Barbarian, Brutal Critical: this is a trash tier feature. Stop trying to fob off bonuses to critical hits as being valuable (best case is ... 1.9 dpr per die).
Barbarian, Persistent Rage: durability is not the problem for high level barbarians; by the time you're using this, your side has probably already lost the fight.
Barbarian, Bear: the fact that it's no longer possible to be resistant to force damage (which we expect most magic weapons to deliver) is a problem for rage.
Barbarian, Wilds, Lion: please unify the various tanking mechanics. Two lions can't help each other, nor can two people with sentinel mastery, but one of each is fine.
Barbarian, Zealot, Rage Beyond Death: this is a bonus to persistent rage, and thus suffers from the problems of persistent rage.
Fighter, Tactical Mind: should probably have level scaling.
Fighter, Battle Master, Relentless: may be more powerful than intended, since it can be used outside of combat and is per turn, not per round. Then again, it's a level 15 feature so maybe fine.
Fighter, Brawler: would really prefer this as a barbarian.
Fighter, Brawler, Improvised Expert: improvised weapon rules really need more clarification if they're supposed to be a major class feature.
Fighter, Champion: the new features are good. Unfortunately, it's still stuck with a bonus to critical hits, which is trash tier.
Sorcerer, Draconic, Draconic Spirit: gaining a single language proficiency is supposed to be significant?
Sorcerer, Wild Magic: change the wild magic surge table so it's no longer "randomly kill the party" and I'll actually consider this subclass.
Warlock, Thirsting Blade: three attacks at level 11, with everything else that's available to buff your damage, is probably excessive.
Counterspell: better at low levels, but likely to be overpowered and oppressive at high levels when you're looking at DC 20+ saves. Change save type to be the same as your spellcasting attribute.
So the survey drops tomorrow. What comments/opinions are you going to leave?
For Warlock I am going to suggest more options for Pact of the Chain like a Gazer or a Death’s Head, each Warlock subclass gets the change damage type of their warlock spells like the GOO has and an bonus language based on the patron, Magical Cunning should add a bonus to intelligence based skills that you have proficiency in equal to your charisma modifier, a repeatable invocation that lets you select a spell from any list and be able to cast that spell once per long rest, a free casting of a patron spell at base level per long rest.
And to bring back the Flex Weapon Mastery.
Martials need a LOT of work. The divide hasn't been addressed and it is in fact worse now. The weapon mastery is not enough. How about this to fix fighter:
- all fighters get maneuvers and more of them are added to give reaction effects (fighters should have access to at least a stupid parry reaction for crying out loud)
- you can learn multiple fighting styles but each one you learn is tied to a particular weapon
- unbreakable will - new ability at 5th level - proficiency bonus times per long rest you can use a CON save instead of WIS or CHA
- indomitable - just give them legendary resistance
- martial hit dice recover 1/4 on a short rest
- all fighters have the GWM option of -5/+10 on any weapon they are proficient with - usable 1/fighter level per long rest
Sorcerer, Draconic, Draconic Spirit: gaining a single language proficiency is supposed to be significant?
This one's just a reversion; for some reason they removed draconic in the last playtest. Still lost Expertise on Charisma checks vs. dragons but that was something a strange and highly situational feature so I'm not sure it's a big loss as first level isn't where Draconic Bloodline has problems.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I put in that they need to give sorcerers more metamagic options and more sorcerery points. Being stuck at 2 metamagics till level 10 is bull and it has been since 2014, and they need to give sorcerers more points so it's not always this game of hording points for the right moments and having to sacrifice slots for more of them.
I also added that wild magic just needs a surge table that's not just full of stupid crap like your hair grows, you turn blue, you age etc. A sub classes entire core concept shouldn't be "teh lulz"
I put in that they need to give sorcerers more metamagic options and more sorcerery points. Being stuck at 2 metamagics till level 10 is bull and it has been since 2014, and they need to give sorcerers more points so it's not always this game of hording points for the right moments and having to sacrifice slots for more of them.
