Is coffeelock actually broken [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

kazaryu

2022-06-21, 07:41 PM

I would imagine most of the "brokenness" would come not from the very large number of slots, but from the ability to metamagic ALL of your spells. But yes, I agree it's probably more broken on paper than in practice.

idk, metamagic is typically seen as lack luster. alot of people think that the most optimal use for sorcery points is to just create more spell slots. but yeah, i mean having 'infinite' spell slots does also mean 'infinite sorcery points'. which still only matters in games where you'd normally expect to run out before the end of the day (i.e. several encoutners, or a few high stakes encounters).

This part of the build relies on the airbud defense. The rules don't say you can't, so you totally can. One of many checkpoints the coffeelock has to pass for the build to function how it's claimed to.

It all does technically work, but if at any point your DM says "no" you're just a normal guy again.

it relies on a bit more than that, actually. although you are correct that it still relies on RaI rather than RaW

For one: the way sorcery points scale, you can get enough sorcery points to create spell slots that are too big based on your level. (for example, at level 6 you can create a 4th level spell slot and at levels 7-8 you can create 5th level slots.

and then on top of that it specifies that any spell slots you create go away when you long rest.

both of these together imply, fairly strongly, that the spell slots you create with font of magic are counted separately from your regular spell slots. if it was intended that you be limited by the spell slot table, there's not reason to include that clause.

not saying its ironclad: but it is a bit more than just 'well..the rules don't say you can't'

clash

2022-06-21, 07:43 PM

The simple house rule that prevents any broken shenanigans with coffee locks is that sorcerers can only create expended spell slots. Simple. Easy. Doesn't mess with the rest mechanics or get into any arguments. Makes the combination fun without breaking anything.

Anymage

2022-06-21, 07:47 PM

I would imagine most of the "brokenness" would come not from the very large number of slots, but from the ability to metamagic ALL of your spells. But yes, I agree it's probably more broken on paper than in practice.

The rules explicitly say that you can't go above your sorcery point cap.

A reasonable interpretation would also cap your spell slots to what's listed (sorcery points recharging spell slots is all well and good without letting you stockpile more), but the rules don't officially mention a limit so you could in theory stockpile arbitrarily many spells in all your 1-5 slots.

diplomancer

2022-06-21, 07:48 PM

Dork_Forge

2022-06-21, 08:19 PM

The rules explicitly say that you can't go above your sorcery point cap.

A reasonable interpretation would also cap your spell slots to what's listed (sorcery points recharging spell slots is all well and good without letting you stockpile more), but the rules don't officially mention a limit so you could in theory stockpile arbitrarily many spells in all your 1-5 slots.

I think this is more about being able to recharge your SP pool, which is 'designed' for a long rest, rather than over inflating it.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-06-21, 08:37 PM

it relies on a bit more than that, actually. although you are correct that it still relies on RaI rather than RaW

For one: the way sorcery points scale, you can get enough sorcery points to create spell slots that are too big based on your level. (for example, at level 6 you can create a 4th level spell slot and at levels 7-8 you can create 5th level slots.

and then on top of that it specifies that any spell slots you create go away when you long rest.

both of these together imply, fairly strongly, that the spell slots you create with font of magic are counted separately from your regular spell slots. if it was intended that you be limited by the spell slot table, there's not reason to include that clause.

not saying its ironclad: but it is a bit more than just 'well..the rules don't say you can't'
I suppose I can see the argument for that, taking that into consideration it might even be intentional that a Sorcerer can expend their SP to create a slot higher than they'd typically be able to for upcasting.

This is still a single aspect of the equation but I'll admit it's not as simple as I'd thought.

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 02:03 AM

idk, metamagic is typically seen as lack luster. alot of people think that the most optimal use for sorcery points is to just create more spell slots. but yeah, i mean having 'infinite' spell slots does also mean 'infinite sorcery points'. which still only matters in games where you'd normally expect to run out before the end of the day (i.e. several encoutners, or a few high stakes encounters).

In a way... some Metamagics, like Heightened spell, are very powerful, but too expensive to be really good; but if you can wave away the cost? And throw a "free" Silvery Barbs at it in the unlikely situation they make the save, so now they have to roll again, still at disadvantage?

sithlordnergal

2022-06-22, 02:18 AM

Apart from what Mr. Stabby stated, there's also one more fundamental thing, evidenced by your choice of words of the DM "giving" short rests. RAW, Short Rests just happen once the conditions are fulfilled, and are broken once other conditions are fulfilled (this is to forestall the "at least one hour" objection to the Coffeelock; it's trivial to break a Short Rest after a full hour has passed). They are not something the DM "gives" you, unless there's NO player agency, and the DM literally starts telling you what your character does.

Pretty sure you only gain the benefits from resting when the DM tells you that you have successfully gained those benefits, kind of like how the DM tells you if you've successfully done anything. That said, if it isn't, I do highly suggest controlling when players gain the benefits of a short or long rest for all DMs. I find limiting both short and long rests prevents any single class from becoming "op" as it were.

sithlordnergal

2022-06-22, 02:22 AM

Or just a meme.

Seems to me it relies on infinite short rests, which.... Why is the DM giving you. Strait warlock gets infinite slots too, with infinite short rests.

So, its a broken meme. The coffeelock depends on one major thing to work: That your DM doesn't ever require you to take a Long Rest. Which is painfully easy for a DM to do, especially with Xanathar's rules to back it up. Keep in mind that "Long Rest" does not mean "You're asleep", sleeping and Long Rests are two different things. You also need a DM that would allow you to take 8 Short Rests in a row during a Long Rest.

That said, it basically works by converting Warlock spell slots into Sorcery Points, then Sorcery Points into normal spell slots. Due to the wording of Font of Magic, you can have more slots then you'd normally have, like 5 or 6 first level spell slots. And since those slots only go away on a Long Rest, if you stay up for a long time you can get bonus spell slots...theoretically. But the downside is that you still need to take Long Rests or risk Exhaustion levels.

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 02:49 AM

Pretty sure you only gain the benefits from resting when the DM tells you that you have successfully gained those benefits, kind of like how the DM tells you if you've successfully done anything. That said, if it isn't, I do highly suggest controlling when players gain the benefits of a short or long rest for all DMs. I find limiting both short and long rests prevents any single class from becoming "op" as it were.

Player: "I drink the beer"
DM: "No, you don't"

Perhaps not, but the DM has to come up with an in-story reason about why my character failed to drink the beer, usually some intervening circumstance that prevented it. Just saying "No you don't because I don't want you to" doesn't cut it.

So, its a broken meme. The coffeelock depends on one major thing to work: That your DM doesn't ever require you to take a Long Rest. Which is painfully easy for a DM to do, especially with Xanathar's rules to back it up. Keep in mind that "Long Rest" does not mean "You're asleep", sleeping and Long Rests are two different things. You also need a DM that would allow you to take 8 Short Rests in a row during a Long Rest.

Xanathar's long rest exhaustion rule is, explicitly, the general rule for when the DM wants to account for the effects of sleep deprivation. If you don't need to sleep, the rule does not apply to you, in the same way that the rules for drowning don't apply to you if you can breathe in water.

sithlordnergal

2022-06-22, 03:18 AM

Player: "I drink the beer"
DM: "No, you don't"

Perhaps not, but the DM has to come up with an in-story reason about why my character failed to drink the beer, usually some intervening circumstance that prevented it. Just saying "No you don't because I don't want you to" doesn't cut it.

Only problem with that analogy is that a Short Rest and drinking beer are two totally different things. Could be a variety of reasons you don't get to benefit from the Short Rest, to and including you recently had a short/long rest, and haven't done anything that would warrant you needing another one. Its the reason I use when Warlocks want to do the whole "I just finished a Long Rest, cast one spell, and take a Short Rest immediately afterward to have all my spell slots back". Nope, you don't get them back, go do adventuring first.

Xanathar's long rest exhaustion rule is, explicitly, the general rule for when the DM wants to account for the effects of sleep deprivation. If you don't need to sleep, the rule does not apply to you, in the same way that the rules for drowning don't apply to you if you can breathe in water.

That's actually incorrect. The rule specifically states "Whenever you end a 24-hour period without finishing a Long Rest, you must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution save of suffer one level of Exhaustion.

After the first 24 hours, the DC increases by 5 for each consecutive 24-hour period without a Long Rest. The DC resets to 10 when you finish a Long Rest."

There is no mention of sleep anywhere in the actual crunch of the rules. Now, there is a mention of sleep in the paragraph above, when they give an example of when the rule might be used. But for the parts talking about the DCs and how long you can go without a Long Rest? Nothing is mentioned about sleep.

But I feel like I've had this conversation before...

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 03:48 AM

Only problem with that analogy is that a Short Rest and drinking beer are two totally different things.

Why? They are both a result of a character's actions. In one case, drinking the beer. In another case, spending at least one hour doing "nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds." Like drinking the beer, those are not really actions which someone can fail to do. The DM can come up with reasons to interrupt that Short Rest, of course, and force the character to react in a way that he WILL do something more strenuous than those allowed actions, in the same way he can come up with reasons to interrupt the drinking of the beer. But he can't just say "well, your character HAS actually been walking for this hour, so he doesn't get it", when my character has in fact been sitting quietly reading a book.

Could be a variety of reasons you don't get to benefit from the Short Rest, to and including you recently had a short/long rest, and haven't done anything that would warrant you needing another one. Its the reason I use when Warlocks want to do the whole "I just finished a Long Rest, cast one spell, and take a Short Rest immediately afterward to have all my spell slots back". Nope, you don't get them back, go do adventuring first.

So, go for a sprint. In less than a minute, you'll be having saving throws against exhaustion. And "not having recently had a Long or Short Rest" is not a rules requirement for a Short Rest (and a good case can be made that, if you DO have abilities that recharge on a Short Rest that you have already spent, you are, by definition, not fully rested, or you'd have those abilities). Can a DM ADD that requirement? Yes he can, and maybe even should. But it's not anywhere in the rules. The game explicitly limits how many long rests you can get on a 24 hour period. It could easily have done the same for short rests, but designers decided not to. As a matter of fact, the RAI is even confirmed by official Sage Advice:

Is there a hard limit on how many short rests characters can take in a day, or is this purely up to the DM to decide?
The only hard limit on the number of short rests you can take is the number of hours in a day. In practice, you’re also limited by time pressures in the story and foes interrupting.

So it's NOT for the DM to decide, except through "time pressures in the story" and "foes interrupting", which I think is fair to generalize to other possible interruptions. But no such limit as "being too well rested". RAI, without interruptions or time pressure, you can Short Rest 24 times in a day (23, if your DM is very strict about it). If the designers intended giving DMs the power to NOPE a Short Rest after a character fulfilled its conditions (apart from the general DM's power to "NOPE" anything he wants to, Fireballs included), this would be the perfect moment to state it.

That's actually incorrect. The rule specifically states "Whenever you end a 24-hour period without finishing a Long Rest, you must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution save of suffer one level of Exhaustion.

After the first 24 hours, the DC increases by 5 for each consecutive 24-hour period without a Long Rest. The DC resets to 10 when you finish a Long Rest."

There is no mention of sleep anywhere in the actual crunch of the rules. Now, there is a mention of sleep in the paragraph above, when they give an example of when the rule might be used. But for the parts talking about the DCs and how long you can go without a Long Rest? Nothing is mentioned about sleep.

But I feel like I've had this conversation before...

The "mention of sleep" that you passed over in your post says precisely when the rules apply, it's not merely "an example of when the rule might be used".

"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."

They couldn't make it clearer that this is about going without sleep, this has nothing to do with being "fluff", and they clearly mean "don't use these rules if a character or creature is not suffering from sleep deprivation".

They even explicitly say "a Long Rest is never mandatory"." Sure, it's not mandatory, you just die if you don't get one" is a very weird way to put it; by that criteria, nothing is ever mandatory except for involuntary processes (which are not called mandatory, because they just happen without anyone's will, so there's no need to mandate them).

Can a DM houserule that this rule applies even if the character does not need to sleep? Of course he can! But applying it to such a character IS a houserule; it's like deciding to apply the rules for a 3rd level scorching ray when someone casts a fireball because "fireball is too OP". It could be a reasonable houserule, but it's still a houserule. The rules for fireball apply when someone casts a fireball. The rules for exhaustion from lack of a Long Rest apply when someone is suffering from sleep deprivation.

And yes, this conversation has been had several times before...

Captain Panda

2022-06-22, 04:31 AM

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 04:48 AM

Honestly, it isn't broken. I've DMed for them, I've played them. They're fine. Even kind of lame once the gimmick wears off. You're always forced to use lower level tools than the rest of the party, and unless your campaign actually runs marathon-style and has gauntlets of 8 encounters, the benefits of being a Coffeelock are overstated.

No matter what you hear in forums, I don't think most people most of the time play 6-8 encounter days. If you do, then Coffeelock shines if it is allowed (and it probably won't be, broken or not).

Note, this is not me saying that coffeelocks are "broken," but this statement is very dubious. It's TRDSIC. The rules do not say warlock slots interact with sorcery points, you have to assert you can because the rules don't say you cannot.

That is indeed the ONLY dubious point, RAW-wise, on Coffeelocks (which is why it is the one Crawford fell back to as advice to DMs who are dealing with the "abuse" of Pact Magic and Sorcery Points, even though he had previously stated that this conversion, when not abused, is perfectly within the rules). Not the Resting Rules. Not the non-existent "you can't create additional spell slots with Metamagic points". But "is it possible to convert Pact Magic spell slots into Sorcery Points"?

So, the two rules that matter are these:

1- From the Sorcerer class description:

Converting a Spell Slot to Sorcery Points. As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend one spell slot and gain a number of sorcery points equal to the slot’s level.

2- From the Multiclass rules:

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's possible to read those two rules and conclude you can't convert Pact Magic slots into sorcery points, but since the second rule is permissive (it tells you things you can do) and the first rule does not have any requirements about the "nature" of the spell slot (a Pact Magic spell slot is still a spell slot, and the first rule says you can convert spell slots- not "sorcerer spell slots" or "spell slots from your spellcasting feature"- into Sorcery Points), I'd argue that this is a bad reading. But I do grant it's still a possible one. And I also think that, though this ruling DOES stop the Coffelock, it's a bad rule to apply to Sorlocks in general, and was not intended when the PHB was first published (and as a matter of fact there is plenty of evidence that it was not so intended); it's basically a patch for when the Coffelock exploit was noticed.

But it's definitely not TRDSIC. There IS a rule that says you can. It's right there in the PHB (the rule 1 I've just quoted). And there is no other, more specific, rule that contradicts it. There are plenty of rules that specify a spell slot from a specific class. Warlocks invocations have a bunch of them. Divine Smite used to have it, but it was errata'ed. Primeval Awareness still has it (which goes to show how bad it is... no one ever noticed that it follows similar wording of Divine Smite). The Sorcerer rule does NOT have that limitation, and never had it, it was clearly thought of from the first as a possible interaction.

Pildion

2022-06-22, 06:48 AM

Or just a meme.

Seems to me it relies on infinite short rests, which.... Why is the DM giving you. Strait warlock gets infinite slots too, with infinite short rests.

The Idea that the Coffeelock can stay up all night for 8 short rests doesn't work. You can't do that, its 1 long rest. Also, this is for the sorcerer Sorcery Points

Sorcery Points PHB p99[–]

You have 2 sorcery points, and you gain one additional point every time you level up, to a maximum of 20 at level 20. You can never have more sorcery points than shown on the table for your level. You regain all spent sorcery points when you finish a long rest.

So even if you did stay up for 8 short rests, your not getting more then your Sorcerer level in Sorcery Points, you can't save up like 60 of them from something crazy from sacking 4th level spell slots all night.

In the even if you did spend all day quickening EB, your not really doing more then the XBE\SS fighter is anyways. Better off casting a good control spell any day.

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 06:56 AM

The Idea that the Coffeelock can stay up all night for 8 short rests doesn't work. You can't do that, its 1 long rest.

(Climbs on soapbox). DMs, I believe asking your players "please don't do X", for whatever X is, is a much healthier approach to the game than disputing fine points of law. This is even truer when those points of law are wrong, or at least very debatable. Just say "Yes, I know that technically all of this works. But I still believe it's disruptive, and I don't want it in this game. So please don't do it. If you made your character considering that you COULD do X, I'll give you a free rebuild". If the player says no to that proposition and insists on his "right to do X", they are probably not a good fit for this particular game, and should go and find another where his playstyle is accepted. But going on a long debate about whether "X is RAW" is counterproductive. What are you going to do if the player convinces you that X is, indeed, RAW? Allow it to disrupt your game? I suppose not. So go straight to the root of the matter, there is no special prize for being a "RAW DM".

