"Trust me everyone secretly hates their warlock" just does not feel like an especially compelling argument. The numbers just do not seem to bear that out and it does not seem to make sense to significantly change the class.
Streamlining it to clean up some bad/mandatory options? Absolutely. But when people start talking about breaking EB or getting rid of short rest mechanics it seems a bit silly when those are parts of the draw of the class.
Getting rid of short rest mechanics seems silly? WoTC has been gradually divorcing mechanics outside anything to do with spending Hit Dice from short rests. Also the short rest being the "draw of the class" is the same reason why the Monk's ki mechanic (which also refreshes on a short rest) has issues; it's entirely dependent on the DM handing out short rests. If the DM doesn't, or only does it sparingly, it defeats the purpose. The short rest is precisely the excuse why warlocks get only two to three spell slots at any given time, or why monks get limited ki, even though many of their class and subclass features require ki to function. And it turns out that that perception of balance is skewed.
Using anecdotes about how awesome you as a DM can personally make short rests doesn't mean that short rest mechanics haven't run into problems, and with how WoTC seems to be handling rest mechanics these days, they apparently have noticed this too.
Also eldritch blast being something people lean into hard in combat when they play the class, if they aren't playing Hexblade that is, is a known complaint. I don't have numbers on that, but it is something I've come across.
Repeat after me: the DM does not "hand out" short rests. The players choose when to take them.
And the DM can say no, or they can interrupt it. Granted, the same is true of long rests, but long rest mechanics are generally designed to go the long haul for a reason. And practically everyone in the party is in the same boat if a long rest becomes needed.
You're both arguing in favor of an arbitrary and capricious Dungeon Master. Why?
Because I have yet to observe anything other than one of these two things happening:
Players straight up asking the DM if they can take a short rest, to which the DM will say yes or no, or allow it with a catch
The DM simply stating outright that the party can take a short rest if they need to.
This is part of the reason btw that spells like leomund's tiny hut are so useful even for short rests, despite whatever type of DM you're playing with.
You're both arguing in favor of an arbitrary and capricious Dungeon Master. Why?
Because I have yet to observe anything other than one of these two things happening:
Players straight up asking the DM if they can take a short rest, to which the DM will say yes or no, or allow it with a catch
The DM simply stating outright that the party can take a short rest if they need to.
This is part of the reason btw that spells like leomund's tiny hut are so useful even for short rests, despite whatever type of DM you're playing with.
That reads like standard play, so why are you so set on being adversarial? First, it was verisimilitude. And we both know it was a bunk argument. So long as the game keeps acting like the world keeps spinning, the players can do what they want. It doesn't stop because they stop. And now, you seemingly can't trust the DM; despite literally acting as the referee they're supposed to.
I think you'e bringing baggage into this thread you've yet to disclose, and it's holding everyone back.
You're both arguing in favor of an arbitrary and capricious Dungeon Master. Why?
Because I have yet to observe anything other than one of these two things happening:
Players straight up asking the DM if they can take a short rest, to which the DM will say yes or no, or allow it with a catch
The DM simply stating outright that the party can take a short rest if they need to.
This is part of the reason btw that spells like leomund's tiny hut are so useful even for short rests, despite whatever type of DM you're playing with.
That reads like standard play, so why are you so set on being adversarial? First, it was verisimilitude. And we both know it was a bunk argument. So long as the game keeps acting like the world keeps spinning, the players can do what they want. It doesn't stop because they stop. And now, you seemingly can't trust the DM; despite literally acting as the referee they're supposed to.
I think you'e bringing baggage into this thread you've yet to disclose, and it's holding everyone back.
Being adversarial? Baggage? Holding everyone back?
What are you talking about?
I'm providing a possible reason for not only why some folks take issue with short rest class mechanics, but also why those kinds of mechanics in both classes and races seem to be showing up less and less in the actual game itself.
I have zero issues with the short rest mechanic itself. But tying important class features to it has had its challenges here and there, and that is why nowadays you rarely see it as the method by which class and even racial features refresh themselves. That is literally all I am pointing to.
No, you really haven't provided any sort of justification. Certainly not a reasonable one because, again, the DM doesn't decide when a Short Rest happens. And if a Short Rest were ever interrupted, because waiting around for an hour in a single place can be a lot to ask, then verisimilitude is maintained.
