What build should have been good, but wasn't?

[KorvinStarmast]

This helps certainly, but that's like Grappling and Shoving to me. Slow isn't a defensive spell, it's a debuff you cast to help the party as a whole not boost your own defenses.

Slow reduces the number of attacks you are subjected to. Multiattack, which crops up A Lot in Tier 2 and Tier 3, is thus nerfed hard. Fewer attacks on you is better defense, in terms of defense writ large.
The slowed enemy gets an action or a bonus action and no reaction.
That is good for the party defense. It also can (depending on the roll) delay the casting of an enemy spell. And it gives your enemy -2 AC. A good offense is part of a good defense ... there is more to defense, as you noted above, than just AC.

I'm not sure at this point if any WotC stuff just lets you free pick a feat at level 1, I know a lot give you a restricted list and background specific ones, but if they doA Thri-kreen Fighter with a shield, chain, Defense, and Dual Wielder gets to 20. I also just find that imagery hilarious. 19 is super easy to do, 20 a bit harder early on, but if momentary boosts and shorter durations count then it's much easier thanks to Shield, Shield of Faith, Gift of the Metallic Dragon etc.

That's nice.

[Dr.Samurai]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. What difference does it make to players if the Warlock says "I'd like to take a SR, if possible." The DM decides if its reasonable, says yes or no, if yes, players take a minute to roll HD if they want and play goes on. No one is asking to take an actual hour long break in real time...

I've personally run into players complaining about having to take a short rest.

[Theodoxus]

I'm genuinely curious. On what grounds?

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm genuinely curious. On what grounds?

Most recently, we got our butts kicked each encounter. So we short rested after the 1st encounter, where 2 PCs were dropped. Then we short rested after the second encounter, where 1 PC was dropped and others took damage. Then at the third encounter where another PC dropped and we all took damage, one of the players insisted we not short rest because "we can't just short rest after every encounter".

And I said "we can't just wander into another encounter with hit points in the single digits either". Not everyone could spend HD, since they were already spent, so the player wanted to keep moving. I could spend HD, and so could 1 other, so we felt the need to rest. Thankfully we did because we were in for another tough encounter lol.

Another time one of the players didn't want to cut into their spell duration.

I don't run into it often, but I've seen it. Not sure if it happens regularly at other tables. But yeah, to your point, it's a DM call if it's even possible.

[RSP]

I've personally run into players complaining about having to take a short rest.

It certainly depends, but yes.

The two cases where I’ve had it come up are: 1) RP reasons to move swiftly, or 2) spell duration reasons.

For the second, if I’ve just upcasted AoA, and used BoL to mitigate the damage taken, I don’t want to waste the next 59 minutes of duration on my 25 point damage shield that cost a 5th round slot.

In general, my current table is conservative with resources as we’re playing DotMM, so dungeon crawl with lots of encounters in the day, with no guarantee of successful SRs/LRs.; so it doesn’t come up often to repeatedly SR.

[Schwann145]

No one is asking to take an actual hour long break in real time...

C'mon, absolutely no one is suggesting that.

Narrative is supposed to matter as much as mechanics.
What are the NPCs and enemies doing for the hour-long breaks the group keeps wanting to take? Why is the hostile territory so safe? People tend to treat a SR the way BG3 does: push a button, recover some stuff, and keep moving. But no, absolutely not. You've got a full hour of in-game time to roleplay and justify.
Even if it only takes you two minutes to describe what everyone does for their hour, it's still an hour for the PCs.
An hour in-game is a lot of time to justify being left alone, and it gets harder to justify if you need to do it multiple times in one stretch.

[Kurald Galain]

I've personally run into players complaining about having to take a short rest.

Likewise, and because of (a) RP reasons to move swiftly; (b) the place we're in doesn't seem safe; or (c) while PC 1 is resting the others go into the village and that sometimes leads to a fight again, or get themselves spotted by a recurring enemy and that leads to a fight again.

An hour in-game is a lot of time to justify being left alone, and it gets harder to justify if you need to do it multiple times in one stretch.

And also, that.

I'm not saying this always happens, but it does happen often enough that the warlock should have been good, but wasn't.

[Theodoxus]

Most recently, we got our butts kicked each encounter. So we short rested after the 1st encounter, where 2 PCs were dropped. Then we short rested after the second encounter, where 1 PC was dropped and others took damage. Then at the third encounter where another PC dropped and we all took damage, one of the players insisted we not short rest because "we can't just short rest after every encounter".

And I said "we can't just wander into another encounter with hit points in the single digits either". Not everyone could spend HD, since they were already spent, so the player wanted to keep moving. I could spend HD, and so could 1 other, so we felt the need to rest. Thankfully we did because we were in for another tough encounter lol.

