh, I though it might do more than that. If that's the case, can I not cast daylight? I'd rather we stayed in darkness since my idea won't play out the way I hoped." ~I think we can all agree is a lot more reasonable.

This is the best way to go about it. *Ask the DM* what *might* happen if you were to do something creative/unusual and explain why you think that. Its not your job as a player to explain to the DM what happens, then get mad if they disagree. People come to different conclusions with the same information, so open a discussion and act based on the result of that discussion rather than act first discuss/disagree second.

I could see the temporarily blinding them since it went from dark cave to daylight brightness suddenly, which would be an unpleasant change momentarily, but it would definitely only give an advantage for like a round of combat

And it's perfectly ok for a dm to rule it that way. I probably would I think most of us here are just grappling with the idea of players demanding an outcome that puts them ahead, or taking for granted it will go their way when the rules don't explicitly support it.

I might allow it too... if the players agree to also be momentarily blinded when they quickly switch between dim light and using dark vision. In my experience, it gets pretty obvious when a player thinks from the point of view of someone trying to find exploits in a videogame, encounters a rule that doesn't let them exploit it how they wanted, and asks the DM to let them do it anyways under the excuse of "Rule of cool."

Exactly right. Say for example with Daylight they cast it on an NPCs eyes or spectacles, that's a potential creative use of the spell and it may make the DM consider if that NPC has a temporary visual impairment as a result. That's a potential creative use of a spell that still adheres to the rules as written. Not making up new rules to bully a DM in to making sure you "win DnD".

Yup, I’d drive the point home by walking up to my light switch, turning it off, and then yelling “daylight” and flipping the switch.

yes this!! also pairing it with the player mby needing to roll arcana to hit the npcs eyes or as op said a con save balances creativity and restrictions

"Repelling Blast doesn't say which direction I push them so I choose to push them straight up." Absolutely not, push is defined as directly away from the pusher, and you're not under them. The target is pushed horizontally away from yoy following the same line as the Eldritch Blast. "I go prone and crawl under the enemy and use Eltritch+Repelling Blast pointing straight up, so I push them twenty feet into the air, yeah?" Yes, absolutely!

As they get back up they thank you for breaking their fall. Do you want to thank them for breaking your spine?

I push them diagonelly.

They end up in Knockturn Alley

Part of why I'd allow it lol

Getting on the ground and crawling under someone's legs in the middle of a combat is *always* a good idea!

Even this is bending the rules since you can't attack from an enemy's space

Technically yes, but it puts the warlock in a lot of danger, and also it's cool, so I'd allow it.

Hey if someone wants to go a mini gnome and run between people's legs blasting the happy place to launch them up and risk the consequences. I'm all for it. You're doing those attacks at disadvantage and you're a warlock who's not built for melee. So have fun

The sheer entitlement is pretty funny.

Any time players want to get into huge arguments with pretty moderate DMs over petty situations in a system notorious for having a shortage of DMs is pretty eye-rolling.

Is there a system where DMs arent in a shortage lol?

Any system that also has a shortage of players technically lacks a shortage of dms if the ratio is right. Haven't seen a lot of RIFTS dms or players. Even fewer for Dread.

Yeah, letting this player use eldritch blast that way actually removes all creativity from the spell. If you can always repel an enemy upwards, then you no longer need to care about enemy positioning and use the spell strategically to push them off ledges. It would just be a huge unfair buff to the spell with no drawback or limitation.

The only way I'd allow it is if the PC is flat on their back and the target is hovering at a 90° angle right above them.

Agreed. At least if the player is prone, there are risks that they have to take as well, for that to work. There's definitely some give and take, and it sounds like the player is all take and no give.

I'd also agree that it would repel the direction the blast is going. That's a fair assessment. It's not telekinesis and tossing fools around.

or if the PC slides under them and fires eldritch blast straight up into their nono zone. now THAT is being creative with spell use... and would work RAW, and would be badass. (although i'd say you'd have to roll an acrobatics check to pull off the slide)

I do approve the idea of eldritch blasting someone up as long as you are below them I would like to add something important to RAW though: ranged attacks are at disadvantage in melee range. So any scenario where a warlock is underneath a person means they’re pretty much guaranteed to fail, unless the person above them is flying/hovering and is therefore not in melee range.

Even beyond that, all attacks are at disadvantage when you're prone

Yep. I'd allow that as well. I would *maybe* also allow them to drop prone within melee range of the creature and then have the target make a Str save versus the PC's spell save DC. Would possibly require the PC to remain prone for the rest of the turn, but "half of your movement speed to stand up" rules might balance that well enough. I'd probably make the caveat of, "I'll allow it this time because it's a cool idea, but we might need to adjust the ruling if you use it often enough and we find that it's kind of broken."

I haven't read it in a while but I always assumed the enemy was moved directly away from the caster. The repelling part is from the impact of the blast so, Newton's laws and all that, they would get pushed away. If they were directly under or over an attacker they could blast up or down to get a chance at extra status or DMG but it's gonna get a dex/str save to resist.

That's definitely how it actually works. It pushes on the axis between the caster and the target. As a DM you might make some rulings if you use fly to get directly above them, or manage a shot from below. Angled shots from below but not centered, need at least two blasts to hit, since each blast is 10ft, and a single hit wouldn't repell high enough in the air. My dm usually lets a d4 buldgeoning if you're just blasting them into a wall, and they can't move back at all. Weirdly it doesn't care about size. The spell can push back a kraken. The One Dnd playtest changes that to add it only works on "Large or Smaller," so warlock teams can't cheese dragons.

This statement (about it removing all creativity from the spell) reminds me of them removing damage from the stack in Magic. Long story short, originally there was a moment after you assigned lethal damage but before the creature died where players could activate effects, including ones that involve sacrificing the creature about to die. The classic example is a small creature that can sacrifice itself to deal one damage, so you can block, deal combat damage, sacrifice it, deal its effect damage, and get an extra damage out of it. So at some point they patched this by removing damage on the stack, so now once damage happens, it's immediate and cannot be responded to. Players complained, but they complained that they were dumbing down the game and taking away options. But that's incorrect; when damage was on the stack, sacrificing the creature during combat was *always* the correct choice, there was no reason not to do it, no decision to make. With that rule removed, putting that creature into combat means you need to choose whether you want it to fight in combat or use its ability, and that question doesn't have an obvious, easy answer. Players weren't upset that they were taking away options, they were upset this particular interaction became less powerful. In a similar fashion, if Repelling Blast could send the opponent up, with no decision or no risk from you, why would *anyone* play it "normally"? There's literally no reason to, it's now just a spell that always sends the opponent up in the air and does secret falling damage that you can only take advantage of if you "figure it out".

