D&D 5E Balancing Warlocks on a 1-2 combat per day workload.

[EzekielRaiden]

So the fix isn't to buff[....] It's to nerf

And your players would simply accept this without complaint?

Because that's one of the big reasons why nerfing isn't "the fix." Particularly for regular full casters like Wizards, who get all up in arms over the smallest nerfs, and outright torches-and-pitchforks for serious nerfs. (TBF, sometimes they riot over the smallest buffs even to other full casters, but that's neither here nor there...)

 

[Blue]

And your players would simply accept this without complaint?

Because that's one of the big reasons why nerfing isn't "the fix." Particularly for regular full casters like Wizards, who get all up in arms over the smallest nerfs, and outright torches-and-pitchforks for serious nerfs. (TBF, sometimes they riot over the smallest buffs even to other full casters, but that's neither here nor there...)

Hmm, I've run with the Gritty Rest variant from the DMG before, which nerfed all of the long-rest recovery classes*. So yes, nerfing can work. I wouldn't quarter spell slots mid-campaign, but if I approached players during session 0 I don't see a problem - I do see a lot more players picking of other classes.

Frankly, a great DM I play with never gives short rests during "the action" - he feels like it robs tension and immediacy. We've played multiple campaigns with him, we know his play style nerfs short-rest-recovery classes, and we plan accordingly.

(* Gritty Rest on the other hand throws a lot more short rests per long rest than the mechanics are designed around.)

 

[ph0rk]

And your players would simply accept this without complaint?

Because that's one of the big reasons why nerfing isn't "the fix." Particularly for regular full casters like Wizards, who get all up in arms over the smallest nerfs, and outright torches-and-pitchforks for serious nerfs. (TBF, sometimes they riot over the smallest buffs even to other full casters, but that's neither here nor there...)

Just do it by changing how often rests occur.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just do it by changing how often rests occur.

...and your players won't notice? This seems to just push the question back one layer of abstraction.

 

[ph0rk]

...and your players won't notice? This seems to just push the question back one layer of abstraction.

Well, I’d tell them before we started, of course, but yes. I think that sr/lr resources assume a number of encounters between long rests that just doesn’t happen - but I can, if we stop assuming a real long rest can happen every night for one reason or the other. Not quite gritty realism, but close.

 

[jgsugden]

I would not agree. They will feel strapped for resources alongside long rest casters without their short rests, particularly on one encounter days, and especially if those encounters go on to ten rounds or more.

Let's say I have a 7th levell full spellcaster. They have 4 first level spells, 3 2nd level spells, 3 3rd level spells and 1 4th level spells - and usually they have additional abilities beyond that that require actions. That is 11 spells plus additional things.

In a 2 combat day, some of them will get to use a feature like Arcane recovery to be able to cast two 4th level spells. That matches the spell casting of the Warlock - assuming the warlock has not items that offer an additional slot (like Pearl of Power, Rod of Pact Keeper, etc...) and can't short rest between combats.

That means we're balancing the 3rd, 2nd and 1st level spell slots (plus additional abilities) against the Warlock other abilities like Invocations, Pact Benefits, Class Features, etc...

As an initial point, how many of those remaining 10 slots can meaningfully be used in those 2 combats? 4 or 5? Maybe 6? You just don't have time to meaningfully cast all of those slots within 1 or 2 combats.

So that means we're looking about half of those slots (plus calss abilities) versus the Warlock's remaining abilities. And if some of those used spell slots are 1st level spells, let's remember that Eldritch Blast is often outperforming a 1st level slot once you hit 5th level. Would you rather do an automatic 3d4+3 (10.5) or rolling for 2d10+8 split between two attacks?

So, really - at this point we're balancing a few 2nd and 3rd level spells against 2 or 3 of the invocations of a warlock. And when you do that, it is pretty clear we're on pretty even terms.

Honestly - having played a few Clerics, Bards, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks in 5E: They're all just fine. Yes, you 'feel' the restricted slots of the Warlock - but that is the point of a restriction. You're supposed to feel the constraint. If you didn't feel constrained, it would be a problem.

If you want a 'fix', my suggestion is to grab a couple levels of sorcerer, or grab the Shadow/Fey feats that grant a couple spells.

 

[ph0rk]

As an initial point, how many of those remaining 10 slots can meaningfully be used in those 2 combats? 4 or 5? Maybe 6? You just don't have time to meaningfully cast all of those slots within 1 or 2 combats.

Are they never casting spells for utility out of combat? That's the main area where warlocks lack; and no - invocations don't make up for it very well until maybe tier 3. Meanwhile, in combat If you wish to use spells like shield, hellish rebuke, or misty step you are sorely lacking in slots as a warlock, and bonus action and reaction spells are part of a caster's full toolkit.

Plus, in those later tiers casters like Wizards can use arcane recovery to get their top spell slot back (levels 6-9), something a Warlock cannot ever do.

Classes built around short rest resources meant to be played alongside classes built around long rest resources are a bad design, and probably one of the greatest flaws in 5e.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Classes built around short rest resources meant to be played alongside classes built around long rest resources are a bad design, and probably one of the greatest flaws in 5e.

personally i can't say that i think simultaneously using short and long rest classes is a bad idea in and of itself, but the way that those two class designs combine with the rest mechanics themselves considering every night a long rest as well as the unrealistic expectations of 6-8 encounters per long rest it all throws the balance way out of whack.

 

[ph0rk]

personally i can't say that i think simultaneously using short and long rest classes is a bad idea in and of itself, but the way that those two class designs combine with the rest mechanics themselves considering every night a long rest as well as the unrealistic expectations of 6-8 encounters per long rest it all throws the balance way out of whack.

Fair point, the rest schedule could have had more guidelines on how to keep things better balanced, along with sidebars about how certain sorts of adventuring days advantage certain classes more than others.

Leaving it up to the DM (and assuming the DM can manage it) is a design mistake, though, as it is complicated for new DMs and not really present in previous editions (even 4e had a better distribution of these resources across classes).

 

[Frankie1969]

Really, short-rest resource classes just don't fit well into a 1-2 big fight per day game. It takes some DM awareness about this, though, which I think is a flaw in the system much more than a DM fault.

... which is exactly why WotC is replacing "1 per SR" abilities with "PB per LR", so classes remain balanced across different play styles.

But the math for Warlock might not fit that rule, probably too powerful. IMO doubling their SR slot count should be about right.