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

[Arial Black]

So I will try to state this nicely.

First, anyone who starts with the a priori argument that I am "nerfing" players has a certain mindset that is usually not conducive to productive conversations; at least, not with me.

Second, as evidenced by my other posts (including the part that you are omitting; selective quotes to make an argument is often called inaccurate, which is why in any evidentiary proceeding, if a person wishes to read a part of the record, the other side can demand that the full document be entered so that the context isn't lost), if a player demanded this ability*, and the rest of the table was agreeable, I'd just give it to them. If a person wanted to sacrifice rats because they were a Warlock, more power to them- Warlocks can be creepy. If a person wanted to hex all the time, that's fine too. But I'm not a huge fan of retconning bad fiction to justify rules exploits.

Third, D&D is not chess. If you wish to use rules examples, you might imagine the difference between soccer (futbol) and football (American football). Soccer has very few rules; there is no need to have a specific rule for a player shooting another player, for example. Football, on the other hand, is nothing but rules upon rules upon rules. And when someone (Belichick), exploits a rule in a certain fashion, they create even more rules. And more rules about rules. There is nothing wrong about either system, but they are different ways of administering a game.

Given that I have to deal with people that, usually incorrectly, try to exploit rules all the time in my day-to-day job, I prefer not to deal with those that try to do it in my hobby. Others might enjoy it.


*Which wouldn't happen, because that's not the type of table I have.

I better quote you in full, just in case you think I'm trying to twist your words.

You don't like the accusation of 'nerfing'. The trouble is, you are telling me what you rule, and that ruling is a nerf. It is a ruling which goes against the written rules which has the sole effect of taking away from the warlock's abilities, for no better reason than you don't like it.

RPG are strange in that they are simultaneously 'a game with rules' and a shared rule-less storytelling experience. But the rules are part of it. If you change them as DM, you can be fair, or you can be unfair. There is no 'rule' that says you must be fair, but shouldn't we?

If the rules as written lead to a role-playing consequence that you don't like, then go ahead and change it. However, the specific change you make can either make the warlock (in this case) more powerful than before your change, less powerful, or about the same.

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

You could just as easily, and surely more desirably, make a change which does not alter the power level of the class significantly from the way the rules were originally written. In this case, changing the spell so that it doesn't require an initial target solves the 'I hate bag of rats' while also leaving the power level unchanged an leaving the rest of the rules unchanged.

As opposed to changing the way spellcasting works AND nerfing making warlocks less powerful than written, to solve the same (imaginary) problem.

 

[Caliburn101]

The rats need food, they will want to get out and can with time chew through just about anything, and in a confined space for long periods, most rodents start killing each other. These are all facts...

I haven't had a rules bending player try this in one of my games, but should they do so, they will spend so much time micromanaging their rats it won't seem worth it.

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...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

I want warlocks in any game I run to carry around a bag of rats. There are just too many fun ways for that to go horribly awry.

 

[Barolo]

Better still carry rats under one's hat!

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

What you are saying here basically is that characters know they live in a world dictated by game mechanics, not by any sort of cohesive "story physics" the DM came up with for how their campaign world works.

Why does your character know that if they kill a critter first thing in the morning and then sit on their rear end for an hour they can then have this spell last all day and have their magic back? Because that's what the game mechanics have allowed... not the actual physics and story of the world have allowed. Because odds are pretty close to 100% that if you were to ask your DM "Hey, how do the magic physics of your world work?" and the DM didn't have game mechanics to explain it... they wouldn't come back with...

"Well, you know... everyone who uses magic has a font of magical energy each day that they use to cast their spells and when they run out of that energy they can't cast spells anymore... EXCEPT in this one spell's case where if you cast it first thing in the morning really powerful-like on a rat, and then kill the rat, and then wait an hour after the fact as though you had just ate a sandwich but wanted to go swimming... you get your energy back as though you had never cast the spell in the first place."

"Hey, does that work on any other spells I have?"

"Uh... maybe? One or two?"

"Why not the rest?"

"Um... because... they don't."

"Yeah, buy why? Why can't I do it with any of my spells?"

"Because... you see... only a couple of these spells have specific target, duration, and ability to be more powerful, and only this one particular TYPE of spellcaster amongst all the others can manipulate the magic in such a way that you can do it."

"Why can't other spellcasters do it too then?"

"Because I've decided that's not how they work. Only warlocks can do it."

"Why do only warlocks get to sit on their hands for an hour after getting up in the morning and get to have all their magical energy *and* a spell active all day? Why are they so special?"

"Because... that's... that's just how I've decided warlocks are... allowed to work... in... my world."

"But not for ALL warlock spells? Only for these couple?"

"Yes."

"Any particular reason just these couple?"

"Um... uh... well, story-wise it's because..."

And END SCENE.

Therein lies the rub. Without game mechanics to fall back on as an "explanation", there is absolutely no logical reason a DM would ever design their world's magical physics in this way that didn't sound absolutely ridiculous. And if it weren't for game mechanics to back them up, no DM would ever justify why their world worked in that way. Because taken purely from a narrative, in-world perspective it's just dumb. A couple spells from only one type of spellcaster class gets to break the laws of magical physics in this world for absolutely no narrative reason. And the characters in this world only know this kind of thing *is* possible merely because the players know the game mechanics that are allowing this to happen.

