Cool. Good for you. Without having access to the D&D Beyond raw data or knowing what portion of the people have free versus paid content access, neither of us can answer this question. This is complete opinion and conjecture. Nothing you have said takes away from my logic or reasoning for my hypothesis.
I also doubt that Hexblade is even ahead of Archfey or Great Old One because of any kind of power analysis. It's ahead because a lot of people want to play a gish, and it's one of the most straightforward options for that that isn't primarily something entirely other than a gish. The Hexblade turns the Warlock into a gish, and that is why it's so popular.
I don't get it... are you saying that you now agree that if we controlled for the paywall for content that Hexblade would come ahead? Are you trying to rationalize your reasoning why it would pull ahead if it did? I'm not really clear what you are getting at.
EDIT: Ok, I think you are trying to rationalize why Hexblade might pull ahead of non-Fiend Patron warlocks. Still, this is just conjecture, and nothing you have said here indicates a flaw in my own reasoning or hypothesis regarding how the numbers might shift if access to paid content was controlled for.
The Hexblade doesn't excel at everything, so I'm not sure how that is even a counterpoint to anything.
I'm not saying the Hexblade excels at everything. I said that no class excels at everything. And what I mean by this statement is that the choice you make for your class should be meaningful, opening up some options while making others more difficult (though not necessarily impossible). It would be one thing if the Hexblade simply granted the proficiencies and the Hexblade's curse. Where it crosses the line for me is the ability to swap an inconvenient modifier for a more convenient one.
If you want to focus on melee as a warlock, you're gonna lose out on a lot of other stuff like out of combat utility, range efficacy, etc.
Sorry, but I find this statement to be [-]false and without any support to back up your claim[/-] misleading in that you seem to be stating that a Hexblade only focuses on melee and thus might lose out on capacities available to other Patrons. A Hexblade loses nothing compared to the other Patron options except what those Patrons would have provided. They have their own abilities, but there is little about the Fiend, Archfey, or Great Old One that determine whether a Warlock is more of a generalist, ranged attacker, utility player, or whatever. That is largely more defined by a Warlock's choice of Pact, cantrips, spells, and invocations. Making the choice to play a Hexblade does not limit your cantrip choice, invocation choice, or spell choice. Choosing a Hexblade does not force you into going Pact of the Blade. Even the patron spell lists are not freely given spells, but only allow you to choose those spells if they aren't already on the Warlock spell list. So a Hexblade warlock can be just as effective at range (they still can take Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast), they can still choose most of the same spells that would give them utility, and they can still choose to have an improved familiar or additional cantrips through the Pact options that would promote different styles of play. In fact, based on these things, I think the choice of Patron should have more to do with the flavor of a warlock, and play style determined more by choice of Pact and Invocations.
The bolded [by me] part is just completely unrelated to anything I said. The mechanics and balance of the game matters. Analysing parts of a sublcass as if they stand alone doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the balance of a character using that subclass in play. A Melee Warlock using Hexblade isn't overpowered compared to a blaster Warlock using Fiend.
My statement is relevant, because the thesis of your argument seems to be that a concept should have more relevance in execution of how a player plays their character and what they can do, rather than mechanical balance or structural precedent of the majority of class/subclass options. To me, that seems like a game that does not prioritize or even actively minimizes game mechanics in favor of story telling. Note that I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this style of play. However, my understanding of the OP's question and request for feedback was on making a mechanically sound wizard option that allows for a GISH concept. Not forcing a GISH play style onto Wizard Archetype design.
Additionally, a melee-focused Hexblade warlock may not be broken compared to a range-focused Fiend warlock. However, the Hexblade certainly gets a lot more compared to the Fiend (and every other warlock patron). Based on how I define mechanical game balance, this is a concern and one worth examining, rather than writing it off as "It works for my table! It gets the concept right! So there's nothing to worry about!"
Additionally, you are incorrectly assuming that I am analyzing the Hexblade only within this single level and only to the other archetypes. But I am also considering that no where else does any class get the option of replacing a spellcasting modifier with their strength/dexterity modifier for weapon attacks. The closest that we get to such an example in official mechanics is a druid using the Shillelagh cantrip (which is limited to a max d8 damage) or the Magic Stone cantrip. And I have to assume that WotC limited this to the Druid spell list, excluding it from Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard for a reason.
Not only that, but we also do not see the reverse. While the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster gain access to spells and cantrips, neither option allows a player to swap their Strength/Dexterity modifier for their spell attack or spell save DCs. There are many opportunities for these mechanics to exist, yet outside the Hexblade they do not manifest. I would posit this is because, as I have stated, that swapping stat modifiers is a poor mechanic that is uninteresting, is difficult to explain in-game (I swing more accurately and physically harder than you. Not because I'm strong or quick, but because I am just so darn good-looking and have such a gravitas when I enter a room!), and takes up design space for more interesting and reasonable ways to execute a concept.
"why even have mechanics, then!?" isn't a useful counterpoint to that.
To me, this is a reasonable question. Mechanics can and should reflect a concept. However, I believe this must be done within reason and while maintaining some fidelity to the rest of the system and what has already been produced. There are a number of ways that one can break a system down and compare aspects of those mechanics. It is not uncommon, for example, individuals to try and break each ability down, assign it a point value, and reverse engineer a race or class. I have already demonstrated such a break down in my analyses of the 1st level Warlock Patron ability through comparison with feats. By comparing the value of each Warlock Patron ability to a relevant feat or aspect of a feat, we can effectively assign that Patron ability a point value. And in doing so, we can see that a Hexblade gets way more points than its peers. So yes, perhaps the Hexblade holds up to the concept of what you are trying to play, but it fails to hold up mechanically in balance if we attempt to use a reasonable system for more objective comparison. So far, you haven't really provided a alternative, objective means to compare the mechanical aspects of the Hexblade versus the other Patrons (which I argue should serve as a baseline for analyzing new archetypes). Nor have you provided any reasonable critique that demonstrates flaws in my methodology for comparing 1st level Warlock Patron abilities. You have simply said "Hexblade allows you to play a GISH concept better!" or "It isn't even that powerful compared to the Fiend." And so, it is a reasonable assumption to make that you seem to prefer to prioritize story telling over game play or mechanics.