Another time one of the players didn't want to cut into their spell duration.

I don't run into it often, but I've seen it. Not sure if it happens regularly at other tables. But yeah, to your point, it's a DM call if it's even possible.

Well, yeah, if you're needing more than 2 SR in an adventure day, I'd say the DM is over-tuning the encounters and/or not giving the party sufficient consumables to compensate (if the party is sitting on 12 healing pots out of fear of not having them later, that's a different issue).

Spell durations is definitely a legit reason to not want to stop... though the DM has a few options available there as well. Personally, I think it was a mistake for 5E to continue with the absolute time limits of spells. It takes away a lot of mercurial nature of magic; magic shouldn't be like physics or chemistry. Following a formula; else the same spell should always deal the same damage at the same spell level. But I don't think a randomized amount of time is the answer either... just 'until the scene ends' would be sufficient. If resting is part of the scene, your spell would continue through the rest too. While that's all outside the scope of this discussion, the DM is in charge of time in his universe. If a spell has a duration longer than a minute, in general, I'm not tracking too closely, and I'd bet most DMs aren't ticking down the 600 rounds until your spell expires. If they're kinda jerky but want a dramatic effect, they'll state your spell ran out just before the next encounter (allowing you to recast it if possible, or utilize other tactics). If they're a bit kinder, they'll metagame a bit and let you know that your spell will run out before the next encounter, so you might as well SR if you'd like to.

I definitely think rests in general should be part of the session zero discussion, so everyone knows the expectations before being taken by surprise.

[Theodoxus]

C'mon, absolutely no one is suggesting that.

Narrative is supposed to matter as much as mechanics.
What are the NPCs and enemies doing for the hour-long breaks the group keeps wanting to take? Why is the hostile territory so safe? People tend to treat a SR the way BG3 does: push a button, recover some stuff, and keep moving. But no, absolutely not. You've got a full hour of in-game time to roleplay and justify.
Even if it only takes you two minutes to describe what everyone does for their hour, it's still an hour for the PCs.
An hour in-game is a lot of time to justify being left alone, and it gets harder to justify if you need to do it multiple times in one stretch.

And that's 100% on the DM, not the players. I'm talking about why PLAYERS are balking at even asking for a short rest.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, yeah, if you're needing more than 2 SR in an adventure day, I'd say the DM is over-tuning the encounters and/or not giving the party sufficient consumables to compensate (if the party is sitting on 12 healing pots out of fear of not having them later, that's a different issue).

In this case, we are level 3, and the first encounter resulted in 2 crits that downed 2 characters immediately. The second encounter I attribute to poor tactics on our part, and so we went into the third encounter not fully recovered and wound up needed healing afterwards. Potions covered us a little but we still needed to heal up.

We are still on that "day" of the game lol, having had six encounters in total and now getting ready to rest for the night. We did the other three encounters without resting in between, so I think those crits and the poorer tactics in the first two encounters really made the difference.

Spell durations is definitely a legit reason to not want to stop... though the DM has a few options available there as well. Personally, I think it was a mistake for 5E to continue with the absolute time limits of spells. It takes away a lot of mercurial nature of magic; magic shouldn't be like physics or chemistry. Following a formula; else the same spell should always deal the same damage at the same spell level. But I don't think a randomized amount of time is the answer either... just 'until the scene ends' would be sufficient. If resting is part of the scene, your spell would continue through the rest too. While that's all outside the scope of this discussion, the DM is in charge of time in his universe. If a spell has a duration longer than a minute, in general, I'm not tracking too closely, and I'd bet most DMs aren't ticking down the 600 rounds until your spell expires. If they're kinda jerky but want a dramatic effect, they'll state your spell ran out just before the next encounter (allowing you to recast it if possible, or utilize other tactics). If they're a bit kinder, they'll metagame a bit and let you know that your spell will run out before the next encounter, so you might as well SR if you'd like to.

Yeah when someone pops an hour long spell it kind of draws a line in the sand for short rests.

I definitely think rests in general should be part of the session zero discussion, so everyone knows the expectations before being taken by surprise.

Probably a good idea.

[Theodoxus]

Yikes, cruel dice can certainly make a difference... reminds me of a campaign, we were supposed to explore some ancient tomb, but the primary entrance was guarded by a pair of significantly higher CR critters than we could handle (would ping deep purple in a MMORPG). We didn't know (until well after the fact) that there was a side entrance that was trapped, but otherwise free of danger. We ran in three times, trying different tactics to get past or through the guards, and it just never happened. After a couple PC deaths, we abandoned the quest (and the bodies) and decided to ply our trade in a different part of the world.

