Speculation Were CoffeeLocks put in there intentionally? [Archive]

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 10:38 AM

Obviously, the CoffeeLock is an abuse of the RAW. Unlimited spells and metamagic is amazing(ly broken). However, let's speculate on if it was put in there on purpose.

I'll start by taking the unlikely stance that they did intend the CoffeeLock to exist at higher levels. Here's my evidence.

Sorcerers begin generating Sorcery Points on short rests at level 20. A non-multiclassed Sorcerer earns half of the CoffeeLock's abilities as their ability cap. If the level 20 Sorcerer never took long rests, they would be slinging unlimited level 5 spells anyway. Of course, their level 6, 7, 8, and 9 spells don't come back to them this way.

They allegedly balanced a Sorcerer and a Warlock multiclass. JC has tweeted (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/596193607595401216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2015%2F0 5%2F12%2Fcovert-warlock-spell-slots-to-sorcery-points%2F) that one reason why Warlocks have so few spell slots is because Sorcerers can turn those Pact Magic slots into Spellcasting slots. Thus, they were aware from the design phase that Sorcerers could generate spell slots from the early levels.

The Outer Planes penalize long rests. We can assume that high level characters are supposed to start jumping around the planes. DMG 43 says "When adventurers reach higher levels, their path extends to other dimensions of reality: the planes of existence that form the multiverse."

If you look at the optional rules for DMs on each of the Outer Planes, there are plenty of penalties for taking long rests while in those planes. Psychic Dissonance, which is active for every plane, forces a DC 10 Con save on a good creature for long resting in an evil plane, or vice versa. Whereas, not taking a long rest does not impose an exhaustion penalty, but it doesn't let you regenerate any long rest resources either.

Long Rests were never mandatory. Lifting a sentence from Xanathar's Guide, under the optional rules for sleeping (Xan 78), there is a note of the original intent: "A long rest is never mandatory, but going without sleep does have its consequences. If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures, use these rules."

---

So we have half the CoffeeLock's abilities built into a pure-classed Sorcerer, adventures built into the DMG wherein taking long rests is a bad idea, and the fact that forgoing long rests were not intended to give penalties at first (besides the drawbacks that not taking long rests already provides, like no healing), all in all, the CoffeeLock could exist in a legitimate adventure: in the higher levels, traveling in the Outer Planes, or any other adventures where taking long rests is a real penalty.

What I assume they missed was the possibility of players purposefully choosing to not end an adventuring day with a long rest. The drawbacks of not taking a long rest are pronounced already, especially by preventing players from gaining HD and not refreshing x per LR abilities.

What do you guys think? Did they look at the CoffeeLock in the design phase and say, "yeah, seems legit"?

UrielAwakened

2017-11-29, 10:55 AM

Naanomi

2017-11-29, 10:56 AM

No, I don’t... but it is an interesting way to simulate a 3.X style ‘infinite low level spells’ warlock to some degree

JackPhoenix

2017-11-29, 11:28 AM

No. The basic game is made with no multiclass in mind. The devs tried to remove abilities that could be abused during multiclassing, but obviously couldn't catch everything.

And the designer team was, what, 6 people? Hasbro doesn't care about D&D as much as MtG, and unlike MtG, D&D also isn't competive game with tournament with prizes in thousands of USD that absolutely require being perfectly balanced.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 11:41 AM

I don't think it matters since D&D rules aren't set in stone. We're not talking about a video game where everyone must follow the same rules - and even in video games, not everyone plays the same.

The designers' intent matters less to a particular games than the actions of the participants. I've shown how a coffeelock is quite strong in a campaign of attrition, falls behind in a campaign based around big encounters, is about average otherwise since everyone else in the party needs to rest on a regular schedule. The build is only especially useful from level 8 to about 15 or so, by which point other casters pull ahead with magic the coffeelock may not use.

In short, it's not OP unless your campaign makes it OP. Saying it's OP is kind of like saying Champion Fighter is OP because he can recover unlimited HP and his crits and extra fighting style never run out of uses.

Whether the designers intended it is irrelevant. What matters is: does it invalidate other party members? In general, the answer to that is no because he's at least two or three spell levels behind and can't do more in a given combat round than anyone else can. It's extreme in exactly one way, much like a rogue / shadow monk has extreme stealth or a Necromancer has extreme action economy.

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 11:57 AM

Whether the designers intended it is irrelevant. What matters is: does it invalidate other party members?

Well, the question I was speculating on was exactly that if the designers saw the CoffeeLock in the design phase and decided to put it in the game anyway. So to that extent, it matters.

I considered bringing up the point that the DM could change the rules anyway and could easily ban the CoffeeLock, but it ultimately seems like an irrelevant objection, since the DM can change any rule and ban anything from the table, including Warlocks, Paladins, and Sorcerers, among others in a low magic campaign.

With regards to if it overshadows other party members, perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. In combat, unlimited Twinned Healing Word is pretty potent, for example, while still getting an action in to cast Empowered Eldritch Blast with Hex, Agonizing Blast, and another invocation that enhances EB (Repelling Blast or Frost Lance?).

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 12:20 PM

With regards to if it overshadows other party members, perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. In combat, unlimited Twinned Healing Word is pretty potent, for example, while still getting an action in to cast Empowered Eldritch Blast with Hex, Agonizing Blast, and another invocation that enhances EB (Repelling Blast or Frost Lance?).

The coffeelock can only afford one invocation, as he must take Aspect of the Moon. You get agonizing blast, or repelling blast, or devil's sight, or something else. The only way around that is more warlock levels, at which point you're quite invested and are further limiting your sorcerer levels.

This is not a free build. The cost is high, and there's no guarantee that you'll actually do anything meaningful in a given day with your extra slots.

Additionally, the coffeelock doesn't need infinite slots to twin healing word a suitable number of times. Eight consecutive short rests, something any sorlock can already do by the RAW, will produce 16 first level spell slots assuming 3 levels of warlock. That's why sorlock is a strong build regardless.

And finally, if you twin a bonus action spell, you can't create sorcery points on the same turn because it requires your bonus action. A level 5 coffeelock has two sorcery points: two twinned healing words or one twinned healing word and one Empowered Eldritch Blast before he must spend bonus actions to make more sorcery points.

You see, actually paying the build is more complicated and limiting than it at first seems. Compare to a life cleric / lore bard spending one spell slot to aura of vitality heal people every round for an encounter.

Vaz

2017-11-29, 12:48 PM

mephnick

2017-11-29, 12:57 PM

Which is equally baffling since Magic the Gathering is run by the same company and one of their primary tasks when designing a new set is to find troublesome interactions with older cards.

And the designer team was, what, 6 people? Hasbro doesn't care about D&D as much as MtG, and unlike MtG, D&D also isn't competive game with tournament with prizes in thousands of USD that absolutely require being perfectly balanced.

Pretty much. D&D is a blip on the radar for Hasbro. They bought WotC for MtG and Pokemon CCG. When they bought WotC they didn't even consider D&D a "core" product of the company. If 5e was even slightly less successful, Hasbro probably would have ceased its existence without even thinking about it.

Almost makes me wish SKR was still around so we could compete to see who was the most **** at rules.

No one beats SKR at like...anything bad.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-29, 12:59 PM

One of the designers is Mike Mearls, another is Jeremy Crawford. That we have functional rules is a surprise to me at all, never mind intentional coffeelocks that interact with like 4 rules.

Almost makes me wish SKR was still around so we could compete to see who was the most **** at rules.

Don'e even get me started on how much of an egotistical d-bag SKR is.

Back in Pathfinder i got in a huge argument with him on how a certain class ability works and pointed out in black and white on the page where it said it did something.

He argued that it did not work, and after more people pointed out he was wrong, the next day he put out an errata that changed the ability to work like he wanted it to, despite the fact it was completely wrong. He came back to the message board that night and literally posted, "Now it works the way i say it does, so shut up about it."

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 01:00 PM

The coffeelock can only afford one invocation, as he must take Aspect of the Moon. You get agonizing blast, or repelling blast, or devil's sight, or something else. The only way around that is more warlock levels, at which point you're quite invested and are further limiting your sorcerer levels.

This is not a free build. The cost is high, and there's no guarantee that you'll actually do anything meaningful in a given day with your extra slots.

Additionally, the coffeelock doesn't need infinite slots to twin healing word a suitable number of times. Eight consecutive short rests, something any sorlock can already do by the RAW, will produce 16 first level spell slots assuming 3 levels of warlock. That's why sorlock is a strong build regardless.

And finally, if you twin a bonus action spell, you can't create sorcery points on the same turn because it requires your bonus action. A level 5 coffeelock has two sorcery points: two twinned healing words or one twinned healing word and one Empowered Eldritch Blast before he must spend bonus actions to make more sorcery points.

You see, actually paying the build is more complicated and limiting than it at first seems. Compare to a life cleric / lore bard spending one spell slot to aura of vitality heal people every round for an encounter.

The CoffeeLock doesn't actually need Aspect of the Moon, though that invocation legitimizes the tactic. Any magic item can, with the DM's blessing, increase your long rest period to 10 hours (DMG 143). You could also sleep, as a non-Elf, 3 hours, wake up and do non-light activity/exercise/take watch for 2 hours, and then sleep for 3 hours. You produce slots slower that way, but you're looking for long periods of downtime that go beyond the typical long rest duration.

Regardless, the CoffeeLock can still do unlimited Twinned Healing Word and Empowered Eldritch Blast with Hex and Agonizing Blast.

A Sorlock who takes 8 short rests must spend 8 hours holding up the adventure. I assume you bring this up to differentiate a Sorlock vs a CoffeeLock, in which case I must assume the Sorlock doesn't do this over the course of a long rest (otherwise they would be a CoffeeLock). If they take those 8 short rests during downtime, they lose all the stockpiled slots after finishing a long rest anyway.

And finally, while you are right that a Twinned Healing Word will preclude converting Sorcery Points, a level 5 CoffeeLock could do a Twinned Healing Word every other round instead, whereas, say, a level 10 CoffeeLock could do it every 4th round or so.

The Life Cleric/Lore Bard combination is good for great healing, but don't forget that Aura of Vitality is a concentration effect and can heal one creature at a time (assuming level 7, the minimum level to pull this off). A CoffeeLock can unload Twinned Healing Words for no concentration and worry about Sorcery Points every 3rd round at that level. And the Life Cleric/Lore Bard would not have access to an Empowered Eldritch Blast with Hex and Agonizing Blast in the same turn.

Here, I am only emphasizing that the CoffeeLock can fill in both support and offense roles in the same turn due to their unlimited uses of metamagic. The specific spells and roles don't really matter, the idea is that the CoffeeLock can cover multiple ones that can overshadow multiple party members -- which ties back to what you said initially, and is what I am responding to, namely: "The problem is, does it obsolete other party members?"

None of this is to say that CoffeeLock is unmanageable. It is broken in one regard, but the DM can kill it by the "rocks fall, you die" method. Even the Sorcadin is vulnerable to that method.

I was merely speculating that the devs could have seen the CoffeeLock and thought to add it into the game anyway.

krugaan

2017-11-29, 01:00 PM

Talamare

2017-11-29, 01:01 PM

No

At best they knew that Gaining Spells back on a Short Rest was really powerful, so they made sure it was limited
I doubt he even fully understood the abuse of the javalock with that tweet

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 01:07 PM

The CoffeeLock doesn't actually need Aspect of the Moon, though that invocation legitimizes the tactic. Any magic item can, with the DM's blessing, increase your long rest period to 10 hours (DMG 143). You could also sleep, as a non-Elf, 3 hours, wake up and do non-light activity/exercise/take watch for 2 hours, and then sleep for 3 hours. You produce slots slower that way, but you're looking for long periods of downtime that go beyond the typical long rest duration.

Regardless, the CoffeeLock can still do unlimited Twinned Healing Word and Empowered Eldritch Blast with Hex and Agonizing Blast.

A Sorlock who takes 8 short rests must spend 8 hours holding up the adventure. I assume you bring this up to differentiate a Sorlock vs a CoffeeLock, in which case I must assume the Sorlock doesn't do this over the course of a long rest (otherwise they would be a CoffeeLock). If they take those 8 short rests during downtime, they lose all the stockpiled slots after finishing a long rest anyway.

And finally, while you are right that a Twinned Healing Word will preclude converting Sorcery Points, a level 5 CoffeeLock could do a Twinned Healing Word every other round instead, whereas, say, a level 10 CoffeeLock could do it every 4th round or so.

The Life Cleric/Lore Bard combination is good for great healing, but don't forget that Aura of Vitality is a concentration effect and can heal one creature at a time (assuming level 7, the minimum level to pull this off). A CoffeeLock can unload Twinned Healing Words for no concentration and worry about Sorcery Points every 3rd round at that level. And the Life Cleric/Lore Bard would not have access to an Empowered Eldritch Blast with Hex and Agonizing Blast in the same turn.

Here, I am only emphasizing that the CoffeeLock can fill in both support and offense roles in the same turn due to their unlimited uses of metamagic. The specific spells and roles don't really matter, the idea is that the CoffeeLock can cover multiple ones.

None of this is to say that CoffeeLock is unmanageable. It is broken in one regard, but the DM can kill it by the "rocks fall, you die" method. Even the Sorcadin is vulnerable to that method.

I was merely speculating that the devs could have seen the CoffeeLock and thought to add it into the game anyway.

Regarding handling support and DPR at the same time, a land druid can concentrate on Haste or a conjure creatures while using his action as he chooses and casting healing word as a bonus action. He'll eventually run out of spell slots doing all of this, though the likelihood of that happening decreases with level. Notably, the first major conjure spell lasts an hour and adds a lot more DPR than eldritch blast. A team of eight axe beaks can kill an ogre in one round. So that's one spell that adds a lot of damage, potentially over several encounters, and does not stop the druid from supporting allies at the same time.

Yes, I know summons are strong and many DMs limit them, but that isn't the point. The point is that here, someone else has done a different version of the same thing as the coffeelock. And, of course, the druid can swap his spells on a long rest and has wildshape to boot. So it isn't immediately obvious that the coffeelock is OP when compared to the competition.

I'm not convinced that a special rule is needed. I'm also not convinced that the designers care about this build, whether they intended it or not. They certainly haven't bothered errata-ing it out over the years.

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 01:35 PM

Regarding handling support and DPR at the same time, a land druid can concentrate on Haste or a conjure creatures while using his action as he chooses and casting healing word as a bonus action. He'll eventually run out of spell slots doing all of this, though the likelihood of that happening decreases with level. Notably, the first major conjure spell lasts an hour and adds a lot more DPR than eldritch blast. A team of eight axe beaks can kill an ogre in one round. So that's one spell that adds a lot of damage, potentially over several encounters, and does not stop the druid from supporting allies at the same time.

Yes, I know summons are strong and many DMs limit them, but that isn't the point. The point is that here, someone else has done a different version of the same thing as the coffeelock. And, of course, the druid can swap his spells on a long rest and has wildshape to boot. So it isn't immediately obvious that the coffeelock is OP when compared to the competition.

I'm not convinced that a special rule is needed. I'm also not convinced that the designers care about this build, whether they intended it or not. They certainly haven't bothered errata-ing it out over the years.

The DM chooses the creatures that are summoned, if you're talking about Conjure Animals. They could be eight Axebeaks or eight kittens. If you mean Conjure Elementals, the DM also chooses which creatures appear. They could be eight Steam Memphits, which deal 4 damage each and have 21 HP and 10 AC. If you meant Conjure Woodland Beings, still the DM chooses, and, they could be eight Blink Dogs instead of eight Sprites.

And the one limiting factor: concentration. If the Druid, who is not proficient in Con saves, ever breaks concentration, that is their big spell for the day. Meanwhile, a CoffeeLock is not worried about breaking concentration. Unless they're concentrating on Haste or Fly, they can swap concentration spells round per round with abandon. For example, unlimited Levitate round on round is potent.

The same CoffeeLock who could have done a Twinned HW and Empowered EB with Hex and AB can switch gears and debuff the enemy instead, meanwhile the Druid must maintain concentration on their summons, and the Cleric/Lore Bard must maintain concentration on their Aura of Vitality. The same CoffeeLock can fill the shoes of both those characters and more (support, offense, debuff) without missing a beat because they don't need to worry about breaking concentration -- they can just keep recasting, after all.

I'm not quite sure where you read me suggest a special rule is needed to control them. There is one rule that controls them if they get too out of hand, and that is, as I said previously, "rocks fall, you die."

I agree that the designers haven't errata'd it away for years. That is actually evidence they want to keep this build in the game, not evidence that they don't care about it.

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 01:38 PM

Zene

2017-11-29, 01:55 PM

RickAllison

2017-11-29, 02:02 PM

While I seriously doubt they knew that the OG CoffeeLock was a possibility, I don't see how they could not have had it in mind when they made Xanathar's. It is a well-discussed combination, and that book just gave so much to make it rules-viable.

An enabling invocation, so the build isn't restricted to one race.
The rule from the OP about long rests never being mandatory. This is notable because this isn't an optional rule XGtE introduces, but essentially a retroactive rule. There was never a rule that required a character to rest, and now we have one that reinforces that lack of such a rule being intentional.
Both a Warlock and a Sorcerer subclass that can heal to bypass the reliance on a healer in the party.

Between those rules, the book covers just about every flaw that was brought up to negate the build. I believe that all of the separate section reinforcing the viability of the build isn't a coincidence. It would have been one thing if the rules were distributed across SCAG, Volo's, and Xanathar's, but here we have one book that allows the CoffeeLock and empowers it. I think WotC knew what they were doing with this, and intended CoffeeLocks for the release of XGtE.

krugaan

2017-11-29, 02:04 PM

UrielAwakened

2017-11-29, 02:05 PM

One of the designers is Mike Mearls, another is Jeremy Crawford. That we have functional rules is a surprise to me at all, never mind intentional coffeelocks that interact with like 4 rules.

Almost makes me wish SKR was still around so we could compete to see who was the most **** at rules.

You're the first person besides myself that I've ever seen on this forum that recognizes those two for what they are.

All through development of 5e, there was a topic on another forum I used to frequent entitled, "Mike Mearls STILL Doesn't Know What He's Doing."

I think we got up to 7 or 8 parts, 500 posts each, on a forum of maybe 20 active users.

RickAllison

2017-11-29, 02:08 PM

Guys at Enworld had never heard of it.

And? We just had a thread where someone was trying to figure out what a CoffeeLock was. Having a few random users not know about it is hardly evidence.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-29, 02:13 PM

And? We just had a thread where someone was trying to figure out what a CoffeeLock was. Having a few random users not know about it is hardly evidence.

They probably just do not know it by that name.

Anyone who does any theory-crafting on message boards knows about the concept of a Warlock/Sorcerer burning short rest spells to farm SP.

It was on boards literally the week the books came out.

krugaan

2017-11-29, 02:14 PM

And? We just had a thread where someone was trying to figure out what a CoffeeLock was. Having a few random users not know about it is hardly evidence.

I'm virtually certain that was a guy from enworld who came over. There was a whole thing.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 02:16 PM

And? We just had a thread where someone was trying to figure out what a CoffeeLock was. Having a few random users not know about it is hardly evidence.

It's a years-old build. If the designers did not know of it, they certainly should have. But again, I'm not convinced that it's overpowered. Think of a role and I can give you a build that does a better job at that role.

Coffeelock is the Champion of casters - and I don't mean the best, I mean the fighter archetype. It's hilarious to me that I now find myself on the opposite side of the argument, arguing against the grain that a tenacious build isn't overpowered, where before I struggled to convince anyone that a different tenacious build had merit.

