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.
Fighters and monks also recover their "big guns" on a short rest that is 1/4th of all classes. And then there are druids, clerics, Paladins and bards that recover something minor for the other 1/3rd of classes and 100% of classes recover health on a short rest. The game gives hit dice with the expectation that they will be used. The real outlier is the Rogue that recovers nothing on a short or long rest other than spending hit dice.
Beyond that, short rests should also be limited by the amount the group can handle. Hit dice run out and the short rest length should be long enough that at most you are seeing 3 short rests per 1 long, but that should be few and far between.
This allows classes that are different to shine and that is a good thing.
Edited for better clarity and because the first part was not truly relevant, sorry for those that wasted their time on it.
I have already explained it several times, but I don't mind repeating it again: There are many cases in which Pact Magic is a problem.
- Tables where there is usually only one fight a day. Here the Warlock feels much weaker than other classes. - Tables in which short rests are not made. Idem. - Tables in which short rests are made when it narratively makes sense to do them. Here the warlock depends more than anyone else (except the monk, perhaps) on the circumstances. - Tables where short rests are made at will. Here the warlock is broken.
The Warlock only works as it is supposed to if you do 2 short rests per day. And that is a problem (whether above or below).
As a player I have experienced both cases. In a campaign the DM let short rests be made at will, and my warlock was broken. In another there were almost no short rests (except in very specific cases), and my warlock had almost no magic.
As a DM I only make short rests when the narrative warrants it, and I usually come across warlock players who keep demanding short rests. That puts me in a bind since, on the one hand, I am aware that without short rests the warlock loses half of his class; but on the other hand there are situations in which the short rest does not make sense. If it can be done, I allow it. But if there is time pressure, or enemies around, and a long etc where to make a short rest you have to artificially stop the game, I don't allow it. Basically because I'm not going to stop the game. If you sit on your hands for an hour, the bad guy might escape, or you might get caught with your pants around your ankles, etc...
The game gives hit dice with the expectation that they will be used. The real outlier is the Rogue that recovers nothing on a short or long rest other than spending hit dice.
Rogue, Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Ranger all regain nothing. So 1/3 regain nothing, 1/4 regain everything, and the rest regain a little bit. WotC really need to even this out .
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.
The game isn't designed for 0 short rest days. I am guessing this is another example of "1 or 2 fights in a day" which is what the gritty realism rest rules are designed for and your "long rest' is SUPPOSED to be a short rest then. Again the system works great when people use it how it is designed, and not so good when they do things it wasn't designed to do.
I agree that in an ideal situation the number of slots works well enough, but the balance concerns exist because the Warlock is dependent on the short rest mechanic in a way that nobody else but the monk is dependent. All the other casters regain on long rest, so you've usually got the caster half of the party needing to recharge at about the same time in the same way. The Warlock and Monk break that pacing mechanic that long rest casters reinforce with each other, and its this natural progression of full to empty spell slot resources that determine the natural flow of when the party should rest.
In a perfectly tuned world there would either be 1 short rest per long rest or no one would feel cheated by too few or too many short rests because of the needs of the narrative. But the problem comes in where the primary means of refreshing the Warlock and Monks powers are out of tune with the rest of the party.
If this were an impossible to fix issue it could be tolerated, but it feels like a very easy fix. Rather than counting on the 1 short rest between long rests simply grant Pact Slots that allow 3-6 spells per day with a non-short rest refresh mechanic that limits your per encounter spells to 1-3. Even if short-rest recharging hasn't been a problem at your table, creating a mechanic that functionally grants the Warlock about as many spells per long rest as they have now with 1 short rest wouldn't change the equation for you, right?
I have already explained it several times, but I don't mind repeating it again: There are many cases in which Pact Magic is a problem.
- Tables where there is usually only one fight a day. Here the Warlock feels much weaker than other classes. - Tables in which short rests are not made. Idem. - Tables in which short rests are made when it narratively makes sense to do them. Here the warlock depends more than anyone else (except the monk, perhaps) on the circumstances. - Tables where short rests are made at will. Here the warlock is broken.
The Warlock only works as it is supposed to if you do 2 short rests per day. And that is a problem (whether above or below).
As a player I have experienced both cases. In a campaign the DM let short rests be made at will, and my warlock was broken. In another there were almost no short rests (except in very specific cases), and my warlock had almost no magic.
As a DM I only make short rests when the narrative warrants it, and I usually come across warlock players who keep demanding short rests. That puts me in a bind since, on the one hand, I am aware that without short rests the warlock loses half of his class; but on the other hand there are situations in which the short rest does not make sense. If it can be done, I allow it. But if there is time pressure, or enemies around, and a long etc where to make a short rest you have to artificially stop the game, I don't allow it. Basically because I'm not going to stop the game. If you sit on your hands for an hour, the bad guy might escape, or you might get caught with your pants around your ankles, etc...
Tables with only 1 fight a day are supposed to be using gritty realism rest rules. And their "long rests" should be short rests. That is the same case for scenario 2. Short rests are part of the game, they are supposed to be taken.
This class works when you take them when it makes sense narratively, or when you properly adjust your rests to fit the pace of your game.
This is also the other issue where "we never have time for a short rest because even though we have a bunch of combats they are all close together" that is what the epic heroism rest rules are for and short rests are 5 minutes.
There NEEDS to be an understanding that short rests ARE NOT 1 hour. They are the length they need to be for the adventure.
THIS Warlock (not the 2014) works with 1 or 2 short rests, and becomes overly strong at 3.
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.
The game isn't designed for 0 short rest days. I am guessing this is another example of "1 or 2 fights in a day" which is what the gritty realism rest rules are designed for and your "long rest' is SUPPOSED to be a short rest then. Again the system works great when people use it how it is designed, and not so good when they do things it wasn't designed to do.
