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

[zaratan]

Okay, so let's break this down together, shall we?

1. Mike Mearls is not authoritative, but can be cited as persuasive authority. We understand the difference, right? It would similar to a (US) Supreme Court ruling, which is authoritative (dispositive) on an issue, and a law review article which can be persuasive, but will not decide an issue.

2. Arguing that some of Mike Mearls' tweets have been corrected is not a point in your favor, unless you can cite evidence that they have systematically gone back and revisited every single tweet he has made to correct errors. Which they have not done. Instead, it is evidence that MM is persuasive, not authoritative, and that his tweets can be re-visited at another time.

3. The fact that this has not been re-visited since 2014 can be viewed in two separate ways; the first is that people are generally unconcerned with the tweet, or that this isn't a big deal at tables (again, I would assume based on personal observation and this thread that "Bag of Rats" is a distinctly minority experience). The second is that this was an early tweet in the D&D life cycle, and that this issue will be re-visited.

4. Seen in that light, the release of different mechanics for the hexblade curse (and for playtesting of that) may indicate that they are moving to a different concept for these types of actions, and are playtesting them before releasing additional guidance and/or errata.

Again, none of this matters until such time as there is an official ruling. And even if there is an official ruling one way or the other, that only matters for AL. I have a feeling that you will quickly ascertain if you are at Bag of Rats table, or not.

Still, Sage advice can be cleary use as RAI (agree, no RAW).

2- not some, ALL I remember (of corse I can't remember every single one). I'll show you some exemples, until you provide me one single wrong twitter from 2014 that wasn't corrected later, I'll keep my statament (the counter prove is up to you):
invocations as for character level not warlock level - corrected later
cunning word remove natural 20 (that one was for Crawford) - corrected later
moon druid kung fu panda (unarmored strike with claws) - corrected later, claws aren't unarmored strike
warcaster + polearm master work with any spell - corrected later polearm AoO need to be done with the polearm
GWF work in smite, booming blade and so - corrected later (in fact RAW works, but RAI don't)
twinned spell work with scorched ray if target one creature - corrected later
crossbow expert doesn't work for just 1 hand crossbow - corrected later
you can cast a bonus action and reaction spell in the same turn - corrected later
you can reload a hand crossbow with shiled in other hand - corrected later

3- I don't asking you to get all his tweets, just the ones from 2014. Almost 3 years without correction?

4- Do not expect errata for hex, never.

My points:
There isn't any rule saying you can't do, so the logic is that you can, since d&d 5e use to be very literal in they rules when you can't.

Some real deal as "you can't do short rest while concentrate" is the type of thing that would be written, since the game mechanic recommend 6-8 encounters day with 2 short rests with some concentration spells that reach 24h and the game designers confirmed that work that way (RAI). The all powerful "official" Jeramy Crowford said that in 2015 (after the posts of Mike Mearls in 2014) without any caveat.

Those 4 confirmation have almost 3 years, never changed since then. But they don't worth nothing because wasn't a "official errata".

They don't want that 5e looks like what they did in 4e with errata for everything, so they will not make some "official" rule if they already think that this was clarified on twitter. This official rule will never happen.

I like the debate why each one do your own rule and why, this is constructive. But, don't accept that, at least RAI, concentration should work with short rest after the game designers written this on their clarification channel? Well, looks like someone can't accept that is house rulling.

In my table we don't use bag of rats, you can change to any target later while you have in the duration and concentration, this isn't RAW, I don't care.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ganymede81]

My points:
There isn't any rule saying you can't do, so the logic is that you can, since d&d 5e use to be very literal in they rules when you can't.

This is not a situation between choosing between explicit forbiddance and implicit allowance. It isn't a situation where we ask "do the rules disallow it? No? Then it is cool."

This is because the situation is one where there are two distinct choices beyond "yes" and "no." Those choices are "concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than eating, reading, and tending to wounds," and "concentrating on a spell is less strenuous than eating, reading, and tending to wounds."

The "absence of prohibition is permission" doctrine simply doesn't apply here because both choices are positive choices.

Interpreting it otherwise, removed from the controversial Warlock context, renders the rule a nullity. The rule creates a bright line test for whether an act spoils a short rest by imploring the player to compare the act to "reading, eating, etc." If we are to instead say "if the rules don't say it spoils a short rest, then it is allowed," then we are essentially deleting the above rule.

 

[Ganymede81]

Also, I will divine smite the next person that reminds me of my time in law school by using legal terminology in this discussion.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[zaratan]

I don't mean to keep harping on this, but you seem to miss an important distinction. This tends to happen when a person is looking for evidence to support what they want, as opposed to attempting to understand the issue as it is. Personally, I don't really care- because in the end, I don't care if something is in the PHB; if it doesn't work for my table, I change it, regardless of how official it is.