I also added that wild magic just needs a surge table that's not just full of stupid crap like your hair grows, you turn blue, you age etc. A sub classes entire core concept shouldn't be "teh lulz"
Didn’t realize that they went back to 2 Meta-Magic’s. Was 3 in the playtest 5.
One thing I noted is that they didn't really fix the Barbarian subclass problem of one subclass being so much better than the others, they just shifted it from the Totem Barbarian to the Berserker Barbarian. NONE of the later features of any subclass measure up. The loss of Force resistance as an option to Bear is especially hard hitting as Force damage looks to become more common in the game.
I also pointed out that requiring a resource to be 100% depleted before being able to use the additional recharge mechanic isn't a very good idea. I don't know about anyone else's table, but where I have played, fear of not having enough is only part of the issue - it's the fear of, at any point in time, of being at ZERO that players avoid. They feel that the moment they are completely out, THAT is exactly when the nasty thing that they could have easily defeated if they had anything left in the tank shows up and causes a TPK. Fear of being at zero and fear of not having enough may look the same to some people, but they are most definitely NOT the same.
Warlocks need something from levels 7 through 10, as that is where having only 2 pact slots hits the hardest and they feel the most limited. 7th level is when any other primary spellcaster has a minimum of 11 spells per day, and possibly more based on class and subclass combo - for example, a Circle of Stars Druid would have 11 spells of varying levels AND 3 Guiding Bolts spells in addition. At 10th level they will have 15, making that total of 2 look incredibly inadequate. Pointing at formulas that claim they are the same power level is meaningless when no one who plays it feels like they are the same - all that proves is that the formula has some wrong assumptions behind it.
Pact of the Tome, with the additional options, should feel as awesome as Pact of the Blade with its' options does at level 11, and it doesn't look that way in the playtest. And if they are worried about the balance of the two combined, then maybe they shouldn't be able to be put together.
Barbarians need better scaling post 11th level compared to, well, everyone. Even fighters get 3 attacks then, and the half-caster warriors get 4th and 5th level spells post 11.
It would be nice if that 4th Fighter attack per round happened earlier than level 20 - it didn't used to have to wait so long in earlier editions.
And I completely flubbed and missed that the new Sorcerer subclasses didn't automatically grant the subclass spells. That needs to be fixed, as knowing them automatically is why the subclasses that grant that are considered the most powerful ones. You need something HUGE to make up for that, like granting access to an entire spell list (Divine Soul) to equal it.
Negative about tier 3/4 martials, positive about the changes in the casters with some nit picking. Thank god they back tracked on that god awful 1/2 caster warlock. Big changes can be bad as well as good so celebrating change when its that terrible for changes sake I will not do.
Negative about tier 3/4 martials, positive about the changes in the casters with some nit picking. Thank god they back tracked on that god awful 1/2 caster warlock. Big changes can be bad as well as good so celebrating change when its that terrible for changes sake I will not do.
But that's a straw man. Nobody celebrates changes just because. But there are things that are problematic, and one of those things is Pact Magic. Maybe not on your table, but on many. And it really is a poorly designed mechanic since it depends on how the short rests are managed. If you make many, or at will, the warlock is very powerful. If you make few, or none at all, warlock magic is an anecdote. In any case, since it is a problem on many gaming tables, it is best to change it. Was the Warlock Half caster tried and people didn't like it? Alright, let's try something different. These are the changes that are requested. It is asked to solve things that cause problems. Change is not asked for the sake of change.
Negative about tier 3/4 martials, positive about the changes in the casters with some nit picking. Thank god they back tracked on that god awful 1/2 caster warlock. Big changes can be bad as well as good so celebrating change when its that terrible for changes sake I will not do.
But that's a straw man. Nobody celebrates changes just because. But there are things that are problematic, and one of those things is Pact Magic. Maybe not on your table, but on many. And it really is a poorly designed mechanic since it depends on how the short rests are managed. If you make many, or at will, the warlock is very powerful. If you make few, or none at all, warlock magic is an anecdote. In any case, since it is a problem on many gaming tables, it is best to change it. Was the Warlock Half caster tried and people didn't like it? Alright, let's try something different. These are the changes that are requested. It is asked to solve things that cause problems. Change is not asked for the sake of change.
