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

[NotAYakk]

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]

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.

Spoiler

 

[GSHamster]

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.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

 

[cmad1977]

No.

 

[Iry]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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]

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]

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]

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.