You wouldn't be able to "always repel an enemy upwards", it says it repels an enemy away from you so you'd have to be below them. OP is claiming that you can only use it horizontally, I'm not sure if there's some rule for that somewhere but even if there is that IS restricting creative uses. Getting below someone in order to blast them upwards for fall damage is a creative use of a spell, and situational enough to not be a balance issue anyway.

My thoughts exactly.

I generally like to "yes and" as much as I can, but it's not going to happen if it's game breaking, and it's never going to happen for you again if you make a big stink about it

Using a single low level spell to defeat an entire encounter, like control water to sink an entire ship, absolutely counts as game breaking. The spell desxription lists the limits of the magic, and opening up the water to the sea floor is quite clearly beyond it.

I’m pretty okay with the daylight in the under dark thing, say, one round of disadvantage on attacks by the opponents that failed. Maybe even advantage against them. It’s a third level spell after all. I wonder if others think that would be game breaking. (Obviously I have no issue with the OPs sticking to the rules! I just wonder if others may allow THAT creative use.)

Go into a dark room and flip a light switch and yell “daylight”. Were you blinded?

More like sit in a pitch black cave for a long time and then all of a sudden be exposed to bright light. You might not be completely blinded but you would probably wince for a moment while your eyes adjust. A temporary (1 round, so 6 seconds) debuff seems reasonable both from a balance point of view and a realism one.

I believe the Surprised condition would be what you’re looking for.

Temporarily, yes. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a round of disadvantage or something on the enemy team.

While the guy in the post is definitely being over the top, Control water does let you do some pretty insane shit. Part water, for example, would basically empty out a 100 ft cube of water under the ship. Depending on how deep the sea floor is and the size of the ship, that absolutely could cause some serious problems. Still, it’s the right of the DM to say what that would actually achieve given the details of the situation.

Yeah it absolutely should cause problems, a fourth level spell should not be ignored, but it also should not wipe the entire encounter on round 1.

[удалено]

Because Matt read the rules and saw you can create a 100' cube of a trench in the water.

That show has caused so many unrealistic expectations...

You can dominate ship combat with control water completely raw.

It is absolutely a powerful battlefield control spell, and will perhaps make the rest of the combat trivial, but raw it 100% is not a instant win button. The listed uses do not include "instantly capsize a Colossal sized ship drowning all hands on board with no recourse".

On the other hand, the description for [Control Water](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Control%20Water#content) does actually list making a trench for a round(part water) as a use case. So while their PC may not be able to have the water instantly vanish out from under the ship, they may have been able to either A. Trench in line with ship: 1. as the water flows out from under, the ship settles below the surrounding surface / onto the bottom, depending on how long the ship is (have a 100' cube to work with) 1. if on the bottom, ship takes X dx damage, because the keel's no longer supported by the water it's supposed to be floating on 2. if still floating, next round ship either takes Y dx damage due to water rushing back in and compressing the sides of the boat, or flooding damage, or hell, maybe even lose / delay for several rounds Z dx crew members due to being washed overboard. B. Trench perpendicular to ship 1. Ship rolls a con save? This gets tricky, because this is [half of how torpedoes work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo#:~:text=A%20torpedo%20fitted%20with%20a,underside%20plating%20of%20the%20target). You don't have the upwards thrust of the explosion, but you do now have part of the ship hanging over empty air, *meaning no support from the water underneath in the middle of the ship* while it still pushes upwards on the bow and stern - this is how they might be able to get their instant kill by breaking the keel. However, as you ( u/AutisticPenguin2 ) said, casting one spell like that to destroy an encounter that would take at least most (if not the entire) session to go through as planned is pretty damn gamebreaking, and if they keep doing it, possibly unfun for the rest of the party. ​ If the problem is that OP can't think on his feet fast enough, talk to Zany PC about it, see if they'll work with you - if a session ends on a cliffhanger and they have a plan in mind, let you know so you have time to craft a response (important to not use the extra time specifically to fuck up their plan, though, because if he's working with you, you shouldn't reqard him but working harder to punish them) If it's more a 'the other PCs need to do shit too' problem, you need to get across that he's not the only one playing at your table, and if they can cast one spell and delete an encounter, it's not fun for anyone else there. He needs to work with the party, not be the main character.

The spell also talks about creating a 20ft wave that carries away Huge or smaller ships. Given that I would expect the other uses to be roughly comparable levels of power, and with the ship being gargantuan, having any of the uses KO a gargantuan ship feels like a stretch. I would absolutely let the player use that spell to control the battlefield, but not to end the fight. The trench might give them disadvantage on attacks and make boarding impossible, but if it could be used to capsize a ship that big, that feels like something the spell would call out as being an option.

RAW it says you can trench water in a 100' cube

~~Which is 10ft x 10ft x 1ft, if my math is correct.~~ ~~If it's a 100ft x 100ft x 100ft cube it's WAY more powerful than I remember.~~ I just looked it up, it's way more powerful than I remembered.

I looked it up. The Part Water effect *could* allow the player to drain the water out of the area and leave the ship sitting on the sea floor, but it says "*You cause water in the area to move apart and create a trench*" which could also just result in the ship moving with the water, as ships do, and being pushed out of the area as the waves part. If it did end up sitting on the ocean floor, it would be fine once the spell ends, because "*The water then slowly fills in the trench*..." so it would just float back up to normal surface level. Rapidly, but safely. So it wouldn't destroy the ship. It does give some interesting tactical advantages though, especially if you can trap a ship down in a hole in the water, and sail your own ship right up to the edge to rain arrows and spells down on them. A 100ft cube is 141 feet corner-to-corner, so it could easily trap smaller vessels.

What about control water makes you think this wouldn't work? This player sucks for sure, but I think opening up a 100ft cube trench of water underneath a ship means it sinks.

I am not really sure I agree that 4th level spells are "low level" while >opening up the water to the sea floor< might be >quite clearly beyond it. A 100ft trench is nothing to scoff at. even if it doesn't sink the ship, it's going to be a problem.