I agree that in an ideal situation the number of slots works well enough, but the balance concerns exist because the Warlock is dependent on the short rest mechanic in a way that nobody else but the monk is dependent. All the other casters regain on long rest, so you've usually got the caster half of the party needing to recharge at about the same time in the same way. The Warlock and Monk break that pacing mechanic that long rest casters reinforce with each other, and its this natural progression of full to empty spell slot resources that determine the natural flow of when the party should rest.
In a perfectly tuned world there would either be 1 short rest per long rest or no one would feel cheated by too few or too many short rests because of the needs of the narrative. But the problem comes in where the primary means of refreshing the Warlock and Monks powers are out of tune with the rest of the party.
If this were an impossible to fix issue it could be tolerated, but it feels like a very easy fix. Rather than counting on the 1 short rest between long rests simply grant Pact Slots that allow 3-6 spells per day with a non-short rest refresh mechanic that limits your per encounter spells to 1-3. Even if short-rest recharging hasn't been a problem at your table, creating a mechanic that functionally grants the Warlock about as many spells per long rest as they have now with 1 short rest wouldn't change the equation for you, right?
There should never be an "adventuring day" without 1 short rest. if there is than the table should be using alternate rest rules that is what they are there for. Hit dice are meant to be spent. Full casters are supposed to have their "daily" slots taxed.
The warlock is fine with just 1 short rest and magical cunning until level 9. It has already been fixed except at 9 and 10 which the solve there is just bump the 3rd slot down to level 9.
The issue with Monk is past level 10 even if they DO spend their resources they fall behind other classes. Otherwise their ki issue was solved with the last one as well.
The game gives hit dice with the expectation that they will be used. The real outlier is the Rogue that recovers nothing on a short or long rest other than spending hit dice.
Rogue, Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Ranger all regain nothing. So 1/3 regain nothing, 1/4 regain everything, and the rest regain a little bit. WotC really need to even this out .
I can't say I really agree with this. In different games, I play a Rogue (Arcane Trickster), a Sorlock (mostly Warlock, Dao Genie Pact of the Tome), and a Wizard (Scribes), so I have some experience with all three categories. Part of the interest in short rest decisions for me in gameplay is related to the tension between characters that may want a short rest to regain powers and the natural drive to resolve the issue at hand as quickly as possible. In certain specific situations, the balance may be off (either too little or too much time to deal with the situation), but in my experience, things balance out overall.
I have had times when my Sorlock was essentially running on empty with resources, and had to be carried a bit by the rest of the group, contributing what he could with Eldritch Blasts and other at-will powers (there is also a Monk in that group whose power may wane due to blowing her resources too quickly). However, it hasn't necessarily felt bad, because he shined when he blew his resources helping get the party through encounters more quickly, so that other characters could shine in later encounters. It seems to me that Warlock players that demand short rests constantly may be suffering from main character syndrome, not accepting the fact that their character has some limitations and also not being willing to role play something (the inability to take a rest at will) that to me seems to be something that should realistically be a natural part of the characters' lives.
On the other hand, my Rogue has no short rest resource recovery and very rarely takes damage. He is often the one in the group pushing to complete the objective as quickly as possible. The Rune Knight Fighter and Moon Druid in the party are the ones usually in most need of a short rest, and it creates a discussion within the party of whether the situation warrants a break to recover to ensure they survive the quest. I don't always demand we power forward, because my character understands he wants his allies to be able to survive and contribute, and taking a breather amongst a strenuous series of challenges is narratively understandable. Sometimes we have taken that rest and paid for it by not being able to complete all our goals.
What I am saying, is these types of choice make the game more interesting. There will always be certain situations where one character is more effective than others, and each character hopefully gets to star for a bit when the circumstances favor them. I may be fortunate that I have played with DMs that have found some kind of balance for providing (limited) time for short rests that is both realistic and understandable, and others may not share that experience, but in the end, this issue is another challenge that (for me) makes the game more engaging.
I have already explained it several times, but I don't mind repeating it again: There are many cases in which Pact Magic is a problem.
- Tables where there is usually only one fight a day. Here the Warlock feels much weaker than other classes. - Tables in which short rests are not made. Idem. - Tables in which short rests are made when it narratively makes sense to do them. Here the warlock depends more than anyone else (except the monk, perhaps) on the circumstances. - Tables where short rests are made at will. Here the warlock is broken.
The Warlock only works as it is supposed to if you do 2 short rests per day. And that is a problem (whether above or below).
As a player I have experienced both cases. In a campaign the DM let short rests be made at will, and my warlock was broken. In another there were almost no short rests (except in very specific cases), and my warlock had almost no magic.
As a DM I only make short rests when the narrative warrants it, and I usually come across warlock players who keep demanding short rests. That puts me in a bind since, on the one hand, I am aware that without short rests the warlock loses half of his class; but on the other hand there are situations in which the short rest does not make sense. If it can be done, I allow it. But if there is time pressure, or enemies around, and a long etc where to make a short rest you have to artificially stop the game, I don't allow it. Basically because I'm not going to stop the game. If you sit on your hands for an hour, the bad guy might escape, or you might get caught with your pants around your ankles, etc...
Tables with only 1 fight a day are supposed to be using gritty realism rest rules. And their "long rests" should be short rests. That is the same case for scenario 2. Short rests are part of the game, they are supposed to be taken.
This class works when you take them when it makes sense narratively, or when you properly adjust your rests to fit the pace of your game.
This is also the other issue where "we never have time for a short rest because even though we have a bunch of combats they are all close together" that is what the epic heroism rest rules are for and short rests are 5 minutes.
There NEEDS to be an understanding that short rests ARE NOT 1 hour. They are the length they need to be for the adventure.
THIS Warlock (not the 2014) works with 1 or 2 short rests, and becomes overly strong at 3.
Man, I don't know. A short rest of 5 minutes is not very immersive. Well, unless you have a magic item, the genie lamp, or something like that. In any case we are already falling into the field of "What if?". See how pact magic is a problem? That doesn't happen with other classes. Nobody asks, I don't know, that the PCs "magically" recover half of their life points every 8 hours so that the fighter can do his thing. Or that there are tables that play who knows how so the sorcerer can't use his metamagic. That only happens with warlock, pact magic and short rests.
