Were CoffeeLocks put in there intentionally?

[Dudewithknives]

No, deciding to have some downtime in front of the camp fire while enjoying a glass of elven wine is an action. Receiving the benefits of a rest is a DM-adjudicated result of that action.

This quote completely contradicts what you say your point is.

If the group decides to sit by the fire and sip wine, assuming that lasts one hour that is a short rest.

Receiving the benefit of that rest is not a dm adjucation, that is a core game mechanic of 5th edition.

For a dm to adjucate whether or not you get the benefit of the action you just completed, as properly described in the book, as the example that you yourself gave, is completely wrong.

A simple yes or no here:

If the group sits down, has a meal and rests for one full hour, thus completing what is written directly in the book as being a short rest, that you as a dm can just say, no, you do not get any benefit from that?

[Easy_Lee]

Yea...

More than likely, the majority players will be angry at the 1 moron at the corner who is trying to destroy the campaign
Especially after everyone else hears "Oh, I'm going to take 6 short rests in a row, to exploit this mechanic"

Hell, even the players will be like 'no'

So yes...

YOU ABSOLUTELY WANT TO DM IN THE WAY I SUGGEST
Because 1 player shouldn't ruin the experience of half a dozen

Your entire argument requires that we accept the premise that coffeelock will "destroy the campaign." You do understand that, right? I hope you do. It's not complicated, and I like to assume I'm talking to intelligent people.

Coffeelocks only destroy the campaign if they're played by malicious players. Never assume a player is malicious purely based on his build.

[Talamare]

If the group sits down, has a meal and rests for one full hour, thus completing what is written directly in the book as being a short rest, that you as a dm can just say, no, you do not get any benefit from that?

Yea, thats fine in my book

but when he says...

I do it 5 more times in a row, that I will be like... no
You get the benefit of 1 short rest

[LeonBH]

A simple yes or no here:

If the group sits down, has a meal and rests for one full hour, thus completing what is written directly in the book as being a short rest, that you as a dm can just say, no, you do not get any benefit from that?

I would like to extend this question with my own.

If a player declares "I will take X short rests in a row" and rests for X hours in a row, and if their fellow player decided to take a long rest for the same duration and so rests for X hours in a row, have they both taken different actions?

[Talamare]

Your entire argument requires that we accept the premise that coffeelock will "destroy the campaign." You do understand that, right? I hope you do. It's not complicated, and I like to assume I'm talking to intelligent people.

Coffeelocks only destroy the campaign if they're played by malicious players. Never assume a player is malicious purely based on his build.

Incorrect
My entire argument requires that we accept the premise that the coffeelock PLAYER will "destroy the campaign." After you told him that he can't have his precious little coffeelock exploit.
Oh, and it's not my argument...

IT'S YOUR ARGUMENT!

Angry players will destroy your campaign.

[Ganymede]

If the group sits down, has a meal and rests for one full hour, thus completing what is written directly in the book as being a short rest, that you as a dm can just say, no, you do not get any benefit from that?

You still think that I was suggesting a DM would deny the benefits of a short rest to a party. I was not suggesting that in the slightest.


Your hypothetical group can rest assured (Edit: unintentional pun) that, as soon as they concluded their meal and began their adventure anew, they would receive the benefits of a short rest.

[Dudewithknives]

I would like to extend this question with my own.

If a player declares "I will take X short rests in a row" and rests for X hours in a row, and if their fellow player decided to take a long rest for the same duration and so rests for X hours in a row, have they both taken different actions?

Yes, I would say they each took different actions, assuming that the sorlock did what they normally do and spent about a minute or so burning warlock spell slots, creating sorcery points and then converting them to sorcerer spell slots. Those take bonus actions, you can not take a described action during g a short rest, so he can not gain the benefits of rest while he is doing that.

Is it a power gaming move and a complete rules exploit, absolutely. That is why I fixed it with a houserule about 2 days after I bought the phb.

However, that was my house rule. By the book it is perfectly legal to do, I just hate it, and will not allow it.


Also, this may have been covered somewhere either in sage advice or something, but where does it say that a sorcerer can create more spell slots than their maximum in the first place?

I have a sorlock in my game currently, he is perfectly free to short rest and cycle burn warlock spells to sorcerer spells, but he still can not go over his max spell slots of that level based on the chart for sorcerer.

