Eldritch Blast Damage

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I have a Level 5 Warlock who is going to be using this a bit so I want to make sure I get it right.

At Level 5 Eldritch Blast gets two attacks.

Make an attack roll for each at the same or different targets.

If its a hit ad the Charisma modifier to each.

If the Warlock has Hex active on the target ad the D6 from Hex to one or both attacks.

Do I have it about right?

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Make an attack roll for each at the same or different targets.

If its a hit ad the Charisma modifier to each.

If the Warlock has Hex active on the target ad the D6 from Hex to one or both attacks.

Do I have it about right?

Correct

If you have agonizing blast, yes

Each beam that strikes a hexed Target.

[samcifer]

I have a Level 5 Warlock who is going to be using this a bit so I want to make sure I get it right.

At Level 5 Eldritch Blast gets two attacks.

Make an attack roll for each at the same or different targets.

If its a hit ad the Charisma modifier to each.

If the Warlock has Hex active on the target ad the D6 from Hex to one or both attacks.

Do I have it about right?

The charisma bonus to damage is a special effect granted by the Agonizing Blast eldritch invocation. If you don't have that, you only get the base damage of 1d10 per blast that connects.

You're correct in that you can have each beam target a different target or the same target as the first one.

The added Hex curse damage is only applicable to the for you targeted the Hex spell with. All other potential targets don't get the +1d6 damage, only the cursed target.

If you want more damage, you could be a Hexblade and hit the same Hex target with the Hexblade's Curse ability, but that would require 2 rounds to get going in full. There.s a Hexblade-specific eldritch evocation called Improved PAct Weapon that adds +1 to attack and damage with all attacks as well as being able to use their weapon as a magick implement, so if you have a +3 weapon, you can use that +3 to hit as well as to damage with all spells cast through that weapon when using it as a implement with any spell or cantrip.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

There.s a Hexblade-specific eldritch evocation called Improved PAct Weapon that adds +1 to attack and damage with all attacks as well as being able to use their weapon as a magick implement, so if you have a +3 weapon, you can use that +3 to hit as well as to damage with all spells cast through that weapon when using it as a implement with any spell or cantrip.

That's an interesting thing that I'd never actually thought of, I always assumed that, that bonus only applied to melee attacks with it.

[samcifer]

That's an interesting thing that I'd never actually thought of, I always assumed that, that bonus only applied to melee attacks with it.

Okay, I was mistaken in that you need to be a hexblade for this. You have to have taken the PAct of the Blade pact:

"Improved Pact Weapon

Prerequisite: Pact of the Blade feature
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.

In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.

Finally, the weapon you conjure can be a shortbow, longbow, light crossbow, or heavy crossbow."

[BarneyBent]

If you want more damage, you could be a Hexblade and hit the same Hex target with the Hexblade's Curse ability, but that would require 2 rounds to get going in full. There.s a Hexblade-specific eldritch evocation called Improved PAct Weapon that adds +1 to attack and damage with all attacks as well as being able to use their weapon as a magick implement, so if you have a +3 weapon, you can use that +3 to hit as well as to damage with all spells cast through that weapon when using it as a implement with any spell or cantrip.

That is a very generous reading of that rule. The invocation says your weapon gets the +1 to its attack and damage roles. When you use the weapon as a focus, you are not making an attack with the weapon - you are simply substituting the material components for the weapon. Weapon attacks are different from spell attacks and the weapon bonus should not apply to Eldritch Blasts unless you have an incredibly generous DM.

[PeteNutButter]

If you want more damage, you could be a Hexblade and hit the same Hex target with the Hexblade's Curse ability, but that would require 2 rounds to get going in full. There.s a Hexblade-specific eldritch evocation called Improved PAct Weapon that adds +1 to attack and damage with all attacks as well as being able to use their weapon as a magick implement, so if you have a +3 weapon, you can use that +3 to hit as well as to damage with all spells cast through that weapon when using it as a implement with any spell or cantrip.

I believe this is incorrect RAW. There is no such thing as a +x implement in 5e. Rods of the pact keeper are worded very differently to allow benefits on spells. +1, 2, or 3 weapons get a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with that weapon. Eldritch blast is still not an attack with that weapon, even if the weapon is used as the arcane focus. Though you'd certainly be able to make a case if a DM is being generous, and is accepting a broad definition of what it means to attack with a weapon.

EDIT: Ninjaed

[Biggstick]

I believe this is incorrect RAW. There is no such thing as a +x implement in 5e. Rods of the pact keeper are worded very differently to allow benefits on spells. +1, 2, or 3 weapons get a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with that weapon. Eldritch blast is still not an attack with that weapon, even if the weapon is used as the arcane focus. Though you'd certainly be able to make a case if a DM is being generous, and is accepting a broad definition of what it means to attack with a weapon.

EDIT: Ninjaed

I don't have the books available to me right now, but wouldn't a Wand of the Warmage work out in this situation?

Again, don't have the ability to check this, and would be grateful to someone that can.

[Gastronomie]

I don't have the books available to me right now, but wouldn't a Wand of the Warmage work out in this situation?

Again, don't have the ability to check this, and would be grateful to someone that can.That would work, as will Rod of the Pact Keeper.

The main problem here is that Hex is a great Spell to spend a level 1 slot on, but a bad spell to spend a level 3 slot on...

[sophontteks]

That would work, as will Rod of the Pact Keeper.

The main problem here is that Hex is a great Spell to spend a level 1 slot on, but a bad spell to spend a level 3 slot on...
Just cast it on a squirrel in the morning, kill it, and go back to bed for an hour. At level 3 its free.

[Gastronomie]

Just cast it on a squirrel in the morning, kill it, and go back to bed for an hour. At level 3 its free.It might be just me, but I am yet to actually ever see a DM that will allow that sort of metagaming move, and neither will I allow it at my table. Of course I've heard of it, but the way I think is that it's one of those online discussions that work on paper and by RAW but are never actually allowed at the table. Sorta like Coffeelocks.

