Good Houserule For Coffeelocks? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

JNAProductions

2017-11-25, 09:10 PM

It can still power meta magic. You just can't use any pact magic sorcery points to regain spell slots. It requires keeping a tally of pact magic powered SP v non pact magic powered SP, but its minuscule and still lets you use meta magic with pact magic slots.

Ah. I missed that detail.

Feels... A little finicky for my tastes. You'd have two separate pools of points. Not that it couldn't be done, but KISS.

Of course it depends on # of encounters per day, but back when I played a dragon sorc I de-learned all my first level spells. When the adventuring day began, I’d give myself an extra 4th or 5th level slot, then convert my 1st level slots into points to let me still do some meta magic that day. I didn’t miss my 1st levels too much because +cha mod cantrips were better at damage and this was before absorb elements came out.

It felt quite powerful and it was a lot of fun. I’d be sad to not be able to do that again.

I think a better house rule is that you can’t convert warlock slots to sorc points.

Thanks for bringing that up, PP.

I think the "Slots made with Sorcery Points vanish after a long rest or 24 hours have passed" is the rule I'd go with, at the moment.

Mikal

2017-11-25, 09:14 PM

Ah. I missed that detail.

Not your fault, I didn't clarify as such.

Feels... A little finicky for my tastes. You'd have two separate pools of points. Not that it couldn't be done, but KISS.

It is a little finicky but it also involves the least amount of actual changes to the system IMO. Allows people to still sorlock in everything else, and allows coffeelocks to still work without gaining n+1 spellslots per day.

The 24 hour slot thing can work, as long as you're ok with essentially giving the coffeelock essentially +8 or so spellslots per day vs infinite.

JNAProductions

2017-11-25, 09:16 PM

Not your fault, I didn't clarify as such.

It is a little finicky but it also involves the least amount of actual changes to the system IMO. Allows people to still sorlock in everything else, and allows coffeelocks to still work without gaining n+1 spellslots per day.

The 24 hour slot thing can work, as long as you're ok with essentially giving the coffeelock essentially +8 or so spellslots per day vs infinite.

Considering they still have to spend slots on healing once they're out of hit dice, feels okay to me. Would have to see it in practice.

Mikal

2017-11-25, 09:17 PM

Considering they still have to spend slots on healing once they're out of hit dice, feels okay to me. Would have to see it in practice.

Let us know how it goes in practice!

JNAProductions

2017-11-25, 09:19 PM

Let us know how it goes in practice!

Well, probably won't happen any time soon. I've yet to run into a player who actually WANTS to abuse the Coffeelock thing.

But thanks all, for participating!

Consensus

2017-11-25, 09:41 PM

Why not just forbid chaining short rests?

Mikal

2017-11-25, 09:42 PM

Why not just forbid chaining short rests?

Because there's no reason to and you can't force pcs to take long rests?

Consensus

2017-11-25, 09:50 PM

Because there's no reason to and you can't force pcs to take long rests?

That removed the abuse of gaining so many sorc points and you can, since we're talking about house rules right now. It doesn't have to even force long rests, it can just not give the benefits of a short rest.
Another fix would be that you can't take short rests alone, or that you can't chain them alone.

Mikal

2017-11-25, 09:58 PM

That removed the abuse of gaining so many sorc points and you can, since we're talking about house rules right now. It doesn't have to even force long rests, it can just not give the benefits of a short rest.
Another fix would be that you can't take short rests alone, or that you can't chain them alone.

Except doing so makes aspect of the moon essentially useless while the other fixed mentioned do not, and cause less disruption.

Consensus

2017-11-25, 10:16 PM

Except doing so makes aspect of the moon essentially useless while the other fixed mentioned do not, and cause less disruption.
Aspect of the Moon is a flavor invocation, I don't think it was intended to allow short rest chaining, how does this disrupt anything other than coffeelock cheese?

Provo

2017-11-25, 10:55 PM

Laserlight

2017-11-25, 11:11 PM

Feels... A little finicky for my tastes. You'd have two separate pools of points. Not that it couldn't be done, but KISS.

Get those little glass game token things. Red ones are short rest points, blue are long rest.

Christian

2017-11-25, 11:18 PM

My rule would be that the 'lack of sleep' rules actually apply whenever you go 24 hours without a long rest. Limits the Aspect of the Moon to what it is clearly intended for. And I'm still not clear on why elves suddenly don't need 8 hours for a long rest, although I haven't read the exact phrasing of those new sleep rules.

So, everyone needs a long rest every day to avoid acquiring exhaustion/penalties. Normally, this is at least 8 hours that includes at least 6 hours of sleep and only light activity otherwise. For elves, it is at least 8 hours that includes at least 4 hours of trance. And for Warlocks with Aspect of the Moon, it is at least 8 hours, with no requirements for sleep or trance. You're never forced to take a long rest, but 24 hours after the end of your last one you start accumulating penalties--no exceptions.

Nifft

2017-11-25, 11:24 PM

Ganymede

2017-11-25, 11:30 PM

Much like how PCs are limited to benefiting from one long rest per day, I limit my PCs to benefiting from two short rests per day.

I put that rule in place years ago in order to help balance adventure-day expectations and resources between short rest classes and long rest classes, but it has the fun side-effect of neutering this "infinite simulacra loop" style screw-up.

JNAProductions

2017-11-25, 11:33 PM

1 / Everybody needs a Long rest every day or so. If you don't get your Long rest, you start to suffer Fatigue, which stacks until you die. An elf needs just 4 hours to complete a Long rest.

2 / You can totally use Warlock slots to restore expended Sorcery points. You can't ever have more Sorcery points than your maximum, which is indicated on the Sorcerer table.

Multi-class Sorc-locks are allowed to be awesome, but awesome isn't the same as broken.

But you can turn those points into slots, which have no max, by RAW. That's the issue.

Much like how PCs are limited to benefiting from one long rest per day, I limit my PCs to benefiting from two short rests per day.

I put that rule in place years ago in order to help balance adventure-day expectations and resources between short rest classes and long rest classes, but it has the fun side-effect of neutering this "infinite simulacra loop" style screw-up.

That seems reasonable, but doesn't address downtime. When you're adventuring daily, it works, but what about when you have three months free?

Ganymede

2017-11-25, 11:38 PM

That seems reasonable, but doesn't address downtime. When you're adventuring daily, it works, but what about when you have three months free?

Three months of downtime?

If you do that, the Sword Coast is destroyed by the Elder Elemental Eye, everyone dies from the Death Curse of Chult, and Strahd sucks dry every single able bodied woman in Barovia.

JNAProductions

2017-11-25, 11:42 PM

Three months of downtime?

If you do that, the Sword Coast is destroyed by the Elder Elemental Eye, everyone dies from the Death Curse of Chult, and Strahd sucks dry every single able bodied woman in Barovia.

I'm aware you can put time limits on adventures.

I'm also aware that that's not always going to be the most fun or realistic. Sometimes, it's nice to play people who don't spend 24/7 facing death.

Arcangel4774

2017-11-25, 11:53 PM

Spell slots gained from sorcery points vanish after a long rest or 24 hours, whichever comes first.

I like this. The coffeelock still exists, but is weekened to not be overbearing.

Ganymede

2017-11-25, 11:56 PM

I'm aware you can put time limits on adventures.

I'm also aware that that's not always going to be the most fun or realistic. Sometimes, it's nice to play people who don't spend 24/7 facing death.

Truth.

Another approach is to say that you can only create expended spell slots with spell points. It might cause a sorcerer to dedicate an extra bonus action or two in combat for slot creation on the fly, but it shouldn't be too bad. After all, wizards and druids have to get a short rest to get their magical recovery.

Edit: Of course, you could always say "Your character uses his infinite spell slots and becomes king of the multiverse; congratulations on winning D&D. Since your character is god now, he's an NPC. Feel free to roll up a new character."

Nifft

2017-11-26, 12:06 AM

But you can turn those points into slots, which have no max, by RAW. That's the issue.

Ah, got it.

3 / Spell slots created by bonus action Sorcery point expenditure must be used immediately. That's why it's a bonus action to create the slot.

We've always played it like this anyway because we didn't think of exploiting the lack of an explicit "must use it right after you create it" provision. So, include that provision, and there's no problem.

clash

2017-11-26, 12:21 AM

Something I have seen commonly not for this reason is that a period of downtime is one rest whether it is one hour or four or 8. If it at least 1 it qualifies as a short rest and at least 8 qualifies as a long rest

mer.c

2017-11-26, 12:43 AM

I like capping sorcery points at the base number and/or spell slots. Maybe allow base spell slots +1 per level? So a 5 – 4 – 4 etc. progression?

I think it’s fine to have some synergy there, but keeping it reigned in is probably a good thing.

Toadkiller

2017-11-26, 01:29 AM

Exhaustion without long rest and you can’t create spell slots, just replenish spent ones seem like solid rules.

Caelic

2017-11-26, 01:50 AM

My own house rule is simple: if you sit through eight hours of inactivity, you have "finished a long rest." Whether you choose to claim the BENEFITS of said long rest or not is entirely up to you, but you have most definitely "finished a long rest." There is literally no measurable difference between the eight hours of inactivity which you claim were eight short rests and the eight hours of inactivity which would qualify as a long rest. Ergo, your extra spell slots vanish.

Avonar

2017-11-26, 02:56 AM

I'd have to say that my solution would simply to take out the short rest chain, its something that makes absolutely no sense to me. You take 4 short rests in a row? No, you just took a 4 hour long short rest.

You can't have another short rest until a significant amount of adventuring has been done.

And if you try to take 6-8 short rests in a row then you have just rested for 6-8 hours. You've had a long rest.

Afrodactyl

2017-11-26, 05:57 AM

Athoren

2017-11-26, 10:25 AM

How about having to eat at least half a ration worth of food in order to take a short rest.

Mikal

2017-11-26, 11:18 AM

Aspect of the Moon is a flavor invocation, I don't think it was intended to allow short rest chaining, how does this disrupt anything other than coffeelock cheese?

If it's a flavor only invocation that's crap design.
"Oh, you have a very limited amount of resources. Here's one that provides no mechanical advantage!"

MxKit

2017-11-26, 03:18 PM

If it's a flavor only invocation that's crap design.
"Oh, you have a very limited amount of resources. Here's one that provides no mechanical advantage!"

Eh, I wouldn't say it's only flavor, but I don't think it's specifically meant to let you chain a bunch of short rests. Aspect of the Moon gives you a benefit one step up from the elven Trance racial trait, and a step up from half of the Fey Ancestry racial trait. Nothing can force you to sleep -- not just magic, nothing, so some enemy tries to use a more chemical sleeping potion? not gonna get around that for you -- and while the rest of the party is taking a long rest, you can stand guard the entire time. That will usually mean two people standing guard at any given point instead of just one, which is going to be very helpful in case of an ambush.

Now, if your GM isn't the type that interrupts long rests with attacks often, you might choose not to take that invocation, yeah. Especially if you're already an elf. But it's a situationally dependent invocation that gives you an extra option if your party is likely to run into those sorts of problems. Kind of like how if you know you're basically never in situations, in your games, where you'd want to use the jump spell, you probably wouldn't take the Otherworldly Leap invocation, or how if your GM doesn't toss out many situations where you'd need to read a text or secret message written in some strange language, or if your Wizard or someone else in your party (or you!) already has the comprehend languages spell, the Eyes of the Rune Keeper invocation would be pretty much useless for you. Some invocations have always just been less universally useful than others.

ETA: I mean, the new Gift of the Depths invocation is almost useless unless a sizeable enough chunk of campaign is going to be taking place underwater, and even in that case it's still not great if you're Triton or a Water Genasi, and back to pretty much useless again if your whole party's already prepared for underwater stuff in some way or another (race, spells, underwater breathing items, etc.). Some people will still take it for flavor, but outside of fairly specific scenarios I doubt it's going to see a lot of play, probably not even as much as Cloak of Flies, certainly not as much as Maddening Hex.

Captain Panda

2017-11-26, 04:02 PM

Would saying that you can't have more spell slots than the table says you can have really hinder the sorcerer that much?

I'm away from book at the moment so I can't check the action economy, but couldn't the sorcerer just spend their spell slots (or even just one), and then just make more as they need them?

That's always how I read the ability to begin with. I was floored by this build, and how cheesy it seems. I build characters as strong as possible within the spirit of the rules, but this is clearly an unintended loophole that the devs overlooked. A player trying to get away with something like this is just begging the DM to have assassins appear in the night to kill their character. That's RAW, too.

Sception

2017-11-26, 04:06 PM

I personally like capping short rests per long rest. Like, depending on the campaign style and how many encounters you might typically plan for an adventuring day, you might limit characters to no more than 2 or maybe 3 short rests per long rest. After a given character has used up all their short rests, then they're too burned out to gain any more benefit from them until they've had time for a proper rest to refresh the batteries & reboot the system, so to speak.

You might combine this with shorter short rests generally, maybe half an hour or a single hour, to facilitate characters in the party choosing to burn their now limited short rests at different points in the adventuring day. You could also introduce limited use magic items or a feat that might allow for additional short rests per day if it turns out that, say, one particular character just needs more rests than the rest of the party to keep up.

Limiting short rests in this fashion also limits other, less acute abuses of the short rest, such as parties insisting on taking two hour breaks between every encounter in every dungeon. I generally find parties are less likely to insist on long rests - even those with long rest recharges generally go into the game expecting to have to budget those resources over multiple encounters - but short rest spamming can be a bit too common and narratively disrupting otherwise.

JNAProductions

2017-11-26, 04:08 PM

Another good houserule I've seen bandied about elsewhere is "You may take up to X (where X is usually 2) short rests per long rest. A short rest is any break of at least five minutes during which you can refresh yourself."

Makes it so short rests are much easier to fit in narratively, but the limit stops it from being abusive by allowing a rest after every encounter. In addition, it makes it so characters don't have to rest at the same time. A Warlock who blasted a Fireball and a Hex in one encounter? Needs a rest. A backline Wizard who just used cantrips the whole fight? Not so much.

Malifice

2017-11-26, 06:52 PM

Because there's no reason to and you can't force pcs to take long rests?

Of course there is a reason to.

If your PCs are chaining short rests they're gaming the rest mechanic.

PC: I'll take 8 x 1 hour short rests.
DM: It's a long rest.
PC: But...
DM: No. End of discussion.

See how easy it is?

Mikal

2017-11-26, 07:04 PM

Of course there is a reason to.

If your PCs are chaining short rests they're gaming the rest mechanic.

PC: I'll take 8 x 1 hour short rests.
DM: It's a long rest.
PC: But...
DM: No. End of discussion.

See how easy it is?

I'm sorry. I'm discussing RAW and house rules to minimize impacts to that, not just flashing and burning blindly.

If you want to butcher your way through changing something feel free to do it that way.

I like a little more finesse and a little less blind banhammer in my house rules

Coffee_Dragon

2017-11-26, 07:16 PM

Doodling liberally on the warlock pages of the PHB with a big black marker...

I like a little more finesse and a little less blind banhammer in my house rules

... is something I would never suggest in a public forum, obviously

Malifice

2017-11-26, 07:32 PM

I'm sorry. I'm discussing RAW and house rules to minimize impacts to that, not just flashing and burning blindly.

If you want to butcher your way through changing something feel free to do it that way.

I like a little more finesse and a little less blind banhammer in my house rules

A DM saying 'no" to a player attempting to game the rest mechanic isn't 'butchering' anything. It's just him doing his job.

I'm cool with a player telling me he rests for X hours. I then tell him if it's a (mechanical) rest or not, what kind and what benefits (if any) he gets from it.

Gaming the system only happens if the DM allows it to.

greenstone

2017-11-26, 08:46 PM

you can't force pcs to take long rests?

Yeah, you can. Exhaustion. :-)

A long rest isn't something a character "does"; it is a period of 8 hours in which nothing strenuous is done. A player can't just say, "My character doesn't take a long rest." — they have to say what strenuous activity their character is doing instead of resting. Activity over 8 hours will require CON saves, with increasing difficulty.

So, if a player says, "My character doesn't rest, she just keeps walking." then the GM can ask for CON saves for every hour after eight, with failure leading to Exhaustion. The DC for these is 10 + number of hours over 8! If the player has their character doing something less physical, like reading books in a library, then the GM could call for CON saves less often. Maybe every three or six hours. The DC still increases over time.