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 02:23 PM

IMO there’s no way they could have missed it. There are exactly 3 full caster classes with charisma as a single attribute dependency. The first thing that should have popped into their minds writing the multi classing section, was “what happens when you try different mixtures of Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock?“

But I don’t think it was so much the intent of high-level play and short rests— let alone interplanar campaigning—that caused them to let it slide; rather, it is the fact that the coffeelock is actually quite under powered in many respects at every tier of the game. Except perhaps, level 20, as a sorcerer 17 warlock three – but even then, it’s mostly a T4sorcerer, with a few extra tricks. And there are tons of ways for DMs to counter those extra tricks; it is by no means a game breaking build.

The CoffeeLock is also a Sorlock. A Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass. I was under the impression that this was widely regarded as a powerful (if flavorless) build due to Eldritch Blast shenanigans. CoffeeLock just turns it up to 11.

There are no "game breaking builds" so far for the reason that the DM can kill everyone with rocks, regardless of level or build. Even the Elven Hexblade Eldritch Blaster with Elven Accuracy attacks for 1d10+1d6+CHA per bolt, crits on a 19, and rolls 3d20 when rolling with advantage, can die from this method.

But I'm finding it difficult to see that the CoffeeLock -- which is a Sorlock -- is underpowered. Even if they did not stockpile any spell slots, they can spam EB better than a pure Warlock.

Mando Knight

2017-11-29, 02:31 PM

You're giving the designers way too much credit.

They seemingly have nobody on their team whose job it is to find troublesome interactions. Which is equally baffling since Magic the Gathering is run by the same company and one of their primary tasks when designing a new set is to find troublesome interactions with older cards.

And the designer team was, what, 6 people? Hasbro doesn't care about D&D as much as MtG, and unlike MtG, D&D also isn't competive game with tournament with prizes in thousands of USD that absolutely require being perfectly balanced.

Pretty much. D&D is a blip on the radar for Hasbro. They bought WotC for MtG and Pokemon CCG. When they bought WotC they didn't even consider D&D a "core" product of the company. If 5e was even slightly less successful, Hasbro probably would have ceased its existence without even thinking about it.

For that reason, I'm pretty sure that anyone that WotC hires that turns out to be any good at game design is pushed over to the MtG teams.

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 02:31 PM

It's a years-old build. If the designers did not know of it, they certainly should have. But again, I'm not convinced that it's overpowered. Think of a role and I can give you a build that does a better job at that role.

Coffeelock is the Champion of casters - and I don't mean the best, I mean the fighter archetype. It's hilarious to me that I now find myself on the opposite side of the argument, arguing against the grain that a tenacious build isn't overpowered, where before I struggled to convince anyone that a different tenacious build had merit.

The role I can think of is: Party Face, Debuffer, Support Caster, Battle Field Controller, and Damage Dealer... at the same time.

Calling CoffeeLock the Champion of casters is misleading. Champion is supposed to be the "newb" subclass, where you can hand it off to someone who's new and have them adjust to as little new things as possible. CoffeeLock requires an understanding of the rules enough to exploit it to this extent. I'm actually not sure what you mean by calling it the Champion of casters. Do you mean it's the weakest of all the caster builds?

Vogie

2017-11-29, 02:44 PM

Which is equally baffling since Magic the Gathering is run by the same company and one of their primary tasks when designing a new set is to find troublesome interactions with older cards.

That's not entirely true. They do have a development team that makes sure nothing is too broken with the current "standard" chunk of cards the came out right before the new set, but for older interactions they swing a banhammer after some interaction is deemed too powerful. They can't check everything (over 15k unique cards by 2015) thus ex post facto bans for tournament quality is their main way to fix this... no impact on kitchen tables.

If this becomes a problem, it may be errated or mentioned for Adventurer's League rules only.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 02:56 PM

The role I can think of is: Party Face, Debuffer, Support Caster, Battle Field Controller, and Damage Dealer... at the same time.

Calling CoffeeLock the Champion of casters is misleading. Champion is supposed to be the "newb" subclass, where you can hand it off to someone who's new and have them adjust to as little new things as possible. CoffeeLock requires an understanding of the rules enough to exploit it to this extent. I'm actually not sure what you mean by calling it the Champion of casters. Do you mean it's the weakest of all the caster builds?

A sorcerer can already do all of those things, as can a sorlock, as can a warlock, as can certain kinds of wizard. But the coffeelock is not as good at control as a pure wizard or sorcerer, vastly inferior to a bard for being a face, inferior to clerics and druids and Bards for support (especially given limited spells known), and inferior to any properly-built martial for damage.

So what is your point? D&D is not about being able to do everything. If it was, everyone would play a Lore Bard.

Zene

2017-11-29, 03:09 PM

The CoffeeLock is also a Sorlock. A Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass. I was under the impression that this was widely regarded as a powerful (if flavorless) build due to Eldritch Blast shenanigans. CoffeeLock just turns it up to 11.

There are no "game breaking builds" so far for the reason that the DM can kill everyone with rocks, regardless of level or build. Even the Elven Hexblade Eldritch Blaster with Elven Accuracy attacks for 1d10+1d6+CHA per bolt, crits on a 19, and rolls 3d20 when rolling with advantage, can die from this method.

But I'm finding it difficult to see that the CoffeeLock -- which is a Sorlock -- is underpowered. Even if they did not stockpile any spell slots, they can spam EB better than a pure Warlock.

I said underpowered in many ways; not underpowered, period.

Yes, if you want to be an eldritch blaster, Lock 2-3 / sorc x is the absolute best way to do it. That alone doesn’t make the build overpowered. And yes, a coffeelock (subcategory of sorclock, we’re on the same page definitionally) can in theory—with lots of DM buy-in— have unlimited level 5 spell slots. That alone does not make it overpowered.

Pick a level, and make a comparison.
-Lock 2 / sorc 2? Congrats, you can blast as well as a warlock, but don’t have L2 spells.
-Lock 2 /Sorc 3? Ok build is online now. Good at eldritch blasting, but won’t get level 3 spells (like his straight-classed brethren) for 2 more levels. No counterspells. No fireballs. He’s also got far less sorc points (again, without massive DM buy-in to let him cycle infinite L2 spellslots) than a L5 sorcerer. He can blast great, but he’s going to run out of fuel quick.
-Loc 2 / Sorc 15? You don’t get Wish (or True Res if you’re divine soul) for 2 more levels. That’s a huge sacrifice. Even worse if you went Lock 3. And even if your DM lets you do the “infinite L5 slots” trick, you are going to really feel that lack of L9 (or maybe even L8) spells.

If you think those are cherry-picking, pick a level and a build (including which very limited sorcerer spells and metamagics you took) and you’ll see there are always considerable tradeoffs. It’s better at some levels and worse at others, but it’s always there.

It’s a great build, and can do cool things; but it’s also got drawbacks.

Daithi

2017-11-29, 04:50 PM

CoffeeLocks have unlimited 5th level and lower spells, but no higher level spells --- they could get them but could never recover them without a long rest. So, at high levels a coffeelock might be interesting compared to a high level spellcaster. I doubt this was planned, but it's interesting anyway.

(Imaging a battle: High level caster uses Wish --- "I wish the coffeelock would take a long rest.")

tsotate

2017-11-29, 05:19 PM

If you think those are cherry-picking, pick a level and a build (including which very limited sorcerer spells and metamagics you took) and you’ll see there are always considerable tradeoffs. It’s better at some levels and worse at others, but it’s always there.
Well, Coffeelock (or any Sorlock) pulls ahead at 18/2, but that's more because the Sorcerer capstone is so bad than because of any virtue of the build.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 05:25 PM

Well, Coffeelock (or any Sorlock) pulls ahead at 18/2, but that's more because the Sorcerer capstone is so bad than because of any virtue of the build.

Coffeelock needs 3 levels warlock at minimum. And any sorlock is better off with three levels warlock for all of the extra sorcery points / spell slots you can create that way.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-29, 05:34 PM

Coffeelock needs 3 levels warlock at minimum. And any sorlock is better off with three levels warlock for all of the extra sorcery points / spell slots you can create that way.

Something I always wondered, if you are not going to really keep above 5th level spells much why not cap off at 9th or so levels of sorcerer anyway.

Like 3 warlock, 9 sorcerer, then take something else, maybe even more warlock.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 05:36 PM

Something I always wondered, if you are not going to really keep above 5th level spells much why not cap off at 9th or so levels of sorcerer anyway.

Like 3 warlock, 9 sorcerer, then take something else, maybe even more warlock.

That would be my choice. More warlock, paladin, bard, even rogue would have merit. Paladin is probably the "optimal" choice, but warlock would be my preference.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-29, 05:43 PM

That would be my choice. More warlock, paladin, bard, even rogue would have merit. Paladin is probably the "optimal" choice, but warlock would be my preference.

Yeah. Me too.

I was thinking sorcerer 9, warlock 10, fighter 1.
Or
Sorcerer 9 warlock 9, paladin 2.

Depends on if you want another smite to use or hexblade level 10 ability.

Technically you could go warlock 10, sorcerer 8, paladin 2 and still get your 5th level slots.just no sorcerer specific 5th level spells.

Zene

2017-11-29, 08:25 PM

Well, Coffeelock (or any Sorlock) pulls ahead at 18/2, but that's more because the Sorcerer capstone is so bad than because of any virtue of the build.

Yeah in my first comment I’d said they are arguably stronger than straight-classed sorcerers at CL20 (with a 17/3 build), but any level below CL 20 they have both strengths and weaknesses compared to straight-classed sorcs or warlocks.

That comment you quoted was following up on someone who disagreed with that second part.

But yeah I’m totally in agreement with you. 17/3 or 18/2 (whether that second one is a coffeelock or not) are both incredibly strong builds. In large part because sorc class and subclass capstones suck.

RickAllison

2017-11-29, 08:46 PM

I don't think my DM would allow me to be a Divine CoffeeLock with 5th level slots. I can barely be trusted with two slots for Geas, much less a blank check of them...

Talamare

2017-11-29, 08:54 PM

A DM kinda of has to allow a javalock to function

At any point if a player claims he will take 6 short rests in a row, a DM can just be like 'no'

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 09:33 PM

A DM kinda of has to allow a javalock to function

At any point if a player claims he will take 6 short rests in a row, a DM can just be like 'no'

Neither statement is accurate. A DM can ban any build he wants but has no control over player actions. Deciding to rest is an action. Trust me when I say you do NOT want to DM in the manner you suggested. Angry players will destroy your campaign.

RickAllison

2017-11-29, 10:04 PM

A DM kinda of has to allow a javalock to function

At any point if a player claims he will take 6 short rests in a row, a DM can just be like 'no'

A DM can houserule that, but he then HAS to allow a PC to be rebuilt. By the rules, a CoffeeLock can take all those short rests, and you cannot force him to take a long rest. If you houserule it so those don't work (which a DM can do), you can't then expect a PC to continue with a neutered build. It would be no different than houseruling that a Booming Blade+Polearm Master doesn't work and leaving them stuck with a build that cannot function as it spent valuable resources were spent to do. It would be the same as telling a Barbarian/Druid that they cannot Bear Rage in Bear Wild Shape. All of those are houserules that are counter to the rules that a player can consider during character creation. By disallowing such combos, you have changed the rules that applied to the character's creation, and a PC should be able to alter the build to not be screwed over.

Basically, a DM can't just say "no". He can houserule it so the normal rules do not apply, but a non-tyrannical DM must allow a rebuild. After all, that is a major change to make in the middle of the game.

Naanomi

2017-11-29, 10:08 PM

So... Divine Soul Coffeelocks can have an arbitrarily large horde of Animate Dead minions right?

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 10:19 PM

So what is your point? D&D is not about being able to do everything. If it was, everyone would play a Lore Bard.

I dont know, man. You ignored an entire reply I wrote. What is my point? Well, CoffeeLock is strong and should not be written off the way you are doing so.

Ganymede

2017-11-29, 10:30 PM

Deciding to rest is an action.

No, deciding to have some downtime in front of the camp fire while enjoying a glass of elven wine is an action. Receiving the benefits of a rest is a DM-adjudicated result of that action.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 10:33 PM

No, deciding to have some downtime in front of the camp fire while enjoying a glass of elven wine is an action. Receiving the benefits of a rest is a DM-adjudicated result of that action.

Hey, you're one of those people who demands your players roleplay everything and wants full mechanical control of the outcome! I can't stand your style of DMing. I wouldn't play with you.

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 10:37 PM

Pick a level, and make a comparison.
-Lock 2 / sorc 2? Congrats, you can blast as well as a warlock, but don’t have L2 spells.

Sure, but not having Metamagic yet makes this a bad level to judge a CoffeeLock on. It's like saying a Sorcadin is weak because a Sorc 2/Paladin 2 is weak.

Besides, unlimited Shield is very useful at this level.

-Lock 2 /Sorc 3? Ok build is online now. Good at eldritch blasting, but won’t get level 3 spells (like his straight-classed brethren) for 2 more levels. No counterspells. No fireballs. He’s also got far less sorc points (again, without massive DM buy-in to let him cycle infinite L2 spellslots) than a L5 sorcerer. He can blast great, but he’s going to run out of fuel quick.

If we're talking about the same CoffeeLock, he must already by cycling infinite L2 spell slots, and never run out of fuel. If he ran out of fuel, we are not talking about the same CoffeeLock.

Anyway, at this level, CoffeeLocks could pull off infinite Empowered Scorching Rays at this level. Or to perhaps really cheese it out, Quickened Empowered Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast, reaching 35 average damage before the Hex or Empowered Spell comes in.

-Loc 2 / Sorc 15? You don’t get Wish (or True Res if you’re divine soul) for 2 more levels. That’s a huge sacrifice. Even worse if you went Lock 3. And even if your DM lets you do the “infinite L5 slots” trick, you are going to really feel that lack of L9 (or maybe even L8) spells.

Are you sure? Have you played this build up to that high level? Because this guy is a Sorlock as well, his day is made up of, possibly, Quickened Empowered L5 Fireball plus Empowered Eldritch Blast + Hex. And against monsters that cast level 9 spells, he can Subtle Counterspell on every turn.

The main idea about CoffeeLock is infinite spell slots and infinite metamagics. Yes, it is weaker as an individual Sorcerer or an individual Warlock -- that is because it's a multiclass build, and all multiclass build have that issue. But the synergy between the Sorcerer and Warlock classes adds something to the table that neither a pure Sorcerer or a pure Warlock can get.

Pick another casting class, like a Wizard, and tell them they can ignore all spell slots and cast without worrying about running out of spells. Does it seem broken? If no, then we cannot reach the same page. If yes, then think about why it seems that way and realize the CoffeeLock and the unlimited Wizard share the same reasons for their apparent brokenness.

Ganymede

2017-11-29, 10:41 PM

Hey, you're one of those people who demands your players roleplay everything and wants full mechanical control of the outcome! I can't stand your style of DMing. I wouldn't play with you.

Dude, if you want to be a DM, just be a DM.

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 10:47 PM

Something I always wondered, if you are not going to really keep above 5th level spells much why not cap off at 9th or so levels of sorcerer anyway.

Like 3 warlock, 9 sorcerer, then take something else, maybe even more warlock.

Sensible, but the CoffeeLock wants at least Level 10 in Sorcerer because they pick the 3rd metamagic at Level 10, and they get 1 more Sorc point. They would be sacrificing further Sorc Points by multiclassing another class... which isn't bad, considering they have an infinite supply of them, but the lower maximum number means they have to convert spell slots to Sorc Points more often, which ties up their bonus action.

Also, a CoffeeLock can totally long rest. If they can get a week of downtime, for example, they could sleep for the first night (recover L6+ spells), and then begin stockpiling on the lower level spells again after that.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-29, 10:50 PM

No, deciding to have some downtime in front of the camp fire while enjoying a glass of elven wine is an action. Receiving the benefits of a rest is a DM-adjudicated result of that action.

No, it isn't

If you take the Attack action to hit a guard, the DM does not get to adjust and say, no you did not really attack.

Same as it says right there in the book that taking an hour to do nothing but rest and or eat is a short rest, does not mean the DM can just say, no you do not get any benefit of that rest.

That is total BS.

Where I play, if you change a base mechanic of the game with the express intent of cheating a player out of what his character can do, in plain print, in the PHB, using no optional rules, after the game has already started, that is going to get you banned as a dm, and possibly pulled over a table.

Mikal

2017-11-29, 10:50 PM

No, deciding to have some downtime in front of the camp fire while enjoying a glass of elven wine is an action. Receiving the benefits of a rest is a DM-adjudicated result of that action.

Wrong, sorry.
Players can describe their attempted actions as they want. So a player is completely validated in saying they attempt to take x short rests if they so wish.

Heck the first example in the phb is one person saying "we'll take the east door." for the entire group!

In your mind this would be invalid because they didn't go "Adventurer X firmly grasps the knob and turns it clockwise, enjoying the fine craftsmanship of the grain on the wood." or something equally florid.

So yeah. Wrong, from a RAW perspective.

Ganymede

2017-11-29, 10:54 PM

No, it isn't

If you take the Attack action to hit a guard, the DM does not get to adjust and say, no you did not really attack.

Same as it says right there in the book that taking an hour to do nothing but rest and or eat is a short rest, does not mean the DM can just say, no you do not get any benefit of that rest.

That is total BS.

Where I play, if you change a base mechanic of the game with the express intent of cheating a player out of what his character can do, in plain print, in the PHB, using no optional rules, after the game has already started, that is going to get you banned as a dm, and possibly pulled over a table.

I think you are confusing "Action," the portion of your turn during a combat encounter that allows you to perform various generic or class-specific tricks, with "action," a thing your PC does.

Mikal

2017-11-29, 10:55 PM

I think you are confusing "Action," the portion of your turn during a combat encounter that allows you to perform various generic or class-specific tricks, with "action," a thing your PC does.

No he's pretty much right

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 10:56 PM

No, deciding to have some downtime in front of the camp fire while enjoying a glass of elven wine is an action. Receiving the benefits of a rest is a DM-adjudicated result of that action.

Ganymede is correct.

I have one reason for this: if the players said they were going to take a long rest, but in the middle of the night were interrupted and could not complete their rest, they should still earn a short rest (even if they did not specify it) because they've already rested for, like, 4 hours at this point.

Alternatively, if they declared they were taking a short rest and, after 1 hour, they decided to just go for a long rest instead, they should spend only 7 more hours resting to complete it.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-29, 10:57 PM

Sensible, but the CoffeeLock wants at least Level 10 in Sorcerer because they pick the 3rd metamagic at Level 10, and they get 1 more Sorc point. They would be sacrificing further Sorc Points by multiclassing another class... which isn't bad, considering they have an infinite supply of them, but the lower maximum number means they have to convert spell slots to Sorc Points more often, which ties up their bonus action.

Also, a CoffeeLock can totally long rest. If they can get a week of downtime, for example, they could sleep for the first night (recover L6+ spells), and then begin stockpiling on the lower level spells again after that.

I would not play a sor/lock, it is not my style, but I would definately use one in an NPC enemy in a game.

I am thinking blade pact hexblade 9, shadow sorcerer 10, fighter 1.

Built as an archer, with the new eldritch smite, improved pact weapon, thirsting blade, and some invocation for utility.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-29, 10:59 PM

Ganymede is correct.

I have one reason for this: if the players said they were going to take a long rest, but in the middle of the night were interrupted and could not complete their rest, they should still earn a short rest (even if they did not specify it) because they've already rested for, like, 4 hours at this point.

Alternatively, if they declared they were taking a short rest and, after 1 hour, they decided to just go for a long rest instead, they should spend only 7 more hours resting to complete it.

That is not what his point was.

His point was that you can sit and rest, for an hour, and then the DM gets to decide if he wants you to get the benefit of that short rest or not.

