Heh. Reminds me of the UA5 drop and everybody posting all at once.
I just don't agree with your extreme takes on short rests, for a few reasons.
Not every gaming day of every campaign is a race against time. Some game days - some entire campaigns - are exploratory in nature, not tied to saving the earth from the 200 Foot Tall Colossus of Fire. What if you've been hired to map out a territory without a hard deadline? Taking a short rest makes eminent sense then, because you simply have no idea what might be encountered later that day. It benefits the fighter, it benefits the warlock, and even other classes. It's not about abuse; it's about wisely recollecting resources after a fight with some grippli when the next encounter might be with a T-rex. Your argument that short rests are only available when you don't need them does not at all mesh with my experiences of playing 5E since 2017.
In narrow circumstances sure, short rests can factor naturally into a campaign. Does that mean entire classes should be held hostage by them? This isn't just a case of "there's no undead so our cleric can't use Turn Undead"; the cleric has other uses for Channel Divinity and Turn Undead is a side gig for them at best. Warlocks in campaigns where short rests don't factor naturally into the campaign are denied effective use of their primary class resource. It's not okay, and thousands of players have complained to Wizards about it. Nobody ever seems to acknowledge that J-Craw and the company as a whole have repeatedly said that the most consistent feedback they get on warlocks is "more spells please" and "this feels bad to play I don't feel like I can ever justify using my magic."
Also, not every foe or BBG of a campaign is going to be a fiend or undead who never rests or recuperates or the like. Sometimes the BBEG is just as mortal (if far more powerful) than the party, and as someone wrote in a different thread, even the BBEG has to sleep and poop.
Sure. The BBEG also tends to have hundreds if not thousands of minions, however. And even if they don't, the players have no idea how willing the BBEG is to push into exhaustion to accomplish their goals. Even if all you're doing is trying to stop a mad scientist from magineering a spellplague that will turn an entire town into disco zombies, well - how many mad scientists have you met who obey a healthy sleep schedule? Time is a resource that can never be gained, only spent, and whoever spends their time most effectively has a definitive edge towards achieving victory.
You rightly point out that when dungeoncrawling or some very similar activity in very hostile territory, taking a short rest can be very, very tricky (or impossible or deadly). Yes. Everyone's acknowledged this truth (though, again, once the characters hit Tier 2 and above, there are a LOT of magical helps that can be used to obtain a short rest assuming the world won't end in an hour). But there are many, many encounter economies and scenarios that fall between "never a need for a short rest" and "taking a short rest will be our certain doom." Everything you describe about your campaigns (which as I've said before, sound pretty damn cool in terms of tone and situations) seems to be far more demanding and exhausting that what seems to be the norm, if posts here are any indication.
I've seen plenty of players who openly state that any DM who denies or interrupts their players' short rests - for any reason - is being an anti-player TPK-chasing jerk who should quit DMing. There are absolutely people out there who think they should be entitled to a free short rest two steps outside the Gates of Doom, and I cannot fathom why anyone thinks that makes for a good game. Talk about murdering the pacing of your tale. Yeesh.
My general play group is blessed with players who all keenly understand the impact of time on events. Nobody has a Bethesda mindset of "the story won't happen until we show up to make it happen so we can faff around seducing furniture all we want", and our games tend to reflect that. They're not always ticking clocks, no, but even when there's no obvious clock we'll often try to play efficiently anyways. After all, you never know when you're going to discover something was burbling away behind the scenes after all and now you're stuck with a clock you didn't know was there. Or, hell - play to maximize your use of time and you can just get more done.
Finally, please stop saying that anyone who likes the 2014 PHB warlock only does so to abuse short rests. This is actively offensive to me; I f**king hate that kind of approach to the rules via finding "loopholes" or unintended gamebreaking dealios - and I'm someone who really loves the 2014 warlock. I've never wanted nor tried to abuse the use of short rests - I really think the most I've ever take in a single gaming day was three (but more likely two). I've certainly never taken 6, or 10, or 12 short rests, nor would I try to abuse the rules that way.
I've played multiple warlocks, and in an older time they were one of my favorite classes. In some ways they still are. I crave the customization and responsiveness of the Invocation system, the ability to make a warlock that's actually different from other warlocks. But it's in part because I've played them and crave that part of their identity that I'm so upset by the horrid limitations of Pact Magic. We could be doing better. Warlocks don't have to be weird, janky edge-case not-really-spellcasters beholden to too many short rests...but because "The Community" raised an uproar Wizards gave up on it and now we're back to the 2014 version. No improvements for us. I can only surmise this is because people so addicted to Pact Magic that they refused to allow anything else at all are addicted to Pact Magic because they like abusing it. There's really no other reason to like it. Especially when most of those people are in this thread praising the utter destruction of any hope for the warlock to be improved in any damn way.
It is Upsetting.
ETA: the house rule about the Healer's feat is a neat one. Might consider incorporating that into my game.
It's one of our most successful house rules, to the point where it's largely assumed in any new game we play. Allowing healer's kits to actually heal people is one of those things that makes you say "why did we have to houserule this, why sin't this just the way the game works?" once you try it. Especially when you observe the once-per-day limitation, which we do. Mundane healing can only do so much, that's why potions and magical healing exist...but mundane healing is also not nothing. It's a really good balance, honestly.
deleted. This is just dumb at this point. Short rests are modular in time for a reason. They are a part of the game. if you aren't using them you aren't playing 5e full stop. The warlock is effective with 1 short rest, everyone should want at least 1 short rest to spend hit dice.
Spending hit dice IS natural healing. Just make using bandages count as a short rest.
And if players were playing to maximize their time they would be taking short rests. If you aren't than you are really crappy at maximizing your time.
Apparently not, Apparently at your table wasting whole days is how you stop the larger plot because a lunch break is too long. You can not take more than 1 long rest per 24 hour period. Fights last around a minute tops. If you are NOT using any short rests to spend hit dice and continue the adventure than 23 hours of they day is wasted doing nothing allowing the villain to advance the plot.
If one hour makes such a difference in your games I hope you double time every single travel at all times. You better have those horses running at a full sprint every time and I am sure you never give out exhaustion for that for some odd reason. If your GM is punishing every short rest (not just extraneous ones) with the enemy getting a bunch tougher than they are an absolute moron who has probably never worked a real job in their life. Even the worst job sites get an hour for lunch so that the employees dont collapse.
Time may not exist for your table. You may run on Bethesda Time, where the world doesn't exist unless you're there making it exist and the story only ever advances when the players decide it does. This is not the case for every table.
You act like we only ever deal with one fight. This is incorrect. We simply don't blow our load in every fight on the assumption we'll get constant free short rests. Every player in my group naturally tends to carefully meter resources and play as if they have no idea what the day before them holds, when we're in an area where this matters. We take multiple fights without the 'lunch break', using resources as carefully as we generally can. If the situation allows for a short rest, which it rarely does, then sure, we'll take it. But as I said to Xukuri - should entire classes be held hostage to a mechanic that only really works properly in a distinctly smaller subset of campaigns?
The difference between our core assumptions, Aquilontune, is that you assume short rests are free. That they're an expected and natural part of every adventuring day, Because The Game Book Says So. I do not. I assume short rests are a luxury afforded to you only when the world you're playing in does not deny you that luxury. Frankly, there's been times that goes for long rests, too. The Game Book does not run our games - our GMs do. And our GMs are not going to let the Game Book tell us what kind of stories we are and are not allowed to run.
