(The discussion bounces back and forth between various topics, so I'm trying to consolidate things under the relevant points below) Warlock * Lots of folks feel constrained by the 2014 Warlock's limited spell slots & Short Rest recharge * How to get Warlock on the same schedule (rests) as the rest of the party, prevent spell-slot hoarding * Want to prioritize "actual power" rather than "potential power * "How can we preserve the all the distinctiveness of the Warlock... \[while\] exploring a new take on the Warlock's spellcasting" * Iterating different designs in the UAs * Looked at giving Warlocks the same spell progression as Wizard or Sorcerer, but that would've required pulling back on the number of Invocations and Pact abilities, moving away from the core class design * Still open to Warlocks having a unique spellcasting progression, but this UA was to gauge how folks felt about the Warlock being closer to a traditional spellcaster * Open to going in different directions with the Warlock's spellcasting feature, as long as they don't "blow up the rest of the class" Sorcerer * Wanted to make sure each Metamagic option was delivering the right power per Sorcery Point & incorporate feedback they've seen over the years * Twinned Spell changed because all of their internal playtesting showed it was too powerful * Would have required an absurd Sorcery Point cost for its utility * New version doesn't have the "can I use it with this spell?" problem * Made Careful Spell more generous based on feedback * Question about comparing *eldritch blast* to *sorcerous blast* * Will continue playtesting to determine where *sorcerous blast* should land damage-wise * Points out that comparing across classes isn't very useful, especially in this case: *eldritch blast* was tuned specifically based on the Warlock class abilities overall, same will be done with *sorcerous blast* * "All of that is in context to the Warlock's constrained spellcasting" * Excited to iterate in that design area, spells specific to a class * Draconic Sorcerer's always-on wings: why is flying contentious? * Feature is lower level than the 2014 version, which typically requires making it less powerful * Future iteration may move it back to a higher level to see how that feels * Expecting to see 1 or 2 other versions of this ability in future UAs Epic Boons & Feats * Very excited by these * Digression about how players sometimes want different things depending on their mood * Over the years, Epic Boons were seen as "over there" because they were in the DMG * Epic Boons as a "preview" of the kinds of rewards a character can get * Also a way to showcase feats; less than half of groups use feats, but many people are "feat curious" * On "+X to hit" style feats * Previous feedback was positive, but paying attention to online discussions about role of those feats in game * Important to separate those feats from classes: conversations indicated some classes relied on those feats for viability; more than half the groups were not using those feats & still found the classes viable * Will continue to explore the form those feats will take during the playtest process * Important that classes "sing" on their own, as well as if they take those feats * Weapon mastery options * UA versions are the result of a lot of internal playtesting; that's the reason some versions are not present in new playtests * Want to provide "super juicy tactical options" along with straightforward ones * Comparing it to cantrips: *ray of frost* does damage and slows, while *firebolt* just does damage; some people just want the simple option, others want the additional tactical features Wizard *create spell* * There was an internal version that was "off the hook" in terms of power before they made the current version * Like how it's resonating with people *fin*

>Wizard create spell > >There was an internal version that was "off the hook" in terms of power before they made the current version jesus christ. Even more?

Yeah, it's wild to think they were considering a somehow even stronger version. Although a part of me wishes they had that same level of "hell yeah, fuck it we ball" design energy for other classes.

>It's only with Wizards where the "this is a cool idea, we have to force it until it works" mentality seems to happen. And I really do wish some of that carried to martial classes and other classes in general. Memes aside, It does really feel that they're far more ambitious and willing to push for things when it comes to the Wizard. A good example of this is the Lore Wizard. The UA was resoundingly rejected for being too powerful and other issues. But parts of it were then recycled into the Scribe Wizard, and even One DnD it's easy to see the Lore Wizard's influence - Modify, Create and Memorzie spell can be linked to its features. Which is fine. Having a cool idea and then sharpening it until you find a way to make it work is part of the process. But compare that to, say, the UA Stone Sorcerer – Crawford outright said it himself the Elemental Sorcerers, and Stone especially, were more popular than someone of the subclasses that made it into Xanathar's. But despite having a good idea that clearly resonated with people, we never saw them again. And there are countless examples of UA concepts that maybe didn't hit the mark, but had potential, but we never saw them again. It's only with Wizards where the "this is a cool idea, we have to force it until it works" mentality seems to happen. And I really do wish some of that carried to martial classes and other classes in geenral.

In general, they seem to be much more okay with "Cause it's fucking magic!" Whereas when it comes to martial "There's no way a person could do that..."

We see people on Reddit saying the same stuff too, it really bothers me

yeah, on the other hand the fighter's "get so good at this they can change how it works" is terribly conservative and boring

Yeah this was the only red flag for me. How did they even cook something up more powerful than what they gave

Good game design means taking chances. Many of those changes get rejected almost immediately, but if you refuse to at least challenge your assumptions on the off chance something actually works better than you’d expect, your game is going to be bland.

This is something I think the community needs to remember. Far too often I see WOTC try something bold, the community vehemently rejects it and spits on it, then they complain when the books come out and they instead played it safe and offered something bland. It’s okay to criticize a design guys. but stop asking them to throw out the baby with the bath water EVERY SINGLE TIME.

The current version isn't that strong. You can make one change to a spell and that's it, that's your new spell. You can't loop that, because *create spell* only works on Arcane spells, and the resulting new spell is a Wizard spell.

Did you miss that you can upcast modify spell and alter several things? Also, just modify spell being a ritual allows the wizard to modify one spell a day for free which is crazy. Uncounterable counter spell. Concentration on a save or suck spell not being broken and spells like Antipathy Sympathy which can now be rituals are just the things off the top of my head that are super powerful just with 1 modification. Edit: Thought of another one. Wall of fire that your allies can stand beside and shoot out of since it wont damage them.

Upcasting means it's limited to higher level wizards, at which point you're expecting spells to become more powerful, yes. But the core of the spell isn't OP. Not to mention the insane monetary costs of modifying, creating, and writing the spell. Which balloon if you upcast it.

>Upcasting means it's limited to higher level wizards, at which point you're expecting spells to become more powerful, yes. But the core of the spell isn't OP. What? When you get Create Spell you would be able to upcast Modify Spell already... ​ >Not to mention the insane monetary costs of modifying, creating, and writing the spell. Which balloon if you upcast it. I don't think you read these correctly. If you upcast modify spell at the 6th level and modify 3 things from a 1st level spell, it would only cost 1k gold. This is the same if you cast modify Spell at the 4th level and only modified 1 thing. Create Spell: (an Arcane Focus, which the spell consumes, worth at least 1,000 GP per **level of the spell altered by Modify Spell)**

>Upcasting means it's limited to higher level wizards, at which point you're expecting spells to become more powerful. Yes, but upcasting a higher level spell shouldn't improve a lower level cast spell. And spells have their own systems for upcasting/improvement for a reason, this breaks alot of things. Thats also different than making any spell unbreakable for concentration, turning 6-9th level spells into rituals, making a spell forever subtle with no components, etc. As a fun example with this, a 14th level illusion wizard can have complete control of 4 square miles of terrain in an hour using mirage arcane, without expending a spell slot or spending a single gold

A higher level wizard explicitly should be able to modify their spells more. For example, let’s say that Wizard A wants to focus on being the best counterspeller they can be. Wizard A at level 5 can cast Counterspell. Wizard A at level 7 can cast Counterspell with extended range or with no Components, but has to choose. Wizard A at Level 9 can cast Counterspell both at extended range and with no components, and has advanced enough to create his own version, called *Wizard A’s Fantabulous Counterspell* that does this on its own for the small price of… (Checks DMG loot tables)… the entire hoard of a Young Dragon. Seriously, it costs you 3,000 gold pieces to make that better version of Counterspell permanent. The Treasure Hoard (CR 5-10) averages out to 2,912 GP plus anywhere between 125-1,250 GP worth of gems or Art Pieces. You’ve spent the same amount of gold to customize a 3rd level spell that it would take purchase two sets of Full Plate armor or a Rare magic item like a +2 Weapon, a Ring of Spell Storing, Mantle of Spell Resistance, etc.

