And...there we get to the crux of the matter. Resource management, especially for spellcasters, is a significant aspect of the game and of balance. Every other caster has to weigh their options and decide when the time is best to use their higher-level spells, which they may only get one or two shots of per day, and when to use their lower-level spells.
Meanwhile the Warlock gets to fire off their high-level spells twice per short rest up to level 10, then get more fifth-level casts above level 10 while matching other casters in 6th-level and above progression until very late levels. As long as the Warlock gets their short rests, they don't have to manage their resources like other casters. And even if they do blow through their resources, then they have the strongest cantrip in the game to fall back on anyway (which at late levels scales better than low-level damage spells).
It's about being fully aware about getting to use their biggest spells much, much more often than every other caster.
Also, the Wizard's Arcane Recovery requires them to be 20th-level in order to recover two 5th-level spells on a short rest, once per day. The Warlock gets that the moment they hit Level 9, can do it as many times a day as they get short rests, and gets more 5th-level slots per short rest once they get more spell slots.
This is a completely fake, white room fear as evidenced by the very fact that WOTC is trying to “fix” warlock having enough spell slots per LR. All of your arguments in this thread betray an extreme lack of actual play time with warlock. No table ever takes like the hypothetical 5 short rests a day you seem to be terrified of. Survey after survey shows many tables take no short rests or one much less the two per LR the actual math in the game is balanced around.
So let's assume two short rests a day, and we'll compare the standard caster progression to Warlock.
At level 1, a standard caster gets two 1st-level casts. The Warlock gets six 1st-level casts.
At level 3, other casters have four 1st-level casts and two 2nd-level casts. The Warlock gets six 2nd-level casts in total.
The Warlock retains the pattern of getting six casts matching other casters' highest level (capping at 3 slots until 5th-level which caps at 2, versus a Warlock getting six). Then at level 11, the Warlock gets a third pact slot, bringing their 5th-level casts up to nine in total—while other casters have only two 5th-level slots, and 13 slots in total of 4th and below.
At level 17, when the Warlock gains their fourth pact slot, that gives them a total of 12 5th-level casts per day. Other casters only gain their third 5th-level slot at the next level, and at level 17, other casters have a total of 15 slots of 5th-level and below. A late-game Warlock can cast almost as many 5th-level spells as other casters can cast from 1st-level to 5th-level.
And between Level 11 to Level 18, a Warlock has equal access to spells of 6th-level and above. Only once other casters get to level 19 and 20 do they get more uses of 6th- and 7th-level spells.
With only two short rests, the Warlock is significantly imbalanced compared to other casters. And that's all without considering invocations that give them access to numerous utility options without slot cost (and in some instances being unlimited in use!) and getting the strongest cantrip.
(And, again, the problem with Warlock is that they then have very little to go on compared to standard casters if they don't get those short rests is the inherent problem of pact magic versus standard spellcasting, that the class can swing from "not even a half-caster" to "full-and-a-half caster".)
Sigh….
Warlock has 1 slot at 1st level so they get 3 casts with 2 short rests, not 6 as you assert. Wizard will have arcane recovery so they will also have 3 casts with 2 short rests.
I’m not gonna tit for tat disassemble the rest of the poorly rendered arguments except to point out that Mystic Arcanum is not NEAR as powerful of a feature as actual 6-9 spell slots so this statement “warlock has equal access to spells of 6th level and above” is wildly, patently false. Warlocks get no up casting, have no flexibility to learn more than one of these spells, have a much more limited selection of these spells and most other full casters get to change them out on a LR or at least a level up at minimum while warlock RAW pick one and are done.
And for someone who has spent half the thread complaining about people not appreciating the potential power of things like invocations, you seem blithely unaware of overlooking the potential penalty of the “low slots, fast recharge” mechanic. Why is it so hard to believe some of us LIKE the idea of some days feeling like a half caster and some days feel like a “full and a half caster” to use your words.
And as I’ve shared previously, most of us are fine with something to make warlock recharge more consistent at the expense of unlimited recharges.
Crazy they stopped talking about total spells at level 3, almost like normal casters caught up and blew them away in total spells insanely quickly after that. And its across the whole day where as a wizard can cast all of their spells in a single fight and then ask for a long rest. You know how most tables seem to play. But its the warlock fans who are the power gamers for wanting to keep it the way that most have suggested is less powerful overall. And anyone who actually plays the game knows always casting at your top spell level is not nearly the advantage some are trying to pretend it is.