Mikal

2017-11-29, 11:01 PM

That is not what his point was.

His point was that you can sit and rest, for an hour, and then the DM gets to decide if he wants you to get the benefit of that short rest or not.

And he also claimed an action can't be described as a player saying "I take a short rest" but "I sit around a campfire drinking my elven wine" or some such none sense.

Not the description itself, but the opinion that the description is what's needed and you can't say "short rest".

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 11:03 PM

Dude, if you want to be a DM, just be a DM.

I do both. I assumed everyone here knew that by now. I'm not exactly a stranger on the forums.

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 11:09 PM

That is not what his point was.

His point was that you can sit and rest, for an hour, and then the DM gets to decide if he wants you to get the benefit of that short rest or not.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he meant "players cannot declare their rests are short rests or long rests. Their characters do an action (like sip wine for 8 hours), and the DM adjudicates the result of that action (long rest)."

To me, he was not saying that the DM can decide to not give you a short rest if you fulfill all the requirements of a short rest. He was saying players cannot declare they are taking short rests or long rests, they must instead declare what they are doing (like sleep for 8 hours) and the DM translates that into a short or long rest.

If this was not the case, if the players can decide what kind of rest they're taking, then getting interrupted after a 4 hour long-rest-in-the-making will not become a short rest, because the players already decided to take a long rest.

Which leads me to the thing I said just before this, wherein I explained why Ganymede is right.

Ganymede

2017-11-29, 11:11 PM

That is not what his point was.

His point was that you can sit and rest, for an hour, and then the DM gets to decide if he wants you to get the benefit of that short rest or not.

That was most definitely not my point.

LeonBH elaborated on my point nicely above.

Talamare

2017-11-29, 11:14 PM

Neither statement is accurate. A DM can ban any build he wants but has no control over player actions. Deciding to rest is an action. Trust me when I say you do NOT want to DM in the manner you suggested. Angry players will destroy your campaign.

Yea...

More than likely, the majority players will be angry at the 1 moron at the corner who is trying to destroy the campaign
Especially after everyone else hears "Oh, I'm going to take 6 short rests in a row, to exploit this mechanic"

Hell, even the players will be like 'no'

So yes...

YOU ABSOLUTELY WANT TO DM IN THE WAY I SUGGEST
Because 1 player shouldn't ruin the experience of half a dozen

A DM can houserule that, but he then HAS to allow a PC to be rebuilt. By the rules, a CoffeeLock can take all those short rests, and you cannot force him to take a long rest. If you houserule it so those don't work (which a DM can do), you can't then expect a PC to continue with a neutered build. It would be no different than houseruling that a Booming Blade+Polearm Master doesn't work and leaving them stuck with a build that cannot function as it spent valuable resources were spent to do. It would be the same as telling a Barbarian/Druid that they cannot Bear Rage in Bear Wild Shape. All of those are houserules that are counter to the rules that a player can consider during character creation. By disallowing such combos, you have changed the rules that applied to the character's creation, and a PC should be able to alter the build to not be screwed over.

Basically, a DM can't just say "no". He can houserule it so the normal rules do not apply, but a non-tyrannical DM must allow a rebuild. After all, that is a major change to make in the middle of the game.

DM can absolutely force him to take a long rest, by RAW in multiple different versions of the statement
Also, the build isn't neutered
Warlocks is a strong class
Sorcerer is a strong class
Warlock Sorcerer Multiclass is an incredibly strong class
So, yea there has been no neutering. You're as strong as everyone else is
As far as rebuilding. It sounds like the person isn't there to enjoy the game with others. It sounds like the person is there to intentionally exploit as many loop holes.
Maybe not? Does it matter?

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he meant "players cannot declare their rests are short rests or long rests. Their characters do an action (like sip wine for 8 hours), and the DM adjudicates the result of that action (long rest)."

To me, he was not saying that the DM can decide to not give you a short rest if you fulfill all the requirements of a short rest. He was saying players cannot declare they are taking short rests or long rests, they must instead declare what they are doing (like sleep for 8 hours) and the DM translates that into a short or long rest.

If this was not the case, if the players can decide what kind of rest they're taking, then getting interrupted after a 4 hour long-rest-in-the-making will not become a short rest, because the players already decided to take a long rest.

Which leads me to the thing I said just before this, wherein I explained why Ganymede is right.

I can agree with that, tho I will admit it wasn't really my original argument.
You made a strong statement; Credit for it is all yours.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-29, 11:30 PM

No, deciding to have some downtime in front of the camp fire while enjoying a glass of elven wine is an action. Receiving the benefits of a rest is a DM-adjudicated result of that action.

This quote completely contradicts what you say your point is.

If the group decides to sit by the fire and sip wine, assuming that lasts one hour that is a short rest.

Receiving the benefit of that rest is not a dm adjucation, that is a core game mechanic of 5th edition.

For a dm to adjucate whether or not you get the benefit of the action you just completed, as properly described in the book, as the example that you yourself gave, is completely wrong.

A simple yes or no here:

If the group sits down, has a meal and rests for one full hour, thus completing what is written directly in the book as being a short rest, that you as a dm can just say, no, you do not get any benefit from that?

Easy_Lee

2017-11-29, 11:34 PM

Yea...

More than likely, the majority players will be angry at the 1 moron at the corner who is trying to destroy the campaign
Especially after everyone else hears "Oh, I'm going to take 6 short rests in a row, to exploit this mechanic"

Hell, even the players will be like 'no'

So yes...

YOU ABSOLUTELY WANT TO DM IN THE WAY I SUGGEST
Because 1 player shouldn't ruin the experience of half a dozen

Your entire argument requires that we accept the premise that coffeelock will "destroy the campaign." You do understand that, right? I hope you do. It's not complicated, and I like to assume I'm talking to intelligent people.

Coffeelocks only destroy the campaign if they're played by malicious players. Never assume a player is malicious purely based on his build.

Talamare

2017-11-29, 11:34 PM

If the group sits down, has a meal and rests for one full hour, thus completing what is written directly in the book as being a short rest, that you as a dm can just say, no, you do not get any benefit from that?

Yea, thats fine in my book

but when he says...

I do it 5 more times in a row, that I will be like... no
You get the benefit of 1 short rest

LeonBH

2017-11-29, 11:36 PM

A simple yes or no here:

If the group sits down, has a meal and rests for one full hour, thus completing what is written directly in the book as being a short rest, that you as a dm can just say, no, you do not get any benefit from that?

I would like to extend this question with my own.

If a player declares "I will take X short rests in a row" and rests for X hours in a row, and if their fellow player decided to take a long rest for the same duration and so rests for X hours in a row, have they both taken different actions?

Talamare

2017-11-29, 11:36 PM

Your entire argument requires that we accept the premise that coffeelock will "destroy the campaign." You do understand that, right? I hope you do. It's not complicated, and I like to assume I'm talking to intelligent people.

Coffeelocks only destroy the campaign if they're played by malicious players. Never assume a player is malicious purely based on his build.

Incorrect
My entire argument requires that we accept the premise that the coffeelock PLAYER will "destroy the campaign." After you told him that he can't have his precious little coffeelock exploit.
Oh, and it's not my argument...

IT'S YOUR ARGUMENT!

Angry players will destroy your campaign.

Ganymede

2017-11-29, 11:45 PM

If the group sits down, has a meal and rests for one full hour, thus completing what is written directly in the book as being a short rest, that you as a dm can just say, no, you do not get any benefit from that?

You still think that I was suggesting a DM would deny the benefits of a short rest to a party. I was not suggesting that in the slightest.

Your hypothetical group can rest assured (Edit: unintentional pun) that, as soon as they concluded their meal and began their adventure anew, they would receive the benefits of a short rest.

Dudewithknives

2017-11-29, 11:49 PM

I would like to extend this question with my own.

If a player declares "I will take X short rests in a row" and rests for X hours in a row, and if their fellow player decided to take a long rest for the same duration and so rests for X hours in a row, have they both taken different actions?

Yes, I would say they each took different actions, assuming that the sorlock did what they normally do and spent about a minute or so burning warlock spell slots, creating sorcery points and then converting them to sorcerer spell slots. Those take bonus actions, you can not take a described action during g a short rest, so he can not gain the benefits of rest while he is doing that.

Is it a power gaming move and a complete rules exploit, absolutely. That is why I fixed it with a houserule about 2 days after I bought the phb.

However, that was my house rule. By the book it is perfectly legal to do, I just hate it, and will not allow it.

Also, this may have been covered somewhere either in sage advice or something, but where does it say that a sorcerer can create more spell slots than their maximum in the first place?

I have a sorlock in my game currently, he is perfectly free to short rest and cycle burn warlock spells to sorcerer spells, but he still can not go over his max spell slots of that level based on the chart for sorcerer.

Ex. If the sorlock, according to his levels of sorcerer has one 4th level spell slot, he can refilled that slot as long as he has sorcerer points, but he can not go above one 4th level spell slot. So he can refill, but no having like three 4th level slots.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 12:15 AM

Yes, I would say they each took different actions, assuming that the sorlock did what they normally do and spent about a minute or so burning warlock spell slots, creating sorcery points and then converting them to sorcerer spell slots. Those take bonus actions, you can not take a described action during g a short rest, so he can not gain the benefits of rest while he is doing that.

Is it a power gaming move and a complete rules exploit, absolutely. That is why I fixed it with a houserule about 2 days after I bought the phb.

However, that was my house rule. By the book it is perfectly legal to do, I just hate it, and will not allow it.

Also, this may have been covered somewhere either in sage advice or something, but where does it say that a sorcerer can create more spell slots than their maximum in the first place?

I have a sorlock in my game currently, he is perfectly free to short rest and cycle burn warlock spells to sorcerer spells, but he still can not go over his max spell slots of that level based on the chart for sorcerer.

Ex. If the sorlock, according to his levels of sorcerer has one 4th level spell slot, he can refilled that slot as long as he has sorcerer points, but he can not go above one 4th level spell slot. So he can refill, but no having like three 4th level slots.

Regarding taking different actions, the act of converting spell slots to sorcery points does not actually end a short rest, and it certainly doesn't interrupt a long rest. It takes 600 rounds of combat (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/42123/does-a-short-combat-or-casting-one-spell-interrupt-a-long-rest) to end a long rest, by the RAW and by the RAI. Conversion is not strenuous activity that takes long enough.

So a CoffeeLock who spends a minute or two converting Pact Magic slots into Spellcasting slots every hour will still not have interrupted a long rest, and it certainly will not end a short rest.

If you put a CoffeeLock who rests for X hours, and another player who rests for X hours, they are different actions? If you look at one character, they have rested for X hours. If you look at the other, they have also rested for X hours. Considering that spell slot conversion does not break a rest, those are not the same actions?

---

To your question, RAW does not say the Sorcerers can create more than their maximum spell slots. Do you mean to tell me, that this means they cannot?

What the RAW say is that the Sorcerers can create spell slots, full stop. They can create spell slots without any attached conditions. This is unlike Wizards or Druids, which can only recover expended spell slots.

Your house rule prevents one corner case ability of the straight-classed Sorcerer. At level 6, when the Sorcerer only knows 3rd level spells and has 3rd level slots, they can convert all 6 of their Sorcery Points into a single 4th level slot. They have no 4th level spells, but the straight-classed Sorcerer can upcast any spell of theirs to 4th level by default. Similarly, at level 7, when they only have 4th level spells and 4th level slots at maximum, a straight-classed Sorcerer can create a 5th level slot and cast a 5th level Fireball, two levels before other casters can.

It sacrifices all their metamagic, so it's not usually a good idea, but it is a feature of the straight-classed Sorcerer regardless.

EDIT: If the pure Sorc does this, they can still cannibalize their 1st and 2nd level spells for Sorc Points, enabling them to still do metamagic while also casting one level higher than their maximum at that level. In fact, if they planned on only casting 5th level Fireballs when every other caster can cast at 4th level, max, the pure Sorcerer can create four 5th level spell slots at level 7, and still have five Sorcery Points for metamagic.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 12:46 AM

it's amazing we can have two identical threads on this.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 01:01 AM

Zene

2017-11-30, 01:45 AM

Sure, but not having Metamagic yet makes this a bad level to judge a CoffeeLock on. It's like saying a Sorcadin is weak because a Sorc 2/Paladin 2 is weak.

Besides, unlimited Shield is very useful at this level.

If we're talking about the same CoffeeLock, he must already by cycling infinite L2 spell slots, and never run out of fuel. If he ran out of fuel, we are not talking about the same CoffeeLock.

So you're implying they stockpiled infinite level 1 slots while at character level 4, and those carried over to CL 5...nope. DMs decide when level up takes effect, and nearly every DM I've played with (and all AL DMs, by rule) don't let you level up unless you've taken a long rest (or in AL, at the end of the session, after which nothing carries forward unless the DM allows it to anyway). So you're not carrying over your infinite slots at character level 4, to character level 5, unless the DM is being really lenient. Just one of the many DM buy-ins required to make this work the ridiculous way you seem to think it always does.

Are you sure? Have you played this build up to that high level?

Yup. T4 (Lock 3 / Sorc 16), in AL. And I'm fully aware of the awesome stuff they can do. I'm also fully aware of the tradeoffs and downsides, as I've made explicitly clear but you seem to be content to keep ignoring.

Because this guy is a Sorlock as well, his day is made up of, possibly, Quickened Empowered L5 Fireball plus Empowered Eldritch Blast + Hex. And against monsters that cast level 9 spells, he can Subtle Counterspell on every turn.

Yup. He can quicken fireball and eldritch blast, while the straight sorcerer can quicken fireball and then a weaker cantrip, but in exchange has higher-level spells to choose from. And they both can drop one Subtle Counterspell every round. And a DM could throw two casters at either of them, and neither one can do anything about the second spell flung at them in a round.

How is this game-breaking?

The main idea about CoffeeLock is infinite spell slots and infinite metamagics. Yes, it is weaker as an individual Sorcerer or an individual Warlock -- that is because it's a multiclass build, and all multiclass build have that issue. But the synergy between the Sorcerer and Warlock classes adds something to the table that neither a pure Sorcerer or a pure Warlock can get.

Pick another casting class, like a Wizard, and tell them they can ignore all spell slots and cast without worrying about running out of spells. Does it seem broken? If no, then we cannot reach the same page. If yes, then think about why it seems that way and realize the CoffeeLock and the unlimited Wizard share the same reasons for their apparent brokenness.

Ok dude, so let's see...
...you cut out the parts of my post where I say they are quite strong at some things, and weak at others...
...and then you attempt to counter my examples of where they're weak by pointing out where they're strong (which doesn't counter what I was saying at all)...
...and you cut out the parts where I point out that infinite slots can only happen with significant DM buy-in, and instead just assume there are infinite slots and infinite sorcery points all the time to support your point...
...and then ignore the part where I challenge you to find a level where they are flat-out stronger than single classes, without significant tradeoffs (other than level 20)...
...and then you reiterate my exact point (they are stronger than a straight class in some ways, and weaker in others), again, while still failing to realize that that's in direct conflict with your complaints earlier (and general current tone) about them being flat-out-better than straight classes...
...and then you make the (erroneous) claim (again) that they can cast whatever they want all day and never run out (though they are capped at level 5 slots, and even that requires significant DM buy-in to say "oh sure yeah you just had a month of downtime to cycle slots after that last level-up, no prob")...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Whelp, it's pretty clear you're not interested in actual discussion, so I'll just leave it here then. Have a good night.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 02:20 AM

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:34 AM

Good night to you Zene. I was going to read your entire reply, but your last sentence cuts off any discussion and you assume very rudely that I am talking with you in bad faith. So I shall leave it unread.

Mikal

2017-11-30, 08:25 AM

Actually, I started this thread speculating on if CoffeeLock was intentional (and there are some good opinions provided on both sides, if you read down the first page). And then it seemed to get derailed...

My opinion is that it wasn't intentional, but they also don't see it as an issue. If they did, they would have neutered it with errata previously.
I just think they are short staffed and not skilled enough in looking for loopholes that they didn't correct it, nor have they issued errata to help remove this larger exploit.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 11:41 AM

Incorrect
My entire argument requires that we accept the premise that the coffeelock PLAYER will "destroy the campaign." After you told him that he can't have his precious little coffeelock exploit.
Oh, and it's not my argument...

IT'S YOUR ARGUMENT!

Players don't get angry when you tell them not to play X, generally. They get angry when you talk down to them, aren't clear up front, or are passive-aggressive. This is why I keep emphasizing that D&D is a social game. Go in with negative assumptions about other players and there's a good chance you'll have a bad time.

My opinion is that it wasn't intentional, but they also don't see it as an issue. If they did, they would have neutered it with errata previously.
I just think they are short staffed and not skilled enough in looking for loopholes that they didn't correct it, nor have they issued errata to help remove this larger exploit.

I agree with this. I don't think the build is a problem by itself. But from what I know of Crawford, I don't think he would like it. Mearls probably wouldn't care as long as the player RP'd it and didn't try to break his campaign - this, I think, is the correct mentality to have toward any build.

JackPhoenix

2017-11-30, 12:55 PM

Another thing: developers shouldn't playtest their own products. That is true about TTRPG developers, video game programmers, homebrewers, anyone. They have certain assumptions about how the game they made should work, and RAI is a thing. Playtesting should be done with unafflicted people, who don't (subconstiously or not) try to play "the way it should be played" and try to look for exploits and how to break the game. They don't know RAI, only RAW and any interactions resulting from it.

Look at 3e: WotC made the game with the assumption that the game should be played with Big Stupid Fighter, Skillmonkey Rogue, Healbot Cleric and Blaster Wizard. They haven't realised that the most powerful combinations leads to "martials that are one trick ponies overpowered at one thing, but useless at anything else (Uberchargers, for example)", CoDzilla and God Wizard.

UrielAwakened

2017-11-30, 01:04 PM

I mean I think it's pretty clear, to me at least, that "Short Rest" and "Long Rest" are short-hands for "1 hour" and "6-8 hours" reasonably speaking, right?

Like I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if something lasts until you long rest, it's fair to also add the addendum, "Or 8 hours pass, whichever comes first."

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 01:20 PM

Dudewithknives

2017-11-30, 01:24 PM

Seems fair, though off the top of my head, I don't know if that addendum neuters other builds besides the CoffeeLock.

Not really, I can not think of any other class that would really gain anything from multiple short rests in a row.

However the idea of X short rests = a long rest based on time is a little iffy because it is dependent on what the character was doing i that time frame.
you could do something in between short rests that would disqualify you from getting along rest, intentional or not.

Ex.

Sorlock takes a short rest, refills, cycles.

Takes about 15 mins while he is cycling and using bonus actions to see if he can go find a deer/rabbit whatever to shoot with his EB for food in the morning, finds one, shots it and kills it.

That would mean that time could not be used for a long rest but he could still just take another short rest a few mins later.

Naanomi

2017-11-30, 01:30 PM

Seems fair, though off the top of my head, I don't know if that addendum neuters other builds besides the CoffeeLock.
Maybe a few other ‘Lock multiclass exploiters... maybe a lock/Wizard wanting to throw up repeated Fabricate, Wall of Stone, or (most dangerously) Animate Dead on the refillable slots

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 01:34 PM

Not really, I can not think of any other class that would really gain anything from multiple short rests in a row.

However the idea of X short rests = a long rest based on time is a little iffy because it is dependent on what the character was doing i that time frame.
you could do something in between short rests that would disqualify you from getting along rest, intentional or not.

Ex.

Sorlock takes a short rest, refills, cycles.

Takes about 15 mins while he is cycling and using bonus actions to see if he can go find a deer/rabbit whatever to shoot with his EB for food in the morning, finds one, shots it and kills it.

That would mean that time could not be used for a long rest but he could still just take another short rest a few mins later.