[sophontteks]

It might be just me, but I am yet to actually ever see a DM that will allow that sort of metagaming move, and neither will I allow it at my table. Of course I've heard of it, but the way I think is that it's one of those online discussions that work on paper and by RAW but are never actually allowed at the table. Sorta like Coffeelocks.
They didn't let the spell last 24 hours without reason my friend. Its a spell made to work with a short rest class. Its not meta at all, and it costs concentration to do it.

Minor rant not pointed at you. I am a little irked how warlocks are frequently bashed for being a weak class, yet everything their class does that is special is considered broken.

[Galithar]

They didn't let the spell last 24 hours without reason my friend. Its a spell made to work with a short rest class. Its not meta at all, and it costs concentration to do it.

Minor rant not pointed at you. I am a little irked how warlocks are frequently bashed for being a weak class, yet everything their class does that is special is considered broken.

That's why they are considered weak though. People get upset when they do what they need to too realize their potential because it's "broken" or "meta"
Which is just bollocks. If I'm a Warlock I know what kind of 'recharge' I need for my spells the same as the wizard knows they need a night of rest. Why would I, as an in character Warlock, not think that it would be good to cast my long duration spell in the morning and then rest before going out? That's like saying it's meta to cast Mage Armor before I start adventuring...

[Chronos]

My problem with Hex isn't that it uses up a spell slot; it's that it uses up your concentration. There are so many better ways that you could use your concentration than just getting an extra d6 of damage on each attack.

[sophontteks]

My problem with Hex isn't that it uses up a spell slot; it's that it uses up your concentration. There are so many better ways that you could use your concentration than just getting an extra d6 of damage on each attack.
Yeah, only worth it if you invest in it. Its weak for its own sake. I think only fiendlocks can pull it off because they gain access to many non-concentration spells (Burning hands, scorching ray, fireball, command, blindness/deafness, fire shield). Combine that with maddening hex, use that extended duration to save a spell slot, and take advantage of its subtle transfer. It becomes really solid. Outside combat I like to use hex to subtley give a target disadvantage to ability checks before I make a charisma check or a sleight of hand check on them.

I always wanted to play a warlock, but was worried how DMs would treat them. They are a weak class without their awesome combos, so I talked to my DM about how my character works beforehand and he's actually very excited about it.

I went undying warlock for CoS. Even in CoS the undying warlock is weak. Fiendlock would be better for my character, but I like playing the less-popular choices. I'm pulling 2 off two combos:
Actor, mask of many faces, and pact of the chain.
Hex, maddening hex, sign of ill omen, and pact of the chain.

At level 6 his spell list is Hex, Hellish Rebuke, Shatter, Speak With Dead, Thunder Step, Counterspell, and Charm Person. Lack of concentration is OK, but I really wish I could access command, fireball, and scorching ray like the fiendlock can.

[pdegan2814]

Okay, I was mistaken in that you need to be a hexblade for this. You have to have taken the PAct of the Blade pact:

"Improved Pact Weapon

Prerequisite: Pact of the Blade feature
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.

In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.

Finally, the weapon you conjure can be a shortbow, longbow, light crossbow, or heavy crossbow."

This is incorrect, the +X of a magic weapon doesn't apply to spell attacks. You don't make an attack with your spell focus, it's only there to fulfill the Material component requirement for casting said spell.

[Tanarii]

They didn't let the spell last 24 hours without reason my friend. Its a spell made to work with a short rest class. Its not meta at all, and it costs concentration to do it.Not only that, animal (or even human) sacrifice is thematically appropriate for warlocks. Of course the twisted soul who made a pact with a dark creature would be willing to kill something each morning to further increase their own power ....

Of course, not all campaigns work with evil characters. /shrug In those cases, you have to abstain from the sacrificial Hex in the morning, since your misguided (an neutral) soul who was tricked off the path of righteousness in search of power still wouldn't hurt a hair on a poor bunny rabbit's head.

[pdegan2814]

I have a Level 5 Warlock who is going to be using this a bit so I want to make sure I get it right.

At Level 5 Eldritch Blast gets two attacks.

Make an attack roll for each at the same or different targets.

If its a hit ad the Charisma modifier to each.

If the Warlock has Hex active on the target ad the D6 from Hex to one or both attacks.

Do I have it about right?

Based on the rules and what I've read from the Wizards folks on social media, here's how it works at level 5:

Eldritch BlastWhen you cast Eldritch Blast, you fire two beams. You make separate attack rolls for each beam. They can target the same creature or different creatures, but you have to declare those targets when casting the spell. Each beam that hits deals 1d10 Force damage.

IF you have the Agonizing Blast invocation - each beam that hits deals additional Force damage equal to your CHA mod
IF you have the Repelling Blast invocation - each beam that hits can(if you choose) push the creature 10ft away from you. HOWEVER, if you aim both beams at the same target, and the first beam pushes the target beyond the range of the spell, the second beam will miss. So, be careful when shooting at monsters 115ft away :)
IF you have cast Hex on a monster you are targeting with Eldritch Blast - each beam that hits the Hexed target will deal an additional 1d6 Necrotic damage.
There are other invocations that enhance Eldritch Blast, but they are specifically worded to trigger once per turn(you get to pick which beam the effect applies to, however).

[ChildofLuthic]

It might be just me, but I am yet to actually ever see a DM that will allow that sort of metagaming move, and neither will I allow it at my table. Of course I've heard of it, but the way I think is that it's one of those online discussions that work on paper and by RAW but are never actually allowed at the table. Sorta like Coffeelocks.

I mean, it's kind of game-y when you're discussing it in terms of the game, but that's so easy to flavor.

"Yeah my character goes out and finds a small animal to hex and then sacrifice. You know, because he's a warlock."

[Ganymede]

Just cast it on a squirrel in the morning, kill it, and go back to bed for an hour. At level 3 its free.

Going to bed renders you unconscious and incapacitated, which would break your concentration on Hex.

You could stay awake during your short rest, but it is not a sure thing; it depends on your DM ruling that concentrating on a spell is no more strenuous than eating, drinking, or tending to wounds.

[sophontteks]

Going to bed renders you unconscious and incapacitated, which would break your concentration on Hex.