Objectively false. The Hexblade gets basic melee competence in a neat package. That's it. They still aren't equal to a higher level multiclass build, and suggesting that they are more powerful than such a build is complete nonsense.
Telling me I'm wrong and stating your opposing statement without providing supporting evidence does not really serve as an effective argument. I have not only stated my thesis regarding the flaws in the Hexblade, but I have also provided an objective means to compare the Hexblade's 1st level ability to the others, which I am using to support my claims. You can state that your play experience differs from mine, which is fair. But the whole point of this thread is to create balanced game mechanics for a Wizard GISH. If we relegate that only to what works in individual tables, that is not helpful to the OP, whose play style and table culture may differ from ours. Rather, I believe it is way more helpful to find means to objectively evaluate mechanics so that we can assist the OP and provide feedback for a homebrew Wizard archetype. So far, I have heard you tell me I'm wrong, and provide vague reasons that sound more like opinions than facts. Maybe because we ourselves have different play styles, experiences with game mechanic design, and priorities in executing on homebrew game mechanics. Which is fine. But I don't think we can reconcile our differences because we seem to have such different priorities in assessing balance, game play, and mechanical design.
Explicitly, no one. But at some point you argued that the fact that a Hexblade doesn't break the game is indication that the mechanics of the archetype are sound and balanced. I disagree with this idea. Game balance does not exist in a binary system of "broken" or "works as intended," but rather on a spectrum. No, I don't think the Hexblade is breaking any tables out there. But I also believe it has greater mechanical benefit in comparison to its peers and uses mechanics found almost no where else in the game.
And in that context, it is useless to break off individual features and compare them as if in a vacuum.
I'm not comparing them in a vacuum. I have found an objective means to value and compare individual abilities, and as mentioned above there is no precedent outside of a single Druid exclusive cantrip that replicates the Hexblade's ability to use Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity for weapon attacks. I am clearly using what is presented in other similar classes and archetypes, as well as what is offered by other Patron options in comparison to the execution of their concept. For example, the Great Old One is supposed to be about connecting with alien intelligences and touching things that can bring about madness, isn't it? I mean they directly reference Cthulu. So why not allow 1st level Great Old One warlocks have the ability to spread madness? Or summon forth the monsters from these realms? And Fiends are all about fire and brimstone, right? So where are my abilities to wield whips of fire and walk through conflagrations with impunity? Where are those mechanics for me to execute my concept for my 1st level warlock? I should note that I am being facetious, but also trying to demonstrate the flaws in your argument through exaggeration of making mechanics to execute concepts without obeying or considering limits placed on other classes/subclasses of similar level.
The War Cleric gets extra proficiencies on top of everything other clerics get. The Blade Bard gets extra proficiencies on top of what every other college gets. Getting proficiency is part of the structure of subclasses that turn a non-melee focused class and give it a melee focused subclass in 5th edition dnd. Acting like these proficiencies are a free feat on top of the normal subclass structure is disingenuous and unhelpful.
As I have stated previously, the proficiencies are not the part I take issue with. Yes, there are cleric and bard archetypes that provide additional proficiencies for weapons and armor. But where is the Cleric archetype that allows them to use their Wisdom modifier on weapon attacks? Where's the Bard archetype that allows them to use Charisma for weapon attacks? These martial archetypes for non-martial classes have found other ways to demonstrate mechanical competency without swapping inconvenient modifiers for convenient ones. My argument is that this should be the preferred manner to create martial archetypes, and that the Hexblade fails in this conceit.
1) If it's the only thing the subclass does, sure. Since that isn't on the table, I don't care.
How would a subclass only give stat substitution? I agree, that would be an immensely boring subclass. But also, what do you mean it's not on the table? Recommending that the Hexblade is the ideal GISH and suggesting that emulating it as a basis for the OP's desired Wizard archetype is literally putting that mechanic on the table and stating that you believe it is a satisfactory way of solving the problem the OP is having with their Wizard GISH creation. I disagree, and have provided several arguments to support such a conclusion.
2) No. That should absolutely not be a restriction when building a new option. It should get stuff at the same levels, it shouldn't be a much more powerful total package than the good subclasses for that class, and it should mechanically support the narrative concept of the subclass and the base class. That's it.
I never said it should be a restriction, but it should be a consideration. Additionally, I disagree about only needing to consider the entire package. Based on this idea, it would be entirely reasonable to give a 2nd level Abjurer their 14th level Spell Resistance ability, Improved Abjuration at level 6 rather than 10, and then Arcane Ward at level 10 and Projected Ward at level 14. The total package is the same, so by your reasoning this is a completely balanced way to create a Wizard archetype. There should be no consideration about when a player gets their powers. It shouldn't matter if a Level 1 Wizard gets a level 8 spell slot, just as long as they don't get anymore level 8 spell slots later on as they gain wizard levels. Because, its about the total package, right? Should it not matter if a non-martial archetype gets Extra Attack way earlier than level 5, just as long as it doesn't also get it at level 5?
I agree that mechanics should allow for creative and conceptual expression of a desired type of character. The game is about having fun, after all. But I don't think that the concept should allow for the precedent and paradigm for all other mechanics be thrown out or not considered when attempting to achieve such mechanics.