Apparently not, Apparently at your table wasting whole days is how you stop the larger plot because a lunch break is too long. You can not take more than 1 long rest per 24 hour period. Fights last around a minute tops. If you are NOT using any short rests to spend hit dice and continue the adventure than 23 hours of they day is wasted doing nothing allowing the villain to advance the plot.
If one hour makes such a difference in your games I hope you double time every single travel at all times. You better have those horses running at a full sprint every time and I am sure you never give out exhaustion for that for some odd reason. If your GM is punishing every short rest (not just extraneous ones) with the enemy getting a bunch tougher than they are an absolute moron who has probably never worked a real job in their life. Even the worst job sites get an hour for lunch so that the employees dont collapse.
Time may not exist for your table. You may run on Bethesda Time, where the world doesn't exist unless you're there making it exist and the story only ever advances when the players decide it does. This is not the case for every table.
You act like we only ever deal with one fight. This is incorrect. We simply don't blow our load in every fight on the assumption we'll get constant free short rests. Every player in my group naturally tends to carefully meter resources and play as if they have no idea what the day before them holds, when we're in an area where this matters. We take multiple fights without the 'lunch break', using resources as carefully as we generally can. If the situation allows for a short rest, which it rarely does, then sure, we'll take it. But as I said to Xukuri - should entire classes be held hostage to a mechanic that only really works properly in a distinctly smaller subset of campaigns?
The difference between our core assumptions, Aquilontune, is that you assume short rests are free. That they're an expected and natural part of every adventuring day, Because The Game Book Says So. I do not. I assume short rests are a luxury afforded to you only when the world you're playing in does not deny you that luxury. Frankly, there's been times that goes for long rests, too. The Game Book does not run our games - our GMs do. And our GMs are not going to let the Game Book tell us what kind of stories we are and are not allowed to run.
You had 10 fights... that is 10 minutes... what did you do with the other 23 hours and 50 minutes of your day. I am assuming LONG RESTS are expensive not that short rests are free.
Short rests are LESS expensive and highly rewarding by comparison. The clock IS ticking. There is a LOT to get done I don't have time to go back to town and screw around for 20+ hours when we could have hidden, regrouped taken a lunch break and planned our next move and kept trucking.
The DMG sets rules about adjusting long and short rests for a reason. Because your rest system should match the pace and style of play. Spending hit dice is intended by the system as a whole if your group needs to make short rests 5 minutes to match what is expected in your games and so classes like warlock, monk, fighter, druid all function than do that. Give the Warlock a Rod of the pact keeper. There are ways to do things narratively that also function mechanically with the game.
The reason people want warlock like this is because it is DIFFERENT and it is a different way of looking at spells and spell slots.
I have given a whole thing on how warlocks look at spells differently than other classes. Other classes look at spider climb and go "this is a great 2nd level spell" or will take web, hypnotic pattern, and confussion, all different level AOE control effects. The warlock looks at that and goes "why, you only need one of those for AOE control and you should probably have a different tool". Because their question is what is best in the moment rather than what is best "for this slot".
I was 100% fine with the last caster, I thought it worked too. But I also know we aren't going to get that and want to make THIS one work. This has SOME tweaks needed still to, but it is still better and I like a class that functions with just 1 short rest. I think that is fine, because I do think that an adventuring day with 0 short rests means an adjustment of short and long rest time needs to be done.
A short rest is what YOU make it. 5 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour, or 8 hours. In games where we are playing more exploratory leisure paces with a lot of wondering and exploring with 1 or 2 fights a day, the "adventuring day" becomes an adventuring WEEK and 8 hours becomes a short rest and a long becomes 3 days of down time. Make it what you will, but the 5e ruleset expects at least 1 short rest per long rest. If you didn't short rest before you long rest, you did not take advantage of your time and the plot will progress.
Apparently not, Apparently at your table wasting whole days is how you stop the larger plot because a lunch break is too long. You can not take more than 1 long rest per 24 hour period. Fights last around a minute tops. If you are NOT using any short rests to spend hit dice and continue the adventure than 23 hours of they day is wasted doing nothing allowing the villain to advance the plot.
If one hour makes such a difference in your games I hope you double time every single travel at all times. You better have those horses running at a full sprint every time and I am sure you never give out exhaustion for that for some odd reason. If your GM is punishing every short rest (not just extraneous ones) with the enemy getting a bunch tougher than they are an absolute moron who has probably never worked a real job in their life. Even the worst job sites get an hour for lunch so that the employees dont collapse.
Time may not exist for your table. You may run on Bethesda Time, where the world doesn't exist unless you're there making it exist and the story only ever advances when the players decide it does. This is not the case for every table.
You act like we only ever deal with one fight. This is incorrect. We simply don't blow our load in every fight on the assumption we'll get constant free short rests. Every player in my group naturally tends to carefully meter resources and play as if they have no idea what the day before them holds, when we're in an area where this matters. We take multiple fights without the 'lunch break', using resources as carefully as we generally can. If the situation allows for a short rest, which it rarely does, then sure, we'll take it. But as I said to Xukuri - should entire classes be held hostage to a mechanic that only really works properly in a distinctly smaller subset of campaigns?
The difference between our core assumptions, Aquilontune, is that you assume short rests are free. That they're an expected and natural part of every adventuring day, Because The Game Book Says So. I do not. I assume short rests are a luxury afforded to you only when the world you're playing in does not deny you that luxury. Frankly, there's been times that goes for long rests, too. The Game Book does not run our games - our GMs do. And our GMs are not going to let the Game Book tell us what kind of stories we are and are not allowed to run.
You had 10 fights... that is 10 minutes... what did you do with the other 23 hours and 50 minutes of your day. I am assuming LONG RESTS are expensive not that short rests are free.
Short rests are LESS expensive and highly rewarding by comparison. The clock IS ticking. There is a LOT to get done I don't have time to go back to town and screw around for 20+ hours when we could have hidden, regrouped taken a lunch break and planned our next move and kept trucking.
I've learned in other threads that Yurei has his own thing going on, and it's best to not feed him.
Another thing, I don't care if the warlock players WANT 2, 3 or 7 short rests. It is mathematically full caster equivalent with 1. Except at levels 8,9 and 10. 3 entire levels of the game. Not a lot of classes can say only 3 levels suck.
That is factually incorrect. Here's a chart comparing Halfcaster, Fullcaster, and Pactcaster progression. The values are in conversions based on Font of Magic.
Lvl
Half
0SR
1SR
2SR
Full
Lvl
Half
NoSR
1SR
2SR
Full
1
4
2
4
6
4
11
30
21
42
63
62
2
4
4
6
8
6
12
30
21
42
63
62
3
6
6
12
18
14
13
36
21
42
63
62
4
6
6
12
18
17
14
36
21
42
63
62
5
14
10
20
30
27
15
42
21
42
63
62
6
14
10
20
30
30
16
42
21
42
63
62
7
17
12
24
36
36
17
55
28
56
84
62
8
17
12
24
36
42
18
55
28
56
84
69
9
27
14
28
42
55
19
62
28
56
84
69+
10
27
14
28
42
62
At no point after level 2nd level do Warlocks compare to fullcasters after 1SR. Even with the new (awful imo) Magical Cunning feature they cannot compete after 5th level. Now to be honest I don't necessarily believe that Warlocks should compete. What I find annoying is how much of a power swing Warlocks have. A Short Restless Warlock is worse at spellcasting than half-casters. Warlocks are casters!!
They're not always ticking clocks, no, but even when there's no obvious clock we'll often try to play efficiently anyways. After all, you never know when you're going to discover something was burbling away behind the scenes after all and now you're stuck with a clock you didn't know was there. Or, hell - play to maximize your use of time and you can just get more done.
