Were CoffeeLocks put in there intentionally?

[Daithi]

CoffeeLocks have unlimited 5th level and lower spells, but no higher level spells --- they could get them but could never recover them without a long rest. So, at high levels a coffeelock might be interesting compared to a high level spellcaster. I doubt this was planned, but it's interesting anyway.

(Imaging a battle: High level caster uses Wish --- "I wish the coffeelock would take a long rest.")

[tsotate]

If you think those are cherry-picking, pick a level and a build (including which very limited sorcerer spells and metamagics you took) and you’ll see there are always considerable tradeoffs. It’s better at some levels and worse at others, but it’s always there.

Well, Coffeelock (or any Sorlock) pulls ahead at 18/2, but that's more because the Sorcerer capstone is so bad than because of any virtue of the build.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, Coffeelock (or any Sorlock) pulls ahead at 18/2, but that's more because the Sorcerer capstone is so bad than because of any virtue of the build.

Coffeelock needs 3 levels warlock at minimum. And any sorlock is better off with three levels warlock for all of the extra sorcery points / spell slots you can create that way.

[Dudewithknives]

Coffeelock needs 3 levels warlock at minimum. And any sorlock is better off with three levels warlock for all of the extra sorcery points / spell slots you can create that way.

Something I always wondered, if you are not going to really keep above 5th level spells much why not cap off at 9th or so levels of sorcerer anyway.

Like 3 warlock, 9 sorcerer, then take something else, maybe even more warlock.

[Easy_Lee]

Something I always wondered, if you are not going to really keep above 5th level spells much why not cap off at 9th or so levels of sorcerer anyway.

Like 3 warlock, 9 sorcerer, then take something else, maybe even more warlock.

That would be my choice. More warlock, paladin, bard, even rogue would have merit. Paladin is probably the "optimal" choice, but warlock would be my preference.

[Dudewithknives]

That would be my choice. More warlock, paladin, bard, even rogue would have merit. Paladin is probably the "optimal" choice, but warlock would be my preference.

Yeah. Me too.

I was thinking sorcerer 9, warlock 10, fighter 1.
Or
Sorcerer 9 warlock 9, paladin 2.

Depends on if you want another smite to use or hexblade level 10 ability.

Technically you could go warlock 10, sorcerer 8, paladin 2 and still get your 5th level slots.just no sorcerer specific 5th level spells.

[Zene]

Well, Coffeelock (or any Sorlock) pulls ahead at 18/2, but that's more because the Sorcerer capstone is so bad than because of any virtue of the build.

Yeah in my first comment I’d said they are arguably stronger than straight-classed sorcerers at CL20 (with a 17/3 build), but any level below CL 20 they have both strengths and weaknesses compared to straight-classed sorcs or warlocks.

That comment you quoted was following up on someone who disagreed with that second part.

But yeah I’m totally in agreement with you. 17/3 or 18/2 (whether that second one is a coffeelock or not) are both incredibly strong builds. In large part because sorc class and subclass capstones suck.

[RickAllison]

I don't think my DM would allow me to be a Divine CoffeeLock with 5th level slots. I can barely be trusted with two slots for Geas, much less a blank check of them...

[Talamare]

A DM kinda of has to allow a javalock to function

At any point if a player claims he will take 6 short rests in a row, a DM can just be like 'no'

[Easy_Lee]

A DM kinda of has to allow a javalock to function

At any point if a player claims he will take 6 short rests in a row, a DM can just be like 'no'

Neither statement is accurate. A DM can ban any build he wants but has no control over player actions. Deciding to rest is an action. Trust me when I say you do NOT want to DM in the manner you suggested. Angry players will destroy your campaign.

[RickAllison]

A DM kinda of has to allow a javalock to function

At any point if a player claims he will take 6 short rests in a row, a DM can just be like 'no'

A DM can houserule that, but he then HAS to allow a PC to be rebuilt. By the rules, a CoffeeLock can take all those short rests, and you cannot force him to take a long rest. If you houserule it so those don't work (which a DM can do), you can't then expect a PC to continue with a neutered build. It would be no different than houseruling that a Booming Blade+Polearm Master doesn't work and leaving them stuck with a build that cannot function as it spent valuable resources were spent to do. It would be the same as telling a Barbarian/Druid that they cannot Bear Rage in Bear Wild Shape. All of those are houserules that are counter to the rules that a player can consider during character creation. By disallowing such combos, you have changed the rules that applied to the character's creation, and a PC should be able to alter the build to not be screwed over.

Basically, a DM can't just say "no". He can houserule it so the normal rules do not apply, but a non-tyrannical DM must allow a rebuild. After all, that is a major change to make in the middle of the game.

[Naanomi]

So... Divine Soul Coffeelocks can have an arbitrarily large horde of Animate Dead minions right?

[LeonBH]

So what is your point? D&D is not about being able to do everything. If it was, everyone would play a Lore Bard.

I dont know, man. You ignored an entire reply I wrote. What is my point? Well, CoffeeLock is strong and should not be written off the way you are doing so.