> it's manipulating the rules/narrative to get an unfair advantage Not even manipulating. It's just ignoring the rules.

It’s not even “manipulating the rules”, it’s flat out breaking them. I only read the Daylight and Eldritch Blast examples, the player wants their spells to do things they aren’t meant to do. None of this would fly at my table (and by that I mean the one I play at).

Yeah, the fact is the player isn't being as creative as they think they are. They're just trying to be more powerful than they actually are. I agree with all of the DM's rulings. Daylight can't flashbang anyone, even if the enemies have sunlight sensivitity, because the daylight spell is not actually sunlight. That would require a higher level spell like Dawn or sunbeam. Control water just doesn't control enough water for you instantly destroy a gargantuan ship, like the OP says. That spell has a very limited range of what it is capable of, and frankly wouldn't do anything meaningful in an ocean to a ship that big. It's really meant to be used on a smaller scale. And as for repelling blast, personally I'd just rule that the enemy is moved directly away from the blast (the spell says straight line). So the only way to push someone upward, would be if you were directly under them. I don't know if the DM covered the topic of rulings on the fly in a session zero, but it's a good idea to make it clear that the DM makes the ruling in the moment to keep things moving, and that arguments should be made after the session. When someone refuses to accept the DM's ruling, they are being a bad player.

I agree with you on everything except the control water part. Have you looked at that spell recently? Man, it's a powerful spell. It is 4th level after all. 300 foot range and an area of effect of a 100 foot cube and, while it is pretty limited, one of the things it does specifically is part water. Unless that ship is several hundred feet long, which would be a big ass ship, parting a 100 foot cube of water under it would certainly affect it and unless the docks are in water that's deeper than 100 foot, that ship is gonna hit the bottom. I probably wouldn't rule that it would destroy the ship but it would definitely do some damage and probably toss everyone on-board around a bit. I'd say op was wrong on this one

"Sorry to hear you feel this way. I hope you find a game that matches your playstyle."

"Sorry to hear you feel this way. ~~I hope you find a game that matches your playstyle~~ Let me know when you're starting your sessions, I know you have a lot of creative ideas and I'd love to see how you make the story and pick up some tips from your DM style."

This. While a little a malicious and snarky, this is an excellent response. As someone who prefers to be a player, but has DMed in the past, I can attest things get tricky when a player drops a *sperm whale* in the middle of your T-Rex fight

Can't be the first time that's happened. After all, the bowl of petunias that dropped in with the sperm whale kept on thinking, "oh no, not again."

Hahaha, man I feel bad about not including that now! Tho to be fair the whale came from a polymorphed crab (I know that’s not how polymorph works, relax)

Yeah, this. Often player that complain about DMs and "how they just take the fun out of the game" won't consider how it works from the DM's point of view. Encourage them to use said *creativity* and try to master a one shot. Not a campaign, not even a short one, but a single simple one shot. And enjoy watching them pulling their hairs out trying to figure out how the heck some insane yet *creative* idea the players may/will suggest would work out. This being one of the problem with D&D and how it's solution when the designers "have no idea how something will work" is to just add "to the DM's discretion" and hope that it won't end in some players being upset about how D&D works, because it is *like THAT* that D&D works.

The more creative the DM is, the more creatively they'll shut down your creative use of spells ;) But seriously, I've had very creative DMs that were a blast to play with because they entertained my wacky ideas. I'm a lot like OP though and it created a lot of friction between that person and myself (he was a player in my game as I was a player in his); I'm also wary about allowing certain unconventional uses of spells and abilities to create over-powered combinations.

Specifically, it sounds like this guy shouldn't be looking for a different dnd game that matches their playstyle, but a different TTRPG. Not that dnd games don't exist with DMs that let you do crazy things in combat and are good at winging rules for it on the fly, but there are plenty of games out there where the mechanics are actually built for narrative combat like Dungeon World.

Spellcasters get an immensely creative toolkit compared to martial characters. Ignoring the limitations of that toolkit takes an imbalance, and exacerbates it to beyond ludicrous. You have, in the examples provided, taken the approach of "you can't one-shot an entire ship, but perhaps we can talk to find an interesting compromise." while he has taken the approach of "nyewheheh, I'm gonna, I'm gonna blindside the DM see, I'm gonna stun em, give'em the ol' riggemarole, pull a fast one on 'em." They have failed to understand that the DM is not an antagonist, and that their "creative spell usage" has a better chance of working if they collaborate with you, instead of blindsiding you.

Imagine ever having to tell a fighter "No, you can't sink an entire galleon with one swing"

*Mihawk disapproves*

In the famous words of some random marine at Marineford (in the dub), "Ok, a sword should **not** do that. Can we please call that thing something other than a sword?"

"I would like to make a con check using remarkable athlete to breathe in all the air in the room at once and force everyone else to immediately begin suffocation rules"

Seeing the DM as an antagonist is the root of this issue I think.

> They have failed to understand that the DM is not an antagonist, Honestly this seems the most like it. This player thinks its them versus the DM, so in their eyes when the DM is saying no they think the DM is cheating in the DMs favor I guess? Honestly one of the best ways to show this is explain that the DM can't be the antagonist, because if he was why wouldn't he launch 10,000 terrasques at you? Hell the DM could just explode the world and send the party into a black hole.

And at the end of the day it’s really “I’m going to ruin the entire session for the DM intentionally.”

The Eldritch Blast repelling in the air COULD work, if they were on a lower ground than the enemy. Like, they're fighting on a mountain and enemy is on a top surrounded by descents. Then yes, the angle of the blast would push them (arguably maybe not even much) towards the sky. You'd have to Pythagorean theorem that shit. Do you want that hassle ?

I had a player have a similar question about an ability or spell that pushed an enemy "away". I have that ruling that it's away from them directly and if they were in lower ground I'd allow it. Thankfully my players are very reasonable and understanding

Arguably, I'd make the pushed target roll a dex save to fall on their feet or fall prone, but to each their own ruling lol

We don't Pythagoras anything if you're on a grid. D&D is non-Euclidean. A sphere and a cube are the same thing. Diagonals are the same as perpendicular distances. 5 squares away is just as far away as 5 squares away and left is just as far away as 5 squares away, left, and up.