Personally I would be fine if they kept Warlocks as Long Rest recharge, as in the UA, but have Pact Magic that scales up to 6 pact slots in Tier 4 (they get 4 at 17th level in 5E already). At 18th level they can cast 6 fifth level spells, plus 1 each of 6th-9th. A wizard at 18th level has 3 fifth level spell slots, along with 4 first level slots, and 3 each of second-fourth level. Wizards get 2 sixth at 19 and 2 seventh at 20th. No SR issues, and if there was a feature, like Arcane Recovery that they can recover a limited number of slots at earlier levels (maybe 1 slot at level 5 and 2 at level 10 or 11) I don't see that as too overpowered compared to full casters. But maybe it is and they don't need it. If they beef up some Invocations they probably wouldn't need a recovery system outside of a long rest.
If they go back to SR recharge of Pact Slots, I don't see them really adding more slots, but maybe doing something with Invocations or instead of the Expanded spell list you get from your Patron as just options to choose from they become always prepared and can cast one spell from that list once per long rest.
Plus, with class specific spell lists coming back, Warlocks have a much more restrictive list than most full casters.
Then if it is the "I get all my slots back on a SR" that people like about warlock, then you can't have more spell slots because of game balance as Lilith mentioned. You can't have both as many slots as a full caster and get them back on a SR and get Fighter-level damage with a cantrip. That's just making Warlock far far more powerful than any other caster in the game.
So with this in mind. I present you a some options that would be reasonably balanced:
1) 2014 Warlock : Only 2 slots that recharge on a SR, but scale like a full caster
2) Hybrid Rest Warlock : Number of spell slots equivalent in number to Cleric Channel Divinities in the UA that scale like a full caster, but only regain 1 expended slot on a SR.
3) Spread Warlock : Only 1 spell slot per spell level (e.g. 1x 1st, 1x 2nd, 1x 3rd, ...) scaling like a full caster, but you regain all of them on a SR once per day (increasing to 2x per day at level 11).
4) Half-caster UA Warlock : Full half-caster scaling plus more Invocation (MA) spells and subclass spells that give 1 free cast per long rest.
Which would you choose?
2014.
But there are other ways to fix it. The complaint was not enough spells. Better spell invocations would help, like have a generic invocation choose a level 1 spell from these lists cast once per day for free without a slot you can cast it another time without a slot once per day for every 4 warlock levels. Pact of the blade people can pick up the shield spell they want with this. Make it sort of repeatable with additional invocations giving access to more spells but not more free casts or maybe it starts with 3. the monks rapid metabolism or the warlocks eldritch master ability at the level where the number of spells becomes a issue. Etc. You can improve on the 2014 model without tossing it out. And if game balance was really a concern to you and Lilith you'd be getting rid of long rest casters or at the very least drastically and i mean drastically reducing their spell slots. Like at 20 3/2/1/1/1/1/1/1/1. But this what if the warlock gets 400 short rests thing is a farce. Its fine not liking the 2014 warlock its not for everyone, but trying to spin this its actually broken and not under powered compared to full casters thing is just bizarre.
The short rest thing is an issue, though. There are many times we get one or no short rests in the day, at my table. But we hardly ever get two and never more than that. The idea that “you have to take two because that is what the game was designed around” isn’t great.
The short rest thing is an issue, though. There are many times we get one or no short rests in the day, at my table. But we hardly ever get two and never more than that.
Is this simply a game play choice, or do the details of the campaign's "plot" necessitate this?
In other words: does your group (or DM) simply dislike the aesthetics of stopping a couple of times for an hour (in-game time, not real life time) or is the pace of events and foes so consistently relentless that you can't afford to take a short rest?
I'm trying to get an understanding of how tables that take no short rests work; the campaigns in which I've played warlocks generally haven't had consistent/persistent ticking clocks - indeed there was a lot of open-ended exploration or traveling - so the idea of a game where short rests are rare to nonexistent is puzzling to me.
The short rest thing is an issue, though. There are many times we get one or no short rests in the day, at my table. But we hardly ever get two and never more than that.
Is this simply a game play choice, or do the details of the campaign's "plot" necessitate this?
In other words: does your group (or DM) simply dislike the aesthetics of stopping a couple of times for an hour (in-game time, not real life time) or is the pace of events and foes so consistently relentless that you can't afford to take a short rest?