I agree that X short rests in a row cannot automatically be a long rest. The Errata makes it clear a long rest must have at least 6 hours of sleep. The CoffeeLock just has to not sleep.

But per RAW, a short rest is at least 1 hour long and can be interrupted by strenuous activity. This means if they did strenuous activity before the 1st hour completes, the short rest isn't earned. And you could say that two 1-hour rests separated by strenuous activity in between as a single 2-hour short rest that was interrupted in the middle, thus earning no short rest, or only earning the benefits of the second half since the first half was interrupted.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 01:47 PM

...And you could say that two 1-hour rests separated by strenuous activity in between as a single 2-hour short rest that was interrupted in the middle, thus earning no short rest, or only earning the benefits of the second half since the first half was interrupted.

I think i just figured out how the guys in the other thread are rationalizing it. When the book says "at least one hour long" I was taking that as a minimum requirement. Others see it as a ... lets call it a "guideline". A short rest is uninterrupted rest at least an hour long ... but the unspoken addendum in this case is "or however long I choose, longer than an hour."

That is ... ah ... not a position I like, frankly.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 01:53 PM

I think i just figured out how the guys in the other thread are rationalizing it. When the book says "at least one hour long" I was taking that as a minimum requirement. Others see it as a ... lets call it a "guideline". A short rest is uninterrupted rest at least an hour long ... but the unspoken addendum in this case is "or however long I choose, longer than an hour."

That is ... ah ... not a position I like, frankly.

It is a position that keeps with RAW just as much as the other view though. A short rest is 1 hour at minimum, but it could be 2 hours, or 3 hours, or even 8 hours. It's also a position that prevents the chaining of short rests (ie, abusing the rest mechanic), so it's probably more in line with RAI, but I couldn't tell you that for sure.

Naanomi

2017-11-30, 01:55 PM

It doesn't need Wizard. Divine Soul has acess to Animate Dead (Cleric Spell) and Wall of Stones.
Yeah, but a dedicated undead pet-General doesn’t care about stats much and gets both numbers and power boost for being a Necromancer

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 01:57 PM

Yeah, but a dedicated undead pet-General doesn’t care about stats much and gets both numbers and power boost for being a Necromancer

Well. Hmm. If the necromancer was a CoffeeLock (and unpoliced by the DM), they could cast Animate Dead without bound.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 02:04 PM

It is a position that keeps with RAW just as much as the other view though. A short rest is 1 hour at minimum, but it could be 2 hours, or 3 hours, or even 8 hours. It's also a position that prevents the chaining of short rests (ie, abusing the rest mechanic), so it's probably more in line with RAI, but I couldn't tell you that for sure.

This i disagree with. If you tell me that if I draw a line "at least an inch long" you'll give me a cookie, and then I draw one two inches long, but you tell me to keep drawing, I'm going to be pissed.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:10 PM

This i disagree with. If you tell me that if I draw a line "at least an inch long" you'll give me a cookie, and then I draw one two inches long, but you tell me to keep drawing, I'm going to be pissed.

Well, to not mischaracterize the analogy, it's more: I tell you to draw a line at least an inch long and I give you a dollar. Then you draw a two inch line and argue that you should get 2 dollars for it.

Either way, that interpretation also keeps with the letter of the rule, in the same way that chained short rests also keeps with the letter of the rule. It also doesn't violate Rules As Written. What it does, is it stops chained short rests, which is already an abuse of the game mechanic.

It's a position that stops abuse of the rest mechanic.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 02:27 PM

Well, to not mischaracterize the analogy, it's more: I tell you to draw a line at least an inch long and I give you a dollar. Then you draw a two inch line and argue that you should get 2 dollars for it.

Either way, that interpretation also keeps with the letter of the rule, in the same way that chained short rests also keeps with the letter of the rule. It also doesn't violate Rules As Written. What it does, is it stops chained short rests, which is already an abuse of the game mechanic.

It's a position that stops abuse of the rest mechanic.

Thief rogues with the Healer feat can heal or bring people back to 1HP as a bonus action without expending spell slots or similar. Is that an abuse of the rules?

I ask because it combines complimentary mechanics to produce a superior effect, just like the coffeelock. Where do you draw the line, and why?

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:38 PM

Thief rogues with the Healer feat can heal or bring people back to 1HP as a bonus action without expending spell slots or similar. Is that an abuse of the rules?

I ask because it combines complimentary mechanics to produce a superior effect, just like the coffeelock. Where do you draw the line, and why?

I'm not going to answer your first question because I feel like it is a patronizing one. The Healer feat grants an ability. You are asking me if it's an abuse of the rules to use that ability.

I would like you to clarify your second question though. It seems like a good line of discussion. Draw the line of what? Where do I draw the line between use and abuse? Line between use of complimentary mechanics or abuse of them?

krugaan

2017-11-30, 02:39 PM

Well, to not mischaracterize the analogy, it's more: I tell you to draw a line at least an inch long and I give you a dollar. Then you draw a two inch line and argue that you should get 2 dollars for it.

Either way, that interpretation also keeps with the letter of the rule, in the same way that chained short rests also keeps with the letter of the rule. It also doesn't violate Rules As Written. What it does, is it stops chained short rests, which is already an abuse of the game mechanic.

It's a position that stops abuse of the rest mechanic.

Heh, if the dollars are rests, and inches is time, then it really should be:

For every line you draw at least an inch long, you get a dollar.
If you draw a line 8 inches long with no more than an inch of gap, you get .. a long dollar.

I didn't draw a two inch line, i drew two one inchers.

Eh, at this point we can agree to disagree, civilly. Have a beer, pal.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:42 PM

Eh, at this point we can agree to disagree, civilly. Have a beer, pal.

I think my analogy had more fidelity :P Cheers.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 02:43 PM

i think my analogy had more fidelity :p cheers.

your mother has more fidelity!

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:44 PM

your mother has more fidelity!

Yes, my father agrees.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 02:45 PM

Yes, my father agrees.

That's not how you ... you can't just...

FINE.

/stomps off

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:47 PM

That's not how you ... you can't just...

FINE.

/stomps off

No wait, come back! D:

Lol, it was a clever retort though (and funny, in my mind)

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 02:52 PM

I would like you to clarify your second question though. It seems like a good line of discussion. Draw the line of what? Where do I draw the line between use and abuse? Line between use of complimentary mechanics or abuse of them?

Exactly. Most people don't have a good answer to that question. They draw the line where they feel it belongs. Which is my point. What's right for you may not be right for others, and you can't definitively call something "abuse."

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 02:54 PM

Exactly. Most people don't have a good answer to that question. They draw the line where they feel it belongs. Which is my point. What's right for you may not be right for others, and you can't definitively call something "abuse."

Are you saying, Easy_Lee, that according to you, nothing can ever be considered an abuse in this game?

Siosilvar

2017-11-30, 03:03 PM

Are you saying, Easy_Lee, that according to you, nothing can ever be considered an abuse in this game?

Careful with those weasel words, "considered" and "definitively" have very different meanings.

Talamare

2017-11-30, 03:03 PM

Players don't get angry when you tell them not to play X, generally. They get angry when you talk down to them, aren't clear up front, or are passive-aggressive. This is why I keep emphasizing that D&D is a social game. Go in with negative assumptions about other players and there's a good chance you'll have a bad time.

So, the Coffelock wasn't clear upfront about his build... So he apparently got salty when the DM was like 'no' when he said he was short resting 10x in a row to have excessive spells
- This again was along your argument, not mine. I just said the DM could just straight up say 'no' when the Coffeelock tries to short rest a bunch of times

then the Coffeelock used passive aggressive tactics to ruin the campaign... So the other players got angry at the Coffeelock

You're the one having negative assumptions
All I said was

At any point if a player claims he will take 6 short rests in a row, a DM can just be like 'no'
There is no assumption of malice, because my statement was honestly fairly vague... and kinda of empty
but you replied

Trust me when I say you do NOT want to DM in the manner you suggested. Angry players will destroy your campaign.
Which means you're assuming that the moment I straight up said 'no' mid campaign to a Coffeelock trying to exploit, that Coffeelock started destroying the campaign.

Now you may try to counter argue "You're the one assuming that the Coffeelock is the one I'm referring to that is destroying the campaign from anger!!"
but there is ZERO reason or motivation for any of the other players to get angry since they aren't being affected at all

Alright, I think I explained this to you enough

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 03:09 PM

Careful with those weasel words, "considered" and "definitively" have very different meanings.

Yes, they are different words.

He is framing the discussion in terms of personal frames of reference by implying what I think is an abuse of the rules as something that may not be an abuse for someone else.

I am adopting his frame and asking him if he considers nothing to be an abuse. This follows from his own logic, because anything he says that is abusive or not abusive must necessarily follow from his own frame of reference. Due to his statement, he cannot "definitively" claim that anything is abusive, and he also cannot claim that anything is "definitively" not abusive.

Therefore, I can only ask him what he considers.

Roland St. Jude

2017-11-30, 03:13 PM

Sheriff: Please avoid insulting other people (even game designers). It's completely unnecessary to the discussion of the content, and likely crosses into the line into prohibited Flaming if those people are posters here (however infrequently).

Also, while I'm here, keep it civil amongst yourselves.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 03:53 PM

Yes, they are different words.

He is framing the discussion in terms of personal frames of reference by implying what I think is an abuse of the rules as something that may not be an abuse for someone else.

I am adopting his frame and asking him if he considers nothing to be an abuse. This follows from his own logic, because anything he says that is abusive or not abusive must necessarily follow from his own frame of reference. Due to his statement, he cannot "definitively" claim that anything is abusive, and he also cannot claim that anything is "definitively" not abusive.

Therefore, I can only ask him what he considers.

I don't consider individual builds to be abusive, but certain behavior to be toxic. Any build can be disruptive, and any build can be an asset. It all depends on the player.

I don't think it's useful, or fair, or ethical to assume anyone who plays X build in any theoretical game is automatically toxic.

gloryblaze

2017-11-30, 04:55 PM

Regarding "where do you draw the line", do we mind if I propose some hypothetical scenarios?

Preface: John, Jack, and Jim are all playing 4th level characters. John and Jack are both fighters, Jim is a Fighter 2 Bard 2. They are holed up in a castle. All of them have 1 HP, and they know from scouts/divination magic that an army of hobgoblins will attack the castle in 3 hours. All of them have spent 2 hit dice earlier in the day, leaving them each with 2d10s left as their current hit dice. The three of them take a short rest, and they each spend 1 hit die, regaining HP = 1d10 + 1d6 + con (thanks to Jim's song of rest.

Scenario 1: John, Jack, and Jim race each other in the courtyard - sprints - for 8 minutes. They then request a second short rest. When the DM asks why they didn't just spend both hit dice earlier, they reply that by taking 2 rests, they benefit from Song of Rest twice. And they have enough time, so they want to maximize their chances.

Scenario 2: John, Jack, and Jim all spend their Second Wind to regain 1d10+fighter level hit points. They race each other in the courtyard - sprints - for 8 minutes. They then request a second short rest, with similar reasoning to S1.

Scenario 3: A hobgoblin spy is uncovered. John, Jack, and Jim engage in combat that they did not expect to have for no more than 8 minutes. None of them lose any HP or spend any resources. They then request a second short rest.

Scenario 4: A hobgoblin spy is uncovered. John, Jack, and Jim engage in combat that they did not expect to have for no more than 8 minutes. None of them lose any HP, but all of them spend second wind, action surge, or both. They then request a second short rest.

Scenario 5: A hobgoblin spy is uncovered. John, Jack, and Jim engage in combat that they did not expect to have for no more than 8 minutes. They all lose around 6 hit points. None of them spend any resources. They then request a second short rest.

Scenario 6: A hobgoblin spy is uncovered. John, Jack, and Jim engage in combat that they did not expect to have for no more than 8 minutes. They all lose around 6 hit points. All of them spend second wind, action surge, or both. They then request a second short rest.

As the DM, what are your responses to the above scenarios?

Talamare

2017-11-30, 05:24 PM

gloryblaze

2017-11-30, 07:38 PM

Your characters feel a lot of anxiety from the upcoming attack of hobgoblins. Making it difficult to take another short rest.

Give me a Wisdom Saving Throw to see if they are able calm down enough to rest

Hmm. I don't agree with telling the players what their characters feel. Takes away agency.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 08:33 PM

I don't consider individual builds to be abusive, but certain behavior to be toxic. Any build can be disruptive, and any build can be an asset. It all depends on the player.

I don't think it's useful, or fair, or ethical to assume anyone who plays X build in any theoretical game is automatically toxic.

I disagree with "any build can be disruptive." For an extreme example, consider a Warlock 1/Bard 1/Sorcerer 1/Paladin 1/Fighter 1 alongside a party of single-classed 5th level characters.

Certain builds are less disruptive than others. Therefore, certain builds are more disruptive than others. Not all builds are equal, and not all builds are equally disruptive.

You seem to be assuming that anyone who finds X build disruptive is doing so because they inherently distrust players or think players who like X build to be toxic.

Do you think that if the DM did not think this of their player, but still did not allow builds they find to be disruptive, that it is fine?

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 08:41 PM

Scenario 1: John, Jack, and Jim race each other in the courtyard - sprints - for 8 minutes. They then request a second short rest. When the DM asks why they didn't just spend both hit dice earlier, they reply that by taking 2 rests, they benefit from Song of Rest twice. And they have enough time, so they want to maximize their chances.

"As you begin to take your second short rest, you hear a faint rumbling in the distance. Give me a Perception check. 10 will do. It's the sound of Hobgoblins. You look out the window. Drat! they've come early! You estimate that they are no more than 30 minutes away at this point."

Scenario 2: John, Jack, and Jim all spend their Second Wind to regain 1d10+fighter level hit points. They race each other in the courtyard - sprints - for 8 minutes. They then request a second short rest, with similar reasoning to S1.

Similar response to S1.

Scenario 3: A hobgoblin spy is uncovered. John, Jack, and Jim engage in combat that they did not expect to have for no more than 8 minutes. None of them lose any HP or spend any resources. They then request a second short rest.

Similar response to S1.

Scenario 4: A hobgoblin spy is uncovered. John, Jack, and Jim engage in combat that they did not expect to have for no more than 8 minutes. None of them lose any HP, but all of them spend second wind, action surge, or both. They then request a second short rest.

Similar response to S1.

Scenario 5: A hobgoblin spy is uncovered. John, Jack, and Jim engage in combat that they did not expect to have for no more than 8 minutes. They all lose around 6 hit points. None of them spend any resources. They then request a second short rest.

Similar response to S1.

Scenario 6: A hobgoblin spy is uncovered. John, Jack, and Jim engage in combat that they did not expect to have for no more than 8 minutes. They all lose around 6 hit points. All of them spend second wind, action surge, or both. They then request a second short rest.

Similar response to S1.

---

My advice to John, Jack, and Jim: spend your resources wisely. Don't blow it all out on the one spy before your massive siege defense.

gloryblaze

2017-11-30, 09:01 PM

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 09:21 PM

While I feel like that's a more elegant response than Talamare's, if the players had done their reconnaissance and knew that they had 3 hours (due to, for instance, the hobbos being 3 hours away even if they force marched the whole way), I think they would be in the right to feel annoyed if the DM pulled this. But maybe that's just me *shrug*

Information is tricky and you did not specifically describe how they got their intel.

Some intel is more reliable than others. Divination usually does not let you detect things more than 1000ft away (Locate Creature), or 1 mile away with Clairvoyance. A regular march can cover 1 mile in 20 minutes. Scrying does not tell you the distance between the target and yourself. Commune with Nature is not on anyone's spell lists, but it has a range of 3 miles.

Commune or Divination would be the two most reliable ways to know how far away the hobgoblin was, and it's not on anyone's spell list.

Meanwhile, scouts can be paid off, make honest mistakes, or be otherwise unreliable. He's probably not sticking around until the start of the siege anyway, but is instead running away as far as he can while the fighting hasn't begun.

If they saw the army personally and then ran back to the fort to hide, then the army had just as much time to reach the castle as they had to travel back.

Daithi

2017-11-30, 09:25 PM

SpamCreateWater

2017-11-30, 09:36 PM

"As you begin to take your second short rest, you hear a faint rumbling in the distance. Give me a Perception check. 10 will do. It's the sound of Hobgoblins. You look out the window. Drat! they've come early! You estimate that they are no more than 30 minutes away at this point."

Similar response to S1.

Similar response to S1.

Similar response to S1.

Similar response to S1.

Similar response to S1.

---

My advice to John, Jack, and Jim: spend your resources wisely. Don't blow it all out on the one spy before your massive siege defense.

Information is tricky and you did not specifically describe how they got their intel.

Some intel is more reliable than others. Divination usually does not let you detect things more than 1000ft away (Locate Creature), or 1 mile away with Clairvoyance. A regular march can cover 1 mile in 20 minutes. Scrying does not tell you the distance between the target and yourself. Commune with Nature is not on anyone's spell lists, but it has a range of 3 miles.

Commune or Divination would be the two most reliable ways to know how far away the hobgoblin was, and it's not on anyone's spell list.

Meanwhile, scouts can be paid off, make honest mistakes, or be otherwise unreliable. He's probably not sticking around until the start of the siege anyway, but is instead running away as far as he can while the fighting hasn't begun.

If they saw the army personally and then ran back to the fort to hide, then the army had just as much time to reach the castle as they had to travel back.

I personally dislike this response and honestly see this as a way to weasel out of a question you don't want to answer.
To me it looks like you've attacked the weakest possible interpretation of the argument and solidified and justified your position using your own DMing style.

I'd be interested to see your responses to the situations given while maintaining the spirit of the discussion.

Edit: To answer the OP, I don't think that they were put in intentionally. There may have been some slight realisation of "how cool would it be to see this interaction" after the fact, but I really don't think any actual thought was put into it.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 09:37 PM

I agree with your view.

Then there is no trust between me as a DM and you as a player.

gloryblaze

2017-11-30, 09:38 PM

Information is tricky and you did not specifically describe how they got their intel.

Some intel is more reliable than others. Divination usually does not let you detect things more than 1000ft away (Locate Creature), or 1 mile away with Clairvoyance. A regular march can cover 1 mile in 20 minutes. Scrying does not tell you the distance between the target and yourself. Commune with Nature is not on anyone's spell lists, but it has a range of 3 miles.

Commune or Divination would be the two most reliable ways to know how far away the hobgoblin was, and it's not on anyone's spell list.

Meanwhile, scouts can be paid off, make honest mistakes, or be otherwise unreliable. He's probably not sticking around until the start of the siege anyway, but is instead running away as far as he can while the fighting hasn't begun.

If they saw the army personally and then ran back to the fort to hide, then the army had just as much time to reach the castle as they had to travel back.

Yeah I agree that in-universe there is a lot of room for error - faulty magic, bad scouts, etc. But as a social game, if the DM tells the players "they'll attack in 3 hours" with no foreshadowing that this number is misleading and the players plan around that number and such, if the DM then says "surprise, they're here early!" that's sort of a jerk move - a meaningless "gotcha" that doesn't really enhance the experience and just serves to frustrate the players.

In the scenarios I proposed, it's less of a "gotcha" to be a jerk and more of a "i'm going to push up the timetable to prevent something I see as an abuse of the rest mechanics" but pulling that sort of fast one on the players still rubs me the wrong way

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 09:45 PM

I personally dislike this response and honestly see this as a way to weasel out of a question you don't want to answer.
To me it looks like you've attacked the weakest possible interpretation of the argument and solidified and justified your position using your own DMing style.

I'd be interested to see your responses to the situations given while maintaining the spirit of the discussion.