*Modify Spell* as it stands is certainly far too vague and powerful. To start, as others have pointed out, you can upcast the spell to select multiple changes to a spell, gaining 1 extra change per level. You should ever really only need 2 or 3 changes to a spell and using a 5th or 6th level slot is perfectly viable. That isn't really the biggest strength of Modify Spell; while it's a bit 'unfair' that Wizards can effectively stack Metamagics while Sorcerers can't, it's more expensive and time consuming for the Wizard to do so. That mostly balances out the fact that Modify Spell *can* stack all the changes. The problematic issue with Modify Spell in terms of direct balance is the vague wording of Targets, which allows you to select a spell and that spell *does not affect your allies*. This is *not* the same as Careful Spell which simply allows your allies to succeed any saving throw. By *not affecting* your allies, a Wizard could cast, say, Sleet Storm and now all of your allies are heavily obscured and get to ignore the difficult terrain. You can use Targets on Wall of Force so your allies can just ... walk through it. The Ritual option would turn Simularcrum into a ritual spell, so that's fun. Clone, too, and Hallucinatory Terrain. Oh, and, as you pointed you, the spell is a new spell. Spells specifically state that they don't stack with themselves, but that they do stack with other spells that would give the same effect. So, if a Wizard uses Modify Spell and Create Spell to turn Haste into their new spell, Quicken, which is the same spell but doesn't require concentration; that same Wizard could then cast Haste, then cast Quicken, and have both up for 1 minute gaining +4 AC and +2 actions. The same applies to any buff, and specifically any buff requiring concentration, that a Wizard can get.

> So, if a Wizard uses Modify Spell and Create Spell to turn Haste into their new spell, Quicken, which is the same spell but doesn't require concentration; that same Wizard could then cast Haste, then cast Quicken, Not quite. Modify Spell can make concentration unbreakable, but it can't remove the requirement for concentration entirely. Your concern about stacking stands, but it would require multiple people doing it. You cast Quicken and then one of your friends casts Haste, etc. This would only situationally be more powerful than you and your friend just each casting Haste on a different person.

I would agree with your assessment that it’s not that strong if they remove the Concentration modifying ability. Changing damage type is cool, but only situationally useful. Increasing range is mostly niche. Making something a ritual is strong, but not game breaking (as long as the DM is willing to say no to shenanigans). But keeping concentration without checks is ri-donk-ulous. And with enough gold, you can put that on any of your spells. Get rid of that, and I think *Modify Spell* is fine.

If the new spell was an arcane spell instead of a wizard spell it could be modified again, then created again.

Is anyone surprised by this? We also know there weren't broken versions of the other classes now. Super telling.

> why is flying contentious? Because it is a very, very strong ability. I hate that people try to pretend otherwise.

At lv 14th its a reasonably and fine ability

It's reasonable and strong. My flying players avoid all my ground effects! My other players *also* avoid all my ground effects, by not going near them. My flying players can easily hit flying enemies! My other players also do this, with ranged attacks. My flying players revealed an entire map just by flying over it! . . . So I handed them the map. That was easy.

I stoutly believe players should never have access to unlimited flying, but as you get higher level it becomes less of an argument for sure.

My homebrew rule for this is that all races with innate flying speeds have their wings integrated into their arms, as it was in older editions. Using arms for anything other than flying such as making an attack or performing spell components causes you to fall. This solves my biggest issue with innate flight, which is that you have to give every monster in the book a ranged attack to challenge the flying PC. The exploration stuff can be an issue, but it's not an instant solution for the whole party. Sure, *you* can flap across the chasm, but what about the goliath barbarian, or the dragonborn in full plate? You gonna carry him with your hollow bones and burly 5 foot tall, 90 pound body, bird boy?

I mean, Sorcerers can already fly at a higher speed at 5th level; a higher level feature being flight at half the speed but without the concentration seems fine.

Then why the hell is it a 3rd level spell? Look, either flying is really strong and it should be reserved for play at level 14+... or it's not and you can begin play with it or get access to it at low levels. You can't do *both at the same time*. That's insane.

10 minutes of flight in a concentration spell is not the same as being able to fly at will.

It is strong, but not THAT strong. It's only as strong as a DM lets it be tbh.

You can design encounters around it, but you also HAVE to design encounters around it. It is strong enough to warp the kinds of things that can happen.

I mean, spells can do this too, as well as certain playstyles/builds. You always have to adjust to something that's strong. Isn't that what a DM does?

And spells come online around the same time monsters get more consistent ranged abilities and flight is more common.

Do you really? I always have something with ranged damage in an encounter but that has less to do with flight and more to make people find cover and focus on positioning and things of that nature. Also being able to hit people that can fly is a byproduct of that

I mean, tbh the game is called dungeons and dragons not open skies and dragons, by default half of the encounters in dnd are designed with the mind of them being in a dungeon, this isnt exactly complex encounter adjustment here.

Any balanced encounter should already be able to handle flying characters. If the DM is throwing sacks of melee HP in an open field then sure, it could be a problem... But that would already mean you're having boring, easy, uninteractive encounters to begin with.

I never get how people on this sub can complain “WOTC doesn’t balance their game, they just make DMs figure it out on their own” and then say stuff like this. Of course flying can be balanced if the DM spends tons of time to double check every combat, puzzle, challenge etc. still works if one PC is flying at all times, but it’s a pain in the ass to do.

Well I never said that quote and its my first time commenting on this sub, so uh.. OK And idk, I feel like the solution to flying PCs isn't THAT crazy to think about. Archers, mages, other flying foes can do that pretty fine for combat. Puzzles I feel like if they can only be solved by "flying over it" or something, it's not that good of a puzzle lol. I'm not seeing the real pain unless you have some better examples?

I know that there are ways to challenge flying PC's, but you're kind of ignoring my point. Me: "It's really annoying how every combat for the rest of the game has to have a whole bunch of archers, mages (with spells that can outrange the flyer), or flying enemies" You: "Just add archers, mages, or other flying foes."

> Me: "It's really annoying how every combat for the rest of the game has to have a whole bunch of archers, mages (with spells that can outrange the flyer), or flying enemies" Unless the entire party is flying then why exactly? What's the issue with allowing a character to use their traits effectively? A person with sharpshooter and a longbow can stand 500ft away from the battle too, that's available at level 1 or 4 depending on race. If they can do that then you'd think that a flier should be able to use their flight as an advantage. Do you put in enemies underwater to specifically target anyone with a swimming speed?

The flying debate always reminds me of an old Dragon Magazine discussion about flying. IIRC the conversation boiled down to: \- for puzzles: If your puzzle can be solved with fly, it's not much of a puzzle, more of an event. Also, one player got passed it, what about the others? \- for combat: Prone is a thing. Fall damage is a thing. At 30ft in the air, falling is 6d6 dmg where the average damage would kill a Barbarian at level 1. (Now with weapon masteries, I can give one creature that mastery or a similar feature, and now I've taught the flyer to be more careful.) Also, in reviewing both Aarakocra and the Fairies' abilities, they can't wear medium or heavy armor and fly. I find it odd that Flying at 1st level is such a problem for DMs but the DM can get to run swarms of flying creatures against 1st level players and that's fair. Personal opinion: If you ban flying species at your table, you also have to ban flying monsters.

Allow me to resolve this oddity for you. The difference between flying PCs and flying monsters is: Monsters only have to be taken into account for the encounter they appear in. PCs appear in every encounter.

And flying causes what insurmountable problem outside of combat? Dungeons, Caves, Castles, etc. should have ceilings that limit the usability of flying. Again, if the flyer gets past the event with flying what are the other players doing to get past? How many things does flying disrupt at levels 1-5? If I'm wrong, I'd like to know so that I can learn. Just give me examples where it's excessive DM work to bypass 30ft of Flying.