[Ganymede]

Deciding to rest is an action.

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.

[Easy_Lee]

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.

Hey, you're one of those people who demands your players roleplay everything and wants full mechanical control of the outcome! I can't stand your style of DMing. I wouldn't play with you.

[LeonBH]

Pick a level, and make a comparison.
-Lock 2 / sorc 2? Congrats, you can blast as well as a warlock, but don’t have L2 spells.

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.

-Lock 2 /Sorc 3? Ok build is online now. Good at eldritch blasting, but won’t get level 3 spells (like his straight-classed brethren) for 2 more levels. No counterspells. No fireballs. He’s also got far less sorc points (again, without massive DM buy-in to let him cycle infinite L2 spellslots) than a L5 sorcerer. He can blast great, but he’s going to run out of fuel quick.

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.

Anyway, at this level, CoffeeLocks could pull off infinite Empowered Scorching Rays at this level. Or to perhaps really cheese it out, Quickened Empowered Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast, reaching 35 average damage before the Hex or Empowered Spell comes in.

-Loc 2 / Sorc 15? You don’t get Wish (or True Res if you’re divine soul) for 2 more levels. That’s a huge sacrifice. Even worse if you went Lock 3. And even if your DM lets you do the “infinite L5 slots” trick, you are going to really feel that lack of L9 (or maybe even L8) spells.

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

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.

[Ganymede]

Hey, you're one of those people who demands your players roleplay everything and wants full mechanical control of the outcome! I can't stand your style of DMing. I wouldn't play with you.

Dude, if you want to be a DM, just be a DM.

[LeonBH]

Something I always wondered, if you are not going to really keep above 5th level spells much why not cap off at 9th or so levels of sorcerer anyway.

Like 3 warlock, 9 sorcerer, then take something else, maybe even more warlock.

Sensible, but the CoffeeLock wants at least Level 10 in Sorcerer because they pick the 3rd metamagic at Level 10, and they get 1 more Sorc point. They would be sacrificing further Sorc Points by multiclassing another class... which isn't bad, considering they have an infinite supply of them, but the lower maximum number means they have to convert spell slots to Sorc Points more often, which ties up their bonus action.

Also, a CoffeeLock can totally long rest. If they can get a week of downtime, for example, they could sleep for the first night (recover L6+ spells), and then begin stockpiling on the lower level spells again after that.

[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.

No, it isn't

If you take the Attack action to hit a guard, the DM does not get to adjust and say, no you did not really attack.

Same as it says right there in the book that taking an hour to do nothing but rest and or eat is a short rest, does not mean the DM can just say, no you do not get any benefit of that rest.

That is total BS.

Where I play, if you change a base mechanic of the game with the express intent of cheating a player out of what his character can do, in plain print, in the PHB, using no optional rules, after the game has already started, that is going to get you banned as a dm, and possibly pulled over a table.

[Mikal]

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.

Wrong, sorry.
Players can describe their attempted actions as they want. So a player is completely validated in saying they attempt to take x short rests if they so wish.

Heck the first example in the phb is one person saying "we'll take the east door." for the entire group!

In your mind this would be invalid because they didn't go "Adventurer X firmly grasps the knob and turns it clockwise, enjoying the fine craftsmanship of the grain on the wood." or something equally florid.

So yeah. Wrong, from a RAW perspective.

[Ganymede]

No, it isn't

If you take the Attack action to hit a guard, the DM does not get to adjust and say, no you did not really attack.

Same as it says right there in the book that taking an hour to do nothing but rest and or eat is a short rest, does not mean the DM can just say, no you do not get any benefit of that rest.

That is total BS.

Where I play, if you change a base mechanic of the game with the express intent of cheating a player out of what his character can do, in plain print, in the PHB, using no optional rules, after the game has already started, that is going to get you banned as a dm, and possibly pulled over a table.

I think you are confusing "Action," the portion of your turn during a combat encounter that allows you to perform various generic or class-specific tricks, with "action," a thing your PC does.

[Mikal]

I think you are confusing "Action," the portion of your turn during a combat encounter that allows you to perform various generic or class-specific tricks, with "action," a thing your PC does.

No he's pretty much right

[LeonBH]

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.

Ganymede is correct.

I have one reason for this: if the players said they were going to take a long rest, but in the middle of the night were interrupted and could not complete their rest, they should still earn a short rest (even if they did not specify it) because they've already rested for, like, 4 hours at this point.

Alternatively, if they declared they were taking a short rest and, after 1 hour, they decided to just go for a long rest instead, they should spend only 7 more hours resting to complete it.

[Dudewithknives]

Sensible, but the CoffeeLock wants at least Level 10 in Sorcerer because they pick the 3rd metamagic at Level 10, and they get 1 more Sorc point. They would be sacrificing further Sorc Points by multiclassing another class... which isn't bad, considering they have an infinite supply of them, but the lower maximum number means they have to convert spell slots to Sorc Points more often, which ties up their bonus action.

