Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 8081198" data-attributes="member: 205">Oh, it's huge.  I don't allow flanking myself when I DM, but I'm thinking allowing it might help tilt combat back towards melee.  As you said, ranged is generally better.Oh, definitely.  But I'd note that with GWM active, melee became a much better option whenever I did have advantage.  Tier 2 EB was 2d10+10, Tier 2 melee was 4d6+32 with a modest accuracy debuff.  (Assuming EA, advantage attacks are at 90+% hit rate, -5 penalty attacks are still at 80+% accuracy).  Now, this discrepancy is certainly because I built the character towards melee, it had GWM and also Improved Pact Weapon.  (The campaign was magic item poor, I finished the game never getting a magic weapon.)  But the options to improve EB spam damage don't really exist, outside of going Sorlock.  A hexblade sorlock is fantastic at EB spam damage, but a single class hexblade I feel has better options for melee.I took true seeing, which helped in some of the last fights; the DM was using a fair amount of illusions.  I'd certainly tailor the choice to the game.I was just comparing resource-less attack pattern to resource-less attack pattern.  Whether or not 2 spells a short rest is comparable to a fighter's bonuses is a difficult comparison at best.  Plus, invocation choice matters a lot here.Barbarian is definitely better, even without rage.  HP difference is probably at least 3 per level, since they can afford a 16 Con.  Armor is equivalent.  Reckless Attack boosts offense, but then negates the HP difference due to extra damage taken.  No question though, better melee attacker overall.Fighter can hit 20 early with the extra ASI, so that's nice.  IPW makes up that difference unless magic weapons are available.  Action surge is certainly better than a mid level slot, but I don't know that it's better than 2.  Fighting style is a minor offense or defense boost.  HP difference is about 2 per level, since fighter can afford 16 Con.  AC is 1 or 2 higher (depending on the relative availability of full plate and half plate).  Paladin is similar to fighter, except they can't afford a 16 Con.  Offense is better thanks to smite.  I don't think anyone is arguing that paladin is strong in general.Ranger, who knows?  Most people I know don't even use PHB ranger.A hexblade is doing comparable damage to a fighter or paladin (we're talking 2d6+10 versus 2d6+10 with rerolls here) , with competitive AC and a minor dip in HP.  It's not as good, but 85% as good isn't mediocre in my mind.  A tier 2 wizard firebolt is mediocre. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Pretty fun!  Did some damage, and made a good flanking buddy.  We also got some useful information out of it, as the DM ruled it was a fresh specter and still remembered what it knew in life.  Someone in the party had telepathy so we communicated with it that way.Also, don't sleep on Armor of Hexes if you get to level 10.  It literally stopped Strahd from killing me.I'll be honest, if the idea of using EB a lot bothers you, I really wouldn't go hexblade.  To me, the hexblade is a solid B/B+ at everything.  There's better melee damage dealers, better ranged attackers, tougher defenders, and better spellcasters.  But the hexblade can do all of them, pretty well, just not the best.</blockquote>

Verification