Been playing for a few years - still don't understand Warlocks

[Forechosen]

Hey everyone,

So, quite frankly, I just don't get warlocks. Now, before I explain why, I've gotta say that I'm sure I must be missing something, as I've read that so many people play them and thoroughly enjoy them. I understand this has been covered a lot in the past. But having said that, I just can't get to grips with them. Lastly, this is going to be a long post, so apologies in advance.

So from what I understand - they have a very small number of spell slots, which is offset by them always casting their spells at their maximum possible level (up to 5th level spellslots). This leads me to my first issue though. Let's take a level 10 Warlock (because 10 is middle-of-the-road). A level 10 Warlock has two level 5 spellslots. Well, so does a wizard, and a bard, and every other (full) spellcaster. BUT of course, the Warlock regains those spellslots on a short rest, rather than a long one. Well, here's what I don't understand - does that.. matter?

Let's imagine two very different scenarios, one adventuring day with one fight in. And another adventuring day with 6 fights in, with two short rests. Let's say fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight.

In the first scenario, the Warlock uses both of his spellslots and does a metric tonne of damage - and then is consigned to casting cantrips for the rest of the fight. The Wizard may also use his level 5 spellslots, if he chooses, and do the same damage, but is then left to cast spells from his thirteen remaining spellslots.

Alright, so the second scenario looks more favorable to the warlock. For each fight, if he chooses he can use one of his powerful spellslots. The Wizard, having only two 5th spellslots, has to choose when to use them over the course of all of the six fights. But still, once the Wizard has used those spellslots - he has these thirteen spellslots left - that's (just over) two spellslots per fight, on top of the 5th level ones. Where every one of those spellslots is greater than a cantrip (to a varying degree, obviously, but he's got three 4th level spellslots, for example).

What I'm trying to get at, is that surely, even in a Warlock's extremely favorable scenario. The Wizard (or other fullspellcaster) still comes out on top, doesn't it? I have no idea how tables work in this forum, but I've just randomly listed a comparison of the sort of spell usage you might expect over the course of this adventuring hypothetical day. Does it look like it favors the Warlock that much?

Wizard

First fight - 5th level spellslot. 3rd level spellslot. 1st level spellslot.
Second fight - 4th level spellslot. 1st level spellslot. 3rd level spellslot.
[short rest]
Third Fight - 3rd. 1st. cantrips
Fourth Fight - 5th. 2nd. 1st.
[short rest]
Fifth Fight - 2nd. 4th. cantrips
Sixth Fight - 2nd. 4th. cantrips

Warlock

First fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
Second Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
[short rest]
Third Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
Fourth Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
[short rest]
Fifth Fight - all cantrips
Sixth Fight - two 5th level spellslots. cantrips.

Even if we put the power discrepancy (or not, that's what I'm asking) aside - doesn't the Warlock's fighting day look extremely boring? I know this is clearly subjective, but - one spell a fight, and then cantripping? It doesn't sound too exciting.

Doesn't this discrepancy only grow larger as the respective classes level up? The Warlock ends up with four 5th level spellslots (and he can't upcast these spells higher than 5th level). Plus four Mystic Arcanum spells which are per long rest. The Wizard has twenty-two spellslots. Twenty two! The Wizard does have one fewer 5th level spellslots (three, not four) - but he also has two level 6 and 7 slots (instead of one Mystic Arcanum for that level) - and he can upcast any of his spells to level 9 if he chooses.

And this is considering the Warlocks best adventuring day. I know in our playgroup we rarely, if ever have that many fights in a day. Although I concede, we may have less than usual. But if we lower the number of fights from (a high) six to (a reasonable) four - the Warlock's 'plan' stays identical, whilst the Wizard can now use a whole extra spell-per-fight. In fact, doesn't the Warlocks 'plan' stay identical nomatter the situation? The only situation I can see where the Warlock really, truly shine would be an adventuring day consisting of an ungodly amount of fights, whilst also allowing for many shortrests.

And I know, there are invocations. Invocations are amazing and extremely flavorful, but really - can they make up for the sheer number of spells that other casters get? All of the 'spell' invocations are per long rest. I understand there are powerful combinations, Darkness and Devil's Sight, for example, or making your Eldritch Blast extremely powerful. But it still appears that they would get left behind, compared to other casters, wouldn't they?

I'm trying not to theorycraft too much, just to enough to get an idea. You never know how many fights you're going to have in day after all - it just seems that picking any reasonable number always leaves the Warlocks trailing. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, are the fifth level spellslots that much more valuable than the sheer number of 1-4 spellslots available to other casters? Am I wrong in comparing them to other casters in the first place? It's just - if spells aren't their 'stick' then.. what is? The utility of Eldritch Invocations?

Warlock's flavor is absolutely incredible, I love the sound of the class. But isn't that flavor somewhat hampered by the mechanics? Heck, I think I'd be a little annoyed in the very first fight - casting one spell and then cantripping for the remainder of the fight. Doing that virtually every single fight sounds.. tiresome? It certainly doesn't feel, mechanically, what the class comes across as thematically.

Out of combat, I completely get it, the flavor (and even to some extent the mechanics, with the invocations) is incredible. Am I focusing on the combat too much? Is the Warlock's 'stick' their out of combat potential? Is that where all the fun is?

Apologies for dragging on, I've just been trying to get my head around them for so long. I wanted to make one tonight for a campaign, but after thinking on them (yet again) - I just couldn't. So I thought I'd ask here, what am I missing?

Thanks so much for reading.

[Sigreid]

I'm not fond of warlocks because I'm not down with the fluff. But mechanically:

1. they're the only caster whose main attack cantrip is on par, or nearly on par with the fighter's weapon attacks without depleting resources.
2. Eventually you get 4 spells per rest that are cast or upcast to level 5. That's significant magic power brought to bear.
3. They eventually have 6-9th level spells. Think it's just one and mostly once per day, but still.
4. They eventually get the ability to spend something like a minute and get the benefits of another rest every day.
5. Choose the right invocations and you get a significant number of lower level/utility spells that you can cast or have the effect of without restriction.

[Forechosen]

I'm not fond of warlocks because I'm not down with the fluff. But mechanically:

1. they're the only caster whose main attack cantrip is on par, or nearly on par with the fighter's weapon attacks without depleting resources.
2. Eventually you get 4 spells per rest that are cast or upcast to level 5. That's significant magic power brought to bear.
3. They eventually have 6-9th level spells. Think it's just one and mostly once per day, but still.
4. They eventually get the ability to spend something like a minute and get the benefits of another rest every day.
5. Choose the right invocations and you get a significant number of lower level/utility spells that you can cast or have the effect of without restriction.

1. Granted, Eldritch Blast is a beast of a spell. But - it is only one spell. I can't argue with its power, but it must get boring using it as often as you're expected to?
2. That's kind of my point, other casters get three (instead of four) level 5 spellslots. But they also get a huge number of other spellslots, in what sort of feels like 'in exchange' for Eldritch Blast. Not to mention, they also get the ability to upcast their spells up to level 9 (eventually).
3. Other casters get more 6-9 level spells, only two more, but still.
4 + 5. Again, granted, the utility is incredible. But it's not as if other casters don't have utility. Other classes don't have utility for free but again, is that aspect that much of a bonus?

I suppose if other spellcasters had a few less spellslots, I could see Warlock shining more. Or if Warlocks had a few more. But as it is, they seem to give up so much in exchange for.. Eldritch Blast, and free utility?

[Verble]

You also can't forget the warlock Invocations that grant bonus abilities or at will casting of spells. Also pacts expand range. Casting via spell slot is different from full casters

[Forechosen]

You also can't forget the warlock Invocations that grant bonus abilities or at will casting of spells. Also pacts expand range. Casting via spell slot is different from full casters

The thing is, the 'combat' invocation spells are per long rest - the same as other casters. The others, the at will ones, are fantastic abilities - but do they compare to the sheer number and variety of spells that other casters get?

It's the same with Pacts, they do make a difference. It's just I can't see the difference making up for their lack of spellcasting, in comparison with other casters.

[sophontteks]

1. Granted, Eldritch Blast is a beast of a spell. But - it is only one spell. I can't argue with its power, but it must get boring using it as often as you're expected to?
2. That's kind of my point, other casters get three (instead of four) level 5 spellslots. But they also get a huge number of other spellslots, in what sort of feels like 'in exchange' for Eldritch Blast. Not to mention, they also get the ability to upcast their spells up to level 9 (eventually).
3. Other casters get more 6-9 level spells, only two more, but still.
4 + 5. Again, granted, the utility is incredible. But it's not as if other casters don't have utility. Other classes don't have utility for free but again, is that aspect that much of a bonus?

I suppose if other spellcasters had a few less spellslots, I could see Warlock shining more. Or if Warlocks had a few more. But as it is, they seem to give up so much in exchange for.. Eldritch Blast, and free utility?
Fighter use sword.
Ranger use bow
Warlock use EB

It's pretty much on par with how most classes work. It is their main weapon. But then they also have invocation, full spells, and cool subclass abilities.

They aren't boring at all. But if you want to cast spells all the time, be a wizard. Warlocks are very much their own entity.

[ImproperJustice]

Also missing out on things like:

Pact of Chain: Remote invisible familiar with unlimited range and ability to issue commands w/ your voice or act independently and intelligently.

Pact of Tome: unlimited ritual casting from ALL casting disciplines.

So long as you don’t waste all your invocations on Eldritch Blast Worship, there is at will invisibility, disguise, levitation or super jumping, animal speech ( great w/ familiar above), illusions, and/or many many other interesting options.

I played a high level Fey Chainlock lately and was never bored. Spells were just kind of a thing I did from time to time.

Using my familiar and at will invisibility, and illusions I could freely infiltrate places with ease. Relay data to my allies (complete w/ video and audio as needed), and then generate whatever distraction I wanted to.

[Evaar]

If you’re doing it right, Eldritch Blast isn’t a single decision.

First, you can target as many enemies as you have bolts. So do you focus all on one, or split them up hoping to efficiently finish off some low health enemies?

Also, you have potentially a variety of repositioning options. With Repelling Blast alone, that’s a 10 foot push on each bolt. Grasp or Lance offer more options. Rearranging the battlefield at will makes the class very tactically rewarding.

It’s not the same as Firebolt spam. It’s more engaging even than Sharpshooter’s decision tree, because ultimately that has some pretty clear answers. At-will forced movement allows you to engage with the terrain in a way few classes can match, not to mention any ongoing effects from your own or your team’s spells.

And as others have said - short rest recovery, patron abilities (which trend more towards discrete abilities than just enhancements to your spells, like sorcerer or wizard features), pact boons, and invocations offer a ton of options to liven things up. A single invocation and pact boon combo gets you the ability to cast every ritual in the game. Same thing for becoming the most effective user of the Poisoned condition available to players. And folks build bladelocks with a single weapon in mind, but don’t forget that boon is essentially “with an action summon any weapon you want, and you’re proficient with it (and let’s be real you’re a Hexblade so you can attack with charisma with it too)”

You can absolutely play a warlock to be boring, but that’s not the fault of the class design. The options are there, you just need to take advantage of them to their fullest potential.

[Kane0]

So from what I understand - they have a very small number of spell slots, which is offset by them always casting their spells at their maximum possible level (up to 5th level spellslots). This leads me to my first issue though. Let's take a level 10 Warlock (because 10 is middle-of-the-road). A level 10 Warlock has two level 5 spellslots. Well, so does a wizard, and a bard, and every other (full) spellcaster. BUT of course, the Warlock regains those spellslots on a short rest, rather than a long one. Well, here's what I don't understand - does that.. matter?

-Scenario-

Warlock's flavor is absolutely incredible, I love the sound of the class. But isn't that flavor somewhat hampered by the mechanics? Heck, I think I'd be a little annoyed in the very first fight - casting one spell and then cantripping for the remainder of the fight. Doing that virtually every single fight sounds.. tiresome? It certainly doesn't feel, mechanically, what the class comes across as thematically.

Out of combat, I completely get it, the flavor (and even to some extent the mechanics, with the invocations) is incredible. Am I focusing on the combat too much? Is the Warlock's 'stick' their out of combat potential? Is that where all the fun is?

You're right, full slot casters have more raw oomph when it comes to casting. The warlock isn't a full slot caster. It's a wacky weird caster that progresses spell levels at the same pace. It gives up big number of slots in order to have invocations and other stuff.

The warlock is popular for a few reasons;
- It's a spellcaster that is different to the rest. It's the only short rest caster. It's the only scaling-slot caster. It's novel and different without being bad after the novelty wears off.
- It's a very simple spellcaster at its core. Spells known, relatively short list and a handful of slots of a single level cuts down on analysis paralysis and EB with invocation support is basic and very viable style even if you only ever cast Hex and Fireball. For people that want to step into playing more complicated characters but don't want to play a full caster this is a great introduction and midground.
- It's extremely customizable, the most in the game aside from maybe the Mystic and Artificer. Even compared to casters you have subclass AND pact plus spellcasting AND invocations. You can gish, you can heal, you can spam rituals and at-wills, you can summon, you can blast, you can control, you can buff/debuff, you can sneak, and you can mix and match a handful of these depending on your choices. Even your basic EB can be used to drag those towards you or push them away or slow them down.
- As you stated, the rich flavor

Judging by your post it appears you're looking at the Warlock from a Wizard's point of view. And that's fair, they aren't Wizards. They can cast plenty but they don't cast the same and often won't match up in terms of raw casting potential.
That said, It's worth noting that some specific spells can be cast at-will via invocation (detect magic, disguise self, speak with dead, etc) and that can make up for that lack of casting in some regards.
But they aren't entirely defined by their spellcasting alone like Wizards are.

[thoroughlyS]

Another thing to point out is that 10th level is probably the worst level for warlock. One level later, and they have three 5th-level slots per short rest. Honestly, in my opinion the main thing that makes their casting feel lackluster is how late they get the third slot. (I give it to them at 6th level at my tables.)

[Sigreid]

I'd say to me the most appealing thing about it is the way its spell slots work, while you do have less casting versatility than other caster classes, Because of the way your slots work and recharge there is far less internal debate over whether now, right now is the right time to spend that powerful 5th level slot. What I've observed over many years and several editions is that casters often horde their slots instead of using them when they should because they might need it more later. The warlock is a bit less vulnerable to that. Not immune to it, but less vunlerable.

It is also a solid starter caster letting you dip into a variety of spells without the list being two long and complex and without having to worry so much about the "oh darn, I'm out of spells" phenomenon.

[MustaKrakish]

Giving them spells was a very lazy move IMO. It should have been something like the 3.5 Warlock, but obviously improved. Spells are the band-aid for everything in 5e, and it just makes magic feels less special. It should have been invocations all the way, maybe even replacing invocations every long rest, and of course patron specific invocations. The class feels very half-baked, they all have the same mechanics and signature cantrip but the patrons are vastly different and it just doesn't work in my mind. I especially don't like the fact that an entity can give you powers that they themselves don't have. It's wierd.

[micahaphone]

In combat, think of them as archers, plinking away with good dpr. Repelling Blast can also be really fun. If it's a major fight, I'll use one slot to do some sort of offensive buff / CC, such as Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Greater Invisibility, etc. The second slot is held in reserve for safety, with stuff like Armor of Agathys or Dimension Door.
It's like you're an archer with some arcane skills. There's probably another name for something like that.

[LudicSavant]

Thanks so much for reading.

Great questions, Forechosen! Perhaps I can help out a bit.


Wizard

First fight - 5th level spellslot. 3rd level spellslot. 1st level spellslot.
Second fight - 4th level spellslot. 1st level spellslot. 3rd level spellslot.
[short rest]
Third Fight - 3rd. 1st. cantrips
Fourth Fight - 5th. 2nd. 1st.
[short rest]
Fifth Fight - 2nd. 4th. cantrips
Sixth Fight - 2nd. 4th. cantrips

Warlock

First fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
Second Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
[short rest]
Third Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
Fourth Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
[short rest]
Fifth Fight - all cantrips
Sixth Fight - two 5th level spellslots. cantrips.

I think the oversight here is thinking that when you use up your spell slots, you're reduced to cantrips. You also have invocations and subclass features (some of which are worth as much as high level spells in their own right -- Hurl Through Hell is a straight up Legendary Resistance-piercing boss killer, for example).

In short...


It's just - if spells aren't their 'stick' then.. what is? The utility of Eldritch Invocations?

It's about everything as a whole. You don't "cast 2 spells then cantrip." You have 2 spells, cantrips, invocations, and subclass features.


And this is considering the Warlocks best adventuring day. I know in our playgroup we rarely, if ever have that many fights in a day.

That may describe your playgroup, but remember that the DMG doesn't describe 6 encounters / 2 short rests as a maximum, but as an average.


1. Granted, Eldritch Blast is a beast of a spell. But - it is only one spell. I can't argue with its power, but it must get boring using it as often as you're expected to?
You do not need Eldritch Blast to make a Warlock perform up to snuff. Hexbows are a prime counterexample, able to sling arrows with all the vigor of a Sharpshooter Battle Master and still throw in spell versatility on top of that.

But what Eldritch Blasters and Hexbows have in common is that invocations give you access to good options that don't eat your spell slots. It's the invocations that make an Agonizing, Repelling blaster. This doesn't mean that "Spells aren't their schtick, invocations are." It means that they supplement your spells, kind of taking on the role of those lower level slots the Wizard uses to flesh out their day. So, for example, while you might not have level 1 spell slots, you might have Silent Image at-will.


Out of combat, I completely get it, the flavor (and even to some extent the mechanics, with the invocations) is incredible.

It's not just that either. Warlocks have access to 'the one hour ritual.' That is, casting a long duration spell like Hex, then using a Short Rest to get the slot back, and then still having access to the spell. This is useful not only for setting up a Hex or the like when you brush your teeth in the morning, but it's also useful for solving problems when you're not under a lot of time pressure (as may be the case in some non-combat situations).

[MoiMagnus]

First, I will preface by saying that Mystic Arcanum are quite sad, and one of the multiple reasons why you might want to multiclass out of this class for Tier 3 and 4.
[One of the houserule at our table is that (1) Mystic Arcanum are actual spell slots per long rest, so you can upcast to them and (2) Mystic Arcanum are actual spell known, so when you learn additional spell known you can also take spells of level 6+.]

As such, it's probably better to talk about Tier 1 and 2, because that's IMO the tiers where the class actually works.
+ Warlocks fight like a half-caster, not as a full caster. Compared to the Paladin, you trade a lot of smaller spell slots in exchange for few high spell slots. Your turns are often cantrips (or weapon attacks for Hexblade)? Go talk to the fighter about that.
+ Out of combat is very interesting, assuming the GM is lenient enough about short rests. You are the only character which is willing to burn their high level spell slots to solve "minor concerns" without second thoughts, as you will get them back before the actual combat encounters of the day.

[LudicSavant]

I don’t agree about Mystic Arcanums being so weak that you necessarily wanna multiclass out as soon as you hit tier 3 — high level spells are no joke, with or without the restrictions of Mystic Arcanum. There are also some strong high level features to be had, like Hurl Through Hell.

Summon Fiend is like a whole extra martial character with three PC-level attacks for an hour. Forcecage is the kind of spell that can instantly define an encounter, while Crown of Stars is worth around 14 SP of Quickens from a level 17 sorcerer... when you get it at 13. Foresight just gives you a huge basically-all-day buff. What exactly are you jumping out for that makes these things look bad? It's not like you're going to get better high level spell access by jumping out at tier 3.

The primary restriction of Mystic Arcanum is that you are always casting the same spell in the same slot -- essentially, it's like one of those class features that reads "do X 1/day." This mostly means that you have to be careful to pick spells that are sufficiently versatile that you'll want to cast them basically every day for your Arcanum slots.

[Contrast]

In the first scenario, the Warlock uses both of his spellslots and does a metric tonne of damage - and then is consigned to casting cantrips for the rest of the fight.

Out of interest, how long are your fights typically? In my experience most combats in 5E are between 3 and 5 rounds so 'the rest of the fight' in this scenario is probably only a round or two.

I think you may be slightly over-estimating the utility of extra spell slots in a fight in terms of variety at least. Our wizard casts a concentration spell and is then probably casting defensive spells, randomly slinging out Fireball/some other direct damage or conserving spell slots for Counterspell.

My experience playing a warlock as well was that it was a lot easier decision to unload my spell slots. As a normal caster I'm always worried about trying to preserve my big spells for the day in case there's some big challenge ahead. As a warlock I was much more comfortable just blatting my spells out without too much concern (or for roleplay stuff) as I'm not potentially screwing myself for the whole day.

That all said, there's nothing wrong if the way warlocks play doesn't sound appeal to you - it doesn't necessarily mean you're missing something, you may just have a preference for a different style of play. Spamming EB sound boring? Don't play a warlock (or a martial!). I will say I never really got monks until I tried playing one for a couple of sessions though so if you're ever doing a one shot, give it a spin!

[Forechosen]

Wow, thanks for all the replies guys. Apologies for such a late response, I had to get some sleep :smalleek: - I'll try and reply to most people though! If I don't reply to anybody specifically, it's not because I haven't read the post!


Fighter use sword.
Ranger use bow
Warlock use EB


Mmm, this is what I'm getting from some of these responses. Perhaps comparing them to a full caster was a mistake, and they're more of an extremely reflavored marshal class - with many added 'abilities/spells' - which does actually make them a really very interesting 'marshal class'. I hadn't looked at them this way before, I think I was too hung up on comparing them to full casters.




I played a high level Fey Chainlock lately and was never bored. Spells were just kind of a thing I did from time to time.



That's interesting, as a Fey Chainlock was actually what I was considering before I wrote this post. It is good to read you were never bored.


If youÂ’re doing it right, Eldritch Blast isnÂ’t a single decision.

First, you can target as many enemies as you have bolts. So do you focus all on one, or split them up hoping to efficiently finish off some low health enemies?

Also, you have potentially a variety of repositioning options. With Repelling Blast alone, thatÂ’s a 10 foot push on each bolt. Grasp or Lance offer more options. Rearranging the battlefield at will makes the class very tactically rewarding.

ItÂ’s not the same as Firebolt spam. ItÂ’s more engaging even than SharpshooterÂ’s decision tree, because ultimately that has some pretty clear answers. At-will forced movement allows you to engage with the terrain in a way few classes can match, not to mention any ongoing effects from your own or your teamÂ’s spells.



Again, I'd never thought of this aspect of Eldritch Blast at all. That is considerably more interesting, mechanically than 'I attack with my longsword'. I'd always considered the Eldritch Blast invocations as just 'bonuses' rather than looking at the actual implications they'd have on the entire battlefield tactics.


I'd say to me the most appealing thing about it is the way its spell slots work, while you do have less casting versatility than other caster classes, Because of the way your slots work and recharge there is far less internal debate over whether now, right now is the right time to spend that powerful 5th level slot. What I've observed over many years and several editions is that casters often horde their slots instead of using them when they should because they might need it more later. The warlock is a bit less vulnerable to that. Not immune to it, but less vulnerable.

It is also a solid starter caster letting you dip into a variety of spells without the list being two long and complex and without having to worry so much about the "oh darn, I'm out of spells" phenomenon.

I completely understand this, although I would say that hording spells or not does typically come with experience in the game. I know after a few years of playing now I'm a lot better with 'spell usage' than I was when I first started playing. But you're right, recharging on a short rest does 'free you up' a little bit. I suppose I was worried more about their per-fight casting, as comparing them to full casters, they'd only ever use one or two spells and then cantripping for the remainder of the fight.

But, I do realise now there is a lot more to it than that - what with the invocations and the subclass abilities, you do have more options 'per-fight' than I was initially thinking.


Out of interest, how long are your fights typically? In my experience most combats in 5E are between 3 and 5 rounds so 'the rest of the fight' in this scenario is probably only a round or two.



Maybe this is where the problem is. Our playgroup tends to have much fewer fights per day, but ones that go on longer. In fact, if a fight is appearing to be over too swiftly and easily, our DM will often throw in extra baddies 'coming round the corner' or whatever just to up the ante. It's really hard to give an average though.. as it does vary considerably. But we do enjoy very difficult, edge of your seat fights. I'd say perhaps we have on average two to three fights per day, and of course some fights are shorter than others, but 5+ rounds wouldn't be unusual at all.

So it was from this frame that I was thinking ''sheesh, the first round I cast a spell - that's cool, now what am I going to be doing for the next four or more rounds?''

I'm beginning to think it's a mixture, Warlocks have more going for them than I originally thought, but that also perhaps they're not best suited to our playgroups style of play? At least, if you're looking at them through a 'spellcaster' perspective. I can completely, completely see how they're a massively interesting 'marshal' class. If that makes sense!?

[Merudo]

Hey everyone,
So, quite frankly, I just don't get warlocks.

I expressed a very similar sentiment (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?561024-Why-would-anyone-get-more-than-2-levels-of-Warlock) close to 3 years ago when I first started learning D&D.

Even now, I think Warlocks are in most campaigns the worst of the full spell casters after 5th level. The lack of flexibility on how they allocate their spell slots is just too great an impediment to their strengths.

