You are a bad DM if you play against your players. It's that simple.
Regarding whether wizard or warlock is better, it depends on what you want to play and how you want to play it. Everything has its pros and cons, and it depends on the role you want to fulfill.
You are not working against your players by having rests interrupted. You are more likely crafting a crappy ass story for your players if you let them take a rest whenever they want.
You are a bad DM if you play against your players. It's that simple.
Regarding whether wizard or warlock is better, it depends on what you want to play and how you want to play it. Everything has its pros and cons, and it depends on the role you want to fulfill.
You are not working against your players by having rests interrupted. You are more likely crafting a crappy ass story for your players if you let them take a rest whenever they want.
Ok, I think you are not getting it. The problem is not that you interrupt a rest from time to time. The problem is that you never let them take short rests. And to do so, you constantly interrupt their breaks which is what crzyhawk proposed, and from what I have told him that, if he does that, he is a lousy DM.
The game design calls for players to take short rests between long rests. Typically one or two. But the short rests are not abstract, they are narrative pauses that mechanically allow players to recover some of their resources before continuing. They are necessary, they must be done. But always under the right conditions. Neither should the DM allow players to abuse, nor should he systematically deny them. A good DM knows how he has to manage them, and when he can interrupt them or something to make the story interesting.
Also, the short rests give the players interesting role-playing oportunities. That bard who plays the lyre and sings while the barbarian, who is tending to his wounds, tells him to shut up the ******* mouth. Or the warrior who tells one of his many anecdotes as the Wizard flips through that strange book he has just found and realizes something important has been overlooked. Ultimately, they are an essential part of the game. If you systematically deny them because you want to screw players, you are an horrible DM.
At our table, my Warlock is performing much better than the party wizard. I think it really depends on the game, and what level the party is playing. I'm churning out damage much more consistently than all but the party ranger. And the wizard always seems to be on the edge of needing healing. Throw in that the Warlock is built to be the party Face, and the class just seems to more moments to shine.
As for the short rests; we generally always get one in per day, and maybe once we got a second one in. I can tell you one short rest per day has been plenty for my Warlock. But mileage on that will vary by campaign.
You are a bad DM if you play against your players. It's that simple.
Regarding whether wizard or warlock is better, it depends on what you want to play and how you want to play it. Everything has its pros and cons, and it depends on the role you want to fulfill.
You are not working against your players by having rests interrupted. You are more likely crafting a crappy ass story for your players if you let them take a rest whenever they want.
Ok, I think you are not getting it. The problem is not that you interrupt a rest from time to time. The problem is that you never let them take short rests. And to do so, you constantly interrupt their breaks which is what crzyhawk proposed, and from what I have told him that, if he does that, he is a lousy DM.
The game design calls for players to take short rests between long rests. Typically one or two. But the short rests are not abstract, they are narrative pauses that mechanically allow players to recover some of their resources before continuing. They are necessary, they must be done. But always under the right conditions. Neither should the DM allow players to abuse, nor should he systematically deny them. A good DM knows how he has to manage them, and when he can interrupt them or something to make the story interesting.
Also, the short rests give the players interesting role-playing oportunities. That bard who plays the lyre and sings while the barbarian, who is tending to his wounds, tells him to shut up the ****ing mouth. Or the warrior who tells one of his many anecdotes as the Wizard flips through that strange book he has just found and realizes something important has been overlooked. Ultimately, they are an essential part of the game. If you systematically deny them because you want to screw players, you are an horrible DM.
No one suggested you never can take short rests. The original poster on this suggested you can just take a short rest whenever you want. The person who responded said no, a DM can interrupt them. They didn't say, I'd never let someone take a short rest, just that the idea players can do it at any time is flawed. A hour is a long time in a dungeon or the middle of a raid. A hour isn't a long time to find while out on the road.
You are a bad DM if you play against your players. It's that simple.
Regarding whether wizard or warlock is better, it depends on what you want to play and how you want to play it. Everything has its pros and cons, and it depends on the role you want to fulfill.
You are not working against your players by having rests interrupted. You are more likely crafting a crappy ass story for your players if you let them take a rest whenever they want.
Ok, I think you are not getting it. The problem is not that you interrupt a rest from time to time. The problem is that you never let them take short rests. And to do so, you constantly interrupt their breaks which is what crzyhawk proposed, and from what I have told him that, if he does that, he is a lousy DM.
The game design calls for players to take short rests between long rests. Typically one or two. But the short rests are not abstract, they are narrative pauses that mechanically allow players to recover some of their resources before continuing. They are necessary, they must be done. But always under the right conditions. Neither should the DM allow players to abuse, nor should he systematically deny them. A good DM knows how he has to manage them, and when he can interrupt them or something to make the story interesting.
