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

[Sacrosanct]

Right. The rules literally deal with this. The rules state what types of things can break concentration, and don't list resting. Resting does not break concentration, per RAW. Where is the poster who insisted I was arguing something that wasn't being contested? Lol

I don't understand how this is even controversial.

I don't see how it's controversial either. And I really don't understand why you'd make this post agreeing with him after reading my post that proves it's NOT a complete list. That's what that sentence means that he omitted. "Here's a list of things that can break concentration:" That sentence literally means that this is not complete. By the definition of what words actually mean. So are you just choosing to ignore facts to keep pushing a flawed position on purpose? What do you think that sentence means? I would agree with you if that sentence said "Here are the list of things that break concentration" or "here is a list of ONLY the things that break concentration" AND that last bullet point didn't exist (since that last bullet point flat out tells you it's up to DM fiat on what breaks concentration.) But that's not what the rules actually say. It says "can", and DOES include that last bullet point.

No, it is literally the rules as written.

No it's not. Your logic, it's RAW that I can play a laser shooting dragon as my PC. Do you agree with that statement? If not, why? Because the foundation of your argument is based on "if it's not expressly excluded, then it's RAW allowed."

A rule would have to at least suggest that for it to be part of the rules. Without such a rule, resting, by default, does not break concentration.

That's not what a rule means. A lack of a specific rule prohibiting something does not mean there is a rule that allows it.

rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms: regulation, ruling, directive, order, act, law, statute, edict, canon, mandate, command, dictate, decree, fiat, injunction, commandment, stipulation, requirement, guideline, direction; formalordinance
"health and safety rules"

Since the book is not explicitly allowing rests to not break concentration, by the very definition of what a rule is, what you are claiming is a ruling, not RAW. Which is OK because that's how you like to play. But you don't get to change the definition of what words mean to fit your position.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Furthermore, re-reading the list: The list isn't quite exhaustive (see the thing on page 204), but the word "can" in "the following factors can break concentration" is not there to tell you the list is open-ended; it's there because you can make a con save to avoid losing concentration when you take damage, therefore, one of the factors can, but won't always, break concentration.

I disagree, and think it is there to tell you that the list is just a partial list, and here's why. Because if it was as you claimed, it would be redundant to even have the word in the sentence, and secondly, it doesn't fit the language of the rest of the book. I.e., any time there is a chance of succeeding or failure mentioned in the book, it doesn't say "can" in the description. Eldritch blast doesn't say "you can inflict 1d10 force damage" it says "you do inflict 1d10 force damage on a hit". Same with every other spell that has an effect that has a DC or hit roll. Sneak attack doesn't say "you can inflict 1d6 extra damage" it says "you do inflict 1d6 damage", etc, etc. So why would they break from this standard of language usage to insert the word "can" if it's already understood by the hundreds of other examples already in the book that a failed roll results in a failed attempt?

I think that word is included because it illustrates how the list is a partial list, and not a complete list. I also very much think the designers did not want that to be a complete list, because it would cause problems. I.e., maybe something comes up that makes sense to break concentration but the rules lawyer will say "But it's not on this list, so I keep concentration!" 5e is very much pro-rulings. Everything I know about the game design intent, and word usage, points to that being a partial list to set the groundwork, but is not complete by any means.

 

[seebs]

I disagree, and think it is there to tell you that the list is just a partial list, and here's why. Because if it was as you claimed, it would be redundant to even have the word in the sentence, and secondly, it doesn't fit the language of the rest of the book. I.e., any time there is a chance of succeeding or failure mentioned in the book, it doesn't say "can" in the description. Eldritch blast doesn't say "you can inflict 1d10 force damage" it says "you do inflict 1d10 force damage on a hit". Same with every other spell that has an effect that has a DC or hit roll. Sneak attack doesn't say "you can inflict 1d6 extra damage" it says "you do inflict 1d6 damage", etc, etc. So why would they break from this standard of language usage to insert the word "can" if it's already understood by the hundreds of other examples already in the book that a failed roll results in a failed attempt?

All of those examples are for a single specific thing. This is for a category in which only one thing has a chance-of-failure. I also don't think that the word really implies an open-ended list; when they intend that, they usually say something like "some examples of" or "for instance". This list isn't presented that way.

I think that word is included because it illustrates how the list is a partial list, and not a complete list.

But it doesn't illustrate that, or mean that, at all. The list wouldn't be any more exhaustive without the word "can". The statement "The following factors break concentration" wouldn't logically imply that no other factors do. But it would be incorrect, because it's possible for "Taking damage." (the bolded heading) to happen without breaking concentration. So they need a qualifier to point out that the bolded items in the bullet points can break concentration, so you know you need to read for more detail to see whether or not they do break concentration.

I also very much think the designers did not want that to be a complete list, because it would cause problems. I.e., maybe something comes up that makes sense to break concentration but the rules lawyer will say "But it's not on this list, so I keep concentration!" 5e is very much pro-rulings. Everything I know about the game design intent, and word usage, points to that being a partial list to set the groundwork, but is not complete by any means.