You could stay awake during your short rest, but it is not a sure thing; it depends on your DM ruling that concentrating on a spell is no more strenuous than eating, drinking, or tending to wounds.
Does it say short rests break concentration anywhere?

[Galithar]

Does it say short rests break concentration anywhere?

No it's just a "popular" nerf Warlocks ruling. Short rests do not mean sleeping, and no where does it say that short rests break concentration mostly because there are many concentration spells that are intended to span short rests, like Hex.

[Chaosmancer]

I've been considering the hex issue for my Feylock I'm going to be rolling soon.

It will be my main damage thing, hex and eldritch blast (other abilities are going to lean support) but he doesn't seem like a sacrifice in the morning type of guy.

[Ganymede]

Does it say short rests break concentration anywhere?

I think you're confusing rules.

I'm not talking about what breaks concentration. I'm talking about what activities are too strenuous for you to benefit from a short rest. Nothing tells us whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds, so it is left up to the DM to make that call.

[Contrast]

I'm not talking about what breaks concentration. I'm talking about what activities are too strenuous for you to benefit from a short rest. Nothing tells us whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds, so it is left up to the DM to make that call.

For reference Sage (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/29/concentration-and-hit-dice-use/) Advice (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/20/concentration-during-rest/) is that yes you can. Rule how you like, I would argue against short rests breaking/being disallowed by concentration.

[Ganymede]

For reference Sage (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/29/concentration-and-hit-dice-use/) Advice (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/20/concentration-during-rest/) is that yes you can.

It is really important to stress that Mike Mearls' twitter answers are not rules or official rule clarifications.

"The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter."


Rule how you like, I would argue against short rests breaking/being disallowed by concentration.

That's perfectly fine, but unless sophontteks is playing at your table, it isn't particularly relevant.

[Contrast]

That's perfectly fine, but unless sophontteks is playing at your table, it isn't particularly relevant.

I mean I agree with you the rules are unclear on this point and require DM interpretation.

As a minor point though if you're arguing you can't short rest while concentrating, you are arguing that a short rest breaks concentration. Two sides of the same coin. But my apologies, I'll be sure to keep my opinions to myself in the future :smallbiggrin:

[Ganymede]

I mean I agree with you the rules are unclear on this point and require DM interpretation.
...But my apologies, I'll be sure to keep my opinions to myself in the future :smallbiggrin:

You're allowed to offer your perspective, don't let me stop you. I thought you were citing the tweets as if they were rule clarifications, but DMs can certainly look to them for guidance on the issue. Remember, I was just pointing out that depending on being to concentrate through a short rest isn't a sure thing in the rules.


As a minor point though if you're arguing you can't short rest while concentrating, you are arguing that a short rest breaks concentration. Two sides of the same coin.

This is not quite right.

The issue isn't whether activities like eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds break your concentration; they clearly don't. The issue is whether concentrating on a spell is too strenuous to allow benefiting from a short rest.

[Tanarii]

Going to bed renders you unconscious and incapacitated, which would break your concentration on Hex.Only after Xanathar's was released. Before that there was no rule that (natural) sleep caused the Unconcious condition.


You could stay awake during your short rest, but it is not a sure thing; it depends on your DM ruling that concentrating on a spell is no more strenuous than eating, drinking, or tending to wounds.That'd be a DM-introduced house rule.

[Ganymede]

That'd be a DM-introduced house rule.

House rules are commonly understood as purposeful deviations from the rules. A DM ruling on whether or not concentrating on a spell is too strenuous for a short rest is not a house rule because neither position is a deviation from a rule. It is just the DM dealing with a situation that isn't covered by the rules.


Only after Xanathar's was released. Before that there was no rule that (natural) sleep caused the Unconcious condition.

Is this a thing?

My DMG says: "Various rules and features in the game are clear about when they apply a condition to a creature. You can also apply conditions on the fly. They're meant to be intuitive for you to do so. For example, if a character is in a state such as sleep, that lacks consciousness, you can say the character is unconscious."

Edit: Crawford confirmed as much in a tweet. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/854021939395833857

[sophontteks]

Nothing says, or even hints that concentration is strenuous, only that strenuous things can break it. I'm not interested in this house rule at all.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Only after Xanathar's was released. Before that there was no rule that (natural) sleep caused the Unconcious condition.

Xanathar's does mention being considering "unconscious" while asleep as a basic fact, something I don't think anyone would realistically disagree with. Weapon of Warning (from the DMG) however uses the wording "except when incapacitated by something other than nonmagical sleep" which at the very least gives us a reason to assume sleeping incapacitates you, which would break concentration.

Still, it is technically true that there isn't a specific rule that says you are incapacitated or unconscious while sleeping, only an implied one that you are incapacitated in the core books. This is really just me arguing semantics though.

Maintaining concentration while asleep is almost certainly a "no" as far as I'm concerned, but there's no reason that I can see to say that a short rest would be interrupted due to concentrating on a spell.

[Ganymede]

Nothing says, or even hints that concentration is strenuous, only that strenuous things can break it. I'm not interested in this house rule at all.

You are making the same mistake as before. The issue is not what can break concentration; the issue is whether concentration is too strenuous to allow for a short rest.

That is also not the same thing as saying concentration is "strenuous" in an absolute sense(i.e. an arduous, difficult undertaking). The question posed is whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous that eating, drinking, or reading. Plenty of activities are very easy but might still be more strenuous than eating, drinking, or reading. Jogging, for instance.

[Tanarii]

House rules are commonly understood as purposeful deviations from the rules. A DM ruling on whether or not concentrating on a spell is too strenuous for a short rest is not a house rule because neither position is a deviation from a rule. It is just the DM dealing with a situation that isn't covered by the rules.
It is a deviation, in that it is introducing a rule that does not exist.

[Ganymede]

It is a deviation, in that it is introducing a rule that does not exist.

I guess you can define it that way, but that definition isn't particularly germane here (I don't even think it is all that common a definition). The key issue here is whether there is a rule on point for resolving a particular issue. When someone says "house rule" it makes them think there is something official to the contrary, but that's not the case here.

I took another look, and this is absolutely not "introducing a rule that does not exist."

The rule presented in the PHB is a test: you test to see if a particular activity is more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds." If yes, it disrupts a short rest. That's the rule, and it most certainly exists.

[Strangways]

There is no rule that says a short rest involves sleeping. Considering that the short rest rule contemplates that you can be doing things that preclude sleeping (such as eating), it seems clear that both RAW and RAI need not involve sleeping. It would be strange if people paused for lunch for an hour in the middle of the day, then decided for some reason to sleep during any part of that hour.

[Strangways]

Warlocks are quite a strong class, but they have a couple of perception problems. First, people new to D&D (or maybe just to 5e) might play them because they’re arcane full casters, thinking they’ll play like a wizard or sorcerer. They end up disappointed because the warlock has so few spell slots. They’re also a short rest class, like the monk, so you sometimes run the risk of irritating the party by suggesting a short rest even though no one else in the rest of the party will benefit from it. Neither of these is a mechanical problem with the warlock, just something you have to adapt to if you’re going to play this class.

One niche situation worth mentioning is the situation of a warlock with the Actor feat and the Mask of Many Faces invocation in a socially oriented game. I did that with my first warlock and could walk through town looking (and sounding) like anyone I liked from one moment to the next. Combine that with the fact that a warlock is a CHA based class who typically has proficiency in Deception and Persuasion and you’re so lethally effective in that environment that people are going to complain that the combo is broken.

[Max_Killjoy]

I guess you can define it that way, but that definition isn't particularly germane here (I don't even think it is all that common a definition). The key issue here is whether there is a rule on point for resolving a particular issue. When someone says "house rule" it makes them think there is something official to the contrary, but that's not the case here.

I took another look, and this is absolutely not "introducing a rule that does not exist."

The rule presented in the PHB is a test: you test to see if a particular activity is more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds." If yes, it disrupts a short rest. That's the rule, and it most certainly exists.

I'd tend to agree with your position on this -- it's not a new rule or a contradiction of an existing rule, and thus not a house rule... it's a GM ruling/judgement based on an existing rule in print, an interpretation of what's

And you appear to be asking the correct question about concentration and short rests.

[sophontteks]

I never said anything about sleep. I said "Go back to bed." I didn't think I had to spell everything out to avoid confusion here. This is just creating an argument where none should ever exist.

Concentrating is not a strenuous activity. Its not an activity at all. Concentrating is not a thing you actively do. Its passive. So how can it possibly be considered an activity more strenuous then eating and bandaging wounds when its not even an activity at all?

If you want a world where wizards are constantly acting like they are constipated, great. The consequences of this certainly extend beyond short resting and are quite frankly ridiculous when we apply them to other aspects of the game. But we aren't applying this logic elsewhere, so lets call it what it is. A houserule designed to nerf short rest casting and nothing more.

[Max_Killjoy]

I never said anything about sleep. I said "Go back to bed." I didn't think I had to spell everything out to avoid confusion here. This is just creating an argument where none should ever exist.


IME, when people say "go back to bed", they don't mean "go sit in bed", they mean "go back to sleep".

[Willie the Duck]

They didn't let the spell last 24 hours without reason my friend. Its a spell made to work with a short rest class. Its not meta at all, and it costs concentration to do it.
Minor rant not pointed at you. I am a little irked how warlocks are frequently bashed for being a weak class, yet everything their class does that is special is considered broken.


That's why they are considered weak though. People get upset when they do what they need to too realize their potential because it's "broken" or "meta"
Which is just bollocks. If I'm a Warlock I know what kind of 'recharge' I need for my spells the same as the wizard knows they need a night of rest. Why would I, as an in character Warlock, not think that it would be good to cast my long duration spell in the morning and then rest before going out? That's like saying it's meta to cast Mage Armor before I start adventuring...


Not only that, animal (or even human) sacrifice is thematically appropriate for warlocks. Of course the twisted soul who made a pact with a dark creature would be willing to kill something each morning to further increase their own power ....

Of course, not all campaigns work with evil characters. /shrug In those cases, you have to abstain from the sacrificial Hex in the morning, since your misguided (an neutral) soul who was tricked off the path of righteousness in search of power still wouldn't hurt a hair on a poor bunny rabbit's head.

It is entirely possible that X is weak, Y be something that brings them up to par, and Y be in some way problematic. It's even possible for Y the be thematically appropriate and it still not be a good solution. Martial classes were incredibly underpowered in 3e, and both Frenzied Berserker and low ECL Hulking Hurler builds were great ways to increase martial power, and were thematically consistent concepts, yet they were really bad solutions to that problem.

Mind you, I don't think that Hexing a forest critter and then short-resting to regain your slot rises to that level of badness, but it's still not great. Regardless of the thematically appropriateness of sacrificing of harmless animals is for a warlock, the whole should-carry-around-bag-of-rats thing is janky and meta-gamey. If that's what it takes to help the class stay up to par, it just feels like solid evidence that a problem exists. Not that I think any improvement to eldritch blast would change peoples' perceptions (at least half the complaints I hear about Warlocks is how much they are just blast-spammers), but if I were designing the class, I would have either made Hex a invocation (and then probably given them an extra to play with), or just made the blast spammer part of the class an assumed role and pulled Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Blast, and Hex into the class in some way, and gotten them out of the way.

Hex as-is feels a little like clerics/paladins being able to emboss their holy symbol on their shields--It is thematic, and I get what its' purpose is, yet it seems to create as many issues as it solves, and makes people revert back to mechanical terms (thus breaking the verisimilitude, even though it is thematic) in ways that another solution might have avoided.

[sophontteks]

IME, when people say "go back to bed", they don't mean "go sit in bed", they mean "go back to sleep".
When people say go back to bed they mean going back to where their bed is. Even taking this literally you would have had to ignore the context where, clearly, I am referring to a short rest. You can't even literally go back to sleep due to long rest limits.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I never said anything about sleep. I said "Go back to bed." I didn't think I had to spell everything out to avoid confusion here.
Because when I say "I'm going back to bed" I meant to say "I'm going back to bed to not sleep"

Thank you for the clarification, but don't try to paint it like it was anyone else's fault for believing that you meant to sleep.

