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

[seebs]

I'll say it again, because it answers all of your hypotheticals:

RAW doesn't say one way or the other, so make a ruling for your table.

I'm not convinced that the rules as written don't say. Specifically, the rules say when you can or can't keep concentration, and so far as I can tell, they don't say anything that would even hint at "but you can't maintain it through a short rest".

They don't explicitly say that you can, but you know, the rules never explicitly state that you can move on your turn even if someone in your party is named Greg, either. It's just that there's a rule that you can move on your turn, and while there are exceptions, none of them are "unless someone in your party is named Greg".

There are listed things that break concentration. A "short rest" is not one of them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not convinced that the rules as written don't say. Specifically, the rules say when you can or can't keep concentration, and so far as I can tell, they don't say anything that would even hint at "but you can't maintain it through a short rest".

They don't explicitly say that you can, but you know, the rules never explicitly state that you can move on your turn even if someone in your party is named Greg, either. It's just that there's a rule that you can move on your turn, and while there are exceptions, none of them are "unless someone in your party is named Greg".

There are listed things that break concentration. A "short rest" is not one of them.

And that's a fantastic and well supported interpretation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not true that 'RAW doesn't say one way or the other' about maintaining concentration during a rest. The concentration rules have a complete list of things that end the concentration:-

* casting another spell that requires concentration
* taking damage (save or end concentration)
* being incapacitated or killed
* the DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.

This is a complete list. 'Resting' is not on that list (and 'resting' is not an 'environmental phenomenon' comparable to a crashing wave; by definition 'resting' requires avoiding strenuous activity).



A bad houserule, but a houserule nonetheless and so not an observation which advances the debate about RAW.



Exerting yourself (by casting spells and burning slots) and then resting to recover (short rest regaining Pact Magic slots) totally makes sense in-world, exclusive of any metagame slot consideration.

Yeah, disagree it's an exhaustive list. Disagree it was meant as an exhaustive list. But that's definitely a solid interpretation.

 

[seebs]

I'd say it's the actual rules-as-written. And the rules totally allow for you to change the list, or add things to it, but the rules as written say you can keep concentrating for 24 hours unless something stops you from doing so, and they give examples of things that would stop you, and I don't see anything to suggest an intent that "resting quietly" would be one of them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'd say it's the actual rules-as-written. And the rules totally allow for you to change the list, or add things to it, but the rules as written say you can keep concentrating for 24 hours unless something stops you from doing so, and they give examples of things that would stop you, and I don't see anything to suggest an intent that "resting quietly" would be one of them.

Not RAW, but that's a fine ruling.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's not true that 'RAW doesn't say one way or the other' about maintaining concentration during a rest. The concentration rules have a complete list of things that end the concentration:-

* casting another spell that requires concentration
* taking damage (save or end concentration)
* being incapacitated or killed
* the DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.

This is a complete list. 'Resting' is not on that list (and 'resting' is not an 'environmental phenomenon' comparable to a crashing wave; by definition 'resting' requires avoiding strenuous activity).
.

Yeah....this isn't true. That is not the complete list. In fact, the book explicitly tells you it's not a complete list by the first first sentence above that list that you chose not to include in your post:

"The following factors can break concentration:"


Emphasis mine. So clearly, that list is just some examples. Not a complete list. Heck, even that last part you did include very clearly says it's not a complete list because they are saying it's up to DM discretion.


And I'll say it again. An omission of a scenario being prohibited does NOT mean that the rules say the scenario is allowed RAW. We can't go around just changing the definition of words otherwise you'll end up with up is down and left is right and people saying they had the largest inauguration turnout in history....

 

[abirdcall]

And I'll say it again. An omission of a scenario being prohibited does NOT mean that the rules say the scenario is allowed RAW. We can't go around just changing the definition of words otherwise you'll end up with up is down and left is right and people saying they had the largest inauguration turnout in history....

#AlternativeRAW

 

[Sacrosanct]

#AlternativeRAW

BINGO! That is genius.

 

[werecorpse]

Firstly, I'm not in your classroom. Given you appear to have an endpoint in mind, perhaps you could just advance that instead of the Socrates questioning?

But, to play along for a bit more:

1. None. If you actually read my posts you'd have noticed I called your ruling extremely reasonable.

2. No, strictly speaking. The default to situations not covered by the rules is that it's not covered, make a ruling. You can look to other things on the rules for guidance, but the thing about not being RAW is that it's not RAW. Tautoligies are fun.

3. Yes, they provide guidance. It's "ask your DM." If you're the DM, it's, "here's some stuff, make up your own mind." Regardless of whatever guidance you imagine exists, the DM'S ruling is what counts when it's not covered by RAW. If you disagree with your DM, I don't suggest you follow this line of argumentation.

4. Yup, 100%. The RAW wasn't clear, so I get to make a ruling. Totally supported by the rules, and 100% valid at my table. And, to be clear, I think your ruling us exactly as good, here.

My questioning is because you seem to have a reasonable position that I partially agree with but partially question I just want to explore it further. If you don't want to engage that's fine.

Re 1. Wow I can't even get your posts as written right - you said " I wasn't telling you your ruling was unreasonable, it most certainly is, I told you it wasn't RAW as you claimed." So you say this means you "called my ruling extremely reasonable"?

Re 2-3 I understand your position and disagree, I believe the RAW give guidance to interpretation (edit: beyond "ask your DM" and that they do). I do also agree that in the end the DM is the final arbiter and decider of what happens but that doesn't mean the rules give no other guidance than "sk the DM".

Re 4 if the only guidance you got from the rules was if its not RAW the DM makes up the rules without any guidance then sure that works.

 

[werecorpse]

And I'll say it again. An omission of a scenario being prohibited does NOT mean that the rules say the scenario is allowed RAW. We can't go around just changing the definition of words otherwise you'll end up with up is down and left is right and people saying they had the largest inauguration turnout in history....

#false equivalency