So the only justification you have is people are under using it for whatever reason. Maybe they don't want to, don't feel like they need to, or time isn't on their side. All of that is okay. And it's also okay for people to speak up and ask for one. The lines of communication should be open.
Looking over all 12 classes in the PHB, eight of them have a Short Rest feature by 3rd level. Barbarians get one at 11th level, and rogues and warlocks get theirs at 20th level. Only the ranger doesn't have one baked in anywhere in the core class. But two of its archetypes from Xanathar's (Horizon Walker and Monster Slayer) have Short Rest features. And Tasha's introduced Deft Explorer; which grants one at 10th level. So if players aren't looking for opportunities to take a Short Rest, they're actively hurting themselves.
Interruptions can happen, and that's okay. Once again, that tension is a source of drama. And it doesn't happen often. Maybe 10-20% of the time, if they're in a dangerous environment, and not every wandering monster is going to be hostile. Yes, you can have a random encounter that won't disrupt the short rest. And DMs should be cognizant of what their players can do. If someone is playing a monk with Deflect Missiles, let them be the target of missile attacks. Give them a chance to use it. Be friendly to the choices the players make.
But, more to the point, I cannot recall a single instance where you actually pointed out a reason for why the shift. And if you don't know, that's fine. It's a trend. But you don't have to posture here. It isn't the Short Rest that's the challenge.
The PHB, Xanathar's, and even Tasha's have been out for years now. Tasha's is the most recent, and it was released in 2020.
Also of course I don't actually know what led WoTC to reduce short rest dependence in game mechanics beyond using your Hit Dice. But you can speculate, and that is my speculation; they've received enough negative feedback about short rest-based mechanics in classes to shift gears and make those mechanics more consistently long rest-based.
Once again, I do not have a problem with the short rest mechanic. I do not have an issue with spending an hour recovering hit points using your Hit Dice. But I can see why tying key features to it like ki or pact magic or whatever else can be seen as a problem. Fighters use short rests to regain their Action Surge and Second Wind features, but you rarely (if ever) get any complaints about that because they generally don't live or die by those mechanics as a class. Same with wizards and the Arcane Recovery feature.
You're both arguing in favor of an arbitrary and capricious Dungeon Master. Why?
Because I have yet to observe anything other than one of these two things happening:
Players straight up asking the DM if they can take a short rest, to which the DM will say yes or no, or allow it with a catch
The DM simply stating outright that the party can take a short rest if they need to.
This is part of the reason btw that spells like leomund's tiny hut are so useful even for short rests, despite whatever type of DM you're playing with.
That reads like standard play, so why are you so set on being adversarial? First, it was verisimilitude. And we both know it was a bunk argument. So long as the game keeps acting like the world keeps spinning, the players can do what they want. It doesn't stop because they stop. And now, you seemingly can't trust the DM; despite literally acting as the referee they're supposed to.
I think you'e bringing baggage into this thread you've yet to disclose, and it's holding everyone back.
Meanwhile you are the most adversarial person on the forums. My argument was not bunk, you willfully misinterpreting everything for your straw man existence does not make something bunk.
The PHB, Xanathar's, and even Tasha's have been out for years now. Tasha's is the most recent, and it was released in 2020.
Also of course I don't actually know what led WoTC to reduce short rest dependence in game mechanics beyond using your Hit Dice. But you can speculate, and that is my speculation; they've received enough negative feedback about short rest-based mechanics in classes to shift gears and make those mechanics more consistently long rest-based.
Once again, I do not have a problem with the short rest mechanic. I do not have an issue with spending an hour recovering hit points using your Hit Dice. But I can see why tying key features to it like ki or pact magic or whatever else can be seen as a problem. Fighters use short rests to regain their Action Surge and Second Wind features, but you rarely (if ever) get any complaints about that because they generally don't live or die by those mechanics as a class. Same with wizards and the Arcane Recovery feature.
It is based on the reality of gameplay, the short rest mechanic was balanced under an assumption of 6-8 encounters with 3-4 short rests a day, so the monk would have all their Ki for 2-3 fights maintaining that level and long rest classes would have to spread theirs over 6-8 fights, overall though per encounter they would normally have the same power.
That does not happen in play, there are less fights and when it matters people know they can't really get the short rest in. Either it gets interrupted or a story event negatively impacts them for taking that rest, or the DM lets it happen but verisimilitude is damaged. This brings two negative things into play in balancing the classes.
