D&D 5E Warlock, Hex, and Short Rests: The Bag of Rats Problem

Shiroiken said:

You may have the best of intentions, but you've reopened a thread closed by mods. That almost never ends well.

Click to expand...

lowkey13 said:

(Finally, I would note that reopening a closed thread is usually not a good idea, unless the thread was closed because it had veered into politics, religion, or another banned issue and you were explicitly moving the discussion back to the premises originally offered.)

Click to expand...

The thread was closed because the discussion devolved into personal attacks and veered away from the actual issue at hand pretty quickly. At 10 posts/page, the rules discussion was mostly done around page 4 or 5 and then went on for 8 more pages of mostly flaming.

My hope here was to create a thread to more productively discuss this issue, which I think is a legitimate one that is going to elicit differing opinions. I considered explicitly calling out the people who were bickering in the last thread and asking them to refrain from posting here more than once, but that seemed likely to lead to a worse result than just not mentioning it and hoping there would be better behavior in this thread than the last one.

If this one ends up getting closed as well, then so be it, but it seems to me that this should be an issue that can be discussed without excessive flaming.

DEFCON 1 said:

There are two parts to this: First is the game. Second is the story. And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever bother putting the two together if you're going to worry about the bag of rats.

The Long Rest, Short Rest, and spell slots are purely GAME terms and game mechanics. When you "game the system" you are literally doing that-- you are playing the game. You aren't concerned about story, you aren't concerned about narrative, you aren't concerned about what is happening "out in the world". All you are concerned about is using the rules that allow you to have a game rule (spell) active, while regaining a game rule (spell slot) right after, via the use of a game rule (Short Rest).

If you are going to do that... or if you as a DM is going to allow a player to do that... then just do it. The player has a 24 hour spell going "for free" and still has the applicable spell slot. Just own it. Own the fact that the PC has this ability. Be happy about it. Enjoy it. You are using game rules to give your character game power. If you're good with that... then be good with it.

But what you shouldn't do is waste your or anyone else's time in trying to come up with some wishy-washy explanation in the game world why this is happening. Because narratively the whole thing is stupid. "Oh, I just woke up from an overnight sleep and now I'm going to use my magical power on this fuzzy animal before killing it... and then I'm going to lay back down and read a book for an hour so I can get my magic back. And then I'll get back up and continue on with my day."

Why are you bothering trying to justify that? We all know that narratively it's dumb and is a big lame story hoop you are spouting just to make it seem like you're still "in the world". You are trying to exploit the game rules "because the game rules allow you to"... and then trying to tie the story up into a pretzel so you can feel better about it.

Nobody cares. If you want a 24 hour Hex and all of your spell slots for the day... then just take 'em. Do it. Own your desire and stop wasting our time trying to make us not feel like you're "cheating" or "gaming the system".

You know it's lame, we know it's lame, and it's all because the rules were not written so goddamn airtight to stop people from being lame. So be lame. Accept it. Embrace it. Enjoy your spell and your spell slot and have a great day out there adventuring. All while saving us the need to watch you "in-story" walking around with a squeaking bag of rodents.

Hell, I'm surprised WotC didn't bother just making a rat one of the material components for the spell at this point.

Click to expand...

I think this is a perfectly reasonable response to this issue, which also highlights one side of what I'm beginning to see as the fundamental disagreement that leads to two major camps on the issue.

If you start from the point of view that this was obviously not RAI, then yes doing it seems like "gaming the system." You can then either decide you want the player to have the spell slot and go with something like 3a), or you can decide they can't and go with option 1) or the option 4) someone suggested on the first page, or something else along those lines. And that's totally fine.

But it's also the case that the characters live in a world that works in this way, and it's not entirely clear to me that that wasn't actually intended. Certainly it's absurd to expect the DM to have a written rule for every situation that can arise in a game. But I don't think this is even an especially unlikely one, if you have a warlock at level 5+ in your party. It doesn't take a lot for either the character or the player to realize that there are concrete benefits to doing this. For my character (and me), the decision to actually go ahead with it (with my DMs okay, of course) came after our party of 4 level 6 characters took on a random encounter that was way over our heads--5 giant apes. I dumped two fireballs in the first two rounds, using both my spell slots, and then spent the rest of the fight missing hex while we were all under threat of being one-shotted. The realization that I nearly died in part because I hadn't bothered to kill some inconsequential little critter in the morning. This character is the sole survivor of a nomadic hunting tribe that was subsisting amongst hostile orc tribes, so proper preparation for combat and survival is paramount. Given that this character really does live in a world where "bag of rats" behavior results in an extra pact magic capabilities in a potentially fatal encounter, it would be weird for her *not* to start killing little critters on the daily. And honestly I don't think this is really cheating or gaming the system in any meaningful sense; it's the character (and player) at some point realizing a benefit to a certain behavior and then acting on it. Of course, this is totally predicated on the world working in this way. If my DM tells me the world doesn't work like that, I say okay and move on.

