Coffeelocks in 2021

[Amdy_vill]

So every now and then I look back into coffee locks and how they play. I have been looking into genie warlocks and their vessel seems to be a very useful piece of utility for coffee locks, given the biggest real problem is getting the time to use your abilities. but the vessel lets you power up on the move. are there any other innovations in coffeelock recently?

[OgataiKhan]

Coffeelock doesn't work because even if you don't have to sleep you still have to take long rests. The two aren't the same.

Even if it did work, it's basically only good in tier 2/early tier 3, because later level 6+ spells are better than more low level spells.

Cocainelock (using Greater Restoration) works but is expensive at low levels and bad at high levels.

[Captain Panda]

Coffeelock doesn't work because even if you don't have to sleep you still have to take long rests. The two aren't the same.

Even if it did work, it's basically only good in tier 2/early tier 3, because later level 6+ spells are better than more low level spells.

Cocainelock (using Greater Restoration) works but is expensive at low levels and bad at high levels.

That is true if one uses the optional Xanathar rule on the subject, but it is just an optional rule and may not always be used.

And in the case of having warforged in the campaign, coffeelock works completely legally within the rules. Though I wonder how many campaigns have warforged? Probably not many.

[OgataiKhan]

That is true if one uses the optional Xanathar rule on the subject, but it is just an optional rule and may not always be used.

And in the case of having warforged in the campaign, coffeelock works completely legally within the rules. Though I wonder how many campaigns have warforged? Probably not many.

It is technically optional, but you'll be hard pressed to find a DM who lets you go without long rests with no consequences just because. The rule was also considered standard enough to be referenced in the old version of the Warforged (that used to say they "do not suffer the effects of exhaustion due to lack of rest").

Speaking of Warforged, while the old playtest version was indeed immune to exhaustion due to lack of rest, the official version is not. Warforged also suffer exhaustion if they don't long rest, they just don't need to sleep during their rests.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It is technically optional, but you'll be hard pressed to find a DM who lets you go without long rests with no consequences just because. The rule was also considered standard enough to be referenced in the old version of the Warforged (that used to say they "do not suffer the effects of exhaustion due to lack of rest").

Speaking of Warforged, while the old playtest version was indeed immune to exhaustion due to lack of rest, the official version is not. Warforged also suffer exhaustion if they don't long rest, they just don't need to sleep during their rests.

You can always start with a level of sorcerer for con save proficiency.
You can usually succeed for around 3 days of no long rest, after that you can usually go with no problems with a level of exhaustion(it is kind of bad).

[AttilatheYeon]

The operative rule ia that short rests are "AT LEAST" one hour, not exactly one hour. If my players want to ahort rest instead of long rest, they get 1 short rest. It takes a lot of the edge off the coffeelock abuse.

[diplomancer]

The optional Xanathar rule is, explicitly, designed to simulate the lack of sleep. If you don't need to sleep, it doesn't apply. It's like applying the hunger and thirst rules to a creature that doesn't need to eat or drink.

As to Short Rests are "at least one hour", true, but anything strenous breaks a rest; just do 5 minutes of push-ups every hour. Having broken the rest, you can start a new one.

Coffeelocks are legal; DMs can ban them, as they can ban whatever they want; but they're still legal.

Anyhow... instead of discussing the legality of the Coffeelock, why don't we assume, for the moment at least, that it IS legal, and try to answer the OP?

[quindraco]

The optional Xanathar rule is, explicitly, designed to simulate the lack of sleep. If you don't need to sleep, it doesn't apply. It's like applying the hunger and thirst rules to a creature that doesn't need to eat or drink.

As to Short Rests are "at least one hour", true, but anything strenous breaks a rest; just do 5 minutes of push-ups every hour. Having broken the rest, you can start a new one.

Coffeelocks are legal; DMs can ban them, as they can ban whatever they want; but they're still legal.

You're replacing the RAW with your own interpretation of the RAI and then insisting it's the RAW, which isn't how any of this works.

RAW, Coffeelocks who go without long rests will die of exhaustion. What Aspect of the Moon does is let you engage in light activity without breaking a long rest, but you absolutely still need the long rest. If you want your DM to rule otherwise, that's a house rule, not the other way around.

[diplomancer]

You're replacing the RAW with your own interpretation of the RAI and then insisting it's the RAW, which isn't how any of this works.

RAW, Coffeelocks who go without long rests will die of exhaustion. What Aspect of the Moon does is let you engage in light activity without breaking a long rest, but you absolutely still need the long rest. If you want your DM to rule otherwise, that's a house rule, not the other way around.

