D&D 5E Should the Hexblade Patron be Banned?

[Ancalagon]

single class it's not broken, in fact it's a bit weak if you play them as you are "supposed" to (ie attacking with a blade). It can be a bit... hmmm... much if multiclassed, but keep an eye on that. A fighter with a short dip in hexblade (or vice versa) makes for a very interesting gish (a few levels of hexblade gives a good dash of magic to a fighter, and a few levels of fighter toughens up the hexblade significantly)

 

[Flamestrike]

Fighter 3/ Fiend lock 17 works just as well for a blade lock. GWM is your friend as always.

Tankier than a Hexblade.

 

[ccs]

In general, No.
But as with anything in an RPG, the answer should be 100% dependent upon individual tables.
Not everything works for every group, but those groups should solve it for themselves & not effect anyone else.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I think that generally, the problem with the Warlock class is Eldritch Blast, full stop. I absolutely love Warlocks, but the fact that the class is designed around the use of that spell is very frustrating.

Generally, I ban Eldritch Blast in my games. The class becomes much more interesting and the characters become much more varied without it. For the record, we also don't use multiclassing.

With that out of the way: I've had two Hexblades in my campaigns, and neither was an issue. One expressed jealousy of the GOO warlock in the same campaign, but that was really just admiration for the way the GOO warlock's player approached the character.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think that generally, the problem with the Warlock class is Eldritch Blast, full stop. I absolutely love Warlocks, but the fact that the class is designed around the use of that spell is very frustrating.

Generally, I ban Eldritch Blast in my games. The class becomes much more interesting and the characters become much more varied without it. For the record, we also don't use multiclassing.

With that out of the way: I've had two Hexblades in my campaigns, and neither was an issue. One expressed jealousy of the GOO warlock in the same campaign, but that was really just admiration for the way the GOO warlock's player approached the character.

Really, if you just ban Agonizing Blast, that would probably be enough. The d10 base damage is the same as Firebolt, so strong but not crazy. Eldritch Spear is ok, but if you use feats Spell Sniper is better over all IMO.

I can't imagine playing in a game without multiclassing, LOL! I get too bored with a class otherwise.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I strongly dislike WotC-era multiclassing. Back when prestige classes were a thing I dealt with it, but it felt (and still feels) very gamist to me.

I much prefer a setup where choice in class abilities, either though new options or something like feats, adds variety and flavor while maintaining the class's core identity. I like characters to be defined by what they do and want rather than a collection of available actions, if that makes any sense.

I've fluctuated; I don't think I have run any two 5e campaigns using the same arrangement of options and houserules. But I've also gravitated much more heavily back to earlier editions lately, so there's that too.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Back when prestige classes were a thing I dealt with it, but it felt (and still feels) very gamist to me.

In many ways I agree.

We adopted a variant MC rule for a while and I think it works very well. The gist is your second class replaces your subclass option. A quick summary is:

First subclass (level 1-3) gives you level 1 of a second class.
Second subclass feature (level 6ish) gives you levels 2 and 3 in the second class.
Third subclass feature (level 10ish) gives you levels 4 and 5 in the second class.
Fourth subclass feature (level 15-20ish) give you levels 6 and 7 in the second class.

So, you could end up as a Cleric 20 (Wizard 7) or a Rogue 20 (Fighter 7), etc.

I got the idea from the EK and TA would would be sort of a Fighter 20 (Wizard 7) and a Rogue 20 (Wizard 7).

Some combinations are more powerful because the core classes are so strong, but otherwise if you are interested in MCing at all, maybe it will work for you??? This idea revolves around the idea that your PC is invested in the second class from the beginning (even if it takes a few levels to get there...).

 

[Ath-kethin]

Hmm. That could work, and work well.

Among my biggest gripes in WotC multiclassing is the fact that ala carte leveling makes a character feel like it has two+ different classes, rather than a fused single class. There's just no way to be a 1st level mage/thief, for example (though a sidebar in the 3.0 DMG had an option for doing just that, and I was sorry to see it vanish from 3.5 and later editions).

Your solution addresses that, and though it's a little funky, it could well be worth the effort.

 

[Azuresun]

If someone wanted to play an actual Hexblade, I'd be cool with that--and help them develop their patron beyond the anemic description in the book--but I'm also up front that I wouldn't allow the usual eye-rolling "1 level of Hexblade, roll it around in the other CHA-based classes" cheese. I also houseruled in that Hex Warrior gets moved to the Blade Pact.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hmm. That could work, and work well.

Among my biggest gripes in WotC multiclassing is the fact that ala carte leveling makes a character feel like it has two+ different classes, rather than a fused single class. There's just no way to be a 1st level mage/thief, for example (though a sidebar in the 3.0 DMG had an option for doing just that, and I was sorry to see it vanish from 3.5 and later editions).

Your solution addresses that, and though it's a little funky, it could well be worth the effort.

I hope it works for you. Like I said, we like it as a way to multiclass.

While you couldn't be a Wizard/Rogue 1/1 in the traditional sense, you could be a Wizard 2 (Rogue 1) or a Rogue 3 (Wizard 1) (the AT model).

You still have to follow the prerequisites for MCing, but you are giving up subclass features for other core class features (limited to 7th of course).