Coffeelock viable by RAI now? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

ProsecutorGodot

2018-07-23, 03:12 PM

It has other ways to avoid exaustion: Greater Restouration, Legendary Resistence, Magic Jar (Gloom Weaver, immunity to Exaustion).
Coffeelock is already RAW and RAI.

Except Magic Jar and Greater Restoration are moderately high level spells (5th and 6th level) that you may not have access to. That's even ignoring the trouble it would be to find a Gloom Weaver to possess with Magic Jar. Legendary Resistance is not something PC's get.

This works at level 3 while mitigating all of the "downsides" associated with the build and gives you the added benefit of versatility.

The Warforged also happen to have other incredible features and doesn't ask you to take any specific Pact Boon down the line or take Draconic Bloodline for a decent AC.

Lol that this is still a thing.

Player: I take 8 short rests.
DM: You rest for 8 hours. You long rest.

This is actually covered in the original post linked, light activity for 2 hours makes it so that you can't long rest. You can safely accumulate 6 hours worth of short rests and then perform light activity for 2. Repeat that step during extended travel periods or downtime and you've got the cheese.

I'm not advocating for the build, but their are fewer and fewer arguments against it that don't require the DM to explicitly ban it from the table if a player brings one to their game.

rbstr

2018-07-23, 03:16 PM

The original post linked, light activity for 2 hours makes it so that you can't long rest. You can safely accumulate 6 hours worth of short rests and then perform light activity for 2

Sounds like one very long short rest to me.

Kyrinthic

2018-07-23, 03:23 PM

I wouldnt use RAI when trying to explain the coffeelock, I dont think anyone is under the impression that this was an intended archetype, is is very metagame after all.

The very concept of 'Instead of taking a long rest I want to take 8 short rests' is metagame, and not defined in the rules at all, the intent of short rests is a way to recover between fights, not a way to game the sorcery point system.

The only meaningful questions about the build is if it is legal for the GM you are playing with. There is no clear smoking bullet 'this is why this works' or 'this is why this doesnt work' statement in the rules. It will fall under the discression of the GM you are playing with every time.

Mister_Squinty

2018-07-23, 03:24 PM

Sounds like one very long short rest to me.

"1 short rest, followed by 15 minutes of sprinting, followed by a short rest, followed by 15 minutes of sprinting"... etc. The min/maxmonkeys have a loophole for everything short of a definitive ruling.

ZorroGames

2018-07-23, 05:03 PM

The Shade of Nancy: “Just say’No’ !”

Aett_Thorn

2018-07-23, 05:08 PM

This is somewhat made easier by saying that the PARTY, not the individual, takes an X rest that affects the individuals accordingly.

JoeJ

2018-07-23, 07:00 PM

I'd make you start the adventure having just finished a long rest during downtime. After that, I have a house rule that if your excessive short resting during the adventure gets to be annoying, the other players can take pillows off the couch and hit you with them.

Ganymede

2018-07-23, 07:54 PM

Please tell me I'm missing something crucial here because I'm already filled with dread at the idea of this build being 100% RAW and RAI.

There is still the fact that short rests last an hour or more, and that breaking what would be a long rest into eight discrete short rests largely falls in the realm of DM discretion. In other words, even without the issue of rest deprivation, you still need a DM who will rule favorably on splitting up rests into sub-rests.

Tetrasodium

2018-07-23, 08:54 PM

Malifice

2018-07-23, 09:04 PM

This is actually covered in the original post linked, light activity for 2 hours makes it so that you can't long rest. You can safely accumulate 6 hours worth of short rests and then perform light activity for 2. Repeat that step during extended travel periods or downtime and you've got the cheese.

DM: Oh you get up and engage in 'light activity' every hour on the hour? It's still a long rest.

Players don't tell DMs what kind of rest they get or what skills they use. The players tell the DM what they're doing, and the DM adjudicates those actions. In the case of a player metagaming the rest/ resource recovery mechanic, the DM is just doing what a DM does.

The PHB states:

The DM describes the environment
The players describe what they want to do (and the DM decides how to resolve those actions – importantly, the PCs don’t decide what rules they use)
The DM narrates the results

It goes on to say:

Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.

They're the rules. You (the player) don't tell me (the DM) what kind of rest you take and what the mechanical results of that rest are. The player tells the DM what they're doing and the DM determines what the outcome of those actions are, and then narrates the results (and the mechanical effects).

For some absurd reason, many players seem to forget the above, or forget that rule exists above and beyond any other rule.

Malifice

2018-07-23, 09:11 PM

I once had a group with four scorlocks. every combat went like this:
Roll initiative

scorlocks blast with their most relevant spell using sorcerer slot
npc's go (or possibly they already went & scorlocks are going now). doesn't really matter what they do.
everyone else goes
if npc's are still alive, they get to go
repeat from scorlocks blasting
more than half the group wants to take a short reast and is immediately talking about ways/places they could do so

My solution was to declare that long rest was a week & short rest is 8 hours but there were potions that let you take a long rest during a short rest with some drawbacks. Problem pretty much solved itself as scorlocks got killed off.

Put them on the clock.

When you sit down midweek to plan your adventure dont just stat out encounters and sketch down maps. Spend a few minutes contriving a doom clock (You need to [recover/ stop/ destroy/ find] the macguffin by [4 hours from now] or else [something really bad happes]).

Still shocked that so many DMs dont do that. They'll happily throw monsters, traps, environmental hazards in the way of the party, but forget about good old Mother Time. In a game like DnD which is a resource management game, and where resource management is based on time, thats just bad DMing.

Plus. How boring would a movie or story be where the protagonists had all the time in the world to do the quest? What sets a thrilling adventure is [the Death Star is nearly in range of Yavin, the bomb is ticking down to explode, the hostages are about to be executed, the villain is about to use his superweapon, the ritual is about to be completed by the BBEG, the ring needs to be destroyed before Sauron gets it, the Balrog is hot on your tail etc etc).

Yet so many DMs simply dont bother with temporal constraints. Such games are as boring as bat-****.

Tetrasodium

2018-07-23, 09:17 PM

Put them on the clock.

When you sit down midweek to plan your adventure dont just stat out encounters and sketch down maps. Spend a few minutes contriving a doom clock (You need to [recover/ stop/ destroy/ find] the macguffin by [4 hours from now] or else [something really bad happes]).

Still shocked that so many DMs dont do that. They'll happily throw monsters, traps, environmental hazards in the way of the party, but forget about good old Mother Time. In a game like DnD which is a resource management game, and where resource management is based on time, thats just bad DMing.

Plus. How boring would a movie or story be where the protagonists had all the time in the world to do the quest? What sets a thrilling adventure is [the Death Star is nearly in range of Yavin, the bomb is ticking down to explode, the hostages are about to be executed, the villain is about to use his superweapon, the ritual is about to be completed by the BBEG, the ring needs to be destroyed before Sauron gets it, the Balrog is hot on your tail etc etc).

Yet so many DMs simply dont bother with temporal constraints. Such games are as boring as bat-****.

That was absolutely one of the mitigating factors I used, but not everything needs to be (or should be) a race against time. The four went in planning to abuse the rest mechanic for scorlocks together & got what they deserved.

Malifice

2018-07-23, 09:23 PM

That was absolutely one of the mitigating factors I used, but not everything needs to be (or should be) a race against time. The four went in planning to abuse the rest mechanic for scorlocks together & got what they deserved.

You're the DM. You resolve actions. They dont tell you they 'short rest' - only that they sit around quietly for one hour.

You decide what happens at the end of that hour. It's only a short rest if you say it is.

DM: You all rested recently; aside from feeling a bit better, nothing else happens.

Tetrasodium

2018-07-23, 09:36 PM

Arial Black

2018-07-24, 01:01 PM

You're the DM. You resolve actions. They dont tell you they 'short rest' - only that they sit around quietly for one hour.

You decide what happens at the end of that hour. It's only a short rest if you say it is.

DM: You all rested recently; aside from feeling a bit better, nothing else happens.

The rules say that if you have avoided strenuous activity for 1 hour or more you may take the benefits of a short rest.

So, sure, if you rest for 1 hour you can take the benefits of a short rest. If you rest for, say, 3 hours, that is still only one short rest.

But what if I rest for 1 hour, choose to take the benefits, then do something strenuous for 15 minutes, then rest for 1 hour. Surely I can take the benefits of this second short rest!

Well, yes, but the point is that the 'benefits' don't do anything at this point, because you already got them for the first short rest. You regained all of your Superiority Dice, Second Wind, Ki Points, etc, etc. They are already at maximum. You could spend as many Hit Dice as you wanted the first time.

Okay, what if I rest for one hour, gain the benefits, then do something strenuous (therefore 'not resting') like...casting spells! Then rest for one hour. Is there any reason that this new short rest would somehow fail to give me the benefits if I choose to take them, especially since one of the benefits is to regain that spent spell slot?

So the players don't tell you they are taking a short rest. They just tell you what they are doing (we're doing nothing strenuous for the next hour). You, the DM, tell them if this counts as a short rest. If it does, then each player decides if their character takes the benefits.

In play:-

Players: We sit around and chat for a while. At least an hour. Does anything happen in that hour? If it does, we'll respond to it. If not, let us know when an hour has gone by.

DM: Nothing happens.

Players: So, after one hour, is it fair to say that we have been resting for an hour at this point?

DM: Obviously.

Players: So, it appears that we qualify for a Short Rest, according to the definition in the PHB. Is there anything preventing us from taking the benefits if we want to?

The correct response is, obviously, "yes you have had a Short Rest and can take the benefits if you want to".

Why would the answer be 'no'?

krugaan

2018-07-24, 01:02 PM

The rules say that if you have avoided strenuous activity for 1 hour or more you may take the benefits of a short rest.

So, sure, if you rest for 1 hour you can take the benefits of a short rest. If you rest for, say, 3 hours, that is still only one short rest.

But what if I rest for 1 hour, choose to take the benefits, then do something strenuous for 15 minutes, then rest for 1 hour. Surely I can take the benefits of this second short rest!

Well, yes, but the point is that the 'benefits' don't do anything at this point, because you already got them for the first short rest. You regained all of your Superiority Dice, Second Wind, Ki Points, etc, etc. They are already at maximum. You could spend as many Hit Dice as you wanted the first time.

Okay, what if I rest for one hour, gain the benefits, then do something strenuous (therefore 'not resting') like...casting spells! Then rest for one hour. Is there any reason that this new short rest would somehow fail to give me the benefits if I choose to take them, especially since one of the benefits is to regain that spent spell slot?

So the players don't tell you they are taking a short rest. They just tell you what they are doing (we're doing nothing strenuous for the next hour). You, the DM, tell them if this counts as a short rest. If it does, then each player decides if their character takes the benefits.

In play:-

Players: We sit around and chat for a while. At least an hour. Does anything happen in that hour? If it does, we'll respond to it. If not, let us know when an hour has gone by.

DM: Nothing happens.

Players: So, after one hour, is it fair to say that we have been resting for an hour at this point?

DM: Obviously.

Players: So, it appears that we qualify for a Short Rest, according to the definition in the PHB. Is there anything preventing us from taking the benefits if we want to?

The correct response is, obviously, "yes you have had a Short Rest and can take the benefits if you want to".

Why would the answer be 'no'?

"Because I said so."

PhantomSoul

2018-07-24, 01:11 PM

"Because I said so."

Better still, Diemme -- the apathetic overdeity of order whose clockwork project is our universe -- said so.

Snails

2018-07-24, 01:16 PM

The designers have indicated with their actions and lack of actions that they expect DMs to police certain abuses, rather than make official rulings against them. I mean, that has to be it*--their focus is on casual players, not forum reading min-maxxers

This.

The game was written to be fun for casual gamers mixed into the gaming group.

Writing errata after errata to cover corner cases never stops -- there are always more corner cases. But more than a little errata does have a real cost to most everyone's fun and probably an even higher cost to casual gamers: who wants to sit around poring over indecipherable errata when we could be having fun?

Bottom line: Do we really need the designers to explain that the DM should not allow players to game the system to get more Short Rests and avoid a Long Rest, when good enough reasons for such a ruling are perfectly obvious to everyone?

ProsecutorGodot

2018-07-24, 01:20 PM

"Because I said so."

This is my biggest issue with it. I don't want to tell my player no if they come to the table with an idea that works just because I don't like the idea. The group I DM for would probably dislike that and I'd be a hypocrite for doing it since as a player I like to push for creative applications of items and skills.

This thread, however, is more or less irrelevant after I got over my initial excitement over Wayfinder's Guide being released I went back to the foreword for it and noted that it is a playtest module and not official content, meaning that WoTC will have plenty of time to make adjustments to the Warforged, which in my opinion even excluding the fact that they enable the Coffeelock cheese, have been statted very strong.

On the one hand I'm happy that a good version of the warforged is finally available for 5e, on the other this version does a bit too much. With 3 outlets for WoTC to collect feedback on this new Eberron content I'm confident that things will find a nice balance.

krugaan

2018-07-24, 01:27 PM

Willie the Duck

2018-07-24, 01:40 PM

This is my biggest issue with it. I don't want to tell my player no if they come to the table with an idea that works just because I don't like the idea. The group I DM for would probably dislike that and I'd be a hypocrite for doing it since as a player I like to push for creative applications of items and skills.

This is a reasonable position. My only response is that there has never been a clear cut distinction between creative application of <whatever> and cheeze. Is coffeelock creative and inventive? Is wish+simulacrum? If I thought for a moment that the person bringing them forward in my group thought it up themselves rather than read it on the internet, I'd probably think so. I somehow doubt that would be the case for the specific instance of coffeelocks, but for the next 'is-it-cheeze?' moment, my ruling criteria is how disruptive it is for the group as a whole. wish+simulacrum makes a mockery of most limitations in the game, so that's why that one is out. Coffeelock requires extreme tracking of downtime, and thus makes the resource-limiting factor for one character completely different from everyone else. Thus too disruptive to allow in the game. That's why I ban it, not because it is cheesy.

tieren

2018-07-24, 02:12 PM

Isn't the real solution for the Devs to just say you can't use Sorcery Points to make more than one spell slot more than your characters spell slot maximum?

ProsecutorGodot

2018-07-24, 02:13 PM

Isn't the real solution for the Devs to just say you can't use Sorcery Points to make more than one spell slot more than your characters spell slot maximum?

No reason to nerf Sorcerer's as a whole because of one fringe case

tieren

2018-07-24, 02:20 PM

No reason to nerf Sorcerer's as a whole because of one fringe case

It wouldn't nerf anything, no non-munchkin sorcerer is trying to stockpile extra spell slots. They use their Sorcery points for meta magic or replacing spent slots, which wouldn't be effected in any way by a limit on the total.

MaxWilson

2018-07-24, 02:31 PM

Isn't the real solution for the Devs to just say you can't use Sorcery Points to make more than one spell slot more than your characters spell slot maximum?

I'm not even convinced that there is a problem in need of a solution.

So what if you can theoretically make an arbitrary number of spell slots over the course of months of effort? Who in practice ever needs more spell slots than you could accumulate over the course of 24 hours or so? In normal situations, your standard number of spell slots is already ample if you're reasonably intelligent about it; in a deadly situation (like fighting off a whole army by yourself) you're likely to be more limited by your HP than your total number of spell slots, and you won't have time to acccumulate all of those spell slots anyway. And let's not forget that a long rest is absolutely required to restore high-level spell slots.

So what if you spend 3 weeks on a spelljamming voyage catnapping (and casting Greater Restoration on yourself every day) in order to build up 999 spell slots before you hit the dungeon, while everyone else plays poker? It will give you a reputation for being an odd duck, but it's not going to wreck the game. It won't even guarantee that you survive the dungeon.

JNAProductions

2018-07-24, 02:32 PM

Isn't the real solution for the Devs to just say you can't use Sorcery Points to make more than one spell slot more than your characters spell slot maximum?

My personal houserule fix is to say that extra created slots (beyond your normal max) disappear on a long rest or after 24 hours pass. So you can make as many 5th level slots as you want, but they've got a timer on them.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-24, 02:33 PM

It wouldn't nerf anything, no non-munchkin sorcerer is trying to stockpile extra spell slots. They use their Sorcery points for meta magic or replacing spent slots, which wouldn't be effected in any way by a limit on the total.

Or you have to do them right before use. Or there could be rules in the Long rest mechanic basically stating that you will accidentally take one eventually, regardless of not needing sleep (probably with some admonition that "and DM makes determination when"), or some clause in sorcerer points and spell slots that things will roll back over to normal regardless of the hoops the PCs jump through. There are clearly ways they could do this (particularly if there was a section of the DMG on 'when to use DM judgment to overrule rules-abuse shenanigans' or the like, or actually acknowledging in the game text "look, players will find a loophole, and you'll have to close them.").

Regardless, there are a zillion and one ways that the Devs could have closed this, they have* to be aware of it. The only explanation I have that makes sense is that they don't think it is a big deal, and the only way that makes sense is if everyone but us board-dwellers has dealt with it simply and honestly with that 'rulings over rules' and de-emphasis on the cult of RAW and all those other things that this edition is supposedly about.
*right?

Mind you, I recognize that they are inconsistent on these things. If they were consistent, instead of answering rules questions on Twitter, they'd be responding with 'well, what do you think it should be?' or the like.

Daithi

2018-07-24, 04:30 PM

Just my opinion, but to the OP's question, I'd say yes, the coffeelock is now playable at early levels via RAW and RAI (it was also already RAW/RAI at higher levels). However, by RAW/RAI it is also not unreasonable for the DM to still banish it from his game or nerf it. The DM is responsible for maintaining a game that is enjoyable for everyone that is playing, and if the DM decides that a player with a thousand (or whatever) sorcery points is too unbalanced then they probably have an obligation to nerf the completely legal RAW/RAI coffeelock.

However, it would make a pretty cool solo-character. Even without the coffeelock aspect, a warforged sorlock hexblade is the ultimate gish. The AC is phenomenal, especially with the shield spell. The melee damage with your pact weapon is pretty darn good. The long range sniper twinned/quickened EB damage is outstanding. The only thing it lacks is hit points and you can fix that with a feat or two. Go with Divine Soul and you have healing too.

Malifice

2018-07-24, 10:55 PM

The rules say that if you have avoided strenuous activity for 1 hour or more you may take the benefits of a short rest.

And again; you (the player) dont tell me (the DM) what the mechanical outcomes of your actions are.

You tell me you avoid strenuous activity and rest for an hour. I tell you what benefits (if any) you get for so doing.

That MAY be the mechanical benefits of a 'short rest'. It MAY not be.

So the players don't tell you they are taking a short rest. They just tell you what they are doing (we're doing nothing strenuous for the next hour). You, the DM, tell them if this counts as a short rest. If it does, then each player decides if their character takes the benefits.

Precisely.

Players: We sit around and chat for a while. At least an hour. Does anything happen in that hour? If it does, we'll respond to it. If not, let us know when an hour has gone by.

DM: Nothing happens.

Players: So, after one hour, is it fair to say that we have been resting for an hour at this point?

DM: Obviously.

Players: So, it appears that we qualify for a Short Rest, according to the definition in the PHB. Is there anything preventing us from taking the benefits if we want to?

DM: Yes; Im ruling that you're all already quite well rested, having already recently short rested [two or three times] since your last long rest. You wont get the benefits of another short rest, until you have had a long rest.

Your move.

MaxWilson

2018-07-24, 10:57 PM

Mind you, I recognize that they are inconsistent on these things. If they were consistent, instead of answering rules questions on Twitter, they'd be responding with 'well, what do you think it should be?' or the like.

So much this.

MaxWilson

2018-07-24, 10:59 PM

DM: Yes; Im ruling that you're all already quite well rested, having already recently short rested [two or three times] since your last long rest. You wont get the benefits of another short rest, until you have had a long rest.

Your move.

Player: So, do I get my warlock spell slots back?

DM: No, not until you rest.

Player: Can't I rest now?

DM: No, you're too well-rested to rest.

Player: [doesn't come back next week]

krugaan

2018-07-24, 11:01 PM

Player: So, do I get my warlock spell slots back?

DM: No, not until you rest.

Player: Can't I rest now?

DM: No, you're too well-rested to rest.

Player: [doesn't come back next week]

Wait, I know this one!

"Good riddance!"

Ganymede

2018-07-24, 11:01 PM

Player: So, do I get my warlock spell slots back?

DM: No, not until you rest.

Player: Can't I rest now?

DM: No, you're too well-rested to rest.

Player: [doesn't come back next week]

Haha... and the problem just solved itself! He's now another table's problem.

Malifice

2018-07-24, 11:24 PM

Player: So, do I get my warlock spell slots back?

DM: No, not until you rest.

Player: Can't I rest now?

DM: No, you're too well-rested to rest.

Player: [doesn't come back next week]

Look at that, the problem just resolved itself.

If you're rocking up to my table with the intent to abuse the rest mechanic by abusing 5 minute adventuring days, nova strikes, cycling short rests and so forth, you've come to the wrong table.

Everyone is happy.

RSP

2018-07-24, 11:37 PM

I put the Coffelock on the same level as Players trying to game a Long Rest by saying “We rest for 7 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds. We then find that dragon and start fighting him. If we need to, we can each, one at a time, just duck out of combat to rest for 1 second and complete the Long Rest, where we’ll regain all hit points and spell slots, then jump back in the fight.”

It’s pretty clear (to me at least), that rests are meant as a “recharge” to the Adventuring day, not a means to game the system.

Malifice

2018-07-24, 11:44 PM

It’s pretty clear (to me at least), that rests are meant as a “recharge” to the Adventuring day, not a means to game the system.

Yep. And any player that is shocked that (as a DM) I put a stop to those shennanigans, really isnt a good fit for my table.

He can take his gaming of the system elsewhere, where he can try and ruin the fun for those people. I dont have time for it.

mephnick

2018-07-25, 12:41 AM

It’s pretty clear (to me at least), that rests are meant as a “recharge” to the Adventuring day, not a means to game the system.

That's why I go full gamist and just restrict short rest recharges to 2 per long rest.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 08:31 AM

Haha... and the problem just solved itself! He's now another table's problem.

Said the player about the DM.

If you're so bothered about coffeelocks that you make the resting rules completely arbitrary, you should have just banned the combination. Every single time a DM alters an as-written rule in an arbitrary fashion, clearly targeted at one player, the DM is corroding their authority. Rule Zero is an awesome, weighty responsibility, and it's not to be invoked lightly or capriciously. "You're too well-rested to rest" is capricious with no basis in the game rules. Trying to annoy a player out of your game is never the proper response.

