So, how about them Hexblades?

[green slime]

I can't for the life of me see how this affects your ability to be useful in the front line. Essentially none of these things will actually take you out of a fight, unlike many, many Will save effects. They just don't take effect fast enough.

Sure, you'll be exposed to more poisons and diseases and such, but frankly those things aren't a serious threat after 4th level or so.

That depends on what kind of poison you run into. 3d6 Con damage on a single failed Fort save (Black Lotus Extract, DC20), may kill many front liners. A will save usually won't kill you outright. Failed Fort saves can and do. Failed Will saves can often be repaired by your friendly sellcasters.

And ignoring poisons, you have the Chaos Beast, nausea (which renders you incapable of anything other than a move action), any kind of exertion (starvation, thirst, swimming, forced marching, extreme temperatures, extreme altitude) or blindness, assassin Death Attacks....

And my point is not necessarily that these will take you out of a fight (which they are perfectly capable of doing), but that IMX frontliners must make more Fortitude saves than any other kind of save. Not because of a consequence of my targetting the players of Fighters with Fortitude saves, but because being in the frontline means you are exposing yourself to more opponents with these kinds of abilities.

So if you are exposing yourself to more Fortitude saves, by virtue of being in the frontline, and you are failing more, because your Fortitude save sux, and you need to be bandaged/repaired/pasted together/fixed/healed more often which is a drain on the others in the party, even if you don't fail that save versus Black Lotus Extract.

That is my experience with frontliners with bad Fort saves anyway. Including Hexblades.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

I can't believe that no one has suggested this... the feat Practiced Spellcaster seems like it might be particularly well suited to Hex Blades (and paladins & rangers as well).

It's not...and here's why. The main problem (as far as spellcasting goes) with paladins, rangers, and hexblades is that they don't get very many spells per day. Practiced Spellcaster does nothing to help in that regard. It's true that paladins, rangers, etc. also suffer from having a low caster level, which Practiced Spellcaster does mitigate, but because they cast fewer spells per day than dedicated spellcasters, paladins et al. benefit less from Practiced Spellcaster than, say, wizards.

To summarize:
Multiclassed clerics, wizards, etc. benefit the most.
Bards, paladins, rangers, hexblades, and the like benefit only slightly.
Everyone else gains no benefit at all.

 

[Jarrod]

I had a character playing a hexblade. Unfortunately, he had to drop out

Great flavor. The character was a gambler with a bit of "The Touch". He used to bet on dog fights... always managed to win. It was great to play with the character, since he was always sensing things a bit strange... and nobody else was.

Bad mechanics. Light armor limitations and no shield meant he got _pounded_ compared to the other fighter. If they're not supposed to be on the front line, then give them _something_ else. Curse was nice, but it definitely needed an Extra Curse feat (which I invented) so that he could do it more than once. 1/day primary ability that is save-or-nothing sucks.

I never realized it has a bad fort save. Ouch.

Finally, I houseruled that they had (effectively) full caster level for purposes of familiars. I love the idea of an improved (combat) familiar, but half class level was going to kill that one. Either make it an animal companion (which can get killed), or give 'em full caster level for the familiar. Finally, that bonus feat list needed serious expansion. I'd add fun toys like Arcane Strike -- things that they can _use_ rather than bonuses to spellcasting.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I see the Hexblade is an interesting attempt at a Fighter/Wizard class.

Unfortunately the class just does not quite have enough to stand on its own feet.

A big part of the problem is MAD. If you have a good enough Charisma to make those aspects of the class shine, you are not likely to have the combat stats to make your status as primarily a second string fighter rewarding to play.

Compare this class with other second string melee types: Paladin, Ranger, Scout, Monk, Rogue. The Hexblade just does not look as fun to play to me.

 

[ForceUser]

Compare this class with other second string melee types: Paladin, Ranger, Scout, Monk, Rogue. The Hexblade just does not look as fun to play to me.

Yeah--it makes so much more sense to me to multiclass it with fighter or rogue than to go straight hexblade. That's a problem--a well-designed class should be strong enough to stand on its own should you go that route.

