As much as some insist, short rest are a fundamental part of the adventure narrative. Even if there were no mechanical effect, in my games they would exist. In fact, I can't conceive of an adventure game in which the characters don't stop for a moment to rest. I've always done it that way, since I started playing D&D at the age of 8. At that time there were neither short rest nor long rest. But obviously, out of pure common sense, the adventurers slept, ate, and took a moment to sit and talk to each other, etc...
Beyond that, one thing must be clear: Pact magic is not coming back. The warlock fixes will be being a half caster. Don't spend time and energy claiming pact magic back because that's not going to happen.
Don't disagree with this but the hour is what hangs people up. I look it like when I go on a long hike, do I sometimes stop for an hour sure but that is more for aesthetics, we got to the top of half dome, we made it to lake X I'm going to enjoy it. But when I stop for a short rest, its usually 5-10 minutes, of me eating some jerky, drinking some water while sitting on a rock and then I get back to hiking.
This seems like a weird counter. Does your DM actually make you wait a full hour in real time or something? Unless there's a planned or random encounter during that time, a short rest eats up maybe 5 minutes of table time.
I like that a short rest costs something without being too costly. An hour feels right; it's literally a fraction of the time of a long rest but a good number of classes get something back for the time resting.
Read the posts from Yurei. A hour is hard to find apparently. And admittedly in a lot of scenarios it does not make sense. It does not have to be a planned random encounter, but in less secure areas yeah something will likely come across you in a hour. While wondering the forest, hey have it take a hour, while going through the caves of chaos the orcs form a couple rooms over might wonder by and likely would. 5 minutes though, the warlock can get that while the people with perception/investigation skills search the aftermath in the room.
Sure. I've been following this thread. Sometimes you can get a short rest in. Sometimes you can't. Same with the long rest (especially with the new UA rules about it, which I like). I mean: adventuring is a perilous, unpredictable business.
But unless your DM is a complete d**k, you're going to get at least one or two short rests in a day, the most extreme circumstances excepted. I'm not going to repeat all the arguments/points made, but I remain unconvinced that an adventuring party - especially once they have access to spells like tiny hut - can't manage to get at least one short rest in a day.
I'm willing to roll with that its a common enough problem it should be looked into. And really is there a big problem with going back to 5-10 minutes for the rest. Maybe add some limit to the number of short rests possible in a day, but why keep it an hour if its causing issues even if at only like 10% of the tables. Whether they are just loud or more common than we'd think they apparently have been getting this complaint for a while.
"If you have ten minutes in a dungeon, you have an hour."
"If you have an hour in a dungeon, you have eight hours."
"But Yurei!" the people who hate any/all changes to anything and everything in R5e and who violently protest every single One D&D playtest document until they get thrown out with the intent of sabotaging the entire 2024 redux effort and forcing Wizards to just keep producing stale and uninteresting R5e content forever instead say, "doesn't that mean that ten minutes and eight hours are the same thing?!"
Why yes, it does. Either you are in a secure and defensible enough position in combination with a complete and utter lack of objectives to pursue that you can take as much time as you feel like to sit around doing fuggall, or you are either not secure/defensible enough or possessed of an objective that actually matters and thus cannot sit on your hindus doing fuggall for any amount of time without endangering said objectives. Or your own corpuses.
This should not be an alien concept to people. Either time exists or it doesn't. if time doesn't exist in your game, great I guess. Short rest three hundred and forty two times per adventuring day and have at it. If time does exist, short resting three hundred and forty two times per adventuring day is a great way to make sure you don't have enough time left to actually play D&D.
Now, as to Yurei’s point, I disagree. I personally don’t see any problem with short rest dependent classes mixing with long rest dependent classes. It’s not a problem for me personally, nor at the tables at which I play. Do the short rest classes occasionally have to make their resources stretch because they don’t get a second short rest in a day? Yes, absolutely. Do the long rest dependent classes have to occasionally make their resources stretch because there’s no time to, as Yurei would put it “faff off” for 8 hours and only have time for another short rest? Yes, absolutely. So it all comes out in a wash in the long run.
