Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 7092923" data-attributes="member: 1003">Of for sure. I knew what they were trying to do, but it's still wrong. They didn't think it through.The fighting styles are balanced against each other. The two-handed weapons do more damage per hit, but two-weapon fighters get more attacks and sword & board fighters have better AC. And SWF bladelocks can attack and cast spells in the same turn using Bonus Actions and Reactions. By limiting the +CHR to non-2H weapons all you're really doing is limiting the fighting style choice to one of the other three.Additionally if you take Warcaster you can now choose between TWF and S&B, but not 2HW. Why? It makes no sense. I like rolling 2d6 for damage as much as the next guy, but it's not unbalanced against extra attacks for +2-5 AC (accounting for the possibility of magic shields). Especially since extra attacks means extra Hex damage.If the Hexblade is balanced with +CHR for SWF, TWF or S&B, then he's balanced for +CHR to 2HW as well, because the styles are balanced. If 2HW is too good, the others are too good also.Personally I think they're all fine. We know the blade-lock is underpowered and has MAD issues (which are related points) as written. This change neatly fixes it.</blockquote>