Otherwise, I agree. It sets a ridiculous precedent to assume that maintaining concentration is strenuous to a degree that it interrupts resting. This doesn't just directly hurt Warlocks, but indirectly hurts Wizard's and their Arcane Recovery feature. This is just if we choose to ignore spells with a concentration duration at or exceeding 1 hour, which it also affects negatively.

It's an especially bad ruling considering spells with a concentration duration of 24 hours, some of them don't need any more reason to be considered bad *cough* Find the Path *cough*


When people say go back to bed they mean going back to where their bed is. Even taking this literally you would have had to ignore the context where, clearly, I am referring to a short rest. You can't even literally go back to sleep due to long rest limits.
You can in fact literally go back to sleep, you just can't gain the benefits of a long rest by doing so.

I've really never heard someone say "I'm going back to bed" who wasn't fully intending to go back to sleep, there's very little else to do at your bed. It leads to a not unreasonable assumption that someone plans to sleep more.

[Max_Killjoy]

When people say go back to bed they mean going back to where their bed is. Even taking this literally you would have had to ignore the context where, clearly, I am referring to a short rest. You can't even literally go back to sleep due to long rest limits.

I am trying to explain to you how your phrasing was read by other people -- not catch you in some sort of rhetorical gotcha.

They're not looking to intentionally misread you -- the phrase you used is used by many many people to mean something, and interpreted as meaning something, that you evidently did not mean.

It doesn't matter if you call the color of oranges (the fruit) "red", most people who read your description will interpret your statement as referring to the color of fresh blood, many fire engines, and an assortment of different types of flowers.

When you said "go back to bed", most people don't read that as literally "go back to where your bed is", they read that as "go back to sleep".

[sophontteks]

I think everyone can put this together and find your point to be creating an arguement for the sake of it. Taking words literally for no reason then to create an arguement.

[Max_Killjoy]

At any rate, this conversation is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to pull my hair out.

Why the heck would any character need to "stunt" their rest this why? Why are we parsing the last mote of life out of the words "rest", "concentration", "sleep", and "strenuous"?

Who actually thinks this sort of thing should ever be the focus or point of a GAME?

[Max_Killjoy]

I think everyone can put this together and find your point to be creating an arguement for the sake of it. Taking words literally for no reason then to create an arguement.

Isn't it your usage that takes the words "go back to bed" as absolutely literal, whereas the common usage is more figurative?

:smalleek:

[KorvinStarmast]

The issue is whether concentrating on a spell is too strenuous to allow benefiting from a short rest. It isn't.
1) You can concentrate on a spell while you are fighting in a battle. You can even take damage and keep concentration up, though sometimes you won't. Taking damage in a battle is the level of strenuous/stress that it takes to break concentration.
2) Taking a short rest is less strenuous than that, by a lot.

A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds. None of those is so strenuous as to break concentration.

I don't get the warlock-hating DM who came up with that ruling that concentrating on a spell prevents short rest. Seriously, why screw with a player like that? What is the value in that?

Example: Hunters Mark. Ranger. At higher levels, it lasts for many hours.

When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd or 4th level, you can maintain your Concentration on the spell for up to 8 hours. When you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, you can maintain your concentr⁠ation on the spell for up to 24 hours. We defeat a monster who flees us, and our ranger get Hunter's Mark's advantage in tracking without any stated limitation regarding whether we short rest, or not.

you have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wis⁠dom (Survival) check you make to find it. Or are the (censored) DM nitwits out there screwing the Ranger as well?

Second point: short rest is not on the list of things that disrupt concentration, FWIW.


Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn’t interfere with concentration.
The following factors can break concentration:
• Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another
spell that requires concentration. You can’t concentrate on two spells at once.
• Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a
Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take,
whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s
breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
• Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.

The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while
you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.

Is taking a short rest equivalent to a wave crashing over your ship? No, unless you are a (censored) DM.

[Ganymede]

Concentrating is not a strenuous activity. Its not an activity at all. Concentrating is not a thing you actively do. Its passive. So how can it possibly be considered an activity more strenuous then eating and bandaging wounds when its not even an activity at all?

That's one way for a DM to rule in this situation, I suppose, but certainly not the only one.

I don't even think this makes for a particularly good ruling. How can concentrating on a spell be a passive, effortless non-activity when stormy weather can screw it up and it is impossible to concentrate on two spells at once? I don't think you're thinking this through, but no one is forcing me to play at your table so go wild.


If you want a world where wizards are constantly acting like they are constipated, great.

You keep getting stuck on this. There are a million things that are more strenuous than enjoying a beverage but less strenuous than an arduous, capillary-bursting dump.

Why do you keep jumping to extremes?




The consequences of this certainly extend beyond short resting and are quite frankly ridiculous when we apply them to other aspects of the game.

Don't play hide-the-ball. Tell us the consequences and why a DM should factor them into his or her ruling.

[Max_Killjoy]

It isn't.
1) You can concentrate on a spell while you are fighting in a battle. You can even take damage and keep concentration up, though sometimes you won't. Taking damage in a battle is the level of strenuous/stress that it takes to break concentration.
2) Taking a short rest is less strenuous than that, by a lot.

I don't get the warlock-hating DM who came up with that ruling. Seriously, why screw with a player like that? What is the value in that?

Perhaps, but what I don't get is why the Warlock would need to do the whole wake/hex/kill/rest thing in the first place.

[sophontteks]

Isn't it your usage that takes the words "go back to bed" as absolutely literal, whereas the common usage is more figurative?

:smalleek:
My issue is basically that you expect me to react to comments like this. I'm not interested in playing grammer police with you.

[Max_Killjoy]

My issue is basically that you expect me to react to comments like this. I'm not interested in playing grammer police with you.

I'm not policing your grammar (though grammar isn't the word you want there... :smallwink: ).

I'm trying to explain to you why multiple posters took your comment in a way you didn't intend -- and refute the notion that somehow they're being unreasonable, or unfair, or deliberately misinterpreting you.