1. Long rest classes having less encounters per day can unleash a larger amount of power per encounter as was balanced for, short rest classes are basically exactly where they were when they get the short rests as designed.
2. They frequently can't get the short rests as designed and are out of even more power at climatic moments of play, or they reserved it all for the climatic encounter and the previous 3 fights they were just basic attacking all day meanwhile again the long rest classes were not negatively impacted at all and are working as intended having their tools to play with.
You're both arguing in favor of an arbitrary and capricious Dungeon Master. Why?
Because I have yet to observe anything other than one of these two things happening:
Players straight up asking the DM if they can take a short rest, to which the DM will say yes or no, or allow it with a catch
The DM simply stating outright that the party can take a short rest if they need to.
This is part of the reason btw that spells like leomund's tiny hut are so useful even for short rests, despite whatever type of DM you're playing with.
That reads like standard play, so why are you so set on being adversarial? First, it was verisimilitude. And we both know it was a bunk argument. So long as the game keeps acting like the world keeps spinning, the players can do what they want. It doesn't stop because they stop. And now, you seemingly can't trust the DM; despite literally acting as the referee they're supposed to.
I think you'e bringing baggage into this thread you've yet to disclose, and it's holding everyone back.
Meanwhile you are the most adversarial person on the forums. My argument was not bunk, you willfully misinterpreting everything for your straw man existence does not make something bunk.
Adversarial? Maybe. I'm challenging peoples (mis)conceptions. Ill-informed opinions are self-serving. They aren't actually helpful. And considering you've yet to convince me you actually know what verisimilitude means, I'm going to stand by my earlier claim. The players decide when to take a Short Rest, and the DM can maintain verisimilitude so long as the game continues to act around them while they rest.
It is based on the reality of gameplay, the short rest mechanic was balanced under an assumption of 6-8 encounters with 3-4 short rests a day, so the monk would have all their Ki for 2-3 fights maintaining that level and long rest classes would have to spread theirs over 6-8 fights, overall though per encounter they would normally have the same power.
Incorrect, and a common misconception.
The Adventuring Day
Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.
In the same way you figure out the difficulty of an encounter, you can use the XP values of monsters and other opponents in an adventure as a guideline for how far the party is likely to progress.
For each character in the party, use the Adventuring Day XP table to estimate how much XP that character is expected to earn in a day. Add together the values of all party members to get a total for the party’s adventuring day. This provides a rough estimate of the adjusted XP value for encounters the party can handle before the characters will need to take a long rest.
That does not mean they're supposed to have that many encounters per day. Nor does it mean each encounter is supposed to be a fight. There are exploration and social encounters, and there are guidelines for how much experience to award for those challenges. And there's no guidance on how often a Short Rest should be. I personally estimate it at 2-3, which would be one for every two encounters, and I think it's safe to assume everyone is supposed to get at least one per day.
Using anecdotes about how awesome you as a DM can personally make short rests doesn't mean that short rest mechanics haven't run into problems
Couldn't you say the same about your own anecdotes and personal perceptions about shot rest mechanics? Because your own comments have largely just been about the things you don't like about short rests. Which is fine, but if you're going to say anecdotes aren't good then both have to get thrown out and all we're left with are the numbers.
Numbers that say Warlocks are reasonably popular, and in fact have only been growing in popularity over the game's lifespan (which undermines to some extent the assertion that people get 'tricked' into playing Warlocks only to discover how bad they are later on, because all of these issues have been around since the PHB).
Again, that doesn't mean the warlock is perfect or shouldn't be changed, but changes should be aimed at streamlining what is one of the game's better classes, not turning it into a variant Wizard.
Using anecdotes about how awesome you as a DM can personally make short rests doesn't mean that short rest mechanics haven't run into problems
Couldn't you say the same about your own anecdotes and personal perceptions about shot rest mechanics? Because your own comments have largely just been about the things you don't like about short rests. Which is fine, but if you're going to say anecdotes aren't good then both have to get thrown out and all we're left with are the numbers.
Numbers that say Warlocks are reasonably popular, and in fact have only been growing in popularity over the game's lifespan (which undermines to some extent the assertion that people get 'tricked' into playing Warlocks only to discover how bad they are later on, because all of these issues have been around since the PHB).
Again, that doesn't mean the warlock is perfect or shouldn't be changed, but changes should be aimed at streamlining what is one of the game's better classes, not turning it into a variant Wizard.
