log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Should the Hexblade Patron be Banned?

Should the Hexblade Patron be Banned?


  • Total voters
    140
  • Poll closed .

Stalker0

Legend
I agree with others that its less that its OP and more that blade pact is UP. Again so much of the concept is tied into making a competent melee gish that actually has a reason not to just sit back and EB all day. The Hexblade is actually cool enough to make that happen, but its doesn't blow away other warrior types by any stretch (I'll put a paladin against a hexblade any day)

My only beef with the class is I don't like the spiritual buddy thing....I don't mind that concept but it seems weird as a core aspect....I wish that had been an invocation choice instead of a core ability.

Yes its a really good dip, but its certainly not the only one in 5e. There is a reason multiclassing is optional...it requires a bit of DM oversight to ensure the abuses are kept in check...and banning the hexblade would not change that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vael

Hero
I don't have an issue with the Hexblade, it's more I have an issue with level-based multiclassing in general. Didn't care for it in 3.5/P, was glad to see it gone in 4e, wasn't happy to see it return in 5e.

Warlock multiclassing, while not banned in my groups, is definitely frowned upon, whether for Paladins that want Divine Smites that recharge on a short rest to the Sorcerer using the same strategy to recover Sorcery points ...
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Hexblade as a warlock is just fine.

Hexblade 1 (or 3) as a multiclass dip for paladin is a bit too good of a cherry pick. But not worth nerfing the subclass.
 

I don't have an issue with the Hexblade, it's more I have an issue with level-based multiclassing in general. Didn't care for it in 3.5/P, was glad to see it gone in 4e, wasn't happy to see it return in 5e.

Warlock multiclassing, while not banned in my groups, is definitely frowned upon, whether for Paladins that want Divine Smites that recharge on a short rest to the Sorcerer using the same strategy to recover Sorcery points ...

I really advise to not allow warlock spells to fuel divine smite. That easily removes the exploit and is also RAW. Same for the sorcerer.
I hope a new PHB will clarify it better. The multiclass section about mixing pact magic and spellcasting is very clear about what is allowed.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
I have a hexblade warlock player. It is absolutely nuts how much of a damage dealer she is, but she is essentially a glass cannon.

For one, she actually doesn't have much HP compared to a normal fighter, barbarian or paladin. Two, although charisma is high, the other stats aren't nearly as good, so she's vulnerable to opponent's spell effects.

That combination makes her very dangerous in combat, but also fragile.
 

Iry

Hero
If you took the "Use charisma on melee attacks" off the Hexblade and gave it to the Pact of the Blade then IMO Hexblade would be fine. Pact of the Blade then needs to get Thirsting Blade (two attacks with Pact Weapon) at level 5 for free rather than burning an invocation to be in the game you've already burned your pact to be in.
This. I understand they are extremely reluctant to update the PHB classes, but it's absolutely time to tweak a few. Sorcerer, Ranger, Pact of the Blade, etc.
I really advise to not allow warlock spells to fuel divine smite. That easily removes the exploit and is also RAW. Same for the sorcerer.
I never really had a problem with warlock spell slots being used for smites. It creates a few moments of awesomeness for the player (those big crits) but doesn't impact the game in any great way (compared to say, suggesting the king accept your proposal).
 

Inchoroi

Adventurer
Is it broken? No, not really. Is it the direction I would have taken? No, probably not. Out of all of the patrons, it seems so....out of sorts? I don't think that's the word I'm looking for, but it fits. Consider: Fiend Patron; does exactly what it says on the tin. Archfey; easy to understand and follow. Great Old One; Cthulhu got you, easy.

If I were to play one, I'd have it be a literal sentient magic item that I've bonded to, and I would have personality traits/bonds/ideals/flaws to go along with it.
 

jgsugden

Legend
This. I understand they are extremely reluctant to update the PHB classes, but it's absolutely time to tweak a few. Sorcerer, Ranger, Pact of the Blade, etc...
Tasha's is going to introduce variant build elements for all classes, some of which will be intended to provide more balanced options for underpowered classes. They did not playest a pact of the blade alternative, but it might be there. However, they did include an invocation that allows a pact blade warlock to use heavy armor.

Pact Warlocks were not quite as awesome of a melee force as a fighter or paladin, but when you tossed their spellcasting on top of the melee abilities, they were in the ballpark of balanced - and this is for non-Hexblades. I played a Great Old one Blade Pact Warlock and it was a blast, and never felt underpowered. Just creepy.
 

Iry

Hero
Tasha's is going to introduce variant build elements for all classes, some of which will be intended to provide more balanced options for underpowered classes. They did not playest a pact of the blade alternative, but it might be there. However, they did include an invocation that allows a pact blade warlock to use heavy armor.
That would certainly be nice! But it wouldn't be an update to the PHB. It would count as your +1 in AL, not be allowed by splat adverse DMs, and not tweaking the PHB will continue to make new players have the same concerns.
 

That would certainly be nice! But it wouldn't be an update to the PHB. It would count as your +1 in AL, not be allowed by splat adverse DMs, and not tweaking the PHB will continue to make new players have the same concerns.

