Target a 5x5x5 area and choose the 8 creature option.
You don't get to choose an area, you just get to choose a range - they "appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range".
Okay here is a flaw in that logic. The range of the spell is 90 ft. You are 30 ft in front of the enemy on a flat plain, you cast this spell and get 2 fire snakes. If you don't get to choose the area, the gm can have them spawn 90 ft behind you. (120 ft away from the enemy) they then have to spend 2 full turns dashing to the foe, to then have to wait for the 3rd turn before they can start attacking.
The really weird thing is that you actually don’t need any of these shenanigans at all. Nowhere in the spell description does it say that the dm picks what creatures appear, and the table of example creatures are just that - examples. So when a character casts this spell they get to choose. The only reference to a dm in the spell is saying that the dm will have the stats for whatever creature you do choose.
The really weird thing is that you actually don’t need any of these shenanigans at all. Nowhere in the spell description does it say that the dm picks what creatures appear, and the table of example creatures are just that - examples. So when a character casts this spell they get to choose. The only reference to a dm in the spell is saying that the dm will have the stats for whatever creature you do choose.
I really have never understood the lengths some folks will go to in order to force coffeelocking to work no matter what the DM says. People dig and dig and dig and dig for some way to lock things down so resoundingly that no DM can ever tell them no. "I WILL have infinite free spell slots forever and there's nothing you can do about it without breaking the rules/game."
I'll admit, with my DM Hat on, I'd be strongly tempted to answer with "Okay. You have infinite free spell slots forever. Your party uses infinite free spell slots forever to win the campaign, but your character goes irrevocably insane and commits suicide due to the horrible twisting corruption of containing vastly more magical power than a mortal body and soul were ever meant to hold. I'll have a pitch for a new campaign in the next few weeks; the warlock class is forbidden because clearly I cannot trust you people to have nice things. Steve? You and I are going to talk, and the results of that talk will determine whether or not you are invited to the next campaign at all. Session dismissed."
Or, to put it simply: you cannot get one over on the DM. No matter how hard you try. Because the DM can always decide putting up with your bullying and whining and endless machinations simply isn't worth it and stop running the game, in which case congratulations: you've gotten one over on yourself, and all your tablemates whose game you just ruined.
I really have never understood the lengths some folks will go to in order to force coffeelocking to work no matter what the DM says. People dig and dig and dig and dig for some way to lock things down so resoundingly that no DM can ever tell them no. "I WILL have infinite free spell slots forever and there's nothing you can do about it without breaking the rules/game."
I'll admit, with my DM Hat on, I'd be strongly tempted to answer with "Okay. You have infinite free spell slots forever. Your party uses infinite free spell slots forever to win the campaign, but your character goes irrevocably insane and commits suicide due to the horrible twisting corruption of containing vastly more magical power than a mortal body and soul were ever meant to hold. I'll have a pitch for a new campaign in the next few weeks; the warlock class is forbidden because clearly I cannot trust you people to have nice things. Steve? You and I are going to talk, and the results of that talk will determine whether or not you are invited to the next campaign at all. Session dismissed."
Or, to put it simply: you cannot get one over on the DM. No matter how hard you try. Because the DM can always decide putting up with your bullying and whining and endless machinations simply isn't worth it and stop running the game, in which case congratulations: you've gotten one over on yourself, and all your tablemates whose game you just ruined.
The only reason why I work with coffee locks is for the fun of it. I will never play them in game because they are to convoluted. It's a fun experiment on paper. That's all.
There's also the fact that if I play a over tooled character, like the coffee lock, the gm would have to raise the difficulty to give me a challenge. Which could be detrimental to the rest of the party.
To me coffee locks fall into the same category of 1st level flight characters. Great for theory craft but horrible for play.
The really weird thing is that you actually don’t need any of these shenanigans at all. Nowhere in the spell description does it say that the dm picks what creatures appear, and the table of example creatures are just that - examples. So when a character casts this spell they get to choose. The only reference to a dm in the spell is saying that the dm will have the stats for whatever creature you do choose.
But it does mention it in the SA, which should be considered RAW.