I think there's some confusion about my personal situation, so I'll clear it up now.
I never was on this crusade against warlocks recovering their spell slots on a short rest. If anything, I liked the idea behind their spellcasting being limited, as long as they had something to compensate for it, but I wasn't really satisfied with how Pact of the Blade was handled and I definitely think the invocations could have been handled better, though I still like the invocations as a thing warlocks can do.
I also definitely think eldritch blast could have been handled better than it was. Not in terms of power, but in terms of how it's perceived to be something you kinda have to take (along with Agonizing Blast), lest you depower yourself.
What really brought my attention to how short rest-recharge mechanics might have an issue was the monk and how ki seems to restrict the class. That plus this recent trend of short rest recharges appearing with less frequency led me to re-evaluate the value of having pact magic remain as a short rest recharge mechanic itself.
You're both arguing in favor of an arbitrary and capricious Dungeon Master. Why?
Life itself is arbitrary and capricious. It all depends on the attitude at the table and how much DM is putting into describing the environment. If the DM doesn't want to bother evoking an atmosphere of urgency and danger, it's okay if players ask if they can have short rest or not. In this way, they're actually asking whether their characters can tell if it's safe enough to have a short rest. That way, the DM won't have to spend time describing noises from somewhere in the tunnel, the feeling of dread, the still warm bedrolls, etc.
Looking over all 12 classes in the PHB, eight of them have a Short Rest feature by 3rd level. Barbarians get one at 11th level, and rogues and warlocks get theirs at 20th level.
Why are you glossing over the fact that some classes rely on short rest much heavier than others? Are you not familiar with it, or you're just omitting it for the sake of winning argument points?
Using anecdotes about how awesome you as a DM can personally make short rests doesn't mean that short rest mechanics haven't run into problems
Couldn't you say the same about your own anecdotes and personal perceptions about shot rest mechanics? Because your own comments have largely just been about the things you don't like about short rests. Which is fine, but if you're going to say anecdotes aren't good then both have to get thrown out and all we're left with are the numbers.
Numbers that say Warlocks are reasonably popular, and in fact have only been growing in popularity over the game's lifespan (which undermines to some extent the assertion that people get 'tricked' into playing Warlocks only to discover how bad they are later on, because all of these issues have been around since the PHB).
Again, that doesn't mean the warlock is perfect or shouldn't be changed, but changes should be aimed at streamlining what is one of the game's better classes, not turning it into a variant Wizard.
After thinking on it since my last response, I have a few questions regarding the numbers. How many of those people don't multiclass Warlock with another class? How many of them don't take 1 to 3 levels of the class before going off into a different class, either for optimization reasons or because they simply didn't want to go any further with warlock? And how many of them played a subclass other than Hexblade?
You're both arguing in favor of an arbitrary and capricious Dungeon Master. Why?
Life itself is arbitrary and capricious. It all depends on the attitude at the table and how much DM is putting into describing the environment. If the DM doesn't want to bother evoking an atmosphere of urgency and danger, it's okay if players ask if they can have short rest or not. In this way, they're actually asking whether their characters can tell if it's safe enough to have a short rest. That way, the DM won't have to spend time describing noises from somewhere in the tunnel, the feeling of dread, the still warm bedrolls, etc.
Looking over all 12 classes in the PHB, eight of them have a Short Rest feature by 3rd level. Barbarians get one at 11th level, and rogues and warlocks get theirs at 20th level.
Why are you glossing over the fact that some classes rely on short rest much heavier than others? Are you not familiar with it, or you're just omitting it for the sake of winning argument points?
You read like a nihilist who doesn't want to actually roleplay in a roleplaying game. Players shouldn't be asking if it's okay, and the DM should be painting the picture regardless. Players decide, in character, what to do based on information from the DM. I feel sorry for you, if that's not your experience. Just because the big, wide world can be callous and uncaring doesn't mean the game table should be. People should care enough to put some work in. You get out of the experience what you put into it.
And I'm not glossing over anything. The sheer fact that so many classes have a reason to take a Short Rest so early is indicative of how prevalent they should be. One of them, the bard, is explicitly for making your Short Rest better. Everyone can recover hit points. And as for the key features by 3rd-level...
Channel Divinity (for clerics and paladins, so two classes)
Wild Shape
Second Wind and Action Surge
Ki Points
Arcane Recovery
Pact Magic
The idea that people shouldn't be taking a Short Rest, intentionally gimping their capabilities throughout the day, is insane. Even just one of those is enough of a reason to take a Short Rest.