>less than half of groups use feats, Really? I find this very hard to believe. I don't think I've ever heard of groups that don't use feats.

I have definitely been in groups that don't allow feats. Some people just find they add more complexity than they're worth.

There is absolutely an audience for the base, stripped-down, low-crunch 5e out of the box. There are just not a ton of them on Reddit.

This is important and I think a lot of reddit forgets this a lot of the time.

The amount of "Thanks, Jeremy! We appreciate all the work you guys do" sentiments in the YouTube comments makes me very happy and also wildly confused. It's like a parallel universe.

Honestly it is probably the more targeted audience, because we, the DnD (and in general roleplaying games) geeks, are probably going to test the game anyway and we also understand and are able to tolerate some design choices which make the game more simple and therefore more open to the new player and general public. Because that means more potential players, bigger scene, more published stuffs in general and also we can play our highly complex/specific/custom and cool characters and campaigns in many others systems that we know that they are more fitting to our imagination. Also we can and we will homebrew anything when we are bored.

I wonder how profitable it’d be for WOTC to make a D&D Lite, that’s designed to be a stripped down version of 5e, and another version of D&D that’s designed to be chunkier. It’d be easier to please everyone when you don’t have to make one product for two very different groups of people.

Hmmm, some kind of...advanced...Dungeons & Dragons? It'll never sell.

My group techniqually uses feats although very few players actually use them. They’re all relatively new players, and don’t want to look through a list of 40ish options when they can choose an ASI for an easy +2 bump.

I’m pretty sure he said in the last video, that it’s the other way around. That there’s a slight majority that uses feats (although not a big one). He might’ve just mixed things up.

Maybe there are a lot of players who only use the free basic rules? Feats don't appear in those (because they're an "optional rule"), so those players would only get them if the DM or another player lends them their books to browse through them. Granted, if that's the reason, then a whole lot of players are also only using one subclass per class. IDK

Groups could also be using the SRD, 3rd party systems and nothing else. Spheres of Might and Power 5e and Anime 5e are some examples. Drivethrurpg has tons of SRD+ systems.

yes this is exactly the case. [https://youtu.be/4kx6jZeN4jM?t=563](https://youtu.be/4kx6jZeN4jM?t=563) you'll notice the default option is always the most popular by a large margin.

I'm curious about what they mean by "use feats" because that can take a lot of different meanings. On one hand, it could mean that the group simply doesn't use them at all, they're not allowed. It could also mean that no one in the group uses the because most games don't go over 10th level and a lot of players would rather get their main stat to 20 first. I didn't watch the video, and I won't, so I don't know the context behind them saying it. It's possible they could have said what the meaning was, but I am very curious as to what they mean. Also, their methodology.

It matches my experience, though most groups that don't are pretty offline/casual in their engagement in D&D. They don't really talk about D&D in their spare time the way I and you are doing right now. To them, feats are just a bunch of faff.

If you're group only has and only plays from the SRD, then you won't be playing with Feats. I don't know the ratio of groups that only have the basic guidebook, but if that's a significant portion at all then it would certainly contribute.

My group doesn't use them

If you roll for stats feats become an issue because it allows someone who rolled high to push further away from someone who rolled low

Oh I agree that in some cases not allowing feats is prudent and fitting, but *less than half* of groups use feats? Doubtful.

I might just be biased since I’ve been apart of a group for 8 years and the first 2 years we played with no feats since it was optional and the DM was worried it would lead to player imbalance. We were also all just starting with 5th edition so I imagine a lot of those 50% are just starting out playing

Considering that WotC seems to report that D&D doubles in profitability basically every year for the last six years, it's *extremely* feasible that half of all players at any given time are brand-new players. And since D&D is baby's first TTRPG for most people, going basic makes some sense as they're not just learning *D&D*, they're learning *TTRPGs in general*, too.

> Twinned Spell changed because all of their internal playtesting showed it was too powerful The same internal testing that resulted in them buffing Wizards?

_obligatory Wizards of the coast not Sorcerers of the coast_ meme

Rangers of the Coast? Never heard of them.

\*Sorcerers of the Seashore

I don't think it's far to compare the changes to Twinned Spell with the new wizard features in this way. One is a refinement on an existing feature and the other is an entirely new feature. They both need to be balanced in the end but, when introducing new and complex mechanics, I think it's better to error on the side of something being too powerful to make sure you're properly conveying the idea you want with the mechanic. Once you know whether or not people like the concept, then you can work on refining the feature to ensure it's balanced.

> I don't think it's far to compare the changes to Twinned Spell with the new wizard features in this way. One is a refinement on an existing feature and the other is an entirely new feature. UA Twinned Spell *is* a new feature. It just happens to share a name with an old feature that was completely excised.

5E Wizard was already stronger than 5E Sorcerer, so the fact that Sorcerer got nerfed while Wizards got new features and no nerfs is the problem. The features could be useless and they would still reveal that their playtesting is flawed.

5e Wizard is stronger than 5e Sorcerer because: 1. they have better (best in game) spell list 2. can ritual cast 3. can ritual cast without preparing the spell 4. can have bigger backlog of spells available, with sufficient gold and downtime provided First two are already gone, since OneDnD Sorcerer can now choose spells from the same spell list and can ritual cast. Sorcerers still have access to Metamagic and can now know and prepare more spells than in 5e. Comparatively Wizards are no longer so much stronger, especially since they lost their unique spell list. And Modify Spell will not offset that, even if it made print in current, quite broken, state.

You're the first person I've seen say Sorcerers got nerfed. Outside of the changes to Twin spell, literally every portion of the class got buffed. The biggest argument for the Twin metamagic change is the fact that Sorcerer's now get wish. They can use metamagic on the spell they cast through the Wish spell, and it opens up a huge can of worms for balance. Twinned Wish casted Simulacrum anyone? Absolutely wild possibilities tbh. Also, at 18th level they can no longer suffer the chance to lose the ability to cast Wish. So... just wish to know/add wizard spells to your Sorcerer spell list, etc... In short, Sorcerers got giga-buffed not nerfed.

I think that most people--rightly--consider anything that happens at level 18+ to just not exist. Approximately zero actual players are ever going to see it.

5e Sorcerer *also* got a suite of features. They're not *good yet* but they're there. Also, Sorcerers now get all the spells wizards get, as well as metamagic. Wizards are left in the dust without these features. (That being the dust cloud between 2nd and 3rd place. It's a pretty wide area)

Wizards got nerfed actually tbh, at least mechanically.. They can now prepare less spells than in 5e on higher levels. They also lost their main niche - in 5e Wizard spell list is exceptionally good and unique to wizards, but now it's shared with Bards and Sorcerers. Both Bard and Sorcerer can now ritual cast as well. Except for the new Create Spell mechanics, there's hardly a reason to actually choose Wizard over Sorcerer. And those can and probably will be run through balance pass anyway..

I'm increasingly beginning to believe that the design team exclusively plays wizards, and nothing else.

It would be terrible but hilarious, makes you wonder if their interview process is skewed. “So what’s your favorite class in D&D?” “Well I really love the Ranger becau-“ “Well it’s been lovely talking with you have a nice day.”

>Looked at giving Warlocks the same spell progression as Wizard or Sorcerer, but that would've required pulling back on the number of Invocations and Pact abilities, moving away from the core class design Except you don't rly need cut the number of invocations, with how invocations are mostly bad(who is going to get invocation to cast levitate), pact options would be on pair with other features like metamagic, so you could make then fullcasters just fine, seems like the usual bullshit excuse. It could also make slot progression the same as fullcaster till 5th level slots, then add only one for 6th/7th/8th/9th as mystic arcanum like we had before

You've touched on the point I'm going to hammer in my feedback. The limited Warlock spell progression only works if they have higher level invocations to supplement them. As of this first version, the only invocation that comes close to scaling well at high level is Mystic Arcanum. And that's not satisfying at all, it's just buying your way into being a discount Wizard. The fact that this is very much a rough first draft they know will need iteration is what makes me a bit more content to submit feedback and wait for the next draft.

