D&D 5E At my table: Hexblade removed, Pact of the Blade enhanced

[Hawk Diesel]

What if instead we gave Warlocks their own version of Shillelagh on their cantrip list, and made Hex an invocation ability rather than a spell? Seems to me that would serve to give the Warlock options to make a workable gish without making any single Pact more powerful than another. You also avoid the trap that Hex presents as a spell option, while placing an investment cost into giving a Warlock the ability to use Charisma for weapon attacks and damage. And as for the Hexblade patron, it seems like it gives way more than any of the other patrons, because it tries to combine these design features together to achieve a warlock that can use a free hex and is good at melee combat. But I have a sense that the patrons are not supposed to grant so much.

I don't know. I'm kinda just thinking out loud.

 

[ad_hoc]

What if instead we gave Warlocks their own version of Shillelagh on their cantrip list, and made Hex an invocation ability rather than a spell? Seems to me that would serve to give the Warlock options to make a workable gish without making any single Pact more powerful than another. You also avoid the trap that Hex presents as a spell option, while placing an investment cost into giving a Warlock the ability to use Charisma for weapon attacks and damage. And as for the Hexblade patron, it seems like it gives way more than any of the other patrons, because it tries to combine these design features together to achieve a warlock that can use a free hex and is good at melee combat. But I have a sense that the patrons are not supposed to grant so much.

I don't know. I'm kinda just thinking out loud.

I think an always on Hex is a bit too powerful for an invocation but we're on the right track.

Maybe if Agonizing Blast were removed it would be fine. 1d6 is less than the bonus damage of Agonizing Blast. I just don't want those 2 combined.

Not only for the added damage but it also makes invocation choice more limited.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I think an always on Hex is a bit too powerful for an invocation but we're on the right track.

Maybe if Agonizing Blast were removed it would be fine. 1d6 is less than the bonus damage of Agonizing Blast. I just don't want those 2 combined.

Not only for the added damage but it also makes invocation choice more limited.

Nah, not an always on Hex, but one that can be used without concentration once or twice per short rest for 1 min. And I don't think it's existence as an invocation should impact whether Agonizing Blast exists. Invocations are meant to give warlocks some more oomph since they lack the number of spells and spell slots of other spellcasters. If someone is willing to sacrifice flexibility invocations can offer to specialize in increased DPR, I don't really have a problem with that.

 

[Thurmas]

How do regular Warlocks, or Wizards, or Sorcerers defend themselves? Why do clerics wade into the thick of things? It's because they can.

Just because a class could be given everything doesn't mean it should.

That's how it ends up being overpowered. Even with Curse damage being restricted to weapon attacks it is still better than any other patron (and they still get a heal from Curse so it is still somewhat useful).

Also, if you take Pact of the Blade you can use 2-handed weapons.

Warlocks shouldn't have a base AC of 19. (Bladesinger shouldn't have Light Armour either while we're at it. The +3-5 AC is enough, make them spend the Mage Armour/Shield if they want it)

If we just make all classes have 18-20 AC where is the variety? We lose the vulnerable spellcaster archetype. If your argument is that clerics have good armour so Warlocks should too, then how is that different than saying all classes should have good armour?

My concern isn't that they should have armor because Clerics do. I was only using that as an example, much as someone used the valor bard. It's that classes expected to be going into melee should either have a way to get out, like a rogue, or a way to mitigate damage, like any other class with medium armor. Otherwise you end up with a class that is supposed to be in melee, but doesn't because they can't last in combat. Then you're back to the issue of having a melee warlock that can't melee.

I would be more partial to losing the shield proficiency then the medium armor, but I don't think it is necessary to lose either.

 

[ad_hoc]

My concern isn't that they should have armor because Clerics do. I was only using that as an example, much as someone used the valor bard. It's that classes expected to be going into melee should either have a way to get out, like a rogue, or a way to mitigate damage, like any other class with medium armor. Otherwise you end up with a class that is supposed to be in melee, but doesn't because they can't last in combat. Then you're back to the issue of having a melee warlock that can't melee.

I would be more partial to losing the shield proficiency then the medium armor, but I don't think it is necessary to lose either.

Why do you think it is necessary to have Medium Armour AND Shields AND Cha to hit/dmg AND Curse?

That's a lot of things for a Patron to have. Just compare it to other Patrons and you will see that it is far and away the best one whether you have melee attacks or not. Most ranged characters at least can't use Shields.

Medium Armour and Shields alone is better than anything any other Patron gets.

Medium Armour and Cha to hit/dmg at 1st, Curse at 6th is pretty good.

 

[Thurmas]

Why do you think it is necessary to have Medium Armour AND Shields AND Cha to hit/dmg AND Curse?

That's a lot of things for a Patron to have. Just compare it to other Patrons and you will see that it is far and away the best one whether you have melee attacks or not. Most ranged characters at least can't use Shields.

Medium Armour and Shields alone is better than anything any other Patron gets.

Medium Armour and Cha to hit/dmg at 1st, Curse at 6th is pretty good.

I guess I don't look at it as comparison versus other patrons, as much as looking at it in terms of does it accomplish its purpose? It does; it makes gish warlock feasible. The problem is it makes all warlocks better with the curse, hence why I proposed the change to weapon attack.