I don’t think I have ever read a ‘sage advice’, not sure I even know how to find it. I treat the entire thing in the same way that Jeremy blokes tweets should be taken - as their own personal opinion. There is one dev in particular that is widely known in the community to consistently post incorrect information in sage advice.
I don’t think I have ever read a ‘sage advice’, not sure I even know how to find it. I treat the entire thing in the same way that Jeremy blokes tweets should be taken - as their own personal opinion. There is one dev in particular that is widely known in the community to consistently post incorrect information in sage advice. Of course the DM can choose to ignore it.
This is what the SAC has to say about official rulings. The SAC is part of the core rules where "thet Jeremy blokes tweets" are not. To find it without the link look under sources on DnDBeyond
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
I really have never understood the lengths some folks will go to in order to force coffeelocking to work no matter what the DM says. People dig and dig and dig and dig for some way to lock things down so resoundingly that no DM can ever tell them no. "I WILL have infinite free spell slots forever and there's nothing you can do about it without breaking the rules/game."
I'll admit, with my DM Hat on, I'd be strongly tempted to answer with "Okay. You have infinite free spell slots forever. Your party uses infinite free spell slots forever to win the campaign, but your character goes irrevocably insane and commits suicide due to the horrible twisting corruption of containing vastly more magical power than a mortal body and soul were ever meant to hold. I'll have a pitch for a new campaign in the next few weeks; the warlock class is forbidden because clearly I cannot trust you people to have nice things. Steve? You and I are going to talk, and the results of that talk will determine whether or not you are invited to the next campaign at all. Session dismissed."
Or, to put it simply: you cannot get one over on the DM. No matter how hard you try. Because the DM can always decide putting up with your bullying and whining and endless machinations simply isn't worth it and stop running the game, in which case congratulations: you've gotten one over on yourself, and all your tablemates whose game you just ruined.
From my perspective, coffeelocks are doomed by definition. They take power granted by their patron in a very specific way - use these spells that I gave you with these spell slots that I gave you - and they use sorcery to take that power as their own to use as they please. Coffeelocks don't just abuse the 5e ruleset, they abuse the power they are granted in-game and I think it stretches believability that a patron would stand for it.
I don’t think I have ever read a ‘sage advice’, not sure I even know how to find it. I treat the entire thing in the same way that Jeremy blokes tweets should be taken - as their own personal opinion. There is one dev in particular that is widely known in the community to consistently post incorrect information in sage advice. Of course the DM can choose to ignore it.
This is what the SAC has to say about official rulings. The SAC is part of the core rules where "thet Jeremy blokes tweets" are not. To find it without the link look under sources on DnDBeyond
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
My own view on it is that the hint is in the name - Sage ADVICE. At the end of the day, they are professional writers, they get paid to write clearly and accurately. They are meant to be experts in writing, so there shouldn’t be any distinction between RAW and RAI because they should have written it properly in the first place. If they can’t write clearly then they are failing at their jobs and should be replaced by someone competent. I do understand the argument for DM choosing what creatures appear but I don’t agree with it. In the games I run, the player chooses - though I will veto something totally stupid, and I expect them to pick something appropriate to current environment such as not summoning velociraptors under water.
I don’t think I have ever read a ‘sage advice’, not sure I even know how to find it. I treat the entire thing in the same way that Jeremy blokes tweets should be taken - as their own personal opinion. There is one dev in particular that is widely known in the community to consistently post incorrect information in sage advice. Of course the DM can choose to ignore it.
This is what the SAC has to say about official rulings. The SAC is part of the core rules where "thet Jeremy blokes tweets" are not. To find it without the link look under sources on DnDBeyond
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
My own view on it is that the hint is in the name - Sage ADVICE. At the end of the day, they are professional writers, they get paid to write clearly and accurately. They are meant to be experts in writing, so there shouldn’t be any distinction between RAW and RAI because they should have written it properly in the first place. If they can’t write clearly then they are failing at their jobs and should be replaced by someone competent. I do understand the argument for DM choosing what creatures appear but I don’t agree with it. In the games I run, the player chooses - though I will veto something totally stupid, and I expect them to pick something appropriate to current environment such as not summoning velociraptors under water.