If the players were just a smidge more stubborn, we would have all ended up rolling new characters.

I hope your LR is uneventful and the party ultimately successful. You can't get crit all the time, right? Right!?!

[RSP]

Part of it is player choices. The above-mentioned tactical issues are one thing, luck of the dice are another. A DM can have a well-balanced set of encounters for the day that goes sideways for a number of issues. Just like a hard encounter can become easy with some good strategies or lucky PC rolls.

A good DM tries to roll with how the day is going. Smart players will manage resources well (though it only goes so far).

In terms of the Hexblade discussion (and Warlocks in general), EB blasters work because they always have EB to fall back on, and slots can be strategically used but aren’t necessary to function. However, if your build requires a certain spell (like Shadow of Moil for melee Hexblades) to function, then you’re bound by SRs, as opposed to using them as intended, a strategic break.

[Theodoxus]

Hmm... seems to me, if you're dead-set on using spells to augment your melee capability, like with shadow of moil, if you have the option, MCing into Sorcerer would be the better option, no?

Granted, that's going to be a very long buildup, at least to the point where you're able to use Sorcerer spell slots to cast SoM. But if you've gone to 7th level to grab SoM on your Warlock, you then have choices... go to 9th for 5th level slots? Go to 11th for your 3rd Warlock slot? Do you stay pure Warlock until you get all the bennies you're looking for, or do you get to 3rd, for darkness and Devil's Sight and play the darkness game while climbing up the Sorcerer levels until you get at least metamagic at 3rd, using Sorcery to augment your combat?

Do you stay Warlock until 5th, so you can grab the last of the 'necessary' Invocations for your melee build, then switch to Sorcerer?

Either way, once you've gained 7th level Sorcerer and Warlock, you can cast SoM as many times as you have slots, and sorcery points to create new 4th level slots... Though not having been lucky enough to play up to 14th level, I don't have non-white room knowledge of how useful that would be.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yikes, cruel dice can certainly make a difference... reminds me of a campaign, we were supposed to explore some ancient tomb, but the primary entrance was guarded by a pair of significantly higher CR critters than we could handle (would ping deep purple in a MMORPG). We didn't know (until well after the fact) that there was a side entrance that was trapped, but otherwise free of danger. We ran in three times, trying different tactics to get past or through the guards, and it just never happened. After a couple PC deaths, we abandoned the quest (and the bodies) and decided to ply our trade in a different part of the world.

If the players were just a smidge more stubborn, we would have all ended up rolling new characters.

I hope your LR is uneventful and the party ultimately successful. You can't get crit all the time, right? Right!?!

Lol, yeah player actions are a big part of it.

In the second encounter, we were just fighting a pack of wolves and two dire wolves. Everyone in the party provoked opportunity attacks (w/ Advantage from Pack Tactics). It was brutal, we were giving up HP like crazy. Afterwards, we tried to be more cautious. Later tactics saw an encounter sort of get wrapped up by the DM because our strategy would result in winning with little risk to ourselves, and after that we pursued some gargoyles that were ambushing us during our other encounters; we dealt them some damage before they escaped, so that when they popped up again, we killed them more easily and the encounter was not as dangerous as it was intended.

So hopefully we're learning

[Theodoxus]

So hopefully we're learning

CoS?

Spoiler: CoS spoilers

Show

Reminds me of my first playthrough. I was a life cleric and got bowled over by wolves during a certain druidic ritual. Half the party was down, our ranger was off to the side, atop a standing stone when he got hit with a bolt of lightning. Our tank, a paladin was fading quickly already having blown his LoH, and I was rolling death saves (the pally tried to get to me, but kept getting blocked by a persistent wolf. On my turn, with a 2:1 death count, I rolled a nat 20. I immediately used my Channel Divinity to grant everyone enough HP to wake up and then cast Mass Healing Word. Turned the tide bolstering the party. Was epic.

We also learned that day to be far more cautious traipsing across the countryside. I think it was also the reason we ultimately convinced Tatyana to marry Strahd... anything to avoid getting mauled by wolves again.

[Schwann145]

Hmm... seems to me, if you're dead-set on using spells to augment your melee capability, like with shadow of moil, if you have the option, MCing into Sorcerer would be the better option, no?

Every gish is expected and designed to use their casting to augment their melee; that's what makes them a gish.
If Warlock struggles with this and the best advice is, "maybe multiclass into a better spellcaster," then we get back to my earlier point: we should stop billing the class as a spellcaster. The class description should be rewritten to really hammer home that you're a cantrip spammer and invocation user, with tertiary spell support.

