Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 8084060" data-attributes="member: 6677017">The issue seems more an issue with short rests than with warlock. The only thing really wrong with hexblade is that its curse ability works just as well with eldritch blast, which means at epic tier it's better. Nerfing that feature so that the first couple bullet points only work with weapons is actually a way to make the class play more how it's supposed to, and it's my solution (despite my normal dislike of nerf-fixes).The thing to realize about hexblade is that warlock is a full caster class and is balanced that way. It shouldn't be as good as a tank as a paladin, barbarian, etc that are melee classes. It should be in the same category as college of valor or swords bard, or bladesinger wizard. That's its target level of melee competence.Warlock is highly short rest dependent and you should absolutely discuss that in Session 0. If you aren't getting your 2 short rests you are probably going to be underwhelming compared to classes with daily resources. If you're getting 4 short rests you're going to be great. You may want to ask your DM if your warlock can get 3x the spell slots and have them refresh on a long rest instead of the default short rest slots. That's how it's balanced.So, as an aside, here's something to know. The game is designed around classes being in sorts of categories. This was only explicit in 2e, but it's been there in all of them.Warriors:FighterBarbarianRangerPaladinThese classes typically get at least d10s and have martial weapon proficiencies. They are supposed to be the best at wading into melee. No full caster classes (ie, classes that progress all the way to 9th level spells) are ever in this category.Second Rank Combatants:ClericsDruidsRoguesThese classes typically get d8s nowadays, and generally don't have the full range of weapon and armor proficiencies as the warriors. They are designed to be serviceable in melee, but not primary tanks. The right build can sometimes (depending on the edition) make them as good or better than a melee warrior class. When that happens it's either cheesing the system or a design flaw. It is not intended for them to be as good as the warriors, because that's the warrior's primary schtick, and these guys have other primary areas of strength. Being able to function as good as a warrior who spends no resources by spending plenty of your own limited resources is okay for certain builds.Rear Rank:WizardSorcererThese guys typically get d6s nowadays, and very few weapon and armor proficiencies. They stand back and cast spells. They should generally not be in melee. The right build can sometimes bring them into the range of second rank combatants by spending their resources for it.(2e actually divided the categories into warrior, rogue, priest, and wizard, but I've divided them functionally instead to include more classes.)Monk is an odd one that straddles the line between warrior and second rank. Most of its abilities are combat oriented, but it doesn't have the resilience to be a "stand your ground" tank. It's a melee warrior that is designed to be played with the finesse of a second rank character.Bard has traditionally been second rank, but in 5e it was upgraded to a full caster and straddles the line between second rank and rear rank, depending on build.In the warlock's short lifetime it has been second rank (3.5), and rear rank (4e). In 5e it is similar to bard in that it straddles the line between second and rear ranks. It's one of the most flexible classes--basically a "build your own class" class. However it is still a full caster, and isn't supposed to ever equal a warrior class. It can easily be built as anything from a rear rank class with plenty of magical firepower and caster flexibility to a second rank class that can burn resources to be as a good as a warrior some of the times at the expense of other things.It occurs to me that this is the sort of thing that nowadays maybe needs to be in one of those "behind the curtain" sort of sidebars.</blockquote>

Verification