So far, I have not seen anyone actually claim that no-one should take short rests.
The crux of that side of the argument is that short rests are not always a given and are generally too unreliable to base critical class features on, and whether or not those class features that rely on it exist doesn't really erase the existence of that issue.
Ultimately, we'll see if warlocks continue to use short rests to recover their pact slots (assuming they still have pact slots) in One D&D, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if they don't.
Warlocks have to be CHA based. They tried doing INT/CON in 4e, and people demanded INT/CHA until they got said charisma powers. They tried doing INT in playtest for 5e, people wanted CHA. Two editions of attempting INT warlocks didn't work.
3e introduced warlock (book), hexblade (blade) and binder (chain) classes. 4e mixed them into the Infernal pact, Fey pact and Vestige/Gloom pact, then added Star pact. They really should have all four pacts as patrons in the 5.5 core along with the three pact boons.
Short rest based classes don't really work; the arguements about that are everywhere in this thread. Pact magic really needs to be revised.
Invocations are in as much need of revision as Pact Magic, especialy in the core book. Putting a level 9 restriction on Jump, a level 1 spell, of all things is insane; games are either ending at that point, or people are getting things like flying brooms. Limiting spells like Bane or Slow to once a day plus a rare invocation was just too costly; Mearls actually commented once he thought letting warlocks cast them more than once a day was too powerful and was surprised at how many people disagreed.
We were promised at will invocations, and gating even the simplest behind a high level cap is just outrageous. I also think that pact-form invocations need to take more after Tasha - I like the idea of book warlocks being more about signed names in the book than about ritualists, and talisman'locks having their own personal genie lamp (or otherwise sealed evil in a can).
The current warlock does not live up to the class fantasy of being a warlock for many people. If you ask a random person about a fiendish warlock, they would think about hellfire, demon summoning, maybe curses (thank you, Warcraft), soul sacrifices, and edgy, spooky magic in general. Instead, we have a neutral energy blast, maybe an imp if you pick the right things with actual fiend summons near the end of most people's play cycles, no delving into things Man Was Not To Know, one itty bitty hex spell. They need to double down. I mean, heck, at first they were expecting you to use elementals instead of fiends even, and not even Conjure minor elementals. No, had to wait til level 9 to summon an elemental once a day. That is way too late.
D&D needs to stop being afraid of giving people things like not-crappy poison or otherwise dark/edgy abilities. People shouludn't have to wait so long to fulfill one of the most basics of class tropes.
I like the idea of making Eldritch Blast a class ability. Not because of multiclass shinanigans, but because its a more elegant solution for making the blade pact work. Rather than making a general weapon, you make a weapon out of eldritch blast energy and use it. Combine with feats, upgrade with invocations. Eldritch blast should be flexible enough to feel like its a reflection of a sentient weapon as a Patron, or that you're using it with hellfire with a fiend patron, or whatever patron you have. It should be flexible. Making it a class feature also helps remove these invocation tax abilities, like agonizing blast or Extra Attack, or MAD issues. They are built in.
I mean, 3e and 4e both allowed eldritch blast to come in blade form. Eldritch Glaive and Eldritch Claw were both melee invocations in 3e, and 4e eldritch blade was an at will cantrip for warlock. 4e Essentials hexblade variant summoned various weapons to use, not used magic items.
Concentration hurts gishes. Hexblades want to use hex and blades together. You shouldn't need a feat tax for enhancing Concentration to get to play the very class the current warlock is based on. I get needing to prevent CoDzilla, but Hex and Hunter's Mark are too far - they're meant to be used in melee, not someone adverse to melee.
The overwhelming majority of spells that are on the warlock list and not the wizard are first level spells. You have two attack cantrips, six first level spells, one bardic spell shared at level 2, one level 3 spell, one level 4 spell. Curiously, you could break these down by patron. Hellish rebuke and Armor of Agathys are fiendish, Hex and Entrance are fey themed spells, Arms and Hunger of Hadar are clearly lovecraftian references, Shadow of Moil (necrotic version of the wizard spell Fire Shield) was clearly made for the Shadowfell inspired Hexblade.