Sometimes, people make mistakes at work. Happens in literally every profession. Then, they try and correct that mistake. In the case of D&D, they do it through the sage advice column.
I don’t think I have ever read a ‘sage advice’, not sure I even know how to find it. I treat the entire thing in the same way that Jeremy blokes tweets should be taken - as their own personal opinion. There is one dev in particular that is widely known in the community to consistently post incorrect information in sage advice. Of course the DM can choose to ignore it.
This is what the SAC has to say about official rulings. The SAC is part of the core rules where "thet Jeremy blokes tweets" are not. To find it without the link look under sources on DnDBeyond
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
My own view on it is that the hint is in the name - Sage ADVICE. At the end of the day, they are professional writers, they get paid to write clearly and accurately. They are meant to be experts in writing, so there shouldn’t be any distinction between RAW and RAI because they should have written it properly in the first place. If they can’t write clearly then they are failing at their jobs and should be replaced by someone competent. I do understand the argument for DM choosing what creatures appear but I don’t agree with it. In the games I run, the player chooses - though I will veto something totally stupid, and I expect them to pick something appropriate to current environment such as not summoning velociraptors under water.
Sometimes, people make mistakes at work. Happens in literally every profession. Then, they try and correct that mistake. In the case of D&D, they do it through the sage advice column.
Agreed. Every single product and game and mostly anything else has had questions concerning it and trying to get some info clarified. You can do you and as the DM, that's your prerogative; however, as stated the SAC are the official rules. Now with that said, I actually agree, let the players decide since as the dm we already have so much on our plate. If there is a creature you dont wont, you want to limit the spell or others, or just outright ban it then let people know up front.
Simply put, there are two clear and easy ways to have a perfectly sustainable Coffeelock that doesn't require any components he can't create himself, and which don't play so closely with the wordings of specific spells as seen in the above debate.
1: College of Creation Bard, minimum 5 levels so you can create a pre-fractured diamond that just needs a tap to turn it into the diamond dust needed for the Greater Restoration. You need a minimum of 9 levels of Sorcerer to be able to create L5 spell slots so you can keep casting Greater Restoration every day. That leaves you with up to six levels that you can put into Warlock. For this to work, you need to either be a Divine Soul Sorcerer for the access to Greater Restoration, or you need to have the Witherbloom Student background to add it to your spell lists.
2: 10 levels of Ranger so you can remove a level of Exhaustion on a Short Rest (The 10th level benefit from the Deft Explorer feature), then you can split the rest of your levels between any combination of Sorcerer and Warlock you want.
Neither of these come online until fairly late game, but both of them are 100% RAW. So as stated by the OP, more useful for theory-crafting than in practice.
Okay here is a flaw in that logic. The range of the spell is 90 ft. You are 30 ft in front of the enemy on a flat plain, you cast this spell and get 2 fire snakes. If you don't get to choose the area, the gm can have them spawn 90 ft behind you. (120 ft away from the enemy) they then have to spend 2 full turns dashing to the foe, to then have to wait for the 3rd turn before they can start attacking.
The really weird thing is that you actually don’t need any of these shenanigans at all. Nowhere in the spell description does it say that the dm picks what creatures appear, and the table of example creatures are just that - examples. So when a character casts this spell they get to choose. The only reference to a dm in the spell is saying that the dm will have the stats for whatever creature you do choose.
this solves it
I am leader of the yep cult:https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/82135-yep-cult Pronouns are she/her
I really have never understood the lengths some folks will go to in order to force coffeelocking to work no matter what the DM says. People dig and dig and dig and dig for some way to lock things down so resoundingly that no DM can ever tell them no. "I WILL have infinite free spell slots forever and there's nothing you can do about it without breaking the rules/game."
I'll admit, with my DM Hat on, I'd be strongly tempted to answer with "Okay. You have infinite free spell slots forever. Your party uses infinite free spell slots forever to win the campaign, but your character goes irrevocably insane and commits suicide due to the horrible twisting corruption of containing vastly more magical power than a mortal body and soul were ever meant to hold. I'll have a pitch for a new campaign in the next few weeks; the warlock class is forbidden because clearly I cannot trust you people to have nice things. Steve? You and I are going to talk, and the results of that talk will determine whether or not you are invited to the next campaign at all. Session dismissed."