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).
So you are saying Battle Master superior dice, Arcane shot, and Action Surge are less important to fighter than a Warlock spell slot is to it. Sorry I don’t agree. You would also be saying that Bardic inspiration is less important to Bards. While I will agree that is true of the original bards, Lore and Valor, the bards that came later use Bardic inspiration as a resource for their own actions. Swords and Whispers especially. The Monk with Ki is barely a Monk. And if you say well most everyone else has some other thing they can do when they run out of their short rest resource I will rightfully argue a Warlock doesn’t need to cast leveled spells in combat. It has the strongest cantrip in the game. I’m actually Pro Warlock getting some low level slots, but the they need short rest the most argument seems disingenuous when others require a short rest just as much.
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.
The game isn't designed for 0 short rest days. I am guessing this is another example of "1 or 2 fights in a day" which is what the gritty realism rest rules are designed for and your "long rest' is SUPPOSED to be a short rest then. Again the system works great when people use it how it is designed, and not so good when they do things it wasn't designed to do.
I agree that in an ideal situation the number of slots works well enough, but the balance concerns exist because the Warlock is dependent on the short rest mechanic in a way that nobody else but the monk is dependent. All the other casters regain on long rest, so you've usually got the caster half of the party needing to recharge at about the same time in the same way. The Warlock and Monk break that pacing mechanic that long rest casters reinforce with each other, and its this natural progression of full to empty spell slot resources that determine the natural flow of when the party should rest.
In a perfectly tuned world there would either be 1 short rest per long rest or no one would feel cheated by too few or too many short rests because of the needs of the narrative. But the problem comes in where the primary means of refreshing the Warlock and Monks powers are out of tune with the rest of the party.
If this were an impossible to fix issue it could be tolerated, but it feels like a very easy fix. Rather than counting on the 1 short rest between long rests simply grant Pact Slots that allow 3-6 spells per day with a non-short rest refresh mechanic that limits your per encounter spells to 1-3. Even if short-rest recharging hasn't been a problem at your table, creating a mechanic that functionally grants the Warlock about as many spells per long rest as they have now with 1 short rest wouldn't change the equation for you, right?
There should never be an "adventuring day" without 1 short rest. if there is than the table should be using alternate rest rules that is what they are there for. Hit dice are meant to be spent. Full casters are supposed to have their "daily" slots taxed.
The warlock is fine with just 1 short rest and magical cunning until level 9. It has already been fixed except at 9 and 10 which the solve there is just bump the 3rd slot down to level 9.
The issue with Monk is past level 10 even if they DO spend their resources they fall behind other classes. Otherwise their ki issue was solved with the last one as well.
You're missing my point. Resting is a pacing mechanic, and a narrative mechanic, and a balance mechanic. But that pacing and balance mechanic only works for classes that recharge on long rests; only the Warlock and Monk require short rests to recharge their primary resources, which gives them different rest priorities. It's these priorities that are a problem in play.
I understand you haven't had this issue and believe everyone should play with 1 short rest between long rests, but there is a reason there's a high variance among tables in short rests but not in long rests. If everyone else on the team balances themselves one way it's going to end up either too stingy or too generous to the folks on the off time. The power of the Warlock and Monk shouldn't be dependent on a mechanic that's uniquely relevant to just the Warlock and Monk.
Without even engaging how many spells the Warlock should get, you can at least agree that if we assume 1 short rest per day it's pretty simple to adjust that refresh to a long rest mechanic that would grant an identical # of spells.
As for the monk, lol, I am not even wading into the finer points on that. I was just pointing out that the monk also has a short rest dependency.
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.
The game isn't designed for 0 short rest days. I am guessing this is another example of "1 or 2 fights in a day" which is what the gritty realism rest rules are designed for and your "long rest' is SUPPOSED to be a short rest then. Again the system works great when people use it how it is designed, and not so good when they do things it wasn't designed to do.
I agree that in an ideal situation the number of slots works well enough, but the balance concerns exist because the Warlock is dependent on the short rest mechanic in a way that nobody else but the monk is dependent. All the other casters regain on long rest, so you've usually got the caster half of the party needing to recharge at about the same time in the same way. The Warlock and Monk break that pacing mechanic that long rest casters reinforce with each other, and its this natural progression of full to empty spell slot resources that determine the natural flow of when the party should rest.
In a perfectly tuned world there would either be 1 short rest per long rest or no one would feel cheated by too few or too many short rests because of the needs of the narrative. But the problem comes in where the primary means of refreshing the Warlock and Monks powers are out of tune with the rest of the party.
If this were an impossible to fix issue it could be tolerated, but it feels like a very easy fix. Rather than counting on the 1 short rest between long rests simply grant Pact Slots that allow 3-6 spells per day with a non-short rest refresh mechanic that limits your per encounter spells to 1-3. Even if short-rest recharging hasn't been a problem at your table, creating a mechanic that functionally grants the Warlock about as many spells per long rest as they have now with 1 short rest wouldn't change the equation for you, right?
There should never be an "adventuring day" without 1 short rest. if there is than the table should be using alternate rest rules that is what they are there for. Hit dice are meant to be spent. Full casters are supposed to have their "daily" slots taxed.
The warlock is fine with just 1 short rest and magical cunning until level 9. It has already been fixed except at 9 and 10 which the solve there is just bump the 3rd slot down to level 9.
The issue with Monk is past level 10 even if they DO spend their resources they fall behind other classes. Otherwise their ki issue was solved with the last one as well.
You're missing my point. Resting is a pacing mechanic, and a narrative mechanic, and a balance mechanic. But that pacing and balance mechanic only works for classes that recharge on long rests; only the Warlock and Monk require short rests to recharge their primary resources, which gives them different rest priorities. It's these priorities that are a problem in play.