These spells were all balanced against other spells of the appropriate level and, much like 1st level spells don't level well once you hit mid levels, these unique warlock spells also didn't grow well despite that being the very thing pact magic was supposed to do. Given how the new Arcane/Primal/Divine lists work, its very unlikely that the devs will want to give full casters access to spells that grow like the Pact Magic needs them to.
One last thing that I also got really annoyed with. Patrons designed with a specific Blade/Book/Chain in mind. Like, you can literally see how the fiendish patron, along with the fiendish themed spells, really encourage you to hit the front lines, getting THP to thorn tank hits while dishing damage out in melee. I really hate that. If you're going to make blade, book and chain different options from your Patron, then don't make the Patrons obviously biased towards one of the three. They should all be openly flexible irregardless of other choices.
One last thing to consider. I think its likely that warlock will become a half-caster in the future without Pact Magic. Why? Artificer is one, and they work well with their totally-not-Invocations. Because the half-casters all have pet options (chain familiars, companions, mounts, golems / homoculi). Going half caster would allow the warlock to focus on their unique spells in the same way that rangers and paladins can focus on their smites and marks. We're alreadyy used to the hexblade and eldritch blast being considered core, so this lets us double down and make even more variety for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Getting rid of short rest mechanics seems silly? WoTC has been gradually divorcing mechanics outside anything to do with spending Hit Dice from short rests. Also the short rest being the "draw of the class" is the same reason why the Monk's ki mechanic (which also refreshes on a short rest) has issues; it's entirely dependent on the DM handing out short rests. If the DM doesn't, or only does it sparingly, it defeats the purpose. The short rest is precisely the excuse why warlocks get only two to three spell slots at any given time, or why monks get limited ki, even though many of their class and subclass features require ki to function. And it turns out that that perception of balance is skewed.
Using anecdotes about how awesome you as a DM can personally make short rests doesn't mean that short rest mechanics haven't run into problems, and with how WoTC seems to be handling rest mechanics these days, they apparently have noticed this too.
Also eldritch blast being something people lean into hard in combat when they play the class, if they aren't playing Hexblade that is, is a known complaint. I don't have numbers on that, but it is something I've come across.
Repeat after me: the DM does not "hand out" short rests. The players choose when to take them.
And the DM can say no, or they can interrupt it. Granted, the same is true of long rests, but long rest mechanics are generally designed to go the long haul for a reason. And practically everyone in the party is in the same boat if a long rest becomes needed.
Then DM decides whether it's interrupted or not.
You're both arguing in favor of an arbitrary and capricious Dungeon Master. Why?
Because I have yet to observe anything other than one of these two things happening:
This is part of the reason btw that spells like leomund's tiny hut are so useful even for short rests, despite whatever type of DM you're playing with.
That reads like standard play, so why are you so set on being adversarial? First, it was verisimilitude. And we both know it was a bunk argument. So long as the game keeps acting like the world keeps spinning, the players can do what they want. It doesn't stop because they stop. And now, you seemingly can't trust the DM; despite literally acting as the referee they're supposed to.
I think you'e bringing baggage into this thread you've yet to disclose, and it's holding everyone back.
Being adversarial? Baggage? Holding everyone back?
What are you talking about?
I'm providing a possible reason for not only why some folks take issue with short rest class mechanics, but also why those kinds of mechanics in both classes and races seem to be showing up less and less in the actual game itself.
I have zero issues with the short rest mechanic itself. But tying important class features to it has had its challenges here and there, and that is why nowadays you rarely see it as the method by which class and even racial features refresh themselves. That is literally all I am pointing to.
No, you really haven't provided any sort of justification. Certainly not a reasonable one because, again, the DM doesn't decide when a Short Rest happens. And if a Short Rest were ever interrupted, because waiting around for an hour in a single place can be a lot to ask, then verisimilitude is maintained.
So the only justification you have is people are under using it for whatever reason. Maybe they don't want to, don't feel like they need to, or time isn't on their side. All of that is okay. And it's also okay for people to speak up and ask for one. The lines of communication should be open.
Looking over all 12 classes in the PHB, eight of them have a Short Rest feature by 3rd level. Barbarians get one at 11th level, and rogues and warlocks get theirs at 20th level. Only the ranger doesn't have one baked in anywhere in the core class. But two of its archetypes from Xanathar's (Horizon Walker and Monster Slayer) have Short Rest features. And Tasha's introduced Deft Explorer; which grants one at 10th level. So if players aren't looking for opportunities to take a Short Rest, they're actively hurting themselves.
