D&D 5E Warlock One of the More Complicated 5E classes?

[feartheminotaur]

See, this is a point that, when stated, really bugs me.

If someone makes the reasonable point that they believe that having many classes rely on long rest, and some classes rely on short rest, is a poor design decision, then I can understand that (even if I disagree).

If they say that their table dynamics are geared against short rests, then I can understand that as well.

What I don't get is singling out the Warlock- I don't see tons of threads complaining about how the Open Hand Monk (and other Monks) are terrible and complicated because their ki regeneration assumes short rests.

More succinctly- yes, the Warlock, like some other classes, very much benefits from having short rests. If you campaign doesn't have them, then it loses (relative to long-rest classes) a neat class feature. Or, put another way, if your campaign follows the, "Party all day, then long rest, rinse/repeat," then the Warlock won't seem nearly as cool.

I singled out the warlock because that's what the thread is on about. This being a warlock thread is why I related just the anecdotal evidence about new-ish players kvetching about the warlock, and not any other class.

Fighter and Action Surge and Monk and ki too, not to mention Clerics and their Channel Divinity. I've played in games where all of the them are cited as "we need a short rest so I can get this power back".

And please, if you're going to quote someone, then complain about how they are unreasonably calling the warlock "terrible and complicated", quote some who has. Don't quote me because I said nothing of the sort. If my comment reminds you of something else you read or heard that bugs you fine, but don't start out "this is a point" when those words are absolutely NOT that point. Mine was not the totality of my opinion about short rest afflicted classes, simply an experience with the one that was being discussed. A critical anecdote does not means I think the warlock class is terrible or complicated.

Please don't make the binary assumption that slight criticism means I hate or don't understand 5e. There are way too many other regular posters who do that already. Don't need another one. Thanks.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[feartheminotaur]

Although I'd feel better if you fixed the typo...

 

[Azurewraith]

If I want a short rest I sit down and take one. As if the party isn't taking short rests of their own accord well I can clearly solo anything the dm throws at me as it does so littel damge no one is using HD.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's a table problem, not a system problem, IMO.

If you take things that interest you, and the DM ignores your desires to interface with those interesting choices, I do not consider that 5e's fault. YMMV.

The "fault" here is the lack of flexibility.

There's no need to start yet another round of "nothing wrong with the rules, you just have a bad DM"

Has it occurred to you that a good ruleset makes it difficult to be a bad DM...?

 

[Ancalagon]

More succinctly- yes, the Warlock, like some other classes, very much benefits from having short rests. If you campaign doesn't have them, then it loses (relative to long-rest classes) a neat class feature.

As a quick aside... how can there be *no* short rests? Do people never eat lunch in this world?

 

[CapnZapp]

As a quick aside... how can there be *no* short rests? Do people never eat lunch in this world?

It's only relevant as a short rest if there are more monsters after lunch. Otherwise the rest is functionally a long one.

Not taking short rests does not have to mean you aren't eating three meals a day and sleeping properly.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Caliban]

Has it occurred to you that a good ruleset makes it difficult to be a bad DM...?

I would disagree with this statement. A good ruleset makes it easier to be a good DM, but nothing makes it difficult to be a bad DM.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The "fault" here is the lack of flexibility.

Your opinion is noted. I do not agree with your opinion.

There's no need to start yet another round of "nothing wrong with the rules, you just have a bad DM"

There's is also no need to start yet another round of "You just don't understand that 5e sucks, even though its working fine all over the world at hundreds of thousands of tables."

Has it occurred to you that a good ruleset makes it difficult to be a bad DM...?

I have not. Because that is an unfathomably illogical premise. There is no defense from poorly run management (other than to get better at it). Not in life. Not in business. Certainly not in a hobby like TTRPGs.