Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9207764" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Since I’m not keen on getting myself on your ignore list I will try to respect your request not to break up your posts too much, but please try to understand that’s a very difficult way for me to try to carry out a conversation. You make multiple points in a single paragraph, let alone a whole post, and I want to address them all, but if I don’t address those points directly and indicate what I’m responding to, it’s very easy for points to get lost.I absolutely, categorically, did not miss that I brought up warlocks having two spell slots per short rest, though you do seem to have missed that I said they had two spell slots for most of their career and that they cap out at four - my point being that neither two spell slots per rest, nor four spell slots per rest is what I would consider “spamming 5th level spells.” I left out levels 11 to 16 not because I was trying to avoid that topic, but because I figured that if two 5th level spells per short rest doesn’t constitute spamming, and four fifth level spells per short rest doesn’t constitute spamming, it would go without saying that three 5th level slots between tests wouldn’t constitute spamming either. Evidently you disagree with that take, and that’s fine, we can discuss that point further. But please, focus on actually arguing why you think 3 5th level slots per short rest does constitute spamming instead of trying to “prove” that I missed something or am trying to hide something when I have repeatedly explained the reasons for my choice of phrasing, demonstrated that they have nothing to do with missing anything, and tried to directly address your argument about levels 11-16. If anyone is trying avoid talking about anything, it seems to me like you are trying to avoid addressing my point that the Jeremy Crawford quote you keep bringing up was an explanation of why warlocks can’t have both pact magic and more spell slots than they do in the 2014 PHB. I’ve made that argument three times now, and every time you have ignored it in favor of trying to characterize me as having missed something or trying to brush over 11th through 16th level. Well, here I am, directly addressing 11th through 16th level, I don’t think it’s a problem because if four 5th level slots between short rests is ok, of course three 5th level slots between short rests is ok. Now it’s your turn: please address my point that Jeremy Crawford was explaining why, if warlocks keep Pact Magic in 2024, Warlocks can’t also get more Pact Magic slots than they have in 2014.You are making so many points here, I would love to go through them and make my case for why I disagree with them point-by-point. But since you have explicitly asked me not to do so, all I can really do is say I disagree with your assessment. I think the second group you’re referring to is an extreme outlier relative to the typical 5e play experience, and I think the approaches you suggest to trying to deal with the problems that group is experiencing are far less than ideal, and in fact may be exacerbating the problems this hypothetical group is experiencing. I think for the vast majority of 5e play groups, 2014 warlocks are fine, if not slightly on the underpowered side, and 2024 warlocks will be a more reasonable power level. I think that your preferred solution of eliminating short rest based resource management from the game completely would make the game far less dynamic and less enjoyable for the majority of 5e groups, and I think the general response to the proposed attempt to present a long rest based warlock in UA 5 supports my position on that matter. And I think it may be best for you to seriously consider that the play patterns 5e is actively designed to facilitate may simply not be to your liking, and you and your group may be better served by significantly house ruling 5e to better suit your needs and preferences, if not looking for a game that is better aligned with those needs and preferences to begin with.Sorry if that’s an unsatisfying response; again, I can make arguments on each of these individual points if you want to hear them, but if you insist that I address your entire point holistically, that’s what I’ve got for you. I think you’re wrong, and I think 5e is probably just not the game for you if short rest resource recovery is really that problematic for you.</blockquote>

Verification