Why am I not allowed to "weasel out" of the question, but still strictly speaking answering it (kind of like RAW), when the subject at hand is about player actions that strictly speaking follow RAW but are also trying to "weasel out" an extra short rest? I am at a disadvantage if that is the case.

If the hobgoblin army doesn't arrive early, then a knock on the door interrupts them and gives them a subquest. The new arrival just happens to have a device that helps the players to run away or survive the siege. And if not that, then another interruption is handily available.

But if you must twist my arm to answer a question designed such that an answer other than "I grant them two short rests" will look unfair by default, then I shall appear to be the unfair DM to you. My answer to the players is no, they cannot take the short rest for the sole purpose of squeezing out more healing. An army is literally about to attack you in 3 hours. How can you afford to lounge around for 2/3s of it?

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 09:48 PM

Yeah I agree that in-universe there is a lot of room for error - faulty magic, bad scouts, etc. But as a social game, if the DM tells the players "they'll attack in 3 hours" with no foreshadowing that this number is misleading and the players plan around that number and such, if the DM then says "surprise, they're here early!" that's sort of a jerk move - a meaningless "gotcha" that doesn't really enhance the experience and just serves to frustrate the players.

In the scenarios I proposed, it's less of a "gotcha" to be a jerk and more of a "i'm going to push up the timetable to prevent something I see as an abuse of the rest mechanics" but pulling that sort of fast one on the players still rubs me the wrong way

They're not at the castle's doorstep. Combat doesn't begin immediately. The army is still 30 minutes away. Is that not a warning? There is still enough time to do something about it.

XmonkTad

2017-11-30, 10:02 PM

No

At best they knew that Gaining Spells back on a Short Rest was really powerful, so they made sure it was limited
I doubt he even fully understood the abuse of the javalock with that tweet

Which tweet is this in reference to? I feel like people who follow the dev's twitter know more about what's going on then I do. And I like "javalock" the same as "coffeelock."

Guys at Enworld had never heard of it.

:smallfrown: I'm sure the trick is well-known, but it probably goes by some other, less coffee-based, name.

No, I'm fairly sure it was not intentional.

I think the fact it has not been errata-d out *might* be intentional.

This is pretty much where I stand. I doubt they meant it to function this way, they did limit max SP to the # shown on the table. I guess they figured that would be enough to stop any sufficiently game-breaking exploit from occurring. Now that they (surely!) know about the coffeelock they haven't gotten rid of it. Instead, they delayed it's coming online (used to require 1 warlock level, now needs 3) by errata-ing the racial trance out of it, expanded it's availability, and clarified that taking a long-rest resets the gained spell slots which balances out a coffeelock's ability to naturally heal and regain level 6+ spell slots. That's gotta count for something.

krugaan

2017-11-30, 10:08 PM

This is pretty much where I stand. I doubt they meant it to function this way, they did limit max SP to the # shown on the table. I guess they figured that would be enough to stop any sufficiently game-breaking exploit from occurring. Now that they (surely!) know about the coffeelock they haven't gotten rid of it. Instead, they delayed it's coming online (used to require 1 warlock level, now needs 3) by errata-ing the racial trance out of it, expanded it's availability, and clarified that taking a long-rest resets the gained spell slots which balances out a coffeelock's ability to naturally heal and regain level 6+ spell slots. That's gotta count for something.

Well, two levels of lock, but it absolutely requires divine soul and greater restoration. If you play it level by level it'll be a sorlock, then a jump at 11 when you can finally start ignoring exhaustion, then a dim fade as you start missing your higher level spell slots.

SpamCreateWater

2017-11-30, 10:19 PM

Why am I not allowed to "weasel out" of the question, but still strictly speaking answering it (kind of like RAW), when the subject at hand is about player actions that strictly speaking follow RAW but are also trying to "weasel out" an extra short rest? I am at a disadvantage if that is the case.

If the hobgoblin army doesn't arrive early, then a knock on the door interrupts them and gives them a subquest. The new arrival just happens to have a device that helps the players to run away or survive the siege. And if not that, then another interruption is handily available.

But if you must twist my arm to answer a question designed such that an answer other than "I grant them two short rests" will look unfair by default, then I shall appear to be the unfair DM to you. My answer to the players is no, they cannot take the short rest for the sole purpose of squeezing out more healing. An army is literally about to attack you in 3 hours. How can you afford to lounge around for 2/3s of it?

You're more than welcome to weasel out of it, I never said otherwise. I expressed my dislike for the answer as I was interested to hear your response to the scenarios presented.

I am not twisting your arm to make you appear as an unfair DM, and I apologise if it came across that way.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 10:30 PM

You're more than welcome to weasel out of it, I never said otherwise. I expressed my dislike for the answer as I was interested to hear your response to the scenarios presented.

I am not twisting your arm to make you appear as an unfair DM, and I apologise if it came across that way.

Realize the way the question was written makes it so that there is one answer that is more fair compared to the others, and my answer to it is not that answer. In particular, it favorably presents a tactic as legitimate (chained short rests) and presents scenarios that mirror each other with the thing they all share being that they all provide an opportunity to chain the short rests.

That you want to see my reply to it as written, overlooks the "rigged" nature of the question.

At any rate, I've given my answer in my previous post already.

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 10:36 PM

I disagree with "any build can be disruptive." For an extreme example, consider a Warlock 1/Bard 1/Sorcerer 1/Paladin 1/Fighter 1 alongside a party of single-classed 5th level characters.

Certain builds are less disruptive than others. Therefore, certain builds are more disruptive than others. Not all builds are equal, and not all builds are equally disruptive.

You seem to be assuming that anyone who finds X build disruptive is doing so because they inherently distrust players or think players who like X build to be toxic.

Do you think that if the DM did not think this of their player, but still did not allow builds they find to be disruptive, that it is fine?

I would question that DM's definition of the word "disruptive." Disruptive means disrupting the flow of the campaign. The only way a player build could be disruptive is if it forced the player to take actions that interfered with the game.

How does one play in a disruptive way?

Insisting on taking rests at every possible opportunity, thus slowing down the rest of the party.
Harming other party members.
Killing crucial NPCs.
Refusing to go in the direction the DM clearly wants to take the campaign.
Going off on side-quests or tangents without the rest of the party - stealth characters can fall into this fairly easily, one reason why some DMs dislike stealth.
Talking constantly or hogging the limelight.
Telling jokes or not paying attention at the table.
Frequently arguing with the DM.

Basically, any action that slows down the campaign or interferes with the DM or other players could be considered disruptive. If you look up disruptive players on the Internet, you'll mostly get stories of people doing things out of character - the most common form of disruption is not playing the game.

With that in mind, the coffeelock has less potential to be disruptive than most characters. He doesn't need rests at all, always has his resources when he needs them, doesn't have any special stealth powers, can't perform enormous bursts of damage in single rounds, can't summon a huge number of creatures that require a long time to resolve their actions, and can't do anything else that would slow down the game or invalidate an encounter. Much like the Champion Fighter, the coffeelock can move at the party's chosen pace and adapt well to what everyone else wants to do.

So, I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that the coffeelock is especially disruptive. Even if I accept the premise that builds can be disruptive by themselves, and I don't, I'd still conclude that the coffeelock is fine.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 10:51 PM

I would question that DM's definition of the word "disruptive." Disruptive means disrupting the flow of the campaign. The only way a player build could be disruptive is if it forced the player to take actions that interfered with the game.

If we have to go into an argument about semantics, then we were never having the same conversation to begin with. You've used both "disruptive" and "abusive" so allow me to use them as well.

I'll go back to your original question. Where do I draw the line between use and abuse? In 5E, when I am creating a narrative world for you to play in, and you respond by taking a rule and applying it like a video game, such that it breaks an aspect of the realism of that world, then that is disruptive. Were you malicious? Not necessarily. But you did abuse the rule and disrupt the campaign.

The use of "you" is, goes without saying, the hypothetical "you."

So we seem to see "disruptive" things as two different things. I agree that players forcing actions that interfered with the game is also disruptive. But I am also concerned about narrative, realism, and story telling.

If the campaign were a hack and slash, I would have no problems with the CoffeeLock as I wouldn't actually care about the campaign.

With that in mind, the coffeelock has less potential to be disruptive than most characters. He doesn't need rests at all, always has his resources when he needs them, doesn't have any special stealth powers, can't perform enormous bursts of damage in single rounds, can't summon a huge number of creatures that require a long time to resolve their actions, and can't do anything else that would slow down the game or invalidate an encounter. Much like the Champion Fighter, the coffeelock can move at the party's chosen pace and adapt well to what everyone else wants to do.

Do not underestimate the Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, especially when they aren't bounded by spell slots.

Doesn't have any special stealth powers? He has 5th level Subtle Invisibility
Can't perform enormous bursts of damage in single rounds? He is a Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass. Performing enormous bursts of damage in a single round is one of their things.
Can't summon a huge number of creatures that require a long time to resolve their actions? A Divine Soul CoffeeLock can cast Animate Dead without bound.
Can't do anything else that would slow down the game? This is a hasty generalization.
Can't invalidate an encounter? I suppose the unlimited Animate Dead is not disruptive?

So, I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that the coffeelock is especially disruptive. Even if I accept the premise that builds can be disruptive by themselves, and I don't, I'd still conclude that the coffeelock is fine.

Do you see now?

SpamCreateWater

2017-11-30, 10:53 PM

Realize the way the question was written makes it so that there is one answer that is more fair compared to the others, and my answer to it is not that answer. In particular, it favorably presents a tactic as legitimate (chained short rests) and presents scenarios that mirror each other with the thing they all share being that they all provide an opportunity to chain the short rests.

That you want to see my reply to it as written, overlooks the "rigged" nature of the question.

At any rate, I've given my answer in my previous post already.

I do not need to "realise" anything. From what I saw, gloryblaze proposed some scenarios to see where you (it could have been directed at everyone, I guess) drew the line. There was no malicious intent from what I saw. I understand that this has turned into a heated topic (and the way I worded my input has not helped) but assuming intent on the behalf of others doesn't seem to be productive.

LeonBH

2017-11-30, 11:13 PM

I do not need to "realise" anything.

It's interesting how your words are naturally aggressive. Calm down and perhaps stop reading my posts if I tick you off that badly.

SpamCreateWater

2017-11-30, 11:27 PM

It's interesting how your words are naturally aggressive. Calm down and perhaps stop reading my posts if I tick you off that badly.

I actually think I've been quite calm in my replies and IRL demeanour. Ill-worded, perhaps, but not aggressive. I've couched everything I've said in an effort to not be confrontational, but that seems not to be working. Perhaps icons/emojis will? :smallbiggrin:

The snippet you took from my larger response was actually amusing to me :smalltongue: Here I am telling you I genuinely want to hear your response to a series of questions - with no hint as to what the "right" answer is, or what your answer "should" be - and you tell me that I need to realise the questions are unfair. :smallconfused:

Easy_Lee

2017-11-30, 11:31 PM

If we have to go into an argument about semantics, then we were never having the same conversation to begin with. You've used both "disruptive" and "abusive" so allow me to use them as well.

I'll go back to your original question. Where do I draw the line between use and abuse? In 5E, when I am creating a narrative world for you to play in, and you respond by taking a rule and applying it like a video game, such that it breaks an aspect of the realism of that world, then that is disruptive. Were you malicious? Not necessarily. But you did abuse the rule and disrupt the campaign.

The use of "you" is, goes without saying, the hypothetical "you."

So we seem to see "disruptive" things as two different things. I agree that players forcing actions that interfered with the game is also disruptive. But I am also concerned about narrative, realism, and story telling.

If the campaign were a hack and slash, I would have no problems with the CoffeeLock as I wouldn't actually care about the campaign.

Do not underestimate the Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, especially when they aren't bounded by spell slots.

Doesn't have any special stealth powers? He has 5th level Subtle Invisibility
Can't perform enormous bursts of damage in single rounds? He is a Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass. Performing enormous bursts of damage in a single round is one of their things.
Can't summon a huge number of creatures that require a long time to resolve their actions? A Divine Soul CoffeeLock can cast Animate Dead without bound.
Can't do anything else that would slow down the game? This is a hasty generalization.
Can't invalidate an encounter? I suppose the unlimited Animate Dead is not disruptive?

Do you see now?

No, I don't. Everything in your argument hinges on player power being inherently abusive / disruptive. You believe that if the player goes beyond a certain power level - a level that, as far as I can tell, is wholly arbitrary - then the campaign will suffer. You believe that players having too much power interferes with "realism" and "story-telling," your words.

I don't subscribe to that idea. It's impossible for players to have too much power because the DM has infinite power. DMs who try to limit player power are fighting a pointless battle. You don't need to worry about player power, you worry about player power relative to the rest of the group.

Your bulleted points lack perspective. A coffeelock does not have great powers of stealth compared to a rogue / shadow monk, or a bard / sorcerer. He does not have high burst damage compared to a paladin, GWM fighter, pure dragon sorcerer, or a variety of other builds. He does not have high sustained damage compared to a barbarian or sharpshooter crossbow expert fighter. He does not inherently slow down the game.

Regarding Animate Dead, there will be no unlimited hoards here. I've used the term effectively infinite in my discussions of this build. Trying to maintain a massive undead army is one of the few ways a coffeelock will run out of slots. With eight short rests a day, the most a coffeelock could even sustain at 8th level is six zombies - hardly a hoard. It also requires corpses and is subject to AoE, in addition to RP concerns. The various summon creature spells are a far more effective use of a spell slot.

If I had to guess, I think you're still stuck in your initial knee-jerk reaction to the idea of infinite spell slots. I don't think you've fully thought through this build.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 12:01 AM

You are making a lot of assumptions about my beliefs, Easy_Lee, and all of them are wrong. How did you come to think that I believe there should be a ceiling power level?

I would reply to the rest of your accusations, but the basic one is you believe my way of playing the game is inherently flawed, yes? What happened to "don't tell other players how to play the game"?

Naanomi

2017-12-01, 12:03 AM

krugaan

2017-12-01, 12:29 AM

Not exactly a ‘coffeelock’ but... warlock 11/Necromancer 6/Sorcerer 3 can get 18 Animated minions per short rest; or 126 per ‘long rest’... without touching the Spellcasting spell slots at all. Way more than a dedicated pureclass Necromancer can if my math is right...

Again, you cannot be a coffeelock without 9 levels in sorc. you need that greater restoration.

Plus, a level 3 sorc has a cap of 3 spell points, which is unbreachable. You can't make higher than 2nd level slots.

Animate dead is third level.

People ... coffeelock isn't nearly as strong as you think it is, except at level 11.

Naanomi

2017-12-01, 12:43 AM

krugaan

2017-12-01, 12:55 AM

Right, which is why I explicitly said it wasn't really a coffeelock; just using it as a reference point for Undead Minion creation; which doesn't rely at all on converting things to spell points (just casting Animate Dead from your Warlock slots that renew each rest).

Divine Soul could do it as well, and be a genuine 'coffeelock', though the minions wouldn't be as good

Oh, my bad, jumped the gun.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 01:03 AM

Again, you cannot be a coffeelock without 9 levels in sorc. you need that greater restoration.

Plus, a level 3 sorc has a cap of 3 spell points, which is unbreachable. You can't make higher than 2nd level slots.

Animate dead is third level.

People ... coffeelock isn't nearly as strong as you think it is, except at level 11.

I don't understand why you're looking down on the CoffeeLock. The CoffeeLock is a straight upgrade of the Sorlock, and the Sorlock is already a powerful multiclass. Level per level, the CoffeeLock has more resources than their Sorlock brethren.

Suppose this strategy: the CoffeeLock sleeps.

We know that a 9 Sorc/ 2 Lock can generate four 5th level spells and one 1st level spell after one day of inactivity, from scratch.

If the CoffeeLock sleeps, they lose all their stockpiled resources. Then you can say one of three things:

(1.) They grew weaker because they just relinquished their unbounded spell slots. But if they grew weaker, then you must necessarily think CoffeeLocks are stronger than Sorlocks.

(2.) They grew stronger because they regained their L6+ spells. Remember that a CoffeeLock still has the option to take a long rest. If they've exhausted all their L6+ spells and perceive that gaining them back is necessary, they can. They play as a regular Sorlock upon waking up, but can restart stockpiling slots on their down time.

(3.) Nothing changed in power level. Then the CoffeeLock must be equally as strong as the Sorlock.

Consider (1) and (3), which puts the CoffeeLock at least as strong as the Sorlock. Then consider that (2) means an intelligent CoffeeLock is also as strong as a regular Sorlock at minimum, if the CoffeeLock remembers all their options.

My personal opinion is that the CoffeeLock doesn't need the L6+ spells to be more powerful than the Sorlock, but if you want a comparison between the two, the CoffeeLock can match the Sorlock level per level.

Naanomi

2017-12-01, 01:06 AM

Wait, why do they need Greater Restoration again? I mean... if they ever accumulate Exhaustion I suppose they may need to bite the bullet, but that is hardly something that will come up regularly...

SpamCreateWater

2017-12-01, 01:10 AM

Again, you cannot be a coffeelock without 9 levels in sorc. you need that greater restoration.

Just on this. Are coffeelocks, javalocks, sorlocks, etc all the same thing? Or are there particular break points you need to unlock (badumtsch) a new name?

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 01:11 AM

The optional sleep rule makes them roll a DC 10 Con save if they go 24 hours without a long rest. So in games with that optional rule, Greater Restoration helps.

RickAllison

2017-12-01, 01:14 AM

Just on this. Are coffeelocks, javalocks, sorlocks, etc all the same thing? Or are there particular break points you need to unlock (badumtsch) a new name?

CoffeeLocks and JavaLocks are synonymous, but SorLocks is a more general category comprising all Sorcerer/Warlock multiclasses. The CoffeeLock is a specific subtype of this combination.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 01:16 AM

The CoffeeLock is a straight upgrade of the Sorlock, and the Sorlock is already a powerful multiclass. Level per level, the CoffeeLock has more resources than their Sorlock brethren.

Suppose this strategy: the CoffeeLock sleeps.

We know that a 9 Sorc/ 2 Lock can generate four 5th level spells and one 1st level spell after one day of inactivity, from scratch.

If the CoffeeLock sleeps, they lose all their stockpiled resources. Then you can say one of three things:

(1.) They grew weaker because they just relinquished their unbounded spell slots. But if they grew weaker, then you must necessarily think CoffeeLocks are stronger than Sorlocks.

(2.) They grew stronger because they regained their L6+ spells. Remember that a CoffeeLock still has the option to take a long rest. If they've exhausted all their L6+ spells and perceive that gaining them back is necessary, they can. They play as a regular Sorlock upon waking up, but can restart stockpiling slots on their down time.

(3.) Nothing changed in power level. Then the CoffeeLock must be equally as strong as the Sorlock.

Consider (1) and (3), which puts the CoffeeLock at least as strong as the Sorlock. Then consider that (2) means an intelligent CoffeeLock is also as strong as a regular Sorlock at minimum, if the CoffeeLock remembers all their options.

My personal opinion is that the CoffeeLock doesn't need the L6+ spells to be more powerful than the Sorlock, but if you want a comparison between the two, the CoffeeLock can match the Sorlock level per level.

I already said they're strictly better at 11, when no higher level slots are in play.

And yes, they have the *option* of turning into a regular sorlock with little to no loss in functionality. I think.

.. in fact, i fail to see any flaw in your argument, but im not looking very hard.

So ... point out where i'm looking down on coffeelock? My exact words, chosen careful and repeated ad infinitem, were "i don't think they're nearly as strong as everyone thinks."

SpamCreateWater

2017-12-01, 01:20 AM

CoffeeLocks and JavaLocks are synonymous, but SorLocks is a more general category comprising all Sorcerer/Warlock multiclasses. The CoffeeLock is a specific subtype of this combination.