I'm also unimpressed by Eldritch Blast's damage. Optimized martials have much better DPR than EB, and some full spellcasters also get access to damage that rival EB (Arcana & Death Cleric, Bladesinger Wizard, Sorlock, etc). Eldritch Blaster can have some utility with Repelling Blast / Lance of Lethargy, but that depends heavily on party composition.

It is my belief that the main draw of the Warlock is not its mechanical benefits, but rather it's theme and fluff.

[diplomancer]

Wow, thanks for all the replies guys. Apologies for such a late response, I had to get some sleep :smalleek: - I'll try and reply to most people though! If I don't reply to anybody specifically, it's not because I haven't read the post!



Mmm, this is what I'm getting from some of these responses. Perhaps comparing them to a full caster was a mistake, and they're more of an extremely reflavored marshal class - with many added 'abilities/spells' - which does actually make them a really very interesting 'marshal class'. I hadn't looked at them this way before, I think I was too hung up on comparing them to full casters.



That's interesting, as a Fey Chainlock was actually what I was considering before I wrote this post. It is good to read you were never bored.



Again, I'd never thought of this aspect of Eldritch Blast at all. That is considerably more interesting, mechanically than 'I attack with my longsword'. I'd always considered the Eldritch Blast invocations as just 'bonuses' rather than looking at the actual implications they'd have on the entire battlefield tactics.



I completely understand this, although I would say that hording spells or not does typically come with experience in the game. I know after a few years of playing now I'm a lot better with 'spell usage' than I was when I first started playing. But you're right, recharging on a short rest does 'free you up' a little bit. I suppose I was worried more about their per-fight casting, as comparing them to full casters, they'd only ever use one or two spells and then cantripping for the remainder of the fight.

But, I do realise now there is a lot more to it than that - what with the invocations and the subclass abilities, you do have more options 'per-fight' than I was initially thinking.



Maybe this is where the problem is. Our playgroup tends to have much fewer fights per day, but ones that go on longer. In fact, if a fight is appearing to be over too swiftly and easily, our DM will often throw in extra baddies 'coming round the corner' or whatever just to up the ante. It's really hard to give an average though.. as it does vary considerably. But we do enjoy very difficult, edge of your seat fights. I'd say perhaps we have on average two to three fights per day, and of course some fights are shorter than others, but 5+ rounds wouldn't be unusual at all.

So it was from this frame that I was thinking ''sheesh, the first round I cast a spell - that's cool, now what am I going to be doing for the next four or more rounds?''

I'm beginning to think it's a mixture, Warlocks have more going for them than I originally thought, but that also perhaps they're not best suited to our playgroups style of play? At least, if you're looking at them through a 'spellcaster' perspective. I can completely, completely see how they're a massively interesting 'marshal' class. If that makes sense!?

Yeah, it'a definitely your group playstyle that's not good for Warlocks; long (and few) battles can be pretty rough on any class that's not a fullcaster, specially in higher tiers.

With approximately 6 fights per day of 3-4 rounds each with two SRs, being able to cast one "big gun" spell every battle and supplementing the rest with your improved cantrips puts you pretty much on par with the other casters.

And, as others have mentioned, as long as your DM does not gimp Short Rests by artificially limiting the number you can take between Long Rests, Warlocks really shine on "slow, almost downtime" days. No sane spellcaster is going to use their highest level slot to deal with a relatively unimportant situation if there's any chance of needing it later during the day; but on a slow day where taking a Short Rest is trivial (say, during a long distance travel on a ship), Warlock can easily do that without thinking twice.

[Forechosen]

I expressed a very similar sentiment (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?561024-Why-would-anyone-get-more-than-2-levels-of-Warlock) close to 3 years ago when I first started learning D&D.

Even now, I think Warlocks are in most campaigns the worst of the full spell casters after 5th level. The lack of flexibility on how they allocate their spell slots is just too great an impediment to their strengths.

I'm also unimpressed by Eldritch Blast's damage. Optimized martials have much better DPR than EB, and some full spellcasters also get access to damage that rival EB (Arcana & Death Cleric, Bladesinger Wizard, Sorlock, etc). Eldritch Blaster can have some utility with Repelling Blast / Lance of Lethargy, but that depends heavily on party composition.

It is my belief that the main draw of the Warlock is not its mechanical benefits, but rather it's theme and fluff.

I'm just reading through that thread now.. although it's quite a long thread! It's interesting seeing the different view points though.


Yeah, it'a definitely your group playstyle that's not good for Warlocks; long (and few) battles can be pretty rough on any class that's not a fullcaster, specially in higher tiers.

With approximately 6 fights per day of 3-4 rounds each with two SRs, being able to cast one "big gun" spell every battle and supplementing the rest with your improved cantrips puts you pretty much on par with the other casters.

And, as others have mentioned, as long as your DM does not gimp Short Rests by artificially limiting the number you can take between Long Rests, Warlocks really shine on "slow, almost downtime" days. No sane spellcaster is going to use their highest level slot to deal with a relatively unimportant situation if there's any chance of needing it later during the day; but on a slow day where taking a Short Rest is trivial (say, during a long distance travel on a ship), Warlock can easily do that without thinking twice.

Yeah I can definitely see our playgroup style being a problem in this respect. Although having said that, we only have one full caster in the party at the moment (a druid) - and none of our party feels gimped, or that we're lagging behind the druid. But, we aren't at higher tiers yet - we've only just got to level nine. (The party is a Rogue, a Blood Hunter, a Druid and a Paladin). Perhaps it's because we do a lot of out of combat stuff, so the Druid is using a fair few spellslots for other things than combat - so she's not entering each combat with a zillion free spellslots.

Why do you say it gets worse at higher tiers? Is it because the fullcaster can essentially use all their spellslots over the course of a small number of long fights? Whilst the other classes are doing the 'same-ish thing' (attacking round after round) in the same situation?

Maybe I should talk to my DM about our style, I'm sure she'd be open to changing it. It's just we do really enjoy it, and it feels natural to us. It would be weird changing it up.

[follacchioso]

I've been playing a few warlocks for exactly the same reasons: it seemed such a weak class to me, that I had to try it and figure it out by playing.

Now it is one of my favourite classes. Yes, the spell slot economy is very difficult, but I've learned to save the spell slots for the very important occasions. I usually multi class into bard or sorcerer to add some extra lv1 slots for Bless or other utility spells; but pure warlocks would also work well.





I'm also unimpressed by Eldritch Blast's damage. Optimized martials have much better DPR than EB, and some full spellcasters also get access to damage that rival EB (Arcana & Death Cleric, Bladesinger Wizard, Sorlock, etc). Eldritch Blaster can have some utility with Repelling Blast / Lance of Lethargy, but that depends heavily on party composition.Remember that Agonizing Blast allows to add the CHA modifier to each of the Eldritch Blast rays. At 11th level, it can be 3d10+15 if you the same target, with more chances to crit. With Hex, this becomes 3d10+15+3d6; or you could spend the slot to summon an undead skeleton archer, and get another 2d4+6 (or 4d4+14 if you use a 4th level slot). Arcana Cleric can add the Wis modifier to any cantrips they know, but Firebolt and all the options they have only hit with one single ray, so at most you will do 3d10+5. I know it doesn't seem impressive, but it sums up on the long run, and it is very reliable.

[Merudo]

Remember that Agonizing Blast allows to add the CHA modifier to each of the Eldritch Blast rays. At 11th level, it can be 3d10+15 if you the same target, with more chances to crit.


Most campaign ends at or below level 11, and at that point spellcasters don't use cantrips, really.

At level 10, the Warlock will do 2d10 + 10 (~21), with an additional 2d6 (~7) when using hex.

A level 10, an Arcana Cleric with a rapier with Green-Flame-Blade and 16 dex & wis, would do 1d8 + 3 + 2d8 + 3 (~19.5). They can pair this up with spiritual weapon and spiritual guardians almost every fight at this level.

At level 10, a Bladesinger Wizard with 20 int and 16 dex using Toll the Dead and a light crossbow would do 2d12 + 1d8 + 3 (~20.5).

At level 10, a Death Cleric twinning a Toll the Dead can do 4d10 (~22).

[Forechosen]

I've been playing a few warlocks for exactly the same reasons: it seemed such a weak class to me, that I had to try it and figure it out by playing.

Now it is one of my favourite classes. Yes, the spell slot economy is very difficult, but I've learned to save the spell slots for the very important occasions. I usually multi class into bard or sorcerer to add some extra lv1 slots for Bless or other utility spells; but pure warlocks would also work well.


Remember that Agonizing Blast allows to add the CHA modifier to each of the Eldritch Blast rays. At 11th level, it can be 3d10+15 if you the same target, with more chances to crit. With Hex, this becomes 3d10+15+3d6; or you could spend the slot to summon an undead skeleton archer, and get another 2d4+6 (or 4d4+14 if you use a 4th level slot). Arcana Cleric can add the Wis modifier to any cantrips they know, but Firebolt and all the options they have only hit with one single ray, so at most you will do 3d10+5. I know it doesn't seem impressive, but it sums up on the long run, and it is very reliable.

May I ask, how come they're one of your favourite classes now? What is it about playing one that has changed your mind?

And lastly, do you think you'd enjoy it any less (or more!) with our playgroup's style of play? With our fewer, yet longer fights per day?

[Selion]

1. Granted, Eldritch Blast is a beast of a spell. But - it is only one spell. I can't argue with its power, but it must get boring using it as often as you're expected to?
2. That's kind of my point, other casters get three (instead of four) level 5 spellslots. But they also get a huge number of other spellslots, in what sort of feels like 'in exchange' for Eldritch Blast. Not to mention, they also get the ability to upcast their spells up to level 9 (eventually).
3. Other casters get more 6-9 level spells, only two more, but still.
4 + 5. Again, granted, the utility is incredible. But it's not as if other casters don't have utility. Other classes don't have utility for free but again, is that aspect that much of a bonus?

I suppose if other spellcasters had a few less spellslots, I could see Warlock shining more. Or if Warlocks had a few more. But as it is, they seem to give up so much in exchange for.. Eldritch Blast, and free utility?

Not every class has the same amount of variety, and warlock surely are in the upper side.
You can change your two per round spells every combat if you want, after all even 1st level spells are upcast automatically, and you have a vast amount of class abilities in the form of invocations.
Bards and wizards have more choices, sure, but definitely i don't see warlock as a boring class.

[OldTrees1]

1) Outside of Spellcasting / Pact Magic, Warlock gets more real features than other full casters and those features come from lists of options (Invocations, 2 subclass systems).

2) Warlock was created in 3E as an At-Will full caster. 5E is not a good adaptation of that concept but recharging on a short rest means that any of your spells is only 1 hour away. So if you dislike Vancian casting, Warlocks are the least bad form of Vancian casting. Although this design breaks down at higher levels due to Mystic Arcanum being a return to Vancian.

Warlocks might be better considered as something between a full caster and a half caster. They can get the high level spells on schedule and cast them the most times per day (consider spells cast out of combat). They get several real features. However in combat they use Eldritch Blast which is like an Archer Fighter except it does 1d10+1d6+Cha damage per hit and does a free 10ft knockback (Hex is an 8h long concentration spell that will last through multiple short rests).

Imagine a Wizard casting Fly 6 times per day at 5th level.

[follacchioso]

May I ask, how come they're one of your favourite classes now? What is it about playing one that has changed your mind?

And lastly, do you think you'd enjoy it any less (or more!) with our playgroup's style of play? With our fewer, yet longer fights per day?One thing I like is the RP flavour. They are different from Wizards, who were fortunate enough to get an education; and less flamboyant than sorcerers, who gained their power without effort, and use it to burn things. Warlocks are people who made a pact with a powerful creature; sometimes for good causes, and sometimes for evil plans. I like that part of RP, even if it doesn't come up often during a game session, I like playing the part of the normal person who needs to go through great lengths to achieve their objectives.

In terms of game, you have very few options, not only in terms of spells slots but also in terms of spells known, and you need to play wisely in order to get the best of it. You have one key, which is always the same small set of spells, and you need to find a way to fit in all the situations you encounter. Wizards have many keys, so they have many ways to solve a situation, but sometimes too many options is too much and you never end up exploring the full possibilities provided by a specific spell or ability. Sorcerers are similar to Warlock in that they know very few spells; but most of their repertoire is destructive Spells, and they can only afford a small numbers of utilities. Bards are great, they are my other favourite class, but they do not really have any offensive spell and they are focused towards social interactions with other humanoids.

My favourite pact is the Chain, as having an invisible familiar who can spy anywhere else on the plane is great for RP. One of my characters is an old witch lady, who is considered crazy by all the other party members and other NPCs, and constantly mumbles to herself; sometimes, however, in her ramblings she describes things that she could not possibly have seen before, like a dangerous encounter on the road ahead, or the structure of the cave that the party is about to explore. She believes the familiar is her lost niece (which nobody else can see, as it is invisible most of the time), and she thinks the other party members are her lost sons and nephews. You could not do that so well with a Wizard or a Sorcerer, or a Bard.

[diplomancer]

Levels 9 and 10 are, indeed, the worst levels for a Warlock, when they substantially fall behind other full casters, assuming two short rests a day. Level 10, in particular, is painful, "regular" full casters get the equivalent of 64 spell points, while Warlocks get 42; even if they had 3 warlock spell slots, they'd still be behind, but barely noticeable (63 spell points).

So, though I do believe designers "dropped the ball" on that (warlocks should get thier third slot at least by 10th, maybe by 9th), still, it's only two levels out of 20; for that matter, in tier 4, they are consistently ahead of all casters (except Wizards, but then it gets impossible to make those comparisons once Wizards get infinite 1st and 2nd level slots for 2 particular spells).


Most campaign ends at or below level 11, and at that point spellcasters don't use cantrips, really.

At level 10, the Warlock will do 2d10 + 10 (~21), with an additional 2d6 (~7) when using hex.

A level 10, an Arcana Cleric with a rapier with Green-Flame-Blade and 16 dex & wis, would do 1d8 + 3 + 2d8 + 3 (~19.5). They can pair this up with spiritual weapon and spiritual guardians almost every fight at this level.

At level 10, a Bladesinger Wizard with 20 int and 16 dex using Toll the Dead and a light crossbow would do 2d12 + 1d8 + 3 (~20.5).

At level 10, a Death Cleric twinning a Toll the Dead can do 4d10 (~22).

You are not factoring the to-hit chance on those calculations, nor the fact that the Arcana Cleric is in melee, or the fact that twinned damage is pretty much always worse than single target damage, or the fact that it will not be that simple to twin Toll the Dead (you need two enemies within 5' of each other, there will be MANY turns where that won't happen), or even the fact that Death Clerics are not a PC class.

You mentioned that "Arcana Clerics can pair this up with spiritual weapon and spiritual guardians almost every fight at this level"; well, Warlocks go one better, they can have one powerful summon pretty much every fight at this level, to add to their already superior DPR.

[Forechosen]

1) Outside of Spellcasting / Pact Magic, Warlock gets more real features than other full casters and those features come from lists of options (Invocations, 2 subclass systems).

2) Warlock was created in 3E as an At-Will full caster. 5E is not a good adaptation of that concept but recharging on a short rest means that any of your spells is only 1 hour away. So if you dislike Vancian casting, Warlocks are the least bad form of Vancian casting. Although this design breaks down at higher levels due to Mystic Arcanum being a return to Vancian.

Warlocks might be better considered as something between a full caster and a half caster. They can get the high level spells on schedule and cast them the most times per day (consider spells cast out of combat). They get several real features. However in combat they use Eldritch Blast which is like an Archer Fighter except it does 1d10+1d6+Cha damage per hit and does a free 10ft knockback (Hex is an 8h long concentration spell that will last through multiple short rests).

Imagine a Wizard casting Fly 6 times per day at 5th level.

Ah I never played 3.5e - the only experience I had before 5e was the Baldur's Gate + Icewind Dale PC games (which don't include the Warlock). I've never heard the word 'Vancian' before, I take it it means 'traditional spellcasting'? Where did that term come from?

It is definitely the 'in combat' aspect that worried me with Warlocks, as out of combat I can absolutely see they'd be amazingly good fun. And it's not even the damage potential, as Eldritch Blast is so good - rather the monotony of using it so much. Especially as our group tends to have fewer, yet longer fights during each adventuring day than a typical playgroup. Although, imagining the Warlock as no different than a martial character 'with some added spells and options' does make the whole class seem a lot more appealing.

It's funny you've mentioned Fly, as the character I'm considering is going to be a Fairy from the new UA, regardless of which class I end up picking!


One thing I like is the RP flavour. They are different from Wizards, who were fortunate enough to get an education; and less flamboyant than sorcerers, who gained their power without effort, and use it to burn things. Warlocks are people who made a pact with a powerful creature; sometimes for good causes, and sometimes for evil plans. I like that part of RP, even if it doesn't come up often during a game session, I like playing the part of the normal person who needs to go through great lengths to achieve their objectives.

In terms of game, you have very few options, not only in terms of spells slots but also in terms of spells known, and you need to play wisely in order to get the best of it. You have one key, which is always the same small set of spells, and you need to find a way to fit in all the situations you encounter. Wizards have many keys, so they have many ways to solve a situation, but sometimes too many options is too much and you never end up exploring the full possibilities provided by a specific spell or ability. Sorcerers are similar to Warlock in that they know very few spells; but most of their repertoire is destructive Spells, and they can only afford a small numbers of utilities. Bards are great, they are my other favourite class, but they do not really have any offensive spell and they are focused towards social interactions with other humanoids.

My favourite pact is the Chain, as having an invisible familiar who can spy anywhere else on the plane is great for RP. One of my characters is an old witch lady, who is considered crazy by all the other party members and other NPCs, and constantly mumbles to herself; sometimes, however, in her ramblings she describes things that she could not possibly have seen before, like a dangerous encounter on the road ahead, or the structure of the cave that the party is about to explore. She believes the familiar is her lost niece (which nobody else can see, as it is invisible most of the time), and she thinks the other party members are her lost sons and nephews. You could not do that so well with a Wizard or a Sorcerer, or a Bard.

Ah see yeah I completely get the RP and flavor side of things. As I said just above, it was really the combat situations that bothered me. As you've stated, regardless of the amount of options you can choose from - you're not left with that many options you can actually use. Especially if you're choosing passive invocations (such as Devil's Sight).

I've got to say I am starting to see the Warlock as more of a massively reflavored martial, with lots of added (and interesting!) bonuses - rather than a spellcaster in the typical sense. At least, I do believe comparing them to other full spellcasters seems like it was a bit of a mistake. It's also funny you mentioned Bard, as that was the other class I was considering for this character.

Lastly, your character sounds amazing, I'm already getting a picture in my head :smallbiggrin:

[freakybeak]

It's a different playstyle to your regular full caster. Your goal in most fights should be to cast one or two fight winning spells (usually the first one being a concentration spell of some sort ie. hypnotic pattern, shadow of moil, a summoning spell etc) and then supplement that with VERY competitive damage per round using little to no resources (be it hexblade melee attacking or eldricht blasting).

Because of that, the spell selection is usually fairly straight forward compared to other casters. The less obvious result of this is that apart from your 4-5 go to combat spells you are actually free to take on some relatively situational or niche spells because your in-combat choices are usually accounted for. It's also a lot easier to use some of those utility spells in unique ways knowing you get them back on a short rest. Accidentally get separated from the party's equipment and can't easily get back to it? No problem, dimension door in and out to grab it and have your party get started on lunch so you can get your spell slots back!

Tasha's Genie patron also adds a lot to the table through the synergy with pact of the chain. Allowing you to rest once per day during travel time inside a small object which can be carried by a potentially invisible familiar is no joke! I'd wager that in most parties that probably doubles the amount of short rests you get in a day...

[Forechosen]

Levels 9 and 10 are, indeed, the worst levels for a Warlock, when they substantially fall behind other full casters, assuming two short rests a day. Level 10, in particular, is painful, "regular" full casters get the equivalent of 64 spell points, while Warlocks get 42; even if they had 3 warlock spell slots, they'd still be behind, but barely noticeable (63 spell points).

So, though I do believe designers "dropped the ball" on that (warlocks should get thier third slot at least by 10th, maybe by 9th), still, it's only two levels out of 20; for that matter, in tier 4, they are consistently ahead of all casters (except Wizards, but then it gets impossible to make those comparisons once Wizards get infinite 1st and 2nd level slots for 2 particular spells).



You are not factoring the to-hit chance on those calculations, nor the fact that the Arcana Cleric is in melee, or the fact that twinned damage is pretty much always worse than single target damage, or the fact that it will not be that simple to twin Toll the Dead (you need two enemies within 5' of each other, there will be MANY turns where that won't happen), or even the fact that Death Clerics are not a PC class.

You mentioned that "Arcana Clerics can pair this up with spiritual weapon and spiritual guardians almost every fight at this level"; well, Warlocks go one better, they can have one powerful summon pretty much every fight at this level, to add to their already superior DPR.

Uh, this is going to sound like a stupid question, but I've hardly slept! - What do you mean by 'spell points'? As in, where you said ''full casters get the equivalent of 64 spell points, while Warlocks get 42''.

I do feel like I'm being dense here..

[stoutstien]

Maybe this is where the problem is. Our playgroup tends to have much fewer fights per day, but ones that go on longer. In fact, if a fight is appearing to be over too swiftly and easily, our DM will often throw in extra baddies 'coming round the corner' or whatever just to up the ante. It's really hard to give an average though.. as it does vary considerably. But we do enjoy very difficult, edge of your seat fights. I'd say perhaps we have on average two to three fights per day, and of course some fights are shorter than others, but 5+ rounds wouldn't be unusual at all.

So it was from this frame that I was thinking ''sheesh, the first round I cast a spell - that's cool, now what am I going to be doing for the next four or more rounds?''

I'm beginning to think it's a mixture, Warlocks have more going for them than I originally thought, but that also perhaps they're not best suited to our playgroups style of play? At least, if you're looking at them through a 'spellcaster' perspective. I can completely, completely see how they're a massively interesting 'marshal' class. If that makes sense!?

Honestly if your DM isn't designing encounters adequately so they need to constantly add content ad hoc to keep tension does it really matter what you play? The feeling of being on the edge of your seat is only really useful if you have some say in it so forcing it upon the party defeats the purpose. Those encounters are incapable of being difficult because it removes all agency from the players who can overcome them without spending 4-5 rounds beating thier face against them.

The warlocks class design structure is not the problem here.

Edit-spell points are a variant casting system available in the DMG where you have a pool of points that can be used to cast spells rather than set slots. It offers more flexibility for casting at the expense of a slightly more complex subsystem.

[Forechosen]

Honestly if your DM isn't designing encounters adequately so they need to constantly add content ad hoc to keep tension does it really matter what you play? The feeling of being on the edge of your seat is only really useful if you have some say in it so forcing it upon the party defeats the purpose. Those encounters are incapable of being difficult because it removes all agency from the players who can overcome them without spending 4-5 rounds beating thier face against them.

The warlocks class design structure is not the problem here.

Oh no, I think I overstated it - she isn't 'constantly' adding stuff, not at all. It's just happened on some rare occasions where we have breezed through a fight. Although we've breezed through others and she hasn't added anything. Honestly, I think I'm explaining this terribly because she genuinely is an amazing DM.

Most of our fights are adequately challenging, they're difficult without feeling like we have no chance. Usually, no players go down - but there's usually a good risk that we might, if we play recklessly or she happens to roll very well.

I mean, I haven't experienced a lot of DM's (probably five or six in total, if that) - so I don't have a lot of people to compare her with, but she's easily the best I've experienced so far. We really do have fun.

[Sception]

Mmm, this is what I'm getting from some of these responses. Perhaps comparing them to a full caster was a mistake, and they're more of an extremely reflavored marshal class - with many added 'abilities/spells' - which does actually make them a really very interesting 'marshal class'. I hadn't looked at them this way before, I think I was too hung up on comparing them to full casters.

Pretty much this. Warlock, in both 3e and 5e (4e being an outlier in many ways) is a class for people who want the thematics and conceptual trappings of a spellcaster, but the more streamlined play experience of a martial character, where you have one primary 'basic attack' option that keeps combat gameplay snappy and free of option paralysis, along with a handful of neat abilities that can be used relatively freely, leaning mostly on short rest resources or resource-free at will abilities.

So even though the max level of warlock spells cast keeps pace with full casters, the better comparison in terms of how they play are the 1/2 and 1/3 casters - paladin, ranger, eldritch knight, arcane trickster. And in that line warlocks can be quite effective. While not top tier for at will damage, the warlock can certainly deal enough at will damage to effectively contribute to a party on those grounds alone, and, as others have already pointed out, between their spells, boons, and invocations, they can offer significant utility outside of that as well.

By level 5, a warlock with the right race and background can have 18 cha; chain boon; actor feat; the eldritch blast and friends cantrips, along with one other of your choice; the mask of many faces, voice of the chain master, and agonizing blast invocations; along with proficiency in, at least, the deception and performance skills.