As the DM, there are responsible options you can take. You can ban the combination from your table. You can restrict is by simply asking your players politely not to do it. If a new player shows up with a coffeelock, you can just ask that guy not to play it. You can even, le gasp, see how the character plays in practice and make a decision about whether you'll allow it. Any of these options use your authority as DM to address the problem without affecting the other players at the table. Maybe it's not fun being a member of a party that has a clearly overpowered PC, but it's even less fun being a player in a game with a DM trying to drive players away from the table.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 09:11 AM

Said the player about the DM.

If you're so bothered about coffeelocks that you make the resting rules completely arbitrary, you should have just banned the combination.

Rubbish. There will always be more combinations. All you get is an arms race between a player trying to break the game by continually trying to find new ways to game the system, and the DM banning or HR-ing stuff as it gets gamed.

Why is the the DMs job to constantly make mechanical changes to a system, simply to stop a player from breaking it? Surely its better to deal with player's behavior and deal with the problem in one fell swoop.

Screw that. I already spend several hours of each week planning for the weekend session to come (statting up encounters, designing adventures and hooks, placing time constraints, designing intresting NPCs and so forth). Last thing I need to be doing is dealing with some idiot constantly trying to game the system.

I prefer to nip the problem in the bud. Deal with the player trying the break the system, and not the system itself. Gaming the system doesnt work at my table. I'm the DM, and the final arbiter of what does and does fly. My primary responsibility is a fun, challenging and entertaining game for all players.

I dont care less if a player has a cry about me saying 'nope' if he is trying to game the system. He can keep on crying all the way out the door and to another table. He either shapes up or ships out.

Dont take this as me being tyrannical. You're going to get your 2-3 short rests per long rest. You're going to get fun and challenging and engaging and balanced adventures.

But come at me with some kind of faceless 'build' designed to torture the system by 'cycling short rests' and prepare to be horribly disappointed.

Ganymede

2018-07-25, 09:13 AM

Said the player about the DM.

If you're so bothered about coffeelocks that you make the resting rules completely arbitrary, you should have just banned the combination. Every single time a DM alters an as-written rule in an arbitrary fashion, clearly targeted at one player, the DM is corroding their authority. Rule Zero is an awesome, weighty responsibility, and it's not to be invoked lightly or capriciously. "You're too well-rested to rest" is capricious with no basis in the game rules. Trying to annoy a player out of your game is never the proper response.

As the DM, there are responsible options you can take. You can ban the combination from your table. You can restrict is by simply asking your players politely not to do it. If a new player shows up with a coffeelock, you can just ask that guy not to play it. You can even, le gasp, see how the character plays in practice and make a decision about whether you'll allow it. Any of these options use your authority as DM to address the problem without affecting the other players at the table. Maybe it's not fun being a member of a party that has a clearly overpowered PC, but it's even less fun being a player in a game with a DM trying to drive players away from the table.

People, please be sure you're responding to the correct person before you hit enter. Go address this to Malifice like you meant to do.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 09:14 AM

People, please be sure you're responding to the correct person before you hit enter. Go address this to Malifice like you meant to do.

No, I meant to address this to all of you taking this ridiculous tack. The DM is the problem in this scenario, not the player.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 09:17 AM

Rubbish. There will always be more combinations. All you get is an arms race between a player trying to break the game by continually trying to find new ways to game the system, and the DM banning or HR-ing stuff as it gets gamed.

Why is the the DMs job to constantly make mechanical changes to a system, simply to stop a player from breaking it? Surely its better to deal with player's behavior and deal with the problem in one fell swoop.

Screw that. I already spend several hours of each week planning for the weekend session to come (statting up encounters, designing adventures and hooks, placing time constraints, designing intresting NPCs and so forth). Last thing I need to be doing is dealing with some idiot constantly trying to game the system.

I prefer to nip the problem in the bud. Deal with the player trying the break the system, and not the system itself. Gaming the system doesnt work at my table. I'm the DM, and the final arbiter of what does and does fly. My primary responsibility is a fun, challenging and entertaining game for all players.

I dont care less if a player has a cry about me saying 'nope' if he is trying to game the system. He can keep on crying all the way out the door and to another table. He either shapes up or ships out.

Dont take this as me being tyrannical. You're going to get your 2-3 short rests per long rest. You're going to get fun and challenging and engaging and balanced adventures.

But come at me with some kind of faceless 'build' designed to torture the system by 'cycling short rests' and prepare to be horribly disappointed.

You're not dealing with the player at all. You're deliberately avoiding the player. You're passively-aggressively taking measures aimed at the character. Nipping it in the bud would be preventing this problem from making it to the table at all. If you can't come up with a better solution than altering the rules on the fly, you're a terrible DM. Period, the end.

Ganymede

2018-07-25, 09:17 AM

No, I meant to address this to all of you taking this ridiculous tack. The DM is the problem in this scenario, not the player.

I have zero interest in having this discussion with you. I just posted a joke about an inelegantly worded quip; that represented the extent of my interest in the thread.

Stop trying to drag me into an argument with you and go away.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 09:18 AM

No, I meant to address this to all of you taking this ridiculous tack. The DM is the problem in this scenario, not the player.

No, he's not.

The player has come to a table with 'build' specifically designed to game the rest mechanics, in a game where the DM enforces and manages the adventuring day (as the DM should).

Its not the DM that is the problem here. If you think it is, you're wrong.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 09:26 AM

You're not dealing with the player at all.

Yes, I am.

Dont game the system, it doesnt work in this campaign. If thats how you roll, find a different game.

I cant think of a more effective method of dealing with the player. Shape up or ship out.

Im not here to counsel the player and point out to him why what he's doing is against the interests of the game, and a total douche move. I'm not his mother or his therapist.

If he can't see why creating some character with the intent to game (and break) some element of the system in ways it was not intended, then I dont want him at my table.

If you can't come up with a better solution than altering the rules on the fly, you're a terrible DM. Period, the end.

Im not altering any rule. Im making a ruling. Which is what DMs do.

In this case my ruling is in response to a player that is trying to game the system. I have absolutely zero issues with a DM taking such measures. None at all. If I was playing in a game, and some random idiot rocked in with a characte designed to game the system, I would want the DM to put a stop to that straight away as well. He's the manager of the game, not me.

Dont poke the bear.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-25, 10:19 AM

Said the player about the DM.

If you're so bothered about coffeelocks that you make the resting rules completely arbitrary, you should have just banned the combination.

I am pretty sure, that what actually happens at most tables is roughly this:
A player playing one or the other of warforged sorcerer or warlock decides to MC into the other.
The DM raises an eyebrow, and says, "talk to me, what's going on?"
Player: 'well I thought my character would decide to...'
DM: 'indulge me. It does you no good to spend multiple levels on something and then me to rule against it. Talk to me.'
Player: 'okay, so I was looking at how you can convert spell slots into sorcery points, and then those into sorcerer spell slots...'
DM: 'and you want to short rest your warlock spells back, recharge sorcery points, convert them to spell slots, and have a near-infinite number of spell slots, all of which only get erased on a long-rest, which, as a warforged, you never expressly have to take, right?
Player: 'Er, yeah...'
DM: 'Yep, clever... -ish. Online that's referred to as a Coffeelock. I get that you are proud of yourself for having discovered this neat little exploit, but it disrupts the economy of limited character resources just like the infinite wish or infinite wealth loops and other such cheese that has happened throughout the game at times, and it spoils the overall fun for the entire table. I'm not going to be DMing a table with this little exploit in effect. So please make another choice.'
Player: 'but...'
DM: I will not be DMing a table with this exploit in effect. Please make another choice.'
Player: 'Fine... what about...'

So, in effect*, people do do that.
*I believe

No, I meant to address this to all of you taking this ridiculous tack. The DM is the problem in this scenario, not the player.

Of all the things that come up in online debates, the most useless one is which has to be which is actually a bigger problem -- overly authoritarian DMs or overly entitled Players. It is a false narrative that doesn't help anyone. Everyone has run into a DM that shouldn't be DMing, and everyone has run into a player who wants an advantage despite the fact that it will disrupt the game. Yet virtually no one actually has to deal with it on a day-to-day basis because people tend to only stick around in games where they feel comfortable. It is a non-issue in a completely voluntary activity. This is right up there with sports team debates and this-v-that-generation discussions, it genuinely serves no purpose.

Arial Black

2018-07-25, 11:03 AM

That MAY be the mechanical benefits of a 'short rest'. It MAY not be.

Well, it's a definite 'yes' if you're playing RAW 5e. For it to be 'no' you would have to change the rules. Which you can, but that change would apply to everyone

DM: Yes; Im ruling that you're all already quite well rested, having already recently short rested [two or three times] since your last long rest. You wont get the benefits of another short rest, until you have had a long rest.

If you are playing by the rules as written, then your ruling is incorrect if there is something I would get back if I took the benefits.

For example, if one of the benefits I get from a Short Rest is that I regain spent Pact Magic slots, and I have fewer than full when I started the rest, then if I take the benefits of a short rest then I would regain those slots.

Therefore, I am clearly not rested enough, and I would benefit by resting. Your assertion is demonstrably incorrect.

As is your implication that I can only benefit from Short Rests more than your arbitrary 'two or three times' per Long Rest. Same with your implication that one of the benefits of a Long Rest is that your 'allowed number of Short Rests' resets!

You made all that up.

Your move.

Did you make up new resting rules for your campaign? If you did, then your replies are useless for the purposes of answering a rules question.

If you didn't, then you are ruling incorrectly.

Further, I believe this is not an accidental ruling, but deliberately ruling in a nonsensical way in order to mess with that PC. DMs are supposed to be neutral arbiters.

I'd like to point out that at no time was my example character a 'coffeelock'; just a normal warlock using his normal class abilities.

From your posts it seems that the very laws of nature change to prevent him from regaining his spell slots, by either:-

* preventing him personally benefiting from a Short Rest, or

* preventing the whole party from benefiting from a Short Rest in order to make sure that the warlock doesn't get those slots back.

I suspect that a party without warlocks would get the benefits in the same circumstances.

The universe turns, not caring what we do. The Laws of Nature are what they are, not caring how we exploit them.

Creatures evolve to best exploit their environment, whatever the laws of that environment happen to be. If the laws change, they will evolve to take the most advantage of the new situation.

What does not happen is that the universe notices that some creatures are taking advantage of the way nature works, so the universe changes its own laws in order to annoy them!

You are a bad DM.

JoeJ

2018-07-25, 11:38 AM

I suspect that a party without warlocks would get the benefits in the same circumstances.

What benefits would a party without a coffeelock gain from taking back-to-back short rests?

Willie the Duck

2018-07-25, 11:40 AM

What benefits would a party without a coffeelock gain from taking back-to-back short rests?

If someone has the healer feat and a bunch of healing kits, there could be an application.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 12:12 PM

I am pretty sure, that what actually happens at most tables is roughly this:
So, in effect*, people do do that.
*I believe

And I have no problem with this. The player proposes a course of action, the DM logically lays out their objection to that course of action, and they move forward collaboratively. That's how it's supposed to go.

Of all the things that come up in online debates, the most useless one is which has to be which is actually a bigger problem -- overly authoritarian DMs or overly entitled Players. It is a false narrative that doesn't help anyone. Everyone has run into a DM that shouldn't be DMing, and everyone has run into a player who wants an advantage despite the fact that it will disrupt the game. Yet virtually no one actually has to deal with it on a day-to-day basis because people tend to only stick around in games where they feel comfortable. It is a non-issue in a completely voluntary activity. This is right up there with sports team debates and this-v-that-generation discussions, it genuinely serves no purpose.

The thing here is that I don't see how this is an overly-entitled player. He's doing a thing that's supported within the rules, and being punished for it outside those rules. If the DM makes clear his objection to the coffeelock, requests that no one play one at his table and makes it clear that he won't allow one in the game, and the player still shows up with a coffeelock, then we can say the player is behaving badly. In the given situation, we have a DM taking punitive action over something entirely preventable if he'd been doing his job.

Additionally, who's actually affecting someone's fun here? On one hand, a player is playing a very, very strong character; on the other, the DM is passively-aggressively trying to force that player away from their table. As a fellow player, I'd be much more bothered by the latter. Your opinion, of course, may differ.

JNAProductions

2018-07-25, 12:24 PM

Mjolnirbear

2018-07-25, 12:39 PM

Well, it's a definite 'yes' if you're playing RAW 5e. For it to be 'no' you would have to change the rules. Which you can, but that change would apply to everyone

RAW uses a conditional. In all cases where the RAW is unclear or uncertain or conditional, the DM rules on it and the game keeps going.

If you are playing by the rules as written, then your ruling is incorrect if there is something I would get back if I took the benefits.

For example, if one of the benefits I get from a Short Rest is that I regain spent Pact Magic slots, and I have fewer than full when I started the rest, then if I take the benefits of a short rest then I would regain those slots.

Therefore, I am clearly not rested enough, and I would benefit by resting. Your assertion is demonstrably incorrect.

So if you as a player short-rested after every single spell cast, you expect the DM to be OK with that?

As is your implication that I can only benefit from Short Rests more than your arbitrary 'two or three times' per Long Rest. Same with your implication that one of the benefits of a Long Rest is that your 'allowed number of Short Rests' resets!

You made all that up.

No, he did not. Its part of the encounter math and part of the mechanics for balancing a warlock. The DMG explains how many encounters per adventuring day and that there should be 'two to three' short rests per long rest. No short rests, and the warlock sucks. 15 short rests, and the warlock is OP. 2-3 is the balanced amount.

Did you make up new resting rules for your campaign? If you did, then your replies are useless for the purposes of answering a rules question.

If you didn't, then you are ruling incorrectly.

This is 5th edition, not 3.5. It is their express intention that the DM has final say. It is not possible for him to rule incorrectly. It is his function to interpret and manage the rules. Even if the rules are explicitly against him, he can change the rules. That is his power. You? You have the power to walk away.

Further, I believe this is not an accidental ruling, but deliberately ruling in a nonsensical way in order to mess with that PC. DMs are supposed to be neutral arbiters.

His intentions are irrelevant since he has the power to make them. His players have the power to leave the game. I, too, enforce rest limits. I've never had to deal with a coffeelock. There is more reason than coffeelock shenanigans to do so.

I'd like to point out that at no time was my example character a 'coffeelock'; just a normal warlock using his normal class abilities.

Even if what you say is true, the DM can still mess with class abilities. He can say that a Fiendlock doesn't get his THP after defeating a bad guy, or a goolock can't speak into someone's head. Maybe the bad guy didn't die. Maybe that guy's head was an illusion.

DM is god.

From your posts it seems that the very laws of nature change to prevent him from regaining his spell slots, by either:-

* preventing him personally benefiting from a Short Rest, or

* preventing the whole party from benefiting from a Short Rest in order to make sure that the warlock doesn't get those slots back.

I suspect that a party without warlocks would get the benefits in the same circumstances.

The universe turns, not caring what we do. The Laws of Nature are what they are, not caring how we exploit them.

Creatures evolve to best exploit their environment, whatever the laws of that environment happen to be. If the laws change, they will evolve to take the most advantage of the new situation.

What does not happen is that the universe notices that some creatures are taking advantage of the way nature works, so the universe changes its own laws in order to annoy them!

You are a bad DM.

First: this is a game. There are no laws of nature. The DM creates and maintains the universe of the game. He can change those rules on a whim and a wish. He is all-powerful. This is by intent and by design. The game was created to be malleable to the DM's wishes.

Second: the laws of nature say that most people who have had sufficient rest cannot fall asleep. They cannot store up sleep at all. There are functional limits to how much rest you get in a day. There are exceptions. These people have disorders such as narcolepsy and sleep apnea and depression and are exceptions to the rule. Even if your 'natural laws' mattered in a game with magic and gods and dragons and unicorns, they don't say what you think they say.

Third: à very pretty speech that has nothing to do with a game. Your soapbox is cracking under the weight of your grandstanding. I mean, really? Just go ahead and say dramatically 'the very fabric of the universe rails against this injustice!'

If you don't like the rules he enforces, play at a different table or with a different game.

RSP

2018-07-25, 12:43 PM

The thing here is that I don't see how this is an overly-entitled player. He's doing a thing that's supported within the rules, and being punished for it outside those rules.

To be fair, I don’t think anyone showing up at a table with a Coffeelock isn’t trying to game the system; it takes a lot of specific work, game experience and knowledge to come up with it (less if you allow the new Warforged, but that’s not RAW).

Do you really believe this just happens unintentionally? “Hey, DM, my new 4th level PC is a Sorc/Warlock with an invocation that allows him to bypass sleep, therefore he’s spent the last month just Short Resting and turning his 2 Pact Magic slots into permenant 1st level spell slots so he’ll start the campaign with 600 1st level slots. We good?”

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 12:57 PM

To be fair, I don’t think anyone showing up at a table with a Coffeelock isn’t trying to game the system; it takes a lot of specific work, game experience and knowledge to come up with it (less if you allow the new Warforged, but that’s not RAW).

Do you really believe this just happens unintentionally? “Hey, DM, my new 4th level PC is a Sorc/Warlock with an invocation that allows him to bypass sleep, therefore he’s spent the last month just Short Resting and turning his 2 Pact Magic slots into permenant 1st level spell slots so he’ll start the campaign with 600 1st level slots. We good?”

Well, in that given example, the campaign hasn't begun. I'm fine with the DM telling him to pound sand and come back with a different character. What I'm not OK with is the player telling the DM he's got a new 4th level PC who's a a Sorc/Warlock with an invocation that allows him to bypass sleep, and then the DM says OK fine, and then they play for a while, then the character takes a short rest and the DM says it doesn't work. That's a hell of a run-on sentence, but you get the point.

DMs shouldn't be punishing characters for the behavior of players, and they shouldn't punish players for the behavior of characters. Out-of-character issues ought to be handled out of character, and an inappropriately-powered PC (or a PC brought to the table in violation of the DM's rules!) is an out-of-character issue.

EDIT: Mjolnirbear, if the only argument for a DM action is "Rule Zero says they can", they probably shouldn't. Altering the written rules is the last resort.

JNAProductions

2018-07-25, 01:03 PM

I would expect that, if the player attempts to short rest after every spell spent, the DM would give them quests with time limits, making it unfeasible; have wandering monsters interrupt the rest, making it unfeasible; or the other players would say "Hey, we want to get moving, stop doing that," making it unfeasible.

jas61292

2018-07-25, 01:07 PM

I personally disagree with those saying that denying coffelocks is violating RAW. The rules of the game state that a player says what their character does and the DM determines the mechanical effects. The rules also state that a short rest is a period of downtime of at least one hour. Rests and their mechanics are metagame concepts, not in character ones. If a player spends four hours having some down time, it is perfectly RAW for a DM to say that is one, and only one, short rest. In fact, it is arguably more correct than ruling it as 4 rests, as the qualifier "at least" means that a single short rest equals any length of time resting that is more than an hour.

But regardless, let's be honest here. If you are a coffeelock, you are attempting to abuse meta rules. That is just a fact. A DM shutting that down (outside specific game types) is a mark of a good DM, regardless of RAW.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 01:13 PM

JNAProductions

2018-07-25, 01:14 PM

Willie the Duck

2018-07-25, 01:18 PM

The thing here is that I don't see how this is an overly-entitled player. He's doing a thing that's supported within the rules, and being punished for it outside those rules. If the DM makes clear his objection to the coffeelock, requests that no one play one at his table and makes it clear that he won't allow one in the game, and the player still shows up with a coffeelock, then we can say the player is behaving badly. In the given situation, we have a DM taking punitive action over something entirely preventable if he'd been doing his job.

I could have been more clear. I'm not declaring a viewpoint one way or another on this specific example at all. I'm talking about the general eternal online forum discussion of "Players vs. DMs (who's actually the good guy?)," and I think the entire thing is hot garbage. I can't say something like "that's an internet invention that never happens in real life." because each and every one of us has probably seen examples in both directions at one time or another. However, in general, it isn't really a problem in real life because everyone has long since come to a collective understanding of what level of intricate rules convergences are considered being rather bright, and which ones are considered gratuitous cheese at their specific tables. That is why I consider it a non-issue and the concept that this is actually a real problem something of a consensus false narrative.

Additionally, who's actually affecting someone's fun here? On one hand, a player is playing a very, very strong character; on the other, the DM is passively-aggressively trying to force that player away from their table. As a fellow player, I'd be much more bothered by the latter. Your opinion, of course, may differ.

My opinion is that IRL, even the contrived scenario I described above in my numbered list is highly unrealistic. What really happens is more like:
Scenario 1:
Player: "Hey <DM>, have you heard of a Coffeelock?"
DM: "Yeah. pretty silly huh?"
Player: "Yeah. But I kinda want to try it."
DM: "Hmmm. Check with everyone else, and you can run one for the one off on Labor Day."

or

Scenario 2:
Player: "Hey <DM>, have you heard of a Coffeelock?"
DM: "Yeah. pretty stupid huh?"
Player: <slowly taking his hand of character sheet they were pulling out.>"Yeah, but amusing."

jas61292

2018-07-25, 01:22 PM

Depends how they do it. If they're passive-aggressively sniping at the character... That's not good.

Oh definitely. The way you go about things says far more about your DMing skill than simply the outcome of what you do.

The best way to address any mechanical issue is outside of play, preferably before the character ever sees play, or after the first session that an issue becomes apparent, if it was not noticed before the character joined. If something suddenly comes up that is obviously detrimental to play, it is fine to cut it off immediately, but only if you intend to discuss it with the affected player once the session is over.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 01:24 PM

However, in general, it isn't really a problem in real life because everyone has long since come to a collective understanding of what level of intricate rules convergences are considered being rather bright, and which ones are considered gratuitous cheese at their specific tables. That is why I consider it a non-issue and the concept that this is actually a real problem something of a consensus false narrative.

Willie, I would have agreed with this 100% before 5E. 5E's business imperative seems to be the creation of more random, ad-hoc tables through AL, so there's going to be more of this friction as new tables form, argue, and discover their own series of workable norms.

The philosophical conflict played out in internet debate isn't that useful, but calling out authoritarian DMs or entitled players on a per-table basis is valuable, I think, as it helps those tables create their norms.

