Hexblade warlock is powerful for the wrong reasons and warlock

[Davrix]

So after playing my lv 10 hex-blade this week I really do feel that some of the hate it gets is very much based around the idea of how GOOD the lv 1 or 2 dip into the class because of the high benefits its front loaded with. That being said, it really feels though as a pure class... warlock in general is very frustrating and annoying to play. specifically the hex-blade because it fails to do the job its meant to. It sure does sound cool on paper but I mean... ugh the 2 spell slot system just kills you and in all honestly you are served 10x better by simply going far enough in to Lv 3 and dump the rest into Sorc for quicken. This is also compounded depending on the table your playing under. My table especially rarely does more then one combat between long rests. We tend to role-play and do things based on skills rather then hitting things, so when combat does happen it tends to be big epic or serving some purpose in the narrative because we picked the fight or it came about from actions made. So yea it SUPER feels constrained under these conditions and while I realize not every table is this way, I do know others are just like it and yea its even worse when your not getting the benefit of the short rest recharge during the adventure day.

But lets break this down into 2 brief builds

Example 1 blaster hexblade / Sorc Lv 3 hex & Lv 8 Sorc

Now I'm not going to optimize this but for the sake of it imagine a 20 Char score here.

First round, slap him up with the Hexblade curse, quicken EB and fire it twice for 6 attacks all of which will have the chance of dealing (1D10+9)
Turn 2, slap on Hex and repeat said attack 6 bolts each doing 1D10+9 and then each time you hit Hex triggers for its damage and you get +4 from your Prof... ok yea great blasting range for your close combat warlock subclass.

Example 2 - Pure hex-blade at Lv 11

Armor of hexes is nice here don't get me wrong. But lets look at the attack.

You get to swing your sword twice. (for the sake its a big 2hander) and your hexblade curse is on for it

so 2D6 or 1D12 + 9 twice .... that's it your done oh wait what about the smite invocations? Yes thats super nice for a nova but what if you need Shield for a hit or you want to cast darkness or any of the other 12+ spells you probably have at this point? Well your Lv 11 at this point so you do have 3 spell slots which is a little better on resources but once those are gone you simply either swing your sword twice and hope Armor of hexes protects you. Or you pull back and start using eldritch blast because even as a pure lock its 3 beam attacks with the +9 base if it hits, which on average should do more DPR then your sword. Oh and your not in the face of anything so your safer overall.


So yea, please someone tell me I've got this wrong. That I'm dumb and built the pure lock wrong or I'm missing some rule that will magically make them better in close combat because right now I am seriously not impressed by them. And at the very least I could make a strong case more then any of the other warlock pacts, this version benefits the most from using the spell point conversion. Because even at only 21 spell points at Lv 11 Your going to be able to at least DO more, cast a Lv 3 fly if you need it. Or drop a darkness on a area and don't feel bad if it doesn't work out. it doesn't feel like an all or nothing moment when the big bad is about to hit you and you have to blow a shield in hopes it saves your ass, knowing your wasting a lv 5 spell slot on it.

But on one last note about balance if a DM should (and mine is after tonight's fight) Use spell points. You need to limit Eldritch Smite to the limit of how many spells slots the warlock has at their current level. So if they have 2 spell slots they can smite twice, three slots 3 times per short rest. Otherwise you can spend 2 spell points and just knock everything prone without a single save against it. That's just to damn much power but as far as I can tell its the only REAL unbalancing thing that occurs in converting to spell points. The new flexibility of the class really helps out.

[Malifice]

You're playing a short rest-based class in a game that doesn't feature any short rests.

Even worse it only features one combat encounter per long rest. Meaning long rest-based classes like Paladin and Wizard and other casters can nova like mad.

Accordingly they are getting about 20 spell slots per day to your 2.

This isn't a fault of the class. It's a fault with your group. Or more specifically with your Dungeon Master.

You are expected to be getting between two and three short rests per long rest. At that rest frequency they are awesome.

[Talamare]

The problem isn't with Warlocks, the problem is with the DnD system is inherently designed with a specific adventure layout...
and Everyone tries to play it in a style that is contrary to that layout...

You're addressing a Symptom, not the Core Issue.

I played in a similar game once where it was significantly more skill focused, I was playing a Druid; but we did have a Warlock who was borderline broken because of how we were playing. Basically there were perpetual Short Rests because there were only a few things to do every hour. Thus he was able to cast roughly 15-20 spells per day.

Obviously, this isn't what the system intended.

[Davrix]

You're playing a short rest-based class in a game that doesn't feature any short rests.

Even worse it only features one combat encounter per long rest. Meaning long rest-based classes like Paladin and Wizard and other casters can nova like mad.

Accordingly they are getting about 20 spell slots per day to your 2.

This isn't a fault of the class. It's a fault with your group. Or more specifically with your Dungeon Master.

You are expected to be getting between two and three short rests per long rest. At that rest frequency they are awesome.

No its not the Dm's fault, as i stated above. We as a party tend to role play more and deal with skill checks rather then fights. We have many encounters just not ones around combat. As someone stated just below your post, this is a flaw of the system itself because its designed around the idea of having several short rests in the work day and we just don't utilize them as a group.


The problem isn't with Warlocks, the problem is with the DnD system is inherently designed with a specific adventure layout...
and Everyone tries to play it in a style that is contrary to that layout...

You're addressing a Symptom, not the Core Issue.

I played in a similar game once where it was significantly more skill focused, I was playing a Druid; but we did have a Warlock who was borderline broken because of how we were playing. Basically there were perpetual Short Rests because there were only a few things to do every hour. Thus he was able to cast roughly 15-20 spells per day.

Obviously, this isn't what the system intended.

Your right but trying to address the Core issue is a MUCH bigger thread then this one is. But I agree with everything you have just said. I'm just trying to fix the hex-blade right now sense its falling very very short in all things or just warlock in general.

[Snivlem]

If you are rarely doing more than 1 fight per day, your DM should consider switching to the "gritty realism" optional rules in DMG (short rest = 8 hours, long rest = a week) if you want to keep some balance in the game between long rest casters and other characters.

I don't really agree with some others that this is the fault of your DM. It is a serious flaw with the system. Requiring 6 - 8 encounters on an adventure day to keep things balanced, is just silly. Your DM can adopt, however, by switching to gritty realism rules (but unfortunately any long casters will probably not be happy with this switch mid-campaign)

[Davrix]

If you are rarely doing more than 1 fight per day, your DM should consider switching to the "gritty realism" optional rules in DMG (short rest = 8 hours, long rest = a week) if you want to keep some balance in the game between long rest casters and other characters.

I don't really agree with some others that this is the fault of your DM. It is a serious flaw with the system. Requiring 6 - 8 encounters on an adventure day to keep things balanced, is just silly. Your DM can adopt, however, by switching to gritty realism rules (but unfortunately any long casters will probably not be happy with this switch mid-campaign)

It can hardly be are Dm's fault when we as a party actively try to avoid combat and try to talk, scheme or sneak through any combat we can manage half the time. Its just how we like to play. So when it does happen it tends to be big event fights that we do usually go Nova on. The gritty realism rules might be a good solution and were all good friends, the campaign has been going on 5 years now and we made the switch from 4th to 5th so trying this rule out wound't break us either.

[sithlordnergal]

Yeah, that is a weakness of the warlock. Even if yoy were getting your short rests every day, you'd still be stuck with 2 spell slots per encounter. Which for smiting abilities, doesn't amount to much. You get to blast someone twice really hard...then you have to fall on cantrips. Cause you used your slots to smite.

That said, Warlocks are better when you have more short rests.

[Snivlem]

It can hardly be are Dm's fault when we as a party actively try to avoid combat and try to talk, scheme or sneak through any combat we can manage half the time. Its just how we like to play. So when it does happen it tends to be big event fights that we do usually go Nova on. The gritty realism rules might be a good solution and were all good friends, the campaign has been going on 5 years now and we made the switch from 4th to 5th so trying this rule out wound't break us either.

Good.Then it definetly sounds like you should consider doing this change (or at least you should bring it up for discussion) - the rule is made for groups like yours.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think it’s working as intended. I’ve always thought of a melee warlock as the ‘Glass Cannon Gish’ option, with only slightly more durability as a hexblade.

Other have already touched on the issue of adventuring days and rests so I’ll leave that be.

I think a lot of people want to play the hexblade as a full caster with an answer for everything, which is just not going to work. If anyone is designed to nova and nova often it’s the warlock, so use those smites or big spells then use the invocations you have and other features to fill in the gaps. I’ve played hexblade up to 10 without an MC and it’s a blast if you play without regrets to spell slots. Take a short rest when you need can, but besides that your kind of like the spell variant of a barbarian without rage.

[Knaight]

It can hardly be are Dm's fault when we as a party actively try to avoid combat and try to talk, scheme or sneak through any combat we can manage half the time. Its just how we like to play. So when it does happen it tends to be big event fights that we do usually go Nova on. The gritty realism rules might be a good solution and were all good friends, the campaign has been going on 5 years now and we made the switch from 4th to 5th so trying this rule out wound't break us either.

It's not the DM's fault, but it is a case of a game not working as well when used for stuff it wasn't designed for. The gritty realism rules should pull it back to the design parameters, and thus fix this issue.

[Grod_The_Giant]

By giving different resource recovery rates to different classes, 5e made the game much more vulnerable to changes in the number of combats/rest. One suggestion I've heard has been to convert short-rest abilities to long-rest ones by tripling their uses-- ie, Warlocks would get six spell slots/long rest, rather than two/short rest.

But if the gritty rest thing doesn't pan out, you'd probably be fine with switching the Warlock to normal spell slots.

[Spacehamster]

It can hardly be are Dm's fault when we as a party actively try to avoid combat and try to talk, scheme or sneak through any combat we can manage half the time. Its just how we like to play. So when it does happen it tends to be big event fights that we do usually go Nova on. The gritty realism rules might be a good solution and were all good friends, the campaign has been going on 5 years now and we made the switch from 4th to 5th so trying this rule out wound't break us either.

When playing like that the class is worse than long rest based classes for sure, and best avoided in the future if you always play this type of games.

My party always do dungeon delves with lots of combat and 2-3 short rests per day and for that the hexblade(or any warlock) would be good. :)

[Asmotherion]

You are, utlimatelly a Gish/Caster. It is a good class design.

You can get more attacks by investing an invocation and the PAM feat. You can also put all your attack power in one go, by attacking with the BB/GFB cantrip instead of the regular attack action (It's restricted only in Adventure League, but playing this build with your D&D group is a very normal option).

You happen to have the Versality of Ranged options, and that's great. But your best damage is done with weapons, espessially if you contribute your Hexblade's Curse. Thus you're very good in Boss Fights with your Hexblade.

In out of combat situations, you still have some options through cantrips and Invocations. If you see that combat is not going to be the main focus of the campain, pick utility at-will Invocations rather than combat ones. Having more tricks up your sleeve is always a nice thing.

[Arial Black]

So yea, please someone tell me I've got this wrong...

...okay...


...that I'm dumb and built the pure lock wrong or I'm missing some rule that will magically make them better in close combat because right now I am seriously not impressed by them.

'Dumb' is the wrong word. This situation is a good example of the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom. It's not that you lack the intelligence to work this out, it's that you are not using the wisdom to actually be bothered to use your intelligence to solve this problem.

You're basically complaining that a class with 2 slots doesn't nova like a class with 15. Well, yeah. But why would anyone choose to play a 2 slot PC as if it were a 15 slot PC? And then complain about it?

The short rest/long rest thing has been mentioned. I won't say it again, but it remains true.

The other problem is that you are driving a Ferrari and complaining about its massive fuel consumption when compared to a Toyota, or driving a Toyota and complaining about its top speed compared to a Ferrari.

Every class has its own mix of strengths and weaknesses. Wise players (note that I didn't say intelligent players!) play to their chosen class's strengths and minimise its weaknesses. Foolish players (a different thing to stupid players!) play to their chosen class's weaknesses! That's what you're doing here.

The good news is that there is nothing wrong with your intelligence, and once the problem has been identified then you can easily address the problems. In this case, just identify the strengths of your chosen class and play to maximise them!

For instance, warlocks are not intended to win fights by casting slotted spells round after round after round; they are intended to maybe use one or two slots to affect the combat significantly (crowd control, environment control, continuing self-buffs) and rely on the other things they have which never run out (heavily modified eldritch blasts, hexblade greatsword attacks, invocations). They don't need to use a spell slot at all in some encounters!

And that's just in combat. Outside of combat you can use your skills just like everyone else, but make sure that some of your known spells are utility type spells that would be useful outside combat: comprehend languages, suggestion, charm person, that kind of thing. You can cast way more than two of these in the campaign you describe, because since you aren't doing anything stressful most of the time then your slots replenish every hour without you needing to set it up. You can be pottering around the city, asking questions, using skills, and then ask the DM, "has it been at least an hour since I last did anything stressful?", and if the answer is "yes" then you have just had a short rest and got your slots back.

I imagine the next thread will be from a wizard player complaining that his wizard is seriously under-powered compared to that warlock who gets to cast 16 5th level spells per day because the party take a short rest after every fight.

[Throne12]

If you are rarely doing more than 1 fight per day, your DM should consider switching to the "gritty realism" optional rules in DMG (short rest = 8 hours, long rest = a week) if you want to keep some balance in the game between long rest casters and other characters.

I don't really agree with some others that this is the fault of your DM. It is a serious flaw with the system. Requiring 6 - 8 encounters on an adventure day to keep things balanced, is just silly. Your DM can adopt, however, by switching to gritty realism rules (but unfortunately any long casters will probably not be happy with this switch mid-campaign)

How is it the system fault. If you play by the system everything is fine. It when you don't go by the RULES of the game. Is when it's not working.

You don't say my car is sahit because it don't fly like a air plane.

It's the DM's fault for not playing to the system.

DM'S are not Infallible creatures!

[Mister_Squinty]

You're playing a short rest-based class in a game that doesn't feature any short rests.

This isn't a fault of the class. It's a fault with your group. Or more specifically with your Dungeon Master.

You are expected to be getting between two and three short rests per long rest. At that rest frequency they are awesome.

It sounds like we need to lay the blame on whatever game designer made a class that requires the DM to metagame to for the class to be effective.

"Yeah, per union rules, our adventuring day is 8 hours long, with a lunch at noon and two designated smoke breaks. Anything less and we go on strike."

[Mister_Squinty]

How is it the system fault. If you play by the system everything is fine. It when you don't go by the RULES of the game. Is when it's not working.

You don't say my car is sahit because it don't fly like a air plane.

It's the DM's fault for not playing to the system.

There is no "rule" saying how many fights a DM has to have in an adventuring day. Mandating that is contrary to the collaborative storytelling fundamentals of the game. It's the designers' fault for making a "car" that is only good for a drag race. If you want to drive a drag car in the 24 Hours of Le Mans, don't blame the race when you run out of gas in lap 3.

[Knaight]

How is it the system fault. If you play by the system everything is fine. It when you don't go by the RULES of the game. Is when it's not working.

You don't say my car is sahit because it don't fly like a air plane.

It's the DM's fault for not playing to the system.

There's a case to be made that the DM should have picked a different system better suited for their game, but the system deserves some of the blame here. It presents itself as a generic fantasy game, able to work for basically any fantasy campaign. A relentless focus on resource management doesn't show up anywhere in the advertising, internal description, design notes (which blur into advertising more than a little), etc. That it then turns out to be highly specialized towards very specific parameters which were never mentioned.

Criticizing a car for not flying is one thing, and if someone was trying to run a science fiction game in D&D it would be an applicable analogy. This is criticizing a car for being unable to handle an inch of snow.

[Aett_Thorn]

There's a case to be made that the DM should have picked a different system better suited for their game, but the system deserves some of the blame here. It presents itself as a generic fantasy game, able to work for basically any fantasy campaign. A relentless focus on resource management doesn't show up anywhere in the advertising, internal description, design notes (which blur into advertising more than a little), etc. That it then turns out to be highly specialized towards very specific parameters which were never mentioned.

Criticizing a car for not flying is one thing, and if someone was trying to run a science fiction game in D&D it would be an applicable analogy. This is criticizing a car for being unable to handle an inch of snow.

Can we suggest that this issue be taken up in a UA article? Seriously, this whole short-rest/long-rest dynamic causes a seemingly significant amount of problems in games and on these forums.

[ad_hoc]

It sounds like we need to lay the blame on whatever game designer made a class that requires the DM to metagame to for the class to be effective.

"Yeah, per union rules, our adventuring day is 8 hours long, with a lunch at noon and two designated smoke breaks. Anything less and we go on strike."

It's okay to not like 5e. There are plenty of other games out there.

I love the design and I think the team did a great job.

[Malifice]

No its not the Dm's fault, as i stated above. We as a party tend to role play more and deal with skill checks rather then fights. We have many encounters just not ones around combat.

Yes it is the DM's fault.

In a campaign where the PCs are only getting one fight per day, the DM should use the gritty rest variant.

And what kind of dungeons are you exploring when you're only having one combat encounter over an entire day?

[Malifice]

It sounds like we need to lay the blame on whatever game designer made a class that requires the DM to metagame to for the class to be effective.

The DM's job is to meta-game. It always has been.

And policing an adventuring day is not meta-gaming. Players spamming a five minute work day on the other hand, is meta-gaming.

And before you say the rules can't handle the game the OP is playing, consider that they can. If you open up your Dungeon Masters guide its right in there (different rest variants and so forth).

The problem the OP is having is with his Dungeon Master.

[Mister_Squinty]

It's okay to not like 5e. There are plenty of other games out there.

I love the design and I think the team did a great job.

I don't have a problem with 5e in general. I have a problem with a single class, built along completely different lines than the rest of the classes, forcing the DM to play a very specific style of game to make that specific class viable.

5e can handle any style of game, it's a great framework. But PC Warlocks encourage/force the DM to budget for a number of short rests, lest the Warlock player run into the OP's issue. If the DM wants to run a race against the clock, where the PCs are desperately trying to accomplish their goals in a short number of days, the Warlock is going to feel underpowered. If the DM accommodates for that, the dramatic tension is lessened.

Throw in how Warlock multi-classing leads to giant wheels of cheese like "coffeelock", and it becomes increasingly clear the class doesn't play well with the rest of the system.

[Waazraath]

Yes it is the DM's fault.

In a campaign where the PCs are only getting one fight per day, the DM should use the gritty rest variant.

And what kind of dungeons are you exploring when you're only having one combat encounter over an entire day?

This. Though in this case, if it's a table decision, I'd say it's also the fault of all the other players. Really, you decide to play the game in another way than it was balanced out on.

From the OP:


This is also compounded depending on the table your playing under. My table especially rarely does more then one combat between long rests. We tend to role-play and do things based on skills rather then hitting things, so when combat does happen it tends to be big epic or serving some purpose in the narrative because we picked the fight or it came about from actions made.

