D&D 5E Aren't Short Rest classes *better* in "story-based" games rather than dungeon crawls?

[Asisreo]

I think it's safe to say that a warlock in what you call a more 'story-based' game will probably outperform a warlock in a dungeon crawl. But this is where the wizard or long rest slot recharging warlock comes into the discussion

But how so? Because Warlocks and Wizards are different playstyles and different approaches. It's like saying a wizard outperforms the Paladin. Yes, in their niche, but not in the paladin's.

But what's the warlock's niche? They're too customizable to make a generalized statement. I can make a warlock dedicated to at-will utility in a way a wizard can't replicate. Because while a wizard is constrained to their rituals spell list, a Ritual Warlock is not. While a half-caster gish is more durable and have better at-will performance, the warlock gish has access to more powerful spells earlier on and has more adaptibility.

There's not a RAW warlock that recharges spell slots on a long rest

There are RAW Warlocks that recover spells on long rest. For example, the Polymorph invocation. It's a powerful spell, but it can only be used once a long rest for the warlock.

 

[FrogReaver]

But how so? Because Warlocks and Wizards are different playstyles and different approaches. It's like saying a wizard outperforms the Paladin. Yes, in their niche, but not in the paladin's.

Because classes don't exist in a vaccum. Wizard's and Warlocks niche mostly overlaps. Kind of like how Paladin's and Fighter's niches mostly overlap.

But what's the warlock's niche? They're too customizable to make a generalized statement. I can make a warlock dedicated to at-will utility in a way a wizard can't replicate. Because while a wizard is constrained to their rituals spell list, a Ritual Warlock is not. While a half-caster gish is more durable and have better at-will performance, the warlock gish has access to more powerful spells earlier on and has more adaptibility.

Scrodinger's Warlock???

But more importantly, so what if your warlock 'might' can be a better ritual caster than a wizard (he still has to find all those rituals whereas the wizard can learn them from all the spells he gets to learn.) Rituals outside of a few specific ones that are mostly wizard rituals just aren't very strong.

There are RAW Warlocks that recover spells on long rest. For example, the Polymorph invocation. It's a powerful spell, but it can only be used once a long rest for the warlock.

Why are you turning this into semantics? You know exactly what I was talking about and it was definitely not that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Replace wall of stone with fireball heat metal or whatever "iconic" spell & the comparison becomes both easier as well as more relevant to an average game of d&d

Not at all.... The utility of being able to construct walls when not time pressured (and you can short rest often) is much different than the utility of a spell that can only be cast in combat is only useful in combat.

 

[tetrasodium]

Not at all.... The utility of being able to construct walls when not time pressured (and you can short rest often) is much different than the utility of a spell that can only be cast in combat is only useful in combat.

combats can occur when not pressed for time. Take 'ye olde treasure map' as an example. It doesn't matter if the party finishes murdering reverything in the way of them getting the treasure today or next week.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then a dao warlock is a hella good contractor.

I'm not sure that makes short rest classes better at story-driven games, sine "building a castle" isn't necessarily a story point.

Sure, but it could certainly tie to a fairly common story point. Helping NPC factions defend themselves.

Can also use it to create choke points in many places that PC's can fall back to if they notice a strong force moving toward them. I could find tons of uses for fairly quickly creating minumum of 60ft long 10ft tall walls.

 

[FrogReaver]

combats can occur when not pressed for time. Take 'ye olde treasure map' as an example. It doesn't matter if the party finishes murdering reverything in the way of them getting the treasure today or next week.

Much different still. One can create as much wall as they need by simply short resting again and again. One can never have more than 2 fireballs prepared for the next encounter (assuming warlock below level 11)

 

[Asisreo]

Scrodinger's Warlock???

No. Schrodinger's wizard is when you assume a wizard has access to all their spells/features at once. But pointing out a warlock's specialization is the opposite because they aren't specialized if they're good at multiple things at once.

But more importantly, so what if your warlock 'might' can be a better ritual caster than a wizard (he still has to find all those rituals whereas the wizard can learn them from all the spells he gets to learn.) Rituals outside of a few specific ones that are mostly wizard rituals just aren't very strong

The warlock doesn't have to find their first two rituals. Which can be from any class. So a warlock can take Purify Food and Drink and Unseen Servant from 1st-level. Something no other class can do, no matter how utility-based they are. And any ritual spell found can be added to the warlock's book as well as the wizard's book. In fact, this is why the warlock is superior, because they can transcribe the ritual spell regardless of the class list, meaning they can copy any ritual the wizard can and more. So if you're playing a ritual-based character, the warlock is a better choice.

Why are you turning this into semantics? You know exactly what I was talking about and it was definitely not that.

If you don't mean limitations by long rests, I don't know what you mean.

Let's assume the warlock is in a structured adventure where a short rest in-between was impossible. How would you make this warlock competent? Well, taking invocations and pacts that give powerful abilities per long rest or at-will would need to be a priority, such that those two spell slots go the extra mile.

A warlock with Bane can debuff the enemy. Yes, other classes can also cast bane, but I have a hard time believing that the cleric's or bard's niche is close to the warlock's. So in terms of choosing a character and assuming you want to have the warlock's niche, taking bane as a long-rest dependent warlock makes no difference. They'd also favor long duration spells over instantaneous spells because they can stretch the spells potential further, so the slot would work to it's maximum potential.

 

[Stoutstien]

Almost all of the invocations that are cast X once per LR using a slot are crap even if the party can expect to have no SRs in a regular basic. If anything they are objectively worse when you have less slots per day.

Blowing a invocation on casting bane once and it still eats a slot is just bad.

 

[Asisreo]

Almost all of the invocations that are cast X once per LR using a slot are crap even if the party can expect to have no SRs in a regular basic. If anything they are objectively worse when you have less slots per day.

How so? In effect, they give you an extra spell known, which increases your versatility. And whether you cast Bane or Arms of Hadar, the spell slot consumed would be gone until the next long rest anyways.

Bane is a good first-level spell on the warlock's list. Probably one of, if not THE, best. It's a great debuffing spell that targets an ability score that's uncommon especially for the lower level threats you'll face when you take it.

And by no means are you stuck with it on higher levels, you're free and encouraged to swap it out with more fitting high-level invocations later on.

 

[jmartkdr2]

combats can occur when not pressed for time. Take 'ye olde treasure map' as an example. It doesn't matter if the party finishes murdering reverything in the way of them getting the treasure today or next week.

Presumably, the enemy in a combat isn't going to wait for you to take a nap so you can fireball them again. How many fireballs per fight is relevant, and not unlimited.

Which is also true for LR classes, for what it's worth.