There's no story reason for why these spells get to break the DM's magic physics. The DM wouldn't have even thought of doing it this way if they were designing their world without game rules behind it. It's only the game rules that clue the DM and the players in to the idea that the physics of the world can be broken. So with that being the case... then just accept it. Own it. You are all breaking the logical manifestation of magical physics in this world for no other reason that the game rules allow you to do so. Which is fine! If that's how you want to play, then go for it! Your game, your world! Enjoy it!

But don't then bother coming come here on the boards trying to justify it to the rest of us. As though you're looking for absolution. Because if you feel as though you need other people to agree with you on how you're playing... then that right there tells us you're feeling a little guilty for playing it that way. And that is an even bigger indication that you know deep down as well as the rest of us that what you're doing isn't how you think the game is really meant to be played.

 

[ad_hoc]

Agreed that Hex is overrated.

The point isn't that it's too powerful to allow this, the point is that it's being cheesey and an attempt to abuse the rules. The rules are written casually to allow for streamlined and intuitive play.

It's not the exploitation itself which is the problem either. If a player tried to do this in my game, myself and all the other players would look at them strangely. They probably have a mindset that wasn't conducive to playing with us and so wouldn't likely be invited back.

If this is the sort of thing that a group is okay with you probably know it before doing it. There shouldn't be any need for justifications either way.

 

[Yunru]

What you are saying here basically is that characters know they live in a world dictated by game mechanics, not by any sort of cohesive "story physics" the DM came up with for how their campaign world works.

Why does your character know that if they kill a critter first thing in the morning and then sit on their rear end for an hour they can then have this spell last all day and have their magic back? Because that's what the game mechanics have allowed... not the actual physics and story of the world have allowed. Because odds are pretty close to 100% that if you were to ask your DM "Hey, how do the magic physics of your world work?" and the DM didn't have game mechanics to explain it... they wouldn't come back with...

"Well, you know... everyone who uses magic has a font of magical energy each day that they use to cast their spells and when they run out of that energy they can't cast spells anymore... EXCEPT in this one spell's case where if you cast it first thing in the morning really powerful-like on a rat, and then kill the rat, and then wait an hour after the fact as though you had just ate a sandwich but wanted to go swimming... you get your energy back as though you had never cast the spell in the first place."

"Hey, does that work on any other spells I have?"

"Uh... maybe? One or two?"

"Why not the rest?"

"Um... because... they don't."

"Yeah, buy why? Why can't I do it with any of my spells?"

"Because... you see... only a couple of these spells have specific target, duration, and ability to be more powerful, and only this one particular TYPE of spellcaster amongst all the others can manipulate the magic in such a way that you can do it."

"Why can't other spellcasters do it too then?"

"Because I've decided that's not how they work. Only warlocks can do it."

"Why do only warlocks get to sit on their hands for an hour after getting up in the morning and get to have all their magical energy *and* a spell active all day? Why are they so special?"

"Because... that's... that's just how I've decided warlocks are... allowed to work... in... my world."

"But not for ALL warlock spells? Only for these couple?"

"Yes."

"Any particular reason just these couple?"

"Um... uh... well, story-wise it's because..."

And END SCENE.

Therein lies the rub. Without game mechanics to fall back on as an "explanation", there is absolutely no logical reason a DM would ever design their world's magical physics in this way that didn't sound absolutely ridiculous. And if it weren't for game mechanics to back them up, no DM would ever justify why their world worked in that way. Because taken purely from a narrative, in-world perspective it's just dumb. A couple spells from only one type of spellcaster class gets to break the laws of magical physics in this world for absolutely no narrative reason. And the characters in this world only know this kind of thing *is* possible merely because the players know the game mechanics that are allowing this to happen.

There's no story reason for why these spells get to break the DM's magic physics. The DM wouldn't have even thought of doing it this way. It's only the game rules that clue the DM and the players in to the idea that the physics of the world can be broken. So with that being the case... then just accept it. Own it. You are all breaking the logical manifestation of magical physics in this world for no other reason that the game rules allow you to do so. Which is fine! If that's how you want to play, then go for it! Your game, your world! Enjoy it!

But don't then bother coming come here on the boards trying to justify it to the rest of us. As though you're looking for absolution. Because if you feel as though you need other people to agree with you on how you're playing... then that right there tells us you're feeling a little guilty for playing it that way. And that is an even bigger indication that you know deep down as well as the rest of us that what you're doing isn't how you think the game is really meant to be played.

Actually it does worl with any spell. Provided you're using Pact Magic and it has a long enough duration.

Hell, other spellcasters can do it with the longer duration spells and a long rest.

There's no rub, some spells are simply long enough you've time to recharge your magic before they expire. Warlock magic just regains quicker.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actually it does worl with any spell. Provided you're using Pact Magic and it has a long enough duration.

Hell, other spellcasters can do it with the longer duration spells and a long rest.

There's no rub, some spells are simply long enough you've time to recharge your magic before they expire. Warlock magic just regains quicker.

And why does that happen? Because the game mechanics behind spell durations and how Long and Short Rests work allow you to do it. Not because there's any narrative reason in-world for why this should happen.

So don't bother trying to justify it. It's a waste of time. Take the game mechanic cookie that your DM is giving you and eat it happily.

 

[Barolo]

(...)

If this is the sort of thing that a group is okay with you probably know it before doing it. There shouldn't be any need for justifications either way.

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