Of course you can do this. But you should realize that this puts classes that have 'can keep going all day' as their forte, and short rest based classes, on a massive disadvantage. This doesn't just make warlocks suck, but also monks, and makes fighters and rogues greatly inferior to a class like paladin.

This has nothing to do with the warlock. Let alone with the Hexblade warlock. Neither has it to do something with the system. You play it in a way that it wasn't designed, without using the variant rules that are there to accomodate that style of play.

Additionaly: it really should't be a problem for a DM to come up with challanges and non-combat encounters that require a party to spend recourses like spell slots. That should also compensate a bit, even when using the standard rules.

[Mister_Squinty]

The DM's job is to meta-game. It always has been.

And policing an adventuring day is not meta-gaming. Players spamming a five minute work day on the other hand, is meta-gaming.

And before you say the rules can't handle the game the OP is playing, consider that they can. If you open up your Dungeon Masters guide its right in there (different rest variants and so forth).

The problem the OP is having is with his Dungeon Master.

We evidently have a different definition of "meta-game". Mine would be along the lines of "compromising the narrative to exploit or accommodate game mechanics." Coffeelock is meta-game, demanding the DM play a certain number of short rests between each long rest is meta-game. Players blowing all of their resources in what is described as an "all or nothing" fight isn't meta-gaming, it's playing to the narrative set by the DM. The fights are set up as requiring all of their strength and power to overcome (at least that is the gist I am getting from the OP descriptions).

[LVOD]

I posted something similar to this a few months ago. My campaigns just never use short rests. I think its a clumsy mechanic that breaks the energy and forward momentum of the game.

“Before we slay the dragon, we should really take a quick nap.”

Other people seem to love it, and it does fill a nice niche to solve some issues pretty neartly, but I understand where you’re coming from.

[Aett_Thorn]

I don't have a problem with 5e in general. I have a problem with a single class, built along completely different lines than the rest of the classes, forcing the DM to play a very specific style of game to make that specific class viable.

5e can handle any style of game, it's a great framework. But PC Warlocks encourage/force the DM to budget for a number of short rests, lest the Warlock player run into the OP's issue. If the DM wants to run a race against the clock, where the PCs are desperately trying to accomplish their goals in a short number of days, the Warlock is going to feel underpowered. If the DM accommodates for that, the dramatic tension is lessened.

Throw in how Warlock multi-classing leads to giant wheels of cheese like "coffeelock", and it becomes increasingly clear the class doesn't play well with the rest of the system.

It's not just one class, though. Fighters (especially Battlemaster Fighters) and Monks also benefit from the same short-rest schedule as the Warlock. Wizards and Land Druids can also gain some spell slots back on short rests as well, so those classes should be pushing for a short rest every now and again, too.

Also, this isn't a direct reply to you, but I feel like people think that 5-6 encounters per day means 5-6 combats per day. It should just be 5-6 things that cause the party to use resources. Sure, combat will probably use up more of them, but anything that causes the spellcasters to go through some slots and make the characters not have them available for a fight later is fair game. Someone needs to fly over the gorge to get a rope over there? That's one less spell slot later on that could be a fireball.

[Waazraath]

5e can handle any style of game, it's a great framework. But PC Warlocks encourage/force the DM to budget for a number of short rests, lest the Warlock player run into the OP's issue. If the DM wants to run a race against the clock, where the PCs are desperately trying to accomplish their goals in a short number of days, the Warlock is going to feel underpowered. If the DM accommodates for that, the dramatic tension is lessened.


Does this really is about the warlock? In my experience, there always are (and have been in earlier editions) classes that are better suited for a 5 min adventuring day, and those that are better suited for situations where a party is forced to 'keep on going'. For me, as a DM I'd always consider it my job to not accomodate just a single style of play, that benefits only a few of the classes. So sometimes, there is only 1 combat a day. Sometimes, circumstances force a party to keep on going and going and going, til everybody is out of spell slots and the champion fighter, rogue and other characters with at will abilities get their chance to shine. And sometimes it's exactly the number of encouters suggested in the DMG. Sometimes there is opportunity for short rests, but not always. Everybody gets their chance to shine, and as a benefit, everybody needs to think about managing their rescourses.

There is quite some dramatic tension in having to continue the fight, even though some of the party is out of ammo.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

A great game system is one that makes it easy for a non-expert to achieve expected results consistently and simply.

The current rest rules make things harder for the GM, who now has to track something unrelated to game balance (adventure pacing) to achieve balance. Many reasonable ways to run and pace an extended campaign suddenly create class imbalance for no good reason that I can discern.

This is bad design.

Fortunately, there are a few simple rule changes that fix this particular issue:

1) A character gets two short rests per long rest.
2) He can declare a short rest between combats. This does not take time; it is more like catching one's breath, doing a quick stretch routine, uttering a mantra, whatever.
3) He can use a bonus action to take a short rest in combat.

There. Level playing field. Player empowerment. DMG-approved rest ratio.

I know of quite a few people who have adopted something like this, with good results.

Anyway,

Ken

[Mister_Squinty]

It's not just one class, though. Fighters (especially Battlemaster Fighters) and Monks also benefit from the same short-rest schedule as the Warlock. Wizards and Land Druids can also gain some spell slots back on short rests as well, so those classes should be pushing for a short rest every now and again, too.

To a degree, I agree. However, the Warlock is at the far end of that particular curve. Battlemasters are a subclass that benefits from short rests, but that subclass rests on the versatile and well-balanced Fighter chassis. Wizards and Druids have enough spell slots and abilities to be able to manage any kind of campaign. Warlocks are sprinters trying to compete in the Decathlon. They're good out of the gate, but, without DM accommodation, they can't compete in the rest of the events.

[Knaight]

And what kind of dungeons are you exploring when you're only having one combat encounter over an entire day?

The expectation that you're exploring dungeons is another one of the ways that the system very much doesn't support generic fantasy, instead being better at a specific style of play.

[Willie the Duck]

You're playing a short rest-based class in a game that doesn't feature any short rests.

Even worse it only features one combat encounter per long rest. Meaning long rest-based classes like Paladin and Wizard and other casters can nova like mad.

Accordingly they are getting about 20 spell slots per day to your 2.

This isn't a fault of the class. It's a fault with your group. Or more specifically with your Dungeon Master.

You are expected to be getting between two and three short rests per long rest. At that rest frequency they are awesome.


No its not the Dm's fault, as i stated above.


It can hardly be are Dm's fault when we as a party actively try to avoid combat and try to talk, scheme or sneak through any combat we can manage half the time.

Looking for someone whose feet one can lay the blame is not a helpful endeavor. It is the DM and PC group's shared 'fault' (/decision) to choose to play their game in a specific way. It is the game designer's 'fault' that they chose to give a bunch of different options for character creation/choice which favored different encounter-per-rest ratios (an that sounds like I'm 'blaming' them by saying they did something laudable, but I will criticize their decision a bit. Groups seem to either play 1 combat/day or 12-20, and they chose to balance it at 6-8, which is averaging a bimodal distribution, which frankly isn't that good of an idea).

Honestly, 'fault' isn't the issue. It's simply about recognizing that the decision to choose a SR-recharge class amongst LR-recharging classes (who play the game therefore in a way that favors LR classes) is a vaguely self-hamstringing action.

It's like putting a stock car in the Indy-500--it's not going to perform as well, but that doesn't mean it was poorly designed (for its' purpose).



By giving different resource recovery rates to different classes, 5e made the game much more vulnerable to changes in the number of combats/rest.

This. And that decision has caused no end of these discussions. I doubt this would have actually worked from a book-sales point of view, but from a high-level view, perhaps they should have made a SR- and LR- version of each class, or made more explicit that the Warlock (and maybe some new wizard equivalent) are the SR-equivalents of sorcerers and wizards, and that the two aren't expected to be used by the same groups, or the like.

OTOH, if you do play the game with the 6-8 and 2 SR that they recommend, all the classes really do come out roughly equal. And they haven't been shy about explaining their expectations, and offering alternative recharge mechanics and the like for those who wish to vary their games.


It sounds like we need to lay the blame on whatever game designer made a class that requires the DM to metagame to for the class to be effective.

All the classes have that, the warlock (and battle master fighter, monks, etc.) are simply on the other side of a split than the Long-rest recharging classes. Whatever game designer who decided to vary this is/are the ones that looked at how poorly the edition that did otherwise (4e, where everyone had the same recharge mechanics) did in the market and decided to do differently.

[Mister_Squinty]

There is quite some dramatic tension in having to continue the fight, even though some of the party is out of ammo.

As I understand it, the OP's problem is that the Warlock runs "out of ammo" all too often. Easing the dramatic tension to allow the Warlock to constantly reload is a narrative compromise.

[ad_hoc]

We evidently have a different definition of "meta-game". Mine would be along the lines of "compromising the narrative to exploit or accommodate game mechanics." Coffeelock is meta-game, demanding the DM play a certain number of short rests between each long rest is meta-game. Players blowing all of their resources in what is described as an "all or nothing" fight isn't meta-gaming, it's playing to the narrative set by the DM. The fights are set up as requiring all of their strength and power to overcome (at least that is the gist I am getting from the OP descriptions).

The narrative?

The 5e rest system is designed to play out like an action story.

If you want a drama or a thriller you're in the wrong place.

Constant rests remove all of the tension from the story. What you deem 'race against the clock' is actually just normal story pacing. There are objectives and the PCs either accomplish them or they don't. Time moves forward. The world reacts to the PCs. You can't enter the orc caves and then take 8 hours out after defeating the guards. The rest of the orcs are going to come and kill everyone. Everything on camera is 'race against the clock'. If it isn't then it's downtime.

[Mister_Squinty]

The narrative?

The 5e rest system is designed to play out like an action story.

If you want a drama or a thriller you're in the wrong place.

I would argue the exploration and social pillars of the game the designers intended would disagree with this assessment.


Constant rests remove all of the tension from the story... Time moves forward. The world reacts to the PCs. You can't enter the orc caves and then take 8 hours out after defeating the guards. The rest of the orcs are going to come and kill everyone.

On these points we are in complete agreement.

[Waazraath]

As I understand it, the OP's problem is that the Warlock runs "out of ammo" all too often. Easing the dramatic tension to allow the Warlock to constantly reload is a narrative compromise.

Yes, that's how I read it as well, but see the rest of my posts for that. That's a consequence of the choices that their table made, and has nothing to do with hexblade and warlock, and quite little with the system.

[Byke]

The comparison is incomplete, you say your optimizing, but not in the melee example? Using multi-classing to prove the deficiencies of a pure class without addressing the benefits of being single class is silly. Also your comparison only takes into account a power spike in character level at 11th but not bothering to look 12th or higher. If you want to smite more grab full caster or paladin levels after 14th. But for the sake of just the math. I'll assume 12th level, 20 char, with the proper feats and invocations.

Elven Accuracy and 20 char.

Round 1 - Bonus Action Hex Curse - Action Eldritch Blast (3d10 + 15 char + 12 prof) Avg dam 43.5 dam
Round 2 - Bonus Action Hex - Action EB (3d10 +3d6 + 27) avg 54 dam
Round 3 - Bonus Action Quicken EB - Action EB - 108 dam is they all hit

Total: 205.5 dam or 68.6 dam /per round

Hexblade:

GWM and 20 char

Round 1 - Bonus Action Hex Curse - Action 2 attacks + smite 4d6 + 5d8 + 20 char + 8 prof - 64.5 dam (+20 dam- 84.5 GWM)
Round 2 - Bonus Action Hex - Action 2 attacks + smite 4d6 + 5d8 + 2d6 + 20 char + 8 prof - 71.5 dam (+20 dam - 91.5 GWM)
Round 3 - Action 2 attacks + smite 4d6 + 2d6 + 20 char + 8 prof = 49 dam (+20 dam - 69 GWM)

Total: 185 or 61.6 avg/ round (245 dam or 81.6 dam/round ) and this is without haste (item or party buff) or magical weapon.

[Willie the Duck]

I would argue the exploration and social pillars of the game the designers intended would disagree with this assessment.

Therein lies the problem, and why I refer to the appropriate # of combats/day to design your game/classes for to be a bimodal distribution. From the origins of the game, it has been "about" both 1) crawling down into deep, dank dungeons (often nonsensical ones that belie no IRL purpose) to defeat, bargain with, or sneak past dozens of potential encounters, and 2) hexcrawl for miles across untamed wilderness, encountering 1-2 potential combat (or equivalent) encounters per day. Plus the unspoken 3) (why have those castles if you never have courtly scenes? etc.) social part of it.

No edition has really balanced that well ('that' being balancing between differing encounter frequency). Heck, most games total don't really do it well. Games like Champions/Hero System have an encounter-level recharge (and alternate rules for charges/day, so basically the same 2 options as D&D). Other systems do it other was. But I don't really know any that do two distinct distributions well in one system.

[ad_hoc]

I would argue the exploration and social pillars of the game the designers intended would disagree with this assessment.



On these points we are in complete agreement.

You don't think that people talk and explore in the action genre?

[Arial Black]

As I understand it, the OP's problem is that the Warlock runs "out of ammo" all too often.

But the warlock doesn't need the 'ammo' of those two slots, because its other class features that never run dry are souped up enough to get through whole encounters by themselves. It's part of the design balance.

A wizard is like a soldier with a .22 calibre pistol which never runs out of ammunition, but with a limited number of grenades of different sizes. He fights by lobbing grenades, with the pistol for backup.

A warlock is like a soldier who has a .75 calibre hand-held heavy machine gun which never runs out of ammo, but only two grenades, each of the largest available size. He fights by using the machine gun as a lead hose, with the two grenades as backup.

If the warlock soldier tried to fight like the wizard soldier then he'd be out of grenades very quickly. But if the wizard soldier tried to fight like the warlock soldier then his .22 pistol will have very little effect on the enemy compared to that heavy machine gun.

Neither is badly designed. It's just that either one can be badly used, and that's the fault of the DM and player.


Easing the dramatic tension to allow the Warlock to constantly reload is a narrative compromise.

But that's not how the OP describes his game. He describes a game where the players decide what they are going to do, and mostly choose to use skills and occasionally plan a massive nova fight.

Where is the DM here? If the verisimilitude of the campaign narrative is such a big deal (and it should) then why isn't the world reacting realistically to the party's actions? Why is it the party who chose to fight or not to fight? Why don't the bad guys decide to attack them? Especially after the players foolishly nova in the belief that the only fight they can be in are the ones they start?

And sometimes the PCs are indeed just pottering about town, because it's unrealistic to be against a doom clock for every second of every day. And as soon as there is no time element based on minutes then the PCs get a short rest every hour if they want.

If I was playing a warlock in the OP's campaign I would have enough utility spells to be constantly casting them throughout the pottering about phase, getting short rests roughly every hour and using maybe 16 slots altogether. And when it's massive fight nova time then my long rest mates are bossing the fights while my two slots have done something significant and long-lasting while I spray the bad guys with heavy machine gun fire souped up eldritch blasts and other stuff that never runs out. I'd make out like a bandit! I certainly wouldn't be complaining about how many more slots the wizard gets!

[Sigreid]

IMO, any of the short rest focused classes will feel under-rated in the game you describe. That's not really a problem with the game, or the classes, it's just they are not suited to your current campaign. It's really no different than if you played a fighter or barbarian in a game where most of the problems were solved via magic.

Certain classes always have and always will work better for certain styles of play.

[ad_hoc]

But the warlock doesn't need the 'ammo' of those two slots, because its other class features that never run dry are souped up enough to get through whole encounters by themselves. It's part of the design balance.

A wizard is like a soldier with a .22 calibre pistol which never runs out of ammunition, but with a limited number of grenades of different sizes. He fights by lobbing grenades, with the pistol for backup.

A warlock is like a soldier who has a .75 calibre hand-held heavy machine gun which never runs out of ammo, but only two grenades, each of the largest available size. He fights by using the machine gun as a lead hose, with the two grenades as backup.

If the warlock soldier tried to fight like the wizard soldier then he'd be out of grenades very quickly. But if the wizard soldier tried to fight like the warlock soldier then his .22 pistol will have very little effect on the enemy compared to that heavy machine gun.

Neither is badly designed. It's just that either one can be badly used, and that's the fault of the DM and player.



I disagree with the analogy.

The Warlock gets a lot more high level slots than the Wizard does. The Warlock will have an average of 6 highest level spell slots per long rest. That makes them the most heavy hitting of the full casters. Wizards will have many low level slots to compensate. They can cast more total spells but their spells have less impact.

[RSP]

...the campaign has been going on 5 years now and we made the switch from 4th to 5th so trying this rule out wound't break us either.

One thing I didn't see mentioned yet that I believe has a very impactful effect: OP mentioned this campaign started in 4E and converted to 5e. Those are very different mechanics (not horribly well versed in 4th but this is my understanding).

If you changed games (4th E to 5th counts), but maintained character classes simply because they held the same name, you weren't setting yourself up for success. The character you had, isn't the character you have.

It sounds like you wanted to play either an EK, Paladin or Bladesinger, but played a Warlock instead.

I understand the frustration of not getting to continue a long campaign with the character you started with. I don't think this is the games' fault; I don't think it's really anyone's fault. You tried something and it didn't work out.

Ask the DM if you can switch to a class that plays more to your liking, and better represents the character you had in 4e.

[Pex]

Example 1 blaster hexblade / Sorc Lv 3 hex & Lv 8 Sorc

Now I'm not going to optimize this but for the sake of it imagine a 20 Char score here.

First round, slap him up with the Hexblade curse, quicken EB and fire it twice for 6 attacks all of which will have the chance of dealing (1D10+9)
Turn 2, slap on Hex and repeat said attack 6 bolts each doing 1D10+9 and then each time you hit Hex triggers for its damage and you get +4 from your Prof... ok yea great blasting range for your close combat warlock subclass.




Nitpick:

Game rules error.

You use your Bonus Action to activate Hexblade Curse. You can cast Eldritch Blast the same round, but you cannot Quicken it in that round because you have already used your Bonus Action.

Round 2: Casting Hex is a Bonus Action. Still unable to Quicken Eldritch Blast yet may cast it normally, but you will have Hex and Hexblade Curse active.

Round 3: Now you can Quicken Eldritch Blast with Hex and Hexblade Curse active.

[GlenSmash!]

It's not the DM's fault, but it is a case of a game not working as well when used for stuff it wasn't designed for. The gritty realism rules should pull it back to the design parameters, and thus fix this issue.

Switching to Gritty Realism is a big help in making sure you get a couple short rests in between long rests.

Another one I like is something I stole from Adventures in Middle-Earth. For that game you need Safety from threat of attack, Comfort, and Tranquility for a long rest.

So in my campaign, sleep for 8 hours on the road might not get you the benefit of a long rest, though you will still need to bed down every night to avoid exhaustion. It's just a tool I use to make sure Short Rests happen, and short rest based Classes get their opportunity to shine.

[Byke]

Nitpick:

Game rules error.

You use your Bonus Action to activate Hexblade Curse. You can cast Eldritch Blast the same round, but you cannot Quicken it in that round because you have already used your Bonus Action.