It was not a problem of much significance on most gaming tables hence why they were in the top 3 favorite classes. You like WOTC did are mistaking people having a small issue where they think some tweaks can be done to improve things with a massive dislike of something that needs radical changes. And no it was not a straw man people have been making the argument that change is good just because its a big change which is brave and bold.
I put in that they need to give sorcerers more metamagic options and more sorcerery points. Being stuck at 2 metamagics till level 10 is bull and it has been since 2014, and they need to give sorcerers more points so it's not always this game of hording points for the right moments and having to sacrifice slots for more of them.
I also added that wild magic just needs a surge table that's not just full of stupid crap like your hair grows, you turn blue, you age etc. A sub classes entire core concept shouldn't be "teh lulz"
Didn’t realize that they went back to 2 Meta-Magic’s. Was 3 in the playtest 5.
yeah was a big wtf moment to me, UA5 was 3 metamagic options swap em on a long rest. Now they just went right back to only 2 and your stuck with em till you level
I put in that they need to give sorcerers more metamagic options and more sorcerery points. Being stuck at 2 metamagics till level 10 is bull and it has been since 2014, and they need to give sorcerers more points so it's not always this game of hording points for the right moments and having to sacrifice slots for more of them.
I also added that wild magic just needs a surge table that's not just full of stupid crap like your hair grows, you turn blue, you age etc. A sub classes entire core concept shouldn't be "teh lulz"
Didn’t realize that they went back to 2 Meta-Magic’s. Was 3 in the playtest 5.
yeah was a big wtf moment to me, UA5 was 3 metamagic options swap em on a long rest. Now they just went right back to only 2 and your stuck with em till you level
Yeah that is one area I commented on in the survey. 2 just feels really sparse especially given how slowly they are gained. I have a similar issue with the battle master. I think the numbers given were tied to the 2014 launch when there were so few options 2 out of the total number felt alright. But they need more metamgics and to get more of them imo./
Negative about tier 3/4 martials, positive about the changes in the casters with some nit picking. Thank god they back tracked on that god awful 1/2 caster warlock. Big changes can be bad as well as good so celebrating change when its that terrible for changes sake I will not do.
But that's a straw man. Nobody celebrates changes just because. But there are things that are problematic, and one of those things is Pact Magic. Maybe not on your table, but on many. And it really is a poorly designed mechanic since it depends on how the short rests are managed. If you make many, or at will, the warlock is very powerful. If you make few, or none at all, warlock magic is an anecdote. In any case, since it is a problem on many gaming tables, it is best to change it. Was the Warlock Half caster tried and people didn't like it? Alright, let's try something different. These are the changes that are requested. It is asked to solve things that cause problems. Change is not asked for the sake of change.
It was not a problem of much significance on most gaming tables hence why they were in the top 3 favorite classes. You like WOTC did are mistaking people having a small issue where they think some tweaks can be done to improve things with a massive dislike of something that needs radical changes. And no it was not a straw man people have been making the argument that change is good just because its a big change which is brave and bold.
Well, actually Jeremy Crawford has said on several occasions that the main complaint about warlock is pact magic. That's why they tried to change it in the first place. So, yes, it is a problem on many tables. And a solution should be found.
Negative about tier 3/4 martials, positive about the changes in the casters with some nit picking. Thank god they back tracked on that god awful 1/2 caster warlock. Big changes can be bad as well as good so celebrating change when its that terrible for changes sake I will not do.
But that's a straw man. Nobody celebrates changes just because. But there are things that are problematic, and one of those things is Pact Magic. Maybe not on your table, but on many. And it really is a poorly designed mechanic since it depends on how the short rests are managed. If you make many, or at will, the warlock is very powerful. If you make few, or none at all, warlock magic is an anecdote. In any case, since it is a problem on many gaming tables, it is best to change it. Was the Warlock Half caster tried and people didn't like it? Alright, let's try something different. These are the changes that are requested. It is asked to solve things that cause problems. Change is not asked for the sake of change.
It was not a problem of much significance on most gaming tables hence why they were in the top 3 favorite classes. You like WOTC did are mistaking people having a small issue where they think some tweaks can be done to improve things with a massive dislike of something that needs radical changes. And no it was not a straw man people have been making the argument that change is good just because its a big change which is brave and bold.
Well, actually Jeremy Crawford has said on several occasions that the main complaint about warlock is pact magic. That's why they tried to change it in the first place. So, yes, it is a problem on many tables. And a solution should be found.
Those statements felt disingenuous since monk and fighters are still all short rest dependent. I know some 5e tables don’t short rest at all, but many possibly the majority of 5e classes have some benefit from 1 short rest. 5th level bard gets BI back every short rest. Cleric/Paladin get channel divinity back every short rest. Druid get Wild shape back every short rest. Fighter gets action surge, and other features back every short rest. Wizards arcane recover
Those statements felt disingenuous since monk and fighters are still all short rest dependent. I know some 5e tables don’t short rest at all, but many possibly the majority of 5e classes have some benefit from 1 short rest. 5th level bard gets BI back every short rest. Cleric/Paladin get channel divinity back every short rest. Druid get Wild shape back every short rest. Fighter gets action surge, and other features back every short rest. Wizards arcane recover
The issue is more one of extremes; to maintain any level of spellcasting a Warlock must short rest often, whereas these other features are less critical. For example, a Cleric without any Channel Divinity uses remaining still has plenty they can do as long as they have spell slots remaining, so while they can potentially benefit from short rests (especially if they use their Channel Divinity a lot) they are not dependent upon them.
5th-edition Sorcerer is the other extreme; their core features (spellcasting and Metamagic) are entirely long rest dependent, so the only really want to short-rest to regain hit-points, but a ranged sorcerer may not take much damage to begin with (which risks taking us into another tangent about how 5th-edition heavily favours ranged). At least in the latest playtest Sorcerer has some sorcery point recovery as standard on short rest, though for some reason it's implemented badly (you only get them if you have zero remaining, if you have one leftover you get nothing).
Part of the problem is that this all comes back to how badly designed short rest vs. long rest has always been in 5th-edition, and WotC haven't made any big push to fix it properly. It's not just about getting something back on short rest, what matters is how dependent you are; really what they need to do is reduce the number of spell slots that casters get, and give all casters a form of arcane recovery (with Wizards getting the most back).
At the same time Warlocks should get more pact magic slots but limited to long rest, with some regained on short rest, so the difference between Warlock and other casters is the type of magic you're casting (warlock still casts fewer spells over an adventuring day, and mostly in small bursts, but always at the same level except for arcanum). They could potentially lose a few levels of mystic arcanum if the balance is tipped more in favour of casting more 5th-level spells, or have the arcanum use a shared resource (i.e- you know one arcanum at each level from 6th to 9th, but you can't cast them all every day).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I don't know what the solution is, but it is clear that it is a problem that must be solved. And in the last playtest it certainly isn't solved. Since it is certainly not going to be solved, it is by returning to the same mechanics. Since the problem is the mechanics. Pact Magic with long rest? Well, that would have to be seen. But at least it is a proposal for a solution, and not a blind determination to maintain something that is problematic. Or, worse yet, deny that it is a problem. At least WoTC admits that there is a problem there, it just doesn't solve it in the latest playtest.
For fighter I put that I missed Weapon Adept from UA5. And I think fighter should get to use two weapon masteries at once (since brawler can with Improvised Specialist). I think Weapon Adept could be part of Master of Armaments and using two WM at once as part of the Advantaged attack granted by Studied Attack at 13th level. Both of these, I think, makes having access to 6 weapon masteries a little more meaningful. Not sure if they still need 6 but at least if you can have two options on one weapon you have more versatility.
Those statements felt disingenuous since monk and fighters are still all short rest dependent. I know some 5e tables don’t short rest at all, but many possibly the majority of 5e classes have some benefit from 1 short rest. 5th level bard gets BI back every short rest. Cleric/Paladin get channel divinity back every short rest. Druid get Wild shape back every short rest. Fighter gets action surge, and other features back every short rest. Wizards arcane recover
The issue is more one of extremes; to maintain any level of spellcasting a Warlock must short rest often, whereas these other features are less critical. For example, a Cleric without any Channel Divinity uses remaining still has plenty they can do as long as they have spell slots remaining, so while they can potentially benefit from short rests (especially if they use their Channel Divinity a lot) they are not dependent upon them.
