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

[doctorbadwolf]

They probably didn't include this precise combination on purpose. It's what I would call an "emergent property".

Right. Each rules interaction involved here was done on purpose. Resting while concentrating, concentrating through a rest, Warlocks getting slots back even if they are concentrating, etc. I don't think the designers imagined this specific thing, but it is a direct result of intentional rules.

It's also not a big deal. At most it is an extra spell for your first fight of a day.

 

[Caliban]

Right. Each rules interaction involved here was done on purpose. Resting while concentrating, concentrating through a rest, Warlocks getting slots back even if they are concentrating, etc. I don't think the designers imagined this specific thing, but it is a direct result of intentional rules.

It's also not a big deal. At most it is an extra spell for your first fight of a day.

Yes. There are things that are allowed by the rules that some people simply don't like. And if that person is the DM, they can disallow it for their game.

For another example - 5e technically allows you to dual wield lances when mounted on horseback. I personally find this rather nonsensical, and disallow it in my home game. But I'm not going to argue that it's not allowed by RAW.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes. There are things that are allowed by the rules that some people simply don't like. And if that person is the DM, they can disallow it for their game.

For another example - 5e technically allows you to dual wield lances when mounted on horseback. I personally find this rather nonsensical, and disallow it in my home game. But I'm not going to argue that it's not allowed by RAW.

I think the only people who might argue with you would be saying that it is neither allowed nor disallowed by RAW, in that nowhere is it "written" that you can do it. Semantics? Probably.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Caliban]

I think the only people who might argue with you would be saying that it is neither allowed nor disallowed by RAW, in that nowhere is it "written" that you can do it. Semantics? Probably.

Absolutely semantics. I have no respect or patience for such arguments. They are a waste of time.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

Super reasonable.

I agree with he part about concentration. IMO, it is clear RAW and RAI that you can keep concentration up through a rest and regain slots, and I can't see any RAW based arguement against the "KO a hexed critter and then short rest" part that people object to.

I agree that something has to happen between rests, too.

I have a question about that, though. What about this scenario:

Party has reached level 5, leveled up, is on an adventure in the wilds.

First thing in the am, the warlock and ranger go out to hunt down some food for the next few days or later that day, whatever.
Warlock and his familiar bag a rabbit, right off, ranger and his per bag a small deer.

Warlock uses Hex, because he knows he will have full spell power back after he and the ranger cook their spoils and salt them for storage or whatever (a short rest IMO can definately include cooking some food).

Finds that the spell is more powerful than before, and will last all day. Does his thing, rests, and finds that his full spell power returns to him, and Hex is still going.

Now, is this a problem? What if hunting and checking traps have been part of the routine anyway, before this?

Certainly a warlock with a predator familiar, like a bird of prey, will be a great hunter of small game, so why not?

Does making and eating breakfast need to be part of a long rest? I've never thought of it as such.

Just curious.

I generally allow that characters "just know" as they gain access to greater power. After all, to gain that additional power, the Warlock/Ranger must expend a higher level slot (especially in the case of the Ranger) and it would be strange for them to do so without knowing they had that slot. Beyond that, this get a little into the M-word that begs the question: is the ends justifying the means or the means the justifying the end? This certainly is situational and I prefer to deal with generalities when it comes to general rulings and specifics if the situation comes up. After all, if they are in town or hunting is handled generally as part of the exploration/travelling day, then this specific instance becomes less realistic.

Usually, this As I mentioned far earlier, an about an hours worth of exploration level activity is enough or combat is enough for me to break rest. So in this case they would have had to had their long rest, spend an hour in an exploration level activity (hunting) that can open the possibility of danger or failure to find game that would require hunting (most small game would die in the traps and the Survival roll might produce berries just as easily as game). So approximately an hour after you have finished your long rest of 8+ hours, you are now capable of taking a short rest of 1+ hours that may include cooking a meal.

Do I think is RAW? No, but it certainly is within a DM's rulings that don't contradict RAW. Would I sit down as a player and try to force this on another DM? No, since as a DM that generally would expect my players to accept my rulings, I feel it is my duty to accept and promote the rulings of the table DM.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I generally allow that characters "just know" as they gain access to greater power. After all, to gain that additional power, the Warlock/Ranger must expend a higher level slot (especially in the case of the Ranger) and it would be strange for them to do so without knowing they had that slot. Beyond that, this get a little into the M-word that begs the question: is the ends justifying the means or the means the justifying the end? This certainly is situational and I prefer to deal with generalities when it comes to general rulings and specifics if the situation comes up. After all, if they are in town or hunting is handled generally as part of the exploration/travelling day, then this specific instance becomes less realistic.

