Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9132376" data-attributes="member: 6877472">If we assume that 2 SR's per diem is what's intended, then this is exactly how the Warlock is intended to work.  I honestly preferred the "half caster+" playtest Warlock, but people really love their Pact Magic and the promise of "unlimited power" as long as you can SR.Honestly, I hate the Warlock's design simply because of this; if you have no short rests, you have to rely on Eldritch Blast spam with a depressingly few spell slots to use on a given day, which some people might enjoy, but I find incredibly boring.If you have one short rest, it gets a little better.  If you have too many short rests*, it can become a nightmare.*the exact number of short rests obviously varies from table to table.Now one of the things the game promises is that you don't need to bring people who can cast cure spells to a game.  So a party that needs to heal has to short rest often.  Which suddenly makes SR classes really strong.But if you have strong mitigation and ample healing resources, to the point you never need to spend hit dice, then SR classes are incredibly lackluster- even if the Warlock can survive on EB spam, and the Battlemaster is still a Fighter without Superiority Dice, the Monk is basically unable to do much of anything without ki points, as almost all of their class features are fueled by this resource.The whole idea that this is balanced remotely is ridiculous on it's face.  The power of a class shouldn't be based on how often you need to (or are allowed to) nap in order to keep adventuring.  I mean, this is our paradigm in a nutshell:-no short rests, parties reliant on Hit Dice can only tackle a very small number of encounters.  Warlocks are mid, Monks are terrible.-one short rest, parties reliant on Hit Dice can handle twice as many encounters as before*.  Warlocks are slightly above par, Monks are still sub par.-two short rests, parties reliant on Hit Dice can probably hit the benchmark for 6-8 encounters*.  Warlocks are very good, Monks are mid.-three short rests, nothing really changes with healing since you are limited by Hit Dice*.  Warlocks are best class, Monks might actually be decent.*if the Healer Feat is allowed/taken by the party, and they have ample healer's kits, or alternately, a large healing potion budget, or the party has multiple Fighters (for Second Wind), this can change dramatically.  As feats are optional, wealth is DM controlled, and party makeup malleable, I don't assume any of these are in play by default.Meanwhile, you have to somehow justify in the game how the party can just take an hour to screw off in a dungeon or other dangerous area, or while their enemies keep on doing their thing while doing so.  I mean, what, does everyone take their union mandated breaks at the same time?It's lousy design from both a gamist and simulationist perspective.  So yeah, I'd much rather cut out the middle man in order to keep the game rolling even if it makes some characters overpowered- I can always ban Warlocks if this manages to make them better than Wizards.  TLDR; one-hour breaks are terrible and hard to justify.  The game requires them to function, even if not every party requires them.  Some classes require them to be playable, other classes are broken if there are too many.  And some of the strongest classes barely care if they have them at all, as long as they have hit points to work with.  This design is untenable, but the entire game is built around it, and it's not going anywhere.</blockquote>

Verification