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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mercule]

Fiend: RATS? I DEMAND BABIES! Go forth, sniveling scum, and fill your bag with babies. That is what your master demands.

Baby steps -- or steps towards babies. Whatever.

 

[werecorpse]

Does RAW allow you to concentrate through a short rest? RAW actually doesn't say, either way. So, both allowing it and not allowing it are both good interpretations of RAW. Make a ruling, go with it, you're right st your table. If you're not the DM, make a case for your preference, but it's the DM's call.

Tl;dr: there's no RAW either way.

I see. So saying that "concentration can be maintained for 24 hours" and "listing things that might break it" doesn't that mean that RAW it can be maintained for 24 hours unless one of the listed things breaks it?

Even if your saying that the list isn't exhaustive so it's up to the DM to interpret does that mean allowing or not allowing a particular unlisted thing to break concentration is therefore equally both good interpretations of RAW? Is there no guidance that can be taken from the rules as to an appropriate interpretation?

One interpretation would be that the fact that short rest activity isn't listed as one of the factors that can break concentration and concentration spells can last 24 hours means that it doesn't. Another is that even though it isn't listed it does.

So having determined that there isn't a strict RAW on this is the next conclusion that any interpretation, any ruling is as appropriate as any other? Is there not a more appropriate ruling based on the words used and the context? Is no interpretation more consistent than any other? Does it just come down to DM preference?

If you rule to disallow concentration while short resting is that as reasonable an interpretation as allowing it to be maintained based in the words used in the rules?

Given time isn't the factor in losing concentration (RAW) it must be some activity undertaken that causes a break in concentration. Is it the recovering of hit points - If so does receiving a healing spell disrupt concentration? Is it recovering a spell slot - if so does using a pearl of power disrupt concentration?

Is it therefore as reasonable and appropriate to interpret the concentration rule as that if you make a perception check while concentrating, take the dash action or drink a potion you break concentration? None of these are expressly allowed, all require a level of interpretation therefore is both allowing them or not allowing them equally good interpretation?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

*Bonus. The correct to this dispute is always, "No one can play a gnome, because ... gnomes."

I knew you were a bad person.


Damn gnome haters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I see. So saying that "concentration can be maintained for 24 hours" and "listing things that might break it" doesn't that mean that RAW it can be maintained for 24 hours unless one of the listed things breaks it?

Even if your saying that the list isn't exhaustive so it's up to the DM to interpret does that mean allowing or not allowing a particular unlisted thing to break concentration is therefore equally both good interpretations of RAW? Is there no guidance that can be taken from the rules as to an appropriate interpretation?

One interpretation would be that the fact that short rest activity isn't listed as one of the factors that can break concentration and concentration spells can last 24 hours means that it doesn't. Another is that even though it isn't listed it does.

So having determined that there isn't a strict RAW on this is the next conclusion that any interpretation, any ruling is as appropriate as any other? Is there not a more appropriate ruling based on the words used and the context? Is no interpretation more consistent than any other? Does it just come down to DM preference?

If you rule to disallow concentration while short resting is that as reasonable an interpretation as allowing it to be maintained based in the words used in the rules?

Given time isn't the factor in losing concentration (RAW) it must be some activity undertaken that causes a break in concentration. Is it the recovering of hit points - If so does receiving a healing spell disrupt concentration? Is it recovering a spell slot - if so does using a pearl of power disrupt concentration?

Is it therefore as reasonable and appropriate to interpret the concentration rule as that if you make a perception check while concentrating, take the dash action or drink a potion you break concentration? None of these are expressly allowed, all require a level of interpretation therefore is both allowing them or not allowing them equally good interpretation?

I'll say it again, because it answers all of your hypotheticals:

RAW doesn't say one way or the other, so make a ruling for your table.

That's the underlying design of this game, I fail to understand why it's difficult to pick up. I wasn't telling you your ruling was unreasonable, it most certainly is, I told you it wasn't RAW as you claimed. End of point.

Personally, I allow you to maintain concentration through rests, long or short. I don't allow recovery of the resource while concentrating on it, so no getting back the spell slot. I dislike the strange gaming that this encourages, like bags of rats or resting and then resting. The power bump doesn't bother me, it's just the weird metagaming that surrounds it.

 

[Jer]

You must have a blessed ability to be able to ignore so very many comments here.

I wish I shared it.