18 cha, agonizing blast, the Hex spell, and occasional help actions from your familiar alone will allow you to be fully competent (if admittedly not exactly optimized) in combat situations. Outside of combat, though? You have an invisible scout whose senses you can perceive through at unlimited range, who can be resurrected with an hour and a small gold fee. You can use your voice to mimic other voices or sounds, have +7 in deception and performance, along with advantage when using these skills to imitate the voice & mannerisms of specific people (cancelling out the probably disadvantage on the same DMs are likely to impose when dealing with npcs who are familiar with the person you're imitating). You also have at will Disguise Self for perfect disguises AND your invisible infinite range familiar can speak in your voice, ie anybody else's voice. And you can disguise yourself as someone else before using the friends cantrip, dodging the drawback of the cantrip, or even turning it into a secondary benefit. And that is a TON of utility outside of combat, with even some combat applications if you're creative, doing things that no other class can do in the same way.

And, apart from the occasional hex spell in combat, or the gold fee to revive your familiar if it gets tagged, none of that requires you to track limited resources. It's all just stuff that your character can do whenever it's useful to do so.


And that's just one of many interesting angles you can go for with a warlock, most of which largely leave your actual spell slots free to be used as occasional combat buffs. A full caster, on the other hand, needs their spells to do everything. Nearly every round of combat or contributing action out of combat is going to come at a spell slot cost, at least it will unless they have ritual caster. Many have some other class features of note - bardic inspiration, channel divinity, etc, though these also typically involve resource tracking. Full casters have the spell slots and other resources to make this work, they're very strong and versatile classes, generally stronger and more versatile than martial classes or the warlock, I certainly wouldn't claim otherwise. But managing all those resources, agonizing over spells known or thumbing through long lists each in game day for spells memorized, it's a lot of bother. There's something to be said for classes that don't do everything, but can do a few things well, and largely without bothersome resource management.

With a spellcaster, you often have exactly the right spell for whatever situation you might come across, but gameplay can turn into a thought process on how to ~not~ use those abilities. What's the fewest spell slots I can get away with? Is the encounter minor enough or sufficiently handled already that I can switch to weak cantrips? Does this non combat challenge really require me to use a spell, or ask the whole party stop in its tracks so I can start drawing out ritual circles, or can somebody else handle it without burning resources or in game time? You're constantly holding back, and that can be frustrating.

Warlocks work more like martials, where instead there are things you can ~just do~, and you're always looking for more opportunities to ~just do them~, more ways to apply your smaller toolset to whatever situation you happen to encounter. You rarely have to hold back the way a caster does. The overall power level might be lower, the versatility might be less, but the experience is more free and often more creative.

[diplomancer]

Uh, this is going to sound like a stupid question, but I've hardly slept! - What do you mean by 'spell points'? As in, where you said ''full casters get the equivalent of 64 spell points, while Warlocks get 42''.

I do feel like I'm being dense here..



Edit-spell points are a variant casting system available in the DMG where you have a pool of points that can be used to cast spells rather than set slots. It offers more flexibility for casting at the expense of a slightly more complex subsystem.

What stoutstien said; apart from that, since all slots are converted into a single unit (spell points), it's an easy way to compare how much "spellcasting power" a Warlock gets compared to other full casters. It's usually very close (assuming two short rests), sometimes slightly ahead, sometimes slightly behind, with the two "negative outliers", where Warlocks get the short end of the stick, being levels 9 and 10, and the three "positive outliers" being levels 2, 17, and 20.

Of course, there are limitations to this method; after all, giving similar flexibility would be a considerable boost to Warlocks (whose lack of flexibility in "tuning" their power is a definite drawback), but I'd say that this gap is mostly bridged by the Warlock's other class features.

[Cybren]

Giving them spells was a very lazy move IMO. It should have been something like the 3.5 Warlock, but obviously improved. Spells are the band-aid for everything in 5e, and it just makes magic feels less special. It should have been invocations all the way, maybe even replacing invocations every long rest, and of course patron specific invocations. The class feels very half-baked, they all have the same mechanics and signature cantrip but the patrons are vastly different and it just doesn't work in my mind. I especially don't like the fact that an entity can give you powers that they themselves don't have. It's wierd.

Spells aren't so much a 'band-aid', they're just a very very large subystem that already encompasses a lot of what you might want out of alternative subsystems. Arguably there should be more room for other ones- I think the thing they were playing with in the original version of the mystic is more interesting than what they later settled on for psionics, but it makes a whole lot of sense to not design an entirely new set of mechanics for what amounts to "magic, but a different one"

[Forechosen]

Pretty much this.....

Thank you so much for such an in depth reply, that really does help solidify what playing a warlock 'feels' like. At least, it's really helped things in my head. So yeah, thank you :smallsmile:

I've got to say the out of combat at-will abilities are awfully, awfully tempting. I mean, just 'Beast Speak' on its own appeals to me way more than I can stress here. This really does give me a lot to think about.


What stoutstien said; apart from that, since all slots are converted into a single unit (spell points), it's an easy way to compare how much "spellcasting power" a Warlock gets compared to other full casters. It's usually very close (assuming two short rests), sometimes slightly ahead, sometimes slightly behind, with the two "negative outliers", where Warlocks get the short end of the stick, being levels 9 and 10, and the three "positive outliers" being levels 2, 17, and 20.

Of course, there are limitations to this method; after all, giving similar flexibility would be a considerable boost to Warlocks (whose lack of flexibility in "tuning" their power is a definite drawback), but I'd say that this gap is mostly bridged by the Warlock's other class features.

I seeeeee - I can't believe I haven't come across this before. Maybe because I've never DM'd, I don't know. I've just seen the system isn't on DnDBeyond either, which is a shame as it does sound interesting. Yeah, thank you for the information!

[MoiMagnus]

I seeeeee - I can't believe I haven't come across this before. Maybe because I've never DM'd, I don't know. I've just seen the system isn't on DnDBeyond either, which is a shame as it does sound interesting. Yeah, thank you for the information!

The sorcerer has spell points from its features (you can convert spells into spells points, then recreate spell slots with a tax of 30% rounded up). The DMG just contains a variant to generalise it to everyone.

[stoutstien]

Oh no, I think I overstated it - she isn't 'constantly' adding stuff, not at all. It's just happened on some rare occasions where we have breezed through a fight. Although we've breezed through others and she hasn't added anything. Honestly, I think I'm explaining this terribly because she genuinely is an amazing DM.

Most of our fights are adequately challenging, they're difficult without feeling like we have no chance. Usually, no players go down - but there's usually a good risk that we might, if we play recklessly or she happens to roll very well.

I mean, I haven't experienced a lot of DM's (probably five or six in total, if that) - so I don't have a lot of people to compare her with, but she's easily the best I've experienced so far. We really do have fun.

That fair lol. DMs that don't respect player agencies is one of the few things that actually make me upset so I might have read too much into it as well.

Something to consider if your table does tend to run encounters that start pushing the four five round envelope is not opening up with the big guns unless it's a longer duration or CC spell. It's kind of counterintuitive because yes the first couple rounds of combat are the most important for setting the pace but warlocks make great closers because they have consistent damage they can feel out encounters before deciding if it's worthy of a spell slot. Couple that with some of the fun they can have with at will silent image or other invocation shenanigans you don't necessarily have to think like a wizard nor do you think like a martial with damage being your main tool. Warlocks are the Build-A-Bear class so you can't really look at them at face value and give them an accurate judgment.

[OldTrees1]

Ah I never played 3.5e - the only experience I had before 5e was the Baldur's Gate + Icewind Dale PC games (which don't include the Warlock). I've never heard the word 'Vancian' before, I take it it means 'traditional spellcasting'? Where did that term come from?

It is definitely the 'in combat' aspect that worried me with Warlocks, as out of combat I can absolutely see they'd be amazingly good fun. And it's not even the damage potential, as Eldritch Blast is so good - rather the monotony of using it so much. Especially as our group tends to have fewer, yet longer fights during each adventuring day than a typical playgroup. Although, imagining the Warlock as no different than a martial character 'with some added spells and options' does make the whole class seem a lot more appealing.

It's funny you've mentioned Fly, as the character I'm considering is going to be a Fairy from the new UA, regardless of which class I end up picking!

Vancian magic is the "spell slots spellcasting" and usually "spell slots that only recharge once a day". It comes from comparing early D&D spellcasting to the works of Jack Vance. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VancianMagic).


Yeah the in combat aspect of 5E Warlock suffered from the "less that faithful" adaptation. I suggest taking the Misty Vision and Shroud of Silence invocations to get Silent Image and Invisibility at will. That breaks up the combat monotony a bit.

However as a general rule of thumb in game mechanics, game designers have at - will classes suffer monotony as punishment for avoiding the resource depletion minigame. You don't need to design them that way, but it is a strong tendency.

[Bobthewizard]

I think this has all been said at some point in this thread, but I'll add my experience.

Comparing warlocks to wizards, sorcerers, and bards is a mistake. Their spellcasting and class abilities are completely different. Instead they are gishes - so compare them more to rangers, paladins, and eldritch knights. They are either ranged (eldritch blast or hex bow), or melee (hex blades and potentially other pact of the blade), but they have more magic than any of the 1/2 and 1/3 casters. On a spectrum of gishes ranging from barbarian to wizard, I put them just past paladins and rangers but not quite to blade singers and swords/valor bards.

So I think they have a place, but that place isn't a replacement for the other arcane full casters. And I love the place they fill. Very good at-will damage, with some fun control if you play on a grid and take repelling blast. Then big spells that they can throw around, not just because they usually get more of them, but because if they run out of spells, they are still fun to play.

They work well in a party with a wizard (or sorcerer or bard). For the first fights of the day, the warlock casts the big spell letting the wizard save their spell slots. Then if we can short rest, the warlock starts over, saving the wizard's spells for even later, allowing the wizard save their big spells for later in the day. If the warlock is out of spells, then the wizard can step in and cast a big spell. It's great team synergy.

Then finally, imp familiars might be my favorite ability in the game, both mechanically and for role-playing. Lighting the imp on fire and launching them from the catapult onto the enemy's ship was loads of fun.

[Sception]

Thank you so much for such an in depth reply, that really does help solidify what playing a warlock 'feels' like. At least, it's really helped things in my head. So yeah, thank you :smallsmile:

I've got to say the out of combat at-will abilities are awfully, awfully tempting. I mean, just 'Beast Speak' on its own appeals to me way more than I can stress here. This really does give me a lot to think about.

Glad to help. And yeah, Eldritch Blast spam, or spamming your max level spells in games where short rests are easy to come by, can be enjoyable, but it's the at will utility stuff that, imo, really sells the class. Levitate, Disguise Self, Silent Image, Detect Magic, Speak with Animals, Speak with Dead... these are alright spells on their own, but when your character can cast one or more of these at will, it completely changes how they feel and how you use them, in ways that you can build an entire character concept around.


Warlock also multiclasses really well, even though pact magic and regular spell slots don't stack.

For example, if you're used to playing other casters, then the way pact magic slots outgrow low level spells, leaving you without spell slots for low level staples like Shield or Absorb Elements can feel frustrating, but a few levels dipped into sorcerer can get you spare spell slots and spells known to handle that stuff, along with some metamagic to apply to your pact magic slots, or even some of your at will spells. For instance, once the social infiltrator build I outlined above has it's basic elements covered, it can get a lot of use out of a three level sorcerer dip for a couple static first & second level spell slots & spells known plus a few uses of Subtle Spell per day. Yes, the multiclass involves a significant delay to your pact magic and eventual mystic arcanum progression, but despite those being inarguably the strongest warlock features from an objective perspective, they aren't the features that character is really built around.

Alternatively, a warlock who meant to go with pact of the blade might start with 2-3 levels of fighter for armor and con save proficiencies, a fighting style, and action surge, plus maybe a couple daily spell slots from eldritch knight for 1st level utility spells or else some other fighter subclass features if they take that third level. Again, this comes to a delay to warlock progression, particularly pact slot and mystic arcanum, but those probably aren't the main focus of the class for bladelock players.

From the other side, a Sorcerer or bard might look at a 2 to 3 level dip into warlock and think 'well, I'd be taking a hit to my spell progression, but agonizing eldritch blast will give me such a solid damage base line in combat, particularly combined with the occasional quicken spell metamagic in the sorcerer's case, that I'll be able to free up more spell slots for utility and non-combat use than I'll be losing in the trade, plus a couple first or second level spell slots per short rest will ensure that I've always got something to fall back on even in particularly long adventuring days.

Or a paladin might look at 2 to 3 levels of warlock and think "yeah I lose a couple daily spell slots, but 2 extra pact magic slots per short rest for Bless or Divine Smite or whatever else will really help with the paladin's otherwise sometimes limited stamina over the course of long adventuring days, and that's before you get to eldritch blast as a strong ranged fallback on an otherwise melee-locked class.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I'm beginning to think it's a mixture, Warlocks have more going for them than I originally thought, but that also perhaps they're not best suited to our playgroups style of play? At least, if you're looking at them through a 'spellcaster' perspective. I can completely, completely see how they're a massively interesting 'marshal' class. If that makes sense!?

This right here is what makes or breaks the Warlock.

The Style of Play question.

I run Gritty Realism Sandbox style games where long rests take 1 week. I also really push the # of fights per long rest.My battlefields and combat take place in entire cities or forests, not one single room. Enemies and player's withdraw, hide, and ambush each other over the course of several days. This gives short rest classes an massive advantage over the long rest classes for obvious reasons.

That's not to say the long rest classes don't put in the work, but they have to think carefully about what they do.

In my play style it's the short rest classes that reign as kings over the casters.

But if your game style is one or two fights per long rest that are hard, the Warlock and short rest classes will struggle mightily. They aren't geared toward that kind of play. They play an attrition game that if not present, will disproportionately favor long rest classes. Warlocks have numerous abilities that enable to them to be efficient with resources and save spell slots over the course of an adventure. If attrition isn't part of your game, (Which it doesn't have to be) the Warlocks will look poor in comparison.


Edit for a note here - There is nothing wrong with playing only a few combats per long rest btw. It's just something that needs to be upfront. It's like, if you aren't doing travel or playing in the wilderness the Ranger is going to struggle to feel good about their class. Keeping in mind, not all classes are for the same type of game. Some classes and spells are specifically for different players and games. The type of game and players at the table really drive how effective some classes are. Some are always good, like the Druid, Paladin, Bard and Rogue. Some are only good in specific campaigns, PHB Ranger for example. Some are for specific players, champion fighter for my Dad. All classes and such don't have to be good all the time. They just have to be good in their specific niche.

[MoiMagnus]

I can completely, completely see how they're a massively interesting 'marshal' class. If that makes sense!?

Definitely. In my last campaign, I was an Hexblade warlock, and I mostly felt as much of a spellcaster as the Paladin of the team (significantly more than the Rogue arcane trickster, significantly less than the Wizard of the team).

[Sception]

The issue with encounters per long rest can be a particularly frustrating one. using regular rest rules, it can be very difficult to manage the party's rest schedule without arbitrary in game time limits, particularly if they have access to rituals like rope trick or tiny hut, while using the gritty realism rules with long rests that take a week can tend to put an obnoxious limit on adventure design where every adventure needs to either be manageable on just a single long rest OR has to have no time limits what so ever in order to allow those long long rests, at which points players might start over using long rests anyway.

Regardless, extra short or extra long adventuring days can have obnoxious effects on internal balance between long-rest oriented classes like paladins and most casters vs. short rest/at will oriented classes like warlocks and most martials. It's kind of frustrating, and does sometimes make me miss the 4th edition days, where every class had a roughly consistent mix of at will, short rest, and long rest resources, so whether your campaign structure resulted in longer or shorter adventuring days, at least all the characters were affected in roughly the same ways, letting you tune encounter difficulty as needed without worrying about how individual characters would be able to adapt to it.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Regarding the thread topic (and maybe this was already mentioned but I'll reiterate): perhaps there shouldn't be any pressing need to "get" warlocks. If the class seems unappealing to you, no one is forcing you to play it or like it or think it's good. Different people have different playstyles and different reasons to play the game. Some classes or options might simply seem unfun or boring or worse to some players, and that's fine, because you should play what you think is fun. If it's not fun, why bother?

I have similar hangups with the Artificer (and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Ranger), because they both seem kind of boring and weak, and because I abhor half-casters. Obviously they have strengths, but they aren't for me.

I personally very much enjoy warlock (at least when I'm a player, as a DM they get on my nerves :smallbiggrin:), but that's because they have a very specific appeal to me, in that:


They're great for multiclassing, mainly since a) they're the kingpin of the charisma mafia, and b) they have a strong set of features for the first 3 to 5 levels
They alleviate much of the tactical worry of traditional casters when it comes to spell slots. I naturally hog resources, so having a mechanic that encourages me to be more generous with the amount of spells I use (or that is less punishing when I use my spells), helps with that.
Their themes and flavour are simultaneously strong yet incredibly flexible, so character concepts fit more easily.


I would suggest trying it out if you haven't already, if only to gain an understanding of what makes them tick. But don't worry too much about trying to understand the appeal.


Most campaign ends at or below level 11, and at that point spellcasters don't use cantrips, really.
If most campaigns end at level 11 or below, then warlocks are going to be on par or better in terms of abilities/spells/damage for at least 6 or 7 levels of that time.

[Man_Over_Game]

A Warlock is to a Wizard as a Rogue is to a Fighter.

They perform suboptimally at the thing you're focusing on the most with the Wizard/Fighter. However, the things they can do that you with a 20% or so damage nerf is pretty damn impressive.

Talk to animals at will
Change your appearance at will
Cast Silent Image at will
Have a familiar that can fly and turn invisible.
Have the highest-damaging cantrip in the game, on top of being able to push/pull an enemy multiple times without a save.
Cast something like Fly as a utility spell out of combat and afford it easily.

And, unlike the Wizard, their primary stat ties directly into the powers they can use, allowing them to have more options with their powers (like combining a high Charisma with illusion magic).

Wizards are specialists. Warlocks are less so.

[Sception]

I'm not sure I'd call wizards 'specialists', not with the extremely broad versatility of their spell list and large number of spells they can commit to their spell books even before you account for copying spells from outside sources. If anything, warlocks will be more specialized than wizards. A warlock will end up with a couple narrow abilities that they can do more or less as much as they want, and play will involve finding creative ways to apply their chosen specialties to a variety of problems they may or may not naturally fit. Where as a wizard will have spells that can do just about anything, but whatever they choose to do will be limited by their available spell slots, so play will involve judging whether a situation is significant enough to warrant spending a spell slot on exactly the solution that particular situation calls for.

[Bloodcloud]

Don't forget that warlock get D8 hit dice and light armor profiency - they are tankier than wizards and sorcerers.

Also, if you get a few "shenanigan" spells to mess with people in town (where short rest are easy to get), you can outcast everyone. Stuff like spamming Dream, Suggestion, Major image... you can unleash your big spells with little care.

[diplomancer]

Don't forget that warlock get D8 hit dice and light armor profiency - they are tankier than wizards and sorcerers.

Also, if you get a few "shenanigan" spells to mess with people in town (where short rest are easy to get), you can outcast everyone. Stuff like spamming Dream, Suggestion, Major image... you can unleash your big spells with little care.

Good point about hit dice and armor proficiency; it's why I believe the "proper" point of comparison is with the Bard; of course Wizards and Sorcerers are better casters than Warlocks; casting spells is their whole schtick, just take a look at their class tables and see how many levels they get nothing but spells or improvements to their spellcasting; at first glance:

Bards: levels 7, 11, 18
Wizards: levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20
Sorcerers: levels 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20
Warlocks: levels 11, 13, 17, 20

[KorvinStarmast]

Response to the OP:

It is my feeling that Pact of the Tome is the 'right' warlock to play if you want to align the descriptive text in the PHB with the mechanics. While I particularly like the Celestial Pact (the healing feature allows our party to play with no cleric) any patron with pact of the tome would be good.

Adding three cantrips at level 3 is very nice. Adding a couple of rituals (Find Familiar, Alarm) was handy for the party.

Adding ritual spells here and there, such as Water Breathing or Leomunds Tiny Hut, and even Skywrite (You'd be surprised how that has helped us in our above ground adventuring) only gets better as you go up in level providing that you 'find spells' or find scrolls that have ritual spells on them.

For cantrips, by level 3, this is what I had: 3 Tome, 3 Warlock
Minor Illusion, Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Shocking Grasp, Guidance, Prestidigitation (granted, that last one has some RP needs that are being met and it has worked out better than I had expected). A good argument can be mde for Mage Hand rather than Chill Touch, since so few creatures are immune to force damage.

[Jon talks a lot]

Another thing to think about: Warlocks are the go-to dip class for a reason. They are so front-loaded into the first 2-3 levels that they are one of the most powerful classes in tier 1 and low-mid tier 2. Sure, they aren't as good as a wizard after that, but nothing is as good as a wizard after that. And I mean that literally.

[Merudo]

A Warlock is to a Wizard as a Rogue is to a Fighter.

They perform suboptimally at the thing you're focusing on the most with the Wizard/Fighter. However, the things they can do that you with a 20% or so damage nerf is pretty damn impressive.


Interesting - I also tend to find the Rogue unimpressive as well.



[LIST]
Talk to animals at will
Change your appearance at will
Cast Silent Image at will
Have a familiar that can fly and turn invisible.


See, pretty much all of this can be replicated by rituals (find familiar, speak with animals), cantrips (minor illusion), and a disguise kit.

When they can't - well, that's where the Bard/Druid/Wizard spend one of their lower spell slots.

[Sorinth]

Even if we put the power discrepancy (or not, that's what I'm asking) aside - doesn't the Warlock's fighting day look extremely boring? I know this is clearly subjective, but - one spell a fight, and then cantripping? It doesn't sound too exciting.

Is a Fighter also boring? Warlocks are essentially running the Martial template. Instead of attacking with a weapon it's cantrips, instead of abilities like Action Surge it's a spell. It's the main reason why they get ability score mod to damage, it's because cantrips are replicating weapon attacks.

[Segev]

I don’t agree about Mystic Arcanums being so weak that you necessarily wanna multiclass out as soon as you hit tier 3 — high level spells are no joke, with or without the restrictions of Mystic Arcanum. There are also some strong high level features to be had, like Hurl Through Hell.

Summon Fiend is like a whole extra martial character with three PC-level attacks for an hour. Forcecage is the kind of spell that can instantly define an encounter, while Crown of Stars is worth around 14 SP of Quickens from a level 17 sorcerer... when you get it at 13. Foresight just gives you a huge basically-all-day buff. What exactly are you jumping out for that makes these things look bad? It's not like you're going to get better high level spell access by jumping out at tier 3.

The primary restriction of Mystic Arcanum is that you are always casting the same spell in the same slot -- essentially, it's like one of those class features that reads "do X 1/day." This mostly means that you have to be careful to pick spells that are sufficiently versatile that you'll want to cast them basically every day for your Arcanum slots.

Mystic Arcanum is "good enough," mechanically. I think part of what makes it feel so unsatisifying is that it is actually a highly nerfed version of high level spellcasting, but it's billed as your Patron giving you something special. Its flavor makes you want to say, "I have a weird trick I can do with this that no other caster can," but the reality is that the "weird trick" is that you can't upcast it and can't upcast any of your pact spells into that slot. Did you get major image as a warlock spell? You'll never be able to upcast it to 6th level. Your Mystic Arcanum for your 6th level spell known isn't a slot, and you can't learn major image as your 6th level Arcanum even if you were willing to sacrifice the slot for it!

Does this make it weak? No. In fact, I think it'd be worth it even if it required spending a Pact Magic spell slot to cast it. ...honestly, that nerf would make it "feel" better, instinctively, to me, even though it's objectively worse than what the RAW do permit.

It would feel more "exploit"-like, like some deep secret the Patron taught, if you could just use Pact Magic slots to cast them, but that'd also be ridiculously overpowered.

[heavyfuel]

doesn't the Warlock's fighting day look extremely boring?

If that's your idea of "boring", unfortunately you are bound to play non-warlock full casters for the rest of your 5e career. 5e just doesn't offer the complexity to push a bunch of different buttons with cool effects outside of other full casters. You're either attacking with a martial or casting EB with a warlock every single turn.

[Tanarii]

Your not the first person to not understand the warlock, but you're doing exactly the same as every other thread that comes up on the issue, which happens maybe once every other month:

- playing with non-standard rests
- comparing at level 10

On the second, level 10 is the absolute worst point of comparison for warlocks. Before that they are assumed to get a static 6 max level slots per day, and after 9. Meanwhile spellcasting casters start with 5-6 of their top 2 level slots per day, but are increasingly gaining slots 1-3 levels lower than that. But at 11 the warlock suddenly gains another 3 level 5 slots per day, and the spellcasting caster gets no more. (From a spell point perspective, Warlocks really should gain the 3rd slot between 8th and 9th btw. It definitely comes a bit late.)

Non-standard rests are a table issue. The game assumes roughly 18-24 rounds of combat with a short rest every 6-8. In theory it doesn't really matter if it's 12 Easy fights or 2 rounds each (short rest every three fights) or 3 Deadly fights of 6 rounds each (short rests after every fight). BUT ... in the latter case, many warlock players will notice the 2 rounds of big spells followed by4 of EB much more if they've got someone in the group casting a leveled spell every round. Of course, a full spellcasting caster can only really do when they hit level 10 and have 16 spell slots for the day.