[Ganymede]

It isn't.
1) You can concentrate on a spell while you are fighting in a battle. You can even take damage and keep concentration up, though sometimes you won't. Taking damage in a battle is the level of strenuous/stress that it takes to break concentration.
2) Taking a short rest is less strenuous than that, by a lot.

You say this, but you're answering the question backwards. You, like several others, just said that having a short rest does not disrupt a spellcaster's concentration. Yet again, that is not the question here.

The question is whether concentrating on a spell is too strenuous to allow benefiting from a short rest. In other words, the question is whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds," not whether "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds" disrupts a spellcaster's concentration.

Why do people keep doing this?


I don't get the warlock-hating DM who came up with that ruling. Seriously, why screw with a player like that? What is the value in that?

Sure, but this is kinda beside the point. Whether you agree or disagree with a DMs ruling or motivations behind it isn't the issue here. The issue is that there is no rules answer to this question and DMs must issue a ruling, not what your favorite ruling is.

[Max_Killjoy]

You say this, but you're answering the question backwards. You, like several others, just said that having a short rest does not disrupt a spellcaster's concentration. Yet again, that is not the question here.

The question is whether concentrating on a spell is too strenuous to allow benefiting from a short rest. In other words, the question is whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds," not whether "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds" disrupts a spellcaster's concentration.

Why do people keep doing this?

Seems clear to me -- two distinct questions.

"Does taking a short rest disrupt concentration?"

"Does concentration prevent a period of time from counting as a short rest?"

[KorvinStarmast]

Perhaps, but what I don't get is why the Warlock would need to do the whole wake/hex/kill/rest thing in the first place. Mechanically?
Wake up, kill a squirrel with hex up, and then short rest while someone else makes breakfast. During that rest, recover spell slots so clip is loaded for the first encounter. Yes, that's a bit gamist in thinking. But it's fits the RAW well and no, it isn't overpowered.

Role play: pact of the fiend in particular. I need to wake up each day and get blood on my hands or my fiendish master will screw with me. We may be traveling today, and I may not get a chance to do combat. Today may be the whole "party face" day for me. Get the blood when I can. (In an urban setting, a rat will suffice, or a stray cat).

Genre Meme: numerous stories in the genre (and IIRC it was drawn from some old custom IRL among some warlike cultures) have a meme or custom where if you draw your blade, you must blood it before sheathing it. (It's a bit of inverse logic, of course, the idea being "don't draw that blade unless you need to use it" ...) but I've seen it in stories and comics for years.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't get the warlock-hating DM who came up with that ruling. Seriously, why screw with a player like that? What is the value in that?

I think there are a lot of DMs who would rule on what they consider strenuous, based on their own ruling-over-rules ideas about how it should go, and then see how the downstream effects roll out from there. Deliberately screwing over the warlock (or rangers with Hunter's Mark or casters with Find the Path, etc.) is not part of the calculation. Not directly comparable, but an anecdote-- my group has a hexblade chainlock. This is a non-optimizer who chose hexblade because it sounded fun, so no worry about optimizing shenanigans. Knowing he'd have a hard time with the hexblade part staying relevant at levels 5+, I pointed out the SCAG cantrips. He like them in theory, but wanted to keep playing as a guy with two scimitars (which he uses for the extra 1d6 attack, he doesn't have twf combat style from a fighter multiclass, or any feats, or even know Hex). I pointed out that the SCAG cantrips don't technically trigger allowing the off-hand attack, but maybe the DM would house rule (it certainly wouldn't be overpowered in this scenario). DM said no, not because of any power level fears, he just didn't think that was how it should work. Just one anecdote, but the point is that not all rulings are done to control/nerf/manage a given class or build.

[KorvinStarmast]

You say this, but you're answering the question backwards. You, like several others, just said that having a short rest does not disrupt a spellcaster's concentration. Yet again, that is not the question here.

The question is whether concentrating on a spell is too strenuous to allow benefiting from a short rest. In other words, the question is whether concentrating on a spell is more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds," not whether "eating, drinking, reading, or tending to wounds" disrupts a spellcaster's concentration.

Why do people keep doing this?
Because we aren't idiots. The act of concentration itself is so effortless that you can engage in combat and movement during combat without any fear of it dropping. It takes outside stress to disturb it. Not sure how much fighting you have done (martial arts, boxing, wrestling, fencing) but that kind of activity takes a lot of effort by itself,and focus, and indeed one's entire attention. But fighting does not by itself drop concentration, thus the level of effort is neither high nor large. It takes more effort to prepare a meal without burning your hand in the fire or cutting yourself with a knife while putting the taters in the pot than it does to concentrate on a spell.

Are you going to demand that "no cooking!" is now a rule?

One doesn't need a house rule to respond to the gamist approach if one doesn't like it.
Simply add consequences.
One day, that squirrel the Warlock killed to start his day is the familiar of a local wizard ... and from there come some in world consequences, yes?
Why be a lazy DM and screw with the players with this kind of house rule? It's petty.
Let the players braid their own hanging rope ...

[Ganymede]

Because we aren't idiots. The act of concentration itself is so effortless that you can engage in combat and movement during combat without any fear of it dropping. It takes outside stress to disturb it. Not sure how much fighting you have done (martial arts, boxing, wrestling, fencing) but that kind of activity takes a lot of effort by itself,and focus, and indeed one's entire attention. But fighting does not by itself drop concentration, thus the level of effort is neither high nor large. It takes more effort to prepare a meal without burning your hand in the fire or cutting yourself with a knife while putting the taters in the pot than it does to concentrate on a spell.

Are you going to demand that "no cooking!" is now a rule?

I'm not demanding anything.

You just made a DM ruling here using your own perspective on the issue. That's what your supposed to do in situations like this.

I'm just trying to make sure readers don't think your particular ruling here is a hard-and-fast rule. The whole reason I'm even participating here is because sophontteks was telling people strategy advice based on pretending his preferred way to play was a real rule.



One doesn't need a house rule to respond to the gamist approach if one doesn't like it.

And here you are, once again pretending your own personal ruling on the issue is an actual rule.

[Willie the Duck]

Because we aren't idiots.

That was condescending and unnecessary.


Are you going to demand that "no cooking!" is now a rule?

Not once has Ganymede made any demands. He has stated that the situation was up for debate and it be reasonable for a DM to rule in either direction. That was his entire premise. I don't know if I agree or not, but painting him as being the one making demands or assuming others are idiots is unjustified.

Edit: ninja'd

[KorvinStarmast]

. Just one anecdote, but the point is that not all rulings are done to control/nerf/manage a given class or build. As a DM of long experience, I am aware of how rulings work. What I like best about your illustration was the engagement and dialogue that went into it, with eyes open and a particular character concept in mind.

[Ganymede]

Not once has Ganymede made any demands. He has stated that the situation was up for debate and it be reasonable for a DM to rule in either direction. That was his entire premise.

I'm not even going so far as to say the two directions are equally reasonable, just that a DM is equally empowered to choose either direction.

[Tanarii]

Perhaps, but what I don't get is why the Warlock would need to do the whole wake/hex/kill/rest thing in the first place.
Need to, or want to?

"Want to" is almost certainly going to be the mechanical consideration, wanting a 'free' slot.

Same reasons Sorcerers will cast an Extended 8 hr spell before a long rest before an adventuring day. Or Druids dump a bunch of spells slots into Goodberry the night before. Or other classes Animate Dead over several days, to build up a larger group than they can if they cast all their slots first thing in the first morning of adventure, in addition to starting with a free complement of spell slots.

[Chaosmancer]

Mechanically?
Wake up, kill a squirrel with hex up, and then short rest while someone else makes breakfast. During that rest, recover spell slots so clip is loaded for the first encounter. Yes, that's a bit gamist in thinking. But it's fits the RAW well and no, it isn't overpowered.

Role play: pact of the fiend in particular. I need to wake up each day and get blood on my hands or my fiendish master will screw with me. We may be traveling today, and I may not get a chance to do combat. Today may be the whole "party face" day for me. Get the blood when I can. (In an urban setting, a rat will suffice, or a stray cat).

Genre Meme: numerous stories in the genre (and IIRC it was drawn from some old custom IRL among some warlike cultures) have a meme or custom where if you draw your blade, you must blood it before sheathing it. (It's a bit of inverse logic, of course, the idea being "don't draw that blade unless you need to use it" ...) but I've seen it in stories and comics for years.

I'm curious about something.

Most everyone seems fine with a Warlock keeping hex active during a short rest (argument over whether you can have a short rest while concentrating non-withstanding)

So, here is an interesting question I've been thinking of.

Do you need to have a target for hex? Not RAW, RAW is clear. But, would there be anything wrong with allowing hex to be cast without a target and held locked.

Especially if you are good with the "cast on animal and kil it" workaround, I'd think it is fine. But not all warlock patrons would be into blood sacrifice. I figure you are doing something to honor your patron during a short rest, that's why your spells refresh, why not just allow that ceremony to allow hex to be locked and ready to go?

[Max_Killjoy]

Need to, or want to?

"Want to" is almost certainly going to be the mechanical consideration, wanting a 'free' slot.

Same reasons Sorcerers will cast an Extended 8 hr spell before a long rest before an adventuring day. Or Druids dump a bunch of spells slots into Goodberry the night before. Or other classes Animate Dead over several days, to build up a larger group than they can if they cast all their slots first thing in the first morning of adventure, in addition to starting with a free complement of spell slots.

And for all those other scenarios, why is the game designed such that players are even put in a situation to need or want to engage in those sorts of contrivances?

[Tanarii]

And for all those other scenarios, why is the game designed such that players are even put in a situation to need or want to engage in those sorts of contrivances?why is water wet?

It's a consequence of the properties of having rules that they create edge cases and unexpected consequences at them.

[RSP]

And for all those other scenarios, why is the game designed such that players are even put in a situation to need or want to engage in those sorts of contrivances?

It’s not necessarily a player contrivance. If you’re a Sorcerer and you know: you can cast a spell before sleep that will benefit you when you wake; that while you sleep you recharge all your magic powers; that in the morning, you’re likely fighting for your life; then why wouldn’t you do this? It’s completely logical in game.

Similar with any other scenario: the characters would know what their abilities are and when they recharge, and it’s only logical to use that to your benefit, particularly when the stakes are one’s life.

[RSP]

I'm not even going so far as to say the two directions are equally reasonable, just that a DM is equally empowered to choose either direction.

I’m fine with the argument, though I think it naturally leads to an idea of concentration being more than its intended.

If a DM ruled this way, I’d want to know what, or how, it stresses. Is it readily noticible? Will it cause levels of exhaustion if not rested before some level of exertion is met, similar to walking? If so, why would you ever use the 5th level version, as it’s going to cause exhaustion.

[Max_Killjoy]

why is water wet?

It's a consequence of the properties of having rules that they create edge cases and unexpected consequences at them.

This isn't an edge case, it's right there in the basic functioning of the Warlock's spells and slot recovery.

[KorvinStarmast]

Do you need to have a target for hex? Not RAW, RAW is clear. But, would there be anything wrong with allowing hex to be cast without a target and held locked.

Especially if you are good with the "cast on animal and kil it" workaround, I'd think it is fine. But not all warlock patrons would be into blood sacrifice. I figure you are doing something to honor your patron during a short rest, that's why your spells refresh, why not just allow that ceremony to allow hex to be locked and ready to go? Great question, though my instinct is 'needs a target.' It's something to work out between DM and Warlock ... the Archfey might also need an occasional offering, but maybe not a hapless squirrel ...

[Innocent_bystan]

Mechanically?
Wake up, kill a squirrel with hex up, and then short rest while someone else makes breakfast. During that rest, recover spell slots so clip is loaded for the first encounter. Yes, that's a bit gamist in thinking. But it's fits the RAW well and no, it isn't overpowered.
I'm Dm'ing a game where the warlock does this. With the possible exception that, sometimes, the furry critter is part of breakfast.

Starting the day with temp hp and hex up and running is a great way to counteract the rest of the party's tendency to skip short rests.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Great question, though my instinct is 'needs a target.' It's something to work out between DM and Warlock ... the Archfey might also need an occasional offering, but maybe not a hapless squirrel ...