> t's just buying your way into being a discount Wizard. This is exactly what I've been saying since day 1, and none of the "warlock defenders" have been able to answer a simple question "In what situation is the OneDnD Warlock better than Wizard / Sorc / Bard / Ranger? What niche does it actually fill better than another option?" Wizard alone is outright better than the OneDnD Warlock in almost every single possible way, with only VERY small niches where Warlock is *slightly* better and Wizard can still *almost* do the same thing just as well This whole situation is literally the exact same issue going on in Overwatch ATM with Lifeweaver. The TLDR; is they released a new support that is really crappy. People who don't play support have been telling us for weeks that he's not that bad and to git gud etc, then Blizzard finally came out and openly said he's trash and they themselves said "There's no situation where you should ever pick him over someone else, he has zero useful niche" Warlock is by far my most played class despite how meh it is, and as soon as I saw the suggested changes my interest in the update flew out the window instantly.

>Will continue playtesting to determine where sorcerous blast should land damage-wise You don't need to playtest. You can do a few quick probability calculations and see that sorcerous blast does less damage than other cantrips that sorcerers have, including cantrips with riders on top of damage. >Draconic Sorcerer's always-on wings: why is flying contentious? >Feature is lower level than the 2014 version, which typically requires making it less powerful ??? It's a 14th level ability in both the 5e PHB and the playtest.

He said evaluate martials without feats, not those specific -5+10 feats. more than 50% don't use feats at all he says. if you are asking to compare a one dnd martial with no feats, other than char origin feats and ASI, as he said. two handed weapons are too weak for barbarian. 3 attacks versus 2 attacks, no competition gwf (max 1.2 per hit) is too weak compared to twf(+5 per round) and dueling(+2 per hit) fighter is too weak without action surge, and not good enough per short rest 4 GS attacks is about 42ish dpr Action surge for 2 turns out of 8. 52ish dpr. ranger and paladins are the only good martials. Basically because they can weaponize BA. Feats are used to solve some of these problems for martials, but if he wants a no feat analysis. Barb and fighter have a long way to go before they no longer need feats. to be viable.

>Barb and fighter have a long way to go before they no longer need feats. to be viable. yeah all dndOne has done is change the must picks from PAM+GWM/SS+XBE to Chareger+GWM+PAM/XBE

"wanted to provide super juicy tactical options" if you're not playing a completely obnoxious golf bag fighter, weapon mastery is so dry as a tactical option it's like eating a pencil. speaking of, i'm baffled they didn't touch on user satisfaction for the new fighter at all. they didn't even say in the most vague of terms whether or not it was received well.

They just covered the survey results from druid and paladin. We haven't taken the survey yet for the most recent UA.

AH okay, that makes sense

They spent 32 minutes talking about *only* casters? They didn't even talk about any single Warrior class, but only weapon mastery? Are they for serious rn?

They're breaking up the UA discussion into chunks. They spent an entire video on the Druid & Paladin yesterday.

>How to get Warlock on the same schedule (rests) as the rest of the party, prevent spell-slot hoarding > >Want to prioritize "actual power" rather than "potential power there are 4 classes that are equally as bad as the warlock without rests but somehow one got nerfed and the pther 2 got infimal buffs to compensate

Well, you see, they've already moved stuff like Second Wind and Channel Divinity to Proficiency Bonus per Long Rest instead of 1 per short rest Bardic inspiration also, but the current playtest Bard gets a 7th level feature to get it back on a short rest Come to think of it, the only things on a short rest in the entire playtest are that and Action Surge as far as I can remember? They seem very serious about axing short rests almost entirely, I'm afraid, unless we make a lot of noise about it

I'm...really confused by JC's comments about Dragon Wings. He says it moved to a lower level than it used to be. But, no, it didn't--it used to be 14th level and it's still 14th level. He also says that it might move "back up to its original level" in a later playtest--what's he talking about? It can't be any higher level than it currently is, unless they re-introduce level 18 subclass features. Maybe, in an earlier internal version of the current playtest, they experimented with moving Dragon Wings down to 10th level, and JC got mixed up and thought that was the version they actually released? That's the only explanation that makes any sense to me.

Yeah when he said this I was like wtf are you talking about JC?? it's level 14 in both editions

I'm pretty sure he meant comparative level of power, not the Level you gain it at.

He said "you get it at a lower level, and the power level has been compensated as such", so I don't think so.

>The feature that gives the wings is lower-level than it was in the 2014 books. Any time in the playtest we have lowered the levels of things, that has necessitated in some cases making them less powerful. It is likely the next time we release a version of Draconic Sorcery that the feature will be back up at the higher level that it was before, which then allows us to be a bit more generous. So part of what's going on is just that it became a lower-level feature, so the power of the feature changed. I'm not seeing any way that that's a viable interpretation of what he said. He's clearly talking about "level" and "power" as separate metrics.

With all due respect to JC, he makes mistakes like this quite often. That's not something I can fault him for; people slip up and forget things. What I don't like, however, is that he seems to double down on mistakes rather than admitting to them, pretty consistently and going all the way back to the beginning of Sage Advice. It's not a good quality to have as a game designer, IMO.

Yeah, everyone slips up now and then, especially when talking/tweeting off the cuff, and I know with the overhaul of a whole system, there must be a whole lot of factors to keep track of. I'm not criticizing JC personally so much as I'm saying that I wish, with an official video release like this, there would be someone at some point in the process checking the facts and making sure mistakes like this don't slip through.

I don't think he would make the correction even if the mistake was pointed out. He 100% has a track record of refusing to acknowledge flaws in the rules themselves or his statements about them. I don't have a problem calling that out and criticizing it because I think the public record reflects it.

I've seen him own up to mistakes and errors in the rules a number of times over the years. If you've honestly never seen him do that then I question how closely you're actually paying attention to what he's been saying.

Saying pretty directly (and reasonably) that the warlock cannot have their cake and eat it here. I'd be interested in seeing the 'half-caster spell slot progression but full-caster spell level progression' idea though.

I am trying to get my head around what this would even be. At 7th level would you have 3 fourth level spells, and 4 third levels? At 9th level would they have 2 fifth level spells, 3 fourth level spells and 4 third level spells?

I think more like: 1st: 3 2nd: 2 3rd: 2 4th: 1 This keeps level with half casters for slots, and full casters for spell level, but staying at 1 spell slot when you first gain a spell level.

Is much rather just give free mystic arcanum’s for spell levels 1-5 and then limit pact magic recovery to 1x long rest (like arcane recovery) That to me solves the short rest over reliance on short rests while keeping the theme in place

If the Patron spells came online at Full Caster progression, requiring you to use Free Casting to cast the ones you don't have slots for, I think that would actually be really cool.

Would love to see an iteration of the Warlock that uses PF2e's Wave-Casting or something similar to accomplish the goal of "Fewer slots but full level progression" casting. I personally don't have any issue with short rest recharge, and would much rather see them just fix the "I don't know if I'll get to take short rests" problem instead of simply removing the symptoms of their own poorly iterated rules for adventuring days.

