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

[Mercule]

If it's particularly the bag o' that's the issue, wouldn't it be easier to just say you can only put hex on an actual enemy, not on random pets? That seems to align better with the purpose of the spell, and it avoids complicating the rest mechanics.

This was floated and, thus, the "punch a villager in the face" idea was born. The villager may not be a big threat, but he's a sentient being who wants to harm you and you made an attack against him.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Caliburn101]

This was floated and, thus, the "punch a villager in the face" idea was born. The villager may not be a big threat, but he's a sentient being who wants to harm you and you made an attack against him.

The Warlock repeatedly assaulting people would be arrested and thrown in jail.

Not only that, but the guards, having come across this behaviour before no doubt would toss a bag of rats into the Warlocks' cell just to rub it in...

 

[Yunru]

The Warlock repeatedly assaulting people would be arrested and thrown in jail.

Not only that, but the guards, having come across this behaviour before no doubt would toss a bag of rats into the Warlocks' cell just to rub it in...

So you're saying it leads to interest (if somewhat dark) plot hooks? Interesting.

 

[Caliburn101]

So you're saying it leads to interest (if somewhat dark) plot hooks? Interesting.

The first few times it happened in the campaign's history, sure, but unless set in a very early time, there would be well-established laws against it, and even pogroms against warlocks because their magic 'requires' them to hurt people.

 

[Yunru]

The first few times it happened in the campaign's history, sure, but unless set in a very early time, there would be well-established laws against it, and even pogroms against warlocks because their magic 'requires' them to hurt people.

I'm not seeing a negative here, in terms of plot hooks to drive a story.

 

[Caliburn101]

I'm not seeing a negative here, in terms of plot hooks to drive a story.

Sure, unless you have a player who wants to play a warlock and not get mobbed by angry peasants or live a super-secretive life all the time...

 

[Yunru]

Sure, unless you have a player who wants to play a warlock and not get mobbed by angry peasants or live a super-secretive life all the time...

Well then they're not going to be punching a hobo each morning are they?

 

[jaelis]

This was floated and, thus, the "punch a villager in the face" idea was born. The villager may not be a big threat, but he's a sentient being who wants to harm you and you made an attack against him.

Well if the character gets in a legit fight, who could argue against letting him use the spell? But this is kind of a silly response since there aren't any villagers in the dungeon. Bag o' villagers is a whole different set of problems.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

If it's particularly the bag o' that's the issue, wouldn't it be easier to just say you can only put hex on an actual enemy, not on random pets? That seems to align better with the purpose of the spell, and it avoids complicating the rest mechanics.

I think you missed my point of why I use the rest mechanics. There are multiple issues that can arise by allowing back to back rests. I just wrap them all up into a single ruling instead of denying specific instances. Now if he is able to take the time to catch himself a bag of rats (at it is not on the standard equipment lists) and convince the others to stop for rest after an hour's travel then he would be perfectly capable regaining his spell slots.