I understand you haven't had this issue and believe everyone should play with 1 short rest between long rests, but there is a reason there's a high variance among tables in short rests but not in long rests. If everyone else on the team balances themselves one way it's going to end up either too stingy or too generous to the folks on the off time. The power of the Warlock and Monk shouldn't be dependent on a mechanic that's uniquely relevant to just the Warlock and Monk.
Without even engaging how many spells the Warlock should get, you can at least agree that if we assume 1 short rest per day it's pretty simple to adjust that refresh to a long rest mechanic that would grant an identical # of spells.
As for the monk, lol, I am not even wading into the finer points on that. I was just pointing out that the monk also has a short rest dependency.
short rest isnt really a pacing mechanic, its a post encounter recovery mechanic. Thats why there are hit dice, and its the main health recovery for some groups. It doesnt always need to be RPed. You can use it for decompression or pacing sometimes if you want to, but thats not its main purpose.
If you are designing multiple encounters without a SR, you are supposed to have considered that. There is guidance, and it basically has increased difficulty. And note, that is supposed to be the exception, not the rule. If you as a GM prefer for your players to have no/low resources, ok, but thats not the normal encounter design. Most of the time the players should be in control of short rests, the most a DM should do is possibly throw an encounter to interrupt it. If the narrative says a guy escapes, he escapes, but your narrative should not assume players will always do a certain thing. Some players are gung ho, others are careful and considered, one can't assume. I would have said this is a player issue, that many of them don't choose to short rest because it doesnt match their rhythym. Im surprised to hear many gms try to heavily meter SR.
Warlocks are not OP with full spell slots, They have said encounter difficulty assumes you have full resources, but is doable with less resources.
You're missing my point. Resting is a pacing mechanic, and a narrative mechanic, and a balance mechanic. But that pacing and balance mechanic only works for classes that recharge on long rests; only the Warlock and Monk require short rests to recharge their primary resources, which gives them different rest priorities. It's these priorities that are a problem in play.
I understand you haven't had this issue and believe everyone should play with 1 short rest between long rests, but there is a reason there's a high variance among tables in short rests but not in long rests. If everyone else on the team balances themselves one way it's going to end up either too stingy or too generous to the folks on the off time. The power of the Warlock and Monk shouldn't be dependent on a mechanic that's uniquely relevant to just the Warlock and Monk.
Without even engaging how many spells the Warlock should get, you can at least agree that if we assume 1 short rest per day it's pretty simple to adjust that refresh to a long rest mechanic that would grant an identical # of spells.
As for the monk, lol, I am not even wading into the finer points on that. I was just pointing out that the monk also has a short rest dependency.
short rest isnt really a pacing mechanic, its a post encounter recovery mechanic. Thats why there are hit dice, and its the main health recovery for some groups. It doesnt always need to be RPed. You can use it for decompression or pacing sometimes if you want to, but thats not its main purpose.
If you are designing multiple encounters without a SR, you are supposed to have considered that. There is guidance, and it basically has increased difficulty. And note, that is supposed to be the exception, not the rule. If you as a GM prefer for your players to have no/low resources, ok, but thats not the normal encounter design. Most of the time the players should be in control of short rests, the most a DM should do is possibly throw an encounter to interrupt it. If the narrative says a guy escapes, he escapes, but your narrative should not assume players will always do a certain thing. Some players are gung ho, others are careful and considered, one can't assume. I would have said this is a player issue, that many of them don't choose to short rest because it doesnt match their rhythym. Im surprised to hear many gms try to heavily meter SR.
Warlocks are not OP with full spell slots, They have said encounter difficulty assumes you have full resources, but is doable with less resources.
You're responding as if the crux of my argument was on how DM's run their games, it isn't. Pacing is as much a player-led factor as it is a DM's.
And even if short rests were fully in the control of the players, the problem still persists. Players may dictate that there's no time for short rests, cutting the Warlock out of spell slots. Players may alternatively short rest after each encounter, resulting in the Warlock having multiple 3/4/5th level spells available long after standard full casters have run out of those spells in mid-tier play.
I'm not assuming anything about anyone's narrative or how they play short rests. I'm demonstrating that Warlocks may be either saturated with available casts of their spells with many short rests or starved of spell slots in games with few or infrequent short rests. Congratulations to those of you not experiencing this problem, but the game doesn't begin and end at your anecdotal experience.
I'm not saying the Warlock is "OP" with too many short rests or underpowered at too few, I'm saying that it throws off available resources compared to anyone who doesn't get back their most important powers on a short rest.
Can we PLEASE stop with the utterly inane argument that the "solution" to warlock short rest overdependency is to absolutely mangle the resting rules and make it almost impossible to obtain a *long* rest without taking multiple years of downtime to do it? It's a terrible argument with no standing. The " variant " rest rules are A.) bad, and B.) designed to accommodate certain tones of game, not to unfairly punish long-rest characters for daring to have the sheer, unmitigated gall to not be absolutely overdependent on short rests.
They don't call those rules " low intensity rests" or " high intensity rests ", they're Gritty Realism and Epic Heroism. Those names are there for a *reason*. Using those rules changes the entire tone of your game. Epic Heroism is basically a superhero RPG, your abilities are almost always available and you're never in danger of running out of health or healing. Gritty Realism could very well be rewritten to state "long rests no longer exist and cannot be taken; in order to gain the benefit of a long rest, your character must successfully complete the campaign." It's a rules variant for people who want damage to *matter* and for expendable player resources to be held as more precious than life itself because they will NEVER be recovered.
They have *nothing* to do with game pacing, and this constant push to use them to punish players who play a slower-paced, less dungeon-crawly game of D&D sucks. It sucks real hard, and I'm awful sick of seeing it.
So you are saying Battle Master superior dice, Arcane shot, and Action Surge are less important to fighter than a Warlock spell slot is to it. Sorry I don’t agree.
I literally said nothing of the sort; but if you want to get into it, superiority dice/arcane shots plus action surge/second wind are all supplementary to what a base fighter can already do well thanks to their proficiencies and high attacks. Not many people playing a Fighter are likely complain that after they've spent all their short rest abilities their fighter is suddenly rubbish at fighting.