Well, now you're just contradicting yourself. Your heavily-repeated claim was that short rests are useless because any time you can risk an hour, you've got an extra 23 to waste as well. Now you're saying that you try to be efficient with your time, even when you don't know of any ticking clocks. You know what most people want to do when they don't think the world will explode in five minutes but still don't want to waste too much time? They take a short rest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
Another thing, I don't care if the warlock players WANT 2, 3 or 7 short rests. It is mathematically full caster equivalent with 1. Except at levels 8,9 and 10. 3 entire levels of the game. Not a lot of classes can say only 3 levels suck.
That is factually incorrect. Here's a chart comparing Halfcaster, Fullcaster, and Pactcaster progression. The values are in conversions based on Font of Magic.
Lvl
Half
0SR
1SR
2SR
Full
Lvl
Half
NoSR
1SR
2SR
Full
1
4
2
4
6
4
11
30
21
42
63
62
2
4
4
6
8
6
12
30
21
42
63
62
3
6
6
12
18
14
13
36
21
42
63
62
4
6
6
12
18
17
14
36
21
42
63
62
5
14
10
20
30
27
15
42
21
42
63
62
6
14
10
20
30
30
16
42
21
42
63
62
7
17
12
24
36
36
17
55
28
56
84
62
8
17
12
24
36
42
18
55
28
56
84
69
9
27
14
28
42
55
19
62
28
56
84
69+
10
27
14
28
42
62
At no point after level 2nd level do Warlocks compare to fullcasters after 1SR. Even with the new (awful imo) Magical Cunning feature they cannot compete after 5th level. Now to be honest I don't necessarily believe that Warlocks should compete. What I find annoying is how much of a power swing Warlocks have. A Short Restless Warlock is worse at spellcasting than half-casters. Warlocks are casters!!
number of first level slots at level 1 with 1 short rest for warlock is 2. For full casters 2. The warlock is tied.
Number of first level slots at level 2 with 1 short rest and magical cunning is 5 per long rest, for other full casters 3... the warlock has nearly double.
At level 3. 5 second level slots with 1 short rest, full caster 4 first 2 second. total 6 spell slots for full and 5 for lock, warlocks spell slots are bigger...... (if you are wanting to use the font of magic thing. it costs 3 points to make a second level slot and 2 to make a first. so that is 15 for warlock vs 10 for full caster.... level 4 it becomes 15 vs 13..... level 5 a 3rd level slot costs 5 to make, so it is 25 for warlock and 20 for full caster, at 6 that is 25 to 25. At level 7, 4th level slots cost 7 to make with font of magic..... so warlock is now at (5*7)= 35, full caster added 7 to its previous total of 25 bringing it to 32. And here we are at level 8, right on time for what I said transfer for 35 points to warlock vs 39 to the full caster, level 9 Warlock becomes (5*9) or 45 while the full caster goes to 53, at 10 full caster goes to 62.... level 11 warlock jumps to 8 casts 8*9=72.
So based on font of magic, what I said was true. Warlocks with 1 short rest are full caster equivalent or better at every level except 8, 9 and 10. This is not accounting for other full casters features besides spells nor is it accounting for other warlock features besides pact magic.
(Not only can I barely read your table, but even the parts I can read makes 0 sense, how is the points at 10 with 0 rests at level 5? if you are counting spell levels that is 9 with magical cunning, if you are counting Font of Magic conversion 0 is 15. Either way 10 is wrong. after 1 rest if you are counting spell levels it is 15, and with FoM it is 25 as I said, either way 20 is wrong. And 30 is even more wrong. I don't know who built the chart but it is wrong.)
number of first level slots at level 1 with 1 short rest for warlock is 2. For full casters 2. The warlock is tied.
Number of first level slots at level 2 with 1 short rest and magical cunning is 5 per long rest, for other full casters 3... the warlock has nearly double.
At level 3. 5 second level slots with 1 short rest, full caster 4 first 2 second. total 6 spell slots for full and 5 for lock, warlocks spell slots are bigger...... (if you are wanting to use the font of magic thing. it costs 3 points to make a second level slot and 2 to make a first. so that is 15 for warlock vs 10 for full caster.... level 4 it becomes 15 vs 13..... level 5 a 3rd level slot costs 5 to make, so it is 25 for warlock and 20 for full caster, at 6 that is 25 to 25. At level 7, 4th level slots cost 7 to make with font of magic..... so warlock is now at (5*7)= 35, full caster added 7 to its previous total of 25 bringing it to 32. And here we are at level 8, right on time for what I said transfer for 35 points to warlock vs 39 to the full caster, level 9 Warlock becomes (5*9) or 45 while the full caster goes to 53, at 10 full caster goes to 62.... level 11 warlock jumps to 8 casts 8*9=72.
So based on font of magic, what I said was true. Warlocks with 1 short rest are full caster equivalent or better at every level except 8, 9 and 10. This is not accounting for other full casters features besides spells nor is it accounting for other warlock features besides pact magic.
number of first level slots at level 1 with 1 short rest for warlock is 2. For full casters 2. The warlock is tied.
Number of first level slots at level 2 with 1 short rest and magical cunning is 5 per long rest, for other full casters 3... the warlock has nearly double.
At level 3. 5 second level slots with 1 short rest, full caster 4 first 2 second. total 6 spell slots for full and 5 for lock, warlocks spell slots are bigger...... (if you are wanting to use the font of magic thing. it costs 3 points to make a second level slot and 2 to make a first. so that is 15 for warlock vs 10 for full caster.... level 4 it becomes 15 vs 13..... level 5 a 3rd level slot costs 5 to make, so it is 25 for warlock and 20 for full caster, at 6 that is 25 to 25. At level 7, 4th level slots cost 7 to make with font of magic..... so warlock is now at (5*7)= 35, full caster added 7 to its previous total of 25 bringing it to 32. And here we are at level 8, right on time for what I said transfer for 35 points to warlock vs 39 to the full caster, level 9 Warlock becomes (5*9) or 45 while the full caster goes to 53, at 10 full caster goes to 62.... level 11 warlock jumps to 8 casts 8*9=72.
So based on font of magic, what I said was true. Warlocks with 1 short rest are full caster equivalent or better at every level except 8, 9 and 10. This is not accounting for other full casters features besides spells nor is it accounting for other warlock features besides pact magic.
Going to fix based on that. I was thinking spell point system I believe my bad. So 5*6= 30 for warlock vs level 7 full caster adding 6 instead of 7 going to 31... Full caster wins by 1 point at level 7 (which by the system is less than one first level spell slot) and up until level 6 it was behind so it is about time... Otherwise everything else stated is still true. at level 8 they lose by 7 points. at level 9 it is 5*7= 35 vs 50..... level 10 it is 35 vs 57, and then 8*7 becomes 56, just 1 point behind again (which is again less than 1 first level slot... just take pact of the tome).
(To me this also emphasis even more that the slot should bump to 3 at 8. which would be 8*6 or 48 when the full caster is at 38, 56 vs 50 at level 9.... and 10 and on 57 to 56. and also why my suggestion of not bumping to a second slot till level 4.... with cunning magic at level 2 this would mean full caster= with 1 short rest at level 1 and 2, 9 points to 10 at level 3 and then 15 to 13 as shown at level 4 when you get the second slot...)
(Ultimately I stand by my statement as true at all levels except 8, 9 and 10 the warlock is mathematically about equal to a full caster after 1 short rest) Also thank you for the correction. I am glad to know that even WotC sees that the difference between a 3rd and 4th level spell is less than the difference between a second and 3rd.
The chart is not wrong. To begin with, it was made prior to this UA release. But even still, adding Magic Cunning into it would opening a huge can of worms. If I added Magic Cunning then should I add Arcane Recovery? Sorcery Points? Cleric and Druid have/had features to recover spellslots. Do I count those? Both Ranger and Paladin also get additional spellcastings as base features, surely that would have to be counted as well!
Edit: Actually I think I may have made a typo on 6 that affected the whole chart. Full casters may be sightly higher than shown here. I'll double check when I'm free tomorrow and fix it.
This chart is also kind of biased towards Warlocks as it assumes the best case scenarios. AKA, that the Warlock did not have any of it's pactslots left when they started a short rest. In my personal experiences that's fairly optimistic analysis. And I'm sure that someone's going to claim it's a skill issue, because apparently having seeing into the future and knowing EXACTLY when your going to take your next rest is a realistic skill people have.
The chart is not wrong. To begin with, it was made prior to this UA release. But even still, adding Magic Cunning into it would opening a huge can of worms. If I added Magic Cunning then should I add Arcane Recovery? Sorcery Points? Cleric and Druid have/had features to recover spellslots. Do I count those? Both Ranger and Paladin also get additional spellcastings as base features, surely that would have to be counted as well!
Edit: Actually I think I may have made a typo on 6 that affected the whole chart. Full casters may be sightly higher than shown here. I'll double check when I'm free tomorrow and fix it.
This chart is also kind of biased towards Warlocks as it assumes the best case scenarios. AKA, that the Warlock did not have any of it's pactslots left when they started a short rest. In my personal experiences that's fairly optimistic analysis. And I'm sure that someone's going to claim it's a skill issue, because apparently having seeing into the future and knowing EXACTLY when your going to take your next rest is a realistic skill people have.
If Chart is based on 2014 lock, the chart is wrong for the purpose of discussing playtest 7 lock.
Well if you had read a few pages back you will see I did actually make a comparison between warlock and wizard that took arcane Recovery into account, but it also took into account pact of the tome and the nearly obscene number of at will first and second level spells the warlock gets.
By level 5 it has a first level slot from pact of the tome agonizing blast +3 more invocations which can include 3 of any of the following, at will jump, disguise self, improved dark vision, false life, silent image, mage armor, levitate (self), alter self, invisibility (self) and I already know I am missing some.
Edit: also you dont know when the next short rest will be.... that is what magical cunning is for. Blow the last slot and you cant short rest ok take a minute.... if you can take a short rest, ok take a short rest. If the party took a short rest while you having a slot left you didn't use magical cunning and you have enough resources that you will probably take a second short rest and keep trucking which is just gravy then.
Just going to to do the conversion account for sorcery points on sorcerer, but also accounting for invocations. Pact of tome is a first level cast, each of the "at wills" I will count as just a single spell slot of that level.
Level 1, 3 first level spells for lock after 1 short rest (1 recover 1 from pact, and 1 from tome), 2 for sorc, no sorc points... Lock wins (with no rests it is a draw)
Level 2 6 first level spells for lock + 1 at will first level invocation vs 3 for sorc, 2 points for total of 7 first vs 4 first, lock wins (With no rests lock has 3 first level slots + 1 recovered from magical cunning for 4 slots + the extra invocation so it still wins).
At level 3. 1 first 5 second level slots with 1 short rest one at will first level, Sorc 4 first 2 second +3 SP, it costs 3 points to make a second level slot and 2 to make a first. so that is 19 for warlock (3*5)+2(tome)+2(First/second level invocation) vs 13 for sorc....(Still tied with no short rests for the lock with 2 second, 1 first, recover 1 second after minute, and one at will spell so better with 1 and tied with none for the first 3 levels)
level 4 it becomes 19 vs 17.....
level 5 a 3rd level slot costs 5 to make +2 at will second level spells now, so it is (5*5)+2+2+(2*3)=35 for warlock and 25 for sorc, (Again tied with no rests)
at 6 that is 35 to 31,
7 gains another at will spell, say first here for giggles, so it is (5*6)+2(Tome)+4(2 at will first level spells)+6(2 at will second level spells) total 42. Sorc 31 +7 sorc points= 38.
Level 8 Lock still 42, sorc is 45 points,
Level 9 Lock gets at will 4th level spell and unlocks so this is (5*7)+2(Tome), +4(2 at wil first level spells) +6(2 at will second level spells)+6(1 at will 4th level spell) for total 53 vs Sorc 59
Level 10 53 vs 67.....
Again showing exactly what I said was true... mathematically, this warlock is equivalent or better than a full caster with just a single rest at all levels except 8, 9 and 10.....
I seriously question, and you have never answered, do your players never spend hit dice? They go into a fight battered beaten and mostly dead? Who is stopping the army when they die in the first round of combat instead of taking a short rest before getting to the doors so that they would be prepared?
We don't generally use Hit Dice recovery, no. Either we push on and endure, using rapid recovery when pressed (our table houserules that anyone with Medicine proficiency gains the Healer feat for free because someone with medical training ******* knows how to use a first aid kit; we end up using a lot of healing supplies), or we admit defeat, retreat, LR, and try to fix the problem later. We will if we're absolutely forced to, but whenever we take a short rest to recover the situation we're fighting to resolve gets worse and the minor HP boost we gain from spending Hit Dice is not sufficient to offset the increased difficulty we let ourselves in for.
Hold up. So because YOUR DM is really really bad at their job, the entire game system should change to accommodate for YOUR particular issue?
Pact Magic proper comes online at 3rd level, with the same spell-level guideline but capped at two slots. The Warlock also gets regular half-caster spell slot progression.
Pact Magic slots can only be used for Warlock spells/features (to prevent multiclass shenanigans, and also because flavour).
Upon finishing a short rest, the Warlock can expend spell slots with a level equal to their Pact Magic slot to regain one Pact Magic slot. Finishing a long rest restores both Pact Magic slots (along with regular spell slots).
Thus, you give the Warlock more spell slots, retain their 1st-to-5th-level Pact Magic progression, while balancing how often the Warlock can regain their Pact Magic slots.
Very interesting! It seems to take elements from the UA5 spellcasting, adding a truncated 2014 pact magic into it, with a sprinkle of Sorcerer slot flexibility on top?
Or, a sort of UA5 Mystic Arcanum slot(s) that keep moving upward in spell level. The warlock CAN acquire additional upper-level slots by draining their regular allowance.
From a thematic point of view, I get this idea of a warlock who is granted power by their patron (the pact slots), but at the same time also begin to understand the fundamentals of spellcasting and learn to use magic on their own as well (half-casting slots).
It's a little wonky from 7th to 12th level, on account of an essentially missing spell level, but since you can use the pact slot for those anyway, I don't see much of an issue there.
On a daily basis, you'd have as many slots as a 2014 warlock who frequently rests (albeit not with the full weight of maximum slot levels on everything they do), and lower spell level slot availability for situational magic without the feel-bad effect.
Why did you wait till you were at the door to take a short rest?
Dunno. Ask the people who feel like they can take any short rest they like whenever they want, without exception, and if they're interrupted it's the DM being an anti-player jerk.
I seriously question, and you have never answered, do your players never spend hit dice? They go into a fight battered beaten and mostly dead? Who is stopping the army when they die in the first round of combat instead of taking a short rest before getting to the doors so that they would be prepared?