 

[Luthien Greyspear]

I think this is better as an antagonist class than as a PC class. They work well as the leaders of a gang of thugs (particularly if they have a partner or underling with save-required spells: Evil Clerics, Evokers, Enchanters)

I'm about to toss a Fey'ri Hexblade/Swashbuckler/Dervish at a 10th party, and he has the backup of almost a dozen Tanarukk to keep the party busy while he assesses the party and hexes the most powerful. Then he can wade into melee with whoever he wants to humiliate in combat. At his level, he has Greater Hexblade's Curse, so his sparring partner will have -4 on all his/her attacks and damage. This greatly evens (and probably tilts in the other direction) any shortcomings the Hexblade may have in a fight. While he won't be able to Hex the spellcasters effectively, that's what the Tanarukk gang is for. And he can RESIST the spellcasters just fine (except for those pesky Evocations, and he plans to be in the middle of the fighting, so no fireballs anyway).

I think the Hexblade can be a viable villain, as long as the DM picks his targets intelligently, and makes sure this high-Charisma curseslinger has the backup he needs to get away and hex another day.

 

[Masquerade]

Great flavor. The character was a gambler with a bit of "The Touch". He used to bet on dog fights... always managed to win.

Hey, what a coincidence! I played a hexblade character who was a gambler as well, but cards were his thing.

The class may be a bit underpowered, but I never really noticed, likely because the campaign I played it in was a low-power one. Besides, I chose the class for its flavor, not its power.

 

[Drowbane]

Warlock? I heard people say that warlocks donn't need any high stats at all to be effective, so long as you avoid invocations that need saves.

Well, I guess it depends on what you want to do with a 'Lock. I found 28pt buy very painful for one I had in mind...

Thanks man.

pfft, you assume I was talking about you! (lol)

This is my writeup of the hexblade, which is more detailed than the pathetic excuse for flavor text that exists in Complete Warrior.

Feats: Extra Curse, Greater Potent Curse, Legendary Curse, Legion’s Curse, Lingering Curse, Potent Curse, Wracking Curse.

Would you allow a Warlock with the Lesser Invocation that allows At Will bestow curse to take these feats?

Strange, this thread seems to point out that Hexblades' flavor is great while the mechanics needs fixing.

I haven't see one in a game to be honest, but my opinion from reading the description in CW has always been that the mechanic of the class was very well balanced: for example comparing it with the Paladin (it's a bit like its arcane/evil version) or with the Fighter (comparing the extra features with missed bonus feats), thet seemed to me quite equal in practice.

Well, IMO, both Hexblade and Paladin are strong in flavor, but weak in mechanics

OTOH the flavor of the class never bought me. It's absolutely fine as a flavor itself, but I don't think it adds anything to what is already possible to be with PHB classes flavor-wise. I always thought that the Hexblade class is just one (of many) attempts at making the Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorcerer concept stronger than the multiclass solution.

Personally I think a Fighter / Wizard or Fighter / Sorcerer or Fighter / Warlock would be a more powerful character, unless of course your DM allows Force_User's new Curse Feats.

Warlock 6 / Fighter 4 with the Bestow Curse... so what if you're behind a little on BA... the ability to "bitch-slap" someone for -6 Con (then Str, or Dex, or -4 tohit/saves/etc) is just wicked.

So my (experience-less) opinion is that the class design is fine, but the concept is nothing original, and actually it's even limiting considering that the purpose of the class could be that above.

Quoted for truth

 

[ForceUser]

pfft, you assume I was talking about you! (lol)

Oh, I'm sorry. What other DM's have you been playing with recently that homebrewed a bunch of hexblade feats?

Would you allow a Warlock with the Lesser Invocation that allows At Will bestow curse to take these feats?

Hah! No way. Hexblades need help; warlocks, as we've seen in play, don't. Besides, that's like asking if a sorcerer can take the Destructive Rage feat from Complete Warrior because he can cast rage as a spell. Foo'.

 

[ForceUser]

Well, IMO, both Hexblade and Paladin are strong in flavor, but weak in mechanics

The paladin gained a lot with the inclusion of divine feats in Complete Warrior. With Divine Shield or Divine Might in his arsenal, the paladin's fine. (As an aside, Complete Adventurer did likewise for the bard.)