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

[abirdcall]

Even if the player was compatible with your group in every other way, or are you just assuming that they wouldn't fit in other ways, if they thought to do this?

What if they expressed that they assumed it was as intended, because it makes sense to them in game, and in terms of how the warlock is built? Ie, what if I was that player, and made the argument that I've made in this thread?

The answer is in the quote.

Here it is again: "They probably have a mindset that wasn't conducive to playing with us and so wouldn't likely be invited back."

It is indicative of how you approach and see the game. That approach is likely not compatible with the group. That doesn't mean you are a bad person, you are just not a good fit for our D&D group. By the same turn, if I was in a group where people were doing this I would probably just leave. Life is too short to not enjoy gaming time.

 

[Gadget]

For me, I try to decide if players feel compeled to get the 'one right choice' when selecting options for their character. Currently the veteran players consider hex to be a mandatory spell and assume that it should be active at all times or the warlock is not doing the amount of damage they should be doing.

I agree and think the new 'Pack of the Blade' Warlock with its own minor 'hex' power kind of reinforces this notion. That being said, sacrificing your concentration to keep it up is, well, a sacrifice, and not something you would or should do all the time.

The other single target level 1 warlock spell does 1d12 (if it hits) each round with concentration for up to a minute. Since both spells use concentration, you would never want to have both spells with the minimal ammount of spell slots that a warlock has. That means a warlock can take a spell that does 1d6 on every hit for the next 24 hours, or they can do 1d12 (if they don't miss) each round to one creature after each short rest.

This on the other hand...I just...don't. If your players think Witch Bolt is at all worth it in any but the most contrived circumstances, I'm not sure 'veteran' is the term I'd use to describe them. You are almost always better off just using Eldritch Blast, especially with Hex up, and especially with Agonizing Blast. I don't think a poorly designed spell like Witch Bolt is really a good argument for or against Hex.

That's why I've gone with the 'concentrating on a spell holds a spell slot' rule at my table. That moves hex from being mandatory to just being a very good damage option. Any warlock who did not chose the 'one right option' would not feel gimped at my table.

I must say I don't really agree. Warlocks have enough limitations on their usefulness, particularly in the direct damage department (outside of EBing everything in sight). Limiting Hex in this way does not do them any favors, and there are still times when you want to sacrifice concentration for other spells. Even with your ruling, I still wouldn't touch Witch Bolt with a ten foot pole.

That said, your point about Hex being, if I can paraphrase, 'an undocumented spell tax' is well taken, if arguable. I'm not sure this entirely correct though. I think one could take the position that it is possible to make a decent Warlock without Hex. Personally, I feel even more strongly about this issue with the Ranger and Hunter's Mark, and wish they had just made it a class ability rather than revert back to the tiresome 'favored enemy' shtick in the revised Ranger.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally,

As either a GM or player, this is best handled in play. Ridiculous things are ridiculous and carry their own penalties:

CAMPAIGN DIARY, DAY 5
Last night, Warlock, apparently overwhelmed by guilt, committed suicide. At least, so says the note that he dictated to Rogue and then pinned to his chest with Rogue's dagger. He also kindly left a meal of roast rat cooking on a spit. We can already hear the wolf-things clawing at the door...

while I disagree heartily that this is, at all, ridiculous, this post was pretty damn funny.

The answer is in the quote.

Here it is again: "They probably have a mindset that wasn't conducive to playing with us and so wouldn't likely be invited back."

It is indicative of how you approach and see the game. That approach is likely not compatible with the group. That doesn't mean you are a bad person, you are just not a good fit for our D&D group. By the same turn, if I was in a group where people were doing this I would probably just leave. Life is too short to not enjoy gaming time.

No, I get all that. That wasn't what I was asking.

What confuses me is why this is indicative of a particular playstyle.