I'm trying to get an understanding of how tables that take no short rests work; the campaigns in which I've played warlocks generally haven't had consistent/persistent ticking clocks - indeed there was a lot of open-ended exploration or traveling - so the idea of a game where short rests are rare to nonexistent is puzzling to me.
Typically it is a combination of both. My DM doesn’t hate SR but too many SR seems gamey to them. And it also depends on the situation. It’s not always a “ticking clock” or relentless enemies situations but a common sense “if you’re in a dungeon type setting the world isn’t waiting around being static”. You take your chances. Our group consists of older players (my DM and I both played 1E AD&D. He did Basic before that as well. We didn’t know each other until much later) and character death is always on the table. And no multiclassing either.
I'm trying to get an understanding of how tables that take no short rests work; the campaigns in which I've played warlocks generally haven't had consistent/persistent ticking clocks - indeed there was a lot of open-ended exploration or traveling - so the idea of a game where short rests are rare to nonexistent is puzzling to me.
My normal experience is that most days just don't have enough significant events to make multiple short rests relevant. The core problem is that the 6-8 encounter day is by no means 'standard', while you sometimes have the anomalous day with very high numbers of small encounters, the median (for days with non-zero encounters) is probably around 2.
Typically it is a combination of both. My DM doesn’t hate SR but too many SR seems gamey to them. And it also depends on the situation. It’s not always a “ticking clock” or relentless enemies situations but a common sense “if you’re in a dungeon type setting the world isn’t waiting around being static”. You take your chances. Our group consists of older players (my DM and I both played 1E AD&D. He did Basic before that as well. We didn’t know each other until much later) and character death is always on the table. And no multiclassing either.
Ah. Thanks for the view into your game. My roots are also in 1E. From what you describe, it doesn't sound like short rests are an actual problem - and I agree on taking too many. It's never been an issue for me because as a player, I'm careful to not treating it like a video game button and my warlocks haven't been in too many pressure cooker situations where being unable to take a short rest for long stretches comes up.
I'm trying to get an understanding of how tables that take no short rests work; the campaigns in which I've played warlocks generally haven't had consistent/persistent ticking clocks - indeed there was a lot of open-ended exploration or traveling - so the idea of a game where short rests are rare to nonexistent is puzzling to me.
My normal experience is that most days just don't have enough significant events to make multiple short rests relevant. The core problem is that the 6-8 encounter day is by no means 'standard', while you sometimes have the anomalous day with very high numbers of small encounters, the median (for days with non-zero encounters) is probably around 2.
In the first case, then it's not a problem - there's no abuse, and the mechanic can work as intended without it being disruptive or intrusive.
Once characters reach 5th level, then the ability to guard short rests becomes viable - rope trick, tiny hut, etc. Of course, enemy spellcasters can make that challenging if they have dispel magic.
but if the day is predicated on having two short rests then it is expected that the Warlock will have 6 pact slots to use. Sure, if you are only having one encounter in a day then the two you have are ok. But if you have 3 or 4 encounters or more, but no short rests, then you get the complaints WotC discussed in the video about UA5 about lack of slots. If everyone is built around long rests, instead of everyone except Monks and Warlocks, then it is consistent.
The short rest thing is an issue, though. There are many times we get one or no short rests in the day, at my table. But we hardly ever get two and never more than that. The idea that “you have to take two because that is what the game was designed around” isn’t great.
Its the issue on them maybe being undetuned side not the overtuned side as some are now trying to spin things. I can get the argument that most tables don't do the 2 short rests a day thing, therefore some changes would be nice. But this we have to watch out because warlocks are powergamers who want their 8 short rests a day nonsense is what people are disagreeing with.
On the undertuned front there are other options. IMO eldritch master at level 4-7 solves 90% of it. At tables where you usually get 0 and occasionally get 1 you likely are not having a ton of encounters so 1 freebie 1 minute recharge covers you. As you start having more encounters the party will start having short rests anyways which should cover the rest. A couple more invocations for low level spell casting free slots to cover the complaint of using a 5th level slot on a shield and I think its totally handled now.
but if the day is predicated on having two short rests then it is expected that the Warlock will have 6 pact slots to use. Sure, if you are only having one encounter in a day then the two you have are ok. But if you have 3 or 4 encounters or more, but no short rests, then you get the complaints WotC discussed in the video about UA5 about lack of slots. If everyone is built around long rests, instead of everyone except Monks and Warlocks, then it is consistent.