But if the idea is that warlocks are supposed to be spellcasters then the short rest mechanic is particularly crippling for them, because spellcasters thrive on flexibility/versatility, but a Warlock with not enough short rests can't take full advantage of that because their limited slots discourage actually using them as otherwise you risk running out. The alternative is they try to make use of at-will spells more but these cost eldritch invocations (another, even more limited character building resource) so that's not a great alternative. And the trouble with short rests in particular is that you don't know when you might get a chance to take them; if your DM is too good at giving you them when you want them then they become redundant, but if you are sometimes denied the chance to short rest it cripples some classes much more than others, and encourages you to hoard limited use abilities and potentially never actually use them.
Another big difference is the rate of gains; at 3rd-level a Warlock is still stuck on two pact magic slots (2nd-level sure, but still) whereas the Battlemaster has four superiority dice, action surge and second wind to play with. The more comparable class is the Monk, who at 3rd-level has a mere 3 Ki which they could potentially spend in a single round, at which point they will struggle to compete with a resource-drained Fighter. By the time the Monk has a good amount of Ki (and Warlock gets a third pact magic slot), the Fighter has a third attack so they're baseline (no resources) is even better.
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.
Can we PLEASE stop with the utterly inane argument that the "solution" to warlock short rest overdependency is to absolutely mangle the resting rules and make it almost impossible to obtain a *long* rest without taking multiple years of downtime to do it?
Changing the rules so people actually play the game with the amount of resting it's designed for (this can include redesigning the game to change how much resting it's designed for) would solve a number of problems unrelated to warlock. It is, however, a hard problem because the amount of resting the game is designed for frequently makes no sense.
Can we PLEASE stop with the utterly inane argument that the "solution" to warlock short rest overdependency is to absolutely mangle the resting rules and make it almost impossible to obtain a *long* rest without taking multiple years of downtime to do it? It's a terrible argument with no standing. The " variant " rest rules are A.) bad, and B.) designed to accommodate certain tones of game, not to unfairly punish long-rest characters for daring to have the sheer, unmitigated gall to not be absolutely overdependent on short rests.
They don't call those rules " low intensity rests" or " high intensity rests ", they're Gritty Realism and Epic Heroism. Those names are there for a *reason*. Using those rules changes the entire tone of your game. Epic Heroism is basically a superhero RPG, your abilities are almost always available and you're never in danger of running out of health or healing. Gritty Realism could very well be rewritten to state "long rests no longer exist and cannot be taken; in order to gain the benefit of a long rest, your character must successfully complete the campaign." It's a rules variant for people who want damage to *matter* and for expendable player resources to be held as more precious than life itself because they will NEVER be recovered.
They have *nothing* to do with game pacing, and this constant push to use them to punish players who play a slower-paced, less dungeon-crawly game of D&D sucks. It sucks real hard, and I'm awful sick of seeing it.
The names of the rest rules are misnomers. Gritty Realism is NOT just meant for super gritty realistic games. It spells it out in the rules that it is for games with 1 or 2 combats a day and for games with lots of intrigue and exploration.
You are focused to much on the names and not the utility of the mechanics they are for. If you are adjusting the encounters and the pace of the game to where a mechanic isn't working, changing the mechanic to work is the answer not changing every single class for all the other games where the mechanic works.
Edit: for the long rest portion of gritty realism, let players do downtime activities during the "long rest", let them craft items and shop for new gear, do odd jobs around town to get some money for said shopping, let them prepare for when they need to go back out again by reading up on things in a library or getting information from the pub and monestary. People often complain that it is hard to fit downtime activity into adventures yet the "gritty realism" rest rule length makes those downtime activities perfect for when the party needs a long rest. It has never deleted long rests, just turned the adventuring day into an adventuring week, and before you go out again making sure everything is taken care of and the party is properly prepared and rested from last week.
Can we PLEASE stop with the utterly inane argument that the "solution" to warlock short rest overdependency is to absolutely mangle the resting rules and make it almost impossible to obtain a *long* rest without taking multiple years of downtime to do it?
Changing the rules so people actually play the game with the amount of resting it's designed for (this can include redesigning the game to change how much resting it's designed for) would solve a number of problems unrelated to warlock. It is, however, a hard problem because the amount of resting the game is designed for frequently makes no sense.
That's the thing nobody ever seems to understand. The "six to eight encounter day with two short rests" NEVER EVER ***EVER*** HAPPENS, outside of the extremely specific niche of old school loot-based dungeon crawls with no overarching plot or time pressure. It's such an utterly bizarre and nonsensical standard that constantly trying to *force* everyone in all of D&D to adhere to it when even the vast majority of Wizards' own goddamn adventures books never bother to do so is batshit madness.
Name me one first-party prewritten 5e adventure that forces DMs to put the players through six to eight encounters - no more, no less, sux to eight PERIOD - *every single day* without fail for the entire campaign.
One book.
ONE.
I'll wait.
Actually no I won't because we all know it doesn't exist. If Wizards doesn't have to follow their own shitty resting and pacing rules, why should we?
Having run Curse of Strahd -- most encounter areas have a single important fight. The castle itself is likely to run you through a gauntlet of minor fights, but it has wandering monsters checks every ten minutes so good luck getting a short rest.
Can we PLEASE stop with the utterly inane argument that the "solution" to warlock short rest overdependency is to absolutely mangle the resting rules and make it almost impossible to obtain a *long* rest without taking multiple years of downtime to do it?
Changing the rules so people actually play the game with the amount of resting it's designed for (this can include redesigning the game to change how much resting it's designed for) would solve a number of problems unrelated to warlock. It is, however, a hard problem because the amount of resting the game is designed for frequently makes no sense.
That's the thing nobody ever seems to understand. The "six to eight encounter day with two short rests" NEVER EVER ***EVER*** HAPPENS, outside of the extremely specific niche of old school loot-based dungeon crawls with no overarching plot or time pressure. It's such an utterly bizarre and nonsensical standard that constantly trying to *force* everyone in all of D&D to adhere to it when even the vast majority of Wizards' own goddamn adventures books never bother to do so is batshit madness.