Also, this is for the sorcerer Sorcery Points

Sorcery Points PHB p99[–]

You have 2 sorcery points, and you gain one additional point every time you level up, to a maximum of 20 at level 20. You can never have more sorcery points than shown on the table for your level. You regain all spent sorcery points when you finish a long rest.

So even if you did stay up for 8 short rests, your not getting more then your Sorcerer level in Sorcery Points, you can't save up like 60 of them from something crazy from sacking 4th level spell slots all night.

In the even if you did spend all day quickening EB, your not really doing more then the XBE\SS fighter is anyways. Better off casting a good control spell any day.

Coffeelock is not about having a lot of sorcery points. It's about having lots of spell slots (which you CAN convert to Sorcery Points as long as you respect that maximum you've mentioned).

animorte

2022-06-22, 07:17 AM

as long as you respect that maximum you've mentioned
This is why it’s not broken, because there is a limit.

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 07:18 AM

This is why it’s not broken, because there is a limit.

But that limit is awfully high, all it costs is your bonus action on some rounds.

Anyway, I think it's not broken because, in my experience at least, DMs, even good DMs, are terrible at policing the adventuring day, and so spellcasters already have enough spell slots as it is. Which is, incidentally, why I insist so much on "Long Rests are limited, Short Rests are not"; because at least a DM that has that mental attitude will tend to balance out the adventuring day better.

Chronos

2022-06-22, 07:31 AM

Quoth Pildion:

The Idea that the Coffeelock can stay up all night for 8 short rests doesn't work. You can't do that, its 1 long rest.
Is there a way to use this "rule" without requiring time travel?

Let's say that evening has come, and the party has made camp. You don't know if you'll be interrupted all night, but you hope you won't be. The sorlock in the party, for whatever reason (race, invocation, etc.), doesn't need sleep. The first hour passes: No ambush, the sleeping members of the party stay asleep. The sorlock decides "Well, this i at least a short rest now, so my warlock slots are back". The second hour passes: Still no ambush, same deal. All of this continues for seven hours. In the eighth hour, the DM rolls for wandering monsters, which may or may not interrupt the party's rest. If they don't, then the party members who needed a long rest have gotten it. If they do, then nobody's gotten a long rest. If the sorlock has been using their warlock spell slots all night, and the 8 hours finish, do you go back in time and erase all those short rests? If the sorlock hasn't been using their warlock spell slots, and the final hour is interrupted, do you go back in time and give them seven short rests?

As for the sleep vs. long rest question, there are multiple abilities in the game that say "you don't need to sleep". That seems to suggest that, ordinarily, you do need sleep. What are the rules for needing sleep? If they're the Xanathar's rules, then not needing sleep mean that you're not subject to those rules. If they're not, then there aren't actually any rules for needing sleep. If everybody needs long rests but nobody needs sleep, then those abilities are meaningless.

animorte

2022-06-22, 07:33 AM

But that limit is awfully high, all it costs is your bonus action on some rounds.

I meant a maximum amount if sorcery points:

You can never have more sorcery points than shown on the table for your level.

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 07:36 AM

I meant a maximum amount if sorcery points:

But every round you can spend sorcery points and then convert spell slots into Sorcery Points with a Bonus Action and still follow that rule. So "(functionally) infinite spell slots"="(functionally) infinite Sorcery Points.

Pildion

2022-06-22, 07:40 AM

Is there a way to use this "rule" without requiring time travel?

Let's say that evening has come, and the party has made camp. You don't know if you'll be interrupted all night, but you hope you won't be. The sorlock in the party, for whatever reason (race, invocation, etc.), doesn't need sleep. The first hour passes: No ambush, the sleeping members of the party stay asleep. The sorlock decides "Well, this i at least a short rest now, so my warlock slots are back". The second hour passes: Still no ambush, same deal. All of this continues for seven hours. In the eighth hour, the DM rolls for wandering monsters, which may or may not interrupt the party's rest. If they don't, then the party members who needed a long rest have gotten it. If they do, then nobody's gotten a long rest. If the sorlock has been using their warlock spell slots all night, and the 8 hours finish, do you go back in time and erase all those short rests? If the sorlock hasn't been using their warlock spell slots, and the final hour is interrupted, do you go back in time and give them seven short rests?

As for the sleep vs. long rest question, there are multiple abilities in the game that say "you don't need to sleep". That seems to suggest that, ordinarily, you do need sleep. What are the rules for needing sleep? If they're the Xanathar's rules, then not needing sleep mean that you're not subject to those rules. If they're not, then there aren't actually any rules for needing sleep. If everybody needs long rests but nobody needs sleep, then those abilities are meaningless.

You know what, I'll give you all of this. But your CoffeeLock still doesn't have more then the max Sorcery Points, which they would have after the long rest anyways. If the CoffeeLock wants to use those points for EB spam, I'm fine with that, still don't think its as good as a Heightened control spell though. I think sacking the the lock slots on your days short rests for more points to use on things like Heightened or Subtle spells is way better use myself.

Asmotherion

2022-06-22, 07:43 AM

My dilhema is this: Is it broken or is it optimised?

I tend to think the latter, because realistically, you won't have an indefinite amound of short rests.

animorte

2022-06-22, 07:45 AM

But every round you can spend sorcery points and then convert spell slots into Sorcery Points with a Bonus Action and still follow that rule. So "(functionally) infinite spell slots"="(functionally) infinite Sorcery Points.
Ok, I get what you’re saying, but after a while that becomes rather pointless. Good for you, can change spell slots to sorcery points. Good for you, can change sorcery points to spell slots. Sometimes it can extremely helpful, but other times you might be able to find something better to do with your bonus action.

Or am I missing something here? Sure, you can swap them back and forth but are we accounting for actually using the spell slots for, you know, spells?

Xetheral

2022-06-22, 07:53 AM

So, its a broken meme. The coffeelock depends on one major thing to work: That your DM doesn't ever require you to take a Long Rest. Which is painfully easy for a DM to do, especially with Xanathar's rules to back it up.

Note that the Xanathar's exhaustion rules are highly problematic. Remember that the PHB limits benefiting from a long rest to once every 24 hours, while the Xanathar's rules force a saving throw if it's been more than 24 hours since you last benefited from a long rest. Combined, this means that to avoid potential exhaustion, you must rest at exactly the same time each day. Delay even one second and the Xanathar's rules give you potential exhaustion before your long rest finishes. (Of course, the exhaustion will go away when you do finish the rest, but that prevents recovering from other levels of exhaustion).

I recommend houseruling the PHB rule to allow one long rest every 20 hours (instead of every 24). I similarly recommend houseruling the Xanathar's optional rule to only require a save for exhaustion at the 28 hour mark. These houserules give the party flexibility to take a long rest at a time each day that fits the varying schedule of an adventuring party. Otherwise, the PHB rule on its own leads to a one-way ratchet where rest times can only move later, and the Xanathar's rule on its own leads to a one-way ratchet where rest times effectively have to inch earlier, and the combination of both rules creates an inflexible bedtime.

Segev

2022-06-22, 07:55 AM

KingofSnakes

2022-06-22, 08:04 AM

Ok, I get what you’re saying, but after a while that becomes rather pointless. Good for you, can change spell slots to sorcery points. Good for you, can change sorcery points to spell slots. Sometimes it can extremely helpful, but other times you might be able to find something better to do with your bonus action.

Or am I missing something here? Sure, you can swap them back and forth but are we accounting for actually using the spell slots for, you know, spells?

If the coffeelock is permitted to spend a significant amount of time taking many short rests and not being forced to take a long rest, they generate warlock slots with every short rest, which they turn into sorcery points, which they turn into sorcerer slots. They then short rest to regain their warlock slots. While sorcery points have a maximum, sorcerer slots do not, so after a significant period of this they have arbitrarily many sorcerer slots. Their number of sorcerer slots do not reset to their normal maximum until they take a long rest. This very large stock of sorcerer slots can be converted back into sorcery points as needed or spent to cast many more spells than a normal character could.

(For example, if a Warlock3/Sorcerer5 is permitted to spend 24 hours taking 24 short rests and converting warlock slots to sorcery points to sorcerer slots, they can start the next day with 19 additional third level spell slots)

Pildion

2022-06-22, 08:14 AM

Nobody is claiming you get to have more SP than your cap. Coffeelocks have tons of spell slots, not tons of SP.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought "CoffeeLock" was staying up all night and saving SP via short rest slots which doesn't work RAW, and just multi-classing Sorcerer and Warlock is just SorLock, they can stack 2 or 3 slots maybe twice, or once a day over there short rests if they don't mind losing said slots after for the next fight they get into? I don't think normal SorLock is broken, they are giving up there slots for SP, that's a far trade. The broken part would be if you could stay up all night converting those and saving them, but you can't do that RAW anyways.

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 08:22 AM

You know what, I'll give you all of this. But your CoffeeLock still doesn't have more then the max Sorcery Points, which they would have after the long rest anyways. If the CoffeeLock wants to use those points for EB spam, I'm fine with that, still don't think its as good as a Heightened control spell though. I think sacking the the lock slots on your days short rests for more points to use on things like Heightened or Subtle spells is way better use myself.

I believe the "regular" Coffeelock is Warlock 3, Sorc X. So he can have as many Sorcery Points as X, and, once the build "clicks", which I'd say is around Sorc 5, that's enough Sorcery Points to use as many metamagics as he wants to, since no metamagic costs more than 3 points.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought "CoffeeLock" was staying up all night and saving SP via short rest slots which doesn't work RAW, and just multi-classing Sorcerer and Warlock is just SorLock, they can stack 2 or 3 slots maybe twice, or once a day over there short rests if they don't mind losing said slots after for the next fight they get into? I don't think normal SorLock is broken, they are giving up there slots for SP, that's a far trade. The broken part would be if you could stay up all night converting those and saving them, but you can't do that RAW anyways.

RAW, they totally can do it. Maybe not 8 short rests, but probably 7, and even at the most restrictive reading possible, 6 (though with about 8 hours 10 minutes you CAN get 7 with even the most restrictive reading). And that's more than enough to have an arbitrarly large number of spell slots, specially once you factor in things like downtime

animorte

2022-06-22, 08:26 AM

-mcsnip-
So it’s only broken when you literally do nothing. It’s useful getting ahead right before a large adventuring day or two, provided you also account for however many levels of exhaustion you may have accumulated, if you are a race that even requires sleep. I’m pretty sure long rest and sleep are still two different things though.

I can see the [I]potential[/] but it looks as though this is only applicable in theory OR a party full of Coffeelocks! Which could actually be viable.

KingofSnakes

2022-06-22, 08:29 AM

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought "CoffeeLock" was staying up all night and saving SP via short rest slots which doesn't work RAW, and just multi-classing Sorcerer and Warlock is just SorLock, they can stack 2 or 3 slots maybe twice, or once a day over there short rests if they don't mind losing said slots after for the next fight they get into? I don't think normal SorLock is broken, they are giving up there slots for SP, that's a far trade. The broken part would be if you could stay up all night converting those and saving them, but you can't do that RAW anyways.

The coffeelock stockpiles sorcerer spell slots (which are not capped) as opposed to sorcery points (which you correctly note are capped at sorcerer level). They convert Pact magic slots to sorcery points and then convert those sorcery points to sorcerer spell slots, then short rests to regain the Pact slots.

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 08:30 AM

Pildion

2022-06-22, 08:34 AM

I believe the "regular" Coffeelock is Warlock 3, Sorc X. So he can have as many Sorcery Points as X, and, once the build "clicks", which I'd say is around Sorc 5, that's enough Sorcery Points to use as many metamagics as he wants to, since no metamagic costs more than 3 points.

RAW, they totally can do it. Maybe not 8 short rests, but probably 7, and even at the most restrictive reading possible, 6 (though with about 8 hours 10 minutes you CAN get 7 with even the most restrictive reading). And that's more than enough to have an arbitrarly large number of spell slots, specially once you factor in things like downtime

Diplo, you can't save them, yes you can stay up all night, and get your 8 short rests, but you can not have more then your max Sorcerer level of points, which you would have at the end of just taking a long rest anyways. You can't sack and save them over night, that would indeed be broken. Just sacking them after a short rest during the day to get back up to your Sorcerer level max is fine as your giving up said slot to be used until you take another short rest.

Pildion

2022-06-22, 08:36 AM

The coffeelock stockpiles sorcerer spell slots (which are not capped) as opposed to sorcery points (which you correctly note are capped at sorcerer level). They convert Pact magic slots to sorcery points and then convert those sorcery points to sorcerer spell slots, then short rests to regain the Pact slots.

ahhh, is this true? You can have unlimited spell slots? its not caped at your max? I had no idea if that is indeed the case! this CoffeeLock things makes alot more sense now lol.

KingofSnakes

2022-06-22, 08:42 AM

So it’s only broken when you literally do nothing. It’s useful getting ahead right before a large adventuring day or two, provided you also account for however many levels of exhaustion you may have accumulated, if you are a race that even requires sleep. I’m pretty sure long rest and sleep are still two different things though.

I can see the [I]potential[/] but it looks as though this is only applicable in theory OR a party full of Coffeelocks! Which could actually be viable.

If long resting and sleep *are* two different things (which is reasonably intuitive because humans can, in the real world, benefit from periods of sleep short than 8 hours), then it becomes even worse. If a human coffeelock can satisfy his physiological need for sleep with, say 3 power naps of 3 hours each spread throughout the 24 hour day, then the last limiting factor falls away and the coffelock can break the game over his knee*

*Except, of course, he can't because the DM will simply say "no" or better still "please don't", because we are all sane human beings and none of us actually wants the coffelock to work in our games, whether it does by RAW or not.

EDIT: The Xanathar's rules do not allow this eccentric sleeping pattern to stave off exhaustion, even though it probably would IRL. The Xanathar rules for sleeplessness are weird and not terribly well thought out and I would encourage you to make a small houserule to stop coffeelocking rather than using the Xanathar's rules to try to stop it.

(My own houserule is "any spell slot made with sorcery points goes away on a short rest", but "you can only use SP to regain slots" also works.)

clash

2022-06-22, 08:50 AM

The real point of contention by raw for me is that a short rest is explicitly "at least one hour long". It's very easy for a dm to say ok you rested two hours. That meets the requirements for a short rest. Nothing says a short rest can't be longer than an hour. Rest for 8 hours. Don't want to long rest? Ok you performed one short rest because the time was at least an hour long. This gets into stupid situations though where the characters break resting or other things like that. The whole concept is way too meta game though in my opinion. That's why rather than messing with the rest rules just make it impossible to gain extra benefits of they do more than one rest in a row. Ie house rule you can't exceed your max spell slots.

Amnestic

2022-06-22, 09:02 AM

(For example, if a Warlock3/Sorcerer5 is permitted to spend 24 hours taking 24 short rests and converting warlock slots to sorcery points to sorcerer slots, they can start the next day with 19 additional third level spell slots)

And this is why, even if the power scaling isn't actually "broken" (and I'd argue it is), the concept is.

Coffeelock existing forces the DM to fundamentally either change their campaign's pacing structure (scrapping any and all downtime days to prevent mass accumulation of spell slots) or watch as the character has essentially unlimited slots which skews with the inter-party balancing. Fighter got their ASI this level, the sorlock got "unlimited fireballs". Very cool! Yeah, they might not have 4th level spells but that's probably a trade they're happy to make.

So yes, it's 'broken', because it forces DMs to warp their campaign around it to avoid it being stupid. God help you if you wanted a few days of downtime to travel between cities to get to the next plotbeat and didn't want to or couldn't add in a bunch of random encounters to constantly interrupt their short rests.

In my opinion nitpicking text is silly; just ban it and move on.

animorte

2022-06-22, 09:18 AM

Now, instead of discussing how it works or why it works (we already know), we need to start building a team of CoffeeLocks. That way everybody actually wants the short rests!

I’ll start here:

Celestial patron (tome pact)
Hexblade patron (blade pact)
Undead patron (chain pact)
Genie patron (talisman pact)

And my favorite Sorcerer subclasses are Divine Soul, Shadow, Aberrant Mind, Storm!
(I actually really like Wild Magic but I’m sure that’s not the most reliable option.)