Ex. If the sorlock, according to his levels of sorcerer has one 4th level spell slot, he can refilled that slot as long as he has sorcerer points, but he can not go above one 4th level spell slot. So he can refill, but no having like three 4th level slots.

[LeonBH]

Yes, I would say they each took different actions, assuming that the sorlock did what they normally do and spent about a minute or so burning warlock spell slots, creating sorcery points and then converting them to sorcerer spell slots. Those take bonus actions, you can not take a described action during g a short rest, so he can not gain the benefits of rest while he is doing that.

Is it a power gaming move and a complete rules exploit, absolutely. That is why I fixed it with a houserule about 2 days after I bought the phb.

However, that was my house rule. By the book it is perfectly legal to do, I just hate it, and will not allow it.


Also, this may have been covered somewhere either in sage advice or something, but where does it say that a sorcerer can create more spell slots than their maximum in the first place?

I have a sorlock in my game currently, he is perfectly free to short rest and cycle burn warlock spells to sorcerer spells, but he still can not go over his max spell slots of that level based on the chart for sorcerer.

Ex. If the sorlock, according to his levels of sorcerer has one 4th level spell slot, he can refilled that slot as long as he has sorcerer points, but he can not go above one 4th level spell slot. So he can refill, but no having like three 4th level slots.

Regarding taking different actions, the act of converting spell slots to sorcery points does not actually end a short rest, and it certainly doesn't interrupt a long rest. It takes 600 rounds of combat to end a long rest, by the RAW and by the RAI. Conversion is not strenuous activity that takes long enough.

So a CoffeeLock who spends a minute or two converting Pact Magic slots into Spellcasting slots every hour will still not have interrupted a long rest, and it certainly will not end a short rest.

If you put a CoffeeLock who rests for X hours, and another player who rests for X hours, they are different actions? If you look at one character, they have rested for X hours. If you look at the other, they have also rested for X hours. Considering that spell slot conversion does not break a rest, those are not the same actions?

---

To your question, RAW does not say the Sorcerers can create more than their maximum spell slots. Do you mean to tell me, that this means they cannot?

What the RAW say is that the Sorcerers can create spell slots, full stop. They can create spell slots without any attached conditions. This is unlike Wizards or Druids, which can only recover expended spell slots.

Your house rule prevents one corner case ability of the straight-classed Sorcerer. At level 6, when the Sorcerer only knows 3rd level spells and has 3rd level slots, they can convert all 6 of their Sorcery Points into a single 4th level slot. They have no 4th level spells, but the straight-classed Sorcerer can upcast any spell of theirs to 4th level by default. Similarly, at level 7, when they only have 4th level spells and 4th level slots at maximum, a straight-classed Sorcerer can create a 5th level slot and cast a 5th level Fireball, two levels before other casters can.

It sacrifices all their metamagic, so it's not usually a good idea, but it is a feature of the straight-classed Sorcerer regardless.

EDIT: If the pure Sorc does this, they can still cannibalize their 1st and 2nd level spells for Sorc Points, enabling them to still do metamagic while also casting one level higher than their maximum at that level. In fact, if they planned on only casting 5th level Fireballs when every other caster can cast at 4th level, max, the pure Sorcerer can create four 5th level spell slots at level 7, and still have five Sorcery Points for metamagic.

[krugaan]

it's amazing we can have two identical threads on this.

[LeonBH]

Actually, I started this thread speculating on if CoffeeLock was intentional (and there are some good opinions provided on both sides, if you read down the first page). And then it seemed to get derailed...

[Zene]

Sure, but not having Metamagic yet makes this a bad level to judge a CoffeeLock on. It's like saying a Sorcadin is weak because a Sorc 2/Paladin 2 is weak.

Besides, unlimited Shield is very useful at this level.



If we're talking about the same CoffeeLock, he must already by cycling infinite L2 spell slots, and never run out of fuel. If he ran out of fuel, we are not talking about the same CoffeeLock.

So you're implying they stockpiled infinite level 1 slots while at character level 4, and those carried over to CL 5...nope. DMs decide when level up takes effect, and nearly every DM I've played with (and all AL DMs, by rule) don't let you level up unless you've taken a long rest (or in AL, at the end of the session, after which nothing carries forward unless the DM allows it to anyway). So you're not carrying over your infinite slots at character level 4, to character level 5, unless the DM is being really lenient. Just one of the many DM buy-ins required to make this work the ridiculous way you seem to think it always does.

Are you sure? Have you played this build up to that high level?

Yup. T4 (Lock 3 / Sorc 16), in AL. And I'm fully aware of the awesome stuff they can do. I'm also fully aware of the tradeoffs and downsides, as I've made explicitly clear but you seem to be content to keep ignoring.

Because this guy is a Sorlock as well, his day is made up of, possibly, Quickened Empowered L5 Fireball plus Empowered Eldritch Blast + Hex. And against monsters that cast level 9 spells, he can Subtle Counterspell on every turn.

Yup. He can quicken fireball and eldritch blast, while the straight sorcerer can quicken fireball and then a weaker cantrip, but in exchange has higher-level spells to choose from. And they both can drop one Subtle Counterspell every round. And a DM could throw two casters at either of them, and neither one can do anything about the second spell flung at them in a round.

How is this game-breaking?

The main idea about CoffeeLock is infinite spell slots and infinite metamagics. Yes, it is weaker as an individual Sorcerer or an individual Warlock -- that is because it's a multiclass build, and all multiclass build have that issue. But the synergy between the Sorcerer and Warlock classes adds something to the table that neither a pure Sorcerer or a pure Warlock can get.

Pick another casting class, like a Wizard, and tell them they can ignore all spell slots and cast without worrying about running out of spells. Does it seem broken? If no, then we cannot reach the same page. If yes, then think about why it seems that way and realize the CoffeeLock and the unlimited Wizard share the same reasons for their apparent brokenness.

Ok dude, so let's see...
...you cut out the parts of my post where I say they are quite strong at some things, and weak at others...
...and then you attempt to counter my examples of where they're weak by pointing out where they're strong (which doesn't counter what I was saying at all)...
...and you cut out the parts where I point out that infinite slots can only happen with significant DM buy-in, and instead just assume there are infinite slots and infinite sorcery points all the time to support your point...
...and then ignore the part where I challenge you to find a level where they are flat-out stronger than single classes, without significant tradeoffs (other than level 20)...
...and then you reiterate my exact point (they are stronger than a straight class in some ways, and weaker in others), again, while still failing to realize that that's in direct conflict with your complaints earlier (and general current tone) about them being flat-out-better than straight classes...
...and then you make the (erroneous) claim (again) that they can cast whatever they want all day and never run out (though they are capped at level 5 slots, and even that requires significant DM buy-in to say "oh sure yeah you just had a month of downtime to cycle slots after that last level-up, no prob")...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Whelp, it's pretty clear you're not interested in actual discussion, so I'll just leave it here then. Have a good night.

[krugaan]

Actually, I started this thread speculating on if CoffeeLock was intentional (and there are some good opinions provided on both sides, if you read down the first page). And then it seemed to get derailed...

No, I'm fairly sure it was not intentional.

I think the fact it has not been errata-d out *might* be intentional.

[LeonBH]

Good night to you Zene. I was going to read your entire reply, but your last sentence cuts off any discussion and you assume very rudely that I am talking with you in bad faith. So I shall leave it unread.

[Mikal]

Actually, I started this thread speculating on if CoffeeLock was intentional (and there are some good opinions provided on both sides, if you read down the first page). And then it seemed to get derailed...

My opinion is that it wasn't intentional, but they also don't see it as an issue. If they did, they would have neutered it with errata previously.
I just think they are short staffed and not skilled enough in looking for loopholes that they didn't correct it, nor have they issued errata to help remove this larger exploit.

[Easy_Lee]

Incorrect
My entire argument requires that we accept the premise that the coffeelock PLAYER will "destroy the campaign." After you told him that he can't have his precious little coffeelock exploit.
Oh, and it's not my argument...

IT'S YOUR ARGUMENT!

Players don't get angry when you tell them not to play X, generally. They get angry when you talk down to them, aren't clear up front, or are passive-aggressive. This is why I keep emphasizing that D&D is a social game. Go in with negative assumptions about other players and there's a good chance you'll have a bad time.

My opinion is that it wasn't intentional, but they also don't see it as an issue. If they did, they would have neutered it with errata previously.
I just think they are short staffed and not skilled enough in looking for loopholes that they didn't correct it, nor have they issued errata to help remove this larger exploit.

I agree with this. I don't think the build is a problem by itself. But from what I know of Crawford, I don't think he would like it. Mearls probably wouldn't care as long as the player RP'd it and didn't try to break his campaign - this, I think, is the correct mentality to have toward any build.

[JackPhoenix]

Another thing: developers shouldn't playtest their own products. That is true about TTRPG developers, video game programmers, homebrewers, anyone. They have certain assumptions about how the game they made should work, and RAI is a thing. Playtesting should be done with unafflicted people, who don't (subconstiously or not) try to play "the way it should be played" and try to look for exploits and how to break the game. They don't know RAI, only RAW and any interactions resulting from it.

Look at 3e: WotC made the game with the assumption that the game should be played with Big Stupid Fighter, Skillmonkey Rogue, Healbot Cleric and Blaster Wizard. They haven't realised that the most powerful combinations leads to "martials that are one trick ponies overpowered at one thing, but useless at anything else (Uberchargers, for example)", CoDzilla and God Wizard.

[UrielAwakened]

I mean I think it's pretty clear, to me at least, that "Short Rest" and "Long Rest" are short-hands for "1 hour" and "6-8 hours" reasonably speaking, right?

Like I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if something lasts until you long rest, it's fair to also add the addendum, "Or 8 hours pass, whichever comes first."

[LeonBH]

I mean I think it's pretty clear, to me at least, that "Short Rest" and "Long Rest" are short-hands for "1 hour" and "6-8 hours" reasonably speaking, right?

Like I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if something lasts until you long rest, it's fair to also add the addendum, "Or 8 hours pass, whichever comes first."

Seems fair, though off the top of my head, I don't know if that addendum neuters other builds besides the CoffeeLock.

[Dudewithknives]

Seems fair, though off the top of my head, I don't know if that addendum neuters other builds besides the CoffeeLock.

Not really, I can not think of any other class that would really gain anything from multiple short rests in a row.

However the idea of X short rests = a long rest based on time is a little iffy because it is dependent on what the character was doing i that time frame.
you could do something in between short rests that would disqualify you from getting along rest, intentional or not.

Ex.

Sorlock takes a short rest, refills, cycles.

Takes about 15 mins while he is cycling and using bonus actions to see if he can go find a deer/rabbit whatever to shoot with his EB for food in the morning, finds one, shots it and kills it.

That would mean that time could not be used for a long rest but he could still just take another short rest a few mins later.

[Naanomi]

Seems fair, though off the top of my head, I don't know if that addendum neuters other builds besides the CoffeeLock.

Maybe a few other ‘Lock multiclass exploiters... maybe a lock/Wizard wanting to throw up repeated Fabricate, Wall of Stone, or (most dangerously) Animate Dead on the refillable slots

[LeonBH]

Not really, I can not think of any other class that would really gain anything from multiple short rests in a row.

However the idea of X short rests = a long rest based on time is a little iffy because it is dependent on what the character was doing i that time frame.
you could do something in between short rests that would disqualify you from getting along rest, intentional or not.

Ex.

Sorlock takes a short rest, refills, cycles.

Takes about 15 mins while he is cycling and using bonus actions to see if he can go find a deer/rabbit whatever to shoot with his EB for food in the morning, finds one, shots it and kills it.

That would mean that time could not be used for a long rest but he could still just take another short rest a few mins later.

I agree that X short rests in a row cannot automatically be a long rest. The Errata makes it clear a long rest must have at least 6 hours of sleep. The CoffeeLock just has to not sleep.

But per RAW, a short rest is at least 1 hour long and can be interrupted by strenuous activity. This means if they did strenuous activity before the 1st hour completes, the short rest isn't earned. And you could say that two 1-hour rests separated by strenuous activity in between as a single 2-hour short rest that was interrupted in the middle, thus earning no short rest, or only earning the benefits of the second half since the first half was interrupted.

[krugaan]

...And you could say that two 1-hour rests separated by strenuous activity in between as a single 2-hour short rest that was interrupted in the middle, thus earning no short rest, or only earning the benefits of the second half since the first half was interrupted.

I think i just figured out how the guys in the other thread are rationalizing it. When the book says "at least one hour long" I was taking that as a minimum requirement. Others see it as a ... lets call it a "guideline". A short rest is uninterrupted rest at least an hour long ... but the unspoken addendum in this case is "or however long I choose, longer than an hour."

That is ... ah ... not a position I like, frankly.