No, they don't. This is the RAW:


A long rest is never mandatory, but going without sleep does have its consequences. If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures, use these rules.

And then it starts talking about levels of exhaustion. RAW, all those rules in that section are for sleep deprivation. No, you can't read a paragraph in isolation from the previous one that explains the applicability of the paragraph you are now reading and claim that this isolated paragraph is the RAW.

Edit: to make it perfectly clear: IF you are using the rules in the paragraphs that follow the one I've quoted to do anything except "to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures", you are houseruling, since you are simply ignoring this paragraph that tells you when to use the subsequent ones. Are you doing it to ban coffeelocks, or any other player exploit, with no regard for needing to sleep? Fine. But it's a houserule.

[JNAProductions]

If you're not okay with Coffeelocking, make an actual rule against them. My preferred one is "Any spell slots created in excess of the normal maximum disappear when you take a long rest or 24 hours pass, whichever comes first." It does let you top off a bit, and can give you a little extra juice if you have a day to prep, but nothing insane.

But don't use questionable readings of RAW to ban them-and yes, the reading is questionable. We've got someone, right here in this thread, questioning that reading.

Alternatively, just tell players to not Coffeelock. If they do anyway, then they're probably not worth having at the table, since you made clear it's not allowed.

[diplomancer]

If you're not okay with Coffeelocking, make an actual rule against them. My preferred one is "Any spell slots created in excess of the normal maximum disappear when you take a long rest or 24 hours pass, whichever comes first." It does let you top off a bit, and can give you a little extra juice if you have a day to prep, but nothing insane.

But don't use questionable readings of RAW to ban them-and yes, the reading is questionable. We've got someone, right here in this thread, questioning that reading.

Alternatively, just tell players to not Coffeelock. If they do anyway, then they're probably not worth having at the table, since you made clear it's not allowed.

This. It's all so much simpler to do it this way. And if you DON'T do it this way, this may have effects on worldbuilding; no more tireless undead slaves for maniacal necromancers, for instance, they also will need 8 hours of rest per day. Not to mention, it's just silly to require Undeads or Constructs to "long rest" or get levels of exhaustion.

[greenstone]

I deal with it by the following.

Breaking a rest (having two shorts rests instead of one teo-hour short rest) requires at least 1 hour of activity (as per chapter 8). You can't sit by a campfire for 8 hours and say "that's 8 short rests."

But, for each hour of activity after the first eight, the Forced March rules apply. A CON save or gain one level of exhaustion. Forced March rules keep applying until you have a long rest (additionally, a long rest only removes one level of exhaustion).

[Lupine]

I think Grod’s rule applies here. You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

The idea of a character that doesn’t need sleep is already mostly there —after all, warforged don’t sleep, remaining conscious.

Sure. It breaks what we expect, as it makes humans able to survive without sleep. But then again, we can’t throw fireballs from our fingers, or turn invisible. Let your players feel powerful. In fact, if the player is always on watch, play with that. Maybe the player’s patron communicates at midnight, by changing the faces of the moon.
You’re goal is to storytell it so that the character does not need rest, but is terrified to abstain from it, and actively wants to sleep.

[strangebloke]

I really just think some DMs get hives whenever their players engage with a rulebook. Its not as though coffeelocks are actually overpowered compared to more conventional builds.

Coffeelocks exist in a space where they work under certain RAI and require some specific readings to make work, but... in principle they're no more contentious than using BA shield bash from shield master before attacking.

[diplomancer]

To the OP; I'm sorry I cannot help you with your question; I'm not that good with teasing out several different implications of different features interacting; but I did do my best to steer the topic back to your question. Oh, well...


I deal with it by the following.

Breaking a rest (having two shorts rests instead of one teo-hour short rest) requires at least 1 hour of activity (as per chapter 8). You can't sit by a campfire for 8 hours and say "that's 8 short rests."

But, for each hour of activity after the first eight, the Forced March rules apply. A CON save or gain one level of exhaustion. Forced March rules keep applying until you have a long rest (additionally, a long rest only removes one level of exhaustion).

Yet another example of DMs, instead of banning Coffeelocks, preferring to say the rules say something that they don't say. Quite apart from the question of whether it requires a full hour of activity to break a Long Rest (there's some ambiguity in the rules, true, but if you DO rule it that way, a lot of the tension of Long Rests in a somewhat dangerous location goes away. Are you prepared to sacrifice that just to stop a particular build that probably won't even happen?). Forced March applies to travelling, period.