I thought so. The sticking point for Coffee v Java for me, but I wasn't sure if there were specifics.

So would it be fair to say this specific subtype combination is X levels of Sorcerer (3 for metamagic or 9 for 5th level spells?), X levels of Warlock (2 for invocation or 9 for 5th level?), and either a DM that doesn't enforce exhaustion or the Aspect of the Moon invocation?

Naanomi

2017-12-01, 01:34 AM

The optional sleep rule makes them roll a DC 10 Con save if they go 24 hours without a long rest. So in games with that optional rule, Greater Restoration helps.
But... that’s what the ‘needs no sleep’ invocation is for?

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 02:07 AM

I already said they're strictly better at 11, when no higher level slots are in play.

And yes, they have the *option* of turning into a regular sorlock with little to no loss in functionality. I think.

.. in fact, i fail to see any flaw in your argument, but im not looking very hard.

So ... point out where i'm looking down on coffeelock? My exact words, chosen careful and repeated ad infinitem, were "i don't think they're nearly as strong as everyone thinks."

If you will allow me to search your previous posts on your profile regarding the matter...

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.

Well, two levels of lock, but it absolutely requires divine soul and greater restoration. If you play it level by level it'll be a sorlock, then a jump at 11 when you can finally start ignoring exhaustion, then a dim fade as you start missing your higher level spell slots.

I was reading that you implied CoffeeLocks get weaker after level 11.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 02:14 AM

But... that’s what the ‘needs no sleep’ invocation is for?

Aspect of the Moon does not, strictly speaking, remove the need for a long rest after every 24 hours. The optional rule is under the "Going Without a Long Rest" section and reads:

"Whenever you end a 24-hour period without finishing a long rest, you must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or suffer one level of exhaustion."

I'm aware you can rationalize this section is under the section about sleep. But the lack of sleep technically isn't what triggers the Con save, it's the lack of a long rest.

You could justify it as they were releasing the optional sleep section along with Aspect of the Moon, and they didn't want Aspect of the Moon to circumvent the need for long rests, just the need for sleep.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 02:35 AM

If you will allow me to search your previous posts on your profile regarding the matter...

Wait, can't you do that anyway?

I was reading that you implied CoffeeLocks get weaker after level 11.

Well, yes ... relatively.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 02:55 AM

Well, yeah, and I did it anyway. I was trying to be courteous about it though. And, well, no, the CoffeeLock doesn't decrease in power from level 12+ relative to a Sorlock, as I just showed you above.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 03:10 AM

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 03:26 AM

I meant relative to coffeelock at 11, lol.

I'm confused. Are you saying a CoffeeLock grows weaker as it gains higher level spells?

krugaan

2017-12-01, 03:37 AM

I'm confused. Are you saying a CoffeeLock grows weaker as it gains higher level spells?

Relatively, yes.

Having "infinite" level 5 spell slots is certainly better than having 1, all other things being equal (which they are at 11).

Past that at 13, at least you have to choose between higher level slots and "infinite" lower level ones. But at 11, there is literally no reason not to.

I'm hearing echoes of "doesn't that make coffeelock overpowered?"

I guess ... unless things don't work out perfectly, you're not going to be able to spend much time banking slots before levels start going up.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 04:07 AM

I don't follow. The L13 CoffeeLock gets a choice between a higher level spell and infinite level 5 and below slots. That means they have one more option they did not have at level 11.

If they choose the higher level spell, they play as a standard Sorlock. And then they use down time to stock pile on level 5 slots and below, judiciously saving the L6 spell. They wouldn't have unlimited level 5 spell slots this way but they would be stronger compared to a Sorlock of the same level.

If gaining a L6+ slot makes them weaker, and the CoffeeLock with L6+ slots are stronger than the Sorlocks of the same level, then Sorlocks with L6+ slots are weaker than L11 CoffeeLocks.

:smallconfused:

krugaan

2017-12-01, 04:25 AM

Naanomi

2017-12-01, 05:22 AM

Aspect of the Moon does not, strictly speaking, remove the need for a long rest after every 24 hours. The optional rule is under the "Going Without a Long Rest" section and reads:

"Whenever you end a 24-hour period without finishing a long rest, you must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or suffer one level of exhaustion."

I'm aware you can rationalize this section is under the section about sleep. But the lack of sleep technically isn't what triggers the Con save, it's the lack of a long rest.

You could justify it as they were releasing the optional sleep section along with Aspect of the Moon, and they didn't want Aspect of the Moon to circumvent the need for long rests, just the need for sleep.
Eh... ok I guess. Given the paragraph before that, under the same header, begins with ‘A long rest is never mandatory, but going without sleep does have it’s consequences. If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on creatures and characters use the following rules’... I’m inclined to say it is tied to sleep even if the rules don’t use the term again

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 07:23 AM

Eh... ok I guess. Given the paragraph before that, under the same header, begins with ‘A long rest is never mandatory, but going without sleep does have it’s consequences. If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on creatures and characters use the following rules’... I’m inclined to say it is tied to sleep even if the rules don’t use the term again

It's an optional rule. It doesn't really matter what it says, to me. I encourage you to tweak it.

But considering only RAW for now: a long rest is always tied with sleep. So sleep and a long rest are interchangeable. You can't take a long rest without sleeping. That is why they can say: "A long rest is never mandatory, but going without sleep does have it’s consequences."

They equate sleep with long rest because they expect you to sleep during a long rest. If you don't take a long rest, you are skipping sleep, and so they said, "If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on creatures and characters use the following rules"

The rule says you must take a long rest every 24 hours or make a DC 10 Con save, because long rest = sleep for almost everyone.

Aspect of the Moon divorces long rest from sleep. It lets you not sleep, but it doesn't let you skip a long rest. And unfortunately, the rule says it's the long rest you cant skip, not the sleep.

Tikkun

2017-12-01, 10:36 AM

The original statement that commenced this discussion was:"Were Coffeelocks put in the game intentionally?"

My short answer to this short question is: yes. If one looks at the PHB for 5th edition, one can see the incipient beginnings of the coffeelock. Elven trance--which provides a character with the ability to forgo the traditional 8 hour long rest in return for a 4 hour meditation which refreshes the character--and leaves 4 free hours to do what one wishes. Then it is simply a matter of choosing classes and gaining levels. Voila, a Coffeelock. All the new iterations do is make it a bit simpler to achieve that end.

It is amusing that this one particular combination of classes and spell/invocation choices is getting all this attention now. Especially in these forums, were at least 60% of the posts relate to methods by which players can create characters to "jones" the system. And. by the way, people have been "jonesing" D & D for decades. So this is no different.

I understand that many people feel that the Coffeelock supposedly disrupts the game by removing the resource management/hoarding aspect. In my mind you can not deal with a character in a vacuum. The basis of D & D is a social interactive approach to fantasy adventuring (originally it was based on wargaming then brought more in line with medieval wargaming until finally branching into fantasy). I am restricting my analysis to AL games, as I feel that Homebrew games create their own, oftentimes bizarre, combinations. In that regard, I am not sure how "disruptive" a Coffeelock would be. Remember that character is one of a 4-6 member party. Many of the characters in that party are--for better or worse--"jonesed" themselves.

The issue is not how many spell slots a Coffeelock can assemble. Spell slots in themselves, while a valuable resource, are useless if they can't be deployed. So the issue is not how many resources you have. but how can you bring them to bear. In other words, how many actions can you take in a round of combat. And while a Coffeelock does have meta-magic abilities, the character is limited by the Action set up of D & D. Plus that player is not operating in a barren landscape. Three to five other characters with more initiative, speed, stealth are also operating in the same enviroment--many with 2-3 attacks per round plus bonus actions. On top of that the DM , is creating enviromental or NPC characteristics that hamper one shot solutions. A multitude of resources quickly becomes meaningless when you can only act once or twice.

Additionally, most AL games have a mandated number of encounters followed by rest and recuperation periods--which again make hoarded resources useless vis-a-vis the rest of the party. But the one thing I fear coming out of this whole debate is the 'us versus them' mentality of a DM against the player base. This is much more disruptive to the spirit and intent of the game then any Coffeelock could ever be.

The true solution to the "jonesing" problem: go back to D & D as it was first played out--no multi-classing!! Problem solved. I do not think many would enjoy that.

Just my 2 cp to this discussion. I apologize for all the text.

Mikal

2017-12-01, 10:39 AM

Again, you cannot be a coffeelock without 9 levels in sorc. you need that greater restoration.
No, you don't. 3 levels of tomelock for Aspect of the Moon allows you to bypass this.

Plus, a level 3 sorc has a cap of 3 spell points, which is unbreachable. You can't make higher than 2nd level slots.

Animate dead is third level.

People ... coffeelock isn't nearly as strong as you think it is, except at level 11.

That's all correct though.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 12:53 PM

No, you don't. 3 levels of tomelock for Aspect of the Moon allows you to bypass this.

No, it doesn't (at least by RAW) as has been explained earlier. Again, why did they decide to word it like that? Makes no sense... unless they specifically sort of were winking at the idea.

edit: I mean, it might if your DM allows it. Not RAW though.

Mikal

2017-12-01, 02:08 PM

No, it doesn't (at least by RAW) as has been explained earlier. Again, why did they decide to word it like that? Makes no sense... unless they specifically sort of were winking at the idea.

edit: I mean, it might if your DM allows it. Not RAW though.

It is. The entire rule is adjudicating Sleep Deprivation, and is in a section about rules for sleep.
The wording on the rule even talks about the rule being for those things that need sleep, like players and most monsters.

As such, Aspect of the Moon negates the penalty.
By focusing on a single sentence while ignoring the rest of the rule around it, and the section it's in you are literally cherry picking it to fit the narrative you want it to be.

So yes, RAW Aspect of the Moon negates it.

Pertinent rules wording incoming. All emphasis mine.

First of all, let's see the section that the Long Rests rule is in.
That section is called "Sleep". Big, bold, all caps.
Now, let's look at the wording under the section header.

Just as in the real world, D&D characters spend many
hours sleeping, most often as part of a long rest. Most
monsters also need to sleep. While a creature sleeps,
it is subjected to the unconscious condition. Here are a
few rules that expand on that basic fact.

So here we have a plain summary showing that the following rules are about expanding on the effects of sleep for D&D characters. Pretty straightforward. So let's jump to the actual rule in question that follows.

GOING WITHOUT A LONG REST
A long rest is never mandatory, but going without sleep
does have its consequences. If you want to account for
the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures,
use these rules.
Whenever you end a 24-hour period without finishing
a long rest, you must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution
saving throw or suffer one level of exhaustion.
It becomes harder to fight off exhaustion if you stay
awake for multiple days. After the first 24 hours, the
DC increases by 5 for each consecutive 24-hour period
without a long rest. The DC resets to 10 when you finish
a long rest.

So in two out of three paragraphs of the rule, the description of the rule states that going without sleep does have its consequences, and that this rule is meant to be used to account for the effects of sleep deprivation.

This means that the effects are meant to be used if something is deprived of sleep, and that the DC for it increases the longer you go without sleep. This also ties into the main rule heading which says that the rules that follow are meant to be about expanding sleep and effects, and remember, sleeping is generally done as part of a long rest per that same heading.

What this means, is that the rule is meant for sleep deprivation and sleep deprivation only.

Aspect of the Moon negates the need for sleep.
As such, this rule does not apply if you possess this invocation.

Questions?

krugaan

2017-12-01, 02:15 PM

Pertinent rules wording incoming.

Wait for it...

By focusing on a single sentence while ignoring the rest of the rule around it, and the section it's in you are literally cherry picking it to fit the narrative you want it to be.

I tend to do that when looking for rules and not fluff.

Rules are specific. Fluff is vague. Fluff adds a lot of flavor, no doubt. But if someone is asking what is supposed to happen.

So yes, RAW Aspect of the Moon negates it.

Pertinent rules wording incoming. All emphasis mine.

First of all, let's see the section that the Long Rests rule is in.
That section is called "Sleep". Big, bold, all caps.
Now, let's look at the wording under the section header.

So here we have a plain summary showing that the following rules are about expanding on the effects of sleep for D&D characters. Pretty straightforward. So let's jump to the actual rule.

So in two out of three paragraphs of the rule, the description of the rule states that going without sleep does have its consequences, and that this rule is meant to be used to account for the effects of sleep deprivation.

I'd like to point out that I noted this, several times already, including the post you're responding to.

This means that the effects are meant to be used if something is deprived of sleep, and that the DC for it increases the longer you go without sleep. This also ties into the main rule heading which says that the rules that follow are meant to be about expanding sleep and effects, and remember, sleeping is generally done as part of a long rest per that same heading.

Maybe that's what they intended. It's not what they wrote.

What this means, is that the rule is meant for sleep deprivation and sleep deprivation only.

Again, then why did they pointedly switch to game terms for the "pertinent" sentence regarding resting and penalties for avoiding it?

Aspect of the Moon negates the need for sleep.

No arguments there.

As such, this rule does not apply.

Questions?

Nope. We're good.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-01, 02:27 PM

What this means, is that the rule is meant for sleep deprivation and sleep deprivation only.

Aspect of the Moon negates the need for sleep.
As such, this rule does not apply if you possess this invocation.

Questions?

Agreed, though others are technically correct (the best kind of correct) if they say this optional rule imposes exhaustion on those who don't take long rests. But then again, it's an optional rule. And if the DM is willing to go disregard clear intent - and I think it's fair to say sleep deprivation was the intent here - of an optional rule in favor of using its text to invalidate a player's build, who is the real rules-lawyer, here? And what does it say about the DM that he rules-lawyers his players rather than just telling them to play something else?

Mikal

2017-12-01, 02:35 PM

I tend to do that when looking for rules and not fluff.

Rules are specific. Fluff is vague. Fluff adds a lot of flavor, no doubt. But if someone is asking what is supposed to happen.

And the rule is specific. Paragraph one says "Use this rule for sleep deprivation". Paragraph two states the mechanical effects that trigger the rule as well as the saves needed. Paragraph three provides increasing penalties if you make the save. There's nothing fluffy in the rule. It literally says "this is a rule to use for lack of sleep".

I'd like to point out that I noted this, several times already, including the post you're responding to.

And you've also not shown how said wording somehow does not tie into the rule, nor proven it's fluff, while it's clearly stating "hey, this is when you use the rule!".

Maybe that's what they intended. It's not what they wrote.

Yes it is! The first paragraph of the rule, the last sentence literally states and I quote

If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures, use these rules.

Again, then why did they pointedly switch to game terms for the "pertinent" sentence regarding resting and penalties for avoiding it?

Because the first part of the rule was explaining when to use it, as they do for all the optional rules?? Again, quoting the last sentence

If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures, use these rules.

Let's look at the section immediately after, Adamantine Weapons.
In the first parapgraph, it explains that Adamantine weapons come from X, and are used to make Y, as well as make Z.
The second paragraph then explains the game effects of Z.

And the section after that, Tying Knots.
Parapgraph one? Explanation for the rule.
Paragraph two? Rule mechanics.

Or what about the rule before Long Rest, Sleeping in Armor?
Paragraph uno? Description/Explaination.
Paragraph dos? Game/Rule effects.

Waking Someone?
Same.

In other words, that's the format they use for the rules. The first part explains the environment the rules are meant to be used in, and the purpose for the rule.

For Tying Knots, it's to determine the effectiveness for knots.
For Adamantine Weapons, it's to determine the effects of using an adamantine weapon.
For going without a long rest, which is part of the sleep section, it's to determine the effects of sleep deprivation, as plainly stated.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 02:38 PM

Agreed, though others are technically correct (the best kind of correct) if they say this optional rule imposes exhaustion on those who don't take long rests. But then again, it's an optional rule. And if the DM is willing to go disregard clear intent - and I think it's fair to say sleep deprivation was the intent here - of an optional rule in favor of using its text to invalidate a player's build, who is the real rules-lawyer, here? And what does it say about the DM that he rules-lawyers his players rather than just telling them to play something else?

I like you, easy. You can come over and play dnd with my sister!

Mikal

2017-12-01, 02:42 PM

Agreed, though others are technically correct ...

That's the thing. They are not technically correct. They are only correct if you commit a logical fallacy and ignore the entire rule, cherry picking/quote mining a single section. The rule in its entirety clearly states that the rule in question is regarding sleep deprivation.

Here's another example of using that methodology, from the PHB:

Immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher, the DM can have you roll a d20. If you roll a 1. roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a random magical effect.

Using that methodology, any time any sorcerer casts a spell of 1st level or higher, the DM can choose for you to roll to see if you create a Wild Surge. The rule in question clearly states as such. The title says Wild Magic Surge, and the sentence with the game effects is as quoted.

That's the thought process being used for the rule mechanics on sleep deprivation by those focusing on a single sentence. The exact process. And it's just as wrong in both examples.

This isn't a case of RAI vs. RAW. This is a case of ignoring two thirds of a rule to get the 1/3rd that fits the opinion those who are doing the ignoring think the rule should be.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 02:53 PM

And the rule is specific. Paragraph one says "Use this rule for sleep deprivation". Paragraph two states the mechanical effects that trigger the rule as well as the saves needed. Paragraph three provides increasing penalties if you make the save. There's nothing fluffy in the rule. It literally says "this is a rule to use for lack of sleep".

Fluff was a really bad term to use on my part. The correct term, I guess, is intent. "Use this rule for sleep deprivation" = "here is the mechanics for sleep deprivation".

Here's the argument we're having right now, to demonstrate why I understand why we're having this argument discussion.

YOUR VERSION:

do (while isSleepDeprived() = true) {
if (hasLongRested() = false) {
exhaustionLevel++;
}
else { }

MY VERSION
if (hasLongRested() = false) {
exhaustionLevel++;
}

I can see why your version has merit. The DM leniency in deciding whether to apply the rule, as he does in all things.

The RAI is clear in your view. It's murky in mine. Why the heck didn't they just say "if your character does not get 6 hours of sleep in a 24 hour period, then exhaustion checks". They specifically said "long rest".

Mikal

2017-12-01, 02:55 PM

Fluff was a really bad term to use on my part. The correct term, I guess, is intent. "Use this rule for sleep deprivation" = "here is the mechanics for sleep deprivation".

Here's the argument we're having right now, to demonstrate why I understand why we're having this argument discussion.

YOUR VERSION:

do (while isSleepDeprived() = true) {
if (hasLongRested() = false) {
exhaustionLevel++;
}
else { }

MY VERSION
if (hasLongRested() = false) {
exhaustionLevel++;
}

I can see why your version has merit. The DM leniency in deciding whether to apply the rule, as he does in all things.

The RAI is clear in your view. It's murky in mine. Why the heck didn't they just say "if your character does not get 6 hours of sleep in a 24 hour period, then exhaustion checks". They specifically said "long rest".

I can't speak for their stylistic choices. However, when looking at how the rules in the book are written in general, and using my Wild Magic Surge as an example of why your intent is inherently flawed, I think it shows that from an evidence standpoint, it's clear that the rule is meant for sleep deprivation. Unless perhaps they meant all the rules that followed are meant for sleep deprivation.

You know, tying knots, adamantine weapons, etc.

And while your methodology quoted above works if we were programming this, this isn't a video game or program. In this case, the rules logically flow... if you read the entire thing and apply the rules of the english language to it.

Sentence A: Use the following if you want to showcase the effects of X!
Sentence B: The following that Sentence A says showcases the effects of X!

krugaan

2017-12-01, 02:56 PM

That's the thing. They are not technically correct. They are only correct if you commit a logical fallacy and ignore the entire rule, cherry picking/quote mining a single section. The rule in its entirety clearly states that the rule in question is regarding sleep deprivation.