If you don't even do 3 fights in a day and don't get a short rest between them on the days that happen to be 2? Don't play a Warlock. Or a Monk. Probably don't even play a Fighter.

[diplomancer]

Interesting - I also tend to find the Rogue unimpressive as well.



See, pretty much all of this can be replicated by rituals (find familiar, speak with animals), cantrips (minor illusion), and a disguise kit.

When they can't - well, that's where the Bard/Druid/Wizard spend one of their lower spell slots.

You are *strongly* downplaying the difference between rituals and at-will powers.

Does your DM (and your party) let you stop in every single room to cast detect magic? Because with at will detect magic, you might as well just tell the DM "as long as I'm not concentrating on anything, please let me know of any magic items my warlock sees".

Disguise kits are great; they don't allow you to leave a tavern and look someone completely different the moment you step around the corner.

And the difference between a regular familiar and an intelligent, invisible one with opposable thumbs can hardly be overstated; one is neat; the other can simply eliminate certain challenges. Just one example: I'm now playing Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and we are on a caravan, shadowing some cultists. I've told my sprite familiar "please, stay close to their wagons and report back to me every day what they are talking about". I'd like to see any wizard familiar be able to do that, for weeks, without getting caught.

[SunsetWaraxe]

If you don't even do 3 fights in a day and don't get a short rest between them on the days that happen to be 2? Don't play a Warlock. Or a Monk. Probably don't even play a Fighter.

I played a Warlock in a game where we had one meaty combat each session. Playing a Warlock was fun but underwhelming. You really need multiple fights/encounters a day to make the Warlock feel special. They thrive in constrained narrative environments (like dungeons).

[Forechosen]

If that's your idea of "boring", unfortunately you are bound to play non-warlock full casters for the rest of your 5e career. 5e just doesn't offer the complexity to push a bunch of different buttons with cool effects outside of other full casters. You're either attacking with a martial or casting EB with a warlock every single turn.

Weirdly, I don't find playing martial characters boring - one of my favourite characters was a barbarian. I think it was more of a discrepancy of what I imagined a Warlock should play like, vs what they do play like. I mean it's entirely my fault, I'm just trying to work out in my head why I found the concept Eldritch Blast spamming 'boring' - whilst at the same time I didn't find attack-spam boring. I think it's because you know you're getting an attack spamming class, whilst with Warlock I imagined I was getting a spellslinging class.

Clearly, I've been looking at it completely the wrong way. This thread has genuinely helped me to understand them a hella lot more.


Your not the first person to not understand the warlock, but you're doing exactly the same as every other thread that comes up on the issue, which happens maybe once every other month:

- playing with non-standard rests
- comparing at level 10

On the second, level 10 is the absolute worst point of comparison for warlocks. Before that they are assumed to get a static 6 max level slots per day, and after 9. Meanwhile spellcasting casters start with 5-6 of their top 2 level slots per day, but are increasingly gaining slots 1-3 levels lower than that. But at 11 the warlock suddenly gains another 3 level 5 slots per day, and the spellcasting caster gets no more. (From a spell point perspective, Warlocks really should gain the 3rd slot between 8th and 9th btw. It definitely comes a bit late.)

Non-standard rests are a table issue. The game assumes roughly 18-24 rounds of combat with a short rest every 6-8. In theory it doesn't really matter if it's 12 Easy fights or 2 rounds each (short rest every three fights) or 3 Deadly fights of 6 rounds each (short rests after every fight). BUT ... in the latter case, many warlock players will notice the 2 rounds of big spells followed by4 of EB much more if they've got someone in the group casting a leveled spell every round. Of course, a full spellcasting caster can only really do when they hit level 10 and have 16 spell slots for the day.

If you don't even do 3 fights in a day and don't get a short rest between them on the days that happen to be 2? Don't play a Warlock. Or a Monk. Probably don't even play a Fighter.

In my defence - I had no clue that our style of play would influence the 'fun' of the Warlock that much, it just hadn't crossed my mind. I mean, we often do take part in more than two fights per day, I just wouldn't say it's a given. What I said a while back was only a generalization. Again, it's my fault for not realising, I just suppose it's hard to see a balance issue when you've been playing a certain way for so long that it seems natural.

Thinking back over the last few sessions - last session we stormed a castle, which involved two big fights. That was the whole session. The session before that was mainly an RP session, it only had one fight. The session before that we were in a small 'dungeon' - which had multiple fights, two tiny ones, one medium size, and one big one I think - so four in total. I don't think we play that unusually, but yes, definitely less than 18-24 rounds per day.

Regarding level 10 being a terrible level for the Warlock, I genuinely just had no clue about that. I'd never read that before and I hadn't analysed the level table at all. I just chose 10 because it's 'middle of the road', but yeah that's a completely fair criticism.

[Merudo]

Your not the first person to not understand the warlock, but you're doing exactly the same as every other thread that comes up on the issue, which happens maybe once every other month:

- playing with non-standard rests

[...]

Non-standard rests are a table issue. The game assumes roughly 18-24 rounds of combat with a short rest every 6-8. In theory it doesn't really matter if it's 12 Easy fights or 2 rounds each (short rest every three fights) or 3 Deadly fights of 6 rounds each (short rests after every fight). BUT ... in the latter case, many warlock players will notice the 2 rounds of big spells followed by4 of EB much more if they've got someone in the group casting a leveled spell every round. Of course, a full spellcasting caster can only really do when they hit level 10 and have 16 spell slots for the day.

If you don't even do 3 fights in a day and don't get a short rest between them on the days that happen to be 2? Don't play a Warlock. Or a Monk. Probably don't even play a Fighter.

Curious what you mean by "non-standard rests". The 6-8 guideline is intended to be a maximum, not a norm.

In fact, pretty much none of the published 5e modules supports your 6-8 encounters a day "standard".

Seems to me that the Warlock requires non-standard rests (i.e. 6-8 encounters a day) to be competitive - not the other way around.

[diplomancer]

Weirdly, I don't find playing martial characters boring - one of my favourite characters was a barbarian. I think it was more of a discrepancy of what I imagined a Warlock should play like, vs what they do play like. I mean it's entirely my fault, I'm just trying to work out in my head why I found the concept Eldritch Blast spamming 'boring' - whilst at the same time I didn't find attack-spam boring. I think it's because you know you're getting an attack spamming class, whilst with Warlock I imagined I was getting a spellslinging class.

Clearly, I've been looking at it completely the wrong way. This thread has genuinely helped me to understand them a hella lot more.



In my defence - I had no clue that our style of play would influence the 'fun' of the Warlock that much, it just hadn't crossed my mind. I mean, we often do take part in more than two fights per day, I just wouldn't say it's a given. What I said a while back was only a generalization. Again, it's my fault for not realising, I just suppose it's hard to see a balance issue when you've been playing a certain way for so long that it seems natural.

Thinking back over the last few sessions - last session we stormed a castle, which involved two big fights. That was the whole session. The session before that was mainly an RP session, it only had one fight. The session before that we were in a small 'dungeon' - which had multiple fights, two tiny ones, one medium size, and one big one I think - so four in total. I don't think we play that unusually, but yes, definitely less than 18-24 rounds per day.

Regarding level 10 being a terrible level for the Warlock, I genuinely just had no clue about that. I'd never read that before and I hadn't analysed the level table at all. I just chose 10 because it's 'middle of the road', but yeah that's a completely fair criticism.

It seems from this post that your table also plays "a long rest happens at the end of a session"; but nothing in the game tells you to do so; a game can go several sessions between long rests, specially if you are investigating a looong dungeon.

[Tipsy_Pooka]

My introduction to 5th edition has been a Warforged Celestial Tomelock and I'm loving it. I didn't want to play a full-caster until I was able to wrap my head around the spellcasting rules and I feel this was a great way to do so. I'm a little sad that they didn't port over the Infernal Flight Invocation from 3.5 but i can deal with it.

I don't even mind being an up jumped EB blast bot

The funniest thing about it is that i individually hated both the Warforged and Warlock when they were first introduced in 3.5 but I love the combination together.

[Selion]

Incidentally i'm building a warlock right now, the infamous hexblade subclass.
Haven't played it yet, but i must say i really like the options at my disposal, i plan to use the hexblade kit in combat and spells and invocations for utility, then i'll have:
at will 1st level illusions
at will disguise self
at will ability to perceive trough another humanoid senses

And still having a crowd control spells, melee damage second only to an optimized fighter, eldritch smite ecc.

A character like that can use their utility spells in exploration and intrigue, then short rest and fight with strong crowd control spells and smite for outstanding damage, then short rest and again, whatever it's more useful in that situation.
It sounds anything but boring to me, i'm looking forward to play it.

[schm0]

Curious what you mean by "non-standard rests". The 6-8 guideline is intended to be a maximum, not a norm.

In fact, pretty much none of the published 5e modules supports your 6-8 encounters a day "standard".

Seems to me that the Warlock requires non-standard rests (i.e. 6-8 encounters a day) to be competitive - not the other way around.

How do you figure? 6-8 medium encounters is a typical dungeon, like Cragmaw Cave or Death House. It's actually pretty standard, although not exact. Mega-dungeons usually provide a spot to safely long rest, as well. What isn't standard are things like overworld travel through the wilderness, where the encounters are infrequent and PCs can just long rest knowing they'll only face one a day.

Warlocks are fine as long as the DM uses resting as a balancing tool.

[Tanarii]

Curious what you mean by "non-standard rests". The 6-8 guideline is intended to be a maximum, not a norm.
If your adventuring days vary significantly under/over the norm, it will impact the no/shot/long rest resource balance point. In particular, treating it "as a maximum" will result in overpowered spellcasting feature classes.

Not to mention that almost any 4 or more person party without feats or Multiclassing can easily handle a typical adventuring day of 3 Deadly / 4.5 Hard / 6 Medium / 12 Easy combat and non-combat encounters, provided they can get the short rests. If you're treating it as a maximum instead of a minimum, you're underselling your players. That's even more true once Feats and Multiclassing come into play.

Also noting here:
- despite the common DMG quote "6-8 medium or hard" encounters, it's actually not that for any levels per the accompanying table, which is why I didn't say anything about 6-8 medium or hard.
- Non-combat encounters should still be encounters, and may require resources to resolve. A lot of people spend table time on stuff that doesn't have any meaningful impact or underlying conflict or otherwise somehow contribute to campaign events. Weirdly, that's the stuff often incorrectly categorized as "RP".

[Segev]

If your adventuring days vary significantly under/over the norm, it will impact the no/shot/long rest resource balance point. In particular, treating it "as a maximum" will result in overpowered spellcasting feature classes.

Not to mention that almost any 4 or more person party without feats or Multiclassing can easily handle a typical adventuring day of 3 Deadly / 4.5 Hard / 6 Medium / 12 Easy combat and non-combat encounters, provided they can get the short rests. If you're treating it as a maximum instead of a minimum, you're underselling your players. That's even more true once Feats and Multiclassing come into play.

Also noting here:
- despite the common DMG quote "6-8 medium or hard" encounters, it's actually not that for any levels per the accompanying table, which is why I didn't say anything about 6-8 medium or hard.
- Non-combat encounters should still be encounters, and may require resources to resolve. A lot of people spend table time on stuff that doesn't have any meaningful impact or underlying conflict or otherwise somehow contribute to campaign events. Weirdly, that's the stuff often incorrectly categorized as "RP".

The biggest problem I had in running Tomb of Annihilation was creating believable days where encounters hit 4, let alone 6-8. Even in dungeon-crawling, the PCs felt they were on the verge of death when I was pretty sure I'd barely scratched them, and would use leomund's tiny hut to take a long rest.

[Tanarii]

The biggest problem I had in running Tomb of Annihilation was creating believable days where encounters hit 4, let alone 6-8. Even in dungeon-crawling, the PCs felt they were on the verge of death when I was pretty sure I'd barely scratched them, and would use leomund's tiny hut to take a long rest.Isn't ToA on something like a 60 day doom clock timer?

However, I dont know what the wandering monster check odds are like for the jungle. Random encounters in the wilderness can be very problematic for resting cycles compared to adventuring sites.

[Segev]

Isn't ToA on something like a 60 day doom clock timer?

However, I dont know what the wandering monster check odds are like for the jungle. Random encounters in the wilderness can be very problematic for resting cycles compared to adventuring sites.

It's on that timer if the PCs and players care about any of those who are dying. I don't mean that in a "they're callous and mean" sense if they "don't care," but if the NPCs they know of who're dying aren't people they're desperate to keep alive (or they think they'll just get raised after the curse is fixed), the time pressure diminishes greatly. It could be re-introduced if...

...the DM decides the Atropol is going to ascend in a shorter time frame, and is able to communicate this to the players as a threat, ......but that requires the DM to give far more information far earlier than the module expects you to.

In my game, the PCs knew of the dying archmage, but they weren't in any hurry on her behalf. Just more generally concerned about the threat this posed to the world at large. I won't say they were lackadaisical, but they did take their time in exploring and following side-quests. I don't think this is a bad thing, inherently. Most of the difficulty is getting a travel-time encounter rate up to something that would actually match the 4-8 encounters per day expectation. This is why "gritty realism" variant rules exist, I suspect. I am not happy with those as a solution, not on their own, though.

[MoiMagnus]

Isn't ToA on something like a 60 day doom clock timer?

If the PCs truly believe they're one the verge of death, it doesn't really matter whatever bad thing might happen if they take too much time. While it depends on player personality, some teams have a very strong preference toward "death by plot latter" rather than "death by combat right now".

[schm0]

This is why "gritty realism" variant rules exist, I suspect. I am not happy with those as a solution, not on their own, though.

Honestly, if people just looked at the adventuring day as a balancing mechanism instead of a real world amalgam, everyone's tables would be better off. Isolate the points in the game where long rests become trivial, and remove them or make them extremely difficult. For my table, this means overworld travel and exploration. 8 hours gets you a short rest there. Long rests can only be done in the dungeon or within the confines of civilization. Dungeons should always be very dangerous to rest in, especially with creatures of 5 or more intelligence.

Once you realize you can control the tempo and draining of resources by pulling the appropriate levers, the game becomes much more balanced. Short rest classes like warlock and monk aren't outshined by long rest classes, and long rest classes learn how to play conservatively.

[Segev]

Honestly, if people just looked at the adventuring day as a balancing mechanism instead of a real world amalgam, everyone's tables would be better off. Isolate the points in the game where long rests become trivial, and remove them or make them extremely difficult. For my table, this means overworld travel and exploration. 8 hours gets you a short rest there. Long rests can only be done in the dungeon or within the confines of civilization. Dungeons should always be very dangerous to rest in, especially with creatures of 5 or more intelligence.

Once you realize you can control the tempo and draining of resources by pulling the appropriate levers, the game becomes much more balanced. Short rest classes like warlock and monk aren't outshined by long rest classes, and long rest classes learn how to play conservatively.

It's not that I don't realize this, it's that imposing that in so gamist a fashion shatters verisimilitude for me and my group. And, I imagine, for many like us.

If we wanted to control pacing that way, we could just have the DM declare when short rests and long rests occur without any regard to any in-game or fictional narrative-related elements.

[MaxWilson]

Isn't ToA on something like a 60 day doom clock timer?


60 days is 60 long rests plus 480 short rests, not counting 8 hours a day of traveling / fighting / etc. It's a timer but not a highly restrictive one on a per-rest resource level. More like "reduces the number of red herrings you can afford to chase/number of trips you can make back to civilization for more supplies."

[sithlordnergal]

It's on that timer if the PCs and players care about any of those who are dying. I don't mean that in a "they're callous and mean" sense if they "don't care," but if the NPCs they know of who're dying aren't people they're desperate to keep alive (or they think they'll just get raised after the curse is fixed), the time pressure diminishes greatly.

In my game, the PCs knew of the dying archmage, but they weren't in any hurry on her behalf. Just more generally concerned about the threat this posed to the world at large. I won't say they were lackadaisical, but they did take their time in exploring and following side-quests. I don't think this is a bad thing, inherently. Most of the difficulty is getting a travel-time encounter rate up to something that would actually match the 4-8 encounters per day expectation. This is why "gritty realism" variant rules exist, I suspect. I am not happy with those as a solution, not on their own, though.

Oh, I'm currently re-running ToA for the second time. I actually found a neat little solution to get players caring about the timer and dealing with the encounter problem:

First up, the encounter problem since it ties directly in getting players to care about the timer. I've more or less done away with random encounters in the jungle. Outside of one or two random encounters, most of the jungle encounter's my player's have had are basically mini-adventures. Mostly stuff taken from Encounters in the Jungle of Rot, but I've also done things like goblins attacking Fort Vengeance, forcing the players to set up defenses and such, letting them run into lost tombs/temples, a few chase sequences involving giant dinos, ect. Its done nicely to supplement the lack of random encounters, and you get something closer to a proper adventuring day instead of a one off encounter.

Which leads me into the second bit, the timer. I actually changed up ToA a little. The Death Curse didn't start taking effect until the party reached level 5. That gave them time to do some side quests, explore the jungle a bit, get some extra magic items, and make a friend. Specifically, I gave them a Cauldron of Rebirth because I'm a bit of a troll and I knew it'd become useless once the Death Curse started, and they befriended a Druid named Tanua. They actually brought Tanua back from the dead using the cauldron, and now that they hit level 5 the timer is on and they're now invested in saving their friend's life.

[schm0]

It's not that I don't realize this, it's that imposing that in so gamist a fashion shatters verisimilitude for me and my group. And, I imagine, for many like us.

If we wanted to control pacing that way, we could just have the DM declare when short rests and long rests occur without any regard to any in-game or fictional narrative-related elements.

While I understand what you are saying, how does changing the quantity of imaginary points replenished during a rest ruin the verisimilitude, exactly? Your characters still rest the same amount of time, they still awake more refreshed than before. I would understand your point better if I were suggesting what you wrote, but that's not the case here. Furthermore, isn't it equally "gamist" to insist that players continue to be able to "nova" encounters with little consequence, or that long rest classes should outshine short rest classes because the resting rules don't always work well with the recommended number of encounters in an adventuring day?

I ask this sincerely, because like you I care about systems that provide verisimilitude, and strive to make the game world feel alive. But at the same time, at end of the day we're all keeping track of imaginary numbers on a character sheet.

[Segev]

While I understand what you are saying, how does changing the quantity of imaginary points replenished during a rest ruin the verisimilitude, exactly? Your characters still rest the same amount of time, they still awake more refreshed than before. I would understand your point better if I were suggesting what you wrote, but that's not the case here. Furthermore, isn't it equally "gamist" to insist that players continue to be able to "nova" encounters with little consequence, or that long rest classes should outshine short rest classes because the resting rules don't always work well with the recommended number of encounters in an adventuring day?

I ask this sincerely, because like you I care about systems that provide verisimilitude, and strive to make the game world feel alive. But at the same time, at end of the day we're all keeping track of imaginary numbers on a character sheet.

Either the numbers track with something "real" in the game world, or they do not. If they do not, there is no point to an inconsistent tie to anything that happens in the game, and my suggestion to just treat it like a DM granted boon when short or long rests occur is as good as sort-of-but-not-really tying it to in-game actions.

Consistency is crucial to verisimilitude. Even if that consistency has obvious mechanical hooks and reasons for that setting element, it is critical that the consistency be there: rules that exist in the setting that reflect the game's mechanics. While abstraction is a thing, major choices by player characters in the world need to have in-game predictable consequences. Or the reason they dolt needs to be an actual underlining mystery that introduces wonder rather than taking players out of the game and making them think in purely metagame terms.

Switching the rest mechanics around with only metagame reasons why is such an inconsistency.

[Tanarii]

Either the numbers track with something "real" in the game world, or they do not. If they do not, there is no point to an inconsistent tie to anything that happens in the game, and my suggestion to just treat it like a DM granted boon when short or long rests occur is as good as sort-of-but-not-really tying it to in-game actions.
Think of it as tracking with "how many times can I do this in a fight" instead of per in-game day. Except with a bit more flexibility on which fights you use it in and which you don't.

Edit: you're right though there isn't much point to tying them to rests in that case. Just make a short rest after X points of encounter difficulty and a long rest after Y points in an adventuring day. Or even rounds of combat so far, short after every 8 and long after ever 24.

[schm0]

Consistency is crucial to verisimilitude. Even if that consistency has obvious mechanical hooks and reasons for that setting element, it is critical that the consistency be there: rules that exist in the setting that reflect the game's mechanics. While abstraction is a thing, major choices by player characters in the world need to have in-game predictable consequences. Or the reason they dolt needs to be an actual underlining mystery that introduces wonder rather than taking players out of the game and making them think in purely metagame terms.

Switching the rest mechanics around with only metagame reasons why is such an inconsistency.

I could just as easily say that modifying the wilderness resting rules fits your definition of consistent. Resting works this way here, resting works another way there. Two resting mechanics, consistently applied. I think what you are getting at is simplicity. A single resting mechanic is more simple.

I also take issue with the idea that the DM is abusing metagame information by trying to balance the game. How could we be metagaming when the DMG tells us, in very clear terms, to balance the adventuring day around short and long rests?

[Segev]

I could just as easily say that modifying the wilderness resting rules fits your definition of consistent. Resting works this way here, resting works another way there. Two resting mechanics, consistently applied. I think what you are getting at is simplicity. A single resting mechanic is more simple.

I also take issue with the idea that the DM is abusing metagame information by trying to balance the game. How could we be metagaming when the DMG tells us, in very clear terms, to balance the adventuring day around short and long rests?

No, I'm getting at the fact that you need to explain it a bit better than "in the wilderness, this, but in a dungeon, that." There are possible ways to do it, but it takes more depth.

This is nowhere near really being "ready," as I intend to develop it into something far more coherent, but I'm toying with a system that tries to expand on rules for the exploration pillar. Right now, it's just more crunch around resting and eating, though, so it's not too exciting. But part of the goal is to make bringing hirelings and defending them a more interesting part of the gameplay, and one of the things about this is defining a "long rest" as happening ONLY in a "settlement."

A "settlement" is any semi-permanent location where food and shelter and safety are available. The most basic kind is a "base camp," which takes effort to set up and maintain (hence hirelings). But now, when you find a hidden tribal village, or a farming settlement, or a semi-permanent nomadic camp near an oasis, it's a joyous find in and of itself, provided you can trust the inhabitants to let you rest their safely.

Otherwise, 8 hours' rest gets you needed sleep, but is only a short rest. As is a light meal and an hour's rest. So for camping out, you usually have long series of short rests. It doesn't entirely make you stressed about encounters, as short rests are likely between any two in the wilderness. There's more detail - knowing me, probably TOO MUCH more detail - but unless you want to see a rough document that's probably not very clear to anybody but me, that's probably already more than you want to know about it.

[MaxWilson]

No, I'm getting at the fact that you need to explain it a bit better than "in the wilderness, this, but in a dungeon, that." There are possible ways to do it, but it takes more depth.

This is nowhere near really being "ready," as I intend to develop it into something far more coherent, but I'm toying with a system that tries to expand on rules for the exploration pillar. Right now, it's just more crunch around resting and eating, though, so it's not too exciting. But part of the goal is to make bringing hirelings and defending them a more interesting part of the gameplay, and one of the things about this is defining a "long rest" as happening ONLY in a "settlement."

A "settlement" is any semi-permanent location where food and shelter and safety are available. The most basic kind is a "base camp," which takes effort to set up and maintain (hence hirelings). But now, when you find a hidden tribal village, or a farming settlement, or a semi-permanent nomadic camp near an oasis, it's a joyous find in and of itself, provided you can trust the inhabitants to let you rest their safely.

Otherwise, 8 hours' rest gets you needed sleep, but is only a short rest. As is a light meal and an hour's rest. So for camping out, you usually have long series of short rests. It doesn't entirely make you stressed about encounters, as short rests are likely between any two in the wilderness. There's more detail - knowing me, probably TOO MUCH more detail - but unless you want to see a rough document that's probably not very clear to anybody but me, that's probably already more than you want to know about it.

If you're trying to find a rationale for why long rests aren't possible in the wilderness, you could certainly structure fixed settlements around immobile, resource-charging elements (e.g. "mana zones"), and then make those elements prerequisites for recharging spells and other abilities, instead of making recharge based purely on getting enough physical rest.

I don't know how I feel about the idea of needing mana zones to recharge nonmagical abilities like Indomitable and Rage, but you could either (1) adapt the fluff until you're fine with it, or (2) let them recharge as normal in the wildnerness. After all, it's not likely to make casters underpowered.

[Warlush]

By level 5 your Hex spell lasts 8 hours. Your EB can do up to 3 cool things. I don't need very many slots to make that work really well.

[Tanarii]

Honestly, the number one thing to do is start by eliminating Leomund's Tiny Hut and Rope Trick from the spell list. Or at least eliminate the ritual tag from LTH.

[Yakk]

The DMG standard adventuring day is 6-9 encounters and 2 short rests.

At 20, the warlock gets 16 level 5, 1 level 6789 per day.