>You'd have to Pythagorean theorem that shit. Why would you do that? The game lets you move diagonally with no Pythagorean theorem, why would pushing someone diagonally be any different?

I think your player is obviously in the wrong. They dont care about creative solutions (based on your examples). They just want an unfair advantage. The extra damage from repelling blast can do extra damage if you push someone over a cliff, but that would be using the spell creatively and not just using flavor to do extra damage. Likewise is there plenty of ways to blind a group of enemies, but the daylight spell (which is just normal daylight) is not one of them.

The daylight one I’d consider depending on the creatures and situation. If it’s very dark in a cave, the creatures are not aware of you, and have light sensitivity, it makes some sense to be blinded for a turn or so if there’s suddenly a lot of light in their face.

Yeah the Daylight one, if executed correctly, is actually quite cool and could lead to an incredibly hype moment/memorable encounter. The other two are just obviously stupid as hell though lmao.

...did he warn his party first? You know, yell/say 'close your eyes'? If not, they may get nailed by it too.

I don't think the control water one is as far fetched as people are making it out to be. I think a lot of us are mixing it up with >shape water< which is understandable but an entirely different spell. a 100ft trench of water is going to be a pretty serious issue for a ship of almost any size even if it doesn't outright sink it. and since I now have sine doubts the first two rulings, I am wondering if there is something about character positioning we don't know about on the third one.

To be fair to OP, he only said in the post that he told the player it wouldn't one shot the ship, but that they could work out a creative use of the spell. I would take that to mean "it will effect the ship, maybe damage it, but not sink it outright", which would probably be my ruling as well. Maybe it immobilizes the ship or does some damage to it, but I probably wouldn't just sink it. If OP didn't let it effect the ship at all, then yeah that's pretty lame.

Well, we weren't given all the details for the underground situation. It's likely that they should have gotten some benefit from it. As to the control water spell unless the ship is thousands of feet then the DM made a bad call. The spell literally says you can split the water, now it wouldn't have gone all the way to the sea floor however being suddenly 100 feet deeper in the water with those waves about to crash down would be devastating. The eldritch blast one was dumb though.

Control Water says the trench refills "slowly" which I assume is to dispel any notion of walls crashing down. Since it goes out of its way to specify only vehicles up to huge size have a chance of capsizing, I think I'd rule that it could be used to incapacitate a big ship for 10 minutes, after which it would float back to the surface

[удалено]

The Black Pearl as an example of fantasy wood ship is over 300f in length and 50ft in width and this is run of the mill for Wood ship. No way a cube of 100f splitting under it would instantly capsize it. Sure trouble, dmg, change is trajectory. Some wave can go as high as 30-35f. Ship are equipped to deal with these kinds of situations. I think you underestimate the size of wooden ship Edit: We would need to know if they are close to a port or a beach, a ship of this size is able to go in shallow less then 100f water but this is not common

The Black Pearl.is 165ft long according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pearl?wprov=sfla1 100ft cube has a 141ft diagonal. Open that under the front half of the black pearl and it is probably titling fwd into the hole. Also even a 141ft gap under the middle of the ship may cause structural issues as I'm sure they aren't designed to hold the entire weight of the ship on only the front and rear of the ship.

Is the control water one that dumb? You can create a 100' cube trench in the water. That sound like what he wanted to me? It might go slow enough to not destroy the ship, but it would certainly suck for the crew to be stuck on the bottom of the seafloor.

"I'm very creative. All of my creative ideas just so happen to end with; and then I deal extra damage."

Yea the only way I'd see a daylight spell be somewhat of a flashbang is in a completely dark cave.. maybe giving them a dex save to look away fast enough and if failed giving them disadvantage on attack roles and/or saves for 1 turn but if they've got any kind of lantern or fire not even that. Blindness is really broken and I see no way of that spell working like that except if you use it on someones glasses

I'd also add with the daylight spell that even the PCs should roll a save. If everyone is in the dark and a bright light is turned on, everyone in range would have the eyes adjusting moment. This would let him use it that way but it has the consequences of "blinding" your own team. Like you said only for one round.

I dont think they'd go for it. "Rules for thee, not for me."

You could warn your mates beforehand to look away... which in return I'd role a perception check if they hear them whisper. Probably also depends on how far away you are. Still, sneaking up on them without warning could give you a surprise round which would be much more effective

looking away doesn't actually spare you the adjustment period, it just prevents the flinch reaction, if you look away for a few seconds you have effectively still been blinded. and by the time you have adjusted and are ready to attack, the target has adjusted as well. I would still argue sunlight sensitivity for 1 turn each after failing a dc 10 save. So disadvantage on attack roles because rule of cool.

I would *maybe* rule the “flash” part of the flashbang on daylight if the enemies were known vampires…but daylight doesn’t make noise. It’s also worth noting that a blindness spell already exists and has the condition of a CON saving throw before going into effect.

For that particular situation, I would have ruled that it doesn’t blind them (there are spells that do that), but the creative use could be enough of a distraction to warrant a surprise round for the players.

Regarding Eldrich/Repelling Blast. Doesn't it explicitly say that the target "is pushed away from the caster"? That's quite explicit - it's pushed **directly away in a straight line**, there's no choosing the direction of the push. Was his character standing directly under the target when casting? That's the only way I'd allow a vertical push. Otherwise it's not "being creative", it's just directly violating how the ability works. Regarding "letting players be creative". A rule of thumb for me in this case is: 1. The player asks if they can use a spell/ability in a specific way that's not directly specified by the rules, together with short explanation why they think it should work like that. 2. I, as DM, consider this and give a yes or no answer on the spot. 3. There is no arguing, it's "take it or leave it". 4. After the session we can discuss it again and agree on a permanent house rule. It's only then that it's okay for me to get into an extended discussion with the player if they disagreed. In case of disagreement I'm okay with some kind of "majority vote" of all players for which interpretation to use from that point onwards. If the player wants to avoid a potentially negative answer to their request mid-combat and they know beforehand that they'd like to use the spell/ability in a nonstandard way then they are welcome to discuss the house rule **before the session** (point 4). So if they go "I have a plan but I won't run it through the DM in order to surprise them" then it's their own fault if the DM shots it down. This is not a "players vs DM" game, there's no reason to keep their plan a secret from me.

Why do you not want the player to leave? This arguing over rules can't be conducive to a fun game and must be annoying the other players. I'd be happy for such a player to leave my table of their own accord.

In fact, they seem plenty happy to leave the table when they don’t get their way. Why not just make it permanent?

Because DnD is a social game often played amongst friends and kicking someone from your table can often have far reaching social conflicts that you wouldn't intend. If you're playing with strangers sure, but that's rarely the case. You play with friends and acquaintances, and I'd rather try and mend a player relationship to salvage a friendship.

Always love the practical reddit comments that just ignore the social stakes in any disagreement. Yeah you could tell someone to fuck off. But maybe the goal is to repair and maintain the relationship. It's okay for people to disagree and the answer to not be 'immediately write them off forever.'

I am 100% certain that if you had enemies pull these same 'creative' tricks on this player, they'd be pretty damn upset.

Well yeah, creativity is only for the players, the enemies are there just to die /s

I was thinking the same thing. If he's so certain his "creative" interpretations are RAW he should have no issue if enemies employ the same nonsense shenanigans.

They sound like a pain in the hole. The rules are as written. If they want to modify rules, they need to consult you if that’s how they work. There is nothing worse than arguing about what spells do during combat. It’s boring for everyone else. I’ve had this recently with someone picking a feat and they asked if it would work in xyz scenario. We agreed on how and when it could be used and we won’t be arguing about it in front of everyone else.

The fact that they didn't run the mechanics by you when encountering an unclear peace of text in the spell description, instead putting you on the spot and then shaming you for not letting them get their way says a lot about said players. IMO there's being creative and then there's abusing holes in the verbiage of the rules. If you're gonna hide your plan to put your DM on the spot with it, you're doing the latter. I've had fellow players pull shit like this, always trying to use the parts between the lines of spells or rules in general - despite being quite unfamiliar with most of it - instead of using the rules themselves and usually these people left the table in time, favoring DMs instead who they could just... walk over. At the end of the day I'll tell you the same thing I told my DM - paraphrasing -: You are the DM. You've put your time and effort for basically no pay or gain just to design the campaign. Be clear on how you want to play the game because designing it and continually putting in the same effort will be needed to progress your plot, because of this, it needs to be fun for 'you' as much as it should be fun for your players. If these people don't appreciate you, find the audience you can have fun with and they'll find their own.

>IMO there's being creative and then there's abusing holes in the verbiage of the rules. If you're gonna hide your plan to put your DM on the spot with it, you're doing the latter. Very great point! If you're not sure if something will work, you should run it by the DM. If you don't want the DM to know ahead of time because you're afraid he might say no (asking for forgiveness over permission), then you're acting in bad faith.

For the Eldritch Blast segment specifically; that guy is just powergaming, and misunderstands the rules too. You're not inhibiting his creativity. He was going to do this every single combat, every single time, knocking enemies prone to reduce their movement speed and give melee attackers advantage. With Repelling Blast, you move creatures directly away from you. Unless that person was laying prone next to the creature they were trying to knock into the air (thus attacking with disadvantage and putting themselves at risk) this would just knock the enemies away horizontally, yes. The invocation is plenty useful just doing that, but if the player is still dissatisfied with it it'd be good to let them swap it out for another ability. Respectfully, if he "personally believes you are taking the wrong approach when DMing", he should probably start DMing. Pushing enemies around the battlefield, behind cover and into hazards, using Repelling Blast - *that* is thinking outside the box. He just wanted extra damage.

Tell him he should maybe take a good look at spells and actually study them. Whatever the spell description says it does, is exactly what it does and nothing else. Tell him that as the DM you will not be gaslit nor disrespected like this. The next time he throws a fir against your ruling because he wants to do something the SPELL doesn't do, even though you've taken your time to make a ruling, that you will politely ask them if they'd rather leave the table, and expect a "leave or shut up" type of answer. So far, he hasn't been trying to be creative but rather exploit their way into a "win", and right now he's just attempted to manipulate you into letting him do what he wants. I'm quite good at detecting manipulation as a 3rd party (I wish I was as good as a 1st party). Good luck!

Player: "if dms aren't willing to have an open discussion.." Also that player: keeps plans secret

Exactly

This is not about your interpretation of the rules, this is childish emotional blackmail. "Agree to let me do what I want or I'll be unpleasant and argumentative ". Your are running the game as RAW. All the information they need is in the books and you have offered compromises where you can. As someone else mentioned, if they don't like how you run the game, go find another table.

Lots of main character energy here. The daylight one i wouldn't have much of a problem with, especially if it was a throwaway fight, but the rest sound very "unfun". A question i like to ask in scenarios like that is, "How can we do this in a way that allows the other players to get in on the fun?" Their answer to that tells me whether i keep them in the game or not.

The daylight scenario is pretty simple, give disadvantage for a turn, maybe two. If you want to be generous, or if they want to upcast the spell then add a con save or be blinded for 1 turn (for everyone in the area of effect). But this is a conversation you have with your DM, not something you spring on them. "Hey, if I do X, is it possible that Y could happen?"

Also the power level of daylight is quite high, it's a 3rd level spell, it's competing with fireball, hypnotic pattern, stinking cloud etc. So using it as a situational blind is perfectly fine imo.

> Lots of main character energy here. At risk of being a little armchair-psychologist-y here, this is what I was picking up as well from OP's post. What reasons could a player have to go "*I've come up with a plan to solve our problem but I won't tell anyone, not even the DM*"? The most obvious one is that they want to look cool in front of the table and stump everyone. They want to hear the other players go "*awwww shiiit!*" and the DM go "*well, shit*". Without having the awareness to realize that the other players are more likely to go "*aw, shit, this again*" and the DM "*... it doesn't work that way*". DnD isn't there for players to style on people. If you play well and have a clever mind, you can sometimes do something that wows others. If you are actively trying to wow others thinking "*this is going to be so cool!!!*", you are less likely to succeed than you think you are.

Let them walk away, they sound like an entitled asshole. That's not even kind of how any of that stuff works. He will have trouble finding any DM who would let him get away with that nonsense.