In addition, they could make warlocks a long rest class and still keep them as having fewer slots that automatically scale to max level as they do now. Simply triple their number of slots and make them recharge on a long rest. Fin. Fix the spells so that more of them upgrade when upcast. Add more utility spells to the list of Eldritch Invocations. Don’t just make them sad, pathetic half-casters with nothing else going for them, it’s undignified.
Finally, my dear friend Yurei is prone to excessive bouts of extreme hyperbole. It was that hyperbole I was commenting on, not their underlying point. Notice, I hadn’t contradicted their point, just called them out on a fib and some “exaggerated truths.” Basically, I was just keeping them honest. I wasn’t arguing against their underlying point, so your supporting it “against” me is both useless, and unnecessary. It was their blatant exaggerations I was refuting, nothing more.
Have I made things clear enough yet?
"It's not a problem at my tables" is not an argument, it's just Personal Incredulity Fallacy. The designers have clearly seen and heard about this issue across way more tables, even if you haven't. I'll quote Jeremy Crawford directly here:
"One of the main points of dissatisfaction in Warlock feedback we've gotten for years is how few spell slots a Warlock gets, and then the fact that getting those spell slots back was tied to the short rest, which in many campaigns was hard to have, because not every group takes short rests or sometimes it's difficult to pull off - and that meant you had the Warlock, one of the only classes in the game who had a key resource that they needed short rests for."
So disagree with Yurei's point all you like, that makes it no less valid. And the fact that you disagree with it/"personally don't see any problem with short rest dependent classes mixing with long rest dependent classes" (am I still 'putting words in your mouth,' or did you not type this exactly in the above quote?) is cause for me to debate what you're saying.
And yes, I'm well aware of Yurei's propensity for hyperbole; I don't give a flying firbolg about that. I'm debating your viewpoint on the design of the class and the need for it to have changed. Hopefully we're both clear now.
Yurei, I appreciate you and was especially appreciative of your POV during the OGL catastrophe. But I find posts like your most recent one incredibly unhelpful. Not everything is one extreme or another, and you can't group everyone into groups that embrace every and all changes or those awful muggles who want nothing to change.
I've liked a LOT of the changes proposed in the UA for 1D&D. I've been neutral on a fair amount. And there are some I think are just flat out terrible. Am I one of those sludgy troglodytes who resists change at every turn?
Per PsyrenXY: I'd be open to a reduction in time needed for short rests along with a hard limit, stated clearly in the rules, about the max number of short rests a character can take a day. If that means making short rests 5 minutes, that's fine.
A question to the diehards pact magic: Do you really think it's so bad that the warlock is a half caster, or is it just that pact magic seems better to you?
I like pact magic, I have played many warlocks and it has never seemed like a bad system to me. However, I also like this warlock half caster. In fact I'm still thinking about whether in tomorrow's playtest I'm going to play the new warlock with the pact of the tome, or I'm going to try the new wizard.
But anyway, what I would like to know is if you really hate the new system, or is it just that you prefer the other one. Because frankly I don't see it as a terrible thing either, or a brutal nerf to the warlock.
Yes, it's that bad. And yes, I don't like it. Both.
I like that pact magic scales with the warlock. I like that the warlock isn't like any other class in the game. I hate in the new version that warlock lags behind wizards, druids, clerics, and sorcerers in terms of level spells. I hate that it seems to be forcing warlocks to be martial in order to balance things out. I hate that the new version makes the warlock into what someone above calls a "goth ranger."