My opinion is that IRL, even the contrived scenario I described above in my numbered list is highly unrealistic. What really happens is more like:
Scenario 1:
Player: "Hey <DM>, have you heard of a Coffeelock?"
DM: "Yeah. pretty silly huh?"
Player: "Yeah. But I kinda want to try it."
DM: "Hmmm. Check with everyone else, and you can run one for the one off on Labor Day."

or

Scenario 2:
Player: "Hey <DM>, have you heard of a Coffeelock?"
DM: "Yeah. pretty stupid huh?"
Player: <slowly taking his hand of character sheet they were pulling out.>"Yeah, but amusing."

For tables with working norms in place, yeah. It's more likely to require in-depth adjudication when there aren't working, self-enforcing norms in place and it's every man for himself.

Mjolnirbear

2018-07-25, 01:38 PM

isEDIT: Mjolnirbear, if the only argument for a DM action is "Rule Zero says they can", they probably shouldn't. Altering the written rules is the last resort.

No. The point of the game is for everyone to have fun. Who has fun with a coffeelock? Just the player. The rest get annoyed at being shone up. They feel underpowered. They rightfully feel the DM should step in; that they should, in fact, have stepped in right away.

What's more, the DM can only run a table where they, too, have fun. DMing is not a job, and the DM's payment is only in fun. They do a lot of planning and work to make a game they hope the players like, and abusing the rules? Makes the game a burden to run.

Altering the written rules in the name of fun is neither wrong nor even mildly annoying. If this is what the DM feels he has to do to enjoy running a game and make the players happy, then it's what he needs to do. It's effectively become an obligation.

The coffeelock is the one imposing. Not the DM.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 01:40 PM

No. The point of the game is for everyone to have fun. Who has fun with a coffeelock? Just the player. The rest get annoyed at being shone up. They feel underpowered. They rightfully feel the DM should step in; that they should, in fact, have stepped in right away.

Objection, supposition.

Mjolnirbear

2018-07-25, 01:45 PM

Unless each period of rest is separated by a period of activity more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds. Casting spells is one such activity. While characters cannot benefit from more than one long rest in a 24 hour period, there are no such restrictions on short rests.

Edit: I'm not saying a DM can't disallow the coffeelock. They can, and I think they probably should. As with any deviation from the published rules of the game, those restrictions should be made clear and public before the start of the game.

Ideally, yes.

But DMs learn through experience. That is, by making mistakes. If a DM failed to snip a potential problem in the bud because they failed to recognise it was a problem, they regardless need to prune it down once it becomes an issue.

"Look, Player3. I didn't know about this coffeelock thing before you started. One player is about to quit and the others are asking me to give them something powerful so they can feel better. This is supposed to be fun. Im going to limit how many short rests between long rests you can benefit from. You can still do your trick, just not as much. Or you can make a new character. What do you want to do?"

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 01:47 PM

Ideally, yes.

But DMs learn through experience. That is, by making mistakes. If a DM failed to snip a potential problem in the bud because they failed to recognise it was a problem, they regardless need to prune it down once it becomes an issue.

"Look, Player3. I didn't know about this coffeelock thing before you started. One player is about to quit and the others are asking me to give them something powerful so they can feel better. This is supposed to be fun. Im going to limit how many short rests between long rests you can benefit from. You can still do your trick, just not as much. Or you can make a new character. What do you want to do?"

Hey look at that we're dealing with an out-of-character problem out of character; we're not just randomly changing the rules midstream!

Mjolnirbear

2018-07-25, 01:49 PM

Objection, supposition.

As someone who has DMed for regular groups, no, it's not. No player likes their character to feel useless,regardless of the reason. I may not have had to deal with a coffeelock, but nothing is stopping me from making an educated guess based on experience.

Mjolnirbear

2018-07-25, 01:52 PM

Hey look at that we're dealing with an out-of-character problem out of character; we're not just randomly changing the rules midstream!

What part of that made you think I wasn't changing the rules or enforcing my interpretation thereof? What part of any of this conversation made you think any rulings on this subject were random and unsubstantiated? Because I explained my reasons, you assume another DM would not?

You're trying to spin straw into gold, and your argument still has no merit.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 01:54 PM

As someone who has DMed for regular groups, no, it's not. No player likes their character to feel useless,regardless of the reason. I may not have had to deal with a coffeelock, but nothing is stopping me from making an educated guess based on experience.

Two things. First, it doesn't line up with my experience, DMing or playing. Groups are more tolerant of widely varying power levels than persnickity DMs. Second, if n first-level spells is all it takes to make an entire party useless in a campaign, the campaign goals aren't well designed. The problem solving needs to happen a layer or two up from that.

What part of that made you think I wasn't changing the rules or enforcing my interpretation thereof? What part of any of this conversation made you think any rulings on this subject were random and unsubstantiated? Because I explained my reasons, you assume another DM would not?

You're trying to spin straw into gold, and your argument still has no merit.

If you'd read the original thing we're arguing about, no, the DM didn't explain his reasons out of character. He decided on an in-character remedy and applied it with the intent of driving the player away from the table. That's the solution he sought.

Mjolnirbear

2018-07-25, 02:08 PM

Two things. First, it doesn't line up with my experience, DMing or playing. Groups are more tolerant of widely varying power levels than persnickity DMs. Second, if n first-level spells is all it takes to make an entire party useless in a campaign, the campaign goals aren't well designed. The problem solving needs to happen a layer or two up from that.

If you'd read the original thing we're arguing about, no, the DM didn't explain his reasons out of character. He decided on an in-character remedy and applied it with the intent of driving the player away from the table. That's the solution he sought.

n-first level spells can mean n magic missiles. Are you seriously arguing that more magic misses is not more powerful? Most players get a max of four. You could have 40. And you think that won't destabilise the group? I don't believe you are stupid. Don't act like this is something that doesn't require fixing.

Just because the DM didn't say it here doesn't mean he didn't explain it to the player at the time. You made an assumption. Further, you're assuming the character and not the player is a problem, when you have no way of actually knowing whether that is the case.

Lastly, even if they player was perfectly reasonable, that doesn't mean the player is a good fit for the game being played. Encouraging the player to leave can be a perfectly reasonable response. Since you weren't there, you don't know.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-25, 02:30 PM

Willie, I would have agreed with this 100% before 5E. 5E's business imperative seems to be the creation of more random, ad-hoc tables through AL, so there's going to be more of this friction as new tables form, argue, and discover their own series of workable norms.
The philosophical conflict played out in internet debate isn't that useful, but calling out authoritarian DMs or entitled players on a per-table basis is valuable, I think, as it helps those tables create their norms.

For tables with working norms in place, yeah. It's more likely to require in-depth adjudication when there aren't working, self-enforcing norms in place and it's every man for himself.

Okay, yeah. If you are playing a pickup game at your FLGS (AL or otherwise), you do need to establish those norms. And it should happen without anyone feeling attacked. However, I still haven't seen any real toxic events happen IRL. People who come to the table with a Coffeelock, Sorcadin, or even PAM+Shield Quarterstaff wielder all seem to do so knowing that the DM might nix it. There seems to be a consensus around what qualifies as 'iffy,' even if the cutoff on 'iffy, but acceptable,' is not agreed upon.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 02:32 PM

I am pretty sure, that what actually happens at most tables is roughly this:
A player playing one or the other of warforged sorcerer or warlock decides to MC into the other.
The DM raises an eyebrow, and says, "talk to me, what's going on?"
Player: 'well I thought my character would decide to...'
DM: 'indulge me. It does you no good to spend multiple levels on something and then me to rule against it. Talk to me.'
Player: 'okay, so I was looking at how you can convert spell slots into sorcery points, and then those into sorcerer spell slots...'
DM: 'and you want to short rest your warlock spells back, recharge sorcery points, convert them to spell slots, and have a near-infinite number of spell slots, all of which only get erased on a long-rest, which, as a warforged, you never expressly have to take, right?
Player: 'Er, yeah...'
DM: 'Yep, clever... -ish. Online that's referred to as a Coffeelock. I get that you are proud of yourself for having discovered this neat little exploit, but it disrupts the economy of limited character resources just like the infinite wish or infinite wealth loops and other such cheese that has happened throughout the game at times, and it spoils the overall fun for the entire table. I'm not going to be DMing a table with this little exploit in effect. So please make another choice.'
Player: 'but...'
DM: I will not be DMing a table with this exploit in effect. Please make another choice.'
Player: 'Fine... what about...'

Oh that's already been discussed in session zero.

As DM I police the adventuring day. As the DMG tells me to. There are no 5 minute adventuring days or spamming short rests on my watch. My players can generally expect 6 or so encounters between long rests, and around 2 short rests in that time. Sometimes there will be more encounters, sometimes less (or even just the one). Sometimes more short rests, sometimes less.

DnD is a resource management game mechanically. Part of my job as DM is to maintain balance, challenge for the players, and so forth. Management of resources is a player task, but subject to the framework set down by the DM.

Of all the things that come up in online debates, the most useless one is which has to be which is actually a bigger problem -- overly authoritarian DMs or overly entitled Players. It is a false narrative that doesn't help anyone. Everyone has run into a DM that shouldn't be DMing, and everyone has run into a player who wants an advantage despite the fact that it will disrupt the game. Yet virtually no one actually has to deal with it on a day-to-day basis because people tend to only stick around in games where they feel comfortable. It is a non-issue in a completely voluntary activity. This is right up there with sports team debates and this-v-that-generation discussions, it genuinely serves no purpose.

Im 43 years old, and have limited leisure time. I dont want to spend it managing or dealing with a disruptive player who only plays to attempt to break the system or game it, and ruins the fun for everyone else.

Call me old fashioned, but it's simply easier to boot them.

Ill have a broad word during session zero about campaign and game expectations, and will try and steer them on the right track to break bad habits for a few sessions, but I dont find any enjoyment spending my spare time hanging out with jerks or socially incompetent people, or playing a game with someone with vastly different expectations of the game than I have. There are other tables for them where they'll fit in fine. Its best for both of us if that's what ends up happening.

I'm not some guys therapist. Ill manage the player to some extent, but Im not afraid to point to the door and wave goodbye either.

Well, it's a definite 'yes' if you're playing RAW 5e. For it to be 'no' you would have to change the rules. Which you can, but that change would apply to everyone

The RAW says the DM is the final arbiter of everything, and every other rule is subject to that rule (and the rule of fun).

My job as DM is to ensure a challenging and entertaining game for my players. Not to have some jerk of a player try and game the system while I sit there helplessly unable to do anything about it.

So you're wrong.

If you are playing by the rules as written, then your ruling is incorrect if there is something I would get back if I took the benefits.

No mate, rulings are correct. You the player dont get to tell me what the rules are. I know the rules on short rests, but I'm making a ruling in the spirit of the game, to ensure balance and to prevent some snotty nosed jerk trying to game the rest mechanic.

It doesnt work. Dont worry, you'll get your 2-3 short rests generally speaking. Just dont try and game the system and we'll be fine.

If thats sounds 'unfair' to you, or you want to complain further - consider yourself uninvited to the game.

Problem solved one way or another.

You are a bad DM.

From where I sit, you're a bad player. Stop trying to game the rest mechanic, and stop arguing with the DM about his rulings, and play your character and have fun, or find another DM. group that is happy with gamist and argumentative players and have your fun with them.

Either way you have fun. It's a win/ win.

JNAProductions

2018-07-25, 02:34 PM

But the issue is, Malifice, you aren't booting them by saying "Hey, you came to my table with a character who abuses the rules, and I won't tolerate that. Either shape up with a character that's non-abusive, or you are not welcome at this table."

That would be okay. You might come across as harsh, but you're being fair and honest.

You're talking about specifically using rule zero to target out someone's character so they aren't having fun, and getting them to leave that way. That's an OOC problem, trying to be solved with IC means, and that's just plain immature. I don't care if you're 43, you're not acting like it when you do that.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 02:39 PM

Yeah, Malifice, you're coming across as a jerk DM.

It's totally fine to say "Hey, I have this houserule that makes coffeelocking impossible/not worth doing."
It's totally fine to say "I find coffeelocks too powerful, so please don't play them."
It's NOT fine to say "The rules don't work the way they're written, but it's not a houserule, it's just a ruling," in a passive-aggressive fashion designed to feth over one player.

Houseruling the game is fine. Asking the players to avoid overly strong combinations is fine. Pretending you're following RAW when you're not in an attempt to get a player to leave is a jerk move.

Rubbish.

I have an overarching rule of 'Don't attempt to game the system'. I dont need a detailed house-rule document to do something that a simple chat with the players establishing expectations for the game and campaign, and in game rulings wont fix.

Dont rock up to my table in 3E, and start purchasing 2sp 10' ladders and breaking them down into 2 x 5sp 10' poles for profit. Dont try and chain simulacrums with wish or else you'll find out what I can do with self recursive AI NPCs. Dont try and game the 5 minute adventuring day or cycle rests, because it doesnt work. Dont continually try any gamist shennanigans or else you'll likely get booted from the table. Dont rock up to my table with a Kobold scaled one of Toril with a snake familiar and try and assume the form of a Sarruhk. And so forth.

My obligation is not to indulge ****-head players who are trying to game the system. My obligation as DM is to create a fun and challenging series of encounters, a game world for people to explore, to ensure everyone at the table is having fun, and to apply the rules in that spirit.

I get this might be a shock to some people. They can take it up with their next DM or sook about it on a forum. I dont want them at my table, unless they change their ways.

JNAProductions

2018-07-25, 02:43 PM

So you don't record your houserules at all? You just tell players, after they've invested time and effort into a build, that "It doesn't work like that,"?

This isn't even related to coffeelocking-this could be literally anything else. Because, if you say "We're gonna play D&D 5E," players sign on expecting a game of 5th Edition D&D. If you don't say "These are my houserules while playing," then you should either have no or minimally invasive houserules, or you're a liar.

Again, no one is saying "Go play at Malifice's table with a coffeelock." We're just saying you're coming across as a big ol' jerk for what your stated actions would be. Do you understand that?

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 02:45 PM

Since you weren't there, you don't know.

Pretty sure you weren't there either.

Again, if the difference between 4 and 6 uses of magic missile breaks your campaign, your campaign was badly designed. Try an obstacle that isn't just a big blob of hitpoints.

Okay, yeah. If you are playing a pickup game at your FLGS (AL or otherwise), you do need to establish those norms. And it should happen without anyone feeling attacked. However, I still haven't seen any real toxic events happen IRL. People who come to the table with a Coffeelock, Sorcadin, or even PAM+Shield Quarterstaff wielder all seem to do so knowing that the DM might nix it. There seems to be a consensus around what qualifies as 'iffy,' even if the cutoff on 'iffy, but acceptable,' is not agreed upon.

Fair. I think the biggest cause of toxic table behavior is mismatched expectations. Because the DM is ultimately the arbiter of the table, it's up to that person who make sure everyone's on the same page. Because they make the rulings about what is and is not acceptable, it's also on them to disseminate that information. Great power, great responsibility and all that.

But the issue is, Malifice, you aren't booting them by saying "Hey, you came to my table with a character who abuses the rules, and I won't tolerate that. Either shape up with a character that's non-abusive, or you are not welcome at this table."

That would be okay. You might come across as harsh, but you're being fair and honest.

You're talking about specifically using rule zero to target out someone's character so they aren't having fun, and getting them to leave that way. That's an OOC problem, trying to be solved with IC means, and that's just plain immature. I don't care if you're 43, you're not acting like it when you do that.

Endorsed.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-25, 02:46 PM

Oh that's already been discussed in session zero.

Yeah, probably. In amongst lots of other settings of expectations. I framed it as happening during leveling of an existing warlock or sorcerer to make it a discrete whole instead of part of something larger.

Im 43 years old, and have limited leisure time. I dont want to spend it managing or dealing with a disruptive player who only plays to attempt to break the system or game it, and ruins the fun for everyone else.

Call me old fashioned, but it's simply easier to boot them.

44. Did your copy of BECMI B and E have the B/X or updated skill percentages?

Anyways, my point was I don't think these disruptive players actually happen. Someone might want to play the latest exploit they've read about*, and bring it forward, but they wouldn't be surprised when it was shot down. That's my greater point--individual tables have long since established their threshold for cheese, and the great DM v. Player battle for supremacy isn't (IMO) really a thing.
*yes someone had to discover the Coffeelock concept originally, I'd be hard pressed to be convinced that one of my players came up with it independently

Malifice

2018-07-25, 02:46 PM

You're talking about specifically using rule zero to target out someone's character so they aren't having fun, and getting them to leave that way.

No, I am using Rule Zero to stop a player from abusing the rules as written, and gaming the rest mechanic to the detriment of the game (and likely the enjoyment of other players).

If that makes me a bad DM, so be it.

That's an OOC problem, trying to be solved with IC means, and that's just plain immature. I don't care if you're 43, you're not acting like it when you do that.

In a sense its an OOC problem - I have a gamist **** of a player, and I generally cant stand them. He's also ignoring my session zero chat of 'dont do this' and 'this is how I will be managing rests during the campaign, and these are the expectations of the campaign'. That wasnt said to his character, it was said to him.

Im presuming the player in question here knows me, knows my table, and knows what will and what wont fly in my games as well. He hasnt rocked up in a vacuum.

And Im not solving it via 'IC' means. Im the DM, not a character. Im making a ruling to enforce balance, and challenge for the players, and to put a stop to any attempt to game the rest mechanic.

There are very solid mechanical reasons why that ruling was made.

Im not screwing the player over either. He'll get his 2-3 short rests, that Warlocks are based and balanced round, and within that paradigm he can freely convert spell slots to SP and vice versa.

JNAProductions

2018-07-25, 02:50 PM

DMs have IC levers too, you know. If you are doing something IN THE GAME-changing the rules, adding more monsters, dropping specific loot-that's an In-Character effect.

If you're doing something OUT OF THE GAME-talking to players, mostly-that's an Out-Of-Character effect.

You're presupposing that the coffeelock player is a jerk, and, more importantly, using that as justification for being a jerk yourself. The first is, at least, a little reasonable. Coffeelocks don't happen by accident-I can easily see a player just not thinking it through and innocently making one, but I can just as easily see a player doing it because they want to be OP. But the second bit? Be the bigger man. Don't be a d-bag to your player, even if they're a jerk to you. Just be firm and tell them they're not welcome. Don't passive-aggressively screw their character over until they decide that you're the jerk and leave.

Edit: And Rules As Written, the Coffeelock works. You can try tot wist and contort it all you want, but them's the breaks. You're free to houserule "No more spell slots than your normal max," or "No more than three short rests per long rest."

But those are houserules, and should be noted as such.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 02:55 PM

So you don't record your houserules at all? You just tell players, after they've invested time and effort into a build, that "It doesn't work like that,"?

No. You see I have this thing called a mobile phone and an email adress. They (my players) can call or message me whenever to ask if something is OK.

And Ive had the chat with the players already. They know gamist bullcrap wont fly. If they're still trying after that chat, then so be it.

Im not hurting the cofeelock build either. Like I said, it still gets its 2-3 short rests per long rest that the game balances around, just like everyone else.

This isn't even related to coffeelocking-this could be literally anything else. Because, if you say "We're gonna play D&D 5E," players sign on expecting a game of 5th Edition D&D. If you don't say "These are my houserules while playing," then you should either have no or minimally invasive houserules, or you're a liar.

Yeah and its the central rule of 5E that 'The DM has final say on any other rule, and is not beholden to follow any of them if he wants. The rules dont get in the way of the game'

If it's in the interest of the game (balance, fun etc) I'll happily ignore a rule or make a ruling contrary to a rule. Otherwise I'll stick to the RAW for consistency.

Again, no one is saying "Go play at Malifice's table with a coffeelock." We're just saying you're coming across as a big ol' jerk for what your stated actions would be. Do you understand that?

I dont care frankly. Im not a jerk, Im stopping a jerk.

Im not ruling the character into the ground arbitrarily here. Im ruling that he is prohibited from abusing the system and the rest mechanic, in ways not intended and to the detriment of the game.

He gets his 2-3 short rests per long rest. Like I told him in session zero.

Trust me mate, It might sound 'harsh' or tyrannical, but it cuts out 99 percent of the shennanigans. For the other 1 percent, I deal with it by univiting the player.

I dont want to play games with people hell bent on abusing the rules. I dont want to spend my spare time creating detailed houserules to counter such people, because that simply leads to an endless arms race.

A firm 'nope' and the job is done.

JNAProductions

2018-07-25, 03:00 PM

Then why participate in these threads? You clearly have it set up well enough that you never have to deal with abusive builds, so why yell at other people for it?

And moreover, how come you know what's best for the players having fun? Why don't they get a say? Just because you already control the world and every NPC, why do you also get to say "I ignore this rule." If a player shows up to your table with a Paladin, built for hitting hard and fast, and you throw a boss their way, and they smite it to oblivion in one round, do you give the boss extra HP, because that'd be more fun? Do you fudge their AC, so maybe that second attack didn't hit? Do you suddenly give them Uncanny Dodge, so they can live? Where is the line drawn?

I've been lucky to have good DMs in my real life gaming, but even then, when he makes a ruling that is explicitly against the rules, I call him out. Sometimes, he says "Crap, my bad-okay, rules say this, we do this." Other times, he says "No, I'm changing how that works," and I grumble a moment, but then say "Okay, sure." But he does not ignore rules willy-nilly.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 03:02 PM

It might sound harsh or tyrannical ... I don't care frankly ... I deal with it by uninviting the player ... I'm not a jerk.

Huh, weird.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 03:02 PM

You're presupposing that the coffeelock player is a jerk, and, more importantly, using that as justification for being a jerk yourself.

Lol. Being a Jerk = [managing the adventuring day].

The first is, at least, a little reasonable. Coffeelocks don't happen by accident-I can easily see a player just not thinking it through and innocently making one,

Well if he's innocently made one, he inst going to care that he's only getting 2-3 short rests per long rest is he?

but I can just as easily see a player doing it because they want to be OP.

And I have a higher responsibly to the game and other players to put a stop to that.

I am not beholden to the RAW as the DM. DMs never have been, and never will be.

We'll stick to the rules for consistency. But if a player starts to try to abuse the rules, or game them, we have the right to say 'nope'.

But the second bit? Be the bigger man. Don't be a d-bag to your player, even if they're a jerk to you. Just be firm and tell them they're not welcome. Don't passive-aggressively screw their character over until they decide that you're the jerk and leave.

Im not being a D-bag. He's still going to get his 2-3 short rests per long rest.

He'll be just as balanced as the rules intended, and just as balanced as the other players at the table.

Edit: And Rules As Written, the Coffeelock works. You can try tot wist and contort it all you want, but them's the breaks. You're free to houserule "No more spell slots than your normal max," or "No more than three short rests per long rest."