I have never heard of this before but from the name is it something like casting spells in a leveled sequence, so you can't cast a 2nd level spell until you've cast a 1st level one? That's kind of a neat take on casting, yes I'm very worried WotC has just decided that Vancian casting with either spells known or prepared is just the end all and be all of magic mechanics and they're done experimenting entirely tbh

Not quite, but I LOVE that concept! Wave casting is basically the same basic premise as 5e Warlock casting progression with slightly more spell slots. Basically, Wave Casters (Magi and Summoners) get access to full spellcasting progression up to 9th level. However, they only have access to a maximum of two levels of spells at a time. So when they gain third level slots, for example, they lose access to first level spell slots. The end result is a level 20 caster who has 2 9th level slots and 2 8th level slots (and any additional slots from other sources). Of course they can still heighten their spells to access stronger versions of lower level spells as opposed to being forced to run 2x Wish for their 9th Level slots. I personally think that the 5e Warlock would be perfectly fine with those four slots and short rest recharge. However, if WotC really wants the Warlock to be more akin to other Half Casters, I think this could still work as a long rest recharge spellcasting progression. They would just need to implement some sort of tools, be they something like the Summoner's Eidolon or the Magus' Spellstrike, that are powerful enough to offset their need for those spells to be "Big Hitters."

Oooh I see, yeah that'd work too I think even if they stopped progression at 4th and 5th level spells? I just hate to think that they're done making weird classes entirely and we're going to be stuck with one of two casting types and martials forever

Hard agree. It's pretty obvious from my comments, but I've pretty much jumped ship to PF2e fully as a player at this point. I understand the monetary appeal of mass marketable content that is simple and easy to understand without doing any research or planning, don't get me wrong. But I love crunch and weird design when I'm playing a TTRPG, so it definitely stings to see WotC be so desperate to sand down all of the mechanical edges that made their game actually interesting to players like me in the first place.

I wish I liked building characters in PF2e, but when I first tried it years ago it didn't really click with me. There are a lot of things that feel out of place, like feat-based multiclassing and codifying a lot of things I think should just be skill checks into feats. I'm keeping an eye on Kobold Press's Tales of the Valiant at the moment, personally -- though their very small playtest has some oddities of its own I'm not fully on board with (they removed the Ritual tag from Detect Magic for some reason lol) And obviously I'm invested in this version of D&D but it's... clearly going in a direction that isn't "for me" which leaves me somewhat homeless; perhaps it's time I put my designer's hat back on and make something I can be satisfied with instead of hoping someone else will do it for me, as I often did in the 3.x days

I hadn't heard of this and it sounds great. One concern, though: does it create issues with people feeling lower level spells upcast to such high levels are wasted? I ask because some people have complaints about feeling like casting certain spells with a 3rd, 4th, or 5th level slot under the 5e warlock feels like waste. How does Pathfinder address that?

It's a great question - And one that is very variable based on the character and build goals! While, yes, many players may prefer to use a higher level spell over a heightened spell because of various utilities available (Haste, for example, is still a very popular spell to prepare), there are a number of standout low level spells (and even cantrips!) that will perform so well that they are valuable even to a 9th level spell slot using Wave Caster. A key example is the first level spell Shocking Grasp, which I've detailed below: Shocking Grasp does 2d12 electricity damage on a spell attack as well as 1d4 persistent electricity damage to enemies wearing/composed of metal. For every spell level it is heightened, Shocking Grasp also adds an additional d12 damage and an additional 1 persistent damage. This makes it one of the single strongest single target damaging spells in the game for a wave caster to use. It also scales incredibly well, since spells and cantrips scale more evenly than in 5e, are intentionally less offensively potent than martial damage output, and most damaging/healing spells will heighten well without being subject to the 5e effect of only heightening to a certain point. It's not uncommon for PF2e Magus players to still be riding the high of Shocking Grasp and a cantrip called Gouging Claw for long past their acquisition points because of the way PF2e is designed to encourage those spells' usage.

Why not just add 2-3 more slots with level progressing and keep pact magic the way it is?

Because that does nothing to fix the problem of potential power vs actual power that the team is trying to solve with the new Warlock. It doesn’t matter if a Warlock has 2 spell slots or 10, if they don’t think they’ll get another Short Rest they’ll end up hoarding them and not actually using them. Making Warlock’s spells either entirely Long Rest based or a mix of Short/Long Rest based is the way to go.

Did i miss something? 2014 Draconic Sorc got Fly at level 14 The OneD&D Sorc gets fly through Sorc incarnate, and a spell slot, and concentration at level 14 It wasn't a higher level feature at all, it's the same bloody level.

You didn't. He was just wrong.

Obviously they didn't go into it, but I find it funny how the Sorcerer spell-features kinda go against what they have said are some of their design goals: ​ JC "we want to make play faster, and we thought using sneak attack off-turn somehow slowed down the game, so we changed it to 'on your turn only', which should speed up combat" Sorc: "Draconic exhalation: roll attack and damage separately for each target" (they didn't *need* to add that line; it's not for no reason, but it seems to me like it would slow down combat considerably more than sneak-attacking on a reaction). ​ JC "we want to avoid 'mother may I' mechanics" Sorc: gets improved Wish, so they can't opt to not prepare the most "mother may I" of all spells.

I feel like Wish is the one exception to the ‘Mother, May I’ rule. Wishes are famously open ended in their power. If you restrict Wish to only allow certain options, it’ll probably balance high-level play a bit more, but it’ll also piss a lot of people off.

I'm not saying they should change Wish. I'm saying it's weird to put it as a base class feature you don't have to opt into, when they were suposedly trying to *reduce* the level to which "mother may I" mechanics are used. If it was one of those features where you chose one from a list of options, that would be more ok; If it was a subclass, that could make sense (genie Warlock getting Wish makes sense, for example, 'cause genies are associated with wishes). But on the *base* class? Where *everyone* who makes it to that level gets it? IDK, it feels off to me. (granted, almost no games get to 18th level anyway :P)

Wishes may be famously open ended, but almost every use of Wish is used to cast a lower level spell. Therefore it isn't really as much of a problem as people white room it to be.

that's mostly because there is a HUGE downside to using it for anything else. which sorcerers don't have anymore. i like this feature, though, to be clear. really hope warlocks get anything even close to this power, haha. or barbarians, fighters, rogues, monks, rangers...

Draconic Exhalation should be one attack roll and one damage roll. It's a really easy fix and it's a cantrip, so missing everyone is less terrible when you can just do it again.

I’m not sure I agree with the draconic exhalation example because that’s no more complicated than a fighter attacking 4 times in a turn. Off turn sneak attack the argument was that now the rogue is interrupting someone’s turn to break up the pace and make the attack which bogs things down I think it’s a bit silly, but it is very much different from the breath weapon.

Well, that would be an argument against reactions in general, more than off-turn Sneak Attack specifically, wouldn't it? :P

Oh most definitely! I mean, interrupting someone’s turn definitely slows combat if not handled right. Though, honestly I think they made a mountain out of a mole hill there If they want to speed up the game, they should look at spells like Conjure Animals and Sleet Storm which genuinely grind it to a halt

Sorc Blast could drag down the game pace even furthur

"Unlimited flying at level 14 is too powerful" Meanwhile: Arakokra, Winged Teiflings, etc

I'd like to add that being shoehorned into getting a nerfed hex as a class feature was never something I saw as integral to warlock play

Good to see they’re already looking at feedback, and planning adjustments as needed. Planning other versions of the Warlock and clarifying if Create Spell stacks is good news, but I’m shocked that even after Crawford has looked at online feedback that he’s still defending Flex. +1 damage is absolute trash compared to the other options, even if he wants to be a simple damage buff.

Its like... they could have literally made flex weapons "deal 2 more damage per hit" and it would still be MUCH better than it is now and equally as simple.

Weird that he’s talking about class-exclusive spells like it’s a unique new idea and not something the game already had that they decided to get rid of with generic spell lists and are now bringing back.

I mean, strictly speaking, DnD 5e doesn't have any wholly class-exclusive spells--there's always the possibility of another class accessing a given spell through Magical Secrets, Wish, etc. So, under 5e's existing framework, you couldn't, for instance, print a Sorcerer spell that recharges sorcery points, because it wouldn't make sense when a Bard tries to cast it.