Round 2: Casting Hex is a Bonus Action. Still unable to Quicken Eldritch Blast yet may cast it normally, but you will have Hex and Hexblade Curse active.

Round 3: Now you can Quicken Eldritch Blast with Hex and Hexblade Curse active.

I tried to show that in my post...with the math :)

[Talamare]

To a degree, I agree. However, the Warlock is at the far end of that particular curve. Battlemasters are a subclass that benefits from short rests, but that subclass rests on the versatile and well-balanced Fighter chassis. Wizards and Druids have enough spell slots and abilities to be able to manage any kind of campaign. Warlocks are sprinters trying to compete in the Decathlon. They're good out of the gate, but, without DM accommodation, they can't compete in the rest of the events.

Warlock gets in Eldritch Blast basically what the Entire Fighter Class is...
Maybe sprinkle in the other Invocations to round it out...

While others such as Monk, feels pretty hobbled without their Ki.
I would say they have it worse than Warlock does.

[danpit2991]

I disagree with the analogy.

The Warlock gets a lot more high level slots than the Wizard does. The Warlock will have an average of 6 highest level spell slots per long rest. That makes them the most heavy hitting of the full casters. Wizards will have many low level slots to compensate. They can cast more total spells but their spells have less impact.

This is patently false yes the lock can have 6 5th level slots BUT he only has 6 slots total

look at 10th level a warlock has 2 5th level slots so with 2 short rests thats 6 5th level or 6 slots total for the whole day, 6 spells

10th level wizard 2 5th, 3 4th, 3 3rd, 3 2nd and 4 1st for the sake of argument lets ditch the "lowly" first level spells the wizard has 11spell slots a wider variety of spells its just better in all ways thats 11 fireballs 8 fireballs if thats less impact i wanna see what you mean by impact


"but invocations" you mean the once a day powers that use spell slots? not worth it the warlock as written will never be anything but a dip class because it is awful after 6th and just ok from 3 to 6 it is one of the worst designed class in 5E. not saying it cant be fun or flavorful but the only worse class is the original ranger. the only way warlock becomes competitive is with houserules

[Vogie]

"but invocations" you mean the once a day powers that use spell slots? not worth it the warlock as written will never be anything but a dip class because it is awful after 6th and just ok from 3 to 6 it is one of the worst designed class in 5E. not saying it cant be fun or flavorful but the only worse class is the original ranger. the only way warlock becomes competitive is with houserules

To be fair, a warlock CAN be competitive without houserules, and for the most part, the only invocation-based spells that use spell slots are the ones that scale with level (also, see below). The bulk of the invocation-based spells that don't scale with level are able to be cast without using spell slots.

Invocation spells with No Spell Slots used:
Speak with dead
Arcane Eye
Freedom of movement
Jump
Silent Image
Alter Self
Detect Magic
Disguise self
Water Breathing
Speak with animals
Mage Armor
None of these spells have the ability to scale.

Invocation Spells with Spell Slot used:
Bane
Bestow curse
Conjure Elemental
Confusion
Fireball via Kiss of Mephistopheles
All of which scale with the Warlock spell slot used.

Invocation spells that use a Spell slot but don't scale (These are likely restricted for power-level reasons):
Polymorph
Slow
Compulsion


Invocation Spells that could scale, but don't use spell slots (These are likely ALSO restricted for power-level reasons):
Hold Monster - You can actually use this more than once per long rest, but you can't target the same creature until after the long rest. However, it's limited to be used only targeting celestials, fiends, or elementals
False Life - it explicitly states to be used at first level, and is great for early to mid level locks
Invisibility - otherwise your party would always be invisible at all time. It was added in XGtE as a better version of UA's Shroud of Ulban

[ad_hoc]

This is patently false yes the lock can have 6 5th level slots BUT he only has 6 slots total

look at 10th level a warlock has 2 5th level slots so with 2 short rests thats 6 5th level or 6 slots total for the whole day, 6 spells

10th level wizard 2 5th, 3 4th, 3 3rd, 3 2nd and 4 1st for the sake of argument lets ditch the "lowly" first level spells the wizard has 11spell slots a wider variety of spells its just better in all ways thats 11 fireballs if thats less impact i wanna see what you mean by impact

This is exactly what I said.



"but invocations" you mean the once a day powers that use spell slots? not worth it the warlock as written will never be anything but a dip class because it is awful after 6th and just ok from 3 to 6 it is one of the worst designed class in 5E. not saying it cant be fun or flavorful but the only worse class is the original ranger. the only way warlock becomes competitive is with houserules

I didn't say anything about invocations.

There are a bunch of duds in there but also a bunch of very strong ones.

Warlock is very well designed and powerful, if a bit complicated. I like that a spellcaster with a different type of spell progression exists.

[strangebloke]

I would argue the exploration and social pillars of the game the designers intended would disagree with this assessment.

On these points we are in complete agreement.

No.

Social and Exploration challenges should consume party resources. Maybe the guard needs to be bribed. (gold) Maybe they need to wait for their noble patron to catch up before they get to work. (time) Maybe they need to use magic to impress the king with their superb capabilities as adventurers. (spell slots) Maybe they need to out-drink the local thug to get him to open up about the carta's operations in the city. (HP/Gold/Time) Maybe getting to the tower requires you to forge through an intense thicket of razor vines. (HP)

If there are no resources being expended and/or no consequence/possibility of failure, these encounters are a waste of time.

Should I do a formal write-up of my rulings I made to make gritty realism work in 5e? IE, what I did to handle things like spell duration, magic item acquisition, and the like?

[Mister_Squinty]

No.

Social and Exploration challenges should consume party resources. Maybe the guard needs to be bribed. (gold) Maybe they need to wait for their noble patron to catch up before they get to work. (time) Maybe they need to use magic to impress the king with their superb capabilities as adventurers. (spell slots) Maybe they need to out-drink the local thug to get him to open up about the carta's operations in the city. (HP/Gold/Time) Maybe getting to the tower requires you to forge through an intense thicket of razor vines. (HP)

If there are no resources being expended and/or no consequence/possibility of failure, these encounters are a waste of time.

Should I do a formal write-up of my rulings I made to make gritty realism work in 5e? IE, what I did to handle things like spell duration, magic item acquisition, and the like?

If you want to classify them as "party resources", Time/Gold/HP are consumed (and replenished) with the same rules across all classes. There are also Social challenges that can be overcome with skill checks (Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation/Insight) rather than bribery or magical displays.

The same with Environmental encounters. Intelligent uses of Nature/History/Survival checks can make finding a hidden cave easier. Creative uses of Acrobatics and Athletics skills can overcome a number of physical obstacles.

Not every encounter needs to deplete the party of a material resource (except perhaps Time, which passes regardless of activity)

[Davrix]

Ok well this sort of exploded on me sense I went to bad last night. And slightly morphed into something I didn't expect but IS a interesting discussion all the same.

There are far to many posts to response to individually at this point but I will do my best to address what topics I've noticed come out of this thread and try to clarify what my problem is when its not 3am.

First - yes my math was a little off in my examples. The point i was trying to get across though was that the Hex-blade subclass (at least I thought) was designed around having a more close quarters combat warlock vs a ranged blast lock. But looking at things no matter how you slice it. It feels like that a range blast lock will always preform better then a close combat lock. Though it seems in my griping I touch upon a much larger issue when it came to 5th's game design.

Second - The table I am at is mostly made up of me and 3 other friends who have been gaming together for about 10 years now and this game started in 4th over 6 years ago and was only switched over to 5th in the past year so as someone said 4th had a much different way of handling recharge and how spells worked. One we greatly enjoyed but as was said. Many did not so they have tried a new system. With how tactical 4th was having one big epic combat every so often didn't effect the party on a individual basis because everyone had the same mechanics and recharge rates. So its has become an issue in 5th ed for us.

Third - The more I think about it. The posts in this threads and from my own dealings in playing things for the past year in 5th at my table and online. The more I personally feel that while I love the bounded accuracy of 5th this split mechanic of short rest classes and long rest classes is not a good idea at all. It leads to the problem I am having and the issues expressed by those in this thread so far. For a system that is very open and extremely easy to home-brew for, this part of the system feels clunky and not in the spirit of the rest of the system. Yes the gritty long rest variant could be a help here but lets take the system as is without that rule. Most other mechanics at the core of 5th play nice and keep things within a certain range of each other most times. I don't like the idea of a short rest for an hour, it just seems silly in most cases that you would suddenly hunker down for an hour in between some fights just so you can recharge. I personally feel 4th ed's vs of short rest worked much better and made more sense to me at least.

The simply answer may be for us to go back to 4th but between the crappy rabbit hole that DND insider has been shoved down and how iffy silver light has become with the online builder. Its not a prospect I would look forward to. I know there is a ton of hate on 4th but for some of us it was really fun. Its all but dead in the water now when it comes to online tools and oh god the amount of books you would have to go through if you don't have a good virtual builder to help you.

[Xetheral]

For those arguing that the DMG recommends 6-8 encounters per day, please note that Jeremy Crawford has expressly said otherwise (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/936041806113816576).

[strangebloke]

multiple errors

Let's assume that a 2nd level spell is twice as good as a 1st level spell, and that a 3rd level spell is 50% better than a second. In general, this is a very conservative estimate of power. Fireball is more than twice as good as burning hands, for instance.

Wizard 10:
1st: 4*1=4
2nd: 3*2=6
3rd: 3*3=9
4th: 3*4=12
5th: 2*5=10
AR:10
Total SP:51

Warlock 10:
5th: 6*5=30

Wizard is better at spellcasting, but it's nothing extreme, and as I said, this analysis vastly undervalues high-level spells. To further illustrate that point, the warlock has infinite casting of many useful low-level spells. It's very easy to picture an adventuring day where the warlock uses a first level spell equivalent without a slot more than ten times.

Nonetheless, let's agree that the wizard is the better full caster.

Let's look at everything that isn't casting.

Cantrips: Warlock clearly gets the better deal here.
Familiar: Warlock clearly gets the better deal here, if he wants it.
Hit Dice: Warlock clearly gets the better deal here.
Proficiencies: Warlock clearly gets the better deal here, with light armor and a better skill list.
Main Stat Synergy: CHA is actually used for several very important skills, CHA saves are more common and more important than INT saves.
Base class features: Wizard has arcane recovery, Warlock has invocations. Invocations are better
Subclass features: Wizard has the slight advantage here, in my estimation.

Overall, I do think that the warlock is a little weaker. But only a little.

[Matrix_Walker]

I disagree with the analogy.

The Warlock gets a lot more high level slots than the Wizard does. The Warlock will have an average of 6 highest level spell slots per long rest. That makes them the most heavy hitting of the full casters. Wizards will have many low level slots to compensate. They can cast more total spells but their spells have less impact.

You mean Mid-level slots. Warlocks never get high-level slots.

[Kane0]

Use the Gritty rest variant rule in the DMG, or turn all short-rest abilities into long-rest ones by multiplying them by 3 and taking away the recharge on a short rest.

[MeeposFire]

Use the Gritty rest variant rule in the DMG, or turn all short-rest abilities into long-rest ones by multiplying them by 3 and taking away the recharge on a short rest.

Or change how long it takes to get a short rest. For instance you could make your first short rest only takes 5 minutes, your second could take a still short but more noticeable 15 minutes (or choose the exact time that works for you) to achieve, and then all short rests after that take 1hr to compete. The fluffy idea of it is that it takes longer and longer to get your stamina back as you keep pushing yourself during the day but the 1st two rests are short enough that even in groups that do less encounters you should be able to get at least 1 SR and in most games 2 short rests with few problems which makes them compare more favorably to long rest classes while making the long term prospects to be similar to the RAW in terms of overall power of a short rest class.

Then the only games where a long rest class feels like it is really ahead are those that do one fight and then long rest which if common you will probably have problems with all sorts of things anyway.

[ad_hoc]

You mean Mid-level slots. Warlocks never get high-level slots.

At 5th level the high level slot is 3, at 7th level it is 4, etc. Warlocks follow the same progression for high level slots as other full casters.

They still get them after 11 too, just not as many. Since the majority of the game takes place from 5-10 and most groups don't go much past that I don't see much of a problem with it. By Tier 4 the Warlock is probably falling behind, but game balance is all over the place by that point and it represents a very small amount of game play that it doesn't really matter.

[Matrix_Walker]

At 5th level the high level slot is 3, at 7th level it is 4, etc. Warlocks follow the same progression for high level slots as other full casters.

They still get them after 11 too, just not as many. Since the majority of the game takes place from 5-10 and most groups don't go much past that I don't see much of a problem with it. By Tier 4 the Warlock is probably falling behind, but game balance is all over the place by that point and it represents a very small amount of game play that it doesn't really matter.

They get zero spell slots from the 6th-9th spell level. They can never upcast a spell of 5th level or higher.

Low level is 1-3, medium is 4-6, high-level spells are 6-9. Warlocks specifically acquire no spell slots of high level and instead get spell-like abilities.

The Warlock does not use the multiclass progression table, Has the Pact Magic feature, lacks the spellcasting feature and... You know all this already.
(I have to admit, I'm starting to think people that call Warlocks "Full Casters" are just trolling the rest of us)

People who actually play in the third and fourth tier spend most of their time playing at those levels. Advancement takes much longer the higher you go. Your individual gaming habits don't change that most of a character's chareer is in the higher tiers if you actually play the game through to 20th level. The first tier is mostly getting ready and scrambling for survival, the second teir is almost ready for the real game, at third tier your ready to play with the big boys, and the 4th you are one. The 5-10 levels is when you are getting the training wheels off and just starting to really come online.

My current long-running game took us about 10 game sessions to hit 5, 25 more approximately to 11th, and something like 50 to get us to the current 15. YMMV, but I doubt it would vary enough to say the 2nd tier saw the "majority" of play.

[Unoriginal]

Getting powerful for the wrong reasons is kind of the basics of Warlock, no?

[Sigreid]

At this point it's time to be a snot. It's called a Hexblade, not a Charmlock or Explorelock or whatever. It was designed as a subclass to be a weapon. It's in the name.

[Davrix]

At this point it's time to be a snot. It's called a Hexblade, not a Charmlock or Explorelock or whatever. It was designed as a subclass to be a weapon. It's in the name.


Sort of my gripe about it. If you multi-class into it you can make a very viable blade lock. Staying pure however just feels lack-luster, under powered and doesn't do the job anywhere near as good by blasting things at a distance.

[ad_hoc]

People who actually play in the third and fourth tier spend most of their time playing at those levels.

Those players are a very small amount of the player pool.

The game is just not designed for those levels. It is designed around 5-10.


Advancement takes much longer the higher you go.

This isn't true.

After level 11 it takes less and less time to go up each level.

10-11 takes more experience than both 11-12 and 12-13 (individually) despite characters being in a completely new tier (and thus acquiring experience much quicker).

Levels 11-20 are designed to go by very quickly. Levels 1-4 go by very quickly as well, slowing down a bit as they go until they get glacially slow after 5th. Then at 11th they speed up again until they are very fast by 20.

[Sigreid]

Sort of my gripe about it. If you multi-class into it you can make a very viable blade lock. Staying pure however just feels lack-luster, under powered and doesn't do the job anywhere near as good by blasting things at a distance.

I have some time to go before my hexblade bladelock finds out how it plays out. I'm trying to keep him as a weapon, taking the main melee position in our group.

[Matrix_Walker]

Those players are a very small amount of the player pool.

The game is just not designed for those levels. It is designed around 5-10.
That's like saying Monopoly was only designed around the second lap around the board.



This isn't true.

After level 11 it takes less and less time to go up each level.

10-11 takes more experience than both 11-12 and 12-13 (individually) despite characters being in a completely new tier (and thus acquiring experience much quicker).

Levels 11-20 are designed to go by very quickly. Levels 1-4 go by very quickly as well, slowing down a bit as they go until they get glacially slow after 5th. Then at 11th they speed up again until they are very fast by 20.
Not in my experience.

[Sigreid]

Not in my experience.
Probably depends on the campaign. At our table you level up when, and only when the DM is ready for you to.

[ad_hoc]

That's like saying Monopoly was only designed around the second lap around the board.


Not in my experience.

It's right there in the book.

[danpit2991]

This is exactly what I said.
.

yea but i thought you made it sound like a feature when it is clearly a bug

[danpit2991]

replies in quotes



To be fair, a warlock CAN be competitive without houserules, and for the most part, the only invocation-based spells that use spell slots are the ones that scale with level (also, see below). The bulk of the invocation-based spells that don't scale with level are able to be cast without using spell slots.

Invocation spells with No Spell Slots used:
Speak with dead
Arcane Eye
Freedom of movement
Jump
Silent Image
Alter Self are these really worth the invocation????? not really at least IMO
Detect Magic
Disguise self
Water Breathing
Speak with animals
Mage Armor
None of these spells have the ability to scale.

Invocation Spells with Spell Slot used:
Bane
Bestow curse
Conjure Elemental good spells should be on class list though
Confusion
Fireball via Kiss of Mephistopheles
All of which scale with the Warlock spell slot used.

Invocation spells that use a Spell slot but don't scale (These are likely restricted for power-level reasons):
Polymorph
Slow
Compulsion good spells should be on class list though


Invocation Spells that could scale, but don't use spell slots (These are likely ALSO restricted for power-level reasons):
Hold Monster - You can actually use this more than once per long rest, but you can't target the same creature until after the long rest. However, it's limited to be used only targeting celestials, fiends, or elementals
False Life - it explicitly states to be used at first level, and is great for early to mid level locks
Invisibility - otherwise your party would always be invisible at all time. It was added in XGtE as a better version of UA's Shroud of Ulban



Let's assume that a 2nd level spell is twice as good as a 1st level spell, and that a 3rd level spell is 50% better than a second. In general, this is a very conservative estimate of power. Fireball is more than twice as good as burning hands, for instance.

Wizard 10:
1st: 4*1=4
2nd: 3*2=6
3rd: 3*3=9
4th: 3*4=12
5th: 2*5=10
AR:10
Total SP:51

Warlock 10:
5th: 6*5=30

Wizard is better at spellcasting, but it's nothing extreme, and as I said, this analysis vastly undervalues high-level spells. To further illustrate that point, the warlock has infinite casting of many useful low-level spells. It's very easy to picture an adventuring day where the warlock uses a first level spell equivalent without a slot more than ten times.all of them are incredibly situational and come at great cost

Nonetheless, let's agree that the wizard is the better full caster.

Let's look at everything that isn't casting.

Cantrips: Warlock clearly gets the better deal here.EB spam is fun
Familiar: Warlock clearly gets the better deal here, if he wants it.
Hit Dice: Warlock clearly gets the better deal here.
Proficiencies: Warlock clearly gets the better deal here, with light armor and a better skill list.
Main Stat Synergy: CHA is actually used for several very important skills, CHA saves are more common and more important than INT saves.
Base class features: Wizard has arcane recovery, Warlock has invocations. Invocations are better
Subclass features: Wizard has the slight advantage here, in my estimation.

