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

[seebs]

Not RAW, but that's a fine ruling.

In what way does it differ from claiming that it's RAW that I can move up to my speed on my turn even if someone in the party is named Greg? In both cases, there's a thing you can do, the rules describe circumstances where you can't do the thing, and someone's asking whether a thing which isn't on that list of circumstances prevents you from doing the thing.

Or would you say that the Greg-friendly movement rules are also not RAW?

 

[Caliban]

In what way does it differ from claiming that it's RAW that I can move up to my speed on my turn even if someone in the party is named Greg? In both cases, there's a thing you can do, the rules describe circumstances where you can't do the thing, and someone's asking whether a thing which isn't on that list of circumstances prevents you from doing the thing.

Or would you say that the Greg-friendly movement rules are also not RAW?

You're wasting your time. He's decided he's the final arbiter of what is and is not RAW. No one else gets a say in the matter.

 

[seebs]

You're wasting your time. He's decided he's the final arbiter of what is and is not RAW. No one else gets a say in the matter.

Couple of observations:

1. It'd be more polite, I think, to let the other poster answer before you judge the quality of their answer.
2. I've had some really fascinating conversations with Ovinomancer, and I have never yet found it to be a waste of time.

Generally, if I feel like someone's answers are glossing over something I wanted to discuss, I find that asking for a specific clarification is more rewarding than dismissing them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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).



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



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.

Right. The rules literally deal with this. The rules state what types of things can break concentration, and don't list resting. Resting does not break concentration, per RAW. Where is the poster who insisted I was arguing something that wasn't being contested? Lol

I don't understand how this is even controversial. The RAW has general rules on concentration and on resting, and specific rules on Warlocks using short rests. Those rules are clear. There doesn't need to be a line that explicitly says "if you rest while concentrating, you can/can't maintain Concentration and/or benefit from the short rest, because the general rule adequately covers the situation.

This isn't even really an edge case. It's literally just a straightforward "look up the rules for resting and for concentration, cross reference the warlock rules, ok it all checks out."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And that's a fantastic and well supported interpretation.

No, it is literally the rules as written.

look.

The general rule says that you can maintain Concentration for the duration of the spell unless something specific happens to break your concentration. On that we all agree.

Nowhere in the rules does it even vaguely implie that resting can break your concentration. No matter what, you are at least making that up, as a ruling. It's the same as deciding that making sandwiches breaks concentration, or waiting for the guard to change, or hiding out as the last light of day fails, or playing an instrument, or chatting with a courtier, or stalking a deer you have marked with Hunter's Mark. *

A rule would have to at least suggest that for it to be part of the rules. Without such a rule, resting, by default, does not break concentration.

The most that the rules as written allow, without going into ruling or even houseruling territory, is the DM deciding that some part of resting merits a D.C. 10 Concentration check to maintain Concentration. It would be a stretch, and a blatantly metagaming one, but it would technically be within the bounds of RAW.

* here is where such a ruling "grinds my gears". I do not believe, for a single moment, that any of you would ever have ruled that taking a short rest breaks concentration on a ranger's Hunter's Mark cast at lvl3. The only reason you are even floating the idea is that you don't like this specific use of concentrating through a rest.

 

[Caliban]

waste of words

Meh.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In what way does it differ from claiming that it's RAW that I can move up to my speed on my turn even if someone in the party is named Greg? In both cases, there's a thing you can do, the rules describe circumstances where you can't do the thing, and someone's asking whether a thing which isn't on that list of circumstances prevents you from doing the thing.

Or would you say that the Greg-friendly movement rules are also not RAW?

No, but I'd say that an interpretation that says you cannot maintain concentration during a rest is also as valid under the RAW. The list of what breaks concentration is open ended, and a DM could just as easily think that relaxing enough to regain resources means you can't continue to maintain those resources.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, it is literally the rules as written.

Well, no, if it was literally in the RAW, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The general rule says that you can maintain Concentration for the duration of the spell unless something specific happens to break your concentration. On that we all agree.

Sure, agreed.

Nowhere in the rules does it even vaguely implie that resting can break your concentration. No matter what, you are at least making that up, as a ruling. It's the same as deciding that making sandwiches breaks concentration, or waiting for the guard to change, or hiding out as the last light of day fails, or playing an instrument, or chatting with a courtier, or stalking a deer you have marked with Hunter's Mark. *

A rule would have to at least suggest that for it to be part of the rules. Without such a rule, resting, by default, does not break concentration.

The most that the rules as written allow, without going into ruling or even houseruling territory, is the DM deciding that some part of resting merits a D.C. 10 Concentration check to maintain Concentration. It would be a stretch, and a blatantly metagaming one, but it would technically be within the bounds of RAW.

See, largely with you up to here. Sitting around doing nothing would seem to fall under 'doesn't break concentration' pretty well. I'd look askance at my DM if he said sitting around for a hour breaks concentration, sure.