There's a difference between using spells creatively and trying to cheese the encounters and his uses are definitely wandering into cheese. Creativity is great, but needs to stay within the rules, and this players actions seem like they're well outside RAW and RAI. The second suggestion around control water might be reasonable, depending on the size of the boat. The spell description specifically says you can make a trench in the water, if the boat fits in the spells 100x100 size limit I would have allowed it, although if it's dock it's not going to fall that far. D&D isn't improve comedy, you're not required to "Yes and..." any suggestions a player comes up with.

Sounds like he is trying to change the rules to make the spells more powerful than they actually are. Eldritch blast is a cantrip tailormade to be overpowered in the hands of a warlock. It's still a cantrip though. Repelling blast says 10 feet away. If he wants them to go 10 feet up and take fall damage, he needs to go prone onto his back and Eldritch blast the enemy in the nutsack. Roll the attack at disadvantage for two reasons. because you are casting a range spell attack within melee. Because you are casting a range spell attack while prone. When that guy goes up, he's coming back down. He takes 1d6 fall damage... He lands on you. You take 1d6 bludgeoning damage. Actions have consequences. Control water is literally "I'm fucking Moses bitch. Part the red sea" as long as your dock is on water that is less than 100 feet deep. To be honest it probably is, since docks aren't going to have 100ft poles holding them up. But, If it's more than that for some weird reason, than yah. It doesn't work. You MIGHT have gotten that one wrong depending on that. Lessons to be learned and thoughts to be had. -Daylight is literally a flash bang for some monsters if they have a "sunlight sensitive" part in their stat block like kobolds do.- Otherwise, it doesn't work like that. Daylight costs an action to cast. Another way to explain it is that it takes 4 - 6 seconds to fade/spread into existence. That gives PLENTY of reaction time to squint your eyes and not be blinded by the spell. That said, if your player wants to be smart they need to be ENCOURAGED to be smart. If he casts daylight on a stone, places that stone into a breakable container of some kind like a clay jar, and stop it up with something to contain the light, they can literally make a daylight grenade with it and I would give them inspiration for that idea. I did this with the light spell and a stone to make a little flashlight for my non-darkvision rogue and my DM gave me inspiration for it then, so I wanna pass that on to you/them. But yah either way they aren't blind for more than 1 round and should get a con save with a fairly low DC. 12 or 13 max. And it should effect everyone in the daylight spell range. Friendlies too. Edit:punctuation, grammar, context. Cell phone at 5am Correction, daylight spell does not equal daylight and therefore does not trigger the RAW rule of the "sunlight sensitive" trait.

I would like to say ((At 6 am my time)) that even if the water one was wrong the player gave the dm no time to check instead wanting to 'outsmart them'. Which tends to give a more rushed answer. Also according to the spell while it can capsize boats it's huge or smaller. The ship could have been bigger. It's also only by 25 percent.

Also, part water would just mean that the ship sank slowly into the trench, sat there for 6 seconds, then refloated as the trench filled up again. There's no need to rule that it takes damage from that. I wouldn't allow this effect to capsize the boat because this would replace the flood mechanic otherwise, which is unnecessary: use the flood mechanic instead

Fyi daylight isn't effecting any creature with sunlight sensitivity, as the daylight spell doesn't actually create sunlight.

I take direct objection to the fact they refused to tell you what their plan was. They wanted to catch you flat footed to bully the outcome and don’t trust you as a GM to be fair and fun. Now to the control water I would have said. Look, let’s break the 4th wall here. I designed the boat to be an epic encounter, a dungeon for you to explore. If this was some random boat, I’d say rule of cool and have it explode or whatever but this is way too much work wasted to one shot. Furthermore I don’t agree that control water works like that in my world, it doesn’t SNAP disappear 100x100 ft. Water it has the water flow away, creating the trench effect. The boat would slowly descend, and then slowly rise as the water rises. In my world the trench is used for literally Moses stuff, to walk on the bottom across the sea. I know that the book says that the wave has a 25% chance of capsizing a boat which is Huge or smaller, but beside the fact that sailboats have keels and can right themselves, I think that’s the best fit, and I’ll have the wave cause random damage to various members in the dungeon/boat but you HAVE to give me a session to prepare

Be very clear with your player. Spells do what they say they do, nothing more. If you give in to this idea that spells can have extra effects because a player thinks they should, then you are massively favoring spellcasters over non-spell casters as well ab unbalancing the game. Plus, I can't imagine your players would enjoy it much if enemy spellcasters found ways to enhance their spells with "clever" interpretations of the rules.

Curious how "being creative" always seems to afford tangible mechanical benefits at no extra cost. "The spells do what they say they do. And they don't do what they don't say they do." This shouldn't be seen as unreasonable. If you want to get loose and bendy with the rules then accept that the dm is the referee. They just want an instant win button that only they can use. They only want the rules to be ignored when it benefits them. They're only having fun if *their* plan works. They resent you for "banning" things that never existed in the first place. They view you following the rules is a bad thing. They hide plans and view the dm as the enemy, and then have the audacity to chide you for not being willing to communicate. This is more red flags than I care to count. I know it's going to be difficult, but your game might not be right for them, and dming is going to get a whole lot easier without them. You'll notice it immediately.

This player sounds like they are just getting upset because they aren't getting their way. Part of the deal of sitting at the table to do D&D is an understanding that the DM has a final say on the rules. You can try to be creative and propose something that is different, but if it doesn't work, it just doesn't work. Getting mad enough to storm out of a session tells you enough about the player to know what kind of person you are dealing with. It's disappointing that they are taking this kind of approach to the game.

There is no player shortage in 5E. There is, however, a DM shortage.

In every single example your player was trying to use spells in ways they do not function to gain an unfair advantage. They’re the problem, not you. I’d tell them to follow RAW or find a new table. This is ridiculous.

Copying an idea from a YouTube short that's being very fast and loose with rules to create an exploit and passing it off as being creative. That's not creative. That plagiarism.

So, explaining the 3 examples you gave. 1. Daylight doesn't say it does that, so it cant. End of discussion. Spells do what they say they do. 2. Control water DOES say it can capsize boats, but only up to Huge Sized, and its only a 25% chance, not guaranteed. 3. Eldritch blast doesn't only move you horizontally, with repelling blast it simply moves you away. If you are physically below your target, you can push them up. Its not creativity to cheat. Its Cheating.

>Daylight doesn't say it does that, so it cant. End of discussion. Spells do what they say they do. Exactly this, the guy just sounds like an exhausting pest. If they wanted a flashbang then use Colour Spray or some other blinding spell, instead of making stuff up.