5th-edition Sorcerer is the other extreme; their core features (spellcasting and Metamagic) are entirely long rest dependent, so the only really want to short-rest to regain hit-points, but a ranged sorcerer may not take much damage to begin with (which risks taking us into another tangent about how 5th-edition heavily favours ranged). At least in the latest playtest Sorcerer has some sorcery point recovery as standard on short rest, though for some reason it's implemented badly (you only get them if you have zero remaining, if you have one leftover you get nothing).
Part of the problem is that this all comes back to how badly designed short rest vs. long rest has always been in 5th-edition, and WotC haven't made any big push to fix it properly. It's not just about getting something back on short rest, what matters is how dependent you are; really what they need to do is reduce the number of spell slots that casters get, and give all casters a form of arcane recovery (with Wizards getting the most back).
At the same time Warlocks should get more pact magic slots but limited to long rest, with some regained on short rest, so the difference between Warlock and other casters is the type of magic you're casting (warlock still casts fewer spells over an adventuring day, and mostly in small bursts, but always at the same level except for arcanum). They could potentially lose a few levels of mystic arcanum if the balance is tipped more in favour of casting more 5th-level spells, or have the arcanum use a shared resource (i.e- you know one arcanum at each level from 6th to 9th, but you can't cast them all every day).
This warlock currently works with just 1 short rest by comparison to other full casters. The game is not designed in a way where 0 short rests should ever really happen in an "adventuring day" (Adventuring days are not necessarily 24 hour periods, they are the period between the next long rest, the length of an adventuring day and the rests should fit the adventure.)
This warlock currently works with just 1 short rest by comparison to other full casters. The game is not designed in a way where 0 short rests should ever really happen in an "adventuring day" (Adventuring days are not necessarily 24 hour periods, they are the period between the next long rest, the length of an adventuring day and the rests should fit the adventure.)
If 1 short rest per day is ideal that's great, but the general swingyness of if a group is going to take a short rest and how many creates a problem, and it's just as bad if the group takes half a dozen short rests as the group taking zero short rests. If you're right there should be mechanics that mimic this instead, say 3-6 Pact slots per long rest but they come in encounter batches of 2-3 that have to be restored through an out-of-combat ritual that's long enough to be inconvenient but short enough not to force everyone into downtime mode, which an hour-long short rest will do.
The problem is short rests are a narrative mechanic that are doing the job of a mechanical balance. It's not a big deal when other classes are built up along the same recharge timing, but with the Warlock alone demanding short rests to refill their big guns it creates a noticeable power disparity that's either way too much or way too little.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hm. My comments on things I disliked:
Martials need a LOT of work. The divide hasn't been addressed and it is in fact worse now. The weapon mastery is not enough. How about this to fix fighter:
- all fighters get maneuvers and more of them are added to give reaction effects (fighters should have access to at least a stupid parry reaction for crying out loud)
- you can learn multiple fighting styles but each one you learn is tied to a particular weapon
- unbreakable will - new ability at 5th level - proficiency bonus times per long rest you can use a CON save instead of WIS or CHA
- indomitable - just give them legendary resistance
- martial hit dice recover 1/4 on a short rest
- all fighters have the GWM option of -5/+10 on any weapon they are proficient with - usable 1/fighter level per long rest
This one's just a reversion; for some reason they removed draconic in the last playtest. Still lost Expertise on Charisma checks vs. dragons but that was something a strange and highly situational feature so I'm not sure it's a big loss as first level isn't where Draconic Bloodline has problems.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Halcyonesse, - my thoughts exactly!
Oh noes! I'm so sorry! :D
I put in that they need to give sorcerers more metamagic options and more sorcerery points. Being stuck at 2 metamagics till level 10 is bull and it has been since 2014, and they need to give sorcerers more points so it's not always this game of hording points for the right moments and having to sacrifice slots for more of them.
