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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ganymede81]

No, by using the word "implicity" I mean just that. It's inherent to the wordage. That means it's not a judgement call, it is RAW for their use of those words.

The word you are reaching for in this situation is "explicit."

 

[dco]

First, I'm aware there was a recent thread about this that was closed by mods. I'm posting because I found that thread to be a somewhat frustrating experience while looking for a rules clarification / discussion on this issue. So what I want to do here is summarize the useful parts of that discussion and re-open it--hopefully without the bickering that lead to the original post being closed.

First, the issue:

By RAW, it seems like a player can long rest, cast Hex on any creature (say, a small mammal, leading to the character carrying around a "bag of rats") using a 3rd level spell slot or higher, and then immediately short rest while maintaining concentration to regain the spell slot. Now the character is concentrating on Hex with 7 hours (or 23 hours for 5th level slots and above) of spell duration left, but has full spell slots. (A separate but related issue is whether a fiend patron warlock would also gain temporary hit point from Dark One's blessing).

This question in the earlier thread seems to have elicited three main types of reaction:

1) You can't maintain concentration over a short rest.

2) This is gaming the system and should not be tolerated.

3) This is fine.

I'll try to summarize each of these in view of launching a renewed discussion.

1) You can't maintain concentration over a short rest.

There was some discussion as to whether the correct question is "can you concentrate while short resting?" or "can you short rest while concentrating?". Both are separate questions.

a) The rules seem clear that you can concentrate while casting other spells, or attacking, or running full speed until exhausted, or any number of things more challenging, mentally taxing, or exhausting than resting. And Mike Mearls has tweeted in support of this position, although it was pointed out that he does not issue rules clarifications, only opinions. Still, there's certainly no indication in the rules that short resting ends concentration.

b) Whether you can gain the benefits of a short rest while concentrating on a spell is arguably less clear. However, the simple fact that Hex (and Hunter's Mark) has up to a 24 hour duration with concentration suggests that RAI you can. This comes down to a question of whether concentrating on a spell is "... more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds." The problem is that the description of concentration doesn't address this. To my mind, the fact that you can cast another spell or run a marathon or (maybe) fall into lava without breaking concentration suggests that it's not all that strenuous. But I wouldn't be overly unhappy with a DM who ruled that you can't short rest while concentrating--although I think any DM doing so should be aware that they're probably weakening Warlocks and Rangers somewhat more than was intended. Otherwise, why bother with the long duration on Hex and Hunter's Mark? It seems fairly clear they're intended to last longer through a short rest, although certainly the game could've been clearer on that point.

- RAW : "They need rest - time to sleep and eat, tend their wounds, refresh their minds and spirits for spellcasting"
Not sure what part of that sentence is not clear, concentrating on old spells does not seem compatible with refreshing their minds. Real people to refresh their mind take a rest, change activity, etc instead of exercising more concentration on the previous tasks.

a - yes, and someone can hit you with an axe and you can continue running, attacking, etc, for concentration you must roll. You can also do a lot of things in a round, you can be jumping, dancing, flying, etc while attacking, what's next? a dragon dorcerer sleeps in the air?

b- The duration of a spell is the duration of a spell and nothing more, there is no hidden encrypted message telling us something about concentration and rests. Someone could argue that if he can dance he can fly using the same secret code no one knows.
Why bother with 24h? And why not? You know, characters could pass 24h without resting one full hour.

 

[Yunru]

The word you are reaching for in this situation is "explicit."

Explicit is when it is a definite. Inherent is when it is a property of an object. Inherent is what I ment.

The ability to discern between "lead", "lead", and "lead", for instance, is inherent to the context ("I put the lead on the dog" vs "You must lead them" vs "Those are lead tiles").

 

[Ganymede81]

Explicit is when it is a definite. Inherent is when it is a property of an object. Inherent is what I ment.

The ability to discern between "lead", "lead", and "lead", for instance, is inherent to the context ("I put the lead on the dog" vs "You must lead them" vs "Those are lead tiles").

As I said, "That is fine and all, but let's not pretend that's RAW."

 

[Mercule]

Explicit is when it is a definite. Inherent is when it is a property of an object. Inherent is what I ment.

The ability to discern between "lead", "lead", and "lead", for instance, is inherent to the context ("I put the lead on the dog" vs "You must lead them" vs "Those are lead tiles").

I don't think I agree.

If I say that a ball is red, then it is inherent in that word that the ball is not blue. It is also fairly explicit.

Now, some might argue that it's only implicit because I didn't say the ball was only red. I'd argue that I was simply being a tricky jerk if I said the ball was red while it was actually red and blue.

Either way, that doesn't make the lack of blue any more implicit. It's simply whether you want to play ball with me, anymore, or punch me in the face.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

My issue with the "Bag of Rats" lies more rest than rest. Probably because this opens a wide variety of issues for other short rest based mechanics other than just the Warlock having full spell slots (Sorclock pumping Sorcerer points with Warlock spell slots, fighters speed healing). The rules state that a long rest is 8 or more hours and a short rest is 1 hour or more. It also identifies some kinds of actions can interrupt and reset the timers on a rest. So as DM, I define the separation of one rest to another. While there is nothing specific to RAW about this, it does not conflict with existing rules and is within the spirit of rulings filling in the gaps not covered by rules.

My ruling is this: To end a rest, the character must engage in non-rest activity defined as a) an hour of exploration/social interaction [with NPC's] level exertion or b) combat longer than 1 round difficult enough to potentially require the use of player resources [difficulty rated above easy].

 

[Krachek]

Can we use rats tied up to armor as a living shield against Hex and Eldritch Blast?

 

[jaelis]

If it's particularly the bag o' that's the issue, wouldn't it be easier to just say you can only put hex on an actual enemy, not on random pets? That seems to align better with the purpose of the spell, and it avoids complicating the rest mechanics.

 

[Caliburn101]

This comes across as saying that you would consider a gamer who tried to do this rat-killing thing as unreasonable, and not someone you'd want to play with. Is that accurate? If so, why?

"This comes across"?

Please concentrate on what I actually said and stop reading other things into it - the last sentence is entirely clear - it even has a 'because' in it to leave no doubt what the unreasonable refers to. Unreasonable players argue with their GM when they GM rules on such things - that is clearly what I said.

Just to be clear, I'd houserule the bag of rats at the time it came up after pointing out the difficulties of having a bag of rats, the ridiculousness of carrying such a thing around and that in my opinion that trying to do it is a step too far against the spirit of the game and the intent of the rules. If they argued at that point, then they wouldn't be reasonable as far as I'm concerned. As the GM I've put my case, made my decision and it's done. The RAW quite clearly states that the GM makes final rulings... and no bag of rats is required for that to work.

I don't actually know anyone, anywhere who roleplays who would take this kind of rats in a bag idea seriously, which is of course one of the recurring themes on these forums. Some people like spending many hours dissecting the imperfections of 5th Edition and posting 'what if's' whilst simultaneously shooting down anyone who points out how ridiculous the situation being debated is, and booing anyone who would use their GM fiat to fix it.

In reality, around countless tables, this debate is an irrelevance, because such a farcical situation doesn't arise the vast majority of the time, and when it does, the one person advocating it is in most cases the only person who thinks it's ok.