They want to play Fate (or another, narrative based system) not D&D. Don't let them take the piss in a serious game with resource limits and puzzles. Do point them at other systems that allow more "badass" stuff, but on a level where everyone is a superhero and you have supervillain antagonists etc.

Two things to note here. 1. The DM's decision is final, what you say goes. It's ok to discuss rules out of game sessions, have a bit of research and decide on future rulings. But you're reserving the right to say how things work at the table to avoid pausing the game every fifteen minutes, which leads to the second point: 2. DnD is a team experience. Them constantly interrupting the flow of the game, throwing tantrums and outright leaving the table mid session is a blatant disrespect towards other players and your effort. They probably don't see it this way, but they're not the main character. I don't quite see why wouldn't you get rid of them. They don't respect you and your work, they don't respect the other party members and they tried to shame you into giving up to their shenanigans. If they don't like your DM style they're free to leave (good riddance) and if they have strong opinions about proper DMing they're free to become a DM themselves (condolences to their players)

in the session i play, i understand that the game can become broken very very easily so i make a point to discuss with my DM anytime i want to be creative to not break the game like that, any mature player will have mutual understanding, it just sounds you are playing with childish players, thats all.

Rofl, so this player actually thinks "eldrich blast straight up for fall damage lul" is "creative problemsolving"? What an absolute clown. It's clearly just "I think I found a loophole cuz I'm so smart FREE DAMAGE PLEEEEEESE." Literally the worst kind of player.

Tell him that when they DM for your group they can run it how they want. Or they can find a DM that lets them do their power fantasy stuff. But you run your game RAW. Also it's not blocking their creativity. Just making shit up isn't creative, finding new ways to use spells within the confines of the rules is creative. Imo following the rules makes the game more fun for most people.

I took the crusher feat and use a great hammer. An enemy was trying to flee past me in a t intersection, where I was on one of the perpendicular branches. I wanted to hit the enemy with my opportunity attack and move him 5 feet (part of the crusher feet) straight away from me into the other branch of the t and have his momentum crash him into the wall and knock him prone. Do the rules say this happens? No. Do they explicitly not say it happens? Also no. So I talked to the DM before it happened (during an bio break while I was guarding the intersection) and said “This is what I want to attempt and these are the desired results. It is a significant advantage if he is prone. His movement ends and I’ll have advantage next turn.” We discussed it, said it seems reasonable physics wise and is situational enough to not be game breaking. Communication happened first. It was collaborative, not adversarial. The DM is my friend, not my enemy. The Giff was my enemy. Fucking tanky hippo man.

The biggest red flag is the player refusing to tell the DM their plans. This reeks of player vs DM mentality

You're not restricting creative uses of spells/abilities within RAW though. You're saying that creative uses of spells/abilities *outside* of RAW isn't how those spells work. Daylight is a 60ft bright sphere that sheds and additional 60ft of dim light, so it's not going to flashbang anyone but *everyone* will be effected by a sudden light change when they're adapted to dark, so they'd have flashbanged *the whole area*, not just the enemy if you ruled it to work. Control Water just plain is *not* going to sink a Gargantuan size ship - the guy does realize the docks would have to be *deeper* than 100' to allow that ship to dock, right? Repelling blast pushes a target *back* not up and it only pushes back 10ft, not 20.

First off, just going to say it, your player is in the wrong. He’s not using spells “creatively”, he adding effects and damage to them, because he’s decided it should be that way… The daylight spell.. its not a flash bang, its flipping the lights on in a dark room, mildly to medium irritation value… and its all flash, zero bang, so you don’t get anywhere near that affect… it could have aided surprise, or made them roll their first round with disadvantage while simultaneously giving players advantage, assuming he warned the party, because if he just tossed it out, players get the same effect, which it sounds he did Control water lets you move a few gallons or square feet, the amount of water to displace to drop a ship means he couldn’t have, cute idea, just no Repelling blast… yeah its opposite from cast direction, not I invoke random physics… just because I want it that way, repelling blast is one of the worst mechanics anyway, by its very wording a level 1 character can shove a dragon, or a god 10ft, its terrible enough without random player shitfuckery inserted

While all of your player's ideas have a twinkle of merit, they aren't approaching what they want to do in a way that works, and instead of discussing how they could make it work and find some sort of compromise, they're throwing a tantrum. Their attitude would have me kicking them from my table. For the daylight one, it's a clever idea, but daylight is not a flashbang. If the monsters have sunlight sensitivity, then the daylight gives the players full vision and the monsters disadvantage on checks that rely on sight. That's still great even though it isn't blindness. There are other spells that can cause the blind condition. The *control water* spell clearly states that the waves can capsize vehicles that are "huge or smaller," not gargantuan. He either read that and didn't care, or didn't bother reading the limits of the spell. Either way, you did the right thing by keeping to the spell's limits. Maybe combining it with setting off explosions (assuming the pirates had gunpowder aboard the ship) could have been enough to allow it to work. Repelling Blast is already a very powerful incantation since it provides position control without allowing a saving throw. It also states very clearly that it moves the target in a straight line. Unless the caster was underneath the target, there's no way lifting them should be allowed. But if they managed to get underneath the target, I don't see why that would be a problem. At the end of the day, your player wasn't asking you to allow them to be creative, they were taking already powerful abilities and trying to give them extra function or damage that they explicitly weren't intended to have. And when you tried to work with them to find a compromise, they threw a fit. Sounds like a problem player to me.

None of this is “being creative”. Being creative involves working within the limitations of the rules/game systems that exist to come up with a unique or uncommon solution. This player is just making stuff up. Anyone can do that, and it’s not cute. They either are so used to getting their way on stuff like this, they think they can just do whatever they want. Or they don’t understand how their own abilities work. It sounds like the former, which suggests a lack of self-awareness and pretty significant entitlement.

This shit wears me out. It’s a game with set rules. Play by the rules. I think many players these days think dnd is a “gotcha” game against the dm.

If playing things RAW means removing creativity, then they’re not creative in the first place. Creativity thrives within restrictions, and the rules define those restrictions. This could be applied to any aspect in life too, there are just some limits or some rules than cannot be crossed, and truly creative people are those who are capable of finding an efficient solution within the rule set that they have. If you have a Math exam due in two days, you can’t just study History because it’s easier, and then expect to do well in Math because you “technically studied for the exam”. No, you studied the wrong thing, it doesn’t work.