Name me one first-party prewritten 5e adventure that forces DMs to put the players through six to eight encounters - no more, no less, sux to eight PERIOD - *every single day* without fail for the entire campaign.
One book.
ONE.
I'll wait.
Actually no I won't because we all know it doesn't exist. If Wizards doesn't have to follow their own shitty resting and pacing rules, why should we?
I have at 0 point suggested changing the pace or narrative of the adventure. The 6 to 8 medium to hard is actually a suggested maximum. Not the average. Their are suggestions about changes to the number based on difficulty and idea of multi part encounters that "dont exceed 1/3 the daily budget". What is more concrete and can be seen in their adventures is 1 to 2 short rests per adventuring day with multiple encounters in a day.
In addition, as someone who has read and ran a few of those adventures, the books leave a lot blank, have random encounter tables and a bunch of suggestions but leave a lot open for the GM. Sometimes a little too much.
Your table already narratively and 70% mechanically does the epic heroism shory rests. The fact that you think the normal rest rules are garbage and haven't TRIED the optional ones doesn't leave you as much of an authority on good rest rules. If you want a perfectly balanced game than make only 1 class.
I have at 0 point suggested changing the pace or narrative of the adventure. The 6 to 8 medium to hard is actually a suggested maximum. Not the average.
The suggestion is that there's a daily budget that you should use up. This generally takes 6-8 medium encounters, or a smaller number of harder encounters.
Actual adventure design tends towards 1-3 encounters that are all deadly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fighters and monks also recover their "big guns" on a short rest that is 1/4th of all classes. And then there are druids, clerics, Paladins and bards that recover something minor for the other 1/3rd of classes and 100% of classes recover health on a short rest. The game gives hit dice with the expectation that they will be used. The real outlier is the Rogue that recovers nothing on a short or long rest other than spending hit dice.
Beyond that, short rests should also be limited by the amount the group can handle. Hit dice run out and the short rest length should be long enough that at most you are seeing 3 short rests per 1 long, but that should be few and far between.
This allows classes that are different to shine and that is a good thing.
Edited for better clarity and because the first part was not truly relevant, sorry for those that wasted their time on it.
I have already explained it several times, but I don't mind repeating it again: There are many cases in which Pact Magic is a problem.
- Tables where there is usually only one fight a day. Here the Warlock feels much weaker than other classes.
- Tables in which short rests are not made. Idem.
- Tables in which short rests are made when it narratively makes sense to do them. Here the warlock depends more than anyone else (except the monk, perhaps) on the circumstances.
- Tables where short rests are made at will. Here the warlock is broken.
The Warlock only works as it is supposed to if you do 2 short rests per day. And that is a problem (whether above or below).
As a player I have experienced both cases. In a campaign the DM let short rests be made at will, and my warlock was broken. In another there were almost no short rests (except in very specific cases), and my warlock had almost no magic.
As a DM I only make short rests when the narrative warrants it, and I usually come across warlock players who keep demanding short rests. That puts me in a bind since, on the one hand, I am aware that without short rests the warlock loses half of his class; but on the other hand there are situations in which the short rest does not make sense. If it can be done, I allow it. But if there is time pressure, or enemies around, and a long etc where to make a short rest you have to artificially stop the game, I don't allow it. Basically because I'm not going to stop the game. If you sit on your hands for an hour, the bad guy might escape, or you might get caught with your pants around your ankles, etc...
Rogue, Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Ranger all regain nothing. So 1/3 regain nothing, 1/4 regain everything, and the rest regain a little bit. WotC really need to even this out .
I agree that in an ideal situation the number of slots works well enough, but the balance concerns exist because the Warlock is dependent on the short rest mechanic in a way that nobody else but the monk is dependent. All the other casters regain on long rest, so you've usually got the caster half of the party needing to recharge at about the same time in the same way. The Warlock and Monk break that pacing mechanic that long rest casters reinforce with each other, and its this natural progression of full to empty spell slot resources that determine the natural flow of when the party should rest.
In a perfectly tuned world there would either be 1 short rest per long rest or no one would feel cheated by too few or too many short rests because of the needs of the narrative. But the problem comes in where the primary means of refreshing the Warlock and Monks powers are out of tune with the rest of the party.
If this were an impossible to fix issue it could be tolerated, but it feels like a very easy fix. Rather than counting on the 1 short rest between long rests simply grant Pact Slots that allow 3-6 spells per day with a non-short rest refresh mechanic that limits your per encounter spells to 1-3. Even if short-rest recharging hasn't been a problem at your table, creating a mechanic that functionally grants the Warlock about as many spells per long rest as they have now with 1 short rest wouldn't change the equation for you, right?
Tables with only 1 fight a day are supposed to be using gritty realism rest rules. And their "long rests" should be short rests.
That is the same case for scenario 2. Short rests are part of the game, they are supposed to be taken.
This class works when you take them when it makes sense narratively, or when you properly adjust your rests to fit the pace of your game.
This is also the other issue where "we never have time for a short rest because even though we have a bunch of combats they are all close together" that is what the epic heroism rest rules are for and short rests are 5 minutes.
There NEEDS to be an understanding that short rests ARE NOT 1 hour. They are the length they need to be for the adventure.
THIS Warlock (not the 2014) works with 1 or 2 short rests, and becomes overly strong at 3.
There should never be an "adventuring day" without 1 short rest. if there is than the table should be using alternate rest rules that is what they are there for. Hit dice are meant to be spent. Full casters are supposed to have their "daily" slots taxed.
The warlock is fine with just 1 short rest and magical cunning until level 9. It has already been fixed except at 9 and 10 which the solve there is just bump the 3rd slot down to level 9.
The issue with Monk is past level 10 even if they DO spend their resources they fall behind other classes. Otherwise their ki issue was solved with the last one as well.