This is complete nonsense. The rules are already completely clear that the DM can allow or prohibit anything if it makes sense to do so. The word "can" wouldn't change that at all, either way.

Most obviously, the fact that at least two or three rules lawyers, at least one of whom has done significant time on a standards committee, think the list is pretty obviously exhaustive suggests that, if the designers intended the word "can" to indicate a nonexhaustive list, and did that instead of saying something like "Factors such as the following can break concentration:", that the designers were not trying very hard.

 

[Sacrosanct]

All of those examples are for a single specific thing. This is for a category in which only one thing has a chance-of-failure. I also don't think that the word really implies an open-ended list; when they intend that, they usually say something like "some examples of" or "for instance". This list isn't presented that way.



But it doesn't illustrate that, or mean that, at all. The list wouldn't be any more exhaustive without the word "can". The statement "The following factors break concentration" wouldn't logically imply that no other factors do. But it would be incorrect, because it's possible for "Taking damage." (the bolded heading) to happen without breaking concentration. So they need a qualifier to point out that the bolded items in the bullet points can break concentration, so you know you need to read for more detail to see whether or not they do break concentration.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Literally every other example of where a roll is needed to determine success or failure in the book does not say "can", it says "does". So it seems pretty obvious that the inclusion of it here, especially with how it's phrased, infers that the list is not a complete list, but a list of things to give you the grounddwork on how to make rulings.

This is complete nonsense. The rules are already completely clear that the DM can allow or prohibit anything if it makes sense to do so. The word "can" wouldn't change that at all, either way..

Nonsense? And yet here we have this thread where people are arguing that is should be allowed because it's RAW (even though that's not what RAW means). My feelings of what the designers intended is hardly nonsense when we don't have to look very far to see examples of it happening.

In fact, I am so certain that that list is not complete, that I'll bet my boxed set of Holmes basic still in it's original shrinkwrap against it. If Mearls or Crawford come out and say that that list is complete and the only things that can break concentration, I'll give up my boxed set.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

While I agree with you that the list was most likely not intended to be complete, I don't understand your argument that the use of the word "can" proves our case. In regards to whether a list is inclusive or exclusive, I see no difference at all between:

"The following factors can break concentration:"

and

"The following factors break concentration:"

I can see where the inclusion of the word "can" makes a difference in whether the list is permissive/mandatory or possible/certain, but try as I might I just don't see any way it has a bearing on whether the list is inclusive or exclusive.

In my experience, a determination of inclusivity/exclusivity usually relies on specific langauge to establish inclusivity, such as "such as", "for example", "here are some", "etc." etc. Otherwise I find that the general presumption is that lists are exclusive. In this case, however, I agree with you that the designer intent was that the list be inclusive, both because of the broad scope of the final list item (although from a technical standpoint that could also be construed as an exclusive list including a residual clause) and also because of the general design philosophies behind 5e.

I just don't understand how the inclusion of the word "can" is even relevant, let alone dispositive.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Is the list of reasons you can't move on your turn also open-ended? Is it RAW to refuse to allow a move action for a reason not indicated or even hinted at in the rules, because it seems consistent or because you think it makes sense?

Yes. No, but you can make a ruling so.

Because as a general rule, once you're to "there is no rule saying this, but it's reasonable for a DM to conclude that...", you're into the area of Rulings, rather than Rules. And Rulings are not RAW, even when they're correct and reasonable.

Ding.

Hmm. Also, thinking about it: No, I don't think that argument would work at all. Concentration isn't maintaining the resource, which is a spell slot. It's maintaining an effect. Spells with long durations are just as much the same resource as their spell slot whether or not they need concentration.

Is it? Where's that rule? Or is this another of those, wotchercallits, rulings?

Hmm. Thought experiment: One of the listed variants allows a 5-minute short rest. Assume a DM is using this. If an elemental tradition monk uses Wall of Stone, they can concentrate on that for up to ten minutes. Would you allow them to regain ki pool during a short rest? Because if the concentration/regaining resources thing is a valid argument, it should be valid there too, but it really doesn't seem sensical at all to me to restrict ki regaining.

I'd allow all but the ki spent on the maintained effects. Just like I'd like the warlock get back all his slots but the one used for the Hex that's still being maintained.

So I'm back to "there is nothing in the rules suggesting that a short rest can break concentration", and while sure, you could add things that break concentration, there's nothing that makes it any more compatible with the rules to automatically break concentration on a short rest than to automatically break concentration whenever a person with blue eyes that you can see faces directly north. It's not specifically ruled out by the rules, but that doesn't imply that it's within the rules to do it.
[/QUOute]
I think it's a fair bit more sensical to restrict concentrating while resting than anything dealing with blue-eyed persons. Reducto ad absurdum doesn't work, here.