A question to the diehards pact magic: Do you really think it's so bad that the warlock is a half caster, or is it just that pact magic seems better to you?
road to el dorado both is good dot gif
Warlocks being shoehorned into the half caster bucket makes no sense because, as has been said by others, there's no clear indication of what "the other half" is supposed to be. The whole "they're more like ranger or paladin than wizard and sorcerer" argument seems absurd to me, because that's a complete rewriting of the class, not merely a fix or a tweak
Pact magic wasn't "better" than spell slots, it was different from spell slots in a way that made sense thematically for warlocks. I would sooner they had ditched spell slots entirely for warlock, and gone with a 100 percent invocation/arcanum system for their magic, than decided on "wizard but worse"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you don’t like it, do play the effing class. Leave it the hell alone for those of us who do like it. All it really needed was a boost to the number of spell slots, a little more variety in the utility spells they could take as Eldritch Invocations, and the same thing every other caster in the game needs which is for the spells to be rewritten to get better when upcast.
So the class is fine, except for its core mechanics?
That’s a little disingenuous. The core mechanic numbers needed work. A few more spell slots.
All classes could do with a few extra options. That isn’t a unique thing for warlocks. Hence new spells and feats being released. Saying a few new utility spells for invocations isn’t saying it doesn’t work. Or that the feature is bad. It’s saying that more options could be fun. That doesn’t mean it’s broken.
let’s not lump a few suggested improvements with “the core concept isn’t ok”.
Barbarian rage is a fun ability that is overall good, but could do with some tweaks to make it better. That doesn’t mean the concept is bad. It means it could be better
I'll steal the name form a earlier post, just make one invocation lesser mystic arcanum. You pick a spell from the arcane list that you could case levels 1-5, and can cast it once per day without using a slot. Make it repeatable but maybe let people take level 1/2 spells more than once. Instead of having 23 invocations covering various spells just one invocation that is flexible and repeatable.
I've always found short rests as implemented in 5th edition as an uneasy edge case; they're a bit too long for a 'natural' break in the action. The 4th edition short rest (5 minutes) was a lot easier to fit into adventure flow, though it means you have to be really cautious about what abilities you allow to recover over a short rest.
Yurei, I appreciate you and was especially appreciative of your POV during the OGL catastrophe. But I find posts like your most recent one incredibly unhelpful. Not everything is one extreme or another, and you can't group everyone into groups that embrace every and all changes or those awful muggles who want nothing to change.
I've liked a LOT of the changes proposed in the UA for 1D&D. I've been neutral on a fair amount. And there are some I think are just flat out terrible. Am I one of those sludgy troglodytes who resists change at every turn?
Xukuri, you're a good egg. But I've had to fight every single time a content packet drops because they scream and rant and squawk and holler about how THEY CHANGED IT NOW IT SUCKS. Hell, I still have to fight Bard somtimes about the ******* Origins drop, on top of the insistence of him and his posse that fighters shouldn't be useable by anyone but the rankest and frankest of newbies. I ended up more or less taking the Paladin/Druid UA cycle off because I'm just so tired of trying to convince people that yes, changes are good and we need to let the company actually learn from eight to ten years of watching 5e and seeing where it fails. Notice I didn't bother with more than a token effort of trying to convince furious closet furries druid players that the idea of having templates was a good one, even if these particular templates didn't hit the mark.
I am so sick of people screaming down really awesome changes, perfect example being the new Critical Hit rules that were so much better for the game's overall design and opened up SO MUCH SPACE in monster and encounter design...but got screamed into nonexistence because people wanted their ******* serotonin hit from critting and couldn't realize how much more excellent the game would be with a focus on monster recharges instead of monster crits. Or trying to convince people we deserve a better rogue than the R5e rogue. Or trying to convince people the new cleric was a marked improvement and no, gaining their subclass at third level does not "invalidate" their god somehow. Or, or, or...
I'm sick of it, Xukuri. I'm sick of reading a UA drop, getting super excited at the awesome new design direction of something, and then watching that something get murdered on the altar of "NO BUT R5E SEZ" by a bunch of grognards who wouldn't be able to recognize a good design decision if it walked up to them and chewed off their feet. I'm sick of watching Wizards try to advance 5e in exciting new ways but being choked up and forced to go back to R5e and give up on awesome new ideas because people cannot ******* let go of their ******* nostalgia. It infuriates me, and enough of it leaves me just too ******* tired to participate on the forums anymore. It's ******* depressing, and my life has enough depression in it already thank you very much.
