The context on that comment was in conjunction with also not being able to see. It makes sense when one can see and the other cannot. It doesn't make sense when neither can see.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Is Warlock broken?
- Thread starter SailorNash
- Start date
The context on that comment was in conjunction with also not being able to see. It makes sense when one can see and the other cannot. It doesn't make sense when neither can see.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I'm often surprised by how few players and DMs seem to properly exploit the most common vision-affecting condition of all: night time.
Monsters with darkvision should preferentially operate at night, in open spaces. It's how they can counter ranged dominance. E.g. orcs and wargs attacking a town can hide in the dark and sneak up on the town guards with their longbows. In daylight the orcs are sitting ducks, but that's not a problem because night time. Counterplay from the town guards involves bonfires and torches and such, but since that's expensive, it happens only when the danger is known in advance.
Meanwhile, PCs can exploit Darkness against the orcs by having one PC light the enemy up (e.g. Dancing Lights, or just one PC with a torch and a good AC and/or Alert) while the other PCs kill them from out of darkvision range, with advantage.
Hmmm. I was going to have a gnoll attack tonight but now I realize I should make it happen at night. One of my players has a blind PC anyway, she'll love it...
happyhermit
Adventurer
I would agree with you, I really hate when the GM feels they have to come up with reasons why resting is not allowed. I would agree with you about the rules not "helping" towards this end. IF, the DMG did not contain optional rules that make it very easy to achieve that sort of balance within slower paced adventures. Only very fast paced adventures would achieve the 6-8/long rest, and remember that encounters are not intended to be all of equal difficulty in 5e. However, with the optional rules that sort of balance is easy.
How strenuous can concentration be if it can be performed WHILE doing the most stressful things a PC can do with no penalty or chance of failure? That is one argument that it is no more strenuous than the examples provided.
I have yet to see any argument for the other side, anything that makes one believe that, RAW or RAI concentration is more strenuous than the examples provided.
Attacking from an unseen position gives advantage, but attacking an unseen enemy gives disadvantage. So they'd cancel each other out. I think you made the right call.
I think it might be helpful to conceptualize concentration not as *physically* taxing but as *mentally* taxing. Something akin to mentally repeating the word "potato" every few seconds, but utilizing a different part of your brain than the speech center (since speaking doesn't interfere with it.)
No reason you couldn't do so while resting, eating, etc. but getting punched in the face might cause you to miss a beat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No reason you couldn't do so while resting, eating, etc. but getting punched in the face might cause you to miss a beat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The slots exist as long as short rests occur. I have reservations about that once per day restriction because of the forced pacing. When a person has 3 or 4 slots per short rest and has already taken solid at-will and always-on abilities is when a person might consider adding a decent spell like polymorph with those restrictions.
The real "trap" is in having options available at lower levels when the SLA style increase options whereas the add-a-spell cost-a-slot options keep the warlock within tight restrictions.
Using a spell slot also means casting as a 5th-level spell. It would be crazy not to take bestow curse simply casting it as a 5th-level spell as often as warlocks cast 5th-level slots. I think the once-per-day without spending a slot is the better option if a person does feel the need to house rule those invocations but I find that the class works as is by selecting those purely as a flavour choice keeping in mind the restrictions or as a secondary consideration at high levels while pretty much pretending the options don't even exist for the first 10 levels.
The problem with them is they aren't good enough to take for most of the game but can easily break the class based on the spell level mechanic and recharge mechanics the class uses. I cannot fault WotC's cautious approach with some of those spells not being spamable.
Shatners_bassoon
First Post
Party composition wasn't planned, we didn't confer at all about who was going to play what and that's usual for us. We've got one serious optimizer but we'd never say to anyone, you've got to play this. It's a great team, though.
The best thing about this party is how we assumed roles on our ship right at the start. I'm captain, the wizard is 1st mate, the bard navigates and knows how the ship works, the Druid is the cook and the paladin is who we picked up on our first voyage. It's better than 'fighter, wizard etc...' Everyone has really got into the setting and I'd recommend razor coast - it's brilliant for this!
As far as the resting is concerned, I feel more for the DM than anyone else. 6-8 encounters is ambitious, I think and it doesn't always gel with published adventures.
It's not so much about how the characters compare with each other that's been noticeable, more that we can roll over the bad guys too easily. So for this reason, we try not to abuse resting and I don't tend to find there's much disagreement about pushing on.