But when you then say that it would be a breach of the rules and require, require mind you, at most a DC 10 concentration check for a DM to rule you can't concentrate and receive the benefits of a rest, we're at an impasse. There is nothing in the rules to even suggest that kind of false binary, much less anything that says a DM couldn't easily rule that concentration is a bridge too far for resting. It's right here, in the resting rules and the very open to DM interpretation of what's allowed during resting, that your argument falls flat as to your interpretation being RAW. RAW says the DM makes the determination of what's allowed during a rest, and concentration is left up to the DM.

It's almost like the writers had a core design concept of 'rulings, not rules.'

* here is where such a ruling "grinds my gears". I do not believe, for a single moment, that any of you would ever have ruled that taking a short rest breaks concentration on a ranger's Hunter's Mark cast at lvl3. The only reason you are even floating the idea is that you don't like this specific use of concentrating through a rest.

I would, in a heartbeat. Because, if I ruled that you cannot maintain concentration through a rest, it wouldn't be to just screw with characters casting Hex in higher slots. It would be because I didn't allow concentration during rests. You've just accused me of being dishonest and lying about my intentions in this conversation. I'd like a retraction.

Look, there's easily a lot of merit to still casting Hex and Hunter's Mark in higher level slots even if you don't get to rest in between. Hex affects one ability check, and is highly useful for assassinations (hex STR before the king goes out hunting and arrange an accident), sabotage (Hex DEX or INT before someone undertakes a delicate skilled operation or CHA before a diplomat enters a delicate negotiation), or just plain theft (Hex your mark's WIS before you start your confidence game). All of these functions benefit from longer concentration times and don't require resting. Hunter's Mark has the easily evident ability to enhance tracking of the Marked, which can be super useful over long timeframes. None of these functions suffer from not being able to take a rest, all of them benefit from longer durations. What doesn't benefit are the combat effects of these spells, and I'm fine with that.

But, all that said, I do allow concentration through resting in my games. I don't allow you do get back the energy you're still channelling, though, so no slot recovery, but concentrate all you want. I can easily see, however, the arguments and support in RAW for not allowing it. Which means that either ruling isn't RAW, but they are fine house rules. Enjoy yours.

 

[seebs]

No, but I'd say that an interpretation that says you cannot maintain concentration during a rest is also as valid under the RAW. The list of what breaks concentration is open ended, and a DM could just as easily think that relaxing enough to regain resources means you can't continue to maintain those resources.

Is the list of reasons you can't move on your turn also open-ended? Is it RAW to refuse to allow a move action for a reason not indicated or even hinted at in the rules, because it seems consistent or because you think it makes sense?

Because as a general rule, once you're to "there is no rule saying this, but it's reasonable for a DM to conclude that...", you're into the area of Rulings, rather than Rules. And Rulings are not RAW, even when they're correct and reasonable.

Hmm. Also, thinking about it: No, I don't think that argument would work at all. Concentration isn't maintaining the resource, which is a spell slot. It's maintaining an effect. Spells with long durations are just as much the same resource as their spell slot whether or not they need concentration.

Hmm. Thought experiment: One of the listed variants allows a 5-minute short rest. Assume a DM is using this. If an elemental tradition monk uses Wall of Stone, they can concentrate on that for up to ten minutes. Would you allow them to regain ki pool during a short rest? Because if the concentration/regaining resources thing is a valid argument, it should be valid there too, but it really doesn't seem sensical at all to me to restrict ki regaining.

So I'm back to "there is nothing in the rules suggesting that a short rest can break concentration", and while sure, you could add things that break concentration, there's nothing that makes it any more compatible with the rules to automatically break concentration on a short rest than to automatically break concentration whenever a person with blue eyes that you can see faces directly north. It's not specifically ruled out by the rules, but that doesn't imply that it's within the rules to do it.

Furthermore, re-reading the list: The list isn't quite exhaustive (see the thing on page 204), but the word "can" in "the following factors can break concentration" is not there to tell you the list is open-ended; it's there because you can make a con save to avoid losing concentration when you take damage, therefore, one of the factors can, but won't always, break concentration. The only open-ended permission for GMs to do anything is that environmental factors could, at DM discretion, require a DC10 constitution save. That's it. Nothing that isn't an environmental factor or a thing on the list can break concentration, and environmental factors can do it only if you fail a DC10 con save. That's "RAW". Any extension past that is at best RAI, but is in practice going to be a house rule.

 

[Sacrosanct]

#false equivalency

That's not what a false equivalency is. People have literally made the argument that if a specific scenario is explicitly excluded in a rule, then that rule, as it is written, permits it. That's not what a rule is defined as. Ergo, my comment about changing the definition of what words mean, even to the point of claiming the opposite of what the word does actually mean.