Rulings are not houserules. Its not a house-rule to say 'nope'. Thats a ruling.

And Rule Zero is a rule. It trumps all other rules.

So Im actually playing by RAW by invoking it.

JNAProductions

2018-07-25, 03:06 PM

So, your Fighter player uses his Action Surge for the fourth time today. There's a boss fight coming up, the party knows it, but there's not a deadline. The Wizard offers to cast Rope Trick, so they can take a fourth short rest, and the Fighter has his Action Surge ready for the big fight. (Plus the Wizard can use Arcane Recovery, the Monk gets a few ki back, everyone spends some hit dice, etc. etc.) Is that okay?

And by "innocently", I mean "Didn't think the consequences through." As in, they know they're going to have oodles and oodles of higher level slots, but they didn't think what that meant in terms of overshadowing other players. In other words, when you tell them "You spend a week traveling to the dungeon," their response is "Yes! I short rest repeatedly, gaining X slots per day." Again, I can easily see a person doing this, knowing full well it's OP and not caring, but I can also see a player just excited to try something new, cool, and strong, and not realizing just HOW STRONG it would be.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 03:12 PM

Then why participate in these threads? You clearly have it set up well enough that you never have to deal with abusive builds, so why yell at other people for it?

Even you call it an 'abusive build'.

Yet the DM is a Jerk for not allowing it unless he specifically creates a house-rule document in advance saying as much? Seriously man, think about this for a second.

How about the player creates a character to have fun and explore the game world, and not a 'build' designed to be 'abusive'?

Problem solved.

And moreover, how come you know what's best for the players having fun? Why don't they get a say?

Thy do get a say. If they're not having fun, they dont play. If I (or the other players) are not having fun on account of a player being a jerk, I boot him.

Just because you already control the world and every NPC, why do you also get to say "I ignore this rule." If a player shows up to your table with a Paladin, built for hitting hard and fast, and you throw a boss their way, and they smite it to oblivion in one round, do you give the boss extra HP, because that'd be more fun?

Sometimes yeah I actually do. I might fudge the boss' HP so he survives an extra round or two, if I feel that this will add to the fun and excitement of the encounter. Sometimes, its more fun to let the Paladin show off and destroy the Boss in one round of awesomeness.

Do you fudge their AC, so maybe that second attack didn't hit? Do you suddenly give them Uncanny Dodge, so they can live? Where is the line drawn?

Yeah I also occasionally fudge rolls behind the screen. If the players are having too easy or hard a time of it i can fudge up or down from time to time to add to the tension and drain more resources, or to go a bit easier on them because they've had a bad luck day.

Sometimes I'll even roll some dice, pretend to look something up, shake my head, roll some more, put an even more worried look on my face, look up from the screen and somberly ask the players what they are doing now. Maybe Ill even ask one of them to roll a D20 (ignoring the result entirely).

Its part of the showmanship of DMing.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 03:15 PM

Huh, weird.

Yeah. Youre missing the bits where Im uninviting the player on account of them abusing the game system.

I dont want players like that in my games. I value my recreation time, and put a fair bit of work into creating fun and challenging adventures, intresting games and NPCs and things to explore, dungeons to venture into and monsters to defeat.

Last thing I want at my table is some dude trying to abuse the rules to the detriment of the game and the enjoyment of other players.

Note that he still gets his 2-3 short rests per long rest like everyone else. He still gets to play his character, just within the scope of the resting mechanic as intended.

If that makes me a monster, so be it.

JNAProductions

2018-07-25, 03:19 PM

Even you call it an 'abusive build'.

Yet the DM is a Jerk for not allowing it unless he specifically creates a house-rule document in advance saying as much? Seriously man, think about this for a second.

How about the player creates a character to have fun and explore the game world, and not a 'build' designed to be 'abusive'?

Problem solved..

If it reaches the table, let it play. You, again, say you're very involved in your players' character creation process, so it shouldn't be an issue for you, but if it somehow slips by, then guess what? The appropriate response is an OOC solution, be it a houserule that stops coffeelocks from being a thing, or just a frank conversation about it's power level relative to other players and that they should tone it down. Using Rule Zero as an excuse to be passive aggressive is not a good answer.

Thy do get a say. If they're not having fun, they dont play. If I (or the other players) are not having fun on account of a player being a jerk, I boot him.

So, you get to play no matter what, but if a player isn't having fun, it's your way or the highway? How polite and kind of you.

Yeah I also occasionally fudge rolls behind the screen. If the players are having too easy or hard a time of it i can fudge up or down from time to time to add to the tension and drain more resources, or to go a bit easier on them because they've had a bad luck day.

Sometimes I'll even roll some dice, pretend to look something up, shake my head, roll some more, put an even more worried look on my face, look up from the screen and somberly ask the players what they are doing now. Maybe Ill even ask one of them to roll a D20 (ignoring the result entirely).

Its part of the showmanship of DMing.

So you're a liar DM, okay. I prefer honest DMs, the kind that let encounters run their course. If the players get their tushies whooped? Well, either they played poorly, the dice were against them, or the encounter was harder than expected. It's a cakewalk? Pretty much the same. But I like, as a player, winning or losing based on my own skill and luck (combined with that of the rest of the parties), not a padded combat that I know the DM will fudge to make sure neither side dies too soon.

Okay, rereading that, that's unneededly harsh. But the point is, I prefer DMs who let the dice fall as they will, not DMs who fudge to get their outcome. I'm here to play and effect changes, not let the DM tell a story with me as an actor in it.

Edit: Also, I think you missed this.

So, your Fighter player uses his Action Surge for the fourth time today. There's a boss fight coming up, the party knows it, but there's not a deadline. The Wizard offers to cast Rope Trick, so they can take a fourth short rest, and the Fighter has his Action Surge ready for the big fight. (Plus the Wizard can use Arcane Recovery, the Monk gets a few ki back, everyone spends some hit dice, etc. etc.) Is that okay?

And by "innocently", I mean "Didn't think the consequences through." As in, they know they're going to have oodles and oodles of higher level slots, but they didn't think what that meant in terms of overshadowing other players. In other words, when you tell them "You spend a week traveling to the dungeon," their response is "Yes! I short rest repeatedly, gaining X slots per day." Again, I can easily see a person doing this, knowing full well it's OP and not caring, but I can also see a player just excited to try something new, cool, and strong, and not realizing just HOW STRONG it would be.

I'd very much like the answer to the question in the first bit of the post. If you did read it and just don't want to answer, let me know please.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 03:39 PM

If it reaches the table, let it play.

Where is that rule written in the RAW?

So, you get to play no matter what, but if a player isn't having fun, it's your way or the highway?

Lol, I'm not playing I'm DMing.

And yeah. Same deal if someone else is DMing. Its his game. If Im not enjoying it, I wont play. If my players arent enjoying it when I DM, im DMing no-one so there is no game.

So you're a liar DM.

No Im just of the school of thought that the dice dont dictate to me what happens at the table. Fun takes priority, because that's what we're all there to have. A session where its a cakewalk is boring. A session that is too hard doesnt let the players shine. Sometimes you need to increase the tension, or back it off a little.

Ill often remove encounters from adventures if the PCs are too messed up, and Ill add more in if they are cruising as well.

Plus there is more to being a DM than reading rules, and applying dice results. There is an Art to it. Showmanship, knowing when to up the tempo, and when to back off. Keeping the players engaged, and challenged. Making sure they all get a chance to shine.

I prefer DMs who let the dice fall as they will

Thats fine. Thats your preference. I prefer it when they realise the game is about having fun and no-one likes having constant TPKs based on the fall of the dice or having great plans ruined by a bad dice roll.

As long as the players dont know it's happening of course. Again, thats part of the art of DMing.

For what its worth, often I'll roll an important dice roll in the open in front of the players in the middle of the table.

All eyes are on that dice roll.

Again - its the showmanship and the art. The stuff that goes beyond simply looking up charts and statting out monsters and doing math.

I'd very much like the answer to the question in the first bit of the post.

Firstly I tend to time limit my quests. As you're aware Im an advocate for races against the clock. They're much more fun than adventures without them, and they help my police the adventuring day.

Secondly, In the example you provided, Id probably let it fly (it's my fault for not time limiting the quest) and simply increase the difficulty of the final encounter (add a few more mooks, double the BBEG's HP) without the players knowing.

They get to nova, the fighter gets his action surge, they get to feel good about using Rope Trick, but the encounter isnt over in one round becuase I messed up by not putting them on the clock.

Kyrinthic

2018-07-25, 03:40 PM

The part that amuses me is the number of people that think RAW clearly outlines the coffeelock instead of the build existing in a limbo of ambiguity.

The whole section on resting has some vagueness, and does not state in any manor that a long rest can be turned into 8 short rests because 'the time is about the same'. It also doesn't state that it cannot. It gives some suggestions on how many rests there should be between long rests, and gives GMs guidelines. There will always be DM variance on this build. Common sense tells you that if you let a character break resource limits in a resource-limited game, things can go south. Many GMs do not like characters gaming the system, and wont allow the build, some will.

To the initial question, obviously the context of the resting section, and the fact that the class is using metagame concepts to even exist means that the the build is not, and has never been RAI.

Talk to the GM, make sure it will fly. It really is that simple.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-25, 03:49 PM

Talk to the GM, make sure it will fly. It really is that simple.

The question at this point isn't really whether it's allowed. It is at some tables, and it isn't at others. I think we're talking more about how the DM communicates that, and what acceptable communication methods are.

RSP

2018-07-25, 04:06 PM

I think the simplest answer for the DM is to just have the slots expire within 24 hours, or, better, when a LR would naturally occur (like when the rest of the party takes a LR). That’s the intent behind Sorcerers being able to change SPs into slots.

TheFryingPen

2018-07-25, 05:18 PM

Imo, Font of Magic was never intended to enable hoarding of spell slots. Even without going for a coffeelock, a Sorc level 2+ could take a longer time off adventuring for RP reasons or the adventure might just start at higher level. Then the Sorc could argue to have amassed dozens or hundreds of additional spell slots because he didn't need his leveled spells for months or years of daily life. Coffeelock just exaggerates this oversight in Font of Magic's ruling by adding WL and a questionable interpretation of resting on top of it.

For simplicity I personally would always rule / play Font of Magic as only being able to recover spell slots to a maximum of the sorcerer's/spell casting MC table. Even if it prevents the 5th level spell slot generation at level 7 (which is also a bit strange and theoretically allows you to learn 5th level spells ahead of time).

MadBear

2018-07-25, 05:40 PM

RSP

2018-07-25, 06:25 PM

unusualsuspect

2018-07-25, 06:38 PM

First, while Malice comes across as a bit of a jerk through text (don't fight it, dude, just accept it as the limitation of forum discussions and other people's interpretations - we don't all have 18 Charisma), he's mostly prefacing his responses through a lense of "We discussed the tone and general approach to gaming and metagaming in session zero, so if you're planning to benefit from something like that, you're better off asking me first. I will act to Rule Zero things that fall outside of reason. ASK ME FIRST if you're not sure."

Honestly, aside from not pouring through every single book finding every single loophole and implementing specific mechanics to address each and every possible need, documenting every change, and presenting it to the players before session zero even hits (which sounds like an impressive achievement, but not necessarily the place the bar should be set... that's insane!)... it really seems like Malice sets up his Session Zero in at least minimally decent ways. Nitpicking at that seems... unnecessary.

IF a person does try Coffeelock with the intention of being powerful (most do), doesn't ask the DM (despite the presumed implicit or explicit request to do so), and tries to use the mechanic anyway, that should trigger the session zero warning given. It isn't punishing a player to apply (a more detailed application of) an agreed-upon consequence as needed to patch a mechanic ripe for abuse.

If a person doesn't do it with the intention of gaming the mechanics, then a reasonable rule zero (as determined by the DM, in its creation, and by the player, in their decision to stay or leave) shouldn't really have a negative effect on the player specifically, and Malice's actions wouldn't really rise to "jerk DM" levels (because the player either agrees it is reasonable or doesn't want to play with what they think is a DM that makes unreasonable rules - both OOC ways of dealing with an OOC problem).

IMO, so long as Malice sets out as good a session zero as he states (and why would we assume otherwise, even if he comes across a bit rough?) with either a reasonably intelligible explanation of what falls under his "don't game the system" limits or players sufficiently experienced with his style of DMing.

Even if Malice is violating any of these caveats, they're probably violations of subjective qualities that he wouldn't agree with, particularly from a bunch of anonymous forum users who have never met him or sat at his table and seen how his session zero plays out.

Second, Malice's definition and application of RAW is... unique. Really unique. Just not terribly useful, particularly if he wants to communicate intelligibly with his fellow forum-goers, IMO.

When RAW encompasses any and all possible rulings on any and all possible mechanics (which is what would be included given the incredibly broad scope of Rule Zero), it means everything, which ironically means nothing.

RAW's definition should be focused, in both a conceptual and community sense, in context of terms that it is mutually exclusive with - House Rule, for example. When RAW encompasses all Rule Zero rulings, and Rule Zero rulings can be anything from reasonable limitations on short rests to giving Fighters double proficiency to attacks, there is literally no conceptual space left for House Rules.

In essence, I think RAW is better understood as unambiguous rules as they are written (or rules later made unambiguous through Sage Advice), and House Rules covers rulings where there is ambiguity (short rest limitations, if any, for example) or where a mechanic's RAW is changed to reflect RAI or the DM's whim (giving fighters double proficiency to attack).

It more closely follows the more universally accepted definitions and it is focused enough to not be rendered meaningless in practical use.

In any case, if Malice is adamant about his definition, I sincerely doubt we'll sway him. Since we're all so focused on not being the jerk in response to potentially-jerk behavior, we can always provide our own definitions, and let readers decide whose makes more sense.

...

Or we could keep yelling at each other over nitpicky elements, definitions, and our own egos. :smallbiggrin:

unusualsuspect

2018-07-25, 06:39 PM

How does a straight Sorc amass slots? You need to long rest to recover slots, which is also when slots created expire.

You get to level 20.

Sorcerous Restoration:
At 20th level, you regain 4 expended sorcery points whenever you finish a short rest.

Edit: This was mostly tongue in cheek, I totally get that you're just noting the normal rules for spell points and spell slots (the long rest catch 22 - you need spell slots to generate spell points, but spell points generated are reset upon long rest).

WOTC_GM

2018-07-25, 06:50 PM

Seems to me there's some equivocation between broken builds meant to game the system, and power-gaming/munchkins builds/etc.

If I show up with a PaladinX/Fighter2/Assassin3 (no idea if this is good or not, just picked for quick example), whose build is meant to do ungodly sums of damage on the surprise round, I have a character that can do exactly that. It's definitely gaming the classes to create a way to use the system so that I can 1-shot powerful enemies that I get the drop on.

That is far different from the coffeelock/silicrum cheese etc.. One of those breaks the very mechanics of the game, and the other doesn't. One of the fits within the spirit of how the game is played and the other doesn't.

For someone to shrug off and not allow a cheese build on it's head, is different from them not allowing other things.

I'm just going to put out there that a Coffeelock with never-ending spell slots is probably going to be less disruptive to an average party/campaign than say, a Sorcadin built for damage or something similar.

Also, if any of my players tried playing a super "cheesy" character and made all the other players feel underpowered, I wouldn't even have to do anything as the DM, as that character would quickly find himself getting shanked by the rest of the party while he slept.

diabloblanco18

2018-07-25, 06:58 PM

While I know my own stance on the coffeelock, I've never actually seen one in play, and I'm kinda curious as to whether they really exist (outside of theoretical optimization on the internet, that is).

So...who here has actually played a coffeelock, or sat down at the same table as one? Did the build cause problems or lessen the fun of the other players/DM? What sort of game was it in (i.e. Adventurer's League, a home game, PbP, Roll20, etc.)?

MadBear

2018-07-25, 07:07 PM

I'm just going to put out there that a Coffeelock with never-ending spell slots is probably going to be less disruptive to an average party/campaign than say, a Sorcadin built for damage or something similar.

I don't know that I agree. It depends on the amount of time between adventures and level. A level 5 Sorcerer/3 warlock being able to come to a gaming session with essentially unlimited fireballs and/or lightning bolt is pretty ridiculously powerful, especially when any other caster is getting 5 of those level of spells off throughout the whole day.

Now in games where adventurers take place one right after the other, with little/no down time, this is less of a problem (although still present).

RSP

2018-07-25, 07:29 PM

I'm just going to put out there that a Coffeelock with never-ending spell slots is probably going to be less disruptive to an average party/campaign than say, a Sorcadin built for damage or something similar.

Also, if any of my players tried playing a super "cheesy" character and made all the other players feel underpowered, I wouldn't even have to do anything as the DM, as that character would quickly find himself getting shanked by the rest of the party while he slept.

A level 4 character with unlimited level 1 spell slots is going to outshine every other level 4 character.

Also, why would the characters take action against the Coffeelock? I’ve never known a group trying to survive in life threatening battles to take out their own most effective member.

Now the Players certainly won’t be happy, but I don’t see the characters taking issue; “oh no, stop that guy who keeps us from having to risk getting killed!!”

Malifice

2018-07-25, 07:52 PM

First, while Malice comes across as a bit of a jerk through text (don't fight it, dude, just accept it as the limitation of forum discussions and other people's interpretations - we don't all have 18 Charisma), he's mostly prefacing his responses through a lense of "We discussed the tone and general approach to gaming and metagaming in session zero, so if you're planning to benefit from something like that, you're better off asking me first. I will act to Rule Zero things that fall outside of reason. ASK ME FIRST if you're not sure."

Im incredibly charming in real life to people I like. I just dont tolerate fools, or people that try and abuse rules in games I run. I've been DMing a long time mate, and have had more than my fair share of bad players, socially inept d-bags who only play the game to 'win' with 'win' being defined as creating some kind of faceless sockpuppet avatar predicated on a rules exploit or loophole to be wildly OP.

My players are there to work as a team, overcoming challenges, exploring the world through the eyes of their character and have fun. Not have some idiot wreck the game for everyone with some silly exploit.

But yes, I otherwise agree. Players arent coming into my campaigns or playing them in a vacuum. Im very clear on things like alignment, resting expectations, and what will/ will not fly from session zero onwards.

From that point, don't try and weasel some kind of moral justification for genocide to me. Ill listen to you, nod and then change your alignment to evil. Dont try and game the system with some cheesy build designed for rules abuse. You'll find (at best) it doesnt work. At worst (if I form the view that you're just a persistent d-bag trying to abuse or wreck the game, an argumentative **** or just someone I really dont want to hang out with in my spare time) I'll politely uninvite you from the game and everyone is happy.

Honestly, aside from not pouring through every single book finding every single loophole and implementing specific mechanics to address each and every possible need, documenting every change, and presenting it to the players before session zero even hits (which sounds like an impressive achievement, but not necessarily the place the bar should be set... that's insane!)... it really seems like Malice sets up his Session Zero in at least minimally decent ways. Nitpicking at that seems... unnecessary.

And of course such an extensive house-rule document is pointless. The d-bag player who is there to abuse the rules will simply try and abuse the house-rules. And no system (not even a house-ruled system) is immune from abuse.

This leads to the situation where you're still forced to make rulings to ensure balanced gameplay, and to crack down on abusing the system.

Why bother? I prefer just to explain myself, ask nicely via social contract for players to avoid that (or simply vet players early to ensure players that are into that sort of thing get booted fast). Come down on it hard early, and the players get the point that you're not kidding around. For the one guy that doesnt get the point, he can play elsewhere.

Saves me a lot of time and effort, and is foolproof.

The problem with rules abuse is never with the rules; its with the player. The same player will try to abuse every system he plays in. Sometimes that can be rectified and the player pulls his head in, or stops when he realizes that wont fly at my game (this is more common when its an innocent mistake). Sometimes they persist despite warnings, session zero, hints and flat out rulings of 'nope', and need to take that **** to a different table.

I dont want to have to manage players any more than I have to. They're adults, and we're playing in a co-operative game, to have fun. I put a lot of effort in to entertain my players and have them enjoy themselves (its why we DM) and to have some guy try and game the rules to break or mess with the game is something I can frankly do without.

JoeJ

2018-07-25, 07:53 PM

A level 4 character with unlimited level 1 spell slots is going to outshine every other level 4 character.

Also, why would the characters take action against the Coffeelock? I’ve never known a group trying to survive in life threatening battles to take out their own most effective member.

Now the Players certainly won’t be happy, but I don’t see the characters taking issue; “oh no, stop that guy who keeps us from having to risk getting killed!!”

But if the players are unhappy I don't see why they shouldn't take action. Hence the house rule I mentioned earlier about hitting the offending player with pillows from the couch.

RSP

2018-07-25, 07:53 PM

You get to level 20.

Edit: This was mostly tongue in cheek, I totally get that you're just noting the normal rules for spell points and spell slots (the long rest catch 22 - you need spell slots to generate spell points, but spell points generated are reset upon long rest).

Gotcha. Level 20 I worry less about balance: in general because casters will have significant advantages over martial s anyway, and particular to this case, the intent is casters aren’t as limited with slots (looking at you Wizard 20). A 20 Sorc with banked slots worries me less, though it could still be “unbalancing,” than a level 3 or 4 character with unlimited 1st level slots.

Malifice

2018-07-25, 07:57 PM

I'm just going to put out there that a Coffeelock with never-ending spell slots is probably going to be less disruptive to an average party/campaign than say, a Sorcadin built for damage or something similar..

Me (the DM) at session zero.

'Expect a median average of around 6 encounters per adventuring day [between long rests] in this campaign, and around 2 short rests per long rest. Some days it'll be more, and some days it'll be less. But be prepared for that level of pacing when creating characters and adventuring.'

Have fun with the Sorcadin. Nova builds like that need the 5 minute adventuring day to be effective at levels below end game. Still fun and effective, but certainly not in any way OP.

krugaan

2018-07-25, 09:35 PM

The part that amuses me is the number of people that think RAW clearly outlines the coffeelock instead of the build existing in a limbo of ambiguity.

To the initial question, obviously the context of the resting section, and the fact that the class is using metagame concepts to even exist means that the the build is not, and has never been RAI.

In the, wow, three years that coffeelock has been around, I have yet to see a convincing argument that the concept of coffeelock is not RAW legal, other than rule zero. Xanathar's changed things a wee bit, but not particularly, especially since they explicitly added Aspect of the Moon as one of the warlock invocations. That would, to me, indicate something.

Talk to the GM, make sure it will fly. It really is that simple.

Naturally. These coffeelock threads are buoyed by personal arguments like every other controversial thread on this forum, often involving the same people. Even the very argument I'm positing here, "coffeelock is RAW", is somewhat ... nitpicky?... but AL is a thing.

The only real question that should be debated is "is coffeelock overpowered" and "how overpowered is it?"

Daithi

2018-07-25, 09:45 PM

I'm with QuickLyRaiNbow and JNAProductions. Just houserule the coffeelock out of play to keep the game enjoyable for all players. Many players are looking to make the most effective/powerful player they can, and that is part of the fun, so I wouldn't condemn the player for doing so. A DM that arbitrarily twists the rules to target a single player is far more corrosive than just saying "I don't allow the coffeelock at my table."

Malifice

2018-07-25, 10:28 PM

Illven

2018-07-26, 12:07 AM

But yes, I otherwise agree. Players arent coming into my campaigns or playing them in a vacuum. Im very clear on things like alignment, resting expectations, and what will/ will not fly from session zero onwards.

From that point, don't try and weasel some kind of moral justification for genocide to me. Ill listen to you, nod and then change your alignment to evil.

So if my character is good aligned, and they murder their abusive parents what's their alignment now?

Malifice

2018-07-26, 02:54 AM

So if my character is good aligned, and they murder their abusive parents what's their alignment now?

No longer good that's for sure.

Illven

2018-07-26, 03:36 AM

No longer good that's for sure.

Really? :smallconfused:

One action, against people that have harmed them viciously in the past immediately revokes a good alignment?

Malifice

2018-07-26, 03:54 AM

Really? :smallconfused:

One action, against people that have harmed them viciously in the past immediately revokes a good alignment?

It doesn't revoke it. It just tells me you've probably never been good.

How abusive are we talking here? Is your killing in self defence, or revenge?

Contrast

2018-07-26, 04:55 AM

Saves me a lot of time and effort, and is foolproof.

I wouldn't say its foolproof.

I'm playing in a game using the Dark Heresy 2 system at the moment. One of the character archetypes gets an ability to spend a Fate point (limited resource that come back per session) to automatically pass a social check. This power seemed absurdly powerful in the right hands so I had a chat to my DM before making the character and we agreed as long as I wasn't spamming it all the time or dominating every single social encounter it would be fine.

...until I actually tried to use it in game and was told no I wasn't allowed to use it this time. Or the next time. It turns out I'm only allowed to use it on checks which are unimportant to the actual plot of the game (because otherwise the ability is absurdly powerful...). A clear houserule on how this power was going to work would have stopped me wasting time on it.

That all said, I do agree with the general principles of what you're saying, just not quite the degree of intensity to which you are saying them :smallbiggrin:

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-26, 08:02 AM

A level 4 character with unlimited level 1 spell slots is going to outshine every other level 4 character.

In combat, sure. Or particular types of social encounters. What level 1 spells helps a sorcerer climb a wall, sneak down a hallway, plant a thing in a locked dresser and escape after stampeding the horses? Your level 1 sorcerer gets two spells.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-26, 09:43 AM

Oh good, the ethics and genocide thing drifts over here. I'm going to call that out of frame for this discussion.

I'm just going to put out there that a Coffeelock with never-ending spell slots is probably going to be less disruptive to an average party/campaign than say, a Sorcadin built for damage or something similar.

Depends on what makes things the most disruptive. An overpowered character (and for the purposes of this discussion, let's just call the sorcadin generically overpowered. It was pointed out that nova builds have inherent weaknesses) is disruptive in that they have the capacity to make the other players, who don't go researching overpowered builds, feel useless. A coffeelock can be genuinely disruptive, well outside of how powerful they are. Imagine every time there is travel time, downtime, or anything like that and having that one PC always asking 'so, how many short rests can I accumulate during that time?' Imagine trying to have to plan around that. Depending on if your a 'chips fall as they may' or 'mold the difficulty around player ability' type of DM, imagine having to try to balance encounters around a character with a near unlimited supply of low-level spells? When it comes to all-out disruptiveness, I'd slot Coffeelocks over things many times more powerful any day.

But that does bring up the old 'what is cheese, in the context of gaming?' debate.

So...who here has actually played a coffeelock, or sat down at the same table as one? Did the build cause problems or lessen the fun of the other players/DM? What sort of game was it in (i.e. Adventurer's League, a home game, PbP, Roll20, etc.)?

We included it in some one-offs specifically to see how it worked. It was not AL, but I think only Core + XGtE was used in the build. As others have noted, given the multiclassing involved, at low tiers it ends up being a guy who always has a 1st or 2nd level spell available, amongst everyone else who has a 3rd or 4th level spell (or equivalent martial ability) when especially needed. So it didn't immediately overpower everyone. The fact that warlocks still get primo eldritch blast abilities meant that it felt a lot like '90% of a normal warlock, but with infinite low level spells on top,' and that's an annoying confluence of this special trick being part of warlocks, as opposed to another class (that doesn't get as much when they MC out significantly).

Mind you, all of that was only after a long period of accumulating slots during a 2 week transit (that we did deliberately to stress test the concept). Clearly the DM has methods at their disposal (outside of houseruling spell-slot resets) to limit this accumulation... but (outside of this playtest) why should they have to?

So yes, in my experience, a Coffeelock is annoyingly disruptive, if hardly the infinite power source it was initially feared to be when it first reared it's ugly head.

Arial Black

2018-07-26, 10:35 AM

You the player dont get to tell me what the rules are. I know the rules on short rests, but I'm making a ruling in the spirit of the game, to ensure balance and to prevent some snotty nosed jerk trying to game the rest mechanic.

It doesnt work. Dont worry, you'll get your 2-3 short rests generally speaking. Just dont try and game the system and we'll be fine.

If thats sounds 'unfair' to you, or you want to complain further - consider yourself uninvited to the game.

Problem solved one way or another.

I'll try and be as fair as I can to you and assume that you imagine that I am playing a coffeelock.

I am not. I am playing a single class warlock, somewhere between level 2 and 10. This gives me 2 pact magic slots, and I regain those slots whenever I choose to take the benefits of a Short Rest.

Indeed, one motive for me to get Short Rests is to regain spent slots. This is not 'gaming the system' any more than other casting classes being motivated to take Long Rests.

The principle is clear: casting spells/using slots exhausts your ability to cast/use more, but rest lets you recover your ability to do so.

This is not somehow 'cheating'; it's how the world works. Knowing how the world works and adapting your behaviour is order to get the most out of it is not somehow underhanded, it is wise.

If this is your definition of 'gaming the system' then this covers every creature alive! Do you punish birds for flying, 'gaming the system' of lift, thrust etc? "Oh, you try to fly do you? Well, it doesn't work. You don't tell me you're flying! You tell me if you try to fly, and I'll tell you if it works. Rule zero, baby!"

So, how the world works according to RAW is that if you avoid strenuous activity for at least one hour then you can take the benefits of a short rest. Therefore, a normal, everyday, single class, non-coffeelock warlock could spend most of their waking hours with periods of 1 hour rests interspersed with casting two spells using both Pact Magic slots, and using them again as soon as he regains those slots after an hour.

Of course, this hypothetical day is probably not an adventuring day, because adventuring days are more strenuous, usually. What, with everything trying to kill you and all that. But this non-adventuring day may let the warlock cast over 20 spells easily. Because that's how it works.

Does this offend you? Then, as DM, there are things you can do. Some good, some bad.

An example of a good response is, at session zero, state that one of your houserules is that each character can take the benefits of a Short Rest no more than 3 times per Long Rest; the usual limit of 1 Long Rest per day stands. This applies to everyone. Not just warlocks. Not just coffeelocks. Not just people I suspect are trying to 'game the system'.

If it were me, to compensate, I would adjust the time needed for the first short rest to 1 minute, the second to 10 minutes, and leave the third at 1 hour.

So that's a good, fair way to address what you feel to be a weakness of the Short Rest rules.

Here's a bad way to address that perceived problem; note that I do not recommend this in real life because it is childish, passive/aggressive, breaks immersion because it is so unrealistic, and it totally lacks fairness. I'm just including it to show what to avoid:-

DM: So, you don't do anything for an hour? Well, even though the rules say you are able to take the benefits of a Short Rest, it doesn't work. Because I say so and I'm the DM, and I can use rule zero to ignore the actual rules. I'm ruling this way because you are 'gaming the system' in order to regain your Pact Magic slots after an hour of rest, which is like cheating as far as I am concerned. You are a bad player for wanting to use your warlock according to the rules. You are uninvited to future games because you are a troublemaker.

Yeah, that's the bad way. Never do that.

RSP

2018-07-26, 01:10 PM

In combat, sure. Or particular types of social encounters. What level 1 spells helps a sorcerer climb a wall, sneak down a hallway, plant a thing in a locked dresser and escape after stampeding the horses? Your level 1 sorcerer gets two spells.

The character I discussed has 6 spells known (3 Warlock and 3 Sorc) as a level 4 (2 Warlock/2 Sorc) character (though this argument could be made for a Sorc 2/ Warlock 1 as well, with 5 spells known). Those combined with unlimited level 1 slots will outshine every other character at that level. Other characters will still have their abilities/effectiveness; and the Coffeelock will not be all-powerful, but it will be significantly more powerful than the resident full caster with just 7 total slots for the Adventuring Day. That is the argument for it being over-powered.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-26, 01:15 PM

The character I discussed has 6 spells known (3 Warlock and 3 Sorc) as a level 4 (2 Warlock/2 Sorc) character (though this argument could be made for a Sorc 2/ Warlock 1 as well, with 5 spells known). Those combined with unlimited level 1 slots will outshine every other character at that level. Other characters will still have their abilities/effectiveness; and the Coffeelock will not be all-powerful, but it will be significantly more powerful than the resident full caster with just 7 total slots for the Adventuring Day. That is the argument for it being over-powered.

In combat, sure, which I concede. But the initial claim was that it would replace the rest of the party all the time. And that's simply not true.

lperkins2

2018-07-26, 01:31 PM

If someone has the healer feat and a bunch of healing kits, there could be an application.

Bard's gimmick that boosts nearby hit-dice healing by 1d6 per *rest* (not per die) also comes to mind.

The character I discussed has 6 spells known (3 Warlock and 3 Sorc) as a level 4 (2 Warlock/2 Sorc) character (though this argument could be made for a Sorc 2/ Warlock 1 as well, with 5 spells known). Those combined with unlimited level 1 slots will outshine every other character at that level. Other characters will still have their abilities/effectiveness; and the Coffeelock will not be all-powerful, but it will be significantly more powerful than the resident full caster with just 7 total slots for the Adventuring Day. That is the argument for it being over-powered.

At level 4 you don't really have unlimited first level spells. Must have 2 levels of sorcerer to get sorcery points, you get 2 sorcery points per short rest. At 8 short rests a night, you get 16 sorcery points, and no hit dice. That's enough to make 8 spell slots a night. The 4th level straight sorcerer also gets 8 slots a night, 4 first level, 3 second level, and 1 first level from their sorcery points. If the party rests twice during the day, you do get an extra 4 first level slots, but again, you lost all your second level slots.

It gets considerably better at 5th level, since your warlock slots gain a level, which gives you twice the nightly sorcery points. But level 5 is also the level where martial classes get second attacks, and full casters get 3rd level spells. Meanwhile, the warlock gets a pact feature, 2 level 2 spells (but no way to make extra slots for them), and extra spell point generation.

Compared to the magic hut, or fireball, which is better will depend on the challenges the party faces. The xbow expert/ss ranger will beat the sorlock hands down on damage output.

RSP

2018-07-26, 01:48 PM

In combat, sure, which I concede. But the initial claim was that it would replace the rest of the party all the time. And that's simply not true.

I’m not sure why you think the claim was “replace the rest of the party all the time.” It outshines them, it doesn’t replace them.

And if you’re conceding this is true in combat, then I’m not sure why you’re disagreeing with the point on a whole: if all combat is render moot for all but one PC, how is that a fun campaign for anyone not the Coffeelock? I certainly wouldn’t want to play in a campaign where one PC dominates all combat. Not to mention they’d still have spells/resources for non-combat use.

RSP

2018-07-26, 01:50 PM

At level 4 you don't really have unlimited first level spells. Must have 2 levels of sorcerer to get sorcery points, you get 2 sorcery points per short rest. At 8 short rests a night, you get 16 sorcery points, and no hit dice. That's enough to make 8 spell slots a night. The 4th level straight sorcerer also gets 8 slots a night, 4 first level, 3 second level, and 1 first level from their sorcery points. If the party rests twice during the day, you do get an extra 4 first level slots, but again, you lost all your second level slots.

It gets considerably better at 5th level, since your warlock slots gain a level, which gives you twice the nightly sorcery points. But level 5 is also the level where martial classes get second attacks, and full casters get 3rd level spells. Meanwhile, the warlock gets a pact feature, 2 level 2 spells (but no way to make extra slots for them), and extra spell point generation.

Compared to the magic hut, or fireball, which is better will depend on the challenges the party faces. The xbow expert/ss ranger will beat the sorlock hands down on damage output.

You’ve decided to limit the timeframe the Coffeelock has been abusing the short rest with no long rest trick. In game, the character has been storing up slots for months.

JoeJ

2018-07-26, 01:52 PM

I’m not sure why you think the claim was “replace the rest of the party all the time.” It outshines them, it doesn’t replace them.

And if you’re conceding this is true in combat, then I’m not sure why you’re disagreeing with the point on a whole: if all combat is render moot for all but one PC, how is that a fun campaign for anyone not the Coffeelock? I certainly wouldn’t want to play in a campaign where one PC dominates all combat. Not to mention they’d still have spells/resources for non-combat use.

"Outshine" does not necessarily equal "render moot" or "dominate." A 4th level fighter outshines a 3rd level fighter in combat, but the 3rd level fighter still contributes significantly to the pair's success.

XmonkTad

2018-07-26, 02:02 PM

Ah, a coffelock thread! Seems like not too much has changed in the last few years concerning what we're talking about and whom is arguing which position. There's a lot of good points in this thread, and I can't respond to all of them.

But I think OP has identified something that was pointed out to me when the original thread was a WIP: the TO coffelock isn't actually a warlock at all, but a level 20 warforged sorcerer who just uses the natural sorcerer spell-point recovery to power font of magic. I feel like such a build is RAI, really because of the pact in Xanathars that let's you not sleep.

As for a lot of the rest of the thread: please ask your DM before bringing this to the table. It's in the original thread, we debated it there; no one is a jerk. We can disagree all day but at the end of it each DM has to make a ruling and in a private game that can go any which way. Whether they're ruling to preserve balance, enforce a theme, or just because they don't trust the player with the bookkeeping, it's up to them, and that's to the benefit of the (remaining) players. Furthermore Xanathars made the optional rule to shut-down coffelocks an easy thing to add to RAW limit/eliminate the power of the coffelock.

Which brings us to AL. I'm stumped with that one. I've never played AL, so I'm not super familiar with it, but from what I gather it attempts to standardize things to allow for ease-of-transfer for players to move from game to game. If you were trying to play the game the way you predict everyone else is playing and make your rulings based on that, then if someone came to your table with a coffelock, then they probably already did coffelock things at a different AL table. Therefore, in the interest of the spirit of AL, you should probably interpret the rules as close to RAW as possible (which allows the coffelock). But I've never played AL, I might be wrong about that.

Illven

2018-07-26, 02:20 PM

It doesn't revoke it. It just tells me you've probably never been good.

How abusive are we talking here? Is your killing in self defence, or revenge?

Given scars and a anxiety disorder abusive. But the killing is in revenge.

(Cause if it was self defence and the dm said I took an alignment hit, I'd walk out from sheer shock)

RSP

2018-07-26, 02:39 PM

"Outshine" does not necessarily equal "render moot" or "dominate." A 4th level fighter outshines a 3rd level fighter in combat, but the 3rd level fighter still contributes significantly to the pair's success.

That’s in line with what my point was: the Coffeelock outshines everyone else.

QuickLy stated he concedes the Coffeelock replaces the other PCs in combat (a concession to a claim wasn’t making). I was commenting on that claim.

There could be some good stories where one PC is “the man” or a higher level than the others, but outside of that, and generally speaking, I’d not find a campaign where one character outshines the others consistently, by design, particularly fun.

Segev

2018-07-26, 02:45 PM

The RAW says the DM is the final arbiter of everything, and every other rule is subject to that rule (and the rule of fun).

You do realize that this logic essentially means that there is no such thing as a "house rule," and that a player cannot and should not expect that, just because, say, the Fighter says it's proficient in all armor, the DM will allow him to wear Medium armor without suffering Disadvantage on literally every attack. It's not a house rule if the DM decides that Medium armor is too restrictive for anybody to fight in without Disadvantage; it's just a ruling. And the notion that you add your Proficiency to your attacks with weapons listed as things with which you're Proficient in the class description? Powergaming nonsense; the DM decides that you actually subtract that from any weapons NOT on that list, and that's just a ruling, too, not a house rule.

It likewise isn't a house rule if Wizards have to engage in old-school 1e Vancian casting rather than using the munchkinny garbage written in the PHB about preparing a list of spells from which to arbitrarily cast using unassigned spell slots. That's just a ruling, too, right?

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-26, 03:15 PM

That’s in line with what my point was: the Coffeelock outshines everyone else.

QuickLy stated he concedes the Coffeelock replaces the other PCs in combat (a concession to a claim wasn’t making). I was commenting on that claim.

I conceded that the coffeelock will be "more powerful" than other PCs in combat, because those are the words you used in your post. I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, which you do with some frequency.

XmonkTad

2018-07-26, 03:28 PM

I conceded that the coffeelock will be "more powerful" than other PCs in combat, because those are the words you used in your post. I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, which you do with some frequency.

I'm not even sure that's 100% true either. A coffelock brings more low level spells but fewer higher level ones. 100 castings of burning hands do nothing if your enemies are 100 ft away; you'll need fireball. Perfect uptime of shield/absorb elements/magic missile is nice, but it isn't the last word in combat. Even a coffelock will find eldritch blast useful if they take invocations to augment it.

RSP

2018-07-26, 03:40 PM

I conceded that the coffeelock will be "more powerful" than other PCs in combat, because those are the words you used in your post. I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, which you do with some frequency.

I don’t recall any prior posts between us, so I’m not sure where the frequency of me putting words in your mouth, as you claim, comes from.

I posted:

A level 4 character with unlimited level 1 spell slots is going to outshine every other level 4 character.

To which you posted:

In combat, sure. Or particular types of social encounters. What level 1 spells helps a sorcerer climb a wall, sneak down a hallway, plant a thing in a locked dresser and escape after stampeding the horses? Your level 1 sorcerer gets two spells.

I then reiterated my previous statement and corrected the spells known for the level I discussed:

The character I discussed has 6 spells known (3 Warlock and 3 Sorc) as a level 4 (2 Warlock/2 Sorc) character (though this argument could be made for a Sorc 2/ Warlock 1 as well, with 5 spells known). Those combined with unlimited level 1 slots will outshine every other character at that level. Other characters will still have their abilities/effectiveness; and the Coffeelock will not be all-powerful, but it will be significantly more powerful than the resident full caster with just 7 total slots for the Adventuring Day. That is the argument for it being over-powered.

To which you replied (incorrectly stating I said the Coffeelock would “replace the rest of the party all the time” which is actually a case of you trying to put words in my mouth, incidentally, if you’re worried about these things):

In combat, sure, which I concede. But the initial claim was that it would replace the rest of the party all the time. And that's simply not true.

I again tried to correct what you were saying I said:

I’m not sure why you think the claim was “replace the rest of the party all the time.” It outshines them, it doesn’t replace them.

And further, pointed out that if that’s what you’re replying to (that Coffeelocks replace the other PCs all the time), and concede the point, then there’s no reason to argue my point of Coffeelocks outshine the other PCs, for “replacing them” is worse than outshining them:

And if you’re conceding this is true in combat, then I’m not sure why you’re disagreeing with the point on a whole: if all combat is render moot for all but one PC, how is that a fun campaign for anyone not the Coffeelock? I certainly wouldn’t want to play in a campaign where one PC dominates all combat. Not to mention they’d still have spells/resources for non-combat use.

Now, please tell me how I put words in your mouth (and I’m curious why you think I’ve done this often).

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-26, 03:50 PM

RSP

2018-07-26, 04:03 PM

I apologize; I had conflated our discussion with my back-and-forth with Mjollnirbear yesterday. That was incorrect, and it was unfair to you to say that you'd put words in my mouth.

However, when you say "combat is rendered moot for all but one PC", I can't agree. There are gradiations of power difference, which is what I've said all along. The coffeelock hasn't been so powerful that it renders combat moot. The new warforged certainly makes it stronger and moves more in that direction.

No worries and apology accepted, these posts can get intertwined pretty quickly. I was legitimately curious what history we had that I wasn’t remembering.

I wasn’t saying Combat is rendered moot by the Coffeelock, it was a response to the thread you were conceding (with the admission it was to a different point by a different poster, it’s not a road we need to travel, so far as I see it). I stand by the Coffelock outshines other PCs statement, though.

lperkins2

2018-07-26, 04:07 PM

You’ve decided to limit the timeframe the Coffeelock has been abusing the short rest with no long rest trick. In game, the character has been storing up slots for months.

Whether the character has been storing up slots for months or not is something between the player and the DM. I'm gonna go with the answer is no, not at the start of the campaign. Why? Because if the sorlock had even a week of downtime to rest, the bard must have had a week of downtime to perform and craft items and other downtime activities, yet that is not reflected in the bard's starting gear. Why should the sorlock expect to get the benefits of narrative downtime when no one else has?

Of course, this does not address a sorlock spending their downtime once the campaign starts 'charging batteries', but there are a couple things with that to keep in mind. First is if they want to spend their downtime just resting, it inhibits their other downtime activities, which may be incredible important for some campaigns.

Second, they don't recover hit dice. If they are taking attrition damage, and the party doesn't have a life cleric, they'll have to be very careful to avoid damage, which means not nuking hard and becoming a priority target. Most sorlocks can't stand many rounds of concentrated fire, which they will draw if intelligent enemies realize they can keep nuking forever.

Third, they really will need to balance warlock vs sorcerer as they level, or they will fully depend on 'narrative time' resting to store spellslots. If they get to pick the field and the day, the mega-battery version is incredibly powerful, but it also has a fairly major weakness: exhaustion. Get a couple levels of exhaustion, you get to pick between doing everything at disadvantage and half speed, or resting and losing your extra spell slots. The sane sorlock isn't bothered by that, since they're usually only saving a couple slots a day, and averaging about as many expended as generated. The 'all batteries' version can be pretty badly crippled by it.

Also, it'd be more than fair for a DM to say that during your downtime, you're still expending spell slots on a daily basis. Sure, you're not fighting pitched battles dumping 8 slots a day, but you're also not never touching them. Depending on the nature of the downtime activities, and the campaign, some hefty percent of the generated sorcery points shouldn't get added to the general pool.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2018-07-26, 04:11 PM

No worries and apology accepted, these posts can get intertwined pretty quickly. I was legitimately curious what history we had that I wasn’t remembering.

I wasn’t saying Combat is rendered moot by the Coffeelock, it was a response to the thread you were conceding (with the admission it was to a different point by a different poster, it’s not a road we need to travel, so far as I see it). I stand by the Coffelock outshines other PCs statement, though.

How about this?

The coffeelock is more powerful in most combat situations than most other PCs. The coffeelock is more powerful in most combat situations than all other PCs. The coffeelock is more powerful to such a degree that no other PC can contribute meaningfully in combat.

I think we both agree with the first statement and both disagree with the third statement. Where we differ is that middle one. While the coffeelock is stronger than many PC builds, it's not the strongest in all situations all the time. Some builds, especially nova or other high burst low repeatability characters, are capable of doing things that the coffelock can't at most levels of play. That's my feeling; yours may differ, but I don't know that it's a valuable hair to split at this point.

RSP

2018-07-26, 04:37 PM

Whether the character has been storing up slots for months or not is something between the player and the DM. I'm gonna go with the answer is no, not at the start of the campaign. Why? Because if the sorlock had even a week of downtime to rest, the bard must have had a week of downtime to perform and craft items and other downtime activities, yet that is not reflected in the bard's starting gear. Why should the sorlock expect to get the benefits of narrative downtime when no one else has?

Doesn’t everyone get that benefit? I think I’ve started every campaign in 5e with a write up of how my character got to in game day 1 of the campaign.

Further, the fighter gets to show up with their weapon and armor based on the idea that they acquired these things prior to the start of the campaign. The Wizard shows up with all their slots in tact, despite the fact that they’ve clearly casted before the 1st in-game day.

Why is it just the Sorlock who doesn’t get to chose their character’s pre-campaign events?

Of course, this does not address a sorlock spending their downtime once the campaign starts 'charging batteries', but there are a couple things with that to keep in mind. First is if they want to spend their downtime just resting, it inhibits their other downtime activities, which may be incredible important for some campaigns.

Second, they don't recover hit dice...

Third, they really will need to balance warlock vs sorcerer as they level, or they will fully depend on 'narrative time' resting to store spellslots...

Also, it'd be more than fair for a DM to say that during your downtime, you're still expending spell slots on a daily basis...

Anyone trying to play a Coffeelock doesn’t care about your first point (using downtime for other activities), second point (recovering HD/HPs - that’s for the other party members to figure out, or grab a healing word or cure wounds somehow, like being DS and/or a Gift of the Everliving Ones Warlock), or third point (they’ll balance the levels as optimized because, well that’s the point of being a Coffeelock).

The last point isn’t valid in my opinion. If a Player says “I spend 23 hours a day during downtime short resting (I imagine getting food will take an hour or so over the course of the day), I’m not sure why the DM would force the Character to cast spells over that time.

This seems to be in line with the “passive-aggressive” rejection of the Coffeelock posters were claiming Maliface was doing earlier in the thread. Why allow the Coffeelock if you’re just going to tell your Player how their character acts?

JoeJ

2018-07-26, 04:51 PM

Doesn’t everyone get that benefit? I think I’ve started every campaign in 5e with a write up of how my character got to in game day 1 of the campaign.

Further, the fighter gets to show up with their weapon and armor based on the idea that they acquired these things prior to the start of the campaign. The Wizard shows up with all their slots in tact, despite the fact that they’ve clearly casted before the 1st in-game day.

Why is it just the Sorlock who doesn’t get to chose their character’s pre-campaign events?

Sure. I mean, no one object to my character starting out with all the magic items he crafted during the years before he started adventuring, right?

lperkins2

2018-07-26, 06:35 PM

Sure. I mean, no one object to my character starting out with all the magic items he crafted during the years before he started adventuring, right?

Well, magic item crafting is iffy, the default setting assumptions lack the materials required to engage in it on a continual basis. But the money, gems, and other valuable non-magical gear must all be fine.

Doesn’t everyone get that benefit? I think I’ve started every campaign in 5e with a write up of how my character got to in game day 1 of the campaign.

Further, the fighter gets to show up with their weapon and armor based on the idea that they acquired these things prior to the start of the campaign. The Wizard shows up with all their slots in tact, despite the fact that they’ve clearly casted before the 1st in-game day.

Why is it just the Sorlock who doesn’t get to chose their character’s pre-campaign events?

I have no problem with a detailed backstory explaining how exactly your character came to be at the start of the events. Just if you expect to show up with some temporary effect going, or with gear, items, or cash, beyond the character creation instructions, you'd better clear it in advance with the GM.

Anyone trying to play a Coffeelock doesn’t care about your first point (using downtime for other activities), second point (recovering HD/HPs) - that’s for the other party members to figure out, or grab a healing word or cure wounds somehow, like being DS and/or a Gift of the Everliving Ones Warlock, or third point (they’ll balance the levels as optimized because, well that’s the point of being a Coffeelock).

That's something of an unwarranted generalization, and is going to be highly campaign specific.

Depending on the good will of the party members to avoid resting for HD recovery is both poor form for the player, and probably unwise for the character. The reason 5e is not balanced around the assumption of a heal bot is few players enjoy playing heal bots, so depending on the existence of one, or draining a significant portion of another caster's pool of slots will generally make the party less effective than they would be with a character that actually could heal 4d6 a day on their own. Grabbing a healing spell yourself helps a lot, but also significantly increases the average number of spells you cast a day, and either forces a choice of subclass/patron, or requires similar investment.

Optimized for what? If you optimize for infinite downtime and never being forced to rest, then you'll only take 2 levels in warlock, delay your spell progression by 2 levels, but be tossing out 5th level spells every turn forever starting at level 11. Like most other whiteroom 'builds' it sounds uber good under perfect conditions, but in real play is much less so. A smarter 'build' is to balance the warlock and sorcerer levels, which gives you amazing staying power, but you lose the ability to nova. You get 5th level spells somewhere around level 15, but you generate enough sorcery points each night to keep a healthy buffer.

The last point isn’t valid in my opinion. If a Player says “I spend 23 hours a day during downtime short resting (I imagine getting food will take an hour or so over the course of the day), I’m not sure why the DM would force the Character to cast spells over that time.

So if for downtime you are just going to go sit, eat, and drink at the local tavern, that's fine. If you are going to go pursue leads, gather resources, make contacts, or advance character-specific goals, that's likely to incur resource usage. It's not normally tracked during 'downtime' because it often deals with a single character at a time, is not interesting, and the resources that might get used automagically replenish every night. If, however, the character's primary resource is persistent, that last part no longer holds, so some reasonable way to estimate the resource usage would be justified.

This seems to be in line with the “passive-aggressive” rejection of the Coffeelock posters were claiming Maliface was doing earlier in the thread. Why allow the Coffeelock if you’re just going to tell your Player how their character acts?

So, I've actually run a coffeelock in a campaign, I love the concept of it, and the unique challenges it has. It's one of the 3 most potent characters, mechanically. Which wins out depends on the nature of the encounter, but it's hard to match a SS/XBow or GWM fighter. All that to say I'm not banning it, soft or hard ban. I'm just point out that, having run one, and tracking resource usage in detail, it's no where near as powerful and game breaking as people seem to fear.

On a related note, if you're concerned about its power, one of the biggest things to do is the common houserule about gaining exhaustion when being dropped to 0 hp. It's a good idea regardless, since otherwise being knocked out is not a big deal, and it just happens to affect the coffeelock the most.

Also, I was just doing some back of the envelope math here on how much difference infinite spell slots makes, assuming your DM hand waves that for you, on the typical adventuring day. 'Standard' adventuring day is 6-8 combat encounters, each lasting an average of 2 rounds. Aim high, that's 16 rounds of combat per day. Once you hit sorcerer 3, you can quicken, but only with cantrips, and not sustainable for the entire fight, so you're talking 16 spells cast in combat, or about 2x as many spells as a conventional caster can spend, or 4 more than a conventional warlock/something caster.

RSP

2018-07-26, 07:52 PM

Sure. I mean, no one object to my character starting out with all the magic items he crafted during the years before he started adventuring, right?

The gold and items a character starts with are determined by their class and background. Anything other than that is up to the DM.

The background of the character, what he did before being an adventurer, or before in-game day 1 of the campaign is usually up to the Player.

RSP

2018-07-26, 08:04 PM

Well, magic item crafting is iffy, the default setting assumptions lack the materials required to engage in it on a continual basis. But the money, gems, and other valuable non-magical gear must all be fine.

I have no problem with a detailed backstory explaining how exactly your character came to be at the start of the events. Just if you expect to show up with some temporary effect going, or with gear, items, or cash, beyond the character creation instructions, you'd better clear it in advance with the GM.

If the Coffeelock is approved, why isn’t it a viable backstory for the character capable of stockpiling spell slots to have stockpiled spell slots?

That's something of an unwarranted generalization, and is going to be highly campaign specific.

Depending on the good will of the party members to avoid resting for HD recovery is both poor form for the player, and probably unwise for the character...

I’m not sure why going DS wouldn’t be a worthwhile choice for a Coffeelock (unlimited Sanctuary?), and it gives Cure Wounds for free.

Optimized for what? If you optimize for infinite downtime and never being forced to rest, then you'll only take 2 levels in warlock, delay your spell progression by 2 levels, but be tossing out 5th level spells every turn forever starting at level 11. Like most other whiteroom 'builds' it sounds uber good under perfect conditions, but in real play is much less so. A smarter 'build' is to balance the warlock and sorcerer levels, which gives you amazing staying power, but you lose the ability to nova. You get 5th level spells somewhere around level 15, but you generate enough sorcery points each night to keep a healthy buffer.

So if for downtime you are just going to go sit, eat, and drink at the local tavern, that's fine. If you are going to go pursue leads, gather resources, make contacts, or advance character-specific goals, that's likely to incur resource usage. It's not normally tracked during 'downtime' because it often deals with a single character at a time, is not interesting, and the resources that might get used automagically replenish every night. If, however, the character's primary resource is persistent, that last part no longer holds, so some reasonable way to estimate the resource usage would be justified.

If someone is playing a Coffeelock, the entire point is to use downtime to amass unheard of spell slots.

So, I've actually run a coffeelock in a campaign, I love the concept of it, and the unique challenges it has. It's one of the 3 most potent characters, mechanically. Which wins out depends on the nature of the encounter, but it's hard to match a SS/XBow or GWM fighter. All that to say I'm not banning it, soft or hard ban. I'm just point out that, having run one, and tracking resource usage in detail, it's no where near as powerful and game breaking as people seem to fear.

On a related note, if you're concerned about its power, one of the biggest things to do is the common houserule about gaining exhaustion when being dropped to 0 hp. It's a good idea regardless, since otherwise being knocked out is not a big deal, and it just happens to affect the coffeelock the most.

Also, I was just doing some back of the envelope math here on how much difference infinite spell slots makes, assuming your DM hand waves that for you, on the typical adventuring day. 'Standard' adventuring day is 6-8 combat encounters, each lasting an average of 2 rounds. Aim high, that's 16 rounds of combat per day. Once you hit sorcerer 3, you can quicken, but only with cantrips, and not sustainable for the entire fight, so you're talking 16 spells cast in combat, or about 2x as many spells as a conventional caster can spend, or 4 more than a conventional warlock/something caster.

Glad you got to run it and enjoyed it. I think you’re underplaying it’s abilities, though. Also, I think you’re assessment of combats lasting an average of 2 Rounds is off as well, though that could just be my tables playstyle.

JoeJ

2018-07-26, 08:37 PM

The gold and items a character starts with are determined by their class and background. Anything other than that is up to the DM.

And gee, there's no provision in those rules for starting with extra accumulated spell slots. I guess your character must have finished a long rest just before we started play.

Mister_Squinty

2018-07-26, 08:43 PM

Depends on what makes things the most disruptive. An overpowered character (and for the purposes of this discussion, let's just call the sorcadin generically overpowered. It was pointed out that nova builds have inherent weaknesses) is disruptive in that they have the capacity to make the other players, who don't go researching overpowered builds, feel useless....When it comes to all-out disruptiveness, I'd slot Coffeelocks over things many times more powerful any day.

But that does bring up the old 'what is cheese, in the context of gaming?' debate.

"Cheese" would be combining the Coffeelock and the Sorcadin for unlimited smiting and unlimited heals.

Hadoken

2018-07-26, 09:17 PM

I think, absent the UA warforged, the coffeelock really isn't that overpowered -- at least no more than any of the strong, focused multiclass builds. If you play one with PHB rules as written, you're still limited by narrative downtime, action economy, concentration, and spell selection. If your DM uses the very reasonable, optional rules for long rests in Xanathar's, this just further reins in the build, limiting you to generating spell slots over perhaps 2-4 days at a time before you'll really want to take a long rest and start over from scratch. Given these limitations and the fact that you'll likely take several warlock levels, thus delaying your high level spells, I don't see the coffeelock as necessarily upsetting game balance for the other players.

I could see having a ton of fun roleplaying a coffeelock who is constantly jittery, exhausted, and gibbering. I would probably take the Great Old One patron and only talk to my party telepathically. They're pretty sure he's insane, but he's just so dang effective in a fight that they don't want to get rid of him.

RSP

2018-07-26, 09:18 PM

And gee, there's no provision in those rules for starting with extra accumulated spell slots. I guess your character must have finished a long rest just before we started play.

Why? Why would the Coffeelock have taken a long rest before the adventure? That’s like saying to the fighter “well, you were kind of broke, so you pawned your weapons and armor right before starting the campaign.

JoeJ

2018-07-26, 09:31 PM

Why? Why would the Coffeelock have taken a long rest before the adventure? That’s like saying to the fighter “well, you were kind of broke, so you pawned your weapons and armor right before starting the campaign.

No, it's like saying to any character, "well, you must not have been all that successful at crafting, since you don't start with anything more than what the PHB says you start with." As for why the character took a long rest, I'll leave that for the player to decide.

RSP

2018-07-26, 10:03 PM

No, it's like saying to any character, "well, you must not have been all that successful at crafting, since you don't start with anything more than what the PHB says you start with." As for why the character took a long rest, I'll leave that for the player to decide.

Again, backgrounds and classes tell you what you start with.

DM: “Wizard, you won’t start with a spellbook, but don’t worry, I’ll let you choose why you don’t have it.” Yeah, sounds fun.

Again, why would the character (not the Player) decide to long rest? They don’t need sleep. They gain benefits from SRs. Seems like an easy decision to me.

Let me try putting it this way: why allow the exploit but then not allow the benefits of it? It’s really like you’re saying “you can be a Coffeelock, but don’t think I’m going to let you accumulate SRs or extra spell slots.”

JoeJ

2018-07-26, 10:34 PM

Let me try putting it this way: why allow the exploit but then not allow the benefits of it? It’s really like you’re saying “you can be a Coffeelock, but don’t think I’m going to let you accumulate SRs or extra spell slots.”

That's almost exactly what I'm saying. You can accumulate spell slots during play, not during downtime. Why would you think a DM that allows the combination at all would say anything else?

RSP

2018-07-26, 10:58 PM

That's almost exactly what I'm saying. You can accumulate spell slots during play, not during downtime. Why would you think a DM that allows the combination at all would say anything else?

Except the entire point is to exploit downtime (which, by the way, includes rests, so I’m not sure how you exclude accumulating slots during downtime).

Hire/purchase a wagon and everywhere you travel is spell slot accumulation, along with every other hour of the day that isn’t Adventuring.

If you’re not allowing that, why are you telling the player you’re allowing the Coffeelock? You’re essentially just setting them up for disappointment. It’s like saying “I allow GWM feat,” but then once you start playing, telling the fighter who took the feat “oh you can’t use the -5/+10 feature.”

Again, I don’t allow the Coffeelock anyway, but telling a Player it’s allowed and then saying ”you can’t accumulate slots during downtime” is just ridiculous.

JoeJ

2018-07-26, 11:14 PM

Except the entire point is to exploit downtime (which, by the way, includes rests, so I’m not sure how you exclude accumulating slots during downtime).

Hire/purchase a wagon and everywhere you travel is spell slot accumulation, along with every other hour of the day that isn’t Adventuring.

If you’re not allowing that, why are you telling the player you’re allowing the Coffeelock? You’re essentially just setting them up for disappointment. It’s like saying “I allow GWM feat,” but then once you start playing, telling the fighter who took the feat “oh you can’t use the -5/+10 feature.”

Again, I don’t allow the Coffeelock anyway, but telling a Player it’s allowed and then saying ”you can’t accumulate slots during downtime” is just ridiculous.

It doesn't follow that being allowed to multiclass sorcerer and warlock means being allowed to be all, "LOL, I have unlimited spell slots unlike you losers." That's not playing a character, it's playing a mechanic.

RSP

2018-07-26, 11:26 PM

It doesn't follow that being allowed to multiclass sorcerer and warlock means being allowed to be all, "LOL, I have unlimited spell slots unlike you losers." That's not playing a character, it's playing a mechanic.

Which is what the Coffeelock is; it’s specifically designed to exploit the mechanic.

And just to clarify: a multiclassed Sorcerer and Warlock isn’t (necessarily) the same thing as a Coffeelock.

JoeJ

2018-07-26, 11:46 PM

Which is what the Coffeelock is; it’s specifically designed to exploit the mechanic.

And just to clarify: a multiclassed Sorcerer and Warlock isn’t (necessarily) the same thing as a Coffeelock.

Call it whatever you want. I still give everybody the benefit of a long rest (usually more than one) at the beginning of every adventure. You can say you didn't need to sleep, but that doesn't mean you didn't need to rest. I'm not invested in you playing this combination of classes, so it won't bother me if you choose to play something else instead.

RSP

2018-07-27, 06:43 AM

Call it whatever you want. I still give everybody the benefit of a long rest (usually more than one) at the beginning of every adventure. You can say you didn't need to sleep, but that doesn't mean you didn't need to rest. I'm not invested in you playing this combination of classes, so it won't bother me if you choose to play something else instead.

It’s not me calling it something on preference. The Coffeelock is a very specific Warlock/Sorcerer multiclass that is designed to abuse the rules; it’s not the same thing as just saying “do you allow Sorlocks?” I just want to make sure you understand that because your responses indicate you don’t, and if that’s the case we’re not discussing the same thing.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-27, 06:54 AM

All of which is just a extra-detail-provided version of what's been said before--the coffeelock can be negated with DM rulings. This just happens to be a mid-spot between 'have at it' and 'no.' It's more 'you can, but I'm putting on this constraint that reduces the insanity, which might be what you'd hoped to get.'

Whether a PC would want to try playing one if they could only accumulate slots during the adventure, not between them (or whenever the rest JoeJ proposes would occur) is an open question. It's certainly a lot less benefit for the very real sacrifices the build entails.

RSP

2018-07-27, 07:10 AM

Willie the Duck

2018-07-27, 08:19 AM

Sure, it just feels like a trap for the Player if it’s not explained how you’ll run it and “sure you can play it but you can’t gain slots during downtime” really sounds like “you can’t play it.”

To the part I emphasized-I think any time you see your players starting down a path that relies on something that you might rule against (something their characters would know about the world, and thus wouldn't be attempting since they knew it wouldn't work) and don't clearly mention it, then you are asking for well-deserved trouble. That's hardly unique to this situation.

To this ruling sounding a lot like, “you can’t play it” - No, it's specifically "you can play it, but here's the limiter I'm putting on it. Do you still want to?" Again, this had better be clearly communicated. I'm not sure if I think Coffeelock is the most OP thing ever (I have mentioned that in our playtest we found it annoying as possible), but if it is, 'you can play it, but with this, that, and the other constraint' seems like a reasonable compromise that a player might accept, rather than choosing to play something else.

RSP

2018-07-27, 09:38 AM

To the part I emphasized-I think any time you see your players starting down a path that relies on something that you might rule against (something their characters would know about the world, and thus wouldn't be attempting since they knew it wouldn't work) and don't clearly mention it, then you are asking for well-deserved trouble. That's hardly unique to this situation.

To this ruling sounding a lot like, “you can’t play it” - No, it's specifically "you can play it, but here's the limiter I'm putting on it. Do you still want to?" Again, this had better be clearly communicated. I'm not sure if I think Coffeelock is the most OP thing ever (I have mentioned that in our playtest we found it annoying as possible), but if it is, 'you can play it, but with this, that, and the other constraint' seems like a reasonable compromise that a player might accept, rather than choosing to play something else.

Not disagreeing with you. Do you disagree that anyone showing up with a Coffeelock is expecting to use downtime to gain slots? Again, I’m all fine with “I’ll allow it with these restraints” being explained, but to not allow the basis of the build while claiming to allow the build seems disengenuous.

If instead of the Coffeelock, you want to allow a character that turns SR Warlock slots into lower level LR slots that are held in check (say by needing to LR) that’s just a Sorlock; there’s no need to claim it’s a Coffeelock.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-27, 10:00 AM

Not disagreeing with you. Do you disagree that anyone showing up with a Coffeelock is expecting to use downtime to gain slots?

Probably. And then they find out what they'll be allowed to get away with, and make decisions on whether to go ahead with playing the character.

Again, I’m all fine with “I’ll allow it with these restraints” being explained, but to not allow the basis of the build while claiming to allow the build seems disengenuous.

I find the term 'disingenuous' to be rather loaded. Technically speaking, it is a little less accusatory than 'dishonest,' but I don't feel people react to it that way. Regardless, how can explaining exactly what you will and will not allow be disingenuous? "I will allow you to play this character, but you might not want to because this constraint will be in effect. Do you still want to do so?" seems to be far and away more up front and forthright than any other possible thing someone might say. In fact, for the DM who instead rules, "sure, play a Coffeelock, no limitations," unless they have specifically explained exactly how many days of pre-emptive slot-accrual they are going to let the PC come in with, the earlier, constraint-imposing DM has actually given the player more information regarding how well their build will perform (it will perform less well, no question, but given that we're still up in the air on whether Coffeelock is unacceptably OP without constraint, that's not clearly a bad thing).