I can't say I really agree with this. In different games, I play a Rogue (Arcane Trickster), a Sorlock (mostly Warlock, Dao Genie Pact of the Tome), and a Wizard (Scribes), so I have some experience with all three categories. Part of the interest in short rest decisions for me in gameplay is related to the tension between characters that may want a short rest to regain powers and the natural drive to resolve the issue at hand as quickly as possible. In certain specific situations, the balance may be off (either too little or too much time to deal with the situation), but in my experience, things balance out overall.
I have had times when my Sorlock was essentially running on empty with resources, and had to be carried a bit by the rest of the group, contributing what he could with Eldritch Blasts and other at-will powers (there is also a Monk in that group whose power may wane due to blowing her resources too quickly). However, it hasn't necessarily felt bad, because he shined when he blew his resources helping get the party through encounters more quickly, so that other characters could shine in later encounters. It seems to me that Warlock players that demand short rests constantly may be suffering from main character syndrome, not accepting the fact that their character has some limitations and also not being willing to role play something (the inability to take a rest at will) that to me seems to be something that should realistically be a natural part of the characters' lives.
On the other hand, my Rogue has no short rest resource recovery and very rarely takes damage. He is often the one in the group pushing to complete the objective as quickly as possible. The Rune Knight Fighter and Moon Druid in the party are the ones usually in most need of a short rest, and it creates a discussion within the party of whether the situation warrants a break to recover to ensure they survive the quest. I don't always demand we power forward, because my character understands he wants his allies to be able to survive and contribute, and taking a breather amongst a strenuous series of challenges is narratively understandable. Sometimes we have taken that rest and paid for it by not being able to complete all our goals.
What I am saying, is these types of choice make the game more interesting. There will always be certain situations where one character is more effective than others, and each character hopefully gets to star for a bit when the circumstances favor them. I may be fortunate that I have played with DMs that have found some kind of balance for providing (limited) time for short rests that is both realistic and understandable, and others may not share that experience, but in the end, this issue is another challenge that (for me) makes the game more engaging.
Man, I don't know. A short rest of 5 minutes is not very immersive. Well, unless you have a magic item, the genie lamp, or something like that.
In any case we are already falling into the field of "What if?". See how pact magic is a problem? That doesn't happen with other classes. Nobody asks, I don't know, that the PCs "magically" recover half of their life points every 8 hours so that the fighter can do his thing. Or that there are tables that play who knows how so the sorcerer can't use his metamagic.
That only happens with warlock, pact magic and short rests.
So you are saying Battle Master superior dice, Arcane shot, and Action Surge are less important to fighter than a Warlock spell slot is to it. Sorry I don’t agree. You would also be saying that Bardic inspiration is less important to Bards. While I will agree that is true of the original bards, Lore and Valor, the bards that came later use Bardic inspiration as a resource for their own actions. Swords and Whispers especially. The Monk with Ki is barely a Monk. And if you say well most everyone else has some other thing they can do when they run out of their short rest resource I will rightfully argue a Warlock doesn’t need to cast leveled spells in combat. It has the strongest cantrip in the game. I’m actually Pro Warlock getting some low level slots, but the they need short rest the most argument seems disingenuous when others require a short rest just as much.
You're missing my point. Resting is a pacing mechanic, and a narrative mechanic, and a balance mechanic. But that pacing and balance mechanic only works for classes that recharge on long rests; only the Warlock and Monk require short rests to recharge their primary resources, which gives them different rest priorities. It's these priorities that are a problem in play.
I understand you haven't had this issue and believe everyone should play with 1 short rest between long rests, but there is a reason there's a high variance among tables in short rests but not in long rests. If everyone else on the team balances themselves one way it's going to end up either too stingy or too generous to the folks on the off time. The power of the Warlock and Monk shouldn't be dependent on a mechanic that's uniquely relevant to just the Warlock and Monk.
Without even engaging how many spells the Warlock should get, you can at least agree that if we assume 1 short rest per day it's pretty simple to adjust that refresh to a long rest mechanic that would grant an identical # of spells.
As for the monk, lol, I am not even wading into the finer points on that. I was just pointing out that the monk also has a short rest dependency.
short rest isnt really a pacing mechanic, its a post encounter recovery mechanic. Thats why there are hit dice, and its the main health recovery for some groups. It doesnt always need to be RPed. You can use it for decompression or pacing sometimes if you want to, but thats not its main purpose.
If you are designing multiple encounters without a SR, you are supposed to have considered that. There is guidance, and it basically has increased difficulty. And note, that is supposed to be the exception, not the rule. If you as a GM prefer for your players to have no/low resources, ok, but thats not the normal encounter design. Most of the time the players should be in control of short rests, the most a DM should do is possibly throw an encounter to interrupt it. If the narrative says a guy escapes, he escapes, but your narrative should not assume players will always do a certain thing. Some players are gung ho, others are careful and considered, one can't assume. I would have said this is a player issue, that many of them don't choose to short rest because it doesnt match their rhythym. Im surprised to hear many gms try to heavily meter SR.
Warlocks are not OP with full spell slots, They have said encounter difficulty assumes you have full resources, but is doable with less resources.
You're responding as if the crux of my argument was on how DM's run their games, it isn't. Pacing is as much a player-led factor as it is a DM's.
And even if short rests were fully in the control of the players, the problem still persists. Players may dictate that there's no time for short rests, cutting the Warlock out of spell slots. Players may alternatively short rest after each encounter, resulting in the Warlock having multiple 3/4/5th level spells available long after standard full casters have run out of those spells in mid-tier play.
I'm not assuming anything about anyone's narrative or how they play short rests. I'm demonstrating that Warlocks may be either saturated with available casts of their spells with many short rests or starved of spell slots in games with few or infrequent short rests. Congratulations to those of you not experiencing this problem, but the game doesn't begin and end at your anecdotal experience.
I'm not saying the Warlock is "OP" with too many short rests or underpowered at too few, I'm saying that it throws off available resources compared to anyone who doesn't get back their most important powers on a short rest.