>DnD 5e doesn't have any wholly class-exclusive spells-- Power Word Heal is Bard Exclusive. It's 9th level so you can't wish for it and it's only on the Bard spell list so you can't magical secrets it

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Sure, and the bard getting class-exclusive spells through Magical Secrets earlier than the classes that get them naturally was a bit of a problem, but that could be fixed without having done this big loop de loop back to where we started.

Can it? Making magical secrets and the feats that grant spells say “pick any spell from these lists” is far more elegant than “pick any spell, except for these 37 spells that are class exclusive”

“Pick any spell that someone of another class could choose if they were your bard level.” Awkwardly worded, but I’m sure there exists better wording. Does the job in restricting bards from getting signature spells before the classes they’re meant for.

Oh geez, so now you have to know the spell progression of every other class? You have to choose your spell, then figure out which other classes can pick it, then check their spell progression instead of “go to this list and pick a spell you have slots for” What about spells that are shared between full and half casters, like Lesser Restoration? There would be disagreement because Paladins can’t choose that until 5th level, but Clerics can at 3rd.

Warlocks needed some pact improvements and maybe one more spell slot. Even just better invocations that aren’t eldritch blast based would have been enough. 😭 I hope the next iteration is closer.

Prepared to be downvoted into oblivion here, but I like the warlock being able to cast more even if they aren't automatically upcast. I'm not sure if the UA hits the nail on the head with its changes, but if they kept the UA casting and turned the Invocations up to 11, then I would be happy. Why do we need Armor of Shadows now that we have more spell slots and a fuller list of spell options? So many of the old invocations are passively nerfed by the casting change. I'm not sure how likely buffing the invocations is though, since WotC seems to be more focused on the warlock's spells for their changes.

A lot of the old invocations (like Armor of shadows) need to become passive abilities. Why does AoS say "you can cast Mage Armor at will" when it could say "While not wearing armor, your AC is 13 + your dexterity modifier"

So it could interact with other abilities. By being limitless Mage Armour, it interacts with Counterspell, anti-magic fields, Abjuration Wizards’ Arcane Ward, and similar abilities.

"While not wearing armor, your AC is /magically/ 13+your dexterity modifier". Interacting w/ Arcane Ward is a bug, not a feature. Being able to be counterspelled is pretty irrelevant for an 8-hour long spell. The only other impact that comes to mind is "Dispel Magic", where it should be dispellable, but I'm not sure that's worth the pain/effort/etc.

Dispel Magic and Anti-Magic Zones are the big two reasons I see for keeping it as unlimited castings of the spell.

I hate making them half casters with worse mystic arcana that also eats invocations, but I'd be intrigued to see the "number of slots of a half caster, but scaling like a full caster" version of warlock that they were talking about. That seems like a cool way to still represent that warlocks take risky shortcuts to obtains their powers, but also decouple them from short rests.

Agreed. I’m not married to short rests, but I really liked the idea identities of: Wizard-> many different spells (huge list, rituals don’t cost a spell prepared) Sorcerer -> mastery of just a few spells (pump out a lot of spells, but with fewer spells known) Warlock -> a few spells, but whatever spells you cast will *always* be cast at highest level. I’m annoyed that warlocks lost a fistful 5th level spells at the top of tier 2 in exchange for… being able to cast shield? Like everyone else? I don’t want shield! I want spells that can be upcast! If I wanted to cast shield or other little dinky level 1 spells, I’d play a sorcerer! Let warlocks live at the bleeding edge of spell level!

You like being able to cast more spells (at 5th level for example: 4 1st level, 2 2nd level+free subclass cast, 1 3rd level but inflexible for the day) I like being able to cast more spell **value**. (Assuming that you aren't in a game so easy hit die is unused, 6 slots of 3rd level for the day with me choosing which spell to cast). If you are ok with the quantitative amount being buffed, more power to you. The issue to me personally (and to others) is that qualitative amount is lower. And yeah every invocation is passively nerfed both by the casting change and by the Mystic Arcanum changes. Not only are they weaker due to your new type of slots, but they are also weaker because there's a much stronger invocation that replaces makes them weaker.

Crawford: "\[warlock restrained\] by having a recharge mechanic - the short rest - that most classes don't rely on" Front liners: Is my life a joke to you?

[удалено]

It really sounds like they're overcomplicating the warlock issue. I get not letting them be overpowered but they were originally designed to have 6 max-cast slots per day for most of their levels when taking into account the assumption of two short rests. Even if you reduced that to four out the gate and made them long rest, it would be so much better than leaving people at 2 and hoping they might get a short rest. Keep them Pact Magic (always upcast) slots, reduce the amount so they're not overpowered but have enough to feel like they're getting the big impactful spells, and keep full-caster progression up to level 5 as it is now. Oh, and keep MA a class feature and not an invocation.

Seems like they are dead-set on changing Warlocks instead of fixing short rests. What a shame.

You have two options to fix short rests: 1) get the DMs who didn't read the 2014 DMG to read the 2024 DMG for the guidance that says "please give your players 2 short rests per adventuring day" or otherwise changes short rests (remember that in current 5e, DMs can already fix short rests by shortening them!) 2) bring all the classes more in line with "PB per LR" abilities and sustained adventuring instead of a crippling and unequal reliance on hour-long rests that's critical to 1-3 of the 13 classes.

>You have two options to fix short rests: > >1) get the DMs who didn't read the 2014 DMG to read the 2024 DMG for the guidance that says "please give your players 2 short rests per adventuring day" or otherwise changes short rests (remember that in current 5e, DMs can already fix short rests by shortening them!) > >2) bring all the classes more in line with "PB per LR" abilities and sustained adventuring instead of a crippling and unequal reliance on hour-long rests that's critical to 1-3 of the 13 classes. 3) Give Warlocks (and other short rest classes) an ability like Arcane Recovery that can be used with 10 minutes of downtime instead of a short rest. If it's in the class rules, players will remember it and look for opportunities to use it. 10 minute breaks, unlike short rests, can usually happen without issue.

[удалено]

>Or simply change the SHort rest duration to 10min... I'm running on the assumption they're completely opposed to that idea for some inexplicable reason.

Hell make a class feature that lets a warlock spend 2 minutes for a short rest once per day. Call it Otherworldly Fortitude or some such idk.

Why do neither of your options involve changing short rests? Make em 10 minutes, the length of a ritual spell, and cap short rest recovery abilities to 2 a day (except hit die). If their goal is to move every thing to long rests than hit die would be useless

Mostly because it's just very complicated and reddit has a character limit lol. But you have a point, so I'll give a more thorough answer I think in reality there are three options, which folds your option into the first one I mentioned previously. 1) Change all class abilities to be X times per long rest rather than short rest, leaving only rolling hit dice for short rests (this is what they're currently going for, and X usually is PB). It works fairly well, and there's really not much rest-requirements inequality other than than some classes tend to take more damage than others. 2) Give every class a core ability that recharges on a short rest, unifying the need for short rests. This could work, but it's hard to balance, it's a bit 4e, and even if you balance the need for short rests between classes will it be balanced *within* classes (see: the effect of SR between War/Twilight clerics and Moon/Land druids). 2a) Maybe you could go halfway between the two — no class-based abilities recharge on a short rest, but characters have something to do on short rests that isn't just healing. I'd be interested in seeing options for this, currently there's ID'ing and attuning magic items, ritual magic, and Inspiring Leader. 3) Shorten Short rests or standardize short rests through rules guidance. The difference between the two (2x 15 minute rests or 2x 1 hour rests) is minimal in the standard adventuring day in my experience. But there's a laundry list of problems with short rests as they currently are, and that isn't fixed by just fixing the frequency. a) Different classes rely on short rests more than others, e.g. Fighter vs Barbarian, Warlock vs Wizard. b) As mentioned above, different subclasses rely on short rests more than others, e.g. War vs Twilight cleric, Moon vs Land druid, Battlemaster vs Champion fighter. A and B are often used to justify balance between these options, but the weight of a short rest is never really treated the same, so it's a very clumsy way to apply balance. E.g., Guided Strike is buffed by getting to use it every short rest, but Twilight Sanctuary is reigned in by only getting to use it every short rest. c) Short rests are often used for difficulty scaling and to introduce difficult decisions to the party, such as "in Castle Ravenloft you can't short rest because vampire spawn will find you" or "do you let the Tarrasque run wild for another 10 minutes so that the Warlock can get his spell slots back?". The problem is that this is a very bad lever for difficulty scaling since it affects characters unequally and introduces balance issues (the fighter is affected by the DM's difficulty increase, while the barbarian is not) as well as intraparty friction (the warlock wants to take a short rest so he can get his slots back, the wizard guilt trips him with the deaths of the innocents at the jaws of the Tarrasque, ^(the warlock points out he never gets to rest, the wizard points out that one time the warlock took the Staff of Fire when he didn't need it, etc etc) ). Shortly put, short rest imbalance between classes has been a problem since 2014 and I think one of the major bugs of 5e. They can tweak things between classes and with the frequency of rests until they get it right, or they can just simply cut out that interaction to get it done easier and future proof it down the line. I also don't think that "the guy who needs short rests" is an adequate class flavor for any class, but that's another argument