If instead of the Coffeelock, you want to allow a character that turns SR Warlock slots into lower level LR slots that are held in check (say by needing to LR) that’s just a Sorlock; there’s no need to claim it’s a Coffeelock.

I have literally no idea how this is relevant to my points. Did you mean to address this to JoeJ?

JoeJ

2018-07-27, 11:12 AM

Not disagreeing with you. Do you disagree that anyone showing up with a Coffeelock is expecting to use downtime to gain slots? Again, I’m all fine with “I’ll allow it with these restraints” being explained, but to not allow the basis of the build while claiming to allow the build seems disengenuous.

Nobody should be showing up at my game with a character they expect to play. You can have a concept, or even several concepts, but actually rolling the dice and creating the characters happens during session 0.

If instead of the Coffeelock, you want to allow a character that turns SR Warlock slots into lower level LR slots that are held in check (say by needing to LR) that’s just a Sorlock; there’s no need to claim it’s a Coffeelock.

That's a pretty arbitrary and IMO not very useful distinction. If you're using short rests and avoiding long one in order to create extra spell slots, that's a coffeelock, regardless of how many spell slots you do or don't create during downtime.

RSP

2018-07-27, 11:38 AM

I have literally no idea how this is relevant to my points. Did you mean to address this to JoeJ?

This was to anyone with the “Coffeelock allowed, with restraints,” including yourself. I’ll try to be more clear with my intent behind this: Sorlocks can already turn Warlock slots into regular slots using SPs, then recharge those Pact Magic slots with a SR, rinse and repeat. So if what the DM says is, “I’ll allow the Coffeelock” but then imposses restrictions on accumulating SRs and/or limits them to the levels of what is already allowed with a Sorlock, then the DM should just say “I don’t allow Coffeelocks, but feel free to play a Sorlock.”

RSP

2018-07-27, 11:43 AM

That's a pretty arbitrary and IMO not very useful distinction. If you're using short rests and avoiding long one in order to create extra spell slots, that's a coffeelock, regardless of how many spell slots you do or don't create during downtime.

Nothing arbitrary or useless about it. The difference between a Coffeelock and a Sorlock is a Coffeelock (for whatever reason) doesn’t LR, so the “expire at end of a long rest” created spots don’t vanish except when used.

Imposing a restriction equating to “held in check by LRs” removes what makes a Coffeelock a Coffeelock.

JoeJ

2018-07-27, 12:03 PM

Nothing arbitrary or useless about it. The difference between a Coffeelock and a Sorlock is a Coffeelock (for whatever reason) doesn’t LR, so the “expire at end of a long rest” created spots don’t vanish except when used.

No, a coffeelock tries not to take a long rest. No specific outcome is guaranteed for any PC. And during the game they are welcome to do that.

RSP

2018-07-27, 12:08 PM

No, a coffeelock tries not to take a long rest. No specific outcome is guaranteed for any PC. And during the game they are welcome to do that.

A DM who will then say “I’m making you take a long rest whether you like it or not,” is being disingenuous when they say they allow the Coffeelock.

JoeJ

2018-07-27, 12:11 PM

A DM who will then say “I’m making you take a long rest whether you like it or not,” is being disingenuous when they say they allow the Coffeelock.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-27, 12:33 PM

That's a pretty arbitrary and IMO not very useful distinction. If you're using short rests and avoiding long one in order to create extra spell slots, that's a coffeelock, regardless of how many spell slots you do or don't create during downtime.

I think it is still useful. The coffeelock is actively choosing not the long rest, potentially creating a huge archive of logged slots. The regular sorlock is 'merely' accruing whatever spells they didn't cast before everyone decides to short rest. They won't create a huge bank of slots except in really contrived scenarios like everyone else being SR-classes like battlemaster and the party short resting after every room. They will still reset every night.

So if what the DM says is, “I’ll allow the Coffeelock” but then imposses restrictions on accumulating SRs and/or limits them to the levels of what is already allowed with a Sorlock, then the DM should just say “I don’t allow Coffeelocks, but feel free to play a Sorlock.”

Why on earth would they do that? They have found a version of the coffeelock that falls within their balance criteria. Why not allow the option to play one?

RSP

2018-07-27, 12:50 PM

Why on earth would they do that? They have found a version of the coffeelock that falls within their balance criteria. Why not allow the option to play one?

Perhaps this will help see my view: I read “Coffeelock” as a Sorlock that has some means to avoid LRs (such as playing a Warforged which doesn’t require sleep, or having the Aspect of the Moon invocation). On threads here in the past, people have argued that the essentially unlimited lower level slots that can be accrued using SRs at every opportunity and never long resting is balanced against the Coffeelock not having the higher level slots/spells a straight full caster would. (I disagree and think unlimited spell slots is too powerful and don’t allow them - I’d tell my players the spell slots are lost after about ~24 hours, which will usually line up with when the group would take a LR.)

So claiming to allow the Coffeelock (a name for that specific type of Sorlock) while imposing restrictions that prevent the actual Coffeelock concept, isn’t fair.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-27, 01:15 PM

Perhaps this will help see my view: I read “Coffeelock” as a Sorlock that has some means to avoid LRs (such as playing a Warforged which doesn’t require sleep, or having the Aspect of the Moon invocation). On threads here in the past, people have argued that the essentially unlimited lower level slots that can be accrued using SRs at every opportunity and never long resting is balanced against the Coffeelock not having the higher level slots/spells a straight full caster would. (I disagree and think unlimited spell slots is too powerful and don’t allow them - I’d tell my players the spell slots are lost after about ~24 hours, which will usually line up with when the group would take a LR.)

Okay, so "I’d tell my players the spell slots are lost after about ~24 hours, which will usually line up with when the group would take a LR." is your preferred constraint. And you would call that... a sorlock, but not coffeelock, even if they have AoM or Warforged race, do I have that right? I would agree that this specifically is a sorlock but not a coffeelock, because the Long-Rest resistance mechanism never meaningfully leads to greater spell slot access. But anything beyond that could be a coffeelock, even if there were some limiters/governors. Such as...

I posit a third category-- a sorlock with AoM or Warforged, also a limitation, but I’d tell my players the spell slots are lost after... an indeterminate time, such that every gaming session or every adventure, or whatever, they start fresh with no banked slots. Given that, depending on how the evening/adventure goes, they could run up a substantial number of slots, but not the neigh-infinite one could have if you just let them accrue indefinitely. I would call this third category: "Coffeelock, with restrictions." I don't see how this state of affairs, presuming it is well explained, is problematic, disingenuous, etc.

So claiming to allow the Coffeelock (a name for that specific type of Sorlock) while imposing restrictions that prevent the actual Coffeelock concept, isn’t fair.

And this is where I think the primary break is. I do not see any over-riding fairness issue in any of this. If everyone knows exactly what everyone else is talking about (because the DM, being courteous and well-meaning, had a fruitful and forthright session zero, where all of this was explained), and the entire point of this is to bring down the Coffeelock to a place where it can fairly-to-the-other-PCs exist in the DM's game, then it seems to be completely above board from where I'm standing.

JoeJ

2018-07-27, 02:11 PM

Mister_Squinty

2018-07-27, 05:55 PM

Okay, so "I’d tell my players the spell slots are lost after about ~24 hours, which will usually line up with when the group would take a LR." is your preferred constraint. And you would call that... a sorlock, but not coffeelock, even if they have AoM or Warforged race, do I have that right? I would agree that this specifically is a sorlock but not a coffeelock, because the Long-Rest resistance mechanism never meaningfully leads to greater spell slot access. But anything beyond that could be a coffeelock, even if there were some limiters/governors. Such as...

I posit a third category-- a sorlock with AoM or Warforged, also a limitation, but I’d tell my players the spell slots are lost after... an indeterminate time, such that every gaming session or every adventure, or whatever, they start fresh with no banked slots. Given that, depending on how the evening/adventure goes, they could run up a substantial number of slots, but not the neigh-infinite one could have if you just let them accrue indefinitely. I would call this third category: "Coffeelock, with restrictions." I don't see how this state of affairs, presuming it is well explained, is problematic, disingenuous, etc.

And this is where I think the primary break is. I do not see any over-riding fairness issue in any of this. If everyone knows exactly what everyone else is talking about (because the DM, being courteous and well-meaning, had a fruitful and forthright session zero, where all of this was explained), and the entire point of this is to bring down the Coffeelock to a place where it can fairly-to-the-other-PCs exist in the DM's game, then it seems to be completely above board from where I'm standing.

I think a fair compromise would be a maximum number of extra spell slots a Coffeelock could hold. Call it 2x the number of spell slots the character has for argument. "You can drink all the coffee you like, but you're not going be any more supercharged than you are right now."

Malifice

2018-07-28, 12:16 AM

Thread is hillarious.

Player creates an abusive build with the intent to game the system.

DM rules No.

DM is a 'bad DM' for making said ruling.

The fact that some of you people actually think this, is indicative of whats often so very wrong with our hobby.

Segev

2018-07-28, 12:50 AM

krugaan

2018-07-28, 12:58 AM

Yep. People disagreeing with Malfice is definitely what’s wrong. *eyeroll*

I laughed, good naturedly.

Malifice

2018-07-28, 01:35 AM

Yep. People disagreeing with Malfice is definitely what’s wrong. *eyeroll*

What's wrong is a bunch of whiny self entitled players thinking that a DM saying 'No' to their attempts to abuse rules and be a jerk to the DM and the other players is 'bad DMing'.

It beggars belief really.

Apparently it's OK if a DM instead creates a detailed houserule document in advance expressly stopping the Coffeelock though.

That being the case, here is my house-rule document: 'Dont try to abuse the rules, and avoid metagaming. You'll find it doesnt work. The DM is always right, and reserves the right to stop players abusing rules. The rules are secondary to a fun, fair and entertaining game, and will be interpreted accordingly. The DM will make rulings in the spirit of the above.'

Actually hang on. That house-rule is already in the RAW.

Rakoa

2018-07-28, 02:08 AM

What's wrong is a bunch of whiny self entitled players thinking that a DM saying 'No' to their attempts to abuse rules and be a jerk to the DM and the other players is 'bad DMing'.

It beggars belief really.

Apparently it's OK if a DM instead creates a detailed houserule document in advance expressly stopping the Coffeelock though.

That being the case, here is my house-rule document: 'Dont try to abuse the rules, and avoid metagaming. You'll find it doesnt work. The DM is always right, and reserves the right to stop players abusing rules. The rules are secondary to a fun, fair and entertaining game, and will be interpreted accordingly. The DM will make rulings in the spirit of the above.'

Actually hang on. That house-rule is already in the RAW.

We get it. You invoke Rule 0. You are such a great DM. You're incredibly charming. This thread is not about you and your self-righteous mandate to police the adventuring day. This thread is about people that want to play the rules as they are written in the book, not the way you choose to play them. Rule 0 is great for individual tables, but not for discussing any other rule. It would be quite obnoxious to have someone jump into every thread about a rules question and start harping on and on about rule 0.

A: "Hey guys I wanted to know how much damage does Magic Missile do?"
B: "It does X amount of damage."
M: "Actually Rule 0 says that I the DM can do anything I want and you the player don't tell me what the damage is you just declare your actions and I describe the results of those actions. You use Magic Missile and I can decide what the damage is."
A: "Okay, I cast Magic Missile at the rat."
M: "You do 0 damage.

Like....yeah, that's great pal, but nobody cares. Everybody knows the DM can disregard all the RAW that the book has to offer. They don't need you to preach about it. Keep it at your table, and if it works for you, great!

Malifice

2018-07-28, 02:23 AM

You are such a great DM. You're incredibly charming.

Thanks mate. Although I missed the sarcasm in the rest of your post, but at least you got this bit right.

Lets continue to discuss whether a build designed to abuse the rules is viable by the 'rules as intended', without me pointing out that I highly doubt the rules were intended to be abused.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-07-28, 07:05 AM

Thanks mate. Although I missed the sarcasm in the rest of your post, but at least you got this bit right.

Lets continue to discuss whether a build designed to abuse the rules is viable by the 'rules as intended', without me pointing out that I highly doubt the rules were intended to be abused.

I think the issue most people have is that you aren't saying "no". Several people have gone above and beyond in telling you that saying "no" to this idea is exactly what they think you should do.

What you've been proposing is letting the player come to your table, claiming that you spend a decent amount of time in session 0 making it clear that you flaunt your right to DM fiat to an extreme degree but you would let the player take that character into the game just to deny them the chance to play the character how they'd intended until they realize they're unwelcome in your kingdom and should see themselves out.

Nobody would have an issue if your stance was simply to ban the build at your table, the issue is that your stance is basically to bully the player into not using that build. You've built a very clear image of your table being "My fun or no fun". You've also taken quite a few jabs at other's style of DMing but either deflect or ignore criticism of your own. A bit ironic that you're so in support of Rule 0 but if other people would rule differently it's clearly in support of abusing the rules and not them allowing their players to have some fun.

I'm sure the games you run are fun and your players enjoy them but you've been not so subtly hinting that your way is the best and only right way. It's making you seem antagonistic when the debate doesn't have to be.

Your utilitarian approach isn't a bad way to deal with it. It might even do a better job at having the player realize that being too creative can become a form of abusing the rules. That said, even though I prefer not to straight up tell a player "no" I think it's more fair to them in this instance than dragging them through the mud until they get sick of it.

RSP

2018-07-28, 07:14 AM

You think I'm being unfair because I don't use a certain word exactly the same way you do, even though I've clearly explained how I'm ruling the mechanic?

I think it’s important we’re discussing the same thing. As I said, you seem to be going by Coffeelock=Sorlock, which isn’t the case. The Coffeelock is a very specific build, with a very specific intent. By helping to clarify that, I’m hoping it helps our discussion.

That said, telling someone the Coffeelock is approved for play, then doing a gotcha on the Player by preventing them from doing the very thing said to be approved, is unfair in my book.

Malifice

2018-07-28, 07:30 AM

I think the issue most people have is that you aren't saying "no". Several people have gone above and beyond in telling you that saying "no" to this idea is exactly what they think you should do.

Why on earth should I say 'no' to a PC that wants to take Sorcerer and Warlock levels as part of their character? Im OK with someone who wants to take those levels as part of their character, or be a warforged for that matter.

I'm not OK with players (any player mind you, and one playing any character) cycling rests, or trying to abuse the rest mechanic (or abusing any other rule for that matter).

You can play your warforged Sorlock. I have zero problem with that. Just dont try and abuse the rest mechanic while you're doing it. You'll get your 2-3 short rests per long rest, but dont try and game the rest mechanic (or any other mechanic) because it doesnt work.

Get it yet? I dont say 'no' till you try and cheat the game. That doesnt happen until you try and cycle rests. The base character (Sorcerer X/ Warlock Y) I have no issue with.

And to answer to the OP; no. The Sorlock is not an expression of the rules as intended. 5E is not intended to be played with PCs cycling short rests and gaming the rest mechanic.

If we can accept that as a truism, then /thread.

RSP

2018-07-28, 07:32 AM

Okay, so "I’d tell my players the spell slots are lost after about ~24 hours, which will usually line up with when the group would take a LR." is your preferred constraint...

I’d call it the intent of the Sorlock combo, rather than a restraint on the Coffeelock.

"Coffeelock, with restrictions." I don't see how this state of affairs, presuming it is well explained, is problematic, disingenuous, etc.

I have no problem with explained limitations. My statements are towards posts like this:

No, a coffeelock tries not to take a long rest. No specific outcome is guaranteed for any PC. And during the game they are welcome to do that.

which to me, indicate the DM has stated the Coffeelock is approved, but the DM then tries to limit its trick by doing things like forcing the Player to take a long rest.

Malifice

2018-07-28, 07:43 AM

which to me, indicate the DM has stated the Coffeelock is approved, but the DM then tries to limit its trick by doing things like forcing the Player to take a long rest.

No, the DM has said Warlocks and Sorcerers are approved, as is Multi-classing, and as are Warforged.

However the DM has also said 'I intend to police the adventuring day and resting. If you try and abuse my game, I'll rule it doesnt work, and probably kick you out of the game.'

Your move player.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-07-28, 08:14 AM

Why on earth should I say 'no' to a PC that wants to take Sorcerer and Warlock levels as part of their character? Im OK with someone who wants to take those levels as part of their character, or be a warforged for that matter.

I'm not OK with players (any player mind you, and one playing any character) cycling rests, or trying to abuse the rest mechanic (or abusing any other rule for that matter).

The reason to say no has been well established by multiple posters and the method to handle it from the start VS stringing the player along until they quit has also been established.

Talk to them, don't just DM at them. If you don't tell the player that this type of behavior won't fly from the beginning they're going to be (rightfully) upset that you've vetoed their character concept at step 9 of 10. This is why people are recommending a specific mention of it at Session 0, it's enough of a problem in your eyes to warrant bullying a player out of your game.

You are continuing to ignore and deflect, the question you keep repeating has already been answered but you find the answer unsuitable. That's why you're under the impression that people are spouting rubbish and advocating for the abuse of rules.

All it takes is the words "No coffeelock shenanigans" added into your session 0 and you won't have players getting booted out of your table later. If your main complaint is tied to you being 43 and not having free time to waste, why waste it stringing along a player who might bring a coffeelock to your table. Coffeelocks don't happen spontaneously. The idea is too specific. You'd save yourself a lot of time making it clear that you won't allow that specific build be played at your table at session 0.

Being specific is important.

Malifice

2018-07-28, 11:07 AM

Talk to them, don't just DM at them. If you don't tell the player that this type of behavior won't fly from the beginning they're going to be (rightfully) upset that you've vetoed their character concept at step 9 of 10.

In case you havent noticed I do tell players this kind of **** wont fly in my games at the start of the game.

Ive said so repeatedly. I tell them at the start of the game in session zero not to try and abuse or game the system, and that they'll get 2-3 short rests on average (as a median) per long rest. They can often expect around 6 or so encounters in that time (sometimes more, sometimes less).

Again; this is someting I have been clear on in multiple posts in this thread.

Im not however going to make a list of various combos and **** I dont allow in my games, or some extensive HR document beyond that general rule.

Whats the point? Such a document is only to stop jerk players trying to wreck the game with messed up combos or game the system, and frankly I dont want such players in my games to begin with. If I see it, I stop it. If they complain, they can play at a different table.

RSP

2018-07-28, 11:16 AM

No, the DM has said Warlocks and Sorcerers are approved, as is Multi-classing, and as are Warforged.

However the DM has also said 'I intend to police the adventuring day and resting. If you try and abuse my game, I'll rule it doesnt work, and probably kick you out of the game.'

Your move player.

I’m not sure what you’re responding to: my post was in response to a specific situation that for some reason you’ve changed to a different situation, while telling me I’m wrong. I’m saying if a DM says “you can play the Coffeelock,” then undermines that statement by preventing the mechanics that make the Coffeelock a Coffeelock, that’s disengenuous.

Again, I’m not sure why you felt the need to come in and say “no” then change the situation of what I was discussing.

JoeJ

2018-07-28, 12:33 PM

Iwhich to me, indicate the DM has stated the Coffeelock is approved, but the DM then tries to limit its trick by doing things like forcing the Player to take a long rest.

I think you mean character. I generally don't force players to do anything except leave my house when the game is over and I want to go to bed, if we're playing there.

How awful that characters don't come with guarantees! You know what? I'll also approve a grappler and then limit their trick by having some enemies that attack from range. I allow spellcasters to learn firebolt and fireball, and then limit that trick by occasionally using monsters that are resistant, or even immune to fire. I'll even allow a character to focus on getting the highest possible armor class and then limit that by sometimes having enemies that use AoE spells.

You can play a coffeelock if you want, and you can accumulate as many spell slots as you can manage, during play. You can't accumulate them during downtime. If that ruins your entire concept, then your concept is flawed and you should play something else.

Malifice

2018-07-28, 03:30 PM

I’m saying if a DM says “you can play the Coffeelock,” then undermines that statement by preventing the mechanics that make the Coffeelock a Coffeelock, that’s disengenuous.

And I am saying it's not disengeneous.

I said at session zero that you're going to get a median of 2-3 short rests per long rest, and you're also going to get around 6 encounters per long rest (give or take, sometimes more and sometimes less).

Additionally, I said, dont try and abuse the rest mechanic (or any other mechanic for that matter) in my games. It doesn't work, and I'll likely boot you from the table for trying.

If you want to play a Warforged Sorcerer/ Warlock (the Coffeelock chassis) go nuts. Its a perfectly viable and fun class to play. Just dont try and twist my game into some form of rules abuse, and we'll get along fine. If you try to abuse rules in my game, it never works, and you'll likely have to find somewhere else to play.

If you turn to me and announce any kind of rules abuse I intervene. The Coffeelock itself isnt abusive; its the player trying to game the rest mechanics thats the abuse.

You can play a Wizard with Simulacrum and Wish as well if you want to. I strongly suggest not trying to chain them, or you'll find out the hard way what happens when you try, and why the campaign world isnt full of God Wizard with armies of clones. It doesnt work, or it doesnt work the way you think it will.

That saidm I could have fun with infinite recursive reality altering AI NPCs and turning them against the PC.

JNAProductions

2018-07-28, 03:34 PM

Yeah, I remember your interpretation of how Wish-Simulacrum chaining works. It's... Iffy, at best.

But Malifice-let me ask you this. You say you don't want to compile a whole list of abusive things you don't allow. And, if this were 3rd edition, I can understand that. But in 5th, there's:

-Coffeelocks
-Wish Simulacrum Chaining

And what else? Is it that hard to say "I'm banning these two things"?

Malifice

2018-07-28, 03:49 PM

But Malifice-let me ask you this. You say you don't want to compile a whole list of abusive things you don't allow. And, if this were 3rd edition, I can understand that. But in 5th, there's:

-Coffeelocks
-Wish Simulacrum Chaining

And what else? Is it that hard to say "I'm banning these two things"?

But I am not banning the Coffeelock. I have no problem with you playing a Warforged Sorcerer/ Warlock. Just like I also have no problem with a Wizard casting Simulacrum.

I dont intend to ban either.

Just dont try and abuse either, and we'll be just fine.

Get it yet? My problem isnt with the rules, or those classes or spells. The problem I have (if any) is a jerk of a player trying to abuse the rules, after I have expressly warned him not to. He might be doing it unintentionally of course. In which case 'nope' is good enough a ruling to stop it, and the player doesnt care.

