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

The only thing I really have to add is this:

The spirit of the game (the way it's designed to be played) should always take precedence over an exploit, especially if that exploit is glaringly against the spirit of the game. The reality with a rules heavy game like D&D, and it's always been this way, is that there are exploits there. There's simply no way designers can test every single potential scenario in an open world RPG. So while something may technically be RAW, one needs to ask, "If the designers were aware of this exploit before publishing, would they have changed the rule to prevent it?" If the answer is "yes", then who cares if it's RAW. It's against the spirit of the game, and that matters. There's a reason why the term "rules lawyer" came about very early on in the late 70s, and describes a player no one really wants to play with.

Arial Black said:

The change you are proposing makes the warlock less powerful. This is known colloquially as a 'nerf'.

Click to expand...

I don't get why there is so much fervor about the bag-o-rats. Really, the only difference is that the Warlock casts hex on the first enemy instead of a rat. That means the party can't get an advantage out of a short rest before actually doing something from which they might need to rest. It's not really the end of the world. At the end of the day, it amounts to a question about whether animal sacrifice is evil or just creepy.

Now, when you talk about whether or not the slot can be restored when it's still "in use", that's a bit more substantive of a conversation -- but still not one that warrants a lot of emotion. I happen to think it's more balanced to allow it, but [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] also admits that his ruling isn't necessarily RAW. As long as his table doesn't have any problems with that (and you aren't at his table), it remains something of an academic discussion, unless someone makes it personal.

Barolo said:

This is the core of the discussion, I guess. It also makes the whole arguing over this topic almost pointless.

Click to expand...

the Jester said:

So first, I don't have a problem with the 'maintain hex through a short rest' part of this tactic. I don't think it's overpowered, nor do I think it's abusive. I think it's both RAW and RAI.

The bag of rats, though... the damned bag of rats. *Shakes head*

I decided in 3.0 that if your tactic relies on a bag of rats, I find it detestable. I am very likely to disallow it on principle, though in this case I really like the "make the micromanagement of rats not worth the effort" approach.

Do this without a goddamned bag of rats and I have no problem with it. Cast hex during your first combat and roll with it all day. But keep your rats out of it.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that now instead of a bag of rats, the warlock is incentivized to go punch a villager into unconsciousness. Or just slit their throat. It pushes the character towards finding an easy low-risk combat scenario, which is arguably even weirder than the bag of rats. The hardest part of a fully satisfying solution to this issue for me is that allowing all of the mechanics that lead to a bag of rats, which on their own are all reasonable and seem to be RAI and RAW how the warlock is balanced, leads to some kind of weird behavior.

Arial Black said:

The change you are proposing makes the warlock less powerful. This is known colloquially as a 'nerf'.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is necessarily true, especially when the proposed change is to address an exploit.

TOP DEFINITION
nerfed
The term "nerfing" comes from the online gaming world of Ultima Online.

At one point in the game, the developers reduced the power of swords in melee combat.

This resulted in players complaining that it was like they were hitting each other with nerf bats, not swords.

From then on, if ever something gets made less worth while than it had been originally, it is considered 'nerfed'


Nerfed
1.To make something pointless whereas before it was productive
2.To Stop something working

Usually a term used in online games


It seems the term "nerf" is mostly meant to describe something that not only was reduced in power, but in a way that made it a poor choice to use going forward. Taking away this exploit doesn't make the warlock a poor choice to play or less powerful than any other class, so I probably wouldn't use that term.

Caliburn101 said:

No set of rules is perfect, and anyone trying ridiculous schemes to 'play' them is not the kind of player I want around the table. Luckily, I rarely encounter such individuals, the vast majority of gamers are reasonable people who don't think that because it's not disallowed by a specific rule, that the GM doesn't have final say on the matter...

Click to expand...

This comes across as saying that you would consider a gamer who tried to do this rat-killing thing as unreasonable, and not someone you'd want to play with. Is that accurate? If so, why?

TriBeCa99 said:

The problem here is that now instead of a bag of rats, the warlock is incentivized to go punch a villager into unconsciousness. Or just slit their throat. It pushes the character towards finding an easy low-risk combat scenario, which is arguably even weirder than the bag of rats. The hardest part of a fully satisfying solution to this issue for me is that allowing all of the mechanics that lead to a bag of rats, which on their own are all reasonable and seem to be RAI and RAW how the warlock is balanced, leads to some kind of weird behavior.

Click to expand...

Doesn't the fact that you acknowledge the potential for "weird behavior" seem to indicate that perhaps it isn't as Intended as you think it is?

Why are you using a bag of rats? Because punching a villager or slitting their throat is "weird". But then why isn't carrying a bag of rats around with you and killing one every morning "weird"? Because it's the only way you can narratively justify these game mechanics you think you're getting.

Isn't it more likely that the game mechanics really aren't wanting to give you these abilities? When the alternative is such a bizarre and "weird" amount of narrative hoops to jump through? Isn't this the perfect example of K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)?

TriBeCa99 said:

I'm posting because I found that thread to be a somewhat frustrating experience while looking for a rules clarification / discussion on this issue.

Click to expand...

This is because there is no actual rules answer to this question. The question, "is concentrating on a spell more strenuous eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds?," is simply not answered by the rules and it is up to individual DMs to make a ruling/judgment call.

*Deleted by user*

TriBeCa99 said:

The problem here is that now instead of a bag of rats, the warlock is incentivized to go punch a villager into unconsciousness. Or just slit their throat. It pushes the character towards finding an easy low-risk combat scenario, which is arguably even weirder than the bag of rats. The hardest part of a fully satisfying solution to this issue for me is that allowing all of the mechanics that lead to a bag of rats, which on their own are all reasonable and seem to be RAI and RAW how the warlock is balanced, leads to some kind of weird behavior.

Click to expand...

Again, this is a matter of what is acceptable at the table. It's all social contract.

If hex isn't overpowered, there's absolutely no reason to not void RAW and say you don't need a target, you just tie up your concentration. Creepy problem solved.

On the other hand, it's not like you can't just cast it during the first round of combat in which you actually want to use it. The casting time is "1 bonus action" so it doesn't even prevent you from attacking, that round.

If hex is overpowered, then you have a gaming of rules where the intent was to cost the PC a resource to use the ability, but the player is using a technicality to try to skate by. In that case, it's actually the DM's responsibility to say "no" and a player who is throwing a fit is actually just being a jerk.

Again, it's not like you can't just cast it during the first round of combat in which you actually want to use it.

If the RAW for hex is not appropriate to the tone or whatever that the DM and table wants to set, then it is, again, the DM's responsibility to tweak things so they work. If there is no objection at the table, then the whole thing is working out right. This is the case with saying that the slot doesn't "reset" while it's being used.

Note that I said it's the DM's "responsibility", not "privilege" or "right". The DM actually does have more responsibility than the rest of the players. He's the final buffer between rules that are good in theory and reality. That responsibility is why I'd rather play an RPG (on either side of the screen) than a board game or video game, any day of the week.

It doesn't prevent attacking, but it does prevent casting non-cantrip spells.