Here's another example of using that methodology, from the PHB:

Using that methodology, any time any sorcerer casts a spell of 1st level or higher, the DM can choose for you to roll to see if you create a Wild Surge. The rule in question clearly states as such. The title says Wild Magic Surge, and the sentence with the game effects is as quoted.

That's the thought process being used for the rule mechanics on sleep deprivation by those focusing on a single sentence. The exact process. And it's just as wrong in both examples.

This isn't a case of RAI vs. RAW. This is a case of ignoring two thirds of a rule to get the 1/3rd that fits the opinion those who are doing the ignoring think the rule should be.

That's a good point. This isn't a RAI / RAW argument, it's a parsing discussion.

I'll check the text when I get home, if I don't just concede outright because I cbfed to reread the whole PHB, lol.

Mikal

2017-12-01, 02:58 PM

That's a good point. This isn't a RAI / RAW argument, it's a parsing discussion, lol.

And that's where the disconnect comes in.
If this was a Powershell script one of the people who work under me was creating, I'd ding them. But it isn't. Nor is it coding of any sort. It's an instruction booklet, and as an instruction booklet the rule is very clear, unless you make a willful effort to not see it as such.

EDIT:
Here's the entire Wild Surge wording quoted for reference. First sentence says "Use the following rule when you choose this origin", aka "Use the following rule to showcase the effects of sleep deprivation".

WILD MAGIC SURGE
Starting when you choose this origin at 1st level, your
spellcasting can unleash surges of untamed magic.
Immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st level
or higher, the DM can have you roll a d20. If you roll a
1. roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a random
magical effect.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 03:04 PM

And that's where the disconnect comes in.
If this was a Powershell script one of the people who work under me was creating, I'd ding them. But it isn't. Nor is it coding of any sort. It's an instruction booklet, and as an instruction booklet the rule is very clear, unless you make a willful effort to not see it as such.

Is it really an instruction booklet?

Or more of an API?

EDIT:
Here's the entire Wild Surge wording quoted for reference. First sentence says "Use the following rule when you choose this origin", aka "Use the following rule to showcase the effects of sleep deprivation".

Argh, the quoted part didn't paste.

So, when you cast a spell, the DM can have you roll a d20. Then wildSurge(dieRoll).

I'm teetering. I blame the editors for not making the language uniform.

Mikal

2017-12-01, 03:06 PM

Is it really an instruction booklet?

Or more of an API?

APIs still require programming logic, so I'm going to say instruction booklet. Now if we ever get AI equipped APIs which can rewrite on the fly for confused users, we might be able to say different.
If they haven't, you know, started Judgment Day yet and sent Terminators after us all.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 03:15 PM

APIs still require programming logic, so I'm going to say instruction booklet. Now if we ever get AI equipped APIs which can rewrite on the fly for confused users, we might be able to say different.
If they haven't, you know, started Judgment Day yet and sent Terminators after us all.

Well, Crawford does have a Twitter.

Someone interface with CrawfordAI and see what he says.

This is a stupid argument for me to make, but I apply RAW to the mechanics of the game and RAI to the formatting of the rules, I guess, since the Xanathars is apparently full of textual errors.

UrielAwakened

2017-12-01, 03:21 PM

Well, Crawford does have a Twitter.

Someone interface with CrawfordAI and see what he says.

This is a stupid argument for me to make, but I apply RAW to the mechanics of the game and RAI to the formatting of the rules, I guess, since the Xanathars is apparently full of textual errors.

I still can't get him to give me a clean answer on Rakshasas walking through Walls of Stone so good luck to you.

Mikal

2017-12-01, 03:22 PM

I still can't get him to give me a clean answer on Rakshasas walking through Walls of Stone so good luck to you.

Wait. What?

UrielAwakened

2017-12-01, 03:30 PM

Wait. What?

See here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542716-Raksashas-and-Sage-Advice

Based on another answer he gave it's not really unclear wtf "affected by a spell" means under the Rakshasa's passive ability, because it's clearly more than just targeted if it gets to ignore things like Shillelagh.

We've sort of been running hog-wild now on what the weirdest effect you can imagine a Rakshasa just flat-out ignoring might be. One such example is Wall of Stone. If a Rakshasa can't be affected by it, it should be able to, in theory, see through it, pass through it, and attack through it.

Mikal

2017-12-01, 03:33 PM

See here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542716-Raksashas-and-Sage-Advice

Based on another answer he gave it's not really unclear wtf "affected by a spell" means under the Rakshasa's passive ability, because it's clearly more than just targeted if it gets to ignore things like Shillelagh.

We've sort of been running hog-wild now on what the weirdest effect you can imagine a Rakshasa just flat-out ignoring might be. One such example is Wall of Stone. If a Rakshasa can't be affected by it, it should be able to, in theory, see through it, pass through it, and attack through it.

Ah. Well... that's... neat. *starts to fall down a new 5e rabbit hole.*

krugaan

2017-12-01, 03:39 PM

Ah. Well... that's... neat. *starts to fall down a new 5e rabbit hole.*

There were other longer threads I've participated that have boiled down to "well, the devs should have outlined it better".

The minor illusion arguments are always super amusing.

Mikal

2017-12-01, 03:50 PM

There were other longer threads I've participated that have boiled down to "well, the devs should have outlined it better".

The minor illusion arguments are always super amusing.

Makes sense. Of course I also think the one we're discussing here doesn't really fall into that. :smallredface:

krugaan

2017-12-01, 04:02 PM

Makes sense. Of course I also think the one we're discussing here doesn't really fall into that. :smallredface:

Humph!

Although I admit I'm leaning in your direction now. *Sigh*, from what I remember of the PHB most of the rules weren't statements like:

1) If this situation occurs, use Rule A
2) Rule A is this:...

I remember them more like:

1) Sometimes, situation!
2) Rule A:

Guess I'll have to reread...

Mikal

2017-12-01, 04:03 PM

Humph!

Although I admit I'm leaning in your direction now. *Sigh*, from what I remember of the PHB most of the rules weren't statements like:

1) If this situation occurs, use Rule A
2) Rule A is this:...

I remember them more like:

1) Sometimes, situation!
2) Rule A:

Guess I'll have to reread...

True, the PHB is more like the second, but seriously, isn't the former even more clear cut?

And if it is more clear, and that's what's done in Xanathar's, then doesn't that make the rule that uses that format in Xanathar's clear as to their intention?

And if that's the case, doesn't the rule for Long Rests mean it's about sleep deprivation, as it's now clear that based on the format, the rule is about sleep deprivation?

krugaan

2017-12-01, 04:04 PM

True, the PHB is more like the second, but seriously, isn't the former even more clear?
And if it is more clear, and that's what's done in Xanathar's, then doesn't that make the rule that uses that format clear?
And if that's the case, doesn't the rule for Long Rests mean it's about sleep deprivation, as it's now clear that based on the format, the rule is about sleep deprivation?

Yeah, yeah...

/mutter

When I read xanathars, I didn't read it super carefully. I jumped straight to classes and magic items, lol

Mikal

2017-12-01, 04:06 PM

Yeah, yeah...

/mutter

To paraphrase someone, I like you, you can play in my game whenever I get it off the ground.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 04:07 PM

To paraphrase someone, I like you, you can play in my game whenever I get it off the ground.

Hey... I offered my sister!

Mikal

2017-12-01, 04:08 PM

Hey... I offered my sister!

*declines to take the soft ball such a statement tosses him*

Talamare

2017-12-01, 04:20 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-12-01, 05:46 PM

I'll second that a Javalock doesn't NEED Greater Restoration

He can start doing Javalock things as soon as he has the Warlock Slots and ability the Sorcerer ability to consume them

The going without long rest rules in the book are a slow build up, which means that he can do it for a few days at a time. Then Reset with a Long Rest.

It's noteworthy that sorcerers have proficiency in constitution saving throws. Presumably the would-be coffeelock whose DM insists on following every rule, including optional ones, to the letter could take the Lucky feat and not sleep for a few days before entering a given dungeon.

I caution DMs against this. Rulings which require your player to play carefully around them are exactly the sort of thing that needlessly disrupts campaigns.

Bahamut7

2017-12-01, 06:35 PM

The original statement that commenced this discussion was:"Were Coffeelocks put in the game intentionally?"

My short answer to this short question is: yes. If one looks at the PHB for 5th edition, one can see the incipient beginnings of the coffeelock.

Snip

The true solution to the "jonesing" problem: go back to D & D as it was first played out--no multi-classing!! Problem solved. I do not think many would enjoy that.

Just my 2 cp to this discussion. I apologize for all the text.

I agree with your entire reply. This is the type of responses we should be seeing, but alas, no so much. Thank you.

Edit: So my response got delayed and I missed a whole page of responses...did this thread come to a mutually agreeable answer?!

Well uh, I guess *hand shakes everyone* good job? Wow, never thought I would see this without a Mod to intervene.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 08:57 PM

Using that methodology, any time any sorcerer casts a spell of 1st level or higher, the DM can choose for you to roll to see if you create a Wild Surge. The rule in question clearly states as such. The title says Wild Magic Surge, and the sentence with the game effects is as quoted.

I'm confused. Any time a WMS casts a 1st level Sorcerer spell or higher, the DM can choose for you to roll a Wild Magic Surge. On a roll of a 1, a surge is triggered. If the DM does not let you roll a d20, you don't get to maybe trigger a surge.

Are you saying this is wrong? This is the exact reason a lot of people dislike the WMS, because its core class ability is reliant on when the DM wants you to roll, and even then, you only have a 5% chance to trigger it.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 09:02 PM

I agree with your entire reply. This is the type of responses we should be seeing, but alas, no so much. Thank you.

Edit: So my response got delayed and I missed a whole page of responses...did this thread come to a mutually agreeable answer?!

Well uh, I guess *hand shakes everyone* good job? Wow, never thought I would see this without a Mod to intervene.

A mod actually did come in and leave a warning. I don't know if it came to a mutually agreeable answer but I don't think so. Lots of people say yes, and lots of people say no. But not a lot of the yes-people tried to convince the no-people and vice versa.

Bahamut7

2017-12-01, 10:32 PM

A mod actually did come in and leave a warning. I don't know if it came to a mutually agreeable answer but I don't think so. Lots of people say yes, and lots of people say no. But not a lot of the yes-people tried to convince the no-people and vice versa.

I do recall the mod, but that was more of a "Keep it civil" reminder. I am pretty sure the topic came to an agreeable conclusion.

krugaan

2017-12-01, 10:42 PM

I do recall the mod, but that was more of a "Keep it civil" reminder. I am pretty sure the topic came to an agreeable conclusion.

Pretty much. Coffeelocks are RAW/legal but DMs have any number of ways to screw with them.

People can only yell "but I think THIS" at each other for so long.

...

Wait, did i just say that?

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 11:23 PM

I do recall the mod, but that was more of a "Keep it civil" reminder. I am pretty sure the topic came to an agreeable conclusion.

It strikes me as funny how you've made it possible for us to disagree about whether the topic came to an agreeable conclusion or not.

Lots of people came in and put their thoughts in the hat, which was on topic. Lots of people came in and derailed the thread and then flamed me for some reason, and then left/ignored me. The people leaving and derailing pushed the main question to one side, really.

So far, I can see that people generally think the CoffeeLock was not put there intentionally at first for various reasons (D&D is a blip in Hasbro's radar, the dev team is incompetent, etc), but they didn't care to Errata it out, which can only be intentional. And with the release of Xanathar's Guide, they threw in rules that would support the CoffeeLock instead of squash it down.

Well, that's my reading of things, anyway.

Bahamut7

2017-12-01, 11:41 PM

It strikes me as funny how you've made it possible for us to disagree about whether the topic came to an agreeable conclusion or not.

Not my intent, but I am glad for agreeable.

LeonBH

2017-12-01, 11:52 PM

Not my intent, but I am glad for agreeable.

Then we shall disagree, agreeably.

krugaan

2017-12-02, 01:06 AM

Then we shall disagree, agreeably.

That is unacceptable!

Leon, i heard from your sister that Bahamut called you a dumb poop face.

If you don't have a sister, then i heard it from your mother.

Bahamut, Leon insulted your local sports team!

Now fight! To the death!

Mikal

2017-12-02, 06:06 PM

I'm confused. Any time a WMS casts a 1st level Sorcerer spell or higher, the DM can choose for you to roll a Wild Magic Surge. On a roll of a 1, a surge is triggered. If the DM does not let you roll a d20, you don't get to maybe trigger a surge.

Are you saying this is wrong? This is the exact reason a lot of people dislike the WMS, because its core class ability is reliant on when the DM wants you to roll, and even then, you only have a 5% chance to trigger it.

No I was using that specific sentence as an example of how using a single sentence or paragraph of a rule can completely twist the rule itself from its original intent.

For example: Saying the long rest rule is for long rests period while divorcing it from the set up paragraph which specifically says that the rule is for sleep deprivation, while some are saying that the rule means you must ALWAYS long rest.

My example does something similar, by divorcing it of the other paragraphs of Wild Magic Surge, it makes it look like the rule is for ALL Sorcerers.

In both examples, a narrow sentence is used to twist the meaning of the rule around. That's all.

JBPuffin

2017-12-02, 07:13 PM

They certainly haven't bothered errata-ing it out over the years.

Have no comments on Coffeelock (have to look up what that means later), but...has it already been years since 5e came out?

****.

Easy_Lee

2017-12-02, 07:24 PM

Have no comments on Coffeelock (have to look up what that means later), but...has it already been years since 5e came out?

****.

PHB launched August of 2014. I still remember how ticked everyone was that the DMG didn't launch until December of that year.

LeonBH

2017-12-02, 10:40 PM

No I was using that specific sentence as an example of how using a single sentence or paragraph of a rule can completely twist the rule itself from its original intent.

For example: Saying the long rest rule is for long rests period while divorcing it from the set up paragraph which specifically says that the rule is for sleep deprivation, while some are saying that the rule means you must ALWAYS long rest.

My example does something similar, by divorcing it of the other paragraphs of Wild Magic Surge, it makes it look like the rule is for ALL Sorcerers.

In both examples, a narrow sentence is used to twist the meaning of the rule around. That's all.

Hmm. I mean, I understand your PoV. I disagree with it from a RAW standpoint, but I believe it's a reasonable reading nonetheless.

But I don't see your case for your specific example. The Wild Magic Surge feature says "you" and not "a Sorcerer." It says, "Immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher, the DM can have you roll a d20."

It's referring to you in particular, not to all Sorcerers.

Mikal

2017-12-03, 09:45 AM

Hmm. I mean, I understand your PoV. I disagree with it from a RAW standpoint, but I believe it's a reasonable reading nonetheless.

But I don't see your case for your specific example. The Wild Magic Surge feature says "you" and not "a Sorcerer." It says, "Immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher, the DM can have you roll a d20."

It's referring to you in particular, not to all Sorcerers.

Ok if you disagree from a raw standpoint what is your evidence, bearing in mind what I've shown before.

And you're splitting hairs on the sorcerer. Whether it says you or a sorcerer it still says when you cast a sorcerer spell.

So that means anyone who casts any spell on the sorcerer list could trigger a wild surge. Wow, that makes my point even stronger on how stupid it is to base the intent of a rule on a single sentence when the entire rule shows that the intent is something comepletly different!

Vaz

2017-12-03, 09:49 AM

This may be slightly hypocritical, but whatever. I've followed your discussion from the start, and you're both talking gibberish past one another.

Do either of you actually have a point to make?

Mikal

2017-12-03, 09:58 AM

This may be slightly hypocritical, but whatever. I've followed your discussion from the start, and you're both talking gibberish past one another.

Do either of you actually have a point to make?

I made my point previously. He's confused (I think) and seems to think I was actually trying to argue the Sorcerer thing was somehow valid, when it was meant to be an example of why it's stupid to base the RAW or RAI of a rule on a single sentence in the rule when the rest of the rule clearly states the RAI and RAWness of it which I'm trying to clarify.

See here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22623398&postcount=153)
And here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22623502&postcount=156) for the original point.

LeonBH

2017-12-03, 09:58 AM

krugaan

2017-12-03, 10:03 AM

Let me translate, Leon.

Rule B states "exhaustion unless you long rest."

The preceding sentence, Rule A, says "use Rule B to model lack of sleep."

LeonBH

2017-12-03, 10:04 AM

Ok if you disagree from a raw standpoint what is your evidence, bearing in mind what I've shown before.

And you're splitting hairs on the sorcerer. Whether it says you or a sorcerer it still says when you cast a sorcerer spell.

So that means anyone who casts any spell on the sorcerer list could trigger a wild surge. Wow, that makes my point even stronger on how stupid it is to base the intent of a rule on a single sentence when the entire rule shows that the intent is something comepletly different!

My evidence is the RAW itself. I've observed your arguments with others and have observed you flaming them, so I'm not interested in hashing out the same argument with you.

I will say "Rules as Written" means what is written. No personal interpretations. And then I will present you the sentence where it says you must take a long rest every 24 hours or make a saving throw against exhaustion.

You will say it has to be read in the context of the article or section it was placed in. And then present other parts of the book (perhaps in other books) to make your point.

I will tell you that your perspective isn't RAW, and you will get worked up and somehow imply I don't know what I'm talking about.

You can't change the RAW, and neither can I. It is what it is.

LeonBH

2017-12-03, 10:08 AM

Let me translate, Leon.

Rule B states "exhaustion unless you long rest."

The preceding sentence, Rule A, says "use Rule B to model lack of sleep."

I think this standpoint is reasonable, and I don't really mind going with this interpretation. But it is not RAW, and that's all I'm really saying with regards to this tangent.

The exact mechanic that determines whether or not you make a Con save is "Whenever you end a 24-hour period without finishing a long rest, you must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or suffer one level of exhaustion."

Rules As Written means what is written. If you logic it into meaning something that isn't written, then we're not talking about Rules As Written anymore.

krugaan

2017-12-03, 10:10 AM

My evidence is the RAW itself. I've observed your arguments with others and have observed you flaming them, so I'm not interested in hashing out the same argument with you.

I will say "Rules as Written" means what is written. No personal interpretations. And then I will present you the sentence where it says you must take a long rest every 24 hours or make a saving throw against exhaustion.

You will say it has to be read in the context of the article or section it was placed in. And then present other parts of the book (perhaps in other books) to make your point.

I will tell you that your perspective isn't RAW, and you will get worked up and somehow imply I don't know what I'm talking about.

You can't change the RAW, and neither can I. It is what it is.

It's like looking at myself a couple days ago. I. Think he's frustrated because we got into exactly the same argument. I ended up (mostly) agreeing with him.

The problem is that wotc isn't consistent with how they worded or even presented the rules.

Gonna need jc to clarify.

Mikal

2017-12-03, 10:11 AM

My evidence is the RAW itself. I've observed your arguments with others and have observed you flaming them, so I'm not interested in hashing out the same argument with you.

1) I'm not flaming. I'm clarifying and explaining. Ask krugaan. He thought similarly to you until he read the points I was making.
2) The evidence of RAW means actually Reading what was written. The rule itself clearly, again, states that the rule is meant to be used for sleep deprivation. Ergo, RAW, the rule is for sleep deprivation. If you don't need to sleep, you can't suffer effects when deprived of it.
3) Is it that you don't want to hash it out, or that you realize you have no evidence to counter what is clearly and plainly stated in the rule, but want to keep your interpretation regardless because of whatever reasons you've rationalized to yourself?

I will say "Rules as Written" means what is written. No personal interpretations. And then I will present you the sentence where it says you must take a long rest every 24 hours or make a saving throw against exhaustion.

While ignoring the preceding sentence in the rule which states this rule is meant to be used for the effects of sleep deprivation. In other words, you're cherry picking and quote mining.