Rules abuse isnt a good habit to get into as a player. I have zero idea why so many players think its a good thing in a friendly, non competitive game designed to be collaborative like DnD.

They're worse than WAAC flogs in friendly games of 40K with mates. You know; the guy that brings some broken and unbalanced list to a friendly game where everyone is just trying to have fun. Except in this case they were also expressly asked by the other players not to try and abuse rules before building the army list, and yet they did it anyway.

I have zero time for that ****, and for players like that.

ErHo

2018-07-28, 06:46 PM

"1 short rest, followed by 15 minutes of sprinting, followed by a short rest, followed by 15 minutes of sprinting"... etc. The min/maxmonkeys have a loophole for everything short of a definitive ruling.

I know a jujitsu instructor that does this for a few weeks before tournaments.

Arial Black

2018-07-29, 06:29 PM

How awful that characters don't come with guarantees! You know what? I'll also approve a grappler and then limit their trick by having some enemies that attack from range.

I'm going to use your example to illustrate the difference between what Malifice advocates and what good DMs advocate.

A good DM will have the world behave as it behaves. It will be consistent. However fireballs work, however grappling works, however Short Rests work, that's how they work!

What a bad DM might do is have the world arbitrarily stop working, just because a player realises that how it works would be great for him if he adapts his behaviour to take advantage of how stuff works!

In your example, the player has 'taken advantage' of how the grappling rules work in order to build a PC who is really good at grappling. Has anything gone wrong here? Are they 'abusing the rules'? Malifice would think so.

If you found that the grappler was really effective, you would 'solve' that little 'problem' by (according to your post) 'having some enemies that attack from range'. Are you being an unfair DM? Of course not! The world already includes creatures with ranged attacks; the world did not mutate in an unrealistic way just to annoy grappler PCs!

How would Malifice respond to the grappler? Well, if he used the same approach to grapplers as he does to coffeelocks, then he would 'solve' the grappler 'problem' by just saying that 'your grapple doesn't work this time. Why? Because I am the DM and I say so and how dare you abuse the game rules to be good at grappling! You are a selfish player and are no longer welcome at my table!'

Can you see the difference?

Malifice

2018-07-29, 09:03 PM

What a bad DM might do is have the world arbitrarily stop working, just because a player realises that how it works would be great for him if he adapts his behaviour to take advantage of how stuff works!

Nope. You see, this is how the world has always worked in my games.

As I pointed out to the players in session zero.

In your example, the player has 'taken advantage' of how the grappling rules work in order to build a PC who is really good at grappling. Has anything gone wrong here? Are they 'abusing the rules'? Malifice would think so.

No, If you want to grapple **** go nuts. 'Grappling' isnt abuse.

Abusing the rest mechanic is abuse. Heck, even advocates for the 'Cofeelock' agree its abusing the system in ways not intended (hence the thread title).

The fact you cant see the difference, tells me so much about you as a player.

If you found that the grappler was really effective, you would 'solve' that little 'problem' by (according to your post) 'having some enemies that attack from range'. Are you being an unfair DM? Of course not! The world already includes creatures with ranged attacks; the world did not mutate in an unrealistic way just to annoy grappler PCs!

Actually no I wouldnt. I would simply continue to frequently design encounters that feature multiple combatants (a half dozen mooks, a heavy, and a leader of some kind). Feel free to run in and grapple one. Then the others can wail on you.

Can you see the difference?

The question here is 'can you?'

You're trying to frame a player that has a character that is good at Grappling (not abuse), as somehow being the same as a player that is actively trying to bust the system via abusing rules in ways they're not supposed to be abused, and against the direct expressed wishes of the DM.

I have no problem with player 1. Player 2 can change how he plays the game or he can bugger off to another table where he can be someone elses problem.

JNAProductions

2018-07-29, 10:56 PM

Malifice

2018-07-29, 11:13 PM

So, Malifice, what rule do you change that makes coffeelocking not work? Because, clearly, since you're being fair about it, you don't just arbitrarily declare "Resting for an hour does NOT give any benefits" when the rules clearly state that doing so gives you a short rest.

The rules state that the player tells the DM what they are doing, and the DM tells them the results of that action. The rules also state that the DM has final say on the rules, and that a rule can be ignored or altered if doing so is in the spirit of the game.

It's up to the DM if your rest has any benefits, and what those benefits (if any are). Thats RAW.

As a DM I am not bound to allow your gamist cheese. My hands are not tied. I am not a robot.

Maybe you're the kind of player that tries to purchase 499 diminutive Droids with 1 level of Noble and the talent that lets them grant an adjacent creature a Standard action on their turn in your local Star Wars game.

You rock up to a table with your 499 Droids in your pocket, and try and take 500 Standard actions each turn.

You then sook when the DM says 'No', loudly proclaim 'but it's the RAW and you never said no in your Houserule document!' and keep complaining as he boots you from the table.

But, being fair, the rules are pretty clear that, by RAW, this works.

Rule zero is RAW. So my RAW overrides your RAW.

jas61292

2018-07-29, 11:31 PM

So, Malifice, what rule do you change that makes coffeelocking not work? Because, clearly, since you're being fair about it, you don't just arbitrarily declare "Resting for an hour does NOT give any benefits" when the rules clearly state that doing so gives you a short rest.

I mean, you're well within your rights to houserule that you gain a max of 3 or 4 short rests per long rest, and keep the one long rest per day limit. Or to say that spell slots beyond your max fade after 24 hours, or anything else like that.

But, being fair, the rules are pretty clear that, by RAW, this works.

RAW, resting for an hour is a short rest. RAW, resting for three hours is.... a short rest. RAW, resting for eight hours is a long rest. Nothing in the rules says multiple hours rested at once are multiple rests. In fact, it says quite the opposite, in that a short rest is "at least 1 hour long" indicating explicitly that it can be longer. Similarly, nothing about the description of a long rest indicates that taking the benefits of it is optional, if you meet the requirements.

Of course, neither of these things prevent coffeelocking from working. However, so long as the DM is pushing a busy adventuring day that doesn't allow for more than a standard number of rests for the party, it makes it impossible without using metagame knowledge and having your character act utterly absurdly. And both of those are grounds for a DM to ask a player to change how they are playing or to leave.

Obviously, you can say that RAW, it works. But, being fair, the rules are pretty clear that it is impossible to do without completely disregarding the intent of the rules and the spirit of the game.

Avonar

2018-07-30, 01:41 AM

Obviously, you can say that RAW, it works. But, being fair, the rules are pretty clear that it is impossible to do without completely disregarding the intent of the rules and the spirit of the game.

This is the clincher for me. We can argue about good DM/bad all day but if you genuinely think that the designers wanted to give one class the chance to gain infinite spell slots then I think you're deluding yourself.

Doesn't matter if it's OP or not, I cannot believe they would want this, it seems to go against the entire design philosophy of 5e.

Rakoa

2018-07-30, 06:41 AM

Rule zero is RAW. So my RAW overrides your RAW.

So you admit that outside of Rule 0 (which is subjective table-by-table), the build works by RAW? Because that is the subject of the thread here, not how you run your games.

RSP

2018-07-30, 07:03 AM

And I am saying it's not disengeneous.

I said at session zero...

It is disengenuous, but I see what happened here. As I said in my previous post where I stated what I was talking about, and said I didn’t know what you were referring to; apparently you’ve decided to take my previous conversation and make it about you.

So I’ll just restate my point, and if you think it applies to you, run with it, otherwise, it’ll just be a general point, as I intended:

If a DM states to a player they can play a Coffeelock, knowing full well that a Coffeelock is by definition meant to abuse the downtime rules, and then, when play starts, that DM abuses the rules to not allow that player to play that style, is disengenuous.

Malifice

2018-07-30, 08:51 AM

If a DM states to a player they can play a Coffeelock, knowing full well that a Coffeelock is by definition meant to abuse the downtime rules, and then, when play starts, that DM abuses the rules to not allow that player to play that style, is disengenuous.

We can go in circles all you want mate, but: No it is not disingenuous.

This:

Player: Can I play a Coffeelock?
DM: Yeah sure, just remember what I said earlier about not abusing the rules, and me policing the adventuring day. In case you're still somehow confused and I wasn't being clear enough, I'm ****ing serious.

Is no different to:

DM: (session zero): Dont try to abuse the rules, or try and game the system. I will be policing the adventuring day. As a median you should expect around 2-3 short rests per long rest, and about 6 or so encounters per adventuring day (sometimes more, and sometimes less). Metagaming, rules abuse and gamist bull**** doesnt fly at my table.
Player: OK. (Creates a Coffeelock)

Get it yet? I have no problem with a Sorlock (including one that doesnt get fatigued on account of not taking long rests). Play one in my games all you want.

If you try and abuse the rest mechanic though, be prepared to be dissapointed as I said you would be in session zero.

So you admit that outside of Rule 0 (which is subjective table-by-table), the build works by RAW?

No. 'Rule 0' is RAW. Plus RAW doesnt exist 'in and of itself'. All rules are subject to interpretation, just like all texts are.

Also: Welcome to postmodernism 101.

RSP

2018-07-30, 09:26 AM

We can go in circles all you want mate, but: No it is not disingenuous.

Again, read what I wrote. What I’m stating is not what you’re responding to. I know you want to make this about you and your views, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

Segev

2018-07-30, 09:50 AM

Willie the Duck

2018-07-30, 10:40 AM

It would, in fact, seem intended that those who don't need long rests would not take them under such circumstances.
The only part of this that's questionable is whether the Sorlock interaction itself is intended.

And this of course we really have no way of resolving--the designers seem perfectly willing to rule on edge-case rules interactions (despite the supposed rulings over rules aesthetic for this new edition), but seem steadfast in not answering (most) questions that start with, "was it really intended that..."

I have a list of things that I'd love to know if they were intentional (the handedness rules regarding spellcasting and two handed weapons and whether quarterstaves were versatile because originally one wasn't going to be able to cast while holding 2h weapons, and that quality wasn't removed when that was changed at the last minute; whether darkness, darkvision, and when one has disadvantage to what was intentional or just kind of happened, etc.). I even have some theories that a few "bad" rules were put in place deliberately (wish+simulacrum is so blatant it reads to me like they just wanted to get the infinite wish loop out of the way since they knew would eventually happen regardless, if one-handed quarterstaves weren't caused by a last minute change to the handedness rules, an equally good explanation is that one-handed quarterstaff + PAM + shield is a non-overpowered build, but a very good place for 3e veterans to spin their 'optimize this' wheels).

I've stated that I think the designers must know about the Coffeelock, and that it clearly doesn't bother them -- probably because most casual table full of non-forum-goers (i.e. their target audience) have resolved this issue with a simple 'neat trick! No, you aren't playing one' and moved on. But again, that's just guesswork on my part.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-07-30, 10:44 AM

In answer to the topic of the thread, it's often hard to determine what the rules as intended really are. What I think we can safely say is that the coffeelock has always been technically legal by the RAW, and that the presence of races and invocations which make sleeping entirely optional enable one to engage in the procedures of the coffeelock without actually violating any individual rule's intentions. It strains credulity to believe that, if it weren't for the coffeelock mechanic, anybody would bat an eye at a Warforged who decided that he wasn't going to take a full 8 hours of contiguous rest, and would instead just take an hour here and there while getting "real work" done (or "playing hard" or whatever) at any hour of the day. This goes double for a Warlock of any race who expressly took an Invocation so he never had to waste time sleeping.

It would, in fact, seem intended that those who don't need long rests would not take them under such circumstances.

The only part of this that's questionable is whether the Sorlock interaction itself is intended. Addressing the Sorlock interaction by attempting to force a "long rest" or to deny "short rests" by DM fiat is not addressing the question of this thread, nor a very good way to address the core problem. It violates the RAI of the abilities which enable one to not sleep, and the RAW and RAI of the short/long rest mechanics. Rule 0 being "RAW" is a weak excuse. Rule 0 is literally about making house rules.

So, to reiterate, the only real question about RAI and the coffeelock lies in the sorlock interaction, not in whether or not it's intended that PCs with certain racial or class features be able to take short rests and never take long rests.

This is a pretty clear and concise way of explaining my reasoning with the title of the thread. I understand that RAI is a bit of a nebulous term because it can start at "if they let this character not rest, he shouldn't have to take rests" and that seems to be a clearly intended interaction. This is the "intent" that I was putting into question.

The much broader view of "The designers clearly don't intend for these several minute factors to combine into an abusable interaction" wasn't really what I was looking at because you can make a reasonable sounding argument against anything going into the broad scope. The Shield Master debate covers this pretty well because both sides have very compelling arguments.

My biggest issue in bringing this up was that I couldn't find anything clearly defined in the rules that would prevent a player from doing this except "I as the DM don't want you to." and the only previously established "intended" stopgap has been made null from this iteration of Warforged not suffering any penalties from not taking long rests.

XmonkTad

2018-07-30, 04:06 PM

My biggest issue in bringing this up was that I couldn't find anything clearly defined in the rules that would prevent a player from doing this except "I as the DM don't want you to." and the only previously established "intended" stopgap has been made null from this iteration of Warforged not suffering any penalties from not taking long rests.

I feel like NOT giving warforged the exhaustion immunity would be too detrimental to the vision of "what a warforged is" ie. a machine. But I'm 99% certain the game designers know what a coffelock is. That being said, im also 99% sure they don't care. Until we hear about a coffelock doing something in a public/tournament setting that's either disruptive or epic they'll just never address it directly. Trying to figure out RAI on this one hasn't gotten easier. I used to be convinced it 100% was not RAI, now I'm not sure.

Rakoa

2018-07-30, 11:06 PM

No. 'Rule 0' is RAW. Plus RAW doesnt exist 'in and of itself'. All rules are subject to interpretation, just like all texts are.

Also: Welcome to postmodernism 101.

Yes it is, which I addressed. Please read what I wrote if you're going to bother to reply. I will restate my question for you now.

Outside of Rule 0 (which varies table-by-table and is not any use to a discussion like this) do you admit that the build works by RAW? And if not, why?

JoeJ

2018-07-30, 11:10 PM

Yes it is, which I addressed. Please read what I wrote if you're going to bother to reply. I will restate my question for you now.

Outside of Rule 0 (which varies table-by-table and is not any use to a discussion like this) do you admit that the build works by RAW? And if not, why?

Question: Why is it important whether or not it works by RAW?

Rakoa

2018-07-30, 11:37 PM

Question: Why is it important whether or not it works by RAW?

Because regardless of the title of this thread, I believe that is what OP is asking about. He talks about the difference between rest and sleep and how Aspect of the Moon doesn't necessarily allow for the Coffeelock to function, which I believe is a RAW dispute and not a RAI dispute, and one that is solved unequivocally by the introduction of the Warforged. The introduction of the Warforged has absolutely nothing to do with designer intent, unless there is a line missing somewhere in their description or racial fluff that mentions they make great sorlocks.

But ProsecutorGodot can feel free to correct me on that.

JoeJ

2018-07-31, 02:50 AM

Because regardless of the title of this thread, I believe that is what OP is asking about. He talks about the difference between rest and sleep and how Aspect of the Moon doesn't necessarily allow for the Coffeelock to function, which I believe is a RAW dispute and not a RAI dispute, and one that is solved unequivocally by the introduction of the Warforged. The introduction of the Warforged has absolutely nothing to do with designer intent, unless there is a line missing somewhere in their description or racial fluff that mentions they make great sorlocks.

But ProsecutorGodot can feel free to correct me on that.

It depends, then, on which rules you're including in your definition of RAW. Are you including the rule in Xanathar's about having to make a Con save or suffer exhaustion after 24 hours without a long rest? If so, are you counting the fluff that talks about needing sleep, or just the actual mechanic, which makes long rests (not sleep) a requirement for all characters?

Malifice

2018-07-31, 03:26 AM

Because regardless of the title of this thread, I believe that is what OP is asking about.

He clearly isnt asking that question, in either the title of the thread, or in the OP.

Rakoa

2018-07-31, 04:14 AM

It depends, then, on which rules you're including in your definition of RAW. Are you including the rule in Xanathar's about having to make a Con save or suffer exhaustion after 24 hours without a long rest? If so, are you counting the fluff that talks about needing sleep, or just the actual mechanic, which makes long rests (not sleep) a requirement for all characters?

I think it comes down to whether or not fluff and RAI are connected to each other. If you believe so, then you could certainly think that the rules allowing a player to never sleep is a problem that contradicts with the fluff, which would then make the Warforged a "fix" that makes the rules function as intended. I don't see it that way, but it is a murky area.

He clearly isnt asking that question, in either the title of the thread, or in the OP.

You are an expert at selective replies. Rather disingenuous.

Willie the Duck

2018-07-31, 08:23 AM

Honestly, regardless of the OP and what they specifically looking to have answered, whether Coffeelock works by RAW (rule 0 notwithstanding) seems pertinent (albeit not discussion defining or of supreme importance) to the overall discussion that is happening. Threads drift, and beside they are started by, but not owned by, the OP. So if something not part of the original point comes to the fore, more power to it.

Why Malifice's opinion in particular on whether it works is important, I'm not sure.

TheFryingPen

2018-07-31, 09:30 AM

RAW, resting for an hour is a short rest. RAW, resting for three hours is.... a short rest. RAW, resting for eight hours is a long rest. Nothing in the rules says multiple hours rested at once are multiple rests. In fact, it says quite the opposite, in that a short rest is "at least 1 hour long" indicating explicitly that it can be longer. Similarly, nothing about the description of a long rest indicates that taking the benefits of it is optional, if you meet the requirements.

I'd agree with you and consider this RAI, however, RAW you can do something after 1 hour (qualifies as short rest) that clearly interrupts the rest and then have another light activity period of 1h which again can be used as rest and so on. Effectively, since the PHB says it's the characters taking the rests (not the DM granting them - though being free to intervene), it's a built in character feature with 1h "cast" (+6sec to interrupt it) time.

"Adventurers can take short rests in the midst of an adventuring day and a long rest to end the day." (PHB 186)
So you're also not forced to take a long rest. And if you were, you could interrupt that by walking or casting spells for an hour+.

I'd rule as there must be 24h between long rest, there have to be x hours or at least one encounter between short rests. I'd prefer the latter but that could raise the question "what exactly counts as an encounter?"

Willie the Duck

2018-07-31, 11:16 AM

It depends, then, on which rules you're including in your definition of RAW.

On that note, I guess I should remind myself that the Warforged are still playtest material. Are we going to be asked for feedback on that? Is this all potentially going to change 4 times before it hits publication anyways?

Xetheral

2018-07-31, 12:18 PM

Malfice, I have a hypothetical I would like your opinion on.

Your PCs have taken refuge in a village that has sheltered and hidden them while they recuperated from near-disaster. The PCs are on the clock, but decide it's worth spending a morning (4 hours) to reward the helpful villagers before heading off to their next destination. One of the PCs spends the morning doing carpentry work, one helps out in the smithy, and one provides medical advice. The Warlock 3/Wizard 3 (clearly not an optimizer!) has a bunch of ruby dust and wants to create and donate Continual Flames to the village. Specifically, she wants to cast Continual Flame eight times throughout the morning by casting the spell using her Warlock slots and then resting. She'll end the morning with a fourth short rest so that she can start out on their trip full of spell slots.

Would you permit the warlock/wizard to cast the spell eight times over four hours as described above? Would you still let the character benefit from other short rests that day taken between the 6 encounters the party has in the afternoon? Is the player of the character doing anything wrong by wanting to repeatedly cast Continual Flame?

Malifice

2018-07-31, 02:24 PM

Segev

2018-07-31, 02:29 PM

Is the player trying to break my game or abuse rules here?

The answer is no.

Ergo the rule of 'dont be a jerk and try and abuse the rest mechanics' doesn't apply.

This is very subjective. I know DMs who would argue that deliberately serially short resting to get multiple castings of Continual Flame without having to expend any net spell slots is most definitely abusing the rules.

Xetheral

2018-07-31, 02:41 PM

Is the player trying to break my game or abuse rules here?

The answer is no.

Ergo the rule of 'dont be a jerk and try and abuse the rest mechanics' doesn't apply.

Thank you for your answer. That helps me better understand your perspective: you're not against characters getting benefits from serial resting per se, you're against serial resting that you consider game breaking or abusive.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-07-31, 03:18 PM

Thank you for your answer. That helps me better understand your perspective: you're not against characters getting benefits from serial resting per se, you're against serial resting that you consider game breaking or abusive.

For myself, I'm against anything that I consider game breaking or abusive. That's rather implied, IMO, by the definitions of those words. And not all game breaking or abusive things can be defined up front. Rulings specifically (albeit partially) exist for the purpose of stopping things that, though technically legal by one reading, are harming the fun of others at the table.

Furthermore, hiding behind "RAW" or "RAI" is an attempt to weaponize rules. "The book says I can" or "The forum says I can so you can't stop me without being a meanie" is a tactic that I do not like at my tables. Especially when it's explicitly foreclosed by those very rules you're citing--they specifically say that it's all up to the DM, that the DM has RAW power to alter "rules" or apply them selectively at his will. The rules serve the DM, not vice versa. And the DM serves the table (not vice versa).

I have nothing to say about the coffeelock in particular--they're only theoretical constructs to me. So what I do about them would depend on how its presented in a real situation.

Xetheral

2018-07-31, 03:37 PM

For myself, I'm against anything that I consider game breaking or abusive. That's rather implied, IMO, by the definitions of those words. And not all game breaking or abusive things can be defined up front. Rulings specifically (albeit partially) exist for the purpose of stopping things that, though technically legal by one reading, are harming the fun of others at the table.

Furthermore, hiding behind "RAW" or "RAI" is an attempt to weaponize rules. "The book says I can" or "The forum says I can so you can't stop me without being a meanie" is a tactic that I do not like at my tables. Especially when it's explicitly foreclosed by those very rules you're citing--they specifically say that it's all up to the DM, that the DM has RAW power to alter "rules" or apply them selectively at his will. The rules serve the DM, not vice versa. And the DM serves the table (not vice versa).

I have nothing to say about the coffeelock in particular--they're only theoretical constructs to me. So what I do about them would depend on how its presented in a real situation.

To rephrase, my hypothetical was designed to clarify whether Malifice found serial resting by itself to qualify as game breaking or abusive. I certainly don't expect anyone to tolerate what they consider game-breaking and abusive, I just wanted to better understand what Malifice considered to fall into that category.