D&D 5E (2014) Why play a pact blade warlock?

[Wormwood]

Why play a pact blade warlock? Easy, because someone has a vision of their character being a pact blade warlock. If I wanted to play something else I would play something else. See my thread "I don't want to be a druid or cleric, I want to be a Fighter".

Hey that's me! My concept is inspired by Elric, and I envision a doomed hero whose powers seem more like curses, wielding a hungry blade for a demon benefactor he both serves and despises.

I can't see why this wouldn't be a perfect fit for a pact warlock.

 

[Saplatt]

You haven't even seen the book and you're already writing off this subclass as useless because of a report on one of their mechanics? Seriously?

Yeah, I would wait until the book is available. There may very well be ways to juice up those melee attacks. But, for now, no one can really answer your question unless they somehow scored an early copy.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Great for you.

Now lets talk about the real issue of how badly this subclass is designed. It goes to the overall quality of the game if they can't get something simple like this right.

Also if you play by the book, in 5e you are supposed to get a level about every 2 game sessions, so only going to level 10 is pretty short campaign.

Dude, you asked why would anyone play that subclass. I gave you an answer. Don't get all pissy because your question was answered. Ask better phrased questions next time.

Also, since I don't have the book yet (neither do you I'm assuming), how are we supposed to know how it's designed?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Also if you play by the book, in 5e you are supposed to get a level about every 2 game sessions, so only going to level 10 is pretty short campaign.

Wait...what book are you going by? There's nothing that says that in 5e. So far, my experience is that it takes about 5 5-hour sessions to gain a level when handing out xp per the book. The first couple of levels being about twice as fast.

It takes 30 goblins to bring a group of 5 PCs to level 2. About 5 of them is a pretty nasty encounter for 1st level characters. Which means that is 6 battles at least. That is the easiest level to gain.

I've been running one campaign that started 7 months ago where the PCs have gained 3 levels. We play every 2 weeks, so that's 14 sessions for 3 levels.

 

[Paraxis]

Dude, you asked why would anyone play that subclass. I gave you an answer. Don't get all pissy because your question was answered. Ask better phrased questions next time.

Also, since I don't have the book yet (neither do you I'm assuming), how are we supposed to know how it's designed?

I am not pissy, trust me you would know if I was.

But you didn't answer the question, you know what nevermind fan boys like you who can't see the problems are not worth the time to respond to.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Looks to me like several people DID answer your question:

Why would someone play a pact blade warlock?

Not everyone is an optimizer. Some people have no problem playing a Tier 3 class in a party of Tier 1s. FWIW, I'm one of them.

It is AN answer. Not the only one, not the one you might prefer, but completely valid nonetheless.

 

[Mallus]

I am not pissy...

OK. Are you clairvoyant? Because you're criticizing rules you haven't seen yet (or seen in their entirety).

Also, as Wormwood already pointed out, the correct answer to the question is: Elric.

 

[variant]

If you would like to send me an advanced copy of the Player's Handbook, I'd be happy to answer your question.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I am not pissy, trust me you would know if I was.

well, you're sure acting hostile and defensive

But you didn't answer the question, .

You asked why would anyone play that subclass. I gave you an answer. Not sure how you can say I didn't when it's there in black and white. Or are you only looking for answers that you want to hear?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now lets talk about the real issue of how badly this subclass is designed. It goes to the overall quality of the game if they can't get something simple like this right.

To ask if something is badly designed, you have to know what the intent of the design is, and the context it's embedded in (my favorite example of this is the Juicy Salif, which is a perfectly designed non-functioning juicer).

We can perhaps presume the intent of the hexblade is to have a functional melee-caster hybrid that satisfies the needs of people who want to play a darkly magical warrior of some sort.

The context of this is

1. Other melee-caster hybrids (such as the bard and the eldritch knight and a fighter/wizard multiclass)
2. The monsters and hazards a PC will be facing.

We don't REALLY know #1, and we only know #2 up to a few examples from the first few levels.

So it's not really possible to evaluate the hexblade objectively at the moment, if our presumed intent is correct.

But note that whether the hexblade is as good as the tome/chain warlock is not really at stake in this assessment, since these are different intents. Whether the hexblade is as big a DPR queen as the eldirtch blast warlock is not a major consideration unless the intent is for them to be equal damage-dealers, which may not be the case.

In design, the goals and the context are pretty vital to understanding if the design was successful, and while we can guess at the goals, we really don't have the context for evaluating them quite yet.