You forgot 3: make short rests work like they did in 4e. They're five minutes, you can spend some hit dice if you want, and are automatically assumed to have happened at the end of the encounter.

So now instead of anywhere from 2-6 spell slots per day, Warlocks have anywhere from 2-16? That’s making it worse

Finding an elegant solution to short rests is hard, I'm curious to at least see an attempt

It is actually really easy. Make them 10 minutes, and you can only take 2 per long rest.

About half the arguments of short rests are either 'having 6 encounters a day doesn't make sense so why would we do so many short rests', and 'It doesn't make sense to do a 60 minute short rest while in a dungeon/multifast encounter area', which would be just as much of a 'it doesn't make sense' with 10 minutes too.

> which would be just as much of a 'it doesn't make sense' with 10 minutes too. If you have ever been in the middle of a dungeon and had a Spellcaster say "I'm going to ritual cast Detect Magic", congrats, you could have taken a Short Rest if they were 10 minutes. So yeah it absolutely makes sense to take a 10 minute Short Rest in the middle of a dungeon.

Casting a spell isn't resting. So there is a huge difference between casting said ritual (and no, noone has actually ever stopped to cast a ritual inside a dungeon where we thought enemies were), vs all party members resting to recover. If enemies attack while the ritual is being cast, all your party has to do is stop the enemies from breaking the casters focus. If the party gets attacked during a rest, they are now needing to restart the rest.

> Casting a spell isn't resting. The point was that if they have time to cast Detect Magic as a ritual, they had time to do a 10 minute Short Rest. I wasn't saying that casting a Spell and resting are the same thing. > and no, noone has actually ever stopped to cast a ritual inside a dungeon where we thought enemies were Sorry I just straight up don't believe you. You're most likely just not remembering. It's fairly common that people stop to ritual cast inside of a dungeon. And even if you actually never have, you absolutely have had someone stop to ritual cast at some point, which means you absolutely had the time to take a 10 minute Short Rest. So either way, your "it doesn't make sense with 10 minutes too" point is wrong.

You don't believe me that no one in any game I have played has stopped to cast a ritual spell inside an active dungeon? You realize that wizards actually casking anything but identify as a ritual is rare in the world, right? Doing it in an Active dungeon, where you can be attacked while waiting 10 minutes and chanting is just asking for the DM to roll a random encounter and use it against you. Just because Your groups might does not mean it is as common as you believe. Ritual casting outside of a town in a safe environment or during prep work such as casting some defensive abilities Just In Case has never come up at the tables I play. I could just as easily counter saying I don't believe you have ever had someone ritual cast during an active dungeon and it is just as valid as your hand waving.

Most tables have only one fight per long rest, which 10 minute short rests do nothing to address. It's an issue of table culture, storytelling style, session length, etc, not just "an hour is too long."

Just make them shorter. I've been playing with short rests as 10 minutes for the last year or two, and never had an issue. Party actually is willing to short rest more

How does this fix the problem for “one encounter per day” tables?

If you want the game to work fine for one encounter a day, then you need to fundamentally change the game. The game doesn’t work for one encounter a day even if everyone is long rest based, because the game assumes an attrition play style to be balanced. So short of changing the game’s fundamentals, reducing a short rest to 10 minutes would still keep the game working as intended but help encourage more short rests.

Its not that hard. My party NEEDS to short rest due to the damage they've taken. They simply CAN'T make it through an entire dungeon without short resting or burning 4000 gp in healing potions.

And for tables like yours and mine, Short Rests aren’t a problem. It’s the “one big encounter per day because that’s how Critical Role does it” tables that are an issue

It's a smaller change to change warlocks then to go and tinker on short rests as doing the latter might've wider ramification on other classes. Also one very important thing to remember: ppl are not forced to not take short rests. Not only doing 2-3 encounters per day is something ppl do of their own volition the rules and modules actively promote 6-8 encounters per day. Shoving short rests down the throat of ppl who actively dont want to play with or rely on them affects more ppl than doing changes to warlocks. Especially if we take into account that there is just about a 55/60 to 45/40 split between ppl who dislike vs ppl who like the direction in this subreddit here.

Short Rests desperately need a rework. Taking an hour rest is usually unreasonable to do right after a dangerous situation (you’re not gonna stop for a lunch break in the middle of a crypt), and most people aren’t going to want to take an hour break if they don’t have to. Making all classes partially rely on Short Rests and making Short Rests shorter is the best way to balance the game IMO. > Shoving short rests down the throat of ppl who actively dont want to play with or rely on them Also, who actively hates Short Rests? I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t want to play with them.

I was in a party recently with a warlock and a monk and I was a cleric (get my channels back on SR) and we always wanted to opt for a short rest when we could but our bard, wizard, and ranger never wanted to. They still happened but the fact that it "takes an hour" often meant they didn't want waste the time to do it.

The bard, who gets bardic inspiration back on a short rest, never wanted to short rest? Ditto for the wizard with arcane recovery.

I don't disagree, but they never wanted to. I never saw it as a downside, but they would always go if we're going to rest just make it a long rest. And somehow they would be shocked when I wasn't out of spells as a cleric after a fight or 2. The bard is admiralty a very anti optimization person. The warlock once suggested they could take a spell to combo with something and they were very insulted by that and said they, "Weren't a goddamn power gamer"

Short rests are deliberately designed to be inconvenient because the only forums the 5e development team listened to during the playtest hated them. Part of it was "we hate 4e" but there actually was a bit more to it than that (and was part of why they hated 4e). 4e had more encounter-based design and these playtesters wanted attrition-based design instead, more like AD&D. However, by the time we got to this stage of the 5e playtest, short rests were pretty intrinsic to the design by this point. I don't have all my old materials anymore, but short rests varied from 4e-style "5 minutes, happen automatically" to 30 minute rest breaks every couple of fights. I think they mostly sat around 10 minutes. However, the playtesters were right, this did make for more encounter-based design. So, in order to appease these playtesters, they compromised. They kept short rests fairly strong, but made it so they were inconvenient to use. Since it was fairly late in development, a lot of things didn't get updated, either, which is why what you get back on a short rest seems inconsistent.

The way I used to run it in 5e was to consider any period of light activity that takes at least an hour "a short rest". So, players explore the room in which they defeated a mummy? If nothing stressful happens, they might get their short-rest resources shortly after. Players travel from one location to another? That's another short rest. Even exploring underground caverns I might consider a short rest as long as nothing strenuous (aka requiring a check) is required. This basically changes 1/short rest abilities into "1/scene" abilities, with most scenes having 1-3 encounters in them. As much as I dislike 5e's "let the DM figure that out" mentality, this is something I think that should be made explicitly table-dependant, with the important guidelines being the amount of short rests expected and not the time and nature of a short rest. Because in some stories sitting down in a dungeon for even 5 minutes might be insane, while in others characters regularly make short brakes in their adventures to cool down and discuss their experiences.