We don't generally use Hit Dice recovery, no. Either we push on and endure, using rapid recovery when pressed (our table houserules that anyone with Medicine proficiency gains the Healer feat for free because someone with medical training ******* knows how to use a first aid kit; we end up using a lot of healing supplies), or we admit defeat, retreat, LR, and try to fix the problem later. We will if we're absolutely forced to, but whenever we take a short rest to recover the situation we're fighting to resolve gets worse and the minor HP boost we gain from spending Hit Dice is not sufficient to offset the increased difficulty we let ourselves in for.
The general idea is either you're not under time pressure at that moment, at which point there's no need for a short rest and you can just endure until it's time for a long, or you're under time pressure at the moment and thus have no time for a short rest without severely compromising or even outright failing whatever objective you're pursuing is. The moments where it "makes sense" to take a short rest are almost strictly limited to Classic Dungeon Crawls where time is wobbly at best and you're expected to get through 12+ encounters a "day". In almost any other situation it doesn't make sense to sit down and powder your gonads for an hour; either the bad guys aren't currently up to anything and you can powder your gonads for eight hours instead, or the bad guys are Up To Shit and people will die for every minute you spend powdering your gonads.
No in between. And no, there is no in between. Those two things cannot be simultaneously true. Either the bad guys are Up To Shit or they're not; there is no "sorta" up to shit, or "up to shit but only, like...maybe half-assed up to shit, y'know?"
There. Is. No. In. Between.
This warlock doesn't need 2 rests to work. It needs 1. If players are spending hit dice to recover health, than the warlock is fine recovering spell slots.
No one who enjoys/clings to the current short rest-centric Pact Magic model is content with 'one' short rest. They're playing the class specifically and solely to abuse short rests by forcing as many into an adventuring day as possible, to break the game's resource economy wide open and allow them to cast fifty-plus fifth-level spells per day. They're clinging to Pact Magic because they want at-will fifth-level slots, and convincing their table to just let short rests occur naturally for zero time investment whenever the party feels like it is how they get at-will fifth-level slots.
Even better question, if your games are so fast paced why are you not using the shorter heroic rest rules with the 5 minute short rests and 1 hour long rests. Sounds like 1 hour is a long time in your games and 10 minutes seems fine for rituals why not make it 10 for short rests?
It's not about five minutes or ten minutes or an hour. It's the idea that sitting down to powder your gonads and actively do nothing to stop the enemy from enacting their Evil Plot for whatever arbitrary length of time whilst the enemy is actively in the process of enacting their Evil Plot is ******* stupid. It's a giant signal saying "we don't give a shit about this problem, we don't consider it a problem, and we don't care if the enemy succeeds at what they're doing; we'd rather powder our gonads." If there's an Evil Plot actively afoot and you stop to powder your gonads, that Evil Plot is going to progress and you're going to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Which seems to be an extremely sore point amongst people who think they're magically entitled to Time Stop-level short rests at will no matter what is actually happening in the world, "because that's the intended game design!!1!" Buddy, tell the ancient dracolich who's waited a thousand years for the confluence of the heavens that it's simply not allowed to invade the Realms with its Army of Darkness at the first light of the Blood Moon because it's intended game design that players be able to freeze time like a goddamned Joestar whenever they wish for as long as they wish. Y'all ****ed around and picked flowers, romanced bar stools, argued about crafting, picked bar fights in the town library, and so on when y'all were told that the ancient dracolich was invading the Realms at the first light of the Blood Moon. You knew the timeframe, and you acted like this was a Bethesda game where the Main Quest would sit tight and wait for you to "get around to it." You did this to yourselves and have no one but yourselves to blame when the DM does exactly what they warned you multiple times they'd do and overruns the land with an Army of Darkness.
Wow, that's a whole lot of "all you people are playing D&D wrong" I'm reading. You've been around long enough to know that's not cool.
If you want to change the resting/healing mechanics of the game to suit your desired playstyle that's totally fine, but doing so and then complaining that a different part of the game is now broken and therefore Wizards must take your houserules into account? Not as fine.
That is a good example of how adding in your own mechanics can change the way the game plays out in profound ways even if you think the change is minor. In this case an option to heal cheaply and quickly without needing rests or magic was added in, and the DM has been adjusting the game pace and pressure to accommodate that, so of course any mechanics that were tied to short rests are impacted because they eliminated the primary need to short rest. They could have just as easily gone the other way and said a short rest is 15 mins to catch your breath and bind some wounds (what your characters are doing when they spend hit dice) and you'd see more short resting because that would be the choice being encouraged by the rule change.
So rather than continue to pick apart my personal games and tell me I'm a horrible player/DM/person for them because I'm the only one willing to share anecdotes about my experiences with this issue, how 'bout we focus on the part everybody constantly ignores? The part I've never seen any of the "the 2014 warlock is perfect and beautiful and amazing and if they touch so much as a hair on its head I'll RIOT UNTIL THE END OF TIME!" crowd address:
Wizards has repeatedly stated, both during AND before the One D&D playtest cycle, that the most consistent piece of feedback they get about warlocks from their data collection and player surveys is that warlock players feel like they don't have enough spellcasting, and that they can't freely cast their Pact Magic spells because they have so few of them they feel like they HAVE to hoard them for The Right Moment.
Not one single person who keeps pushing for the warlock to remain entirely unmodified has addressed this claim, beyond some flippant "well if they just sucked less they wouldn't have a problem" nonsense. This is not just a That Dumb Ghost ***** problem. This is a whole game problem. Many, many, many players have had these same concerns, and yet proponents of the dumb stupid failed short-rest-max-slots thing have never once addressed that issue. They simply tear down anyone else attempting to do so.
'Magical Cunning' is a bad ******* joke and everyone who read the document knows it. Regaining ONE pact slot ONCE per day, but only if you spend your normal two slots profligately and wastefully and empty your tank. At which point you won't be using Magical Cunning, you'll be begging your table for an unneeded and utterly unnecessary short rest. It is not a solution.
Y'all hard vetoed the first solution, which was to give them half-casting instead and let warlocks lean more on their Invocations. This second "solution" is a lame-ass joke and will also be vetoed. So what's the third option here? How do you fix the most consistent feedback Wizards has gotten for warlocks since the edition's inception without changing Pact Magic, which is the sole and entire problem?
The issue with the phrase 'most consistent' is that it gives us zero concrete data to go on to know whether there is an actual problem that most players are seeing. If WotC received 1000 bits of feedback last year, 500 of which were 'warlocks need more spell slots', but that opinion was only shared by 1% of the overall player base then we would have a situation where the most consistent feedback item is irrelevant to most players. What we really need is to know is whether >50% of current and potential future players want their magic system to be changed away from the current pact magic setup or not. The latest feedback would indicate not if we assume they aren't swapping back for no reason. So how do we make both sides happy? We don't fully, but Magical Cunning is the start of some kind of a partial solution for that spell slot feedback. Does it need a buff? Probably. Maybe it needs to allow you to regain a slot whether they are all used up or not, and add in additional uses at levels X and Y.
That feels irrelevant, Kaynadin. Wizards wouldn't be treating that feedback seriously if it was just a minor, ignorable percentage of feedback. We don't have the concrete data, no; instead we have to trust that Wizards wouldn't be trying (and failing) to solve this problem if it wasn't a problem. Saying "we don't know the real numbers so we should just ignore the point" isn't a good solve. Obviously enough people consider it a problem that Wizards is treating it as one. Why should we ignore that?
So what's the third option here? How do you fix the most consistent feedback Wizards has gotten for warlocks since the edition's inception without changing Pact Magic, which is the sole and entire problem?