So yeah. I'm currently watching an awesome new direction for the warlock die on the altar of BUT R5E, and I know in my bones that just like the grognards killed the druid being better than just a shitty shapeshifter, grognards are gonna make sure the warlock retains completely and utterly unmodified Pact Magic and my warlock characters are going to continue to be significantly undertuned not-casters that have to get by on nothing but cantrips, a handful of at-will Invocations, and my sheer ******* chutzpah as a player. Because NOBODY in this entire testing cycle for the next evolution of Fifth edition will LET FIFTH EDITION ******* EVOLVE!!!!
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Just a thanks to Yurei for taking a breath and responding to me. We have some honest disagreements about some of the new rules, but I respect their love of the game and their desire to see the game improved.
Now, as to Yurei’s point, I disagree. I personally don’t see any problem with short rest dependent classes mixing with long rest dependent classes. It’s not a problem for me personally, nor at the tables at which I play. Do the short rest classes occasionally have to make their resources stretch because they don’t get a second short rest in a day? Yes, absolutely. Do the long rest dependent classes have to occasionally make their resources stretch because there’s no time to, as Yurei would put it “faff off” for 8 hours and only have time for another short rest? Yes, absolutely. So it all comes out in a wash in the long run.
In addition, they could make warlocks a long rest class and still keep them as having fewer slots that automatically scale to max level as they do now. Simply triple their number of slots and make them recharge on a long rest. Fin. Fix the spells so that more of them upgrade when upcast. Add more utility spells to the list of Eldritch Invocations. Don’t just make them sad, pathetic half-casters with nothing else going for them, it’s undignified.
Finally, my dear friend Yurei is prone to excessive bouts of extreme hyperbole. It was that hyperbole I was commenting on, not their underlying point. Notice, I hadn’t contradicted their point, just called them out on a fib and some “exaggerated truths.” Basically, I was just keeping them honest. I wasn’t arguing against their underlying point, so your supporting it “against” me is both useless, and unnecessary. It was their blatant exaggerations I was refuting, nothing more.
Have I made things clear enough yet?
"It's not a problem at my tables" is not an argument, it's just Personal Incredulity Fallacy. The designers have clearly seen and heard about this issue across way more tables, even if you haven't. I'll quote Jeremy Crawford directly here:
"One of the main points of dissatisfaction in Warlock feedback we've gotten for years is how few spell slots a Warlock gets, and then the fact that getting those spell slots back was tied to the short rest, which in many campaigns was hard to have, because not every group takes short rests or sometimes it's difficult to pull off - and that meant you had the Warlock, one of the only classes in the game who had a key resource that they needed short rests for."
So disagree with Yurei's point all you like, that makes it no less valid. And the fact that you disagree with it/"personally don't see any problem with short rest dependent classes mixing with long rest dependent classes" (am I still 'putting words in your mouth,' or did you not type this exactly in the above quote?) is cause for me to debate what you're saying.
And yes, I'm well aware of Yurei's propensity for hyperbole; I don't give a flying firbolg about that. I'm debating your viewpoint on the design of the class and the need for it to have changed. Hopefully we're both clear now.
If you want to debate my viewpoint on the design of the class, then for the third time I’ll ask you to actually debate what I’ve actually stated and not put bleeping words in my proverbial bleeping mouth.
In addition, they could make warlocks a long rest class and still keep them as having fewer slots that automatically scale to max level as they do now. Simply triple their number of slots and make them recharge on a long rest. Fin. Fix the spells so that more of them upgrade when upcast. Add more utility spells to the list of Eldritch Invocations. Don’t just make them sad, pathetic half-casters with nothing else going for them, it’s undignified.
So if the two main problems cited are:
That they don’t get enough spell slots.
That the slots reset on short rests instead of long.