Meh - they aren't trying to ruin my game, so why should I care?

Also I can't tell if they're trying to ruin their own game either - different tables have different playstyles. What works at my table won't work at a diehard powergamer table, and likely vice-versa. No way for me to tell whether they're jerks who want to take all of the fun for themselves and not leave any for their fellow players, or if that's just how the play works at their table and everyone is enjoying it. (That goes for a lot of DM commentary around here too - if you don't sit at their table it's hard to tell how many DMs who make vast sweeping claims about nerfing this and disallowing that are hoarding the fun for themselves and how many are just playing to what their players find fun. I assume the latter for the most part because how the heck should I know what their players like?)

 

[werecorpse]

I'll say it again, because it answers all of your hypotheticals:

RAW doesn't say one way or the other, so make a ruling for your table.

That's the underlying design of this game, I fail to understand why it's difficult to pick up. I wasn't telling you your ruling was unreasonable, it most certainly is, I told you it wasn't RAW as you claimed. End of point.

Personally, I allow you to maintain concentration through rests, long or short. I don't allow recovery of the resource while concentrating on it, so no getting back the spell slot. I dislike the strange gaming that this encourages, like bags of rats or resting and then resting. The power bump doesn't bother me, it's just the weird metagaming that surrounds it.

1. What ruling is it that I made that is unreasonable & why?

2. Do you believe that the RAW can give guidance as to how to interpret the rules that aren't expressly covered by the RAW and if so what weight do you consider attaches to this guidance?

3. Do you consider that the concentration/short rest rules give any guidance on an interpretation and if so what is it?

4. Do you consider your table method to be supported by any guidance given from the said RAW ?

I agree that at the end of the day doing what works at your table is up to the individual group - I don't play AL so sometimes change RAW anyway, I'm just interested in this approach to the rules & this rule in particular.

 

[Ovinomancer]

1. What ruling is it that I made that is unreasonable & why?

2. Do you believe that the RAW can give guidance as to how to interpret the rules that aren't expressly covered by the RAW and if so what weight do you consider attaches to this guidance?

3. Do you consider that the concentration/short rest rules give any guidance on an interpretation and if so what is it?

4. Do you consider your table method to be supported by any guidance given from the said RAW ?

I agree that at the end of the day doing what works at your table is up to the individual group - I don't play AL so sometimes change RAW anyway, I'm just interested in this approach to the rules & this rule in particular.

Firstly, I'm not in your classroom. Given you appear to have an endpoint in mind, perhaps you could just advance that instead of the Socrates questioning?

But, to play along for a bit more:

1. None. If you actually read my posts you'd have noticed I called your ruling extremely reasonable.

2. No, strictly speaking. The default to situations not covered by the rules is that it's not covered, make a ruling. You can look to other things on the rules for guidance, but the thing about not being RAW is that it's not RAW. Tautoligies are fun.

3. Yes, they provide guidance. It's "ask your DM." If you're the DM, it's, "here's some stuff, make up your own mind." Regardless of whatever guidance you imagine exists, the DM'S ruling is what counts when it's not covered by RAW. If you disagree with your DM, I don't suggest you follow this line of argumentation.

4. Yup, 100%. The RAW wasn't clear, so I get to make a ruling. Totally supported by the rules, and 100% valid at my table. And, to be clear, I think your ruling us exactly as good, here.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I came up with a couple years ago. It appears it bears repeating

 

[Arial Black]

RAW doesn't say one way or the other, so make a ruling for your table.

It's not true that 'RAW doesn't say one way or the other' about maintaining concentration during a rest. The concentration rules have a complete list of things that end the concentration:-

* casting another spell that requires concentration
* taking damage (save or end concentration)
* being incapacitated or killed
* the DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.

This is a complete list. 'Resting' is not on that list (and 'resting' is not an 'environmental phenomenon' comparable to a crashing wave; by definition 'resting' requires avoiding strenuous activity).

I don't allow recovery of the resource while concentrating on it, so no getting back the spell slot.

A bad houserule, but a houserule nonetheless and so not an observation which advances the debate about RAW.

I dislike the strange gaming that this encourages, like bags of rats or resting and then resting. The power bump doesn't bother me, it's just the weird metagaming that surrounds it.

Exerting yourself (by casting spells and burning slots) and then resting to recover (short rest regaining Pact Magic slots) totally makes sense in-world, exclusive of any metagame slot consideration.