Overall, I do think that the warlock is a little weaker. But only a little. you mispelled alot weaker

[Matrix_Walker]

It's right there in the book.

Where does it say the game is designed to be primarily for 2nd teir play only? A statement like that demands a reference.

[strangebloke]

replies in quotes
You say that invocations come at a great cost? What's the cost? Opportunity cost because you don't get the one singular class feature wizards do??? You get free at will spells. That's awesome.

Yeah they're utility spells. So what? Alter self at will is a ridiculously strong ability, especially in a socially oriented campaign. Thirsting blade is the extra attack feature. Agonizing blast is a fantastic damage buff to the best damage cantrip in the game.

Warlocks aren't wizards. But they are pretty comparable to bards, imo. They have fewer spells but better spell selection. They don't get expertise, but they get great utility magic. They're far hardier than most wizards.

[Malifice]

This is patently false yes the lock can have 6 5th level slots BUT he only has 6 slots total

look at 10th level a warlock has 2 5th level slots so with 2 short rests thats 6 5th level or 6 slots total for the whole day, 6 spells

10th level wizard 2 x 5th, 3 x 4th, 3 x 3rd, 3 x 2nd and 4 x 1st

The game works around 2.5 short rests (2-3) per long rest as a median. AND you've picked level 10 (1 level before the Warlock gets 3 slots/ short rest).

You're really stacking the deck against the Warlock here.

The OP is 11th level (3 slots/ short rest). 3 x 2.5 short rests [and 1 long rest] = 10.5 x 5th level spells per long rest, plus 1 x 6th level arcana. 58 spell levels per day.

The Wizard 11 gets 1x 6th, 2 x 5th, 3 x 4th, 3 x 3rd, 3 x 2nd and 4 x 1st and 1 x 6th from Arcane recovery. 53 spell levels per day.


he warlock as written will never be anything but a dip class because it is awful after 6th

Rubbish mate.

Its awful after 6th level IF YOUR DUNGEON MASTER RUNS A GAME WHERE YOU DONT GET SHORT RESTS.

If your Dungeon Master is running a game that cleaves close to the mechanical expectaction of the game of 2-3 short rests per long rest, the Warlock is perfectly awesome.

[Mister_Squinty]

Rubbish mate.

Its awful after 6th level IF YOUR DUNGEON MASTER RUNS A GAME WHERE YOU DONT GET SHORT RESTS.

If your Dungeon Master is running a game that cleaves close to the mechanical expectaction of the game of 2-3 short rests per long rest, the Warlock is perfectly awesome.

And we've completed the circle. That's what the main complaint is. The Warlock is a good class as long as the DM only plays a certain style. The dragster runs the 1/4 mile very well, but if you put it on a F1, Indy, NASCAR, or rally course, it suffers.

[Malifice]

For those arguing that the DMG recommends 6-8 encounters per day, please note that Jeremy Crawford has expressly said otherwise (https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/936041806113816576).

No he didnt.

He actually said that the game expects PCs to run out of resources at the 6-8 encounter mark; but that this doesnt mean that a DM needs to push 6+ encounters every single day on the party.

He was also clear that this was in relation to encounter design, and not 'class and adventure' design (whatever that means) and that classes are balanced around 6+ encounters/ long rest. From Twitter:


'But you designed class mechanics around the 6+ encounters day. Thus when they don't happen we get 'quadratic wizards', which is a trope many of us hate with a passion.'


To which Crawford responded with:


'Yes. You just described what I said: the point at which parties get tired out. That’s class and adventure design, not to be confused with combat design. Those are three areas of intersecting design.'


Which is him saying: 'monsters [combat encounters] are designed around the assumption that they are going to be tackled by a party at full strength, but classes get balanced around a different [6+/2.5 short rest] benchmark.'

[Slayn82]

Hexblade has a few nice advantages other Warlocks don't have.

Medium armor + shield makes a very tanky caster. You can pass Armor of Shadows and the Shield spell, because you have benefits roughly equivalent to both spells once you get half plate and your shield. On the melee vs ranged issue, Hexblade gets tools to be a strong pursuer, like monks. You have Grasp of Hadar and Lance of Lethargy to heavily control enemy movement, Relentles Hex to get a good positioning, and Eldritch Smite to knock the enemy prone so your team can smack him too. Not bad at all.

[danpit2991]

You say that invocations come at a great cost? What's the cost? Opportunity cost because you don't get the one singular class feature wizards do??? You get free at will spells. That's awesome.

Yeah they're utility spells. So what? Alter self at will is a ridiculously strong ability, especially in a socially oriented campaign. Thirsting blade is the extra attack feature. Agonizing blast is a fantastic damage buff to the best damage cantrip in the game.

Warlocks aren't wizards. But they are pretty comparable to bards, imo. They have fewer spells but better spell selection. They don't get expertise, but they get great utility magic. They're far hardier than most wizards.

ok lets take the middle road of tenth level at this level you get 5 invocations

lets see here ....

1. in order to get max benifit from EB you have to take AB since it is what you will spend your time doing over and over (almost a tax for effectiveness)

2. oh look another tax in the form of book of secrets/chain master/thirsting blade

3. devil sight is probably next on the list for those who dont have darkvision and/or for the darkness combo

4. mage armor cause its better than light armor actually better than a chain shirt

5. ??????

so that leaves us with only ONE (2 if you forgo one of the others) invocations so yea it is a great freaking cost as at least 3 of your 5 available are pretty much required to have the most basic of competence


and bards? the songbirds are better at magic, social encounters, anything with skills and fighting than warlocks.
the only thing warlock has going for them is multiclassing synergy,the ability to be an extra target so the really effective party members dont get hit. and as an alt IE: alt caster,healer,dps ECT. that is their role, the back up guy

it sucks you sell your soul,make a pact with eldritch horrors or divine powers and what do you get?? a magic longbow that never runs out of ammo and 2 spell slots ....what a gyp

[Saggo]

And we've completed the circle. That's what the main complaint is. The Warlock is a good class as long as the DM only plays a certain style. The dragster runs the 1/4 mile very well, but if you put it on a F1, Indy, NASCAR, or rally course, it suffers.

Calling no short rests a style is like giving up all weapons, calling it a style, and then complaining Fighter is bad. Short rests are an integral part of the system, not a style.

[danpit2991]

The game works around 2.5 short rests (2-3) per long rest as a median. AND you've picked level 10 (1 level before the Warlock gets 3 slots/ short rest).

You're really stacking the deck against the Warlock here.

The OP is 11th level (3 slots/ short rest). 3 x 2.5 short rests [and 1 long rest] = 10.5 x 5th level spells per long rest, plus 1 x 6th level arcana. 58 spell levels per day.

The Wizard 11 gets 1x 6th, 2 x 5th, 3 x 4th, 3 x 3rd, 3 x 2nd and 4 x 1st and 1 x 6th from Arcane recovery. 53 spell levels per day.



Rubbish mate.

Its awful after 6th level IF YOUR DUNGEON MASTER RUNS A GAME WHERE YOU DONT GET SHORT RESTS.

If your Dungeon Master is running a game that cleaves close to the mechanical expectaction of the game of 2-3 short rests per long rest, the Warlock is perfectly awesome.


wasnt stacking at least not trying to 10 is halfway to 20

spell levels is a crap comparison mate

so at 11 there are 3 slots plus a spell like ability so with 2 rests thats 9 slots and the SLA so 10 spells total so even with short rests its rubbish

the wizard gets 17 slots total (6th level recovery) so with 17slots he can tailor his spells to the encounter and can certainly cast more than 4 freaking spells in an encounter

[danpit2991]

And we've completed the circle. That's what the main complaint is. The Warlock is a good class as long as the DM only plays a certain style. The dragster runs the 1/4 mile very well, but if you put it on a F1, Indy, NASCAR, or rally course, it suffers.

except all those other cars do pretty well on the dragstrip

[Daphne]

except all those other cars do pretty well on the dragstrip

They actually do better in a "dragstrip", as they can nova.

[danpit2991]

They actually do better in a "dragstrip", as they can nova.

??.......touche'

[danpit2991]

on a side note......i finally figured out the avatar thing ....WHOOOOOOOO HOOOOOO

[strangebloke]

And we've completed the circle. That's what the main complaint is. The Warlock is a good class as long as the DM only plays a certain style. The dragster runs the 1/4 mile very well, but if you put it on a F1, Indy, NASCAR, or rally course, it suffers.


Calling no short rests a style is like giving up all weapons, calling it a style, and then complaining Fighter is bad. Short rests are an integral part of the system, not a style.
:slowclap

Exactly.

At the very most, you've proved that warlock is weak at combat in a combat-lite game. IMO Warlocks are actually great in a social game. Lots of CHA, nice CHA-based skills, knowledges if those are relevant, stuff like alter self which is tons of fun in a game emphasizing the social pillar.... but I digress.

You can say that its BS that 5e requires so many encounters.

To which I say, ok. Then fix that rule. At the very least, allow all x/Short Rest abilities to become 3x/long-rest abilities. If you're up for a bit of work (but a fun bit!) look up guides on how to do the gritty realism rules.

DnD is the first system most people know and therefore they try to shoehorn it into all kinds of genres without really thinking about what sorts of houserules they're going to need. And the system does need houserules to make social encounters interesting and a major focus. It's a limiation. But that is only the system's fault insofar as it's a system trying to emulate a specific thing, as opposed to a general-purpose system.


ok lets take the middle road of tenth level at this level you get 5 invocations

lets see here ....

1. in order to get max benifit from EB you have to take AB since it is what you will spend your time doing over and over (almost a tax for effectiveness)

2. oh look another tax in the form of book of secrets/chain master/thirsting blade

3. devil sight is probably next on the list for those who dont have darkvision and/or for the darkness combo

4. mage armor cause its better than light armor actually better than a chain shirt

5. ??????

so that leaves us with only ONE (2 if you forgo one of the others) invocations so yea it is a great freaking cost as at least 3 of your 5 available are pretty much required to have the most basic of competence

it sucks you sell your soul,make a pact with eldritch horrors or divine powers and what do you get?? a magic longbow that never runs out of ammo and 2 spell slots ....what a gyp

1. AB is only a tax if you want to be a blaster. And yes, it's a 'magic longbow' that works off of your casting stat, gives you the same number of attack as a fighter, and can induce a rider with every attack if you pick up repelling blast. That's all it is. The thing is, though, that Warlocks are decent, consistent blasters even without AB, so picking this is just a decision to specialize.

2. The word tax implies "You have to take this thing that other classes don't or you suck." In 3x, there was a 'tax' on finesse builds because you had to use up resources other classes didn't just to be competent. Three options for a class feature is not a 'tax.' Is it a tax that valor bards have to take extra attack as a feature at level 5? Either way, if you're going thirsting blade at this level you really don't need AB at 1st level.

3. Oh, hey look, something really powerful that is very difficult to do if you're not a warlock or shadow sorc. It's almost as though invocations have some powerful applications. And once again, you don't need this. The devil's sight combo becomes less powerful as you level up and if you were fighting in melee alongside your friends you probably weren't actually using it that much anyway. Maybe you want to play a master of disguise or some crap.

4. You don't need this. If you are doing darkness/devil's sight, you're already pretty resilient. If you're a hexblade, it's actually inferior. If you aren't a hexblade it is good, but once again, there are other things you might want to do.

Even if these were always the best options they would still all be class features. They genuinely make you stronger. AB doesn't just allow you to 'keep up' with wizards, it let's you do better than they can at a given thing. Thirsting blade doesn't just let you 'keep up' with wizards, it gives you the tools you need to keep up in melee with the martials.

Warlocks can almost keep up with full casters at spellcasting, they can have a ranged option that can keep up with most martials with limited resource expenditure, they can easily have several at-will first level spells that grant them more out-of-combat magical flexibility than anyone else, they're one of the best gishes right out of the box, and they can pull off a fair number of tricks that almost no one else can. They're weaker than wizards, but then, so is everyone else.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Never thought the warlock was designed around long lasting melee combat. Hexblade and the blade pact are options for a warlock to be in the melee but i doubt the intention was to sit there like a paladin.

I'd suggest playing the class and subclass with the mindset of "I'll get in, Whammy them, then get out". If you want a paladin play one, but don't complain that the hexblade isn't one.

Hexblade is a glass canon gish option for a mostly fullcaster. Best to play similar to a monk, only you have spells.

[Xetheral]

No he didnt.

He actually said that the game expects PCs to run out of resources at the 6-8 encounter mark; but that this doesnt mean that a DM needs to push 6+ encounters every single day on the party.

He was also clear that this was in relation to encounter design, and not 'class and adventure' design (whatever that means) and that classes are balanced around 6+ encounters/ long rest. From Twitter:


'But you designed class mechanics around the 6+ encounters day. Thus when they don't happen we get 'quadratic wizards', which is a trope many of us hate with a passion.'


To which Crawford responded with:


'Yes. You just described what I said: the point at which parties get tired out. That’s class and adventure design, not to be confused with combat design. Those are three areas of intersecting design.'


Which is him saying: 'monsters [combat encounters] are designed around the assumption that they are going to be tackled by a party at full strength, but classes get balanced around a different [6+/2.5 short rest] benchmark.'

Posters were claimaing that 6-8 encounters per day was recommeneded in the DMG. I linked to a quote of Jeremy Crawford explictly saying that the DMG does NOT make any such recommendation. None of the additonal quotes you've cited contradict Crawford's statement that 6-8 encounters per day is NOT a recommendation in the DMG.

Your additional quotes (and my original one!) offer support for the separate claim that the classes were designed to all run out of resources at the 6-8 encounter mark. I completely agree, but it still doesn't follow that 6-8 encounters is recommended in the DMG.

[danpit2991]

:slowclap

Exactly.

At the very most, you've proved that warlock is weak at combat in a combat-lite game. IMO Warlocks are actually great in a social game. Lots of CHA, nice CHA-based skills, knowledges if those are relevant, stuff like alter self which is tons of fun in a game emphasizing the social pillar.... but I digress.

You can say that its BS that 5e requires so many encounters.

To which I say, ok. Then fix that rule. At the very least, allow all x/Short Rest abilities to become 3x/long-rest abilities. If you're up for a bit of work (but a fun bit!) look up guides on how to do the gritty realism rules.

DnD is the first system most people know and therefore they try to shoehorn it into all kinds of genres without really thinking about what sorts of houserules they're going to need. And the system does need houserules to make social encounters interesting and a major focus. It's a limiation. But that is only the system's fault insofar as it's a system trying to emulate a specific thing, as opposed to a general-purpose system.



1. AB is only a tax if you want to be a blaster. And yes, it's a 'magic longbow' that works off of your casting stat, gives you the same number of attack as a fighter, and can induce a rider with every attack if you pick up repelling blast. That's all it is. The thing is, though, that Warlocks are decent, consistent blasters even without AB, so picking this is just a decision to specialize.

2. The word tax implies "You have to take this thing that other classes don't or you suck." In 3x, there was a 'tax' on finesse builds because you had to use up resources other classes didn't just to be competent. Three options for a class feature is not a 'tax.' Is it a tax that valor bards have to take extra attack as a feature at level 5? Either way, if you're going thirsting blade at this level you really don't need AB at 1st level.

3. Oh, hey look, something really powerful that is very difficult to do if you're not a warlock or shadow sorc. It's almost as though invocations have some powerful applications. And once again, you don't need this. The devil's sight combo becomes less powerful as you level up and if you were fighting in melee alongside your friends you probably weren't actually using it that much anyway. Maybe you want to play a master of disguise or some crap.

4. You don't need this. If you are doing darkness/devil's sight, you're already pretty resilient. If you're a hexblade, it's actually inferior. If you aren't a hexblade it is good, but once again, there are other things you might want to do.

Even if these were always the best options they would still all be class features. They genuinely make you stronger. AB doesn't just allow you to 'keep up' with wizards, it let's you do better than they can at a given thing. Thirsting blade doesn't just let you 'keep up' with wizards, it gives you the tools you need to keep up in melee with the martials.

Warlocks can almost keep up with full casters at spellcasting, they can have a ranged option that can keep up with most martials with limited resource expenditure, they can easily have several at-will first level spells that grant them more out-of-combat magical flexibility than anyone else, they're one of the best gishes right out of the box, and they can pull off a fair number of tricks that almost no one else can. They're weaker than wizards, but then, so is everyone else.

i cant remember the thread but i made the point that in a social heavy game like an urban setting then warlock can and does shine

perhaps "tax" was the wrong word to use but AB certainly is almost a requirement


and the key word you used is "almost" they are a "full"caster that can almost keep up. they can almost keep up with martials

i dont have the new book but hexblade seems to solve some of the gish issues

i still contend that the warlock is a subpar choice for anything other than a multiclass , a generalist or an alternate roll filler in the party. you will probably never shine but you will probably never be irrelevant just stuck in mediocrity unless you spend most of your resources for your "one thing"

none of this means that they are not fun or flavorful or adequate and i wouldnt bag on someone for playing one, heck i have played one up to 12 and it was fun but i realized that a sorlock was better in almost every way, same with my 2 fighter/warlocks (champ and brute)

IMO it is a class that requires extensive home brew to be good compared to all other choices (except beastmaster)
for example:
1. use spell points
2. invocations that require slots dont use spell slots
3. all spells on spell list are available without preperation

1 and 3 are mutually exclusive so either 1 and 2 or 2 and 3 as all three would be wayyyyy op

and that would solve 99% of the issues i have with warlock

[danpit2991]

side note..... it just hit me warlock players are like some kind of cult.......... coincidence???????????? ROTFLMAO

[Malifice]

wasnt stacking at least not trying to 10 is halfway to 20

spell levels is a crap comparison mate

so at 11 there are 3 slots plus a spell like ability so with 2 rests thats 9 slots and the SLA so 10 spells total so even with short rests its rubbish

the wizard gets 17 slots total (6th level recovery) so with 17slots he can tailor his spells to the encounter and can certainly cast more than 4 freaking spells in an encounter

Yes the Wizard gets 7 more slots, but those 7 extra slots (at 11th level) are 1st and 2nd level slots (which are pretty rubbish; shield being the notable exception).

A Wizard can spam a 2nd level slot for Scorching ray. A Warlocks cantrips are dealing the same damage at this level (11th).

Put it this way; would you rather have 10 x 5th level slots and 1 x 6th level slot, or 17 x slots (4 x level 1, 3 x level 2, 3 x level 3, 2 x level 4, 2 x level 5 and 2 x level 6.)?

[Arial Black]

I disagree with the analogy.

The Warlock gets a lot more high level slots than the Wizard does. The Warlock will have an average of 6 highest level spell slots per long rest. That makes them the most heavy hitting of the full casters. Wizards will have many low level slots to compensate. They can cast more total spells but their spells have less impact.

Not in the OP's campaign, at least as far as combat spells go.

In a campaign where there is, tops, one fight per day but that fight is a big one, then the warlock only gets two slots for that battle.

