Coffeelocks: would any other DMs out there tell their player to take a hike?

[Klorox]

I mean, we get it. You found a loophole in the rules.

I don’t think it’s fun for any other player for a character to be exhibiting that much more power over the others.

Am I in the minority here?

[Talamare]

uh...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543080-Good-Houserule-For-Coffeelocks
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543654-Sorcerers-Warlocks-Sorlocks-Which-is-the-biggest-Blaster
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543394-Were-CoffeeLocks-put-in-there-intentionally
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543638-Things-to-do-with-(nigh)-infinite-spell-slots-Or-Another-CoffeeLock-Thread

and this isn't even me using the search feature of the forums
This is literally me scrolling down the 1st page...

(and there is a 5th one, but that one is someone asking what the hell is a coffeelock)

[JakOfAllTirades]

At this point I'm on the fence about whether I'd allow any multi classing at all. There are more single class options than ever before, so everyone should be able to find a class they like. But when it comes to multi classing, all I hear about is how it breaks the game. Maybe it's time to put a stop to it altogether.

No multi classing, no coffee locks, no problem.

[Scyrner]

I'm just going to rule that Sorcerers can never have more than 2 times as many slots of any level as they have base.

[druid91]

I mean, we get it. You found a loophole in the rules.

I don’t think it’s fun for any other player for a character to be exhibiting that much more power over the others.

Am I in the minority here?

It's hardly a loophole and it's hardly powerful. Yes they can spam the same spell all day long.

so what? They do eventually run out. And it takes time to rebuild their spell stash. And they sacrifice learning higher level spells to do it.

[Avonar]

Man this forum is getting obsessed with this one very specific build.

To sum up what I've seen through the 4 or 5 threads on the subject of Coffeelocks:

Some people are fine with it, others are not. It's entirely subjective and apparently divisive. Would be banned at some tables and allowed at others.

Can we all agree to move along now?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would not tell the player to "take a hike," because that's rude and demeaning. I would respectfully tell them that I'm not comfortable with that particular exploit, and discuss alternate options. (Up to and including homebrewing a more 3.5 Warlock-y "weak but at-will magic" class)

[Eric Diaz]

Yeah, I don't think I'd allow it either.

But then again I don't think I'd allow anyone to use the Lucky feat to turn disadvantage into super advantage.

OTOH I have allowed an Int-based kobold sorcerer re-fluffed as a mini-iron man before, so...

I guess each table has its own rules, and that's okay.

EDIT: to be more specific, on a first glance I'd rule that Aspect of the Moon counts as a long rest anyway. Would that invalidate the whole point of his feature?

EDIT: also agree with Grod_The_Giant - would not tell anyone to take a hike, but I would probably banish it.

[Blacky the Blackball]

In my group we don't normally use multiclassing at all - so if someone (presumably a hypothetical new addition to the group rather than one of the existing players) started asking if they could multiclass in order to take advantage of this mechanical quirk we'd all be in agreement that doing that sort of thing isn't the kind of game we play.

So they wouldn't get a "take a hike!" but they would get a "sorry, that's not how we play".

(If you're wondering how we do play, we don't use multiclassing or variant humans, and we use the standard array for ability scores - choosing a race that is a suitable match for your class is about as close to "optimising" as we get, and even then we often choose a race that we like the look and feel of rather than one that gives stat bonuses for our class; otherwise you'd end up just playing the same few race/class combinations all the time...)

[Callin]

I think its fine. You get a bunch of low level spell slots, and the ability to refresh Sorc Points. So you can Twin and Quicken some spells more often. Its a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level spell at lvl 8 with the 3/5 split. When they are going to be getting lvl 5 spells here in another level. You are 1 Ability Increase Behind, almost 2 spell levels behind a full caster.

[Jos]

I have a house rule that doesn't allow back to back rests.

[sithlordnergal]

I honestly have no issue with it. Sure, the player gets a ton of spell slots, but those slots aren't game breaking slots. It isn't like they are getting tons of 9th level spell slots, nor is the coffeelock able to make use of those slots like a Paladin would. Honestly, builds like the Soradin are more game breaking and op.

[Unoriginal]

Honestly I have troubles understanding why people think it's that powerful.

I mean, is it common for PCs to not progress to give one guy the time to get all those slots?

[mgshamster]

For me, it depends on the campaign.

Hardcover: Probably.

Gritty Homebrew: Unlikely.

AL Game: Yes with restrictions (must start the adventure with a long rest).

[Joe dirt]

No I wouldn't allow it... seems game breaking

[Arkhios]

An answer to avoid coffeelocks (at my table at least) is simple: One cannot multiclass without a good explanation and an involvement of a mentorship. That is, you must first find a willing mentor before you can multiclass in the first place. Granted, "from a class X to sorcerer" is among the easiest to multiclass in this regard, because technically just about anyone might have a sorcerous origin, whether they want to or not. But if you started as a sorcerer, and then wish to become a warlock? Go find a mentor (or rather, a patron) first; then we can talk more.

Anyway, there are ways to hinder someone who doesn't sleep at all. Exhaustion, for one, can eventually kill you.

[smcmike]

I don’t think it is overpowered, and I like multiclassing. I still wouldn’t allow it. It’s dumb, and it’s too much bookkeeping.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly I have troubles understanding why people think it's that powerful.

I mean, is it common for PCs to not progress to give one guy the time to get all those slots?

It depends on the campaign. In a fast-paced campaign, where you adventure every day, no, it's not an issue.

In a slower campaign, with months at a time in between adventures? It's far too strong.

[Sigreid]

I wouldn't worry about it excessively. If one of the group decided to do it and it became an actual problem, then we'd talk. I'm not going to start from a base assumption that it's automatically going to be a problem though.

[Finney]

It wouldn't be an issue at the tables I play at most of the time, since our DM would never allow short rests to be chained. He would call shenanigans and rule the attempt as a long rest or a single short rest.

A poll might be useful. Or I suppose the front page will continue to be littered with coffeelock posts, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But most of them have devolved into ad hominem and toxic bickering.

[LeonBH]

I enjoy the fact that there are so many CoffeeLock threads right now. This is the 6th by my count.

I wouldn't tell a CoffeeLock player to take a hike. As others have said, too rude. Disagreeable matters can be civilly resolved.

[Malifice]

Like everything else in the game, not an issue if the DM polices the adventuring day.

You know; does his job.

[tsotate]

I enjoy the fact that there are so many CoffeeLock threads right now. This is the 6th by my count.
Several of the DMs on the forum seen to think there's only one long thread, despite it clearly being six short threads separated by other conversations. ;)

[gloryblaze]

Several of the DMs on the forum seen to think there's only one long thread, despite it clearly being six short threads separated by other conversations. ;)

+1 to this lmao

[Dimers]

Several of the DMs on the forum seen to think there's only one long thread, despite it clearly being six short threads separated by other conversations. ;)

*vigorous applause*