I see this as a failure on Wizard's part; the sheer number of suggestions and ideas in this and similar threads shows that there are a lot of options for solving these problems that don't require the warlock to lose its distinctive flavor. It seems clear now that they should've just moved forward with doing 6E - keeping the base chassis of 5E in terms of a lot of core mechanics and rules, but with a significant overhaul of how the classes operate within that framework and with improvements and clarifications (one such example being the UA rule that any combat or spellcasting disrupts a Long Rest).
I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the short rest mechanic is a huge problem for many tables - and attached to this is the number of spell slots the warlock gets per long rest. There have been tons of creative, flavorful suggestions to fix this, all operating within the existing 5E rules framework - none of which WOTC seems to be willing to consider. The first UA warlock was awful; despite having "fixed" the problem of the short rest mechanic, the class had become a generic half caster (and they screwed up the pacts and patrons). The second UA warlock was a safe, defeated retreat to a barely tweaked 2014 warlock. Wizards shot themselves in the foot here, with their long, loud promises of backwards compatibility and so forth. This won't happen, but IMNSHO, they should scrap plans for 2024, stop pleading for community consensus and approval, and take an approach similar to what Colville is doing for his TTRPG: get people with actual game design experience and know-how, get small, representative playtest groups, and be willing to question everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Heh. Reminds me of the UA5 drop and everybody posting all at once.
In narrow circumstances sure, short rests can factor naturally into a campaign. Does that mean entire classes should be held hostage by them? This isn't just a case of "there's no undead so our cleric can't use Turn Undead"; the cleric has other uses for Channel Divinity and Turn Undead is a side gig for them at best. Warlocks in campaigns where short rests don't factor naturally into the campaign are denied effective use of their primary class resource. It's not okay, and thousands of players have complained to Wizards about it. Nobody ever seems to acknowledge that J-Craw and the company as a whole have repeatedly said that the most consistent feedback they get on warlocks is "more spells please" and "this feels bad to play I don't feel like I can ever justify using my magic."
Sure. The BBEG also tends to have hundreds if not thousands of minions, however. And even if they don't, the players have no idea how willing the BBEG is to push into exhaustion to accomplish their goals. Even if all you're doing is trying to stop a mad scientist from magineering a spellplague that will turn an entire town into disco zombies, well - how many mad scientists have you met who obey a healthy sleep schedule? Time is a resource that can never be gained, only spent, and whoever spends their time most effectively has a definitive edge towards achieving victory.
I've seen plenty of players who openly state that any DM who denies or interrupts their players' short rests - for any reason - is being an anti-player TPK-chasing jerk who should quit DMing. There are absolutely people out there who think they should be entitled to a free short rest two steps outside the Gates of Doom, and I cannot fathom why anyone thinks that makes for a good game. Talk about murdering the pacing of your tale. Yeesh.
My general play group is blessed with players who all keenly understand the impact of time on events. Nobody has a Bethesda mindset of "the story won't happen until we show up to make it happen so we can faff around seducing furniture all we want", and our games tend to reflect that. They're not always ticking clocks, no, but even when there's no obvious clock we'll often try to play efficiently anyways. After all, you never know when you're going to discover something was burbling away behind the scenes after all and now you're stuck with a clock you didn't know was there. Or, hell - play to maximize your use of time and you can just get more done.
I've played multiple warlocks, and in an older time they were one of my favorite classes. In some ways they still are. I crave the customization and responsiveness of the Invocation system, the ability to make a warlock that's actually different from other warlocks. But it's in part because I've played them and crave that part of their identity that I'm so upset by the horrid limitations of Pact Magic. We could be doing better. Warlocks don't have to be weird, janky edge-case not-really-spellcasters beholden to too many short rests...but because "The Community" raised an uproar Wizards gave up on it and now we're back to the 2014 version. No improvements for us. I can only surmise this is because people so addicted to Pact Magic that they refused to allow anything else at all are addicted to Pact Magic because they like abusing it. There's really no other reason to like it. Especially when most of those people are in this thread praising the utter destruction of any hope for the warlock to be improved in any damn way.
It is Upsetting.
It's one of our most successful house rules, to the point where it's largely assumed in any new game we play. Allowing healer's kits to actually heal people is one of those things that makes you say "why did we have to houserule this, why sin't this just the way the game works?" once you try it. Especially when you observe the once-per-day limitation, which we do. Mundane healing can only do so much, that's why potions and magical healing exist...but mundane healing is also not nothing. It's a really good balance, honestly.
Please do not contact or message me.
deleted. This is just dumb at this point. Short rests are modular in time for a reason. They are a part of the game. if you aren't using them you aren't playing 5e full stop. The warlock is effective with 1 short rest, everyone should want at least 1 short rest to spend hit dice.
Spending hit dice IS natural healing. Just make using bandages count as a short rest.
And if players were playing to maximize their time they would be taking short rests. If you aren't than you are really crappy at maximizing your time.
Time may not exist for your table. You may run on Bethesda Time, where the world doesn't exist unless you're there making it exist and the story only ever advances when the players decide it does. This is not the case for every table.
You act like we only ever deal with one fight. This is incorrect. We simply don't blow our load in every fight on the assumption we'll get constant free short rests. Every player in my group naturally tends to carefully meter resources and play as if they have no idea what the day before them holds, when we're in an area where this matters. We take multiple fights without the 'lunch break', using resources as carefully as we generally can. If the situation allows for a short rest, which it rarely does, then sure, we'll take it. But as I said to Xukuri - should entire classes be held hostage to a mechanic that only really works properly in a distinctly smaller subset of campaigns?
The difference between our core assumptions, Aquilontune, is that you assume short rests are free. That they're an expected and natural part of every adventuring day, Because The Game Book Says So. I do not. I assume short rests are a luxury afforded to you only when the world you're playing in does not deny you that luxury. Frankly, there's been times that goes for long rests, too. The Game Book does not run our games - our GMs do. And our GMs are not going to let the Game Book tell us what kind of stories we are and are not allowed to run.
Please do not contact or message me.
You had 10 fights... that is 10 minutes... what did you do with the other 23 hours and 50 minutes of your day. I am assuming LONG RESTS are expensive not that short rests are free.
Short rests are LESS expensive and highly rewarding by comparison. The clock IS ticking. There is a LOT to get done I don't have time to go back to town and screw around for 20+ hours when we could have hidden, regrouped taken a lunch break and planned our next move and kept trucking.
The DMG sets rules about adjusting long and short rests for a reason. Because your rest system should match the pace and style of play. Spending hit dice is intended by the system as a whole if your group needs to make short rests 5 minutes to match what is expected in your games and so classes like warlock, monk, fighter, druid all function than do that. Give the Warlock a Rod of the pact keeper. There are ways to do things narratively that also function mechanically with the game.
The reason people want warlock like this is because it is DIFFERENT and it is a different way of looking at spells and spell slots.
I have given a whole thing on how warlocks look at spells differently than other classes. Other classes look at spider climb and go "this is a great 2nd level spell" or will take web, hypnotic pattern, and confussion, all different level AOE control effects. The warlock looks at that and goes "why, you only need one of those for AOE control and you should probably have a different tool". Because their question is what is best in the moment rather than what is best "for this slot".
I was 100% fine with the last caster, I thought it worked too. But I also know we aren't going to get that and want to make THIS one work. This has SOME tweaks needed still to, but it is still better and I like a class that functions with just 1 short rest. I think that is fine, because I do think that an adventuring day with 0 short rests means an adjustment of short and long rest time needs to be done.