[Malifice]

Posters were claimaing that 6-8 encounters per day was recommeneded in the DMG. I linked to a quote of Jeremy Crawford explictly saying that the DMG does NOT make any such recommendation.

You're missing the context of his answer mate. He clearly deliniated that you dont need 6-8 encounters per day for combat to be balanced. There is nothing in the DMG that says so.

He then goes on to expressly agree that the classes are balanced around this figure.


Your additional quotes (and my original one!) offer support for the separate claim that the classes were designed to all run out of resources at the 6-8 encounter mark. I completely agree, but it still doesn't follow that 6-8 encounters is recommended in the DMG.

Exactly. The DMG states that long rest resources are expected to last 6-8 encounters before being expended, and you are expected to grant 2-3 short rests over that time (for class balance between Long and Short rest classes).

That is not the same as the DMG saying 'ýou must always (or even should) stick to this encounter/ short rest frequency'.

Crawford was simply saying: 'Have one encounter/ long rest if you want. There is no 6+ encounter rule in the game. The expectation is you hit each combat encounter at full strength''.

That statement is silent on short rest/ long rest class balance. Clearly if you run games with a short rest every encounter, and 12 encounters per day, then short rest classes are going to dominate over and above long rest classes. Clearly the inverse is also true (single encounter days - or multiple encounter/ no short rest days - favor long rest classes)

[Arial Black]

Its awful after 6th level IF YOUR DUNGEON MASTER RUNS A GAME WHERE YOU DONT GET SHORT RESTS.

...and brilliant if your DM runs a game where you can take a short rest after every single fight in an adventuring day with lots of fights!

[danpit2991]

Put it this way; would you rather have 10 x 5th level slots and 1 x 6th level slot, or 17 x slots (4 x level 1, 3 x level 2, 3 x level 3, 2 x level 4, 2 x level 5 and 2 x level 6.)?

obviously more slots... lack of slots has been my biggest peeve and complaint


thats
4 shields,magic missles(for mooks),feather falls ect. first level spells are not weak just not strong

3 darkness,reduce/enlarge,misty step,rope trick ect.

3 fireballs,fears,fly,haste lightning bolt ect

you get the idea more tools in the box. the only thing a warlock can do is upcast an extremly limited selection of known spells , a mere 15 at 20th level heck there are only 4 options each for level 4 and 5 spells so yea they are great casters seein as how they get 2 more than the fighter (blue is sarcasm right?) i posted earlier with my recommended houserules on how think they should have been written


side note..... warlock chassis would be interesting for psionics maybe

[Malifice]

obviously more slots... lack of slots has been my biggest peeve and complaint

You would rather 20 x 1st level slots, over 4 x 5th level slots? Seriously?

Like if you were a Sorcerer, you would burn all your high level slots and convert them into [many] lower level ones?

More luck to you I guess, and its a question of personal preference. Not a question of power.


4 shields,magic missles(for mooks),feather falls ect. first level spells are not weak just not strong

Dude; at 11th level magic missile with a 1st level slot is dealing 3d4+3 damage. At 11th level eldritch blast (+Hex which lasts all day) is dealing 3d10+15+3d6 damage. And likely has a status effect as well from an invocation.

Even without hex its 3d10+15 damage (instead of 3d4+3).


3 darkness,reduce/enlarge,misty step,rope trick ect.

All well and good, but the Warlock has invocations that are the same or better (He has an invocation that lets him teleport as a bonus action [misty step] to a creature he has Hexed or Hexblade cursed at will for example).


3 fireballs,fears,fly,haste lightning bolt ect

3rd level and up is where the real love is I agree.

Once we write off the 7 extra 1st and 2nd level spells though (or make the admission that those 7 extra low level slots are covered for by the Warlock with his at will invocations and better cantrips) the Warlock and Wizard each get 10 slots remaining per long rest (assuming 2-3 short rests over that same time) of levels 3-6 (the Warlocks are all 5th, with one 6th, while the Wizard gets an even spread of levels 3, 4 5 and 6)

The issue isnt with the Warlock class. Its with the Dungeon Master not giving enough short rests, and only doing one encounter per long rest.

I can prove this to you. Play in Warlock in my campaign. You WILL be getting 2-3 short rests per long rest, and you WILL be dealing with 6+ encounters on most adventuring days. Some days more, some days less.

The Warlock plays perfectly fine in those games. Sme rules as the OP, but a different DM.

Again; if your Warlock is sucking, thats the fault of your DM. Have a word with him about rest frequency in your game.

[Talamare]

The first tier is mostly getting ready and scrambling for survival, the second teir is almost ready for the real game, at third tier your ready to play with the big boys, and the 4th you are one. The 5-10 levels is when you are getting the training wheels off and just starting to really come online.

First Tier; you're right, it is scrambling for Survival
Second Tier, on the other hand is where the game is designed for. This is where everything comes online. This is where the spells are most interesting. This is Dungeons and Dragons.
Third Tier, You get everything you were already doing, but amplified. There are rarely new mechanics to worry about, but you might start becoming broken.
Fourth Tier, Everyone should be broken, if you're not... The people who built their characters to be broken will wonder what they even bother spending time with you.

[Mordna]

So after playing my lv 10 hex-blade this week I really do feel that some of the hate it gets is very much based around the idea of how GOOD the lv 1 or 2 dip into the class because of the high benefits its front loaded with. That being said, it really feels though as a pure class... warlock in general is very frustrating and annoying to play. specifically the hex-blade because it fails to do the job its meant to. It sure does sound cool on paper but I mean... ugh the 2 spell slot system just kills you and in all honestly you are served 10x better by simply going far enough in to Lv 3 and dump the rest into Sorc for quicken.

I have been playing a Hexblade Warlock for over a year now, and I love it! (Yes, started with the UA version.) It's definately my best build ever. Maybe not the most optimized one, but the most enjoyable to play. I am not an Eldritch Blast spammer. I went Pact of the Blade and made those other melee enhancing choices along the way. Of course, EB still comes in handy!

SO, with high CON and CHA of course, kind of the tank of the party, while dealing serious damage with a greatsword, empowered by the Curse Bringer invocation, that lets you move you Hexblade's Curse as a bonus (if you slayed them)! No need to wait for that really high level, you can pick it a level 5! It's basically like a Paladin's smite, I only use it when I crit. And Hexblade's Curse helps with that, as crit on 19! :)

So damage output can be: 2d6 + CHA mod + 2d8(x spell slot level)
In my case, level 8 Hexblade Warrior with 20 in CHA: 2d6 + 5 + 8d8

Not to mention, you add your proficiency modifier as damage on top, because of the Hexblade's Curse, and you can have up to +3 bonus with your pact weapon if you take the appropriate Eldritch Invocation and have two attacks/ round with Thirsting Blade.

Hexblade Warriors can be lethal in 1 round!
Not to mention casting all thier spells at thier highest possible level. For example, Blight does 8d8 damage on it's own using a 4th level Warlock Spellslot. And Agonizing Blast works really well if you must use ranged. Throw in some Burning or Chilling Hex for added damage.

Also, as Tiefling you can cast Darkness for free once per long rest. Take the Devil's Sight Eldritch Invocation, cast Darkness on your sword and run around the battlefield having permanent advantege on all your melee hits, given the enemy doesn't have Truesight or something.

Hexblade Warrior rules!
Granted, I only played up to level 8, but planning to stick with it and not multiclass at all. However experience of playing this build for over a year with weekly sessions. I highly recommend it.

[Zalabim]

Pact of the Blade definitely has a lag at level 11 and a real slump at level 17 compared to the warlock's cantrips, and Hexblade certainly does little to nothing to fix that. In fact, the mechanics of hexblade's curse make those levels worse in comparison, the shield proficiency is pretty much only for warlocks using eldritch blast, and this is only somewhat balanced by the easier ability score requirements allowed by Hex Warrior. Hexblade has strong melee where melee was already strong (just using a greatsword will always have the potential to outdamage eldritch blast until level 10) and gives strong blasting where blasting is strong (using Charisma the whole time, and being allowed to swap invocations, makes it quick and clean to switch over to EB around level 11 if you want.) It's a very strong patron option, but it doesn't fix Pact of the Blade.

The changes I'd make to balance between EB and blade a bit more, and curb some of it's 1-3 level dip power, would be to remove Shield Proficiency from Hex Warrior and change the damage of Hexblade's Curse to be only once per turn, but deal 2+half warlock level damage.


I'll assume 12th level, 20 char, with the proper feats and invocations.

Elven Accuracy and 20 char.

Round 1 - Bonus Action Hex Curse - Action Eldritch Blast (3d10 + 15 char + 12 prof) Avg dam 43.5 dam
Round 2 - Bonus Action Hex - Action EB (3d10 +3d6 + 27) avg 54 dam
Round 3 - Bonus Action Quicken EB - Action EB - 108 dam is they all hit

Total: 205.5 dam or 68.6 dam /per round
Of course this character has Elven Accuracy (half-elf I assume) but no way to get advantage at the moment.


Hexblade:

GWM and 20 char

Round 1 - Bonus Action Hex Curse - Action 2 attacks + smite 4d6 + 5d8 + 20 char + 8 prof - 64.5 dam (+20 dam- 84.5 GWM)
Round 2 - Bonus Action Hex - Action 2 attacks + smite 4d6 + 5d8 + 2d6 + 20 char + 8 prof - 71.5 dam (+20 dam - 91.5 GWM)
Round 3 - Action 2 attacks + smite 4d6 + 2d6 + 20 char + 8 prof = 49 dam (+20 dam - 69 GWM)

Total: 185 or 61.6 avg/ round (245 dam or 81.6 dam/round ) and this is without haste (item or party buff) or magical weapon.
Using Eldritch Smite and Hex is really inefficient here. Taking GWM and not using it (and I'm pretty sure you shouldn't use it at this point) is also inefficient. The real optimal play here is to take PM and Improved Pact Weapon. Cast Armor of Agathys before battle for the extra defense. This gives the following:

PM and Improved Pact Weapon Char 20

Round 1 - Bonus action Hexblade's Curse. Action cast Eldritch Blast at close range (3d10+15+12) [43.5]. Lament audibly about how much of a shame it'd be if an enemy were to close to melee range and give you disavantage on these eldritch blasts (while holding your pact polearm) Make a reaction attack if an enemy takes the bait. (1d10+5+5+1) [16.5] (bonus 4 for proficiency if it's the one you cursed)
Round 2 - Action Attack and Bonus action attack with PM (2d10+10+10+2+8+1d4+5+5+1+4) [58.5]
Round 3 - Same thing [58.5]

Total damage 160.5, +16.5 for each round an enemy triggers PM's reaction attack, +25 for each enemy that triggers AoA damage by hitting you with a melee attack until it's depleted. If it's just your target, one reaction attack and one AoA trigger means 206 damage or 68.66 DPR.

You aren't tied into concentrating on hex, and if you don't cast AoA or just want an alternative, Hellish Rebuke does 6d10 at this level (avg 33) with little interference in action economy.

This can be built on later by adding Foresight and GWM between level 16 and 19. There's room for Elvish Accuracy too, if you're really determined.

Nitpick:

Game rules error.

You use your Bonus Action to activate Hexblade Curse. You can cast Eldritch Blast the same round, but you cannot Quicken it in that round because you have already used your Bonus Action.

Round 2: Casting Hex is a Bonus Action. Still unable to Quicken Eldritch Blast yet may cast it normally, but you will have Hex and Hexblade Curse active.

Round 3: Now you can Quicken Eldritch Blast with Hex and Hexblade Curse active.
Thank you for that. I was worried I'd have to point it out on page 4.

Let's assume that a 2nd level spell is twice as good as a 1st level spell, and that a 3rd level spell is 50% better than a second. In general, this is a very conservative estimate of power. Fireball is more than twice as good as burning hands, for instance.
I know this isn't mainly the point, but there's already a scale for the relative value of different levels of spell slots thanks to the spell point variant in the DMG.

The Warlock does not use the multiclass progression table, Has the Pact Magic feature, lacks the spellcasting feature and... You know all this already.
(I have to admit, I'm starting to think people that call Warlocks "Full Casters" are just trolling the rest of us)
Warlocks can learn True Polymorph and turn themselves or someone else into a Dragon and sorcerers can never do that. It does sound like someone's trolling here, but it's not with the idea of warlocks counting as full casters.


People who actually play in the third and fourth tier spend most of their time playing at those levels. Advancement takes much longer the higher you go. Your individual gaming habits don't change that most of a character's chareer is in the higher tiers if you actually play the game through to 20th level.
Between the advancement table and the encounter tables it works out that level 11-20 is the same length by number of encounters as level 1-11, with level 1-4 being the shortest (particularly going from level 1 to 3), level 5-10 being the longest (especially the 10 to 11 stretch), and level 11-20 being between the two, such that tier 2 would be the tier of play with the greatest number of encounters, though tier 3 and 4 should have more when combined. Because of personal gaming habits and DM preference, the amount of real life time spent in each tier is going to differ from group to group.

[Mister_Squinty]

except all those other cars do pretty well on the dragstrip

Agreed, and that's my point. Warlocks are good at one thing and one thing only. With the possible exception of Monk, which doesn't have the Warlock cult following and no one talks about much, the other classes can run in a straight line, race around curves, go off road if needed, etc. To remain balanced with the other classes, Warlocks require the DM to play a very narrow style of encounter pacing. Given that D&D is theoretically supposed to support multiple kinds of storytelling, this accommodation for one class is a detriment.

[mephnick]

The expectation that you're exploring dungeons is another one of the ways that the system very much doesn't support generic fantasy, instead being better at a specific style of play.

If more people realized D&D was not a generic fantasy simulator game the better off we'd all be.

People would buy the system they need to run their social and political bull**** campaigns and the rest of us can kill monsters in a forest in peace.

[Malifice]

Pact of the Blade definitely has a lag at level 11 and a real slump at level 17 compared to the warlock's cantrips, and Hexblade certainly does little to nothing to fix that.

Rubbish mate.

Blade pact Warlocks have an invocation that deals [spell level +1]d8 force damage and auto knocks you prone. At 17th level they get 4 of these each short rest [each one dealing 6d8 force damage].

You're white rooming this again.

[Mordna]

Agreed, and that's my point. Warlocks are good at one thing and one thing only. With the possible exception of Monk, which doesn't have the Warlock cult following and no one talks about much, the other classes can run in a straight line, race around curves, go off road if needed, etc. To remain balanced with the other classes, Warlocks require the DM to play a very narrow style of encounter pacing. Given that D&D is theoretically supposed to support multiple kinds of storytelling, this accommodation for one class is a detriment.

I respectfully disagree. Considered that they are CHA based, they are often the face of the party. They can be illusionst/pranksters or be the dark and gloomy element. Just with the options in the PHB there's already 9 different flavours of Warlock to start with. No other class has such versatility. And now with additions in Xanathar's the options are even greater.

Also, no other class feature offers as many different things as the Warlock-only Eldritch Invocations. It's like having a whole new set of feats, just for the Warlock.

[Ovarwa]

In D&D5? I much prefer having a mix of high and low level slots. It's not just shield. Not just Misty Step. Many other low level spells remain useful forever, in their low-level slots.

I also much prefer having a larger pool of slots for the day. Do I want more than (probably) 3 spells in a single combat? I can do that. Am I concerned that there might be another combat right after this one? Or that I might want to cast something between those combats? I can deal with that too.

Comparing a lousy damage spell to Eldritch Blast is really (deliberately?) missing the point. EB is great. Warlock spell casting, not so great. It might be reasonable to argue that Warlock *deserves* a worse casting mechanic.

But game balance designed around a play style that almost no one actually uses is simply not good design. Expecting real people to actually use that approved play style also doesn't work, because there are good reasons why most games are paced the way they are.

[Malifice]

But game balance designed around a play style that almost no one actually uses is simply not good design. Expecting real people to actually use that approved play style also doesn't work, because there are good reasons why most games are paced the way they are.

Im running a campaign that just hit 20th and the PCs have averaged around 6 encounters and around 2 short rests each long rest over that time. Sometimes more and sometimes less.

We have a Tome Feylock 18, a Lore Bard 18, a Paladin 6/ Cleric 14, a Swashbuckler 15/ Battlemaster 5 and a Paladin 2/ Moon Druid 17.

A pretty good mix of long rest and short rest classes, and they all have a niche and balance out just fine.

Just because your table doesnt do it, doesnt mean that this applies to other tables.

[ad_hoc]

But game balance designed around a play style that almost no one actually uses is simply not good design. Expecting real people to actually use that approved play style also doesn't work, because there are good reasons why most games are paced the way they are.

It is the way the entire system is designed and the pacing that the published adventures follow.

If you want to change it you can, but then you need to deal with the consequences.

You can say that 5e is not well designed, and it might not be your thing, but millions of people enjoy the design just fine.

If you feel that 5e is not well designed then the solution is simple, play a different game. Life is too short.

[Xetheral]

Exactly. The DMG states that long rest resources are expected to last 6-8 encounters before being expended, and you are expected to grant 2-3 short rests over that time (for class balance between Long and Short rest classes).

That is not the same as the DMG saying 'ýou must always (or even should) stick to this encounter/ short rest frequency'.

If you agree with me that Crawford said that 6-8 encounters per day is not a recommendation in the DMG, why did you contract me when I said as much?

[Arial Black]

In D&D5? I much prefer having a mix of high and low level slots. It's not just shield. Not just Misty Step. Many other low level spells remain useful forever, in their low-level slots.

I also much prefer having a larger pool of slots for the day. Do I want more than (probably) 3 spells in a single combat? I can do that. Am I concerned that there might be another combat right after this one? Or that I might want to cast something between those combats? I can deal with that too.

If that is what you prefer (and it's totally okay to prefer whatever you want) then play a class that gives you this. Don't play a warlock and complain that it doesn't give you this! You play a warlock when you want to play a class that gives what what the warlock gives.

You're buying a bike and complaining that it's not as good at being a truck as an actual truck is! If you want something that would make a good truck, buy a truck! Don't complain that bikes are badly designed trucks, when bikes are actually well-designed bikes made for people who want the kind of advantages that bikes offer!

[danpit2991]

You would rather 20 x 1st level slots, over 4 x 5th level slots? Seriously?

Like if you were a Sorcerer, you would burn all your high level slots and convert them into [many] lower level ones?

More luck to you I guess, and its a question of personal preference. Not a question of power.



Dude; at 11th level magic missile with a 1st level slot is dealing 3d4+3 damage. At 11th level eldritch blast (+Hex which lasts all day) is dealing 3d10+15+3d6 damage. And likely has a status effect as well from an invocation.

Even without hex its 3d10+15 damage (instead of 3d4+3).
and you just proved that EB is the best thing warlock has going for it


All well and good, but the Warlock has invocations that are the same or better (He has an invocation that lets him teleport as a bonus action [misty step] to a creature he has Hexed or Hexblade cursed at will for example).
sure lets take the caster up close...great fit for a melee build though so point to you


3rd level and up is where the real love is I agree.