And I stated that they should:
Increase the number of Pact Magic slots.
Make them refresh on a long rest instead of a short rest.
Then what in the 9 hells are you arguing with me for?
I've always found short rests as implemented in 5th edition as an uneasy edge case; they're a bit too long for a 'natural' break in the action. The 4th edition short rest (5 minutes) was a lot easier to fit into adventure flow, though it means you have to be really cautious about what abilities you allow to recover over a short rest.
That’s why I wish they would split the difference and make a shorty only take about 15-30 minutes, somewhere in that range.
Disagreements aside, I'm a lot more bullish that the new Warlock will survive the playtest. I'm seeing a lot of people come around on it in other forums, Discord, social media etc.
I think maybe adding one more Invocation to their progression (as well as giving them, well, an actual capstone) might put it over the top, giving them a bit more freedom to grab all the Mystic Arcana but still have a unique and varied slate of other powers.
Per PsyrenXY: I'd be open to a reduction in time needed for short rests along with a hard limit, stated clearly in the rules, about the max number of short rests a character can take a day. If that means making short rests 5 minutes, that's fine.
Turning short rest resources into 4e encounter powers / PF2 rests isn't a worthwhile solution either. Short rests taking an hour is not the problem, the problem is basing primary resources on that interval. Nobody feels pressured to stop and eat a sandwich just because the bard is running low on inspiration or the cleric's channel divinity isn't up, but with the Warlock and Monk they definitely feel that. Changing short rests to be quick and easy might fix that problem, but it would introduce a host of others, including making the secondary resources essentially at-will, necessitating the removal of hit dice healing etc.
"If you have ten minutes in a dungeon, you have an hour."
"If you have an hour in a dungeon, you have eight hours."
"But Yurei!" the people who hate any/all changes to anything and everything in R5e and who violently protest every single One D&D playtest document until they get thrown out with the intent of sabotaging the entire 2024 redux effort and forcing Wizards to just keep producing stale and uninteresting R5e content forever instead say, "doesn't that mean that ten minutes and eight hours are the same thing?!"
Why yes, it does. Either you are in a secure and defensible enough position in combination with a complete and utter lack of objectives to pursue that you can take as much time as you feel like to sit around doing fuggall, or you are either not secure/defensible enough or possessed of an objective that actually matters and thus cannot sit on your hindus doing fuggall for any amount of time without endangering said objectives. Or your own corpuses.
This should not be an alien concept to people. Either time exists or it doesn't. if time doesn't exist in your game, great I guess. Short rest three hundred and forty two times per adventuring day and have at it. If time does exist, short resting three hundred and forty two times per adventuring day is a great way to make sure you don't have enough time left to actually play D&D.
That is just absurd on a level of absurd that defies description. Time isn't a alien concept to people, your conception of time is.
Read the posts from Yurei. A hour is hard to find apparently. And admittedly in a lot of scenarios it does not make sense. It does not have to be a planned random encounter, but in less secure areas yeah something will likely come across you in a hour. While wondering the forest, hey have it take a hour, while going through the caves of chaos the orcs form a couple rooms over might wonder by and likely would. 5 minutes though, the warlock can get that while the people with perception/investigation skills search the aftermath in the room.
Sure. I've been following this thread. Sometimes you can get a short rest in. Sometimes you can't. Same with the long rest (especially with the new UA rules about it, which I like). I mean: adventuring is a perilous, unpredictable business.
But unless your DM is a complete d**k, you're going to get at least one or two short rests in a day, the most extreme circumstances excepted. I'm not going to repeat all the arguments/points made, but I remain unconvinced that an adventuring party - especially once they have access to spells like tiny hut - can't manage to get at least one short rest in a day.
I'm willing to roll with that its a common enough problem it should be looked into. And really is there a big problem with going back to 5-10 minutes for the rest. Maybe add some limit to the number of short rests possible in a day, but why keep it an hour if its causing issues even if at only like 10% of the tables. Whether they are just loud or more common than we'd think they apparently have been getting this complaint for a while.