I'd argue that it's more than just warlocks and monks who can rely on short rests. Druids do, for regaining uses of wild shape. Fighters do, to regain action surge.
But we're back to the dialogue about how many campaigns are so relentless as to NEVER or more often than not NOT grant at least one or two short rests per game day? Are there really that many campaigns with ticking clocks from 1st level all the way to the end?
but if the day is predicated on having two short rests then it is expected that the Warlock will have 6 pact slots to use. Sure, if you are only having one encounter in a day then the two you have are ok. But if you have 3 or 4 encounters or more, but no short rests, then you get the complaints WotC discussed in the video about UA5 about lack of slots. If everyone is built around long rests, instead of everyone except Monks and Warlocks, then it is consistent.
I'd argue that it's more than just warlocks and monks who can rely on short rests. Druids do, for regaining uses of wild shape. Fighters do, to regain action surge.
But we're back to the dialogue about how many campaigns are so relentless as to NEVER or more often than not NOT grant at least one or two short rests per game day? Are there really that many campaigns with ticking clocks from 1st level all the way to the end?
I think its more that many campaigns have fairly short days, long enough to stretch the warlocks budget but short enough to not need a rest. IMO the problem in these campaigns isn't the warlock though. Its the wizard etc who can now unleash at full power every encounter never having to sully their fingers with a cantrip.
but if the day is predicated on having two short rests then it is expected that the Warlock will have 6 pact slots to use. Sure, if you are only having one encounter in a day then the two you have are ok. But if you have 3 or 4 encounters or more, but no short rests, then you get the complaints WotC discussed in the video about UA5 about lack of slots. If everyone is built around long rests, instead of everyone except Monks and Warlocks, then it is consistent.
I'd argue that it's more than just warlocks and monks who can rely on short rests. Druids do, for regaining uses of wild shape. Fighters do, to regain action surge.
But we're back to the dialogue about how many campaigns are so relentless as to NEVER or more often than not NOT grant at least one or two short rests per game day? Are there really that many campaigns with ticking clocks from 1st level all the way to the end?
I think its more that many campaigns have fairly short days, long enough to stretch the warlocks budget but short enough to not need a rest. IMO the problem in these campaigns isn't the warlock though. Its the wizard etc who can now unleash at full power every encounter never having to sully their fingers with a cantrip.
It is why I am such a strong proponent of the gritty realism rest rules for the average game that only has one or 2 encounters a day, but may not have a big down time for weeks on end. These ones end up making the normal 8 hour rest into just a short rest and then "down time activity" into the time when long rests get done. Adjusting rests to fit how your group plays SHOULD be encouraged. In a game where every second counts all the time every time and it is just run, run run non-stop than the short rest should be shorter, but in the average game with 1 or 2 encounters a day, an 8 hour rest at the end of the day should not give everything back.
The short rest thing is an issue, though. There are many times we get one or no short rests in the day, at my table. But we hardly ever get two and never more than that. The idea that “you have to take two because that is what the game was designed around” isn’t great.
This is the question of "how many encounters are you having per day?" "how hard are those encounters?" "How long between 'adventuring days'?" If you are only having 1 or 2 encounters a day, and the next day is back to adventuring a tone down of difficulty and using the gritty realism rules would solve your short rest issue. The pace of the adventure would stay the same, short rests would become more prominent and long rests would happen during downtime activities encouraging players to engage in downtime activities after a couple of days adventuring in a row. Short rest classes and abilities would get their chance to shine and long rest abilities would feel expensive to use and won't feel too strong.
Then there is the if you are having like 3 to 4 encounters back to back real quick, and that is the common way to play, than the 5 minute short rest becomes appropriate. The DMG has specifically mentioned changing rest length to fit with a tables style of play.
but if the day is predicated on having two short rests then it is expected that the Warlock will have 6 pact slots to use. Sure, if you are only having one encounter in a day then the two you have are ok. But if you have 3 or 4 encounters or more, but no short rests, then you get the complaints WotC discussed in the video about UA5 about lack of slots. If everyone is built around long rests, instead of everyone except Monks and Warlocks, then it is consistent.