Or, to put it simply: you cannot get one over on the DM. No matter how hard you try. Because the DM can always decide putting up with your bullying and whining and endless machinations simply isn't worth it and stop running the game, in which case congratulations: you've gotten one over on yourself, and all your tablemates whose game you just ruined.
Please do not contact or message me.
The only reason why I work with coffee locks is for the fun of it. I will never play them in game because they are to convoluted. It's a fun experiment on paper. That's all.
There's also the fact that if I play a over tooled character, like the coffee lock, the gm would have to raise the difficulty to give me a challenge. Which could be detrimental to the rest of the party.
To me coffee locks fall into the same category of 1st level flight characters. Great for theory craft but horrible for play.
But it does mention it in the SA, which should be considered RAW.
I don’t think I have ever read a ‘sage advice’, not sure I even know how to find it. I treat the entire thing in the same way that Jeremy blokes tweets should be taken - as their own personal opinion. There is one dev in particular that is widely known in the community to consistently post incorrect information in sage advice.
This is what the SAC has to say about official rulings. The SAC is part of the core rules where "thet Jeremy blokes tweets" are not. To find it without the link look under sources on DnDBeyond
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
Here is the link to the SAC on conjure minor elements https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA175
From my perspective, coffeelocks are doomed by definition. They take power granted by their patron in a very specific way - use these spells that I gave you with these spell slots that I gave you - and they use sorcery to take that power as their own to use as they please. Coffeelocks don't just abuse the 5e ruleset, they abuse the power they are granted in-game and I think it stretches believability that a patron would stand for it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
My own view on it is that the hint is in the name - Sage ADVICE. At the end of the day, they are professional writers, they get paid to write clearly and accurately. They are meant to be experts in writing, so there shouldn’t be any distinction between RAW and RAI because they should have written it properly in the first place. If they can’t write clearly then they are failing at their jobs and should be replaced by someone competent. I do understand the argument for DM choosing what creatures appear but I don’t agree with it. In the games I run, the player chooses - though I will veto something totally stupid, and I expect them to pick something appropriate to current environment such as not summoning velociraptors under water.
Sometimes, people make mistakes at work. Happens in literally every profession. Then, they try and correct that mistake. In the case of D&D, they do it through the sage advice column.
Agreed. Every single product and game and mostly anything else has had questions concerning it and trying to get some info clarified. You can do you and as the DM, that's your prerogative; however, as stated the SAC are the official rules. Now with that said, I actually agree, let the players decide since as the dm we already have so much on our plate. If there is a creature you dont wont, you want to limit the spell or others, or just outright ban it then let people know up front.
Simply put, there are two clear and easy ways to have a perfectly sustainable Coffeelock that doesn't require any components he can't create himself, and which don't play so closely with the wordings of specific spells as seen in the above debate.
1: College of Creation Bard, minimum 5 levels so you can create a pre-fractured diamond that just needs a tap to turn it into the diamond dust needed for the Greater Restoration. You need a minimum of 9 levels of Sorcerer to be able to create L5 spell slots so you can keep casting Greater Restoration every day. That leaves you with up to six levels that you can put into Warlock. For this to work, you need to either be a Divine Soul Sorcerer for the access to Greater Restoration, or you need to have the Witherbloom Student background to add it to your spell lists.
2: 10 levels of Ranger so you can remove a level of Exhaustion on a Short Rest (The 10th level benefit from the Deft Explorer feature), then you can split the rest of your levels between any combination of Sorcerer and Warlock you want.
Neither of these come online until fairly late game, but both of them are 100% RAW. So as stated by the OP, more useful for theory-crafting than in practice.
it specifically states in Warforged and aspect of the moon you do not require sleep.
This means you will never long rest unless you want to and there are no draw backs.
Please check the long rest rulings. Sleep != long rest. Even if you don’t need to sleep, you still need to long rest.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.