The wizard gets 16 spells from level 1 to 5, plus their shortrest recovery. They get an extra 6 and 7 slot.

Basically, 5e works better with gritty rests. An advdnturing day becomes an an adventuring week. Plot for most homebrew fits that pace.

Then warlock ability to regain spells with a mere night's rest, instead of a week's vacation, starts looking great.

[schm0]

No, I'm getting at the fact that you need to explain it a bit better than "in the wilderness, this, but in a dungeon, that." There are possible ways to do it, but it takes more depth.

I agree, but my rules are pretty straightforward:

Dungeon = normal resting (extremely risky, extreme precautions needed)
Civilization = normal resting (civilization is defined as having stationary walls, roofs, and friendly residents)
Anywhere else = short rests only, and it takes 8 hours

I like the direction of your rules as well, even though they are a bit more complicated.

[Ogre Mage]

When I first started playing 5E in 2015 I did not understand the warlock either. As someone who was weaned playing full casters (wizard, cleric, druid, etc.) it requires a change in thinking. Instead of having a large number of spells you have a few "powers" which can be used more frequently and/or are more potent than what the full progression spellcasters get. Many classes can cast disguise self, but only the warlock has an invocation which lets them do it at will. Many classes can cast rituals, but only the warlock can take an invocation which lets them learn the ritual spells of all classes. The power of eldritch blast + agonizing blast has already been extensively discussed by others.

I like superhero games so I tend to think of a warlock like a super (anti-)hero with a few potent powers rather than a longer list of spells.

[Segev]

If you're trying to find a rationale for why long rests aren't possible in the wilderness, you could certainly structure fixed settlements around immobile, resource-charging elements (e.g. "mana zones"), and then make those elements prerequisites for recharging spells and other abilities, instead of making recharge based purely on getting enough physical rest.

I don't know how I feel about the idea of needing mana zones to recharge nonmagical abilities like Indomitable and Rage, but you could either (1) adapt the fluff until you're fine with it, or (2) let them recharge as normal in the wildnerness. After all, it's not likely to make casters underpowered.I'd thought of that, but having to justify why the kobold lair is "mana rich" frustrated me even before I got to the point of trying to decide on full implications.


I agree, but my rules are pretty straightforward:

Dungeon = normal resting (extremely risky, extreme precautions needed)
Civilization = normal resting (civilization is defined as having stationary walls, roofs, and friendly residents)
Anywhere else = short rests only, and it takes 8 hoursIndeed, it's straight-forward. It works, too, I'm sure, if your players don't mind the game-y feel of it. I, personally, mind the game-y feel. I want more ... sense that it's arising from a "real" thing in the setting. But that leads to less simplicity.


I like the direction of your rules as well, even though they are a bit more complicated.Thanks. They definitely are, and iterations will try to simplify the core elements. In practice, the core elements come down to similar to what you outlined. Not quite identical as it's currently evolved, but very close.

Part of my goal is to actually make encumbrance and logistical planning for your trip - what you can carry, how much, and how you're doing it - be part of the game in the same way your equipment and spell loadouts are for dungeon-crawling. But not just as a downside, either; more ways to get interesting boosts, and more rewarding engagement with the actual exploration pillar is intended. I need a lot more work on that front, though, so I am hardly going to claim I have a viable solution yet.



On topic, Warlocks are in practice very close to the "all-day caster." They can build for invocation and cantrip selection and make use of their Pact Boon to be able to consistently pump out magic regardless of how long they go without a rest. They're stronger after a short rest, but it's usually not critical; they're able to keep going at "empty" far longer than a more normal caster can.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The biggest problem I had in running Tomb of Annihilation was creating believable days where encounters hit 4, let alone 6-8. Even in dungeon-crawling, the PCs felt they were on the verge of death when I was pretty sure I'd barely scratched them, and would use leomund's tiny hut to take a long rest.

This is basically the issue in that we are told to run the 6-8 encounters and yet for those of us who like the journey part of D&D you really can't do it consistently. Many of the published mods just dispense with travel all together and leave it up to DMs as to whether we even bother, or just narrate moving from one campaign element to another.
I'm just trying to be OK with the idea that so long as I vary it, even if some days are 1-2 major encounters everyone will get a chance to shine. Fortunately for me I'm currently running DiA, so it's easier to tell players, "No you can't long rest until you find safe shelter" which helps. Our other DM, who will be running Rime of the Frostmaiden after this seems to be catching on and I think is going to adopt the same policy while we are traveling.

[Contrast]

I'd thought of that, but having to justify why the kobold lair is "mana rich" frustrated me even before I got to the point of trying to decide on full implications.

I mean that seems to have a very obvious answer. It isn't mana rich because its a kobold lair. It's a kobold lair because its mana rich.

[Segev]

I mean that seems to have a very obvious answer. It isn't mana rich because its a kobold lair. It's a kobold lair because its mana rich.

Makes for a much more sparsely populated world if "mana richness" is a prerequisite for settlements. Or for jana rich areas not being all that uncommon, so finding them unoccupied is not so hard.

Neither of these are strictly problems that prevent the solution, but they have serious worldbuilding implications that make a setting noticeably different from the default D&D assumptions.

[Azuresun]

The DMG standard adventuring day is 6-9 encounters and 2 short rests.


This is basically the issue in that we are told to run the 6-8 encounters and yet for those of us who like the journey part of D&D you really can't do it consistently.

The DMG does not say that. It uses the 6-8 figure as an example if the encounters are at a specific threshold of difficulty.

I'm becoming more and more certain that a lot of players are taking someone else's word second-hand for what the DMG says rather than reading it themselves.

[schm0]

The DMG does not say that. It uses the 6-8 figure as an example if the encounters are at a specific threshold of difficulty.

I'm becoming more and more certain that a lot of players are taking someone else's word second-hand for what the DMG says rather than reading it themselves.

To be fair, I say 6-8 encounters all the time as shorthand. If one doesn't know that it means medium and hard encounters, or that the number changes (more if you have easier encounters, less if they are more difficult) then that's the fault of the reader.

[Tanarii]

The DMG does not say that. It uses the 6-8 figure as an example if the encounters are at a specific threshold of difficulty.

I'm becoming more and more certain that a lot of players are taking someone else's word second-hand for what the DMG says rather than reading it themselves.
Me too. More importantly, the fact that the DMG text says 6-8 medium/hard, but the table is (for most levels) 6 medium or 4.5 hard, particularly indicates that it's become a second hand knowledge statement being passed around and accepted without digging in,

[Segev]

To be fair, "6-8 encounters" and "6-8 medium/hard encounters" is not that big a distinction, when "medium" is - or at least should be - what people default to as "standard" or "average."

[Frogreaver]

I played a Warlock in a game where we had one meaty combat each session. Playing a Warlock was fun but underwhelming. You really need multiple fights/encounters a day to make the Warlock feel special. They thrive in constrained narrative environments (like dungeons).

Single combat days are a thing. But let’s be honest, what was the wizard actually doing in that combat? Most likely they cast a nice concentration spell on turn 1 and then started using a few damage spells.

That’s not significantly different than eb spam after dropping a nice concentration spell on turn 1.

[diplomancer]

I like warlocks; but I'd say the best reason to dislike warlocks is the tendency for every thread about Warlocks quickly derail to the minutia of the adventuring day.

[MaxWilson]

To be fair, "6-8 encounters" and "6-8 medium/hard encounters" is not that big a distinction, when "medium" is - or at least should be - what people default to as "standard" or "average."

Should it be? Why? Medium fights involve the enemy being outgunned by about 4:1 and dying. Where's the dramatic tension in that, and why should that level of tension be standard?

[Segev]

Should it be? Why? Medium fights involve the enemy being outgunned by about 4:1 and dying. Where's the dramatic tension in that, and why should that level of tension be standard?

Because the word "medium" has implications and connotations. If the game does not mean for "medium" to be somehow synonymous with "average" or "expected" or something along those lines, the game designers made a bad choice in how they named whatever they did label as "medium."

Given that, at least by the arguments being made here, "medium" does seem to be part of the default assumption, it seems to be being used correctly, here.

You may believe that "medium" difficulty is "too easy" for an encounter, but that doesn't make the assessment that "medium" is the default when discussing expected encounter rates wrong or unjustified. And, if the designers did successfully design a game where 4-8 medium fights with 1-3 short rests per day leads to the expected attrition and overall risk, then it seems they got it right.

But "why should 'medium' be the assumption?" Because of what the word means in English when used on a scale typified by having (at least) "easy," "medium," and "hard" as ratings.

[Tanarii]

To be fair, "6-8 encounters" and "6-8 medium/hard encounters" is not that big a distinction, when "medium" is - or at least should be - what people default to as "standard" or "average."

But 6-8 medium or hard vs 6 medium or 4.5 hard is quite a big distinction. And it's a mistake directly in the DMG.

[Segev]

But 6-8 medium or hard vs 6 medium or 4.5 hard is quite a big distinction. And it's a mistake directly in the DMG.

Which hardly means people are at fault for not having read the DMG if the DMG itself is imperfect.

I feel like we're arguing different things, though, as that doesn't seem to follow from the discussion of what "medium" means, and the accusation that people don't read the DMG.

[schm0]

But 6-8 medium or hard vs 6 medium or 4.5 hard is quite a big distinction. And it's a mistake directly in the DMG.

Where are you getting this 4.5 number? It's 6-8 medium or hard encounters, on average. DM's who don't understand that someone saying "6-8 encounters" means this very thing indicates they have not read this relevant section of the DMG.

Regardless, the difficulty of encounters is largely tangential. When it comes to the warlock (and monk and fighter), they will be outshone by long rest casters unless they get the recommended number of short rests in between.

[Segev]

Where are you getting this 4.5 number? It's 6-8 medium or hard encounters, on average. DM's who don't understand that someone saying "6-8 encounters" means this very thing indicates they have not read this relevant section of the DMG.

Regardless, the difficulty of encounters is largely tangential. When it comes to the warlock (and monk and fighter), they will be outshone by long rest casters unless they get the recommended number of short rests in between.

I think you quoted the wrong person. I do not believe I used "4.5" anywhere.

[schm0]

Yeah, that was weird. I updated my post.

[MaxWilson]

Where are you getting this 4.5 number?

Presumably from doing math on the DMG table. For most levels, the highest number of median Medium encounters you can fit into the adventuring day budget is 4-5. For a few levels it approaches 6, but I don't remember which levels. You can fit more if you use the easiest possible just-barely-Medium encounters, but if you assume median Medium then it's about 4-5.

For example, at 16th level the adventuring day budget for four PCs is 80,000 adjusted XP, and Medium encounters are 12,800 to just under 19,200 XP.

(12,800 + 19,200)/2 = 16,000.

80,000/16,000 = 5.

Ergo, you can have about five Medium encounters at level 16 without going over budget. You can have about 3.3 Hard encounters, and 1 Deadly encounter may or may not completely blow your entire XP budget, but 2.7 Deadly encounters definitely will. So call it (1+2.7)/2 = 1.85ish Deadly encounters on average.

[Tanarii]

Where are you getting this 4.5 number? It's 6-8 medium or hard encounters, on average. DM's who don't understand that someone saying "6-8 encounters" means this very thing indicates they have not read this relevant section of the DMG.


Presumably from doing math on the DMG table.Yes exactly.


Which hardly means people are at fault for not having read the DMG if the DMG itself is imperfect

And Segev, I suppose you have a point. It's hard for me not to fault people for reading "6 to 8 medium or hard encounters" in the DMG, and then walk away without checking that statement matches the table given.

But others might find it hard to fault them for that. :smallconfused::smalltongue::smallamused:

[MaxWilson]

Which hardly means people are at fault for not having read the DMG if the DMG itself is imperfect.

I feel like we're arguing different things, though, as that doesn't seem to follow from the discussion of what "medium" means, and the accusation that people don't read the DMG.

We know from the history of the Basic rules that the difficulty table was updated (I forget what version of the rules, but after the PHB came out and before the DMG) to make everything that used to be Hard now be Medium, and everything that was Medium now be Easy, etc. The table was updated, but the text describing the table was left unchanged. At the time the "6-8 Medium or Hard encounters" sentence was written, it was accurate and matched the table, but those same 6-8 encounters today would be Easy or Medium.

Concrete example: if you look at Basic 0.1 pages 56-58, there's a Hard encounter given as an example encounter between four PCs (three level 3, one level 2) and four hobgoblins. That consumes 800 out of the 4200 XP budget for the day (3*1200 + 600, per table on page 58), leaving 3400 XP left. If you distribute those 3400 XP evently between six other encounters for a total of seven encounters, that gives you one Hard encounter (hobgoblins, 800 XP) and six more barely-Hard encounters (whatever else, 566 XP). That's because a Medium encounter can be at most 550 XP (3*150 + 100) and a Hard encounter can be at most 825 XP (3 * 225 + 150), according to the table on page 56. So we see that "six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day" held, back then.

Today that same encounter is Medium.

It seems clear that not changing the sentence was just an oversight.

[Segev]

There is a difference between "reading and comprehending" and "studying in depth."

[Tanarii]

There is a difference between "reading and comprehending" and "studying in depth."
Sure sure. But given it's become a tag line for those opposed to using the system math, it's important to note that as few as 3 Deadly or 4.5 Hard or 6 Medium encounters qualifies as an adventuring day for most level, assuming the same 2 short rests. Especially since those who want fewer encounters also often want herder ones.

So circling back around to this:


Regardless, the difficulty of encounters is largely tangential. When it comes to the warlock (and monk and fighter), they will be outshone by long rest casters unless they get the recommended number of short rests in between.
Agreed. If you have e.g. 3 Deadly encounters per the DMG, and no short rests in between, it changes the expectations for classes from having one between each.

Not that some to many players wouldn't except to be optimized and prepared enough to handle it, regardless of class. But the relative value to a given player of each class would (and should) change.

[MaxWilson]

Agreed. If you have e.g. 3 Deadly encounters per the DMG, and no short rests in between, it changes the expectations for classes from having one between each.


Or more than one between them. A common myth is that only there is some expectation in the DMG that there be only 2 short rests per day. The DMG never says or implies that.

It can be relevant if, for example, the party is warlock Invisibility or Dimension Door or Suggestion or Cure Wounds or whatever, in between those deadly combat encounters. Perhaps that's even how they reduce the odds from "hopeless" to merely "deadly."

[Tanarii]

Or more than one between them. A common myth is that only there is some expectation in the DMG that there be only 2 short rests per day. The DMG never says or implies that.Absolutely. I know personally how it affects players of long rest casters to have to face an extra (roughly) 1/3-2/3 of an adventuring day with an additional short rest or two.

And of course as you say back to back short rests can make warlocks very interesting.

[schm0]

Or more than one between them. A common myth is that only there is some expectation in the DMG that there be only 2 short rests per day. The DMG never says or implies that.

Mine does:



In general, over the course of a full adventuring day, the party will likely need to take two short rests, about one-third and two-thirds of the way through the day. DMG p. 84

[MaxWilson]

Mine does:

That only sets a minimum. It says nothing about only taking two. If the party has a nice relaxing hour-long dinner with an earl or by themselves, and the warlock regains spell slots, the DMG quote doesn't say that's wrong.

[lukethecat2003]

Hey everyone,

So, quite frankly, I just don't get warlocks. Now, before I explain why, I've gotta say that I'm sure I must be missing something, as I've read that so many people play them and thoroughly enjoy them. I understand this has been covered a lot in the past. But having said that, I just can't get to grips with them. Lastly, this is going to be a long post, so apologies in advance.

So from what I understand - they have a very small number of spell slots, which is offset by them always casting their spells at their maximum possible level (up to 5th level spellslots). This leads me to my first issue though. Let's take a level 10 Warlock (because 10 is middle-of-the-road). A level 10 Warlock has two level 5 spellslots. Well, so does a wizard, and a bard, and every other (full) spellcaster. BUT of course, the Warlock regains those spellslots on a short rest, rather than a long one. Well, here's what I don't understand - does that.. matter?

Let's imagine two very different scenarios, one adventuring day with one fight in. And another adventuring day with 6 fights in, with two short rests. Let's say fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight.

In the first scenario, the Warlock uses both of his spellslots and does a metric tonne of damage - and then is consigned to casting cantrips for the rest of the fight. The Wizard may also use his level 5 spellslots, if he chooses, and do the same damage, but is then left to cast spells from his thirteen remaining spellslots.

Alright, so the second scenario looks more favorable to the warlock. For each fight, if he chooses he can use one of his powerful spellslots. The Wizard, having only two 5th spellslots, has to choose when to use them over the course of all of the six fights. But still, once the Wizard has used those spellslots - he has these thirteen spellslots left - that's (just over) two spellslots per fight, on top of the 5th level ones. Where every one of those spellslots is greater than a cantrip (to a varying degree, obviously, but he's got three 4th level spellslots, for example).

What I'm trying to get at, is that surely, even in a Warlock's extremely favorable scenario. The Wizard (or other fullspellcaster) still comes out on top, doesn't it? I have no idea how tables work in this forum, but I've just randomly listed a comparison of the sort of spell usage you might expect over the course of this adventuring hypothetical day. Does it look like it favors the Warlock that much?

Wizard

First fight - 5th level spellslot. 3rd level spellslot. 1st level spellslot.
Second fight - 4th level spellslot. 1st level spellslot. 3rd level spellslot.
[short rest]
Third Fight - 3rd. 1st. cantrips
Fourth Fight - 5th. 2nd. 1st.
[short rest]
Fifth Fight - 2nd. 4th. cantrips
Sixth Fight - 2nd. 4th. cantrips

Warlock

First fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
Second Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
[short rest]
Third Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
Fourth Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
[short rest]
Fifth Fight - all cantrips
Sixth Fight - two 5th level spellslots. cantrips.

Even if we put the power discrepancy (or not, that's what I'm asking) aside - doesn't the Warlock's fighting day look extremely boring? I know this is clearly subjective, but - one spell a fight, and then cantripping? It doesn't sound too exciting.

Doesn't this discrepancy only grow larger as the respective classes level up? The Warlock ends up with four 5th level spellslots (and he can't upcast these spells higher than 5th level). Plus four Mystic Arcanum spells which are per long rest. The Wizard has twenty-two spellslots. Twenty two! The Wizard does have one fewer 5th level spellslots (three, not four) - but he also has two level 6 and 7 slots (instead of one Mystic Arcanum for that level) - and he can upcast any of his spells to level 9 if he chooses.

And this is considering the Warlocks best adventuring day. I know in our playgroup we rarely, if ever have that many fights in a day. Although I concede, we may have less than usual. But if we lower the number of fights from (a high) six to (a reasonable) four - the Warlock's 'plan' stays identical, whilst the Wizard can now use a whole extra spell-per-fight. In fact, doesn't the Warlocks 'plan' stay identical nomatter the situation? The only situation I can see where the Warlock really, truly shine would be an adventuring day consisting of an ungodly amount of fights, whilst also allowing for many shortrests.

And I know, there are invocations. Invocations are amazing and extremely flavorful, but really - can they make up for the sheer number of spells that other casters get? All of the 'spell' invocations are per long rest. I understand there are powerful combinations, Darkness and Devil's Sight, for example, or making your Eldritch Blast extremely powerful. But it still appears that they would get left behind, compared to other casters, wouldn't they?

I'm trying not to theorycraft too much, just to enough to get an idea. You never know how many fights you're going to have in day after all - it just seems that picking any reasonable number always leaves the Warlocks trailing. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, are the fifth level spellslots that much more valuable than the sheer number of 1-4 spellslots available to other casters? Am I wrong in comparing them to other casters in the first place? It's just - if spells aren't their 'stick' then.. what is? The utility of Eldritch Invocations?

Warlock's flavor is absolutely incredible, I love the sound of the class. But isn't that flavor somewhat hampered by the mechanics? Heck, I think I'd be a little annoyed in the very first fight - casting one spell and then cantripping for the remainder of the fight. Doing that virtually every single fight sounds.. tiresome? It certainly doesn't feel, mechanically, what the class comes across as thematically.

Out of combat, I completely get it, the flavor (and even to some extent the mechanics, with the invocations) is incredible. Am I focusing on the combat too much? Is the Warlock's 'stick' their out of combat potential? Is that where all the fun is?

Apologies for dragging on, I've just been trying to get my head around them for so long. I wanted to make one tonight for a campaign, but after thinking on them (yet again) - I just couldn't. So I thought I'd ask here, what am I missing?

Thanks so much for reading.


From my looking into the stats of the class, the invocations give a huge amount of depth to the character. Being able to push an enemy toward or away from you 10-40 ft per turn is insanely useful when you are playing with strategy in mind.

Additionally, whilst playing the class, you would be thinking about all that you can use at one point in time. Just because you can only use something once per long rest doesnt mean you are going to be thinking about it once per long rest. It exists as an option for the whole day. Its not the actions that you make that makes something interesting, its the options you have for actions that makes combat interesting. Choice is ultimately what would make the combat more interesting.

And in terms of RP, talking is a free action, if you're genuinely going for a good RP thing, in fights people arent just silent, people are calling out to each other, depending on the personalities of the characters you'll be talking to your enemy. Yes, if you neglect acting how a real person would act, Warlock may be a little dry in comparison to wizard, but the upside of the warlock is that the skill of the player matters less at the base of it. When you get into higher level play (people who are actually good at the game), yes the difference is accentuated, as Wizards are really powerful alongside other teammates and extremely influential, but for most people, the reliability of essentially always having a bow whilst also having magic is really attractive.

Also you overestimate the usefulness of 1st lvl spells. By lvl 5 or 11, they become worse than cantrips in terms of damage, and their utility is limited in scope, as they only do certain things, and at a lower rate. at lvl 11, a firebolt will be better than chromatic orb and such.

[Randomthom]

Warlocks sit somewhere in between a lot of concepts and, due to the way invocations work can build in many different directions. They're probably the most versatile class in that respect.

I'm currently in a campaign playing a lvl 13 Hexblade Warlock. My feat selection (shield master, sentinel, warcaster) and invocations are mostly bolstering my melee capabilities (thirsting blade, lifedrinker) but also bring some utility with gift of the depths (cast water breathing 1/day, lasts 24h) and I mostly act as the "tank that can't be ignored" for the group. I also bring a lot of utility through crowd control (banishment, hold person & hold monster, force cage), invisibility (upcast @5th = 4 targets), scrying, dimension door, teleportation circle.

In-short, I have a lot of options and I bring a lot of functionality. I don't do as much damage as the rogue, I can't sling as many spells as the Wizard or Cleric but I do both those things very well.

Two observatons regarding Warlocks (ignoring multi-classing for the moment).
1. They play better than they sound, especially in the mid-tier levels.
2. You can change 1 invocation each time you level up so you can experiment as you play them.

[schm0]

That only sets a minimum. It says nothing about only taking two. If the party has a nice relaxing hour-long dinner with an earl or by themselves, and the warlock regains spell slots, the DMG quote doesn't say that's wrong.

The text quite clearly says to take two, and it says nothing about a minimum. Of course, it's just a guideline (like all rules), but that number is the de facto standard.

I'd be very careful with drifting away from the recommended guidelines, especially if you have a short rest class in your party. Some people have argued against adjusting resting rules to stretch the adventuring day to suit your needs, but taking away short rests from short rest classes will make them perform far worse than their long rest counterparts. Warlock is no different.

[Sir_Leorik]

So from what I understand - they have a very small number of spell slots, which is offset by them always casting their spells at their maximum possible level (up to 5th level spellslots). This leads me to my first issue though. Let's take a level 10 Warlock (because 10 is middle-of-the-road). A level 10 Warlock has two level 5 spellslots. Well, so does a wizard, and a bard, and every other (full) spellcaster. BUT of course, the Warlock regains those spellslots on a short rest, rather than a long one. Well, here's what I don't understand - does that.. matter?

It isn't just the two spell slots. Its what those spells do. For example, I play a Celestial Patron Tomelock, who functions as a backup healer to the party Forge Domain Cleric. Let's say our Paladin is hurt badly. The Forge Domain Cleric can spend a 1st level spell slot to cast Healing Word for 1d4+5 hit points. Or we can stop the party for ten minutes for the Cleric to cast Prayer of Healing, which does more healing. Or my Warlock can cast Cure Wounds (which is on the Expanded Spell List of my subclass) at 5th level. She can't do that all the time, but she can do it. In addition she has her Healing Light class feature, to use in combat, which functions like Healing Word on steroids.


Let's imagine two very different scenarios, one adventuring day with one fight in. And another adventuring day with 6 fights in, with two short rests. Let's say fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight.

In the first scenario, the Warlock uses both of his spellslots and does a metric tonne of damage - and then is consigned to casting cantrips for the rest of the fight. The Wizard may also use his level 5 spellslots, if he chooses, and do the same damage, but is then left to cast spells from his thirteen remaining spellslots.

Again, which spells are the Warlock casting? I usually only cast either Hex, in order to enhance my Eldritch Blasts, or I cast one Hypnotic Pattern, or one Sickening Radiance. All three of these spells require concentration. So what I do is determine which spell is appropriate for this combat, and cast it. I then use Eldritch Blast for the rest of the combat. I don't compete with the party's Wizard for effectiveness, as my Warlock complements the Wizard and the Cleric.