Can we PLEASE stop with the utterly inane argument that the "solution" to warlock short rest overdependency is to absolutely mangle the resting rules and make it almost impossible to obtain a *long* rest without taking multiple years of downtime to do it? It's a terrible argument with no standing. The " variant " rest rules are A.) bad, and B.) designed to accommodate certain tones of game, not to unfairly punish long-rest characters for daring to have the sheer, unmitigated gall to not be absolutely overdependent on short rests.
They don't call those rules " low intensity rests" or " high intensity rests ", they're Gritty Realism and Epic Heroism. Those names are there for a *reason*. Using those rules changes the entire tone of your game. Epic Heroism is basically a superhero RPG, your abilities are almost always available and you're never in danger of running out of health or healing. Gritty Realism could very well be rewritten to state "long rests no longer exist and cannot be taken; in order to gain the benefit of a long rest, your character must successfully complete the campaign." It's a rules variant for people who want damage to *matter* and for expendable player resources to be held as more precious than life itself because they will NEVER be recovered.
They have *nothing* to do with game pacing, and this constant push to use them to punish players who play a slower-paced, less dungeon-crawly game of D&D sucks. It sucks real hard, and I'm awful sick of seeing it.
Please do not contact or message me.
I literally said nothing of the sort; but if you want to get into it, superiority dice/arcane shots plus action surge/second wind are all supplementary to what a base fighter can already do well thanks to their proficiencies and high attacks. Not many people playing a Fighter are likely complain that after they've spent all their short rest abilities their fighter is suddenly rubbish at fighting.
But if the idea is that warlocks are supposed to be spellcasters then the short rest mechanic is particularly crippling for them, because spellcasters thrive on flexibility/versatility, but a Warlock with not enough short rests can't take full advantage of that because their limited slots discourage actually using them as otherwise you risk running out. The alternative is they try to make use of at-will spells more but these cost eldritch invocations (another, even more limited character building resource) so that's not a great alternative. And the trouble with short rests in particular is that you don't know when you might get a chance to take them; if your DM is too good at giving you them when you want them then they become redundant, but if you are sometimes denied the chance to short rest it cripples some classes much more than others, and encourages you to hoard limited use abilities and potentially never actually use them.
Another big difference is the rate of gains; at 3rd-level a Warlock is still stuck on two pact magic slots (2nd-level sure, but still) whereas the Battlemaster has four superiority dice, action surge and second wind to play with. The more comparable class is the Monk, who at 3rd-level has a mere 3 Ki which they could potentially spend in a single round, at which point they will struggle to compete with a resource-drained Fighter. By the time the Monk has a good amount of Ki (and Warlock gets a third pact magic slot), the Fighter has a third attack so they're baseline (no resources) is even better.
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.
Changing the rules so people actually play the game with the amount of resting it's designed for (this can include redesigning the game to change how much resting it's designed for) would solve a number of problems unrelated to warlock. It is, however, a hard problem because the amount of resting the game is designed for frequently makes no sense.
The names of the rest rules are misnomers. Gritty Realism is NOT just meant for super gritty realistic games. It spells it out in the rules that it is for games with 1 or 2 combats a day and for games with lots of intrigue and exploration.
You are focused to much on the names and not the utility of the mechanics they are for. If you are adjusting the encounters and the pace of the game to where a mechanic isn't working, changing the mechanic to work is the answer not changing every single class for all the other games where the mechanic works.
Edit: for the long rest portion of gritty realism, let players do downtime activities during the "long rest", let them craft items and shop for new gear, do odd jobs around town to get some money for said shopping, let them prepare for when they need to go back out again by reading up on things in a library or getting information from the pub and monestary. People often complain that it is hard to fit downtime activity into adventures yet the "gritty realism" rest rule length makes those downtime activities perfect for when the party needs a long rest. It has never deleted long rests, just turned the adventuring day into an adventuring week, and before you go out again making sure everything is taken care of and the party is properly prepared and rested from last week.
That's the thing nobody ever seems to understand. The "six to eight encounter day with two short rests" NEVER EVER ***EVER*** HAPPENS, outside of the extremely specific niche of old school loot-based dungeon crawls with no overarching plot or time pressure. It's such an utterly bizarre and nonsensical standard that constantly trying to *force* everyone in all of D&D to adhere to it when even the vast majority of Wizards' own goddamn adventures books never bother to do so is batshit madness.
Name me one first-party prewritten 5e adventure that forces DMs to put the players through six to eight encounters - no more, no less, sux to eight PERIOD - *every single day* without fail for the entire campaign.
One book.
ONE.
I'll wait.
Actually no I won't because we all know it doesn't exist. If Wizards doesn't have to follow their own shitty resting and pacing rules, why should we?
Please do not contact or message me.
Having run Curse of Strahd -- most encounter areas have a single important fight. The castle itself is likely to run you through a gauntlet of minor fights, but it has wandering monsters checks every ten minutes so good luck getting a short rest.
I have at 0 point suggested changing the pace or narrative of the adventure. The 6 to 8 medium to hard is actually a suggested maximum. Not the average. Their are suggestions about changes to the number based on difficulty and idea of multi part encounters that "dont exceed 1/3 the daily budget". What is more concrete and can be seen in their adventures is 1 to 2 short rests per adventuring day with multiple encounters in a day.
In addition, as someone who has read and ran a few of those adventures, the books leave a lot blank, have random encounter tables and a bunch of suggestions but leave a lot open for the GM. Sometimes a little too much.
Your table already narratively and 70% mechanically does the epic heroism shory rests. The fact that you think the normal rest rules are garbage and haven't TRIED the optional ones doesn't leave you as much of an authority on good rest rules. If you want a perfectly balanced game than make only 1 class.
The suggestion is that there's a daily budget that you should use up. This generally takes 6-8 medium encounters, or a smaller number of harder encounters.
Actual adventure design tends towards 1-3 encounters that are all deadly.