A short rest is what YOU make it. 5 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour, or 8 hours. In games where we are playing more exploratory leisure paces with a lot of wondering and exploring with 1 or 2 fights a day, the "adventuring day" becomes an adventuring WEEK and 8 hours becomes a short rest and a long becomes 3 days of down time. Make it what you will, but the 5e ruleset expects at least 1 short rest per long rest. If you didn't short rest before you long rest, you did not take advantage of your time and the plot will progress.
I've learned in other threads that Yurei has his own thing going on, and it's best to not feed him.
That is factually incorrect. Here's a chart comparing Halfcaster, Fullcaster, and Pactcaster progression. The values are in conversions based on Font of Magic.
At no point after level 2nd level do Warlocks compare to fullcasters after 1SR. Even with the new (awful imo) Magical Cunning feature they cannot compete after 5th level.
Now to be honest I don't necessarily believe that Warlocks should compete. What I find annoying is how much of a power swing Warlocks have. A Short Restless Warlock is worse at spellcasting than half-casters. Warlocks are casters!!
Well, now you're just contradicting yourself. Your heavily-repeated claim was that short rests are useless because any time you can risk an hour, you've got an extra 23 to waste as well. Now you're saying that you try to be efficient with your time, even when you don't know of any ticking clocks. You know what most people want to do when they don't think the world will explode in five minutes but still don't want to waste too much time? They take a short rest.
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)
number of first level slots at level 1 with 1 short rest for warlock is 2. For full casters 2. The warlock is tied.
Number of first level slots at level 2 with 1 short rest and magical cunning is 5 per long rest, for other full casters 3... the warlock has nearly double.
At level 3. 5 second level slots with 1 short rest, full caster 4 first 2 second. total 6 spell slots for full and 5 for lock, warlocks spell slots are bigger...... (if you are wanting to use the font of magic thing. it costs 3 points to make a second level slot and 2 to make a first. so that is 15 for warlock vs 10 for full caster.... level 4 it becomes 15 vs 13..... level 5 a 3rd level slot costs 5 to make, so it is 25 for warlock and 20 for full caster, at 6 that is 25 to 25. At level 7, 4th level slots cost 7 to make with font of magic..... so warlock is now at (5*7)= 35, full caster added 7 to its previous total of 25 bringing it to 32. And here we are at level 8, right on time for what I said transfer for 35 points to warlock vs 39 to the full caster, level 9 Warlock becomes (5*9) or 45 while the full caster goes to 53, at 10 full caster goes to 62.... level 11 warlock jumps to 8 casts 8*9=72.
So based on font of magic, what I said was true. Warlocks with 1 short rest are full caster equivalent or better at every level except 8, 9 and 10. This is not accounting for other full casters features besides spells nor is it accounting for other warlock features besides pact magic.
(Not only can I barely read your table, but even the parts I can read makes 0 sense, how is the points at 10 with 0 rests at level 5? if you are counting spell levels that is 9 with magical cunning, if you are counting Font of Magic conversion 0 is 15. Either way 10 is wrong. after 1 rest if you are counting spell levels it is 15, and with FoM it is 25 as I said, either way 20 is wrong. And 30 is even more wrong. I don't know who built the chart but it is wrong.)
A 4th level spell is 6 Sorcery Points and a 5th level spell is 7 sorcery points.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/sorcerer#ClassFeatures
Thank you, chart is still wrong though.
Going to fix based on that. I was thinking spell point system I believe my bad.
So 5*6= 30 for warlock vs level 7 full caster adding 6 instead of 7 going to 31... Full caster wins by 1 point at level 7 (which by the system is less than one first level spell slot) and up until level 6 it was behind so it is about time... Otherwise everything else stated is still true. at level 8 they lose by 7 points. at level 9 it is 5*7= 35 vs 50..... level 10 it is 35 vs 57, and then 8*7 becomes 56, just 1 point behind again (which is again less than 1 first level slot... just take pact of the tome).
(To me this also emphasis even more that the slot should bump to 3 at 8. which would be 8*6 or 48 when the full caster is at 38, 56 vs 50 at level 9.... and 10 and on 57 to 56. and also why my suggestion of not bumping to a second slot till level 4.... with cunning magic at level 2 this would mean full caster= with 1 short rest at level 1 and 2, 9 points to 10 at level 3 and then 15 to 13 as shown at level 4 when you get the second slot...)
(Ultimately I stand by my statement as true at all levels except 8, 9 and 10 the warlock is mathematically about equal to a full caster after 1 short rest) Also thank you for the correction. I am glad to know that even WotC sees that the difference between a 3rd and 4th level spell is less than the difference between a second and 3rd.
The chart is not wrong. To begin with, it was made prior to this UA release. But even still, adding Magic Cunning into it would opening a huge can of worms. If I added Magic Cunning then should I add Arcane Recovery? Sorcery Points? Cleric and Druid have/had features to recover spellslots. Do I count those? Both Ranger and Paladin also get additional spellcastings as base features, surely that would have to be counted as well!
Edit: Actually I think I may have made a typo on 6 that affected the whole chart. Full casters may be sightly higher than shown here. I'll double check when I'm free tomorrow and fix it.
This chart is also kind of biased towards Warlocks as it assumes the best case scenarios. AKA, that the Warlock did not have any of it's pactslots left when they started a short rest. In my personal experiences that's fairly optimistic analysis. And I'm sure that someone's going to claim it's a skill issue, because apparently having seeing into the future and knowing EXACTLY when your going to take your next rest is a realistic skill people have.
If Chart is based on 2014 lock, the chart is wrong for the purpose of discussing playtest 7 lock.
Well if you had read a few pages back you will see I did actually make a comparison between warlock and wizard that took arcane Recovery into account, but it also took into account pact of the tome and the nearly obscene number of at will first and second level spells the warlock gets.
By level 5 it has a first level slot from pact of the tome agonizing blast +3 more invocations which can include 3 of any of the following, at will jump, disguise self, improved dark vision, false life, silent image, mage armor, levitate (self), alter self, invisibility (self) and I already know I am missing some.
Edit: also you dont know when the next short rest will be.... that is what magical cunning is for. Blow the last slot and you cant short rest ok take a minute.... if you can take a short rest, ok take a short rest. If the party took a short rest while you having a slot left you didn't use magical cunning and you have enough resources that you will probably take a second short rest and keep trucking which is just gravy then.
Just going to to do the conversion account for sorcery points on sorcerer, but also accounting for invocations. Pact of tome is a first level cast, each of the "at wills" I will count as just a single spell slot of that level.
Level 1, 3 first level spells for lock after 1 short rest (1 recover 1 from pact, and 1 from tome), 2 for sorc, no sorc points... Lock wins (with no rests it is a draw)
Level 2 6 first level spells for lock + 1 at will first level invocation vs 3 for sorc, 2 points for total of 7 first vs 4 first, lock wins (With no rests lock has 3 first level slots + 1 recovered from magical cunning for 4 slots + the extra invocation so it still wins).
At level 3. 1 first 5 second level slots with 1 short rest one at will first level, Sorc 4 first 2 second +3 SP, it costs 3 points to make a second level slot and 2 to make a first. so that is 19 for warlock (3*5)+2(tome)+2(First/second level invocation) vs 13 for sorc....(Still tied with no short rests for the lock with 2 second, 1 first, recover 1 second after minute, and one at will spell so better with 1 and tied with none for the first 3 levels)
level 4 it becomes 19 vs 17.....
level 5 a 3rd level slot costs 5 to make +2 at will second level spells now, so it is (5*5)+2+2+(2*3)=35 for warlock and 25 for sorc, (Again tied with no rests)
at 6 that is 35 to 31,
7 gains another at will spell, say first here for giggles, so it is (5*6)+2(Tome)+4(2 at will first level spells)+6(2 at will second level spells) total 42. Sorc 31 +7 sorc points= 38.