[LeonBH]

I think i just figured out how the guys in the other thread are rationalizing it. When the book says "at least one hour long" I was taking that as a minimum requirement. Others see it as a ... lets call it a "guideline". A short rest is uninterrupted rest at least an hour long ... but the unspoken addendum in this case is "or however long I choose, longer than an hour."

That is ... ah ... not a position I like, frankly.

It is a position that keeps with RAW just as much as the other view though. A short rest is 1 hour at minimum, but it could be 2 hours, or 3 hours, or even 8 hours. It's also a position that prevents the chaining of short rests (ie, abusing the rest mechanic), so it's probably more in line with RAI, but I couldn't tell you that for sure.

[Naanomi]

It doesn't need Wizard. Divine Soul has acess to Animate Dead (Cleric Spell) and Wall of Stones.

Yeah, but a dedicated undead pet-General doesn’t care about stats much and gets both numbers and power boost for being a Necromancer

[LeonBH]

Yeah, but a dedicated undead pet-General doesn’t care about stats much and gets both numbers and power boost for being a Necromancer

Well. Hmm. If the necromancer was a CoffeeLock (and unpoliced by the DM), they could cast Animate Dead without bound.

[krugaan]

It is a position that keeps with RAW just as much as the other view though. A short rest is 1 hour at minimum, but it could be 2 hours, or 3 hours, or even 8 hours. It's also a position that prevents the chaining of short rests (ie, abusing the rest mechanic), so it's probably more in line with RAI, but I couldn't tell you that for sure.

This i disagree with. If you tell me that if I draw a line "at least an inch long" you'll give me a cookie, and then I draw one two inches long, but you tell me to keep drawing, I'm going to be pissed.

[LeonBH]

This i disagree with. If you tell me that if I draw a line "at least an inch long" you'll give me a cookie, and then I draw one two inches long, but you tell me to keep drawing, I'm going to be pissed.

Well, to not mischaracterize the analogy, it's more: I tell you to draw a line at least an inch long and I give you a dollar. Then you draw a two inch line and argue that you should get 2 dollars for it.

Either way, that interpretation also keeps with the letter of the rule, in the same way that chained short rests also keeps with the letter of the rule. It also doesn't violate Rules As Written. What it does, is it stops chained short rests, which is already an abuse of the game mechanic.

It's a position that stops abuse of the rest mechanic.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, to not mischaracterize the analogy, it's more: I tell you to draw a line at least an inch long and I give you a dollar. Then you draw a two inch line and argue that you should get 2 dollars for it.

Either way, that interpretation also keeps with the letter of the rule, in the same way that chained short rests also keeps with the letter of the rule. It also doesn't violate Rules As Written. What it does, is it stops chained short rests, which is already an abuse of the game mechanic.

It's a position that stops abuse of the rest mechanic.

Thief rogues with the Healer feat can heal or bring people back to 1HP as a bonus action without expending spell slots or similar. Is that an abuse of the rules?

I ask because it combines complimentary mechanics to produce a superior effect, just like the coffeelock. Where do you draw the line, and why?

[LeonBH]

Thief rogues with the Healer feat can heal or bring people back to 1HP as a bonus action without expending spell slots or similar. Is that an abuse of the rules?

I ask because it combines complimentary mechanics to produce a superior effect, just like the coffeelock. Where do you draw the line, and why?

I'm not going to answer your first question because I feel like it is a patronizing one. The Healer feat grants an ability. You are asking me if it's an abuse of the rules to use that ability.

I would like you to clarify your second question though. It seems like a good line of discussion. Draw the line of what? Where do I draw the line between use and abuse? Line between use of complimentary mechanics or abuse of them?

[krugaan]

Well, to not mischaracterize the analogy, it's more: I tell you to draw a line at least an inch long and I give you a dollar. Then you draw a two inch line and argue that you should get 2 dollars for it.

Either way, that interpretation also keeps with the letter of the rule, in the same way that chained short rests also keeps with the letter of the rule. It also doesn't violate Rules As Written. What it does, is it stops chained short rests, which is already an abuse of the game mechanic.

It's a position that stops abuse of the rest mechanic.

Heh, if the dollars are rests, and inches is time, then it really should be:

For every line you draw at least an inch long, you get a dollar.
If you draw a line 8 inches long with no more than an inch of gap, you get .. a long dollar.

I didn't draw a two inch line, i drew two one inchers.



Eh, at this point we can agree to disagree, civilly. Have a beer, pal.