How does the DM stop the party taking short rests though when there's spells like rope trick?
Shatners_bassoon
First Post
I wouldn't consider these invocations as a bladelock because those spell slots are precious and, more often than not, are used to hurt things or stop yourself from getting hurt. Especially if you're going to get stuck in on a regular basis. I'd be more inclined to look at them if I was playing chain or tome, though.
I wouldn't change anything about how the warlocks spells or invocations work, though - I think they work just fine.
I would probably let them maintain concentration because they are not incapacitated. It's an interesting question that I have never seen come up in play.
SailorNash
Explorer
Concerning the once-a-day invocations, I do get why the designers would be cautious. As with the case when designing easily recharging spell slots in general. But knowing what we know now, it makes me think the balance pendulum had swung a little too far in that direction.
With Beastmaster the worry was action economy...here, it was consumable resources. In both cases they overcorrected. One's getting a little redesign attention. I personally think Warlock deserves another look as well? The challenge is that the front-loaded nature makes it such an attractive dip, and any increases might worsen that unless the power from Hex/EB was spread out over class levels. But it's still a valid concern for the remaining 17 levels.
As far as the Concentration mechanic goes...we assumed that with the 24-hour Hex duration (the signature spell exclusive to the most short-rest dependent class), this was designed to be kept up during short rests. Didn't seem to cause any issues...it was often dropped for a ritual or from damage anyway, and at best it allowed a first-level spell to run in the background while you used your mighty two spell slots for something else. Anything too impressive, and it's likely Concentration anyway which breaks the Hex.
In cases of doubt, I tend to "round up" or "round down" depending on what a class needs. Warlock is having some trouble, but there's a question on this ruling? Let them have it...so long as it doesn't cause issues elsewhere, it's at least a step in the right direction. There's a 50/50 chance of being right anyway.
We actually had something similar in a later game, where a different DM thought Patron spells were Domain spells and gave them all to the Warlock automatically. I was a little frustrated in hindsight, wishing that were me, but he allowed it as he had already given permission. It didn't really end up affecting much anyway...even with four extra spells known (via patron), the Warlock still could only cast two per rest. That severe limit weakened the extra spells known in the same way that requiring a slot weakens the once-a-day casting invocations. The few times it did benefit, it did so by allowing a Warlock to cast an "on-theme" spell they otherwise wouldn't have been mechanically inclined to take. Unlike Sorcerer, who is balanced by only the restricted spells, being balanced by few known spells and few slots available made this feel different than Favored Soul or Storm Sorcerer.
With Beastmaster the worry was action economy...here, it was consumable resources. In both cases they overcorrected. One's getting a little redesign attention. I personally think Warlock deserves another look as well? The challenge is that the front-loaded nature makes it such an attractive dip, and any increases might worsen that unless the power from Hex/EB was spread out over class levels. But it's still a valid concern for the remaining 17 levels.
As far as the Concentration mechanic goes...we assumed that with the 24-hour Hex duration (the signature spell exclusive to the most short-rest dependent class), this was designed to be kept up during short rests. Didn't seem to cause any issues...it was often dropped for a ritual or from damage anyway, and at best it allowed a first-level spell to run in the background while you used your mighty two spell slots for something else. Anything too impressive, and it's likely Concentration anyway which breaks the Hex.
In cases of doubt, I tend to "round up" or "round down" depending on what a class needs. Warlock is having some trouble, but there's a question on this ruling? Let them have it...so long as it doesn't cause issues elsewhere, it's at least a step in the right direction. There's a 50/50 chance of being right anyway.
We actually had something similar in a later game, where a different DM thought Patron spells were Domain spells and gave them all to the Warlock automatically. I was a little frustrated in hindsight, wishing that were me, but he allowed it as he had already given permission. It didn't really end up affecting much anyway...even with four extra spells known (via patron), the Warlock still could only cast two per rest. That severe limit weakened the extra spells known in the same way that requiring a slot weakens the once-a-day casting invocations. The few times it did benefit, it did so by allowing a Warlock to cast an "on-theme" spell they otherwise wouldn't have been mechanically inclined to take. Unlike Sorcerer, who is balanced by only the restricted spells, being balanced by few known spells and few slots available made this feel different than Favored Soul or Storm Sorcerer.