Like I said, what about the entirely in game and roleplaying based points I made in this thread on the topic?
I don't get it, because the mindset you seem to think this indicates...isn't related at all to why I think this is a sensible thing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[CM]

Just ducking in and out with a hot take, but if I were a powerful supernatural being and my servant was wasting my magical gifts to kill trifling vermin I might be a little cross.

Anyway, in the groups I'm involved in, concentration can't be maintained through a rest. The rest of the party can certainly rest, but the concentrating caster doesn't get the benefits.

 

[Dausuul]

Moreover, it doesnt say in the rulebook that a dog can't play D&D! Coming in 2017... Nerd Bud 2: This time he's leveling in dog levels!

View attachment 81441

Is it weird that I feel like I can guess what class each dog would play?

Heh, now that you mention it... let's see if your assessment lines up with mine. Starting with the one in the cap next to the DM and going around the table, I'm gonna say:

1. Fighter with a big ol' sword and a lot of hit points. Goes where he's told and hits stuff.
2. Ineffectual bard, sometimes entertaining, always infuriating.
3. Rogue who's always trying to steal from other PCs.
4. Dwarf fighter with an attitude. Will fight anyone, anywhere, any time, for any reason.
5. Cleric, not very bright but with a heart of gold.
6. Wizard played by a ruthlessly efficient min-maxer. Not so much a character as a mathematical formula, which inevitably computes out to "You're dead."

 

[Ratskinner]

Heh, now that you mention it... let's see if your assessment lines up with mine. Starting with the one in the cap next to the DM and going around the table, I'm gonna say:

1. Fighter with a big ol' sword and a lot of hit points. Goes where he's told and hits stuff.
2. Ineffectual bard, sometimes entertaining, always infuriating.
3. Rogue who's always trying to steal from other PCs.
4. Dwarf fighter with an attitude. Will fight anyone, anywhere, any time, for any reason.
5. Cleric, not very bright but with a heart of gold.
6. Wizard played by a ruthlessly efficient min-maxer. Not so much a character as a mathematical formula, which inevitably computes out to "You're dead."

Not too far off, I think. I had:
1. Barbarian, same reason, least likely to act in character
2. Ranger, who is always trying to overuse his pets. Pays little attention to the rules, but likes the pictures.
3. Bard, the dramatist of the group, most likely to speak in character.
4. Dwarf Cleric, here to do a job and keep the rest of 'em in line.
5. Cleric or multi-class, whatever he thought everybody would need.
6. I thought fighter, but totally agree on shameless min-maxing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just ducking in and out with a hot take, but if I were a powerful supernatural being and my servant was wasting my magical gifts to kill trifling vermin I might be a little cross.

Anyway, in the groups I'm involved in, concentration can't be maintained through a rest. The rest of the party can certainly rest, but the concentrating caster doesn't get the benefits.

Why?

 

[abirdcall]

while I disagree heartily that this is, at all, ridiculous, this post was pretty damn funny.



No, I get all that. That wasn't what I was asking.

What confuses me is why this is indicative of a particular playstyle.

Like I said, what about the entirely in game and roleplaying based points I made in this thread on the topic?
I don't get it, because the mindset you seem to think this indicates...isn't related at all to why I think this is a sensible thing.

Creating a thematic justification for a rules loophole doesn't change what you are doing.

Warlocks don't have the ability to sacrifice creatures to gain spell slots. No one in our group would think to try to game the system to gain that ability. It would be very jarring to have a new player try it and would be indicative of a different way of looking at the game.

 

[The Hierophant]

To my mind, and giving the words what I consider to be their ordinary meaning, "concentration" and "rest" are mutually exclusive. If I am concentrating on something I am not resting. If I am resting I am clearing my mind and relaxing. I would therefore rule that you cannot rest and concentrate on a spell.

(I think the problem here may be that "concentration" in D&D isn't really what I would call "concentration" but instead is a mechanism to prevent multiple spells of particular types being active and that mechanism is called "concentration". But I still favour my interpretation of the rules.)