Furthermore, re-reading the list: The list isn't quite exhaustive (see the thing on page 204), but the word "can" in "the following factors can break concentration" is not there to tell you the list is open-ended; it's there because you can make a con save to avoid losing concentration when you take damage, therefore, one of the factors can, but won't always, break concentration. The only open-ended permission for GMs to do anything is that environmental factors could, at DM discretion, require a DC10 constitution save. That's it. Nothing that isn't an environmental factor or a thing on the list can break concentration, and environmental factors can do it only if you fail a DC10 con save. That's "RAW". Any extension past that is at best RAI, but is in practice going to be a house rule.

It may be there to indicate open-endedness, it may be there to merely enunciate. English isn't a very precise language in this regard. So, therefore, it comes down to how individuals interpret it, which is where I've been sitting all along.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It seems that some people equate "not RAW" with "bad" and therefore have a hard time accepting that they have made a "not RAW ruling".

Many of us share the same, very reasonable rulings, but that doesn't make them RAW unless it is ACTUALLY WRITTEN. It's what the W stands for.

There is no RAW on the subject of this thread. It just isn't there. It would probably be more effective to discuss what a reasonable ruling would be, but there's clearly not likely to be a consensus.

I've never had it come up - actually, that's not true - I had one player try to do it once a long time ago, after he read it online. I hadn't heard of it before, and thought it was an abuse of a corner case and ruled against it as a knee-jerk reaction. Having now had more time to think on it, I would probably allow it to see what it was like - but I've never had a Warlock player try it again. I don't usually play with optimizers, even in AL.

At any rate I've gone back and forth on my feelings on the subject the whole time I read this thread. I agree, at least in part, with nearly every post here.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Caliban]

It may be there to indicate open-endedness, it may be there to merely enunciate. English isn't a very precise language in this regard. So, therefore, it comes down to how individuals interpret it, which is where I've been sitting all along.

So even if you happen agree on the correct (or most likely correct) ruling, you are willing to argue for page after page that the correct ruling isn't RAW. Because that is an important issue and not at all a complete waste of time.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So even if you happen agree on the correct (or most likely correct) ruling, you are willing to argue for page after page that the correct ruling isn't RAW. Because that is an important issue and not at all a complete waste of time.

Not speaking for him, but I didn't find it a waste of time. A ruling can be very reasonable and "correct" and still not be RAW.

It's why there is any contention as to how to run this. I expect if it was RAW everyone would either be doing it the same way OR admitting that because they don't like the rule that they houserule it away.

Even if "not RAW" is a dirty word to some people "houserule" will always be dirtier!

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[seebs]

Yes. No, but you can make a ruling so.


Ding.

Is it? Where's that rule? Or is this another of those, wotchercallits, rulings?

Good point, because the entire concept of "maintaining the resource" is not actually present in the rules. Which makes it, pretty much by definition, not "RAW".

I think it's a fair bit more sensical to restrict concentrating while resting than anything dealing with blue-eyed persons. Reducto ad absurdum doesn't work, here.

It actually does. The entire point of "RAW" is that it is only the literal text of the rules, not including any specific rulings imposed by the GM because they make sense.

Yes, the game absolutely allows, and even encourages, GMs to make special-case rulings. But in the absence of such a ruling, it gives us a specific list of the circumstances under which concentration is broken, and short rests are not on that list, and do not imply anything on that list. So the rules say you can maintain concentration for 24 hours unless one of a specific set of things happens, and if none of those things happens, that's all there is to RAW. Any determination that something else should happen is by definition not RAW, because there is no written rule stating it.

Hmm. Hang on, I think I have spotted a thing, based on Fitz's nearby comments:

I think things come in three categories. "RAW", "not RAW", "contrary to RAW". If you declare that someone using a shortsword does 3d6 damage because you saw a short sword fighter in a movie once and he was just mowing people down, blam, that should definitely do more than 1d6 damage? That's "contrary to RAW". The rules explicitly state the damage for a short sword, you're ignoring them. If you declare that a shovel used as an improvised weapon does slashing damage, because it's got a blade of sorts, that's neither RAW nor contrary to RAW. If you declare that it does bludgeoning damage because it's not really sharp, that's also neither RAW nor contrary to RAW.

It seems to me that, RAW, all we have is that you can maintain concentration for 24 hours unless one of a set of things happen, and a ruling that there are additional things neither mentioned nor hinted at by the rules which also break concentration for some reason like "maintaining a resource" is specifically contrary-to-RAW. By contrast, a ruling that you cannot maintain concentration while vuvuzelas are playing near you without a DC10 Constitution check would be neither RAW nor contrary to RAW. The rule allows for DM-chosen external circumstances to potentially disrupt concentration, subject to a DC10 Con check. It does not require that you consider vuvuzelas to be such a circumstance, but it does allow for it.

Note that it's still perfectly reasonable, often, for a ruling to be directly contrary to RAW. There's no rule saying so, but I recently ruled that a monk who already had a skeleton grappled when it animated did not need to make rolls to take it out. That's unambiguously contrary to RAW, but it kept the game moving. Fine by me. If you have concerns about the side-effects of letting people maintain concentration through a short rest, and want to add a new exception to the concentration rules, you go right ahead. But there's nothing in the book that states that such an exception exists at any level short of the DM's general authority to make arbitrary rulings which may freely contradict the written rules.