Also, the short rests give the players interesting role-playing oportunities. That bard who plays the lyre and sings while the barbarian, who is tending to his wounds, tells him to shut up the ****ing mouth. Or the warrior who tells one of his many anecdotes as the Wizard flips through that strange book he has just found and realizes something important has been overlooked. Ultimately, they are an essential part of the game. If you systematically deny them because you want to screw players, you are an horrible DM.
No one suggested you never can take short rests. The original poster on this suggested you can just take a short rest whenever you want. The person who responded said no, a DM can interrupt them. They didn't say, I'd never let someone take a short rest, just that the idea players can do it at any time is flawed. A hour is a long time in a dungeon or the middle of a raid. A hour isn't a long time to find while out on the road.
Thank you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You are a bad DM if you play against your players. It's that simple.
Regarding whether wizard or warlock is better, it depends on what you want to play and how you want to play it. Everything has its pros and cons, and it depends on the role you want to fulfill.
You are not working against your players by having rests interrupted. You are more likely crafting a crappy ass story for your players if you let them take a rest whenever they want.
Ok, I think you are not getting it. The problem is not that you interrupt a rest from time to time. The problem is that you never let them take short rests. And to do so, you constantly interrupt their breaks which is what crzyhawk proposed, and from what I have told him that, if he does that, he is a lousy DM.
The game design calls for players to take short rests between long rests. Typically one or two. But the short rests are not abstract, they are narrative pauses that mechanically allow players to recover some of their resources before continuing. They are necessary, they must be done. But always under the right conditions. Neither should the DM allow players to abuse, nor should he systematically deny them. A good DM knows how he has to manage them, and when he can interrupt them or something to make the story interesting.
Also, the short rests give the players interesting role-playing oportunities. That bard who plays the lyre and sings while the barbarian, who is tending to his wounds, tells him to shut up the ****ing mouth. Or the warrior who tells one of his many anecdotes as the Wizard flips through that strange book he has just found and realizes something important has been overlooked. Ultimately, they are an essential part of the game. If you systematically deny them because you want to screw players, you are an horrible DM.
No one suggested you never can take short rests. The original poster on this suggested you can just take a short rest whenever you want. The person who responded said no, a DM can interrupt them. They didn't say, I'd never let someone take a short rest, just that the idea players can do it at any time is flawed. A hour is a long time in a dungeon or the middle of a raid. A hour isn't a long time to find while out on the road.
Ok, so I had misunderstood. Yes, a DM has and must manage when characters can do their short rest. But come on, before getting to the point of having to attack them so they don't do it, I would talk to them and tell them why in that situation they can't do it. If not, it could reach the absurdity that someone proposed: I take a break, I attack you, I take rest again, I attack you again, etc ... That, frankly, would be a very bad game.
Short breaks should be relatively often, every 2ish encounters by the suggested guidelines. That being said Warlocks are a blast to play; hard hitting, survivable, versatile in ways a wizard just isn't. They are however very much specialists in that you pick the Invocations that support your intended playstyle and then excel in that role.
You kind of have to want to play a Warlock to run with one, they come with a host of interesting mechanics, advantages and constraints that Wizards don't have. They are a lot more fun once you embrace what they are rather than focus on what they are not.
In my opinion they are a joy to play and each build makes your character feel really distinct while for me playing Wizards was more like piloting your spellbook through encounters while hoping not to die.
I think people are losing sight of what the OP asked for: A utility caster and ranged DPR. The warlock excels at the latter...but it is not a utility caster. The OP didn't mention good, or control, he said ranged DPR and utility caster.
That's not a sale I can make. It's just NOT a good utility caster. I /prefer/ the warlock to the wizard, but as far as fitting the bill as both ranged and utility, the wizard is superior. But I'm not looking to play utility casters, either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You are a bad DM if you play against your players. It's that simple.
Regarding whether wizard or warlock is better, it depends on what you want to play and how you want to play it. Everything has its pros and cons, and it depends on the role you want to fulfill.
You are not working against your players by having rests interrupted. You are more likely crafting a crappy ass story for your players if you let them take a rest whenever they want.
Ok, I think you are not getting it. The problem is not that you interrupt a rest from time to time. The problem is that you never let them take short rests. And to do so, you constantly interrupt their breaks which is what crzyhawk proposed, and from what I have told him that, if he does that, he is a lousy DM.
The game design calls for players to take short rests between long rests. Typically one or two. But the short rests are not abstract, they are narrative pauses that mechanically allow players to recover some of their resources before continuing. They are necessary, they must be done. But always under the right conditions. Neither should the DM allow players to abuse, nor should he systematically deny them. A good DM knows how he has to manage them, and when he can interrupt them or something to make the story interesting.