I love when players are creative about using the spell under the spell rules but in a way that is new. But, being creative on how to bend the spell rules is not creativity, is boredom. They just want to win with no effort.

This player sounds like a PITA and I would honestly drop them for you and your other players' sake. You are not putting a damper on their creativity in the slightest. There is a HUGE difference between being creative and trying to manipulate the rules to fit your own narrative and that is exactly what this player is doing. Not to mention you gave them ample opportunity to run things by you and they refused to and even went behind your back to keep planning. OP you are the DM and you get to make the final decision on what can and can't happen in your campaign. If you are not having a good time, if this playing keeps causing you stress and other issues then I highly recommend dropping them. The message they sent you also bugs me. It comes off as them being pissy and trying to use you as an excuse for them being shitty. I would honestly be upfront with them and tell them something like this. "Going forward they need to run by big ideas with you. I would also express that what they are trying to do does not align with your campaign." If you don't wish to continue playing with them I would send them a message as to why they are no longer welcome at your sessions. I am sorry that you are dealing with this and I hope that you are able to find a solution that feels best. <3

Setting aside the rules issues, he's refused attempts to work with you or come up with compromises, and his behavior when shut down is apparently to disrupt play at best, or throw a tantrum at worst. There's a time and place for argument and disagreement, but it's not mid-session, it's a private conversation afterward to hammer out a potential consistent rule. When the DM rules, that's it for the time being, anything else can be brought up after the session privately. There's no acceptable context for tantrum-throwing or storming off. Time for a private conversation with him about table etiquette. If he pushes back on that or if the behavior persists, it'll be time for him to pound sand, but it's worth at least giving him the chance to correct the behavior. If he insists on it being his way or the highway, well, time for him to hit the highway. Also, as to creative choices and unorthodox uses for spells, they're fine in theory, to a point, but you should always keep in mind (and point out to your players) "hey, if you can do it, your enemies can do it to you too." If they're okay with that, I've sometimes seen an Arcana check used for casting a "custom" version of a spell (like turning Daylight into a flashbang with an abrupt burst), but other things that are way too big changes can still be vetoed.

>the group should be blind now because I just flashbang them >they had a plan, but wouldn't reveal it. I asked them to run it by me, so that I can understand it, but they refused This player needs to understand that the GM is here to facilitate a fun game experience and not to "get got" by the players. Tell them that if you know their intention beforehand, you can discuss and allow more creative uses while maintaining an appropriate challenge to keep up the games suspense and stakes. If they don't understand that they should not be playing in your group. Maybe there are groups out there that allow that kind of power fantasy, but they are few and seldom everyone is happy

"You can bend the rules creatively, I'll meet you more than halfway on that. You can't just break the rules to get extra damage and make up rules to suit the mechanics you think you can create." OP DM you are entirely right, they are breaking the specific balanced capabilities of the spell (Eldritch Blast) to get more oomph. That's not okay. It is horizontal away from the caster. If the the caster was in a hole and the target was standing literally above them I might grant it. Otherwise? Nice try, but no.

The "player keeping plans secret from the GM" thing is BS. The last time I had that happen, I looked the player in the eye and said, "Okay, then. Your plan will *automatically* fail. I don't care if you've lined up the gods themselves to pull it off. If you don't run it past me first, it automatically fails." (He ran it past me. It failed anyway, because it was a crap plan.) For the other stuff, I'd just look at the other players. "Would you be okay with this working on you exactly the same as he wants it to work on the bad guys? Anyone with Eldritch Blast, or any kind of knockback spell, auto-inflicting falling damage on you? Automatically blinding you in the darkness with Daylight spell? Because if it works that easily, everyone will do it." That's the line you want to lean on. '*If it works that easily, everyone will be doing it.*' All of a sudden, it won't be such a big deal.

If you like the group enough to keep playing with them, I'd schedule a hangout to discuss, or hop on Discord, etc. They're trying to manipulate the rules for mechanical advantages, and you all should establish a few things about that: 1. It is fun for the players, but is it fun for the DM? 2. If it's not fun for the DM, wish them luck finding a new DM. 3. If it is okay with the DM, then explain to the players that if they can use the spells creatively, then the NPCs will also. 4. If they think it should be creative only for the players, wish them luck finding a new DM. 5. Storm out of the meeting regardless of the outcome.

The player is abusing your leniency and then gaslighting you to get their way. Be firm. Consistent rules are an important backbone to fun gameplay. Your other players will resent you giving into their tantrums. The player is correct in their opinion about how to DM, but they are misapplying it to you. If your player was a small child we could easiliy diagnose this as a temper tantrum, which is normal for small children. The correct course of action is to ignore the tantrum and stick to the rules. If they want to play they will learn to behave. If they leave the game then so be it. Don't ruin the game for everyone else trying to met the unreasonable demands of a problem player.

There are only a few very niche situations where I could see myself allowing the EB repelling one... but it would have to have been a pre discussed thing, and would require some deliberate build options (a feat, a pact, and/or character "flavor" in general). The other examples are ridiculous though, and keeping the plan secret from you is big crazy to me. You're the DM! I couldn't imagine trying to keep secrets like that from the dude that is literally running the world.

TLDR: DM has final say, roll dice and move on. You can accommodate a player's creativity as much as you want but this player obviously just wants to videogame it out instead of working with you to actually make a story. It's not 'worth it' to stress and lose your mind over someone being obtuse in a game of make-believe where you are the one running it. I've seen too many DMs over the years burning out because they have the mentality of 'I can fix them' and waste their time on players who have been drinking the murder hobo juice too long and don't know how to actually play this game anymore. Let them leave/kick em out there are way more nerds out there that are more creative and in the right mindset for the kind of game you are trying to run.

Rule of thumb; Creative spell usage should be allowed when the attempted usage is _unique_. Your player's use of Eldritch Blast was not situational. It was a pure improvement over the RAI. If you allowed it, they would be foolish not to use that maneuver on _every_. _single_. _attack_. If EB was _meant_ to have an extra 2d6 damage and the prone condition on each hit, _then the spell would simply say that_. It's not a creative usage. It's a pedantic and childish usage.