Eventually there will be a fail (after only 24 hours of activity the CON save DC is 26!) and Exhaustion will set in.

This stops a lot of cheesy builds, not just coffeelocks.

Also, what is the rest of the party doing when the coffeelock is not stopping to rest? Are they going to put up with the warlock running laps around the camp for 24 hours, keeping everyone awake? Are they going to follow when the warlock insists on marching through the night and all of the next day? Is the cleric willing to spend spell slots on greater restoration (to remove the effects of Exhaustion) so that the warlock can have extra slots?

ATHATH

2017-11-26, 09:17 PM

My personal houserule to remove Coffeelocks from the game would be to just declare that a Sorcerer cannot burn pact magic spell slots for sorcery points. Boom, problem solved.

pdegan2814

2017-11-27, 12:11 AM

Coffeelocks are, technically, RAW. But they're a clear abuse of the rules as written.

What's a good houserule that minimally impacts other people, but makes Coffeelocks not possible?

My personal thought is make it so the Sorcerer simply cannot gain spell slots above his ordinary amount-how much would that affect people who've played Sorcerers?

Possible house rules:

* A character can never have more available spell slots than their normal post-LR maximum. The Coffeelock can use sorcery points to replenish expended spell slots, but can't use them to have more than their max ready to use

* Specify a minimum about of time after a Short Rest before another Short Rest may be taken, and/or limit the number of Short Rests per day

I prefer these rules to things like not letting them use Pact Magic slots for Sorcery Points, or having spell slots converted from Sorcery Points evaporate after a certain amount of time. I would prefer not to limit *what* they can do, and instead just limit *how much* of it they can do. And of course, as a DM if you think their character build is broken & abusive, you can simply disallow it. Or you could always get creative, have their Patron get angry with them for abusing their Pact Magic and make life difficult for the character :)

SkipSandwich

2017-11-27, 01:28 AM

Potato_Priest

2017-11-27, 01:31 AM

My house rule is even simpler. Instead of being converted into a bonus spell slots, sorcery points can be spent to cast spells directly.

Pure sorcs don't care either way, while coffelocks are prevented from stockpiling spell slots while still being able spam metamagic like it's going out of style.

That is wonderful. It adds just a little bit to sorcerer flexibility while completely resolving the problem.

Kudos to you, that will likely make it onto my ever-growing list of sensible houserules.

JNAProductions

2017-11-27, 10:51 AM

Byke

2017-11-27, 11:54 AM

Warlock Slots to SP is a basic interaction pre -Xanders that that has always been a staple of Sorlock builds. Removing that interaction nerfs sorcerer unnecessarily.

Simplest solution remove Aspect of the Moon or do allow extra slots to stack past 24 hours.

Being 3 levels behind is a big enough hit for such a niche build.

Bahamut7

2017-11-28, 04:47 PM

Blacky the Blackball

2017-11-28, 05:19 PM

Possible house rules:

* A character can never have more available spell slots than their normal post-LR maximum. The Coffeelock can use sorcery points to replenish expended spell slots, but can't use them to have more than their max ready to use

It's kind of a moot point - because my group don't use multiclassing so the situation doesn't ever crop up - but this sounds very much like RAI to me (although obviously not RAW as they neglected to make it explicit).

Easy_Lee

2017-11-28, 05:51 PM

It's kind of a moot point - because my group don't use multiclassing so the situation doesn't ever crop up - but this sounds very much like RAI to me (although obviously not RAW as they neglected to make it explicit).

It isn't RAI. Flexible Casting specifically says "additional" spell slots. It says nothing about replenishing them. It would be perfectly reasonable for a pure Sorcerer to consume some of his lower level spell slots and create extra high level spell slots. I don't think anyone would complain if a sorcerer did that.

WotC probably never thought of how this would interact with warlock when they wrote the feature.

Just want to add: a house rule to stop this particular build is totally unnecessary. Coffeelocks are far from the only build that never runs out of features, and they're one of the few who has to give up quite a bit to get there - permanently behind on spell level and unable to ever recover 6+ level spells without losing its other slots.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-11-28, 06:57 PM

I mentioned this in the "explain coffeelock to me" thread, but basically, instead of house ruling...jsut change the encounters and adventurers to match what the party is bringing. Got a coffeelock who has more spells than they know what to do with? Tire out the rest of the party. Even if the coffeelock can keep going, the rest of the group can't. Still a problem? Throw in minions and super minions to make them waste spells.

For those who are not familiar with 4e, minions had all normal stats except they had 1 hit point. They took no damage on half damage. Super minions had 2. So basically a minion had to be hit directly once and a super twice.

Also, make the world react. If this party has a spell slinger like this, than the bad guys are going to try and catch them in their sleep. Oops, no more chaining short rests when they are defending the encampment. BBEG has had it with all these spells, so they set up antimagic traps and counter spells. Heck, the BBEG could have minion mages who sole purpose is to sling counter spells and dispel magic during fights.

With these methods, the world becomes more dynamic and the player isn't punished for going this route. This leads to everyone having more fun and your battles become more epic.

But then you're punishing the party for the build choices of a single person. This usually results in an optimization arms-race or a TPK. Warping the world around a single player isn't fair to the rest of the group--it's making them the supporting cast and the coffee-lock the main character who comes in to save the day and drives the drama.

Frankly, I'm pretty sure that the RAI is that you can't have more spell slots than you should at your level. I've never seen this problem (as my players don't multi-class), but that would be my ruling if it ever came up.

Bahamut7

2017-11-28, 07:00 PM

Can we all agree that this guy should be the poster child for the Coffeelock?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6kLKp-6WvF4/hqdefault.jpg

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LscUF2X_MWM

Daithi

2017-11-28, 08:08 PM

I'd say that max slots you can have is 2x your standard amount (the amount you have after a long rest).

Straight sorcerer isn't hurt, normal sorlocks aren't hurt, and coffelock still works. However coffeelock doesn't get an infinite number of spells, and they only have a few of their highest level spells.

After reading through the comments, my vote would be for this solution. I actually like the coffeelock, but would like to see some kind of reasonable rule, and this sounds reasonable to me.

Malifice

2017-11-28, 08:14 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-11-28, 09:18 PM

How about this one:

If you attempt to game the rest mechanic at my table, you will be uninvited.

Covers the cofeelock, 5MWD and all similar shenanigans.

Also sets the standard on how you'll deal with douche bag behaviour from players.

Edgy. In video games, they developed the terms scrub and stop-having-fun guy / elitest. The first refers to a player who creates arbitrary rules that others must follow, while the other insists that everyone play in the mechanically best way. Neither term is positive.

I've never understood why some D&D players don't understand this moral. Don't tell others how to play, or how to enjoy, the game. You don't like the build. Fine. Disallow it if you like. But don't pretend for a second that using a build like this makes someone a bad person.

In short, get off your high horse.

Blacky the Blackball

2017-11-29, 03:16 AM

It isn't RAI.

Well, that's the thing isn't it - RAI is, by definition, subjective; and people will disagree about what it is like we're doing now.

Malifice

2017-11-29, 03:31 AM

Edgy. In video games, they developed the terms scrub and stop-having-fun guy / elitest. The first refers to a player who creates arbitrary rules that others must follow, while the other insists that everyone play in the mechanically best way. Neither term is positive.

I've never understood why some D&D players don't understand this moral. Don't tell others how to play, or how to enjoy, the game. You don't like the build. Fine. Disallow it if you like. But don't pretend for a second that using a build like this makes someone a bad person.

In short, get off your high horse.

Lol.

Dnd isn't a video game.

JNAProductions

2017-11-29, 12:01 PM

Lol.

Dnd isn't a video game.

The terms apply, though. It's far better to make it clear what's expected in a polite way, such as saying "Hey, I notice that you're going Coffeelock-I feel that's a little too high-power for this table, so could you not play that?" rather than just uninviting someone.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 12:15 PM

Lol.

Dnd isn't a video game.

That's the point. Video games have fixed rules, and people still find ways to play them in completely different ways.

D&D isn't fixed. That means people can play it an infinite number of ways. Sure enough, that's exactly what happens.

Your opinions don't apply to anyone but yourself.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-11-29, 05:19 PM

That's the point. Video games have fixed rules, and people still find ways to play them in completely different ways.

D&D isn't fixed. That means people can play it an infinite number of ways. Sure enough, that's exactly what happens.

Your opinions don't apply to anyone but yourself.
In some ways, it feels like a push-back against 3.5. There, the culture (at least online) embraced optimization. People would gleefully develop new theoretical-optimization tricks to show off, dig into class guides and handbooks, happily discuss ways to make highly effective characters-- and ways to fix broken options. Sometimes going too far, because the internet (and 3.5), but the general rule was "optimization is fun." On the 5e subforum, though... the prevailing mood seems to be far and away the opposite. Almost anything beyond "single-classed character with no feats" gets called cheese. Minute swings in damage get outcries like they were 3.5 Planar Binding. I've seen staggering amounts of pushback against proposed alterations to the system. As someone who enjoys both optimization and system-hacking, it's downright disheartening at times.

The Coffeelock is perhaps the first really interesting build I've seen in 5e. It takes the basic pieces of the system and puts them back together in a way that radically changes the paradigm. That's amazing. It's fascinating. It's why I enjoy hanging out on forums like this. Bravo, Easy_Lee.

Does it fit in an actual game? Maybe, maybe not-- there are arguments both ways, I think, and "consistently quickened EB" is certainly a lot of damage to be pumping out. Does it deserve some of the vitrol that's being spewed its way? Absolutely not. If you don't want it in your game, say so-- there's no need for targeted houserules, and there's certainly no need for tortured rules close-readings specifically aimed at screwing over a specific player. In the long run, that's way unhealthier for the game.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 05:49 PM

In some ways, it feels like a push-back against 3.5. There, the culture (at least online) embraced optimization. People would gleefully develop new theoretical-optimization tricks to show off, dig into class guides and handbooks, happily discuss ways to make highly effective characters-- and ways to fix broken options. Sometimes going too far, because the internet (and 3.5), but the general rule was "optimization is fun." On the 5e subforum, though... the prevailing mood seems to be far and away the opposite. Almost anything beyond "single-classed character with no feats" gets called cheese. Minute swings in damage get outcries like they were 3.5 Planar Binding. I've seen staggering amounts of pushback against proposed alterations to the system. As someone who enjoys both optimization and system-hacking, it's downright disheartening at times.

The Coffeelock is perhaps the first really interesting build I've seen in 5e. It takes the basic pieces of the system and puts them back together in a way that radically changes the paradigm. That's amazing. It's fascinating. It's why I enjoy hanging out on forums like this. Bravo, Easy_Lee.

Does it fit in an actual game? Maybe, maybe not-- there are arguments both ways, I think, and "consistently quickened EB" is certainly a lot of damage to be pumping out. Does it deserve some of the vitrol that's being spewed its way? Absolutely not. If you don't want it in your game, say so-- there's no need for targeted houserules, and there's certainly no need for tortured rules close-readings specifically aimed at screwing over a specific player. In the long run, that's way unhealthier for the game.

Thank you. The coffeelock wasn't my idea, but I think I've posted about it the most often of late. I understand what you mean about interesting builds; it's what drew me to the mounted BM builds I'm known for, or the latest Magic Stone + Sling + Sneak Attack idea I've been posting about. I like doing things differently, and I particularly like making unpopular options work well.

I'm no stranger to the vitriol that brings. As you put it, 5e has a very different culture from 3.5e. From my history with 3.5e and video games, I'm not used to other players getting upset when someone doesn't play the way the developers intended.

I don't think the coffeelock needs to be banned. I trust players not to pick builds they think will break a campaign, and not to player their characters in ways that invalidate other players.

As for me personally, when I play, my policy is to optimize my character as much as possible so I can choose the level of power to use in a given situation, depending on what the party needs. Last night, that meant concentrating on a spell and skipping my action for the rest of the encounter, because that's all the party needed me to do.

My practices don't affect the way anyone else plays, but I do think this demonstrates something core about D&D. This is a social game. People should worry about the group dynamic in a particular campaign, not the theoretically possible dynamic that they think could arise in a situation.

MrBig

2017-11-29, 06:09 PM

If you really wanted to stop the coffeelock build, without affecting traditional pure sorcerer usage, why not say this:

A sorcerer can only have, at most, the spell slots listed in the sorcerer table, plus however many spell slots you can buy with your sorcerer level in spell points.

That’s exactly how single-classes sorcerers work.

E.g. A 5th level sorcerer does a long rest.
He gets back all his normal spell slots, and he has 5 SP.

You can immediately convert those 5 SP into a couple of extra spell slots of your choosing.

That’s your limit.

This all resets on a long rest.

krugaan

2017-11-29, 06:25 PM

My practices don't affect the way anyone else plays, but I do think this demonstrates something core about D&D. This is a social game.

I think it's funny that we all play this social game, yet treat each other like trash on forums talking about the game.

In some ways, it feels like a push-back against 3.5. There, the culture (at least online) embraced optimization.

I agree, although I never played 3x. Some people are acting like the name of the game is to unbalance everything and dominate the non-existant scoreboards with broken builds.

edit: it occurs to me that the way this is worded might be taken as an attack on some people. Er, it wasn't supposed to be. Players who actually play DnD on these forums are likely to be reasonable players. Just ... you know, take that reasonableness and put it on the forums too.

druid91

2017-11-29, 06:43 PM

Of course there is a reason to.

If your PCs are chaining short rests they're gaming the rest mechanic.

PC: I'll take 8 x 1 hour short rests.
DM: It's a long rest.
PC: But...
DM: No. End of discussion.

See how easy it is?

PC: I'll take an hour long short rest, then go have a practice fight with the elderly ex-knight who's my loyal retainer. Then another short rest, then another fight. Etc.

So, yeah, you only get four compared to the 8 you would otherwise get. But given the primary mechanic is you build up over time into an avalanche of power....

Malifice

2017-11-29, 08:35 PM

PC: I'll take an hour long short rest, then go have a practice fight with the elderly ex-knight who's my loyal retainer. Then another short rest, then another fight. Etc.

So, yeah, you only get four compared to the 8 you would otherwise get. But given the primary mechanic is you build up over time into an avalanche of power....

Cool. You have an interesting night sparring.

It counts as a long rest.

Now what do you want to do?

Nifft

2017-11-29, 08:37 PM

Cool. You have an interesting night sparring.

It counts as a long rest.

Now what do you want to do?

I make a post on an internet forum about how my unfair DM keeps nerfing me.

Puh Laden

2017-11-29, 08:45 PM

The ruling to prevent a coffee-lock is found in the new sleep deprivation rules. They say they're something you can do to simulate what happens when you go without sleep, but, IIRC, the sleep deprivation rules themselves, not the preamble to the sleep deprivation rules, says that going without a "long rest" is what triggers the save to avoid the ill effects. Make the ruling that Aspect of the Moon only means that you don't need to sleep during a long rest to gain the benefits of a long rest, but going without a long rest will still trigger the saving throw. Both interpretations are, as far as I can tell, RAW.

Ganymede

2017-11-29, 09:16 PM

I just realized: my table-rule banning players from tongue-in-cheek copying exploits posted by devil's advocate playing pot-stirrers already prevents this particular thing from working in my games.

What a relief!

greenstone

2017-11-30, 01:19 AM

PC: I'll take an hour long short rest, then go have a practice fight with the elderly ex-knight who's my loyal retainer. Then another short rest, then another fight. Etc.

GM:

OK, you've been active for 8 hours yesterday and you didn't get an uninterrupted night's rest. After the first hour of activity today can I please have a DC 11 CON save to avoid a level of Exhaustion. And another after the second hour, at DC 12. And another…

-and/or-

Also, the rest of the party? You got woken up every hour by the noise of a fight. None of you get the benefits of a long rest.

If the players want to do something cheesy like a coffeelock then they can; but they also have to accept the consequences.

Consequences and Player Choice are much better than Prohibition.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-11-30, 07:48 AM

Consequences and Player Choice are much better than Prohibition.
And direct and honest conversations about acceptable builds are much better for the game than persnickity, passive-aggressive rulings aimed solely at screwing over a specific player*. Especially if you're going to throw them in as a surprise.

You don't want coffeelocks in your game? SAY SO.

*Doubly so if there are unintended consequences to doing so. If you ignore the fluffier text around the sentence that uses the phrase "long rest," all of which mentions sleep, then suddenly no-one has to actually sleep-- the Long Rest sections prohibits standing watch for too long, but not reading for eight hours. Also, if you use the gritty realism variant, everyone is doomed, since you have to wait a week between Long Rests.

Vogie

2017-11-30, 11:44 AM

Personally I would think that on a storytelling level, there should be a consequence for not sleeping. That could be exhaustion or some sort of mental tax. Last year, there was a sage advice saying that sentient objects may need to "sleep" to keep from going insane (and mentioned that the reason that there are so many insane ones is BECAUSE they don't sleep).

Even if they tap into Aspect of the Moon, which requires an Archfey patron, then tapping in to having that patron asking or demanding more of the 'lock. Maybe the explanation is that the patron's invocation (or the cloak of the moon from XGtE) removes the requirement to sleep from one's body, but their mind doesn't have that luxury.

If I had a coffeelock, who refuses to take a long rest (single night version) AT ALL, I would certainly create a mental-exhaustion variant for them. The meatspace impact of lacking sleep include irritability, additional hunger, irrational anger, increase in violent response, hallucinations, and, eventually, insanity (and becoming a BBEG NPC).

That sounds like a lot of fun, personally.

*Doubly so if there are unintended consequences to doing so. If you ignore the fluffier text around the sentence that uses the phrase "long rest," all of which mentions sleep, then suddenly no-one has to actually sleep-- the Long Rest sections prohibits standing watch for too long, but not reading for eight hours. Also, if you use the gritty realism variant, everyone is doomed, since you have to wait a week between Long Rests.

That's true - There's a huge swath of opinions on what constitutes a long or short rest, depending on the table. A coffeelock seems broken and rule-bendy if a short rest is only 5 minutes or even an hour. But if a Short rest is a night, while a long rest is more than an entire day, the coffeelock seems perfectly fine.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-30, 11:45 AM

I just house rulled that a sorcerer can not buy more spell slots than their listed max on their class chart.

ex. If you can have 1 3rd level spell, you can not buy 2 more, however you can feel free to refill your slots as long as you have the SP for it.

JNAProductions

2017-11-30, 11:48 AM

I'll agree with the people who are saying "Just talk with your players". Honestly, I've never actually HAD any issues with people being too powerful in 5E, no one's tried to abuse the rules in any of my games, and it's all been pretty good.

I just wanted to know what a non-intrusive houserule would be that firmly bans this. A way to make it clear, mechanically, that this is too powerful and not accepted, but at the same time doesn't punish players who aren't trying to game the system quite too hard.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 11:52 AM

JNAProductions

2017-11-30, 11:54 AM

Spell slots gained from sorcery points vanish after a long rest or 24 hours, whichever comes first.

This is the one I think I like best. I don't mind powering SP with Warlock slots, in the same way I don't mind Paladins Smiting with them.

I just don't want people racking up oodles and oodles of excess slots.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-11-30, 12:05 PM

Spell slots resetting after 24 hours is a good compromise.

Even if they tap into Aspect of the Moon, which requires an Archfey patron, then tapping in to having that patron asking or demanding more of the 'lock.
Ehh... I'm still not a fan of that-- they spent one of their very few invocation slots on it, after all; you shouldn't make up a new penalty that makes it largely irrelevant.

That's true - There's a huge swath of opinions on what constitutes a long or short rest, depending on the table. A coffeelock seems broken and rule-bendy if a short rest is only 5 minutes or even an hour. But if a Short rest is a night, while a long rest is more than an entire day, the coffeelock seems perfectly fine.
The point was to show that the "not sleeping" penalties are clearly supposed to be about sleep, otherwise everyone dies of exhaustion during a gritty rest campaign.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 12:21 PM

Spell slots resetting after 24 hours is a good compromise.

This is the best option if you want a compromise. It's clear and incentivises the player to take more warlock levels (retains the potential to recover sorcery points and spell slots in an adventuring day, and could work well for an elf sorlock in particular). That still allows the build to do what it does without gaining "infinite" slots.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 01:09 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 01:43 PM

Isn't coffeelock just a direct upgrade to any divine soul sorlock though? After some discussion with... I forget who, was getting tired, the only real requirement for coffeelock is 9 levels in sorcerer for greater restoration. Even a bog standard 9/2 sorlock comes out ahead on slots by coffeelock in with no real downside.

That being said... Why not run with the flavor of it? Lack of sleep and arcane power building in your midochlorians or whatever is starting to damage your mind. You're jumpy, sure your pact patron is disapproving. Disadvantage on Wis / int / change saving throws.

A few levels of warlock is generally an upgrade to most sorcerer builds from about level 8 onward - level 3 spells are a big deal. The coffeelock build creates a very different character.

At a minimum, the coffeelock is three levels behind for spellcasting progression, meaning other casters are one or two spell levels ahead. Additionally, the coffeelock cannot ever recover 6+ level spells without losing his additional slots. He also cannot take long rests or sleep at all, which can have significant mechanical and RP consequences.

In exchange for those penalties, the coffeelock gains effectively unlimited castings of his 5th and lower level spells. He does not have infinite sorcery points and must still spend bonus actions to create them, meaning he can't quicken-EB spam for more than sorcerer level / 2 consecutive rounds - 3 rounds in a row by level 9, or 2 rounds if he empowers one EB per turn. But what he can do is, past sorcerer level 5, use any metamagic on any single normal-action spell he knows each round of combat, so long as he also uses his bonus action to turn a different spell slot into sorcery points to recover them. That means that heighten, twin, subtle, and empower are all particularly effective choices for a coffeelock. Quicken is still a good choice since he should not need to quicken a spell most rounds of combat.

Overall, the character is very different and potentially quite powerful in certain situations, if played well. That is to say that the character is similar to a druid or wizard - highly procedural and very effective if played well. The main difference is his spell list is far more limited and lower level, but he casts more spells and adds metamagic to many of them. He plays exactly like a warlock / sorcerer should play from a design standpoint - lots of lower level magic.

It's interesting, but only broken if the player is trying to break the campaign. A determined player can wreck any campaign with any class if he tries hard enough, so I don't see this as any different.

Vaz

2017-11-30, 01:52 PM

Why not just **** off the long rest concept and say 24 hours, given that is essentially the concept of the Long rest, while allowing the coffeelock to actually do that thing?

Perhaps prevent those Spell Slots created that way by being burned for Spell slots? Or change Spell Slots to be burned for sorc points as free actions during the casting which must be spent on the spell being cast?

Plenty of ways to nope its gamebreakingness, to the extent of kicking out the player who is determined to run it at the extreme. The game shouldn't suffer for the sake of one OP thing, and like someone insistent on trying to PunPun, can be sorted by a DMjust saying you are not welcome at my table if you are willing to ruin my night of fun, and these other 3-5 people also.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 01:58 PM

At a minimum, the coffeelock is three levels behind for spellcasting progression, meaning other casters are one or two spell levels ahead. Additionally, the coffeelock cannot ever recover 6+ level spells without losing his additional slots. He also cannot take long rests or sleep at all, which can have significant mechanical and RP consequences.

Thaaaaaat's what i was forgetting. Is third level lock really required? You need "a long rest" to not suffer exhaustion, not "sleep", so your going to suffer the penalties regardless.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 02:06 PM

Thaaaaaat's what i was forgetting. Is third level lock really required? You need "a long rest" to not suffer exhaustion, not "sleep", so your going to suffer the penalties regardless.

Only with the optional rule, and even then, the optional rule mentions that people can't go without "sleep" for too long. It suggests that sleep is the reason why you must long rest to avoid exhaustion, so it's hardly a stretch to say aspect of the moon specifically trumps that optional rule.

Lombra

2017-11-30, 02:07 PM

If you are a DM, and want to avoid this build, tell the player:"no".

"I'll take 8 short rests during the long rest and convert-"

"Nothing happens. You start the next day with the spell slots and the sorcery points with which you ended the day before."

Easiest "houserule".

Stop pretending you are playing videogames, D&D is far more sofisticated than that, we're playing with people, and should read the rules like the human beings we are, not like cold calculators. Geez.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 02:14 PM

Grod_The_Giant

2017-11-30, 02:16 PM

Only with the optional rule, and even then, the optional rule mentions that people can't go without "sleep" for too long. It suggests that sleep is the reason why you must long rest to avoid exhaustion, so it's hardly a stretch to say aspect of the moon specifically trumps that optional rule.
As I mentioned, taking the "long rest" clause in there too literally causes problems of its own, since you don't have to actually sleep during a long rest ("a character sleeps or performs light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours")-- you can avoid sleep deprivation penalties by... never sleeping.

If you are a DM, and want to avoid this build, tell the player:"no".

"I'll take 8 short rests during the long rest and convert-"

"Nothing happens. You start the next day with the spell slots and the sorcery points with which you ended the day before."

Easiest "houserule".

Stop pretending you are playing videogames, D&D is far more sofisticated than that, we're playing with people, and should read the rules like the human beings we are, not like cold calculators. Geez.
Correct-- we're people, playing with other people, so we have honest conversations to address issues. We do not read the rules in such as way as to intentionally empower one player above and beyond the rest of the group. Nor do we read them in such a way as to intentionally hinder one player above and beyond the rest of the group. We apply the rules in a way that is fair and agreeable to the whole table.

Not allowing coffeelocks is fine. Adding a houserule about spell slots resetting (or some such) at the start of the game is fine. Allowing a player to build a Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, approving the build, and then announcing "lol, your idea doesn't work, lol" is [B][I]not fine.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:17 PM

It doesn't say you "can't" go without sleep, it just says you suffer consequences for doing so.

So if you go without long rest, 1 level of exhaustion.
If you go without long rest OR sleep ... 1 level of exhaustion.

The penalties are the same.

On a side note: if you use a divination wizards "expert divination" ability, you can launder slots up to 5th by casting divination spells which notably do *not* get lost on long rest. That would translate to 4th level laundered spell slots.

Unfortunately, since you would need at least a 9/2/6 sorc/lock/wiz split to make this work, the highest actual spell level you could ever cast would be 7th. But hey ... it's a slight improvement, right?

Oh my god, did you just find a further exploit to the CoffeeLock by finding a way to make the crafted spell slots permanent? Thereby allowing the CoffeeLock to enjoy a long rest and recover L6+ spells?

krugaan

2017-11-30, 02:19 PM

Oh my god, did you just find a further exploit to the CoffeeLock by finding a way to make the crafted spell slots permanent? Thereby allowing the CoffeeLock to enjoy a long rest and recover L6+ spells?

No, I found a flaw already, lol. It only regains expended slots.

I was just surmising that, after 9/2 lock, there is very little reason to take more sorc levels, and wondered what else you could fill it with.

Probably levels in paladin or bard.

Lore bard / knowledge cleric changes the whole dynamic ... he's not a coffeelock, he's a grad student.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-30, 02:19 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 02:24 PM

Not allowing coffeelocks is fine. Adding a houserule about spell slots resetting (or some such) at the start of the game is fine. Allowing a player to build a Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, approving the build, and then announcing "lol, your idea doesn't work, lol" is [B][I]not fine.

Agreed. This is what I've been trying to get across. DMs should not play gotcha with their players.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 02:27 PM

Agreed. This is what I've been trying to get across. DMs should not play gotcha with their players.

Nor should they contort definitions and RAW in an attempt to out-rules lawyer their players, either. Just tell them what you're ruling and why, and be fair about it.

Can I be a coffeelock? (Left foot blue)
No, too powerful. (right foot red)
But it's RAAWWWW... (left hand green)
No it's not, 8 short rest in a row is a long rest. (right hand blue)
I interrupt the rests with exercise and only take 7. (right hand red)
That's still a long rest ... or one short rest. (left butt cheek red)
What? My rests were "at least one hour long" but not 8 hours without interruption! (left foot green)
Uh ... "at least one hour long" doesn't mean it can't be longer. (right kidney maroon)

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:30 PM

The divination thing only works when you actually cast the spell, burning a spell slot for SP is not casting anything.

Nothing stops you from actually casting spells though. The typical L9 Divination Wizard can cast the following spells in order: Comprehend Languages, See Invisibility, Tongues, Arcane Eye, Rary's Telepathic Bond.

Due to Expert Divination, they will effectively only spend one 5th level slot in return. This is a feature of the class. It's pretty great.

A CoffeeLock who has Expert Divination can repeat this strategy, creating with his SP one 1st, one 2nd, one 3rd, one 4th, and one 5th level slot, and then casting the divination spells in order from lowest level to highest level. So they could expend and recover all the slots they made if they cast divination spells from it.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-30, 02:32 PM

Nothing stops you from actually casting spells though. The typical L9 Divination Wizard can cast the following spells in order: Comprehend Languages, See Invisibility, Tongues, Arcane Eye, Rary's Telepathic Bond.

Due to Expert Divination, they will effectively only spend one 5th level slot in return. This is a feature of the class. It's pretty great.

A CoffeeLock who has Expert Divination can repeat this strategy, creating with his SP one 1st, one 2nd, one 3rd, one 4th, and one 5th level slot, and then casting the divination spells in order from lowest level to highest level. So they could expend and recover all the slots they made if they cast divination spells from it.

Ah, ok, I thought you meant that they could burn the spell for SP and still use the diviner ability to get a spell slot back of lower level.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:32 PM

No, I found a flaw already, lol. It only regains expended slots.

I was just surmising that, after 9/2 lock, there is very little reason to take more sorc levels, and wondered what else you could fill it with.

Probably levels in paladin or bard.

Lore bard / knowledge cleric changes the whole dynamic ... he's not a coffeelock, he's a grad student.

Ah, you're right, the spell slots would still be the same ones (that would disappear after a long rest), because Expert Divination only lets you recover the expended slots, without making statements about their permanency.

I enjoy the grad student flavor. But if going to grad school actually gives you the ability to cast magic spells... then it's worth it.

Citan

2017-11-30, 02:36 PM

Coffeelocks are, technically, RAW. But they're a clear abuse of the rules as written.

What's a good houserule that minimally impacts other people, but makes Coffeelocks not possible?

My personal thought is make it so the Sorcerer simply cannot gain spell slots above his ordinary amount-how much would that affect people who've played Sorcerers?
Hi ;)
I know my answer is gonna be outside of the boundaries you set but...
I'd just allow Coffeelock. ;)
With however a hard limit up to player choice...

1. You cannot get any benefit from taking consecutive short rests. Two short rest must be separated by either a really strenuous activity (like an encounter) or a sound 3 full hours.

2. You can never get more long rest slots than the maximum corresponding to your Sorcerer level (which is most people go with because it's simple).
This should as far as I know NOT affect pure Sorcerers, because you lose a bit of fuel when you try to convert sorcery points into slots, so usually players won't do this unless they have a very specific need for a specific situation during a time when some of their resources are depleted already.

If you want to be sure to block Coffeelock but at the same time let players who usually convert all slots when starting the day to get a big amount of a specific level (like Draconic Sorcerer who would want to spam Fireball to take a stupid example), just say that you can never have more "fuel" than the corresponding amount in spell point variant.
This means you have either to trust your player (in which case, you don't need any houserule really) or make a bit of booktracking, updating the max amount when he levels up.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-11-30, 03:08 PM

I enjoy the grad student flavor. But if going to grad school actually gives you the ability to cast magic spells... then it's worth it.

Sadly, grad school doesn't give spellcasting. Otherwise my life would be substantially different :smallwink:. Or maybe it does, but the only spell on the list is "cause debt (range: self)"

Talamare

2017-11-30, 03:22 PM

Correct-- we're people, playing with other people, so we have honest conversations to address issues. We do not read the rules in such as way as to intentionally empower one player above and beyond the rest of the group. Nor do we read them in such a way as to intentionally hinder one player above and beyond the rest of the group. We apply the rules in a way that is fair and agreeable to the whole table.

Not allowing coffeelocks is fine. Adding a houserule about spell slots resetting (or some such) at the start of the game is fine. Allowing a player to build a Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, approving the build, and then announcing "lol, your idea doesn't work, lol" is [B][I]not fine.

WOAH WOAH WOAH!

Warlock/Sorcerer is NOT ALWAYS COFFEELOCK
You can be a Warlock/Sorcerer which is an INSANELY POWERFUL MULTICLASS OPTION
Without trying to Coffeelock

So, if the W/S went out of his way to show and build it, but never mentioned that he was just doing it to exploit short rest...
It sounds like HE was the one that was obfuscating his intentions.
I approved the Build.
I didn't approve the Exploit.

Kuulvheysoon

2017-11-30, 03:26 PM

You could also institute a maximum number of short rests allowable between long rests. For example, say that you can only benefit from 6 short rests. After that, you must long rest again before you reap the benefits of a short rest again.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-30, 03:27 PM

WOAH WOAH WOAH!

Warlock/Sorcerer is NOT ALWAYS COFFEELOCK
You can be a Warlock/Sorcerer which is an INSANELY POWERFUL MULTICLASS OPTION
Without trying to Coffeelock

So, if the W/S went out of his way to show and build it, but never mentioned that he was just doing it to exploit short rest...
It sounds like HE was the one that was obfuscating his intentions.
I approved the Build.
I didn't approve the Exploit.

True, I played in a game with a Sor/lock but he did not use any of the coffee lock exploits, he was a fiend/draconic, who rebuilt to Hexblade/Shadow when those came out thanks to getting to rebuild because of new stuff.

He just played it like a strait Sorcerer who could use cha for everything, with armor and shield, and could see in magical darkness and had an awesome EB he could quicken if wanted.

I am not sure he even knew about the coffee lock idea.

I was play a straight class warlock so I was definitely not going to tell him, he made my character rather pointless as it was and was a jerk about it rubbing it in all the time.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-11-30, 04:19 PM

krugaan

2017-11-30, 04:24 PM

Sorlock is plenty strong all by itself. Coffeelock is just strictly better... when it comes online.

How much better is up for debate. The higher you get, the less better it gets.

Malifice

2017-11-30, 05:53 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 07:20 PM

The easiest option (that fixes this and a ton of other balance issues including the 5MWD) is to simply introduce milestone 'resting' (resource replenishment).

Every 2 encounters you get a short rest. Every 3rd rest is a long rest. At the DMs discretion you may get additional rests over and above this.

As an added bonus it also stops jarring breaks in the action. It also makes the DMs job easier (he doesn't have to be hands on with managing the adventuring day).

You don't tell the players when to rest. You don't have control over their characters' actions.

The easiest option is to tell the player they may not play that particular build. Don't be indirect. Don't be subtle. Don't wait and try to pull a fast one on your player. Just tell them you don't allow the build. Players respect a clear and direct DM.

Malifice

2017-11-30, 09:02 PM

You don't tell the players when to rest. You don't have control over their characters' actions.

The easiest option is to tell the player they may not play that particular build. Don't be indirect. Don't be subtle. Don't wait and try to pull a fast one on your player. Just tell them you don't allow the build. Players respect a clear and direct DM.

They're not resting in that variant. They're just recharging resources at the rate of 1 short rest every 2 encounters and every 3rd such rest being a long rest.

No actual resting involved.

Talamare

2017-11-30, 09:24 PM

You don't tell the players when to rest. You don't have control over their characters' actions.

DM "Your character falls asleep"

Player 1 "What? No it doesn't you don't control me!"

DM "Oh? Well, your character is asleep."

Player 1 "YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CONTROL MY CHARACTER!"

Player 2 "Geez dude, calm down. DM, Why did he fall asleep?"

DM "Figure it out"

Player 2 "I don't know, I guess I do a medicine check?"

DM "You find a dart on his neck, and identify a poison so powerful that it can put a Tarrasque to sleep 100% of the time!"

Player 1 "THAT'S BULL! WHERE WAS MY SAVING THROW!"

DM "It puts a Tarrasque to sleep 100% of the time, you're nowhere near as resistant."

Player 2 "Uh, if it's that powerful. Do we need to worry about him dying?"

DM "Hmm, the poison only puts people to sleep. It has been very well crafted, but it might take him a little while to wake up."

Player 1 "I'M AN ELF! ELVES NEVER SLEEP!"

DM "The Poison isn't magical."

krugaan

2017-11-30, 10:12 PM

DM "Your character falls asleep"

Player 1 "What? No it doesn't you don't control me!"

DM "Oh? Well, your character is asleep."

Player 1 "YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CONTROL MY CHARACTER!"

Player 2 "Geez dude, calm down. DM, Why did he fall asleep?"

DM "Figure it out"

Player 2 "I don't know, I guess I do a medicine check?"

DM "You find a dart on his neck, and identify a poison so powerful that it can put a Tarrasque to sleep 100% of the time!"

Player 1 "THAT'S BULL! WHERE WAS MY SAVING THROW!"

DM "It puts a Tarrasque to sleep 100% of the time, you're nowhere near as resistant."

Player 2 "Uh, if it's that powerful. Do we need to worry about him dying?"

DM "Hmm, the poison only puts people to sleep. It has been very well crafted, but it might take him a little while to wake up."

Player 1 "I'M AN ELF! ELVES NEVER SLEEP!"

DM "The Poison isn't magical."

That literally sounds like terrible DMing.

Look, the argument is degenerative at this point. No one is answering questions honestly. IF those are honest answers, they're scary.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 10:41 PM

DM "Your character falls asleep"

Player 1 "What? No it doesn't you don't control me!"

DM "Oh? Well, your character is asleep."

Player 1 "YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CONTROL MY CHARACTER!"

Player 2 "Geez dude, calm down. DM, Why did he fall asleep?"

DM "Figure it out"

Player 2 "I don't know, I guess I do a medicine check?"

DM "You find a dart on his neck, and identify a poison so powerful that it can put a Tarrasque to sleep 100% of the time!"

Player 1 "THAT'S BULL! WHERE WAS MY SAVING THROW!"

DM "It puts a Tarrasque to sleep 100% of the time, you're nowhere near as resistant."

Player 2 "Uh, if it's that powerful. Do we need to worry about him dying?"

DM "Hmm, the poison only puts people to sleep. It has been very well crafted, but it might take him a little while to wake up."

Player 1 "I'M AN ELF! ELVES NEVER SLEEP!"

DM "The Poison isn't magical."

That's not an honest example. You quoted me saying that the DM doesn't control player actions. Your example shows the DM doing something to the character. He did not say, "your character chooses to take a long rest, thus losing all of his accumulated spell slots." Because that would be ridiculous. The player controls his character's actions. The DM, who controls the entire rest of the game world, should have no problem with that.

Malifice

2017-11-30, 11:10 PM

That's not an honest example. You quoted me saying that the DM doesn't control player actions. Your example shows the DM doing something to the character. He did not say, "your character chooses to take a long rest, thus losing all of his accumulated spell slots." Because that would be ridiculous. The player controls his character's actions. The DM, who controls the entire rest of the game world, should have no problem with that.

You seem to confuse player actions with outcomes.

The DM can't make you rest all the time, but he does determine the effects of that resting (if any).

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 11:15 PM

You seem to confuse player actions with outcomes.

The DM can't make you rest all the time, but he does determine the effects of that resting (if any).

Ah, I see. Then perhaps you're advocating that a player who meets the requirements for taking a short rest does not actually benefit from one, because the DM says so. In that case, I still whole-heartedly oppose you on that. Harming, inconveniencing, or spiting the player purely because the DM decided to do so, that is the definition of adversarial DMing.

Like I've said a million times by now, if you don't like the build then don't allow it. Do not passive-aggressively inconvenience the player, prevent the player from doing what the player wants to do, or start mucking with game mechanics to block a player's plan. The only thing you, as the DM, should be concerned with is what the rest of the world does in response to the players.

Bahamut7

2017-11-30, 11:27 PM

I forget if this has been mentioned, considering we now have 3 threads dedicated to this build, but the easiest rule to use to stop this build, if as a DM you don't want it at your table, is simply to not allow multi-classing.

Multi-classing, like Feats, in this edition are optional rules. You simply turn those options off. BAM. Now a player CAN'T build this as they have to choose Sorcerer or Warlock, not both.

Now I know what some may say, so here's the thing. If you want to allow multi-classing at your table than as a DM you have to be expecting builds that can do things not originally envisioned. The coffeelock, while amusing, is not the most broken class combination and tactic in this edition. Plus, the arguments against the coffeelock only imagine a scenario where everyone is able to keep up. I have already stated, EVEN if the coffeelock is able to keep on fighting, his party with drag him away when they just can't anymore.

Coffeelock Steve: Lightning Bolts every round! MUwahaha
Fighter: Steve, look, we get that you are really excited about clearing this fortress, but we have to retreat, everyone else is about to drop.
Paladin: I am all smited out, unless you can provide me with some more holy power, than the heathens shall have to wait for their righteous judgement.
Steve: I don't have holy power, but I do have this amazing brew made from beans. It is simply amazing! You don't need to sleep with this stuff, I get so much done each night...blah blah blah.
Fighter: When is the last time you have slept, Steve?
Steve:...2, no 3 years ago? Have I mentioned how good a fresh brew tastes?
Party drags Steve away, to seek out the cure to his madness known as Decaf.

Malifice

2017-11-30, 11:52 PM

Ah, I see. Then perhaps you're advocating that a player who meets the requirements for taking a short rest does not actually benefit from one, because the DM says so. In that case, I still whole-heartedly oppose you on that. Harming, inconveniencing, or spiting the player purely because the DM decided to do so, that is the definition of adversarial DMing.

Like I've said a million times by now, if you don't like the build then don't allow it. Do not passive-aggressively inconvenience the player, prevent the player from doing what the player wants to do, or start mucking with game mechanics to block a player's plan. The only thing you, as the DM, should be concerned with is what the rest of the world does in response to the players.

And like I've said a million times by now, feel free to rock up to my table with any ****ing build you want.

Bear in mind you'll be getting 6-8 encounters per long rest, and will get 2-3 short rests over the same time.

Get it yet mate?

Nifft

2017-12-01, 12:30 AM

And like I've said a million times by now, feel free to rock up to my table with any ****ing build you want.

Bear in mind you'll be getting 6-8 encounters per long rest, and will get 2-3 short rests over the same time.

Get it yet mate?

B-b-but I want to start with 300 level 1 spell slots.

If you don't let me start with 300 level 1 spell slots you're an evil oppressor, just like mom.

But seriously, the more I think about it, the more I feel like whatever Coffelocks do should be limited only by their implied class maximums -- so if you can recover all your expended sorcery points + spell slots, that's great! But you can't get more than you would have gotten after waking up from a Long rest.

They'd be exceptionally viable in extended no-long-rest territory (like some of the Planes), but they wouldn't be allowed to stock up on resources beyond what would be ordinarily possible.

Vaz

2017-12-01, 01:17 AM

I forget if this has been mentioned, considering we now have 3 threads dedicated to this build, but the easiest rule to use to stop this build, if as a DM you don't want it at your table, is simply to not allow multi-classing.

Burning down a house because there is a spider in it may seem like a good idea to you, but you can genuinely do on if you think that i'm going to consider you a capable DM if you're goong to ban Multiclassing based on the edge case of this build.

Asmotherion

2017-12-01, 06:26 AM

Rule 0: If the DM does not want something to work, RAW does not matter.

Since my default (multi)class is Sorlock, here is how we played it once:

Every 4 hours, the DM made me roll a Charisma saving throw in order not to fall asleep due to overfatigue. If I did, I would loose all the Arcane power I had ammased, for the big battle, and it would amount to nothing. The DC Started at 10 and increased by 4 every time. Finally, when we did battle, I was treated as with 2 levels of exhaustion.

He did allow me to go through with it, but didn't give it for free, or else I would be tempted to do so every time. And as a player I think it was brilliant, and I respect him for it. He even hinted that if I actually fell asleep, something Freddy Crooker-like might or might not have spawned from me and harassed the party 'till I woke up :P

Bahamut7

2017-12-01, 06:04 PM

Burning down a house because there is a spider in it may seem like a good idea to you, but you can genuinely do on if you think that i'm going to consider you a capable DM if you're goong to ban Multiclassing based on the edge case of this build.

Wow, not sure how you made such a leap of faith there, but allow me ease your concerns.

First of all, I don't ban multi-classing at my table, but I prefer in-game reasons and logic behind the multi-class in question (not to mention the stat requirement).

2nd, I merely pointed out there was already a rule in the book to prevent the build. The problem is that people such as yourself (based on your response above), is that you want to discriminate against certain things but tolerate others.

3rd, if you want to ban a specific build at your table, go for it. Just make sure to do this before character creation actually starts.

Finally, as a DM, I would NOT ban this or any build, no matter how cheesy it may seem. I would tailor the world and encounters to the players including such a build. Heck, knowing my players, we would probably agree on a cap just to reduce the bookkeeping. The coffeelock in question would still have to do the short rest chain trick to maintain their stock of spells.

Please don't assume things just because of a proposed solution, when the thread is asking for rules to limit or ban the coffeelock build.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-01, 06:13 PM

I still haven't seen a good case for exactly how coffeelocks are overpowered.

The Counterspell argument was dismissed - always a roll because you're at least one spell level behind.
The Animate Dead argument also amounted to nothing - the coffeelock doesn't have truly infinite spell slots and will run out of them trying to maintain more than about six zombies at level 8.
The coffeelock isn't better at anything than any other build except for endurance. For any other trait or mechanic, we can create a build that pushes it much farther. For example, his burst is no higher than any other sorlock, and is actually lower than several other builds.
The fact that the coffeelock doesn't take long rests actually speeds up the game, especially if he heals allies. It doesn't disrupt the game or slow things down.

Mostly in this thread I see people accepting the knee-jerk reaction that coffeelock is OP without actually thinking about how it would behave in play. To someone unfamiliar with D&D, the idea that someone could teleport or turn invisible would sound pretty overpowered, too - until they played and realized that it wasn't.

Nifft

2017-12-01, 06:19 PM

I still haven't seen a good case for exactly how coffeelocks are overpowered.

I'm not an expert but my impression was that the Coffeelock took two weeks of downtime and turned that into a very large number of short rests => stockpiled spell slots.

AFAICT it's the out-of-game stockpiling that's a problem.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-01, 06:23 PM

I'm not an expert but my impression was that the Coffeelock took two weeks of downtime and turned that into a very large number of short rests => stockpiled spell slots.

AFAICT it's the out-of-game stockpiling that's a problem.

Last I checked, adventurer's league doesn't allow you to perform out-of-game activities without spending downtime days. I was under the impression that most DMs would impose similar rulings about downtime activities lest a wizard player show up and say, "I used fabricate for the last ten years to build a castle, make myself a gold-billionaire, and hire a personal army."

Gtdead

2017-12-01, 06:27 PM

Make it so extra spellslots vanish on any rest. Problem solved. I've played sorcerers before. I never had any reason to stockpile spellslots.

Nifft

2017-12-01, 06:28 PM

Last I checked, adventurer's league doesn't allow you to perform out-of-game activities without spending downtime days.

Was AL supposed to be the context for this discussion?

My impression was that this thread was about home games mostly, not strictly limited to AL.

Could you quote something from the OP (@JNAProductions) which did limit this discussion to AL, to show that that was intended to be the case?

If it is the case that AL is the only valid context, then "houserule for coffeelock" seems like a poor topic, since houserules don't apply to AL. If it's not the case, then AL seems kinda irrelevant, and I wonder why you'd bother making an argument that's totally irrelevant.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-01, 06:32 PM

Was AL supposed to be the context for this discussion?

My impression was that this thread was about home games mostly, not strictly limited to AL.

Could you quote something from the OP (@JNAProductions) which did limit this discussion to AL, to show that that was intended to be the case?

If it is the case that AL is the only valid context, then "houserule for coffeelock" seems like a poor topic, since houserules don't apply to AL. If it's not the case, then AL seems kinda irrelevant, and I wonder why you'd bother making an argument that's totally irrelevant.

If you read the rest of the post, I go on to say that I was under the impression most DMs would impose rulings on downtime activities if players tried to do crazy things - like raise an army - during them.

But let's take the AL discussion further just to see how things go.

If a coffeelock spends ten downtime days taking eight short rests per day between adventures and has 3 warlock levels, here's what he can create.

Level 5: 160 first level spell slots
Level 6: 100 2nd level spell slots and 1 first level spell slot
Level 8: 60 third level spell slots and 1 first level spell slot
Level 10: 50 fourth level spell slots and 1 first level spell slot
Level 12: 40 fifth level spell slots and 1 third level spell slot

That's certainly a lot, but it's also finite. If the coffeelock starts spamming Blink every minute or something, he will run out. And there are so many things, from consequences that come with storing that power to catching the notice of gods, that might happen in-game to a character who takes things too far. Do note that there are plenty of things wizards can do that, while technically possible, can catch the attention of the wrong sorts of beings. Simulacrum + Wish is the most obvious of such tricks, but it's also possible to take Magic Mouth quite far.

So, again, I don't think this is half as big of a deal as some people make it out to be.

Nifft

2017-12-01, 06:44 PM

If a coffeelock spends ten downtime days taking eight short rests per day between adventures and has 3 warlock levels, here's what he can create. Why would a Coffeelock take only 8 short rests in a 24-hour period of downtime? That's what you'd get if you were adventuring, and downtime is when you are specifically not adventuring.

Let's assume 24 short rests per 24 hour day, since one hour = one hour.

Level 5: 480 first level spell slots
Level 6: 300 2nd level spell slots and 3 first level spell slots
Level 8: 180 third level spell slots and 3 first level spell slots
Level 10: 150 fourth level spell slots and 3 first level spell slots
Level 12: 120 fifth level spell slots and 3 third level spell slots

That's every 10 days.

Now assume you get an entire season of downtime (not uncommon in some games). That's ~80 days.

In 80 days, a fully-caffeinated Coffeelock would get:

Level 5: 3,840 first level spell slots
Level 6: 2,400 2nd level spell slots and 24 first level spell slots
Level 8: 1,140 third level spell slots and 24 first level spell slots
Level 10: 1,200 fourth level spell slots and 24 first level spell slots
Level 12: 960 fifth level spell slots and 24 third level spell slots

That's certainly a lot, but it's also finite. Doesn't have to be infinite, just has to be better than any of the alternatives.

And frankly it looks kinda like it might be.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-01, 07:12 PM

Doesn't have to be infinite, just has to be better than any of the alternatives.

And frankly it looks kinda like it might be.

Better at what than any of the alternatives? If we're talking about spellcasting:

Pure casters are one or two spell levels ahead until they're four spell levels ahead
Everyone gets more spells known than the sorcerer, meaning his options are more limited
It can't do anything with its casting that a pure sorcerer couldn't do - it just does those things more often but on a 3-level delay

This character actually fits the stated design intent of the warlock - frequent castings of weaker spells.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 09:08 PM

Better at what than any of the alternatives? If we're talking about spellcasting:

Pure casters are one or two spell levels ahead until they're four spell levels ahead
Everyone gets more spells known than the sorcerer, meaning his options are more limited
It can't do anything with its casting that a pure sorcerer couldn't do - it just does those things more often but on a 3-level delay

This character actually fits the stated design intent of the warlock - frequent castings of weaker spells.

Better than the straight Warlock and straight Sorcerer, and the Sorcerer/Warlock of the same build.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-01, 11:30 PM

Better than the straight Warlock and straight Sorcerer, and the Sorcerer/Warlock of the same build.

Again, better at what than the straight warlock or straight sorcerer? If you're arguing that a w3/sx coffeelock is better than the same build without using this trick, then sure. But here are a few things the coffeelock, like the sorlock, is not as good at compared to a straight warlock or sorcerer:

Dealing burst damage: both get access to more powerful spells more quickly, such as Fireball. Warlocks can further increase their damage with invocations and patron features. Sorcerers can empower higher-level nukes.
Progression: the coffeelock is strong between levels 8 and 15. Outside of that range, warlocks and sorcerers both have better progression that gives them powerful features at reliable times. Casting shield as often as you like at level five is not as good as twinning haste for a crucial fight or casting two fireballs each short rest.
Dealing with high-level threats: when you need powerful spells, such as banishment or anything 6+, to deal with an encounter, the coffeelock probably doesn't have them. He doesn't gain access to 5th level spells until 12, which is several levels after the game expects you to have them.
Tier 4 play: past about level 15, the coffeelock loses his appeal because pure casters simply don't run out of spell slots with any regularity any longer. By level 17, when everyone else is running around with Foresight and Wish, the build loses all its steam and becomes a bot - used for its heals, buffs, and sustained damage, but never doing anything meaningful from there on.

And a few neutral things:

Support: a pure sorcerer can cast better buffs, but a pure coffeelock can cast more.
Sustained damage: will go to the sorcerer or warlock if there are few encounters that day, will go to the coffeelock if there are many, and will be a toss-up otherwise.
Control: again, a coffeelock can cast his control spells more often, but warlocks and sorcerers both get more powerful control effects if they stay pure.

And finally, what the coffeelock is actually good for:

Healing
Defense
Using his metamagic
Doesn't have to worry that he's wasting his spells, meaning more freedom to try interesting things.

I see the coffeelock as one build that, by playing differently from every other build, counteracts 5e's stagnation. You must have noticed how tired this edition had become. People were immensely excited for Xanathar's because it created new opportunities for unique sorts of characters. And the most unique character it's made possible is the most controversial - go figure.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 11:35 PM

Easy_Lee, you are ignoring the fact that the Sorlock multiclass is more powerful than the straight Sorcerer or straight Warlock.

EDIT: To further expound, but briefly. Actual table experience points to the fact that whenever a pure Sorcerer and a Sorlock are in the same party together, the Sorlock outshines the Sorcerer. Theorizing that the Sorcerer is stronger than the Sorlock in some sense corresponds to no reality. It is a justification based on facts that can be true in the mind, but not in practice.

EDIT2: When you said this:

It can't do anything with its casting that a pure sorcerer couldn't do - it just does those things more often but on a 3-level delay

You were wrong. The Sorcerer cannot cast an Eldritch Blast with Hex. The Sorcerer also cannot use the Hexblade's curse to crit on a 19 against one creature once per short rest. The Sorcerer cannot throw an Eldritch Blast from 1200ft away (which the Sorlock can do with Distant Spell, Eldritch Spear, and Spell Sniper) -- not that it's useful. But those are things Sorcerers cannot do that a Sorlock can.

And a Sorlock knows 1 more spell than a Sorcerer of the same level, and a Warlock of the same level.

Nifft

2017-12-01, 11:57 PM

Better at what than any of the alternatives? If we're talking about spellcasting:

Pure casters are one or two spell levels ahead until they're four spell levels ahead
Everyone gets more spells known than the sorcerer, meaning his options are more limited
It can't do anything with its casting that a pure sorcerer couldn't do - it just does those things more often but on a 3-level delay

This character actually fits the stated design intent of the warlock - frequent castings of weaker spells.

Coffeelock gets ONE THOUSAND additional level 5 spells per campaign arc, after which there's another season or two for rest.

Having ONE THOUSAND additional level 5 spells does indeed make it seem like the Coffeelock is significantly better at spellcasting than anyone who must suffer with a mere single-digit of level 5 spells.

Talamare

2017-12-02, 01:07 AM

Dealing burst damage: both get access to more powerful spells more quickly, such as Fireball. Warlocks can further increase their damage with invocations and patron features. Sorcerers can empower higher-level nukes.

A Pure Might be able to theoretically deal higher amounts of burst damage

However, since he has limited amount of usage. He needs always place a great deal of consideration of when and how much burst to apply.
If he bursts too much on a small encounter, he won't have enough for a future encounter.
If he saves too much of his burst, the long rest may come before he has a chance to burst.
Every bit of his burst needs to be weighed against out of combat utility.

So practically speaking, he will burst for less than the person who is capable of bursting all day everyday burst all the things every time.

LeonBH

2017-12-02, 03:05 AM

A Pure Might be able to theoretically deal higher amounts of burst damage

However, since he has limited amount of usage. He needs always place a great deal of consideration of when and how much burst to apply.
If he bursts too much on a small encounter, he won't have enough for a future encounter.
If he saves too much of his burst, the long rest may come before he has a chance to burst.
Every bit of his burst needs to be weighed against out of combat utility.

So practically speaking, he will burst for less than the person who is capable of bursting all day everyday burst all the things every time.

I'm interested in running numbers here, because a Pure might not be able to deal higher amounts of burst damage.

Let's look at the Level 5 Sorc, Level 5 Warlock, and Level 5 Sorlock (S3/W2). Let's see their 3-round average DPR, their 4th round damage, and their nova. Refer to this Stack (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48988/how-to-calculate-the-expected-damage-increase-from-empowered-spell) to see how Empowered Spell changes average dice results.

I. Calculation of DPR.

Sorcerer: with CHA 20
Turn 1: Quickened Empowered Fireball (~31.75) plus Empowered Firebolt (~13.5). Net -4 Sorc Points
Turn 2: Convert a 2nd level spell to Sorc Points. Empowered Fireball (~31.75). Net +1 Sorc Points
Turn 3: Quickened Scorching Ray (~21). Firebolt (~11). Net -2 Sorc Points

Average DPR: 36.333
Cost: 5 Sorc Points, two 3rd level slots, two 2nd level slots

Warlock: with CHA 20
Turn 1: Hex, Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast (~28)
Turn 2: Eldritch Blast with Hex/AB (~28)
Turn 3: Eldritch Blast with Hex/AB (~28)

Average DPR: 28
Cost: one 3rd level slot

Sorlock: with CHA 20
Turn 1: Hex, Empowered Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast (~32). Net -1 Sorc Point
Turn 2: Quickened EB with Hex/AB (~28), EB with Hex/AB (~28). Net -2 Sorc Points
Turn 3: Convert a 2nd level spell slot to Sorc Points. Empowered EB with Hex/AB (~32). Net +1 Sorc Points

Average DPR: 40
Cost: 2 Sorc Points, one 2nd level slot, one 1st level slot

If there's anything wrong with my math or my strategies for each build, please let me know. I've tried to maximize the damage per turn that each build can do.

From what I have, it seems the Sorlock can out-damage the Sorcerer for significantly less cost, and the Warlock falls behind by 10 points of damage while using 50% of their total resources.

II. Round 4 Damage

If we extended the above by one more turn, just for fun, we can see that:

Sorcerer: Convert 1st level spell slot to Sorc Points. Empowered Scorching Ray (~24.75). Net +0 Sorc Points
Warlock: Eldritch Blast with Hex and Agonizing Blast (~28)
Sorlock: Empowered EB with Hex/AB (~32). Net -1 Sorc Points

The Sorlock out-damages both Sorcerer and Warlock on the 4th round. So at level 5 (when the Sorlock comes online), the lowest level of comparison, the Sorlock wins at DPR.

III. Calculation of Nova.

Let's give all builds one round to give it their best shot. So we're not maximizing DPR, but burst damage.

Sorcerer: Quickened Empowered Fireball (~31.75) plus Empowered Firebolt (~13.5). Net 45.25 damage
Warlock: Hex, Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast (~28). Net 28 damage
Sorlock: Quickened Empowered Scorching Ray (~24.75), EB with AB (~21). Net 45.75 damage

Once again, the Warlock loses, this time by around 17 points, having expended one 3rd level slot. The Sorcerer loses by 0.75 damage and has spent a 3rd level slot and one more Sorc Point compared to the Sorlock. The Sorlock wins by a hair (still wins), and has spent a 2nd level spell slot instead of a 3rd level one.

IV. Bringing in the CoffeeLock

It seems the Sorlock wins over DPS and Nova damage, compared to the Warlock and the Sorcerer.

The CoffeeLock can exactly replicate the Sorlock's actions. It is, however, a straight upgrade to the Sorlock. The chief difference is, after the fight is over, the CoffeeLock can tap into their effectively unbounded spell slots to regenerate all their spell slots and Sorcery Points.

Therefore, while the Sorcerer enters their 2nd fight tapped out, the Sorlock mostly tapped out, and the Warlock with only one spell slot left without a short rest, the CoffeeLock can go in guns blazing like they did their first fight.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-02, 10:04 AM

LeonBH, add to the sorcerer's DPR the extra attacks from his party members utilizing twin haste - by level five, that's at least ten damage per party member per round and far more if they have optimized builds. Average damage increases by 20 or more. Those party members also double their speed and gain 2 AC.

Then calculate the benefit of the warlock's patron features and extra invocations. Maybe see if you can calculate the added DPR of Hold Person.

You can't. You know you can't. Because you know the game is more complicated than napkin math on forums.

Go actually play this build, then you can come back to me and talk about how you destroyed the campaign and the DM totally didn't challenge you at all.

LeonBH

2017-12-02, 12:14 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-12-02, 12:37 PM

Easy_Lee, I might as well add in the CoffeeLock's party members auto-critting on someone who was held with Hold Person, which the Sorcerer can't do if he has Haste up (and that the CoffeeLock can do more times than the Sorcerer or the Warlock).

You've made a lot of assertions that the pure Sorcerer can do things that the Sorlock can't do. Your assertions are less grounded than mine. You've just rejected evidence without counter evidence to show for it.

Have you ever been in a campaign where a Sorcerer or Warlock was teamed up with a Sorlock? You don't need to destroy the campaign to be disruptive.

Hold Person was for the warlock to cast. The sorcerer doesn't need to do that if he's twinning haste. The sorlock of any kind can't cast haste until three levels - usually months - after the sorcerer gets it. He also has to wait until level 6 to even get Metamagic.

My assertions that the sorcerer and warlock can do things the sorlock can't aren't grounded? Friend, do you know how levels work? I don't declare myself a sorcerer / warlock then claim I can cast all the same spells of both. It's self-evident that a caster who is three levels ahead can cast spells that the other can't. And that's not even getting into 6+ level spells.

Finally, by definition, disruptive means that you're holding up the campaign or preventing the campaign from progressing the way the DM intends. Other characters can do everything the sorlock can do. That means the only way the sorlock can be more disruptive than anyone else is if the DM's campaign depends on the players to run out of spell slots.

I haven't backed up my arguments? My claim is that the build is better in some ways and worse in others. That's a provable fact. At any level, the warlock, sorcerer, and sorlock all excel in different areas. And at any level, the pure casters have a higher spell level than the hybrid, especially in this case since short and long rest spell slots are separate.

You believe that the sorlock is better. Everything you say is in support of that idea, and you dismiss evidence to the contrary. Unlike you, I changed my initial position. I started out thinking the coffeelock was overpowered until I thought about it, did some comparisons, talked to people who've played them, and realized it wasn't.

LeonBH

2017-12-02, 01:27 PM

Hold Person was for the warlock to cast.

Why can't the Sorlock cast it -- Twinned -- and provide auto-crits to his allies?

He also has to wait until level 6 to even get Metamagic.

Level 5 for a Sorc3/Lock2.

My assertions that the sorcerer and warlock can do things the sorlock can't aren't grounded? Friend, do you know how levels work?

You said the Sorcerer can do everything the Sorlock can do. This is wrong. I've clearly shown that a Sorcerer cannot do some things that a Sorlock can.

Finally, by definition, disruptive means that you're holding up the campaign or preventing the campaign from progressing the way the DM intends.

You coined this narrow definition of "disruptive."

Other characters can do everything the sorlock can do.

Not quite. They cannot snipe with Eldritch Blast from 1200 ft away, for example. They also cannot progress into becoming a CoffeeLock.

I haven't backed up my arguments? My claim is that the build is better in some ways and worse in others. That's a provable fact. At any level, the warlock, sorcerer, and sorlock all excel in different areas.

Your arguments are less grounded than mine for showing only assertions and no numbers. You glossed over the calculation of a CoffeeLock's 1000+ Level 5 spell slots. How many corpses can he sustain from that?

And at any level, the pure casters have a higher spell level than the hybrid, especially in this case since short and long rest spell slots are separate.

Incorrect. The Sorc 7/Lock 2 has access to 5th level slots, just like the Sorc 9 and Lock 9. The Sorc 6/Lock 2 has access to 4th level slots, just like the Sorc 8 and Lock 8.

You don't seem to be very well informed with certain styles of how Sorcerers can be played.

You believe that the sorlock is better. Everything you say is in support of that idea, and you dismiss evidence to the contrary. Unlike you, I changed my initial position. I started out thinking the coffeelock was overpowered until I thought about it, did some comparisons, talked to people who've played them, and realized it wasn't.

Have you ever played in a campaign where the Sorcerer and Sorlock were in the same party?

Grod_The_Giant

2017-12-02, 01:38 PM

Incorrect. The Sorc 7/Lock 2 has access to 5th level slots, just like the Sorc 9 and Lock 9. The Sorc 6/Lock 2 has access to 4th level slots, just like the Sorc 8 and Lock 8.
Pact Magic and Spellcasting don't stack:

You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature.
Pact Magic gets its own entry, which only says that you can use slots of one to cast spells of the other.

Dudewithknives

2017-12-02, 02:11 PM

Why can't the Sorlock cast it -- Twinned -- and provide auto-crits to his allies?

Level 5 for a Sorc3/Lock2.

You said the Sorcerer can do everything the Sorlock can do. This is wrong. I've clearly shown that a Sorcerer cannot do some things that a Sorlock can.

You coined this narrow definition of "disruptive."

Not quite. They cannot snipe with Eldritch Blast from 1200 ft away, for example. They also cannot progress into becoming a CoffeeLock.

Your arguments are less grounded than mine for showing only assertions and no numbers. You glossed over the calculation of a CoffeeLock's 1000+ Level 5 spell slots. How many corpses can he sustain from that?

Incorrect. The Sorc 7/Lock 2 has access to 5th level slots, just like the Sorc 9 and Lock 9. The Sorc 6/Lock 2 has access to 4th level slots, just like the Sorc 8 and Lock 8.

You don't seem to be very well informed with certain styles of how Sorcerers can be played.

Have you ever played in a campaign where the Sorcerer and Sorlock were in the same party?

To expand on the final paragraph. I did play a warlock single class in a game with a warlock 2 / sorcerer x.
We played from 1 to 16

Trust me, the sorlock overpowers the single class warlock by miles, and he was not even a CoffeeLock, he was just a plain sorlock.

Never seen a straight sorcerer in a campaign with a sorlock, mainly because I have only seen 1 sorcerer that did not multiclass.

LeonBH

2017-12-02, 02:21 PM

Pact Magic and Spellcasting don't stack.

They don't have to stack.

The Sorc 6/Lock 2 has 6 Sorcery Points, and they need only 6 Sorcery Points to create a 4th level spell slot.

The Sorc 7/Lock 2 has 7 Sorcery Points, and they need only 7 Sorcery Points to create a 5th level spell slot.

Yes, Sorcerers get higher level spell slots early.

It requires all their current Sorcery Points, so they cannibalize their lower level spell slots (such as all level 1 spell slots) and transform it to their new pool of Sorcery Points. And since they're Warlocks too, they regain those cannibalized Pact Magic spell slots on a short rest.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-12-02, 02:38 PM

Huh, you're right. I always assumed there was something that kept you from making slots you couldn't normally cast.

LeonBH

2017-12-02, 02:46 PM

Nah. I checked, and so did these guys (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/76970/can-a-sorcerer-use-sorcery-points-to-create-spell-slots-higher-than-he-can-cast).

There's also a JC tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/723570690067066880) on the matter.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-02, 04:19 PM

So then, LeonBH, what is your position: that coffeelocks should be banned, that sorlocks should be banned, or that we should all agree with you on the forums and then you'll be happy?

I'd go through your points one at a time, like you did for mine, but I don't have time or patience to do that. More importantly, I know it won't change your mind. You've adopted a belief, and you seek out the facts that support that belief. This is why I pointed out that I changed my mind. You have stubbornly clung to your initial assertion without budging.

The PHB can tell you exactly what more levels of sorcerer or more levels of warlock gets you that a sorlock of any given combination does not have. Hurl Through Hell comes to mind, as that's exactly what I'd like to do with this argument.

Have you shown that, by RAW, the coffeelock does not work? No.
Have you shown that, by RAW, a sorlock necessarily usurps both warlocks and sorcerers? No.
Have you tried to even define the word disruptive, that you might show how a sorlock or coffeelock is disruptive? No.

You and I no longer have anything to discuss.

Talamare

2017-12-02, 05:16 PM

what is your position: that coffeelocks should be banned

Uh... Yes
That's the point of this thread

"Good Houserule For Coffeelocks?"

This thread was made with the intention of a clean and simple way of banning javalock

krugaan

2017-12-02, 05:52 PM

Uh... Yes
That's the point of this thread

"Good Houserule For Coffeelocks?"

This thread was made with the intention of a clean and simple way of banning javalock

/facepalm

"DM: I'm disallowing coffeelocks."

Done.

That may have been what the thread was about in the beginning, it's certainly not what it's about now.

Sorry if that seems snippy, but the Senate just voted to loot America, and i'm a little peeved.

Talamare

2017-12-02, 05:54 PM

/facepalm

"DM: I'm disallowing coffeelocks."

Done.

So are you
disallowing sorcerer/warlock multiclass
disallowing someone to never sleep to take excessive short rests
disallowing all transferring Warlock Slots into Sorcery Points

Nifft

2017-12-02, 05:57 PM

So are you
1: disallowing sorcerer/warlock multiclass
2: disallowing someone to never sleep to take excessive short rests
3: disallowing all transferring Warlock Slots into Sorcery Points

4: disallowing created spell slots in excess of what would be available after a long rest

krugaan

2017-12-02, 06:06 PM

So are you
disallowing sorcerer/warlock multiclass
disallowing someone to never sleep to take excessive short rests
disallowing all transferring Warlock Slots into Sorcery Points

That's a good point.

Why not RP it?

You play the coffeelock as a person obsessed with hoarding arcane power. You are stealing from one power to fuel another. Slowly, your reserves grow, day by day, as you launder your ill gotten magic. But ... you slowly become more paranoid. What if some otherworldly being can sense the vast power building with you, and seeks to steal it to power some magical construction? What if your pact patron discovers your ploy and sends out some kind of demonic repo man? You may be an endless font of sorcerous power, but you're hardly invincible.
These kinds of thoughts would keep you up at night, if you could sleep.

Coffeelocks (specifically, those which seek to hoard an "greater than normal" amount of lower level slots, lets say ... more than 5 extra levels, or proficiency mod extra levels or something) can never gain the benefits of a long rest. Ever. Once you choose to go down that path, you're stuck, which is admittedly very warlocky. Additionally, the amount of short rests that can be benefitted from is capped at 3-4 times a day. Just to set a more reasonable limit on slot gain; this is unlikely to affect any other classes.

And be clear ... this is a house rule. The most compelling argument against coffeelocks, in my eyes, is that they don't actually give up enough for their "infinite" slots, because they can always just choose to long rest and become regular sorlocks at any time. Take that choice away from them.

edit: if they decide they miss their higher level spell slot, let them do some kind of redemption quest or something, and then disallow them from stacking slots beyond normal.

Citan

2017-12-02, 06:12 PM

I'm interested in running numbers here, because a Pure might not be able to deal higher amounts of burst damage.

Let's look at the Level 5 Sorc, Level 5 Warlock, and Level 5 Sorlock (S3/W2). Let's see their 3-round average DPR, their 4th round damage, and their nova. Refer to this Stack (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48988/how-to-calculate-the-expected-damage-increase-from-empowered-spell) to see how Empowered Spell changes average dice results.

I. Calculation of DPR.

Sorcerer: with CHA 20
Turn 1: Quickened Empowered Fireball (~31.75) plus Empowered Firebolt (~13.5). Net -4 Sorc Points
Turn 2: Convert a 2nd level spell to Sorc Points. Empowered Fireball (~31.75). Net +1 Sorc Points
Turn 3: Quickened Scorching Ray (~21). Firebolt (~11). Net -2 Sorc Points

Average DPR: 36.333
Cost: 5 Sorc Points, two 3rd level slots, two 2nd level slots

Warlock: with CHA 20
Turn 1: Hex, Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast (~28)
Turn 2: Eldritch Blast with Hex/AB (~28)
Turn 3: Eldritch Blast with Hex/AB (~28)

Average DPR: 28
Cost: one 3rd level slot

Sorlock: with CHA 20
Turn 1: Hex, Empowered Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast (~32). Net -1 Sorc Point
Turn 2: Quickened EB with Hex/AB (~28), EB with Hex/AB (~28). Net -2 Sorc Points
Turn 3: Convert a 2nd level spell slot to Sorc Points. Empowered EB with Hex/AB (~32). Net +1 Sorc Points

Average DPR: 40
Cost: 2 Sorc Points, one 2nd level slot, one 1st level slot

If there's anything wrong with my math or my strategies for each build, please let me know. I've tried to maximize the damage per turn that each build can do.

From what I have, it seems the Sorlock can out-damage the Sorcerer for significantly less cost, and the Warlock falls behind by 10 points of damage while using 50% of their total resources.

II. Round 4 Damage

If we extended the above by one more turn, just for fun, we can see that:

Sorcerer: Convert 1st level spell slot to Sorc Points. Empowered Scorching Ray (~24.75). Net +0 Sorc Points
Warlock: Eldritch Blast with Hex and Agonizing Blast (~28)
Sorlock: Empowered EB with Hex/AB (~32). Net -1 Sorc Points

The Sorlock out-damages both Sorcerer and Warlock on the 4th round. So at level 5 (when the Sorlock comes online), the lowest level of comparison, the Sorlock wins at DPR.

III. Calculation of Nova.

Let's give all builds one round to give it their best shot. So we're not maximizing DPR, but burst damage.

Sorcerer: Quickened Empowered Fireball (~31.75) plus Empowered Firebolt (~13.5). Net 45.25 damage
Warlock: Hex, Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast (~28). Net 28 damage
Sorlock: Quickened Empowered Scorching Ray (~24.75), EB with AB (~21). Net 45.75 damage

Once again, the Warlock loses, this time by around 17 points, having expended one 3rd level slot. The Sorcerer loses by 0.75 damage and has spent a 3rd level slot and one more Sorc Point compared to the Sorlock. The Sorlock wins by a hair (still wins), and has spent a 2nd level spell slot instead of a 3rd level one.

IV. Bringing in the CoffeeLock

It seems the Sorlock wins over DPS and Nova damage, compared to the Warlock and the Sorcerer.

The CoffeeLock can exactly replicate the Sorlock's actions. It is, however, a straight upgrade to the Sorlock. The chief difference is, after the fight is over, the CoffeeLock can tap into their effectively unbounded spell slots to regenerate all their spell slots and Sorcery Points.

Therefore, while the Sorcerer enters their 2nd fight tapped out, the Sorlock mostly tapped out, and the Warlock with only one spell slot left without a short rest, the CoffeeLock can go in guns blazing like they did their first fight.

Hi ;)

I initially didn't want to intervene, but I just couldn't stay silent. Since you asked for critics / problems identification in your reasoning, here are some.

1. CHA 20: I know it's easier to make all maths, but that isn't realistic by any account, unless you start as a Variant Human with +1 CHA feat to round up a starting 17, then use first ASI to 20. And in any case, the Sorlock has no way to get 20 at char level 5.
So, first problem, you rigged the maths in favor of Sorlock: that may be not much, but that is actually. ;)

2. Fireball: you use the Empowered with related sheet, and that's fine by me, but you seem to count only damage for one target. Why in hell would a caster blow a 3rd level AOE for ONE target? Any intellectual honesty mean you have to consider at the very least 2 creatures were in the area, and probably three.
So at the most conservative (2 targets), the potential is not ~31 on Fireball account, but ~62 (and possibly more).

3. Chance to hit: you seem to expect all hit in all cases, but that's overly simplistic. Which leads to a big difference: EB missing = 0 damage. Fireball escaped = some damage. This may make no difference in some cases, it may mean all the difference in others.
But that sure makes theorycraft difficult. You should take a proper setting, like an encounter from an official book if you can. ;)

So while the Sorlock can drop as many spells as he want, and thus having an infinite potential, he is still under the rulings of action economy and luck.
When your party is the one pacing the fight, Sorlock will crush all. When you are pressed on and have to deliver the biggest in the shortest time, Sorlock will ALWAYS be behind any fullcaster, simply because higher spells are just built for increased awesomeness out of the box.

That was the only point of Easy_Lee, that uses that to argue that Sorlock is not game-breaking.
Where I agree with you though is that when there is a Sorlock together with a pure Sorcerer and Warlock, chances are the latter will be a bit frustrated, because usually lower spells are enough until level 10 and Sorlock can spam those. Then (actual) people hit the experience wall, so few people can enjoy higher levels.
However, set up a campaign with everyone starting at level 11, and I'm ready to bet that single-class won't mind the mixed one. :)

Vaz

2017-12-02, 07:11 PM

That's a good point.

Why not RP it?

You play the coffeelock as a person obsessed with hoarding arcane power. You are stealing from one power to fuel another. Slowly, your reserves grow, day by day, as you launder your ill gotten magic. But ... you slowly become more paranoid. What if some otherworldly being can sense the vast power building with you, and seeks to steal it to power some magical construction? What if your pact patron discovers your ploy and sends out some kind of demonic repo man? You may be an endless font of sorcerous power, but you're hardly invincible.
These kinds of thoughts would keep you up at night, if you could sleep.

Coffeelocks (specifically, those which seek to hoard an "greater than normal" amount of lower level slots, lets say ... more than 5 extra levels, or proficiency mod extra levels or something) can never gain the benefits of a long rest. Ever. Once you choose to go down that path, you're stuck, which is admittedly very warlocky. Additionally, the amount of short rests that can be benefitted from is capped at 3-4 times a day. Just to set a more reasonable limit on slot gain; this is unlikely to affect any other classes.

And be clear ... this is a house rule. The most compelling argument against coffeelocks, in my eyes, is that they don't actually give up enough for their "infinite" slots, because they can always just choose to long rest and become regular sorlocks at any time. Take that choice away from them.

edit: if they decide they miss their higher level spell slot, let them do some kind of redemption quest or something, and then disallow them from stacking slots beyond normal.

You play 3.5 in that instance.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-02, 07:20 PM

That was the only point of Easy_Lee, that uses that to argue that Sorlock is not game-breaking.

I have one other point I've made consistently: any build can be made to be disruptive, or not disruptive. It all comes down to how the player uses it. I trust players not to ruin the game for each other. That's why I don't feel that I must ban every build that I think is too strong. After all, depending on the campaign, how the player uses it, or the other players, I could be very wrong.

Like I've said dozens of times now, D&D is a social game. And to add to that, no two campaigns are the same.

Nifft

2017-12-02, 07:28 PM

I have one other point I've made consistently: any build can be made to be disruptive, or not disruptive. It all comes down to how the player uses it. I trust players not to ruin the game for each other. That's why I don't feel that I must ban every build that I think is too strong. After all, depending on the campaign, how the player uses it, or the other players, I could be very wrong.

I don't expect anyone who isn't a forum-junkie (like myself) to spend even 5% of this much time thinking about the implications of their builds.

So even if I trust them to behave well given good information, I don't trust them to have equal information at their disposal.

They in turn trust WotC to provide a well-tested selection of classes, and trust me to run a reasonable game.

WotC didn't do that. That's the failure in this case. It's not about my ability to trust the players.

I'm not distrusting players -- I'm just aware they spend way less time on this stuff.

LeonBH

2017-12-02, 09:11 PM

So then, LeonBH, what is your position: that coffeelocks should be banned, that sorlocks should be banned, or that we should all agree with you on the forums and then you'll be happy?

You should agree with me, obviously.

You and I no longer have anything to discuss.

You love ad hominem the most out of all the people I've debated with here. Wonder why we can't agreeably disagree when I've done so with many others already.

Anyway, enjoy your Coffee(Locks).

LeonBH

2017-12-02, 09:45 PM

Hi ;)

I initially didn't want to intervene, but I just couldn't stay silent. Since you asked for critics / problems identification in your reasoning, here are some.

1. CHA 20: I know it's easier to make all maths, but that isn't realistic by any account, unless you start as a Variant Human with +1 CHA feat to round up a starting 17, then use first ASI to 20. And in any case, the Sorlock has no way to get 20 at char level 5.
So, first problem, you rigged the maths in favor of Sorlock: that may be not much, but that is actually. ;)

2. Fireball: you use the Empowered with related sheet, and that's fine by me, but you seem to count only damage for one target. Why in hell would a caster blow a 3rd level AOE for ONE target? Any intellectual honesty mean you have to consider at the very least 2 creatures were in the area, and probably three.
So at the most conservative (2 targets), the potential is not ~31 on Fireball account, but ~62 (and possibly more).

3. Chance to hit: you seem to expect all hit in all cases, but that's overly simplistic. Which leads to a big difference: EB missing = 0 damage. Fireball escaped = some damage. This may make no difference in some cases, it may mean all the difference in others.
But that sure makes theorycraft difficult. You should take a proper setting, like an encounter from an official book if you can. ;)

Thanks for the comments. Before I reply to your points individually, I did start a new thread about this here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543654-Sorcerers-Warlocks-Sorlocks-Which-is-the-biggest-Blaster&p=22625219#post22625219), where I've managed to eke out even more DPR from the Sorcerer and CoffeeLock by moving around their spells and metamagics. Have a check :)

1. CHA 20 is only possible for the Sorlock in that case if all three builds rolled 18's and went with a +2 race, or a V. Human with the Actor feat. It is technically still possible, just not with point buy.

It's also too troublesome to factor in variable amounts of CHA. If they had different spellcasting stats, I would be treating at least one build unfairly if I didn't also account to-hit and save percentages. By assuming the same CHA for all of them, it just simplifies my life. Hehe.

2. If Fireball was the most damaging spell you had against one person, I suppose you would use Fireball. However, I've actually changed it to Scorching Ray, which does more damage against one person than Fireball does.

My goal was to calculate the max average DPR they could achieve, so it's most fair to put only one target in there. Otherwise, I can cheese Burning Hands or Chaos Bolt into dealing a lot of damage by carefully arranging enemies just so. And that wasn't the point of the comparison.

3. I do assume everything hits all the time. This is a simplification that assuming CHA 20 on everyone affords me. It benefits everyone equally, I think, because all attacks get through and we get to witness everyone's full realized power.

Having to factor in save percentages is tricky to say the least... because then I have to assume things like save proficiency, disadvantage from Heighten Spell... it's a lot of trouble, as you say :)

Good suggestion on the encounter from an actual setting, but then the numbers would be specific only to that book, wouldn't it? Unlike simply assuming the theoretical maximum/best case scenario for everyone, and seeing who is strongest at the build's strongest points.

So while the Sorlock can drop as many spells as he want, and thus having an infinite potential, he is still under the rulings of action economy and luck.
When your party is the one pacing the fight, Sorlock will crush all. When you are pressed on and have to deliver the biggest in the shortest time, Sorlock will ALWAYS be behind any fullcaster, simply because higher spells are just built for increased awesomeness out of the box.

I agree that access to higher level spells is great, but Hex + EB is substantial. Hex + Scorching Ray is bonkers, giving you 9d6 single-target damage when cast at 2nd level.

The Sorlock has a lot of tools in their toolkit to surpass a Sorcerer or Warock of the same level, even if they don't have higher level spells. And the best thing about it is they don't have to sacrifice everything they have to earn their highest DPR (unlike a Sorcerer), and they get new resources when finishing a short rest (like a Warlock).

Lack of higher level spells is offset by extremely efficient and synergistic multiclassing.

That was the only point of Easy_Lee, that uses that to argue that Sorlock is not game-breaking.
Where I agree with you though is that when there is a Sorlock together with a pure Sorcerer and Warlock, chances are the latter will be a bit frustrated, because usually lower spells are enough until level 10 and Sorlock can spam those. Then (actual) people hit the experience wall, so few people can enjoy higher levels.
However, set up a campaign with everyone starting at level 11, and I'm ready to bet that single-class won't mind the mixed one. :)

I'm not saying the Sorlock is game breaking at all. But yes, put a Sorlock in with a Sorcerer or Warlock, and the latter will feel frustrated. Played as the optimal blasters, Sorlocks seem to consume their resources much more efficiently than the Sorcerer does, mainly due to how synergistic Hex is and how good of a cantrip EB with the invocation Agonizing Blast is.

My opinion at the moment is that level 11 is a very potent level for the Sorlock and the Sorcerer. It's the earliest level where the Sorlock can get 5th level spells, which they're very efficient at using. Meanwhile, the Sorcerer gets their 6th levels for the first time.

Once the Sorc uses their 1/day 6th level spell, they become inferior to the Sorlock again, since now they're both falling back on 5th level spells. I suppose it depends on how optimally they use the 6th level spell for the goal they have in mind and if they can milk it enough to give the Sorlock pause.

krugaan

2017-12-02, 10:06 PM

I wonder if the problem isn't really agonizing blast, but that's a whole other discussion.

LeonBH

2017-12-02, 10:15 PM

I wonder if the problem isn't really agonizing blast, but that's a whole other discussion.

Both the Sorcerer and Sorlock can Quicken a spell. But they can only cast a cantrip after that.

The Sorcerer's most powerful cantrip is Firebolt, which deals 11 damage on average. An Empowered Spell adds +2.5 to that, giving it 13.5 net damage.

The Warlock's most powerful cantrip is Eldritch Blast. Alone, it deals 11 average damage, same as Firebolt. Agonizing Blast adds +5 for each bolt, for a total of +10, and now it's sitting at 21 average damage. Add Hex and 1d6 for each bolt, and now you're looking at 28 average damage. It's more than twice as damaging as the Firebolt.

The Sorlock can take the best of both worlds. Hex + Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast + Empowered Spell ~ 32 damage on average. It jumps up 5 points of damage by empowering not just the EB's bolts, but also the Hex's added on damage.

The Sorlocks have access to the best cantrip and can make the most optimal use out of it, from a purely blastery perspective. So when the Sorcerer Quickens a spell and falls back on cantrips, they don't have a cantrip as powerful as the one that Sorlocks have and the Sorlocks can catch up, despite the fact that Sorcerers are casting higher level spells.

Malifice

2017-12-03, 02:24 AM

For ****s sake.

Just police the adventuring day.

If you're not doing it you're failing as a DM.

JNAProductions

2017-12-03, 11:51 AM

For ****s sake.

Just police the adventuring day.

If you're not doing it you're failing as a DM.

Malifice, what if your players decide to travel three weeks from one city to another, along what has already been established as a safe road? You can throw an encounter or two at them, sure, but it's supposedly safe. Unless you want a new plot point about how it's no longer safe, you cannot throw enough encounters at them to seriously deplete the Coffeelock's spells.

Nifft

2017-12-03, 02:00 PM

For ****s sake.

Just police the adventuring day.

If you're not doing it you're failing as a DM.

"The ship sets sail for the foreign shore. Six weeks and two storms later, the crow's nest sights land, and the next day on wobbly sea-legs you make landfall."

The adventuring day isn't the problem here.

The inability to allow any down time at all, ever for any reason -- that's the problem.

Dudewithknives

2017-12-03, 02:22 PM

I think it is more along the lines of tbis, in general.

Sorcerer and Warlock are both slightly under the power curve for most builds.

A sorlock improves both greatly, a solid sustained bonus for sorcerers and a tremendous longevity and versatility bonus to the warlock.

The Coffeelock increases this exponentially.

It is a slight issue that they are so competitive with other high powered builds. It is that they are so far and above the power of the classes individually.

CantigThimble

2017-12-03, 03:36 PM

"The ship sets sail for the foreign shore. Six weeks and two storms later, the crow's nest sights land, and the next day on wobbly sea-legs you make landfall."

The adventuring day isn't the problem here.

The inability to allow any down time at all, ever for any reason -- that's the problem.

No, no, you don't understand. Those six weeks were actually just one short rest! If you're not adventuring and you're not taking a long rest then you must be taking a short rest, and since short rests don't end until you start adventuring that must have just been a 6 week long short rest!

krugaan

2017-12-03, 04:02 PM

No, no, you don't understand. Those six weeks were actually just one short rest! If you're not adventuring and you're not taking a long rest then you must be taking a short rest, and since short rests don't end until you start adventuring that must have just been a 6 week long short rest!

Lol, I see what you did there, sir.

Malifice

2017-12-03, 11:20 PM

Malifice, what if your players decide to travel three weeks from one city to another, along what has already been established as a safe road? You can throw an encounter or two at them, sure, but it's supposedly safe. Unless you want a new plot point about how it's no longer safe, you cannot throw enough encounters at them to seriously deplete the Coffeelock's spells.

Resolved as such:

DM (Me): You safely travel from Waterdeep to Baldurs gate along the trade route, with no major encounters on the way. The weather changes slowly to slightly warmer as you progress south on the Trade way. The journey takes three weeks.
Warlock PC: On the way, I take the Dash action every hour on the hour, and then use my Sorcer...
DM: (interrupting, rolling his eyes): Fine. It doesnt work. As I told you when you started this campaign, I police the Adventuring day in my campaigns. You can expect around 2-3 short rests per adventuring day as a median, and bear in mind none of these three weeks were adventuring days. Gaming the rest mechanic doesnt work at this table. Please dont try to do so again.

See. That wasnt hard was it?

JNAProductions

2017-12-03, 11:23 PM

Resolved as such:

DM (Me): You safely travel from Waterdeep to Baldurs gate along the trade route, with no major encounters on the way. The weather changes slowly to slightly warmer as you progress south on the Trade way. The journey takes three weeks.
Warlock PC: On the way, I take the Dash action every hour on the hour, and then use my Sorcer...
DM: (interrupting, rolling his eyes): Fine. It doesnt work. As I told you when you started this campaign, I police the Adventuring day in my campaigns. You can expect around 2-3 short rests per adventuring day as a median, and bear in mind none of these three weeks were adventuring days. Gaming the rest mechanic doesnt work at this table. Please dont try to do so again.

See. That wasnt hard was it?

Yes. It's easy to be a jerk, and use DM Fiat when you can easily have a talk with your players ahead of time or make an official rule change they know about in advance.

Malifice

2017-12-03, 11:23 PM

"The ship sets sail for the foreign shore. Six weeks and two storms later, the crow's nest sights land, and the next day on wobbly sea-legs you make landfall."

The adventuring day isn't the problem here.

The inability to allow any down time at all, ever for any reason -- that's the problem.

None of those 6 weeks were adventuring days.

They were downtime. Happy for PCs to engage in downtime activities on board the ship. Training, or scribing scrolls, or learning a new language or what ever other downtime activities they want (and are capable of being performed on board the vessel).

They wont be 'spamming short rests for 6 weeks' I can assure you.

Why are you conflating downtime with adventuring days? Not every day is an adventuring day. Only days with encounters are.

JNAProductions

2017-12-03, 11:26 PM

None of those 6 weeks were adventuring days.

They were downtime. Happy for PCs to engage in downtime activities on board the ship. Training, or scribing scrolls, or learning a new language or what ever other downtime activities they want (and are capable of being performed on board the vessel).

They wont be 'spamming short rests for 6 weeks' I can assure you.

Why are you conflating downtime with adventuring days? Not every day is an adventuring day. Only days with encounters are.

Except, according to the rules, this works just fine. And it even seems to have support, with Aspect of the Moon.

It's the same as saying "Your greatsword now does 1d6 damage" in the middle of a fight.. It's changing the rules on the player without letting them know in advance.

Malifice

2017-12-03, 11:29 PM

Yes. It's easy to be a jerk, and use DM Fiat when you can easily have a talk with your players ahead of time or make an official rule change they know about in advance.

Im not being a jerk, nor am I exersizing DM fiat. Nor am I changing rules.

And I am discussing with my players where I stand on the Adventuring day. They are all well aware that attempting to engage in the 5MWD or spamming short rests or similar rest abusing/ gaming shennanigans dont work at my table. They are well aware that I police the adventuring day.

They are also aware that they will generally be getting 6 or so encounters and 2 or so short rests, most adventuring days (as a median). Sometimes more, and sometimes less. Sometimes just the one encounter. Sometimes up to 10 or more. Sometimes they might have enough time for several short rests. Sometimes they wont be able to take any. The median however is 6 or so encounters, and 2-3 short rests.

Heck, I'll even gently encourage them to take short rests, and when designing my adventures, insert natural short rest pauses in them so the party can do so (and the Sor-lock is welcome to spam SP for Pact magic slots at this time, if he has any of either to burn and wishes to do so).

This is discussed with the players at the start of the campaign. Its not like I hide this fact from them.

I suggest you do the same.

JNAProductions

2017-12-03, 11:33 PM

Im not being a jerk, nor am I exersizing DM fiat. Nor am I changing rules.

Quoted the relevant portion. Being a jerk is obviously subjective, but how are you not changing the rules when, as written, the rules allow for this? And this isn't even massive shenaniganery technically reading, this is just regular English reading.

Malifice

2017-12-03, 11:36 PM

Except, according to the rules, this works just fine.

No it doesnt.

The PCs have spent 6 weeks resting on board a ship. Thats 'a single rest of 8 hours or more duration'. It's a single long rest. All PCs get a long rest (full recharge).

The DM decides what is or isnt a rest. Not the players. Otherwse its the tail wagging the dog.

It's the same as saying "Your greatsword now does 1d6 damage" in the middle of a fight.. It's changing the rules on the player without letting them know in advance.

No its not changing the rules. Its my application of the rules.

Youre arguing a DM should allow a player to game some aspect of the system. Rule Zero tells me the rules are guidelines only, and I (as DM) have a higher responsibilty to ensure a balanced and entertaining game. I have zero reservations about making a ruling of 'nice try but No' if a player attempts to twist the rest rules into somethign they are not designed to be.

And my players are well aware of my policy regarding the 5MWD and attempting to game the system.

They dont even try. Instead they just play the game without looking for 'rules exploits'. These dont work in my games.

Because it has a DM.

JNAProductions

2017-12-03, 11:39 PM

So, what would it take to disrupt a rest? It can't be vigorous exercise-players can obviously do that on their own, but the DM says that doesn't count.

Is it taking damage? So does that mean, if they make it through a fight without damage, they're considered to still be resting? Casting a spell? What interrupts a rest?

Malifice

2017-12-03, 11:43 PM

Quoted the relevant portion. Being a jerk is obviously subjective, but how are you not changing the rules when, as written, the rules allow for this?

Rule zero. Thats a Rule as Written isnt it? In fact its the only rule as written, as it expresly tells me the other rules (other than rule zero) are guidelines only, and that as DM I have a higher responisbility to running a balanced, fun and challenging game.

Players dont tell the DM what a rule is. Thats the tail wagging the dog.

My solem duty as DM is to run a balanced, entertaining and challenging game.

And this isn't even massive shenaniganery technically reading, this is just regular English reading.

There are no shennanigans.

DM: 'You all rest for 6 weeks on board the ship as it travels to Maztica. You all get the benefits of a long rest, and can restore your HP and HD to maximum and refresh all abilities. Additionally, if any of you have any Dowtime activites you want to perform on board the ship, such as training or learning a new language, let me know and Ill approve them if reasonable. Just so youre aware Mdongo your guide speaks the Maztica language, and it might be a good idea to learn it as you travel'

If this makes me a 'TYRANT DM! JERK DM!' so be it. The player is free to walk away to a different table.

Malifice

2017-12-03, 11:51 PM

So, what would it take to disrupt a rest?

The PHB gives guidelines to the DM as to what disrupts a rest.

Its otherwise up to the DM. For mine it depends on a number of things, like 'How bady messed up are the players; do they really need a rest right now.' Heck occasionally, I'll all but handwave a rest for them.

DM: 'Guys; as you look around, you reckon this might be a good place to rest for a bit. You're all pretty beat up; perhaps a short rest is in order? You havent come across the BBEG yet, and remember, there was talk he has made an allegiance with a dragon...'

Not that it matters. IMG any attempt to game the rest mechanic, fails.

Repeated attempts (or whining about it) also probably get you booted from the table. End of discussion.

TYRANT DM! JERK DM! WAAAH!

CantigThimble

2017-12-03, 11:56 PM

If this makes me a 'TYRANT DM! JERK DM!' so be it. The player is free to walk away to a different table.

Right before you let the DM at that table know that he's

failing as a DM

because he's not running it the same way you do.

JNAProductions

2017-12-03, 11:57 PM

So if you treat the rules as just guidelines, what's to stop you from making a Greatsword do 1d6 damage because the player is doing too much damage? That'll make the game more balanced, won't it?

Malifice

2017-12-04, 12:02 AM

So if you treat the rules as just guidelines, what's to stop you from making a Greatsword do 1d6 damage because the player is doing too much damage? That'll make the game more balanced, won't it?

When you have to argue from a positon of absurdity to make a point, youve already lost.

Right before you let the DM at that table know that he's because he's not running it the same way you do.

If a DM isnt policing the AD, then yes - my view is he is failing as a DM.

5E class balance hinges on the AD - some classes are short rest based and some are long rest based. If the DM allows the 5MWD he heavily favors Casters, Barbs and Paladins to the detriment of Fighters, Monks and Warlocks.

We even have a thread on this from a disgruntled Fighter player at present.

A large part of the DMs job is to ensure the game is challenging, balanced, fair and fun. Not to sit back, treat the rules as some kind of incontrovertable untouchable canon and be a dice rolliing machine.