"If you have ten minutes in a dungeon, you have an hour."
"If you have an hour in a dungeon, you have eight hours."
"But Yurei!" the people who hate any/all changes to anything and everything in R5e and who violently protest every single One D&D playtest document until they get thrown out with the intent of sabotaging the entire 2024 redux effort and forcing Wizards to just keep producing stale and uninteresting R5e content forever instead say, "doesn't that mean that ten minutes and eight hours are the same thing?!"
Why yes, it does. Either you are in a secure and defensible enough position in combination with a complete and utter lack of objectives to pursue that you can take as much time as you feel like to sit around doing fuggall, or you are either not secure/defensible enough or possessed of an objective that actually matters and thus cannot sit on your hindus doing fuggall for any amount of time without endangering said objectives. Or your own corpuses.
This should not be an alien concept to people. Either time exists or it doesn't. if time doesn't exist in your game, great I guess. Short rest three hundred and forty two times per adventuring day and have at it. If time does exist, short resting three hundred and forty two times per adventuring day is a great way to make sure you don't have enough time left to actually play D&D.
Please do not contact or message me.
"It's not a problem at my tables" is not an argument, it's just Personal Incredulity Fallacy. The designers have clearly seen and heard about this issue across way more tables, even if you haven't. I'll quote Jeremy Crawford directly here:
"One of the main points of dissatisfaction in Warlock feedback we've gotten for years is how few spell slots a Warlock gets, and then the fact that getting those spell slots back was tied to the short rest, which in many campaigns was hard to have, because not every group takes short rests or sometimes it's difficult to pull off - and that meant you had the Warlock, one of the only classes in the game who had a key resource that they needed short rests for."
So disagree with Yurei's point all you like, that makes it no less valid. And the fact that you disagree with it/"personally don't see any problem with short rest dependent classes mixing with long rest dependent classes" (am I still 'putting words in your mouth,' or did you not type this exactly in the above quote?) is cause for me to debate what you're saying.
And yes, I'm well aware of Yurei's propensity for hyperbole; I don't give a flying firbolg about that. I'm debating your viewpoint on the design of the class and the need for it to have changed. Hopefully we're both clear now.
Yurei, I appreciate you and was especially appreciative of your POV during the OGL catastrophe. But I find posts like your most recent one incredibly unhelpful. Not everything is one extreme or another, and you can't group everyone into groups that embrace every and all changes or those awful muggles who want nothing to change.
I've liked a LOT of the changes proposed in the UA for 1D&D. I've been neutral on a fair amount. And there are some I think are just flat out terrible. Am I one of those sludgy troglodytes who resists change at every turn?
Per PsyrenXY: I'd be open to a reduction in time needed for short rests along with a hard limit, stated clearly in the rules, about the max number of short rests a character can take a day. If that means making short rests 5 minutes, that's fine.
A question to the diehards pact magic: Do you really think it's so bad that the warlock is a half caster, or is it just that pact magic seems better to you?
I like pact magic, I have played many warlocks and it has never seemed like a bad system to me. However, I also like this warlock half caster. In fact I'm still thinking about whether in tomorrow's playtest I'm going to play the new warlock with the pact of the tome, or I'm going to try the new wizard.
But anyway, what I would like to know is if you really hate the new system, or is it just that you prefer the other one. Because frankly I don't see it as a terrible thing either, or a brutal nerf to the warlock.
Yes, it's that bad. And yes, I don't like it. Both.
I like that pact magic scales with the warlock. I like that the warlock isn't like any other class in the game. I hate in the new version that warlock lags behind wizards, druids, clerics, and sorcerers in terms of level spells. I hate that it seems to be forcing warlocks to be martial in order to balance things out. I hate that the new version makes the warlock into what someone above calls a "goth ranger."
road to el dorado both is good dot gif
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, that was my idea too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I've always found short rests as implemented in 5th edition as an uneasy edge case; they're a bit too long for a 'natural' break in the action. The 4th edition short rest (5 minutes) was a lot easier to fit into adventure flow, though it means you have to be really cautious about what abilities you allow to recover over a short rest.