Really, banning coffeeloks is as simple as saying "I don't allow coffeelocks at my table", no further explanation necessary. If a player asks you why, just say "I don't like them, I think they're ridiculous"; if he KEEPS arguing, assert your authority as DM and make a note of it even if he ultimately accepts it; you may have a problem player in your hands. If instead of going that route you try to bend the rules to explain WHY coffeelocks are not allowed at your table, you will probably have more pushback from your players.

Now, a question to those here who are adamant in banning the Coffeelock; have you ever seen one in action at the table, either as Players or DMs, and was it too disruptive? Or is this simply a case of looking at a rules interaction, going "OMG! This is SO broken", and deciding to ban it? I myself have never seen one being played, so I can't really say how broken it is; I DO know, from experience, that multiclassing 3 levels on a caster is a HUGE cost, if you're playing from Tier 1; it's less of a cost if it's a runoff at some particular levels (but then, usually there's no downtime in runoffs, so the power of the Coffeelock already gets smaller).

[Kane0]

So every now and then I look back into coffee locks and how they play. I have been looking into genie warlocks and their vessel seems to be a very useful piece of utility for coffee locks, given the biggest real problem is getting the time to use your abilities. but the vessel lets you power up on the move. are there any other innovations in coffeelock recently?

Genie’s bottle respite makes the resting process quite a bit more convenient, however it is once per long rest so you do have to stop coffeelocking to make use of it again. Same story woth the fathomless, the tentacle is LR restricted so you’re probably still better off with Hexblade or a PHB patron as you were before.
Pact of the talisman also appears in Tasha’s, but i dont think it really helps coffeelocks compared to the PHB boons. Its basically retroactive guidance on failed checks prof times per long rest, again the LR part is bad for coffeelocking which also applies to two out of three of its associated invocations.
Aspect of the moon is great tomelock invocation for getting coffeelocks to actually fly at a real table, not needing sleep helps avoid exhaustion problems from ignoring long rests (even better than being a warforged, elf, etc or getting restorations on a frequent basis).
Eldritch mind gets you advantage on concentration, amazing if you’re going to be spamming spells that use it.

And on the sorcerer side you have aberrant mind and clockwork soul, both of which grant adjustible bonus spells as well as features that arent tied down by long rests. Theyre both just really good, and the former flavorfully dovetails into the GoO and patron.
Oh and as a bonus Tasha’s feature you can burn 1 SP to reroll ability checks from level 5 and youre also able to swap around MMs at level up just like spells.

In terms of new spells Tasha’s gives you some fantastic summons which are efficient and versatile, mind sliver which is a great all-round damage + debuff cantrip and mind whip which is a solid damage + cc low level spell, both of the latter targeting Int saves.

All in all there are some nice new toys for coffeelocks thanks to Tasha’s, yes.

[kazaryu]

I really just think some DMs get hives whenever their players engage with a rulebook. Its not as though coffeelocks are actually overpowered compared to more conventional builds.


*ahem* WHAT?!

are you sure you're understanding exactly what is meant by 'coffeelock'? the entire purpose of the coffeelock is to trade the free healing from long rests in order to get, effectively infinite spell slots.

at level 4, when it comes online, the best you cna do is level 1 spell slots, but you can create 4, for free, every short rest if you've got your warlock slots available. and you can stack them infinitely since nothing actually limits the spell slots you can have until you take a long rest. and it just gets higher from there. probably its strongest level is level 9, where you're able to make 5th level slots (the highest you'd be able to cast normally). but literally thats the goal of coffeelocking. its incredibly broken if you don't put some limitations on it, like has been suggested here.

[Willie the Duck]

In general, I agree with the sentiment that we do not need to parse the rule language twelve ways from sunrise to support or refute coffeelocking -- just rule as a DM. Any player at any table that thinks they are going to get to play one (come hell or high water) is deluding themselves if their reasoning is that they have an airtight argument for it being RAW. If a DM allows it, they allow it, hard stop.


at level 4, when it comes online, the best you cna do is level 1 spell slots, but you can create 4, for free, every short rest if you've got your warlock slots available. and you can stack them infinitely since nothing actually limits the spell slots you can have until you take a long rest. and it just gets higher from there. probably its strongest level is level 9, where you're able to make 5th level slots (the highest you'd be able to cast normally). but literally thats the goal of coffeelocking. its incredibly broken if you don't put some limitations on it, like has been suggested here.
The overall level of brokenness is going to depend entirely on how often effectively unlimited spells is going to disrupt the game, which probably depends on how often players in a given group feel constrained by resource limitations. If the DM is having trouble stopping the 5 minute workday effect from occurring, then the coffeelock raising the number of available spell slots per situation from 'excessive' to 'effectively limitless' might not be that big of an increase.


Now, a question to those here who are adamant in banning the Coffeelock; have you ever seen one in action at the table, either as Players or DMs, and was it too disruptive? Or is this simply a case of looking at a rules interaction, going "OMG! This is SO broken", and deciding to ban it? I myself have never seen one being played, so I can't really say how broken it is; I DO know, from experience, that multiclassing 3 levels on a caster is a HUGE cost, if you're playing from Tier 1; it's less of a cost if it's a runoff at some particular levels (but then, usually there's no downtime in runoffs, so the power of the Coffeelock already gets smaller).
Yes. I have one group where the DM lets them happen and every year or so someone tries one. What they really are, more than anything else, is annoying. While the entire game and its rest-recharge mechanic is an inherent commodification of in-game time (often at the expense of at-the-game-table time, if managing it requires effort), nothing makes it more obvious (and honestly verisimilitude-breaking) than someone bleating 'How many short rests can I get in during that?' every time an activity is declared.

[Yakk]

Coffeelocks are a waste, a bunch of hoops to jump through, when you don't need it. I mean, read the pact magic rules. It clearly states that a character with 1 level of warlock regains all spell slots on a short rest.

So a sorcerer 5 warlock 1 gains every spell slot back every short rest, both sorcerer and warlock slots.

All that bother with flexible casting is busy work really. You have plenty of slots.

You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a short or long rest.
Now, you could argue this only applies to warlock spell slots, but by that argument flexible casting only applies to sorcerer spell slots (and slots from other classes explicitly combined by multiclassing rules). The multiclassing rules explicitly let you cast sorcerer spells with warlock slots, but say nothing about other class features.

[kazaryu]

The overall level of brokenness is going to depend entirely on how often effectively unlimited spells is going to disrupt the game, which probably depends on how often players in a given group feel constrained by resource limitations. If the DM is having trouble stopping the 5 minute workday effect from occurring, then the coffeelock raising the number of available spell slots per situation from 'excessive' to 'effectively limitless' might not be that big of an increase. thing is, its not just an increase in general spell slots. its the fact that you're able to multiply your second tier spell slot. where a normal casters 'excessive' spell slots includes all their low tier spell slots. the coffeelock is able to also generate high tier spells. at level 9 (arguably where its at its strongest) its able to generate the highest available slot even. granted it can't cast 5th level spells, so those slots are limited to upcasting lower level spells. but you get my point.

obviously its definitely a ymmv type situation, depending on how often you actually get significant rest time in order to build up those spell slots. Im just pointing out that the combo itself has the potential to be incredibly broken at lower levels. [/QUOTE]

[Valmark]

Coffeelocks are a waste, a bunch of hoops to jump through, when you don't need it. I mean, read the pact magic rules. It clearly states that a character with 1 level of warlock regains all spell slots on a short rest.

So a sorcerer 5 warlock 1 gains every spell slot back every short rest, both sorcerer and warlock slots.

All that bother with flexible casting is busy work really. You have plenty of slots.

Now, you could argue this only applies to warlock spell slots, but by that argument flexible casting only applies to sorcerer spell slots (and slots from other classes explicitly combined by multiclassing rules). The multiclassing rules explicitly let you cast sorcerer spells with warlock slots, but say nothing about other class features.

This reading makes no sense. Spellcasting states that you recover all slots on a long rest and nothing says you can ignore that.

It's not a matter of arguing that it only applies to warlock spell slots- you have two different means of regaining slots and nothing allowing you to override one or the other. In contrast Flexible Casting has no such contradiction.

[diplomancer]

In general, I agree with the sentiment that we do not need to parse the rule language twelve ways from sunrise to support or refute coffeelocking -- just rule as a DM. Any player at any table that thinks they are going to get to play one (come hell or high water) is deluding themselves if their reasoning is that they have an airtight argument for it being RAW. If a DM allows it, they allow it, hard stop.

This. And, if I may add, it's irrelevant whether the reasoning for it being RAW is airtight or not. There is no such thing as "a right to play by RAW" that players have that overrules the DM's preference.



Yes. I have one group where the DM lets them happen and every year or so someone tries one. What they really are, more than anything else, is annoying. While the entire game and its rest-recharge mechanic is an inherent commodification of in-game time (often at the expense of at-the-game-table time, if managing it requires effort), nothing makes it more obvious (and honestly verisimilitude-breaking) than someone bleating 'How many short rests can I get in during that?' every time an activity is declared.

This I can easily see being annoying; it's probably worse if the player is not very quick with math. But unless the players are on a tight clock that will take several days, might be just as easy to go from "near-infinite" to "infinite", and stop wasting table-time with it.

On the other hand, even a regular Warlock probably asks "can I take a SR?", or "how much time has passed" in a frequency that might annoy other players.

[Captain Panda]

You're replacing the RAW with your own interpretation of the RAI and then insisting it's the RAW, which isn't how any of this works.


Nah, that's not fair. The immediate preceding sentence that gives the mechanical rule about not long resting literally, directly references a lack of sleep. It's a reasonable interpretation to an ambiguously written rule.



RAW, Coffeelocks who go without long rests will die of exhaustion.


Again, optional rule. Might be as ubiquitous as feats and multiclassing, but still option and not default RAW.


What Aspect of the Moon does is let you engage in light activity without breaking a long rest, but you absolutely still need the long rest. If you want your DM to rule otherwise, that's a house rule, not the other way around.

That's an assertion, but not really a fair one. You are just taking one side of a dubiously written rule and declaring your interpretation the only rational one. Hell, I've done that before too, so can't judge too hard.

[Amdy_vill]

Now, a question to those here who are adamant in banning the Coffeelock; have you ever seen one in action at the table, either as Players or DMs, and was it too disruptive? Or is this simply a case of looking at a rules interaction, going "OMG! This is SO broken", and deciding to ban it? I myself have never seen one being played, so I can't really say how broken it is; I DO know, from experience, that multiclassing 3 levels on a caster is a HUGE cost, if you're playing from Tier 1; it's less of a cost if it's a runoff at some particular levels (but then, usually there's no downtime in runoffs, so the power of the Coffeelock already gets smaller).

So I have been staying away from the conversation mostly because of how far it has steady. as a dm who has had 2 coffee locks at his table and is looking to play one, I can say the coffee lock really not a problem in play. mostly because of adventuring, most parties don't get months of prep time or the ability to just take 3 days off in the middle of the game.

[Willie the Duck]

Coffeelocks are a waste, a bunch of hoops to jump through, when you don't need it. I mean, read the pact magic rules. It clearly states that a character with 1 level of warlock regains all spell slots on a short rest.
So a sorcerer 5 warlock 1 gains every spell slot back every short rest, both sorcerer and warlock slots.
All that bother with flexible casting is busy work really. You have plenty of slots.
Now, you could argue this only applies to warlock spell slots, but by that argument flexible casting only applies to sorcerer spell slots (and slots from other classes explicitly combined by multiclassing rules). The multiclassing rules explicitly let you cast sorcerer spells with warlock slots, but say nothing about other class features.

Nothing in the Flexible casting section indicates that the spell slots need to be sorcery slots. The reference in pact magic to regaining all spell slots on a short rest is in a paragraph referencing warlock spell slots, the table indicating how many slots one gets, and only then pointing out that slots are recovered and how. I think you are attributing more power to something being a discrete sentence than actually exists (or at least that others would feel compelled to agree exists).


thing is, its not just an increase in general spell slots. its the fact that you're able to multiply your second tier spell slot. where a normal casters 'excessive' spell slots includes all their low tier spell slots. the coffeelock is able to also generate high tier spells. at level 9 (arguably where its at its strongest) its able to generate the highest available slot even. granted it can't cast 5th level spells, so those slots are limited to upcasting lower level spells. but you get my point.

obviously its definitely a ymmv type situation, depending on how often you actually get significant rest time in order to build up those spell slots. Im just pointing out that the combo itself has the potential to be incredibly broken at lower levels.

Yes it will be very YMMV. In general, I think there will indeed be islands of optimal-ness along the level trajectory where the coffeelock is unduly powerful. This is a somewhat sub-optimal state of affairs, but on the other hand, Moon Druid at level 2 already exists, so it is not like it is the only instance of this being the case.

Coffeelocking can be overpowered, particularly in a game where the DM is trying to use resource limitations as part of the game challenge. Personally, I dislike it more at the level where I also dislike one-handed quarterstaff, a shield, and PAM -- it feels like an unintended 'glitch' has become an optimal strategy.


This I can easily see being annoying; it's probably worse if the player is not very quick with math. But unless the players are on a tight clock that will take several days, might be just as easy to go from "near-infinite" to "infinite", and stop wasting table-time with it.
That would make sense, realistically. It is, however, also the point in time where the rest of the players tend to decide that coffeelocking is 'getting away with' too much.


On the other hand, even a regular Warlock probably asks "can I take a SR?", or "how much time has passed" in a frequency that might annoy other players.
The dominant difference is that once the warlock (or monk, or fighter) has gotten their short rest resources back, it doesn't come up again until a new encounter.

[diplomancer]

Nah, that's not fair. The immediate preceding sentence that gives the mechanical rule about not long resting literally, directly references a lack of sleep. It's a reasonable interpretation to an ambiguously written rule.

If there were a rules exploit depending on PCs not eating, some people would interpret the PHB rules on hunger to mean that Warforged take levels of exhaustion if they don't eat.

"I don't care what they eat, maybe they don't need to eat regular humanoid food, maybe they eat nails, or compost easily found inorganic materials to fuel their internal processes, so they don't need to track food. But they HAVE to eat something or suffer exhaustion"

[BloodSnake'sCha]

So I have been staying away from the conversation mostly because of how far it has steady. as a dm who has had 2 coffee locks at his table and is looking to play one, I can say the coffee lock really not a problem in play. mostly because of adventuring, most parties don't get months of prep time or the ability to just take 3 days off in the middle of the game.

I agree, that is my experience as well.
I am playing one for over 2 years and had players play them in my games.

The only time where we took 3 days was before we attack an abolith and the party force me to charge spell slots.
I got under the abolith control at round 2. We used the XGTE rules for con save for not sleeping(I have 19 con from a special amulet I love very much after rolling 12 con).
I see no reason to take aspect of the moon as there is never more than a single night of time to rest.

The only why it is annoying is if an annoying person play one.
A character build can't really be annoying, a player using them can be.

[strangebloke]

*ahem* WHAT?!

are you sure you're understanding exactly what is meant by 'coffeelock'? the entire purpose of the coffeelock is to trade the free healing from long rests in order to get, effectively infinite spell slots.

at level 4, when it comes online, the best you cna do is level 1 spell slots, but you can create 4, for free, every short rest if you've got your warlock slots available. and you can stack them infinitely since nothing actually limits the spell slots you can have until you take a long rest. and it just gets higher from there. probably its strongest level is level 9, where you're able to make 5th level slots (the highest you'd be able to cast normally). but literally thats the goal of coffeelocking. its incredibly broken if you don't put some limitations on it, like has been suggested here.

IMO a coffeelock is pretty bad for levels 4-6, then spikes up a lot from level 7 onward if you're running a game fixated on resource attrition (which I do but a lot of DMs don't) before ultimately becoming kind of meh compared to wizards and warlocks. I won't deny it: Casting fireball every other round is crazy strong in a game where resource attrition is a factor.

Though in my own games its not really an issue because I run gritty rest rules and hardly ever give more than enough downtime for a single "long rest." Coffeelocks are still pretty good under this paradigm but they're not really better than regular warlocks.

The simplest rule is to add a line saying "You cannot benefit from more than ten short rests between long rests." This prevents a coffeelock from being truly infinite and relegates them to being just really good from levels 7-13.

[verbatim]

I deal with it by the following.

Breaking a rest (having two shorts rests instead of one teo-hour short rest) requires at least 1 hour of activity (as per chapter 8). You can't sit by a campfire for 8 hours and say "that's 8 short rests."

But, for each hour of activity after the first eight, the Forced March rules apply. A CON save or gain one level of exhaustion. Forced March rules keep applying until you have a long rest (additionally, a long rest only removes one level of exhaustion).

Divine Soul Sorcerer Coffelocks have infinite use of Greater Restoration to cure exhaustion.

As others here have said it's better to ban it outright than to engage in a cold war of rule chicanery with a player that should probably not be allowed at your table if they take umbrage with an outright ban.

[Lille]

Divine Soul Sorcerer Coffelocks have infinite use of Greater Restoration to cure exhaustion.

Sure, as long as they're willing to pay for 100gp of materials per casting.

[Yakk]

This reading makes no sense. Spellcasting states that you recover all slots on a long rest and nothing says you can ignore that.

It's not a matter of arguing that it only applies to warlock spell slots- you have two different means of regaining slots and nothing allowing you to override one or the other. In contrast Flexible Casting has no such contradiction.
Pact magic says nothing about "regain slots gained from pact magic on a long or short rest", it says "regain all spell slots on a short or long rest".

The spellcasting feature lets you regain expended spell slots on a long rest, but says nothing about not doing it other ways.

There is no "overriding", there is just a feature that lets you regain all spell slots every short rest called "pact magic".

The wording -- "spell slots" -- of what you regain is **identical** to what you regain from flexible casting -- "spell slots". One requires a short rest to regain all spell slots, the other lets you spend sorcery points to regain spell slots. Flexible casting also lets you spend "spell slots" to gain sorcery points; again, the same wording as what you regain from pact magic.

Nothing in the Flexible casting section indicates that the spell slots need to be sorcery slots. The reference in pact magic to regaining all spell slots on a short rest is in a paragraph referencing warlock spell slots, the table indicating how many slots one gets, and only then pointing out that slots are recovered and how. I think you are attributing more power to something being a discrete sentence than actually exists (or at least that others would feel compelled to agree exists).
It is in the sorcerer class, and 5e classes are written as single classed characters. Many classes talk about "your level" when they mean "your level in this class".

The multiclassing rules are an optional extension to the single-classed default of 5e. They detail how to deal with the spellcasting and pact magic features of different classes.

In it, it explains that non-warlock spellcasting features stack in a specific way (you add up your levels in full casting, plus 1/2 rounded down half casting (rounded up for artificer), plus 1/3 if you have a subclass that grants spellcasting (rounded down). And for pact magic, it states you can spend pact magic spell slots to cast spells, and vice versa, but says nothing about spending spell slots on other features.

If we assume that "spell slots" in class descriptions for multiclassed characters refer to any spell slot you have, then coffeelock works. But so does using a short rest to regain your sorcerer spell slots.

If we assume that "spell slots" in class descriptions for multiclassed characters refer to any spell slot from this class, and any "stacking" spell slot from the multiclassing rlues, then coffeelock doesn't work.

Only if we decide on a case by case basis which "spell slots" refer to "this classes spell slots" and which refer to "any spell slots you have" can coffeelock reasonably exist while warlock 1 splash doesn't regain all of your wizard spells every short rest.

And if we are doing this on a case by case basis, why the **** are we stopping warlock 1 splash and keeping never-sleeping coffeelocks? Why is that the line?

Coffeelock to me looks like an over-complicted way to justify something that isn't as good as something simpler. The idea seems to be, if we make this trick require bending over backwards, we make it looks like a clever rules loophole we justifiably found.

Meanwhile, the exact same reading produces a far simpler and more powerful option with far less investment with a warlock 1 splash. But because it doesn't require jumping through strange hoops, it feels less like a clever exploit and more like an obvious conclusion that "spell slots" refer to "this class's spell slots".

[Valmark]

Pact magic says nothing about "regain slots gained from pact magic on a long or short rest", it says "regain all spell slots on a short or long rest".

The spellcasting feature lets you regain expended spell slots on a long rest, but says nothing about not doing it other ways.

There is no "overriding", there is just a feature that lets you regain all spell slots every short rest called "pact magic".

The wording -- "spell slots" -- of what you regain is **identical** to what you regain from flexible casting -- "spell slots". One requires a short rest to regain all spell slots, the other lets you spend sorcery points to regain spell slots. Flexible casting also lets you spend "spell slots" to gain sorcery points; again, the same wording as what you regain from pact magic.

It is in the sorcerer class, and 5e classes are written as single classed characters. Many classes talk about "your level" when they mean "your level in this class".

The multiclassing rules are an optional extension to the single-classed default of 5e. They detail how to deal with the spellcasting and pact magic features of different classes.

In it, it explains that non-warlock spellcasting features stack in a specific way (you add up your levels in full casting, plus 1/2 rounded down half casting (rounded up for artificer), plus 1/3 if you have a subclass that grants spellcasting (rounded down). And for pact magic, it states you can spend pact magic spell slots to cast spells, and vice versa, but says nothing about spending spell slots on other features.

If we assume that "spell slots" in class descriptions for multiclassed characters refer to any spell slot you have, then coffeelock works. But so does using a short rest to regain your sorcerer spell slots.

If we assume that "spell slots" in class descriptions for multiclassed characters refer to any spell slot from this class, and any "stacking" spell slot from the multiclassing rlues, then coffeelock doesn't work.

Only if we decide on a case by case basis which "spell slots" refer to "this classes spell slots" and which refer to "any spell slots you have" can coffeelock reasonably exist while warlock 1 splash doesn't regain all of your wizard spells every short rest.

And if we are doing this on a case by case basis, why the **** are we stopping warlock 1 splash and keeping never-sleeping coffeelocks? Why is that the line?

Coffeelock to me looks like an over-complicted way to justify something that isn't as good as something simpler. The idea seems to be, if we make this trick require bending over backwards, we make it looks like a clever rules loophole we justifiably found.

Meanwhile, the exact same reading produces a far simpler and more powerful option with far less investment with a warlock 1 splash. But because it doesn't require jumping through strange hoops, it feels less like a clever exploit and more like an obvious conclusion that "spell slots" refer to "this class's spell slots".

Would you say that non-warlocks can regain spell slots on short rests from their Spellcasting feature?

If not then applying the Pact Magic's short rest recovery to Spellcasting is senseless- because then the question becomes 'why aren't you applying the Spellcasting's recovery mechanic to Pact Magic instead'.

It's different from Font of Magic- here you're using how a feature works to radically change how an almost completely unrelated feature works.

In addition I'd point out that if it did work then basically any warlock would be better off leveling up as not-a-warlock, while every caster should take either one or two levels of warlock. Including people like EKs really.

[strangebloke]

RAW isn't mathematics, and its completely obvious that the "spell slots" referred to in the pact magic feature are the spell slot referred to in the pact magic feature and the only reason there isn't erratta clarifying this is because its obvious to anyone interpreting the text in good faith. RAI is RAW to an extent.

Flexible casting being limited to spell slots specified in a different class feature (spellcasting) is far less obvious. There has been clarification asked for, and it's come down on the side of 'no'.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Pact magic says nothing about "regain slots gained from pact magic on a long or short rest", it says "regain all spell slots on a short or long rest".

Yakk, what print edition is your Player's Handbook?
The 10th edition printing, (which is the most recent), states:
You regain all expended Pact Magic spell slots when you finish a short or long rest.


Nothing in the Flexible casting section indicates that the spell slots need to be sorcery slots.
I'm using this quote to springboard off into this quote from the PHB:
Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.

It is a permissive reading of the text to go from an explicit enumeration that casting spells, interchangeably, from each class the multi-classed character has, to allowing Pact Magic to fuel smites or other class features.

It's a 'stretched' reading. I allow Pact Magic to fuel smites, and I acknowledge that it is a stretch of the text.

[Valmark]

Yakk, what print edition is your Player's Handbook?
The 10th edition printing, (which is the most recent), states:
You regain all expended Pact Magic spell slots when you finish a short or long rest.


Uh that's interesting, mine doesn't have that. I'll have to note it (not that it changes something, but I'd rather have it complete). Thanks!

[Yakk]

Yakk, what print edition is your Player's Handbook?
The 10th edition printing, (which is the most recent), states:
You regain all expended Pact Magic spell slots when you finish a short or long rest.
I was quoting dndbeyond, because copy pasta dead tree support sucks.


It is a permissive reading of the text to go from an explicit enumeration that casting spells, interchangeably, from each class the multi-classed character has, to allowing Pact Magic to fuel smites or other class features.

It's a 'stretched' reading. I allow Pact Magic to fuel smites, and I acknowledge that it is a stretch of the text.
Yep, in the original rules, the fact pact magic recovered non warlock slots was the same stretch as flexible spending warlock slots.

Would you say that non-warlocks can regain spell slots on short rests from their Spellcasting feature?

If not then applying the Pact Magic's short rest recovery to Spellcasting is senseless- because then the question becomes 'why aren't you applying the Spellcasting's recovery mechanic to Pact Magic instead'.
Sure. But you get it back on long rests from spellcasting... and short and long from pact magic.

And from sorcery points from flexible casting.


It's different from Font of Magic- here you're using how a feature works to radically change how an almost completely unrelated feature works.
Oh no. Font of magic trades one long rest refresh resource for another.

Coffeelock reinterprets it to trase a short rest resource for a long rest one.

Pact magic refresh makes along rest resource refresh on short rests.

Same economic shinanegans. Just one is more complex.


In addition I'd point out that if it did work then basically any warlock would be better off leveling up as not-a-warlock, while every caster should take either one or two levels of warlock. Including people like EKs really.
Sure. But coffeelock is equally silly, just costs 3 levels instead of 1.

I would advise against both myself. And apparently errata modified how pact magic is worded in the 10th edition.

[Valmark]

Sure. But coffeelock is equally silly, just costs 3 levels instead of 1.

I would advise against both myself. And apparently errata modified how pact magic is worded in the 10th edition.

Yeah the discussion is kind of moot due to errata, so I'll just add that it would have been substantially different- Coffeelock only works with Sorcerers, while the other version would have worked with anybody.