Once we write off the 7 extra 1st and 2nd level spells though (or make the admission that those 7 extra low level slots are covered for by the Warlock with his at will invocations and better cantrips) the Warlock and Wizard each get 10 slots remaining per long rest (assuming 2-3 short rests over that same time) of levels 3-6 (the Warlocks are all 5th, with one 6th, while the Wizard gets an even spread of levels 3, 4 5 and 6)
and that even spread is more useful because you can tailor your spells to the encounter instead of blowing one of your 3 slots as a wiz would you burn a 5th slot on shield? probably not but a lock is forced to
The issue isnt with the Warlock class. Its with the Dungeon Master not giving enough short rests, and only doing one encounter per long rest.
there is still a fundamental lack in the class but yes short resting does somewhat mitigate this


I can prove this to you. Play in Warlock in my campaign. You WILL be getting 2-3 short rests per long rest, and you WILL be dealing with 6+ encounters on most adventuring days. Some days more, some days less.
finding a game is tough for me so if you are in the seattle area I accept
The Warlock plays perfectly fine in those games. Sme rules as the OP, but a different DM.

Again; if your Warlock is sucking, thats the fault of your DM. Have a word with him about rest frequency in your game.
my lock is retired I play fighter/warlocks now lol and its awesome warlock is the best for MC and dips


in summary warlocks are nothing special they are lacking compared to other classes (without home rules) but are fun to play and are middle of the road in most aspects of the game

[Talamare]

EB SPAM IS FUN

EB Spam is no different than using regular Attack with a Fighter or Ranger or Rogue or All the other Attack based class.

[Mister_Squinty]

EB Spam is no different than using regular Attack with a Fighter or Ranger or Rogue or All the other Attack based class.

Except, with the exception of Fighter, those other classes don't get as many base attacks as a EB Spammer.

[trctelles]

You can also give everyone a magic items named "Flask of rest". It holds 2-3 charges (depending on how the party/DM sees fit) that you can use, and every time you use it you gain the benefit of a short rest. You regain all expended charges on a long rest. This solves MANY problems, I've seen it at work. You can still take short rest as normal, but in a campaign where short rest reliant classes are getting overshadowed, it will work wonders. This also help when just one person wants/need a short rest and the others don't. He just chug it and is ready to go.

[Vogie]

Except, with the exception of Fighter, those other classes don't get as many base attacks as a EB Spammer.

Right, but other classes have other things going for them. Rogues have sneak attack variants and are really slippery. Rangers can get free damage and extra attacks in certain situations (a Horde Breaker Hunter Ranger gets more attacks at level 5 than a fighter does! ... as long as there are two or more targets).

Basically, a EB spamming Warlock is the D&D equivalent of playing Halo. You have your weapon, you shoot with it until things die, and then occasionally you use an ability here or there, but you can never use more than 2 per short rest.


Now, if you are in a campaign where there isn't a lot of short rests, you could:

move to the spell point variant Warlock
MC into a class with the Catnap spell to give your own short rests (EDIT: or have someone else in the party who can cast it)
ask your DM for some way to make sure you can have some more spell slots


In a previous thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22796480&postcount=4), I suggested a custom invocation for this:

Cruel Bargain
If you roll initiative and have no spell slots remaining, you may regain one spell slot. If you do, you sacrifice HP equal to twice the level of the regained spell slot, plus one (for example, a fourth level spell slot can be regained at the cost of 9 health).

The concept was a Life Tap (from WoW) mixed with the Arcane Archer's Ever-Ready Shot (as they're also a class stuck with only 2 abilities for... ever, actually). The fact that Warlocks are both invocation-poor AND spell slot poor early on, being tied to short rests can be frustrating. Being able to trade one for the other would be only useful at early levels, at which time the warlock would also have the least amount of health.

I also tied it to rolling initiative, so that it isn't really recovery in the traditional sense. It basically only makes sure that a warlock that is attacked between an encounter and their short rest will have at least one spell slot.

[Malifice]

If you agree with me that Crawford said that 6-8 encounters per day is not a recommendation in the DMG, why did you contract me when I said as much?

Not a recommendation that combat encounters are balanced around this figure. Or that this figure is mandated.

Combat encounters are intended and balanced around being hit at full strength.

Class resource balance is however based around this figure (and 2-3 short rests).

See the difference?

[Malifice]

Right, but other classes have other things going for them. Rogues have sneak attack variants and are really slippery. Rangers can get free damage and extra attacks in certain situations (a Horde Breaker Hunter Ranger gets more attacks at level 5 than a fighter does! ... as long as there are two or more targets).

Basically, a EB spamming Warlock is the D&D equivalent of playing Halo. You have your weapon, you shoot with it until things die, and then occasionally you use an ability here or there, but you can never use more than 2 per short rest.


Now, if you are in a campaign where there isn't a lot of short rests, you could:

move to the spell point variant Warlock
MC into a class with the Catnap spell to give your own short rests (EDIT: or have someone else in the party who can cast it)
ask your DM for some way to make sure you can have some more spell slots


In a previous thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22796480&postcount=4), I suggested a custom invocation for this:


The concept was a Life Tap (from WoW) mixed with the Arcane Archer's Ever-Ready Shot (as they're also a class stuck with only 2 abilities for... ever, actually). The fact that Warlocks are both invocation-poor AND spell slot poor early on, being tied to short rests can be frustrating. Being able to trade one for the other would be only useful at early levels, at which time the warlock would also have the least amount of health.

I also tied it to rolling initiative, so that it isn't really recovery in the traditional sense. It basically only makes sure that a warlock that is attacked between an encounter and their short rest will have at least one spell slot.

Your DM just uses the 2 short rest max but they're only 5 minutes long rule.

That's the best compromise.

[Xetheral]

Not a recommendation that combat encounters are balanced around this figure. Or that this figure is mandated.

Combat encounters are intended and balanced around being hit at full strength.

Class resource balance is however based around this figure (and 2-3 short rests).

See the difference?

I see the difference (I even highlighted it), but I don't see how it's relevant. My original post made no claims whatsoever about balance. My only claim was offering JC's quote to rebut the notion that 6-8 encounters per day was recommended in the DMG.

[Talamare]

Right, but other classes have other things going for them. Rogues have sneak attack variants and are really slippery. Rangers can get free damage and extra attacks in certain situations (a Horde Breaker Hunter Ranger gets more attacks at level 5 than a fighter does! ... as long as there are two or more targets).

Basically, a EB spamming Warlock is the D&D equivalent of playing Halo. You have your weapon, you shoot with it until things die, and then occasionally you use an ability here or there, but you can never use more than 2 per short rest.

Are you kidding?

First of all Rogue are forced to meet DPS with Sneak Attack, it's not "AN AWESOME FEATURE THAT GIVES YOU TONS OF PLAYABILITY!"
Ranger is in a similar situation but essentially worse

Warlock has their Spells, Invocations, Class Abilities, and Pact Ability

Also, Halo is one of the most Legendary games of ALL TIME. It revolutionized Shooters with its MASSIVE VARIETY AND INTERESTING GAMEPLAY!
So... Weird way to attempt to burn something...

[Vogie]

Warlock has their Spells, Invocations, Class Abilities, and Pact Ability

Also, Halo is one of the most Legendary games of ALL TIME. It revolutionized Shooters with its MASSIVE VARIETY AND INTERESTING GAMEPLAY!
So... Weird way to attempt to burn something...

It's not a burn. It's just a statement. And We're just talking about a single way to play one class. Yes, warlocks have warlock class features. Thanks for pointing that out. Shocking.

And Halo was great while it lasted, but calling it legendary is a bit of a stretch. It didn't revolutionize anything, but it was very balanced and fun thanks to their golden triangle. In the end it's people shooting people, just like Doom, Counter strike, and various other FPS games.

I should also mention that, like Halo, Warlocks have the ability to be ranged, melee, or both.

[Kane0]

Well if you're into that genre, it was pretty revolutionary. Compare to games like Doom/Quake and even Half Life previously, it was a major step for FPS games. There's a reason its core mechanics were (and are) aped for two console generations.

[Slayn82]

Since people are making comparisons to Halo, and I've been on a Let's play X COM 2 binge watch, I think one thing people consider very little on the Eldritch Blast vs Arcane Blade discussion is the matter of Cover.

Maybe people play too much on featureless rooms, but cover changes a bit the balance of the fight when you are shooting at the enemy, something that melee can avoid by moving and going right on the face. Also, a character using ranged attacks or spells has disadvantage on his attack rolls when they are caught on melee, and if you consider the existance of Attacks of Oportunity in case they retreat unless they use the disengage action, or choose to gamble by taking Dodge and moving. And things get messier if your EB spammer gets grabbed.

[danpit2991]

i keep seeing my point proven over and over, even with "super awesome specialist builds" (melee, blaster, social) warlock comes down to do i use EB or do i use EB? lather rinse repeat. and as always people feel compelled to bring up invocations well for a huge chunk of levels a large portion of them are almost required to be effective. and why doesnt anyone seem to realize most of them use your already severely limited spell slots????? and the ones that dont are in the most part of very situational use??

"but you get at will spells" the fact is of those there are only like 3 or for that might be worth the cost

it is still a fact that a single class warlock, as written ,in its many guises will never be as good as a multiclassed warlock why do you think so many threads are dedicated to that fact? its simple a Fighter warlock is a better melee than a blade pact, a sorlock is a better caster than tomelock and that is just plain obvious. i cant think of any reason to do more than a dip into warlock in order to get the ONE thing it has going for it EB and the invocations to go with EB

[Vogie]

why doesnt anyone seem to realize most of them use your already severely limited spell slots?????

... Because 8 out of 22 isn't "most". It's not even half. That's sub-sixth-grade math right there.

You point isn't proven, it's just you interpreting disparate information as supporting your opinion, even when it doesn't.

Lets start a related thread about how lame fighters are because all they do is spam weapon attacks.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,


Im running a campaign that just hit 20th and the PCs have averaged around 6 encounters and around 2 short rests each long rest over that time. Sometimes more and sometimes less.

We have a Tome Feylock 18, a Lore Bard 18, a Paladin 6/ Cleric 14, a Swashbuckler 15/ Battlemaster 5 and a Paladin 2/ Moon Druid 17.

A pretty good mix of long rest and short rest classes, and they all have a niche and balance out just fine.

Just because your table doesnt do it, doesnt mean that this applies to other tables.

Um, just because it works for you, it doesn't mean that this applies to other tables.

In fact, THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S ENTIRE POST IS ABOUT THE ISSUES HE HAS NOTICED AT HIS TABLE. You decided to declare his table and GM broken. But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.

If the kinds of story that prevails at the OPs table work for that group, then your advice about changing the pace of encounters to fit the DMG's shortrest:longrest is WORTH AVOIDING. Better, I think, to tweak rules as necessary, if necessary, to suit the style of play. Fortunately, this is easy to do.

So, congratulations. The warlock rules work well for you as written. But the OP is far from alone in believing that warlocks come best in small dips.

Anyway,

Ken

[Ovarwa]

Hi,



If you want to change it you can, but then you need to deal with the consequences.

Sure. Fortunately, the change I suggested (and which various other people online have either adapted or arrived at independently; one warlock guide on enworld suggests something similar, for example) makes sure that everything works as expected.


You can say that 5e is not well designed, and it might not be your thing, but millions of people enjoy the design just fine.

I can say that. But, alas, I don't think I said anything about D&D5 as a whole, only this feature of D&D5, which, as I mentioned in the very same post, is easily tweaked if desired. Certainly it beats telling a GM to change how he paces adventures.

*grin* Maybe we'll see some OotS characters argue about whether a break is a short or a long rest...

Anyway,

Ken

[RSP]

Hi,



Um, just because it works for you, it doesn't mean that this applies to other tables.

In fact, THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S ENTIRE POST IS ABOUT THE ISSUES HE HAS NOTICED AT HIS TABLE. You decided to declare his table and GM broken. But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.

If the kinds of story that prevails at the OPs table work for that group, then your advice about changing the pace of encounters to fit the DMG's shortrest:longrest is WORTH AVOIDING. Better, I think, to tweak rules as necessary, if necessary, to suit the style of play. Fortunately, this is easy to do.

So, congratulations. The warlock rules work well for you as written. But the OP is far from alone in believing that warlocks come best in small dips.

Anyway,

Ken

The Warlock rules work fine for the game as written. The issue is, the OP (and others who don't like the features of the Warlock) don't want to play a Warlock; the OP said as much in his post after my last: his table transferred from 4e to 5e mid campaign and he doesn't like the 5e Warlock. Cool, not everyone has to like every class.

Warlock (like most classes) can be a worthwhile dip for some characters. It seems everyone who complains about the design of Warlocks really wants them to be just like other casters, when the entire point of them is to not be like other casters.

Those arguments sound just like the people who complain they want a gish who casts as well as a Wizard and melees as well as a fighter.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,


If that is what you prefer (and it's totally okay to prefer whatever you want) then play a class that gives you this. Don't play a warlock and complain that it doesn't give you this! You play a warlock when you want to play a class that gives what what the warlock gives.


Did I say I was playing a warlock? Did I complain about my game experience? There are a bunch of people talking about the Warlock casting mechanic being every bit as good as the usual, and in many ways, it certainly is not, even with 2 short rests (usually at the GM's discretion) per long rest (also usually at the GM's discretion.)

FWIW, I did suggest that maybe all the other stuff that a warlock gets might compensate for a casting mechanic (and also spell list, but that's not at issue in this thread and not something I mentioned until now) that is not as good as that casters who do not get these other warlock goodies.

Converting all spell slots into damage spells is, in my opinion, a really bad way to compare spell slots utilization. For one thing, as has been covered elsewhere (such as some very good Wizard guides), casters *can* inflict damage, but can often do much better things. In a way, this is especially true for Warlocks, who already have great at-will damage. For another, as has been covered similarly, spells are usually not great at damage.

The original poster raised a complaint. Telling people "don't play a warlock" or "your GM sucks" is less than helpful.


You're buying a bike and complaining that it's not as good at being a truck as an actual truck is! If you want something that would make a good truck, buy a truck! Don't complain that bikes are badly designed trucks, when bikes are actually well-designed bikes made for people who want the kind of advantages that bikes offer!

Well, I'm not buying a bike. I didn't mention bikes. Nor did I complain about bikes. I don't know what bikes or trucks have to do with warlocks.

I *would* say (and have said elsewhere online) that a player who wants to play a real full-caster should not play a Warlock. Warlocks have their own kind of goodness, but their spellcasting, on its own, is not quite that of a more ordinary full-caster.

Maybe you are trying to say something similar? If so, we are kind of agreeing. But only kind of: The OP is far from the first to notice how wonderful a dip in Warlock can be, or notice that various other classes offer more incentive to stay the distance levels 1 through 20.

Anyway,

Ken

[Malifice]

I see the difference (I even highlighted it), but I don't see how it's relevant. My original post made no claims whatsoever about balance. My only claim was offering JC's quote to rebut the notion that 6-8 encounters per day was recommended in the DMG.

And again, you need to take that comment into context.

In this thread for example we are not talking about combat encounters (where the expectation is that PCs hit them at full strength; so the 6-8/2-3 guideline isnt relevant); we are talking about class balance (where the 6-8/ 2-3 short rest reccomendation is relevant).

But yes, I agree with you the DMG doesnt mandate a 6-8 encounter/ 2-3 short rest adventuring day [between long rests]. Ive never said it does.

Many adventuring days in the group I have been DMing for 3 years have fewer than 6 encounters [and some have the occasional single encounter], s0me days feature the occasional longer 8+ encounter day, the occasional day with a single or no short rests, and the occasional day with more than 3 short rests.

Its not mandated at all by the book for combats to have that many rests/ encounters. Its the books guideline for class balance though, so it's useful to use that guideline as a baseline for encounter and adventure design.

Straying from it to far, and too often, will throw class balance out the window.

[Davrix]

The Warlock rules work fine for the game as written. The issue is, the OP (and others who don't like the features of the Warlock) don't want to play a Warlock; the OP said as much in his post after my last: his table transferred from 4e to 5e mid campaign and he doesn't like the 5e Warlock. Cool, not everyone has to like every class.

Warlock (like most classes) can be a worthwhile dip for some characters. It seems everyone who complains about the design of Warlocks really wants them to be just like other casters, when the entire point of them is to not be like other casters.

Those arguments sound just like the people who complain they want a gish who casts as well as a Wizard and melees as well as a fighter.

I actually like the design of the warlock and I feel it does a pretty good job if your the sit back and blast them type of caster. I just feel like it falls apart with the hexblade sub-class when your trying to be more close quarters combat. Sure you can get some impressive damn nova out of it. But it has no sustain and the two biggest spells you want to use most often like Shield and Darkness gain no benefit from up-casting. The basic point I was trying to make is that you are better served by not staying pure warlock if you want to be up close and personal. A paladin x / hexblade 3 is going to work / preform better and longer than a pure version of the class. And I just feel like that's a fail of its design. Granted this fact is just made worse because of my tables style of play which is probably largely influenced by 4th ed.

Oh and our solution has been I'm allowed to convert one spell slot per short rest into 7 spell points that carry over until a long rest. Going to give it a try next week when we play.

[Malifice]

Um, just because it works for you, it doesn't mean that this applies to other tables.


Exactly. That was my actual point. The post I was quoting was suggesting that it's impossible [or rare] to run a campaign featuring a multi-encounter, multi short rest adventuring day as a median.

My point was thats not true. Ive managed it for 3 years now in a campaign running to 20th+.


In fact, THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S ENTIRE POST IS ABOUT THE ISSUES HE HAS NOTICED AT HIS TABLE.
You decided to declare his table and GM broken.

No, I didnt say broken. I said If his table is experiencing problems with the ''5 minute work day'' or the rest mechanic being abused or ignored, then thats the DMs fault. If his table are happy with the 5MWD, then good for them.


But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.


I partly agree. The 5E resource/ rest mechanic is problematic. I partly wish that they removed all short rest/ long rest recharge of abilities, and instead went with all abilities being 'per encounter' insted. That way class balance isnt about ensuring a median target of around half a dozen encounters per long rest, and a short rest every 2 or so encounters over the span of all your adventuring days. Instead class balane would be adventuring day neutral so to speak (classes remain balanced if you have 1 enounter or 20).

Of course the counter argument is that they kind of tried that last edition, and it went down like a lead balloon.

The other counter argument is that the rest variance gives DMs more flexibility in adjusting class balance on the fly. Got a Warlock that is being overshadowed by the party Wizard? Simply dial in more short rests (either by a doom clock pushin the PCs through several encounters in a single day, or by imposing the gritty realism variant for resting, or by reducing the time it takes to short rest to 5 minutes or whatever).

In 5E you (as DM) have your hands on the rest 'dials'. You can manipulate them at will to play around with class balance as desired, without touching a single class feature or anything else.

Thats a pretty neat feature.


If the kinds of story that prevails at the OPs table work for that group, then your advice about changing the pace of encounters to fit the DMG's shortrest:longrest is WORTH AVOIDING.

