D&D 5E Is Warlock broken?

[CapnZapp]

Slightly off-topic here, but maybe the probability of a random encounter while taking a Short Rest should vary depending on how many encounters you've had since the last Short Rest. So if you take a Short Rest after a single Encounter you have a very high probability of a random encounter, and it goes down from there.

I would have loved if the DMG contained variants that codified consequences of resting.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wow. Warlocks suck... Rangers suck... Barbarians suck...

Anyone taken a moment to step back and consider maybe its their perception, or perhaps expectations, that suck?

I don't think people's perception, or their expectations, suck. It's just different from what 5e was designed for. Suck =/= different. No one's preferred playstyle is better than anyone elses, but we need to acknowledge that the game was designed a certain way. If someone is a hardcore optimizer, then they probably won't find everything they want in 5e. If someone wants a highly detailed tactical grid based game, then 5e probably isn't going to meet their wants. If someone wants a game where every possible class/race combination is tightly balanced against every other one for all the levels, 5e doesn't make that a focus. That's not to say 5e can't get pretty close to all of these, but it requires some work on your end. IMO, that's what 5e does better than any other edition. It's more of a toolbox, than a "this is how the game should be played, no questions asked." But in doing so, it requires the players to look at it and tinker with it to fit their needs.

So really, after literally years now of the same arguments, I'm at a position where I'm, "Then change it to fit what you want, or play a game you like better." I don't think there's anyone who likes every single thing about 5e. But that's true of every edition. If you're at the point where 5e is unable to do what you want/you are unwilling to make the changes, then you're probably better off playing the game you enjoy more. There's no sin in that. We kept playing AD&D when 3e came out, and 4e after that. My books didn't get confiscated or anything, and WotC could put out whatever they wanted and it impacted me exactly zero because we still had what we wanted. There's no obligation for us gamers to buy things just because they are new.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

That is a big issue with the Warlock, certianly. There are a lot of trap options (as mentioned anything that gives you a level appropriate spell to use as one of your two spell slots is almost certainly one). And you need to work to make them effective.

The Barbarian on the other hand has one trap option but it's huge. The Totem Barbarian is good out of the box; the Frenzied Barbarian can't get rid of its fatigue and people need to be steered away from it.

The funny thing about the berserker is that it is fine if you play strategically. Just remember the wording of frenzy is that "you can choose to go into a frenzy when you rage", so if you save you frenzy for the fight with the big bad, and use regular rage for the rest of the fights, you will be fine. You are just a main event player, letting the other guys shine in the prelims. As Exhibit A that this is how it is supposed to be, I will point to the berserker's retaliation subclass ability that also takes up the bonus action. If you used frenzy every fight, you would never be able to use retaliation. [Admittedly, if they had given retaliation at 3rd level and frenzy at 14th level, this would have been a) more clear, and b) more useful and elegant.]

In a lot of ways, it is the martial version of a caster class. No one says wizard is a trap, because he/she can't cast their highest level spell every single fight.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is a big issue with the Warlock, certianly. There are a lot of trap options (as mentioned anything that gives you a level appropriate spell to use as one of your two spell slots is almost certainly one). And you need to work to make them effective.

The Barbarian on the other hand has one trap option but it's huge. The Totem Barbarian is good out of the box; the Frenzied Barbarian can't get rid of its fatigue and people need to be steered away from it.

That's a matter of opinion. Frenzy isn't a trap option (Good lord I hate that term, because if you choose options that help your theme, who cares if it's not min/maxed? Not everyone is a min/maxer). We have a barbarian in our main campaign who uses frenzy fairly often, and it certainly doesn't feel like a "trap" option. Exhaustion is there for a reason. If it wasn't, we'd be having the same people complain about how it's too OP and the barbarian is broken, etc, etc.

 

[S'mon]

And the game does talk about short and long rest variance...

Can you give me a page number on that? All I can find in the DMG is the bit saying that
6-8 medium to hard encounters will use up a group's resources and force them to long
rest.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Can you give me a page number on that? All I can find in the DMG is the bit saying that
6-8 medium to hard encounters will use up a group's resources and force them to long
rest.

page 267. Things like making a short rest 8 hours long, for example.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Why would you presume that? It seems more natural to believe that, if this was the case, they actually would have mentioned it at any point (either in the concentration rules, or in the short rest rules).

I disagree. Every other ability that allows you to do something during a short rest (Arcane Recovery, Monk Ki meditation, et al) explicitly states "you can do this during a short rest." Why would concentration be any different?

Although, for the record, we do know that strenuous activity (such as combat) is more strenuous than resting, and you can concentrate on a spell just fine while you're fighting. That would logically mean that resting is less strenuous than concentrating, so you should be able to keep your spell going, by the transitive property.

That's not logical at all, because resting isn't an activity. It's a lack of activity. You can't rest while you're fighting because resting, in part, means not fighting. You can't choose to rest and fight simultaneously because you can't choose to not fight and fight. They aren't two things you can choose to do, they're mutually exclusive by definition.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

It might help you if I suggest three people said that, not just one?

Three whole people? That's amazing. Clearly if three people agree on something it must be a fact...

 

[S'mon]

page 267. Things like making a short rest 8 hours long, for example.

No, that says nothing about class balance vs short & long rests, number of encounters per rest as a balancing mechanic et al. I don't recall this discussed in the DMG at all.

 

[TwoSix]

This line of thought really amazes me.

I mean, I'm one of those DMs that struggle to get to 4 encounters per day, let alone 6 (or 8!).

Still, my minmaxing charopian players have all selected shortrest classes.

Go figure. Myself, I'm not so sure. Instead, I would phrase it the other way round: Any long rest class would be severely "harmed" by a play style that matches the 6-8 encounter expectation.

If it's a maximized choice to choose a shortrest class in my 1-4 encounter day campaign, imagine how my players could wreck somebody else's 5-8 encounter day campaigns...!

Good post. That's actually been something I've noticed in the last few game sessions. Long rest resources are either utilized early, like setting up the encounter for a fireball ambush, or getting twin haste up right away to enable the sharpshooter ranger and paladin. The short rest resources, like the monk's ki points, get spammed during the meat of the battle. If the battle is dragging or looks dangerous, the long-rest spells get used again, kind of acting as an insurance.

What really impacts the long-term resource usage is that it's so difficult to nova in 5e, because of concentration. You can blast a lot if you need, but outside of fireball, it doesn't feel like a major contribution to the fight over and above what you contribute with cantrips.