Interruptions can happen, and that's okay. Once again, that tension is a source of drama. And it doesn't happen often. Maybe 10-20% of the time, if they're in a dangerous environment, and not every wandering monster is going to be hostile. Yes, you can have a random encounter that won't disrupt the short rest. And DMs should be cognizant of what their players can do. If someone is playing a monk with Deflect Missiles, let them be the target of missile attacks. Give them a chance to use it. Be friendly to the choices the players make.
But, more to the point, I cannot recall a single instance where you actually pointed out a reason for why the shift. And if you don't know, that's fine. It's a trend. But you don't have to posture here. It isn't the Short Rest that's the challenge.
The PHB, Xanathar's, and even Tasha's have been out for years now. Tasha's is the most recent, and it was released in 2020.
Also of course I don't actually know what led WoTC to reduce short rest dependence in game mechanics beyond using your Hit Dice. But you can speculate, and that is my speculation; they've received enough negative feedback about short rest-based mechanics in classes to shift gears and make those mechanics more consistently long rest-based.
Once again, I do not have a problem with the short rest mechanic. I do not have an issue with spending an hour recovering hit points using your Hit Dice. But I can see why tying key features to it like ki or pact magic or whatever else can be seen as a problem. Fighters use short rests to regain their Action Surge and Second Wind features, but you rarely (if ever) get any complaints about that because they generally don't live or die by those mechanics as a class. Same with wizards and the Arcane Recovery feature.
Meanwhile you are the most adversarial person on the forums. My argument was not bunk, you willfully misinterpreting everything for your straw man existence does not make something bunk.
It is based on the reality of gameplay, the short rest mechanic was balanced under an assumption of 6-8 encounters with 3-4 short rests a day, so the monk would have all their Ki for 2-3 fights maintaining that level and long rest classes would have to spread theirs over 6-8 fights, overall though per encounter they would normally have the same power.
That does not happen in play, there are less fights and when it matters people know they can't really get the short rest in. Either it gets interrupted or a story event negatively impacts them for taking that rest, or the DM lets it happen but verisimilitude is damaged. This brings two negative things into play in balancing the classes.
1. Long rest classes having less encounters per day can unleash a larger amount of power per encounter as was balanced for, short rest classes are basically exactly where they were when they get the short rests as designed.
2. They frequently can't get the short rests as designed and are out of even more power at climatic moments of play, or they reserved it all for the climatic encounter and the previous 3 fights they were just basic attacking all day meanwhile again the long rest classes were not negatively impacted at all and are working as intended having their tools to play with.
Adversarial? Maybe. I'm challenging peoples (mis)conceptions. Ill-informed opinions are self-serving. They aren't actually helpful. And considering you've yet to convince me you actually know what verisimilitude means, I'm going to stand by my earlier claim. The players decide when to take a Short Rest, and the DM can maintain verisimilitude so long as the game continues to act around them while they rest.
Incorrect, and a common misconception.
That does not mean they're supposed to have that many encounters per day. Nor does it mean each encounter is supposed to be a fight. There are exploration and social encounters, and there are guidelines for how much experience to award for those challenges. And there's no guidance on how often a Short Rest should be. I personally estimate it at 2-3, which would be one for every two encounters, and I think it's safe to assume everyone is supposed to get at least one per day.
Couldn't you say the same about your own anecdotes and personal perceptions about shot rest mechanics? Because your own comments have largely just been about the things you don't like about short rests. Which is fine, but if you're going to say anecdotes aren't good then both have to get thrown out and all we're left with are the numbers.
Numbers that say Warlocks are reasonably popular, and in fact have only been growing in popularity over the game's lifespan (which undermines to some extent the assertion that people get 'tricked' into playing Warlocks only to discover how bad they are later on, because all of these issues have been around since the PHB).
Again, that doesn't mean the warlock is perfect or shouldn't be changed, but changes should be aimed at streamlining what is one of the game's better classes, not turning it into a variant Wizard.
I think there's some confusion about my personal situation, so I'll clear it up now.
I never was on this crusade against warlocks recovering their spell slots on a short rest. If anything, I liked the idea behind their spellcasting being limited, as long as they had something to compensate for it, but I wasn't really satisfied with how Pact of the Blade was handled and I definitely think the invocations could have been handled better, though I still like the invocations as a thing warlocks can do.