[Keltest]

Every gish is expected and designed to use their casting to augment their melee; that's what makes them a gish.
If Warlock struggles with this and the best advice is, "maybe multiclass into a better spellcaster," then we get back to my earlier point: we should stop billing the class as a spellcaster. The class description should be rewritten to really hammer home that you're a cantrip spammer and invocation user, with tertiary spell support.

I'm not aware that the game actually bills warlocks as equivalent to full casters in any way.

[Schwann145]

I'm not aware that the game actually bills warlocks as equivalent to full casters in any way.

The game doesn't, the community does.
(The game doesn't make those distinctions for any class.)

[tokek]

Come now, a wizard who can use Arcane Recovery once per day is not a "short rest character".

I'll grant that fighters with superiority dice are another character that wants lots of short rests; but rather than propping up the warlock, this means that nobody (at least in my area) plays this kind of fighter, either. Which is too bad because I find it a really fun mechanic.

So the clear difference here is that other characters can benefit from a short rest, whereas warlocks (and sup.dice fighters) require frequent short rests to function effectively.

I really think that is a local problem

As a DM I always have short rest options available at some time in the day. There might be some cost to taking it and pushing hard to take one at a bad time might be risky but short rests are very much part of the game to me

I expect the same as a player

There are several short rest classes and there are short rest resources for many of what you might consider long rest classes. But crucially there are hit dice and anyone who just took a beating should want to use hit dice.

A lot of the alleged imbalances in the game (at the levels where nearly all play takes place) come from poor handling of rests by DMs.

[TheBirba]

This thread went from "which subclasses are good on paper and bad in practice" to "why hexblades suck/don't suck". Give it a rest, it's ok to have difference experiences of the same product.

To answer OP I am going to say Samurai Fighter.

Samurai gives you a big nova and risible tHP, and then you're basically a Champion with worse crit range.

[Kurald Galain]

I really think that is a local problem

Please note,

Yes, that. The problem with warlocks is not whether their AC should be 19 or 20 or (gasp!) 21; the problem is that in some campaigns you can only rarely get a short rest. While I'm sure this depends on the DM a lot, in pretty much every 5E game I've played in, we pretty much never had "at least one but less than eight" hours of spare time.

[Dr.Samurai]

For the record, the warlock I mentioned above was a fiend warlock with pact of the blade, using a houserule to allow charisma to attacks and damage with pact of the blade.

Still, two slots are not enough.

[tokek]

For the record, the warlock I mentioned above was a fiend warlock with pact of the blade, using a houserule to allow charisma to attacks and damage with pact of the blade.

Still, two slots are not enough.

I slightly agree. I think they should get the 3rd slot at 9th level. I've played a couple of warlock characters and they do feel a bit underpowered at that level 9-10 point

[Theodoxus]

Every gish is expected and designed to use their casting to augment their melee; that's what makes them a gish.
If Warlock struggles with this and the best advice is, "maybe multiclass into a better spellcaster," then we get back to my earlier point: we should stop billing the class as a spellcaster. The class description should be rewritten to really hammer home that you're a cantrip spammer and invocation user, with tertiary spell support.

Or, and here's a radical idea... stop calling the Warlock (of any flavor) a gish?

[Dr.Samurai]

Or, and here's a radical idea... stop calling the Warlock (of any flavor) a gish?

This may be the solution.

However, as someone who is not familiar with casters, enjoys playing martials, and sees that there is a brand of warlock that gets a weapon proficiency, temporary hit points, and smites, what should be my expectations when I go that route?

It's not a gotcha question, I'm curious about what the intention is vs what I expected. (And candidly, I'm not even sure what exactly I expected, only that I was a bit disappointed.)

[Theodoxus]

In the classical Githyanki sense, Warlocks aren't close to what they were. Even with the trappings (pun slightly intended) of spells, Warlocks don't play well in the mindspace that traditional non-Gith Gish exist in. Eldritch Smite is a very pale cousin to Divine Smite, both in height (damage) and width (number of uses).

I still contend that a pure Warlock Hexblade build is a switch hitter skirmisher. You start with EBs as you move up, letting your tank (Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Moonie) move up faster (double speed into melee, typically). After a round or two of EB spam, you roll into a flanking position (whether the DMG advantage kind, or just regular hammer and anvil kind), pulling out / summoning your weapon and going to town. Once you take out the target, you move off again, EBing as you soften up your target and your tank gets into position.