Even if we put the power discrepancy (or not, that's what I'm asking) aside - doesn't the Warlock's fighting day look extremely boring? I know this is clearly subjective, but - one spell a fight, and then cantripping? It doesn't sound too exciting.

Doesn't this discrepancy only grow larger as the respective classes level up? The Warlock ends up with four 5th level spellslots (and he can't upcast these spells higher than 5th level). Plus four Mystic Arcanum spells which are per long rest. The Wizard has twenty-two spellslots. Twenty two! The Wizard does have one fewer 5th level spellslots (three, not four) - but he also has two level 6 and 7 slots (instead of one Mystic Arcanum for that level) - and he can upcast any of his spells to level 9 if he chooses.

And this is considering the Warlocks best adventuring day. I know in our playgroup we rarely, if ever have that many fights in a day. Although I concede, we may have less than usual. But if we lower the number of fights from (a high) six to (a reasonable) four - the Warlock's 'plan' stays identical, whilst the Wizard can now use a whole extra spell-per-fight. In fact, doesn't the Warlocks 'plan' stay identical nomatter the situation? The only situation I can see where the Warlock really, truly shine would be an adventuring day consisting of an ungodly amount of fights, whilst also allowing for many shortrests.

The way to build an effective Warlock, IMO, is to take spells that complement the party. My Warlock rarely casts Counterspell, but she has it on her list. The advantage she has over the Wizard when it comes to casting Counterspell, is that she can automatically counter spells up to 5th level, because she's always upcasting them.


And I know, there are invocations. Invocations are amazing and extremely flavorful, but really - can they make up for the sheer number of spells that other casters get? All of the 'spell' invocations are per long rest. I understand there are powerful combinations, Darkness and Devil's Sight, for example, or making your Eldritch Blast extremely powerful. But it still appears that they would get left behind, compared to other casters, wouldn't they?
I think you need to look at what invocations can do, especially the ones just released in Tasha's.


I'm trying not to theorycraft too much, just to enough to get an idea. You never know how many fights you're going to have in day after all - it just seems that picking any reasonable number always leaves the Warlocks trailing. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, are the fifth level spellslots that much more valuable than the sheer number of 1-4 spellslots available to other casters? Am I wrong in comparing them to other casters in the first place? It's just - if spells aren't their 'stick' then.. what is? The utility of Eldritch Invocations?

Warlock's flavor is absolutely incredible, I love the sound of the class. But isn't that flavor somewhat hampered by the mechanics? Heck, I think I'd be a little annoyed in the very first fight - casting one spell and then cantripping for the remainder of the fight. Doing that virtually every single fight sounds.. tiresome? It certainly doesn't feel, mechanically, what the class comes across as thematically.

Every Warlock subclass is different. Hexblades are the premier Gish class (though they don't have to be). Fiend Warlocks are excellent Blasters. Celestial Warlocks are Healers. Furthermore no two Warlocks are alike. Take the Genie Warlock, for example. One player might favor the Efreet and take the Tome Boon, to be a Blaster who knows every Ritual in the Game, while another may favor the Dao and take the Talisman Boon, becoming a Support caster. That is the appeal of the Warlock: variety, and using those combinations to create interesting effects.

[MaxWilson]

The text quite clearly says to take two, and it says nothing about a minimum.

No, it doesn't say to take two.

It says the party will probably need two.

[schm0]

No, it doesn't say to take two.

It says the party will probably need two.

{Scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

The DMG never says anywhere that the party should not get more than two short rests. I agree that we disagree, but I don't agree that it's pedantic to point out that you're misinterpreting the DMG.

[schm0]

{Scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

What difference do you see there? To me those quotes look far more similar to how I described them (even down to the LOL, which you did actually literally say!), which was my honest intent in writing that conversation summary, than your descriptions of the DMG text look like what it actually says. What about that summary do you disagree with? Are you saying you didn't deny it was a minimum instead of a maximum? Are you denying that you tried to laugh me off as "pedantic" instead of explaining your reasoning?

Nothing in the DMG says "only two" or "at most two" or anything implying that. It says they will "need" two, implying that you shouldn't give less (ergo, it's a minimum!) unless you know what you're doing. Exactly as I've been saying all along. You've been saying the opposite but haven't explained why.

[Valmark]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I mean... To an external watcher (or at least to me) Max may have paraphrased, but those quotes do mean what he said. You were saying that the DMG says to take two period while Max was saying to take at least two- that's a pretty clear difference.

>=2 is not =2.

For what's worth, saying 'will likely need to take two short rests' seems to me that it's a probable event, but not a fixed number (what I think Max was saying).

[OldTrees1]

I mean... To an external watcher (or at least to me) Max may have paraphrased, but those quotes do mean what he said. You were saying that the DMG says to take two period while Max was saying to take at least two- that's a pretty clear difference.

>=2 is not =2.

For what's worth, saying 'will likely need to take two short rests' seems to me that it's a probable event, but not a fixed number (what I think Max was saying).

To another external watcher:
Both of them are wrong and their argument is merely restating their positions over and over. Which discouraged me from replying (so thank you).

The DMG gives a probable event, not a minimum, not a maximum, not a quota. It does not even give an expected value (an average). And that probable event could be read as 2 or 2+ since it is a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+.

[Segev]

To another external watcher:
Both of them are wrong and their argument is merely restating their positions over and over. Which discouraged me from replying (so thank you).

The DMG gives a probable event, not a minimum, not a maximum, not a quota. It does not even give an expected value (an average). And that probable event could be read as 2 or 2+ since it is a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+.

It sounds to me like you mostly restated Max's position as your own, while also stating (incorrectly, I think) that a "probable event" of needing 2 short rests is not a recommendation of providing opportunity to meet the need stated in that probable event.

It is a minimum recommended number to allow a party provided you're giving them a full "adventuring day" worth of encounters.

[schm0]

What difference do you see there? To me those quotes look far more similar to how I described them (even down to the LOL, which you did actually literally say!), which was my honest intent in writing that conversation summary, than your descriptions of the DMG text look like what it actually says. What about that summary do you disagree with? Are you saying you didn't deny it was a minimum instead of a maximum? Are you denying that you tried to laugh me off as "pedantic" instead of explaining your reasoning?

The DMG recommends two short rests per adventuring day. The idea that it doesn't is preposterous. I never said anything about it being a minimum or a maximum. The only thing I said in this regard was that the DMG doesn't say anything about a minimum, which is true. Making up things ("you denied it was a minimum"/"you said that it is a maximum") is what I take issue with, as you continue to do.


Nothing in the DMG says "only two" or "at most two" or anything implying that. It says they will "need" two, implying that you shouldn't give less (ergo, it's a minimum!) unless you know what you're doing. Exactly as I've been saying all along. You've been saying the opposite but haven't explained why.

It also says "in general" and "likely", meaning some days might have more or less, but it happens less often. Two is the standard for a typical day. {Scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

To another external watcher:
Both of them are wrong and their argument is merely restating their positions over and over. Which discouraged me from replying (so thank you).

The DMG gives a probable event, not a minimum, not a maximum, not a quota. It does not even give an expected value (an average). And that probable event could be read as 2 or 2+ since it is a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+.

Since I agree with your last sentence ("a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+") I wonder where you think we disagree.


It sounds to me like you mostly restated Max's position as your own, while also stating (incorrectly, I think) that a "probable event" of needing 2 short rests is not a recommendation of providing opportunity to meet the need stated in that probable event.

It is a minimum recommended number to allow a party provided you're giving them a full "adventuring day" worth of encounters.

I agree.

I'll add, parenthetically, that short rests don't necessarily have to happen onscreen, especially unimportant ones like the lunch break you take halfway through a day of traveling, or the quiet evening downtime between reaching an inn and going to bed for the night. PC activity != player activity.

[OldTrees1]

Since I agree with your last sentence ("a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+") I wonder where you think we disagree.

I expect both you and schm0 to agree with my sentence, because like the DMG, I expect it reads differently to each of you. That seems to be the root of the argument you two are having. (I disagree with the argument)

To schm0, they see the "a need of 2" which recommends having 2 short rests per day.
To you, you see "which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+" which recommends having 2+ short rests per day.
To Segev, they saw "a need which can be satisfied" which does not necessitate a recommendation. (and then disagreed with that reading)

@Segev
I suspect the authors had an expected number of short rests but also expected the number to vary based on the day. Including days where the PCs get fewer rests than they probably need for a full adventuring day. Those kind of days would lead to more retreats. Although I am mostly basing this on the DMG focusing on the need rather than the supply. So there is still a recommendation but made with softer language to imply deviation could occur.

[Segev]

Deviation certainly could occur, but actually forcing no short rests (or exactly one) in a day would not only be hard, but would be something the DM would have to and should have to deliberately plan for. (Honestly, I think the reason for the note on "need 2 short rests" is more to tell the DM that after they get that many he should start thinking about whether he's pushing them too hard or not hard enough if they feel they have the need AND leisure to take more.)

I'm honestly somewhat surprised they balanced 5e with short rests as things that happen after multiple encounters by design. If you break down their recommendations, an expected standard day has about 2 encounters followed by either a short or long rest. Sometimes, 3 encounters before a rest might happen, but it should be VERY rare that PCs need a short rest after just one encounter.

However, even with an hour required for the rest, player behavior is going to tend towards wanting to replenish resources, so they're very likely to look for a chance to take a short rest if they've used up ANY resources that one can replenish. And if they can find a short rest spot after 2 encounters but not 1...well, why?

If they have rope trick or Leomund's tiny hut, they only need 10 minutes, tops, to set up a reasonably safe place for an hour's rest.

All of which is to say, I wonder if they'd have done better in designing the game with the expectation that, most of the time, player characters will take a short rest after EVERY fight. Make "short rest" powers the equivalent power level of 4e's Encounter Powers. That's roughly the niche they already fill, anyway. Shorten "short rest" to 10 minutes, 30 tops.

I'm not a fan of 4e, mind, but at least the notion that the party takes a breather after every combat is sensible, and lines up with likely player behaviors.

That said, making warlock spells replenish with just 10 minutes of rest might be too much. In the end, it would take a thorough overhaul (at least a true 5.5 edition, if not something to be reserved for consideration in 6e) to make it work NOW, but it is an interesting design choice.

[MaxWilson]

I expect both you and schm0 to agree with my sentence, because like the DMG, I expect it reads differently to each of you. That seems to be the root of the argument you two are having. (I disagree with the argument)

To schm0, they see the "a need of 2" which recommends having 2 short rests per day.
To you, you see "which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+" which recommends having 2+ short rests per day.
To Segev, they saw "a need which can be satisfied" which does not necessitate a recommendation. (and then disagreed with that reading)

@Segev
I suspect the authors had an expected number of short rests but also expected the number to vary based on the day. Including days where the PCs get fewer rests than they probably need for a full adventuring day. Those kind of days would lead to more retreats. Although I am mostly basing this on the DMG focusing on the need rather than the supply. So there is still a recommendation but made with softer language to imply deviation could occur.

I don't yet feel like you've answered the question about where you think you and I disagree, because while you attribute opinions to me, schm0, and Segev, you don't describe your own. BTW your description of my opinion isn't quite right but it's hard for me to tell if the difference is important without knowing what yours is. Mine is that the DMG never recommends restricting the number of short rests; schm0 points to the DMG text as proof, but that proof fails upon inspection; no other proof has been offered.

To borrow Segev's example: if a party in a dungeon crawl has a wizard who knows Rope Trick, and after a fight the wizard often tends to cast Rope Trick so that the Moon Druid can regain wildshape / warlock can regain spells / fighter can regain Action Surge, and if it's normal as a result for the party to have four or five short rests in ten hours of dungeon crawling before returning to the surface, would you OldTrees1 say that the DM is violating DMG guidance? If your answer is Yes then we disagree, if No we don't.



All of which is to say, I wonder if they'd have done better in designing the game with the expectation that, most of the time, player characters will take a short rest after EVERY fight. Make "short rest" powers the equivalent power level of 4e's Encounter Powers. That's roughly the niche they already fill, anyway. Shorten "short rest" to 10 minutes, 30 tops.

I'm not a fan of 4e, mind, but at least the notion that the party takes a breather after every combat is sensible, and lines up with likely player behaviors.

That said, making warlock spells replenish with just 10 minutes of rest might be too much. In the end, it would take a thorough overhaul (at least a true 5.5 edition, if not something to be reserved for consideration in 6e) to make it work NOW, but it is an interesting design choice.

You can achieve a similar result just by running 2-3 Hard/Deadly encounters with short rests allowed whenever they fit the narrative, including between those encounters. For narrative reasons and because of real world time constraints, 1-3 harder fights is already a popular playstyle for those who want to reserve time for activities other than combat. (The alternative, having a single game day span multiple games, can work but has issues to solve including lack of closure per session and potential disruption if a player misses a session.)

[OldTrees1]

Deviation certainly could occur, but actually forcing no short rests (or exactly one) in a day would not only be hard, but would be something the DM would have to and should have to deliberately plan for. (Honestly, I think the reason for the note on "need 2 short rests" is more to tell the DM that after they get that many he should start thinking about whether he's pushing them too hard or not hard enough if they feel they have the need AND leisure to take more.)

Agreed


I'm honestly somewhat surprised they balanced 5e with short rests as things that happen after multiple encounters by design. If you break down their recommendations, an expected standard day has about 2 encounters followed by either a short or long rest. Sometimes, 3 encounters before a rest might happen, but it should be VERY rare that PCs need a short rest after just one encounter.

However, even with an hour required for the rest, player behavior is going to tend towards wanting to replenish resources, so they're very likely to look for a chance to take a short rest if they've used up ANY resources that one can replenish. And if they can find a short rest spot after 2 encounters but not 1...well, why?

I think this was due to the attempt to improve verisimilitude with short rests being a "mealtime" excuse rather than an "initiative was rolled" gameplay trigger. However you are right that players will tend to rest more than strictly necessary.

However you are right that modeling the short rest as a 10m breather and expecting one between every encounter (allowing for deviation) would have worked better.


That said, making warlock spells replenish with just 10 minutes of rest might be too much. In the end, it would take a thorough overhaul (at least a true 5.5 edition, if not something to be reserved for consideration in 6e) to make it work NOW, but it is an interesting design choice.

If the short rest is only 10m of rest, then I suggest returning to the at-will casting partial caster Warlocks. But that would be a consideration for 6E at the earliest. 5E already has Warlocks switch from Pact Magic to Mystic Arcanum, so I don't expect 5E can handle a self consistent Warlock design.



Personally I like the design pattern of low resources but high base capability for proactive abilities. If you have recuperation abilities require daily resources then you will still wear down the party over the day, but they will have less incentive to rest constantly.


I don't yet feel like you've answered the question about where you think you and I disagree, because while you attribute opinions to me, schm0, and Segev, you don't describe your own. BTW your description of my opinion isn't quite right but it's hard for me to tell if the difference is important without knowing what yours is. Mine is that the DMG never recommends restricting the number of short rests; schm0 points to the DMG text as proof, but that proof fails upon inspection; no other proof has been offered.

Quick clarifications:
1) I did state my opinion. The full sentence is my opinion of what the DMG says.
2) I did not describe your opinion. I guessed at how you read my sentence. My guesses mirrored how you and schm0 are arguing about 2 vs 2+.
3) Segev had a minor critique based on how they read my sentence. We clarified and addressed that.

Answer:
I disagree with the "talking past each other" argumentation style. You are reading the same sentence slightly differently, and are using that sentence as evidence to try to convince the other person. After a few loops that becomes "talking past each other" and causes critiques like "pedantic".

[ad_hoc]

10th is not mid-way. It is almost the end of the game for most tables. By adventuring day count it is far along too. Experience to level drops drastically after level 11. The longest levels are all 5-10.

Combat encounters are designed to take 3 rounds. So casting a big spell then spending 'the rest of the right casting cantrips' just means 2 rounds of cantrips for the default assumption of the game.

Warlocks are magical powerhouses. The trade off is that they don't have many spells for non combat encounters and don't have as much choice in combat.

[MaxWilson]

Quick clarifications:
1) I did state my opinion. The full sentence is my opinion of what the DMG says.
2) I did not describe your opinion. I guessed at how you read my sentence. My guesses mirrored how you and schm0 are arguing about 2 vs 2+.
3) Segev had a minor critique based on how they read my sentence. We clarified and addressed that.

Answer:
I disagree with the "talking past each other" argumentation style. You are reading the same sentence slightly differently, and are using that sentence as evidence to try to convince the other person. After a few loops that becomes "talking past each other" and causes critiques like "pedantic".

Sigh. I still don't feel like you've clarified your position, despite my good faith attempts to request clarification, and I still don't know if you consider Rope Trick legitimate or illegitimate, but forget it. You don't have to answer again. Apparently I wouldn't understand your meaning even if you did.

[OldTrees1]

Sigh. I still don't feel like you've clarified your position, despite my good faith attempts to request clarification, and I still don't know if you consider Rope Trick legitimate or illegitimate, but forget it. You don't have to answer again. Apparently I wouldn't understand your meaning even if you did.

I apologize for not being able to sufficiently clarify. Thank you for the good faith attempt and the understanding.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: closed for review

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread re-opened.

[Man_Over_Game]

Need or not, it seems really silly that they'd tie such a major balance fulcrum on what's essentially a narrative opinion.

I've had tables where we didn't have a single Short Rest for the first three levels.

This wouldn't be an issue if every class had a similar dependency on Short/Long Rests. Ironically, this is one of the few things that 4e did right, so it feels like a big step backwards, and I look forward to seeing how they address it in the future.

[KorvinStarmast]

To borrow Segev's example: if a party in a dungeon crawl has a wizard who knows Rope Trick, and after a fight the wizard often tends to cast Rope Trick so that the Moon Druid can regain wildshape / warlock can regain spells / fighter can regain Action Surge, and if it's normal as a result for the party to have four or five short rests in ten hours of dungeon crawling before returning to the surface, would you OldTrees1 say that the DM is violating DMG guidance? If your answer is Yes then we disagree, if No we don't. Clever parties will try that, if the wizard player exploits their ritual casting ability. But, when the dungeon/adventure has a ticking clock, doing this will come with a cost, to include the cost of mission failure. But it's a legit thing to do.


You can achieve a similar result just by running 2-3 Hard/Deadly encounters with short rests allowed whenever they fit the narrative, including between those encounters. For narrative reasons and because of real world time constraints, 1-3 harder fights is already a popular playstyle for those who want to reserve time for activities other than combat. We do a lot of this in one of our campaigns due to DM prep time limitations.
(The alternative, having a single game day span multiple games, can work but has issues to solve including lack of closure per session and potential disruption if a player misses a session.) Those issues can arise regardless of an adventure day spanning multiple sessions.
And "lack of closure per session" is glass half empty.
"We ended on a good cliffhanger!" is the glass half full. :smallsmile:
One of my groups like a good cliffhanger some times, and 'closed the deal' at other times.

Need or not, it seems really silly that they'd tie such a major balance fulcrum on what's essentially a narrative opinion. I think you are being unduly reductionist. You can create a grittier realism without adding Optional Rules in the DMG by how you apportion opportunities for rest. Some of this is pacing based, some of it is characters learning the system based, and some is turning up the difficulty dial now and again ... it's a dial you can turn up or down as a DM without resorting to optional rules. It's not just 'narrative opinion"

I've had tables where we didn't have a single Short Rest for the first three levels. Yeah, we've run into that and as I got more experienced in the game I am not shy about calling out the DM for not grasping that. I specifically point to the Fighter, Monk getting screwed over on their recharge, as well as the clerics not recharging Channel Divinity.

This wouldn't be an issue if every class had a similar dependency on Short/Long Rests. Yeah, it's an odd juxtaposition; where they chose to make something a long or short rest recharge, or a "as many times as your Wis/Int/Cha modifier ...

[Snails]

Need or not, it seems really silly that they'd tie such a major balance fulcrum on what's essentially a narrative opinion.

Agreed. Such was a very unwise design choice.

That there are important Long Rest refreshing resources is just an unavoidable Sacred Cow of D&D. DMs have to consider that factor however they want, and then leave it to the players to deal with how this plays out.

Baking such important refreshes into the Short Rest of the Warlock (and Monk) is adding a division within the party that is totally unnecessary. That the Warlock is the king of cantrip spamming is a fine schtick. There is no logical necessity to also tie the Warlock so strongly to the Short Rest. I get that there is a kind of thematic consistency in doing both, but it was still not necessary and causes hassles for little gain.

[OldTrees1]

Baking such important refreshes into the Short Rest of the Warlock (and Monk) is adding a division within the party that is totally unnecessary. That the Warlock is the king of cantrip spamming is a fine schtick. There is no logical necessity to also tie the Warlock so strongly to the Short Rest. I get that there is a kind of thematic consistency in doing both, but it was still not necessary and causes hassles for little gain.

Well, you can't tie Warlock to Long Rest, and WotC did not try to fully port in the at-will Warlocks in 5E.

[MaxWilson]

Clever parties will try that, if the wizard player exploits their ritual casting ability. But, when the dungeon/adventure has a ticking clock, doing this will come with a cost, to include the cost of mission failure. But it's a legit thing to do.


Note BTW that Rope Trick isn't a ritual. I'm sure you were thinking of Leomund's Tiny Hut instead, which I would point out is neither as stealthy as Rope Trick (encourages monsters to notice you and get reinforcements) nor explicitly immune to damage like Wall of Force.

As a DM I'll remark that when I have a ticking clock, such as a rival group of Tomb Raiders chasing the same treasure as the PCs, it's more common for the clock to be measured in days ("sometime tomorrow") than hours ("ninety minutes from now,") partly because tracking hours is a pain. Therefore fitting in short rests is much easier than long rests.

[Sorinth]

Need or not, it seems really silly that they'd tie such a major balance fulcrum on what's essentially a narrative opinion.

I've had tables where we didn't have a single Short Rest for the first three levels.

This wouldn't be an issue if every class had a similar dependency on Short/Long Rests. Ironically, this is one of the few things that 4e did right, so it feels like a big step backwards, and I look forward to seeing how they address it in the future.

I didn't play 4e, but wasn't one of the complaints that the classes were too samey?

Asymmetric resting requirements is one way to make the classes feel and play differently. Right off the bat I don't think the classes need to be perfectly balanced in combat, but even ignoring that having the balance between SR/LR come from a variety of adventuring days. Having days where there is only one big combat and the LR classes go nova and dominate, and then also having other days where there is little to no rest and the SR or resourceless classes will shine and carry the team.

[Man_Over_Game]

I didn't play 4e, but wasn't one of the complaints that the classes were too samey?

Asymmetric resting requirements is one way to make the classes feel and play differently. Right off the bat I don't think the classes need to be perfectly balanced in combat, but even ignoring that having the balance between SR/LR come from a variety of adventuring days. Having days where there is only one big combat and the LR classes go nova and dominate, and then also having other days where there is little to no rest and the SR or resourceless classes will shine and carry the team.

The Same-iness stemmed mostly from a lack of diversity in how the powers functioned, not in how they recharged.

For instance, the Fighter's powers were all things like "Hit this guy, gain X AC", or "Hit this guy, push him 5 feet". Then when you have a Wizard power that lasers someone and pushes them back 5 feet, you start to wonder how it's any different from the Fighter.

Given, those are some specific examples, but you get the idea. And having actually enjoyed 4e and listened to people talk about it for years, you'll find that most people who talk bad about it are the ones who never played more than 2 sessions because it wasn't "DnD enough". It didn't integrate RP with your powers very well, I can definitely confirm that, but the fact that everyone had At-Will, Encounter, and Daily Powers was the last thing that anyone who actually played it cared about. If anything, the organized structure made it easy to identify how each class played without any ambiguity, so everything plays exactly how you want it to.

[Segev]

A while back, somebody did a youtube video (that I am not going to be able to find in the time I have available right now) that discussed really, really old-school dungeon crawling rules for one of the earliest editions of D&D. I think adapting those to whatever edition you currently play (e.g. 5e) and encouraging WotC to perhaps develop them into any future editions would serve the game well.

A key component of these rules - whose echoes are visible in 1e AD&D, since I caught myself saying, "Oh, THAT'S why my first PHB talked about turns being ten rounds long!" and similar things - was the notion that dungeon exploration took place in 10-minute "turns." Each turn, each player could move their movement speed while being assumed to carefully be searching for traps and such, and could do one dungeon exploration action, such as looking for traps, secret doors, or treasure, or disarming a trap, or trying to listen at a door to see if there are monsters on the other side, etc.

This ties in very nicely to the ritual casting time in 5e: "cast a ritual spell" as a dungeon-exploration-turn action would make a lot of sense. This would make tracking time passing easier, because you take 10 minutes per turn, and do one "thing" per turn. You could even have combat + cleanup take "one turn," with whatever body-searching etc. you do being assumed to fill out the rest of the turn (since most fights take less than 1 minute).

Under a well-structured paradigm like this, a short rest taking 10 turns would be tied in nicely with the rest of the time-keeping, allowing you to determine what monsters are doing for those 10 turns if needs be, and also tracking time passage to a fine enough degree for ticking clocks to be relevant without being overwhelming bookkeeping.

Edit to add:

And having actually enjoyed 4e and listened to people talk about it for years, you'll find that most people who talk bad about it are the ones who never played more than 2 sessions because it wasn't "DnD enough".
Speaking as one of those players, I agree. 4e probably was a perfectly fine and well-balanced fantasy combat simulator that may even have had decent dungeon-crawling rules, but if so, it was a perfectly fine fantasy combat simulator that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D.

I think it would have done better at attracting then-3e players if it had not been billed as "D&D." Admittedly, that would have undermined the big advantage it had of NAME RECOGNITION. Which cannot be underestimated when it comes to analyzing what success it DID have.

(Then again, Pathfinder was the strongest competitor D&D ever faced, without the name recognition, because the gameplay attracted at least half the fan base by just being able to unofficially bill itself as 3.75 edition D&D.)

[Man_Over_Game]

Edit to add:

Speaking as one of those players, I agree. 4e probably was a perfectly fine and well-balanced fantasy combat simulator that may even have had decent dungeon-crawling rules, but if so, it was a perfectly fine fantasy combat simulator that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D.

I think it would have done better at attracting then-3e players if it had not been billed as "D&D." Admittedly, that would have undermined the big advantage it had of NAME RECOGNITION. Which cannot be underestimated when it comes to analyzing what success it DID have.

(Then again, Pathfinder was the strongest competitor D&D ever faced, without the name recognition, because the gameplay attracted at least half the fan base by just being able to unofficially bill itself as 3.75 edition D&D.)

You know, it would have done really well as a DnD side-game. "DnD: Champions of Whatever" woulda been a great way to keep it tied to the franchise without people making expectations about it in comparison to prior editions. It certainly doesn't feel like classic DnD, it feels more like the best fantasy chess you've ever played.

[MaxWilson]

Given, those are some specific examples, but you get the idea. And having actually enjoyed 4e and listened to people talk about it for years, you'll find that most people who talk bad about it are the ones who never played more than 2 sessions because it wasn't "DnD enough".

How many sessions should they have taken before making up their minds?

I regret spending even two sessions (and a few hours of Internet research) on 4E. Several years later I finally had the game theory knowledge to articulate WHY I hated it so much, but at the time all I knew was that it felt too unrealistic, and too asymmetric between players and monsters. (Partly the DM's fault for doubling monster damage and halving monster HP, but also 4E's fault for pushing a mentality of "PCs and monsters don't have to play by the same rules" which made what he did a common recommendation by DMs in his circles.)

Simulationism is part of (A)D&D's DNA, mixed with gamism, and 4E doesn't cater to simulationism.

[Segev]

You know, it would have done really well as a DnD side-game. "DnD: Champions of Whatever" woulda been a great way to keep it tied to the franchise without people making expectations about it in comparison to prior editions. It certainly doesn't feel like classic DnD, it feels more like the best fantasy chess you've ever played.

While they weren't perfect translations of 4e, the box set "Hero Quest" style adventures they released during 4e's heyday were obviously strongly influenced by the very "fantasy chess" structure of 4e (as you aptly put it). And I quite liked those.

So yes, I agree: it would have been great as some sort of supplement or side-game. Heck, it would STILL be great as such a thing if they wanted to release a variant now.

[MaxWilson]

You know, it would have done really well as a DnD side-game. "DnD: Champions of Whatever" woulda been a great way to keep it tied to the franchise without people making expectations about it in comparison to prior editions. It certainly doesn't feel like classic DnD, it feels more like the best fantasy chess you've ever played.

Yeah, that would have been fine. It feels very boardgamey, so marketing it as a board game would avoid enraging those expecting a different experience.

[Sorinth]

The Same-iness stemmed mostly from a lack of diversity in how the powers functioned, not in how they recharged.

For instance, the Fighter's powers were all things like "Hit this guy, gain X AC", or "Hit this guy, push him 5 feet". Then when you have a Wizard power that lasers someone and pushes them back 5 feet, you start to wonder how it's any different from the Fighter.

Given, those are some specific examples, but you get the idea. And having actually enjoyed 4e and listened to people talk about it for years, you'll find that most people who talk bad about it are the ones who never played more than 2 sessions because it wasn't "DnD enough". It didn't integrate RP with your powers very well, I can definitely confirm that, but the fact that everyone had At-Will, Encounter, and Daily Powers was the last thing that anyone who actually played it cared about. If anything, the organized structure made it easy to identify how each class played without any ambiguity, so everything plays exactly how you want it to.

Just a note that lack of diversity is why asymmetric resting actually helps. If one character can Fireball twice per short rest, and another can do it 6 times per long rest they will naturally end up feeling and playing differently even though the ability is identical.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just a note that lack of diversity is why asymmetric resting actually helps. If one character can Fireball twice per short rest, and another can do it 6 times per long rest they will naturally end up feeling and playing differently even though the ability is identical.

I mean, do they though?

I feel like I wouldn't care if I had a Fiend Warlock or an Evocation Wizard or a Fire Draconic Sorcerer. Same job, slightly different stats. Outside of the Wizard casting a few more walls, I would just mentally classify them as all doing the same thing. Kinda like a melee Samurai vs. a Barbarian. Sure, one takes more of this kind of damage, and another has better access to these kinds of spells, but...is that what's going to matter most of the time?

The big problem I have, though, is that the asymmetric resting isn't more beneficial than it is detrimental.

From another perspective: "If I am cold, I can burn my house to stay warm". It solves the problem, and the solution is now a worse problem.

[Sorinth]

I mean, do they though?

I feel like I wouldn't care if I had a Fiend Warlock or an Evocation Wizard or a Fire Draconic Sorcerer. Same job, slightly different stats. Outside of the Wizard casting a few more walls, I would just mentally classify them as all doing the same thing. Kinda like a melee Samurai vs. a Barbarian. Sure, one takes more of this kind of damage, and another has better access to these kinds of spells, but...is that what's going to matter most of the time?

The big problem I have, though, is that the asymmetric resting isn't more beneficial than it is detrimental.

From another perspective: "If I am cold, I can burn my house to stay warm". It solves the problem, and the solution is now a worse problem.

I guess it depends how obvious the rest schedule is. If it's always predictable then you're probably right, but when it's not they are going to feel different.


What's the bigger problem? That depending on how frequent SR are the different classes are more/less balanced? That doesn't really sound like a problem to me.

[Man_Over_Game]

I guess it depends how obvious the rest schedule is. If it's always predictable then you're probably right, but when it's not they are going to feel different.


What's the bigger problem? That depending on how frequent SR are the different classes are more/less balanced? That doesn't really sound like a problem to me.

But if your rest management does make the classes fairly well balanced, wouldn't that also cut down on diversity, since each of those classes are getting roughly equivalent value?

From my perspective, you can save the DM and the players some hassle by cutting out differences in rest recharging (which will cut down on diversity), or you balance the Short Rest features with the Long Rest features so that everyone's doing roughly the same amount of contribution and casting the same number of Fireballs (which also cuts down on diversity).

As of now, we're caught in a weird system of Diversity = Imbalance, which I think is kinda dumb. Save everyone the hassle, use the simplest solution.


As an aside, why would a Fighter feel less interesting just because he has more Long Rest powers? A Bard and a Wizard can solve some of the same problems with their full-casting, but they still don't feel redundant against each other as long as they communicate. I feel like I'm defending a problem that people talk about but nobody has ever actually had to deal with. "Eh, I expect it plays terribly, so why bother trying?"

[Sorinth]

But if your rest management does make the classes fairly well balanced, wouldn't that also cut down on diversity, since each of those classes are getting roughly equivalent value?

From my perspective, you can save the DM and the players some hassle by cutting out differences in rest recharging (which will cut down on diversity), or you balance the Short Rest features with the Long Rest features so that everyone's doing roughly the same amount of contribution and casting the same number of Fireballs (which also cuts down on diversity).

As of now, we're caught in a weird system of Diversity = Imbalance, which I think is kinda dumb. Save everyone the hassle. Why would a Fighter feel less interesting just because he has more Long Rest powers?

Depends on your definition of balanced. Is every day balanced (6 fights with a SR after every 2) or is it balanced over a week/month?

If in a 4 day adventure 2 of the days are 1 big combat that day and then a LR, and 2 days are 6+ combats but you get a SR in between each fight, is that adventure balanced between SR/LR?

[Man_Over_Game]

Depends on your definition of balanced. Is every day balanced (6 fights with a SR after every 2) or is it balanced over a week/month?

If in a 4 day adventure 2 of the days are 1 big combat that day and then a LR, and 2 days are 6+ combats but you get a SR in between each fight, is that adventure balanced between SR/LR?

I dunno. Why is it important to stress about?

[Segev]

Depends on your definition of balanced. Is every day balanced (6 fights with a SR after every 2) or is it balanced over a week/month?

If in a 4 day adventure 2 of the days are 1 big combat that day and then a LR, and 2 days are 6+ combats but you get a SR in between each fight, is that adventure balanced between SR/LR?


I dunno. Why is it important to stress about?

For the same reason it's important to stress about whether a Mystic is balanced against a Sorcerer.

[KorvinStarmast]

Note BTW that Rope Trick isn't a ritual. I'm sure you were thinking of Leomund's Tiny Hut instead That isn't the first time I mixed those to up in my head; hopefully will be the last.

As a DM I'll remark that when I have a ticking clock, such as a rival group of Tomb Raiders chasing the same treasure as the PCs, it's more common for the clock to be measured in days ("sometime tomorrow") than hours ("ninety minutes from now,") partly because tracking hours is a pain. Therefore fitting in short rests is much easier than long rests. That's a way to do it. *furiously scribbles notes as pertains to Oni Evil Empire opening scenes*

I regret spending even two sessions (and a few hours of Internet research) on 4E. {snip} Simulationism is part of (A)D&D's DNA, mixed with gamism, and 4E doesn't cater to simulationism. Didn't play 4e, but I have a hope that some day I'll find some folks who play 13th age: I want to see how that works. But it's not pressing.

[Man_Over_Game]

For the same reason it's important to stress about whether a Mystic is balanced against a Sorcerer.

Sorry, I think you misunderstand. Why is asymmetrical resting important? Is it worth it?

[Sorinth]

I dunno. Why is it important to stress about?

It's not which is why I don't think it really matters if the classes are super balanced against each other. I was just pointing out you can get balance in different ways, an adventure as a whole can be balanced even if individual parts are not. If the DM is providing variety then most of the balance concerns aren't all that big.

[Segev]

Sorry, I think you misunderstand. Why is asymmetrical resting important?

Whether it is important or not, it is meant to facilitate having limited resource abilities that are not needed to be measured in quantities to last all day but still can be useful with reliability. It provides a midpoint between daily features and at-will ones that was deemed worth having.

[Man_Over_Game]

Whether it is important or not, it is meant to facilitate having limited resource abilities that are not needed to be measured in quantities to last all day but still can be useful with reliability. It provides a midpoint between daily features and at-will ones that was deemed worth having.

I'm not saying that we don't need Short Rests - they're a great tool and they're consistent for what they do - what I'm pushing against is the need for asymmetrical resource recovery between classes. Why do Rogues have no resources, Warlocks use Short Rests, and Sorcerers use Long Rests? Are Rogues not allowed to use resources? Why is it okay for Warlocks to only cast one 6+ spell a day?

Is adding diversity at this level important enough to add the additional concern and load that comes with it?

Even if it's not that big of a problem to some, it still is for others. Is it worth it?

[Segev]

I'm not saying that we don't need Short Rests - they're a great tool and they're consistent for what they do - what I'm pushing against is the need for asymmetrical resource recovery between classes. Why do Rogues have no resources, Warlocks use Short Rests, and Sorcerers use Long Rests? Are Rogues not allowed to use resources? Why is it okay for Warlocks to only cast one 6+ spell a day?

Is adding diversity at this level important enough to add the additional concern and load that comes with it?

Even if it's not that big of a problem to some, it still is for others. Is it worth it?

Yes. The differences go a long way to making them feel like playing something different. Too much uniformity between classes leads to the "everyone is a martial adept" problem of 4E.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yes. The differences go a long way to making them feel like playing something different. Too much uniformity between classes leads to the "everyone is a martial adept" problem of 4E.

And did anyone who enjoyed 4e ever confirm that? People are not always averse to criticizing the things they love - we're doing it right now.

I don't think it's actually a problem, I think it was just a bullet on a list of things people assumed about 4e. It has such a strong counter-culture that it's actually really damn hard to find someone with a valid opinion on it. Not even talking about myself, I didn't play a whole lot of it.

So did someone who knows about the game actually say it was a problem, or did we hear that from the Angry Mob?

[Kane0]

Not so much the uniformity but rather the split of powers and how they operated, utility powers especially. It made the game feel and operate in a very tactical wargamey sort of way even if the books SAID that free thinking is encouraged.

[Segev]

And did anyone who enjoyed 4e ever confirm that? People are not always averse to criticizing the things they love - we're doing it right now.

I don't think it's actually a problem, I think it was just a bullet on a list of things people assumed about 4e. It has such a strong counter-culture that it's actually really damn hard to find someone with a valid opinion on it. Not even talking about myself, I didn't play a whole lot of it.

So did someone who knows about the game actually say it was a problem, or did we hear that from the Angry Mob?

I think, in this case, the better voices to seek are those like mine, who DISLIKED 4e for being "Everyone is a Martial Adept." If every class in 5e felt samey because they all used too uniform a mechanic set, I'd have had similar problems with 5e that I did with 4e. I think Short Rest vs. Long Rest divisions in class design go a long way to adding texture to the differences that give classes different feels.

[OldTrees1]

And did anyone who enjoyed 4e ever confirm that? People are not always averse to criticizing the things they love - we're doing it right now.

Very few people that are allergic to peanuts enjoy eating peanuts. If someone knew they were allergic to peanuts, should they seek someone that loves peanut butter or are they capable of forming a valid opinion from the facts they already had available?

We need to be careful to account for selection bias when invalidating invalid opinions.

In the case of 4E, the PHB makes it clear that characters will have limited use abilities and the tight math expects them to use those abilities. If someone studied the 4E PHB with a preference towards passive / at-will abilities they would recognize the game does not accommodate that preference. They would then take their gaming elsewhere. So how can I find one of them that enjoyed a game that already filters them away?

On the other hand in 5E, the PHB makes it clear that the Rogue is almost all at-will / passive abilities. If someone studied the 5E PHB with a preference towards passive / at-will abilities they would recognize the game does accommodate that preference.

[Tanarii]

And did anyone who enjoyed 4e ever confirm that? People are not always averse to criticizing the things they love - we're doing it right now.
As someone that enjoyed 4e, I can tell you one of the biggest losses in 5e was how awesome 4e Martials were. And it was a big loss as early as 4e Essentials, which was when Mearls, who had just been promoted to lead designer and already was planning for 5e/"back to old school" revisions, took away refreshing resources from 4e fighters and rogues to make them "I attack" classes again.

They definitely did not feel like casters. They felt something like battlemasters, except not as hamstrung in terms of very limited special maneuvers or feeling like something tacked on and always the same kind of resource and lacking any at-will maneuvers. They felt skilled and built-in.

But a large chunk of that was 4e also had far more battle mat / tactical focus, and martials were very good at manipulating that.

[OldTrees1]

As someone that enjoyed 4e, I can tell you one of the biggest losses in 5e was how awesome 4e Martials were. And it was a big loss as early as 4e Essentials, which was when Mearls, who had just been promoted to lead designer and already was planning for 5e/"back to old school" revisions, took away refreshing resources from 4e fighters and rogues to make them "I attack" classes again.

I can understand that disappointment.

If only there was a design framework that was not as simple as "I attack" and yet let the player choose if they wanted a versatile set of refreshing resources vs a versatile set of at-will abilities.*

Honestly Cunning Action is a rather well designed feature for versatile at-will abilities. If only offense was even more versatile.

* If I asked 5 people in this thread I would get 4-6 unique designs.


They definitely did not feel like casters. They felt something like battlemasters, except not as hamstrung in terms of very limited special maneuvers or feeling like something tacked on and always the same kind of resource and lacking any at-will maneuvers. They felt skilled and built-in.

Did they feel like they had limited use maneuvers? (In contrast to a class about at-will maneuvers)
Did they feel like some of those limited use maneuvers only recharged once per day?
I doubt they felt like casters, however I suspect they felt like what they were, classes that used daily powers. Or more generally felt like a class using the AEDU model.

If you like versatile refreshing resources, there is a lot of design space in the AEDU model, but for those looking for versatile set of at-will abilities rather than versatile refreshing resources, the options seems to be similar.

[Man_Over_Game]

Even At-will powers in 4e had more effect than some of the Long Rest/Short Rest powers that we have in 5e.

Consider some of these At-Will Monk powers:
(Note that the triggering powers do not need to target the same creature that triggered the effect. Push = away from you, Slide = any direction, Shift = personal movement with no OAs)

Centered Flurry of Blows
Trigger: You hit an enemy with an attack on your turn
Targets: 1 creature (but the number increases with your level, up to every creature adjacent to you)
Effect: The target takes damage equal to your Wisdom, and you slide it 1 space adjacent to you. If the creature is a different target than the triggering attack, you can instead slide it in any direction.
Special: You can only use this trigger once per round.

Stone Fist Flurry of Blows
Trigger: You hit an enemy with an attack on your turn
Targets: 1 creature (but the number increases with your level, up to every creature adjacent to you)
Effect: The target takes a high amount of damage equal to your Strength. If they are a different target than the triggering attack, they take even more damage.
Special: You can only use this trigger once per round.

Crane's Wings Style:
Attack maneuver:
Target: 1 creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude
On Hit: 1d10 + Dex damage and you push the target one square. Damage scales with level.
Movement technique
You make Athletics Checks with a +5 bonus. You are always considered to be having a running start, and the jump distance isn't limited by your speed.

Dancing Cobra
Attack Maneuver:
Target: 1 creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d10 + Dex damage. If the target has made an Opportunity Attack against you this turn, they take additional Wisdom damage, damage scaling with level
Movement Maneuver:
Your speed is increased by 2 (5e equivalent of 10 feet).

Dragon's Tail
Attack Maneuver:
Target: 1 creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1d6 + Dex damage, and the target is knocked prone. Damage scales with level.
Movement Maneuver:
Target: One adjacent ally or prone enemy
Effect: Swap places with the target

Five Storms
Attack Maneuver:
Target: Every adjacent enemy
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d8 + Dex damage. Damage scales with level.
Movement Maneuver:
Effect: Shift 2 spaces (10 feet)




Those are the Monk At-wills available in the core book. I do not feel these are limited at all. When you play something simple, like a 4e Fighter, it's because you wanted something simple.

And just to add a bit of perspective, here is a Level 1 Daily Monk Power:

Whirling Mantis Step
Effect: You Shift your speed. If you move adjacent to an enemy during any of this movement, you slide that enemy 1 square, moving each enemy only once. After the Shift, make the following attack:
Target: 1-3 adjacent creatures
Attack: Dex vs. Fort
Hit: 2d10 + Dex, and the targets are slowed as a debuff (requires a save on their turn to end)
Miss: Half damage, and the targets are slowed until the end of your next turn.

[OldTrees1]

Even At-will powers in 4e had more effect than some of the Long Rest/Short Rest powers that we have in 5e.

Yes, 5E aimed for less rules, less power, and less options. I have critiqued this scope in the past.


Those are the Monk At-wills available in the core book. I do not feel these are limited at all. When you play something simple, like a 4e Fighter, it's because you wanted something simple.

And just to add a bit of perspective, here is a Level 1 Daily Monk Power:

Who are you replying to?
OldTrees1: I said 4E PHB visibly did not have a class that focused on at-will. It is visible that 4E PHB classes relied on using their encounter and daily resources. That is not saying the at-will powers were "limited" in either versatility or number of uses. It is saying 4E PHB made it clear it would not offer a class devoted to at-will powers and any character that ignored encounter/daily powers would be severely underpowered.

Tanarii: Tanarii said 4E was kinda like 5E Battlemaster except for <insert Tanarii's list of ways Battlemaster is more limited than 4E classes>. So Tanarii would probably agree that the 4E Monk's At-Will options were "not as hamstrung" as 5E Battlemaster.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yes, 5E aimed for less rules, less power, and less options. I have critiqued this scope in the past.



Who are you replying to?
OldTrees1: I said 4E PHB visibly did not have a class that focused on at-will. It is visible that 4E PHB classes relied on using their encounter and daily resources. That is not saying the at-will powers were "limited" in either versatility or number of uses. It is saying 4E PHB made it clear it would not offer a class devoted to at-will powers and any character that ignored encounter/daily powers would be severely underpowered.

Sorry, I had misunderstood your post. I thought you were asking whether or not the classes felt limited by the fact that they used resources, or that the At-Wills weren't diverse enough.

I guess, besides the inherent idea that we need Long Rest Wizards and No Rest Rogues, what's the benefit behind straying away from the AEDU model?

I showed those examples as a way to eliminate the thought that just because everyone had Long Rest/Short Rest features, they didn't actually feel similar. They look similar, as in, from the book, but that's like saying that you don't want to read one book because the font's too different from this other book you like. Since the powers are all circumstantial, it's not like the best course of action is just to spend your Daily powers all at once, so it definitely doesn't feel same-y when you're playing it. It's not like you're tracking other players' abilities, unless you worked out some kind of combo beforehand.

[Segev]

Yes, 5E aimed for less rules, less power, and less options. I have critiqued this scope in the past.

Interestingly, though, it has seemed less afraid of giving cool abilities that earlier editions seemed to feel were just game-destroying if not kept away from all but the highest-level players. Flight, conjuring items, the fighter's action surge, and even (admittedly later in the edition) things like the Gloomstalker's invisibility to darkvision are all pretty bold choices that seem to have realized that just because something is weird or unusual doesn't mean it's game-breaking.

I think part of it might be the fact of bounded accuracy keeping lower-level enemies relevant longer, and making higher-level challenges theoretically things lower-level PCs might be able to engage with even if at significantly greater risk.

[OldTrees1]

Sorry, I had misunderstood your post. I thought you were asking whether or not the classes felt limited by the fact that they used resources, or that the At-Wills weren't diverse enough.

I am glad you asked and we clarified that. My questions to Tanarii were confirming what I already knew, in that abilities that recharge feel different from at-will abilities. With a greater difference felt the longer it takes to recharge. So while 4E Rogue might not feel like a caster, it does not feel like the at-will 5E Rogue.


I guess, besides the inherent idea that we need Long Rest Wizards and No Rest Rogues, what's the benefit behind straying away from the AEDU model?

Either this misses the point, or it tells me to ignore the point. Different mechanics feel different. The benefit of avoiding a consistent AEDU model is to provide for both the player looking for a Long Rest Wizard and the one looking for a No Rest Warlock (class not found in 5E). However if we are ignoring that these feel different and players have preferences related to this feeling, then what is left to talk about?


I showed those examples as a way to eliminate the thought that just because everyone had Long Rest/Short Rest features, they didn't actually feel similar. They look similar, as in, from the book, but that's like saying that you don't want to read one book because the font's too different from this other book you like. Since the powers are all circumstantial, it's not like the best course of action is just to spend your Daily powers all at once, so it definitely doesn't feel same-y when you're playing it. It's not like you're tracking other players' abilities, unless you worked out some kind of combo beforehand.

But they do feel similar. The 4E Wizard and the 4E Rogue both feel like classes that rely on Encounter and Daily powers. Do they feel identical? No, but they do feel similar. It feels like every class is yet another

Here are your strong daily powers.
Here are your moderately encounter powers to spread around your daily powers.
Here are your weak at will powers to spread around your resource based powers.
The exact cadence will vary from character to character and class to class, but it is the same recipe (with roughly the same ratio).

Ability frequency can be felt. Ability cooldown time can be felt. If every class has the same ratios, then that can be felt. If that information is displayed, then the savvy consumer can know in advance.

Listen, I like pasta. I buy roughly 8 lbs of short pasta per week. I get a variety of types. They are not similar to me, but if someone wanted some different types of starch, I would accept if "different" types of short pasta felt the same to them. Rotelle and rotini are different, but they are similar. If the visible similarity is relevant to the consumer's preferences, they can make an informed decision even if they don't notice the irrelevant differences.

Edit:

Interestingly, though, it has seemed less afraid of giving cool abilities that earlier editions seemed to feel were just game-destroying if not kept away from all but the highest-level players. Flight, conjuring items, the fighter's action surge, and even (admittedly later in the edition) things like the Gloomstalker's invisibility to darkvision are all pretty bold choices that seem to have realized that just because something is weird or unusual doesn't mean it's game-breaking.

I think part of it might be the fact of bounded accuracy keeping lower-level enemies relevant longer, and making higher-level challenges theoretically things lower-level PCs might be able to engage with even if at significantly greater risk.

I think it is harder to say. If I compare it to 3E, then yes. However if I compare it to 4E, then it is harder to say. I do think that WotC dev team is composed of fallible mortals with finite resources. For some reason I always irrationally compare them to what the players could have made.

[Man_Over_Game]

Listen, I like pasta. I buy roughly 8 lbs of short pasta per week. I get a variety of types. They are not similar to me, but if someone wanted some different types of starch, I would accept if "different" types of short pasta felt the same to them. Rotelle and rotini are different, but they are similar. If the visible similarity is relevant to the consumer's preferences, they can make an informed decision even if they don't notice the irrelevant differences.

That's kinda what I was pushing for. One isn't inherently worse than the other.

It's an arbitrary choice, done because "that's how things are done". I don't mean to imply that folks are wrong about wanting that - it doesn't feel like DnD otherwise, right? - but it is a concrete example of how culture and tradition can justify opinions.

4e's resource system is organized, balanced, and I think most folks can probably agree that it's almost perfect, But that doesn't mean it's a solution that works. People like the massive fluctuations in power levels, resource generation, and the forced ties between playstyles and theme, because those are things that are important to DnD.

For example, 5e was originally planned with having one singular resource for most things (Spell Slots), and then nixxed that idea when the fanbase pushed against it.

We need those Long Rest Wizards because otherwise folks won't feel it's enough like DnD, which is something 4e didn't recognize. The fact that 5e is both more boring (5e at-wills vs. 4e), has more arbitrary design choices, and is yet insanely more successful, is evidence of that. It's a rare viewpoint into reality, where tradition is shown to be insanely more popular than modern design.


But they do feel similar. The 4E Wizard and the 4E Rogue both feel like classes that rely on Encounter and Daily powers. Do they feel identical? No, but they do feel similar. It feels like every class is yet another
As an aside, this is kinda how I feel about things now. Heavy Fighters and Barbarians, Sorcerers/Wizards/Warlocks, Rangers/Rogues, A Druid plays like a Ranger/Cleric, a Ranger plays like a Druid/Fighter. A Paladin feels a lot like a Cleric/Fighter (with an easy way to burn spell slots for damage)The only classes that feel really unique to me are the Artificer and the Monk (as long as you aren't abusing some really powerful feature, like some Warlock invocations).

They just managed to somehow do it in the opposite direction: Everyone has different ways to do all the same things.

Personally, I prefer the alternative. At least then I'm not punching 4 times as a Monk for 25 damage or slashing twice as a Barbarian for 22 as my class identity.

[OldTrees1]

That's kinda what I was pushing for. One isn't inherently worse than the other.

It's an arbitrary choice, done because "that's how things are done". I don't mean to imply that folks are wrong about wanting that - it doesn't feel like DnD otherwise, right? - but it is a concrete example of how culture and tradition can justify opinions.

-snip-

We need those Long Rest Wizards because otherwise folks won't feel it's enough like DnD, which is something 4e didn't recognize. The fact that 5e is both more boring (5e at-wills vs. 4e), has more arbitrary design choices, and is yet insanely more successful, is evidence of that. It's a rare viewpoint into reality, where tradition is shown to be insanely more popular than modern design.

It is not about tradition. It is about preferences related to mechanical texture. 4E is still D&D to me, but it is an edition that tells me to take a long walk off a short pier. So I stayed with 3E until 5E welcomed me back.

One isn't inherently worse than the other, but the chef that only serves pasta will attract fewer customers than the chef that also offers other starch dishes. One of the benefits of design asymmetry is being able to welcome a larger playerbase at the cost.


As an aside, this is kinda how I feel about things now. Heavy Fighters and Barbarians, Sorcerers/Wizards/Warlocks, Rangers/Rogues, A Druid plays like a Ranger/Cleric, a Ranger plays like a Druid/Fighter. A Paladin feels a lot like a Cleric/Fighter (with an easy way to burn spell slots for damage)The only classes that feel really unique to me are the Artificer and the Monk (as long as you aren't abusing some really powerful feature, like some Warlock invocations).

They just managed to somehow do it in the opposite direction: Everyone has different ways to do all the same things.

Personally, I prefer the alternative. At least then I'm not punching 4 times as a Monk for 25 damage or slashing twice as a Barbarian for 22 as my class identity.

There is definitely a lot of room for improvement.

Some optional differentiation

(Tier 2 - Tier 3) Warlock vs Full Casters: Imagine a Warlock that does not cast leveled spells during combat. Then they have 2 spells per short rest to use out of combat. Their stronger cantrip attack allows them to get away with this deviant spellcasting style in contrast to Wizard/Sorcerer which cast leveled spells during combat.
(Tier 2+) Ancients Paladin vs Spiritual Guardians Cleric 5/Fighter: Both are aura based but one is a defensive auradin and the other is an offensive auradin. Consider if the Paladin never smites and does not really care about attacking.
(Tier 1+) Rogue vs Ranger: 5E Rogue is a good class for any skill based character. Rogue can get out of the Bard & Ranger shadows by choosing different characterization. The Locksmith is an iconic example.

I struggle a bit to differentiate Dex Fighters X/Rogue 2 and Monks.


Personally I prefer a different design due to my at-will preference:
1) There is some built in variation in the base actions / movement any character can attempt. Think about movement as an example that WotC does a decent job at.
2) Classes can add new actions
3) Classes can add maneuvers that each modify a type of action. There is a limit of 1 maneuver per round and a limit of 1 maneuver per action however classes can increase those limits. Or those modifications impact can grow with class level.
4) Classes can increase the actions per turn
5) Classes can add passive effects (I do like Paladin Auras :D)

As a result you can have a classes that can do different things, in ways that are multiclass compatible, with a focus on versatile at-will abilities rather that boring "I attack".

The Fighter class might be someone that does 3 offensive tactics with 2 modifications each. On the other hand the Monk class might be always using a different modified mobility tactic while they make 5 offensive tactics with 1 modifier each. Thus highlighting the different approach to trained combat with a focus on what interesting combination of effects (not merely "25 damage").

The Barbarian class might be doing a melee AoE offensive tactic with a strong modifier. The Paladin might be sacrificing actions in exchange for passive defensive auras for their allies or for defensive reactions. Thus highlighting the offensive vs defensive strategy to dominate the terrain.

All of this (with complementary at-will mages) can be filled with qualitatively interesting content that fits and helps define the class identity, and kept as short lists of known at-will options. That would be my preference. However to satisfy other players there should be classes (at least an equal number) like the ToB Swordsage / Crusader or 4E Warlord that focus on rechargeable resources.

Of course that wraps around to Warlock, 5E Warlock exists as short rest "full" caster, despite an at-will partial caster being a more ideal representation of the class origins. If it was a long rest full caster then it would have very little in common with its roots. As it stands it shows that WotC struggled to make a full caster be short rest based under 5E rules and gave up at 11+ level.

[Snails]

Well, you can't tie Warlock to Long Rest, and WotC did not try to fully port in the at-will Warlocks in 5E.

Can't? Why not?

From my perspective, there is a spectrum. On one end is "Most of my powerful abilities are always available". On the other end is "Many of my powerful abilities refresh with Long Rest".

I do not expect D&D to get away from having some classes clusters at one end and other clustered at the other end. (And it is okay for a class to be in the middle.)

Strong differences in Short Rest refreshes are making this (mostly) 1-dimensional picture into a very 2-dimensional picture.

At a theorycrafting level, more variety seems like a fine idea. But at a practical level, I do not see so strongly emphasizing Short Rest refresh for the Warlock and Monk, to be a far outliers when compared to other classes, to actually make the significantly better.

I see this as an unwise design decision. I think it adds headaches to DMs/players out of proportion to the advantages.

[OldTrees1]

Can't? Why not?

Because then they are closer to an adaption of Wizard than they are to their namesake. Warlock was created as an at-will caster. That is a core part of the class identity IMO. You have experience with 3E, you know what I am talking about. Although you phrased it as "Most of my powerful abilities are always available".

If you try to tie Warlocks to Long rests, then I would argue they cease to be Warlocks. I would then ask "When are you adding a 5E adaptation of the at-will caster class formerly named Warlock?".

PS: Since tone is hard over the internet, let me be clear: It was meant with a Jovial tone and I did not mean "impossible" or "prohibited", I meant it would not be accurate to the class identity.


PS2: Which headaches? That might be group specific.

[Man_Over_Game]

There's usually a post about once every couple of weeks with someone having the realization that they don't suck with Warlocks or that Warlocks don't suck, Warlocks just happen to suck at their table.

And that's just the sample size of DnD players that are willing to post about it on GITP.

[OldTrees1]

There's usually a post about once every couple of weeks with someone having the realization that they don't suck with Warlocks or that Warlocks don't suck, Warlocks just happen to suck at their table.

And that's just the sample size of DnD players that post on GITP.

In other words, a very rare problem. We have to remember people rarely talk about when everything is working. We can also notice that participants of the Warlock threads tend to be more advice givers than problem havers. This is in contrast to some other frequent threads. After accounting for that, I expect this to be a very rare problem.

On the other hand, how many 5E forum members appreciate Warlock being different from Wizard? Enough that other forum members have become annoyed at Warlock "overuse"?

It is hard to measure or compare these values, but it seems like the overall benefit is generally more than the overall cost (despite not being true for every group).

Although Snail's concern could have been avoided if WotC made 5E Warlocks even more faithful to the 3E Warlock by having them be at-will partial casters instead of Short Rest "full" casters.

[KorvinStarmast]

As someone that enjoyed 4e, I can tell you one of the biggest losses in 5e was how awesome 4e Martials were. And it was a big loss as early as 4e Essentials, which was when Mearls, who had just been promoted to lead designer and already was planning for 5e/"back to old school" revisions, took away refreshing resources from 4e fighters and rogues to make them "I attack" classes again.

They definitely did not feel like casters. They felt something like battlemasters, except not as hamstrung in terms of very limited special maneuvers or feeling like something tacked on and always the same kind of resource and lacking any at-will maneuvers. They felt skilled and built-in.

But a large chunk of that was 4e also had far more battle mat / tactical focus, and martials were very good at manipulating that. IMO,
1. Battlemasters ought to be able to change maneuvers after a long rest (like spell preparation) IMO (if they want to).
2. Battlemaster as the core of a fighter seems to me a good idea, but they wanted a 'beginner friendly' class (subclass Champion does that fine) so BM is a more advanced play style. I have a friend who still needs to be reminded to use his maneuvers; I simply ask, as DM "using a maneuver or not?" as he declares his actions. At some point, I won't need to, but he's new to BM (not to D&D, his default is dwarf paladin) and hasn't got an intuitive feel for BM yet.

[Man_Over_Game]

In other words, a very rare problem. We have to remember people rarely talk about when everything is working. We can also notice that participants of the Warlock threads tend to be more advice givers than problem havers. This is in contrast to some other frequent threads. After accounting for that, I expect this to be a very rare problem.

On the other hand, how many 5E forum members appreciate Warlock being different from Wizard? Enough that other forum members have become annoyed at Warlock "overuse"?

It is hard to measure or compare these values, but it seems like the overall benefit is generally more than the overall cost (despite not being true for every group).

Although Snail's concern could have been avoided if WotC made 5E Warlocks even more faithful to the 3E Warlock by having them be at-will partial casters instead of Short Rest "full" casters.

On the contrary, I think the number of people who state they misunderstood or are asking for help are less likely than those who are simply stating a positive opinion. That is, less likely to post, not less likely to happen; not many people like showcasing their faults or starting a fight.

Additionally, other than in this thread, I can't recall many times where folks were happy about the Warlock's resource recharging. Most praise I hear about Warlocks has to do with their customization options, between their Patron, Pact Boon, and Invocations. Short Rest recharging and their Mystic Arcanum mechanics are usually things I hear negative opinions about (unless it's another Paladin/Sorcerer multiclass post).

The closest I hear regularly in "support" of Short Rest Warlocks come from people justifying why it's acceptable through the same "4-6 Encounters" arguments, but I don't think anyone ever said they were a good thing in those moments. As in "This is why we should have Short Rest Warlocks", this thread is the first I've ever heard of it for at least a year or so (and that's because I probably couldn't remember it if it happened past then).

Given, I have a strong opinion on the topic (I rush to Rest Balancing threads like a man in spandex underwear), so it very well could be confirmation bias.

[Segev]

I will say that I strongly dislike Mystic Arcanum, possibly mainly on flavor grounds: It's billed as this great secret that is granted by the Patron, and that feels like it should somehow be this unique benefit that Warlocks get that nobody lacking such a Patron could. "I sold my soul for these dark secrets," feels a lot less worthwhile when the Sorcerer says, "Oh, yeah, I learned the same things just by being born this way, and I can also upcast other spells into these slots." Or the Wizard says something similar about learning those secrets through study. No soul-selling (or whatever the pact's price was) required. No Patrons needed.

And the mechanical complaint I have is that any other caster can upcast their spells into their high level slots, and can upcast their high level spells to higher-level slots. But even if a Warlock knows major image, he can never upcast it to 6th level. So Mystic Arcanum not only gives nothing unique, it gives a lesser, weaker version than just having the spell slot and the spell known!



ON THE OTHER HAND, I will provide a counter-example: I think the short-rest recovery of Pact Magic slots is an interesting half-way point mechanic between at-will spells and normal long rest spellcasting. I do think Warlocks would be better filling this niche if they got maybe one more spell slot than is currently listed (so 2 at level 1, 3 at levels 2 through whenever, then 4, then eventually 5 rather than 4 as their maximum), but the short rest availability gives more freedom to cast them semi-casually without making them totally free.

I wouldn't mind seeing more Invocations that made them at-will casters, either; I hate the "you learn this spell and can cast it with a pact magic slot but only once per long rest" Invocations with a passion, and unless the spell is actively higher-level than they "should" be able to squeeze out of Pact Magic, I find wasting an Invocation even on knowing a spell they could cast as many times as they choose to spend pact magic slots on it to be irritating.

[Asisreo1]

On the contrary, I think the number of people who state they misunderstood or are asking for help are less likely than those who are simply stating a positive opinion. That is, less likely to post, not less likely to happen; not many people like showcasing their faults or starting a fight.

Additionally, other than in this thread, I can't recall many times where folks were happy about the Warlock's resource recharging. Most praise I hear about Warlocks has to do with their customization options, between their Patron, Pact Boon, and Invocations. Short Rest recharging and their Mystic Arcanum mechanics are usually things I hear negative opinions about (unless it's another Paladin/Sorcerer multiclass post).

The closest I hear regularly in "support" of Short Rest Warlocks come from people justifying why it's acceptable through the same "4-6 Encounters" arguments, but I don't think anyone ever said they were a good thing in those moments. As in "This is why we should have Short Rest Warlocks", this thread is the first I've ever heard of it for at least a year or so (and that's because I probably couldn't remember it if it happened past then).

Given, I have a strong opinion on the topic (I rush to Rest Balancing threads like a man in spandex underwear), so it very well could be confirmation bias.
I honestly think Warlocks are among the strongest class or utility classes in the game from their ability to spam their abilities out-of-combat or low-encounter days. Because the less encounters, the more time their is outside of combat. And more time means more short rests, which unlike long rests, have no explicit limitations per day.

A Warlock could cast Invisibility, Scrying, Major Image, Darkness, Suggestion, and Dimension Door over 20 times a day on their off-days.

Some of them can Dominate Person, Greater Invisibility, Detect Thoughts, Sending, Clairvoyance, or Command as well.

These spells are also useful during a typical adventuring day as well.

[Snails]

Because then they are closer to an adaption of Wizard than they are to their namesake. Warlock was created as an at-will caster. That is a core part of the class identity IMO. You have experience with 3E, you know what I am talking about. Although you phrased it as "Most of my powerful abilities are always available".

If you try to tie Warlocks to Long rests, then I would argue they cease to be Warlocks. I would then ask "When are you adding a 5E adaptation of the at-will caster class formerly named Warlock?".

I do not like your answer, but I cannot deny that it is a good answer. :smallwink:

At a personal level, I never found Warlocks in earlier editions to be attractive. In 5e, I can understand why someone would play it, but I find the mechanics annoying.

[OldTrees1]

I do not like your answer, but I cannot deny that it is a good answer. :smallwink:

At a personal level, I never found Warlocks in earlier editions to be attractive. In 5e, I can understand why someone would play it, but I find the mechanics annoying.

Thanks. :smallsmile:

I can understand why the 1D -> 2D annoys you. Personally I left the party self regulate, but I have been more relaxed about difficulty in 5E. Our group has varied from days with 4 short rests to days with 0 short rests. For our group the days with more short rests have the short rest characters help the long rest characters conserve resources. On days with no short rests the long rest characters help elevate the short rest characters.

[Tanarii]

Did they feel like they had limited use maneuvers? (In contrast to a class about at-will maneuvers)
Did they feel like some of those limited use maneuvers only recharged once per day?
Yes to both, they felt like they had 1-4 special maneuvers usable one per fight, and 1-4 usable once per day. Because they did.

But they also had 2-3 (depending on race) special maneuvers usable at will. Which were all something special.

Since most fights lasted long enough for using your encounters plus 1-3 at-wills, they felt that they were doing a bunch of special stuff every round.

Rogues and Battlemasters come closest in 5e. Monks do okay with Ki expenditure as well. It's not completely lacking. Barbarians feel the hardest hit, because their 4e Rages were Primal effects and really cool.

[MaxWilson]

I will say that I strongly dislike Mystic Arcanum, possibly mainly on flavor grounds: It's billed as this great secret that is granted by the Patron, and that feels like it should somehow be this unique benefit that Warlocks get that nobody lacking such a Patron could. "I sold my soul for these dark secrets," feels a lot less worthwhile when the Sorcerer says, "Oh, yeah, I learned the same things just by being born this way, and I can also upcast other spells into these slots." Or the Wizard says something similar about learning those secrets through study. No soul-selling (or whatever the pact's price was) required. No Patrons needed.

IMO this criticism is spot-on, not only for Mystic Arcana but for the whole warlock class. As a DM, when I want to tempt someone with power, I tempt them with ACTUAL POWER. (There's a weretiger thread going on right now which is a good illustration.)

Warlocks are supposedly the beneficiaries of dark pacts, but in actuality they're just a different set of game mechanics loosely tied to the pact theme, so there's no extra power to justify the strings. Ergo, DMs feel like jerks if we pull on those strings. Cutting a 5E warlock off from its patron potentially leaves the warlock with NOTHING, which makes players sad and prevents DMs from cutting them off in the first place.

But if warlocking were a character decision instead of a character class, if it were more like "I'll teach you the long-lost Simulacrum spell and let you use my power to cast Dimension Door at will in exchange for you letting me possess your body for one day of pleasure every month", then threatening that source of power (e.g. by making the day of pleasure have horrific consequences) wouldn't feel like such a jerk move. A warlock then is just a PC, any PC, who has made such a deal, maybe lots of them. He may "have" lots of extra random magic items and abilities, but he also has complex, maybe conflicting obligations, AND he doesn't really have those abilities--he's borrowing them from NPCs with their own agenda, in full knowledge that they can be revoked or lost.

I realize that this opinion is probably directly opposed to some forum "law" (Grod's Law maybe?) about not balancing power with roleplaying consequences. Either I misunderstand that "law" or I disagree with it, but either way, the game is more fun IMO when borrowing legal, political, magical, or physical power from outside entities does have roleplaying consequences. Consequences are why we play this game.

[Segev]

IMO this criticism is spot-on, not only for Mystic Arcana but for the whole warlock class. As a DM, when I want to tempt someone with power, I tempt them with ACTUAL POWER. (There's a weretiger thread going on right now which is a good illustration.)

Warlocks are supposedly the beneficiaries of dark pacts, but in actuality they're just a different set of game mechanics loosely tied to the pact theme, so there's no extra power to justify the strings. Ergo, DMs feel like jerks if we pull on those strings. Cutting a 5E warlock off from its patron potentially leaves the warlock with NOTHING, which makes players sad and prevents DMs from cutting them off in the first place.

But if warlocking were a character decision instead of a character class, if it were more like "I'll teach you the long-lost Simulacrum spell and let you use my power to cast Dimension Door at will in exchange for you letting me possess your body for one day of pleasure every month", then threatening that source of power (e.g. by making the day of pleasure have horrific consequences) wouldn't feel like such a jerk move. A warlock then is just a PC, any PC, who has made such a deal, maybe lots of them. He may "have" lots of extra random magic items and abilities, but he also has complex, maybe conflicting obligations, AND he doesn't really have those abilities--he's borrowing them from NPCs with their own agenda, in full knowledge that they can be revoked or lost.

I realize that this opinion is probably directly opposed to some forum "law" (Grod's Law maybe?) about not balancing power with roleplaying consequences. Either I misunderstand that "law" or I disagree with it, but either way, the game is more fun IMO when borrowing legal, political, magical, or physical power from outside entities does have roleplaying consequences. Consequences are why we play this game.

First pass, I recommend you just give out boons and charms as if they were magic items in return for such pacts and bargains. Or even Blessings. Heck, granting feats and the like works. These are mechanisms for rewarding PCs outside of build choices.

For Warlocks as a class, I think they're fine at having power that is sufficiently different from others (short rest spell slots and some good at-will invocations plus their patron class features and the pact boon), but Mystic Arcanum is where that falls flat because there IS a direct comparison and Mystic Arcana are just worse. And Warlocks don't get anything else at high level that really compensates for not getting high-level spells.

If you wanted to take the Warlock class in the direction you're going, I would tie the costs for greater power to pay-as-you-go mechanics of some sort. Much as I find the actual implementation of it a bit lame, the Fiend Patron's ability to give temporary hp when you kill something is a good example, thematically: you have to do something the Patron likes in order to fuel a power.

[OldTrees1]

Yes to both, they felt like they had 1-4 special maneuvers usable one per fight, and 1-4 usable once per day. Because they did.

But they also had 2-3 (depending on race) special maneuvers usable at will. Which were all something special.

Since most fights lasted long enough for using your encounters plus 1-3 at-wills, they felt that they were doing a bunch of special stuff every round.

Rogues and Battlemasters come closest in 5e. Monks do okay with Ki expenditure as well. It's not completely lacking. Barbarians feel the hardest hit, because their 4e Rages were Primal effects and really cool.

4E did a good job of creating that feeling that your were doing a bunch of special stuff each round. I am glad 5E Rogue can capture some of that. It indicates it is possible to duplicate without relying on recharging powers. That means a system could create that feeling in different ways to fit what the player is looking for.

However I also should give props to 4E on how it designed the power usage for people looking for exciting recharging powers. Rather than a binary divide of "Wizard casts sleep once per day and then pretends to use a crossbow", they created a gradual slow down from Daily through Encounter and then At Wills.

I know it might be off topic, but could you briefly elaborate on 4E Rages? They were not in the PHB1 so I have only briefly read a couple. The pattern looks like daily powers, that do an attack, and then provide a qualitative buff for the rest of the encounter. That is cool. What did "Primal" do in this context? A couple of the 5E Barbarian subclasses get 1 qualitative buff every time they rage. That does seem a big hit.

[Tanarii]

I know it might be off topic, but could you briefly elaborate on 4E Rages? They were not in the PHB1 so I have only briefly read a couple. The pattern looks like daily powers, that do an attack, and then provide a qualitative buff for the rest of the encounter. That is cool. What did "Primal" do in this context? A couple of the 5E Barbarian subclasses get 1 qualitative buff every time they rage. That does seem a big hit.
The fluff (which was a valid term for 4e, since it subdivided mechanics vs fluff) was 4e Barbarian Rages were kinda transformational. Not so much as the Warder's forms (which were Polymorphs), but still ... uh, fluffy.

And yeah, the cool mechanical aspect was the special lingering mechanical thing for the rest of the encounter.

They were Primal in they tended to be elemental or bestial, thematically, and their power source was explicitly Primal and not Martial. Which made more magic-y feeling Daily powers fine. Kinda like the 5e Storm Barb, except not to neutered feeling effects on a rage. Warders were also on my list of very cool. For basically the same reasons.

For actual Martials in 4e, I loved Fighters and Warlords, especially ones that focused on moving allies and enemies around the battlefield. Which was often very useful in 4e, because of the battlemat focus and so much built around it.

4e warlocks were fun too, but overall I think I enjoy 5e warlocks better.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I did like about the Barbarian Rages of 4e were how mechanically defining they were. They weren't just stat buffs like most of 5e's rages, they changed how you played, and often had an immediate attack effect that required you to choose when to Rage (instead of the current method of "Always Rage on Turn 1").

For instance:

Juggernaut's Rage gives you +1 to hit for the rest of the Rage each time you kill a creature during the Rage

Life Thane's Rage heals you and also makes you grant THP to allies who start their turn adjacent to you.

Tyrant's Rage dazes the target you use your Rage attack on, and then you can spend your Bonus Action to push every adjacent enemy during the Rage.


The fact that 4 level 1 features add more complex gameplay than 20 levels of any 5e Barbarian is really disappointing.


They were Primal in they tended to be elemental or bestial, thematically, and their power source was explicitly Primal and not Martial. Which made more magic-y feeling Daily powers fine. Kinda like the 5e Storm Barb, except not to neutered feeling effects on a rage. Warders were also on my list of very cool.

Man, I loved that thunderstomp power that just zaps and pulls every nearby enemy to you. When you needed a dominating presence for a tank, Warders man.