Also, the short rests give the players interesting role-playing oportunities. That bard who plays the lyre and sings while the barbarian, who is tending to his wounds, tells him to shut up the ****ing mouth. Or the warrior who tells one of his many anecdotes as the Wizard flips through that strange book he has just found and realizes something important has been overlooked. Ultimately, they are an essential part of the game. If you systematically deny them because you want to screw players, you are an horrible DM.
No one suggested you never can take short rests. The original poster on this suggested you can just take a short rest whenever you want. The person who responded said no, a DM can interrupt them. They didn't say, I'd never let someone take a short rest, just that the idea players can do it at any time is flawed. A hour is a long time in a dungeon or the middle of a raid. A hour isn't a long time to find while out on the road.
Ok, so I had misunderstood. Yes, a DM has and must manage when characters can do their short rest. But come on, before getting to the point of having to attack them so they don't do it, I would talk to them and tell them why in that situation they can't do it. If not, it could reach the absurdity that someone proposed: I take a break, I attack you, I take rest again, I attack you again, etc ... That, frankly, would be a very bad game.
I would the first time. But eventually you got to let people make mistakes. And mistakes can be just as fun to play through as successes.
I think people are losing sight of what the OP asked for: A utility caster and ranged DPR. The warlock excels at the latter...but it is not a utility caster. The OP didn't mention good, or control, he said ranged DPR and utility caster.
That's not a sale I can make. It's just NOT a good utility caster. I /prefer/ the warlock to the wizard, but as far as fitting the bill as both ranged and utility, the wizard is superior. But I'm not looking to play utility casters, either.
I'm not even sure they excel at ranged DPR almost any martial with a bow focus will do better(though I guess hexlade can do it as well). Wizards I suspect in most games will beat them at DPR as well if they wanted to as from what I understand almost no one follows the 6-8 encounters a day guideline so wizards can always nova, though a wizard has better options than damage. What they are good at with the right invocations is DPR with control. a 20 foot shove especially while reducing the enemies movement by 10 is really dang useful if the party utilizes it. They have a charisma focus so they nail some social skills and with the right invocations they have some useful abilities like at will silent image, or change self. I'm not sure what role I'd put those in, its not really utility but with a creative player they can come in handy.
Not really. Eldritch Blast scales better than most bow users, and frankly, you can build a pretty damned good bowlock as well. Pact of the blade archer can do pretty much everything that a ranger can do for example, plus they can eldritch smite.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
A big point to warlocks is that they're versatile in their specialty. What I mean is that a warlock could be built to specialize in any role in a party, but a single warlock won't fill each role. Between their patron, pact, invocations, and spells, Warlocks are very customizable, much more so than many other classes.
A big point to warlocks is that they're versatile in their specialty. What I mean is that a warlock could be built to specialize in any role in a party, but a single warlock won't fill each role. Between their patron, pact, invocations, and spells, Warlocks are very customizable, much more so than many other classes.
This is something I completely agree with. The warlock is probably more customizale than any other class in how you want to play it. if can be good at anything, just not everything at the same time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Not really. Eldritch Blast scales better than most bow users, and frankly, you can build a pretty damned good bowlock as well. Pact of the blade archer can do pretty much everything that a ranger can do for example, plus they can eldritch smite.
The lack of a sharpshooter function with spells really diminishes them. A warlock running with hex/agonizing blast has baseline DPR almost any DPR focus will beat it. And yes, they can just go pack of the blade but any class with 1 extra attack can go bow focus like that, unlikely for some like barbarian who will heavy weapon it but a couple bard sub classes, fighter, ranger, paladin will all beat out ranged DPR of a lock or tie it if the lock goes pact of the blade. And yes sure if you are going to 20 or something the lock eventually gets 4 blasts, but that still usually isn't enough to make them high end ranged DPR and most games never get close to level 20, the lock will probably just enjoy their 3rd eldritch blast for a few sessions during the finale. A lot of people much better at math than me have run the numbers.
Only the fighter gets more bow shots, so only the fighter can straight out beat a sharpshooter bowlock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You are not working against your players by having rests interrupted. You are more likely crafting a crappy ass story for your players if you let them take a rest whenever they want.
I don't think so, but I don't think there is an explicit no, just my guess on the intent.
Ok, I think you are not getting it. The problem is not that you interrupt a rest from time to time. The problem is that you never let them take short rests. And to do so, you constantly interrupt their breaks which is what crzyhawk proposed, and from what I have told him that, if he does that, he is a lousy DM.
The game design calls for players to take short rests between long rests. Typically one or two. But the short rests are not abstract, they are narrative pauses that mechanically allow players to recover some of their resources before continuing. They are necessary, they must be done. But always under the right conditions. Neither should the DM allow players to abuse, nor should he systematically deny them. A good DM knows how he has to manage them, and when he can interrupt them or something to make the story interesting.