I'd argue that it's more than just warlocks and monks who can rely on short rests. Druids do, for regaining uses of wild shape. Fighters do, to regain action surge.
But we're back to the dialogue about how many campaigns are so relentless as to NEVER or more often than not NOT grant at least one or two short rests per game day? Are there really that many campaigns with ticking clocks from 1st level all the way to the end?
Druids are full casters. Except for Moon Druids, WS isn’t as big a core feature, imo (I’m playing a 16th level Land Druid now and WS is a utility feature for me). And Fighters are still an effective martial without their once per SR Action Surge.
I think it’s absolutely fine to have a non-core feature(s) that refresh on SR. Again, it is not about ticking clock scenarios etc. it just seems that if every class was balanced on long rests you wouldn’t have classes like monks and warlocks that are too weak if you don’t SR, and too powerful if you take too many. If they are all LR everyone can unload each combat if you only do one or two encounters per day, and everyone can conserve if they do 8-10 per day.
Edit: in the end I think warlock’s Pact Magic can work either way, SR or LR.
I don't get why everyone acts as players doing more short rests automatically fixes everything. Short Rests aren't planned in advanced most of the time. Usually whether or not a rest happens has FAR less to do with feature resources and more relating to how much hp your party has. When I've played warlock I would often find myself in a situation where we would short rest while I had all my pact slots, which is incredibly frustrating.
To be frank, any system that doesn't go all in on 1 type of resource scheduling is going to have issues. Mixing rest features only sets up situations where people have different priorities. Because your never going to be in a situation where everyone is equally happy with the resources they are getting back.
I don't get why everyone acts as players doing more short rests automatically fixes everything. Short Rests aren't planned in advanced most of the time. Usually whether or not a rest happens has FAR less to do with feature resources and more relating to how much hp your party has. When I've played warlock I would often find myself in a situation where we would short rest while I had all my pact slots, which is incredibly frustrating.
To be frank, any system that doesn't go all in on 1 type of resource scheduling is going to have issues. Mixing rest features only sets up situations where people have different priorities. Because your never going to be in a situation where everyone is equally happy with the resources they are getting back.
I think this is true if everything is "1 type of resource scheduling". I don't think it would be an issue for core class features. But there are other class features, like Action Surge, Wildshape, Channel Divinity, etc that I fine being on a different schedule. A mix of class features is fine. Having a couple main classes with features on one and all other classes on another is more of a problem.
I don't get why everyone acts as players doing more short rests automatically fixes everything. Short Rests aren't planned in advanced most of the time. Usually whether or not a rest happens has FAR less to do with feature resources and more relating to how much hp your party has. When I've played warlock I would often find myself in a situation where we would short rest while I had all my pact slots, which is incredibly frustrating.
To be frank, any system that doesn't go all in on 1 type of resource scheduling is going to have issues. Mixing rest features only sets up situations where people have different priorities. Because your never going to be in a situation where everyone is equally happy with the resources they are getting back.
I think this is true if everything is "1 type of resource scheduling". I don't think it would be an issue for core class features. But there are other class features, like Action Surge, Wildshape, Channel Divinity, etc that I fine being on a different schedule. A mix of class features is fine. Having a couple main classes with features on one and all other classes on another is more of a problem.
So every class should have 1 or 2 base class features that benefit from a short rest or none should?
So every class should have 1 or 2 base class features that benefit from a short rest or none should?
Honestly, every class should have base class features that benefit from a long rest or none should. Which rapidly leads you down the path of 4e. The reality is:
4e, while not perfect, was by far the closest to balanced of any edition of D&D, and accomplished this by normalizing resources.
A large portion of the player base rejected 4e.
That's the core problem: we know how to balance the system. What we don't know is how to balance the system in a way that the player base will accept, and it's not clear that it's even possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Crazy they stopped talking about total spells at level 3, almost like normal casters caught up and blew them away in total spells insanely quickly after that. And its across the whole day where as a wizard can cast all of their spells in a single fight and then ask for a long rest. You know how most tables seem to play. But its the warlock fans who are the power gamers for wanting to keep it the way that most have suggested is less powerful overall. And anyone who actually plays the game knows always casting at your top spell level is not nearly the advantage some are trying to pretend it is.