Oh shush.

Im not saying anything about the 'story' that prevails at the OPs table. There is zero (and I mean zero) equivalence between his tables 'story' and the rules for resting.

Is there any reason why the DM in the OPs group cant use a rule that reduces short rests to 5 minutes (or even makes them automatic after each encounter)? Or why the OPs DM cant implement the Gritty Rest variant from the DMG (which perfectly suits a campaign pacing of 0-3 encounters per day + heavy RP of the OPs campaign?).

I assure you the reason the OP is having his problems is becuase his DM is naive to the rest/ resource paradigm and how it works to ensure class balance. I doubt the OPs DM is only (or intentionally) running a game featuring zero short rests between long rests out of any 'story reasons' (unless the 'story' is one where Warlocks, Monks and Fighters are intended to suck).

Please, explain to me why the OPs DM cant do something in this case? Such as simply impose gritty rest variant for long rests [make them 1 week long] and/or bring short rests down to 5 minutes?

Those rules are in the DMG remember.

[Malifice]

A paladin x / hexblade 3 is going to work / preform better and longer than a pure version of the class.

In general, no it's not.

Over shorter (single encounter adventuring days) it probably will. Over standard (or longer) adventuring days, it most certainly will not.

Seeing as your DM doesnt police the Adventuring day at all, then I would avoid Short rest based classes (Warlock, Monk, Fighter) like the plague (barring a small dip for increased Nova potential).

Paladins, Sorcerers (and other fullcasters), Barbarians are the way to go. When combat starts simply spam the highest level crap you can (spells, rage, smites, everything) and nova like mad.

I wouldnt play in such a game personally. Nova games are boring rocket tag with no real decision points in actual play beyond 'mash the buttons'. But each to their own.

[ad_hoc]

But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.


There probably isn't anything wrong with the game, the table is probably just playing the wrong game.

I don't like 4e so I don't play 4e. I don't think 4e is broken just because its design is counter to what I find fun.

[Daithi]

Since the OP says he is doing a lot role playing at his table then another option is to pick Invocations that help you in the role playing situations. For example, Mask of Many Faces, Eldritch Sight, Beguiling Influence, etc.

I actually like Mask of Many Faces as a Hexblade a lot. You get to play Arya Stark.

The XGtE also has several summoning spells to give warlocks in general another cool way to go.

Personally, the warlock is one of my favorite classes because there are so many ways to go with it --- hexblade, summoner, EB blaster, and EB long range sniper, ritual spell concentration, cool familiar...

[RSP]

I actually like the design of the warlock and I feel it does a pretty good job if your the sit back and blast them type of caster. I just feel like it falls apart with the hexblade sub-class when your trying to be more close quarters combat. Sure you can get some impressive damn nova out of it. But it has no sustain and the two biggest spells you want to use most often like Shield and Darkness gain no benefit from up-casting. The basic point I was trying to make is that you are better served by not staying pure warlock if you want to be up close and personal. A paladin x / hexblade 3 is going to work / preform better and longer than a pure version of the class. And I just feel like that's a fail of its design. Granted this fact is just made worse because of my tables style of play which is probably largely influenced by 4th ed.

Oh and our solution has been I'm allowed to convert one spell slot per short rest into 7 spell points that carry over until a long rest. Going to give it a try next week when we play.

I actually think MC-ing in general is preferable to single class characters as it provides a lot more options. Story-wise, I find very few characters that fit the mold of a single class ("all I've ever done is sell my soul to a fiend" vs "I was always a fighter until the day I chose power over my freedom"). Likewise, having options when you level beyond ASIs/Feats allows one to craft the character in how they want it to play.

I don't think that means the Warlock isn't a good single class, just because having options are good. Really, the Wizard and Pally are the only classes that don't benefit mechanically from MCing, and even they have some good choices for certain builds.

And a Hexblade can work fine too. Using your slots on AoA is probably a better use that Shield, though. Shield is a horrible use of a higher level slot; using that as a basis for Warlocks being bad is a poor argument.

[Pex]

It might help some players if they stop thinking of the warlock as a spellcaster and think of it as a warrior. Eldritch Blasting is being an archer. Hexblade/Blade Pact is being a melee warrior. You can be both. It's in between the more fighting focused Eldritch Knight Fighter and more spellcasting focused Valor Bard. It won't solve the problem of short rest issues if that's an issue in your game, but it could help your personal feel of the class. With your mindset focuses on being a warrior instead of a spellcaster, it's easier to get behind the idea of the magic of the class enhancing the warrior aspect instead of being the point of the class.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,


Exactly. That was my actual point. The post I was quoting was suggesting that it's impossible [or rare] to run a campaign featuring a multi-encounter, multi short rest adventuring day as a median.

My point was thats not true. Ive managed it for 3 years now in a campaign running to 20th+.

But many people have had issues. This is far from the first thread with complaints along these lines. A game subsystem that is difficult to manage, especially in a game intended for non-experts, is problematic, by my way of thinking.



No, I didnt say broken. I said If his table is experiencing problems with the ''5 minute work day'' or the rest mechanic being abused or ignored, then thats the DMs fault. If his table are happy with the 5MWD, then good for them.


Given the paragraph above, I feel rather comfortable with my characterization: You're blaming the GM and the table for doing things you think are wrong.


I partly agree. The 5E resource/ rest mechanic is problematic. I partly wish that they removed all short rest/ long rest recharge of abilities, and instead went with all abilities being 'per encounter' insted. That way class balance isnt about ensuring a median target of around half a dozen encounters per long rest, and a short rest every 2 or so encounters over the span of all your adventuring days. Instead class balane would be adventuring day neutral so to speak (classes remain balanced if you have 1 enounter or 20).

Of course the counter argument is that they kind of tried that last edition, and it went down like a lead balloon.

Hmm. I think that the main issues besetting D&D4 were different, mostly about the game not feeling at all like D&D.

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean:

I think that the encounter vs daily paradigm of D&D4 is superior to the short vs long rest paradigm of D&D5. It is easier to understand, easier for any group to do "correctly" and easily translates to "movie realism" in which characters are recharged between scenes.

But D&D4 was not at all adventuring day neutral. Some classes had great dailies at the expense of other powers. Other classes had great at-wills at the expense of other powers. Etc. And there were a few classes that were far superior to all the others, mocking any notion of balancing anything.


The other counter argument is that the rest variance gives DMs more flexibility in adjusting class balance on the fly. Got a Warlock that is being overshadowed by the party Wizard? Simply dial in more short rests (either by a doom clock pushin the PCs through several encounters in a single day, or by imposing the gritty realism variant for resting, or by reducing the time it takes to short rest to 5 minutes or whatever).

In 5E you (as DM) have your hands on the rest 'dials'. You can manipulate them at will to play around with class balance as desired, without touching a single class feature or anything else.

Thats a pretty neat feature.

It is, for GMs who would want to use them, and able to use them while doing everything else. Some folks prefer a subsystem that just works, and some folks don't like the kind of metagaming that you suggest. Heck, it's easier and no less legitimate to just have the monsters all attack the wizard who is doing too well.


Oh shush.

Im not saying anything about the 'story' that prevails at the OPs table. There is zero (and I mean zero) equivalence between his tables 'story' and the rules for resting.

Yes, there is.

By defining a refresh of powers as a rest, D&D5 ties the refresh to the story, which must now accomodate time for a rest. Story events and pacing must change to allow rests here but not there, or to perhaps impose consequences for some rests.

This can be made to work, as you have done, but adds a degree of difficulty to maintaining both story integrity and game balance.

I think that some simpler mechanic, such as encounter/scene vs day/chapter as you suggest, or such as the variant I suggest, or even the variant in 13th Age (your variant, but there are always 4 encounters per day) is simpler. Your version also provides the benefit you wanted, of letting the GM control the number of encounters/refreshes per day. (My version posted to this thread provides the benefit of giving the *players* more control. A difference of philosophy at work?)


Is there any reason why the DM in the OPs group cant use a rule that reduces short rests to 5 minutes (or even makes them automatic after each encounter)? Or why the OPs DM cant implement the Gritty Rest variant from the DMG (which perfectly suits a campaign pacing of 0-3 encounters per day + heavy RP of the OPs campaign?).

None whatsoever!

That was kind of my original point: The base rules have problems (and all game rules do) but this one can be completely handled with a minor tweak. I offered an alternative scheme, though there are other possibilities, including some of your suggestions.

My second post here is more about Warlocks. The rest issue causes problems in many games, though not yours, as has been described ad nauseam. Their casting mechanism is also inferior, imo, both at the high end where their high level spells are fixed and at the low end, where they cannot nova and must use precious high level slots even for low level spells that cannot be upcast. That doesn't make Warlocks bad, because they have other class features too, that may or may not make up for spellcasting mechanics that I consider inferior to, say, a Wizard's.


I assure you the reason the OP is having his problems is becuase his DM is naive to the rest/ resource paradigm and how it works to ensure class balance. I doubt the OPs DM is only (or intentionally) running a game featuring zero short rests between long rests out of any 'story reasons' (unless the 'story' is one where Warlocks, Monks and Fighters are intended to suck).

I think that D&D, being the fundamental game system to the entire genre, intentionally designed for both veterans and especially neophytes, fails in its mission when a subsystem is difficult to use. And this paradigm clearly is difficult, because this topic arises so often. I'm not saying D&D5 is a failure! On most counts, it succeeds brilliantly in this goal. Not for this subsystem.

I also think that a very common story paradigm is one in which there is little room to rest between chapters or even stories. Dresden Files, Anita Blake, many others. Imposing consequences for enying rests creates tension! So it's easy to end up with either a 5MWD whose single ginormous dramatic encounter may or may not be preceded by intense rp, or with a long, long slog through encounters of escalating difficulty until our resource-depleted heroes must face the climactic encounter. These extremes are far more common, dramatically (here's where story again comes into the picture), than "two short rests per long rest, on average," a paradigm which I do not recognize from actual drama!

So it is easy, natural, and I might even say *right* for a GM to structure his game toward one of the extremes, and expect the rules to support this. No special "intention" needed.

Anyway,

Ken

[Ovarwa]

There probably isn't anything wrong with the game, the table is probably just playing the wrong game.

I don't like 4e so I don't play 4e. I don't think 4e is broken just because its design is counter to what I find fun.

Yes. You were not the problem; the system was a problem for you. You solved it by ditching the system, not by seeing the light and mending your ways.

[Malifice]

But many people have had issues.

I know. And its always down to the DM not understanding the rules. As I said in my first post in this thread.


A game subsystem that is difficult to manage, especially in a game intended for non-experts, is problematic, by my way of thinking.

I partly agree. There are advantages to doing it this way, but there are also disadvantages. There can be difficulty in managing disparate resources, that refresh using different mechanics at different rates.

And thats presuming your DM is aware of the phenomenon in the first place. I hazard a guess the OPs DM isnt aware of the phenomenon, and if he is, is ill equipped to manage it.


Given the paragraph above, I feel rather comfortable with my characterization: You're blaming the GM and the table for doing things you think are wrong.

No. I'm blaming the DM for the problems this player is facing. The DM is allowing the 5 minute (single encounter) adventuring day. Either by design or ignorance. Ergo the problems the OP had with his short rest based PC are entirely at the feet of the DM.

If the DM wanted single encounter adventuring days, he should have implemented the Gritty rest variant, tripled all short rest mechanics (and had them refresh on a long rest) banned the Warlock, Fighter and Monk classes, or similar.

The DM is either intentionally (he knows the difference between short rest/ long rest based classes, and understands the 6-8/2-3 short rest paradigm but willfully ignores it) or negligently (he doesnt understand the above) allowing it to happen.

Its either by design (he wants Warlocks to suck, or doesnt care if it does) or incompetence (he doesnt understand the rest/resource nature of the game, or is unable to police it). In either event, its the DMs fault.


I think that the encounter vs daily paradigm of D&D4 is superior to the short vs long rest paradigm of D&D5. It is easier to understand, easier for any group to do "correctly" and easily translates to "movie realism" in which characters are recharged between scenes.

But it also leads to the 'sameness' that many people did not like about 4E. Me being one of them.


By defining a refresh of powers as a rest, D&D5 ties the refresh to the story, which must now accomodate time for a rest. Story events and pacing must change to allow rests here but not there, or to perhaps impose consequences for some rests.

Cool. Then if your pacing is different from the default [storm the dungeon, clearing around half a dozen plus rooms, going room to room, slaying monsters and taking their stuff] then change the rules around how long those rests take, or how many you can take in a given period of time, or what benefits those rests grant you.

The DMG even gives guidance on how to do this, and provides different pacing option.


I think that some simpler mechanic, such as encounter/scene vs day/chapter as you suggest, or such as the variant I suggest, or even the variant in 13th Age (your variant, but there are always 4 encounters per day) is simpler. Your version also provides the benefit you wanted, of letting the GM control the number of encounters/refreshes per day. (My version posted to this thread provides the benefit of giving the *players* more control. A difference of philosophy at work?)

I both like having the ability to tweak the rests given (and move the spotlight from player to player) and dislike the extra burden it places on the DM (imposing doom clocks, and other contrivances to keep to a median 6/2 split and avod the 5 minute adventuring day).

I find a happy median to cut short rests down to 5 minutes, and impose a limit of a max of 2/day (and not more than 1 every 4 hours).

From there you can simply impose a doom clock to stop PCs from nuking one room, and then falling back to rest overnight. Or just simply say 'nope; thats gaming the rest mechanic and it doesnt fly at my table' or having the BBEG in the Dungeon simply relocate (quest fails) or reinforce the dungeon with double the monsters (quest fails/ becomes more difficult).


My second post here is more about Warlocks. The rest issue causes problems in many games, though not yours, as has been described ad nauseam. Their casting mechanism is also inferior, imo, both at the high end where their high level spells are fixed and at the low end, where they cannot nova and must use precious high level slots even for low level spells that cannot be upcast. That doesn't make Warlocks bad, because they have other class features too, that may or may not make up for spellcasting mechanics that I consider inferior to, say, a Wizard's.


I disagree. Not only do I DM a group, but I play in one as well (a Hexblade Warlock). I find once one gets a short rest every 2 or so encounters (as I do) then the class balances just fine.


I think that D&D, being the fundamental game system to the entire genre, intentionally designed for both veterans and especially neophytes, fails in its mission when a subsystem is difficult to use. And this paradigm clearly is difficult, because this topic arises so often. I'm not saying D&D5 is a failure! On most counts, it succeeds brilliantly in this goal. Not for this subsystem.

The subsystem is NOT difficult to use mate.

Ive run an entire campaign to 20th and havent found it difficult at all (imposition of a doom clock is the best way to go). Rescue the princess/ free the slaves/ stop the ritual/ recover the macguffin/ blow up the Death Star/ throw the Ring into Mount Doom by [midnight] or else she gets sacrificed/ the demon gets summoned/ the macguffin gets moved/ Yavin gets blown up/ Sauron wins etc.

The issue is with DMs who dont understand it, usually on account of the DM not reading - or understanding - the DMG, or a DM that does understand the subsystem and is too incompetent to do anything to police it, or alternatively he does understand the system and just doesnt care about the unbalancing effect of not policing it (like the OPs problems).

At the end of the day, its not the system. Its the DM.

If the DM understood the system, and sought to run his games in accordance with the system (and was competent enough to do so) the problem wouldnt exist.


So it is easy, natural, and I might even say *right* for a GM to structure his game toward one of the extremes, and expect the rules to support this. No special "intention" needed.

i reject the argument that a DM should be able to expect going against the expectations of the system, and the system should still support that extreme.

Thats like saying a DM who ignores the CR and XP budget guidelines of the encounter building section of the DMG and just throws CR 20 monsters at his party, should expect a different result other than repeated TPKs.

The reality is that the PCs will get creamed. Youre going against the expection of the system.

Ditto with ignoring the facts that:

1) DnD is (at its core) a resource based system,
2) Each class uses different methods of resource recovery (short or long rest; or in the case of the Rogue, largely resource neutral barring HP)
3) The game recommends (and the math is clearly based around) longer adventuring days [time between long rests] of multiple encounters featuring 2-3 short rests per long rest.

It should be rather self evident what happens when your campaign deviates from those expectations, without you as DM adressing the issue of rests. Playing against those expections is going to lead to issues.

If your story pacing is 0-3 encounters per game day, with lenghty periods of time spent in towns and such, then simply use the gritty rest variant.

[Talamare]

In fact, THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S ENTIRE POST IS ABOUT THE ISSUES HE HAS NOTICED AT HIS TABLE. You decided to declare his table and GM broken. But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.

Attempts to use Hammer to Screw in Nail...
Fails
Calls the Hammer Broken

[Zalabim]

Rubbish mate.

Blade pact Warlocks have an invocation that deals [spell level +1]d8 force damage and auto knocks you prone. At 17th level they get 4 of these each short rest [each one dealing 6d8 force damage].

You're white rooming this again.
Bull pucky. At level 11, Eldritch Blast gets another ray. At level 12, pact of the blade gets access to lifedrinker. At level 17, Eldritch Blast gets another ray. There is unquestionably a lag at level 11 and a slump at level 17 for pact of the blade's attacks compared to Eldritch Blast. The difference is livable, but it is a reversal of the position the two options had before. Most builds plug this gap with GWM or PM. An option that costs spell slots is quite unlike a cantrip. After one or two rounds, Eldritch Smite stops working.

Eldritch Smite is a universal option that's completely separate from the Hexblade patron. To whatever extent that Eldritch Smite fixes bladelocks at high levels, it's not the Hexblade patron. ES does add a useful tool to the arsenal by giving the build a way to spend extra spell slots that doesn't care about spellcasting ability and isn't limited by spell durations (AoA), concentration (Hex), or patron access (Fire Shield). It just isn't comparable to dealing more damage every turn.

Eldritch Smite's 6d8 damage is undercut when the action spent on attacking is less damaging than the alternative to begin with. The initial attack has to be worthwhile too, and Hexblade bladelocks bridge the high level scaling gap the same way as any other patron. Instead, hexblades get a bigger gap to bridge since their EB option comes with higher AC and more bonus damage when using Hexblade's Curse.

6d8 damage isn't even very good. It's good when doubled on a critical hit, but otherwise it's going to be hard to justify using before Armor of Agathys, crowd control (like Hypnotic Pattern), crowd removal (like Cone of Cold for Hexblades), Hellish Rebuke if the right target damages you, and plain Hex if you aren't getting damaged. Eldritch Smite comes in as a second or third place option. It may be used, but don't count on seeing it 4 times per short rest if you live anywhere other than a padded, white cell.


Well if you're into that genre, it was pretty revolutionary. Compare to games like Doom/Quake and even Half Life previously, it was a major step for FPS games. There's a reason its core mechanics were (and are) aped for two console generations.
Like the mechanic of regaining your shields if you can take a short break from the fight instead of relying only on health pickups.

