D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Arial Black]

Interesting. The Warlock class is one of my favorite mechanical things about 5E.

What I like about warlocks is the flexibility; you can make nearly any type of character with the warlock.

Archer? Eldritch blast. Battlefield control? Buff/debuff? God-botherer? No problem.

I mainly use it for melee fighty-types. My barbarian/warlock was one of my favourites. Totally effective in melee, relying on half damage while Raging to make my 25 THP from armour of agathys last longer, and when they run out use the THPs from Dark One's Blessing and I hardly ever take any real damage.

This is not a warlock dip, it is a barbarian dip. Bar 1, then go to Bar 1/War 5, then Bar 3/War 5, then up to (hopefully) Bar 3/War 17. Zealot barbarian doing extra necrotic, Fiendish Bladepact warlock for a pre-asskicking fireball before raging and moving though the survivors, deliberately provoking opportunity attacks so that I take half of their puny damage while they take 25 cold damage each time they hit.

Is that 'gaming the system'?

It amazes me that some see warlock as only a dip class!

 

[Oofta]

Maybe my deeper issue is multi-classing and spell lists. It always felt like a cleric/warlock using warlock slots to cast clerical spells was kind of like throwing diesel into a gasoline powered car.

I could kind of see a wizard casting spells traditionally associate to clerics because they've cracked the code and I have no problem with arcane healing.

I get that there's no easy answer, it's just one of those design decisions of 5E that doesn't sit well.

In addition warlock is quite front-loaded for certain builds.

I don't think that's universally true for Warlock builds. I would agree that there's a little too much for MC dips though. I was talking more about the overall design of the class, with the SR high-slot spells paired with invocations. It's a cool mechanic that doesn't feel like just another full caster, which is a good thing. Dealing with mutli-classing shenanigans is a table by table thing and isn't just limited to Warlock levels.

I have yet to see many other multi-class dips other than warlock. If that ever happens maybe I'll rant about that as well.

 

[Oofta]

If you do the way I would do it is just use the Adventure League's downtime leveling thing.

What's that? I played some AL but I never multi-classed an AL PC so didn't look into it.

 

[Fenris-77]

I have yet to see many other multi-class dips other than warlock. If that ever happens maybe I'll rant about that as well.

Fighter 1/2 is super common, as is Rogue 1. Martials to 5 for extra attack. Ranger 3 for Gloomstalker goodies. Wizard two for Portent combined with another casting class, or Bladesigning Bladesinging. Cleric 1 for heavy armor. All common MC building blocks.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

What's that? I played some AL but I never multi-classed an AL PC so didn't look into it.

Basically you spend a few days of downtime (like 10 or so per level (so going from 4 to 5 would be 50 days of downtime) I think) to get a level. I would also add that you need to have gotten a level the hard way in addition to spending the downtime, though that might just be me wanting to add more obstacles to use a mechanic I hate but feel bad just straight banning.

 

[Xetheral]

As I explained in the other post, I've played with/DMed home games with a few different groups now (roughly 20 people). In that group we've had 5 people who did a couple level dip of warlock to get eldritch blast and more spells. In fact, it's about the only multi-classing I've seen.

It just feels like something that people are doing solely because they read it as a power boost. I also view paladins, clerics and warlocks as slightly different from other classes. From an RP/background story they are beholden to some external power or vow and I think it should make a difference.

My experience is, of course, not universal and I have yet to implement a rule limiting multi-classing.

Thanks for explaining! I would put "making character choices for mechanical benefit at a table where that was frowned upon" in the "incompatible styles" bucket, but it sounds like you would put it in the "exploit/gaming the system" bucket. So you're using a somewhat broader definition of "exploit/gaming the system" than I am.

I'm curious how broad your definition is. If a player makes a character choice for mechanical benefit at a table where that is perfectly acceptable, would you still consider that to be an "exploit/gaming the system"?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well the question is what makes this, for you, gaming the mechanics? I mean say the player just asked if he could precast hex, and you said yes, and then the player said cool, for RP reasons I will cast it on a chicken and sacrifice it. Surely you would not object? But you would object if the player just asked if he could hex the chicken directly?