I'd say 3B. It may or may not be a problem for your group, depending on whether you want modern or historic sensibilities.

Historically, there were plenty of benevolent magicians and priests who sacrificed small animals for their rites. Heck, going back to Old Testament times, Hebrews were expected to sacrifice lambs on a regular basis, if they could afford it. As recently as 1993, there was a case argued before the US Supreme Court (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah), so it's not even remote history or backwater areas (depending on your view of Florida) where the bag-o-rats might be seen as no big deal.

That said, this sort of behavior does tend to offend modern Western sensibilities and most modern fantasy, whether D&D games or novels, tend to project the outlook of the authors/participants onto a psuedo-medieval canvas. As a DM, I have a standing practice of being the final arbiter of what is good/evil and law/chaos, just to avoid any sort of religious/political arguments at the table. I would feel perfectly comfortable ruling that a Warlock who made daily living sacrifices to his infernal patron is at least non-good, if not dancing around evil.

I'd also have no problem seeing him as a perfectly acceptable, if somewhat creepy, side-kick in a Conan movie.

lowkey13 said:

It helps if you accurately quote what I wrote.

Click to expand...

I copy/pasted what you wrote. How is that 'inaccurate'?

Here, let's try it. In response to someone who stated the exact same thing, I wrote the following, emphasis supplied:

"I think this answer {that you cannot regain a spell that you are currently using} most accurately reflects what I would rule.

If you are using a spell, you cannot regain it with a short rest."

Click to expand...

So you either made it up, or copied someone else who made it up.

First, the point is not about the name of the guy who made it up, only that it is no part of the 5E rules, and actually goes against the rules. It's like saying that, in your house, bishops can jump over other chess pieces just like knights can. It doesn't matter if you made that up or your mate made that up, it's still not the game of chess that you led me to believe that we'd be playing.

Second, the reason for coming up with this houserule is to solve what you perceive to be a problem, but in the worst way. A better way to solve it (not that I think that there is a problem, but you obviously do) would be to remove the requirement of an initial target. Same game result, less messing with other rules.

Nerfing warlocks like this is akin to announcing, in the middle of a game of (proper) chess, that your bishop can now jump over other pieces so checkmate ha ha my house my rules.

Well, there is a difference between saying "All elves are stinky" and "My houserule is: all elves are stinky." Lowkey's original text looks closer to the second to me, your partial quote makes it look closer to the first. Though that may or may not match his perception of it.

It may well be RAW. It might even be in-character for some characters.
But I'm the DM. I can always hit you hard enough to break your concentration. And I control wether your rests are effective.
So if I find your rules - lawyering too annoying....

Arial Black said:

Nerfing warlocks like this...

Click to expand...

Well, what you call nerfing I call toning down cheesy players, like when a bard "miscalculates" their saving throws to include Jack of all trades.

It's not nerfing when you make sure something is working as intended.

Obviously that's my opinion and how I'd rule it at my table. I don't care if you don't like it, you're not playing with me, ha!

*Deleted by user*

Wepwawet said:

Well, what you call nerfing I call toning down cheesy players, like when a bard "miscalculates" their saving throws to include Jack of all trades.

It's not nerfing when you make sure something is working as intended.

Click to expand...

Taking your comment at face value, I think this is where the whole debate hinges; is it intended that warlocks with hex (and rangers with hunter's mark) should be able to short rest while maintaining concentration on the spell AND that this leads to having the spell still running while having rested to regain slots?

For me, it's absolutely clear that it is intended for this to happen. Not only do the rules as written lead to this result without question, I don't believe for one moment that these spells have durations of concentration/ up to 8 or 24 hours, accidentally! The writers must know how the duration interacts with short rests and chose the duration deliberately to allow this sequence of events.

I find it inconceivable that they want you to lose this 24 hour spell every time you have a short rest, without bothering to tell us that the rules are different for this combo.

A bigger question is "Is the impact of allowing it worth the hassle of disallowing it?"
The answer is enviably "No." At worst the Warlock will (eventually) be casting it for it's 24 hour version, and can just do so before a Long rest. In either case, disallowing it only costs your Warlock player a single spell slot. What a conductive and fun environment that sets.

Arial Black said:

Taking your comment at face value, I think this is where the whole debate hinges; is it intended that warlocks with hex (and rangers with hunter's mark) should be able to short rest while maintaining concentration on the spell AND that this leads to having the spell still running while having rested to regain slots?

For me, it's absolutely clear that it is intended for this to happen. Not only do the rules as written lead to this result without question, I don't believe for one moment that these spells have durations of concentration/ up to 8 or 24 hours, accidentally! The writers must know how the duration interacts with short rests and chose the duration deliberately to allow this sequence of events.

I find it inconceivable that they want you to lose this 24 hour spell every time you have a short rest, without bothering to tell us that the rules are different for this combo.

Click to expand...

I think what was unintended was the warlock to wake up every day and do the "rat trick" (almost a (not American) football "hat trick, hahaha). You know what? Never seen in play either, but as I stated before, I really don't feel like caring about it.