Level 8 Lock still 42, sorc is 45 points,
Level 9 Lock gets at will 4th level spell and unlocks so this is (5*7)+2(Tome), +4(2 at wil first level spells) +6(2 at will second level spells)+6(1 at will 4th level spell) for total 53 vs Sorc 59
Level 10 53 vs 67.....
Again showing exactly what I said was true... mathematically, this warlock is equivalent or better than a full caster with just a single rest at all levels except 8, 9 and 10.....
Hold up. So because YOUR DM is really really bad at their job, the entire game system should change to accommodate for YOUR particular issue?
Very interesting! It seems to take elements from the UA5 spellcasting, adding a truncated 2014 pact magic into it, with a sprinkle of Sorcerer slot flexibility on top?
Or, a sort of UA5 Mystic Arcanum slot(s) that keep moving upward in spell level. The warlock CAN acquire additional upper-level slots by draining their regular allowance.
From a thematic point of view, I get this idea of a warlock who is granted power by their patron (the pact slots), but at the same time also begin to understand the fundamentals of spellcasting and learn to use magic on their own as well (half-casting slots).
Let's see how it would shake out:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warlock Level 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pact Slots Pact Slot Level
1 2 - - - - - -
2 2 - - - - - -
3 3 - - - - 2 2nd
4 3 - - - - 2 2nd
5 4 2 - - - 2 3rd
6 4 2 - - - 2 3rd
7 4 3 - - - 2 4th
8 4 3 - - - 2 4th
9 4 3 2 - - 2 5th
10 4 3 2 - - 2 5th
11 4 3 3 - - 2 5th
12 4 3 3 - - 2 5th
13 4 3 3 1 - 2 5th
14 4 3 3 1 - 2 5th
15 4 3 3 2 - 2 5th
16 4 3 3 2 - 2 5th
17 4 3 3 3 1 2 5th
18 4 3 3 3 1 2 5th
19 4 3 3 3 2 2 5th
20 4 3 3 3 2 2 5th
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little wonky from 7th to 12th level, on account of an essentially missing spell level, but since you can use the pact slot for those anyway, I don't see much of an issue there.
On a daily basis, you'd have as many slots as a 2014 warlock who frequently rests (albeit not with the full weight of maximum slot levels on everything they do), and lower spell level slot availability for situational magic without the feel-bad effect.
I kinda like it, Lilith! :)
Wow, that's a whole lot of "all you people are playing D&D wrong" I'm reading. You've been around long enough to know that's not cool.
If you want to change the resting/healing mechanics of the game to suit your desired playstyle that's totally fine, but doing so and then complaining that a different part of the game is now broken and therefore Wizards must take your houserules into account? Not as fine.
That is a good example of how adding in your own mechanics can change the way the game plays out in profound ways even if you think the change is minor. In this case an option to heal cheaply and quickly without needing rests or magic was added in, and the DM has been adjusting the game pace and pressure to accommodate that, so of course any mechanics that were tied to short rests are impacted because they eliminated the primary need to short rest. They could have just as easily gone the other way and said a short rest is 15 mins to catch your breath and bind some wounds (what your characters are doing when they spend hit dice) and you'd see more short resting because that would be the choice being encouraged by the rule change.
So rather than continue to pick apart my personal games and tell me I'm a horrible player/DM/person for them because I'm the only one willing to share anecdotes about my experiences with this issue, how 'bout we focus on the part everybody constantly ignores? The part I've never seen any of the "the 2014 warlock is perfect and beautiful and amazing and if they touch so much as a hair on its head I'll RIOT UNTIL THE END OF TIME!" crowd address:
Wizards has repeatedly stated, both during AND before the One D&D playtest cycle, that the most consistent piece of feedback they get about warlocks from their data collection and player surveys is that warlock players feel like they don't have enough spellcasting, and that they can't freely cast their Pact Magic spells because they have so few of them they feel like they HAVE to hoard them for The Right Moment.
Not one single person who keeps pushing for the warlock to remain entirely unmodified has addressed this claim, beyond some flippant "well if they just sucked less they wouldn't have a problem" nonsense. This is not just a That Dumb Ghost ***** problem. This is a whole game problem. Many, many, many players have had these same concerns, and yet proponents of the dumb stupid failed short-rest-max-slots thing have never once addressed that issue. They simply tear down anyone else attempting to do so.
'Magical Cunning' is a bad ******* joke and everyone who read the document knows it. Regaining ONE pact slot ONCE per day, but only if you spend your normal two slots profligately and wastefully and empty your tank. At which point you won't be using Magical Cunning, you'll be begging your table for an unneeded and utterly unnecessary short rest. It is not a solution.
Y'all hard vetoed the first solution, which was to give them half-casting instead and let warlocks lean more on their Invocations. This second "solution" is a lame-ass joke and will also be vetoed. So what's the third option here? How do you fix the most consistent feedback Wizards has gotten for warlocks since the edition's inception without changing Pact Magic, which is the sole and entire problem?
Please do not contact or message me.
The issue with the phrase 'most consistent' is that it gives us zero concrete data to go on to know whether there is an actual problem that most players are seeing. If WotC received 1000 bits of feedback last year, 500 of which were 'warlocks need more spell slots', but that opinion was only shared by 1% of the overall player base then we would have a situation where the most consistent feedback item is irrelevant to most players. What we really need is to know is whether >50% of current and potential future players want their magic system to be changed away from the current pact magic setup or not. The latest feedback would indicate not if we assume they aren't swapping back for no reason. So how do we make both sides happy? We don't fully, but Magical Cunning is the start of some kind of a partial solution for that spell slot feedback. Does it need a buff? Probably. Maybe it needs to allow you to regain a slot whether they are all used up or not, and add in additional uses at levels X and Y.
That feels irrelevant, Kaynadin. Wizards wouldn't be treating that feedback seriously if it was just a minor, ignorable percentage of feedback. We don't have the concrete data, no; instead we have to trust that Wizards wouldn't be trying (and failing) to solve this problem if it wasn't a problem. Saying "we don't know the real numbers so we should just ignore the point" isn't a good solve. Obviously enough people consider it a problem that Wizards is treating it as one. Why should we ignore that?
Please do not contact or message me.
I see this as a failure on Wizard's part; the sheer number of suggestions and ideas in this and similar threads shows that there are a lot of options for solving these problems that don't require the warlock to lose its distinctive flavor. It seems clear now that they should've just moved forward with doing 6E - keeping the base chassis of 5E in terms of a lot of core mechanics and rules, but with a significant overhaul of how the classes operate within that framework and with improvements and clarifications (one such example being the UA rule that any combat or spellcasting disrupts a Long Rest).
I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the short rest mechanic is a huge problem for many tables - and attached to this is the number of spell slots the warlock gets per long rest. There have been tons of creative, flavorful suggestions to fix this, all operating within the existing 5E rules framework - none of which WOTC seems to be willing to consider. The first UA warlock was awful; despite having "fixed" the problem of the short rest mechanic, the class had become a generic half caster (and they screwed up the pacts and patrons). The second UA warlock was a safe, defeated retreat to a barely tweaked 2014 warlock. Wizards shot themselves in the foot here, with their long, loud promises of backwards compatibility and so forth. This won't happen, but IMNSHO, they should scrap plans for 2024, stop pleading for community consensus and approval, and take an approach similar to what Colville is doing for his TTRPG: get people with actual game design experience and know-how, get small, representative playtest groups, and be willing to question everything.