This is more about how a person should approach interpretation of a text. If you are looking to support your conclusion, then you will naturally reach for evidence that you want, and disregard the rest (for example, "This hasn't been a corrected tweet, therefore it must be super-plus good precedent" rather than reach the more natural conclusion, which is that if any tweets are contradicted, then the tweets themselves are not official material, but just persuasive). This is why, for example, you don't fully address the only "official" pronouncement about hex in terms of RAI; but note that when I cited it, it was not as dispositive authority (because it isn't), but simply to note that it was interesting (a term some people might use is "dicta").

One problem many of us have is that we will seize on little bits here and there to support what we want to be true, as opposed to evaluating something for what it is. I think that this is an indeterminate case, but again, I view it more as an interesting exercise, because even if the next Sage Advice (whenever it comes out) says, "THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN EVER REALLY PLAY A WARLOCK IS WITH HEX AND A GIANT BAG O' RATS ... SO SAYETH ALL OF THE WIZARDS OF THE COAST BY CHANNELING THE GHOST OF EGG!!!!!" I would still ignore it.

I think I was preatty clear why this is RAI (not RAW).
You say you don't care, but keep ignoring the RAI part hidding behind "no official". You undervalued the tweets, and the corrections, looking for the "official" errata, I just pointed why there will no "official" errata. Sorry for the missing commas.

If you really didn't care, why you ignored all my arguments about RAI part and changing the focus to single phrase that I used removing all the context? looks like I'm not the only one trying to prove some point.

I'll wait for an argument that can confront "game designers said hex and short rest work, concentration all day and even the bag of rats" to point that RAI, is the opposite.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's no rule saying I can't play a dragon. It says "many other fantastical species", so woot! It does say "Not every intelligent race is appropriate", but it doesn't specifically exclude dragons. So by some of the logic being used here, that means RAW I can play a dragon as my PC. Raaaaarrrwwwwlllll! Pew! Pew! (I'm a dragon with lasers, also not explicitly denied in the rules).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gadget]

I think it is quite okay from the rules that one can "concentrate" on a spell through a short rest, be it Hex, Hunter's Mark, or what have you. If I felt that concentrating on a spell during a short rest was in any way over powered or cheesy, I might rule otherwise, but--quite frankly--both the Warlock and the Ranger could use the boost or at least function slightly better this way. I have not heard an argument for this being overpowered as of yet.

Now, as to the "bag of rats" issue. I remember the term first being used during 4e, when players would try to use this explanation to access to powers without meet all the condition (or by meeting the barest possible conditions, from a certain point of view), and was quite thoroughly trashed then. The fact is, you can write rules that are reasonably clear and concise, or you can complicate and decorate them with enough legalize to account for every possible "corner case" and make them harder to read and process. Now, I would be the first to admit that 5e could use some improvement in clearly writing rules (mostly in some of the atrocious spell descriptions), but this, IMHO, is not one of those cases.

I would rule that to benefit from this, that target must be a real enemy that can threaten you, etc. Not that the other explanation is completely out of line for me: I could see a BBEG murdering some lowly minion/captured slave every morning to further his magic. Or magic that requires an animal sacrifice to power some spell/power, very flavorful for the right story. Now, if a Warlock PC wants to set out attacking/assaulting random NPCs and such, there are sure to be consequences. Not to mention the fact that there won't be a convenient victim/power-up available many days.

 

[MrHotter]

I think it is quite okay from the rules that one can "concentrate" on a spell through a short rest, be it Hex, Hunter's Mark, or what have you. If I felt that concentrating on a spell during a short rest was in any way over powered or cheesy, I might rule otherwise, but--quite frankly--both the Warlock and the Ranger could use the boost or at least function slightly better this way. I have not heard an argument for this being overpowered as of yet.

For me, I try to decide if players feel compeled to get the 'one right choice' when selecting options for their character. Currently the veteran players consider hex to be a mandatory spell and assume that it should be active at all times or the warlock is not doing the amount of damage they should be doing.

The other single target level 1 warlock spell does 1d12 (if it hits) each round with concentration for up to a minute. Since both spells use concentration, you would never want to have both spells with the minimal ammount of spell slots that a warlock has. That means a warlock can take a spell that does 1d6 on every hit for the next 24 hours, or they can do 1d12 (if they don't miss) each round to one creature after each short rest.

That's why I've gone with the 'concentrating on a spell holds a spell slot' rule at my table. That moves hex from being mandatory to just being a very good damage option. Any warlock who did not chose the 'one right option' would not feel gimped at my table.