Usually, this As I mentioned far earlier, an about an hours worth of exploration level activity is enough or combat is enough for me to break rest. So in this case they would have had to had their long rest, spend an hour in an exploration level activity (hunting) that can open the possibility of danger or failure to find game that would require hunting (most small game would die in the traps and the Survival roll might produce berries just as easily as game). So approximately an hour after you have finished your long rest of 8+ hours, you are now capable of taking a short rest of 1+ hours that may include cooking a meal.

Do I think is RAW? No, but it certainly is within a DM's rulings that don't contradict RAW. Would I sit down as a player and try to force this on another DM? No, since as a DM that generally would expect my players to accept my rulings, I feel it is my duty to accept and promote the rulings of the table DM.

Totally fair!

I wonder what isn't RAW about it, though?

Seems like both what the player is doing, and your DM call on the situation, are entirely in line with RAW.

Either way, my group strongly prefers group decisions to DM rulings, when possible (ie, when we don't need to just move things along with a "for right now" ruling), so I don't do well anymore at tables where I'm expected to not voice disagreement with a call, even during a break or after the session.

That said, if the call is that I can't do it, then that is that, as they say.

 

[seebs]

Oookay. So I have a question for anyone who still wants to discuss this:

Do those who want to rule against this feel that the Warlock is overpowered with it working?

Do people that want to rule for it (or convince the DM to) feel that the Warlock is nerfed without it?

Are there people that are only for or against it because they feel the rules tell them to go one way in spite of whatever they feel about it?

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

I've seen at least three warlocks who didn't take Hex at all, so I don't think it's significant power-wise.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

Totally fair!

I wonder what isn't RAW about it, though?

Seems like both what the player is doing, and your DM call on the situation, are entirely in line with RAW.

Either way, my group strongly prefers group decisions to DM rulings, when possible (ie, when we don't need to just move things along with a "for right now" ruling), so I don't do well anymore at tables where I'm expected to not voice disagreement with a call, even during a break or after the session.

That said, if the call is that I can't do it, then that is that, as they say.

Some people seem to take a very narrow definition of RAW that I didn't want to deal with it. Fifth is about rulings, and I would much rather claim rulings based on RAW than try to fit everyone idea of what constitutes RAW.

I'm not really as draconian as this sounds and do adjust to match a table. Group decisions can work in most reasonable groups, but it is still up to the DM to make the final ruling out what could be multiple different viewpoints and ultimately that will be based on my preferences adjusted toward the leanings of the table.

I have found the actual number of players that have strong opinions on stuff like this in play is relatively small and most will accept a DM's ruling. Those that are super invested in stuff like this working is more due to what they read on the internet than any strong convictions in the study of the rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Some people seem to take a very narrow definition of RAW that I didn't want to deal with it. Fifth is about rulings, and I would much rather claim rulings based on RAW than try to fit everyone idea of what constitutes RAW.

I'm not really as draconian as this sounds and do adjust to match a table. Group decisions can work in most reasonable groups, but it is still up to the DM to make the final ruling out what could be multiple different viewpoints and ultimately that will be based on my preferences adjusted toward the leanings of the table.

I have found the actual number of players that have strong opinions on stuff like this in play is relatively small and most will accept a DM's ruling. Those that are super invested in stuff like this working is more due to what they read on the internet than any strong convictions in the study of the rules.

I disagree strongly with that last line, but it's not a big deal. We're mostly on the same page here, I just like to know folks' reasoning on stuff.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've seen at least three warlocks who didn't take Hex at all, so I don't think it's significant power-wise.

I didn't, with my last warlock. She also used GFB more often than Eldritch Blast, and didn't take Agonizing Blast at all.

Side note:
I still am not sure why the blade Pact doesn't just let you use EB as a melee weapon attack, like, IIRC, Hideous Blade from 3e.
I know Green Flame Blade kinda does the same thing, but still.

You choose the shape of the weapon, as per the thing, and you can cast Eldritch Blast through it, making a melee weapon attack using Charisma, and your damage is replaced with EB damage. Idk. It is what is, I just think that would have been a better general direction for that boon.