Depending on the rest of the party composition, you're either flanking with your tank the whole fight, or start skirmishing around taking out the enemy ranged units with your (more than likely) superior damage and range. Your AC is better than a non-Hexblade thanks to your medium armor, so provided you're not going up against the big bad with the higher than average To Hit, you should be very reliable in taking out flanking units, ranged units and other annoyances. If you end up getting run up on by a melee type who thinKs you're a squishy caster, your martial prowess will quickly disabuse them of that notion.

As for your actual spells, AoA helps both defensively with tHP and offensively with thorns. Hex isn't horrible, and will last all day, allowing you to rest and get back the slot by 5th level. Shield is also decent for keeping you up and running, but between AoA and Shield, I'd go with the former nearly every time.

If you find yourself in a party without a tank (hopefully something discovered in session zero so you can easily change focus) I wouldn't try to build the Warlock into a primary melee tank. I'd just roll something that will excel in that position. Either a Paladin if smiting is something you want to explore, or EK if casting was your draw to Warlock, or Rune Knight if you just want to hold your ground.

[Schwann145]

I slightly agree. I think they should get the 3rd slot at 9th level. I've played a couple of warlock characters and they do feel a bit underpowered at that level 9-10 point

Honestly, IMO, I don't think you'd break anything by literally doubling the slots available across the board for Warlock. They'd still be far behind the real casters and it would be a reasonable bump for a class that is historically low-powered (evidenced by the near constant suggestions that sticking with Warlock single-class for the long haul is generally considered a bad idea.)

Or, and here's a radical idea... stop calling the Warlock (of any flavor) a gish?

But that would be dishonest.
The Warlock isn't a gish, but the Hexblade absolutely is. Much in the same way that the Fighter isn't a gish but the Eldritch Knight is, and the Wizard isn't a gish but the Bladesinger is.
(Edit: Unless you insist on the historical definition of "gish," in which case *nobody* qualifies, lol.)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "Warlock" is a gish, but suggesting that Hexblade isn't is... just inaccurate.

[Dork_Forge]

I saaw ye olde 'Hit Die size doesn't matter it's a rounding error' so I'm contractually obligated to add HD does matter in actual gameplay. Hit points matter and are the most thorough defense against death.

Slow reduces the number of attacks you are subjected to. Multiattack, which crops up A Lot in Tier 2 and Tier 3, is thus nerfed hard. Fewer attacks on you is better defense, in terms of defense writ large.
The slowed enemy gets an action or a bonus action and no reaction.
That is good for the party defense. It also can (depending on the roll) delay the casting of an enemy spell. And it gives your enemy -2 AC. A good offense is part of a good defense ... there is more to defense, as you noted above, than just AC.

Oh I'm not debating that enemies being Slowed is good for the health of the PC and the team.

It's just me classifying features/spells. Slow is a debuff/crowd control, as opposed to something that is directly a defensive option, like buffing AC, forcing rerolls, giving resistance/damage reduction etc. One notable difference here is reliability, putting a defense into play just works (for the most part), like healing.

Similarly, Haste boosts AC, but I consider it generally 'a buff' not a defensive spell, even though it unequivocally increases a PC's defenses at the same time.

[KorvinStarmast]

I saaw ye olde 'Hit Die size doesn't matter it's a rounding error' so I'm contractually obligated to add HD does matter in actual gameplay. Hit points matter and are the most thorough defense against death.



Oh I'm not debating that enemies being Slowed is good for the health of the PC and the team.

It's just me classifying features/spells. Slow is a debuff/crowd control, as opposed to something that is directly a defensive option, like buffing AC, forcing rerolls, giving resistance/damage reduction etc. One notable difference here is reliability, putting a defense into play just works (for the most part), like healing.

Similarly, Haste boosts AC, but I consider it generally 'a buff' not a defensive spell, even though it unequivocally increases a PC's defenses at the same time.

We are in violent agreement. What is wrong with us?

[Keltest]

Honestly, IMO, I don't think you'd break anything by literally doubling the slots available across the board for Warlock. They'd still be far behind the real casters and it would be a reasonable bump for a class that is historically low-powered (evidenced by the near constant suggestions that sticking with Warlock single-class for the long haul is generally considered a bad idea.)


But that would be dishonest.
The Warlock isn't a gish, but the Hexblade absolutely is. Much in the same way that the Fighter isn't a gish but the Eldritch Knight is, and the Wizard isn't a gish but the Bladesinger is.
(Edit: Unless you insist on the historical definition of "gish," in which case *nobody* qualifies, lol.)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "Warlock" is a gish, but suggesting that Hexblade isn't is... just inaccurate.

I disagree. The hexblade is not a gish because the warlock is not a full caster, or even a half caster. It can bridge the gap between the caster and melee parts really well, but doesn't bring the magic to be a gish on its own.