Xukuri, you're a good egg. But I've had to fight every single time a content packet drops because they scream and rant and squawk and holler about how THEY CHANGED IT NOW IT SUCKS. Hell, I still have to fight Bard somtimes about the ******* Origins drop, on top of the insistence of him and his posse that fighters shouldn't be useable by anyone but the rankest and frankest of newbies. I ended up more or less taking the Paladin/Druid UA cycle off because I'm just so tired of trying to convince people that yes, changes are good and we need to let the company actually learn from eight to ten years of watching 5e and seeing where it fails. Notice I didn't bother with more than a token effort of trying to convince furious
closet furriesdruid players that the idea of having templates was a good one, even ifthese particular templates didn't hit the mark.I am so sick of people screaming down really awesome changes, perfect example being the new Critical Hit rules that were so much better for the game's overall design and opened up SO MUCH SPACE in monster and encounter design...but got screamed into nonexistence because people wanted their ******* serotonin hit from critting and couldn't realize how much more excellent the game would be with a focus on monster recharges instead of monster crits. Or trying to convince people we deserve a better rogue than the R5e rogue. Or trying to convince people the new cleric was a marked improvement and no, gaining their subclass at third level does not "invalidate" their god somehow. Or, or, or...
I'm sick of it, Xukuri. I'm sick of reading a UA drop, getting super excited at the awesome new design direction of something, and then watching that something get murdered on the altar of "NO BUT R5E SEZ" by a bunch of grognards who wouldn't be able to recognize a good design decision if it walked up to them and chewed off their feet. I'm sick of watching Wizards try to advance 5e in exciting new ways but being choked up and forced to go back to R5e and give up on awesome new ideas because people cannot ******* let go of their ******* nostalgia. It infuriates me, and enough of it leaves me just too ******* tired to participate on the forums anymore. It's ******* depressing, and my life has enough depression in it already thank you very much.
So yeah. I'm currently watching an awesome new direction for the warlock die on the altar of BUT R5E, and I know in my bones that just like the grognards killed the druid being better than just a shitty shapeshifter, grognards are gonna make sure the warlock retains completely and utterly unmodified Pact Magic and my warlock characters are going to continue to be significantly undertuned not-casters that have to get by on nothing but cantrips, a handful of at-will Invocations, and my sheer ******* chutzpah as a player. Because NOBODY in this entire testing cycle for the next evolution of Fifth edition will LET FIFTH EDITION ******* EVOLVE!!!!
Please do not contact or message me.
I think Yurei is upset.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Just a thanks to Yurei for taking a breath and responding to me. We have some honest disagreements about some of the new rules, but I respect their love of the game and their desire to see the game improved.
If you want to debate my viewpoint on the design of the class, then for the third time I’ll ask you to actually debate what I’ve actually stated and not put bleeping words in my proverbial bleeping mouth.
So if the two main problems cited are:
And I stated that they should:
Then what in the 9 hells are you arguing with me for?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'd be on board with this.
That’s why I wish they would split the difference and make a shorty only take about 15-30 minutes, somewhere in that range.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Turning short rest resources into 4e encounter powers / PF2 rests isn't a worthwhile solution either. Short rests taking an hour is not the problem, the problem is basing primary resources on that interval. Nobody feels pressured to stop and eat a sandwich just because the bard is running low on inspiration or the cleric's channel divinity isn't up, but with the Warlock and Monk they definitely feel that. Changing short rests to be quick and easy might fix that problem, but it would introduce a host of others, including making the secondary resources essentially at-will, necessitating the removal of hit dice healing etc.
That is just absurd on a level of absurd that defies description. Time isn't a alien concept to people, your conception of time is.
Definitely better than the shit show they gave us, but I was a fan of the short rest system personally. It made playing a warlock more enjoyable.