CantigThimble

2017-12-04, 12:05 AM

The point I'm making, Malifice, is that you can't play the "I play my way, you play yours and we all enjoy the game" card anymore. You abdicated that a long time ago in favor of badwrongfun.

JNAProductions

2017-12-04, 12:07 AM

Why is that absurd? Both instances are taking something the player thought to be true (a player chooses what their character does, whether that's pick the highest damage weapon or take a rest) and making it false.

In addition, it's been said before-the issue is NOT when you've got 24 hours to save the king. The issue is when you have four months to figure out the plot against the king, and can spend all your downtime amassing spell slots.

Let me put it this way-what's the HARM in having an official, established houserule that prevents the Coffeelock? Who's going to be hurt by it? I specifically made this thread because I didn't want to hurt other builds (such as was mentioned in the first page-someone liked to convert a few 1st and 2nd level slots into higher level slots in excess of their norm as a pure Sorcerer, which I am fine with) but did want to stop the Coffeelock.

Malifice

2017-12-04, 01:05 AM

The point I'm making, Malifice, is that you can't play the "I play my way, you play yours and we all enjoy the game" card anymore. You abdicated that a long time ago in favor of badwrongfun.

No, I never said 'badwrongfun'. Maybe your table enjoys widely unbalanced games of rocket tag. Im not saying that this is a 'bad way for you to have fun, or the fun you're having is wrong.

Im just saying that (IMO) such games are boring, unbalanced and generally the result of poor DMing (either a pushover DM, or a DM that doesnt understand the rules or what an adventuring day is, and the reource management basis of DnD mechanically). Plus they imply a game world where the PCs have no time pressure on them and thats even more boring and crap.

I wouldnt want anything to do with such a game. If you enjoy them, go nuts.

Why is that absurd? Both instances are taking something the player thought to be true (a player chooses what their character does, whether that's pick the highest damage weapon or take a rest) and making it false.

No, it isnt.

Your player can choose to do whenever they want. The DM then resolves the mechanical consequences of that choice.

DM: You spend 5 minutes of every hour of the 4 month journey running around the ship like a madman. The crew think youre nuts. It counts as a long rest, and you restore all HD. You also feel quite healthy, and lose a fair bit of weight. Do you want to do anything else with your 4 months of downtime?

In addition, it's been said before-the issue is NOT when you've got 24 hours to save the king. The issue is when you have four months to figure out the plot against the king, and can spend all your downtime amassing spell slots.

No you cant.

Four months of downtime = [8 hours or more of little to no activity] = [1 long rest].

Feel free to also peruse the downtime rules and tell me what else you want to do during downtime however.

Let me put it this way-what's the HARM in having an official, established houserule that prevents the Coffeelock? .

You dont need one. I didnt need a rule in 3.5 saying 'No Pun Pun' either.

Just dont attempt to game the rest mechanic (or any other mechanic) at my table, and we'll be fine.

Talamare

2017-12-04, 02:04 AM

No you cant.

Four months of downtime = [8 hours or more of little to no activity] = [1 long rest].

Feel free to also peruse the downtime rules and tell me what else you want to do during downtime however.

By RAW, 1 hour of activity breaks any long rest.
So if every 5 hours, they do 1 hour of activity. Then you can't declare they had a long rest.

I police the adventuring day.[/B]

Can you remind me why that isn't DM Fiat?
Now, if you want to say... My solution is a DM Fiat, that's fine
I'm just not sure why you're saying you're not using DM Fiat

Edit - I want to clarify
I don't think using DM Fiat is 'tyrannical' or 'jerk' behavior. I think there are plenty of cases in which it's an optimal choice.
Especially when making something interesting, or to keep the flow going. So DM Fiat isn't a bad thing. imo.

Malifice

2017-12-04, 02:41 AM

By RAW, 1 hour of activity breaks any long rest.
So if every 5 hours, they do 1 hour of activity. Then you can't declare they had a long rest.

By RAW, only rule zero is RAW. The other rules are guidelines for the DM only, and the DM is expressly free to ignore these guidelines [thanks to Rule Zero] if he desires in the spirit of balance, fun, entertainment, challenge and the spirit of the game.

So the DM can declare they have a long rest if they run around for 1 hour every few hours for a few days.

Try it at my table and see for yourself.

I apply the RAW of Rule Zero to overrule the guidelines of when PCs get the benefits of a rest.

DM: 'Yes, I know you're been running around for an hour out of every six hours. You've been doing it for a few days now. I get that. Your [rest 5 hours] + [run 1 hour] then [repeat] routine counts as a long rest. Also, reduce your PCs weight by 5lbs. All that jogging is leading to you losing weight.'

All 100% correct by RAW.

Talamare

2017-12-04, 02:50 AM

By RAW, only rule zero is RAW. The other rules are guidelines for the DM only, and the DM is expressly free to ignore these guidelines [thanks to Rule Zero] if he desires in the spirit of balance, fun, entertainment, challenge and the spirit of the game.

So the DM can declare they have a long rest if they run around for 1 hour every few hours for a few days.

Try it at my table and see for yourself.

I apply the RAW of Rule Zero to overrule the guidelines of when PCs get the benefits of a rest.

DM: 'Yes, I know you're been running around for an hour out of every six hours. You've been doing it for a few days now. I get that. Your [rest 5 hours] + [run 1 hour] then [repeat] routine counts as a long rest. Also, reduce your PCs weight by 5lbs. All that jogging is leading to you losing weight.'

All 100% correct by RAW.

Go ahead and quote Rule Zero word for word, if you don't mind

Since it seems you're taking the concept of DM Fiat, and squaring it

Malifice

2017-12-04, 03:10 AM

Go ahead and quote Rule Zero word for word, if you don't mind

Pick up Xanathars guide. Its on page three. They discuss 10 important rules to remember. Its Rule Zero of those Ten rules.

Come over for a game one day and I'll show you in person if you want.

Since it seems you're taking the concept of DM Fiat, and squaring it

Nah. You're the one asserting the DM's job is one of dice roller and encounter builder.

I'm the one asserting the DM is free to make rulings as (s)he sees fit, and that all rules other than Rule Zero are guidelines.

I'm right and you know it. The tail doesnt wag the dog.

A player that tried to 'cycle rests' by [resting X hours], then [running X hours] then [resting X hours], then [running X hours], simply gets told 'nope'. He also gets his gamist rubbish called out and told (politely) that kind of crap doesnt fly at this table, with an explanation why.

It only happens the once. If it happens twice, or he complains, he can find a different table.

I dont tolerate players trying to exploit rules, argue with the DM when a ruling is fair and in the intrests of the game, rules lawyer or sook like babies. I value my spare time, and the spare time of my friends who I play the game with. Our hobby is filled with whiny socialy maladjusted adolescents and neckbeards, and far too many DMs who arent tough enough on these kinds of shennanigans (and thus full of campaigns that suffer).

Mine aint one of them.

I dont need houserules. Just firm (but fair) DMing. You'll get rests as intended (generally one short rest every 2-3 or so encounters, and one long rest every 6 or so). Sometimes more and sometimes less. Everyone is on the same playing field.

I dont have to worry about players arguing their PC 'gets up for a jog every hour... because roleplay reasons!' while grinning at me from their cheeto filled neckbeard. They already know the answer, and the question simply doesnt get asked.

krugaan

2017-12-04, 03:11 AM

Go ahead and quote Rule Zero word for word, if you don't mind

Since it seems you're taking the concept of DM Fiat, and squaring it

Well, since RAW is not a legally defined term, he's not wrong.

I guess.

Malifice

2017-12-04, 03:25 AM

Player: 'Ive got this build set up, where I can game an element of the rules in an unintended and totally metagamey way, and totally unbalance the game. It involves a character that sprints for a few minutes of every hour, on the hour so I can totally abuse the short rest mechanic and cycle unlimied spell slots. I can justify it 'in character' with some fluff too.'

'I am a good player.'

'However my DM insists on policing the Adventuring day, and keeping the game fair and balanced for all players, thus negating this attempt to game the system.'

'He is a tyrant and monster.'

krugaan

2017-12-04, 03:26 AM

Talamare

2017-12-04, 03:30 AM

Pick up Xanathars guide. Its on page three. They discuss 10 important rules to remember. Its Rule Zero of those Ten rules.

Come over for a game one day and I'll show you in person if you want.

Nah. You're the one asserting the DM's job is one of dice roller and encounter builder.

I'm the one asserting the DM is free to make rulings as (s)he sees fit, and that all rules other than Rule Zero are guidelines.

I'm right and you know it. The tail doesnt wag the dog.

A player that tried to 'cycle rests' by [resting X hours], then [running X hours] then [resting X hours], then [running X hours], simply gets told 'nope'. He also gets his gamist rubbish called out and told (politely) that kind of crap doesnt fly at this table, with an explanation why.

It only happens the once. If it happens twice, or he complains, he can find a different table.

I dont tolerate players trying to exploit rules, argue with the DM when a ruling is fair and in the intrests of the game, rules lawyer or sook like babies. I value my spare time, and the spare time of my friends who I play the game with. Our hobby is filled with whiny socialy maladjusted adolescents and neckbeards, and far too many DMs who arent tough enough on these kinds of shennanigans (and thus full of campaigns that suffer).

Mine aint one of them.

I dont need houserules. Just firm (but fair) DMing. You'll get rests as intended (generally one short rest every 2-3 or so encounters, and one long rest every 6 or so). Sometimes more and sometimes less. Everyone is on the same playing field.

I dont have to worry about players arguing their PC 'gets up for a jog every hour... because roleplay reasons!' while grinning at me from their cheeto filled neckbeard. They already know the answer, and the question simply doesnt get asked.

Well, Let's go ahead and hit you on your foundation by stating that before that page...
They make it clear that Xanathar is an optional supplement.
Which means that the rule you're quoting is an optional rule.

Then Let's go ahead and correct what you're trying to quote.
They declare that the DM 'ADJUDICATES' the rules.
Which means that the DM is the final authority when there is a rules conflict.
Rules are what makes DnD. Without the rules, you just have a guy with a Napoleon complex and improvised story telling.
A DM isn't intended to create every rule. A DM is intended to use the rules foundation the game has created and build upon it.

This is why I'm annoyed at you now. Because I don't tolerate it when a DM starts acting like a "whiny socialy maladjusted adolescents neckbeards". Declaring that he is the creator of all rules, and he is allowed to change all the rules on his whim. I value my time, and I want to play the game I paid for in the books. Not your broken homebrew.

I don't need to feed your Napoleon Complex. If you try to change every rule in the game with a "I AM DM, ONLY MY WORD IS RAW". I won't even stand from the table. I will inspire the other players to ask you to leave, so you can DM your own little private game with your own little private rules, while we play Dungeons and Dragons as it is written in the books.

Oh, and I'm against the Javalock exploit.

Malifice

2017-12-04, 04:52 AM

Well, Let's go ahead and hit you on your foundation by stating that before that page...
They make it clear that Xanathar is an optional supplement.
Which means that the rule you're quoting is an optional rule.

Then Let's go ahead and correct what you're trying to quote.
They declare that the DM 'ADJUDICATES' the rules.
Which means that the DM is the final authority when there is a rules conflict.
Rules are what makes DnD. Without the rules, you just have a guy with a Napoleon complex and improvised story telling.
A DM isn't intended to create every rule. A DM is intended to use the rules foundation the game has created and build upon it.

This is why I'm annoyed at you now. Because I don't tolerate it when a DM starts acting like a "whiny socialy maladjusted adolescents neckbeards". Declaring that he is the creator of all rules, and he is allowed to change all the rules on his whim. I value my time, and I want to play the game I paid for in the books. Not your broken homebrew.

I don't need to feed your Napoleon Complex. If you try to change every rule in the game with a "I AM DM, ONLY MY WORD IS RAW". I won't even stand from the table. I will inspire the other players to ask you to leave, so you can DM your own little private game with your own little private rules, while we play Dungeons and Dragons as it is written in the books.

Oh, and I'm against the Javalock exploit.

Rule zero exists.

Are you arguing it doesn't?

Talamare

2017-12-04, 05:17 AM

Rule zero exists.

Are you arguing it doesn't?

That's your reply?
I've already responded to 8 levels beyond this.

In summary, your argument was that "I AM DM I AM LAW", and if you find the people to drink your koolaid, then power to you.
Everyone else will be playing the game properly.

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 05:17 AM

Malifice

2017-12-04, 05:41 AM

Malifice, I'm with you in that CoffeeLocks shouldn't be allowed into the game as it is an abuse of the game mechanics. I'm also with you that Rule Zero exists.

But are you asserting that, for example, if the DM wants to treat all natural 1's on ability checks and saving throws as automatic failures, then it is RAW? Or that if the DM wants to use failure tables on nat 1's on attack rolls, it is also RAW?

I'm saying the only RAW is rule zero.

The other rules are guidelines the DM is free to ignore or make rulings on as he sees fit (for the good of the game).

That's the objective truth.

Malifice

2017-12-04, 05:42 AM

That's your reply?
I've already responded to 8 levels beyond this.

In summary, your argument was that "I AM DM I AM LAW", and if you find the people to drink your koolaid, then power to you.
Everyone else will be playing the game properly.

Dude rule zero has existed since 1E.

Sook all you want, but the tail doesn't wag the dog.

Never has and never will.

Malifice

2017-12-04, 05:53 AM

'One rule overrides all others: the DM is the final arbiter of how the rules work in play.'

Straight from Xanathars.

If the DM says your (1 hour rest plus 10 minutes of dashing x 8) counts as a single long rest, it does.

If that doesn't work for you, you can tell your story walking out out the door.

Talamare

2017-12-04, 05:55 AM

Dude rule zero has existed since 1E.

Sook all you want, but the tail doesn't wag the dog.

Never has and never will.

Gets called out
Has nothing to say
Claims other person is crying

Amazing
They seek not to persuade by sound argument, and when pressed too closely they fall silent

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 05:59 AM

I'm saying the only RAW is rule zero.

The other rules are guidelines the DM is free to ignore or make rulings on as he sees fit (for the good of the game).

That's the objective truth.

Hmm. Are you saying it is not RAW that Sorcerers have a 1d6 Hit Die?

Malifice

2017-12-04, 07:04 AM

Hmm. Are you saying it is not RAW that Sorcerers have a 1d6 Hit Die?

I'm saying the DM can decide they get d10 hit dice if he wants.

The DM has ultimate say over his campaign. Rule zero.

A player citing RAW to me gives me a good baseline for a rule. As DM I'm certainly not beholden to that Rule, and am free to rule against it or make any other ruling I want.

The tail doesn't wag the dog.

Maybe your DMs work differently or whatever. I don't and neither did Gygagx

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 07:14 AM

I get that DMs can do that due to Rule Zero. I was wondering if, according to you, Sorcerers having a 1d6 Hit Die is not RAW.

Yes or no?

I'm not debating the existence or power of the DM to rule the game. You're right that it exists and the DM has that power.

But yes or no, is it RAW that the Sorcerer has a 1d6 Hit Die?

Malifice

2017-12-04, 07:30 AM

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 07:31 AM

I think RAW is an artificial construct that has no bearing on the game in isolation.

Thank you for your answer.

CantigThimble

2017-12-04, 09:18 AM

No, I never said 'badwrongfun'. Maybe your table enjoys widely unbalanced games of rocket tag. Im not saying that this is a 'bad way for you to have fun, or the fun you're having is wrong.

Im just saying that (IMO) such games are boring, unbalanced and generally the result of poor DMing (either a pushover DM, or a DM that doesnt understand the rules or what an adventuring day is, and the reource management basis of DnD mechanically). Plus they imply a game world where the PCs have no time pressure on them and thats even more boring and crap.

I wouldnt want anything to do with such a game. If you enjoy them, go nuts.

So its not that they're having fun wrong, its just that there's no way they could really be having fun and the DM must be an ignoramus for running a game the way they enjoy playing it instead of the way its supposed to be run.

The issue is you're setting up a false dichotomy:
unbalanced, boiring, rocket tag with pushover DMs where resources are irrelevant vs 6-8 encounters and 2 short rests

Most games I've seen are neither of those things. And even when games DO have the problems you mentioned, there are solutions other than 6-8 encounters 2 short rests that I think are much more enjoyable.

And you never argue from the 'IMO this way is more fun' position. You always argue from the 'this is the correct way to play' position. If enjoyment of the game is subjective and a DM can run a fun game that doesn't operate according to your one truth, then all your constant accusations of bad DMing no longer hold water.