I think you are overestimating the concerns of most players. Perfect balance is not that of a concern for most people I play with. My concerns are also mostly that some abilities are counteracting other abilities from the same class: Hello Ranger, Hello Bladesinger.
I sincerely expect a new PHB in 2 - 3 years.
At some point you need to update the core books to incorporate feedback from years of play.
Next year we will have other brands using 5e as their chassis. Most probably we we will see tweaks to the system. They might be playtests of a kind. Together with Tasha's option they might form the base of 5.5 or even 6e both of which will be mainly compatible with what we have now.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
I think you are overestimating the concerns of most players. Perfect balance is not that of a concern for most people I play with. My concerns are also mostly that some abilities are counteracting other abilities from the same class: Hello Ranger, Hello Bladesinger.
I sincerely expect a new PHB in 2 - 3 years.
At some point you need to update the core books to incorporate feedback from years of play.
Next year we will have other brands using 5e as their chassis. Most probably we we will see tweaks to the system. They might be playtests of a kind. Together with Tasha's option they might form the base of 5.5 or even 6e both of which will be mainly compatible with what we have now.
If Tasha's style "alternatives as fixes" goes well, I'd expect a new PHB to be based on that. Possibly with different defaults that just happen to be fixes.

It would remain backwards compatible with PHB1, except with options that fix some issues, and (minor) errata on various things. No need for a 5.5e.

Like, magic missile might roll for each dart.
 

Iry

Hero
Well..... I don't want to tell people how to have fun. And the character creation minigame can be enjoyable! But there are people more interested in character builds than actually playing the game.

It's a bit like a photographer who's more interested in cameras than photography. It happens btw. For them, the photo is just a way to show off/prove that their camera is ze awesome, instead of focusing on creating great imagery.

So if we come back to tabletop RPG, what can happen is that the player is more invested in testing/proving their awesome PC build than actually playing the game. This can be problematic and even disruptive. If the PC is optimized for one thing (say archery), they will try steer the game towards situations where they can use their archery, and be upset, or disengage, when the game is not suitable to demonstrate their cool super-archer (or whatever their build is built for). The player may feel uninterested in the story/events. They may get bored of their PC quickly - they have "proven" that their build works (or failed) and now they want to try something else.
You're describing a mismatch of expectations at the gaming table. It definitely happens, and is one of the reasons why a Session 0 is incredibly important to have. But disruptive behavior (be upset, disengaged, etc) can happen with any type of player. From the method actor with main character syndrome, the lone wolf that keeps splitting the party, the rebel who talks smack to every authority figure, or any other form of "That Guy".

Specific to your example: That cool super-archer was probably going to be uninterested in your story from the beginning. The mechanics were actually a positive since they allowed the player to have fun for a little while, but the real issue was going to rear its head sooner or later (hence the need for a Session 0). Heck, I recommend a Session 0 every six months or so. Interests change.
 


CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I really doubt they will update the PHB with mechanical changes. WotC tried it with 3.0 to 3.5, and it was received really, really badly.
That's not how I remember it. I remember a lot of people being quite happy with the revised edition, and I remember that the 3.5 PHB broke a couple of sales records for Wizards of the Coast at the time. (My memory isn't what it used to be, though. I could be mistaken.)

The only edition I can remember being "received really, really badly" was...well, let's just say it was one of the editions after 3.5E.
 


Iry

Hero
That's not how I remember it. I remember a lot of people being quite happy with the revised edition, and I remember that the 3.5 PHB broke a couple of sales records for Wizards of the Coast at the time. (My memory isn't what it used to be, though. I could be mistaken.)
This is my recollection as well. It was received quite well, and made the bestseller list for several months. I mean, doing it multiple times is certain to make people grumpy, but once or twice should be fine. A 5.1 or 5.2 at most.
 

I really doubt they will update the PHB with mechanical changes. WotC tried it with 3.0 to 3.5, and it was received really, really badly.
It is all about timing.
3.5 was just too short after 3.0 and it did quite some bad fixes (in my opinion) going down the wrong route, removing thinks that carried over to 3.0 from 2e (which I liked) and implenting things that I did not like (battle map cover determination).
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I have a hexblade warlock player. It is absolutely nuts how much of a damage dealer she is, but she is essentially a glass cannon.

For one, she actually doesn't have much HP compared to a normal fighter, barbarian or paladin. Two, although charisma is high, the other stats aren't nearly as good, so she's vulnerable to opponent's spell effects.

That combination makes her very dangerous in combat, but also fragile.
Is she hitting things with a weapon or blasting away with EB? What level?
 

fearsomepirate

Adventurer
It's fine, maybe a bit OP, but what class doesn't have some options that are? The real issue is MCing Warlock. A 2-level dip has too many significant effects on too many classes. If you're going for CharOp Paladin, Sorc, or Bard, a 2-level Warlock dip is just too crazy good to ignore. So I have a flat ban on dipping into Warlock, and I've explained why to my players.
 

Tom Bagwell

Villager
It is all about timing.
3.5 was just too short after 3.0 and it did quite some bad fixes (in my opinion) going down the wrong route, removing thinks that carried over to 3.0 from 2e (which I liked) and implenting things that I did not like (battle map cover determination).

I'll just say that I never hear anyone reference 3.0. I hear AD&D, 2nd edition, 3.5, 4, and 5.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top