It is worth noting that Hex doesn't require the first target to die, but be dropped to zero hitpoints. I'm sure even a Patron not so into blood could be appeased with some sort of "brink of death" ritual.

Seems thematic for undying at least.

[Chronos]

While I'd certainly allow the animal sacrifice thing if it worked for the character concept, I'm inclined to agree that it shouldn't be necessary. I think we all agree that after the first target (be it a squirrel or a dragon) is killed, the spell continues running for its entire duration, ready to be transferred onto a new target (i.e., it doesn't need to be transferred immediately). And in the typical adventuring day, it'll probably spend a lot more time between targets than on one. So if the spell can continue to run without a target, why not let it be cast without one, too?

EDIT:

It is worth noting that Hex doesn't require the first target to die, but be dropped to zero hitpoints. I'm sure even a Patron not so into blood could be appeased with some sort of "brink of death" ritual.

Ooh, exploit! It never actually ends the Hex on the first creature. So cast it on your party's front-liner who's always charging into more trouble than he can handle and needs to get healed back up from the brink of death every combat. By the end of the day, you'd have a small army all under the effects of your Hex at once.

[RSP]

Great question, though my instinct is 'needs a target.' It's something to work out between DM and Warlock ... the Archfey might also need an occasional offering, but maybe not a hapless squirrel ...



Do you need to have a target for hex? Not RAW, RAW is clear. But, would there be anything wrong with allowing hex to be cast without a target and held locked.

Especially if you are good with the "cast on animal and kil it" workaround, I'd think it is fine. But not all warlock patrons would be into blood sacrifice. I figure you are doing something to honor your patron during a short rest, that's why your spells refresh, why not just allow that ceremony to allow hex to be locked and ready to go?

Actually, targeting, it seems, isn’t part of the casting of a spell. Since it’s not an Instantaneous spell, and nothing in its description states something like “when you cast this spell, choose a target...” you could argue you can cast Hex, with no target assigned, and maintain Concentration over the duration, while waiting for a viable target.

[Chaosmancer]

Great question, though my instinct is 'needs a target.' It's something to work out between DM and Warlock ... the Archfey might also need an occasional offering, but maybe not a hapless squirrel ...

Yeah, I've been trying to think what it would be.

Offerings of things like songs and poems come to mind, but beyond that all I can think is gathered food (which could include meat but doesn't have to) and offering a meal

[KorvinStarmast]

It is worth noting that Hex doesn't require the first target to die, but be dropped to zero hitpoints. I'm sure even a Patron not so into blood could be appeased with some sort of "brink of death" ritual.

Seems thematic for undying at least. Nice idea, have not played that Lock so I appreciate the pact specific wrinkle. :smallsmile:.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually, targeting, it seems, isn’t part of the casting of a spell. Since it’s not an Instantaneous spell, and nothing in its description states something like “when you cast this spell, choose a target...” you could argue you can cast Hex, with no target assigned, and maintain Concentration over the duration, while waiting for a viable target.
Hmm, spell text suggests otherwise to me.

You place a curse on a creature that you can see within range. Does that not mean that the creature is the spell's target? (The entity upon which the magical effect is to be inflicted?) Hold person doesn't do damage, but you have to see it (humanoid) in order to cast hold person, so the creature is the spell's target. (Or so it seems to me).


Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an Attack. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. The target has disadvantage on Ability Checks made with the chosen ability.
Target is in the text of the spell.

If the target drops to 0 Hit Points before this spell ends, you can use a Bonus Action on a subsequent turn of yours to curse a new creature. The target.

As written, it appears that the Hex needs to be on something, and that something needs to be a creature. Cast it on a spider, a snake ... that annoying familiar of your wizard's who keeps taking a crap on your hat ... :smallsmile:

Plain English reading of the rules text suggests that Hex needs a target.

[RSP]

Hmm, spell text suggests otherwise to me.
Does that not mean that the creature is the spell's target? (The entity upon which the magical effect is to be inflicted?) Hold person doesn't do damage, but you have to see it (humanoid) in order to cast hold person, so the creature is the spell's target. (Or so it seems to me).

Target[/I] is in the text of the spell.
The target.

As written, it appears that the Hex needs to be on something, and that something needs to be a creature. Cast it on a spider, a snake ... that annoying familiar of your wizard's who keeps taking a crap on your hat ... :smallsmile:

Plain English reading of the rules text suggests that Hex needs a target.

The targeting rules do indeed apply; I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. What I was referring to is nothing in the RAW states that the targeting needs to take place when the spell is cast: the timing of when you select your target isn’t specified.

Refer to the Ready spell rule for the RAW indicating the opposite: you cast the spell as normal and then wait to target until after a certain trigger.

As such you can cast Hex and maintain Concentration for the duration without targeting something. However, when you do target something, it must abide by the targeting rules (range, creature vs item, whatever).

Edit: per the wording of the spell, you would need to choose the Disadvantaged ability at casting, but not the target.

[Ganymede]

I’m fine with the argument, though I think it naturally leads to an idea of concentration being more than its intended.

Definitely talk things over with your DM if you feel the need to, but maybe save this litany of questions for between sessions.

[Chronos]

Personally, I think that allowing a warlock to cast Hex without yet having a target would be a houserule, but I think that it would be a good and reasonable houserule. It doesn't give you any more power than you'd get by casting it on a squirrel; it just roleplays differently, if animal sacrifice doesn't make sense for your warlock.

[KnotaGuru]

As the DM, I allow the warlock to switch targets as a bonus action without the original target needing to die (or drop to zero hp). This works great. He can cast it on wizard's familiar, or the stubborn guard, or the store clerck. This allows the warlock to take advantage of the secondary effect of hex rather than focusing on damage all the time. Some may claim this is against RAW but I feel it's RAI and DMs have final say. The whole point of D&D is to have fun and this is way more fun than having to kill a critter in the morning then go rest for an hour. If the warlock wants to use his concentration on hex rather than something else, why make it so difficult to do so? It's fine, it's fun, it's easy.