Also, the short rests give the players interesting role-playing oportunities. That bard who plays the lyre and sings while the barbarian, who is tending to his wounds, tells him to shut up the ******* mouth. Or the warrior who tells one of his many anecdotes as the Wizard flips through that strange book he has just found and realizes something important has been overlooked.
Ultimately, they are an essential part of the game. If you systematically deny them because you want to screw players, you are an horrible DM.
At our table, my Warlock is performing much better than the party wizard. I think it really depends on the game, and what level the party is playing. I'm churning out damage much more consistently than all but the party ranger. And the wizard always seems to be on the edge of needing healing. Throw in that the Warlock is built to be the party Face, and the class just seems to more moments to shine.
As for the short rests; we generally always get one in per day, and maybe once we got a second one in. I can tell you one short rest per day has been plenty for my Warlock. But mileage on that will vary by campaign.
No one suggested you never can take short rests. The original poster on this suggested you can just take a short rest whenever you want. The person who responded said no, a DM can interrupt them. They didn't say, I'd never let someone take a short rest, just that the idea players can do it at any time is flawed. A hour is a long time in a dungeon or the middle of a raid. A hour isn't a long time to find while out on the road.
Thank you.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Ok, so I had misunderstood. Yes, a DM has and must manage when characters can do their short rest. But come on, before getting to the point of having to attack them so they don't do it, I would talk to them and tell them why in that situation they can't do it. If not, it could reach the absurdity that someone proposed: I take a break, I attack you, I take rest again, I attack you again, etc ... That, frankly, would be a very bad game.
Short breaks should be relatively often, every 2ish encounters by the suggested guidelines. That being said Warlocks are a blast to play; hard hitting, survivable, versatile in ways a wizard just isn't. They are however very much specialists in that you pick the Invocations that support your intended playstyle and then excel in that role.
You kind of have to want to play a Warlock to run with one, they come with a host of interesting mechanics, advantages and constraints that Wizards don't have. They are a lot more fun once you embrace what they are rather than focus on what they are not.
In my opinion they are a joy to play and each build makes your character feel really distinct while for me playing Wizards was more like piloting your spellbook through encounters while hoping not to die.
Abide.
I think people are losing sight of what the OP asked for: A utility caster and ranged DPR. The warlock excels at the latter...but it is not a utility caster. The OP didn't mention good, or control, he said ranged DPR and utility caster.
That's not a sale I can make. It's just NOT a good utility caster. I /prefer/ the warlock to the wizard, but as far as fitting the bill as both ranged and utility, the wizard is superior. But I'm not looking to play utility casters, either.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I would the first time. But eventually you got to let people make mistakes. And mistakes can be just as fun to play through as successes.
I'm not even sure they excel at ranged DPR almost any martial with a bow focus will do better(though I guess hexlade can do it as well). Wizards I suspect in most games will beat them at DPR as well if they wanted to as from what I understand almost no one follows the 6-8 encounters a day guideline so wizards can always nova, though a wizard has better options than damage. What they are good at with the right invocations is DPR with control. a 20 foot shove especially while reducing the enemies movement by 10 is really dang useful if the party utilizes it. They have a charisma focus so they nail some social skills and with the right invocations they have some useful abilities like at will silent image, or change self. I'm not sure what role I'd put those in, its not really utility but with a creative player they can come in handy.
Not really. Eldritch Blast scales better than most bow users, and frankly, you can build a pretty damned good bowlock as well. Pact of the blade archer can do pretty much everything that a ranger can do for example, plus they can eldritch smite.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
A big point to warlocks is that they're versatile in their specialty. What I mean is that a warlock could be built to specialize in any role in a party, but a single warlock won't fill each role. Between their patron, pact, invocations, and spells, Warlocks are very customizable, much more so than many other classes.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond
This is something I completely agree with. The warlock is probably more customizale than any other class in how you want to play it. if can be good at anything, just not everything at the same time.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The lack of a sharpshooter function with spells really diminishes them. A warlock running with hex/agonizing blast has baseline DPR almost any DPR focus will beat it. And yes, they can just go pack of the blade but any class with 1 extra attack can go bow focus like that, unlikely for some like barbarian who will heavy weapon it but a couple bard sub classes, fighter, ranger, paladin will all beat out ranged DPR of a lock or tie it if the lock goes pact of the blade. And yes sure if you are going to 20 or something the lock eventually gets 4 blasts, but that still usually isn't enough to make them high end ranged DPR and most games never get close to level 20, the lock will probably just enjoy their 3rd eldritch blast for a few sessions during the finale. A lot of people much better at math than me have run the numbers.
Only the fighter gets more bow shots, so only the fighter can straight out beat a sharpshooter bowlock.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha