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

[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)

Spoiler: The exceptions

Show

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)

Spoiler: The exceptions

Show

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.

Spoiler: Spare thoughts

Show

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:

Spoiler: abstract outline

Show

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.