You will say it has to be read in the context of the article or section it was placed in. And then present other parts of the book (perhaps in other books) to make your point.
No. I will quote the entire rule, including the immediately preceding sentence, which clearly states the rule is meant to be used for sleep deprivation.

I will tell you that your perspective isn't RAW, and you will get worked up and somehow imply I don't know what I'm talking about.
Because you clearly don't.

You can't change the RAW, and neither can I. It is what it is.
And RAW, the rule is meant to be used to provide a penalty for sleep deprivation. Period. End of discussion. Anything else is a house rule.

It's like looking at myself a couple days ago. I. Think he's frustrated because we got into exactly the same argument. I ended up (mostly) agreeing with him.

Just a tad.

krugaan

2017-12-03, 10:17 AM

Relevant.

https://xkcd.com/386/

LeonBH

2017-12-03, 10:23 AM

3) Is it that you don't want to hash it out, or that you realize you have no evidence to counter what is clearly and plainly stated in the rule, but want to keep your interpretation regardless because of whatever reasons you've rationalized to yourself?

It's because the way you talk down on people, assuming you're already correct. Even if you're correct, there is no need to write in such a condescending manner.

Here, look at what you wrote again:

"or that you realize you have no evidence to counter what is clearly and plainly stated in the rule, but want to keep your interpretation regardless because of whatever reasons you've rationalized to yourself?"

Do you think anyone will want to talk to you in good faith when you address people this way?

Mikal

2017-12-03, 10:30 AM

It's because the way you talk down on people, assuming you're already correct. Even if you're correct, there is no need to write in such a condescending manner.

I assume I'm correct in this case because I'm correct. If I didn't think I was correct... I wouldn't argue. And I'm sorry if you think pointing out there's a sentence immediately preceding the one you are using that plainly explains what the rule is meant for exists is condescending. It's not my fault you are unable to I dunno, raise your eyes half an inch? Read the entire rule? Whatever it is that's causing the mental block.

Here, look at what you wrote again:

"or that you realize you have no evidence to counter what is clearly and plainly stated in the rule, but want to keep your interpretation regardless because of whatever reasons you've rationalized to yourself?"

Do you think anyone will want to talk to you in good faith when you address people this way?

Ok then, what's your explanation for the fact you've ignored the fact that the preceding sentence in the rule clearly states the rule is for sleep deprivation effects when it's been stated multiple times?

I mean, do you need a flow chart? Video? Why do you think I should consider you're arguing in good faith when you've clearly shown a lack of ability to read more than a single sentence in the pursuit of a rules interpretation even when the rest of the rule is made plain before you?

Oh, and now you're cherry picking parts of sentences instead of the whole thing. Maybe it's systemic with you? I dunno. Either way, it's hard to argue "lack of good faith" when you literally ignore at least two-thirds to 95% of the relevant facts in an argument to try and make your point.

LeonBH

2017-12-03, 10:37 AM

Mikal, did you read what I said last? How can you expect anyone to talk to you seriously when you address people the way you do?

Mikal

2017-12-03, 10:39 AM

Mikal, did you read what I said last? How can you expect anyone to talk to you seriously when you address people the way you do?

In other words, you know you have no leg to stand on, so you're attempting an ad hominem attack based on the tone, rather then the substance, of what I say.
Got it.

LeonBH

2017-12-03, 10:43 AM

In other words, you know you have no leg to stand on, so you're attempting an ad hominem attack based on the tone, rather then the substance, of what I say.
Got it.

Lol. Please use ad hominem appropriately.

Mikal

2017-12-03, 10:44 AM

Lol. Please use ad hominem appropriately.

I'd explain to you what ad hominem means since you obviously don't know how style over substance and attack on tone informal fallacies are actually ad hominem attacks, but since you've shown you're unable or unwilling to take more than a single sentence or part of a sentence as the actual reply, I think I'll just block you.

Xetheral

2017-12-03, 10:49 AM

It is possible that the developers chose to permit taking a long rest to avoid the optional penalties from sleep deprivation precisely because some characters don't need to sleep to get a long rest. If they'd worded it so that sleep itself was required to avoid the consequences of sleep deprivation, they'd have set up a bizarre conflict in the rules where characters who don't need to sleep to get a long rest could arguably accumulate exhaustion despite getting regular long rests.

Therefore, I'd argue it does make sense to interpret the optional rule as mandating a long rest, even when taking into account the preceeding context of sleep deprivation. (I am claiming only that my interpretation is a valid interpretation, not that it is the only valid one.)

Naanomi

2017-12-03, 10:51 AM

Xetheral

2017-12-03, 11:01 AM

In 3.X, RAW was that drowning people was often a great way to keep them alive. It was obviously absurd, no one really played it that way, but it was RAW

Maybe playing through the absurdities of the rules of past editions has tainted me; but I can easily accept at least *the idea* that rules for sleep exhaustion don’t reference sleep, and are not prevented by not needing to sleep. It is obviously absurd, and perhaps no one would really play it that way... but the nature of RAW is that it creates such absurdities on occasion

The ultimate consequence of that interpretation would be that characters who don't need to sleep to get a long rest still need to rest to avoid exhaustion. That doesn't strike me as absurd at all.

By contrast, the other interpretation results in the consequence that characters who don't need to sleep to get a long rest are also better at avoiding long rests at all. That seems... odd, if not quite absurd.

LeonBH

2017-12-03, 11:03 AM

Naanomi

2017-12-03, 11:22 AM

The ultimate consequence of that interpretation would be that characters who don't need to sleep to get a long rest still need to rest to avoid exhaustion. That doesn't strike me as absurd at all.

By contrast, the other interpretation results in the consequence that characters who don't need to sleep to get a long rest are also better at avoiding long rests at all. That seems... odd, if not quite absurd.
I can see both positions holding weight.

Personally, I think that the opportunity cost of spending an Invocation on ‘immunity to a tiny number of spells and abilities’ isn’t worth it without the ability to also ignore rests... ‘you still need to “sleep” but the fluff changes’ doesn’t hold much value to me; at least not one equivalentof up to +20 (or more) Cantrip damage...

LeonBH

2017-12-03, 11:43 AM

Xetheral

2017-12-03, 11:50 AM

I can see both positions holding weight.

Personally, I think that the opportunity cost of spending an Invocation on ‘immunity to a tiny number of spells and abilities’ isn’t worth it without the ability to also ignore rests... ‘you still need to “sleep” but the fluff changes’ doesn’t hold much value to me; at least not one equivalentof up to +20 (or more) Cantrip damage...

Aspect of the Moon also allows your party to finish long rests faster if you're on watch the whole time. Alternatively, in place of sleeping the character can engage in a variety of useful activities that may not stop a long rest: mapmaking from notes (for party use or for sale), writing letters to NPCs (to maintain contacts or build a network), creating art, researching (if appropriate books are on hand), cooking (to preserve food), note-taking (journaling in one's book of shadows?), maybe even low-key crafting (e.g. sewing, whitling, alchemy). In many campaigns, time is the largest constraint on out-of-combat player actions, and Aspect of the Moon provides six extra hours every day--that's incredibly useful, even if it's only light activity.

Naanomi

2017-12-03, 11:51 AM

I think it was put there because it was wonderfully creepy. It's flavorful and has "texture”.
Perhaps, but the reason it was included doesn’t have much bearing on my assessment of its utility (or lack thereof under some rest interpretations)

LeonBH

2017-12-03, 12:02 PM

Aspect of the Moon also allows your party to finish long rests faster if you're on watch the whole time. Alternatively, in place of sleeping the character can engage in a variety of useful activities that may not stop a long rest: mapmaking from notes (for party use or for sale), writing letters to NPCs (to maintain contacts or build a network), creating art, researching (if appropriate books are on hand), cooking (to preserve food), note-taking (journaling in one's book of shadows?), maybe even low-key crafting (e.g. sewing, whitling, alchemy). In many campaigns, time is the largest constraint on out-of-combat player actions, and Aspect of the Moon provides six extra hours every day--that's incredibly useful, even if it's only light activity.

Well, a long rest still requires 8 hours. You can sleep for 6 hours at a minimum, and do light activity for 2 hours at a maximum. But all in all, you still need 8 hours of resting.

But otherwise, I agree that AotM enables you to do a lot of things. Heck, in real life, if I didn't need to sleep, I wouldn't. I could get so much more stuff done that way. It's definitely not a combat oriented spell and I suspect people will only take it for RP purposes.

I haven't seen it in play yet, but I imagine the most reasonable thing for the DM to ask the Warlock is what they plan to do for the night and have some rolls done to see if they were successful.

I suppose the downtime activities in Xanathar's can come into play. For example, when crafting an item, XtgE says:

"A character can complete multiple items in a workweek if the items' combined cost is 50 gp or lower. Items that cost more than 50 gp can be completed over longer periods of time, as long as the work in progress is stored in a safe location."

If the DM lets you get away with it, you could craft items and complete it after a certain number of long rests, since you don't have to work on that item in contiguous sections of time. You could stash a WIP and pull it out again on the next night.

Dudewithknives

2017-12-03, 10:31 PM

Were the sorcerer and warlock abilities put in the book with the idea that people would multiclass them together to make a Sorlock, and balanced accordingly.

Hell no. They made the base classes, balanced the core mechanic interactions like how spell levels stack together, how multiple attacks work, fighting styles and that is about it.

They did not really care about getting into fine detail of how specific unique class abilities interact with each other, they just made multiclassing optional, and can just say, "it is optional, just don't use it." The same way they did with all the Xanathars rules and things.

Essentially. No they did not plan that, however they do not really care that people came up with it either.

krugaan

2017-12-03, 11:17 PM

Well, a long rest still requires 8 hours. You can sleep for 6 hours at a minimum, and do light activity for 2 hours at a maximum. But all in all, you still need 8 hours of resting.

But otherwise, I agree that AotM enables you to do a lot of things. Heck, in real life, if I didn't need to sleep, I wouldn't. I could get so much more stuff done that way. It's definitely not a combat oriented spell and I suspect people will only take it for RP purposes.

I haven't seen it in play yet, but I imagine the most reasonable thing for the DM to ask the Warlock is what they plan to do for the night and have some rolls done to see if they were successful.

I suppose the downtime activities in Xanathar's can come into play. For example, when crafting an item, XtgE says:

"A character can complete multiple items in a workweek if the items' combined cost is 50 gp or lower. Items that cost more than 50 gp can be completed over longer periods of time, as long as the work in progress is stored in a safe location."

If the DM lets you get away with it, you could craft items and complete it after a certain number of long rests, since you don't have to work on that item in contiguous sections of time. You could stash a WIP and pull it out again on the next night.

That's probably a valid viewpoint. I dunno about creating magic items, though. When I envision creating magic items, I also envision magical purification rituals and chants and stuff that would need to be redone every night.

Although that wouldn't disallow it, I suppose.

Naanomi

2017-12-03, 11:23 PM

Depends a lot on the definition of ‘light activity’... are people doing a lot of crafting currently during their two hours (four if an Elf, pre-most recent twitter response)?

Malifice

2017-12-04, 01:23 AM

No they werent.

If you think they were, you're wrong.

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 01:48 AM

Depends a lot on the definition of ‘light activity’... are people doing a lot of crafting currently during their two hours (four if an Elf, pre-most recent twitter response)?

It seems reasonable to allow it, though. I mean, the act of reading can itself be a taxing activity on the mind (just read some of the posts on this thread). Why not have them do mindless, routine activities? I mean, yes, crafting items takes a lot of attention at first, but once you get enough experience or proficiency, you can zone out as your body goes on autopilot.

Drivers do it all the time, and they're dealing with moving cars.

krugaan

2017-12-04, 02:05 AM

Drivers do it all the time, and they're dealing with moving cars.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 02:08 AM

Not exactly a ringing endorsement...

Agreed. But when you've driven down the same road for years or decades, it kind of becomes inevitable.

Naanomi

2017-12-04, 08:34 AM

So what you are saying is... get a magic vehicleof some kind, have the party sleep in, and use the sleepless warlock to speed travel time?

RickAllison

2017-12-04, 10:15 AM

So what you are saying is... get a magic vehicleof some kind, have the party sleep in, and use the sleepless warlock to speed travel time?

"You devote three decades to studying forbidden tomes and sell your soul for unlimited arcane power, and the best way they can think to use it is as a glorified horse..."

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 10:21 AM

So what you are saying is... get a magic vehicleof some kind, have the party sleep in, and use the sleepless warlock to speed travel time?

Honestly, no. But I find the idea of turning the AotM Warlock into a driver hilarious and I love that you made the connection.

If you have a Barbarian with the Elk Totem in your party, your overland travel speed is doubled, too, so you can travel 60 miles after that long rest is done (if the vehicle had a speed of 30 ft).

Naanomi

2017-12-04, 10:33 AM

If that Barbarian were an Urchin, they could double that in a city

Xetheral

2017-12-04, 01:07 PM

Honestly, no. But I find the idea of turning the AotM Warlock into a driver hilarious and I love that you made the connection.

If you have a Barbarian with the Elk Totem in your party, your overland travel speed is doubled, too, so you can travel 60 miles after that long rest is done (if the vehicle had a speed of 30 ft).

Travelling 60 miles while the Barbarian granting that ability sleeps is hilarious.

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 01:17 PM

Travelling 60 miles while the Barbarian granting that ability sleeps is hilarious.

Well... now that you mention it, the Elk totem works only when the Barbarian is mounted and is not incapacitated. And sleeping renders you unconscious, which incapacitates you.

On the other hand, I now have a multiclass idea of Elk Totem Barb 6/Tomelock 3 with AotM, and they sold their soul so they could drive as fast as possible for as long as possible. Also, it occurs to me that Hexblade's Curse works very well with Rage.

Xetheral

2017-12-04, 01:27 PM

Well... now that you mention it, the Elk totem works only when the Barbarian is mounted and is not incapacitated. And sleeping renders you unconscious, which incapacitates you.

On the other hand, I now have a multiclass idea of Elk Totem Barb 6/Tomelock 3 with AotM, and they sold their soul so they could drive as fast as possible for as long as possible. Also, it occurs to me that Hexblade's Curse works very well with Rage.

Alas, the best part of Barbarian/Warlock is Eagle Totem Barbarian 6, to pair with Eldritch Spear and Spell Sniper. (Also, charisma-to-hit doesn't play nice with Rage or Reckless Attack, even though Hexblade's Curse does.) For more hilarity take Chain pact and Voice of the Chain Master so you can talk to your enemies while you're sniping them from silly distances. (And if they do finally close to melee distance, they find out you're a midlevel Barbarian. Whoops.)

But yes, an AotM/Elk Totem caravan guide would be the best in the world at what he does, although you'd need a lot of spare draft animals and a trailer in which they can rest.

krugaan

2017-12-04, 01:30 PM

The thread has taken a sudden turn towards awesomeTown.

But yes, an AotM/Elk Totem caravan guide would be the best in the world at what he does, although you'd need a lot of spare draft animals and a trailer in which they can rest.

Unlimited animate dead. Skeletons don't need rest!

Naanomi

2017-12-04, 01:32 PM

Xetheral

2017-12-04, 01:35 PM

Correction: Just take the Phantom Steed spell, and spend your whole time casting it as a Ritual. That gives you six draft animals with a speed of 200 ft per round, except you have to stop the caravan every 10 minutes to harness the new steed. You also need some teamsters to do so that you can keep casting.

With just a party to haul and one carriage, assuming you can cast twice and harness the two animals on your own in 30 minutes, that still works out to an average speed of 100 ft per round.

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 02:01 PM

Alas, the best part of Barbarian/Warlock is Eagle Totem Barbarian 6, to pair with Eldritch Spear and Spell Sniper. (Also, charisma-to-hit doesn't play nice with Rage or Reckless Attack, even though Hexblade's Curse does.) For more hilarity take Chain pact and Voice of the Chain Master so you can talk to your enemies while you're sniping them from silly distances. (And if they do finally close to melee distance, they find out you're a midlevel Barbarian. Whoops.)

But yes, an AotM/Elk Totem caravan guide would be the best in the world at what he does, although you'd need a lot of spare draft animals and a trailer in which they can rest.

Hexblade's Curse is essentially the reason to dip, and Hex Warrior will be a dead feature (you can use charisma to hit, you're not required to). Hexblade's Curse grants you THP on a kill, it lets you crit on a 19, and it adds your proficiency bonus to your damage.

A Hexblade 1/Barb 2 will activate Rage on turn 1 and then swing reckless attacks. By turn 2, they activate their Curse and now add PROF+STR+2 to their damage rolls. Assuming a greataxe, that's 1d12+7 with a 19% chance to crit.

There's another way to get a constant stream of horses. The Elklock can borrow a steed from the Paladin (Find Steed) or Wizard (Phantom Steed). But it doesn't fit this idea of a driving-obsessed character I've just envisioned. He needs to either have 5 levels in Paladin to get Find Steed, 5 levels in Wizard to get Phantom Steed, or 6 levels in Bard to have both.

Correction: Just take the Phantom Steed spell, and spend your whole time casting it as a Ritual. That gives you six draft animals with a speed of 200 ft per round, except you have to stop the caravan every 10 minutes to harness the new steed. You also need some teamsters to do so that you can keep casting.

With just a party to haul and one carriage, assuming you can cast twice and harness the two animals on your own in 30 minutes, that still works out to an average speed of 100 ft per round.

You don't need to stop the caravan for 10 minutes. You can start casting 50 minutes after the last time, so that the steed fades away in time with the conjuration of a new one.

Good point. Since he's a Tomelock, he can go Elk Barb 6/Tomelock 5 and take Phantom Steed.

Xetheral

2017-12-04, 02:08 PM

You don't need to stop the caravan for 10 minutes. You can start casting 50 minutes after the last time, so that the steed fades away in time with the conjuration of a new one.

Good point. Since he's a Tomelock, he can go Elk Barb 6/Tomelock 5 and take Phantom Steed.

The stopping wasn't to cast... it was to hitch up the new horse. I have no idea how long that takes.

You can squeeze it down to Elk Barb 6/Tomelock 3 with Ritual Caster (Wizard). It's not efficient, but the driving build comes online sooner if you do. Alternatively, the idea of undead draft animals is a good one. You can then have "Dead Elk" as your totem animal....

Naanomi

2017-12-04, 02:19 PM

One level of Ranger to ignore difficult terrain etc... and Urchin background... maximum street driving!

LeonBH

2017-12-04, 02:28 PM

The stopping wasn't to cast... it was to hitch up the new horse. I have no idea how long that takes.

You can squeeze it down to Elk Barb 6/Tomelock 3 with Ritual Caster (Wizard). It's not efficient, but the driving build comes online sooner if you do. Alternatively, the idea of undead draft animals is a good one. You can then have "Dead Elk" as your totem animal....

Medieval Ghost Rider?

One level of Ranger to ignore difficult terrain etc... and Urchin background... maximum street driving!

Medieval Ghost Rider in the City?

Theodoxus

2017-12-04, 03:13 PM

gloryblaze

2017-12-04, 05:58 PM

Wouldn't work in a campaign I'm playing in (multiple reasons, no MCing being primary) but the relevant reason is the DM has ruled that the campaign parameters are two short rests to every long rest. I'm not sure if that's a misinterpretation of the general daily encounter guideline, an actual rest option in the DMG or just something he made up because short rests are important to a lot of classes and he likes the resource management game...

It would be the latter - "just something he made up".

The DMG mentions that characters will usually run out of resources after 6 to 8 encounters, assuming they took 2 to 3 short rests over the course of the day. However, putting a mechanical limit on the number of short rests it is possible to take would be a house rule. While players can benefit from Long Rests only once every 24 hours (and this is strictly enumerated in the rules), there is no such limit on short rests, barring the DM deciding there should be one.