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

[Yunru]

It doesn't prevent attacking, but it does prevent casting non-cantrip spells.

Which is odd because it doesn't if you're just moving it to a different target.

 

[the Jester]

The problem here is that now instead of a bag of rats, the warlock is incentivized to go punch a villager into unconsciousness. Or just slit their throat.

Sure, if you can do that sort of thing without risk of consequences in the game.

It pushes the character towards finding an easy low-risk combat scenario, which is arguably even weirder than the bag of rats. The hardest part of a fully satisfying solution to this issue for me is that allowing all of the mechanics that lead to a bag of rats, which on their own are all reasonable and seem to be RAI and RAW how the warlock is balanced, leads to some kind of weird behavior.

I'm fine with the pc seeking out a low-risk combat scenario, but I can't imagine any player in my game attacking a villager like you describe. I mean, doesn't that lead to city guards/bans from local businesses/no love from the locals? In other words, isn't that a tactic with obvious consequences that make it not worth it?

If the pcs go to find a goblin for an easy fight, awesome! Who knows what they'll actually find?

I don't know, disallow the bag of rats (or bag of canaries, or whatever similar shenanigans), and I just don't see a problem, at least not in my game.

 

[seebs]

Which is odd because it doesn't if you're just moving it to a different target.

Doesn't seem especially odd. One is casting a spell, one is retargeting a spell that lets you retarget.

 

[zaratan]

RAW you can, nothing say you don't, unlike long rest that make you incapacitated. About game balance, whats the problem with hex? 24h hex is a 5th lvl concentration spellslot for +1d6 damage for attack hit, every time you need to use in another target you need to use another bonus action. You want to use any other concentration spell? Lose hex.
About hex, as DM, you just need to attack the warlock until he lose his concentration.

there is lots of real problems with short rest abuse for warlock, like goodberry or animate dead, and isn't that hard for a DM to break that abuse. There ins't any problem with hex and rats to me.

 

[Ganymede81]

RAW you can

This is factually inaccurate. As already pointed out in the first page, you can only benefit from a short rest if you do nothing more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds." Furthermore, there is nothing in the rules that actually explains whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than those tasks. A DM is free to draw inferences from rules to create a ruling that works for his or her table, but to say that there is a RAW answer one way or the other is simply incorrect.

 

[Yunru]

This is factually inaccurate. As already pointed out in the first page, you can only benefit from a short rest if you do nothing more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds." Furthermore, there is nothing in the rules that actually explains whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than those tasks. A DM is free to draw inferences from rules to create a ruling that works for his or her table, but to say that there is a RAW answer one way or the other is simply incorrect.

This is factually inaccurate. Concentration is not defined as more, less or just as strenuous, therefore it is perfectly valid to say RAW nothing says you can't. Because it doesn't say that concentration is too strenuous.

If you have to add something that's not written, such as concentration being to strenuous, it's no longer RAW.

RAW nothing says you can't, but it's unclear whether you can. To some.

 

[Satyrn]

I want warlocks in any game I run to carry around a bag of rats. There are just too many fun ways for that to go horribly awry.

Better still carry rats under one's hat!

But I have a cat in my hat! The rats will just make him fat.

 

[Ganymede81]

This is factually inaccurate. Concentration is not defined as more, less or just as strenuous, therefore it is perfectly valid to say RAW nothing says you can't. Because it doesn't say that concentration is too strenuous.

If you have to add something that's not written, such as concentration being to strenuous, it's no longer RAW.

RAW nothing says you can't, but it's unclear whether you can. To some.

He literally said "RAW you can."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yunru]

He literally said "RAW you can."

With everything written as it is you can. Concentration is not stated to be strenuous to any degree, not even in flavour text.