I also definitely think eldritch blast could have been handled better than it was. Not in terms of power, but in terms of how it's perceived to be something you kinda have to take (along with Agonizing Blast), lest you depower yourself.
What really brought my attention to how short rest-recharge mechanics might have an issue was the monk and how ki seems to restrict the class. That plus this recent trend of short rest recharges appearing with less frequency led me to re-evaluate the value of having pact magic remain as a short rest recharge mechanic itself.
Life itself is arbitrary and capricious. It all depends on the attitude at the table and how much DM is putting into describing the environment. If the DM doesn't want to bother evoking an atmosphere of urgency and danger, it's okay if players ask if they can have short rest or not. In this way, they're actually asking whether their characters can tell if it's safe enough to have a short rest. That way, the DM won't have to spend time describing noises from somewhere in the tunnel, the feeling of dread, the still warm bedrolls, etc.
Why are you glossing over the fact that some classes rely on short rest much heavier than others? Are you not familiar with it, or you're just omitting it for the sake of winning argument points?
After thinking on it since my last response, I have a few questions regarding the numbers. How many of those people don't multiclass Warlock with another class? How many of them don't take 1 to 3 levels of the class before going off into a different class, either for optimization reasons or because they simply didn't want to go any further with warlock? And how many of them played a subclass other than Hexblade?
You read like a nihilist who doesn't want to actually roleplay in a roleplaying game. Players shouldn't be asking if it's okay, and the DM should be painting the picture regardless. Players decide, in character, what to do based on information from the DM. I feel sorry for you, if that's not your experience. Just because the big, wide world can be callous and uncaring doesn't mean the game table should be. People should care enough to put some work in. You get out of the experience what you put into it.
And I'm not glossing over anything. The sheer fact that so many classes have a reason to take a Short Rest so early is indicative of how prevalent they should be. One of them, the bard, is explicitly for making your Short Rest better. Everyone can recover hit points. And as for the key features by 3rd-level...
The idea that people shouldn't be taking a Short Rest, intentionally gimping their capabilities throughout the day, is insane. Even just one of those is enough of a reason to take a Short Rest.
So far, I have not seen anyone actually claim that no-one should take short rests.
The crux of that side of the argument is that short rests are not always a given and are generally too unreliable to base critical class features on, and whether or not those class features that rely on it exist doesn't really erase the existence of that issue.
Ultimately, we'll see if warlocks continue to use short rests to recover their pact slots (assuming they still have pact slots) in One D&D, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if they don't.
Some thoughts on the warlock:
Invocations are in as much need of revision as Pact Magic, especialy in the core book. Putting a level 9 restriction on Jump, a level 1 spell, of all things is insane; games are either ending at that point, or people are getting things like flying brooms. Limiting spells like Bane or Slow to once a day plus a rare invocation was just too costly; Mearls actually commented once he thought letting warlocks cast them more than once a day was too powerful and was surprised at how many people disagreed.
We were promised at will invocations, and gating even the simplest behind a high level cap is just outrageous. I also think that pact-form invocations need to take more after Tasha - I like the idea of book warlocks being more about signed names in the book than about ritualists, and talisman'locks having their own personal genie lamp (or otherwise sealed evil in a can).
D&D needs to stop being afraid of giving people things like not-crappy poison or otherwise dark/edgy abilities. People shouludn't have to wait so long to fulfill one of the most basics of class tropes.
I mean, 3e and 4e both allowed eldritch blast to come in blade form. Eldritch Glaive and Eldritch Claw were both melee invocations in 3e, and 4e eldritch blade was an at will cantrip for warlock. 4e Essentials hexblade variant summoned various weapons to use, not used magic items.
These spells were all balanced against other spells of the appropriate level and, much like 1st level spells don't level well once you hit mid levels, these unique warlock spells also didn't grow well despite that being the very thing pact magic was supposed to do. Given how the new Arcane/Primal/Divine lists work, its very unlikely that the devs will want to give full casters access to spells that grow like the Pact Magic needs them to.
One last thing to consider. I think its likely that warlock will become a half-caster in the future without Pact Magic. Why? Artificer is one, and they work well with their totally-not-Invocations. Because the half-casters all have pet options (chain familiars, companions, mounts, golems / homoculi). Going half caster would allow the warlock to focus on their unique spells in the same way that rangers and paladins can focus on their smites and marks. We're alreadyy used to the hexblade and eldritch blast being considered core, so this lets us double down and make even more variety for them.