Now to match up the subclasses together, probably move around some pacts… I’ll get back to it when I have more time.

RedMage125

2022-06-22, 09:29 AM

The one thing that people are overlooking is the "Decaf Coffeelock". This one does not depend on any kind of "never long resting" shenanigans, and never needs to make saving throws vs exhaustion.

Play a Drow (or any other elf, now that stat boosts are switchable). Elves get the benefit of a Long Rest after their 4 hour Trance. Every night, while the party takes a Long Rest, take yours in the first half. Now you have the max spell slots and SP. Convert your SP into more slots, your Pact slots into SP, and those SP into more slots. Now take 4 Short rests and do the same. At Warlock 3/Sorcerer X, you're getting 4 SP worth back every Short Rest, which is at least an extra 3rd level slot, or two 1st level ones. You're still starting each adventuring day with more spell slots.

One thing people are also not talking about is the absolutely BONKERS number of cantrips this build has, especially if you got Pact of the Tome. My Divine Sorc 4/Hexblade (Tome) 3 has ten cantrips right now. In terms of what to do with my action economy, I've got enough good options to compete that I don't even SPEND that many spell slots.

Xetheral

2022-06-22, 09:44 AM

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 09:56 AM

ahhh, is this true? You can have unlimited spell slots? its not caped at your max? I had no idea if that is indeed the case! this CoffeeLock things makes alot more sense now lol.

Yes, there is no cap for spell slots as there is for Sorcery Points. Any regular single-classed Sorcerer can use his SP to create additional spell slots, and there's no requirement that this be used for spent slots. In fact, you can create slots that are even of a higher level than the spells you know! A Sorc 6 can create a 4th level slot, for example, even though he can only know 3rd level spells.

If long resting and sleep *are* two different things (which is reasonably intuitive because humans can, in the real world, benefit from periods of sleep short than 8 hours), then it becomes even worse. If a human coffeelock can satisfy his physiological need for sleep with, say 3 power naps of 3 hours each spread throughout the 24 hour day, then the last limiting factor falls away and the coffelock can break the game over his knee*

*Except, of course, he can't because the DM will simply say "no" or better still "please don't", because we are all sane human beings and none of us actually wants the coffelock to work in our games, whether it does by RAW or not.

EDIT: The Xanathar's rules do not allow this eccentric sleeping pattern to stave off exhaustion, even though it probably would IRL. The Xanathar rules for sleeplessness are weird and not terribly well thought out and I would encourage you to make a small houserule to stop coffeelocking rather than using the Xanathar's rules to try to stop it.

(My own houserule is "any spell slot made with sorcery points goes away on a short rest", but "you can only use SP to regain slots" also works.)

Hear, hear. Many different houserules to deal with the Coffeelock. Use the one that you think works best for your campaign.

The real point of contention by raw for me is that a short rest is explicitly "at least one hour long". It's very easy for a dm to say ok you rested two hours. That meets the requirements for a short rest. Nothing says a short rest can't be longer than an hour. Rest for 8 hours. Don't want to long rest? Ok you performed one short rest because the time was at least an hour long. This gets into stupid situations though where the characters break resting or other things like that. The whole concept is way too meta game though in my opinion. That's why rather than messing with the rest rules just make it impossible to gain extra benefits of they do more than one rest in a row. Ie house rule you can't exceed your max spell slots.

What is in fact metagaming is the DM forbidding the combination. "Metagaming" is not a dirty word, it can be appropriate or innapropriate. But if someone HAD the power of the Coffeelock? Why wouldn't he use it, even if that meant having to go for a short sprint every hour? Answering "because it's too OP" is, precisely, metagaming.

And this is why, even if the power scaling isn't actually "broken" (and I'd argue it is), the concept is.

Coffeelock existing forces the DM to fundamentally either change their campaign's pacing structure (scrapping any and all downtime days to prevent mass accumulation of spell slots) or watch as the character has essentially unlimited slots which skews with the inter-party balancing. Fighter got their ASI this level, the sorlock got "unlimited fireballs". Very cool! Yeah, they might not have 4th level spells but that's probably a trade they're happy to make.

So yes, it's 'broken', because it forces DMs to warp their campaign around it to avoid it being stupid. God help you if you wanted a few days of downtime to travel between cities to get to the next plotbeat and didn't want to or couldn't add in a bunch of random encounters to constantly interrupt their short rests.

In my opinion nitpicking text is silly; just ban it and move on.

Perfect! It's even an ironic brokenness; it only exists if the DM correctly applies the guidelines for adventuring days, so it forces him to have a different structure, like the 5 minute adventuring day (where the Coffeelock is NOT broken, but a lot of other builds are).

Dork_Forge

2022-06-22, 10:37 AM

What is in fact metagaming is the DM forbidding the combination. "Metagaming" is not a dirty word, it can be appropriate or innapropriate. But if someone HAD the power of the Coffeelock? Why wouldn't he use it, even if that meant having to go for a short sprint every hour? Answering "because it's too OP" is, precisely, metagaming.

Would the answer, because it makes very little sense also be metagaming?

Keravath

2022-06-22, 10:59 AM

This part of the build relies on the airbud defense. The rules don't say you can't, so you totally can. One of many checkpoints the coffeelock has to pass for the build to function how it's claimed to.

It all does technically work, but if at any point your DM says "no" you're just a normal guy again.

Actually, not quite.

Sorcerers get sorcery points equal to their level after they complete a long rest. These sorcery points can be converted into spell slots immediately even if the sorcerer has not expended any spell slots. The rules on getting spell slots for sorcery points specifically do not mention that you could only replace expended spell slots using the spell slots purchased with sorcery points. If the designers had intended to limit the sorcerer to only replacing used spell slots then the rules would have explicitly included such a limitation.

So, yes, the feature does rely on the rules not saying there is a limit to the number of spell slots you can have - however, the way the sorcerer feature is written, this would seem to be an intentional omission. (e.g. A level 7 sorcerer with up to level 4 spell slots has enough sorcery points to buy a 5th level slot if they wish to do so).

The limitation built into the rules is that these spell slots disappear after a long rest.

As a result, the entire coffee-lock concept is built around never taking a long rest.

------

As far as DMs being able to prevent this ...

Short Rest: "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."

A short rest is at least one hour long. Chaining short rests over a period of a long rest requires a DM to agree to it since the DM can just say that if you rest for 8 hours then you have taken a long rest and not 8 short rests ... since a short rest is a period of at least an hour (they could also rule that the character had taken one short rest in the 8 hour time frame if the character did not fulfill the other requirements for a long rest).

Preventing a term of resting from not being considered a long rest requires the following: "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity — at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity — the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."

Preventing a period of rest longer than an hour being considered part of a long rest requires the character to spend at least an hour performing strenuous activity between each rest. So at most, a character could have 4 short rests (each separated by an hour of strenuous activity - which could leave the character quite tired the following day).

A rule introduced in Xanathar's can also be used to limit a coffee lock:

"Going without a Long Rest

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

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

It becomes harder to fight off exhaustion if you stay awake for multiple days. After the first 24 hours, the DC increases by 5 for each consecutive 24-hour period without a long rest. The DC resets to 10 when you finish a long rest."

The DM can insist that a long rest is required in order to avoid increasing levels of exhaustion. The "justification" for the optional rule is "sleep deprivation" - but all the rule itself refers to is taking a long rest - and not every creature needs to sleep though even then most need to rest.

Finally, it is the DMs game, they can just say - "No this doesn't work in my world".

----

To the OP:

The basic concept behind a coffeelock is the following.

- Have a race or class feature so that the character doesn't need to sleep/rest - there is a warlock invocation that removes the need for a character to sleep.

- Ideally 3 levels of warlock for 2x level 2 short rest spell slots. (However, a level 1 warlock gets 1 sorcery point/short rest and a level 2 warlock would get 2 sorcery points/short rest).

- Take 8 short rests instead of a long rest - cycle the 2 short rest spell slots into 4 sorcery points. Sorcery points ARE limited to the sorcerer level of the character so the Sorlock needs to be at least level 8 to start buying 5th level spell slots using this method.

- NEVER take a long rest since spell slots purchased with sorcery points are lost after a long rest.

This allows the character to purchase an infinite number of level 1-5 spell slots. If the party takes a 10-day of downtime this becomes 80 short rests or 320 sorcery points to purchase spell slots - This would give the character 45 x 5th level spell slots (or 160 1st level slots ... or any combination). This allows the character to cast every spell they know, upcast to 5th level or using their highest level spells, essentially every round of every encounter for the entire day and they can replenish 32 sorcery points of spell slots every time the party decides to rest.

So, yes, this is broken and can be an issue.

Finally, if it happens to be a Divine Soul sorcerer, then at sorcerer level 9 they can get the Greater Restoration spell which they can cast daily to remove any exhaustion they might receive for not taking a long rest - so at that point, even the Xanathar's constraint doesn't have any effect on a coffee-lock.

------

The bottom line is that the DM can simply say NO :) ... which is the approach I would take but for anyone else's game it is up to them.

Amnestic

2022-06-22, 10:59 AM

Perfect! It's even an ironic brokenness; it only exists if the DM correctly applies the guidelines for adventuring days, so it forces him to have a different structure, like the 5 minute adventuring day (where the Coffeelock is NOT broken, but a lot of other builds are).

I'm really not sure what you're saying here, but it seems like you're criticising my assessment, with the mention of adventuring days, and I can only assume from that I didn't explain myself properly. To be clear:

Coffeelock is "broken" because it screws with the very notion of downtime days, which are when a day is NOT an adventuring day. I would generally expect and encourage every campaign to have non-adventuring days for a variety of reasons.

Pretty much no other build accrues power during downtime days*, especially not in T2/T3. Normally downtime days are spent on downtime activities like "earning 2d10 gold pieces from barfighting" or "painting a pretty picture that will sell for 25gp". Not "getting 15 new spell slots per day that stick around forever until you use them, and stack with any more spell slots you get in the same way". If my party is traveling via lightning rail (aka a 'non-dangerous' travel method where random encounters aren't a thing) then the coffeelock is coming out the other end with idk, 50 new spell slots to spend on whatever. Meanwhile the wizard, bard, and fighter twiddled their thumbs and got nothing. It's not like Johnny Swordfighter can stack up Action Surges every short rest to carry over from downtime days to new days. Can you imagine?

Unless your campaign is non-stop adventuring days every single day then coffeelock is broken.

*with maybe the notable exception being Wish-spamming casters in tier 4 which are a known problem.

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 11:06 AM

Would the answer, because it makes very little sense also be metagaming?

What is it that makes very little sense? That people can cast spells and have sorcery points and metamagic? I agree, that makes very little sense. But given the premises of the game, it makes total sense that a creature that can do what a coffeelock can do would do it. Sure, going for the sprint does not make much sense, but that is really a response to the DM saying "even though you don't have slots anymore, and you've spent the last hour doing no activities more strenuous than eating, drinking and reading, I'm not going to let you have your slots back for the arbitrary reason that you had spent the previous hour doing the same thing". But if these are indeed "the rules of the universe", the coffeelock would figure that out eventually.

I'm really not sure what you're saying here, but it seems like you're criticising my assessment, with the mention of adventuring days, and I can only assume from that I didn't explain myself properly. To be clear:

Coffeelock is "broken" because it screws with the very notion of downtime days, which are when a day is NOT an adventuring day. I would generally expect and encourage every campaign to have non-adventuring days for a variety of reasons.

Pretty much no other build accrues power during downtime days*, especially not in T2/T3. Normally downtime days are spent on downtime activities like "earning 2d10 gold pieces from barfighting" or "painting a pretty picture that will sell for 25gp". Not "getting 15 new spell slots per day that stick around forever until you use them, and stack with any more spell slots you get in the same way". If my party is traveling via lightning rail (aka a 'non-dangerous' travel method where random encounters aren't a thing) then the coffeelock is coming out the other end with idk, 50 new spell slots to spend on whatever. Meanwhile the wizard, bard, and fighter twiddled their thumbs and got nothing. It's not like Johnny Swordfighter can stack up Action Surges every short rest to carry over from downtime days to new days. Can you imagine?

Unless your campaign is non-stop adventuring days every single day then coffeelock is broken.

*with maybe the notable exception being Wish-spamming casters in tier 4 which are a known problem.

I wasn't criticizing it. I agree with you that Coffeelock is "broken", at least if the DM's trying to follow the guidelines for the adventuring day, when over the course of several encounters he can be at full power all the time. But if a DM plays on the 5-minute adventuring day model, Coffeelock is not broken at all; it is, in fact, underpowered. What use is having unlimited spellcasting power if after one or two combats your entire party is like "I'm drained, let's have a Long Rest", because they just Nova'ed their way through the challenges? It's not like you are going to keep going on your own, and I would strongly advise against it, both because it would be disrupting to the game as everyone would just sit there while you go adventuring solo, but also because you'd probably die. You have unlimited spell slots, but poor Action Economy on your own.

As to accruing power during downtime; this starts before tier 4, tier 3 already allows for a lot of shenanigans, mostly to do with planar binding creatures; as early as tier 1, Nystul's magical auras allow for some nifty permanent effects, which a creative party can take advantage of. And of course there is also what is NOT shenannigans, but 100% up to the DM, buying magic items.

Willie the Duck

2022-06-22, 11:43 AM

Hopefully we are done splitting the hairs over the rules minutia. Regardless of where we end up with the rules, the coffeelock looks like it works. Say an average game group (where people don't spend their lives on forums) is playing. Someone points out that it doesn't say that non-sorcerer spell slots can be converted to sorcery points; that sorcery points can be converted to sorcery spell slots; that (unlike sorcery points) there isn't a declared cap on sorcery spell slots; and that there are both races and a nice convenient warlock invocation which mean you don't have to sleep -- I don't know if the split would be 60/40 or 40/60, but I think something approaching half of groups would interpret that as allowing one to forgo long rests and accumulate arbitrarily high number of spell slots. The question is, then what?

Firstly, I think outside of forums, most groups tend to react somewhere along the lines of, 'huh, neat little unintended confluence of rules when Multiclassing is applied. No you can't do it in my game, it is silly.' Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I think it is in the same conceptual zone as simulacrum-wish and one-handed quarterstaves+shields+pam where individual groups (including many that otherwise are pretty by the book) are perfectly willing to rule such things in or out.

Secondly, is it 'broken' if allowed? As others have said, only if you really need a whole lot of (possibly upcast or metamagicked) spells 2-3 levels below what a single-class caster can bring to bear. What it does do, and how I do think it 'breaks' the game is that it then has that one guy asking 'how many short rests can I get in?' for any stretch of downtime. It doesn't overpower the game, it just annoys it into frustration.

No matter what you hear in forums, I don't think most people most of the time play 6-8 encounter days. If you do, then Coffeelock shines if it is allowed (and it probably won't be, broken or not).
On what forums are you hearing people regularly suggest that you get 6-8 encounter days? The 5-minute workdays seems to be one of the primary gnashing of teeth about this edition.

Captain Panda

2022-06-22, 12:03 PM

Firstly, I think outside of forums, most groups tend to react somewhere along the lines of, 'huh, neat little unintended confluence of rules when Multiclassing is applied. No you can't do it in my game, it is silly.' Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I think it is in the same conceptual zone as simulacrum-wish and one-handed quarterstaves+shields+pam where individual groups (including many that otherwise are pretty by the book) are perfectly willing to rule such things in or out.

I've played a lot of D&D 5e, and never seen anyone ban quarterstaff builds. That's... frankly, pretty ridiculous. It's not that good.

kazaryu

2022-06-22, 12:08 PM

diplomancer

2022-06-22, 12:13 PM

Willie the Duck

2022-06-22, 12:36 PM

I've played a lot of D&D 5e, and never seen anyone ban quarterstaff builds. That's... frankly, pretty ridiculous. It's not that good.

I don't think I've seen it banned either; I believe that those who ban it do it for two reasons; it's silly, and it makes Long Sword+Shield, the most traditional "heroic build", look bad by comparison. The game is sorely missing a good feat for versatile weapons.
I didn't mention power (in fact, given how we've come down on coffeelock's actual in-play power, it wouldn't be a good comparison). I said it is in the same conceptual space (bizarre rules confluences).

Honestly, I don't see it banned that much either, but instead soft-bans/people just not playing it (because of some variation on 'it's just a silly rules interaction'). WotC errata-ing the spear into the same situation gave it a bit of legitimacy, but I still simply don't believe it was originally intended to work as it does (I'm guessing PAM and versatile quarterstaves were developed separately and both just made it into the final product). I agree that it isn't overall 'that good' (although it definitely is a top-tier combat choice) mostly because being able to do lots of combat damage is neither rare nor overpowering -- although, as diplomancer alludes, it is annoying that there are so many specific winners and losers in the good-weapon-feat-combo department (and so few of them actual weapons of war), that wasn't the point. The point was that there are some rules (such as coffeelocks) that are obviously enough odd little rules combinations that DMs have less resistance to saying no to, even if they would be more conflicted about banning potentially-more-powerful combinations (most Cleric1/Wizard X-1 builds, at high levels wizard 17-18/fighter2, etc.).

im confused. you seem to be implying that a coffeelock can't heighten/subtle spells, and that all they use it for is EB spam...
Was my post supposed to be included in this? I'm not seeing a connection.

Hytheter

2022-06-22, 12:41 PM

JNAProductions

2022-06-22, 12:48 PM

It's most broken at Sorcerer 9/Warlock X. Since you have (given enough time) unlimited 5th level slots. So, even if Warlock's X is 3, and therefore your buddies have 6th level slots if they're full casters... They've got one 6th level slot.

Whereas, let's say you have two weeks of travel to get to your destination. You get three Short Rests every four hours (80 minutes to a Short Rest, to account for activity to interrupt it and not make it a Long Rest). You get 4 SP every Rest.
That's 36 5th level slots. That's a heck of a lot better than one 6th level slot, two 5ths, and a handful of 4ths and down.
If you never get breaks, it's still a solid build. But the more breaks you get, the more power it accumulates.

My personal houserule to make it not an issue, with minimal outside impact, is that spell slots made in excess of your normal maximum vanish after 24 hours or a Long Rest, whichever comes first.
The reason I still allow for slots in excess of max is that some Sorcerer players like to convert lower slots and SP into higher level slots at the start of the day, just to have 'em ready.

Saelethil

2022-06-22, 01:03 PM

I don't think I've seen it banned either; I believe that those who ban it do it for two reasons; it's silly, and it makes Long Sword+Shield, the most traditional "heroic build", look bad by comparison. The game is sorely missing a good feat for versatile weapons.

The more I think about it the more I’m ok with turning Polarm Master into Melee Master. If you’re wielding a melee weapon without the light property you can make an AoO when a creature comes within range and after you take the attack action with an applicable weapon you can make an a bonus action you make an attack that deals 1d4 + mod. (this could be a pommel strike, butt attack (like the current Polarm Master), or just a less precise swing that does less damage)

Keravath

2022-06-22, 01:39 PM

This is a good point. The build is only broken if normal casters are actually running out of slots in a typical day. If they're just throwing out a levelled spell every turn and still turning in for bed with slots remaining then having a surplus buys you nothing.

Except the coffee-lock can have unlimited 5th level spell slots instead of just 1-3. In addition, a coffee-lock never needs to worry about running out of resources if this adventuring day happens to have 5 full combat encounters rather than whatever the usual is. Any other caster has to decide, do they use their high level slots or not? A coffee-lock only needs to think about that for level 6-9 slots - everything else they have is unlimited.

On the other hand, you're also right, if the "day" in a particular campaign is typically one combat lasting 6 rounds then a high level caster is going to only be casting 6 spells at most anyway. The only slots that matter in the comparison are level 5- and if the caster only uses 1-2 level 5 slots and not much else then a coffee-lock has a relatively small advantage.

However, the extra spell slots are also a huge pool of sorcery points - the coffee-lock never needs to worry about over using metamagic throughout a fight since they can always get 5 sorcery points back as a bonus action by giving up one of the "infinite" number of 5th level slots they have available.

Keravath

2022-06-22, 01:44 PM

The more I think about it the more I’m ok with turning Polarm Master into Melee Master. If you’re wielding a melee weapon without the light property you can make an AoO when a creature comes within range and after you take the attack action with an applicable weapon you can make an a bonus action you make an attack that deals 1d4 + mod. (this could be a pommel strike, butt attack (like the current Polarm Master), or just a less precise swing that does less damage)

I think that is a great idea in some ways though I think it would become a feat that is too good to pass up. One thing to keep in mind is that polearm master (1-handed w shield) only works with d6 weapons while allowing it with a longsword is strictly better since it is a d8 weapon. (An extra 2 damage/turn is not a big deal I realize).

arnin77

2022-06-22, 01:49 PM

As a DM I would just rule you get the benefits of 1 long rest and 2 short rests per day…

kazaryu

2022-06-22, 06:19 PM

Was my post supposed to be included in this? I'm not seeing a connection.

it was. i'd typed out a reply to you as well, but then wanted to add the other post, in order to ask that question. so i hit 'reply with quote' so i could copy/paster their quote into my already typed out reply. but then i got my tabs mixed up and replied/posted in the extra tab, rather than the one i'd already typed out. by the time i noticed my error, i'd already closed all relevant tabs..and didn't feel like re-typing my reply.

i'd hoped to edit your reply out of my previous post before you saw it, in order to avoid confusion

Skrum

2022-06-22, 07:08 PM

I think that is a great idea in some ways though I think it would become a feat that is too good to pass up. One thing to keep in mind is that polearm master (1-handed w shield) only works with d6 weapons while allowing it with a longsword is strictly better since it is a d8 weapon. (An extra 2 damage/turn is not a big deal I realize).

It's actually 1 extra damage, on average.

With two handed weapons, you can similarly increase your damage by 1, on average - though you'd be giving up reach. Probably a wash.

I think this is a very reasonable change to make. It's barely better, and...idk, just let people pick whatever weapon they want.

I'd do the same for crossbow expert; let it apply to any ranged weapon. Lock the extra attack at 1d6 though, reflective of hand crossbow damage.

Gurgeh

2022-06-22, 09:01 PM

ProsecutorGodot

2022-06-22, 09:20 PM

It's one extra damage per hit - so it starts out at 2 because you have the bonus action attack, increases to 3 with Extra Attack, and will increase further with stuff like Haste, Action Surge, being a high-level Fighter, etc.

The bonus action attack is always dealing 1d4 damage, so don't count that for having an increased weapon die. In general I think weapons end up better for their features, not really their die size, except for edge cases like Greatsword/Greataxe where the feature is the die size.

Which would be my argument against making PAM a generalist feat - Polearms are good, arguably very good, but the fact that it exists as a limitation to use this feat is IMO a good thing because it forces a meaningful choice. If PAM was just MWM (Melee Weapon Master) you'd not have to make a meaningful choice when picking up more powerful weapons, you'll simply take the best choice available to you with the highest die size because now the features are likely unimportant.

Kane0

2022-06-22, 09:56 PM

As a DM I would just rule you get the benefits of 1 long rest and 2 short rests per day…

Yeah this more or less, although I do like the idea of letting the Undying warlock 6+ with aspect of the moon get away with becoming a coffeelock as a consolation prize for making that choice. Its probably much more balanced at that stage anyway given the huge delay to your casting and only being able to really function as a coffeelock in Tier 3+

Witty Username

2022-06-22, 11:17 PM

And this is why, even if the power scaling isn't actually "broken" (and I'd argue it is), the concept is.

Coffeelock existing forces the DM to fundamentally either change their campaign's pacing structure (scrapping any and all downtime days to prevent mass accumulation of spell slots) or watch as the character has essentially unlimited slots which skews with the inter-party balancing. Fighter got their ASI this level, the sorlock got "unlimited fireballs". Very cool! Yeah, they might not have 4th level spells but that's probably a trade they're happy to make.

So yes, it's 'broken', because it forces DMs to warp their campaign around it to avoid it being stupid. God help you if you wanted a few days of downtime to travel between cities to get to the next plotbeat and didn't want to or couldn't add in a bunch of random encounters to constantly interrupt their short rests.

In my opinion nitpicking text is silly; just ban it and move on.

Or just say 8 consecutive short rests is equal to a long rest and move on.

Kane0

2022-06-22, 11:26 PM

Could also be an interesting time to introduce a houserule, if you have more spell slots than you should you gradually take damage over time or something as you harbor too much magic for you to safely handle. Then it becomes a fun little minigame of how much overkill can you carry without killing yourself or draining your party's supply of healing.

Gurgeh

2022-06-23, 12:00 AM

The bonus action attack is always dealing 1d4 damage, so don't count that for having an increased weapon die. In general I think weapons end up better for their features, not really their die size, except for edge cases like Greatsword/Greataxe where the feature is the die size.

Which would be my argument against making PAM a generalist feat - Polearms are good, arguably very good, but the fact that it exists as a limitation to use this feat is IMO a good thing because it forces a meaningful choice. If PAM was just MWM (Melee Weapon Master) you'd not have to make a meaningful choice when picking up more powerful weapons, you'll simply take the best choice available to you with the highest die size because now the features are likely unimportant.
Haha, shows you how thorough my working was when I forgot the static die for the extra attack!

For what it's worth, I share your view about keeping Polearm Master as a feat for polearms - if it's just "you are straight-up better with every single weapon, ever" then it's not an optional build choice, it's a feat tax for melee fighters.

Hytheter

2022-06-23, 12:27 AM

Or just say 8 consecutive short rests is equal to a long rest and move on.

"Then I take seven long rests in a row, then do [activity that disqualifies a long rest] before continuing."

diplomancer

2022-06-23, 02:53 AM

"Then I take seven long rests in a row, then do [activity that disqualifies a long rest] before continuing."

Exactly. Again, if a DM doesn't want a coffeelock, he should ban the coffeelock, not say "eight short rests is a long rest", because player will respond with "ok, I take 6 short rests (sprinting after every hour if necessary), walk for one hour and a round, and take a seventh short rest".

So in the space of this 8 hours and a few minutes, the characters had 7 (absolutely unassailable from a rules perspective) short rests. What's the DM going to do then? It's not like having only 7 short rests instead of 8 is going to be perfectly balanced (and this before we factor in downtime!).

Haha, shows you how thorough my working was when I forgot the static die for the extra attack!

For what it's worth, I share your view about keeping Polearm Master as a feat for polearms - if it's just "you are straight-up better with every single weapon, ever" then it's not an optional build choice, it's a feat tax for melee fighters.

Well, PAM IS a feat tax for melee fighters already, this idea would just give greater weapon choice. Incidentally, I think the concept of "feat tax" is a bit overblown; it's just "your character gets better at his job as he progresses in level" (at least if it's an improvement, not a requirement to function), except you get to decide at which level this improvement takes place.

animorte

2022-06-23, 05:31 AM

Damon_Tor

2022-06-23, 08:44 AM

As a DM I view this as a warlock finding a major loophole in his contract and exploiting it mercilessly. Yes, it gives them a great deal of added power in the short term, but it also gives the patron a strong incentive to arrange for the warlock's demise.

Jak

2022-06-23, 08:45 AM

If you allow consecutive short rests in place of a long rest, yeah, I think some shenanigans have the capacity of being gotten into. On the other hand, if you only allow a single short rest in place of a long rest, I think it could add some depth in strategy and resource management to the game. I would require that one invocation that says you don't need to sleep in order to go multiple days without a long rest, though.

Sometimes 5e feels like it doesn't have enough "knobs" to adjust. The outlawing of coffeelock is one of those things, and lack of support for weapon styles besides XBE, SS, GWM, and PAM is another.
And I don't think the solution is to give every weapon the -5, +10 feat option. Weapons should feel different.
Like, why do we have a distinction between battle-axes and longswords? Glaives and halberds? Tridents and spears?
All this does is artificially lengthen the weapons list. I kind of miss the 3.x days in which weapons had properties. (Though, I don't miss monk being a terrible class, along with fighter, and bard, and paladin, and basically all the materials.)

Willie the Duck

2022-06-23, 09:31 AM

Sometimes 5e feels like it doesn't have enough "knobs" to adjust. The outlawing of coffeelock is one of those things, and lack of support for weapon styles besides XBE, SS, GWM, and PAM is another.
And I don't think the solution is to give every weapon the -5, +10 feat option. Weapons should feel different.
Like, why do we have a distinction between battle-axes and longswords? Glaives and halberds? Tridents and spears?
All this does is artificially lengthen the weapons list. I kind of miss the 3.x days in which weapons had properties. (Though, I don't miss monk being a terrible class, along with fighter, and bard, and paladin, and basically all the materials.)

One can certainly envision a game with 3e style weapon variety without the other issues 3e had. Although, to be fair, 3e had winners and losers in the weapon/combat style selections as well (greatsword uber-charging power attacker, spiked chain lockdown spammer, and the occasional 2wf crit-fisher come to mind). Really I don't think D&D has ever been great about a cohesive vision for weapons* and why specifically they are distinct but usually not overly so, and why they are somewhat balanced but clearly not really.
*past the time when they all did d6 damage and you picked one over the other for which armor they best defeated, and some classes getting access to the ones most likely to show up as magic items was a class balancing factor.

Games like Riddle of Steel where the combat complexity is a central focus of the game make sense and work for people for whom they work (and drive others to frustration). As do ones like GURPS where you are doing a subtle balancing calculation between basic damage and damage multiplied before or after it gets through damage resistance (which is a core part of armor in-game) and maybe this one weapon is a warpick and does good damage and gets post-penetration multipliers but also might get stuck in your opponent and you waste time pulling it out and this other weapon... etc. etc. etc. As do games with deliberately simple weapon systems (maybe light, medium, and two-handed, and who cares whether it is axe, spear, or sword). D&D is, as always, the messy middle mongrel beast that leaves no one perfectly satisfied but also doesn't run into the pitfalls that games with more purity of design aesthetic.

Overall, I kind of agree. I generally find 3e playable only under serious constraints and in specific bands of play, but a port of their weapon charts and a few other things over to a 5e-esque game would be pretty nice.

Witty Username

2022-06-23, 12:25 PM

"Then I take seven long rests in a row, then do [activity that disqualifies a long rest] before continuing."

Than you get nothing, because you didn't rest.
Take a level of exhaustion.

JNAProductions

2022-06-23, 12:36 PM

Than you get nothing, because you didn't rest.
Take a level of exhaustion.

And if you have Aspect Of The Moon or something similar that means you don't need sleep to stave off Exhaustion?

Witty Username

2022-06-23, 12:41 PM

And if you have Aspect Of The Moon or something similar that means you don't need sleep to stave off Exhaustion?
True, but those things tend to change the level of activity to disrupt a long rest or decrease the time required, which mucks with chaining short rests.

JNAProductions

2022-06-23, 12:43 PM

True, but those things tend to change the level of activity to disrupt a long rest or decrease the time required, which mucks with chaining short rests.

You no longer need to sleep and can’t be forced to sleep by any means. To gain the benefits of a long rest, you can spend all 8 hours doing light activity, such as reading your Book of Shadows and keeping watch.

No timing issue there.

Witty Username

2022-06-23, 12:56 PM

No timing issue there.

But you now need to do beyond light activity to break a long rest. So you can't say be on watch for 3 hrs to disqualify the long rest, you need to spend an hour of strenuous activity.
And recall that while there are guidelines in the long rest section it is up to the DM to determine if the activity is light or strenuous.

sithlordnergal

2022-06-23, 01:11 PM

"Then I take seven long rests in a row, then do [activity that disqualifies a long rest] before continuing."

Then give me a Con save cause you haven't had a long rest in the last 24 hours. Sleep and Long Rests are separate things, just because you slept does not mean you get to avoid making that Con save against Exhaustion. It also means the Aspect of the Moon doesn't allow you to avoid that penalty. It just means you're the best night watch.

sithlordnergal

2022-06-23, 01:13 PM

And if you have Aspect Of The Moon or something similar that means you don't need sleep to stave off Exhaustion?

Not at all, the Long Rest Exhaustion rules don't mention sleep when it comes to the actual crunch of the rules. They only state Long Rests, which is different from sleep.

Segev

2022-06-23, 01:34 PM

Not at all, the Long Rest Exhaustion rules don't mention sleep when it comes to the actual crunch of the rules. They only state Long Rests, which is different from sleep.

Sure they do. They explicitly state to use the rule if you want to simulate the problem of missing sleep. Sleep (or, rather, lack thereof) is very specifically what the rule is meant to simulate, and the conditions given for the rule make that utterly clear. It requires ignoring part of the text - arbitrarily deciding parts that contradict your interpretation are "not crunch" - to come to the interpretation that you suffer those effects even if you don't need to sleep.

Keravath

2022-06-23, 04:06 PM

And if you have Aspect Of The Moon or something similar that means you don't need sleep to stave off Exhaustion?

RAW, exhaustion is tied to taking a long rest and not to sleeping during a long rest. Yes, I know that the "fluff" indicates it is due to sleep deprivation but a DM could say it is rest deprivation even if the creature doesn't need sleep. (Both Elves and Warforged have mechanisms other than sleeping also - but they still take long rests).

Segev

2022-06-23, 04:46 PM

RAW, exhaustion is tied to taking a long rest and not to sleeping during a long rest. Yes, I know that the "fluff" indicates it is due to sleep deprivation but a DM could say it is rest deprivation even if the creature doesn't need sleep. (Both Elves and Warforged have mechanisms other than sleeping also - but they still take long rests).

Your error is in assuming that a sentence that says, "If you want to model sleep deprivation, use this rule," is fluff. If the DM decides it's due to something else, that's as much a house rule as deciding that goodberries provide nutrition but not satiation and that you suffer exhaustion from hunger anyway if you live on them.

diplomancer

2022-06-23, 05:37 PM

But you now need to do beyond light activity to break a long rest. So you can't say be on watch for 3 hrs to disqualify the long rest, you need to spend an hour of strenuous activity.
And recall that while there are guidelines in the long rest section it is up to the DM to determine if the activity is light or strenuous.

"At least 1 hour of walking" is, explicitly, strenuous activity (or just casting Find Familiar as a ritual). So that's all it takes to NOT have a Long Rest.

RAW, exhaustion is tied to taking a long rest and not to sleeping during a long rest. Yes, I know that the "fluff" indicates it is due to sleep deprivation but a DM could say it is rest deprivation even if the creature doesn't need sleep. (Both Elves and Warforged have mechanisms other than sleeping also - but they still take long rests).

You know, I've been back and forth on the "Fluff vs. Crunch" debates, and I believe there are good points on both sides. But calling "Fluff" the explicit instruction of when to apply a rule in the game is really pushing it, and it's the sort of argument that makes me agree with those who say there is no such thing as fluff, rules are rules.

Captain Panda

2022-06-23, 08:19 PM

Except the coffee-lock can have unlimited 5th level spell slots instead of just 1-3. In addition, a coffee-lock never needs to worry about running out of resources if this adventuring day happens to have 5 full combat encounters rather than whatever the usual is. Any other caster has to decide, do they use their high level slots or not? A coffee-lock only needs to think about that for level 6-9 slots - everything else they have is unlimited.

At super high level? Sure. Though I still see some problems. You need to long rest to get back the 6+ level spells, and doing so resets all of your saved spell slots. If you have tons of downtime between adventures that's not an issue, you can store spells back up, but I don't know that it's a fair assumption that you can get both endless spell slots and your high level spells. Especially since to get to those high level spell slots you are probably sacrificing warlock levels, which means you accumulate spells much more slowly.

There is also the fact that, and this is from experience, at 17+ a wizard is just straight better than a coffeelock. Assuming the coffeelock gets tons of downtime, they still are way behind compared to what a wizard (or a bard) can do with that downtime. It's not even a contest once you hit that tier.

kazaryu

2022-06-23, 08:32 PM

Kane0

2022-06-23, 08:37 PM

Divine Soul Sorcerer is the answer. Create your own copious amounts of spell slots and heal yourself.

Yeah fair enough, though you're burning your excess slots to heal up from the damage caused by excess spell slots which I think is a self-resolving problem.

Although you could reduce max health instead of current health, which demands restorations instead of regular healing.

Hael

2022-06-23, 08:45 PM

There is also the fact that, and this is from experience, at 17+ a wizard is just straight better than a coffeelock. Assuming the coffeelock gets tons of downtime, they still are way behind compared to what a wizard (or a bard) can do with that downtime. It's not even a contest once you hit that tier.

Agreed. However there is a martial component to this as well. A lot of the original coffee locks were playing melee gishes (hexblade + divine soul), and this made a pretty OP martial. At the time the scagtrips were still twinnable/quickenable so you would end up with perpetual precast 5th lvl upcast spirit guardian, and the gish would be doing things like twinning booming blade and quickening green flame blade for four attacks per round on top of dropping eldritch smites every round.. (i should say this was the elf version before it was removed)

Captain Panda

2022-06-23, 09:03 PM

I could be wrong, i'd love to see some examples of what you're referring to.

If a wizard at 17+ is trying to accumulate power, it's really, really easy to make the coffeelock look like a total joke. There are a lot of tricks, but here's a simple one that assumes you have a few days, the wish spell, and true polymorph.

1. Hard cast simulacrum (1500g at 17+ is pretty cheap).
2. Cast conjure elemental at 8th level.
3. Your simulacrum uses a 9th level slot to wish planar bind the elemental you summon.
4. Cast true polymorph on the big xorn and turn it into a young dragon.

One day and 1500g spent, and now you have a young dragon pet for 180 days.

If you have excess time but not gold, instead you would need to wish cast simulacrum to save the money, which means it doesn't have a 9th level slot. Wait a day and have it cast 8th level conjure elemental (big xorn). Use wish to planar bind it at 8th level. The next day you true poly it into something. Same principle applies, except now it's free of gold cost.

Alternatively, on day 1 just true polymorph a cow into ruby and use those to fuel any and all spell component needs, and from there you have a daily pet dragon. Makes coffeelocks look really anemic, right?

Captain Panda

2022-06-23, 09:09 PM

Agreed. However there is a martial component to this as well. A lot of the original coffee locks were playing melee gishes (hexblade + divine soul), and this made a pretty OP martial. At the time the scagtrips were still twinnable/quickenable so you would end up with perpetual precast 5th lvl upcast spirit guardian, and the gish would be doing things like twinning booming blade and quickening green flame blade for four attacks per round on top of dropping eldritch smites every round.. (i should say this was the elf version before it was removed)

You can't drop eldritch smites every round, those are pact slot only.

However, take two levels of paladin and you can juice them with proper smites. I've seen that done and it was effective, but it comes online really late.

Jak

2022-06-23, 09:16 PM

"At least 1 hour of walking" is, explicitly, strenuous activity (or just casting Find Familiar as a ritual). So that's all it takes to NOT have a Long Rest.

You know, I've been back and forth on the "Fluff vs. Crunch" debates, and I believe there are good points on both sides. But calling "Fluff" the explicit instruction of when to apply a rule in the game is really pushing it, and it's the sort of argument that makes me agree with those who say there is no such thing as fluff, rules are rules.

There was a thread on this board a while back discussing the distinction between fluff and crunch, and whether or not there even was one.

To me, it's like the bit about druids not being willing to wear metal armor. I would venture to say that's neither fluff, nor crunch; it's simply a rule for playing a druid.

When I introduced some friends to D&D around a year ago, when reading through the book, they didn't notice a "crunch" or "fluff." They just interpreted these as how you play the game.

Hael

2022-06-23, 09:36 PM

You can't drop eldritch smites every round, those are pact slot only.

However, take two levels of paladin and you can juice them with proper smites. I've seen that done and it was effective, but it comes online really late.

Yea thats right, also I think they were probably using the pact of the tome route and not doing the cocaine thing (so it wasn’t eldritch smites and was probably pally smites as you say).

animorte

2022-06-23, 09:37 PM

There was a thread on this board a while back discussing the distinction between fluff and crunch, and whether or not there even was one.

When I introduced some friends to D&D around a year ago, when reading through the book, they didn't notice a "crunch" or "fluff." They just interpreted these as how you play the game.

Oh, that awful thing. What a train wreck that discussion turned out to be. I usually get out of those pretty quick when I recognize it going down that particular path. Anyway...

Yeah, that's something I've learned. Newer players won't know all of these additional forms of terminology, something I wasn't familiar with for quite some time after getting a pretty good feeling of the game for several years. It wasn't until I joined the forum community that I started to discover the frame of mind a lot of players/DMs can get into with these more-often-than-not ambiguous topics.

Jak

2022-06-23, 10:00 PM

Oh, that awful thing. What a train wreck that discussion turned out to be. I usually get out of those pretty quick when I recognize it going down that particular path. Anyway...

Yeah, that's something I've learned. Newer players won't know all of these additional forms of terminology, something I wasn't familiar with for quite some time after getting a pretty good feeling of the game for several years. It wasn't until I joined the forum community that I started to discover the frame of mind a lot of players/DMs can get into with these more-often-than-not ambiguous topics.

So doesn't that mean the veteran players are assuming there is a fluff-crunch distinction, when the rulebook doesn't make one? I'm referencing new players as evidence for that, just to be clear.

kazaryu

2022-06-23, 11:08 PM

If a wizard at 17+ is trying to accumulate power, it's really, really easy to make the coffeelock look like a total joke. There are a lot of tricks, but here's a simple one that assumes you have a few days, the wish spell, and true polymorph.

1. Hard cast simulacrum (1500g at 17+ is pretty cheap).
2. Cast conjure elemental at 8th level.
3. Your simulacrum uses a 9th level slot to wish planar bind the elemental you summon.
4. Cast true polymorph on the big xorn and turn it into a young dragon.

One day and 1500g spent, and now you have a young dragon pet for 180 days.

If you have excess time but not gold, instead you would need to wish cast simulacrum to save the money, which means it doesn't have a 9th level slot. Wait a day and have it cast 8th level conjure elemental (big xorn). Use wish to planar bind it at 8th level. The next day you true poly it into something. Same principle applies, except now it's free of gold cost.

Alternatively, on day 1 just true polymorph a cow into ruby and use those to fuel any and all spell component needs, and from there you have a daily pet dragon. Makes coffeelocks look really anemic, right?

...planar binding is accessible by a coffeelock (DS sorcerer), its a 5th level spell. granted, cast at 5th level it only lasts 24 hours, but we're talking about a campaign that leans into a coffeelocks power, so they have infinite 5th level slots to spam it. now, obviously its not going to be as powerful as a young dragon, but it doesn't really need to be. and in fact, if we're talking about a hybrid coffeelock (i.e. one that, rather than literally never long resting, will occasionally long rest in order to refill higher level spell slots) they could even bind it for longer than 24hours, and summon bigger monsters (not than the wizard, i mean bigger monsters than the 5th level limitation would allow.). but even just at 5th level slots. at level 17 a balanced coffelock (say sorc10/lock7) is generating a 5th level spell slot per short rest. so while the wizard gets bigger summons, the coffeelock gets WAY more. and they get them WAY faster. so uhh...no, that doesn't make the coffeelock seem anemic.

meanwhile, once you DO go adventuring, the coffeelock is still going to be pumpin out 5th level spells, or spells up cast to 5th level every round, on top of the above shenanigans (assuing the DM didn't quite by this point).

and finally, yeah, that is a shenanigan that a wizard *could* pull...wanna bet how many DM's are going to stop it, because its too strong? Im looking for examples of things DM's would actually allow at their table. if its something that is likely to get banned anyway (like simulacrum chaining) then all it does is reinforce the point that coffeelocks, under ideal campaign conditions, are incredibly overpowered.

diplomancer

2022-06-24, 12:33 AM

...planar binding is accessible by a coffeelock (DS sorcerer), its a 5th level spell. granted, cast at 5th level it only lasts 24 hours, but we're talking about a campaign that leans into a coffeelocks power, so they have infinite 5th level slots to spam it. now, obviously its not going to be as powerful as a young dragon, but it doesn't really need to be. and in fact, if we're talking about a hybrid coffeelock (i.e. one that, rather than literally never long resting, will occasionally long rest in order to refill higher level spell slots) they could even bind it for longer than 24hours, and summon bigger monsters (not than the wizard, i mean bigger monsters than the 5th level limitation would allow.). but even just at 5th level slots. at level 17 a balanced coffelock (say sorc10/lock7) is generating a 5th level spell slot per short rest. so while the wizard gets bigger summons, the coffeelock gets WAY more. and they get them WAY faster. so uhh...no, that doesn't make the coffeelock seem anemic.

meanwhile, once you DO go adventuring, the coffeelock is still going to be pumpin out 5th level spells, or spells up cast to 5th level every round, on top of the above shenanigans (assuing the DM didn't quite by this point).

and finally, yeah, that is a shenanigan that a wizard *could* pull...wanna bet how many DM's are going to stop it, because its too strong? Im looking for examples of things DM's would actually allow at their table. if its something that is likely to get banned anyway (like simulacrum chaining) then all it does is reinforce the point that coffeelocks, under ideal campaign conditions, are incredibly overpowered.

You need both Planar Binding and Conjure Elemental to do this trick (and, if you're doing this on your own, a Simulacrum, as you can't cast Planar Binding and Concentrate on Conjure Elemental at the same time). Warlocks can cast Conjure Elemental once they reach 9th level, but, horror of horrors, only once per Long Rest.

Also, the fact that the Planar Binding lasts only for a day is a great limitation. Casting it takes one hour, so if the Coffelock is planning to use it at the next day, he's gonna have 16 of them, maximum. And if he has to still be out adventuring the next day? No luck, all his summons will be gone; he might have a few that he was able to conjure up while his companions Long Rested, but that's about it. Give a month's downtime to the Wizard, and he can have at least 15 dragons (30 with enough money), which will be with him for the next 5 months.

Furthermore, saying "well, a DM would never allow that" is not an argument you get to make when the DM is already allowing a Coffeelock. The sort of DM that allows a Coffelock is probably a "throw me the best you've got" kind of DM; he will see dealing with the Wizard shenanigans a challenge much the same as dealing with a Coffeelock (and if he DOES allow the Coffelock but bars those single-classed shenanigans, either he's biased in favour of the Coffeelock, or the Coffelock is, in practice, much weaker than those classes that can pull off those shenanigans).

It's also interesting how, to stop those shenanigans, people get straight to the point- "a sane DM would not allow it", while with a Coffeelock people try to twist the RAW in all different directions to say it doesn't work instead of also just going straight to the point and say "a sane DM would not allow it".

The Coffeelock reaches its peak power relative to other classes at Tier 3; before level 8 (at Warlock 3/Sorc 5) it's not very functional, and only on the longest adventuring days does it get to compensate for being 1 or 2 spell levels behind; at Tier 4, he's surpassed by Wizards and Bards.

There was a thread on this board a while back discussing the distinction between fluff and crunch, and whether or not there even was one.

To me, it's like the bit about druids not being willing to wear metal armor. I would venture to say that's neither fluff, nor crunch; it's simply a rule for playing a druid.

When I introduced some friends to D&D around a year ago, when reading through the book, they didn't notice a "crunch" or "fluff." They just interpreted these as how you play the game.

Yeah, that was the thread I had in mind; I started it thinking that there is such a divide, but ended it reflecting that, IF there is such a divide, it's quite unclear where it is. But even before that thread, it never crossed my mind to think that an explicit, clear, and unambiguous instruction of when to use a rule could be considered "fluff", just because it uses plain English and not game terms (and an instruction which- if ignored- makes the rule non-functional, quite apart from coffeelocks, as has been pointed out before).

Tanarii

2022-06-24, 02:54 AM

Captain Panda

2022-06-24, 03:23 AM

...planar binding is accessible by a coffeelock (DS sorcerer), its a 5th level spell. granted, cast at 5th level it only lasts 24 hours, but we're talking about a campaign that leans into a coffeelocks power, so they have infinite 5th level slots to spam it. now, obviously its not going to be as powerful as a young dragon, but it doesn't really need to be. and in fact, if we're talking about a hybrid coffeelock (i.e. one that, rather than literally never long resting, will occasionally long rest in order to refill higher level spell slots) they could even bind it for longer than 24hours, and summon bigger monsters (not than the wizard, i mean bigger monsters than the 5th level limitation would allow.). but even just at 5th level slots. at level 17 a balanced coffelock (say sorc10/lock7) is generating a 5th level spell slot per short rest. so while the wizard gets bigger summons, the coffeelock gets WAY more. and they get them WAY faster. so uhh...no, that doesn't make the coffeelock seem anemic.

meanwhile, once you DO go adventuring, the coffeelock is still going to be pumpin out 5th level spells, or spells up cast to 5th level every round, on top of the above shenanigans (assuing the DM didn't quite by this point).

and finally, yeah, that is a shenanigan that a wizard *could* pull...wanna bet how many DM's are going to stop it, because its too strong? Im looking for examples of things DM's would actually allow at their table. if its something that is likely to get banned anyway (like simulacrum chaining) then all it does is reinforce the point that coffeelocks, under ideal campaign conditions, are incredibly overpowered.

Dunno where to begin. I don't find these counterarguments even slightly convincing, for a lot of reasons. I think had you seen both in practice, as I have, you would see how wrong-headed these arguments are.

1. The coffeelock has infinite 5th level slots. Planar binding lasts a day, as you mentioned. It also costs 1000g to cast. High level characters have lots of money, but it's not endless. So sure, you could have a coffeelock cast planar binding ten times (in ten hours) so you have a bunch of overpriced, short-duration summons. That's a terrible waste.

2. They can't do this themselves. The wizard can do this solo. Who is summoning the thing that the coffeelock is planar binding? It sure ain't them. And if someone else is summoning something for them to bind, why are you wasting the gold and having the coffeelock do this? 5th level is the worst, most wasteful level to cast the spell at. Now we're assuming a third party is helping the coffeelock with this bad idea, and we make no such assumptions for the wizard.

3. Let's leave the "BUT THE DM WON'T ALLOW IT!" elsewhere, please. You're talking about a coffeelock right now. If anything at a game is going to get banned, it's the TRDSIC-reliant coffeelock that goes very obviously against RAI. If a DM is allowing coffeelock it is almost certain they are going to allow a wizard to do this. The wizard doing what I outlined is RAW, just using the spells to do explicitly what they are intended to do. It's a smart way to chain them together to get some powerful minions, but this is by no means an "exploit" the authors left open that was unintended. I think if you have to say "But it's too stronk!" you're already conceding the point that a wizard just blows a coffeelock away.

4. Y'know what? Let's grant some of your assumptions and follow this logic to its conclusion. Let's say a coffeelock has a willing pair of allies summoning elementals for him. Let's assume he wants to spend 4 hours adventuring, but uses the other 20 to planar bind. Now he has 20 elementals, or whatever else his party members can conjure up for him... considering you need a minion cast for each planar binding, you might need to start scraping the bottom of the barrel with lower level summons pretty fast even then. But let's assume, for argument, that you have 20 full power, cr5+ elementals. These are some generous assumptions, in my opinion.

That's 20,000g and you have them for a day. Best get some use out of them fast. You have a bunch of elementals, and those are very limited in their applicability and power.

In 10 days, the wizard is going to have 10 minions that grossly outclass the coffeelock's temporary minions, and each last from 180 days to a year, depending on the amount of coin the wizard puts down on this. The wizard can do this by himself, and once he had built up a bit of an army, they last. True Polymorph means he is not stuck with whatever elemental, he has his pick of things in the CR range, and that dramatically increases the power.

Young dragons are just the simplest example, and allow you to provide your party with very cool mounts, but it's far from an exhaustive list. You can also make golems, more wizards, devils, demons, monstrosities that can do crazy things. I'm not even talking about game-breaking terrible ideas you shouldn't even try to push onto your DM, like getting a hydra with a hundred heads (seriously, don't do that, very poor form).

Just assuming the wizard does this a little and makes 4-5 minions, his elite summons would be dramatically more useful.

Amnestic

2022-06-24, 03:39 AM

"Coffeelock at mid T2 is blown out of the water by a wish-spamming wizard, from mid T4" as an argument seems like both a waste of time and a distraction.

More than one thing in the game can be broken. Coffeelocks are broken. Wish-spamming wizards are broken.

I'd encourage any DM wanting to not invalidate their other party members to simply talk to their players and tell them not to do it. It is absolutely fine (and reasonable) to set a boundary of "even though the text of the game might allow this, gentleperson's agreement not to do it".

It's a cooperative game. Jimmy Wishspammer turning up to a fight with 15 ancient dragons at his command while Johnny Swordfighter still hasn't unlocked "Attack 4 times with one action" aren't playing together anymore. Ditto for Dave the Druid hanging out with his 3 3rd level spell slots+2 4th level spell slot vs. Sally Sorlock who turned up with infinity 3rd level spell slots.

diplomancer

2022-06-24, 03:51 AM

Or they can just cast a spell, which interrupts a long rest. Doesn't even need to be one that uses a slot, it could be a ritual cast Alarm.

Many DMs rule it like this, and it is a possible RAW ruling, but a DM who's trying to stop the Coffeelock instead of trying to stop players from Long Resting too much (wrongheadedly trying to argue RAW instead of just banning it) will claim that the Long Rest clause is to be interpreted as "at least one hour of (walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity)" and not "(at least one hour of walking), fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity". Both interpretations are possible, but certainly doing at least one hour of those activities DOES interrupt a Long Rest.

But if he tries to do that, he has literally shot himself in the foot; he has not stopped the coffeelock (just slightly nerfed it from 8SR/(slightly more than 8 hours) to 7SR/(slightly more than 8 hours), AND he has taken away one of his best tools to police the adventuring day (i.e, the possibility of easily interrupting a Long Rest).

"Coffeelock at mid T2 is blown out of the water by a wish-spamming wizard, from mid T4" as an argument seems like both a waste of time and a distraction.

More than one thing in the game can be broken. Coffeelocks are broken. Wish-spamming wizards are broken.

I'd encourage any DM wanting to not invalidate their other party members to simply talk to their players and tell them not to do it. It is absolutely fine (and reasonable) to set a boundary of "even though the text of the game might allow this, gentleperson's agreement not to do it".

It's a cooperative game. Jimmy Wishspammer turning up to a fight with 15 ancient dragons at his command while Johnny Swordfighter still hasn't unlocked "Attack 4 times with one action" aren't playing together anymore. Ditto for Dave the Druid hanging out with his 3 3rd level spell slots+2 4th level spell slot vs. Sally Sorlock who turned up with infinity 3rd level spell slots.

The argument is more "coffeelock, though he *might* be the best class in late tier 2 and tier 3 (that's generous, I don't think a Warlock 3 Sorcerer 6 is better than a Wizard 9 in most games), is not 'the best class, period'; they're outclassed by a lot of classes before late tier 2, and, potentially, completely blown out of the water by Wizard and Bards at Tier 4". Because even at Tier 4, the Coffeelock can't have spell slots of higher than 5th level (or, to be more precise, he gets 1 cast of each for levels 6 through 9- at level 20- and then has to give up all his infinite power to get those slots again, as he can't regain them without a Long Rest, and the moment he Long Rests his infinite spells are erased and he has to start from scratch).

Captain Panda

2022-06-24, 05:11 AM

"Coffeelock at mid T2 is blown out of the water by a wish-spamming wizard, from mid T4" as an argument seems like both a waste of time and a distraction.

I'm not assuming a T2 coffeelock, I'm assuming a T4 coffeelock.

My point was that a coffeelock isn't all that special at T4, and that point stands.

More than one thing in the game can be broken. Coffeelocks are broken. Wish-spamming wizards are broken.

Tier 4 play involves crazy power. Don't DM for a party that high if you aren't ready for that. I seriously don't know why someone would subject themselves and their players to that in the first place.

I'd encourage any DM wanting to not invalidate their other party members to simply talk to their players and tell them not to do it. It is absolutely fine (and reasonable) to set a boundary of "even though the text of the game might allow this, gentleperson's agreement not to do it".

That's always the right of the DM regarding anything.

It's a cooperative game. Jimmy Wishspammer turning up to a fight with 15 ancient dragons at his command while Johnny Swordfighter still hasn't unlocked "Attack 4 times with one action"

Young dragons. In order to start getting ancient dragon minions you have to leave RAW behind and start using TRDSIC. I gave the example I did because it requires zero rules leniency or twisting a spell to do something it isn't supposed to.

It's also worth nothing you can do what I proposed without the Wish spell.

aren't playing together anymore. Ditto for Dave the Druid hanging out with his 3 3rd level spell slots+2 4th level spell slot vs. Sally Sorlock who turned up with infinity 3rd level spell slots.

Depending on the table, coffeelocks can be super broken, yeah. If you assume the casters are actually likely to run out of spells. If not, coffeelocks are just a caster who is behind in spell progression.

Though I think you're underestimating Dave the Druid. Dave the Druid summoning animals will likely still outperform Sally Sorlock.

If you are playing Tier 4 with martials, you need to deck them out with magic items and understand their limitations and worth within them. The wizard should make sure the martial character can ride one of those dragons and control them, for example, which goes a long way towards making them feel epic. A wizard being powerful doesn't mean they need to be a ball hog.

Amnestic

2022-06-24, 05:22 AM

A wizard being powerful doesn't mean they need to be a ball hog.

It doesn't, but if they're doing wish-simulacrum-planar binding shenanigans then they are being a ball-hog. There's no two ways about it. It doesn't matter how many magic items you give the fighter (and, if you're playing "legitimately", then I'm pretty sure mr wish spammer wizard with an army of dragons can acquire more magic items than the 17th level fighter can), they're just not playing the same game.

You're right on one point though: conjure animals is also broken when you let the druid summon 8 of whatever they want every time - for the same reason: Invalidation of other party members.

Captain Panda

2022-06-24, 05:42 AM

It doesn't, but if they're doing wish-simulacrum-planar binding shenanigans then they are being a ball-hog. There's no two ways about it.

Completely disagree. You can do it to the point that it's ball hogging, or you can self-regulate and not bring along an army to every session, share minions as mounts to other members of the team, and actually make things feel like they're Tier 4.

they're just not playing the same game.

Martial characters hit things. Wizards manipulate reality. The latter just scales better, and there's no way around it. If someone wants to play a level 20 fighter they should understand that before doing so. D&D is not balanced at high levels.

That said, there are still times when you want a fighter and not a wizard, even at tier 4, the situations are just much more limited. There are high level creatures that are a bit of a nuclear option for the DM and just hard counter any caster, and for those you do need a martial.

diplomancer

2022-06-24, 05:47 AM

Tier 4 play involves crazy power. Don't DM for a party that high if you aren't ready for that. I seriously don't know why someone would subject themselves and their players to that in the first place.

I believe the best way to keep Tier 4 play sane (apart from gentlemen's agreements) is to wrap up the campaign quickly. Wizards are still crazy powerful, but if from level 17 to 20 (or maybe even 15 to 20) it's one straight sequence of adventuring days without Downtime, because the party is traversing the Multiverse looking for McGuffins in a desperate race against time, that power gets far more manageable.

After the campaign is over, the Wizard, now an NPC, is free to accumulate as much Downtime power as he wants to (and what other powerful entities are willing to allow), but the Game is preserved.

Witty Username

2022-06-24, 10:41 AM

(wrongheadedly trying to argue RAW instead of just banning it)

If the DM doesn't have a solve to the rest problem, banning coffee lock isn't going to be a sufficient solve, as the problem is warlock mechanics interactions with multiclassing. Take for example the warlock wizard necromancer, now these 8 short rests are 8 castings of animate dead for an army of monsters at your beck and call.

Also reading strenuous activity as a hour or more is a bit of a safety if the DM random encounters, since being attacked by a goblin doesn't completely invalidate the long rest. So it has a bit of utility beyond coffee lock.

Beyond RAW, repeated strenuous activity without rest should risk exhaustion, IMO. The Xanathar's rules are one way to go about that, I think another would be an adaptation of the forced March rules to 8 hours without a long rest is another that could probably work with this idea.

Segev

2022-06-24, 10:47 AM

If the DM doesn't have a solve to the rest problem, banning coffee lock isn't going to be a sufficient solve, as the problem is warlock mechanics interactions with multiclassing. Take for example the warlock wizard necromancer, now these 8 short rests are 8 castings of animate dead for an army of monsters at your beck and call.

Also reading strenuous activity as a hour or more is a bit of a safety if the DM random encounters, since being attacked by a goblin doesn't completely invalidate the long rest. So it has a bit of utility beyond coffee lock.

Beyond RAW, repeated strenuous activity without rest should risk exhaustion, IMO. The Xanathar's rules are one way to go about that, I think another would be an adaptation of the forced March rules to 8 hours without a long rest is another that could probably work with this idea.

To be fair, the coffeelock is already feeling a pinch in terms of higher-level spells when coupled to Sorcerer. It almost feels worse to couple to Wizard. Yes, the Warlock 9/Necromancer Wizard 6 is going to be the ideal minionmancer...kind-of...in terms of a mighty horde of undead, but at level 15, is that really as much fun as a Warlock 15 or a Necromancer Wizard 15, or even a different multiclass for the Necromancer Wizard? I think the Warlock 9/Sorcerer 6 "feels" better because you are getting more apparent oomph out of that massive number of 5th level spell slots than out of a potent but still squishy undead horde that is nontrivial to rebuild.

kazaryu

2022-06-24, 12:29 PM

You need both Planar Binding and Conjure Elemental to do this trick (and, if you're doing this on your own, a Simulacrum, as you can't cast Planar Binding and Concentrate on Conjure Elemental at the same time). Warlocks can cast Conjure Elemental once they reach 9th level, but, horror of horrors, only once per Long Rest.

2. They can't do this themselves. The wizard can do this solo. Who is summoning the thing that the coffeelock is planar binding? It sure ain't them. And if someone else is summoning something for them to bind, why are you wasting the gold and having the coffeelock do this? 5th level is the worst, most wasteful level to cast the spell at. Now we're assuming a third party is helping the coffeelock with this bad idea, and we make no such assumptions for the wizard. this is a good point, i actually didn't realize that sorcerers get boned in the summons department. i was also under the impression that there were summons besides the elemental that actually stuck around when you concentration. so to even approach this feat the coffeelock would need to go up to 13 minimum in order to trap a planar ally. in which case they're limited by long rest resources same as the wizard. so fair enough.

1. The coffeelock has infinite 5th level slots. Planar binding lasts a day, as you mentioned. It also costs 1000g to cast. High level characters have lots of money, but it's not endless. So sure, you could have a coffeelock cast planar binding ten times (in ten hours) so you have a bunch of overpriced, short-duration summons. That's a terrible waste. the point wasn't to build up a huge horde, the point was (incorrectly) that a coffeelock could create a horde of minions of a fairly large size. this but i see no point in defending that position as I was already shown to be incorrect about spell access.

3. Let's leave the "BUT THE DM WON'T ALLOW IT!" elsewhere, please. You're talking about a coffeelock right now. If anything at a game is going to get banned, it's the TRDSIC-reliant coffeelock that goes very obviously against RAI. If a DM is allowing coffeelock it is almost certain they are going to allow a wizard to do this. The wizard doing what I outlined is RAW, just using the spells to do explicitly what they are intended to do. It's a smart way to chain them together to get some powerful minions, but this is by no means an "exploit" the authors left open that was unintended. I think if you have to say "But it's too stronk!" you're already conceding the point that a wizard just blows a coffeelock away.

Furthermore, saying "well, a DM would never allow that" is not an argument you get to make when the DM is already allowing a Coffeelock. The sort of DM that allows a Coffelock is probably a "throw me the best you've got" kind of DM; he will see dealing with the Wizard shenanigans a challenge much the same as dealing with a Coffeelock (and if he DOES allow the Coffelock but bars those single-classed shenanigans, either he's biased in favour of the Coffeelock, or the Coffelock is, in practice, much weaker than those classes that can pull off those shenanigans).

you both, dramatically missed my point. its not about 'well, a DM would allow coffeelocking but CLEARLY wouldn't allow that'. its the fact that, in order to 'prove' that coffeelock isn't broken, you cited a different broken mechanic, that would ALSO not likely be allowed by a DM. My point was that a DM would allow neither. if you wanted to disprove the power of coffeelocking at that level, you'd need to cite something that DM's would actually allow, that are also stronger than what a coffeelock can do, when at its best.

to put it another way: even if the wizard thing is more broken, that doesn't mean coffeelocks aren't. it just means that coffeelocks aren't the most broken combo in the game.

The Coffeelock reaches its peak power relative to other classes at Tier 3; before level 8 (at Warlock 3/Sorc 5) it's not very functional, and only on the longest adventuring days does it get to compensate for being 1 or 2 spell levels behind; at Tier 4, he's surpassed by Wizards and Bards.

do keep in mind, not counting a few possible mistakes, i've been trying to avoid the implication that coffeelocking is broken. my first reply to this thread was essentially 'you need a very specific campaign style in order for cofeelocking to actually lead to an increase in power. and its not a terribly common campaign style. however, in the rare instance that you're in a campaign that leans heavily into what makes coffeelocks so powerful, then they are going to be incredibly powerful.' which is effectively what you pointed out here.

and in tier 4, that remains true. Because coffeelocking does the same general thing that a wizard/bard would need to do in order to 'be stronger' than a coffeelock. tt breaks one of the main limitations that are put on casters. it doesn't matter that its 1-2 spell levels behind (or as discussed up thread, possibly even more. if you don't plan to long rest, then you really have little use for 6+level spells, since they're going to essentially be 1/month casts). at a high tier a support coffeelock can make sure that the entire party goes into combat deathward and freedom of movement active (2 spells that are technically quite powerful, but just niche enough to be rarely worth a spell slot) maybe some extra THP (up to 28) from false life (thats a more minor boon, obviously, since there are plenty of ways to get thp), extra HP from aid, etc. there are myriad buff spells that they could have ready (obviously not all at once, it depends on what they do with their sorcerer/warlock spells).

on top of that always having a spell slot ready for shield, silvery barbs, absorb elements, counterspell. they can afford to spam sanctuary on 2 targets (twin) making them much harder to hit.

out of combat, they have infinite healing (if they go DS obviously) which removes another limitation from they type of game they're most powerful in, they may always be ready to hit someone (or 2 someones) with an enhance ability. so many skill checks are going to be made at advantage. idk..there are almost certainly other things. and thats just looking at a support coffeelock. which, by itself is incredibly potent. each individual thing you can pull off may not be. but combined? even at tier 4 thats a ton of power.

a more offensive focused one can be doing 119 pre-accuracy DPR (single target). (quicken 5th level scorching ray + EB vs a hexed target) and that just their near at will damage. and that, by itself, could probably be optimized higher. thats ALOT of damage to be dealing every single round (even after accuracy).

I just don't see a wizard or bard keeping up with any of the above, in terms of effectiveness, over the course of a long adventuring day without employing a method of ignoring limitations. (i.e simulacrum spam, the above minion spam, etc.).

TLDR: coffelocking has an incredibly high theoretical limit relative to other characters. You're just...unlikely to ever run an adventuring day that really leans into their biggest strengths, much less an entire campaign of them. so, from a balance standpoint, it probably doesn't deserve to get banned anywhere near as often as it does, since most of those games probably don't have long enough adventuring days to worry about it. but its also not 'just a meme'. it does have significant benefits in medium length adventuring days, just not enough to be disruptive, like it would in long adventuring days.

Captain Panda

2022-06-24, 03:48 PM

I just don't see a wizard or bard keeping up with any of the above, in terms of effectiveness, over the course of a long adventuring day without employing a method of ignoring limitations. (i.e simulacrum spam, the above minion spam, etc.).

It really depends on the assumptions you make going in. Is it a high magic setting with a lot of downtime? Does your DM allow you to craft magic items, or buy them using Xanathar's downtime? If so, a wizard can easily outperform the damage you just listed at the same level with no minions. I would tell you how, but I suspect you'll come back with "but that's broken." XD

I think my main issue here is that while I dislike how mechanical the coffeelock feels, because it encourages really unintuitive and RP-unfriendly behavior, an optimizer can easily create a more effective build. Even if you are supposing a longer adventuring day, I still think that's the case. Even in a campaign where coffeelocks were allowed, and even if I had an interesting RP spin to put on it that didn't feel icky, I still don't think I'd want to play one because so many things are just better.

kazaryu

2022-06-24, 09:14 PM

It really depends on the assumptions you make going in. Is it a high magic setting with a lot of downtime? Does your DM allow you to craft magic items, or buy them using Xanathar's downtime? If so, a wizard can easily outperform the damage you just listed at the same level with no minions. I would tell you how, but I suspect you'll come back with "but that's broken." XD in my defense, literally my entire point throughout this thread has been coffeelocks are only strong if you have a rather specific way of playing. i've defended that strength, but only given a game that heavily leans into their style. but, as always, 'more spell slots' is really only as strong as those spell slots are neccesary. as fr as using magic items, nah, i really do try to avoid throwing the 'broken' term around. specifically because of how relative it is. i mean, if its an exploit thats unlikely to be allowed at a table. i.e. some form of infinite loop, then yeah, we're just back to the 'proving coffeelocks aren't that strong, by abusing the system in another way that is (also) unlikely to be allowed at tables'. Please don't take my disagreement to mean that I'm unwilling to listen. I think i've proven that when shown evidence i can change my mind. what items are you thinking that specifically crank wizards damage that wouldn't help a coffeelock?

I think my main issue here is that while I dislike how mechanical the coffeelock feels, because it encourages really unintuitive and RP-unfriendly behavior, this is the biggest reason I don't let coffee-locking happen at my table. at least not fulll coffeelocking. i'd probably elt a sorlock set out with a couple of extra spell slots, if they wanted to. but if it got to the point of them trying to calculate how many short rests they can get in between time A and B, then i'd be like 'yo...come on dude, we're not doing that'. i don't really run a game (most of the time) that coffeelocking would break. so its not a balance issue. i just don't like the idea of a character walking around with 200 1st level spell slots, just beause they decided to not sleep.

an optimizer can easily create a more effective build. Even if you are supposing a longer adventuring day, I still think that's the case. Even in a campaign where coffeelocks were allowed, and even if I had an interesting RP spin to put on it that didn't feel icky, I still don't think I'd want to play one because so many things are just better.

I mean...that really depends on how many spell slots you're actually able to bank, and what level you're playing at. coffeelock doesn't comes online until level 6 (unless you have a way of avoiding sleep/trance/recharge without taking 3 levels in warlock for aspect of the moon). and at that level the best you can make are second level spell slots. and, i hearilty disagree with whoever says that they're not really effective prior to level 8. i mean yeah, if you havn't had the downtime to bank spell slots, then you're not as effective. but thats...well duh. but you're still able to spam out shield/silvery barbs/ absorb elements, while also doing decent damage with hex/scorchingray/EB spam. its definitely not at OP levels yet. but its not weak.

idk...i think what im getting at is that 'better' is relative. there are always going to be things a coffeelock can bring to the table that most other builds can't. the biggest one is consistency. which is why they need those long adventuring days. since thats when consistency gets its big pay-off. (specifically in just talking about the power level here, not whether or not you should play one. i agree with you, generally, that they feel icky. although for me, i think the reason i wouldn't wanna play one (outside of like...a one-shot) is just i wouldn't wanna try to keep track of how many spell slots i generate...too much paperwork/math

Captain Panda

2022-06-25, 06:46 AM

Please don't take my disagreement to mean that I'm unwilling to listen. I think i've proven that when shown evidence i can change my mind. what items are you thinking that specifically crank wizards damage that wouldn't help a coffeelock?

Well another reason I don't want to share is because it's mildly off topic and I don't want to derail things into the Munchkin Madness Power Hour Guide to Doing Busted Stuff!

Buuut... if you're assuming mid levels, a high magic campaign where getting at least uncommon magic items isn't difficult, and multiclassing is allows (would need to be for coffeelock to be a comparable build), I present the Hexvoker. At level 11, you add your intelligence to damage rolls (+5), your proficiency (+4) (once per short rest), and then you get a bunch of wands of magic missiles and cast it at 6th level. So you'll be tossing out 1d4+1+5+4 damage per bolt, times eight bolts, for as many wands as you have. Or 1d4+1+5 on things you haven't cursed per bolt.

Or you can make a Necromancer, give your skeletons ranged weapons, and do bananas damage that way. :cool:

Or make a Chronurgist. I haven't crunched the numbers on this one, but arcane abeyance means you can double up on concentration.

All of these are DM and campaign dependent. A DM might have a setting where a swarm of undead is impractical. A DM might not let you stack up 10+ wands of magic missile even if they are uncommon and such items are cheap. A DM might hate Chronurgists and think they're terribly designed (I'd agree with them). But wizards have so many tricks of their sleeves. I'm not saying coffeelocks are bad, just that like you've been saying... they're a bit niche, and an optimizer, even one sticking to RAI+RAW and not the dubious TRDSIC you see in a lot of optimizer discussion (and believe me, I'm seen some dubious stuff passed off as 'RAW') can match what a coffeelock can do pretty easily for at least the 6-8 fights you're likely, on the high end, to encounter.

Keravath

2022-06-25, 07:25 AM

At super high level? Sure. Though I still see some problems. You need to long rest to get back the 6+ level spells, and doing so resets all of your saved spell slots. If you have tons of downtime between adventures that's not an issue, you can store spells back up, but I don't know that it's a fair assumption that you can get both endless spell slots and your high level spells. Especially since to get to those high level spell slots you are probably sacrificing warlock levels, which means you accumulate spells much more slowly.

There is also the fact that, and this is from experience, at 17+ a wizard is just straight better than a coffeelock. Assuming the coffeelock gets tons of downtime, they still are way behind compared to what a wizard (or a bard) can do with that downtime. It's not even a contest once you hit that tier.

I'm just curious but is the wizard just straight better than a sorcerer due to having a larger number of spells to choose from? A coffeelock has a couple less 6-9 level slots but substantially more 5th level ones.

Sorcerer is more limited due to spell selection but the Clockwork Soul and Aberrant Mind help a bit with that. At that sort of level, a coffeelock is just a high level sorcerer with 2-3 levels of warlock. A level 20 coffee-lock still has access to Wish though they do have a couple less high level spell slots which a coffee lock trades for 4-5 extra 5th level slots/day (8 hours of 8 short rests could be 32 sorcery points which converts into 4x 5th level slots and almost 1 x 3rd level or 2x1st. A couple of days off gives a coffee-lock effectively unlimited spell slots since they are unlikely to use up 8-10 5th level slots in an adventuring day but they have the option to do so.

What can a wizard or bard do with downtime that a sorcerer can't? The coffee-lock is just using the 8 hour long rest period that a bard or wizard would be sleeping to create spells slots. In addition, if they can take 8 short rests, what would prevent a coffeelock from taking 24 short rests in one day netting 96 sorcery points and 13 x 5th level spell slots and 1 x2nd level? One day of rest is more than enough to power up a coffee-lock for most adventuring days - at least enough that they can likely use a 5th level slots for every round of every combat if they really wanted to.

Finally, all this comes on line relatively early at the cost of delayed spell progression in the sorcerer class. From a day of 24 short rests a W1/SX gets 24 sorcery points, a W2/SX gets 48 and a W3/SX gets 96. The character needs to be a S4 to be able to hold the 4 sorcery points from the W spell slots. The character needs to be S7 to purchase 5th level slots. Finally, all of this is really available as low as W1/S2 (since 2 points are needed to buy a 1st level slot) which can have 12x 1st level spell slots after one day of rest.

How useful all of those spell slots are depends on the type of game that the DM is running. However, a WX/S6 aberrant mind sorcerer with stored spell slots can cast as many of their psychic spells as they like using sorcery points. Each of which is effectively a subtle casting as well.

Captain Panda

2022-06-25, 07:37 AM

What can a wizard or bard do with downtime that a sorcerer can't? The coffee-lock is just using the 8 hour long rest period that a bard or wizard would be sleeping to create spells slots. In addition, if they can take 8 short rests, what would prevent a coffeelock from taking 24 short rests in one day netting 96 sorcery points and 13 x 5th level spell slots and 1 x2nd level? One day of rest is more than enough to power up a coffee-lock for most adventuring days - at least enough that they can likely use a 5th level slots for every round of every combat if they really wanted to.

Well, at high levels we can go back to the planar binding trick. At mid levels? Xanathar's is really, really generous to bards with downtime. They can gamble for reliable 1000g a week if they pick the right skills, and the skill they'll usually have (persuasion) makes them ideally suited to magic item shopping. Again, if allowed. Downtime is campaign dependent, but I'm assuming Xanathar's is used.

I think you might be overestimating 5th level spells compared to 9th level ones. A single 9th level spell (especially if, like the wizard and bard, you get the best picks) far outweighs a bunch of 5th level slots if you have the time to plan.

kazaryu

2022-06-25, 08:38 AM

Buuut... if you're assuming mid levels, a high magic campaign where getting at least uncommon magic items isn't difficult, and multiclassing is allows (would need to be for coffeelock to be a comparable build), I present the Hexvoker. At level 11, you add your intelligence to damage rolls (+5), your proficiency (+4) (once per short rest), and then you get a bunch of wands of magic missiles and cast it at 6th level. So you'll be tossing out 1d4+1+5+4 damage per bolt, times eight bolts, for as many wands as you have. Or 1d4+1+5 on things you haven't cursed per bolt.[/qupte] oh, yeah, i hadn't actually considered this, since i don't actually think it works. but you're right it is an option. although 6th level is also only 68 damage (im not counting hexblades curse because 1. its not near at will like the 119 its being compared to. and 2. its an ability that coffeelocks have access to, and use as well, or better depending on the level you compare)., granted the damge from MM is consistent, but its onlt 'better' in a fight where accuracy is <~58%. since we're assuming magic items, lets say that the coffeelock has a + 1 wand of the war mage. that means they have a +10 to hit with their attacks. that would put the break point at AC 19-20. which is pretty high for monsters. sure SOME monsters are gonna have ac 19-20. but even in that range, they're performing similarly damage. while the coffeelock is also able to consistently drop counterspells/silvery barbs. thats hardly 'better'. but i agree that its a far less janky way of achieving a similar damage. and has the...'benefit' of being fairly costly, so its less weird ruleswise.

Or you can make a Necromancer, give your skeletons ranged weapons, and do bananas damage that way. :cool:
you can definitely achieve higher damage with this. im not even gonna do the math since a single skeleton has hte potential to do what...1d6+2+6 so like...11 damage per hit. you only need 11 of them to match the coffeelocks pre-accuracy damage (although obvi skeletons are a lot less accurate) and thats super easy to grab. but i still wouldn't call this 'better'. for one your skeletons are super easy to target. and while i don't generally wanna play the 'yeah but what if the DM plays your exact counter' game. i feel like there's a distinct difference between 'dm drops fireball on you skeletons' and 'all of the DM's important monsters can either cast globe of invulnerability, or come with the limited magic immunity feature'. so again...idk if thats 'better' so much as its 'sort of the same, with a much larger weakness'. the skeletons are also not going to be able to do basically any of the other things that a coffeelock can, that isn't straight damage.
[qiote]Or make a Chronurgist. I haven't crunched the numbers on this one, but arcane abeyance means you can double up on concentration. don't need to crunch the numbers. remember the assumption is you're playing in a game where spell efficiency is important. since we're definitely both agreed that that is the only type of game worth considering. arcane abeyance allows you to double up concentration..but that also means you're your spells faster. so sure, for an individual fight. you'd outperform the coffeelock, but you'd also run outta spell slots that much faster.

All of these are DM and campaign dependent. A DM might have a setting where a swarm of undead is impractical. A DM might not let you stack up 10+ wands of magic missile even if they are uncommon and such items are cheap. A DM might hate Chronurgists and think they're terribly designed (I'd agree with them). But wizards have so many tricks of their sleeves. I'm not saying coffeelocks are bad, just that like you've been saying... they're a bit niche, and an optimizer, even one sticking to RAI+RAW and not the dubious TRDSIC you see in a lot of optimizer discussion (and believe me, I'm seen some dubious stuff passed off as 'RAW') can match what a coffeelock can do pretty easily for at least the 6-8 fights you're likely, on the high end, to encounter. coffeelocksing isn't TRDSIC.the closest it comes is whether or not you're capped on spell slots you can create with the font of magic feature. and even that, explicitly, creates spell slots, rather than refilling existing ones. its really not TRDSIC.

either way, i think we've exhaused this discussion. thank you for remaining so cordial, i do appreciate a good, earnest, debate.

Keravath

2022-06-25, 08:48 AM

If a wizard at 17+ is trying to accumulate power, it's really, really easy to make the coffeelock look like a total joke. There are a lot of tricks, but here's a simple one that assumes you have a few days, the wish spell, and true polymorph.

1. Hard cast simulacrum (1500g at 17+ is pretty cheap).
2. Cast conjure elemental at 8th level.
3. Your simulacrum uses a 9th level slot to wish planar bind the elemental you summon.
4. Cast true polymorph on the big xorn and turn it into a young dragon.

One day and 1500g spent, and now you have a young dragon pet for 180 days.

If you have excess time but not gold, instead you would need to wish cast simulacrum to save the money, which means it doesn't have a 9th level slot. Wait a day and have it cast 8th level conjure elemental (big xorn). Use wish to planar bind it at 8th level. The next day you true poly it into something. Same principle applies, except now it's free of gold cost.

Alternatively, on day 1 just true polymorph a cow into ruby and use those to fuel any and all spell component needs, and from there you have a daily pet dragon. Makes coffeelocks look really anemic, right?

Nope. Makes sorcerers look anemic. Maybe makes clerics, bards and any other caster look anemic - though a bard can probably manage it using Magical Secrets.

All this does is rely on some wizard only spells to create an option that isn't easily available other classes. Coffee-locks literally have nothing to do with your example. However, a sorcerer and similarly a coffee-lock could replicate this over a few days if they really wanted to.

For a more reasonable comparison look at a level 20 sorcerer vs a level 17/18/19 sorcerer - 3/2/1 warlock.

Also, a coffee-lock isn't just a level 20 character. How does a level 4 character 1 warlock/3 sorcerer with ~8 extra second level slots, 11x 2nd level slots total (after one day of rest) compare to any other caster who has 3x 2nd level slots?

Coffee-lock basically comes down to whether or not having spell slots is a constraint on a caster in your games or not. If a caster runs out of spell slots casting a spell every combat round then a coffee-lock has an advantage. If characters never run out of spell slots casting one every round then coffee-lock has no benefit. e.g. would you rather cast fire bolt every round or scorching ray every round?

Coffee-locks are more of an issue at low level where spell slot availability can actually be a significant resource constraint.

Keravath

2022-06-25, 09:04 AM

Well, at high levels we can go back to the planar binding trick. At mid levels? Xanathar's is really, really generous to bards with downtime. They can gamble for reliable 1000g a week if they pick the right skills, and the skill they'll usually have (persuasion) makes them ideally suited to magic item shopping. Again, if allowed. Downtime is campaign dependent, but I'm assuming Xanathar's is used.

I think you might be overestimating 5th level spells compared to 9th level ones. A single 9th level spell (especially if, like the wizard and bard, you get the best picks) far outweighs a bunch of 5th level slots if you have the time to plan.

Sure. However, a level 17 sorcerer also has access to 6-9th level spells including Wish. Though I completely agree that a wizard gets a much better selection of 9th level spells and bards have Magical Secrets at 18th level which nets them a couple of the whatever the "best" 9th level spells might be. However, that isn't a discussion of whether a coffee-lock is useful or not - it is a comparison of high level spell choices for sorcerer/wizard/bard. A coffee-lock is a 9th level spell caster AND has unlimited 5th level slots and the meta magic to enhance all of their spells.

In addition, the coffee-lock starts working as early as level 3 removing spell slot resource constraints from the character (if that actually matters in the game being played).

Personally, I think the coffee-lock, through at least tier 3, has an advantage due to being able to cast an unlimited number of 5th level spells every adventuring day. Does this "feature" make it more "powerful" than a 20th level wizard with all of the variety of spells available to them? I'd say no. Mostly because there aren't that many adventuring days that would deplete all of the spell slots of a 20th level wizard and if you aren't using all of the spell slots then a coffee-lock has no appreciable benefit (at least no different than any other sorlock).

Honestly though, what other class in the entire game can match a level 20 wizard this way? (except maybe Bard by picking up some wizard spells ... though they still won't have the flexibility of a spell book). So, I am not sure what the value is in saying a coffee-lock isn't overpowered based on comparing to a level 20 wizard?

diplomancer

2022-06-25, 09:23 AM

Sure. However, a level 17 sorcerer also has access to 6-9th level spells including Wish. Though I completely agree that a wizard gets a much better selection of 9th level spells and bards have Magical Secrets at 18th level which nets them a couple of the whatever the "best" 9th level spells might be. However, that isn't a discussion of whether a coffee-lock is useful or not - it is a comparison of high level spell choices for sorcerer/wizard/bard. A coffee-lock is a 9th level spell caster AND has unlimited 5th level slots and the meta magic to enhance all of their spells.

In addition, the coffee-lock starts working as early as level 3 removing spell slot resource constraints from the character (if that actually matters in the game being played).

Personally, I think the coffee-lock, through at least tier 3, has an advantage due to being able to cast an unlimited number of 5th level spells every adventuring day. Does this "feature" make it more "powerful" than a 20th level wizard with all of the variety of spells available to them? I'd say no. Mostly because there aren't that many adventuring days that would deplete all of the spell slots of a 20th level wizard and if you aren't using all of the spell slots then a coffee-lock has no appreciable benefit (at least no different than any other sorlock).

Honestly though, what other class in the entire game can match a level 20 wizard this way? (except maybe Bard by picking up some wizard spells ... though they still won't have the flexibility of a spell book). So, I am not sure what the value is in saying a coffee-lock isn't overpowered based on comparing to a level 20 wizard?

The only way a Sorcerer is doing the minions-trick is if he has something like the Mark of the Storm Half-Elf, that gets Conjure Elementals; otherwise, even with Wish, he's out-of-luck, as Wish only gives him ONE spell, and he needs more than that. Even if he DOES have that power, he has to do it a lot more slowly; cast Conjure Elemental at 8th level and Wish ti planar-bind it. Wait a day. Cast True Polymorph to turn it into a Dragon. Wait a day. Rinse and repeat.

Wizards and Bards are going to have all the spells they need to do the trick, so they don't have to do it relying only on Wish (in fact, they will just rely on Wish to save money, they don't need it at all).

And of course, if he's a coffeelock, he's only doing that at 20th level, while Wizards and Bards are doing that from 17th level. And at 20th levele, it's *really* unlikely you are going to get a lot of downtime before the campaign wraps up.

Keravath

2022-06-25, 10:14 AM

The only way a Sorcerer is doing the minions-trick is if he has something like the Mark of the Storm Half-Elf, that gets Conjure Elementals; otherwise, even with Wish, he's out-of-luck, as Wish only gives him ONE spell, and he needs more than that. Even if he DOES have that power, he has to do it a lot more slowly; cast Conjure Elemental at 8th level and Wish ti planar-bind it. Wait a day. Cast True Polymorph to turn it into a Dragon. Wait a day. Rinse and repeat.

Wizards and Bards are going to have all the spells they need to do the trick, so they don't have to do it relying only on Wish (in fact, they will just rely on Wish to save money, they don't need it at all).

And of course, if he's a coffeelock, he's only doing that at 20th level, while Wizards and Bards are doing that from 17th level. And at 20th levele, it's *really* unlikely you are going to get a lot of downtime before the campaign wraps up.

Ok. However, I think I am still missing the point. All the example of wizards and bards casting cool spells at level 17+ shows is that these classes can do cool things that the other classes can't. Doesn't matter what class or multi-class you are talking about.

In addition, coffee-lock spell slots only make any difference at all in games where casters use all of their higher level spell slots in an adventuring day. I've said that several times. Coffee-lock doesn't make any difference (isn't OP) if casters only end up needing 2-3 level 5 spell slots for the day. Coffee-lock has no real benefit then.

I seem to get the impression that you are arguing that coffee-locks aren't overpowered at all because at high levels wizards and bards are so much better.

Whereas, all I've ever said is that coffee-locks are overpowered WHEN spell slot resources matter.

This typically is a bigger issue at lower levels than at higher ones where a coffee-lock could cast scorching ray every round in a fight, could cast fireball every round even if it only gets 1 or 2 targets, could cast Cone of Cold every round, could cast hypnotic pattern over and over until enough of the targets fail that is worth maintaining concentration, could cast or upcast banishment over and over until the targets fail their save - lack of spell slot resource constraint is the ONLY benefit of a coffee-lock and this is less of an issue at high level.

Captain Panda

2022-06-25, 10:47 AM

A coffee-lock is a 9th level spell caster AND has unlimited 5th level slots and the meta magic to enhance all of their spells.

I don't agree with that assessment. If you long rest to get back your big spells (which is a good idea, because big spells are great), you don't have unlimited 5th level slots anymore. You have expanded 5th level slots based on how many short rests you can get, and since you're only warlock 3 (and this is at level 20, keep in mind, long time to wait to get both) the amount you store up isn't that stellar, takes longer, and is far from unlimited.

Actually in the campaign I've been running for seven years that would work, since you have a week of downtime between sessions, but I think in most campaigns most of the time this would be something you can't bank on. So even though there might be niche cases where you can be both a level 17 sorcerer and a coffeelock, I would not bank on that happening, and you can only really do that at levels 19 and 20.

Honestly though, what other class in the entire game can match a level 20 wizard this way? (except maybe Bard by picking up some wizard spells ... though they still won't have the flexibility of a spell book). So, I am not sure what the value is in saying a coffee-lock isn't overpowered based on comparing to a level 20 wizard?

Well the point was that coffeelocks aren't broken compared to other, comparable options. The wizard being better was to point out that in tier 4, coffeelocks aren't that great. In tier 2, I'd rather be a druid. In tier 3-4, I'd rather be a wizard or bard. In tier 1, they aren't online yet.

sambojin

2022-06-25, 08:02 PM

Just for some sane rules:

Coffeelock: the extra spell slots created with sorcery points disappear within 24hrs. Resting, sleeping, or not. You can only do it from pact slots once every 24hrs, or risk the wrath of your patron for getting too big for your boots (that will soon be stolen from your dead corpse). Do it while long-resting for all I care, it's pretty hard-capped to be similar to Arcane/Natural Recovery, or Cleric Divinity slots, but you got short-rest spell-slots during the day and invocations and stuff too (but didn't get better spell levels or upcasts for it as well, other than your "Natural" Sorcery levels of being able to do this).

Wish: it requires an artifact as the material component. This component is consumed on casting, with a basic non-magical, non-artifact item leftover. This makes it the epic level spell it should be, not the utility belt with casting breakages it is. Explains why casters go searching for artifacts as well. "This sword? Yeah, that's so I can cast anything or bend reality even more, at a whim. I'm never going to use it as a sword, and I'm never going to use it for that, unless I *really* need to."

Simulacrum: doesn't exist. It's a stupid spell. If it does exist, the simulacrum doesn't get any long-rest or short-rest resources, including spell slots, and can't rest either. It will eventually die of exhaustion. Makes for pretty good Rogues and Fighters, but almost no other possibilities, especially magical ones. Sure, have your Champion-fighter moving-statue to protect you, or your task-Thief/Assasin for "missions", but only so hard, and only for so long. Plus, it helps to get you to know some people, from all walks of society.

Planar Binding: the type of things you are Binding notice that you are enslaving their/a people, and do come and get you for it. Even really good celestials hate the thought of mortals enslaving demons or evil dragons or stuff that they are very-much-against existing normally. 1 or 2, for a really good reason? That's fine, as long as you release them and reward them once it's done, and looked out for them while bound. An enslaved cohort? You'd better believe you are going to get crumped for that, regardless of the reasons or supposed need behind doing it.

Gate: no-one likes their plane being used as garbage disposal. They will come and get you, if you keep doing it. Souls get messed up from that stuff, and leave blights upon their death-screams in that place. Expect an extra-planar invasion soon. Someone detected that gate opening on their plane, and where it came from. And can probably feel what you did, and how unfair that death was, to the recipient. And injustice makes the most unlikely of friends, against even "heroes".

Conjure Animals: it is actually 1/2/4/4 beasts summoned, with a maximum of four beasts summoned per cast. It just speeds things up a lot, at low and high levels, and offers massive incentive to casting higher CR beasts at higher levels. Remember, they're also fey. Do not constantly splat little fey spirits. There is an entire plane with some very serious beings that agree that splatting low CR fey is not a good thing to do, unless they're the one doing it. Where-as, having the occasional Bear spirit that rips and tears and then goes down, is fine. At least it was scary enough. You might get a Giant Eagle upgrade on your next flight if you do it right 🙂

Conjure Woodland Beings. Either Pixies don't exist, or they don't have casting. If they do exist, they're CR2. Same 1/2/4/4 thing, with four summons max, as above. Remember, they're thinking/feeling Fey. They *can* be nice, but it's not a given. You'd better damn well have some spare Goodberries, at the very least, for this level o' richardens la Fey. They can report back to the Feywild on your behaviour.

Conjure Minor Elementals: suprisingly enough, no-one cares for these little buggers, not even them. Dust to dust, fire to fire, whatever. Still 1/2/4/4 with 4 max, but these are "harnessable" on the "they're literally Mephits and co". They're not only going to probably try and mess with stuff, they're probably going to mess-up trying to mess with stuff. They are your comedy relief as a druid.

Yeah, coffeelock's are legal. But most DMs are sane, and do punish repeated stupid stuff, even if they are pretty permissive on what can happen in a campaign.

Captain Panda

2022-06-26, 08:48 AM

Just for some sane rules:
-snip-

The thread is about if Coffeelocks are broken and discussion around that. Dunno why you saw that as an invitation to post a buffet of largely unrelated house rules.

XmonkTad

2022-06-27, 02:32 PM

Coffelock is good, but I wouldn't say "broken". Cheesy goodness, but not broken. IMO, its power comes from the ability to unload your biggest, most useful spells every round, and via sorc, modify them to be the best they can be without worrying about opportunity cost. Every round can have a reaction defensive spell (shield, AA, SB, counterspell), every round can have a transmuted AoE or a new concentration spell buff/debuff. That's really good, but it doesn't mean that the coffelock is the best at everything all the time.

Is it too much? Depends on DM and player comfort. I'd likely have to buff the martials, but the other casters in the party probably aren't too jealous of unlimited "wall of force" when they get forcecage.

quindraco

2022-06-27, 09:53 PM

I don't agree with that assessment. If you long rest to get back your big spells (which is a good idea, because big spells are great), you don't have unlimited 5th level slots anymore. You have expanded 5th level slots based on how many short rests you can get, and since you're only warlock 3 (and this is at level 20, keep in mind, long time to wait to get both) the amount you store up isn't that stellar, takes longer, and is far from unlimited.

Actually in the campaign I've been running for seven years that would work, since you have a week of downtime between sessions, but I think in most campaigns most of the time this would be something you can't bank on. So even though there might be niche cases where you can be both a level 17 sorcerer and a coffeelock, I would not bank on that happening, and you can only really do that at levels 19 and 20.

Well the point was that coffeelocks aren't broken compared to other, comparable options. The wizard being better was to point out that in tier 4, coffeelocks aren't that great. In tier 2, I'd rather be a druid. In tier 3-4, I'd rather be a wizard or bard. In tier 1, they aren't online yet.

Why are we assuming everyone is making a cocainelock with 17 sorcerer levels? Depending on how you build it and your DM's house-rules, you need 5, 7, or 9 sorcerer levels to fully enable the cocainelock (including infinite L5 slots). Climbing to higher and higher sorcerer levels does let you hold more sorcery points at once, which can matter plenty, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily worth going whole hog into sorcerer like that. Granted, Warlock 3 is also pretty good, but you only need Warlock one to get the ball rolling on infinite spell slots, so it's also weird just assuming Warlock 3. You should have room after making a cocainelock, in general, to add in e.g. some Paladin or Bard levels.

kazaryu

2022-06-27, 10:18 PM

Why are we assuming everyone is making a cocainelock with 17 sorcerer levels? Depending on how you build it and your DM's house-rules, you need 5, 7, or 9 sorcerer levels to fully enable the cocainelock (including infinite L5 slots). Climbing to higher and higher sorcerer levels does let you hold more sorcery points at once, which can matter plenty, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily worth going whole hog into sorcerer like that. Granted, Warlock 3 is also pretty good, but you only need Warlock one to get the ball rolling on infinite spell slots, so it's also weird just assuming Warlock 3. You should have room after making a cocainelock, in general, to add in e.g. some Paladin or Bard levels.

minor correction, you need 7 levels minimum (in sorcerer) in order to enable infinite L5 spell slots. and 9 levels in order to use those spell slots most effectively. cocainelock legitimately is a meme considering you can get all the benefits of it from taking 2 extra level in warlock (while also doubling the rate at which you can generate spell slots).

and thats probably why people are assuming 3 levels of warlock instead of 1. its the most efficient way to bring coffeelock online. otherwise you're 1. locked into going DS sorcerer. and 2. have to wait until level 10 in order to be even remotely online, instead of lvl 5 like you get from going warlock 3. remember, coffeelocking requires 3 things. 1. spell slots that come back on a short rest. 2. a way to convert those spell slots into permanent spell slots. 3. the ability to avoid long rest (the third requirement is only due to the nature of how you accomplish requirement 2). 1 warlock level unlocks the first requirement. but unless you've got access to greater restoration (and enough money to cast it every day) then the ball isn't rolling.

you *are* correct that you don't need to go the full 17 in sorcerer if you're fully leaning into the coffeelock.