I don't think the medium armor and shield maybes it better than other sub class choices. If I were to play a non weapon based warlock, I would choose one of the original sub classes and not hexblade, Medium armor or no.

 

[ad_hoc]

I guess I don't look at it as comparison versus other patrons

That is the heart of the problem.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

[MENTION=6866167]Thurmas[/MENTION] I can see where you are coming from. When you have a concept in mind, you want to be able to realize that concept. But I think part of the problem of 5e and the archetypes is that it can give you an impression that every class should be good at every potential niche. This is especially true if you include all the options from Unearthed Arcana, SCAG, and XGtE. But I don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint. When I design material for my table, I pay very closely to balance within the class and archetype first, and then try to balance between classes. It is much harder to eyeball balance between classes, since each class is attempting something different. From my perspective, archetype add a flavor or spin to the class, but keep the character still grounded into its general niche. At the end of the day, a warlock is really, to borrow a term from 4e, a striker class. They have a few tricks that can keep them relevant in a number of situations, but they are always going to have a glass jaw. They can do well for a round or two going toe-to-toe with an enemy, but they aren't going to outlast the fighter or ranger. Now with some multiclassing tricks or through feats, they may be able to come close. But no patron or pact by itself should allow a warlock to be a proficient front-line melee character.

And this is the trap of the Hexblade. It makes the assumption that a warlock should be able to be a frontline melee character without feat investment, multiclass choice cost, and also be an expert in the use of Hex. It goes far and away from what any of the other patrons establishes for their characters. Each character gets their spin as a pet warlock, spell warlock, or weapon warlock, but none become experts or masters of those things. To do so, those warlocks still need invocations, feats, and particular spells to achieve their concept. They need time. But the Hexblade allows you to jump right in to its spin before pact is even considered.

I don't know. I kinda feel like I'm just rambling now, so I'm gonna stop.

 

[Thurmas]

[MENTION=6866167]Thurmas[/MENTION] I can see where you are coming from. When you have a concept in mind, you want to be able to realize that concept. But I think part of the problem of 5e and the archetypes is that it can give you an impression that every class should be good at every potential niche. This is especially true if you include all the options from Unearthed Arcana, SCAG, and XGtE. But I don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint. When I design material for my table, I pay very closely to balance within the class and archetype first, and then try to balance between classes. It is much harder to eyeball balance between classes, since each class is attempting something different. From my perspective, archetype add a flavor or spin to the class, but keep the character still grounded into its general niche. At the end of the day, a warlock is really, to borrow a term from 4e, a striker class. They have a few tricks that can keep them relevant in a number of situations, but they are always going to have a glass jaw. They can do well for a round or two going toe-to-toe with an enemy, but they aren't going to outlast the fighter or ranger. Now with some multiclassing tricks or through feats, they may be able to come close. But no patron or pact by itself should allow a warlock to be a proficient front-line melee character.

And this is the trap of the Hexblade. It makes the assumption that a warlock should be able to be a frontline melee character without feat investment, multiclass choice cost, and also be an expert in the use of Hex. It goes far and away from what any of the other patrons establishes for their characters. Each character gets their spin as a pet warlock, spell warlock, or weapon warlock, but none become experts or masters of those things. To do so, those warlocks still need invocations, feats, and particular spells to achieve their concept. They need time. But the Hexblade allows you to jump right in to its spin before pact is even considered.

I don't know. I kinda feel like I'm just rambling now, so I'm gonna stop.

Not every class needs to be able to do everything, but they also shouldn't all be pigeon holed into only doing one thing. A warlock will never be on equal footing in melee with a fighter or a barbarian, after all, it is still a full caster class. It should at least be able to be competent though I'd designed that way. If it wants to stay competitive with other melee classes, it will have to take the feats, pacts, and invocations to do so, at the cost of its spell casting ability. The hex blade is very good, but out of necessity because the pact of the blade is so lacking. It gets the warlock where it needs to be to be on equal footing, but will still have to work to keep that ability as it levels.

Again, this is why I suggested it should be weapon attacks only for the curse. That in my opinion balances it for the goal of being a gish. Its unfortunate that is is such a powerful subclass for non melee warlock because I think it detracts from the goal of the class.

I'll also say, not comparing sub classes against each other doesn't mean they shouldn't be balanced. Just that you can't measure each sub class against each other in numbers of abilities given, but in what the end result is. Just because a hexblade gets 5 features at 1, vs a fiend getting 2 features at 1, if the end result is two subclasses that are balanced against each other at what they do, they should be fine.

Secret is good at charming and fear, fiend is good at demonic powers, GOO is good at press of the mind, and hexblade shold be good at melee. It just took him a lot more to get there.

 

[Ganymede81]

Why do you think it is necessary to have Medium Armour AND Shields AND Cha to hit/dmg AND Curse?

That's a lot of things for a Patron to have. Just compare it to other Patrons and you will see that it is far and away the best one whether you have melee attacks or not. Most ranged characters at least can't use Shields.

You were saying the exact same thing about the OPs dramatically watered down version of the Hexblade.

I simply don't buy this argument, especially how you're contorting it to fit multiple dissimilar situations.