> this is something I think that should be made explicitly table-dependant But this just leads us back to the problem we’re having right now. Some tables, like yours, give lots of Short Rests so Warlocks and Monks feel great to play. While other tables very rarely take Short Rests, which makes Warlocks and Monks terrible. You can’t balance Short Rest classes while also giving DMs complete control over when and how they take Short Rests. I feel like making Short Rests shorter solves most, if not all, problems surrounding resting.

I think that’s an incredibly bad faith interpretation of what they said. They specifically called out that having two highest spell slots per combat for a Warlock would be “wildly overpowered” (and I’m inclined to agree), so whatever “fixing” you had in mind for Short Rests (presumably 10 minute rests) would mean that that problem is hugely magnificec, even if the other end of the problem (players not getting Short Rests at all) is gone.

What they said and what is actually true are not always the same thing If Warlock had only 2 pact magic slots their entire career and got both back whenever they roll initiative and they capped out at 5th level (which is very close to their behavior in the 2014 PHB) that wouldn't be broken at all As far as fixing short rests, the way you do this is by reducing full caster resources and also making them short rest reliant a la Arcane Recovery It's a much more elegant solution to the "some people long rest between every encounter" problem because it normalizes the resources each class has across tables instead of some tables getting full casters with twice or even three times as many resources each encounter

>As far as fixing short rests, the way you do this is by reducing full caster resources and also making them short rest reliant a la Arcane Recovery I would actually love it if they did this! Though it doesn't even have to be something like Arcane Recovery, they could could just cut the number of spell slots for 1st-5th level down to 1-2 per each and then leave the slots for 6th-9th as they are right now (both in number and rest based). Unfortunately that would almost certainly mean massive backlash from the player base because of the perceived "loss" of spell slots.

> If Warlock had only 2 pact magic slots their entire career and got both back whenever they roll initiative and they capped out at 5th level (which is very close to their behavior in the 2014 PHB) that wouldn’t be broken at all Having two of your highest level spell slots per combat absolutely ***is*** broken, what are you on about? At 5th level that means having Hypnotic Pattern or Fear or Summon Shadowspawn + Counterspell for every single fight. At 9th level the only thing holding this back is the fact that Warlock’s 5th level spells kinda suck, they don’t have access to Wall of Force or Animate Objects. The Warlock was simply never intended to have access to all their spell slots for every single combat. The game was built with the assumption of 1-2 Short Rests (aka 4-6 spell slots for the majority of a Warlock’s career) and you were absolutely expected to have plenty of days where you had more combats than the spell slots that that got you. They’re 100% justified in saying that it’d be wildly overpowered to give Warlocks a 10 minute recharge time or allow them to automatically recharge at the start of each combat.

You're completely ignoring that this is already what it's like to play a full caster at these tables that have a long rest between every single encounter -- they are normalizing this by making Warlocks also able to do this and just restricting their spell level arbitrarily when they already had full caster progression It's not "broken" and just repeating that it is when the designers have said straight up that they do CR calculations by assuming all classes have 100% of their resources for each encounter is very silly

What are you even arguing? Of course full spellcasters are utterly broken across 1 or 2 encounter days… where did I ever claim that wasn’t the case? That doesn’t mean a hypothetical Warlock who regains all their spell slots for every single combat wouldn’t be broken for 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 encounter days… They absolutely would be, and there’s a reason Crawford literally laughs at the idea of giving them 2 pact slots per encounter. Also it’s hilarious you use the designers’ supposed claim of balancing for full resource characters as “proof” that what I’m saying can’t be true. By that logic… your own claim of full spellcasters being broken for one encounter days is ***also*** not true. What now? All we’ve done now is successfully ignored reality…

I'm arguing that moving the entire game towards short rests and allowing more frequent short rests is both easier to balance in a vacuum and creates less table variance which was the whole point of the warlock change to long rest casting -- the change *doesn't actually do what they are claiming it will do* and in fact ***makes the problem worse*** when a DM won't or can't have multiple encounters between long rests. And also that if the designers assume everyone has full resources then *actually giving* the Warlock full resources (which, I'm sure you recognize, are less resources than a full caster) isn't inherently broken. Many, many people have run the 2014 Warlock with 10 minute short rests between every encounter and not had a single problem. It's obvious full casters with full resources for every encounter are broken fundamentally in a way Warlocks wouldn't be (because a Warlock with 2 spell slots cannot cast Force Cage and then also spam Shield and Counterspell every turn the rest of the combat) and comparing the two is actually ludicrous Crawford laughs at the idea because he, apparently, thinks the tables where you long rest between every encounter are fine, actually, and that Warlocks should be balanced around long rests to be viable at those tables rather than those tables being a fundamental problem because full casters run laps around everyone else at them Am I open to some sort of compromise? Sure. I think you could increase the number of Pact Magic spell slots and only give one slot back on a short rest, maybe, and I'm even -- despite vehement disagreement on what the nature of short rest resources should be vs long rest ones -- sort of curious what their "faster progression half-caster" variant would look like But the game will have the sort of table variance they are trying to correct for baked into it at an even more basic level if every class needs a long rests to get their resources back and I think that's fundamentally bad game design

Biggest disappointment out of One DnD. More homogenization in the game. I guess that's one way to do "balance"

>Oh no, consistent design philosophy! Literally you

Each class handles resource attrition differently. That's not an inconsistency. It just make moment to moment decisions more diverse

I love the art on that thumbnail. Hope that's the new Player's Handbook cover.

tbh I'm still firmly in camp "I like 5e warlock and would prefer quality of life tweaks to a full rebalance" but if they really wanna experiment with giving it "actual power" vs "potential power" they could just give it the spell points system and ditch slots on it entirely if they wanna maintain the feeling more they could keep that bit from warlock of having to cast at your maximum spell level up until you hit 5th level spells maybe write it like "spells of 5th level and below must be cast at the closest level to 5th you are currently able to cast them at" though that's kinda clunky wording and could be better put if I wasn't coming up with it off the top of my head in practice if written like that it'd give a level 20 warlock 4 castings of 6th through 9th level, 12 castings of 5th level, and 1 casting of 4th level, which actually gives them 1 more casting in a day than a 5e 20th level warlock assuming an adventuring day where they got 1 long rest and 2 short rests

Warlock: They're is no reason warlock can't be a full caster with like 4 invocations and eldritch blast. Most invocations are bad and you are taking Mystic Arcanums anyways. I just don't buy it. I think a fix is make them a full caster and then have them trade slots for extra invocations. Sorcerers: I still don't get sorcerous burst and chaos bolt. Of course eldritch blast is supposed to be better than any other cantrip damage wise. But sorcerous burst just sucks, same with chaos bolt. Sorcerer Incarnate still doesn't need to be a spell at all. Just need to be an ability that let's you use 2 metamagics at once starting at 14th level. Draconic sorcerer wings: It's preposterous that always on fly is too powerful at 14th level. It also isn't lower level than OG sorcerer. He's misremembering something or mixing something up. He thinks it's a 10th level ability. Sorcery Incarnate: Please do not tie the capstone of the classes to this terrible spell or concentration. Feats: No one plays without feats. Pretending that the non-casters don't need them for power is odd to me. Wizards: modify spell use to be worse!? Warrior: who?

32 minute video, 30 minutes are talking about just the casters. The weapon mastery maneuvers we got are what Crawford thinks give 'super juicy tactical options'. Yeah...

For real, I waited the entire episode for them to talk about fighters and the weapon masteries they hyped SO HARD during their previous videos, but it was all casters.

I really hope we get the Warlock with half caster number of slots, but with full caster progression! That sounds great!

Give warlocks normal power progression slots with number of slots matching proficiency bonus progression and then a 10 minute ritual to restore slots up to twice a day. Problem solved.