I also added that wild magic just needs a surge table that's not just full of stupid crap like your hair grows, you turn blue, you age etc. A sub classes entire core concept shouldn't be "teh lulz"
Didn’t realize that they went back to 2 Meta-Magic’s. Was 3 in the playtest 5.
One thing I noted is that they didn't really fix the Barbarian subclass problem of one subclass being so much better than the others, they just shifted it from the Totem Barbarian to the Berserker Barbarian. NONE of the later features of any subclass measure up. The loss of Force resistance as an option to Bear is especially hard hitting as Force damage looks to become more common in the game.
I also pointed out that requiring a resource to be 100% depleted before being able to use the additional recharge mechanic isn't a very good idea. I don't know about anyone else's table, but where I have played, fear of not having enough is only part of the issue - it's the fear of, at any point in time, of being at ZERO that players avoid. They feel that the moment they are completely out, THAT is exactly when the nasty thing that they could have easily defeated if they had anything left in the tank shows up and causes a TPK. Fear of being at zero and fear of not having enough may look the same to some people, but they are most definitely NOT the same.
Warlocks need something from levels 7 through 10, as that is where having only 2 pact slots hits the hardest and they feel the most limited. 7th level is when any other primary spellcaster has a minimum of 11 spells per day, and possibly more based on class and subclass combo - for example, a Circle of Stars Druid would have 11 spells of varying levels AND 3 Guiding Bolts spells in addition. At 10th level they will have 15, making that total of 2 look incredibly inadequate. Pointing at formulas that claim they are the same power level is meaningless when no one who plays it feels like they are the same - all that proves is that the formula has some wrong assumptions behind it.
Pact of the Tome, with the additional options, should feel as awesome as Pact of the Blade with its' options does at level 11, and it doesn't look that way in the playtest. And if they are worried about the balance of the two combined, then maybe they shouldn't be able to be put together.
Barbarians need better scaling post 11th level compared to, well, everyone. Even fighters get 3 attacks then, and the half-caster warriors get 4th and 5th level spells post 11.
It would be nice if that 4th Fighter attack per round happened earlier than level 20 - it didn't used to have to wait so long in earlier editions.
And I completely flubbed and missed that the new Sorcerer subclasses didn't automatically grant the subclass spells. That needs to be fixed, as knowing them automatically is why the subclasses that grant that are considered the most powerful ones. You need something HUGE to make up for that, like granting access to an entire spell list (Divine Soul) to equal it.
Negative about tier 3/4 martials, positive about the changes in the casters with some nit picking. Thank god they back tracked on that god awful 1/2 caster warlock. Big changes can be bad as well as good so celebrating change when its that terrible for changes sake I will not do.
But that's a straw man. Nobody celebrates changes just because. But there are things that are problematic, and one of those things is Pact Magic. Maybe not on your table, but on many. And it really is a poorly designed mechanic since it depends on how the short rests are managed. If you make many, or at will, the warlock is very powerful. If you make few, or none at all, warlock magic is an anecdote.
In any case, since it is a problem on many gaming tables, it is best to change it. Was the Warlock Half caster tried and people didn't like it? Alright, let's try something different.
These are the changes that are requested. It is asked to solve things that cause problems. Change is not asked for the sake of change.
It was not a problem of much significance on most gaming tables hence why they were in the top 3 favorite classes. You like WOTC did are mistaking people having a small issue where they think some tweaks can be done to improve things with a massive dislike of something that needs radical changes. And no it was not a straw man people have been making the argument that change is good just because its a big change which is brave and bold.
yeah was a big wtf moment to me, UA5 was 3 metamagic options swap em on a long rest. Now they just went right back to only 2 and your stuck with em till you level
Yeah that is one area I commented on in the survey. 2 just feels really sparse especially given how slowly they are gained. I have a similar issue with the battle master. I think the numbers given were tied to the 2014 launch when there were so few options 2 out of the total number felt alright. But they need more metamgics and to get more of them imo./
Well, actually Jeremy Crawford has said on several occasions that the main complaint about warlock is pact magic. That's why they tried to change it in the first place.
So, yes, it is a problem on many tables. And a solution should be found.
Those statements felt disingenuous since monk and fighters are still all short rest dependent. I know some 5e tables don’t short rest at all, but many possibly the majority of 5e classes have some benefit from 1 short rest. 5th level bard gets BI back every short rest. Cleric/Paladin get channel divinity back every short rest. Druid get Wild shape back every short rest. Fighter gets action surge, and other features back every short rest. Wizards arcane recover
The issue is more one of extremes; to maintain any level of spellcasting a Warlock must short rest often, whereas these other features are less critical. For example, a Cleric without any Channel Divinity uses remaining still has plenty they can do as long as they have spell slots remaining, so while they can potentially benefit from short rests (especially if they use their Channel Divinity a lot) they are not dependent upon them.
5th-edition Sorcerer is the other extreme; their core features (spellcasting and Metamagic) are entirely long rest dependent, so the only really want to short-rest to regain hit-points, but a ranged sorcerer may not take much damage to begin with (which risks taking us into another tangent about how 5th-edition heavily favours ranged). At least in the latest playtest Sorcerer has some sorcery point recovery as standard on short rest, though for some reason it's implemented badly (you only get them if you have zero remaining, if you have one leftover you get nothing).
Part of the problem is that this all comes back to how badly designed short rest vs. long rest has always been in 5th-edition, and WotC haven't made any big push to fix it properly. It's not just about getting something back on short rest, what matters is how dependent you are; really what they need to do is reduce the number of spell slots that casters get, and give all casters a form of arcane recovery (with Wizards getting the most back).
At the same time Warlocks should get more pact magic slots but limited to long rest, with some regained on short rest, so the difference between Warlock and other casters is the type of magic you're casting (warlock still casts fewer spells over an adventuring day, and mostly in small bursts, but always at the same level except for arcanum). They could potentially lose a few levels of mystic arcanum if the balance is tipped more in favour of casting more 5th-level spells, or have the arcanum use a shared resource (i.e- you know one arcanum at each level from 6th to 9th, but you can't cast them all every day).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I don't know what the solution is, but it is clear that it is a problem that must be solved. And in the last playtest it certainly isn't solved.
Since it is certainly not going to be solved, it is by returning to the same mechanics. Since the problem is the mechanics. Pact Magic with long rest? Well, that would have to be seen. But at least it is a proposal for a solution, and not a blind determination to maintain something that is problematic. Or, worse yet, deny that it is a problem. At least WoTC admits that there is a problem there, it just doesn't solve it in the latest playtest.
Working through survey now.
For fighter I put that I missed Weapon Adept from UA5. And I think fighter should get to use two weapon masteries at once (since brawler can with Improvised Specialist). I think Weapon Adept could be part of Master of Armaments and using two WM at once as part of the Advantaged attack granted by Studied Attack at 13th level. Both of these, I think, makes having access to 6 weapon masteries a little more meaningful. Not sure if they still need 6 but at least if you can have two options on one weapon you have more versatility.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This warlock currently works with just 1 short rest by comparison to other full casters. The game is not designed in a way where 0 short rests should ever really happen in an "adventuring day" (Adventuring days are not necessarily 24 hour periods, they are the period between the next long rest, the length of an adventuring day and the rests should fit the adventure.)
If 1 short rest per day is ideal that's great, but the general swingyness of if a group is going to take a short rest and how many creates a problem, and it's just as bad if the group takes half a dozen short rests as the group taking zero short rests. If you're right there should be mechanics that mimic this instead, say 3-6 Pact slots per long rest but they come in encounter batches of 2-3 that have to be restored through an out-of-combat ritual that's long enough to be inconvenient but short enough not to force everyone into downtime mode, which an hour-long short rest will do.
The problem is short rests are a narrative mechanic that are doing the job of a mechanical balance. It's not a big deal when other classes are built up along the same recharge timing, but with the Warlock alone demanding short rests to refill their big guns it creates a noticeable power disparity that's either way too much or way too little.