Or is it that you are looking ahead to a scenario where the player argues that you must allow him to cast hex on the chicken, and that's what you object to?

Hexing the chicken is a very minor case of gaming the system. So minor that I'd be willing to just give them the benefit if they skip gaming the system.

But it sets a precedent, and players who want to game the system love precedents IME. You let a player like that get their crowbar into the seams of your game, and they won't stop until they've pried the entire thing apart, IMO.

As for what makes it gaming the system, it's not easy to define. I know it when I see it. Given that the other players at the table tend to agree, there must be some commonality but it isn't one I can objectively define. I would say it's when you engage with the game world in the same way as you would with a video game, rather than a living world. But that's fairly subjective.

 

[Arial Black]

Like I said to you earlier in the thread, I wouldn't forbid it in universe. I would request that you (the player) don't do it. I'd even let you pre cast hex without a target, so that you don't have to.

Why? Because gaming the system like that will ruin my (and my players') immersion. You're treating the game like a system to be hacked, rather than a living setting.

You justify it by saying things like the rules of the game are the physics of the setting, but as far as I am concerned that isn't true.

There's nothing in the rules about breaking bones from falling. But when my buddy's character literally fell down a mountain the DM had him make a saving throw and when he failed he shattered his leg. We were cool with it because it made sense.

The players I've known who try to game the system were the first to decry DMs for doing things like that, accusing them of cheating (not unlike what you did earlier in this thread).

Plenty of things aren't covered by the rules. The DM creating a realistic setting without being shackled to the letter of the rules is the DM doing their job.

If you changed the description of hex such that it could be cast without a target, then that's how the spell works in that universe. My PC would respond rationally and do just that, without involving chickens. Because this would be rational.

I've had a bad experience from a bad DM re : broken leg. One of my party was levitating and got the spell dispelled. He fell and took the appropriate damage. The DM then arbitrarily said he got a broken leg.

Now, if the DM did that and let the broken leg heal when those hit points were healed by magic, no problem. But no, he arbitrarily gave a broken leg and then required regenerate (2nd ed) to fix it! It might as well have been 'rocks fall, everyone dies'.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As for what makes it gaming the system, it's not easy to define. I know it when I see it. Given that the other players at the table tend to agree, there must be some commonality but it isn't one I can objectively define. I would say it's when you engage with the game world in the same way as you would with a video game, rather than a living world. But that's fairly subjective.

Again, even a dog knows the difference between being stepped on and kicked.

One easy way to tell if someone is prone to gaming the system is if they demand brightline rules as to what is, and isn't, gaming the system.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Than are dreamt of in your munchkinry.

 

[Dausuul]

What do you think is poorly designed? The spell? How Pact Magic works? I really don't see a problem here.

Can't speak for anyone else, but my main problems with the warlock class are a) the blade pact is crippled without the Hexblade patron, and b) making eldritch blast a spell causes several problems.

• It lays a trap for the novice warlock player who may not realize that a non-bladelock is crippled without eldritch blast and Agonizing Blast.
• It imposes an "invocation tax" where you have to take Agonizing Blast to be effective in combat. (Bladelocks don't, of course, but they have to take Thirsting Blade instead.)
• On the flip side, it is at the core of almost all warlock "cheese builds," because you can dip 2 levels in warlock and get an ability comparable to a martial PC's attacks, but scaling with character level instead of class level.

If I were redesigning the warlock, I would turn Eldritch Blast/Agonizing Blast into a class feature granted by Pact of the Tome and scaling with warlock level. Hex Warrior/Thirsting Blade would likewise become a class feature for Pact of the Blade. Don't know what I would give Pact of the Chain, but it would be something comparable--maybe a combat pet whose power scales with warlock level and that requires your action to control.

If you want access to more than one of these features, that could be granted by an invocation. That's a much more appropriate use for invocations, providing versatility rather than raw power.