Personally I would be fine if they kept Warlocks as Long Rest recharge, as in the UA, but have Pact Magic that scales up to 6 pact slots in Tier 4 (they get 4 at 17th level in 5E already). At 18th level they can cast 6 fifth level spells, plus 1 each of 6th-9th. A wizard at 18th level has 3 fifth level spell slots, along with 4 first level slots, and 3 each of second-fourth level. Wizards get 2 sixth at 19 and 2 seventh at 20th. No SR issues, and if there was a feature, like Arcane Recovery that they can recover a limited number of slots at earlier levels (maybe 1 slot at level 5 and 2 at level 10 or 11) I don't see that as too overpowered compared to full casters. But maybe it is and they don't need it. If they beef up some Invocations they probably wouldn't need a recovery system outside of a long rest.
If they go back to SR recharge of Pact Slots, I don't see them really adding more slots, but maybe doing something with Invocations or instead of the Expanded spell list you get from your Patron as just options to choose from they become always prepared and can cast one spell from that list once per long rest.
Plus, with class specific spell lists coming back, Warlocks have a much more restrictive list than most full casters.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
2014.
But there are other ways to fix it. The complaint was not enough spells. Better spell invocations would help, like have a generic invocation choose a level 1 spell from these lists cast once per day for free without a slot you can cast it another time without a slot once per day for every 4 warlock levels. Pact of the blade people can pick up the shield spell they want with this. Make it sort of repeatable with additional invocations giving access to more spells but not more free casts or maybe it starts with 3. the monks rapid metabolism or the warlocks eldritch master ability at the level where the number of spells becomes a issue. Etc. You can improve on the 2014 model without tossing it out. And if game balance was really a concern to you and Lilith you'd be getting rid of long rest casters or at the very least drastically and i mean drastically reducing their spell slots. Like at 20 3/2/1/1/1/1/1/1/1. But this what if the warlock gets 400 short rests thing is a farce. Its fine not liking the 2014 warlock its not for everyone, but trying to spin this its actually broken and not under powered compared to full casters thing is just bizarre.
The short rest thing is an issue, though. There are many times we get one or no short rests in the day, at my table. But we hardly ever get two and never more than that. The idea that “you have to take two because that is what the game was designed around” isn’t great.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Is this simply a game play choice, or do the details of the campaign's "plot" necessitate this?
In other words: does your group (or DM) simply dislike the aesthetics of stopping a couple of times for an hour (in-game time, not real life time) or is the pace of events and foes so consistently relentless that you can't afford to take a short rest?
I'm trying to get an understanding of how tables that take no short rests work; the campaigns in which I've played warlocks generally haven't had consistent/persistent ticking clocks - indeed there was a lot of open-ended exploration or traveling - so the idea of a game where short rests are rare to nonexistent is puzzling to me.
Typically it is a combination of both. My DM doesn’t hate SR but too many SR seems gamey to them. And it also depends on the situation. It’s not always a “ticking clock” or relentless enemies situations but a common sense “if you’re in a dungeon type setting the world isn’t waiting around being static”. You take your chances. Our group consists of older players (my DM and I both played 1E AD&D. He did Basic before that as well. We didn’t know each other until much later) and character death is always on the table. And no multiclassing either.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
My normal experience is that most days just don't have enough significant events to make multiple short rests relevant. The core problem is that the 6-8 encounter day is by no means 'standard', while you sometimes have the anomalous day with very high numbers of small encounters, the median (for days with non-zero encounters) is probably around 2.
Ah. Thanks for the view into your game. My roots are also in 1E. From what you describe, it doesn't sound like short rests are an actual problem - and I agree on taking too many. It's never been an issue for me because as a player, I'm careful to not treating it like a video game button and my warlocks haven't been in too many pressure cooker situations where being unable to take a short rest for long stretches comes up.
In the first case, then it's not a problem - there's no abuse, and the mechanic can work as intended without it being disruptive or intrusive.
Once characters reach 5th level, then the ability to guard short rests becomes viable - rope trick, tiny hut, etc. Of course, enemy spellcasters can make that challenging if they have dispel magic.
but if the day is predicated on having two short rests then it is expected that the Warlock will have 6 pact slots to use. Sure, if you are only having one encounter in a day then the two you have are ok. But if you have 3 or 4 encounters or more, but no short rests, then you get the complaints WotC discussed in the video about UA5 about lack of slots. If everyone is built around long rests, instead of everyone except Monks and Warlocks, then it is consistent.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Its the issue on them maybe being undetuned side not the overtuned side as some are now trying to spin things. I can get the argument that most tables don't do the 2 short rests a day thing, therefore some changes would be nice. But this we have to watch out because warlocks are powergamers who want their 8 short rests a day nonsense is what people are disagreeing with.