I actually think MC-ing in general is preferable to single class characters as it provides a lot more options. Story-wise, I find very few characters that fit the mold of a single class ("all I've ever done is sell my soul to a fiend" vs "I was always a fighter until the day I chose power over my freedom"). Likewise, having options when you level beyond ASIs/Feats allows one to craft the character in how they want it to play.
Multiclassing is fine, but don't forget that people can be things other than adventurers. This is what backgrounds are supposed to encourage.

[Waazraath]

Attempts to use Hammer to Screw in Nail...
Fails
Calls the Hammer Broken

+100. Was about to post a long rant about this, thanks for saving my time.

[Malifice]

Bull pucky. At level 11, Eldritch Blast gets another ray. At level 12, pact of the blade gets access to lifedrinker.

At level 11 you get an extra slot. This adds an extra smite to the Hexblade.

If you really want to white room it, lets work off the median of most campaigns, using the median encounter and rest guidelines of the DMG. Level 12.

Hexblade [blade pact] 12. Vuman (+1 Cha and Con). Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 20. Feats/ ASI: GWM; PAM, +4 Cha. Invocations [Improved pact weapon, thirsting blade, eldritch smite, life drinker, 2 more utility]

No magic items, Hexblades curse and Hex [lasts all day] active: Hit +10, damage 1d10+1d6+15 [x2] and +10, 1d4+1d6+15 [options GWM -5/+10, cleave, divine smite +6d8 force and knock prone if L or smaller].

Hexblade [Tome] 12: Vuman (stats the same) Feats/ ASI: Spellsniper, +4 Cha, Resileint [Con] or Warcaster. Invocations [Agonizing blast, Repelling blast, Maddening hex, Book of Secrets, 2 more utility]

No magic items, Hexblades curse and Hex [lasts all day] active: EB: Hit +9, damage 1d10+1d6+9 [x3] and +5 Psychic [ranged, knock back with EB if hit].

Ignoring the Blade pacts higher to hit bonus [the maths is easier if I assume both are at +10; actual DPR is lower for the Tome-lock], the total max damage for each [also ignoring Smite, and GWM cleave] per round, average damage vs AC 15:

Blade pact: 69 DPR
Tome pact: 59 DPR

Both get three chances of critting each round [19-20], but those crits favor our Blade-Hex-Lock more [his smites double on a crit, and it lets him swap his 1d4 damage offhand PAM attack with a proper swing].

We also need to add in the fact the Blade Pact is also adding in:

Cleave on a kill [better damage than the extra PAM extra attack], GWM's -5/+10 [enough has been written about his here and elsewhere to know it's strong], Eldritch smite - even factoring in just the 2 smites per short rest [and the third slot used for casting something else like AoA or re-establishing Hex] +12d8 force, and also ignoring the Hexblades likely magic weapon [many of which stack with Improved Pact weapon like Flame tounges, and Lifedrinkers and such].


After one or two rounds, Eldritch Smite stops working.

Dumping an extra +6d8 damage (force damage) 1/ encounter (with 3/ short rest from 11th this is viable; the expectation is around 2 encounters per short rest) adds an extra +6d8 damage into the above numbers (where the Blade lock is already ahead).

Over 5 rounds, presuming the Blade lock only spams Smite when he hits (he gets to choose) the expected average damage vs AC 15 is:

Blade: [5 x 69] + [27] = 372.
Tome: [59 x 5] = 295.

Adding extra rounds, only widens the gap more.

[Willie the Duck]

i keep seeing my point proven over and over,

I was going to say something about declaring one's point proven, but Vogie did it well enough.


You point isn't proven, it's just you interpreting disparate information as supporting your opinion, even when it doesn't.


I actually like the design of the warlock and I feel it does a pretty good job if your the sit back and blast them type of caster. I just feel like it falls apart with the hexblade sub-class when your trying to be more close quarters combat.

I will tentatively agree, but this is not (in my mind) a problem of the hexblade(-lock)--it is the problem of the gish. And it is an old problem. Going back to OD&D when your elf could advance as a Fighting Man and as a Magic User. Nearly each edition has tried multiple ways to capture this idea without being either overpowered, or being just not-quite-good-enough at both roles that you really can't do either well. 5e has many Gishes-like classes, subclasses, and builds (depending on how broadly one defines the concept). Eldritch Knights are seen as solid, well-designed fighters whose main flaw is that they aren't really that mage-y (so much as fighters who cast shield several times/day). Clerics are a solid class, but less of a gish than they used to be. Valor Bards are seen as rather underwhelming in the combat arena (perhaps rightfully so, as being full casters as well). Bladesinger wizards as well, are full casters who pretend they are combatants (mostly by being able to get decent AC). Hexbladelocks are seen (rightfully, I think) as a fix for the overall bladelock, and that messy middle of not-quite-full-caster (even though they cast up to 9th level spells, and at the same increase progression as clerics and wizards) with decent combat ability (they are not as MAD as something like a valor bard that actually wants to fight, etc.), and some spells and abilities that support their combat role... just not as well as the paladin.

And that's the long and short of it. The paladin is a really well-done gish. It is MAD (unless, as you suggest, you go MC hexbladelock 3-paladin x-3), but that's about its only limitation. It has spells like Bless and the smite spells which synergize with its combat role. It has a mechanic (the basic smite mechanic) which allows you to use its' spellcasting abilities in combat even if you don't have the perfect spell for the situation. If it spends all its' spells on smiting (so, much like the Eldritch Knight, it is a caster in name only), it still has magic-style abilities like lay on hands and granting saving throw bonuses to give it a magic user-y feel. So against that comparison, the hexbladelock (and the ranger, and the other gishes), pales in comparison.

To my mind, though, not moreso. Not if you are in a group where enough short rests are being done to also make the battlemaster and monks and inspiration-based bards feel useful.

[Willie the Duck]

But many people have had issues. This is far from the first thread with complaints along these lines. A game subsystem that is difficult to manage, especially in a game intended for non-experts, is problematic, by my way of thinking.

Having come up from plenty of gaming systems (that were intended for non-experts/general audience) such as TSR-era D&D, storyteller system, or Champions/HERO System, my reaction to this is that all systems have some form of this problem. Some are vaguely better than others, but in general, you are really just trading between systems for the one with the problem that you personally don't mind.



Hmm. I think that the main issues besetting D&D4 were different, mostly about the game not feeling at all like D&D.
...
I think that the encounter vs daily paradigm of D&D4 is superior to the short vs long rest paradigm of D&D5. It is easier to understand, easier for any group to do "correctly" and easily translates to "movie realism" in which characters are recharged between scenes.

Well, part of what made D&D4e not feel 'like D&D' was that it moved too far away from the 'per day' paradigm and towards a 'per encounter' mentality. Exactly how much that was a factor is a debate that will never end (along with all the rehashing of why 4e failed to capture the market).


But D&D4 was not at all adventuring day neutral. Some classes had great dailies at the expense of other powers. Other classes had great at-wills at the expense of other powers. Etc. And there were a few classes that were far superior to all the others, mocking any notion of balancing anything.

So... it was just a muted version of the same thing we're discussing here about 5e? That about right?


By defining a refresh of powers as a rest, D&D5 ties the refresh to the story, which must now accommodate[ time for a rest. Story events and pacing must change to allow rests here but not there, or to perhaps impose consequences for some rests.

This can be made to work, as you have done, but adds a degree of difficulty to maintaining both story integrity and game balance.

Perhaps. Although again I'd posit that this is true of all gaming systems, and that the one you (general you, not you specifically) see as being free of it is in fact just the one whose artifice you can look past. I do think the return to /day (and /SR) mechanics 5e has is part of the return to early TSR-era sandbox gamin where the story is supposed to be emergent from the gameplay, and less crafted.


I think that some simpler mechanic, such as encounter/scene vs day/chapter

There is a near perfect example of this--the Champions/HERO System model. Powers and abilities (including martial attacks and jumps and the like) are powered by Endurance Points*, of which you likely have between 50 and 200 points, abilities cost maybe 2-20 of, and you recharge between 4 and 20 pts per 12 second round. Thus you can drain your entire reserve and recharge to maximum capacity in no more than maybe 10 minutes. This is as close as I know of to a pure per-encounter mechanism. And you know what? At least to me, it doesn't make the game feel simpler, less artificial, or like the mechanics influence the story any less than D&D's does. It really feels like, "different, but not better," towards achieving those ends.
*One can optionally power things through 'Charges,' which are an X/Day mechanic. But this is effectively a 'if you would prefer a D&D-like recharge mechanic, you can...' option.

[Zalabim]

@Malifice: You aren't disproving that Pact of the Blade lags at level 11. You aren't disproving that Pact of the Blade lags more at level 17. You aren't disproving that Hexblade doesn't particularly help pact of the blade at these levels. You also aren't doing theorycrafting right by ignoring action limits and you list AC but don't actually calculate average damage against that AC.

So on Round one, each build can use Hexblade's curse but doesn't have Hex in place yet, so they deal 41 (33.9 vs AC 15) for blade and 43.5 (34.275 vs AC 15) for tome.

On Round two, each build adds Hex but can't use their other bonus action ability yet, so they deal 48 (40.2 vs AC 15) for blade and 54 (43.2 vs AC 15) for tome.

Finally on Round three, each build has both their curses in effect and can use their bonus actions freely to deal even more damage, so they deal 69 (57.6 vs AC 15) for blade and 59 (48.2 vs AC 15) for tome.

And none of this proves a damn thing because it's too unrelated to my point.

To provide a point of comparison, Pact of the Blade with a different Patron:

Fiend [blade pact] 12. Vuman (+1 Cha and Str). Str 20, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 16 or 18. Feats/ ASI: Moderately Armored (+1 Str); Heavily Armored (+1 Str); +2 Str; +2 Cha or PM. Invocations [Improved pact weapon, thirsting blade, eldritch smite, life drinker, 2 more utility]

No magic items, Hex optional. Greatsword: Hit +10, damage 2d6+10 [x2]. damage 3d6+10 [x2] with hex
PM: Hit +10, damage 1d10+9 [x2] and +10, 1d4+9. damage 1d10+1d6+9[x2] and 1d4+1d6+9 with hex

Fiend [Tome] 12: Vuman (+1 Con and Cha). Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 20. Feats/ ASI: Spellsniper, +4 Cha, Resilient [Con] or Warcaster. Invocations [Agonizing blast, Repelling blast, Maddening hex, Book of Secrets, 2 more utility]

No magic items, Hex part of regular strategy. Eldritch Blast: Hit +9, damage 1d10+1d6+5 [x3] force. +5 psychic.

So to start off resourcelessly, the Sword does 34 average damage, the Pole does 40.5, and the Blast does 31.5 with slightly lower to hit. Adding in round by round tactics and AC for a side-by-side:

Round one, they all use Hex, S does 41 (33.85 vs AC 15), P does 36 (29.35 vs AC 15), and B does 42 (32.85 vs AC 15).

Round two, they can all use a bonus action (Sword can take maddening hex for the sake of example), so S does 45 (37.85 vs AC 15), P does 51 (41.65 vs AC 15), and B does 47 (37.85 vs AC 15).

These are two characters of the same patron who actually have different builds, different strengths and weaknesses, and different tactics. One cannot seamlessly become the other. The hexblade does more damage with blade than the fiend, and the same damage with eldritch blast, but look at the other factors. In the Fiend case, S and P are heavily armored with up to 18 AC. B is lightly armored with AC 14 or 15. In the hexblade case, both characters are wearing medium armor with the same stats, up to 17 AC, but the Tome warlock can use a shield for 19 AC. If you consider a third, dexterity focused Fiend or Fey bladelock, that one will also have better AC than B at this point.

[Malifice]

@Malifice: You aren't disproving that Pact of the Blade lags at level 11.

Im not sure that it does. You can scrub lifedrinker seeing as we're 11th level, but please also add +18d8 force damage from eldritch smite.

It only gets spammed on a hit. Which we can safely assume the Blade-lock does 3 times in the 2 combats between short rests.

Why are you discounting this invocation?


You aren't disproving that Pact of the Blade lags more at level 17.

Its +24d8 force damage, enough for 2 smites per encounter [again presuming a median of 2 encounters per short rest] at that level for the blade lock.

Double those dice for crits, which at 19-20, should be happening a fair bit.

[Zalabim]

Im not sure that it does. You can scrub lifedrinker seeing as we're 11th level, but please also add +18d8 force damage from eldritch smite.

It only gets spammed on a hit. Which we can safely assume the Blade-lock does 3 times in the 2 combats between short rests.

Why are you discounting this invocation?
Spell slots aren't free. The value of a smite isn't 6d8. It's 6d8, doubled on a crit, minus whatever that spell slot would have otherwise been used for. I'd need something to compare the smite damage to in order to make a comparison. Just eyeballing it, Eldritch Smite looks to be of comparable value to its competition for limited spell slots. I'm not going to assume those slots would otherwise have no value.

[Willie the Duck]

This is true. Although it should be mentioned that the ability to stack them onto your martial attacks needs to be included in the decision-analysis weighting.

[Malifice]

This is true. Although it should be mentioned that the ability to stack them onto your martial attacks needs to be included in the decision-analysis weighting.

This.

At 11th level the blade warlock could stack all 3 smites on to all 3 of his melee attacks on round 1. Whacking +18d8 damage on top of his already high damage, is pretty impressive in a single round. More if he crits.

That's a trick that the EB spammer cant do.

And yes I am aware that the Eldrich blast spammer can cast spells, but so can the blade lock.

A fair assumption is the Bladelock will be in melee, stacking the odd smite on top of DPR. The more caster orientated warlock will be handing back, spamming Eldrich blasts and dropping the occasional AoE or SoS spell in instead.

Mind you the blade lock can still do that as well. The 11th level hex blade lock can simply drop three cones of cold if he needs area effects.

[RSP]

Multiclassing is fine, but don't forget that people can be things other than adventurers. This is what backgrounds are supposed to encourage.

Not sure what your intent is here. NPCs can be things other than adventures, but the point of the game is to play an adventurer and be something more than a common person.

Backgrounds help define what the player character was before progressing into that something more.

[Arial Black]

i keep seeing my point proven over and over, even with "super awesome specialist builds" (melee, blaster, social) warlock comes down to do i use EB or do i use EB? lather rinse repeat.

Fighters come down to 'do I use my sword or do I not use my sword', lather, rinse, repeat.

Therefore, fighters are badly designed?

Over nearly 40 years of D&D since 1e I usually play melee warrior-types and usually (especially since 3e) multi-class warriors.

So far in 5e I have actually played:-

* Ftr7 - HotDQ
* Pal2/War3 - homebrew pirate game
* Rog1/Mnk4 - PotA
* Ftr1/War11 - CoS
* Bar5/War1 - SKT
* Bar1/War2 - Dragondrop campaign

So, 5 out of 6 have been multi-class, and the other would have been but at each level I liked the next fighter level more than any of his other class options. So when I play a multi-class warlock it isn't because I only thing warlocks are for is a 'dip class' but because I like warlocks and I like multi-classing to get the character I want.

4 out of six have been multi-class warlocks.

The first (Pal2/War3) was made at that level for that campaign. He had eldritch blast but none of the supporting invocations, fiendish chainpact, would much rather attack with sword than with EB.

Next, the Ftr1/War11 was for the Curse of Strahd campaign, starting at Ftr1 and then going warlock all the way, Undying bladepact, TWFing like mad. Did not have EB at all.

Next, the Bar5/War1 started SKT as a Bar3 berserker, got to Bar5, intended to be an Undying Light chainpact but mainly being barbarian. Did not have EB at all.

My current PC started as Bar1, then intends to take warlock until Bar1/War5 fiendish bladepact with GWM, then get two more Bar levels to get Zealot for Bar3/War5, then intends to go warlock all the way to a theoretical Bar3/War17. No EB at all.

So, out of 4 warlocks only 1 has EB and that was as a backup to his greatsword.

So much for warlocks only being about spamming EB with all the enhancements.

[Mister_Squinty]

My current PC started as Bar1, then intends to take warlock until Bar1/War5 fiendish bladepact with GWM, then get two more Bar levels to get Zealot for Bar3/War5, then intends to go warlock all the way to a theoretical Bar3/War17. No EB at all.

So, out of 4 warlocks only 1 has EB and that was as a backup to his greatsword.

So much for warlocks only being about spamming EB with all the enhancements.

I don't think anyone has argued that Warlock isn't a great multi-class option. From my observations, they are far better as a MC option than a single class "pure" Lock.

[Arial Black]

I don't think anyone has argued that Warlock isn't a great multi-class option. From my observations, they are far better as a MC option than a single class "pure" Lock.

Actually, when the campaign started I had intended to play a single class Hexblade, relying on Cha to wield a greatsword, as well as exploring the new Xanather's options.

However, the DM wanted us to roll stats. I rolled the best set of stats I can remember: 18 17 17 14 13 6. I thought that, as a variant human, those two bonus +1s could give me three 18s!

Although I could've gone with my original idea (as I had an 18 and would probably have gone half-elf for 20 Cha and access to Elven Accuracy), the prospect of having a physically perfect human (three 18s in Str/Dex/Con) was too rare an opportunity to pass up.

I had just had my SKT campaign cut short and was enjoying playing a Bar/War, and so I quickly got the idea to use that physical perfection to get, after racial mods, Str 18 Dex 18 Con 18 Int 6 Wis 13 Cha 14. Sure, I expected to be mainly warlock and Cha 14 is nothing special, but I got a great idea for a backstory explaining his physicality (I won't bore you all, but it's the werewolf equivalent of how Blade got to be half-vampire) and I'll probably never roll stats like that again!

One of the features of rolling for stats is that you see your rolls and then use them as a springboard for your imagination. If I'd've rolled badly I probably would've been half-elf and gone with the original single-class Hexblade since that is SAD, while a Bar/War is definitely on the MAD side.

[Theodoxus]

Like many things, I've moved away from book standard rests. Instead, anything that normally recharges on a short rest, now recharges at the roll of initiative, and at the end of a long rest.

It makes the players feel more capable and allows me to generate encounters that feel more epic without being overly deadly.

[danpit2991]

Attempts to use Hammer to Screw in Nail...
Fails
Calls the Hammer Broken

never had a problem hammering a screw, not dumb enough to try and screw a nail with a hammer thats what screwdrivers are for


edit:wait you cant screw a nail

[Talamare]

never had a problem hammering a screw, not dumb enough to try and screw a nail with a hammer thats what screwdrivers are for

Analogy learning Aarakocra

[MThurston]

I am late to the post but I'll throw in.

Warlock is a fun class but if you want to be a hex blade you have to mix in another class to make it do more damage.

Brute Fighter taking Archery, Defense, Dueling or Two weapon fighting is nice.

Assassin or Swashbuckler Rogue also make for some nice combos.

[Willie the Duck]

I am late to the post but I'll throw in.

Not trying to do the Mods job, but I will just point out that you are not supposed to (see rules on thread necromancy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)).

[MThurston]

Ok. Read it. Not sure I agree but if that's what they want.