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

[seebs]

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.

Hmm. Okay, so, I can come up with a sort of example.

"Is there any way to view the source of a web page?"
"Firefox can view source."

This doesn't actually remotely imply an exhaustive list, and you might even interpret it, in that context, as implying there's probably other things which can also do that. But I think, in that case, it's not "can" that does this. It's the context of not having any kind of qualifier or introducing a list. In general, if you introduce a list and intend it to be non-exhaustive, there's usually some kind of marker like "some examples are" or "for instance".

But I've seen sentences where "can" may have had a sort of connotation of "well, this is one way to do it".

 

[S'mon]

I think if I was the Patron I'd want an appropriate sacrifice. A nice chicken, at the very least. "Rats for Cthulu!" seems slightly insulting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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".



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.

The part where you say that there can't be anything else that breaks concentration or it's 'contrary to RAW' is also an interpretation that may be contrary to RAW. RAW isn't clear, and implies there are 'things' that can break concentration.

But, again, my point isn't that sitting around for a hour breaks concentration - that seems well called. It's that you may not be able to rest while concentrating, an area far more open to interpretation. Please don't try to pin the 'standing around for a hour breaks concentration'. I don't think anyone's actually advancing that. They're saying you can't maintain concentration during a rest, but that's more because if you want to rest, you can't concentration on a spell than if you don't do anything for an hour you break your concentration. At least, that's how I've read those arguments. Anyone who'd like to speak up that they think standing around for an hour breaks concentration is welcome to correct me.

EDIT: To clarify, there's two directions here -- from what breaks concentration, and from what you're allowed to do to rest. I agree that the activity of resting shouldn't break concentration. This seems clear and well within what the RAW indicates. But the 2nd direction, what can you do while resting, isn't clear, and here there exist significant uncertainty that can include a DM saying 'sure, it doesn't break your concentration, but you don't get the benefits of a rest while concentrating." This is where my 'maintaining a resource' ruling comes in, where I try to split the divide between the allowed by RAW recovery and the allowed by RAW denial of recovery. Oddly, this means, as you note, that I'm contrary to RAW, because RAW doesn't have a mechanic for partial recovery. Guilty.

 

[werecorpse]

That's not what a false equivalency is. People have literally made the argument that if a specific scenario is explicitly excluded in a rule, then that rule, as it is written, permits it. That's not what a rule is defined as. Ergo, my comment about changing the definition of what words mean, even to the point of claiming the opposite of what the word does actually mean.

I'm not sure why you bring up that argument you say people made. That statement wasn't what I quoted you as saying when I said false equivalency.

You equated the assertion that "An omission of a scenario being prohibited means the scenario is allowed RAW" With the assertion "up is down or left is right".

Equating those statements is what I was referring to as false equivalency.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Personally I don't think that something you could do for up to 8 and/or 24 hours straight qualifies as strenuous, so I wouldn't say concentration prohibits a short rest. As far as I can tell you could hike for 12 hours in D&D while maintaining concentration on a spell with no extra checks forced on you.

Anything goes in anyone's game of course. I was just talking about the stock rules.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not sure why you bring up that argument you say people made. That statement wasn't what I quoted you as saying when I said false equivalency.

You equated the assertion that "An omission of a scenario being prohibited means the scenario is allowed RAW" With the assertion "up is down or left is right".

Equating those statements is what I was referring to as false equivalency.

The assertion I made with "up is down, left is right" was with people changing the definition of what words mean, sometimes to the opposite of what they actually mean. Again, not a false equivalency because they are both referring to things being the opposite of what they actually are.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmm. Okay, so, I can come up with a sort of example.

"Is there any way to view the source of a web page?"
"Firefox can view source."

This doesn't actually remotely imply an exhaustive list, and you might even interpret it, in that context, as implying there's probably other things which can also do that. But I think, in that case, it's not "can" that does this. It's the context of not having any kind of qualifier or introducing a list. In general, if you introduce a list and intend it to be non-exhaustive, there's usually some kind of marker like "some examples are" or "for instance".

But I've seen sentences where "can" may have had a sort of connotation of "well, this is one way to do it".

Absolutely. If you said, "The following browsers and programs can view your web page source code:"

And then listed 4 things, the only thing that would indicate that it isn't a total list is the knowledge that it isn't.

 

[Flamestrike]

Can you concentrate on a spell during a short rest? Absolutely.

There is nothing in RAW suggesting otherwise, the longer spell durations clearly infer you can, and the devs have expressly stated as much.

As for a 'bag off rats' if a player suggested it in my game, he gets a... 'look' from the DM. If he cant figure out what that look means, he's in for a short tenure at my table.

That kind of metagaming the rules is something we frown upon in our social contract. Like gaming the rest system or skill checks or whatever. If you're happy with those kinds of shennanigans at your table, go for it. At ours we prefer a different experience, sans people gaming rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can you concentrate on a spell during a short rest? Absolutely.

There is nothing in RAW suggesting otherwise, the longer spell durations clearly infer you can, and the devs have expressly stated as much.

As for a 'bag off rats' if a player suggested it in my game, he gets a... 'look' from the DM. If he cant figure out what that look means, he's in for a short tenure at my table.

That kind of metagaming the rules is something we frown upon in our social contract. Like gaming the rest system or skill checks or whatever. If you're happy with those kinds of shennanigans at your table, go for it. At ours we prefer a different experience, sans people gaming rules.

Again, I fail to see why long durations imply that you can rest. Resting isn't required, and those durations are useful without rests. This point is a push for me -- it doesn't imply anything at all.

What implies you can rest is that there's no activity in resting that indicates it would be more stressful that the things listed that you can maintain concentration doing. No one's arguing you can't lounge about for an hour without breaking concentration. Again, the argument there is from the other side -- you can't gain the benefits of rests while concentrating.

 

[Amatiel]

I have no problems with characters maintaining concentration over rest periods. If they can concentrate during a battle, while eating lunch seems more than ok. The only thing I have done, is certify that you can only have up to 2 short rests per day. One in the morning, and one in the afternoon. And of course one long rest pre day, which typically has to occur from before midnight - as PCs typically need 8 hours of rest.