On the undertuned front there are other options. IMO eldritch master at level 4-7 solves 90% of it. At tables where you usually get 0 and occasionally get 1 you likely are not having a ton of encounters so 1 freebie 1 minute recharge covers you. As you start having more encounters the party will start having short rests anyways which should cover the rest. A couple more invocations for low level spell casting free slots to cover the complaint of using a 5th level slot on a shield and I think its totally handled now.
I'd argue that it's more than just warlocks and monks who can rely on short rests. Druids do, for regaining uses of wild shape. Fighters do, to regain action surge.
But we're back to the dialogue about how many campaigns are so relentless as to NEVER or more often than not NOT grant at least one or two short rests per game day? Are there really that many campaigns with ticking clocks from 1st level all the way to the end?
I think its more that many campaigns have fairly short days, long enough to stretch the warlocks budget but short enough to not need a rest. IMO the problem in these campaigns isn't the warlock though. Its the wizard etc who can now unleash at full power every encounter never having to sully their fingers with a cantrip.
It is why I am such a strong proponent of the gritty realism rest rules for the average game that only has one or 2 encounters a day, but may not have a big down time for weeks on end. These ones end up making the normal 8 hour rest into just a short rest and then "down time activity" into the time when long rests get done. Adjusting rests to fit how your group plays SHOULD be encouraged. In a game where every second counts all the time every time and it is just run, run run non-stop than the short rest should be shorter, but in the average game with 1 or 2 encounters a day, an 8 hour rest at the end of the day should not give everything back.
This is the question of "how many encounters are you having per day?" "how hard are those encounters?" "How long between 'adventuring days'?" If you are only having 1 or 2 encounters a day, and the next day is back to adventuring a tone down of difficulty and using the gritty realism rules would solve your short rest issue. The pace of the adventure would stay the same, short rests would become more prominent and long rests would happen during downtime activities encouraging players to engage in downtime activities after a couple of days adventuring in a row. Short rest classes and abilities would get their chance to shine and long rest abilities would feel expensive to use and won't feel too strong.
Then there is the if you are having like 3 to 4 encounters back to back real quick, and that is the common way to play, than the 5 minute short rest becomes appropriate. The DMG has specifically mentioned changing rest length to fit with a tables style of play.
Druids are full casters. Except for Moon Druids, WS isn’t as big a core feature, imo (I’m playing a 16th level Land Druid now and WS is a utility feature for me). And Fighters are still an effective martial without their once per SR Action Surge.
I think it’s absolutely fine to have a non-core feature(s) that refresh on SR. Again, it is not about ticking clock scenarios etc. it just seems that if every class was balanced on long rests you wouldn’t have classes like monks and warlocks that are too weak if you don’t SR, and too powerful if you take too many. If they are all LR everyone can unload each combat if you only do one or two encounters per day, and everyone can conserve if they do 8-10 per day.
Edit: in the end I think warlock’s Pact Magic can work either way, SR or LR.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I don't get why everyone acts as players doing more short rests automatically fixes everything. Short Rests aren't planned in advanced most of the time. Usually whether or not a rest happens has FAR less to do with feature resources and more relating to how much hp your party has. When I've played warlock I would often find myself in a situation where we would short rest while I had all my pact slots, which is incredibly frustrating.
To be frank, any system that doesn't go all in on 1 type of resource scheduling is going to have issues. Mixing rest features only sets up situations where people have different priorities. Because your never going to be in a situation where everyone is equally happy with the resources they are getting back.
I think this is true if everything is "1 type of resource scheduling". I don't think it would be an issue for core class features. But there are other class features, like Action Surge, Wildshape, Channel Divinity, etc that I fine being on a different schedule. A mix of class features is fine. Having a couple main classes with features on one and all other classes on another is more of a problem.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
So every class should have 1 or 2 base class features that benefit from a short rest or none should?
Honestly, every class should have base class features that benefit from a long rest or none should. Which rapidly leads you down the path of 4e. The reality is:
That's the core problem: we know how to balance the system. What we don't know is how to balance the system in a way that the player base will accept, and it's not clear that it's even possible.