Also, a CoffeeLock can totally long rest. If they can get a week of downtime, for example, they could sleep for the first night (recover L6+ spells), and then begin stockpiling on the lower level spells again after that.

I would not play a sor/lock, it is not my style, but I would definately use one in an NPC enemy in a game.

I am thinking blade pact hexblade 9, shadow sorcerer 10, fighter 1.

Built as an archer, with the new eldritch smite, improved pact weapon, thirsting blade, and some invocation for utility.

[Dudewithknives]

Ganymede is correct.

I have one reason for this: if the players said they were going to take a long rest, but in the middle of the night were interrupted and could not complete their rest, they should still earn a short rest (even if they did not specify it) because they've already rested for, like, 4 hours at this point.

Alternatively, if they declared they were taking a short rest and, after 1 hour, they decided to just go for a long rest instead, they should spend only 7 more hours resting to complete it.

That is not what his point was.

His point was that you can sit and rest, for an hour, and then the DM gets to decide if he wants you to get the benefit of that short rest or not.

[Mikal]

That is not what his point was.

His point was that you can sit and rest, for an hour, and then the DM gets to decide if he wants you to get the benefit of that short rest or not.

And he also claimed an action can't be described as a player saying "I take a short rest" but "I sit around a campfire drinking my elven wine" or some such none sense.

Not the description itself, but the opinion that the description is what's needed and you can't say "short rest".

[Easy_Lee]

Dude, if you want to be a DM, just be a DM.

I do both. I assumed everyone here knew that by now. I'm not exactly a stranger on the forums.

[LeonBH]

That is not what his point was.

His point was that you can sit and rest, for an hour, and then the DM gets to decide if he wants you to get the benefit of that short rest or not.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he meant "players cannot declare their rests are short rests or long rests. Their characters do an action (like sip wine for 8 hours), and the DM adjudicates the result of that action (long rest)."

To me, he was not saying that the DM can decide to not give you a short rest if you fulfill all the requirements of a short rest. He was saying players cannot declare they are taking short rests or long rests, they must instead declare what they are doing (like sleep for 8 hours) and the DM translates that into a short or long rest.

If this was not the case, if the players can decide what kind of rest they're taking, then getting interrupted after a 4 hour long-rest-in-the-making will not become a short rest, because the players already decided to take a long rest.

Which leads me to the thing I said just before this, wherein I explained why Ganymede is right.

[Ganymede]

That is not what his point was.

His point was that you can sit and rest, for an hour, and then the DM gets to decide if he wants you to get the benefit of that short rest or not.

That was most definitely not my point.

LeonBH elaborated on my point nicely above.

[Talamare]

Neither statement is accurate. A DM can ban any build he wants but has no control over player actions. Deciding to rest is an action. Trust me when I say you do NOT want to DM in the manner you suggested. Angry players will destroy your campaign.

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

A DM can houserule that, but he then HAS to allow a PC to be rebuilt. By the rules, a CoffeeLock can take all those short rests, and you cannot force him to take a long rest. If you houserule it so those don't work (which a DM can do), you can't then expect a PC to continue with a neutered build. It would be no different than houseruling that a Booming Blade+Polearm Master doesn't work and leaving them stuck with a build that cannot function as it spent valuable resources were spent to do. It would be the same as telling a Barbarian/Druid that they cannot Bear Rage in Bear Wild Shape. All of those are houserules that are counter to the rules that a player can consider during character creation. By disallowing such combos, you have changed the rules that applied to the character's creation, and a PC should be able to alter the build to not be screwed over.

Basically, a DM can't just say "no". He can houserule it so the normal rules do not apply, but a non-tyrannical DM must allow a rebuild. After all, that is a major change to make in the middle of the game.

DM can absolutely force him to take a long rest, by RAW in multiple different versions of the statement
Also, the build isn't neutered
Warlocks is a strong class
Sorcerer is a strong class
Warlock Sorcerer Multiclass is an incredibly strong class
So, yea there has been no neutering. You're as strong as everyone else is
As far as rebuilding. It sounds like the person isn't there to enjoy the game with others. It sounds like the person is there to intentionally exploit as many loop holes.
Maybe not? Does it matter?

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he meant "players cannot declare their rests are short rests or long rests. Their characters do an action (like sip wine for 8 hours), and the DM adjudicates the result of that action (long rest)."

To me, he was not saying that the DM can decide to not give you a short rest if you fulfill all the requirements of a short rest. He was saying players cannot declare they are taking short rests or long rests, they must instead declare what they are doing (like sleep for 8 hours) and the DM translates that into a short or long rest.

If this was not the case, if the players can decide what kind of rest they're taking, then getting interrupted after a 4 hour long-rest-in-the-making will not become a short rest, because the players already decided to take a long rest.

Which leads me to the thing I said just before this, wherein I explained why Ganymede is right.

I can agree with that, tho I will admit it wasn't really my original argument.
You made a strong statement; Credit for it is all yours.